Why Shakespeare is ENFP

He (as many know) invented many new sayings (at the time) with his metaphors and analogies in his works. He was described as very witty by those whom met him personally, with Thomas Fuller saying he "could turn with all tides, tack about and take advantage of all winds, by the quickness of his Wit and Invention" (source: https://shakespeareauthorship.com/fuller.html) and with Ben Jonson saying "He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature ... His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so, too! Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter" (source: https://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/jonson/chap1.htm). Sounds more like Ne-dominant open rapid wit for its own sake. INFPs can be witty too with auxiliary Ne, but ENFPs are more likely to be witty in real-time in a way that is less tied to their subjective Feeling.

Also, he seems (compared to INFPs) more comfortable with sacrificing purity-of-idea in order to complete an objective. Yes, ENFPs prefer Fi over Te, so they are not people who just willingly compromise their purity of expression BUT the more you find someone willing to compromise purity of Feeling in specific ways in order to get a job done, or get a personal project out into the world (even if it's meant to somewhat assist Fi values in some way for the EFP or ITJ), the less likely it is that they have dominant Fi. I don't think that fits Shakespeare. He had commercial instincts (he was a shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, later the King’s Men) and frequently inserted low-brow humor like slapstick and puns into high tragedies to keep the layman audience memebers engaged. If between ENFP and INFP, it sounds more ENFP as he was more engrossed in things that affected a much wider range of people, being or at least appearing to be very versatile in general (sounds Pe dominant). Note that I do not mean that an ENFPs work or end product is automatically more accessible than that of an INFPs.

Yes, an Fi dominants can use Te to accomplish and achieve things but it would have to be channeled effectively in more narrow domains that are handled in an overarching sense by Fi itself. As your site said of the inferior function, "rather than facing the hassle of attempting to force the inferior function to come to the forefront of consciousness, the most differentiated function will try to do the job of the least differentiated function instead." So in IFPs it would manifest, in this context, as Michael Goist put it for Fi dominant types, "If they are picky about the artistic process, it’s because to them, the final product shouldn’t be merely serviceable, utilitarian, and come in on time and within budget (Te), but rather should be *perfect* i.e. complete, well-considered, fully fleshed-out and authentic to their artistic selves, with no stone left unturned in the process." I don't see this process in Shakespeare.

Another thing to consider is his works. I typically don't like typing people by their work. I’m not saying you can’t pull type-related things from someone’s work, only that doing so is unreliable. But there is much less information on Shakespeare than almost all other famous artists, so it's a bit more forgiving to do so here. Overall to me, his works seem less of a self-divulgence and more openly exploratory in themes, tones, genres, etc. Yes, INFPs can engage in open exploration, experimentation, etc. but it would be in the service (typically) of refining a felt inner sense of self, for the INFP the inner world determines the outer potentialities and not the other way around. Shakespeare seems instead to use Fi in service of Ne, where he explores the inner depths of man to open up a wide and expansive breadth of concepts and themes. His work seems less like a mirror (more INFP tendency) and more like a window (more ENFP tendency). More so breath for the sake of breadth than breadth anchored and bounded by individual values.