• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why is J/P more significant for Sensors than for iNTuitors?

compulsiverambler

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
446
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Under the Temperament system, preferred Judgement is deemed the most important thing to know about N types. For Ss, it's the direction of the perceiving function. Why? What was the original reason for this and do you agree with it? Is Se supposed to be more different from Si than Ne is from Ni? Or are they equally different, but for some reason the direction of Sensing has more of an effect on apparent behaviour than the direction of iNtuiting does? Or more of an effect on another specific thing? Or is there another reason? Presumably a reason was provided at the time, but I've never seen it.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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).
 

compulsiverambler

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
446
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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).
Your first sentence does make sense and seems to reflect my experience, but I'm not it can be explained by S being inherently more external than N. Is Ne really more internal than Si?

Abstract things aren't produced by the brain, they're just as much 'out there' to be noticed as concrete things are, and the internal perceptions of those concrete things are just as much produced by the brain and experienced internally as the perceptions of abstract things are.

It's the behavioural responses to the perceptions that we can see, but the perception itself is always internal and we only know what perception someone is acting on via communication and projection, both of which can give us false information, and can never fully reproduce that internal perception for us.

I don't think N types less often act on or communicate about their perceptions, so we shouldn't be less able to make educated guesses about which Perceiving function they're using based on their actions and words, should we? Mind you, I can see that we ARE less able to in general, I just don't see why.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The types are generally sorted as NF, NT, SP, and SJ because of Keirsey and his theory. It makes perfect sense within his theory.

And everything sensing related is based on the real world, it's based on reality. Intuition seems mental in nature, based on the possibilities etc, which is a mental thing. Sensing functions work within what's tangible, intuitive functions work within what isn't reality (they look to the future or to the possibilities generally). And to clarify both perception styles come from what people perceive is reality.

My thoughts on the matter were stated above basically. Judgments are mainly an internal thing, and since intuition is also mainly based mentally, they go hand in hand. That's probably what Keirsey thought. And same goes with sensing and J/P.

Ne is external. Pe extrapolates the situation at hand based on the sensing and intuiting attitude, reaching outward rather than working within what one knows like Pi does. Ne has a mental base.
Si is internal and is outwardly based. It's based internally because of the nature of Pi, to reference the system of information within you. It's outwardly based (keyword BASE here) because it's root is reality (to the person).

NP, NJ, SP, and SJ would most definitely work. Hell, I even use these for myself along with NT, NF, SF, and ST and all of the other possible combinations to analyze a type. But since it's based in Keirsey's theory, it's the most widely known separation of types. Thus that's what we use generally.

Hopefully that made sense to you.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Perhaps most people did not pick up, that the Interaction Styles are to an extent the mirrors of temperament. So while J/P does not figure for N's in temperament, it does in the Interaction Styles. It basically switches with T/F. T/F is not significant for Sensors in temperament, but they are for N's, but not in Interaction Styles for N's.
This is from two different frameworks (temperament, type) with their own symmetries being "crossed" over each other.

The way I try to explain it, on what is now my "long" page on the correlations: Temperament Part 2: Evolving the APS-MBTI Correlation
[translated from the FIRO-APS lingo to the corresponding temperament/Interaction Style concepts]:

...the area of information gathering ("perception"), by which we then gain the knowledge of the world around us; allowing us to make the decisions to survive with; would fall into the [conative] area. A person's wanting or not wanting of "interaction" in that area [which ties to preferring structures or motives and doing what's right vs what works] would be indirectly tied to his preference for perception. If his perception is concrete; and then if it is also inward-oriented, he won't want any interaction in [conation], from [individual people]. He won't want to control [i.e. pragmatic] or be controlled by others. [but will trust structures such as organizations instead] If his perception is outward instead, then he will swing back and forth between controlling [pragmatism] and being controlled [by from focusing on people's motives in order to work with them] based on the concrete input he is receiving from the outside world. For people whose preference is intuition, the "self preservation" [conative] temperament will not be determined by whether the perception is inward or outward. That is too "concrete", where they are abstract. (That will instead determine their social orientation [Interaction Style]). So rather, it will be the judging function the perception is paired with that determines the [conative] behavior. Thinking (Tough mindedness) will [be pragmatic, but structure focused], and Feeling (Friendliness) will [be cooperative and motive focused].
As I believe Interaction Style is as significant as [Keirsey'an] temperament, the J/P (and T/F) DO have the same level of significance!
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^Most people don't even know what the interaction styles are.
 

compulsiverambler

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
446
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Thanks Eric, I didn't know that.

Hopefully that made sense to you.
Yeah, I think I know what you're saying now. Basically, F and T are more relevant to N, and J and P are more relevant to S, because the directions of the Perceiving and Judging functions play a bigger role in how people address realities, which are the bigger priorities for S types, whereas F and T have more influence over how people address non-realities, which are the bigger priorities for N types. Is that what you mean?

I think what's been confusing me is the logical conclusion from this that a dom-Je is supposed to not be thinking about reality most of the time if they're an N, when Je is all about working with reality. But of course the Je relationship with reality is not like Perceiving functions' relationship with reality. There's a difference between looking to something for work materials (Je) and looking to it for design (S and N). So there are two distinct spectra of focus on the real and practical:


S-----------------N
Practical > Non-practical
Je----------------Ji


Perhaps Perceiving is just deemed the best starting place from where to construct the model of someone's personality. Makes sense. So from there, because Sensors perceive first the practical, knowing how they approach practicalities (direction of the S) is the next most important thing. Because iNtuitors perceive first the non-practical, although direction affects how they approach practicalities in the same way, it doesn't matter as much because their personality starts at the point of perception of the non-practical.

I had better be getting close. I'll be massaging my brain until the knots loosen...
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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. :D But it sounds somewhat intelligent. You sound like you're talking to get more clarity like Ne users typically do. But anyways-

Yeah, I think I know what you're saying now. Basically, F and T are more relevant to N, and J and P are more relevant to S, because the directions of the Perceiving and Judging functions play a bigger role in how people address realities, which are the bigger priorities for S types, whereas F and T have more influence over how people address non-realities, which are the bigger priorities for N types. Is that what you mean?

F and T are how people address reality, as judging functions.

I think what's been confusing me is the logical conclusion from this that a dom-Je is supposed to not be thinking about reality most of the time if they're an N, when Je is all about working with reality. But of course the Je relationship with reality is not like Perceiving functions' relationship with reality. There's a difference between looking to something for work materials (Je) and looking to it for design (S and N). So there are two distinct spectra of focus on the real and practical:


S-----------------N
Practical > Non-practical
Je----------------Ji

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. :D 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?
 

Lily Bart

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
136
MBTI Type
INFP
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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

compulsiverambler

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
446
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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. :D 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. :D 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.
 

Lily Bart

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
136
MBTI Type
INFP
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.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
OP said:
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.


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.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 

compulsiverambler

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
446
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
"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.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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. :yes:

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.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 
Top