User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 39

  1. #21
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm well aware of how the systems work and compare.

    What I meant by being easier to differentiate is that people are likely to mention "this is socionics" before talking about, and there you go, you know it's something else. It has been distinguished in a way that has prevented the two from being dysfunctionally amalgamated, as the cognitive theories and temperamental theories have been on this forum and elsewhere. This is important since I believe the two pairs are comperably different. That Keirsey's work is as different from Meyers's or Thomson's work as socionics are. At least socionics is still interested in cognition.

    I am the sort of man who will point that all people are, indeed, chemical compositions, so I'm not sure what you're really trying to say there. Let me say that Keirsey performs an old trick. He makes something more tidy and unified, at the expense of accuracy and validity and flexibility. You can do that with any system, it just isn't worth doing.
    Are you kidding me? How is the nebulous voodoo science of cognitive functions more accurate than Kiersey's temperaments?

    And don't get me started on that bookend letters shit... an INTJ has more in common with an ISFJ than an ENTP? Ludicrous.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  2. #22
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I am the sort of man who will point that all people are, indeed, chemical compositions, so I'm not sure what you're really trying to say there. Let me say that Keirsey performs an old trick. He makes something more tidy and unified, at the expense of accuracy and validity and flexibility. You can do that with any system, it just isn't worth doing.
    +1

    You have no idea how many systems I've seen people do this with. It never ceases to frustrate me.

    I blame Te-style shallowness for it.

  3. #23
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Are you kidding me? How is the nebulous voodoo science of cognitive functions more accurate than Kiersey's temperaments?
    I'm not kidding. It's hardly voodoo, and I don't see what's so difficult to understand about it. The quantitative and composite nature of it is far more capable of addressing the complexity of human beings than something so rigidly qualitative and archetypical as Keirsey's system. It's destined to pidgeonhole people.

    Most of the basis for Keirsey's ideas are pretty incredible, too. He calls himself INTP, but that was probably using his own system, and I have doubts. His approach is way less hollistic than the normal MBTI, not very interested in patterns of interaction between parts. He bases a lot of his ideas off of personal experience(!). He's interested almost solely in what is blatantly observerable, very behavioralistic. And he kept talking over and over about how his temperaments fit in line with a long history of four type systems, as if that were important.

    I say he's ISTJ. Not that being ISTJ would make him worse. The flaws of his system are individually his.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    And don't get me started on that bookend letters shit... an INTJ has more in common with an ISFJ than an ENTP? Ludicrous.
    Hard to say which type is more like another. There are many different ways of looking at it. I supposed I'd venture to guess that an ENTP is more like an INTJ than an ISFJ is.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #24
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Then the most reasonable thing for Keirsey to have done would have been to make a system that bore no resemblence to the MBTI at all, thus saving everyone the trouble of mass confusion between two such incompatible systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    That's not reasonable at all, as they are NOT incompatible. Keirsey's system builds on several previous theories of personality, including the Meyers-Briggs theories. "Mass confusion" is only present if people don't bother to actually learn enough to know what they're talking about. Keirsey himself did get tired of being labeled a heretic by Myers "purists" and in his latest book, "Brains and Careers," he drops the MB letters from all of the main text about types, and only mentions them in the section about the history of personality theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    As he should have. Just because one idea was in some built off of another does not mean they are compatible. It is easy to make an adjust a system in some way that makes the original and the new mutually exclusive. As soon as Keirsey decided to reject of the cognitive processes, he made something that was not not workable with the MBTI. If he wants his own system, that's fine, but he should differentiate it symbolically for crying out loud.
    I always wondered why he didn't simply use his own factors, and the order of importance he outlined (S/N as most important, followed by Cooperative/Utilitarian, role-Directive/infoRmative, and then E/I .

    His "four Temperaments" would be SU, SC, NU, NC; and the 16 "role variants" would be SCDI, SCRI, SCDE, SCRE, SUDI, SURI, SUDE, SURE, NCDI, NCRI, NCDE, NCRE, NUDI, NURI, NUDE, NURE.
    He could have then mentioned in passing how they correspond to the MBTI types, and there would be little confusion. But it seems he wanted the MBTI codes because of the popularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    The major difference is in the relationships between types due to temperament (ESFP is closer to ENTP than it is to ENFP, for instance) and the fact that Keirsey doesn't use cognitive functions to explain anything. But there are so many theories out there that people get tripped up anyway.
    There's also the Structure/Motive cross-factor tying together opposite temperaments like those. So when you take that into consideration (and then see it and "Directing/informing" of the Interaction Styles as both forms of the "people/task focus" factor of original temperament theory), then ESFP and ENFP really are very much alike after all. Both extraverted, informing, and motive focused, and differing in Cooperative/Utilitarian (in addition to the perception function preference).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #25
    PEST that STEPs on PETS stellar renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm well aware of how the systems work and compare.

    What I meant by being easier to differentiate is that people are likely to mention "this is socionics" before talking about, and there you go, you know it's something else. It has been distinguished in a way that has prevented the two from being dysfunctionally amalgamated, as the cognitive theories and temperamental theories have been on this forum and elsewhere. This is important since I believe the two pairs are comperably different. That Keirsey's work is as different from Meyers's or Thomson's work as socionics are. At least socionics is still interested in cognition.
    Yeah, but what about peoples' types on the left panel beside their posts? I always thought the lowercase letters were meant to be borderline 50%, but then they'll say something about how "ISTp" really means "ISTJ" or some shit, and now I'm confused as to when it's being used that way and when it isn't. I'm sure Socionics doesn't have an "EnTP," for instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I am the sort of man who will point that all people are, indeed, chemical compositions, so I'm not sure what you're really trying to say there. Let me say that Keirsey performs an old trick. He makes something more tidy and unified, at the expense of accuracy and validity and flexibility. You can do that with any system, it just isn't worth doing.
    That's ridiculous. We're indivisible people, not a combination of separable qualities. Reality's way more complicated than just the parts that seem to make it up.

    Accuracy and validity, on whose terms, exactly? I think it's extremely flexible, give me your reasoning why you think it's not. Once you start trying to measure scales and how close you are to borderline, etc, you make things way too vague and confusing for its worth, imo. If you want to do that you should just start measuring chemicals in the brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Are you kidding me? How is the nebulous voodoo science of cognitive functions more accurate than Kiersey's temperaments?

    And don't get me started on that bookend letters shit... an INTJ has more in common with an ISFJ than an ENTP? Ludicrous.
    Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm not kidding. It's hardly voodoo, and I don't see what's so difficult to understand about it. The quantitative and composite nature of it is far more capable of addressing the complexity of human beings than something so rigidly qualitative and archetypical as Keirsey's system. It's destined to pidgeonhole people.
    Hm, well maybe since he's observed people he knows what he's talking about. I hate to say this since I'm not the intuitive one here, but you just might be losing sight of the forest for the trees on this one. From my viewpoint you're basically saying, "Well that forest has three less conifers than the other one! Your classification is too generalized!" Gimme a break already!

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Most of the basis for Keirsey's ideas are pretty incredible, too. He calls himself INTP, but that was probably using his own system, and I have doubts. His approach is way less hollistic than the normal MBTI, not very interested in patterns of interaction between parts. He bases a lot of his ideas off of personal experience(!). He's interested almost solely in what is blatantly observerable, very behavioralistic. And he kept talking over and over about how his temperaments fit in line with a long history of four type systems, as if that were important.

    I say he's ISTJ. Not that being ISTJ would make him worse. The flaws of his system are individually his.
    hahaha, that makes no sense? An ISTJ by any system would never come up with a theory like that. ISTJs are way too focused on their immediate duty. Try, he's more like a scientist and not an idealist who tries to tap into a person's psyche. Did you realize that Jung and Myers were both idealists? He uses observation because that's the only thing that's ultimately reliable. And this is coming from someone who was big on the cognitive functions a few years ago. I even tried to talk about them on the Keirsey board several months ago until I realized what his theory was all about. I used to always wonder where you drew the line on distinguishing between them because it didn't make sense, and that's when I realized that the whole thing is subjective anyway, and trying to be technical about it is just a fool's paradise. At least observation gives you a modicum of objectivity about it (even though objectivity as a whole is ultimately a fantasy).

    For instance, where do you draw the line between thinking and feeling? When does something stop being a feeling and start being a thought, and how do you account for biased logic? Keirsey solves this by saying that everyone has thoughts and feelings, it's just that some are more tough-minded and others soft-hearted, which brings those wordings back to their original source of conception in the first place. Jung is the one who tried to elevate them to "archetypes" which is what created the whole mess of problems you see with systems such as MBTI.

    I do see a tad bit of relevancy in the functions, but only if they aren't taken so seriously.

    And btw, Jung based his functions off of observation as well, so I think you're standing on a shaky platform.

    As for the ancient conception of temperaments, I did wonder about that at first but realized that he was referencing their long-standing foundation because of the fact that all those grey beards who talked about them were basing their thought off of observation as well. Basically he's saying, even though these are my observations, I'm not alone on them by any means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Hard to say which type is more like another. There are many different ways of looking at it. I supposed I'd venture to guess that an ENTP is more like an INTJ than an ISFJ is.
    And that's the deal with the four letter combinations, they confuse the person dealing with them into thinking that two people can be just as alike as another two because of the fact that two letters are the same, regardless of which letters they are, even though they don't share the same "functions" even.

    This is another thing I have to praise the Keirsey system for, that it creates the first and most important divide between abstract and concrete language users. This does seem to be the hardest barrier to cross between different types of people. Abstract types seem to group with each other just as concrete types do. Before you even get to trying to communicate between tough-minded and soft-hearted types, you have to deal with that fundamental difference.
    -stellar renegade
    coo-oo-ooool this madness down,
    stop it right on tiiiiime!


    Badass Promoter ESTPs:
    [sigpic][/sigpic]

  6. #26
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm not kidding. It's hardly voodoo, and I don't see what's so difficult to understand about it. The quantitative and composite nature of it is far more capable of addressing the complexity of human beings than something so rigidly qualitative and archetypical as Keirsey's system. It's destined to pidgeonhole people.

    Most of the basis for Keirsey's ideas are pretty incredible, too. He calls himself INTP, but that was probably using his own system, and I have doubts. His approach is way less hollistic than the normal MBTI, not very interested in patterns of interaction between parts. He bases a lot of his ideas off of personal experience(!). He's interested almost solely in what is blatantly observerable, very behavioralistic.
    I don't see what's so offensive about forming theories on personal observations, especially if those observations were gathered over a course of 3 or so decades of working as a psychologist/counselor. To me, that which is observable, and that which can predict future behavior is the single most important aspect of typology.

    Hard to say which type is more like another. There are many different ways of looking at it. I supposed I'd venture to guess that an ENTP is more like an INTJ than an ISFJ is.

    You'd "suppose" and "venture a guess", huh? I suppose I'd venture a guess that a cheetah is closer to a leopard than a hippo.

    The methods of taking in and processing information between an INTJ and ENTP are very similar, while those between an INTJ and an ISFJ are diametrically opposed.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  7. #27
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    This is another thing I have to praise the Keirsey system for, that it creates the first and most important divide between abstract and concrete language users. This does seem to be the hardest barrier to cross between different types of people. Abstract types seem to group with each other just as concrete types do. Before you even get to trying to communicate between tough-minded and soft-hearted types, you have to deal with that fundamental difference.
    That is one the most facinating things I've noticed about typology - how social circles predictably follow the S/N divide.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  8. #28
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    Yeah, but what about peoples' types on the left panel beside their posts? I always thought the lowercase letters were meant to be borderline 50%, but then they'll say something about how "ISTp" really means "ISTJ" or some shit, and now I'm confused as to when it's being used that way and when it isn't. I'm sure Socionics doesn't have an "EnTP," for instance.


    That's ridiculous. We're indivisible people, not a combination of separable qualities. Reality's way more complicated than just the parts that seem to make it up.

    Accuracy and validity, on whose terms, exactly? I think it's extremely flexible, give me your reasoning why you think it's not. Once you start trying to measure scales and how close you are to borderline, etc, you make things way too vague and confusing for its worth, imo. If you want to do that you should just start measuring chemicals in the brain.


    Thank you.


    Hm, well maybe since he's observed people he knows what he's talking about. I hate to say this since I'm not the intuitive one here, but you just might be losing sight of the forest for the trees on this one. From my viewpoint you're basically saying, "Well that forest has three less conifers than the other one! Your classification is too generalized!" Gimme a break already!


    hahaha, that makes no sense? An ISTJ by any system would never come up with a theory like that. ISTJs are way too focused on their immediate duty. Try, he's more like a scientist and not an idealist who tries to tap into a person's psyche. Did you realize that Jung and Myers were both idealists? He uses observation because that's the only thing that's ultimately reliable. And this is coming from someone who was big on the cognitive functions a few years ago. I even tried to talk about them on the Keirsey board several months ago until I realized what his theory was all about. I used to always wonder where you drew the line on distinguishing between them because it didn't make sense, and that's when I realized that the whole thing is subjective anyway, and trying to be technical about it is just a fool's paradise. At least observation gives you a modicum of objectivity about it (even though objectivity as a whole is ultimately a fantasy).

    For instance, where do you draw the line between thinking and feeling? When does something stop being a feeling and start being a thought, and how do you account for biased logic? Keirsey solves this by saying that everyone has thoughts and feelings, it's just that some are more tough-minded and others soft-hearted, which brings those wordings back to their original source of conception in the first place. Jung is the one who tried to elevate them to "archetypes" which is what created the whole mess of problems you see with systems such as MBTI.

    I do see a tad bit of relevancy in the functions, but only if they aren't taken so seriously.

    And btw, Jung based his functions off of observation as well, so I think you're standing on a shaky platform.

    As for the ancient conception of temperaments, I did wonder about that at first but realized that he was referencing their long-standing foundation because of the fact that all those grey beards who talked about them were basing their thought off of observation as well. Basically he's saying, even though these are my observations, I'm not alone on them by any means.


    And that's the deal with the four letter combinations, they confuse the person dealing with them into thinking that two people can be just as alike as another two because of the fact that two letters are the same, regardless of which letters they are, even though they don't share the same "functions" even.

    This is another thing I have to praise the Keirsey system for, that it creates the first and most important divide between abstract and concrete language users. This does seem to be the hardest barrier to cross between different types of people. Abstract types seem to group with each other just as concrete types do. Before you even get to trying to communicate between tough-minded and soft-hearted types, you have to deal with that fundamental difference.
    But I can't seem to observe the same things in types, in the same terms that Keirsey does.

    The four groupings I seem to come up with most often, honestly, are probably closer to Beren's Interaction Styles (which largely coincide with the "bookends," but not completely).

    You keep insisting that the system is objective and based on observation, but I honestly I don't observe these qualities in people. Are you telling me that I should trust Keirsey's observations over my own? If his system is based on observation, I should be able to observe people falling along these lines, but I don't. Can you explain that? Am I just stupid if I don't see the same four groups that you do?

  9. #29
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I think these are all just different angles of looking at the same things.
    Yep. That's why it's silly to rail against one person's system the way Poriferan does as if it's this other strange alien thing that needs to be fought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    As he should have. Just because one idea was in some built off of another does not mean they are compatible.
    And just because you don't WANT it to be compatible doesn't mean it isn't. It is obviously far more than just "in some built off" and for you to state that makes me think that you are among those people that hasn't actually read Keirsey's books or if you have, you paid little attention to them.

    It is easy to make an adjust a system in some way that makes the original and the new mutually exclusive. As soon as Keirsey decided to reject of the cognitive processes, he made something that was not not workable with the MBTI. If he wants his own system, that's fine, but he should differentiate it symbolically for crying out loud.
    And here you've just contradicted yourself. Because the MBTI does not ask questions about cognitive processes, it asks forced-choice questions to determine four either-or dichotomies. Once again, we have a system that is based on previous theories, and yet different from the original Jung writings. So in order for your position to be consistent, you would have to reject Myers' use of Jungian function terminology when she clearly came up with her own system. But you don't. You operate under the "This one is okay and the other one isn't because I say so" method.

    You're right, people have not read the texts, and it's stupid of them to talk with confidence when they haven't, but then that does not mean it was a good idea on Keirsey's part to make them so easy to mix up. Even the people here who seem to understand the difference generally throw around the type terms without clarifying who's theory they are talking about, thus furthering the confusion. Other people see this, and it effects their understanding of the MBTI, and then we have a problem. When you see people combine the temperaments and the cognitive process into one extrapolation, that's a tip-off that something is wrong.
    Once again, Eric said it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I think these are all just different angles of looking at the same things.
    The best method is to take all the valid theories into account and use them in whatever way is practical. Trying to make the case there is some sort of one "pure" system that no one should try to make understandable by providing other observations is just silly and borderline elitist. And becomes even more silly when expressed by people with relatively little actual life experience compared to someone like Keirsey who has been observing and studying people for six or seven decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm not kidding. It's hardly voodoo, and I don't see what's so difficult to understand about it. The quantitative and composite nature of it is far more capable of addressing the complexity of human beings than something so rigidly qualitative and archetypical as Keirsey's system. It's destined to pidgeonhole people.
    Any type system CAN be used to pigeon-hole people if someone chooses to use it that way, but if the author of such a system does not present it that way, you can't really blame the author for how it is misused.

    Most of the basis for Keirsey's ideas are pretty incredible, too. He calls himself INTP, but that was probably using his own system, and I have doubts. His approach is way less hollistic than the normal MBTI, not very interested in patterns of interaction between parts. He bases a lot of his ideas off of personal experience(!). He's interested almost solely in what is blatantly observerable, very behavioralistic. And he kept talking over and over about how his temperaments fit in line with a long history of four type systems, as if that were important.
    OMG NO NOT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE! Dude, what the hell else is there? Do you have some sort of divining rod where you take in the spirits of humanity? Otherwise, any study of humans you go by is based either on your own experience or somebody else's. OF COURSE he's interested in observable behavior, you say that like it somehow discredits him or something. Theorizing is just raw speculation if you don't back it up with observation. And Keirsey does a heck of a lot of backing up his speculation. Some things more than others, obviously. In "Brains & Careers", he does a lot of guesswork about ancient tribal humans and their roles in primitive society, but at least he admits he is guessing, and differentiates those parts from the writings that are backed up by actual observations by other people and himself.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  10. #30
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    But I can't seem to observe the same things in types, in the same terms that Keirsey does.


    You keep insisting that the system is objective and based on observation, but I honestly I don't observe these qualities in people. Are you telling me that I should trust Keirsey's observations over my own? If his system is based on observation, I should be able to observe people falling along these lines, but I don't. Can you explain that? Am I just stupid if I don't see the same four groups that you do?
    I wouldn't say you were stupid, but you have said yourself many times on this forum that you have very little interaction with people, so trusting someone who has had tons of interactions with people and has, in fact, made a career out of observing people more would seem to make sense, yes.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

Similar Threads

  1. About Keirsey Temperament Sorter..
    By Mondo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-04-2008, 10:47 AM
  2. [MBTItm] series #1: Keirsey vs. Isabel
    By gretch in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-27-2007, 08:13 PM
  3. Type Theory vs. Temperament Theory
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2007, 10:38 PM
  4. INTRO ; MBTI & Co-relation wt. Keirsey 4 Temperaments
    By Rakesh in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-01-2007, 09:06 AM
  5. MBTI & Co-relation wt. Keirsey 4 Temperaments
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 03:30 PM

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