What Type is BBC's Sherlock?

[Ginny]

I have to apologise in advance for my crappy Fe in the formulation of this initial post, but I am left with no other choice.

I have been working on BBC's Sherlock for about a year now, longer even, if you count the years since the series started where I got to know and learn about the main character -- without any information on other incarnations (save one, but it is in no way relatable). It is one of the things which mean the most to me, and therefore the treatment I have received on that topic is more or less the most despicable kind I have ever experienced.

As a result, since you find it oh so funny and don't seem to want to fill the gap I asked you to fill, I am opening this thread and ask around: what do you think is the MBTI of Benedict Cumberbatch's interpretation/incarnation of Sherlock Holmes? Maybe there are others on here that do want to contribute to sharing information.

Please include an explaination in terms of the cognitive functions and hopefully we can discuss this in a civilised manner.

 

[Wyote]

I don't appreciate your passive aggressive tone which seems targeted toward me. I didn't reply to you because you aren't interested in hearing other perspectives. You've decided he is infj so there is no point in me disputing it. I initially wrote up a whole thing about why he is intj but it doesn't really matter.

I'm also a huge fan of the show and have been watching it since the beginning. I've also been a fan of Sherlock in other forms since I was little. intjs and infjs are very similar people, especially when you get an internal narrative of their perspective. My gf is intj, one of my best friends is intj. If you want Sherlock to be infj then so be it though. It's just a character, and he does illustrate many infj traits. It's not as if the writers had mbti in mind at all, so characters do many things out of the ordinary much more frequently than would be the case in reality. This makes typing sort of impossible/pointless for fictional characters.

My whole argument was based around Te though. He has a ton.

 

[Wyote]

Just now-
Me: What type do you think Sherlock is?
GF: ISTJ
Me: Really? Why not INTJ?
GF: We don't believe other INTJs exist
Me: What if you weren't INTJ?
GF: I'm not falling for your trickery
Me: Ok well what about INFJ?
GF: What?? NO! Maybe INTJ though

(she is also a big fan of Sherlock and INFJ people)

 

[charlatan]

My definitions might not match those of others, but I think he's an enneagram 7 with a moderate 8 wing, TiSe type/Se subtype.

Part of this is that I think there are many kinds of 'facts' and distinguish how Te and S are factual.

 

[Ginny]

I didn't reply to you because you aren't interested in hearing other perspectives.

That is not true at all. I have said on multiple occasions that I would rather be corrected with thorough arguments than be wrong. It may take a while to sink in, depending on how long and fast this opinion is stuck, but that is my ultimate stance, on any topic. Being an enneagram 1, being wrong is one of the most embarrassing situations I can be in. I don't know if you can relate, but much of my identity depends on being right, esp. about the things I care about. Furthermore, knowing you could be wrong while being treated like a champignon, is the most hurtful state of existence.

I don't appreciate your passive aggressive tone which seems targeted toward me.

Well, it does take a lot to make me react like that in this environment, so it cannot be attributed solely to me. Passive aggression was the only way to contain my growing violent anger towards this infantile and unsportsmanlike behaviour directed towards me in the form of the silent treatment. I concede that it is to be criticised, but after all I was the first one to be slighted, wasn't I? (And I also wasn't very silent about it before now.) Still, I want to apologise for that; being treated like I'm invisible is just the worst thing someone can do to me in a situation such as this. However, it does not excuse my behaviour, merely explains it.

My whole argument was based around Te though. He has a ton.

From what I have heard of Te, I don't see it. I have read many descriptions, but none of them really connected/coincided with my picture of Te. But Te is also a blind spot of mine, perhaps because it is my PoLR. Could you explain how he has it, maybe with examples?


Edit: For future reference, when I ask why, I really do want to know why, and sometimes I just need more details, i.e. more of a reason to abandon my (firm) belief.

 

[Wyote]

Actually now that I am really sitting with this, I feel like he could very well be IxTP

 

[Ginny]

Actually now that I am really sitting with this, I feel like he could very well be IxTP

Erm...alright... That's confusing.

After all this trouble this has put us through? Or are you bullshitting me? You know, I would laugh hysterically if I could.

Might I make a suggestion? Let's just discuss for each function how they might be involved. There should be plenty of evidence for all, as we all exhibit traits for all functions, right?

 

[Wyote]

I was the first one to be slighted, wasn't I?

I don't think so, I never intended to slight you, you just weren't giving me an opportunity to share my opinion.
I apologize if my reaction or non-reaction had a negative influence, I was just behaving in what I thought was an appropriate way.

it is my PoLR

???

examples?

I mean, whatever examples I do give you will attempt to refute. He has high Ti as well. One thing he is crap at is Fe. His Fe moments just feel strong narratively because in his day to day it is so pitifully bad. Using Fe for him is like getting a root canal. He gets slightly better as the seasons go on, but it's definitely not his secondary/tertiary function lol. It is hard to know if he's really using Ni or if it's actually just super powered Ti/Se.

But still if you look at Te, which I think he does have a fair bit of and infjs are generally pretty crap at, it is the differentiator.
General concepts of Te that he embodies are him being extremely logical, objective and fair. Being results driven (highly determined to solve cases). Observes all data and information with unbiased approach. Can connect outside information to discover new truths.

 

[Eventhorizon]

@Ginny I think you are taking this far to personally. As a note remember that all Sherlocks are fictional creations. The writer can create them to be contradictory in a way where they don't fit into any one mbti type. We can guess...some better than others but will anyone considering ever really know?

 

[Ginny]

I don't think so, I never intended to slight you, you just weren't giving me an opportunity to share my opinion. (...) I was just behaving in what I thought was an appropriate way.

I'm sorry if you saw it that way. I was pretty much on a high about this supposedly secret knowledge, but I am never opposed to being schooled when there are proper arguments being made, with substantial evidence.
Did you really think that when I ask for knowledge it is better not to engage? I'm sorry, I should let it go. At least you apologised. Thank you for that, I appreciate it. I hope this doesn't impact our further discussion.

I mean, whatever examples I do give you will attempt to refute.

The only thing I am really sure about at the moment is a lack of Si. Nothing more. You have seen to that. Sorry, that came out more harsh than I meant it. What I meant was, that my Fe (despite me being utterly sure, no matter how much I try to resist it) does eventually push me to at least entertain the possibility of me being wrong. Only Fe pushes really hard and too far, which ends up in me doubting myself more often than not. It has then nothing to do with you, as in it being your fault, you just triggered it.

Anyway, Si has to do with caring, or more precisely, taking care of oneself and also with common sense. Sherlock's recreational drug use is therefore my argument for very low Si-use. Anther factor contributing to this is his need of John (and Mrs Hudson) to take care of him physically while he is lost in his own mind, solving a problem. This is something he has in common with his literary counterpart. One of the few things that overlap.

Are we so far on the same page? Or are there any things you disagree on?

???

PoLR means Point of Least Resistance, it's used in socionics to describe the MBTI's seventh function (only with them it's the eighth, I don't know why). It literally means that we are [forgot to finish this] that we suck at it, and criticise (the lack of) it in others.

But still if you look at Te, which I think he does have a fair bit of and infjs are generally pretty crap at, it is the differentiator.
General concepts of Te that he embodies are him being extremely logical, objective and fair. Being results driven (highly determined to solve cases). Observes all data and information highly indiscriminately. Can connect outside information to discover new truths.

Maybe I should take a look at Te some more. Sorry, it's just that I need more information to see how it behaves, rather than being presented with a definition. It is usually what gets me into trouble. I'll get to you on that later on. The one thing that I know about Te is an objective function concerned with logic and efficiency.

 

[Ginny]

@Ginny I think you are taking this far to personally. As a note remember that all Sherlocks are fictional creations. The writer can create them to be contradictory in a way where they don't fit into any one mbti type. We can guess...some better than others but will anyone considering ever really know?

It is personally motivated, but it doesn't impact my objectivity in a discussion.
Of course they are fictional, do you think I am infatuated or anything?
They might, or they might not. After all, nobody fits completely into one category. Why do you think there exist so many theories to describe people? Because there are always people who defy categorisation. But that doesn't mean that we can't discuss about it and hopefully come to a conclusion which we all agree on.

 

[Wyote]

I hope this doesn't impact our further discussion.

We're cool

Sherlock's recreational drug use is therefore my argument for very low Si-use.

I don't really agree with this. Anyone can fall victim to addiction and addiction is a very serious thing that sort of supersedes/consumes mbti.

 

[Ginny]

I don't really agree with this. Anyone can fall victim to addiction and addiction is a very serious thing that sort of supersedes/consumes mbti.

True. It might be, though, that some types are more likely to do this, in theory at least, but this is a whole other discussion (and two other things: I don't agree with what I just said, and it's also not an area I am particularly knowledgeable about).

And the other arguments? I mean, the core of Si is taking care of oneself and this is also where common sense stems from.

 

[Wyote]

the core of Si is taking care of oneself

I'd say he does a pretty good job, considering he's a sociopath with a fear of intimacy, having a megalomaniac brother, a psychotic sister and has a slew of homicidal maniacs always at his doorstep

 

[Ginny]

autistic agoraphobic

So we are also including mental issues into the mix? I thought they are bogous and only exibits of an overuse/lack of function use

 

[charlatan]

Generally I'd say the more classic example (by my definitions at least) of a NiTe type detective is (at least as portrayed in the Suchet series) Hercule Poirot -- he tends to build his theory of what happened by envisioning the psychologies of all involved parties and basically picturing/recreating the crime in his mind. Correspondingly we see he is portrayed in the series as being treated with skepticism by the more "traditional" ST detectives, despite somehow always being right.
He gathers facts methodically, but uses them in a more abstract way, and relies heavily on intuition. And he sure as hell seems to have Fi. He's portrayed as a so-ish enneagramer, so he does exchange a lot of pleasantries and so on, but beneath that he seems quite Fi-ish.

Very different from Sherlock, who builds a giant matrix of sensory data with intricate analyses of the place of each like a jigsaw puzzle. The way the BBC series portrays him is as just uncannily noticing insane amounts of raw sensory detail and drawing brilliant deductions from it.


{full disclosure is I see Te as more an algorithmic, pragmatic results-oriented logical factuality than a sensory factuality -- in fact this goes back to Jung, who saw ST as the classic scientist orientation, being focused on empirical data an so on. An example of a Te philosophy would be one that claims a theory is measured by its utility in solving difficult problems -- EVEN if the problems are themselves theoretical because it's still speaking to the output. An intense curiosity about worldly events/those kinds of facts/the "feeling every quiver of its beating heart" attitude of Sherlock, and his immersion in sensory events doesn't strike me as the Te kind of factuality, at least as I define Te... obviously my choice of framework is important, but of course to the (few heh) interested parties, I do believe I can motivate the choice quite well for its explanatory power}

 

[James]

I really think if Sherlock was real, he'd be INTJ. Cumberbatch may well be an infj himself, my guess is most actors are F types. Substantial parts of the show reflects around Sherlock's inner struggle to prevent any emotion deflecting his logic.

I think this is something INTJs often do internally.

The character is definitely introverted, and J type (or driven to action). I'd say the way he puts together ideas is intuitive, but like a lot of INTJs he is still able to take in a lot of sensory details. I think Infj often struggle to do that, we're too "big picture" so details are a problem for us.

I think the key part for me is that whilst Sherlock is humane, he is far more interested in the puzzle than the people. I don't see him as a sociopath. It seems to me more the behaviour of high functioning aspergers type condition.

As for the addiction, I think that's as described in the books, a symptom of his boredom, which with that kind of intellect is unsurprising.

That's just my take on it, I really love the show and the way it's been presented, but for me? The books are like stepping into a time machine, almost hypnotic.

So no offence to anyone who thinks differently. As @Eventhorizon said it's an work of fiction, though the character was probably based on Joseph Bell a Scots surgeon, that Conan Doyle worked for.

 

[Wyote]

As for the addiction, I think that's as described in the books, a symptom of his boredom, which with that kind of intellect is unsurprising.

Yes!

 

[Wyote]

{full disclosure is I see Te as more an algorithmic, pragmatic results-oriented logical factuality than a sensory factuality -- in fact this goes back to Jung, who saw ST as the classic scientist orientation, being focused on empirical data an so on. An example of a Te philosophy would be one that claims a theory is measured by its utility in solving difficult problems -- EVEN if the problems are themselves theoretical because it's still speaking to the output. An intense curiosity about worldly events/those kinds of facts/the "feeling every quiver of its beating heart" attitude of Sherlock, and his immersion in sensory events doesn't strike me as the Te kind of factuality, at least as I define Te... obviously my choice of framework is important, but of course to the (few heh) interested parties, I do believe I can motivate the choice quite well for its explanatory power}

Yea, this is why I have trouble deciding if he's ISTP or INTJ

 

[Wyote]

seems quite Fi-ish.

Definitely.