NTs.

[jnpl0011]

First off, Macchiavelli is often very misunderstood. All Macchiavelli commentators that I am aware of agree that he was only attempting to write a piece on Realpolitik, and demonstrating reality, not showing how one should rule a government. He was only showing, as a matter of history, what seems to have worked. Thus, it also depends on your interpretation of the philosophy as to how you might type the individual.

That said, typing historical figures like this is problematic at best. You find attempts at this all over the internet, but everyone comes up with different answers, depending on which qualities they are concentrating on. So, there is absolutely no reason to be "appauled" at one's admission that there is not enough information to judge. And, people can act any number of ways in public and completeyl different in private. There is also the fact that preference strength can be very strong or very weak, making some people nearly impossible to type, much less people who we have relatively little personal information about.

Also, just because a person is known for displaying certain qualities, that is not strong argument for whether or not they are a certain type. We all have different qualities that are usually associated with certain mental functions, but just because one or two characteristics are well-known and acknowledged, doesn't mean they display other characteristics of that type. You are not being careful and critical enough about your generalizations.

For example, I am extremely absent-minded. But I always test as a strong J (INTJ) and never a P. This could also be because of what is actually causing this characteristic. It may often be one cause for one type and another cause for another type. I am usually absent-minded because I am thinking about all of the things that I need to accomplish on a given day, which most agree to be more of a J characteristic.

I am willing to bet real money that none of you know any of these people and are therefore in no position to type them except for a speculative kick. And even if you did know them, typing is still difficult unless you know someone particularly intimately.

[Zergling]

Originally Posted by Dark Razor

Saddam Hussein: ENTJ

Definitely not from what I've heard. Saddam hussein seems an easy typing of I or ESTP. Saddam Hussein seemed to be a bit wild in a lot of ways, making snap decisions a lot, changing things around, and such.

[nom4d]

Machiavelli could easily have been INTP.

Something that should be understood is that he didn't agree with what he wrote in the Prince as how government should be run, it was just what he saw.

If you read Discourses you will see what he actually advocated.

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by nom4d

Machiavelli could easily have been INTP.

Something that should be understood is that he didn't agree with what he wrote in the Prince as how government should be run, it was just what he saw.

If you read Discourses you will see what he actually advocated.

Machiavelli was more of a visionary than a problem solver. He was more concerned with politics and the social sciences like Ne would, whereas Ti would prefer to solve complex problems instead.

[rivercrow]

Originally Posted by Hustler

I'd be interested to see a list of people who have actually taken the MBTI and come out as NTs, and which type of NTs. It seems, however, that such information isn't so easy to come by. I find speculation on the types of historical figures in a thread like this, where people tend to type said figures with incomplete information and severe biases very uninteresting. Anyone know of any sites where you can find type info on famous people who have actually taken the MBTI?

I've never seen anything like this. My guess is that, unless the famous people are involved with Type and have a reason to disclose, a list like this won't exist. Type results are considered confidential information.

Type speculation can be entertaining to the extent that it's a game and not taken seriously. Beyond that, I find it tiresome and troubling.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

Machiavelli was more of a visionary than a problem solver. He was more concerned with politics and the social sciences like Ne would, whereas Ti would prefer to solve complex problems instead.

I think you're reading too much into that, and not weighing the impact of environment and society/culture enough.

From what I understand, he wrote The Prince mostly to gain/keep support from the ruling family of the time (Medici's?), so that he could survive and work on his own things. In terms of his extroversion tendencies, he really did not seem to possess those sorts of inclinations; he'd rather be by himself.

And (someone correct me if this is off), wasn't he involved with a monastery as well at least for awhile? He seemed to have reclusive tendencies.

I'm not sure if the Prince was just a description of the current state of politics; it also seemed to be an apt description of the "logical" way to run a country, if one is a sensing type and wants to maintain control and eradicate uncertainty. As an extension of "power," the methodology expressed seems sound and logical to me. However, it purposefully ignores the notion that giving up some control and passing it to those under you and winning their respect and love has the potential to create an even stronger, more cohesive society... unfortunately, one that cannot be controlled by the Powers That Be because everyone has choice to invest or not.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Fortunato

I'm not sure if the Prince was just a description of the current state of politics; it also seemed to be an apt description of the "logical" way to run a country, if one is a sensing type and wants to maintain control and eradicate uncertainty. As an extension of "power," the methodology expressed seems sound and logical to me. However, it purposefully ignores the notion that giving up some control and passing it to those under you and winning their respect and love has the potential to create an even stronger, more cohesive society... unfortunately, one that cannot be controlled by the Powers That Be because everyone has choice to invest or not.

I always read The Prince as an N attempting to frame it in a way that was acceptable in that period, and to an audience that wouldn't be interested in just theory.

However, the concept of allowing the weak to rule the strong wasn't really in existance the way it is now (well, arguably so, anyway). I don't believe it was purposely done - afterall, he argued for empowering new states by arming them to encourage loyalty and increase the strength of the conquered states. It was merely the concept of self-rule that was foreign at the time.

[nom4d]

According to the research I've done on Machiavelli he helped depose the ruler (Medici?) some years earlier and with the return of Medici he was tortured and exiled. The Prince seems equal part cynicism, insult, and handbook.

If you follow your history Machiavelli spent a great deal of time as the second of the most successful general of his day (whom was known for being rather bloody) and at one point was a military leader in Florence. The Prince appears to be a method of providing a gift of value into the hands of someone too stupid to properly comprehend a) its meaning and b) the insults contained within.

["?"]

INTPs- Woodrow Wilson and Henry Ford
ENTP- Nikola Tesla
ENTJ- MacArthur

[MllePop]

Justin Timberlake is an INTJ.

It's okay; you can tell me he's a "pop culture buffoon." I can come back at that