Understanding the Jungian cognitive functions is key to Myers-Briggs typing. Unfortunately, it can also be very confusing. Basically, the four letters in a Myers-Briggs type tells you what kind of mental processes you use most effectively in making judgements and decisions (Thinking or Feeling) and in perceiving the world (Intuition or Sensing). It also tells you whether you are more oriented to the outer world or inner world (Extrovert or Introvert).
Everyone has and uses four functions (out of a possible eight). Your primary function is the one you’re most comfortable with and use most effectively. It’s supported by your secondary function, which acts as a sort of co-pilot. The third and fourth functions are less developed, and while we have access to them they are not often used effectively. You can look up your type’s cognitive functions on a variety of websites, including PersonalityJunkie.
For this first post, we’ll focus on the perceiving or learning processes (there will be a part two next week for the decision-making processes). Everyone has an introverted or extroverted form of Sensing and Intuition in their function stack. We use one or the other most effectively when learning new things and interacting with new ideas. Most Myers-Briggs enthusiasts still refer to these functions by their full names or abbreviations, but I think the Personality Hacker labels are easier to use when first learning about cognitive functions so I’ll include those as well.
Sensing
Sensing types are primarily concerned with what exists in concrete, observable reality. They focus on either the past or the present, and would rather work with something tangible than something theoretical. They can enjoy life in the moment and appreciate sense-impressions like good food and attractive surroundings.
Memory/Introverted Sensing (Si)
Personality Hacker says “that people use this process to learn new information based on their memories.” Isabel Meyer said a person using Introverted Sensing “sees things highly colored by the subjective factor,” and develops an inner self that may appear eccentric because of their unique way to seeing the world. However you phrase it, the Memory process is concerned with collecting sensory information and taking the time to check it for reliability and see how it fits in with their other ideas.
This is the perceiving process used most effectively by ISFJs, ISTJs, ESFJs, and ESTJs. The introverts use it as their primary function; the extroverts use it as a co-pilot to support their dominant decision-making function.
Sensation/Extroverted Sensing (Se)
The difference between the introverted Memory process and the extroverted Sensation process is that Se types process their sensory impressions externally. They want to experience and interact with something when they encounter it, rather than after-the-fact. People who use Sensation as their primary or secondary process have a reputation as adrenaline junkies.
This is the perceiving process used most effectively by ESTPs, ESFPs, ISTPs, and ISFPs. The extroverts use it as their primary functions; the introverts use it as a co-pilot to support their dominant decision-making function.
Intuition
Intuitive types are primarily concerned with what could be. They focus on patterns and future possibilities, and would rather deal with theory and potential than something that’s already here. They are imaginative, original, and value achievement and inspiration.
Perspectives/Introverted Intuition (Ni)
When focused inward as the Perspectives process, an intuitive type is concerned with deep insights and understanding patterns that form inside their mind. Perspectives types are extremely creative, and analyze external data as well as internal thoughts and feelings to come to an understanding about how their minds work. We then use our self-insight to interpret life and promote understanding (as Isabel Myers puts it).
This is the perceiving process used most effectively by INFJs, INTJs, ENFJs, and ENTJs. The introverts use it as their primary functions; the extroverts use it as a co-pilot to support their dominant decision-making function.
Exploration/Extroverted Intuition (Ne)
Extroverted Intuition is also concerned with ideas, possibilities and a desire to understand, but it’s focus outward. Often, these types will perform experiments just to see what will happen. Personality Hacker calls this process Exploration because “the best pattern recognition system for the outer world is to mess with everything that can be messed with, and to explore, explore, explore.”
This is the perceiving process used most effectively by ENTPs, ENFPs, INTPs, and INFPs. The extroverts use it as their primary functions; the introverts use it as a co-pilot to support their dominant decision-making function.
When you’re browsing the internet reading about Myers-Briggs types, you’ll probably see people talking about “shadow functions.” This is a confusing concept, because people use the term “shadow” to refer to several different things related to personality types.
background photo credit: Georgie Pauwels, CC BY 2.0, via Flickr
Inferior Function
Every type in the Myers-Briggs system has what we call a “function stack,” which describes how they interact with the outer world, process information, and make judgements. There are 8 possible functions (extroverted and introverted versions of Sensing, Intuition, Feeling, and Thinking), and each types uses four functions:
Primary Function
Auxiliary Function
Tertiary Function
Inferior Function
The primary and auxiliary functions are the ones we use most comfortably, the tertiary function develops as we mature, and the inferior function is largely outside our conscious control. Much of what makes one type distinct from another has to do with how we use our particular combination of four functions. I have a blog post explaining exactly how the four-letter type relates to function stacks. I won’t take the time to repeat that information here, but here are a couple examples:
Disclaimer: some of the links in this post are affiliate links. This means that, at no additional cost to you, I will receive a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase on that website.
Often when you’re reading about functions, the “shadow” is treated as just another name for the “inferior function.” I’ve done that myself in several posts. This is also what Isabel Briggs Meyers implies in her book Gifts Differing.* She describes the shadow as “the product of the least-developed part, which a person rejects and disowns. The shadow uses relatively childish and primitive kinds of judgements and perceptions, not intentionally in the service of conscious aims” (Meyers, 1995, p.84). She doesn’t spend much time talking about the shadow, but I get the sense reading her description that she thinks it can include both the tertiary and the inferior function if they are not well developed.
The Jungian Shadow
The best resource I’ve found for explaining the role of inferior functions is the book Was That Really Me? by Naomi L. Quenk. In her introductory chapters, she addresses the concept of the inferior function and the shadow.
Many people confuse the inferior function with the concept of the shadow and use the terms interchangeably (Quenk, 1982). In Jung’s system, the shadow is an archetype, one of our innate modes of responding to important universal psychological realities. The shadow includes those things people are unable or unwilling to acknowledge about themselves, such as undesirable character traits, weaknesses, fears, and lapses in morality, or desirable qualities such as intelligence, attractiveness, and leadership skills. The shadow is a key component of a person’s personal unconscious, a layer of the psyche that is more accessible than its much larger counterpart, the collective unconscious. (Quenk, 2002, Was That Really Me?* p.49)
Quenk draws a distinction between the inferior function as a sort of “doorway” to our unconscious, and the shadow. Our shadow informs our inferior functions, but is not the inferior function itself. Together, our inferior function and the shadow make up our personal unconscious (Jung, 1970, Mysterium coniunctionis). This is made more confusing by the fact that Jung himself referred to the shadow as an “‘inferior’ personality.” He still draws a distinction between the fourth function and the shadow, though.
The individuation process is invariably started off by the patient’s becoming conscious of the shadow, a personality component usually with a negative sign. This ‘inferior’ personality is made up of everything that will not fit in with, and adapt to, the laws and regulations of conscious life. … Closer investigation shows that there is at least one function in it which ought to collaborate in orienting consciousness. Or rather, this function does collaborate, not for the benefit of conscious, purposive intentions, but in the interests of unconscious tendencies pursuing a different goal. It is this fourth, ‘inferior’ function which acts autonomously towards consciousness and cannot be harnessed to the latter’s intentions. (Jung, 1969, Psychology and Religion: West and East*
So, in Jungian psychology the shadow isn’t composed of any of our four functions. It is outside our conscious control, and shows up through our inferior function, which most of us don’t understand well or use effectively. It’s not necessarily bad but it often shows up as our “dark side,” the part of us that appears when we’re under stress. The shadow and inferior function are very much connected, but they are still different (even though we may use them interchangeably).
Four “Shadows”
One other explanation of shadow functions that you’ll occasionally see is a claim that each type uses all 8 functions. This theory describes the four functions that we just discussed as the “dominant processes” and the other 4 as the “shadow processes.” Using the same examples from before, it looks like this:
It’s basically a way to quantify our unconscious and describe how it manifests through our inferior function. However, I don’t think Jung assigned “functions” within the shadow or thought the unconscious could be understood in that way, and I haven’t read support for this theory of 8 functions from psychologists discussing the MBTI.
Probably the best way to understand the idea of a “shadow” is to say that it is the part of our personal unconscious that we have the most limited access to. We experience our shadow through our inferior function, which is a part of the unconscious that we can access more easily because it is still on our function stack. Usually it shows up in a negative way under stress, but there’s also a good side to explore as well.
But the shadow is merely somewhat inferior, primitive, unadapted, and awkward; not wholly bad. It even contains childish or primitive qualities which would in a way vitalize and embellish human existence, but — convention forbids! (Jung, 1969, Psychology and Religion: West and East)
People have been trying to use personality types to find their perfect romantic match since typology first became popular. In a previous posts about Myers-Briggs types and love languages, I talked about how falling in love — and staying in love — with someone is so much more complex than simply matching personality types. Sometimes when browsing personality type forums, I’ll come across posts from people asking how to find and attract a someone of a specific personality type (often it’s an ENTP asking for step-by-step instructions to win an INFJ, which I find hilarious). It’s like some of us think that if we can just find someone who is our ideal type-match, then we’ll be happy because we caught the mythical “compatibility” creature.
Disclaimer: some of the links in this post are affiliate links. This means that, at no additional cost to you, I will receive a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase on that website.
Now, I do have some personality types I find more attractive romantically than others, but it’s not always the types I’m “supposed” to like according to Myers-Briggs or Keirsey theories. Even Isabel Myers was happily married to a man who her theory said should have been incompatible. An understanding of love languages and a mutual willingness to understand and work with each other is one piece of the puzzle. Another is something I just learned this week from Personality Hacker.*
The “Genius System”
Personality Hacker was founded by Antonia Dodge and Joel Mark Witt, who use what they call the “Genius system” to divide Myers-Briggs types into four groups based on the last two letters in a person’s type. In terms of function stacks, this means they group types based on whether the type introverts or extroverts their Judging function. The groupings end up looking like this:
According to a new article on Personality Hacker, each of these groups look for and expressed love in a unique way. Most people would tell an INFJ to look for a relationship with an ENFP or an ENTP and avoid their opposite type, ESTP. This system stays that an ENFP and and ENTP express love in completely different ways, but ENTPs and ESTPs are actually very similar in how they love. That would explain why some INFJs find ENFPs really attractive, while others prefer ESTPs or ENTPs. It’s not so much about matching two specific types, as it is about finding types who express love in a way you relate to and understand. This Genius style take on the MBTI adds an intriguing aspect to the subject of personality types in relationships. You can check out the Personality Hacker podcast on how each type says “I Love You”* for a full explanation, but here’s my brief take on what this means:
Types of Love
“Harmony” types, who use Extroverted Feeling as their first or second function, feel loved when they are connected, safe, cared for, and accepted as their authentic selves. They express love in a similar way, by encouraging the people they love and keeping in touch with them. They are primarily concerned with harmonious relationships and emotional connection.
The types who use Introverted Feeling, “Authenticity” in the Genius System, highly value honesty in relationships. They feel loved when they know someone is being real with them and is supportive of their own authentic expressions. Authenticity types express love by giving people space to be themselves and being willing to work through problems in the relationship.
“Effectiveness” types, those who use Extroverted Thinking, value independence in relationship. They want to know that the person who loves them is supportive of their goals and can be trusted to function on their own. They are loyal and protective towards those they love, and give them room to be themselves.
Those who use Introverted Thinking, “Accuracy” types, feel loved when they are respected. They want to know that the person who is in love with them thinks they are impressive and that the relationship makes sense. In return, they are protective, non-judgmental, and strive to bring the best version of themselves to the relationship.
Matching Types
Ultimately, typology is simply a tool we can use to understand each other. When we understand ourselves and the people around us, we have a better idea of what we’re looking for in a romantic relationship. I think that’s really the best way to apply Myers-Briggs theory to romance. We can’t just say that all INFJs’ ideal match is an ENTP — people are far more nuanced than that, even within a type. But the better we understand how we’re wired and what makes us feel loved, the more likely we’ll be able to recognize whether a potential romantic partner would be a good or a bad match for us.
This is one of the things Debra Fileta talks about in her book and blog True Love Dates. You have to know yourself before you try to get to know other people in a romantic context, otherwise you have no idea what you’re looking for in a relationship. So maybe the first thing we should do when looking at the Genius System types is find which group we fit into. If we know who we are, we’re one step closer to knowing what we want.
The study is 20 years old, but I first became aware of it last week. In two days, I saw two different articles talking about falling in love and Dr. Arthur Aron’s “The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness.” (As an interesting side-note, this Dr. Aron is married to Dr. Elaine Aron, who we’ve talked about in connection to her research on Highly Sensitive Persons [HSPs].)
Aron’s study wasn’t actually intended to explore the science of falling in love — it was designed to study closeness and included both men-women and woman-woman pairs (because the sample group, a psychology class, was 70% women). The couples who fell in love were an unintended side-effect. Mandy Len Catron’s recent article “To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This,” which called attention back to this study, demonstrates that the principles Aron used for studying accelerated intimacy between strangers can be applied to romantic relationships.
It’s a fascinating idea, made even more fascinating when you read his published research paper (what can I say? I’m a nerd) and find out about some of his other results. Is there a difference in closeness for introverts and extroverts? Can you truly become close to someone in less than an hour? What is it that effectively increases closeness?
Introverts and Extroverts
One thing I found fascinating about this study, which wasn’t brought out in any of the other articles I read, was Dr. Aron’s observations on the role introversion and extroversion played. In Study 3, Dr. Aron had the participants take a Myers-Briggs test, then used those results to create extrovert-extrovert, extrovert-introvert, and introvert-introvert pairs. Some of the pairs were told the experiment’s goal was to get close to the person you were paired with, and the others were told the study was about “dyadic interaction” and their job was simply to work through the questions.
Extroverts reported closeness in all cases, but introverts only reported closeness when they were told that closeness was a goal. Dr. Aron says, “these data shed doubt on the view that introverts are less social because they are less skilled at getting close. Indeed, when getting close is made an explicit task, introverts became as close as extraverts.” When introverts want to get close to someone, we’re just as capable of socializing with them as extroverts.
Is It Real?
The experiment succeeded in producing a feeling of closeness between two people, but is that closeness as real as a relationship that develops over time? Of the 58 people who completed follow-up questionnaires, 57% had a least one more conversation with their study partner, 35% got together to do something, and 37% started sitting together in class. One couple got married 6 months after the study.
So are we producing real closeness? Yes and no. We think that the closeness produced in these studies is experienced as similar in many important ways to felt closeness in naturally occurring relationships that develop over time. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the procedure produces loyalty, dependence, commitment, or other relationship aspects that might take longer to develop.
In one of Dr. Aron’s tests, he paired individuals with shared interests, and individuals who shouldn’t have gotten along well based on their different responses to a questionnaire. He also conducted tests where pairs were assigned without filling out pre-tests to determine whether or not they were compatible. In all cases, participants reported similar levels of closeness. That indicates we can rapidly feel close with just about anyone, but on the long-term this closeness might not last because other considerations (like whether or not you share important values) will eventually come up.
Small Talk’s Not Enough
One thing Aron’s research found was that small-talk doesn’t do anything to bring people closer together (which I’m sure many of us have suspected for years). Talking about things people had done, what they liked and disliked, or other people they knew did not produce closeness between the two study participants. Here are some examples of the small-talk prompts used in his study:
If you could invent a new flavor of ice cream, what would it be?
Do you like to get up early or stay up late? Is there anything funny that has resulted from this?
What is the last concert you saw? How many of that band’s albums do you own? Had you seen them before? Where?
In contrast, the types of questions which did draw people closer together focused on how they feel about the way they live their lives, why they think the way they do, and what helps them connect with other people. Here are a few examples, and you can read the full list of closeness-generating questions at the end of his published research paper (which I linked in the intro), or by clicking this link.
What would constitute a perfect day for you?
Is there something that you’ve dreamt of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?
Tell your partner what you like about them: be honest this time, saying things that you might not say to someone you’ve just met.
Maybe there is a reason people devote so much time to small talk, which we introverts find so frustrating because we crave deep conversations. If we were having deep conversations with everyone, though, we’d feel very close to a lot more people. Maybe small talk protects us in a way, though it can also hinder genuine conversation.
Some Thoughts
Now that I’ve read about this research, part of me would really like to try it out and part of me thinks it sounds scary. I always thought that love is a choice, but there’s a part of me that feels like falling in love should just happen, then once you commit to the relationship you choose to keep loving each other. But Dr. Aron’s research indicates that you can choose who you become close to in the first place, and you can reach a level of closeness in less than an hour that approaches closeness you feel for people you’ve known many years. I think I’d be rather picky about who I went through these questions with, but it might be a great way to let yourself be vulnerable and open up possibilities in a relationship.
After many years of being intrigued by personality types, and Myers-Briggs in particular, I am finally reading Isabel Briggs Myers’ book, Gifts Differing. I wish I’d read it sooner — aspects of the theory that it took me years to learn about through casual reading are all explained in chapter 1. I wish I’d stumbled across an article talking about what all those letters actually mean earlier, or that I’d thought to read the book.
Since the best way to really learn something is to teach it, and in order to write the article I wish I’d read years ago, here is my own version of an introduction to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
Disclaimer: some of the links in this post are affiliate links. This means that, at no additional cost to you, I will receive a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase on that website.
Note: All quotations are from the 1995 reprint of Gifts Differing.*
Judging and Perceiving.
As Isabel Myers explains it, the principle behind typology is to understand how and why other people’s minds work differently from our own. In chapter one, she says, “the theory is that much seemingly chance variation in human behavior is not due to chance; it in in fact the logical result of a few basic, observable differences in mental functioning.”
Myers-Briggs typology, and Jungian psychology, say that people have two main psychological “functions” which they develop and use to understand the world and interact with other people. The perceiving function includes “the process of becoming aware of things, people, occurrences, and ideas.” Intuition (N) and sensing (S) are two different ways of perceiving. The judging function “includes the process of coming to conclusions about what has been perceived.” Thinking (T) and feeling (F) are two different ways of judging.
As children grow, they start to use one way of perceiving (sensing or intuition) and one way of judging (thinking or feeling) more than the other. They become comfortable with the preferred perceiving and judging functions, and learn to use them much more effectively than the neglected function. This results in four possible combinations: sensing plus thinking (ST), sensing plus feeling (SF), intuition plus feeling (NF), and intuition plus thinking (NT).
Finding Dominant Functions
Isabel Myers says that in Jungian psychology, introversion (I) and extroversion (E) refers to whether people orient their lives around the inner world of concepts and ideas or the outer world of people and things. Every healthy person uses both introversion and extroversion, but there will be one with which they are most comfortable. This relates to the Sensing-Intuition and Thinking-Feeling functions by dictating whether a person’s dominant function is introverted or extroverted (more on that in a moment).
The last letter in a Myers-Briggs type refers to whether a person uses a perceptive (P) or a judging (J) “attitude as a way of life, a method of dealing with the world around us.” People use both a perceiving and a judging function; one extroverted and one introverted. If a person is a perceptive type, then their perceiving preference (S or N) will be extroverted. If a person is a judging type, their judging preference (T or F) will be extroverted.
Since the Judging-Perceiving preference only refers to outer behavior, it most easily observed in Extraverts. For example, an ENFJ will extrovert their judging function and use extroverted feeling (Fe) to interact with the outer world. Because they are an extrovert, this also makes Fe their dominant function. It is supported by an auxiliary perceiving function: introverted intuition (Ni). Dominant and auxiliary functions are a bit more complicated for introverts. An ISTP type will extrovert their perceiving function and use extroverted sensing (Se). However, since they are an introverted type, their dominant function is introverted thinking (Ti) and Se is their auxiliary function . The function they use the most is a judging one, but when they interact with the outer world they use perception.
Putting The Letters Together
It is far too simplistic to take each individual letter in a Myers-Briggs type separately. To say an INFJ is an introvert/intuitive/feeler/judger misses what the MBTI can tell us about how they look at the world with Ni and how they formulate judgements with Fe, and which of those they do most easily. It also passes over the fact that introverts sometimes use extroversion and that extraverts sometimes use introversion. That’s why the short Myers-Briggs style tests you might find online that line-up descriptions of Extravert-Introvert, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving and then have people choose which one is most “like them” can be an incorrect assessment of a person’s type.
One other thing to add about Myers-Briggs types is that Isabel Briggs Myers never intended for these types to be used to make people feel “boxed in” to their personality type or to infringe on a person’s right to self-determination. An ENTP, for example has “already exercised this right by preferring E and N and T and P.” Myers-Briggs type is a tool for better understanding who we have already chosen to be, and for learning to relate to and better understand people who think differently than us.
Update 6/7/2016: Since publishing this post, I’ve become increasingly unsatisfied with MBTI charts that try to find a character from a film or TV series to fit each type. Not every one of the 16 types appears in a given film or show and many charts (including mine here) include incorrect/forced typings. I leave this post here for archival purposes, and may do an up-dated LOTR chart in the future.
With the The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug coming out this past weekend, I thought it was time to release my Lord of the Rings MBTI chart. My original idea was make this my 111th blog post so there would also be a tie-in with Bilbo’s fateful birthday party, but after missing some posts I decided just to release it now. This was inspired by the Star Wars chart by Geek in Heels that has been going around the social media sites, and I’m grateful to her for the idea.
I admit not every one of these characters fit perfectly where I put them. This is partly because typing fictional characers is always subjective, partly because I’m not an expert, and partly because there just don’t seem to be that many extroverts in Tolkein’s world. I also wanted to give everyone a good-guy character that they could relate to, which is why you don’t see people like Sauromon or Denethor on this chart (this is for you, INTJs). I do mention them in the discussion below. For the sake of convenience and consistency, I’ve grouped the 16 Myers-Briggs types into the four categories used by David Keirsey’s Temperament Sorter. You can take his test here, or try out an online test that will give you an idea of your Myers-Briggs type here or here.
What follows is an explanation of why I chose each type for these particular characters, so you can see the reasoning behind my choices and pick-apart my ideas if you disagree 🙂 Since there are so many characters in Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, I’ve also mentioned other characters which might share each type. For the following information about cognitive functions and different Myers-Briggs types, I rely heavily on Dr. A. J. Drenth’s Personality Junkie website. For the sake of time, I’m mainly focused on the first two functions in each type’s function stack.
Tolkein’s Guardians
Supervisor (ESTJ) — Boromir
Extroverted thinking (Te) is an ESTJ’s dominant function. This makes ESTJs quick to express their ideas, usually in the form of judgements and measurable goals. Take, for example, Boromir’s eagerness to speak out at the Counsel of Elrond and his insistence that his plan for using the ring was the right one. An ESTJ’s auxiliary function is Introverted Sensing (Si). Supporting Te, this can make ESTJ’s appear stubborn because they prefer life to be predictable.They like tradition rather than change — “Gondor has no king. Gondor needs no king.”
Inspector (ISTJ) — Aragorn
Most characters seem to have fairly consistent personalities between the books and the films. Aragorn may be an exception. It’s been a while since I read Lord of the Rings, but I think if I was typing Aragorn from the books he might be an extravert. I’ve also seen the film version typed as an INTJ, an ISFx, and an ISxP.
Si is an ISTJ’s first function. Like ESTJs, this makes them interested in preserving old ways of doing things and resistant to change. For Aragorn, you can see this in his conflict about whether to take his rightful place as king or leave things the way they are. As an auxiliary function, Te manifests itself as a tendency for ISTJs to think out loud and share their ideas and plans. They like order and control, and this helps make Aragorn an efficient and effective leader.
Other ISTJs: this might be a good match for Treebeard — I would definitely describe him as an introverted Guardian type.
Provider (ESFJ) — Bilbo
Keirsey calls providers “the most sociable of all Guardians” and says they are “friendly, outgoing, [and] neighborly” to the point that they become “restless when isolated from people.” He also adds that they are careful to remember birthdays. Starting to sound like a hobbit?
An ESFJ’s primary function is Extroverted Feeling (Fe). This makes them quick to express their opinions and judgements, though they like to do this in a way that maintains peaceful social functions. Note how Bilbo responds to the arrival of all the dwarves — he is not shy about letting them know what he thinks about their unexpected arrival, yet he still plays the perfect host. Like other types with Si as an auxiliary function, ESFJs can become set in their ways and comfortable with routine (which is what makes him appear introverted when he is upset about being disturbed by company).
Protector (ISFJ) — Sam
Not many fictional characters are as easy to type as Samwise Gamge. He is the perfect ISFJ. Like the ISTJ, an ISFJ’s primary function is Si and they tend to resist change and be comfortable with traditional ways of doing things. They tend to settle down and be comfortable with routine (Sam never considered leaving The Shire until Frodo went on his quest). With Fe as an auxiliary function, ISFJs are very people-oriented and attuned to the needs of others, especially their close friends. They have a strong sense of responsibility and loyalty, and readily serve others — “Come on, Mr. Frodo. I can’t carry it for you… but I can carry you!”
Tolkein’s Artisans
Promoter (ESTP) — Gimli
Gimli might not seem an obvious choice for the ESTP character, since they are often charming, life-of-the-party types who enjoy stylish dressing and living well. But translate all that into a dwarf, and I’d say Gimli probably thinks fits the description. Extroverted Sensing (Se) is an ESTP’s primary function. This tends to make them seek out thrills, take risks, and flirt with danger (“Certainty of death, small chance of success… What are we waiting for?”). They also love food, drink, and merry making — which you can see in Gimli as he celebrates after the Battle of Helm’s Deep. Introverted Thinking (Ti) is his auxiliary function, and he can become serious and intense when called upon to make decisions or deal with feelings.
Crafter (ISTP) — Eowyn
According to Dr. A. J. Drenth, there are about three times as many ISTP men as women. Perhaps this is one reason Eowyn felt so out of place. An ISTP has the same functions as an ESTP, but reversed so Ti is first and Se is second. Keirsey calls them “crafters” because they have an impressive ability to master the use of tools. For Eowyn, the tools she chooses to focus on are weapons, and she is an accomplished fighter. ISTPs love action, crave excitement, and feel frustrated if they can’t act impulsively. They prefer to show their feelings through actions rather than words (Eowyn making soup for Aragorn and wanting to fight at his side).
Other ISTPs: Thorin — man of few words, inwardly thoughtful, physically active and skilled with weapons. Also known as one of several dwarves who make me want to cry every time they are on-screen because I know what’s going to happen to them in the next film 😦
Bonus round: My cousin and I were talking last night about what type Smaug might be. I decided on introvert, since he is so comfortable with being alone, and SP since they are the types most likely to be both concerned with physical wealth and unconcerned with what people think of how they acquire that wealth. He’s not caring or people-oriented, which rules out ISFP. So, I’m going with narcissistic ISTP in dragon-form.
Performer (ESFP) — Pippin
Pippin was the first character I added to the chart. I keep picturing him dancing on a table and singing “The only brew for the brave and true comes from the green dragon!” Performers/ESFPs are talkative, engaging, like to be around people, and become the center of attention wherever they go. Like the ESTP, they enjoy good food and drink and will rush into things without stopping to weigh the consequences (asking “Where are we going?” after joining the Fellowship). Introverted Feeling (Fi) is his auxiliary function, and that adds a seriousness to Pippin’s character which is not readily visible (because usually introverted). It shows up during the siege of Minas Tirith.
Composer (ISFP) — Arwen
Though they share functions with ESFPs (Fi and Se), ISFPs tend to look very different. They are people-oriented, caring deeply for others and having a heightened sensitivity to suffering. This can be seen in Arwen’s deep attachment to Aragorn, her willingness to risk the Ringwraiths to save Frodo’s life, and starting to waste away because of “the evil that now spreads from Mordor.” She’s not as playful as typical SP types are usually described, but I think part of that is the fact that she is an elf and that Fi (which seems emotionally mature and serious) is her dominant function.
Tolkein’s Idealists
Teacher (ENFJ) — Faramir
I had such a hard time deciding who to put on the chart for this personality type. I’m not entirely convinced Faramir fits, but he’s the closest I could up with and the more I think about it the more I think this might be right. Extroverted Feeling (Fe) as a primary function means that an ENFJ’s sense of self is largely tied-up in their relationships with others. Growing up with Denethor constantly belittling him would have been devastating for little ENFJ Faramir, and would contribute to making him less sure of himself than a typical ENFJ. However, you can still see ENFJ traits of good leadership and an intuitive understanding of people when you look at the loyalty Faramir’s men have for him and his encounter with Frodo and Sam. His Introverted Intuition (Ni) helps explain why Faramir went with his gut feeling and let Frodo and Sam go.
Other ENFJs: Watching The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug yesterday made me think Balin might be an example of a mature ENFJ character.
Galadriel seems like a fairly standard INFJ character — otherworldly, introverted, wise, cares about others. INFJs have such a strong intuition that even some human INFJs report visions much akin to Galadriel’s and the feeling that they could almost be telepathic. As an elf in a fantasy world, Galadriel really is telepathic and can glimpse the future. She can also see right through people to discern their motives, as shown by her reaction to Boromir (or more tellingly, his reaction to her). They appear serious on the outside and are usually content to passively observe until they feel moved to speak. For more on INFJs, see this post.
Champion (ENFP) — Merry
With Extroverted Intuition (Ne) instead of sensing as his dominant function, Merry is more serious and given to reflection than Pippin. Unlike most hobbits, Merry is open-minded about the outside world and restless. He joins Frodo’s quest not just for the change of pace but because he recognizes the importance of destroying the ring. His commitment to fighting with the Rohirim and supporting Eowyn is typical of the ENFP championing causes they believe in.
Healer (INFP) — Frodo
In spite of the memes going around showing Frodo as an INFJ, he is generally considered an INFP by people who are more serious about their typology hobby. Fi is an INFP’s dominant function, and like ISFPs their emotions run deep. They are loyal to their friends and enjoy people, though at the same time can become loners who like to spend time in the outdoors. Sharing Ne (as their auxiliary function) with ENFPs, INFPs are also interested in championing causes. In the INFP’s case, they seek to heal conflicts and bring the world into a state of goodness.
Tolkein’s Rationalists
Fieldmarshal (ENTJ) — Eomer
ENTJs are natural leaders, and often find themselves in command even without seeking it. When leadership skills are encouraged, as with Eomer being trained to fight and lead, they become skilled commanders. Te as a primary function means ENTJs like order and rationality and planning is one of their strengths. They will respect authority to a point, but disobey orders if they feel the situation calls for it (Eomer standing up to Wormtongue). Ni adds a reliable gut instinct. Others might see them as hurried, wanting people to “cut to the chase,” and abrupt when making judgments (see the scene where Eomer meets and rapidly interrogates Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas).
Other ENTJs: Possibly Theodin. I’m not sure.
Mastermind (INTJ) — Eldrond
I asked my INTJ sister who she thought might share her type in LOTR, and this is who she thought of. The primary function Ni gives them a view of the big picture and a keen insight for how the world works. Unlike INFJs, though, they use Te as an auxiliary function which makes them theorists who always have a plan or two (Plan A: send Arwen to the Undying lands. Plan B: reforge the sword and make Aragorn king). They often appear as aloof intellectuals and share a natural bent for leadership with ENTJS, but prefer to stay in the background until called upon to take charge for a short while (Counsel of Elrond).
Other INTJs: Masterminds make excellent villains, which I suppose would be why I’ve seen all the main villains typed as INTJs at one point or another. Saruman and Sauron I can see as INTJs, but I’m not convinced about Grima Wormtongue and Denethor.
Inventor (ENTP) — Gandalf
Gandalf is another character people don’t agree on how to type. I’ve seen him variously classified as an INTJ (most often), INTP, INFJ, and ENTP. I tend to lean toward this last one. He’s not focused enough to be an INTJ and instead of taking charge at a crucial moment, he steps back from leadership and says “Let the Ring-bearer decide” whether or not to go through the Mines of Moria.
As an ENTP, Ne is his primary function. He is curious, likes to collect data and use it to discover patterns, can see both sides of an issue, and uses his inventiveness to work with people as well as try to change social systems. Dr. Drenth says they “brainstorm aloud” and “may not always seem to ‘have a point,’” which Gandalf will do for page after page in the book. Auxiliary Ti gives him a respect for logic and reason. ENTPs are typically non-conformist and have many friends (enjoys Bilbo’s party, knows people all over Middle Earth).
Architect (INTP) — Legolas
An INTP’s primary function is Ti, followed by Ne as the auxiliary function. Kiersey notes that it is hard for them to listen to discussions without pointing out a speaker’s error (Legolas correcting Boromir at the Counsel of Elrond), and they would rather talk about ideas than about daily events or people. They are highly disciplined, which can help them achieve proficiency with something like archery, and also makes them appear serious.
UPDATE: Several people have pointed out (here and on other sites) that typing Legolas as an INTP is … controversial. For me, he is a hard character to type, and I’m not entirely sure about labeling him an INTP. I’m not sure what else to call him, though, or who else in LOTR might qualify as an INTP. Any thoughts?
Further Reading
There are a few other bloggers I found who did Myers-Briggs typologies for Lord of the Rings Characters. Sometimes my types agree with theirs, sometimes we interpret things a little differently. Here are their websites:
.* She describes the shadow as “the product of the least-developed part, which a person rejects and disowns. The shadow uses relatively childish and primitive kinds of judgements and perceptions, not intentionally in the service of conscious aims” (Meyers, 1995, p.84). She doesn’t spend much time talking about the shadow, but I get the sense reading her description that she thinks it can include both the tertiary and the inferior function if they are not well developed.
* p.49)
*
Bonus round: My cousin and I were talking last night about what type Smaug might be. I decided on introvert, since he is so comfortable with being alone, and SP since they are the types most likely to be both concerned with physical wealth and unconcerned with what people think of how they acquire that wealth. He’s not caring or people-oriented, which rules out ISFP. So, I’m going with narcissistic ISTP in dragon-form.
Like An Anchor 