Temperament-Style Groupings

[stellar renegade]

Oh, damn.

 

[stalemate]

Ha well funny thing... there is an ESTJ guy that actually knows quite a few of these apps and he was one of the ones not following my categorization strategy the other day. Today we have another meeting about it and he says basically "well, I looked at the list and a lot of these are just VB apps with no UI and they move data around, they can all be replaced with the ESB."

So he ended up at the same place where I was but took some totally different path. He and I do that all the time we will think we disagree but we are really going to the same place just taking different routes to get there.

 

[angelhair45]

So I was thinking about this some more...

ENFPs we are the Kings and Queens of variety. We love it. Need it. New, new, new! Isn't the essence of variety difference? Don't ENFPs crave different things? So how can we not sort by differences? It makes more sense that that would be our primary method.

It seems absurd that we would use a sorting method opposite to our personality type. Our essence is new, different, variety. We want new and different people and experiences. So why would we primarily group things by similarities? I think I may make a poll in the NF section. I think Kiersey might have been wrong on this one.

 

[stalemate]

So I was thinking about this some more...

ENFPs we are the Kings and Queens of variety. We love it. Need it. New, new, new! Isn't the essence of variety difference? Don't ENFPs crave different things? So how can we not sort by differences? It makes more sense that that would be our primary method.

It seems absurd that we would use a sorting method opposite to our personality type. Our essence is new, different, variety. We want new and different people and experiences. So why would we primarily group things by similarities? I think I may make a poll in the NF section. I think Kiersey might have been wrong on this one.

I think it is all about the patterns. Everything fits into some kind of pattern. I think grouping by classes/genres/types is just an extension of recognizing the patterns.

I'm sold.

 

[stellar renegade]

I think it is all about the patterns. Everything fits into some kind of pattern. I think grouping by classes/genres/types is just an extension of recognizing the patterns.

I'm sold.

Exactly.

At the Keirsey forum, we call ENFPs or "Champions" the Artisans of the Idealists. They're the Idealists who are most like Artisans. That's why you're all about variety, which is more of an SP trait than anything.

And much as you do love variety (and all NFs may), you're probably thinking about variety between types and genres. In fact, you probably classify that way because you like seeing a multi-faceted experience.

 

[skylights]

Exactly.

At the Keirsey forum, we call ENFPs or "Champions" the Artisans of the Idealists. They're the Idealists who are most like Artisans. That's why you're all about variety, which is more of an SP trait than anything.

And much as you do love variety (and all NFs may), you're probably thinking about variety between types and genres. In fact, you probably classify that way because you like seeing a multi-faceted experience.

i was previously not content with the idea you presented in this thread... it seemed silly, simplistic - like it was really boxing things in because there are about 1000 ways you could look at any one of those groupings.

now that you've said this, it makes more sense.

 

[Noon]

I'll give this a try. I'm guessing here...

1 - Sorts/distinctions/categories and classes/genres/types
2 - Sets/arrays/varieties and clusters/bunches/stacks

I can't tell the exact difference between sets/arrays/varieties and classes/genres/types. S/D/C & C/B/S seem to overlap. S/D/C & C/G/T seem to overlap even more, both with each other and with S/A/V. This is all very confusing.

SPs talk about sorts of things such as various wines because they're the artists of society and the masters of variety and spotting opportunities. Thus they can pull together the strengths of various items, using them interchangeably like a ninja warrior twirling nunchucks one second and throwing chinese stars the next.

What's the difference in getting excited about the varieties of wine and the classes or categories of it? At first glance I'm thinking it's the same concept and all an issue of semantics. But I don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything. I really want to learn this.

I *need* diversity and variety in where I live, what I eat/drink, what I listen to, and where I go. But it can be annoying when I'm working with something and it's all meshed together. I get a lot more pleasure out of breaking it down into categories where everything fits seamlessly, and going back in the end to make a new set of categories that shows how all categories are interrelated.

NTs talk about sorts of things because they take great pains to distinguish one type of thing from another so as to not get them confused. Their distinctions can get deeper and deeper, creating more efficiency and thereby evoking accusations of splitting hairs.

This sounds like me again. But I'm not a Rational by any means and can hardly relate to them at all. One of the most annoying side-effects is that when I hear an error in conversation (like a mispronunciation, misuse of vocabulary or grammatical error), I have to consciously try to ignore it. I have gotten into mini-discussions in the middle of a conversation about the extent to which a word is synonymous to another and how best to use inflection. I do it indiscriminately, with teachers and parents as often as with friends and little kids. I have to control it now since it annoys so many people (those who enjoy it are too few!).

haha. I do, too. I think it more or less depends on the way you approach the groupings. An SP is more likely to point out the differences between all the doggies, whereas an SJ will more likely say, "It's just another dog, big deal." lol.

The most fun I ever had with dogs was learning about all of the different breeds and their general traits, what distinguishes a breed from one group but links them to another. My SJ mother thinks it's anal-retentive and says something just like that: "A dog is a dog".

 

[stellar renegade]

i was previously not content with the idea you presented in this thread... it seemed silly, simplistic - like it was really boxing things in because there are about 1000 ways you could look at any one of those groupings.

now that you've said this, it makes more sense.

Thanks!

The most fun I ever had with dogs was learning about all of the different breeds and their general traits, what distinguishes a breed from one group but links them to another. My SJ mother thinks it's anal-retentive and says something just like that: "A dog is a dog".

haha, see now that's what I'm talking about. SJs are like that.

I admit it can be a bit confusing and I see why people feel like the distinctions are vague. It helps to realize that it's not the most important part of personality theory by far. I just thought it was interesting.