The norms were not even this way in 1998 when the book was written. The quotes I posted sound damn near Victorian. That's why I think it should be discredited; not because behaviours were changed, but because it was wrong even at the time it was supposed to be accurate.
I would agree that Dr. Keirsey hasn't exactly had his finger on the pulse of modern society in the last 30 years or so. The original Please Understand Me was written in 1978, and even though there is much updated and expanded upon in the sequel 20 years later, he probably didn't properly update certain sections like the one on SJ sex that you cited. The stuff about SP slang is the same way, a lot of the examples he gives seem to come more out of the 50's and 60's. Still, I disagree with you that his not "getting with the times" as far as those specifics means that his whole book should be discredited.
The point of anything is whether it's useful in practice, right? And the fact is that Keirsey Temperament Theory has been very useful to me and many other people for better understanding friends, relatives,
romantic partners (there ya go), etc. Keirsey's son, who runs their forum, has worked with his father on updating some of the previous material, and the latest book, "Personology", I would say, does at least a decent job in doing so. Unfortunately, it takes a long time for updated material in books with low distribution to permeate the internet, so the most common Keirsey quotes will probably still be from the Please Understand Me books for a long time.
But, like I said, I can laugh at certain passages as being a bit outdated and still recognize that the overall content is good, and really not any more stereotype-based than any other sociological system that is based on observation of human behavior.
No. I advocate instead that people strive to avoid enforcing heteronormative standards (especially with a section like "Different Drummers" at the front of the book). How hard is it to use phrases like "romantic partner" or better yet, "sexual partner"? Why is it necessary to point out repeatedly that the partner "is" of the opposite sex?
Well, we'll just have to disagree about that. I don't think there's anything wrong with "heteronormative standards" so I fail to see it as something that needs to be avoided. As you say, it's not much relevant to the main point.
This isn't my main point about invalidating Keirsey, it was more of a side...annoyance, we can say. That said, I think this post has shown your true colours. Helpful. ("Fuck them, they're just a minority! Yeah, who cares about them, right?")
Once again, not something I said. I'm not putting words in your mouth, try not doing it for me.
Yes. Si causes SJs to maintain standards, because standards are externally verifiable, reliable, and known. That is far more accurate than surrounding it with all this bullshit. Si descriptions. Oh wait, Keirsey doesn't advocate the function theory. That's a problem for me.
I personally think function theory works as a good supplement to KTT. He doesn't advocate it, but that doesn't mean that people can't use what works for them. I mean, heck, Carl Jung himself would probably be rolling around in his grave if he knew how his stuff has been twisted and used by all kinds of people to mean whatever they wanted it to mean, but if you get something out of his stuff, and some from somebody else, then awesome. I certainly don't believe in trying to limit myself to one person's ideas in my own understanding of people.
Also, I find it rather sickening that one has to be a 'feminazi' to be upset that Keirsey compares women to cattle. (Why buy the cow when the milk's free? -- puke)
Well, sorry, but the word "heteronormative" sounds like it comes out of the feminazi handbook, that's why I said that. And Keirsey was quoting a commonly used phrase by a lot of fathers. Surely you've heard similar sayings in your time from parents trying to influence their kids' behavior in some way? Dr. K himself was not stating that women are cattle.
Bullshit. I don't fit your stereotypes, so what? Learn what Se is instead of relying on Keirsey's SP descriptions, and perhaps you would reconsider, not that I care if you do. (Cue "you don't want to be touched? you're just a frigid bitch!" comments.)
I've learned quite a bit about "Se", thank you very much. I don't "rely" on Keirsey's SP descriptions, I am capable of observing plenty on my own. I think it's verifiably true that some people can and have used Keirsey's work to advance stereotypes, but the fact is that people have used function theory for the same purpose as well. There's posts all over this forum with people doing so. I think the fact that a ton of the people who spend time spouting things about functions don't really know much about them leads to a lot of confusion among people when it comes to their type. And I think the fundamental difference in the way that Sensors and Intutives take in information is a big part of that. Both try to squeeze something into a box it doesn't fit into. The thing I like about Keirsey is that it's simplified and a lot harder to confuse (you know, unless you try to.
)
Keirsey is as much of a threat to MBTI/JCF as a five year old tee ball player is to an MLB all-star. To date, I've written 5 or 6 posts discrediting Keirsey -- only two of which have reached this length. I've written over 400 posts, then, advocating the cognitive functions. So no worries, I'm definitely advocating for the better system.
Cool. More power to ya. There are others who have regularly posted here who seem to make it their lifelong quest to bash Keirsey. (A few of them have been banned, but some still persist.) I'm glad you're not one of them.
Who knows? I may have felt differently if I read the book.
