Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
The temperaments never clicked for me. Partly, I couldn't wrap my head around Kiersey's using the MBTI letters in a way that made no sense in terms of MBTT. I couldn't fathom the theoretical meaning of his use of the letters this way. I've since realized it was mostly just a practical thing because the MBTT gave him a language to describe his observations.
I have said for years on the forums that it was not necessary to use the codes. Keirsey, Berens and all theorists have their own titles. I think that they were attempting to use the familiarity of codes with people who may feel a bit overwhelmed by the theory itself.
Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
Why doesn't ST, SF, NP, and NJ make just as much sense? I think they do, and I've seen a book that goes into these other ones. I think it would make more sense to group them as SJ, SP, NJ and NP; and as NF, NT, SF, and SP. The J in SJ is simply not equivalent to the T in NT.
I was attempting to locate an article that I had read some time back. I know I had posted it on INTPc while I was INTrPosr. In "Gifts Differing", Myers gives a very small acknowledgement of temperament, however she believed the two letter codes were ST, SF, NT, NF. The article argues that Keirsey's two letter codes makes no sense because there are no direct oppositions. Hence Myers theorists argue that under her theory you can see the direct opposition (SF-NT and NF-ST).
Quote Originally Posted by marmalade View Post
Anyways, when I saw Berens' interaction styles, it seemed to increase the probability that maybe Kiersey was onto something with how he used the letters. Berens filled in the gaps. Even so, I still don't fully understand temperaments. I like how temperaments and interaction styles correlate, but I still don't understand the underlying theory. I have Berens' book on interaction styles. I like her books because she organizes a lot of info for how thin the books are, but she doesn't provide as much explanation of theory as I'd prefer. I'm slowly coming around. One of these days, it will probably all make sense to me.
If we take Myers theory of the two letter codes, then it creates uniformity in the Interaction Style:

In Charge Types

Chart the Course Types

Get Things Going Types

Behind the Scenes Types

Instead the interaction styles are based on Keirsey