o_19kdfsn0q18e31dfraas1esh19vta.pdf

their own type, they do project their own type's characteristics upon their heroes. 75 For example,
suppose you have an ESTP hero. An INTJ notices moments of introversion or reflection, while an
ENFJ notices moments of compassion or selflessness. Like the blind men and the elephant, each
type particularly notices aspects of the hero that they most relate with.
So when looking in the mirror of fiction, we must take care to be beguiled by our own preferences.
I will give supporting evidence for most of the people I type in this book.
On a side note: it appears that people seek out heroes of their own type more often than heroes of
the opposite type. Out of the 196 heroes in the study, 52 (27%) had a personality matching the
adolescent's own type, while just 3 (2%) were the exact opposite type. Roughly speaking then,
people are something like 14x more likely to choose people of their own type as heroes than an
opposite type.
Fun fact: the majority of Rationals depicted in Saturday morning cartoons are genius villains who
probe the mysteries of science and make brilliant breakthroughs in technology. These characters are
perfect role models for NTs save for the minor shortcoming of being evil. “What's wrong with me?
Why do I always like the villains?” Rationals wonder.
Notes on Type Identifications
Figuring out a fictional character or real life person's type can be an illuminating experience; it can
also make one aware of just how inadequate type-based stereotypes are when describing actual
human behavior. On several occasions I have found my pet theories disproven by a real life
example and have been forced to rethink them in accordance with the new data. But this makes it
doubly important to get a person's type right to begin with.
Here are a few rules of thumb that can prevent errors:
First and foremost, no single piece of evidence is EVER conclusive on its own. A common mistake
is to fixate on a couple items of evidence and assign them a huge amount of weight, i.e., “All INTJs
do this” or “Only INTJs can do this.” So for example, people will say, “An INTJ would never do
that because they have too much self control.” Or “INTJs are the only impassive type; this person
was described as impassive; therefore they can only be an INTJ.”
There is an exception to every rule; in fact, INTJs cannot claim exclusivity on any characteristic
that I know of. Even if INTJs are the type most likely to embody a particular trait, there are 2-3
other types that also have the trait in abundance and could plausibly be described as possessing it.
Then too, one must always look for explanations other than type for a behavior. An extravert who
avoids people because he has been teased and bullied by his peers is not an introvert, despite
outward appearances. A perceiver's job may require them to be more organized than they would
naturally prefer.
Finally, one must allow for individual variation. Some INTJs are very clear in their type; others
have moderate preferences. Any particular INTJs may be very close to being an INFJ, ENTJ, INTP,
ISTJ, etc. Never mistake a type’s average characteristics for a rule that always applies to everyone
of the type. An average is simply something that usually applies to most.
Therefore one must not give in to the temptation of simplistic certainty. It is only when the
preponderance of dozens of pieces of weak, good, and even excellent evidence begins to point
towards a single type that an identification can be made.
75 Petersen, 1993