How to group the 16 types?

[Jeffster]

I voted for the nt-nf-st-sf one.

nt = logically abstract
nf = emotionally abstract
st = logically concrete
sf = emotionally concrete

[Haphazard]

Out of all of these, I like the NP, NJ, SP, SJ organization. How somebody sees their world seems like the most important thing -- how they deem what's important seems secondary (however, this may have something to do with being an INJ).

Then again, it seems like it'd be most helpful if you got to add introversion/extroversion (ESJ, ENJ, INJ, ISJ, ISP, INP, ESP, ENP). Fe and Te are pretty similar, and so are Fi and Ti, to an extent, but the direction of sensing and judging makes a lot of differences, even if they're not easily perceivable.

[alcea rosea]

Every grouping has it's advantages when trying to understand types and people.

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by Haphazard

Out of all of these, I like the NP, NJ, SP, SJ organization. How somebody sees their world seems like the most important thing -- how they deem what's important seems secondary (however, this may have something to do with being an INJ).

How would you describe the world views of each of the groups with a few words?

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by Randomnity

I think the most important variable is --XX. FJs, TJs, FPs, and TPs are pretty obviously distinct groups to me. J/P tells the attitude of the person, and T/F tells the focus of that attitude.

What makes the types within those groups similar with each other, and different from types in other groups, in your opinion?

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Santtu

How would you describe the world views of each of the groups with a few words?

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?

["?"]

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.

["?"]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

As a general point, consistency and symmetry are important. I hate the way Keirsey made the Temperaments based on different variables...

Any one of the possible permutations is better than Keirsey's system if you remain consistent. I have put a great deal of analysis into all of them, and they all have interesting, unique qualities. They could all be useful. I do try to avoid overlap, though. Hence -xx- and x--x. It would seem silly to me to combine -xx- with -x-x, as it is redundant on one, and leaves another out.

I was in agreement with that for years until I read Berens work on why he made the change. STPs have very little in common with SFJs and probably the same for SFPs and STJs. In fact if you think about it Ti/Fe or Te/Fi respectively are the the dominant and auxiliary functions for the eight types which are antagonistic.

[Haphazard]

I still like EP EJ IP IJ, though. I guess that'd be my second choice.

EP: I must explore
EJ: I must conquer
IP: I must understand
IJ: I must act

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by "?"

It seems that some of your examples are apple/orange comparisons

It's just an exhaustive list of regular divisions you can do with the 4 dichotomies, nothing more, nothing less. I haven't attempted to inject it with "meaning" or significance or to remove de-facto duplicates. And yes, it's a dichotomy-based construction. Why? People regularly talk of IN, FJ, EF, etc. I'm covering that angle, and exactly that angle.

But yes, the templates map to cognitive functions in a different way. Good commentary on that. And as expected, some of the groupings seem more meaningful and useful than others.

Key:
Px = Perceiving function, either N or S, in either i or e variety
Jx = Judging function, either T or F, in either i or e variety
Xi = Perceiving or Judging function of the introverted variety
Xe = Perceiving or Judging function of the extroverted variety
strong = having a certain function in 2 of the most dominant places.

is-in-es-en (xx--) Division of types by the orientation of their dominant function and their top perceiving function, Sx or Nx. Types within the groups have I + strong Sx, I + strong Nx, E + strong Sx, or E + strong Nx.
it-if-et-ef (x-x-) Division of types by the orientation of their dominant function and their top judging function, Tx or Fx. Types within the groups have I + strong Tx, I + strong Fx, E + strong Tx, or E + strong Fx.
ip-ij-ep-ej (x--x) Division of types by the consciousness level (perceiving = unconscious, judging = consicious) and the attitude of their dominant function. Types within the groups have dominant Pi, Ji, Pe or Je.
st-sf-nt-nf (-xx-) Division of types by their top Px and Jx. Types within the groups have strong Sx and Tx, Sx and Fx, Nx and Tx, or Nx and Fx.
sp-sj-np-nj (-x-x) Division of types by their top P function and it's orientation. Types within the groups have strong Si, Se, Ni or Ne.
tp-tj-fp-fj (--xx) Division of types by their top J function and it's orientation. Types within the groups have strong Ti, Te, Fi or Fe.

Yes it's a oddball combination of type groupings. The first 2 seem most irregular and oddball to me.