Prototipado

We are very overconfident with our dominant or driver function to a point where we can sometimes be considered quote unquote clumsy to viewers. Onlookers sometimes think that that means that we're not good at it. They're not using it well because the assumption is that we are born with these as skills. It doesn't mean that we have skill developed necessarily because use and skill development are two different things. They'll think that they are outpacing us in that function because they're doing it more carefully than we are necessarily doing it more cavalierly. Hey welcome back to the Personality Hacker podcast. I'm Joel Mark Whitt. And I'm Antonio Dodge. Joel I have a question for you. Yes. Have you ever seen an ESP type leading with extroverted sensing or sensation as their driver? Have you ever seen them be clumsy? So an ESFP that like bump into something, drop something, what do you mean clumsy? It can be clumsy. How I would define clumsy absolutely. Have you ever seen an ETJ type leading with extroverted thinking or effectiveness be cavalier with resource? Yes. And have you ever seen like an EFJ leading with extroverted feeling or harmony? Be it takes some risks in relationships? Yeah. Well I think it comes from the overconfidence we all have in our driver or dominant personality process. Like the part of our mind that feels over confident, we take a lot of risks and we'll have a lot of acceptable spillage if you will because we think we can clean up the mess later. Right. And what do you think onlookers think about that? It's wasteful. It could potentially make them feel threatened. Like mine is ideation and disruption and keep just keep ideating no matter if that's the right thing for the job or not. It makes people feel deeply uncomfortable and they wouldn't do it that way. So they're kind of judgmental toward toward those people that spill a little bit more when they're dominant in that energy. I think that's what happens from it. I think that's a really great way of saying it is that it makes other people uncomfortable when they see us in our dominant function. And because our dominant or driver function has a high degree of certainty, we have a tendency to be sloppy there sometimes with the assumption that we'll just be able to fix it later or deal with it another way. And I think onlookers sometimes think that that means that we're not good at it. Yes. I got to ask if you're listening or watching right now. Do you think the strongest parts of your personality, the ones you're more cavalier with? You trust them more. You're more confident about these parts of yourself. Do you tend to overdo it? Do you tend to spill a little bit more? Do you tend to take more risks? And is it uncomfortable with other people that aren't your personality type? It do it in their way. Does it make you feel uncomfortable? Either one of those. I'd love to hear in the comments, whatever platform you're on. Yeah. So the first time I really observed this, I think with any like understanding of what was happening was, you know, watching our daughter grow up. Yeah. Piper has ESFP preferences. And she is covered in bruises all the time. Even now, a 14 years old, she's still covered in bruises. And the reason why is because she takes a lot of risks physically. Yeah. She just doesn't, she's not careful. And because she's not careful, then it appears as if she's clumsy. But the truth is, is that she's actually quite graceful. We call them risks. But I bet if she gets older and she starts to catalog her categorize this, she might just say these are direct actions. I'm not taking risks. I'm just doing the obvious thing in front of me. I'm just taking the action that seems to be the right action to take. Right. Well, by risk, I mean, you know, she'll like flail her arm a little faster and harder. Right. With confidence that I know what you mean by red. I'm just saying like, that's our word for it. I don't think she's sitting there going, I'm going to take a risk to jump off this porch. Or I'm going to take a risk to flail my arm. Right. She's not even thinking of it as a risk. It's just a natural direct action that seems like this is the right action to take. Yeah. Well, and I wanted to be clear what I meant by risk because I'm not talking about jumping out of planes. I'm talking about moving quickly through a house. Right. Just moving fast. Like, you know, not clearing a space to do a handstand and then falling onto an object she didn't clear out of the way. Right. Exactly. She set up her, the project of doing a handstand just does the direct action and then bumps into something, knocks something off like that kind of stuff. Exactly. And I think, I think we all, well, that was the first time I really watched it have been sort of growing up. And I would have assumed that at a certain point she'd get more savvy about her environment, but no, she still does it. She still takes, quote unquote, takes those risks, not high adrenaline risks, but just a risk of, I'm going to take that direct action. I know that there's a piece of furniture right behind it, but I'm going to trust that I'm going to be fine. Yeah. And if I overdo it or get too enthusiastic or I didn't 100% guess the physics and I run into it, well, I'll just, I'll just accept the pain. I'll just take it, right? Because I want to take the direct action more than I want to mitigate the pain of the risk. And because of this, she is getting so much wisdom in the physical world. She runs circles around me now. Like she can do things with her body and like, gymnasticky type things that I'm like, wow, I would hurt myself if I tried that. Correct. But she's had enough practice enough, this quote, risk taking you're talking about to perfect some of these things. Yeah. And I think the reason why that's important to realize, because how many, how many times have you heard people say, my 10 year old is better than their driver or my tertiary is better than that person's dominant function. Yeah. I've heard that a million times. And now, of course, there's a little bit of our, the hubris that comes along with our 10 year old or tertiary function, right? All of us, all of us are a little braggie about it because we want that approval to make us feel better about its relative uncertainty. But I think there is, there is a little bit of assumption that the, that the risks we're willing to take. And I don't mean like massive risks. I just mean like little, you know, sort of, it's the, the action that we desire to take is worth whatever cleanup would have to be done on the other side if it doesn't turn out well. Yeah. I think people observe that. And when it doesn't work out for us, we go, that person's not good at that. Yeah. They're not using it well because the assumption is that we are born with these as, as skills as opposed to talents that we pursue. Or preferences that we pursue. Or preferences, right? Exactly. And I think because they're preferences, we tend to have some talent. Yeah. The talent being the will to do it, you know, do it enough times and mess it up. And then learn from those, you know, from the mess ups, meaning that we're, we're willing to take the risk. And the risk taking all by itself is part of the talent. Just in case you're brand new here or you're not so, you're not totally certain on what the cognitive functions of personality are. Basically, the four-letter code that four letters, the Myers-Briggs, like I have ENFP preferences, it basically points to the cognition of the way that I'm learning information and making decisions. And there's some strong parts of me and you two listening based on your personality. There's some strong parts that are obvious to you as we're talking about. But there's also some parts that we're very uncertain about. And these four parts of us we're very conscious of, even the ones we're uncertain about, you want to learn more about this and go deeper into that specifically, personalityhacker.com/carmodel. You'll learn a lot about how the personalities break down in that way. So back to the point of origin, we were talking about how our relationship to our dominant or driver function, the driver in the car model, we're talking about how we, we don't feel like we have to prove anything there. The most confident part of us. We have a high degree of certainty. We feel very certain here. That's right. Use is when we, you know, we, I always think of the difference between use and skill development is like engulf. If you have a, you know, like a, what is it like a one and a half two inch ball or whatever. And, and you hit a, hit it with a club and it goes flying. That's using the club. But if you have a three inch hole, so many yards down and you're not just hitting the ball, but you're actually trying to get it into that hole. And so you have to, you know, sort of gauge and figure it out and apply a little bit of brainwattage to it and improve upon your ability to hit the ball straight, you know, to get it down the, you know, to, to do it as, as few wax as possible. Now you're not just using the club. Now you are building skill with it, right? Yeah. And calibrating that skill. And so for some of us, we can use our dominant or driver function without necessarily having an end game without having a reason we're doing it. A goal we're trying to accomplish or something that we are honing the capacity to use that. I would argue that that's how many of us do use it because we don't have knowledge of it. It's like a fish and water. It's so much a part of how we would define ourselves. The strongest, most confident part of us, I think that's why we risk or flail or do extra is because we're going to, we're not even aware, oh, this is, this is me. It's just, it just seems so obvious. This is reality. Yeah. It just seems like that's reality. The strongest part of me is how reality works. Yeah, yeah. Most people say that to themselves, whether they have a type, you know, personality type frame or not. Right. Exactly. It's, it's just a matter of like, this is what I do in the world. This is how I navigate through life. But I do think that as soon as the world applies pressure to us, which is what golf is, right? Golf is taking something that's just like whacking a ball with this dick and then applying the pressure of having to do it in as few wax as possible to get it down the, you know, down the, the greenfield or green, whatever they call it, the through, what is it? The fairway, the fairway, the fairway. Okay. So get it down the fairway. What soon as we do that, now we have, we've applied pressure. Now golf is a game. So that's pressure we've applied to ourselves and it's generally pretty low. stakes unless you're into some sort of tournament or competition. But it's a low stakes game. When life throws a pressure at us though, then now we have to use whether we know type or not. Now we have to use these cognitive capacities or these pre-wired preferences. Now we use them to navigate through this pressure that has been given to us and generally on the other side we build some skill in it, right? That's how we build skill. Now that does mean though since most human beings are not type enthusiasts and know nothing about their personality type preferences, it means that the pressures applied to us and how we respond using these functions is to some extent incidental, right? We don't all get the same pressures, not even like the pressures to keep ourselves alive. You know, there are people out there who are totally subsidized, right? They don't even have the pressure to like feed themselves or, you know, put a roof over their heads. Or some people don't have the pressures of a family because they, you know, they don't have a family or they chose never to partner up or whatever. So the pressures of life, even though there's some like relatively consistent ones you would think, not all of us are experiencing those pressures as well. So we have a pre-wired preference that tells us that we are going to meet reality with a certain frame looking at it a certain way. We are going to be overconfident with that because we're just going to have like a natural sense of, I'm good at this. This is what I do. This is who I am. And we're going to have an unpredictable list of pressures being thrown at us where now we take this at whatever level it's currently developed at. And we're going to use it to try to navigate through this maze or puzzle or trap or whatever the world has thrown at us. And we're going to navigate through it to the best of our ability. And on the other side, we're going to pick up a little bit of skill points. And then that will be our new level of skill using our preferred functions. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. So the reason why I say that is because, and I think we talked about it in the last podcast, we get these archetypes in our heads of how each type looks and those archetypes are not necessarily representative of how the person who has those personality type preferences. It's not necessarily representative of the pressures they've been given in life. In particular, ways that they were literally times in their life where they were thrown those pressures and the age that they were at when they were trying to meet them, their developmental level at those moments and the developmental skill, luker that got picked up while they were going through it. Like we don't know anything about that individual when it comes to how they were asked to respond to the world using those type preferences. And so the challenge with having a single archetype in our head or a single sort of prototype of what that type is supposed to look like is that it forgets that most of life is chaos. Right. And so the reason why I want to mention that is because we got a question from a listener about her husband's type preferences and how there's a mismatch between all of the material she's reading versus how her husband is actually showing up. And boy, isn't that the story of what we've heard for the last decade and a half, right? Well, people's behavior isn't matching what I've read online and it's supposed to look like. Right. What's going on here? Yeah. Yeah. Or I can't figure out my personality type because the online literature. That's right. I read all of these different things and nothing seems to match, right? Yeah. Okay. So I wanted to sort of before we listen to this question, I wanted to lay the track that type isn't type, isn't type, right? It is at its fundamental level when it comes to understanding sort of the substrate of or the different channels of how we're going to be, you know, what we're going to be focused on and how we are most likely to show up. But we don't always know all the particulars. And I think before we listen to this question, the number one thing I really want to hone in on is that we are very overconfident with our dominant or driver function to a point where we can sometimes be considered, quote unquote, clumsy to viewers. Okay. So keeping that in mind. Let's listen to the question. Hey, I am dialing in to ask as an ENFJ and entirely separate question that's been on my mind. I am trying to understand my ISTJ husband as an ENFJ. And everything that I read and understand is about how he should be so meticulous and so detail oriented. And in his work as a legal professional, I see elements of that and I see elements of a lot of internal sensing. But where I really struggle is the day to day when he doesn't separate the plastic from the cardboard, he has, he'll make the bed and it's the sloppiest work I've ever seen. So I, I struggle with this dichotomy and understanding how he can really be one thing and really not be that same thing in a slightly different context. Okay. So she didn't mention it in the recording, but when she submitted the question, her new Ms. Kristen. Kristen. Thank you, Kristen, for the question. That's right. Kristen with the ENFJ preferences. That's what comes up for me when we hear when she says this, I think of Dr. Daryngardy's EEG scans. And so we know that an ISTJ would have the dominant, the most confident part of themselves would be a mental process called introverted sensing. We've nicknamed it memory. It's this idea that I understand who I am, both myself and society, from looking out over time and seeing small changes and seeing how things get updated, tracking changes over time, and then it's all about, you know, in the present maybe about standards and standard izations and doing things right and procedures and all of this. And when Dario hooked people up to the EEGs, he said that the people that have this mental process are the most diverse of people. In other words, when they have this, they specialize in whatever catches their fancy, catches their attention, catches their career, whatever it is, and their brain actually looks different from everybody else that has this same mental process as their dominant. You contrast that with somebody like myself or you and Tony, that has the opposite of this, extroverted intuition. We call it exploration. He said most of those brain scans look similar. There's a homogenee between those brain scans. So immediately it comes to this idea of specialization when we talk about a person that carries this energy, this introverted sensing memory, energy, specialization is a word that just sticks out in my head immediately when she talks about this. And that kind of tracks to me, because it's what's the language. He's like, he specializes at work, meticulous at work, precise at work, and then at home, I'm not seeing the same behavior, which I think is really interesting. Because it doesn't just translate from the professional environment into the home environment. Yeah. There's a couple of different things that popped up for me. I think that's a good one that just to remember that not everybody leading with that function of introverted sensing or memory is necessarily going to look the same. And because it's tied to responsibility, he feels probably responsible for the work at work. And at home, he's maybe doing your favor or helping out, or there's not a responsibility. So why am I trying to hit the mark and make it perfect or precise? Right. It's not my responsibility. I'm just doing the thing. I'm just getting it done. Yeah. Well, because exactly the thing that popped up for me is that having ISTJ preferences, extroverted thinking, or what we call effectiveness, that's going to be the co-pilot function. And that's the function. If you've been following us for like the last year or so, we've talked a lot about how if you look at the car model as a quadrant, and on the left side, you have a driver in the three year old, which are on the left quadrant or two quadrants and on the right, or not two quadrants, but two boxes in the quadrant. And then on the right, you have the co-pilot in the 10 year old. The left side is considered the axis of relaying to self, which is I'm doing everything I'm doing in my driver in my three year old. I'm actually basically doing it for me. And I'm going to lean on my own counsel and I'm not going to really take people's feedback and I'm just going to kind of do it my way, because those are my functions for me. Versus the right side of the car, the co-pilot in the 10 year olds, based on the work of Dr. John Beebe, he calls this the axis of relaying to others. So these are our responsive functions when we have a responsibility or when we are doing something to interface with the outside world, these are the functions that are more likely to be activated. Yes. So that. I just want to make sure there's an ENFJ listening right now, because this is an ENFJ question. Already doing the math and head, wait a second, my most confident part is extraverted feeling. It's about other people in Tony. How could that be about me? So I just want to make sure we just give you a quick example of how this looks maybe for you as an ENFJ potentially. It's like, if you ask somebody like, are you feeling bad today? You can read their emotion. They're feeling bad. Like, how are you feeling? You look like you're feeling bad. No, I'm doing fine. Everything's fine in my life. Are you as an ENFJ going to believe them or believe your own read on their emotion? Right. That's what I mean. It's an axis of self. You're going to go, no, I'm probably pretty right about this. Yes. You're going to trust your own read over what that person told you. Correct. So that's a quick example to know, even though it's a people connective function, that's how you make it about you. Yes. Exactly. We're not making it about you, but that's how it's yours for you. Yeah. You are leaning upon your own assessment, and you're not really taking the feedback from other people to determine whether or not you are accurate or correct. Yeah. - Yeah, when somebody, yeah, exactly, that's a perfect one. If a person says that they're feeling something different than what your read is, almost every EFJ will go, "No, I'm probably right on that." - Yeah, they trust yourself. - Or you know what somebody else needs, even if they say they don't need that. You're going to go, "No, I'm pretty sure that's what they need." And so it's a, it's kind of like a leaning upon our own, you know? Yeah, and that makes sense because it's overconfident. That's the whole point of it. It's the highest degree of certainty. So you're going to lean on your own sense of certainty as opposed to what somebody else said. Thank you, let me inject that. I just want to make sure that, 'cause I think that can be confusing. And then we lose people, so I just want to make sure I say that. So you were talking about the rights of the car, access of others. - Correct, okay, so back to ISTJ, it's not EFJs. Back to the ISTJ, the access of a link to others, meaning that these are functions that take in feedback. They are more interfacing sort of there. They care about what other people have to say. Extroverted thinking or effectiveness is a part, especially if it's used in what's called an analytic way, as opposed to a holistic way. We've done podcast episodes and analytic versus holistic. So please feel free to go look those up. But if it's done in an analytic way, there's a sense of like trying to get things done as efficiently as possible, right? Like, it's trying to find the ROI quickly, it's getting things done. - Closing the loop. - Closing the loop. It's closing the loop, right? If it's more of a holistic, that's more of sort of the, you know, do it well and craftsmanship and-- - So we could say analytic, more of these analytic energies, like, done is better than perfect. And more of the craftsmen, more holistic, is more like quality work wins every time. - Right, exactly. - It stands the test of time. - Yes. - These are kind of two ways to come at it. - Right, and everybody who has this as a preferred function will be using both of them, right? They'll both have a craftsman side and also get it done side. But we all have a, just like with our preferences, we all lean one direction or the other as a tendency. - And usually our career shapes this often. The barriers found in the brain scans that our career really shapes the style that we show up with. - Yeah, as a general rule, yeah, for sure. And so if somebody with ISTJ preferences has more of a analytic version of extroverted thinking or effectiveness that they're working on, then, and they're doing it in behalf of somebody else, like, this is a responsibility that I'm doing in behalf of, say, my wife who doesn't, who I don't want her to be mad that I didn't make the bed. There's going to be an effort there, but it's going to be minimum viable products, right? As opposed to somebody with INFJ preferences, so on the other side, I just want to do a little compare contrast. INFJs use introverted thinking or accuracy as their thinking function. And that's a function that is all about process and almost forgets results. And so it tends to have a bit of a perfectionistic streak to it, even if it's a very high certainty function. There's just a little bit of like, oh, I need to make this just a little better. Always tweaking, always making it a little better. That is not a function that is looking for high ROI. Introverted thinking or accuracy is not. It's trying to be as competent as possible, as accurate as possible, as precise as possible, not as efficient as possible. In fact, that's one of the challenges is efficiency. And so, unless efficiency is your goal, if that is the thing you're working on, then you will be efficient. But in all the times, the challenge is even getting to the result, actually. So having that as a three-year-old function, and that's in the axis of voting to self, many INFJs have a tendency to have this little perfectionistic streak, and they can't talk themselves out of it, right? Because it's their three-year-old function. Nobody can say, oh, you did that well enough, because it's the axis of voting to self. So it's hard to take the feedback that you did well enough. And so there's always this little tweaking things to kind of try to make them perfect, as long as they're important to you, as long as you think it's something to focus on. So in the bed-making, the first thing that came up, I was like, oh, well, he's using extroverted thinking as his co-pilot. He's probably doing it mostly for him, right, to keep things neat and orally and tidy. But to some extent, it's like it's duty and obligation, and I have to do it. And there's nothing about me in this. There's just, I got this done. And that is being contrasted with a voice inside an EFJ that goes, if you're gonna do it, you need to do it right. And it needs to look just so. If it's important you have to do, then do it just so. Does that track? - Yeah. - Okay, so that's the first thing that came up. The second thing that came up to me for me is to your point, there's nothing personal in some of these, like separating trash from recyclables or recyclables or separating out your recyclables. There's nothing really necessarily personal in that for this individual, the ISTJ, because if there was something that was deeply personal, then it would be meticulous. - Yeah. - Because the part that really encourages an ISTJ to also have a little bit of a perfectionist streak is their ten year old or tertiary function of introverted feeling or authenticity. The part that tears about things because they strike us as being a part of who we are. - Identity level things, like who I am, what am I actually doing in this world? What motivates me? What is, you know, there's some moral morality or two. What's ethical and unethical? How should people behave? How should I behave? - Yeah. - Those kinds of things. What really matters and what's meaningful? - Yeah, is this like a little crusade? Is this a cause? Is this important to me? And so I've noticed that ITJ types anytime something strikes their introverted feeling or authenticity on a personal level. - Yes. - That this is like a part of, that this is a reflection of who I am. This communicates the world what I value and think is important. This is a part of my identity. Then they get a little perfectionistic themselves as well. And- - It's a reflection of them. I want to perfect this. I want to show a good product. I want to perfect something that reflects on me who I am. - Yes, I don't want to miscommunicate things that are important to me. Right, so the quote unquote perfectionism comes in is actually an attempt to be understood. An attempt to be understood for what is important. - Or at least validated. - Or at least validated, exactly. - Yeah, if I can't be understood, at least validation. - And that usually gets related to the other introverted function they're working with, which is their dominant or driver of introverted sensing or memory, which doesn't always have to be massively detail-oriented but has a tendency to become detail-oriented because the purpose of the function is to observe changes over time, right? That's kind of one of its jobs. One of its many jobs is to watch how things change over time. - And most time change happens in the details. It doesn't happen big changes. It's small incremental changes over time. That's why this process tends to focus on details. - Correct. - Not because details are inherently interesting for this part of a person that has this as a strength, but just because those changes are how we track. - Yeah, well, and observing changes is interesting. - Yes. - Right, like this. Details might not be, but changes are interesting. And to your point, I think that's a fabulous point. Changes usually happen incrementally in the small details over time. And so having known what it was before, having it watched it change and alter. So that's one of the things it does. And it does other things. It keeps rhythms and routines and it helps us create precedent and it does all sorts of things, right? It helps us be interoperable with standards and all that stuff. But in the case right now of detailed orientation, I think that aspect that it watches changes over time is probably the most important here because the bed, I mean, the bed changes, you might have a new pillow or a new set of sheets or a new whatever, right? New pillow top or whatever. Those changes can happen, but it's kind of just a bed that needs to be made every day, right? And so the routine is make to the bed. And there might even be a little bit of identity of I'm the kind of person that makes a bed every morning. But there doesn't seem to be anything in the bedmaking that the ISTJ would want to telegraph to the rest of the world is something that's deeply personal to them, right? So because of that-- And they don't necessarily feel the inherent responsibility for this role, this thing either. It's like, it's a task to get done, but it's not like my work. Right. It's not like my career that I'm being reflected on about that I want to make sure I get right, because it's a job opportunities and it shows my competence. But there's nothing that's demonstrating that either, professionally. Well, and what's the ROI on it, right? Like the co-pilot's going to come in and go like, if I spend five seconds shaking the sheets out in the top, you know, like the blanket out, and it's crumply, did the bed get made? Is it a minimum viable product? Who's going to see it? My guess is that if they were trying to sell the house, it would be a very different thing, right? Because if they're trying to sell the house, well, no, there's like an ROI metric associated with it, which is the ability to get as much money for the sale of the house as possible, and making the bed might actually be a part of that, right? So there's no real, there's no real detail orientation here that's important in like a long stream, you know, span of time. So the introverted sensing or memory is not really caring that much about it, right? The extroverted thinking or effectiveness is going, is it minimum viable product, right? There's no ROI associated with this other than just like, you know, not wanting to have too much a visual clutter. Yeah. It doesn't seem to be any introverted feeling or authenticity, right, associated with this. This is not me trying to communicate who I am to the world. This is not my art, right? This is not a campaign or crusade. And I don't really think extroverted intuition or exploration comes in here at all. It's just moving on to the next thing. And so because of that, I'd just say it means that bedmaking is not a symbol of who he is. Yeah. And I would extend that same rule. to apply to sorting the recyclables, right? This is not a part of, this is not a crusade. Now, maybe recycling is, maybe that's important. - Yeah. - But whether or not they're responsible for separating it out, or maybe he believes that the facility should be responsible for separating out, or maybe on some level, he kind of thinks that maybe they're all, it's all going into landfill anyway, and so why are we doing this? It's busy work. I mean, I don't actually know him, so I can't get to the bottom of what's really going on there. I just know that based on the behavior, this is not something that is, is high ROI in order to apply detail thinking to it. - Yeah, now going back to what you kind of started off this whole episode about that we're cavalier and we're a little, we have some spillage overconfidence as an ISTJ, that memory or introverted sensing has got a little overconfidence. And in a way, you know, like, I think in terms of like, my uncle was a car mechanic, and his car was never running. Like he fixed their realises cars, or you know, the old adage of people that are hairdressers always have like weird haircuts or something. It's kind of like that too. It's like what you're really good at, what I interpret here as well is he may just at home, that's where he lets the slack happen. - Yeah. - Right, all the precision, all the carefulness, all that real tightiness that you'd expect, maybe from an ISTJ, you know, they got to rest some time. It's not like that's just driving every moment. People have messy closets and all of us have a messy part of ourselves and a more organized part of ourselves, same thing for me, now I'm guessing he's much more organized than I would be in general. But there are parts of his life that he's gonna wanna be like, I'm not, that's not what I'm gonna feature. - Yeah. - Like I'm just gonna do minimum bible in that area. - Yeah. - Because I can get away with it. I'm gonna put all my effort into something that I feel really matters in a precision way, or in a career way, or something like that. - Yeah. - So I would recommend not to read into too much of that. - Yeah. - This overconfidence thing, like my aunt's in ISTJ, I was just thinking, you're talking about this too, she throws photographs and things away so much, with so much cavalier. - Hey, now that's great. - I'm like, can you scan that first? Like I just save everything and hold onto it, 'cause I'm terrified that I'm gonna need something, or I don't wanna lose a memory or something. - Yeah. - And it's weird how she's so cavalier with those things. I would expect her to be super locked down and preserve everything, but she actually doesn't. She's very judicious and gets rid of a lot. She's not a pack rat, but I would assume she would be. So I think we also have this image of ISTJs in our minds, that the internet and kind of the world's given us, that even I come under like misunderstanding it sometimes, because I'm so steeped in what they should look like, and I look at my aunt and I'm like, she's not like that. She's different than this. - Yeah. - And then it goes back to the other point I made, was EEGs show so much variance with introverted sensing, as well in the brains. - Yep, yep, absolutely. There's a lot of variance. What are the pressures of life? My guess is that had this ISTJ grown up with the pressure of life that, you know, some parent came in every morning with like a bullhorn and was like-- - The white glove. - White glove, right? Yeah, exactly. - That's full inside of the-- - Make your bed right now. - Bouncing quarters off it to make sure it's tucked in tight in the motor. - Yeah, exactly. It's like, if that had been a pressure of life, I'm sure that the response would be, he'd still make his bed that way. If that was not the pressure of life, I mean, a lot of, I think my mom made my bed most of my life, and I don't think that that's up until at the time, I was like a 13 year old. I think she was still making my bed when I was at school. - Pressure of life and training. A lot of our images of personality types are they were written in the 20th century when culture shaped that kind of archetypical way it showed up. So you read about ISTJ from like 1985. - Yeah. - That may look very different than ISTJ now because our culture is so different. - Yeah, well, we're no longer modernists. Modernists, all being raised sort of the same way in the Western world or at least in the United States. We all have like radically different upbringing's now with very different values. - And that's why you can't take these generalized statements about this is why we talk about type as a map, not as a label. 'Cause it's just, you can't do it that way. And well, that's an archetypical ISTJ. This person doesn't fit that. They must not be an ISTJ, done. - Yeah, exactly. And so the idea that the, that right, you know, like there should be like sort of an inevitability of finding that archetypal mold, no matter how you're raised. It's like we're going to be so impressionable to how we were raised. And I would say, I mean, even more so, somebody leading with introverted sensing or memory. They're going to be very influenced by how they were, you know, by their upbringing. So I'd go back to what's the upbringing, right? And, and was there an assumption that this is something that he would have to do every day? - Or small make his bed every morning? - Yeah, exactly. And then if that's the case, then what ends up happening is the, a lot of assumptions get made about how reality works, right? A lot of expectations and assumptions. And so if somebody else was making his bed every day, then there's going to be like this little holdover carryover of somebody else makes the bed, or at least make sure that it looks, you know, I, I, I don't want to start any fights. I'm sure that this is not entirely accurate. I don't know this person at all. I'm going based on one person asking a question about another person who's not even in the room able to defend themselves. - It's Christine, right? - Kristen. - And also, if you're, if you're a Kristen's husband and you're listening, thank you for allowing this to be a discussion. - Yeah, exactly. - Depersonalizing you right now as like an abstraction. We know you're a real human and we don't mean, we're just doing this for educational reasons, of understanding not because we don't see as a human. - Well, I mean, I don't even have a name, right? - Exactly. - And so it was all entirely theoretical. It was all theory until you get more personal details. But that said, there's like, there's probably, to some extent, a little bit of an expectation that, if you want the bed made nicer, then you'll, I'll have to hand that off to you at a certain point. Like at us, I will do my minimum. I will do the thing that suits me and satisfies me in terms of cleanliness or order. - Tidiness. - Tidiness. But if you want it more than that, then you're going to have to take over because now you're the person who cares. And I went up to my level of care. I did a minimum viable product. And so then the question becomes after that, well, what's minimum viable product? And can we find a compromise between us, right? Because I think we do that a lot as married couples or just couple, you know, like partners. We do a lot of like, well, why didn't you, why didn't you do this thing? And the person will say, I did do that thing. And it's like, no, you didn't do it up to my expectations. And that's a different question than why didn't you do it, right? - Yeah. I think if I was in a coaching environment, like we were talking to you, Kristen and your husband, I probably would explore. I'll zoom way back out now and just say, I would probably explore the fact that, and this just happens that he probably has a sense that at home these things are your responsibility. And it worked, these are things are his responsibility. Now there's a bunch of like social messages and gendered messages and a bunch of things that are like to unpack in that idea if that would be something that's unconsciously carried. But I mean, these unconscious things get programmed into us from the past and then we just assume things and we don't check those. And then it causes friction and frustration and relationships and family dynamics. And so it's sometimes it's hard to look at 'cause it challenges like how we assume the other person's role is gonna be. But if we're carrying those assumptions and not talking about it, they're still driving us. So I probably would encourage you to have a conversation about responsibility and roles. - Yeah. - I just smell in the air, my Spidey sense says, it has to do with responsibility. That's where I, at the end of the day, we've talked about the personality type reasons possibly. - Yeah. - But I think my coaching frame, I'd say I think it's about responsibility. I think he doesn't feel responsible for these things and feels that your responsibility and the things he feels responsible to, he's very precise about. - Yeah, well, I wouldn't even- - So that's probably where I'd explore. And I don't wanna start fight. I don't know, I don't know the parties, but that's where I'd head. - Yeah, I would too. Well, that's the first question I would ask. - Yeah, it's probably where I'd head. - To give you some help on pursuing this. - Well, man, what did you say? You just said a thing, I know, start something. - Sponsibility. - Oh, that he might think it's hers. Well, he might not, he might not attribute to anybody. - Yeah, he may not even think about it. - Yeah, it might not be a thing where it's like, oh, no, that's your responsibility. It might just be like, I did it sufficiently. - Yeah. - And so it's done, right? - Yeah. - It's complete. And so when I said, and if you want it done better, then it's not like you need to do that better. It's just like sort of an assumption that if somebody wants more than the minimal reliable product, then it is their job to then come in and do it up to their standards, does that make sense? And you could very easily have a conversation going the opposite direction about this, right? The ISTJ could probably look at the ENFJ and be like, I thought you were supposed to be, I thought you were supposed to constantly and perpetually be creating all of these harmonious relationships. And look at you're in a fight with somebody or you're not talking to your family or your family's not talking to you or whatever. It's like, I thought you were supposed to be this bastion of harmony. But the truth is, and every ENFJ knows, you only get there through conflict, right? You only get to true harmony through conflict. And so because of that, there's a lot of being willing to have a little bit of mess in a relationship in order to get to the real thing. And for, I think a lot of ISTJs, there's a willingness to have a little bit of mess in there in order to determine what are the things I actually care about, what means something to me. So there is going to be an ISTJ out there that has the white gloves on that is looking for dust everywhere that has a meticulous home and vacuums their way out of their house or whatever. There is going to be that ISTJ and they're going to be a very different set of circumstances and life pressures and all of that than the ISTJ that's doing the minimum viable product. But there's still both ISTJs, does that make sense? Yeah. So I think it's important to remember that as we're doing two things. First of all, trying to figure out people's best fit types so we can communicate with them better. So anytime you're profiling or whatever, these are good things to remember. But I think the second thing is to set our expectations accordingly. Like, don't make assumptions that because a person is supposed to look a certain way, when they don't match that, there's somehow, you know, there's like a defectiveness. Not that Kristen said that, but I think sometimes we go, "Oh, they can't be that type." Or if they are, there's something wrong with them. Or just a confusion. Like, I thought they were supposed to be good at this. What's going on? Exactly. I thought, why is this, they are good at this, but not in this context. What's happening here? I think that's really the question. By the way, thank you so much for the question, Kristen. I know we went really long on it and really kind of dove into it. We appreciate it because it gives us a dynamic to talk about. And what's coming up for you, if you're listening or watching right now, do you have some relational dynamics like this in your life? Is this resonant with you, which she wrote in? Maybe you're not the same two types. But you're like, "Yeah, my partner or my spouse or my husband or wife, or whoever, maybe friends, family, whoever, boyfriend, girlfriend. Somebody in your life in a relationship has this thing that you think they should be good at." And here in one context or this, it's not working the way I'd expect it to. What's resonant with what we're saying and what more questions do you have? I think it'll be really interesting. And then if you have a story to share about this in your life, we'd love to hear that too. It gets a really good discussion starting below this episode. So come over and make your voice heard. Absolutely. And if you have a question that you would like to ask, you can do that at personalityhacker.com/question. Yep. Questions? Yeah. Go ahead and record it, please state your name clearly, keep it under a certain amount, but all the instructions are there. But we'd love to answer your question live on here. Yeah, absolutely. We're getting ready to enroll in our new profiler training program soon. We're going to be opening up some enrollments very soon for a new training. We've got a live event this fall, time this recording that we're going to be running toward in Orlando, Florida. Love to have you part of that program. If you're looking to really understand type at a deep, deep level, it's a fantastic program. We've got a lot of alumni students going through more advanced materials and really the way to get started is to this profiler training. So come over to profilertraining.com and we'd love to have you be part of the next cohort. You can find all the information over there. My name is Joel Mark Whit. I don't mean Tony. Somebody asked us about that. Did you see that comment? They're like, why does Joyce say my name is Joel Mark Whit and until he says, I'm Antonio Dodge. I'm like, I never thought about it. It's just like, I think it's a device to end the episodes. It's just like a memory thing I've just gotten to the out of saying. I guess I could say, I'm Joel Mark Whit. But it's like a way, it's like a cue to end it, I think. Yeah. I was just, I was reflecting that. I've never thought about it. This person asked the question. It's a good question. Anyway, I'll try this again. I will talk with you on the next Personality Hacker Podcast.