So one of the things about Meyers-Briggs is that it's better for ascribing a motivation to a character's behavior and world view and how he or she will interact with other characters. This is similar to the DnD's alignment grid in that for each intersection of characteristics (Meyer's brigs 4 personality traits and DnD aligment's Lawful vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil) there are a variety of interpretations that can classify a character under these categories.

For example, the traditional Paladin problem of coming to a point where the Law is in conflict with the Moral Good. (If a Paladin does not act both in a Lawful manner and a good manner he will loses his powers from his patron god). For example, the Paladin swears an oath to a King that requires him to render aide in enforcing the laws of the land. One thief in line for the punishment stole a loaf of bread to feed his family. The law states that any thief who is unable to repay for the lost property to those who he has stolen from shall be put to death. How does the Paladin respond? His god will be displeased if he is needlessly cruel in his punishment or if he breaks his oath. His Oath requires him to uphold a law that is needlessly cruel. And the man can only die for his crime because the he stole cause he had no money to feed his family, and thus cannot pay for the bread nor return it, as it has been eaten. The player must make a choice of whether his oath to a god supersedes his oath to a mortal, or his oath to a mortal succeeds his requirement to be good because the oath to enforce the law, which he had no hand in writing. Both are good reasons to excuse either action and a reasonably justified as to how he seperate morality from legality.

A third Paladin might use the law against the law. He could say he cannot execute a man without giving him a last meal. Since there is no law on last meals, he also offers to buy it so the King will not be seen to spend tax dollars on feeding a law breaker. He then goes to the baker the thief robbed and buys a loaf of bread and tells the baker to "Keep the change" which the Baker accepts. The Paladin then declares that he will not execute the thief because the law says murder is illegal. When told the law allows the execution, he points out the Bread he bought for the thief was half of what the bread was worth and therefor the baker has been compensated to the tune of the stolen bread. The King said that since since paid for the stolen bread, the thief now owes him, but then the Paladin responds that since he made a donation to the thief, and as such, the thief did not unlawfully take the money as it was given to him as a gift. As was the loaf that he bought for the thief is was for a last meal, the Paladin again counters that the Last Meal was not part of the demands of his god, nor were there any rules in the law that bound him on how he should handle the feast... he can do good not required by oath or law because it's good.

The challenge with the thing is justifying your actions in a way that satisfies both the requirements of being Lawful and being good, which can conflict. The idea of the third option actually comes from a character who was lawful in all actions... but always to his own benefit: Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean.

In his parley with Elizabeth, Barbossa agrees to her terms to leave and never come back, but refuses to return Elizabeth to her town. Elizabeth demands her safe return, citing this as part of the rules of Parley in the Pirates Code, Barbossa throws the rules back at her: First, he points out that the Pirate Code only applies to Pirates, which Elizabeth is not. While they do not forbid Barbossa to negotiate with non-pirates, they aren't bound to honor the rules of Parley as defined in the Code. He then points out that he could choose to honor Elizabeth's terms on his own without interfering with the code, which he has done: Elizabeth told him to leave and never comeback, which he is honoring. Taking Elizabeth back would make him break their agreement. Finally he points out that even if she were a pirate, the code is rather weak on binding enforcement. Pirates being law breakers by nature, wrote the Code Specifically as a tool to use to their benefit only... if the code doesn't work to their benefit, they can break it without much punitive recourse.

This isn't the only time Elizabeth gets bested by the Pirates, as later in the movie, she tries to motivate friendlier pirates to break the rule that "those who fall behind are left behind", citing that the code is more like guidelines then rules. Of course this fails, as the Code may say it's a guideline, not a rule, nothing in the code says it can't be used as a rule. After all, if any rule can be suspended when it is to your benefit, then the rule about suspending rules can also be suspended when it is to your benefit.

Myers-Brig is similarly a guideline to understanding a characters behaviour motivation, but not to rigidly dictate behavior, which is driven by this motivation in many ways. For example, the INTJ (as a real life example, I've read about it the most) is usually given a list of several historical and fictional characters of INTJ. Some famous fictional INTJs are Emperor Palpatine (from Star Wars) and Sherlock Holmes. Both characters exhibit traits of characters who privately assess all possible data on a topic they can get and then set up their plans in a way that they are actually several steps ahead of their foe. Both see personal relationships in a way that are only tolerated in that they Benefit them (Sherlock's friend of John Watson started in that Watson, a military doctor who has seen combat, provides skills that are beneficial to Holmes, who wants to solve crimes and is much more socially apt at dealing with people then Holmes cares to be. Palpatine, has little qualms with dismissing his apprentices if they no longer can serve his needs and will always look to the better of two candidates. Darth Vader both replaced and was going to be replaced in this manner, and in both cases, Palpatine only turned on the previous apprentice when he was bested by the successor.) As discussed in Palpatines personal relationships, both had a very low tolerance of useless or inefficient things. In one story, Watson lists Holmes skills and defficencies at length and explains that Holmes could tell down to the street what parts of London someone had been in based on soil samples from the person's boot, and yet did no know that the Earth revolved around the sun, because that factoid is rarely useful to solving London crimes.

Both were experts at a style of leadership that got their underlings to do exactly what they wanted, and make the underlings seem like it was their idea. Palpatine never told Anakin to turn to the Dark Side, but rather, manipulated Anakin through a logical and rational discussion (You cannot save your wife and be a jedi) while Holmes, in some stories, manipulates Watson into joining him by playing on his own needs (In the BBC's story, Holmes uses Sherlock's inability to demobilize his mindset from war to hook Watson on the adventure and danger of investigating crimes). If they become leadership, it is not actively sought, but thrusted upon them by peers who recongize them as the most capable person for the task. Palpatine is named Chancellor because he specifically identifies why the last chancellor was not right for the job, and even then, none of his attacks are emotional pleas to the character of the predecessor, but logical expectations of the role that are not being met. He is so good at this job that in episode II, he is supported for terms in excess of what is ordinarily allowed, and in III he is applauded when he assumes the office of Emperor for Life. Similarly the quickest way for the finicky Sherlock to take the case is for LeStrange, the Scotland Yard chief, to only Sherlock is clever enough to solve it. Sherlock will refuse if he suspects Lestrange and his men are capable of closing the case without him.

If we extend to the fictional characters who are INTJ to more heroes and villains, we can also include in the number both Gil Grissom from CSI and Thanos from the Marvel Cinimatic Universe. In both cases, the characters are hardly black and white good or evil characters. In fact, these characters are not devoid of emotions, but they are also not driven by them. In Grissom's case, his colleagues often note that Grissom is a machine like personality on the job, and rarely responds to an emotional appeal. When they see him off the job, they find out he's a nut for Roller Coasters and is positively giddy about them, even joking with one employee he takes a ride with that the employee's reaction to the coaster ride will impact the employee review. In a later case where his passion and his job intersect, Grissom is still able to compartmentalize his Roller Coaster and persue the evidence where it leads him, even to investigating a witness who shares his passion. Thanos, similarly, is motivated by his desire to solve the overpopulation problem in a way that does not show favoritism. And he is a devoted father to his six adopted children and at various points in the movie, he is shown to deeply care for their well being. Even when his children actively show their hatred of Thanos, he still loves them and reacts not out of anger but disappointment. In his scene with Gamora in his throne room, he is able to calmly explaining his decision in a logical manor while his favorite daughter is emotionally protesting. And he explains that while the emotional argument isn't factored into his solution, he fully understands her side of the argument and anticipates this response (the second film opens with him countering such a motivated person from undoing his work). The compartmentalization of Passion that makes Grissom a hero also makes Thanos a villain, but one with a very compelling argument. Thanos' solution may be wrong, but he isn't wrong about the fact that the problem does exist and there can be no difficult solution to it that won't cause pain. His just causes the least amount of pain, and he'll have to shoulder a good deal of it. When he finally gathers all the stones and pulls it off, five of his six children are confirmed dead, and he commiserates with Scarlett Witch, a person who is suffering because she also lost a loved one because of him. He understands that they may disagree on the logic of his actions... but he fully knows his actions do have emotional weight that others cannot dismiss.

Again, all of these characters are one of a single category of the Myers-Brig and the rarest one in reality at that. The Myers-Brig test does not inform their or shape their world view, their goals, and their priorities. It does inform us that they are operating on a similar logical processing of information and that their response to that input follows from a similar core process ability.

It's also not a static catagory either. I've taken the test and gotten other scores because, in my mood at test time, I might answer a question differently and it affects the outcome (I frequently flip-flop between INTJ and ENTJ, which are mostly similar). And that some traits do not think what it might mean. For example, I'm an introvert, but I'm not shy. Introvert means I get an emotional recharge from having moments of inward reflection on my thoughts and processing them at my own speed. Conversely, my boyfriend is an extrovert, but not outgoing. He's not the best at striking up a conversation in a social setting, but he does get agitated with me if I am not giving him attention for long period of times, and will seek me out for attention if it goes too long.

Extroversion and Introversion are not the same thing as Outgoing vs. Shy, though they tend to put out similar responses. An extrovert will be frustrated that he or she is ignored when they are trying to start up an engaging topic of conversation much like an outgoing person, who wants to meet people and talk. An Introvert will be frustrated by an intrusion on his down time, and will respond by subtly trying to end the intrusion, much like a shy person, who is intimidated by a conversation with people they do not know.

As a TL;DR conclusion, the Meyers-Brig is a good guide to anticipating your character's expected response to a given situation, but it's not a hard rule that must be followed. Rather, overcoming the limits of a personality type and difficulties they have with dealing with others could be just as good of a plot as finding a creative solution that doesn't betray the core driving motives of the characters, especially when the problem seems like it's going to be a problem with some intersection of two drives. The INTJ initially seems like a person who doesn't lead, but the truth is that if you can get one to lead you, they aren't a bad leader at all and will tolerate all your weird quirks so long as you get results. But they're also great villains, because if they have it out for you, you can bet they're going to know you almost as well as you know yourself... if not better and they are experts at making it seem like you have them on the ropes, when in fact, they have the ropes around your neck.

Myers-Brigs is better to think of as like the CPU of the computer. Sure, you have different makes and models of CPUs, but that doesn't inform us of what we're going to see when we turn on the monitor... it just tells us why we are seeing that response.

---

(0)

Login to post a comment!