Our Typing Process Part 1: The Basics

We, from time to time, get people asking us about our typing methods. They want to know how we come to our conclusions and if there is a specific process. To that, my answer would be yes and no. To be honest, it is different and changes on a case by case basis. There are, however, certain things that do hold true across our different projects. This article will be part one of our processes. I’ll try to cover most of the basics. Next week, I’ll publish some of the more advanced stuff in a part two article, and update this paragraph with the link. (Part 2 can be found here: Typing Process Part 2: Advanced.)

1. It takes two

You will be much better off if you have the means and opportunity to bounce your observations off of another person (one you can trust to know what they are talking about, of course). The bottom line is that none of us are completely free of bias; because of this, we all need a second pair of eyes and a different perspective to offer up counter ideas and viewpoints. While my partner and I look like we are always in total agreement upon releasing articles, frequently there were many discussions with opposing viewpoints that happened before that point was reached.

2. Zoom in, zoom out, zoom in

Basically, what happens is that we will get an initial impression of a person or character right from the jump. I cannot stress enough that this impression can easily be wrong. This is where I think a lot of people get tangled up when trying to type. First impressions are important and can give valuable information, but they by no means should be the only thing you use to type someone. From there, we zoom out and take all 16 types into consideration. It’s amazing how malleable certain evidence can become when you try to fit it into the context of a different type. All of a sudden that rock solid first impression has become nothing more than that: an impression that could easily be spun into something else.

Usually, this is the point where we try to tack down solid evidence to prove certain functions and find things that solidly support those functions. We try to knead out the contradictions which we will inevitably run into. In real life, people lie, whether they know they are doing it or not. (Yes, you out there who’s throwing out words that contradict the way you act and speak. We know you’re lying because you really just want us to type you as X. You know who you are.)

In fiction, the contradictions are usually because of author bias/influence and/or actor influence. This is what we refer to as personality bleed. Because the actor or author’s personality (or bias) is bleeding into the characters, causing inconsistencies, and etc. The author either doesn’t have a full understanding of the type they are trying to display, or they have plot points they need fulfilled that don’t jive with the type. So, sometimes inconsistencies bleed through.

There are other reasons for inconsistencies as well: unhealthy behavior, trauma, etcetera, etcetera. What to do. What to do. At that point, you pretty much have to go with the most prevailing qualities and discard the lesser inconsistent ones to come to a conclusion. Basically, the more solid evidence must win out, or sometimes, the more frequent evidence. If you see solid Fi evidence that cannot be refuted, but the subject is insisting they have Ti; the solid, naturally occurring Fi evidence is what you must use to type them.

This is where the zooming back in starts. Now that you broadened the scope and looked at what was solid and what wasn’t, you can take the leftover pieces of less solid evidence and see if it makes sense or if it fits.

3. Question yourself

Sometimes, you’ve done everything in the process so far and you have something you think reasonably fits, but there is this voice in the back of your mind (or sometimes it’s your typing partner) going “but… it just doesn’t fit quite right.” You don’t necessarily have any of that rock solid evidence, but you have a reasonable amount of decent evidence. So, the possibility remains that things aren’t right.

When this happens, it’s best to keep questioning yourself and trying to fit the puzzle together correctly. Frequently, the best option is to leave your mind open until you have some solid evidence that you can confidently point to.

4. Find the stack

This is the fundamental basis of all our typings. In our opinion, to properly type someone, you must be able to identify and provide evidence for the cognitive functions in their stack. Having an impression of ‘they act like X’ or ‘this seems like Y’ is not enough information to be able to confidently confirm someone’s type.

This is why the zooming out and zooming back in of the previous point occurs. Having a starting point is all well and good, but the real work is identifying how the person manifests each function. It takes a considerable amount more effort and work to do this though, and this is why many people choose to lean on stereotypes instead. Stereotyping is honestly what I deem the lazy or inexperienced way of typing. If the only argument you can produce is ‘he does X and all of this type does X’, then you obviously didn’t put the time and effort into properly analyzing the character or person. Barring cases of very limited information, you should always be able to produce evidence to back up each of the cognitive functions and their position in the stack.

5. Rearrange the stack

We originally typed one character as an ENFJ, but something wasn’t fitting quite right until one day it just clicked. We started considering ESTP, and suddenly, all of the qualities and traits we were struggling with before fit right into place. Everything made sense.

Issues and changes like this are actually pretty common when going through the process. ENFJ and ESTP share all the same cognitive functions so all the evidence was correct; it just happened to be in the wrong order.

Surprised? The fact of the matter is that a decent amount of the time we will have a subject pegged as one of their function stack ‘cousins’, if you will. (The types that share all the same functions but in varying different orders.) The thing here is that the more balanced the evidence is for a character or person, the higher the likelihood that they will type as one of the other types that share all the same functions. This happens because healthy frequent use of a function is typically an easy way to point to higher use, but when someone is utilizing all of these functions in a healthy way, the distinctions become much more nuanced. This is why some of our requests take so long to get out. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes processing going on.

In conclusion…

So, there you go. These are the foundational steps we take when we are looking to type anything and should provide a good foundation for anyone looking to develop a process for typing others. Keep an eye out for Part 2. It should be out soon!