Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Dual-type theory: ISFp EM - "Stylist"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    11 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Dual-type theory: ISFp EM - "Stylist"


    The stylist is responsible for all things style: they see style contributing to pretty much every type's agenda, and make a point of maintaining good form.

    The stylist takes on different roles depending on their DCNH subtype. However, they all share a common sense of responsibility for keeping the world "stylish".

    -> accepting modality
    <- producing modality

    D - "Trend Setter": Makes way for changes in style by challenging cultural norms.
    C - "Designer": determines what must feel good given known attitudes.
    N - "Lobbyist": pervades sentiment at the direction of the trend setter.
    C - "Reviewer": compares and contrasts styles, fashions, and entertainment options.
    This type is front and center in popular uprisings; indeed, they are something of a hidden element in their success. Confucious said "take away their faith before their food", but he apparently understood little about stylists. While hardly rabble-rousers, the stylists are the vital "missing plank" in any revolution. They are the voice of discontent, the anger not at an ideology, but at a particularly intolerable situation at all levels of life. Stylists make a point of enjoying themselves and "living life to the fullest" -- crimping their style is not a good way to make them like you.

    The modern image of ISFP EM is that of the hipster.


    ISFP EM has a strong emphasis on their id functions. They have a strong sense of balance, the evenness of distribution. Whether something is too hard, or too soft. People want something that suits them, something that respects their unique tastes. However, one person's sense of balance may not be another person's sense thereof, and this leads to discomfort. A key element in a successful product is the ability to customize, to tweak the variables until a comfortable fit is found for a specific individual. Here we see the two poles of style, the pervading, consuming sense of dominance and normalization, and the adaptive, flexible sense of creativity and harmonization. The dominant wants their style; the normalizer wants their style to be everyone's style; the creating wants to create a style that can be normalized without rubbing people the wrong way; the harmonizer wants to see style in action, to see the contest of styles and the variety.

    Yet style doesn't emerge quite so simply, does it? We only have four actors, where eight are required. Someone's going to have to do double duty. Taking the shadow into account, we see that the ego and shadow have contrasting, but not opposite subtypes. The ego and shadow differ on basis of the modality, but have similar domains of responsibility. People want to give their shadows -- their inner selves -- exposure. The dominant asserts something based on an idiosyncratic creation, something that they produced for themselves alone.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 02-18-2011 at 10:00 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts