Myers-Briggs types have much to tell us about ourselves and other people. Our MBTI type reflects our preferences for crowded parties or small gathering, describes how we connect with other people, shows us how we naturally respond to stress, and gives us a picture of our innate strengths and weaknesses. Another thing it’s often used for is trying to predict what type of person we’ll be attracted to, and most compatible with, in a romantic sense. Unfortunately, MBTI only gives part of the picture in this regard.
Types in Love
Disclaimer: some of the links in this post are affiliate links. This means that, at no additional cost to you, I will receive a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase on that website.
Use of the MBTI for romance is subject to much debate. Isabel Myer wrote in Gifts Differing*, chapter 11, that “it seems only reasonable that the greater mutual understanding between couples with more likeness than difference should lead, on the whole, to greater mutual attraction and esteem.” This was supported by her study of 375 married couples who were most frequently “alike on three of their four preferences rather than on only two, as would be expected by chance.” However, Isabel Myer was an INFP woman happily married to an ISTJ man. According to her own personality theory, they “shouldn’t” have gotten along, especially since she thought that shared S-N preferences were the most important for predicting a couple’s happiness together and understanding of each other. Obviously type isn’t the only important ingredient for happiness.
David Keirsey’s book Please Understand Me II* agrees with Myers on the importance of S-N pairings, saying that his SP Artisan types are most compatible with SJ Guardians, and that NF Idealists are most compatible with NT rationals. His ideal pairing is someone who shares your S-N preference and is your opposite in the other three preferences. For example, he would pair an INFJ with an ENTP.
Continuing with INFJs as our example, these theories have influenced many INFJ profiles online. Jennifer Soldner’s Guide To INFJ Relationships lists ENFP, ENTP, INTJ and INFJ as the best matches for an INFJ. The worst matches are ESFP, ESTP, ESTJ, and ENTJ (note that this last one contradicts Keirsey’s rule for pairing NF and NT types). For the most part, these suggestions seem logical at first, much like Isabel Myer said when theorizing that people will get along best if they are similar. It doesn’t explain, however, why one study found that INFJs were most likely to marry either INFJs or ESTPs, or why Myers herself was happy married to someone so dissimilar in terms of type. Clearly there’s something else going on here.
The “Something Else”
Even with their generalizations about which types get along most easily together, both Isabel Myers and David Keirsey admit there are other very important ingredients to a lasting romantic relationship.
Individual relationships defy generalizations, and it should be stressed that two well-adjusted people of any two temperaments can find ways of making their marriage work for them.” (Keirsey)
“Understanding, appreciation, and respect make a lifelong marriage possible and good. Similarity of type is not important, except as it leads to these three. Without them, people fall in love and out of love again; with them, a man and woman will become increasingly valuable to each other and know that they are contributing to each other’s lives.” (Myers)
A mutual willingness to work together and actively build-up the relationships is more important than compatible MBTI types. One aspect of this is understanding the other person and learning how to love them. Becoming familiar with their Myers-Briggs type will help tremendously, but it’s not enough by itself. You also benefit from an understanding of Love Languages.
The five love languages theory was first published in 1995 by Gary Chapman, a relationship counselor and pastor. He says every person has a “language” that they use to communicate and receive love, either Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Receiving Gifts, Acts of Service, or Physical Touch. Everyone has one primary love language, and you might have a secondary love language as well. If someone’s partner is not speaking their love language, they will not feel loved. There’s a test on Chapman’s website if you don’t know what your love language is and want to find out.
Layering Love Languages
In theory, any MBTI type can be combined with any one of the five love languages. I’m guessing, however, that there are some love languages that are more likely for certain MBTI types. Let’s take a quick look at the characteristics for the four type groups as related to different love languages.
SP types are typically concerned with outward, concrete ways of viewing the world, and focus on the here and now. Keirsey describes their preferred role in a romantic relationship as “playmate.” I could see SP types being particularly inclined toward Receiving Gifts, Quality Time, or Physical Touch as a primary love language. These all involve doing something for or with the loved one, which would appeal strongly to SP types.
Duty-fulfilling SJ types tend to play what Keirsey described as a “helpmate” role in relationships. They are stable, traditional, and thoroughly dependable people. SJ types might be most in tune with Acts of Service, Quality Time or Words of Affirmation as a love language. These love languages visibly or verbally confirm that a SJ’s loved ones appreciate their constant reliability.
NF types are idealistic, enjoy abstract thought, and are natural romantics. Keirsey described their role in a romantic relationship as “soulmate.” They search for deep, genuine connections. Quality Time and Words of Affirmation seem like the most likely love languages, though Physical Touch and Acts of Service are also good possibilities. The key for NF types is genuine depth in a relationship, so they are inclined towards a language that increases emotional intimacy.
The NT types are highly intellectual, and Keirsey described their relationship role as “mindmate.” They are logical, abstract, and have little tolerance for the superficial. Words of Affirmation and Quality Time seem like the most likely love languages for an NT type, but after reading two different forum topics on MBTI types and love languages (one on Typology Central and one on Personality Cafe) I learned many NTs favor Physical Touch as well. My personal theory is that NT types view Service and/or Gifts with suspicion, wondering what the other person wants from them, while the others seem more genuine.
What about you? What are your Myers-Briggs type and love language(s)? Do you see a connection between the two? Share in the comments!
This study all began with perusing the “lambda” section in a Greek dictionary. I came across the word logikos (G3050), which means “pertaining to reason and therefore reasonable.” You’ve probably already guessed that it’s where we got our English word “logic.” This is the word used in Romans 12:1 for “reasonable service.”
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (Rom. 12:1-2)
I tend to connect my faith with a feeling more than an intellectual idea. I know “intellectually” that God exists and that the Bible makes sense, but for me personally the feeling of Him being real and present and in a relationship with me seems more important. This has frustrated some of the more rational, logical people I’ve talked to. One atheist who had been raised Christian couldn’t understand why things that seem contradictory in scripture didn’t bother me even though I couldn’t explain all of them. Another person still in the church said that my “spirituality” is almost intimidating because I talk about my feelings for God so much, and that kind of faith seems alien to her. Other people attracted by reason and logic have walked away from their faith when confronted with scientific arguments for evolution or a “big bang” explanation of how the universe came into being.
One of the things I’ve run across in my studies of type psychology is that “feeling” types are more attracted to spirituality and religion than “thinking” types (this refers to a preference for dealing with people or data, not a measure of intelligence). In fact, I read of one study that indicated the more highly educated the person is, the more likely they are to be involved with a religion (sorry — I don’t have the citation yet. I’ll try to find it and update this post later). It makes sense that “feelers” are attracted to a place that encourages group interaction and harmony, but I worry that we may have scared off some of the “thinkers” with our talk of a touchy-feeling God who just wants to love people. It is true that God wants a relationship with everyone, but it’s not true that everyone needs to relate to Him the exact same way. He means to be accessible to all the people He created.
Order and Logic
There aren’t just one or two verses that simply state “God is ordered and logical.” Rather, the entire Bible and the whole of creation is a testament to the way His mind works. We can read Genesis 1 and see the orderly step-by-step way He created the world, then look at creation and see His master-craftsman hand at work in every aspect of the universe’s design. Scientists have been doing this for years, and many come to the conclusion that God is the only explanation for how the universe is so perfectly put together.
“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” –Albert Einstein
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.” –Max Planck
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” –Tony Rothman
There are a couple verses in 1 Corinthians that speak to the orderly, logical attributes of God. Paul was discussing who should speak and how meetings should be conducted in the church, and makes these statements:
God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. … Let all things be done decently and in order. (1 Cor. 14:33, 40)
God does not author confusion — He wants things to progress in a decent, orderly fashion. Even mildly logical, perfectionistic, or OCD people can identify with this attribute of God.
The Word of Intelligence
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1-3, 14)
In these very familiar verses, the Greek word translated “Word” is logos (G3056). It is the root word for logikos, which we’re already talked about. It means “to speak,” but it is distinct from other words that specifically refer to sound or noise (lalia, G2981) or to speaking without necessarily making sense (laleo, G2980). Logos means to express intelligence.
Logos, when it refers to discourse, is regarded as the orderly linking and knitting together in connected arrangement of words of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind. … In the first chapter of John, Jesus Christ in His preincarnate state is called ho Logos, the Word, meaning first immaterial intelligence and then the expression of that intelligence in speech that humans could understand. (Zodhiates)
One of the most well-known names of Jesus carries with it a testament to God’s reason, intellect, and logic. It is a key role of Jesus Christ to express intelligence — to communicate the thoughts of God in a way that people can understand.
Sometimes when people come across something in relation to God that “doesn’t make sense,” they assume that there’s something wrong with the Bible. But that’s just another way of saying that we think our minds work better than the Mind of the One who designed us. It’s really rather absurd to think there’s something wrong with God because we don’t understand Him perfectly. But it’s far more unsettling for some of us to admit that the problem might be on our side.
In John 8:43, Christ was debating with some of the Jews who were following Him. They were offended and confused by some of His words, and this is what He said to them:
Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. (John 8:43)
The word “speech” is translated from lalia — to make sounds — and “word” is from logos. Because they couldn’t grasp Christ’s intelligence speech, it was as if He was speaking nonsense (I’m indebted to Zodhiates’ Key-Word study Bible for analyzing this verse).
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Is. 55:8-9)
Rather than assume there’s something lacking in God when we can’t understand Him and then reacting with hostility or disgust (by the end of John 8 the Jews were trying to stone Jesus), let’s follow James’ advice.
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. (James 1:5)
The Issue of Feelings
C.S. Lewis is the perfect person to bring in on this discussion. He was a very logical, rational Christian (probably an INTJ, for those of you who like Myers-Briggs). I like this description of him from The New York Times Book Reviw: “C.S. Lewis is the ideal persuader of the half-convinced, for the good man who would like to be a Christian but finds his intellect getting in the way.”
Now, the thing about Lewis is that for him, getting your intellect out of the way certainly doesn’t mean abandoning reason and just “trust your feelings” or “have faith.” On the contrary, Lewis says that our faith absolutely must have a rational basis.
Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods “where they get off,” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. (Mere Christianity; III, 11)
That’s why it’s dangerous to try and base your faith on emotions alone. Feelings for God are all well and good, but feelings can change — we might “fall out of love” or fall into a season of doubt. But we can’t afford to give up on God when we don’t feel close to Him anymore. We have to keep choosing to seek Him because we have decided He is the only way to go.
Lewis went on to say in this chapter of Mere Christianity that we need to “train the habit of faith” daily by reminding ourselves of what we believe. He says, “Neither this belief no any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed.” And if it’s not, we’ll be one of those people who just drift away from Christianity without even coming up with a reasonable argument for God not existing.
A Logical Sacrifice
The Bible tells us to “Pray without ceasing” and “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thes. 5:17, 20). It’s a succinct instruction from God to do precisely what Lewis was talking about. God wants us to constantly be seeking, questioning, learning, and asking Him to help us understand His words.
This is another reason to stay close to the Source of the Living Water that we talked about in last week’s post. We need Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, involved in our lives. He is the Logos, and He is well able to shore-up our faith with reason and wisdom and good-sense.
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in My name, that one will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. (John 14:26)
And then, having this foundation of knowing God exists, that He is more intelligent than we are , and that He sacrificed Himself for us, we can go back to Romans 12:1 and understand why it is logical for us to present ourselves in service to God. He created us, and “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). He died to buy us back from sin, and we belong to Him not only as His creation, but as His to redeem (1 Cor. 6:20).
Since I just quoted Acts 17, let’s take a quick look at the apostle Paul. He was probably the most highly educated of the apostles, since he was trained as a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5). It took direct divine intervention to show Paul that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 9:1-19), but once he was convinced of this fact he turned all the energy and emotion he’d been using to persecute the church into preaching the gospel. And he did so in a manner both firmly grounded in reason and full of zeal. He preached to groups of people from every walk of life, including presenting a reasonable argument to the Athenians and quoting their own poets and thinkers (Acts 17:16-34). He wrote most of the New Testament, epistles full of deep inspired reasoning that even Peter described as “things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul wrote the letter which tells us it is our “reasonable service” to devote every part of ourselves to following God, which is exactly what he did.
We are all made in God’s image, but no one person or type of person is “enough” to fully reflect all of who and what God is. I’ve seen this talked about in discussions of gender — man and women embody different attributes of God. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 12 describes different spiritual gifts, and different types of people that are all necessary parts of the church. If everyone was the same, the church would be lacking essential attributes.
But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be? But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. (1 Cor. 12:18-19)
The same, I think, can be said of personality types. Aspects of God are reflected in introverts and in extroverts, in people-oriented feeling types and in fact-oriented thinking types. And God Himself is accessible to everyone — He wants a relationship with the logical, questioning mind just as much as He wants a relationship with the more stereotypically “spiritual,” emotional people.
Update 6/7/2016: Since publishing this post, I’ve become increasingly unsatisfied with MBTI charts that try to find a character from a film or TV series to fit each type. Not every one of the 16 types appears in a given film or show and many charts (including mine here) include incorrect/forced typings. I leave this post here for archival purposes, and may do an up-dated LOTR chart in the future.
With the The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug coming out this past weekend, I thought it was time to release my Lord of the Rings MBTI chart. My original idea was make this my 111th blog post so there would also be a tie-in with Bilbo’s fateful birthday party, but after missing some posts I decided just to release it now. This was inspired by the Star Wars chart by Geek in Heels that has been going around the social media sites, and I’m grateful to her for the idea.
I admit not every one of these characters fit perfectly where I put them. This is partly because typing fictional characers is always subjective, partly because I’m not an expert, and partly because there just don’t seem to be that many extroverts in Tolkein’s world. I also wanted to give everyone a good-guy character that they could relate to, which is why you don’t see people like Sauromon or Denethor on this chart (this is for you, INTJs). I do mention them in the discussion below. For the sake of convenience and consistency, I’ve grouped the 16 Myers-Briggs types into the four categories used by David Keirsey’s Temperament Sorter. You can take his test here, or try out an online test that will give you an idea of your Myers-Briggs type here or here.
What follows is an explanation of why I chose each type for these particular characters, so you can see the reasoning behind my choices and pick-apart my ideas if you disagree 🙂 Since there are so many characters in Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, I’ve also mentioned other characters which might share each type. For the following information about cognitive functions and different Myers-Briggs types, I rely heavily on Dr. A. J. Drenth’s Personality Junkie website. For the sake of time, I’m mainly focused on the first two functions in each type’s function stack.
Supervisor (ESTJ) — Boromir
Extroverted thinking (Te) is an ESTJ’s dominant function. This makes ESTJs quick to express their ideas, usually in the form of judgements and measurable goals. Take, for example, Boromir’s eagerness to speak out at the Counsel of Elrond and his insistence that his plan for using the ring was the right one. An ESTJ’s auxiliary function is Introverted Sensing (Si). Supporting Te, this can make ESTJ’s appear stubborn because they prefer life to be predictable.They like tradition rather than change — “Gondor has no king. Gondor needs no king.”
Inspector (ISTJ) — Aragorn
Most characters seem to have fairly consistent personalities between the books and the films. Aragorn may be an exception. It’s been a while since I read Lord of the Rings, but I think if I was typing Aragorn from the books he might be an extravert. I’ve also seen the film version typed as an INTJ, an ISFx, and an ISxP.
Si is an ISTJ’s first function. Like ESTJs, this makes them interested in preserving old ways of doing things and resistant to change. For Aragorn, you can see this in his conflict about whether to take his rightful place as king or leave things the way they are. As an auxiliary function, Te manifests itself as a tendency for ISTJs to think out loud and share their ideas and plans. They like order and control, and this helps make Aragorn an efficient and effective leader.
Other ISTJs: this might be a good match for Treebeard — I would definitely describe him as an introverted Guardian type.
Provider (ESFJ) — Bilbo
Keirsey calls providers “the most sociable of all Guardians” and says they are “friendly, outgoing, [and] neighborly” to the point that they become “restless when isolated from people.” He also adds that they are careful to remember birthdays. Starting to sound like a hobbit?
An ESFJ’s primary function is Extroverted Feeling (Fe). This makes them quick to express their opinions and judgements, though they like to do this in a way that maintains peaceful social functions. Note how Bilbo responds to the arrival of all the dwarves — he is not shy about letting them know what he thinks about their unexpected arrival, yet he still plays the perfect host. Like other types with Si as an auxiliary function, ESFJs can become set in their ways and comfortable with routine (which is what makes him appear introverted when he is upset about being disturbed by company).
Protector (ISFJ) — Sam
Not many fictional characters are as easy to type as Samwise Gamge. He is the perfect ISFJ. Like the ISTJ, an ISFJ’s primary function is Si and they tend to resist change and be comfortable with traditional ways of doing things. They tend to settle down and be comfortable with routine (Sam never considered leaving The Shire until Frodo went on his quest). With Fe as an auxiliary function, ISFJs are very people-oriented and attuned to the needs of others, especially their close friends. They have a strong sense of responsibility and loyalty, and readily serve others — “Come on, Mr. Frodo. I can’t carry it for you… but I can carry you!”
Promoter (ESTP) — Gimli
Gimli might not seem an obvious choice for the ESTP character, since they are often charming, life-of-the-party types who enjoy stylish dressing and living well. But translate all that into a dwarf, and I’d say Gimli probably thinks fits the description. Extroverted Sensing (Se) is an ESTP’s primary function. This tends to make them seek out thrills, take risks, and flirt with danger (“Certainty of death, small chance of success… What are we waiting for?”). They also love food, drink, and merry making — which you can see in Gimli as he celebrates after the Battle of Helm’s Deep. Introverted Thinking (Ti) is his auxiliary function, and he can become serious and intense when called upon to make decisions or deal with feelings.
Crafter (ISTP) — Eowyn
According to Dr. A. J. Drenth, there are about three times as many ISTP men as women. Perhaps this is one reason Eowyn felt so out of place. An ISTP has the same functions as an ESTP, but reversed so Ti is first and Se is second. Keirsey calls them “crafters” because they have an impressive ability to master the use of tools. For Eowyn, the tools she chooses to focus on are weapons, and she is an accomplished fighter. ISTPs love action, crave excitement, and feel frustrated if they can’t act impulsively. They prefer to show their feelings through actions rather than words (Eowyn making soup for Aragorn and wanting to fight at his side).
Other ISTPs: Thorin — man of few words, inwardly thoughtful, physically active and skilled with weapons. Also known as one of several dwarves who make me want to cry every time they are on-screen because I know what’s going to happen to them in the next film 😦
Bonus round: My cousin and I were talking last night about what type Smaug might be. I decided on introvert, since he is so comfortable with being alone, and SP since they are the types most likely to be both concerned with physical wealth and unconcerned with what people think of how they acquire that wealth. He’s not caring or people-oriented, which rules out ISFP. So, I’m going with narcissistic ISTP in dragon-form.
Performer (ESFP) — Pippin
Pippin was the first character I added to the chart. I keep picturing him dancing on a table and singing “The only brew for the brave and true comes from the green dragon!” Performers/ESFPs are talkative, engaging, like to be around people, and become the center of attention wherever they go. Like the ESTP, they enjoy good food and drink and will rush into things without stopping to weigh the consequences (asking “Where are we going?” after joining the Fellowship). Introverted Feeling (Fi) is his auxiliary function, and that adds a seriousness to Pippin’s character which is not readily visible (because usually introverted). It shows up during the siege of Minas Tirith.
Composer (ISFP) — Arwen
Though they share functions with ESFPs (Fi and Se), ISFPs tend to look very different. They are people-oriented, caring deeply for others and having a heightened sensitivity to suffering. This can be seen in Arwen’s deep attachment to Aragorn, her willingness to risk the Ringwraiths to save Frodo’s life, and starting to waste away because of “the evil that now spreads from Mordor.” She’s not as playful as typical SP types are usually described, but I think part of that is the fact that she is an elf and that Fi (which seems emotionally mature and serious) is her dominant function.
Teacher (ENFJ) — Faramir
I had such a hard time deciding who to put on the chart for this personality type. I’m not entirely convinced Faramir fits, but he’s the closest I could up with and the more I think about it the more I think this might be right. Extroverted Feeling (Fe) as a primary function means that an ENFJ’s sense of self is largely tied-up in their relationships with others. Growing up with Denethor constantly belittling him would have been devastating for little ENFJ Faramir, and would contribute to making him less sure of himself than a typical ENFJ. However, you can still see ENFJ traits of good leadership and an intuitive understanding of people when you look at the loyalty Faramir’s men have for him and his encounter with Frodo and Sam. His Introverted Intuition (Ni) helps explain why Faramir went with his gut feeling and let Frodo and Sam go.
Galadriel seems like a fairly standard INFJ character — otherworldly, introverted, wise, cares about others. INFJs have such a strong intuition that even some human INFJs report visions much akin to Galadriel’s and the feeling that they could almost be telepathic. As an elf in a fantasy world, Galadriel really is telepathic and can glimpse the future. She can also see right through people to discern their motives, as shown by her reaction to Boromir (or more tellingly, his reaction to her). They appear serious on the outside and are usually content to passively observe until they feel moved to speak. For more on INFJs, see this post.
Champion (ENFP) — Merry
With Extroverted Intuition (Ne) instead of sensing as his dominant function, Merry is more serious and given to reflection than Pippin. Unlike most hobbits, Merry is open-minded about the outside world and restless. He joins Frodo’s quest not just for the change of pace but because he recognizes the importance of destroying the ring. His commitment to fighting with the Rohirim and supporting Eowyn is typical of the ENFP championing causes they believe in.
Healer (INFP) — Frodo
In spite of the memes going around showing Frodo as an INFJ, he is generally considered an INFP by people who are more serious about their typology hobby. Fi is an INFP’s dominant function, and like ISFPs their emotions run deep. They are loyal to their friends and enjoy people, though at the same time can become loners who like to spend time in the outdoors. Sharing Ne (as their auxiliary function) with ENFPs, INFPs are also interested in championing causes. In the INFP’s case, they seek to heal conflicts and bring the world into a state of goodness.
Fieldmarshal (ENTJ) — Eomer
ENTJs are natural leaders, and often find themselves in command even without seeking it. When leadership skills are encouraged, as with Eomer being trained to fight and lead, they become skilled commanders. Te as a primary function means ENTJs like order and rationality and planning is one of their strengths. They will respect authority to a point, but disobey orders if they feel the situation calls for it (Eomer standing up to Wormtongue). Ni adds a reliable gut instinct. Others might see them as hurried, wanting people to “cut to the chase,” and abrupt when making judgments (see the scene where Eomer meets and rapidly interrogates Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas).
Other ENTJs: Possibly Theodin. I’m not sure.
Mastermind (INTJ) — Eldrond
I asked my INTJ sister who she thought might share her type in LOTR, and this is who she thought of. The primary function Ni gives them a view of the big picture and a keen insight for how the world works. Unlike INFJs, though, they use Te as an auxiliary function which makes them theorists who always have a plan or two (Plan A: send Arwen to the Undying lands. Plan B: reforge the sword and make Aragorn king). They often appear as aloof intellectuals and share a natural bent for leadership with ENTJS, but prefer to stay in the background until called upon to take charge for a short while (Counsel of Elrond).
Other INTJs: Masterminds make excellent villains, which I suppose would be why I’ve seen all the main villains typed as INTJs at one point or another. Saruman and Sauron I can see as INTJs, but I’m not convinced about Grima Wormtongue and Denethor.
Inventor (ENTP) — Gandalf
Gandalf is another character people don’t agree on how to type. I’ve seen him variously classified as an INTJ (most often), INTP, INFJ, and ENTP. I tend to lean toward this last one. He’s not focused enough to be an INTJ and instead of taking charge at a crucial moment, he steps back from leadership and says “Let the Ring-bearer decide” whether or not to go through the Mines of Moria.
As an ENTP, Ne is his primary function. He is curious, likes to collect data and use it to discover patterns, can see both sides of an issue, and uses his inventiveness to work with people as well as try to change social systems. Dr. Drenth says they “brainstorm aloud” and “may not always seem to ‘have a point,’” which Gandalf will do for page after page in the book. Auxiliary Ti gives him a respect for logic and reason. ENTPs are typically non-conformist and have many friends (enjoys Bilbo’s party, knows people all over Middle Earth).
Architect (INTP) — Legolas
An INTP’s primary function is Ti, followed by Ne as the auxiliary function. Kiersey notes that it is hard for them to listen to discussions without pointing out a speaker’s error (Legolas correcting Boromir at the Counsel of Elrond), and they would rather talk about ideas than about daily events or people. They are highly disciplined, which can help them achieve proficiency with something like archery, and also makes them appear serious.
UPDATE: Several people have pointed out (here and on other sites) that typing Legolas as an INTP is … controversial. For me, he is a hard character to type, and I’m not entirely sure about labeling him an INTP. I’m not sure what else to call him, though, or who else in LOTR might qualify as an INTP. Any thoughts?
There are a few other bloggers I found who did Myers-Briggs typologies for Lord of the Rings Characters. Sometimes my types agree with theirs, sometimes we interpret things a little differently. Here are their websites: