Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
ESFJ
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
Sherlock always....always makes a point of noticing the most minute details about a person's body language, their physical appearence and mannerisms.

It's always about noticing what is there, that others could notice but dont. As a rule this isn't exclusive to dominant sensors, but it does seem indicative of one.

To me it seems he uses a thinking function to whittle down what he has picked up in terms of evidence and then uses it to formulate the most sensible answer.

I would tentatively say he might be a Si dom of some kind, (this is from the books), most likely ISTJ.

Of course he is at the mercy of Conan Doyle's writing so we can never be truely sure.

Actually thinking about it, he could be an ISTP. Noticing things with Se, analysing them with Ti and cross referencing this with potential possibilities through tertiary Ni.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
i have to agree with Worried. ISTP or ISTJ. he is much to oriented towards the "here and now" to have N higher in his make-up, although i could see an argument for an aux-N who's tertiary Si, or Se is well developed--T definitely... so far it's: ISTP, ISTJ, ENTJ, ESTJ, or INTP. i've never read any of the books and have never been "into" Holmes, so...?

ISTJ's are supposed to be "highest" in deductive logic, which is Holmes M.O., right? so, maybe an ISTJ who had a good "unconscious" use of his Ne (or better yet, a good use of Ne that had a strong Si-foundation), or he was an ISTP who really made use of his perception aux.'s.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
I'm no typing expert, but my thought is that he uses clues as they are presented so efficiently that his S nature gives off the impression of an N one (to assume Ns think intuitively and Ss only look at what's been presented). The thing that separates him from other sensors is that he just notices MORE. A lot more.


Probably some typism in there, but the hell with it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,008 Posts
@Strider95

No, that sounds more like a Ti function at work to me.

@Worriedfunction

I agree full-heartedly with everything you just said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worriedfunction

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,785 Posts
I could see him as an S, but usually he's typed as INTP or INTJ.
I think probably an S because of the details, being focused on that one task, putting the pieces together (not throwing them together, but carefully placing them and turning them to fit). Se would notice more around him, so probably ISTP, but could be an ISTJ (very methodical).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,350 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
INFP 4w5 sp
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
my vote is INTJ, but I can see the S argument. I felt like in the first story, or perhaps the first few, he was presented a little differently than what he came to be like in most of them.

I'll quote myself from another thread about this so I don't have to re-type my thoughts. : http://personalitycafe.com/guess-type/11975-sherlock-holmes-dr-john-watson.html

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).

INT-? Stereotype
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,785 Posts
I'd wonder on his type compared to other detectives.
Poirot is very different, so what's his type? (very personable, detailed, friendly but focused, step by step logic etc).
 

·
MOTM July 2010
Joined
·
4,596 Posts
He presents Se at its best. ISTP.

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.
That's not N, that's Se-Ni working together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,849 Posts
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?
It's not intuitive type. It is dominant Ti at work. Sherlock is ISTP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
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.
"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.

From "The Blanched Solder," an explanation of how Holmes solved the case:
 
"That process," said I, "starts upon the supposition that when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. It may well be that several explanations remain, in which case one tries test after test until one or other of them has a convincing amount of support. We will now apply this principle to the case in point. As it was first presented to me, there were three possible explanations of the seclusion or incarceration of this gentleman in an outhouse of his father's mansion. There was the explanation that he was in hiding for a crime, or that he was mad and that they wished to avoid an asylum, or that he had some disease which caused his segregation. I could think of no other adequate solutions. These, then, had to be sifted and balanced against each other.

"The criminal solution would not bear inspection. No unsolved crime had been reported from that district. I was sure of that. If it were some crime not yet discovered, then clearly it would be to the interest of the family to get rid of the delinquent and send him abroad rather than keep him concealed at home. I could see no explanation for such a line of conduct.

"Insanity was more plausible. The presence of the second person in the outhouse suggested a keeper. The fact that he locked the door when he came out strengthened the supposition and gave the idea of constraint. On the other hand, this constraint could not be severe or the young man could not have got loose and come down to have a look at his friend. You will remember, Mr. Dodd, that I felt round for points, asking you, for example, about the paper which Mr. Kent was reading. Had it been the Lancet or the British Medical Journal it would have helped me. It is not illegal, however, to keep a lunatic upon private premises so long as there is a qualified person in attendance and that the authorities have been duly notified. Why, then, all this desperate desire for secrecy? Once again I could not get the theory to fit the facts.

"There remained the third possibility, into which, rare and unlikely as it was, everything seemed to fit. Leprosy is not uncommon in South Africa. By some extraordinary chance this youth might have contracted it. His people would be placed in a very dreadful position, since they would desire to save him from segregation. Great secrecy would be needed to prevent rumours from getting about and subsequent interference by the authorities. A devoted medical man, if sufficiently paid, would easily be found to take charge of the sufferer. There would be no reason why the latter should not be allowed freedom after dark. Bleaching of the skin is a common result of the disease. The case was a strong one -- so strong that I determined to act as if it were actually proved. When on arriving here I noticed that Ralph, who carries out the meals, had gloves which are impregnated with disinfectants, my last doubts were removed. A single word showed you, sir, that your secret was discovered, and if I wrote rather than said it, it was to prove to you that my discretion was to be trusted."


I think I see NeSi in that, but I could easily be misunderstanding the functions. I can see both the N and S sides of the debate, though.

I also don't deny that I could be biased - my admiration of Holmes as a character and the fact that I tend to relate to him could have skewed my perception, causing me to type him similarly to myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,620 Posts
It's been a while since I've read the books, but the movie version with Robert Downey Jr. is definitely ISTP. "My blessing and my curse is that I notice *everything*." Definitely Se at work, there.

Book version *might* be an INTP. He's definitely using Ti, but.... Main thing is that an INTP wouldn't notice everything, but certain important things would jump out of the environment at them, thanks to Ne. So, an INTP notices that cute little squirrel over there being all cute, but runs right into the lamppost. Once an INTP does get a scent though... well, one INFJ on this forum has called INTPs "bloodhounds."

But boxing, etc.? Yeah, that's ISTP.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top