I'm reading into the text, not just reading the surface and taking it at face value. I don't learn anything that way.
Sounds like that's your problem right there. If it takes you making things up in your head to learn, you have a learning disability.
I'm also not intentionally doing anything. I'm posting my opinions.
Uhhh..so you're accidentally posting your opinions? Assigning your own alternate meanings to words that already have meanings isn't opinion. It's distortion.
If Keirsey is that wonderful, people should see that I'm wrong when they read his books for themselves.
True, but as long as people are going to post misinformation, there's nothing wrong with me posting corrections. Obviously, i too hope people will read the books for themselves. It's a pity there's so much re-writing of it by people online.
About your Keirsey-pushing agenda, I was basing that also on your past posts on this forum (which are available through your profile). I also used to read the pleaseunderstandme.org forum, where I noticed you are a member (Assuming your username is also Jeffster there).
Do the founders of Typology Central have a "Keirsey-pushing agenda" too? Since they set up these sections of the forum based on his temperament categories, it would seem that they at least grant his theories some validity. I didn't join this site with any agenda to "push" anything, I'm just posting my views just as anyone else does.
Good thing I have my book here: Please Understand Me 2. I'm going to open it at random and quote.
Thanks for the quotes, however none of them state anything about "SJ = closeminded, religious, braindead moron who works for the government or some other large organization, without a single original thought" as you asserted earlier.
If you said that the norms of society have changed and Keirsey's specific assertions about the common views of SJs seem a bit outdated, then I would actually agree with you there. And there have been topics about that here as well as Keirsey's own forum. But it's a big leap from "societal standards have changed, and SJs remain the standard-bearers" to "This entire text loses all validity because some behaviors have changed."
Is he saying SJs advocate marital rape? I hope not. What if two SJ females are married or in a relationship with one another? Is he suggesting that neither one would initiate sex, ever? I mean, sure, it might be a non-sexual relationship. But that's rare. The book is also full of phrases like "members of the opposite sex", which is an incorrect and heteronormative assumption.
Oh COME ON now. You want to talk about "pukeworthy bullshit." "Heteronormative assumption?" So, do you advocate re-writing every book to include the phrase "...or a same-sex relationship" in it somewhere? Wow...that's pretty ridiculous. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of romantic relationships are between members of the opposite sex, and not stopping to put an asterisk on texts about relationship in no way invalidates the millions of books written about such topics.
So I opened the book at random and saw puke-worthy bullshit on the two pages I read. I'm sorry dude, I can't advocate such a book.
Hey, no problem. I don't advocate The Feminazi Handbook to Relationships either, so there we are. Thing is, I don't think it's difficult for most people (including SJs) to realize that the overall concepts of a theory don't go out the window just because certain specific standards change over time.
The internet Keirsey descriptions are much better than the ones in the book. They are also shorter. That said, whether I'm wrong or right is kind of irrelevant, to be honest. It does not sound like you guys are reading into the descriptions. I may be reading things that aren't there, but when I see other people here coming up with the same things independently, I have to think I'm not totally off base.
Sounds like you might need to hand in your SP card. In another topic, you said you don't like to be touched and here you say you read into everything. The prognosis is grim.
For the record, I am not in the employ of Keirsey nor do I worship him or consider him without flaws in his theories. I think my issue is with people who can't keep their critiques to what he has actually said. It's almost as if some here (and I'm not saying this about you specifically) feel like Keirsey is a threat to them somehow, because they seem to spend so much time trying to discredit him instead of simply advocating for what they think is a better system.