Pen & Sword, Book & Shield

Introverts are notorious for having their noses in books, not that we all actually do. I was recently reflecting on this though and realised that although I love reading, my habit of carrying a book with me wherever I go has a much more practical motivation. It acts as a shield.

Introverts generally dislike engaging others unessessarily, which of course includes all the random interactions one might have with other people while out and about during the day. Comments by others in line with us, small talk with the clerk at the register, people waiting with us at the cross-walk, in the break room, at the water fountain, in the hall, on the bus, before class starts, etc. etc. There are people everywhere, and most of them are extroverts who are wired to seek interaction, so they make eye contact, they smile, and they talk to whatever people they run into during the day. They think aloud to whomever is listening, and thus end up striking up conversations. They are focused on others around them and feel more comfortable when they can share the connection of conversation with them.

All these interactions tend to rattle and annoy Introverts. They are, in contrast, wired to not get involved, to respect personal space, to mind their own business. Most of us wouldn't dream of interrupting someone else's private thoughts or conversations, because to us that's just rude. We never assume someone else wants to be talked to, because we often don't. Whether we're enjoying staring at the scenery in silence, or busy thinking about things we're usually not very interested in being interrupted, particularly by someone we don't know and will never see again.

And that's where books come in so handy. Extroverts tend to interpret any unoccupied person as someone who is bored, lonely, and up for talking. Which can be very aggrivating to Introverts who enjoy going places alone and are perfectly happy just staring off into space on their own. So to fend off would-be talkers we avoid eye-contact, stare at our feet in a morose fashion, study the contents of our bag far too intently, and Read. We pull out our book and hold it up in front of our face, sometimes even when we don't even feel like reading, because this says "I'm busy" to all but the most decidedly extroverted people. While reading we can reasonably pretend not to hear others around us, even when they try to get our attention. When reading we don't have to smile at others, and we don't have to make ridiculously boring comments about the weather. A book provides a kind of invisible bubble aound us, separating us from the rest of the crowd, counting us out. With our book sheild we don't have to be rude by cutting short people's well meant efforts at conversation. A book generally deflects the attention of those looking for a conversation to pass the time and leaves us with blessed peace and relative solitude (if not of body, at least of mind).

And so we arm ourselves with a book when preparing to brave the masses.

It is also worth noting that the Introvert's dislike of conversation often extends even to his friends. Of course this isn't to say that Introverts don't ever enjoy conversation, they do most certainly with the right people at the right time. But Introverts also tend to really enjoy communication through writing. In writing one has a chance to stop and think about, and check and rephrase things, rather than just blurting them out before the conevrsation passes on. In writing everyone gets to say everything he intended to, because there is no interruption of a letter. In writing it may be easier to talk about 'deep' things, things other than the immediate surroundings and situation, things which might be harder to figure out how to express or explain. In writing one doesn't have to worry about how the other person is percieving your initial reaction. In writing you don't have to read, or respond, at the time chosen by the other person, you can choose a time when you're mind is ready to engage. In writing, the letters on the page are every bit as 'loud and clear' as anyone else's letters are, so there is no worry of being drowned out by a louder voice. Many introverts find it much esier to express their thoughts clearly in writing, rather than in on-the-spot conversation, and many find it easier to face a topic of controvesy or strong feelings through writing because in person they tend to be at a disadvantage with their quieter, meeker 'presence' which tends to cause them to be overlooked or disregarded. And so it is, that we write notes and type emails when others would just talk.

Surprisingly

Given the J's need for scheduals, planning, and organization, and their general uncomfortablity with the spontaneous, one would expect them to dislike surprises. This is probably true, for the most part. Yet surprisingly, my mother, who is an SJ, likes things like surprise birthday parties. While, unsurprisingly, she gets very flustered when things don't go according to her plan and must struggle to switch gears, when it's a special occasion different rules seem to apply.

I think I may have an idea as to why a J, particularly an SJ, could actually like surprises under certain circumstances. My mother, in true SJ form, turns everything into a duty in her mind. She likes to plan out everything that needs to be done, and then duely worry about getting it done untill it's finnished. Her daily list or schedual acts as an invisible taskmaster nagging her when things are not crossed off and patting her on the back once they are. She feels a sense of satisfaction when everything is finnished that she has determined needs to get done. Even if it was something "frivolous" like walking down to Dairy Queen for a cone, she approaches it more like work than play, and seems to be just as satisfied by marking it off the list as she was by the actual activity.

And this is where surprises come in. I think someone like my mother can like surprises because they don't have to do any of the planning and worrying. Thus the activity feels more like play.

SJs have a hard time approaching things in a carefree or playful way, and they usually feel guilty about planning things they enjoy for themselves. They have an incredible sense of duty toward others, and may do a lot to make sure others are happy, but don't feel comfortable spending time on things that aren't in some way an obligation. The fact is that they need others to plan their fun for them in order to really be able to enjoy it. The minute they get their hands on the planning, they have issues with needing to rationalize the fun, with worrying about everything going smoothly, with trying to make sure everyone else involved is taken care of even moreso than themselves, and turning the whole thing into a chore or obligation in their minds. Some of them may feel bad about accepting the kind intentions of others, but they are much more likely to let go and enjoy things when they realise that this time someone else is looking out for them. SJs are used to feeling like they have to do all the work while other people play and procrastinate, so planning a fun surprise for an SJ will remind them that people do remember and appreciate them. And if they just can't get past the need for a sense of duty, they can always feel obligated to have a good time so that everyone else's efforts won't be in vain.

An important detail to note is that in the event of a surprise party or outing planned for them, a J person can still rest assured that there is a plan, that someone knows what's going on and how it's all going to work. This helps them a great deal, and they can usually abdicate their need to keep controll of their life to the person who has kindly planned this event for them. They trust this other person to see that everything runs smoothly. They may also have, in a sense, planned for someone to surprise them if they know a special date is coming up, and thus may not be totally thrown off guard.

Introversion, Shyness, and Wierdness

A very important distinction to undestand in regards to personality is that Introversion and Shyness are actually two different things, although they may look very similar in action. Both Introverts and Extroverts can be shy.

First, Let's Take a Look at What it Means to Be Shy:
Shy people are afraid of interacting socially, even when they really want to. They will stand on the edge of a conversation trying to work up the nerve to interject, but feel too nervous or intimidated to do so. They have a deep conviction that people do not (or will not) like them. If they have been picked on, which often is the case, they seem to accept the superiority complex of bullies as being legitimate. They seem to view and approach others as if everyone else is better than them and expect to be looked down upon and barely tollerated in every encounter. They feel like they don't matter to other people while at the same time those people's reactions to them mean a great deal to them. Think about meeting some famous person or historic figure you really admire - that's how meeting just any Joe off the street feels to someone who is shy.

Nearly everyone seems intimidating to a Shy person and they both fear and expect the displeasure of others. They long to connect with them but feel unable to, and especially if they are extroverts, may spend a lot of their time following in the wake of people they would like to get to know, hungrily observing them, but never able to sieze the chance to join in. When presented with a chance to be introduced or to join in an activity they may squirm and stutter and avoid eyecontact. Their awkwardness often causes them to embarrase themselves, or at least to immagine that they have done so, and they often quickly dash for cover after the humiliating encounter. This of course confirms in thier minds their inadiquacy and makes them even more wary of social situations.

Shy people crave a sense of camraderie and acceptance, but expect themselves to be seen as unacceptible. Often their expectations are not wholly ungrounded, not because they are unworthy, but because they have had significant experience with people who have belittled them in one way or another - whether outright ridicule, or being too busy to give them attention. The trouble is understanding someone's rejection as the other person's problem rather than an inherent problem with oneself. It's not that you are unimportant, but that they are being inconsiderate. However, without a countering perspective from people who do appreciate the shy person it is easy for the negative experiences to form their entire understanding of their relationship to others.

Now a Shy person isn't necessarily always shy, it may be limited to certain social settings. They may feel accepted and respected by family, by people of a certain age-set (often not their peers), by people in a certain social status or group, etc., but in other social arenas they have not met with the same success and have therefore learned to expect rejection. Shyness has to do with confidence and one's perceived social acceptance. Shyness occurs when one feels out of his league, and thus intimidated by others. Shyness may be amplified by larger groups, but is none-the-less debilitating in a one on one scenario because it is diven mostly by the type of person encountered, and less by the number present. A group of shy people may still find themselves completely intimidated by a single person whom they see as beyond their leage.

Now Let's Take a Look at What it Means to Be Introverted:
In contrast to the Shy person, while an Introvert may feel intimidated or overwhelmed by a large number of people, given the chance to be one on one with any of them, he is likely to be quite comfortable. An Introvert avoids people in general not because he fears their displeasure, but because he finds them tidious and draining. This isn't to say that Introverts don't like other people, they just don't really like personally interacting with the majority of them, and definately not all at once. Even if he may think someone is nice, an Introvert may decide not to persue conversation or friendship because he doesn't want to invest more time in social interaction, perhaps feeling a bit overwhelmed with the friendships he already has. Introverts need and like having time alone, and being around a lot of people wears them out quickly. They do not find meeting new people and chit-chatting to be very energizing, and thus avoid it in favor of doing things alone or with one or two close friends. They may not approach others, not because they are afriad of them, but simply becuase they have no interest in conversing or going through the superficial topics often covered when making new aquaintances. Introverts seem to like to think more deeply and converse longer about things, and like to cultivate deeper longer lasting relationships with just a few people.

Introverts also tend to dislike being the center of attention, actually prefering to stand on the sidlelines to watch others. They don't long to be part of the group as the Shy person does. They may seem awkward when meeting new people or being put on the spot if they haven't been able to prepare before hand, finding it difficult to think quickly with the distraction of others staring at them and the pressure of people waiting for them to speak.

They hang back from conversations because they don't like to interrupt and because they are usually busy processing what they are hearing. Introverts take more time to think before responding and can easily be passed over by extroverts who want to keep the conversation rolling at a quicker pace. It's not necessarily that they are too nervous to speak, but simply that they can't seem to get a word in edgewise before the topic has already moved on past what they were about to say. The Introvert is often left with the choice of cutting in and awkwardly dragging the conversation back to an earlier point, or just keeping their mouth shut and thinking to themselves while others talk. In fact, they often prefer to just think to themselves, feeling little desire to share their thoughts with many others.

However, when an Introvert does want to talk with someone they are usually perfectly capable of doing so and may even appear outgoing or 'in command' of the situation, quite unlike the cowering Shy person. Introverts don't seem to desire a good rapport with many people nor general social acceptance, which may in some cases actually make them impervious to the slights that would cause the group oriented Extrovert to develop Shyness. On the other hand their tendancy to be overlooked because of their unobtrusive ways and the ridicule incured from a societal preference for Extroversion may make Introverts more prone to becoming Shy.

And Now to Look at Something Which May Factor into Both Introversion and Shyness: Wierdness.

The Shy Wierdo:
It's easy to immagine how people who do not share the common interests of others may be slighted or made fun of because of their unpopular preferences. While Shy people are by no means always odd, it seems much more likely for unusual people to develop Shyness because of the social ostricizing they often endure. Yet, those who are 'wierd' may not care if people who are different from them reject them because they had no desire to be like them in the first place. Their sense of aloneness may not come from specific people rejecting them, but from an overall sense of not belonging anywhere in society. They may give up on expecting anyone to identify with them or understand them. Thus even if they do not feel that they are less worthy than others, their confidence may be worne down by constantly finding themsleves alone. This is likely to cause them to expect rejection rather than acceptance and approach others warily or simply avoid them. In a sense, the Unusual are forced to be shy through the lack of opportunity to be supported. Some of them do not actually succumb to shyness, though they dream of finding at least a few people like themselves and feel dismayed at times by the relentless ridicule of others. Some of them respond with defiance and bitterness, rather than becoming meek and sullen around others.

The Introverted Wierdo:
People who are unusual in their interests and tastes may find themselves forced to develope their Introverted side, whether or not this is their natural preference. If a person has very little in common with most of the people around him, he is likely to find himself unable to make conversation with others even if he may want to for a lack of common references and topics. Simply because of having little in common with others, the unusual person who is not willing to give up his wierdness in favor of copying the crowd will naturally find himself spending more time on his own and sitting on the sidelines of conversations. He may have a much smaller set of friends than a typical extrovert (or even introvert) simply because there is a smaller pool of potential friends that share his interests. Also, because of their rarity, he may develope a tighter bond and strive to hang onto them longer than those whose interests are more typical and therefore find potential friends to be a dime a dozen. 'Wierd' Introverts may appear much more introverted than others because they have both their preference for solitude and their unpopular interests limiting their interactions with others. Likewise 'Wierd' Extraverts may appear more introverted than more 'Normal' people because they are unable to find a large group of people who share their interests and may not share the common knowlege that others enjoy when conversing with strangers. An Extavert may be more likely to develope a more popular range of interests because of spending time with others and seeking to identify with them, keeping his unusual tastes in the background untill he happens to come across someone who shares them.

Environmental Change

I was thinking today about how some people seem to like to change their environment frequently, while others do not. This may be seen in different ways.

Those who like to change their surroundings may have a tendancy to move a project they're working on to different rooms, or even outside, rather than setting up a fixed work station. Or they may feel a need to get out and about and go places each day so that they are not in the same old place all day long. They may even feel a need to make a drastic change such as moving to a new state or changing jobs not because they have to, but because they are feeling too numb in the same routine. They are likely to vacation in different places each year. They generally do not become 'regulars' at any restaraunt or hang out for long, prefering a change of menue, activity, and scenery fairly often. They may prefer school or work environments that require moving around between buildings and campuses over the convenience of everything being compact and close at hand. They may have a tendancy to shift things around in their personal spaces, re-organizing their desks, reorienting their furniture, redecorating from time to time, and generally giving a familiar place a new look and feel. They may frequently give themselves a new look, cutting or dyeing their hair, different glasses, wearing different style clothing from day to day. They feel uneasy and fidgity when things become too familiar, no matter how much they may actually like a place, and may even experience a sense of fear of loosing themselves, feeling somehow less vital in the absense of change.

Those who don't like to change their surroundings seem to have a drive to 'settle down'. They seem to be much more concerned with finding 'the' place they really want to be, with persuing a long term career, with finding and establishing 'their place' in the world. They may be happy to make a drastic change in environment only when they feel like it will place them where they really want to be for the rest of their life (or for a good portion of it), and try to avoid intermediate steps toward their goals as much as possible. They may take longer to settle into a place because they want everythig to be just right so they won't need to change anything after the initial move-in. They feel much more comfortable when they are on familiar ground. They enjoy being a 'regular' at a particular restaraunt, and may prefer to vacation at the same place each year. They feel satisfied when they have several classes in the same room, or when they have their own office which they can make themselves at home in. Once they have arranged things in their personal space they rarely desire to change or move them. They may add new things, but they don't tend to make any big changes. They often hang the same decorations in the same place each holiday, enjoying heightened nostalgia when everything looks just like it was on other occasions. They like a level of predictablility in their surroundings which would enable them, essentially, to manuever and find things in the dark. It's not that they become blind to their surroundings, but in the same way that one may enjoy re-watching movies or re-reading books, they enjoy sitting in the same chair with the same view over and over. It would seem that they make a kind of connection with their surroundings, as though their room, office, or home is an extention of themselves, and to change it constitutes trying to overhaul their identity. In light of this, the changes they do make are often of particular significance. They cannot comprehend changing something just because it has been that way for a while. When a change in environment is a necessity, they usually feel as though a part of themselves has been forever lost, or left behind in the old place. Even redecorating and changing the furniture can make them feel as though the old room, even though it's location is the same, has been lost. When familiar things which are not under their control change, they may feel unnerved and upset, experiencing a sense of fear and insecurity.

I'm not sure which personality traits these two preferences may be related to.
On the one hand it looks a bit like a J/P thing, with the Ps being open to new possibilities or opportunities and the Js liking to have things already figured out and set. Yet, that can't be all there is to it because I consistantly test as a P and recognize many P traits in myself, yet fall definately under the preference for familiar surroundings. I tend to have a deep emotional reaction, mostly negative, when something in my space is changed, or even something as removed as a familiar house that I pass being painted. Yet, I can be flexible in other realms, tend to postpone making definate conclusions about things, and resist schedualing. I have also noticed in some other people a deep emotional need for changes to be made, particularly in their personal surroundings, though I am not sure if these same people feel a need for consistancy in other areas of their life.

Another speculation on the root of this preference is that the desire for change in one's physical environment could be related to the S/N traits. A sensing person who is more tuned into his surroundings may feel more quickly bored by them because he has already taken them in fully. This certainly seems to make sense with the feeling of loosing one's vitality when there is nothing new to experience or take in - it would give the sense of living in a repeating loop rather than moving forward. When one's main mode of living is through experience of the outer world, it makes sense that a life with more places, more vistas, more variety in one's surroundings would seem richer and more engaging. Whereas an N, who's primary life experience takes place in the mind, may easily encounter all the new ideas he likes by experiencing other worlds of thought through books, newspapers, websites, conversations, or television programs while remaining in a familiar external atmosphere. Indeed unfamiliar surroundings may more easily distract him from his inner thoughts, and require more attention, while a consistant setting allows him to interact with the outer world largely on 'auto-pilot'. His familiar environment may act as an anchor for him in the physical world, a place to come home to from the adventures of his mind, rather than being the stage for his adventures itself. In addition, the things around him may act more as symbols which excite his immagination or conjure particular ideas. Thus since the thing itself is hardly ever the true focus of his attention it is less likely to outlive its interest and become dull to his eyes.

Still another reason for prefering familiar surroundings could be related to T and F, though perhaps less directly. If a T is primarily interested in the practical purpose of things, he is likely to make a change whenever he thinks something else will work better. He will probably remove things that nolonger have a purpose, and change any arrangement or system to better serve his current purposes. Of course if something is perfectly functional, a T is likely to be content keeping it the same. An F, on the other hand, who makes sentimental connections with not only people, but places and things, is much more likely to retain a familiar atmosphere because of the memories and feelings it conjurs up. It doesn't matter so much that a different arrangement might be more efficient, if there are any particularly good feelings attached to the way things currently are, the F will prefer to keep them that way. Of course, on the other hand, an F will likely make changes very quickly to things that affect his feelings negatively.

E/I could have some relation to the desire for change or familiarity. An E's enjoyment of meeting new people, is likely to make him more open to putting himself in new environments which will bring him in contact with others. A change in scenery may bring new opportunities to meet people, which is often more exciting to an E than maintaining the same circle of aquaintances. The Es' openess to others and general desire for community, may make them more receptive to changes to their environment made by others. They are likely to enjoy a sense of shared space, and thus feel less bothered by other people's effects on that space. An I, on the otherhand, tends to feel a little more comfortable engaging others on his own territory or in a comfortable, familiar setting - which seems to give him a little boost of power or confidence. This may cause him to desire to remain in the same place where he has developed his own personal space, rather than putting himself in new places where he feels more exposed to the general public. He is also likely to dislike drastic changes such as moving or a new job because they force him to meet new people and go through the awkward stage of getting to know others. An introvert much prefers to maintain a few long term deep relationships over the superficial interactions with new aquaintances, and is thus unlikely to desire to move away from the people he is already familiar with. In his desire for solitary persuits he may find it easier to retreat to the same place all the time where he can be certain he won't be interrupted. I am not sure if the Introvert's need to have personal space disposes him to become more attached to, or invested in one place and one arrangement of things therein, or if he may relish new places as long as they are his and allow him solitude. Yet it seems quite plausible that an Introvert's personal space becomes like an extension of himself, making any changes to it become a much more personal matter with greater impact on him.

By this reasoning an INFJ would be the least likely to welcome changes in his surroundings, and an ESTP would be the most likely to feel a need for environmental changes. I'm not sure if this conclusion carries out in actuallity, so if there are any INFJs or ESTPs out there who would like to provide their input that would be most appreciated!

As far as my limited observations of others, I found that myself an INFP and my mother an ISFJ seemed to be on the same page with regards to keeping the house looking familiar and eating at the same places. While it seemed easy for my mom to get into a routine of going to the same places, she also seemed to have a value of experiencing different things for vacation each year - a preference I also shared.

Thus I rather wonder if NTs and SPs may prefer changes in environment overall, more than SJs and NFs. I really couldn't say. Although the 'absent minded proffessor' stereotype of the INTP doesn't seem to depict a person who itches for a new location. So, I don't know.

Fantasy vs. Reality

There is a key difference between people which the major personality theories neglect to include in their list of traits. That is, a person’s interest in and love of Fantasy or Science-Fiction. Or to put it in perhaps better terms, a person’s longing for and identification with immaginary Other-worlds or perhaps legendary Other-times. The common mistake is to consider this preference to belong to the realm of tastes and interests, which is a different level of personality which seems to be not so deep, nor so basic, because specific interests are defined to a great extent by what is available in any given culture for one to be interested in. For example, in a culture which has only experienced one kind of music, musical tastes cannot provide a great deal of insight into what a person is like or whether or not he will get along with someone else, at least not to the extent that they do in our society where the genres of music to choose from seem veritably endless. I do believe that tastes are affected by the deeper personality traits, which will predispose people to like or dislike various kinds of things, or various aspects of different things. Concerning my theory on the interest in Fantasy, I must admit that I am going wholly on my own reasonings and observations within the culture familiar to me and realise that Fantasy as I know it is not available to people of all cultures. However, I venture to guess that the heart of the love of Fantasy, or indeed Fantasy in some form or other, can be found in any culture. At the core, I think this proposed new aspect of personality is a longing for and fascination with something Other, something that is Not Reality.

People seem to be drawn to two different types of stories.

Some people are totally captivated by true-life, or realistic stories which could have actually happened. They seem particularly pleased when they learn that something they have watched or read is something that actually did happen, or which was based on real events, and will often enthusiastically mention this to others as a kind of reccommendation. They are fascinated by the real world that is around them. Whether it be nature or society which they enjoy most, they like to know how things really are and find great satisfaction in being ‘up on’ real life people, places, events, and issues. These are the people who hate to miss the news, who pour time into research, who know what’s in fashion, who keep tabs on celebrities, who read biographies and nature guides and history books, who are, in a word, Savvy when it comes to the real world and dealing with life in it. They are excited by all there is to know and experience in the real world, and they feel good about themselves because of their understanding of real life and competance in it. They have a sense of being part of the world, know that they live in it, and have a kind of duty or commitment to it. They care about what’s going on around them and feel that others ought to be aware of the world and care about it as well. They have little patience for people who waste their time on things that don’t exist and couldn’t exist, seeing their indiference to the real world as ireesponcible, and even in a way taking it as a personal affront. The world matters, and they can’t understand people who waste the life they actually have on silly fantasies that will never be real. The very strong Reality lovers may not even understand reading realistic fiction because it too is not actual, but most Reality lovers do enjoy entertainment which takes place in realistic, familiar, or believable settings. The more unfamiliar the territory or unbelievable the events the less comfortable they become with it. Among these Reality lovers there seem to be all types of personalities; those who like to observe the world, and those who like to organize and schedual it, those who like hand’s on interaction, and those who like to contemplate and reflect on it, those who approach it objectively, and those who approach it subjectively, those who focus on people and those who prefer solitude.

Then there are the people who are drawn to stories of other places and other times. They are attracted by, and long for things that are Different from the way things actually are. They don’t have a great deal of interest in the actual world around them, and frequently find it boring in comparison to places that they or others have immagined. They find themselves irresistably drawn to immaginary worlds and immerse themselves in Fantasy or Science-fiction books, movies, and games, frequently ignoring ‘real life’ as much as they possibly can. It is in these other worlds that they feel most alive, and they often feel like zombies going through the motions when dealing with ‘Real-life’ situations, such as school or work. Their immaginations are usually very active, and long past child-hood they may secretly enjoy pretending they are in a diferent setting in order to make ordinary tasks more interesting (A trip to the grocery store is much more exciting when turned into a quest for magical ingredients). They often care very little about popular culture or current events, and maintain a more periferal awareness of real-life issues and necessities. In their intense persuit of the Immaginary, they often do whatever they can to make real life more like the Other-worlds of which they are so fond. Many of them learn outdated crafts, or the use of old-time weaponry, play Role Playing Games, dress in costumes, decorate their homes oddly, and learn endless facts about entirely Fictional worlds. They spend much of their free time in the creation or development of Immaginary places and stories, often through drawing and art, or through writing and RPGs. They are totally captivated by alternative realities and fascinated by unfamiliar, unreal, unbelievable things. They enjoy the sense of mystery about things that could exist but haven’t been confirmed or discovered yet. They love legends, myths, and speculations about the future. Unlike the Realists who have trouble connecting with the improbable, they are quite comfortable ‘suspending disbeliefe’ in order to enjoy a book or movie that takes place in an unrealistic setting. They like to picture all the options of how things could be, freely re-mixing familiar things to create something new. They revel in the creation of diferent species, different landscapes, different natural laws, different societies, different fashion, different life-styles. They love exploring the possibilities of how things could have been and feel no particular commitment to how things are. In fact, they usually have a deep yearning for a different life than their own, and feel as though they don’t actually belong here. They often have a sense of being from a different time and different place, aliens and misfits among, what they see as, all these mundane humans. They often scorn being content with life as it is, and pity those who don’t appreciate looking past reality into other possibilities. Although they know that much of what they love so dearly does not exist here and now, many of them maintain a secret beliefe that anything is possible and often hope against hope that some shred of the immaginary worlds, in which they feel so at home, may turn out to be true after all.

The importance of Fantasy or Reailty is a topic which I think evokes some pretty dramatic responces from people, and which frequently drives a wedge between them. Although Fantasy and Science-Fiction films and books have gained some popularity and general acceptance in more recent years, particularly with the long running Star Trek TV series, movies like Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings, and book series like Harry Potter. Yet in spite of the large fan communities such things have generated, there is still a sense that those who truely love Fantasy are in the minority. Most Fantasy lovers will agree that they have felt at some point in their life, if not for most of it, totally surrounded by people who have little interest or respect for Fantasy. While plenty of people may mildly enjoy a Fantasy film now and then, many of them feel no particular attraction toward Fantasy and Sci-fi over any other modern-day or historical fictional story. When it comes down to it people who are most interested in Reality tend to be very criticle of the Fantasy lovers, who they see as being irresponcible, impractical, and incomprehensible. When it comes to interacting with real life situations they often feel very strongly that Fantasy lovers’ focus on the unreal is simply not right or acceptible. Fantasy and Sci-fi enthusiasts can be quite criticle in their turn toward the Reality devotees, considering them boring, mundane, and unable to think outside the box, and they may see themselves as a kind of higher being than those ‘pitiful mortals’. I don’t believe it is a simple matter of differing tastes which causes people to feel such a sense of alienation from eachother. Instead, I propose that it is in fact a fundemental difference in personality, a disposition either toward Reality or toward the Not-Real (which for the sake of an easy term I have called Fantasy).


---- A Look at Kiersey’s Sensing and INtuition ----
When first reading Please Understand Me, Kiersey’s description of the Sensing/Intuitive traits sounded very much to me as though they were the key to whether one likes Fantasy or not. The description of the Sensing person says: “He might be described as earth-bound, as grounded firmly in reality, anchored to earth -- a terrestrial.” It goes on to say they are much more concerned with what actually is than with possibilities and that they “tollerate no nonsense” in regards to getting things done. Another key line in the description says the Sensing person “wants facts, trusts facts, and remembers facts.” This sounds very much like the kind of person who cannot understand people’s interest in Fantasy, the sort who feel that immaginary worlds are a waste of time, the sort who like to be aware of what’s going on in the “Real World” whether it be popular culture, business, or politics.

In contrast that book described the intuitive person as one who daydreams and reads fantasy or fiction. It claims “The intuitive acts as though he is an extra-terrestrial, a space traveler engaged in explorations beyond the realities of the present and the past. The possible is always in front of him, pulling on his immagination like a magnet.” It also describes the intuitive as having his head often in the clouds, focusing on immagination, and as not being interested in reality: “They seem somewhat bothered by reality, constantly looking toward possibilities of changing or improving the actual.” It mentions they are quick to see how things could be different than they are. This all points to the person who loves Fantasy and yearns for the places that one can only immagine.

Three of the questions pertaining to these two traits also strongly suggest that Sensing people would not like Fantasy and that Intuitive people would.

children often:
a) do not make themselves usefull enough
b) daydream enough

you prize most in yourself
a) a good sense of reality
b) a good immagination

you have more fun with
a) hands-on experience
b) blue-sky fantasy

There are, however, other aspects to both of these traits which do not necessarily imply a preference for Fantasy or Reality, and which I believe are the true core of the S/N personality difference. Kiersey describes the differences between INtuitive and Sensing people as mostly having to do with prefering abstract thought or ‘concrete’ experiences, forming concepts or making acurate observations. The INtuitive person likes to analyse, while the Sensing person likes to act. As the names suggest, the basic difference in question with these two traits is whether one is tuned in more to one’s physical senses or to one’s intuition. Intuition is defined as knowing or understanding something without the need of conscious reasoning. Kiersey describes this phenomenon as ideas coming to someone as a whole, rather than step by step, and suggests that Intuitives are able to grasp ‘the big picture’ easily without paying attention to the details of individual cases - their minds quickly make connections and work out logical results without thinking about the data involved. In contrast he describes Sensing people as having sharp senses, picking up on details in their surroundings and coming to conclusions through experience or experimentation, prefering hands-on action to theorizing and philosophizing.

It is my belief that the Jung/Myers-briggs/Kiersey theory has taken the basic traits of S and N a little too far in concluding that people who like experience and are tuned into their senses do not have an interest in Fantasy (on the grounds that it is not real and therefore not readily experiencable) and that people who prefer contemplation and abstract thought do like Fantasy (because they like unseen possibilities). While it may appear to be a fairly logical conclusion, my experience tells me otherwise. I believe these two traits can predict how a person who likes Fantasy will persue that interest, but not whether he will have that interest or not. It is possible, that what makes a difference here is how strongly one prefers Sensing or Intuition, or how well one has developed his weaker trait. I am not entirely convinced by this theory, feeling as though I have observed people with strong and weak preferences for either trait who still do or do not like Fantasy. While I don’t have conclusive case studies, and admit this is worth further consideration, my experience does not seem to back up the strength theory.

What first brought the Sensing = No Fantasy assumption into question for me was the description later on in the book Please Understand Me of the SP (Sensing Perceiving) person as being the Artisan. Now, the word Artisan in that book is used to mean more than the traditional artist, it is meant to encompas most physical activities in which the doer is constantly refining his skill - it refers to Craftsmen, Musicians, Athletes, and Entertainers as well as Artists. Yet in Entertainment, Art and Craftwork there are definately examples of Artisans devoted to Fantasy, Immagination, and the Unreal Possibilities, those who show us visions of Variations on Reality. Futhermore, the typical picture of the Artist is of someone who is not very ‘grounded in reality,’ nor very ‘practical,’ but rather, someone who tends to live eccentrically, as if insisting upon creating his own reality rather than submitting to live “inside the box.” An artist can surely experience and appreciate intensely his sensations, being greatly moved by color or shape, texture or flavor, while at the same time prefering an immaginative, rather than “factual,” approach to life.

Furthermore the description of the NT (Intuitive Thinking) as the Rational or the Scientist doesn’t imply a fascination with Fantasy. Kiersey explains them as desiring “To be able to understand, control, predict, and explain realities.” The emphasis of this temperament is aquiring knowledge, and being competant. This desire for knowlege and understanding, this obsession with having all his facts right and all his logic flawless certainly brings to mind the Scholar and in particular the Scientist, two roles which do not have much of a connection with Fantasy or an obsession with worlds that do not actually exist (and therefore cannot be tested and experimented with, nor studied to a great degree - I should think one would be hard-pressed to find any Proffessors of Narnian History nor any Scientific Periodicals on the biochemistry of Vulcans.) While I do personally know a number of NTs who are fans of Fantasy and Science-Fiction, I feel it is very safe to assume that there are also many who have little interest in such things. As a further note, I would like to point out that abstract thinking encompasses a great deal more than immagining Fantasy, and is necessary in many fields seeking to understand reality. The intangible is not synonimous with the unreal, therefore it can hardly be assumed that one who enjoys intangible thought must enjoy things which do not actually exist. An N’s oppenness to seeing possibilities may yet easily be kept within the realm of actual possibilities, rather than necessarily extending beyond to the physically impossible.

After having noticed these discrepancies in trait and temperament decriptions in the book, this idea that a love of Fantasy cannot be tied to Intuition has brooded in the back of my mind for many years. During this time, I feel that my observations of people have confirmed my suspicion that creativity in the form of Fantasy is not only the N’s realm. I am uncertain whether there are certain personality types who almost uniformly embrace or disdain Fantasy, but my inclination is to say that all the 16 personality types may be found amongst both the Fantasy and the Reality camps. As my own interest is planted very firmly on the side of Fantsy, I find myself aquainted mainly with a social group which shares this interest, yet I feel that amongst the various people I have encountered in places such as the Star Wars Club at school there has been a good mixture of personality types who deomonstrate their love of Fantasy in unique ways.

It has been my involvement on deviantART, an online art community, which I think finally provoked me to seriously question, once again, the apparent theory in the Kiersey books that Sensing is related to Reality loveing people and Intuition is related to Fantasy lovers. While browsing and searching on the deviantART site, I have found a great deal of excellent art and craftwork which is centered around the concept of Fantasy or Scienc-Fiction. There are many tallented artists who paint picture after picture of immaginary landscapes and fantastical creatures, not merely illustrating some other N’s ideas, but soley of their own creation. While some of them are also writers and contemplaters, many of them do not evidence N-like tendancies, and show marked ability in the hands-on realm, which at least I as an N do not feel capable of achieving. There are many tallented craftsmen who turn out elaborate clothing, armor, jewelry, wands, swords, books, figurines etc. all with a Fantasy or Sci-fi theme. These are clearly great artisans who are also obsessed with Fantasy, and who turn their acute senses, ability to work with physical tools and media, and their love of experience toward making the Immaginary come to life; exploring, visualizing, and enjoying the Not-Reality in their own hands-on style. While they will never be able to sprout wings and fly in this life, they still create wings for themselves in whatever their preferred medium may be. The Intuitive’s preference for thinking and immagination (in-mind creativity), for writing and analysing does not seem to explain the profuse Fantasy-based physical creations I see and experience on deviantART or in the overall Fantasy/Sci-fi community. The number of booths at Renaissance Faires or other Conventions, and websites offering things like finely crafted lightsabers and magic wands, cloaks and wings, I think is ample evidence of the complimentary coupling of a love for Fantasy and an orientation towards the tangible. While the Intuitive who loves Fantasy will be good at seeing the possibilities of other worlds in his mind, I believe the Sensing person who loves Fantasy will be good at crafting such other-worldly possibilites so that they can be more vividly experienced than just in the mind.

In my own experience of drawing or sewing I find that the action and the immagination are one. I do not so much immagine an idea completely and then make it after a dutifull drone-like fashion. The vision happens and shifts in the doing itself. The concept of a fairy becomes as it is drawn. The doing is not separate from the immagining, even though the strong N who is not often caught up in action may feel inclined to believe that. The question to me, seems to be whether someone prefers mostly to immagine abstractly through words and mental immages, or to immagine concretely through crafting and action.

Further proof of this idea comes from taking note of the differences and similarities between myself and my husband Mark. We both have a love of fantasy, and are not content with or committed to the world As It Is. We like to come up with new and different ideas and visions of how things could be. However, we tend to approach our passion for fantastical immaginings in quite different ways. Mark demonstrates very SP-like tendancies. He persues new experiences and loves to keep himself busy with activities (without the stimulation of something to be working on he falls asleep easily). He loves tools and is very good at making use of them. He prefers to listen to books on tape while working on projects with his hands, rather than just sitting and reading. He is concerned with how things function and is good at figuring out how to make things work. In spite of all this S-ness, he does not think that Fantasy is a waste of time or see it as impractical. He loves to make unusual clothing for himself which is unlike anything seen on the streets. He draws designs of other-wordly clothes, makes leather hats that look like they came out of a fantasy film, and makes elaborate maps of entiely made up lands. He enjoys watching Fantasy and Science-fiction movies, and prefers imagining such settings to keeping up on Real World places and events. He envisions a future that is more in line with life in a Fantasy setting than life as we know it here and now. He plots how to dig a Hobbit Hole and researches the construction of tree-house dwellings. He’s always busy finding a way to bring his ideas and visions into existance. In contrast to Mark’s hands-on approach to creating fantasy, being an NF, I tend to mostly enjoy Fantsy by immagining scenes and stories in my head, and in writing them down and describing them, or in reading about them in books. I do enjoy making clothes and things which create a more Fantasy styled atmosphere for myself, but the primary field for my immagination as well as my non-fantasy related interests, is thought. In true N style I love to contemplate, reflect, discuss, theorize, analyse, and philosophize more often than I like to get my hands on things (other than my keyboard). While Mark prefers a day in which he made something, I prefer a day in which I thought and wrote about something. Yet I do not experience in him the “down-to-earth, no-nonsense” type of person who prefers Reality to Possibility and has no time for Fantasy, as the orriginal descripion of the S would imply should accompany his focus on tangible experience. He strikes me very much as an S in his approach to life, yet is definately a Fantasy/Sci-fi enthusiast.


---- Considering J and P ----
At one time I thought that perhaps the enjoyment of Fantasy might be linked to the P trait in opposition to the J trait, though I don’t think it is a very good correlation. My theory was that J people tend to be more work and duty oriented, predisposing them to disaprove of things which seem too flighty and time wasting - under which unreal Fantasy would fall. However, I believe this theory made sense to me only because my experience of people with strong J leanings happened to be comprised of people who were also not interested in Fantasy. I don’t think that prefering structure and closure nesessarily results in disliking Fantasy, though I am not certain of any specific examples for or against this among people I know.

---- What about T and F? ----
An F person might be inclined to think that someone who values logic so much wouldn’t relish all the illogic found in Fantasy stories filled with magic, nor with Sci-fi stories wich are often a bit fuzzy when it comes to actual scientific explainations of all the amazing technology portrayed in them. Yet, I know from first-hand experience that there are numerous NTs in the Fantasy/Sci-fi community, so that possibility is definately ruled out. I might venture a guess, however, that Ts might possibly be more inclined toward Science-Fiction while Fs might possibly be more inclined toward Fantasy. I have no proof of this, merely an intuitive ‘feeling’ and vague memories of experiencing more Sci-fi books with particularly T-like characters and a more detached narrative voice, while it feels like more attention is payed to feelings in many of the Fantasy books I’ve read.

I think there is no need to bring Introversion and Extraversion into question on this because it seems quite obvious that there are both Es and Is who prefer Fantasy or Reality.


---- Final Thoughts ----
In my personal face to face experience it seems I have encountered a majority of Is Ns and Ps in the Fantasy/Sci-fi community, but I don’t feel I can truely link any one of these traits to being the cause of loving Fantasy, and would guess that this majority is partly due to simply gravitating toward people like myself. I do not think that the love of Fantasy even comes down to a particular combination of the traits S/N T/F and J/P because it seems as though I can easily picture a person of any of the combinations who doesn’t have an interest in Fantasy. I have no proof that this is so, of course, but that is what it feels like.

Even if there is some correlation between certain traits and a predisposition to likeing Fantasy or Reality, I still feel that this is a separate fundamental difference in personality which, although it may be affected by other traits, is not explained entirely by any of them. It is my oppinion that the S and N descriptions should not include the connotations of being interested in Reality and Fantasy respecitvely, but that personality typing would benefit greatly by adding another set of traits to the list of basic preferences which would adress the orientation toward the Real World or Immagined Worlds as separate from a preference for concrete or abstract experience. I’m not sure what letters could best be used to represent these preferences. While R would work fine for the Reality focused people, F has already been taken by Feeling, and therefore it would seem a different word is needed to stand for the Fantasy focused people. Immaginary doesn’t work because of course I has already been taken twice. I suppose that in the pecident of INtuition M might be adopted, but that has too close an association with the word Magic and would perhaps be misconstrued. After the same pattern, we could use A instead of F, but I will grant that Fantasy may also seem too disctinct a word to encompass Science-Fiction which I mean for it to also cover. Thus for now, I will leave you with the question of what word might suite the opposite of Reality best.

The Psychology of a Messy Room

There are various factors which contribute to messy rooms

pack-rat-ism - the accumulation of many objects
oblivion -being unaware of surroundings or tuning out the environment
busy-ness - rushing off in the middle of things and not having time to clean up later
distraction - being drawn away from a task, then starting to clean and being distracted again
convenience - liking to have everything close at hand
multi-tasking - starting many projects at once and working on them simultaneously
stickynotes - leaving things out to remind you to finish them

The traits most likely to be correlated to messy rooms are F, P, and N.

Fs are more likely to accumulate useless sentimental items, things they simply liked though they don't know what to do with them. They value the presence of many items, and the overall feel of the room based not on what is functional and efficient, but what conjurs good feelings. This allows some things which may seem to just add clutter to not be considered 'in the way' by the F because it's mere presence is its purpose. They are also likely to choose to spend their time doing things they feel like doing, which may not be mundane attention to clean up. However, if they realise that having a clean room will make someone else feel better, they are likely to bite-the-bullet and take care of it.

Ps have no problem leaving things open-ended, and thus have a tendancy to start many projects and work on them off and on depending on their mood, time, and supplies. Because none of the projects are actually finnished, they don't want to put them away because that would be unessessary bother, and would make it even less likely for them to get back to it and actually finish it. They don't tend to divide projects into distinct steps which they work on in planned segments of time, like Js do, and so the 'finished-clean-up' bell never rings for them. They also don't have a high value of order or structure and probably don't have a specific place where they feel each item belongs, thus wherever it is is where it should be, especially if where it is is within convenient reach. They like to let thoughts and ideas brew for a long time before actually choosing what to do, and leaving the things out that they're thinking about aids in this process of slow-brewing. This slowness to finalize, also means that their projects are in the works for much longer than a Js would typically be. They are less likely to care about social expectations to keep things orderly as well, so they don't feel pressured to get things out of the way in order to maintain their reputation.

Finally, the N's inward focus on thoughts makes them prone to ignoring their physical surroundings. An N is likely to be so absorbed in the world of ideas that he simply doesn't notice what is immediately arround him, shutting off his 5 senses to better tune into his 6th. Even if an N is aware that things are getting messy he is unlikely to place such a boring, and fairly meaningless, task high on his priorities, allowing himself to remain focused on thinking rather than shifting into the realm of action. Concerned with contemplating deeper meaning in life he freely procrastinates doing everyday tasks which seem so unimportant in the large scheme of things, and which are certainly less fullfilling to him.

Perception of Openness

This is again, just throwing around my own theories. There are some people that are perceived in our society to be "Open" and others who are generally considered "closed-minded." Here is my theory on which traits make a person appear more "Open" in our culture.

Open
Extraverts - to people
Intuition - to ideas and unseen possibilities
Sensing - to experience
Feeling - to emotion
Perceiving - to options

Closed
Introverts - to people
Sensing - to ideas and unseen possibilities
Intuition - to experience
Thinking - to emotion
Judging - to options

Obviously, Etraverted people are open to interacting with other people. They are open to meeting new people, open to working with people, open to talking with people, open to sharing their thoughts and feelings with people, open to sharing experiences with other people. And in contrast Introverted people more often try not to meet new people, avoid talking with them, dislike working with them, reserve their thoughts and feelings for a select few, and prefer solitary rather than shared experiences.

The next highest factor in being seen as open or closed is found in the J/P traits. Judgers like to plan things out, stick to scheduals, and follow instructions. They tend to believe there is a right and wrong way to go about things, and like to form their oppinions of what view is right or wrong on any given topic. They do not welcome unexpected changes in plans, and have difficulty accepting other people's oppinions that do not line up with their own. Thus, Js are frequently seen as "closed-minded" or too stuck in their routines to make progress. Perceivers on the other hand tend to be spontaneous and do not feel any particular need to stick to plans. They like to take in as much information as possible, considering many options and many sides of an issue before making any conclusions about it, and even then they prefer tentative statements and are open to exceptions. Thus they are seen as open-minded, able to hear and consider other viewpoints, willing to adapt to change, take life as it comes rather than how they planned it, and able to blaze new trails and see new options.

Feeling people are frequently seen as being open to others, because they are able to sense others emotions and willing to share in them. They are also more likely to be demonstrative of their own feelings. Thinking people, on the otherhand, are generally less in tune with others feelings, and not very interested in sharing their own. They are generally more open to criticism and more open to participating in debate or conflict situations, but these things are not as valued by society as social tact, keeping harmony, and entering into the spirit of the moment with other people. Those who are in tune with feelings are seen as open-hearted, while those who prefer 'cold' logic are seen as shutting people out or hiding their true feelings.

Lastly, notice N and S are both perceived as open in different ways. I would venture to say, however, that overall our culture seems to expect people to be more open to experiences than to imagination. My reasoning is that people who aren't willing to try new experiences, such as eating new foods, learning new skills, or participating in events they haven't been to before, are often ridiculed as boring, spoil-sports, scaredy-cats, stubborn, and self-limiting. However, people who don't posses great immaginations, or who don't easily infer possibilities that aren't right in front of them, usually do not recieve much ridicule. Instead they are often respected for their practicality and 'down-to-earth'ness. An S gathers data through experiences, and thus is more willing to taste new foods before deciding if he likes them. An S focuses more on the outer world of experiences and is thus more likely to get involved in doing different things. Therefore an S is likely to be see as generally 'open' in society. An N who is good at coming up with new ideas will often be praised for 'thinking outside the box'. Yet if this 'open mind' is coupled with a less open approach to activites and experiences, the openness of the N is likely to be overlooked, or may even be overshaddowed by criticisms of his less open approch to activity. The N who is too involved in thinking to do anything with his ideas can often be seen as someone who closes himself off from life, living in a thin immaginary world of thought.

Thus the personality type which I think is most likely to be seen as "Open" by society is the ESFP and the type which is most likely to be seen as "Closed" by society is the INTJ. For further example, an ESFJ may be seen as more closed than an ENFP. Of coure it doesn't necessarily follow that those perceptions of society are actually true.