• 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.

Alternatives to Kiersey's classifications

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
Please .. Oh i am enjoying this .. Continue insulting me .. I can't host for shit ..

That is unfortunate... kind of like an INTP who sucks at logic.
 

incubustribute

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
297
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Yeah, I have a problem with more than just names. To put INTJs and ISFJs in one category, and ISTPs and INFPs in another is totally bunk. That's the equavalent of claiming that tigers and zebras are the same species because they both have stripes.

Anyway, the only ideals or rules that ISTP guys tend to go by is "don't call me a faggot"

I like the animal analogy, but I'm not sure if it's a strong analogy. I see what you're saying, but my main goal in using Je/Ji/Pe/Pi is to put a finger down on the person's main mode, the dominant function. Key word: Function
If this is true, than what I'm really doing is lumping tigers and spiders together because they are both carnivores.
Coincidentally, if I actually saw a spiger, I think I might forget everything I know about MBTI and move to another planet that is not inhabited by terrifying creatures.:D
 

incubustribute

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
297
MBTI Type
ISFJ
I'm not an INTP. But somewhere along the line I met one and picked up some sarcasm.

Now I'm confused...do you or do you not believe that INTP's are idealistic? Sarcasm would imply that you meant the opposite your first post, which stated that INTP's are soooo idealistic. I (thought I) caught the sarcasm.

:confused:
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Keirsey's temperaments make sense because they are based on observable behavior, while yours just looks like a bunch of assumptive gibberish.

Ever consider that this is just because you don't fucking get it?

I mean look man, you're a nice guy and all and I like you, but you need to stop trying to evaluate intuitive concepts in sensory terms. You're missing a lot here and you don't even remotely grasp the mechanisms that make this sort of thought meaningful.

Please make a genuine effort to grasp what you're missing here. It's a lot more than "assumptive gibberish"; you just don't know what the hell is going on and you're making it very obvious how uninformed you are on the topic of functional theory.


Let's see.. ISTP as The Idealist... ESFJ as The Leader...

The crack pipe, sir. Lay it on the ground and slowly back away.

You two should start an "I'm too lazy to study things but I still love shooting them down without bothering to know what I'm talking about" club.

If you're going to make a serious critique of these ideas, then make a serious critique, but just bluntly declaring that it's stupid (or "voodoo" as you so lovingly termed it) and then failing to provide any support beyond "I don't get it" doesn't really do much beyond make it evident that you haven't bothered to study this.


Yeah, I have a problem with more than just names. To put INTJs and ISFJs in one category, and ISTPs and INFPs in another is totally bunk. That's the equavalent of claiming that tigers and zebras are the same species because they both have stripes.

Anyway, the only ideals or rules that ISTP guys tend to go by is "don't call me a faggot"

You don't have the necessary background to understand why this categorization is meaningful. We're categorizing based on learning styles and attitudes toward planning and organization. IxxP types all share a most pronounced preference for introverted Judgment; that is, they are similar because they operate first by organizing a rigid internal structure of principles (Ji) and then by adapting and rearranging them to fit whatever external context is necessary (Pe.)

Likewise, ExxJ types all share a preference for extroverted Judgment; they tend to take a decisive, leading and commanding role that involves actively delegating tasks to others and organizing the external world.

If you bother to study functional theory, you'll notice that all ExxJ types share the same Je, Pi, Pe, Ji order in terms of their learning styles and organizational priorities. MBTI is an oversimplified beginner version of Jungian functional theory; if you operate purely on the "four sliding scales" system you're still using training wheels. It's unfortunately far more complex than that.

I used to agree with you. I thought observable surface behaviors were the only thing worth paying attention to (you can go find an old post I wrote denouncing functional theory purely as "wishful thinking")--until I bothered to read about it and realized that it adds tremendous depth and utility, and that MBTI's simplistic four dichotomy system was created purely as a simplified form of functional theory in the first place.

Your four sliding scales wouldn't even exist without Jung's functional theory.


Too much theory, eh? That's cool! I dig it...thanks for your input. :)

Jeffster is about the least intuitive person on this entire message board. He's great fun and all, but anything that isn't spelled out in literal black and white just flies right over his head.
 

incubustribute

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
297
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Perhaps I should have made it more clear that this is intended to delve moderately into Jungian functions. If your knowledge of MBTI stops at Jung, than this might not be something you can offer valid input on. But I do appreciate all the comments - any improvement suggestions are more than welcome as well.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
I mean look man, you're a nice guy and all and I like you, but you need to stop trying to evaluate intuitive concepts in sensory terms. You're missing a lot here and you don't even remotely grasp the mechanisms that make this sort of thought meaningful.

I don't think you know what I NEED to do. The person who started this topic presented it as an "alternative to Keirsey's classifications," not as "I love function theory and would like to marry it!" I wouldn't have bothered to comment on the latter. I'm not Victor or Jaguar or one of those other people on some sort of mission to try to convince people they're all in some brainwashed cult or something. If somebody presents something as an "alternative to Keirsey" then you would think that it would be something classifying the same things as Keirsey, not an entirely different subject with absolutely no examples of anything given. You want to live in what somebody else on this forum referred to as "fantasy theory land" or something like that, knock yourself out. But don't present it as somehow making more sense than Keirsey's groupings, and then say I don't get it because I'm expecting it to actually have something to do with reality.

Please make a genuine effort to grasp what you're missing here. It's a lot more than "assumptive gibberish"; you just don't know what the hell is going on and you're making it very obvious how uninformed you are on the topic of functional theory.

Actually, dude, I was very open to "functional theory" when I first started studying this personality stuff. I think you could find several topics where I indeed made "a genuine effort to grasp" it. There are many people on this site who use those theories to augment the real study of people, and explained some things I had trouble with before. I've posted about how the function stuff filled in some gaps in my own evaluation of my personality and how it seemed to be different when I was a child. The whole concept of functions sort of developing or "activating" over time as one matures makes a whole lot of sense when I examine my own behavior and others that I've known. The problem comes when people present long strings of theory but don't relate it to anything. Then, yes, I am going to stick up for a simple system of observing people over something that is "intuitive concepts." You're being silly for thinking that I'm not ALWAYS going to look at it in "sensory terms." That's how I look at things. I'm a Sensor!

So, it IS assumptive gibberish until you actually apply it to something. Don't put it on me if you're incapable of doing that.
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
You two should start an "I'm too lazy to study things but I still love shooting them down without bothering to know what I'm talking about" club.

Hey daddio, I work with things that work. I've read enough about cognitive functions to know that they are useless in day to day interactions with people. Now you can attempt to give me a mental reach around all day long by saying "the reason you don't think it works is because you don't get it", but that kind of approach only annoys me, at best.

I follow Keirsey's typing style and groupings because of ALL the MBTI offshoots out there, they were the only ones that seem to have an actual practical application.

You don't agree? Maybe it's because you are too lazy to study it but still love shooting it down without bothering to know what you are talking about.

Now as far as I am concerned, any Myers Briggs derivative theory that claims that INTJs and ISFJs are in the same grouping will automatically get my scorn. I have no interest in wasting my time figuring out exactly how wrong they are. Once I come across blatant prima facia evidence that it is wrong, I move on to other things with my life. You on the other hand, can mentally masturbate all day long.

Hope that clears up my thoughts on the matter.

XOXO,
Edgar
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't think you know what I NEED to do. The person who started this topic presented it as an "alternative to Keirsey's classifications," not as "I love function theory and would like to marry it!" I wouldn't have bothered to comment on the latter. I'm not Victor or Jaguar or one of those other people on some sort of mission to try to convince people they're all in some brainwashed cult or something. If somebody presents something as an "alternative to Keirsey" then you would think that it would be something classifying the same things as Keirsey, not an entirely different subject with absolutely no examples of anything given. You want to live in what somebody else on this forum referred to as "fantasy theory land" or something like that, knock yourself out. But don't present it as somehow making more sense than Keirsey's groupings, and then say I don't get it because I'm expecting it to actually have something to do with reality.

There are tons and tons of examples all over reality and everywhere in real life, whether or not you can see them without someone pointing them out to you. Maybe if you'd ask for them before declaring this all totally worthless, people would be inclined to explain.



Actually, dude, I was very open to "functional theory" when I first started studying this personality stuff. I think you could find several topics where I indeed made "a genuine effort to grasp" it. There are many people on this site who use those theories to augment the real study of people, and explained some things I had trouble with before. I've posted about how the function stuff filled in some gaps in my own evaluation of my personality and how it seemed to be different when I was a child. The whole concept of functions sort of developing or "activating" over time as one matures makes a whole lot of sense when I examine my own behavior and others that I've known. The problem comes when people present long strings of theory but don't relate it to anything. Then, yes, I am going to stick up for a simple system of observing people over something that is "intuitive concepts." You're being silly for thinking that I'm not ALWAYS going to look at it in "sensory terms." That's how I look at things. I'm a Sensor!

The long strings of theory do relate to something; you just don't get it. That's what I'm telling you. If theory-heavy posts really didn't relate to anything, you'd have a great point, but many of them do.



So, it IS assumptive gibberish until you actually apply it to something. Don't put it on me if you're incapable of doing that.

Again there's an extraordinary amount of application, whether or not you can see it. Expanding theoretical foundations allows us to explore all kinds of application that we may have previously thought impossible.

Why don't you try picking out particular sections of these posts and asking for further explanation as to how they apply in real life, rather than simply declaring them garbage before anyone has even heard your specific concerns?


Hey daddio, I work with things that work. I've read enough about cognitive functions to know that they are useless in day to day interactions with people. Now you can attempt to give me a mental reach around all day long by saying "the reason you don't think it works is because you don't get it", but that kind of approach only annoys me, at best.

Grasping people's fundamental value systems and the sources of validation for them is useless in day to day interactions? Really? You can memorize "xxxx type likes to behave this way" all you want, but it doesn't do much in terms of explaining what fundamental life priorities and goals motivate that type of person to behave that way. That is where the utility is; you can move beyond simple categorizations of what and start to learn why.

MBTI doesn't even touch on the different forms of S/N/T/F; it all just gets lumped into one oversimplified blunt instrument that appeases the masses who find Jung too esoteric. It's great for a quick surface analysis, but you're missing all the depth if you stop there.

And I think it'd be more like mental sodomy, but we'll get into the specifics of hypothetical gay sex another day.

I follow Keirsey's typing style and groupings because of ALL the MBTI offshoots out there, they were the only ones that seem to have an actual practical application.

You don't agree? Maybe it's because you are too lazy to study it but still love shooting it down without bothering to know what you are talking about.

Well no, I used to hold the same position as you because I was introduced to Keirsey first (and I am quite competent in his temperament theory; this is how I know it's inferior) and learned the four-dichotomy system before ever studying Jungian functions. I'm so adamant on this because I've already been through the same thought processes that lead you to think functions are useless and I now realize in hindsight that I really didn't get it at the time.

I still use MBTI for certain things, mostly just very quick first impressions for which direction to go in when dealing with a new person. But in terms of working to understand and appreciate the value in perspectives different from my own, and I mean really appreciate it for its own sake instead of just considering it as some erroneous belief on the part of others, MBTI hardly does anything. You need a more nuanced system to dig deeper into what truly makes people tick.

Now as far as I am concerned, any Myers Briggs derivative theory that claims that INTJs and ISFJs are in the same grouping will automatically get my scorn. I have no interest in wasting my time figuring out exactly how wrong they are. Once I come across blatant prima facia evidence that it is wrong, I move on to other things with my life. You on the other hand, can mentally masturbate all day long.

Hope that clears up my thoughts on the matter.

XOXO,
Edgar

You haven't encountered blatant prima facie (not facia, btw) evidence of shit; you've just failed to grasp the dynamics of functional theory because you don't yet understand how to apply it. INTJs and ISFJs share quite a number of significant characteristics in terms of their learning processes and organizational methods, and yes, a lot of this applies directly to real life in a number of ways.
 

Matthew_Z

That chalkboard guy
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
1,256
MBTI Type
xxxx
What ever happened to the route of viewing any grouping system as valid in its proper context? There's no need to invalidate NF/NT/SJ/SP in order to validate EJ/EP/IJ/IP or vice versa. They all attempt to capture a facet of a type. Admittedly, NF/NT/SJ/SP is based more on observable behavior whilst EJ/EP/IJ/IP is based more on a person's psychological functioning with slightly less concern paid to behavior.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
These are George Frisbie's "Sociability Temperaments". (I've heard he was critical of Keirsey's groupings) I don't know why those never caught on. They do apparently have some significance. At east one theorist, Brenda Mullins (Personality Page) suggests these are the first things to develop in a child, before the dominant function is even chosen.
And for N types, they do coincide with the Interaction Styles.
ET, IT, EF, IF is another grouping that might have some merit.
 

musttry

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
118
MBTI Type
INFJ
I see the interest in reorganising groupings and this could be done a great many ways. However, you have to find the configuration that explains the similarities and differences the most. Ignoring how people perceive and decide in favour of whether it is introverted or extraverted does not fit well with MBTI. The whole point of this system is HOW people function to explain the output while enneagram groups people according to their output.
 

incubustribute

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
297
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Now as far as I am concerned, any Myers Briggs derivative theory that claims that INTJs and ISFJs are in the same grouping will automatically get my scorn.

See, this is the problem. I didn't ask for anyone's contempt, but critique is welcome as long as there is reasonable debate to show why my theory is complete shit -- or better yet -- if it can be improved upon. So far, you haven't shown a shred of evidence that discounts these groupings other than a seemingly arbitrarily chosen type loophole (INTJ vs. ISFJ). It is obvious to me that these two types are different on the basis of their function preferences, but you haven't really proven to me that you understand why Pi/Pe/Ji/Je are significant. If you would like, I could re-devise my structure to make 8 sub-groups instead of four, but where's the fun in that? Again, I spent a good deal of time considering these, and typing this all out was a lot of work so if you're going to critique, please do - I thrive on it, and we improve as people by learning from each other.

I meant this to be a positive suggestion to be improved upon, so if someone will kindly get us back on topic, that would be great.

I'm still waiting to hear more naming suggestions for the groups, I got a couple good ones from VagrantFarce, but it seems my "Leader" label didn't work too well because of the ESFJ.
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
There are tons and tons of examples all over reality and everywhere in real life, whether or not you can see them without someone pointing them out to you. Maybe if you'd ask for them before declaring this all totally worthless, people would be inclined to explain.

Yeah I don't know SW, I've seen you do quite a bit of typing faux pas (did I spell that right? you can correct me if I didn't) to be preaching about your superior skills.
 

incubustribute

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
297
MBTI Type
ISFJ
....and it seems I missed some good posts that WERE attempting to get back on topic...thanks guys, I'll get to you tomorrow. Keep commenting, whether I agree with you or not, I'm learning :)
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
See, this is the problem. I didn't ask for anyone's contempt, but critique is welcome as long as there is reasonable debate to show why my theory is complete shit

Don't mind my harsh language... I'm going after SW's ass, not yours.
 

Wonkavision

Retired Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
What ever happened to the route of viewing any grouping system as valid in its proper context? There's no need to invalidate NF/NT/SJ/SP in order to validate EJ/EP/IJ/IP or vice versa. They all attempt to capture a facet of a type. Admittedly, NF/NT/SJ/SP is based more on observable behavior whilst EJ/EP/IJ/IP is based more on a person's psychological functioning with slightly less concern paid to behavior.

I agree with this.


To Incubustribute----

The only problem I have with your theory is that the DESCRIPTORS don't seem to fit.

IxxP - The Idealist
IxxJ - The Learner
ExxP - The Explorer
ExxJ - The Leader

These need a lot of work, in my opinion.

But the reasoning behind the GROUPINGS makes perfect sense to me.

The IxxP, by virtue of its functions, will use some form of Ji (introverted judging) as a dominant (leading) functional role. This could be Ti or Fi.

The IxxJ, by virtue of its functions will use some form of Pi (introverted perception) as a leading role, either Si or Ni.

The ExxP will use some form of Pe (extroverted perception) as its leading role, either Ne or Se.

The ExxJ will use some form of Je (extroverted judging) as its lead role, either Te or Fe.

I completely agree with all of that.

But then you said:

I believe knowing the lead role is very telling of one's type and is a better classification than what we use on the forum and what Kiersey proposed.

While I agree that knowing the lead role is very telling of one's type, I don't agree that it's a better classification than the one Kiersey proposed.

I think your theory is perfectly compatible with Kiersey's, but not better.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can come up with some better DESCRIPTORS, then you actually have a great theory. :)
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yeah I don't know SW, I've seen you do quite a bit of typing faux pas (did I spell that right? you can correct me if I didn't) to be preaching about your superior skills.

I'm not sure how you would know that given that you don't see any value whatsoever in the biggest component of the system I use (functions.)
 
Top