The manual, atlas and such that I refer to are the clinicians books from CAPT. Yes, I do take exception to many of Keirsey's descriptions... and also note that his version of "MBTI" is not MBTI. MBTI is built upon Jung's theories and Keirsey has his own temperament theories. I also blame him for the continuing statistics mistakes being made (most notably, the E:I 70%:30%). But I suppose most problems between the two are the same, just with a whole lot more data and people working on the core MBTI instrument to offset some of it. Step III from MBTI might change a lot of that too, as the factor analysis for Step II did.
I love his description of ISTPs Especially as a rather extreme introvert. I think that is the largest breakdown between Keirsey - he stereotypes ISTP from the SP traits while MBTI stereotypes from the ST traits (ie: free action without thought vs thought for measuring actions).
I wish I'd started with FFM rather than the rest of the crap I got stuffed with. I shoulda headed for the hard sciences from the start I actually enjoy reading FFM research and do it as a hobby now!
Hmmm... this is exactly what I'm talking about. How do you show that Ss own Ns in the real world...? In what way? Certainly not academically... or financially... or work wise... not even relationship wise. In fact, in nearly every category, Ns manage to outshine Ss (although we get into a distribution problem here... so can interpret it as "much better than most of the population" perhaps).If your main issue is with online stereotyping then I don't think you are going to make much progress. If these forums are any indication, then people who spend most their time on the internet and are interested in this topic are usually of the INXX variety. And from all the threads I have read, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that an N type usually doesn't cope with the real world as well as a sensor would. So it makes sense to me that since sensors own N types in the real world, that here on the internet there would be some temptation to even the score.
That's why the manual and the statistics from CAPT are so important.
If there is one semi-valid point in type, as far as that line of thought goes, it's that Ps get screwed, or if you want to stretch if really far and include just general work success, maybe Fs (although this is very industry based).
What you are hearing is that Ns are smarter and more open. Those are the real complaints, but hidden behind the surface. That's why arrogance, elitism and all that come up all the time. Problem is, there is roughly the same amount of high IQ Ss as Ns, but there is a huge gap between low IQ Ns and low IQ Ss... namely that there are very few below average Ns. Narrow description of "good stuff" for Ns and a very broad and inaccurate description for Ss emerges.
As far as I'm concerned, Keirsey perpetuates the low end of the Ss far far more than MBTI does, and that leads to a very misleading impression of Ss as a whole.
Anyway, this is a rather large aside - I don't mind talking about it, but I've been previously told to keep it down. For anyone who really enjoys this kind of a talk, I'm all for it... but it's probably not a good place here.