Four quadrants of screenwriting style
I’ve gotten a few questions from readers who’ve gone through the scripts in the Downloads section, many of them asking about my use of “we,” as in…
- We hear SCRAPING as something behind the door moves closer.
Who is “we?”
I use this “we” all the time, and I’ve never really thought about it much. I guess it means either “you and I” (the reader and the writer) or “we the audience.” But which one?
Sort of both. The example above feels like it’s from the audience’s point-of-view. But in many cases, I’m using it more as the creator, such as…
- As the pickup ROARS away, we reveal…
- TWO BURNING SCARECROWS.
I love “we.” To me, it helps include the reader, giving the sensation of watching a movie, rather than just reading words on a page. But you should know that a fair number of screenwriters loathe this use of “we,” arguing that it’s always possible to write the same moment without it…
- The pickup ROARS away, revealing…
- TWO BURNING SCARECROWS.
In the end, there is no right or wrong. It’s just a matter of preference.
This got me thinking back to college, when I first had to take a Myers-Briggs personality type test. If you haven’t taken one, it’s definitely worth the twenty minutes, because it has an interesting way of breaking down personality along four basic axes. (Note: plural of “axis,” not synonym of “hatchets.”)
Even with different sets of questions, I come out pretty reliably — if not always strongly — as an ENTJ. It’s worth pointing out that Myers-Briggs-style assessments aren’t trying to say “who you are” as much as what your preferences tend to be.
I think the same characteristics can be found in screenwriting style. Different screenwriters have different preferences, some more strongly rooted than others.
The following is pretty top-of-my-head, so please chime in if you can think of better descriptors for what I’m talking about.
→ Literalist versus Impressionist
The Literalist believes that screenplays should only include what can be seen or heard, since that’s the only information which makes it up on the screen. The Impressionist is willing to bend or break the audio-visual barrier. He may write about things which cannot be filmed, or which reference things outside the world of the movie. (Such as, “Mendoza’s Ferrari is almost as hot as the one I’m going to buy when I sell this script for a million fucking dollars.”)
Personally, I’m pretty much a Literalist, although I’ll generally allow myself one sentence of unshootable information upon introducing a new character.
→ Completer versus Fragmenter
The Completer writes in complete sentences, like this one, with a subject and a verb. The Fragmenter? Nope. Won’t. Not his thing.
I’m a Completer. While you’ll occasionally find a fragment in my action sequences, I’m generally not a fan of rapid-fire word shrapnel. My aversion to fragments makes it very hard to do surgical rewrites of certain screenwriters’ work. I either have to adapt to their style — or more likely — rewrite every sentence of action.
→ Filmist versus Readerist
The Filmist writes screenplays that are intended for filmmakers, using specific film terminology (such as camera movement) and a minimum of fluff. The Filmist makes no concession to the non-professional. The Readerist writes for a more general audience, attempting to convey the feeling of cinematic devices without explicitly mentioning them, sometimes abstracting them to a literary “we see” and “we hear.”
I’m clearly a Readerist. I avoid mentioning the camera, and will even throw a “we” before a “CUT TO:” just so it reads a little better. But it’s worth noting that the classic screenplays, the ones that became the movies you loved, are almost all Filmist.
→ Show-er versus Teller
The Show-er attempts to include every important action in the story, while the Teller would rather forego some detail to convey the overall gist of a scene or sequence. Taken to the extreme, the Show-er would list every punch in a fight, while the Teller would leave it as: “They fight. Maddox wins.”
I’m a Show-er. For me, an action sequence is collection of a dozen smaller moments, and to breeze over them with a sentence or two is disrespectful. With a script, I’m trying evoke the feeling of having watched a movie, and that includes the action.
However, many of the top writers do compress action sequences, arguing that the only thing more boring than writing a long action sequence is reading one.
So, by my own system, I’d come out an LCPS LCRS. You?
Without their scripts in front of me, I’d put James Cameron down as an LCFS. Shane Black is probably an IFRT, but it’s been a while since I’ve read his stuff.
And again, this is all very work-in-progress. (I’ve already changed terms, messing up acronyms.) If you can think of better criteria for looking at screenwriting style (other than “good” and “hack”), please share.
Articles
October 30th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
I love this post. I’m an INTJ, btw, so you and I are very similar, except would you mind getting the hell away from me?
Thanks.
Anyway, I’d love to answer your script profile question, except I’m puzzled by the P/O axis. Is that for Filmist vs. Readerist? Which is which?
By the by, I also use “we”, but only in specific circumstances. I actually used it today, in fact. I go for “we” when I want the reader to understand that the audience is going to have a reaction that is unique to them, i.e. not shared by the characters.
For instance, if a character wanders into a room that another character has been in, I might say:
JOSEPH enters a room, and we realize it’s the bedroom where we saw Sally hang herself…
October 30th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
I’m an LFRS, but a toss-up on the Fragmenter/Completer quadrant (tend to switch back and forth depending on the scene/beat). As for the “we” issue — I’m not a “we” snob, but it does bug me when it’s over used in scripts.
October 30th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Really great post. I think I’m an ICRS, but a couple of the categories are kind of a toss-up. I try to write exposition like I’m describing the movie to a blind person. So I use “we” an awful lot, and I don’t always get to get to complete my sentences before a new–HIS HEAD EXPLODES! I try to be funny too, unless I’m writing Schindler’s List. Anything not to be boring.
October 30th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
Me. LFRS.
October 30th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
you know sometimes, oranges are green…as far as category…i consider the matter in simpler terms…those who follow a formula or set pattern and those who do not…formula people sometimes have commercial success, while no formula folks do not have it easy at the box office…i happen to admire the no formula or anti-hero types.
October 30th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
I concur. Love it! Like Craig, I’m an INTJ on Myers-Briggs, and like Steve, I think I’m LFRS on the … wait, is there a name for this thing? The August Screenwriting Style Test? Anyway, on the F/R prong, I almost never use camera movements (the occasional “close on” being an exception), but at the same time, I never use “we.” I think that still puts me in the “R” category, so I’m going with LFRS.
October 30th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
Ah. Better.
I’m with you, John. LCRS. All the way.
The only other axis I can think of is Prompters vs. Allowers. Prompters are more inclined to throw those parenthetical cues in for the actors, whereas the Allower types stick to the dogma that parentheticals are insulting to all parties involved, and prefer to allow the actors and director to find their own readings.
I’m a mild Prompter who wishes he were more of an Allower.
October 30th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Shane Black is an impressionist. Just read the original Kiss Kiss Bang Bang script. Loaded with smarty pants jokes only the reader will see. And that line about “buying the car when I make a million off this script” is Black from his “Lethal Weapon.” He was talking about a mansion in the Hollywood Hills not a car. Hey the guy saw his success coming.
Anyway, what’s your policy on the “wryly” in scripts? Do you tend to direct your actors a bit by placing pauses, beats and smiles in between the dialogue?
October 31st, 2005 at 3:26 am
pffft, everyone knows you’ll never make it as a writer in hollywood if you use “we see” in your screenplays, i mean… oh wait…
and i’m ESTJ/LFRS.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:29 am
Mostly rank amateur here, but I’ll throw it out there:
I’m an ENTP mostly but sometimes I’m an ENTJ. I prefer to observe but if I’m asked to make a judgement I will. This gives me faith that one day I will be A Great Creative Screenwriter because obviously four letters indicate my creative ability…
I’d say that I’m a recovering LFRS(A) who is trying to become a ICRS(A). But only a mild ‘impressionist’ (L/I split :). I just want to spice up my descriptions and the easiest way I find to do this it to be more literary…. although, I try to use allusions, metaphors and similies which are audiovisual in nature. e.g. ‘The couch was the kind you’d buy off Surry Hills junkies’. I’m still learning though and trying to play around with my style.
FWIW, I tend to use ‘we’ in treatments for music videos far more than I do in proper scripts. They just seem more appropriate and you’re dealing with very non-film people, so telling them what they see tends to help them visualise what’s going on… and as a medium they’re far more driven by visuals than story. Ironically, I think my treatments are actually better reads than my scripts… sigh.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:34 am
Interesting system of typology (I’m an MBTI INTP). I would fall under LCFS.
First one had me confused for a second. But from what I gather, the impressionist appears to take a more active role in forming an impression in the reader through the inclusion of abstract descriptions. This opposed to the literalist, who would rather let his script speak entirely for itself (and in doing so, probably leaves more to the individual imagination.)
It seems as though all of these script writing functions are akin to two different poles of specification. You’ve got your generalizers on one end; literalist, fragmenter, readerist and teller, and on the other side, your specifiers; impressionist, completist, filmist and show-er. And they can still easily divide, since they handle different individual aspects of the script writing process.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:31 am
This is great… I’m still a nyophyte at screenwriting so my voice and sytle are still evolving but I tend towards LFRS. Though I can see how this could change depending on the screenplay and the tone the story needs.
The Myers-Briggs is fun. I took it once when I was a teenager (dad’s a psychologist), then again ten years later, pretty much the same each time, still an INFP except I’ve become an entrenched introvert.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:31 am
Unfortunately, having worked as a reader for long while, there’s nothing more irritating than bad impressionists. And they’re EVERYWHERE…
October 31st, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Another stylistic axis to consider: how does the writer handle sound effects?
Do they:
1) Leave that to the sound dept – Guns shoot, women scream, sinks back up.
2) Cap or underline for emphasis – Guns SHOOT, women scream , sinks BACK UP
3) Describe the sounds as well – Guns fire like thunder, women SHRIEK, sinks back up with a gurgle.
4) Create the sounds themselves – Guns go POW-POW-POW!, women scream EEEEEEEK! and BLORT! The sink backs up.
I tend to create actual sounds on the page only as a shock. I’d be likely to write:
Luca Brozzi puts his hand on the bar. Solozzo pats his hand in a friendly way, then –
CHUKK! Pins Luca’s hand onto the bar with a knife.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:00 pm
The taxonomy of style? Cool! Wish I could also contribute an axis but sadly I can’t think of any additional ones.
I’d say I’m LCRSP
I have a strong aversion to “we�.
I find it interesting how Craig Mazin restricts his use of “we�. It’s perfectly logical (once he has explained it) but I really doubt the distinction he’s making is readily apparent to readers. Personally I don’t think I’ll ever warm up to “we�.
I’d be inclined to have Sally kill herself in a room where there is – say – a big fish tank. Or some other distinctive visual feature. Later Joseph enters the room and the first thing that meets the eye is the fish tank (glowing eerily in the half-light). The audience immediately recognizes the scene of the hanging because of a simple visual clue. But Joseph doesn’t know.
Craig’s “JOSEPH enters a room, and we realize it’s the bedroom where we saw Sally hang herself� is a very clear and straightforward description. I admit that his style is respectful in the sense that he leaves the decisions to others, namely the Production Designer / Director. They get to decide what’s visually distinctive about the room. You’ve simply got to have something visually distintive about the room, that’s my point.
I also have an aversion to camera and editing directions. I’m an adherent of the Ted & Terry school which teaches that you can, broadly speaking, convey angles, lense sizes, editing choices etc, through plain writing. There’s no real need to use technical terms.
Being a writer/director probably makes me slightly obsessive about trying to keep writing and directing in seperate compartments.
I dislike technical descriptions because: 1) They’re really boring to read. 2) They don’t pull you into the story. On the contrary. When I read about tracking and angles and “pulling back to reveal� I’m only reminded of grips pushing dollies, cable pullers trotting along, boom swingers, focus pullers, etc. In other words, my mind fills up with totally unwelcome images.
First you’ve got to figure out what your damn story is about. Indicating specific directing choices in the script is w-a-a-a-a-a-y premature. I really try to resist it.
I never have qualms about using parentheticals. But 2 lines is my limit; 4 or 5 line parentheticals look unattractive to me.
Parentheticals are useful when you’ve got 1) small pieces of business. 2) dialogue that gives the wrong impression of a character’s state of mind. Like:
(warmly) You son of a bitch!
Perhaps readers ought to be able to figure out from the context that a character is speaking warmly or cheerfully or appreciatively and not, say, in helpless rage. But I’m not counting on it. The parentheticals are for the benefit of readers (because I assume they read fast and not very attentively) but I delete almost all of them before the script goes to the actors. Not out of any special consideration for their feelings. I’m just curious to see what they come up with on their own and I don’t want to hem them in right at the outset.
This is an interesting discussion because I’m sure a lot of style-choices are products of prejudices, half-baked opinions and all kinds of dubious assumptions (I’m speaking for myself). Perhaps one is liable to get stuck forever with bad style-choices because those choices are always left unexamined (again, I’m speaking for myself).
Perhaps it’s actually therapeutic to go against one’s inclinations!
For example:
I’m not a fragmenter by nature or inclination. I find fragmented sentences (in scripts) facinating and cheesy at the same time.
But say I start to write a script that’s sort of sleepy coming-of-age story in a rural setting but decide to really concentrate on coming up with cool sentence fragments to up the emotional stakes a bit. Introduce some colour and movement. Perhaps by page 20 or 30 I’ll discover that the story has metamorphosed into a thrilling action story, mysteriously like. Who knows?
October 31st, 2005 at 3:19 pm
I love “we.” We use “we” all the “we”-freakin’ time.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:37 pm
L(CF)RS.
I don’t object to reading scripts that include unfilmables, but I try to avoid it.
I’m a completist during calm scenes, and a fragmentist during tense or action scenes. To me it seems that your style can change depending on what’s going on in the story.
I don’t use any technical film jargon in my scripts, mostly because of the roving gangs of lynch mobs that threaten to kill any spec writers who do so.
I show, show, show. Maybe too much, sometimes, although I do try to stick to showing the relevant things. Action scenes? You get every detail, every motion. I know that the blocking and details will likely change should it ever be shot, but the one consistent compliment I’ve gotten on my writing is that I write action scenes well. (Alas, that’s the only consistent one.) I think that a good, tense action scene can get the reader’s adrenaline pumping, and that’s as important as playing with their other emotions in other kinds of scenes.
Happiest moment of my screenwriting time so far is when someone was reading a script of mine, and they suddenly shouted “YES!” when a particular thing happened.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:55 pm
I can be both an LCRS and LFRS writer. Depends.
Thank you John for the great post.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:01 pm
LFFS, and proud of it.
I kept trying to not put film jargon into my scripts, per the film jargon police – but then as I read the scripts I consider great, I kept noticing that most of them, called their shots, er, so to speak.
So, so do I.
Nice set of distinctions. Well done.
Jesse
November 1st, 2005 at 1:24 am
WE think Tarantino = IFFS
November 1st, 2005 at 9:32 am
I agree with Craig on the “we” issue. “We” is very useful when you need to convey a certain visual/auditory presentation that can’t be expressed in terms of the action alone. For instance, “Keyser Soze enters the room, but we don’t see his face.” Ordinarily you would write this as “Keyser Soze enters the room, his face a silhouette in the darkness.” But if the characters in the scene need to see and the audience can’t, you need to use the almighty “we”.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:37 am
To take popcornflix’s post on sounds a bit further, how about a category for capitalization practices? Some writers like to emphasise EVERYTHING THAT’S REMOTELY EXCITING while some don’t use all caps for anything. I used to keep caps to a minimum, but I’m starting to realize a lot of people don’t bother reading exposition unless it is emphasised in some way.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:42 am
ENTJ / LCRS
November 1st, 2005 at 10:55 am
LCRS too.
I’ve tried to write with fragmented sentences, considering all the hype about white space, vertical reading and all that jazz…
Doesn’t work. At least, not for all occassions. I prefer to write long-handed, but it permits, I’ll use stand-alone words to give them more power.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Usually a LFRS. We’ve had this discussion many times in our screenwriting classes. Sometimes it seems that profs try to mold you one way or the other in terms of what they deem as the way to write a “selling script.” Personally, I think style is style as long as the spelling is correct and the story flows.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:36 pm
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
In case anyone wants to know they’re Myers-Briggs type.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:43 pm
ENTJ (sometimes INTJ) and now, ICRS.
Interesting!
November 1st, 2005 at 1:37 pm
“their” not “they are”
Yeesh. Pre-pitch lack of sleep.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Great post. I’m an INFP, why do I get the persnoality with 1 percent? I’ve known this for a while though. As far as screen writing, you’ve answered a lot of questions for me. I’ve always heard that its wrong to put we into a screenplay. That you have to show everythihng you put on paper and leave anything you can’t show out.
But I guess it doesn’t matter as long as the screenplay is good!
I know of a great website for people who want to read other screenplays and find film festivals and screen play contests! Please support them! Script Bandit
November 1st, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Nice topic, John, especially as it demonstrates that all permutations to the formula have been successful. In the end it seems the “rules” can be obeyed, made, bent, or broken by any writer who transcends formula and creates something that rises above the fray, taking flight to the wonder of those nibbling on the grass below. Which is what we all aspire to, I’m sure.
The product we create, can create our limitations, but also free us from them.
To look at Picasso’s early works is to see an artist with incredible control, attention to minutiae, and practiced skill. Then follow him as he ventures beyond boundaries and into uncharted territories. It all started with a solid foundation, then grew into an insatiable desire for growth. Which is … not exactly screenwriting, per se.
Hmm, where’s my easle and paintbrush?
But the early artists did produce great work under the heavy hands of kings and queens… I’m glad my occasional fragments seem to be working.
November 1st, 2005 at 11:08 pm
INTJ. LFRS. Kerry’s Left Cheekbone, which would be KLCB? And now I’m really curious as to the Myers-Briggs distribution among working screenwriters… Fantastic post.
Doug
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:40 am
Fun! I’m an LFRS, though I’m trying to become more of an LFRT!
Thanks, John!
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:47 am
Oh yeah, and John. Much as iNtuitive becomes an N in MBTI, you may also need to alter either Fragmenter or Filmist (unfortunately, both “R” and “I” are also being used already, so you can’t even do fRagmenter or fIlmist. Hmmm….).
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:56 am
Ugh. And lastly, I’m ENTJ. At least today. E is obvious. The others are somewhere in the middle.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Many good ideas and suggestions.
Parentheticals are one of those easily-overused devices. I’d be leery of given them their own axis, because almost every screenwriter uses them a little, and only a few use them excessively. (Which is betraying my bias, granted.) Rather than talk about the puctuation marks themselves, I think it’s a wider discussion of how much lattitude the writer leaves the actor. The same writer who uses parentheticals to indicate line-readings is likely going to be directing-from-the-page in other ways as well.
Fun Joel: Yup. I think “Filmist” is going to have to go. Two F’s is too many.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Dear John, I’m an aspiering screenwriter out of germany and i’m having much trouble with the following (I think this problem fits and isn’t totally off-topic. if at all…): everytime i am writing a scene i fear! I’m afraid to not being able to pull the reader inside of the story. That the reader won’t be going like: ‘everything is on the page’. Then I am tending to write way to novelesque and I discribe all the on-going-action with (too) much detail. So here is the 47-million-dollar-question for the pro: how do i put the emotions into a scene? without over-explaining the action or under-explaining the action. without using too much words for description. without loosing the important out of focus. alright. i confess. it’s more like three or four 47-million-dollar-quesitons. but it would be awsomely cool if you could answer them anyway.
Thank you a LOT!!
Sincerly, Florian
November 6th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
LCRT, although I do have also the evil Fragmenter side in me. On Myers-Briggs I’m ENFP — the Champion Idealist, as are both my parents.
November 7th, 2005 at 12:07 am
John — maybe we can change “Filmist” to “Movie-ist” ;-)
November 9th, 2005 at 10:46 am
This is REALLY cool. I’d love to see a spin off websie dedicated solely to the “screenwriter’s personality test.” Where you take the test, figure out what you are, see a listing of what your favorite screenwriters are. It’d be great. I’ve found it most helpful in that I have two writing partners, so we all took the test and realize our natural inclination is different from eachother. So, it really helps to see where a person is coming from in the suggestions they make. Thanks!
November 9th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Great. Post. Healthy. Mental. Excercise.
But I think really depends on the material and the story and whose ‘vision’ it is, way way too many books written on the right and wrong way — don’t show off-camera action vs. paint a mental image. Write readable natural language vs. write proper English. Every iota of detail vs. just giving the Director what he needs. Three Act vs. No Act. This and that, that and this. Screenwriters have one vision, Readers another, Exec’s another still, Directors even another. And you have not even gotten into the eternally heady Format wars.
Being diversified is really the key, typecasting your script, paints you into a corner just as much as an actor that can’t every get beyond one signature role. Sometimes L is demanded, other times I.
But generally I fall into a LFRS – With some ‘C’ in ACTION. Fast read, smooth flow, mental image, it’s only a blueprint, not a novel. But then IFFS, LCRS or LFFS or whatever the case may be. Work to the material, not your personality type.
The only disclaimer – Impressionism is a dangerous tool in the hands of the unwary however, and impressionism generally won’t pass the readers and get good coverage (they usually don’t share the vision). And Literalist’s take all the joy out of it, it be a mental image, not an ordered recipe. So I’s oft have to hold out to direct, (aka Tim in Secondhand Lions). But the I’s have lasting impact. And horridly unreadble F’s do get made. And S’s can easily become ‘directing the script’. And you can have an I vision, written in L. So a great exercise, but life is absurd, nothing ever quite works like it is supposed to.
January 6th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
INFP/LFRS
In both tests I’m very close to the line and flexible. I agree with Matt’s statement “your style can change depending on what’s going on in the story.”
It is very interesting seeing all of the results. It is also interesting seeing all of the ENTJs…
January 9th, 2006 at 4:24 am
I’m an INTJ – Move aside, empire builder coming through. Have you met my brother Sherlock? ;-) and ICRS (P faking A). Does this mean I need to be more of a Literalist if I want to sell my work? ARGH!
January 9th, 2006 at 4:36 am
Of course when I say brother, I mean “brother”-in-arms… evil wink
January 26th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I’m very late to this discussion, but I’d just like to point out that there is no science behind the MBTI. A woman and her mother decided to use the work of Jung to divide up personality types and came up with a test that they thought would do so. But they did no actual research to come up with the categories or the test.
Fine, you say, but Jung did research, right? I mean, a famous psychologist like Jung must have done some research. And indeed he did: but only in Astrology.
My company asked me to take an MBTI, so I had my 10-year-old randomly fill in the bubbles. I don’t recall what group I got, but everyone in my management thought that it fit me to a T, and when I complained, they said, “but that’s so clearly you!” So I retook the test and carefully insured that I got the category that’s described as a “natural leader” and they agreed that that too perfectly described me. But it doesn’t. I couldn’t lead my way out of a paper bag.
Whenever I run into fans of the MBTI I’m reminded of a trick we used to play on astrology nuts. When they ask you your sign, you just pick one at random. “Oh, sure you seem like a cancer, I should have guessed.” Then confess that you lied and make up another one. “Ah – I was a little confused by you being a cancer. Virgo makes much more sense.” Then tell the truth. “Oh! Leo – I can totally see that!”
If you like the MBTI and derive some value from it, that’s fine. But please don’t get confused into thinking that it’s science. At least not any more so than the August Screenwriting Style Test. And if you’re a manager who’s obsessed with the MBTI (like most of mine have been), please please please don’t make any important decisions based on somebody’s MBTI score. For one, they’re too easy to rig.
September 16th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
To the author of #44: the test used to determine how easy it is to “rig” the MBTI is incredibly flawed. You failed to take several factors into account:
Only you know what personality type you are. The perceptions of your peers are nice, but they’re just perceptions. Those perceptions are influenced by numerous factors, and should not be considered reliable when determining one’s personality type. This is especially true for individuals you’ve only known a short time (i.e., not since early childhood).
The 16 MBTI types are intended to represent your dominant personality type – it’s not a black & white definition of who you are. Two individuals who share the same dominant characteristics could actually have very different personalities, assuming one is borderline in all areas (and the other is not).
The MBTI has only 16 personality types. “Randomly” selecting one for your experiment leaves a 6.25% chance that you chose the correct one, or the one that fits you the best. That translates into a 6.25% chance that your conclusions from that portion of the test were invalid.
If you’re interested in disproving the MBTI, document a personality type that doesn’t fit their model. Do your best (limited by the issue of perception, of course) to find someone who matches that personality type. Then you have an argument.
I don’t know what your definition of scientific it, but I can very easily create my own set of personality types that you can neither disprove or call unscientific:
Everybody is dominant in one of those two areas. If for some reason an individual has never seen the color blue, they still experience it some way. It’s not a perfect example, but I think you see where I’m coming from.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
On the MBTI I have usually came out an ENFP. At times it can be INFP. I’m just very close when it comes to extroverstion/introversion. Although not a true science, I do think that the test has helped me understand the behavior of many of my friends and family.
But, after looking at the screenwriter personality types, I think i would most likely be either an LFFT or LCFT. It all depends on what scenes your talking about.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I’m the chick posting in the over 2 year old post but the MBTI is my weakness. My sister and I type people we meet. She and her current boyfriend got together because their personality types are compatible. We’re MBTI geeks. I’m an INFP. Almost your polar opposite.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:50 am
I was an ENTJ 50/50 balance when I was 8… and still am. (which is unusual… because the weight of the world usually crushes their spirits. But a few of them do make it through.) …so I suspect you are too.
Personality types change as people move into different tragedy / comfort zones, which is why people tend to think the tests vary severely, but they really don’t at all.
(Mom is sort of the supreme child development statistician — catalogs the tests — writes about how children learn. Which made me the supreme guinea pig.)
February 18th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
It’s close, but I’m barely an IFRT over an ICRS. Guess I should go back and read more Shane Black, even though I actually hated “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.” I guess under this system you could be the same classification, yet have a completely different style.