Sign Up | Log in |

H.P. Lovecraft MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'H.P. Lovecraft'
H.P. Lovecraft MBTI type

Psychology, Philosophy, Writing and Social Sciences


INTP - 47
INFP - 45
INTJ - 3
ENTP - 1

[Famous INTPs]

Log in to vote!


5W4 - 20
4W5 - 4
5W6 - 2
9W8 - 1

[Famous Enneagram 5]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

"I shall never be very merry or very sad, for I am more prone to analyze than to feel." Now deal with that.Randolph Carter is an INFP and he allegedly based that character on himself.I see Ti, Ne and Ni in this guy, which in my new MBTI is INTP.

MBTI type of H.P. Lovecraft

. He's no INTJ. In some INPs Ne and Ni combine themselves in something that looks more Ni-ish on the surface, but it's not really Ni-dom.

Find out about H.P. Lovecraft personality type

. Ni-dom have strong imagination but use their work in order to make statements about society, INPs use their imagination for the pleasure of their fancy, they like to enjoy imagination for it's own sake and not an ulterior purpose. This is basically a guy who liked coming up with weird monsters and silly stories, he's not INJ just because he sounds contemplative or tries to be ''deep'' in his quotes, as INPs can say stuff like that.Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of H.P. Lovecraft. He's basically like Poe or Baudelaire if you remove the emotions from them.He's the same type of Kubrick.Which of the 16 personality types is H.P. Lovecraft?. Which one, you decide.He could be an INTP as far as I know. I'm inspired by his way of writing. Also, INTPs can have hidden superiority complex.You sound too much like a troll to be honest.He's INTJ because he didn't consider suicide? Don't get it, honestly. He had superiority complexes, which don't fit much with INTP tough.From the quotes and fragments of his letters: he's too much full of himself. And also he didn't consider a pessimist, which is an INTP trait (neither an optimist). He's not a pessimist because superior Te kept him grounded and suicide was never an option for him. Add to that his supremacist side.''social or utilitarian connotations is Fe''. Social connotations is Fe, Utilitarian connotations is Te. Nevertheless, I could see an INTJ who puts a greater emphasis on his Ni at the expense of Te saying that (but it would make more sens in a larger context tough), but it's unlikely. Still, Lovecraft was an unlikely individual. Still, it sounds a ''knowledge for knowledge sake'' thing, which is more of an INTP thing, I guess.Whatever floats your boat lolAnyway, in my system he's a great example of Dreamer-Thinker. Dreamer-Thinkers like to create interior worlds of imagination (Dreamer) and then try to give them some ''rational'' support (Thinker): such as the existence of creatures beyond the cognitive capacity of human understanding, with Lovecraft. Unlike Thinker-Dreamers (Asimov, Arthur C Clark), who try to give as good of a rational basis as they can to their imaginative worlds, concepts on entities, for Dreamers-Thinkers (Lovecraft, Kafka, Mieville) this is only of secondary importance to the uniqueness and peculiarity of their fantasy. Also, unlike Dreamers-Sages (William Blake), Dreamers-Thinkers have less of a confidence in their philosophical considerations and are more second-guessing, thus being more analytical. Dreamer-Thinkers tend to be mostly INTPs and INFPs and 5w4, although it's not a rule. I'm probably a Dreamer-Thinker myself."social or utilitarian connotations" is Fe.''Memories and possibilities are ever more hideous than realities.'' Could be an unhealthy tertiary Si thing : afraid of the future due to the unpleasant memories (and thus being all emo about reality and stuff). When in such loop, INPs loose their optimistic way of looking at the future, and become fearful of whatever might disturbe their way of being. ''I have use only of abstract cognition without social or utilitarian connotations.'' If he's INTJ, he's in a negative relationship with his Te, as normal INTJs need to link abstract cognition (intuition) to ''utilitarian connotations'' (Te). So, whatever he is, he probably had an unhealthy relationships with his lower functions.If this isn't INTJ then what it is: "The only saving grace of the present is that it's too damned stupid to question the past very closely", "Memories and possibilities are ever more hideous than realities.", "All I want is to know things. The black gulph of the infinite is before me. I have no use for the machine age or any of its conceptions, methods, & ideals. I have use only for abstract cognition without social or utilitarian connotations."Sorry, he's INTJ not INFJ. It's all more clear to me now.@bobnickmad "Otherwise, you're an intellectual coward." I'm not easy to manipulate me. Google is at the tips of your fingers, intellectual bum.TheFastestMind, I don't know but the comment where you suggested he was a racist shared a link to that effect while also suggesting he is an INFJ seems to me like you were correlating the two. And people don't despise cognitive functions, that's a ridiculous claim. INPs definitely have Si, it's personal impressions imprinted in the psyche, not traditions or rituals as people think.@scotty I don't. You assume too much and wrongly. You are a scam.NPs have a love-hate relationships with Si. They despise Si as presented in SJ types, but they enjoy it when its subordinated to Fi or Ti.#TheFastestMind, prove that he despises Si like you claim to be! Don't go without showing what you claim is true. Otherwise, you're an intellectual coward.The people who despise Si the most are generally NPs, lolKeep fooling yourselves he's INFP. Au revoir! :)Where do you get that he despises Si tough? I never read that in any of his quotes.''I am not wholly insensible to abstract form, but seem to relish the associative element in art more instantly and acutely than the lyrical or mathematical element . . . I don't really revel in anything unless it reminds me of something else either real or visionary—unless it opens up visual avenues of linked pseudo-recollections leading to sensations of ego-expansion and liberation . . . usually bringing in the element of time, somehow based on the past, and harbouring hints of an elusive, intangible kind of adventurous expectancy.'' He appreciates works of art in a Ne-Si way basically, doesn't look for the hidden meaning , but purely for the sake of associations and where they lead him. And you can't say it's not definitive of him, because you can't separate the way a Ni-dom understand work of art from his cognitive functions.Lol@ "he despised Si" being an argument for NJ over NPAre you stupid barca? Him being racist is just one thing. He turned out to be racist and also INFJ.Why are those words INFJ? Seriously?INFJ because racist. Amazing argument. A clear INFP. Back in the days racism was rampant... Who am I kidding, it still is.INFJ using words like fear, meaningless, visionary, love, people, dull, grotesque, indifference. His statements are convoluted and yet he always lands in the same place. Despises Si too much as well. The more I look at him the more I see the INFJ.Anyway, I wouldn't care if this guy is not a good writer. The whole ''cosmological horror'' thing is awesome just in concept, even if others might do it better.Lol, if this guy is INFJ, truly everyone is. #Butterfly has some interesting ideas about this guy.I didn't know he was a racist. There's even a website, "Who said it, Hitler or Lovecraft". And everything else points towards Ni dom, INFJ this time. quote is not Ti. He's basically saying in an overly complicated, fanciful (Ne) way that it's better to be dead than alive (Fi). >.< The point with Lovecraft, which is easy to overlook, is that he presents himself as this eloquent man of science, but he's actually this huge, helpless emo trying to justify his extreme unhappiness by twisting and turning science into unreasonable, imaginative horrors. @TheFastestMind: Anyway, I would say not really. You probably know most of his best ideas from pop-culture already, it's very long-winded and dull compared to modern horror/mystery stories, and his prose is very overblown, pompous and annoying. He has lots of lots of short stories though so you could really start anywhere and keep going until you get bored. Here is my favorite of his Short, sweet and mostly about the stuff he is famous for.^^is he any good? haven't had the pleasure.Most of his quotes are Ti-Fe. Another: "It is easy to remove the mind from harping on the lost illusion of immortality. The disciplined intellect fears nothing and craves no sugar-plum at the day's end, but is content to accept life and serve society as best it may. Personally I would not care for immortality in the least. There is nothing better than oblivion, since in oblivion there is no wish unfulfilled. We had it before we were born, yet did not complain. Shall we whine because we know it will return?" He's INTP or INFJ. I don't understand INFP votes.I disagree that Lovecraft is about the conflicts of the law of nature. It's about what happens when humans realize life is meaningless, and what that does to them. He is FULL of angst. He is *the angst writer*. In a way, you could say Lovecraft is Nietzsche without Te. He doesn't care about injustice because there is no justice in the world, and that is what drives him crazy. I'm not sure an INTP would care all that much, you know. I also don't feel like INTPs are prone to making their fantasies into metaphors for their emotions like Lovecraft does. They will usually analyze what they do (be it fantasy or literary fiction) and try to carefully construct a perfect example of it (Pynchon, Nabokov, China Miéville) where each part plays into the whole. If Lovecraft is an INTP, then I am also more ready to believe that Kafka is one. I also definitely realize that you don't have to be Fi to be into dark things (Marilyn Manson) - though I think there is a very special quality to it when Fe users engage with it. And even if Cave is ISFP and Lovecraft is INFP, I think they are very different in how they approach darkness. Cave seems to *identify* with dark and strange things, romanticize and draw energy from it (more like me, which might be because we are both 4w5). To Lovecraft it is a bile that needs to get out, it seems to me. Another point I feel like saying more about is that he also doesn't seem like a very logical person to me. He seems like a INFP with Te issues, greatly admiring the air and principles of science, but who couldn't even get into a university. In his short stories, you see the same kind of extremely romanticized scientist, pompously talking about the principles of science (you also find him acting like this in his diaries, letters). Nothing about the way he actually lived his life, what he focused on, etc. suggest to me that he was actually such a person though. The way he eventually really came to appreciate his society of pulp writers, exchanging letters and writing stories in each other's universes - finally finding his place, might again suggest Fe though ... As said, I am very partial to him being an extremely introverted INFP (who probably had avoidant personality disorder - since he usually only went out at night) with heavy Te issues, but I think INTP (and INFJ actually) are both possible. Isn't there something Ni-like about the indescribable monsters he is trying to capture, and Fe-like about his obsession with "the society of science" and later the "society of pulp writers"?Sometimes you make very good points, but sometimes it looks like you ignore the obvious. Like those two quotes I gave about how 1)no emotional conflict has any weight for him, only conflict that matters to him is the laws of nature: 2) he doesn't care about act of injustice among mankind. Compared to this what you have for INFP? The fact that he makes dark stories? Similar with Cave, you were given two strong reasons against Fi-dom for him: 1)him saying that feelings are over-rated and mostly a nuisance, 2)you saying that for him his stage persona is about escaping from itself. What Lovecraft and Cave seem to share together is their interest in ''the dark side'', and you seem to think only Fi can have that fascination with dark things, so thus they must be Fi, when the easier conclusion would be that other types can also have a fascination for dark things.Anyway, I think a stronger reason for Fi would be if his darkness stems from conflict between ideals and the crushing realities of the world, or from emotional conflicts, but those things lack from his stories.I think the fascination with dark things could be more of a enneagram 4w5 and 5w4 thing, Lovecraft is 5w4, Cave is 4w5, thus where the fascination they both have with darkness come.I'm partial to viewing him as INFP. He wanted to become an astronomer or something, but he was so nervous, he didn't show up enough for school to pass. Later he tried to join the military and was deemed too sickly. He lived most of his life with his mother in their creepy house, living off the family fortune which was completely depleted by the time he died. Lovecraft failed to make money or gain much fame while he was alive, because he was terrible at selling his own work - and he consistently refused offers to be a magazine editor. In short, his life story might as well be called "At the Mercy of Inferior Te". There is also little reason to believe he actually had any proficiency at science, logic, etc. In fact he is very prone to romanticizing the scholar, the scientist, etc. Like many INFPs his fantasy is also very whimsical, and fueled with his own personal concerns, fears and nightmares (Fi+Ne). For example a lot of the terrible incomprehensibility of his monsters seems to reflect his alienation in New York (I believe it was?) living alone, and not knowing anyone. He was also known for sitting outside, well into his late teenage years, making the neighborhood children play games which he made up elaborate stories for. I feel like that this child-like element, though not unimaginable of an INTP, is something I would connect more easily with an INFP. I also feel like an INTP isn't likely to be as bothered by "the meaninglessness of life" as Lovecraft was. What speaks in favor of INTP, it seems to me, is that there's very little focus on people in his stories. There is no love, friendships, three-dimensional characters, etc. He also writes in the same over-ornamented way that Nabokov and Pynchon (INTPs) do. On the other hand Nabokov and Pynchon do it very consciously and very well, whereas in Lovecraft's case it seems like plain "purple prose"? Even though it does definitely add to the atmosphere ...He was an atheist and interested in chemistry, maths and astronomy since childhood, which is more common for INTPs. When he was diagnosed with cancer "in accordance with his lifelong scientific curiosity, he kept a diary of his illness."Unhealthy INTP. "Now all my tales are based on the fundamental premise that COMMON HUMAN LAWS AND INTERESTS AND EMOTIONS HAVE NO VALIDITY OR SIGNIFICANCE in the vast cosmos-at-large." "(...)These must be handled with UNSPARING REALISM NOT CATCH-PENNY ROMANTICISM, but when we cross the line to the boundless and hideous unknown WE MUST REMEMBER TO LEAVE OUR HUMANITY AND TERRESTRIALISM at the threshold.I don't even know where people get the Fi in the first place. It's not like his writing is that psychological or focused on exploration of inner emotion. It's more about detailing the situation one finds themselves in.Yeah, I know, I gave arguments for that below...meanwhile I also just gave very good proof for INTP rather than infp.I don't get people who post things as if they just ignore everything people said before, it's like they don't pay attention.*makes good fiction He even points at the begining that there's no work of art without a minimal emotional drive, but in him that emotional drive is very restricted, while a Fi-dom, even a pessimist and a recluse, would have a broader interest in human nature.His interest however is mainly concerned with the Laws of Nature, and everywhere else he would rather remove the human aspect from the picture. Also this:''Personally, I feel more irritated by a challenge to an accepted scientific theory than I do by an act of so-called "evil" or "injustice" among mankind; although I never allow my irritation to hamper my acceptance of the new theory as soon as positive evidence warrants it.'' Sounds very INTP. I settle on INTP and I suspected this is where I'll remain on the issue.I think his examples shows that between a 5w6 INTP and a 5w4 INTP there can exists quite a fundamental difference.There are some comments on Scotty's page about how we often simplify INTPs into this kinds or robots, which is also kinda innapropiate since the INTP poster-boy Albert Einstein was a very open-minded and contemplative person.So yeah, now I realize my comment below is not a good argument for Fi-dom.If an INTP reaches the conclusion that atmosphere and mood is what makes good function, he'll create his work based on that principle.A Ti-dom can understand that the laws that govern art are not the same that govern a scientific essays. What what would be good to see about his works, is that while it is about human being reacting internally because of fantastic happening, he's far more concerned with the happenings while the character's inner world is very basic.This quote from a letter is maybe the most revelatory: '' However—the crucial thing is my lack of interest in ordinary life. No one ever wrote a story yet without some real emotional drive behind it—and I have not that drive except where violations of the natural order . . . defiances and evasions of time, space, and cosmic law . . . are concerned. Just why this is so I haven't the slightest idea—it simply is so. I am interested only in broad pageants—historic streams—orders of biological, chemical, physical, and astronomical organisation—and the only conflict which has any deep emotional significance to me is that of the principle of freedom or irregularity or adventurous opportunity against the eternal and maddening rigidity of cosmic law . . . especially the laws of time. . . . ''Interesting quotes about why he writes:''My reason for writing stories is to give myself the satisfaction of visualising more clearly and detailedly and stably the vague, elusive, fragmentary impressions of wonder, beauty, and adventurous expectancy which are conveyed to me by certain sights (scenic, architectural, atmospheric, etc.), ideas, occurrences, and images encountered in art and literature.''//''Atmosphere, not action, is the great desideratum of weird fiction. Indeed, all that a wonder story can ever be is a vivid picture of a certain type of human mood.''''I am not wholly insensible to abstract form, but seem to relish the associative element in art more instantly and acutely than the lyrical or mathematical element . . . I don't really revel in anything unless it reminds me of something else either real or visionary—unless it opens up visual avenues of linked pseudo-recollections leading to sensations of ego-expansion and liberation . . . usually bringing in the element of time, somehow based on the past, and harbouring hints of an elusive, intangible kind of adventurous expectancy.'' His aesthetic appreciation is definitely Ne-Si, and not Ni.INFP are way more accommodating because they prioritize heavily empathizing at the individual level. INTP are going to be unaccommodating to those who they deem as being emotionally illogical, but be passive about it. ENTP are shown to be the most disagreeable people because they are outspoken rather than passive when people aren't making sense.A bit quick on the personal judgement... Anyway, I didn't type them, they did. It may very well be anecdotal evidence but it's what I've observed. While both seem socially awkward, my INTP friends have in a way a friendlier/gentler appearance and my INFP friends are way more shut/cold but also more driven. Regarding HPL, it's important to consider that he is a 5w4, and unlike 9s most INFP 5s and 4s tend to not be that representative of the gentle, optimistic, bubbly, harmony seeking, etc. stereotypes. What is the function defined here : It makes people silent and difficult of access//It comes out with negative judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference as a means of defense.// arouses a suspicion of indifference and coldness//There is little effort to respond to the real emotions of the other person, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are 'cooled off' by a negative value judgment//strangers are shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but are met with apparent indifference or a repelling coldness//Any stormy emotion, however, will be struck down with murderous coldness//Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly//Since this type appears rather cold and reserved, it might seem on a superficial view that they have no feelings at all//To the outside world, this intensive sympathy looks like coldness//Such a misunderstanding is a common occurrence in the life of this type//...Not arguing over your typing (INT seems quite plausible) but among most people I know INFPs are actually colder than say INTPs. Jung also defined Fi as the outwardly coldest function, thus being misleading.Seems like he was way too cold for an INFP. I think it's more likely he was an unhealthy INTxI think his Ne is pretty clear though

What's the argument for F over T? Still don't see it tbh.

If he's 5w4 the chances of him being INTP are greater than INFP.

For some reason my vote keeps getting changed to INFJ.

I've had the same issue.

Ugh why does this keep happening on this page

Looks like your computer has been infected with W32/orbweaver

I would refrain from that: these are two different systems,

INTP who's a clear Jungian Ni type His writtings are Ni conceptualization of cosmic fears and Ti subjective logic, little of anything else.

Yeah, he's just not likely to be INFP because he doesn't show any signs of being a feeler.

I really don't see why he would be INFP, aside from not being a fucking scientist.

Sounds like a harry potter durmstrang fanfiction.

>INFP : 45 >INTP  : 44 HNNNNNNNGR...this sucks  *votes INTP*

lol, maybe that's why he has so many INFP votes

Voted INTJ nothin personnel kid

Heidi Priebe did do that self-reporting survey of people’s MBTI & Enneagram. Out of 208 self identifying INTPs, 120+ identified as 5s, whereas only 25/314 INFPs identified as 5s. There seems to be some correlation with MBTI and Enneagram, especially in that study (the largest that I know of). ExFJs were overwhelmingly type 2 for instance. So I would tend to agree with Dralik. Now I’m not a Lovecraft expert, but his brand of fiction seems fairly close to something my 5w4 INTP best friend would come up with. Such as...the brilliant and emotionally investing “book series where each book ends with the POV character dying mid-sentence and then switching to other party member’s perspective watching their body hit the ground.”

INTP racist piece of garbage

That would be a weak argument. Correlation does not imply causation. Going only by chance, how do we know Lovecraft was not one of the supposed 25 5w4s for 314 INFPs? He wasn't, of course, but for different reasons.

Yes, but talented af

Talented poop is still poop.

tbh idgaf about the guy, I only care about his work

If I don't like the guy I won't look at his work.

Get over your political ideology you child.

Listen, I understand there's the man and the artist. I get the distinction, but I won't look at his work nor will I take interest in the man who is garbage. Let me hate in peace.

>tfw condemning yourself to not get access to most of human culture

What the ? You guys don't get it...

I think dralik nu is right, chances are higher so it 's worth taking into consideration that by doing that in a big sample you will have more right typing. But the question is not wether it's more likely but what Lovecraft actual type is. If it was the case that there are more INFPs 5w4 than we expect the probability would change but wouldn't know that if we type them as INTPs so the statistics would be biased. He is still right on saying the likelyhood is higher for INTP (it is) but doesn't mean Lovecraft is or isn't. (Btw I have no idea of his type despite having read some of his books).

How does not taking interest in Lovecraft's work is condemning myself to most of human culture ? It does nit even make sense. I know his work, I don't need to be passionated by people's work to know what they do. Most of human culture are made by racist people ? Who ade poems about "niggers" ? I won't take interest in this guy's work. Stop overthinking it.

Yeah, separating art from artist is hard. And we all have our limits and our own personal boundaries.  This is especially relevant when it comes to someone like HP Lovecraft because his racism and racist views made their way pretty overtly into a lot of his fiction and writing.  I can understand why people would feel uncomfortable reading his work or be unwilling to engage. I don't even see why this is especially controverisal either.  To provide a modern equivalent, Woody Allen being a pedophile doesn't suddenly make Annie Hall  or Manhattan  bad movies or even without their merits, but it does make certain parts of these films ring as extremely uncomfortable and highly questionable in hindsight. We all have our limits when it comes to this stuff.  And I don't think we should judge people for making a personal decision to engage or disengage. 

I guess that when Khel said about "not get acess to most of human culture" he wasn't referring to the Lovecraft himself but to the "I won't look at his work nor will I take interest in the man who is garbage" comment, implying that most of humans are garbage and that for this you wouldn't acess most of the works of humanity so. Anyway I understand your point of view, although I am still not sure about my position on this subject of "art vs. artist". I think it depends on how much the position I consider to be reprehensible is present in the work, and also how much I would be contributing to the person's attitude and opinions when consuming his/her work (even though through piracy). I wouldn't like to imply that it's okay to succeed with a work permeated by abominable deeds and beliefs >to me< (like that famous butter scene in Last Tango in Paris)

More than most people being garbage, I'd say a lot of artists were, indeed, intolerant people (racist, sexist, etc). Whether that makes them garbage, on their own context where, in many cases, those beliefs were common, is up for debate. I agree with hearts on the idea that only you can decide where you draw the line between art and the artist. But you have to be conscious that if you decide to avoid the works of intolerant people, or "bad" people, you are going to miss a lot of stuff.

It's not about whether you draw the line between artist and art, it's about being able to dissect what you read. Also, yes, most authors indeed have views from an other time and culture, because they were from that other time and culture, that valued other things. Other than it being necessary to not forget that those views existed and how they were represented in litterature, I'd say that HP Lovecraft is one of the most, if not the most, important author in his own field (don't remember the english name, something like cosmic horror fantastic n shit). The evocative power of his work is, in terms of cosmic horrific representations, unmatched. That, if you're not brought to this kind of work, makes it irrelevant to say whether he was a dirty racist or not. Also, I did not overthink anything there. Stop categorizing everything that takes more than 3 seconds of thought as overthinking, you're being ridiculous and simply you diminish your own intellectual image.

Also judging people retrospectively for their belief while they lived in a time your own grandparents haven't even known is dishonest.

How is it dishonest ? People will hate Hitler for generations. I know there is always a line, I'm actually a tolerant person. But you guys shouldn't care if I don't want to be interested by his work because of the man he was, no matter the time he lived. (Not all artists from his era were racists or openly racist). I know his work and I know he is unrivaled in terms of cosmic horror. That's good enough for me.

this is quite a childish and nosense attitude. if we don't separe work from creator, litterature will know a big trouble because Victor Hugo was for colonisation, Céline was antisemitic etc... in philosophy too, Heiddeger was a Nazi and the majority of the important philosophers was sexist (Rousseau, Schopenhauer,Nietzsche, Aristotle, Kierkegaard,Thomas d'Aquina etc...).

I feel like this has to be a case by case thing? More often than not you can probably separate it though unless the belief has become some super strong part of their sense of self. I don’t really see anything authentic or personal about any of these beliefs. They seem to really just parasitically implant themselves in people but don’t have to consume someone’s whole worldview or output. I mean if you were dealing w a sexist who portrayed exclusively females in their art that would be different. But why can’t we see that in some cases a bad idea is like a whirlwind that swept into someone and then moved out and lived on in others when they died because it was so impersonal to begin with?


Supporter: I love his book. Lovecraft: I hate niggers. Supporter: Burned his book!