To say that human beings aren’t easily satisfied is probably an understatement. Even if we happen to be relatively happy with our own lives, it’s rarely long before we’re finding something to rant and rave about in the news or elsewhere. Or, we look around at our friends and family only to suddenly find ourselves dissatisfied with our own circumstances. Social comparisons are omnipresent and contentment a rare commodity in our species.
That said, there are many cases in which real change is needed and dissatisfaction warranted. Life is riddled with problems that call for some sort of change or resolution, be it individually or collectively. And while we may find many of life’s problems frustrating and inconvenient, when we commit ourselves to solving them, we can experience a sense of purpose and absorption. So in some respects our problems can serve as a source of meaning—a blessing in disguise.
Truth be told, all personality types function as change agents. We all want our lives to be better and to play an instrumental role in that process. This seems particularly salient in adolescence and early adulthood, when ideals abound and remain untempered by life experience. But I also want to make a case for how personality type can affect how we think about and approach change. This will serve as our aim for this post.
How Intuitives (N), Sensors (S), Thinkers (T) & Feelers (F) Approach Change
First, I’d like to discuss how a preference for Intuition (N) versus Sensing (S) might influence our attitudes toward change. Namely, I will contend that Intuitives are generally more inclined to function as change agents than Sensing types. To understand why, we must first recognize the role of idealism in their psychology.
As explored in my book, My True Type, Intuition is associated with abstract ideation. One consequence of this is seeing things in a pure or idealized form. For instance, instead of merely appreciating a chair for what it is, an Intuitive might compare it to their idea of a better or ideal chair. I often joke with my family (although underneath am actually quite serious about the matter) that “the perfect granola bar has yet to be created.” My vision of the ideal granola bar has yet to be manifested in reality. That said, not all Intuitives are idealistic about the same things. To my dismay, not everyone cares as much about granola bars as much as I do. Thus, following David Keirsey’s schema, it can be helpful to group Intuitives along T-F lines, dividing them into “NT” and “NF” types.
Inferior functions notwithstanding, NFs tend to be more idealistic about social and moral issues. They care a lot about social justice and rectifying inequities. Many will partner with charities or non-profit organizations that embody their concerns and allow them to make a difference, whether financially, vocationally or otherwise. NFs may also seek to materialize their aesthetic ideals through various forms of art and design.
Animated by ideals such as truth, utility, and efficiency, NTs are often drawn to effect change in intellectual, scientific, technologic or economic spheres. They are quick to notice errors in logic, systemic inefficiencies, and instances of poor engineering. In concert with the lion’s share of scientists and philosophers, they are convinced that a heavier dose of science and reason is indispensable for achieving a better world.
Both NFs and NTs share the conviction that the status quo is not to be accepted uncritically, but can (and should) always be improved upon. I’m fairly confident that, in a truly perfect world, many Intuitives wouldn’t know what to do with themselves. What would they do, after all, without complex problems to solve? As Carl Jung scribed in Psychological Types:
The Intuitive is never to be found in the world of accepted reality-values, but he [sic] has a keen nose for anything new and in the making. Because he is always seeking out new possibilities, stable conditions suffocate him… So long as a new possibility is in the offing, the Intuitive is bound to it with the shackles of fate.
The problem with idealism, as many Intuitives have discovered through experience, is that it often leads to disappointment. Reality (including other people) is not as eager to conform to their ideals as they’d like. They thus find themselves faced with an important question: Should I continue to avidly embrace and work toward my ideals, despite the potential, even likelihood, of disappointment? Or, do I take a more pragmatic approach—finding contentment with small victories rather than trying to win the whole war all at once?
While all Intuitives will struggle with such questions at some point, INTJs and INFJs—notorious for their perfectionism—may have the hardest time compromising big ideals for smaller pragmatic wins (as T types, INTJs may have a somewhat easier time with this). As discussed in our post, How INTJs & INFJs Deal with Disappointment, navigating disappointment and learning to accept “good enough” can be a prominent challenge for these types.
Moreover, as big picture thinkers, Intuitives have a penchant for solving complex, broad-scale problems. Since helping a neighbor mow their lawn, for instance, doesn’t really engage in Intuition, Intuitives may shy away from these sorts of concrete activities in hopes of catalyzing more sweeping changes. They prefer to effect change through ideas, words, and/or creativity—all of which enlist their Intuitive faculties.
Sensing types, who think and operate more concretely, are more likely to help out with practical problems—lending a hand with caregiving, transportation, repairs and maintenance, etc. More than Intuitives, they enjoy helping via direct action.
Sensors also tend to be less idealistic and critical of the status quo than Intuitives. In many respects, they accept the status quo and its attendant conventions as a given; they then find ways of living within those constraints. Challenging conventions is rarely their main focus. They aren’t compelled to question everything, or to dream about ideals and alternatives, as Intuitives are wont to do.
How Introverts (I) & Extraverts (E) Approach Change
Extraverts are quintessential change agents, at least with respect to the outside world. As managers, leaders, and reformers, they seek to manage physical (ET) and human (EF) resources in the best way possible. Having the lion’s share of their attention directed outwardly ignites their Extraverted energies and talents. Personal (I) change is more of an afterthought, or at least of lower priority, vis-à-vis handling their Extraverted affairs.
At the other end of the spectrum are Introverted types. Introverts are generally less confident in their ability to effect external change, especially on a broad scale. Hence, change-minded Introverts are more apt to focus on themselves and their immediate situation. ISFs, for instance, may consider how they can give their kids a better life or education. ISTs may look for ways of improving their small business or personal finances. INFs may focus on actualizing their potential as artists or therapists. INTs may contribute to a specialized field or knowledge area that interests them.
Change, for Introverts, is generally of a smaller magnitude and proceeds at a slower pace, unfolding gradually as they reflect on their lives and learn what makes them happy. These types may resonate with Aldous Huxley’s notion that “there’s only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that’s your own self,” as well as Gandhi’s belief that “if we could change ourselves, the world would also change.”
In short, while Extraverts believe they can and ought to change the world directly, Introverts tend to feel that it’s more within their reach to first change themselves. Of course, neither of these views is inherently right or wrong. The point is merely that different types gravitate more toward certain approaches than others.
All told, we can conceive of the personality types along a continuum with regard to how they approach change:
On one end of our continuum, we have Extraverts and Intuitives, types who envision and advocate for sweeping external change. On the other end are Introverts and Sensors, types who may sometimes dream big, but are more comfortable effecting change at smaller scales, even if it means starting with themselves and gradually extending outward. ES and IN types tend to fall somewhere in between and may at times feel torn between focusing on personal versus collective change.
To learn more about the 16 types, be sure to explore our four books and online course, Finding Your Path as an INFP, INTP, ENFP & ENTP.
Read More:
The Introvert’s Quest for Identity & Vocation
Anonymous says
Great Article.
A.J. Drenth says
Thanks so much. Glad you enjoyed it.
Genny says
Very true and very well explained.
As I was reading, I wondered if Intuitives have less of the ability to be happy in life, because of this constant ideal they have, and being rarely satisfied with what is. What do you think, A.J.?
A.J. Drenth says
Hello Genny,
Thanks for your comment and question. I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that Intuitives are doomed to unhappiness. In fact, I would argue that they can enjoy profound happiness by way of creativity and enlightenment. But as discussed in my Meaning in Life post, they are disposed to seeking meaning, but not always finding or relishing it. Hence the issue of dissatisfaction.
Robert says
Very insightful take on the topic! Just as a small sidenote, most of your articles focus on the intuitive thought process in much greater detail compared to sensing types. I think it would have been interesting to understand more deeply how both types differ in their attitude to change, sensors just got a brief paragraph which made it a bit harder for me to gain insight on their thought process (especially SJ vs SP). For the rest, this was a very insightful read :)
A.J. Drenth says
Thanks so much Robert for your comment and feedback.
Anonymous says
Hmm, finding it hard to relate. As an ISTP and an activist, what you describe there hasn’t been my experience at all. NF types may be good at idealizing but when it comes to affecting change in the real world, they are usually not the people doing it. Introversion/Extraversion may relate to how we process information and interact socially (i.e. our outward demeanor), but it doesn’t amount to focusing only on ourselves/outside world in our actions.
A.J. Drenth says
Hello there and thanks for your comment. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, which appears to apply in your case. I disagree with the last part of your comment with regard to whether E-I affects our focus. Both the Big Five and MBTI associate Extraversion not only with sociability, but also assertiveness. This is why Extraverts are generally more apt to take on leadership roles and tackle larger change initiatives. Similarly, the Introvert who may lack the assertiveness and energy level of the Extravert is far less likely to do so. In understanding these things about ourselves, we are more inclined to gravitate toward one of the two ends of the change agent spectrum I discussed.