Personality Cafe banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I don't see why people don't understand how much better KTT is than the MB. Here's why...

1.) There are mistakes all over MB. Contradictory contradictions that contradict themselves. It's a bunch of stupid psychologists trying to sound smart by using Jung's cognitive functions. Yea okay I admit, it was a really big stepping stone for this theory.

2.) They thought introverted meant being interested in ideas/concepts, and extraverted meant being interested in people/things.

THAT'S THE STUPIDEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD!!! Do none of you understand the concept of individual energy? Perhaps the theory has changed since my studying of it, but I doubt it.

3.) Keirsey's work is all based on observable behavioral patterns... oh what?... that doesn't sound fun? THAT'S BECAUSE YOU LIKE TO HEAR WHAT'S COOLER RATHER THAN THE TRUTH!!! You cannot deny anything on Keirsey because it's all been seen/heard(picked up through the senses)

Now I know most of us NTs like to think we don't need experience to gain knowledge and wisdom but even if that is the case, it's the most reliable source of truth. Because it HAS HAPPENED.

4.) Keirsey directly points out all the mistakes of MB and Jung.

So why on earth is PerC so inclined to approach the theory of human temperament by MB and Jungian standards? When we know that Keirsey has better and more accurate information?

People that don't know who Keirsey is: Read the book Please Understand Me II.

So I ask, why are Myers Briggs and Jung the more popular theorists?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
On these forums, I think most people individually bring their knowledge from Socionics, MBTI, Keirsey, or Jung and discuss it here.

As for the MBTI, I believe the creators (using Jung's work) popularized their system by applying it to business settings, schools, etc..
Typically the process would be discovering the MBTI (through school or work), coming to forums/researching, then discovering the other's.

I believe Jung, except in two books, wasn't interested in popularizing his work to public. Keirsey with a book is only attracting one audience, reader's.

I've sort of integrated them all into one mesh. I think in some sense they all serve a purpose. The MBTI was created to make the Jungian functions easier to understand in the public (try explaining Jung/Socionics/Keirsey to friends - and maintain their interest.)
I don't believe most people care? Just a bias.

Keirsey's books I believe were written after Jung and Myers/Briggs.

I'm typically pretty vague, but I believe you need to specify where your problem is. You seem to have many. Maybe rally people toward the Keirsey's system?
Rather, I don't believe people don't care about the truth; but it's not everyone's prime interest or focus. Sort of like how there may be: ego, soul, or self phychologists. There may be music, art, or chair therapists.
Not everyone is primarily interested in the truth, because not everyone's sight is sourced to seeing or spotting the truth. Your preference or functions may be, but other's start in different places.
For example, let's look at my focus (and bias), i'm looking at you. That's where I start.

Having a universal of one preference would make for a poor ice cream mix. I like my justice pie too, but first I need to chew on my bubble gum. (I'm creating a new system to compete the MBTI Facebook quiz by asking, what piece of candy are you? And i've lost interest in directions.)

You're admitting a preference, the truth is important to you. Don't let it become a bias, or truth may pass you.
Freud to Jung: "I have always felt that there is something about my personality ... that people find ... repelling whereas all hearts open to you."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
74 Posts
While I like the way Kiersey redefined the preferences, I think the 4 temperments as described in Please Understand Me II all sound like a collection of cardboard cut-outs. If I was forced to choose the closest match for myself it'd probably be NF (the idealists), but in truth I couldn't relate that strongly to any of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Keirsey's work is great. I find the temperaments very accurate and a capable substitute to cognitive functions when trying to type people you don't know well. But the more you get to know someone, the more complex they appear and cog. functions then becomes a tool for deeper, more detailed examination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
i see no reason why all the various forms of personality typing can't exist at the same time.

i mean, we're not debating the existence of god here. people act a certain way, and there are multiple theories of how to explain it. Each is trying to be a 'best fit' model, so each will have positives and negatives associated.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
While external behavior is much more empirically valid and concrete, given that it's happening in a way which we can actually observe, quantify, study, and analyze with some level of actual credibility, I do think that our human psychology cannot be entirely reduced to the simple notion of behavior. Surely, it's a very valid scientific approach (and was indeed the popular psychological approach in Keirsey's time). Yet, psychology isn't always limited to external behavior.

In the beginning, it was all introspection and deep thinking (philosopher-psychologists like Freud, Nietzsche, and William James, among others). Then Behaviorism became the dominant psychological philosophy, lasting until about the 60s, at which time cognitive psychology - ironically enough - emerged on the scene and changed things forever. Psychologists today don't entirely limit themselves to either a) internal processes or b) external behavior. Instead, many psychologists now consider both approaches to psychology to be useful ways of understanding the human mind.

Surely, psychologists now use sophisticated instruments and techniques to really pin-down and understand cognitive processes (rather than simply guessing, through the use of introspection, what is going on in someone's mind). Now there is a credible basis upon which cognitive understanding of one's thoughts and actions can be understood and explained, without entirely limiting one's self to mere behavior. Clearly there is something causing that behavior; clearly, there is an internal framework of some sort (based on some genetic structure) which compels humans to think and act in particular ways, from the inside. If we simply look at the external aspect of humans, we miss all that lies underneath - the true source of these seeming impulses and patterned behaviors.

Thus, both theories do seem valuable, collectively, as they both deal with some aspect of personality and psychology which is actually relevant to the ultimate understanding of the human mind! Surely Keirsey's approach is much more scientifically reliable and credible, but that doesn't mean it's superior - it merely has a more empirical, trustworthy basis. And the Myers-Briggs/Jungian approach does seem to correlate well - generally - with what many individuals internally experience, even if it is true that we have no way of actually verifying these notions of cognitive functions currently, given that we are still very limited to introspection (which does have some merits). But this may soon change as we begin learning more and more about a) genetics and how exactly genes influence thought and behavior and b) cognitive processes themselves, and how the chemical, neurological basis of these processes also contributes to the entire subject of the mind and its resultant external, bodily actions.

So, even from a scientific point of view, I would not be so hasty to simply discard and discount the Jungian aspect of this notion that people have very similar personalities and that there may be some notion of temperament throughout the human species. What is empirical isn't always what is useful or valuable, or the end of all things. Empirical knowledge is merely a credible foundation - an aspect of a whole - which greatly helps us understand that which we seek to know - but it's by no means the whole itself. There are many aspects of the puzzle, and empirical knowledge is merely one of them. Introspection and cognitive processes are another, among many others. The mind is not entirely physical, so that we can simply apply a microscope or brain scanner, or merely observe behavior. The mind is a very complex thing with much seemingly intangible aspects of which we can only manage to truly understand through personal experience. Each person contributes to this understanding by explaining how they seem to process information and make decisions. We cannot entirely empirically study any of this, at the moment, so we would be wisest to take both approaches into consideration when attempting to understand such a seemingly incorporeal, thought-based structure which we've hardly begun to tap into with our currently limited and crude scientific techniques and methods.
 

·
MOTM June 2010
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
I think the point that should be made here is the systems are an apple/orange comparison. Keirsey is temperament, MBTI is the four letter codes resulting in forced choice dichotomies of Jung's work. Jung's work is a make-up of those four-letter codes using function-attitudes. The fact that many people attempt to merge the systems because Keirsey chose to use the four-letter codes does not make it type. If there is any comparison to be made, Keirsey's work is good at determining one's general core values shared with other types that use the same two-letter codes:

SP
SJ
NT
NF

Myers Briggs is a bit more definite that the letters represent a forced choice resulting in her codes:

ESTP
ESTJ
ENTJ
ENFJ

Jung focuses on type by looking at it's make-up which is fluid not rigid like forced choice dichotomies:

Se-Ti-Fe-Ni-Si-Te-Fi-Ne
Te-Si-Ne-Fi-Ti-Se-Ni-Fe
Te-Ni-Se-Fi-Ti-Ne-Si-Fe
Fe-Ni-Se-Ti-Fi-Ne-Si-Fe

I am not a big fan of Keirsey's individual descriptions since he uses the common function-attitude to describe them, thus making ISP sound like extraverting types (Se). However Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi has more than made up for it with their system. They put temperament in the proper context as a tool to help one determine their best fit type, and how it can be used to supplement function-attitudes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
I don't see why people don't understand how much better KTT is than the MB. Here's why...

1.) There are mistakes all over MB. Contradictory contradictions that contradict themselves. It's a bunch of stupid psychologists trying to sound smart by using Jung's cognitive functions. Yea okay I admit, it was a really big stepping stone for this theory.
Do you mean the dichotomies, Keirsey's dichotomies are similar to MBTI.


2.) They thought introverted meant being interested in ideas/concepts, and extraverted meant being interested in people/things.

THAT'S THE STUPIDEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD!!! Do none of you understand the concept of individual energy? Perhaps the theory has changed since my studying of it, but I doubt it.
Introversion and extroversion is about the direction of your dominant attitude roughly, the subjective internal self or objective external world, yes introversion and extroversion has a slightly different meaning in jungian typology than the colloquial definition.


3.) Keirsey's work is all based on observable behavioral patterns... oh what?... that doesn't sound fun? THAT'S BECAUSE YOU LIKE TO HEAR WHAT'S COOLER RATHER THAN THE TRUTH!!! You cannot deny anything on Keirsey because it's all been seen/heard(picked up through the senses)

Now I know most of us NTs like to think we don't need experience to gain knowledge and wisdom but even if that is the case, it's the most reliable source of truth. Because it HAS HAPPENED.
Keirsey's work is not scientific the least bit, were does he site his sources? Most of the scores on the forced choice tests(including Keirsey) have a bimodal distribution, meaning going by the tests alone, most people would basically be too undifferentiated to fit a distinct type or temperament. There is a error in basing type soley on outward behaviour because alot about a person's behaviour is situational, there can be many many different motivations and external factors for why someone acted a particular way in a given situation too. While in general most people do have consistent behavioural patterns(and hence personality) the test they take at a particular moment might not be the most accurate way to measure that(and also the fact that alot of people are just plain biased when they perform self-examination).By Keirsey's standards type and temperament can change rather easily and often.

The cognitive functions are more about the overarching perspectives/values people have (these rarely change due to a particular specific situation) and sometimes people might not always act in the way they would naturally act/ prefer to act for many reasons. It should also be clear that type does not exactly equal personality either, personality is actually a combination of many different pyschological facets, including life experiences, upbringing, biological makeup ect. and type is only one part in the equation. Jungian typology is also a subjective system and is not scientific(it's actually closer to philosophy), it's made up categories based mostly on introspection but that doesn't mean it has no merit whatsoever, you just have to be clear on what is empirical, scientifically based and what is not(which includes Keirsey's system). Do you think that Keirsey's system is scientifically proven?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ti Dominant

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
You have to take into account functional analysis because that's what it all boils down to. Kiersey doesn't do that. Further, Kiersey's groupings are rather stereotypical. It's also arguably just as valid to group by SF and ST as SP and SJ. Jung laid the foundations, which were fundamentally correct, just not fleshed out enough. Meyes takes into account the four letter code, but doesn't flesh out the functional stackings they stand for. Now, we have people like Beebe and Thomas working out different theories about functional analysis that account for variety even within type. I fail to see why we'd want to go back to Kiersay and hold up his books as the Bible of MBTI.
 

·
MOTM Dec 2011
Joined
·
8,651 Posts
MBTI is a tool meant to indicate your cognitive processes, which is what the 4 letters stand for. The theory it is based on is Jung's. I see it as a sort of layman's version, simplified for the masses. Jung's theory seeks to label different thought processes, by categorizing them based on function (judging: feeling & thinking, or perceiving: sensing & intuition) and attitude (introverted or extroverted). You end up with 8 different processes (or function-attitudes, commonly referred to as simply "functions" around here). Of course this does not cover the full spectrum of personality, but thought process is definitely a big part of it.

Keirsey seems very much a behaviorist. Categorizing people based on behavior is tricky because similar behavior can result from very different thought processes, behavior is very fluid, not fixed, and behavior can be adopted against a person's natural inclinations. I find his temperaments & type descriptions very stereotypical because of it. I suppose it is useful in itself, but when confused with MBTI, it can make people wrongly assume that behavior = thought process, when it does not. Behavior may offer clues, true, but you still need to know the reasons behind that behavior, which is really what MBTI seeks to do. It focuses on the underlying cause. This is why MBTI brings some behavior into the theory also; it seeks to use patterns in types to indicate an individual's thought process, but I think that can be misleading when so-called patterns also amount to stereotypes.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top