Temperaments are dumb

[Hitta]

Why do people subscribe into the idea that there are these temperaments of personality types. The temperaments, (NT;NF;ST;SF) and (EP;EJ;IP;IJ) are just dumb. Take an ENTj and INTj for instance. These two types are going to be extremely different, hell, they are completely the opposite. The only similarity is they both favor the judging-perceiving ordering of functions. Now take ESFps and ENTps; there is very little(if any) similarity between the two types besides that they both use perceiving dominant functions. There are very few trait similarities that you can find besides the two types. I just don't understand why everyone subscribes to the temperament theory.

[Expat]

Well, your friend Gulenko wrote quite a lot on the EJ, EP, IJ, IP temperaments. I thought you were familiar with his writings?

[machintruc]

Why do people subscribe into the idea that there are these temperaments of personality types. The temperaments, (NT;NF;ST;SF) and (EP;EJ;IP;IJ) are just dumb. Take an ENTj and INTj for instance. These two types are going to be extremely different, hell, they are completely the opposite. The only similarity is they both favor the judging-perceiving ordering of functions. Now take ESFps and ENTps; there is very little(if any) similarity between the two types besides that they both use perceiving dominant functions. There are very few trait similarities that you can find besides the two types. I just don't understand why everyone subscribes to the temperament theory.

These are not really "temperaments", but rather "cognitive classes" or "categories". Gulenko called such groups "temparaments", but he was wrong.

IJ types focus on the fields at rest
IP types focus on the fields at motion
EP types focus on the bodies at rest
EJ types focus on the bodies at motion

P types are flexible, whereas J types are rigid
I types are inert, whereas E types are mobile

That's all. It's more like Pavlov's temperaments than Hippocrates'.

EP = strong, not balanced
EJ = strong, balanced, mobile
IJ = strong, balanced, inert
IP = weak

If you really want an idea of temperaments, look at my Model Φ Thread

[Expat]

The temperaments, (NT;NF;ST;SF) - -- are just dumb.

Those are indeed dumb, since they are not socionics temperaments, but clubs.

You have the Keirsey temperaments, but they are different: NT, NF, SJ and SP.

[Jonathan]

Why do people subscribe into

Keep in mind that just as you're entitled to your theory (as you like to point out), other people are entitled to the more standard theory too.

You pointed out that ENTj and INTj are totally different. But they are in the same "club." What does that mean? According to standard Model A, they have strong Te, Ti, Ne, and Ni; the rest are weak. They differ in how they value these functions, but they are the same in terms of which ones they're relatively good at. Also, why is it considered in Model A that someone with ego-block Ti has strong Te (even though they don't view it as important compared to Ti)? Because they're both forms of T; they go together.

As to why are ESFp and ENTp somewhat similar in some ways....It has to do with the fact that, for example, Se and Ne, even though they go in opposite directions, they're there to deal with basically the same problem. Same with Fi and Ti. Fi and Ti are both ways of dealing with rational statics, or that is, the default principles by which one should organize things. They have completely different approaches to this, but outwardly, there is some resemblence. This is why super ego types tend to see a certain resemblence with each other at a distance.

[marooned]

I agree the clubs don’t seem too helpful.

I’m not so sure about temperaments however. I think that there could be something helpful about them.

For instance, it seems to me that EJs and EPs often have more energy. EJs especially.

IJs and IPs often seem to have more of an energy deficit. Especially IPs.

In order of highest “energy” to lowest “energy”:

EJ – active, energetic, fast, rational, may have a strong temper, pushes through things, very driven, high energy

EP – still active and energetic, but less so, more laid-back, irrational, more mellow, more spontaneous, high energy

IJ – calm, still, can have a temper when gets irritable (but not as much of one as EJ), solid, firm, rational, relatively stable between moments (the opposite of volatile), has a constancy, low energy

IP – mild instability/inconstancy (more mild than that of EP), mild mellow sort of spontaneity, low-energy, irrational, mellow, laid-back (but lower level of it than EP), moody but not usually prone to fits

I know there are lots of issues with that, and you couldn’t use such descriptions to find someone’s temperament. I drew a picture as well:



I’m not sure of what I mean by “energy.” But as you can see, I see EJ like a high frequency, high energy wave… … … IP like a low frequency (high wavelength) low energy wave.

[strrrng]

temperaments are valid because they represent energy flow. the NT, NF shit you listed isn't even part of socionics.

IJ types focus on the fields at rest
IP types focus on the fields at motion
EP types focus on the bodies at rest
EJ types focus on the bodies at motion

this is exactly the point of temperaments. the ESTp and ENFp both view the world through an irrational, static lens, and that is a large similarity - much more important than the fact that they use different +/- functions...

[MysticSonic]

Temperaments, Clubs, and basically any sort of classification you can come up with by dividing the types along the dichotomies, will inevitably reveal similar characteristics between those who fall in one or another of the categories created. You're dividing them along lines at which they have similar traits, something shared, and there would seem to be something very wrong if commonalities could not be inferred from such divisions.

How useful and accurate the descriptions of such divisions are, are another matter, but just taking one particular division and calling it "dumb" seems out of place, especially when there are very noticeable similarities in them. Stop trying to strike down an idea without thinking it through first, Hitta.