Why is it SJ and SP....

[ptgatsby]

Here's the rub, Chuck. Most people already agree with me. I don't like to debate without good reason, because there's stress involved. But if you want to present a clear position and try your hand against mine, let's have it.

(Still, I'm sure most of my reasons are in Please Understand Me II, so I'd be rehasing the old. Not because it's my Bible, because the reasoning makes sense.)

So you won't justify your position specifically or generally, or put effort into it, appeal to authority to justify it in lieu... then turn around and tell me that I need to have a solid stance, which I have stated multiple times already?

Sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't make up for your lack of effort anymore. Toodles!

 

[Jack Flak]

So you won't justify your position specifically or generally, or put effort into it,

That's right. Because I don't have to. Because you're alone, in your weird world of hard fact which somehow also includes MBTI theory.

appeal to authority to justify it in lieu...

I did no such thing. I offered to go out of my way and stress myself out to make a case, but I have nothing to pit it against. You may or may not realize that a "debate" in which the opponents position is "Everything you say is wrong." is unwinnable. There must be an opposing argument.

then turn around and tell me that I need to have a solid stance, which I have stated multiple times already?

You have not stated your case clearly. I've asked you if it's that categorization to fewer than sixteen types is nonsense, and if you had your own breakdown below sixteen, and you said "No" to both.

 

[ptgatsby]

That's right. Because I don't have to. Because you're alone, in your weird world of hard fact which somehow also includes MBTI theory.

Alone...? Do you think your opinion is supported in MBTI...? It should be easy to support then!

Even passing knowledge of what MBTI does would be enough to show why your preference isn't part of the design. It's a lose-lose. Either you use MBTI theory, in which case the groupings don't have any bearing on the functional theories. Or you use MBTI as a validated instrument, in which case the uniquely measured traits form the measurement of relevancy of any combined behavior.

I did no such thing. I offered to go out of my way and stress myself out to make a case, but I have nothing to pit it against. You may or may not realize that a "debate" in which the opponents position is "Everything you say is wrong." is unwinnable. There must be an opposing argument.

My argument is that all groupings are of subjective relevence, dependent upon what is being measured. There is no objectively superior classification from four unique traits.

Maybe a baby example will help you: It's like having "color", "size", "weight" and "diffusion" as four categories. The use of any two of them depends on what you are trying to define. Density? Size and weight would be close. Art? Color and diffusion, perhaps.

You are still welcome to support your positive assertion that certain classifications could be dominant, or even the one you chose.

(I'm assuming the obviousness that by making a positive assertion, you have the burden of proof, not I. Argument isn't just about having two positive assertions put against each other. Good distraction though... I even entertained it for you!)

You have not stated your case clearly. I've asked you if it's that categorization to fewer than sixteen types is nonsense, and if you had your own breakdown below sixteen, and you said "No" to both.

I use whichever grouping is most useful given what I am observing or measuring. (So no, I don't have "a grouping I believe is dominant". It's subjective to what is being measured).

The four axis measurement is the most granular, but it can be a better heurestic to just identify the major contributors (removes noise, for example). If, for example, I was talking about those that were rank climbers, I'd be using a F/T:J/P structure.

 

[Jack Flak]

Alone...? Do you think your opinion is supported in MBTI...? It should be easy to support then!

No, I don't. If you read my posts on the subject, you'll see I disagree with MBTI in many ways. (Though that would be time consuming, you may take my word for it.)

The statement was in regard to your seeming obsession with the concrete, and I wondered why you would have any interest in a mental template such as MBTI to begin with.

My argument is that all groupings are of subjective relevence, dependent upon what is being measured. There is no objectively superior classification from four unique traits.

Excellent. I don't disagree.

You are still welcome to support your positive assertion that certain classifications could be dominant, or even the one you chose.

(I'm assuming the obviousness that by making a positive assertion, you have the burden of proof, not I. Argument isn't just about having two positive assertions put against each other. Good distraction though... I even entertained it for you!)

I wanted to know what you were arguing. I thought it might be that all classifications have equal merit, but not being sure I didn't want to waste effort.

I use whichever grouping is most useful given what I am observing or measuring. (So no, I don't have "a grouping I believe is dominant". It's subjective to what is being measured).

I do the same. Just recently I made reference to STs. But almost all the time, I use the Keirseyan splits. For most applications, it has more merit. It takes into account more than the sum of the four axes, that which can't be proven scientifically yet, but that which can be observed in reality. It's akin, imo, to classifying species based on appearance and behavior instead of DNA. And since with this study we're at the "pre-DNA" stage, and we don't know specifically what causes personality/temperament differences, it's as valid as we can get. In short, it works, so I and many others use the split more than other four way splits.

The four axis measurement is the most granular, but it can be a better heurestic to just identify the major contributors (removes noise, for example). If, for example, I was talking about those that were rank climbers, I'd be using a F/T:J/P structure.

Naturally.

 

[ptgatsby]

The statement was in regard to your seeming obsession with the concrete, and I wondered why you would have any interest in a mental template such as MBTI to begin with.

I'd be curious in how you mentally resolved the ambiguity.

I wanted to know what you were arguing. I thought it might be that all classifications have equal merit, but not being sure I didn't want to waste effort.

I suggest asking the question you want answered, then.

Although "merit" is the wrong word, since depending on what you wish to measure, different categories would have different merit. Hence;

For most applications, it has more merit.

Can you define that for me? That's what this is all about! Just tell me why you think it has more merit, if only for the applications you care about!

I'm reading it as "I prefer this categorization", not "I have a reason to use it in these cases".

In short, it works, so I and many others use the split more than other four way splits.

Yes, fuzzyness helps with heurestics.

Course, it isn't really like DNA, unless DNA was already an axis of measurement. It's more like having four traits that we use to measure animals ("Number of legs","color", "weight" and "number of eyes"), then ignoring two of them to make generalisations.

The four-axis measurement (ie: "Type") is still a generalisation, it just has less fuzzyness. IOW, by reducing the number of variables you need to adjust for (ie: what prompts this behavior in terms of MBTI type), the easier it is to associate to the existing variables.

The neuroticism thread is a good example of how you can pick the wrong categorization/measurement categories.

 

[Jack Flak]

I'd be curious in how you mentally resolved the ambiguity.

I started with ambiguity. What makes sense I use, what doesn't I don't.

I suggest asking the question you want answered, then.

I did, and you answered it.

Can you define that for me? That's what this is all about! Just tell me why you think it has more merit, if only for the applications you care about!
I'm reading it as "I prefer this categorization", not "I have a reason to use it in these cases".

Yes, I prefer it, because I love generalizing, and NT/NF/SP/SJ categories contain the most differentiation in my view. TBH I'm not interested in writing an essay about it. Keirsey's book says close to what I would, iirc.

Course, it isn't really like DNA, unless DNA was already an axis of measurement. It's more like having four traits that we use to measure animals ("Number of legs","color", "weight" and "number of eyes"), then ignoring two of them to make generalisations.

That's what I'm saying, we don't have the hard data to back it up, so analyzing and generalizing is what we do.

The four-axis measurement (ie: "Type") is still a generalisation, it just has less fuzzyness. IOW, by reducing the number of variables you need to adjust for (ie: what prompts this behavior in terms of MBTI type), the easier it is to associate to the existing variables.

The behavior is already there. The classification systems are available. The only thing missing is the root cause, and that's not necessary in my opinion.

The neuroticism thread is a good example of how you can pick the wrong categorization/measurement categories.

Is it? As opposed to what better categories?

 

[ygolo]

I made this post in Cimarron's Thread and it seemed relevant to the OP here too.

I groupings I already know of (though I don't know how legitimate the groupings are):

EJ-IJ-EP-IP--supposedly developmentally evident
ES-IS-EN-IN--learning style related, I believe
SF-ST-NF-NT--Mind types
SJ-SP-NF-NT--Kiersey's Temperaments
SJ-SP-NJ-NP--Perception orientation
FJ-FP-TJ-TP--Judgement orientation
{EN_J, EST_}-{IN_J,IST_}-{EN_P,ESF_}-{IN_P,ISF_}--Berens' Interaction Styles

So what's one more grouping?

I know my thinking isn't the clearest right now...

But with 16 types that you want to divide into 4 groups of 4, I believe there will be 16!/(4!)^5=2627625 ways to do that. Over two million groupings--that seems like a big number, I'll explain how I got it below (please correct my thinking, if you spot an error).

Two way to think of it:

1) Think of 16 slots in the following diagram:
|****|****|****|****|
There are 16! ways to place the types into the slots designated by the stars. But of course, for groupings, it does not matter if you switch the order of types between the bars, so divide by (4!)^4. It also doesn't matter if you reorder the groups, so divide by another 4!, yielding 16!/(4!)^5.

2) Lets say you arbitrarily had a representative of each type to pick a letter out of a hat. In the hat, there are 4 red, 4 green, 4 blue, and 4 yellow cards. After each representative has picked a card, we will have 4 groups of 4, based on color. There are 16!/(4!)^4 ways this could happen. But of course, it is arbitrary what color the group is, so divide again by 4! yielding 16!/(4!)^5.

-----
Though I guess, we can restrict to "Kiersey-like" groupings. By this, I mean first we choose a dichotomy (Kiersey chose S-N, Cimarron chose J-P), make a split, then choose a dichotomy to split the first group, and another dichotomy for the second group.

There are 4 dichotomies for the first choice, 3 dichotomies left for the second, and 2 dichotomies for the third choice, yeilding 4*3*2=24 "Kiersey-like" groupings.

Possibilities:

1. ES-EN;IF-IT
2. ES-EN;IJ-IP
3. EF-ET;IS-IN
4. EF-ET;IJ-IP
5. EJ-EP;IS-IN
6. EJ-EP;IF-IT
   
7. IS-ES;NF-NT
8. IS-ES;NJ-NP
9. SF-ST;EN-IN
10. SF-ST;NJ-NP
11. SJ-SP;EN-IN
12. SJ-SP;NF-NT--Keirsey
    
13. EF-IF;ST-NT
14. EF-IF;SP-NP
15. SF-NF;ET-IT
16. SF-NF;TJ-TP
17. FJ-FP;ET-IT
18. FJ-FP;ST-NT
    
19. EJ-IJ;SP-NP
20. EJ-IJ;FP-TP
21. SJ-NJ;EP-IP
22. SJ-NJ;FP-TP
23. FJ-TJ;EP-IP
24. FJ-TJ;SP-NP--Cimarron

----

With that said, only Cimarron's can be based on a verbal parsing of the dichotomies. Only "Judging" vs. "Perceiving" verbally selects a second dichotomy to split each group.

I don't like "Dreamer" as characterization of NPs, however. Though I do have dreams, "Dreamer" seems a bit derogatory.

Someone please check the math, I've been very fuzzy minded lately.

Still, the reason we are split in the commune the way it is because of Keirsey's Temperament Theory being mapped onto the Myers-Briggs Types.

I don't know what evidence there is to support it, but Temperament is supposed to indicate the four different "core needs," and corresponding reactions to stress.

SP's-
* Freedom to Act on Needs of the Moment
* Ability to Make an Impact

NF's-
* Meaning and Significance
* Unique Identity

SJ's-
* Membership or Belonging
* Responsibility or Duty

NT's
* Mastery and Self-Control
* Knowledge and Competence

source:
Temperament and Stress

Anecdotally, I do think people do react to stress in distinct ways when grouped like this (though also grouped in other ways).

He also has an article that is not published that uses data from the Step II subscales, and he points out that the Keirseyan groupings are better than the others (according to the statistics), as far as maximum difference. But then, SP, SJ, EN and IN are even higher.

I do think anecdotally, SP, SJ, EN and IN is of even more relevance one this is mentioned.

But then again, that is the problem with categorizations in general. You will see similarities in groupings because that is the very reason we make the categories.

If we group the decades in history from mid-decade to mid decade, we would have a different conception from the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc. groupings.

 

[Jack Flak]

I do think anecdotally, SP, SJ, EN and IN is of even more relevance one this is mentioned.

Any four-class system which would split ENTP and INTP is insane.

 

[ptgatsby]

Is it? As opposed to what better categories?

The categories that do correlate to neurotic behaviour (in MBTI, that's be E/I and J/P)

Anecdotally, I do think people do react to stress in distinct ways when grouped like this (though also grouped in other ways).

That's kind of the catch Every grouping causes "distinctions".

You use I/E as an example. It's a good example of stress bias, given that I/E is the most relevent to stress reactions. It's pretty common, especially with sources of stress - this board is full of Is complaining about Es causing stress, Es complaining about Is in RL and so forth. Not surprisingly, you hear a lot more "so drained" and "blew up" in I/E than anything else.

 

[ygolo]

Any four-class system which would split ENTP and INTP is insane.

It's just a classification. What about it makes it insane?

I agree that ENTPs and INTPs have a lot in common. Even splitting among introverts and extroverts in general (a rather common-sense split) would separate the two.

There are at least 2 other 4-class classifications that make that split.

EJ-EP-IJ-IP which is supposed to be most evident in behavior among very young children.

Berens' Interaction Style also makes this split. ENTP is "Get-things-Going" (with an urgent drive to involve) while INTP is "Behind-the-Scenes" (with a pressing drive to integrate).

What about a classification that splits INTPs and ISTPS? They are both Ti dominants? Why does splitting these up become less "insane?"

 

[Eric B]

If we group the decades in history from mid-decade to mid decade, we would have a different conception from the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc. groupings.

I used to see them that way. Like the early 70's were still alot like the late 60's. (In music, the pre-disco era) The late 70's and early 80's were also similar (the disco era, until complete digitization in the mid-80's killed it off), as the late 80's and early 90's. (total digitization until the "retro" kick took over). Now, it seems the late 90's to the present are very similar. Perhaps I'm just not noticing things as I used to. Electronics and computer technology is one thing that has really continued to change in leaps since the late 90's.

 

["?"]

U.S. Population breakdown according to type

from wikipedia

ISFJ -13.8%
ESFJ -12.3%
ISTJ -11.6%
ISFP -8.8%
ESTJ -8.7%
ESFP -8.5%
ENFP -8.1%
ISTP -5.4%
ESTP -4.3%
INFP -4.3%
INTP -3.3%
ENTP -3.2%
ENFJ -2.4%
INTJ -2.1%
ENTJ -1.8%
INFJ -1.5%

I will give my usual caveat to population and stats on the subject. How can you break down E/I, S/N, T/F when you have multiple variables to consider? For example if you say there are x amount introverts, you have to specify which introverted function being referred to. Is Ni, Si, Ti, or Fi? The same goes for extraverted functions and then the S/N and T/F have two variables to choose from. Until there is a study done using cogntive functions, any population reference is skewed when using dichotomies.

Besides Jung does not refer to any rare type except that anyone claiming to use 100% of a certain function is rare. For that reason I continue to say there are on average 6.25% across the board with many not actually showing a type as Myers-Briggs alludes to in her book, but are products of the environment and expectations, ie ESJs are the typical western culture type.

 

[Mort Belfry]

SJs as a group get referred to a lot more in discussion than SFs and STs. So I can see why the SJ and SP sub forums are there.

Your premise sounds like a chicken and your conclusion an egg.