Gingerly offering new Temperaments

[ygolo]

Thanks for the statistics, and that's all true (didn't quite check the math, but I know exactly what you're getting at, trust me), but I'm more concerned with trying to make a meaningful type-grouping. I don't know whether you read it in my other posts, but what I've said is that "my system" is based on something consistent: the judging and perceiving functions, what they mean and what they do. Sorry if I'm repeating myself needlessly.

I get the Judging vs. Perceiving thing. But a lot of other groupings are meaningful too.

It's weird, I was editing the post over and over, but when it refreshed, the follow-up posts didn't show up till now.

 

[Cimarron]

Oh, well okay. That's what most people have been saying. And it's not really something I disagree with, just trying this new thing. So thanks for commenting.

 

[Haphazard]

This would be useful for typing extroverts.

For introverts, I think it leaves too much out.

 

[ygolo]

Oh, well okay. That's what most people have been saying. And it's not really something I disagree with, just trying this new thing. So thanks for commenting.

I didn't mean to discourage.

Certainly from a verbal parsing of the dichotomies, your grouping is quite logical.

It would be interesting if there are correlations with that grouping and other things.

 

[INTJMom]

Hello everybody. I'm still very new here, so I don't know how this will be received, but I just wanted to share something with you. You don't have to take it seriously if you don't want to. Check it out.

I thought of a neat re-grouping of the MBTI types which, like Keirsey's "temperaments", crosses over these patterns, but I hope it will be at least as cohesive and "useful". For now, it's mostly academic.

My idea is based on the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy. It is said that T and F are judging functions, and that S and N are perceiving functions. If this holds true, then there must be a way to better emphasize their relation across the 16 types, which is what I tried to do here. I split the types down the middle between Ps and Js.

We could describe them like this, perhaps:

SP = aware mostly through their senses (outer inspiration?)
NP = aware mostly through their intuition (inner inspiration?)
TJ = decide mostly by logic
FJ = decide mostly by emotion

And if you want to "title" them, give it a shot! Here's my attempt.

SP = Artist
NP = Dreamer
TJ = Planner
FJ = ...Arbitrator?

----------------------------------------

The bottom line is that I wanted to give the judging and perceiving functions fuller meaning. This should help us explore what those two factors really affect. Do you think these groups tell you anything about the behavior of a person (in terms of MBTI & behavior)? To what extent? Why do you think that's the case?

Basically I just want to hear your thoughts on this idea that came to me. And if you don't think it's worth anything, well then at least you got a laugh.

I've seen these delineations before.
Four Groupings of Type

 

[Virtual ghost]

Stupid question


Why we need to place types in groups?

 

[Cimarron]

Stupid question


Why we need to place types in groups?

The best groups may be arbitrary, lasting only as long as the discussion for which they are needed. In other words, any combination of MBTI "letters" that helps describe the common behaviors of more than one type.

But I was not considering whether types should be put into groups. I was considering how to change Keirsey's groups to something better, which other people on this forum have tried before. Or maybe, more than that, my main goal was to make the fullest use of the judging and perceiving factors. It's unclear which reason motivated me more strongly to do it. I'm not really concerned in determining that, either.

 

[nightning]

i didn't use the word temperament to describe the "new" groupings i compared it, or meant to compare it to the "new" groupings. and i know what the temperaments are lol they are the reason we shouldn't be trying to make "new" groupings haha because unlike any new grouping they have a profile that describes them extremely well. like i said before, if someone can write a very good description of the "new" groupings then go for it. also, i understand that you created those groupings to describe peoples dominant functions but that is all it accomplishes, and personally, functions are pointless as individual entities. you need to look at functions as a whole meaning the orientation of the functions (i had an annoying little debate about it). good idea though.

my problem with "new" groupings is that you can come up with a bunch of different combinations that all tell you different things, but is there really any point? and are they really that new? ive done all of these when explaining things where i need to generalize about a certain function that is dominant accross all the types.

Then you might as well make the over-generalization that all individuals are unique and so there's no point in looking at personality types.

The way I take the types is a framework to better understand people. Does it accurately describe individuals in the type? No, but it's a working model. Same goes with Keirsey's temperaments. It's a way of summarizing 16 types into something easier to handle. My proposal of splitting types by dominant function is simply to help understanding how type relates to Jungian functions. Especially the dominant perceiving vs dominant judging function depending on whether you're I or E.

I guess I could have stated that right from the beginning.

Stupid question

Why we need to place types in groups?

Kind of answered the question already. Why categorize? To help us better understand information.

Cimarron's question of whether a new scheme will be more meaningful than Keirsey's though is an interesting one. Do SP and SJ relate better than NP and NJ groupings and NT NF to ST SF or any other groupings? My suspicions is no... each highlight something different but that's about it.

 

[ptgatsby]

Do you think these groups tell you anything about the behavior of a person (in terms of MBTI & behavior)?

Absolutely - but you may lose some nuance that already exists (but of course, you'll have other nuances that other groupings don't have).

The major advantage to yours is that it would be applicable for work styles - it's not far off from them already. This would generalise it further than just management and would probably indicate job preferences and performance a lot better than other divisions. Probably would also be fairly good for job satisfaction.


The other grouping depends on weaker bonds - intelligence, communication styles, interests... yours would be a lot less fuzzy, IMO. That can be good or bad, depending on what you want to use it for

 

[mlittrell]

Then you might as well make the over-generalization that all individuals are unique and so there's no point in looking at personality types.

The way I take the types is a framework to better understand people. Does it accurately describe individuals in the type? No, but it's a working model. Same goes with Keirsey's temperaments. It's a way of summarizing 16 types into something easier to handle. My proposal of splitting types by dominant function is simply to help understanding how type relates to Jungian functions. Especially the dominant perceiving vs dominant judging function depending on whether you're I or E.

I guess I could have stated that right from the beginning.


Kind of answered the question already. Why categorize? To help us better understand information.

Cimarron's question of whether a new scheme will be more meaningful than Keirsey's though is an interesting one. Do SP and SJ relate better than NP and NJ groupings and NT NF to ST SF or any other groupings? My suspicions is no... each highlight something different but that's about it.

keirseys temperaments are as good as it gets though so anything else is...ehh. also, its pointless to use grouping to explain functions because like i said before, functions are pointless as individual entities. If you group ENP then you leave out the Fi or Ti, which is crucial. the functions work as a team and are close to pointless on their own. what i was saying the groupings are useful for is when you specifically need them but taking them seriously is kinda pointless. they are good when needed and can be used fluidly but concretely...no.

EDIT:

really MBTI is dead as far as developing anything new. imo.

 

[nightning]

keirseys temperaments are as good as it gets though so anything else is...ehh. also, its pointless to use grouping to explain functions because like i said before, functions are pointless as individual entities. If you group ENP then you leave out the Fi or Ti, which is crucial. the functions work as a team and are close to pointless on their own. what i was saying the groupings are useful for is when you specifically need them but taking them seriously is kinda pointless. they are good when needed and can be used fluidly but concretely...no.

Are you saying functions are useless to personality? That's like saying happiness is useless in examining the overall well-being of the person. I disagree. You must first understand the fundamental building blocks before you look at how they interact. Otherwise you're just making it harder on yourself when you don't have to.

really MBTI is dead as far as developing anything new. imo.

Development of MBTI as a whole, yes. Furthering our understanding of the implications on the model, no.

 

[Jack Flak]

Are you saying functions are useless to personality? That's like saying happiness is useless in examining the overall well-being of the person.

No, it's like saying you don't need to know where the sand came from to make the bricks with which a house was built, when you're deciding whether to buy it or not.

 

[Cimarron]

Cool. INTJMom linked to a page where they had already used these groupings. What did they think it was useful for? Here:

I have divided the 16 different temperament Myers-Briggs 4 letter types into four groupings based upon their similarity in appearance to one observing them from the outside. I believe this is the most useful schema in determining a person's type by observation alone.

Notice that the bolded sounds a lot like what I said in previous posts:

Yeah, I noticed that too. That's caused by the nature of introverts, hiding their main interpersonal traits. Having these groups based on judging vs. perceiving functions points out what a person's strongest "Xe" is, and that is the one that interacts more with other people than within yourself, if I have a vague understanding. But then what are the merits of that? I guess that's a question to ponder.

When I called them "interpersonal" relations, that's basically what I meant.

 

[ygolo]

When I called them "interpersonal" relations, that's basically what I meant.

Ah. Yes. I see what you were trying to do now. Basically, you wanted to group by the "highest" function used to deal with the external world.

So for dealing with external world:
FJ<=>Fe
TJ<=>Te
SP<=>Se
NP<=>Ne

For some reason, I thought you were just trying to modify Keirsey's Temperaments.

Interestingly, one could get a "dual" grouping for the "highest" function dealing with the internal world.
SJ<=>Si
NJ<=>Ni
FP<=>Fi
TP<=>Ti

 

[Cimarron]

Ah. Yes. I see what you were trying to do now. Basically, you wanted to group by the "highest" function used to deal with the external world.

So for dealing with external world:
FJ<=>Fe
TJ<=>Te
SP<=>Se
NP<=>Ne

For some reason, I thought you were just trying to modify Keirsey's Temperaments.

No, I found the justification afterwards. But thanks for giving me credit. Though at one point, I almost decided to spell out the list you posted above. I decided against it because I thought it would be deceiving as to my original intentions...and indeed, it seems it would have been.

I set out originally to find a grouping system based on something more consistent than what Keirsey had.

 

[nightning]

No, it's like saying you don't need to know where the sand came from to make the bricks with which a house was built, when you're deciding whether to buy it or not.

But theories aren't tangible like bricks and houses. A theory that isn't understood is for all practicality useless. That's not the same for houses. You can live in a house without understanding how its built, but can you use theories if you don't know what it represents? A bit far fetched in my opinions.

 

[Jack Flak]

But theories aren't tangible like bricks and houses. A theory that isn't understood is for all practicality useless. That's not the same for houses. You can live in a house without understanding how its built, but can you use theories if you don't know what it represents? A bit far fetched in my opinions.

You have to trust that the house is built to spec.

 

[Oleander]

We use theories without full comprehension all the time. If we did not, we'd need to work everything out from first principles. All that matters is that we know that if necessary there is a rational chain that leads back the theory can be explained if we need it to be. It's about 80 years since anybody that drove a car needed to be a mechanic and 30 since everybody that used a computer needed to be their own programmer.

 

[redacted]

Hmmmm right. Bugger with 4 then... let's use 8.

INJ
ISJ
ENP
ESP

ITP
IFP
ETJ
EFJ

I like these ones. Jung's original types.

 

[Jack Flak]

Jung was a hack.