Shoud the N types be classified as NP and NJ instead of NF and NT?

[Lord Lavender]

I have often pondered on this question as i notice the S types are classified by xSxJ and xSxP which makes sense as all SJs will have similarities due to having Si as dom/aux and Ne as tert/inferior while all SPs have Se as dom/aux and Ni as tert/inferior. But with the NF and NT types there is no common functions between any of them. In fact XNFJ and XNFP have no functions in common and likewise for the xNTJs and xNTPs.

In my personal experience me and xNTJ types have had quite often an odd disconnect as we think very differently. On the other hand while me and xSFJs may look very different on the surface once we dig deeper we find very similar ways of thinking and viewing the world. A good analogy to describe me and xNTJs would be convergent evolution. While we have evolved similar traits due to a strong intuition and thinking function (Compare a fish and a dolphin as both have very similar traits due to being in the same niche) once you look deeper we have very little common as likewise a dolphin is very different from a fish. Likewise the relationship between me and xSFJs is like comparing a dolphin and a mouse. While both look very different on the surface, it is when you dig deeper that they have many similar traits (Both produce milk, both are warm blooded, both give birth to live young e.t.c).

 

[Ene]

Just want to say that I think this is an excellent question.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This was already disscused on the forum. However this is pretty good question since this really is the case, because xNxP and xNxJ are actually much more logical groups.

I even dared to say:

xNxP - theoreticians
xNxJ - coordinators (or visionaries)

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Does anyone know what that one guy's rationale was for the inconsistent sorting? I mean he was an INTP, so there must have been some hidden logic.

But yeah I think that is a better way to sort out the temperaments.

 

[Verona]

I'm not really a fan of the temperament sortings. I think they are really inconsistent. I also think it is hard to put 4 types together in the same group no matter how you decide to sort it. There are just too many differences.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Does anyone know what that one guy's rationale was for the inconsistent sorting? I mean he was an INTP, so there must have been some hidden logic.

But yeah I think that is a better way to sort out the temperaments.

Are you referring to Keirsey? That guy had a shallow view of N types IMO. Putting INFP and INFJ in the same category for instance is like putting a whale and a fish or a mushroom and a plant in the same category. They may have some similarities on the surface but looking deeper they have literally nothing in common. He did a poor job in general IMO as he didn't even consider the feeling and thinking categories of TP/FP/TJ/FJ.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Are you referring to Keirsey? That guy had a shallow view of N types IMO. Putting INFP and INFJ in the same category for instance is like putting a whale and a fish or a mushroom and a plant in the same category. They may have some similarities on the surface but looking deeper they have literally nothing in common. He did a poor job in general IMO as he didn't even consider the feeling and thinking categories of TP/FP/TJ/FJ.

Yeah.

 

[Ene]

This was already disscused on the forum. However this is pretty good question since this really is the case, because xNxP and xNxJ are actually much more logical groups.

I even dared to say:

xNxP - theoreticians
xNxJ - coordinators (or visionaries)

Yes, I can see that.

 

[Pionart]

It might make more sense to use ST and SF instead.

I think Keirsey may have been lining up the system with a different 4 temperament system... I recall reading that somewhere, although I could be mistaken.

 

[reckful]

Putting INFP and INFJ in the same category for instance is like putting a whale and a fish or a mushroom and a plant in the same category. They may have some similarities on the surface but looking deeper they have literally nothing in common.

Yeah, baby. INFJs and INFPs may share three letters but, pfffft, they've got almost nothing in common — because when you go from J to P, it flips all your functions!

Well... no, actually. And allow me to respectfully suggest that this post might help bring your perspective more in line with both Jung and Myers, not to mention good old Planet Reality.

 

[reckful]

It might make more sense to use ST and SF instead.

You might be onto something there...

Notwithstanding a fair amount of Jungian lip service, Isabel Myers really understood (because it's what her years of data collection told her) that there was nothing fundamental or special about the preference combinations that purportedly correspond to the "cognitive functions" — and in fact, Myers thought NF/NT/SF/ST were the most significant combinations.

For a long discussion about Keirsey's foursome vs. Myers' foursome, see this post — which also includes a leetle correlational study I performed using a large official MBTI career sample, and a bonus spoiler about why I tend to think of the INs as my peeps.

 

[á´…eparted]

Yes I do. At least for me, I feel a much stronger connection with xNxJ's as a group, than I do with xNFx's as a group. Mostly because I don't feel much of a kinship or connection with xNFP's.

IMO the following groupings are useful: NJ vs. NP vs. SJ vs. SP as well as FJ vs. FP vs. TJ vs. TP as well as EJ vs. EP vs. IJ vs. IP. The other groups just don't tell as much information IMO. It really comes down to functions. I mean, ENFP's are only one letter different than me, but I really don't share a kinship with them and we're ultimately very different.

Personally, I feel the most kinship in the ExxJ grouping, mostly because I am weakly N and F, and strongly E and J.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

According to Gifts Differing, all the research from years of MBTI tests show l types share commonalities with all those they share letters with, so NPs will have many things in common.

But, as mentioned, I think the biggest change needed is dividing SFs and STs. SFJs and SFPs are very common. They share a lot of common behaviors, even as they approach the world differently.

As to myself, as much as I love my ENTJ friends, we don't think alike at all, nor do we act too much alike. On the other hand, ENFPs tend to get to the same place as me, but just take a different route.....

 

[Pionart]

You might be onto something there...

Notwithstanding a fair amount of Jungian lip service, Isabel Myers really understood (because it's what her years of data collection told her) that there was nothing fundamental or special about the preference combinations that purportedly correspond to the "cognitive functions" — and in fact, Myers thought NF/NT/SF/ST were the most significant combinations.

For a long discussion about Keirsey's foursome vs. Myers' foursome, see this post — which also includes a leetle correlational study I performed using a large official MBTI career sample, and a bonus spoiler about why I tend to think of the INs as my peeps.

Based on the cognitive functions model (including Jung's approach) it makes sense to me that N/S and T/F would go together - so I also prefer in that regard, the NT/NF/ST/SF groupings than the IN/etc. grouping, although I certainly see where you are coming from given how IN heavy this forum is (and maybe the heavy internet users in general are).

I'm leaning more towards Big 5 than MBTI nowdays, although it still feels like some dichotomies should go together. I'd be interested to see any work in the Big 5 regarding looking at dichotomies 2 at a time.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Based on the cognitive functions model (including Jung's approach) it makes sense to me that N/S and T/F would go together - so I also prefer in that regard, the NT/NF/ST/SF groupings than the IN/etc. grouping, although I certainly see where you are coming from given how IN heavy this forum is (and maybe the heavy internet users in general are).

I'm leaning more towards Big 5 than MBTI nowdays, although it still feels like some dichotomies should go together. I'd be interested to see any work in the Big 5 regarding looking at dichotomies 2 at a time.

On here there has been much talk of the big five traits. I do think there is a connection between the MBTI and the big five. I would say introversion/extroversion (Obvious) Openness (Not type related IMO as anyone regardless of type can love learning and be open to new ideas), conscientiousness (TJs and FJs fit this both but in different ways), Agreeableness (Minor link between F and T but again anyone can be a friendly and agreeable person who is empathetic regardless of type) and neuroticism (Not type related).

 

[Pionart]

On here there has been much talk of the big five traits. I do think there is a connection between the MBTI and the big five. I would say introversion/extroversion (Obvious) Openness (Not type related IMO as anyone regardless of type can love learning and be open to new ideas), conscientiousness (TJs and FJs fit this both but in different ways), Agreeableness (Minor link between F and T but again anyone can be a friendly and agreeable person who is empathetic regardless of type) and neuroticism (Not type related).

Yeah except that openness corresponds to intuition. There are correlation studies that back this up.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Yeah except that openness corresponds to intuition. There are correlation studies that back this up.

In my personal opinion big five is more concrete and scientific as it is based on observable data and traits while JCF is more abstract and cannot be proven fully to exist. I think that while there exists a link between big five and JCF it isn't always exact as there are other variables (Ennegram types e.t.c, i would guess 4, 5 and 7 link to high openness for instance while 1s and 3s would score highly on contentiousness just to give some examples. For example it does seem that high openness is a sign of high Ne and likewise low openness a sign of high Si. (Thing is that Si types can also be open if their past experience tells them that being open is better than being stuck to your ways.). i think both are good systems in their own way though and i enjoy reading into both.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

Great thread (reasoning) [MENTION=30122]Brain in a Jar[/MENTION]!

According to Gifts Differing, all the research from years of MBTI tests show l types share commonalities with all those they share letters with, so NPs will have many things in common.

But, as mentioned, I think the biggest change needed is dividing SFs and STs. SFJs and SFPs are very common. They share a lot of common behaviors, even as they approach the world differently.

As to myself, as much as I love my ENTJ friends, we don't think alike at all, nor do we act too much alike. On the other hand, ENFPs tend to get to the same place as me, but just take a different route.....

Amen to the bold ^!

 

[Yama]

I don't want to be classified as an SF ever since I saw that post that said "aren't all dogs sensors and feelers?" in reponse to some dog typing thread

 

[Yama]

I don't see too much similarity to SFPs. I relate a lot more to SJ. Although I do get mistaken for an ISFP sometimes it's mostly because those people don't quite understand Si and Fe really. I tend to really dislike strong Fi users who shit on Fe because it's "fake" or something. I'd rather see NJ and NP. I think it's better to go with the irrational axis with S/N than F/T.