Studmuffin23
New member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 170
- MBTI Type
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 9
Though Keirsey shows moments of profound insight in his book "Please Understand Me", I find myself strongly disagreeing with his main ideas.
His "intelligent roles", for example, are particularly over-generalized. It's really inaccurate to claim that certain types can ONLY perform certain roles, and nothing else (with the exception of SPs, who apparently can perform everyone else's role even better).
Keirsey's descriptions of the 16 types are occasionally insightful, but all in all, they are so rigidly black-and-white in their behaviorism that there is no room left for variation among individuals: an aspect of personality that any temperament theory must account for. Given this, I am forced to conclude that the temperaments are nothing more than unrealistic abstractions; stereotypes, if you want to put it bluntly.
Another problem I have with Keirsey, though this one is more subjective, is that he speaks as if unhealthy behavior in the types is perfectly normal. According to him, it's only natural for SPs to engage in self-destructive behavior, such as sex/drug/alcohol addiction and poor academic performance. According to him, it's only natural for NFs to have no stability in their lives, going through multiple marriages and changing ideologies by the week.
Overall, there's just a lot of inaccurate stereotypes and misleading ideas that come from Keirsey's approach. I think this subject is important, and ought to be examined here at typology central.
You guys can take the discussion from here.
His "intelligent roles", for example, are particularly over-generalized. It's really inaccurate to claim that certain types can ONLY perform certain roles, and nothing else (with the exception of SPs, who apparently can perform everyone else's role even better).
Keirsey's descriptions of the 16 types are occasionally insightful, but all in all, they are so rigidly black-and-white in their behaviorism that there is no room left for variation among individuals: an aspect of personality that any temperament theory must account for. Given this, I am forced to conclude that the temperaments are nothing more than unrealistic abstractions; stereotypes, if you want to put it bluntly.
Another problem I have with Keirsey, though this one is more subjective, is that he speaks as if unhealthy behavior in the types is perfectly normal. According to him, it's only natural for SPs to engage in self-destructive behavior, such as sex/drug/alcohol addiction and poor academic performance. According to him, it's only natural for NFs to have no stability in their lives, going through multiple marriages and changing ideologies by the week.
Overall, there's just a lot of inaccurate stereotypes and misleading ideas that come from Keirsey's approach. I think this subject is important, and ought to be examined here at typology central.
You guys can take the discussion from here.