User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 36

  1. #11
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Ha ha. STJ depth of knowledge.

    What depth?
    Not that kind of depth. My my someone's feeling catty today

    ISTJ = repository of information.
    Holmes hold a lot of facts and figures in his head. Now whilst an INTP in their main area of interest is an expert I've yet to meet one who had such complete knowledge of the minutia of their subject and certainly not when the subject was so broad as Holmes' was. Also his reference to information is specific and not brushed over at all which is more S than N.

    I was going to put an argument down for why Holmes should be an intuitive person and not a sensor but I find that when I look to Holmes' style and his fascinations it does tend to come over all S. I guess that would make Watson an ENFJ.... a theory told to me long ago that Holmes and Watson were a successful duo because they were opposites.

    Oh hang on a minute.

    Holmes is an intuitive person. When he looks at evidence he does not see it's qualities as an object or a specific instance, he sees it as what it means in reference to this case. Holmes is always in context and therefore intuitive. If he took pieces of information and considered them outside of the chain of evidence until it was proven that they should be included then he would be a sensor.... I think.

    Anyhow reading Holmes is like stepping into my own mind a lot of the time. Ergo I consider him an INTP despite the ISTJ tendancies.

    I don't see the whole ISTP though. I can see it from a clinical function/ process type of view but not as a holistic type.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #12
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Holmes is an intuitive person. When he looks at evidence he does not see it's qualities as an object or a specific instance, he sees it as what it means in reference to this case. Holmes is always in context and therefore intuitive. If he took pieces of information and considered them outside of the chain of evidence until it was proven that they should be included then he would be a sensor.... I think.
    Holmes made it a point not to begin constructing a scenario until he had been to the crime scene(s) and taken in all of the available evidence firsthand.

  3. #13
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Holmes made it a point not to begin constructing a scenario until he had been to the crime scene(s) and taken in all of the available evidence firsthand.
    I learned quickly that what Holmes says and what he does are not one and the same. He claims deduction and yet uses induction heavily, he claims certainty and yet calculates on probability. It's a superhuman thing. There's no way he can be certain about half of the stuff he claims to be and yet he is certain and what's more he's right. That's because he's a superhuman.

    For example the observation thing he does is very presumptuous. How someone can not only tell one type of soot from another but also insist that they picked it up in one specific circumstance is pure fantasy. If Holmes was an ISTP then such things would be rejected as fantasy, if he was an ISTJ then I'd guess he wouldn't notice anyway, if he were an INTJ then there'd be a reason as to why he was certain and his lifestyle would be very different and if he was an INTP then I'd wager he'd not be so certain. In conclusion the character is pure fiction but also I'd maintain that his lifestyle is that of an INTP as is his manner.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #14
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    I agree.
    Holmes is the IDEAL super crime fighting detective and therefore cannot be compared to us mere mortals.

    But I also say he is primarily S not primarily N.
    His ability to observe is too perfect to not be natural - i.e. not learned.

    but then again...

  5. #15
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I agree.
    Holmes is the IDEAL super crime fighting detective and therefore cannot be compared to us mere mortals.

    But I also say he is primarily S not primarily N.
    His ability to observe is too perfect to not be natural - i.e. not learned.

    but then again...
    Do you see what I mean?
    Even though his observation skills were beyond reproach his observations were always in context and rarely just about the thing. Ie he's not really observing the specifics for anything other than what they mean to the big picture.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #16
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Not that kind of depth. My my someone's feeling catty today

    ISTJ = repository of information.
    Holmes hold a lot of facts and figures in his head. Now whilst an INTP in their main area of interest is an expert I've yet to meet one who had such complete knowledge of the minutia of their subject and certainly not when the subject was so broad as Holmes' was. Also his reference to information is specific and not brushed over at all which is more S than N.

    I was going to put an argument down for why Holmes should be an intuitive person and not a sensor but I find that when I look to Holmes' style and his fascinations it does tend to come over all S. I guess that would make Watson an ENFJ.... a theory told to me long ago that Holmes and Watson were a successful duo because they were opposites.

    Oh hang on a minute.

    Holmes is an intuitive person. When he looks at evidence he does not see it's qualities as an object or a specific instance, he sees it as what it means in reference to this case. Holmes is always in context and therefore intuitive. If he took pieces of information and considered them outside of the chain of evidence until it was proven that they should be included then he would be a sensor.... I think.

    Anyhow reading Holmes is like stepping into my own mind a lot of the time. Ergo I consider him an INTP despite the ISTJ tendancies.

    I don't see the whole ISTP though. I can see it from a clinical function/ process type of view but not as a holistic type.
    A book repository.. that's in Dallas.

    Any way.. you are correct, as always.

    A majority of my history teachers were ISTJs. I went one day to the uni library to see what books they had borrowed (= outside of the curriculum) when they had been students.
    Nothing.

    They had read only the books their professors had told them to read.
    They had the minutiae all right.. of the books, not of the subject of the books.

    There is a huge difference there. I never read the books. Of course they were boring, because they were prescribed by the ISTJ professors. Academia. Yawn.

    I knew an advanced ISTJ history student. He studied cabinet lists! He knew more than the professor I am sure.

    Holmes was not irrelevant.. and that is the point. He was a rational. An INTP as you say. He was not an active man.

    He was a catcher.

  7. #17
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    A book repository.. that's in Dallas.

    Any way.. you are correct, as always.

    A majority of my history teachers were ISTJs. I went one day to the uni library to see what books they had borrowed (= outside of the curriculum) when they had been students.
    Nothing.

    They had read only the books their professors had told them to read.
    They had the minutiae all right.. of the books, not of the subject of the books.

    There is a huge difference there. I never read the books. Of course they were boring, because they were prescribed by the ISTJ professors. Academia. Yawn.

    I knew an advanced ISTJ history student. He studied cabinet lists! He knew more than the professor I am sure.

    Holmes was not irrelevant.. and that is the point. He was a rational. An INTP as you say. He was not an active man.

    He was a catcher.
    Precisely. Holmes not only had read all those esoteric papers but understood them as a whole and could intersperse the various fields into his work. That would be N.

    Though you must admit the sheer breadth and depth of his knowledge is quite beyond what would be expected as possible from most INTPs. Also to only have one interest and structure everything around it, very not P.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #18
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    A book repository.. that's in Dallas.

    Any way.. you are correct, as always.

    A majority of my history teachers were ISTJs. I went one day to the uni library to see what books they had borrowed (= outside of the curriculum) when they had been students.
    Nothing.

    They had read only the books their professors had told them to read.
    They had the minutiae all right.. of the books, not of the subject of the books.

    There is a huge difference there. I never read the books. Of course they were boring, because they were prescribed by the ISTJ professors. Academia. Yawn.

    I knew an advanced ISTJ history student. He studied cabinet lists! He knew more than the professor I am sure.

    Holmes was not irrelevant.. and that is the point. He was a rational. An INTP as you say. He was not an active man.

    He was a catcher.
    My ISTJ mother reads Encyclopedias recreationally, meaning not because she has to, but because she loves it.

  9. #19
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    My ISTJ mother reads Encyclopedias recreationally, meaning not because she has to, but because she loves it.
    Yes.
    I can believe it. The ISTJs love encyclopedias.

    You can read them in or out of context.

  10. #20
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    In the movie Young Sherlock Holmes, Holmes was definitely portrayed more as an INTJ.

Similar Threads

  1. Sherlock Holmes (INTP) VS Batman (INTJ)
    By bilbotook in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 03-20-2015, 01:14 PM
  2. [INTP] Sherlock Holmes - Possible INTP
    By Mr. Sherlock Holmes in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 03-03-2011, 02:06 PM
  3. [INTP] Rant on INTPs
    By ygolo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: 04-11-2008, 11:12 AM
  4. [INTP] INTP Rage
    By Schizm in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-10-2007, 10:38 AM
  5. [INTP] Good things about INTPs
    By lastrailway in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 10-01-2007, 11:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO