Keirsey's relationships

[Expat]

Based on the profiles here:

http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/

Look for the "types" and then MBTI. The Myers-Briggs profiles include one by David Keirsey at bottom.

When talking about relationships, Keirsey has the following suggestions for likely best matches:

- ESFJ: ISTP
- ENFJ: INTP
- ENFP: ISTJ and INTJ
- ENTJ: ISFP and INFP
- ENTP: ISFJ and INFJ
- ESTP: ISFJ
- ESTJ: ISFP and INFP
- ESFP: ISTJ and INTJ

So, IF Keirsey were looking at the same groups of people as socionics, that would mean that for some reason he observed the opposite of socionics - he actually thinks that supervision and conflict are the best relationships.

Can that be the case?

Or --

Was Keirsey simply talking out of his ass regarding relationships?

Were the individuals he actually observed not really of the "corresponding" socionics types? Some of his ENTJs were indeed LIEs, but his INFPs were actually EIIs? Etc etc etc

[Expat]

My answer: it's both. He was talking out of his ass regarding relationships, and some of the individuals he observed that "confirmed" his speculations were of different socionics types.

[Phaedrus]

Was Keirsey simply talking out of his ass regarding relationships?

Yes, probably.

Were the individuals he actually observed not really of the "corresponding" socionics types? Some of his ENTJs were indeed LIEs, but his INFPs were actually EIIs? Etc etc etc

No, probably not.

[Jarno]

Yeah, Keirsey was doing what I personally refer to as "common sense thinking"

It seems obvious that somebody with all 4 dichotomy's switched would be the best match because of the complementation.

MBTI has made this error once, but they actually tested this in reality and discoverd that this complementation of dichotomy only led to conflicts

So if Keirsey had tested it in reality he probably would have found the same result, but he hasn't found this result therefor it's probable that he only used "common sense thinking"

[Expat]

Yeah, Keirsey was doing what I personally refer to as "common sense thinking"

Better referred to as "talking out of one's ass".

[Jarno]

Yes that sound fine too. :wink:

This proofs again that it's really dangerous to make hypothesis without testing them properly in real life.

[aka-kitsune]

I wonder if there's a "Keirsey discussion board" somewhere that's simultaneously trashing socionics at this very moment...

[Jarno]

I don't know of any Keirsey forum.

Although Keirsey made a nice discovery of the temperaments, he just took the whole thing with their relationships to far.

[mm]

The only thing in MBTT I know of that allows describing relations similar to socionics is Beebe's archetype model. He describes function positions in the model of the psyche using archetypes. For instance, PoLR is called Trickster and Dual Seeking is called Anima/Animus (Opposite Sex). From that you can sort of intuitively explain relationships.

[Phaedrus]

The only thing in MBTT I know of that allows describing relations similar to socionics is Beebe's archetype model. He describes function positions in the model of the psyche using archetypes. For instance, PoLR is called Trickster and Dual Seeking is called Anima/Animus (Opposite Sex). From that you can sort of intuitively explain relationships.

Yes, and basically that seems to be what has happened in Socionics too. Dual Seeking is the same thing as Anima/Animus, and it seems to have the same origin. The only difference seems to be that Socionics was more lucky and managed to match the correct types with the correct functions, whereas MBTT has failed in that respect.

In MBTT they correctly assume that the Anima/Animus phenomenon takes place between opposite functions, but they incorrectly attribute the opposite leading function of an ENTJ to the ISFP, the opposite leading function of an ESFJ to the INTP etc. They are correct in assuming that the leading function of an ESFJ is Fe, but they don't realize that the real opposite type (functionally speaking) is the INTJ, not the INTP.

[Expat]

I wonder if there's a "Keirsey discussion board" somewhere that's simultaneously trashing socionics at this very moment...

I'd wish them good luck and would like to see them trying.

[Creepy-bg]

I've only read the first post here, but maybe Kiersey was taking a growth through relationships perspective? I know it's a bit flimsy but ehhh, maybe? Kind of like a Neitze way of going at relationships, what doesn't kill me can only make me stronger?

I'll admit though that I've never read any of Kiesey's work so I could be totally off base. My impression though from the little exposure I've had is that he's big on growth. I could see how thinking that working out/through a relationship between people who aren't seemingly compatable could be seen as an opportunity to grow socially or whatnot.

[xyz]

One test case: I've dated 2 ESFj's. I can tell ya: "Definitely not my best match". Can get quite annoying.

[Jarno]

You don't need to test keirseys relations.

They are certainly way off, if they don't correspond to socionics.

[rockclimber]

I find ENTps fascinating, but I don't think I could date one.

[Blaze]

yeah keirsey is off. some of the problem is that the introverts are mis-typed.

one of the most persuasive aspects of socionics has to do with rationality and irrationality. i very strongly prefer another irrational in a close relationship. and work relationships. i usually will hire other irrationals ... if there are rationals on my staff it's usually because they were there before i got there. my adult relationships have only been with other irrationals. so this piece of socionics has great face validity IMO.

but keirsey's concept that a rational and irrational would be ideal....shows the lack of sophistication of the MBTI theory.