A Little Bit of Subtypes
Alright! This is Justin again. So we’re gonna try to keep this huge, ginormo, super in-depth topic really short here (edit: ha!), because this is just sort of a preview. But we’re still pretty excited to get to talk about subtypes here on “Phase 1!”
See, the full post about subtypes is on aLBoP Phase 2, and even that post is just the intro to the topic. Phase 2 goes into far more depth about, well, everything! But as you might expect, it kinda requires and presumes that you’ve already gotten familiar with everything here on the starter site.
Which, right, before I go on… If you haven’t checked out at least the basic information here on aLBoP, I’m afraid you really should go read that before diving into this. Watch the intro video if you haven’t already, and then get your bearings with the Super Simple Series. Remember, aLBoP is not MBTI, so it’s probably best to go back to the start so you can get a handle on everything.
Okay! Got that covered? At least a bit? Cool, so like I was saying, we go into much more depth and detail about subtypes, what they are, why they are, and how they work, on the Phase 2 site. However, we really really want to talk about subtypes on our upcoming ~Stranger Things post~! Also, it’s nice to be able to put people’s subtypes after their main cognitive types, partly because it immediately shows “Hey, look! This is something different, so maybe drop your assumptions about typing at the door.” And then, hopefully, maybe, if wishes were horses, we might get fewer people strolling in, glancing at a few pictures, and leaving a “nope that’s wrong” comment without, you know, reading stuff. We can dream.
So on then with the subtypes crash course! To start with, putting it simply, subtypes are kinda just what they sound like: a subset, a personal focus within each cognitive type.
There are exactly four subtypes for each and every cognitive type, because of reasons. Very cool reasons, really neat stuff that says so much about people, the world, and intelligence itself, but that’s for Phase 2. That’s where we talk about the How and the Why behind all kinds of things; for here, we’re just gonna focus on the basic What.
I will say, though, that the reasons there are four subtypes for each cognitive type were totally outside anything we planned or expected. And that makes it super cool, because it ended up displaying really neat and complex patterns that we had no idea were even there! Here, I’ll just copy some of Calise’s explanation from the old, original Phase 2 forum:
“When Justin and I began noticing how wonky the generally accepted definitions of the letters were, we realized if we wanted definitions that *always* fit for a person and didn’t change throughout your life, the definitions couldn’t be definitions of merely habits and behaviors (or even skills as the stereotypes make them out to be), but something of the same caliber as genetics that doesn’t change throughout your life.
“Though plenty of people throughout history have tried to develop and find facial typing systems, without accurate definitions of the consistent, lifelong cognition behind a face, there wasn’t much hope of demonstrating how people’s faces reflect their cognition. Like I mentioned in What If I’m Not the Type I Thought I Was?, if people’s faces changed as often as their behaviors, they’d be like shape-shifters.
“But as soon as our patterns were consistent enough to be true throughout a person’s life, matching facial patterns began to emerge.”
Interrupting Calise for a second here. I want to emphasize what she just said: the patterns began to emerge. We weren’t looking for this; we didn’t expect it. It wasn’t an “Aha! Eureka!” moment, but rather a “Huh, that’s funny…” moment. We weren’t expecting to find any sort of facial correlation with cognition; it just sort of came up. Like she said, as soon as we actually got our definitions 100% consistent, reliable, and repeatable, with zero exceptions, suddenly we started seeing recurring facial structures with each different type.
Letting Calisey talk again:
“At first we just noticed little things, like Justin mentioning that SFPs’ eyes looked like they’d been popped in an oven and melted just a little bit at the corners (his words). And I began noticing patterns in nose tips (I like noses. In college I started a nose connoisseurs club, though we did nothing). And for a while we thought, ‘At some point we’re actually going to have to nail these down for real.’ And at one point I did… and I had a slight nervous breakdown because it demonstrated how even close friends whom I thought I’d typed correctly I was totally wrong on. It was a rough week and I was temporarily afraid I’d been embarrassingly wrong about *everything.* But science had to go on! And I learned new and useful things like how I was mistaking ESTJ and ISTJ for each other, something that in retrospect I feel like O_o at myself.
“But as we went forward to nail down and distinguish the sixteen different faces (which, boy, were we in for a treat I’ll get to in a minute), we realized that in order to be sure we had a consistent system, it had to meet certain qualifications:” Which she went on to list, as follows.
Scientific Requirements
Facial Typing needed to work across:
Age So an ISFJ face would have to still be an ISFJ face regardless of age, from infant noob to elderly raid-boss; if a person’s facial type changed throughout their life when their cognitive type did not, then clearly that’d be a problem!
Ben Schulz (aka LEEROY JENKINS) and Jules Verne (aka 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea guy, which is cool too), both ISTP(ip)
Ethnicity So, an ISFJ face is an ISFJ face regardless of race. It’s really awesome to see, how the same facial patterns and structures occur, in every ethnicity! And it really blows a hole in mentalities that think any ethnicity is better, worse, or just “weird.”
Denzel Washington and Kenneth Branagh, both incredible actors, directors and ENFJ(ip)s with some serious class.
Gender Same thing: ISFJ face has to be ISFJ face regardless of gender. Also super cool to see in practice! The gender differences are totally there, and yet the facial type remains exactly the same.
General George Smith Patton Jr. and Madonna, both ISTJ(ej) despite their discrepancy in name-quantity, and y’know, gender.
Multiples Like twins and triplets; even identical twins don’t necessarily have the same cognitive type, so how can they be *identical* and yet have different facial types? And yet, once you see it, you can’t unsee it. Even “identical” twins – even *conjoined* twins – can have different facial types!
Phelps Twins, known for playing the Weasley Twins in Harry Potter: Oliver (left), INFP(ip) and James (right), ESFJ(ip)
The Hensel Twins: Abby (left), ENFP(ep) and Brittany (right), ENTJ(ij)
Weight Same thing as age; an ISFJ face has to still be an ISFJ face, no matter how gaunt or… portly.
Jorge Garcia and Colin O’Donoghue, both ESFP(ej) and studly (says Calise)
The entire population (no one is left out) A high goal, but an absolutely necessary one. If we could find anyone, anywhere, past or present, whose face didn’t fit any of the cognitive types, then we’d have a problem. Everybody thinks, everybody cognates, and everybody’s face matches their cognition with magnificent exactness.
Absolutely repeatable and *always* lining up with cognition and choices Now dude, this is just basic science. When there are exceptions where a theory doesn’t always quite line up, that’s nature’s way of saying “Nice hypothesis, but give it another go. You can do better. I believe in you.” We wanted to be able to use this in practice, so if we ran into any exceptions, if it ever failed to line up, even just once, with people’s actual in-practice cognition, choices, and desires, then we wouldn’t have a reliable tool. It had to be repeatable and consistent, with no exceptions, special cases, or roundabout justifications…as fashionable as those may seem sometimes.
Okay back to Calisey again.
“But we were in for a big surprise when we tried to isolate the 16 facial types.
“One day, as Justin and I tried to nail down the faces, Justin said, (not verbatim), ‘Hey Calise, I think there may be two of every face… and I think they may line up with differences in the cognition of each of the types.’ I said, ‘No there couldn’t be.’ He said, ‘Why not?’ I said, ‘Because then I’d have to explain it to everybody!’
“But despite my fears of people crying, ‘There’s a fifth variable?! How many are you guys going to make up??’ we pursued the data and suddenly had 32 types. *Thankfully* (because I might have died otherwise), we discovered that while these ‘subtypes’ affect our approach to cognition, they do *NOT* affect the cognition process or order itself. There are only 16 cognition processes after all. *whew*”
Got that? Subtypes do not change the order of cognition steps. They aren’t our cognition, but rather, they’re how we *approach* our cognition. This approach is more readily seen than our underlying cognition, and people often mistake subtype for actual cognitive type without even realizing it. Subtypes deal with our behaviors, while cognition deals with our root desires that motivate those behaviors. So when people take a behavioral-psychology approach to cognitive variables, it makes sense that a lot of the misconceptions, simplifications, and inconsistencies that arise, are a result of mixing up type and subtype.
But again, they are not the same thing. We explain on Phase 2 how subtype and cognition deal with entirely different areas of our minds, but for now it’s enough to say that our subtype is our behavioral approach to our cognitive type. Our cognitive type is a result of what matters most to us, deep down. It’s a result of what we desire most, which is a powerful reflection of who we each are, while our subtype is a result of how we approach that desire.
Okay, back to Calise, she was telling how we first noticed only two subtypes per type:
“But we noticed these two subtypes affected how each type approached their Type Angst, and the shorthand we began using was ‘That’s right I’m [Type Angst]’ vs. ‘I guess I’m [Type Angst].’ So, for ENTP, half the ENTPs would approach their Type Angst as ‘That’s right I’m bad and irresponsible!’ while the other half would approach their Type Angst as ‘I guess I’m bad and irresponsible…’
“A friend suggested we use ‘Sharp’ and ‘Flat’ as terms, like musical notes… but nobody wanted to be ‘Flat,’ including myself who would be ‘ENTP-flat’ according to that terminology. This was followed by Justin and me coming up with V/U or ‘Venturer’ and ‘Urbane’ (which worked definitionally, but mostly we liked how the letter shapes got across the differences in attitudes). So by that definition, approaching my Type Angst in an ‘I guess I’m…’ fashion, I would be an ENTPu.
“Of course, as is usually the case, as soon as we were getting a handle on the complex effects of V and U and recognizing both the facial structures and cognition in action… we tried to group faces into 64 folders of each type, U/V and male and female. It was a messy, chaotic folder! But of course nature wanted to screw with us again, so we suddenly realized there was still too much variation; distinctly twice as much, as there were two distinct faces for each V/U subtype! We seriously considered calling them VV, VU, UV, and UU… I’m not even joking. I thought, ‘Holy crap this is getting so bloated how am I possibly going to explain this usably?!’ There was mild panic and major grumbling; science temporarily tees me off sometimes.
“But then, one day, (I believe Justin was in our wingback chair… I want to say on the phone with someone?), I remembered how the Four Types of Information applies to ALL THE THINGS and everything clicked. There were four subtypes of each type… maybe the world made sense after all!”
Okay, remember this was from the original Phase 2 forum. To be brief, on Phase 2 we’ve been explaining more and more how the 4ToI do really apply to *all the things*, it’s really incredible. Like, everything everything. And again, it’s because of reasons, which are very cool. A little more from Calise:
“And this, my very patient friends, is how we came to realize that not only are there 16 types with 4 subtypes each, making 64 subtypes that work brilliantly across genders, ethnicities, ages, etc., but they work *perfectly* with how each subtype approaches its Type Specialization.”
Yay! So there’s the quick background. Now, for the subtypes themselves.
The Subtypes
Like Calisey said, the subtypes ended up perfectly fitting the 4 Types of Information. The implications of this are huge, but for here we’re keeping it short…ish. When applied to subtypes, these 4ToI take the form of:
Motives and Character, and how they affect individuals: (ep) Data and Details, and the situations in which they occur: (ip) Actions and Consequences, and how they affect people as a group: (ej) Principles and Trends on a worldwide, even cosmic scale: (ij)
Each subtype approaches their cognition according to one of those four ToI. Of course, just like with cognition, this does not limit us; rather it’s our preferred starting point. (ip) subs will always, always, always approach their cognition in an (ip) way first, but that does not in any way prevent them from branching out to learn and gain the strengths of all the other subtypes as well. Yet also like with cognition, when we try to force ourselves to be a different subtype without first developing our own, we tend to lose the strengths of our own sub, while gaining only the weaknesses of the sub that we’re pretending to be. Everyone of any type or subtype can do *everything*, but only when we first come to understand, accept, and grow into the person who we’ve already always wanted to be, deep down.
This is the point of aLBoP: to help people understand themselves and others, to *remove* limits and barriers, not to place new, contrived ones. That’s why we’re so wary of silly, insulting, ridiculous stereotypes and simplifications. The human mind, and the human potential for growth and improvement, are far more complex than the divisive stereotypes would have you believe. And in all that complexity, intelligence still turns out to be so astoundingly orderly and consistent in retrospect. Not simple, not force-fit into any petty little boxes, but remarkably elegant in a magnificent consistency of complexity.
This was a quote from the original subtype post which didn’t make it here, but it’s worth sharing anyway and Calise already made the picture so…
So as we go into a quick(ish) runthrough of the basics of the four subtypes, these are not descriptions of boxes from which we can never escape. Subtypes display our preferred approach to our behaviors, attitudes, habits, and even our talents. They’re a part of us, but not as deep, foundational, or subconscious as our cognition; subtypes tend to be the deepest down our conscious thoughts and feelings get, which makes them much easier for people to notice than real cognitive types.
So if some of the descriptions of subtypes start to sound a bit like behavioral personality typing, that’s because it is! Behaviors are, well, behavioral. Most popular forms of attempted personality typing deal with behaviors, not our real cognitive types, even if they sometimes mix them up. But that doesn’t mean that behavioral typing can’t be done right. Now going back and using our foundation of consistent, reliable cognitive types, we can at last make a thoroughly solid exploration of behavioral subtypes!
Each of the four subtypes takes a different approach to everything. This means that not only do people think differently from each other (cognition), but that even people who think in the same ways, with the same cognitive type, may still approach that same cognition differently! We live in a culture where so many people imply, or outright say, “If you don’t think the way I do, then you don’t think!” What a narrow way to limit oneself. Yet the more we come to understand how everyone thinks, and approaches how they think, based on the same recurrent 4ToI, the more we can get out of life, the more we can be a benefit to ourselves and everyone around us, and the more we can enjoy even genuinely unhealthy people, instead of being limited to seeing only our own point of view and thinking everyone else is just dumb.
So much for a short post, lol, but still we *are* avoiding going into so much that’s best left till Phase 2. That being said, there’s a lot that I can simply quote verbatim from the Phase 2 subtypes post. In that post, we use the analogy of a car’s steering and pedals to describe how subtypes approach life:
“We like to think of (e) and (i) as being like the gas and brakes of a car, determining the speed of how we approach our decisions, conclusions, and everything. (e)s are constantly observing outward while the decision-car cruises at its own speed, while (i)s pay more attention to the inside of the car, controlling the speed of decision as they choose. This lets (e)s look out and see things that (i)s might miss, while (i)s speed up to act decisively or slow down to act more carefully as needed.
“And we like to think of (p) and (j) as being like the decision-mobile’s steering, charting a path of decisions intentionally (j) or letting autopilot take us on a tour to show us new options (p). (p)s are able to relax and pay attention to all the many things happening outside the windows of their mind-car, while (j)s get to be more deliberate, yet also less aware of unexpected options and opportunities that pop up around the car.”
As always happens with the 4ToI, everything balances out, and we all end up needing the strengths of every other approach. We didn’t plan for that, we didn’t force such a happy and inclusive result; it’s simply the way things apparently work. It’s fascinating that, when people have a psychological ax to grind due to their own refusal to see outside their own way of thinking, that seems to be when they come up with pessimistic, divisive psychological ideas that suggest that some types are better, more rational, more caring, more reliable, etc etc. Yet those sorts of theories never seem to fare well in the harsh light of results and reality. As soon as we step back and let go of any expected result, it’s pretty cool to see how reality ends up showing that, while not everyone chooses to be healthy, every actual cognitive type and subtype is unavoidably equal with every other. But that’s straying close to Phase 2 topics again, with how and why the 4ToI are inherently equal and unavoidable, so yeah, raincheck on that.
But now we’re finally ready to take a quick overview of each of the four subtypes! I’m gonna start with (ep) sub, and…yeah, awesome, I think I can pretty much quote more straight from the Phase 2 post! I’m just gonna rearrange the order of some paragraphs, and cut out references to stuff that’s covered in the Phase 2 Intro…but yeah, cool, here we go!
(ep) sub: The Natural Approach
So after we described the car analogy, where (e)s are looking out the window, observing outward while their car speeds up or slows down on its own, and (p)s let their self-driving car steer them on an unexpected, unpredictable tour of life, we put it together to get (ep) sub:
“Putting these together, (ep) subs are the most natural, and the least deliberate, of all the subtypes. As much as Calise might complain about this, it’s a powerful advantage. When (ep)s allow themselves to relax and be not-deliberate about the speed and subject matter of their decisions, they come to realizations and discoveries that would otherwise remain unknown. Trading deliberate direction and speed-control for a close trust in their personal self, (ep)s of any cognitive type can approach their Type Spec in a natural, relaxed way, confident that it will lead to huge, new and unexplored vistas of their Type Spec.”
“(ep) subtypes are also the most “natural” about their approach to life. They’re used to things coming naturally to them, in a talents-oriented way. Yet this means that when something does not come naturally to them, it can be especially frustrating! And since (ep)s are used to doing what comes naturally, they tend to assume that everyone else does too; this means that when they see someone of a different subtype excelling at something through deliberate focus, they might assume that the other person’s success just came naturally to them…and that can seem really unfair. Yet (ep)s’ natural ability is a huge advantage, giving them the widest versatility and adaptability in their Type Spec. (ep)s aren’t supposed to focus on deliberate approaches to things; they can certainly learn to use deliberateness, but they’ll fare best and be much happier as they let themselves approach everything in a natural, talents-oriented (ep) way.
“No matter what their cognition type is, (ep) subs approach it through the (ep) motives-based ToI, which causes them to observe the way things naturally work, rather than trying to change things. (ep) is always about observation. This lets (ep) subs sit back and observe things that other types might miss…but only when (ep)s allow themselves to sit back and be (ep)s. When they feel the need to be more intentional instead of natural in their ideas, plans, actions, and abilities, they tend to close off and stop observing. This can make them feel rather lonely, confused, and grumpy.”
“This doubly-natural approach to their Type Specs has an inverse effect on (ep)s’ type fears. While (ep)s are very unintentional and un-deliberate about their desires, this interestingly makes them doubly intentional and doubly deliberate about how to handle their fears. Having such an intimate connection to their own selves, (ep)s are much more aware of their type’s fears, and how those fears might sprout up in their lives in the form of Type Angsts.
“Often, this makes (ep)s a bit more resigned to the effects of their type fears. Being so well acquainted with all the ways that their Type Angsts can crop up and get in the way of, well, everything, (ep)s are kinda like the old, grizzled, paranoid veteran of the subtypes, who’s all too aware of the reality of danger and perhaps a little too pessimistic of the chances of overcoming it. Jumping at possible fulfillments of their type fear everywhere, (ep)s can be quick to overthink things and see their fear in any potentially worrisome situation. This can make them feel resigned to having to live with the sheer size and resilience of their type’s fears. Yet this also has the advantage of making (ep)s the most familiar with all the ins and outs of their type fear, which can equip them to beat those fears effectively and doubly-deliberately.
“On the whole, though, (ep) subs are free and natural in their approach to life, decisions, and their own type. Each different cognitive type is so different, yet it’s pretty adorable seeing how the (ep) subtype of each brings such an adaptive openness to any and every type.”
(ip) sub: The Comfortable Approach
“With a focus on situations and their specific data and details, (ip) subs end up naturally gravitating to the behaviors they enjoy, the activities they prefer, and the circumstances where they’re the most comfortable.
“Comfort is a big thing for (ip) subs. They like approaching their Type Specs in a relaxed, cautious way that makes the most use of their accustomed techniques of behavior. With (p)’s auto-steering allowing them to pay closer attention to interesting and unexpected surprises along life’s branching roads, and (i)’s deliberate control of the decision-mobile’s speed letting them slow down to examine particularly intriguing choices, or speed up to hurry through rote or uninteresting decisions, (ip) makes for a very comfortable ride through life. Their deliberate (i) naturalness (p) means that (ip)s intentionally *choose* to approach their Type Spec in a natural, relaxed way; they’re “deliberately natural.” That’s what best helps them learn and improve their accustomed toolbelt of behaviors. Different individuals are different, yet all this causes healthy (ip) subs to tend to be quite chill and laid-back about their Type Specs and about life in general.”
“(ip) is always about situational details. No matter what the cognitive type, (ip) subs approach it through the (ip) data-based ToI, paying attention to the situations of life and smoothly adapting to them. This lets (ip) subs slow down and focus in on important details relating to their Type Spec, but only when (ip)s allow themselves to chill and be (ip)s. When they feel pressured to be more driven or self-directed (self-directed isn’t always a good thing, it’s just a (j) thing), they tend to neglect their carefully honed and perfected behaviors and overlook precious situational details. This can make them very dissatisfied with life, others, and especially themselves.
“This deliberately natural approach to their Type Specs has an inverse effect on (ip)s’ type fears. While (ip)s are intentionally relaxed about their desires, this makes them unintentionally focused and attentive, or “naturally deliberate,” about their fears. This unintentional deliberateness means that (ip)s can’t help but be focused on and even preoccupied with their fears! Having such an attentive awareness of the situational details of their Type Spec, (ip)s are unavoidably aware of how each situation prods at their hidden fears and insecurities.
“This inescapable awareness frequently causes (ip)s to react by running the other way, *trying* to escape by attempting to hide their worries from their own selves, like the ‘don’t worry, be happy, and wear some smooth shades’ dude among the subtypes. They want to be chill and comfortable, not harassed by gnawing fears that might seem to undermine their entire Type Spec. So, (ip)s tend toward various forms of denying that their type fear really even bothers them. They may deny that the fear is true — and usually, it isn’t true! — or they may deny that the fear is even there to begin with. But denial is not the same as facing a fear and growing to understand, overcome, and even benefit from it. The more (ip)s unintentionally shy away from exploring their type’s fear and Angst, the more they’ll end up falling victim to their Type Angst in more pronounced and debilitating ways. Yet the more they learn to take the power of their detailed awareness and focus it on their most uncomfortable fears, the more perfectly they can exemplify all the strengths of their Type Spec without any of its weaknesses.
“Overall, (ip) subs are the most intentionally free and relaxed in their approach to life, decisions, and their own type. Among all the many different cognitive types, the (ip) subtype of each brings such a comforting, attentive peacefulness to any Type Spec.”
(ej) sub: The Supercharged Approach
“With a focus on action and the consequences that lead to desired experiences, (ej) subs are always sharply aware of which habits they need to improve in order to get the consequences they desire.
“This causes (ej)s to become a bit compulsive about fulfilling their Type Spec. And that’s a good thing! With (e)’s natural, automatic approach combined with (j)’s intentional focus, (ej) subs become “naturally deliberate” — unintentionally, inescapably focused on their Type Spec. Focused whether they like it or not. Using the metaphor of the decision-mobile, (ej)s have deliberate, self-directed control of their steering (j) but not of their speed (e). They can plan and choose where they want to go, but not how fast or slow they want to go while getting there; their decision-engine is always set on one speed: forward! There is no slowing down to study things more carefully, only a constant (and often frantic) attention to steering as they pilot their careening decision-mobile down the paths they determine. There’s no time to stop and observe, only an absolute focus forward in order to avoid crashing into things. Everything is a challenge to be assaulted deliberately! This makes (ej) subs a relentless force for fulfilling their Type Spec, when they’re healthy.”
“Whether an (ej)’s Type Spec is about edifying or enjoying, about practical use or expectable results, they’re always active in plotting a course and building habits to make it happen. They can’t turn it off. They may be quietly determined, patiently calculating, or loudly enthusiastic, but they never lose sight of a full-thrust attack on their Type Spec’s main desire. Even when they want to. (ej) subs who try to fight their Type Spec, trying to leave it behind in order to be a different type, are plagued with a sharper internal conflict than other subtypes because their Type Spec is still set on turbo, whether they like it or not. All the power and ferocity that gives (ej)s their drive, also means that their deepest desires won’t be quashed by any mere passing fear or insecurity caused by their Type Angst. Their deepest desires will come to the fore, even when contradictory fears tear them in two.
“Fortunately, as an apparent balance to this potential for soul-rending conflict, (ej)s are also the most naturally comfortable with their Type Angst. Healthy (ej)s tend to embrace their type’s fears with the same enthusiasm as anything else, finding joy and excitement in the challenge. As the inverse of their Type Spec’s un-turn-off-able “natural deliberateness,” (ej)s are deliberately natural about their approach to their type’s fears. They’re the swaggering, charismatic goofball of the subtypes. They deliberately choose to relax and go naturally with the flow of their fears, turning that flow into a constant source of passion and drive. Their fear comfortably motivates a constantly renewed push on their Type Spec, impelling them higher and faster. This makes healthy (ej)s a source of safety, a blazing example of their Type Spec, and a ton of fun.
“When unhealthy, however, all this fire causes (ej)s to burn themselves and others. Unhealthy (ej)s tend to project their type’s fear onto others rather than embracing it themselves, accusing those who make them uncomfortable of having the very failings that they’re so aware of in their own private selves. This does not make unhealthy (ej)s any worse or even any more damaging than unhealthy people of other subtypes; it just makes them quite noticeable about it.
“In everything, (ej)s tend to be noticeable! In their fears and desires, in doing and being, whether they’re trying to make a splash or trying to blend in, (ej) subs burn bright with their sharp, ultra-focused approach to everything they do!”
(ij) sub: The Deliberate Approach
“With a focus on universal principles and the trends that demonstrate them, (ij) subs become closely familiar with the fact that our attitudes shape our thoughts, feelings, evaluations, and reactions to everything that exists or happens in the world. Because of this awareness, (ij)s seek to control and cultivate their attitudes intentionally, recognizing that otherwise, their attitudes will end up controlling them.
“Control of self is everything for (ij)s: control of one’s own desires, biases, liabilities, and strengths, and particularly control of one’s approach to their own Type Spec. When faced with the vast, complex, and so often seemingly contradictory trends of each Type Spec, healthy (ij)s seek control and caution of their own attitudes in order to maintain as much clarity and impartiality as they can. By paying attention to the way that our attitudes totally alter our interpretation of every event, every experience, every thought and idea and every scrap of information, healthy (ij)s seek to broaden their understanding of their Type Spec by taking careful control of their own attitude-lens. Unhealthy (ij)s, by contrast, seek to control their attitude-lens in order to produce conclusions and interpretations that they like, deliberately skewing the world in whatever way is convenient to their own twisted version of their type’s desires. Unhealthy (ij)s live and breathe to fool themselves and then fool others via one-sided attitudes, while healthy (ij)s live every moment trying to compensate for and cancel their attitude’s biases in order to see everything more clearly.
“Everything is about principles and trends for (ij) subs, approaching their Type Spec through the (ij) principles ToI in order to see and understand what makes their type work. … The world is a fabulously complicated realm, which means that easy, simplistic, one-sided attitudes lead to poor results in practice. There are plenty of bickering, one-sided attitudes these days already; the world could use some healthy (ij)s of every type to deliberately develop inclusive, accurate attitudes.
“(ij) subs are the most deliberate of the subtypes, wielding the intentional, planned steering of (j) as well as the deliberate speed control of (i). They’re ‘doubly deliberate’ in their approach to everything. They may choose to slow down to study an interesting moment, or speed up to move on to something else, while also choosing which roads, detours, or undiscovered vistas they want to steer their decisions toward next. This total control may sound nice to other subtypes, but it comes at the cost of constant attention to both speed and direction. Sure, (ij)s are free to slow down and consider details when they choose, but their deliberate attention to speed and steering makes it harder for them to notice such details in the first place. While they don’t need to be as direly focused forward as (ej)s, their attention is spent primarily on control of the decision-mobile, making it easy for them to miss options and ideas that might seem totally obvious to less deliberate subtypes.
“(ij)s’ double-deliberateness means that they approach their Type Spec entirely by choice. They *choose* to love the things that matter most to them. They choose to care most about their own type’s central desires; healthy (ij)s wouldn’t have it any other way. Sure, they could try to force being a different type and tear themselves apart by attempting to bury their own most precious desires, but healthy (ij)s *like* their Type Spec; it’s a pure reflection of who they are. In dealing with their strengths, weaknesses, growth, learning, anything, (ij)s are always consciously aware of their every move.
“While such deliberate control helps (ij)s chart the path of their own growth, that growth is best served when they focus on developing strong, complex inward attitudes. When (ij)s feel pressured to focus on deliberately developing outward habits more than inward attitudes, they end up stifling their own powerful and special capacity for self mastery. This leads to depression, searing inner conflict, and a haunting worry that their true potential is entirely unrecognized and unrealized. Yet when (ij)s allow themselves to approach life, goals, others, and especially themselves by cultivating inner attitudes most of all, they grow capable of deliberately learning the strengths of other subtypes without suppressing their own.
“All this double-deliberateness becomes the opposite, however, when it comes to (ij) subs’ type fears and the Angsts that those fears cause. (ij)s are doubly natural, doubly unintentional, about their fears and insecurities. While they approach life with such control, that same control leaves them extra vulnerable to the unexpected and the unknown, to the crucial yet overlooked sides of the world outside the scope of their own carefully cultivated attitudes. In deliberately choosing to love their Type Spec, (ij)s are helplessly locked into the fears that come as part of the deal of each type; they can’t have one without the other.
“This helplessness often causes (ij)s to feel especially torn regarding their fears. On the one hand, they can still approach their fear with control, developing attitudes that help them face and overcome their fears. Yet on the other hand, in spite of all their accustomed control, the fear simply won’t go away. They may enjoy precious victories over their persistent fears, deliberately learning new things about life and themselves, and yet like comic book supervillains, the fears will still always be back next time. (ij) subs are the tragically flawed heroes among the subtypes, constantly battling on when the real foe is their own inner demons. Fortunately, these undying fears can become an asset instead of a liability, but only as we face them and grow. Life for (ij) subs is the constant coexisting duality between light and dark, strength and weakness, victory and catastrophe, growth and stagnation. They are the living embodiment of the eternal principles that define their particular Type Spec.
“On the whole, (ij)s’ doubly-deliberate approach to life and everything draws them to a continual attempt at balance between comfort and ferocity, outward direction and inward introspection. Yet this comes at the cost of constant control, leaving them the most helpless of all the subtypes against the incessant stabs of their type’s fear.”
And boom, there we go! Now we can talk about subtypes here on Phase 1!
Whew, so this was not a short post after all…actually it’s a bit longer than the full Phase 2 version! But hey, I had to talk about facial typing and stuff here, and I quoted Calise’s explanation from the old forum. Phase 2 posts are able to go into more depth about exactly why and how subtypes are what they are, but this should be good for here.
In the original Phase 2 post, after each subtype section, we gave a list of examples of people of that subtype, one for each cognitive type. We’re much more cautious about doing that sort of thing here, though, because we get tired of people cruising in, saying “nope, that’s wrong, because [insert demeaning stereotype here.]” For example (paraphrasing), “Nope, [Shen] is INTJ, because he has a vision.” What the…? So only INTJs can have great, ambitious vision? Oh no wait, I used the word “ambitious,” and only ENTJs are ambitious, right? “Nope, Rapunzel is an E, because she’s outgoing.” “Nope, Mulan is an F, because she cares about people.” “Nope, Marble Hornets’ Jay is a P, because he stinks at planning.” “Nope, Harry Potter is ISFP, because he’s lazy about schoolwork but he’s good at Quidditch.” All real comments we’ve gotten. I am not making this crap up.
I just…yeah… So only Es are social, only Fs ever care about people, only Ps have trouble with planning and schoolwork, and only Ss are athletic? May INTP(ip) Michael Jordan come smack you in your sleep. How is this science? How is this okay? I wish I were exaggerating, but people talk this way so unabashedly.
Yet over and over, we meet sensible, cool people who just want to *understand* themselves and everyone else, and, well, stereo-typing is simply the best option they’ve known so far. That’s who we’re writing for. There’s not much hope in trying to “convince” people who *want* the ugly, nonsensical stereotypes, who cling to them tenaciously because the simplifications make them feel better than other people. No, we’re here for the awesome people who want self-understanding rather than self-justification, who want to face and solve problems rather than point out somebody else’s, and who want the real versions that actually work and can actually be used in daily life, rather than bizarro four-by-four charts that boil down the complexity of human minds into a vapid list of traits that could kinda apply to anyone.
Heh, but enough of that, we have plenty of posts laboriously explaining the issues with the inconsistencies and stereotypes. For this one, I’ll just say that the types I’m about to list are not mere subjective opinions based on selective cherry-picking of a few quotes or anecdotes. What’s awesome about having reliable, repeatable definitions that always apply, is that they always work. There’s no wiggle room for subjective fudging; if there were, then our definitions would be flawed. In addition, the ironclad reliability of facial typing is like a hot knife cutting through the sludge of stereotypes. Okay that’s gross, but it’s true. And it’s so cool.
So now without further ado, here’s a parade of subtypes to give a glimpse at how each sub approaches each cognitive type!
Natural (ep) subs: – ENFP(ep): Charles Dickens – ESFP(ep): Andrew Zimmern – ENTP(ep): Will Smith – ESTP(ep): Conan O’Brien – INFP(ep): Benito Mussolini (who says INFPs can’t be evil?) – ISFP(ep): Michael Jackson – INTP(ep): Albert Einstein – ISTP(ep): Jennifer Lawrence – ENFJ(ep): William Shakespeare – ESFJ(ep): Reese Witherspoon – ENTJ(ep): Anthony Bourdain – ESTJ(ep): Neil Armstrong – INFJ(ep): Aaron Sorkin – ISFJ(ep): Carrie Underwood – INTJ(ep): Christopher Columbus – ISTJ(ep): Ayn Rand
Comfortable (ip) subs: – ENFP(ip): Winston Churchill – ESFP(ip): Oscar Wilde – ENTP(ip): Viggo Mortensen – ESTP(ip): Alexander the Great – INFP(ip): Stephen Hawking – ISFP(ip): Alfred Hitchcock – INTP(ip): Mark Twain – ISTP(ip): Socrates – ENFJ(ip): Martin Luther King, Jr. – ESFJ(ip): Maya Angelou – ENTJ(ip): Thomas Edison – ESTJ(ip): Bill O’Reilly – INFJ(ip): Mohandas Gandhi – ISFJ(ip): Jonah Hill – INTJ(ip): Leonardo da Vinci – ISTJ(ip): Charlotte Bronte
Supercharged (ej) subs: – ENFP(ej): Nikola Tesla – ESFP(ej): Jay Leno – ENTP(ej): Benjamin Franklin – ESTP(ej): Ernest Hemingway – INFP(ej): Helen Keller – ISFP(ej): Rosa Parks – INTP(ej): Marie Curie – ISTP(ej): Les Stroud (Survivorman) – ENFJ(ej): Lewis Carroll – ESFJ(ej): Alan Tudyk – ENTJ(ej): Katy Perry – ESTJ(ej): Queen Elizabeth II – INFJ(ej): Fred Astaire – ISFJ(ej): Anderson Cooper – INTJ(ej): Henry Ford – ISTJ(ej): Christopher Lee
Deliberate (ij) subs: – ENFP(ij): Julie Andrews – ESFP(ij): Eleanor Roosevelt – ENTP(ij): Jimmy Fallon – ESTP(ij): Samuel L. Jackson – INFP(ij): Daniel Radcliffe – ISFP(ij): Christopher Nolan – INTP(ij): Abraham Lincoln – ISTP(ij): Scarlett Johansson – ENFJ(ij): Stan Lee – ESFJ(ij): Anna Kendrick – ENTJ(ij): Napoleon Bonaparte – ESTJ(ij): Jamie Hyneman (Mythbusters) – INFJ(ij): James McAvoy – ISFJ(ij): Bruce Willis – INTJ(ij): Steve Jobs – ISTJ(ij): Pablo Picasso
This makes me want to list more, both real-life and fictional too, to show more about how amazingly and diversely each type thinks! How well they all work, how marvelously consistent they are, and how much we all need *all* of them. To quote the Phase 2 subtype post one more time:
“Each needs all the others, each fills holes and covers weaknesses of the others, and each shines the brightest when benefitting and learning from the unique approaches of each other subtype.
“And every subtype can learn to gain all the strengths of all the others. Just as with … cognition, if we try to force being a different subtype due to pressure or fears, then we’ll gain only the easily acquired weaknesses of the other sub, while neglecting the strengths of our own. Yet as we allow ourselves to embrace life as the subtype we naturally are, we grow to overcome all its weaknesses while also gaining the strengths of other subtypes. And the more we grow to understand ourselves and others, the happier, more effective, and more beneficial we become, able to lift everyone and show them how awesome life can be.”
On the aLBoP Guided Tour? You’ve reached the last stop for now! :'( But don’t worry! That means you’re ready to invite yourself to Phase 2! And believe me, there’s plenty to read over there! Thanks for sticking around and showing us your love! <3s
The post A Little Bit of Subtypes appeared first on A Little Bit of Personality.
from A Little Bit of Subtypes
