MBTI and Austenworld

Posted: May 27, 2009 in austen, meta

Back when I was in high school, my entire class had to take these tests for a health class – I was an INTJ, to my utter non-surprise.  Then, when I went into college two years later, I took it again – INTP.  Since I was always sort of borderline and a bit off my head at the time, also not surprised.  Yesterday, I took it at work, again, and I was back to my old INTJ-ness.  Which was awesome, because I get – er – more P-ish when I’m not quite well.  Anyway, I took the link over to the ‘these are what INTJs are like, and these are some examples’.  The RL examples were pretty cool, but not half as much as the fictional ones.

Hannibal Lecter, Fitzwilliam Darcy, and Gandalf the Grey.  It just doesn’t get cooler than that.

Anyway, I looked for other Austen characters, but they weren’t there.  And I thought:  ‘Well, that’s weird, because General Knowledge does manage to peg some of the characters fairly well – type-wise – while Darcy’s perpetually miscast.  Yet here he is, exactly where he belongs, and the more obvious ones are excluded.’  (Maybe not in those words, but it was to that effect.)  And then I said to myself, ‘Self, wouldn’t it be curious to try and peg them?’

So, here’s my amateur attempt:


– ISTJ, www.personalitypage.com/ISTJ.html
– ISFJ, www.personalitypage.com/ISFJ.html
– ESTJ, www.personalitypage.com/ESTJ.html
– ESFJ, www.personalitypage.com/ESFJ.html

Mary Bennet:  ESTJ (Supervisor/Guardian)

Elinor Dashwood:  ISTJ (Inspector/Duty Fulfiller) [note:  originally I pegged her as an ISFJ; I’m honestly not sure how I could possibly have thought her anything but a T]

Lady Catherine de Bourgh:  ESTJ (Supervisor/Guardian)

Anne Elliot:  ISFJ (Protector/Nurturer)

George Knightley:  ESTJ (Supervisor/Guardian) [note:  ESFJ (Provider/Caregiver) is also a strong possibility]

Fanny Price:  ISFJ (Protector/Nurturer)


– ISTP, www.personalitypage.com/ESFJ.html
– ISFP, www.personalitypage.com/ISFP.html
– ESTP, www.personalitypage.com/ESTP.html
– ESFP, www.personalitypage.com/ESFP.html

Elizabeth Bennet:  ESFP (Performer) [note:  I originally pegged her as an ENTP for reasons which, as with Elinor, still elude me, as she could not be more blatantly F – and S – if she tried; moreover, she’s technically an introvert, but an expressive, outgoing one, so she’s more of an XSFP – her outward, social behaviour is characteristic of an ESFP, while her inner life and personal relationships are more like an ISFP’s]

Lydia Bennet:  ESFP (Performer) [note:  Next to Lydia, her fellow ESFPs are positively tame – she’s probably the most extreme SP to appear in any of the novels]

Caroline Bingley:  ESTP (Promoter/Doer)

Charles Bingley:  ESFP (Performer) [note:  I’m starting to see a pattern here . . . though they’re all very different, it’s interesting that Austen’s Artisans are almost invariably Feeling Extraverts, isn’t it?]

Henry Crawford:  ESFP (Performer)

Mary Crawford:  ESFP (Performer) [note:  I vacillated a bit over whether Mary and/or Henry were Fs or Ts]


– INFJ, www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html
– INFP, www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html
– ENFJ, www.personalitypage.com/ENFJ.html
– ENFP, www.personalitypage.com/ENFP.html

Jane Bennet:  INFP (Healer/Idealist) [note:  Jane’s the most INFP of all the INFPs, seriously]

Edmund Bertram:  INFP (Healer/Idealist) [note:  I originally pegged him as an INFJ, but on second thought, he’s almost certainly a P]

Marianne Dashwood:  ENFP (Champion/Inspirer) [note:  the F-est NF ever]

Catherine Morland:  INFP (Healer/Idealist)

Frederick Wentworth:  ENFP (Champion/Inspirer) [note:  same as with Edmund – especially since part of the reason for Lady Russell’s opposition to him is his P-ness; however, he’s much less dramatically N & F than Marianne or Jane]


– INTJ, www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html
– INTP, www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html
– ENTJ, www.personalitypage.com/ENTJ.html
– ENTP, www.personalitypage.com/ENTP.html

Mr Bennet:  INTP (Architect/Thinker)

Fitzwilliam Darcy:  INTJ (Mastermind/Scientist) [note:  the other Austen characters’ types are all my personal opinion; Darcy alone has been officially “typed” – I just happen to agree with them]

Henry Tilney:  ENTP (Inventor/Visionary) [note:  I found it interesting that, while I’ve always thought of Henry as Elizabeth Bennet’s male doppelganger, this would put him – roughly – halfway between Elizabeth and Darcy; I looked again, but I still can’t see him as an F, and not really as an S either]

Emma Woodhouse:  ENTJ (Fieldmarshal/Executive)

  1. tree says:

    i still think lizzy is an ISFP rather than an ESFP. introverts with strong Fs can appear extroverted in social situations. no INFJs *sadface*

  2. anghraine says:

    I agree, more or less – at least that she is more of an introvert than an extravert, though I’m inclined to credit the SF combination rather than the F alone. (ie, INFs are not going to be mistaken for extraverts any time soon.) Actually I think she really is an XSFP leaning towards ISFP – she has some genuinely extraverted tendencies, I think, but they’re not as significant as the introverted ones. Still E’s social, outward-focussed self is real to her in a way that it wouldn’t be for a full-blooded introvert like Darcy or Jane. (Ambiguous Elizabeth is ambiguous.)

    There aren’t any INFJs, are there? Since I decided against it for Edmund – though I don’t expect you’d want him anyway. You do get Faramir, though – pretty much the most astoundingly awesome human being in Middle-earth, ever. (I don’t like war and I don’t want to fight and I wish I lived in peaceful times and could just read and study and – you have the One Ring?! Well . . . DO NOT WANT.)

  3. tree says:

    “INFs are not going to be mistaken for extraverts any time soon”

    not so, not so! i have oft been described as outgoing and i know several other INFs who’re the same. of course then we have to go hide in the dark for a week or two. but, seriously, that F can be hugely influential.

    ambiguous elizabeth, indeed. she’s tricksy that girl.

    i’m happy to take faramir, though you’ll have to forgive me that i only have your word for it as i only managed to get about 200 pages into LotR before i had to throw it across the room lest i stab out my eyes. i acknowledge that this admission is akin to blasphemy.

    • anghraine says:

      Oh, I stand corrected then! All of the INFs I’ve ever known are – well, outgoing compared to me, but not to, uhm, your average extravert. I still think the S contributes pretty heavily to E’s social life, though w/o the F it would be very very different. (*shamed that I ever considered her as a T*)

      She is much more complicated than she seems. I mean, Darcy looks complicated and is, but Elizabeth seems quite straightforward at first, and then – isn’t.

      It’s too bad about LOTR. Admittedly, it took me two years to get through the first half of the first book – but I ended up reading the rest in a single night. It’s definitely a YMMV sort of thing, though.

  4. Hannah says:

    I’m curious as to your reasons for deciding that Elizabeth is an F -and an S for that matter. Elizabeth decides to like Darcy for entirely objective reasons, and at first she discounted him equally objectively. She is clearly more on the critical/rational end of the spectrum (which is probably what endears her to her father) making her a clear T in my opinion.

    As to her being an S, that’s hard to say. If I reflect on the book I tend to think she spent more time talking about events than ideas, but I’m not sure. I’d say EXTP, probably ESTP.

    Couldn’t agree more though about Darcy, Jane, Lydia and Mr Bennet.

    I couldn’t agree more that Jane is an INFP and Lydia is an ESFP, however.

  5. anghraine says:

    Elizabeth? Oh – well – it’s evident that we completely disagree about Elizabeth then, because IMO she is a blatant F.

    I don’t think she ever decides to dislike Darcy, objectively or otherwise. She simply reacts and holds to that reaction; whether she’s right or wrong is another matter entirely (I would go with ‘correct but shallow,’ myself). I can think of only one occasion – before Hunsford – when she attempts to evaluate him (the Netherfield ball) and it’s painfully clear that, by that point, she’s simply trying to justify her prejudices. That particular conversation says much more about her than him.

    Her reaction to Wickham is pretty much the same thing (though of course in reverse) – she doesn’t evaluate, she simply reacts and holds to her reaction, ignoring or dismissing the blatant inconsistencies in his tale and his behaviour as they pile up; not because she seriously cares for him but because she is emotionally invested in believing him. As she herself realises, it’s because he flatters her vanity.

    For the same reasons though to a lesser degree, she’s also mistaken in Charlotte and Bingley – insisting that she couldn’t possibly mean what she says and that he couldn’t possibly be influenced by his friends and family (the latter is particularly ironic, given her earlier claim that she understands him ‘perfectly’). She also is convinced that Georgiana, who she’s never so much as met, will make Bingley miserable.

    Her sensitivity to others’ emotions is also much more characteristic of an F – she is very, very rarely mistaken about what people are feeling. It’s only objective evaluations of character where she errs (the exact reverse of analytical, insensitive Darcy, who gets nearly everybody’s characters right and their emotions wrong).

    Verbally, she’s very much an F – an intellectually brilliant one, but her arguments are firmly based on feeling and studded with overstatements. Take this:

    DARCY: You expect me to account for opinions which you choose to call mine, but which I have never acknowledged. Allowing the case, however, to stand according to your representation, you must remember, Miss Bennet, that the friend who is supposed to desire his return to the house, and the delay of his plan, has merely desired it, asked it without offering one argument in favour of its propriety.

    ELIZABETH: To yield readily—easily—to the persuasion of a friend is no merit with you.

    DARCY: To yield without conviction is no compliment to the understanding of either.

    ELIZABETH: You appear to me, Mr. Darcy, to allow nothing for the influence to friendship and affection. A regard for the requester would often make one readily yield to a request, without waiting for arguments to reason one into it. [. . .] But in general and ordinary cases, between friend and friend, where one of them is desired by the other to change a resolution of no very great moment, should you think ill of that person for complying with the desire, without waiting to be argued into it?

    DARCY: Will it not be advisable, before we proceed on this subject, to arrange with rather more precision the degree of importance which is to appertain to this request, as well as the degree of intimacy subsisting between the parties?

    or even this:

    DARCY: There is, I believe, in every disposition a tendency to some particular evil — a natural defect, which not even the best education can overcome.

    ELIZABETH: And your defect is a propensity to hate everybody.

    DARCY: And yours is wilfully to misunderstand them.

    Absolutely classic F vs T, as far as I’m concerned.

  6. Katie says:

    I think that Elizabeth is definitely an ENTP.
    for P’s, the cognitive functions are going to be different than Js.
    The extraverted Judging function (T vs F) is going to be the NONDOMINANT one.
    The order for an ENTP would be
    Ne (extraverted iNtuition) — imaginative, shifting dynamics
    Ti (introverted Thinking) — this is the analyzing, “intellectually brilliant” part
    Fe (extraverted Feeling) — this is the verbal F. Fe also is sensitive to others’ emotions.
    Si (introverted Sensing)

    For an ESFP, as you type her, she would have
    Se –sensitivity to physical surroundings, etc
    Fi –holding things up to internal values, feelings, and standards
    Te –organizing and… thinking outwardly
    Ni –forseeing future possibilities

    In my mind, this makes Elizabeth Bennet a VERY clear ENTP. Besides the cognitive functions, the thing that facilitates good relationships most is a shared N/S preference. All of Lizzy’s best relationships- Jane, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Darcy- are Ns.

  7. Taylor says:

    Elizabeth Bennet is and INFJ. She constantly goes out to be by herself and one of the characteristics of an INFJ is to be introverted, but react seeminly as an extravert. She relies on nf, her feelings for the the men in her life change quickly and she never decides anything, but feels it. And she is J, because she is more to her opinions than a J.
    Darcy and Elizabeth are very similar but Darcy is T rather than F.
    ELizabeth: INFJ
    Darcy: INTJ

  8. Katherine says:

    Elizabeth is a strong NT, like Darcy (both ‘contrary’ personalities) though she is likely equivocal on the I/E and the J/P, I would call her an ENTP as you did initially. She’s *definitely* not an S. Her ‘N’ is very very strong. Possibly the most strong of her traits.

  9. Katherine says:

    and Jane is most assuredly an ISFJ – The Nurturer:
    “they prove over and over that they can be relied on for their loyalty and unstinting, high-quality work, those around them often take them for granted–even take advantage of them. Admittedly, the problem is sometimes aggravated by the ISFJs themselves; for instance, they are notoriously bad at delegating (“If you want it done right, do it yourself”). And although they’re hurt by being treated like doormats, they are often unwilling to toot their own horns about their accomplishments because they feel that although they deserve more credit than they’re getting, it’s somehow wrong to want any sort of reward for doing work (which is supposed to be a virtue in itself). (And as low-profile Is, their actions don’t call attention to themselves as with charismatic Es.)”

    “ISFJs have a very clear idea of the way things should be, which they strive to attain. They value security and kindness, and respect traditions and laws. They tend to believe that existing systems are there because they work. Therefore, they’re not likely to buy into doing things in a new way, unless they’re shown in a concrete way why its better than the established method. “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s