Four Learning Styles

Another interesting branch of interpersonal psychological differences. This time it isn’t MBTI, but learning styles (though there’s nothing to say the two theories aren’t related).

Up until about a month ago, I’d thought there were three recognised learning styles: Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic. They’re pretty self-explanatory, but for purposes of completion and self-satisfaction, I’ll explain anyway.

Visual Learners:

  • Are often good at visual art forms and enjoy excursions to art galleries
  • Remember things by picturing or visualising them
  • Perceive others’ meanings through their gestures, body language and facial expressions
  • Are distracted by sights
  • Are likely to take notes, draw mind-maps and ‘obsess’ over colour coordination
  • Are likely to dress for fashion and take pleasure in aesthetic ‘perfection’
  • May visualise the worst-case scenario in case of a misfortune
  • You like my emboldenings and italicisings? I’m doin’ that for you, Visuals!
Pretty picture? Well, it's certainly colourful.

Pretty picture? Well, it’s certainly colourful.

This is a common type, probably the most common. We many of us rely very heavily upon our sight, so that’s not surprising.

You might be able to perceive from my style of writing that I am not a Visual. No, sir; I am not. Not to say I don’t like pretty vistas et cetera.

Auditory Learners:

  • Are often good at speaking, debating and have a high appreciation of music
  • Remember verbal instructions and may have the ability to repeat speeches word for word
  • Perceive others’ meanings through their diction, articulation, dynamic and tone of voice
  • Are distracted by noise
  • Are likely to sing, whistle or hum…a lot
  • Are likely to enjoy talking on the phone
  • Easily perceive subtleties of voice and music
Yup, an ear.

Yup, an ear.

We all tick boxes in other categories. Meself, I can whistle the ‘Sailor’s Hornpipe’ at full speed. And so can all my protagonists 🙂

(By the way, if this sounds like you, go and listen to Dvorak’s Ninth Symphony. I am at the moment, and I’d forgotten how much I love it. Probably the nostalgia—the soundtrack of Barbie Rapunzel is basically Dvorak. Anyway…)

(Is it just an inconsequential theory of mine that many Visual and Auditory learners are also MB Sensing types? Okay, forget that.)

Kinaesthetic Learners:

  • Are often good at practical tasks such as crafts, mechanics and sports
  • Remember things by acting out and trying for themselves
  • Communicate through ‘touchy-feely’ gestures such as hugging for affection or a firm handshake for respect
  • Mostly buy clothes for comfort
  • Must often endure a traditional school learning environment favouring Visual and Auditory learning styles (let’s have a big loud ‘awww’)
  • According to one source, they have high intuition (hm, interesting, though I’d like to know exactly where such a conclusion came from)
Yes, he's pushing a chess piece. *shrug* Well, if it helps him learn how to play chess, what are you looking at?

Yes, he’s pushing a chess piece. *shrug* Well, if it helps him learn how to play chess, what are you looking at?

Okay, I was always awful at Science practicals. But whenever someone touches me—say, they tweak my elbow or measure the circumference of my wrist (yeah, seems pretty meaningless)—I feel automatically better about myself. I don’t know why. Perhaps I’m just starved of physical contact because I pretend to be detached and independent.

But no, I don’t believe I’m a Kinaesthetic learner, either. I just discovered the fourth learning style.

Auditory Digital Learners:

  • Can be difficult to identify (is that why I’d never even heard of the type before?)
  • Work best with information and data
  • Remember things by creating steps and procedures
  • May struggle with social interaction
  • Apparently the Socratic-debate style of question-and-answer might help with learning
  • I don’t know where the name comes from

Well, how else was I supposed to illustrate it? Nothing like a good tunnel of binary.

This is brilliant for characterisation. Understanding a character’s learning style is just as vital as nailing their personality—one might even argue that learning style is an integral part of character personalisation. Probably is. All these tests, we do them for ourselves because we’re interested in who we are and how we operate–and how we operate in relation to others who don’t necessarily understand or relate to us. Is it not just as vital to understand our characters, since we conceive every part of them ourselves, and set ourselves the task of determining all their goals, motives and methods?

Let’s have some characteristic words for each type: (Yes, I lifted these straight off, which has frankly proved the basis for most of my observations. So, yeah, thanks for that.)

Visual: see, looks, appear, view, show me, dawn, reveal, imagine, illuminate, crystal clear

Auditory: can you hear, that sounds good, listen, make music, tune in, be all ears, that rings a bell, it resonates

Kinaesthetic: feel, touch, grasp, get a hold of, slips through, catch on, tap into, concrete, solid

Auditory Digital: sense, understand, think, learn, process, decide, consider, change, perceive, insensitive, conceive, distinct, know (each of these words I would probably use at an average of five or six times a day, depending on the conversation, whereas those in the other lists no more than twice or thrice at the very most)

Yes, we all use these terms all the time. But perhaps one particular person will pop into mind when you read each list. Or, even better—a character.

My thoughts linking to MBTI: we live in a Sensing world. We also live in a world of predominantly Visual and Auditory learners. Draw your own conclusions. I don’t mean to generalise.

My good friend details ‘learning’ as ‘the act or process of acquiring knowledge or skill’ (definition two).

My definition of the second MB dimension according to my first post on the subject claims it relates to the ‘methods we use to intake information’. (Yes, that was poorly worded. I should’ve edited that better. …Is this my Auditory Digital side asserting itself—feeling uncomfortable when something isn’t done to its best effect?)

In any case, I don’t think anyone will disagree that learning style and method of information intake are closely related.

That’s right. Have fun thinking about that a bit more. I’m going to bed.


Visual learner picture:×1200/Jean-Marc_Janiaczyk_Art_Painting_cabanon%20aux%20lavandes.jpg

Auditory learner picture:

Kinaesthetic learner picture:

Auditory digital learner picture:

Too many tags? D:

INFJs and Physical Awareness

(There’s tons more I could add, and probably scientific studies of NF types and such evidence, but this post has piddled around half-finished in My Documents for over a month as it is.)

People give me funny looks when I mention it, but I honestly enjoy the feeling of mild pain. Not pain like breaking your elbow, which excludes everything around you except that one huge frightening hurt. Just a small discomfort, such as a throbbing vein, or a paper-cut between two fingers, or a bruised muscle—something you know can’t harm you, but nags you all the same.

It’s often intrigued me why I should feel this way. I used to think it encouraged me to think stoically, as my father always taught me (definition 2, as below). But even though he suffers hay fever, he claims he doesn’t believe in allergies. He disbelieves in his own condition.



1. a systematic philosophy, dating from around 300 BC, that held the principles of logical thought to reflect a cosmic reason instantiated in nature.
2. (lowercase) conduct conforming to the precepts of the Stoics, as repression of emotion and indifference to pleasure or pain.


Another thought was that I’m a sensation-seeker. Not an attention-seeker in the sense that I constantly desire notice (though possible I do, that, too), but someone who would ‘love’ to be the creator of a grand drama with shocking results. Just out of interest for the effects (though in truth, effects of any sort would threaten my security, and ultimately I never end up doing anything that could endanger my comfort).

But what I’ve hit upon lately, due to my interest for MBTI, is that perhaps pain gives me the physical awareness I don’t naturally have. Just last week, it was half past seven in the evening before I’d realised I’d had nothing to eat since the previous day. I’d been alone for over twelve hours, so no one had forced me to eat, as they usually would. The thought of food just hadn’t crossed my mind. I get lost in the sensation, and practical remedy doesn’t occur to me. But the hunger was there, goading me, spurring me on to a greater and more productive day than I might have spent.

It provides a link to the real world: the permission to go off into my fantasy. It says, “your body hurts, but you can deal with it!”, to return to the idea of self-denial often associated with Stoicism. But it’s not even the defiance in the face of pain that I like(!), but the connection it gives me to my body. It harnesses me where it might be dangerous to give full reign to my imagination. Yet in the partial ignoring of the sensation, my imagination feels as if it has been declared ruler. It has not, for corporeal awareness shackles it to reality, but…well, does anyone understand?

Plato. Creepy guy, 'en't 'e?

Plato. Creepy guy, ‘en’t ‘e?

Food and sleep: if we had neither, there would be so much time and freedom to follow our dreams and fulfil our desires. But what are we without our bodies? For someone who would live exclusively in the realm of souls (not to imply that Plato has won my heart, despite how I came up with a similar dualistic theory when I was seven), this is quite a concession.

But I would not be without my body. In The Matrix, the mind cannot live without the body, nor the body without the mind. No, I am for balance and connection, for harmony; though in my world, physicality strives for precedence against imagination, and vice versa. The mutual struggle is what keeps me safe, what keeps me breathing.

Neo awakes from The Matrix and discovers that while his mind has been living a computer-simulated life, his body has remained in this capsule producing energy to run the computers which took over the world several centuries ago.

Neo awakes from The Matrix and discovers that while his mind has been living a computer-simulated life, his body has remained in this capsule producing energy to run the computers which took over the world several centuries ago.

Body and mind, Catholics say. The soul goes immediately to Heaven; but on the Last Day, the Judgement Day, we profess every week in our Creed, the body will be resurrected, too, and, reunited with the soul, the whole will be judged for the last time: Heaven or Hell for all eternity. We can elude neither part of us, to whatever extent we can use either or link them both.


“I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting” – Nicene Creed

To sum up, being a writer and an INFJ, who lives so much in the subconscious mind she has difficulty in communicating not only to others, but to her own consciousness, I’d gladly give up my body and live solely in the spirit. But since that is impossible, in this world, which is my own till death takes it from me, I must have some link to my own physicality that keeps me aware of the changes of day to night, and enough in the present world to keep my body functioning sufficiently to allow my subconscious mind to work to best effect.

As Captain Jack would say, “Savvy?”


Plato –

The Matrix –

“I believe…” –

CampNaNoWriMo July 2013

(Again, a post less general and more personal to me [than some]. Factual/theoretical dissertations may resume shortly.)

Well, that’s done. You want some figures?

My first serious attempt at NaNo was in November 2011. I set my target at 33,333 words (two thirds of the full 50K, since I had school to contend with) and wrote 34,133.

My second serious attempt was Camp July 2013. I set my target at 25,000 words (half of the full 50K, because I knew I’d be away a lot of the time) and wrote 35,125.

That’s the whole story. I’ve only tried it twice with a definite personal goal in mind, and both times I’ve been stinted by other commitments. Someday I’ll get 50K. I write at a quick enough rate… It’s just when it takes place in a month I’ve nothing better to do.

Oh, I complain. So many people with full-time jobs get well over 50,000 year after year. How hard can it be, if you’re truly motivated?

After all, on day one I wrote over 7,000 words! By day two that was up to 11,000. And then I got lazy… But these past few days I’ve been trying to make amends. I’ll snapshot my graph and you can all bear witness to my erraticness/erraticism/erraticity(?!). My ‘friends’ always chide me for inconsistency.

Mm, as you can see...

Mm, as you can see…

Yeah, my cabin wasn’t the best. Only two of us got past the 5K mark, and the other girl reached her target of twice that and didn’t continue. I am the proud contributor of seventy percent of my cabin’s words. Unfortunately I couldn’t get everyone else’s targets for them as well as my own.

In the past week I’ve experienced several surprise revelations—sudden unexpected plot twists and characters spiralling out of control. Does this always happen on first drafts? I’ve never noticed it before—but to be fair, I’ve always been such a pantser it hasn’t mattered.

This time, however…

To put all this in context, my WriMo novel is something of a detective story, with the relationships constituting the sub-plot, and elements of action, romance and mistaken paranormal thrown in for good measure. And the good old boarding school returns again!

For a start, there’s my foremost supporting character. In the first story, she was just another character thrown in for contrast and remote moral support. She didn’t even speak till the epilogue. Yes, it sounds amateur, but I’ve brought her back for a larger role in the sequel, to make her previous appearances just a big set-up.

And what a role! Her character has been the steadiest and least changeable of everything in my life this month. Before last Friday, I didn’t even realise quite how enigmatic she was. I thought she was shy or nervous, or incredibly self-conscious. ‘Insipid’, Drina calls her. (Very nice of you, Drina.)

Well, she’s not. She’s not at all. If she’s quiet, it’s because she has nothing to say. And that’s only deception, too! She knows things the rest of the cast would give anything to know, too. She never asks questions, and rarely answers them straight. She tells no two people the same things, but never lies. And she never ever tells the whole story.

Sims 3 doesn't have the right hairstyle, so I cropped out the one I was forced to give her.

Sorry I don’t have a better picture.

Much of the plot hangs upon both her silence and her words, and she is the source of most of the story’s revelations. Simply because nothing anyone else says affects how she communicates. She won’t be coaxed, threatened, tempted, trained…

She’s a strange character—one of the most interesting I’ve ever created. And she wasn’t even supposed to be interesting. Plus because she doesn’t express herself properly (and doesn’t care whether she does or not), I can do exciting and terrifying things with her relationships…

Secondly, my long-time lovers separated. And I never saw that coming. They’ve been engaged for four and a half years, and I thought they were so attached, ultimate soul-mates…

But the more gentle and compliant one of the two suggested it, and my MC was so surprised she just walked away. Sad, eh?

And the funny thing is, I scarcely even know how it happened. One moment they were all lovey-dovey and apologising for I-don’t-know-what; the next minute they’d parted. And all done so gently and shockingly I hadn’t an idea what was bound to happen before it actually did.

It’s so shocking I can scarcely say more about it. So I won’t. I don’t even know if they’ll get back together again. Fortunately I’m only halfway through the story, and though they won’t meet again till the end, if the rest of my plan decides to hold out(!), they’ve plenty of time to think it over.

campnanojuly13target2And thirdly, the crazy idea came to me to bring back to life a character who’s been dead twenty-five years (storywise). I’m not sure if I’ll actually do it or not…but my imagination presented it to me in such a way as to make everything else work perfectly. Hm, this requires no mean thought!

This next fortnight I’m back to editing. Wish me good fun!

An Introduction to MBTI

A prequel post to (I’m sure) many more.

I’m an INFJ.

And what the heck does that mean? most of my acquaintances would say.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the most widely used personality sorting test, according to some sources. It is, though, the only system used on the counselling course my mother is currently taking, so I think I’m safe to say it’s a popular tool.

The more astute of you may deny that such a thing can exist. How can something so contradictory and unfathomable as the human character be put to the test? How can such an incredibly diverse population—over seven billion people, spread across 149 million kilometres squared of land—be divided into a mere sixteen categories?

Well, you’d be right. It’s not so simple as that. Most people have at least two or three types they get in tests on a regular basis—and no, that doesn’t mean they suffer from multiple personality disorder.

I may be an INFJ, but I don’t have all the characteristics of the archetypal INFJ—and most people who know a thing about it perceive me as a T type. It’s true, that’s my weakest scale, but perchance I wish to be seen as a T (a Thinker makes decisions based on rationality rather than emotion), but if I answer the questions based on what I believe I truly am (hard to know), Feeling wins out. And if I am too aware of the test process to get an accurate result, after all, then maybe I should just give up and retreat into a dark hole and learn Russian. (I’ve always wanted to do that.)

Still, sceptical though you might be, Myers-Briggs never ceases to surprise me. Just recently I found a wonderful website about ENTJ relationships and compatibility. And upon scrawling through the pages and pages of how an ENTJ typically gets along with other people, I suddenly came to realise that my protagonist wasn’t an INTJ—no, sir! She’s an ENTJ, who withdraws from social contact under stress (which is most of the story). That’s why I thought she was an Introvert (as I’ll explain). And it was incredible to find this website describing her relationships with the supporting characters exactly as I’d envisioned them.

(It is worth noting that there are many other personality tests on the web, and many are very useful. Enneagrams, for instance, study why people behave as they do, rather than merely their behaviour. Useful for main character motivations. And Socionics are a comprehensive system of social relationships: while eliminating several of the shaky bits for which MBTI is criticised (though confusing MBTI users as to type-casting), a theory of interaction has been assembled to outline how people of different personalities get along with one another. But it told me I had a big nose, and I took offence, being small-minded and sensitive on these points. So I prefer MBTI.)

Anyway, what about describing the four scales, or dimensions, as they’re sometimes called? Bare in mind they’ll all be rather wide generalisations. As I said, circumstance plays a huge part in our behaviour, regardless of personality. But, generally speaking, this is what I’ve gleaned: (sorry about the image quality and green squiggly lines, but I can’t be bothered to do it again)


The first dimension can be defined as where you get your energy from. Most people know already whether they’re an introvert or an extravert, but possibly by defining the words in terms of energy source, rather than that loose ‘oh, I don’t have a problem with talking to people’ or ‘oh, I never tell anyone anything’ to which we’re all so accustomed, some difference may be evident.

An extraverted person, according to MBTI, turns themselves outwards, for want of a better description. They would usually speak or act spontaneously, without prior reflection, and like doing and discussing, rather than just sitting and inactively theorising. They have a wide breadth of focus; but none of this means they lack depth. Extraverts, according to one study, make up 72% of the population.

Introverts are basically the opposite. We think things through, prefer mental exertion to action, in most cases, and reflect before doing. Sometimes introverts are wrongly interpreted as having slow reactions, but in reality, we just react in a different way.


The second dimension relates to the methods we use to intake information. This is the one I struggle most with, I admit. To put it simply (in theory), Sensing types like specific evidence, whereas iNtuition types see the ‘bigger picture’.

That doesn’t make much sense to me, either. I may be an N, but that doesn’t mean I understand what the ‘bigger picture’ is, and how I use it.

In more detail, Sensors like facts. They trust their own experience, and approach life in a step-to-step manner. That doesn’t mean they’re fixed in their ways; it just means they operate upon practicality—if a theory isn’t realistic in their daily lives, then it isn’t worth the trouble. They rely upon what their five senses tell them, hence the name ‘Sensor’. Like Extraverted types, approximately three in four people are Sensors.

Intuitive types fall in love with ideas whether they’re practical or not. We trust our instincts—and don’t know entirely why, most of the time. We live in a world of abstracts, patterns and inferences, and are focussed on the future.

Though, of course, it is essential not to forget that Sensors can Intuit—and do—and, equally, Intuitors can Sense. The extent to which a person is either a Sensor or an Intuitive is usually expressed as a percentage—and likewise with the other dimensions.


The two extremes of the third and fourth dimensions are split almost equally in regard of population distribution. The third is how we make our decisions. This is fairly straightforward, I think. Thinkers practice objective logic, looking for flaws in their own and others’ logic and proving what they find. They work on a basis of cause and effect, and apply their rational principles to the people with whom they interact.

Feelers, on the other hand, base their decisions upon their core values and convictions. We see each personal as an individual—with individual logic, if you like, rather than all people being subject to our own (not sure if this is correct or not!). But, more problematically, Thinking can be put to the purpose of Feeling and vice versa. That’s where it drifts into the functions of each type…but that’s rather more complicated, and I’m afraid I’d get everything horribly wrong if I tried to explain it.


The fourth dimension is considered by some to be the ‘grey area’. For example, as an INFJ I am a Judging type, but my dominant function (sorry), Ni, is a Perceiving function. This creates somewhat of a conflict; but when you have all the theory under your belt (I must confess I don’t), it makes sense. (Socionics professes to clear up this ‘grey area’ in the fourth dimension, but it types people rather differently, and should not be lightly compared to MBTI.)

But, indeed, I haven’t even explained the two sides of the coin yet. Judging types like things to be planned out and executed according to the plan. We organise our lives in a scheduled manner—or we like it so, at any rate.

Perceivers are more open-minded. Judgers criticise them for being disorganised, but Perceivers like to keep their options open, so that they’ll be free to take up a better opportunity should one arise. But the real difference is their adaptability to new situations, and quality of being energised by surprises and time pressure.

You may claim I’ve mixed the dimensions up in places, but really they ought to be taken separately. Remember:

  1. E/I – where you get your energy from
  2. S/N – how you take in information
  3. T/F – how you make decisions
  4. J/P – how you organise your life

People change types, too. It’s said as we become more tolerant, through the wisdom life’s experience brings us, we gravitate towards the opposite end of each scale, and become more balanced people as a result (it is to be hoped).

But am I any the wiser for knowing my ‘personality type’? Reading the descriptions of the other fifteen types, I can visualise myself as each of these different people, in various situations. I understand how they think, and why they think like that. But is that my ‘psychic’ NF nature fooling me into thinking I’m someone else, or my characters, who are just as much a part of me as INFJ, struggling to get to the surface?