User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 47

  1. #21
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I think I could make a viable fit for the old temeperaments based on other groupsings too. I could probaby fit any quartering into some relative humor claffications fairly easily (and be more consistent about it, too ), maybe the outer letters, for example. I have a hard time seeing ENTJs as phlegmatic or ESTJs as melancholic. But those type orientations make sense in Keirsey's sytem because he hammered the whole system around the need for it to make sense. It's correct by redefinition. It's one of those (many) things I don't like about Keirsey. I prefer dissecting things down into the functional parts, and seeing what patterns, frameworks, and categories logically manifest themselves from there. Keirsey seemed to do things in the reverse process, making the patterns, frameworks, and categories, and then jamming the parts in until they fit.

    Even if his choice of groups did reflect the temperaments the best, is that worth anything?

    Keirsey, in his own system, considers himself and INTP. Well his system of course is quite different from mine more orthodox cognitive approach. After really going over his work several times, I'm thinking he's an ISTJ.
    the bold bit above... that may be because your veiw of phelgmatics and melacolic may be being skewed by actual words, which have changed meaning.

    For instance phelgmatics are considerd to value calm... which fits much more closely with ENTJ's.

    I'm not sure why you don't see ESTJ's as being melancolic: materialistic, traditional, upright members of society, wanting respect... all sounds pretty ESTJ to me....

    I know it is a streach for most people around here but a lot of this info is tied up with anciet astrology writtings and I've sat through numerous lectures on how langauges gets used/morphed and changed to fit coffee table perspective of moder reader... hence my view that Keirsey may be better than it appears. If I cna dig up any good papers on temprements from my old soeicty I'll post it... it fits fairly well.

    There is an interesting fit between NF and Idealisim... Choleric are campaigners, for rights, and benefits etc.. reformers if you like... and the hub of idealisim is the campagners... NF's have been given permission to own emotion, which personally speaking I think is bollox, it's a lighter way to look at emotion, they live within emotion rather than chart the depths as such... (but thats more of an astrological perspective)

    I thought he came over very INTx in his book.

    Sorry I know I waffle into astrology because it's a good frame of reference that uses temprements still and apply it for a purpose.

    PS within each temprament, they split out differently: there are triplicities and quadruplcities....so Melancolic would consist of: Taurus (fixed = stubborn/rooted); Virgo (mutable = flexibile); and Capricorn (cardinal = highly active)... as are all the other temprements...

    For Plegmatics: (Cancer = Cardinal) (Scorpio = fixed) (Pisces = Mutable)

    Scorpio/water is the root of intuition... Scorp fixed = J, Pisces = P

  2. #22
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    the bold bit above... that may be because your veiw of phelgmatics and melacolic may be being skewed by actual words, which have changed meaning.

    For instance phelgmatics are considerd to value calm... which fits much more closely with ENTJ's.

    I'm not sure why you don't see ESTJ's as being melancolic: materialistic, traditional, upright members of society, wanting respect... all sounds pretty ESTJ to me....

    I know it is a streach for most people around here but a lot of this info is tied up with anciet astrology writtings and I've sat through numerous lectures on how langauges gets used/morphed and changed to fit coffee table perspective of moder reader... hence my view that Keirsey may be better than it appears. If I cna dig up any good papers on temprements from my old soeicty I'll post it... it fits fairly well.
    I don't believe that will be necessary. I have studied Hippocrates's and Galen's humor based temperaments in their own right. I know what the words mean as opposed to their casual usage today. There's a quite a lot that Keirsey obviously did not take (for example, you're supposed to play a different kind of music for each of them ). With ENTJs, or perhaps I instead should have gone for INTJs, I find them too intense to be your typical phlegmat.

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    There is an interesting fit between NF and Idealisim... Choleric are campaigners, for rights, and benefits etc.. reformers if you like... and the hub of idealisim is the campagners... NF's have been given permission to own emotion, which personally speaking I think is bollox, it's a lighter way to look at emotion, they live within emotion rather than chart the depths as such... (but thats more of an astrological perspective)
    I might also look at ENFPs. Choleric? They could just as plausibly be Sanguine if you ask me. The temperaments included an enormous (unreasonably large) amount of qualities attributed to each type, and accordingly, you can basically cherry pick them into whatever form you want. We discard these things now because we know they are too pidgeonholing.

    This reminds of how each of Keirsey's temperaments generally seem more like one of it's members than any other. For example, the Guardian description leans way toward ESTJ. The Artisan toward ESTP. Harder to say with NF and NT (he's not as dead simple with their descriptions), but it seems to me like INFJ and INTP (the atter being no surprise since he self-identifies with it).

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    I thought he came over very INTx in his book.
    Yeah, perhaps I should just avoid that topic on second thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    Sorry I know I waffle into astrology because it's a good frame of reference that uses temprements still and apply it for a purpose.

    PS within each temprament, they split out differently: there are triplicities and quadruplcities....so Melancolic would consist of: Taurus (fixed = stubborn/rooted); Virgo (mutable = flexibile); and Capricorn (cardinal = highly active)... as are all the other temprements...

    For Plegmatics: (Cancer = Cardinal) (Scorpio = fixed) (Pisces = Mutable)

    Scorpio/water is the root of intuition... Scorp fixed = J, Pisces = P
    That is a problem... I have a hard time taking an application of zodiac seriously.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #23
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    LOL Don't worry I'm not going to soap box astrology, but keep in mind their is a huge difference between hosocopes seen today and the classification system and structures used in astrology... but you'll know that from your study of hipocrasses, but you may not be able to see which bits are astology. The key thing about the subject is that until late 1800's mid 1900's astrology was integral, you've read some of that already in hypocrassis or galen, infact in the latter you've read a whole lot of it, given Galen's skill set (you wont nessesarily recongise it as such)

    Largely speaking a very similar classification....triplcities, quadruplicites - sit together (which realte directly to humours and their cross clsssification).

    To be honest I don't have a huge amount of interesting in Keirseys type beyond picking up he was an NT in his book.

    In what format did you read up on Galen and Hipocrasses... its exactly works like this that get morphed into being something else. There are a lot of other writters/passers on of such knowledge too.

    LOL at playing music to type, but you are also not suppost to cut skin durign certain moon phases according to hipocrasses (an astro reference... about bleeding out potential being raised). Or when to get a hair cut etc

    You see the bit about you thinking NF's could be sanguin is where I think Keirsey was spot on... I tested a coleric, who came out totally NF.... Sanguin are very much more etherial per sey..... given the way my studies have taken me I beleive I studied tempraments far earleir then MBTI

    The reason there is a cross over between type present in temprements is the break down of temprements... Ptolomey sub divies quite heavily.... (in astrology its due to rulership), they have less division than MBTI given traditionally it splits into 3.

    Anyways, each to their own

  4. #24
    Morlock Rhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Pfft
    Posts
    108

    Default

    I always figured that Keirsey was a big fan of the trisexual aliens in Isaac Asimov's The Gods Themselves.

  5. #25
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I think I could make a viable fit for the old temeperaments based on other groupsings too. I could probaby fit any quartering into some relative humor claffications fairly easily (and be more consistent about it, too ), maybe the outer letters, for example. I have a hard time seeing ENTJs as phlegmatic or ESTJs as melancholic. But those type orientations make sense in Keirsey's sytem because he hammered the whole system around the need for it to make sense. It's correct by redefinition. It's one of those (many) things I don't like about Keirsey. I prefer dissecting things down into the functional parts, and seeing what patterns, frameworks, and categories logically manifest themselves from there. Keirsey seemed to do things in the reverse process, making the patterns, frameworks, and categories, and then jamming the parts in until they fit.

    Even if his choice of groups did reflect the temperaments the best, is that worth anything?

    Keirsey, in his own system, considers himself and INTP. Well his system of course is quite different from mine more orthodox cognitive approach. After really going over his work several times, I'm thinking he's an ISTJ.
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    the bold bit above... that may be because your veiw of phelgmatics and melacolic may be being skewed by actual words, which have changed meaning.

    For instance phelgmatics are considerd to value calm... which fits much more closely with ENTJ's.

    I'm not sure why you don't see ESTJ's as being melancolic: materialistic, traditional, upright members of society, wanting respect... all sounds pretty ESTJ to me....

    There is an interesting fit between NF and Idealisim... Choleric are campaigners, for rights, and benefits etc.. reformers if you like... and the hub of idealisim is the campagners... NF's have been given permission to own emotion, which personally speaking I think is bollox, it's a lighter way to look at emotion, they live within emotion rather than chart the depths as such... (but thats more of an astrological perspective)
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I don't believe that will be necessary. I have studied Hippocrates's and Galen's humor based temperaments in their own right. I know what the words mean as opposed to their casual usage today. There's a quite a lot that Keirsey obviously did not take (for example, you're supposed to play a different kind of music for each of them ). With ENTJs, or perhaps I instead should have gone for INTJs, I find them too intense to be your typical phlegmat.

    I might also look at ENFPs. Choleric? They could just as plausibly be Sanguine if you ask me. The temperaments included an enormous (unreasonably large) amount of qualities attributed to each type, and accordingly, you can basically cherry pick them into whatever form you want. We discard these things now because we know they are too pidgeonholing.

    This reminds of how each of Keirsey's temperaments generally seem more like one of it's members than any other. For example, the Guardian description leans way toward ESTJ. The Artisan toward ESTP. Harder to say with NF and NT (he's not as dead simple with their descriptions), but it seems to me like INFJ and INTP (the atter being no surprise since he self-identifies with it).
    It's what I've been saying all along. There are two temperament matrices interwoven into the types. One is the conative model, which are the Keirseyan groupings. The other is the affective model, which are known as the Interaction Styles.
    Each type is a blend of the two.

    The Galen temperaments were originally factored in terms of what we would now call introversion/extroversion (expressivness), and people/task (responsiveness, or agreeableness). So how do Keirseys's temperament figure, when all four are equally divided between E and I types? This is what I wondered when I first encountered the types through Keirsey's theory. What this tells us is that the "classic" Galen temperaments as we have known them would more closely match the Interaction Styles, which are drawn along E/I, with J/P or T/F shaping the people/task factor, which has become known as "informing/directing".
    These are the familiar "social" temperaments; dealing with surface "interaction". So we do not look for the same behaviors in the Keirseyan groups. It's a different area or level of temperament. "Conative" means "action", and it can also be seen as leadership skills.

    So in action, the closest analogue to expressiveness would be Keirsey's cooperative/pragmatic. Pragmatics would be quicker to act, just like extraverts are quicker to engage in social behavior. Cooperatives would be slower to act, because they have to make sure it's "right", where pragmatics go by what "works". People/task would be motive vs structure. Motive focus takes people into consideration, while structure-focus deals more with things or tasks ; the concrete or abstract "structures".

    So you see the same temperament matrix, but on two different levels. So the ESTJ is Choleric in surface social skills: E + ST; extraverted; directive. However, in his action or leadership skills, SJ is cooperative and structure focused. And SJ is another code for Si. They rely on what is familiar, and on concrete structures such as the organization or family. They will be more cooperative towards these structures, and slower to act apart from them. This will come out as a kind of Melancholic, when compared to the ENTJ, who is pragmatic instead of cooperative, and is more visionary with his Ni, and will thus be quicker to act. So the ENTJ would be the pure Choleric, while ESTJ is Choleric Melancholy. On the surface, they will both be Choleric and very similar.

    Now, notice, I said ENTJ is pure Choleric, and not Choleric-Phlegmatic. Keirsey did not define the Galen temperament correlation by cooperative/pragmatic, and structure/motive (the latter which he did not even invent; Berens invented it afterward). It should have been obvious that the Choleric is pragmatic and structure focused, and not cooperative and motive focused like the NF. Keirsey based the Galen correlation for the N's purely on "coolness" vs "exciteability". Hence, the NT sounded more like Phlegmatic, and the NF like Choleric. As I had said, he derived them from Kretschmer's Character Styles, but if you look at how Kretschmer defined the anasthetic's "coolness"; it should have been clear that the anasthetic was Choleric. Not simply "calm" as in "peaceful", but rather cold. When we say someone is "cold" (as in "cold and heartless"), we think he lacks Feeling, rather than being a Feeling type!

    Yes, it would seem very far out to say that the hyperesthetic was a Phlegmatic. For one thing, I believe there is a fifth temperament, which is similar to Phlegmatic, but does have a lot more emotion and enthusiasm. When people take five temperament tests, NF's generally do come out high in this temperament, while a lot of NT's do come out Choleric. (Especially the INTJ--Melancholy-Choleric! That's why he's so "intense". That combination is said to be the most intense in Galen temperament descriptions such as APS and LaHaye!)

    The biggest clue is that the hyperesthetic or NF is really the one who desires peace, and the classic Phlegmatic is among other things the peaceful diplomat. NF is the one said to have the "diplomatic" skills" set. Keirsey matched it as Choleric because of the tendency to temporarily fly into fits of rage. But the classic Choleric was not about temporary behavior. (And that description actually fits the fifth temperament a lot, which is the diametric opposite of Choleric). And again, we are not dealing with surface social skiils. You would look to the In Charge (EST/ENJ) for that one. In action and leadership skills, the NF does fit Phlegmatic better. Even in his "campaigning", he usually wants others to join him, rather than being totally independent or autocratic.

    So in that light, an ENFP would be a Sanguine-Phlegmatic or Sanguine-Supine. You have people like Greed who are ENFP, and Choleric, but then he's actually on the border between Choleric and Phlegmatic (we went through some APS descriptions recently), and you see he also drifted between that and more Choleric types such as ENTP and ENTJ. So still, its a close match, and most other ENFP's do not come out Choleric. Some try to say Little Linguist is, but I don't think so. We went though the APS descriptions too, and she seems to be Sanguine-Supine-Melancholy.

    (There's got to be some way to convey all of this in less words).
    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

  6. #26
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    (There's got to be some way to convey all of this in less words).
    Huge amounts of jargonization.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #27
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Well, it's jargon people get hung up on in comparing systems, so you have to deal with the terms in order to clear it all up.
    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

  8. #28
    Senior Member NewEra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    I
    Posts
    3,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IZthe411 View Post
    Could someone dumb these down for me?
    Seeing the responses just made it more complicated to me, lol.

  9. #29
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    OP, from what people say, it seems that the groupings were rationalized after their parts were created, not originated by some coherent logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I think it's NT and NF instead of NP and NJ simply because of how much more the judging function shapes the behavior and cognition of N types, whereas the direction of the sensing function is far more important in shaping the behavior of the S type. Ss have a far more pure, powerful method of experience and interpretation is concrete and literal while the Ns need to interpret their abstract thoughts and perceptions in some manner typically defined by the judging function. Basically, Ns need judging help to make sense of their environments, while Ss do not. This is something I've been mulling over, if anyone can point out any errors that'd be nice.

    I believe that's why the temperaments align the way they do.
    When I had first wondered the question the OP is asking, I expected to find an answer more like JockTheMotie's, something with internally consistent logic. I'm not quite sure what he's saying though...that Intuition is too abstract to create behavior which could be grouped into "temperaments?" But S, T, and F are more tangible and do better at creating behavior others can observe?
    Last edited by Cimarron; 01-30-2010 at 11:08 PM. Reason: less confusing
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  10. #30
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    According to Ideas and Evidence by Rowan Bayne, p31, on temperate theory, "... empirical research is scarce. Rynierse and Harker (2000) found no greater support for SP, SJ, NT and NF than for any other pair of preferences."

    and later, on p. 32, "Overall, empirical research on Kiersey's theory to date seems weak. Myers, et al. (1998, 59-63) discuss studies of temperament briefly, but a more detailed review including effect sizes would be useful. Such a review might counter the empirically based criticisms of Reynierse (2000) and more savage ones of Frisbie (1998), who stated, 'Side-stepping conceptual issues, juggling concepts, and adhering to ancient Greek lore seems a questionable way to build a modern personality theory.'"

    Anyway, I personally like the Kiersey's temperament as kind of grouping shorthand, and I find the interaction styles useful conceptually. I think it's interesting to conjecture how various traditions systems were getting at aspects of the same underlying truth.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-03-2016, 06:37 AM
  2. What IS the "logical framework and structure of the outside world?"
    By Retmeishka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-03-2011, 01:13 PM
  3. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  4. What is the nicest thing a stranger has ever done for you?
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 11:42 PM
  5. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 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