Identifying with fictional characters

[Coriolis]

I tend to identify with fictional characters more than real people.

I've had other people point that out in discussions of this topic. I suppose it is especially true for people who are surrounded by people unlike them. We also often get to learn more about fictional characters and how they operate.

 

[Viridian]

I've had other people point that out in discussions of this topic. I suppose it is especially true for people who are surrounded by people unlike them. We also often get to learn more about fictional characters and how they operate.

I think this is especially true for shy or unsocial people, since they probably know more fictional characters than real people as a whole (not counting celebrities).

 

[EJCC]

Reviving this thread, b/c the subject was on my mind recently, and also the topic continues to be awesome and interesting.

I've had other people point that out in discussions of this topic. I suppose it is especially true for people who are surrounded by people unlike them. We also often get to learn more about fictional characters and how they operate.

This is very true. Depending on the character and the length/depth of the work in which they're featured, it can be a lot easier to fangirl/fanboy over them, learn everything about them, and feel like you have a closer/deeper knowledge of them than of most real people in your life. Which is why so many people become obsessed with fictional characters almost to the point of real love -- and why you get fictional works (and bits of mythology) in which people's characters and/or works of art become real and fall in love with their maker. Old example: Pygmalion and Galatea; New example: Ruby Sparks.

I think this is especially true for shy or unsocial people, since they probably know more fictional characters than real people as a whole (not counting celebrities).

True! It's keeping that sx-style emotional closeness without having to take part in human interaction. Of course, it's probably also a coping mechanism; after all, closeness with fictional characters can never, ever be a sufficient substitute for the real thing.


Back to the OP and other such things... I said earlier that the characters I most relate to are Beatrix from "FFIX" and Hermione from the "Harry Potter" series -- both female, both ISTJ, both likely type 1. A newer addition to this very short list is Castiel from "Supernatural" (again, ISTJ 1w2, but male this time). I've become a bit obsessed with recently because I want to be him when I grow up. Same values, similar mode of thinking, but when he's given a chance to act on those values, he acts on them with valor, selflessness, and total trenchcoated badassery. (On the other hand, he's incredibly awkward... But nobody's perfect!)

I wish there were more cool ESTJ women in fiction... I can't count the number of books I read, growing up, where the most sympathetic character was an IxFx girl/woman that I didn't relate to at all. All my fictional role models ended up being Introverted Thinking men, because the touchy-feely Girl Power heroines didn't do much for me.

Edit: I seem to have said it much better earlier in the thread.

Typical female role models in movies can still really irritate me; their strength is Feeler strength, not Thinker strength, and I identify with Thinker strength.

Edit 2: Did the people on this thread come to a conclusion about why INTJs always relate to villains?

 

[Coriolis]

I wish there were more cool ESTJ women in fiction... I can't count the number of books I read, growing up, where the most sympathetic character was an IxFx girl/woman that I didn't relate to at all. All my fictional role models ended up being Introverted Thinking men, because the touchy-feely Girl Power heroines didn't do much for me.

Too many stories have few worthwhile female characters of any type. Finding INTJ or even NT ones is even less likely. I have just always automatically identified with the male ones. It never mattered that they were male. The commonality of thinking styles, approach to the world, and the way I would just instantly grasp their internal perspective overrode the difference in sex, or any other differences for that matter.

Edit 2: Did the people on this thread come to a conclusion about why INTJs always relate to villains?

No, but the question was never explicitly posed. I suspect part of it is not so much that INTJs identify with villains, but that we often identify with INTJ characters, and they are often found among villains and antiheroes. I can't identify with a hero/protagonist just because they are the "good guy". If they are not the kind of good guy I would be in that situation, there is no rapport. With an (INTJ) villain, on the other hand, I might know I wouldn't make the same choices they did, but I might understand much better their motivations, how they see things, even how they feel in the various situations. Sometimes, though, the difference between me and them is mainly in their background and circumstances. As someone (you?) mentioned, they often have faced much more extreme problems and dire choices in their fictional lives than I ever will.

 

[Mole]

I identify with Mole in, "Wind in the Willows". I am a little short sighted, and I would like to be more like my friend the breezy Water Rat, but I feel most at home with Badger who knows the safety, privacy and comfort of living underground like me.

I wear a lovely smoking coat, I am terrified of the Weasels and the Stoats, and I admire my friend Mr Toad.

Sometimes I wonder what type I am and what are the types of my lovely friends Ratty, Badger, Toad and Otter, and sometimes I think of joining Typology Central and finding out, but I am a bit put out by Victor, like many here, but perhaps I could slip in without him noticing - just between you and me, you understand.

 

[KDude]

I identify with Mole in, "Wind in the Willows". I am a little short sighted, and I would like to be more like my friend the breezy Water Rat, but I feel most at home with Badger who knows the safety, privacy and comfort of living underground like me.

I wear a lovely smoking coat, I am terrified of the Weasels and the Stoats, and I admire my friend Mr Toad.

Sometimes I wonder what type I am and what are the types of my lovely friends Ratty, Badger, Toad and Otter, and sometimes I think of joining Typology Central and finding out, but I am a bit put out by Victor, like many here, but perhaps I could slip in without him noticing - just between you and me, you understand.

Don't worry, man. I got your back. This Victor guy sounds like a menace.

 

[Eruca]

I wish there were more cool ESTJ women in fiction... I can't count the number of books I read, growing up, where the most sympathetic character was an IxFx girl/woman that I didn't relate to at all. All my fictional role models ended up being Introverted Thinking men, because the touchy-feely Girl Power heroines didn't do much for me.

Edit 2: Did the people on this thread come to a conclusion about why INTJs always relate to villains?

Fictional characters are often great for helping us define our sense of self. Either in terms of who we want to be like, who we dont want to be like, or which traits they have we do/dont want. Having the character you admire be the same gender as you does provide some identifying/idealizing lube I think. Especially if this character shows traits positively that wouldnt normally be associated to his/her gender. If those traits are our own naturally, and we feel society tells us to disown them, thats greatly legitimizing. Thats how certain commonly used character tropes begin to become oppressive - an idealized mold is created that might not truly be the ideal for humans to be. But you already knew this.

Personally I dont feel I identify with characters like myself, but characters who represent (preferably to the extreme) certain traits I see in me (in lesser or greater amounts, that I desire more or less of). This is how I can identify as villains/badguys in fiction and yet still consider myself a "good" guy. Im INTP, I think, rather than INTJ. But when it comes to identifying with the villains in fiction its usually because the hero is so unlike me. Take you typical 80s 90s hollywood action movie. The villain is likely to be intelligent, well spoken, organised...simply impressive. The hero is likely to be a meat sandwich with super-power granting elephant balls swinging between his legs. The villain is usually passionate about some cause that is truly his own. The hero simply represents the normalized morality of society. That morality might *be* right. But its boring. And it makes him a simple character.

 

[midnight rambler]

Sometimes I will see traits that i have with the character, but when reading or watching a movie i don't think i ever felt like I was the character. There are a few characters that i have been a few characters i really related too, like Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby and Lester Burnam from American Beauty.

 

[Engineer]

I've noticed a disturbing trend of identifying with the supposed "evil empire" in basically all media that I interact with.
I'm a big fan of the Empire in Star Wars, the UNSC in Halo, the Britannians in Code Geass, the Federation in Starship Troopers (book and movie), the corporate marines in Avatar, anything and anyone that has a group of plucky non-conventional rebels fighting against it.

Maybe it's because in the land of fiction, they're the real underdogs?

Maybe it's because I appreciate having a master plan?

I don't know. But I identify a great deal with any character who supports the Big Bad Empire and its rule of law over abandoning that for the Good, Great Rebels.

I also tend to identify more with strong female leads. This is odd as well.

And [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] is right. There aren't many "good-guy" INTJs out there.

 

[Coriolis]

Maybe it's because I appreciate having a master plan?

I don't know. But I identify a great deal with any character who supports the Big Bad Empire and its rule of law over abandoning that for the Good, Great Rebels.

I also tend to identify more with strong female leads. This is odd as well.

And [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] is right. There aren't many "good-guy" INTJs out there.

Can you give some examples of the strong female leads you identify with? Do you see any as INTJ, or does that even matter (do you tend to identify with your own type)?

Yes, master plans are great, especially when the planner has the discipline to implement it properly. I tend to identify with the values of the rebels in these stories, but cringe at their methods. They are usually disorganized, undisciplined, and can't plan their way out of a paper bag. They prevail through a fortuitous combination of coincidence, spontaneous acts of daring, errors/defection from the "villain" side, and "sheer dumb luck". You have to go back to old shows like (original) Mission Impossible and even Hogan's Heroes for good guy groups who could implement a decent plan.

 

[Viridian]

They're not the lead, but how about Naoto Shirogane from Persona 4 as a heroic INTJ?

 

[Coriolis]

Don't worry, man. I got your back. This Victor guy sounds like a menace.

Nahhh - he's a teddy bear.

 

[KDude]

Nahhh - he's a teddy bear.

I think so too (don't tell Victor that though .

 

[Mole]

A Mole! A Mole!

Nahhh - he's a teddy bear.

`The hour is come! Follow me!' said Mole, black and grim, brandishing his stick and shouting his awful war-cry, `A Mole! A Mole!'

 

[Engineer]

Can you give some examples of the strong female leads you identify with? Do you see any as INTJ, or does that even matter (do you tend to identify with your own type)?

Yes, master plans are great, especially when the planner has the discipline to implement it properly. I tend to identify with the values of the rebels in these stories, but cringe at their methods. They are usually disorganized, undisciplined, and can't plan their way out of a paper bag. They prevail through a fortuitous combination of coincidence, spontaneous acts of daring, errors/defection from the "villain" side, and "sheer dumb luck". You have to go back to old shows like (original) Mission Impossible and even Hogan's Heroes for good guy groups who could implement a decent plan.

Mostly the ones in video games and television. "Echo" from Dollhouse is a personal favorite of mine, as is Faye Valentine from Cowboy Bebop. Sadly, there aren't that many in the literature I read. A few sci-fi series, like the Vatta War bunch by Elizabeth Moon, have good female leads, but they're sort of few and far between. I don't think they're INTJs... I feel like most heroic protagonists are ExxJs by virtue of the stuff they do. I may be wrong, but that's the sense I get when I watch shows these days. There are a few IxxJs, but actual INTJs don't really make for good protagonists, I don't think.

I think that's why I don't like the Rebels. They have A Cause, and most stories treat that Cause as the sole most important aspect of their faction. This means that when they win, it's because they had spirit (!) and not for any other reason. They have bad leaders, stupid plans, and they win simply because the author says they do. At the end of Star Wars, for example, they blow up the second Death Star and suddenly, they've won? No they haven't! There's an entire empire left to fight, and even the extended universe can't really explain their sudden and complete victory away.

...and if you really think about it, the Rebels are terrorists who are just as bad as the Empire is...

Hogan's Heroes is a great example of "good guys with a plan," and one where I can finally feel good about liking them. Though I do feel bad for Schulz.

 

[Coriolis]

Mostly the ones in video games and television. "Echo" from Dollhouse is a personal favorite of mine, as is Faye Valentine from Cowboy Bebop. Sadly, there aren't that many in the literature I read. A few sci-fi series, like the Vatta War bunch by Elizabeth Moon, have good female leads, but they're sort of few and far between. I don't think they're INTJs... I feel like most heroic protagonists are ExxJs by virtue of the stuff they do. I may be wrong, but that's the sense I get when I watch shows these days. There are a few IxxJs, but actual INTJs don't really make for good protagonists, I don't think.

Why not? Is there something inherent about the type that makes this bad in a literary sense?

I think that's why I don't like the Rebels. They have A Cause, and most stories treat that Cause as the sole most important aspect of their faction. This means that when they win, it's because they had spirit (!) and not for any other reason. They have bad leaders, stupid plans, and they win simply because the author says they do. At the end of Star Wars, for example, they blow up the second Death Star and suddenly, they've won? No they haven't! There's an entire empire left to fight, and even the extended universe can't really explain their sudden and complete victory away.

...and if you really think about it, the Rebels are terrorists who are just as bad as the Empire is...

Some would characterize the American colonists that way, once the revolution started. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I like rebels who champion causes I would support, most of which concern civil liberties and social justice. A good example is the student rebels in Les Miserables. They certainly lived in a time and place where many inequities in society needed to be addressed, but their revolt was nothing more than a mass suicide. I never got much into the Star Wars story, so none of this is a commentary on that. It always seemed more like a war between political factions to me, rather than a true rebellion.

 

[Engineer]

Why not? Is there something inherent about the type that makes this bad in a literary sense?

No, I actually think an INTJ in literature would (should, really) be more common. We have a lot of interesting inner world diatribes and discussions that, if handled properly, could actually work. We also have big plans that, when properly realized, could work to further the story and provide an decent character arc.

In film, TV, and video games-- the ones without the silent protagonists, of course-- I feel like it's just impractical to go with introverts in most cases, especially NT introverts. Non-feeling introverts get the bad rap of being boring in that particular media, mostly because a lot of our dialog is internal and we're a great deal more reserved and more appropriately, kind of hard to easily relate to due to our rather composed, calculating exterior.

The trite definition of heroes that most American media adheres to is the clever and charming team-building, rallying-cry extrovert, who blares his internal thoughts across the scenery. This isn't to say that there can't be more complex extroverted characters by any means, it's just the standard of the industry to default to the uninteresting ones since it's easier to go with a type that actually says very explicitly what they think.

Some would characterize the American colonists that way, once the revolution started. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I like rebels who champion causes I would support, most of which concern civil liberties and social justice. A good example is the student rebels in Les Miserables. They certainly lived in a time and place where many inequities in society needed to be addressed, but their revolt was nothing more than a mass suicide. I never got much into the Star Wars story, so none of this is a commentary on that. It always seemed more like a war between political factions to me, rather than a true rebellion.

Oh, I agree. You can always look at it from both angles. I'm just tired of the trope-ridden assumption that the rebels are always right, simply for the sheer fact that they are rebels. There can be good and bad on both sides, and the student rebels are a good example of that.

 

[Coriolis]

No, I actually think an INTJ in literature would (should, really) be more common. We have a lot of interesting inner world diatribes and discussions that, if handled properly, could actually work. We also have big plans that, when properly realized, could work to further the story and provide an decent character arc.

In film, TV, and video games-- the ones without the silent protagonists, of course-- I feel like it's just impractical to go with introverts in most cases, especially NT introverts. Non-feeling introverts get the bad rap of being boring in that particular media, mostly because a lot of our dialog is internal and we're a great deal more reserved and more appropriately, kind of hard to easily relate to due to our rather composed, calculating exterior.

An interesting comparison between literature and visual media. Your observations make sense. Wouldn't the highlighted also lead INTJ characters to be boring villains, though? If so, it doesn't seem to stop the film industry from using them.

Oh, I agree. You can always look at it from both angles. I'm just tired of the trope-ridden assumption that the rebels are always right, simply for the sheer fact that they are rebels. There can be good and bad on both sides, and the student rebels are a good example of that.

If you view modern terrorist/militant groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban as rebels, we now have plenty of fodder for story lines in which the rebels are wrong, and it is the job of the "establishment" to put them out of business, or at least get them to mend their ways.

 

[Ingrid in grids]

I have identified with different characters at different times in my life.

I strongly identified with Katarina from the Swedish film "Pure" when I first saw it.

And then also with Lucy from "Sleeping Beauty", but to a lesser extent.

 

[EJCC]

Too many stories have few worthwhile female characters of any type. Finding INTJ or even NT ones is even less likely. I have just always automatically identified with the male ones. It never mattered that they were male. The commonality of thinking styles, approach to the world, and the way I would just instantly grasp their internal perspective overrode the difference in sex, or any other differences for that matter.

Interesting! Growing up, I definitely ended up internalizing a lot of stereotypically male values, especially those regarding strength/courage/protecting your loved ones in a particular sense, that implied a particular way of dealing with emotions. If I'd had more stereotypically female ESTJ role models, I probably would have been much less of a tomboy.

(Of course, I don't mind this at all, in retrospect. Screw gender norms!)

No, but the question was never explicitly posed. I suspect part of it is not so much that INTJs identify with villains, but that we often identify with INTJ characters, and they are often found among villains and antiheroes. I can't identify with a hero/protagonist just because they are the "good guy". If they are not the kind of good guy I would be in that situation, there is no rapport. With an (INTJ) villain, on the other hand, I might know I wouldn't make the same choices they did, but I might understand much better their motivations, how they see things, even how they feel in the various situations. Sometimes, though, the difference between me and them is mainly in their background and circumstances. As someone (you?) mentioned, they often have faced much more extreme problems and dire choices in their fictional lives than I ever will.

That makes a lot of sense. Recently I discovered Les Mis*, and I relate a LOT to Javert, for similar reasons, i.e. his thought processes, his internal conflict. A general sense of, if my life had gone that direction -- i.e. if I'd been that misguided -- maybe I would have ended up somewhere similar.

*To be fair, I knew it existed for a long time before then, but I didn't know what it was about.

I feel like most heroic protagonists are ExxJs by virtue of the stuff they do. I may be wrong, but that's the sense I get when I watch shows these days.

I think that's why I don't like the Rebels. They have A Cause, and most stories treat that Cause as the sole most important aspect of their faction. This means that when they win, it's because they had spirit (!) and not for any other reason. They have bad leaders, stupid plans, and they win simply because the author says they do. At the end of Star Wars, for example, they blow up the second Death Star and suddenly, they've won? No they haven't! There's an entire empire left to fight, and even the extended universe can't really explain their sudden and complete victory away.

I actually think that the second paragraph is a better example of SP/NP heroes... Luke's probably an IxFP, and so's Harry Potter, who also fits that trope that you're talking about. It annoys me, too; I tend to feel like heroes in those sorts of stories are far too impulsive, and will oftentimes outright ignore their resident Voice Of Reason (e.g. Hermione, xSTJ par excellence).

Regardless... Whoever those ExxJs are that you have in mind, I must not have ever related to them much, b/c I can't think of any at the moment. Except for various ExFJ Disney princesses.

No, I actually think an INTJ in literature would (should, really) be more common. We have a lot of interesting inner world diatribes and discussions that, if handled properly, could actually work. We also have big plans that, when properly realized, could work to further the story and provide an decent character arc.

It's true. I was reading a book recently -- "Ready Player One" by Ernest Cline -- where the main character was a quintessential INTJ. Always had a plan, always calculating, very cerebral, but also sympathetic and likable. But he's in the minority, and I can't think of many other INTJ heroes (especially not in movies/TV).

Non-feeling introverts get the bad rap of being boring in that particular media, mostly because a lot of our dialog is internal and we're a great deal more reserved and more appropriately, kind of hard to easily relate to due to our rather composed, calculating exterior.

Maybe INTx, but the quintessential badass action (anti)hero is ISTP, right? Like Wolverine. Maybe it's the bolded that's key, here; ISTPs don't give off the calculating, cerebral vibe in quite the same way.