Gingerly offering new Temperaments

[Cimarron]

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.

ESTJ ESTP
ENTJ ESFP
ISTJ ISTP
INTJ ISFP
ESFJ ENTP
ENFJ ENFP
ISFJ INTP
INFJ INFP

Then, like I said, I split these each in half according to their judging functions for Js and according to their perceiving functions for Ps.

ESTJ ESTP
ENTJ ESFP
ISTJ ISTP
INTJ ISFP

ESFJ ENTP
ENFJ ENFP
ISFJ INTP
INFJ INFP

So my new 4 categories end up being TJ, FJ, SP, and NP.

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.

 

[Jeffster]

Looks like I don't have to move my things under your system, so whatever.

 

[Jack Flak]

But I can't fear an entire group this way. I disapprove.

 

[Cimarron]

Looks like I don't have to move my things under your system, so whatever.

Yeah, strangely enough one former temperament stayed the same, but 3 of them moved. That was weird...

The SP's: So resilient!

 

[Jeffster]

Yeah, strangely enough one former temperament stayed the same, but 3 of them moved. That was weird...

No, it's not weird, it just further proves we're the coolest and can't be stopped.

 

[mlittrell]

i praise u for ur attempt. my only problem is what does this solve or create or do? you could just say Np Nj Sp Sj. or you could do Tp Tj Fp Fj. i understand what u are attempting to do tho. now if i wanna talk about the types that have Fe as one of their first two functions i will say "the FJ types" but i rarely say that. this all probably sounds like rambling lol sorry my point is the old system works wonderfully so there is no point in changing it. now that im done with that i will still give this a shot. have u read Please Understand Me? if so u have read the temperament profiles. write a temperamet profile for each of yours. if it sounds good then ur the man/woman (i didnt check)! if not then good attempt.

 

[Giggly]

Good work. This illustrates how the original groupings are not the only way it could have been done.

But I can't fear an entire group this way. I disapprove.

Naturally you would find a new one.

 

[Cimarron]

i praise u for ur attempt. my only problem is what does this solve or create or do? you could just say Np Nj Sp Sj. or you could do Tp Tj Fp Fj.

It doesn't do much, and I'm aware of that. I was having some fun with the categorizations. I hate letting things go to waste, and it looked like Keirsey could have made better use of the P/J dichotomy, so I tried to see where I could take it.

Basically I agree that any combination of MBTI "letters" works as well as any other to describe behavioral trends.

I skimmed through "Please Understand Me" the other day. I haven't thought about this enough to write profiles. Maybe in a while.

 

[nightning]

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?

 

[mlittrell]

mmk well props my friend for giving it a shot...its nice to see people trying to do new things with MBTI. i highly suggest reading kierseys book before stating that he could have made better use of the P/J dichotomy. after reading tthose profiles u will understand whyh they are grouped the way they are

 

[mlittrell]

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

 

[Randomnity]

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.

 

[Cimarron]

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!

 

[nightning]

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

INJ
ISJ
ENP
ESP

ITP
IFP
ETJ
EFJ

 

[mlittrell]

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.

 

[Cimarron]

I made a quick attempt to give "styles" to these groups, in an edit to the first post (OP). Right before the dotted line.

 

[nightning]

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.

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.

 

[ygolo]

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.

 

[Cimarron]

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.

 

[mlittrell]

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.