User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 49

  1. #11
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    I'm not sure if TJ, FJ distinction is describing much...

    INTJ shares dominant Ni with INFJs while only auxillary Te with ISTJ

    INTJ -> Ni Te
    INFJ -> Ni Fe
    ISTJ -> Si Te
    ISFJ -> Si Fe

    Thoughts?
    ur right but we are talking about temperament not functions in which case kiersey would be horribly wrong considering an INTP And an INTJ have no similar functions. you cant mix functions and temperament...not smoothly anyway. ur right tho
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  2. #12
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    I'm not sure if TJ, FJ distinction is describing much...

    INTJ shares dominant Ni with INFJs while only auxillary Te with ISTJ

    INTJ -> Ni Te
    INFJ -> Ni Fe
    ISTJ -> Si Te
    ISFJ -> Si Fe

    Thoughts?
    That's like the current SP group, though....ISxP shares the dominant trait of INxP and only the auxiliary with the SP group.

    That'll happen with some members of any grouping unless you divide the groups by I/E.

  3. #13
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    I'm not sure if TJ, FJ distinction is describing much...

    INTJ shares dominant Ni with INFJs while only auxillary Te with ISTJ

    INTJ -> Ni Te
    INFJ -> Ni Fe
    ISTJ -> Si Te
    ISFJ -> Si Fe

    Thoughts?
    Yeah, I noticed that too. That's caused by the nature of introverts, hiding their main interpersonal traits. Having these groups based on judging vs. perceiving functions points out what a person's strongest "Xe" is, and that is the one that interacts more with other people than within yourself, if I have a vague understanding. But then what are the merits of that? I guess that's a question to ponder.

    "My" system happens to be this way--categorizing roughly by "Xe" functions--thanks to the very definition of perceiving and judging functions. It looks to me like I'm putting them to use; they "mean" something now.

    Be back in a while, guys!
    Last edited by Cimarron; 10-15-2008 at 06:53 PM. Reason: busy
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  4. #14
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Hmmmm right. Bugger with 4 then... let's use 8.

    INJ
    ISJ
    ENP
    ESP

    ITP
    IFP
    ETJ
    EFJ

  5. #15
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    or you could just do

    STJ
    SFJ
    STP
    SFP
    NTJ
    NFJ
    NTP
    NFP

    or a bunch of other groupings, really any groupings make some sense but do they explain as much as the temperaments do (or even the functions for that matter)? the only difference between I and E is a function shift.
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  6. #16
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    I made a quick attempt to give "styles" to these groups, in an edit to the first post (OP). Right before the dotted line.
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  7. #17
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mlittrell View Post
    or a bunch of other groupings, really any groupings make some sense but do they explain as much as the temperaments do (or even the functions for that matter)? the only difference between I and E is a function shift.
    No. The way I split it up explains personality in terms of people's dominant functions. Hence you get that funny IJ EP and IP EJ division. And I wouldn't use the word temperament to describe new groupings. The word's used to describe Keirsey's 4.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cimarron View Post
    I made a quick attempt to give "styles" to these groups, in an edit to the first post (OP). Right before the dotted line.
    Fair enough.

    Although I personally think J/P distinction is adequately divided just as 2 groups either P or J... If anything, J/P relates to I/E in types more than anything else.

  8. #18

    Default

    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.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  9. #19
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Thanks for the statistics, and that's all true (didn't quite check the math, but I know exactly what you're getting at, trust me), but I'm more concerned with trying to make a meaningful type-grouping. I don't know whether you read it in my other posts, but what I've said is that "my system" is based on something consistent: the judging and perceiving functions, what they mean and what they do. Sorry if I'm repeating myself needlessly.
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  10. #20
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    No. The way I split it up explains personality in terms of people's dominant functions. Hence you get that funny IJ EP and IP EJ division. And I wouldn't use the word temperament to describe new groupings. The word's used to describe Keirsey's 4.


    Fair enough.

    Although I personally think J/P distinction is adequately divided just as 2 groups either P or J... If anything, J/P relates to I/E in types more than anything else.
    i didn't use the word temperament to describe the "new" groupings i compared it, or meant to compare it to the "new" groupings. and i know what the temperaments are lol they are the reason we shouldn't be trying to make "new" groupings haha because unlike any new grouping they have a profile that describes them extremely well. like i said before, if someone can write a very good description of the "new" groupings then go for it. also, i understand that you created those groupings to describe peoples dominant functions but that is all it accomplishes, and personally, functions are pointless as individual entities. you need to look at functions as a whole meaning the orientation of the functions (i had an annoying little debate about it). good idea though.

    my problem with "new" groupings is that you can come up with a bunch of different combinations that all tell you different things, but is there really any point? and are they really that new? ive done all of these when explaining things where i need to generalize about a certain function that is dominant accross all the types.
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

Similar Threads

  1. Nepal Offers New Gender Option on Passports
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-14-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. new guy offering a brief introduction
    By OrderOfTheCaelifera in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-06-2014, 06:48 PM
  3. A new/old take on temperament theory: Has anyone heard of this?
    By Bethy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 09:17 PM
  4. Hi, I'm new
    By JAVO in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 02:48 PM
  5. New to the Mirror Universe
    By outmywindow in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 02:20 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