Sign Up | Log in |

J.R.R. Tolkien MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'J.R.R. Tolkien'
J.R.R. Tolkien MBTI type
Realm:


Category:
Writers

TOTAL MBTI VOTES: 57


INFP - 42
INTP - 7
INFJ - 5
ISFJ - 2
ISTJ - 1

[Famous INFPs]

Log in to vote!

TOTAL ENNEA VOTES: 18


9W1 - 10
6W5 - 5
6W7 - 2
5W4 - 1

[Famous Enneagram 9]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

Regardless of his MBTI, I think he's enneagram 6. If he's an INFP, then that could explain why his Si was so strong.*detailed writing prioritized over anything else /I think an ISFJ under the influence of inferior Ne would superficialy resemble an INFP, since they're both IxFx but the unnatural Ne gives superficial NP characteristics.Coming back to it, I think in the 4 function model this guy had to be ISFJ: Si-Fe-Ti-Ne.

MBTI type of J.R.R. Tolkien

. Si: excessively detailed writing trump over anything; Fe: his world seem to be about a perfect rural community (the Hobbits) faced with threats to its idylic life-style; Ti: creating an invented language with it's own set of rules. The only issue is him talking about dreams over reality.

Find out about J.R.R. Tolkien personality type

. But maybe it's a Si things as well, Si is more about creating a personal framework of one's life, and since he always dealt with mythology, it eventually came to make up his personal life style so much that he identified with myths as something real in his life. Function wise, ISFJ make much more sense than either INFP (no Fi-dom characteristics in his writings), INTP (no detached system analyst) or INFJ (detail over abstractions).Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of J.R.R. Tolkien.This right here is how typology should be discussed.Maybe because he didn't choose to write a tragic story.Which of the 16 personality types is J.R.R. Tolkien?. Just maybe he wanted something big and close to him but yet separate from his own sensitivities. Maybe it was a conscious decision. Just maybe! But like bobnickmad the only thing I am sure of is NeSi, with respect to LOTR.I wouldn't say that's an argument against INFP though. It's just that Martin is less interested in that. I would say Tolkien is more INFP because the language he made is for his personal satisfaction than Martin who uses it primarily for plot :pHe wrote 'slowly' because every time he should have given the book for publishing already, he wanted to add something more to it. That sounds more Ne, not knowing when to stop. A Ni-dom would probably have some idea in his mind of the book he wants to write and the way he wants to finish it, and thus be sure that he wrote is good at is without further changes. Overall, I don't see any strong argument either for Ni-dom or Fi-dom yet, so I'm pretty much lost when it comes to him.Si-Ne would make most sense, but like Ventus quoted, he put imagination above reality so that doesn't sound like an SJ, who pride themselves with being realists (even when they live in a fantasy world made from myths and tradition, they actually pride with being 'realists').Ugh, he's one of those difficult types. As for a clear INFP fantasy writer in my mind: Hans Christian Anderson, stories bleeding with tragic/romantic feeling with crazy and unique imagination.So I don't see why an INFP fantasy writer can't put that kind of Fi emotionality in his works.Aha! That is actually an argument I would use for my perspective. GRRM actually just made up select phrases when he needed them for the plot. The languages used in the television show were made by professional linguists hired by HBO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dothraki_language#DevelopmentINFPs can be very idiosyncratic and eccentric in their pursuits. When their Si is strong, which usually is in many INFP authors they can come up with such elaborations. To a lesser extent, no way near close to Tolkien, GRR also made Dotrakhi(?) language and that language (with some help) is also pretty developed. Tolkiens Ne-Si seems to be at work here.One thing I feel is important that I forgot to mention: It might very well be very Ne to go, "Hey, I'm going to make my own fictional language!" To sit there for hours, days, months tinkering with made-up grammar and obscure etymologies ... An INFP? None that I ever knew.@butterfly, no you're providing an interesting perspective, something worth looking into. Just because right now I am disagreeing with you doesn't mean you aren't right. Keep your assessments coming :p I like your ideas. Disagreement happens.I do admit I might be a little out of my water here if you've had a long and detailed discussion already. I've never read a biography by Tolkien, and I haven't touched his books since my early teens. I pretend to be no authority on his MBTI, lol.I'm surprised people think C. S. Lewis is INTJ, because that's not my impression of him at all, but honestly it's been too long since I was into him and I don't feel confident defending my INFP typing. I have to admit I didn't read the previous comments very closely either, but just gave reasons I thought he was an INFJ. Anyway, I will discuss the points you make against my post. The thing is that I don't think Tolkien was very passionate about his writing the same way C. S. Lewis (Fi) was. To Tolkien it seems to me to mostly have been just a game (Ni+Ti), judging from how slowly he wrote, how little he cared about being published, etc. His real life was church, his job, etc. I think having tavern talks with C. S. Lewis about writing fantasy was more important to him than actually writing it. (Fe) That is my *impression* of him. I also don't think Tolkien is very Ne. It seems to me like his world is mostly derived from him playing around with myths, old stories, etc. (Ni+Ti) Compare him to GRRM or Neil Gaimain's twisting, surprising stories. Tolkien's imaginary work is very "straightforward" and "solid". Finally Tolkien has that "Fe" Jane Austen/Rowling/Dickens thing where he depicts big parties and gives you a fuzzy feeling in your tummy because it feels like you're a part of a big family for a while, etc. And as you've all been saying there is little Fi in his books. As for conservatism and religion, I agree. Lewis (Fi) was religious after all. BUT, I just can't in my wildest imagination imagine an INFP (!!) getting up in the middle of a church sermon and chastising the priest for talking in English so that the other people in the church can understand. It's even a little mean for a language professor with Fe.I'd have to agree with Ventus413 on this one. Tolkien's genre doesn't allow for overly complex individual characters even though his world is Ne-Si and the man himself is brimming with deep feelings.Ni-doms are unlikely to create fictional worlds for their own sake, they're more purpose-full. Anyway, the issue with INFJ vs INFP debate is that no one gave a convincing argument either for Ni-dom or Fi-dom.INFJs engage in the general human complexity while INFPs make individual characters with alot of depth and nuance. The fact that Tolkien doesn't focus on the depth of characters but rather how they play in the mystical world is causing doubts on his INFPness but it is even more unlikely for an INFJ to create a big fictional world just because they love it. INFJ authors usually tend to focus on human society, its complexities and effects on humans and all that interplays and while they might enjoy LOTR very much, it's unlikely they'll create such a broad world and big world, it sounds like unrepressed Ne-Si. Also conservatism and religion isn't just Fe. Fi types can choose to religious, spiritual and even dogmatic, the only difference is they choose to do so on their own wish instead of societal pressure. I still see INFP above INFJ.The arguments giving here why C.S.Lewis was Ni-dom (heavy symbolic meaning) and Tolkien was not (opposition to anything but ''telling a story''), were far stronger than ''interest in mythology''. There's nothing you said that wasn't combated below, and your just repeating. I don't see why inventing languages can't just be Ne, specially when you mention he did those thing just for fun. NJs are purposeful, and NPs more likely to engage in useless endeavors. The only real issue is like you say his simplification of morality. Otherwise, C.S. is the clear Ni-dom and Tolkien the non-Ni dom.I wrote about this in the J. K. Rowling thread, but I believe Tolkien was INFJ. As has been mentioned before he was prone to conservatism and elitism. His ideas are also heavily based on mythology and history (interests that suggest Fe in the first place) rather than Ne. His characters and morality is also rather simple and straightforward for an INFP, clearly derivative of his community's belief and presented with little hesitation or willingness to explore the dark side in any serious manner. Tolkien was also a man who would would make up fictionalized languages and background stories he wouldn't necessarily use, just for fun. Ti-heavy hobbies like this are fairly common among INFJs in my experience. A lot of them play technical board games, etc. Honestly I don't understand why anyone would think he was an INFP aside from the assumption that all fantasy writers are INFP. I also recommend reading about C. S. Lewis's (INFP) and Tolkien's relationship, which seems to me the typical kind of "hot and cold" relationship this pairing will tend to have. Quoting an online article: "Tolkien [...] disliked the Narnia series, feeling it was both theologically heavy-handed and artistically slapdash [...]." On the other hand Tolkien seems to have tempered C. S. Lewis's haywire Te and converted him to Christianity (Fe). In return Lewis is said to have inspired the talking trees (a very Fi idea).@Ventus413 @impeccable: Convincing arguments. INFP it is.The problem with comparing Kafka and Poe to Tolkien is they're really not similar in terms of literary style/genre, it's like trying to type George Lucas by comparing his films to David Lynch's. Doesn't really work simply because their interests are not similar. I wouldn't expect all INFPs who set out to write fantasy epics to end up writing morally complex character studies in the process, so that's not a definitive point against INFP.It's true, not all INFP are good at writing complex characters, but even than they still try to focus on the internal emotional reactions of the characters (Edgar Allan Poe) or the effect that world has on the character's psyche (Kafka), Tolkien just puts some character in a world and doesn't seem to be about their internal state.He also said that ''Spiritual principles are corrupted by attempts to mechanize and formalize them.'', which goes contrary to the INTPs rational approach to value judgements issues, so I don't see INTP.I think Tolkien's aim was to write a fantastical story dealing with the subject he liked, the mythology. It's not necessary for an INFP with complex psyche to write overly complex characters especially when writing something like LOTR. I am more interested in why Tolkien wrote what he wrote and his emotional connection with it all. I agree that he seems to have a lot of Si but that too isn't uncharacteristic of many INFP authors. I wouldn't count out INTP though. INJs and ISJs don't really fit.Yeah, I see that, the thing is an argument often given against INFP and one that I haven't found any counter-argument for yet, is that his characters are not very complex, they're the good characters and the bad characters (maybe one or two except, but that's the rule) while an INFP would see the bad and good in most and thus write more morally complex characters. What would you say against that?While ISTJ would be my second choice as he exhibits both strong Fi and Si, I don't see how one could justify either Te-aux or inferior Ne for him. Te-aux makes little sense when you contrast him with his actual Te-aux contemporary C.S. Lewis who was more focused, rigid, and forceful than he was. And inferior Ne makes little sense given quotes like "a single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."I think Si-dom is not impossible for him, when we take into account that studying mythological legends was one of his specialities, and he basically put what he knew inside an idyllic ISxJ like fantasy world. From what I understood, he over-does with detail. I don't think his feeling was suppressed like in INTPs, he was either Fe-aux or strong Fi tertiary, but Fi-dom doesn't really seem like it.Tolkien mentions that he dislikes allegories. Introverted Intuition is all about symbols and abstract ideas and we know Ni is the most abstract of all cognitive functions.and a quick Google search on Tolkien's quotes and ideas will prove that he wasn't as closed minded as you mentioned instead he sought adventure. Quotes are not conclusive to determine one's type but they sure are persuasive.And you are totally avoiding Tolkien's emotional involvement with his work. He has reportedly said that his work is important to him more because of his emotional attachment to them than of the idea behind it...Beliefs, rituals, lifestyle and such sort has nothing and I repeat nothing to do with Jungian types and cognitive functions. If we have to somehow stereotype the things you have mentioned then they only point to SJs (Gross generalisation Btw.) SJs types are generally more patriotic on average than other types but nothing precludes an INFP to be a patriot, or value tradition (Fi-Si). And how and why is an INFJ technophobe? whats the rationale behind it... INFJs aren't conformists, they just accommodate opposing ideas easily...Ne and Fe are cognitive functions, not behaviors. None of the evidence you've given proves Fe or a lack of Ne. And being anti-progress and anti-modernism could just as easily be a result of his inferior Te as it could be a lack of Ne.How does all that explain INFJ?How does all that explain INFJ?he was patriotic, an opponent to modernism, to freedom of thought, to free will, for divine right of Kings, against technical progress. His personality was anti-Ne. And clearly more Fe than Ne. So he was INFJ, not INFP.Yes what is purported to be reasons for INFJ are explained by Fi-Si in an INFP. Plus Ne is evidently there.Yes and INFPs can appear SJ at times due to their tertiary Si, which further supports that he was INFP, not INFJ.For INFJs ideas come first then social graces. What you explained here generally relates to SJs typically. Nothing pinpoints INFJ. That said I agree with Ventus413. He was too absorbed in the world he made, he was emotionally indulged in it. He said he is more concerned with his feelings than gis ideas.Though I do agree that on a macro level, Fe types are as a whole the most stereotypically kind and sociable.Fe is not a behavior; it is a cognitive function. Though Fe types would be more likely to do the things you mentioned, maybe, none of that evidence is direct Fe evidence and certainly is not enough to preclude INFP. Kindness and sociability have little to do with Fe specifically, and both Fe and Fi can explain why someone is kind and sociable. Tolkien is defined by his personal emotional convictions, whimsy, relatively unstructured nature, and vivid, expansive imagination, all of which are more often INFP traits than INFJ traits. But you're correct that he's a feeler.he was very patriotic and sociable, he liked social events and team sports, he was paternalistic and wrote santa claus lettets to his children. So he was Fe. INTP would be possible, but in some quotes he says that feelings makes more sense than logic for him, so I guess that means he is a Feeler, and therefore a INFJ.INFJ? How? Why? INTP would make more sense than INFJ.He was routine bond, extremely conservative, and clearly Fe. Certainly not an INFP. More likely an INFJ, with strongs SFJ leanings.Right, I agree. I was saying it's not enough evidence alone to make Tolkien unequivocally an xNFP (he seemed pretty certain in his original post).Fi doms are circumstantially the most creative and "weird/strange" types. Most INFP authors show similar tastes in their fiction writing. And yes Tolkien is an INFP based on his emotional conviction and amiable personality however what defines INFPs along with their strong emotional convictions is their intrinsic strength of creating such worlds with such strong imaginations. INTJs or other types can do the same however it comes naturally to INFPs and ENFPs.Though I agree Tolkien was INFP, I disagree with your rationale. Cognitive functions are not behaviors and can't explain everything. You can have fantasy writers of any type. Compare to C.S. Lewis, who wrote similar stories but was an INTJ: much more focused and forceful. Tolkien is an INFP because he exhibited strong emotional convictions and was quiet, kind, and relatively unstructured. He also created entire working languages based on the worlds he had created because he was so emotionally attached to his ideas. The fact that he wrote imaginative and idiosyncratic stories is more circumstantial evidence than direct evidence. But you are right that he was INFP.Fi-Dom, period! Fi with Ne makes idiosyncratic and imaginative stories like Lord of the Rings.