Personality Cafe banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
856 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Sorry if there's already something somewhere explaining this. If there is, I'd appreciate a link.

Anyway, I've been wondering essentially since I discovered MBTI why the temperaments are split the way they are. Why is it not NT, NF, ST, SF or NJ, NP, SJ, SP? To me, that seems like the logical thing to do rather than divide differently for sensors and intuitives.

So, yeah, does anyone happen to know why this is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,320 Posts
And sensors and intuitives, man. Sensors and intuitives. No way sensors can be sorted in the same way as those literal, primitive intuitives :wink:

It's actually quite interesting to consider the different qualities that emerge in each classification when you consider ST/SF and NP/NJ. I think that a lot of the more negative stereotypes emerge from the SP/SJ/NP/NJ side of things for both sensors and intuitives as opposed to NF/NT/SF/ST, but it's possible that I'm just used to having my ass kissed in the Kiersey framework as an NT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Owfin

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Yes it is specifically because of Kiersey's temperaments and the fact that he does not consider cognitive functions. So the NF, SP, SJ, NT don't really make a whole lot of sense functionally. That's why you come up with all kinds of weird things, where ISFP should be closer to INFP and ENTJ is closer to ESTJ, but the way Kiersey breaks the types up he ignores things like both IxFPs are Fi-doms, or both ExTJs are Te-doms. He's solely focused on social roles and behavior.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
Sorry if there's already something somewhere explaining this. If there is, I'd appreciate a link.

Anyway, I've been wondering essentially since I discovered MBTI why the temperaments are split the way they are. Why is it not NT, NF, ST, SF or NJ, NP, SJ, SP? To me, that seems like the logical thing to do rather than divide differently for sensors and intuitives.


So, yeah, does anyone happen to know why this is?


No clue. However, I feel each way of grouping has its own value.

The tendencies kinda look like this:


- SJ/SP/NJ/NP in terms of Jungian Functions

- ST/SF/NT/NF in terms of letter preferences. ST= "want to get it right", SF = "want to provide practical service to others", NT = "want to understand it", and NF = "want to empower others and make a difference"

- Keirsey's Grouping: SJ/SP/NF/NT, according to his book he did it because of characteristics he noticed in patterns that look like this: Keirsey Temperament Chart

And I don't know, I think there's one more grouping I might've missed... but the point is that each grouping seems to have its own logic and usefulness behind it. I don't see why each can't exist with the others.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts


No clue. However, I feel each way of grouping has its own value.

The tendencies kinda look like this:


- SJ/SP/NJ/NP in terms jungian functions

- ST/SF/NT/NF in terms of letter preferences. ST= "want to get it right", SF = "want to provide practical service to others", NT = "want to understand it", and NF = "want to empower others and make a difference"

- Keirsey's Grouping: SJ/SP/NF/NT, according to his book he did it because of characteristics he noticed in patterns that look like this: Keirsey Temperament Chart

And I don't know, I think there's one more grouping I might've missed... but the point is that each grouping seems to have its own logic and usefulness behind it. I don't see why each can't exist with the others.
Yes but SP and SJ don't make any sense. You're basically creating two categories around dom/aux Si and Se (no matter the fact that ISTP is an Introverted Thinking type and ISFP is an Introverted Feeling type -- these two types are typologically nothing alike). So what happens is you have to accept Kiersey's definitions of the types not Jung's (otherwise some striking incompatibilities jump up). Lenore Thomson is no fan of Kiersey (and he no fan of her's) but her arguments against him are valid, in that he basically creates character constructs and then makes the type fit. Kiersey's ISFP is like a shyer ESFP, but that's not really always the case for Introverted Feeling type.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
Yes but SP and SJ don't make any sense. You're basically creating two categories around dom/aux Si and Se (no matter the fact that ISTP is an Introverted Thinking type and ISFP is an Introverted Feeling type -- these two types are typologically nothing alike). So what happens is you have to accept Kiersey's definitions of the types not Jung's (otherwise some striking incompatibilities jump up). Lenore Thomson is no fan of Kiersey (and he no fan of her's) but her arguments against him are valid, in that he basically creates character constructs and then makes the type fit. Kiersey's ISFP is like a shyer ESFP, but that's not really always the case for Introverted Feeling type.
The Chart I included from his book shows why he did it that way. Again, it's just one of many patterns and groupings.
And it's not like we have to make a choice of one over the others. Each method of grouping has its value and application.

Oh yes, and like you mentioned the 8 Jungian Functions groupings, that's another one, lol... and many others that I can't think of at the moment.

===================
Edit: Ah, yes another one I just remembered. Idk what this one is called but there was one I saw that grouped types by functions like so:
1. SFJ's/NTP's
2. STJ's/NFP's
3. SFP's/NTJ's
4. STP's/NFJ's

...because each group is a variant of 4 set functions.
Example: the first group would all have Fe/Si/Ne/Ti, but in different orders... similar idea for the rest.
The end concept for this was that each of the four types in each group converges as they develop all 4 functions or something like that... I wish I could find that source again. I'll post it when I find it.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Yea but you gotta understand that Kiersey/MBTI and Jung are not doing the same thing. Kiersey (and really MBTI) are looking at this from a behavioral standpoint. Or a social roles standpoint. Jung is looking at this psychologically. So Kiersey and MBTI are just borrowing Jung's terms to qualify their social theories (judging/perceiving, etc) but because of this difference between what the two measures are attempting to look at, I don't think they can really be compared like this. Jung's groupings are psychological, MBTI/Kiersey's groupings are behavioral/social.
 

·
Rebel without a cause
Joined
·
2,725 Posts
My guess is that Keirsey himself didn't want to be in the same group as xNFJs or xNFPs.

Guardian Temperament from Keirsey.com
All Guardians share the following core characteristics:

  • Guardians pride themselves on being dependable, helpful, and hard-working.
  • Guardians make loyal mates, responsible parents, and stabilizing leaders.
  • Guardians tend to be dutiful, cautious, humble, and focused on credentials and traditions.
  • Guardians are concerned citizens who trust authority, join groups, seek security, prize gratitude, and dream of meting out justice.
Obviously those descriptions doesn't fit too good with SP, and so far so good.

Artisan Temperament from Keirsey.com
All Artisans share the following core characteristics:

  • Artisans tend to be fun-loving, optimistic, realistic, and focused on the here and now.
  • Artisans pride themselves on being unconventional, bold, and spontaneous.
  • Artisans make playful mates, creative parents, and troubleshooting leaders.
  • Artisans are excitable, trust their impulses, want to make a splash, seek stimulation, prize freedom, and dream of mastering action skills.
Now, this is where it get's exciting. Look at the following description of NF

Idealist Temperament from Keirsey.com
All Idealists share the following core characteristics:

  • Idealists are enthusiastic, they trust their intuition, yearn for romance, seek their true self, prize meaningful relationships, and dream of attaining wisdom.
  • Idealists pride themselves on being loving, kindhearted, and authentic.
  • Idealists tend to be giving, trusting, spiritual, and they are focused on personal journeys and human potentials.
  • Idealists make intense mates, nurturing parents, and inspirational leaders.
See that change in logic consistency? Both NP and NJ temperaments are present in the description, but it's separated as feelers. No longer is it separated on same temperamental structure as with Sensors, so let's take a look at the last group

The Rationals temperament from Keirsey.com
All Rationals share the following core characteristics:

  • Rationals tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, self-contained, and focused on problem-solving and systems analysis.
  • Rationals pride themselves on being ingenious, independent, and strong willed.
  • Rationals make reasonable mates, individualizing parents, and strategic leaders.
  • Rationals are even-tempered, they trust logic, yearn for achievement, seek knowledge, prize technology, and dream of understanding how the world works.
NTs, or Rationals are really portrayed as the superior group, it's in this group that all the Nobel Prize winners "has to be". In this temperamental split the other three groups could be seen as tools for the NTs, as NTs are the Rationals that gets society forward and to new heights.


In my opinion SP/SJ is a good split of temperament, and NT/NF isn't as it more or less indicates that one of the two iNtuitive groups has an objectively higher value, which of course is known as bullshit in simple English.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Because a guy named Keirsey had this personality theory and wanted to make it look like it was connected to MBTI even though it really wasn't.
I was going to say "Because Keirsey said so" but you beat me to it. :laughing:

In any case I didn't like his original book at all....

If I really wanted to be mean I would say it put me in mind of an Intuitives self help guide to survive in the world of the oppressive Sensors, especially those demonic SJ's :rolleyes:. It's akin to those how to survive as an introvert in an agressively extroverted world style of books.

Such works miss the point, oversimplify and in the end cause far more damage than they heal.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top