# Why do we use Keirsey's groupings?



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

xNTJs and xNTPs are too different to be considered related.

Same with xNFJs and xNFPs, or ESFJs and ESTJs. 

I think we should group the types based on the order of the functions. The difference between, say, INTPs and ENTPs isn't really that big, but the difference between an INTP and an ISTP is very big, despite sharing introverted thinking as their dominant function. This is the same with any of the other types. In this way, we get 8 types:

xSTJs, the Masters.
xNTPs, the Philosophers.
xSFJs, the Caregivers.
xSTPs, the Learners.
xNTJs, the Visionaries.
xNFJs, the Leaders.
xSFPs, the Moralists.
xNFPs, the Dreamers.

xSTJs = The Masters - Mixing introverted sensing with extroverted thinking makes these types naturally inclined to master and control their environment (extroverted thinking) based on their own subjective view and impression of objects (introverted sensing). 

XNTPs = The Philosophers - The mix of Extroverted intuition, which gives an overview of objects and their loose abstract connections with other objects, and introverted thinking, which organizes thoughts, ideas, and objects into an internal logical framework, makes these types naturally inclined at coming up with new ideas and concepts, although these concepts may not have any basis in reality, as Extroverted intuition is not a truly accurate view of things.

xSFJs = The Caregivers - The Mix of Extroverted Feeling and introverted sensing makes these types naturally inclined to want to please and help others (Extroverted Feeling) based on their own subjective view and impressions of objects and ideas (introverted Sensing).

xSTPs = The Learners - The mix of extroverted sensing, which is the most objective and absolute view of objects in ones environment, mixed with introverted thinking, which organizes ideas and thoughts into a logical internal framework, makes these types naturally good at learning and adapting to their environment. These types are most likely to be a master at whatever subject they desire, and they are, honestly, the most common types at the top of the social ladder.

xNTJs = The Visionaries - Introverted Intuition (Which is, along with introverted feeling, the strangest function imo) takes an in depth, but at the same time abstract view of an object, and gives the person with Ni a specific, subjective revelations about an idea. This mixed with Te, which forces organization, structure, and progress on the outside world, makes these types naturally inclined to chase a single goal in life, and do so with unrelenting force. However, their vision may not be reasonable, realistic, or possible, and a lack of extroverted sensing makes these types not see the possibilities that their vision will never come to fruition. Because of this, the xSTJ's actually have a greater chance of success and more likely inhabit the higher levels of the economic and social ladder on average. 

xNFJs = The Leaders - Like the xNTJs, these types have introverted intuition, which gives premonitions and foresights into objects and ideas, but it is then coupled with extroverted feeling, which makes them desire to express and and share their ideas with other people. They will naturally chase roles of power, to gain a following of people in order to achieve their vision. This is why they are the "leaders". The range of their vision is large, Ghandi (INFJ), MLK (ENFJ), all the way to Hitler (ENFJ) and Saddam Hussein (ENFJ). I want to say now that while these types naturally DESIRE to garner a following to bring about their vision, they are no more likely to actually rise to the level of world leaders, and they are no more inclined to be good leaders than any other type.

xSFPs = The Moralists - The mix of Introverted Feeling, which is an absolute internal moral compass, and extroverted sensing, which is the most realistic and in-the-now view of things, means these types are constantly examining the present moment and running it against their internal moral framework. This is why they get the name "moralist". They (unlike the SJ's who seem to get the reputation for this) are actually the LEAST likely to change their opinions about things, are the least likely to accept change in their environments, and they constantly seek out people and places which more accurately align with their moral compass, and because they have Te either in the tertiary or inferior, they are also more likely to work to actually change other people so the other persons morals more align with what they believe to be the absolute truth. They are the most likely type to use Government to ban things that they do not like, although all types with introverted feeling will have this trait in some degree.

xNFPs = The Dreamers - The mix of Introverted feeling and extroverted intuition makes these types very similar to the xNTPs, but with the conviction of the xSFPs. Their extroverted intuition constantly looks at and for abstract connections between objects, and then they run it against their introverted feeling, which is an absolute moral compass. This makes this type the most likely to "know" that they won't like something before trying it, or to "know" that they do not like someone before meeting them, etc. They are also, generally, the most paranoid, and most likely to believe conspiracy theories. 


Now, I imagine there might be some people who do not like this list. I would like to hear your input. For now, though, I think that this is a pretty accurate view of the types in a broad context. It could just be my Ne-Ti combination that is simply not seeing the details, although I do not believe this to be the case.

I believe this system to be superior to the 4 temperment grouping. There is not enough similiarities between the STPs and SFPs to consider them being related enough to be classified together. The same goes with all the other types.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

I think it's better to drop those type of titles because they can be very misleading. Preferable to give them neutral titles.

For example, I'm an INTJ and if I was new to MBTI, I would relate more with Philosopher over Visionary according to this. Even Dreamer. In the end, this sort of thing can be deceptive.

Also, don't use the word ''Master'' as a title, that's just corny.


----------



## Gurpy (Aug 8, 2014)

I like it. I always wondered why SPs and SJs where 2 types of groups and NTs and NFs were the others. If anything it should have been SP SJ NJ and NP or ST NT SF and NF but your system makes sense. Being INTP I agree with your view on XNTP (which makes sense since you are one). I thought what you said about the moralists (the XSFP) was interesting and unique and I hope a XSFP can verify if this is true.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Those are just names I've given them. The description of the types is more important.

I chose the name master because I couldn't really think of a better one. "Builder" is the second closest I have. 

These titles are just ways for me to think of them.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

Those are just names I've given them. The description of the types is more important.

I chose the name master because I couldn't really think of a better one. "Builder" is the second closest I have. 

These titles are just ways for me to think of them.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

To me, this is debating about the internal logic and organization of a pseudoscience. A rather silly endeavour.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

All Psychology is a pseudoscience, and Neuroscience is a far more accurate discipline to explain human behavior, and in the years to come it will slowly but surely take psychology's place as the main branch of philosophy dealing with human thought and behavior. 

For now, though, this is all in fun


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ziggurat said:


> To me, this is debating about the internal logic and organization of a pseudoscience. A rather silly endeavour.


There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and unlike, say, astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

In case you're interested, you can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post and in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).

I see you have some Big Five scores in your signature, and if you're under the impression that the Big Five is in a whole different category than the MBTI when it comes to reliability or validity, those linked posts will help straighten you out.

It's true that the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is the dichotomy-centric side, rather than the "cognitive functions" (_aka_ "type dynamics") side. But note that the "dichotomy-centric" side doesn't exclude personality characteristics associated with _preference combinations_ — e.g., things that NTs or SJs tend to have in common. So descriptions of, say, "Si" can actually have validity as well as long as they don't go beyond what you might call the _piggybacked_ validity they get from lining up with the additive effects of the two (or three, as applicable) corresponding dichotomies.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

@reckful What ultimately irritates me the most are discussion about the cognitive functions and anything that implies that this is srs bzns rather than just good fun.

I've actually studied psychology and I have rather little regard for it as a whole.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Cesspool said:


> All Psychology is a pseudoscience, and Neuroscience is a far more accurate discipline to explain human behavior, and in the years to come it will slowly but surely take psychology's place as the main branch of philosophy dealing with human thought and behavior.
> 
> For now, though, this is all in fun





Ziggurat said:


> @_reckful_ What ultimately irritates me the most are discussion about the cognitive functions and anything that implies that this is srs bzns rather than just good fun.
> 
> I've actually studied psychology and I have rather little regard for it as a whole.


So... no one should take either of you seriously then. Because you're just in it for the good fun. Of which, what kind of dork talks about MBTI for the good fun? I mean seriously? People talk about astrology for "the good fun" or color auras for good fun. MBTI is only derided in academia because it wasn't created in academia, whereas the Big 5 is the academic version of MBTI with an added dimension and is considered scientifically valid.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

MNiS said:


> So... no one should take either of you seriously then. Because you're just in it for the good fun.


Yup, my opinion is invalid because I like fun. ^_^


MNiS said:


> MBTI is only derided in academia because it wasn't created in academia, whereas the Big 5 is the academic version of MBTI and is considered scientifically valid.


Ahaha, no. xD


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Ziggurat said:


> Yup, my opinion is invalid because I like fun. ^_^


Your opinions are invalid because you say so yourself not to take you seriously. 



> Ahaha, no. xD


FYI, there are research papers that would suggest that you're wrong. But you studied psychology! So you must know this already! Yeah, of course you do. I mean, YOU STUDIED PSYCHOLOGY FOR CHRIST'S SAKE


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I can appreciate the thought you must have put into this. 

I think it's a step up from Keirsey's groupings, not that his were amazing in the first place. 

I grouped them based on third function once, which had interesting results. I think any grouping risks oversimplification, but it's a cool exercise in exploring the similarities nonetheless.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Your opinions are invalid because you say so yourself not to take you seriously. **





> FYI, there are research papers that would suggest that you're wrong. But you studied psychology! So you must know this already! Yeah, of course you do. I mean, YOU STUDIED PSYCHOLOGY FOR CHRIST'S SAKE **


Kill 'em with kindness.


----------



## f8alz28 (Nov 13, 2014)

One of the main criticism MBTI gets is that nearly all of the scholarly work is done by people who advocate for it, which is inherently biased. I could be mistaken. First of all, there are degrees to each of the four dichotomies. Someone who is extremely introverted might be grouped with someone who is borderline introverted, they might belong to different groups. Second, it leads many people to the assume a false dilemma, either judgmental or perceptive; why not both? Third, the conclusions drawn by MBTI, such as career matches and relationship matches aren't very conclusive. A thinker can be just as fulfilled by a job that MBTI might identify as ideal for a feeler.

Do psychologists/psychiatrists even use it? Were Myers and Briggs even reliable? What did they do? (I'm not saying they weren't reliable, I'm just questioning). All of MBTI is based on Jung's method (and Jung's definitions of introvert vs extravert where different then than they are now), how reliable is a test that is based on just one source? Doesn't anyone else see a flaw on basing a test on subjective personal responses instead of objective second/third party observations? Has the test adapted to changing times?

From what I know, its primary users are employers. And even if MBTI wasn't questionable, is it right for employers to base their judgment of one person on a test that places people into arguably non-exhaustive groups? For employers to use MBTI sounds like a rationalization for discrimination (this person must be too impulsive because his "type" is impulsive); and people who suspect or fear discrimination/stigmatization might make their responses based on what they want their employers to hear. I agree with some of the characterizations, quite frankly, I think I fit well into my group; but I'm not trusting the MBTI to the point of cognitive dissonance. Am I extraverted? Sure. Am I a thinker rather than a feeler? Sure. Am I perceptive rather than judgmental? I guess. Am I more sensing than intuitive? Why can't I be both, or even intuitive for that matter? Why can't someone be ESTNJP? Help me experts!

In short, MBTI isn't flawless. It isn't really exhaustive. It puts people into groups with widely varying degrees of certain traits. The responses of the the people taking the test are questionable. Employers may use it to generalize individuals. The fact that employers make someone take the test might distort results.


----------



## s2theizay (Nov 12, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> I can appreciate the thought you must have put into this.
> 
> I think it's a step up from Keirsey's groupings, not that his were amazing in the first place.
> 
> I grouped them based on third function once, which had interesting results. I think any grouping risks oversimplification, but it's a cool exercise in exploring the similarities nonetheless.


That sounds really cool. What did your results look like? If you feel like sharing


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

f8alz28 said:


> One of the main criticism MBTI gets is that nearly all of the scholarly work is done by people who advocate for it, which is inherently biased. I could be mistaken. First of all, there are degrees to each of the four dichotomies. Someone who is extremely introverted might be grouped with someone who is borderline introverted, they might belong to different groups. Second, it leads many people to the assume a false dilemma, either judgmental or perceptive; why not both? Third, the conclusions drawn by MBTI, such as career matches and relationship matches aren't very conclusive. A thinker can be just as fulfilled by a job that MBTI might identify as ideal for a feeler.
> 
> Do psychologists/psychiatrists even use it? Were Myers and Briggs even reliable? What did they do? (I'm not saying they weren't reliable, I'm just questioning). All of MBTI is based on Jung's method (and Jung's definitions of introvert vs extravert where different then than they are now), how reliable is a test that is based on just one source? Doesn't anyone else see a flaw on basing a test on subjective personal responses instead of objective second/third party observations? Has the test adapted to changing times?
> 
> ...


Wow. So much wrongness in just four paragraphs.

Post 8 of this thread links you to two posts that will straighten you out on most of the issues in your post, including these:


The idea of middleness on the dimensions, and of differences in _preference strengths_, goes all the way back to Jung, and is certainly part of the modern MBTI.
Myers said nobody should be dissuaded from choosing a career that was unusual for their type, and the official MBTI folks say that it's _unethical_ to use the MBTI in connection with hiring, firing, promotion, etc.
The MBTI dichotomies, far from being "based on just one source," are the clusters of personality characteristics that Myers arrived at after years of testing thousands of subjects in accordance with modern psychometric standards. She started (in large part) with Jung's ideas, but ended up making major changes (and additions) to account for the data. By the start of the 1960s, as the leading Big Five psychologists have acknowledged, she had an instrument that basically passed muster in the reliability and validity departments and was effectively tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions (long before there really was a Big Five).


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

s2theizay said:


> That sounds really cool. What did your results look like? If you feel like sharing


It serves no one hiding it away, so I will happily share.  

I wrote it a year or two ago, but I read over it today and I think it's still a reasonably fair description of things.

So this was my splitting them into groups (based on third function): 

The Cores (burning internally) - Fi as a third function (INTJ/ISTJ)
The Multipliers (throws back more than what is received) - Fe as a third function (ENTP/ESTP)
The Drivers (wants to be leading) - Se as a third function (ENTJ/ENFJ)
The Encyclopedias (depth of understanding) - Si as a third function (INTP/INFP)
The Fires (warm,red hot,unpredictable) - Ti as a third function (INFJ/ISFJ)
The Batteries (provides energy -- gets burnt out if you place too much pressure on it) - Te as a third function (ENFP/ESFP)
The Caretakers (safeguarding and dutiful) - Ne as a third function (ESTJ/ESFJ)
The Waves (soft,flowing,unpredictable) - Ni as a third function (ISTP/ISFP)


And then this was putting it into individual types with the same system (and adding a component based on the dominant function):

The Algorithmic Cores (generalities to handle context / burning internally) - Ni/Fi (INTJ)
The Algorithmic Fires (generalities to handle context / warm,red hot,unpredictable) - Ni/Ti (INFJ)
The Historical Cores (established knowledge to handle specifics / burning internally) - Si/Fi (ISTJ)
The Historical Fires (established knowledge to handle specifics / warm,red hot,unpredictable) - Si/Ti (ISFJ)
The Reserved Drivers (steady actionable goals / wants to be leading) - Te/Se (ENTJ)
The Reserved Caretakers (steady actionable goals / safeguarding and dutiful) - Te/Ne (ESTJ)
The Interpersonal Drivers (adaptive actionable goals / wants to be leading) - Fe/Se (ENFJ)
The Interpersonal Caretakers (adaptive actionable goals / safeguarding and dutiful) - Fe/Ne (ESFJ)

The Branching Multipliers (subdivision of concepts / throws back more than what is received) - Ne/Fe (ENTP)
The Branching Batteries - (subdivision of concepts / provides energy -- gets burnt out if you place too much pressure on it) - Ne/Te (ENFP)
The Present Multipliers (enveloped in the moment / throws back more than what is received) - Se/Fe (ESTP)
The Present Batteries (enveloped in the moment / provides energy -- gets burnt out if you place too much pressure on it) - Se/Te (ESFP)
The Evaluating Encyclopedias (reevaluate information / depth of understanding) - Ti/Si (INTP)
The Evaluating Waves (reevaluate information / soft,flowing,unpredictable) - Ti/Ni (ISTP)
The Impassioned Encyclopedias (depth of emotion / depth of understanding) - Fi/Si (INFP)
The Impassioned Waves (depth of emotion / soft,flowing,unpredictable) - Fi/Ni (ISFP)


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Cesspool said:


> xNTJs and xNTPs are too different to be considered related.


Have you read Keirsey's book? They most certainly related in the way that he categorizes them. And yes, he does recognize the differences between them as well.

The truth is, there are many ways to slice and dice the 16 types into larger groupings. Socionics, in fact, has taken this to a higher art form. If you really get into this, you ought to check out Socionics. It can be quite fun reading all the different ways to slice and dice...


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> It serves no one hiding it away, so I will happily share.
> 
> I wrote it a year or two ago, but I read over it today and I think it's still a reasonably fair description of things.


That's pretty neat! Thanks for sharing! It describes people I know well quite accurately.


----------

