We all know what the stereotypes are now. But what else could the stereotypes have been, if people who initially interpreted it had put a different spin on things? Let's find out...

SP - The experience gatherer. Constantly seeking to absorb new experiences and raw data, and find a new appreciation or understanding from them. Believes in being authentic to one's impulses, and that life should be about more than just getting through.

SJ - The experience evaluator. Compares new experiences to what's familiar in order to maintain a sense of what ranges can be expected in reality, and get a sense of what direction things are going in the world. Believes in maintaining consistency in order to create clarity, and that life should be manageable and reasonable.

NF - The illusionist. Abstract types with insight into the human heart and mind, these types often use this ability to make things (including themselves) appear more desirable or undesirable to others than they actually are. Potentially very political and emotionally aware types. Believe in passionately pursuing visions of change in order to make lasting statements about themselves and the world based on the key to their abilities.

NT - The perfectionist. Abstract thinkers with keen minds, these types are usually obsessed with gaining the best understanding or result possible, without regard to comfort or personal relevance. They have high potential, see the potential in (and demand a lot) from themselves and others. Believe that life is about doing one's best in their chosen area, whether it's gaining clarity of understanding, or achieving the best result possible with given resources.

See what I did?

One of the things that's always been weird to me, is how the "dark, strong" side of N was always associated with T, and the "good, weak" side with F. When in reality, there's really not much justification for that association.

Notice how the descriptions were all attuned to the nature of those types, but fixated on a different aspect of what they were capable of, from a different perspective.

If you look really carefully, you'll see that I transferred a certain "archetype overlay" from one temperament to the other. It should look like this:


Obviously, we've associated something with each temperament that actually has nothing to do with the temperament itself. So what is that? I think it's an inherent archetype.

I would say the four archetypes are:

The parent (normal SJ, alternate NT)
The selfish (normal SP, alternate NF)
The innocent (normal NF, alternate SP)
The wise (normal NT, alternate SJ)

The funny thing? The archetypes have nothing to do with the abilities or inherent traits of each type! They're about image, not ability or thought process. I think now I understand why Jung spoke about archetypes BEFORE discussing psychological type. He knew people might get all of this mixed together.

So... do you have your own spin on how the stereotypes could have been different? Let's see it!