Why are the groupings.....

[BerberElla]

SJ - NF - NT - SJ and not SF - NF - NT - ST ?


I've always wondered why S gets paired with the last letter, but N gets paired with the 3rd one.

 

[Unique]

I don't know how to better explain this so here's my attempt...

N already makes you unconventional regardless of J/P

However with the S types Ps are generally more unconventional so you cant mix SPs and SJs

Oh and vice versa of course....

There are other factors too but all you really need to do is imagine this as a grouping

ESTJ
ESTP
ISTJ
ISTP

See the problem already?

 

[nozflubber]

^that is indeed very true that they seem to clash, but that could only be due to old ways of categorizing sensors in general.....

the real question is, what value is there in the ST/SF distinction over the current one?

 

[BerberElla]

^that is indeed very true that they seem to clash, but that could only be due to old ways of categorizing sensors in general.....

the real question is, what value is there in the ST/SF distinction over the current one?

Thank you. I've been struggling all morning with a reply to express what I thought, and you've summed up my reaction just right.

 

[Virtual ghost]

All of this is true but there is one more thing.

Why don't split Ns on NPs and NJs ? (Ne/Ni divide)

 

[Eric B]

This is Keirsey's mapping of the ancient temperaments; by way of Kretschmer's character styles; to the MBTI. The ancient temperaments used a totally different framework (response delay vs sustain or introversion/extroversion vs people/task focus), and this did not include any sort of perception factor. When Kant first introduced a perception scale (Beauty, which was basically Sensing), it already began twisting the temperament matrix, with diametric opposites Sanguine and Melancholic now on the same side. So in the full MBTI, you would have this rift between S and N, with the other dichotomies (T/F, J/P) determining different things for each perceptive preference.
The same thing happens with the Interaction Styles.

 

[Jeffster]

They are divided that way based on observing human behavior and believing that an ISTJ for instance, has more in common with an ESFJ than an ISTP overall. That the basic motivations of most SJ types fit together better than ST types or SF types, etc. David Keirsey lined the Myers-Briggs types up with the theory of four temperaments espoused by many, and many students of his have continued those groupings.

From a function type standpoint, SP and SJ makes sense because SPs have "Se" in common, and SJs have "Si" in common, but as Antisocial one points out, if you are going by function types, then NP and NJ make more sense as the other two groups.

There's obviously different ways to divide these categories, but the SP-SJ-NF-NT is done by some very commonly observed behaviors shared by the types in each group.

 

[mortabunt]

It is because S has to do with the real world, and J and P are what you do about it.
N has to do with the expanded world. T and F are how you deal with it.
An ESFP feels the real world, and wants it to stay open.
An ESFJ feels the real world and wants to close it.
An ENFP experiences the expanded world emotionally.
An ENTP experiences the expanded world logically.

Am I right people?

 

[mortabunt]

All of this is true but there is one more thing.

Why don't split Ns on NPs and NJs ? (Ne/Ni divide)

Because ENFP's are quite similar to ENFJ's. I have real life experience.

 

[BlackCat]

It is because S has to do with the real world, and J and P are what you do about it.
N has to do with the expanded world. T and F are how you deal with it.
An ESFP feels the real world, and wants it to stay open.
An ESFJ feels the real world and wants to close it.
An ENFP experiences the expanded world emotionally.
An ENTP experiences the expanded world logically.

Am I right people?

You got it sorta right, I always saw it that N was an inward thing (not expanded... that's just making Ns seem better than Ss like you seem to preach), and F and T are also inward, so N with T or F goes hand in hand. Sensing is an outward thing... it deals with the world and tangible things. J and P have to do with how you live and such, and you're living in this world, I dunno, SJ and SP work.

I always thought NP, NJ, SP, SJ would work. But what they've got going right now is pretty good. I also thought IP, IJ, EP, EJ would be great too. Maybe EP, EJ, IP, IJ could be another temperament people could test for or research when they are checking their type... hmm.

 

[Moiety]

Because ENFP's are quite similar to ENFJ's. I have real life experience.

Surely you jest


I think ENTPs are more similar to ENFPs than ENFJs. Way more.

So, yes, I don't get it either. Grouping NJs and NPs makes more sense in my opinion. If you are gonna have SJs and SPs in the first place, that is. Question of coherence.

I relate so much more to Ne users in general than any other types.

 

[mortabunt]

You got it sorta right, I always saw it that N was an inward thing (not expanded... that's just making Ns seem better than Ss like you seem to preach), and F and T are also inward, so N with T or F goes hand in hand. Sensing is an outward thing... it deals with the world and tangible things. J and P have to do with how you live and such, and you're living in this world, I dunno, SJ and SP work.

I always thought NP, NJ, SP, SJ would work. But what they've got going right now is pretty good. I also thought IP, IJ, EP, EJ would be great too. Maybe EP, EJ, IP, IJ could be another temperament people could test for or research when they are checking their type... hmm.

I said expanded because I couldn't come up with a better term.

 

[entropie]

The mapping dates back to an old greek system, called "Humoralpathologie" in german. Thats what Jung based his thing onto also. Guess they all thought the Greeks knew it best:

Four Temperaments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit: as Eric B said

 

[Eric B]

I always thought NP, NJ, SP, SJ would work. But what they've got going right now is pretty good. I also thought IP, IJ, EP, EJ would be great too. Maybe EP, EJ, IP, IJ could be another temperament people could test for or research when they are checking their type... hmm.

APT's George Frisbie outlined those groups and called them the "sociability temperaments". (He was really against Keirsey's model for some reason).

I have outlined IT, IF, ET, EF as "social image". Like three of the IT's are Chart the Course, or Melancholic. The INTP isn't, but they do look like it on the surface (because what you see on the surface is introversion and thinking, which is traditionally associated with the Melancholy), and often come out strong Melancholic on the Galen tests.
The Interaction styles basically compose half of both groups; sociability groups for the N's and social image groups for the S's.

 

[Randomnity]

I know why it is traditionally this way, but I think NJ NP SJ SP would make more sense both functionally and logically. I find INFJs more similar to INTJs than to INFPs, for instance (of course there are exceptions, borderline people, etc, but overall that is how they seem to me). I'm not sure if the same is true of extroverts necessarily, I don't know many Es very well. I do find ENFPs and ENTPs very similar (and both very different from ENxJs).

Of course, that can only be from an outsider's perspective, and maybe you (Ns) perceive yourselves differently.

 

[thisGuy]

I know why it is traditionally this way, but I think NJ NP SJ SP would make more sense both functionally and logically. I find INFJs more similar to INTJs than to INFPs, for instance (of course there are exceptions, borderline people, etc, but overall that is how they seem to me). I'm not sure if the same is true of extroverts necessarily, I don't know many Es very well. I do find ENFPs and ENTPs very similar (and both very different from ENxJs).

Of course, that can only be from an outsider's perspective, and maybe you (Ns) perceive yourselves differently.

what do you guys mean when you say 'similar'?

what characteristics? ENTPs and ENFPs get along fabulously but i have never have to explain any of my musing to an ENTJ as i have to an ENFP

 

[Athenian200]

I know why it is traditionally this way, but I think NJ NP SJ SP would make more sense both functionally and logically. I find INFJs more similar to INTJs than to INFPs, for instance (of course there are exceptions, borderline people, etc, but overall that is how they seem to me). I'm not sure if the same is true of extroverts necessarily, I don't know many Es very well. I do find ENFPs and ENTPs very similar (and both very different from ENxJs).

Of course, that can only be from an outsider's perspective, and maybe you (Ns) perceive yourselves differently.

Nope, you're correct, IMO.

I've had my fingers crossed for a long time now that they'd do some temperament redistricting and group NJs and NPs (Strategists and Innovators, I'd call them).

It would also do a lot for the whole NT=Logical, NF=Emo stereotype. Those stereotypes are centered around INTPs and INFPs, respectively, if I'm not mistaken. Then again, maybe INJs see the worst problems with the current system because we fall though the cracks a bit more than the others in our group (though I know a few ENPs have reported something similar).

 

[Eric B]

Here's a couple of essays suggesting the NP and NJ types:
A New Look at the Keirsey Temperaments
Keirsey's Mirror Temperaments
They (plus SP/SJ) are held by Janet Germane.

 

[Randomnity]

what do you guys mean when you say 'similar'?

what characteristics? ENTPs and ENFPs get along fabulously but i have never have to explain any of my musing to an ENTJ as i have to an ENFP

Both very people-oriented, enthusiastic, excitable, like to debate, constantly inventing and sharing new ideas they thought up, always lots of enthusiasm but rarely anywhere near as much followthrough, often appear "flaky"/unreliable because something more interesting distracted them, etc etc. No stereotypes intended, just what I've observed casually, since I don't know many ENxPs very well.

You know, mostly Ne stuff. If you feel more similar to ENTJs I can't argue with that, since I can only observe.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I think ENTPs are more similar to ENFPs than ENFJs. Way more.

I do find ENFPs and ENTPs very similar (and both very different from ENxJs).

+1

ENFPs and ENTPs are both cognitively and behaviorally similar, in my experience (which is a lot). ENFJs are more similar to ESFJs primarily and INFJs secondarily, and ENTJs to ESTJs primarily and INTJs secondarily.