User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

  1. #11
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lily Bart View Post
    Although it bothers me that sensors are grouped one way and intuitives another, and although Black Cat's explanation seems reasonable, I don't think Keirsey conceived of the functions as separate entities in that way. Isabel Myers liked to break down all the different functions and combine them in different ways to see what character traits came up (ie how are all EP's alike or what are the best jobs for IF's) but I think Keirsey was more holistic in his approach. He took the 16 individual type descriptions and organized the descriptions themselves in the ancient tradition of the four humors (he traces variations on this pasttime from Galen up to the early 20tth century). Keirsey reports that Myers confirmed his four groups, but then, as I said before, Myers liked to divide the functions all sorts of different ways to see what she could come up with. Keirsey never looks at type based on individual functions as Myers does, his explanation being that Jung and Myers were interested in what occurs internally and he confined his investigations to what he could observe about personality externally. So although the question of how the functions match up under Keirsey's system is an interesting one, I don't think that Keirsey ever conceived of it that way. In fact, he has a really interesting way of breaking things down based on abstract and concrete use of language and utilitarian and cooperative use of tools that has nothing whatsoever to do with Myers-Briggs.
    Keirsey doesn't even believe in "functions" anymore. He seemed to acknowledge them in PUM1, but by PUM2 had dropped them. He's quoted somewhere as even saying they were figments of Jung's imagination!
    He uses the letter dichotomies, but turns them into temperament traits, instead. (expressive/reserved, concrete/abstract language, tough minded or friendly, "scheduling" vs "probing"). In actuality, it's not really 16 types, but four temperaments, with four "variants" apiece.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  2. #12
    Senior Member compulsiverambler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    That last paragraph is basically a good way of looking at it. And remember it's based off of Keirsey.

    The rest sounds like gibberish. But it sounds somewhat intelligent. You sound like you're talking to get more clarity like Ne users typically do.
    Yeah, sorry about that, lol. I deleted most of what I originally wrote, full of restatements and examples and self-contradictions and corrections and tangents, and just left what I thought might indicate where I'm coming from. Don't know whether I chopped it up in the clearest way possible...

    F and T are how people address reality, as judging functions.
    You can substitute 'the abstract' for non-realities there if you want.

    First paragraph- How did you come to that conclusion about Je doms? Also, replace the word "reality" with "the concrete" in your entire post and it's a bit better. Then you've got it right that Je works with reality (like all judging functions are).

    And this chart doesn't really seem right, what makes you think that that's how it goes?
    I usually use 'concrete' but I was trying to use the word reality as I believed you were using it, as the distinguishing factor between S and N. I'm using 'practicality' to refer to the commonality between Je and S that I think exists.

    They're both more related to practice than theory because they lead more naturally, directly and quickly to activity in and interaction with the external world. Je is about striving for external consequences (whether perceived primarily through S or N), rather than internal consistency (Ji), so represents one way of focusing on the external world.

    In my experience, S is also seen as more practical, because it has more of a direct relationship with the external world and exerts its influence on interaction with the external world in a more immediate, more apparent way. Hence SJs are seen as the most practically minded of all.

    And that idea is what made me write the final paragraph of my last post. It's a suggestion for why the divisions within the Temperament system seem to work. It's interesting that you disagree with the thinking behind it but agree with the conclusion. I wonder if we're talking at crossed purposes.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    136

    Default

    There is a chart in the back of PUMII comparing Keirsey's grouping of the types with Myers' grouping based on dominant function (I/E intuition, I/E sensing, etc). I mentally grouped some of my own acquaintances to see how they fit -- for example, two ENFJ's that I know well with the two ESFJ's that I know well. In some ways the four are very similar. I also compared ISFP's and INFP's that I know and they seemed somewhat alike, as welll. I then put all four types together as a group (I/E Feelers) and it absolutely did not work at all for me. As a group, these eight people are about as much alike as any random group of people you'd run into at the mall. I'm not to the point yet where I'd agree with Keirsey that Myers' groups don't work, and I do see a lot that's useful in looking at the individual functions and how they fit together.

  4. #14
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    Why is J/P more significant for Sensors than for iNtuitors?
    It's not. David Keirsey's NT/NF temperaments are inconsistent and ridiculous, and his SP/SJ ones are simply inefficient restatements of Jung's Se and Si functions.

    "SP" simply means "someone who has Se as one of the top two functions." Same for SJ and Si. If you're going to define temperament simply according to the Perceiving function like this, then SJ/SP/NJ/NP would make more sense.

    But NT and NF don't even make sense as groupings because they imply totally different functional sets. "NT" could mean Ne+Ti/Ti+Ne, or Te+Ni/Ni+Te. These represent profoundly different cognitive priorities.

    For instance, ENTPs (Ne+Ti) are more similar to ESFPs (Se+Fi) in our exploratory, sporadic, quickly adaptable, "blaze a trail and figure it out as you go because interesting experience is the most important thing" attitudes than we are to ENTJs (Te+Ni), despite having more letters in common with ENTJ.

    While we share zero functions with either type, the important common thread between ENTP and ESFP is the Pe+Ji functional attitude. ENTJs approach everything from a totally different standpoint than this because they extrovert judgment and introvert perception.

    P/J is the most significant letter for all types, regardless of S/N orientation. Personally I suggest looking at it as EP/EJ/IP/IJ; this gives you the most insight as to similarities and differences in functional attitudes and life philosophies.


    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    The different organization attitudes are more noticeable in the sensors, and the different judgment attitudes are more noticeable in the intuitives. I'd say that since intuition is mainly a mental thing, that the preferred judgment would go right along with that. And since sensing is based externally, it would be noticeable if a sensor would prefer to be mentally organized (P), or outwardly organized (J).
    No, it's a mistake to say that Sensing is based externally and iNtuition internally. That's only true of Se and Ni.

    When speaking of Ne or Si, the opposite is true.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #15
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    It's not. David Keirsey's NT/NF temperaments are inconsistent and ridiculous, and his SP/SJ ones are simply inefficient restatements of Jung's Se and Si functions.

    "SP" simply means "someone who has Se as one of the top two functions." Same for SJ and Si. If you're going to define temperament simply according to the Perceiving function like this, then SJ/SP/NJ/NP would make more sense.
    Bullcrap. Use your eyes and ears and you can observe the temperaments in action. The people who can't see them are the people who live in their mind and never leave the house.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  6. #16
    Senior Member compulsiverambler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    "SP" simply means "someone who has Se as one of the top two functions." Same for SJ and Si. If you're going to define temperament simply according to the Perceiving function like this, then SJ/SP/NJ/NP would make more sense.

    But NT and NF don't even make sense as groupings because they imply totally different functional sets. "NT" could mean Ne+Ti/Ti+Ne, or Te+Ni/Ni+Te. These represent profoundly different cognitive priorities.

    For instance, ENTPs (Ne+Ti) are more similar to ESFPs (Se+Fi) in our exploratory, sporadic, quickly adaptable, "blaze a trail and figure it out as you go because interesting experience is the most important thing" attitudes than we are to ENTJs (Te+Ni), despite having more letters in common with ENTJ.

    While we share zero functions with either type, the important common thread between ENTP and ESFP is the Pe+Ji functional attitude. ENTJs approach everything from a totally different standpoint than this because they extrovert judgment and introvert perception.

    P/J is the most significant letter for all types, regardless of S/N orientation. Personally I suggest looking at it as EP/EJ/IP/IJ; this gives you the most insight as to similarities and differences in functional attitudes and life philosophies.




    No, it's a mistake to say that Sensing is based externally and iNtuition internally. That's only true of Se and Ni.

    When speaking of Ne or Si, the opposite is true.
    These are the thoughts I've had throughout the thread, and I've tried to articulate most of them; the difference being that I do in practice find the differences between Si and Se types to seem more obvious or significant than the differences between Ni and Ne types (except in interaction styles, as EricB points out), I just couldn't decide why that would be. I've come to a possible explanation, which because of communication problems may or not be ultimately the same as BlackCat's, that I'm fairly satisfied with for the time being. I do now think there may be something relatively more 'internal' about N and relatively more 'external' about S, but in quite a specific sense. In my last few posts I tried to describe that sense, I'm not sure how successfully.

  7. #17
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Bullcrap. Use your eyes and ears and you can observe the temperaments in action. The people who can't see them are the people who live in their mind and never leave the house.
    Honestly?

    I see race, region, and socioeconomic status when I use my eyes and ears. Not type.

    Type is an abstraction, an idea. It's a language for talking about subjective beliefs people tend to have about people. If you think it's as real as the color red... yikes. Good luck with that.

    I never believed type was something that existed in reality, I thought of it as a shorthand for describing subjective impressions and assumptions we tend to make about people that not everyone would agree on.

  8. #18
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Honestly?

    I see race, region, and socioeconomic status when I use my eyes and ears. Not type.

    Type is an abstraction, an idea. It's a language for talking about subjective beliefs people tend to have about people. If you think it's as real as the color red... yikes. Good luck with that.

    I never believed type was something that existed in reality, I thought of it as a shorthand for describing subjective impressions and assumptions we tend to make about people that not everyone would agree on.
    Exhibit A. You've talked about how you don't interact with people very often.

    For those that do, the behaviors described by Keirsey are very evident in people. It doesn't take much talking to someone to figure out whether they are primarily sensation-seeking, security-seeking, knowledge-seeking, or identity-seeking. It comes out in nearly everything they say and in the choices they make. These behaviors have always been observable, Keirsey just gave labels to them and focuses on the most obvious traits, giving examples so people could understand them simply.

    The kind of "abstraction" you are talking about is probably the attempt to figure out someone's mental processes that Jung did, and you're right that those are assumptions and not observable. The confusing part is people keep trying to combine these studies in ways that don't make sense. Keirsey never said "Artisans use Se", he said "Artisans demonstrate the same observable behaviors that Myers labeled SP." People seem to be confused by that for some reason, it seems pretty clear to me. Keirsey looked at the groupings that Myers made and pulled out the ones that were the most clearly observable groups according to his research. But he has stopped using the Myers-Briggs letters in his latest works because people too often accused him of being a "heretic" when it came to personality theories.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  9. #19
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Exhibit A. You've talked about how you don't interact with people very often.
    Okay, fair enough. But I'm sure I can find people who interact with others frequently and still don't see them. In other words, it's possible that the groupings would not be recreated along the same lines by someone who had never been exposed to Keirseyian theory, but that someone who has might start seeing people fall into those groupings. They might create more than 4, or fewer than 4. I need a way to test that idea, though, and I'll let you know as soon as I come up with something.

    I'm determined to either prove you right, or prove you wrong now, as much as you dismiss my ideas on the basis of "not interacting with people enough." If arguments won't convince either of us, I guess we'll need measurable data and repeatable experiments.


    For those that do, the behaviors described by Keirsey are very evident in people. It doesn't take much talking to someone to figure out whether they are primarily sensation-seeking, security-seeking, knowledge-seeking, or identity-seeking. It comes out in nearly everything they say and in the choices they make. These behaviors have always been observable, Keirsey just gave labels to them and focuses on the most obvious traits, giving examples so people could understand them simply.
    The thing is, in MBTI theory, being "sensation-seeking, security-seeking, knowledge-seeking, and identity-seeking" have nothing to do with cognitive functions. A person could use several different sets of cognitive functions towards the same goal. For instance, you could use Te in a security-seeking (finding organization for security), sensation-seeking (finding the most efficient and safe way to pursue recreation), or knowledge-seeking manner (simply looking for the most efficient and effective way to do something).

    The kind of "abstraction" you are talking about is probably the attempt to figure out someone's mental processes that Jung did, and you're right that those are assumptions and not observable. The confusing part is people keep trying to combine these studies in ways that don't make sense. Keirsey never said "Artisans use Se", he said "Artisans demonstrate the same observable behaviors that Myers labeled SP." People seem to be confused by that for some reason, it seems pretty clear to me. Keirsey looked at the groupings that Myers made and pulled out the ones that were the most clearly observable groups according to his research. But he has stopped using the Myers-Briggs letters in his latest works because people too often accused him of being a "heretic" when it came to personality theories.
    Oh! Well, if Keirsey is no longer claiming to be working from the same theoretical base as MBTI, and is now using the system in a different way, then I guess his ideas could stand up within their own paradigm.

    But at least now maybe you'll accept my point that Jung/MBTI, and Keirsey make incompatible assumptions. Keirsey's points may be valid within Keirsey's system, but I don't see how they fit into MBTI or Jungian theory, and the type mappings of MBTI NT to Keirsey Rational, and MBTI SP to Keirsey Artisan, are approximations at best, because the two systems start with different assumptions about the structure of the psyche.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Because with S types we are more about the here and now and J/P plays the biggest difference on the here and now. With an N type it is more about the future, so F/T plays more of a difference.

Similar Threads

  1. Why is INTJ a recommended pairing for ENFP but not INFP?
    By great_bay in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 02-02-2017, 05:03 PM
  2. Why is our universe fine-tuned for life?
    By phobik in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-07-2016, 09:00 PM
  3. Sympathy vs Empathy. Why is empathy more highly regarded?
    By fecaleagle in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 06-02-2015, 11:13 AM
  4. [NT] Why is it so hard for Me to stop focusing on Myself?
    By The Ü™ in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-15-2011, 06:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO