• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Sherlock Holmes, his Watsons and their MBTI types

Kas

Fabula rasa
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,533
Why are we always portrayed as villains! We can never be the hero, we're always the villain. It's almost degrading. Or we're that loathsome character that no one can stand.

Do people really hate us that much?

:huh:
And Mr Darcy? And Howard Roark? Aren't they a great characters?

I'd definitely say Mycroft is an INTP.

Sherlock is better at making judgements, whereas Mycroft is much more thorough about the details.

I can't see Mycroft as a person caring about details, he is concentrated on the outcome.


This is exactly what INTJs do. Not all of us are 6s, some of us are 5w4. INTJs are obsessed with patterns and connecting them and contextualizing them. This is what I'm constantly doing all day long.

That actually sounds more Ti than Te to me .

Also he is more process oriented. It’s solving the puzzle that matters, helping someone is additional benefit. And he keeps repeating Watson to look at the problem from different perspective and then they will understand it. That all sounds more INTP than INTJ. I think that INTJ would be concentrated on the solution of the problem and not process of solving it. I think Te is more organized, more basing on deduction, where Ti is basing on deduction and induction. But the last one is my own theory ;)
 

bilbotook

just some guy
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Messages
279
MBTI Type
INFP
The way I see it, all Sherlocks are INTP and all Watsons are ISFJ. Though I don't watch Elementary, so I wouldn't know about their types.
 

Felix5

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
69
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
:huh:
And Mr Darcy? And Howard Roark? Aren't they a great characters?

Howard Roark? Gee how iconic, they'll be pasting him on lunch boxes!

Two characters that aren't villains...I mean think about it...we've got Hannibal Lector, the killer from Saw, and Mr Burns. We suck.

And Mr Darcy is kind of portrayed as a snob in the first part of Pride and Prejudice. So even our heroes can't be portrayed honestly.

If we aren't villains, we're weirdos or misinterpreted as rude. I have never had anyone come up to me and tell me that. I actually get the opposite. Most people think I'm polite and courteous.

I can't see Mycroft as a person caring about details, he is concentrated on the outcome.

INTPs are extremely immersed in the details but that doesn't mean they don't care about the outcome. Same thing with INTJs, we are incredibly immersed in the outcome, but we do care about the details. Sometimes, we can become completely obsessed with them to the exclusion of other activities. Whenever I do research, I make sure that I understand every detail I can before I even start to write the paper. The more you know, the better you can contextualize what you're writing. I think well developed INTJs understand this or will understand it eventually over time.


That actually sounds more Ti than Te to me .

Also he is more process oriented. It’s solving the puzzle that matters, helping someone is additional benefit.

I hate puzzles and have never had any interest in them, I don't know any INTJ that enjoys the abstract process of "Puzzle solving" or "Logic problems." My least favorite part of math class was word problems. I don't even believe that this is what Sherlock Holmes is doing. I think people who read it are misinterpreting the character. I mean the whole reason he's trying to understand the situation is because he wants to know what's going on, how it happened, who it was. It's not like he stumbled upon a crime scene and became fascinated by the bits of cloth, gunpowder, and wreckage. An INTP would be more interested in these things, present their scientific data, and allow someone else to make a conclusion.

And he keeps repeating Watson to look at the problem from different perspective and then they will understand it.

This sounds more like an INTJ thing to me, most people don't really understand how we come to the conclusions we do. It's almost like "magical thinking" to some people. I am constantly trying to explain things from different angles in order to get people to understand what exactly I'm talking about. Or to simply understand my perspective, or see things differently. The INTPs I've met wouldn't even bother to explain the details to someone who didn't understand. They would just go about their day.

That all sounds more INTP than INTJ.

I respectfully disagree

I think that INTJ would be concentrated on the solution of the problem and not process of solving it.

It depends on how immersed the INTJ is in the subject. I am obsessed with the details and the process so that I can come conclusion. Holmes is absolutely fixated on getting to the bottom of the problem. The whole point is the conclusion that Holmes is trying to piece together. Holmes is interested in the process because it is a means to an end. He takes in details and contextualizes them in the same way an INTJ would.

I think Te is more organized, more basing on deduction, where Ti is basing on deduction and induction. But the last one is my own theory ;)

I don't believe what Holmes is doing is outside what any Te would do, plus Ti is a shadow function. He focuses on details because he wants to understand something bigger. I do this all the time when I'm researching history or music or anything else I wish to understand. My thought process is like a web that eventually all connects together into a larger thing.

An INTP focuses on details for the sake of understanding details, but if you've ever read the stories, it's obvious that Holmes is interested in something more than just details. When you read the stories ask yourself this question: Why is he solving this problem?

He happens to be highly educated and I think he comes off as a fairly well developed INTJ. I can see how some people would confuse them with an INTP.

One thing that leads me to believe that he's not an INTP, is his obsession with coming to conclusions.
 

Kas

Fabula rasa
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,533
Sorry [MENTION=26026]Felix5[/MENTION] I didn’t know that you quoted me.

I guess we can agree that we disagree about Sherlock. The world were people would agree about everything would be quite boring.

I wanted to show you that you exaggerate. There are a lot of INTJ villains, but this is not true when you say that there are no heroes. I gave you as examples my favourites.Maybe there are no lunch boxes with Howard Roark ( too bad, I would buy one) but novels of Ayn Rand are actually INTJ traits adoration so I believe it’s a good example. Btw it's ironic that Roark is architect by profession.
 

Unique Thinker

New member
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
1
MBTI Type
INTP
Elementary Sherlock is Uber INTP.... the social rule deal could also be applied to BBC Sherlock. That Sherlock is most definitely an INTP in my humble analysis. He definitely doesn't seem to have Si as a fourth function, rather a third, so support his Ti-Ne theories. He does however have quite raw emotions, weak Fe it seems. :)
 

ZNP-TBA

Privileged Sh!tlord
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
3,001
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
sx
Elementary (2012 and onwards):
Though this Holmes (Jonny Lee Miller) probably comes closest to A.C. Doyle's canon character, he is apparently an ENTP instead of INTP - this because he is outgoing and aggressive in his pursuit of answers to the riddles he is presented with. Unlike the other Holmes versions, this one is fully aware of the social standards he is expected to follow; he simply ignores them and takes plesure in doing so. His female Watson (Lucy Liu) is an ENFJ - a sober companion with a strong desire to help former drug addicts get their life back. Thomas Gregson (Aidan Quinn), Holmes' contact in the NYPD, seems to me a stereotypical ESTJ - rule-following and strict. Detective Marcus Bell (Jon Michael Hill) is most likely an ESFP, with a fairly pleasant attitude and a down-to-earth view that often conflicts with that of Holmes'. Sebastian Moran shows up in this series as well, though only for one episode - still, long enough for me to peg him as an ISTP once again.

For Elementary:

Holmes: INTJ
Watson: ISFJ
Gregson: ESTJ
Bell: ISTJ
Mycroft: ENFJ
Moriatti: INTJ

No Ps in this show.
 

Boelthorn

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
17
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Elementarys Moriarty is clearly ENTJ.

I don't get why people think the BCC Mycroft is introverted. He is not at all. He is exclusively focused on the outside world, serving his country and doing whatever the fuck he actualkly does, leaving the pondering and solving of complex puzzles to his less talented (yea) brother. So his mind is clearly way more broadly orientated than Sherlock. Which is what cognitive extroversion means.
 

Herlock Sholmes

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
1
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
I think that the Sherlock in the Brett TV series is INTP. It seemed as though he was ENTP when I first watched it, however, after watching more episodes it occurred to me that the way the show was made was intended to look as though it were done on stage (as in a play). Because of this, Sherlock does appear to be ENTP, but his manner and the way he does his work suggests to me INTP.

Also, everyone seems to forget the original movie version of Sherlock from the early 1900's.
 

locked3

New member
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
1
MBTI Type
INTP
BBC Sherlock:
Sherlock Holmes: INTP
John Watson: ISFJ
Mycroft Holmes: INTJ
Gregory Lestrade: ISTP
Molly Hooper: ISFP
James Moriarty: ENTP
Irene Adler: ENTJ
Charles Magnussen: INTJ
Mrs. Hudson: ESFJ (?)
James Sholto: ISTJ
Mary Watson: ESTP
Donovan: ESTJ (?)
Anderson: ISTJ (?)
Mrs. Holmes: ENFP (?) - not enough info
Mr. Holmes: ISTP (?) - not enough info

Hm, clearly I was subconsciously trying to avoid type overlap, which creates a too perfect analysis... Although I adore the idea that Mycroft and Magnussen are the same type (didn't notice this until I tried to type Magnussen)--if that is truly the case, Sherlock might rail against him like he does because he is reminded of his brother. In their interaction, he is still trying to prove himself as an equal and still comes up short. Heartbreaking. I would love further debate, especially about minor characters that I brushed over. I am pretty certain about the main characters, especially Sherlock and Mycroft and can offer thorough analysis if anyone is interested, but there is already a lot written on these types online and on this forum and I'm not sure I can offer a significant amount of new insight. I personally firmly believe that Sherlock is not an INTJ. There are a plethora of reasons; what follows is simply my favorite:

-Fe vs. Fi

Because it is pretty much universally accepted that Sherlock's Feeling function is either a tertiary or an inferior function, this function is often completely overlooked when typing. However, as an INTP who struggles with my feeling function, I can attest to the fact that it is the inferior Fe function that challenges and often betrays the INTP. Here are characteristics about Fi and Fe that support my conclusion that Sherlock has Inferior Fe (and not Fi):

Fe: want to improve the world, have trouble hiding their emotions, highly value close friendships, struggle to understand their own emotions, want to make others happy, are forgiving, can be too controlling of others, are vengeful against wrong-doers, admit when they’re wrong, are good listeners, are expressive, are attentive to the reactions of other people, ultimately desire to be loved

Fi: are concerned with their internal values, believe in good vs. bad and right vs. wrong, are emotionally intelligent (usually know how they feel about things), constantly evaluate whether their choices match up to their values, are empathetic, are accepting of others, are merciful, prefer to keep their emotions private, want to stay true to themselves, take things personally, ultimately desire self-actualization

A common argument as to why Sherlock has Fi (and is therefore an INTJ) might go like this: Sherlock calls himself a sociopath and makes it very clear that he is not solving cases in order to help people, but rather for the fun of solving puzzles. He seems unconcerned with John’s feelings and claims to have no desire for “harmony.” Very Fi, right?

He’s lying. Probably in an attempt to be more like his (ostensibly) more stable, more intelligent brother who does have Fi in his function stack. I've classified Mycroft as an INTJ.

Therefore I posit that Sherlock is actually an INTP with a strong Ti and an underdeveloped Fe trying to rationalize his often overwhelming feelings with logic. He has frequent tantrums and breakdowns (you can always read his emotions right on his face), solving the puzzle isn’t always enough for him when innocents get hurt (when the old woman dies during his case S1E3; when he inadvertently hurts Molly at the Christmas party S2E1), and he is more than willing to sacrifice his own life and health and general well-being for the life of another (John).

He has no personal values (i.e. lying is always wrong, life is always sacred, never hurt your family). A Fi user would. And while some might argue that he demonstrates his true values in the way he approaches his cases, I’d like to argue that an obsession with uncovering the truth is not a value; he uncovers the truth because he finds it fascinating and it keeps him from going insane in his own head. A good example of his lack of “values” is the very manner with which he puts himself in danger for John: he believes that John’s life is sacred, not that life is sacred in general. Period. After all, he ruthlessly kills Magnussen and seems to feel no guilt.

To briefly elaborate on how conflicts for people struggling with Fi/Fe might be dramatized/fictionalized:

As I've stated, Fi is associated with self-knowledge. A Fi related journey would be one by which a character(s) learns or fails to learn about the self. (i.e. Siddhartha, Harry Potter, Alice in Wonderland, The Lion King, Hamlet, Macbeth, Richard III, The Odyssey, Crime and Punishment, The Catcher in the Rye, 1984, Invisible Man, The Stranger, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oedipus, Frankenstein, The Color Purple, A Clockwork Orange, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Jane the Virgin.)

Fe is associated with interpersonal relationships. A Fe related journey would be one by which a character(s) learns something fundamental about humanity or fails to do so, usually through struggling with and then reconciling with or coming to terms with another (or other) characters. (i.e. Titanic, Black Panther, Frozen, Beauty and the Beast, Shrek, Up, The Great Gatsby, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Twelfth Night, The Taming of the Shrew, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Lolita, Wuthering Heights, Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Beloved, Lord of the Flies, The Scarlet Letter, On the Road, Gone With the Wind, The Walking Dead, Supernatural, Criminal Minds.)

Overlap can occur. Occasionally, settling Fe problems leads to Fi growth (Call Me By Your Name) or settling Fi problems leads to Fe growth (Lady Bird) and some stories include both types of problems, especially ensemble pieces when different characters are struggling with different things (i.e. Orange is the New Black).

IMHO, BBC's Sherlock is transparently concerned with testing Sherlock's Fe and actually falls short in its exploration of what it might look like for Sherlock and John to experience individual growth. Within the show, Sherlock has to choose between his life and John's life (s2/s4), his brother's life and John's life (s4), and John's happiness and his own happiness (s3). He always chooses John, even if it means halting his own growth (like when he rekindles his drug dependency in s4). In John, he is confronted with a man who ALSO has trouble trusting, forgiving, and expressing his love for other people (ahhhhh, double Fe conflict :)). John has interpersonal problems as well, which Sherlock fixes instantly by just being himself. No personal growth required.

As far as I can discern, neither character has any interest in self-actualization whatsoever or in “being true to himself.” Sherlock's interest is primarily in figuring out the external world in his own head (Ti/Ne) just for the hell of it. John's interest is in "fixing" himself. Which is why at the beginning of the series, they are both promptly floored by the realization that they might be capable of having a companion to love and be loved by in return. That is the focus of the show; they become better because they have each other, and fall apart when they don't. The conclusion of Season 4 is a declaration that they belong together, and that all can be well in the world when they are.

P.S. Based on my typings of the characters, this are all the characters with Fe in their function stacks: Sherlock Holmes (INTP), John Watson (ISFJ), Gregory Lestrade (ISTP), James Moriarty (ENTP), Mrs. Hudson (ESFJ), Mary Watson (ESTP). Notice the importance of these characters in the show.
 
Top