Charles Dickens

[Not A Communist Shill]

I was sure I had made a post about his type recently but it seems he doesn't even have a dedicated thread.

Reinin apparently types him as ESE...my own view is that EJ temperament seems right, and from what I remember about his childhood and early life, strong would make sense (I seem to recall he had a flamboyant appearance for example - I'm not sure of the strength of this and it is a minor detail compared to descriptions of his personality from that time ...I also don't think it precludes ).

HA makes more sense than HA...as for EP types...I don't think I've considered those in great depth but I forget.

[Not A Communist Shill]

When I was thinking of type in Recent Times, I was thinking IEE, although I'm not sure if this is problematic for whatever previous reasoning I had.

I did find this link potentially useful: http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk...sPortraits.htm

[Not A Communist Shill]

http://www.thebookoflife.org/charles-dickens/

[Persephone]

I see no Fe in his writings, more of LSE, possibility of SLI. Delta, yes.

[Exodus]

When I was thinking of type in Recent Times, I was thinking IEE, although I'm not sure if this is problematic for whatever previous reasoning I had.

I did find this link potentially useful: http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk...sPortraits.htm

that does sound IEE, or maybe LSE.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Charles Dickens the dramatist: why it should've been an actor's life for Boz

[Not A Communist Shill]

Charles Dickens as Morrissey (a video link):

https://vk.com/videos-19268674?z=vid...8674_165180145

[Jake]

"He enjoyed mimicry and popular entertainment, lacked a clear, specific sense of what he wanted to become, and yet knew he wanted fame" - Not 1D T, but I don't think that's 4D T either. I could be wrong here, but I'm going to stick with at least 2D T.

"Before another opportunity arose, he had set out on his career as a writer" - Valued I ?

"In spite of the abolitionist sentiments gleaned from his trip to America, some modern commentators have pointed out inconsistencies in Dickens's views on racial inequality, for instance, he has been criticized for his subsequent acquiescence in Governor Eyre's harsh crackdown during the 1860s Morant Bay rebellion in Jamaica and his failure to join other British progressives in condemning it." - Weak L

With these notes and a couple of others, for instance, "In 1832, at age 20, Dickens was energetic and increasingly self-confident. He enjoyed mimicry and popular entertainment, lacked a clear, specific sense of what he wanted to become, and yet knew he wanted fame," makes me think E is stronger than R and I is stronger than T. This leads me to think he's IEE.

[Adam Strange]

When I was thinking of type in Recent Times, I was thinking IEE, although I'm not sure if this is problematic for whatever previous reasoning I had.

I did find this link potentially useful: http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk...sPortraits.htm

I think Dickens VI’s as an ESE.

I watched a biography of his wife and I thought that she looked like an SEI-Si (she had ten children, the last five against her husband’s wishes), and so I wondered if Charles might have been her dual, an ILE, but most typology sites label him as ESE, and that makes a lot of sense, considering the range of characters in his novels and Dickens love of public reading.

Charles, while initially enthralled and in love with his wife, eventually became disenchanted with her and they separated after twenty-two years of marriage. This makes sense in the context of an in-Quadra Match, but between Mirrors.

[Disturbed]

He seemed to be Ne valuing. Probably ESE or IEE, but didn't he keep his life kind of private for an ESE? So most likely IEE-Fi.

Great Expectations was actually a good book and it seemed more like it had Fi themes and it had some ambiguity which I thought was excessive IIRC, and it seemed like it would've been written by an NF male of those times rather than an SF one since it wasn't bubbling with emotions, it seemed kind of drily written; both his original ending was more realistic which seemed like someone from an IEE and I read that he had to be pressured into changing it into a happy one which seemed more like it would come to an ESE naturally; as you all know an EIE could've deliberately made an unhappy ending and refused to change but EIE is out of the question for Dickens' type. Still, Great Expectation was more dry and less emotionally rich, much less dramatic than Fe-valuer Shakespeare's works.

Dickens probably would've been the Fi subtype, they generally are more creative, more original and eccentric, and have better organizing abilities (required to have so many popular published books or any other artwork) than the Ne subtype and are harder than the Ne subtype about relationships (and much more willing to exploit their lovers and exit them) like SEE-Se and ESI-Se are supposed to be; the Fi subtype tends to resemble Gamma SF Se function subtypes, while the Ne subtype is more stereotypically Delta, meaning less logically consistent, less energetic, more traditional, more moralistic, more empathic (they typically mean better and actually like people more than the Fi subtype does, even if the Ne subtype winds up being more annoying to most people) and into conforming and not shaking things up. All of that would be reflected in his personal appearance and in Great Expectations. I know it's not relevant to this thread, but there are extreme paradoxes with subtypes (e.g., LSI-Se is better with logic and systems and less internally emotionally and less aggressive, supports innocence more than the Ti subtype, ILE-Ti are more open-minded, more creative, more original, and more questioning and unsure than the ILE-Ne, ESI-Fi are more physically aggressive than ESI-Se and less likely to do Ni fantasizing, less open to emotions, are more pragmatic, have worse social skills, like people less, are less aware of others' emotions, etc., etc).

[theum nathair]

I think Dickens VI’s as an ESE.

I watched a biography of his wife and I thought that she looked like an SEI-Si (she had ten children, the last five against her husband’s wishes), and so I wondered if Charles might have been her dual, an ILE, but most typology sites label him as ESE, and that makes a lot of sense, considering the range of characters in his novels and Dickens love of public reading.

Charles, while initially enthralled and in love with his wife, eventually became disenchanted with her and they separated after twenty-two years of marriage. This makes sense in the context of an in-Quadra Match, but between Mirrors.

Also makes sense in the context of a new and nubile prospect lol

You’re right in saying that he does rather look ESE, but I wonder if that’s reliable.

On the one hand, I can’t stand most of Dickens’s work to the point that, during a youth project on The Mysteriously-Taxing Edwin Drood, I’m afraid I lost my equilibrium a bit; my work suffered and my contributions were met with general disappointment; meanwhile I had thought a lot of rather nasty things about deltas, at the time assuming Dickens to be IEE. On the other hand, A Tale of Two Cities, in spite of a tendency to mawkishness which I think arguably precludes any serious type, happens to be one of my favourite novels and, having read it through probably six or seven times, I could swear bits sort of exemplify paired with (e.g., gallows imagery sketched over the Parisian streets, the Defarge conversing about a building storm, repeated mention of echoing footsteps heard through the walls of the Manette house, the first two chapters in their entirety, --moreover, the two cities bleeding into one another as a fulcrum for political comparisons seems to employ D-A cogstyle in the pursuit of illustrating (although in some cases not very convincingly) the events under which various political storms foment). After reading a little more about his sordid personal affairs I had come to the conclusion he’s EIE, before opening this thread and doubting it again

--Btw I sincerely appreciate Dumas, so I don't think my lack of enthusiasm for Dickens's work apart from that one shining book can be put down to bad ITR

Does anyone know how EIE VI, really? In Filatova’s portraits (the only reliable source, as she had systematically typed them and requested they confirm the typing before photographing) EIE are generally looking slantwise or else wearing dark lenses which makes it quite hard to form an impression of their eyes. (I think someone like Steve Jobs is EIE, and if you look at photographs of him, his eyes are usually shadowed. As his brow isn't especially protuberant, this seems staged/deliberate

[theum nathair]

a tendency to mawkishness

—on second thoughts, as he lived during high romanticism and could be considered a sort of critical negative to the mould in some respects, while obviously typifying it in others, I don’t think γδ typings can be ruled out, at least not on this account. His profound skill as an actor suggests 4D E to me (EXFx type)

I realise my net contribution to this thread is now null

[theum nathair]

paired with

Doesn't seem Ni polr tbh. Nor this:


There are better examples, though I shall have to search them out tomorrow

 

It may be necessary to read most of the chapter to discover why I've suggested some can be seen in the labelled paragraph. Forgive my imprecise image-editing

This apparition illustrates the irony of the new order: they’ve less to eat
-->Maslow’s hierarchy of needs should probably apply to all types. Whereas quotidian needs are slightly ignored in decisive quadrants, starvation impacts the mind, full stop
Er, right, I’m not really sure which screenshot this note pertained to actually. I was falling asleep and pasted everything together, but it doesn’t appear to belong here


I ought to have said 'an inexorable idea' — sure, it is unstoppable, but it also acts to the exclusion of others, approaching as it does from all directions, hemming in each municipality in turn and permitting no alternatives

 

In a dream he visits the same familiar scenes at different points in time. The only question left is can an polr type give such a shrewd imitation