Sherlock Holmes - the final conclusion

[nearfantastica]

I have seen from various forums people's opinions on Holmes' type - in regards to the original books, of course. The most popular consensus for some baffling reason seems to be INTJ, with INTP and ISTP as the runner ups.

I maintain that he is an INTP. It's not even a matter of wanting him to be the same type as me: the evidence points in that direction. He is an INTP through and through.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/sherlock-holmes <--- Quotes here were what officially convinced me.

-“I am the most incurably lazy devil that ever stood in shoe leather.” (Blatant P dominance, also fitting rather nicely into the INTP description.)

-“I say, Watson,’ he whispered, ‘would you be afraid to sleep in the same room as a lunatic, a man with softening of the brain, an idiot whose mind has lost its grip?’
‘Not in the least,’ I answered in astonishment.
‘Ah, that’s lucky,’ he said, and not another word would he utter that night."(Suppressed Fe; a need for some form of acceptance is obvious.)

-“I am not the law, but I represent justice so far as my feeble powers go." (This lacks the confidence and arrogance an INTJ would have in their abilities, on top of more Fe.)

-“It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.” (He uses Si. Not only that, but the rest vouches for typical NP cynicism.

-“My mind," he said, "rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for mental exaltation. That is why I have chosen my own particular profession, or rather created it, for I am the only one in the world.” (...Need I say more?)

I'm just curious to see if anyone disputes this. I'm also interested to know why people are so fixated on the "possibilities" of INTJ/ISTP. Hopefully there's some Holmes enthusiasts on this forum

I'd also like to make the note that I want to type him purely for entertainment value/solving the puzzle with a plausible answer. People are always getting comments on threads similar to these like, "Don't take MBTI so seriously, blah blah blah."

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

There's a live thread on Reddit about this. Discusses various incarnations of the character, too, not just the one in the books.

General consensus there is that Sherlock Holmes in the books is an ISTP. I agree.
- Both Se and Si are good at remembering stuff, but Si handles subjective interpretations of facts whereas Se remembers facts themselves.
- ISTPs' Dominant Ti-Auxiliary Se makes for a very robust fact-analyzing apparatus that, unlike INTPs' Ti-Ne, sees no use in random trivia(for example, whether Earth goes around the Sun).
- Mycroft is a stereotypical INTP, and he provides a great contrast to Sherlock in the few stories where he appears. In Sherlock's own words:

I said that he was my superior in observation and deduction. If the art of the detective began and ended in reasoning from an armchair, my brother would be the greatest criminal agent that ever lived. But he has no ambition and no energy. He will not even go out of his way to verify his own solutions, and would rather be considered wrong than take the trouble to prove himself right.

 

[nearfantastica]

I agree that Mycroft is an INTP...but Sherlock seems far too theoretical to be a sensor. His crime solving thrives on theory as well as observation. The way I see it, rather than noticing everything, he focuses himself by asking the right questions so that he knows what to specifically look for (which surely comes off as Se). This is a Ti-Si process, the information gathering. And then with the facts at hand, he creates theories (Ne) that match all of them. As he goes on, he tests his hypotheses and rules out all those that don't match all of the facts, leaving with him, however improbable, the truth.

Nonetheless I totally get the ISTP argument. I suppose his recreational usage of drugs could also seem very Se, but INTPs are just as prone to that. Not to mention he sits around doing absolutely nothing for long periods of time in a very un-ISTP manner. He waits for that which is intriguing to come to him, rather than going in search of it.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

I agree that Mycroft is an INTP...but Sherlock seems far too theoretical to be a sensor. His crime solving thrives on theory as well as observation. The way I see it, rather than noticing everything, he focuses himself by asking the right questions so that he knows what to specifically look for (which surely comes off as Se). This is a Ti-Si process, the information gathering. And then with the facts at hand, he creates theories (Ne) that match all of them. As he goes on, he tests his hypotheses and rules out all those that don't match all of the facts, leaving with him, however improbable, the truth.

1) Sherlock can't be an INTP in the books, he's fundamentally different from Mycroft and it's blindingly obvious that they have different Auxiliary functions. They do different kinds of work, behave differently, see people differently. They're not the same type;
2) INTPs are pretty bad at remembering exact facts about things: Si makes us good at remembering what details *mean*, not what they *are*. Sherlock notices precise details about things he sees and remembers them;
3) Creating theories is the forte of Ni, not Ne. Ne develops ideas from one to many, shows you the many possible futures and many possible pasts; Ni derives one idea from a multitude of them, shows you the one most likely future and past. Thus, the lightning-quick deduction as Doyle's Sherlock exhibits it is Ni.

 

[nearfantastica]

You're slowly changing my mind, haha. But what you're telling me is that Sherlock, as an apparent ISTP, uses his tertiary function (Ni) with the ease and grace of a dominant function? I mean, I regularly use Si, but not nearly as much as he depends on Ni...

 

[Words]

He's easily an INFJ. I'm too lazy to elaborate. But basically, Ni-Ti + anal retentive uncontrollable Se. I'm Ni-Ti INFJ myself. We're not all emotional, cheerful, idealistic or dogmatic people. Some are more laidback and antisocial or lonely, kind of like the INTP. Ni with Fe means a very weird Fe that doesn't fit with most of society.

 

[Kuu]

Why do people insist on trying to type fictional characters?

 

[Words]

Its fun for me. Writers usually construct characters on their image. I think writers are also able to create characters that are consistent or that parallel reality, although in a more extreme way where they highlight certain characteristics.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Common knowledge, but Doyle based Holmes off one of his teachers, or at least a habit that teacher had. Said teacher could have been infj, I guess. Depending on how much he actually based the character off his perception of said teacher. I'm sure he got a bit more creative later on, but how much would that matter in accordance with Holmes's type. Watson is based off the author himself, but I'm not sure how many of the traits or reactions the character has that would be accurate to the author's... Not sure if he adapted his background and a few habits into the character or made sure the char was in as much accordance to himself as possible.

It seems like Holmes could be istp, but sometimes he doesn't display certain stereotypes associated with that type, so he could be a weird one or maybe intp, or again maybe typing fictional characters is actually useless. Ne&Si is a process, I would say taking stuff in, maybe including various possibilities, and you'd have a pool via Si that can be used whenever. Seems like they can be somewhat broad in definition. Realized it a while back shortly after, Se&Ni is also a process. It would be taking stuff in "as it is", apparently or to whatever extent, but then they'd have access to Ni to examine possibilities. It can be seen how they are similar but kinda different, and, as noted before, how stp would then come to "epiphanies" regarding certain things not as frequent as an aux N user...

But, Holmes and his brother could both probably be intp. Mycroft could be more experienced or something as Sherlock is supposedly younger. Maybe different archetypes which could be apparent for some odd amount of time. Or, it could be more likely that intp siblings would both grow into something similar where they'd be interested in the same profession. Maybe sibling rivalry did this difference to them. Or one could be istp the other intp. Or, typing fictional characters is without merit for one reason or another. Or hell, he could apparently be a weird manifestation of infj. Maybe that option can be considered briefly then discarded if it offends the breadth of typing literature.

 

[Duxwing]

MBTI typing Holmes is futile because it, however accurate, was intended for humans, among which Holmes is not. Instead may have been an imaginary fulfillment the contemporary intellectual ideal: a cold empiricist.

-Duxwing

 

[Words]

The reason why humans love narratives(stories, movies, books, plays, videogames, TV series etc.) so much, particularly iNtuitives, is because narratives provide patterns of reality. MBTI and types is as much of a presenter of patterns as with a book and its characters. There's this thing called suspension of disbelief but the one aspect of reality that we as humans tend to be adamant about is consistency in the social dynamics and the consistency of characters. If the social pattern of the story does not fit with human reality, then the story becomes less interesting. Imagine a character that swings around from INTP to ESFJ to ENFP etc. If something is not "human enough" or if it is not "humanized" in a way, its not interesting. The only difference between MBTI and a story is that MBTI is a more abstract story.

an imaginary fulfillment the contemporary intellectual ideal: a cold empiricist.

How much of an imaginary figure is the "cold empiricist"? Do you think such a person does not exist? I think a person like that can exist, which leads me to questioning, "what kind of personality would be able to adopt such an odd persona?" I would argue that its the NiFeTiSe or NiTe, but he seems way too Ti.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

You can't find correct personality type of fiction character, because you can create something, that don't fit to the theory.

 

[Spirit]

While I really enjoy the Character Sherlock Homes, It is not wise to obsess on which Juigan type he could be. Writers can "cheat" and take the "best of two types and the "worst" from an opposing type, just to make it interesting.

Holmes has a little ISTP with a dash of INTJ and da lump of INFJ


Besides, Holmes was created to be the ultimate detective.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Hes a typical ISTP. I have a ISTP brother I know. My brother could notice a banknote in a muddy ditch. Hes also lazy and also very cynical and has lots of traits that Sherlock has. If it were not for long years of drinking he would also have such sharp mind as Sherlock. Also people need to realize that sensors can have theories too. DUH!!! Just because someone is a sensor does not mean they are brainwashed. Plus Sherlock is all action and thinks on his feet while his P connects information and ideas. Note the tertiary introvert intuition in ISTP. Just enough to be ISTP detective with robust sensing that is necessary to decrypt data at hand.

On the other hand ISTP tend to be dismissive of theories that are not based off pure facts which is exactly what Sherlock does. INTP would easily run off to various possibilties and theories right in the beginning while Sherlock does it in reverse order. First the facts then the theory.

Also to quote description

His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge.
Of contemporary literature, philosophy and
politics he appeared to know next to nothing.

“No data yet,” he answered. “It is a capital mistake
to theorize before you have all the evidence.
It biases the judgment.”

 

[Rook]

I see Holmes as an intp. He is introverted, prefers brains over brawn, is akward in social situations, has a wide range of interests, became a recluse later in life, and does not conform to the rigours of police law. He is also amused by murder instead of appaled, he sees it as a challenge instead of just a moral obligation. His rooms are disordelry, he stays up at nights, has an undefined schedule, and would ignore food on his plate if he is intellectually stimulated. He also uses opium, and smokes tobacco to stimulate the intelllect.

Then again he can easily manipulate people and notices very fine details.

I see Holmes as an intp becuase I admire his mental faculties, but in the end he can not be assigned a definite type, as he has overdeveloped faculties from many personality types.
He is also a fictional potrayal, where he does not conform to everyday psychological terms.
He also constantly changes through the myriad of media in which he is potrayed.

In the end, see him as you wish to see him, and enjoy his adventures.

 

[scorpiomover]

I'm also interested to know why people are so fixated on the "possibilities" of INTJ/ISTP. Hopefully there's some Holmes enthusiasts on this forum

1) The thesis:

Keirsey gave all the types positive-sounding nicknames. He nicknamed the INTJ, "the Mastermind", because INTJs usually try to be the the best among their peers, and attempt to do so by continually attempting to outwit those who challenge them.

In addition, those whose main career is to solve problems, are today called scientists, which is also another moniker given to INTJs.

Sherlock Holmes seems to solve every problem set to him, no matter how difficult, and seems to defeat all of the criminals he sets out to expose and capture. He thus shows himself to be an excellent example of a scientific mastermind. He is "the world's greatest detective".

He is what INTJs strive for, and believe themselves to have already achieved. Thus, by observing his external qualities using Te, many INTJs conclude he must be "one of us".

2) The antithesis:

Sherlock mentions many of the principles he relies upon, to solve the crimes he works on. He focusses primarily on logical deduction, which is the natural focus of INTPs.

Thus, by observing his internal cognitive approach using Ti, many INTPs conclude he must be "one of us".

3) The conflict:

Sherlock thinks the way that INTPs seem to think. But, were INTPs to be like Sherlock, they too would have made similar achievements. But most say they have achieved little in life, and appear to have fallen far short of his achievements.

4) The synthesis:

ISTPs also think primarily using Ti, and so also primarily solve problems using Ti. However, they also have Ni & Se like INTJs, and usually are pretty successful at what they set out to achieve. So the conflict could be resolved if Sherlock was an ISTP.

5) A differential diagnosis:

Sherlock Holmes differs significantly from modern scientists and modern detectives, in one very important way. Modern science relies on what is often called "big science", i.e. that to solve problems and test theories, one must do so in an expensive lab with special equipment that was developed by others and paid for by others. The modern scientist has subordinates to build and carry out his experiments for him.

In this way, the modern scientist is the "designer", and the overseer. The equipment and experiments used to test his plans and theories, are perfomed by others who are there to serve him. He also writes up the story of his adventures in science, and publishes them.

However, most of the experiments that Sherlock uses, are built and carried out by himself. He has no subordinates in this way. Even his most faithful subordinate James Watson, acts as company for Sherlock, a sounding-board for his ideas, to carry a gun in case there is such need, to administer medical treatment if needed, and to record Sherlock's adventures. It is Watson who writes up Sherlock's adventures. It is Watson who ensures they are published.

Sherlock's approach is thus closer to the old idea of a scientist, someone like Newton or Boyle, who would design, build and carry out their experiments themselves, and who generally were more happy to figure truth out for themselves, but were not as bothered about writing about their achievements in a famous journal. What matters to Sherlock, is solving the case. Fame and achievement are not important to Sherlock. His fame comes not because of himself, but because of Watson, and those he has helped, who feel so grateful at his help, that they want to see Sherlock be recognised by the world for his achievements.

Were someone like Sherlock around today, he wouldn't be allowed to conduct the kinds of experiments he does. Sherlock often mixes dangerous chemicals in his home, where others reside. Modern concerns for Health & Safety would require that he conducts his experiments in a lab, under the supervision of others. However, labs are expensive places where many scientists want to do experiments. He wouldn't be allowed to conduct any experiment he felt like. He would have to do the experiments that his supervisor told him to do.

Moreover, he's not employed by the forensics deparment of his local police department. Today, he would be classed as an amateur detective. He wouldn't be allowed to visit a crime scene, in case he contaminated the evidence. He also wouldn't be allowed to follow a criminal today, in case the criminal spots him, and then realises that the police might be on to him.

So there is no way on Earth that we'd ever let anyone do what Sherlock does. He'd be forced to sit at home and wonder about such things by himself. He'd be in a similar position to an INTP.

6) A resolution:

INTJs want to use scientific reasoning to be successful at their goals. They also want to have complete autonomy in their work, which they are usually denied. Sherlock is almost all that which they want to be, and what they believe they could be, if someone would let them.

INTPs think like Sherlock. But they are not given the chance to put such efforts into reality most of the time. So, they go into other fields like programming where people still let them experiment as much as they like, and where they can solve every problem set them, or they take a simpler job where they are free to think about such things as much as they want.

The conflict says much more about our society's values, than anything else. Sherlock is a symbol of what things were like in bygone ages, when the individual was given the freedom and autonomy to do as he wished, because society did not protect us from ourselves nearly as much as it does today.