William Shakespeare [Archive]

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 01:29 PM

I want a thread that will produce unanimous agreement. If that's ever gonna happen, it's with this post.

INFP

There! Go ahead! Dissent all you will!

I'm guessing you only want a unanimous agreement if it concurs with your own?

I've seen him listed as an example of and INFP and an INTP. I would tend to claim him as one of my clan, naturally. But I have it on good authority than he never took the test. :)

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 03:05 PM

I'm guessing you only want a unanimous agreement if it concurs with your own?

I've seen him listed as an example of and INFP and an INTP. I would tend to claim him as one of my clan, naturally. But I have it on good authority than he never took the test. :)

I've never seen him listed as an INTP. Evidence this!

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 07:35 PM

I've never seen him listed as an INTP. Evidence this!

Au contraire, my dear. You seen it at least once - see above.
I can't remember where I read this now, possibly Kiersey? Google it.

Why should I provide evidence when you have supplied none?

We don't know much about his personal life (other than that he abandoned his wife and was probably gay). We have to rely on his work.
I think he is too cynical to be an NF. He doesn't believe in happy ever afters.
I could go but, in the end, does it really matter?

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 07:56 PM

Au contraire, my dear. You seen it at least once - see above.
I can't remember where I read this now, possibly Kiersey? Google it.

Why should I provide evidence when you have supplied none?

We don't know much about his personal life (other than that he abandoned his wife and was probably gay). We have to rely on his work.
I think he is too cynical to be an NF. He doesn't believe in happy ever afters.
I could go but, in the end, does it really matter?

I shouldn't have to give a link for my opinion; you claim that he was externally typed as INTP; therefore you should evidence this.

WS did not "abandon" his wife. Like a great deal of husbands, he worked away from home for some of the time. You say he was "probably gay". Yet you also say that we hardly know anything about him! How have you decided that he is gay?

Here's some links suggesting that WS is an INFP:
INFP Profile (http://typelogic.com/infp.html)
INFP (Dreamer) Personality Type - Jungian (http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/infp/)

Two of the most prominent celeb typing sites. Now the onus is on you to substantiate your claim.

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 08:18 PM

I shouldn't have to give a link for my opinion; you claim that he was externally typed as INTP; therefore you should evidence this.

WS did not "abandon" his wife. Like a great deal of husbands, he worked away from home for some of the time. You say he was "probably gay". Yet you also say that we hardly know anything about him! How have you decided that he is gay?

Here's some links suggesting that WS is an INFP:
INFP Profile (http://typelogic.com/infp.html)
INFP (Dreamer) Personality Type - Jungian (http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/infp/)

Two of the most prominent celeb typing sites. Now the onus is on you to substantiate your claim.
crikey - are you for real?
I haven't decided anything. Nor do I need to substantiate anything. The gay thing is pretty well documented though. Largely based on some of the sonnets. Everybody wants Will in their camp! :)

Please Understand Me II - Ch 6, p166
"..harmonic thought and speech requires selecting and arranging words for the way they sound, a skill not usually acquired by Rationals, though some (like Shakespeare) can become masters of it when they take it as their province".
I was surprised too....
You can't force a consensus, this is all just idle speculation.

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 08:51 PM

crikey - are you for real?
I haven't decided anything. Nor do I need to substantiate anything. The gay thing is pretty well documented though. Largely based on some of the sonnets. Everybody wants Will in their camp! :)

Please Understand Me II - Ch 6, p166
"..harmonic thought and speech requires selecting and arranging words for the way they sound, a skill not usually acquired by Rationals, though some (like Shakespeare) can become masters of it when they take it as their province".
I was surprised too....
You can't force a consensus, this is all just idle speculation.

The gay thing is a theory, just as there is a Catholic theory, and the theory that someone else wrote his works, created partially as we know so little about him. With the sonnets, it is not clear whether WS was adopting a different voice when he refers to the boy...sonnets do not have to be autobiographical, and surely as one of the world's greatest writers would WS not be more than capable of doing this?

I think that most people would agree that WS was an INFP, just from reading his works.

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 09:35 PM

INFP? Pssh.

ENTP.

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 09:53 PM

INFP? Pssh.

ENTP.

Well I've never seen him typed as that before, so perhaps you'd like to qualify your assertion?

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 10:03 PM

Well I've never seen him typed as that before, so perhaps you'd like to qualify your assertion?

Okie dokie.

I will give you that his work sounds INFP-ish by modern standards, but then again, one can look at the way things were generally written back then... that was just the style, especially if he was writing particularly for an audience. Also, consider how writing plays -- and consequently, making movies -- is done. He was quite prolific, which is generally not considered an INP thing, and a lot of the genius is rather in the meter than in the actual story, which seems Ti-ish to me. If we go on to consider, not that he didn't not make his plays, but it's quite likely that he took other plays and reworked them to suit him and the players and the audience, then he was not working with a closed-system at all, and more working as a showman.

The problem with saying "I think that most people would agree that WS was an INFP, just from reading his works" is that the point is not his works, (or even his supposed works) but how he came about them...

I suppose INTP works too, but I think Ne over Ti works better. Also, in that case, Fe would be higher up the ladder, which I think if he was going to pull off writing entertainment, would be damned useful.

proteanmix

09-26-2008, 10:12 PM

Do people see INFP as like, the default, or something...?

The default type of any celebrity typing on the forum is INxx, xNxx, or at least Ixxx. It could be because INs are more likely to gravitate to other legit INs or see shared qualities in other types and mistype as their type. Or other stuff.

It's why I gave up the celebrity typing, too biased.

Uberfuhrer

09-26-2008, 10:15 PM

INTP, according to Keirsey, and I agree with him.

His works were more cynical than romantic.

SuperFob

09-26-2008, 10:20 PM

INFP. Judging by his works, I don't think that anyone but an NF could've had that tragic understanding of humanity ;) (seriously, though, I'm not kidding in the least)

I heard someone say that WS was too cynical in his lack of faith in everlasting love to be an NF. Why can't NF's be like that? I'm definitely going through a phase in my life where I'm having a hard time believing that true love exists outside the fairy tales. If someone fails to find love in their life, they'll prone to believing it doesn't exist, NF or not. NF's aren't immune to the grasp of cynicism. In fact, WS may've just been bitter about his own problems that he picked up a cynical attitude as a coping mechanism. I don't have any friends in my life, and I know that when I'm reminiscing on being a loner, it feels good to mope, feel sorry for myself, and say things like "love and friendship is BS, it doesn't exist," though I really know in my heart that I don't actually believe those things when I say them.

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 10:30 PM

Only an NF could write Hamlet. It deals with so many complex emotions. If WS was such an ENTP 'showman' then why was he not actually up there on the stage showing off? I still think INFP.

SuperFob

09-26-2008, 10:34 PM

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 10:40 PM

If WS was such an ENTP 'showman' then why was he not actually up there on the stage showing off?

This is why I kept the N. He was primarily an entertainer, but he was content not doing it directly. ENPs can be pretty introverted.

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 10:46 PM

The gay thing is a theory, just as there is a Catholic theory, and the theory that someone else wrote his works, created partially as we know so little about him. With the sonnets, it is not clear whether WS was adopting a different voice when he refers to the boy...sonnets do not have to be autobiographical, and surely as one of the world's greatest writers would WS not be more than capable of doing this?

I think that most people would agree that WS was an INFP, just from reading his works.

You are embarrassing yourself now.
I can't believe you care this much. MBTI is also, just a theory after all....

SuperFob

09-26-2008, 10:51 PM

Why does it have to mean that someone 'cares too much' if they're just defending their opinion? :huh:

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 10:52 PM

You are embarrassing yourself now.
I can't believe you care this much. MBTI is also, just a theory after all....

I think that you are embarrasing yourself. I only express my opinion. You dismiss the MBTI on an MBTI forum! Why are you even here? What are you doing posting here if you don't care about this topic?

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 10:52 PM

This is why I kept the N. He was primarily an entertainer, but he was content not doing it directly. ENPs can be pretty introverted.

Actually, he was a player too...

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 10:53 PM

I think that you are embarrasing yourself. You dismiss the MBTI on an MBTI forum! Why are you even here? What are you doing posting here if you don't care about this topic?

Don't be hysterical. To say something is a theory is not to dismiss it. To state a theory as fact is dogmatic.

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 10:53 PM

Actually, he was a player too...

:)

Didn't he primarily write, though?

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 10:57 PM

I bet some T's are going to think I'm some racist typing asshole for what I said about NF's. Anything's possible, I just think it's highly highly unlikely for anyone but an NF to have come up with the brilliant tragedies WS did.

I think it's pretty narrow-minded to assume that NF's have romanticize. We're much more capable than anyone else at pulling those heart-wrenching tales.

I think it highly unlikely that any T will think you racist based on those sentiments. (?)

It's narrow-minded to assume NFs romanticize, but it's not narrow-minded to assume only NFs can come up with "brilliant tragedies"....hmmmm.....ok then.

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 11:01 PM

It's making something so heartwrenching a form of romanticization? As in, romanticizing a tragedy?

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 11:06 PM

Actually, he was a player too...

Since when are you the expert on Shakespeare? Your arrogance clearly surpasses any tidbits of information you may have ever picked up about the Bard.

There is no evidence that Shakespeare was ever a player. There is an unsubstantiated rumour that he played the Ghost in Hamlet. And as other posters have mentioned, he was foremost a writer, so what does your assertion actually add? I believe that you are being deliberately contentious in order to subvert this thread.

SuperFob

09-26-2008, 11:06 PM

I think it highly unlikely that any T will think you racist based on those sentiments. (?)

It's narrow-minded to assume NFs romanticize, but it's not narrow-minded to assume only NFs can come up with "brilliant tragedies"....hmmmm.....ok then.
I'd say it's rather narrow-minded to assume that's what I meant with my post.

If you read my post a bit closer, you'll notice I said that anything's possible, I just think it's a lot more likely for an NF to come up with the things Shakespeare did. I'm not saying that a non-NF wouldn't be able to write a brilliant story, I just think that when I'm looking at the best of the best, like Shakespeare, I've gotta assume that the type most wired for doing what he did so well is the type that he fit under. That's an NF.

It goes both ways. NF's are capable of being great scientists, but when it comes to the most revered ones like Einstein, it's simply an overwhelming probability that you're looking at an NT.

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 11:10 PM

All we have are the works. The circumstances under which they were created are unknown.

To type a person by solely on work which may not even be (entirely) their own without looking at their life is pretty naïve, no?

Uberfuhrer

09-26-2008, 11:19 PM

This is why I kept the N. He was primarily an entertainer, but he was content not doing it directly. ENPs can be pretty introverted.

I don't see how you figure that out. An Ixxx would express him/herself indirectly, while an Exxx would be direct. ENxPs find it easy to express their random insights directly (through speech, writing, art, invention, etc.), just as ESxPs find it easy to act directly on physical impulses.

An INxP would have expressed more meaning in ideas because the N insights are given meaning and coherence through their dominant introverted judgment function.

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 11:22 PM

I don't see how you figure that out. An Ixxx would express him/herself indirectly, while an Exxx would be direct. ENxPs find it easy to express their random insights directly (through speech, writing, art, invention, etc.), just as ESxPs find it easy to act directly on physical impulses.

An INxP would have expressed more meaning in ideas because the N insights are given meaning and coherence through their dominant introverted judgment function.

Then why do I know so many ENP writers?

SuperFob

09-26-2008, 11:22 PM

To type a person by solely on work which may not even be (entirely) their own without looking at their life is pretty naïve, no?
To try and type a person with certainty based solely on work would be naive. You can always make an educated guess, though. As long as you aren't dumb enough to believe that and act like you can know the 100% truth based on limited information, I think there's nothing wrong with speculation. That's the whole point of the popular culture forum... no?

I still believe that Shakespeare was an NF based on the brilliance of his work alone, but, at the end of the day, that's just my opinion.

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 11:25 PM

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 11:27 PM

I see that the troll from before hasn't deemed himself worthy enough to respond to my earlier post about him :)

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 11:27 PM

Since when are you the expert on Shakespeare? Your arrogance clearly surpasses any tidbits of information you may have ever picked up about the Bard.

There is no evidence that Shakespeare was ever a player. There is an unsubstantiated rumour that he played the Ghost in Hamlet. And as other posters have mentioned, he was foremost a writer, so what does your assertion actually add? I believe that you are being deliberately contentious in order to subvert this thread.

:devil: If you think that then why are you bothering to reply?'
This is really too funny. I'm sorry, I don't mean to wind you up but you make it tooo easy.

Why would it be so unconscionable if he turned out to be a little old T? I think you'll find your experiment in this thread has backfired a bit. Never mind, you have lots of other writers in your clan - some of them are really rather good too.

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 11:30 PM

:devil: If you think that then why are you bothering to reply?'
This is really too funny. I'm sorry, I don't mean to wind you up but you make it tooo easy.

Why would it be so unconscionable if he turned out to be a little old T? I think you'll find your experiment in this thread has backfired a bit. Never mind, you have lots of other writers in your clan - some of them are really rather good too.

Look, I'm not against Shakespeare being an INTP or any other type. My OP was intended to spark friendly debate and was intended as a bit of lively fun, something that you and only you seem to have failed to pick up on; it wasn' intended to be serious.

ADD: From time to time I use a little thing called irony. If you believe that I honestly thought that a thread on the most famous writer of all time's type was going to go unchallenged then you obviously aren't familiar with these message boards!

It was you who took offence at my post, so may I suggest that you lighten up a bit and stop taking everything so seriously? :)

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 11:33 PM

To try and type a person with certainty based solely on work would be naive. You can always make an educated guess, though. As long as you aren't dumb enough to believe that and act like you can know the 100% truth based on limited information, I think there's nothing wrong with speculation. That's the whole point of the popular culture forum... no?

I still believe that Shakespeare was an NF based on the brilliance of his work alone, but, at the end of the day, that's just my opinion.

What we have is a bunch of writing with the name 'William Shakespeare' on it.

There's enough controversy over who he was, how much he wrote (if he actually did write any at all) and what he did that it's all suspect.

You can't claim to be typing Shakespeare himself. You're typing his works... and even that could be debated (INFP or INTP?). You've decided that his works are enough of something to call 'William Shakespeare.'

MBTI is circumstantial. With no circumstances, there's just not enough information.

Wasn't the whole point of this thread to find somebody from pop culture that we could all agree on the type of?

Athenian200

09-26-2008, 11:37 PM

Okay, I'll chime in.

I think what type Shakespeare is depends on whether he wrote his own works or not. Now, I admit that I have thought of him as INFP, but only because I often joke that his work is annoyingly schmaltzy (apologies to everyone who likes him, this is just my opinion).

Of course, if those theories that he didn't write his own work (and that the surrounding literary culture had INFP-ish traits) are correct, xNTP is much more likely. It would paint a completely different kind of character and motivations if he didn't write it himself.

I think the answer to his type, is really dependent on what kind of person he was outside of writing. I don't think there's enough information about that left to make a valid typing.

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 11:39 PM

What we have is a bunch of writing with the name 'William Shakespeare' on it.

There's enough controversy over who he was, how much he wrote (if he actually did write any at all) and what he did that it's all suspect.

You can't claim to be typing Shakespeare himself. You're typing his works... and even that could be debated (INFP or INTP?). You've decided that his works are enough of something to call 'William Shakespeare.'

MBTI is circumstantial. With no circumstances, there's just not enough information.

Wasn't the whole point of this thread to find somebody from pop culture that we could all agree on the type of?

Er, see post above your one :D

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 11:43 PM

Er, see post above your one :D

Oh, my emotionally-stunted, pathetic NT mind was mistaken, then. I thought you were trying to run some kind of experiment to see if it was actually possible.

If we're just going to look at the work, the meter contrivances to make the plays easily memorizable are very Ti. And that was what made Shakespeare so great, while otherwise a lot of his plays were pretty much action-flicks and melodramas from the day...

There have been a lot of ENTP writers, so it's not refutable that it's possible. The thing is, though, is that they tend to be as clever off the page as on the page, but because there's not much known about him personally, it'd be impossible to tell.

SuperFob

09-26-2008, 11:44 PM

You can't claim to be typing Shakespeare himself.
Sure I can. I could claim to type some homeless person off the street without ever seeing him or knowing anything about him at all. It would be a very inaccurate typing, but there's a difference between ATTEMPTING to type someone and being right about it. I'm doing the former. I can claim whatever I want as long as I stay in my place and remember that I'm only stating what I believe. When I start acting like my words are truth and more than just my personal opinion, I cross the line. That is what I cannot do.

In fact, there's really no known way to type people for sure, is there? It's subjective.

You're typing his works... and even that could be debated (INFP or INTP?). You've decided that his works are enough of something to call 'William Shakespeare.'
I'm not typing his works. I'm typing the person who wrote them. His works are a bunch of books/pieces of paper/whatever he used to write on. They're objects. Objects can't be typed. People can. The works came from him, and when you see something that comes from a person, it says something about them. It doesn't say everything about that person, but it says something. As long as you have that something, as little as it may be, you know a bit about that person and you have something to base your opinion of their type on. I like to think of work as deep as Shakespeare's writing as a window into the writer's soul. I look through the window and I see the soul of a very imaginative NF. That's only what I see, though, and other people may see different. That's the nature of opinion.

That's the magic word here: Opinion. As long as you keep everything you say on the level of opinion, you can say whatever you want about types, no matter how absurd it may seem to other people.

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 11:46 PM

Lets assume for this thread that Shakespeare did write his own works, for matters of simplicity, as well aa the fact that most serious biographers of the Bard will contend that there is very little reason for one to doubt WS's authorial authenticity.

I believe that Shakespeare's rather prolific opus of plays and sonnets, combined with the what he do actually know about his life and his family, plus reasonable subjecture, do give one enough material with which to tentatively type the bard. Bear in mind, that legions of weighty biographies have been written about the man.

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 11:50 PM

Now, I admit that I have thought of him as INFP, but only because I often joke that his work is annoyingly schmaltzy

Read Macbeth lately? Or Othello?

I don't know where the idea that Elizabethan England was so F-centric has come from.

As for typing someone from their work - isn't that the basis of most "celebrity typing" ? Why is it invalid?

dynamiteninja

09-26-2008, 11:51 PM

Oh, my emotionally-stunted, pathetic NT mind was mistaken, then. I thought you were trying to run some kind of experiment to see if it was actually possible.

If we're just going to look at the work, the meter contrivances to make the plays easily memorizable are very Ti. And that was what made Shakespeare so great, while otherwise a lot of his plays were pretty much action-flicks and melodramas from the day...

There have been a lot of ENTP writers, so it's not refutable that it's possible. The thing is, though, is that they tend to be as clever off the page as on the page, but because there's not much known about him personally, it'd be impossible to tell.

Well I balk at the bold text. Those assertions are a matter of opinion that I'm not even going to begin to challenge. :)

I think it would further your point if you could post the names of some of these ENTP writers.

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 11:52 PM

Haphazard

09-26-2008, 11:56 PM

I think it would further your point if you could post the names of some of these ENTP writers.

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
Oscar Wilde
Lewis Carrol

To name a few.

And I know a few ENTPs personally who write...

bluemonday

09-26-2008, 11:56 PM

It was you who took offence at my post, so may I suggest that you lighten up a bit and stop taking everything so seriously? :)

Don't worry. I'm not in the least offended. Not sure what could have given you that idea. I've been chuckling away to myself.:smile:

SuperFob

09-27-2008, 12:05 AM

I think the idea of trying to simplify the depth, emotional significance, and greatness of Shakespeare to something as shallow as meter is a slightly dry way of looking at it (then again, maybe not so slightly). It makes for an amusing analysis, though :D

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 12:06 AM

Fine.

If we're going to assume that Shakespeare did write all of his own works without plagarising/significant influence by other popular works at the time, I'd go with ENFP.

Why E?

He was too damn prolific to be an INFP.

Well no, I don't think that was what was meant. What was referred to was the authorship question of whether it was actually WS or another author using WS to release his works behind the works, possibly Marlowe or Bacon.

It is almost certain that WS "borrowed" plots from earlier works, but this can be said of many authors. One of the greatest books of modern times is Ullyeses, which borrows heavily from Homer's Odyssey and Hamlet, to give just one example. Remember that lawsuits did exist in Elizabethan times. :) WS could hardly have blatantly stolen from his contemporaries works.

WS had to write plays for his company to perform. We was never particularly well off, about middle class by the time he died. This is a great incentive for INFPs to write prolifically. Also, an inspired INFP, as WS undoubtedly was, will have no problem writing like crazy.

Where I see the problem, is getting an ENFP to be introspective enough to write as prolifically as WS!

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 12:07 AM

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
Oscar Wilde
Lewis Carrol

To name a few.

And I know a few ENTPs personally who write...

Well I'll give you two out of three :D unless you can give me evidence of Oscar Wilde being an ENTP, when I've usually seen him typed as an INFP.

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 12:17 AM

Well no, I don't think that was what was meant. What was referred to was the authorship question of whether it was actually WS or another author using WS to release his works behind the works, possibly Marlowe or Bacon.

It is almost certain that WS "borrowed" plots from earlier works, but this can be said of many authors. One of the greatest books of modern times is Ullyeses, which borrows heavily from Homer's Odyssey and Hamlet, to give just one example. Remember that lawsuits did exist in Elizabethan times. :) WS could hardly have blatantly stolen from his contemporaries works.

WS had to write plays for his company to perform. We was never particularly well off, about middle class by the time he died. This is a great incentive for INFPs to write prolifically. Also, an inspired INFP, as WS undoubtedly was, will have no problem writing like crazy.

The problem is that, well, if you look at movies now, most of them are based off of short stories (most people don't read short stories anymore, so they can get away with this and the public thinks of them as 'original'). How much personality is in the way things are put together in a story? How much in the language? What about lawsuits across countries? They had difficulties enforcing those even in Dickens' time. What about many people working under one name? Etc, etc, etc.

About being inspired and writing like crazy... no. Just no. Just because an INFP is inspired doesn't mean that they'll allow their works to be published (or preformed, in this case) imperfect, which means dedication, dedication, dedication to just a few works...

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 12:21 AM

Well I'll give you two out of three :D unless you can give me evidence of Oscar Wilde being an ENTP, when I've usually seen him typed as an INFP.

I've seen it a few places.

If you want another supposed ENTP, we've got Sir Walter Raleigh.

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 12:23 AM

The problem is that, well, if you look at movies now, most of them are based off of short stories (most people don't read short stories anymore, so they can get away with this and the public thinks of them as 'original'). How much personality is in the way things are put together in a story? How much in the language? What about lawsuits across countries? They had difficulties enforcing those even in Dickens' time. What about many people working under one name? Etc, etc, etc.

About being inspired and writing like crazy... no. Just no. Just because an INFP is inspired doesn't mean that they'll allow their works to be published (or preformed, in this case) imperfect, which means dedication, dedication, dedication to just a few works...

I'm really not sure what it is that you are trying to say here :/

But Shakespeare had deadlines. Plays would be performed by a certain stage whether he liked it or not. So his perfectionist streak was curtailed in that way I think. Second of all, there is a lot of evidence that he would go back and perfect manuscripts of plays that were already out "in the ether" if you will. An INFP of Shakespeare's genius could certainly produce drafts that they would not considered perfected that could still be performed. There is evidence that WS didn't actually have a lot of control over his works, as they were owned by the theatre company, not by himself.

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 12:28 AM

I've seen it a few places.

If you want another supposed ENTP, we've got Sir Walter Raleigh.

Look, I'm open to being persuaded, but not without evidence for these typings. I googled Wilde's type, and all I found was this, crediting him as an INFP Famous INFP (http://www.theintrovertzcoach.com/famous_infps.html) along with WS. :D

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 12:30 AM

There is evidence that WS didn't actually have a lot of control over his works, as they were owned by the theatre company, not by himself.

This would drive an INP to insanity (Of course, there's always that a man's got to eat, but if there's a type that needs to eat the least, it's an INP.)

Typing by writing is even more difficult when people are sped through it...

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 12:34 AM

Look, I'm open to being persuaded, but not without evidence for these typings. I googled Wilde's type, and all I found was this, crediting him as an INFP Famous INFP (http://www.theintrovertzcoach.com/famous_infps.html) along with WS. :D

Fine then. Oscar Wilde:

Philox connecting European students. Tips and tools for studying abroad, Erasmus, internships and career. (http://www.philox.eu/?page=test-2&menuindex=6.2&p=addons,pro)

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:wfnMJOLNe_wJ:www2.hawaii.edu/~barkai/HO/MBTI-HO.doc+oscar+wilde+myers-briggs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

ENTP | Prelude Consulting (http://www.prelude-team.com/products/pca/type/entp)

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 12:35 AM

This would drive an INP to insanity (Of course, there's always that a man's got to eat, but if there's a type that needs to eat the least, it's an INP.)

Typing by writing is even more difficult when people are sped through it...

Well what I mean is, that Shakespeare's genius is such that he could create what an INFP would consider a revised draft of a play, that other members of his company would consider finished. It's still a perfectly accurate means by which help can be assertained in typing the bard.

WS got over these frustrations by continually editing his plays after their publication.

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 12:38 AM

If you're going to insist,

I'll settle on INTP and use Keirsey as my reference.

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 12:39 AM

Fine then. Oscar Wilde:

Philox connecting European students. Tips and tools for studying abroad, Erasmus, internships and career. (http://www.philox.eu/?page=test-2&menuindex=6.2&p=addons,pro)

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:wfnMJOLNe_wJ:www2.hawaii.edu/~barkai/HO/MBTI-HO.doc+oscar+wilde+myers-briggs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

ENTP | Prelude Consulting (http://www.prelude-team.com/products/pca/type/entp)

Well I always considered him ENTP, but you haven't substantiated Sir Walter Raleigh's type yet. :)

Also, the last website you link to also claims WS as an INFP :)

If you're willing to consider these typings of Wilde as evidence of his type, why not WS, who has plenty of sites typing him as INFP?

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 12:42 AM

Well I always considered him ENTP, but you haven't substantiated Sir Walter Raleigh's type yet. :)

MBTI (http://www.dccareerservices.com/MBTI.html)

Personality-tests Myers Briggs MBTI Famous personalities for famous ENTP (http://personality-tests.eu/famous/famous-entp.php)

Myers-Briggs Profiles - entp - The Inventors - The BBA Class of 2003! HTW Chur Switzerland (http://www.thetalentjungle.com/bba/entp.htm)

I find it a bit... suspicious, I guess, that Shakespeare was typed an INFP by Isabel Myers, an INFP, and by Keirsey, an INTP, as an INTP.

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 12:50 AM

If you're willing to consider these typings of Wilde as evidence of his type, why not WS, who has plenty of sites typing him as INFP?

Because you're insisting that I use outside references. It's because you won't accept that my opinion and interpretation has any weight on its own.

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 12:54 AM

If you're going to insist,

I'll settle on INTP and use Keirsey as my reference.

On that basis, we haven't gained much from this discussion, if I'm going to reference Myers as my reference for INFP. :) But I don't type WS on this basis alone, if you look back to my earlier posts in this thread, in conjunction with other proponents of the INFP theory, I think a decent argument has been made for the case of WS being an INFP, whihc the INTP proponents have not matched.

bluemonday

09-27-2008, 12:54 AM

I find it a bit... suspicious, I guess, that Shakespeare was typed an INFP by Isabel Myers, an INFP, and by Keirsey, an INTP, as an INTP.

:D
Isn't that true of Jung too, or was that the other way around?

Like I said, everyone wants to claim Will as their own. What an egotistical lot we are! I'm sure he'd have something devastatingly incisive to say about it all;)

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 12:56 AM

Because you're insisting that I use outside references. It's because you won't accept that my opinion and interpretation has any weight on its own.

Well you didn't personally argue the case for your ENTPs, but I would not have dismissed them out of hand.

Very well, argue WS's INTP case...

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 12:58 AM

Very well, argue WS's INTP case...

The meter.

Plots can be stolen, depth can be faked, but the meter was either entirely stolen or created on his own. If it was entirely stolen, then we have a case for ExTP again... but if it wasn't, I'd be willing to settle for INTP. Even if he had plagerized just parts of the meter, he'd still have to have stuck it in and worked around it. Which would have required Ti.

Whether the plays are cynical or not is solely up to interpretation. An INFP's work wouldn't allow for this much.

Also, there's that I think an INTP would be better able to stand the the lifestyle that you described... even though it wouldn't be particularly easy on either INTP or INFP.

Jack Flak

09-27-2008, 01:03 AM

I haven't read the whole thing, and I have no idea about Shakey's type, but I think Haphazard wins this thread on general principle.

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 01:09 AM

The meter.

Plots can be stolen, depth can be faked, but the meter was either entirely stolen or created on his own. If it was entirely stolen, then we have a case for ExTP again... but if it wasn't, I'd be willing to settle for INTP. Even if he had plagerized just parts of the meter, he'd still have to have stuck it in and worked around it. Which would have required Ti.

Whether the plays are cynical or not is solely up to interpretation. An INFP's work wouldn't allow for this much.

Also, there's that I think an INTP would be better able to stand the the lifestyle that you described... even though it wouldn't be particularly easy on either INTP or INFP.

Anyone can write a plot, the plot isn't an indicator of artistic greatness. That WS borrowed elements of many of his doesn't mean much. No one enjoys Shakespeare for the plot, they appreciate the character development, and the fantastic writing. Depth can not be faked for the prolific opus of WS. You seem to be making more and more fanciful and implausible arguments, bending the facts to make WS an NT.

You couldn't simply have stolen the meter as you imply. WS wrote too much. What sort of argument suggests a writer is a plagarist in order to fit a type? If you can't take some one at face value when typing, then you can't reasonably type anyone.

To essentially type WS on the basis of the meter alone is overly simplistic and redundant. It is an example of an NT trying to systemise something that isn't there. Your theory just doesn't hold. It makes far too many assumptions and jumps to too many conclusions.

Shakespeare's greatness was not simply to do with his meter!

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 01:13 AM

Even foul creatures such as Caliban are given a level of warmth in portrayal that are the product of NFs

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 01:18 AM

Anyone can write a plot, the plot isn't an indicator of artistic greatness. That WS borrowed elements of many of his doesn't mean much. No one enjoys Shakespeare for the plot, they appreciate the character development, and the fantastic writing. Depth can not be faked for the prolific opus of WS. You seem to be making more and more fanciful and implausible arguments, bending the facts to make WS an NT.

The only depth in a work is what the reader reads into it.

I know plenty of good writers who can develop fantastic characters. And I don't know ONE INFP writer. Just because somebody is a good writer does NOT make them an INFP.

I really, really, honestly don't care if Shakespeare is an NT. Or an NF. Or an SP. or an SJ, and according to Keirsey, I'm supposed to hate them! The only thing I care about is everyone typing Shakespeare as their own. It's happened too often, and I'm mighty sick of it.

You couldn't simply have stolen the meter as you imply. WS wrote too much. What sort of argument suggests a writer is a plagarist in order to fit a type?

Oscar Wilde wasn't a plagarist. Neither was Mark Twain. The only thing I'm implying was that if he stole to meet his audience's needs, he'd be more likely to be an extrovert.

Either way, he was a very, very clever man.

If you can't take some one at face value when typing, then you can't reasonably type anyone.

To essentially type WS on the basis of the meter alone is overly simplistic and redundant. It is an example of an NT trying to systemise something that isn't there. Your theory just doesn't hold. It makes far too many assumptions and jumps to too many conclusions.

You must really hate INJs, don't you?

Shakespeare's greatness was not simply to do with his meter!

And why not?

bluemonday

09-27-2008, 01:19 AM

I see no evidence of the NF preoccupation with self-actualization and growth in Shakespeare's psychological portraits.

His characters tend to move towards self-destruction rather than enlightenment.

He was iconoclastic and subversive.

He was sarcastic.

He loved to play with words and meanings.

Many of his plays rely for comic effect on social incompetence and the impossibility of human communication. He finds people largely ridiculous and unsympathetic.

He was cynical about both love and human frailty. His lovers are fickle at best, and not infrequently imbecilic.

He wasn't overtly religious/spiritual.

CaptainChick

09-27-2008, 01:22 AM

Iambic pentameter, IAMBIC PENTAMETER?!?!?!?

This is why Shakespeare's works were/are deemed as being so genius, and *NOT* because of the actual content of his plays/sonnets?!?!?!?!?

Haphazard, you have just made baby Jesus cry.

:cry:

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 01:24 AM

Haphazard, you have just made baby Jesus cry.

:cry:

It's what I do best. ;)

Another argument: The fact that we can even read whether Shakespeare was entirely romantic or entirely cynical implies that he had neither allegiance (Ti), or that we cannot even look at his work without projecting ourselves onto it.

Shakespeare is dangerous territory.

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 01:29 AM

The only depth in a work is what the reader reads into it.

This I cannot agree with. So the Garfield comic has potentially as much depth as Hamlet? You're not just disagreeing with me, but the whole literary establishment!

I know plenty of good writers who can develop fantastic characters. And I don't know ONE INFP writer. Just because somebody is a good writer does NOT make them an INFP.

Nobody at any stage ever said this. I believe that you are predujuiced against mine and many other people's typings of WS because I am an INFP myself. DO you honestly believe that people are capable of impartiality. If not, you don't rest much faith in humanity. :)

I really, really, honestly don't care if Shakespeare is an NT. Or an NF. Or an SP. or an SJ, and according to Keirsey, I'm supposed to hate them! The only thing I care about is everyone typing Shakespeare as their own. It's happened too often, and I'm mighty sick of it.

Why blame me, for your experiences at that hands of others? I think your frustration has led you to be impartial yourself in this typing.

Oscar Wilde wasn't a plagarist. Neither was Mark Twain. The only thing I'm implying was that if he stole to meet his audience's needs, he'd be more likely to be an extrovert.

Just how is a plagarist more likely to be extraverted?
More importantly, give evidence for WS ever plagarising something.

Either way, he was a very, very clever man.

At least this we can agree on.

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 01:31 AM

Jack Flak

09-27-2008, 01:33 AM

Perhaps a point which NFs are resistent to is that his OVERWHELMING GENIUS might not have to be the topic of every sentence spoken of the man.

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 01:36 AM

This I cannot agree with. So the Garfield comic has potentially as much depth as Hamlet? You're not just disagreeing with me, but the whole literary establishment!

I do that sometimes.

They are, after all, the ones who force me to CITE my own goddamned OPINIONS.

Perhaps a point which NFs are resistent to is that his OVERWHELMING GENIUS might not have to be the topic of every sentence spoken of the man.

Okay, I'm going to have to go around and proclaim Jack Flak's overwhelming genius all the time now.

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 01:37 AM

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 01:38 AM

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

And this is exactly the sort of insistence I hold objection to.

bluemonday

09-27-2008, 01:44 AM

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

WOW! WOW! and WOW!
And they call us arrogant!

dynamiteninja

09-27-2008, 01:58 AM

WOW! WOW! and WOW!
And they call us arrogant!

I've only called you arrogant bluemonday.

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

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 02:00 AM

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

09-27-2008, 03:28 AM

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

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?

Peguy

09-27-2008, 03:39 AM

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 (http://www.amazon.com/Shadowplay-Beliefs-Politics-William-Shakespeare/dp/1586483161)

hathor_sekhmet

09-27-2008, 10:35 AM

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

09-27-2008, 02:51 PM

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

09-27-2008, 03:06 PM

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

09-27-2008, 03:07 PM

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

09-27-2008, 03:09 PM

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

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 03:11 PM

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!

Night

09-27-2008, 03:14 PM

I try and stop all fun.

So spake Zarathustra.

Haphazard

09-27-2008, 03:21 PM

Who are you to stop us hedons?

bluemonday

09-27-2008, 04:27 PM

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 (http://www.amazon.com/Shadowplay-Beliefs-Politics-William-Shakespeare/dp/1586483161)

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

bluemonday

09-27-2008, 04:37 PM

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.

bluemonday

09-27-2008, 04:58 PM

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

09-27-2008, 10:16 PM

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

Members Only

09-28-2008, 06:07 AM

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

09-28-2008, 06:46 AM

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

09-28-2008, 08:36 AM

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

Uberfuhrer

09-28-2008, 04:13 PM

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

09-28-2008, 04:19 PM

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.

bluemonday

09-28-2008, 04:23 PM

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.

bluemonday

09-28-2008, 04:26 PM

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.

Kiersey departs from Jung quite markedly. And from Myers, despite hijacking her 4-letter system derived from Jung's original work.

Jung was against typing people other than in a clinical context....
And Keirsey don't make any clinical applications in his populist works

Uberfuhrer

09-28-2008, 04:30 PM

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.

That's the problem, not all NTs would likely make competent scientists or mathematicians, that's a false stereotype, but they use the same strategic mentality on which the NT temperament is based in other fields.

And not all NTs have brilliant minds, either. Anyone who becomes famous is going to be considered a brilliant mind -- that's not exclusive to NT.

Mondo

09-28-2008, 04:57 PM

That's the problem, not all NTs would likely make competent scientists or mathematicians, that's a false stereotype, but they use the same strategic mentality on which the NT temperament is based in other fields.

And not all NTs have brilliant minds, either. Anyone who becomes famous is going to be considered a brilliant mind -- that's not exclusive to NT.

I agree with you there.
Taking personality type out of the argument, I've just noticed that people who are master wordsmiths also tend to have at least an above-average competence in the sciences and often way above-average. I just wonder if Shakespeare was a 'jack of all trades'.

In terms of temperament, as someone who knows a lot of math majors, pre-meds, and engineers- a lot of the skilled ones aren't NTs. In fact, looking at temperament alone- I would say that the most successful ones AND those who enjoy what they are doing are the SJs and NTs.A difference is that the SJs I know are more likely to go into business after college while the NTs are more likely to pursue a graduate degree in the field they are studying.

NFs and SPs can obviously be competent in these areas but don't always find so much enjoyment out of it. I don't know any NF engineers who actually went on to become an engineer after college, for instance.