SJ/SP (Keirsey) vs ST/SF (Myers)

[cameo]

I don't consider Michael Pierce a good MBTI source.

That's totally fair. I'm not that familiar with the guy in general, I just think that those two specific articles defined the differences between INTJ and ISTJ in such a way that helped me figure it out. Of course, it wasn't that I read those two things in isolation in deciding, so it's not that I think he's the be-all, end-all of typology sources or anything. It's just that there are so many other sources where the descriptions only serve to confuse me in identifying my own type because they essentially make INTJs sound like smarter and "better" than ISTJs. Obviously I know that it's not true that one is "better" than the other or that INTJs are always smarter than ISTJs, or whatever. It's just irritating to find so many descriptions that are just reiterations of that sort of thing, and he doesn't do that here.

I believe Isabel Myers would have said that, in choosing which explorer was best suited to which of those two tasks, the S/N (first) and T/F (secondarily) preferences were the most significant ones, and that an ST was best suited for exclusively focusing on "just the facts" and the NF was best suited to be the recorder of subjective emotional/aesthetic/philosophical impressions — and that that two-explorers example was a very poor one to choose as an illustration of "extraversion" vs. "introversion."

This example is quite convincing, of course, and I completely agree with this; I know some of his descriptions that I linked to earlier have bits of this type of weird analysis in them and I wouldn't embrace all of it as being right. Something I have seen of this that I find at least really unusual (if not totally incorrect) is this article about Se and Si (although I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are talking about).

 

[cameo]

[MENTION=25111]cameo[/MENTION] Have you tried finding your best-fit type using the method at the bottom of this Web page?

Gah. Yeah, I still have the same problem where I think the ISTJ description fits me a bit better, but I still relate to a lot of aspects of the INTJ descriptions (including the corresponding temperament and interaction style descriptions). I think I'll just have to be content with being an ISTJ who is always just a little unsatisfied with the scope of the type descriptions. haha

 

[BadOctopus]

Gah. Yeah, I still have the same problem where I think the ISTJ description fits me a bit better, but I still relate to a lot of aspects of the INTJ descriptions (including the corresponding temperament and interaction style descriptions). I think I'll just have to be content with being an ISTJ who is always just a little unsatisfied with the scope of the type descriptions. haha

That's not that unusual. Sometimes I think I'm either a really unconventional ISTJ, or an INTJ who enjoys sensory things. It's hard to say which. I have a strong sense of justice and I always try to do what's right. But it's not necessarily what everyone else thinks is right. It's more like I follow my own internal sense of justice. And I don't always do things the way they're typically done, if I can find a better way of doing them. And I don't have much regard for tradition. Plus I am not an organized person at all. And I don't like getting into set habits. I'm always trying new things, and getting interested in totally random subjects, like calligraphy or the insects of Australia. Things that could never serve any practical purpose in my life. The only time my knowledge of Shakespeare or Greek mythology has come in handy is when I'm watching Jeopardy.

So yeah. Who knows what I am. But I'd say I straddle the line between INTJ and ISTJ. And that's fine with me.

 

[EJCC]

For the record, I'm fine being grouped with STs. I have different things in common with both STs and SJs, but I do have things in common with both. I tend to bond immediately with xSTPs, because we are so aggressive about getting things done, and getting them done NOW. None of us are terribly romantic, we're all practical, and I work with them VERY easily in professional situations.

That's not that unusual. Sometimes I think I'm either a really unconventional ISTJ, or an INTJ who enjoys sensory things. It's hard to say which. I have a strong sense of justice and I always try to do what's right. But it's not necessarily what everyone else thinks is right. It's more like I follow my own internal sense of justice. And I don't always do things the way they're typically done, if I can find a better way of doing them. And I don't have much regard for tradition. Plus I am not an organized person at all. And I don't like getting into set habits. I'm always trying new things, and getting interested in totally random subjects, like calligraphy or the insects of Australia. Things that could never serve any practical purpose in my life. The only time my knowledge of Shakespeare or Greek mythology has come in handy is when I'm watching Jeopardy.

So yeah. Who knows what I am. But I'd say I straddle the line between INTJ and ISTJ. And that's fine with me.

For the record, you have always seemed more ISTJ to me. But I am also horrendous at recognizing Ni -- couldn't see it if you slapped me in the face with it -- so if you identify with Ni, then I trust you.

 

[miss fortune]

For the record, I'm fine being grouped with STs. I have different things in common with both STs and SJs, but I do have things in common with both. I tend to bond immediately with xSTPs, because we are so aggressive about getting things done, and getting them done NOW. None of us are terribly romantic, we're all practical, and I work with them VERY easily in professional situations.

not to mention that it's pleasantly difficult to hurt your feelings by being blunt (and vice versa) which is probably a very good thing

 

[BadOctopus]

For the record, you have always seemed more ISTJ to me. But I am also horrendous at recognizing Ni -- couldn't see it if you slapped me in the face with it -- so if you identify with Ni, then I trust you.

Ni is... weird. I wouldn't call it logical at all, and I don't pretend to understand it, but I know I have it, because I have those Ni moments all the time, where connections are drawn in my head and everything just suddenly clicks together, and I come up with an idea or a solution that nobody else has thought of. I also can sometimes predict with strange accuracy how things are going to play out. I know it sounds odd, but it's sort of like when an answer to a problem comes to you in a dream. Except in this case, you're awake. That may sound mystical, but it's really not. It's just a highly personalized way of thinking.

Either that or it's the Force. Probably that. I've always suspected that I might be a Jedi.

 

[miss fortune]

Ni is... weird. I wouldn't call it logical at all, and I don't pretend to understand it, but I know I have it, because I have those Ni moments all the time, where connections are drawn in my head and everything just suddenly clicks together, and I come up with an idea or a solution that nobody else has thought of. I also can sometimes predict with strange accuracy how things are going to play out. I know it sounds odd, but it's sort of like when an answer to a problem comes to you in a dream. Except in this case, you're awake. That may sound mystical, but it's really not. It's just a highly personalized way of thinking.

Either that or it's the Force. Probably that. I've always suspected that I might be a Jedi.

though to further confuse you, ti and se together can also do the same sort of thing

though I always assumed I'd probably end up a better sith

 

[BadOctopus]

though to further confuse you, ti and se together can also do the same sort of thing

though I always assumed I'd probably end up a better sith

Maybe Ni doesn't even exist. Lord knows the descriptions of it don't make a lick of sense.

 

[miss fortune]

Maybe Ni doesn't even exist. Lord knows the descriptions of it don't make a lick of sense.

nah... it does... it's the sense of paranoia in the back of my mind that drives me to figure out what's going to happen... like a nagging brain spouse or something

 

[BadOctopus]

nah... it does... it's the sense of paranoia in the back of my mind that drives me to figure out what's going to happen... like a nagging brain spouse or something

"Nagging brain spouse". Oh my God, yes. That's why I've never had the desire to get married.

 

[Oaky]

Keirsey is useless with a lot of his explanations and his NF/NT/SP/SJ temperaments and his stereotypical descriptions has a more black/white aspect and clearly biases itself towards Ns over Ss.
Unfortunately the MBTI culture in general has used keirsey for a lot of the profiles formed and temperaments. There are more sensible temperements that one can use to distinguish between types, and socionics has already adopted a lot of these with things like descriptions of specific patterns in connection.

Temperamental differences by perceptive disposition:

SPs = Se users
SJs = Si users
NPs = Ne users
NJs = Ni users

Temperamental differences by judgemental disposition:

TPs = Ti users
TJs = Te users
FPs = Fi users
FJs = Fe users

Temperamental differences by same functions used (quadras theory in socionics):

NTJs and SFPs
NFJs and STPs
STJs and NFPs
SFJs and NTPs

Temperamental differences by same theme (clubs in socionics):

STs (Pragmatistic)
SFs (Socials)
NTs (Researchers)
NFs (Humanitarians)

Temperamental differences by information disposition (temperaments in socionics):

IPs = Ji-doms
IJs = Pi-doms
EJs = Je-doms
EPs = Pe-doms


If MBTI could expand and implement similar temperamental dispositions MBTI would have far stronger face over socionics as it's psychological understandings work far more intricately in specific thought processes over the function definitions in socionics.

 

[Eric B]

All of those are mentioned in the MBTI Manual (though not dwelt on).
Keirsey stuck, because the groups basically go back to Plato's "four types of men" (or "character styles", and the Interaction Styles resemble the classic Hippocrates temperaments.
(And the Berens camp has just added the "same functions" group, called "Intentional Styles").

 

[kotoshinohaisha]

I didn't understand. This just makes my head ache. Picture please