User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 39 of 39

  1. #31
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.
    I supposed I asked for that kind of reaction. That wasn't exactly the kind of response I was looking for. Okay, my fault, I didn't communicate it well.

    Let's try this again... have you read about Beren's Interaction Styles? How do you think they hold up compared to Keirsey's temperaments?

    They also equate with the ancient temperament system:

    Chart-the-Course: Melancholic
    In-Charge: Choleric
    Get-things-going: Sanguine
    Behind-the-scenes: Phlegmatic

    And I actually see these correlations far more readily when I work with people than the ones used by Keirsey. So what I'm asking you is, do you think there's anything to my personal experience that Beren's Interaction Styles are an observable pattern in people, or not?

    EDIT: Actually, I think I'm going to start a thread on this...

  2. #32
    PEST that STEPs on PETS stellar renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    One big thing that I can say about the Keirsey system is that it's helped me tons more than MBTI ever has. It seems to be way more directly applicable and useful, and whereas I was easily mistyped by MBTI, Keirsey has helped me to get on track fast.

    So a system with tons of healthy, practical usage potential or an extremely technical purist system... hm, decisions, decisions

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    That is one the most facinating things I've noticed about typology - how social circles predictably follow the S/N divide.
    Most definitely! I hadn't noticed how true that is until I saw it brought up somewhere. I've also noticed that my friend and I have a hard time communicating, which makes sense when you take into account that he's an abstractoid. He speaks in generalizations, his humor is erratic and random and the types of activities he involves himself in have little sensible value.
    -stellar renegade
    coo-oo-ooool this madness down,
    stop it right on tiiiiime!


    Badass Promoter ESTPs:
    [sigpic][/sigpic]

  3. #33
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    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.
    Exactly what I think.


    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.
    I haven't noticed. In the MBTI often people do mean bordeline with lowercase, and I have no idea why anyone was putting their socionics type in the MBTI box. If they could explain it to you, then they surely knew the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    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.
    No, not really. I think all things are combinations of seperable qualities. There are many parts though, so it is extremely complicated. There are such a sea off traits that it is up to us to arbitrate which ones we want to measure and which traits we put under the same category. But before you leap and try to claim that's a flaw, I'll remind that you use that method to navigate reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    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.
    We aren't measuring chemicals in the brain because we don't know how exactly they all work yet. People over emphasize the neuro-transmitters too. The actually wiring, bloodflow, etc... has a lot to do with your thoughts.

    Accuracy and validity on basic, logical terms. As in, does your measure determine what you claim your system determines. One of my big complaints about Keirsey is his system is terrible for having even the slightest clue what people are thinking, kind of like B.F. Skinner (though the similarities end there).

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    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!
    Actually, people who study forests really do that. The measure it's kind of trees, their spacing, it's kind of soil, etc... And acknowledge that when it gets down to it, they exist in a gradients between types, not as prestine types. They are rough estimations of their quanitifiable aspects.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    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.
    Yes, I know, and they were either suits or army gear.
    This is exactly what I'm complaining about. I guess for this to make a bit more sense to you, realize that I'm not typing Keirsey based on Keirsey's system, so don't be surprised if what I describe as ISTJ does not sound like what the temperament system would.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    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?
    It is frequently said. What's your point? Do you think psychology itself is an ideal?

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    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).
    Thinking like that would seem to make any system invalid. Why even engage this discussion if that's your view? You say subjectivity is invalid (when it's actually not necessarilly), but you say objectivity is a fantasy. And then you say that getting technical is a waste of time, even though I don't there is such a thing as a system you can't get technical about.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    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.
    Do you want me to actually try giving you the whole seminar on Thinking and Feeling? And I'm not sure what you mean by biased logic in this context.

    Keirsey doesn't solve shit. Who in the cognitive faction denies that everyone has Feelings and Thoughts? What would even give you the idea to mention that? I am baffled because my view of the situation is nearly reversed. Both systems accept that every person has all qualities. The cognitive approach at least accounts more for the interplay of all processes, while the temperamental system discard certain aspects of certain types so much that I feel like they are all caricatures.

    And I know Jung came up with archetypes (though I think you're slightly confusing two aspects of his life's work). Jung however provided the initial parts for which could be divided into a logical system. Keirsey just chucked those parts away altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    I do see a tad bit of relevancy in the functions, but only if they aren't taken so seriously.
    With the point of view you espouse, none of it should be taken seriously. You basically dismissed any and all ways to draw a conclusion about reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    And btw, Jung based his functions off of observation as well, so I think you're standing on a shaky platform.
    I think you and everyone else that responded to this completely failed to understand what I meant, and I'll get to that later in this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    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.
    That's only very slightly emperically sound, but not very. You'd need a lot more to have a strong case. Otherwise you just have appeal to tradition. There should be a reason that system is repeated over and over again, not just that one guy is following the other. Why was it ever right in the first place?

    That being said, I don't even agree with Keirsey's view of the temperaments and I think he was shoehorning it all to make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    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.
    I agree, I don't like the four letters. I think people should label themselves as the dominant process pair. I'm Ti-Ne. It solves all of that confusion. It was one of Meyers's sillier ideas.

    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.
    There's a whole other thread there, so I'll leave it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    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.
    Okay, let's make this clear. You guys are essentially asking for science. You're telling me, that what I'm coming up with, is too much of a logical abstract. Okay then, you want something more conrete, like science. Well, if that's what you want, no respectable scientific community would consider Keirsey;s books worth shit. One man's personal observations carry little value. He, as one source, is too unreliable. He, as one man not even making this into a research program, probably has too small a sample. He, as one man, almost surely has an unrepresentative sample. I shouldn't need to explain this. It's a standard rule that you don't rely on one guy's personal experience. So in my opinion, you are all floating in a useless limbo. You refuse the abstract theories, but you rely on something far too impotent in its empericism to be useful. For me, I don't see a problem with the abstract. These sorts of categorizations are like that, inately. If you really want a fools errand, than trying dray objective lines between items in a set.

    The arbitration is unavoidable, and frankly harmless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.
    If that were inherently silly, then I'd have be accepting some completely inaccurate and very detrimental systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.
    I own his work. I have read it multiple times. Don't question my education or make guesses about my intent. Stick to the subject.

    I will state again, that there's no way a system that does not have the cognitive processes, is compatible with the conventional MBTI. How could it be? You have a negative and a positive a here. You have a system which is partly relying on the assertion that something does exist, and a system partly relying on the assertion that it doesn't. They are as compatible as theism and atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.
    First of all, those would still be question about congitive processes. Second of all, there are considerably more options than that in testing people for their type.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.
    No. I never said that because one system is an alteration of another, the two are incompatible. I said that a system and its alternations can be incompatible, and in the case of the congitive processes and the temperaments, they are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.
    I've already explained why this is a sort of false reverence for empericism.
    I am not phased in the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.
    Might seem like an odd exmaple but... I think I could blame the inventors of the atomic bomb more than the inventors of the airplane. Yes, they can both be used as weapons, and one was used in the process of using the other as a weapon. But it's really obvious that the inventors of the first were egging on destruction more. Yes, all systems can be used to pidgeonhole. Some more than others, though. I find that Keirsey's system really tempts that impules, especially with the four broader temperaments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.
    I explained this. And Keirsey uses insufficiently little oustide of himself, in a rather unprofessional way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    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.
    Of course, of course. It's obvious enough that you should have paused to question if you had understood me correctly. Even test results are observable behavior. They are very different, however, from watching how someone dresses or maintains their desk or what have you. They get more to the real point. They get to how the person is thinking, in the only way can prior to the development of direct brain reading. And this is through questions about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by stellar renegade View Post
    One big thing that I can say about the Keirsey system is that it's helped me tons more than MBTI ever has. It seems to be way more directly applicable and useful, and whereas I was easily mistyped by MBTI, Keirsey has helped me to get on track fast.
    To be honest, I think it serves a placebo function. It changes your life by engendering you with confidence, which makes a difference, even if you have confidence in something that actually does not warrant the confidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    So a system with tons of healthy, practical usage potential or an extremely technical purist system... hm, decisions, decisions
    You sound like Republican congressman talking about healthcare.

    And calling me purist is retarded because it's very obvious that I'm changing little things here and there throughout the MBTI.

    ________________________________________

    And I'll finish with another way of phrasing my views.

    Let's take Keirsey, and a cognitive theorist, like Lenore Thomson, because she's my favorite.

    Let's say instead of making a personality system, they were classifying colors.
    I think Thomson would go about it the way we've come to commonly do it in computer graphics. We have 6 bars (which functional more like 5). We have luminance, saturation, and hue. We also have the three independent Red, Blue, and Green bars, which through their various combinations result in a different place on the hue bar (hence being like 5). Thus, we have a way of achieving millions of colors without any confusion or mystery, via combinations of smaller parts.

    I would Keirsey's approach as one in which he says there are 12 colors. Red, Orange, Yellow, Chartreuse, Green, Teal, Cyan, Azure, Blue, Purple, Rose. And somehow, every possible shade and hue, will be one of those 12 colors, and nothing more. You just eyeball it to figure out which of the twelve you throw it in.

    There are challanges to be had in making the cognitive system truly like the color bar system. We must stop using the four letter label, we should get in the habit of listing exact values rather than just saying I or E. And most important and difficult of all, we need consistent incrimentation like those colors have. As hard as this may be, it certainly can be done, and would become something very functional. I'd rather take a rough path than a dead-end, and Keirey's system is a dead-end.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  4. #34
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post

    Okay, let's make this clear. You guys are essentially asking for science. You're telling me, that what I'm coming up with, is too much of a logical abstract. Okay then, you want something more conrete, like science. Well, if that's what you want, no respectable scientific community would consider Keirsey;s books worth shit.
    I didn't ask for "science". I only ask for something that has practical applications. I don't give a rat's ass what the "respectable scientific community" approves of when it comes to psychology. As far as I know a lot of them still worship that sex obsessed cokehead Freude (because he's been around long enough to become respectable and his books are peppered with tantalizing stories about mother fucking.)

    One man's personal observations carry little value. He, as one source, is too unreliable. He, as one man not even making this into a research program, probably has too small a sample. He, as one man, almost surely has an unrepresentative sample. I shouldn't need to explain this. It's a standard rule that you don't rely on one guy's personal experience. So in my opinion, you are all floating in a useless limbo.
    There was one man, Einstein, and then there were thousands of alchemists. What's your point? I don't care if one man came up with it (theory of relativity) or whether thousand people studied it (astrology). All I care about is results. I used Kiersey's system in my daily life with predictable success. Congnitive functions are yet to produce shit for me.

    You refuse the abstract theories, but you rely on something far too impotent in its empericism to be useful. For me, I don't see a problem with the abstract. These sorts of categorizations are like that, inately. If you really want a fools errand, than trying dray objective lines between items in a set.
    Just a month ago I had an argument on TypeC with a guy who told me that Big 5 is the only test worth a shit, and I was on a "fool's errand" following something too abstract and unverifiable like Kiersey's system.

    Both of you guys should look up "moderation".
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  5. #35
    PEST that STEPs on PETS stellar renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Your response is so far out in left-field to me but I'm gonna try to respond anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    No, not really. I think all things are combinations of seperable qualities. There are many parts though, so it is extremely complicated. There are such a sea off traits that it is up to us to arbitrate which ones we want to measure and which traits we put under the same category. But before you leap and try to claim that's a flaw, I'll remind that you use that method to navigate reality.
    Ok, I'll take the bait. What do you mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Accuracy and validity on basic, logical terms. As in, does your measure determine what you claim your system determines. One of my big complaints about Keirsey is his system is terrible for having even the slightest clue what people are thinking, kind of like B.F. Skinner (though the similarities end there).
    Good thing Keirsey doesn't claim to know what people are thinking, then isn't it? :rolli: Oh and btw, your paragraph lacks a consistent main idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Actually, people who study forests really do that. The measure it's kind of trees, their spacing, it's kind of soil, etc... And acknowledge that when it gets down to it, they exist in a gradients between types, not as prestine types. They are rough estimations of their quanitifiable aspects.
    And what reason is there to quantify each and every forest's exact specific attributes? And where does the search for details end? At how many shrubberies the forest has? Something which might change at any moment in time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Yes, I know, and they were either suits or army gear.
    This is exactly what I'm complaining about. I guess for this to make a bit more sense to you, realize that I'm not typing Keirsey based on Keirsey's system, so don't be surprised if what I describe as ISTJ does not sound like what the temperament system would.
    Based on what system, then? What system on earth would have such a different definition for 'sensory' that it would include those who primarily enjoy abstract reasoning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It is frequently said. What's your point? Do you think psychology itself is an ideal?
    No, I'm saying it's not an ideal, which is why both Jung and Myers brought some difficulty to the table and why I think it's silly that people are trying to logically analyze people to a fine point based on their work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Thinking like that would seem to make any system invalid. Why even engage this discussion if that's your view? You say subjectivity is invalid (when it's actually not necessarilly), but you say objectivity is a fantasy. And then you say that getting technical is a waste of time, even though I don't there is such a thing as a system you can't get technical about.
    For one simple reason: because observations are the only way you can conceivably be sure about anything. Everything else is just vague guesswork based on some aloof abstract reasoning. All reasoning is abstract by definition, but if it's not grounded in observations how can you be sure it's externally relevant?

    I didn't say subjectivity is invalid at all, I said that it was really the only thing psychological evaluations can work within. And I mean objectivity in the sense of an abstract standard being imposed on multiple facets of reality. Obviously I'm not against objectivity in the sense of being grounded in observations.

    And just because you can get technical about a system doesn't mean that there's any meaningful reason to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Do you want me to actually try giving you the whole seminar on Thinking and Feeling? And I'm not sure what you mean by biased logic in this context.
    Yes, I would. Just a mini-seminar, though.

    I mean biased logic in the sense of seeming objective logic being motivated by an agenda. You can't really separate thoughts from feelings or desires since we're human. The distinction is highly subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Keirsey doesn't solve shit. Who in the cognitive faction denies that everyone has Feelings and Thoughts? What would even give you the idea to mention that? I am baffled because my view of the situation is nearly reversed. Both systems accept that every person has all qualities. The cognitive approach at least accounts more for the interplay of all processes, while the temperamental system discard certain aspects of certain types so much that I feel like they are all caricatures.
    What are you talking about with that last statement?

    Myers' system may not deny that people have both thoughts and feelings, but it makes it seem as though they are divisible in some kind of coherent, distinct sense and that one is conscious while the other merely subconscious. This is merely a speculative and subjective evaluation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    With the point of view you espouse, none of it should be taken seriously. You basically dismissed any and all ways to draw a conclusion about reality.
    hahahahaha... I like the way you just accused me of dismissing any way to draw a conclusion about reality with no evidence for that. And I'd hardly call abstract notions of vague invisible functions as an adequate way to draw conclusions about reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That's only very slightly emperically sound, but not very. You'd need a lot more to have a strong case. Otherwise you just have appeal to tradition. There should be a reason that system is repeated over and over again, not just that one guy is following the other. Why was it ever right in the first place?
    Because through study it shows to be correct, maybe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That being said, I don't even agree with Keirsey's view of the temperaments and I think he was shoehorning it all to make sense.
    That's fine, you can think that if you want. :rolli:

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I agree, I don't like the four letters. I think people should label themselves as the dominant process pair. I'm Ti-Ne. It solves all of that confusion. It was one of Meyers's sillier ideas.
    Fair enough, but how can you be sure the functions are grounded in reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Okay, let's make this clear. You guys are essentially asking for science. You're telling me, that what I'm coming up with, is too much of a logical abstract. Okay then, you want something more conrete, like science. Well, if that's what you want, no respectable scientific community would consider Keirsey;s books worth shit. One man's personal observations carry little value. He, as one source, is too unreliable. He, as one man not even making this into a research program, probably has too small a sample. He, as one man, almost surely has an unrepresentative sample. I shouldn't need to explain this. It's a standard rule that you don't rely on one guy's personal experience. So in my opinion, you are all floating in a useless limbo. You refuse the abstract theories, but you rely on something far too impotent in its empericism to be useful.
    Hm, well those observations sure are open to be tested! And, whaddya know, they ARE tested everyday and found to be of incredible practical import! If you'll notice how many institutions use them you'll see that it evidently is very effective, else its widespread use would soon be curtailed. It's a free market, after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    For me, I don't see a problem with the abstract. These sorts of categorizations are like that, inately. If you really want a fools errand, than trying dray objective lines between items in a set.

    The arbitration is unavoidable, and frankly harmless.
    Have fun with your fantasy world, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Of course, of course. It's obvious enough that you should have paused to question if you had understood me correctly. Even test results are observable behavior. They are very different, however, from watching how someone dresses or maintains their desk or what have you. They get more to the real point. They get to how the person is thinking, in the only way can prior to the development of direct brain reading. And this is through questions about it.
    How in the world do you perform this magic feat?

    Seriously, if you can read peoples' minds, I want to read your book. Tell us all about your mad telepathy skillz.

    How else can you determine how someone thinks apart from observing them in the physical world?

    And even if it's only up to the subject alone to determine these things, how can you keep it from remaining highly highly speculative and subjective? A person can not only make shit up about themselves but we have the amazing ability to see ourselves as completely different than we actually are. Not to mention how difficult it often is to take those tests, especially for unreflective types such as we SPs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    To be honest, I think it serves a placebo function. It changes your life by engendering you with confidence, which makes a difference, even if you have confidence in something that actually does not warrant the confidence.
    Haha, nice try. Come back when you have a more accurate description of what's really going on. I hope you don't wonder why you're getting such rude responses, here.

    You think I apply to personality theory just so I can feel good about myself? ohmygawd, you seriously underestimate me then. I mainly use it to understand other people, guard against pygmalion projects and find the best career path and lifestyle for myself. And I use it by determining if my actions line up with the descriptions given.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    And calling me purist is retarded because it's very obvious that I'm changing little things here and there throughout the MBTI.
    Fair enough, but I was talking about the basic widespread system, not about you. And maybe purist wasn't the right word, I don't know I'm tired right now so I don't have the time to try to figure out how to express what I meant, but I think I was talking about trying to extricate a perfect idea out of the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    And I'll finish with another way of phrasing my views.

    Let's take Keirsey, and a cognitive theorist, like Lenore Thomson, because she's my favorite.

    Let's say instead of making a personality system, they were classifying colors.
    I think Thomson would go about it the way we've come to commonly do it in computer graphics. We have 6 bars (which functional more like 5). We have luminance, saturation, and hue. We also have the three independent Red, Blue, and Green bars, which through their various combinations result in a different place on the hue bar (hence being like 5). Thus, we have a way of achieving millions of colors without any confusion or mystery, via combinations of smaller parts.

    I would Keirsey's approach as one in which he says there are 12 colors. Red, Orange, Yellow, Chartreuse, Green, Teal, Cyan, Azure, Blue, Purple, Rose. And somehow, every possible shade and hue, will be one of those 12 colors, and nothing more. You just eyeball it to figure out which of the twelve you throw it in.

    There are challanges to be had in making the cognitive system truly like the color bar system. We must stop using the four letter label, we should get in the habit of listing exact values rather than just saying I or E. And most important and difficult of all, we need consistent incrimentation like those colors have. As hard as this may be, it certainly can be done, and would become something very functional. I'd rather take a rough path than a dead-end, and Keirey's system is a dead-end.
    Try, the colors Keirsey uses are just basic placements and he admits you can vary a bit between them. There's room to mix-and-match a bit (something some of us are actually doing at the Keirsey board, if you care to know) so you can get a more realistic look at yourself. I don't see what the use in formulating a numbered value gradient is, though. What use does that have in the real world, and why would you take the time to do that other than to just be vain? Maybe I'm missing something substantial here, but I honestly doubt it. Reality allows for much more play than trying to get something so exact, and it's much more practical to use trial and error than try to idealistically formulate something to a fine point.

    But the types are based on such a simple aspect of human nature that it's hard not to fall in one of the basic categories. I've found them to be extremely accurate in describing attributes of the people I know.
    -stellar renegade
    coo-oo-ooool this madness down,
    stop it right on tiiiiime!


    Badass Promoter ESTPs:
    [sigpic][/sigpic]

  6. #36
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Well, here's my main problem with Keirsey.

    Continuing the color analogy, here's what happens with me.

    Idealists are green, Rationals are blue. I keep finding myself in the teal area, because I have qualities of both.

    I identify with NFJs, but not with NFPs. The secondary type I find myself identifying with is NTJ group, but I lack their ambition and desire for practical achievement.

    I feel that it's unfair that I'm lumped in with a group of people I don't even like or appreciate most of time. I don't share an NFPs valuing of "authenticity," for instance. I care about developing human potential, self-discovery, and giving to others, but I don't buy all the spirituality and authenticity nonsense NFPs seem to get into. I'm also not a trusting person, and am often suspicious.

    On the other hand, I value technology, tend to be skeptical, and am curious about how the world works. Yet I don't base my self-worth on ingenuity, have a need for achievement, or think that real-world practical results are all that matter.

    I would have to admit that Keirsey's system works great for NP and ENJ types, which are much more common than INJs. I guess I just don't like it because it doesn't seem to work nearly as well for INTJs and INFJs, who are often finding themselves in the teal area. I still say that we tend to be far less strongly NT or NF than the other members of our temperaments. In fact, I sometimes think INTJs should count as a fifth NF, as idealistic as they can be at times. They even get along with NFPs better than I do.

    I just don't "get" using a system to type other people that I personally can't fit myself into very well.

  7. #37
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Idealists are green, Rationals are blue. I keep finding myself in the teal area, because I have qualities of both.

    I identify with NFJs, but not with NFPs. The secondary type I find myself identifying with is NTJ group, but I lack their ambition and desire for practical achievement.

    I feel that it's unfair that I'm lumped in with a group of people I don't even like or appreciate most of time. I don't share an NFPs valuing of "authenticity," for instance. I care about developing human potential, self-discovery, and giving to others, but I don't buy all the spirituality and authenticity nonsense NFPs seem to get into. I'm also not a trusting person, and am often suspicious.

    On the other hand, I value technology, tend to be skeptical, and am curious about how the world works. Yet I don't base my self-worth on ingenuity, have a need for achievement, or think that real-world practical results are all that matter.
    Are you sure you're not an INTP, perhaps with high Ni? Like Evan? Like him, you always did seem more T to me.
    Because INTP is Behind the Scenes (Phlegmatic or Supine), it will seem in some respects like an NF, and will not have as much of the ambition and need for achievement as the NTJ's.
    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

  8. #38
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Are you sure you're not an INTP, perhaps with high Ni? Like Evan? Like him, you always did seem more T to me.
    Because INTP is Behind the Scenes (Phlegmatic or Supine), it will seem in some respects like an NF, and will not have as much of the ambition and need for achievement as the NTJ's.
    Well, no one I know thinks that I'm a P, and I do think I'm awfully high-strung and concerned about how I'm seen compared to an INTP.

    I don't know of very many INTPs who think I'm an INTP. I've been called an ISFJ, an INTJ, and an ISTJ before, though.

    If I'm an INTP, then I act out of shadow Fe a LOT (probably even more than I use Ne), and semi-consciously.

    I don't know if I'm quite that analytical, though. I mean, I can almost keep up with an INTP, but I can't see myself coming up with the same kind of ideas they do.

    Also, a lot of NTs have used me as an example of how NFs often misunderstand NTs and take things they say personally... if I'm an NT, that really throws a monkey wrench in their ideas.

  9. #39
    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 Magic Poriferan View Post
    I own his work. I have read it multiple times. Don't question my education or make guesses about my intent. Stick to the subject.
    Fair enough. Don't make up things that I never said and list them as a quote from me. I questioned whether you had actually read it or understood it at least because your statements made no sense if you were actually familiar with it. Keirsey explicitly states in his books that his system is different than Myers and Jung, and lays out where he disagrees with them. And as I said, in his latest book, he drops the usage of the Myers letters from his text entirely. But he still believes they do correlate and explains so. And I think he's right. Just because that strays a long way from Jung's original concepts doesn't make it any less valid. Army weaponry has come along way from rocks and sticks too, and that analogy is as relevant as your color stuff.

    The fact remains anybody can misuse anything, but harping about what Keirsey "should have done" 30 years ago is silly. And with the way the internet works, people are especially prone to distorting information from its original sources anyway. As I said, there is nothing wrong with using elements of different systems to get an idea of a whole person. It's when people start acting like you have to fit neatly into a perfect type box that they are misusing it. Not when people are trying to make it simpler or easier to understand.
    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