Personality Cafe banner

81 - 100 of 277 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,135 Posts
Bad experiences in real life IMO. Sadly it drives a lot of people to the internet

Within MBTI, it's N's complaining about the SJs but all over the internet it's various groups complaining about ''normal'' people for various reasons. Autistics versus neurotypicals, deaf versus the hearing(yes, this is a thing), etc...
This thread ended on page one with this post.

Edit - Though I'm happy that Forer effect was finally mentioned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
@Julia Bell

What specifically has Keirsey written that is so misleading, in your opinion?
How about... everything? He even admits himself that he doesn't support function theory even though the functions are the most important aspect of Jungian psychology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Keirsey makes Se types seem waaaaay cooler than everybody else (even if he doesn't believe in Se).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Sad part is that it's not even directly connected to MBTI as far as I am aware. He has just made his own system based on behavior rather than cognition (which MBTI is based on).
Oh, it's nothing on Keirsey. It's the way people use Keirsey, and how they connect his system with MBTI. The two were never meant to be used together. They are separate systems. But people so often forget that, and it's very confusing for newbies just getting into typology.
As far as I know, although Keirsey does appear to use MBTI type codes, he never mentions that his system correlates with MBTI, or even that you can find your MBTI type by identifying your Keirsey temperament. As far as I know, he doesn't mention Isabel Myers at all, or references her. I've no rock solid, airtight proof at the moment, though.
To try to clear up some of the confusion about the relationship between Keirsey and the MBTI...

I strongly disagree with the perspective that says that the Keirsey ideas that most people are familiar with (from Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II) are a different personality theory that only tangentially corresponds to the MBTI. In PUM and PUM II, Keirsey's basically just an MBTI guy who adds the idea that NTs, NFs, SJs and SPs are particularly significant subgroups in terms of what they have in common.

He certainly isn't a believer in the cognitive functions (aka "type dynamics") but, as further explained here, Myers wasn't much of a believer in the functions either, and official MBTI sources — not to mention the vast majority of the thousands of MBTI-related studies that have been conducted over the past 50 years — have always been centered around the dichotomies rather than the functions.

Just as Keirsey thought of NT/NF/SJ/SP as the most fundamental way to carve the 16 types into four groups, Myers thought of NT/NF/ST/SF as the most fundamental way to subdivide the 16 types — and Myers' sub-groups are even less function-related than Keirsey's.

As the back cover blurb for Please Understand Me (1984) explained:

Keirsey adopted the theory of Psychological Types of Carl Jung and the pioneering (and best selling) method of measuring type of Isabel Myers in 1955 and ever since has adapted his clinical practice to the perspective of Jung-Myers typology. PLEASE UNDERSTAND ME provides a useful vocabulary and phraseology for applying the Jung-Myers concepts of type.

In the first chapter of Please Understand Me II (1998), Keirsey describes "The Debt to Isabel Myers," and here's part of what he says:

Keirsey said:
I must comment about the way the work of Isabel Myers struck me when I first encountered it in 1956. I remember vividly, even after forty or so years, when a visiting psychologist from Educational Testing Service handed me my psychological type portrait upon my completion of the Myers-Briggs questionnaire. ...

Wow! Here I was, only five years out of graduate school, working as a corrective interventionist for schools and trying very hard to figure out how to apply what I had learned about people in making myself useful to school children and their parents and teachers and administrators, these people having all sorts of difficulties getting along with each other. And along comes a little old lady from Princeton, New Jersey, Isabel Myers, to tell me about myself, about who I was and what I was good for. Oh, I already knew some of that stuff about myself, but I didn't know that I was a kind of type of person, and that there had to be others just like me. Indeed, looking back on my graduate studies I realized that my two best friends in the psychology department were just like me, and the one professor I admired was just like me. ...

I also understood for the first time why I felt so different from everybody else. ...

Myers must have accomplished her feat of developing Jung's distinctions into sixteen type portraits by dint of considerable observation of people in action, as well as a great deal of imaginative speculation. Salvaging the useful parts of Jung's cumbersome and self-contradictory theory of psychological types and making it available to scientist and layman alike was quite a feat. So the debt owed Isabel Myers by students of human conduct is truly enormous.

Had she not devised her personality inventory and its accompanying portraits of personality, I for one ... would not have been able to connect her portraits to earlier ones. For I was later to find that the four groups of personality types described by Myers corresponded nicely with the four personality types of several predecessors.

The "Keirsey Temperament Sorter" at the front of PUM II types you based on 70 items. Ten of them are I/E items, and 20 each are S/N, T/F and J/P items, and they're very similar to the items on the official MBTI. And both PUM and PUM II include separate portraits of each of the 16 types, in addition to descriptions of the things that (as Keirsey sees it) NTs, NFs, SJs and SPs tend to have in common.

The idea that Keirsey's focus is somehow more behavioral than Myers or other MBTI sources also doesn't have much truth to it. In the introduction to Please Understand Me II, as part of his explanation for why he steers clear of the cognitive functions, Keirsey himself states (more misleadingly than accurately) that his work is somehow more solidly based on observation of what people actually say and do — rather than on "speculation" about "people's mental make-up." But if you actually read Please Understand Me II and compare Keirsey's descriptions with the descriptions in Myers, Thomson or any other popular MBTI source (or Jung, for that matter), you'll find that the mix of internal and external really isn't all that different. Here's a passage from Keirsey's INTJ description, for example:

Keirsey said:
Their point of view is pragmatic, skeptical, relativistic, focused on spatial intersections and intervals of time. They base their self-image on being ingenious, autonomous, and resolute. They would if possible be calm, they trust reason, are hungry for achievement, seek knowledge, prize deference, and aspire to be wizards of science and technology. Intellectually, they are prone to practice strategy far more than diplomacy, tactics and especially logistics.

Their "point of view," their "self-image," their "trust" in reason and "hunger" for achievement, their "aspiration" to be wizards: this is pretty much all about an INTJ's internal values/motivations/etc., no? And this is pulled from his introductory summary. Keirsey goes on to discuss each of those internal aspects in greater detail, and has similar discussions of the "self-image" and "aspirations" and etc. of each of the 16 MBTI types.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
Their "point of view," their "self-image," their "trust" in reason and "hunger" for achievement, their "aspiration" to be wizards: this is pretty much all about an INTJ's internal values/motivations/etc., no? And this is pulled from his introductory summary. Keirsey goes on to discuss each of those internal aspects in greater detail, and has similar discussions of the "self-image" and "aspirations" and etc. of each of the 16 MBTI types.
No.

I have no hunger for achievement for example, I have few to no aspirations in life. I am not a wizard nor do I strive to be one (what the fuck does that mean to begin anyway, lol?) and my internal values and my self-image have little to do with what you presented here. For a type 3 perhaps, which I'm not to begin with.

I'm a type 5w4. What's important to me is to figure out and understand myself and to be myself; to be true to myself. I take pride in my knowledge but only because I'm a type 5, not because I happened to be an NT. I know plenty of people who take pride in their thinking without being cognitive NTs. @Conclusion for example.

What makes me an INTJ is because I think in terms of dominant Ni and auxiliary Te, not because I have a particular self-image that happened to correlate with what Keirsey described here. You need to stop rely on what sources say and look at what they are really saying. How people appear is not the same as how they actually work inside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
^ I'm not looking for a debate on what INTJs are like, or whether Keirsey or @LeaT has better insights to offer along those lines. I was simply pointing out that the internal/behavioral mix in Keirsey's descriptions isn't substantially different from what you find in other MBTI sources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
^ I'm not looking for a debate on what INTJs are like, or whether Keirsey or @LeaT has better insights to offer along those lines. I was simply pointing out that the internal/behavioral mix in Keirsey's descriptions isn't substantially different from what you find in other MBTI sources.
Then why even quote Keirsey to begin? Essentially, your conclusion was that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's, which to be honest is frankly missing the point why Jung even bothered to describe his psychological types at all. At least Myers pretended to do what Jung did, so assuming that Jung, Myers-Briggs and Keirsey (including, Berens, Nardi, Thomson and who else you can come up with) are doing the same thing is quite... flabbergasting. If we're moving down that slippery slope logic, then I will say that I think astrology is doing that too. They are describing personality types, no? Aren't they the same and thus as legit as The Big 5?

I reiterate what I wrote previously:
You need to stop rely on what sources say and look at what they are really saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Then why even quote Keirsey to begin? Essentially, your conclusion was that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's, which to be honest is frankly missing the point why Jung even bothered to describe his psychological types at all. At least Myers pretended to do what Jung did, so assuming that Jung, Myers-Briggs and Keirsey (including, Berens, Nardi, Thomson and who else you can come up with) are doing the same thing is quite... flabbergasting. If we're moving down that slippery slope logic, then I will say that I think astrology is doing that too. They are describing personality types, no? Aren't they the same and thus as legit as The Big 5?

I reiterate what I wrote previously:

You need to stop rely on what sources say and look at what they are really saying.
"Essentially, [my] conclusion was that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's"—??

Somebody needs to start looking at what people "are really saying" but, with all due respect, I don't think it's me. :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
"Essentially, [my] conclusion was that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's"—??

Somebody needs to start looking at what people "are really saying" but, with all due respect, I don't think it's me. :tongue:
Then please clarify, what was ​your conclusion? I think it is extremely difficult to interpret sentences like these:
But if you actually read Please Understand Me II and compare Keirsey's descriptions with the descriptions in Myers, Thomson or any other popular MBTI source (or Jung, for that matter), you'll find that the mix of internal and external really isn't all that different.
I was simply pointing out that the internal/behavioral mix in Keirsey's descriptions isn't substantially different from what you find in other MBTI sources.
As any other way than you clearly downgrading the differences in content, creating sweeping statements since that they in a very general shallow sense seem to do the same thing, they are in fact, not that different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Then please clarify, what was ​your conclusion?
As I've already reiterated (are you even trying?), I said that, contrary to the view that Keirsey's all about behavior and Jung/MBTI are about internal stuff, the internal/external mix in the type profiles in Keirsey, Jung, Myers and other MBTI sources are not all that different.

I also pointed out that Keirsey had virtually no use for Jung's "cognitive functions" frame, and I specifically quoted Keirsey praising Myers for having done such a good job separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff — which is a far cry, I would submit, from my "conclusion" being "that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's" (as you summarized me).

I hope this helps. :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
As I've already reiterated (are you even trying?), I said that, contrary to the view that Keirsey's all about behavior and Jung/MBTI are about internal stuff, the internal/external mix in the type profiles in Keirsey, Jung, Myers and other MBTI sources are not all that different.
No, clearly I am not trying. Also, I never once claimed that the MBTI is all about internal stuff. If anything, I'm inclined to say it's quite the opposite. The very source of internal conflict when it comes to the MBTI has to do with MBTI scholars trying to reconcile Jung with Myers' original interpretation of Jung which developed into what we see today.

Yes, Jung also describes types in PT, I never denied this, but the way you present your information clarly seems to suggest that you think Jung's description of the inner workings of the human psyche is in fact, not that much different to how Keirsey describes type.

Am I misreading you based on the quotes I picked out?
I also pointed out that Keirsey had virtually no use for Jung's "cognitive functions" frame, and I specifically quoted Keirsey praising Myers for having done such a good job separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff — which is a far cry, I would submit, from my "conclusion" being "that Keirsey's descriptions are the same as Jung's" (as you summarized me).
So did I way before you posted your post in here, by pointing out that Keirsey has openly admitted that he does not support Jung's cognitive theory. I never chose to comment on Keirsey's comment when it comes to Myers since it is quite frankly, irrelevant to the point I was making.
I hope this helps. :tongue:
Not really, since you failed to see the point I was making.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
I never once claimed that the MBTI is all about internal stuff.
And I never once claimed that you ever once claimed that the MBTI is all about internal stuff. My initial post quoted Acerbusvenator saying that Keirsey "just made his own system based on behavior rather than cognition (which MBTI is based on)" — which is a view I fairly often encounter, and led me to make my point about internal/external mixes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
And I never once claimed that you ever once claimed that the MBTI is all about internal stuff. My initial post quoted Acerbusvenator saying that Keirsey "just made his own system based on behavior rather than cognition (which MBTI is based on)" — which is a view I fairly often encounter, and led me to make my point about internal/external mixes.
And I pointed out that you seemed to trivialize how the various sources seem to handle psychological type, if Keirsey's types can even be considered as such. I'm inclined to say no.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
770 Posts
I noticed actually the same thing. A lot of people in "type me" threads start their thread sure, that they are N and suddenly others start to doubt it, like it is something imposimble. Most of the people in "what is my type" forum are by other members typed as sensors. You know...There can't be so many sensors. Someone really has to be an intuitive type. On other forum once one member started to incredibly doubt with me, how imposible it is for me to be an intuitive type, even though I am almost 100% sure I am...I noticed that member later and that (s)he does that pretty often to other members also. I think (s)he was typed as INTP and the only feeling I got from it was...Some of the intuitive types are so proud of being intuitive and it makes them feeling, that they are such a uniqe, that they don't want others to be intutive too, because it would make them less uniqe...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
It's a shame that this appears to have dissolved into argument. How easy it is to become furious with someone online, when we probably would not be so rude in real life...or are both of you "just not trying"? :p

Regardless, I do agree with the opinion earlier on in the thread, that perhaps some S-types who type themselves as N-types, do so because of fear of prejudice. Which, is a fault on the side of both possible parties (the accusors and the accusees)- misinterpretation of the meaning and the significance of MBTI. The biggest flaw of this forum, is the amount of stock people put into MBTI types! Honestly! Like in healthcare, a person might be "a man with diabetes" (for example) as opposed to "a diabetic man", we should endeavour to do the same with MBTI types here. A person is not the sum of their MBTI description, but rather, should recognise an MBTI description with overall shared traits to themselves.

That might have come across as irrelevant and a little rant. I'm sorry! What I mean, is, if people in this forum understood MBTI properly and didn't take it so seriously, there would likely be no issues. Regardless of whether someone views themselves as an N or an S of any type, I'm still just going to take them as they come.

Come forth into my ample bosom, all ye S-types and N-types. We are all friends here.

Except you dirty INTJ's, UGH :wink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyO.W.BernieBro

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
I disagree with those who say that people come to perc primarily because they are interested in widening their horizons with the theories. Surely there are exceptions, but mostly people come here because they want to know more about themselves, who they are, because honestly most people have no idea who they are (EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US became interested in the theory only after doing the funky similarminds personality test that told you that you are a super human, just as you had always secretly thought). People coming here for the first time might be suffering from an identity chrisis and if a "psychological" theory offers an answer that possibly relieves the pain, I'd say that anyone would go for it, irrespective of whether being a sensor or an intuitive. After studying the theories for a while they, of course, become more and more interesting and, possibly even, addictive.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,223 Posts
Discussion Starter #99
I noticed actually the same thing. A lot of people in "type me" threads start their thread sure, that they are N and suddenly others start to doubt it, like it is something imposimble. Most of the people in "what is my type" forum are by other members typed as sensors. You know...There can't be so many sensors. Someone really has to be an intuitive type. On other forum once one member started to incredibly doubt with me, how imposible it is for me to be an intuitive type, even though I am almost 100% sure I am...I noticed that member later and that (s)he does that pretty often to other members also. I think (s)he was typed as INTP and the only feeling I got from it was...Some of the intuitive types are so proud of being intuitive and it makes them feeling, that they are such a uniqe, that they don't want others to be intutive too, because it would make them less uniqe...
I think that's the case for some people; I do wonder sometimes whether some of the people who spread this stuff are using their "N" label to make themselves feel superior. If being a sensor is portrayed as a "secret" that must be "sniffed out" as it is in the thread I quoted in the OP, that implies that intuitives are special and that being a sensor is something to be ashamed of. That's why I said that that reflects a much worse anti-sensor bias than anyone who types as an intuitive just because that's what they want to be. (To clear up something I think a couple of people misunderstood about the OP, I wasn't objecting to the idea that there are more sensors than intuitives in the general population; I was objecting to the portrayal of intuitives as special.) I think there are other people, though, who want to spread the idea that sensors are just as clever/imaginative/whatever as intuitives, and end up typing too many people as sensors because they want to prove that point. I do think those people have good intentions, but they're not helping their cause. Some of them seem to almost act as though S/N makes no differences to what a person is like.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by people like @SputnikExperiment, @spectralsparrow and @Recon777; these theories are getting at the differences between people, and it's entirely possible to think that sensors and intuitives are different without thinking one is better or more valuable than the other. It's worth remembering that PerC is an N-dominated culture, and that's why N qualities are perceived as better, just as SJ qualities tend to be valued in an SJ society. But who says being theoretical/intellectual/imaginative is better than being down to earth/common sense/practical? When I first learned about the MBTI, I decided that I was definitely an N; in fact, I was mentally putting the people I knew into the categories I now know as "sensors" and "intuitives" long before I'd ever heard of it. But before I started browsing PerC, it didn't even occur to me to think that intuitives were any better than sensors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,102 Posts
why is N perceived to lack common sense? I've been told I have it in spades.
 
81 - 100 of 277 Posts
Top