Take it here. Then say if it matches your MBTT type.
Yes, you have to take it.
Keirsey Temperament
Take it here. Then say if it matches your MBTT type.
Yes, you have to take it.
Of course it does. The Keirsey temperaments can be used as a complemantary typing tool in some cases, for example if we are in doubt between SLI and LSI. Every SLI is an Artisan, every LSI is a Guardian. That applies to the other types as well. As I have mentioned elsewhere some time ago, the ESI is very clearly described by Filatova as having most of the typical traits of Keirsey's Guardian temperament, whereas the SEI is an Artisan.Originally Posted by Ezra
Are you saying a Rational doesn't fit Beta ST?
Definitely. They are as incompatible as a Researcher (NT) and a Pragmatist (ST) in Socionics.
From www.socioniko.net:
Pragmatists (sensory & logical)
Researchers (intuitive & logical)This sort of people evaluate things from the standpoint of practical result, they dislike “visions” and “hollow conversations”. Their manner of communication at close distances is, as a rule, rather harsh (“I am a frank person!”), plain – unless the partner gains respect for himself. Their typical problem is the obscure understanding of their own feelings, which is especially unpleasant for women of these types. Being often unable of expressing their feelings adequately, they tend to be abrupt and suspicious for no reason. Their second problem is a habit to use “well-proved ways”, and they do not like to use new, unusual approaches, especially when these approaches have a form of rather an idea than a well-working technology. From this standpoint we can understand the paradox when a Pragmatist may be among those who get behind (he simply does not understand why he needs all these abstract rules and formulas), but after school he becomes quite successful. The problem is that the school focused on mechanic learning of theoretical knowledge cannot understand usefulness of his practical skills. The third problem is caused by their strive for concrete values – for this reason they strive for being “authoritative”, and often interpret advice from others (even constructive) as an infringement on their authority.
They own a well-developed analytical and inventive thinking, vivid imagination, even when their real occupations (e.g. a farm owner) is not relevant to abstract speculations. Their interests are various; often they even have knowledge that seems redundant to others, for the reason that it may be useful one day. They think a lot and often offer unusual, non-standard solutions. The Achilles’ heel of Researches (exactly what they must sacrifice for their perfect mental skills) is that they are often tactless in relations with people. They can find brilliant solutions, but get stuck at their implementation, because of awkwardness in handling the human factor, as well as of forgetting “those boring details”.
Back when I was into MBTI and Keirsey (for a long time actually believing the two to be more or less the same thing, although I know otherwise nowadays), I was INTJ according to both systems. No doubt Phaedrus is now going to attack me for being different to my Socionics type.
ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
5w4 so/sx
"IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"
Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
Stickam music performances
Yes, naturally. What are your reasons for believing (because you certainly don't KNOW it) that you are (assuming that you still think so) an INTJ in MBTT? Please try to answer that, because of course I have to think that you don't know what you are talking about. Prove me wrong.
Well what do you want me to say? Ever since I seriously got into Socionics I couldn't give a fuck about MBTI or any similar typologies - they're useless to me now. I've learned a lot more from Socionics than I've learned from either of those two I mentioned above and so I honestly don't care what MBTI type you consider me - consider me ESFJ if you really want, it's completely irrelevant to me. I'll admit I once wavered between MBTI and Socionics when I was still new to this system but nowadays Socionics type holds a lot more weight with me than MBTI type does, simply because in my personal experience it seems to be more accurate. Go ahead, call me INTP or ESTP or FIGJ or BLAHFNORG or whatever you believe these days (yes I know exactly you'll consider me INTP, I just feel like being silly).
Hmm.. weird. Three hours ago and I too scared to post a comment that nobody will take any notice of and now I'm actively having an argument without being bothered whatsoever. Perhaps I'm not such a hopeless wreck afterall. Oh well.
Warning: the previous paragraph is just me thinking aloud and should not be read by anyone. But you did. Ha ha.
ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
5w4 so/sx
"IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"
Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
Stickam music performances
Took it, uh got Artisan.
A few years ago when I "felt" more sure about my type, I typed SJ (when I was typing ISFJ)
But, I'm 100% certain before taking this test that I would test NF. I'll take the test later, but I want to have a clear head before I take the test.
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
lol yeah, what the hell?
and I got NF, which matches my MBTT type, I would be suprised if it didn't
Test says I'm a rational.
I'm not sure about my MBTI type thought I usually score as ENFp, INFp, INTj, INTp.
Said I'm a rational.
Suomea
For the people who claim Keirsey is something different then MBTI.
I took my keirsey temperament sorter 2 book from my dusty bookshelf and can only find evidence for the fact that Keirsey=MBTI
So I don't know how this misconception comes into the world, nothing points in the direction that keirsey is anything different then MBTI . Keirsey makes it easy, he uses the exact same 4 letters as MBTI and even refers to MBTI at some pages. So what's the difficulty?
Of course you can get a different result because the test uses different questions. Some tests are better then others, that's the only reason for differing results. But people seem to think: hey then it must be a different system. duhhh...
Keirsey's types (= the people he wants to put in each type box) are the same as those in MBTT, even though Keirsey is reluctant to admit that fact. He says for example that according to MBTT and Jung an ESTJ and an ENTj are "nearly identical in attitude and action" because they are both extraverted thinking types, whereas Keirsey "see[s] them as light years apart" because one is a Rational and the other a Guardian. For Keirsey the temperaments are more fundamental than functions, and he sees the S/N dimension as the most important and the E/I as the least important.
Keirsey also says that he has "never found a use for this scheme of psychological functions, and this is because function typology sets out to define different people's mental make-up--what is in their heads--something which is not observable, and which is thus anavoidably subjective, a matter of speculation, and occasionally of projection." Basically, I share this "behaviouristic" and clearly empiricist approach to science (and thus to typology in general since typology should be seen as a branch of the natural sciences) with Keirsey, and that is because Keirsey and I are both ILIs (INTps and INTPs). We should take the types, and their behaviours and attitudes, as our starting point -- not the functions -- but when we have got the groups of people right (= the types), we can begin to investigate what's in their heads and precautiously come up with hypotheses and theoretical models (such as Socionics) that would explain the outward behaviours of the types. Ultimately, we may be able to determine which kind of brain structure is causing which kind of behaviour and attitude.
An important lesson to keep in mind (even though only few people on this forum will accept this truth) is that Keirsey's four temperaments are way superior to the four quadras as a starting point in the typing process. It is much more likely that you will mistype a person if you try to figure out the person's quadra than if you first try to figure out if the person is a Rational, an Idealist, an Artisan, or a Guardian.
They're essentially the same thing, but with emphasis on different things. Keirsey is mostly interested in his "temperaments" whereas Myers-Briggs tends to give more or less equal weight to each of the "4 letters" as you put it.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
You dickhead. Keirsey himself says that his system and MBTT are different.
And Keirsey is right in a very trivial sense, since he doesn't assume the existence of functions, but in the more important sense I explained in my last post there is no difference, because both Keirsey and MBTT are talking about the same groups of people. And of course there is no difference between those two systems and Socionics either -- in exactly that relevant respect.
And that's why the ABCD=ABCd thesis is true for all three models. Their explanations of what we can observe are different -- but the phenomena that we observe (= the types) are the same.
So, Jarno is certainly no dickhead. He understands this correctly and much better than most people on this forum.
Oh I got Rational, btw.
ETA: it's pretty much like usual MBTI tests -- I can't see a difference in philosophy.
As expected.
There is little or no difference in testing method. There is a difference in philosophy, which Keirsey explains thoroughly in his book, and I briefly touched upon in previous posts.
Phaedrus, I see some of myself in Keirey's SP, his SJ and his NT. I get SJ every time I do it, but when I read the SJ description, it is NOT me. I can assure you. They believe in traditions for the sake of traditions. They have this huge thing about getting involved in their local community, which I do NOT do. These are two of the biggest things that make the SJ the SJ. As well as their sense of responsibility (which I have to some extent). So what am I in your opinion?
What, because he's the same type as you?So, Jarno is certainly no dickhead. He understands this correctly and much better than most people on this forum.
I was reading about the Rational a few days ago, and some of the specifics were you all over.
And all the ESEs I know are Keirsey SJ all over. If only it were always that simple.
I dunno, you know, Peter, I'm starting to see the ENTJ as much more like the LIE than I first thought. It really is a case of the more you read, the more you understand. I think Phaedrus is actually onto something. Either he is an ILI and has studied in great depth, or he is an IEI, and his intuitions are correct.
So what? I see some of myself in his NF, a little less in his SJ and perhaps least in his SP. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing very clearly that I am an NT. Maybe you haven't read his book Please Understand Me II where everything is explained in much more detail than on the Internet. If you still don't know for sure which temperament you belong to after a thorough reading of that book and some reflection, then you shouldn't trust your own typing abilities.
Then why do you test as SJ if you are not an SJ? That doesn't make sense. The only reasonable explanation is that you have an incorrect picture of your personality or misinterpret the test questions.
But you realize that all four of the Sjs in Socionics -- the ESE, the LSI, the ESI, and the LSE -- are clearly Guardians, don't you? Every single real life example of them.
Confused about your true nature.
No, because he expresses true statements which reveal a correct understanding of the issue.
Yes, Expat is a very clear example of an extraverted thinking Rational, and that's why he cannot be an LSE, or any other type than LIE/ENTJ for that matter.
If you take the ENTJ as apparently understood by Keirsey, it is easier to see them as a socionics LIE than as per most MBTT descriptions; because Keirsey sees them as essentially similar (as he would) to the ENTP, INTJ, and INTP. MBTT descriptions tend to make the ENTJ more overbearing.
So from the point of view of socionics, at least in that respect Keirsey provides an useful corrective to MBTT.
Very clearly so, yes. It is much easier to see that ESEs are Guardians than that they are Alphas.
Why are people so convinced that it is not?
That's a good start.
Correct.
I am an Idealist.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I'm onto Chapter 8; Parenting.
You're too black and white. I know I'm not an NF, and I'm almost certain I'm not an SJ or SP after having read it, but there are still problems with NT, even though it's the closest to me.If you still don't know for sure which temperament you belong to after a thorough reading of that book and some reflection, then you shouldn't trust your own typing abilities.
Because the questions can't accurately predict my motivation for choosing one question over another, so it comes out with a result which isn't mine. Just because I'm not "head-in-the-clouds" doesn't mean I'm not N over S, right? Well, according to all these tests, that is wrong. You have to be head-in-the-clouds to be an N type. So the meaning of Te leading in the LIE goes out the window.Then why do you test as SJ if you are not an SJ?
I agree, they are. Except Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is an INTJ and an LSE.But you realize that all four of the Sjs in Socionics -- the ESE, the LSI, the ESI, and the LSE -- are clearly Guardians, don't you? Every single real life example of them.
That I am.Confused about your true nature.
Just a few things to consider.
Look at how the Keirsey site defines the ESFP:
Now, this contradicts head-on the socionics concept of the SEE or ESFp. "Not comfortable telling others what to do?" A Se dominant? Also, the Russians used first Napoleon, then Caesar, as the ESFp "prototypes" - they were wrong about Napoleon, because he was much more like ESTp, but the point is -- surely neither Napoleon nor Caesar were seen as "not comfortable telling others what to do?"The Portait of the Performer (ESFP)
Besides being concrete in speech and utilitarian in reaching their goals, the Performer Artisans are collaborative and expressive in their social interactions. Thus, while Performers are usually extreme in their expressiveness and sociability, observably the most expressive of all the types, they are not comfortable telling others what to do, preferring to offer information rather than to issue orders.
And this:
Is that the ESFp -- the dual of the INTp? The INTp's perfect companion is somebody who is "playful and fun-loving" and for whom "all the world's a stage"? They want to be "charmed and lightened up by pleasurable emotions?"Demonstrating or performing is putting on a show to entertain others, and Performers, whether on the job, with friends, or in their families, are the natural performers among the types, people for whom it can truly be said "all the world's a stage." Playful and fun-loving, the Performer' primary social interest lies in stimulating those around them, arousing their senses and their pleasureful emotions-charming them, in a sense, to cast off their concerns and "lighten up." Representing about ten per cent of the general population, Performers radiate warmth and optimism, and are able to lift others' spirits with their contagious laughter and their irrepressible joy of living.
It's not merely a matter of not doing the homework on Napoleon. It is a matter of a very fundamental disagreement on what makes an ESFP an ESFP, and a SEE, a SEE.
Unless this is a "bad description" - but which one is then good, if that's the official Keirsey site? - this already demonstrates the utter foolishness of thinking that the Keirsey types represent the same kind of people as the socionics types. It does work in some cases, not in all.
Also, on the INTJ:
Is that really an Alpha Ti type? "Only adopt ideas if they are useful?"Masterminds will adopt ideas only if they are useful, which is to say if they work efficiently toward accomplishing the Mastermind's well-defined goals.
Also - but this may be simply bad homework - they included Peter the Great as INTJ, whom the Russians consistently type as SLE.
And:
Also, the very first paragraph:Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds.
.Of the four aspects of strategic analysis and definition, it is the contingency planning or entailment organizing role that reaches the highest development in Masterminds. Entailing or contingency planning is not an informative activity, rather it is a directive one in which the planner tells others what to do and in what order to do it. As the organizing capabilities the Masterminds increase so does their inclination to take charge of whatever is going on
I'm not saying that a LII can't do that -- but is it really that what describes best what set them apart from LIEs, ILIs and ILEs?
And so on and so forth.
Now you know why Russian socionists who were given Keirsey descriptions by Lytov typed the INTJ description as SLE or LIE or whatever; very seldom as LII.
Right, Phaedrus, I'm sorry, but you can just not account for that. If you don't reply to this with adequate evidence for why Expat has it wrong, you are a retard.
Good. That chapter is one of the most interesting, because especially the descriptions of the types as children can be very helpful in determining your correct type.
I don't doubt that you are a T type, so I think you should concentrate on NT and the two ST types. Try to compare every aspect of Guardians and Rationals both at the details and in overall pictures of the temperaments. And the Temperament Sorter in the book might not be exactly the same as the one you have taken on the Internet. Check that out too.
Correct.
No. That is only one aspect of the differences between S and N types, and of course that is more true of ENTps and INTps than of ENTjs and INTjs. Read Keirsey's notes on chapter 1 (p. 331) too.
No. The Keirsey ENTJ is clearly an extraverted thinking type in both Jung's and MBTT's sense. You will realize that if you compare type descriptions.
Of course he isn't.
And to drive the point home:
These are the results of Lytov's work -- how Russian socionists typed the Keirsey descriptions (not necessarily the same as in keirsey.com )given to them. 52 thought thought that the INTJ was a SLE, against 9 who thought that it as a LII.
I'm one step ahead of this, Phaedrus. I took the temperament sorter, and came out as ESTJ. E, T and J were pretty defined, but S was 12, and N was 8. So I did the test in the back of the book, just to confirm, and I came out as NT. I see a bit of me in the ESTP, and a bit of me in ESTJ (but in none of the other Artisans or Guardians, or in the Idealists), whereas I see some of me in both the ENTJ and the INTJ.
Yeah, I'd agree with that.No. The Keirsey ENTJ is clearly an extraverted thinking type in both Jung's and MBTT's sense. You will realize that if you compare type descriptions.
...Of course he isn't.
Mind backing that up with some factual evidence?
Oh look, WHAT A SURPRISE. Phaedrus has NOT addressed Expat's practically infallible reasoning!
I can easy see why Keirsey uses this description for an SEE.
Most SEE are playful and fun loving. That is not something new? That stage thing is a bit exaggeration of the SEE expressiveness. Although I even know 1 SEE who plays some kind of role all day long.
But there was a bit about leading that you cannot dispute, Jarno.
That is not the point. You are evading, or not seeing, the issue.
You and Phaedrus keep saying, as if it was something obvious, that Keirsey/MBTT and socionics types describe the same group of people.
Now, it should be very clear that socionics authors see comfort with "telling others what to do" not as a secondary, but as a defining characteristic of SEEs; while that Keirsey description states the precise opposite, that is, that ESFPs are not comfortable with that.
Did Russian socionists choose, of all people, precisely Napoleon and Caesar as nicknames for SEE by chance? No, because they thought that "comfort with command" was a defining characteristic of the type.
So, Keirsey's view of the ESFP is of as fun-loving person, who dislikes ordering people around directly - and that is also clear from the ESFPs listed in the site.
Socionists' view of SEEs is of a Napoleon, a Caesar; a Se dominant, which in every single socionics description is about ease with command, among other things.
That is absurdly obvious.
True, but as you can read, I've never disputed that. Still he clearly tries to describe the same person as an SEE, that is pretty obvious IMO.
I wonder which socionics types according to you he tries to describe then in his ESFP description?
Last edited by Jarno; 01-15-2008 at 10:26 PM.
So you see no problem whatsoever with the inconsistency I described?
SEE - "Napoleon", "Caesar", Se dominants and obviously comfortable with command
ESFP by Keirsey - "not comfortable with command"
You think this is a minor issue?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
