Keirsey's types wouldn't even exist without the cognitive theories that preceded it. He's extrapolating from all of that and/or working with it closely.
It sounds like you are vastly uninformed about KTT, which is okay because at first I was, too.
Keirsey bases his ideas off of temperament studies throughout history, especially alot of theories in the early 20th century on human behavior. They all formulated the same basic four temperaments but added a new aspect at each turn. Myers also divided up her types into four groupings like we find here.
Eventually he abandoned the four letter typing system to focus on other traits (temperament, utilitarian vs. cooperative, roles, expressive vs. attentive). So he never based anything on cognitive theories which he believes are bunk because we can't think about our thoughts.
While I appreciate it (and it helps me differentiate myself from the SP temperment, for example), it can oversimplify matters too. MBTI is worth investing your time in as well, and it's only going to enrich your understanding or appreciation of the Keirseyan model.
Believe me, I used to be obsessed with it back in the day and researched it as much as possible, along with coming up with my own thoughts on it. I even checked out Jung's book that included
Psychological Types.
The problem came when I started changing alot. I figured I was just changing type, and then I wanted to make a better, more complex quiz based on the functions. But then those "functions" started to become indistinguishable. I couldn't really even understand where one left off and the other began. I started asking questions like, "What's the difference between thinking and feeling?" Eventually I just stopped thinking about personality theory altogether.
Fast-forward a few years, to more than a year ago when I was getting ready to move up here to Seattle and wanted to immerse myself into information about my type so I could have that extra boost. I didn't really find anything until I realized I could join Keirsey's message board which was more interactive to me. His son posts there and to my relief he was saying things like, "We all have emotions," and that his father makes distinctions more along the lines of soft-hearted versus tough-minded, which was the original distinction that
Jung based his typology on but took to a mystical extreme.
It's not all that different. To think there's really no such thing as "Ti" is like saying there's no such thing as a "liver" or a "lung", even though you acknowledge there are humans.
The problem is that you can't quantify those things. It becomes a confusing mish-mash. This is because people are integrated beings. A little of this, a little of that. But in order to be an individual at all, all of the ingredients that make up a person have to be inseparable aspects that combine into one thing.
I mean, how long would you really live if your liver wasn't working very well? Or your lungs? If all of the functions are that important, then nobody could live with their shadow functions so weakened as people claim they are.
I mean, if you acknowledge that Keirsey's INTP is an actual type, then you can't possibly dismiss the idea of Ti.
It's not "Keirsey's INTP." Yes, he did adopt the letterings from Myers for a bit but then abandoned them. They're still on the site for cross-reference, though, since so many know about MBTI and are ignorant of KTT.
I tend not to like that it's too shallow, but it still is more useful. On MBTI, the problem with function theory is more the fact that Jung's original descriptions were so mystical and vague, that they were left open to a thousand different interpretations.
Exactly.
What do you mean, more shallow? Not that I necessarily take offense, but I'm not sure what you mean. MBTI just seems like a confusing swamp of vague notions that aren't very helpful at all.
Based on keirsey though, I am a definite ENTP. You're right about that much, it's easier to be certain of your type there.
Yeah, that's why I use it!
Maybe an abstract Keirseyite would be better able to help get the idea across. I just accept it because it makes sense and it works.
Lenore Thomson may come across as abstract and mystical, but I find way more BS in this sorting method than I find in her work . I haven't read Kiersey's books yet, but Lenore Thomson's book is solid.
Hey, to each his own.
So this sorting method seems like bunk to me. I think this method over simplifies it and doesn't really tell much at all. I looked up Kiersey's definition of ENTP and ENFP to see if it differed from my personal definition, but it did not. According to his definitions I certainly am an ENFP, there is no way I'm an ENTP. Unless I defy definition, and then what would be the point? Therefore I'm thinking the sorting method thing is not a valid means to verify type.
Well, I'll believe that you're an ENFP, I was just offering up a quick guess because the only thing I know about you is that you said you like to tear ideas apart and analyze them. That sounds Rational to me, and with all the confusion about type here, who knows?
I never said that the sorting method should determine type. Far from it. A person's type should be determined by a full view of their entire life and their most consistent habits.
