The MBTI x color season tracker has 26 entries now, and one number jumped out enough that I want to flag it for the group. N-types are 81% of this sample. The general population estimate is around 26%. That is not a small skew, that's most of the group running on a preference held by roughly a quarter of people (which, if you've ever wondered why "just trust the process" lands so badly in here, this might be part of the answer). What's NOT showing a skew anymore: Introvert/Extrovert is sitting at 50/50, almost exactly matching the general population estimate. So whatever is pulling people into a research-flavored color and personality group, it's an N thing, not an I thing. I'd have guessed both going in, so that one's worth sitting with. It tracks with how N and S types tend to approach learning a color system in the first place. An N wants the underlying framework before they trust a single recommendation (why does this hue read as warm, what's the mechanism behind clarity, how does this rule generalize). An S wants the concrete result and a way to check it against something real (this top works, does the new one match it). Neither is more rigorous than the other, they're just different entry points. But a group built around dissecting the framework itself is going to read as home base to N types in a way it won't for S types looking for a direct answer. That's probably at least part of what's showing up in the data. Two honest caveats before anyone runs with this: n=26 isn't enough to call this a settled finding (the target is 30+ per type before I'd trust anything statistically), and this only tells us who self-selects into a group like this one. It says nothing yet about whether N correlates with anything on the color side. Two different questions, and I want to keep them separate. So, curious for the room: does the N-skew track with why you joined, or is it just a coincidence of who ended up here? And if you haven't dropped your entry in the MBTI x color season tracker yet, now's a good time. Every entry makes the next pattern more trustworthy.

One of the things I've really enjoyed about spending time in different color communities is seeing the completely different ways people teach the same concepts. Lately I've been exploring The Colour Room, created by Tracy Holmes, and I thought some of you might enjoy it too. What I find particularly interesting is her approach to teaching color itself. Rather than starting with seasonal systems or "what colors should I wear," she builds your ability to see color through observation and hands-on practice. One of her core tools is a monthly Color Tracker that has you working with color gradients and relationships. It sounds simple, but it's a surprisingly effective way to train your eye. I've especially enjoyed how it builds an intuitive understanding of how hue, value, and chroma interact. Watching pure colors evolve through carefully constructed gradients makes abstract color theory feel much more tangible. It's a very different perspective from the work we're doing here in Color Typology Lab, which is why I enjoy it. I think the more ways we have to understand color, the stronger our overall foundation becomes. If you're someone who enjoys digging into the mechanics of color and building your visual vocabulary, I think it's worth checking out. https://www.skool.com/the-colour-room/about?ref=e59d1900d8994c8ba25a1b44e0ff1fa9 Have any of you found other color educators whose teaching style has really expanded how you see color? I'm always interested in learning from people who approach the subject differently.

I hope everyone in the Midwest or Eastern seaboard in the US is staying cool. My son is at overnight camp this week with no AC, which means I've had unusual stretches of uninterrupted thinking time. One thing I've been turning over: how much people actually rely on physical swatch tools as part of color implementation, and whether that changes over time. Did you use a swatch book or fan heavily after your analysis in check for harmony or attribute matching? A few hypotheses I'm sitting with: -S types may hold onto physical references longer because a concrete comparison point is more reliable than an abstract rule. N types often internalize the framework earlier and drop the swatch sooner, which isn't always a sign of mastery. Sometimes it's just pattern-matching confidence running ahead of actual accuracy. -Si-dominant and Si-auxiliary types (ISxJ and ESxJ) may be the most likely to actually collect multiple swatches and fans, not just use them occasionally. Si builds detailed internal sensory libraries, and a physical reference collection is a very natural extension of that. -And then there's a completely different behavior I'm curious about: the person who decided the existing fans weren't quite right and built their own out of paint swatches. (You know who you are.) My guess is that's lprobably more of an NT one: the system has gaps, the available tools don't fully solve the problem, so obviously the answer is to make a better one from scratch. What's your type, and what's your swatch situation?

Color analyst marketing copy is not neutral. It signals who the analyst is writing for, whether that's intentional on their part or not. An analyst writing about structured four-step processes and documented deliverables is speaking to a completely different personality preference audience than one writing about trusting your instincts and a journey of self-discovery. The service might be identical. The messaging is not. I've been building a tool that makes that pattern readable, and it's close enough to share before the full build. I want your input first. The tool is called the Color Analyst × Preference Appeal Index. The concept: it analyzes a color analyst's website marketing language and scores it against the eight three-letter preference profiles. The I versus E preference would be more difficult to assess from marketing copy so I have left that out. The output is an alignment percentage for each three-letter profile, showing whose communication style the analyst is actually reaching based on language signals, not what the analyst intends to communicate. file:///Users/virginiaschobel/Downloads/color_analyst_preference_appeal_index_final.html Three views in the tool: -Find by my type. You filter by cognitive need (NT, NF, ST, or SF), process approach (J or P), or your full three-letter profile. The result is a ranked list of analysts whose marketing language aligns with your preference pattern. Each entry includes specific language pulled from their site, tagged by signal type, source location (homepage hero vs. service description vs. FAQ), and whether it's analyst-authored copy or client testimonial language the analyst has chosen to feature. (Those two categories are tracked separately. What a client reflects back and what an analyst deliberately positioned are not the same thing.) -Explore an analyst. When you select or search for a specific analyst in the index, you get a ranked bar chart of all eight preference profiles from highest alignment to lowest. Each bar is an absolute percentage, so 82% fills 82% of the bar regardless of how any other analyst scores. It shows at a glance who a given analyst's marketing is most likely reaching, and equally, who it probably isn't. An analyst scoring 91% for xSTJ and 11% for xNFP is telling you something concrete about how their copy reads across different preference audiences.

Hi all! I know I just threw out a bunch of new posts this morning. I've been missing being more active in here and finally had the time to get back in. In fact, I have been so engrossed that it is 11 am EST and I am still sitting here in my bathrobe happily typing away thinking about personality and color. With a slight break to discuss S corps and estimated taxes with my new tax accountant. I'm hoping to get some time today to continue my Personality Hacker's Profiler training modules. If so, I am sure I will be back posting about some new "a ha" moment in share here. Let me know what your IRL looks like right now!