Why is it devided, NF, NT, SP, SJ?

[magil]

I've just always wondered that? why wasn't it devided SF and ST, or NJ, NP to mathc? Not that it matters I'm just curious why and if there's no good reason I'm fine with that but if there is . . . I am interested to hear it

 

[Fluffywolf]

NT - Rationals
NF - Idealists
SP - Artisans
SJ - Guardians

 

[magil]

NT - Rationals
NF - Idealists
SP - Artisans
SJ - Guardians

. . .and my question is why?
Why aren't isn't it devided by STs and SF instead? Or NJs or NPs? I just struck me as a little random.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Because those types wouldn't fall in a certain category. Like I said, those are the four categories in which the 16 types fall.

ST's or SF's don't have a seperate category.

For your information. MBTI is a categorial tool. It's not 1+1 science. This is how it was designed. And that is why it is like this. Simple as that.

 

[Andy]

They were chosen to match the four temperments of Greek philosophy.

In essence, the SPs are characterised by being strong extroverted sensors, which gives them a talent for physical learning (artisans, ergo craftsman). The SJs are all strong intoverted sensors, often associated with liking stability (the guardians - the traditionalist, if you like). The NFs are characterised by have some mixture of intuitive and feeling functions which gives them an interest in abstract social ideas (making them the idealists, apparently) and the NTs have mixed thinking and intuitive functions, giving them an interest abstract logical ideas (Which makes us the rations, I gather).

 

[magil]

@ Fluffywolf
But was it designed that way for any particular reason? Does anyone know? That's what I was wondering.

 

[magil]

They were chosen to match the four temperments of Greek philosophy.

In essence, the SPs are characterised by being strong extroverted sensors, which gives them a talent for physical learning (artisans, ergo craftsman). The SJs are all strong intoverted sensors, often associated with liking stability (the guardians - the traditionalist, if you like). The NFs are characterised by have some mixture of intuitive and feeling functions which gives them an interest in abstract social ideas (making them the idealists, apparently) and the NTs have mixed thinking and intuitive functions, giving them an interest abstract logical ideas (Which makes us the rations, I gather).

mmkay thanks. That's more along the lines of what I was looking for.

 

[jackandthebeast]

I just posted this on another thread.

When you ask why two of the temperaments are J/P and two of them are T/F, what you're really asking is why the J/P dichotomy is more distinct in Ss (and is the second most distinct trait) and the T/F dichotomy is more distinct in Ns.

This is only my reasoning, but it seems that the real preference for Ss would be how to treat the information-filled "room" inside their head (after all, they are attuned to the tangible)- whether to safeguard the room from unwanted information while keeping heavy locks on the preferred information or to keep the door perpetually open so that more information passes through it but less of it is likely to take residence there.

For Ns, there is a similar dichotomy between decisiveness and openness. However, since the information gathered by N is done so by subconscious means rather than conscious, a conscious filtering of information (J) is less effective, as it's belated. For an N to filter the information they take in to the extent that Js do among Ss, they have to have a subconscious, or preliminary attitude so they can reduce the information before they process it. Limiting information into logical categories instead of addressing all of the specifics of a situation. T or F.

I would think that if you have T or J, the filtration thing applies regardless of your temperament on some level, it just isn't as pronounced if it isn't in accordance with your preferred method of processing

By the way, thank you for posting this thread. My explanation on the other thread wasn't nearly as developed. It was one of those situations where you feel you've gained insight in what you're writing about as you write.

 

[VagrantFarce]

You're right, it's as arbitrary as any other grouping.

 

[edcoaching]

Yes...the temperaments came first and happen to correlate with SJ, SP, NF, NT. It's just one way to group the types (why group at all? Because "beginners" can't keep all 16 types distinct. And, for many applications, the groupings are useful)

I personally find the temperaments least useful in the real world of working with teams, teachers, students, leaders, etc. IF we're actually using the MBTI, because of the confusion/contradiction/seeming illogic that started this thread. If you just use a temperament indicator and delve no further then there are merits to the grouping...

The attitude pairs IJ, IP, EP, EJ have a lot to do with our outer appearance/needs--office or classroom environments, workstyle, etc.

The last two letters TJ TP FJ FP correlate with our approach to conflict resolution

The quadrants--ES, EN< IS, IN have been shown to correlate with approach to change and approach to learning

The function pairs--ST, SF, NF, NT--show patterns of career selection, communication styles

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Because those types wouldn't fall in a certain category. Like I said, those are the four categories in which the 16 types fall.

ST's or SF's don't have a seperate category.

For your information. MBTI is a categorial tool. It's not 1+1 science. This is how it was designed. And that is why it is like this. Simple as that.

But if you ask me, the temperaments are barely MBTI.

EDIT: Click the third link my signature for a whole lot of crap about type groupings.

 

[jackandthebeast]

Magic Poriferan, your avatar makes me feel like I'm the thing, and that I'm going to pop and shatter into a thousand pieces.

You know, because it's expanding.

 

[wren]

I've had the same question as the OP. Trying to find a reason for the groupings causes confusion when theories are all over the place. The poster who said something about aligning the op's concern with the ancient temperaments made sense to me. But what if the basic categories comprising the temperaments were wrong to begin with? Also one can make groups of anything.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I've had the same question as the OP. Trying to find a reason for the groupings causes confusion when theories are all over the place. The poster who said something about aligning the op's concern with the ancient temperaments made sense to me. But what if the basic categories comprising the temperaments were wrong to begin with?

Indeed. I'm not sure why Keirsey thought there was wisdom in trying to walk in step with those rather archaic, mystical beliefs. Sure, the mysticism is no longer in his model, but the model still takes the same shape that was laid out on a mystical basis.

Also one can make groups of anything.

The question is if there are groups that are somehow more related to an actual systematic difference. Keirsey's in some sense was, but it was connected to another, very different system, which I think is pointless. One really could connect the MBTI to any other system and thus, like you said, group anything. However, if we look within the cognitive model and the usual MBTI type codes, I think there might actually be some different ways of grouping things that have logically significant differences. I'm partial to the functional (_XX_) quadrants and the attitudinal (X__X) quadrants.