William Shakespeare

[Haphazard]

I've only called you arrogant bluemonday.

And the previous statement does fall under the irony umbrella once again.

Do you have citations that this is irony? I'd like a second opinion.

 

[Athenian200]

NTs just don't get WS and never will. That's why I think God I'm an NF.

I take exception to that. I'm an NF, and I don't really like Shakespeare's work. I don't think it has a very positive message about humanity (in fact is kind of depressing about our fate), and I find it a bit overdone in many places.

I'm a little offended by your implication that in order to be an NF, you have to like Shakespeare... don't you think that's a little presumptuous?

 

[Sniffles]

I think he is too cynical to be an NF. He doesn't believe in happy ever afters.

Tragedies seem to play very much into the heart of many NFs, especially INFJs. Whether Shakespeare was INFP, I can't say. But I do doubt he was gay, in fact recent evidence is showing that he was probably a devout Catholic:
Amazon.com: Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare: Clare Asquith: Books

 

[hathor_sekhmet]

I've been a long-time lurker here, and I wasn't planning on ever posting, but I'm finding it difficult to not say anything. Something about this thread just tipped something in me. Here is the crash:

I HATE the generalization that NFs cannot gravitate toward the tragic. I'm a fiction writer myself and most of my stories tend to focus on "darker" themes and have "unhappy" endings. I find tragedy compelling. I find studies of human frailty compelling. I'm sure plenty of other NFs do, perhaps moreso than NTs.

Wouldn't forcing everything into iambic pentameter be more of a Te thing anyway?

That said, I agree with the person who said typing Shakespeare is a pretty futile task. It would be interesting to try to type every play and poem attributed to him and see if there's a pattern.

 

[Haphazard]

I'd even go so far as to say that complete tragedy quite F. Ts are more likely to go for something that is neither extreme.

 

[Night]

I don't know if that's necessarily the case, Hap.

Thirst for diversity in emotional expression probably isn't an MBTI characteristic; more of a universal ideal people strive for.

 

[Haphazard]

I don't know if that's necessarily the case, Hap.

Thirst for diversity in emotional expression probably isn't an MBTI characteristic; more of a universal ideal people strive for.

With MBTI, nothing's necessarily the case.

I think that's pretty well established by now.

 

[Night]

Well, then that sorta flies in the face of your first statement, doesn't it?

 

[Haphazard]

Well, then that sorta flies in the face of your first statement, doesn't it?

You could tear apart the entire thread with this sort of stuff.

Are you trying to stop us? We're having fun!

 

[Haphazard]

Who are you to stop us hedons?

 

[Salomé]

Tragedies seem to play very much into the heart of many NFs, especially INFJs. Whether Shakespeare was INFP, I can't say. But I do doubt he was gay, in fact recent evidence is showing that he was probably a devout Catholic:
Amazon.com: Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare: Clare Asquith: Books

and catholics are never gay of course...my bad

 

[Salomé]

I've only called you arrogant bluemonday.

And the previous statement does fall under the irony umbrella once again.

that's a rather convenient defense mechanism - that umbrella of yours.

 

[Salomé]

I've been a long-time lurker here, and I wasn't planning on ever posting, but I'm finding it difficult to not say anything. Something about this thread just tipped something in me. .

cool - anything that draws lurkers out of the woodwork must be worthwhile.

i don't think typing each play/poem individually would be a meaningful exercise. it is the body of work that reveals the man. personality typing requires a personality after all...

i don't know why people are getting hung up on iambic pentameter - it was merely the mode of the day - and Shakespeare subverted it masterfully.

as for NFs and tragedy - couldn't agree more. i don't think anyone has said anything that contradicts this. however, the way NFs approach tragedy in their work has a more melancholic rather than a misanthropic feel. NTs are master misanthropes. Shakespeare could give Schopenhauer a run for his money.

it is unsound to assume that NFs find something more moving or more compelling than other types. all you can safely assert is how you feel, leave others the autonomy to think/feel what they will. after all, if Shakespeare only appealed to minority NFs he wouldn't hold his extraordinary position in the literary establishment.

the strongest argument in favour of SS being an NF, is his profound understanding of human psychology, and hidden motivations, which is an area where NFs are supposed to excel (although I might say I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary).

jury is still out.

 

[Noel]

What about the possibility of Shakespeare being an Artisan, specifically an isfp? He was an excellent wordsmith.

 

[Members Only]

This thread was only ever heading in one direction...

One thing. NF's gravitate as much towards negativity as they do towards optimism. Being an NF just provides you with a predisposition to exploring the subtlety's of human emotion, both positive and negative.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Bill Shakespeare is either ENFP or INFP. I go back and forth about which one he is. Right now I'm leaning toward ENFP, but I can see INFP too.

 

[Mondo]

Keirsey considers Shakespeare to be an NT.
I don't know if that means anything to you guys.

 

[The Ü™]

Keirsey considers Shakespeare to be an NT.
I don't know if that means anything to you guys.

Like I said, I agree with him in this case. I am somewhat Keirsey biased because his type descriptions really do match Jung's processes, even though it is never directly stated how they match.

The main part where I disagree with him is how he types celebrities and historical figures -- Shakespeare being one of the exceptions. It's just one of those rare cases where Keirsey doesn't create the mental image of the NT temperament being people of science.

 

[Mondo]

Like I said, I agree with him in this case. I am somewhat Keirsey biased because his type descriptions really do match Jung's processes, even though it is never directly stated how they match.

The main part where I disagree with him is how he types celebrities and historical figures -- Shakespeare being one of the exceptions. It's just one of those rare cases where Keirsey doesn't create the mental image of the NT temperament being people of science.

That's true. One thing I like about Keirsey is that he always has good reasons for every person he types, at least his son admits when he either made a mistake in typing or when he isn't sure about what the historical figure's personality type is.

One thing I'm actually wondering is would Shakespeare have made a competent scientist? Shakespeare obviously had a brilliant mind.

 

[Salomé]

One thing I'm actually wondering is would Shakespeare have made a competent scientist? Shakespeare obviously had a brilliant mind.

Brilliant mind == scientific mindset ?

oh dear oh dear oh dear
don't fall into the NT trap.