Jesus Tempted in the Wilderness by James Tissot. Wikimedia
19. Yes, people try to type Jesus of Nazareth – INFP
It would seem at first glance that Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of one’s religious beliefs, exhibited outgoing and sociable personality traits. He gathered followers, attracted crowds, and participated in events such as formal dinners and weddings. All of these activities can be assigned to an Extravert personality. But Jesus demonstrated notable introvert tendencies as well. He frequently went off alone, for the purpose of meditation and prayer, if the gospels are correct. And he did not seek the approval of others, and frequently remonstrated with those who expressed disapproval of his views and actions. Though we know little of his private conversations, his public utterances were fully formed and reasoned. Those tendencies, and others, lead some to assign Jesus an introvert type, often INFP.
Jesus often taught in the form of parables. These featured people and events familiar to his audience. Jesus taught using characters such as farmers, fishermen, and families, all of which his audience readily understood. Feeling led Jesus to state, regarding the execution of woman, “…He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7 KJV). A judgmental personality would be more likely to agree with the law, rather than offer compassion and forgiveness. There are those that disagree, others ascribe other MBTI personality types to Jesus of Nazareth. Again, they are based on judgments of his activities and sayings as described in the Bible. Some assign the INFJ type to Jesus, as noted before, the rarest of all types.
Carl Jung sits to the left of Sigmund Freud (center front), with whom he later broke during his research. Wikimedia
20. Assigning MBTI to others is technically an invalid exercise
The whole purpose of MBTI is to allow for self-assessment of one’s personality based on a series of questions. Even when one assesses oneself the test provides different results at different times. Evaluating historical figures for their MBTI requires the evaluator to presume to answer the questions as he or she believes the historical figure would. Such a presumption alone renders the results invalid. Other than as an exercise in fun, or argument, evaluating past lives for MBTI has no basis in reality. Yet it remains a popular exercise, as the links in this article prove. No evaluator, no matter how familiar with George Washington’s life and career, cannot, so to speak, put words in his mouth. Evaluating Washington’s personality based on his own writings, as well as those of his contemporaries and historians, cannot reveal his true MBTI.
MBTI exists to allow the theories of Carl Jung to be applied by individuals in their daily lives. Yet it remains controversial. It has often been criticized as unscientific. Psychology Today published an article in 2013 titled, “Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die”. The article reports that more than 2.5 million people take the test each year. It also reports wildly differing results received by the author on different occasions of taking the test. If one individual can receive different results at different times, how accurate can applying MBTI to other people possibly be? Especially those from times when society and behaviors were markedly different from today. It may be fun to assign MBTI to persons of the past, but it is entirely subjective. For every MBTI found online for a historical figure, a contradicting one can also be found.
Where do we find this stuff? Here are our sources:
