# Why not NJ, SP, NP, SJ divisions?



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

erm, mabye because i as an INFJ have more in common with an ENFP more than let's say an NTJ type.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

I do agree though about the FJ,TJ,FP,TP method.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

As for that chart, i'd say SJ's are c_holeric and NF's are melancholic. (obvious mix up is obvious)._


----------



## Ctrooper2011 (Aug 30, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> If you stop thinking about constructions of cognitive functions on paper for a second and actually take some time to talk to some _actual human beings_ and observe _actual human behaviour_, then you'll find that these four groups actually make a lot of sense.


I _did_ try. It's just too difficult to read people _and_​ do what you're supposed to do at the same time.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

NJ would be pretty epic.

But I think classical divisions of temperaments almost reflect the NT, SJ, SP, NF divisions.


----------



## juilorain (Oct 29, 2013)

Well considering the NJs (INFJ INTJ ENTJ ENFJ), there is a common trait that they all have some sort of future vision which they want to implement (Ni + Je) while NPs (INFP ENTP ENFP INTP) just want to explore the abstract and intuit as we go in the moment (Ne+ Ji). But every single person values different things within these temperamental distinctions. ENTP + INTP value logical consistency when making judgements, appear in radically different locations (considering their career choices) and behaviors as compared to the I/ENFP. Same applies to the NJs.

But that's it.

ENTP INTP ENTJ INTJ

INFP INFJ ENFJ ENFP

have much more in common in terms of behavior, but each with different(yet similar) styles to interacting with the world, but value similar things

With the sensors,

ESFJ ISFJ ENTJ ISTJ

all want order, value similar things, adherence to social norms, adherence to runes, adherence to details, etc. They all make calculated decisions (whether based either on feeling or thinking).

ISFP ESFP ISTP ESTP

all want freedom, value similar things, etc. They all make pragmatic and spontaneous/in the moment decisions (based on whether it be thinking or feeling)

The ISFP ESFP ESFJ ISFJ even though they value feeling, that is the only thing similar behaviorally. Same goes for STs.


----------



## oscarea (Dec 10, 2013)

juilorain said:


> Well considering the NJs (INFJ INTJ ENTJ ENFJ), there is a common trait that they all have some sort of future vision which they want to implement (Ni + Je) while NPs (INFP ENTP ENFP INTP) just want to explore the abstract and intuit as we go in the moment (Ne+ Ji). But every single person values different things within these temperamental distinctions. ENTP + INTP value logical consistency when making judgements, appear in radically different locations (considering their career choices) and behaviors as compared to the I/ENFP. Same applies to the NJs.
> 
> But that's it.
> 
> ...


I feel that the NP/NJ temperaments work pretty well. As well as NT/NF do in my opinion. But of course it just depends on which particular values you're looking at and which functions lend themselves to said values. 

I definitely do feel that despite having my rational side in common with ENTJ's - on an interpersonal level, I feel like I'm speaking to family when interacting with other NP's. They just "get" my randomness and aren't afraid to get super zany and abstract for abstract sake.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

delphi367 said:


> The original four core "temperaments" were actually NT, NF, SF, ST. I don't think SF and ST groupings are a useless concept, and think people should pay more attention to them. More on this here: The 'Keirsey Stratagem' - What Is It and Can It Help Us to Clarify the Relationship Between the Enneagram and MBTI?
> 
> Another set of temperaments often used were IJ, EJ, EP, and EJ. Sorting people by Judging function, TJ, FJ, TP, and FP wasn't unheard of either. SJ, SP, NJ, and NP... would sort people by perceiving function.
> 
> ...


That site uses the reasoning:



> Lets makes the situation less abstract by creating an analogy. To each of the letters involved, we will assign another concrete meaning, in the following way -F= fat
> T= skinny
> N= female
> S= male
> ...


The problem here is that they are using these arbitrary factors to parallel the four dichotomies, so the analogy does not fit at all. The dichotomies started out as two different sets of pairs: two functions and two attitude pointer variables. Of course, Keirsey did do away with functions and made them all equally four standalone variables. But they still retain the basic concepts (evidenced by characteristic behaviors), which is why Berens could pair the temperaments back with the cognitive functions (and adding Interaction Styles, which will use the "missing" ST, SF and NJ, NP groupings), and most of us follow suit in using both models. 

Those four factors they came up with have nothing to do with each other, even though they can be used to categorize people into 16 groups. Type is based on the fact that people will have to have one information gathering and one decision making function, and they can be oriented either internally or externally, and one will be dominant. (And this produces behaviors, that Keirsey can frame into standalone factors even without the function dynamics). That is all intertwined, unlike fat/skinny and rich/poor.

So it's basically what @Velasquez and @_PaladinX_ said. People asking this are looking at the *symmetry* of the factors, but since this is based on the complexities of personality, and different models being cross-mapped to each other, it won't match up symmetrically. 
Temperament was a simple two-factor matrix, originally "hot/cold" and "wet/dry", and what they were representing came to be known as I/E and people/task, or expressiveness and responsiveness. 
Not sure if Plato factored his four characters like that, but it turns out a second temperament matrix would evolve from this, using what amounts to S/N (basically, "observant vs imaginative"). This is the one Keirsey would use, and by adding a new factor, cooperative/pragmatic (which is connected to Spranger's "social/political"), THAT is how SJ and NT (and SP and NF) would end up as "diametric opposites" in his system. (Though Berens discovered a factor linking them: structure vs motive).

So you end up with two temperament matrices ("affective"—social, and "conative"—action) overlaid in the types, with E/I connected with one and S/N connected with the other, and both T/F and J/P alternate between the two.


----------



## OliveBranch (Aug 30, 2017)

Temperaments are exactly what they sound like they are. Not meant to be as in depth as cognitive functions. Of course this means they aren't accurate in terms of defining a person's personality, and they can be quite stereotypical. However, there is some accuracy to them as well. Kiersey's believed the sensors are better divided by how they do things, and intuitives by how they process. So for NT's it is intuition based in logic, and NF's intuition based in emotion. This is not inaccurate. There are a lot of similarities amongst NFP's and NFJ's, as well as NTP's and NTJ's, despite the cognitive functions being completely different. NF's tend to be focused on similar things, similar interests, perspectives, etc. Same with the NT's.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

I've always argued for this actually. Makes much more sense than randomly splitting up Intuitives on F/T and sensors on J/P. Like....why?


I also like the IJ/EJ/IP/EP system.

Even NT/NF/ST/SF makes more sense than the temperaments


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

I prefer TP, FJ, FP, TJ personally.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I like the idea of EN/ES/IN/IS temperaments the most. Not only does the evidence that I've seen hint to them being the temperaments that would carry additional significance on top of looking at types as individual letter combinations (you could then draw a loose model of INTP as I + N + T + P + IN), but I believe those two are the most important when it comes to how one connects with and processes the world.


----------



## Doom_Knight (Apr 17, 2017)

I think all presumably division is arbitrary and thus borderline useless. To divide people regardless of context and data sounds moronic at best. I have seen way to many people force a narrative, rather than discuss the statistics.

And why in 4 groups of 4 types. I know, it is for the symmetry, but it just looks good, it does not mean anything.

Burn it all down and replace it with nothing. Let the ignorants think for themselves for once.


----------

