Sherlock BBC MBTI

[bilbotook]

Note that this is not based on the books. I will post a thread of Sherlock Holmes types when I finish reading the books. But for now, here is a list of types from the show Sherlock.

Sherlock Holmes-INTP
John Watson-ISFJ
Mrs. Hudson-ESFJ
Mycroft Holmes-INTJ
Jim Moriarty-ENTP
Inspector Lestrade-ESFP
Molly Hooper-ISFJ

Agree/Disagree. I probably left out a lot of characters. I'd like to here about what you think they should be typed as.

 

[bilbotook]

On second thought, Jim Moriarty is an ENTJ.

btw: I've finished a few of the books. The characters in the book that I have listed up there, are the same type in the book. As for the ones that are not in the book, yeah, still the same type.

 

[kyuuei]

I could see ENFP in Molly vs ISFJ. She's sort of social and wants to go out on dates and stuff, moves quickly in relationships but seems to make sort of bad decisions in men because she's hung up on Sherlock, fairly confident but loses it in front of Sherlock and gets pissed off that he's such a show-off... but when he needs her, truly, her idealism kicks in and she's the loyal person she wants to be to him. Molly beats a dead horse deader... I just don't see an ISFJ woman putting up with all of that. That NF idealism fuels her.

 

[bilbotook]

I could see ENFP in Molly vs ISFJ. She's sort of social and wants to go out on dates and stuff, moves quickly in relationships but seems to make sort of bad decisions in men because she's hung up on Sherlock, fairly confident but loses it in front of Sherlock and gets pissed off that he's such a show-off... but when he needs her, truly, her idealism kicks in and she's the loyal person she wants to be to him. Molly beats a dead horse deader... I just don't see an ISFJ woman putting up with all of that. That NF idealism fuels her.

To be honest with you, I didn't really know her type, so I put down the first thing that came to my mind. But yeah, I could definitely see ENFP.

 

[INTP-owl]

Sherlock Holmes-INTP

I think Sherlock is an ISTP, actually. I originally thought he was INTJ with an overactive (potentially unhealthy) level of inferior Se but then I realized there's no way he is Te-Fi. He doesn't really generate different possibilities when investigating (Ne) but is quite sure of himself in his singular analysis, which comes across as more Ni to me. He's definitely Ti and has poor inferior Fe. He's really in-tune with the environment which allows him to make a lot of really good observations and piece together his often correct vision of reality.

 

[Psyclepath]

I'm quite sure that Sherlock is an ISTP 5w6 sx/sp - possibly 8w7 and 3w4 for a tritype.

None of the way he reasons shows intuition. In fact, he holds symbolism and metaphors in disregard - because it's all about the details: what he sees. The analysis is all down to Ti. I could maybe see him as an ESTP (ESTP 5 will not likely be an outgoing person) given his obsession with stimulation - however I attribute that more to having 8w7 and being sx-dom. But Se and Ti are clearly his leading functions: observation, analysis, examination, use of tools, he's focused entirely in the present.

5w6 shows in his analysis. He's always deep in his head, examining, detaching himself from everything around him. As I understand it, 5w4s are generally warmer and more "personal" in their approach to investigation: 5w6 is a head type with a head type wing, so there's even heavier detachment there. Sexual is his lead instinct, simply because of how obsessive and passionate he is about what he does. If anyone can argue sx/so over sx/sp, please do: I've thought sx/sp purely because of how little he seems to care about the social workings of the world.

 

[magpie]

Sherlock's an ISTJ.

 

[Psyclepath]

Sherlock's an ISTJ.

I'll hear this. I can't see how he's ISTJ; but this is clearly not the typical "he's super intelligent and confuses people so he must be Ne". Go on, entertain me.

 

[magpie]

I'll hear this. I can't see how he's ISTJ; but this is clearly not the typical "he's super intelligent and confuses people so he must be Ne". Go on, entertain me.

You're confusing Si and Se.

 

[Psyclepath]

You're confusing Si and Se.

Si focuses on one's reaction to sensory data: does it make one feel comfort? Adrenaline? Sensuality? People who value Si know how to create these kinds of atmospheres. Going to a psytrance rave and feeling like you're in an exotic jungle seems like the work of someone who valued Si. I don't see Sherlock giving a damn about any of that.

 

[magpie]

Si focuses on one's reaction to sensory data: does it make one feel comfort? Adrenaline? Sensuality? People who value Si know how to create these kinds of atmospheres. Going to a psytrance rave and feeling like you're in an exotic jungle seems like the work of someone who valued Si. I don't see Sherlock giving a damn about any of that.

That's not what Si is. I think you've read one too many cliche ISFJ type profiles. Si is examining sensory data and forming patterns and impressions, based off a mental database (or mind palace) full of previously analyzed sensory impressions. If you look at the thread on someone's jacket and conclude, from the state of the thread, that they've owned the jacket for five years, you're using Si.

 

[Psyclepath]

That's not what Si is. I think you've read one too many cliche ISFJ type profiles. Si is examining sensory data and forming patterns and impressions, based off a mental database (or mind palace) full of previously analyzed sensory impressions. If you look at the thread on someone's jacket and conclude, from the state of the thread, that they've owned the jacket for five years, you're using Si.

You understand Si one way, I understand it another. To me, your description sounds like an introverted judgment function.

And no, cliche ISFJ profiles wouldn't come out with anything like what I've described. Your description is closer to what I've read on most of these profiles: ISFP descriptions I've read come closer to what I've described.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Interesting. I like where this is going. I can see both sides of the argument but am not in any position to contribute to this debate, so I'll just watch from the sidelines.

 

[magpie]

You understand Si one way, I understand it another.

Okay.

 

[Kanra Jest]

For some reason Sherlock is often typed as INTJ/INTP and I have trouble seeing this.. He's far too in tune with sensory data. His Se is kind of a big part of him. No way someone without Se in their functions would observe and take in so much sheer outside data of even the smallest details. If he's any sort of "J" I would peg him as ENTJ ... otherwise he seems to be a clear ISTP as it describes him nearly to a T. The only thing that confuses everything is his "mind palace" do to his apparent photographic memory.

 

[Psyclepath]

For some reason Sherlock is often typed as INTJ/INTP and I have trouble seeing this.. He's far too in tune with sensory data. His Se is kind of a big part of him. No way someone without Se in their functions would observe and take in so much sheer outside data of even the smallest details. If he's any sort of "J" I would peg him as ENTJ ... otherwise he seems to be a clear ISTP as it describes him nearly to a T. The only thing that confuses everything is his "mind palace" do to his apparent photographic memory.

For some reason Sherlock is often typed as INTJ/INTP and I have trouble seeing this.. He's far too in tune with sensory data. His Se is kind of a big part of him. No way someone without Se in their functions would observe and take in so much sheer outside data of even the smallest details. If he's any sort of "J" I would peg him as ENTJ ... otherwise he seems to be a clear ISTP as it describes him nearly to a T. The only thing that confuses everything is his "mind palace" do to his apparent photographic memory.

Ti-doms in general have a much better memory than the stereotypes suggest. At the end of the day, Ti is basically a system, a mindmap of how things work.

 

[Korvinagor]

Si focuses on one's reaction to sensory data: does it make one feel comfort? Adrenaline? Sensuality? People who value Si know how to create these kinds of atmospheres. Going to a psytrance rave and feeling like you're in an exotic jungle seems like the work of someone who valued Si. I don't see Sherlock giving a damn about any of that.

That's not what Si is. I think you've read one too many cliche ISFJ type profiles. Si is examining sensory data and forming patterns and impressions, based off a mental database (or mind palace) full of previously analyzed sensory impressions. If you look at the thread on someone's jacket and conclude, from the state of the thread, that they've owned the jacket for five years, you're using Si.

I get the feeling that these are two separate definitions of Si... If I'm correct, Socionics subscribes to the former, while the Jungian cognitive functions subscribes to the latter.

 

[Psyclepath]

I get the feeling that these are two separate definitions of Si... If I'm correct, Socionics subscribes to the former, while the Jungian cognitive functions subscribes to the latter.

Yes. Socionics has treated me much more kindly; if not for Socionics I would be deeply inconclusive over my type.

 

[Korvinagor]

Yes. Socionics has treated me much more kindly; if not for Socionics I would be deeply inconclusive over my type.

Did you find the Jungian cognitive function definitions lacking in your experience?

Hm, perhaps it's best to type Sherlock as LSI rather than ISTP? If Socionics definitions of functions are used, as to reduce ambiguity.

Then, it'll be up in the air as to what type he is using other definitions.

 

[GavinElster]

I like some version of LSI for Sherlock as well. I'd say LSI-Se.

Jung was clear that

The four orienting functions naturally do not contain everything that is in the conscious psyche. Will and memory, for instance, are not included.

As tempting as it is to associate Si to memory techniques, I'd say if we take an interp of the LSI model that says Si is strong, but not inherently valued, we can say whatever Si does go into the mind palace, the aim is ultimately just to remember things, and the memory itself is separate from any function.

(Obviously I'm assuming here that Jung's point carries over whether we work with socionics' model or not, but I think it stands independent of the other assumptions of the models that differ. And I don't go by the full letter of socionics anyway.)

So I like an interpretation that says strong-Si, not valued Si, valued Se, since Sherlock tends to value real sensory situations that have a present impact, and is fundamentally more invested in the sensations in an extraverted way, even if he does use memory techniques and the like.

As with all such interpretations, I don't claim it to be empirical so much as a good way of thinking about things.

He could be lsi-se 7w8 sx/so. w8 not as strong as Moriarty's and if we don't give everyone a wing, I'd say 7 without wing. In rarer occasions I think he shows a baby 8 wing though.