• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

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

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
David Keirsey's famous for his view that splitting Myers' 16 types into NFs, NTs, SJs and SPs creates four groups that each has characteristics in common (and differs from the other three groups) to an extent that significantly exceeds the other possible two-letter groupings.

As further discussed in this post, Keirsey really started out as (and largely remained, at least through PUM II) an MBTI guy, but liked to frame his famous foursome as if it also carried on a grand, historical four-type tradition. But the purported match-ups he pointed to between his MBTI-based types and various older foursomes were often pretty strained.

I've long thought that the right way to read Keirsey is as a guy who had a lot of good insights into the MBTI types (and a talent for bringing them to life on the page) — including interesting (although not always correct) things to say about his favored two-letter combinations — but without buying into his view that there was something truly fundamental about the NF/NT/SJ/SP carve-up.

Isabel Myers was a big believer that there were lots of noteworthy aspects of personality associated with combinations of preferences, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) included brief descriptions of every possible two-letter combination. But NF/NT/ST/SF was Myers' favored foursome, and I can't resist noting that it's a carve-up of the types that totally ignores the so-called "cognitive functions." (Each of Myers' four groups consists of types with four different dominant functions.)

Myers explained why she thought NF/NT/ST/SF was the most meaningful way to group the types in Gifts Differing. She said:

Myers said:
Each of these combinations produces a different kind of personality, characterized by the interests, values, needs, habits of mind, and surface traits that naturally result from the combination. Combinations with a common preference will share some qualities, but each combination has qualities all its own, arising from the interaction of the preferred way of looking at life and the preferred way of judging what is seen.

Whatever a person's particular combination of [S/N and T/F] preferences may be, others with the same combination are apt to be the easiest to understand and like. They will tend to have similar interests, since they share the same kind of perception, and to consider the same things important, since they share the same kind of judgment.

Keirsey didn't think much of Myers' S groups. In explaining how he got from Myers to NF/NT/SJ/SP, he said:

Keirsey said:
I soon found it convenient and useful to partition Myers's sixteen types into four groups, which she herself suggested in saying that all of what she referred to as the "NFs" were alike in many ways and that all four of the "NTs" were alike in many ways — although what she called the "STs" seemed to me to have very little in common, just as the "SFs" had little in common.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Which brings me to a little study that I haz just performed...

The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." That's a large freaking sample by personality typology standards, and it included 5,830 ISFJs, 11,410 ISTJs, 3,230 ISFPs, 5,114 ESTPs, 4,321 ESFPs and 12,019 ESTJs.

To give you an indication of the nature of the stats, here are the "Most Attractive Job Families" (job satisfaction scores of 60-100) for the ESFPs:

ESFPs
Health Care Support [100]
—Nurse's aide, veterinary assistant, pharmacy aide, physical therapy aide
Food Preparation and Service [99]
—Chef, food service manager, bartender, host/hostess
Personal Care and Service [91]
—Lodging manager, personal trainer, hairdresser, child care provider
Office and Administrative Support [70]
—Bank teller, receptionist, clerical services, legal secretary
Sales and Advertising [62]
—Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
Building and Grounds Maintenance [60]
—Gardener, tree trimmer, housekeeping, lawn service supervisor

And again, there are 22 categories in all.

I don't have a full set of those Career Report stats, but I have them for the six S types previously mentioned, and it occurred to me to wonder whether the occupational preferences of SJs tend to be more alike than the occupational preferences of STs (as Keirsey's perspective would arguably lead you to believe) or vice versa (more in line with Myers' perspective).

So I decided to calculate what you might call the total distance between the job choices of those six S types by totaling the 22 differences in job satisfaction ratings. And here are the results:

ISFJ vs. ISTJ (both SJs): 737
ISFJ vs. ISFP (both SFs): 337

ESTP vs. ESFP (both SPs): 659
ESTP vs. ESTJ (both STs): 375

In both cases the results favor Myers' perspective — that ST/SF is a more meaningful way to group the S's than SJ/SP — and by a very wide margin.

And noooooooooooo, I'm not saying this disproves the fundamentality of Keirsey's temperaments by any means, but I am saying I consider those results some serious food for thought. Career choices are a big part of a person's life — not to mention an aspect of life that Myers and Keirsey both thought (consistent with decades of data) tends to be substantially influenced by your type — and 92,000 is a huge sample, and those ST/SF-vs.-SJ/SP results are dramatically lopsided.

My perspective continues to be that it's probably a mistake to put too much emphasis on any particular grouping of the 16 types, including Myers'. As reflected in the MBTI Manual, I assume there are probably noteworthy and insightful things to be said about each of the possible two-letter combinations.

And in that regard, and as a final note, I can't resist mentioning that, although I agree that I have some significant things in common with my fellow NTs, I've increasingly come around to the view that, if I had to pick a group of four MBTI types to really be my "kindred spirits" group, it would be the INs rather than the NTs. And anybody's who's interested can read more about that in the spoiler.

 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,567
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
That was a good read because I didn't get bored and skip it as I often do with text wall posts.

Personally, if I had to choose a 2-letter group with whom I could most easily identify, it would probably be the TPs.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think there is validity to the different groupings also. Keirsey's groupings focus more on mentality, even though they appear to be about social roles. This is interesting as he kind of does away with the 8 cognitive functions, which would support his temperaments being mentality if you focus less on the exact functions (ie. NFPs and NFJs actually use different cognitive functions, but yet, we easily recognize similarity in their mentalities; of course, if you view it as 4 functions and 4 attitudes to make 8 function-attitudes, then this explains it also).

I personally identify best with other INxx types in terms of demeanor as well, but I can see a more similar mentality with NFs. My social role is arguably more NP than NF or INxx. NPs are driven to explore and even create potential, whereas NJs seem driven to shape and steer the inevitable.

As far as social roles and common careers, I think there is a matter of how the person perceives the job. The categories above are hilariously ST sounding.... I cannot imagine an ESFP views the work of, say, a hairdresser as "personal care and service". They are likely to view it as creative, fun, social and free (they often have flexible schedules and may be self-emplpyed). I'm not sure that's the exact appeal for SFJs though, who may be drawn to it more for the community and service aspects. This is telling as far as the mentality behind it, because the SFJs may be more similar to the STJs there. What Keirsey is noting is the mentality, the drive to do something, although he too often conflates that with what someone actually does.
 

PocketFullOf

literally your mother
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
485
MBTI Type
NeTi
Enneagram
pot
That was a good read because I didn't get bored and skip it as I often do with text wall posts.

Personally, if I had to choose a 2-letter group with whom I could most easily identify, it would probably be the TPs.

Same.
 

Myshkin14

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
48
MBTI Type
INFJ
reckful-

That is an excellent post. You have answered a few questions I have been seeking answers to.

The Keirsey rationale for his four "temperaments" (assuming he did not have more fundamental reasons) that you quoted above is so arbitrary. It has never made any sense to me why, logically speaking, it makes sense to anyone to inconsistently categorize with a preference category switch.
It's either ST, SF, NF, NT or SJ, SP, NJ, NP- but it can't be both without being a contradiction.

If we are speaking of Temperament, I think a more historical understanding of what is meant will reveal that it is the E/I and J/P dimensions that most closely describe it. And Meyers thankfully expanded upong Jung to give us what was inherent in his own thinking (and I would suggest is obvious to anyone who is interested in Epistemology), namely the cognitive functions that are inherent to all humans but also the ones we individually prefer.

I tend to think of personality as a hierarchy from the most basic and general to the more specific and individual:

1. "Temperament":
IJ = melancholics
IP = phlegmatics
EP = sanguines
EJ = cholerics

2. "Personality Type":
IN, IS, IT, IF, EN, ES, ET, EF

3. "Cognitive Type":
ST, SF, NF, NT

4. an individual
 

HongDou

navigating
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
5,191
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I agree that one arrangement of groupings isn't necessarily more or less valid than another's. Personally, I'm more on board with Myers. I like the NF/NT/SF/ST groupings because I find them more balanced. I feel like with SP and SJ people are able to project a lot of negative qualities onto them that aren't necessarily there or "exclusive" to those types (party animals, sheep, etc).

Personally, I identify mostly with EP and EF. Maybe being an E7 has something to do with it, but I find myself a lot more independent and a lot less preachy than how NFs are typically described. I think the main part of being an NF that resonates with me is being idealistic and humanitarian, but I think that can also apply to SFs if we go with Myers.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
reckful-

That is an excellent post. You have answered a few questions I have been seeking answers to.

The Keirsey rationale for his four "temperaments" (assuming he did not have more fundamental reasons) that you quoted above is so arbitrary. It has never made any sense to me why, logically speaking, it makes sense to anyone to inconsistently categorize with a preference category switch.
It's either ST, SF, NF, NT or SJ, SP, NJ, NP- but it can't be both without being a contradiction.

If we are speaking of Temperament, I think a more historical understanding of what is meant will reveal that it is the E/I and J/P dimensions that most closely describe it. And Meyers thankfully expanded upong Jung to give us what was inherent in his own thinking (and I would suggest is obvious to anyone who is interested in Epistemology), namely the cognitive functions that are inherent to all humans but also the ones we individually prefer.

I tend to think of personality as a hierarchy from the most basic and general to the more specific and individual:

1. "Temperament":
IJ = melancholics
IP = phlegmatics
EP = sanguines
EJ = cholerics

2. "Personality Type":
IN, IS, IT, IF, EN, ES, ET, EF

3. "Cognitive Type":
ST, SF, NF, NT

4. an individual

Keirsey's groupings were based on a sort of hybrid of the old Hippocrates/Galen "humor" temperaments, and [moreso] Plato's Four Character Styles, which are the final names he used. He traced them down through history through others such as Kretschmer, Adickes and Spränger, which led to the split along S/N with the asymmetrical mapping of T/F and J/P. (I/E is effectively replaced by cooperative/pragmatic, which corresponded to Spränger's "Social"/"Political").

The more classical "social" element of the temperaments would be the Insteraction Styles, which do use I/E, with the "people/task" factor being also connected to T/F and J/P, but in an opposite fashion from the character styles (ST/SF/NP/NJ, divided by I/E and then paired back together with F and P being "informative" and T and J being "directive").
So fror the N's, it is EP, IP, EJ, IJ, but for the S's, it's EF, ET, IF, IT.
 

cameo

New member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
36
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Now I'm having an identity crisis (again) :( haha. Partially joking but not really. I just have a hard time because I am pretty confident in my type (ISTJ) but when I see things that emphasize how N types are typically more interested in learning for the sake of learning, accumulating knowledge, etc. I start to question things because I definitely have those traits. I am nerdy by the definition of being brainy and interested in learning for the sake of learning. I minored in philosophy in college and I continue to read philosophy works for fun, along with lots of classic literature, etc., and I don't know how many ISTJs there are who are interested in such things. I know an ESTJ who is definitely not interested in stuff like that. I know some ISTJs who enjoy history books (as I do) but I also love reading more theoretical/abstract things. Political science was my major and the political theory classes were always my favorite. I love having erudite conversations even if they don't lead anywhere or conclude with anything.

That said, I am pretty conscientious about rules and I also am highly pragmatic. To me, being interested in things like philosophy and being pragmatic aren't mutually exclusive. But the way MBTI types are often parsed leaves me feeling torn about things.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Now I'm having an identity crisis (again)

In case you have any interest in taking it, I'd be curious to see your scores on the official "Step I" MBTI. Hopefully needless to say, no self-report personality test is perfect, but the official MBTI is the only Jung/MBTI-related personality test with a respectable body of psychometric support behind it.

I'd guess that you'll come out N, and that the reason for that is — wait for it — that you're actually an N.

If you come out T, and especially in the case of a female INJ, I think there are good reasons to remain open to the F possibility. But it's been my experience that the official MBTI does a pretty good job of slotting people (assuming their actual preferences are reasonably strong) on the E/I, S/N and J/P dimensions.

Some people wonder what their frame of mind should be when they respond to the MBTI items, so in case you want to take the test and have some uncertainty along those lines, here's what the MBTI Manual says:

MBTI Manual said:
Some people have trouble finding the correct frame of mind for answering the MBTI. When reporting the results to some people, they say they reported their "work self," "school self," "ideal self," or some other self they now consider atypical. The frame of reference desired in respondents is what has been termed the "shoes-off self." The "shoes-off self" fosters an attitude in which one functions naturally, smoothly, and effortlessly, and in which one is not going "against one's grain." The function of the MBTI is to provide the first step toward understanding one's natural preferences.
 

cameo

New member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
36
MBTI Type
ISTJ
In case you have any interest in taking it, I'd be curious to see your scores on the official "Step I" MBTI. Hopefully needless to say, no self-report personality test is perfect, but the official MBTI is the only Jung/MBTI-related personality test with a respectable body of psychometric support behind it.

I'd guess that you'll come out N, and that the reason for that is — wait for it — that you're actually an N.

If you come out T, and especially in the case of a female INJ, I think there are good reasons to remain open to the F possibility. But it's been my experience that the official MBTI does a pretty good job of slotting people (assuming their actual preferences are reasonably strong) on the E/I, S/N and J/P dimensions.

I did take it, and I scored ISTJ haha. But my S/N preference is definitely where I waver the most. I struggle the most with questions that pertain to choosing facts or theory, but I still come out S. Maybe part of the problem is that I've done too much research and I can tell what each question is attempting to measure. But I do try to answer as genuinely and "shoes-off" as I can.

Extraversion
E 0, 21 I


Sensing
S 19, 7 N


Thinking
T 24, 0 F


Judging
J 21, 1 P
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
I did take it, and I scored ISTJ haha. But my S/N preference is definitely where I waver the most.

For what it's worth, Jung himself said he thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and he also stressed that people of the same type varied considerably in terms of the strength (or, as he often characterized it, "one-sidedness") of their preferences.

Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.

Nobody knows for sure at this point, but as I understand it, the existing studies suggest that it's likely that most or all of the MBTI dimensions — like the four Big Five dimensions they basically correspond with — exhibit something like a normal distribution, with substantially more people near (or in) the middle than near the extremes. Myers believed that it might turn out that one or more of the dichotomies was truly bimodal to one degree or another — with, in effect, a more or less empty (if narrow) zone in the exact middle of the spectrum. But she never asserted that that theoretical possibility had been factually established by any respectable body of evidence, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) stressed that the evidence for bimodality was sketchy at best. And since then, as I've said, quite a lot of evidence has accumulated that seems to suggest that most or all of the MBTI dimensions exhibit something more like a normal distribution.

In at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any dimension. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it isn't possible for someone not to have a preference — and the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference.

The "Step II" version of the MBTI includes five "facets" for each dimension — just as the NEO-PI-R has six facets for each Big Five dimension — and allows for the possibility of being, for example, on the S side of three of the facets and the N side of the other two.

So in trying to figure out what label captures you best, I'd say it makes sense to not rule out the possibility that, whether or not it's possible to be in the exact middle on S/N, it may be that a not-insubstantial number of people may have S/N preferences that are sufficiently mild that "x" arguably captures them better than either S or N would.

If you're interested in an "introduction to S & N" I put together a while back (with quotes from Myers and Keirsey), you'll find it in the first spoiler in this post.

And in case they're useful to you, I've put roundups of INTJ and ISTJ profiles in the spoiler below.

 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In the MBTI, people aren't really "in the middle". The scores are not "strengths" of preference, but rather the "Preference Clarity Index" (MBTI Manual, p.7,8) showing how clear the prefernce is, to them.
(Now, instead of assigning X's for tied scores, it assumes the person is likely an I, N, F, and/or P that has gravitated toward E, S, T or J due to societal infuences).

I find ISTJ's are often very interested in theory, and stuff using theory such as science fiction. Functionally, not completely sure why and don't want to say too readily that it's [just the] inferior Ne. (In older people, this will obviously come into play, but younger adult ones often are as well). It will obviously have to do with Te, and what I've seen is that they're not so much into theorizing themselves, but just referencing others. It's also probably about Si learning and storing the facts of the tangible world. (And thus, it will be more prominent for ISTJ's than ESTJ's).
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In the MBTI, people aren't really "in the middle". The scores are not "strengths" of preference, but rather the "Preference Clarity Index" (MBTI Manual, p.7,8) showing how clear the prefernce is, to them.
(Now, instead of assigning X's for tied scores, it assumes the person is likely an I, N, F, and/or P that has gravitated toward E, S, T or J due to societal infuences).

I find ISTJ's are often very interested in theory, and stuff using theory such as science fiction. Functionally, not completely sure why and don't want to say too readily that it's [just the] inferior Ne. (In older people, this will obviously come into play, but younger adult ones often are as well). It will obviously have to do with Te, and what I've seen is that they're not so much into theorizing themselves, but just referencing others. It's also probably about Si learning and storing the facts of the tangible world. (And thus, it will be more prominent for ISTJ's than ESTJ's).

first time I saw it was in my friend the ESTJ. very interesting.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
In the MBTI, people aren't really "in the middle". The scores are not "strengths" of preference, but rather the "Preference Clarity Index" (MBTI Manual, p.7,8) showing how clear the prefernce is, to them.

Whether someone is actually in the middle on an MBTI dimension and what their test score is are two separate things.

As I previously noted, Myers allowed for the possibility of no preference on all four MBTI dimensions.

As for whether MBTI test scores should be viewed as having anything to say about somebody's preference strengths, the MBTI Manual actually tries to somewhat have it both ways on that issue, stating that the scores really aren't intended to be taken as indicators of preference strengths, while also noting that it's "reasonable to expect" that there will tend to be some relationship between high scores and stronger preferences.

In any case, though, whether someone can essentially be in the middle on an MBTI dimension and whether the test can reliably indicate that are two different issues.
 

Patrick

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
129
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx
[MENTION=25111]cameo[/MENTION], IMO people are interested in lots of different things, regardless of their personality type. I know several people with a Sensing preference who are lifelong learners, who accumulate knowledge, and who show a curiosity and interest in many subjects, including philosophy and literature.

Type isn't a matter of which hobbies or interests you have, or even what behaviors you exhibit; it's more a matter of what your deep-down needs and values are. Unfortunately most of us are unaware of our own deepest needs; we have to infer those by assessing our values and talents and other things.

If you're an SJ, then according to Dr. Linda V. Berens a snapshot of your temperament should look like this:

The core needs are for group membership and responsibility. They need to know they are doing the responsible thing. They value stability, security, and a sense of community. They trust hierarchy and authority and may be surprised when others go against these social structures. People of this temperament prefer cooperative actions with a focus on standards and norms. Their orientation is to their past experiences, and they like things sequenced and structured. They tend to look for the practical applications of what they are learning. (from this Web page)
 

cameo

New member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
36
MBTI Type
ISTJ
[MENTION=25111]cameo[/MENTION], IMO people are interested in lots of different things, regardless of their personality type. I know several people with a Sensing preference who are lifelong learners, who accumulate knowledge, and who show a curiosity and interest in many subjects, including philosophy and literature.

Type isn't a matter of which hobbies or interests you have, or even what behaviors you exhibit; it's more a matter of what your deep-down needs and values are. Unfortunately most of us are unaware of our own deepest needs; we have to infer those by assessing our values and talents and other things.

If you're an SJ, then according to Dr. Linda V. Berens a snapshot of your temperament should look like this:

Yes, I totally agree with that. I sort of touched on this in my reply to your other post, but I think that it's internet stereotypes that make that it so difficult to type based on things like values. I mean, it just makes it all that much harder to type when most internet type descriptions say that NTs are way more likely than SJs to be "highly intelligent" or have certain hobbies or interests. For one thing, it makes certain types look way more appealing at face value, but it also serves to confound things when you have certain specific traits that are typically asserted as being more common for types other than your own but that are really no more than stereotypes. So that's where my struggle stems from.

That said, I still have a really hard time choosing between that "Guardian" description and the "Rational" one. If I force myself to choose one, I think I tend toward the Guardian temperament, but it is pretty slight. When I read about the functions, I definitely relate to Si more than, say Ni, and I'm pretty confident about that. But to extend that function preference to all these other things, like that I also then must tend to value traditional gender roles or some such thing, that's where I start having doubts.
 

cameo

New member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
36
MBTI Type
ISTJ
For what it's worth, Jung himself said he thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and he also stressed that people of the same type varied considerably in terms of the strength (or, as he often characterized it, "one-sidedness") of their preferences.

Myers likewise distinguished between people with mild and strong preferences, and allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions.

Nobody knows for sure at this point, but as I understand it, the existing studies suggest that it's likely that most or all of the MBTI dimensions — like the four Big Five dimensions they basically correspond with — exhibit something like a normal distribution, with substantially more people near (or in) the middle than near the extremes. Myers believed that it might turn out that one or more of the dichotomies was truly bimodal to one degree or another — with, in effect, a more or less empty (if narrow) zone in the exact middle of the spectrum. But she never asserted that that theoretical possibility had been factually established by any respectable body of evidence, and the 1985 MBTI Manual (which she co-authored) stressed that the evidence for bimodality was sketchy at best. And since then, as I've said, quite a lot of evidence has accumulated that seems to suggest that most or all of the MBTI dimensions exhibit something more like a normal distribution.

In at least one of the early versions of the MBTI, it was possible to get an "x" on any dimension. The current version assigns people a (tentative) type on each dimension, but that's a very different thing from saying that it isn't possible for someone not to have a preference — and the MBTI Manual specifically notes that someone with a score near the middle is someone who has essentially "split the vote" rather than offered much evidence of a preference.

The "Step II" version of the MBTI includes five "facets" for each dimension — just as the NEO-PI-R has six facets for each Big Five dimension — and allows for the possibility of being, for example, on the S side of three of the facets and the N side of the other two.

So in trying to figure out what label captures you best, I'd say it makes sense to not rule out the possibility that, whether or not it's possible to be in the exact middle on S/N, it may be that a not-insubstantial number of people may have S/N preferences that are sufficiently mild that "x" arguably captures them better than either S or N would.

If you're interested in an "introduction to S & N" I put together a while back (with quotes from Myers and Keirsey), you'll find it in the first spoiler in this post.

And in case they're useful to you, I've put roundups of INTJ and ISTJ profiles in the spoiler below.


I have definitely considered just going with IxTJ, but I can't help but feel like it's sort of a cop-out, more or less for the reasons that are commonly mentioned (that someone 'can't' be in the middle, etc.). After having read the spoiler in the other thread regarding S/N, I still have to say I must be an S, but I think my preference for it is really pretty slight. I have also read up on Ni and Si (in attempting to determine between INTJ and ISTJ), and I am aware that you have criticized that particular-function stack model (what you refer to as the Harold Grant model--though I don't know much about all this myself), but at any rate, insofar as Si is sort of a "cataloging" process and Ni is more of a "synthesizing" process, I certainly relate more to Si than Ni. The hard part for me is that, while Si is my go-to and I know I use it all the time, the various typology systems and theories begin to feel quite limiting to me because it seems like so often these things are set up as mutually exclusive or something; like, if you're a Sensing type or if you prefer Si, then you just collect facts but never manage to "synthesize" them into grander theories, but if you're an iNtuitive type or you prefer Ni, then you are able to do both, or at least you can do the more intensive "synthesizing" work.

I'm not sure what you think of this website as a source, but it was really these type descriptions (for ISTJ and for INTJ) that helped me the most in deciding on ISTJ over INTJ. In particular, the part in the ISTJ article where he refers to stereotypes of ISTJs as "a rather boring worker bee satisfied to meticulously “inspect” and maintain all the boring detailed systems underlying society – in essence, an unambitious and short-sighted INTJ." I think this is an extremely pervasive stereotype and I have a hard time not being persuaded/weakened in my confidence by it.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I have definitely considered just going with IxTJ, but I can't help but feel like it's sort of a cop-out, more or less for the reasons that are commonly mentioned (that someone 'can't' be in the middle, etc.). After having read the spoiler in the other thread regarding S/N, I still have to say I must be an S, but I think my preference for it is really pretty slight. I have also read up on Ni and Si (in attempting to determine between INTJ and ISTJ), and I am aware that you have criticized that particular-function stack model (what you refer to as the Harold Grant model--though I don't know much about all this myself), but at any rate, insofar as Si is sort of a "cataloging" process and Ni is more of a "synthesizing" process, I certainly relate more to Si than Ni. The hard part for me is that, while Si is my go-to and I know I use it all the time, the various typology systems and theories begin to feel quite limiting to me because it seems like so often these things are set up as mutually exclusive or something; like, if you're a Sensing type or if you prefer Si, then you just collect facts but never manage to "synthesize" them into grander theories, but if you're an iNtuitive type or you prefer Ni, then you are able to do both, or at least you can do the more intensive "synthesizing" work.

I'm not sure what you think of this website as a source, but it was really these type descriptions (for ISTJ and for INTJ) that helped me the most in deciding on ISTJ over INTJ. In particular, the part in the ISTJ article where he refers to stereotypes of ISTJs as "a rather boring worker bee satisfied to meticulously “inspect” and maintain all the boring detailed systems underlying society – in essence, an unambitious and short-sighted INTJ." I think this is an extremely pervasive stereotype and I have a hard time not being persuaded/weakened in my confidence by it.

Yeah, there are a lot of bad type descriptions ou tthere.

Really, we all do all of the "functions", and what determines which ones define our type are the ego states that are what use them. The dominant is simply connected with the ego's main state, and the auxiliary is connected with a supporting state. The other functions (which mirror these first two) then associate with other states.

So you can be ISTJ, in which Si is dominant, but for one thing, the sominant can become so second nature that it actually becomes "unconscious" in a way! Especially an introverted function, and especially something like Sensing, which is connected with our most primal means of gathering information. What makes it the dominant is the ego's "heroic" state of being the primary problem solver )whether you are conscious of it as such or not).

So you can be unaware of "using" the function so much, and this even be reflected in not having a high clarity of preference for S in general, and yet it still be your dominant.
 

reckful

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
656
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
I'm not sure what you think of this website as a source, but it was really these type descriptions (for ISTJ and for INTJ) that helped me the most in deciding on ISTJ over INTJ. In particular, the part in the ISTJ article where he refers to stereotypes of ISTJs as "a rather boring worker bee satisfied to meticulously “inspect” and maintain all the boring detailed systems underlying society – in essence, an unambitious and short-sighted INTJ." I think this is an extremely pervasive stereotype and I have a hard time not being persuaded/weakened in my confidence by it.

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

As one jaw-dropping example, he's got a long E vs. I video where his main illustrative example of extraversion vs. introversion involves two jungle explorers, where one explorer is to be tasked with writing down their "personal, subjective interpretations" (emotional, philosophical, theoretical, etc.) of the things they encounter, without being concerned with anything like an accurate representation of the things' objective, physical qualities, while the other explorer is to be tasked with meticulously recording only the objective, physical qualities of the things they enounter.

And Pierce's less-than-piercing perspective is that, if one of the explorers is an ENFP and one is an ISTJ, you should choose the ENFP to be the meticulous, just-the-facts recorder and choose the ISTJ to be the one who, as Pierce describes it, ignores the objective facts and records stuff like "how she thinks the creature appeared rather horrid, and how that seems to reflect an interesting idea about possible morality and justice in the animal kingdom, and the philosophical implications of such a thing, and how this compares with her personal values and ideas."

And the way for a guy to arrive at that kind of blinkered perspective on ENFPs and ISTJs to is to spend too much time poring over Jung's works (like some medieval Biblical scholar), while both ignoring the many changes Myers (rightly) made to Jung's original type concepts and, maybe more importantly, failing to get out much and actually interact with any significant number of real-world ENFPs and ISTJs.

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."

And if that's what Myers would have said, she would have been correct.
 

Patrick

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
129
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx
[MENTION=25111]cameo[/MENTION] Have you tried finding your best-fit type using the method at the bottom of this Web page?

Linda Berens (a former student of David Keirsey, and now a theorist, author, and speaker on p-typing) takes a somewhat different approach, and it seems to work well for some people. Most of what she says, however, seems to me to be in line with mainstream thinking on the subject.
 
Top