Oh, how it irks me!

[MerkW]

I have always been irked by the fact that MBTI types are divided into NT, SP, SJ, and NF, all because of the KTI. I'm not quite sure why this irritates me, but it just seems ideologically inconsistent for whatever reason. One thing I like about socionics is this aspect, where the divisions are (1) NF humanitarian, (2) ST Pragmatic, (3) SF Socialite, and (4) NT Researcher.

Does anyone else feel the same? Do you think the original MBTI divisions should be re-instated?

[Magic Poriferan]

I really hate it.

There is technically no "correct" way to categorize them, so why not do something that is at least more convenient?
Like, NT, NF, SF, ST. I combine that with EP, EJ, IJ, IP. Those don't suddenly change the place of the letters in question.

I do believe the core letters and the book-end letters should be grouped separately, because they are significantly different.
The core ones like NF are more about how you think, whereas the outside ones like EP are more about how you apply your thoughts.
Like the dynamo and its gyro.

[MerkW]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

I really hate it.

There is technically no "correct" way to categorize them, so why not do something that is at least more convenient?
Like, NT, NF, SF, ST. I combine that with EP, EJ, IJ, IP. Those don't suddenly change the place of the letters in question.

I do believe the core letters and the book-end letters should be grouped separately, because they are significantly different.
The core ones like NF are more about how you think, whereas the outside ones like EP are more about how you apply your thoughts.
Like the dynamo and its gyro.

Agreed. I like this method much more.

Also, just for the record:

IP = Melancholy
EJ = Choleric
IJ = Phlegmatic
EP = Sanguine

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by Merkw

Agreed. I like this method much more.

Also, just for the record:

IP = Melancholy
EJ = Choleric
IJ = Phlegmatic
EP = Sanguine

Dude! I totally already thought of that! Except, I actually thought IP was more fitting for Phlegmatic and IJ for Melancholy.

[htb]

Originally Posted by Merkw

IP = Melancholy
EJ = Choleric
IJ = Phlegmatic
EP = Sanguine

This arrangement validates some impressions of mine, as I test as a Choleric. IPs and IJs tend towards contemplation and conjecture in a way that I don't; and many of those types claim, here, to use avoidance as a technique in conflict resolution, which makes me think of the kind of people who so clam up that I want to pry them open with a crowbar.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Merkw

I have always been irked by the fact that MBTI types are divided into NT, SP, SJ, and NF, all because of the KTI. I'm not quite sure why this irritates me, but it just seems ideologically inconsistent for whatever reason. One thing I like about socionics is this aspect, where the divisions are (1) NF humanitarian, (2) ST Pragmatic, (3) SF Socialite, and (4) NT Researcher.

Does anyone else feel the same? Do you think the original MBTI divisions should be re-instated?

I agree that they don't always fit. For instance, I don't necessarily get along well with INFP's due to the shared NF... in fact I argue with INFP's so much I've taken to avoiding them because it's painful to deal with them. I can get along with ENFJ's well enough, but they make me feel like I'm on the defensive at times, like they must want something from me, and it makes me feel like I have to stay alert so that they don't trick me into making them look good at my own expense (it's usually a false impression induced by paranoia, though it has been accurate in rare cases. I'm not sure what causes it). I'm usually fairly comfortable with other INFJ's and ENFP's, though.

I prefer to divide the types into INxx, ESxx, ENxx, and ISxx, although even that doesn't totally express the types I get along with well. Another one I've found that works well is matching up all four types that have the same dominant function in Introverted and Extraverted forms.

That still doesn't explain why I can usually get along with INTP's better than INFP's despite the former's reputation for being more critical, and cold/distant than the latter. Or why INTPs and INFP's get along with each other so well. I guess there are some things that can't be explained very well yet...

I seriously wonder if it makes sense to group types according to letters, though... it might have more to do with functional interactions.

[DaRick]

Originally Posted by athenian200

I agree that they don't always fit.

I prefer to divide the types into INxx, ESxx, ENxx, and ISxx, although even that doesn't totally express the types I get along with well. Another one I've found that works well is matching up all four types that have the same dominant function in Introverted and Extraverted forms.

I seriously wonder if it makes sense to group types according to letters, though... it might have more to do with functional interactions.

Yes, personalitypage.com does use the Extraverted/Introverted function theory when picking or predicting life partners (i.e - ISTJ should go with ESFP/ESTP). However, I'm not so sure if this washes with me. I have mixed relationships with the ENFP's I have met (I know many), although I have a workable relationship with the ENTP that I know - although I dislike his over-competitive and backstabbing tendencies.

typelogic.com also presents these definitons for relationship pairs, contradicting the above theory:

Advisor: each has an area of insight that the other lacks (i.e: both types share the first two letters - INTJ/INFP)
Cohort: mutually drawn into experiential escapades (i.e: both types only share the third letter - INTJ/ESTP)
Companion: similar modes of expression: bear each other's company well (i.e: both types share the first two letters and the last letter- INTJ/INFJ)
Complement: compatible strengths with opposite emphases (i.e: both types share the first three letters - INTJ/INTP)
Supplement: like Pal, but functions are farther removed: each can add to the other's strengths (i.e: both types share the first letter - INTJ/ISFP)
Tribesman: share a sense of culture, but with different interests and abilities (i.e: both types share the second and last letter - INTJ/ENFJ)
Anima: fits Dr. Beebe's description of the anima/anumus: each is the other's inferior (4th) function (i.e: complete opposites -INTJ/ESFP)
Contrast: point and counterpoint on each function (both types share the middle two letters - INTJ/ENTP)
Counterpart: perform similar functions in totally different realms (both types share the last two letters - INTJ/ESTJ)
Enigma: a puzzle: totally foreign in nearly every facet (both types share the bookending letters - INTJ/ISFJ)
Identity: same types: a typological mirror-image
Neighbor: arrive at the same place by variant processes (both types share the first, third and last letters - INTJ/ISTJ)
Novelty: intriguingly different: interestingly so (both types only share the last letter - INTJ/ESFJ)
Pal: work and play well together: minimal natural type conflict (both types share the last three letters - INTJ/ENTJ)
Pedagogue: each is both the other's mentor and student: has a "parent to child" feel (both types share only the second letter - INTJ/ENFP)
Suitemate: a person one might be comfortable sharing an office. Prefer similar climates, but don't necessarily have much in common as far as goals or world view (both types share the first/third letters - INTJ/ISTP)

Personally, I get along well with most types - with the exception of INTP's, whose social and moral irresponsibility and backstabbing tendencies have left me nothing short of upset at times (the ones that I've met, anyway). They also seem to be egotistical and weird for the sake of weird, to put it that way. People have referred to me as 'weird', but I've never tried to be weird. I get along reasonably well with INFP's and ISFP's and surprisingly, one of my best friends is an ESFP. Although he is well-meaning, he disappoints me with his lack of social fortitude, irresponsibility, lack of intuition and even intellect (not to be rude). He also makes me look like a person with great common-sense (and that's saying quite a lot). The controlling tendencies and bluntness that seem to be characteristic of the STJ's I've come across is also irksome, although one of my best friends is an ESTJ. I get along fine with ISFJ's and ESFJ's and can indeed relate to the ISFJ. I also work well with ENFJ's, INFJ's, ENTJ's and ISTP's, although the ENTJ/ISTP tactlessness and even pettiness (at their worst) is a stumbling block for me. I get along OK with other INTJ's, even though how well depends on the extent that they have developed their Feeling side.

In general, I admit that my best relationships over the years have been with F's, although the FJ's in my life have disappointed me less than FP's.

[MerkW]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

Dude! I totally already thought of that! Except, I actually thought IP was more fitting for Phlegmatic and IJ for Melancholy.

Indeed. I have been having some trouble deciding whether IP is Melancholy or Phlegmatic. Regardless, EJ is definitely choleric and EP is definitely Sanguine.

To DaRick: What is wrong with acting weird for the sake of doing so? I'm surprised that you, a 4w5 sp, would say such.

In accordance with Lenore Thomson's theories, INxPs are perhaps the most idiosyncratic of all types, due to Ne as the auxiliary function.

INxPs of all types are most likely to have a particularly strong urge to do things differently--to separate themselves from the masses. They are mos likely to have a penchant for things outside-of-the-box and are most likely to strongly embrace individualism.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Merkw

Agreed. I like this method much more.
Also, just for the record:
IP = Melancholy
EJ = Choleric
IJ = Phlegmatic
EP = Sanguine

Phlegmatics tend to be P's.

And melancholics are more traditionally assigned to J's.

And you still need to be careful when dealing with J/P.... because they are not functions. You cannot treat them as if they were just one more pair like I/E, S/N, or T/F.

[Zergling]

I would actually be surprised if, for predictions of friendships, relationships, controlling tendencies, and such, there would be one single pattern that could predict across MBTI types how these things would work across all the types. Most other simplified classification system have such exceptions, and MBTI comes from an extremely simplified version of how people's minds work.

(Periodic table trends in chemistry are a great example of this, although elements have enough properties in common to make the table in the first place, there are quitea lot of exceptions and oddities that aren't predictibale without outside information.)

I have always been irked by the fact that MBTI types are divided into NT, SP, SJ, and NF, all because of the KTI. I'm not quite sure why this irritates me, but it just seems ideologically inconsistent for whatever reason. One thing I like about socionics is this aspect, where the divisions are (1) NF humanitarian, (2) ST Pragmatic, (3) SF Socialite, and (4) NT Researcher.

Whether or not toe Keirsey divisions actually work well on their own or not, I'm not surprised to see a different way of classifying S's and N's. If people's minds do work with the functions as described, it's not surprising that functions would interact in unusual ways to produce different behaviour patterns of S's and N's (Or other letter differences), to cause them to be classified differently in some system.