Reply
Thread Tools
Sherlock Holmes None
Old 06-16-2011, 05:12 PM   #1
jnoelle
Banned
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 476
 
I know that a lot of people have been wondering if Sherlock Holmes is more INTP or INTJ (I vote: one of us!), but I'm kinda wondering what type John Watson would be. I'm thinking ISFJ, but he does draw *some* conclusions from the evidence Sherlock shows him (even if his conclusions are rarely accurate), and he does always question peoples' motives, it seems, so maybe he's more of an N.
jnoelle is offline
Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2011, 06:21 PM   #2
Kisai
Core Member [416%]
Mad, bad, and dangerous to know.
MBTI: XXXX
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16,654
 

  Originally Posted by jnoelle
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I know that a lot of people have been wondering if Sherlock Holmes is more INTP or INTJ (I vote: one of us!), but I'm kinda wondering what type John Watson would be. I'm thinking ISFJ, but he does draw *some* conclusions from the evidence Sherlock shows him (even if his conclusions are rarely accurate), and he does always question peoples' motives, it seems, so maybe he's more of an N.

ISTP (Ti-Se-Ni-Fe). A great dead of deductive thinking based on his observations. Seriously introverts for Ni thinking. Fe inferior for not seeking out glory and making fun of police inspectors. An INTJ Holmes would be not be making all of those Se observations and would be a proponent of inductive reasoning. He'd make more mistakes with reasoning, but hopefully have for more contingency plans for alternate models.

Kisai is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2011, 06:34 PM   #3
jnoelle
Banned
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 476
 
Holmes doesn't just observe things, though. He sees the threads connecting things and takes those tiny-ass details that he observes and draws (freakishly accurate) conclusions from them. If he was S instead of N, he'd just be able to observe details well but not see very much beyond them. In the various stories, he comes up with extremely complex conclusions from relatively nothing, which I can't really see somebody who's more of an S doing.
jnoelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2011, 06:47 PM   #4
Aklis
Member [15%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 608
 

  Originally Posted by jnoelle
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Holmes doesn't just observe things, though. He sees the threads connecting things and takes those tiny-ass details that he observes and draws (freakishly accurate) conclusions from them. If he was S instead of N, he'd just be able to observe details well but not see very much beyond them. In the various stories, he comes up with extremely complex conclusions from relatively nothing, which I can't really see somebody who's more of an S doing.

I think that Holmes has a very developed 'N', but he is definitely 'S' as his primary focus is on the details.

Aklis is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2011, 06:53 PM   #5
Kisai
Core Member [416%]
Mad, bad, and dangerous to know.
MBTI: XXXX
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16,654
 

  Originally Posted by jnoelle
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If he was S instead of N, he'd just be able to observe details well but not see very much beyond them. In the various stories, he comes up with extremely complex conclusions from relatively nothing, which I can't really see somebody who's more of an S doing.

I'm sorry, but you have a prejudice against Sensors which I don't share. If you note the cognitive process preference order for ISXPs, you'll notice that Ni is a teritary component, and their insights can be just as illuminating or moreso than that of a Ni primary.

Kisai is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2011, 07:05 PM   #6
jnoelle
Banned
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 476
 

  Originally Posted by Kisai
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm sorry, but you have a prejudice against Sensors which I don't share. If you note the cognitive process preference order for ISXPs, you'll notice that Ni is a teritary component, and their insights can be just as illuminating or moreso than that of a Ni primary.

I'd hardly call it a prejudice.

I think that Holmes' personality is so dependent on the Ni function that it really can't be all the way down at tertiary. I think he just has a super-developed Se. I think he's more of an INTJ than INTP, because he doesn't really allow for multiple scenarios to exist at once. He seems to commit to one, maybe two, and goes on to prove it right. Yes, he can notice details, but it's more the conclusions he draws and the connections he sees between things that seem to dominate his thinking.

jnoelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2011, 07:17 PM   #7
Kisai
Core Member [416%]
Mad, bad, and dangerous to know.
MBTI: XXXX
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16,654
 
You know that Holmes was actually ignorant that the Earth travels around the Sun, no? Or that he purposefully does not pursue topics that he has no practical interest in? That's hardly NT behavior. He's strictly a man of present circumstances, not future ponderings.
Kisai is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2011, 07:22 PM   #8
jnoelle
Banned
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 476
 
@Kisai: He just doesn't read up on irrelevant crap. He has priorities. I'm sure you're familiar with his line about the mind being more like an attic and less like a sponge. That seems to be pretty typical INTJ. We don't like to spend time doing things that are useless or irrelevant. I think it's part of Te. We want to be efficient. Spending time reading about astronomy when you're a detective is pretty inefficient.
jnoelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2011, 07:30 PM   #9
Kisai
Core Member [416%]
Mad, bad, and dangerous to know.
MBTI: XXXX
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16,654
 
Right. Exactly this.

 
"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

I really have to disagree with your postulations. The NT is known for their love of knowledge. In my bookbag right now I have textbooks on physics, aerospace engineering, and Egyptian hieroglyphics. If something isn't known to me, I want to understand it. If you read this passage, you'll notice that Holmes is a Sensor and only concerned with his local surroundings, not "bigger picture" thinking.

 
"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

Kisai is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2011, 07:51 PM   #10
elinordash
New Member [01%]
 
MBTI: iNTj
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 23
 
I have to agree about Sherlock Holmes. He has acute observation and excellent reasoning abilities, but doesn't seem to have a particular orientation towards abstract theory. But I'm not sure whether I think he's ISTP or ISTJ. I would guess ISTJ -- doesn't he seem more Si/Te than Ti/Se? I think part of the reason Sherlock Holmes doesn't quite fit into a normal social role is that he's an IST with tremendous intellect -- but much more oriented towards concrete problems than most people with his intellect. I'd say the same thing of Dr. House, and probably Severus Snape, too. These characters are known for tremendous technical skill at something physical. I'm not sure why anyone would assume that Severus Snape -- noted for his skills at dueling and potions, a subject that seems to be much more about technique than theory -- is an INTJ. Notice how Hermione, likely an INFJ, isn't all that great at potions, precisely because one can't master it through studying theory.
elinordash is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2011, 08:15 PM   #11
jnoelle
Banned
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 476
 

  Originally Posted by Kisai
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Right. Exactly this.



I really have to disagree with your postulations. The NT is known for their love of knowledge. In my bookbag right now I have textbooks on physics, aerospace engineering, and Egyptian hieroglyphics. If something isn't known to me, I want to understand it. If you read this passage, you'll notice that Holmes is a Sensor and only concerned with his local surroundings, not "bigger picture" thinking.

What about when love of knowledge is inefficient, though? I think his love of knowledge is huge- he constantly puts himself in harm's way just so he can prove himself right and confirm a theory, therefore learning something new and knowing it's set-in-stone, not tentative. Te makes you want to make sure that your use of thought and energy is efficient.
I think he's just bored by the subject matter and therefore doesn't care about the way the solar system works, and spending time being bored isn't really efficient.
Also, he's a jack of many trades. He's a man of science, a skilled musician, and a gifted detective. Obviously his pursuits of knowledge are varied enough that he's studied those fields at some length. Even if there is some overlap (he's seen applying his scientific knowledge to his detective work, and it's pretty well-known that musical ability and mathematical skill are related), his studies are pretty varied.
Also, I think that Sherlock does dwell on the abstract. It's just that he can see the abstract path so clearly that it no longer appears to be abstract to him. It becomes reality because the end result is so focused in his mind, and his Ni is so developed that he's immediately drawn to those complex conclusions. However, if you take a look at John Watson, he's amazed at the conclusions drawn because they are so abstract, cloudy, and hard to see.

jnoelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 02:21 AM   #12
ACe Bishop
New Member [01%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 19
 
A Holmes is INTJ, but not Sherlock.... It's Mycroft
ACe Bishop is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 02:44 AM   #13
Othesemo
Core Member [150%]
Time turns the old days to derision, 
Our loves into corpses or wives,
And marriage and death and division
Make barren our lives.
MBTI: INTj
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,023
 

  Originally Posted by ACe Bishop
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A Holmes is INTJ, but not Sherlock.... It's Mycroft

That. I'm going to have to agree that, while Sherlock certainly has a very well developed N side, he's an S.

Othesemo is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 09:48 AM   #14
elinordash
New Member [01%]
 
MBTI: iNTj
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 23
 
jnoelle, it seems to me that you're classifying any use of logic or intelligence as somehow "abstract" and thus N. Sensors aren't incapable of applying logic to concrete facts -- that's what STs do! I guess in some sense, any use of Ti is "abstract," so to that degree, all Ti users are "abstract." Being a sensor doesn't mean inability to process sensory data with the intellect; S combined with T means the exact opposite. An athlete who can immediately sense the minute details of a game and instantly respond is applying this function. If we extend the definition of "abstract" to include everything besides brute data collection, the athlete's processing of data -- not just sensing other players' positions and motion, but understanding their importance in the context of the game -- is "abstract." Yet this type of skill isn't associated with NTs, but SPs. And Sherlock Holmes's skills are analogous: precise sensing and rapid understanding of the logical implications of physical details.

You have to look at the focus of the logic. For Sherlock Holmes, it's the immediate details of a particular case. He isn't noticeably interested in a Grand Theme; though he talks about patterns if they are useful, he wants to solve particular concrete cases.

I don't think Holmes is uninterested in learning, but he's not interested in the same way NTs are. Most people, not just NTs, have some interest in learning new facts or skills, so you have to look at what types of knowledge they want to acquire and for what purpose. Holmes is interested in acquiring knowledge that will aid in processing concrete data. He's not interested in theory for its own sake. It isn't typical of NTs to find the workings of the solar system "boring."

And yes, he also has an interest in music, but this point is, at best, a wash: SPs excel at the arts because of their unusual perception of aesthetic order. And Holmes doesn't demonstrate any particularly theoretical interest in music. Holmes is drawn to the immediate sensory experience of music. He plays the violin in a completely absorbed way, and when he goes to concerts, he gets absolutely caught up in experiencing the music.

I think his cocaine use also weighs towards SP (need for physical thrills?) as does his alternation between extreme languor and intellectual frenzy. The Typelogic ISTP description applies:

 
Like their fellow SPs, ISTPs are fundamentally Performers (note the capital 'P' :-)), but as Ts their areas of interest tend to be mechanical rather than artistic like those of ISFPs, and unlike most ESPs they do not present an impression of constant activity. On the contrary, they lie dormant, saving their energy until a project or an adventure worthy of their time comes along--and then they launch themselves at it. The apparently frenzied state that inevitably ensues is actually much more controlled than it appears--ISTPs always seem to know what they're doing when it comes to physical or mechanical obstacles--but the whole chain of events presents a confusing and paradoxical picture to an outsider. (from
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

I'd probably agree that NTs on average are smarter than Sensors, but extremely smart people can be any type. Really, it's even more interesting to find an extremely smart SP; they always have extraordinary skill at something. NTs are great, but we do tend to choose traditional "smart people" careers. It's exciting to see someone who has the same intellectual power, but mostly focused on something other than academic theory -- for example, an ESTP with an extraordinary ability to maneuver people.

Edit: One more thing I like about the "Homes is an ISTP" theory -- it gives him both Ti and Ni. Holmes seems more Ti than Te, the more I think about it; but he's definitely not Ne. As an ISTP, he could have Ti/Ni, and with a well developed tertiary, be extremely good at both. I think this is what we see -- primary use of logic and data, with occasional convergent leaps of intuition. A tertiary Ni in an unusually intelligent person could be more powerful than the primary Ni in someone less smart, but it wouldn't be the most relied-upon function.

elinordash is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 11:44 AM   #15
Zsych
Core Member [426%]
MBTI: XNTX
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,052
 
Holmes strikes me as very INTJ - with a decently developed INTP side.

The difference between an N and an S there would be that an N would internally come up with possibilities, or oddities that might imply something interesting and look for those. You can also get bent by your life and get forced to develop skills that you might not otherwise have had.

In terms of basic function order, I think ISTP fits better but in terms of personality a developed INTJ fits better.
Zsych is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 01:44 PM   #16
elinordash
New Member [01%]
 
MBTI: iNTj
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 23
 

  Originally Posted by Zsych
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Holmes strikes me as very INTJ - with a decently developed INTP side.

The difference between an N and an S there would be that an N would internally come up with possibilities, or oddities that might imply something interesting and look for those. You can also get bent by your life and get forced to develop skills that you might not otherwise have had.

In terms of basic function order, I think ISTP fits better but in terms of personality a developed INTJ fits better.

I agree that this technique would be N, but I think it's a more accurate description of, for example, Hercule Poirot's investigation technique than Sherlock Holmes'. Holmes tries to avoid forming theories until he has all the facts; Poirot forms theories, usually tentative, and uses the theories to guide his fact-gathering. I'd say Poirot is an ENTP.

But I should admit, I haven't read that much of Sherlock Holmes. So many people think he's an INTJ, and I think it's possible that my view is based on (too) limited facts.

elinordash is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 02:02 PM   #17
Zsych
Core Member [426%]
MBTI: XNTX
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,052
 
Its more that the personality has an INTJ stench to it. A fictional character really isn't going to be a specific type.

The kind of thinking that would lead to the development of Holmes like skills and attitude, seems NJ to me.
Zsych is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2011, 04:11 PM   #18
Kisai
Core Member [416%]
Mad, bad, and dangerous to know.
MBTI: XXXX
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16,654
 

  Originally Posted by Zsych
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Its more that the personality has an INTJ stench to it. A fictional character really isn't going to be a specific type.

What qualities does Sherlock Holmes have that possess an 'INTJ stench'?

Kisai is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 12:21 AM   #19
Indubitably
Member [36%]
 
MBTI: INTP
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,450
 
I'd say the literary Holmes is an ISTJ that just happens to be very well versed in a scientific method that has a very INTP-ish “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth” flavor to it. His brother Mycroft Holmes is an INTP, and Moriarty is an INTJ.

The general consensus on this board does seem to be that it is nigh impossible for someone to be exceptionally intelligent without being an iNtuitive, but let me assure you that the aforementioned consensus is in fact a giant steaming load of horse shit. ISTJs for instance can be (and in many cases are) brilliant investigators. Most of the ISTJs I know have a mind like an iron trap, and if a detail, any detail, that is even remotely out of place crossed their path, they would be hard pressed to ignore it, never mind fail to recognize it.

As for the movie Holmes, I am fairly confident that he is an ISTP, or rather that you'll find no type that suits him better than ISTP (considering that his character hardly seems well enough written to be assigned any one clear personality).
Indubitably is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 07:57 AM   #20
elinordash
New Member [01%]
 
MBTI: iNTj
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 23
 

  Originally Posted by Indubitably
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'd say the literary Holmes is an ISTJ that just happens to be very well versed in a scientific method that has a very INTP-ish “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth” flavor to it. His brother Mycroft Holmes is an INTP, and Moriarty is an INTJ.

Great insights. How did you decide between ISTJ and ISTP for Holmes? I've already flip-flopped once in this thread, and I think I settled on SP because Holmes has a risk-seeking/thrill-seeking streak to him. But I'm not sure I have any examples of this besides the drug use. I suspect I'm incorporating some of Holmes's personality traits in Sherlock (new BBC series, set in present-day). Modern-day Sherlock is more decidedly ISTP, in my view. Doyle's Sherlock is a harder read for me. I think I wrongly associate ISTJs with being uniformly upstanding citizens and possibly even a little meek.

elinordash is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 03:32 PM   #21
jnoelle
Banned
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 476
 

  Originally Posted by elinordash
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jnoelle, it seems to me that you're classifying any use of logic or intelligence as somehow "abstract" and thus N. Sensors aren't incapable of applying logic to concrete facts -- that's what STs do! I guess in some sense, any use of Ti is "abstract," so to that degree, all Ti users are "abstract." Being a sensor doesn't mean inability to process sensory data with the intellect; S combined with T means the exact opposite. An athlete who can immediately sense the minute details of a game and instantly respond is applying this function. If we extend the definition of "abstract" to include everything besides brute data collection, the athlete's processing of data -- not just sensing other players' positions and motion, but understanding their importance in the context of the game -- is "abstract." Yet this type of skill isn't associated with NTs, but SPs. And Sherlock Holmes's skills are analogous: precise sensing and rapid understanding of the logical implications of physical details.

You have to look at the focus of the logic. For Sherlock Holmes, it's the immediate details of a particular case. He isn't noticeably interested in a Grand Theme; though he talks about patterns if they are useful, he wants to solve particular concrete cases.

I don't think Holmes is uninterested in learning, but he's not interested in the same way NTs are. Most people, not just NTs, have some interest in learning new facts or skills, so you have to look at what types of knowledge they want to acquire and for what purpose. Holmes is interested in acquiring knowledge that will aid in processing concrete data. He's not interested in theory for its own sake. It isn't typical of NTs to find the workings of the solar system "boring."

And yes, he also has an interest in music, but this point is, at best, a wash: SPs excel at the arts because of their unusual perception of aesthetic order. And Holmes doesn't demonstrate any particularly theoretical interest in music. Holmes is drawn to the immediate sensory experience of music. He plays the violin in a completely absorbed way, and when he goes to concerts, he gets absolutely caught up in experiencing the music.

I think his cocaine use also weighs towards SP (need for physical thrills?) as does his alternation between extreme languor and intellectual frenzy. The Typelogic ISTP description applies:



I'd probably agree that NTs on average are smarter than Sensors, but extremely smart people can be any type. Really, it's even more interesting to find an extremely smart SP; they always have extraordinary skill at something. NTs are great, but we do tend to choose traditional "smart people" careers. It's exciting to see someone who has the same intellectual power, but mostly focused on something other than academic theory -- for example, an ESTP with an extraordinary ability to maneuver people.

Edit: One more thing I like about the "Homes is an ISTP" theory -- it gives him both Ti and Ni. Holmes seems more Ti than Te, the more I think about it; but he's definitely not Ne. As an ISTP, he could have Ti/Ni, and with a well developed tertiary, be extremely good at both. I think this is what we see -- primary use of logic and data, with occasional convergent leaps of intuition. A tertiary Ni in an unusually intelligent person could be more powerful than the primary Ni in someone less smart, but it wouldn't be the most relied-upon function.

True about the athlete, but Sherlock doesn't do everything by observing. In Hound of the Baskervilles, he spends a whole day (perhaps much longer?) thinking about the case, coming up with theories, without having seen the crime scene. While he does go check it out later in the book, it seems that at least for a while, he's content with his mental image of it. He does realize that there are some missing pieces that he needs to go see and figure out, but it seems that he spends as much time at Baker Street as possible [it was unclear as to whether or not he truly was working on a different case or really did spend time away just so he could get a perfectly-timed look at the scene].

Also, he doesn't just want to solve a concrete case. He wants to know the motives, which are abstract, and are pretty much the big connective arc between each of the various things that happen.

The most musically talented people I know are actually INTPs, but then again, they all come from musical families. And yeah, they do seem more into music theory (they all tend to be major math geeks) than just making pretty noises, and tend to be into creating pieces as much as (if not moreso) playing existing ones. I can see how that contrasts with how Sherlock is with his music, now that I think about it. It makes sense that an INTP would be more of a composer than a performer, especially if you compare the Architect role with creating things formulaically with musical notes.

Maybe he does have some more ISTx functions, but strictly personality-wise, he definitely seems INTJ. He rarely seems upset over the deaths of the victims (in fact it almost seems like he enjoys murders simply because they're fun to solve), won't stop until he reaches his goal/a theory he likes, hates doing boring/monotonous things (doing nothing would fall into this category), doesn't seem to let on to Watson how much he appreciates him, etc.
Of course, abnormal psychology might play into it a bit, explaining his lack of empathy and obsession with answering the questions regarding a crime. I mean, the TV Sherlock described himself as a "high-functioning sociopath" (which I find inaccurate due to the fact that he obviously keeps Watson around for more than material reasons), which kind of does have a bit of a "maybe I'm just an INTJ" type of flair to it.

jnoelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2011, 04:59 PM   #22
Lipovan87
Member [03%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 149
 
ISTJ is credible but his inclination towards seeing patterns and abstract theorizing strike me more as N. His interest in Chemistry speaks of a more developed S than normal though and his intelligence would help him develop both the N and S parts.

Given his disorder in his rooms and enjoyment of mocking the inspectors, P is more likely.

At least the Watson of the books seems to be an ESFJ.
Lipovan87 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 12:12 AM   #23
Tactical Panda
Core Member [133%]
 
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,328
 
Holmes being an ISTP would make a lot of sense. Ti, Se, Ni, and inferior Fe.
Deductive reasoning based on detailed evidence with excellent connection and interesting relationship quirks. Its all there. His Si, Te, Fi and Ne don't seem to be his prominent tools of trade.
Tactical Panda is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 02:41 AM   #24
intjistp
Member [24%]
 
MBTI: xxxx
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 993
 
I think he is NT. He just picks up things and his mind makes conclusion for him.
intjistp is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2011, 12:21 PM   #25
Sinequanon
Veteran Member [96%]
Begin from being no one, rise higher and higher to hit the ground.
MBTI: INFJ
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,879
 

  Originally Posted by intjistp
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think he is NT. He just picks up things and his mind makes conclusion for him.

You think he's NT because he uses his mind to make conclusions?

Sinequanon is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.