Quote:
Yes, I agree... as there are essential elements of "LII" in the Keirsey's iNTp description, in my opnion.
What you write here makes me wonder if you might have missed some of the more interesting parts of Keirsey's theory. Here are some things that I myself find interesting. Judge these quotes, from Keirsey's site and his book
Quote:
The primarily problem with Myer's method of description is the problem of trying to take the "personality" or more specifically what Keirsey calls "temperament" (as opposed to Myers "type") and break it into four "independent" aspects. There is great utility in thinking about them as "independent" aspects, as people who follow the line of Myers are wont to do. The "Ts" tend to be like this, the "Fs" tend to be like that. The "Es" tend to be like this, the "Is" tend to be like that. This kind of talk is fine up to a point. This is where Keirsey and Myers-Jung followers part company. The problem comes in when some "Es" are different (such as the Provider Guardian "ESFJ") from other "Es" (such as Fieldmarshal Rational "ENTJ") because of temperament. The scales are not independent of each other. Of course, we are *not* talking about the myriad of other factors that complicate the analysis of personality, which includes gender, culture, etc. Those complications are another matter, irrespective of how to characterize "temperament".
Jung (hence Myers) viewed Introvert/Extrovert scale as a strong aspect, so much so that they talked about Introverted Thinkers and Extroverted Thinkers (we will let the reader speculate out what they meant by these phrases). Keirsey, on the other hand, regards Jung's N/S "scale" as the first "cut" (which of course in reality we "can't" cut the temperament into pieces). In other words, "how" one's mind primarily processes the world (through concepts or percepts) is the major determinant on how one evolves and reacts in life; not, whether one is more or less comfortable with people. As an example, Albert Einstein (INTP) is quite different from Clint Eastwood (ISTP). On the other hand, if one tries to "talk about" what is "in the mind," one can start talking nonsense because we can't observe "mind".
Moreover, Myers in her descriptions mostly treat the personality aspects as independent scales. Her descriptions of the sixteen types, essentially is a concatenation of the aspects. She has a descriptive paragraph for "I," and a paragraph for "E,", a paragraph for "N," and so on. To get her descriptions, for example, an INTP, she takes her "I", "N", "T", and "P" descriptive paragraphs sticks them together and "viola" you have a full description of a person (an INTP). The problem with this Chinese menu method of personality, is that its too simplistic. Partly to fix the problem of it being too simplistic, Myers and her followers tried to work in the notion of shadow or dominant functions, however, the speculation of "what's in mind", becomes complex and confusing, and worse of all, hard to remember.
Keirsey is not concerned with "what's in mind", but what people do. What are the long-term behavior patterns: temperament. Keirsey's descriptions are not as much of a cookie cutter form as Myers-Briggs. His descriptions are more integrated. He looks at the notion of personality as whole. Thus, given that N/S is the "first" cut, the descriptions might be viewed as in a tree (or as an unfolding (emergence) of individual's temperament). As in the following. The lower level is constrained by the configuration above it.
First cut
"Ns" What Jung called "iNtuitives". Keirsey liken them to "Martians." Abstract. Introspective. Those who look *primarily* through their *own* "minds eye."
"Ss" What Jung calling the aspect "Sensing" Keirsey liken them to "Earthlings" Concrete. Observant. Those who look *primarily* to the world by their "percepts", using what's out there.
Second cut of the Ns
"NTs" Myers called them "iNtuitive Thinkers" Keirsey calls them "Rationals".
"NFs" Myers called them "iNtuitive Feeler" Keirsey calls them "Idealists".
Second cut of the Ss
(Myers or Jung never thought of using different criteria for different parts of the tree, because they didn't view it as a tree)
"SPs" Keirsey calls them "Artisans"
"SJs" Keirsey calls them "Guardians"
If we compare the INTP and the INTJ from Keirsey's perspective we find, along with their many similarities, some clear differences:
Quote:
INTJs:
All NTs are good at planning operations, but Mastermind INTJs are head and shoulders above all the rest in contingency planning or what is called "entailment management". A contingency plan has if-thens in it, put there with foreseeable operational errors and shortages of personnel and materiel ...
Masterminds are able to grasp how each step necessitates or entails the next, and to prepare alternatives for difficulties that are likely to arise. INTJs never set the course of their current project without a Plan A firmly in mind, but they are always prepared to switch to Plan B - or C or D if they are called for ...
Difficulties are highly stimulating to INTJs, who love responding to a problem that requires a creative solution. These traits of character lead them to occupations where theoretical models can be translated into actuality. They build data and human systems wherever they work, if given the slightest oppurtunity. They can be outstanding in scientific research and as excecutives in businesses...
Masterminds are the highest achievers in school of all the types. And on the job, because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they drive themselves, they often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy. Their fellow workers often feel as if a Mastermind can see right through them, and often believe that they find them wanting.
INTPs:
Architectonics is the science of spatial relationships - organization, structure, build, configuration - and Architects from a very early age are preoccupied with spatial relativity and systems design. But INTps must not be thought of as only interested in configuring three-dimensional spaces such as buildings, bridges, and machines; they are also the architects of curricula, of corporations, and of all kinds of theoretical systems. In other words, INTPs are men and women whose aim is to design systemic structures and to engineer structural models ...
For this type of Rational, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, and explained. External reality in itself is unimportant, a mere arena for checking out the usefulness of ideas. What is important is that the underlying structures of the universe be uncovered and articulated, and that whatever is stated about the universe be stated correctly, with coherence and without redundancy. Curiosity concerning these fundamental structures is the driving force in INTPs, and they care little whether others understand or accept their ideas. Architects will learn in any manner and degree they can. If knowledge can be gathered from observing someone or taking some action, then such is worthwile; if not, then not ...
They regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe that their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, no matter who is guilty of them. It is difficult for an INTP to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker's error, and this makes communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.
In the quotes we can see that Keirsey describes the thinking process of INTJs in a way that I think is similar to :Ti: . It is also clear that INTJs want to use their models and systems for practical purposes.