Do you know someone who identifies with your type but seems very different from you? Or someone of opposite type who's just "the best" to get along with? Have you found over the years that new aspects of yourself have emerged that would have seemed alien before?

There are many "flavors" of each type. Over the years, people have applied pen to paper to develop profiles for each of the four temperaments and 16 types - theoretical explanations, first-person compositions, worksheets, lists of words. And type theory itself is rich. With ample experience, the theory can help us navigate the many flavors of each type through a conceptual understanding of type dynamics and type development. All these approaches, however, face the same challenge: each person is unique, and thus - based on their current context and their overall path in life - may or may not relate to a single type description or theoretical construct. If the context or type development pattern of a person fits the stereotype of their type then identification will be easy for them; if it does not fit the stereotype, however, then another type may be selected or there may be significant uncertainty. Thus, comfort with flavors is important while searching for a "best-fit" type.

What are the roots of differences with the same type, and the roots of similarities across normally quite different types? And how can these differences be presented in a way that is useful and simple enough for beginners to understand and apply?

Studies on experts in other fields have shown that experts draw on both myriad specific examples and general theoretical models. Thus, both an abstract and a concrete approach are offered here. First, sixty-four short biographical sketches - four flavors of each type - were composed and tested with university students. These biographical character sketches were created empirically - that is, based on extensive observation and observational tools - and are specific detailed examples of individuals. Second, along with the creation of the biographies and an analysis of their performance, several more abstract conceptual tools, and the beginnings of a general theoretical framework are offered here to help people better grasp at once and work with the flavors of type.

Context affects what flavor of our type we appear to be, how we "look and feel" to ourselves and others. There are different kinds of context: family, career, social and cultural, and gender are the most common and influential.

One context is family. The people we grow up influence who we are, as well as act as role models for talents, behaviors and values. Too little diversity and we may end up rigid, with a narrow set of talents and behaviors and values that may not be able to meet the varied demands and many situations we will encounter later in life. Sometimes, even if others in our family are of the same temperament and type, we feel the need to branch out and find something unique for ourselves. Similarly, with too much diversity in family life - where we are the "lone wolf" or the lone voice - we may end up under-developed in our natural talents, with needs and values unmet. Sometimes people may struggle for a long time to somehow change themselves and fit in. Ideally, of course, family life offers a variety of options for growth while providing for our needs and values.

Another context is career, and career choice is often not just a simple matter of what talents are called upon each day to do the job. It is often a matter of "career culture." Life in the military presupposes a very different culture then academia. The arts may seem counter-cultural compared to the world of big-business, but even the arts has an unconventional convention for those who live there. And while there are many different gifts people bring to being psychologists, the world of self-help and the helping-professions has a tacit code of conduct that heavily influences who we are, our look and feel, with an unspoken call for particular outcomes and values.

Similarly, the norms and values of the mainstream culture around us may be like our own, quite different, or somewhere in-between. Factors like social class and ethnic background also color how we appear to others. We may respond to conflict here by deliberately trying to be different, deliberately trying to be the same, or any number of options in between - "different but with establishment packaging," or "like everyone else but uninvolved." Quite often, family background and career choices tie into attitudes and beliefs about society and the culture around us, creating a spectrum of individuals situated more "locally" or more "globally" to the world around them.

Finally, gender seems to make a difference. While many popularly painted differences between men and women can be attributed to statistical and cultural biases in type - the thinking verses feeling preference for example - the look-and-feel of a type often varies quite a bit between men and women nonetheless.

Thus, not all ISFPs are artists in the usual sense. Some may be in business. And not all INTJs are de-facto scientists. Some may choose music. Similarly, not all ESTJs are establishment. A few are counter-cultural. And not all ENFPs are ENFP-like. Some, for example, may appear far more or less introverted or extraverted than others. And a female INTP or male ESFJ may have very different perspectives about relationships compared to their counterparts.

Taken together and looking at the big picture over the course of a lifetime, differences in our family, career, gender and social and cultural environment accumulate and influence our pattern of type development - our character.

The term character is used here to denote a pattern of development - both in terms of type development and in terms of temperament needs, values and behaviors. A broad way of looking at development is the philosophical understanding that we each try to develop in the best way we can given our environment and resources, creating a pattern of specific characteristics as opposed to a simple linear scale with monikers like "poor type development" or "bad character." This brings us closer to thinking in terms of and working directly with Jung's original theory of mental processes, with sixteen whole type patterns, and with temperament. Simply, people of the same type vary in function development as well as how they meet their temperament needs and values, and yet at the same time, the theme of their common type remains the same.

Beyond this broad definition, character means many things:

First, character refers to something fictional. We create stories for ourselves and others about who we are and who they are - and were, and should be, can be, and will be. Stories help us create a sense of self inside, and within the social and cultural environment in which we live. Stories also help answer the basic human questions: Why do we exist? What is my purpose? And how can each of us live in a way that is a dynamic - as opposed to static - response to the many situations and questions we come across in life?

Second, character refers to personality. In "Please Understand Me," David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates referred to "character types." Different personality theories - temperament, mental processes, interaction styles, whole type themes - all describe different aspects of our "nature" in a way that is complementary. From the interaction of nature and environment, many flavors of type emerge. In reality each person is their own unique flavor, but there are often sufficient similarities between people to talk about flavors of type. These similarities are often more fuzzy than crisp.

Third, character often refers to morals and ethics. Character in a moral sense of the word is a distinctive mark about the choices and changes we have made over the course of our lives under a variety of difficult or uncertain circumstances. It is particularly about how we deal with the call to keep growing, and how to deal with the consequences - intended or not - that come out of the choices and changes we are making. Sometimes circumstances hide strong character. Other times, circumstances are all too convenient. And each of the 16 types has a unifying theme that bridges and explains its many flavors, even when it appears the choices and changes are quite different.

Finally, character has an light-hearted tone. We convey to others a sense of our character, as in "he's a real character." Sometimes we convey this kind of character whether we want to or not. No two people of the same type are alike in dress or mannerisms, idiosyncrasies and foibles, in attitudes and beliefs. Stereotypes of the 16 types often play up particular characteristics. These stereotypes must give way to a richer picture that allows for all gifts in all contexts.

What is powerful about a broad definition of character is that it includes the narrower definitions, where each aspect of character explains the other aspects. Whether or not one has character in the moral and ethical sense, for example, is not a simple answer or a result of a single choice or specific compartment in the brain that can be isolated. Character, as a quality - and thus temperament and type development - emerge from all the above meanings of character, from everything that we do and everything that we are.

At the heart of this work are the "biographies" - sixty-four brief biographical character sketches based in part on interviews and experience with real people. The biographies are not explanations based directly on theory. Instead they are based on years of observation - although a thorough knowledge of theory was vital to composing material that was balanced and consistent. The biographies were put together in a wholistic form that strives, in a brief 250-word sketch, to touch on many of the different aspects of personality and human experiences that influence character, including temperament and the 16 type patterns. Each sketch is a composite based on at least two people of the same type and of very similar character, and each one, while written in the 3^rd person, incorporates pieces of those individual's language and other idiosyncrasies.

Observation by itself may not yield much. Tools - tools for exploration and measurement and detection - are necessary to pick out what goes with what, why, and how. People take in information from the world, process that information and output something in a variety of ways, with a preference for some ways over others. These patterns are called "internal strategies" - a term borrowed from hypnosis, NLP and Ericksonian methods in psychotherapy.

Each of the four temperaments and sixteen types draws on a variety of internal strategies depending on the situation, past experiences and role-models, and other influencing factors such as inborn talents or career choice. People of the same type often possess very similar internal strategies, but the strength or weakness of those strategies - the emphasis - often varies. And it's not just individual strategies, but how those strategies are put together.

While in a bookstore, Tom picks up a science magazine and reads an article about a "minor" new technical discovery. There is also a diagram with the article, making it easy to see what the author is saying. As he puts the magazine down, Tom has a visual image in his mind of a world in which this device is commonplace, and as he dwells on this image, more images quickly come to mind - pieces completing a puzzle. "I wonder if that's really possible," Tom thinks to himself. His knowledge of past inventions like this one and scientific theories also come to mind. Too bad, many of the future possibilities are merely fanciful (they do not feel realistic either) and he cannot put this vision into words in any case. Then he runs into a friend, who talks about cars, bringing images or cars to mind and breaking his train of thought. A few months later, someone gives Tom a different article on the same subject, and this generates a more substantial vision of the future that feels very exciting, and he decides to learn more about it.

Observing something in the world (reading and observing) leads to visualizing future possibilities and having an internal feeling response about which possibilities are realistic - which ones feel right. From this he draws on theory-based reasoning (conceptual knowledge and envisioning the future.)

This example only scratches the surface. The strategies used by one type, or preferred by a particular flavor of a type, may vary drastically in comparison to another type - some strategies may even be unimagined or feel impossible sounding to other types!

One way to elicit internal strategies is by asking questions about everyday tasks. For example, when getting dressed for an evening out, how do you decide what to wear? Do you visualize how you might look to the people you are probably going to meet, or just wear whatever "looks comfortable?" Some people have mental if-then rules about not wearing the same clothes two days in a row, or they might remember what others have said looks nice on them. Some people cannot know what will look nice until they actually put the clothes on and look in the mirror, while others can visualize themselves, item by item, while just scanning their wardrobe.

By observing, asking about and testing people's internal strategies, fine distinctions can be made between types and type flavors. This approach was also essential in making sure that each type's major themes were included in the biographies for that type, as well as insuring that the biographies were well-rounded, complete, consistent and sufficiently detailed to avoid platitudes and generalizations.

Finally, the four biographies created for each type represent, in part, the diversity of that type - different contexts and developmental paths lead to different shadings of character. Each biography is a character, was written to convey a sense of character, and may point to "character" as a specific term - a pattern of psychological and social development. Undoubtedly, there are myriad variations within a type - some common, some rare, some stereotypical, some diverse - only four were written, and thus others left out. The underlying philosophy is that real people are not additive composites of different factors, strategies, values or traits. Thinking in terms of just parts is simply a tool for understanding, and each person is a whole system, with every type appearing as a chameleon in certain contexts.

It is not possible to present all sixty-four biographies here! Two female ESFJs are presented below to give a general sense of what the biographies are like. ESFJ was also chosen is in part as a response to the slowly emerging perception that many Guardians are not as conventional and establishment as they are made out to be. Similarly, some people of some types who are otherwise slightly put off by abstract explanations enjoy the biographies as a concrete, detailed alternative.

Mary is such a nice person! She's so pleased to meet new people and do fun things. She gets a kick out of young people and really tries to help them along. She loves to be included and is very disappointed if she's left out, but she would never want to impose. She loves all the people she's involved with and has known over the years, and enjoys how interesting and "a pack-of-fun" they all are. Mary likes to write. Her friends kept reminding her how many stories she had about the past, and that maybe she should collect them into a book. Back in college on the swim team, Mary loved winning and was interested in going into business for herself - people need to be successful and make money to have a comfortable and convenient life. Then she met her future husband at a sorority party and decided that she should start a family. Now, however, Mary has become a bit of an entrepreneur. She started with handicraft dolls and running for the local school board; and creating that cookbook was a real joy - to pull together all those family recipes - and it was such a pleasure to test them all out and perfect them! Mary also started her own bed-and-breakfast at her husband's suggestion. Of course, their financial picture was rock solid, so anything they made would be an extra. Mary knows she has a tendency to ramble and sometimes her hints to guests and employees are too subtle, but she's done her best to fix things between people or do the job herself. Of course, it's important to advertise for the right kinds of people in the first place. That ensures things stay pleasant. These days, Mary's grandchildren are her pride and joy. What a treat they are!

Sandra takes her music and her life, with all its fun, very seriously. Lyrics, album cover-art, dance choreography, the music - she's a singer in a group of gifted women who are practically family. They talk about men, relationships and the issues they wake up to everyday. Sandra doesn't buy into the system, and - when questioned - admits that the music is more than just about fun. It's about being heard and getting respect. People comment they feel they can be themselves around her. She speaks her mind, is very accepting of others, and has friends from all walks of life. She believes you shouldn't get bogged down in reasons why; you should hear people out, state how things are and help them face the issues. Sandra's been dating one guy several years now. She stands by him supporting their political ambitions. Politics means community. She tries very hard, and often feels it's her responsibility to work through the games and demand a standard of honesty and truth, whatever the problem. She often feels the real need to reconcile the past. That's what she brings to her lyrics, although most people only hear the issues stuff: sticking hypocrisy back in people's faces. What she really loves is a show of romance: flowers, a serenade, a spontaneous kiss in the rain. Anniversaries are very important. Besides parties and friends and nights on the town, and her work and belief in her heritage, it's these little things that really make life memorable and worth living.

All sixty-four biographies, including the two above, were critiqued by a long-time expert in type and temperament theory, Linda V. Berens, Ph.D. It was imperative that each was as fair as possible in its portrayal of that type, and to insure that each also held true to the whole-type themes and temperament needs and values of that type. Input by people of known type was also taken into account. (These two ESFJ biographies were generously reviewed by an ESFJ, even for punctuation, grammar and spelling!) All sixty-four biographies are available for review from the author upon request and after review throughout the type community, will also be available in a forthcoming book on character, human development and flavors of type.

Fifty university students, ages eighteen to twenty-two, completed a structured process of type self-discovery. Most were freshman in an introductory engineering course open to liberal arts students, at the State University of New York at Binghamton. Most students were declared engineering majors. Some students went through the best-fit process over the period of two semesters, but most did it in one. Participation in the process was voluntary, as an extra-credit assignment. The up-front end of the process included the MBTI Form G, a presentation to the students of the MBTI-indexes, so they could do self-selection, and a second presentation on temperament for self-selection - including ranking of the four temperaments. Afterwards, students were asked to rate the character biographies and either participated in a face-to-face 30-minute interview or turned in a 3-page written self-report on their self-discovery process. Type and temperament self-selection took place separately from MBTI results. Presentation of type and temperament theory was not extensive - in class, twenty minutes at most was spent on each - although handouts for self-reflection and a web site with more information were made available. Although there was an extensive amount of personal contact with the students in a lab-type environment over the year, no mention was made of type outside of basic directions for this best-fit self-discovery process. Best-fit was the explicit objective. Considering the time and resources made available, including the amount of material from the interviews and 3-page self-report, along with the degree of personal contact, this author is confident that each student's self-indicated best-fit type can be considered very close to reaching "true type." This makes the statistical correlations between type and biographies particularly meaningful.

With only fifty students, not all types were represented equally, although the overall distribution was adequate. Forty-three males and seven females participated. Looking at MBTI indexes alone: