Not identifying with the "Four Temperaments".

[Valiant]

You've got that problem, too?
I am an ENTJ. Yet, I have a hard time seeing how ENTJs fit in with all but the INTJs.

A four-type group that i'd be able to identify with would consist of:

ENTJ
INTJ
ENFJ
INFJ

In short: NJs.

Re-making it would actually give more symmetry in the MBTI landscape.


xSxJ's
xSxP's
xNxJ's
xNxP's

Another idea. These types seem to have more in common than they do with at least half of those in their own temperament:

ENTP
ENFP
INFP
INTP


I'm having a hard time pinpointing exactly what I am trying to express here.
I'm not trying to alienate anyone... Just stating that the current temperaments seem a little off. For example... The ENTP and the ENTJ share three preferences, but when looking at behavior... Big, huge difference.
Yes, both are extroverted. Yes, both are intuitive. Yes, both are thinkers...
But that J/P divide is seriously a big thing. It makes P's do what P's do, and J's do something useful (hehe).

I think the "Idealists" and "Rationals" thing is a sham, to be honest.
It's all got to do with what people go about doing and how they do it, why they do it.
NJs, for example... We do what needs to be done, and most things we do have a reason behind it. Sure we can do silly things, too, but common sense is almost as strong as in the SJ-department, even if we approach things a bit differently.

NPs on the other hand... You're plain crazy
That can be good, but it's very frustrating when we can't depend on you without holding you at gunpoint. You're even worse than the SPs, because you're not as conventional, and nothing you do has a foundation in common sense, rules/law, tradition or even logic.


What I am saying is that while how different Js might have different methods to arrive at what is often the same point.
P's doesn't really know the meaning of "point" They don't want what the J's want at all most of the time, even if they'd probably be able to understand the J's reasoning if they think somewhat alike sometimes, if they accidentally managed to agree on something instead of acting like mules with either a lack of interpersonal skills or emotional problems, on crack and whiskey.


And yes, I am aware that I am biased and overly critical.
It's not super-serious. But NPs really do tick me off enormously sometimes.

Besides all that...
Does anyone agree that the NJ, SJ, NP, SP order?

 

[Athenian200]

I agree. Obviously, because I came up with the same idea.



Oh, and take a look at this:

The 'Keirsey Stratagem' - What Is It and Can It Help Us to Clarify the Relationship Between the Enneagram and MBTI?

 

[Oaky]

This is interesting. But that's how one would externally deal with the world. I think when it comes to what's in the mind the initial might be better. I would certainly doubt an INTJ and ENFJ might think in the same way although the conclusion would end up the same.

 

[Athenian200]

This is interesting. But that's how one would externally deal with the world. I think when it comes to what's in the mind the initial might be better. I would certainly doubt an INTJ and ENFJ might think in the same way although the conclusion would end up the same.

Really? I had always thought the opposite, that NTJs and NFJs think similarly, but show different faces to the world.

For instance, INTJs and INFJs... we tend to have a strong analytical side, and a strong emotional side. But the INTJ applies their analytical side to the world, makes it their main face, while covering up the emotional side, keeping it a private, secondary thing shared only with a trusted few. While the INFJ applies their emotional side to the world and appears good, covering up their critical side and using it mostly to refine and perfect their responses, sharing it only with certain people or groups where critical expression is well-received.

 

[Oaky]

Really? I had always thought the opposite, that NTJs and NFJs think similarly, but show different faces to the world.

For instance, INTJs and INFJs... we tend to have a strong analytical side, and a strong emotional side. But the INTJ applies their analytical side to the world, makes it their main face, while covering up the emotional side, keeping it a private, secondary thing shared only with a trusted few. While the INFJ applies their emotional side to the world and appears good, covering up their critical side and using it mostly to refine and perfect their responses, sharing it only with certain people or groups where critical expression is well-received.

I think that particular difference is one that defines the difference between an NT and an NF.

 

[Salt n' pepper]

Really? I had always thought the opposite, that NTJs and NFJs think similarly, but show different faces to the world.

I have always thought NFJs and I understand each other. We think alike, and I've sometimes experienced we feel alike about a lot of things. But to the world, we behave very differently. Our top skills are very different. People often say me and my ENFJ friend are exact opposites, but when we talk one on one, we understand each other very well. And we're not even that good of friends.

EDIT: Then again, ENFJs are known to be excellent people-readers. He might just be rubbing me the right way to get along with me.

 

[Salt n' pepper]

I think that particular difference is one that defines the difference between an NT and an NF.

Yes. I question my ENFJs decisions and motivations A LOT. And he thinks I'm mechanical.

 

[mockingbird]

Really? I had always thought the opposite, that NTJs and NFJs think similarly, but show different faces to the world.

For instance, INTJs and INFJs... we tend to have a strong analytical side, and a strong emotional side. But the INTJ applies their analytical side to the world, makes it their main face, while covering up the emotional side, keeping it a private, secondary thing shared only with a trusted few. While the INFJ applies their emotional side to the world and appears good, covering up their critical side and using it mostly to refine and perfect their responses, sharing it only with certain people or groups where critical expression is well-received.

Funny you should mention this. I'm married to an INTJ and everyone perceives him as the evil one and me as the angelic one. What they don't realize is that all those ascerbic comments he makes that I correct him for are actually the same things that I'm thinking. I'm just pissed that he is saying them and creating strife.

But does this really create a greater similarity between me and him than there is between me and an INFP or ENFP? I don't know. My INTJ doesn't get stressed by conflict like I do, obviously. He also doesn't allow his emotions to get in the way of his logical thought process in the way that I often do. This isn't true every time, but it usually is.

I think the main difference between us though, is that he will usually use his emotions to evaluate what he has already perceived rationally, and I will use logic to evaluate what I have perceived emotionally. We often reach the same conclusions, but our processes are very different.

I guess it all depends on which difference is more significant to you. The thought process or the end result.

 

[JocktheMotie]

The temperaments are sorted in such a way that make perfect sense in Keirsey's system. If you do not agree that the way Keirsey defines each type is the correct way, then you obviously will not agree with how he sorts his temperaments. NTs are together because they all use abstract language and exhibit utilitarian tool usage. As a contrast, all SPs use concrete language and utilitarian tool usage, not just STs. NFs and SJs all exhibit cooperative tendencies in regards to groups and problems. That's why they're sorted in such a way. Not because the letters match up.

I think it was a mistake for Keirsey to use MBTI terminology with his system, because it leads to exactly this kind of confusion.

 

[Moiety]

Yes, I feel I have more in common with other NPs than with NFJs. So yeah, I agree for the most part. Besides, why separate SJs and SPs by their perception functions and then not do the same for the other ones?

Another possibility is dividing it terms of judging functions : TP TJ FP FJ, but I think how we see the world influences how we act and not as much the other way around.

EDIT

The temperaments are sorted in such a way that make perfect sense in Keirsey's system. If you do not agree that the way Keirsey defines each type is the correct way, then you obviously will not agree with how he sorts his temperaments. NTs are together because they all use abstract language and exhibit utilitarian tool usage. As a contrast, all SPs use concrete language and utilitarian tool usage, not just STs. NFs and SJs all exhibit cooperative tendencies in regards to groups and problems. That's why they're sorted in such a way. Not because the letters match up.

I think it was a mistake for Keirsey to use MBTI terminology with his system, because it leads to exactly this kind of confusion.

Interesting. I had never heard of this before. I don't see how an ESFP is any less fond of cooperative tendencies than an ENFP though (as an example):

 

[Queen Kat]

You could also choose an EP/EJ/IP/IJ system. I believe that some people already do that.

 

[Athenian200]

The temperaments are sorted in such a way that make perfect sense in Keirsey's system. If you do not agree that the way Keirsey defines each type is the correct way, then you obviously will not agree with how he sorts his temperaments. NTs are together because they all use abstract language and exhibit utilitarian tool usage. As a contrast, all SPs use concrete language and utilitarian tool usage, not just STs. NFs and SJs all exhibit cooperative tendencies in regards to groups and problems. That's why they're sorted in such a way. Not because the letters match up.

I think it was a mistake for Keirsey to use MBTI terminology with his system, because it leads to exactly this kind of confusion.

Yes, exactly.

That's what the article I linked talks about. He's essentially deviated from MBTI. We're not talking about the same system anymore.

MBTI temperaments are NT, NF, ST, and SF, technically. That seems more symmetrical, and it kind of shows you what they're focusing on. It doesn't seem to be claiming that there's a fundamental difference between the NT nature and the NF nature, so much as merely emphasizing that there's a "cold/rational" and a "warm/caring" version of those who use each perceiving process. Keirsey makes less sense because he acts like there are fundamental archetypes at work that create a huge, ineffable chasm between the four different kinds of people, and that these forces are not affected by cognitive functions.

I personally don't think the NT vs NF thing really adds up to more than the sum of it's parts... the letters T and F. I don't think there's anything more fundamental about it that goes beyond the basic differences you would expect to find between T and F types. Grouping sensors differently implies that there is...

 

[Virtual ghost]

I am sorry Jesus but this is not exactly a new idea. (if you already don't know that)

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Good point YLJ! I think this is an exciting topic to think about. I browsed some previous posts about some related topics. I found a few.. (one from IntpC)


Division of the type? [Archive] - Typology Central

Grouping MBTI Types [Archive] - INTP Central

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nt-rationale/6321-difference-between-xntj-types-xntp-types.html

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-enneagram-other-personality-matrices/6183-how-group-16-types.html

Discussion in some of the threads showed a feeling of different kind of likeness within different kinds of groups.

For example, in the last thread, Hap gave this analysis of the types divided by your suggested structure:

SJ -- the world is unstable, but I have the method to order it

NJ -- the world is chaotic, but I have insight to carry me through

NP -- the world has order, I just have to find it

SP -- the world exists, innit that great?

 

[Eric B]

Once again, everyone, Keirsey did not just cobble arbitrary letters together; he mapped a pre-existing system to the MBTI (and the Fudjack article doesn't seem to realize this either). The system had it's own symmetrical framework, which differed from MBTI. Hence, the partial symmetry of the mapping.
Basically, he used a version of ancient temperament theory, which was filtered through Kretschmer's Character Styles. (Hypomanic, Depressive, Hyperesthetic, Anasthetic). The first two were Cyclothymes, and matched S, and as "gay vs. sad", differed by J/P. The latter two were Schizothymes and matched N, but as "sensitive vs. cold" differed by T/F.

The article creates a good analogy:

To each of the letters involved, we will assign another concrete meaning, in the following way -

F= fat
T= skinny
N= female
S= male
J= poor
P= rich

When we do this, we can see that whereas the MBTI grouping is rather like saying,
There are four types of people - fat men (SF), skinny men (ST), fat women (NF) and skinny women (NT)
The Keirsey grouping is equivalent to saying,
There are four types of people - fat women (NF), skinny women (NT), rich males (SP) and poor males (SJ)

Two of the groups look totally irrelevant to the others. But what Keirsey had in effect done was take an old observation. (And it's funny how close to reality this is!) Women are judged by their looks, not their wealth (especially when in the past, most of their identity outside of looks was tied to the man anyway). Men are judged by their achievements, including wealth. It doesn't matter whether they are fat or skinny. So let's say in social constructs, these are what are looked at, and you have four asymmetrical groups. What ties these scales together is a scale of good vs bad. Fat women and poor men are seen as failures. Skinny women and rich men are sucesses. Hence, the old system did have its own symmetry.
Someone later comes around and identifes four dichotomies measuring fat vs skinny and rich vs poor across the board, creating a new symmetry, and ignores the good/bad scale. Yet one person focuses on the old four groups, and maps them partially to the four across the board scales.

Fudjack later goes into "opposites". Like SJ and NT being opposites. They are according to Keirsey's system, but this is where Berens system comes in handy. For SJ and NT do share something in common called "Structure focus". And NF and SP share "Motive focus". In the way I correlate these groups with the ancient temperaments, this new factor is more important than S/N, which ties together opposites in the old Galen system. Hence, the true opposites would be those sharing the same perception code. Like SP vs SJ. Even though both are S, still, P and J are in fact opposites in the MBTI system, so these are more logical opposites than SJ and NT, where S and N are opposite, but J and T are neither opposite, nor a common anchor in the symmetry like S is in SJ/SP. Likewise for NT vs NF. F and T are opposites.

As for replacing NT and NF with NJ and NP, what you have then are simply "perception attitudes". And yes, they are meaningful disinctions in the types. But then, you also have the judging attitudes as someone mentioned: TJ, TP, FJ, FP, and of course, the original function preference pairs: ST, SF, NT, NF. Apparently, Keirsey identifid the "core needs" of temperament in the former Kretschmer groups rather than these letter pairs, and he came to reject the cognitive functions anyway, so two of those symmetrical groups were irrelevant anyway, except on the S side where they corresponded to two of the temperaments.

Interesting. I had never heard of this before. I don't see how an ESFP is any less fond of cooperative tendencies than an ENFP though (as an example):

That originally threw me off too. But ESFP and ENFP are both Informative, and Motive focused, which both mean very people (rather than task) focused. Cooperative vs utilitarian sounds like the same kind of thing, but it is really more about action. Cooperatives do "what's right", while utilitarians do "what works". So utilitarians will tend to be quicker to act, while cooperatives will more likely seek permission first. So to me, C/U is sort of like the "introversion/extroversion" of Keirsey's temperaments. (The real I/E are apart of the Interaction Styles, which are a different area of temperament).

 

[simulatedworld]

Keirsey's temperaments are mostly garbage, especially NF and NT. NTPs are dramatically different from NTJs; in fact, we're more similar to STPs than we are to them.

The same holds true for NFPs; they're much closer to SFP than they are to NFJ so the whole idea of NT and NF temperaments is dumb.

NJ/NP/SJ/SP works a little bit better but is still inferior because those are just rehashings of the four perceiving functions:

NJ = Ni
NP = Ne
SJ = Si
SP = Se


imho, the best temperament divisions, if any exist at all, are EP/IP/EJ/IJ.

Note that these describe functional attitudes rather than the functions themselves. If we divide them according to use of extroverted Judgment (Je, meaning Te/Fe), introverted Judgment (Ji, or Ti/Fi), extroverted Perception (Pe, or Ne/Se) and introverted Perception (Pi, or Ni/Si), we get much more useful temperaments because we see similar life attitudes and approaches to learning:

EPs all have dominant Pe, secondary Ji, tertiary Je, and inferior Pi. They favor a hands-on, direct experiential and exploratory approach to learning that operates by leaping right in and figuring things out through direct experimentation with the external environment, and then using these experiences to formulate internal rule systems by which future data will be evaluated.

IPs are Ji, Pe, Pi, Je. They work best by forming a consistent internal set of principles through careful consideration, and then experimenting externally to see when and where these principles may be applied most effectively.

EJs are Je, Pi, Pe, Ji. They operate by organizing and controlling the external environment and other people first, then by turning inward to reconsider and reevaluate different viewpoints and philosophies on which these decisions are made.

IJs are Pi, Je, Ji, Pe. They depend upon contemplation of abstract internal vision which is then used to make a plan for organizing the outer world into useful constructs for completing their goals.

If you think about it you'll see that these divisions represent a lot more attitudinal similarities than do NP/NJ/SP/SJ, because those only describe the perceiving function--these describe overall life philosophy/learning style in much greater depth.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I think at the heart of me, I am an idealist, so NF temperament works. The I and J do change things up a bit, but I can see where the NJ/NP divisions wouldn't work either. I think I have more in common with some INFPs than ENTJs, for example. Other than being focused and structured, I think we are completely different in outlook; ENTJs being practical and me being idealistic. But then again I have more in common with INTJ than possibly any other type.

 

[Valiant]

I agree. Obviously, because I came up with the same idea.



Oh, and take a look at this:

The 'Keirsey Stratagem' - What Is It and Can It Help Us to Clarify the Relationship Between the Enneagram and MBTI?

Aww, crap I always reinvent the wheel

 

[Athenian200]

Aww, crap I always reinvent the wheel

Well, you actually did good. You said it succinctly enough that you didn't confuse people. I tend to write things like that, when I think of them, in a really elaborate, complex manner that people tend to ignore and dislike (unless they're really bored, geeky INTPs, then they seem to love it).

Most of the people who brought it up previously weren't so obvious or clear about it.

 

[Valiant]

Well, you actually did good. You said it succinctly enough that you didn't confuse people. I tend to write things like that, when I think of them, in a really elaborate, complex manner that people tend to ignore and dislike (unless they're really bored, geeky INTPs, then they seem to love it).

Most of the people who brought it up previously weren't so obvious or clear about it.

It's kinda the point of ENTJs, I believe.
And thank you kindly.