# SJ's do the SJ type descriptions do SJs a disservice



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

I already posted a related thread on the ISFJ but I wanted to ask other SJs because I see problems with all of the SJ descriptions. They all sound rather boring and bland, particularly the Kiersey ones. Meanwhile, the N descriptions sound far more interesting and unique. I think this may be part of why so many S types mistype as N. 

So SJ types, what do you think of the type descriptions for your own type? Are they overly stereotypical or do you find it accurate? Anything you would change in the type descriptions?


----------



## sea cucumber (Oct 14, 2010)

I agree with you, I don't think they give them enough credit!
all the ones I know are smart, funny, imagainative practicle and down to eath they are also more complex then the discriptions give them credit for too.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

Dementia in Absentia said:


> I already posted a related thread on the ISFJ but I wanted to ask other SJs because I see problems with all of the SJ descriptions. They all sound rather boring and bland, particularly the Kiersey ones. Meanwhile, the N descriptions sound far more interesting and unique. I think this may be part of why so many S types mistype as N.
> 
> So SJ types, what do you think of the type descriptions for your own type? Are they overly stereotypical or do you find it accurate? Anything you would change in the type descriptions?


Hmmm... let see... So this is what Kiersey said about ESTJ (The Supervisor):




> Supervisors are highly social and *community-minded*, with many rising to positions of responsibility in their school, church, industry, or civic groups. *Supervisors are generous with their time and energy, and very often belong to a variety of service clubs, lodges, and associations*, supporting them through steady attendance, but also taking an outspoken leadership role.
> 
> *Supervisors like to take charge of groups and are comfortable issuing orders. *They are cooperative with their own superiors, and they would like cooperation from the people working under them. Rank, they believe, has its obligations, but it also has its privileges.
> 
> ...


The bold ones are things I don't relate with.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

For the most part, I don't know if I so much disagree with them as much as I feel that they're exaggerated.


For example...SJs are known for working hard, for striving for consistency, and to try to keep things running smoothly. We're always looking to solve physical problems and working out all of the kinks to problems. We like to have things organized down to the details and to provide structure.

Now, relative to other types, we do this a whole lot. From another type's point of view, it may see like that's *all* that we do. 


But it's not all that we do. It's not like we only care about work. We know how to have fun too. It's not like we always do what we're told. We know how to think for ourselves too. It's not like we have to have every little thing organized. My home is as messy as anyone else's. 


So I don't really have a problem with the descriptions. I read them and they feel right on for me. But I think another type might read it and feel like that's all there is to us....like we don't deviate from those things at all. Because those things aren't as strong in the other temperaments, I think sometimes they get blinded by them, because those are the things that stand out the most.



For me personally, though, I do agree with the general notion that SJs thrive on work more than the other temperaments. I think we get more satisfaction out of completing tasks for the sake of doing them. This is true for our jobs, but also for our leisure. I think we generally like to take care of errands and tasks first, and then we organize our play time. That way we feel like we're maximizing it. 

The other types seem to just have fun and do what they feel like. So to them, they don't view our way as fun at all. They view us as uptight. They don't get the same satisfaction out of all of our organization. They view it as stressful and draining of fun (I know this is bigger amongst P types, but I'm willing to bet the NJ types see it too, since their Ns make them ignore a lot of the organizational details that we focus on). 


But for us, I think the only way we can have fun is to have that structure. Otherwise, we get thrown off.


I'm speaking more for me than all SJs. I think this is mainly an Si thing, so it's stronger in ISJs. But I've noticed ESJs do it some too.


----------



## etherealuntouaswithin (Dec 7, 2010)

I find many of those descriptions to be relics.

An estj friend of mine has a _basic_ tone to his manner,of which is very similar to some of the stereotypical models.However he is largely fashionable with the times.He wishes to be a buisnessman in the industry of fashion..with an interest in managing art products as well.

He has his finger on the pulse of what is popularly fashionable with the general public more-so than I...and i'm a Se dominant.

I think it would be great to have an update of such descriptions every once so often (every generation perhaps) to observe how the basics of each type has evolved with time.


----------



## my melody (Nov 3, 2009)

teddy564339 said:


> For the most part, I don't know if I so much disagree with them as much as I feel that they're exaggerated.


I agree with this for the most part. There are things in the ISFJ descriptions I don't relate to, but because they come off in such an exaggerated way, like that's how all of them are, all the time. I need structure in my life, that's definitely true. In fact, an argument I had the other day with my fiance was about that. He's an NP and to me it seems he lives on the fly and I had to tell him I just can't do that so comfortably like him. I _need_ to know what's going on. I need to have a basic understanding of some sort of 'plan.' I can let go at times but I can't just live my life that way completely. 

I wouldn't say I thrive on work, though. I like helping people and feeling like I'm contributing something but sometimes I detest that too... Maybe it's because I'm in a Si-Ti loop, so I'm more introverted. But that also gives an example of how there are variations within a type. Certainly not all SJs act a certain way. We all have our own values and such.


----------



## Skadi (Jun 2, 2011)

Dementia in Absentia said:


> I already posted a related thread on the ISFJ but I wanted to ask other SJs because I see problems with all of the SJ descriptions. They all sound rather boring and bland, particularly the Kiersey ones. Meanwhile, the N descriptions sound far more interesting and unique. I think this may be part of why so many S types mistype as N.
> 
> So SJ types, what do you think of the type descriptions for your own type? Are they overly stereotypical or do you find it accurate? Anything you would change in the type descriptions?


I was reading it and they are overly stereotyping. However I did find one description of ISTJ (of which i am) that i can relate too (i showed my brother (INTJ) and my friend (ISFP) it and they both said it describs me):Portrait of an ISTJ


----------



## cardigan (May 31, 2011)

Yes, they do. It was so abysmal that I identified with the INTP, INFP ones, which should have raised an alarm at the inconsistency, but didn't, because I wasn't thinking straight. Apologies to anyone who identified with the description; this is not meant as a personal attack. If I were to rewrite it, I would be focusing a lot more on Introverted Sensing from an internal perspective, which I think, is sorely needed. Jung is better, but he doesn't decode the world in the same way.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

The descriptions are so god awful that I absolutely refused the possibility of being an SJ. I see myself as creative and fun-loving (I'm a spelunking, backpacking laidback surfer/crotch rocket junkie with a patent pending and humorous essays published) - so I insisted I was either N or an SP. 

Learn about cognitive functions and piece YOURSELF together by hand - that's how I knew I was a Te-dom! Those descriptions are just the microwaved radioactive frozen-block TV dinner versions of function study!


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

One of the hard parts perhaps of describing the SJ's is because there is so many within the general population, that it is hard to pin down traits that they have without sounding stereotypical? 

Personally I don't understand all the ESTJ hate, I think ESTJ are great.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Emerson said:


> Personally I don't understand all the ESTJ hate, I think ESTJ are great.



I've definitely noticed that NFs tend to have more problems with STJs (particularly ESTJs) and NTs tend to have more problems with SFJs (particularly ESFJs). I know that sounds like an obvious thing to say, though I think it is function related in addition to preference related. I mean ENTJs and ESTJs share the same dominant function, as do ENFJs and ESFJs. So I think the Te and Fe connections at least help when it comes to the judging types.


----------

