Quote:
Originally Posted by furbo
Since reading Keirsey, I have been bothered by the seemingly arbitrary division into archetypes. Yes, it seems to work, but why?
|
I'm not so sure that it does always work. For instance, I identify most strongly with the Melancholic temperment, and Keirsey assigns that to SJ thinking. I thought for a long time that I was an SJ, because I was so concerned with following rules, and doing what my teachers expected of me.
I eventually realized that I was more likely an N, because I didn't rely so much on what was going around me to determine what the rules were, but on my own interpretation of the Student Handbook, and an internal notion that by attending school, I was agreeing to a sort of social contract, and that behaving irresponsibly would be a violation of it. I was also very concerned with my teacher's opinion of me, and didn't want the stigma of being a troublemaker. I was far more afraid of the stigma than of the actual punishment.
What really proved it for me was when I realized that I didn't value traditions or rituals for their own sake, and had no desire to provide service. I cared about fulfilling responsibilities in a timely manner once they were assigned, but I tended to take on as few as possible.
I was later able to explain this by the fact that F's were often concerned with the opinions of others and are respectful of hierarchy, and that timeliness and order were important to all J's. So for me, the four archetype system only led to confusion.