Why are the groupings.....

[Lily Bart]

Keirsey’s four temperaments were based on language and tool using preferences – characterized by an abstract or concrete approach to language and cooperative or utilitarian uses of tools. It’s difficult to try to link Keirsey’s and Meyers’ systems too neatly. Keirsey divided the temperaments as abstract cooperators (NF’s) concrete cooperators (SJ’s) abstract utilitarians (NT’s) and concrete utilitarians (SP’s). For whatever reason, this system seems to have a great deal of appeal, perhaps because of the universality of the idea of four temperaments. Meyers was more interested in how the eight components interplayed and would look at personality and collect data based on many different combinations – introverted and extraverted judgers and introverted and extraverted perceivers as one example – the way in which people orient to the external world. Keirsey also wrote that his system was based only on what could be observed, rather than what was in people's heads, which was how he differentiated Meyer's system from his own.

 

[Totenkindly]

This is Keirsey's mapping of the ancient temperaments; by way of Kretschmer's character styles; to the MBTI.

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.

Yup.

Keirsey was actually the first MBTI theory I ran across, so I was surprised when I realized the earlier theory held the ST-SF-NT-NF archetypes.

But most of it seems based on the fact that the SJ-SP-NT-NF groupings highlight some similarities in each group that are helpful in terms of understanding motivation and seeing working style.

I've definitely run across the feeling of weirdness being lumped with NTJs (as an NT)... but while I feel a lot in common with ENTP, despite NTJs "tracking well" in terms of our level of conversation, our working approaches are very different. I remember how bad my boss and I fought early on here at work (he's INTJ, with a lot of developed Te); it was essentially an NP vs NJ clash that made the sparks fly.

I understand NFPs in terms of working style (and we have a lot of fun together and get along well), but priorities and motivations are different, where the priorities are closer with NTJs.

ENFJs are more similar to ESFJs primarily and INFJs secondarily, and ENTJs to ESTJs primarily and INTJs secondarily.

Based on my experience, I would tend to agree with that... whatever it means. I think it's a matter of working style -- they present similarly in terms of energy. I wonder if the comparison holds up in an in-depth conversation of needs, worldview, and priorities, though.

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

Well, if you look at function breakdown, INFJ and INTJ *are* more similar than INFP. The BEST matchup in INTJ/INFP is Te secondary (INTJ) to Te inferior (INFP)... and things involving inferiors are hit or miss, it depends on whether it's been developed and could just be a disaster.

INFP = Fi + Ne + Si + Te
INFJ = Ni + Fe + Ti + Se
INTJ = Ni + Te + Fi + Se

The most obvious fundamental function (Ni) is shared by INxJ, whereas the INFP has a judging function as primary and exposes the perceiving function. So, look and feel-wise, the INFJ and INTJ will look a lot more alike.. it's just that they tend to focus in different spheres (Fe vs Te)... but HOW they operate in those spheres (with Ni as the driver) is a match.

I do get a kick out of hearing my INTJ boss and INFP coworker chat, they have a great time together. He seems to be acquiring a really strong sense of his values at this stage of life, and she taps into that when they talk since she's very Fi in her approach.

 

[Eric B]

+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.

In those cases, it would probably be from the common dominant extraverted functions they share (Whether P or J) with the types having them in second as "secondarily" similar.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

But most of it seems based on the fact that the SJ-SP-NT-NF groupings highlight some similarities in each group that are helpful in terms of understanding motivation and seeing working style.

I agree. I don't have a huge problem with the current groupings, although NP, NJ, SP, and SJ could also be feasible.

Based on my experience, I would tend to agree with that... whatever it means. I think it's a matter of working style -- they present similarly in terms of energy. I wonder if the comparison holds up in an in-depth conversation of needs, worldview, and priorities, though.

It would probably still be very similar. ESFJs' and ENFJs' Fe leads them to have similar needs and priorites, in my experience, even if the way they go about achieving these goals could be very different.

In those cases, it would probably be from the common dominant extraverted functions they share (Whether P or J) with the types having them in second as "secondarily" similar.

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

 

[Athenian200]

But most of it seems based on the fact that the SJ-SP-NT-NF groupings highlight some similarities in each group that are helpful in terms of understanding motivation and seeing working style.

I would question, though... are the similarities highlighted really the most significant ones? Or do they just seem that way because it's what people are used to?

Based on my experience, I would tend to agree with that... whatever it means. I think it's a matter of working style -- they present similarly in terms of energy. I wonder if the comparison holds up in an in-depth conversation of needs, worldview, and priorities, though.

It does for myself and INTJs, anyway. We have very similar needs and worldviews. They complain about their NTP neighbors, while we complain about our NFP neighbors. I would say the only thing the NTs have in common are certain priorities related to N and T (big surprise), and only some of those. They have completely different motivations for valuing the same things. On top of that, there's a clear difference in more major, observable priorities than just N and T... the INTJ cares more about effectiveness towards a goal and external organization, and can be quite lazy about analysis or definition. The INTP is the opposite. In many ways, they're closer to being opposite than being the same. Even in casual observation, there's a huge difference between those two approaches.

Well, if you look at function breakdown, INFJ and INTJ *are* more similar than INFP. The BEST matchup in INTJ/INFP is Te secondary (INTJ) to Te inferior (INFP)... and things involving inferiors are hit or miss, it depends on whether it's been developed and could just be a disaster.

INFP = Fi + Ne + Si + Te
INFJ = Ni + Fe + Ti + Se
INTJ = Ni + Te + Fi + Se

The most obvious fundamental function (Ni) is shared by INxJ, whereas the INFP has a judging function as primary and exposes the perceiving function. So, look and feel-wise, the INFJ and INTJ will look a lot more alike.. it's just that they tend to focus in different spheres (Fe vs Te)... but HOW they operate in those spheres (with Ni as the driver) is a match.

I do get a kick out of hearing my INTJ boss and INFP coworker chat, they have a great time together. He seems to be acquiring a really strong sense of his values at this stage of life, and she taps into that when they talk since she's very Fi in her approach.

I agree with all of that. INTJs and INFPs get along pretty well.

One thing I'd note is that I think the current temperament layout works a lot better for T or F dominant Intuitives than for N dominant types. They inherently see N as filtered mostly by T and F, while we don't, and may even be confused on that letter.

I think the main reason people cling to the current system is because they've based a lot of their experiences on it, see things in terms of it, and feel that a new system has to prove itself more beneficial than the current one to justify a change... which there are endless rationalizations to prevent from happening, since MBTI isn't objective in the first place.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

One thing I'd note is that I think the current temperament layout works a lot better for T or F dominant Intuitives than for N dominant types. They inherently see N as filtered mostly by T and F, while we don't, and may even be confused on that letter.

Yes, I sometimes think I only use Fe to serve Ni. This may not be healthy...

 

[Totenkindly]

I would question, though... are the similarities highlighted really the most significant ones? Or do they just seem that way because it's what people are used to?

Well, what I was suggesting is that groupings are determined by goal. If a particular grouping serves the goal you had in mind, then you use that grouping. If you have different priorities/things you want to achieve, then some groupings aren't as useful.

(As a really dumb example that still highlights the point, you can group people by coffee interest and this makes sense if you are screening for a coffee-consumer demographic; it doesn't make sense if you are looking for dog lovers. Then you might want to group people differently. The groups are all valid approaches, just not as useful determined by purpose.)

the INTJ cares more about effectiveness towards a goal and external organization, and can be quite lazy about analysis or definition. The INTP is the opposite. In many ways, they're closer to being opposite than being the same. Even in casual observation, there's a huge difference between those two approaches.

Yes. For one, my boss judged interest/commitment partly as getting closure on tasks, while I judged it by thoroughly understanding the task in question and covering all the bases regardless of closure... and if I didn't have the right answer, I just wouldn't answer anything. Needless to say, we had some really big issues, but both of us were actually trying to be positive.

 

[Athenian200]

Well, what I was suggesting is that groupings are determined by goal. If a particular grouping serves the goal you had in mind, then you use that grouping. If you have different priorities/things you want to achieve, then some groupings aren't as useful.

I agree.

Although I would say one thing that annoys me is the asymmetrical system. It very strongly conveys an N bias, by implying that Ns are "deeper" and are more affected by T/F than J/P. Which, in my (albeit limited) experience, they're not. Also, there's a little bit of unfairness (in my view) that SFJs and STJs are highly compatible and similar in many ways, and get to be categorized together... while NFJs get stuck with NFPs who we have to struggle to understand, and NTJs get stuck with NTPs, who they have to struggle to understand.

(As a really dumb example that still highlights the point, you can group people by coffee interest and this makes sense if you are screening for a coffee-consumer demographic; it doesn't make sense if you are looking for dog lovers. Then you might want to group people differently. The groups are all valid approaches, just not as useful determined by purpose.)

The question is, what should our purpose be, and is NT/NF really more effective for that?

Yes. For one, my boss judged interest/commitment partly as getting closure on tasks, while I judged it by thoroughly understanding the task in question and covering all the bases regardless of closure... and if I didn't have the right answer, I just wouldn't answer anything. Needless to say, we had some really big issues, but both of us were actually trying to be positive.

I know what you mean. I know that I find NFPs using Fi are often really "heavy" and their perspectives don't make any sense to me. While an NTJ using Fi seems to apply it in a more relevant way that's easy to "get." They say the same thing about Ti, that they'd rather listen to my Ti than an NTPs, because I know how to make it relevant to their goals, rather than just pushing it in their face all the time with an assumption of relevance.

I'm not sure if this will help your interactions with NTJs, but I thought I'd point it out. They complain mostly that NTPs assume that thorough understanding is relevant to what they're trying to do, and don't seem to understand the relative importance of understanding in relation to the significance and difficulty of the goal. So it seems, to them, like the NTP doesn't care about the goal, and just wants everything to be useless/pointless yet consistent with some kind of logic that isn't even meaningful.

NTPs never seem like this to me, though (until an INTJ points it out, and then I can feel like I was deceived into wasting my time by them), and I'm not sure why.

 

[Totenkindly]

Although I would say one thing that annoys me is the asymmetrical system. It very strongly conveys an N bias, by implying that Ns are "deeper" and are more affected by T/F than J/P. Which, in my (albeit limited) experience, they're not.

Ironically, while there might be bias since Keirsey is an N, it could also mean that he (1) understands those groupings better because he is N and doesn't understand S as well and (2) there's a bias when people automatically read bias into a grouping pattern. What you state here to be your perception wasn't necessarily his perception, and he might have made that pairing for perfectly valid reasons to suit his goals, rather than trying to project that N is deeper in some way; the bias in this instance would be on the part of the reader.

Also, there's a little bit of unfairness (in my view) that SFJs and STJs are highly compatible and similar in many ways, and get to work together... while NFJs get stuck with NFPs who we have to struggle to understand, and NTJs get stuck with NTPs, who they have to struggle to understand.

Well, then, I guess S's actually are better off after all -- maybe Keirsey likes them better!

here is my take on it (although I'm still not sure, I'm just thinking out loud):

Si is one reality. the goal is always to use the known reality as the standard which one applies one judging's function towards. So in this case there is a connection for SJ, at least... they're working towards these common goals, the difference is simply in approach (T is impersonal, F is personal/social).. but they are still having the same groupmind, same goal, same standard, and just working in a complementary fashion to flesh out that picture.

Ni is infinite realities that are rifled through. In this case, the judging function is more much important in terms of determining goal, thus there's a bigger delineation between NTJ and NFJ -- their goals (I think) are more affected by their judging functions.

I can't comment on ESxJ. In those cases, the judging function actually rules, and you'll see a flex in them that you do not see as much in ISxJ -- they will changing their processes to accommodate changes in the external world, whereas ISxJ fights external change by nature using their inward Si image as the standard.

I'm not sure if this will help your interactions with NTJs, but I thought I'd point it out. They complain mostly that NTPs assume that thorough understanding is relevant to what they're trying to do, and don't seem to understand the relative importance of understanding in relation to the significance and difficulty of the goal. So it seems, to them, like the NTP doesn't care about the goal, and just wants everything to be useless/pointless yet consistent with some kind of logic that isn't even apparent.

yes, that is part of the shift we both had to make in order to work better together; we both adjusted to each other's needs.

NTPs never seem like this to me, though, and I'm not sure why.

ok, For my input to you: Any frustration I have had with you in the past is based on (1) rigidity in intuition, you seem to skip over lots of possibilities that might be a better fit than the one you're focusing on and (2) a leap to judgment -- judging of someone's motives and even suggesting they're "bad" -- based on the singular and possibly inaccurate view you were taking.

I react really poorly to that sort of thing, it goes against the spirit of fair play to me; INTP is all about looking for the "probable fit" and trying to keep one's values/feelings OUT of the evaluation process unless they are relevant.

for the record, I get along with you much better than I used to, and I think as you get more life experience and more possibilities become apparent to you, the judgment thing will keep lessening.

 

[Athenian200]

Ironically, while there might be bias since Keirsey is an N, it could also mean that he (1) understands those groupings better because he is N and doesn't understand S as well and (2) there's a bias when people automatically read bias into a grouping pattern. What you state here to be your perception wasn't necessarily his perception, and he might have made that pairing for perfectly valid reasons to suit his goals, rather than trying to project that N is deeper in some way; the bias in this instance would be on the part of the reader.

Why is Keirsey's perspective more valuable than anyone elses? That's what everyone keeps implying, and I find it to be mildly annoying and deferent behavior.

Also, why should we assume we have the same goals Keirsey did? What were his goals? What are ours?

Si is one reality. the goal is always to use the known reality as the standard which one applies one judging's function towards. So in this case there is a connection for SJ, at least... they're working towards these common goals, the difference is simply in approach (T is impersonal, F is personal/social).. but they are still having the same groupmind, same goal, same standard, and just working in a complementary fashion to flesh out that picture.

Ni is infinite realities that are rifled through. In this case, the judging function is more much important in terms of determining goal, thus there's a bigger delineation between NTJ and NFJ -- their goals (I think) are more affected by their judging functions.

I can't comment on ESxJ. In those cases, the judging function actually rules, and you'll see a flex in them that you do not see as much in ISxJ -- they will changing their processes to accommodate changes in the external world, whereas ISxJ fights external change by nature using their inward Si image as the standard.

I can see how it would seem like that from the outside. But there's an important connection that's formed from that very ability to rifle through infinite realities. Some of this is probably because you know what Si feels like, but Ni is alien enough that you focus mostly on the kind of goals that are set.
The thing is, Ni is ALSO one reality, in the sense that all NJs have the ability to move to any part of it for a moment (regardless of their goals). It's kind of like a 4th dimensional version of Si, if you will. It's more amorphous, but that doesn't mean it isn't coherent and can't be connected over.

Ti (possibly combined with Si) kind of forces you to take a more solid view of what things are and what they mean, and that makes it a lot harder for you to understand what NJs do.

yes, that is part of the shift we both had to make in order to work better together; we both adjusted to each other's needs.

I'm glad to hear that. It's good that you worked it out.

ok, For my input to you: Any frustration I have had with you in the past is based on (1) rigidity in intuition, you seem to skip over lots of possibilities that might be a better fit than the one you're focusing on and (2) a leap to judgment -- judging of someone's motives and even suggesting they're "bad" -- based on the singular and possibly inaccurate view you were taking.

Well, it's not that I'm skipping over them, so much as it's just not apparent to me that there are other (good) possibilities than the ones I'm focusing on. When they're pointed out, I can't really gauge if they're possible or not, and my inclination is to think that I would have seen how it's possible if it were, or that it's too complicated, not feasible for me because of my specific situation, etc. I don't have a very good sense of what's possible, honestly. That's a weakness I can admit in myself. You seem to think a sense of possibilities and which are realistic is obvious, while to me, they're not.

And number 2... well, that's paranoia. I'd rather be safe than sorry. I have the illusion that it's safer to judge people quickly than it is to risk sitting there and waiting to see what happens. I feel like I'm "leaving myself open to attack," to speak. And you've got to remember... my view SEEMS accurate to me. If there's nothing to suggest that it's inaccurate other than a few people whining/bitching at me while others are agreeing with me, then it seems like it's more likely to be that other group of people that has the misunderstanding.

I react really poorly to that sort of thing, it goes against the spirit of fair play to me; INTP is all about looking for the "probable fit" and trying to keep one's values/feelings OUT of the evaluation process unless they are relevant.

for the record, I get along with you much better than I used to, and I think as you get more life experience and more possibilities become apparent to you, the judgment thing will keep lessening.

Well, thanks, I guess. Umm... I don't appreciate basing things on "life experience," because that sounds like "age." And it's not true that an older person will necessary have a better idea of how life works than a younger one. Oh, wait... you meant "life experiences," didn't you? That's not a reference to age, that's a reference to how many things a person has done and seen (there are some 17-16 year olds that have seen/done things I haven't). That would be a lot more relevant (IMO) than passage of time... some people live a long life, but never venture outside the worldview or experiences they grew up with.

I hope we can keep on finding ways of understanding each other, and being less annoyed by each other.

 

[BerberElla]

Thanks for explaining it all to me those who replied. I must admit I'm more sold on the idea of NP NJ groupings myself now that I've read the replies, it's nice to see I'm not the only one.

 

[Eric B]

Ironically, while there might be bias since Keirsey is an N, it could also mean that he (1) understands those groupings better because he is N and doesn't understand S as well and (2) there's a bias when people automatically read bias into a grouping pattern. What you state here to be your perception wasn't necessarily his perception, and he might have made that pairing for perfectly valid reasons to suit his goals, rather than trying to project that N is deeper in some way; the bias in this instance would be on the part of the reader.

I agree.

Although I would say one thing that annoys me is the asymmetrical system. It very strongly conveys an N bias, by implying that Ns are "deeper" and are more affected by T/F than J/P. Which, in my (albeit limited) experience, they're not. Also, there's a little bit of unfairness (in my view) that SFJs and STJs are highly compatible and similar in many ways, and get to be categorized together... while NFJs get stuck with NFPs who we have to struggle to understand, and NTJs get stuck with NTPs, who they have to struggle to understand.

All of this would still assume that the groupings are arbitrary. Again, Keirsey's groups are basically pre-existing units: Kretschmer's character styles. Which had apparently followed Kant's interpretation of the Galen temperaments.

here is my take on it (although I'm still not sure, I'm just thinking out loud):

Si is one reality. the goal is always to use the known reality as the standard which one applies one judging's function towards. So in this case there is a connection for SJ, at least... they're working towards these common goals, the difference is simply in approach (T is impersonal, F is personal/social).. but they are still having the same groupmind, same goal, same standard, and just working in a complementary fashion to flesh out that picture.

Ni is infinite realities that are rifled through. In this case, the judging function is more much important in terms of determining goal, thus there's a bigger delineation between NTJ and NFJ -- their goals (I think) are more affected by their judging functions.

that sounds like basically the right idea.
I had tied them together with the Galen concepts by pointing out that the Se preference makes the SP (Sanguine) quicker to take action (Which is the SP's "pragmatism" and the Sanguine's expressiveness), and also quicker to drop responsibilities, which ultimately ties into the Sanguine's "people-focus" and the SP's "motive-focus".
Si preference makes the SJ (Melancholic) slower to take action (and hence "cooperative" and reserved), and also task or structure-focused. Everything has to line up with what is familiar.

For people whose preference is intuition, the action skills will not be determined by whether the perception is inward or outward. That is too "concrete", where they are abstract. So rather, it will be the judging function the perception is paired with that determines their action. Abstract Thinking will be more pragmatic and structure focused (the Choleric's aggressiveness and task focus), and abstract Feeling will be more cooperative and motive focused (the Phlegmatic's being a catalyst moving others to action, and people-focused).

So this is why the symmetry is broken across S/N. Even though the cognitive processes may look like the best thing types can have in common, the temperaments, keep in mind, have the same core needs, and for those with a concrete preference, they are tied to the Sensing attitude, and for those with an abstract preference, it is just the presence of the same two functions, regardless of the attitude, that meet the need.

Membership/belonging (in a structure) responsibility and duty: Si
Freedom to act, make an impact: Se
Mastery and Control/Knowledge and Competence: Ne+Ti or Ni+Te
Meaning & significance/Unique identity: Ne+Fi or Ni+Fe.

 

[Eric B]

Here's a new diagram showing the "twist" from the original Galen temperaments (And DISC and Social Styles) to the Kant/Kretschmer/Keirsey system:

 

[Jeffster]

Why is Keirsey's perspective more valuable than anyone elses? That's what everyone keeps implying, and I find it to be mildly annoying and deferent behavior.

In another thread, you said function orders in type were true just because Jung said so and he just "knows." Why is Jung's perspective more valuable than anyone else's?

 

[wolfy]

Wolfy's random thought for the day...

If there's more than one way to skin a cat, I don't want to know. One is enough.

 

[Athenian200]

All of this would still assume that the groupings are arbitrary. Again, Keirsey's groups are basically pre-existing units: Kretschmer's character styles. Which had apparently followed Kant's interpretation of the Galen temperaments.

Once again, why are those the right ones? Why is using the same old four humor categories that have been recycled by Hippocrates, Galen, Kant, Kretschmer, and now Keirsey, automatically the right choice? You aren't even questioning it. Why? All of your answers are based on past categorizations.

For people whose preference is intuition, the action skills will not be determined by whether the perception is inward or outward. That is too "concrete", where they are abstract. So rather, it will be the judging function the perception is paired with that determines their action. Abstract Thinking will be more pragmatic and structure focused (the Choleric's aggressiveness and task focus), and abstract Feeling will be more cooperative and motive focused (the Phlegmatic's being a catalyst moving others to action, and people-focused).

So this is why the symmetry is broken across S/N. Even though the cognitive processes may look like the best thing types can have in common, the temperaments, keep in mind, have the same core needs, and for those with a concrete preference, they are tied to the Sensing attitude, and for those with an abstract preference, it is just the presence of the same two functions, regardless of the attitude, that meet the need.

Membership/belonging (in a structure) responsibility and duty: Si
Freedom to act, make an impact: Se
Mastery and Control/Knowledge and Competence: Ne+Ti or Ni+Te
Meaning & significance/Unique identity: Ne+Fi or Ni+Fe.

That's a nice theory, and it looks good on paper. The question, then, is why do NFJs find it so much harder to understand NFPs, and vice-versa, than STJs do SFJs, or SFPs do STPs? That so-called "core need" is approached so differently that I can't understand their way of seeing things at all. They may be pursuing something that seems kind of similar on ONE LEVEL that seems rather arbitrarily defined, but it's so different on other levels that they can hardly be compared. You've basically described the theory behind dividing the temperaments in that way, but you haven't shown why that theory is more justified. You act as if it doesn't need any justification because it's already established.

 

[Athenian200]

In another thread, you said function orders in type were true just because Jung said so and he just "knows." Why is Jung's perspective more valuable than anyone else's?

It isn't.

I was hoping someone would challenge it.

You haven't yet learned that I never say exactly what I mean. Half the time, I actually say the OPPOSITE of what I mean.

 

[Jeffster]

It isn't.

I was hoping someone would challenge it.

So you like being found inconsistent?

 

[Athenian200]

So you like being found inconsistent?

I don't like being held to the standard of consistency in the first place, honestly. At least not the kind you're talking about.

 

[Jeffster]

I don't like being held to the standard of consistency in the first place, honestly.

Good grief.