• 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.

Why's it NT and NF as opposed to NP and NJ?

StonedPhilosopher

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
280
MBTI Type
IDFC
After all, it's SP and SJ, not ST and SF, for the same reason I think it should be NP and NJ: all "ideal" SPs, for instance, are more similar to each other than all "ideal" STs are. I mean, is an INFP really more similar to an ENFJ than an INTP?
 

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think in the end, what matters in distinguishing similarity is your degree of orientation towards each combination; a very NF-y NF will probably relate to other NFs; a very NP person will probably relate to NP (e.g. through intolerance for most constraints).
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,599
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Kiersey model (NT, SJ, NF, SP) sucks and I have yet to meet someone who can defend it beyond "That's the model I learned MBTI with". Its popularity is a product of muscle memory.

I personally prefer typings to be grouped by temperament (EJ, IP, EP, IJ). It's the most literal and leaves little room for stereotype. It's from/for socionics, but its useful for MBTI too.
 

Ashtart

Obliviously Mad
Joined
Jun 6, 2017
Messages
614
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Im my opinion, which may come off as a very unpopular one, the groups should be arranged according to the first two dichotomies. ESs, ENs, ISs, INs.
 

Norexan

Quetzalcoatl
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
2,222
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp
Because Sansing is leading Judgiing/Perceving and Intiton is leading Feelling/Thinking :bye:

SJ - Si
SP - Se
and reverse sansing types...
NT
NF
 

StonedPhilosopher

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
280
MBTI Type
IDFC
Because Sansing is leading Judgiing/Perceving and Intiton is leading Feelling/Thinking :bye:

SJ - Si
SP - Se
and reverse sansing types...
NT
NF

That's actually why I think it should be NP/NJ, but you got it wrong: not all types in the NT or NF groups share the same sensing/intuition functions. All types in the NP or NJ groups, however, do share these.
 

Norexan

Quetzalcoatl
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
2,222
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp
That's actually why I think it should be NP/NJ, but you got it wrong: not all types in the NT or NF groups share the same sensing/intuition functions. All types in the NP or NJ groups, however, do share these.

Well..
Ni-Te
Te-Ti
Ni-Fe
Fe-Ni

So Js are ones who use Ni and Ps are ones who use Ne. ;)
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Kiersey model (NT, SJ, NF, SP) sucks and I have yet to meet someone who can defend it beyond "That's the model I learned MBTI with". Its popularity is a product of muscle memory.

I'll give it a go.

Sensing vs. Intuition makes sense as the primary division because it determines how you mentally intake information, which is arguably the most important aspect of cognition. Sensing types prefer the physical world, and Intuitive types prefer abstractions. For Sensing types, the most immediately apparent distinction is how they interact with the physical world: organized (J) or disorganized (P). For Intuitive types, on the other hand, the most important distinction is which aspects of mental abstraction they most gravitate towards: morals (F) or logic (T).
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,564
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
When you think of it in terms of the leading and auxiliaries being two facets of a unified and indivisible perceiving/judging style and approach rather than as separate functions, then it makes sense. So therefore FiNe and FeNi, for example, make more sense being in the same grouping than do FiNe and TiNe, as the former two are more similar to one another than the latter two.

Xa = introverted feeling
Xb = extraverted feeling
Ya = introverted intuition
Yb = extraverted intuition
Za = introverted thinking

Xa Yb and Xb Ya

vs

Xa Yb and Za Yb

Shit, now I'm not sure. I guess either grouping works, it just depends on what you're looking at.
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
When you think of it in terms of the leading and auxiliaries being two facets of a unified and indivisible perceiving/judging style and approach rather than as separate functions, then it makes sense. So therefore FiNe and FeNi, for example, make more sense being in the same grouping than do FiNe and TiNe, as the former two are more similar to one another than the latter two.

Xa = introverted feeling
Xb = extraverted feeling
Ya = introverted intuition
Yb = extraverted intuition
Za = introverted thinking

Xa Yb and Xb Ya

vs

Xa Yb and Za Yb

Shit, now I'm not sure. I guess either grouping works, it just depends on what you're looking at.

It's important to keep in mind that Keirsey's system does not use functions at all, so that excuses it from being incompatible with the MBTI stack.
 

Eric B

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

To expound upon this, temperament theory is one framework, and MBTI is another. They are based on different sets of factors, and thus are not always symmetrically mapped to one other.
You see in the link the name Kretschmer. He had what he called "four character styles". That's who Keirsey derived the groups directly from, and Kretschmer did not use MBTI dichotomies, but Keirsey matched his primary division (cyclothymes and schizothymes) to MBTI's S/N. Actually, Kretschmer's groups are traceable to Kant, and originally, Plato, who had his "four types of men", which Keirsey's familiar temperament names were taken from, and divided between "observant vs imaginative", which is obviously the first 'germ' of S/N.
The thing one has to understand about Keirsey's theory is that the four temperaments themselves are the primary or fundamental categories, not the dichotomies, 16types, or any other factors, which only serve as making for "variants" (and as already mentioned, he rejected the functions). So to him, it didn't matter how exactly they mapped to the types; they were their own standalone units. (And you can really see this in his last two books, where he deprecates all the MBTI concepts).

However, he saw the same four groups in the theory of the other guy mentioned, Spränger, who had a factor called "social vs political". However, this factor did not map to any of the MBTI factors, so he had to create a new one of his own, called "cooperative vs pragmatic". Basically, this would end up connecting to J/P for S's and T/F for N's. That's why his theory maps onto S/N, but alternates between T/F and J/P.

The opposite groups, which have been called "mirror temperaments", do figure, in an even more loose way, onto the other four temperament grouping, the Interaction Styles. Keirsey had divided the temperaments with a new factor called role-informative/directive, which was like the opposite of cooperative/pragmatic. S's now factored with T/F and N's with J/P. He had the eight last-three-letter groups using this, but when you add the original, classic "social"-temperament factor of I/E to this, you get four "social" groups even closer resembling the ancient four temperaments (of Galen and Hippocrates), but now even more complicated, as each Interaction Style is defined by an E/I + two separate S/N+T/F/J/P combinations (EST/ENJ, etc).

As you can see in the link Berens had further added another factor to Keirsey's temperaments, called "Structure vs motive". Classic temperament was originally I/E (expressiveness, or response delay) plus something called "people vs task focus" (responsiveness or response sustain). Both Keirsey's temperaments and the Interaction Styles have this matrix, but one is covering social skills and the other is covering what are called "conative" skills (leadership, taking action).
So there are two areas of temperament in each type. I/E is social expressiveness, and cooperative/pragmatic is leadership expressiveness. Informing/directing is social responsiveness, and structure/motive is leadership responsiveness.

While not totally symmetrical, there is a partial symmetry, in that F and P will across the board be generally more "people-focused" (whether socially, leadership-wise, or both when F and P are together), and T and J more "task focused". So TJ's end up as the most directive, FP's the least so, and TP and FJ inbetween. This explains why TP's and FJ's, especially on the N side, often have problems with J/P and especially T/F, as we expect T's to be more dry or serious, and F's to be more soft and accepting, but for the N's it can seem to be the opposite depending on J/P.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
we expect T's to be more dry or serious, and F's to be more soft and accepting, but for the N's it can seem to be the opposite depending on J/P.

As in warm and funny NTs and icy NFs. I know plenty.
 
Top