• 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

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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?
 

spirilis

Senior Membrane
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
2,687
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I forget the rationale, but I think Keirsey might have included it in his Please Understand Me books. It's Keirsey's system.
 

runvardh

にゃん
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
8,541
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I forget the rationale, but I think Keirsey might have included it in his Please Understand Me books. It's Keirsey's system.

Yeah, it had to do with how he saw the bigger divide being between Sensors and iNtuitives first. After that Sensors break up better based on how Judging or Percieving they are wrather than whether they are Thinking or Feeling. On the other hand, iNtuitives are more easily divided by their inner processes (Thinking or Feeling) as opposed to how Judging or Perceving they are.

This of course is the rationalization Keirsey gave.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Yeah, it had to do with how he saw the bigger divide being between Sensors and iNtuitives first. After that Sensors break up better based on how Judging or Percieving they are wrather than whether they are Thinking or Feeling. On the other hand, iNtuitives are more easily divided by their inner processes (Thinking or Feeling) as opposed to how Judging or Perceving they are.

This of course is the rationalization Keirsey gave.

This makes some sense, but I would argue that (for instance) STs and SFs probably have a fair amount of differences in mindset.
 

runvardh

にゃん
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
8,541
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
This makes some sense, but I would argue that (for instance) STs and SFs probably have a fair amount of differences in mindset.

Oh there is, same with NJs and NPs, but he percieved those differences as less noticable than the divisions he picked.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, Mercury, you have stepped onto one of my age old gripes. I don't think there's anything that really makes Keirsey's system more accurate. I've pointed out many times in the past that there are several valid ways of grouping types. I think the middle ones make the most sense, because they pick your Judgeing and Perceiving functions, which I consider the most important thing.

Using E/I or J/P as groups is a little weird due to the way the MBTI notation varies things depending on Introversion or Extraversion. Like how EPs rely more on Perceiving processes and EJs rely more on Judging processes, but IPs rely more on Judging processes while IJs rely more on Perceiving processes. Too mixed up for groupings if you ask me.

But, if you want, you still can use both of those as your grouping system. EP, EJ, IP, IJ. What I have said is that, any grouping method has some kind of validity, just be consistent. And what do you know? That's the one thing Keirsey doesn't do. He doesn't stay consistent.

NT, NF, SF, ST, I like. SP, SJ, NJ, NP would have been acceptable, too. But he had to mix it half and half for some reason.

I hate Keirsey by the way. I don't like how popular and inseperable he has become with the MBTI, and I have a suspicion that he's responsible for a lot of the misconceptions about it.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

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

The easiest way I can explain it is that Intuitives put more emphasis on decision making (T or F) while Sensors, being concrete, put more emphasis on doing (P or J). ST's and SF's are quite different in how they reason things and NP's and NJ's are quite different in how they interact with their environment, but to an N, T/F is more relevant, while to an S, J/P is more relevant.
 

Jasz

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
276
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
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.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,511
MBTI Type
ENTP
I've read Gifts Differing, which organizes the styles into ST SF NT and NF, and Please Understand Me- SJ SP NT NF. Kiersey's temperament sorter makes more sense once you get how the preferences manifest themselves the most.

The easiest way I can explain it is that Intuitives put more emphasis on decision making (T or F) while Sensors, being concrete, put more emphasis on doing (P or J).
I can see what you're getting at with sensors, but intuitives put more emphasis on the abstract which manifests in language, which I think shows the T/F difference more than the J/P difference. There are definite NF vocab words and NT vocab words, not so much with STs and SFs.
Kiersey shows there are SJ and SP vocab words too. But they tend to be used more by Ns to describe Ss than Ss themselves.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The easiest way I can explain it is that Intuitives put more emphasis on decision making (T or F) while Sensors, being concrete, put more emphasis on doing (P or J). ST's and SF's are quite different in how they reason things and NP's and NJ's are quite different in how they interact with their environment, but to an N, T/F is more relevant, while to an S, J/P is more relevant.

I really don't think this is true. I think this is especially confused by the facat that J/P aren't really functions. The only way they manifest themselves is in ones preferences of their other functions. J/P does not so simply correlate to "doing". In a way, I'd think if that's what it were about, then there'd be more logical connection between S and the E/I divide, but even that would be very short of satisfaction.


i thought that Keirsey came up with the NF/NT/SJ/SP split as a result of the various behaviors 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.

Yes, I recall his historical comparisons. Other than that, he basically uses first-hand experience to gauge the types, which is surprisingly S of him. In general, I can't say that knowing his idea is modeled around the theories of Hippocrates and then later alchemists makes me confident in his theories. :laugh:

As for personal experience, I think he puts far too much emphasis on it versus theory, and I think it's part of what creates is really narrow descriptions of certain types.

I've read Gifts Differing, which organizes the styles into ST SF NT and NF, and Please Understand Me- SJ SP NT NF. Kiersey's temperament sorter makes more sense once you get how the preferences manifest themselves the most.

All in all, I don't really agree. I find ISTPS at least just as similar to ISTJs as they are to ISFPs, if not more so. Experience aside, in theory, I have no reason to believe that ISTPs and ISFPs would be more similar. 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.

Lastly, Keirsey's point of view is too behavioralist. He basically says that if you walk like a duck, you are a duck. My way of looking at it is more cognitive, which is closer to the original point, what with it being about cognitive processes. I wouldn't mind so much if people made more of a concsious effort to seperate Keirsey's work from the rest of the MBTI and cognitive process theories, but they don't. Even the forums here are modeled around Keirsey's temperaments.
 

Little Linguist

Striving for balance
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
6,880
MBTI Type
xNFP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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?

DUDE; you've read my mind - I wanted to post about this the other day, but then I got distracted by something and forgot.

That happens to me a lot.

Anyway, thanks!
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
DUDE; you've read my mind - I wanted to post about this the other day, but then I got distracted by something and forgot.

That happens to me a lot.

Anyway, thanks!

You're welcome. It seems like an issue that would come up more often. Seriously, just reading this thread so far has been great.
 

Mondo

Welcome to Sunnyside
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
1,992
MBTI Type
EsTP
Enneagram
6w7
He based his temperaments on many of the personality theories of the past- from Ancient Greece to Freud.

He completely discards cognitive functions.
However, I don't buy some of the things he writes.

He says that an ENTJ and ESTJ aren't similar at all- both are strong 'executive' types.. they have a LOT in common! Both are assertive, dominating, and goal-oriented.

The one thing that bugs me is how he separates Guardians and Artisans.
I think he focuses more on the XSFJ's and the XSTP's to get his descriptions going... (cooperative vs. pragmatic).

In terms of grouping types based on external behavior.. I think a better grouping would be TJ/FJ/NP/SP.
Some XNXJ's I know are so 'Guardian-ish' that I practically mistake them for the temperament but that's the J talking- nothing says that they are S.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
He based his temperaments on many of the personality theories of the past- from Ancient Greece to Freud.

You're right. And that was stupid of him. Decent psychology is a young practice, only like 50 to 75 years old, really. What people like me want to do is take all the potential that exists in the cognitive process theory and find it's legitimacy in the modern age. Meanwhile, Keirsey digs back to ancient lore. :doh:

He completely discards cognitive functions.

And for this, he needs a paddling. He just gutted the machine of all its parts.

He says that an ENTJ and ESTJ aren't similar at all- both are strong 'executive' types.. they have a LOT in common! Both are assertive, dominating, and goal-oriented.

Obviously the two are different, but I second that Kiersey really exagerates the dissimilarities between types of different temperaments. It often seems like he's trying too hard to reinforce his system.

The one thing that bugs me is how he separates Guardians and Artisans.
I think he focuses more on the XSFJ's and the XSTP's to get his descriptions going... (cooperative vs. pragmatic).

I've definitely noticed that. I've often observed how pragmatic is a perfect word for STs. Odds that he gives it to only half of the STs and then half of the SFs, who are remarkably unpragmatic.

In terms of grouping types based on external behavior.. I think a better grouping would be TJ/FJ/NP/SP.
Some XNXJ's I know are so 'Guardian-ish' that I practically mistake them for the temperament but that's the J talking- nothing says that they are S.

Haha. I see where you are coming from with that system. I played around with the idea for a while but I left behind, probably because I was not as interested in external behavior as I am in internal processing.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
I

Lastly, Keirsey's point of view is too behavioralist. He basically says that if you walk like a duck, you are a duck. My way of looking at it is more cognitive, which is closer to the original point, what with it being about cognitive processes.

I think it works best if there's plenty of both considered. Keirsey is dead-on with a lot of his assertions, but I too agree the cognitive stuff can't just be dismissed. I think this site actually makes some good points about "secondary" temperaments and explains why as a child, a lot of the descriptions Keirsey has in his section on "the Idealist child" fit me better than "the Artisan child" but as an adult, the "Artisan" description fits much better. It's clear, with that "Fi" dominant process being what showed through almost exclusively, it was easy to see me as fitting in more with the NF's as a child, and as I developed that "Se" over time and let it actually win every now and then, it became clear that I fit more with the SP's overall, but with a strong F function that keeps me forever connected to the NF's in an important way. :)
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
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?

Yeah I don't get that either, because an ENTP is VERY different from an ENTJ and likewise I reckon all the NT's are at least as dissimilar to each other as ENTP's are similar to ENFP's.

I think of NP as a type as much as NT, probably more so... I do feel as much kinship to say, an INFP than an INTP, and my experience of INFP's is that they're worlds away from INFJ's and I often see more similarity in ENxJ's than between say an ENFJ and an ENFP.

Seems a bit aritrary to me cos then you have something like an SP/SJ forum which always looks strange because to me SP's and SJ's are as similar as two completely dissimilar things in a pod.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well obviously, if no behavior were accounted for it would have no relevance to the real world. However, by looking at it from the cognitive point of view, I find that's better to figure how someone came to a decision than what decision they came to. That's because it has more to do with how their mind is actually working.

My methods are driven more by psycho-analysis than by behavioral observation. And it's still useful too. If you can figure out how someone's mind works, then communicating with them(and I mean communication in the broadest sense) becomes easier.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I can see what you're getting at with sensors, but intuitives put more emphasis on the abstract which manifests in language, which I think shows the T/F difference more than the J/P difference. There are definite NF vocab words and NT vocab words, not so much with STs and SFs.
Kiersey shows there are SJ and SP vocab words too. But they tend to be used more by Ns to describe Ss than Ss themselves.

I see this as different words which essentially say the same thing as I was saying. :) N's put more emphasis on the abstract. Thoughts and feelings are abstract in nature. Actions are concrete. N's will place more emphasis on language because of this. S's place more emphasis on how they interact with their environment.

Magic Poriferan said:
I really don't think this is true. I think this is especially confused by the facat that J/P aren't really functions. The only way they manifest themselves is in ones preferences of their other functions. J/P does not so simply correlate to "doing". In a way, I'd think if that's what it were about, then there'd be more logical connection between S and the E/I divide, but even that would be very short of satisfaction.

Heh, well it is obvious you dislike Keirsey. I don't think his classifications are bad, but I also don't think they are the only meaningful grouping. For example when it comes to the P/J divide I prefer 4 groups to a dichotomy: EP, EJ, IP, IJ. I think each of these four groups is different in regards to perceiving and judging. There are a lot of meaningful ways to group types together depending on what you want to look at.

When it comes to Keirsey's designations: NT, NF, SP, SJ, I don't think they make a lot of sense from a theoretical perspective, but they do make a lot of sense from the perspective of an external observer. When I am viewing other people these groupings describe general behavior fairly well. From the perspective of cognition though, they don't make much sense at all.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
When it comes to Keirsey's designations: NT, NF, SP, SJ, I don't think they make a lot of sense from a theoretical perspective, but they do make a lot of sense from the perspective of an external observer. When I am viewing other people these groupings describe general behavior fairly well. From the perspective of cognition though, they don't make much sense at all.

Exactly. This one fast food restaurant that I frequent, there's another regular there that I sometimes talk to, almost always about sports. The last time we talked, last weekend, the conversation was about Brett Favre. He was saying that Favre should just stay retired and he's just coming back because of his ego and he can't stand to not be in the spotlight, and he wants to add to his legacy. I put forth the radical point of view that none of that is true, but rather he had a compulsion to play football, and a thrill from the challenge of taking a lousy team and making them good.

To me, it was a classic misunderstanding of motivations right along Keirsey's Guardian vs. Artisan divide. The dude I talk to fits the Guardian mode well, and most of his buddies who he said "all said the same thing about Favre" most likely are too. When I said what I said about Favre (and I had to restate it several different ways before it started to sink in to him), it was like opening his mind to concepts he had never thought about before. And I brought up other examples of athletes that I thought fit both sides of the deal..Those that kept playing because they were about being seen as the best and adding to their legacy or image like Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and more and those like Favre and Michael Jordan who kept playing because it was their passion and what drove them, and really couldn't care less about their legacy. Not that they didn't love the attention or have big egos, because I think they probably do, but it's not the same motivation.

Dude at the grub station kept saying "wow, you are right about that, wow, you're so right..wow.." it had never been presented to him before and it was blowing his mind but he had a new kind of understanding of people because of it.

Contrast that with if I had said "well, you see, Brett Favre is Se/Ti-dominant as opposed to Te/Si dominant so his neural nexus processed the cognitive whosits whatsits in a parallel way to the diagram of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...."

Dude would have been like "uhhh..yeah..so who do you think's gonna win the Big 12?" or he might stop talking to me all together. But because I was able to hit him with real life examples to illustrate the real point based on actions and what people said, rather than technical mumbo jumbo, I started the guy on a path to possible better understanding of lots of people, and I'll tell ya it was a frickin RUSH.

So, whereas I'm very thankful that I have read stuff about the word that starts with cog that i'm tired of spelling, and because my obsession has been this stuff the last couple months, I had to be introduced to the whole thing from real behavior-based stuff or it never would have happened. So, there is great value in approaching it in a way that even if the N-folks don't think paints the picture fully, is the only way to reach a lot of us in S-land who would otherwise look at you like you're an alien.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I know that the ease and catchiness of it is why the Keirseyian approach is so popular... I just think that's unfortunate.
 
Top