Our Typing Process Part 2: Advanced

Welcome to the second half of our Typing Process series. If you missed part one, you should go back and read it first, as it lays the foundational steps. You can find it here: Typing Process Part 1. In this article I’m going to go over some of the more nuanced things we look for and do when we are typing either real people or characters. The methods here, while still pretty straight forward, are usually less talked about, but they can go a long way in helping type a particularly challenging subject. Admittedly, it does take some practice to learn how to identify some of this stuff so people new to the theory may not be able to use all of this advice right away. Once you’ve learned enough about the functions to identify these points, they will become an invaluable part of your typing arsenal.

1. Identify the strongest impulse

Over the course of our articles, we’ve called this multiple things: theme, priority, drive, etc. Basically, it’s looking for what the dominant function is, provided the personality is healthy and not ‘looping’ or ‘in the grip’. You will most likely find that the person’s top priority or philosophy in life will be closely tied to what their dominant function finds important. Sometimes, as we get older, those things change as we develop our lower functions, but you should still see the person’s dominant function strongly influencing their life.

2. Are the functions healthy?

Sometimes, the overwhelming theme of someone is not their dominant function. Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to distinguish if it is or not, provided you know what to look for. As a general rule of thumb, if the priority is very negatively focused or badly executed, it probably is coming from a loop or grip situation and is not evidence of the dominant. (It’s typically not hard to tell when a character or person is in an unhealthy state.) In these cases, you have to look for different things to type them. Usually, it is pretty easy to identify either loop or inferior grip evidence in these cases.

3. Consistent skilled use

Consistent skilled use goes right along with point 1, which would be identifying what function is consistently being used by the person in a skillful manner. Consistency is key here. Any type can have ‘one off’ or infrequent positive displays of a function. but regular, strong, and nuanced use of a function is usually a sign of high use.

The displays don’t necessarily have to be positive, per say, as long as the function is being wielded like a precision instrument as opposed to a sledgehammer. They usually are utilizing the function so well themselves that they don’t even hardly notice it. They will view it’s utilization as little more than what’s natural. They will probably unwittingly expect that everyone does the same thing as them and with the same level of skill. They may not even notice it as a strength, but simply as the way that they are.

4. Consistent unskilled use or lack of use

This is the inverse of point 3 and usually signifies low use. We can (and will) show the negative attributes of even our highest most developed functions. However, frequent unskilled or sloppy use of a function will point to low use. Even in more balanced individuals, there will still be a default way of doing things, which will lead to less frequent use of the lower function. This is why the inferior function is frequently known as someone’s weakness. The unskilled use frequently causes them trouble and even leads to trying to supress the function altogether in some individuals.

5. It’s all about the talk

This is probably one of the most significant things one can do when trying to type someone over the internet. Please note, however, that when I say ‘it’s all about the talk’, it has little to do with how the person is trying to convey themselves. Like I mentioned earlier, people lie. People are biased to themselves and sometimes those who want help being typed don’t actually have enough self awareness to have a full picture of themselves. Instead, a portion of the time, you get someone who cherry picks their own traits and trumps up their strengths while trying to diminish and hide their flaws or weaknesses.

So what do I mean? What we do is actually watch for how a person chooses to structure their sentences. What words they use. How they choose to describe things. For instance, I can sit here and give a very accurate description of Ti, how it works, how it manifests, and etc. Does this mean that I, an ISTJ, am mistyped? No, it does not; and if you know what you are looking for, you could still pull proof that I am a Te user from the Ti description that I give.

How could this be? You might ask yourself. It’s because I explain things like a Te user. No matter how many descriptors or how accurate my explanation of Ti, someone with a keen eye could point to the very Te way I would choose to explain Ti. Furthermore, you could potentially derive that I was an Si dominant given the amount and level of detail I would choose to share about my supposed Ti. Even the fact that I could give such a ‘concrete’ explanation would point away from me being a Ti user.

What we look for is structure (or lack thereof), and what the person chooses to focus on. What I mean by this is what they are subconsciously focusing on without realizing it, not necessarily what they are trying to lead us to. Bottom line is that if I can get you talking, your type will manifest itself even if it directly contradicts what you are trying to say. Even the amount, level, and way you choose to deny your real personality will provide evidence to the functions you are actually using.

So, most of the time given enough talking, I can confidently walk out of even a shorter interaction knowing at the very least what someone’s four functions are, even if I can’t necessarily put them in the right order. Why is this? It’s pretty simple, actually. The Ti/ Fe spectrum holds traits that are directly opposite to the Te/Fi spectrum. The same is true for the Si/Ne vs the Ni/Se one. You cannot have preferences for both as it would be a contradiction. One cannot change the type of logic their brain uses nor the way it stores information. It does it one way or the other, never both.

6. Experience and practice

This should go without saying, but the longer you do this the better you will become and the more you will learn. There will never be a substitute for gaining raw experience in a subject, and that goes for anything you do in life. There is no way of getting around the fact that the longer you do something, the more you’ll understand it and the better you will become at it.

Mara and I spend a great deal of time typing pretty much everyone we come in contact with and every character in every show we watch. Most of the time for fun, but also because it helps us learn and practice our observational skills. We developed this habit years ago and it is something we have just kind of stuck with.

7. Context

Context is immensely important when trying to type. You can easily frame something as evidence when it isn’t, if you remove it from its context. For instance, a quote that was meant to be sarcastic could easily suggest that a character is displaying attributes that they do not have, if you try to convey that quote as something they said in all seriousness. You could turn an out-of-character moment into proof that they are something else, if you remove the context of the circumstances that prompted the behavior.

This is why having your own solid understanding of the subject matter and not just taking evidence at face value is important. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff does happen a decent amount, and again, I probably have to chalk it up to laziness. It’s much easier to rip a quote off the internet without it’s context to prove your point than it is to examine all the context around the quote. Proper research and study goes a long way toward helping understand a character. Many of the arguments people get tripped up over, or even some of the seeming contradictions, fall apart given you know the correct context. Mara wrote a rant about this here: Context, Context, Context.

In conclusion…

So there you have it. Those were some points surrounding our process. I hope you guys found them interesting and insightful. If you like stuff like this let us know down in the comments.