Is MBTT type compatible with Keirsey type?

[snegledmaca]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Socionics = MBTI = Kiersey

They all have such miniscule differences you may as well call them by the same name:

Type theory.

Personally, I prefer the socionics lettering system best.

ILE
intuitive logical extratrim
N first T second
Because N is first, and I'm extratrim, it's Ne which forces Thinking into the introverted position.

QED ILE = ENTP

QED II Socionics = MBTI

Keirsey even uses the same letters. His only claim to fame is that he organized them all into the four groups. It's the same types.
Keirsey == MBTI.

This is a big misconception and I'll tell you why.

In it's foundation socionics holds kepinski's informational metabolism, an idea that is not present in any shape or form in western typologies (MBTT, Enneagram and so on). The informational metabolism ties socionics directly to information theory. I myself have even tried building various information exchange models between people (Or more concretely, between black boxes with the model A as a model of their internal functioning. Limited success as I was superficial and doing it more or less as hobby, didn't really "try hard" at it). The differences between the systems are fundamental really, not superficial. In essence socionics may look like it's psychology but it really isn't, it's an emerging branch of information theory, so to say Socionics = MBTI = Kiersey is just wrong.

[Uberfuhrer]

MBTI = psychology

Keirsey = sociology

Socionics = spirituality

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

MBTI = psychology

Keirsey = sociology

Socionics = spirituality

socionics=scientology

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Socionics = MBTI = Kiersey

They all have such miniscule differences you may as well call them by the same name:

Type theory.

Personally, I prefer the socionics lettering system best.

ILE
intuitive logical extratrim
N first T second
Because N is first, and I'm extratrim, it's Ne which forces Thinking into the introverted position.

QED ILE = ENTP

QED II Socionics = MBTI

Keirsey even uses the same letters. His only claim to fame is that he organized them all into the four groups. It's the same types.
Keirsey == MBTI.

I refer to the "family name" of these systems: "EISeNFelT": Extroversion/Introversion/Sensing/iNtuition/Feeling/Thinking.

Even though the three may be different theories, they do use those letters, and even if Socionics is some other kind of theory, it still has the 16 types with variations of those letters (in addition to its little block symbols, and the alternate three letter acronyms).

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by marmalade

I will I consider those who have extended MBTT as being a part of MBTT. Accordingly, Beebe's descriptions of the 8 roles provides the same type of thing that you find in Socionics. I consider KTT to be a bit different, but still in the MBTT family because its using the MBTI language that is based on MBTT. Berens' aknowledges this by how she combines the two theories together. If you include Beebe and Kiersey with MBTT, then you have a system that covers all the same basic aspects as Socionics.

KTT always throws me off, and I've been trying to figure it out off and on for some time. I accept it is pointing out a pattern that Kiersey for whatever reason wasn't capable of figuring out his own language to describe it and so he turned to MBTT. The only way he managed to get 16 types out of 4 temperaments is by working back from MBTT. However, I've thought that KTT might be more valid if it could discover its own language, and I recently realized that Bererns' has accomplished this even though she doesn't point it out clearly. She doesn't need MBTT at all to describe temperaments and interaction styles and with these two she can come to the same basic 16 types.

Since Keirsey modified the MBTI, keeping two of its factors (S/N, I/E), but
sort of swapping T/F and J/P into the new factors of Cooperative vs.
Utilitarianism, and Directive vs. Informative; I wondered if it would have been
better for him to use C, U, D and let's say "R" for "infoRmative", or perhaps
"Responsive" which is another term for it.
Also, since he believes that S/N is the most important, followed by C/U, D/R,
and finally E/I as the "least important", the letter codes would be put in that
order. The 16 types would then become:

ISTJ: SCDI
ISTP: SUDI
ISFJ: SCRI
ISFP: SURI
ESFP: SURE
ESFJ: SCRE
ESTP: SUDE
ESTJ: SCDE
INFJ: NCDI
INFP: NCRI
INTJ: NUDI
INTP: NURI
ENFJ: NCDE
ENFP: NCRE
ENTP: NURE
ENTJ: NUDE

The temperaments would become SU Artisan, SC Guardian, NU Rational and NC Idealist. Then it would have its own identity (using its own language). Notice also, it would be more symmetrical than the mapping to the MBTI scales. (NF, NT, SJ, SP).
The only problem would be the ENTJ being called "NUDE". Well, if you don't put it in Keirsey's order of importance, then it would simply be ENUD.

In her books on Temperament and Interaction Styles, she shows 3 orthogonal traits for each Temperament and each Interaction Style. However, both theories each borrow one orthogonal trait from MBTT(E/I, N/S). We can discard these borrowings because the remaining 4 orthogonal variables are all that is necessary to create the 16 types using absolutely no MBTT whatsoever. I just figured this out and I'm surprised that Berens hasn't pointed this out herself, but I have yet to see her do so.

If you're talking about C/U, D/R (mentioned above), Structure/Motive and Control/Movement; I believe most of these (in addition to I/E) would make it parallel FIRO's Inclusion and Control areas, even though the statistical correlations between the two systems always use E/I, S/N, T/F and J/P. C/U, D/R and Str/M are basically "twisted" versions of T/F and J/P. Both Str/M and Control/Movement pair dimatric opposites together.
Again, if he had used letters representing his own factors, then it would be as you say.

I have a theory as why the MBTI letters can be used to describe the KTT which is seemingly contradictory to MBTT. In MBTI Step II(I haven't seen Step III), the letters are broken down in the style of traits. According to Jungian theory of cognitive processes, J/P make no sense. If considered from a behavioral viewpoint, they do make sense. The letters refer to behavioral traits, and its from interpreting these behavioral traits according to MBTT that we infer the cognitive processes. Type code and cognitive processes are two different things.

So, this is why type code can be used to also describe KTT. Type code is a descriptive language that isn't limited by MBTT. On the level of traits, J/P and T/F are equivalent categories and so that is why its fair for Kiersey to use them this way. Kiersey was correct that, even though the theories contradict, the observations of the two systems correlate.

I'm just playing around with these ideas right now. I still don't know if Temperaments and Interaction Styles makes sense to me or not, but I'm trying to understand them.

Basically what you have are two sets of "four temperaments" systems cross mapped over each other. One is Keirsey's temperaments, and the other are Berens' Interaction Styles. Both together share one of each type between the four groupings they comprise. If anyone knows LaHaye's temperament system, where he uses the ancient Galenic names, and then blends them together (SanMel, MelChlor, etc); he ends up basically with 16 types (four "pure" types, and the 12 blends), and they can be compared with the MBTI types, if you know which Keirsey temperament, and which Interaction Style compare to which of the ancient temperaments. Berens herself does this with Social Styles, Personality Styles and DISC types in her article "Loning Interaction Styles to Other Models".

[Mondo]

I think that cognitive functions (just as in MBTI) would be the same for Keirsey's theory.

Meyers has her own temperament theory, but it is NT, NF, ST & SF and she doesn't seem to focus on it much, preferring to rely on cognitive functions to explain personality.
This is true in some sense.

The ENTJ & ESTJ are both tough minded and aggressive types, while the INFP & ISFP are both sensitive and quiet types.

However, Keirsey looked at other personality theories in the past (with four different temperaments) and realized that Meyers' SJ's and SP's fit those theories better.

Besides that, everything else is the same.
I personally like Keirsey's theory for that I think it makes it easier to type others.
An ESTJ is more like an ESFJ than an ESTP.
However, an ENTJ is a lot more like an ENTP than an ENFJ.

Interesting.. according to what someone else said about Keirsey.. here would be the opposites.

INFP-ESTP
ENFP-ISTP
INFJ-ESFP
ENFJ-ISFP
INTP-ESTJ
INTJ-ESFJ
ENTP-ISTJ
ENTJ-ISFJ

The SFJ's would clearly oppose the NTP's, in terms of preferences, and so on and in personality.

These would be opposites in terms of leadership style- which isn't the same as personality.

This makes sense for that the INFP & ESTJ would both take a cooperative style even though they are opposites. The INTP & ESTP are both less cooperative and more utilitarian.
The INFP & ESTP would still have more similar personalities than the INFP/ESTJ since both prefer to go with the flow and are disorganized. The INTP and ESTJ are both objective and tough-minded and the ESTJ would find that to be a difference from the more thin-skinned INFP.

The one thing I don't understand about Keirsey's theory is this whole 'directive' and 'informing' dichotomy. I would say that thinking and judging types, in general, are more directing.
However, as for the TP & FJ types, I would put them in some mixture of directive/informing.

Just because someone is an ESFJ instead of an ENFJ, doesn't all of a sudden give them a less directive leading style.
An ISTP doesn't have a more directive leading style than an INTP. It is just that the INTJ is MORE directive than the INTP and the ISFP is LESS directive than the ISTP.
I know that there is a theory out there which has extraverted directive types and so on.. however, Keirsey is only comparing each type relative to others in its own temperament. I think that might clear up some issues.

Guardians like order and will naturally be bossy types.
Artisans like spontaneity and will let more things slide.

I prefer this
Directive: INTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, ESTJ (2 Guardians, 2 Rationals)
Directive/Informing: INTP, ENTP, ISTP, ESTP, INFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, ESFJ (2 Rationals, 2 Guardians, 2 Idealists, 2 Artisans)
Informing: INFP, ENFP, ISFP, ESFP (2 Idealists, 2 Artisans)

I think this makes more sense.

[Ezra]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

Socionics = spirituality

I don't know where you got that idea from. Read socionics.

[Ezra]

Originally Posted by Mondo

However, Keirsey looked at other personality theories in the past (with four different temperaments) and realized that Meyers' SJ's and SP's fit those theories better.

I thought MBTT had the temperaments down as ST, SF, NT and NF, and Keirsey looked at these and thought that two STs and two SFs had more in common with one another than did all the STs or all the SFs have in common with one another, thus giving birth to the SJs and the SPs. I had no idea Myers and Briggs were the original proponents of this idea.

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by Mondo

I think that cognitive functions (just as in MBTI) would be the same for Keirsey's theory.

Meyers has her own temperament theory, but it is NT, NF, ST & SF and she doesn't seem to focus on it much, preferring to rely on cognitive functions to explain personality.
This is true in some sense.

The ENTJ & ESTJ are both tough minded and aggressive types, while the INFP & ISFP are both sensitive and quiet types.

However, Keirsey looked at other personality theories in the past (with four different temperaments) and realized that Meyers' SJ's and SP's fit those theories better.

Besides that, everything else is the same.
I personally like Keirsey's theory for that I think it makes it easier to type others.
An ESTJ is more like an ESFJ than an ESTP.
However, an ENTJ is a lot more like an ENTP than an ENFJ.

Well, that depends on exactly which behavior traits you are looking at.

Interesting.. according to what someone else said about Keirsey.. here would be the opposites.

INFP-ESTP
ENFP-ISTP
INFJ-ESFP
ENFJ-ISFP
INTP-ESTJ
INTJ-ESFJ
ENTP-ISTJ
ENTJ-ISFJ

The SFJ's would clearly oppose the NTP's, in terms of preferences, and so on and in personality.

These would be opposites in terms of leadership style- which isn't the same as personality.

This makes sense for that the INFP & ESTJ would both take a cooperative style even though they are opposites. The INTP & ESTP are both less cooperative and more utilitarian.
The INFP & ESTP would still have more similar personalities than the INFP/ESTJ since both prefer to go with the flow and are disorganized. The INTP and ESTJ are both objective and tough-minded and the ESTJ would find that to be a difference from the more thin-skinned INFP.

The one thing I don't understand about Keirsey's theory is this whole 'directive' and 'informing' dichotomy. I would say that thinking and judging types, in general, are more directing.
However, as for the TP & FJ types, I would put them in some mixture of directive/informing.

This is just what type essayist Roger Bissell has concluded in his "Achilles Tendencies" page: Achilles Tendencies: Exploring Human Frailty and Personality Type
That greatly helped me understand how all this stuff works.

Just because someone is an ESFJ instead of an ENFJ, doesn't all of a sudden give them a less directive leading style.
An ISTP doesn't have a more directive leading style than an INTP. It is just that the INTJ is MORE directive than the INTP and the ISFP is LESS directive than the ISTP.
I know that there is a theory out there which has extraverted directive types and so on.. however, Keirsey is only comparing each type relative to others in its own temperament. I think that might clear up some issues.

Guardians like order and will naturally be bossy types.
Artisans like spontaneity and will let more things slide.

I prefer this
Directive: INTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, ESTJ (2 Guardians, 2 Rationals)
Directive/Informing: INTP, ENTP, ISTP, ESTP, INFJ, ENFJ, ISFJ, ESFJ (2 Rationals, 2 Guardians, 2 Idealists, 2 Artisans)
Informing: INFP, ENFP, ISFP, ESFP (2 Idealists, 2 Artisans)

I think this makes more sense.

The different levels of "directing and Informing" you are seeing are from the influence of Berens' additional "Structure vs Motive" dimension. In fact, as per the middle quote, that is what ties together those "opposite" temperaments (SJ/NT—Structure, and SP/NF—Motive). Structure and Motive are like a parallel to Directing and Informing, and you will notice that your "most directive" (the TJ's) combine both Directing and Structure, while the FP's combine "informing + Motive". The "inbetween" TP's and FJ's combine either Structure + Informing, or Directing + Motive.

Berens, in “Essential Qualities of the Personality Patterns” states: “The Rational and Guardian patterns are characterized by a focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of control over life's problems and irregularities rather than be at the mercy of random forces. The Idealist and Artisan patterns are characterized by a focus on motives and why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure”.
Notice, the former sounds more "critical", while the latter, more "tolerant". Thus, it parallels Directing/Informing. In discussions elsewhere, one SP said that she had more affinity with NF's than with some of the other temperaments. We recognized this as the importance of Structure/Motive. again, it depends on which traits one is looking at in the comparisons.

From a recent discussion, I found that Bissell does not accept the full "D/Inf" or "Structure/Motive" scales, as Keirsey and Berens use them (or Cooperative/Pragmatic for that matter, either), but rather uses a model called the "Normative Temperaments", which are the TJ, TP, FJ and FP groupings themselves, with each identified, respectively, as "the most directive", "the most pragmatic", "the most cooperative", and "the most friendly".