Inconsistency in Keirsey's Temperament Model

[JimJambones]

Why did Keirsey develop such an inconsistent model?

Guardians: SJ

Si Fe/Te or Fe/Te Si

Artisans: SP

Fi/Ti Se or Se Fi/Ti

Rationals: NT

Ti Ne or NeTi or Ni Te or TeNi

Idealists: NF

Fi Ne or NeFi or NiFe or FeNi



For some reason Keirsey focused on the the presence of one particular function being either the dominant or auxillary function the Guardian and Artisan temperaments, while focusing on two preferences in the Rational and Idealist temperaments.

Why not have SJ/SP/NJ/NP or ST/SF/NT/NF as alternative models?

 

[Jennywocky]

Why did Keirsey develop such an inconsistent model?

Guardians: SJ

Si Fe/Te or Fe/Te Si

Artisans: SP

Fi/Ti Se or Se Fi/Ti

Rationals: NT

Ti Ne or NeTi or Ni Te or TeNi

Idealists: NF

Fi Ne or NeFi or NiFe or FeNi



For some reason Keirsey focused on the the presence of one particular function being either the dominant or auxillary function the Guardian and Artisan temperaments, while focusing on two preferences in the Rational and Idealist temperaments.

Why not have SJ/SP/NJ/NP or ST/SF/NT/NF as alternative models?

This is a noted difference between him and standard MBTI.

He felt that the behavior was statistically more noticeable in terms of his broad temperament theory, using the J/P factor for S's.

Look at it this way: S is a tangible, observable function, it involves the actual objects or conceptions of objects themselves. So the J/P function seems to have more observable bearing in behavior.

meanwhile, N is perception of the relationships between objects, not the objects themselves. Those relationships are perceived and understood through some kind of rational framework -- the T/F framework. T frameworks look different than F frameworks. There's more distinction between the NT and NF than the NP and NJ, I think.

But also, I suspect Keirsey was comparing his temperament theory to other four-type temperament theories and found a better conversion into the existing ones (like the humours theory that existed since ancient Greece?) using those four temperaments he selected, versus just using the NT NF ST SF system.

I do find personally that ST and SF seem much more similar to me than NT and NF. But the SJs and SPs are pretty distinct.

I've seen other MBTI practitioners actually doing explanations and comparisons using ST and SF types before, since they still have some differences.

 

[clockwork]

Yes Keirsey's model is a weird choice.

He wants to judge S-es in a different way than N-s.
but well yeah, it could work for some things, like grouping females on looks and grouping men on power/status? sometimes it works like that. but I dont think it makes sense in MBTI/jungian typing.

like you said:
SJ's are Si people (Si in first or second function)
SP's are Se people (Se in first or second function)
NT's are NeTi/TiNe or NiTe/TeNi
NF's are NeFi/FiNe or NiFe/TeFi

just weird very weird: the S people are grouped purely on their perception function being E/I, and the N people are grouped purely on T/F.

Its a non-uniform split of the system. And also population-wise a very non-uniform way to group people as there is a really low N-percentage in the population


Keirsey probably does not have Ti, he is not a logical categorizer, he is probably an NF! xNFP? oh god

 

[Ink]

While we're on the subject here's an interview of Keirsey, I haven't watched it with sound yet personally, he definitely seems like an INTP though which I'm pretty sure he identifies himself as.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7jurfWvfj4

 

[scorpiomover]

For some reason Keirsey focused on the the presence of one particular function being either the dominant or auxillary function the Guardian and Artisan temperaments, while focusing on two preferences in the Rational and Idealist temperaments.

Why not have SJ/SP/NJ/NP or ST/SF/NT/NF as alternative models?

Because that's how things work. I've actually asked myself this question some months ago. I gave it a great deal of thought.

Jung said in some of his writings that Sensation is concrete, so much so, that it swallows up Thinking/Feeling, and so makes it difficult to tell the difference between an ST and an SF (See Jung identified Newton as an S type).

However, there is a point that extends beyond this. Consider a business meeting in which there are every type. Suppose they are supposed to come up with a product or strategy to increase sales.

The Sensors will likely come up with an existing product or strategy, that has already shown itself to work.

The Intuitives will likely come up with a new idea. But because it's new, it's untested, and so we lack the data and evidence to know if it will work or not. That makes the ideas of Intuitives inherently unreliable. So to convince the boss of the value of their idea, they'll have to explain why their idea is going to work. Some call on practical, logical and scientific ideas, like NTs. Others call on psychological and emotional motivations, that explain why their ideas will be a success, which we call NFs.

However, the Sensors have already come up with an existing product or strategy, that has already shown itself to work. Nothing to do. No need to give logical or psychological arguments as to why the idea will work. We already have the proof, hard evidence, that it worked before. By the principle of scientific induction ("The Sun came up every day before. Why wouldn't it come up tomorrow?"), the basis of science, all of reason and evidence dictates that it should work again. They don't need to explain their reasons. You can see if it works for youself. So, they don't give arguments, and just let you realise for yourself that it is bound to work, and so is the obvious choice.

However, since the Sensors' answer for why their idea would work, is "evidence shows it will", the boss is bound to ask the Sensors for their evidence. This is where it gets tricky.

The SJs are reliant on Si, and Si is all about the past, and especially what's written in books. They're likely to pull out an old history book that says that it worked for people 150 years ago, for their whole lives. It has been tested for a long time, and so is reliable. But it was tested on people a long time ago, and things have changed. It might not work now.

The SPs are reliant on Se, which is all about the present, and especially what's been visually seen. They're likely to say that they saw it work on some people they personally saw it working on. But, since it's happened recently, it's only been tested for a short time. Also, since he's seen it himself, it lacks the objectivity of having many different witnesses. But, it's recent, and things haven't changed that rapidly. So if it does work, it will probably also work now as well.

So, when listening to people argue their case:

NT = "It's rational"

NF = "It's psychological"

SJ = "We have historical records that it worked for a long time in the past"

SP = "I saw it work on a few people recently".

The same goes for other types of problem-solving.

 

[JimJambones]

It does seem that Keirsey had justification for creating the temperament model as he did. It would make sense that since Si and Se are largely focused on the moment and aren't as concerned with ideas, then what you see is what you get, for the most part. Present, observable behavior for individuals of the SJ and SP temperaments are either embracing new sensory experiences(SP) or being cautious and skeptical of them(SJ). SJs would need time to determine if the new experiences are worth embracing, while SPs would accept them if they appealed to them. SPs are known for being impulsive and their tolorance for sensory experiences that my harm them in the long run. SJs overdiscriminate and SPs underdiscriminate.

Since NTs and NFs live in the world of ideas and abstract thought, their behavior cannot be pinned down to how they react to sensor input so much as how they tend to ignore it all together and focus on the world of ideas. So these types cannot be observed in the same manner as sensory types. So what sets intuitives apart from sensors? It is the manner in which they discuss their observations, reflections, and ideas about the world. NTs tend to talk about them in a rather impersonal manner, while NFs tend to talk about them in a very personal one.

I think Keirsey could've gone with Ni vs Ne as opposed to NT vs NF. It would be an interesting discussion to see how a temperament of INTJs, INFJ, ENTJs, and ENFJs would look in contrast to INTPs, INFPs, ENTPs, and ENFPs. What would the best name for each be? NJs tend to be more certain of their ideas and conclusions while NPs tend to more uncertain: Convergences versus Divergences.

@scorpiomover
It was interesting to think about how different temperaments of the Keirsey model would react while asking for their input from their employer. While I agree with your NT,NF,SJ assessments, I think that the SP response would be more along the lines of "I just know this will work, lets just do it and get it over with." There would be little appeal to past experiences alone. They would pull numerous skill they have learned over the years, mix and match them to see which one would best serve them for the current problem. I don't know, I could be wrong, but this is what I think they would do.

 

[Jennywocky]

It does seem that Keirsey had justification for creating the temperament model as he did. It would make sense that since Si and Se are largely focused on the moment and aren't as concerned with ideas, then what you see is what you get, for the most part. Present, observable behavior for individuals of the SJ and SP temperaments are either embracing new sensory experiences(SP) or being cautious and skeptical of them(SJ). SJs would need time to determine if the new experiences are worth embracing, while SPs would except them if they appealed to them. SPs are known for being impulsive and their tolorance for sensory experiences that my harm them in the long run. SJs overdiscriminate and SPs underdiscriminate.

Since NTs and NFs live in the world of ideas and abstract thought, their behavior cannot be pinned down to how they react to sensor input so much as how they tend to ignore it all together and focus on the world of ideas. So these types cannot be observed in the same manner as sensory types. So what sets intuitives apart from sensors? It is the manner in which they discuss their observations, reflections, and ideas about the world. NTs tend to talk about them in a rather impersonal manner, while NFs tend to talk about them in a very personal one.

I think that's a fair representation.

Generally, SP explores experiences, while SJ evaluates them first by comparing them to what they know to work and/or have value already. Put another way, SP is more confident in their ability to just leap into an experience and "make it work for them," while SJ is more focused on "managing the experience" to avoid losing control of it.

The N's seem to focus more on abstract organization -- how they approach and process situations -- versus the literal organization. There seems to be more distinction between NT and NF than NP and NJ per se, in terms of communication and focus.

I think Keirsey could've gone with Ni vs Ne as opposed to NT vs NF. It would be an interesting discussion so see how a temperament of INTJs, INFJ, ENTJs, and ENFJs would look in contrast to INTPs, INFPs, ENTPs, and ENFPs.

he could have, but I've wondered if the age he grew up in, whether it was important to him and culturally to separate in the manner he did. I suspect his primary focus was just getting the S/N dichotomy locked in place without need to "break down N" and dilute it further (which is essentially what you're doing when separate into Ni/Ne, which is exactly the same as saying NJ/NP). In US culture at that time, S was valued and N's were considered odd or even deviant. "Types of N (Ni/Ne)" didn't matter as much as just establishing N as a valuable trait in itself without over-complicating the issue.

Yes, I'm just speculating now, but these decisions don't happen in a vacuum, so it leaves me curious. Keirsey could have also gone SF/ST (which can provide some distinctions between types of S's, and some MBTI folks today do offer descriptions of those distinctions) but chose not to do so.

What would be the best name for each be? NJs tend to be more certain of their ideas and conclusions while NPs tend to more uncertain:

Well, here again you can apply the SP/SJ logic in terms of N: NPs typically want to explore an abstraction while remaining open-ended as to what they might discover, while the NJs typically come into it with a preformed vision they reach intuitively, and it guides their steps through the situation. They're waiting for their vision to be simply be made manifest, while the NP is trying to discover what the entire vision is as they go. It's exploration vs. manifestation

It was interesting to think about how different temperaments of the Keirsey model would react while asking for their input from their employer. While I agree with your NT,NF,SJ assessments, I think that the SP response would be more along the lines of "I just know this will work, lets just do it and get it over with." There would be little appeal to past experiences alone. They would pull numerous skill they have learned over the years, mix and match them to see which one would best serve them for the current problem. I don't know, I could be wrong, but this is what I think they would do.

I'm inclined to agree with you. SPs typically hate to belabor the point and would much rather "wing it" based on their instincts, because they feel up to facing whatever challenges come along the way... and in fact that is part of the fun. Experienced SPs have a much more realistic idea of course of what they can handle; SJ sidesteps their own insecurities about the future by planning and organizing ahead of time.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Keirsey's work is heavily focused on temperaments, I'd be willing to bet that he arrived at such groupings because, in his mind, it was the best fit for a MBTI-classic temperament correlation. I'm pretty sure any other justification was done after the fact.

Regardless, I personally disagree with the use of the grouping. The inconsistency means a loss of understanding because the descriptions presented don't focus on the same aspects of each type, thus we don't get a clear insight into their differences and similarities.

 

[Brontosaurie]

because sensing is so simple compared to other functions, the mere direction of it makes much more of a difference relative to its overall heuristic and algorithmic content. it's plausible that this discrepancy is large enough to warrant P/J as the basis for temperamental distinction among sensors.

my opinion though is that such rigid classification of temperament as keirsey's isn't very useful or informative. of course it's sometimes valid to group types by some commonality in functional arrangement, but this practice should be considered as a tool defined by application or hypothesis - not as dogma.

wow english almost feels like alien glyphs after a week of no forum activity. bear with me.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Simple how? Compared to Jung and Socionics, Sensing in MBTI/Keirsey systems is dumbed down to a ridiculous extent. On second thought it's pretty limited in Socionics too.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Simple as in dependent; sensing is confined by its social context, thus the temperament of a sensor matters less in his decision making process.

N-types think in terms of abstractions which form the cognitive framework for all humans, these are trans-cultural and they can only change at the rate evolution permits, IE very slowly. S-types have these abstractions too, but they do not see the woods for the trees. Their attention is turned on temporal manifestations of said abstractions.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Simple as in dependent; sensing is confined by its social context, thus the temperament of a sensor matters less in his decision making process.

N-types think in terms of abstractions which form the cognitive framework for all humans, these are trans-cultural and they can only change at the rate evolution permits, IE very slowly. S-types have these abstractions too, but they do not see the woods for the trees. Their attention is turned on temporal manifestations of said abstractions.

In what way is Sensing confined to social context? And how does a dependency on the environment make Sensing simple?

Keirsey was focused on temperaments, but speaking in terms of general psychology, why wouldn't Sensing as a function and as a person's attitude not warrant equal differentiation?


Did Cherry Cola capture what you meant, Brontosaurie? I can't make the connection in a comprehensible way.

 

[TimeAsylums]

...mere direction of it makes much more of a difference relative to its overall heuristic and algorithmic content. it's plausible that this discrepancy is large enough to warrant ... temperamental distinction among sensors.

...such rigid classification of temperament ...it's sometimes valid to group types by some commonality in functional arrangement, but this practice should be considered as a tool defined by application or hypothesis - not as dogma

...confined by its social context, thus the temperament ...

...in terms of abstractions which form the cognitive framework for all humans, these are trans-cultural and they can only change at the rate evolution permits, IE very slowly ... Their attention is turned on temporal manifestations of said abstractions.

Fucking Bronto and CC taking english to the max

 

[Cherry Cola]

In what way is Sensing confined to social context? And how does a dependency on the environment make Sensing simple?

Keirsey was focused on temperaments, but speaking in terms of general psychology, why wouldn't Sensing as a function and as a person's attitude not warrant equal differentiation?


Did Cherry Cola capture what you meant, Brontosaurie? I can't make the connection in a comprehensible way.

Sensing relies on set ways, an array of data, intuitives use principles, abstractions which they apply to data. This means that when data changes superficially intuitives tend to not give as much of a fuck as sensor, because to them not so much has really changed. They are freer than sensors to act out their judging functions because they are differentiated from the here and now.

In contrast then, to s-types for whom thinking and feeling matters less, sure it determines their mien and demeanor, but in terms of priorities and direct behavior it has less of an impact than on n-types because they stick to what they know and what they know is what the social context has dictated for them etc etc

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Sensing relies on set ways, an array of data, intuitives use principles, abstractions which they apply to data. This means that when data changes superficially intuitives tend to not give as much of a fuck as sensor, because to them not so much has really changed. They are freer than sensors to act out their judging functions because they are differentiated from the here and now.

In contrast then, to s-types for whom thinking and feeling matters less, sure it determines their mien and demeanor, but in terms of priorities and direct behavior it has less of an impact than on n-types because they stick to what they know and what they know is what the social context has dictated for them etc etc

I would say your words express a misinformed bias against introverted sensors and in general favor of intuitives. Sensing as whole is based off the environment, but so is Intuition. The differences you speak of don't split sensors and intuitives, but extraverted sensors and introverted sensors.

Introverted sensors, especially irrational types because of the Ne/Si dyad, abstract their reality also and to an extent that their expressions aren't limited by or to their typical social context.

Some excerpts from Psychological Types, but none too representative on their own:

Spoiler

In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of perception. What is meant by this finds its best illustration in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none the less differ from the rest, not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, but chiefly because of a different vision; there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form.

but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.

. Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and momentary existence,

Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.

Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as [p. 504] though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If his tendency is to reason objectively, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if, on the other hand, he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is prepared to grant his sensation reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-belief and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule, the individual acquiesces in his isolation and in the banality of the reality, which, however, he unconsciously treats archaically.

For context of my disagreements I am more partial to Jung/Socionics than MBTI/Keirsey, and I reiterate that Sensing has been heavily dumbed down in the latter, so take that for what it's worth. I also still don't know if that's where Brontosaurie was going so that's unresolved.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I don't know if that was what Bronto meant either, anyway my intention is not to dumb down sensors although I can definitely see why I'd give that impression. Unfortunately I cannot reply right now as I must sleep (2:00 am Sweden) will get back to this hopefully :O

 

[Brontosaurie]

EyeSeeCold: "simple" needn't be derogatory. the point is that sensing considers the object without much interpretation, thus making the E/I aspect decisive. upon reading this thread more carefully i saw that Jennywocky expressed roughly the same idea more efficiently.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

EyeSeeCold: "simple" needn't be derogatory. the point is that sensing considers the object without much interpretation, thus making the E/I aspect decisive. upon reading this thread more carefully i saw that Jennywocky expressed roughly the same idea more efficiently.

It's not just about considering it as something offensive, I still would disagree that Sensing is fundamentally simple meaning it takes objects/the environment for what it is and doesn't deviate much from that (what I take from what's been said so far). For extraverted sensing yeah, but definitely not for introverted sensors who abstract reality just as much as introverted intuitives except through different means.

While my understanding on NJ/NP and SJ/SP is compatible with Jennywocky's last two paragraphs in her post, going back to the original topic I still do not see any meaningful justification for Keirsey's order.

 

[Brontosaurie]

It's not just about considering it as something offensive, I still would disagree that Sensing is fundamentally simple meaning it takes objects/the environment for what it is and doesn't deviate much from that (what I take from what's been said so far). For extraverted sensing yeah, but definitely not for introverted sensors who abstract reality just as much as introverted intuitives except through different means.

While my understanding on NJ/NP and SJ/SP is compatible with Jennywocky's last two paragraphs in her post, going back to the original topic I still do not see any meaningful justification for Keirsey's order.

i really don't see how Si is any more abstract than Se. if anything, it's even more concrete since it treats concrete objects as sacred deities rather than just being practically immersed in them.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah, why would you say that stored data is more abstract than direct impressions? In a sense everything is abstract, a chair is an abstraction for certain arrangements of matter, so is red wine and so is running. In the same sense as Si stores data in abstract categories, Se uses abstractions to make sense of their environments too they just do it in the moment.

Indeed the rigid nature of Si could be said to be less abstract because it categorization process is self replicating rather than spontaneous, impressions are arranged according to a set of categories. Se-types, processing data spontaneously likely make use of a wider and more nuanced set of abstractions than do Si-types. When Ne is tertiary or inferior it's a negative function which the Si-user tends to have issues with, not trusting it and wanting to avoid decisions on it preferring to gather concrete data instead.

I don't get where you're coming from when you're calling introverts more abstract than their extroverted counterparts. There's an anti-extrovert bias in that imo.

I've read that Jung excerpt before and I read it again now, I don't see how it goes against what I'm saying whatsoever. Jungs description is vivid yes, but what he says is really not that different. These abstraction as you -not Jung chose to call them- are base level abstractions which all human beings must and are able to make use of, of course the Si-types do it more than any other but does that make them more abstract? Remember he is talking about primordial images here, a form of abstraction animals are capable of.

The thing is that when you speak about abstract thinking you don't always mean it in the way implied by the logical meaning of the word. Rather there is an arbitrary demarcation wherein abstractions at a certain meta-level are intended when the word is used in the context of psychology. Things such as objectivity, relativity, infinity, epistemological principles, the field of logic etc.

This is a bit of a problem, because it creates unnecessary ambiguity, animals also think in abstract terms, they just have fewer and more simpler abstractions to cover their bases, yet abstract thought is said to be something largely unique to humans, but in the end convention and not logic coverns our language and one cannot easily stray from the norm without becoming a cause of communicative dissonance.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I guess it's a difference in the meanings of the word abstract.

There's abstract = conceptual/abstruse

and there's abstract = subjectivize/personalize

I don't mean to say Si is conceptual like the N functions are supposed to be, I mostly agree with S functions being concrete. What I'm trying to describe is that because Si is introverted (as is Ni, Ti and Fi) it takes chunks out of reality and distorts them under its own perspective which forms its worldview/personality.

And so because Si is doing all this sensory personalizing there is more to it under the surface unlike Se(which stays mostly objective), making it not so "simple" and not able to be taken for granted without largely ignoring inner aspects.

Sensing deals with the concrete, that doesn't mean a person or his/her cognition or psychology is straightforward/uncomplex/bare/meager/stark/basic etc.


From this I don't understand what Brontosaurie meant that S is optimally split by J/P, whereas N can be split by T/F. I think there is insight to be gained by looking at all types through each perspective.

i really don't see how Si is any more abstract than Se. if anything, it's even more concrete since it treats concrete objects as sacred deities rather than just being practically immersed in them.

Yeah, why would you say that stored data is more abstract than direct impressions? In a sense everything is abstract, a chair is an abstraction for certain arrangements of matter, so is red wine and so is running. In the same sense as Si stores data in abstract categories, Se uses abstractions to make sense of their environments too they just do it in the moment.

Indeed the rigid nature of Si could be said to be less abstract because it categorization process is self replicating rather than spontaneous, impressions are arranged according to a set of categories. Se-types, processing data spontaneously likely make use of a wider and more nuanced set of abstractions than do Si-types. When Ne is tertiary or inferior it's a negative function which the Si-user tends to have issues with, not trusting it and wanting to avoid decisions on it preferring to gather concrete data instead.

I don't get where you're coming from when you're calling introverts more abstract than their extroverted counterparts. There's an anti-extrovert bias in that imo.

I've read that Jung excerpt before and I read it again now, I don't see how it goes against what I'm saying whatsoever. Jungs description is vivid yes, but what he says is really not that different. These abstraction as you -not Jung chose to call them- are base level abstractions which all human beings must and are able to make use of, of course the Si-types do it more than any other but does that make them more abstract? Remember he is talking about primordial images here, a form of abstraction animals are capable of.

The thing is that when you speak about abstract thinking you don't always mean it in the way implied by the logical meaning of the word. Rather there is an arbitrary demarcation wherein abstractions at a certain meta-level are intended when the word is used in the context of psychology. Things such as objectivity, relativity, infinity, epistemological principles, the field of logic etc.

This is a bit of a problem, because it creates unnecessary ambiguity, animals also think in abstract terms, they just have fewer and more simpler abstractions to cover their bases, yet abstract thought is said to be something largely unique to humans, but in the end convention and not logic coverns our language and one cannot easily stray from the norm without becoming a cause of communicative dissonance.

 

[Base groove]

I might add that Bronto's conception of 'concrete objects as sacred deities' is a little over the top since it's not about objects but the impression they make on the self.

Concrete objects aren't really a reality to Si types. That is a principal characteristic of Si: understanding./acknowledgement that perceptions can only be subjective and that the only thing that can be taken as truth / held sacred is one's own impression of reality.

This is why Si readily pairs with Ne - as one understands that reality is only what they make of it then reality is also objectively subject to change and new possibilities are always available from each moment to moment.

 

[RobdoR]

Keirsey's Model is excellent, but to understand it fully, you must get out of the mindset of S vs N and J vs P. I think he only made the connection to MBTI due its popularity. I find it useful to not even use the letters.

First, Keirsey divides people into Concrete thinkers and Abstract thinkers. Concrete thinkers are divided again into scheduled and spontaneous types. These are your Guardians and Artisans respectively (SJ and SP). The Abstract thinkers are divided into Thinking vs Feeling (NT and NF). These are the Rationals and Idealists respectively. These 4 groups make up the basic 4 temperament types and correlate well to many systems passed down through history. He then divides two more times to get 16 different social roles. Presumably you could divide further and further getting more precision along the way. Although, finding universal traits to divide with might be more difficult.

The main confusion comes from the idea that the J or schedule minded trait manifests somewhat differently in each of the four main types. A Guardian's "J" trait is not the same as and Idealists "J" trait.

Personally, I find it very useful to sift people into general categories first, then proceed to finer distinction later. For example, I used to think that I was an ISTP under the MBTI system. When I discovered Keirsey's temperament indicator, I still came out as an ISTP when I took the test, but when I took a more generalized test, I came out as a Rational. From there I started looking more closely at my answers and realized that I was, indeed, an INTP.