Tonikaku Kawaii: being genuine is both simple yet fulfilling isn't it?
Alternative title: How the embodiment of denseness can be typed Ni-dom?
If you like MBTI, I think you'll enjoy this post even if you don't know about Tonikaku Kawaii (abbr. Tonikawa). Nevertheless if you enjoy romcom, I think you'd enjoy the manga/anime. There aren't any spoilers in what follows.
Despite the story light and wholesome atmosphere, I think the author managed to convey the not-so-superficial message: someone, no matter how "ordinary," can be extraordinary. They can, and will, as long as they fully accept who they are and make the most out of it.
All manga pictures are taken from the english translation available on mangadex.org.
Nasa-kun
Preamble about fictional character typing:
Typing fictional characters has the unique complexity that we only see what the author writes (similarly that in real people we only see what they show). But, for stories, on top of writing a character: they also write a scenery and a plot. Thus, I think the "action cherry-picking as evidence of X cognitive function," more often than not, leads to mistype. If we want to get it right, we must take a quite extended continuum of scenes. When modeling data, one can't, and will inevitably fails to, make a regression (such as y=ax+b) reproduces every data point, right? So why should we do it for the personality theory? If you're unfamiliar with the terms used, the principle is the same that looking a mirror from too close makes you unable to see the whole person. Regarding the manga illustrations I put, keep in mind that, they are intended as entertainment rather than evidence. Also please remember to read them from right to left.
When typing, more often that not, I find it easier to first think about the attitude (Intro/Extraverted), and only then I look for the dominant function (T/F/S/N). In other words, in the second step I look for "T," rather than "Te or Ti." I feel like doing both steps at the same time makes me suggest a too strong first hypothesis, which will only biases me into confirming it rather than refuting it. Moreover, we can pretty much start with any 8 hypothesis and make it sound coherent by cherry-picking scenes.
Nasa's attitude: Extraverted
There is an empirical trick to assess attitude of a fictional character in one go: if there is a cover picture for the work, look whether or not the character has their mouth wide-open on it. Nasa does, but, well, while I find this trick fun, I agree that it's definitely too subject to other criterion than the character personality to really use it seriously. So, let's get to a more "serious" analysis (I don't know how "serious" one can claim to be when writing some nerd-astrology essay about a romcom character on Tumblr).
Throughout the story, "Nasa sees, Nasa reacts." He seems in tune with his surroundings (I think being in tune/out of tune, with current environment is E/I, rather than S/N). He prefers actions to reflections. When something happens (like Tsukasa tying her hairs, or just doing/saying anything, really,) he doesn't wait but reacts immediately. I find it more coherent to state that Nasa's mind anchors itself in the world, rather than trying to get distance from it.
Tsukasa, his wife, offers a nice point of comparison: at almost every occasion, she reacts with more restraint than Nasa. This difference illustrates the extraverted/introverted attitude basis of the story (because in the end it's always tied to how the author understands and writes human personality: an extravert in one author' story could be an introvert in another author's one).
On another topic, Nasa's natural standards are exterior ones. When toddler-Nasa was mocked for his name, he aimed to beat all his peers according to their rules (having good grades, and more generally his motto "reaching speed of light before NASA"). When his friend Kaname tells him society thinks a ring/wedding is needed, he values it more than his first opinion of "such things are inefficient." Of course, introverted judgements can also change their mind through discussion. But the nuance is that Nasa valued society judgement more than Tsukasa's one: he naturally considered rallying Tsukasa's to exterior values the right thing to do. Despite Tsukasa's firm opposition.
He argued more against Tsukasa than against Kaname, i.e. he is more confident when backed up by external beliefs rather than his own. With the added irony that Tsukasa's opinion is the same as Nasa's one was before Kaname intervention. If he had introverted judgement, I think he would naturally have gone back to his first position, when realizing his wife actually shares it.
Tsukasa illustrates here again a difference between an introverted judgement (I hypothesize Tsukasa to be ISTP Ti-dom, more on that another time) and extraverted judgement. Given the same first opinion to both, Tsukasa opposed Nasa's judgement, and stood her ground, way more than Nasa did against Kaname.
Overall, Nasa mainly lives in the world, seldom in his head. When in disagreement, even with his wife, Nasa will prefer societal agreements to individual ones. He thus most likely is an extraverted guy.
Nasa's Dominant Function: Thinking
On PersonalityDataBase, Nasa used to be typed INTP, and currently, he is typed INFJ. Putting aside the introversion disagreement, I struggle to see coherence in Nasa being N-dom. His breath smells of the T-dom oiled machinery and efficiency, not of the N-dom schizophrenic rambling about conspiracy theory or obscure Buddhist philosophy (no insults to my Ne/Ni-dom friends out there, I really enjoy listening about it).
From the very beginning, Nasa-kun is introduced to us as the definition of the hard-worker. He is made fun of because of his name? He studies so people can't legitimately mock him. I emphasize the legitimate part, which is I think a defining T-dom trait. It is recurrent in Nasa's character: he needs a logical reason for anything and everything. And, when he doesn't act "logically," he feels compelled to at least point it out.
Upon encountering Tsukasa for the first time, he knows "[he has] no logical reason to talk to her, but she is just really cute." Actually, it is a logical reason, and this example serves as reminder that emotional types (Fi/Fe-dom) are logical. The difference between F and T being found in the nature of the favoured criteria: affective or detached.
Following that, Nasa gets sceptical of Tsukasa's agreement to marry him, because "Frankly, [he] hasn't done a thing for her." It's not a self-confidence issue, Nasa isn't devaluing himself. Or, well, he kinda is, but not in a "I'm worthless" way. Rather, he doesn't realize he is applying T-detached criteria (equivalent exchange) on an intrinsically F-related area (relationships). I'm always welcoming outsiders perspective to correct my beliefs, but I don't think a Ni-dom INFJ would be so hung up on "detached logic," when it comes to relationships.
Given that Nasa is "great at everything," we can't really infer dominant (nor inferior!) function based on his aptitudes: the purpose of this character is to always succeed at harmonizing the repressed function (and the purpose of the show is to show how actually effortless it can get). In his case, the repressed function seems to be Fi: when deciding out of subjective affect ("she is just cute!") and not out of societal pragmatism, he does point out the oddity yet still acts upon it without inducing any interior disharmony. I was going to write that "and when does even societal pragmatism occurs when it comes to love?" but then I remembered about superficial, or even forced, marriages.
On a side note, I think titling the story "She is just cute!" i.e. a judgement from the protagonist's repressed Fi was a nice move, if intentional.
Despite my hypothesis of Nasa being extraverted, could it make sense for Nasa dominant thinking to be introverted? Are the current hypotheses coherent (E -> Te) or contradicting (E -> Ti)?
I may be missing something, but I don't see subjective logic (Ti) in Nasa, which contradicts both INFJ/INTP typing. The solutions he is applying don't stem from a monolithic framework (Ti), but from a pile of individual tools he learned the world deemed efficient (Te). How to save his friends' family business? He brings up everything the world deems efficient to work, and has to offer.
What's the best meal? He gathers info, and use them as is; he doesn't wonder "is this behaviour abstractly found elsewhere ?"
Well, he probably knows how vitamin acts, because he learned everything, but that's the point: Nasa is more of a "how?" kind of guy than a "why?" one. He always makes us feel like he learns, but never unifies what he learns, which is what Ti do through common "why's". Given the insane knowledge base of Nasa, we should see plethora of inter-connections emerging from Ti, we'd see pondered thoughts. We don't see any of that.
All his knowledge is scattered everywhere, no subjective unification whatsoever. No principles intersection, no simplification, no abstraction. The knowledge bits keep piling up without any resonance. I thus think the most likely hypothesis is for Nasa-kun to be a Te-dom.
Nasa's Auxiliary Function: Sensing
Nasa-kun is the embodiment of pragmatism, but when someone is pragmatic, it often makes it difficult to tell if it's because of T or S. Despite being of different nature, both functions have "realists" kind of behaviours. So, rather than looking for S, I'll look for N and see if it leads to absurd conclusions.
Ni-aux (or even Ne, if Ti-dom) doesn't make any sense at all for Nasa. This guy is just not intuitive (and if you think that's an insult, well, don't you think it actually shows how a wrong use of MBTI can make us twisted?)
He doesn't naturally, nor does he thinks about, contextualizing information. His trains of thought stay focused on what concretely surrounds him, he seldoms tries to reach for more than a N+2 iteration. Don't get it wrong, he does excel at Te empirical data process, but only when it's right in front of him, i.e. N+0.
To set some basis for N-behaviour according to the author, the story offers a caricatural example with Kaname's sister: AyaNe, which I think is Ne-dom.
Another evidence is found with Nasa's parents: they are very, very intuitive. In opposition to their son, they're caricature of perfect contextualization. His mother instantaneously connects the dots when he barely just call her out of the blue. Another time, from little evidence, his father infers that an used sword will be lighter than one that never left its sheath.
Again, intuition isn't about being smart, it's about contextualization, which Nasa parents do very well, (too much contextualization to the point of being dumb would be Ayane). I think the author made a very deliberate decision when distancing Nasa's personality from his parents: I assume he wanted to highlight, through Nasa, that lacking intuition doesn't mean lacking intelligence.
And, actually, what does Nasa think of his intuitive parents? He states they're "weird" every time his parents are mentioned. If that's not the usual sensor vs intuitive "they're weird" reflection, I don't know what it is.
On PersonalityDataBase, there are some common arguments for Nasa's lack of surrounding awareness: a Se-inferior hypothesis. We're not on dominant/inferior investigation, but the sensing/intuitive arguments are nice to examine.
First, Nasa get hit by a truck, hence lack of environmental awareness. Well, if only Ni-dom got into such accidents, the world would be a very safe place. Plus, he has a very good reason to be distracted: his soon-to-be wife. I think Se-inf get into this kind of --although less harmful-- incidents, like forgetting your water boiling, hitting every possible furniture corner, etc, way more often than once in their lifetime. Nasa even stated it himself numerous times: it *was* unusual for him to let his guard down.
The same truck-argument is used for Ni-dom hypothesis: he tunnels vision. Even for other typing in general, I think this argument is almost always much misunderstood. Tunnel vision decisions stem from judgement functions, not perception ones. Ni-tunnel vision is more passive, less noticeable in the Ni-dom mind. I think Ni-doms would realize only much later than they missed obvious details. Again, I always welcome outsider's corrections to my crude Ti-Ne beliefs and perceptions.
Even before doing any action, Nasa shares with us his conscious decisions "no logic, she is just cute." It seems more coherent than a judging function was involved, here Feeling.
Second argument, Nasa gets careless at times, such as spilling coffee when talking with Tsukasa. Hm.. Here I was reluctant, but I have to admit this one is a good argument for Se-inf/Ni-dom. I can't think of any another reason why a 18yo virgin wouldn't pay attention to anything but the cute girl in his bedroom at night, who he was looking for the entire past year, who instead came to him on her own without notifying, with whom he expected, and is supposedly destined, to be the most intimate person on earth, who he would be legitimate to think they may f*** soon enough, even tonight, who knows, and who casually asks him to marry her. I agree only Ni-doms could forget about the coffee.
Both arguments illustrate why I disapprove of cherry-picking scenes out of their continuums. The more we cut, the more we can infer anything and its contrary.
Overall, Nasa doesn't share with us a lot of "what if?" ideas, nor "holistic" perceptions, and when he does, they're quite easily relatable to the matter at hand. Nasa prefers to stay focused on what's directly available.
His inability to connect the dots, nor to foresee any event, even immediate ones, gets to the point it is part of the story comedy. Thus I don't find the Ni/Ne hypothesis coherent. Nasa being a S doesn't contradict his character, he does care about material value (insuring stuff, TV screen quality).
He is aware of his surrounding, albeit in a kind of passive way, reflecting Si rather than Se. It could be seen as odd that a Si-aux would show such disdain for tradition, as Nasa does. But I actually think it is again coherent with the character: Nasa always succeed to harmonize functions. He doesn't disdain tradition solely for the sake of it (which I plead guilty of doing). He disdains them when there *are* realist alternatives, but he honours them when they deserve so, hence the S-N harmonization.
Other than that, he doesn't show much "Se-recklessness," nor "taste for physical pleasure." Aside from material quality decision stemming from Te-dom, he is quite the conservative spender, he enjoys the very same meal every day, he enjoys the very same clothes every day (on a more personal observation, I've yet to see an INFJ who didn't find in their clothing a channel to make both their Ni-dom and Se-inf happy).
Thus I find that the most adequate hypothesis for Nasa's type is ESTJ.
An Overlooked Wholesome Message
I think the author of Tonikaku Kawaii innocently narrates how any personality, even one with supposedly the most frequent traits, ESTJ, can --and will-- become admirable as long as they fully accept themselves. I emphasize the use of "frequent/common" rather than "ordinary," with the same reasoning for choosing "uncommon" over "rare," the first choices are neutral while the latter carry some negative/positive value.
Take any one, make them love every inches of their self, but also question it just as needed, and they'll naturally become surrounded with friends, with the love of their life, and lead a fulfilling life, no matter what comes.
The other characters don't love Nasa because he is successful, but because he is genuine. Even when it is genuine perversion, such as grabbing some erogenous part of his opposite-sex concubine. Yet, Nasa remains human, hence relatable: when he wants something illogical, he states it is illogical, yet still acts on it. When he doesn't know something, he does show anxiety before asking. But in the end he always asks. At times he may even have ulterior motives, but he would never conceal them with lies.
Nasa is, oddly enough, "ideal" yet human. And upon reading/watching, I don't find Tonikawa to be a fairy-tale, so I think the author did a good job showing that being both ideal yet flawed may be easier than it seems.