Harry Potter and MBTI

[Aleksei]

And "seeing through the lens of the literal" is not what it means to be a person who prefers sensing.

Even if it were, that alone would not be enough to make me think INTJ over ISTJ for Snape. It seems like you're reaching.

No I'm not. Ni is not foresight in and of itself, but rather a focus on the symbolic, mysterious and archetypal which leads to the ability to solve problems by looking at them from a slightly different perspective. This causes powerful visions of change, which refined by Je can somewhat resemble foresight. Snape may, indeed, not be shown as a strategist usually (our outlook of him is limited, as Coriolis pointed out), but the symbolical focus is obviously there.

I'm afraid your own perspective might be messing with you here. You're an ISTP, which means that you have a tertiary Ni function. ISTJs are Ne-inferior, which means if they use abstract language, it's Ne rather than Ni. Snape doesn't show an inkling of Ne. Ne looks more like this:

I automatically turned and observed Asahina Mikuru: she has a small body and a face that could
easily be mistaken for an elementary school student. Her brown hair is slightly curly, hanging
over her back. Her pair of large puppy dog eyes give out a "please protect me" aura. Her halfopened
lips reveal a row of white ivory-like teeth that, coupled with her small face, create a
perfect combination. If she were given a magic wand with a shiny jewel, she might even
transform into a little fairy!

 

[Orangey]

No I'm not. Ni is not foresight in and of itself, but rather a focus on the symbolic, mysterious and archetypal which leads to the ability to solve problems by looking at them from a slightly different perspective. This causes powerful visions of change, which refined by Je can somewhat resemble foresight. Snape may, indeed, not be shown as a strategist usually (our outlook of him is limited, as Coriolis pointed out), but the symbolical focus is obviously there.

I'm afraid your own perspective might be messing with you here. You're an ISTP, which means that you have a tertiary Ni function. ISTJs are Ne-inferior, which means if they use abstract language, it's Ne rather than Ni. Snape doesn't show an inkling of Ne. Ne looks more like this:

Look, in the first place, it's ridiculous to presume that your functional interpretation of a specific statement or behavior is correct. In the second, even if your interpretation was correct, it's ridiculous to generalize from these single instances to an entire personality type.

Third, it's ridiculous to think that only certain types would employ the use of devices in order to achieve a certain rhetorical effect.

 

[Aleksei]

Look, in the first place, it's ridiculous to presume that your functional interpretation of a specific statement or behavior is correct.

I'm arrogant enough to disagree with this, but just to avoid a pointless argument let's go straight to the source.

Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!” The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform. We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal. It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions.

Bolded = Snape.

In the second, even if your interpretation was correct, it's ridiculous to generalize from these single instances to an entire personality type.

It's even more ridiculous to generalize a whole other personality type in absentia of any telling signs of it. He shows some Ni. He shows basically no Si. Some > none. QED.

Third, it's ridiculous to think that only certain types would employ the use of devices in order to achieve a certain rhetorical effect.

Being of a certain type means, more often than not, having a preference for the normal functioning of that type. Focus on the archetypal or mysterious is not part of the normal functioning of Si-Te-Fi-Ne (or for that matter any Ne/Si type, including higher-Ne types). I could be wrong about this, but these are basically the only context clues we have to work with -- which is important given that we're talking about a fictional character, ie. not one that exists in reality and has a personality apart from what was written about it. Show me signs of Snape using Si, and I might lay off.

 

[Orangey]

I'm arrogant enough to disagree with this, but just to avoid a pointless argument let's go straight to the source.

:rolli: Not cute.

Bolded = Snape.

How? We don't know how he went about solving problems.

It's even more ridiculous to generalize a whole other personality type in absentia of any telling signs of it. He shows some Ni. He shows basically no Si. Some > none. QED.

Fine. I don't like trying to isolate functions when I type other people (because it's too indirect and involves too much interpretation, which is not concrete; I prefer to go by overall behavior and attitude), but if you want Si, I can give it to you.

Introverted Sensing often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones. The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences, and we register a similarity or a difference—for example, noticing that some food doesn’t taste the same or is saltier than it usually is. Introverted Sensing is also operating when we see someone who reminds us of someone else. Sometimes a feeling associated with the recalled image comes into our awareness along with the information itself. Then the image can be so strong, our body responds as if reliving the experience.

Snape was consistently nasty to Harry because his appearance and some aspects of his demeanor reminded him of James Potter, a person from Snape's past that he very much reviled. On multiple occasions he even mentions this explicitly, telling Harry that he was "arrogant" like his father.

Seeing Harry also called up painful memories from Snape's past relationship with Lily Potter, which simultaneously made him miserable (which he took out on Harry) and reminded him of the purpose of his mission with Dumbledore. Which kinda seems a lot like:

The process also involves reviewing the past to draw on the lessons of history, hindsight, and experience. With introverted Sensing, there is often great attention to detail and getting a clear picture of goals and objectives and what is to happen.

Then, finally, there is Snape's rigid enforecement of rules and policies. This is a very consistent aspect of his character throughout the books. Recall, for instance, when Snape was outraged that Harry and Ron got off so lightly after they crashed the car into the whomping willow. Which seems like:

There can be a oneness with ageless customs that help sustain civilization and culture and protect what is known and long-lasting, even while what is reliable changes.

Being of a certain type means, more often than not, having a preference for the normal functioning of that type. Focus on the archetypal or mysterious is not part of the normal functioning of Si-Te-Fi-Ne (or for that matter any Ne/Si type, including higher-Ne types). I could be wrong about this, but these are basically the only context clues we have to work with -- which is important given that we're talking about a fictional character, ie. not one that exists in reality and has a personality apart from what was written about it. Show me signs of Snape using Si, and I might lay off.

I see none of this "focus on the archtypal" in Snape. All you have to go by is a couple of lame quotes where he's giving a speech that was obviously embellished in order to have an effect on the students.

I've given you some examples of where I directly see signs of Si. However, I still maintain that this way of typing is stupid. Overall, considering Snape's behavior and demeanor, I have more reasons to think that he's ISTJ than INTJ. And pointing out that he used some flowery language on one occasion does nothing to make me think otherwise.

 

[Aleksei]

Alright, let's do it your way. Your points are minor and ultimately inconsequential, because they ignore the fact that Snape was abstract rather than concrete, which is the very definition of Intuition. He was a highly theoretical thinker rather than factual, which means he was either an N or had a strong N function -- ISTJs are neither (their N function is inferior). Further, some of that is just flat wrong; namely this:

Seeing Harry also called up painful memories from Snape's past relationship with Lily Potter, which simultaneously made him miserable (which he took out on Harry) and reminded him of the purpose of his mission with Dumbledore.

Yes, it's painful because he alienated her. INTJs do not forget the past, nor do any types - let alone Fi types during events that deeply hurt them and in their view ruined their lives. Snape, far from being an Si-dominant, was simply an Enneagram Four.

 

[Orangey]

Alright, let's do it your way. Your points are minor and ultimately inconsequential, because they ignore the fact that Snape was abstract rather than concrete, which is the very definition of Intuition. He was a highly theoretical thinker rather than factual, which means he was either an N or had a strong N function -- ISTJs are neither (their N function is inferior). Further, some of that is just flat wrong; namely this:

How was he a highly theoretical rather than abstract thinker? You've done nothing but just assert this. And one example of what you claim to be "abstract" language use is not enough to say that he is an abstract thinker.

Yes, it's painful because he alienated her. INTJs do not forget the past, nor do any types - let alone Fi types during events that deeply hurt them and in their view ruined their lives. Snape, far from being an Si-dominant, was simply an Enneagram Four.

It sounds like Si-Fi to me.

 

[Coriolis]

Do you really think this matters? A lot of fictional characters resonate with me (that's often the point of writing appealing characters), but that is no proof that they're even anywhere near my same type. Often they are not at all.

Yes, it matters because it is calibrated by direct experience. I realized, after learning about type theory, that the characters that do resonate with me are almost always of my same type. I often wondered why I so seldom had a favorite character in a book or movie, or what those I did have held in common (they seemed so different). I am not associating them with my type because of my reaction to them; other people tend to assign them that type as well. Analysis of their character and motivation bears this out. Yes, this is hardly scientific, perhaps just a manifestation of my own Ni.

Pray tell, how does N innovation differ from S innovation?

To be honest, the STJs and STPs I know (I know few SFs) don't generally innovate. They implement, categorize, analyze, document, and preserve. Perhaps my ST associates are an odd bunch, but this is what they really do. When they do innovate, it is more in a brainstorming way: Ne-style, as Aleksei explained. Ni innovation is more synthetic than associative. Everyone uses every function, at least to some degree, so STs can certainly do some of this too. It is just uncommon and hard to pick up on. As for persuasion techniques, the STs I know do not use much abstract language. They tend to be "just the facts", finding facts more persuasive than Ni symbolic insights, something I keep in mind when dealing with my ESTJ boss. He appreciates my insights because I back them up with plenty of facts.

A comparison might help. Aleksei quoted, "Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level." Are you familiar with Victor Hugo's Les Miserables and the character Javert? I see him as ISTJ. He is the policeman who hunts escaped convict Jean Valjean for almost two decades, only to have Valjean set Javert free when he could have killed him. Javert cannot reconcile the contradiction between his established perspective of Valjean as a criminal, and the goodness Valjean ultimately demonstrates toward him, and commits suicide. Snape, on the other hand, when forced to confront the contradiction between his Death Eater life and his feelings for Lily, experiences an entire paradigm shift, first becoming a spy, and then committing to protect Harry.

All my remarks notwithstanding, I would not completely dismiss the idea that Snape is ISTJ. I have read creditable arguments for him being INFJ as well. I just do not agree, and when it comes to literary analysis, opinions often differ. I would expect my view to encounter the same consideration.

 

[mrcockburn]

You'd make a good Slytherin...

I suppose my avatar possessed you to say that.

I just love the look on her face, it makes me every time I look at it.

 

[Orangey]

Yes, it matters because it is calibrated by direct experience. I realized, after learning about type theory, that the characters that do resonate with me are almost always of my same type. I often wondered why I so seldom had a favorite character in a book or movie, or what those I did have held in common (they seemed so different). I am not associating them with my type because of my reaction to them; other people tend to assign them that type as well. Analysis of their character and motivation bears this out. Yes, this is hardly scientific, perhaps just a manifestation of my own Ni.

I don't care to hear about your Ni. As none of us know you or your type outside of what you say, all we can do is listen and nod when you say something like this. It adds nothing to the conversation one way or the other. I just want to say "that's nice, now can we talk about something more productive (and, I daresay, interesting) than how well you relate personally to the character?"

To be honest, the STJs and STPs I know (I know few SFs) don't generally innovate.

Holy shit. Who cares about the STJs and STPs that you know? In the first place we don't know that they're STJs or STPs, since the only thing we have to go by is what you say, and in the second place, even if they are the types you say, we can't generalize their behavior to their type.

They implement, categorize, analyze, document, and preserve. Perhaps my ST associates are an odd bunch, but this is what they really do. When they do innovate, it is more in a brainstorming way: Ne-style, as Aleksei explained. Ni innovation is more synthetic than associative. Everyone uses every function, at least to some degree, so STs can certainly do some of this too. It is just uncommon and hard to pick up on. As for persuasion techniques, the STs I know do not use much abstract language. They tend to be "just the facts", finding facts more persuasive than Ni symbolic insights, something I keep in mind when dealing with my ESTJ boss. He appreciates my insights because I back them up with plenty of facts.

You can't be serious. Anybody has the capacity for innovation. And anybody can use persuasion techniques if they feel that the situation calls for it. I didn't see Snape going around and speaking in a highly abstract or philosophical way most of the time. The only example is when he was embellishing potions for the students. I took that as his way of trying to weed out or intimidate students who were less serious.

A comparison might help. Aleksei quoted, "Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level." Are you familiar with Victor Hugo's Les Miserables and the character Javert? I see him as ISTJ. He is the policeman who hunts escaped convict Jean Valjean for almost two decades, only to have Valjean set Javert free when he could have killed him. Javert cannot reconcile the contradiction between his established perspective of Valjean as a criminal, and the goodness Valjean ultimately demonstrates toward him, and commits suicide. Snape, on the other hand, when forced to confront the contradiction between his Death Eater life and his feelings for Lily, experiences an entire paradigm shift, first becoming a spy, and then committing to protect Harry.

He was loyal to Lily above all else. His feelings for her were longstanding, and when push came to shove, he was more than ready to abandon his new Death Eater identity in order to protect his old love.

All my remarks notwithstanding, I would not completely dismiss the idea that Snape is ISTJ. I have read creditable arguments for him being INFJ as well. I just do not agree, and when it comes to literary analysis, opinions often differ. I would expect my view to encounter the same consideration.

Thanks Captain Obvious! I didn't realize that different people have different opinions! My worldview has been entirely upheaved!

I've considered your "argument" (such that it is) and am giving you my reasons as to why I think it's wrong. Or isn't that enough consideration for you?

 

[TheDude72727]

Hmm... it seems some people are really dead set on Snape being an INTJ.

This is why functional analyses aren't very useful. Too many character actions, or spoken words can be interpreted in too many ways, functionally.

This, functional ambiguity, gives people free reign to type whomever as whatever type they wish.

Really, it makes for awful conversation. Egregiously stupid statements never cease to appear in threads like these.

 

[mrcockburn]

I slept with Snape. He's an ESFP.

Ok ok, in all "siriusness" (sorry couldn't resist), I'd say that he's a JADED INFP who wishes he was a T.

 

[tortoise]

If I were a teenager at Hogwarts I would want Luna to be my girlfriend.

 

[Coriolis]

I don't care to hear about your Ni.

[incorrect assumptions, dismissals out-of-hand, etc. etc.]

I've considered your "argument" (such that it is) and am giving you my reasons as to why I think it's wrong. Or isn't that enough consideration for you?

How disappointingly predictable. Were that what you were doing, it would, indeed, be enough.

Hmm... it seems some people are really dead set on Snape being an INTJ.

This is why functional analyses aren't very useful. Too many character actions, or spoken words can be interpreted in too many ways, functionally.

This, functional ambiguity, gives people free reign to type whomever as whatever type they wish.

Really, it makes for awful conversation. Egregiously stupid statements never cease to appear in threads like these.

Yes, this is a problem, especially with characters who aren't even real. On the other hand, if the author presents the character's internal thoughts (which doesn't really happen with Snape), it can make typing easier, provided the character is internally consistent.

I enjoy the HP universe, and enjoy debates about motivations, unshown actions, hypotheticals, etc. Speculating about character type is just one way to approach this. There's no "right answer", but comparing reasons, details, and insights can add to one's understanding of the character, and for fans, can be just plain fun. To each his own.

 

[GetOffMyBiscuits]

To put it simply, Snape felt (or seemed) like an annoying micro manager to me. So I'm just gonna toss him into the ISTJ category instead of the INTJ one.

 

[rowingineden]

Cauldrons?

Hey, would you like to drink from my Goblet of Fire?
Hey, would you like to let your basilisk loose in my Chamber of Secrets?
Uh... yeah. I can come up with these all day. I'm a geek. A filthy damn geek.

 

[Little Linguist]

I'm not an expert, but am I the only one who thinks Harry Potter, Twilight, and all these other magical whatever you wanna call it - are like S central? I mean there are hardly ANY Ns at all in EITHER series, are there?

Just because a dude is weird, different, or ostracized doesn't make him an N.

I mean, I read these books and think: "Wow, do people really think/do/act like that?" I don't mean fly on broomsticks or bite people. I mean the thought patterns.

For example, I don't see ANY character in Harry Potter that I can relate to, except Hermione when I was younger and a teenager. But I wasn't developed then, either. I think I was playing around with the functions. Which makes me think she's an ISTJ.

 

[Aleksei]

I'm not an expert, but am I the only one who thinks Harry Potter, Twilight, and all these other magical whatever you wanna call it - are like S central? I mean there are hardly ANY Ns at all in EITHER series, are there?

There are a few... The faggoty vampire protagonist is an N, and there are a fairly large number of INTJs and ENTPs in HP. They're hardly the majority in either series though.

Hermione is indeed ISTJ.

 

[redacted]

Wow some serious N bias coming out on this thread.

Just to say -- my coworker (an ISTJ) is the person with by far the most ideas about how to increase efficiency at my bagel shop (I may have more ideas than she does, but mine are mostly useless). Yes, it's food service -- but she doesn't care whatsoever about the rules (neither does my other ISTJ friend). All she cares about is "will this work better?". She's incredibly innovative, much more than any of the Ns who have worked there have been.

When the "stuff" that makes up a subject is concrete stuff, why wouldn't S types be just as innovative if not more than N types?

Also, neither of the ISTJs I know give a shit about rules. They just think "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That attitude really has nothing to do with rule-following.

This bias is appalling.

S types are not limited whatsoever in N functions. They just PREFER using S functions. And even if they use S/N 70%/30%, their 30% N would likely be more applicable to reality than many N types 70%.

 

[Orangey]

Just because a dude is weird, different, or ostracized doesn't make him an N.

This can't be said enough.

Wow some serious N bias coming out on this thread.

Just to say -- my coworker (an ISTJ) is the person with by far the most ideas about how to increase efficiency at my bagel shop (I may have more ideas than she does, but mine are mostly useless). Yes, it's food service -- but she doesn't care whatsoever about the rules (neither does my other ISTJ friend). All she cares about is "will this work better?". She's incredibly innovative, much more than any of the Ns who have worked there have been.

When the "stuff" that makes up a subject is concrete stuff, why wouldn't S types be just as innovative if not more than N types?

Also, neither of the ISTJs I know give a shit about rules. They just think "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That attitude really has nothing to do with rule-following.

This bias is appalling.

S types are not limited whatsoever in N functions. They just PREFER using S functions. And even if they use S/N 70%/30%, their 30% N would likely be more applicable to reality than many N types 70%.

Agreed.

 

[rowingineden]

If I were a teenager at Hogwarts I would want Luna to be my girlfriend.

Back off. Iz mine.