I STILL don't understand MBTI.

[BlackCat]

I'm beginning to think that his system might just work better for Sensors, honestly.

Or you just don't understand it, hence the purpose of this thread.

 

[Athenian200]

Or you just don't understand it, hence the purpose of this thread.

It's so vague it could mean almost anything. That's what I see as the problem with temperament and MBTI. It makes sense until you try to apply it, and then... the nature of details and how people really are, and what they're affected by, make it not add up. That's been my experience.

Reality isn't doing a good job of falling in line with the abstraction correctly.

 

[garbage]

I'm beginning to think that his system might just work better for Sensors, honestly.

There would be more credit to this if the forum weren't dominated by intuitives..

 

[Litvyak]

MBTI is a pair of goggles you put over your eyes - a buildable set of Schemas for you to help digest the world. That's it, no truth, no grand revelations...... just another crazy human perception.
Asking what a persons "true type" is is like asking what "true Orange" looks like - its just a bad question that leads nowhere

^QFT

 

[Athenian200]

There would be more credit to this if the forum weren't dominated by intuitives..

Well, actually, I have a theory.

Intuitives don't get Keirsey's system, and usually end up questioning it and looking at the theory behind it. Then they come on this forum and theorize about various ways to make it make sense, and then compare that to their experiences. The tool becomes a theoretical playground and way of making intellectual conversation rather than a serious measurement of people for us, in other words.

Sensors usually don't need to come here, because they read Keirsey, get what he's talking about, and never question it because they "just see" what he's talking about in the environment via their senses and realize it works for them.

What do you think?

 

[garbage]

...

I kind of like it.

Another take could be that sensors probably just take the system as it is.. not a lot to discuss. Intuitives try to add useless things like function order, shadow functions, type pairings, and the like to it, and that has meaty, but overall fruitless, discussion that's ripe for forum content.

 

[Jeffster]

I have read it. It was the first book on it I ever read, and I've been over it several times. But I don't get it, and can't see those traits in people. I also think the stereotypes are ridiculously exaggerated in it.

What is "it?" Are you referring to the original "Please Understand Me"? If so, I'd let you know that Keirsey has greatly revised and extended his presentation since his original book. But, anyway, can you tell me what "stereotypes" in "it" are ridiculously exaggerated? I mean specifically, not a general impression you got.

I'm beginning to think that his system might just work better for Sensors, honestly.

In a sense (hehheh) I agree with you. In as much as the focus on observable behavior is something that Sensing types do more naturally, perhaps our minds are not as clouded with vague theoretical notions and impressions that we can observe these things more clearly when we are looking for them?

However, I don't believe it is only Sensors who can do this. Obviously, Keirsey himself is an Intuitive type, and I have seen others such as one of my co-workers (who is INFJ) grasp the system quite well and do a bang-up job of observing these behaviors in people she encounters, especially her fellow Idealists, who she seems to now almost have a radar for.

It's so vague it could mean almost anything. That's what I see as the problem with temperament and MBTI. It makes sense until you try to apply it, and then... the nature of details and how people really are, and what they're affected by, make it not add up. That's been my experience.

Reality isn't doing a good job of falling in line with my abstraction correctly.

Heh. Yeah, my experience has been the opposite. Since I started getting into this stuff last year, I have started paying attention to the people I know the best, mostly family and co-workers, and have seen the patterns play themselves out right in front of me time and time again.

In our office, we have an SP boss whose stimulation-seeking, live-in-the-moment personality is a huge factor on the way the company operates. His senior subordinate, another SP, is the person I've related to most in my years with the company, and he is the extroverted version of the boss, living for his next I-phone application, playing Guitar Hero and driving his Corvette fast.

Our two SJ general managers are the E/I sides of the STJ coin, and their top priority of security-seeking comes out in everything they talk about, from stock market fluctuations, to their vacation bargains, retirement opportunities, family loyalties, and comparisons of their inspecting and supervising of employees and the decline of the work ethic and "proper" parenting.

Our lone NF, and lone female of the office, tends to tune out much of the daily goings-on and get lost in her fantasy-filled audiobooks, all the while dreaming of her planned future running a petting zoo type place with rabbits and other animals. When she thinks about the way our company is run, it makes her sad, because she sees the human problems that exist but is powerless to change the policies she believes are stifling it from becoming what she can envision it as, the same way she viewed her own store when she was a manager running it, with concern for all the individuals that worked for her and their unique needs. Her "identity-seeking" nature comes through regularly as she constantly re-examines her place in the company, her family situations, and her basic spiritual needs and goals, seeing a much larger picture of the world than her concrete co-workers who are focusing on minute details that seem so trivial to her.

We don't currently have an NT type in the office (we had one as a GM but he was fired last year) but we do have one store manager that has tested as such, and upon reading Keirsey's chapter on "Rationals" in "Please Understand Me II" declared "By jove, I think he's got me pegged!" His "knowledge-seeking" personality keeps him checking out the latest political news in addition to the latest in his Dungeons & Dragons games and the newest discoveries of anomalies in outer space.

No single person fits every literal word of a type description 100 percent, but just in the time that I have actually been looking for them, I have seen a ton of examples of the basic temperament behaviors going off like fireworks all around me, and I have about a 90 percent success rate in guessing an individual's temperament from a few conversations with that person, and then testing them and being correct. So, as much as it makes any sense at all to try to group people for whatever purpose, I have seen the validity of these particular groupings with my own eyes and ears over and over again.

And keep in mind this is all coming from someone who once declared that "psychology is a fake profession" and that "some egghead that wrote a book a long time ago has no chance of understanding me, and probably no other person. People are all unique and can't be put in boxes just to make some elitist snobs feel like they know stuff." I don't work for Keirsey or the Myers family, or anybody else who has a stake in people accepting any particular theory, and just a few years ago, I scoffed at the very concept. So I of all people had to be convinced the hard way, by actually seeing the practical application of it for myself.

 

[Athenian200]

What is "it?" Are you referring to the original "Please Understand Me"? If so, I'd let you know that Keirsey has greatly revised and extended his presentation since his original book. But, anyway, can you tell me what "stereotypes" in "it" are ridiculously exaggerated? I mean specifically, not a general impression you got.

Yes, you guessed correctly.

I'm pretty sure there was a story about an SP who snuck off to Vegas and drank as an example of the stereotype, for instance. Surprised you don't remember that. That's probably the source of the whole "SPs are totally hedonistic and decadent" stereotype.

I don't remember as much with the other types, though... all I can remember are general impressions of those.

In a sense (hehheh) I agree with you. In as much as the focus on observable behavior is something that Sensing types do more naturally, perhaps our minds are not as clouded with vague theoretical notions and impressions that we can observe these things more clearly when we are looking for them?

However, I don't believe it is only Sensors who can do this. Obviously, Keirsey himself is an Intuitive type, and I have seen others such as one of my co-workers (who is INFJ) grasp the system quite well and do a bang-up job of observing these behaviors in people she encounters, especially her fellow Idealists, who she seems to now almost have a radar for.

Yeah. The thing about me is, I don't like typing people based on observable behavior, because most of it could just be social programming. I guess I think type has more to do with figuring out how a person sees the world, than how the world sees a person. Figuring out how the world sees a person is easier, so now I can see how you're doing it.

No single person fits every literal word of a type description 100 percent, but just in the time that I have actually been looking for them, I have seen a ton of examples of the basic temperament behaviors going off like fireworks all around me, and I have about a 90 percent success rate in guessing an individual's temperament from a few conversations with that person, and then testing them and being correct. So, as much as it makes any sense at all to try to group people for whatever purpose, I have seen the validity of these particular groupings with my own eyes and ears over and over again.

I guess I just don't know how to "see" basic temperament behaviors. To me, behaviors just look like independent, tangible events with thousands of possible causes, motivations, and connections. You can come to predict what behavior is likely in a particular situation through observation, but you can't see why it's likely, or how it would change if the situation changed in even a small way.

And keep in mind this is all coming from someone who once declared that "psychology is a fake profession" and that "some egghead that wrote a book a long time ago has no chance of understanding me, and probably no other person. People are all unique and can't be put in boxes just to make some elitist snobs feel like they know stuff." I don't work for Keirsey or the Myers family, or anybody else who has a stake in people accepting any particular theory, and just a few years ago, I scoffed at the very concept. So I of all people had to be convinced the hard way, by actually seeing the practical application of it for myself.

I guess I believe that the theory has potential, but I don't believe it's reasonably applicable in it's current state. I mean, you're seeing it, but you're seeing it because you've unconsciously accepted particular assumptions. As long as you accept certain assumptions and correlations between type and reality (especially unconsciously), you can see type clearly. The problem is that the assumptions are unfounded and could be explained in many ways.

Well, I guess I've decided to try and hold off on application, and go back to not putting people in boxes. It looked promising, but it turns out it just doesn't work for me after all.

One thing that bothers me about temperament. SJ is associated with Melancholic, while NF is associated with Choleric. How many Choleric ESJs and Melancholic INFs (like me) do you know?

 

[NewEra]

What does all of this mean?

You have to look at it in a more fuzzy sense. Don't look at the exact words and what they say. Get the definitions from many sources, and then combine them into one, that should help.

 

[Athenian200]

You have to look at it in a more fuzzy sense. Don't look at the exact words and what they say. Get the definitions from many sources, and then combine them into one, that should help.

Oh. Think in fuzzy terms? I was afraid that's what people would say.

That's really hard for me, I like knowing precisely what I'm dealing with, what it is and what it isn't. Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand this stuff...

 

[wolfy]

Oh. Think in fuzzy terms? I was afraid that's what people would say.

That's really hard for me, I like knowing precisely what I'm dealing with. Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand this stuff...

You probably just need an objective for using it beyond understanding the system.

 

[NewEra]

Oh. Think in fuzzy terms? I was afraid that's what people would say.

That's really hard for me, I like knowing precisely what I'm dealing with, what it is and what it isn't. Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand this stuff...

I wouldn't say you're not smart enough. I would say you're very smart for analyzing this so much.

 

[sleepy]

Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand this stuff...

That is a possibility worthy of consideration. But this in itself points to being smart

 

[Snow Turtle]

It's so vague it could mean almost anything. That's what I see as the problem with temperament and MBTI. It makes sense until you try to apply it, and then... the nature of details and how people really are, and what they're affected by, make it not add up. That's been my experience.

Reality isn't doing a good job of falling in line with the abstraction correctly.

Well, actually, I have a theory.

Intuitives don't get Keirsey's system, and usually end up questioning it and looking at the theory behind it. Then they come on this forum and theorize about various ways to make it make sense, and then compare that to their experiences. The tool becomes a theoretical playground and way of making intellectual conversation rather than a serious measurement of people for us, in other words.

Sensors usually don't need to come here, because they read Keirsey, get what he's talking about, and never question it because they "just see" what he's talking about in the environment via their senses and realize it works for them.

What do you think?

I kind of like it.

Another take could be that sensors probably just take the system as it is.. not a lot to discuss. Intuitives try to add useless things like function order, shadow functions, type pairings, and the like to it, and that has meaty, but overall fruitless, discussion that's ripe for forum content.

Long post

Yep! That was rather cool. Jeffstar seems to work on a basic skeleton, rather than the specifics. Obviously most actions will have many different motivations therefore it's better to find the common factor behind each one actions for example the SJ overall will have security seeking attitudes. That exists within myself.

You can get an impression off most people on what their temperament is. Yes, it's based on preconcieved ideas and therefore it might go against this idea that type occurs from birth. I think of external behaviours as manifestations of internal thought processes, they're both connected.

 

[garbage]

Oh, come on. "Could be" doesn't imply "is."

 

[Snow Turtle]

Oh, come on. "Could be" doesn't imply "is."

The possability hurts me T.T

 

[Athenian200]

Yep! That was rather cool. Jeffstar seems to work on a basic skeleton, rather than the specifics. Obviously most actions will have many different motivations therefore it's better to find the common factor behind each one actions for example the SJ overall will have security seeking attitudes. That exists within myself.

Yeah, but don't IJ types in general have security seeking attitudes? It seems like ESJs are less security focused and more achievement focused, for instance.

That's an example of why I don't get it, I suppose.

You can get an impression off most people on what their temperament is. Yes, it's based on preconcieved ideas and therefore it might go against this idea that type occurs from birth. I think of external behaviours as manifestations of internal thought processes, they're both connected.

Good god, I just don't see why that stupid temperament scheme is so touted. :steam: What's so special about THOSE particular combinations of letters that makes them easier to spot? I don't see it, I just don't see it...

Maybe I just hate it because it doesn't fit my behavior well. The only thing you can tell about me from my temperament is that I'm not an SP.

I look SJ-ish due to my IJ, NF due to my obsession with identity and self-definition, and NT due to my intellectual bent. I think temperament schemes are mapped in a way that's messier and less meaningful for INJs than any other type.

Sorry if I'm getting harsh and repetitive... I'm getting frustrated with everyone claiming something is there that I can't see. It's like having to listen to conversation about how helpful or aesthetic the colors are when you're colorblind.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Yeah, but don't IJ types in general have security seeking attitudes? It seems like ESJs are less security focused and more achievement focused, for instance.

Depends on the sort of security I'd imagine.
I don't really have a large enough INJ sample. Perhaps I'm better off just dealing with the four letters stand alone. I'm essentially claiming that Si has a distinct flavour to it, so while an ESJ might seem less security focused it'll have it there in the background.

Perhaps I don't deal with the temperaments as much as I believe I do. Hm.

Good god, I just don't see why that stupid temperament scheme is so touted. :steam: What's so special about THOSE particular combinations of letters that makes them easier to spot? I don't see it, I just don't see it...

Si and Se should be easy to spot. Then again it might just be me recgonising Si within another individual. I'd like to say that I use NF and NT, but I realise I just sort of deal with N first then apply the F/T so ignore that.

Maybe I just hate it because it doesn't fit my behavior well. The only thing you can tell about me from my temperament is that I'm not an SP.

I look SJ-ish due to my IJ, NF due to my obsession with identity and self-definition, and NT due to my intellectual bent. I think temperament schemes are mapped in a way that's messier and less meaningful for INJs than any other type.

Hehe. Guess that's true.
I could screw around and say that the SJ is due to the J, F is due to the obsession with personalisation and N or Ti due to the intellectual bent. What makes you identify with the NTs anyhow, it's not like intellectualism is only specific to NTs.

 

[Athenian200]

Depends on the sort of security I'd imagine.
I don't really have a large enough INJ sample. Perhaps I'm better off just dealing with the four letters stand alone. I'm essentially claiming that Si has a distinct flavour to it, so while an ESJ might seem less security focused it'll have it there in the background.

Perhaps I don't deal with the temperaments as much as I believe I do. Hm.

Huh. I guess that's right. I usually think of security as meaning keeping things out, keeping them from becoming difficult to predict. Not running around seeking to achieve something you don't technically need. ESJs might view achievement as a proactive kind of security, confronting the world before it confronts them, gaining more leverage over it so they have more to work with if things do go wrong. I suppose it's just hard for me to see ESJs as anything other than very well-organized, but kind of reckless, pushy, and ambitious. Then again, I suppose most E's are reckless by my standards.

Si and Se should be easy to spot. Then again it might just be me recgonising Si within another individual. I'd like to say that I use NF and NT, but I realise I just sort of deal with N first then apply the F/T so ignore that.

Oh, I guess that's my problem. I don't really know any Sensors, all the people I've bothered getting to know closely are Intuitive.

But yes... If I think about it, the difference between SP and SJ is pretty hard to miss.

Hehe. Guess that's true.
I could screw around and say that the SJ is due to the J, F is due to the obsession with personalisation and N or Ti due to the intellectual bent. What makes you identify with the NTs anyhow, it's not like intellectualism is only specific to NTs.

Well, not just intellectualism, but the whole perfectionism thing, curiosity, the desire to figure things out, etc.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Well, not just intellectualism, but the whole perfectionism thing, curiosity, the desire to figure things out, etc.

I'll try my best not to derail the thread too much but...

a) What's the cause of perfectionism?
b) Is curiosity and desire to figure out things really connected to NT or T?