[Kiersey] Temperaments vs. Keirsey

[Auto/Virtuosi=L.A.P.]

I wanted to be clear on some things. Is one better than the other? Are the middle letters useless? who thought of the temperaments anyway, and why aren't they widely recognized?

 

[Athenian200]

I wanted to be clear on some things. Is one better than the other? Are the middle letters useless? who thought of the temperaments anyway, and why aren't they widely recognized?

What are you talking about? I thought temperaments were Keirsey's idea? The whole SP/SJ/NT/NF thing? Or are you talking about SF/ST/NT/NF when you say temperament?

 

[Jeffster]

Keirsey Temperament Website

That should answer most of your questions, and for others' opinions on Keirsey's work, you can search "Keirsey Temperament Theory" and get many opinions on it from various sources.

 

[Auto/Virtuosi=L.A.P.]

What are you talking about? I thought temperaments were Keirsey's idea? The whole SP/SJ/NT/NF thing? Or are you talking about SF/ST/NT/NF when you say temperament?

Sorry, I looked up the info you and the other user talked about and it seemed to go by the name of temperaments. Yeah, Keirsey's were temperaments as well. I'm talking about the first and last letters being used to describe a person's behaviour.

Thanks Jeffster!

 

[Athenian200]

Sorry, I looked up the info you and the other user talked about and it seemed to go by the name of temperaments. Yeah, Keirsey's were temperaments as well. I'm talking about the first and last letters being used to describe a person's behaviour.

Thanks Jeffster!

Oh.

You mean IJ/IP/EJ/EP vs. SJ/SP/NT/NF? Yeah, I think the bookend letters are more valuable than Keirsey, because it tells you HOW they use their functions, rather than WHAT functions they use, which is easier to tell upon meeting someone. It's easier to figure out someone's basic "style" than what's behind it. In certain situations, an INFJ could look like an ISTJ, or an ESTP could look like an ENFP, etc... it goes on.

It's easier for me to see:

IJ - reserved, serious and focused

IP - quiet, a little impulsive, but open

EJ - strong presence, somewhat open, focused

EP - somewhat haphazard and goofy, rather expressive and absorbed in their surroundings, very open

I see these all the time. I never see SJ/SP/NF/NT in other people unless I get to know them really well, and sometimes not even then. That's been my experience.

Most of the SPs disagree with me, but maybe it's because they get vibes I don't get from people, and I get vibes they don't.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Keirsey thought that those particular groupings most matched with the four personality types of many previous systems.

Not only is that arguable in and of itself, but it's also not a very good reason to do something. I have never liked his system and I find it illogical.

There are all sorts of practical ways to group types though. Looky here.

Ugh... I might be building up a terrible track record of linking to my own work more than any other user.

 

[wolfy]

Oh.

You mean IJ/IP/EJ/EP vs. SJ/SP/NT/NF? Yeah, I think the bookend letters are more valuable than Keirsey, because it tells you HOW they use their functions, rather than WHAT functions they use, which is easier to tell upon meeting someone. It's easier to figure out someone's basic "style" than what's behind it. In certain situations, an INFJ could look like an ISTJ, or an ESTP could look like an ENFP, etc... it goes on.

It's easier for me to see:

IJ - reserved, serious and focused

IP - quiet, a little impulsive, but open

EJ - strong presence, somewhat open, focused

EP - somewhat haphazard and goofy, rather expressive and absorbed in their surroundings, very open

I see these all the time. I never see SJ/SP/NF/NT in other people unless I get to know them really well, and sometimes not even then. That's been my experience.

Most of the SPs disagree with me, but maybe it's because they get vibes I don't get from people, and I get vibes they don't.

I like the ones you posted, they make sense. Both have merit.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Keirsey thought that those particular groupings most matched with the four personality types of many previous systems.

Not only is that arguable in and of itself, but it's also not a very good reason to do something. I have never liked his system and I find it illogical.

There are all sorts of practical ways to group types though. Looky here.

Ugh... I might be building up a terrible track record of linking to my own work more than any other user.

Meh...I think he used them because they encapsulated his word/tool usage styles the best. The Keirsey temperaments make sense in a system without functions and a system based on using behavior to type others. When you look at what Keirsey thinks define types [Abstract vs Concrete, Utilitarian vs. Cooperative] his temperaments make sense.

Now, if you inherently think cognitive function usage is more important than cataloguing expressed behavior, then I think something like SP, SJ, NP, NJ works better because of how functions work.

While I think there is value in functions, I think Keirsey's methods are the most accurate for observationally typing others, because there's less guesswork as to someone's inner workings and more emphasis on what you see and can verify.

 

[Athenian200]

Meh...I think he used them because they encapsulated his word/tool usage styles the best. The Keirsey temperaments make sense in a system without functions and a system based on using behavior to type others. When you look at what Keirsey thinks define types [Abstract vs Concrete, Utilitarian vs. Cooperative] his temperaments make sense.

Now, if you inherently think cognitive function usage is more important than cataloguing expressed behavior, then I think something like SP, SJ, NP, NJ works better because of how functions work.

While I think there is value in functions, I think Keirsey's methods are the most accurate for observationally typing others, because there's less guesswork as to someone's inner workings and more emphasis on what you see and can verify.

I've heard that argument over and over, and I still don't think it makes any sense. Why does everyone keep asserting the truth of something I can't see?

 

[JocktheMotie]

I've heard that argument over and over, and I still don't think it makes any sense. Why does everyone keep asserting the truth of something I can't see?

Why not? You can see abstract vs concrete word usage in language and examples, and can tend to detect a cooperative vs utilitarian bent to how people approach things, far easier than you can detect fuzzy function processes inside someone's mind.

 

[Athenian200]

Why not? You can see abstract vs concrete word usage in language and examples, and can tend to detect a cooperative vs utilitarian bent to how people approach things, far easier than you can detect fuzzy function processes inside someone's mind.

Well, if your mind tends to categorize things in that way, then I guess it works.

I don't really tend to see people's approaches in those terms, though.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Well, if your mind tends to categorize things in that way, then I guess it works.

I don't really tend to see people's approaches in those terms, though.

That's just how his system works, not necessarily how my mind naturally categorizes things. I'd say I notice those types of things more though, after having read his book, and finding some amount of value in that method. If youdon't value that method or think it makes sense, then it's natural to not see how it is important or how his temperaments make sense at all.

I think you can gain a lot of information about a person and what they consider important in typology by analyzing how they divide temperaments. When you divide by temperaments, you're essentially creating clear lines of separation and comparison by a select criteria. Your E vs. I, J vs. P temperaments are created because that's where you see the most similarity and/or difference, across those criteria, and by those qualities is how you see most people.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Meh...I think he used them because they encapsulated his word/tool usage styles the best. The Keirsey temperaments make sense in a system without functions and a system based on using behavior to type others. When you look at what Keirsey thinks define types [Abstract vs Concrete, Utilitarian vs. Cooperative] his temperaments make sense.

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.

Now, if you inherently think cognitive function usage is more important than cataloguing expressed behavior, then I think something like SP, SJ, NP, NJ works better because of how functions work.

As I listed, that would basically be grouping types by which Perceiving process they use. That serves some purposes, but I don't think it's any better overall than the other groupings I illustrated in my link.

While I think there is value in functions, I think Keirsey's methods are the most accurate for observationally typing others, because there's less guesswork as to someone's inner workings and more emphasis on what you see and can verify.

You know, complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answers.

 

[JocktheMotie]

You know, complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answers.

Very true

 

[Eric B]

I think these are all just different angles of looking at the same things. Hence, why Berens' "Multiple Models" seems so good, and is the defacto theory used by most of us. Not only do Keirsey's groups match the ancient temperaments, but so do the Interaction Styles (I/E + S + T/F; + N + J/P), in a "mirror" fashion to Keirsey's groups. So across the board, F or P will tend to be more people-oriented, and T or J will be more task oriented.
The result are the types being blends of the ancient temperaments, like you find in LaHaye, fourtemperaments.com and to some extent, 4Marks. One set will be about surface social skills, and the other will be about leadership skills.

Another symmetrical I have looked at seem to outline what I call "social image": I/E + T/F. Hencel the INTP's appearing similar on the surface to the other IT types who are Chart the Course.

So the Interaction Styles are intertwined between both sociability and social image groups.

 

[Jeffster]

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.

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.

In all of his books, Keirsey has made it clear that his system and Myers-Briggs have differences, and clearly explained what the differences were, so I suspect those who are confused on the matter are those who have not actually read the texts, because if it's simple enough for me to get, then anyone can.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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.

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.

In all of his books, Keirsey has made it clear that his system and Myers-Briggs have differences, and clearly explained what the differences were, so I suspect those who are confused on the matter are those who have not actually read the texts, because if it's simple enough for me to get, then anyone can.

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.

This problem doesn't happen nearly as much with the MBTI and Socionics. This, I believe, is because they have clearly represented themselves as different systems. It's right in the name that the two are different. It should be the same between the more Jung derived, cognitive branch of the MBTI and Keirsey's branch.

 

[stellar renegade]

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.



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.

This problem doesn't happen nearly as much with the MBTI and Socionics. This, I believe, is because they have clearly represented themselves as different systems. It's right in the name that the two are different. It should be the same between the more Jung derived, cognitive branch of the MBTI and Keirsey's branch.

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. In my opinion, Socionics is way more extremely different than Keirsey's system is to MBTI, and I constantly get confused because Socionics still uses the letters system but in a completely different fashion. It makes my head spin. I don't see how you think they're blatantly differentiated at all.

 

[stellar renegade]

The greatest benefit I think Keirsey brings to the table is integration rather than independent scales and functions. They just seem whack to me. I'm a person, not a chemical composition. I like that he uses actual names to describe people and not formulaic letter combinations.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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.