Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
1,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)

DISC has two dichotomies; E/I and F/T (red, blue, yellow and green types)


Linda Berens


In-Charge: ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, ESTP (red)

Chart-the-Course: INTJ, ISTJ, INFJ, ISTP (blue)

Get-Things-Going: ENTP, ESFJ, ENFP, ESFP (yellow)

Behind-the-Scenes: INTP, ISFJ, INFP, ISFP (green)



Keirsey temperaments: SJ, SP, NF, NT


I think this is inaccurate since ENFJ is yellow, INTP is blue, INFJ is mostly green and ENTP is mostly red (see attached images
). Keirsey's second ring is the problem. What does he actually mean by cooperative vs. pragmatic? Aren't all Feeling types cooperative?



The four temperaments (Wikiped
ia)

Sanguine (SP)

The sanguine temperament is traditionally associated with air. People with this temperament tend to be lively, sociable, carefree, talkative, and pleasure-seeking. They may be warm-hearted and optimistic. They can make new friends easily, be imaginative and artistic, and often have many ideas.They can be flighty and changeable; thus sanguine personalities may struggle with following tasks all the way through and be chronically late or forgetful.

Pedagogically, they can be best reached through awakening their love for a subject and admiration of people.


Choleric (NJ)

The choleric temperament is traditionally associated with fire. People with this temperament tend to be egocentric and extroverted. They may be excitable, impulsive, and restless, with reserves of aggression, energy, and/or passion, and try to instill that in others.

They tend to be task-oriented people and are focused on getting a job done efficiently; their motto is usually "do it now." They can be ambitious, strong-willed and like to be in charge. They can show leadership, are good at planning, and are often practical and solution-oriented. They appreciate receiving respect and esteem for their work.

Pedagogically, they can be best reached through mutual respect and appropriate challenges that recognize their capacities.


Melancholic (NP)

The melancholic temperament is traditionally associated with the element of earth. People with this temperament may appear serious, introverted, cautious or even suspicious. They can become preoccupied with the tragedy and cruelty in the world and are susceptible to depression and moodiness. They may be focused and conscientious. They often prefer to do things themselves, both to meet their own standards and because they are not inherently sociable.

Pedagogically, they can be best met by awakening their sympathy for others and the suffering of the world.


Phlegmatic (SJ)

The phlegmatic temperament is traditionally associated with water. People with this temperament may be inward and private, thoughtful, reasonable, calm, patient, caring, and tolerant. They tend to have a rich inner life, seek a quiet, peaceful atmosphere, and be content with themselves. They tend to be steadfast, consistent in their habits, and thus steady and faithful friends.

Pedagogically, their interest is often awakened by experiencing others' interest in a subject.

People of this temperament may appear somewhat ponderous or clumsy. Their speech tends to be slow or appear hesitant.


Conclusion: DISC + the four
temperaments = MBTI

Do you agree or disagree with this viewpoint?




Text Font Line Design Parallel

Text Font Line


Recreation Games Dartboard Circle Precision sports

Circle Glass
Text Font Line
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
Largely, I think both DiSC and the four temperaments, given that they're (mostly) intended to operate independently of other personality theories, tend to represent stances that deviate from MBTI a bit, in that each type within these systems tends to contain something pertaining to each of the four MBTI dimensions, perhaps accentuating one dimension more than another. So I don't think a straight parallel can really be had.

That said, if I were to look at both systems as neatly dividing the sixteen MBTI types into four groups, the first problem with your take is that both theories clearly have something to say on I/E - Melancholic and Phlegmatic in the four temperaments, along with S and C in the DiSC, are clearly introverted, and the others extraverted. I'd agree that T/F is clearly the other dimension most pertinent to DiSC - for the reasons in my first paragraph, I wouldn't say it's a one-to-one correlation, but I think it's true to say that generally C and IT, S and IF, I and EF, D and ET all pair together. I think it's murkier with the four temperaments, but it certainly doesn't seem to me that they neatly divide along S/N and J/P lines, and I'd actually be more inclined to correlate them with DiSC (Melancholic and C, Phlegmatic and S, Sanguine and I, Choleric and D) than with specific MBTI types and preferences (beyond I/E).

The above notwithstanding, your model does accurately reach my type - Melancholic being NP and C being IT fits for an INTP - so I can't fault it on that.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
1,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Largely, I think both DiSC and the four temperaments, given that they're (mostly) intended to operate independently of other personality theories, tend to represent stances that deviate from MBTI a bit, in that each type within these systems tends to contain something pertaining to each of the four MBTI dimensions, perhaps accentuating one dimension more than another. So I don't think a straight parallel can really be had.

That said, if I were to look at both systems as neatly dividing the sixteen MBTI types into four groups, the first problem with your take is that both theories clearly have something to say on I/E - Melancholic and Phlegmatic in the four temperaments, along with S and C in the DiSC, are clearly introverted, and the others extraverted. I'd agree that T/F is clearly the other dimension most pertinent to DiSC - for the reasons in my first paragraph, I wouldn't say it's a one-to-one correlation, but I think it's true to say that generally C and IT, S and IF, I and EF, D and ET all pair together. I think it's murkier with the four temperaments, but it certainly doesn't seem to me that they neatly divide along S/N and J/P lines, and I'd actually be more inclined to correlate them with DiSC (Melancholic and C, Phlegmatic and S, Sanguine and I, Choleric and D) than with specific MBTI types and preferences (beyond I/E).

The above notwithstanding, your model does accurately reach my type - Melancholic being NP and C being IT fits for an INTP - so I can't fault it on that.
Yes, these descriptions of the four temperaments are very murky and the E/I dichotomy does overlap. Fortunately, the four temperaments are based on two dichotomies as well.

Five Temperaments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sanguine (SP) quick, impulsive, and relatively short-lived reactions. (hot/wet)

phlegmatic (SJ) a longer response-delay, but short-lived response. (cold/wet)

choleric (NJ) short response time-delay, but response sustained for a relatively long time. (hot/dry)

melancholic (NP) Also called "melancholy" - long response time-delay, response sustained at length, if not, seemingly, permanently. (cold/dry)

"From the beginning, with Galen's ancient temperaments, it was observed that pairs of temperaments shared certain traits in common... Therefore, it was evident that the sanguine and choleric shared a common trait: quickness of response, while the melancholy and phlegmatic shared the opposite, a longer response. The melancholy and choleric, however, shared a sustained response, and the sanguine and phlegmatic shared a short-lived response. That meant that the choleric and melancholy both would tend to hang on to emotions like anger, and thus appear more serious and critical than the fun-loving sanguine, and the peaceful phlegmatic. However, the choleric would be characterized by quick expressions of anger, while the melancholy would build up anger slowly, silently, before exploding. Also, the melancholy and sanguine would be sort of "opposites", as the choleric and phlegmatic, since they have opposite traits."


What do you think about Keirsey's temperaments? Can you explain the second ring; cooperative versus pragmatic (utilitarian)? Are xSTJs more cooperative than xSFPs?

"Keirsey uses the words cooperative (complying) and pragmatic (adaptive) when comparing the differing temperaments. People who are cooperative pay more attention to other people's opinions and are more concerned with doing the right thing. People who are pragmatic (utilitarian) pay more attention to their own thoughts or feelings and are more concerned with doing what works. There is no comparable idea of Myers or Jung that corresponds to this dichotomy, so this is a significant difference between Keirsey's work and that of Myers and Jung."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,303 Posts
I personally think it's generally:
ExxJ- Choleric
ExxP- Sanguine
Ixxx- Phlegmatic and Melancholic, it can vary because the J/P are very mixed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
Yes, these descriptions of the four temperaments are very murky and the E/I dichotomy does overlap. Fortunately, the four temperaments are based on two dichotomies as well.

Five Temperaments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sanguine (SP) quick, impulsive, and relatively short-lived reactions. (hot/wet)

phlegmatic (SJ) a longer response-delay, but short-lived response. (cold/wet)

choleric (NJ) short response time-delay, but response sustained for a relatively long time. (hot/dry)

melancholic (NP) Also called "melancholy" - long response time-delay, response sustained at length, if not, seemingly, permanently. (cold/dry)

"From the beginning, with Galen's ancient temperaments, it was observed that pairs of temperaments shared certain traits in common... Therefore, it was evident that the sanguine and choleric shared a common trait: quickness of response, while the melancholy and phlegmatic shared the opposite, a longer response. The melancholy and choleric, however, shared a sustained response, and the sanguine and phlegmatic shared a short-lived response. That meant that the choleric and melancholy both would tend to hang on to emotions like anger, and thus appear more serious and critical than the fun-loving sanguine, and the peaceful phlegmatic. However, the choleric would be characterized by quick expressions of anger, while the melancholy would build up anger slowly, silently, before exploding. Also, the melancholy and sanguine would be sort of "opposites", as the choleric and phlegmatic, since they have opposite traits."
Less "based on" two dichotomies and more incorporating them, I would say. I still don't see how the hot/cold and dry/wet dichotomies link to S/N and J/P centrally, either: "length of sustained response" (wet/dry) to S/N seems quite a stretch, and I'm not even sure how you've decided to set up J/P, since it doesn't match with the excerpt you've linked.

In any case, none of that discards the fact that I/E forms a significant part of the temperaments, so you've got a problem when you want to characterise a type like ISFP (a DiSC S + sanguine by you), since the more introverted ISFPs would be less likely to fit with sanguine given its extraverted nature (to show but one example). I think it's perhaps a touch disingenuous to equate the temperaments - and, to a lesser extent, DiSC - to just two MBTI dimensions, when it's clear each of the types in those theories aren't exclusively framed like that (it's hard to doubt, for instance, that a Type C in DiSC matches up more with a J preference - being systematic, organised, orderly, &c. - than a P preference, which your theory fails to account for).

What do you think about Keirsey's temperaments? Can you explain the second ring; cooperative versus pragmatic (utilitarian)? Are xSTJs more cooperative than xSFPs?

"Keirsey uses the words cooperative (complying) and pragmatic (adaptive) when comparing the differing temperaments. People who are cooperative pay more attention to other people's opinions and are more concerned with doing the right thing. People who are pragmatic (utilitarian) pay more attention to their own thoughts or feelings and are more concerned with doing what works. There is no comparable idea of Myers or Jung that corresponds to this dichotomy, so this is a significant difference between Keirsey's work and that of Myers and Jung."
Kiersey's foundation is problematic - by splitting Ns on the T/F axis but Ss on the J/P, he's not comparing like-for-like - but, even ignoring that, is there any merit to the co-operative/utilitarian divide? Largely, SP/NT corresponds to TP (half the group are TPs, and all group members are either T or P) and SJ/NF to FJ (for the same reasons), so it's no surprise it falls apart when you compare the members of each group that least fit that split (as with your example of xSTJs and xSFPs), since it seems to be that which Kiersey is mostly aiming to describe... which I guess is brought about largely because of his failure to compare like-for-like.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
1,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I personally think it's generally:
ExxJ- Choleric
ExxP- Sanguine
Ixxx- Phlegmatic and Melancholic, it can vary because the J/P are very mixed.
Humorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sanguine: courageous, hopeful, playful, carefree

Choleric: ambitious, leader-like, restless, easily angered

Melancholic: despondent, quiet, analytical, serious

"They can become preoccupied with the tragedy and cruelty in the world and are susceptible to depression and moodiness"

Phlegmatic: calm, thoughtful, patient, peaceful


Are ESFJs easily angered?

Are ISFPs either analytical or patient?

Are ENFPs carefree?

Are ENTPs more courageous than ISTPs?

INTJs are neither melancholic nor phlegmatic. We get angry... ZERO depression or moodiness.







 

·
Host
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ VLFE
Joined
·
21,025 Posts
And yet, I tend to be a mix of Sanguine and Melancholic, and I'm ENTP. It's almost like the tides with me. I rush in and roll back out. I definitely and an initiator though...or is that instigator?
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
1,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
And yet, I tend to be a mix of Sanguine and Melancholic, and I'm ENTP. It's almost like the tides with me. I rush in and roll back out. I definitely and an initiator though...or is that instigator?
ENTP = active and outgoing (E) + task oriented (T) + melancholic (NP)

Do you agree?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,303 Posts
Humorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sanguine: courageous, hopeful, playful, carefree

Choleric: ambitious, leader-like, restless, easily angered

Melancholic: despondent, quiet, analytical, serious

"They can become preoccupied with the tragedy and cruelty in the world and are susceptible to depression and moodiness"

Phlegmatic: calm, thoughtful, patient, peaceful


Are ESFJs easily angered?

Are ISFPs either analytical or patient?

Are ENFPs carefree?

Are ENTPs more courageous than ISTPs?

INTJs are neither melancholic nor phlegmatic. We get angry... ZERO depression or moodiness.







Okay, I'm sold :3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
Aren't all Feeling types cooperative?
What do you think about Keirsey's temperaments? Can you explain the second ring; cooperative versus pragmatic (utilitarian)? Are xSTJs more cooperative than xSFPs?
This is one of those things that may surprise, but no. Not all Feeling types are necessarily cooperative, and not more cooperative than SJ types. What ISFPs are not (and probably INFPs) is diplomatic. We tend to be blunt and rather dismissive if you disagree, or seem to be disingenuous, so there are strong limits.

Also, in my experience, STJs are much better at working on consensus. It's like they value getting people on board, whether for a smoother running machine or for the sake of their own need to have rapport, or maybe due to their need for recognition, or whatever. But the ESTJs I've known, and the ISTJs have all been guys (and gals) who have worked hard to bring people around to their view point, and to work from a stance of diplomacy. Sometimes, this has meant a bit of... disingenuousness--there I said it--at least from my perspective. Unfortunately for them, when I run into that, I tend to call them on it, which has, of course, caused problems.

I've read Keirsey's book several times now, and compared it to people I know. I find it easy to type people using his book, and the principles there. I think that sometimes, for instance, Princess Diana, there are differences between Keirsey and Jung (INFP--I agree with Keirsey, that according to his system, she's probably an INFP-- vs ISFP--I think that functionally, she is probably more of a sensor), but I do not think that the two systems are incompatible--just different, with different emphases. And the same is true for DiSC. My dad took some evaluation via DiSC. In it, he sounds an awful lot like me, but more of an SJ, but I also know that in real life, he's _not_ and SJ at all. The DiSC evaluation just doesn't cover things in the same way.

I don't know if it's possible to try to reconcile all the different systems--each comes from their own point of view, so each sees everything differently. And the whole is us--people--people who are each of us unique, with unique experiences, backgrounds, in different places, both physically, emotionally, geographically, etc. All of these influences come to bear, and I bet there are still facets of our personality that nobody's quite thought out enough to put words to, which means that somebody else could come along, and wipe away all these systems--I doubt reconciling them is the way about it, except as a way to find perspective, vocabulary and common ground. But them's just my thoughts. And it's always possible that we are all wrong, and there's no such thing as ISFP or INTJ or ENFJ or any of it... We're all just deceiving ourselves into believing it. :-D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
Kiersey's foundation is problematic - by splitting Ns on the T/F axis but Ss on the J/P, he's not comparing like-for-like - but, even ignoring that, is there any merit to the co-operative/utilitarian divide? Largely, SP/NT corresponds to TP (half the group are TPs, and all group members are either T or P) and SJ/NF to FJ (for the same reasons), so it's no surprise it falls apart when you compare the members of each group that least fit that split (as with your example of xSTJs and xSFPs), since it seems to be that which Kiersey is mostly aiming to describe... which I guess is brought about largely because of his failure to compare like-for-like.
Have you actually read his book? I ask because he talks about this to some extent.

And I'll be honest, to me, it makes vital sense.

Sensing is influenced more by its orientation--inward or outward, not by the judging function with which it is paired.
Intuition is influenced more by the judging function with which it is paired than by its orientation.

Let's look at where such thinking leads. People who orientate via introverted sensing, regardless of whether they are Feeling or Thinking types, tend to take a more held-back approach to the immediate physical world around them. They trust "where they've been" more than where they are at the present moment. Their judging function is extraverted, which means that they take a more aggressive attitude toward bringing order, not to their physical environment, but people and structures (social structures, organizations, etc.).

People who orientate via extraverted sensing, regardless of Feeling or Thinking type, tend to operate in the world as it is right now. They prefer to take advantage of the possibilities that exist right now. They are less people-orientated in the sense that they have less desire to bring order to people or systems, but to order their own life as they see fit where they are. They tend to be opportunists and pragmatic, and less concerned with messy things like rules and regulations.

People who orientate by intuition, however, are a bit different. Regardless of whether they are orientated towards Introverted Intuition or Extraverted Intuition, they relate more to how they judge the world, whether Feeling or Thinking.

Intuiting Thinkers, regardless of the orientation of their Intuition, tend to seek linear, rational, logical solutions to their Intuition-led perceptions. They don't care, or care less, about things like feelings, or emotions, and especially about what other people will think about their decisions, judgments or even their perceptions. They have a certain skepticism or hesitancy towards systems such as SJs would construct.

Intuiting Feelers, on the other hand, are almost the exact opposite. They are people-orientated--even more so than SJ types, but their approach to people is entirely different from SJ types. They may be cooperative, but it's different. I think it's more focused on the individual, than the system. It is more focused on potential than reality. They tend to have ideas that are less grounded on "reality" and more based on what could be and what should be. "Pragmatism" is not in their vocabulary, whereas it is very much in the vocabulary of the NT.

And that last point--the contrasts between the temperaments as Keirsey identifies them--each of the four is unique, individual, with obvious differences, orientations, goals, viewpoints, etc. It's not just a hack job that lifted and distorted or ignored MBTI or Jung. If anything, I think his biggest mistake was to use the same four-letter code for his temperament roles. That leads, maybe, to false expectations and understandings.

Keirsey's system is a complete, whole and internally consistent system in its own right. It really doesn't need Jung or Myers and Briggs, or Socionics, or any of that. The mistake, I think, is for us to try to shoehorn his system into MBTI. That's what I think...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
Have you actually read his book? I ask because he talks about this to some extent.

And I'll be honest, to me, it makes vital sense.

Sensing is influenced more by its orientation--inward or outward, not by the judging function with which it is paired.
Intuition is influenced more by the judging function with which it is paired than by its orientation.

Let's look at where such thinking leads. People who orientate via introverted sensing, regardless of whether they are Feeling or Thinking types, tend to take a more held-back approach to the immediate physical world around them. They trust "where they've been" more than where they are at the present moment. Their judging function is extraverted, which means that they take a more aggressive attitude toward bringing order, not to their physical environment, but people and structures (social structures, organizations, etc.).

People who orientate via extraverted sensing, regardless of Feeling or Thinking type, tend to operate in the world as it is right now. They prefer to take advantage of the possibilities that exist right now. They are less people-orientated in the sense that they have less desire to bring order to people or systems, but to order their own life as they see fit where they are. They tend to be opportunists and pragmatic, and less concerned with messy things like rules and regulations.

People who orientate by intuition, however, are a bit different. Regardless of whether they are orientated towards Introverted Intuition or Extraverted Intuition, they relate more to how they judge the world, whether Feeling or Thinking.

Intuiting Thinkers, regardless of the orientation of their Intuition, tend to seek linear, rational, logical solutions to their Intuition-led perceptions. They don't care, or care less, about things like feelings, or emotions, and especially about what other people will think about their decisions, judgments or even their perceptions. They have a certain skepticism or hesitancy towards systems such as SJs would construct.

Intuiting Feelers, on the other hand, are almost the exact opposite. They are people-orientated--even more so than SJ types, but their approach to people is entirely different from SJ types. They may be cooperative, but it's different. I think it's more focused on the individual, than the system. It is more focused on potential than reality. They tend to have ideas that are less grounded on "reality" and more based on what could be and what should be. "Pragmatism" is not in their vocabulary, whereas it is very much in the vocabulary of the NT.

And that last point--the contrasts between the temperaments as Keirsey identifies them--each of the four is unique, individual, with obvious differences, orientations, goals, viewpoints, etc. It's not just a hack job that lifted and distorted or ignored MBTI or Jung. If anything, I think his biggest mistake was to use the same four-letter code for his temperament roles. That leads, maybe, to false expectations and understandings.

Keirsey's system is a complete, whole and internally consistent system in its own right. It really doesn't need Jung or Myers and Briggs, or Socionics, or any of that. The mistake, I think, is for us to try to shoehorn his system into MBTI. That's what I think...
No, I've not read his book(s), and so any criticism I'm offering is based solely on the basic premises of the theory that I'm familiar with.

I don't think your defence of the way he splits the temperaments really serves as justification for splitting them that way - you've essentially described what is common to each of SJ, SP, NT and NF, and then asserted that SJ and SP tell us more than ST and SF do (or NT and NF do more than NJ and NP), but how so? Especially given that Kiersey disavows type dynamics, so a lot of what is said to be true for Si or Se that doesn't directly arise from xSxJ or xSxP preferences can't really be treated as part of his system. I'm just not sold on the claim that J/P matters more for S types than N types, and T/F for N more than S: what reason is there to suppose it doesn't vary too much on the individual level to make such broad claims?

Could you view Kiersey as creating an entirely separate theory? I guess so - do his books indicate that this is what he intends when he makes the claims he does? I suppose the rejection of type dynamics implicitly suggests as much... either way, I think my criticism stands. Kiersey still works with a sixteen-type model, and still presents the insufficiently-supported claim that J/P matters more for S-types, and T/F for N-types (this failure to compare like-for-like also means we make conclusions like "NFs are the most people-oriented types", when it's easy enough to see that, had we split them ST, SF, NJ, NP, we would instead claim that "SFs are the most people-oriented types" - essentially "type gerrymandering", for want of a better term to express the concept I'm trying to succinctly summarise). So Kiersey could be seen as posing an entirely separate system - but that system still inherently has the same problems I was criticising before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
I don't think your defence of the way he splits the temperaments really serves as justification for splitting them that way - you've essentially described what is common to each of SJ, SP, NT and NF, and then asserted that SJ and SP tell us more than ST and SF do (or NT and NF do more than NJ and NP), but how so? Especially given that Kiersey disavows type dynamics, so a lot of what is said to be true for Si or Se that doesn't directly arise from xSxJ or xSxP preferences can't really be treated as part of his system. I'm just not sold on the claim that J/P matters more for S types than N types, and T/F for N more than S: what reason is there to suppose it doesn't vary too much on the individual level to make such broad claims?
Well, my point was to show that there are stronger correlations between Se and the judging function vs Si and the judging function, than between ST and SF. I didn't go into it, but, for instance, I have far more in common with ISTPs than I do with ISFJs. We mesh, we understand each other. We get along almost frictionlessly. The same is true for ESTPs. On the other hand, ISFJs (I have an ISFJ best friend and partner of fifteen years who is a male ISFJ) create all kinds of friction--often subtle friction, but there is friction, nonetheless. In fact, often that subtle friction is something you don't notice right away, but over time, that friction builds. My friend and I called it a mirror-type relationship (He has never heard, to the best of my knowledge, of MBTI, and we worked together for fifteen years, while I never had either--he's moved away, and we are still friends, but we no longer work together). It was like we are alike but opposite in everything. We often saw things in ways that seemed the same, but were backwards from each other, and we usually could come to comparable solutions, but always via different pathways. I'll be honest, it wasn't always an easy work relationship. And, to my chagrin, I know he probably felt the friction more than I did, but he bore it, in true ISFJ fashion, silently, and uncomplainingly, in such a way that I never knew. It was only after discovering MBTI, and learning about ISFJs, etc. that I realized how much of a burden I must have been to him. I was able to brush aside most issues I had with him--not that they weren't irritations or problems, but due to being an introverted judger, I tend to be harsher on myself, so it's easy to forgive and forget. Actually, now I think about it, this is an important thing with SP types. I think, as a rule, SP types tend to brush aside affronts much more easily than SJ types. That's huge, IMO.

In any case, overall, I do feel a much greater affinity towards all SP types than with SJ types. Looking back over my life, my closest friend have all been either SP or NP types, and most of them SPs. And among them ISTPs are some of the closest.

The theory that SFs would get along better with each other, have more in common, and supposedly, less friction doesn't hold up in my experience. In fact, the people I've had the most problems with in my life have all been SFJs. The second biggest group would be STJs. After that, NPs, but the issues there are of a vastly different character than with SJs as a group.


Could you view Kiersey as creating an entirely separate theory? I guess so - do his books indicate that this is what he intends when he makes the claims he does? I suppose the rejection of type dynamics implicitly suggests as much... either way, I think my criticism stands. Kiersey still works with a sixteen-type model, and still presents the insufficiently-supported claim that J/P matters more for S-types, and T/F for N-types (this failure to compare like-for-like also means we make conclusions like "NFs are the most people-oriented types", when it's easy enough to see that, had we split them ST, SF, NJ, NP, we would instead claim that "SFs are the most people-oriented types" - essentially "type gerrymandering", for want of a better term to express the concept I'm trying to succinctly summarise). So Kiersey could be seen as posing an entirely separate system - but that system still inherently has the same problems I was criticising before.
Keirsey goes to lengths to distance himself, both from Myers and Briggs, but more importantly, from Cognitive functions as a whole. His main reason, he says, IIRC, is because cognitive functions are internal, and not really discernable (and now I have to dig out my Kindle app...) ok. here's the quote: "I must say I have never found a use for this scheme of psychological functions, and this is because function typology sets out to define different people's mental makeup—what's in their heads—something which is not observable, and which is thus unavoidably subjective, a matter of speculation and occasionally of projection."

He later adds: "To take some of the guesswork out of temperament theory, I base my definitions on what people do well, and their intelligent actions, which are observable, and which thus can be defined more objectively."

Personally, I think that you would enjoy reading Keirsey. His book reeks of INTP to me (my wife writes very similarly to him), and he is very thorough and precise throughout. I think his one "weakness" is that I am not sure he accurately represents Myers and Jung when he says they conflate introversion with intuition. I don't know enough about Myers, and I'm not sure that Jung did that, though if what he quotes about Jung and Myers is correct, I can see where he gets that.

BTW, he also discusses the differences between Myers ST, SF, NT, NF functional differences, and his own intelligent roles theory, which goes SP, SJ, NT and NF. It wasn't accidental, nor based on simply misunderstanding cognitive functions or Jung or Myers. It was quite intentional. (another quote: " In considering the contrasts please bear in mind that Jung and Myers were trying to figure out what the different types have in mind, while I am trying to figure out what they can do well under varying circumstances." )

Hope that clarifies things a bit better. But honestly? Just by the book. I can't imagine you would regret it. It's on the Kindle store, so you can buy it and start reading it immediately. I hope Kindle is available in AU.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
Well, my point was to show that there are stronger correlations between Se and the judging function vs Si and the judging function, than between ST and SF. I didn't go into it, but, for instance, I have far more in common with ISTPs than I do with ISFJs. We mesh, we understand each other. We get along almost frictionlessly. The same is true for ESTPs. On the other hand, ISFJs (I have an ISFJ best friend and partner of fifteen years who is a male ISFJ) create all kinds of friction--often subtle friction, but there is friction, nonetheless. In fact, often that subtle friction is something you don't notice right away, but over time, that friction builds. My friend and I called it a mirror-type relationship (He has never heard, to the best of my knowledge, of MBTI, and we worked together for fifteen years, while I never had either--he's moved away, and we are still friends, but we no longer work together). It was like we are alike but opposite in everything. We often saw things in ways that seemed the same, but were backwards from each other, and we usually could come to comparable solutions, but always via different pathways. I'll be honest, it wasn't always an easy work relationship. And, to my chagrin, I know he probably felt the friction more than I did, but he bore it, in true ISFJ fashion, silently, and uncomplainingly, in such a way that I never knew. It was only after discovering MBTI, and learning about ISFJs, etc. that I realized how much of a burden I must have been to him. I was able to brush aside most issues I had with him--not that they weren't irritations or problems, but due to being an introverted judger, I tend to be harsher on myself, so it's easy to forgive and forget. Actually, now I think about it, this is an important thing with SP types. I think, as a rule, SP types tend to brush aside affronts much more easily than SJ types. That's huge, IMO.

In any case, overall, I do feel a much greater affinity towards all SP types than with SJ types. Looking back over my life, my closest friend have all been either SP or NP types, and most of them SPs. And among them ISTPs are some of the closest.

The theory that SFs would get along better with each other, have more in common, and supposedly, less friction doesn't hold up in my experience. In fact, the people I've had the most problems with in my life have all been SFJs. The second biggest group would be STJs. After that, NPs, but the issues there are of a vastly different character than with SJs as a group.
What reason is there to suppose this holds universally? It may well be true for you, or for people you know... but why should it be enshrined in the structure in the theory, what makes it true for everyone? I don't see what precludes the possibility that, say, some ISFP other than yourself might be fine with xSFJs but have problems with xSTPs. My claim is not that SF is a preferable classification to SP necessarily; rather, I'm saying that we shouldn't impose a stringent rule without good reason to believe it holds universally, which I'm not convinced we have.

Keirsey goes to lengths to distance himself, both from Myers and Briggs, but more importantly, from Cognitive functions as a whole. His main reason, he says, IIRC, is because cognitive functions are internal, and not really discernable (and now I have to dig out my Kindle app...) ok. here's the quote: "I must say I have never found a use for this scheme of psychological functions, and this is because function typology sets out to define different people's mental makeup—what's in their heads—something which is not observable, and which is thus unavoidably subjective, a matter of speculation and occasionally of projection."

He later adds: "To take some of the guesswork out of temperament theory, I base my definitions on what people do well, and their intelligent actions, which are observable, and which thus can be defined more objectively."

Personally, I think that you would enjoy reading Keirsey. His book reeks of INTP to me (my wife writes very similarly to him), and he is very thorough and precise throughout. I think his one "weakness" is that I am not sure he accurately represents Myers and Jung when he says they conflate introversion with intuition. I don't know enough about Myers, and I'm not sure that Jung did that, though if what he quotes about Jung and Myers is correct, I can see where he gets that.

BTW, he also discusses the differences between Myers ST, SF, NT, NF functional differences, and his own intelligent roles theory, which goes SP, SJ, NT and NF. It wasn't accidental, nor based on simply misunderstanding cognitive functions or Jung or Myers. It was quite intentional. (another quote: " In considering the contrasts please bear in mind that Jung and Myers were trying to figure out what the different types have in mind, while I am trying to figure out what they can do well under varying circumstances." )

Hope that clarifies things a bit better. But honestly? Just by the book. I can't imagine you would regret it. It's on the Kindle store, so you can buy it and start reading it immediately. I hope Kindle is available in AU.
"Please Understand Me II" is in the state library system here, so I may borrow that out and give it a read when it's convenient to do so. Certainly, I'd be interested in digging further to see whether he addresses some of the concerns I've got that derive solely from the basic structuring of his theory. (I presume this is either the book you're referring to, or similar enough that it would cover most, if not all, of the same ground.)

I've got no issue with his disavowing cognitive functions - indeed, he's got some good points just in the quotes you provide here. And, without having read it, I'm not surprised to hear that argument can be made to the effect that some works conflate introversion and intuition. But my problem is like this: suppose you were to divide all people into four groups, namely blue-eyed males, blue-eyed females, brown-eyed adults and brown-eyed children (let's ignore, for the sake of simplicity, the fact that neither gender nor eye colour are binary). Because the division isn't done using the same method, any comparison between one blue-eyed division and one brown-eyed division becomes inherently flawed, since we can't tell for sure that the comparison doesn't actually attach to age or gender alone. Likewise with a comparison between an S temperament and an N temperament - if I say "NTs are more likely to [X] than SPs", does the claim hold for NTPs vs. STPs, or is it only true because of the division we're using (i.e., because it largely attaches to T>F, which is true for all NTs but only half the SPs)? That's the kind of thing I meant when I referred to "type gerrymandering" in my last post - the ease with which comparisons like that can be technically true but that's the case only/primarily because of the categorisation method, rather than the individuals who the system purports to pertain to - and it's a split I simply don't think can be justified.

Obviously, giving at least some of Keirsey's works a read would make it possible for me to offer a more nuanced critique. But solely in terms of the SJ/SP/NT/NF divide, I think the above criticism makes sense. I find type dynamics problematic because of what it assumes about a person without good reason to do so (which of their two preferred functions is dominant, the attitudes of said functions, &c.), since that limits the field of possibilities unduly, leaving people without a place in the system; I think similar holds here, since it invites us to see S-types as on the whole less driven by their judging function than N types, and other similarly questionable claims. So, whilst I've not read deep enough to know for sure, I'm skeptical that Keirsey satisfactorily addresses these issues.

*Side note - just noticed I've been spelling Keirsey's name incorrectly for quite some time (as "Kiersey"); I normally pick up on such things quicker than that...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
StunnedFox;17539946 "Please Understand Me II" is in the state library system here said:
Yeah, PUM II is his main work. I don't know that he's written other, popular-type titles than the two editions of Please Understand Me. He does, I think, have scholarly stuff, but it's not published like a book. PUM II is a major refinement, from what I've read, from the first edition, and it is the result of a lot larger sampling and observation. My own examples are just that--examples and illustrations of a larger whole--yes, qualitative, not quantitative. I give them, not as definitive, but as illustrative. I've been around a while, and the friction that exists between SP types and SJ types is not just one man's idea, but quite observable--starting in elementary school. ;-) But that's neither here, nor there.


I've got no issue with his disavowing cognitive functions - indeed, he's got some good points just in the quotes you provide here. And, without having read it, I'm not surprised to hear that argument can be made to the effect that some works conflate introversion and intuition. But my problem is like this: suppose you were to divide all people into four groups, namely blue-eyed males, blue-eyed females, brown-eyed adults and brown-eyed children (let's ignore, for the sake of simplicity, the fact that neither gender nor eye colour are binary). Because the division isn't done using the same method, any comparison between one blue-eyed division and one brown-eyed division becomes inherently flawed, since we can't tell for sure that the comparison doesn't actually attach to age or gender alone. Likewise with a comparison between an S temperament and an N temperament - if I say "NTs are more likely to [X] than SPs", does the claim hold for NTPs vs. STPs, or is it only true because of the division we're using (i.e., because it largely attaches to T>F, which is true for all NTs but only half the SPs)? That's the kind of thing I meant when I referred to "type gerrymandering" in my last post - the ease with which comparisons like that can be technically true but that's the case only/primarily because of the categorisation method, rather than the individuals who the system purports to pertain to - and it's a split I simply don't think can be justified.
Like I quoted, he looks specifically at two things, how people use tools--in a utilitarian vs. cooperative manner--and how they communicate--abstractly or concretely. Those are his two primary starting point axes. SJs are cooperative tool users, and concrete communicators. SPs are utilitarian tool users, and concrete communicators. NTs are utilitarian tool users, and abstract communicators. NFs are cooperative tool users, and abstract communicators. Everything else trickles down from there. It honestly is a tight system, and quite internally consistent, and furthermore, plays out or confirms quite well in application.

The key is to not allow yourself to compare it directly to Myers and Briggs nor to Jung. Let it speak for itself. It might even be best to toss the letters, and just look at the temperament names: Guardians, Artisans, Idealists and Rationals, and their role functions (the sixteen types via names: Guardians--supervisors, inspectors, providers, protectors; Artisans--Promoters, Crafters, Performers, Composers; Idealists--Teachers, Counselors, Champions, Healers; Rationals--Fieldmarshals, Masterminds, Inventors, Architects.

I think the biggest weakness in his whole book (not the theory) is that he understands Rationals so much better than the rest (being an INTP Architect), and Idealists almost as well (being married to one himself), so his writing reflects a certain bias against the Guardians and Artisans in that their portrayals are less nuanced and a bit flatter than the other two. He does try hard to counter that, and he seems to be aware himself that he is not exactly objective or equal in his approach. But I suspect that the observant and intelligent reader will quickly perceive this, and that awareness, IMO, helps.

I don't want to say too much, but I suspect that if you read his book, even if you don't come away a believer, you will certainly understand where he's coming from, and what he's doing.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
1,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Less "based on" two dichotomies and more incorporating them, I would say. I still don't see how the hot/cold and dry/wet dichotomies link to S/N and J/P centrally, either: "length of sustained response" (wet/dry) to S/N seems quite a stretch, and I'm not even sure how you've decided to set up J/P, since it doesn't match with the excerpt you've linked.

In any case, none of that discards the fact that I/E forms a significant part of the temperaments, so you've got a problem when you want to characterise a type like ISFP (a DiSC S + sanguine by you), since the more introverted ISFPs would be less likely to fit with sanguine given its extraverted nature (to show but one example). I think it's perhaps a touch disingenuous to equate the temperaments - and, to a lesser extent, DiSC - to just two MBTI dimensions, when it's clear each of the types in those theories aren't exclusively framed like that (it's hard to doubt, for instance, that a Type C in DiSC matches up more with a J preference - being systematic, organised, orderly, &c. - than a P preference, which your theory fails to account for).
Yes, sanguine is related to extroversion according to the descriptions that are presented in OP. I think these are better:

Humorism (Wikipedia)

Sanguine (SP): courageous, hopeful, playful, carefree

Choleric (NJ): ambitious, leader-like, restless, easily angered

Melancholic (NP): despondent, quiet, analytical, serious

Phlegmatic (SJ): calm, thoughtful, patient, peaceful


Are systematic, organised etc really related to J? Jugding in Myers-Briggs implies that Te or Fe is an ego function (aux or dom). Are ISFJs systematic? I think IT more accurately matches up with systematic.


Wet/dry is largely linked to S/N, since SPs and SJs don’t see the point in dwelling on subjects that do not directly affect them. It isn't as precisely expressed as Jung's Sensing and Intuition, but it is getting at the same thing.

Hot/cold is indirectly linked to NJ, SP/NP, SJ. Why are ENTJ, INTJ, ENFJ and INFJ hot? Because they have Te or Fe as an ego function. Okay, so why aren't ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFJ and ISFJ hot as well? The only way to explain this is by using Socionics Model B, which has +/- IM elements (i.e. functions). NJs (LIE, ILI, EIE and IEI) and SPs (SLE, LSI, SEE, ESI) value -Te/+Ti and +Fe/-Fi. Hence, NJs and SPs make harsher and hastier judgements.

´+´ maximizing the positive, subjective, optimistic

´-´minimizing the negative, objective, realistic

Kiersey's foundation is problematic - by splitting Ns on the T/F axis but Ss on the J/P, he's not comparing like-for-like - but, even ignoring that, is there any merit to the co-operative/utilitarian divide? Largely, SP/NT corresponds to TP (half the group are TPs, and all group members are either T or P) and SJ/NF to FJ (for the same reasons), so it's no surprise it falls apart when you compare the members of each group that least fit that split (as with your example of xSTJs and xSFPs), since it seems to be that which Kiersey is mostly aiming to describe... which I guess is brought about largely because of his failure to compare like-for-like.
Let’s agree that Keirsey’s foundation is problematic (because of asymmetry and his 2nd ring).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
Yes, sanguine is related to extroversion according to the descriptions that are presented in OP. I think these are better:

Humorism (Wikipedia)

Sanguine (SP): courageous, hopeful, playful, carefree

Choleric (NJ): ambitious, leader-like, restless, easily angered

Melancholic (NP): despondent, quiet, analytical, serious

Phlegmatic (SJ): calm, thoughtful, patient, peaceful


Are systematic, organised etc really related to J? Jugding in Myers-Briggs implies that Te or Fe is an ego function (aux or dom). Are ISFJs systematic? I think IT more accurately matches up with systematic.


Wet/dry is largely linked to S/N, since SPs and SJs don’t see the point in dwelling on subjects that do not directly affect them. It isn't as precisely expressed as Jung's Sensing and Intuition, but it is getting at the same thing.

Hot/cold is indirectly linked to NJ, SP/NP, SJ. Why are ENTJ, INTJ, ENFJ and INFJ hot? Because they have Te or Fe as an ego function. Okay, so why aren't ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFJ and ISFJ hot as well? The only way to explain this is by using Socionics Model B, which has +/- IM elements (i.e. functions). NJs (LIE, ILI, EIE and IEI) and SPs (SLE, LSI, SEE, ESI) value -Te/+Ti and +Fe/-Fi. Hence, NJs and SPs make harsher and hastier judgements.

´+´ maximizing the positive, subjective, optimistic

´-´minimizing the negative, objective, realistic
"Systematic", "Methodical", "Planful" and "Scheduled" are four of the five facets of Judging in MBTI Step II, so the link between such traits and the J preference is quite explicit.

I don't think it helps to select only those definitions of the other models that best suit the theory you're trying to propose: the I/E link with the four temperaments is the clearest exception to it, but it's easy enough to find other aspects showing that theories such as DiSC don't neatly align with MBTI types (the aforementioned link between DiSC C and MBTI J, for example). As I said before, it's a touch disingenuous, and largely relies on you taking only those factors which support your claim whist discarding the others. Sure, there's a link between, say, the primary dichotomies in DiSC theory and MBTI - I think it's reasonably clear that those dividing aspects are roughly analogous to the I/E and T/F dimensions - but that's not the whole story, and your hot/cold link with the four temperaments relies on concepts not present in the MBTI just to propose it (hot seems to be extraversion and cold introversion, fairly straightforwardly). I'd also like to know how you make NP analogous to "despondent, quiet, analytical, serious", when little of what is said of either NPs or Ne seems to match up with that.

Basically, it's too much of a stretch; they're different theories, and the link simply isn't strong enough to make.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
1,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
"Systematic", "Methodical", "Planful" and "Scheduled" are four of the five facets of Judging in MBTI Step II, so the link between such traits and the J preference is quite explicit.
If MBTI Step II is a reference then DISC's two dichotomies (Extroversion/Introversion and Task/People) are identical to MBTI's E/I and T/F (and 2 out of 5 in Big Five). But MBTI Step II is not compatible with the functions. Again, are ESFJs and/or ISFJs systematic or methodical?

I don't think it helps to select only those definitions of the other models that best suit the theory you're trying to propose: the I/E link with the four temperaments is the clearest exception to it
If you disregard the descriptions (which are innately problematic) and consider the dichotomies, do you still think E/I is a problem?

... your hot/cold link with the four temperaments relies on concepts not present in the MBTI just to propose it
Well, the connection between SPs and NJs is still there, right? The problem is that MBTI functions are too imprecise and they are incorrectly ordered.

I'd also like to know how you make NP analogous to "despondent, quiet, analytical, serious", when little of what is said of either NPs or Ne seems to match up with that.
Are SJs, SPs or NJs despondent? This just proves that any descriptions are problematic. One should always stick to the definitions (if they exist... I didn't know about hot/cold and dry/wet when I wrote OP).
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
1,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
This is one of those things that may surprise, but no. Not all Feeling types are necessarily cooperative, and not more cooperative than SJ types. What ISFPs are not (and probably INFPs) is diplomatic. We tend to be blunt and rather dismissive if you disagree, or seem to be disingenuous, so there are strong limits.

Also, in my experience, STJs are much better at working on consensus. It's like they value getting people on board, whether for a smoother running machine or for the sake of their own need to have rapport, or maybe due to their need for recognition, or whatever. But the ESTJs I've known, and the ISTJs have all been guys (and gals) who have worked hard to bring people around to their view point, and to work from a stance of diplomacy. Sometimes, this has meant a bit of... disingenuousness--there I said it--at least from my perspective. Unfortunately for them, when I run into that, I tend to call them on it, which has, of course, caused problems.
Keirsey: "People who are cooperative pay more attention to other people's opinions (a) and are more concerned with doing the right thing (b)."

a) matches up with ESFP and ISFP, and b) matches up with ESTJ and ISTJ. Do you agree?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
If MBTI Step II is a reference then DISC's two dichotomies (Extroversion/Introversion and Task/People) are identical to MBTI's E/I and T/F (and 2 out of 5 in Big Five). But MBTI Step II is not compatible with the functions. Again, are ESFJs and/or ISFJs systematic or methodical?

If you disregard the descriptions (which are innately problematic) and consider the dichotomies, do you still think E/I is a problem?

Well, the connection between SPs and NJs is still there, right? The problem is that MBTI functions are too imprecise and they are incorrectly ordered.

Are SJs, SPs or NJs despondent? This just proves that any descriptions are problematic. One should always stick to the definitions (if they exist... I didn't know about hot/cold and dry/wet when I wrote OP).
That's the inherent problem, though, isn't it? Lack of definition. Precisely none of these theories have been sufficiently clear about the exact structure of their theory, particularly in relation to which statements are definitional and which merely descriptive. You want me to disregard "innately problematic" descriptions - but what reason is there to believe the temperaments are defined/constituted by any of the mooted dichotomies, rather than said dichotomies simply being another form of description? If we stick solely to definitions, then we have the not insignificant problem of not actually having any to work from. Hence, we need to infer the "essence" of each type - something vaguely akin to a definition - from the descriptions we do have, which is what I've been doing.

Both "cognitive functions" and MBTI Step II are a part of the MBTI theory, so any discussion involving MBTI needs to accept that. Whether the two aspects of the theory are compatible, or any issues either aspect might itself have, are obviously important considerations, but to disregard either of them is to move outside the confines of the theory you're seeking to work within. But even if you were to set aside Step II, it's clear from how J is described (and see above for why there's a need to infer something akin to a definition from descriptions) that the vast majority of J types will be systematic and methodical - necessarily, this includes xSFJs, so the answer to your question is "yes, ESFJs and ISFJs are systematic and methodical". That this might seem to run against some other expectations the theory leads to is a problem with the theoretical model of MBTI, and the conflicting claims it makes.

I think hot/cold, as a dichotomy, is a reasonably close parallel of E/I, so its exclusion from your approach is problematic, yes.

No, the correlation between SPs and NJs is not still there, unless you include the separate theory of Socionics, which takes us away from "DiSC + Four Temperaments = MBTI". Your claim that "MBTI functions are too imprecise and they are incorrectly ordered" is immaterial to whether that "equation" holds or not.

"Are SJs, SPs or NJs despondent?" No more or less than NPs are, I would think. Why assume that despondency attaches to a pairing of S/N and J/P in the first place? I think my key point from all of this is largely in the first paragraph - what do we actually have that is precisely defined in each of these theories? MBTI, in particular, seems reticent to be precise about anything, which makes this exercise practically impossible unless you can extract a semblance of definition from the multitude of descriptions that are provided.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top