[Leeuwer]

Howdy!

With the advent of the Avengers movie, I thought I'd analyse a few of the characters based on what we know about them
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Normally I only send this stuff to a few (unfortunate!) close friends, but I thought: why not share? Perhaps someone else enjoys these as well.

I warn you in advance that I can go off on a tangent
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
But, I do my best to do these analyses in a fairly meticulous way, trying to take into account the different functions and their respective development in a character.
Some may disagree with some analyses and that's perfectly fine.

Why do I do it? Well, it's fun! Brain exercise.

In the mean time, I've done Thor, Tony Stark, Captain America and Bruce Banner.

Today I've begun tackling the big one ... Mad Men's Don Draper.

FYI, all posts contain small spoilers, so be sure to see the movies/TV series first!

Thor:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Tony Stark/Iron Man:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
+ some tidbits on Agent Coulson, aw yiss!

Steve Rogers/Captain America:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Bruce Banner & The Hulk:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
with an addendum on the Tony & Bruce relationship <3

Don Draper: Part 1:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Saggita]

Where's Loki's analysis?

[Leeuwer]

	Originally Posted by Saggita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Where's Loki's analysis?

I'll do it, if there's enough interest. I skipped him for now because unfortunately we see very little of him.

[ManWithNoName]

I glanced at them and read some of the typing's. I would have to say they seem to be accurate, well if you are referring to the different characters from the avenger films. The comic books characters are a bit different sometimes I think depending on which incarnation of them you are reading and who the writer was.

As for Don Draper I've only seen the first two seasons but I think he's an INTJ and probably one of the most realistically portrayed INTJs I've ever seen in the sense that he's not some kind of super-powered INTJ exaggerated INTJ that comes in either the genius/scientist flavor or the villain/mastermind flavour. He's a very humanized where he's more just your average INTJ. Smart but not to the point of exaggeration and ultimately kind of flawed. I find his character encompasses all four of the INTJ functions and you can see the different functions and processes at work in his actions and behaviour.

Also, his pitches and the ways he comes up with his ideas through synthesizing multiple facets of a product and how it's used and containing it all within a grander symbol that is both emotional and logical and is almost created out of nothing to me is the very definition of how the abstract thinking of Introverted Intuition works. I can relate to it in so many ways.

[Leeuwer]

Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I glanced at them and read some of the typing's. I would have to say they seem to be accurate, well if you are referring to the different characters from the avenger films. The comic books characters are a bit different sometimes I think depending on which incarnation of them you are reading and who the writer was. As for Don Draper I've only seen the first two seasons but I think he's an INTJ and probably one of the most realistically portrayed INTJs I've ever seen in the sense that he's not some kind of super-powered INTJ exaggerated INTJ that comes in either the genius/scientist flavor or the villain/mastermind flavour. He's a very humanized where he's more just your average INTJ. Smart but not to the point of exaggeration and ultimately kind of flawed. I find his character encompasses all four of the INTJ functions and you can see the different functions and processes at work in his actions and behaviour. Also, his pitches and the ways he comes up with his ideas through synthesizing multiple facets of a product and how it's used and containing it all within a grander symbol that is both emotional and logical and is almost created out of nothing to me is the very definition of how the abstract thinking of Introverted Intuition works. I can relate to it in so many ways.

Thank you!

And yeah, absolutely. That was going to be my conclusion as well. I had doubts first about Don, because he does seem to portray some behaviour that could be labelled contradictory for an INTJ or simply not archetypical. For example, at first I assumed his mental creative process was part of Extraverted Intuition, but like you said, all seems to point to Introverted Intuition instead.

Simply the fact that Don prefers to "think alone" or rest while he is pondering over some problem highlights that. An Extraverted Intuitive would be more keen to keep collecting more data/information/inspiration. Like Don says (paraphrased): "Think real hard about a problem... then forget it. And the answer will simply come to you."

But all in all, Don is indeed a very realistic INTJ, obviously galled by how his emotional life seems to dictate some aspects of him that he prefers to control, and struggling to make sense of his "moral principles".

Roger Sterling likewise. I had him pegged as an ESTP first, but now I'm fairly certain he's an ENFP.

I have some readers from a movie forum who, just like I, have a thing for Don Draper's character, so I don't want to get this done too rapidly ;-)

[ManWithNoName]

	Originally Posted by Leeuwer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And yeah, absolutely. That was going to be my conclusion as well. I had doubts first about Don, because he does seem to portray some behaviour that could be labelled contradictory for an INTJ or simply not archetypical.

Yeah he's definitely not your stereotypical INTJ. But that's kind of expected due to how well written his character is. Most characters in most writing and to some extent even the various personality type descriptions of the internet, really just describe the first two functions of that personality type and how just those two functions interact.

Describing or forecasting how the other two functions work and interact in terms of personality type is very, very hard as it tends to be somewhat paradoxical at heart as those two are apposed to the dominant two and so cause the endless complications and nuances that are found in real human beings. The bottom two functions for the most part remain kind of internal or are not as exhibited as much and when they are tend to be somewhat filtered by the more dominant functions above them.

Overall I think Don Draper is an INTJ who has strong Ni probably slightly undeveloped Te due to not having a really stringent science or math related career, developed Fi, and pretty well developed Se which is what makes him seem kind of different from most INTJs but is probably a result of the work environment he has worked in all his life and kind of the general times where most jobs back then were S related and it was the standard.

	Originally Posted by Leeuwer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Simply the fact that Don prefers to "think alone" or rest while he is pondering over some problem highlights that. An Extraverted Intuitive would be more keen to keep collecting more data/information/inspiration. Like Don says (paraphrased): "Think real hard about a problem... then forget it. And the answer will simply come to you."

Yeah, while Ne and Ni are similar in many respect I think the most telling thing is if you watch closely Don doesn't actually come up with the ideas he synthesizes together.

Like for example one thing he commonly does and is shown doing is going around asking people how they'd use the product and what they think of the product. Then he kind of just lets his unconscious churn it over and come up with an abstracted symbol that is representational of all these different viewpoints.

Same with the different ideas the workers underneath him bring to him. He rarely comes up with an advertising campaign by himself. He simply lets his workers come up with a bunch of ideas and then he critiques them and stitches them together and generally gets after them a bit to do something on a deeper level, that communicates not just through one or two ideas but multiple ideas on multiple channels at the same time.

To me a Ne user would be able to look at the product and immediately think of all the different ways it can be used. They wouldn't need to go around asking people what they think of it or the different perspectives on it as the object itself would generate all these ideas and have them spring into their head. However, they would have a much harder time stitching it together at least in a bigger abstract more symbolic sense. They maybe able to organize their ideas in a framework but to have the ideas to come together in a morass that is greater than the whole which is what Don often does, I don't think a Ne user would be able to just as Ni users can never generate as many ideas out of nothing to work iwith.

	But all in all, Don is indeed a very realistic INTJ, obviously galled by how his emotional life seems to dictate some aspects of him that he prefers to control, and struggling to make sense of his "moral principles".

Yeah the whole moral principles and the struggle it causes him is Fi. He really doesn't care much about other people at all as far as his or their actions don't intrude on his little moral compass as then he feels bad about it or bad for them and wants to help.

	Roger Sterling likewise. I had him pegged as an ESTP first, but now I'm fairly certain he's an ENFP.

I thought he was a pretty solid ESTP, although I've only seen the first two functions and his character is beginning to change and shift a bit into an ENFP as the writers want him to change him into something a bit different.

[Findley]

I think both Hamm and Draper are INFJs. There is clearly Ni use. Draper seems insightful about what people like and want to hear. And, in the first few seasons, he is unhealthy and acts like an unhealthy ESTP. I think he gives off a more Mark Harmon-y or Tom Selleck-y vibe with Fe rather than an INTJs' Te.

[Ghostwheel]

I think Don's an ISTJ. It looks to me as though he heavily favors sensing over intuition:

• He’s traditional, practical, realistic, responsible, and matter-of-fact. He doesn’t lose himself in intuitive flights of fancy. His approach to work strikes me as very sensing. Unlike an intuitor, he rarely comes up with something whole cloth out of nothing. His approach is very realistic and sensing based:
  
  
• When he saves the Lucky Strike account, he bases his sale on the product details the executive gives him: “it’s toasted.” The department store account: he finally visits the store for a very sensor-like look-around. The Israeli Tourist account: he hears a song at beatnik club. Liberty Capital: he asks the very practical question—who’s accounts are these? The men, not the women, and the men want not toasters but secrecy (because like him, they’re all having affairs). Kodak Carousel: the nostalgia theme is derived from his immediate experience in regard to receiving his brother’s old photos and the news of his death. His creativity therefore strikes me as very grounded and sensor-ish as opposed to intuitive.
  
  
• And unlike every NT I’ve ever known, he seems to have zero intellectual interests. Books, politics, science, literature, board games, etc … it’s all a big zero with him. He’s totally focused on work, family, banging women, and hanging out in bars and smoking and drinking. Sometimes he goes by himself to the cinema.
  
  
• Also, unlike virtually every male NT I’ve ever know, he seems to have no love of argument as a means of debate and exploring ideas. An NT might have had a lively debate with the pot-smoking beatniks. But Draper isn't interested. In SJ fashion, he simply declared that "there is no system, the universe is insensate" and for him, that's that. The moment shows his disinterest in philosophy along with so many other Intuitive pursuits.
  
  
• In another instance, When the Lipstick Executive doesn’t like the idea being offered (actually Peggy’s idea), Don threatens to walk out. There’s no NT-ish attraction for exploring the executive’s thought processes and converting him. For Draper it’s all very practical: this is the best campaign possible, accept it or stop wasting my time. I found that approach very ST-ish and have seen ST salesmen use it.

[ManWithNoName]

	Originally Posted by Findley To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think both Hamm and Draper are INFJs. There is clearly Ni use. Draper seems insightful about what people like and want to hear. And, in the first few seasons, he is unhealthy and acts like an unhealthy ESTP. I think he gives off a more Mark Harmon-y or Tom Selleck-y vibe with Fe rather than an INTJs' Te.

I highly doubt Don Draper is an NF. NFs tend to really care about people and their problems and genuinely want to make the world a better place. They tend towards altruism in this manner. Don Draper does not, he cares mainly about himself. Fe is a very harmonizing function. It want's everyone to kind of get along and work well together. Don Draper doesn't care about people working together or being a team player. He'll simply walk away.

Also Fe is like having an antenna that can pick up on and feel the emotions of others and literally feeling them. Don Draper doesn't do this at all. He has an inner set of very hard to define nuanced morals that he sticks to no matter what or simply pushes the memories out of his mind when he transgresses against that set of morals and principals. When the morals or principals are violated he just drops the person and walks away. This is all pure Fi.

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think Don's an ISTJ. It looks to me as though he heavily favors sensing over intuition:

As an ISTJ Don Draper would have Introverted Sensing, Si, as a dominant function. Introverted Sensing is all about memory. Introverted Sensors have an incredible memory for details and to them reality is memory. They love to recount past memories and stories and become very animated when doing so, and whenever they experience anything they automatically compare it to every memory they've had and ask questions like, is this new way of doing things or experience better? How does it compare? Introverted Sensors are very past oriented because of this. They stick to the tried and true methods and are traditionalists.

Don Draper is not past oriented at all. Again and again you hear him stress about how moving forward is so important. No matter what he must move forward. He cares not for the past and is willing and can just forget about it all. He also shows no predilection for sensation. Introverted Sensors are not as sensation seeking as Extroverted Sensors but they like to seek out favoured sensations and memorable things. Like they'd do stuff like go on the same fishing trip every year because they have found memories of it in the past and every time they go on it, it's like re-living this favored experience.

	He’s traditional, practical, realistic, responsible, and matter-of-fact. He doesn’t lose himself in intuitive flights of fancy. His approach to work strikes me as very sensing. Unlike an intuitor, he rarely comes up with something whole cloth out of nothing. His approach is very realistic and sensing based:

Being pragmatic, practical, and realistic is thinking oriented thing, especially Te as being pragmatic and practical involves placing judgment upon something (is this option practical?) which by it's very definition is not a Sensing as sensing is a perceiving function.

Sensing makes you aware of an object. Thinking tells you what it is. Feeling tells you whether or not it is agreeable. And Intuition tells you whence it came and where it is going.

It is though his intuition that he's able to predict what direction the market will take and what the consumers want. Don makes many intuitive guesses. It's what astounds the other characters around him. Like the whole Heineken thing. Based on only his wife and some vague thoughts he realizes that housewives are a huge untapped market. He has virtually no evidence to show for it but makes the intuitive leap because he feels so strongly about it and manages to sell it with the practical idea that they just do a simple test run.

This is how the Ni+Te function loop works. Ni looks at discrete different things, facts, figures, numbers, ideas, and examines them and comes to a realization about very abstract relationships between them. Intuition in it's general sense is simply the highly attuned ability to notice patterns.

Once Introverted Intuition has come up with the realization then Te comes into action to determine the practicality of the realization. Is there any truth to the perceived pattern? Or is it simply bunk? And if there is truth, how do I break down this truth and put it into action?

Draper does this through being able to break the singular idea that is the central focus of the advertising campaign into how it will manifest.

When he saves the Lucky Strike account, he bases his sale on the product details the executive gives him: “it’s toasted.” The department store account: he finally visits the store for a very sensor-like look-around. The Israeli Tourist account: he hears a song at beatnik club. Liberty Capital: he asks the very practical question—who’s accounts are these? The men, not the women, and the men want not toasters but secrecy (because like him, they’re all having affairs). Kodak Carousel: the nostalgia theme is derived from his immediate experience in regard to receiving his brother’s old photos and the news of his death. His creativity therefore strikes me as very grounded and sensor-ish as opposed to intuitive.

From the single line of “it’s toasted” springs a sudden realization that makes him evaluate the entire Tobacco market in a new light and come up with a totally new way of looking at the industry and a totally ingenious marketing plan.

This is Ni and how it works. It just goes along absorbing little facts and ideas, little experiences and thoughts (it's a perceiving function so it just takes in information) and then in a flash of insight comes up with a realization, a new way of looking at things, a new connection or relationship that nobody else saw.

Intuitives focus on the relationships between objects. Sensors focus on the objects themselves. A sensor would look at the old photos and simply see old photos or recall the memories.

For Don Draper these things don't act as objects themselves. They act as triggers. They trigger the intuitive insights. You can practically trace the path his intuition takes:

The photos are representative of old memories, the Kodak wheel things deals with old memories, Kodak deals with old memories, Kodak wants something space age but this clashes with the symbolic nature of photos as photos represent the old, they want something with a wheel, what else has a wheel, what is old, what is an old memory, kids playing, kids playing in a park, a carousel, a carousel represents all these things. And thus the insight is born.

Ni goes from the one to the many. It goes along making very non-linear abstract loose connections but at the same time slowly narrowing into and honing into a very holistic symbolic idea that represents the very abstract of the perceived relationship that very often is so vague it almost doesn't exist in reality.

[/QUOTE]
And unlike every NT I’ve ever known, he seems to have zero intellectual interests. Books, politics, science, literature, board games, etc … it’s all a big zero with him. He’s totally focused on work, family, banging women, and hanging out in bars and smoking and drinking. Sometimes he goes by himself to the cinema.[/QUOTE]

Having intellectual pursuits is not a requirement for being an INTJ and it is very hard to type off of behavior in this manner as you have to ask not what is a person doing? But why? And how?

Like lots of different people like horror movies. But if you ask them why you'd get a ton of different answers and it's in these answer you'd probably be able to type them. MBTI and personality theory doesn't really measure behavior as much as it does cognition. This is one reason why it's not really accepted in the psychological community. It's hard to design tests for it as tests can only really test for behavior and to this end half the cognitive processes are introverted and don't have much outward behaviour to them at all.

Many Sensors have intellectual pursuits. If questioned or examined however they would probably do them for very different reasons than an NT.

Also, unlike virtually every male NT I’ve ever know, he seems to have no love of argument as a means of debate and exploring ideas. An NT might have had a lively debate with the pot-smoking beatniks. But Draper isn't interested. In SJ fashion, he simply declared that "there is no system, the universe is insensate" and for him, that's that. The moment shows his disinterest in philosophy along with so many other Intuitive pursuits.

Draper is disgusted by their aimlessness in life. While this seems very SJ the big tell is that he himself knows it's all a lie. He is disgusted by them but at the same time knows that he really isn't better. He is very nihilistic in this fashion. An SJ would likely not be as nihilistic. SJs are the guardians of society. They work hard and truly believe in what they do and truly believe in just working hard and tradition and order.

They would truly believe the things that Draper says and not realize them for the lies they are like Draper does and freely admits. Draper has no interest in debating them on their philosophy because he has thought a lot longer than them about their philosophy (he is freely indulging in their way of life after all) and knows it for what it is. He doesn't discuss it because he has already thought about it as much as there is to think about it and placed judgement upon it.

In another instance, When the Lipstick Executive doesn’t like the idea being offered (actually Peggy’s idea), Don threatens to walk out. There’s no NT-ish attraction for exploring the executive’s thought processes and converting him. For Draper it’s all very practical: this is the best campaign possible, accept it or stop wasting my time. I found that approach very ST-ish and have seen ST salesmen use it.

INTJs are well known for their practicality. Whatever works, whatever is the best solution, the most efficient method. When others can't see the best method for what they think the best method is INTJs are well known for just moving on or becoming very angry and somewhat hostile as they tend to not suffer fools gladly. They are a bit different from INTPs in this manner who just want to explore ideas and methods forever which is what I think you are thinking of. INTPs love to come up with different theories as they try to find the perfect abstracted theroy.

INTJs just want something that works and is optimized to reality (which INTPs tend to care less about). Don threatens to walk out because he knows Peggy's idea is a genuinely good idea and that what the lipstick company wants to do isn't working. He knows the sales and knows they need a new approach and yet the lipstick company wants to stick to what they are doing. Don doesn't care what they are thinking as he knows it hasn't' produced results in the past and won't produce results this time. There needs to be a radical shift in thought and approach. S types, especially SJs tend to not like radical shifts or thoughts. They want to stick with what has proven even if what has proven isn't the most effective or optimized solution.

INTJs tend to be somewhat prima donnas in the work force because of this. They are seen as incredibly demanding because they want to provide incredible results.

[Leeuwer]

Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Draper is disgusted by their aimlessness in life. While this seems very SJ the big tell is that he himself knows it's all a lie. He is disgusted by them but at the same time knows that he really isn't better. He is very nihilistic in this fashion. An SJ would likely not be as nihilistic. SJs are the guardians of society. They work hard and truly believe in what they do and truly believe in just working hard and tradition and order. They would truly believe the things that Draper says and not realize them for the lies they are like Draper does and freely admits. Draper has no interest in debating them on their philosophy because he has thought a lot longer than them about their philosophy (he is freely indulging in their way of life after all) and knows it for what it is. He doesn't discuss it because he has already thought about it as much as there is to think about it and placed judgement upon it.

All points made against Don being an ISTJ, I agree with.

This last one too, is important to just highlight also from my experience with NTs:

While I am an ENTP (who are supposedly in adoration of discussion - and this is mostly true), I refrain from engaging in a discussion when I already know that:

a) there is nothing to discuss. For example, people who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old (not that I've ever met someone like that in person). I would not bother discussing, because that person would have already built up such a powerful "wall to ward out reality" it would be impossible for me to get through.

b) the person is so strongly convinced of his or her right they won't listen to logical argumentation. (usually the case with SJs or SFs). The hippies were most likely SFs or NFs (such as Midge's boyfriend).

c) (here comes to arrogant part) if I consider a person very strongly beneath me on the intellectual scale/agressively confrontational whenever someone challenges their belief systems. In that case I'll probably just nod and have them assume that I agree with them or I will not acknowledge that they said anything.

This sounds arrogant, but it is a very healthy option for times when someone blatantly expresses that ... I don't know, "they hate foreigners and they're all lazy assholes". In those cases I will simply ignore that they said anything and stare into oblivion, or produce the ambiguous "hmm" sound. This really is necessary when that person is someone you work with and/or is important to you for different reasons. While Don could have easily cut the ground
from underneath the hippies' feet, he was at Midge's place and social pressure dictated he could not completely destroy them with arguments. He therefore stuck to some sarcastic remarks/comebacks.

d) I need to be socially nice and accepting. To master the art of self-control, something I know most ENTPs/INTJs do not have, is essential. Having to constantly begin a discussion about anything that does not agree with your own beliefs/opinions/rationality is a huge encumbrance and lacking it can be very annoying in a social situation.

It's simply what you need to become a mature person and get ahead in life. These last years, while I know I can "destroy" someone in real life whenever they come up with a stupid argument on a topic I know a lot of, I simply choose not to confront that person. I therefore admire the self-control people can exhibit when they allow that to pass over them and still smile.

I know many NTs who agree with this. Especially if you meet NTs who are higher up the social ladder: they have had to learn to keep their big mouth shut.

So yeah. I still think Don is an INTJ, be it with self-control. As for his intellectual pursuits: the very art of the creative process is what interests Don.

He is CONSTANTLY thinking about it and working on it. This is, in and of itself, an intellectual pursuit. Plus, he does read books.

Lastly: he's a busy man. I am a busy man too, and while I love going through tons of books/scientific articles in a daily basis, there are times when I simply do not have the time. At those times, I get most of my intellectual stimulation from simply typing people/finding a creative outlet in my work. Don't know if it's the same for Don, but it's possible.

[scorpiomover]

Interesting analysis. Looks like you put a lot of work into it, particularly the appearance of your blog.

I agree that Thor comes across like an ES. However, he is quite clearly driven by his feelings of loyalty, and to the oaths he swore to protect others. So he quite clearly has Fe, and that makes him an ESFJ. He is a protector, who also gets on with others, an Extroverted Protecter, ESFJ, instead of ISFJ.

I agree that Tony Stark seems like an ENTP, because ENTPs are supposed to be the inventors, and Tony is an inventor. However, I am not sure that he is a P, because he runs a billion-dollar company like he was born to it, and is incredibly decisive. Also, he creates the Iron Man suit out of a pressing need, not just because he was being whimsical. I'd say: ENTJ.

I would agree that Steve Rogers comes across like an ISFJ. But Steve Rogers is much more devoted to his personal values of Truth, Justice and the American Way, than most, and as a result, when he believes that it is not correct to hold down a villain, he will let the bad guy get away, even when his feelings want otherwise. So he's probably more of an ISTJ.

In my eyes, Bruce Banner was always an INTP. Didn't seem to mind that others saw him as a bit of an oddball. Always helping others out. Doesn't even get irritated, and when he does, he gets majorly angry, turning into the Hulk. Shows a lot of interest in learning more from science, primarily to help others, and doesn't seem to show an ounce of ambition. Of course, that might be the TV series I grew up watching.

BTW, Colonel Ross always came across as very critical of others, a real action man, and really confident and decisive, a clear J. He doesn't really seem to care for what others think at all, and seems to never discuss feelings, and so is both an I and a T. However, he had an obsession with catching The Hulk, for much more than just doing his duty. He always seems to come up with clever plans to catch The Hulk and use him. So I'd say N. INTJ.

I am sure that The Hulk is a Sensor. He clearly acts very decisively, and criticises others ("puny humans") so is a clear J. He does not take into account others' feelings, and deals with what is going on. So is a very clear T. Also, he is not that interested in others, only caring for close friends, like Rick Jones, and mainly seems to only focus on acting alone. So I'd say I. An ISTJ.

I haven't watched Man Men. Didn't attract me. So I don't know what types they would be.

[Ghostwheel]

You've said a lot, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. The gist seems to be: he comes up with new ideas and new ways of looking at products, so he's an Intuitive. Except I don't believe sensing-thinkers are incapable of being visionary businessmen, and in fact, history is full of them. Plus Don's overall behavior seems continually sensing-thinking oriented. We may have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As an ISTJ Don Draper would have Introverted Sensing, Si, as a dominant function. Introverted Sensing is all about memory. Introverted Sensors have an incredible memory for details and to them reality is memory. They love to recount past memories and stories and become very animated when doing so, and whenever they experience anything they automatically compare it to every memory they've had and ask questions like, is this new way of doing things or experience better? How does it compare? Introverted Sensors are very past oriented because of this. They stick to the tried and true methods and are traditionalists. Don Draper is not past oriented at all. Again and again you hear him stress about how moving forward is so important. No matter what he must move forward. He cares not for the past and is willing and can just forget about it all.

He has no affection for his past because it's so terrible, of course. Similarly, you can find INTJs who are very conservative and traditional, right here on this board, in fact.

	He also shows no predilection for sensation. Introverted Sensors are not as sensation seeking as Extroverted Sensors but they like to seek out favoured sensations and memorable things. Like they'd do stuff like go on the same fishing trip every year because they have found memories of it in the past and every time they go on it, it's like re-living this favored experience.

He's constantly drinking, smoking, and womanizing, all very sensing-oriented activities. What's lacking is intuitive activities: he has, quite simply, no intellectual or theoretical interests at all, as mentioned. The few books he happened to read were recommended to him by others; they practically placed them in his hands. He's not the self-motivated bookworm we NTs are.

It is though his intuition that he's able to predict what direction the market will take and what the consumers want. Don makes many intuitive guesses. It's what astounds the other characters around him. Like the whole Heineken thing. Based on only his wife and some vague thoughts he realizes that housewives are a huge untapped market. He has virtually no evidence to show for it but makes the intuitive leap because he feels so strongly about it and manages to sell it with the practical idea that they just do a simple test run. This is how the Ni+Te function loop works. Ni looks at discrete different things, facts, figures, numbers, ideas, and examines them and comes to a realization about very abstract relationships between them. Intuition in it's general sense is simply the highly attuned ability to notice patterns.

Except Pete Campbell, an SP, also catches future trends. He focuses on bringing in defense oriented aviation firms and reaching for the African-American market (Admiral TV).

The idea that sensors can't catch on to trends in business is simply wrong. For example, J.D. Rockefeller (ISTJ), who foresaw that the big money was not in oil itself, but the refining of it. And how do you like the strategizing that went into Standard Oil? Pretty damn good, hm?

Henry Ford brought the assembly line to car making. Another innovator among business STs.

History past and present is full of STs that have been innovators in business in some way or another.

	Intuitives focus on the relationships between objects. Sensors focus on the objects themselves. A sensor would look at the old photos and simply see old photos or recall the memories.

You can't really believe that all sensors are this simple and limited in their imaginations? That's kind of like saying the intuitor sees his pencil only as a rocketship. I'm INTJ, and I also know how to see my pencil as just a pencil. And sensors also have imagination, too.

For Don Draper these things don't act as objects themselves. They act as triggers. They trigger the intuitive insights. You can practically trace the path his intuition takes: The photos are representative of old memories, the Kodak wheel things deals with old memories, Kodak deals with old memories, Kodak wants something space age but this clashes with the symbolic nature of photos as photos represent the old, they want something with a wheel, what else has a wheel, what is old, what is an old memory, kids playing, kids playing in a park, a carousel, a carousel represents all these things. And thus the insight is born. Ni goes from the one to the many. It goes along making very non-linear abstract loose connections but at the same time slowly narrowing into and honing into a very holistic symbolic idea that represents the very abstract of the perceived relationship that very often is so vague it almost doesn't exist in reality.

Our cognitive functions are preferences, but they're not the entirety of us. Which is the whole point. We see Don's imagination in business, but nowhere else anywhere at all in his life, something that seems very unlike a dominant intuitive.

I'm agreed there's imaginative insight there, but not convinced Don is doing anything a sensor couldn't do. We have sensors on this board (a few female ISFJs come to mind) who have consistently impressed me with their wit and insight. I find Don's creativity to be exceptional while still being very grounded, realistic, and sense-oriented, quite in keeping with his sensing-orientation.

And unlike every NT I’ve ever known, he seems to have zero intellectual interests. Books, politics, science, literature, board games, etc … it’s all a big zero with him. He’s totally focused on work, family, banging women, and hanging out in bars and smoking and drinking. Sometimes he goes by himself to the cinema. Having intellectual pursuits is not a requirement for being an INTJ and it is very hard to type off of behavior in this manner as you have to ask not what is a person doing? But why? And how? Like lots of different people like horror movies. But if you ask them why you'd get a ton of different answers and it's in these answer you'd probably be able to type them. MBTI and personality theory doesn't really measure behavior as much as it does cognition. This is one reason why it's not really accepted in the psychological community. It's hard to design tests for it as tests can only really test for behavior and to this end half the cognitive processes are introverted and don't have much outward behaviour to them at all. Many Sensors have intellectual pursuits. If questioned or examined however they would probably do them for very different reasons than an NT.

I simply disagree with you here. Every NT I've ever known has some kind of intellectual or theoretical interests. Don is conspicuous in his total absence of any of them. Zip. His preferred activities are all very sensation oriented: smoking, drinking, having sex, watching movies, hanging out in bars. He has no interest whatsoever in any kind of theory, intellectual pursuit, or imaginative fancy.

I've met scores of sensors that were this way, but never any intuitive-thinkers. (I've also met a few sensors who enjoy role-playing games and fantasy-oriented activities, to be fair.)

	An SJ would likely not be as nihilistic. SJs are the guardians of society. They work hard and truly believe in what they do and truly believe in just working hard and tradition and order.

I don't think this is a fair generalization. Any type, even bouncy NFs, might be nihilistic if they came from as tortured a background as Don.

They would truly believe the things that Draper says and not realize them for the lies they are like Draper does and freely admits. Draper has no interest in debating them on their philosophy because he has thought a lot longer than them about their philosophy (he is freely indulging in their way of life after all) and knows it for what it is. He doesn't discuss it because he has already thought about it as much as there is to think about it and placed judgement upon it.

Except we never, ever, see him discuss any kind of political, economic, or philosophical ideas, so I'm not convinced he doesn't engage them because he's gone over all that before. When he says "the universe is insensate" he's describing his own emotional void more than any deliberately thought-out philosophy, and his thinking on the beatniks seems to be that they're unrealistic dreamers who, unlike him, "can't go outside" because the fuzz is there and they don't fit in. But he does and can. That says sensor to me.

	S types, especially SJs tend to not like radical shifts or thoughts. They want to stick with what has proven even if what has proven isn't the most effective or optimized solution.

I think this is a generalization that may be usually true, but not always true. Sensing-thinkers can be very canny innovators and strategists in business. J.D. Rockefeller (ISTJ) comes to mind. He saw the future, moved on it, and out-thought and out-maneuvered the opposition at every turn, crushing them utterly. Historical research could come up with many others.

*****

EDIT: On a side-note, sometimes in film and literature, you get characters who are unlikely composites of different traits. While I'm not convinced Don doesn't do anything a sensor couldn't do, you might also say that in his work he has flashes of imagination very much like an intuitive, but otherwise lives, in all other respects, very much like a sensor. That's why if I have to choose, I say sensor, as his overall behavior seems to me very much weighted towards it.

[Leeuwer]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Interesting analysis. Looks like you put a lot of work into it, particularly the appearance of your blog.

Thanks! Well, the appearance cost me the least amount of work actually ;-)

I do wonder if you've read it throroughly, though ... since you say Thor is an ESFJ because he Extraverts Feeling. I also make a case for him being an Extraverted Feeler, however, possessing it as a Tertiary function, not primary. Not going to rehash everything here, but please look into it first! Don't just read the titles.

Also, Stark is an ENTP, I stand by it.

His decisiveness is a byproduct of being a mature person and having well-developed Si and Ti, for which I also make a strong case in the blog.

I am an ENTP and I am enormously decisive. I'm sure everyone knows J's that cannot make up their mind. P does not mean you are indecisive, it simply means you have the ability to perceive more options than just the one. It doesn't say anything about your ability to quickly make up your mind.

And being a P or ENTP does definitely NOT mean you do things because you are whimsical. I actually take some offence to that.

Also, being a J does not mean that you criticize others clearly, and neither does the opposite for a P.

While I appreciate you commenting on this, I'd advise you to investigate the functions a bit more deeply and steer away from typical website commentary that says "Ps are all over the place and indecisive" and "Js have strong opinions and only see black or white". Doesn't work that way.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Leeuwer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I do wonder if you've read it throroughly, though ...

I'm an INTP. I do what you do with ideas, but in reverse. I take them apart, to see how they work, and IF they work. Think of me like your own personal critic.

	since you say Thor is an ESFJ because he Extraverts Feeling. I also make a case for him being an Extraverted Feeler, however, possessing it as a Tertiary function, not primary. Not going to rehash everything here, but please look into it!

I understand that you were analysing these characters by their Jungian functions.

Others have done similar analyses but on the types overall, What they have concluded, is that the people that MBTI tests record as INTPs, have Ni-Te, and the people that MBTI tests score as INTJs, have Ti-Ne.

Also there seems to be quite a large disagreement, and a large lack of consensus, about what the Jungian functions really mean.

So I tend not to rely on either, all that much. My primary preference is to look at those who have that type, and then to observe their characteristics. That way, even if INTPs are INTJs, and ESFJs are ESTPs, they would still belong to the same group. Secondary to that, I use as much data as is available to me, on the nature and characteristics of MBTI distinctions and Jungian functions. So I don't really type by what the books say, as most people do. That in turn results in me producing conclusions that many people say must be wrong. However, I changed from the method of epistemology that most people use, because I found that it was not nearly as reliable as people claimed, and my methods are more reliable.

	Also, Stark is an ENTP, I stand by it.

I agree that Tony Stark COULD be an ENTP. I simply was suggesting that he might also be an ENTJ, and that that might be more likely. Mind you, I read a lot of comics in my teens, where Iron Man was mentioned often, that showed that he had a good understanding of corporate structure, and the way things worked in real life. I would have said that
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
was more of an ENTP.

ENTPs, like my younger brother, have the P-ness. So they aren't going to be normally heading a business when they are younger, but require a bit more time to ease into it. Tony Stark is the CEO of Stark Industries, and pretty much ran the place since he was old enough to vote, and his old man passed away.

Not like the recent 2 Iron Man films, true. But that was because they had Downey as the role. Downey is so much of a P, that he couldn't play an ENTJ if he tried. So Jon Favreau adapted the character for Downey. Did a great job of it. But not the Tony Stark that I remember from the comics.

Also, you wrote on your own article:

	Though only a very simplistic guideline, if one comes across a movie or television character who is highly active in a scientific field but also someone who loves attention from other people and jokes around (bordering on the arrogant), he or she is most likely an ENTP. Think Gregory House and Indiana Jones.

It seems that your criteria for someone being an ENTP, is someone who loves being the centre of attention, makes jokes, and works in science. While that might make sense to you, because you are like that, it's well-known that many INFJs are in science, particularly in psychology, but also other fields, and that many STs are in science and scientific fields.

What distinguishes NTs from other types, in a scientific field, is that they tend to focus on the inanimate areas, and ignore the feeling and people areas of their job, AND give a creative aspect to everything they do.

Tony Stark is an NT, because, when he is captured and forced to make a Jericho weapon, he comes up with a most ingenious solution to escape, that being the Iron Man suit, and that he doesn't think too much about how many will die, not even designing a simple shield to protect the man who saved his life.

Also, Gregory House is an NT, for the same reason. But he's quite clearly not at all obnoxious in the same way as Tony Stark. Stark is a spoiled playboy. House is a guy with an over-inflated sense of superiority about his intelligence, to cover up his huge inferiority complex in the rest of his life. Also, Gregory House has been debated a lot online, and typed as INTJ, INTP, and probably more.

So your assessment of ENTPs is very stereotypical, and doesn't take into the full gamut of how variant personalities are on TV and in films.

	His decisiveness is a byproduct of being a mature person and having well-developed Si, for which I also make a strong case in the blog.

From the films and the comic books, Tony Stark is quite clearly lacking maturity. In later life, he gains a bit of it, finally waking up to the fact that he's been in love with Pepper from day one, which everyone but him knew. But even then, he's still very immature.

Mind you, ENFJs, and ENTJs, both display the kind of impulsive behaviour and temper tantrums that one has come to expect from Stark. The ENTJ attitude is that as long as it doesn't affect one's work and productivity, it doesn't matter what you do in your spare time, and do like to do the whole sleep-with-a-different-person-every-night thing when they are younger. ENFJs are more concerned that it won't screw up their friendships than their career.

ENTPs also do the whole bed-hopping thing. But with them, it seems to be more about opportunity, than seeming like a planned MO. With Stark, it's his MO, and a very clear one at that. His way of avoiding facing up to his huge responsibilities. Immaturity is another thing that is often mistaken for P-ness, when it's found in both Ps and Js.

Also, I have very well-developed Si, and always did. So I can see when Si is developed.

	I am an ENTP and I am enormously decisive. I'm sure everyone knows J's that cannot make up their mind. P does not mean you are indecisive, it simply means you have the ability to perceive more options than just the one. It doesn't say anything about your ability to quickly make up your mind.

I'm an INTP. I know full well that Ps can be very decisive, and I often am. But speaking as a P, even when I am being very decisive, it is startlingly obvious to me, that the way I go about deciding things and doing things, is totally different to the way Js go about deciding and doing things.

	And being a P or ENTP does definitely NOT mean you do things because you are whimsical. I actually take some offence to that.

I'm a P, and an NTP. I also know full well, that NTPs do things for a lot more reasons than mere whimsy. But when they are doing what they do, and asking the questions they ask, they appear to be whimsical and arbitrary about their actions and questions, to others, and it is only much later, when the major results of their actions and questions become revealed, do their actions show clear intent and purpose.

	Also, being a J does not mean that you criticize others clearly, and neither does the opposite for a P.

I'm a P, who can be very critical of others. But still, growing up in a household of 3 Js, and an ENTP, it is quite clear to me that when I criticise, I don't criticise in quite the same ways as a J. Mind you, this is a bit more subtle than most people tend to pick up on. Being an INTP, though, I do like to analyse, and I have analysed my own critical behaviour, and others' criticisms of me, to understand how to deal with criticism, and to understand how to stop criticising myself. So I don't know if everyone picks up on the nuances.

	While I appreciate you commenting on this, I'd advise you to investigate the functions a bit more deeply and steer away from typical website commentary that says "Ps are all over the place and indecisive" and "Js have strong opinions and only see black or white". Doesn't work that way.

I agree, which is why I don't blindly follow "typical website commentary". I cannot rely on the assumption that others are infallible, because humans make mistakes. But I have my own brain, to analyse when mistakes might be made. So I use it.

Again, just to be clear, I am not saying that my views are all set in stone, or anything, like you seem to be talking. I am simply stating that I am unsure about some of these, and very unsure about some. I wouldn't take "typical website commentary"'s word for it. Why should I take yours, more than theirs?

[Leeuwer]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, just to be clear, I am not saying that my views are all set in stone, or anything, like you seem to be talking. I am simply stating that I am unsure about some of these, and very unsure about some. I wouldn't take "typical website commentary"'s word for it. Why should I take yours, more than theirs?

First of all: you're very right about this. My apologies if I came across as too defensive.
It's simply that I've spent a lot of thought on this and do not type someone on a whim as "aiight so he's impulsive, likes partying, likes superficial talk and can't get shit done ... MUST BE AN ESFP".

Also, very important: I chose to base my character analyses on the Marvel Movies of the last 7 years, not the comics, because obviously the characters have been portrayed very differently according to who wrote them. Hence why I refer to the actors in my posts as well, not the comic book writers. Warren Ellis' Iron Man is very different from Archie Goodwin's.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So I tend not to rely on either, all that much. My primary preference is to look at those who have that type, and then to observe their characteristics.

I understand your arguments for the ENTJ. However, when looking at Jungian Functions (I try to combine all MBTI characteristics as well), it is evident that Stark quite clearly used his Extraverted Intuition heavily, while also demonstrating Extraverted Feeling. An ENTJ does not do this.

Also, I'd like to point out that any type has the ability to evolve, mature and improve their functions (or just become "more grown up"). If anyone met me in the work place, they'd say I'm an ENTJ. I am a good leader, fairly strict and very driven.

However, I'm a pure ENTP and the above took years to develop. I know others who are similar. An INTJ friend of mine is also getting ahead in life and he's a very social person, all smiles. Normally atypical behaviour for the supposedly "locked in" INTJ.

The statement I made about ENTPs being in science etc was like I said ... "a simple guideline". It is not my criterium, at all.

I make my case below, on the blog.

And yes, you are right about the STs and NFs in science. (coincidentally, I also work in psychology/psycholinguistics). I also point out several times, that Myers-Briggs does not demand someone to stereotypically behave in a certain way, it simply provides a blueprint for what "energizes" you and what "drains" you. An ISTJ and an ENFP could fulfill very similar tasks, however, the ENFP would consume more energy doing a seemingly menial task as filling in numbers and organizing books, while this would energize the ISTJ.

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Tony Stark is an NT, because, when he is captured and forced to make a Jericho weapon, he comes up with a most ingenious solution to escape, that being the Iron Man suit, and that he doesn't think too much about how many will die, not even designing a simple shield to protect the man who saved his life.

I don't think this is AT ALL evidence for him being an NT. So he is an NT because he behaves selfishly or thinks about the solution first? I'm sorry but that is very short-sighted. He is an NT, but this is not a case for it.

Do not get me wrong: I really appreciate your additional input and will most definitely change my statements when I am wrong, but you cannot believe the above to be a serious argument.

I apologize, but it just seems like I am being forced to repeat every point I made in my blog..

MBTI is more than your letters. It depends on individual development of your functions, in addition to your entire psychological make-up, such as your upbringing, friends, life experiences, etc etc.

I do not want to make it appear that I don't want to hear about criticism, but please meet me halfway here: you can't type people only based on that they're an "NT" or "ST" in that they like intellectual/more practical pursuits, respectively.

Also, having an "F" in your type does NOT mean you are therefore more devoted to your personal values than does a "T". This is all a personal matter. Simply the process through which your personal values are evaluated are represented by these letters, in addition to how high they rank on your function scale. It shows how these moral values are conceived.

For example, an ENFP, with Auxiliary Fi and Tertiary Te, may feel that "I have to get most out of life, despite what anyone thinks." is an important value. He or she may therefore judge, based on Auxiliary Fi, that this is the most important moral value to them. He or she may base this on the their life experiences, during which Fi may have come to the conclusion that others never seem to care either, so why not have fun, damn the consequences?

An INTJ, with Auxiliary Te and Tertiary Fi, may have also concluded the same thing, however, through a different process. Their Te may have reasoned that "life is short, nobody cares about anyone else, the universe is indifferent, hence: enjoy it while it lasts."

Which personal values you have and how strongly you are attached to them is a personal matter. If anything, I have noticed NTs to be much more strongly attached to their own principles, since most tend to believe that reason should override any "spur of the moment" feeling and hypocrisy is the highest pain.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Leeuwer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First of all: you're very right about this. My apologies if I came across as too defensive. It's simply that I've spent a lot of thought on this and do not type someone on a whim as "aiight so he's impulsive, likes partying, likes superficial talk and can't get shit done ... MUST BE AN ESFP".

That's all right. However, I tend as an INTP, to see things from different angles than most people, and also tend to see things that others do not. So I tend to find that someone has thought about something for a long while, come up with what MUST be, to conclude that x and y cannot be, only for me to come along, say "why can't we do that?". That tends to irritate a lot of people, especially when I then actually do it, proving that it is not only possible, but also real, usually because the reasons I have for drawing a possible conclusion, are usually based on things that they never even considered.

Not saying that I am right, only that I tend to piss a lot of people off, for thinking differently than other people.

	Which personal values you have and how strongly you are attached to them is a personal matter. If anything, I have noticed NTs to be much more strongly attached to their own principles, since most tend to believe that reason should override any "spur of the moment" feeling and hypocrisy is the highest pain.

I have noticed that a lot of NTs do tend to that. However, as NTs develop in maturity, they realise that feelings and people matter, a lot more than young NTs initially give them credit for. For instance, when I was young, I believed that it was wrong to be hypocritical. But these days, if someone is hypocritical, but nicer to people than if he would not be a hypocrite, I am apt to say that the man has improved in maturity, because he realises that people matter a lot more than ideas or personal values.

	Also, very important: I chose to base my character analyses on the Marvel Movies of the last 7 years, not the comics, because obviously the characters have been portrayed very differently according to who wrote them. Hence why I refer to the actors in my posts as well, not the comic book writers. Warren Ellis' Iron Man is very different from Archie Goodwin's.

Oh. The comic books were developed over several years, with a new comic coming out every month. Also, the comics were followed by the types of people who would notice inconsistencies in the characters and the plots. So they tended to be a lot more consistent, with the characters being fleshed out over years.

The films were driven by how the producers saw things, and the influence of Hollywood, which looks at each new film as a separate business venture. So they are far less consistent as characters.

The Tony Stark of the "Iron Man" and "Iron Man 2" films, is clearly an ENTP. Not sure if you'd find an ENTP in that situation in the first place. But that's clearly what Jon Favreau wanted for Iron Man.

That has no influence on the characters in the comic books.

The others, I am still unsure about.

[Leeuwer]

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's all right. However, I tend as an INTP, to see things from different angles than most people, and also tend to see things that others do not. So I tend to find that someone has thought about something for a long while, come up with what MUST be, to conclude that x and y cannot be, only for me to come along, say "why can't we do that?". That tends to irritate a lot of people, especially when I then actually do it, proving that it is not only possible, but also real, usually because the reasons I have for drawing a possible conclusion, are usually based on things that they never even considered. Not saying that I am right, only that I tend to piss a lot of people off, for thinking differently than other people. Oh. The comic books were developed over several years, with a new comic coming out every month. Also, the comics were followed by the types of people who would notice inconsistencies in the characters and the plots. So they tended to be a lot more consistent, with the characters being fleshed out over years. The films were driven by how the producers saw things, and the influence of Hollywood, which looks at each new film as a separate business venture. So they are far less consistent as characters. The Tony Stark of the "Iron Man" and "Iron Man 2" films, is clearly an ENTP. Not sure if you'd find an ENTP in that situation in the first place. But that's clearly what Jon Favreau wanted for Iron Man. That has no influence on the characters in the comic books. The others, I am still unsure about.

No problem man, I love a healthy discussion. And I like working with INTPs, they do cover angles I sometimes cannot see either.

Wolverine: same problem. The "average" Wolverine from the comics appears to range from an INTJ to an ISTP (also easier to show in a comic book because they often portray his inner monologue)... while in the movies he's much more extroverted, at least in the later X-Men movies. I'd say the truest depiction of the character by Hugh Jackman was in the first X-Men movie: silent, dark, broody Wolverine who does not waste time on words or long philosophical thinking and who believes in action when the need arises.

I'd say he's an ISTP in that case: Introverted Thinking (obvious), Extraverted Sensing (athletic, focused on immediacy), Introverted Feeling (as a Tertiary function, badly developed, hence the rage and outbursts, plus emotional viability from time to time with women), Extraverted Intuition (he remains clever, though not extremely so).

I'll do him in a next article, try to provide practical examples with my arguments.

Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have noticed that a lot of NTs do tend to that. However, as NTs develop in maturity, they realise that feelings and people matter, a lot more than young NTs initially give them credit for. For instance, when I was young, I believed that it was wrong to be hypocritical. But these days, if someone is hypocritical, but nicer to people than if he would not be a hypocrite, I am apt to say that the man has improved in maturity, because he realises that people matter a lot more than ideas or personal values.

Yeah, I know what you mean (although I wouldn't label that as hypocrisy, but simply patience with people and maturity). I try to refer to that as the development of Fi or Fe in NTs.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Leeuwer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No problem man, I love a healthy discussion. And I like working with INTPs, they do cover angles I sometimes cannot see either.

ENTPs also see many things that I miss. For instance, my younger brother, the ENTP, once explained lateral thinking to me, as he saw it. Totally transformed my way of looking at things.

	Wolverine: same problem. The "average" Wolverine from the comics appears to range from an INTJ to an ISTP ... while in the movies he's much more extroverted, at least in the later X-Men movies. I'd say the truest depiction of the character by Hugh Jackman was in the first X-Men movie: silent, dark, broody Wolverine who does not waste time on words or long philosophical thinking.

Yes.

	I'd say he's an ISTP in that case: Introverted Thinking (obvious), Extraverted Sensing (athletic, focused on immediacy), Introverted Feeling (as a Tertiary function, badly developed, hence the rage and outbursts, plus emotional viability from time to time with women), Extraverted Intuition (he remains clever, though not extremely so).

I was thinking ISTP, from what I saw of him. Very introverted. Not much into his feelings. Not much intuitive creative planning, very focussed on just reacting to what is going on, and not really judging anyone, except in an almost complete rejection of any source of authority. But I wanted to see what you would say first.

	I'll do him in a next article, try to provide practical examples with my arguments.

Good idea.

I have similar problems with Professor X and Magneto. To be honest, they both ring out to me as INTJs in the films, just differing on their Ni ideas of how to deal with the mutant-human conflict, Prof X favouring education and partial integration, while Magneto favouring apartheid and complete separation, and possibly even a mutantochracy.

Also, according to studies of MBTI, in America, there are twice as many INTPs as INTJs, with only 1-2% of Americans being INTJs. I also noticed that in the movies, there seem to be quite a few INTJs, and almost no INTPs, quite the reverse of reality. So it can be pretty hard to type characters in films, without ending up with the feeling that characters in films are totally unrealistic, to the extent that one ends up thinking that it's not even worth bothering to try and type the characters at all.

Just saying.

[psykhe]

Oh wow, this is a very interesting perspective. And the blog! <3

Yes, Bruce Banner seems to be INTJ to me too. Steve Rogers strikes me as ISTJ though..he seems so obsess with what should be done..the rules..the duties..

Another request for Loki's analysis here too!

[ManWithNoName]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You've said a lot, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. The gist seems to be: he comes up with new ideas and new ways of looking at products, so he's an Intuitive. Except I don't believe sensing-thinkers are incapable of being visionary businessmen, and in fact, history is full of them. Plus Don's overall behavior seems continually sensing-thinking oriented. We may have to agree to disagree.

I type him an INTJ because of his predilection for Ni and how most of his actions are pretty much the Ni+Te loop.

Except Pete Campbell, an SP, also catches future trends. He focuses on bringing in defense oriented aviation firms and reaching for the African-American market (Admiral TV). The idea that sensors can't catch on to trends in business is simply wrong. For example, J.D. Rockefeller (ISTJ), who foresaw that the big money was not in oil itself, but the refining of it. And how do you like the strategizing that went into Standard Oil? Pretty damn good, hm? Henry Ford brought the assembly line to car making. Another innovator among business STs. History past and present is full of STs that have been innovators in business in some way or another.

Don is not a business man. He is a creative director. In fact he seems to dislike the more business oriented activities that he has to perform. He dislikes managing people (he tends to just critique work and guide rather than order and micro-manage), he dislikes business strategy, he dislikes pandering and making deals etc. He dislikes trying to figure out the details of processes or how to organize people within a hierarchy and likes it when people are able to work independently. He dislikes examining how things were done in the past in order to see if they can be improved (which is generally what STs do).

He doesn't just see future trends. His job is to synthesize ingenious abstract symbolic ideas of how to represent certain products that can appeal to the market and the direction it's taking. He's not coming up with new ways to use something. He's not coming up with new ways of doing something. He's not coming up with new products. He's not coming up with new methods of organization and strategy based upon present day information about what the industry is doing.

His job pretty much deals entirely with the abstract. He works in abstracted ideas and symbols and cares not to delve too much into the details and he is very good at what he does. This is pretty much a strong indicator of an Intuitive.

I will now go into a more detailed further typing. I think we can all agree that Don is an IxTx at the very least? And very probably an IxTJ?

In terms of Sensing there are two manifestations of Sensing. Introverted Sensing and Extroverted Sensing. I will now address your arguments in terms of them and him possibly being a sensor.

	He has no affection for his past because it's so terrible, of course. Similarly, you can find INTJs who are very conservative and traditional, right here on this board, in fact.

Si doesn't just give an affection to the past. It is a filter in which generally every new experience is filtered in terms of the past:

Introverted Sensing:
-See's the current world through subjective internal filters
-Uses an external stimulus in the present to stimulate an internal experience: the recall of the past.
-Asks: How does this event in the present compare to similar events in the past? What is the difference? What is the same? how can it be improved?
-Resembles a mental Rolodex file, a video, a database for sorting through the internal images to find the right reference.
-enables accurate recall of steps or events in the exact order in which they happened.
-Looks at what happened and how it could be improved. Learns from past mistakes.
-Is energized through combining vivid past experiences with the present to relive special moments.
(from Building Blocks of Personality type by Leona Haas and Mark Hunziker)

When was the last time Don ever seemed to care about how things were done before? He generally doesn't. He never says things like what does the research say? What did we do last time? What did other companies do? What methods have we and other companies used in the past? Have we ever done anything like this before? Have I ever experienced anything like this before and do I have anything to compare it too?

He only cares about how things should be done (more specifically how he thinks they should be done) based upon his intuitive leaps at how he thinks things work, rather than how they were done.

If you want to take a look at Si and the form of innovation it takes look at Peggy Olsen whom I think (but am not completely sure as yet as she is hard to type) is an ISTJ. Look at the lipstick test thing. What does she do when she tests the lipstick? She does it how she normally does it and thinks about her past experiences using the lipstick and this forms the basis of her ideas around how to advertise it. To advertise it how she uses it and how it is memorable and important and meaningful in her memory and in relation to her past experiences and that how they are currently advertising it is different from how she has derived meaning from it in the past. She doesn't come up with a very abstract symbolic representation of the product like Don often does nor come up with a completely new way of marketing the product to appeal to a new demographic. She comes up with a relatively straightforward idea with a straightforward simple message based upon past experiences. Same goes for the church flyer that she had to design.

Don seems to show no predilection for Si

	He's constantly drinking, smoking, and womanizing, all very sensing-oriented activities. What's lacking is intuitive activities: he has, quite simply, no intellectual or theoretical interests at all, as mentioned. The few books he happened to read were recommended to him by others; they practically placed them in his hands. He's not the self-motivated bookworm we NTs are.

I simply disagree with you here. Every NT I've ever known has some kind of intellectual or theoretical interests. Don is conspicuous in his total absence of any of them. Zip. His preferred activities are all very sensation oriented: smoking, drinking, having sex, watching movies, hanging out in bars. He has no interest whatsoever in any kind of theory, intellectual pursuit, or imaginative fancy. I've met scores of sensors that were this way, but never any intuitive-thinkers. (I've also met a few sensors who enjoy role-playing games and fantasy-oriented activities, to be fair.)

He does all these activities but he doesn't seem to really enjoy them and most of them are done due to work or a work related activity. And when he's not really forced to he tends to not partake in them.

Like for example when the office has numerous large office parties Don generally doesn't attend them. He likes drinking and smoking and hanging out with Roger but generally only with Roger who is his closest friend or if not with Roger than he generally just sits by himself when out doing these things and just thinks.

Se is all about physical sensation, about enjoying physical stimulation and sensation. Don really doesn't seem to care as much about it. To some extent he does he has affairs and seems to womanize a bit but it doesn't form his worldview and so it is not a dominant or auxiliary function.

Roger on the other hand is a Sensor and Se forms part of his dominant worldview. Roger truly enjoys physical sensation and the more of it and the amount of it happening all at once and the variety of it the better.

You can see the difference between the two in the type of women they choose to cheat with on their wives. Roger picks very young, very attractive, very 'fresh' women. Women who are spontaneous and delightful and whom can give and take to make the best of the physical immediate moment be it through their spontaneity or physicality.

Don choose women based not on physical aspects or stuff like this. He chooses them basically based upon what his wife (whom I believe is an ISFJ cannot give him). He is attracted to strong, independent, T oriented women, women who are like him. The lone exception is his first mistress (the beatnick hippy an ISFP or an ESFP). Yet even so when he was attracted towards her he was attracted towards her philosophy, to exploring her way of life (rather than naturally embodying it like Roger, who has Se does or would) and eventually realizes that her way of life is not for him.

Also in terms of intellectual pursuits. Don is very much a product of his time which is one of the things which makes his character so interesting. He was never raised in an intellectual environment or encouraged to be intellectual in his youth, he was never really exposed to things of a more intellectual nature as he grew, and he doesn't really live in an environment or workplace or even really a time where intellectual pursuits are encouraged. It's the early 1960's. Being a nerd or geek is generally frowned upon and even ridiculed.

He also does read the intellectual books that others do give him or that he finds and sees and this is an important distinction. If you look at Pete Cambell when he was given "Atlas Shrugged" he doesn't read it or bother reading it because he has no interest in such abstract books at all. Don does, or strongly alludes to having read it.

His lack of exposure to intellectual things is one of the reasons why he is pretty much a fish out of water and seems like one and it's one of the reasons why he has such a nihilistic viewpoint: he is stuck in a world that doesn't really understand him nor does he understand it.

In all Don shows some prediction for Se and how his sensing manifests is in an Se manner. But it's not a driving force in his life like it is for Roger nor a natural state of his that he feels fully comfortable with so it's not a dominant or auxiliary function. It is something he's doing that he tends to binge upon a bit, that he kind of tentatively explore every once and a while. This points towards it being a tertiary or inferior function.

Tertiary or inferior functions are functions that are the opposite of our dominant and auxiliary functions. They for most of our lives tend to stand at a bit of an opposition to them. However as we grow older we tend to explore them a bit and hopefully come to terms with them and integrate them into our psyche a bit and become more well rounded people. However, we are never naturals at it, never fully comfortable, and they tend to wear us out pretty fast.

All this describes Don's attitude towards inferior Se.

	You can't really believe that all sensors are this simple and limited in their imaginations? That's kind of like saying the intuitor sees his pencil only as a rocketship. I'm INTJ, and I also know how to see my pencil as just a pencil. And sensors also have imagination, too.

I'm not saying that Sensors have no imagination. Only that Intutives tend to think in a very non-linear, pattern seeking, abstracted, relationship based manner. As stated before Don is very good at coming up with abstract symbolic ideas of how to represent a product that communicate many facts of the product on many different levels. This is how Ni works.

Introverted Intuition
-Is the only perception process that is independent of the conscious mind.
-Is the only process that doesn't need any external stimulus
-Can be triggered either internally or externally or have no identifiable trigger at all
-works in mysterious ways and on it's own timetable
-Views everything on the broadest most complex level possible
-Has an abstract futuristic approach to information
-Asks "What else is going on here?"
-Quickly grasps the meaning behind words. It's focus is on reading between the lines.
-Is the keeper of the so called sixth sense. Unexplainable information can take the form of hunches, clairvoyance, abstract intuition, and messages from the unconsciousness.
-Is really ultimately about trying to understand life itself.

All this can be seen and is embodied in as Leeuwer pointed out when Don describes how he comes to his ideas and why he is so good at what he does to Peggy:

"Think real hard about a problem... then forget it. And the answer will simply come to you.""

That quote is pretty much a description of how Ni works. It is why he is creative director, as in not just having Ni as a tertiary or inferior function, but as a dominant one and as a result being the best in the entire building at doing what he does.

Our cognitive functions are preferences, but they're not the entirety of us. Which is the whole point. We see Don's imagination in business, but nowhere else anywhere at all in his life, something that seems very unlike a dominant intuitive. I'm agreed there's imaginative insight there, but not convinced Don is doing anything a sensor couldn't do. We have sensors on this board (a few female ISFJs come to mind) who have consistently impressed me with their wit and insight. I find Don's creativity to be exceptional while still being very grounded, realistic, and sense-oriented, quite in keeping with his sensing-orientation.

Ni is an introverted function. As a result it's 'pointed' inwards and spends most of it's time just taking information and evaluating the contents of the mind. It's not going to manifest externally much. You generally only see the results of the internal process which in the case of Ni is generally keen insightful visions of how things work or could be. As for only seeing this during the business side of him that's because business is pretty much all he does and one of the reasons why he doesn't have hobbies.

It's not that Sensors couldn't do what he does. Or that Sensors aren't going to be able to offer interesting perspectives of their own on things that other types find intilligent.

It's that he's so good at what he does and the manner in which he does it is indicative of Ni as seen through his quote in which he explains how he does what he does and the general methods and approaches he takes to preforming his actions.

	I don't think this is a fair generalization. Any type, even bouncy NFs, might be nihilistic if they came from as tortured a background as Don.

They might be somewhat Nihilistic but it would probably manifest differently. Don is nihilistic about the very purpose of life itself. An NF would probably be more nihilistic about the goodness of people.

Struggling with the purpose of life and if it has meaning or not or is just void is pretty much the fundamental struggle of most INTJ philosophers as seen in Nietzsche and Sartre.

Except we never, ever, see him discuss any kind of political, economic, or philosophical ideas, so I'm not convinced he doesn't engage them because he's gone over all that before. When he says "the universe is insensate" he's describing his own emotional void more than any deliberately thought-out philosophy, and his thinking on the beatniks seems to be that they're unrealistic dreamers who, unlike him, "can't go outside" because the fuzz is there and they don't fit in. But he does and can. That says sensor to me.

He doesn't need to discuss political, economic, or philosophical ideas to be an N. These are all common behaviorus of Ns but as behaviours are just end results and manifestations of the two different N processes (Ni and Ne).

As for his attitude, comments, and philosophy towards the beatniks, none of it is S or N. Sensing and Intuition by definition are perceiving processes. They simply make us aware of an object. It is through thinking and feeling that we place judgment upon the object which is what we do when we philosophize.

Don doesn't talk much and seems more emotional in his statements because he is not using thinking to place judgment upon the perceived subject. He is arguing from a position of emotion, that is instead of defining or detailing what the subject is (Thinking), he is defining and detailing whether or not it is agreeable (Feeling). He is describing his own emotional void because he has an undeveloped Fi which is basically emotional idealism. He is ignoring it in pursing other women and is paying the price for it where he finds that his life has no meaning. This is why he is states what he states in general that he doesn't find life very agreeable. It's because presently to him it's not. This is also why he doesn't really explore the issue much from a non-personal perspective, the intense feeling of it not being agreeable and in general of it being intolerable without end is overriding his ability to think about it. He doesn't elaborate on it because he sees no need. It is intolerable and disagreeable. No matter how much you talk about or explore the issue this fact remains and in terms of something personal like present life experience that is all that matters and so there is nothing more to really discuss.

[Ghostwheel]

@ManWithNoName

I think you've made some very good arguments. You could be right.

It is, I admit, very difficult for me to see Don as an Introverted Intuitive Thinker, as every INT I've ever met is characterized by some degree of real intellectual curiosity ... something Don just doesn't seem to have any trace of as far as I can see.

On the other hand, I've met ISTs who behave very much like Don does. I honestly have an easier time seeing him as ISTP than INTJ. In fact, I worked with an ISTP man who was constantly brainstorming for new ideas and approaches ... but only in regard to his business. Out of the work environment: total sensor. I knew this guy very well, so there's no mistyping him.

At *cough, cough* the consensus seems to be that he's either ISTJ or ISTP, but you've made some very good arguments for INTJ.

[JackParrish]

Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

@ManWithNoName I think you've made some very good arguments. You could be right. It is, I admit, very difficult for me to see Don as an Introverted Intuitive Thinker, as every INT I've ever met is characterized by some degree of real intellectual curiosity ... something Don just doesn't seem to have any trace of as far as I can see. On the other hand, I've met ISTs who behave very much like Don does. I honestly have an easier time seeing him as ISTP than INTJ. In fact, I worked with an ISTP man who was constantly brainstorming for new ideas and approaches ... but only in regard to his business. Out of the work environment: total sensor. I knew this guy very well, so there's no mistyping him. At *cough, cough* the consensus seems to be that he's either ISTJ or ISTP, but you've made some very good arguments for INTJ.

You've made a few points that are made on some assumptions I don't buy into:

1. You seem very hung up on Don as having no intellectual pursuits.

2. You assume that Don is disconnected from his history simply because his history is negative.

3. You assume the drinking and sensate experiences are not an behavior of INTJs.

4. You seem to want to see a "P" where little external evidence exists.



To address these:

#4: First of all, of these four points only number 4 is something that has a strong level of external observance.

Don's office is immaculate. His desk is clean and clear. His home is clean and clear (even when he is single). He has a stack of pressed white shirts in his drawer. He almost never (to a fault) leaves things "untied" and is continually forcing closure in even his most routine daily interactions.

I just don't see many external P correlations.

#1: Regarding intellectual pursuits, this is one of the most annoying stereotypes of INTJs that I have found. Not only do people who assume this tend to have a very narrow definition of "intellectualism", but they also seem to miss that INTJ is define more by HOW they think about the world and curate and connect information and not (at all) about WHAT they think about.

Narrow Intellectualism: First and foremost, intellectualism is not not confined to "books, science, literature." It is confined to the use of intellect to objectively understand, sort, and engage the world around you as opposed to other means of engagement.

Many, many good INTJs do not have their "breadth" yet, and for many reasons. Not the least of which is that, until INTJs learn how to untangle the mess of patterns and systems in their head (which are created and made more robust every day) often things like "reading for knowledge" can be very frustrating and uncomfortable. We must be acquire the ability to sort, focus, and set proportions on what is going on in our heads. Few mentors know how to mentor INTJs and in fact can make things much worse on them.

But the point about Don is, this is a guy who is never apart from the abstract ideas and patterns in his work. I know MANY intellectuals who have one or two primary focuses and that is it. A military general does not need to also have to read novels or study quantum physics to be an INTJ. What he reads, in fact, has little bearing. It's how he uses what he knowns and the particulars of his cognition.

In this case, I very much agree with the statements above that "Draper is a very real INTJ". I could not agree more. He's one of the first characters I've seen that was well developed that showed a little about what life with a "regular, perhaps even turmoiled INTJ" is like.

#2: The assumption that Don isn't connected to his history simply because his history is negative is an assumption I don't see played out. If this was the case, we would see him longing (in fact even compensating) to then connect with the more positive, recent parts of his history. Particularly with his children.

And yet, we do not. There appears to be no desire to connect with his history at all, and in fact even the fact that he ASSUMED the draper identity to completely escape what he felt was a worthless childhood (unworth the effort to even attempt to redeem) shows his forward focus.

To me it would take a lot of intellectual yoga to bend Don into a man who is longing to engage his personal history.

#3: Sex and booze are very INTJ traits. In fact, very common. But not among the healthier and more contented of us, but when we are under great duress. Booze slows down or even quites the contant branching and connecting in our minds. And sex is a way to get a more abstract payoff but in the hear and now. It's a way to connect to human drivers without having to listen to and interact with long strings of conversational narrative.

The question would be, is Don healthy and happy in his life? Or might we have a portrait of an INTJ that is under duress from all sides?

I would argue there is strong evidence--and some of it discussed here EXCENTLY--that suggests the latter.

I believe this is an important discussion becuase the idea of an INTJ, outside of stereotypes, and shown under duress is a very uncommon symbol. And one that is a bit important to us now as there are so few truly good mentors or case study for REAL INTJs.

Don Draper may or may not be this example. If not, who cares, we'll move on. It's our ability to find and analyze these symbols so that INTJs get a better feeling for their role in the broader social fabric that matters infinitely more than if Draper is, himself, the actual example.