..Anyway. I think you're wrong. There is practical relevance to going directly for psycho-analysis, in that it can tell you how to persaude someone. It tells you what makes sense to them, what they notice, what they consider important. You can try to learn the same things from action alone, but as I said, it get's very blurred. If you really try to make guess about how to communicate with someone based soley on their behavior, then you are fucked.
I'm never the end-all, forgive me if my concision implies that I believe that. Yes, Holmes said it, but I don't think she wrote it (Batman Begins quote). My jist is that it makes little difference what anyone does if it's invisible to the rest of the world. I'm sure you understand that.
Interesting. The original Myers-Briggs temperaments were in fact ST, SF, NF, and NT. I always thought that was more "symmetrical" than Keirsey, which seemed arbitrarily lopsided. You know what I mean?
Myers called these the function pairs and they're really beneficial for improving communication, since we're taking in information and making decisions through them...Myers also totally emphasized the dominant functions--S, N, T, F--and expanded Dewey's problem-solving model from S, N and T to include the gifts of the Feeling function.
Lots of people use the quadrants (IS, IN, ES, EN) to look at differences in change and at learning styles.
Last two letters (TJ, TP, FJ, FP) correlate with desires in conflict resolution.
Dominants and 8 functions in persuasion, coaching, team strengths and blind spots analysis.
Attitudes (IJ, IP, EP, EJ) work styles. Put types in those groups to draw ideal offices or classrooms and the agreement is pretty wild.
Ideally you'd use all 16 types but in a group session the nuances lose everyone...
People are not machines. Our minds do not function like engines built from discrete functioning parts.
Said like a good feeler. I'm not saying we're all perfect molds of anything, but I do believe it's possible to categorize a LOT of us. Some people fluctuate. C'est la vie.
Originally Posted by Patrick
To me, it's all more intuitive than scientific. You pick up vibes from people, and you get a sense of what kinds of people there are in the world, or what groupings they naturally fall into. And if you're sharp and observant, you sort people out in useful or meaningful ways, which can help you understand yourself and orient yourself to others.
Said like a good N. I'm much better with categorizing people based on what I see them do or what I hear them say rather than picking up on "vibes" (whatever vibes are - being an "S" I don't pick up on those much at all).
Originally Posted by Patrick
The very fact that Keirsey's work has grown so popular (even though his name is unknown even to most people who use his system) suggests that he has hit upon something more or less universal. People readily see SJs, SPs, NTs, and NFs all around.
I see people that way only after having it beat into me from reading so much MBTI stuff on this forum. I naturally see people as E/I & T/F and *then* S/N and lastly as P/J. It's so easy for me to tell if someone is a thinker or feeler rather than try to figure out how in the hell they see the world. It takes time for me to pick up on S/N and P/J.
Originally Posted by Xander
Anyhoo... people always talk about NTs and NFs on here and SJs get mentioned a lot as do SPs (less so but still present). Those combinations represent strong characteristics. EJ doesn't say anything about a person really. It lacks context. NT however does give you a fair grounding to a person even without the extra preferences.
Yeah... I know that. I think T and F are much more useful than P and J tho. I hate the SP and SJ groupings. Honestly I feel like I have very little in common with a lot of the Fs (definitely even less in common with the NFs).
There was a poll recently that was posted in all of the forums here...and who ever it was posted an analysis that I saw had fundamental flaws because of NT and SP being groups. Apparently NT had a much higher percent of numerical responses, whereas SP didn't. Well duh! SP has a bunch of feelers in it and NT doesn't (or in theory shouldn't).
Anyway...this is an ancient thread... I'll get off the soapbox.
I 65.63% E 34.38% S 68.75% N 31.25% T 87.1% F 12.9% P 66.67% J 33.33%
That is just as essential as TJ being Te, FP being Fi, etc. We're then just simply speaking of the functions. I think the original temperaments hold the most useful to this theory, when speaking of "temperament." The two perceiving functions in sensors stand out more than they would in intuitors. There happen to be clearer words when describing temperament and mood of NT and NF, instead of NP and NJ which reflects Ni and Ne, because the mechanism of judging functions mean a lot when paired with intuitors' motivation for irrational thought. P and J is certainly useful for combinations of other groups.
I actually agree with the Kiersey classifications. I also think that it's good to balance Kiersey's model with others (the NP/NJ difference, for instance, is very interesting, as is the SF/ST difference).
Despite my approval of the Kiersey model, however, I will say that it's annoying at human resources trainings and similar things that water down Myers-Briggs into the four Kiersey categories for training purposes because SFJs (especially ESFJs with dominant Fe) are constantly getting mistyped in the NF category and STJs (especially ESTJs with dominant Te) get mistyped in the NT category. I get the strong urge to correct people in those situations but then I decide it would be too difficult to explain it all lol.