Context, Context, Context
The prevalence of bad personality type evidence drives me crazy some days. I guess to be fair… it’s not always completely bad evidence. Sometimes, it’s just completely out of context. I once went on this rant about context, and then Ryan told me that it sounded like an article. Unfortunately, I didn’t sit down right then and there to start writing, so I shall bumble my way through this now, without the fuel of that past inspiration.
Have you noticed those characters that are argued over incessantly? Yeah, there’s a ton of them, but I’m not really concerned about all of them. I don’t really care much about the minor mistypes (especially in the world of fiction) where the big question becomes “Is he an E or an I?” Regardless, he’s an NFP so you’ve gotten pretty darn close. Likewise, I don’t really even care that much when, say, an ISFP is proclaiming INFP. (At least they recognize that they’re an Fi dom, right?) I honestly don’t really even care all that much when people are asking Ne dom vs Se dom, because that’s a highly confused subject. However, if there’s a great big game of tug-of-war over whether or not a character is say…an ENTP or an INTJ… at least one of the parties is probably failing miserably at reading context. Sure, if you’re focused solely on the dichotomies, you may point out that they’re both NTs, so not that much different, right? Wrong. The function stacks between those two are drastically different. Study the functions, and learn the evidence.
Tragic characters are especially prone to being typed out of context. “Is this character actually healthy?” should be the first question you ask when trying to determine a personality type. Tragic characters, depending on their purpose in the plot, are frequently portrayed in an unhealthy state, so you’re probably not going to latch onto their type immediately. In the case of a high Fi user, you may actually notice their Te BEFORE their Fi. It just all depends on what they’re crutching on. Regardless, chances are their functions will not be surfacing in a standard way (unless you’re dealing with really common stereotypes). I’ve noticed that a lot of villains and tragic figures get automatically typed as thinkers… cause they’re jaded and mean (essentially). I roll my eyes. Do you really think feelers can’t get jaded and cold? Really? Fi users in an unbalanced state are especially prone to locking up all emotions and portraying a cold, harsh exterior to the world; but this isn’t explained in the type descriptions…. As a result, I’ve seen many high Fi users try to type themselves as thinkers since they can’t relate. Moving back to the original point of this paragraph, when typing a tragic character, see if there exists a point in which the character is portrayed healthily. Perhaps, a flashback. If a healthy state is never portrayed, just do your best to look for legitimate function evidence (good use, bad use, frequent use – these are all different things), rather than focusing on stereotypes.
While I’m on the subject of thinkers, let’s talk about bossiness. Bossiness is always instantly attributed to Te users, but do you ever stop to ask why is the character acting bossy? Are they a parent? Are they in a parental role of some kind? Are they a leader with subordinates? These are important details, because anyone in a leadership role of any kind has to bark orders at some point, or they’ll completely suck at their job/role. Do you honestly think only Te users ever end up in leadership roles? That makes no sense. At the very least, you have those reluctant individuals that are thrust into leadership. (AKA – they didn’t choose it.)The real question you should be asking is, HOW bossy are they, exactly? Why/when are they being bossy? Are they only bossy when they have to be? Are they bossy when freed from that role? (For instance, while among friends and peers, away from any subordinates). This is all context.
Show themes is another good one. Ever seen one of those shows where just about everyone in the entire show is spouting the same value? I’ve seen several. That’s what I call personality bleed, and guess what? It’s bad evidence. Sure, if a few characters are doing it far more than others, you probably can use it as a form of relative typing. However, if a typically unemotional thinker throws out the odd “my friends are my power!” statement now and again, like just about every other character in the show is doing, it can’t really be counted as feeler evidence. At the very least, you’d better have a lot more evidence than just that. If everyone is doing it, and this character by comparison is doing just as much or even less, then it may just be the author’s personality bleed. Context.
Another one that drives me up a wall is in-born or inherited abilities. These abilities are kinda like the color of your eyes, or skin, or hair… what do I mean? I mean that the character did not choose them. Calling a character a sensor because they have a sensory-based ability that they did not choose is bad evidence. Now, if the character was given the option to pick a specialty or focus, and they CHOSE a sensory-based ability, ok then. That’s fine. However, if someone had no choice in the matter, then merely possessing an ability has nothing to do with their personality. (Unless you want to point out how the author is being symbolic, but that’s a different type of argument altogether.) I could even take this a step farther and say that if a certain ability is passed down through a clan, and the character is mandated to learn it, it can’t be counted as evidence either. The character didn’t really have a choice. (Unless they did. Use your judgement, but be realistic.) Once again though, it all goes back to context.
Of course, I can’t launch into my conclusion without pointing out adherence to the rules (or lack thereof), since I am an ISTP, after all. Let’s go back to the situation above where the character could technically choose to rebel against the clan and not develop this skill or learn this secret technique. Let’s say that the character doesn’t want to learn it, but does anyway, out of respect for the rules and the clan. In that scenario, most people would instantly type said character as an ISTJ, probably, or at the very least, some form of high Si user. However, let’s be realistic… Do you really think that only Si users ever follow rules? Obviously, there are certain types that are more prone to breaking or disregarding rules, the STPs and NTJs being especially renowned for it. However, do you realize that if STPs or NTJs always broke every rule, we would ALL be miserable failures in society? Do you think we never pick and choose our battles? Some rules just aren’t worth breaking. Sometimes, the consequences are far worse than the simple pleasure or benefit we might obtain from breaking the rules. Additionally, Te users sometimes respect established hierarchy simply because their Te can appreciate the value in a well-oiled machine. You have to read the context. In these situations, it becomes more about how the character is thinking, versus what they are actually doing. If they are always following the rules to the letter, that can be worth taking into account as potential Si evidence. But if they are generally obedient people, because for instance, they served under some form of military or strict hierarchy (or are just decent human beings. >.>), they could just be disciplined non-Si users. (The military is not all ISTJs. Sorry to burst your bubble.)
I could go on and on about things that can be taken terribly out of context… like clothing styles, lessons learned in the past… But if I discussed every possible thing that can be taken out of context, this article would never end. Bottom line: pay attention! Logically, if you’re surrounded by the same thing for a long, long time, you start to adapt to it at least slightly. That slight adaption does not CHANGE one’s personality type, it just makes them more difficult to type. Quite frankly, when characters (or people) are too easy to type, it’s usually bad a thing. It usually means that they’re embodying a stereotype. The more balanced your function stack is, the harder you will be to type, because you will begin to use those lower functions effectively, rather than portraying a clear preference toward your top two. That is a good thing.
So yeah, in summary:
Context, context, context.
Hi there, reader! If you enjoyed that article, leave us a quick comment to encourage us to keep writing. In addition, if you've found our content helpful in some way, please consider Buying Us A Coffee to support our efforts and help keep this website running. Thank you!
What would say would be the core reasons why an ISTJ would follow the rules vs why an ISTP would follow the rules. Of course individual circumstances are a huge factor in determining stuff like this but patterns emerge through exploring MBTI. I think that an ISTJ would follow the rules because they generally respect a concrete hierarchy of some sorts, provides as sense of safety and security. An ISTP would follow the rules out of an Fe-obligation to do so because it is ‘what everyone else does’ with Fe being focused externally. Of course when both types are at more unhealthier levels they may be at a point where they would want to screw the rules, even more so with the latter type because it threatens their Ti perspective. What are the reasons why an ISTJ would choose to disobey the rules deliberately when they had previously followed them? What do you think of this?
What you said about ISTJ following the rules is pretty much on point. Si says that following the rules is safer. Te respects the hierarchy and order. Fi dictates that it’s in their moral code to so. Ne says that all these bad things might go wrong if I go against the system.
For the ISTP…Ti will evaluate whether or not the rule makes sense. Se will be concerned with whether or not the rule is preventing them from acting. Ni will compare the rule’s application in the current setting to the original meaning or purpose behind the rule. (This is why the types that are known for breaking rules all possess Ni/Se. Si = letter of law. Ni = intention of the law. Se wants to just do, and the rules are getting in the way, while Ni declares that the rule doesn’t apply to their current situation… loopholes.) So for the ISTP, if the rule basically makes sense, is not too inconvenient to follow, and is in line with it’s original intention, there’s no reason to not follow it. Less developed inferior Fe will warn against breaking the rule because it will bring about undesired social ramifications, while better developed Fe will say that obeying the rule is for the overall good of the group. However, how much inferior Fe is going to come into play will depend on how developed the ISTP is. Healthy inferior Fe can be pro-group, and will keep the social ramifications of their actions in mind, while unhealthy inferior Fe might just say “screw the group.”
An ISTJ will break the rules when it goes against their moral code, or is preventing them from getting something done that absolutely MUST be done, or the past dictates that following the rules is NOT safe. The Fi code is entirely individual, just like what is deemed safe (Si) is entirely subjective. If the rules have burned the ISTJ, they may no longer trust the rules or the hierarchy that established them.