Pride & Prejudice

[Gilly]

@Gilly: there's no Mr. Knightley in P&P.

o_O I didn't say there was...

Elizabeth: IEE

Darcy: SLI

These were my original typings of this pair, and I can't thoroughly dismiss them.

I agree with Gilly's typing of Mr. Bennet: ILE and Mrs. Bennet EIE. I think it's likely he could be her benefactor.

Yeah, I think this relationship works rather well.

Wickham: ? (EIE>SLE)

Either works, IMO; he is a 3w4, which can easily be SLE or EIE.

Mr. Colins: ESI

I'm tempted to say IEI.

[Sirena]

o_O I didn't say there was...

then why'd you mention him??? hmmmmmmmmm

[unefille]

then why'd you mention him??? hmmmmmmmmm

He meant Keira Knightley.

[Sirena]

He meant Keira Knightley.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh lol

[Ritella]

Jane Bennet is so boring in the movie.

[UDP]

I recently came across some very good reviews of this work, and it might shed some light on their types.

Review 1
Review 2

[Logos]

I have recently read Pride & Prejudice. Due to the intense levels of characterization and attention to mannerisms, Pride & Prejudice proved to be an excellent case study for Socionics typing. I would prefer to focus this thread entirely on the book as opposed to the miniseries or movie adaptations.

Elizabeth Bennet: ESE
Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy: LII

Mr. Bennet: ILE
Mrs. Bennet: EIE
Jane Bennet: EII
Mary Bennet: ILI
Kitty Bennet: IEI?
Lydia Bennet: Beta NF
Mr. Gardiner: LII
Mrs. Gardiner: ESE/LSE

William Collins: ?
Charlotte Lucas Collins: Delta ST
Catherine de Bourgh: EIE

Mr. Charles Bingley: IEE
Caroline Bingley: EIE
Georgiana Darcy: SEI or EII

George Wickham: SLE or SEE

I can provide rationales for the above if need be. (Some will be more thorough and supported than others.) I would like to hear other people's input as to the types of the characters.

[neverthesame]

Elizabeth ESE?? I'm not sure. I agree about Mr. Darcy. Dunno about the rest of the characters.

[Aiss]

Mrs. Bennet - ESE
Elizabeth - EIE

Less sure about the rest, but those two make so much more sense this way.

[Logos]

Mrs. Bennet - ESE
Elizabeth - EIE

Less sure about the rest, but those two make so much more sense this way.

For me, that reversal does not make sense at all. Perhaps you are inclined to perceive her as your conflictor? But Mrs. Bennet's behavior is far more consistent with EIEs than ESEs. It also fits better with her relations with other characters, especially Mr. Bennet.

Elizabeth ESE?? I'm not sure. I agree about Mr. Darcy. Dunno about the rest of the characters.

What type do you think Elizabeth is?

[neverthesame]

What type do you think Elizabeth is?

I don't have the slightest idea, but I don't think she's necessarily Mr. Darcy's dual.

[Aiss]

For me, that reversal does not make sense at all. Perhaps you are inclined to perceive her as your conflictor? But Mrs. Bennet's behavior is far more consistent with EIEs than ESEs. It also fits better with her relations with other characters, especially Mr. Bennet.

No need to make up my intentions just because I disagree, really.

Mrs. Bennet consistently fails at evaluating consequences, not only of her own actions, and at seeing these sort of links - like she starts talking of some detail (for example Lydia's wedding clothes or future home) without considering the circumstances, which clearly don't lead to it. She's more likely to panic when considering the future than anything else. It's almost like taken straight from some Ni-PoLR descriptions. Most of the book is effectively written from Elizabeth's point of view, and we see her frustration with it. Stereotypical EIE concern with the future is very visible just after Lydia's elopement - in Elizabeth, none the less. Rather than focus on immediate state the way Mrs. Bennet does, Elizabeth focuses on the long-term consequences of it, even though she turns out to be overly pessimistic at times. She puts more weight to it than to immediate embarrassment at her family's behaviour, again when Lydia is leaving for Brighton, when she's eloped and later married. She says she isn't going to think of unpleasant past - once its consequences no longer mattered. She has hardly gone by that earlier.

[Rubicon]

Mrs Bennett seems rather victimy imo.. e.g. falling ill to get attention. But I think she's rather too shallow a character in general to type. :-p

I agree with ESE for Elizabeth.

[Rubicon]

lol logos.. you typed the only three likable/sane women in the book as Alpha SF

[Krig the Viking]

As I see it, the primary difference between Elizabeth and Mrs. Bennet is between -Fe and +Fe. Mrs. Bennet clearly demonstrates +Fe: she doesn't pay attention to whether her actions are stirring up negative feelings in others, she just plows through in pursuit of the best positive feelings. Elizabeth, on the other hand, demonstrates -Fe: she tends to smooth things over and eliminate negative feelings, even at the expense of seeking out higher positive feeling herself.

I suspect that Jane Austen was herself Alpha, thus explaining her sympathetic portrayal of the Alpha characters, and less sympathetic portrayal of the others (or, conversely, explaining why her sympathetic characters are generally Alpha, and the others not). Note that when Mrs. Bennet freaks out, it's always over some distant future event that she is convinced is going to happen. To an Alpha, this Ni certainty over future events seems absurd; there is too much Ne potential creating too many possible futures to just pick one and say "this one's going to happen", and Mrs. Bennet's Ni is portrayed that way.

[Aiss]

Note that when Mrs. Bennet freaks out, it's always over some distant future event that she is convinced is going to happen, no matter how ridiculous it is. To an Ni-type, this lack of Ni awareness of the future events seems absurd; (...)

Fixed.

Though I see how it could be viewed from either side, as Mrs. Bennet is simply an idiot, which probably interferes with everyone's typings.

I see no evidence for Austen as an Alpha, except for common MBTI typing of INTJ (which I never heard justified either)?

[Krig the Viking]

Note that when Mrs. Bennet freaks out, it's always over some distant future event that she is convinced is going to happen, no matter how ridiculous it is. To an Ni-type, this lack of Ni awareness of the future events seems absurd; (...)

Fixed.

I disagree. An Ni-Vulnerable freaks out because she doesn't know what the future holds, not because she's convinced that she does.

But yeah, I agree that whatever type she is, Mrs. Bennet is an unhealthy example.

I think Catherine de Bourgh is a somewhat healthier example of EIE.

Though I see how it could be viewed from either side, as Mrs. Bennet is simply an idiot, which probably interferes with everyone's typings.

I see no evidence for Austen as an Alpha, except for common MBTI typing of INTJ (which I never heard justified either)?

I was basing this on her works and her portrayal of the characters, as well as her implicit assumptions in the book about what behaviour is best (she doesn't describe Se-valuing behaviour in favourable terms, for example). I wasn't aware of any other typings, and I don't really know much about her personally.

Interestingly, though, LII would have been the one I'd have guessed.

[Aiss]

I disagree. An Ni-Vulnerable freaks out because she doesn't know what the future holds, not because she's convinced that she does.

But yeah, I agree that whatever type she is, Mrs. Bennet is an unhealthy example.

I think Catherine de Bourgh is a somewhat healthier example of EIE.

I disagree about Ni-PoLR. I'm probably biased by that, but as intelligent and dualized as my mother is, she's ESE and on this level similarities are uncanny. She'll be nervous when she's aware she doesn't have any idea what will happen, other times she'll freak out because she's sure something - in my opinion, very uncertain at best - is going to happen. Nothing beats Ni-PoLR's complete assurance of the future when they are convinced, and I've no idea where it is even coming from . Similarly, while Ni-PoLR descriptions mention blending past, present and future events, in my experience it's more the case of either considering it to be happening "now" or in distant future/past. Another - this is probably most irritating in everyday interactions - characteristic sign is sequential story-telling; there are many scenes in the book where Mrs. Bennet is showed describing everything as if it mattered - for example endlessly enumerating everyone Bingley danced with in chronological order, rather than focusing on how things lead to each other.

I don't want to turn this thread into yet another conflictor bashing, and I realize it doesn't probably seem annoying to their quadra. But those are signs of Ni-PoLR in ESE that are usually obvious to me, and I see zero of this in Elizabeth, though she's rather clearly an Fe type.

Catherine de Bourgh seems to be an unhealthy LSE to me, on the other hand.

(This has nothing to do with typing another petty character as Ni-PoLR, by the way. I've just noticed it now, ESTJ/LSE typing was there for a while.)

I was basing this on her works and her portrayal of the characters, as well as her implicit assumptions in the book about what behaviour is best (she doesn't describe Se-valuing behaviour in favourable terms, for example). I wasn't aware of any other typings, and I don't really know much about her personally.

Interestingly, though, LII would have been the one I'd have guessed.

I seriously doubted INTJ. I see INTj as a possibility, but I'm not convinced.

What you say about implicit assumptions about behaviour sounds Fi to me. Not sure what you see as Se-valuing, considering all the differences in our typings.

[Creepy-female]

I don't get the level of interest bordering on obsession people seem to display when they get on a heated discussion about Pride and Prejudice. I don't understand why people would labor for pages and pages following the social dynamics of the Bennet family. For pete's sake, Mrs. Bennet sounds like my grandmother.

The dialogue of the book was convoluted and boring, and I disliked how in both the book and the movie the main character seems to be elevated to this Mary Sue level while the rest of the people were left to act out extremely flat roles with various levels of stupidity depending on how close they were to Elizabeth and to what extent their views converged with hers.



Insert: Oh look, we're all wearin' lacy Victorian peasant dresses! But we're really poor as shit and our momma's tryin' to marry Elizabeth off into money. But she's obsessed with tryin' out intellectualize everyone, cause she's the smart one. Poor us. We really live with the chickens. In fact our mother is really a chicken in disguise. We just stole/bartered/begged for these dresses so we could go to the ball. The um, grand ball. You know the one. The ball that everyone really wants to go to but is only vaguely mentioned so our characters can be contrasted with Elizabeth being the wittiest, most conflicted, emo, poor yet intelligent, Victorian era girl to ever grace a ball setting! Oh God, she just laughed and showed her teeth! We can't bear the wonderfulness of it all.

The movie was slightly exaggerated but I feel it conveyed the tone of the book rather well. And the tone of the book was patronizing. I didn't feel there were intense levels of characterization at all. I felt Elizabeth was a constantly snippy brat who thought she was all that.

On a side note, it seems that Keira Knightley seems relatively unable to play characters that aren't charming, spirited English girls who win over the populace by making inspirational speeches while occasionally giving the audience a view of their charming teeth, but maybe that's because I just watched The Duchess.

[Aiss]

For pete's sake, Mrs. Bennet sounds like my grandmother.

Funny, she sounds like my mother.

The dialogue of the book was convoluted and boring, and I disliked how in both the book and the movie the main character seems to be elevated to this Mary Sue level while the rest of the people were left to act out extremely flat roles with various levels of stupidity depending on how close they were to Elizabeth and to what extent their views converged with hers.

+1 at Mary Sue comment. Out of Austen's characters, Elizabeth is clearly the author's wanna-be persona. But that's also interesting in context of her type.

Insert: Oh look, we're all wearing lacy Victorian peasant dresses! But we're really poor as shit and our momma's tryin' to marry Elizabeth off into money. Poor us. We really live with the chickens. In fact our mother is really a chicken in disguise. We just stole/bartered/begged for these dresses so we could go to the ball.

It's actually based on Regency era fashion, which was characterized by simplicity absent from both previous and following times. Explanations of this range from Roman inspirations to curbing exhibition of wealth in reaction to French revolution, to reduced availability of some precious fabrics due to import restrictions at the time. This style is most often portrayed as generic "old time romantic" dress, probably because it fits modern tastes better than abundance of decorations and constructions otherwise dominating the fashion in XVI-XIX century, not because it is representative, as its popularity was relatively short. Court dress never really got there at all.

Victoria didn't become queen until about 20 years after Austen died.

/end of factual rant

Also, what was considered wealth and poverty kind of differs from our views on it. For one, its meaning was dependent on a social class referred to. Austen herself was never nearly as wealthy as Bennets are in the book, I think. Just saying.

The movie was slightly exaggerated but I feel it conveyed the tone of the book rather well. And the tone of the book was patronizing. I didn't feel there were intense levels of characterization at all. I felt Elizabeth was a constantly snippy brat who thought she was all that.

I'm not sure how you can ridicule and criticize the society without coming off as patronizing. Austen's sense of superiority towards it is pretty obvious, along with her depiction of Elizabeth as what she saw a woman needs to be to live in it. One of the things that are unrealistic about this character is how she's completely adjusted to society yet at the same time critical of it.

[Logos]

I disagree about Ni-PoLR. I'm probably biased by that, but as intelligent and dualized as my mother is, she's ESE and on this level similarities are uncanny. She'll be nervous when she's aware she doesn't have any idea what will happen, other times she'll freak out because she's sure something - in my opinion, very uncertain at best - is going to happen.

And if I told you that the similarities between my EIE mother and Mrs. Bennet were eerily uncanny? Yet funny she is not a ESE and funnier still that Mrs. Bennet behavior is harmoniously consistent with other EIEs I know. Honestly, out of all the typings, I thought that Mrs. Bennet's as EIE was the one that I least likely expected to be questioned.

Nothing beats Ni-PoLR's complete assurance of the future when they are convinced, and I've no idea where it is even coming from . Similarly, while Ni-PoLR descriptions mention blending past, present and future events, in my experience it's more the case of either considering it to be happening "now" or in distant future/past. Another - this is probably most irritating in everyday interactions - characteristic sign is sequential story-telling; there are many scenes in the book where Mrs. Bennet is showed describing everything as if it mattered - for example endlessly enumerating everyone Bingley danced with in chronological order, rather than focusing on how things lead to each other.

If we were to briefly characterize Mrs. Bennet's overwhelming tendency it would be high-strung melodrama that hits her in an assortment of mood spells. But her particular melodrama is more characteristic of Beta melodrama as opposed to Alpha. She frets about the future, but not in the manner of an Ni-PoLR, but of a Ni-Creative. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that it is not Ni + Te (temporal logic of events) that guides an EIE, but Fe + Ni, which operates along emotional lines as opposed to realism of future events. As it just so happens, I recently experienced hearing from an EIE a similar sort of bizarre rant of the future. Her daughter sprained her foot. Yet she was convinced that it could be broken, which meant that she would get a boot for her broken foot, which meant that she would be missing classes, and that she would have to drop out of her first semester of college. It was such bizarre rambling to me as none of these things necessarily logically flowed from sound premises or conclusions. This happened around the same time that was reading in which Mrs. Bennet fretted about how Mr. Bennet had to go confront Wickham about marriage, which would lead to a duel, which would lead to Mr. Bennet's death, which would lead to Mr. Collins' entailment, which would lead to the Bennets getting thrown out onto the streets.

Compare what you wrote with this snippet from about Ne in the EIE from Wikisocion:

When experiencing deep stress resulting from a conflict, however, they become very doubtful about forecasting the likely unfolding of the conflict and start to use this function to imagine how events could happen. If resolution to the problem seems unlikely, or if nothing is being done to turn things around, EIEs turn to dark thoughts about what is likely to happen and become absorbed by the conflict (even if these negative thoughts are not very rational).

And this is what Mrs. Bennet frequently does in multiple points in the book.

Despite her shortcomings, one of Mrs. Bennet's strengths is the ability to perceive how love or emotions will develop over time. She was the first to feel assure that Bingley was in love with her daughter and that a marriage proposal was likely in the near future. She is quite prophetic in that regard. It turns out that she was right, but this was disrupted by the intervention of his sisters and Darcy. She does not see Eliza's development as most of her emotional development towards Darcy occurs in the presence of the Gardiners.

Mrs. Bennet's values do not fall along Alpha lines. She evaluates people almost strictly in terms of their wealth and possessions. She goes gaga over powerful people and symbolic representations of power (e.g., the militia, officers in uniform, etc.). She practically screams Beta Se-valuing. She does not value the comfort or well-being of others. She was in-fact exceptionally unconcerned for Jane's health when she was ill - she considered it a triumphant product of her matchmaking - though Eliza was quite concerned.

lol logos.. you typed the only three likable/sane women in the book as Alpha SF

Well I should edit my post as I also believe it possible that Georgiana is EII. And Krig thought that IEI was possible for her, which I am now thinking about. I also consider Mrs. Gardiner to possibly be LSE as well.

[Creepy-female]

It's actually based on Regency era fashion, which was characterized by simplicity absent from both previous and following times. Explanations of this range from Roman inspirations to curbing exhibition of wealth in reaction to French revolution, to reduced availability of some precious fabrics due to import restrictions at the time. This style is most often portrayed as generic "old time romantic" dress, probably because it fits modern tastes better than abundance of decorations and constructions otherwise dominating the fashion in XVI-XIX century, not because it is representative, as its popularity was relatively short. Court dress never really got there at all.

Victoria didn't become queen until about 20 years after Austen died.

/end of factual rant

Maybe I should explain my thinking in simpler terms because it's very basic, and not well informed at all. I should have said "lacy peasant dresses" to avoid confusion. But I'm not claiming to know a lot about the various eras, so I probably shouldn't pepper my posts with the word Victorian. I'm not a historian on these things. It was probably silly and pompous to put in references to the Victorian era like I even know what it is. In my mind peasant style dress = Victorian era.



Because Victorian, Medieval, Renaissance = Peasant dress. Yeah, I'm probably committing a historical heresy. I don't know shit about these eras. I don't know the details of the dresses in these eras.

It's the treatment of the material. The portrayal. Writers write, directors make a movie. Commonality - they're all pretty. Poor pretty girl cuts dance floor in pretty dress against all odds. I was trying convey my annoyance at the general feel of it - in the language I know how - which at this point isn't that sophisticated or knowledgeable, so I'll stop trying to use big words or references that I don't know shit about it. I'm talking about dresses, yes, but it's the concept. Poor Mary Sue cuts the dance floor with a lovely dress she pulled out of nowhere. That's the bottom line.

That's what I perceive when I read or watch Pride and Prejudice. And I don't see how using it makes Pride and Prejudice a classic. I can't divine any overall message from the storyline other than that. I wouldn't care if I was able to say "It's so unrealistic because blah blah women didn't even wear such and such era dress at the time". That's meaningless to me. Pretty is pretty, whether the corsets or the lace ups or the design differs through eras.

Maybe it's the presentation and not the concept that I have issue with, since others seem to get an actual message from it.

Also, what was considered wealth and poverty kind of differs from our views on it. For one, its meaning was dependent on a social class referred to. Austen herself was never close to how wealthy Bennets are in the books, I think. Just saying.

Attractiveness and intelligence are personal currency in my perception. I don't care what social class she's in. Elizabeth had enough personal power already. Why was she screwing around neurotically with money/society issues? She didn't seem to put much value in it but she reduced herself to complaining wittily about it rather than just ditch the whole thing and move to Africa or something. (Moving to Africa isn't a factual reference.)

I'm not sure how you can ridicule and criticize the society without coming off as patronizing. Austen's sense of superiority towards it is pretty obvious, along with her depiction of Elizabeth as what she saw a woman needs to be to live in it. What's unrealistic about this character is how she's completely adjusted to society yet at the same time critical of it.

Hmm that makes sense. But I feel that Austen bleeds into patronization of the reader rather than the subject material. I liked other books about this sort of thing better. I liked The Awakening, for example. Perhaps the time periods of the books were different, but that's not important to me. I liked the way the generalities of life were dealt with better.

[Aiss]

And if I told you that the similarities between my EIE mother and Mrs. Bennet were eerily uncanny? Yet funny she is not a ESE and funnier still that Mrs. Bennet behavior is harmoniously consistent with other EIEs I know. Honestly, out of all the typings, I thought that Mrs. Bennet's as EIE was the one that I least likely expected to be questioned.

We may both be speaking of very limited sample. Less likely is that we're wrong about some people's types. I don't get these signs at all from EIEs, though I feel supervised (if putting it that way makes sense to you; it does to me).

Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that it is not Ni + Te (temporal logic of events) that guides an EIE, but Fe + Ni, which operates along emotional lines as opposed to realism of future events. As it just so happens, I recently experienced hearing from an EIE a similar sort of bizarre rant of the future. Her daughter sprained her foot. Yet she was convinced that it could be broken, which meant that she would get a boot for her broken foot, which meant that she would be missing classes, and that she would have to drop out of her first semester of college. It was such bizarre rambling to me as none of these things necessarily logically flowed from sound premises or conclusions. This happened around the same time that was reading in which Mrs. Bennet fretted about how Mr. Bennet had to go confront Wickham about marriage, which would lead to a duel, which would lead to Mr. Bennet's death, which would lead to Mr. Collins' entailment, which would lead to the Bennets getting thrown out onto the streets.

Maybe. I've never experienced EIE being like that, while ESE can be pretty panicky. I've heard upset EIE screaming and arguing though, while ESEs often quickly dismiss the other person and indulge lamentations. (Yeah, that's conflictor's view, fine.)

Though I get your point about general Te/Fe difference and weak logic.

Despite her shortcomings, one of Mrs. Bennet's strengths is the ability to perceive how love or emotions will develop over time. She was the first to feel assure that Bingley was in love with her daughter and that a marriage proposal was likely in the near future. She is quite prophetic in that regard. It turns out that she was right, but this was disrupted by the intervention of his sisters and Darcy. She does not see Eliza's development as most of her emotional development towards Darcy occurs in the presence of the Gardiners.

That is true enough, but it isn't like Elizabeth lacks the ability, either. Note that neither notices Darcy's developing feelings, while Charlotte does - and I doubt she's Ni and Fe ego.

Mrs. Bennet's values do not fall along Alpha lines. She evaluates people almost strictly in terms of their wealth and possessions. She goes gaga over powerful people and symbolic representations of power (e.g., the militia, officers in uniform, etc.). She practically screams Beta Se-valuing. She does not value the comfort or well-being of others. She was in-fact exceptionally unconcerned for Jane's health when she was ill - she considered it a triumphant product of her matchmaking - though Eliza was quite concerned.

While Se-valuers treat people like that all the time, forgive me for forgetting that. You have a point about Jane's health, though. She was a horrible mother.

Overall, Elizabeth seems more concerned about family's standing in society. As opposed to her mother, she doesn't idealize officers - who are by the way not so wealthy on average, don't know why you get the idea the attraction has anything to do with power - and realizes they're a danger to her younger sisters, though she underestimates its extent in the end. Mrs. Bennet just doesn't seem to care how she looks to others, as long as she's enjoying herself.

In vain did Elizabeth endeavour to check the rapidity of her mother's words, or persuade her to describe her felicity in a less audible whisper; for to her inexpressible vexation, she could perceive that the chief of it was overheard by Mr. Darcy, who sat opposite to them. Her mother only scolded her for being nonsensical.

"What is Mr. Darcy to me, pray, that I should be afraid of him? I am sure we owe him no such particular civility as to be obliged to say nothing he may not like to hear."

"For heaven's sake, madam, speak lower.—What advantage can it be to you to offend Mr. Darcy?—You will never recommend yourself to his friend by so doing."

Nothing that she could say, however, had any influence. Her mother would talk of her views in the same intelligible tone. Elizabeth blushed and blushed again with shame and vexation. She could not help frequently glancing her eye at Mr. Darcy, though every glance convinced her of what she dreaded; for though he was not always looking at her mother, she was convinced that his attention was invariably fixed by her. The expression of his face changed gradually from indignant contempt to a composed and steady gravity.

[Logos]

We may both be speaking of very limited sample. Less likely is that we're wrong about some people's types. I don't get these signs at all from EIEs, though I feel supervised (if putting it that way makes sense to you; it does to me).

Maybe. I've never experienced EIE being like that, while ESE can be pretty panicky. I've heard upset EIE screaming and arguing though, while ESEs often quickly dismiss the other person and indulge lamentations. (Yeah, that's conflictor's view, fine.)

I do not mind a conflictor's view at all.

That is true enough, but it isn't like Elizabeth lacks the ability, either. Note that neither notices Darcy's developing feelings, while Charlotte does - and I doubt she's Ni and Fe ego.

Both Elizabeth and Mrs. Bennet are against Darcy almost from the outset. Charlotte does not appear to read emotions though. She picks this up primarily through inferring from more objective cues, such as the frequency which Darcy looked at her and how often he came over to the Collins house.

While Se-valuers treat people like that all the time, forgive me for forgetting that. You have a point about Jane's health, though. She was a horrible mother.

I do not think that all Se-valuers treat people like that, but I do believe that it falls in line with Beta + values as opposed to Gamma + values.

Overall, Elizabeth seems more concerned about family's standing in society. As opposed to her mother, she doesn't idealize officers - who are by the way not so wealthy on average, don't know why you get the idea the attraction has anything to do with power - and realizes they're a danger to her younger sisters, though she underestimates its extent in the end. Mrs. Bennet just doesn't seem to care how she looks to others, as long as she's enjoying herself.

I do not think that Elizabeth is more concerned about her family's standing so much as she is about her family's behavior. If she was concerned about her family's standing then she would have been more likely to marry Mr. Collins to maintain the entailment or less likely to marry Mr. Wickham, whose wealth was already known to be next to nothing. Officers are not powerful in terms of wealth, but they are symbolic representations of power and authority who possess the power to command. I do not think that it is so much that Mrs. Bennet does not care so long as she enjoys herself, but that she deems herself the master of the game she is playing. In her mind, she is already victorious with Bingley and Jane, so she deems the opinion of Darcy to be inconsequential.

In vain did Elizabeth endeavour to check the rapidity of her mother's words, or persuade her to describe her felicity in a less audible whisper; for to her inexpressible vexation, she could perceive that the chief of it was overheard by Mr. Darcy, who sat opposite to them. Her mother only scolded her for being nonsensical.

"What is Mr. Darcy to me, pray, that I should be afraid of him? I am sure we owe him no such particular civility as to be obliged to say nothing he may not like to hear."

"For heaven's sake, madam, speak lower.—What advantage can it be to you to offend Mr. Darcy?—You will never recommend yourself to his friend by so doing."

Nothing that she could say, however, had any influence. Her mother would talk of her views in the same intelligible tone. Elizabeth blushed and blushed again with shame and vexation. She could not help frequently glancing her eye at Mr. Darcy, though every glance convinced her of what she dreaded; for though he was not always looking at her mother, she was convinced that his attention was invariably fixed by her. The expression of his face changed gradually from indignant contempt to a composed and steady gravity.

I suppose now would be a terrible time to mention that EIE mother who does this again. The EIE hates to be corrected about their behavior. No matter how inappropriate their behavior, they hate having this aspect corrected. They almost always deem their behavior as appropriate, sometimes regardless to the consequences. There was one memorable moment when I went out with a group of friends for dinner. An EIE in the group was being obnoxiously loud. When we tried to get him to lower his voice more, he not only became aggressively defensive in his behavior, but became all the more determined to talk louder about how it should not matter how loud or obnoxiously he talks.

It is kind of a crummy Socioscope translation, but it gets the point across.

When you listen EIE, the impression, that before you umudrennaja life experience the person is made. When you will look at its acts it is possible to be seized by a head - logically they do not give in to any explanation. Illogicalness of its behaviour frequently gets also its most in deadlock.

It is necessary to tell what get in deadlock EIE can only on own fault. Anybody another cannot tire out it in a corner, it will always manage to be turned out: to leave from impact, to substitute another or to hang all dogs on the most attacking. In such situations EIE it is practically unsinkable. How many its time managed to be put on both lopatki, it will selflessly convince all spectators, that it was its triumphal victory, until then while all in it really will be not not believed. A secret of persuasiveness that it and itself during this moment sincerely trusts in it.
...
In critical situations EIE operates under influence of feelings and intuitions. During its such moments that sometimes it operates illogically does not interest at all. For example, it can rush - one! - in fight with the whole crowd, not thinking at all about possible consequences. It during this moment does not have any calculation, and it will fight up to the end - or in it will hammer up to polusmerti, or opponents will recede in fear before its recklessness.

[Krig the Viking]

I agree with Logos' points about EIEs.

I think Aiss' and Dolphin's dislike of the book, contrasted with Logos' and my enjoyment of the book, is strong circumstantial evidence in favour of it being an Alpha story (assuming Aiss and dolphin are both Gamma, as I've been led to believe). The criticisms you two are raising about the book seem bizarre to me, like you're criticizing some other book having nothing to do with the Pride and Prejudice I read.

In vain did Elizabeth endeavour to check the rapidity of her mother's words, or persuade her to describe her felicity in a less audible whisper; for to her inexpressible vexation, she could perceive that the chief of it was overheard by Mr. Darcy, who sat opposite to them. Her mother only scolded her for being nonsensical.

"What is Mr. Darcy to me, pray, that I should be afraid of him? I am sure we owe him no such particular civility as to be obliged to say nothing he may not like to hear."

"For heaven's sake, madam, speak lower.—What advantage can it be to you to offend Mr. Darcy?—You will never recommend yourself to his friend by so doing."

Nothing that she could say, however, had any influence. Her mother would talk of her views in the same intelligible tone. Elizabeth blushed and blushed again with shame and vexation. She could not help frequently glancing her eye at Mr. Darcy, though every glance convinced her of what she dreaded; for though he was not always looking at her mother, she was convinced that his attention was invariably fixed by her. The expression of his face changed gradually from indignant contempt to a composed and steady gravity.

This seems like an excellent contrast between +Fe (Mrs. Bennet) and -Fe (Elizabeth), to me. Elizabeth doesn't want anybody to be offended or get upset, and Mrs. Bennet doesn't care, she feels she has the right to feel however she wants regardless of others' opinions. The contrast is between Si-valuing Fe, which values emotional harmony, and Se-valuing Fe, which values emotional power.

[Krig the Viking]

Both Elizabeth and Mrs. Bennet are against Darcy almost from the outset. Charlotte does not appear to read emotions though. She picks this up primarily through inferring from more objective cues, such as the frequency which Darcy looked at her and how often he came over to the Collins house.

Have you considered EII or something for Charlotte? That does sound like she was picking up on Fi cues, rather than Fe cues. For some reason an Se-valuing type doesn't sit well with me for that character. Her marriage to Collins could be seen as more of a Te practicality matter, which an LSI would ignore.

[Logos]

Have you considered EII or something for Charlotte? That does sound like she was picking up on Fi cues, rather than Fe cues. For some reason an Se-valuing type doesn't sit well with me for that character. Her marriage to Collins could be seen as more of a Te practicality matter, which an LSI would ignore.

Good point. I did not think of that. I am not deeply attached to her type as LSI at all. But I need now to compare her personality with Jane.

[Krig the Viking]

Good point. I did not think of that. I am not deeply attached to her type as LSI at all. But I need now to compare her personality with Jane.

Alternatively, perhaps SLI is a possibility? I'm mostly operating on vague memories and Ni impressions here, unfortunately.

[Aiss]

I do not think that Elizabeth is more concerned about her family's standing so much as she is about her family's behavior. If she was concerned about her family's standing then she would have been more likely to marry Mr. Collins to maintain the entailment or less likely to marry Mr. Wickham, whose wealth was already known to be next to nothing. Officers are not powerful in terms of wealth, but they are symbolic representations of power and authority who possess the power to command. I do not think that it is so much that Mrs. Bennet does not care so long as she enjoys herself, but that she deems herself the master of the game she is playing. In her mind, she is already victorious with Bingley and Jane, so she deems the opinion of Darcy to be inconsequential.

I suppose now would be a terrible time to mention that EIE mother who does this again. The EIE hates to be corrected about their behavior. No matter how inappropriate their behavior, they hate having this aspect corrected. They almost always deem their behavior as appropriate, sometimes regardless to the consequences. There was one memorable moment when I went out with a group of friends for dinner. An EIE in the group was being obnoxiously loud. When we tried to get him to lower his voice more, he not only became aggressively defensive in his behavior, but became all the more determined to talk louder about how it should not matter how loud or obnoxiously he talks.

This seems like an excellent contrast between +Fe (Mrs. Bennet) and -Fe (Elizabeth), to me. Elizabeth doesn't want anybody to be offended or get upset, and Mrs. Bennet doesn't care, she feels she has the right to feel however she wants regardless of others' opinions. The contrast is between Si-valuing Fe, which values emotional harmony, and Se-valuing Fe, which values emotional power.

It's extremely accurate for ESEs, and I see many Alphas here and in real life claiming how little they care about what others think of them. I've been in the similar situation more than once. I don't see an EIE disregarding their image or consequences of their actions nearly as easily, although I can't claim they never would. It could be just Fe-dominance, but if so, it's surprising Fe-DS is just as averse to it.

That Elizabeth is concerned by his comfort and not by how his opinion will affect her family disregards the rest of the books, as it's made clear that she doesn't mind making him uncomfortable on other occasions, but that she cares, for example, how Jane's relationship will unfold in light of it.

I think Aiss' and Dolphin's dislike of the book, contrasted with Logos' and my enjoyment of the book, is strong circumstantial evidence in favour of it being an Alpha story (assuming Aiss and dolphin are both Gamma, as I've been led to believe). The criticisms you two are raising about the book seem bizarre to me, like you're criticizing some other book having nothing to do with the Pride and Prejudice I read.

Where did I say I dislike the book?

I wouldn't know it well enough to argue if I did. I normally appreciate (much) more complex plots, but Austen's ironic depiction of people and society makes up for that. This has nothing to do with considering Elizabeth a Mary Sue - with similar views and wit as Austen, but prettier, wealthier, more of a social butterfly and luckier in finding a mate, she makes a rather clear one. Her other main characters are more realistically flawed.

The point is, I very much identify with narrator's view of the world - and I admit it's superior - but I don't really identify with the main character. Which may sound weird in context of the use of free indirect speech, but that's how I feel about it.

And yeah, I also feel as if you were talking about some other book. Which could be a sign that it's generic enough for everyone to read whatever they want in it.

Have you considered EII or something for Charlotte? That does sound like she was picking up on Fi cues, rather than Fe cues. For some reason an Se-valuing type doesn't sit well with me for that character. Her marriage to Collins could be seen as more of a Te practicality matter, which an LSI would ignore.

I'd probably look at Te-dominant types first for Charlotte.

[Logos]

It's extremely accurate for ESEs, and I see many Alphas here and in real life claiming how little they care about what others think of them. I've been in the similar situation more than once. I don't see an EIE disregarding their image or consequences of their actions nearly as easily, although I can't claim they never would. It could be just Fe-dominance, but if so, it's surprising Fe-DS is just as averse to it.

You say it's extremely accurate for ESEs, but there are also two LIIs saying this is not so. Clearly your idea of ESEs and EIEs do not necessarily match with ours. Yet it is worth noting that there have been many Betas, Gammas, and Deltas who have similarly claimed here and in real life as to "how little they care about what others think of them," so that in itself may not be an apt marker for ESEs or Alphas. Or it could be possible that the claim that they do not care is not how it actually plays out.

That Elizabeth is concerned by his comfort and not by how his opinion will affect her family disregards the rest of the books, as it's made clear that she doesn't mind making him uncomfortable on other occasions, but that she cares, for example, how Jane's relationship will unfold in light of it.

As you say, Elizabeth is concerned about his comfort as it affects Jane, but also it because she deems it rude to talk about him when he's so close. But when it comes to talking with him directly, she does not mind pushing his buttons to get a reaction out of him. That's the difference.

Below is a moment in which Eliza describes her compatibility with Darcy, which reads as duality.

She began now to comprehend that he was exactly the man who, in disposition and talents, would most suit her. His understanding and temper, though unlike her own, would have answered all her wishes. It was an union that must have been to the advantage of both - by her ease and liveliness, his mind might have been softened, his manners improve; and from his judgment, information, and knowledge of the world, she must have received benefit of greater importance.

I think that some of the words such as ease and softened are more suggestive of Fe + Si as opposed to Fe + Ni, which is more directive Fe as opposed to the "softening" Fe of Alphas.

EDIT: Another point I would say for FeSi for Elizabeth is the point that she more consciously starts to fall in love with Darcy, at Pemberly Manor. She becomes attracted not so much to the wealth, though she does note that she could have been the lady of Pemberly, but to the emotional warmth of the manor itself. And Eliza becomes enraptured by the large portrait of Darcy with the warm smile, which she examines several times. The well-managed manor serves as a representation for Darcy himself. She picks up the emotional aura of the manor. This struck me as FeSi > FeNi.

I'd probably look at Te-dominant types first for Charlotte.

This is where I am leaning now as well. Perhaps LSE or SLI.

[silverchris9]

I've always typed the whole book (and Jane Austen in general) as gamma. Shrug. Certainly Persuasion appears to me to be full of gamma values. Also, I always thought Mrs. bennet was ESE, although I suppose EIEs can be emotionally frenetic as well. But what about her "nerves"? for some reason that's always seemed like a very physical, Si-focused complaint, granted that there are plenty of ESEs that don't whine about their discomfort obsessively.

Ceetainly I see Mr. bennet and Mrs. bennet's conflict as falling along Fe/Fi lines rather than Se/Si lines; Mr. bennet is frustrated by his wife's need to expound upon her every feeling noisily and expressively, not by her forecasting of the future. I don't really like the ILE typing for him at all. He isn't mentally frenetic and needing some Si to get him out of his head that way. He's consumed in an internal world where he retreats from the real world, to which he needs to be reintroduced. In other words, he's an Ni-ego. What is his failure to rein in Lydia but weak Se in action?

[Logos]

I've always typed the whole book (and Jane Austen in general) as gamma. Shrug. Certainly Persuasion appears to me to be full of gamma values. Also, I always thought Mrs. bennet was ESE, although I suppose EIEs can be emotionally frenetic as well. But what about her "nerves"? for some reason that's always seemed like a very physical, Si-focused complaint, granted that there are plenty of ESEs that don't whine about their discomfort obsessively.

Let's just say that if I had a dime for every time an EIE complained about their nerves, then I would have a much higher income than Darcy himself. It's a Si complaint stemming from Si-PoLR rather than Si-creative. EIEs ignore Si, especially their personal well-being, so much that it tends to come back and bite their nerves.

Ceetainly I see Mr. bennet and Mrs. bennet's conflict as falling along Fe/Fi lines rather than Se/Si lines; Mr. bennet is frustrated by his wife's need to expound upon her every feeling noisily and expressively, not by her forecasting of the future. I don't really like the ILE typing for him at all. He isn't mentally frenetic and needing some Si to get him out of his head that way. He's consumed in an internal world where he retreats from the real world, to which he needs to be reintroduced. In other words, he's an Ni-ego. What is his failure to rein in Lydia but weak Se in action?

An ILE has weak Se in their role function. He can flex Se, which he does once things spiral out of control, but he does so rarely. I say that he devalues Fi. He completely ignores his relationships with his wife, children, and just about everyone else. He just does not care about how he offends or disrespects his wife and children. And he typically just sort of shrugs at Fi-criticism. I would say that the relationship of Mr. & Mrs. Bennet is best described as benefactor (ILE) and beneficiary (EIE), respectively.

[xerx]

I've always put off reading it but now I'll try to make the time.

As for not caring about what other people think, I thought it was a built in assumption in Model A that people have full confidence in, and easily shrug off criticisms to their dominant functions?

I can certainly see Krig's point about FeSi for Elizabeth vs FeNi for her mother. And I've certainly had the same problem with many EIEs that Logos mentioned (like Maritsa, and curiously, other Betas like tcaud and crazedrat).

It's just generally easier for EIEs (with Ni but not much Si to support their Fe) to conclude it futile that a subtle change in how one behaves in the present will have any effect on the big picture of social interaction, preferring greater (or surer?) payoffs through more intense or dramatic displays. And to generally have a fatalistic attitude towards anything small or insignificant.

I hope I'm not pulling that scene out of context though.


On a semi-unrelated note:

I think a prime time for ESEs to manifest strong adversarial feelings (coupling their Fe with demonstrative Se) is usually against an intruder or someone being disparaging or impolite, feeling the boundaries of the comfortable atmosphere are being violated, and generally wanting to get back to FeSi.

[xerx]

But what about her "nerves"? for some reason that's always seemed like a very physical, Si-focused complaint, granted that there are plenty of ESEs that don't whine about their discomfort obsessively.

Let's just say that if I had a dime for every time an EIE complained about their nerves, then I would have a much higher income than Darcy himself. It's a Si complaint stemming from Si-PoLR rather than Si-creative. EIEs ignore Si, especially their personal well-being, so much that it tends to come back and bite their nerves.

As someone who's lived with an EIE, and having very weak Si myself, I can guarantee that weak Si (especially PoLR w/ lack of logic) = hypochondriac.

[silverchris9]

Let's just say that if I had a dime for every time an EIE complained about their nerves, then I would have a much higher income than Darcy himself. It's a Si complaint stemming from Si-PoLR rather than Si-creative. EIEs ignore Si, especially their personal well-being, so much that it tends to come back and bite their nerves.

Eh. That sounds more anecdotal than solid argument. Give me some Model A and some analysis por favor (I'm kidding... kinda). But I am beginning to possibly accept your EIE typing. I need to comb through the book and come up with some more ESE evidence. But I had a STRONG initial ESE impression.

An ILE has weak Se in their role function. He can flex Se, which he does once things spiral out of control, but he does so rarely. I say that he devalues Fi. He completely ignores his relationships with his wife, children, and just about everyone else. He just does not care about how he offends or disrespects his wife and children. And he typically just sort of shrugs at Fi-criticism. I would say that the relationship of Mr. & Mrs. Bennet is best described as benefactor (ILE) and beneficiary (EIE), respectively.

But what about the DS question? I see Mr. Bennet as far more in need of and assisted by Se than in need of and assisted by Si. I feel like Si wouldn't do anything for Mr. Bennet. He's already chill enough. Where do you see EP temperament for him? He's quite clearly IP, imo. Also, he *doesn't* flex Se; that's why he feels ashamed. Darcy flexes Se for him, insofar as he solves the problem (not that I would necessarily type Darcy as an Se-go). Mr. Bennet goes off to try to fix the problem, but the way he does so, in an, only-when-forced-to-by-force-of-immediate-consequences way is much more weak and valued Se than weak and unvalued Se. And the fact that he cares so much about having failed to act seems again to point towards a) Se-valuing (shame at failing to take concrete, forceful action) and b) Fi-valuing (shame at failing to live up to his obligations to Lizzy and Jane as a father).

Also, certainly we can agree that we need a deeper analysis than "he does not care about how he offends his children" to assign an Fi vs. Fe typing. I can make a fantastic argument that offending people is Fi related and a fantastic argument that offending people is Fe related. At the very least, give me some internal/external stuff. Like, does he seem to worry more about affecting the general emotional atmosphere, the atmosphere of the room (Fe) or how his actions affect individual one-on-one relationships (Fi)? I'd say that he has a few very close relationships, i.e., his bond with Lizzy, which seems to me to be established on very Ni/Se grounds of personal worth, i.e., Lizzy is intelligent and knows her social customs, and is therefore "stronger" and more worthy of affection than Mrs. Bennet, Lydia, and the others. That to me is a great example of Se + Fi: determining interpersonal relationships, sentiments towards others, relationship expectations, based on some degree of perceived capability/power/capacity to cause change (Se).

And while we're at it, Mary could just as easily be typed LII. She's just a generic weak-feeling-functions introvert.

(Disclaimer: I played Mr. Bennet in a high school production, so I'm a bit skewed to a particular way of seeing the character).

Anyway, I think he devalues Fe. He doesn't care at all about emotional expressions. He cares about his relationship. He cares that Lizzy is in the "must protect" category and that Mrs. Bennet is in the "try to ignore and avoid" category. He doesn't care about ruining the emotional atmosphere. He just wishes the firestorm of emotional noise that is Mrs. Bennet would somehow cease. ILI is my preferred typing for Mr. Bennet. I am aware that this would imply a non-ESE typing for Lizzy.

[Marie84]

Have you considered EII or something for Charlotte? That does sound like she was picking up on Fi cues, rather than Fe cues. For some reason an Se-valuing type doesn't sit well with me for that character. Her marriage to Collins could be seen as more of a Te practicality matter, which an LSI would ignore.

I have a difficult time seeing Charlotte as any ethical type, to be quite honest. She is far too willing to extinguish her personal wants and feelings in a relationship in pursuit of material security. Her innate ability to detach her personal sentiments for Colin's in pursuit of convenience and stability dose not come across to me as being odd for an LSI in her position.
I would consider a Te type for her as an alternative possibility, though I find some of her quotes to suggest a rather devaluing of (though could very well be weak) Fi.

"Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance. If the dispositions of the parties are ever so well known to each other or ever so similar beforehand, it does not advance their felicity in the least. They always continue to grow sufficiently unlike afterwards to have their share of vexation; and it is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life."

Amongst her disagreements about Charlotte's views on love, Elizabeth reacts rather harshly to her hastiness in marrying a man she dose not love, believing she should wait to find a suitor she has feelings for; Charlotte, though, is more focused on the long term practical results in marrying Colin's at her age, ignoring a possibility for a current certainty, which, to me, points even more so to Ne PoLR and pragmatical ST- LSI

[Aiss]

+1000 to everything silverchris wrote in the above post. I've initially only skipped over your other typings, so I missed ILE for Mr. Bennet o_O. I see him as unhealthy ILI, though I suppose SLI is a possibility if you insist on your typings for Elizabeth and Mrs. Bennet. ILE makes no sense, even less than Elizabeth as Ni-PoLR or Charlotte as a Feeling type, seriously. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet socionics-wise is unlikely to be asymmetric, they find it far too easy to dismiss each other. He's as Fe-devaluing as they come, honestly.

Looked through your other typings now, too :
Mary - we see relatively little of her, but I'd sooner try Ij, for sheer persistence she shows. Ip is unlikely, though Te-creative is still more possible than for example Fe-ego.
Kitty & Lydia - apart from them being giggly teenagers, I don't think there's much to say. Fe or Fi creatives is as far as I'd guess.
Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner - too little info again, but they rather seem Fi/Te. LIE and ESI could work.
William Collins - ugh... no idea, he's too much of a caricature. About any type is possible, probably.
Charlotte - Te-dominant, not sure which one.
Mr. Charles Bingley - Fi-creative sounds about right. He seems IEE over SEE, and it makes far more sense with Jane as Delta NF.
Caroline - I rather think she might be IEI over EIE, but both work and neither strucks me as obvious.
Georgiana - we see nothing but shy and hurt girl who doesn't have her own opinion. I really think it's impossible to say anything but that she's likely to be an introvert.
Wickham - SLE or SEE, both work.

[silverchris9]

+1000 to everything silverchris wrote in the above post. I've initially only skipped over your other typings, so I missed ILE for Mr. Bennet o_O. I see him as unhealthy ILI, though I suppose SLI is a possibility if you insist on your typings for Elizabeth and Mrs. Bennet. ILE makes no sense, even less than Elizabeth as Ni-PoLR or Charlotte as a Feeling type, seriously. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet socionics-wise is unlikely to be asymmetric, they find it far too easy to dismiss each other. He's as Fe-devaluing as they come, honestly.

Agreed. SLI would be the other typing I'd look at too.

Looked through your other typings now, too :
Mary - we see relatively little of her, but I'd sooner try Ij, for sheer persistence she shows. Ip is unlikely, though Te-creative is still more possible than for example Fe-ego.
Kitty & Lydia - apart from them being giggly teenagers, I don't think there's much to say. Fe or Fi creatives is as far as I'd guess.
Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner - too little info again, but they rather seem Fi/Te. LIE and ESI could work.
William Collins - ugh... no idea, he's too much of a caricature. About any type is possible, probably.
Charlotte - Te-dominant, not sure which one.
Mr. Charles Bingley - Fi-creative sounds about right. He seems IEE over SEE, and it makes far more sense with Jane as Delta NF.
Caroline - I rather think she might be IEI over EIE, but both work and neither strucks me as obvious.
Georgiana - we see nothing but shy and hurt girl who doesn't have her own opinion. I really think it's impossible to say anything but that she's likely to be an introvert.
Wickham - SLE or SEE, both work.

tbh, I bought LIE for Collins. I thought that was a good typing. Te-dominant makes sense for Charlotte. Bingley makes much more sense as IEE than as SEE, imo. He's too weak-willed and dependent on Darcy's opinion to be SEE. I can't see an SEE deciding not to marry the girl he loves just because his friend complained about it (which is exactly what Wentworth *doesn't* do, and is pissed at Anne for doing, in Persuasion). Also, if Darcy is LII (which honestly makes a good deal of sense, although I had always sort of wanted Lizzy to be ILI, but whatever), Darcy as Bingley's conflictor is weird. Agreed on no type for Georgiana and Se-leading Wickham.

[silverchris9]

Also, literary critical side note: Lizzy Bennet =/= Jane Austen. If you pay close attention, you see that the narrator actually makes fun of Lizzy quite a lot through the novel. And the characterization is fantastic. They all talk very interestingly and like real people. And Lizzy is a very flawed character. She's taken in by Wickham and only saved from him, essentially, by a stroke of luck. Granted, she wouldn't have eloped with him like Lydia did, but still. Really, my biggest problem with ESE Lizzy is that Lizzy is too intellectual. Sure, ESEs can be intellectual, but, to used socionics terms, Lizzy seems "abstract" rather than "involved" in social situations. She's constantly analyzing them from the outside, even if she does participate in them as well. She's obviously more interested in analyzing them from the outside.

Also, I didn't see that Lizzy is particularly masterful socially. She has equanimity, generally, in her perceptions towards people, but I don't think she's exactly a social wizard. But maybe that's me coming from a beta perspective, and it is an example of negative vs. positive Fe (for Lizzy; I still think that Mrs. Bennet is ESE).

On the other hand, you could make a great case that her fight with Lady Catherine is a good example of alpha vs. gamma conflict, obviously with gamma portrayed as the "bad" quadra.

[Aiss]

tbh, I bought LIE for Collins. I thought that was a good typing. Te-dominant makes sense for Charlotte. Bingley makes much more sense as IEE than as SEE, imo. He's too weak-willed and dependent on Darcy's opinion to be SEE. I can't see an SEE deciding not to marry the girl he loves just because his friend complained about it (which is exactly what Wentworth *doesn't* do, and is pissed at Anne for doing, in Persuasion). Also, if Darcy is LII (which honestly makes a good deal of sense, although I had always sort of wanted Lizzy to be ILI, but whatever), Darcy as Bingley's conflictor is weird. Agreed on no type for Georgiana and Se-leading Wickham.

Just saying that Fi-creative is more obvious than Ne-leading to me, and I simply have no idea about Collins. He could easily be Mr. Bennet's supervisee, or at least the latter shows what I recognize as supervisory approach towards him.

I'm not sure how Elizabeth could ever be an ILI. Though Austen could have been one, for all we know, which would have affected the tone of the book and gave this impression. But the character really isn't Fe-PoLR, even if some of the views in book seem to be.

Also, literary critical side note: Lizzy Bennet =/= Jane Austen. If you pay close attention, you see that the narrator actually makes fun of Lizzy quite a lot through the novel. And the characterization is fantastic. They all talk very interestingly and like real people. And Lizzy is a very flawed character. She's taken in by Wickham and only saved from him, essentially, by a stroke of luck. Granted, she wouldn't have eloped with him like Lydia did, but still. Really, my biggest problem with ESE Lizzy is that Lizzy is too intellectual. Sure, ESEs can be intellectual, but, to used socionics terms, Lizzy seems "abstract" rather than "involved" in social situations. She's constantly analyzing them from the outside, even if she does participate in them as well. She's obviously more interested in analyzing them from the outside.

Elizabeth's flaws seem too much of an indirect boast, as discussed by the characters at some point, to make her realistic.

She seems intuitive, but it's hard to separate the author (who was likely N) from the main character here, though unless Austen consciously meant her to be different this way, it makes the character intuitive as well.

Also, I didn't see that Lizzy is particularly masterful socially. She has equanimity, generally, in her perceptions towards people, but I don't think she's exactly a social wizard. But maybe that's me coming from a beta perspective, and it is an example of negative vs. positive Fe (for Lizzy; I still think that Mrs. Bennet is ESE).

Maybe not exactly a great socialite, but she's constantly being contrasted with Darcy and her family throughout the book, and while not described as Bingley is, seems to be liked and find socializing easy and enjoyable. She's definitely good at picking up indirect clues Mrs. Bennet blatantly ignores - the sort of things I'd expect EIE to pay more attention to.

On the other hand, you could make a great case that her fight with Lady Catherine is a good example of alpha vs. gamma conflict, obviously with gamma portrayed as the "bad" quadra.

I think it might be a (parodied) Merry/Serious conflict, but with Lady Catherine as LSE rather than LIE, in my opinion. Most of the time she gets stuck in details and fails to see the big picture; she's actually a walking negative stereotype of a director who gives detailed instructions rather than focus on a target. She's bossy rather than showing off her supposed power - even when she does the latter, it's in service of the former, whereas with LIE it would be more likely the reverse - so Se-demostrative over Se-HA. She speaks of her long-term plan of marrying off her daughter to Darcy as if it was going to just happen at some point.

LSEs They prefer to believe that change depends on our actions and choices rather than on external events over which we have no control.

(...)

When making plans for the future, LSEs typically do not leave room for unforeseen obstacles. These obstacles frustrate the LSE because they destroy the established rhythm of operations and require switching gears. In talking about their goals for the future, LSEs often leave out intermediate steps, leading others to consider them naive. In LSEs' opinion, the important thing is to express a clear goal; the step-by-step process of getting there is less important.