Typecasting

Chances are most of you have at some point taken the infamous Myers-Briggs personality test, and summed up your life and character with a snappy four-letter acronym. It's fun, and I do it too, even though I'm skeptical of the worth of the instrument. There are more than sixteen types of people in the world, as any casual observation of a large group will make very plain; probably this is a combination of traits that are not measured by the test and its inability to truly reflect the variation among them. I am probably the most introverted person you will ever know, yet my "type" and description will be the same as for someone who just barely tipped over the introvert/extravert divide.

Still. It's fun. And it's always been most fun to say that I'm an intj (an pronouncable acronym!), which means a Mastermind. Come on. A Mastermind. That sounds fun, doesn't it?

Here's a breakdown on personality typing for those of you who are wondering when the HELL I am going to start making sense.

Each of the four slots in the acronym is for a different personality "function," as follows:

First is either an I for Introvert or E for Extravert. This is something you likely have an intuitive understanding of already, but the best, shortest definition of this I've ever found is whether a person gets their energy by being alone or by being with other people. Personally, I find being with other people (especially large groups) exhausting and draining. Just let me live in my head, please. This preference (for living inside yourself or living outside yourself) defines also the kinds of thinking and moral attitudes you are likely to have. Do you have a self-defined moral code that is in opposition to the society you live in? Then you are probably an intravert.

Second is S for Sensing or N for iNtuitive, and describes how you take in information about the world. Someone who prefers Sensing takes in information in a literal, concrete fashion. Someone who prefers iNtuiting will use the information they take in from their senses to generate abstract theories. An iNtuitive loves theory. A Senser loves fact. Nothing makes me happier than a new idea or theory. INtuition it is.

Third is the Thinking/Feeling preference for how you make decisions. Fairly obviously, a Thinker makes decisions based on logical, rational, scientifically verifiable thought processes. A Feeler bases their decisions on what feels right, what fits with their values, or what makes people happy. It's critical to note that both will feel their decisions "make sense," and that the other doesn't; but their definition of "sense" is in both cases very different.

Last is Judging vs. Perceiving and refers to how you like to interact with the world. This could also be referred to as your Chaos Threshold. If you want things neat, orderly and settled, and are driven to come to conclusions about things, you are a Judger. If you like things open-ended and flexible and can tolerate ambiguity, you are a Perceiver. I have a high Chaos Threshold but at base, I prefer things done. I wanted the apartment finished before I moved in, the bookshelves are organized by subject, all of my crafty stuff has a place even if it doesn't always get put back there, and if there's one thing that is currently driving me crazy it is the lack of shoe storage for the front hall. It's not a strongly expressed preference, but I'm more of a Judger than a Perceiver.

I've almost always come up as an INTJ on the tests, but the T sometimes flips with the F. It was a very, very slight preference for T. Not that there is much doubt about my most visible public persona:

To INTJs authority based on position, rank, title, or publication has absolutely no force. This type is not likely to succumb to the magic of slogans, watchwords, or shibboleths. If an idea or position makes sense to an INTJ, it will be adopted, if it doesn't, it won't, regardless of who took the position or generated the idea. As with the INTP, authority per se does not impress the INTJ.

Uh, who, me?

The INTJ's interest in dealing with the world is to make decisions, express judgments, and put everything that they encounter into an understandable and rational system. Consequently, they are quick to express judgments. Often they have very evolved intuitions, and are convinced that they are right about things. Unless they complement their intuitive understanding with a well-developed ability to express their insights, they may find themselves frequently misunderstood. In these cases, INTJs tend to blame misunderstandings on the limitations of the other party, rather than on their own difficulty in expressing themselves. This tendency may cause the INTJ to dismiss others input too quickly, and to become generally arrogant and elitist.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.

This might be why some friends call me the Research Queen.

This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation (which most types consider half the fun of a relationship). To complicate matters, INTJs are usually extremely private people, and can often be naturally impassive as well, which makes them easy to misread and misunderstand. Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense. :-) This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete', paralleling that of many Fs -- only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonability and directness.

INTJs are usually difficult to get to know well, and difficult to get close to. Those who are close to the INTJ will highly value them for their ideas and knowledge. Although INTJs are generally very serious-minded people, they also have been known to enjoy letting loose and having fun, if others pull them into it. They also can be really good at telling jokes, and exhibiting a sarcastic wit with a poker face.

The INTJ is not likely to choose to spend time with people who they feel don't have anything to offer the INTJ. They especially like to spend time with other Intuitive Thinkers, and also usually enjoy the company of Intuitive Feelers. These personality types love to theorize and speculate about ideas, and so can usually relate well to the INTJ, who loves to analyze ideas.

Many INTJs believe that they are always right. In some INTJs, this belief is quite obvious, while in others it is more subtle. Some people may have a difficult time accepting what they see as a "superior attitude" or "snobbery". Not to imply that INTJs are snobbish, just that some people with strong Feeling preferences may perceive them that way. And some individuals simply have no interest in the theoretical pursuits which the INTJ enjoys.

Huh.

There's just a few small problems with this label:

The INTJ is not naturally likely to be an overly supportive or loving parental figure. Since their own need for expressions of love and affirmation is relatively low, they may have difficulty seeing that need in their children who have Feeling preferences. If they do see this sensitivity, they may not recognize or value the importance of feeding it. In such situations, there will be a distance between the INTJ and the child.

I tell Frances I love her at least fifty times an hour. So much so that it's become one of our little games: "Do you know what, Frances?" "What? You love me?" "Good guess."

Some occupations seem to be especially attractive to INTJs: computer systems analyst, electrical engineer, judge, lawyer, photographer, psychologist, research department manager, researcher, scientist, university instructor, and other occupations in which long-range vision is essential.

This is where it really falls down: all of the INTJ descriptions presuppose someone obsessed with tangible, technical systems--science, engineering, law, etc.--and while those are all interesting and I've been known to while away a Sunday afternoon with a physics textbook, it's not what I really love. What I really love are people systems--institutions, psychological theories, political movements, and so on. So let's look at the INFJ.

INFJs tend to be devoted to what they believe in and seek work where their needs, values, and ideals can be deeply engaged. They move on the wave of their inspirations and are determined to see that their values are worked out in their lives.

That sounds promising. Way too flattering, but promising.

INFJs are hard to get to know. They have an unusually rich inner life, but they are reserved and tend not to share their reactions except with those they trust. Because of their vulnerability through a strong facility to introject, INFJs can be hurt rather easily by others, which, perhaps, is at least one reason they tend to be private people. People who have known an INFJ for years may find sides emerging which come as a surprise. Not that INFJs are inconsistent; they are very consistent and value integrity.

Because the INFJ has such strong intuitive capabilities, they trust their own instincts above all else. This may result in an INFJ stubborness and tendency to ignore other people's opinions. They believe that they're right. On the other hand, INFJ is a perfectionist who doubts that they are living up to their full potential. INFJs are rarely at complete peace with themselves - there's always something else they should be doing to improve themselves and the world around them. They believe in constant growth, and don't often take time to revel in their accomplishments. They have strong value systems, and need to live their lives in accordance with what they feel is right. In deference to the Feeling aspect of their personalities, INFJs are in some ways gentle and easy going. Conversely, they have very high expectations of themselves, and frequently of their families. They don't believe in compromising their ideals.

Why do people keep insisting that I'm stubborn?

Except....

Leisure-time pursuits for INFJs are often solitary or involve the company of others who are particularly important to them. Sitting around with dear friends discussing feelings can be very special to INFJs.

*snort*

(By the by, if you're about to comment suggesting that my need to label myself is pathological, I will only reply that you are probably a "P," and it's a typical feature of both INTJs and INFJs to categorize and label things.)

The insistence that people must be one or the other--an extravert or an introvert, a thinker or a feeler, a senser or an intuiter--is the most serious downside of the entire system, in my opinion. I'm quite willing to admit that on three of the four, my preferences are definite, though sometimes slight. I'm an IN_J. The IN are consistent and consistently marked. The I has never flipped for an E, then N has never flipped for an S. But the T and F waffle, and in reading the descriptions, I can see why.

I love systems, but not for their own sake: I want the systems to serve people, and I truly believe that if the right system could be discovered and implemented, many of the problems facing us as a species could be solved. True to INFJ form, if you are a friend of mine and in need of help, I won't just climb down in the hole with you if you have a problem but, as one writer put it, bring candy and a cd player and tell you to take a rest while I do the digging for a while. I try to rescue people (I'm not saying this is good). But I still don't talk about feelings easily, and the thought of doing so makes me mostly queasy. The hardest question on the tests is "Which is more important: justice or mercy?"

Justice or mercy? Mercy or justice? Can't I say both? What good is justice if it's not merciful? How can mercy lead to a better world if it's not guided by a concern with justice? It's a false choice. If something is really true, and nothing has been left out, then it will lead to a better world for people; so a test of the truth of any proposition, so far as I'm concerned, is whether or not people's interests in the aggregate will be advanced or regressed. On the other hand, something which seems to be able to advance the interests of humanity in the abstract but which seems illogical or lacking in evidence is probably going to fail. I'm committed to the truth not just because I think it is better (though it is) but because I truly believe it is kinder to be honest than otherwise, no matter how much hurt it causes in the moment. (Which is not a license to be tactless.)

I need both. In any real-world scenario, I'd insist on both. It's only in the artificial world of the test that I can be forced to choose one over the other, and then it's usually thinking over feeling, but not by much, and not always.

Posted by Andrea at October 29, 2007 6:16 AM under

EMAIL this entry

(comments fields are below this section)