Myers Briggs, the Enneagram, and your characters

Yes, it's another time-wasting character questionnaire! After reading this comment in the Character Development thread, I wondered where my characters would fit. It'll be a few days before I finish, but in the meantime, what are the results for some of your characters?

Courtesy links

What they are:

• Myers Briggs
• The Enneagram

Sample tests (from the CDT post:

• Myers Briggs
• The Enneagram - I found test 2 more reliable for my own personality, but Your Mileage May Vary.

edited 19th Jun '11 4:24:28 AM by nrjxll

I took the Myers-Briggs test ages ago as part of a course in which they properly explored the differences between people and how we all fit on the various scales - most interesting.

Since then I tend to use it as simple distinctions for my characters - where they fit on the scales and by what degree. I don't bother working my way through the questionaire, just decide whether the person is more extrovert or introvert, sensate or intuitive etc.

It's very good for broad strokes of working out how they act and what motivates them and who they're likely to rub up the wrong way.

I don't bother with the labels applied to the types - such as the classical Archetypes we covered on the course or the modern interpretations - just work out whether or not they'll buy something based on it's specs or because they "like it" or a mixture of both, whether they are disciplined in their time keeping or a drop everything and go at the slightest whim.

I also track other things not covered by the MBTI, such as what their sense of humour is like, how sociable they are (neither of which are covered by the MBTI, contrary to the lay-person's understanding of "extrovert" and "introvert").

And I'm mindful it's all comparative - two characters might have the same MBTI rating but be quite different as one has, say, a "marked" preference for Feeling while the other has only a "slight" preference (and may think the former is governed much too much by his feelings and should at least factor in some rational thought before deciding).

Used properly, they're tools to help better understand characters and get some good comparisons showing up. But they're only tools.

Edit: Tried the first of the Enneagram tests and didn't think much of it - the questions were way too vague and many relied on asking your opinion of how you think you compare to others or what you think others think of you. Terribly subjective.

I think, though, that the types could be handy as quick character briefs (you could have 18 "different" characters if you grabbed a number and a "wing" from either side).

edited 19th Jun '11 5:18:29 AM by Wolf1066

Bryan: ENTJ/8w2

Ian: ENTP/4w7

Alexia: ESTP/6w5 (maybe)

Justin: INTJ/8w5

Finn: ISFP/2w6

As a person who studies the MBTI, I have some things to add-

Your knowledge of function and them MBTI is a bit Themepark Version also the issue over people with the same functions acting differently is another issue. To properly understand the MBTI you need to study Jungian function in their relation to Myers Briggs work, and the work of Professor Keirsey as he majorly expanded upon the original MBTI giving us most of the modern role types.

The functions refer to how the person process the information they receive from the world and how it is processed. Another thing to factor in is if they are a healthy or unhealthy version of said type.

To say someone is only somewhat feeling or majorly feeling shows a misunderstanding towards how the MBTI works. If someone is only somewhat feeling that switch their type around, also it depends on which type of Feeling vs thinking (Fe and Fi vs Te and Ti). Also all types have thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuitive functions. In fact all types have every cognitive function, it's just a preference order with the shadow functions being used the least often.

• (see: Jungian Shadow self, contrary to the media portray shadow self does not mean evil self, in fact it's more of an internal foil.)

I'll use my functions as an example: these in themselves are theme park generalizations.

• Fi- Introverted feeling- The harmony based function, which has to do with feeling but not necessarily being emotional, this function basically means we filter thing through how it makes us feel, feeling good vs feeling bad

• Ne- Extroverted intuition- This is the What if function, which causes a preference towards abstract thinking but also towards learning more about people and objects and how they think, act and react.

• Si- Introverted sensing- I'll admit I haven't gotten very far into studying sensing but basic it's exactly what it say on the tin, how your five sense react to the world around you, sense I use Fi and Ne before this I tend to filter through my heart and then mind (left and right side of the brain) before I consider any of my five senses.

• Te- Extroverted thinking- Despite the fact that Te is my "weak" function this does not mean I have trouble thinking or that I am illogical, because Te refers more to organization of facts.

I think a lot of the problem is when people see the Myers Briggs they want an exact, and that just wrong. People are going to vary greatly despite their type, the type only refers to how they filter the world, not what they were taught, learned or were exposed to. People are going to look, think and fact different even though they may process information the same way, and that may help them understand fellows of their type better it does not mean the same, and at times people may seem like they are a different function order than they are, these are usually refereed to as "shadow moments", these in tropes are usually referred to as Beneath the Mask or Out of Character.

• The former being some than that is always their but not also shown, that later being a true shadow self emergence, except when it truly is just bad writing .

Also functions can be and according to Jung are supposed to be trained so that they may become stronger but this doesn't chance ones preference, I'm pretty logical thanks to training up my Te and Ne functions but that doesn't change the fact that the first then I react to is my feelings,I just filter them better now, bite my tongue more, choice my battles, ect.

• Interally something might set me off like a fire cracker, but I'll only show a cold ration argument for my side of things. Internally I'm using my fi function because something set me off in the way someone said something, it wasn't set off my a lack of logic (usually) but more something didn't click right in my heart, which is the entire reason why I'm arguing against it, instead of say I find it logical or irrational though sometimes it is both.

I've been studying the MBTI and applying it to real life for about a year now, and I'd have to say once you learn someones type(If they're honest on the test) it can really help understandings and easy over conflicts (especially with conflicting types), when it gets down to it learning a persons type if much like knowing a works tropes, or like knowing someones opening moves in a game of chess.You get to know the tells and tend to be able to predict reactions without saying to spend years around the person. It's far from perfect but it also shouldn't be dismissed either, and it's a lot more usefully of a tool for writing than it is for real life.

Now the Enneagram on it's own, that's entirely based off one man's observations. I'm not even going to try and defend that one, for real life still useful in fiction though.

Again I'm using a private study during my free time so they're are probably other how have been studying it a lot longer than I have who could better explain it. Also this wasn't all directed at your comment put also my attempt at clearing up some other MBTI misconceptions, again this applies most likely to real life, but since fictional characters are a lot less complex than real life people (usually), I'd say it's more than just a tool in the right hands, but in the wrong hands it's a crutch for lack luster character building skills, because it's easy to just take an MBTI type for a character and write back story, it's hard to write a character who fits an MBTI beyond it's stereotypes.

To the exact topic at hand:

Claudia - is an ISFP at least thats my plan for her. Axel is an ISTJ or ESTJ, I haven't written enough on him to know yet.

My villain Protagonist from my last work was an INTJ, with his good mentor being ENTJ.

Enneagrams no idea, taking it now.

also I suggest the test be taken here as this is a better site for the MBTI over all:

http://similarminds.com/jung.html

the site also as an Enneagram test, and a Big Five test but this one is strictly for the MBTI.

edited 19th Jun '11 7:28:05 AM by Vyctorian

I usually laugh at personality tests when dealing with members of H. sapiens, but for characters, who, even at their best, are shadows of a living individuals, they have their uses. At random, I grabbed the latter test, and some characters who might give interesting results.

• Alice: 8w7 SP — No arguments there. Hell of a way to say "Chaotic Evil."
• Asayu: Ostensibly 2w3 SX — The SX will have surprised nobody who has encountered her in the Character Development Thread. The wing's a bit odd, though; I think it misread the monastic self-discipline she hides under her hedonistic exterior for ambition.
• Frank: 1w9 SO — As I would expect from an honorable, idealistic lawyer of the sort that even Sigmund fears to trifle with

Took the Enneagram for my characters:

• Claudia 9w1 SO - wow, this fits her perfectly.

• Axel- 8w7 SX - Axel's still very up in the air but he seems a bit to quick to trust to be 8, though that w7 fits him quite well.

My Villain Protagonist from my last work:

• Type 5 no wing SP.- At first I was if but going over his characterization again this has kinda made me re-think him bit.

and his

• Trickster Mentor- 1w2 SX - this works out well for him, actually this is perfect for him. Not sure where the SX comes from though.

edited 19th Jun '11 9:10:58 AM by Vyctorian

• Aurus - ESFP/7w8 SX Sounds about right for his hedonistic illogical attitudes.
• Niccolo - ENTJ/1 balancedwings SP Though the longer test called him a type 3. Niccolo is a perfectionist due to wanting external approval?
• Whitby - 6 balanced wings SO I'm not so sure about Whitby. He's the insecure social fellow, I guess.
• Wolff - INTJ/1w9 SO Sounds about right for a secretive FBI agent?

Too many characters to list here for my fanfics, but I often use Myers-Briggs personalities to make base characterizations for large groups of characters that can be expanded on as I write the story (usually involving a group of at least 16 characters so that all the types are represented).

@Vyctorian: Thanks for that.

I only did an eight-hour course on the MBTI, which of course is not going to cover everything. It did cover some of what you mentioned, however, and certainly gives a better understanding of it than a quick blurb on some website.

I fully agree with and understand the training aspect with myself as a case-in-point - my preference for choices is "Feeling" but as a computer technician, I've got to base a lot of my day-to-day decisions on "Thinking". This has naturally had wide-reaching effects.

I don't go over the top when assigning MBTI scores to my characters, it's just handy knowing if they are more inclined to bounce ideas off others or work things through for themselves, trust "hunches" and "gut-reactions" or perceived data more, choose things because of how they feel or what they think, compartmentalise their time or be spontaneous.

And as I said, it's a rough guide and does not factor in other aspects of human personality (not one of the extroverts in our group, of which I was one, liked noisy busy parties - I dunno, perhaps the noise interferes with our ability to bounce ideas off people - despite the assumption on the part of all the introverts that we would) so I make decisions about whether the character's a party animal or a "a few quiet drinks at home with me mates" type and so forth.

Extroversion/Introversion has little to nothing to do with how loud one gets at parties. I have friends who are huge partyers who are both introverts in the MBTI. Nor does it have to do with confidence or shyness/sociability.

Some one could be timid as anything and still be an Extravert in the MBTI, and vice versa. Introversion is more you think things out or feel them out within your self, where as Extraversion is where you use other and the world around you to come to a conclusion. Or where you feel/think with others and help them think things out (E) or where you feel/ think things out on your own and come to them later (I).

Also note I often get mixed up as well; in the MBTI it's extrAversion not extrOversion.

Here is a pretty good guide to functions using something us tropers can relate to ''fiction''. Winne the Pooh to be exact, yes really.

I'd once again point out if you know how to use it it's more than just a rough guide it's a pretty detailed one and once you learn the functions you tend to be able to determine a persons type or at least temperament at a guess and usually be right.

edited 19th Jun '11 4:30:31 PM by Vyctorian

Introverts get energy by spending time by themselves.

Extraverts get energy by spending time with others.

IMHO Personality Page is rather good at describing the different types.

To be honest, I wasn't really posting this thread to discuss the Myers Briggs or the Enneagram - I don't think either's perfect myself - but just to run your characters through and see how they come out, and whether you agree with that assessment or not. I was hoping not to have a whole debate about the tests themselves.

Still working on my characters. Even ignoring the minor ones this takes some time.

Would not discussion on the different types help with understanding how different types of characters would interact or possibly conflict?

Grabbing a real life example:

A: How far have you got on that documentation?

B: Haven't started it yet.

A: What? It's due on Friday.

B: Yeah, and it's only Tuesday. It'll be ready by Friday.

A: [looks like he's going to have a nervous breakdown] It'd better be.

- J and P types interacting in an office - no prizes for guessing which is which.

Vyctorian could probably deduce even more detail about the characters.

Oh, and the documentation was ready by Friday, in case anyone was worried.

edited 19th Jun '11 7:25:57 PM by Wolf1066

Okay on topic: from my romance novella - My Uke bartender/ slave man working off his debt is ISFJ 9w1 SO.

My Seme half-demon bar owner is ESTJ 8w7 SX ... Yep that SX is totally appropriate.

edited 19th Jun '11 10:47:05 PM by Vyctorian

So I did some Myers-Briggsing my Suenyaverse characters.

• Cora - ENFP - "Like to change things for the better, and have contagious enthusiasm, but no patience for crossing I's and dotting T's. They are good at anticipating others' needs, but crave attention and recognition. Usually a Keet or Genki Girl."

"Genki Girl" is a little off, but otherwise: Yep! That's Cora! Noble but impatient for sure.

• Boyse - INTJ - "Are analytical, pragmatic and logical, and are not scared to tell someone (or themselves) when they're being stupid. They emphasize efficiency, making them simultaneously loners and excellent leaders. Usually The Chessmaster."

I don't know if he's a Chessmaster, but he'll definitely conk your noggin if you're being an idiot.

• Jasper - ISFJ - "Are loyal, orderly and sensitive. They can be very shy around people they don't know, but are the sort of person who will always remember your birthday, and are never accidentally offensive.""

• Angeline - ISFJ - Not surprisingly, she's identical to Jasper, although while Jasper is heavy on the sensing and not so much on the judging, Angeline is his total opposite there—she's got almost no sensing skills, but judges crazily.

• Paud - ENTP - "Are clever and analytical, often with quick wits and a quicker tongue. They are very good at thinking outside the box, but (like ENF Ps) are easily bored. Possibly a Manipulative Bastard or Jerk Ass." Paud's actually rather nice to Angeline, but he's definitely a high-octane kind of Nerd. And boy does he ever get bored!

• Dawra - ESFP - "Live in the moment, learn by doing, and enjoy promoting harmony and fun. This is a team player of the highest degree, but only if they aren't bored. They also enjoy their creature comforts."

Dawra is definitely all about the team spirit. He's a harmony harmony oh love kind of guy to be sure, only more knight than hippie.

It's sort of nice to see that none of my characters are INT Ps, which is what I am.

edited 20th Jun '11 12:34:24 PM by FreezairForALimitedTime

• Dorian: INFP. Same as me, lol Gary Stu. INF Ps are idealists: they have values inside them which they really, really want to live by. This makes them good at encouraging other people's growth, but also raging perfectionists.
• Tai: INTJ. INT Js are analytical, pragmatic and logical, and are not scared to tell someone (or themselves) when they're being stupid. They emphasize efficiency, making them simultaneously loners and excellent leaders. Usually The Chessmaster. Oh yes, That's Tai for you. lol.
• Saedra: ENFJ. ENF Js are good at making a lot of friends and facilitate community-building without even thinking about it; they act as a counter-balance to almost all social situations.
• Jerhan: ISTJ. IST Js are orderly, dependable, practical and dutiful above all. They prefer working with facts and can be conservative in their loyalty to traditions. Tend to resemble The Stoic or The Spock.
• Sylvia: ENFJ. I wouldn't have thought she'd be the same as Saedra — I thought she was closer to Tai in personality, but more outgoing — but cool I guess.
• Bradford: ESFP. ESF Ps live in the moment, learn by doing, and enjoy promoting harmony and fun. This is a team player of the highest degree, but only if they aren't bored. They also enjoy their creature comforts. So very true.

edited 21st Jun '11 6:51:01 AM by moonfie

I worked at my university's career centre and one of the few perks was to do the MBTI and sit down with a career consultant for free. I had studied Jung and the MBTI in previous courses so I figured where I should be (INTP) but in doing the actual test I noticed something: there is a distinction between how you think and how you act. A lot of that has to do with training. Although an introvert, I did public speaking and debating and while I was with the military I bucked for command (I made sergeant / squad leader). Although an intuiter, the military and martial arts have very sensory aspects to them. While primarily a thinker, my study of law and philosophy have softened my outlook. And while a perceiver by nature, as a soldier an as a lawyer I was forced to be much more judgmental.

The questions on the MBTI go back and forth between how you think and how you actually behave, so my scores were pulled towards the centre.

How would you use this insight to characters that you create? The first point is that people are not fated by their basic natures: characters grow and can move in a direction that is opposite to their basic natures. Secondly is that characters tend to be much more interesting when they are against type. So if ISTJ suggests a cop, then make your cop ENFP.

Examples are here:

http://www.personalitypage.com/careers.html

Look up how your character would be stereotyped and then do the opposite.

To elaborate on MBTI, a person has an extrovert face and an introvert face. An ENFP, for example, also has the extraverted thinking function to serve, and they do make quite competent lawyers. The page only suggests which jobs we might choose to actualize our potential - it does not claim to be a catch-all for everyone.

It is not enough to look at MBTI's labelling on its own; ENFP, INTJ, etc. Because one INFP can vary vastly different from another. You don't say all black men can jump and slam dunk, right? And neither should I say that all Canadians work as lumberjacks, have French/English bilingualism, and say "Eh?" very often.

You need to look at the JCF (Jungian Cognitive Functions) that comprise each role. The functions which each of us tend to favour from time to time, and which each must develop for a healthy personality.

It seems, one day, I shall try rewriting the Enneagram and MBTI pages to make things more clear to the loyal skeptics out there, this is far from an astrology test, which instead of glancing at your birthdate for fate, looks at the various modes of thinking we favour.

edited 22nd Jun '11 10:01:26 AM by QQQQQ

One more thought. I don't know if this is in the official literature, but a significant difference between introverts and extroverts is in how they build, store and expend their "energy". Most people mistake me for an extrovert because I tend to be engaging and even pugnacious. I love parties and such but they are very draining such that I need time to myself to recharge my batteries, so to speak. A buddy of mine is a classic extrovert and he is the exact opposite. Interacting with others is invigorating for him while time alone in solitary contemplation drives him crazy. Just as I can party, he can think through complex problems on his own, but these activities are draining.

QQQQ, nosing about on the page I provided the link to, I found that lawyers pop up in more than one category. That's to be expected given the difference between solicitors, barristers, law profs, researchers, advocates, etc etc.

And yes, there is the issue of what modes of thinking we favour as distinct from what we actually due for various pragmatic reasons. In any of the four categories, someone who stuck with absolute purity in their mode of thought would be somewhat dysfunctional as an overall human being.

edited 22nd Jun '11 10:06:13 AM by 66Scorpio

Yes, extravert/introvert is probably the most absolute metric on that test for that reason. Even if it's subtle, you pretty much have to be one way or the other, whereas it's much easier to be, say, an even split between thinker and feeler.

It's a useful analytical tool for characters, but I'd warn against using it to develop characters, since that's likely to lead to flat characters and pigeonholing.

And what dear, does this notion stem from? Like any tool, one can use a paintbrush to make gentle strokes, or clumsily smear the paint all over. I find MBTI, if you can see the comprising functions, useful with refining my characters' behaviours. So for Enneagram, their inner-laying motivations - if properly understood.

This confusion I think likely stems from the assumption we ought to use things like this as a "catch-all", an easy way out. Ought. And there is no ought.

edited 22nd Jun '11 3:32:12 PM by QQQQQ

Refining your characters' behavior is using it as an analytical tool; you're analyzing what they do in light of their personality type.

By "develop," I do mean "create." Deciding to put an ESFJ in your story is unlikely to lead to a very deep character.

I decided to write an INTJ and he was the deepest character I had ever written (at the time). It's not the tool, it's the person using it.

edited 22nd Jun '11 3:50:47 PM by Vyctorian

Si. (If you take out the 'type', si. Seems 'type' gets associated with 'typecast' which leads to 'stereotyping'. This is far from my intentions.)

Ja, I notice you keep saying "unlikely" and "likely" - like you take for granted of some automagic process which makes this so. (I do not know of ze automagics, sorries about that.) Would you kindly elaborate the reasons why?

(What do you already understand? If you strictly base your judgments from TV Tropes' articles, they have misinformed you. By a wide margin.)

I chose once to write an ESFJ character in an experiment. She, out of all things, wishes to please her widowed father - and to be as caring to him and others, as her mother once was. She can get stingy in her attempts, to do the dishes, cook the dinners and mow the lawn - to the point of unhealthiness. She neglects her schoolwork, and her grades are steadily dropping.

Her friends, worried about her fatherly relationship, decide to intervene with her problems. It might make an interesting novel to write.

Like I said, MBTI and Enneagram are not "catch-alls" for handling characters. They do however, give me a suitable framework on which my characters are built. It helps with characterization consistency too.

Ja!

edited 22nd Jun '11 4:16:00 PM by QQQQQ