Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Note to Moderators: The Keirsey Temperament Theory Forum didn't have a general area (or at least I couldn't find one... ), so I didn't know in what other section to post this thread. Please move it where ever you feel would be appropriate, and sorry for any inconvenience.


According to David Keirsey's work Brains and Careers (an expansion to his theory), each type fits a specific role title.

It looks something like this:


SJ's - The Guardians

ESTJ - Logistical Initiator
ISTJ - Logistical Contender
ESFJ - Logistical Co-Worker
ISFJ - Logistical Responder

SP's - The Artisans

ESTP - Tactical Initiator
ISTP - Tactical Contender
ESFP - Tactical Co-Worker
ISFP - Tactical Responder

NF's - The Idealists


ENFJ - Diplomatic Initiator
INFJ - Diplomatic Contender
ENFP - Diplomatic Co-Worker
INFP - Diplomatic Responder

NT's - The Rationals

ENTJ - Strategic Initiator
INTJ - Strategic Contender
ENTP - Strategic Co-Worker
INTP - Strategic Responder


=========================

How well would you say these titles fit each type?
How well would you say these titles fit your own Type?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Well, so I'm a Strategic Responder... but what else does it say?
Honestly the most I'm gonna post about it this, because I don't know copyright restrictions and whatnot.
I just know I can get away with this much, since it's easily Google-able.
I'll probably make more information available as a full-blown article once I know how far I can go with it.

I suppose you could just assess how well that title suits you or your type?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
The thing I can't understand about Keirsey's temperaments is that he groups Sensors in regard to what sensing function they use (Se for SP, Si for SJ) - that much I can understand, but why do intuitives get a different treatment? Ne+Ti together with Ni+Te, and Ne+Ti together with Ni+Fe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,022 Posts
The thing I can't understand about Keirsey's temperaments is that he groups Sensors in regard to what sensing function they use (Se for SP, Si for SJ) - that much I can understand, but why do intuitives get a different treatment? Ne+Ti together with Ni+Te, and Ne+Ti together with Ni+Fe?
Occam's Razor. INtuitives get special treatment, because they're special. :tongue:
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
The thing I can't understand about Keirsey's temperaments is that he groups Sensors in regard to what sensing function they use (Se for SP, Si for SJ) - that much I can understand, but why do intuitives get a different treatment? Ne+Ti together with Ni+Te, and Ne+Ti together with Ni+Fe?
Because he's not looking at functions at all. He's only really looking at outward manifestations. That's what trips everyone up with Kiersey and why he gets such a bad rap. Because those of us who are generally introduced to this stuff via Myers Briggs or Jung are trained that cognitive functions represent (at least to some degree) the basis of personality theory. Kiersey throws all that out the window (honestly we never really know the basis of why his ESTP has to be an artisan or his INFP has to be an idealist, he just says so), but the problem is he still uses the MBTI terminology! So the expectation is that when Kiersey says ESFP, he means Se-Fi-Te-Ni, but he doesn't. He means sort of an outgoing artisan or Tactical Co-Worker or whatever not an ESFP as we think of them (Se-dom). That's why there's the seemingly nonsensical ordering of the types like the SJ temperament which would haphazardly group four types around strong Si, yet as you point out this same treatment isn't upheld for the Idealists and Rationals.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
Because he's not looking at functions at all. He's only really looking at outward manifestations. That's what trips everyone up with Kiersey and why he gets such a bad rap. Because those of us who are generally introduced to this stuff via Myers Briggs or Jung are trained that cognitive functions represent (at least to some degree) the basis of personality theory. Kiersey throws all that out the window (honestly we never really know the basis of why his ESTP has to be an artisan or his INFP has to be an idealist, he just says so), but the problem is he still uses the MBTI terminology! So the expectation is that when Kiersey says ESFP, he means Se-Fi-Te-Ni, but he doesn't. He means sort of an outgoing artisan or Tactical Co-Worker or whatever not an ESFP as we think of them (Se-dom). That's why there's the seemingly nonsensical ordering of the types like the SJ temperament which would haphazardly group four types around strong Si, yet as you point out this same treatment isn't upheld for the Idealists and Rationals.
Ah, I see. So, it looks like this, yes?

Jung: anatomy book, the basis of everything, but contains lots of jargon that is sometimes hard to understand

MBTI: a how-to book on realistic painting, more user-friendly and somewhat simplified version of the previous

Keirsey: how to draw cartoons and not worry about that stupid anatomy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randroth and Inguz

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Because he's not looking at functions at all. He's only really looking at outward manifestations. That's what trips everyone up with Kiersey and why he gets such a bad rap. Because those of us who are generally introduced to this stuff via Myers Briggs or Jung are trained that cognitive functions represent (at least to some degree) the basis of personality theory. Kiersey throws all that out the window (honestly we never really know the basis of why his ESTP has to be an artisan or his INFP has to be an idealist, he just says so), but the problem is he still uses the MBTI terminology! So the expectation is that when Kiersey says ESFP, he means Se-Fi-Te-Ni, but he doesn't. He means sort of an outgoing artisan or Tactical Co-Worker or whatever not an ESFP as we think of them (Se-dom). That's why there's the seemingly nonsensical ordering of the types like the SJ temperament which would haphazardly group four types around strong Si, yet as you point out this same treatment isn't upheld for the Idealists and Rationals.
Keirsey explains his groupings in his book.

Although, I feel there's more than one useful way to group types instead of just one.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Keirsey explains his groupings in his book.

Although, I feel there's more than one useful way to group types instead of just one.
Yes but his groupings are sort of an amalgamation of the four humors and MBTI. Not quite one or the other, but the problem I have is that if you're going to adopt someone's theory (MBTI) you can't just pick and choose from it what you like (like type descriptions) and ignore what makes the type (cognitive functions).

I'm not arguing that Kiersey's conclusions or that his descriptions are wrong, mind you, just the approach causes more problems than it helps. He would've been much better off to rename his types to something else rather than stick to MBTI nomenclature which just confuses people. Again calling someone an ESTJ makes us think Extraverted Thinking type, but Kiersey is not necessarily talking about that in his system (despite the fact that he is well versed in Jung, he is deliberately sort of not paying attention to the genesis of Myers' typology).

Jung: anatomy book, the basis of everything, but contains lots of jargon that is sometimes hard to understand

MBTI: a how-to book on realistic painting, more user-friendly and somewhat simplified version of the previous

Keirsey: how to draw cartoons and not worry about that stupid anatomy.
Jung is difficult because he is purposely vague (he hated Freud's platitudes and all-or-nothing sentiments) and because he is coming from this from an Analytical Psychology perspective looking at the greater picture of humanity, its symbology, tendencies, aspirations, etc., and combining that into a general theory of the psyche.

Myers takes Jung and amalgamates much of his theories into a behavioral model wherein all of the esoteric stuff (like shadow, complexes, collective unconscious, etc) gets left out and everything revolves around Judging/Perceiving and her re-defining of the cognitive functions. She's more like an off-shoot of Jung (like The Cleveland Show is an off-shoot of Family Guy). The world MBTI comes out of is recognizable, and reverent enough to Jung's ideas to be mainstream, but not enough to be a coherent psychological theory of its own (nor is that MBTI's real intent).

Kiersey is more of a social psychologist interested in creating a model of how people interact in society and socially. His ideas are basically long-standing temperament theories that have been around for thousands of years, he just adapts them with MBTI nomenclature (but not MBTI theory). @Eric B has written much on this on his website Temperament for Dummies
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
Berens' theory is the best way to look at it through, because she recombines Keirsey with the functions, and also highlights the Interaction Styles, which were basically a recent afterthought for Keirsey. (He started with D/inf and the eight intelligence variants, but didn't divide them by I/E to get the "roles of interaction" until four years ago!)

Basically, each type is a blend of two temperaments; one social, and the other one about leadership. When we think of the classic temperaments, we usually think the social ones ("affective"), but Keirsey's were about leadership and action ("conative").

So to translate:

SJ's - The Guardians
The Melancholy in Control Temperament Melancholy In Control

Cooperative and structure-focused because of his need for familiarity, based on his introverted Sensing preference (goes well with logistics)

ESTJ - Logistical Initiator - Choleric Melancholy (Si + "directive" Te as dominant)
ISTJ - Logistical Contender - Melancholy in both areas (Si dominant + Te)
ESFJ - Logistical Co-Worker -Sanguine Melancholy (Si + "Freindly" Fe as dominant)
ISFJ - Logistical Responder - Supine Melancholy (Si dominant + Fe)

SP's - The Artisans
Sanguine in Control Temperament: Sanguine In Control

Pragmatic and motive focused (leads to the so-called "independent/dependent 'swing'" emphasized in the link) because the "go-with-the-flow perspective of preferred extraverted Sensing leads him to both extremes. Goes along with "Tactic", which is defined as "A manoeuvre, or action calculated to achieve some end."

ESTP - Tactical Initiator - Choleric Sanguine (Se dominant + "tough minded" T))
ISTP - Tactical Contender - Melancholy Sanguine (Se aux. + Ti)
ESFP - Tactical Co-Worker - Sanguine in both areas (Se + "friendly" Fi)
ISFP - Tactical Responder - Supine Sanguine (Fi dominant + Se)

NF's - The Idealists
Keirsey said it was Choleric, based on "emotionality", but more accurately fits these (from more emotional and also dependent, to less of both):
Temperament:Supine in Control
Temperament:Supine Phlegmatic in Control
Temperament: Phlegmatic in Control

Cooperative and Motive focused makes him conceptually "dependent" on others in a way (diplomatic, etc) with a humane (people-related) focus (F).

ENFJ - Diplomatic Initiator - Choleric Supine (dom. Fe "toughened" by "directive" Ni)
INFJ - Diplomatic Contender - Melancholy Supine (dom Ni + Fe).
ENFP - Diplomatic Co-Worker - Sanguine Supine ("informative" Ne as dom + "friendly" Fi)
INFP - Diplomatic Responder (Fi dom. + Ne).

NT's - The Rationals
Keirsey said it was Phlegmatic (based on "calmness"), but even in his books, you can see it really fits:
Temperament: Choleric in Control

Pragmaticism and structure-focus makes him conceptually independent and needing to "master" the world, (in one way or another) based on logical (impersonal, technical) principles. "Strategy" sounds similar to "tactic", but it's more about command; particularly the "science" of it!

ENTJ - Strategic Initiator - Choleric in both areas (Te dom. + Ni - both "directive")
INTJ - Strategic Contender -Melancholy Choleric (Ni dom. + Te)
ENTP - Strategic Co-Worker - Sanguine Choleric ("informative" Ne [dom] tempers directive T).
INTP - Strategic Responder - Phlegmatic or Supine Choleric (Ti dom. + Ne)

Also, to make it complete:
Initiator - EST/INJ: http://www.pastoral-counseling-center.org/Temperament-Area-of-Inclusion/choleric-inclusion.htm
Contender - IST/INJ: http://www.pastoral-counseling-center.org/Temperament-Area-of-Inclusion/melancholy-inclusion.htm
Co-Worker - ESF/ENP: http://www.pastoral-counseling-center.org/Temperament-Area-of-Inclusion/sanguine-inclusion.htm
Responder - ISF/INP: http://www.pastoral-counseling-center.org/Temperament-Area-of-Inclusion/supine-inclusion.htm
or: http://www.pastoral-counseling-center.org/Temperament-Area-of-Inclusion/supine-phlegmatic-inclusion.htm
or: http://www.pastoral-counseling-center.org/Temperament-Area-of-Inclusion/phlegmatic-inclusion.htm
 

·
Over 300 Confirmed Kills
Joined
·
10,577 Posts
I actually like Keirsey, he seems to get a bad wrap on PerC, but his grouping of the four temperaments is accurate and for people who feel they're stereotypes, well duh!!! There reference points. There may be deviations to each ESTP for example but we need a prime example of what an ESTP is on average.
Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
I dont quite understand why people get so worked up about temperament sorting. I dont understand why it doesnt make sense. The way I see it, SJs are more similar to other SJs and SPs are more similar to SPs. However, even though NTs and NFs have different functions, an ENFP and an INTP are way less similar than an INTP and an ENTJ in their OUTLOOK. NTs view the world though a lens of analysis, digging deeper into everything, needing to know how and why. NFs work the same way, except they experience it in a different way. They are typically more whimsical, personable and not socially-inept too haha. In my opinion, its more about a general feeling you get from people. Its easy to determine whether a person is an NT or an NF, but much more difficult to determine whether they are a sensing or judging type primarily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
816 Posts
The thing I can't understand about Keirsey's temperaments is that he groups Sensors in regard to what sensing function they use (Se for SP, Si for SJ) - that much I can understand, but why do intuitives get a different treatment? Ne+Ti together with Ni+Te, and Ne+Ti together with Ni+Fe?
That's a good question, and the simple answer to that is he threw out the cognitive functions, dismissing them as mere guesswork

To Keirsey

Se and Si don't exist, there is only S

and

Ne and Ni don't exist, there is only N

The main point he stresses as the difference between MBTI and Keirsey is, MBTI focuses on what goes on inside your head, whereas Keirsey focuses on observable behaviour which he feels is more "accurate"

I think cognitive functions if proven will be the best part of what this whole thing because

ESTP tells you "what" and ESTP is

but

Dom Se and Aux Ti tells "why" an ESTP is the way they are and how their brain works

It's great to see all these behaviors, but curiosity gets the best of us and therefore ultimately, we'd like to know why
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Strategic Contender makes sense...especially because I'm much better at making plans than I am at following through. (;
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agent Blackout

·
MOTM Dec 2011
Joined
·
8,651 Posts
Honestly the most I'm gonna post about it this, because I don't know copyright restrictions and whatnot.
I just know I can get away with this much, since it's easily Google-able.
I'll probably make more information available as a full-blown article once I know how far I can go with it.

I suppose you could just assess how well that title suits you or your type?
Just post it. We post long excerpts from books here all the time. Just don't post the whole book :tongue:

Or you know, rephrase stuff in your own words instead of direct quotes.

I'm not a fan of Keirsey like many here, but I do think he got temperaments right. Even when you take into account the cognitive functions, they way the combinations appear as visible personality often show patterns that align with the temperament categories. I think that's Keirsey's approach - how does the whole enchilada appear & compare with the other enchiladas as wholes, as opposed to discussing what they're made of & how the ingredient affect their whole.

Anyhow, I find these roles vague... is this like a life role? Is this a role you assume when in a group? How are these roles applied by each type?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Just post it. We post long excerpts from books here all the time. Just don't post the whole book :tongue:

Or you know, rephrase stuff in your own words instead of direct quotes.

I'm not a fan of Keirsey like many here, but I do think he got temperaments right. Even when you take into account the cognitive functions, they way the combinations appear as visible personality often show patterns that align with the temperament categories. I think that's Keirsey's approach - how does the whole enchilada appear & compare with the other enchiladas as wholes, as opposed to discussing what they're made of & how the ingredient affect their whole.

Anyhow, I find these roles vague... is this like a life role? Is this a role you assume when in a group? How are these roles applied by each type?
Thank you. When I get a chance I will post again in greater detail.

I'm not a fan of him either, but I feel his arrangement is useful in its own way among other different arrangements. People are so caught up in some weird unspoken rule "we can only have one arrangement at a time" that they close off and it gets difficult to discuss things about Keirsey's work (among other authors).

They're supposedly roles people play or serve as during social interaction. General/common roles, of course, since according to his theory no one is limited to one temperament via personal development.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
Oh, wow; you know, I'm not even paying attention!
So you have Brains and Careers? I've wanted to see inside that book as well, because I got its followup (and last, to date) Personology, and he's changed so much in it, and I wanted to compare. (Like the names of two of the interaction roles, all but two of the intelligence variants, and half of the types; as well as the factors; and no longer seems to use any of the type letters or the I/E factor at all, but instead the new "intersecting/interlinking" factor which ties together what used to be opposites).
It was said to be a "rewrite" of B&C, so I was wondering how many of these changes appeared in that book.

Here's where I reviewed it:
http://personalitycafe.com/book-music-movie-reviews/69727-personology-keirsey.html
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top