Keirsey: Fairy Tale for the Masses

[Jaguar]

Reading this thread is like watching someone bitch about Julia Child while being oblivious to the fact that Martha Stewart exists.

 

[Thalassa]

It's hilarious that you criticize us for criticizing Keirsey's subjective personal bias because of our subjective personal bias.

BTW, I know that Keirsey is old. I realize the effect that had on his writing, just like I realize the effect of Frederich Nietzche's pathetic life on his ridiculous philosophy.

You'd think an INTP would be more abstract, and not so detailed and socially specific like an SFJ. You would think.

Mmmhmm.

Like I said though, I want to believe that Keirsey's intention was to bring personality theory to everyone, so he wrote it in an easier-to-understand and more interesting, story-telling, detailed format. His intentions probably weren't bad, they were probably actually very kind and well-intentioned. That's what I want to believe.

I wouldn't have been able to even read Jung when I was in my teens or early 20's without getting insanely bored or bursting into tears. Ti blah blah blah STILL kind of looks like Ti blah blah blah to me...Going to college probably partly helped with that, maybe developing functions as I grew up...and I had to get a primer from people who already understood his theories to even start to grasp it. I don't deny any of this. But this is exactly why people who are better with theory shouldn't run around misleading the younger people or people who aren't as natural with abstract theory with this Keirsey shit. It's just like...misinformation. But then if some people were as good as they think they are with abstract theory, wouldn't they see what I see now? It may have taken time, effort, and help...but I'm able to grasp function theory fairly well without tooooo much stereotyping.

Arrrgh. I sound like Victor.

I think I'm done with this topic.

 

[Frenetic Tranquility]

I posted this on another type web site, but I think this might generate more conversation here since the site is so much busier.

I am oft known to complain about Keirsey because I find a lot of his descriptions too binding and stereotyped (like did anyone notice how he describes ISTJs as wearing "homespun" clothes???!! Gimme a break!!)

But I decided to emphasize today what I like about Keirsey or what I got from his book at all, and that principally applied to the temperaments: NF/SP/NT/SJ.

I found that I actually related to more SP traits than NF, which caused me to question Se vs. Ne, along with other things over the course of a couple of months.

I like best the matrices he places in each section: for example, Artisan syntax is "Descriptive" (yes! that's me!) and they find Self-Esteem in being Artistic, Self-Respect in being Audacious (this really resonated with me, again), and Self-Confidence in being Adaptable. I think my Vocation is more applicable to "Equipment" (whether that be cooking tools or using a computer for writing) rather than Personnel, which is the NF Vocation. While some of the NF traits may apply, I found that the SP Temperament characteristics made more sense.

I also thought that some of the SJ traits really did seem like SJs I know - Seeking Security, Yearning for Belonging, Aspiring to be Executives, and often having a Pessimistic attitude in the Present, while garnering Self-Esteem in being Dependable.

I found these descriptions less offensive and less overly specific.

Does anyone else appreciate this aspect of Keirsey, but not others?

Feel free to discuss any and all of Keirsey (what you like, what you don't) in this thread.

I got really excited when I was reading it, but I think that's because of the way it's a story...and I like folk tales and archetypal stuff, I was really into astrology as a teenager, blah blah blah.

But stepping back and looking at it as a source of objective information for personality type? NO WAY. He says things like SJ women see sex as a duty and with some of his quotes makes SPs sound like smart-alecky or "tough guy" characters from mid-20th century movies. All NFs are apparently fragile, non-confrontational social workers (I definitely did not see myself in that) and apparently he claims he fell in love with the first NF girl he ever met as an NT? It's all a bit over the top if you look at it in terms of actually seriously typing people.

It's entertaining, it's fun, yes there's some useful information in the framework of it (like I do think he does loosely correlate some SJ behaviors to Si, and some SP behaviors to Se, etc.) ...and I find the temperaments much more useful than the individual type descriptions, though I can't really say I'm a fan once he gets into things like sexual attitudes (seems really, really stereotyped beyond belief) even while I think his Parenting styles for the temperaments are kind of spot on.

Keirsey is a big fairy tale of hit and miss. It's got grains of truth to it, just like a fictional story. Because essentially that's what it is.

And that's the only way I can appreciate it, is by seeing the usefulness of the grains of truth in the archetypal fairy tale. But when people take it so seriously, I find it offensive. Because it over-simplifies type theory and reduces human beings down to lame stereotypes which may have nothing to do with their actual cognitive functions.

I've seen some SRS Keirsey fanatics say the dumbest things about people...and a couple of these guys are INTx...you'd think they'd be more intellectually discriminating than that...but I guess not.

I can totally see where I would have gotten carried away with Keirsey if I had read it when I was like seventeen. Totally. I would have taken it as seriously as astrology, I would have gotten caught up in the artistry and mythology of it.

It's only because as an adult with life experience that it horrifies me how much it reduces human beings to ridiculous stereotypes. It doesn't seem like any educated adult should take it quite that seriously.

Keep in mind that the types will tend to define someone more at a young age than an old age, generally speaking, because as most people age they tend to conform to society to some extent, and make up for their shortcomings in order to be "successful".

 

[Thalassa]

Keep in mind that the types will tend to define someone more at a young age than an old age, generally speaking, because as most people age they tend to conform to society to some extent, and make up for their shortcomings in order to be "successful".

OH yeah...you're right. Sixteen year old ISTJs always wear homespun clothes.

There's a lot of years between young age and old age, too, bro.

But it's true that it's easier for anyone who is at least 25-30 to look back to their teens and early twenties to see themselves in a purer form.

 

[Thalassa]

P.S. I'm actually looking forward to going off to paint in the mountains.

No, really.

 

[Octarine]

Don't get us wrong, Keirsey totally deserves criticism like this, considering when PUM II was published.

It's just that the criticism should not just be limited to Keirsey, but typology in general.

 

[Thalassa]

Don't get us wrong, Keirsey totally deserves criticism like this, considering when PUM II was published.

It's just that the criticism should not just be limited to Keirsey, but typology in general.

The original point of the OP was actually to say how much I prefer the temperaments over the individual type descriptions, and I like the matrices of traits in each section - you know, that chart thingy.

It's clear, it makes sense in a lot of ways, and that's the main thing I value about Keirsey is his temperaments, but even they are carried too far into specifics, i.e. attitudes toward sexuality, come on, please, give me a break.

I like personality theory in general, or I wouldn't be so comfortable hanging out here.

Painting in the mountains does sound pretty cool. It reminds me of my great-grandmother. We had several of her landscape paintings hanging in our log cabin when I was a child, one of which was a mountain in the distance.

Of course, I am from West Virginia, so it's not a huge stretch that I actually envisioned myself up in the mountains out in nature, writing novels because I didn't have to work anymore before I ever read the Keirsey description.

I just don't think people take some of it very well, though, and they shouldn't. It's ridiculous how far Keirsey takes it.

 

[guesswho]

Don't get us wrong, Keirsey totally deserves criticism like this, considering when PUM II was published.

It's just that the criticism should not just be limited to Keirsey, but typology in general.

 

[mujigay]

Keirsey drove me nuts.

I made the mistake of reading Please Understand Me II when I first got into typology. The first thing I thought was "HOLY HELL I AM CERTAINLY NOT AN INTJ. OR AN INFJ. OR ANYTHING HERE FOR THAT MATTER." Plus, the way he described SJs in general seemed...faintly condescending.

Yes, I think that's the best way to put my impression of Keirsey's stuff. Faintly condescending.

 

[Thalassa]

Keirsey drove me nuts.

I made the mistake of reading Please Understand Me II when I first got into typology. The first thing I thought was "HOLY HELL I AM CERTAINLY NOT AN INTJ. OR AN INFJ. OR ANYTHING HERE FOR THAT MATTER." Plus, the way he described SJs in general seemed...faintly condescending.

Yes, I think that's the best way to put my impression of Keirsey's stuff. Faintly condescending.

One thing I do find interesting about Keirsey is that I am still an FP there even without taking cognitive functions into consideration. It was only through reading his book that I realized I'm just as much of a Keirsey FP as an Fi type.

My Keirsey/MBTI scores are also the exact same: xNFP.

However, things go terribly wrong when we start looking at temperaments, where I seem to fit more in the SP temperament.

But then it helped me to examine Se/Ni vs. Ne/Si.

As far as Keirsey's individual type descriptions, I would be most likely to go with ENFP, ESFP, or ISFP...except that both ExFPs sound too extroverted and ISFP sounds just a little too quiet. I'm not a Keirsey INFP, and neither NFJ type sounds like me AT ALL.

So it's a mixed bag. I really feel that function theory is ultimately better, though. I would hate, for example, to test xNFP on some public career exam and be "placed" in a career like personnel or similar. I'm less diplomatic and non-confrontational than one would hope, no matter my consistent dichotomy scoring. If I had to be placed anywhere I'd rather be placed in the SFP professions (which is what Keirsey ultimately is: a career sorter).

I do think the ISTJ I know *is* kind of an Inspector...and I see a lot of fictional ISTJs in books/movies as detective inspectors.

Like I said: mixed bag, but too faulty in the long run.

 

[Not_Me]

I really feel that function theory is ultimately better, though.

I think Keirsey was intentionally using strong stereotyping to make it easier for the layman to see the differences between the types. His caricatures are concrete examples of how he believe functions would likely manifest themselves in a person.

Ignoring the labels, do you feel that any of the 16 Keirsey types match your personality?

 

[Thalassa]

I think Keirsey was intentionally using strong stereotyping to make it easier for the layman to see the differences between the types. His caricatures are concrete examples of how he believe functions would likely manifest themselves in a person.

Ignoring the labels, do you feel that any of the 16 Keirsey types match your personality?

Yes I mentioned in my last post toward the end that I can see myself in ENFP, ESFP and ISFP. Did you not read my last post? Read it again.

 

[Thalassa]

Hey I just found this on another site, and I think this is a really, really good alternative that is similar to Keirsey. It takes Keirsey's ideas but remains more general that trying to be too stereotypical and specific.

However, it links personality to possible personality disorders, but interestingly in my case I thought it made a bunch of sense. There's probably a thread for this already in the quiz section.

PTypes

I found the Exuberant type a very good fit for me, after I scored highest in the Hedonist temperament (second highest in Idealist).

The following ten traits and characteristics are typical of the Exuberant personality type.

Mood swings. Those of the Exuberant temperament tend to experience a greater range of emotion than those of any other type. They are very emotionally reactive.

Artistic inclinations. The Exuberant type is the most inclined of all the types to be involved with the fine arts, music, or literature (Keirsey, 204). They take an artistic approach to all aspects of their lives.

Independent work. Like "the majority of poets, novelists, composers, and to a lesser extent, of painters and sculptors," those of the Exuberant type "are bound to spend a great deal of their time alone (Storr, ix)."

Relationships secondary. Those of the Exuberant temperament "are quite likely to choose relationships which will further their work rather than relationships which are intrinsically rewarding, and their spouses may well find that marital relations take second place (Storr, 107)."

Great productivity. Persons of the Exuberant type are highly disciplined, gifted with superior powers of concentration, and capable of producing great quantities of high quality work; they also enjoy frequent periods of recreation and inactivity.

Disinhibition. They are hedonistic and impulsive; "they live Epicurean lives in the here and now, and as gracefully as possible (Keirsey, 204)."

Keen perceptions. The Exuberant temperament is especially attuned to color, line, texture, shading - touch, motion, seeing, and hearing in harmony. The senses of Exuberant individuals seem more keenly tuned than those of others (Keirsey, 205).

Kindness (Keirsey, 205). Although those of the Exuberant type may adopt an aggressive, tough exterior, they are remarkably gentle, kind, and generous.

Extroversion and introversion. The interpersonal conduct of those of the Exuberant type alternates between the greatest extremes of sociability and social reticence.

Love of nature. In many individuals of the Exuberant type there "may be found an instinctive longing for the natural, the pastoral, the bucolic. They are quite at home in the wilds, and nature seems to welcome them (Keirsey, 206)."

Everything except "relationships secondary" is true for me, and even that was true when I was very young. I absolutely could not really be committed to a relationship until I was about 23 years old, and I feared marriage horribly. Getting married and having babies was a not a priority for me at a young age, exploring the world, doing my own thing, and being creative was. I don't think I put my significant other second at my age now, though, I think I grew out of that. I'm still pretty selective though about who I get involved with, I guess. I'm still not sure if I want kids or not, too.

It also indicates that the Exuberant type may be prone to mood disorders and/or high neuroticism.

 

[SilkRoad]

^ Interesting...just took that test and my type was "undetermined." I had 13 each on Idealist and Traditionalist, and 2 each on Rationalist and Hedonist.

Pretty unsurprising really. It does fit with the "ISFJ-flavoured INFJ" thing I have going. I suppose if I took the test at another type it could tip slightly to either the Idealist or Traditionalist side.

I'd like to come back to this thread later, btw...

 

[Eric B]

One thing I do find interesting about Keirsey is that I am still an FP there even without taking cognitive functions into consideration. It was only through reading his book that I realized I'm just as much of a Keirsey FP as an Fi type.

My Keirsey/MBTI scores are also the exact same: xNFP.

However, things go terribly wrong when we start looking at temperaments, where I seem to fit more in the SP temperament.

But then it helped me to examine Se/Ni vs. Ne/Si.

As far as Keirsey's individual type descriptions, I would be most likely to go with ENFP, ESFP, or ISFP...except that both ExFPs sound too extroverted and ISFP sounds just a little too quiet. I'm not a Keirsey INFP, and neither NFJ type sounds like me AT ALL.

So it's a mixed bag. I really feel that function theory is ultimately better, though. I would hate, for example, to test xNFP on some public career exam and be "placed" in a career like personnel or similar. I'm less diplomatic and non-confrontational than one would hope, no matter my consistent dichotomy scoring. If I had to be placed anywhere I'd rather be placed in the SFP professions (which is what Keirsey ultimately is: a career sorter).
Like I said: mixed bag, but too faulty in the long run.

Like I said, the best thing I got from Keirsey was ...wow...I don't relate to these NF temperament descriptions as much as I thought I would. I was surprised at how much more I related to SP, wasn't really expecting that at all.

But then it made sense in my mind comparing myself to some of the NF women on this site and elsewhere. Like..yeah...I know NFs who ARE like this.

Why am I the outlying freak?

Is it because I actually have Se?

So in that sense it was good for me. Also, the entertainment value cannot be denied...I love fiction and folk tales and archetypal stuff which is why I loved astrology when I was a teenager.

Getting married and having babies was a not a priority for me at a young age, exploring the world, doing my own thing, and being creative was.

This sounds so N. Especially mentioning younger ages. My tertiary was kicking off in teens, but not to the extent that I would ever say the things of Si were a "priority" (Clearly the language of a preferred function!) It was just an increasing sense of nostalgia that backed up an Ne perspective which would shape the things I prioritized.

If you're basing Se on Keirsey's SP temperament, and you're here in this thread saying how Keirsey's theory or use of some of the concepts is so faulty, then I would not go by his temperament descriptions. (Especially since you know "SP" to him does not equal any "Se").

Again; I think what you're being thrown off by is the Interaction Style, or "Sanguine in Inclusion" traits (plus being Phlegmatic Sanguine in Control, you would be inbetween Sanguine-SP and Supine-NF).

Berens is a more perfected version of Keirsey's theory, reuniting it with the cognitive functions, and also adding the Interaction Styles. (Keirsey has also adopted the Interaction Styles. I hope to order the newest book this week to see how he applies them). But it seems if you want to find the best type using all the models, then Berens' resources would be much better suited. Her system was specifically designed for that, where Keirsey's was not; he focuses on these narrow temperament categories, with the 16 types as "variants" of them, and the functions outright rejected. That's why it will not match up for you. For some it might, but as we see, you're very "inbetween".

 

[Thalassa]

This sounds so N. Especially mentioning younger ages. My tertiary was kicking off in teens, but not to the extent that I would ever say I was "into" the things of Si. It was just an increasing sense of nostalgia that backed up an Ne perspective which would shape thing things I was "into".

If you're basing S on Keirsey's SP temperament, and you're here in this thread saying how Keirsey's theory or use of some of the concepts is so faulty, then I would not go by his temperament descriptions.

Again; I think what you're being thrown off by is the Interaction Style, or "Sanguine in Inclusion" traits (plus being Phlegmatic Sanguine in Control, you would be inbetween Sanguine-SP and Supine-NF).

Berens is a more perfected version of Keirsey's theory, reuniting it with the cognitive functions, and also adding the Interaction Styles. (Keirsey has also adopted the Interaction Styles. I hope to order the newest book this week to see how he applies them). But it seems if you want to find the best type using all the models, then Berens' resources would be much better suited. That was specifically designed for that, where Keirsey's was not; he focuses on these narrow temperament categories, with the 16 types as "variants" of them, and the functions outright rejected. That's why it will not match up for you. For some it might, but as we see, you're very "inbetween".

Yeah well that PTypes ISFP description fits me PERFECTLY. And I was Hedonist almost double what I was Idealist.

Plus, when I do that Ni/Ne test that Vicki Jo has, I come up as Ni. I also have the Se/Ni reading style AND an older INTJ on here who is quite knowledgable says that I seemed ISFP in my video and based on something I said, it seemed like Ni rather than Ne analysis.

I also seem to have ES(F) crazies according to the original Jungian theory.

This is definitely not about Keirsey.

Here's my theory: a lot of people who are laid back ISFJs think they're ISFP, because Si types relate much more strongly to the traditional description of Generic Sensing, and Se types are much more likely to mistype as Ns.

So therefore I think a lot of INFPs, INFJs, and even ENFPs are really ISFPs and ESFPs, and some INFJs may actually be ISFJ...and they just think they're too smart to be a sensor.

 

[Mal12345]

I think Keirsey was intentionally using strong stereotyping to make it easier for the layman to see the differences between the types. His caricatures are concrete examples of how he believe functions would likely manifest themselves in a person.

So you mean there's a reason NOT to hate him? That maybe Keirsey had a kind of heuristic in mind accompanying those descriptions?

 

[Thalassa]

My type is staying, btw.

I finally found it.

It's no longer open to suggestion. But thank you for your input, Eric.

 

[OrangeAppled]

What I see from most other MBTI authors that differs from Keirsey is that they use behavioral descriptions to illustrate a mindset. They do not use behaviors themselves as ways of categorizing people's personalities.

What Keirsey describes, IMO, is social roles. There is a vague connection between social roles & psychological types, but he blows it out of proportion, so that they do become cartoonish stereotypes.

I wrote this in my blog some time ago:

I was thinking again about the differences between thought processes & psychological orientation & how that relates to personality (ie. Jungian theory) versus social roles & how thought processes may make one drawn to a certain role so that is becomes synonymous with a personality type (ie. Keirsian theory).

For example, obviously, not all artists are SPs, not all scientists are NTs, not all humanitarians are NFs, and not all SJs are, er, whatever boring role they're assigned. There are a variety of personalities to be found amongst these different avenues. So why are there these strong associations with type & skills?

Well, the idea is very simple. If a person prefers a certain thought process then...
- they may be drawn to areas in life that allow them to use it & be rewarded for it more than other areas
- because they seek out these areas more, they may develop skills associated with them, and since "practice makes perfect", they may become good at it, or better than average, or at least it becomes their best personal talent.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ADDED NOW:
- this skill or social role begins to be or has long been associated with a personality like theirs, so they are encouraged to fill it, as it "makes sense" for them to do it in the eyes of society
- the cycle continues where a person feels drawn to an area where they are appreciated/excel in because their personality is associated with the skill/role
- the question is: what came first, the chicken or the egg? (the social role drawing the personality by using its strengths or the personality creating the role by being draw to such things naturally?)

So what really sets people up to fall into their personality's common social role is the existing structure of society. Certain roles allow certain personality types to, well, be themselves. These areas nurture certain forms of thinking more, maybe because they do tend to thrive there, but possibly because its simply what has been expected. From a young age, a person finds themselves most comfortable in the roles that cater to their preferred manner of thinking, and from there, you find people perpetuating these social archetypes, maintaining the link between them and the psychological archetypes.

 

[Antimony]

It's fun. It can help me a little bit when it comes to gaining insight into other people's minds. Or somewhat when approaching them.