What type is House?

[INTJMom]

Just for the record, I think there are other reasons why people test wrongly.
1- The questions are not asked in such a way as to get a correct answer from each type.
2- People don't know themselves well enough - especially s types and guys.
3- A person almost has to understand the system to know what the question means and what they're driving at.
4- A person has to be brutally honest with themselves in order to get the right result.

 

[Nocapszy]

Yah, I guess that's like how I feel about people typing others behaviourally.

Fair enough. Too bad there's no way for any self analysis to be accurate, since invariably people lie about themselves.

However a bystander only watching, can be more objective when it doesn't involve themselves... well, I guess I shouldn't ask an SP to understand. Ni doesn't put theory into practice, so it makes sense that you'd have that attitude.

If you know what to look for, behavioral typology is flawless. Not saying I always do know what to look for, but if someone does know what to look for, and does it, they won't go wrong.

It can be compared to mathematics -- if you can identify the right formula (function) to go by you won't go wrong.

 

[Nocapszy]

Just for the record, I think there are other reasons why people test wrongly.
1- The questions are not asked in such a way as to get a correct answer from each type.
2- People don't know themselves well enough - especially s types and guys.
3- A person almost has to understand the system to know what the question means and what they're driving at.
4- A person has to be brutally honest with themselves in order to get the right result.

And they won't do it 'cause they think by lying to the test, it makes them a more ideal person. I tested as an ISTP more than once. As I learned more and more about the system, I realized that was dead wrong. I didn't want it to be (and for a long while I wouldn't admit it) but I eventually gave in to what was actually going on.

I had personal bias toward being ISTP after reading the type description by Joe Butt. Eventually I had to give it up.

 

[ptgatsby]

Fair enough. Too bad there's no way for any self analysis to be accurate, since invariably people lie about themselves.

However a bystander only watching, can be more objective when it doesn't involve themselves... well, I guess I shouldn't ask an SP to understand. Ni doesn't put theory into practice, so it makes sense that you'd have that attitude.

Ah, awesomeness. You defeated your own argument for me. Welcome to being an "objective" bystander. Well, least you think I'm an ISTP. That's something.

You do realize the irony in typing a fictional character behaviourally, right? Theoretically you'd be either unable to type the character being projected or be typing the actor himself. IOW, you'd be better off reading the script... or I suppose asking the writer what type he wanted the character to be.

If you know what to look for, behavioral typology is flawless. Not saying I always do know what to look for, but if someone does know what to look for, and does it, they won't go wrong.

*pats head* Whatever theory makes you happy, I suppose.

 

[Nocapszy]

Ah, awesomeness. You defeated your own argument for me. Welcome to being an "objective" bystander. Well, least you think I'm an ISTP. That's something.

You do realize the irony in typing a fictional character behaviourally, right? Theoretically you'd be either unable to type the character being projected or be typing the actor himself. IOW, you'd be better off reading the script... or I suppose asking the writer what type he wanted the character to be.



*pats head* Whatever theory makes you happy, I suppose.

Uhm... now my head hurts...

Actually I'm not talking about what House's INTENDED type is according to the script. That's irrelevant. I don't even see how that notion could be drawn from what's being said here.

I'm talking about how he actually comes off in the show. Irrespective of by what force (by the director actor or writer) House consistently gains his insights by comparing two seemingly separate situations. That's Ne, no matter which way you slice it.

I really don't see how I've broken my own argument. Care to elaborate?

 

[ptgatsby]

I'm talking about how he actually comes off in the show. Irrespective of by what force (by the director actor or writer) House consistently gains his insights by comparing two seemingly separate situations. That's Ne, no matter which way you slice it.

You mean the actor pretending to be a character that he is not? He might be ENTP - he was a comedian and such... fits the profile.

House is fictional - he is not the actor. It works only two ways;

1) You can observe a person and find out their cognitive functions... in this case, you cannot type House in this method (the actor is what you are observing.)

2) You can observe behaviour and compare it to similar types (ie: the actor can pretend to be someone by taking on characteristics that the character would have - the actor thinks differently than the character he plays - ie: you cannot determine how any fictional character is cognitively wired because the character doesn't exist, only the actor pretending to be the character).

In case 1), as you claim, you could theoretically know how someone operates just by watching him... In case 2), you are saying that you cannot observe anyone because anyone can become someone else (thus making observation -> function impossible).

It means that you are either typing the actor and not the character or you are typing the character on a flawed model.

I really don't see how I've broken my own argument. Care to elaborate?

Eh, you stereotyped me based on cognitive functions as an objective "observer", concluding my inability to see things your way comes from that. You know nothing about me and are willing to project your functional views as justification.

 

[INTJMom]

And they won't do it 'cause they think by lying to the test, it makes them a more ideal person. I tested as an ISTP more than once. As I learned more and more about the system, I realized that was dead wrong. I didn't want it to be (and for a long while I wouldn't admit it) but I eventually gave in to what was actually going on.

I had personal bias toward being ISTP after reading the type description by Joe Butt. Eventually I had to give it up.

I don't like his descriptions.

 

[MacGuffin]

Fair enough. Too bad there's no way for any self analysis to be accurate, since invariably people lie about themselves.

... you even sound like House.

 

[Ivy]

I was gonna say- case in point!

 

[INTJMom]

... you even sound like House.

OH no! Now he's gonna say that proves House is an ENTP!

 

[Nocapszy]

Eh, you stereotyped me based on cognitive functions as an objective "observer", concluding my inability to see things your way comes from that. You know nothing about me and are willing to project your functional views as justification.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about anyone who watches from the sideline with the desire to find out what type someone IS not what they WANT them to be. Individuals will always try to rig the answers so they get the type they want (even if they don't know what it is yet). It's called self serving bias, though usually the term is applied in relation to intelligence and 'objective' measures. In this case, it's not about who's better than someone else, except insofar as it makes someone want to be a certain way.

You mean the actor pretending to be a character that he is not? He might be ENTP - he was a comedian and such... fits the profile.

I'm not talking about the damn actor. I'm talking about House. Not Hugh Laurie. Maybe he is ENTP. He struck me as more of an introvert (the ACTOR not house, but I've not really seen many interviews or much of anything really with him in it except the show)

House is fictional - he is not the actor. It works only two ways;

1) You can observe a person and find out their cognitive functions... in this case, you cannot type House in this method (the actor is what you are observing.)

2) You can observe behaviour and compare it to similar types (ie: the actor can pretend to be someone by taking on characteristics that the character would have - the actor thinks differently than the character he plays - ie: you cannot determine how any fictional character is cognitively wired because the character doesn't exist, only the actor pretending to be the character).

You left out the third option which is, observe behavior, and instead of matching it up to types, I match it up to cognitive functions. The combinations that come up most commonly are the ones that decide his type. In this case, he connects two situations (that's how he solves the cases almost every time) and then he detaches for a moment to make sure it makes sense. Either that, or he skips the detachment period and goes to his team and asks them to make sure it makes sense.

But even if I were to choose one of your bizarre methods, I would still end up with ENTP. I will not elaborate.

In case 1), as you claim, you could theoretically know how someone operates just by watching him... In case 2), you are saying that you cannot observe anyone because anyone can become someone else (thus making observation -> function impossible).

It means that you are either typing the actor and not the character or you are typing the character on a flawed model.

Read the most previous comment.

 

[Nocapszy]

... you even sound like House.

I was gonna say- case in point!

OH no! Now he's gonna say that proves House is an ENTP!

I am House.

 

[Nocapszy]

House is coming on in a few minutes actually. At least here on the east coast.

Watch it. You'll likely see him do exactly what I've described.

 

[proteanmix]

Nocapszy's doing a fine job convincing me House is an ENTP. You INTJ fans need to step it up a notch!

Is it agreed he's at least NTFS?

 

[Usehername]

The INTJs all think he's INTJ, most others think he's INTJ, and specifically, the INTJ doctor thinks he's an INTJ.

I thought the rest of this was just entertaining nocapszy and that we had long since confirmed his INTJness.

 

[Nocapszy]

the INTJ doctor

This is bolded? Of all the things you could have chosen as the emphasis, you chose this?

Being an INTJ doctor doesn't make her any more an acute typist.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, nocapszy, neither the majority opinion nor the MBTI system is swaying you, which is convincing me that you just like to listen to yourself.

You could at least keep your rebelious point of view to yourself.
The debate is over. Whether you think it's true or not, this topic has probably settled on him being an INTJ.

 

[Nocapszy]

Well, nocapszy, neither the majority opinion nor the MBTI system is swaying you, which is convincing me that you just like to listen to yourself.

You could at least keep your rebelious point of view to yourself.
The debate is over. Whether you think it's true or not, this topic has probably settled on him being an INTJ.

Erm... I'm the only one who's using the system...

The "majority opinion" employs nothing but anecdotal information, which is not to be relied on, since we experience anomaly in all fields of science.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

... You said to forget the MBTI...

 

[Nocapszy]

... You said to forget the MBTI...

Granted. Ok, I overstepped -- I should clarify by saying forget using the dichotomies to determine functions, but instead use functions to determine type.

That is, I'm using a backwards approach to the issue.

I guess I figured that would be assumed, since if it were taken literally, I wouldn't be trying to type house. Or anyone for that matter.