• 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.

Oh, how it irks me!

MerkW

New member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
534
I have always been irked by the fact that MBTI types are divided into NT, SP, SJ, and NF, all because of the KTI. I'm not quite sure why this irritates me, but it just seems ideologically inconsistent for whatever reason. One thing I like about socionics is this aspect, where the divisions are (1) NF humanitarian, (2) ST Pragmatic, (3) SF Socialite, and (4) NT Researcher.

Does anyone else feel the same? Do you think the original MBTI divisions should be re-instated?
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I really hate it.

There is technically no "correct" way to categorize them, so why not do something that is at least more convenient?
Like, NT, NF, SF, ST. I combine that with EP, EJ, IJ, IP. Those don't suddenly change the place of the letters in question.

I do believe the core letters and the book-end letters should be grouped separately, because they are significantly different.
The core ones like NF are more about how you think, whereas the outside ones like EP are more about how you apply your thoughts.
Like the dynamo and its gyro.
 

MerkW

New member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
534
I really hate it.

There is technically no "correct" way to categorize them, so why not do something that is at least more convenient?
Like, NT, NF, SF, ST. I combine that with EP, EJ, IJ, IP. Those don't suddenly change the place of the letters in question.

I do believe the core letters and the book-end letters should be grouped separately, because they are significantly different.
The core ones like NF are more about how you think, whereas the outside ones like EP are more about how you apply your thoughts.
Like the dynamo and its gyro.

Agreed. I like this method much more.

Also, just for the record:

IP = Melancholy
EJ = Choleric
IJ = Phlegmatic
EP = Sanguine
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Agreed. I like this method much more.

Also, just for the record:

IP = Melancholy
EJ = Choleric
IJ = Phlegmatic
EP = Sanguine

Dude! I totally already thought of that! Except, I actually thought IP was more fitting for Phlegmatic and IJ for Melancholy.
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
IP = Melancholy
EJ = Choleric
IJ = Phlegmatic
EP = Sanguine
This arrangement validates some impressions of mine, as I test as a Choleric. IPs and IJs tend towards contemplation and conjecture in a way that I don't; and many of those types claim, here, to use avoidance as a technique in conflict resolution, which makes me think of the kind of people who so clam up that I want to pry them open with a crowbar.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I have always been irked by the fact that MBTI types are divided into NT, SP, SJ, and NF, all because of the KTI. I'm not quite sure why this irritates me, but it just seems ideologically inconsistent for whatever reason. One thing I like about socionics is this aspect, where the divisions are (1) NF humanitarian, (2) ST Pragmatic, (3) SF Socialite, and (4) NT Researcher.

Does anyone else feel the same? Do you think the original MBTI divisions should be re-instated?

I agree that they don't always fit. For instance, I don't necessarily get along well with INFP's due to the shared NF... in fact I argue with INFP's so much I've taken to avoiding them because it's painful to deal with them. I can get along with ENFJ's well enough, but they make me feel like I'm on the defensive at times, like they must want something from me, and it makes me feel like I have to stay alert so that they don't trick me into making them look good at my own expense (it's usually a false impression induced by paranoia, though it has been accurate in rare cases. I'm not sure what causes it). I'm usually fairly comfortable with other INFJ's and ENFP's, though.

I prefer to divide the types into INxx, ESxx, ENxx, and ISxx, although even that doesn't totally express the types I get along with well. Another one I've found that works well is matching up all four types that have the same dominant function in Introverted and Extraverted forms.

That still doesn't explain why I can usually get along with INTP's better than INFP's despite the former's reputation for being more critical, and cold/distant than the latter. Or why INTPs and INFP's get along with each other so well. I guess there are some things that can't be explained very well yet...

I seriously wonder if it makes sense to group types according to letters, though... it might have more to do with functional interactions.
 

DaRick

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
100
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I agree that they don't always fit.

I prefer to divide the types into INxx, ESxx, ENxx, and ISxx, although even that doesn't totally express the types I get along with well. Another one I've found that works well is matching up all four types that have the same dominant function in Introverted and Extraverted forms.

I seriously wonder if it makes sense to group types according to letters, though... it might have more to do with functional interactions.

Yes, personalitypage.com does use the Extraverted/Introverted function theory when picking or predicting life partners (i.e - ISTJ should go with ESFP/ESTP). However, I'm not so sure if this washes with me. I have mixed relationships with the ENFP's I have met (I know many), although I have a workable relationship with the ENTP that I know - although I dislike his over-competitive and backstabbing tendencies.

typelogic.com also presents these definitons for relationship pairs, contradicting the above theory:

Advisor: each has an area of insight that the other lacks (i.e: both types share the first two letters - INTJ/INFP)
Cohort: mutually drawn into experiential escapades (i.e: both types only share the third letter - INTJ/ESTP)
Companion: similar modes of expression: bear each other's company well (i.e: both types share the first two letters and the last letter- INTJ/INFJ)
Complement: compatible strengths with opposite emphases (i.e: both types share the first three letters - INTJ/INTP)
Supplement: like Pal, but functions are farther removed: each can add to the other's strengths (i.e: both types share the first letter - INTJ/ISFP)
Tribesman: share a sense of culture, but with different interests and abilities (i.e: both types share the second and last letter - INTJ/ENFJ)
Anima: fits Dr. Beebe's description of the anima/anumus: each is the other's inferior (4th) function (i.e: complete opposites -INTJ/ESFP)
Contrast: point and counterpoint on each function (both types share the middle two letters - INTJ/ENTP)
Counterpart: perform similar functions in totally different realms (both types share the last two letters - INTJ/ESTJ)
Enigma: a puzzle: totally foreign in nearly every facet (both types share the bookending letters - INTJ/ISFJ)
Identity: same types: a typological mirror-image
Neighbor: arrive at the same place by variant processes (both types share the first, third and last letters - INTJ/ISTJ)
Novelty: intriguingly different: interestingly so (both types only share the last letter - INTJ/ESFJ)
Pal: work and play well together: minimal natural type conflict (both types share the last three letters - INTJ/ENTJ)
Pedagogue: each is both the other's mentor and student: has a "parent to child" feel (both types share only the second letter - INTJ/ENFP)
Suitemate: a person one might be comfortable sharing an office. Prefer similar climates, but don't necessarily have much in common as far as goals or world view (both types share the first/third letters - INTJ/ISTP)

Personally, I get along well with most types - with the exception of INTP's, whose social and moral irresponsibility and backstabbing tendencies have left me nothing short of upset at times (the ones that I've met, anyway). They also seem to be egotistical and weird for the sake of weird, to put it that way. People have referred to me as 'weird', but I've never tried to be weird. I get along reasonably well with INFP's and ISFP's and surprisingly, one of my best friends is an ESFP. Although he is well-meaning, he disappoints me with his lack of social fortitude, irresponsibility, lack of intuition and even intellect (not to be rude). He also makes me look like a person with great common-sense (and that's saying quite a lot). The controlling tendencies and bluntness that seem to be characteristic of the STJ's I've come across is also irksome, although one of my best friends is an ESTJ. I get along fine with ISFJ's and ESFJ's and can indeed relate to the ISFJ. I also work well with ENFJ's, INFJ's, ENTJ's and ISTP's, although the ENTJ/ISTP tactlessness and even pettiness (at their worst) is a stumbling block for me. I get along OK with other INTJ's, even though how well depends on the extent that they have developed their Feeling side.

In general, I admit that my best relationships over the years have been with F's, although the FJ's in my life have disappointed me less than FP's.
 

MerkW

New member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
534
Dude! I totally already thought of that! Except, I actually thought IP was more fitting for Phlegmatic and IJ for Melancholy.

Indeed. I have been having some trouble deciding whether IP is Melancholy or Phlegmatic. Regardless, EJ is definitely choleric and EP is definitely Sanguine.

To DaRick: What is wrong with acting weird for the sake of doing so? I'm surprised that you, a 4w5 sp, would say such.

In accordance with Lenore Thomson's theories, INxPs are perhaps the most idiosyncratic of all types, due to Ne as the auxiliary function.

INxPs of all types are most likely to have a particularly strong urge to do things differently--to separate themselves from the masses. They are mos likely to have a penchant for things outside-of-the-box and are most likely to strongly embrace individualism.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Agreed. I like this method much more.
Also, just for the record:
IP = Melancholy
EJ = Choleric
IJ = Phlegmatic
EP = Sanguine

Phlegmatics tend to be P's.

And melancholics are more traditionally assigned to J's.

And you still need to be careful when dealing with J/P.... because they are not functions. You cannot treat them as if they were just one more pair like I/E, S/N, or T/F.
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
I would actually be surprised if, for predictions of friendships, relationships, controlling tendencies, and such, there would be one single pattern that could predict across MBTI types how these things would work across all the types. Most other simplified classification system have such exceptions, and MBTI comes from an extremely simplified version of how people's minds work.

(Periodic table trends in chemistry are a great example of this, although elements have enough properties in common to make the table in the first place, there are quitea lot of exceptions and oddities that aren't predictibale without outside information.)

I have always been irked by the fact that MBTI types are divided into NT, SP, SJ, and NF, all because of the KTI. I'm not quite sure why this irritates me, but it just seems ideologically inconsistent for whatever reason. One thing I like about socionics is this aspect, where the divisions are (1) NF humanitarian, (2) ST Pragmatic, (3) SF Socialite, and (4) NT Researcher.

Whether or not toe Keirsey divisions actually work well on their own or not, I'm not surprised to see a different way of classifying S's and N's. If people's minds do work with the functions as described, it's not surprising that functions would interact in unusual ways to produce different behaviour patterns of S's and N's (Or other letter differences), to cause them to be classified differently in some system.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Whether or not toe Keirsey divisions actually work well on their own or not, I'm not surprised to see a different way of classifying S's and N's. If people's minds do work with the functions as described, it's not surprising that functions would interact in unusual ways to produce different behaviour patterns of S's and N's (Or other letter differences), to cause them to be classified differently in some system.

I think originally in the MBTI, this was the archetype selection (SF, ST, NF, NT).

I became acquainted with Keirsey almost at the same time I found the MBTI, so I learned later that his four archetypes were his own creation, not the standard.
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
I think originally in the MBTI, this was the archetype selection (SF, ST, NF, NT).

I became acquainted with Keirsey almost at the same time I found the MBTI, so I learned later that his four archetypes were his own creation, not the standard.

Yes, I've read the Keirsey book and saw how that classification system worked. (While it was fun to read, most other parts of it, like the "directive vs. informative" or different types of intelligence, seemed way to symmetrical to be useful for much.)
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm more inclined to see people as NF, NT, SF, ST myself. I've never understood why it was SJ/SP. Why would it be one way for the Ns and another way for the Ss? I relate to the STs in an entirely different manner than the SFs, and I think the F/T makes that initial distinction first and foremost, well before the J/P.

Just what's bugged me, I guess. Then again, I'm not a scientist.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm more inclined to see people as NF, NT, SF, ST myself. I've never understood why it was SJ/SP. Why would it be one way for the Ns and another way for the Ss? I relate to the STs in an entirely different manner than the SFs, and I think the F/T makes that initial distinction first and foremost, well before the J/P. Just what's bugged me, I guess. Then again, I'm not a scientist.

Well, Keirsey is INTP (I think) and a theorist, so much of his work is constructed from the theory side of things.

I think he is grouping off motivations, primarily, here.

Concrete J's (SJ) = Si as first or second function
Concrete P's (SP) = Se as first or second function

Apparently to Keirsey, he saw this as creating more of a separation than the T/F difference. He was looking at "motivations," and concrete J's are more interested in creating the inner map of the world and changing the OUTER world to conform, while concrete P's are more interested in responding to the outer world in the moment -- they change THEMSELVES [i.e., their actions] to accommodate and overcome what is happening in the outer world.

One imposes on the outer world, one responds to the outer world.

<Sorry if this is not going anywhere, I have never thought in this direction before... this is very raw!>

Now if we did this with intuitives, what happens?

Abstract J's (NJ) = Ni as first or second function
Abstract P's (NP) = Ne as first or second function

Is there a useful delineation here? Probably there still is... except that N's generally are more "free" like the SPs are, they have flex because they're looking at possibilities. So perhaps they are harder to distinguish until you begin to look at HOW they interact with the world and what they try to change/enact? (This is why T/F perhaps seems more influential with N's.)

Sorry, I'm losing my train of thought and need to get back to work, but please feel free to take the ball and run with it.

Yes, I've read the Keirsey book and saw how that classification system worked. (While it was fun to read, most other parts of it, like the "directive vs. informative" or different types of intelligence, seemed way to symmetrical to be useful for much.)

There is that problem -- it balances out nicely on paper... but does it accurately reflect reality in the most coherent way? I don't know.
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well, Keirsey is INTP (I think) and a theorist, so much of his work is constructed from the theory side of things.

Ah, you think so too. After reading the Please Understand Me manual, I sat back and mused, "That man is an INTP. Bless his heart!" *laughs* I pointed out the entries for INTP to my sister because I can see where he feels very misunderstood as a private person. I applaud his efforts on behalf of demystification, for himself and all of us involved. I kinda liked that his INTP-ness came out in spite of the scientific endeavor. Makes it more personal, I think, and more relate-able. :)



I think he is grouping off motivations, primarily, here.

Concrete J's (SJ) = Si as first or second function
Concrete P's (SP) = Se as first or second function

I see! Thank you for pointing that out.


Apparently to Keirsey, he saw this as creating more of a separation than the T/F difference. He was looking at "motivations," and concrete J's are more interested in creating the inner map of the world and changing the OUTER world to conform, while concrete P's are more interested in responding to the outer world in the moment -- they change THEMSELVES [i.e., their actions] to accommodate and overcome what is happening in the outer world.

Very interesting. I can see the identification between the Js and Ps better now. Exposing the Se/Si does seem to make a big influence on over-all behavior.

Now if we did this with intuitives, what happens?

Abstract J's (NJ) = Ni as first or second function
Abstract P's (NP) = Ne as first or second function

Is there a useful delineation here? Probably there still is... except that N's generally are more "free" like the SPs are, they have flex because they're looking at possibilities. So perhaps they are harder to distinguish until you begin to look at HOW they interact with the world and what they try to change/enact? (This is why T/F perhaps seems more influential with N's.)

Sorry, I'm losing my train of thought and need to get back to work, but please feel free to take the ball and run with it.

That makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for your insight!
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Is there a useful delineation here? Probably there still is... except that N's generally are more "free" like the SPs are, they have flex because they're looking at possibilities. So perhaps they are harder to distinguish until you begin to look at HOW they interact with the world and what they try to change/enact? (This is why T/F perhaps seems more influential with N's.)

Actually, I think J/P does make an important difference. I think each type of N, NP and NJ, is actually restrained/free in a different way. There are actually ways I've seen that NP's resemble SJ's, and ways they resemble SP's. Those ways are usually reversed with NJ's.

To me, it seems that J's resemble one another due to surface order, and P's resemble each other due to surface flexibility. But inside, the reasons for it are very different. S/N and I/E both change it.
 

alcea rosea

New member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,658
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
I can see good sides in both classifications: Keirsey & MBTI. Traditionalist SJ's (reliable people) have some personality traits that unite the group and so does SP's (experience seeking people). On the other hand SF's can be identified to be a group (happy people) and so SJ's (serious people).

My description is not very scientifical (is there such a word?), but it's how I see it.
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Scientifical. lol :D

I've viewed SJs/STs as being the forces of order. (read: not humorless)
I've viewed the SFs/SPs as being the forces of change. (read: not scatterbrained)

I suppose the J and P *are* the biggest definition. I can see a big difference between say, my mother (ESTJ) and a friend of mine (ESTP), and less marked a difference between my mother and another friend (ESFJ).

Food for thought, at any rate.
 

alcea rosea

New member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,658
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Scientifical. lol :D .

I'm so good! I made up a new word. :D
You see my bad english? Me foreigner. :hi:

I can see good sides in both classifications: Keirsey & MBTI. Traditionalist SJ's (reliable people) have some personality traits that unite the group and so does SP's (experience seeking people). On the other hand SF's can be identified to be a group (happy people) and so SJ's (serious people).

I have to write my post all over again because it contained several mistakes in addition to the new word. :D

So,
SJ's = reliable peoplem traditionalists
SP's = experience seeking, Sensing people

SF = friendly people
ST = serious in business, reliable, hard working
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I like making up new words. May I add your fancy word to my lexicon? :D
 
Top