• 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.

Question about NT/NF/SP/SJ

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
I know that the ease and catchiness of it is why the Keirseyian approach is so popular... I just think that's unfortunate.

So your attitude is that the people who will never get the cog stuff are better off not having any knowledge of the whole shebang at all?
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So your attitude is that the people who will never get the cog stuff are better off not having any knowledge of the whole shebang at all?

...It's possible. Because they take the simplified depiction and twist it and pervert it into all kinds of incorrect things, and it could potentially be harmful. I've already heard stories about people being given the MBTI while applying for jobs, and getting turned down because they were not the "ideal" type.

Oddly, most businesses that do this seem to always think that ESTJs and ENTJs are the best type, no matter what the job is.
This is an example of a terrible misunderstanding of the MBTI having negative results.

A vastly over-simplified, and supposedly behavior predicting MBTI is as good as the Zodiac.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
...It's possible. Because they take the simplified depiction and twist it and pervert it into all kinds of incorrect things, and it could potentially be harmful. I've already heard stories about people being given the MBTI while applying for jobs, and getting turned down because they were not the "ideal" type.

Oddly, most businesses that do this seem to always think that ESTJs and ENTJs are the best type, no matter what the job is.
This is an example of a terrible misunderstanding of the MBTI having negative results.

A vastly over-simplified, and supposedly behavior predicting MBTI is as good as the Zodiac.
But that's separate. I don't believe MBTI splits people the way Keirsey does. Keirsey's book is very adamant that everyone has strengths.
 

runvardh

にゃん
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
8,541
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
In the end MBTI is about 16 types, not 4.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
But that's separate. I don't believe MBTI splits people the way Keirsey does. Keirsey's book is very adamant that everyone has strengths.

That's true. But Keirsey's archetypical approach must first exist in order for people to have such simplistic biases. Keirsey tries to say that everyone has strengths, but never the less, he pidgeonholes people too much seems to be kind of imbalanced in his descriptions.

Also, here's another problem with Kiersey's system:
Actions are the product of our mental processes. Mental process comes first, it's at the root. Trying to figure out someone's type by their actions is really crappy, because the same action can be arrived at for many, many different reasons. The fact that someone merely does something doesn't tell you much about what's going on in their head.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Why are those specific type combinations the breakdowns? They aren't consistent in regard to which aspects are included (E vs. I, N vs. S, F vs. T, J vs. P). Why not NT/NF/ST/SF, or TP/TJ//SP/SJ? Is it based upon the dominant functions by type?

Keirsey simply thought that division worked best... and I think he might have had the four humors (melancholy, sanguine, choleric, and phlegmatic) in mind when making the divisions. In reality, I don't think those divisions work better than any other divisions.

I personally have come to prefer NJ, NP, SJ, and SP myself, although I sometimes use TP, TJ, FP and FJ as well. Once in a while, I even use IJ, EJ, EP, and IP. I'm not really picky, I think they all have their uses in describing personality.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Also, here's another problem with Kiersey's system:
Actions are the product of our mental processes. Mental process comes first, it's at the root. Trying to figure out someone's type by their actions is really crappy, because the same action can be arrived at for many, many different reasons. The fact that someone merely does something doesn't tell you much about what's going on in their head.
Their actions are the only reason for anyone else to care what type they are though. I've never given a second thought to the idea that it only matters who you are somewhere deep in your psyche. "It's not who we are underneath. It's what we do that defines us." --Katie Holmes
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
Keirsey simply thought that division worked best... and I think he might have had the four humors (melancholy, sanguine, choleric, and phlegmatic) in mind when making the divisions. In reality, I don't think those divisions work better than any other divisions.

I personally have come to prefer NJ, NP, SJ, and SP myself, although I sometimes use TP, TJ, FP and FJ as well. Once in a while, I even use IJ, EJ, EP, and IP. I'm not really picky, I think they all have their uses in describing personality.

True. I have used different groupings too, depending on what I was trying to explain. For instance, I can use the Keirsey way and say my little brother and I are both Artisans (SP), and my older brother is a Rational (NT.) That only tells part of the story, but it tells the part that's relevant if I'm talking about how our actions are most often demonstrated. But I have also said that I am emotionally concrete (SF), while my younger brother is logically concrete (ST) and my older brother is logically abstract (NT.) This was used to point out more about the way we think than the way we act. So, different parts of the whole theory casserole can be used for different purposes.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,511
MBTI Type
ENTP
I also don't have reason, by experience or theory, to believe that the differences between and NP and an NJ are smaller than the difference between an SP and an SJ.

It's not about degrees of differences. It's about archetypes. The Guardian, Artisan, Rational, and Idealist archetypes are widely considered the most elegant and interesting archetypes that are based on mbti preferences. You could order the preferences into any other quadrant, but they probably won't have the same eloquence or relevance because I think kiersey's temperament sorter is the closest we've come to accurately modeling real worldviews.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Their actions are the only reason for anyone else to care what type they are though. I've never given a second thought to the idea that it only matters who you are somewhere deep in your psyche. "It's not who we are underneath. It's what we do that defines us." --Katie Holmes


You quoted Katie Holmes?

..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.


It's not about degrees of differences. It's about archetypes. The Guardian, Artisan, Rational, and Idealist archetypes are widely considered the most elegant and interesting archetypes that are based on mbti preferences. You could order the preferences into any other quadrant, but they probably won't have the same eloquence or relevance because I think kiersey's temperament sorter is the closest we've come to accurately modeling real worldviews.

Well, I'm not that concerned with aesthetic things like eloquence. As for "real worldviews" I don't know what you mean. They come closer to being like the old Hippocratic temperaments. I have no reason to assume that makes them closer to how people really think.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
True. I have used different groupings too, depending on what I was trying to explain. For instance, I can use the Keirsey way and say my little brother and I are both Artisans (SP), and my older brother is a Rational (NT.) That only tells part of the story, but it tells the part that's relevant if I'm talking about how our actions are most often demonstrated. But I have also said that I am emotionally concrete (SF), while my younger brother is logically concrete (ST) and my older brother is logically abstract (NT.) This was used to point out more about the way we think than the way we act. So, different parts of the whole theory casserole can be used for different purposes.

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?

Anyway, that's actually a pretty good description of how different perspectives on types could be used to explain different things about them. Good use of tertiary Ni. ;) I agree with you here.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
i thought that Keirsey came up with the NF/NT/SJ/SP split as a result of the various behaviours of people in real life and in his theory was supported by the many historical parallels to such grouping of tempraments. i'll check the book tonight but i don't remember him "concocting" temprament groupings in his lab based on which MBTI components he thought fir better (or less well) together.
Not only in real life, but based on the observation of his parents in noticing that as SPs they did not behave and have similar core values as his friends parents who were SJ.

It's necessary to keep in mind that Keirsey's work is not based on the 16 types, but the four temperaments that have been passed down through the ages by Plato, Aristotle and Galen. After considering his own family and following Myers-Briggs' work for decades, Keirsey realized that the ST/SF temperaments proposed by her did not do justice based on his own observations. Once he changed the two letter codes around, he saw the perfect fit between Myers-Briggs and the predecessaors of temperament Adickes, Spranger, Kretschmer and Fromm With this said, it's the reason that SPs have an equally arduous time in the SJ world as NTs or NFs.

Off topic but until today, I had not read his excerpt on comparing his four temperaments to the Wizard of Oz characters. When I scanned his book years ago, I instantly thought about Dorothy (SJ), the Scarecrow (NT), the Tinman (NF) and the Cowardly Lion (SP). Their needs during the story represent the core values of each type very well.
 

dnivera

New member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
165
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp
I'll have to re-watch the Wizard of Oz again now. Great!
 

Patrick

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
129
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx
There is practical relevance to going directly for psycho-analysis, in that it can tell you how to persaude someone. . . .

So you want to use personality typing to gain power over people?

Keirsey expressed the hope that people would use it to better understand and appreciate people.



Well, I'm not that concerned with aesthetic things like eloquence. As for "real worldviews" I don't know what you mean. They come closer to being like the old Hippocratic temperaments. I have no reason to assume that makes them closer to how people really think.

I doubt if you know a whole lot about how people think. I doubt if Jung did either. And I suspect most people who are very concerned with "how people think" are on power trips.

People are not machines. Our minds do not function like engines built from discrete functioning parts. Hence, IMO Keirsey was right to dismiss Jung's musings on "cognitive processes." Any system built on that foundation is flawed from the outset; it attempts to describe people as machines of a sort, when in fact we're organic and spiritual beings of a holistic nature.

That said, it's interesting to note that Linda V. Berens, a former student of Keirsey's, has published works that advocate using Jung's cognitive processes (functions) as another model in conjunction with Keirsey's temperament theory. She subordinates the cognitive processes to temperament (i.e., she still considers NF, NT, SP, and SJ the roots of personality), but she acknowledges that system as valid.

On the whole, I agree with those who've said Keirsey's system is elegant, intuitive, and useful for most general, everyday purposes.

As to those who want to probe into what makes people tick or how people think or how to persuade people--well, I have to ask, What's your motivation for that? Because if your intentions are dishonorable, or if you're not sure, I ain't letting you into my mind!
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
As to those who want to probe into what makes people tick or how people think or how to persuade people--well, I have to ask, What's your motivation for that? Because if your intentions are dishonorable, or if you're not sure, I ain't letting you into my mind!

It just looks like fun, 's all.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
To add to what others have already said, Keirsey's system is how ancient temperament maps to the MBTI. It has a whole different framework (originally, the behavioral factors of response delay (extraversion) and response sustain (ultimately, people-task orientation), so does not fit symmetrically on the MBTI framework, which among other things, has a new perception factor added, which throws things off (Melancholy and Sanguine are now on the same side, as "Sensors", rather than opposites, as they originally were).
Berens adds, essentially another four-temperament matrix, the Interaction Styles, which now are more like the ancient matrix, in being measured by E/I and a new people/task orientation factor called "Directing/Informing". These are even more asymmetrical (the four being IST/INJ, EST/ENJ, ISF/INP, ESF/ENP). So each type is one temperament and one Interaction Style, and makes up a sort of "blend" of temperaments, like you have on this site: Profile Dynamics

Berens "mixed model" seems to be the best approach.

That said, it's interesting to note that Linda V. Berens, a former student of Keirsey's, has published works that advocate using Jung's cognitive processes (functions) as another model in conjunction with Keirsey's temperament theory. She subordinates the cognitive processes to temperament (i.e., she still considers NF, NT, SP, and SJ the roots of personality), but she acknowledges that system as valid.

On the whole, I agree with those who've said Keirsey's system is elegant, intuitive, and useful for most general, everyday purposes.
:hi:
 

Patrick

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
129
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx
:hi:

To add to what others have already said, Keirsey's system is how ancient temperament maps to the MBTI. . . .

And, while we're adding things, let's remember that Jung didn't come up with his hypotheses in a vacuum. Nor was he able to dissect the brain or study DNA to find physical manifestations of Sensing, iNtuiting, Thinking, and Feeling. Among many other things, he knew about the old four-humor theory (Sanguine, Choleric, Phlegmatic, Melancholic) and astrology's four elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water). So, as he was musing on how cognition might work, he was no doubt mentally mapping to all those other things, consciously or unconsciously.

There's no proof that such things as S, N, T, and F really exist. They're mental constructs that some people find useful, that's all. And they're no more or less valid than what Keirsey calls Artisan, Idealist, Rational, and Guardian temperaments.

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.

We've all attempted that all our life, in one way or another. It's part of human nature. The trouble is, as long as we're doing it individually, it's hard to talk about what we're seeing or how we're sorting people. So, if we can agree on MBTI terminology or some other common language, we can get on the same page and make observations that most of us will agree on.

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.

And that can be pretty cool. It opens the door to embracing diversity. Instead of seeing my NT wife as some kind of cold-hearted alien who ought to learn to be more social and emotional, I can just say, "Ah! So you're one of those Rationals--a kind of person who has a whole different set of needs and preferences than I do. Interesting. I'll have to work at learning more about that and adjusting to it. Maybe even appreciating it."
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Errm guys... not to buck the trend or anything but if you look at the people instead of the little bits of paper it's a whole lot clearer.

Which reminds me... I thought that particular manner of grouping was Jung's idea.

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.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
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.

It's true. There are a lot of examples from popular culture where the plot revolves around 4 characters with different personalities: The Simpson's, Seinfeld, Sex and the City, I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, ("?" already mentioned The Wizard of Oz), etc....
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
How about Herman's Head? (remember that?) That was about four characters inside one person.

(The concept of inner conflict within a person is explored in Sigmund Freud's concepts of Ego, Superego and Id, and Eric Berne's transactional analysis).

Angel represented his sensitivity. As the only female character in his brain, Angel also represented his feminine side, or in Jungian terms the anima, and sometimes used this fact to manipulate the male characters.
Animal represented his lust or hunger. He was an archetypal fratboy, and possibly derives his name from Animal House. He usually bullies Wimp.
Wimp represented his anxiety. He was a paranoid hypochondriac. But since he always expected the worst, he was often the best prepared to handle crises when the others could not decide.
Genius represented his intellect and logic and because of this he clashes with the naive nature of Angel and stupidity of Animal. At times he could get overworked, as in one episode where his face is blackened by soot and he exclaims "I think I blew a fuse!", after Herman makes a ridiculous decision.

Seeing LaHaye's temperament characters reminded me of this, and I thought it would be nice for them to do a show like this with characters representing the temperaments.

I always pictured LaHaye's "Rocky Choleric" to be like Animal. However, LaHaye's temperaments would correspond more to the Interaction Styles. These four; Angel would obviously be NF, Genius, NT. I guess Wimp would be closest to SJ from the descriptions, and Animal would end up SP.

Or, it seems since they are in one single person, and Angel was already identified as the "anima", perhaps they are function archetypes. So Angel would be Inferior, but what would the others be? It might depend on what Herman's actual preference order is. Some of them sound more like they would fit shadows.


As for the different combinations, I was told that Otto Kroeger gives lectures on those. As one person points out, any of the groupings may be "better" or the most useful for a particular purpose. If you want classic "temperament", there's Keirsey's groups or Beren's styles. If you want symmetrical groups using the function pairs, there's the original ST, SF, NT, NF, or function attitudes (S/N+J/P, T/F+J/P). If you want the strongest distinctions, Keirsey's are good, but the "mirror" grouping (NP, NJ, ST, SF) is better. Even more distinct (according to analysis data) is another "assymetrical" set: SP, SJ, EN, IN.
Xander said:
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.

I/E + J/P are called "sociability temperaments" (George Frisbie writing in JPT)
What they tell us is:

EP dominant extraverted perceiving (Jung's "irrationals")
EJ dominant extraverted judging
IP dominant introverted judging/aux. extraverted perceiving
IJ dominant introverted perceiving/aux. extroverted judging

For N types, they also correspond to the Interaction Styles. (and for S types, it would be E/I + T/F)
 
Top