• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] series #1: Keirsey vs. Isabel

gretch

New member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
111
MBTI Type
ENFP
Hi.
Keirsey vs. Isabel. Discuss.


As for me I tend to take a lot from both gifts differing and Please Understand me II. though I was first introduced to Keirsey.

As I mentioned ....er where was it...ah well somewhere on this site. I am an ENFP with a strong suit in tactics. ( I can thank my ESTP father with narcissistic personality disorder for that one.)-{That will be discussed in series #2!}

I tend to enjoy how keirsey categorized things, but I love Isabels more open and free and almost less conforming approach.

Thoughts? Insights. Random tidbits to discuss?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
The thing to remember is that Isabel's approach is the one typically referred to when one is discussing MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). Keirsey's theories are an offshoot, although he does his own research. I know his temperament theory: NF, NT, SJ, SP. His descriptions are a bit different from Isabel's in that they try to describe individual types in terms of temperament and the dichotomies, rather than being based on Jung's ideas as many (if not most) of Isabel's ideas were.

Personally, I think Isabel's tendency to divide types according to IN, ES, IS, and EN has been somewhat more helpful and predictive regarding how they tend to interact.

I admit I'm not familiar with his updated theory, with intelligence and character, which might compensate for earlier oversights and describe personality very well in it's own way. But I think at that point, it's becoming as much of a departure from MBTI as MBTI was from Jung.

I think it might be best to study both, and try to understand both approaches. They may give different perspectives on similar issues, which may be valuable. Then again, I study this in addition to Enneagram theory and Socionics, among other things. So it's likely I just want to look at everything as thoroughly as possible, and that might not appeal to most people.
 

OctaviaCaesar

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
211
MBTI Type
INFJ
I am reading Please Understand Me II right now. It's a fabulous book! From a behavioristic point of view it is right on the mark in describing the attitudes and impulses of my ISFP and ESTP friends/family. Since behavior categorizing seems to be his (Kiersey's) interest, I am wary of how well he describes N types. I find MBTI literature best for describing the internal workings of NFs so far.
 

gretch

New member
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
111
MBTI Type
ENFP
Thank you both for your comments.

Athenian yes, I do realize the importance of understanding that Myers was in it first. I think that there's a lot he left out, especially for NF's.



and Ceasar-I agree with you, I think that you'll be highly pleased with the rationals section (NT's). THough, I think Myers being an NF made her an better authority on them. I am just reading Gifts Differing now.


Also, being introduced to keirsey first I enjoy that Myers uses categories other than NT NF SJ SP to find similarities and bridge gaps
 

Littlelostnf

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
645
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Thank you both for your comments.

Athenian yes, I do realize the importance of understanding that Myers was in it first. I think that there's a lot he left out, especially for NF's.

and Ceasar-I agree with you, I think that you'll be highly pleased with the rationals section (NT's). THough, I think Myers being an NF made her an better authority on them. I am just reading Gifts Differing now.

Also, being introduced to keirsey first I enjoy that Myers uses categories other than NT NF SJ SP to find similarities and bridge gaps


Funny I've read both PleaseUMeII and Gifts Differing...I tend to think that Kiersey does a better job describing the types as a whole. (well Myers is type Kiersey is temperment) He is less prejudice towards N's (altho he is one himself). and his descriptions of the 16 types fits more inline with what I actually see in people. I think Myers put to much emphasis on I/E and P/J. I believe that the ST, NT, SF, NF is alot less subject to outside influences and relies more on nature and not as much on nurture as Myers NJ's NP's SJ's and SP's. What always confused me until I read more about it was why Kiersey used NT and NF but SJ's and SP's interesting stuff. I liked Gifts Differing for the way it deals with Introverted and Extroverted functions (Kiersey doesn't do that) In the end I think Myers descriptions of the types is far more idealistic and somewhat rigid. Kiersey's gives more room for nurture.
 

whatnot

New member
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
39
MBTI Type
xNfj
I love Keirsey's stuff. Probably because it's all I've had a chance to look at so far. :)

I tend to blend chapters out of Keirsey to describe myself or other people. I'm a natural NF with heavy NT leanings. I find Keirsey to be a successful surface model when used in such a manner. I don't have enough information to give input on Isabel.
 
Top