F = personal relationships vs T = social interactions

[Jaguar]

Yeah sorry but those groupings are way too odd. Given that "ESTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, ESTP" and the other groupings lack symmetry, I'm going to assume that they're based on some kind of approximation at best, and hence are invalid for making a specific determination of type. With claims as peculiar as non-symmetric groups, I'm going to put the burden of proof on the people promoting such an idea before I even try to concoct some post-hoc rationalisation for why it might be reasonable.

Email Linda Berens.

 

[Pionart]

Email Linda Berens.

Uhh, no thanks.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Uhh, no thanks.

yes, please do.

 

[Eric B]

Yeah sorry but those groupings are way too odd. Given that "ESTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, ESTP" and the other groupings lack symmetry, I'm going to assume that they're based on some kind of approximation at best, and hence are invalid for making a specific determination of type. With claims as peculiar as non-symmetric groups, I'm going to put the burden of proof on the people promoting such an idea before I even try to concoct some post-hoc rationalisation for why it might be reasonable.

The Interaction Styles are basically the classic social “humor” temperaments, and this is simply how they map onto MBTI. They were completely different frameworks, and so their factors don't line up perfectly.
I/E is the same in both models, and the other factor for the humors was people vs task focus. That pretty much matches T/F, but also J/P. The humors originally didn't use anything corresponding to S/N (which actually ended up tying together opposite humors), which is a prominent MBTI/Keirsey factor, and that's what "twists" the matrix, so to speak, so that the people/task factor is not symmetrical across the MBTI dichotomies. (You can see this cross mapping and how it works, right in my avatar).

 

[Pionart]

The Interaction Styles are basically the classic social “humor” temperaments, and this is simply how they map onto MBTI. They were completely different frameworks, and so their factors don't line up perfectly.
I/E is the same in both models, and the other factor for the humors was people vs task focus. That pretty much matches T/F, but also J/P. The humors originally didn't use anything corresponding to S/N (which actually ended up tying together opposite humors), which is a prominent MBTI/Keirsey factor, and that's what °twists“ the matrix, so to speak, so that the people/task factor is not symmetrical across the MBTI dichotomies. (You can see this cross mapping and how it works, right in my avatar).

Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines.

So, it's because a different system was projected onto the MBTI system. As such, it's not a perfect fit, so whether or not it usually works, your type in one system won't necessarily reflect your type in another.

 

[Jaguar]

Interaction Styles FAQ:

How do you know these models are interrelated and the descriptions accurate?

I noticed that descriptions in the DiSC® and the Social Styles models had many similarities to the interaction style patterns we had been observing in relation to the sixteen types identified by the Myers-Briggs four letter code. Conceptual research led me to consult many original sources of descriptions. Most of these sources seemed to be describing patterns that also included aspects of Keirsey’s temperament patterns. When I filtered out temperament descriptors and looked at what seemed to be just the interaction patterns, I found characteristics that fit all four types (different temperaments) that shared each Interaction Style pattern.

From this research on other models and years of observations of the sixteen types as thematic wholes, themes were identified and descriptions drafted to describe each of the four interaction styles. To draft the self-portraits, we used the transcripts from the interviews used to develop the sixteen type descriptions in which four people of each type responded to the question, “What is it like to be you?” This provided the language of each style. The descriptions were validated by feedback from several people of each type who read the descriptions.

Interaction Styles – Frequently Asked Questions

In-Chargeâ„¢
(Drive to get an achievable result)The theme is getting things accomplished through people. People of this style are focused on results, often taking action quickly. They often have a driving energy with an intention to lead a group to the goal. They make decisions quickly to keep themselves and others on task, on target, and on time. They hate wasting time and having to back track. Mentoring, executing actions, supervising, and mobilizing resources are all ways they get things accomplished. They notice right away what is not working in a situation and become painfully aware of what needs to be fixed, healed, or corrected.

ESTJ, ENFJ, ESTP, ENTJ


Those 4 types are grouped together since they all share the same In-Charge Interaction style.

More information here:
Interaction Styles


At some point, you have to stop playing a game of Pin The Tail On The Donkey with type and actually learn the different type models since they are part of the whole. My endocrine system is different from my cardiovascular system, which is different from my digestive system, but one affects the other along with all the other systems that make up my whole. Interactions Styles are part of the whole.

 

[Pionart]

Interaction Styles FAQ:




In-Chargeâ„¢
(Drive to get an achievable result)The theme is getting things accomplished through people. People of this style are focused on results, often taking action quickly. They often have a driving energy with an intention to lead a group to the goal. They make decisions quickly to keep themselves and others on task, on target, and on time. They hate wasting time and having to back track. Mentoring, executing actions, supervising, and mobilizing resources are all ways they get things accomplished. They notice right away what is not working in a situation and become painfully aware of what needs to be fixed, healed, or corrected.

ESTJ, ENFJ, ESTP, ENTJ


Those 4 types are grouped together since they all share the same In-Charge Interaction style.

More information here:
Interaction Styles


At some point, you have to stop playing a game of Pin The Tail On The Donkey with type and actually learn the different type models since they are part of the whole. My endocrine system is different from my cardiovascular system, which is different from my digestive system, but one affects the other along with all the other systems that make up my whole. Interactions Styles are part of the whole.

Thanks for the information.

The reasoning puts an emphasis on descriptions, and I'm not a fan of basing things off of descriptions, so the reasoning doesn't appeal to me, but I will give it some thought when I feel inspired to do so.

Regarding other type models, I try to understand enneagram every now and again, and I have some leads of how I might be able to understand it, but so far I've had no definite breakthroughs. Enneagram is the main alternate system I want to learn (unless perhaps I come across something completely novel to me).