Yes, I've seen her given as an example of the type any number of times, despite the fact that as far as I can see she neither thought or acted like one (or a very strange one, anyway). I would say ISFJ fits better from what I know, or possibly ISFP as I'm not sure about the J/P. Definitely not an intuitive type, however, unless I was really missing something. This will be fun, bring it on!
One good reason why Diana was unlikely to be an N type:
Academically weak, she failed all her exams at school twice, passing no O levels, despite having had every educational advantage, apparently trying hard and being a fairly well adjusted and popular student. For the benefit of the non-British: her performance these days would put her roughly in the bottom 10% of students. Americans in particular: she wouldn't have graduated high school. Unless there are other factors to impede their performance, IN types (and intuitives generally) represent the more academically able portion of the population. INFPs are usually high achievers unless there is a good reason not to be. I don't see any in her case.
Several good reasons why she is likely to have been an S type:
Did well at and enjoyed sport compared to her poor academic performance, was excellent at swimming and wanted to be a professional ballet dancer until she grew too tall.
Was known for being very helpful to others with practical tasks while at school, won an award for helpfulness which was almost her only tangible acievement from her schooldays.
Chose practical, people-oriented jobs after leaving school and before marriage: Cook, nanny, kindergarten assistant.
Not all INFPs are smart, or maybe she just wasn't motivated enough. And the only type that I've seen her been professionally typed as is INFP.
I thought I heard the "professional typing" was from one of her new agey friends, actually, though I may be wrong on that. No, from what I've seen she appears to have been trying with her schoolwork and to have been at least a reasonably well motivated student, as I have said... it's not a case of intelligence, so much as cognitive focus.
Intuitive types tend to do better in traditional academic settings than sensing types not because they are more or less "intellligent", depending on how you define intelligence, but because their intuitive preference gives them a natural advantage, all other things being equal, in coming up with an appropriate answer to an unfamiliar question in a time limited situation. If she wasn't obviously disaffected nor had some kind of learning difficulty (I haven't seen any evidence of either) why would she not have been using her putative intuitive capacities to achieve at least a reasonable level of academic performance?
But I bet, DN, that you must be speaking from experience as an INFP. Please tell me that you were a sporty, energetically helpful academic dropout with a preference for practical tasks over intellectual interests, and I shall consider humbly retracting my argument!
I would Never pretend to be enough like jack flak to be able to say her type for sure but I don't know if I could call her stupid.. even academically. There is much evidence to suggest that was quite bright.. She often wrote her own speeches which shows a certain talent for writing and she had much politcal knowledge. Even academia is not confined to the grounds of a college!
... couldn't drag me away
Željko Ražnatovic: argus
Željko Ražnatovic: do you want heir's?
Željko Ražnatovic: to carry your genealogical code??