I. Introduction
I wrote 'MBTI: How to type superheroes' years ago. Since then I have read more Jung and sharpened some of my insights, and I feel that I have grown. Now, in order to pass on my new knowledge to my readership, I could update my original article, but I would much rather present an altogether new one.
What was the main theme of 'How to type-'? The article rested on the idea that when typing a character from comic books (or movies or novels or TV shows), you have three methods to choose from, as follows.
The first method - which is the easiest - is to study the TV Tropes article 'Useful Notes / Myers–Briggs' and go on to read the 100 or so MBTI posts at Taylor's blog. In his posts, Taylor types characters from comic books, movies, TV shows, anime and computer games with 99.99% accuracy. After reading his articles, you will make the discovery that the same stock characters abound across all the mediums (comic books, movies, etc.) and that these same stock characters share the same MBTI personality type and vocation. Consider the ENFJ type: you will see from Taylor's blog that a ENFJ stock character almost always plays the same part in every work of fiction: the ENFJ, as archetype, is always the Hero Teacher, or Charlatan Conjurer, or Inspirational Leader, or Cult Leader, or Evangelist / Preacher - one of these five. And on having obtained a grip on all these - all the roles played by the ENFJ, all the archetypes embodied by the ENFJ - typing a character as an ENFJ becomes a matter of deduction. When we first encounter him, Picard from the TV series Star Trek: the Next Generation (1987-1994) is presented as an Inspirational Leader, which is the same vocation as Optimus Prime's in the movie The Transformers (2007). Cross-checking with Taylor, we see that Prime is an ENFJ, and by dint of logic, then, Picard is to be typed as an ENFJ. The method is as simple as that.
The second method is to read Jung's Psychological Types (1921) and books on MBTI and Socionics, and then learn what the eight functions are. Once you have learned to recognise what function it is that preponderates in a character's personality, then you have recognised his dominant function and are well on the way to determining his type.
The third method is what I call the four-letter method.
We have four dichotomies to consider when typing a character: Introvert / Extravert, Sensor / Intuitive, Thinker / Feeler and Judger / Perceiver (or 'Rational' / 'Irrational', as Jung would say). Typing a character then becomes the task of working out where he falls on the side of each dichotomy - that is, Extravert or Introvert, Judger or Perceiver, etc. In order to do this, close attention must be paid to visual and verbal cues. Using that method, you gradually build a picture of a character's type in your mind's eye - one step at a time - and you slowly narrow down the possibilities. E.g., once you have divined to your satisfaction that a character is both an Introvert (I) and a Thinker (T), you are left with only four personality types: ISTP, INTP, ISTJ, INTJ.
In this article I will be concentrating on the four-letter method.
II. Introvert / Extravert, I or E?
The theory:
the Introvert directs his energies to the inner world; the Extravert, the outer.
Observable characteristics:
When trying to determine Extraversion or Introversion, one must be guided by the following checklist:
- What is the degree of sociability, talkativeness, etc., of the character?
- Does he liked being noticed or does he avoid attention?
- Does he enjoy the company of others or does he show a tendency to be alone?
- Does he choose to inhabit an environment that is well-lit, bright, open and airy (Superman's Fortress of Solitude) or one that is the opposite (Batman's Batcave)?
- The Introvert super character will wear an outfit with dull, muted colours and the Extravert wears bright, attention-grabbing colours.
- Note that the exception proves the rule. For instance, take Spiderman. Peter Parker is an Introvert, and his introversion is such that it can be recognised at a glance when Peter makes his debut in Amazing Fantasy #15. But Peter's alter ego Spiderman wears a loud costume, one which Peter designed for showbiz purposes - that is, Peter wants to use the costume to draw attention to himself so as to make a living as an entertainer. So Spiderman's costume conceals Peter's personality. In such cases, we need to determine a character's personality type not from his superhero persona but his secret identity.
- What about Superman? Again, we need to ask which persona take priority. Whereas loud and wise-cracking superhero Spiderman identity masks Peter Parker's true self, the meek and mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent identity masks Kal-El's. Superman was Kal-El from the start - literally from birth - long before he was Clark Kent. Kal-El's true self is Superman, an Extravert, not Clark Kent, an Introvert; Superman wears the Clark Kent persona as a disguise. The conclusion is that whereas we must deduce Peter Parker's Extraversion or Introversion from his private persona, not his public, for Superman the reverse holds true.
III. Sensor / Intuitive, S or N?
The theory:
This dichotomy concerns how a character gets his information, and in particular, the information which defines his personality type.
Jung explains in the glossary of Psychological Types that the Sensor gets his information consciously, i.e., from what is put there before him. The Intuitive, on the other hand, gets his information unconsciously: it wanders into his head, and from whence it came, what inspired it, he does not know - he is unconscious of the source.
Observable characteristics:
- The Sensor's dialogue often consists of statements that 'X is the case', 'This is y': in other words, what is immediately apparent is true. His motto is, what you see is what you get.
- In the Intuitive's dialogue we find statements of what will be or could be: e.g., 'I foresee disaster ahead'; 'This looks like an exciting possibility'; 'Since time immemorial, this has always has been the case and always will be'.
- The Intuitive is dissatisfied with the present world and the restrictions it places upon him. He wants to get beyond it, to pierce the veil of appearances. In his dialogue, we come across statements to the effect that 'There is more to this than meets the eye' or 'I'm bored with the present reality: it is mundane, it doesn't live up to my ideals, or at the least, isn't as nearly as entertaining as the vision I have in my head'.
- The Intuitive is inclined towards metaphysics and philosophy. Generally, 'cosmic' characters such as the Silver Surfer, Galactus, the Watcher, Adam Warlock, and Thanos will be Intuitives.
Super-powers:
- The Sensor's main super-power or ability will utilise physical force. He may be super-strong and invulnerable (e.g., Superman, the Hulk) or may project concussive force blasts (e.g., Cyclops, Starfire).
- For Intuitives, their special ability or unique trait often resides in the mental or spiritual: charisma (Wonder Woman), leadership (Nightwing), deductive ability (Batman).
- The super-powers of an Intuitive range far and wide. The main superpower of an Intuitive will be either telepathy, telekinesis, astral projection, the manipulation of matter (i.e., shape-shifting) or probabilities (i.e., powers that affect luck), teleportation, precognition, magic of all sorts...
- The Intuitive can gravitate towards the supernatural or have an affinity with it; or he can be a scientist who wants to explore the unknown in, for example, the world of physics or chemistry. To repeat, the Intuitive desires to go beyond the senses.
- The exception proves the rule when it comes to an Intuitive's super-powers. The Beast from the X-Men is an Intuitive and a character who is a scientist (an archetypal Mad Scientist, in fact) but his super-powers are manifested in the physical realm. The Beast's creators, Lee and Kirby, were here attempting to subvert expectations; they wanted to convey the ironic dilemma of an Intuitive trapped in a Sensor's body. In the case of the DC character Deadman, the ironic dilemma goes the other way. Deadman (the stage name of Boston Brand, a circus acrobat) is a down to earth Sensor who disdains the supernatural and the occult, but after he is murdered, he finds himself banished to the spirit world and condemned to wander the earth as a ghost.
Keeping these qualifications in mind, we can make this summation of the Intuitive / Sensor dichotomy. In determining whether or not a character is an Intuitive or Sensor, we should ask ourselves, does their superpower or special ability reside in their brains or their brawn - for the Sensor is a 'brawn' character, the Intuitive, a 'brains' character.
So which of these characters is 'brawn', which is 'brains'?
- Superman or Batman?
- The Thing or Mr Fantastic?
- Harley Quinn or the Joker?
- Wolverine or Jean Grey?
- The Hulk or Doctor Strange?
- Juggernaut or Professor X?
- Captain America or the Red Skull?
- Thor or Loki?
- The Thing or Doctor Doom?
IV. Thinker / Feeler, T or F?
The theory:
This dichotomy can be summed up as: the difference between the left-brain and right-brain. The right-brain character is a Feeler, the left-brain, a Thinker.
Observable characteristics:
- The Thinker is a rationalist and instrumentalist, and he will see others as a means, not an end, that is, stepping stones to a larger goal. That lends the Thinker the appearance of ruthlessness and cruelty, and for that reason, usually the super-villain is a Thinker, not a Feeler.
- The Thinker's dialogue will be exact and precise; he tends to use more 'square' language as opposed to 'rounded'.
- The Feeler puts values, meanings, emotions, experiences, morals first. He sees others as an end, not as a means; they are not stepping stones, they have a value in themselves.
- His dialogue will be made up of statements like 'I feel this', 'I need that', 'This isn't so good'...
- In general, his dialogue flows more; it is 'rounded' as opposed to 'square'.
V. Judger / Perceiver, J or P?
The theory:
Jung's definition of Perceivers and Judgers (or 'Irrationals' and 'Rationals', as he calls them) differs completely from MBTI's.
The 'Rational', in Jung, concerns whatever has been devised by human beings. It could be a religion or a morality or a philosophy or a scientific system. The 'Irrational', on the other hand, Jung defines as what has not been established by human beings; it is simply there.
Jung in Psychological Types gives examples of the 'Irrational'. These are brute facts, givens:
- That the Earth has a moon
- That chlorine is an element
- That the greatest density of water is 4.0 centigrade
- 'An accident', he writes, 'is also irrational in spite of the fact that it may sustain a rational explanation'.
The Feeling and Thinking functions are 'Rational', hence they deal with what has been created: morals and value-judgements (Feeling) or systems of organisation (Thinking); the Sensing and Intuitive functions, on the other hand, are 'Irrational', hence they deal with what has been given: information transmitted consciously (Sensing) or unconsciously (Intuiting).
In Jung, the type with the dominant function which is Judging is a 'Rational' or Judger; the type with the dominant function which is Perceiving is an 'Irrational' or Perceiver. This is simple and logical enough, but it contradicts MBTI. Having said that, throughout this article I will use MBTI's system of lettering for the types so as to avoid confusion, as my readers are more familiar with MBTI than Jung.
So how does the Judging / Perceiving dichotomy affect personality type?
The Judging character:
- Holds to an overarching hypothesis which dominates his life; it determines the direction of his life.
- The theme song of the Judger is Radiohead's 'Everything in its right place' (2000).
The Perceiving character:
- Does not hold to an overarching hypothesis; his life appears to be a series of episodes which are disconnected from one another.
- Does not edit or select from reality.
- Whether he knows it or not, he practices realpolitik which is defined as, 'A system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations' [emphasis mine].
- Realpolitik works primarily with 'Considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises' [emphasis mine].
- The theme song of the Perceiver is Bruce Hornsby's 'The Way It Is' (1986).
All that sounds rather abstract. How does it apply concretely when typing comic book characters?
To my mind, the best example of a Perceiver in comic books is Marvel's Watcher, a cosmic character who uses his (obviously Intuitive) super-powers to peer into parallel worlds. The Watcher hosts the What If? series, which features 'imaginary' stories, that is, stories which take place in alternate realities which deviate from the mainstream Marvel continuity. Now, many of the What If stories make grim reading, as they often end unhappily; but the Watcher, as the narrator, never judges. He instead watches, he looks on, he observes. At the end of the story he will note if the events in the parallel universe turned out badly, but his response to such an unhappy ending is always the same - he will shrug his shoulders and move on; 'That's just the way it is / Some things will never change'. He is a realpolitiker.
A Judging character, in contrast, would react differently. A cosmic character like the Watcher, Adam Warlock would declare that something ought to be done about the suffering of the characters in the alternate realities, even if nothing in actuality could be done. Likewise, cosmic characters Galactus and Thanos would opine that the Watcher's superpower of cosmic intuition should be subordinate to the purposes of organising others and restructuring reality - in other words, that it should be used within the context of an overarching plan which is to govern existence. And all this makes sense, given that the three - Adam Warlock, Galactus and Thanos - are Judgers, not Perceivers.
Observable characteristics:
- The Judging character insists that things be done a certain way, no ifs and buts. If he is an Extravert, he will gladly tell others how things ought to be done, as he greatly enjoys lecturing and teaching.
- If he is an Introvert and a Judger, he prefers not to explain himself at length; he will be a quiet and self-contained individual. The typical 'My way or the highway' stance of the Judging type reveals itself in the Introverted Judger only when he is pressured by others to go against his code; it is then that he shows his stubbornness.
- The Perceiving character does not edit or select. As a consequence, he enjoys his dominant function, or rather, the information it gives him.
- Keeping this in mind, the Perceiver seems much more easy-going than the Judger. Take two very different characters as an example, both of them Perceiving types: Marvel's Punisher and Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian. Author Matt Bird writes:
What was so cool about these guys is that they were so dispassionate. They were doing the sort of the things that other men do on a wild revenge trip, but they weren’t wild at all. They were calm, even bemused. They had turned their crusades into everyday jobs, complete with sandwich breaks. They would patiently make their plans of attack and dismissively dress down any revenge-seeking allies who got too hot under the collar. These guys had sang-froid.
- The same could be said of two Perceiver villains, the Joker and Doctor Doom. The one-time ally of Doom, the Sub-Mariner, a Judger, wants to rule; Doctor Doom, a Perceiver, does not - in one story (in the Emperor Doom (1990) graphic novel) after having achieved his long-stated goal of world domination, Doom tires of it. Rather than administer, Doom wants to indulge - in mad plans for revenge and strange inner visions. His arch-enemy, Reed Richards (Mr Fantastic), on the other hand, does want to administer - the experiments which take place in his laboratory, that is - and indeed, he puts that task before all others. Why? It suits his temperament, it fits in with his life-path, seeing that his entire life is guided by a rational plan. Whereas the Joker's is not: as we know, the Joker is a chaos agent.
The heroes and villains in these examples are Thinking types, but we can just as easily find the Perceiver / Judger dichotomy in types that are Feeling. If we are to look to the Feelers Superman and Harley Quinn, it becomes evident at a glance which of the pair is a Judger, which a Perceiver.
VI. Conclusion
The same personality types are associated with the same stock characters over and over again in hundreds of comic books, movies and TV shows, and after repeated exposure you learn quickly to recognise patterns. That quiet character who is an Introvert, who is there in the background and not easily noticed, who is somewhat bland, who is down to earth and homely, who is not a forceful personality and not a creative one either - that character is most likely an Introverted Sensing (Si) dominant; and the polar opposite of that type, who is the Extravert character who is zany and loquacious, who likes non-sequiturs, who is either a Mad Scientist / Inventor or an adventurer, who wants the maximum of personal freedom, who is creative and adaptable - that character is most likely an Extraverted Intuitive (Ne) dominant.
In the comics, the Si-dominant will usually be a supporting character, a background character, nothing more. When he is a protagonist, he performs the role of the bland, by-the-book functionary (Judge Dredd from 2000 AD, Darth Vader from Star Wars, Cyclops from the X-Men) or the Family Man / Nice Boring Guy (Colossus from the X-Men). As for the Ne-dominant, he is never content to sit in the background: he always pushes himself to the forefront; he steals the show. Think of the heroes Tony Stark (Iron Man) and Hank McCoy (the Beast); and the villains the Joker, Mr Mxyzptlk, the Impossible Man and Ambush Bug (these four are notorious attention-seekers).
Another case of polar opposites: the Extravert who is an organisation man, who moves people around like pawns on a chessboard or soldiers on a battlefield; and the Introvert who is a deeply principled person who follows a system of morality which they will not compromise (this moral system is highly personal and subjective, not based on the values of the community at all; it stems from one's emotional and visceral reactions - 'gut' reactions). The first of these types is an Extraverted Thinker (Te) dominant, the second, an Introverted Feeler (Fi) dominant. In the comics, the Te-dominant character will usually occupy a leadership position of some kind, whereas the Fi-dominant will pursue creative endeavors - or simply be a free spirit. In Marvel, we find Captain America to be a classic example of the Te-dominant protagonist, and Rick Jones, the Fi-dominant. As for cosmic Marvel characters, we have antagonists Thanos (Te-dominant) and Adam Warlock (Fi-dominant). While Warlock is not an artist like Rick Jones, he is engaged in a spiritual quest of self-discovery, like most Fi-dominant characters.
The pair of Thanos and Warlock brings to mind another from Marvel in the seventies: the 'Devil Doctor' Fu Manchu and his son, the Master of Kung-Fu, Shang-Chi - Fu Manchu is a Te-dominant, Shang-Chi, an Fi-dominant. Fu Manchu wants to rule the world, Shang-Chi wants to rule himself. It is this motivation of Shang-Chi's that helped make him a popular character in the seventies and one well suited to the decade.
I touched upon before the contrast between Doctor Doom and Mr Fantastic. The contrast is important because the differing motivations of the two characters allow us to gauge their types. Doom's personality type recurs again and again in pop culture, and Doom shares it with hundreds of other villain characters - as Doom's type, when it is morally flawed, is always seeking power, as that is its top priority. What of Mr Fantastic's top priority? We can find Mr Fantastic's personality type in Marvel characters Hank Pym (Ant-Man / Giant-Man / Goliath / Yellowjacket), Bruce Banner (the Hulk), Peter Parker (Spiderman), and DC characters Kirk Langstrom (Man-Bat) and Ray Palmer (the Atom), and as we can see from the list, Mr Fantastic's type is more interested in science and discovery than power and revenge. Determining a character's motivation goes some way to determining his personality type.
Given that Doom's type is so common, we should work out what is his type's dominant function. Whenever we come across a character who is an Introvert, who is inclined to brooding, who appears strange, unearthly, not all there (that is, not in the present space-time continuum) - we have an Introverted Intuitive (Ni) dominant. The character's quality of not being here in the present provides the key to understanding the type. It is to be observed that it is always the case that this type's consciousness can transcend the here and now. This is shown by the super-powered character's ability, for instance, to travel to the astral plane or see future worlds and possibilities; or on a more prosaic level, his ability to anticipate the future with accuracy and plan accordingly (e.g., Doctor Doom, Batman). He does not live in the present reality. The consequence of this being out-of-phase with the here and now is that others may see him as alien (the Watcher, the Silver Surfer) or vague and ethereal (Professor X, the Vision, Doctor Strange) or creepy (Doctor Doom, the Scarecrow (the Batman villain)) or uncanny (the Batman).
As we can see, the Ni-dominant turns up frequently in comics (but not in real life). What is the Ni-dominant's polar opposite type? An Extravert character who embodies strength, power, volition, force of will, self-assertion, aggression, territoriality. Usually the character possess the super-powers of invulnerability and strength (e.g., the Hulk, Lobo); if not, the character's forcefulness will make itself felt through vivaciousness and strength of character (e.g., Lois Lane, the Penguin, Catwoman). An Extraverted Sensing (Se) dominant, this type feels most comfortable in the physical realm and often exploits it to the fullest - the Human Torch, Hulk and Harley Quinn are great performers, exhibitionists, show-offs.
So far I have gone through six of the eight functions in Jung and MBTI; I will not detail the remaining two. Suffice to say, the reader should see by now patterns beginning to form, and after a time, this pattern-recognition will become to him second nature.
Mark Hootsen signing off.
No comments:
Post a Comment