Sorry, maybe I was unclear. I think a COMPETENT writer could easily write such a story, quite possibly in the way you outlined. The point I was trying to make is that that, while an INCOMPETENT writer can easily write a story with Batman being an INTJ, while if they tried to write this story I imagine that they quite probably will stuff up and write a different personality type. I mean there is nothing on the face of it, that I could see, that would prevent an INFP Wonder Woman being in such a plot, so a hack writer might just make Wonder Woman an INFP because it’s easier. My point was that in a corporate environment eventually your character is going to be written by a hack, so the simpler (or perhaps the more common) the personality the less likely the character is going to be written out of character.

“If you feel that the “Trinity” concept works, then I will take your word for it.”

I should add a caveat and say I think it SHOULD work but I don’t know it ever quite did, once again because of incompetent writers. I myself have not really been reading DC since Final Crisis, so now Batman’s dead all this Trinity talk is fairly academic.

“I enjoyed the “talk”.”

Me too.

Such a (Wonder Woman) in an out-of-universe comic would make for some very interesting stories, albeit probably very hard to write.

Really?

It seems like you could do a series of World War II and post-War stories in manga (or manga-ish) format pretty easily. You could set up some kind of quest McGuffin, like the Armor of Hypolyta being stolen by Herakles, broken into Seven Pieces and scatted around the world. Steve Trevor piercing the mystic clouds covering Themyscira is some ancient prophesy about Ares returning to drive the Amazons from their home and only a champion wearing the armor can protect them.

Then, you have some special branch of the OSS using Diana to fight the Nazis while Diana uses the OSS (and later the CIA) to feed her information about pieces of armor.

Meanwhile, Diana gets exposed to the world beyond Themyscira. She finds out that the opposite sex is a mixed bag and not pure evil. She starts to wonder what happens to all the boys back home as her tertiary trait of introverted intuition starts to kick in.

Mix in a love plot line that takes some unexpected (read: bisexual) twists and turns. How does that not work?

My problem would that if Wonder Woman in the DCU was made an ISTP she would be pushed to the sidelines, and the last thing the DCU needs is LESS exposure for female characters.

Yes, DC has a real shortage of female characters. It is sad that DC has to pull the dreaded gender-switch in an attempt to get some more B-List females.

I am going to defer to you on the politics of the DC Universe. My interest in how the DCU fits together as a whole waned around “Zero Hour” and never recovered. The DC characters are better than the Marvel ones, but the Marvel Universe is vastly than the DC one. All the efforts to “fix” the DCU over the years have tended to make things worse, not better. If you feel that the “Trinity” concept works, then I will take your word for it.

So, in conclusion, both an ISTP and an INFP Wonder Woman make for great characters, the ISTP perhaps even more so. But I don’t think the ISTP is correct for the DCU.

Fair enough. I enjoyed the “talk”.

My only problem would be that an ISTP Wonder Woman, in the DCU, wouldn’t, I believe, be able to hold a place in the Trinity. The ISTP Wonder Woman method of spreading her message, which I think Marston called “loving persuasion”, seems to wilt in comparison with the more forceful ideologies of someone like Batman. My problem would that if Wonder Woman in the DCU was made an ISTP she would be pushed to the sidelines, and the last thing the DCU needs is LESS exposure for female characters.

“Perez tried to fix that by making her an “Ambassador of Peace”, but that advocates of peace and tolerance don’t tend to kick people in the head.”

That, to me, is the central contradiction of an INFP Wonder Woman, and one which would allow for great thematic resonance. Making Wonder Woman a person who is willing to wage war in the name of greater peace makes her a complex and interesting character, one who is willing to make sacrifices but who is always afraid that they have sacrificed to much. And it creates a great counterbalance to someone like Batman, who is unwilling to sacrifice but often thinks that they should. The problem then becomes that such a character is hard to write, so hacks are going to (and have) latched on to the warrior aspect of her personality and made her a gun-happy hawk. However, in the right hands, an INFP Wonder Woman is just what the DCU needs.

So, in conclusion, both an ISTP and an INFP Wonder Woman make for great characters, the ISTP perhaps even more so. But I don’t think the ISTP is correct for the DCU.

Perhaps (and this is very likely possibility) I’ve misinterpreted the Myers-Briggs typology, and this is in fact a distinction that can be captured by psychological type.

I cannot pretend to know enough to answer that question. That said, my problem with Wonder Woman is less that her personality has been softened past the point of being recognizable than her philosophy.

To me, that is why Wonder Woman is the only superhero out there who has watered down more than Superman.

William Moulton-Marston created in her in service of his own very idiosyncratic philosophy of life, which was sort of a mash-up of first wave feminism and BDSM. She was sent into the man’s world to teach men the value of submitting to others that women allegedly get intuitively. Her main target were supposed to be men with a lot “pep”. The whole character design is in service of that idea.

Marston had softened the mythological concept of the Amazons by making them immortal and, thereby, getting around the whole question of where the kids come from and what happens to the boys. However, all the talk of submission was too much for Wertham and the Comic Code. WW became sort of a generic female superhero.

Perez tried to fix that by making her an “Ambassador of Peace”, but that advocates of peace and tolerance don’t tend to kick people in the head. As much as I might admire Gandhi, he would make a really boring superhero. The effect is to rob WW of any coherent Point of View. That is problem for any character, but it is a disaster a NF that is always supposed to be thinking about the Big Picture.

I would like to see an Perceiving counterbalance to the Judgemental nature of the DCU, and I don’t think (although you could defiantly disagree) that an SP will be able to provide any ideological weight, being more concerned with specifics.

I agree that a Perceiving balance is pretty badly needed in the DCU and Wonder Woman pretty clearly has a Perceiving nature. It is a personality type that I associate with jocks. All the Ancient Greek weapons on Themyscira remind me of the Olympics.

I would rather see the vocal advocate of being open-minded be a different character. I loved the “Seven Spiritual Laws of Superheroes” that Grant Morrison and Depak Chopra played with. The character who symbolizes connection and communication (Vishudda) is the Flash. To me, being open is pretty essential to communicating. That is the great shame of pushing Wally West to the side. He is an NP (probably ENTP), while Barry Allen is almost certainly is a NJ (likely an INTJ).

… the question is, are all types (and groups of types) equal from a storytelling point of view (or, to be more accurate, from a Superhero storytelling point of view)?

I think some are pretty clearly easier to write some types than others. However, a lot depends on the origin story. I mean, Superman could have literally any personality type and have the same origin. (As an aside, it amazes me that no one has written a Superman story that turns on Jor-El making inaccurate assumptions about the personality little Kal-El would have.) Conversely, Batman can really only be an INTJ.

It is just that certain veins have been mined to the point where they are nearly depleted.

Things do change. Superman and WW might have traditionally exhibited personalities that are now novel, but it is hardly like the Golden Age was renowned for its three-dimensional scripts. Traditional adventure characters were always ENTJs, so the DCU Trinity stood out from the crowd. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby added introversion to the mix, but there are only so many times we see the same transformation from shy pondering to bold thinking before it becomes utterly stale.

“I was thinking of the William Moulton Marston and HG Peters stories”

OK then, I see what you mean. I’m not really that familiar with those stories so I’ll have to take your word for it.

“That concept has never done anything for me.”

I guess, for me, I like the idea that Wonder Woman can provide an ideological counterbalance to Batman, with Superman as a mediator (although this happens more in theory than in practise). I thought it was interesting that, of all the types you suggested, there were no NPs. I would like to see an Perceiving counterbalance to the Judgemental nature of the DCU, and I don’t think (although you could defiantly disagree) that an SP will be able to provide any ideological weight, being more concerned with specifics.

“It is a grouping that has a certain chemistry, but it has become a total cliche.”

And I think that is the problem, that arrangement has works SO well. I guess the question is, are all types (and groups of types) equal from a storytelling point of view (or, to be more accurate, from a Superhero storytelling point of view)? Because if certain types are less interesting as Superheroes (as I hesitantly suggest might be the case) then writers aren’t going to want to write those types, or if they do their stories will be bad and no-one will want to read them. I guess I’m presenting a counter-proposal, perhaps the problem with Superman isn’t identification, but that his type is harder to write good Superhero stories about. Perhaps.

@plok

“And although I’m rather dubious about Myers-Briggs”

I too have my suspicions. But what I think is so unique, and brilliant, about Superhero stories, is that they DO fit into types. As such Superhero stories provide a way of clearly talking about human psychology while presenting ‘people’ who don’t really have usual human psychology. I would be much more hesitant to apply Myers-Briggs theory to many other genres.

(Superman) doesn’t even beat the asses of lame-o lowlifes. So what are we to make of him, and why should we care about him? He’s become Fonzie in the last couple of seasons of Happy Days. He’s been neutered, and then neutered again just to make sure.

It is telling that in the nearly 25 years since Alan Moore invented the deconstructed superhero, no one has come up with a deconstructed take on Superman that makes any sense. It has been tried dozens of times, but I am always left thinking that whatever Superman pastiche I am reading really seems nothing at all like … well … Superman.

They always focus on either his judging side, or his power, or both. In other words, the most dull, imitated and over-used aspects of the character. No one seems to realize that is exactly what DC has used to neuter and re-neuter the character. You can’t deconstruct Superman by taking the judgemental knob DC already has set to “10″ and dialing it to “11″ (or “50″ in the case Mark Waid’s “irredeemable”). That just takes the character way beyond normal human psychology and, ironically, further into the boring zone they are trying to critique.

Maybe it is just me, but it seems like people have been praising Chris Reeve depicting Superman as an extroverted feeler for thirty years. You would think just maybe writers would get interested in that aspect of the guy. Or (God Forbid), maybe someone might notice that prior doing his introverted sensing in the Silver Age that the dude took a GIANT PHALLUS and PUT IT IN A KEYHOLE IN THE SIDE OF A FROZEN MOUNTAIN. Somehow, DC writers and editors have either overlooked, or ignored, the least subtle Freudian imagery in human history for a long, long time.

one is that as a former fortune-teller I really think Myers-Briggs isn’t as useful as many people seem to take it to be…and another is, you guys have walked it around and around so much that I think you’ve actually made it useful where it otherwise wouldn’t’ve been.

Thanks, I think….

I have my doubts about Myers-Briggs as a tool for actual, individual human beings. However, it seems to be a useful way to think about groupings of people. It is helpful when thinking about superheroes, because:
1. It is Jungian. That makes it a nice fit for stories that are at least some form of “the Heroes Journey”.
2. It is a good, non-judgemental way to bundle people from a marketing perspective. Comic readers are disproportionately male INFJs, which is why there are so many fictional INFJ females wandering around comics. If you want comics (even superhero comics) to grow as an art form, then it is important to understand where you are and why it is restrictive.
3. Good superheroes tend to be icons. No matter what version of Batman you see, he is always an extroverted thinker. Tim Burton made WB a fortune by showing Bruce Wayne as an introverted idea guy, who transforms into an extroverted thinker. That model was actual storyline of “Batman Begins”. Clearly, the hero transforming from one mode into an iconic version of another works. The presence of a tertiary mode suggests a way that the superhero could be written with three dimensions.

The Superman story has to end with humanity actually evolving, or else Superman just looks hopelessly naive.

True. In the Silver Age they had an answer to that question the Legion. Did you ever notice how Weisinger had the 30st century look exactly like Krypton? Now, I am sure that was partly a failure of imagination, but it really worked to emphasize that Superman was right and humanity would evolve.

Alan Moore used that to excellent effect in “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?”

I would suggest as a counter-proposal INFP, although INFP may be a too passive temperament, and Wonder Woman certainly isn’t passive.

With Wonder Woman, I probably should have specified my version. I was thinking of the William Moulton Marston and HG Peters stories (or at least what I have read of them). George Perez version almost certainly was INFP. So, her characterization varies from the Golden Age to the modern age enough to say she has two different personality types.

You are also right in saying that she is changing again and becoming more extroverted. To me, that is an example of what Brian once called algebraic storytelling. DC wanted Wonder Woman in their “Trinity”, so they changed so that she could have an extroverted intuition that connects to Batman and an introverted feeling side that connects to Superman. That concept has never done anything for me.

Personally, I like the idea of Wonder Woman as an ISTP better. Comics are absolutely full of NF women (especially INFJs). Stan and Jack went to the temperament for women a lot. That was also the preferred temperament for women in Claremont’s X-Men. DC certainly has their share of NF women (Lois Lane, Supergirl, Zatanna) witj a bit more diversity by adding NT women (like Barbara Gordon and Dinah Lance). Still, they are all very much up in their heads. For storytelling reasons, it would help to have some diversity of type.

That was why Darwyn Cooke’s Big Girl take on WW in “New Frontier” was so refreshing. It showed a comic book woman inhabiting her body, but not in the Wally Wood sense. Every woman that Wood had a hand in creating (including Power Girl) is an ESFP and that is the second traditional female “type” in comics.

Look, I loved Wolfman-Perez “Teen Titans” as much as the next guy and I wish DC took more cues from the Murakami cartoon. However, I wish we could past the point when every comic book cast called for an ENTJ male, an INTJ male, an INFJ male, an INFJ female and an ESFP female. It is a grouping that has a certain chemistry, but it has become a total cliche. When you only have three basic types of men and two basic types of women, the same basic situations tend to come up over and over.

That is why I thought the Power Girl on-going was exciting. I have never seen an on-going with an ESFP female as the protagonist. Sadly, it seems as though they are down-playing that prospect by emphasizing … sign … how intuitive and judging PG can be. Yawn.

Apologies, fellows. And apologies again, because I think you’re both stark staring animal crackers out of your respective trees…! To quote Green Arrow. Hah.

Okay, I really wanted to say two things right away: one is that as a former fortune-teller I really think Myers-Briggs isn’t as useful as many people seem to take it to be…and another is, you guys have walked it around and around so much that I think you’ve actually made it useful where it otherwise wouldn’t've been. Because, here’s the thing, I think tastes in superhero fantasy have become incredibly hidebound over the last couple of decades that the age-old kid argument of Who Could Beat Who between Superman and Batman, once a very Superman-centric argument (I mean really the question is “is Batman so smart/capable/rich/etc. that he could take Superman”, not “is Superman sufficiently superpowered to have the natural edge over Batman”) has weirdly turned into a matter of geek politics: in these days, as far as I can tell, it’s so casually assumed that Batman would win such a contest, that one might as well not even ask the question.

So, hmm…something wrong in that, I think. And although I’m rather dubious about Myers-Briggs…

I think you may have hit on something.

Superman, after all, is surely the one superhero character who most strongly resists easy identification with the reader. Sure, there’s the brilliant device of him being Clark Kent in his other identity: but who nowadays can most easily identify with Clark Kent either? “Easily”: I’m talking sociology now. Superhero comics used to have a pronounced pedagogical function, because of what groups they were marketed to. The imaginary contest between Superman and Batman was a contest between two “bests” — two best ways to be an upstanding citizen. Now Batman wins the contest easily because he’s less “best” than Superman: now, to the overwhelming majority of superhero-comics-buyers, Superman looks paper-thin as a sociological role-representer. Or, as you guys say: he looks “naive”.

And I think this is a way in which Superman’s association with the DCU is corrosive of the character’s appeal. Basically, Superman’s made a schmuck by the necessity to deposit in him all the conformist messages that exist in a shared universe with Forties roots. “Big Blue Boy Scout”…that about says it.

Actually, Superman’s an awesome character for reader identification. Except, who are the readers, and what are the criteria for identification? The latter changes with the makeup and expectations of the former…but Superman can’t change too much when in the grip of a very large corporately-run shared universe…must remain an Eagle Scout out of 1941…and so one may come to think of Batman as “wicked badass” because he can still stand for 1940s values at the same time he takes 1990s ethical shortcuts to them…

But Superman can’t take any shortcuts at all.

This didn’t used to matter. There was a time when Batman was every bit as squeaky-clean as Superman, and that was the point of wondering who could take whom. Nowadays, though, it’s very difficult to manufacture a situation in which anyone could conceivably REMOTELY give a damn about their methodological conflict. Superman looks like only he, by dint of his supreme super-poweredness, can afford truly “high” morals — and therefore not only is he open to lots of implicit criticism about his representation of “Good”, but the “Good” he represents is automatically taken to be something an ordinary person can’t even aspire to. Ahhh, the negative side of all that Christ-imagery: what Superman has come to represent is an ethical ideal we might as well not even take a stab at.

And yet it’s nothing but our own notion of what an averagely-good person should strive for. Don’t lie. Don’t cheat. Don’t steal. Think of others. Do good where you can. Man, suddenly this is all sullied by Superman being a super-prig in relation to all the other superheroes. He doesn’t drink, swear, or pick up sticks on Sundays. He doesn’t even beat the asses of lame-o lowlifes. So what are we to make of him, and why should we care about him? He’s become Fonzie in the last couple of seasons of Happy Days. He’s been neutered, and then neutered again just to make sure.

So, why would anybody care about him, who reads comics?

Or more to the point: to the degree that Myers-Briggs is even descriptive of human psychological prejudices at all, to that degree you can expect people who are like Superman to shun comics in which Superman and the DCU are deeply inter-involved, because it makes him look like a PUNK. If I’m (say) a college athlete who’s a bit of a dick, I might like Wolverine or Batman. If I’m not a bit of a dick, I won’t like Superman, because he’s not like me, he’s like my Dad or like Officer Friendly or like Mr. Rogers or any goddamn coach with a camera trained on him. Within the DCU, Superman is the voice of Blah.

When he’s safely tucked away in his own title, though, he’s okay.

I don’t know, I just felt guilty from being so long away from this conversation, when I said I’d be back so quickly. And, oh, damn it, real life calls again.

Back when I can be, guys.

That’s a really good point. Perhaps the problem then is people, not necessarily writing Superman as a total crimefighter, but writing him in a crimefighting world. Someone like Batman might see his role as holding back the flood, he’ll never win but he doesn’t need to. The Superman story has to end with humanity actually evolving, or else Superman just looks hopelessly naive. I guess then I could say that perhaps the comic fans that exist now would accept a Superman that is the total opposite to them if he was in a more utopian world than the DCU (not that they would ever pick the comic up if it was in the DCU).

“what do you think of Wonder Woman as an ISTP”

Hmm, I see a lot of Wonder Woman in an ISTP, at the same time I wonder if ISTP doesn’t reflect the dedication to an ideal that Wonder Woman has. I would suggest as a counter-proposal INFP, although INFP may be a too passive temperament, and Wonder Woman certainly isn’t passive.

Fair enough. I move around on character typing Lois. The Teri Hatcher version from “Lois & Clark” almost certainly was an ENFP, but every character she has ever played is an ENFP.

While we are character typing …

I think Batman being an INTJ is the mother of all no brainers.

However, what do you think of Wonder Woman as an ISTP (http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/istp.htm)? Her signatures are deflecting bullets with her bracelets and using a lasso. Both would require literally hundreds of hours to really master. That is the personality type that acquires those types of skills. Also, the Moulton version of her origin suggested that her fellow Amazons had no idea she was as gifted with martial skills as she was.

Another point I just thought of is that combing Intuition and Judging, having a person with lofty ideals and a dedicated adherence to them, is something that seems to mesh well with the idea of a person driven to fight crime

To me, that is what makes Superman different.

One of my favorite Superman moments is from the long speech the Ghost of Jor-El gives in the Fortress of Solitude, “… They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you… my only son”. Pretty clearly that is Christ allusion, but it is also a call back to the original conception Siegel and Shuster had of Krypton. They were supposed to be a more evolved version of humanity.

Not to go all Grant Morrison, but I love idea of Superman’s mission being to act as a vanguard of the next stage in human evolution.

There are two things about that which relates to our discussion. The first is that it is more of a sci-fi premise than a superhero one. Superman isn’t called to fight crime. He is called to be an example. Second, he has options about where to go with that mission. An ENTJ would start an organization to market books and merchandise about how to become more like Superman. Clark doesn’t even consider doing that. His immediate focus is using his abilities to help people.

What makes that interesting is that introverted/extroverted apparently works like a positive/negative charge on a magnet. Extroverted feelers attach to introverted feelers, while repelling other extroverted feelers. If Clark is pretending to be primarily an extroverted intuitive person and repels Lois, them that suggests she is primarily an extroverted intuitive. If she is drawn to Superman who is primarily an extroverted feeler, then that suggests she is secondarily an introverted feeler. That is an ENFP (http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/enfp.htm), which is a pretty interesting of looking at the Lois Lane character to me and suggests some pretty obvious relationship conflicts.

Something important, to me, about the Superman character is the idea that he is Kal-El sometimes pretending to be Superman and sometimes pretending to be Clark Kent. Which leaves the question: who is Kal-El?

Ok, we are officially treading into very subjective territory. With that caveat, here are my thoughts …

From what I understand of Meyers-Briggs, each personality type has a Primary, Secondary and Tertiary mode. The first two emerge in youth, while the third evolves as a person matures. So, an ESFJ would be an extroverted feeler first. Think of Bill Clinton (who is an ESFJ) saying “I feel you pain” and you get the general idea.

However, the Secondary mode is introverted sensing. That mode is “storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones”. That is a pretty good description of pretty much every Silver Age story that took place in the Fortress of Solitude with which I am familiar. Those Silver Age Fortress stories seemed to be the root of the Kal-El stuff Elliot S. Maggin wrote in the ’70s.

Finally, they are extroverted intuition in their tertiary mode. That manifests most often as a teasing (or if you prefer “dick-ish”) sense of humor. Think Terry Bradhsaw (another ESFJ) on the FOX NFL Sundays. My theory is that, like a method actor, Superman uses a part of himself to play the role of Clark Kent. In this case, it is pretending Tertiary mode is his primary mode. That is why I favor the George Reeves version of Clark, who always seems to be on a crusade about something and has a very short attention span.

Obviously, I have given Superman waaayyy too much thought. I cannot speak to Captain Marvel with nearly the same depth.

Absolutely, but now we are getting into the artistic side again.

Your type theory is very interesting, although I dare say the reality is somewhat more complicated. What was most interesting for me that while we can fairly accurately stereotype comic readers NOW that has not always been the case. So as the kind of readers more like Superman have stopped reading comics SO HAS Superman’s sales gone down. I would say that your explanation is the best why Superman is less popular now than in the past.

I’ll admit to not being an expert with regards to the Meyers-Briggs personality test, but I’m not entirely convinced by your characterisation of Superman. Something important, to me, about the Superman character is the idea that he is Kal-El sometimes pretending to be Superman and sometimes pretending to be Clark Kent. Which leaves the question: who is Kal-El? I could see Superman and Clark Kent as complete extroverts, but Kal-El does have the ‘Fortress of Solitude’. I’m still uncertain.

Another point is that other characters that were perhaps ESFJs, like say Captain Marvel, were also very popular in the past but now are much less so. I would then make the argument that perhaps the difference between a Captain Marvel and Superman is, once again, the shared universe. (Yes, technically Captain Marvel is in the DCU but he always felt like an unneeded add-on.)

If you sorted the comic reading audience using the Meyers-Briggs personality test (http://www.personalitypage.com/four-prefs.html) , I am willing to bet that you would get a very consistent personality type. Comic readers are vastly more introverted than extroverted. They are also far more likely to be Intuitive than Sensing, since comics as a medium tend to appeal to people that are comfortable with abstraction. Finally, they are vastly more likely to be Judging Types than perceiving ones. Dan DiDio described it as “the collector gene”.

Well, what personality traits do the best-selling comic book characters evidence?

Introverts are going to tend to withdraw from the world when they have a problem. Batman goes to his cave alone. Spidey swings through Manhattan alone. Wolverine goes off into the woods alone.

People who are driven by intuition are going embrace abstract ideas, like “… With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”, or “Criminals are a Superstitious and Cowardly Lot”.

Judging people are going to tend to see things in black and white terms morally. For example, they would see “pro-registration” or “anti-registration” as an either-or choice.

In other words, the most successful current comics feature characters and situations that appeal to vast majority of its current audience. This is hardly a stunning insight.

Now, read the description of an ESFJ here: http://www.personalitypage.com/ESFJ.html

and here: http://www.typelogic.com/esfj.html

Sound like anyone? To me, that is a pretty good summary of Clark Kent’s personality. It is also complex and has flaws. However, those flaws are very different than the defects of character seen in your average comic book fan. They literally do not make sense in the same way the flaws in a Peter Parker, or Bruce Wayne, do.

The temptation is depict Superman as less Sensing and more Intuitive and/or less Extroverted and more Introverted to appeal to the audience. In other words, water down the personality and make him more bland. We do not live in a time when a blander product is a more appealing product.