Personality Cafe banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've always been partial to focusing more on the four "temperaments" rather than the cognitive functions when thinking in terms of personality theory but recently I've been quite fascinated by the functions. Do you guys find them pretty helpful? The thing that got me interested was the INTP being low on extroverted sensing and introverted feeling really. That's pretty accurate...

What are your thoughts? How can I learn more?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Temperament is simply the dessert. Everyone focuses on it because it is the most appealing.

The functions are the meat and potatoes of the theory, and what make it substantive.

This forum is an excellent resource, I suggest the MB forum itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I've always preferred the temperaments, too. The cognitive functions theory has a lot of correct points, but I don't think everything it contains is accurate. So far, though, I haven't found any faults with the temperaments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I got interested in the functions but I started reading this book that talks about like " lasagna" and "shadow functions" and I dunno at the end of the day I apparently am a more imaginative ISTP. Not that I'm opposed to that...I just don't know that's the case.

With that said the functions do seem to carry a lot of explanatory potential if correct.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,174 Posts

·
Subterranean Homesick Alien
Joined
·
11,928 Posts
To me, it seems as if what I've read about Kiersey's four temperaments is very broad...
I prefer to look at the cognitive functions because I think they're more accurate and I also think it opens you up to learning how each of the sixteen types works rather than just their stereotypical behavior.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
109 Posts
I feel like the cognitive functions have understood *why* I act the way I do, many of the times. The temperaments, while interesting, didn't give me as much feedback as to how I come to things, how I act, why I act that way, etc - instead, it was more like 'here's the general overview of people like you'. although I do think the temperament groupings help me understand how others work, functions help me see how i work, and how other people i have to work with work. basically, more helpful in understanding people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
How do you explain how the INFJ and INTJ have the same cognitive function and that INTP and ISTP have the some cognitive function. These types act nothing alike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
They have different auxiliary functions, and the functions they share are introverted so the similarity isn't always obvious. I do think they are alike though. For example, ISTPs and INTPs both like to figure stuff out.

I think of SJs as Si types and SPs as Se types, but it doesn't work for NT and NF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
But a Guardian and a Rational are so different. Don't the functions become trivial in comparison?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
Sure, if that difference is all you're interested in. I find that the temperaments are just stating what's obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,135 Posts
fuck the temperaments, they don't mean shit. cogfunx is where its at
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,385 Posts
The temperaments are ill-contrived compared to the cognitive functions. Give me something I can ultilize; not just something to understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
What is the best book to start learning this stuff? I'm going to give it a second chance...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
I found this intersting even though I think it's pseudo-science. Who would attempt to demonstrate that a personality can be explained by a higher amount of a neurotransmitter without doing actual tests? It should not be presented that way if it is merely a theory or observation. That is misleading. I think they were stretching to show how everything can be explained through relative behavior, i.e., Rationals produce more adrenaline.

For example, the article stated that the Keirsey Rationals are the equivalent to Hippocrates' Choleric.

According to multiple sources, the Choleric is a doer, ambitious, full of energy and passion, wants to instill it in others; drawn to leadership (Wikipedia). Easily moved to often unreasonable or excessive anger; hot-tempered (Merriam-Webster). That sounds like a cross between Keirsey's Artisan and Traditionalist, as well as about everyone on earth.

According to Keirsey, the Rational is pragmatic, skeptical, self-contained, and focused on problem-solving and systems analysis; independent and strong willed. Maybe there are some similarities, but not a match.

Part of this discrepancy is a gap in research, wikipedia will define Hippocrates' temperments differently than a dictionary. That is a small misunderstanding. My problem is when the author used scientific terms to affirm their theories without doing any actual research. There is absolutely nothing backing up the claims that a rational has more adrenaline than any other type.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
I found this intersting even though I think it's pseudo-science. Who would attempt to demonstrate that a personality can be explained by a higher amount of a neurotransmitter without doing actual tests? It should not be presented that way if it is merely a theory or observation. That is misleading. I think they were stretching to show how everything can be explained through relative behavior, i.e., Rationals produce more adrenaline.

For example, the article stated that the Keirsey Rationals are the equivalent to Hippocrates' Choleric.

According to multiple sources, the Choleric is a doer, ambitious, full of energy and passion, wants to instill it in others; drawn to leadership (Wikipedia). Easily moved to often unreasonable or excessive anger; hot-tempered (Merriam-Webster). That sounds like a cross between Keirsey's Artisan and Traditionalist, as well as about everyone on earth.

According to Keirsey, the Rational is pragmatic, skeptical, self-contained, and focused on problem-solving and systems analysis; independent and strong willed. Maybe there are some similarities, but not a match.

Part of this discrepancy is a gap in research, wikipedia will define Hippocrates' temperments differently than a dictionary. That is a small misunderstanding. My problem is when the author used scientific terms to affirm their theories without doing any actual research. There is absolutely nothing backing up the claims that a rational has more adrenaline than any other type.
Of course it's pseudo science.
Science is inherently myopic and flawed since some problems simply do not render their secrets to scientific scrutiny.

The fact that something has not been scientifically verified is well... irrelevant.
This is the disconnect in the intuitive process and consequently the scientific mind it seeks to assemble a whole picture through a very narrow viewpoint.

Not every issues is falsifiable and thus given to scientific scrutiny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Judas
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top