User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 49

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cimarron View Post
    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.
    I get the Judging vs. Perceiving thing. But a lot of other groupings are meaningful too.

    It's weird, I was editing the post over and over, but when it refreshed, the follow-up posts didn't show up till now.

    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

  2. #22
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Oh, well okay. That's what most people have been saying. And it's not really something I disagree with, just trying this new thing. So thanks for commenting.
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  3. #23
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    This would be useful for typing extroverts.

    For introverts, I think it leaves too much out.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cimarron View Post
    Oh, well okay. That's what most people have been saying. And it's not really something I disagree with, just trying this new thing. So thanks for commenting.
    I didn't mean to discourage.

    Certainly from a verbal parsing of the dichotomies, your grouping is quite logical.

    It would be interesting if there are correlations with that grouping and other things.

    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

  5. #25
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cimarron View Post
    Hello everybody. I'm still very new here, so I don't know how this will be received, but I just wanted to share something with you. You don't have to take it seriously if you don't want to. Check it out.

    I thought of a neat re-grouping of the MBTI types which, like Keirsey's "temperaments", crosses over these patterns, but I hope it will be at least as cohesive and "useful". For now, it's mostly academic.

    My idea is based on the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy. It is said that T and F are judging functions, and that S and N are perceiving functions. If this holds true, then there must be a way to better emphasize their relation across the 16 types, which is what I tried to do here. I split the types down the middle between Ps and Js.

    We could describe them like this, perhaps:

    SP = aware mostly through their senses (outer inspiration?)
    NP = aware mostly through their intuition (inner inspiration?)
    TJ = decide mostly by logic
    FJ = decide mostly by emotion

    And if you want to "title" them, give it a shot! Here's my attempt.

    SP = Artist
    NP = Dreamer
    TJ = Planner
    FJ = ...Arbitrator?

    ----------------------------------------

    The bottom line is that I wanted to give the judging and perceiving functions fuller meaning. This should help us explore what those two factors really affect. Do you think these groups tell you anything about the behavior of a person (in terms of MBTI & behavior)? To what extent? Why do you think that's the case?

    Basically I just want to hear your thoughts on this idea that came to me. And if you don't think it's worth anything, well then at least you got a laugh.
    I've seen these delineations before.
    Four Groupings of Type

  6. #26
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,680

    Default

    Stupid question


    Why we need to place types in groups?

  7. #27
    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 Antisocial one View Post
    Stupid question


    Why we need to place types in groups?
    The best groups may be arbitrary, lasting only as long as the discussion for which they are needed. In other words, any combination of MBTI "letters" that helps describe the common behaviors of more than one type.

    But I was not considering whether types should be put into groups. I was considering how to change Keirsey's groups to something better, which other people on this forum have tried before. Or maybe, more than that, my main goal was to make the fullest use of the judging and perceiving factors. It's unclear which reason motivated me more strongly to do it. I'm not really concerned in determining that, either.
    Last edited by Cimarron; 10-16-2008 at 12:17 PM. Reason: 2nd reason
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  8. #28
    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
    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.
    Then you might as well make the over-generalization that all individuals are unique and so there's no point in looking at personality types.

    The way I take the types is a framework to better understand people. Does it accurately describe individuals in the type? No, but it's a working model. Same goes with Keirsey's temperaments. It's a way of summarizing 16 types into something easier to handle. My proposal of splitting types by dominant function is simply to help understanding how type relates to Jungian functions. Especially the dominant perceiving vs dominant judging function depending on whether you're I or E.

    I guess I could have stated that right from the beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Stupid question

    Why we need to place types in groups?
    Kind of answered the question already. Why categorize? To help us better understand information.

    Cimarron's question of whether a new scheme will be more meaningful than Keirsey's though is an interesting one. Do SP and SJ relate better than NP and NJ groupings and NT NF to ST SF or any other groupings? My suspicions is no... each highlight something different but that's about it.

  9. #29
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Do you think these groups tell you anything about the behavior of a person (in terms of MBTI & behavior)?

    Absolutely - but you may lose some nuance that already exists (but of course, you'll have other nuances that other groupings don't have).

    The major advantage to yours is that it would be applicable for work styles - it's not far off from them already. This would generalise it further than just management and would probably indicate job preferences and performance a lot better than other divisions. Probably would also be fairly good for job satisfaction.


    The other grouping depends on weaker bonds - intelligence, communication styles, interests... yours would be a lot less fuzzy, IMO. That can be good or bad, depending on what you want to use it for

  10. #30
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Then you might as well make the over-generalization that all individuals are unique and so there's no point in looking at personality types.

    The way I take the types is a framework to better understand people. Does it accurately describe individuals in the type? No, but it's a working model. Same goes with Keirsey's temperaments. It's a way of summarizing 16 types into something easier to handle. My proposal of splitting types by dominant function is simply to help understanding how type relates to Jungian functions. Especially the dominant perceiving vs dominant judging function depending on whether you're I or E.

    I guess I could have stated that right from the beginning.


    Kind of answered the question already. Why categorize? To help us better understand information.

    Cimarron's question of whether a new scheme will be more meaningful than Keirsey's though is an interesting one. Do SP and SJ relate better than NP and NJ groupings and NT NF to ST SF or any other groupings? My suspicions is no... each highlight something different but that's about it.
    keirseys temperaments are as good as it gets though so anything else is...ehh. also, its pointless to use grouping to explain functions because like i said before, functions are pointless as individual entities. If you group ENP then you leave out the Fi or Ti, which is crucial. the functions work as a team and are close to pointless on their own. what i was saying the groupings are useful for is when you specifically need them but taking them seriously is kinda pointless. they are good when needed and can be used fluidly but concretely...no.

    EDIT:

    really MBTI is dead as far as developing anything new. imo.
    "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