Character vs. Personality Type

Recently, we’ve been writing articles focusing on certain character traits such as diffidence and recklessness, and describing how they manifest in the different personality types. In the process, I realized that I would like to write a more generalized article on the difference between someone’s personality type and their character. (This actually goes right in line with Ryan’s recent article on Skills vs. Cognitive Functions). In my online browsing, I often see people tie certain character traits to specific cognitive function preferences, which subsequently leads to unfair generalizations about the personality types. In this article, I’ll share some of the more prominent examples of this happening, and distinguish the character trait from the personality type in question.

First, What Does Personality Type Define?

The phrase, personality type, is a misnomer. (I’m making a reference here to an older article which I’ll link to below.) Basically, someone’s personality type does not define the grand sum of their personality, which makes that phrase misleading. Rather, one’s personality type in regards to Jungian and/or Myers-Briggs theory defines someone’s cognitive function preferences, which will be elaborated on in the next section. Bottom line: there is so much more to someone’s personality type than just what the cognitive functions defines, which includes what type of person they are, and whether they have strength of character.

Read More: Personality Type Is A Misnomer

What Is a Cognitive Function?

It’s important to understand the foundation upon which these personality types are built: the cognitive functions. The cognitive functions describe mental processes Carl Jung observed in various individuals. No, they’re not scientific, but we can observe people generally fitting into certain cognitive function descriptions. To be more specific, the cognitive functions describe what types of information our brains prefer to prioritize, and how we process that information. They don’t determine intelligence, skill, character, worldview, morality, or anything of that nature. People can process information and come to incorrect conclusions, or come to correct conclusions but not put any of the information to good use. None of that is determined by the cognitive functions. They’re more like lenses for information.

What is Character?

Generally speaking, the word “character” refers to the grand sum of features and traits that defines an individual. However, when people refer to someone as having “character”, they are typically referring to distinguishing features of an ethical or moral quality, such as being diligent, honorable, studious, honest, and etc. Virtues. When we say that someone lacks character, they usually lack qualities of this nature. You know how your parents might say that something is good for you because it builds character? That’s the meaning that I’m referring to in this article. Unfortunately, as mentioned in the introduction, people often tie specific character traits to specific personality types, in the process implying a sort of exclusivity or ownership of these traits. However, as mentioned, that’s not what personality type defines.

Let Me Give You Some Examples

The judging vs. perceiving dichotomy is great example of where people confuse personality type with character, so I’ll start there and then hit some other extremely common ones.

The Lazy Perceiver

I frequently see perceivers (likely younger ones) whining about being lazy and unmotivated. Of course, what do they blame this on? Being a perceiver. Granted, when you read the descriptions of perceivers, it’s not hard to see how they arrive at that conclusion. Perceivers are typically described as doing things last minute, being under-prepared, and that sort of thing. However, that’s not actually accurate. It’s true that some perceivers report getting a last minute creative rush, and doing their best work when under the threat of time running out, but that’s not the same thing as being lazy and unmotivated. In reality, perceivers process data in real time, which can lead to excellent capitalization when immediate action is the goal. These types are not inherently lazy, and many do not identify as such. Some will even relate to completing tasks far in advance so it’s not hanging over their head, so they don’t forget it, or so they can restore their freedom.

The Diligent Judger

On the flip side, judgers get automatically assigned traits such as diligence. They are often automatically presumed to be hardworking individuals, who show up on time to everything and finish tasks well in advance. Especially the TJs, right? They’re the people that get things done, and constantly collect trophies in the form of accomplishments. People have a hard time imagining TJs that are not successful, diligent workers. However, that’s actually not always the case. Anyone can be lazy and unmotivated. Being a TJ is ultimately more about having structure rather than chasing accomplishments. (Other personality types, such as ETPs, occasionally mistype as TJs because being achievement focused is made out to be the sole domain of the TJs.)

The Kind Feeler

People typically assume that all feelers will be kind and empathetic. However, empathy is also a character trait that implies a level of moral development. Any personality type can be kind and empathetic, and feelers can actually be mean, insensitive, and uncaring. Fe especially gets a reputation for selflessness, in contrast to the selfish reputation that Fi gets. Neither is inherently true. Both types can be selfish and both types can be selfless. These things have little to do with the mental processes associated with cognitive functions, besides maybe a trend towards a certain outward appearance that gets misread or misinterpreted by others.

Related Article: Fi vs. Fe: De-Empathizing The Feeling Functions

The Mean Thinker

This is basically the reverse of the above point. Thinkers get automatically assigned traits like being cold-hearted and emotionless. When people watch movies, their gut instinct is type all the villains as thinkers. Etc. However, thinkers can be extremely caring individuals. Some just struggle to express it.

The Deep Intuitive

Lastly, there’s this misconception that some people fall prey to regarding intuitives, namely that they have more depth than sensors. Supposedly, sensors only talk about shallow subjects, intuitives consider things more deeply, only intuitives can read between the lines, etc. However, depth is another character trait that anyone can have. I have met intuitives that I would consider to be shallow (but the catch is that no one who is shallow actually thinks they are shallow). I have also met shallow sensors, deep sensors, and deep intuitives. I think part of the confusion here has to do with what the term “intuition” actually encompasses within Jungian theory. (Intuition is defined as a focus on possibilities. There is a world of deep subjects out there that do not fall within the realm of Jungian intuition.) In addition, sometimes people make quick assumptions about others (about their depth and etc.) without spending enough time with the person to make it “behind-the-scenes”, so to speak.

In Conclusion…

I could go on and on, but the point is that you need to pay attention to what character qualities you’re automatically crediting to a personality type. Sometimes it’s done at the expense of another personality type, or it creates misconceptions regarding what it means to be certain personality types. We all can be kind, moral, productive, deep, insightful, and etc. It’s just a matter of how each individual will go about it.