I would also add that in the books it seems to me like he makes judgements based on set external standards of 'how people do things' which makes me think Te. I also think Ni more than Ne because if I understand right (I'm not sure I do) Ne is more about expanding horizons to find all the possibilities, while Holmes is trying to narrow down the possibilities to the one true answer. ...I dunno...a thought there anyways.I definately feel like his character is interpreted differently in the many movies, shows, and books featuring him, or inspired by him. I've recently become rather obsessed by the BBC show (I can't wait till they release more episodes!!!) and have begun reading my heafty volume of "The Complete Sherlock Holmes" with the intent of analysing his character further in the orriginal context. I will also add the comment here that although I enjoyed the 2009 movie as an action movie with good costumes, I did not feel like I was watching Sherlock Holmes, at least not the Sherlock Holmes I had hitherto known and loved - it seemed to me the most deviant of the interpretations of his character that I have yet encountered. While I could see some of the ways they were dawing from the books, it felt like he lacked the depth I normally sense in the character, and was much more focused on the stimulation of physical activity and less on the mental side of things....almost like his insights were thrown in as an afterthought just because they were supposed to be there (I did like that Watson though).
From the myriad of impressions I have gotten of him over the years from The Great Mouse Detective in elementary, to reading The Hound of the Baskervilles in Highschool, to seeing the BBC show just this year (and many references, short stories, and other briefe encounters in between) I feel like the overal Feeling or Seterotype he fills is an Introverted NT. His reclusiveness and arrogance (that is his 'of course I'm right and aren't all these slow people tidiously dull' attitude), his lack of personal emotional involvement, his love of mental stimulation and the way he sinks into deep thought all fit this Stereotype.
S vs. N
The thing which brings into question the Intuitive trait is of course his detailed observation of things. However, it seems to me that this isn't necessarily at odds with being intuitive. Personally I can be very attuned to details - if I'm chosing to focus on something - Which of course, Holmes is doing when he is trying to solve a case. You may then bring up all his off-hand comments about people unrelated to the case at hand, but it seems to me like he puts these little personal cases to himself all the time when he encounters other people - he immediately makes an inner game of interpreting them/sizing them up, which has become seccond nature (other than this little challenge to figure them out, he seems to find other people of very little personal interest).
The feeling I get is that he makes note of details and takes in information for the purpose of feeding his mind-puzzle. He is driven to analyse, connect, and make sense of things because the mental stimulation or thrill is what makes him feel most alive. He doesn't seem to do things for the sake of experience, but for the sake of mental stimulation. He loves figuring things out and making conclusions, not so much the legg-work itself - the details he picks up are not so much captivating to him of themselves, but only for the sake of allowing his mind to make connections and conclusions from them. He doesn't just make a random note that that mud on your boot looks like the mud in a particular lane in the countryside as opposed to the mud found in the street outside - he immediately draws conclusions from that, jumping from the particular to the bigger picture where all the particulars about you join to tell a whole story.
I think perhaps that he has simply gone a step further and put in the effort and time to bring to consciousness many of the subconscious observations and connections an intuitive might normally make without really taking much note of them. How often do I stop to trace the minute steps that brought me to my hunches about people? Not very often, but I think if I were to take the time to think about it I could bring up specific little details which lead me to have that 'feeling' about something - in which case I would be able to move from a 'hunch' to a more specific conclusion. But I mostly don't stop to examine why I get the impresisons I do, and don't make enough note of those impressions to later compare things so that I might know for certain whether my hunch was right, or what specifically lead me to it. I think a good analogy could be the study of language. You take in sounds constantly and without thinking about it they group themselves into meanings in your head. But study phonetics and suddenly you're noticing with much more precision exactly how different people pronounce different words and sounds; study phonology and you'll begin to notice the relationships between sounds which before had seemed arbitrary to you even though your mind had all this time been subconsciously organizing sounds according to those rules; study syntax and you'll finally realise exactly why it 'feels' or 'sounds' better to organize a sentence one way rather than another.
Also, here's a thought - perhaps he's an HSP - hehe. At any rate, in my personal experience although I'm a strong iNtuitive, I have a very incredible nose. I really find it impossible to tune out this accute sense, and am constantly noticing smells that no one else noticed, and with a little extra thought and sniffing while wandering about can usually discover it's source - which is then filed away for future reference if I encounter that particular smell again. I find that the majority of people will at most say "it smells wierd in here" while I could go off on a detailed dissection of the different specific smells intermingling with eachother which are producing the particular offending aroma, and when and where I may have smelled something like it before. So - not impossible for an Intuitive to have accute senses - and particularly if they do not habitually try to tune them out, but rather take a moment to make some sense of them.
J vs. P
He also seems to have a drive for definite conclusions, and a propensity to state things as fact even if when pressed he would have to admit there is room for doubt or a slight posibility that something else may be the case - but his guesses or theories are rarely wrong and he prefers to think of them as facts rather than hanging back from coming to conclusions. He will however change his conclusions if he comes across new evidence which suggests something else, so he doesn't get too ridgidly stuck on an conclusion in spite of his preference for being certain.
He also seems to learn or study things with a master plan in mind, rather than willy nilly taking in all information. He wants to know specific things for specific reasons - to help him in solving cases. He consciously feeds this master-plan of being an excellent detective, and consciously avoids or discards whatever he deems unusefull towards that goal - thus the extreemly detailed knowlege in some areas and complete lack in others. Furthermore he makes a study of the things he picks up on, making comparrisons and testing and categorizing them so that they fit into a complicated system in his mind, they aren't just things he accutely senses, they become more like symbols, a separate language that he has taken the time to learn which when combined with eachother register almost like a sentence - full of meaning. To me this sounds much more....organized and pointed than my own approach to my interests as a P. Perhaps I am not a good example, but I would be much more prone to taking in a lot of random interesting things willy-nilly, pooping out and moving on too quickly to gain truely comprehensive knowlege on any one topic, and then simply applying whatever I Happened to know to my personal persuits and sort of seeing how things go, and questioning my own knowlege, conclusions, and capabilities to the very bitter end. So although he does things his own way in his own time, he at least doesn't strike me as a very strong P.
That's not N, that's Se-Ni working together.I think he is an N. He uses the evidence to ELIMINATE the possible explanations in his mind till only one remains. So he thinks up all the possibilities and then uses the evidence to find which one is the correct explanation.
I don't know too much MBTI though so could be wrong.
It's not intuitive type. It is dominant Ti at work. Sherlock is ISTP.For those of you who have read the books, his power of observation is superb, suggesting he's a sensor. However, his ability to draw conclusions from concepts suggests an intuitive type. I think he's an S, but how about you?
"The Blanched Soldier" and "The Lion's Mane," are from Holmes' POV, so there is some amount of his interpretation of his own thought process. Of the two, I've only read "The Blanched Soldier" so far but going by that, I am inclined to support at least IxTP (Ti dom, as you said). My understanding of NeSi v SeNi, however, is not great, such that I still am not entirely sure whether I should fall into S or N, much less anyone else.I think he's using Ti as his dominant function, which makes it a little harder to distinguish his secondary function (as Ti uses minuscule details). However, I think he appears to use Ne in order to consciously create possible links, rather than Se or Si. Although it's from Watson's POV, so the audience only ever gets Watson's interpretation of Holmes.