Dominant Ni: Jane Austen was a future, big-picture oriented person. Her focus was on writing, and did not allow anything to remove her from that path. At one point she considered marriage, but considering the consequences of her decisions, decided not to. It was a choice between poverty in marriage to a man she loved and wealth in marriage to one she didn’t love. Neither choice suited her long-term goals, so Jane decided to stay single. She had a rapt understanding of people and even though she wasn’t particularly social herself, she understood the social lives of the people around her.
Auxiliary Te: Jane Austen was perfectly capable of keeping to deadlines, as it was her writing that supported her family. She wasn’t impulsive and tended to put her emotions out of the picture when making decisions. She was logical enough to both consider marriage to a man she didn’t love in exchange for wealth, and logical enough to decide against it in the knowledge that she would not be happy in such a marriage. She tended to be casually confrontational (for a woman) when it came to conversation, and often challenged people on their facts.
Tertiary Fi: Jane Austen’s novels supported her mother and family. She continued to pay for their survival despite her mother’s constant disapproval of her “unladylike” behaviours and lack of romantic life. Jane wanted her work to be meaningful to the people she knew and even agreed to mentor her niece. Despite all her logic, Jane Austen was motivated by her personal beliefs and inner-most feelings. She didn’t care what society thought so much as whether her actions lined up with what she personally believed to be right.
Inferior Se: Jane wasn’t one for tradition, and wasn’t hesitant to interrupt a men’s game of croquette to show them how it ought to be done. At times, she was overwhelmed by parties and liked to keep to herself at her little writing desk (seriously, though, I don’t know how she fit a piece of paper on that thing). Jane Austen had an appreciation for nature, and like Miss Elizabeth Bennett, set aside time in her days for long walks in the countryside.
Funny enough, as an INTJ myself, I only half like her writing…I have to be in the right mood.
18 thoughts on “Jane Austen: INTJ”
Hello!! I’m still here!!! :)
Well I’m exhausted, too as it is quite hard for me to write in English and I’ve discuss this thing so many times and in so many languages! But we both run a blog about mbti, fictional characters and writers, we both spread information around the internet and if these information are wrong it’s our duty to revide them.
I’m a reader of your blog and I’m an INTP so I deserve and I insist on having a better reply and consideration than your previous answer.
No one of us like being wrong, but one of us is actually wrong… I believe and I hope that we will be able to put aside our pride and discuss the matter in a mature and honest way. ;)
Take your time, but, please, tell me why you disagree with me, why you think I’m wrong, and other reasons that lead you to think that Jane Austen was INTJ and not INTP… I’d like a better explanation with focus on functions in her writing style or in her works or even in her life (but using reliable sources… mother’s constant disapproval of unladylike behaviours – ?!? – men’s game of croquette – ?!? – WTF?! O___O …. It seems you’ve typed her using information from the couple of crappy and FAKE movies – Miss Austen’s regrets and Becoming Jane – about her life!!).
I would like to invite you to analyze texts (or real and reliable biographies) and functions and forget stereotypes.
Please, reread and analyze, for eg. chapter 56 of P&P, the argument between Elizabeth Bennet and Lady Catherine. You’ll notice that Elizabeth is basically trying to point out inconsistencies and incongruities, she’s trying to say to Lady Catherine: “your arguments make no sense. They are inconsistent and not logical.” Here are some samples:
“If you believed it impossible to be true, […] I wonder you took the trouble of coming so far”.
“Your coming to Longbourn, to see me and my family, […] will be rather a confirmation of it; if, indeed, such a report is in existence.”
Lady Catherine: “Has he, has my nephew, made you an offer of marriage?”
Elizabeth’s reply: “Your ladyship has declared it to be impossible.”
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Bye for now. ;)
If I read you correctly, you present character dialogue from Austen’s novels as arguments that the author is a Ti dom? How are her characters any indication of her personality? I don’t understand your point at all.
Have you ever read something of M. L. Von Franz (Jung’s scholar)? (Or have you ever read something about Jung interpretation of dreams?) She studied fairy tales in relation to archetypal psychology, she considers them an expression of collective unconscious psychic processes… well, I consider novels as “personal fairy tales” of an author, they are products of the psyche, I treat novels and writings in the same way I treat dreams and fairy tales: I try to interpret novels.
Anyway this was NOT my point in my previous post. My point was that we have to try to find out and identify peculiar expressions of functions in her works (dialogues, sentences, plot, narrative structure,…). My point was that there are some things that we can simply “copy” and things that are entirely “spontaneous/natural”, things that comes from the mind.
For eg. these are excerpts from Asimov’s “The Caves of Steel”. He was INTJ, the novel is a detective story and it is totally different from “classical” detective stories (which are usually written by Ti users). Here we can find traces of Ni and Te…This is how Asimov describes how his detective (Elijah Baley) reaches the solution:
“It was in that way that the “sentence” he had been waiting for came to Elijah Baley, and the opaque jelly shuddered and settled and changed into luminous transparency. While R. Daneel spoke, Baley’s mouth opened and stayed so. It could not all have burst full-grown into his mind. Things did not work so. Somewhere, deep inside his unconscious, he had built a case, built it carefully and in detail, but had been brought up short by a single inconsistency. One inconsistency that could be neither jumped over, burrowed under, nor shunted aside. While that inconsistency existed, the case remained buried below his thoughts, beyond the reach of his conscious probing. But the sentence had come; the inconsistency had vanished; the case was his. ” … This is basically how Ni works; I’m INTP and I would never describe a solution as something that was “deep inside my unconscious”.
“Fast! Talk fast! And think fast!”
“He was still talking. He had to. He couldn’t stop till he found what he was looking for”. Te users usually talk out loud when they reflect on something; Ti users usually shut up and think or they walk around the room or in the garden in silence, lost in their thoughts.
Thought process is something that we cannot just “copy”… it’s a peculiar thing and in chapter 56 of P&P we can see the peculiar way INTPs usually discuss.
Please read this excerpt from Jane’s letter to her sister Cassandra (24th January 1809). This is basically how Ne works:
“I begin already to weigh my words & sentences more than I did, & am looking about for a sentiment, an illustration or a metaphor in every corner of the room (<- instinctive search of ideas in the outside world). Could my Ideas flow as fast as the rain in the Storecloset (<- idea/concept drawn from a object in the outside world), it would be charming. – We have been in two or three dreadful states within the last week, from the melting of the snow &c. – & the contest between us & the Closet has now ended in our defeat; I have been obliged to move almost everything out of it, & leave it to splash itself as it likes (and finally… distraction! XD The same object that triggered the metaphor capture her attention and divert the mind from the original topic to another one, to another thing.).
And finally in these comments by Marianne and Louisa Knight (Jane's nieces) about their aunt, we can find Ti:
"Aunt Jane would sit quietly working beside the fire in the library, saying nothing for a good while, and then would suddenly burst out laughing, jump up and run across the room to a table where pens and paper were lying, write something down, and then come back to the fire and go on working as before".
"She was very absent indeed. She would sit silent awhile, then rub her hands, laugh to herself and run up to her room…"
I hope that now my position is a little bit more clear. ^^
(too bad that in this blog I cannot edit my posts and correct grammar mistakes! :( )
Well, I see better where you are coming from now :)
Here is where I disagree with you on some interpretive aspects, where I feel things need to be looked at in a much larger scale: Ni and Ti are internal thought processes, but they can only be observed them from the exterior. Therefore a lot more “evidence” has to be collected, and even then, it will only be a guess until the person can confirm what’s going on in their mind, and of course characters or dead people never will be able to do so.
The whole ‘sit by the fire and do nothing, until she bursts out laughing and runs to write a note’ is something I do very often as an INTJ. This is the random thought bubbling up at any moment, and I have to write it down not to forget the good ones. And then, here you are, saying, as an INTP, that this is Ti at work. So we have two very different people, you and me, with one similar behaviour to an external observer. Not conclusive then, would you agree?
We have to look at the extrovert functions, in this case Te vs Ne, which you did as well. You used a letter from Jane Austen to her sister to demonstrate Ne. Searching ideas outside the world is not necessarily Ne, it could also be Se, because Austen is looking at her immediate world: the room. The metaphor of the rain in the closet could be indicative of Ne (since they apparently love them) but NiSe folks also like imagery and symbols that unify a larger unit; the rain or the closet could be the unifying symbol or imagery for her entire letter to her sister to describe her situation (but I have not read it so you can try looking at it this way for us :) ). Therefore, it’s hardly conclusive, in and of itself, of Ne behaviour.
Regarding your previous note about characters pointing out inconsistencies being Ti creeping in Austen’s writings, again, numerous functions can do so: Si may point out inconsistencies relative to past experience or their current (potentially extensive) knowledge, Ti may point out inconsistencies relative to their internal logic, and Ni may point out inconsistencies within a system they know well. To an observer, they just point out inconsistencies, but their internal approach to do so is subtly different.
From your previous comment, I also disagree that rejecting social norms is automatically inferior Fe. As stereotypical as this is, complaining about F people in general may be done by any T user :) It doesn’t mean it’s automatically inferior Fe. Rejecting social norms so openly is, in fact, potentially a better indication of a Fi user (authenticity of the self), whether it’s a dominant or well developed lower function.
Finally, in my opinion, ‘longing to fit in’, as you stated, is a universal human emotion, so this evidence would not even make it to my note list when I type a character.
As a side note, I’d love to hear Arvid’s thoughts on this comment you made: “inferior function is usually “the goal” of the books”, if he has any :) I remember reading a post here stating that INTJ authors often use an underlying symbol in their stories (I believe it was Chris Nolan as an example), which is a NiSe sign.
I haven’t studied Austen like you or others have, but the excerpts from the letters you cite seem indicative of Ni, rather than Ti. I guess it depends on whether she was actively trying to figure out an answer to a problem in her writing, or if she was letting her subconscious do the work.
Also, yes, writing can indicate type, but CHARACTERS may say or do or go about things in a completely different way than the writer would naturally. Remember, MBTI is just indicating what we tend to do. It’s like if you’re right handed, that doesn’t mean you don’t have a left hand. Because of that, we can write characters that try to solve problems or speak in a way that’s unnatural to us.
I’m sorry, but I don’t know enough about Jane to address your other arguments.
“the excerpts from the letters you cite seem indicative of Ni, rather than Ti.”
I brought the excerpt from the letter to suggest Ne and not Ti.
And, about Characters… ehm, no… I think you haven’t understood my point… If you are right handed and try to write with your left hand, you’ll find it impossible or at least very hard to write as well as you do when you write with your right hand… It is obvious that we can create characters that try to solve problems or speak in a way that it is unnatural to us, but if something is unnatural, it is impossible or very hard to create something that sounds perfectly natural. For eg. Austen was very very good at understanding human nature and create characters, but if we look at her F characters we can notice that they always have “a T vibe (and to me is a Ti vibe)”.
“Therefore a lot more “evidence” has to be collected”… Oh, no problem! XD I’ve read almost everything written by Jane Austen and sooo many things written about her so I could bring you every kind of stuff. Just ask and I’ll send you what you want!! ;)
For eg. “We have to look at the extrovert functions […] Searching ideas outside the world is not necessarily Ne, it could also be Se, because Austen is looking at her immediate world: the room”.
No… Ne extracts ideas from objects; Se registers physical characteristics… In the excerpt it is clear that the metaphor comes form the rain and the Storecloset. Anyway you can read the whole letter here: http://www.jausten.it/jalett061-070.html#l66
And, anyway, Se experience the sights, sounds and smells of the world around us.. so usually in Se writings there are a lot of descriptions, with lots of details, and references to external world and objects; objects are describe for the sake of… describing! XD Ni dom usually reject material world and so they try to inject meanings or symbols in physical objects and since Se is weak and not well developed in NJ’s writings we can find signs of Se in a negative light, immature ways… For eg. Franz Kafka (I consider him INFJ) had a negative relationship with his own body and we can find this thing in his novella “The Metamorphosis”; ad Asimov (INTJ) suffered from agoraphobia and in his novel “The Caves of Steel” we can find his negative vision of space.
In Jane Austen’s novels there are almost no psysical descriptions!!!
“numerous functions can do so: Si may point out inconsistencies relative to past experience or their current (potentially extensive) knowledge, Ti may point out inconsistencies relative to their internal logic, and Ni may point out inconsistencies within a system they know well. To an observer, they just point out inconsistencies, but their internal approach to do so is subtly different.”
Of course! And of course I was talking about INTP’s case (and the fact that inconsistencies drive us MAD… It’s one of our distinguishing features. ;) ).
” I also disagree that rejecting social norms is automatically inferior Fe. As stereotypical as this is, complaining about F people in general may be done by any T user”
Of course! But have you read Jung’s explanation of Fe (Fe woman, Marriage…)? We can find exactly those themes in Jane’s novels.
“I remember reading a post here stating that INTJ authors often use an underlying symbol in their stories […] which is a NiSe sign”.
Oh, well… I’m INTP, I’m a writer and I often use underlying symbol in my stories… So? So Ne can also do so… And as you say: so we have two very different people, you and me, with one similar behaviour to an external observer. Not conclusive then, would you agree?? ;)
You know what? It is absolutely USELESS to talk about “theory” right now… We should discuss about This case, we should talk about Austen’s case, about facts… So, please, check this link: http://www.jausten.it/index.html
(it is an Italian website but texts are in English! ;) ).
Here you can find novels (“romanzi canonici”), juvenilia, letters (“lettere”), biographies (“i memoir familiari”)… You guys think that Jane Austen was INTJ? Ok… just search, read, check, tell me why I’m wrong and give me proof, please! ;)
Thank you!! ^^
Bye for now
First, to be clear: my point in my previous comments was that your arguments did not sway me, hence why I argued how they did not work for me for lack of being placed in a larger frame, such as Austen’s life/personality in general.
I’m not saying I disagree with the INTP typing, however I do not see it in your comments because the details you selected as arguments are not standalone INTP-specific elements.
Also, I did not write the above post, and this is neither your or my blog. Isn’t it a tad rude to request me and Arvid to read Austen letters and documents to prove you wrong? And saying “I’m a reader of your blog and I’m an INTP so I deserve and I insist on having a better reply and consideration than your previous answer” *shakes head*
Back to my initial point: I would need to read better framed arguments on the table to be convinced Austen is INTP.
Second, I started reading Sense and Sensibility, out of curiosity. You are right, so far in the story there aren’t a ton descriptions, but I admit I started giggling in Chapter X opening with multiple paragraphs describing the main characters.
On this topic of ‘descriptions’: I have read Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Unparalleled Adventure of One Hans Pfaall”. Poe is typed as an INTP on this blog (and INFP in other places). In that story, there were so many descriptions, almost the entire story was made up of very precise details of this man’s journey down to everything he experienced, the technology he used, and all the objects that got him to the moon. This shows to me that an argument where Austen must be INTP because she does not use a lot of descriptions in her work does not really hold on its own… Unless you also demonstrate along that Poe was not IxTP, to make this argument work?
Finally, this is my personal view only: if one is to argue INTP vs INTJ, I would rather see TiNe vs NiTe sort of arguments, and/or TiSi or NiFi loops if present, instead of the lower functions being a place of debate as standalone. I find many people claiming Ni vs Ti dom in their MBTI typings show the same facts framed in a different context to demonstrate their point.
Overall, I would say Jane Austen didn’t include a ton of sensory description in her novels, but she certainly didn’t leave it out altogether. Like in “Sense and Sensibility,” as you pointed out, Fanta, we know exactly what both Elinor and Marianne look like, because Austen told us in detail. Same with Lizzy Bennet in “Pride and Prejudice” and Anne Elliot in “Persuasion.”
On a more random note: I find “Sense and Sensibility” quite fascinating from an MBTI perspective because it’s the only one of Austen’s 6 novels in which the heroine (Elinor) is a thinker type, like Austen herself. The rest are all feelers.
Hi! I’m back! :)
“Isn’t it a tad rude to request me and Arvid to read Austen letters and documents to prove you wrong? And saying “I’m a reader of your blog and I’m an INTP so I deserve and I insist on having a better reply and consideration than your previous answer” *shakes head* ”
I’m not rude, I’m assertive, but I confess that I have intentionally tried to provoke you in order to get your attention because I got the feeling that my first comment had just been quickly put aside and labelled as “just a long boring random comment which could be ignored”! ;)
I have asked you to read Jane Austen’s documents and letters because I got the feeling that you and Arvid don’t really know or at least know very little of Jane Austen’s life and writings (am I wrong?). You just “accepted” her as INTJ, and got used to that idea without actually looking for more evidence in support of it. This could be fine with fictional characters because they are just not real, but with real people, it’s just not enough.
… And I’ve thought that you, Fanta, were kidding me. Now I’ve realized that maybe you just don’t know how Ne actually works (something quite natural since you are an INTJ)… In general I’ve noticed that most of people look only at most probable function’s effects (for eg. “Oh! You are messy, then you probably are a Ne user!”) without knowing what is the link between Effects and Functions: HOW functions work, and WHY we have some effects… And this is really dangerous because it often leads to mistyping!!
It’s like saying “Oh! You have stomach pain, then you probably have stomach cancer”… well other things could produce stomach pain, but you have to know HOW they manifest in order to make a correct dignosis, right?
Well… This is how Ne works and the link between the function and some effects.
For eg: I’m wondering how I could explain the MBTI and its use to beginners who think that typing means ignoring people’s uniqueness. Thinking about this issue I look out of the window and see a cherry tree. I immediately draw a link between trees and MBTI: different trees are like types: each cherry tree is not exactly the same of any other cherry tree because any cherry tree is different; at the same time however a cherry tree is not an apple tree because these two tree have different characteristics.
So… yes… you are right: Ne users like metaphors an similies a lot because they notice similarities between patterns and sometimes even with patterns in the past (Si). Then they can create a simile (as in Jane Austen’s letter) or a metaphor. Sometimes the link between the pattern and the object which triggers the intuition is clear but sometimes the link with the object is let implicit (for eg. Jane Austen in her letter could have written just “I wish my words flowed”) [in the second case, from the outiside, it is impossible to understand whether a concept is to be attributed to the Ne].
Intuitions may be simple (dealing with just one object) or complex (with more than one objects/situations in the outsode world). From a complex intuition a chain or a muddle of associations and extrapolation of concepts develops and Ne users bounce from one intuition to the other as a bee among flowers (as a consequence Ne users are “distracted and absent-minded”).
xNxP may used only few descriptions because an object on its own is uninteresting and xNxP don’t enjoy mere descriptions. xNxP are not very aware of physical characteristic so that they find describing a scene or a character in a detailed way very frustrating; for this reason it is very possible that in something written by a Ne user there are few references to physical world.
The goal is not the description of the object itself (Se) but the use of the object as a springboard towards other concept (Ne).
Ni works differently, doesn’t it? As far as I know, Ni combines subconsciously information in the psyche with sensory information from the outside world, which has been gathered by unconscious Se. In this process visual information play a more important role; for Ni users visual information is definiitely more important than it is for Ne users. Ni users, as far as I know, often think by way of images (or dreams, or symbols…) rather than words.
“but I admit I started giggling in Chapter X opening with multiple paragraphs describing the main characters.”
I’ve said “almost” and not “any”, indeed! In fact, if you’ve gone on reading or read something else by Jane Austen you must have realized that that’s only a single case; she barely refers to the setting or real objects in the room!!
The point is: people write about what they sense, right? Than it seems quite logical to conclude that such an “abstract style (which is, by the way, quite unusual for that period) is a prove that in Jane Austen’s mind visual information wasn’t crucial.
Personally, I’ve never met any Ni user with a writing style so poor in images. I’ve noticed that Ni rather jump from one image to the other (and so, to me, their style seems less flowing than dominant SP’s and NP’s).
Unfortunately, I don’t know almost anything about Edgar Allan Poe; I’ve just read “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” a long long time ago.
On the basis of the very few information I have, and the few memories I have, I’d say he was an INFJ. Beside this, going by memory, M. L. Von Franz said he was a Ni user.
Anyway there are also lots of xNxP writers using “concrete” descriptions – e.g. Zadie Smith – these descriptions are just different from that of Ni/Se users. So I don’t know, I should analyze EAP’s writing style in depth.
1) I hope you will reconsider the sentence from the letter and the style as possible clues of Ne.
2 ) Please read chapter 5 [ http://www.jausten.it/jamfjamesedward05.html ] of Jane Austen’s biography written by her nephew and consider how her relatives felt she was (“kind, sympathising, and amusing…”). Here are some exceperts:
“Her first charm to children was great sweetness of manner”.
“Her unusually quick sense of the ridiculous led her to play with all the common-places of everyday life, whether as regarded persons or things; but she never played with its serious duties or responsibilities, nor did she ever turn individuals into ridicule. With all her neighbours in the village she vas on friendly, though not on intimate, terms. She took a kindly interest in all their proceedings, and liked to hear about them. They often served for her amusement; but it was her own nonsense that gave zest to the gossip. She was as far as possible from being censorious or satirical. She never abused them or quizzed them”
“The laugh which she occasionally raised was by imagining for her neighbours, as she was equally ready to imagine for her friends or herself, impossible contingencies, or by relating in prose or verse some trifling anecdote coloured to her own fancy, or in writing a fictitious history of what they were supposed to have said or done, which could deceive nobody.”
3) Please read chapter 23 of Sense and Sensibility: I think it could be a good example of Ti/Ne. Elinor reflects on Lucy and Edward and analyze avery side of the matter.
Bye for now! ;)
*heavy sigh* It’s not rudeness that’s a bother, it’s the entitlement attitude.
Your being a reader of my blog does not denotatively mean that you “deserve” anything from me. You are not paying me for a subscription, and as a result, I have no legal responsibility to you. This blog is an entertainment service that I choose to provide for free despite.
Secondly, this is not academia. You are not an academic journal or one of my professors. So no, I do not owe it to the internet to correct everything I have said, and I am under no obligation to cite the sources that I’ve used (nor can you necessarily judge them as unreliable considering that I haven’t actually showed you which sources I’ve used).
In terms of your accusations against me, I would suggest avoiding sweeping generalisations in the future if you want me to acknowledge any of your arguments as non-fallacious. Especially since you begin right off the bat using all of the tell-tale signs of sophismic argumentation. There is no evidence to suggest, as you have, that the reason I haven’t replied to your comments is “pride,” lack of “honesty” or “matur[ity],” so there is no reason that you should assume these things about me as part of your method of persuasion (pun intended).
I have absolutely nothing against being wrong, and the problems you’ve brought up may potentially be valid. However, I do not have time or energy right now to deal with this issue (which, by the way, is not a matter of life and death). So yes, you have offered to let me “take [my] time,” and I take that offer as literally as I like…in this case probably all the time I have on this earth. When I say I’m exhausted, I mean that I have a medical condition that debilitates me on an regular albeit unpredictable basis. I am not merely getting a mental strain from reading/writing too much (whatever language it may be in).
And in terms of assuming that I know nothing about Jane Austen, you might want to think twice about that…since I study her on a regular basis as part of my English degree program. That said, I actually dislike her writing significantly at this point, so instead of reading more about her, I’m going continue dancing charleston in the kitchen while I still feel well enough to do so.
@elisaorigine You assign words to me that I have not said. I did not say I “accepted” Austen as INTJ, I said YOUR arguments for INTP were not compelling enough for me, despite me not disagreeing outright that she might be INTP.
Arvid is right, the entitlement is what is rude (I lacked the proper word to describe exactly what I felt reading your comments). This is, in a way, why I dislike discussing MBTI typings with die hard fans of the characters or personalities being typed: the strong reactions, the visceral sense of righteousness, because they are the only people who truly understand these persons and hold The Truth in their minds.
You say I don’t understand what Ne is. I never specifically discussed standalone Ne as a whole other than to say Ne users are not the ONLY people using metaphors out there.
You are biased for one view and jump to conclusions. Your arguments are disorganised, too specific, and all over the place and not put into proper frame without weighing them against other views. This is what makes it difficult for me to be convinced by YOU.
Hey! Calm down! XD As I’ve already said I have intentionally tried to provoke you, but I didn’t know INTJs were so oversensitive!! O_o You’ve taken this thing too personally!
“There is no evidence to suggest, as you have, that the reason I haven’t replied to your comments is “pride,” lack of “honesty” or “matur[ity],” ”
I posted my first comment in March, I’ve received a reply far from polite,
and in the meantime (about 2 months) you’ve posted comments and posts… I’m used to reply to my readers, with a public post or by private messages and in a decent way, even when I have no time or I’m tired or sick; It’s courtesy.
Anyway if my “accusations” are or were wrong I think you could have taken my words more easily: IMO, if you’ve felt hurts, maybe I’m right.
“So no, I do not owe it to the internet to correct everything I have said”
“This blog is an entertainment service that I choose to provide for free despite.”
You owe it to MBTI, to Knowledge and to YOURSELF! This was my point [“No one of us like being wrong, but one of us is actually wrong… I believe and I hope that we will be able to put aside our pride and discuss the matter in a mature and honest way”. ;) ]
You provide a service for fun, but it is a bad service if you refuse to revise, delete or reconsider your articles (in general… not only this one) if you suspect that there are wrong information in them. It is useless to keep on posting articles that may contain wrong information… To err is human, to persist is diabolical and absurd.
You could lead yourself, me, and tons of people to mistyping by a domino effect; and to people who master MBTI you’ll appear like a fool!
MBTI could be a wonderful instrument but right now it is an horrid enourmous tangle in where it is becoming increasingly difficult to find realiable information (being consequently considered total crap by many psychologist that can’t consiquently take it seriously). This is sad and it makes me really really angry.
If you feel the same, I think you should discuss with me and/or with other people and revise or delete or reconsider all your articles.
Of course if you prefer to dance charleston in the kitchen… Just dance charleston in the kitchen!
“That said, I actually dislike her writing significantly at this point, so instead of reading more about her, I’m going continue dancing charleston in the kitchen while I still feel well enough to do so”.
Very mature, indeed.
Sorry but this comment confirm some of my assumptions.
“and the problems you’ve brought up may potentially be valid.”
This is enough to me as you are an INTJ…
“And in terms of assuming that I know nothing about Jane Austen, you might want to think twice about that…since I study her on a regular basis as part of my English degree program.”
“and I am under no obligation to cite the sources that I’ve used (nor can you necessarily judge them as unreliable considering that I haven’t actually showed you which sources I’ve used).”
If you know a lot about Austen, you haven’t put your knowledge in this post certainly!!
I’m an “Austen Scholar” (and I’m INTP… ;) ), so don’t joke with me!
In this article there are controversial and wrong information and assumptions.
Anyway if you are sure that the sources you’ve used are reliable, why you shouldn’t tell me what they are? Your words seems an attempt to hide them.
“This is, in a way, why I dislike discussing MBTI typings with die hard fans of the characters or personalities being typed: the strong reactions, the visceral sense of righteousness, because they are the only people who truly understand these persons and hold The Truth in their minds.”
Oh, you are very lucky! I’m also a die hard fan of Jung’s personality types and MBTI! ^^
“You are biased for one view and jump to conclusions. Your arguments are disorganised, too specific, and all over the place and not put into proper frame without weighing them against other views. This is what makes it difficult for me to be convinced by YOU.”
Thank you! This is very polite from you!
Anyway if you find my arguments “disorganised, too specific, and all over the place and not put into proper frame without weighing them against other views”, what do you think about the article above?! LOL (At least I have the excuse that I’m not a native speaker of English!)
And It is not a rhetorical question. I’d really like to have your opinion on it.
Anyway, let’s Arvid dance charleston in the kitchen! LOL
@Fanta, I hope you don’t intend to join Arvid in the kitchen and that you really care about the quality of your MBTI’s post. I hope we will be able to discuss this matter in a pacific way.
It is clear that we have a very very different approach with MBTI and functions (and even a different definition of what is polite and what is rude! ;) ).
Right now the only thing we have discovered is that I’m bad at making assumptions, so I’ll ask you some questions in order to find a “common ground”.
Please, tell me in details:
1) What kind of articles and books have you read on MBTI and functions?
2) What have you read about and of Jane Austen?
3) What do you take into consideration when you type a writer?
… Just tell me what I have to do. I’ll write an article, I’ll translate it and I’ll post it to you.
Bye for now!
If you’ve read an emotional response into my comment, you interpreted my intent incorrectly. And as for having different definitions of rudeness, please refer back to the part of my comment where I said that rudeness wasn’t the issue–the entitlement attitude is the issue.
I could very well provide you with the sources I used for this article, but as I said before, your entitlement attitude is not particularly conducive to getting me to cooperate. I lose all motivation to help a person when he/she/they start telling me what to do, (*cough*) particularly when I don’t even know the person.
If you want to write an article, there is a submission section for that and you’re welcome to make use of it.
Whoa. This is the most unproductive conversation I’ve read in a while… But it’s so entertaining. It’s like watching a car wreck; you know you should look away but you can’t.
Elisaorigine, it sounds like you want to talk through your ideas in order to fully suss out Austen’s type, but the way the comment section is structured, your thinking process comes across as unformed and confusing. I would suggest restrategizing: even though using a debate is natural for INTPs to learn, it might be to your benefit in this situation to have a fully formed argument (like an article!). That way your point comes across to the audience as strong and complete. This is NOT to insult your intelligence; merely another way to communicate to a different type of thinker, kind of like learning someone else’s language.
I’d be interested in reading your completed argument for Jane Austen as an INTP, and I guarantee if it’s convincing, Arvid will change his typing of her. There are plenty of characters he’s had to retype, it’s not a big deal.
My. I’m very calm. I am also very blunt and straightforward. I am not taking anything in this discussion personal, I simply dislike reading disorganised thought processes. I thought I was helping by pointing out things I wasn’t convinced about.
@Danielle I don’t feel this was an unproductive discussion, at least for myself. Debunking someone else’s thought process and questioning it should help them make better arguments, as well as help me make better ones as well.
@Fanta, that’s fair to say. From my perspective I saw a debate in which neither side was convincing the other of their point. That being said, I can see how you’re right: whether you convince someone or not, it helps refine your argument while challenging the validity of the opposing argument in the pursuit of truth.
I’m an INTP (and I’m Italian… so please excuse my poor English).
Jane Austen was INTP and not INTJ.
In Pride and Prejudice we can see INTP’s cognitive process (which is TOTALLY different from INTJs one… This is why you have to be “in the right mood”. I bet you have some hard time when you read her works, especially with her writing style (maybe you find her writing style tiring or not very flowing or too long-winded…?).
We can compare INTP’s cognitive process to a science experiment (this is why there are a lot of scientists among INTPs).
Subject of these “experiments” are often people and social norms (Fe as inferior function).
Writers tend to look to their anima (inferior function) when writing fiction: Inferior function is usually “the goal” of the books.
In Jane Austen’s novels the goal is ALWAYS Fe (and not Se… she wasn’t concerned with finding meaning in a Material World), she was concerned with society , social norms, marriage, and so on… She rejected Fe, she openly complained about F people or society, but at the same time it seems that she longed for it (Fe as inferior function).
Her goal was to describe as society works and “connect” with society and people, but Not in an “empathic way”, but in a “rational way”, INTPs try to understand how things work in order to reach out the “Truth” (Ti), and find answers to important questions like “how can I survive in this world full of stupid people?”
All new information from the external world are scanned by default, they pass through a Logical filter (Ti) (which is mostly made of past experiences (Si) that had been analyzed and then reduced into patterns, schemes or in categories) and we think: “is this thing Logical?” , “Is this thing consistent?”
This is why INTPs are usually obsessed with logical inconsistencies. And irony and Jane Austen’s humor is actually based on different kind of inconsistencies or violations of causal reasoning and absurdities (especially her Juvenilia’s writings).
Info are compared with what they could be (Ne) and, again, with past experiences (Si) in order to be able to express a Judgment or form an Opinion.
In Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth does a kind of “experiment” with Darcy, but she makes a mistake because inferior Fe staines Elizabeth’s impartial judgment (unconscious Fe leads to need of other people’s approval, Fe can blind Ti)… Inconsistencies are like our “Antivirus” and when Elizabeth scans Darcy’s letter and think about Wickham she “saw the indelicacy of putting himself forward as he had done, and the INCONSISTENCY of his professions with his conduct.”
I disagree with you, but I’m too exhausted to argue at this point.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Comments are closed.