Keirsey Temperament

[Expat]

I wonder which socionics types according to you he tries to describe then in his ESFP description?

Some types, perhaps closest to EIE.

ETA: actually also ESEs; essentially Fe EJs who promote "feel-good Fe" rather than "passionate Fe".

[Phaedrus]

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.

I actually meant the FourTypes Sorter in the back of the book, which I think is slightly different from at least one version that has been on the Internet. Anyway, the FourTypes Sorter has so far given the correct temperament for every person I have tested in real life. It seems pretty accurate, and probably more reliable than any quadra test. So, according to your test results your two most likely types are ESTJ and ENTJ? That would also be the two types I would put most of my money on.

Mind backing that up with some factual evidence?

Do you really think that is needed? How can it make any sense to you to accept the possibility that Schwarzenegger could be an introverted thinking intuitve and an extraverted thinking sensing type at the same time? It is very common in both Socionics and MBTT that different people make different typings of famous people. Of course not all of them can be correct. And I'm pretty sure that Keirsey would never type Schwarzenegger as an INTJ Mastermind.

Oh look, WHAT A SURPRISE. Phaedrus has NOT addressed Expat's practically infallible reasoning!

I haven't had time for that yet. I was at the cinema for the evening, and I really should go to bed pretty soon, even though I am a night owl. But maybe I have time for a few comments.

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.

Maybe Keirsey hasn't noticed that there are some important differences among different P types, but since both descriptions are true in the sense explained by Jarno, the apparent contradiction cannot be that important. And the ease with command is more obvious in SLEs than in SEEs, so maybe we should not be too sure that what we attribute to is correctly attributed to . Our source of information on this is not the theory but the real types, that is the real life people who we think that we have typed correctly. What if some of the supposed SEEs are really SLEs for example? In such a hypothetical scenario the socionic explanations/definitions of are incorrect or at least misleading and should be modified to correspond with reality. Maybe it has something to do with T rather than Se. I'm not claiming that to be true, I only want you to keep an open mind about what is at stake here.

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?

No real problem. And yes, it is a minor issue.

[Phaedrus]

Some types, perhaps closest to EIE.

ETA: actually also ESEs; essentially Fe EJs who promote "feel-good Fe" rather than "passionate Fe".

But that is clearly not the case, because the ESE is clearly and visably different from SEEs in temperament. The ESE is a Guardian and the SEE is an Artisan, and Keirsey has observed lots of real life examples of each type during his lifetime. He can tell an ESE from an SEE, and so can I.

Besides their belonging to different Keirseyan temperaments, they types you are talking about are also defined by the four scales, which are the same as those in Socionics, so there is no way that Keirsey's ESFP description is really a description of some ESEs or some EIEs. That is simply impossible. As seen from a reading and comparison of the type descriptions that is also very clearly false.

[Phaedrus]

Another important point to keep in mind: Expat arguments are based on the false premise that the quadras can and should be used as a yardstick in the typings. What is said by Keirsey about INTJs is true of INTjs, but people get the wrong idea that that is not true when they compare with the quadra descriptions. So, what that proves is not that Keirsey is not describing INTjs but that the quadra descriptions are rather useless as a typing tool. They are simply not correct for all the four types in every aspect. It is much better not to consult them at all when you try to type someone.

[Ezra]

I actually meant the FourTypes Sorter in the back of the book, which I think is slightly different from at least one version that has been on the Internet. Anyway, the FourTypes Sorter has so far given the correct temperament for every person I have tested in real life. It seems pretty accurate, and probably more reliable than any quadra test. So, according to your test results your two most likely types are ESTJ and ENTJ? That would also be the two types I would put most of my money on.

I got NT.

By the way, the chapter on parenting is good so far. I've read about the Artisan, Guardian and Idealist, and I'm closest to the Idealist as a child, but I'm hoping that when I read the Rational chapter, it'll bang the nail on the head.

Do you really think that is needed? How can it make any sense to you to accept the possibility that Schwarzenegger could be an introverted thinking intuitve and an extraverted thinking sensing type at the same time? It is very common in both Socionics and MBTT that different people make different typings of famous people. Of course not all of them can be correct. And I'm pretty sure that Keirsey would never type Schwarzenegger as an INTJ Mastermind.

I s'pose. Okay. I'd say that ESTJ made more sense.

No real problem. And yes, it is a minor issue.

Are you sure? Surely it's similar to, for example, an ENFJ not giving a shit about their identity within their group being validated?

[Phaedrus]

I'd say that ESTJ made more sense.

Yes, certainly more sense than INTJ anyway.

Are you sure? Surely it's similar to, for example, an ENFJ not giving a shit about their identity within their group being validated?

No type description is perfect. Both the ones used in Socionics and the ones used in MBTT can be improved. I think that it is a minor issue because, as pointed out by Jarno, they are trying to describe the same group of people, but due to some incorrect theoretical assumptions they sometimes describe the types in a way that is not entirely correct.

[Phaedrus]

phaedrus WHAT are you going on about?? this is nuts

Exactly what is nuts? I don't understand what it is that you don't understand.

[Ezra]

Also, another thing to consider, Phaedrus; Keirsey says that SJs and SPs make up roughly 85% of the population. That leaves NFs and NTs making up 15%. So, since you believe that socionics type correlates with MBTI/Keirsey type, are you going to try and tell me that there is not a 50% balance between sensers and intuiters in socionics? Do you actually think socionics intuiters are that rare?

[Phaedrus]

Also, another thing to consider, Phaedrus; Keirsey says that SJs and SPs make up roughly 85% of the population. That leaves NFs and NTs making up 15%. So, since you believe that socionics type correlates with MBTI/Keirsey type, are you going to try and tell me that there is not a 50% balance between sensers and intuiters in socionics? Do you actually think socionics intuiters are that rare?

Probably not as rare as Keirsey thought, but there are certainly more sensory than intuitive types out there. Those socionists (for example Rick) who believe that there is a 50 % balance between S and N types are obviously wrong. There are at least 60 % S types, probably somewhere around 75 %, but we don't know the exact percentages yet. Some types, like the INTj for example, are indeed much more rare than some others. The group of NTs is the least common, Keirsey is right about that.

And the types are not equally distributed around the world either. Historically speaking, there have been (and probably still are) relatively more extraverts in the US than in Sweden, that's for sure. The ESI is probably one of the most common types in my country.

[Phaedrus]

Well, there is another issue here -- are they actually hose types or do they only appear that way due to a cultural bias?

They are actually those types, as defined by their brain structures.

[Ezra]

How about this, Phaedrus. Look at the LII profile, then look at the INTJ profile. There's a distinct feeling of Se about the INTJ that you cannot possibly attribute to the LII.

[normal]

Rational

[Phaedrus]

How about this, Phaedrus. Look at the LII profile, then look at the INTJ profile. There's a distinct feeling of Se about the INTJ that you cannot possibly attribute to the LII.

Which profiles are you talking about? And which passages?

[Ezra]

Which profiles are you talking about? And which passages?

I'm talking about the idea of the INTJ leading, found in many passages on the INTJ:

"INTJs are natural leaders, although they usually choose to remain in the background until they see a real need to take over the lead. When they are in leadership roles, they are quite effective, because they are able to objectively see the reality of a situation, and are adaptable enough to change things which aren't working well. They are the supreme strategists - always scanning available ideas and concepts and weighing them against their current strategy, to plan for every conceivable contingency." -personalitypage

Personalitypage also gives a list of careers; one of which is a military leader. And to make it the top, one must be proficient in fieldcraft and the lower stuff, which no Se PoLR could effectively carry out.

"[INTJs] develop a strong confidence in their ability and talents, making them "natural leaders." It is this confidence that makes this personality type extremely rare.

...

[Based on Keirsey's INTJ] They are natural, but not eager, leaders, only stepping forward when it becomes obvious to them that they are the best for the job." -wikipedia

This certainly requires something over and above a Se PoLR.

[Expat]

I will make some naive comments.

1) Ezra reads Keirsey INTJ descriptions and the people they describe. He sees problems in those descriptions being about the same kind of persons as LIIs. He attributes the problems to Se.

2) Around 100 Russian socionists read Keirsey descriptions of the INTJ. The majority type it as the SLE - a Se dominant. Very few indeed type it as LII.

3) Conclusion: both Ezra, as well as over 50 Russian socionists - and me, of course - see the obvious: that "the kind of person" described as LII can't be the same "kind of person" described as SLE. For a very central reason.

4) Phaedrus will probably insist that nevertheless the INTJ description does describe the same kind of person as a LII. The problem with Se is "minor".

Make of that what you will.

[Phaedrus]

I'm talking about the idea of the INTJ leading, found in many passages on the INTJ:

"INTJs are natural leaders, although they usually choose to remain in the background until they see a real need to take over the lead."

A lot of types can be natural leaders without being Se dominants, for example the LIE, who is an even more natural leader than the LII. How do you explain the idea of the ENTj leading? In what way does it have anything to do with Se?

Types with leading Te or Ti are simply more natural leaders than those with for example leading Ni. That's a simple fact of the universe, and you may explain it anyway you like but not ignore it.

"When they are in leadership roles, they are quite effective, because they are able to objectively see the reality of a situation, and are adaptable enough to change things which aren't working well."

Because they are T types. In an F type's profile they would phrase it differently.

"They are the supreme strategists - always scanning available ideas and concepts and weighing them against their current strategy, to plan for every conceivable contingency."

LIIs are commonly known as strategists in Socionics, often with a special liking for strategist games such as chess. They also plan things systematically. They are systematizers and builders of systems -- and they are described as such in both Socionics and MBTT.

Personalitypage also gives a list of careers; one of which is a military leader. And to make it the top, one must be proficient in fieldcraft and the lower stuff, which no Se PoLR could effectively carry out.

Look at reality, please. Look at real life examples of LIIs before you say such things. And please ask the LIIs on this forum what they think about it.

[Based on Keirsey's INTJ] They are natural, but not eager, leaders, only stepping forward when it becomes obvious to them that they are the best for the job." -wikipedia

That is true of real life LIIs.

This certainly requires something over and above a Se PoLR.

What it requires is a better understanding of the types from you.

[717495]

Socionics Duality
ILE - SEI
ESE - LII
SLE - IEI
EIE - LSI
SEE - ILI
LIE - ESI
IEE - SLI
LSE - EII


Keirsey's Duality (Keirsey believed that opposites attract and strengthen/inspire one another to their fullest potential [more in his book], but that partners show the best long-term promise and connectivity if either both are Ns or both are Ss [communication styles], popularly regarded to be the most important aspect of successful relationships in MBTI and Keirsey typology.)

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


Socionics Duality to Keirsey Type

ENTP - ISFP (ILE - SEI)
ESFP/ESFJ - INTP (ESE -LII)
INTJ - INFJ/INFP (SLE - IEI)
ENFP - ISTJ (EIE - LSI)
ESTP - INTP (SEE - ILI)
ISFJ/ESTJ - INTJ (ESI - LIE)
ESFP/ENFP - ISTP (IEE - SLI)
ESTJ - INFJ (LSE - EII)


Keirsey's Duality to Socionics Type

ILE - EII/IEI (ENTP - INFJ)
EIE - SLE (ENFP - INTJ)
LII - IEE (INTP - ENFJ)
IEI/EII - SLE (INFP - ENTJ)
SEE - ESI (ESTP - ISFJ)
IEE/ESE - LSI (ESFP - ISTJ)
SLI - ESE/ESI (ISTP - ESFJ)
SEI - LSE (ISFP - ESTJ)


Compatibility? Not much.
Validity? For you to find out in the end.

Perhaps Socionics's assumptions are too idealistically temporary, visible yet lacking in deep chemistry, and perhaps Keirsey's assumptions are too incomplete to be exact, lacking a comprehensive set of traits.

[Ezra]

Yep, I've thought about this too. Socionics > Keirsey theory of love.

[Krig the Viking]

Here's what I wrote on the subject last year:

From what I can tell, Meyers' and Briggs' typing skills left something to be desired, so what wound up happening is that each group of people that they based their type descriptions on contained a mixed bag of different types, resulting in imprecise descriptions. This is especially apparent with the INTx types. It's also the reason why MBTI never developed a reliable intertype relations system -- when your "INTJ" group contains both LIIs and ILIs and possibly others, the intertype relations of that group are going to be somewhat unpredictable [/understatement].

In fact, now that I think of it, don't MBTI websites often give ENFP and ENTP as INTJ's most compatible relationships? That would be Supervisee and Mirror for LII, and Mirage and Contrary for ILI. It seems to me that those are the relationships (along with Identity/Quasi-Identity) that both ILI and LII can agree are relatively OK; everything else either LII loves and ILI hates, or vice-versa.

The problem is Keirsey/MBTI's difficulty in distinguishing between Quasi-Identicals. LII's Dual is ILI's Conflictor, so if Keirsey's "INTJ" is a group composed of half LII, half ILI, then half the time a relationship with an ESE will be disastrous.

That's assuming there's any real systematic correlation between the two systems at all. I have a very low opinion of Keirsey/MBTI's accuracy.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Hi, I'm a fun-loving Artisan.

[717495]

That's assuming there's any real systematic correlation between the two systems at all.

There is no real systematic correlation from Socionics to Keirsey, pretty much like I just pointed out, and rarely does Keirsey's Mastermind (INTJ) = LII, etc. But there are legitimate records that speak for his pairing system, especially concerning N-N and S-S. When you compare Socionics to Keirsey, the former is obviously more sophisticated looking, though there's not a lot of direct proof that it works or that functions work that way, especially regarding long-term relationships. Just some assumptions and varied experiences by the original community.

So pretty much any system will have some use depending on how you chose to go about understanding it. There are no objective frameworks about personality to be found, just subjective ideas people adopt from their experience, which they inherently chose to label as either objective or personal.

[woofwoofl]

There is no real systematic correlation from Socionics to Keirsey, pretty much like I just pointed out, and rarely does Keirsey's Mastermind (INTJ) = LII, etc. But there are legitimate records that speak for his pairing system, especially concerning N-N and S-S. When you compare Socionics to Keirsey, the former is obviously more sophisticated looking, though there's not a lot of direct proof that it works or that functions work that way, especially regarding long-term relationships. Just some assumptions and varied experiences by the original community.

So pretty much any system will have some use depending on how you chose to go about understanding it. There are no objective frameworks about personality to be found, just subjective ideas people adopt from their experience, which they inherently chose to label as either objective or personal.

I always keep in mind that much of Socionics came from Alpha quadra, and the idea of Duality being purely optimal strikes me as and valuing - I like my Activity partners a lot, it feels like the other half of my brain got plugged in, and I can get things done easier, I like my Semi-duals for having enough common ground with me to hold things together in a certain way, and a lot of perspectives and ideas that I never would have considered or approached in the same way (and I'd like to think it's a mutual thing too)

I don't know how much, if any, of this is a Gamma (or just Serious, or just Decisive) thing mostly, or an F valuer (maybe moreso as Producing, and maybe moreso than that as Creative) thing, or any combination of all of that in varying degrees, or if there's more to it still... Duals are totally awesome, and Activity partners are totally awesome in a different way, as are Semi-duals, and there's always a lot I can learn from my Super-ego and Conflictor peoples too