# Keirsey's Role Descriptions - by Type



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Eric B said:


> Oh, wow; you know, I'm not even paying attention!
> So you have _Brains and Careers_? I've wanted to see inside that book as well, because I got its followup (and last, to date) _Personology_, and he's changed so much in it, and I wanted to compare. (Like the names of two of the interaction roles, all but two of the intelligence variants, and half of the types; as well as the factors; and no longer seems to use I/E at all, but instead the new "intersecting/interlinking" factor which ties together what used to be opposites).
> It was said to be a "rewrite" of _B&C_, so I was wondering how many of these changes appeared in that book.
> 
> ...


Me: Derpp, lol

Nice!! Thanks for the link, man!
You should've posted that here for peoples' thoughts!


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Maybe I'll ask them if they could move it, then.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

I feel *Strategic Co-Worker* and *Strategic Responder* are appropriate for my type xNTP.

===========================================

*Co-Worker*: I'm very good at "working with" people, so to speak. When my friends express themselves, I usually end up "reacting" to say something that offers support or assistance.

I react frequently with:
"I agree"
"I feel you on that..."
"Sounds about right..."
"Cool! Maybe you could *insert related idea/alternate viewpoint*"

or with things that amplify their point, or further support it.

===========================================

*Responder*: I'm very good at those "one-liner, catalytic" statements.

People could spend _hours_ debating or venting their frustrations to me and I usually say just a few words that cover everything they talked about.

I also frequently make one-sentence remarks, during debates/discussions, that totally flip others' minds around and make them think for hours (in a good way lol).

I'm also good at shutting things/people down _very_ quickly, or getting things going _fast_, with short and concise statements.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

thor odinson said:


> I actually like Keirsey, he seems to get a bad wrap on PerC, but his grouping of the four temperaments is accurate and for people who feel they're stereotypes, well duh!!! There reference points. There may be deviations to each ESTP for example but we need a prime example of what an ESTP is on average.


But that's what I hate about it, it encourages lazy thinking and an immature cognition of people.

His original intent may not have been to spread around negative stereotypes but he essentially spends most of his first book using the SJ temperament as a the villain from which all the other temperaments need saving. There is no subjectivity here which is another major problem.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread all he does is take ancient ideas of social roles and turn them into temperaments. Which in turn creates nothing but excuses for people and their problems.

What cognitive functions do is allow us to grasp more depth into a person's psychology, it allows to explain why one ESTP may not be exactly the same as another ESTP. How exactly could you type yourself using Keirsey's work? Would you just watch someone until you got a vague feeling that they were a certain type?

Actually we all do this anyhow, but it is important to gather more information, the frame of reference that Keirsey gives us is not enough to understand one another. There are virtually no subtleties to his ideas, no subjective allowances, it is merely 'you are this and that's what you are'.

For example Si, which is the main component of SJ's even though he of course disregards the functions, has nothing to do with traditionalism. In fact Si in Jung's work is a complex series of subjective impressions brought forth by observations of objective reality.

What this means is that what a Si dom perceives about a particular object, (whether an idea, a person or a physical object), his impression of it is completely subjective to him and so too is any other function that comes underneath it such as an aux function. In fact the subordination of the environment to the correct formula of understanding, (in other words getting people to do the things I want them to do because I believe them to be the best or right thing to do), is in fact something that Si doms are victims of by others according to Jung, not the perpetrators.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Worriedfunction said:


> How exactly could you type yourself using Keirsey's work? Would you just watch someone until you got a vague feeling that they were a certain type?
> .


It's quite easy, read his descriptions. Just by reading the four temperaments I knew I was 100% sure I was an NF, 12 out of 16 down, 4 to go, not a bad effort, which is what you get due to the organized process of categorization.

Then when I read the 4 NF's I became and still am 99% sure I am an INFP over any other type of NF.

I think it's hypocritical when people say that's a stereotypical ESTP or whatever because when people stereotype others personality they might do so using race "that guys black, therefore he must like rap music", "she's Italian so she must like pasta", "he's a guy so he must like football", "she's a girl and therefore she must like shopping."

But when you use personality to stereotype personality you get a whole lot closer. And again it's just a core type. We need some sort of classification even if it's simplified, simple designs attract people, and then if you want to become enlightened read more, no ones stopping you. But don't discredit the work because it you feel it's too vague or stereotypical, remember heaps of people have and continue to use Keirsey's Sorter. Sure he has his detractors but then so does Myers.

I think it's a fairly good starting point. And yes while I think the cognitive functions if proven true will be the best part to this thing, one still cannot argue at this point that Keirsey's work is less credible than MBTI because if it comes down relative evidence given that both lack absolute evidence, Keirsey may fare better because his descriptions come from observable behaviours, which are sustained and repeated. Whereas Myers takes an even bigger leap and tries to guess what's going on in your mind.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

thor odinson said:


> It's quite easy, read his descriptions. Just by reading the four temperaments I knew I was 100% sure I was an NF, 12 out of 16 down, 4 to go, not a bad effort, which is what you get due to the organized process of categorization.


But there is no explanation in cognition, just a mere blanket of statements which all NF's are expected to adhere to. Out of the four NF types how could you possibly KNOW which one you are? Simply from his description of them? How is that accurate enough? Where is the depth of understanding? Cognitive functions may well just be an educated guess in observation, but their heuristic conception at least has some correlation in specifics.

His descriptions are so generalised that there is not way they could *not* apply. It is only through a simplification of your observations of yourself and others that you can even find use in it, it encourages a lack of understanding with surface terminologies.



thor odinson said:


> But when you use personality to stereotype personality you get a whole lot closer. And again it's just a core type. We need some sort of classification even if it's simplified, simple designs attract people, and then if you want to become enlightened read more, no ones stopping you. But don't discredit the work because it you feel it's too vague or stereotypical, remember heaps of people have and continue to use Keirsey's Sorter. Sure he has his detractors but then so does Myers.


A whole lot closer to what? You will only be getting closer to his classifications. What happens when an NF type comes across as domineering and desires to enforce a certain way of doing things? But that cant be, they must be SJ in that case because of the SJ adherence to tradition. His methods do not explain anything in a complex manner, if someone were to cogitate for any amount of time upon who they actually are and what they actually do, rather than their impressions of such, they would suddenly start questioning their type because he doesn't leave any room for maneuverability. Functions at least go some way to explaining the subtleties of a personality.

Also im not 100% in support of MBTI either, I accept that it has many flaws and detractors, but the difference is how does Keirsey's work help people? It comes across to me as a self help book, providing just enough information to sound interesting and reassure but not enough that it can actually solve anything.

As for discreditation, this is only my opinion, I dislike it for my reasons stated. But you cant really tell me not to discredit it or else you are trying to tell me how to feel and think, that would make you an SJ wouldn't it?



thor odinson said:


> I think it's a fairly good starting point. And yes while I think the cognitive functions if proven true will be the best part to this thing, one still cannot argue at this point that Keirsey's work is less credible than MBTI because if it comes down relative evidence given that both lack absolute evidence, Keirsey may fare better because his descriptions come from observable behaviours, which are sustained and repeated. Whereas Myers takes an even bigger leap and tries to guess what's going on in your mind.


I think it is a dangerous starting point that reinforces bias and prejudice. Actually you assumed that I am in some massive support of MBTI but actually I see Jung as being above both of them since this is all based around his work.

If it stems from his work, so too must it be subject to it. If David had written a completely new theory without using MBTI terms, (which stem from C. Jung), then it would have been ok. Instead people lump them altogether in a mish-mash of gibberish.

For example I dont 100% agree with the MBTI descriptions of Si or Ni doms since they are far removed from what Jung wrote and in reality reflect the difficulty in understanding his work to an agreeable degree. Also on the topic of 'observed and repeated behaviours' that's actually what both MBTI, Jung and David do.

The difference is in how they do it.

I suppose I should just advise caution with his work rather than a complete disregard of it, be careful with the information you pick up as sometimes it is hard to dislodge.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Worriedfunction said:


> But there is no explanation in cognition, just a mere blanket of statements which all NF's are expected to adhere to. Out of the four NF types how could you possibly KNOW which one you are? Simply from his description of them? How is that accurate enough? Where is the depth of understanding?


I knew I was an INFP the moment I read the classifications of the INFP and their temperament. Ironically the only time I ever questioned my type was when I started reading negative comments about Fi, people who use Fi, the glorification of Fe and just in general silly comments made by posters on here. I personally knew instantly after reading the online descriptions of INFP's that I was one - it simply just clicked. The stereotypes might not work for everyone but to make a blanket statement that no one can find their type based off the stereotypes seems just as illogical as saying everyone is defined by their stereotypes. 



> His descriptions are so generalised that there is not way they could *not* apply. It is only through a simplification of your observations of yourself and others that you can even find use in it, it encourages a lack of understanding with surface terminologies.


I don't agree with this at all. How is this: 



> To understand Healers, we must understand their* idealism as almost boundless and selfless, inspiring them to make extraordinary sacrifices for someone or something they believe in*. The Healer is the *Prince or Princess of fairytale, the King's Champion or Defender of the Faith*


Applicable to all people across the world? There are only a select few types who could resonate strongly with this description, and I would say they likely come from the same temperament. 



> A whole lot closer to what? You will only be getting closer to his classifications. What happens when an NF type comes across as domineering and desires to enforce a certain way of doing things? But that cant be, they must be SJ in that case because of the SJ adherence to tradition. His methods do not explain anything in a complex manner, if someone were to cogitate for any amount of time upon who they actually are and what they actually do, rather than their impressions of such, they would suddenly start questioning their type because he doesn't leave any room for maneuverability. Functions at least go some way to explaining the subtleties of a personality.


I think it's been said before that Keirsey is just surface level understanding of type, a brief understanding of what a person generally is. It's not asking directly for an in-depth discussion of type, because quite honestly only a very small percentage of people are actually interested in delving deeply into who they are on a psychological level. It's mostly just a classification of how the types express themselves in every day situations and in general their outlook. I also think that you are exaggerating everything around the negative aspects of the SJ temperament and by extension throwing everything out with the bathwater just because the SJ description may or may not be accurate or inappropriately negative. It's also worth noting that there are good things said about the SJ temperament as well, you could find something both negative and positive for anything. That doesn't mean the theory can't be helpful to someone in their time of self discovery. 



> how does Keirsey's work help people?


How does it not? It tells people what they are most likely to value, how they may come across to others and he tells people what is important to them on a general level and what they may desire/want to do. It focuses on ones general outlook in a situation. If you want to look more into it beyond that there are numerous sources to help you understand further theory of the work it's taking from. The theory being put on trial here isn't exactly all or nothing it can work well in part of the other theories too. They can work together. I don't see why one can't be a Healer/Catalyst/Idealist and not still use Fi. 



> I think it is a dangerous starting point that reinforces bias and prejudice.


There are stereotypes and biases that stem from everything. Even the functions on here have nick-names and conceptions that aren't quite nice. Ne gets pegged as the scatter brained function, Si gets pegged down in totalitarian conservative-traditionalism, Fi gets pegged as childishly-selfish while Te is seen as the function for external success and everyone who has it is successful, Fe is called the diplomatic empathetic function that all warm people have and Ni is canonized as demi-God like in nature. There are negative/positive aspects for everything and that comes down to people viewing things that way, not the theory itself.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

I score INFP on his test from the book 100% of the time, but can't for the life of me relate to his INFP description. As i read the book I related more and more to ISTJ.....was kinda odd.

 also temperament wise I'm an odd melancholic INFP...EricB's temperament stuff doesn't wok well for me.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Arrow said:


> There are stereotypes and biases that stem from everything. Even the functions on here have nick-names and conceptions that aren't quite nice. Ne gets pegged as the scatter brained function, Si gets pegged down in totalitarian conservative-traditionalism, Fi gets pegged as childishly-selfish while Te is seen as the function for external success and everyone who has it is successful, Fe is called the diplomatic empathetic function that all warm people have and Ni is canonized as demi-God like in nature. There are negative/positive aspects for everything and that comes down to people viewing things that way, not the theory itself.


And those cognitive function nick-names stem from Keirseys work, not from any description of those functions. People are mixing and matching and it doesnt work; what you have just said is proof of this. Like I said use his theory but use it with caution. As with all the theories.



Arrow said:


> I think it's been said before that Keirsey is just surface level understanding of type, a brief understanding of what a person generally is. It's not asking directly for an in-depth discussion of type, because quite honestly only a very small percentage of people are actually interested in delving deeply into who they are on a psychological level. It's mostly just a classification of how the types express themselves in every day situations and in general their outlook. I also think that you are exaggerating everything around the negative aspects of the SJ temperament and by extension throwing everything out with the bathwater just because the SJ description may or may not be accurate or inappropriately negative. It's also worth noting that there are good things said about the SJ temperament as well, you could find something both negative and positive for anything. That doesn't mean the theory can't be helpful to someone in their time of self discovery.


Actually I used the SJ temperament as an example since it is the most easily identifiable and striking contrast of temperament in his book, I could easily point out the idea of SP artisans being unable to consider in foresight or NF's being soppy and sensitive to the extreme. The fact that, as you quite rightly pointed out, so few people are interested in delving in-depth with this stuff is exactly the problem, people ought to at least make some sort of effort, or else come out with nothing but a series of nonsensical impressions that do nothing but push people apart.



Arrow said:


> How does it not? *It tells people what they are most likely to value, how they may come across to others and he tells people what is important to them on a general level and what they may desire/want to do.* It focuses on ones general outlook in a situation. If you want to look more into it beyond that there are numerous sources to help you understand further theory of the work it's taking from. The theory being put on trial here isn't exactly all or nothing it can work well in part of the other theories too. They can work together. I don't see why one can't be a Healer/Catalyst/Idealist and not still use Fi.


So you are ok with being TOLD what you are? Being told how to think, feel and act? Really? This is not an issue for you?

The cognitive functions cover how people go through the processing of information and their judgements of it. It explains HOW you *might* come to a conclusion, how you *might* act, how you *might* feel or think, it is completely flexible, which it needs to be to allow for the immense variability of humanity. 

Keirsey's work does not allow for this, it is too rigid, too final. Also no, I dont think it can be easily mixed with other theories, the fallout and arguments that arise on forums such as these is proof enough that this is not the case.

I suppose there really isn't much point me continuing this argument, you have your opinion I have mine and I doubt either of us is going to budge.

Maybe im being overly harsh, but you have to understand that this is something ive observed for a long time now and it never ceases to annoy me.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Worriedfunction said:


> And those cognitive function nick-names stem from Keirseys work, not from any description of those functions.


I'm not at all convinced of that. People use short cuts to remember information and distill knowledge to make concepts easier to understand them and then generally start applying them without nuances. Thus Fe = nice, good and kind while Fi = self-centered, selfish, obstinate even though no one has ever called Fi those things you constantly see those comments popping up. Kiersey actually says all F types are people oriented and are focused on finding ways in which to have a positive impact on the world. It's people who are making those negative distinctions and applying them and then those assumptions breed like wildfire. Even the SJ temperament has positive aspects to it as well, and it's not all negative but some only focus on those negatives instead of viewing the positive. When individuals need a general hard and fast rule of thumb they will go with their loose perceptions of how they see things over how they actually are because it requires a lot of effort to try and 360 everything. The subjective mind comes into play then. That's not Kiersey's theory - that is just people playing hard and fast with the rules. Human perception skews negatively and people are more likely to remember negative aspects of ideas, parts of a summation that they didn't agree with or deviations from themselves then they are likely to remember the bland positive things that they don't identify with. That's simply human nature. Nowhere does Keirsey say that one type is bad and another one is magnificent - other people look into that and see the things that they may want to see or don't want to see. 



> People are mixing and matching and it doesnt work; what you have just said is proof of this. Like I said use his theory but use it with caution. *As with all the theories*.


That's basically the point. I don't see how his theory is any worse then any other one. It's a proposal, a theory of how something may work in terms of behavior/observation/studying. All theories are subjective to bias from humans. After all they are the ones using them and attempting to apply them. 



> The fact that, as you quite rightly pointed out, so few people are interested in delving in-depth with this stuff is exactly the problem


The problem then is the people who apply it and don't look for any depth to it. They are the individuals who are wrong for taking that information as law and only looking at that one text or source. That doesn't mean that his theory is completely wrong though, it could work well for one aspect or it could not. Anything can push people apart. The idea I am getting here is that misused logic can breed dissension and that can be done for any theory at all. The theory isn't God. People have to test it and see if it works on their own for them as we are talking directly about personality. It may work and it may not. I don't think anyone is saying his theory is absolute law. But it can help people in terms of self discovery - thus his work has merit at some level. 



> So you are ok with being TOLD what you are? Being told how to think, feel and act? Really? This is not an issue for you?


I don't view it as being told anything. I already knew most of these things about myself and reading it online was just a feeling of kinship and understanding. The idea that someone saw me from the outside as I understood myself inside was in a way refreshing. People are people, I don't see it as one classification and that is all I am but I do notice a lot of commonalities of the descriptions and that is how I knew that temperament/type was me and quite honestly the descriptions online to me feel very accurate and I feel like that does define _part_ of who I am. I am not afraid to say that some of those online descriptions are completely me. I don't feel any worse for admitting that. Self discovery helps us to know and understand who we are in a larger context and can only aid us in making stronger, better decisions for ourselves and our lives. I don't see what is bad about anything that gives you more information. Taking that information as fact is a problem directly unto itself. 



> I suppose there really isn't much point me continuing this argument, you have your opinion I have mine and I doubt either of us is going to budge.


Quite true.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Because 1) like you point out most people are not seeking in-depth self-knowledge, and 2) most people do not have in-depth self-knowledge most of the time when people read a description they totally identify with and say "oh that's me! I'm an Idealist!" there is at most only a half-truth to this and in many cases they might be dead wrong. 

In that other thread I went on and on about the nature of the ego and egocentricity and how often who people think they are is not who they really are, but a persona, or even just their actual ego, but as we know the ego is still not the sum-total of a person. This is the problem with Kiersey (and to a lesser degree MBTI) is that ultimately they are only typing your persona. As @Worriedfunction points outs there is no real psychological imperative here, despite the fact that both of these bill themselves as such. Just a superficial surface evaluation, really not that much different than saying "blondes have more fun." 

You identify with Kiersey's NF based on the terms in which he lays out and how you think of yourself. But are you absolutely certain that the people around you (who are capable often of seeing your shadow tendencies even if you are not) would see you as an NF? Many so-called NFPs, for example, on this site are clear SJs they just think they're NFPs because they on some level identify with the description. But they're raging about what other people expect of them, and what they feel they need to do and so forth Fe and Te oriented stuff never realizing there is a disconnect between who they think they are who they really are as Jung warned there would be.

Furthermore it is quite common for people to think of themselves or type themselves the exact opposite of who they really are. Extraverts almost as a rule mistype as introverts because they have those moments of introversion, find them special and meaningful and assume "well I feel 'myself' during these moments of introversion I must be an introvert," never realizing that 95% of the rest of the time they are incredibly oriented to the outer object. I myself have come across a bunch of people who claim to be Fi-dominants, who are really Fe-dominants (or if they are Fi-types clearly do not lead with it). Same goes for INTPs who are really something else, sometimes intellectual Feeling types (for instance, a lot of INFJs mistype as INTP precisely because they identify with Kiersey's NT temperament, think they are an intellectual, don't want to be a feeler, especially males, and come on sites like this and exclaim "I must be an NT!" They don't realize that what they identify as NT is really Ni-Ti which Kiersey does not allow to be NT.) 

Just go to the What's My Type forum and see how many people come on here saying "Am I xNFP, or xNTP?" or "I'm an NF or NT I just don't know which one," and so on. They've already made up their minds about what temperament group they MUST belong to and are now just looking for information to back it up. This is not the purpose of Psychological Type (the point is to reveal things about yourself for which you were previously unaware so that you can grow not just back up an already held notion). What happens to these people is that they don't understand that they are dealing with a persona, not a type, and because life causes personas to change and develop to the point where typing them might be only good for a snapshot of the moment not a maxim of who you are, when their persona changes they're right back in the forum saying "unsure of my type, I think I have changed types" etc. It's not their fault, mind you most of us are introduced to this stuff via Kiersey and MBTI, so like being mummified there's a lot of unwrapping we have to do to be able to get past the superficialities and oversimplifications of ideas like judging/perceiving. 

Personas by nature are often given. Your persona has largely been the result of the interactions of your environment and your upbringing, and the reason people identify so closely with them (and thus Kiersey type descriptions) is because personas are adopted well before even your own ego-awareness develops (later childhood). At very young ages parents are developing their children's personas telling them to say please, and thank you, and to smile and wave goodbye. Not to yell in public and so forth. Now mind you having a persona is just a critical as wearing clothes in public, but just like clothes don't really make the man (unless you are so superficial as to believe so) persona doesn't make the man. Even if we are required to wear both publicly, both for the sake of ritual and for protection. 

So the interaction of the primary caregivers and the formative environment (school, church, etc) have a profound impact on how a person comes across in the world, even if it isn't their type. This is why you might often see a family where each member is typologically different, yet everyone seems to act or speak the same. In a broader sense the same thing is true with native tribes, where again you might have a very different actual personalities (say an Intuitive seer or shaman, a Thinking or Feeling Chief, and Sensation type Warriors) yet there is still cohesion in behavior within the group. The American South has a very ESJ/Inferior Fi overtone to it, despite the fact that not all southerners are ESFJ/ESTJs, you might not know it from simple interaction. The key here is that persona IS NOT TYPE. And the more people think it is, the more problems they will have (for all the reasons I listed in that other thread about being un-self-aware). We've all seen people who over-identify with their persona (and the end result is often not pretty). 

See the problem with Kiersey or MBTI is that if they were up-front about their perspective and everyone understood that they were dealing with this from a persona or social roles standpoint (artisan, guardian, idealist, judger, perceiver - what role do you play in society?) then there would really no issue. But because its presented under the guise of a sort of psychology people get tripped up often believing something about themselves that may only be half or partly true. Sort of the psychological equivalent of saying "Well because you wear black you must be an artist or emo." Maybe, maybe not.

Also I should point out that there is merit to temperament science as @Eric B and others elucidate. Its just that I think Kiersey does a somewhat poor job with his presentation of it. Berens/Nardi I think are much better at bringing both a psychological imperative and a temperament imperative together without making nearly the same number of assumptions.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Worriedfunction said:


> For example Si, which is the main component of SJ's even though he of course disregards the functions, has nothing to do with traditionalism. In fact Si in Jung's work is a complex series of subjective impressions brought forth by observations of objective reality.
> 
> What this means is that what a Si dom perceives about a particular object, (whether an idea, a person or a physical object), his impression of it is completely subjective to him and so too is any other function that comes underneath it such as an aux function. In fact the subordination of the environment to the correct formula of understanding, (in other words getting people to do the things I want them to do because I believe them to be the best or right thing to do), is in fact something that Si doms are victims of by others according to Jung, not the perpetrators.


 Yes, it's not defined as traditionalism, though the perspective will often tend to lead to traditionalism.
But under different circumstances, I have seen where it could make the person a "rebel"; supporting my correspondence of SJ to the "low expressed/wanted Control" range of the FIRO as interpreted by Leo Ryan. He calls it "the Rebel", which sounds like a stark contrast to Keirsey's "Guardian", but growing up in a strong SJ background, that also tested as Melancholy in Control (another name for "the Rebel"), I can see where one does turn into the other (FIRO basically looks more at the negative side of behavior, much like Enneagram).

Think black culture, which is very heavily SJ, yet for generations was reeling from under racism. Most aren't going to be "guardians" of the old institutions that supported racism. It's too against the ego. So, they rebel against it. (Perhaps some who had gained some amount of position in it will continue to go along with it).
Precisely because the temperament need is one of "*belonging* to an institution" (Keirsey SJ perspective), and focused on subjective impressions (Si perspective), when those needs aren't met (institution is oppressing them, and subjective impressions are so negative from that), the ego will try to scrap the old institutions and create new ones that are more supportive of the person. So they are still just as much "Guardians" of institutions such as family and culture; it's just that a bad institution that has been discarded.



Worriedfunction said:


> A whole lot closer to what? You will only be getting closer to his classifications. What happens when an NF type comes across as domineering and desires to enforce a certain way of doing things? But that cant be, they must be SJ in that case because of the SJ adherence to tradition. His methods do not explain anything in a complex manner, if someone were to cogitate for any amount of time upon who they actually are and what they actually do, rather than their impressions of such, they would suddenly start questioning their type because he doesn't leave any room for maneuverability. Functions at least go some way to explaining the subtleties of a personality.


 And classic temperament does as well. (Though I believed Keirsey correlates them in reverse for the N's).

In fact, "pragmatism" would be more connected with expressing "control" over others, (so cooperatives would be less likely to do that), and structure-focus leads to wanting less control (or having a stricter criteria--the desired structure, in accepting it), while motive-focus would be more allowing of it, because of the desire to "work with others".
So the NT is actually the more "controlling" one, though you have to look hard in type and temperament profiles to pick this out. But the evidence can be found right in Keirsey's own books. The SP is also pragmatic, but the motive focus is what sort of cancels out any tendency to "dominate". He's quick to move to action, but then moves on to something else.

Both cooperatives are not that much into self-initiated controlling, but basically _enforcers_ of someone else's control. For SJ's, the "concrete structure" (institution or tradition), and for NF's, the "abstract motive" (cause, etc). Because of the structure/motive difference, the SJ has stricter criteria for being influenced by others beside the authorized structure, so they end up getting tagged with this stereotype for being so "domineering". Even moreso than NT's, because the NT's structure is abstract and not as visible as the SJ's concrete structures. (e.g. plans, ideas; more likely to change, etc,
But if the NF is locked into a cause that he sees as good, than he can appear dominating too (and in the temperament theory, the Supine is sad to appear domineering when enforcing someone else's rules or trying to get others to take care of him in some way, even though normally, he's the passive, dependent one!)


> If it stems from his work, so too must it be subject to it. If David had written a completely new theory without using MBTI terms, (which stem from C. Jung), then it would have been ok. Instead people lump them altogether in a mish-mash of gibberish.


Ironically, in the last book, _Personology_, he basically _has_ stripped all MBTI terms from it (mentioning the dichotomies briefly in the "history of personology" chapter in the beginning, and never using the four letter type codes even once). He's even completely omitted anything corresponding to I/E!
This apparently, is what he should have started with in the PUM's, but perhaps it too him seeing his theory basically melded back into MBTI to make him realize he should distance his terminology further from it.



Rim said:


> I score INFP on his test from the book 100% of the time, but can't for the life of me relate to his INFP description. As i read the book I related more and more to ISTJ.....was kinda odd.
> 
> also temperament wise I'm an odd melancholic INFP...EricB's temperament stuff doesn't wok well for me.


 I think we discussed temperament, but I'll have to go back and look for that. You see Supine (I keep seeing the avatar and thinking how it screams "Supine"), and since that temperament is new and not even considered in type theory, it could easily be mistaken for Melancholic. And since you identify with INFP, but say you got ISTJ on Keirsey, then you're probably inbetween Melancholy (IST/SJ) and Supine (INP/NF). —(which is allowed in the temperament theory I discuss, and will be reflected in the fixed-choice type theory by having ambiguity between types or certain dichotomies).


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Think black culture, which is very heavily SJ, yet for generations was reeling from under racism. Most aren't going to be "guardians" of the old institutions that supported racism. It's too against the ego. So, they rebel against it. (Perhaps some who had gained some amount of position in it will continue to go along with it).


I should point out though that African-Americans are OFTEN stereotyped as SFPs. (Dancers, athletes, musicians, etc). In fact stigmatized minority groups often get typed as sensation types (ostensibly by the Te/Fe dominant culture). A lot of this "black people are only good at physical stuff" stereotype, one, stems from the European misunderstandings of African culture, and, two, white culture's not allowing black people to read or write (and thus be active participants in society) for a very long time. There was really no way for them to interact in eurocentric American culture in a way other than physical (sharecropping, farming, sports, music, etc) until very recently (the last 100 years or so) and even to this day there is a huge disparity in the achievement (especially if we look at this from a Te-standpoint) of African-Americans versus their white counterparts, especially if we take socio-economic status into account. All of this points to a heavy Te/Fe dominant culture that for a long time suppressed certain groups and made them (as Von Franz puts it) carry the functions they themselves saw as 'beneath them' or 'uncivilized.' In a similar way gay people are often stigmatized as Se-doms as well (you'll often hear people only talk about gay people from the standpoint of sex). Jewish people have forever been stigmatized as Introverted Sensation types. Jung points out that there is a tendency for Judgment types to see types that they don't like or don't understand as crazy, uncivilized, pathological, etc and then create systems that basically keep them there socially.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I would say, after STJ, the next common grouping seems to be STP. Then perhaps ESFP. These two would be the more partying, dancing, athletic type, and yes, the oppressive environments they were in were not conducive the the SJ's logistic focus, so then the partying was what we had left that couldn't be completely quashed, and thus came to characterize the whole people (Remember Jimmy the Greek saying we were "bred" for sports, effectively ending his career?) 
But clearly, the STJ's (particularly ISTJ) are an overwhelming majority (and there was even a statistical table posted, likely on TypoC, that confirmed this. Even I was surprised at how much it fit my observation!
I would say NTJ's are next after those groups, and these often become the black philosophers).

White culture was heavily ESTJ, with ESTP as the "lighter" side of it, and ENTJ as the "heavier" side. (Think, the way it probably tends to go, is that the ENTJ will plan and orchestrate the conquest, the ESTP will do the scouting and conquering, and then the ESTJ will establish the ordering and maintenance of the conquered lands and people). Hence, the most powerful culture. (Even LaHaye says Caucasians produced the most Cholerics, or in this case, the aptly named "In Charge"). 
Black culture, as heavily ISTJ (and then STP and SFP) is not going to be as dominating. The ISTJ is much less expressive/aggressive, so they are more about "responding" (As Berens refers to introversion), or "contending" (what Keirsey's calls "Chart the course"). So they tend to grit their teeth and bear with it, at least for awhile (until it becomes _too_ ridiculous; but even then, the "rebellion" I described before will most likely wait until after they are out from under the oppressors). Like my job, I will complain about something, and they would always tell me not to get so angry; what else can you do about it? 
The SP's, again, can be aggressive (and thus might be the ones more likely to get in trouble), but are more allowing of control by others, so won't be able to against the conquering culture either.



> All of this points to a heavy Te/Fe dominant culture that for a long time suppressed certain groups and made them (as Von Franz puts it) carry the functions they themselves saw as 'beneath them' or 'uncivilized.'


 Interesting, as this ties right into what I was saying here:
The "Collective Shadow" partaken of through the Cross with Christ


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Eric B

How does supine explain my counter-phobic 6 tendencies, my sometimes foul temper, reactivity and eagerness to argue. I also don't listen to people and do what I want. I can go from a standstill to raging in someone's face in a heartbeat.

It takes effort to keep the reactivity under control, I react extremely bad to control from the outside and also hate controlling others. In general I hate control. 

o.o hmm I could say that I'm a very willful person, always have been. Dunno if that works with supine as I don't take bullshit from others kindly. :laughing: I know this makes me look kinda violent  but I'm not.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Were you the one I was talking to not long ago, about the 6? The 6 I believe is the Supine of the Enneatypes. (Hence, this sounds familiar). I have seen the "counter-phobic" tendencies as being compatible with Supine. The 6 here: Enneagram Types, Nine Enneagram Types - Enneagram Worldwide I believe would be a counter-phobic, right? And she seemed very Supine, lacking the natural confidence other temperaments would have (She seemed very nervous beneath the confident language). A Supine can be strong; usually when motivated by someone else, and that's what she seemed like.

Supines can also be reactive and have a temper. It usually involves feeling unappreciated or taken advantage of. Would this be your experience?

Why you react to control by others; again, it might have to do with the situation. You could also be the inbetween Supine Phlegmatic or Melancholy Phlegmatic (which are between Melancholy and Supine, and I had said you might be in between them). Those will have a lower tolerance for control by others.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Worriedfunction said:


> But there is no explanation in cognition, just a mere blanket of statements which all NF's are expected to adhere to. Out of the four NF types how could you possibly KNOW which one you are? Simply from his description of them? How is that accurate enough? Where is the depth of understanding?
> 
> I suppose I should just advise caution with his work rather than a complete disregard of it, be careful with the information you pick up as sometimes it is hard to dislodge.


As I said the description is sufficient, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to identify myself as INFP. I am an Fi user so I know better than most how I feel, and the vibe that I got from all the others just did not match me. INFP on Keirsey did. It fit me to a T. Kinda like putting a custom made shoe.

As to the second point, I think that is probably a smarter move which I pretty much thought was implied with all these type models.

I know from interacting with people, that initiates don't go for the complex approach, they get turned off by it. A generic overview to help familiarise them and then further reading is what's attracted them to explore it.

It's like a physicist talking to a laymen. NO JARGON, dumb it down, in fact the simpler the information the better. The biggest thing experts and academics make when explaining their fields is they talk to others as if they're automatically versed in the field themselves and then get angry when their audience or intended recepient's don't respond. 

Don'tget angry, just be realistic and don't be a prick. It's info overload, and all that technical stuff may put people off. Introduce an idea, and have enough common sense to know that it's just and idea and then further explore to understand it better. From a marketing perspective, people are more receptive to a more entertaining, aesthetic, even simplified format. And like it or not, if you can't market it, it can be the most beautifully complex well thought out model, it just won't fly. Put it out there in a format accessible to laymen, and then go from there. I find academics to be arrogant pricks that get pissed off that people just don't automatically respect their genius. Well how can they respect it if they don't understand it?

If you actually want a model that can be a practical application then they should heed this advice. If not, it'll just remain a theoretical hypothesis and ultimately achieve nothing as it will never leave their circle.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> most people are not seeking in-depth self-knowledge, and 2) most people do not have in-depth self-knowledge most of the time


I've found that most people try to _escape_ themselves, not gain a better understanding of themselves.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

I really didn't want to step back into this topic but this reply makes a lot of assumptions.



thor odinson said:


> As I said the description is sufficient, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to identify myself as INFP. I am an Fi user so I know better than most how I feel, and the vibe that I got from all the others just did not match me. INFP on Keirsey did. It fit me to a T. Kinda like putting a custom made shoe.


Fair enough, I dont think it is useful enough or satisfying enough as an explanation of a person's psyche but that's just me.



thor odinson said:


> As to the second point, I think that is probably a smarter move which I pretty much thought was implied with all these type models.


You would be surprised. Some of the things you will read on forums like these are evidence enough.



thor odinson said:


> I know from interacting with people, that initiates don't go for the complex approach, they get turned off by it. A generic overview to help familiarise them and then further reading is what's attracted them to explore it.


But that was never my argument. I didn't argue that point either, however the flaws in his work and the troubles they invoke outweigh the use of a simplistic approach. People often adhere to his stereotypes as facts, so much so that dislodging them in peoples minds is almost impossible.



thor odinson said:


> It's like a physicist talking to a laymen. NO JARGON, dumb it down, in fact the simpler the information the better. The biggest thing experts and academics make when explaining their fields is they talk to others as if they're automatically versed in the field themselves and then get angry when their audience or intended recepient's don't respond.
> 
> Don'tget angry, just be realistic and don't be a prick. It's info overload, and all that technical stuff may put people off. Introduce an idea, and have enough common sense to know that it's just and idea and then further explore to understand it better. From a marketing perspective, people are more receptive to a more entertaining, aesthetic, even simplified format. And like it or not, if you can't market it, it can be the most beautifully complex well thought out model, it just won't fly. Put it out there in a format accessible to laymen, and then go from there. I find academics to be arrogant pricks that get pissed off that people just don't automatically respect their genius. Well how can they respect it if they don't understand it?
> If you actually want a model that can be a practical application then they should heed this advice. If not, it'll just remain a theoretical hypothesis and ultimately achieve nothing as it will never leave their circle.


Please dont lecture me on the nature of effective communication. Im well aware that things need to be broken down and then slowly built up when it comes to complex theories such as these, I even made a very long post on the subject a few months ago.

However there is a balance between effective communication to draw people in and get them to figure things out on their own and making sure they dont miss the important specifics and points of a theory. I really dont know where you got this assumption from that I wish to shove technical jargon at people, that's an inference on your part.

Im no academic I do this out of my own interest. But nothing you have said here has not already been considered by me. The defence of Keirsey's work being that it is simplistic and accessible is not good enough. 

There are too many lazy mentalities in this modern age, quite happy to bite off the edges but never touch the middle. As I said ive never had anything wrong with breaking things down and simplification, but it has to be within reason. You told me to use common sense, well now im telling you; when something is so simplified that it is nothing more than an empty set of generalisations then it has no use other than to further a persons own ignorance.

How is that useful to anyone?

There is a balance; Keirsey doesn't manage it. Incidentally not everything he writes is rubbish, his observations on current educational models, for example, is quite true and also something many have observed and written about.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Interesting posts .... but I feel we're moving way off-topic here.

I have to ask: would anyone wanna assess the descriptions of the types?

This can be done regardless of Keirsey's opinions. There's no reason you can't have your own take on this stuff.

What are your thoughts, folks?


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Worriedfunction said:


> I really didn't want to step back into this topic but this reply makes a lot of assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't saying your an academic. I was just talking about them. The rant was about my frustration at them, none of it was aimed at you. The stuff about common sense was a generic comment, it wasn't aimed at you specifically.

And I actually agree with you on the need for more scope, and I think I mentioned earlier that the cognitive functions can be the best part of this whole thing if neuroscience perhaps more than psychology can ever find biological/neurological evidence.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Agent Blackout said:


> Interesting posts .... but I feel we're moving way off-topic here.
> 
> I have to ask: would anyone wanna assess the descriptions of the types?
> 
> ...


 If "Tactical Responder" is equal to procrastination and not lifting a finger until needed then maybe, though that's not always true, which is problematic to generalize upon individuals to say the least.


----------



## starri (Jan 23, 2009)

Doesn't Ne make it SOO hard to be diplomatic? I feel like my fellow Se or Fe holders can be more thought of as diplomatic. I've been described on several accounts as *the person who says it as it is without regard to people's feelings*, not in a T way, but more in a *doesn't really think her words through* kinda way.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

starri said:


> Doesn't Ne make it SOO hard to be diplomatic? I feel like my fellow Se or Fe holders can be more thought of as diplomatic. I've been described on several accounts as *the person who says it as it is without regard to people's feelings*, not in a T way, but more in a *doesn't really think her words through* kinda way.


Actually, not really. Lol
I can find ever-creative ways to get on peoples' good sides. It's a habit. Sometimes even a reaction.
I've seen the same of most ENFPs that I've met. Though I don't imagine they're all the same.


----------



## starri (Jan 23, 2009)

Agent Blackout said:


> Actually, not really. Lol
> I can find ever-creative ways to get on peoples' good sides. It's a habit. Sometimes even a reaction.
> I've seen the same of most ENFPs that I've met. Though I don't imagine they're all the same.


Well yeah, I can see ENxPs as *charmers* in a sense that they can get on peoples' good sides. But not in a *beat by the bush* style, that I know some SPs are good with. Maybe it's my 6 that makes me more of a devil's advocate when I try to meddle, rather than a mediator? My friends and people who know me well think the habit is endearing, but the new people are the ones that might find my words weird. Don't know if this is all related to your OP..


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Because 1) like you point out most people are not seeking in-depth self-knowledge, and 2) most people do not have in-depth self-knowledge most of the time when people read a description they totally identify with and say "oh that's me! I'm an Idealist!" there is at most only a half-truth to this and in many cases they might be dead wrong.


Isn't that the person's own personal problem then? If they are only interested in a surface details then that's their own decision. If people don't know themselves enough and aren't interested in doing the work to get there then that is their prerogative. But again the temperments usually do help in terms of finding out clearer cut preferences. For instance most NF's actually do have similar tempermants. I know that I frequently test as an ENFP, INFP or an ENFJ on testing sites. I've tested that way for 4 years -- that has to say something about me. 

If you take tests frequently and certainly types continuously appear then you can likely bet that you are probably in the same temperament as an intuitive a judger or a perciever or have some kind of correlation to certain preferences. Usually people already know at some extent what a few of their letters already are when they are asking for typing help. It's rare that they are a complete blank slate. They likely just don't know how to put them together and form them into a way that better identifies their process. That is when they ask for help in regards to the typing forum. 



> Many so-called NFPs, for example, on this site are clear SJs they just think they're NFPs because they on some level identify with the description. But they're raging about what other people expect of them, and what they feel they need to do and so forth Fe and Te oriented stuff never realizing there is a disconnect between who they think they are who they really are


Or it could simply be that Fe and Te run the world and they are seeking a release from those constraints and limitations by venting about it in the forum? There is nothing to say that complaining about external systems is systematic to only Te or Fe users. In fact I think that relationship would often be inverted. More introverted functions would complain about external mandates, expectancies and hard and fast rules because they are constantly questioning the validity of the external systems. They probably wouldn't understand in their subjective way, why things must be the way they are. 

I would argue that introverts in general are more likely to vent online then any place else because they are repressing everything that they are thinking and feeling threw out their days. Introverts are constantly in touch with their processes and introverted functions, they would be the ones more likely to express their feelings of discontent in an online forum more then anywhere else. 



> (for instance, a lot of INFJs mistype as INTP precisely because they identify with Kiersey's NT temperament, think they are an *intellectual, don't want to be a feeler, especially males*, and come on sites like this and exclaim "I must be an NT!" They don't realize that what they identify as NT is really Ni-Ti which Kiersey does not allow to be NT.)


Well this is an entirely different problem that I don't think even really relates to Kiersey at the heart of it. Even if they threw away the NF temperment those men who are INFJ would still be rebelling about the idea of being a "feeler" which is what they are ashamed of and fighting against themselves more then anything else. That is their own personal discrimination against the INFJ character and feelers in general - not Kiersey's temperments. They would be just as aghast by the idea that they could be any F at all rather then INFJ. They would purposely be vehemently against the idea of not being a masculine Thinker - which is their own biased view of the system. 

In truth the ways in which INFJ's typical act they _are_ similar to other NF's even if they have different processes. Why else are there endless websites dedicated to finding out the differences between INFJ's and INFP's if they don't act in similar ways and have similar action styles from the outside? Again there is a method in here even if it's not strictly adhering to cognitive functions. Ultimately the NF's do act alike in a lot of ways. Just like SJ's, SP's and NT's do. Yes INFJ's have stronger thinking preferences then the other NF's that doesn't mean they aren't intuitives and feelers first and foremost before they are thinkers. 



> They've already made up their minds about what temperament group they MUST belong to and are now just looking for information to back it up. *This is not the purpose of Psychological Type (the point is to reveal things about yourself for which you were previously unaware so that you can grow not just back up an already held notion*).


There's a lot of assumptions happening here. Who is to say that the person hasn't already found information that revealed things to him or her? Who is to say they haven't read up on the types and found new things about themselves that they identify with? Why is it impossible to believe that they could be the type they think they are given the information they have encountered? There seems to be a lot of assumptive judging happening with just a glimpse of the person who is having trouble finding him or herself in regards to type. 

Ultimately I believe people know themselves more then others ever can from reading a few posts by them, and a small questionairre could provide and ultimately it is up to them to find out who they are and what process/system they are using. They are the ones who are using these processes. If they are saying they have a certain preference then it is likely that they have it, they probably just don't know if the process is introverted or extroverted or if it's dominant or auxilary. If they say they are an N preference then they likely have an N preference somewhere in their functions unless they completely misunderstood all concepts of being an intuitive, which is rare from what I have seen. They most likely know some of their letters, they just don't know what process they are using in the form of Ni or Ne for instance. 



Master Mind said:


> I've found that most people try to _escape_ themselves, not gain a better understanding of themselves.


Yes, I agree. I had friends like that while I was in London and there was an option for typing on Meyers-Briggs and those persons were simply not ready for typing in anyway shape or form. They were scared of finding out more about themselves and those typings were useless because they weren't ready for self discovery. 



Worriedfunction said:


> But that was never my argument. I didn't argue that point either, however the flaws in his work and the troubles they invoke outweigh the use of a simplistic approach. People often adhere to his stereotypes as facts, so much so that dislodging them in peoples minds is almost impossible.


People will bring stereotypes into anything. That's not really his fault. Posters feel the same way about Jung's cognitive functions. 



> You told me to use common sense, well now im telling you; when something is so simplified that it is nothing more than an empty set of generalisations then it has no use other than to further a persons own ignorance.


Only if that person chooses to remain ignorant and chooses not to do any work in regards to understanding their own selves. I won't discuss the Keirsey theory anymore since you firmly oppose it, but I think the reasons why you are opposing it seem to be more out of frustration for those who are misusing it rather then the text he himself provides. At least that is the way I am seeing it from the outside. 



starri said:


> Doesn't Ne make it SOO hard to be diplomatic? I feel like my fellow Se or Fe holders can be more thought of as diplomatic. I've been described on several accounts as *the person who says it as it is without regard to people's feelings*, not in a T way, but more in a *doesn't really think her words through* kinda way.


I don't think so. I am a different type but I use those same functions and I am more interested in finding out why a person thinks the way they do and then after I clarify their point I can navigate it towards somewhere. But my main interest is in trying to find out where the person's thinking pattern is coming from and how I relate to it so I can make a difference in the project or conversation. That being said I imagine Ne would just think of ideas and just kind of be caught up in their own things rather then really being in the room with others, while Fi would be more worried about if someone was making sense and "judging" the persons ideas, context and thoughts with a laser beam to see if the response had merit to them. 



Agent Blackout said:


> INFP - Diplomatic Responder


I like the title Harmonizer Clarifier / Analytical Responder more for my type. I need to know why things are the way they are and what is important foremost. What does this mean? What is the purpose of this? Etc.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Arrow said:


> People will bring stereotypes into anything. That's not really his fault. Posters feel the same way about Jung's cognitive functions.


Do they? Ive never heard of any stereotypes surrounding *JUNG'S* cognitive functions before Keirsey came along. I cannot conceive or even have a memory of someone stereotyping using Jung's actual descriptions of his functions in the same way that people stereotype using Keirseys temperaments.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Worriedfunction said:


> Do they?


Yes. It was actually the core reason why I ever questioned if I was using Fi because of all the negative Fi stereotypes I have read on here and then all of the amazing comments about Fe users. Keirsey says nothing about Fi being emotionless, selfish, childish, cold, non-expressive and heartless.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Arrow said:


> Yes. It was actually the core reason why I ever questioned if I was using Fi because of all the negative Fi stereotypes I have read on here and then all of the amazing comments about Fe users. Keirsey says nothing about Fi being emotionless, selfish, childish, cold, non-expressive and heartless.


He doesn't say anything about any function because he disregards them. People mix and match and it just becomes a mess.

The difference between Keirsey and Jung in regards to stereotypes and generalisations is that Jung deliberately tries to avoid them, whereas Keirsey utilises them. All his type descriptions deal in definites as if a person of that type were always going to adhere to some rule of their temperament.

Stereotypes from Jung's descriptions of his functions come about from misappropriations and misunderstandings, in the case of Keirsey it comes from a system which is too rigid to not stereotype.

ps: If anything ive seen more negative remarks about Fe and it's conformity, but this is a moot point since we are both just using personal experience and conjecture as evidence for this.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

@_Worriedfunction_ 
@_Arrow_ 

Interesting conversation, but it's way off-topic.

Please post elsewhere, as you're free to do, and please don't support the already nasty derail we have going on here... Thanks


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Agent Blackout said:


> @_Worriedfunction_
> @_Arrow_
> 
> Interesting conversation, but it's way off-topic.
> ...


Ok sorry, my apologies i'll bugger off now.


----------



## starri (Jan 23, 2009)

Arrow said:


> I am a different type but I use those same functions and I am more interested in finding out why a person thinks the way they do and then after I clarify their point I can navigate it towards somewhere. But my main interest is in trying to find out where the person's thinking pattern is coming from and how I relate to it so I can make a difference in the project or conversation.



Yes I can see an introvert doing that, while I just shoot the first thing that comes to my mind. Btw, I never said I don't understand where people are coming from, I said I've been known to speak my mind without much care for the consequences.



Arrow said:


> That being said I imagine Ne would just think of ideas and just kind of be caught up in their own things rather then really being in the room with others,


Yes, that would be what I am trying to say.



Arrow said:


> while Fi would be more worried about if someone was making sense and "judging" the persons ideas, context and thoughts with a laser beam to see if the response had merit to them.


Ye, Fi can really hold your Ne back, right?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Master Mind said:


> I've found that most people try to _escape_ themselves, not gain a better understanding of themselves.


They're certainly not escaping their egos.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

I'm only making these assessments based on the people I know...


I feel  _Tactical Initiator_ is about right for ESTP's.
From what I've seen, they usually like to start the interactions and do all the approaching.
But if nothing else, every single one I know seems to strongly prefer having the last word. (They tend to be really good at this, lol)

I think both ESTJ/ENTJ (Te-dom) are well-described as  _Initiators.
_Most Te-doms I know love to be the ones in control of the situations they end up in and what happens in them, which would require doing all the approaching. It's not even that they mind it, they prefer it.

I've had plenty of ISTJ friends and teachers in school.  _Logistical Contender_ seems right IMO.
They rarely ever initiated things to get going so to speak, but whenever something came up that needed to be handled - they handled it. If a situation got out of hand, their environment got controlled. They also know how to _stand up_ for themselves and others like few other types could.

What do you guys think? ...


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> In that other thread I went on and on about the nature of the ego and egocentricity and how often who people think they are is not who they really are, but a persona, or even just their actual ego, but as we know the ego is still not the sum-total of a person. This is the problem with Kiersey (and to a lesser degree MBTI) is that ultimately they are only typing your persona. As @Worriedfunction points outs there is no real psychological imperative here, despite the fact that both of these bill themselves as such. Just a superficial surface evaluation, really not that much different than saying "blondes have more fun."
> 
> You identify with Kiersey's NF based on the terms in which he lays out and how you think of yourself. But are you absolutely certain that the people around you (who are capable often of seeing your shadow tendencies even if you are not) would see you as an NF? Many so-called NFPs, for example, on this site are clear SJs they just think they're NFPs because they on some level identify with the description. But they're raging about what other people expect of them, and what they feel they need to do and so forth Fe and Te oriented stuff never realizing there is a disconnect between who they think they are who they really are as Jung warned there would be.
> 
> ...


"Persona", in the Beebean sense, is also is the complex that represents the ego to the outside world (in the person's gender; just as the anima/anumus sits between the ego and the Self), and as such would be type specific, since it tends to see through the lens of the dominant function (and perhaps to a certain extent, might also reference the auxiliary, evidenced below).

I bring this up, because I'm in the process of really trying to work out my own mid-life growth.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=alan_mackenzie



> Murray Stein (1983) in his book _In Midlife: A Jungian Perspective_ formulated three main features of the midlife crisis/transformation/passage to deepen self awareness.
> The first transition, says Stein, requires some crisis that cuts the person off from the known ways in which s/he controls his/her thinking, feeling and acting. He calls this first transition separation. What needs to be separated from in the first phase of the midlife transition is an earlier identity, the persona. In this period of psychological upheaval and turmoil our bonds to parents, society, friends and professional colleagues become frayed and undone. We want freedom. We cry for depth and meaning. The soul cannot be contained at midlife.
> 
> The ego needs to let go of this attachment before it can be encouraged into the second transition, namely entering liminal space. ‘Liminality’ means what is “at the threshold” (from the Latin limen) and is the territory of the mythological trickster Hermes. Able to travel between the worlds and a trickster who loves to destabilise what is known, Hermes slips in when we are least expecting him, and pulls the rug of safe expectations out from under our feet. This second transition involves some meeting with an aspect of our unconscious – some power previously excluded or shunned. To go through liminality, the person needs to ‘find the corpse’ and then to bury it – to identify the source of pain and then to put the past to rest by grieving, mourning and burying it. But the nature of the loss needs to be understood and worked through before a person can move on.
> ...


So I was wondering what the "persona" was for me, (especially, since I don't feel I have many of these "ego achievements" these descriptions talk about, that no longer work). 

But I realize it is one of "*mastery*" through conceptual knowledge. This is the *NT* temperament need, as Keirsey, and especially Berens outline. This also represents the masculine ideal for me, and the contrast to the feminine ideal that would be impressed by genius (and take a more submissive role to it). Batman and Dick Tracy were ideal heroes to me.
What I most don't want to be is powerless, and not knowing why things aren't going right or how to fix them. But I'm thinking this is probably the ego-position that is supposed to be given up, in order to individuate.

The four "personas" then, would be:
NT Mastery and Self-Control; Knowledge and Competence
NF Meaning and significance; Unique identity
SJ Membership or belonging [I believer this is better summed up as "familiarity"]; Responsibility or Duty
SP Freedom to act on needs of the moment; Ability to make an impact

So I imagine these things are what are challenged when the four groups are ready to mature.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Eric B said:


> "Persona", in the Beebean sense, is also is the complex that represents the ego to the outside world (in the person's gender; just as the anima/anumus sits between the ego and the Self), and as such would be type specific, since it tends to see through the lens of the dominant function (and perhaps to a certain extent, might also reference the auxiliary, evidenced below).
> 
> I bring this up, because I'm in the process of really trying to work out my own mid-life growth.
> 
> ...


Great read. Thanks. I'm going to have to digest this one for a while.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Eric B said:


> "Persona", in the Beebean sense, is also is the complex that represents the ego to the outside world (in the person's gender; just as the anima/anumus sits between the ego and the Self), and as such would be type specific, since it tends to see through the lens of the dominant function (and perhaps to a certain extent, might also reference the auxiliary, evidenced below).
> 
> I bring this up, because I'm in the process of really trying to work out my own mid-life growth.
> 
> ...


I've been trying to avoid derails like this throughout the thread.

Would you care to assess the titles for any of the types presented in the OP?

@LiquidLight same question


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Agent Blackout said:


> Note to Moderators: The Keirsey Temperament Theory Forum didn't have a general area (or at least I couldn't find one... ), so I didn't know in what other section to post this thread. Please move it where ever you feel would be appropriate, and sorry for any inconvenience.
> 
> 
> According to David Keirsey's work *Brains and Careers *(an expansion to his theory), each type fits a specific role title.
> ...


Not to be snide, but I think Eric B is basically answering your question here with more detail. I mean it sounds like this thread is just a superficial reading of "does Kiersey's title apply to you" and I think from the number of thread derails the general answer is "uhh sometimes, but not really." Because people keep coming up with all these caveats and "well sometimes I do this, but I really mean that," and so forth. 

I guess I'm just confused as to what you were after with this thread. As an INFJ am I a 'diplomatic contender'. I have no idea what the fuck that even means in anything other than Kiersey-speak. And why can't a Se-dom be a diplomatic contendor by the way? (I'm not asking you of course just being rhetorical). If you want to know why threads like this always end up off-topic its because descriptions like his are often so narrow that they might as well be read off a fortune cookie. They don't have practical application. 

Because in the real world, as @Eric B was pointing out, you might be able to label someone 'Strategic Initiator' but who cares? What do they strive for? What do they want to be? What do they want to do with their life? For me that is far more interesting than a label. Perhaps that ENTJ 'strategic initiator' has an inner ISFP 'Tactical Responder,' and are we to simply dismiss this simply because of their outward persona? Real people are not one-dimensional, no matter how much they identify with a characterization. If we were really to be honest I bet everyone on this site could identify with all sixteen of these categories at one point and none of them at another. So what have we accomplished?

Actually I really liked @Eric B's response because it demonstrates that although you may superficially fit a role assigned (NT for example) that isn't the end-all-be-all of self-actualization. That's just where you start. Who cares if you're an NT, what do you want to be? Where do you want to go? What are your aspirations? Surely there has to be more to life than simply belonging to a typological category Jungian, temperament or otherwise. _Logistical Initiator_ is fine if you just want to know who on your staff might find corresponding work comfortable (but we're making a lot of assumptions in saying all ESTJs will behave or be Logical Initiators behaviorally -- a great many ESTJs are on the stripper pole trying to make ends meet or walking the streets. The prisons of America are no-doubt filled with would-be Logical Initiators). This is the problem that I have with _Please Understand Me_ and _Brain Types_. Kiersey has a theory of social interaction, which in many cases may not be wrong, but he over-applies. Perhaps the roles he lays out might be decent generalizations, but the problem is it goes too far (MBTI has the same problem mind-you it's not just a Kiersey thing). At the end of the day because these descriptions are so generalized and so superficial it really is no different than grouping people based on how they dress or geographical locations (all northerners do this, or all southerners do that). You might find some surface similarities but we surely shouldn't hold people to that as if it was an unquestionable truth (or worse a biological imperative). 

Both Kiersey and Jung and Myers and all the rest are trying to simply spell out the similarities between people and the differences between them. The problem is that, while Jung starts from a psychological perspective (the person primarily uses sensual perception as a framework for cognitive awareness) and then says "oh and they _might_ behave a certain way because of Se," Kiersey and Myers start with behavior and then try to build a psychology around it, which of course means that we have to interpret behavior through the lens they set forth. If you like things decided you must be a Judger, says Myers. Really? Always? In Kiersey's case the descriptions don't even have anything typologically in common. Initiators might be Feeling types (ENFJ) or Sensation types (ESTP) or Thinking types (ENTJ/ESTJ). Again it's like he had these notions of the four groupings (which again might be well founded in his research) but then just tried to make the type description work (basically whatever type was closest to his ideas of Rationals became NT, nevermind the fact that ESTJ is a Thinking type). 

Again because he's mostly measuring behavior, any type can identify with any of these characterizations. There's nothing to say that a real Fi-dom, especially ISFP couldn't identify with his SJ temperament (because basically Kiersey's SJ is just someone who is practical, conscientious and doesn't like change - I know ESFPs like this!). Or that an ESTJ might identify with NT (especially in this case because his definitions of 'Thinker' basically deal with intelligence and an appeal to logic or impersonal reasoning). Again these are like nursery-rhyme level definitions of people. It's no different than saying "redheads are wild" or "black people can dance." You're taking a small nugget of something that might be true in a small given context and creating an entire theory around it by which EVERYONE has to fit into a grouping, and I think in reality, if people were really honest, they could go through all sixteen of those names and think of times in their life when they have had to be all of them from time to time. Sometimes I'm Strategic, sometimes I'm a Responder, sometimes I'm an Initiator and so forth. These are just roles I play, not who I am.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

High five @Eric B and @LiquidLight for amazing posts that just totally made what's left of my day! I agree with what @LiquidLight said about knowing SFPs who fit Kiersey's descriptions of SJs better than many SJs I know do. Hell, I even know ST types that fit Kiersey's NT characterizations better than many NT types I know. Also, the "biological imperative" speculation I see around the internet is just disturbing (e.g. the crap about SPs came first evolutionarily and are the least evolved, and NTs were the most evolved, etc.) - heh, it's really no wonder certain types are so rare around here *eyeroll* - I sure wouldn't want to identify with the "least evolved" type, even if I were one. It's truly the lower functions that are a lot more revealing about peoples' individuality I've found than the upper functions, which persona is more heavily built around, since people are more egotistical about the upper functions (hence the reason they constitute those upper positions to begin with). The inferior function especially doesn't lie about a person's true nature, since people have very little conscious control of it and probably even less personal (ego) identification with it (since it's most likely to be consulted with reference to where a person is most egotistical (aka dom function) - when people are being more honest about themselves, the lower two functions are the ones that will be the most revealing features of them - not the upper two functions. For instance, I've noticed that if you anger F types (e.g. my ISFJ mom), they will get more logically analytical than usual and much more impersonal and detached than usual (it comes off as chilly cold), while if you anger, say, and INTJ like myself, they will appeal to values more and get more emotionally fragile than usual (they get more helpless and emo, basically).


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Agent Blackout said:


> I've been trying to avoid derails like this throughout the thread.
> 
> Would you care to assess the titles for any of the types presented in the OP?


Sorry; I didn't think it would be taken as a "derail". I did answer that in post 11, but LL's mention of "persona" resonated with what I was recently thinking, and inasmuch as it is talking about Keirsey's temperament "needs", I figured it was still on-topic.

I myself don't like new names we come up for the temperaments or other groups (Interaction Styles, etc), because they can lead to stereotyping, when not taken in their proper contexts. That's why I like the old humor names (for both Keirsey and Berens' groups, forming two-way "blends"). They too were based on stereotypical behavior, but the meanings have become more muted over the centuries. So "Sanguine" sounds better than "Tactical", "Get-Things Going", "Artisan" or "Improviser", and it shows how there might be "cross-talk" between blended temperaments. Like if an ESTJ seems "NT", it might be because he shares the "Choleric" nature (through his EST preference), though in a different "area" of interaction (social instead of leadership). The same thing with ISFP's who identify with NF more than SP. Keirsey's SP profiles often overdo the "Sanguine" traits, with some of the "extroverted" social traits spilling over into it (and would better fit the ESFP), so the ISF "Supine" might seem more like NF. Or even fit the similarly reserved "melancholic" SJ better, in comparison. And again, the same with INTP's having trouble thinking they might be NF, or identifying as melancholic.

I could have better emphasized that these names Keirsey is using in these combinations (tactical, logistic, strategic, diplomatic) are the "skills-sets" for the temperaments, which are only one aspect of them.

Also, are you still going to give us more info on what's in the book? I've been waiting for that.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> Also, the "biological imperative" speculation I see around the internet is just disturbing (e.g. the crap about SPs came first evolutionarily and are the least evolved, and NTs were the most evolved, etc.) - heh, it's really no wonder certain types are so rare around here *eyeroll* - I sure wouldn't want to identify with the "least evolved" type, even if I were one.


 Wow; I've never heard of that!
That would probably assume that animals are all default/de-facto Se types; but they're not, because Se, like the others, is basically an interpretation of data. Animals experience things, but do not cognitively interpret them. They just react according to the limbic system of instinct and emotion. So while they experience sensation, they are not even "Sensors" under this definition. 
So the idea of an Se preference being "less evolved" (as if closer to the animals) is totally unfounded.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Eric B said:


> Sorry; I didn't think it would be taken as a "derail". I did answer that in post 11, but LL's mention of "persona" resonated with what I was recently thinking, and inasmuch as it is talking about Keirsey's temperament "needs", I figured it was still on-topic.
> 
> *I myself don't like new names we come up for the temperaments or other groups (Interaction Styles, etc), because they can lead to stereotyping, when not taken in their proper contexts. That's why I like the old humor names (for both Keirsey and Berens' groups, forming two-way "blends"). They too were based on stereotypical behavior, but the meanings have become more muted over the centuries. So "Sanguine" sounds better than "Tactical", "Get-Things Going", "Artisan" or "Improviser", and it shows how there might be "cross-talk" between blended temperaments. Like if an ESTJ seems "NT", it might be because he shares the "Choleric" nature (through his EST preference), though in a different "area" of interaction (social instead of leadership). The same thing with ISFP's who identify with NF more than SP. Keirsey's SP profiles often overdo the "Sanguine" traits, with some of the "extroverted" social traits spilling over into it (and would better fit the ESFP), so the ISF "Supine" might seem more like NF. Or even fit the similarly reserved "melancholic" SJ better, in comparison. And again, the same with INTP's having trouble thinking they might be NF, or identifying as melancholic.
> 
> ...


Thank you. So much. For staying on topic.
*high-five*
A lot of the posts were _great_ and did discuss Keirsey, but they were becoming increasingly tangential to the OP's inquiry. Other threads could be created for those discussions.

I agree. Keirsey is very stereotypical of people and types.

Oddly enough, I think about half of the "titles" fit when it comes to social role tendencies. Kinda.
The other half are debatable. (just IMO)

More information from the book will be posted when I find a digital copy of it, because I don't wanna type out all that information -_- Lol


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I was hoping for a digital copy, but who knows when that will ever come out.

So then, for now, what I wanted to know, was:
•Does he use "intersecting/interlinking" for the "roles of interaction"? (Or do they have a different name?)
•Are "directing/informing" and "cooperative/pragmatic" renamed"? (proactive/reactive; compliant/adaptive)
•Does he cross those two factors creating four groups STJ/NFJ, NTJ/STP, NFP/SFJ, and NTP/SFP?
•Does he still use the type codes or dichotomies?
•Are the intelligence variants and types renamed?


> NTP Engineer: Constructor
> NFP Advocate: Mediator
> STJ Administrator: Monitor (revert to Portraits of Temperament)
> SFJ Conservators: Providers (takes on old ESFJ name, below)
> ...


•Also wondering, how much he says about the roles of interaction?


----------

