(Gif: Catelyn Stark from Game of Thrones. ESFJ.)
I brought up something the other day in my Margaret Beaufort profile I’ve been thinking about, and wanted to expound on more in-depth: namely, a lot of fictional characters are not good representations of the type, but a stereotyped representation based on what another type thinks that type looks like.
For example, a low thinker cannot think in the same way as a high thinker, until they understand cognition and what high thinking does; even then, their own mindset will give them a certain bias, in favor of higher feeling. In the same way, a low intuitive cannot write a high intuitive accurately, because they cannot understand how a high intuitive processes information. The same works in reverse, where intuitive are likely not able to authentically represent high sensors, due to their own low sensing.
This raises the speculation that a lot of the extreme cases of a “stereotypical” character are in fact… based on a lower function’s perception of what that function might look like, in a dominant position.
If this is the case, here’s what would and probably does, happen:
Ne-doms: flighty, erratic, shallow, eccentric, and bubbly instead of: extremely broad, changeable, deep, not-quick to form strong opinions, able to adapt quickly to new information, and with profound “intuitive” insights into what is really going on with people, events, and things
Se-doms: reckless, hedonistic, risk-taking, careless super heroes instead of: opportunistic, quick to adapt, observational, intent on affecting immediate change through sensory approaches, and “in tune” with the environment
Te-doms: controlling, oppressive, bossy, ruthless, logical instead of: makes decisions to achieve a tangible result, logical observations, a business-oriented mindset, and an emphasis on high work standards, and bottom lines
Fe-doms: overly emotional, controlling, emotionally manipulative busybodies instead of: emotional depth and control, the desire to connect with people, a natural instinct in finding “ways we are alike” (rather than different), and strong and forthright moral opinions
Ni-doms: rigid and single-minded, long-term goal makers, psychics instead of: open-minded, fluid in their opinions, indecisive, inclined to build visionary ideas about the future, tends to “symbolize” everything, with profound “intuitive” insights into motives
Si-doms: old-fashioned, stuck in the past, traditionalists, hates change instead of: has a strong and natural ability to recognize how things work and how to achieve things in the real world, prefers to orient their sensory world to likes and dislikes, uses past experience and similar experiences when making decisions or approaching new projects
Ti-doms: analytical, eccentric and/or bad-ass, nitpickers instead of: sometimes rigid system-builders who care about precision and both care about and deeply understand how things work
Fi-doms: highly emotional, irrational, easily hurt, does whatever they want, regardless of how others feel about it / you’re not the boss of me instead of: sensitive, emotionally intelligent people with strong ethics and moral standards, incapable of violating their standards of right and wrong
Since intuitives originated, theorized and continued to explore and expound MBTI, a lot of the sensor profiles online are written by intuitive types, which explains not only their subtle anti-sensor bias (the dull descriptions, the poor understanding of what sensing does, in reducing it to banality) but also real sensors’ inability to self-recognize in the profiles (since… that’s not real sensing being described, but a theory of what sensing is, by an intuitive who scorns sensing). The further emphasis on behavior, rather than thinking process, leads to even more confusion … and mistypes.
In an ideal world, descriptions of cognitive functions would be written by the people who use them, enabling less “theorizing” (from other types, who have a bias) and more “actuality” in terms of helping others understand how a function works. When a high Ti user recently explained to me his Ti “must categorize everything before I even deal with it; what kind of a sweater is it? It’s not just any sweater, it’s a Cardigan!” a light bulb went on over my head, and for the first time I started to comprehend actual high Ti.
The same thing happened to me, when a high Te user explained to me the thought process of Te: if it has no intrinsic value in the real world, it is irrelevant – in other words, a Te villain needs a Te-reason to be evil – he never does anything “to mess with people” – that’s poor Fe; but to “gain from it” (financially, perhaps? To increase his power, so that he can achieve greater things? What PURPOSE does this action serve? What does it gain me?).
I’m not sure what I hope to gain from this post, except… this is my thought process at the moment. Sometimes, a fictional character tells you more about the mind of the person writing it than it tells you about actual cognitive processes. The shallow, immature, or irrational behaviors of some characters are not the behaviors to expect from a mature, real person of that type; they are a stereotype, based on what someone with poor usage (or even scorn for) that sequence of functions thinks that “kind” of a person looks like.
In other words: real ENFPs are not “manic pixie dream girls.” Sorry, sensor boys, those girls are your idealized concept of what the “perfect” girl looks like, to get you out of your rut – but she doesn’t exist. And all INTJs are not rigid, narrow-minded geniuses. Nor are all ESTPs reckless assholes who don’t care who they hurt. Or all INFJs prophets.
You can fill in the rest.
gummygunk
stormborns
dededos
dailybridgerton
baratheonpilled
