Quote:
Originally Posted by Santtu
We're familiar with the keirseyan NT-NF-SP-SJ division, where Keirsey has the N and S handled differently. Then there's regular divisions of the 16 types into 4 groups by 2 of their dichotomies, with any of these templates:
For example, people speak of EP and say they are a certain kind of people. Grouping the 16 types by their E/I and P/J we would get EP, EJ, IP, IJ. Some people think of any of the "IJ" as one of the kind, and IP something completely other, never mind the T/F and the S/N.
So, which of these (6) possible groupings is the one you think of the most significant? Please tell us why. I'll start.
|
It seems that some of your examples are apple/orange comparisons
is-in-es-en
it-if-et-ef
You have simply reversed the cognitive functions here Si, Ni, Se, etc.... which describes the energy of a particular function, which I continue to ask why anyone would say IT or IS when they can simply say Ti or Si respectively. But then again I am finding the four letter codes to be redundant as well when you can merely say Ti-Se and remove all doubt even from Socionics.
ip-ij-ep-ej
If I saw this since I have been around long enough I would know that you are grouping the types into fours by their dichotomies (i.e., ITPs and IFPs), but it could be mistaken for introverted perceiving which could mean Si-N. or introverted judging (Ti-Fi) This where I usually will use the dochotomies to refer to a group of similar functions by saying ITPs or ITJs or ENPs.
st-sf-nt-nf (-xx-)
sp-sj-np-nj (-x-x)
These two are temperaments Keirsey's and Myers-Briggs that merely generalizes further your first to examples.
tp-tj-fp-fj (--xx)
I just don't follow the pattern on this example. As have already been stated, the examples shared serve their purpose during conversations, except the initial seems redundant and misleading since stating IS or IN would perpetuate a biasness and serve no purpose since ISFPs and ISFJs have very little in common. Besides I will always look at IS as someone meaning Si and automatically think of ISJs and the same for IN as Ni and think INJs. As for the temperament examples, since Keirsey created his theory Myers-Briggs examples are usually reference by me in some other form.