6s take on an inner role of the considerer. The considerer analyzes different points of view and philosophical lenses to determine the best course of action. The consider also has predictive insights into situations, or intuitive insights about how a situation might turn out, which gives them insight from left-field. Even if the considerer seems to act rashly, it’s a committed sort of rashness, aware of the potential consequences but also the potential rewards; everything, even spontaneous decisions (these are usually criteria-based), has been filtered through cost-benefit analysis. Thus, the benefits of the considerer are i

6s have an inner setting of nature having run its course. This means that the considerer imagines situations in their terminal stage to bolster their intuition. After all the factors have been taken into consideration, what will the end state be? How does the worst possible end case inform decisions in the present?

6s take on an outer role of the defender. Whether the defender is ensuring personal survival, attracting a mate, or keeping their position/maintaining relationships, there is a constant need to actively identify and defend against incoming threats. Sometimes the defender takes a more traditional stance if it seemingly has never failed them, but more often than not, the defender takes a risky and spunky approach which takes into account the wisdom of known information but combines these references with a creative application of an empirically proven personal skill to increase the element of surprise.

6s have an outer setting of the stance. The stance can be an offensive securing of outcomes or a defensive “warding off” of threats and enemies. In any case, it is highly unlikely that the defender is doing nothing and letting fate decide.

6’s externalization pattern is questioning, a constant demand from the environment to provide answers, with an emphasized need for solutions. When a circumstance is continually ambiguous, it is important for the defender to “catch it off guard” by thinking outside the box. If the considerer notices that there is an ambiguous or vaguely defined factor that influences the “end state”, it is important to determine (a) the principles upon which this new ambiguous factor operates, (b) whether these principles are generalizable and to what extent, and (c) whether this new factor is able to be employed for a stance - deeming it an ally - or not (making it a threat that continually arouses suspicion). To do all of this, the 6 uses questions designed to precisely clarify ambiguities.

This questioning externalization pattern is expressed to others in the form of troubleshoots, the 6’s communication style. Troubleshoots outline a problem that could sort the ambiguous entity into an ally or potential threat. More specifically, it often follows this process: (1) pre-emptive fear-based reaction channeled into a more applicable form given the circumstances (e.g. warmth, competition, etc.) → (2) providing formal details (appealing to the everyman) → (3) prompts for resolving ambiguity → (4) adopting a “stance” and viewing the interaction as a stance interaction. Abstract the terms, and you get 6’s general problem-solving process: (1) undergo fear-based reaction and convert reaction into something beneficial for the situation → (2) provide a formal/rational/scientific/reasonable backbone → (3) resolve ambiguities → (4) view a system as comprised of interacting “stances” → (5) secure a beneficial stance.

6’s internalization pattern is that of suspecting. Mental content is perceived but is held in a place of doubt or suspicion until the 6 has outlined a stance from which to deal with the information henceforth. This leads to highly categorized intellectual strata (think of sorting the sky full of stars into a sky of constellations), where each piece of information has a connotative label and a defined response to that label. You can imagine suspecting as the weaving of pessimistic connotation into an idea such that it becomes part of that idea’s denotative definition within a framework.

6s have a past orientation of the survivor. The survivor had to do whatever it took to survive / earn their place. The survivor had to “play their cards right”, always be on high alert, and make wise decisions to get here.

6s have a present orientation of the vigilant person. The vigilant person watches for emergent problems and takes a stance. Taking a stance allows them to unlock all the tools that stance has at its disposal, particularly source materials for arguments, access to allies’ resource pools, a way to assert themselves and take control of situations without experiencing condemnation (or at least only predictable condemnation), and a set of heuristics to provide another perspective on decisions.

6s have a future orientation of the wise better (as in someone who makes wise bets). The wise better puts stock in the best course of action and takes the necessary steps to ensure their bets pay off. Afflicted by a problem, the wise better begins to outline the potential causes and effects and analyzes contingencies. The wise better chooses whichever option has the best future trajectory for themselves and whomever or whatever they are defending, whilst mentally noting potential fallbacks and plan Bs.

6s benefit from disarming (the solution). 6s benefit from viewing life less as “survival of the fittest” where only the most defended win, and more like the world is a place where we can coexist peacefully and cooperate in the service of superordinate goals. 6s can benefit from looking to the optimist (exemplary character) when reorienting/recreating their past, present, and future selves. The optimist doesn’t consider themselves as having had to “survive”; they realize that just taking things as they came was enough. The optimist doesn’t have to keep watch, they can learn to rest and relax their minds, and enjoy the present moment. The optimist doesn’t need to make bets to secure their future, they simply keep their future open to positive outcomes and trust the process. Anything that happens was meant to happen.