Personality Cafe banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My first post here. I also posted this over at the INTJforum website:

It’s always seemed completely arbitrary to me that, in his temperament theory, Keirsey combined N with T/F and S with J/P. It seems to make a lot more sense to me that if you have a judging preference, J should be combined with how you judge (T/F) and if you have a perceiving preference, P should be combined with how you perceive (N/S). After all, that will be the function you show the most in the external world, and for this reason the types within the TJ, FJ, NP, and SP groups have a lot more in common with each other--on the surface at least--than Keirsey’s groups do. And since Keirsey attempts to divide types based on observable behavior, using these groups as temperaments instead makes a lot more sense. So I made my own descriptions of these temperaments.

Judging Types

TJ: The Executives

This group is the most pragmatic, decisive, efficient, assertive, task-oriented, and determined of all the temperaments. They have strong willpower and enjoy being in control. They establish categories by which they classify both people and things, and are motivated to reach the top of whatever hierarchy they are a part of. But wherever they do fall in the hierarchy, they will enforce the system and recognize its authority. They tend to believe the ends justify the means and are prone to thinking in black-and-white, objective, "us v. them" type terms. They are not the most patient types and will often sacrifice purity for expediency. They pay little regard to social costs and will only bow to social norms, with some reluctance, if they need to do so in order to achieve their ends. They will always use whatever tools are available to them that will get them the best result, because they always keep an eye toward the bottom line and the end result matters to them above all else. Before taking any action, they question whether the benefits outweigh the costs in terms of external standards and objective measures of success. If yes, they will act. If no, they will not. They make most all decisions according to this simple equation. They quickly examine clear evidence and facts available to them and ruthlessly apply hard logic to them in order to judge what they mean and what should be done based on them. For this reason, they are highly skilled at coming up with solutions to most any problem they are confronted with. They are excellent at motivating and organizing themselves and others in order to accomplish tasks and simply get things done. For these reasons, they have the highest average income of all the temperaments and often rise to some of the most powerful positions in business, government, etc.

All Executives look practically the same on the surface, but internally the NTJ and STJ are quite different. The STJ is focused on past precedent and maintaining established systems, while the NTJ is focused on improving upon established systems or establishing new systems for the future. There are also noticeable differences between the ITJ and ETJ. The ITJ tends to be more reluctant to take on a public leadership role and is content with exerting influence from behind the scenes, while the ETJ is a more vocal director who likes to be clearly in charge. Both, however, are capable of performing the preferred role of the other, they just will have to expend more energy to do so.

Examples: Hillary Clinton (INTJ), Steve Jobs (ENTJ), George Washington (ISTJ), Henry Ford (ESTJ)

FJ: The Harmonizers

This group is the most diplomatic, sociable, caring, friendly, warm, and agreeable of all the temperaments. They enjoy establishing relationships with people and are excellent at peacefully resolving conflicts and bringing people together. They take their moral values and commitments seriously and are very loyal to the groups they are part of. They enjoy cooperating with others and uniting for a greater purpose. For these reasons they are often found in churches and other religious or spiritual groups, or any kind of charity organization dedicated to helping others. They are also commonly found in career fields such as social work or healthcare, anywhere they can feel they are making a positive difference in people's lives. You will rarely see a Harmonizer in an argument or fight with others, unless they feel they have no other choice or else harm may come to others. In such situations they often become very uncomfortable and visibly upset, and may lose their grip on rationality, throwing out impassioned and desperate emotional appeals. But if direct conflict can be avoided, they will do so by any means possible. This is why Harmonizers often go along with the views expressed by others around them, whether they agree with them or not. Just as Executives make decisions based on whether they are worth the practical costs, Harmonizers make decisions based on whether they are worth the social costs. They care greatly about social norms and how they are perceived by others, not so much because of their own egos but because they do not want to risk hurting or offending others. As their name suggests, they value harmony above all else and establishing harmony is their primary motivation. They are often excellent at moving and uniting people behind a cause, and for this reason some of the most influential social leaders in history have been Harmonizers.

All Harmonizers look nearly identical on the surface, but internally the NFJ and SFJ are quite different. The SFJ is focused on maintaining established social conventions and working within traditional social groups, while the NFJ is focused on reforming social conventions or improving upon the traditional social status of groups in society. There are also noticeable differences between the IFJ and EFJ. The IFJ is more quietly caring and gentle, content with working silently and out of the spotlight to advance their causes and help people, while the EFJ takes on a more vocal and impassioned role publicly advocating for their cause and taking on the responsibility of initiating movements of people. Both, however, are capable of performing the preferred role of the other, they just will have to expend more energy to do so.

Examples: Mahatma Gandhi (INFJ), Martin Luther King, Jr. (ENFJ), Mother Teresa (ISFJ), Dale Carnegie (ESFJ)

Perceiving Types

NP: The Intellectuals

This group is the most philosophical, novelty-seeking, open-minded, curious, unconventional, and imaginative of all the temperaments. They enjoy reflecting upon and playing with ideas, either within their own minds or in discussion with others. They find it very easy to perceive all possible ways in which a situation might unfold, or all possible meanings—hidden or otherwise—that might be behind anything they see. For this reason, they are the temperament least prone to taking direct action and following through with their plans. They are constantly changing their minds and refining their concepts based on new information, so they find it both difficult and undesirable to settle on a course of action, as you never know when the situation might change. In any case, they live more to just explore and take in knowledge cerebrally than they do to have a direct impact on the world. The more knowledge they can gather, the better. They are very excited by new ideas and often attempt to build on them in novel ways. They are very often brilliant and creative, so it goes without saying that some of the most brilliant creative artists, philosophers, scientists, writers, etc. have been Intellectuals. They may not fit in well with the conventional systems that Judging types thrive in, and for this reason have the lowest average income of all the temperaments. And they are often perceived by more conventional types as eccentric, quirky, or outright strange. But all of this rarely matters to them, so long as they are free to explore their ideas and express themselves creatively. And when an Intellectual does find widespread success, they are often the catalysts for some of the greatest revolutions in whatever their field of interest is, sometimes shaking its very foundation and permanently changing the way it is perceived.

All Intellectuals look very similar on the surface, but internally the NTP and NFP are quite different. The NTP is focused more on impersonal, generalized, detached ideas that may overlook the human element, while the NFP is focused more on the personal and social side of ideas and is often very concerned with abstract human rights and their own individual values. There are also noticeable differences between the INP and ENP. The INP tends to work through their ideas alone within their own minds, only checking with the outside world and sharing them with others after they are formed, while the ENP works through their ideas aloud in concert with others, and their ideas are directly influenced by the outside world, which they seek to expand upon.

Examples: Albert Einstein (INTP), Benjamin Franklin (ENTP), David Lynch (INFP), Bill Clinton (ENFP)

SP: The Actors

This group is the most down-to-earth, in-the-moment, reflexive, adaptive, thrill-seeking, and risk-taking of all the temperaments. They live in the real world and experience it raw and unfiltered through their five senses. Just as Intellectuals want to gather as much abstract knowledge as they can, Actors want to gather as much sensory experience as they can. And in order to do that, they must act, hence the name. They rarely hesitate to take action, freely allowing themselves to be guided by their impulses, which rarely mislead them. They tend to have a very “keep it simple stupid” attitude toward the world, and have little patience for either the convoluted theory of Intellectuals or the confining systems of Judging types. They simply want to be free to act unconstrained in the real world, and anything that limits the options available to them is something they oppose. Because they are so keenly aware of the sensory data in their environment and so in tune with their senses, they tend to be very good at using their senses to manipulate objects in the real world to their benefit. For this reason, some of them are literally actors, or another job that requires detailed physical action, such as fashion designer, athlete, mechanic, surgeon, etc. Anything that allows them to get their hands dirty and continuously provides new sensory stimulation so as not to bore them. On the downside, they may be perceived by other types as superficial or reckless, because they do not often put much thought into the possible future outcomes of their immediate actions and they focus their attention on the surface. But they usually care very little and thumb their noses at such judgments. The way they see it, they are simply living life naturally and free, the way it is meant to be lived, while other types are missing out because they refuse to stop and look around as often.

All Actors look close to one another on the surface, but internally the STP and SFP are quite different. The STP is focused more on taking action based on what makes sense to them and what they think will benefit them most, while the SFP is focused more on taking action based on what they value and how they think it could benefit others. There are also noticeable differences between the ISP and ESP. The ISP will be more distant and often much less verbal, truly letting their actions do all the talking for them, while the ESP is more prone to be a smooth talker who is as skilled with the art of words as with physical arts.

Examples: Clint Eastwood (ISTP), Donald Trump (ESTP), Marilyn Monroe (ISFP), Ronald Reagan (ESFP)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
I agree with you about the arbitrariness of Keirsey's foursome, but if you're going to pick four pairs of preferences that give the people who share them the most in common, I think there's a strong case to be made for the foursome that Myers favored: NF/NT/SF/ST — although that's not necessarily where I come down.

Anybody who wants to read more from me about that issue — including a leetle correlational study I performed using a large official MBTI career sample — can find it in this post, which includes a bonus spoiler about why I tend to think of the INs as my peeps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I agree with you about the arbitrariness of Keirsey's foursome, but if you're going to pick a pair of preferences that give the people who share them the most in common, I think there's a strong case to be made for the foursome that Myers favored: NF/NT/SF/ST — although that's not necessarily where I come down.
Obviously it depends upon the strength of your preferences. i.e. If you're an INTJ but your two strongest preferences are IN and your weakest two are TJ, you'll probably have more in common with INFPs and relate more to my Intellectuals description than with ESTJs and the Executives description.

BUT I think my theory works a lot better with function theory, because it groups all the types according to the first extroverted function, i.e. what they theoretically show the external world the most. That works better than both Keirsey's temperaments and Myers's NF/NT/SF/ST grouping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I definitely fit your NP temperament much better than I do any of the temperaments in Keirsey's system.
Unsurprising. The logic behind it was that if we accept that T/F is your judging preference and N/S is your perceiving preference, and J/P determines whether you use your perceiving or judging preference in the external world, it should follow that, say, an NTP displays more visible intuition traits than he does thinking traits. And so based on observable behavior, it makes more sense to group him with NFPs, who also display feeling traits the most, than with NTJs, who display thinking traits the most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
For what it's worth, I just expanded that leetle correlational study of mine to incorporate your pairs. Here's my original report (pitting Myers' foursome against Keirsey's foursome):

So I decided to calculate what you might call the total distance between the job choices of those six S types by totaling the 22 differences in job satisfaction ratings. And here are the results:

ISFJ vs. ISTJ (both SJs): 737
ISFJ vs. ISFP (both SFs): 337

ESTP vs. ESFP (both SPs): 659
ESTP vs. ESTJ (both STs): 375

In both cases the results favor Myers' perspective — that ST/SF is a more meaningful way to group the S's than SJ/SP — and by a very wide margin.
The second of those two comparisons already serves the dual purpose of pitting Myers against Keirsey and Myers against you, so Myers beat you, 375 to 659 (since lower is better).

I expanded the first comparison by comparing ISFJs to INFJs (both FJs), and the result was 448. So... Myers beat you again, 337 to 448 — but you can take some comfort in the fact that her margin against you was significantly less than her margin against Keirsey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
For what it's worth, I just expanded that leetle correlational study of mine to incorporate your pairs. Here's my original report (pitting Myers' foursome against Keirsey's foursome):



The second of those two comparisons already serves the dual purpose of pitting Myers against Keirsey and Myers against you, so Myers beat you, 375 to 659 (since lower is better).

I expanded the first comparison by comparing ISFJs to INFJs (both FJs), and the result was 448. So... Myers beat you again, 337 to 448 — but you can take some comfort in the fact that her margin against you was significantly less than her margin against Keirsey.
This might be somewhat relevant if my entire theory rested on job satisfaction. But since it doesn't, it's not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
This might be somewhat relevant if my entire theory rested on job satisfaction. But since it doesn't, it's not.
I agree that that single comparison, involving a single sample, is nothing like definitive with respect to the issue, but since career choices can potentially be substantially influenced by multiple aspects of someone's "personality," I disagree with your view that those results — involving a 92,000-person sample — should be dismissed as less than "somewhat relevant."

It's maybe also worth noting that one of the things Myers and Keirsey agreed on — and I think I agree, too — is that the S/N preference is the single most consequential preference of the four, and for anyone who takes that view, your foursome has a weakness that neither Myers' or Keirsey's does, and that is that your foursome involves grouping N's and S's together (in two of your groups).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
I agree that that single comparison, involving a single sample, is nothing like definitive with respect to the issue, but since career choices can potentially be substantially influenced by multiple aspects of someone's "personality," I disagree with your view that those results — involving a 92,000-person sample — should be dismissed as less than "somewhat relevant."

It's maybe also worth noting that one of the things Myers and Keirsey agreed on — and I think I agree, too — is that the S/N preference is the single most consequential preference of the four, and for anyone who takes that view, your foursome has a weakness that neither Myers' or Keirsey's does, and that is that your foursome involves grouping N's and S's together (in two of your groups).
Go look at the income stats of types and then you'll start to see what I'm talking about when you see that the top four earners are all TJ types. Or that the two most significant personality traits that stand out in official studies of US Presidents are low agreeableness (T) and high conscientiousness (J). Or that almost the entire military has TJ preferences, but no significant preference for I/E or N/S. I'm talking mostly about how types act, behave, fit in with, and are perceived in the external world. Not their sense of satisfaction, which is derived internally. Internal factors may depend on other combinations or other psychological factors, but I never claimed otherwise.

And I do not agree with the view that the S/N preference is the single most consequential preference of the four. If anything I think it's the second least consequential overall. Externally, it's only more important for P types, not J types.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,034 Posts
My first post here. I also posted this over at the INTJforum website:

It’s always seemed completely arbitrary to me that, in his temperament theory, Keirsey combined N with T/F and S with J/P. It seems to make a lot more sense to me that if you have a judging preference, J should be combined with how you judge (T/F) and if you have a perceiving preference, P should be combined with how you perceive (N/S). After all, that will be the function you show the most in the external world, and for this reason the types within the TJ, FJ, NP, and SP groups have a lot more in common with each other--on the surface at least--than Keirsey’s groups do. And since Keirsey attempts to divide types based on observable behavior, using these groups as temperaments instead makes a lot more sense. So I made my own descriptions of these temperaments.

Judging Types

TJ: The Executives

This group is the most pragmatic, decisive, efficient, assertive, task-oriented, and determined of all the temperaments. They have strong willpower and enjoy being in control. They establish categories by which they classify both people and things, and are motivated to reach the top of whatever hierarchy they are a part of. But wherever they do fall in the hierarchy, they will enforce the system and recognize its authority. They tend to believe the ends justify the means and are prone to thinking in black-and-white, objective, "us v. them" type terms. They are not the most patient types and will often sacrifice purity for expediency. They pay little regard to social costs and will only bow to social norms, with some reluctance, if they need to do so in order to achieve their ends. They will always use whatever tools are available to them that will get them the best result, because they always keep an eye toward the bottom line and the end result matters to them above all else. Before taking any action, they question whether the benefits outweigh the costs in terms of external standards and objective measures of success. If yes, they will act. If no, they will not. They make most all decisions according to this simple equation. They quickly examine clear evidence and facts available to them and ruthlessly apply hard logic to them in order to judge what they mean and what should be done based on them. For this reason, they are highly skilled at coming up with solutions to most any problem they are confronted with. They are excellent at motivating and organizing themselves and others in order to accomplish tasks and simply get things done. For these reasons, they have the highest average income of all the temperaments and often rise to some of the most powerful positions in business, government, etc.

All Executives look practically the same on the surface, but internally the NTJ and STJ are quite different. The STJ is focused on past precedent and maintaining established systems, while the NTJ is focused on improving upon established systems or establishing new systems for the future. There are also noticeable differences between the ITJ and ETJ. The ITJ tends to be more reluctant to take on a public leadership role and is content with exerting influence from behind the scenes, while the ETJ is a more vocal director who likes to be clearly in charge. Both, however, are capable of performing the preferred role of the other, they just will have to expend more energy to do so.

Examples: Hillary Clinton (INTJ), Steve Jobs (ENTJ), George Washington (ISTJ), Henry Ford (ESTJ)

FJ: The Harmonizers

This group is the most diplomatic, sociable, caring, friendly, warm, and agreeable of all the temperaments. They enjoy establishing relationships with people and are excellent at peacefully resolving conflicts and bringing people together. They take their moral values and commitments seriously and are very loyal to the groups they are part of. They enjoy cooperating with others and uniting for a greater purpose. For these reasons they are often found in churches and other religious or spiritual groups, or any kind of charity organization dedicated to helping others. They are also commonly found in career fields such as social work or healthcare, anywhere they can feel they are making a positive difference in people's lives. You will rarely see a Harmonizer in an argument or fight with others, unless they feel they have no other choice or else harm may come to others. In such situations they often become very uncomfortable and visibly upset, and may lose their grip on rationality, throwing out impassioned and desperate emotional appeals. But if direct conflict can be avoided, they will do so by any means possible. This is why Harmonizers often go along with the views expressed by others around them, whether they agree with them or not. Just as Executives make decisions based on whether they are worth the practical costs, Harmonizers make decisions based on whether they are worth the social costs. They care greatly about social norms and how they are perceived by others, not so much because of their own egos but because they do not want to risk hurting or offending others. As their name suggests, they value harmony above all else and establishing harmony is their primary motivation. They are often excellent at moving and uniting people behind a cause, and for this reason some of the most influential social leaders in history have been Harmonizers.

All Harmonizers look nearly identical on the surface, but internally the NFJ and SFJ are quite different. The SFJ is focused on maintaining established social conventions and working within traditional social groups, while the NFJ is focused on reforming social conventions or improving upon the traditional social status of groups in society. There are also noticeable differences between the IFJ and EFJ. The IFJ is more quietly caring and gentle, content with working silently and out of the spotlight to advance their causes and help people, while the EFJ takes on a more vocal and impassioned role publicly advocating for their cause and taking on the responsibility of initiating movements of people. Both, however, are capable of performing the preferred role of the other, they just will have to expend more energy to do so.

Examples: Mahatma Gandhi (INFJ), Martin Luther King, Jr. (ENFJ), Mother Teresa (ISFJ), Dale Carnegie (ESFJ)

Perceiving Types

NP: The Intellectuals

This group is the most philosophical, novelty-seeking, open-minded, curious, unconventional, and imaginative of all the temperaments. They enjoy reflecting upon and playing with ideas, either within their own minds or in discussion with others. They find it very easy to perceive all possible ways in which a situation might unfold, or all possible meanings—hidden or otherwise—that might be behind anything they see. For this reason, they are the temperament least prone to taking direct action and following through with their plans. They are constantly changing their minds and refining their concepts based on new information, so they find it both difficult and undesirable to settle on a course of action, as you never know when the situation might change. In any case, they live more to just explore and take in knowledge cerebrally than they do to have a direct impact on the world. The more knowledge they can gather, the better. They are very excited by new ideas and often attempt to build on them in novel ways. They are very often brilliant and creative, so it goes without saying that some of the most brilliant creative artists, philosophers, scientists, writers, etc. have been Intellectuals. They may not fit in well with the conventional systems that Judging types thrive in, and for this reason have the lowest average income of all the temperaments. And they are often perceived by more conventional types as eccentric, quirky, or outright strange. But all of this rarely matters to them, so long as they are free to explore their ideas and express themselves creatively. And when an Intellectual does find widespread success, they are often the catalysts for some of the greatest revolutions in whatever their field of interest is, sometimes shaking its very foundation and permanently changing the way it is perceived.

All Intellectuals look very similar on the surface, but internally the NTP and NFP are quite different. The NTP is focused more on impersonal, generalized, detached ideas that may overlook the human element, while the NFP is focused more on the personal and social side of ideas and is often very concerned with abstract human rights and their own individual values. There are also noticeable differences between the INP and ENP. The INP tends to work through their ideas alone within their own minds, only checking with the outside world and sharing them with others after they are formed, while the ENP works through their ideas aloud in concert with others, and their ideas are directly influenced by the outside world, which they seek to expand upon.

Examples: Albert Einstein (INTP), Benjamin Franklin (ENTP), David Lynch (INFP), Bill Clinton (ENFP)

SP: The Actors

This group is the most down-to-earth, in-the-moment, reflexive, adaptive, thrill-seeking, and risk-taking of all the temperaments. They live in the real world and experience it raw and unfiltered through their five senses. Just as Intellectuals want to gather as much abstract knowledge as they can, Actors want to gather as much sensory experience as they can. And in order to do that, they must act, hence the name. They rarely hesitate to take action, freely allowing themselves to be guided by their impulses, which rarely mislead them. They tend to have a very “keep it simple stupid” attitude toward the world, and have little patience for either the convoluted theory of Intellectuals or the confining systems of Judging types. They simply want to be free to act unconstrained in the real world, and anything that limits the options available to them is something they oppose. Because they are so keenly aware of the sensory data in their environment and so in tune with their senses, they tend to be very good at using their senses to manipulate objects in the real world to their benefit. For this reason, some of them are literally actors, or another job that requires detailed physical action, such as fashion designer, athlete, mechanic, surgeon, etc. Anything that allows them to get their hands dirty and continuously provides new sensory stimulation so as not to bore them. On the downside, they may be perceived by other types as superficial or reckless, because they do not often put much thought into the possible future outcomes of their immediate actions and they focus their attention on the surface. But they usually care very little and thumb their noses at such judgments. The way they see it, they are simply living life naturally and free, the way it is meant to be lived, while other types are missing out because they refuse to stop and look around as often.

All Actors look close to one another on the surface, but internally the STP and SFP are quite different. The STP is focused more on taking action based on what makes sense to them and what they think will benefit them most, while the SFP is focused more on taking action based on what they value and how they think it could benefit others. There are also noticeable differences between the ISP and ESP. The ISP will be more distant and often much less verbal, truly letting their actions do all the talking for them, while the ESP is more prone to be a smooth talker who is as skilled with the art of words as with physical arts.

Examples: Clint Eastwood (ISTP), Donald Trump (ESTP), Marilyn Monroe (ISFP), Ronald Reagan (ESFP)
I don't like it...I love it for the most part. There are some things that are a bit cliche, but overall good work man. Keirsey's system ignores cognitive functions. I get it that some people don't believe in the cognitive functions, whatever floats your boat I guess, but systems that don't focus on the functions are a bit shortsighted. This is why I really don't take Keirsey or the MBTI seriously. I think it fits better than the way Keirsey had them because there is more similarity between an INFP-ENTP than an ENTP-ENTJ for example. This spans across all types.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,374 Posts
Odd that I should find the NP description most relatable of the four, given I'd say my T preference is stronger than N by some way, and J/P remains undiscerned. None fit extremely well, though that's hardly unique to these descriptions...

I think this is probably the key point, and in many ways, it highlights how individual difference limits the application of "temperament"/type grouping theories such that they don't, for instance, make for an effective tool in determining type:
Obviously it depends upon the strength of your preferences. i.e. If you're an INTJ but your two strongest preferences are IN and your weakest two are TJ, you'll probably have more in common with INFPs and relate more to my Intellectuals description than with ESTJs and the Executives description.
I'm curious about the claim that TJ/FJ/SP/NP is better suited to "functions theory" than Myers' ST/SF/NT/NF split (it's fairly clear that it's "superior" to Keirsey in that regard, given Keirsey's disregard for that side of the theory) - surely that only holds if you consider a function's attitude to be of primary relevance? Otherwise, Myers' categories have the distinct advantage of covering both "function" dimensions (S/N and T/F), and the disregarding of I/E becomes more questionable - is there any basis, then, for thinking the attitudes of functions should be of such central importance?

Given my point above about the problems with typing oneself via a "temperament" system, what is theoretically "external" makes more sense to focus on that the internal, I guess, but the inverse split of SJ/NJ/TP/FP could be interesting to consider also. That said, I'm generally inclined to be wary of any comparison that isn't a like-for-like comparison between the opposing poles of the same dimensions - the explicit grounding of this comparison in a "function-centric" approach goes some way to resolving that issue, but it still makes individual variation on one of the middle preference pairs far more likely to reduce the applicability of temperament theory as a whole to a given individual than in like-for-like situations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
TJ = Slytherin
FJ = Hufflepuff
NP = Ravenclaw
SP = Gryffindor

Not sure about FJ and SP though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ardielley
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top