# Why are the types grouped as SJ, SP, NT, and NF?



## vocalist (Jul 21, 2010)

I am a little puzzled. The SJ groupings and SP groupings make some sense to me, since SJs are all Si dom or aux, and SPs are all Se dom or aux. But, there's not really a common "thread" like that with the NT and NF groupings.

Why is it NT and NF instead of NP and NJ?


----------



## SubterraneanHomesickAlien (May 16, 2010)

That's a good question, I've wondered that as well. I have much more in common with other NP types then the other NF types (apart from ENFP of course). I'm sure somebody will provide a complicated explanation of why Keirsey's sorting is better, though.


----------



## Introspiritual (Mar 12, 2010)

Myers originally grouped people by four types: ST, SF, NT, NF.

However, she thought the ST and SF types didn't really pan out the way she thought they would. There was too much overlap between them and not enough distinguishing factors.

Keirsey, while studying with her, realigned them according to the classic four humors or four temperaments. This is how SP and SJ came to replace ST and SF. After the fact, Myers agreed that his way made more sense (according to Keirsey), but I don't know if she ever published this anywhere.


----------



## Arachnophobia (Nov 15, 2009)

As it has been said, those 4 groups are based on Keirsey. For distinguishing those groups, Keirsey looks at human behaviour. He views 2 dichotomies: communication (what we say) and action (what we do). 
Communication is divided into abstract and concrete word usage when communicating. This is basically the S-N scale. If you have S, you are concrete in your communication, if you have the N, you are abstract.
The second dichotomy is action or how we achieve our goals. He distinguishes Cooperative and Utilitarian here. Cooperatives try to do the "right" thing and concern themselves more with social aspects of action than with efficiency or egoism. Utilitarians try to do it the best way, that means they try to act the way that works best for them to achieve their goals, with less regard to social concerns. This dichotomy cannot be nailed down to one of the 4 personality scales.

SPs, Keirseys Artisans are utilitarian and concrete;
SJs, the Guardians are social and concrete;
NFs, the Idealists are social and abstract;
Nts, the Rationals are utilitarian and abstract.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Reason: Keirsey was an idiot.


----------



## SubterraneanHomesickAlien (May 16, 2010)

madhatter said:


> Reason: Keirsey was an idiot.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I think he was totally wrong in his alignment of the modern four temperaments with the "four humors". There's no way in hell that I'm a choleric.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I believe he got NT and NF backwards as far as Choleric vs Phlegmatic. He looked at the NT's "coolness" an decided it was Phlegmatic, and the NF's emotionality he tried to link to Choleric. But what's traditionally considered the Choleric's "emotion" would be closer to the NT's toughmindedness, and NF and Phlegmatic are both described as "diplomatic" (and he even has the NF as having the Diplomatic skills set). Phlegmatic's coolness is really more about peacefulness, which is associated with the NF, not the NT's intellectual coolness, which can be "cold" which also describes the Choleric. 

Really, there are two levels of temperament, and the classic one, regarding social skills (including introversion/extroversion), really fits Interaction Styles more. Keirsey's groups are *conative*, meaning dealing with action or leadership. 
They are directly derived from Ernst Kretschmer's character styles. These are what he mapped onto the S+J/P; N+T/F groups.

Each type is really a combination of two temperaments.


Introspiritual said:


> Myers originally grouped people by four types: ST, SF, NT, NF.
> 
> However, she thought the ST and SF types didn't really pan out the way she thought they would. There was too much overlap between them and not enough distinguishing factors.
> 
> Keirsey, while studying with her, realigned them according to the classic four humors or four temperaments. This is how SP and SJ came to replace ST and SF. After the fact, Myers agreed that his way made more sense (according to Keirsey), but I don't know if she ever published this anywhere.


Oh, never heard that one before. From anyone. It seemed most "pure" MBTI theorists in the past did not really regard Keirsey's theory. (though in discussion sites like this, they have been universally merged).


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

You know, I was actually thinking of this the other night, even pondering making this same thread. I didn't know anything about the whole Myers/Keirsey mash-up. But as I got around to thinking about it more, I came up with my own theory.

As you know, the common factor with SJs is Si, so they like going along with the "status quo" more than other types. Se is the common thread with SPs, so they like action or the outside world. (Simplified so, so much, sorry.)

There's not really a common thread between NTs or NFs. The best we have is that the NF's first two functions are intuition -> feeling (or vise versa) and the NT's are intuition -> thinking. This is readily apparent from any list of function order. The only thing that would make sense is that we're "designed" to see possibilities by being intuitive, but the thinking/feeling aspect causes us to react differently. NFs are incredibly more people-oriented than NTs are, while NTs love to think of new ideas or ways of doing things.

I'm not sure if that made sense :tongue: The theory isn't all that well-thought out beyond what I tried to explain. Still, it might help answer your question somewhat.

(Also, I agree it should follow the order SJ, SP, NJ, NP. It's probably too late to start a revolution to change it, though.)


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

I think he really missed the mark with ISTPs. I bought a copy of Please Understand Me II a while ago, flipped to the "Artisans" section, read it, and tossed it away in disgust, never to open in again. While I am a SP and have SP characteristics, Keirsey didn't account for the differences between extroverted SPs and introverted SPs (with whom the SP characteristics wouldn't be as prominent). 

And I agree the temperaments should be divided SJ, SP, NJ, NP...but there would have to be a lot of re-defining the N categories.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

To Keirsey, the temperaments are [most] everything, really, and the types are *variants* of them. I/E is seen as the least important dichotomy, so yes, his SP profiles will make all of them tend to sound like extroverts, and I know a lot of ISFP's have complained of that as well.

What you all are witnessing is the confusion between both levels of temperament. SP is Sanguine, and yet so is the ESF/ENP group. ESFP is both, and it seems this has colored the entire SP group in his profiles. The ISP's are Sanguine in action/leadership, but not socially. The closest thing to "extroversion" in Keirsey's model (characterizing the SP) would be Pragmatism (quicker to act, based on "what works"). So while the ISP's are not extraverts, I'm sure they can acknowledge their pragmatic traits.

The way I look at the S/N divide in the temperaments, is that a concrete focus will determine temperament by orientation (internal or external), while for an abstract focus it will be based on the decision making function.


----------



## j3321 (Nov 19, 2009)

madhatter said:


> I think he really missed the mark with ISTPs. I bought a copy of Please Understand Me II a while ago, flipped to the "Artisans" section, read it, and tossed it away in disgust, never to open in again. While I am a SP and have SP characteristics, Keirsey didn't account for the differences between extroverted SPs and introverted SPs (with whom the SP characteristics wouldn't be as prominent).
> 
> And I agree the temperaments should be divided SJ, SP, NJ, NP...but there would have to be a lot of re-defining the N categories.


That is exactly what I was thinking when I read the Artisan section for the first time. How could there be such a thing as an introverted Artisan according to this description?


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

because keirsey is horrible and his type system blows


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

j3321 said:


> That is exactly what I was thinking when I read the Artisan section for the first time. How could there be such a thing as an introverted Artisan according to this description?


Likewise, I used to wonder how there could be an extraverted Guardian (which he acknowledged as Melancholic). 
Again, the analogue to introversion in Keirsey's temperaments would be "cooperative".


----------



## SubterraneanHomesickAlien (May 16, 2010)

Eric B said:


> Likewise, I used to wonder how there could be an extraverted Guardian (which he acknowledged as Melancholic).
> Again, the analogue to introversion in Keirsey's temperaments would be "cooperative".


I just don't see how the Guardians are linked with the Melancholics, period.
Here is how Melancholics are described on this site - You are a Melancholic



> -Is self-conscious, easily embarrassed, timid, bashful.
> -Avoids talking before a group; when obliged to he finds it difficult.
> -Prefers to work and play alone. Good in details; careful.
> -Is deliberative; slow in making decisions; perhaps overcautious even in minor matters.
> ...


That describes me almost perfectly, and I don't see what is SJ at all about that. The Choleric description, however, just screams SJ to me.



> -Is self-composed; seldom shows embarrassment, is forward or bold.
> -Is eager to express himself before a group if he has some purpose in view.
> -Is insistent upon the acceptance of his ideas or plans; argumentative and persuasive.
> -Is impetuous and impulsive; plunges into situations where forethought would have deterred him.
> ...


I think that SP's are Sanguine (well, pretty much everybody agrees with that...), SJ's are Choleric, NT's are Phlegmatic, and NF's are Melancholic. Feel free to show me how I'm wrong - I'm no expert in psychological types - but just from reading the descriptions, these correspondences make the most sense to me.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

SubterraneanHomesickAlien said:


> I just don't see how the Guardians are linked with the Melancholics, period.
> 
> That describes me almost perfectly, and I don't see what is SJ at all about that. The Choleric description, however, just screams SJ to me.


Actually Melancholics really describes me, not my more favorable traits mind you, but yes, I have been know by my Melancholy. However, that is not the entirety of me. Its a gross disproportion based on observations from a skewed or bias view point.

I see why though that the groupings are SJ, SP, NF, NT, because its less on cognitive and more on communication. It would make more sense to break down types by SJ, SP, NJ, NP for cognitive. For actions it would probably be best to break down the types as FJ, FP, TJ, TP, but those groupings would not necessarily communicate the best.

You could also break types into four groups of functions:

FeTi-SiNe- ENTP, ESFJ, INTP, ISFJ
FeTi-SeNi- ESTP, ENFJ, ISTP, INFJ
TeFi-NeSi- ESTJ, ENFP, INFP, ISTJ
TeFi-NiSe- ENTJ, ESFP, ISFP, INTJ

I do not know it would serve as any purpose though, cause these types my not get along so well.


----------



## j3321 (Nov 19, 2009)

I posted on his website that he screwed up all the 4 temperments. He never responded.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

SubterraneanHomesickAlien said:


> I just don't see how the Guardians are linked with the Melancholics, period.
> Here is how Melancholics are described on this site - You are a Melancholic
> 
> That describes me almost perfectly, and I don't see what is SJ at all about that. The Choleric description, however, just screams SJ to me.
> ...


Actually, those classic Galen profiles are more the social version of the temperament, and would fit *Interaction Styles*. Melancholic=IST/INJ; Choleric=EST/ENJ; Sanguine=ISF/INP, Sanguine=ESF/ENP.

That's why they might not always seem to fit Keirsey's groups. And why I like to express the types as blends of the temperaments along the conative and affective (social) lines.


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

Trigun64 said:


> Actually Melancholics really describes me, not my more favorable traits mind you, but yes, I have been know by my Melancholy. However, that is not the entirety of me. Its a gross disproportion based on observations from a skewed or bias view point.
> 
> I see why though that the groupings are SJ, SP, NF, NT, because its less on cognitive and more on communication. It would make more sense to break down types by SJ, SP, NJ, NP for cognitive. For actions it would probably be best to break down the types as FJ, FP, TJ, TP, but those groupings would not necessarily communicate the best.
> 
> ...


excellent post; these categories really make more sense than anything once you start dealing with complete people who have developed all of their functions.

Another possibility would be EP/IP/EJ/IJ, which would be based on whether extroverted perception, introverted judgment, etc. is the leading function.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

E/I and J/P are basically just directions of functions. Here is a very good website that goes over this in detail: MBTI Personality Type Dynamics


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Forgot if I mentioned it in this thread already; but those are also the "sociability temperaments"; which the Personality Page site says develop first in young children.


----------

