Why the long silence?

So I’ve been quiet on the blog recently for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, much as I’m enjoying this series of The Apprentice, it hasn’t engaged me to the same degree as its predecessors. Maybe I’ve seen these same tasks too many times before. Or maybe I’ve seen this cast of candidate characters too many times before. With my HDS hat on (the Hogan Development Survey psychometric) I’m on the look out for dysfunctional leadership behaviours. But every time I spot a ‘dark side’ with the potential to de-rail a particular candidate, it looks like a carbon copy of that exhibited by last year’s identikit candidate.

Instead of Charming-Manipulative Jedi Jim, for example, simply insert smooth-talking sinister-eyed salesman Stephen Brady.

We’ve also lost (along with lots of dead wood) two of the most interesting candidates too early in the process. Bilyana Apostolova, had she not talked her way to the sack in week one, promised to be painfully brilliant television. And Katie Wright, who was nearly caught out in that opening week when she ‘went missing’, was shaping up to be an interesting contender as she demonstrated both amused detachment and a penchant for persuading project managers to take perilous risks.

After her near-sacking experience, Katie started to come across as the first candidate in years who actually seemed to be doing this for fun.

But then she got fired.

However, the other reason for my blogging silence is that I’ve been devoting some time to supporting the development of leadership potential among a different demographic from the ‘day job’. For the last couple of months I’ve been volunteering one day a week at a local Primary School – helping out for half a term each first in Year 1, then Year 3 and now Year 6 (I would be there today but for their SATS).

As a fan and frequent user of the MBTI, I’ve found it fascinating to see how facets of this personality model manifest themselves in those so young. The theory behind MBTI says that our personality type is set from birth and, if you subscribe to that, it should come as no surprise that spotting the ‘preference’ of a child is in some ways simpler than determining that of many adults. Most children have experienced fewer of those facets of life which, whilst having nothing to do with personality type per se, do have a huge bearing on who and how we are. And children also tend to just ‘be themselves’ to a greater degree than most adults can.

The Year 6 teacher set her class a debating topic recently which provided immediate insight into the Extraversion or Introversion preference of many of her pupils. As soon as the debate started, a number of the children charged in with their initial opinion – often to revise these before the end of the same sentence. Others could be seen sitting back, listening and reflecting before articulating their considered view. Neither approach had anything to do with the intelligence or academic ability of the different children, but plenty to do with their ‘E or I’ preference.

The Year 6 children also hugely enjoy an activity designed to develop their ‘mental maths’ capability – and again it readily reveals the Extravert or Introvert preference of many of the children. The activity starts with one pupil standing behind the chair of a seated classmate. The teacher calls out a ‘mental maths’ question (e.g. ‘what is the square root of 81?‘) and whichever child first shouts the correct answer then takes up position behind the next pupil’s chair.

There are a couple of clearly Extravert children in the class who are very good at mental maths and often ‘remain standing’ for some considerable time. There are others who blurt out the first answer which pops into their head, quickly followed by another if the initial response was wrong. Contrastingly, last week one of the more capable girls in terms of her numeracy was celebrating an unprecedented (for her) five ‘first correct answers’ in succession despite her obvious Introvert preference for thinking through the question before speaking.

I’m finding my time in the classroom fascinating in many respects. I also recognise (as I believe the education system now does to a much greater degree than when I was at school) that our personality type has a huge bearing on how each of us likes to learn (at the risk of sounding like ‘I’m 93 you know’, there was a very strong STJ bias in the way we were taught). So I may well return to this theme – and perhaps rather sooner than posting another Apprentice piece.

Although that might all change after tonight’s task; to ‘create a brand and identity’ for an English sparkling wine. What odds on a ‘Jubi-lympic’ tie-in?

Read Full Post »

Sherlock Holmes and the Myers Briggs Mystery (with a bit of FIRO thrown in).

In my last post I promised a psychometric analysis of Sherlock Holmes (as reimagined for TV by Stephen Moffat and Mark Gatiss). I now rather wish I hadn’t – but I know at least two regular readers who are avidly awaiting my assessment of his MBTI type, so I suppose I should attempt to solve this Sherlock mystery.

Part of the problem is that the MBTI only looks at certain ‘normal’ aspects of personality. Myers Briggs also assumes that we are normal people. Not only would I imagine Holmes sits some distance along the autistic scale but might tentatively suggest we’re dealing with a borderline schizophrenic here. John Watson identified Aspergers as another possible affliction during last week’s episode (and he is, after all, a Doctor) so I think it is safe to say that Sherlock’s personality is not ‘normal’.

Sherlock portrait stolen from Wikipedia - mystery solved

Nonetheless, I’m committed to an MBTI analysis and Sherlock’s preference for solitude certainly suggests Introversion. Whilst he does his best thinking playing the violin, my belief is that he needs to block out distractions rather than requiring the stimulus of music to energise the mind. Admittedly, Benedict Cumberbatch’s Holmes has a tendency to ‘think out loud’ (a typically Extravert trait) but that probably has more to do with the demands of television (with the exception of George Smiley, very few great screen characters keep their thoughts mostly to themselves).

In terms of Sensing or Intuition, I strongly believe Sherlock favours the latter. He is undoubtedly very good at assimilating information – instantly noticing and processing the most minute clues – but it appears to cause him actual pain to focus for too long on the detail of the here and now. His natural preference is surely Intuition – identifying patterns, themes, connections, possibilities.

In this second series of Sherlock, Holmes has called Watson his ‘one friend’ and found his ‘not interested’ default setting fleetingly challenged – but he doesn’t really do feelings and emotions (nor interpersonal skills, for that matter). Logical analysis and objective decision-making are his forte. Indeed, so adept is he at reasoned deduction that it often appears quite elementary. Not that it is always easy to follow Sherlock’s logic – great leaps of faith are sometimes required (or at least great restraint from the temptation to pick holes in the plot) – but we can put that down to the N influence on his T preference.

Judging or Perceiving presented me with the most difficulty. I even Googled ‘Sherlock Holmes MBTI’ to see what others thought – and found the jury to be evenly split (with one vote for INTX). The clutter and chaos within 221B Baker Street (when Mrs Hudson isn’t around to restore order) suggests a Perceiving preference. Sherlock also seems more energised by deadlines than engaged by plans. So I’m coming down in the P camp – but I’m open to persuasion should others identify evidence to the contrary.

Dr Watson is driven by his values and his loyalty to Holmes – which marks him down as a classic SF. As portrayed by Martin Freeman we also have a deep thinker and man of few words – suggesting he shares Sherlock’s Introvert preference. And I’m inclining towards Judging – perhaps as a counterpoint to Holmes’ P. But maybe that is just because ISFJ types are twice as prevalent in the UK population as ISFP. I guess my homework for Sunday is to watch more closely for the Judging or Perceiving clues for both characters.

I might also seek to validate my first attempt at Sherlock’s FIRO-B profile – in some ways easier to establish than his MBTI type.

FIRO-B looks at our differing needs for interpersonal interaction across the three areas of Inclusion, Control and Affection – in terms of the behaviours we express towards, and want from, others. The scale scores range from 0-9 – where 0 reflects a very low need and 9 very high.

A FIRO-B score of 0 does not represent a total absence of a particular interpersonal need but typically indicates very low frequency and very high selectivity (i.e. in terms of whom the behaviours are expressed towards or wanted from).  With that in mind, my initial assessment of Sherlock was scores of 0 for Expressed Inclusion, Wanted Inclusion, Wanted Control, Expressed Affection and Wanted Affection – and a 9 for Expressed Control. However, if a crime is sufficiently intriguing Holmes hates to be excluded – so perhaps he’s pushing towards a 1 for Wanted Inclusion.

Admitting that John Watson is his friend – even telling him as much – doesn’t elevate Holmes’ Expressed Affection above a zero. And his ‘feelings’ about Irene Adler (‘A Scandal in Belgravia’) were sufficiently unprecedented that the same score for Wanted Affection still fits. But perhaps the femme fatale’s intriguing challenge to Sherlock’s ‘not interested’ mindset hints at a suppressed higher need in the area of Wanted Control? That his hitherto dormant interest in the opposite sex should be aroused by a dominatrix might just be a clue.

Read Full Post »

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

So my seasonal ‘Father Christmas and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator’ post narrowly outperformed Doctor Who & the MBTI for hits in December – but it was a close contest and Santa did have ‘home page advantage’.

Coincidentally, I have just this morning received an e-mail from the WordPress ‘Stats Monkey’ reporting on my blog’s performance over the past 12 months – which is all the excuse I need to dash off a quick review of these and buy myself a bit more time before I MBTI-analyse Stephen Moffat and Mark Gatiss’ reinterpretation of Holmes and Watson (which I guess I’m committed to now).

The biggest surprise in the 2011 stats was that my analysis of the good Doctor’s Myers Briggs type, posted in May 2010, was only the second most popular in terms of views. It was followed (at some distance) by two more MBTI posts – ‘MBTI Types of the World’s Greatest Novelists – Condensed into 140 Characters or Fewer’ (March 2011) and ‘How Do You Motivate an ENFP to Actually Do Something?‘ (September 2011). The former was inspired by a statement on Twitter suggesting that great writers typically share the same four preferences. And the latter was in response to a very specific Google search (which brought the frustrated manager of an ENFP to my website). It was the post which generated most Twitter activity – although I suspect this was mostly from people who only read the title.

Apart from being a great writer, what else might this man have in common with me? Why, his MBTI type of course.

Santa’s MBTI type, originally exposed in January 2011, only reached number 5 in the ‘hits’ parade – but did reach a wider audience via ‘TYPEtype‘ – the journal of the New Zealand Association for Psychological Type. I’m not sure how many subscribers it has but I’m hoping for Worldwide acclaim and riches beyond imagination on the back of this.

So, if not the Jolly Bearded Fat Fellow or the Tardis-dwelling TimeLord, what did prove to be my most popular post of 2011 (I pretend to hear you ask)?

Somewhat against my better judgement – but in keeping with Franklin Whybrow tradition – I devoted a few idle evenings in October to Celebrity MasterChef. Amazingly (given the viewing figures and scheduling of the show) my subsequent HDS analysis of the Champion-in-waiting – entitled ‘The Dark Side of Phil Vickery’ – was an instant internet phenomenon. I think it would be fair to say it went viral.

OK, it wouldn’t be remotely fair to say that – but judicious use of the #celebritymasterchef hash-tag on Twitter did result in a staggering number of views. For all I know, every one of them may have been Phil Vickery – but that’s WordPress stats for you.

Here are some links:

1. the-dark-side-of-phil-vickery-celebrity-masterchef-champion/

2. doctor-who-and-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator-colin-baker-was-number-six/

3. mbti-types-of-the-worlds-greatest-novelists-condensed-into-140-characters-or-fewer/

4. how-do-you-motivate-an-enfp-to-actually-do-something/

5. santa-claus-and-the-myers-briggs-type-indicator/

For what it’s worth, my most commented upon post was none of the above. Another piece penned in response to a specific Google search – ‘Is FIRO-B Rubbish?’ – achieved that accolade. The answer is ‘no’ but here, for good measure, is that link:

is-firo-b-rubbish/ 

Happy New Year – and Keeeeeeep Blogging!

Read Full Post »

An MBTI Question I’ve Waited Years To Ask (and a slightly disappointing answer)

Communicating with others in a style which fits their MBTI type can be a powerful tool in influencing, engaging and building relationships.

Those with the Sensing preference typically like to receive information in a structured, sequential manner, prefer to focus on practical reality and tend to want detailed information which builds up the bigger picture and leads to the conclusion.

Intuitive types are more likely to want to start with a high level overview and perhaps dig down into the detail in areas which interest them. Intuitive types are usually happier to go off at tangents, more comfortable with gaps or ambiguity and more inclined to piece together information for themselves.

Recognising these differences, and tailoring your approach to appeal to the preferences of your audience, can really help you get them on board.

But why am I talking about this?

In a former life I worked at NATS Ltd – the UK’s leading purveyor of Air Traffic Management. In 2004 the NATS Executive set the organisation off in pursuit of 21 extremely challenging targets known as the 21 Destinations. The ‘Destinations’ programme was launched through a series of roadshows at which members of the Executive projected into the future and announced that in March 2007 NATS had achieved all of these targets. They then added ‘….and by the way, we don’t know how we’re going to do any of this’.

Within the UK population, approximately 75% of us have the Sensing preference and 25% the Intuitive preference. As the company’s MBTI expert I was well aware that the NATS ‘population’ reflected a similar disparity. Like most commercial businesses, the culture of NATS was very STJ – perhaps even more than most given the safety critical nature of Air Traffic Control. Yet here was the NATS Executive launching the 21 Destinations in an extremely Intuitive style.

The HR Director at that time, Philip James, would have been well aware of the MBTI ‘mix’ across the business and as it happens has just posted a blog piece on his own website referring to the launch of ‘Destinations’. So I took the opportunity to ask him – Did the NATS Executive consciously decide to launch Destinations in a style likely to cause discomfort, and hence invite resistance, among the predominantly Sensing audience?

Read Full Post »

MBTI and Celebrity Masterchef – let the culinary carnage commence

Celebrity Masterchef is back – albeit relegated to an early afternoon slot (plus a 30 minute highlights package on a Friday evening). I have better and more important things to do with my days – but via Virgin ‘On Demand’ I have been drawn in. No doubt as the competition progresses, I will start to analyse the contestants in terms of the Hogan HDS – as I did for the three finalists last year – but at this stage incompetence and stupidity should be sufficient to see off most of the aspiring chefs. So I have instead been looking out for clues as to their MBTI types.

Read Full Post »

‘How do you motivate an ENFP to actually do something?’

According to my site stats, someone (among the many searching for Doctor Who’s Myers Briggs type) arrived at this website last week by Googling precisely that question: ‘how do you motivate an ENFP to actually do something?‘. It sounds like the desperate plea of a despairing manager.

It also sounds like a question from someone whose grasp of, and/or expectations from, the MBTI are somewhat flawed.

‘How do you motivate an ENFP to actually do something?’ implies that all ENFPs are inherently difficult to motivate. It also suggests that our MBTI preferences hold the key to what motivates us. And it further implies that ‘one size fits all’ – i.e. that all of these notoriously lazy, work-shy, diffident ENFPs will be motivated by the same things.

Read Full Post »

And the £250,000 goes to….. The Apprentice is hired

The Apprentice candidates in this series have been battling to win a £250,000 partnership with Lord Sugar. It therefore made sense that the concluding episode, traditionally a head-to-head task in which two finalists led candidates fired earlier in the process, should this year involve rigorous scrutiny of the CVs and business plans of four potential partners.

'Sugar Sugar, Oh Honey Honey.....'

Fun though it would have been to watch aggrieved former colleagues seeking ‘kharmic retribution’, this year Lord Sugar instead used the interview from hell format to help him determine who was worthy of his investment.

I say ‘rigorous scrutiny of CVs and business plans’ but to my mind the interviews were designed more to test the resilience of the candidates than the robustness of their business propositions.  Margaret Mountford came across as shrewd and insightful, as ever, but in the other interview rooms we had Claude, who mistakes rudeness for shrewdness, and two young entrepreneurs seemingly in serious need of selection skills training.

Tom was first in front of rude Claude: ‘Would it be fair to say, Tom, that your career is floundering at the moment?’

‘I don’t believe that to be the case but I’m wondering what would point you in that direction’, was Tom’s response.

‘Well, just your CV really.’ Clearly Claude believes in bringing the best out of candidates by easing them into an interview.

In another room Mike Suter, a ‘pioneer of Britain’s free magazine market,’ greeted Jim with the observation that ‘your CV is packed with clichés, buzzwords and blarney.’ Fair comment, perhaps, but hardly the warmest welcome.

Meanwhile Susan was receiving an even more unsettling reception from Matthew Riley, young entrepreneur of the year in 2007. ‘Stand behind the chair for a second. Don’t sit down,‘ he instructed before inviting her to deliver ‘the elevator pitch’ (i.e. summarising her business proposition in a 30 second ‘lift ride’).

Susan’s smile slipped for only a split second before she smoothly and succinctly explained her idea for a mass market organic skincare range.  

Only Margaret was willing to open her interview with a degree of warmth, applauding Helen on her outstanding performance in the process thus far. However, if Helen was reasonably relaxed at this early stage, she was anything but at ease when Mike Suter confronted her with what I consider to be a horrible and wholly inappropriate interview question (even within the context of a TV programme).

‘You come across as very professional, very controlled,’ he began. ‘Tell me something that shows your human side. Tell me a joke. Make me laugh.’

Read Full Post »

Another MBTI post? You’re havin’ a laugh

Adapting your communication style to another person’s MBTI type can greatly help in building rapport, improving working relationships and influencing more effectively. Observing and listening carefully will help you pick up the clues to their type – but it also helps if you know what to listen for.

A person’s sense of humour, and how they seek to make others laugh, can provide insights into their MBTI preferences – particularly in terms of the Sensing/Intuitive (S/N) and Thinking/Feeling (T/F) dichotomies.

Sensing types tend to be practical, anchored in reality and observant of details. They like practical and plain rather than abstract language and prefer information to be presented in a step by step, sequential manner. Intuitive types prefer the ‘big picture’, possibilities, patterns, connections. They like to play with ideas and suspend reality. They often present information through ‘story-telling’, jump from topic to topic and ‘go off at a tangent’.  These communication traits can all be reflected in humour and comedy.

Photo from Nickjwebb at en.wikipedia

Let’s take ‘observational comedy’ as an example.  The comedic styles of Jimmy Carr, Jo Brand, Ross Noble and Eddie Izzard could all be described as ‘observational’ – but if you watch them perform, you might notice that the first two tend to ground their humour in reality whereas for Izzard and Noble, reality merely provides a starting point for more rambling, abstract, surreal humour (an Eddie Izzard routine about cats drilling for oil behind the sofa springs to mind).  Jimmy Carr, in particular, favours a short, sharp, structured style of delivery and tells jokes – by contrast, Eddie Izzard and Ross Noble tell stories and often digress down numerous tangents along the way.

The Thinking and Feeling preferences can also be detected in someone’s sense of humour or style of ‘comedy’.  Thinking types prefer reasoned analysis and objectivity. They like to challenge information and use logic to spot flaws or weaknesses. They tend to use precise language, present information in a ‘matter of fact’ way and critique in an honest, frank manner.  The ‘observational comedy’ of a Thinking type might therefore tend to be that of a more detached observer and the humour of a Thinking type is often ‘at the expense’ of other people.  Feeling types prefer to base decisions on values and feelings. They tend to be more empathetic, more interested in making connections with people and more inclined to build rapport. They are more likely to share personal stories and situations and to focus on subjective beliefs. The humour of Feeling types is often self-deprecating and more likely to be at their own expense than that of others. 

Again, these differing T and F traits can be seen in the comedic style of various performers.  The humour of Jimmy Carr and Jonathan Ross, for example, is often at the expense of others (those with the NT combination can be particularly ‘cutting’ – Ross probably being a good example). Eddie Izzard’s style is much more focussed on himself and often strongly reflects his values whilst Jo Brand’s routines are sometimes almost entirely at her own expense: ‘I’ve been trying to get into acting. I did audition for Footballers’ Wives. I didn’t get in. But I did get a part in Darts Players’ Wives’.

The difference between S and N or T and F humour is probably most obvious when examples of both are seen in close proximity, such as from resident team captains or panellists on a comedy quiz show.  Take ‘Have I Got News for You’, on which Ian Hislop is typically detached, often cutting and grounded in reality whereas Paul Merton is much more inclined to indulge in flights of fancy. I would also venture that he tends to be less cutting than Hislop unless there is a clash between his values and those of another panellist or the guest presenter. 

Going back a few years, there was also a great example of the Sensing and Intuitive preferences on the comedy sports quiz ‘They Think It’s All Over’. The programme always concluded with ‘the name game’ in which resident panellists Jonathan Ross and Rory McGrath had to provide clues to help their respective teams guess the name of a sportsman.  Here are just two examples – although I could offer countless more in the same vein:

Jonathan Ross presenting clues for ‘Jermaine McSporran’ (former Wycombe Wanderers footballer): ‘He’s one of the Jackson brothers, not Michael. Not Tito. Not Randy. If it was ‘a propos’ the phrase would be ‘yes, that’s ____ to the subject. They’re not Italians. They’re not Spaniards. They’re not French. They are…’ At this point Snooker player Ronnie O’Sullivan guessed ‘Spanish’! ‘If they’re in Europe and they’re not Belgians and they’re not Danes…’ And so it went on.

Rory McGrath presenting clues for Claudio Ranieri (then manager of Chelsea FC): ‘The English speaking Chelsea Manager.’

I don’t know the MBTI types of any of the performers referenced in this piece, but the differing ‘communication’ styles within their comedy leads me to believe I’m on the right track.  With regard to my own sense of humour, I can’t remember jokes. I don’t ‘do’ jokes. When I make people laugh it is usually by telling a story or offering an ‘unusual’ perspective on something.  Although my humour is often self-deprecating, it is also sometimes at other people’s expense (and at the expense of my own and other people’s ‘type preferences’ when I’m leading an MBTI event). The difference between me and Jonathan Ross, though (apart from our salaries and the fact that I’m a lot funnier) is that I wouldn’t do so without carefully weighing up how the remark will ‘land’ with the other person and whether the ‘audience’ will be laughing with them or at them. On the rare occasions I ‘touch a raw nerve’ with my humour, the odds are that I’m doing so calculatedly.  In terms of Sensing and Intuition, Thinking and Feeling, I’ve provided plenty of clues there. So what am I?

Read Full Post »

Doctor Who and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Colin Baker was number six)

As I’ve said in a previous post, I’m a great fan of MBTI and have used it extensively with individuals, teams and in development programmes.  One of the challenges I have most frequently heard from sceptics is along the lines of: “understanding personality types is all very well but unless someone tells you what theirs is, or we all wear a badge with ours on, what practical use is it?”

Part of my stock answer is that you don’t need to know someone else’s ‘type’ to use MBTI to influence more effectively or build better relationships. If what you’re doing isn’t working, make some assumptions about how their type might differ from yours and try another approach. If you’ve been giving lots of detail and they seem to glaze over, see if starting with the ‘big picture’ headlines gets them more interested. If you’ve bombarded them with a host of brilliant, logical reasons why your solution is best, and they still don’t get it, ask how they feel about it and try to find out about, and connect with, their values.  You don’t need to know whether they’re Sensing (S) or Intuitive (N), Thinking (T) or Feeling (F), just that you need to try a different approach (after all, “if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got“).

But you can also pick up clues if you observe and listen carefully. In fact with some people (mostly Extroverts of course) you don’t even have to listen that carefully.  As well as being a great fan of MBTI, I’m a great fan of Doctor Who. Not a nerdy, techie, go to conventions dressed as Colin Baker type of fan, I hasten to add (with due apologies to any nerdy, techie convention-goers), I just think it’s brilliant television. So I’ll use his current incarnation, as played by Matt Smith, to illustrate the point.

Whether the Doctor is an Extrovert (E) or Introvert (I) is easy enough. He tends to speak or act first then (maybe) reflect, he thinks out loud all the time and clearly draws energy from those around him (although not in the literal way some of his adversaries might). Take this exchange from episode 5 (‘Flesh and Stone’):

Father Octavian: “Doctor, we’re too exposed here. We have to move on.”

Doctor: “We’re too exposed everywhere and Amy can’t move and anyway that’s not the plan.”

River Song: “There’s a plan?”

Doctor: “I don’t know yet, I haven’t finished talking”.

Of course, the Doctor doesn’t really do plans. Flexibility, spontaneity and adaptability are more his things. He does his best work to tight deadlines and under last minute pressure. Undoubtedly Perceiving (P) not Judging (J) then – and only a ‘P’ could have such an elastic grasp of the concept of time.

What about Sensing or Intuitive? I would say he’s very much a ‘big picture’ person (ok, Time Lord). Great at making connections and seeing possibilities but not always entirely practical, down to earth and grounded in reality (let’s face it, he is fictional). Definitely bored by detail, too. So we have E, N and P but what about Thinking or Feeling?

The Doctor can certainly do reason, logic and analysis – but MBTI is about preference not capability. What is his preferred basis for making decisions? Does the Doctor prefer to decide with the head or the heart? Well, his sentimental devotion to a small, insignificant planet and, for all their flaws, to the ‘human race’ that lives there, gives me a clue. I would also say that his decisions are often ‘values driven’ – and if you offend those values you’re in trouble.  In episode 6 (‘the Virgins of Venice’) he tells Rosanna Calvierri, Queen of the Saturnyrians (or ‘big fish from space’), ‘I’m going to tear down the house of Calvierri stone by stone’. The specific reason for his anger? She didn’t know the name of the girl she had just executed. Anyway, he’s a Time Lord. One head, two hearts. I rest my case.  So I have the Doctor down as ENFP. Now, what about the Daleks?

Not everyone gives as many clues as the Doctor – and complex though his character is, real people are rather more complex than a fictional Time Lord, no matter how well scripted and acted the series may be. But if you’re not quite connecting with someone, and you’re armed with good listening skills and a reasonable understanding of MBTI, you should be able to pick up clues about how their type might differ from yours. You can then test these assumptions by adapting your style a little to see if that makes a big difference to how you connect with them.

Read Full Post »