User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: David Keirsey.

  1. #21
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    @Marmie Dearest Me masquerading as God has nothing to do with whether or not I actually believe in him. Again you are taking the typology too seriously. Albert Einstein for example was diagnosed by Keirsey as an NT, and Albert Einstein was quotes as saying, "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind." Einstein also said, "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." He was not religious in the traditional sense but nonetheless he also had beliefs about God, for example when Einstein wrote the following essay (it is very long):

    Religion and Science (1930)Originally written for the New York Times Magazine (9 November 1930). A version with altered wording appeared in Ideas and Opinions (1954)

    Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain.
    it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints.Everything that men do or think concerns the satisfaction of the needs they feel or the escape from pain. This must be kept in mind when we seek to understand spiritual or intellectual movements and the way in which they develop. For feelings and longings are the motive forces of all human striving and productivity—however nobly these latter may display themselves to us.
    Wording in Ideas and Opinions: Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us.
    The longing for guidance, for love and succor, provides the stimulus for the growth of a social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, decides, rewards and punishes. This is the God who, according to man's widening horizon, loves and provides for the life of the race, or of mankind, or who even loves life itself. He is the comforter in unhappiness and in unsatisfied longing, the protector of the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral idea of God.
    Wording in Ideas and Opinions: The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even of life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.
    It is easy to follow in the sacred writings of the Jewish people the development of the religion of fear into the moral religion, which is carried further in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially those of the Orient, are principally moral religions. An important advance in the life of a people is the transformation of the religion of fear into the moral religion. But one must avoid the prejudice that regards the religions of primitive peoples as pure fear religions and those of the civilized races as pure moral religions. All are mixed forms, though the moral element predominates in the higher levels of social life.
    Wording in Ideas and Opinions: The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
    Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of the idea of God. Only exceptionally gifted individuals or especially noble communities rise essentially above this level; in these there is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance. Indications of this cosmic religious sense can be found even on earlier levels of development—for example, in the Psalms of David and in the Prophets. The cosmic element is much stronger in Buddhism, as, in particular, Schopenhauer's magnificent essays have shown us. The religious geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this cosmic religious sense, which recognizes neither dogmas nor God made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a church whose chief doctrines are based on the cosmic religious experience. It comes about, therefore, that we find precisely among the heretics of all ages men who were inspired by this highest religious experience; often they appeared to their contemporaries as atheists, but sometimes also as saints. Viewed from this angle, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are near to one another.
    Wording in Ideas and Opinions: Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

    It is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.How can this cosmic religious experience be communicated from man to man, if it cannot lead to a definite conception of God or to a theology? It seems to me that the most important function of art and of science is to arouse and keep alive this feeling in those who are receptive.
    Wording in Ideas and Opinions: How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
    For any one who is pervaded with the sense of causal law in all that happens, who accepts in real earnest the assumption of causality, the idea of Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. Neither the religion of fear nor the social-moral religion can have any hold on him. A God who rewards and punishes is for him unthinkable, because man acts in accordance with an inner and outer necessity, and would, in the eyes of God, be as little responsible as an inanimate object is for the movements which it makes. Science, in consequence, has been accused of undermining morals—but wrongly. The ethical behavior of man is better based on sympathy, education and social relationships, and requires no support from religion. Man's plight would, indeed, be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear of punishment and hope of rewards after death.
    Wording in Ideas and Opinions: The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events — provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
    Variant: "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere" has been cited as a statement that precedes the last three sentences here, but in fact this is a separate quote from a 1947 letter Einstein wrote to Murray W. Gross, included in the Einstein and Religion (1999) section below (and in the letter the word used is "anthropomorphic," not "anthropological").
    It is, therefore, quite natural that the churches have always fought against science and have persecuted its supporters. But, on the other hand, I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research. No one who does not appreciate the terrific exertions, and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer creations in scientific thought cannot come into being, can judge the strength of the feeling out of which alone such work, turned away as it is from immediate practical life, can grow. What a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world and what a longing to understand even a small glimpse of the reason revealed in the world there must have been in Kepler and Newton to enable them to unravel the mechanism of the heavens in long years of lonely work! Any one who only knows scientific research in its practical applications may easily come to a wrong interpretation of the state of mind of the men who, surrounded by skeptical contemporaries, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered over all countries in all centuries. Only those who have dedicated their lives to similar ends can have a living conception of the inspiration which gave these men the power to remain loyal to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is the cosmic religious sense which grants this power. A contemporary has rightly said that the only deeply religious people of our largely materialistic age are the earnest men of research.
    Wording in Ideas and Opinions: It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  2. #22
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    @RaptorWizard I said nothing false. Keirsey Jr asserted that he does not believe nts to ever be religious. Therefore Keirsey was certainly not describing your type as god. Furthermore he'd say you weren't nt most likely. So drop the silliness. If you want to be a religious nt, better stick with Jung.

    @affirmativeanxiety Si does not live in a vacuum. In SJs its in tandem with Je. Making what I said still accurate.

    Unless you're a purist who believes Si is supported by undifferentiated Feeling or Thinking, in which case you need to stop using the term SJ entirely.
    My argument is what I believe is wrong with Keirsey's theory and the risks that come about from it. I dont use the term SJ others do and it annoys me that people believe it is possible to mix and match with different personality theories that are not compatible. The point being that what Keirsey does, and has not been refuted, is simply stereotype and pander to a certain type of cognitive laziness as in 'oh it's not my fault he's just an SJ or an NT or a pink purple dishwasher' etc....
    I have never witnessed a long term benefit of his theory, the second anyone wishes to delve in deeper they will hit a brick wall because 'NT' or 'NF' and even the individual types as he describes them do not allow for human variability. They are too locked in and certain. This is where cognitive functions, and I suppose even MBTI which I dont fully support, has an upper hand because an ISFJ being a combination of functions ie: Si>Fe>Ti>Ne makes a lot more sense when it comes to variability than :
    We are lucky that Protectors make up as much as ten percent the population, because their primary interest is in the safety and security of those they care about - their family, their circle of friends, their students, their patients, their boss, their fellow-workers, or their employees. Protectors have an extraordinary sense of loyalty and responsibility in their makeup, and seem fulfilled in the degree they can shield others from the dirt and dangers of the world. Speculating and experimenting do not intrigue Protectors, who prefer to make do with time-honored and time-tested products and procedures rather than change to new. At work Protectors are seldom happy in situations where the rules are constantly changing, or where long-established ways of doing things are not respected. For their part, Protectors value tradition, both in the culture and in their family. Protectors believe deeply in the stability of social ranking conferred by birth, titles, offices, and credentials. And they cherish family history and enjoy caring for family property, from houses to heirlooms.

    Wanting to be of service to others, Protectors find great satisfaction in assisting the downtrodden, and can deal with disability and neediness in others better than any other type. They are not as outgoing and talkative as the Provider Guardians [ESFJs], and their shyness is often misjudged as stiffness, even coldness, when in truth Protectors are warm-hearted and sympathetic, giving happily of themselves to those in need......blah blah blah'
    If someone were to be an ISFJ in functions but not relate to this description then they will not receive any help from Keirsey's book, it would not help them in a deeper understanding of themselves and others and therefore they will be unable to solve any problems they might be having. Then doubt sets in, are they this type? What are the implications? Should I care? Will I care? I need help!!

    At the very least shadow theory does help here.

    I know im being harsh so I will mention that I believe Keirsey has good intentions and his work is perhaps a good introduction and does some things right, but any further than that and it falls apart.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  3. #23
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Im curious what others opinions of his theory are?

    Personally I think he is right on some things, but extremely wrong on others and worst of all his theory comes across as little more than the typing of persona's as induced by social environments and needs.

    I think it is satisfying for those who just want to dip into personality theories as if they are an astrology of the mind, but I often worry that the way in which his types and the 4 temperaments are written, that it does little more than confuse people and help them decend into stereotyped opinions.
    I find the temperament stuff interesting. Oversimplified and stereotyped to some degree, but still interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post

    My ISTJ has something of an ISFJ persona (he's always doing things like housework and taking care of dogs and he's very in touch with his Fi, as well as being highly aesthetic) but it's very clear he has no sense of Fe. He says things like "I hate people but pretend to be nice so they'll go away" and things like that. No sense of Fe, much more of a need to control the external environment with objective logic than to organize people and collective morality. Very cold and reserved about his feelings, hard time being expressive, more Fi, like he's protecting a gooey center ...and yeah. He also relates to the description of an ISTJ child. For example, he never believed in a god, because he thought it was preposterously illogical.

    So I can have an ESFP persona but be a functional ISFP, and he can have an ISFJ persona and be a functional ISTJ. Interestingly, though, we still relate
    I think function wise I best fit INTP, yet I don't always score INTP on tests. Lately I've been hopping among the 4 INXX types. I seem to test INTJ alot and relate to quite a bit of the INTJ type description, yet functionally, I relate to TiNe more than NiTe. I also relate to parts of the ISFJ description, which has the same top 4 functions as INTP just in a different order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oeufa View Post
    I dunno, I just always got the impression from his book that he thought all intuitives were basically the most awesome people ever (if misunderstood), whereas sensors were dull and generally less intelligent. Which is bullshit I think he overplayed the conflict between NTs and SJs too; it's like he believes all Guardians are boring arseholes with a vendetta to quash the free-spirit of the vice-free Rational Wonderboy . Maybe I'm reading a bit much into it though

    I think he's lost some of his edginess between Please Understand Me and PUM II though.
    Yeah, I don't think he paints the guardians in the most positive light. Then again, he identifies himself as a rational, so he's writing a guardian description from a rational point of view. He also does that with the artisans to some extent. Makes it sound like artisans lack foresight into the future and do poorly in school but are really good things like tools, sports and performing. Again, sounds overly stereotyped.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne



    Likes BluRoses liked this post

  4. #24
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    I like Keirsey. I found PUM II to be very insightful if you take it with a grain of salt. The biggest problem with his description of the Guardians is how folksy they seemed -- he seemed writing the Guardians based on how they might have behaved in the 1950s and 60s. I find his behavioral theories to be more precise than function order, which are so vaguely described that they can be applied whenever it is convenient for the person analyzing another. The problem with function theory is that they're typing the person based on what functions they see, or rather, want to see, rather than theorizing how a person of a certain type may be using his/her assigned functions based on their type.

    I think Keirsey's best work, however, are the articles at Personality Zone, which were not necessarily written by Keirsey himself, but his theories were used and brought down to a level that a common person can relate to more. It gives light on the fact that, for example, not all Guardians are super-traditionalists, or that not all Rationals are scientists (at least not in the traditional sense), but the core behavioral characteristics of all the types are still there, just more modernized.
    Likes BluRoses liked this post

  5. #25
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ü View Post
    I like Keirsey. I found PUM II to be very insightful if you take it with a grain of salt. The biggest problem with his description of the Guardians is how folksy they seemed -- he seemed writing the Guardians based on how they might have behaved in the 1950s and 60s. I find his behavioral theories to be more precise than function order, which are so vaguely described that they can be applied whenever it is convenient for the person analyzing another. The problem with function theory is that they're typing the person based on what functions they see, or rather, want to see, rather than theorizing how a person of a certain type may be using his/her assigned functions based on their type.

    I think Keirsey's best work, however, are the articles at Personality Zone, which were not necessarily written by Keirsey himself, but his theories were used and brought down to a level that a common person can relate to more. It gives light on the fact that, for example, not all Guardians are super-traditionalists, or that not all Rationals are scientists (at least not in the traditional sense), but the core behavioral characteristics of all the types are still there, just more modernized.
    Well that sounds more interesting.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.
    Likes BluRoses liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. David Keirsey
    By Psyclepath in forum Celebrity Personality Types
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-07-2017, 06:42 PM
  2. [Kiersey's Temperaments] Please Understand Me II – Temperament Character Intelligence by David Keirsey
    By highlander in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-10-2014, 08:37 AM
  3. RIP David Keirsey!
    By Eric B in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-18-2013, 07:00 PM
  4. David Keirsey's "Please Understand Me" video?
    By autumn in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 10:07 PM
  5. INTRO ; MBTI & Co-relation wt. Keirsey 4 Temperaments
    By Rakesh in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-01-2007, 09:06 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