Keirsey, was he right?

[Decaf]

I was first introduced to type theory through Keirsey 7 years ago. Recently as I've developed a more cohesive idea of what it is I subscribe to, I've come to believe that Keirsey was wrong. I don't think he used legitimate interpretation of Jung's work to create his temperaments. He worked off the idea that our behavior was based on fundamental desires (Artisans desire freedom and to be impressive, Guardians desire structure and belonging, Rationals desire achievement and competance, Idealists desire maturity and understanding). That's from memory, so if I broke it down incorrectly I apologize, but its not important for my point.

I don't believe that type tells us what we will desire. Some rationals want to change the world for the better. Some artisans want to be in a stable environment that allows them to explore themselves, their trade or their relationships. Some idealists only want to make others believe as they do. Some guardians are comfortable breaking the rules if they think they are broken. His model seems to stereotype types by their behavior rather than simply trying to describe the thought processes they tend to use most.

I tried for a long time to make sense of this theory and try to make it work for analyzing others and their behavior and it consistently led me into problems, misinterpretations and pigeon-holing.

OK, so why am I posting this rant? I want to know if someone has a better understanding of his intention. A key to help me unlock the usefulness of his theory. Or if someone agrees with me and would help me figure out if I'm taking the right approach (trying to use my perceiving function here)

 

[Perseus]

Keirsey does not stand up to scientific method. However, I found it helpful in analysing certain psychological aspects of the Other (persons). I found it more useful than Millon personality types. It is/could be useful in management and politics. Essentially, it might be putting words to natural instincts. Alternatively, the trickster could use it to fool the unwary. The trickster could be a variety of animal types, perhaps even the Coyote (ENTJ variant of the Wolf allocation).

I am only now just getting the hang of posting messages on this forum. Some of them failed to get past the spam filter.

 

[Fleur]

Nothing is 100% safe.

 

[fullerene]

Do you know of a site that has a good outline of Keirsey's theories that you're talking about? I'm not familiar with them at all.

 

[Jesin]

!

Maybe I was wrong when I said Perseus was utterly misinterpreting Keirsey. It could be that Keirsey misinterpreted Jung and then Perseus carried that just a little bit farther, rather than a lot.

From what I've read, I like Jung better.

 

[Perseus]

For people who like Jung (I cannot tolerate his stilted style of writing) might like a book called the Inner World of Choice by Barbara Wicks which I read 25 years ago.

Keirsey is just applied Jungian for the masses. It is ironic that like the parables and artwork it is interpreted differently by differing personalities, even if they are allocated into the same type.

It is perhaps a good idea to eliminate personality clashes as a result of different types before getting down to the real cause of the problems which may not be related to personality type at all. Same types can clash horribly if following different agendas.

 

[Perseus]

I was first introduced to type theory through Keirsey 7 years ago. Recently as I've developed a more cohesive idea of what it is I subscribe to, I've come to believe that Keirsey was wrong. I don't think he used legitimate interpretation of Jung's work to create his temperaments. He worked off the idea that our behavior was based on fundamental desires (Artisans desire freedom and to be impressive, Guardians desire structure and belonging, Rationals desire achievement and competance, Idealists desire maturity and understanding). That's from memory, so if I broke it down incorrectly I apologize, but its not important for my point.

I don't believe that type tells us what we will desire. )

I make a distinction between Keirsey (observation of what actually people do) and Myers-Briggs (what people desire and done by written tests) I don't think the tests are all that good at matching the type with the person.

It is more than just putting labels on people though. It is about conflict resolution. Not that I have ever known it to resolve a conflict, or even to prevent it getting worse. See BATNA on the blog.

 

[Decaf]

I make a distinction between Keirsey (observation of what actually people do) and Myers-Briggs (what people desire and done by written tests) I don't think the tests are all that good at matching the type with the person.

It is more than just putting labels on people though. It is about conflict resolution. Not that I have ever known it to resolve a conflict, or even to prevent it getting worse. See BATNA on the blog.

If your understanding is correct, then they are in reality different theories entirely. On further analysis it appears that he does not use the functions as they were defined by Jung, but rather generalizations of behavior and potential. That is an unethical use of a psychological typing instrument. The way I have noticed supporters of this theory get around that is to suggest that people change types throughout their life. Now we've REALLY reached an impasse. With all these differences I think I have to conclude that these theories are not compatible.

The MBTI walks a fine line with ethics trying to only give people perspective on their motivations rather than a walk-through guide to life (which is unethical as defined by the APA). I have used type theory for conflict resolution a number of times because it offers a valuable insight. Its a "walk a mile in their shoes" situation that I find invaluable (its saved my relationship more than once).

To reference your first comparison, there's a reason the MBTI is done by written tests. Those tests allow the person being typed to participate in the selection process. In order to try to find an accurate fit the person who may have desires and thoughts hidden from the world their participation is integral. Typing someone at a distance is judgemental and reductionist. I enjoy using type theory no fictional characters and the occasional dead important person, but typing by sight as a means of affecting them (i.e. using type during a job interview) is a crime against them and a service to no one.

 

[Perseus]

If your understanding is correct, then they are in reality different theories entirely. On further analysis it appears that he does not use the functions as they were defined by Jung, but rather generalizations of behavior and potential. That is an unethical use of a psychological typing instrument. The way I have noticed supporters of this theory get around that is to suggest that people change types throughout their life. Now we've REALLY reached an impasse. With all these differences I think I have to conclude that these theories are not compatible.

The MBTI walks a fine line with ethics trying to only give people perspective on their motivations rather than a walk-through guide to life (which is unethical as defined by the APA). I have used type theory for conflict resolution a number of times because it offers a valuable insight. Its a "walk a mile in their shoes" situation that I find invaluable (its saved my relationship more than once).

To reference your first comparison, there's a reason the MBTI is done by written tests. Those tests allow the person being typed to participate in the selection process. In order to try to find an accurate fit the person who may have desires and thoughts hidden from the world their participation is integral. Typing someone at a distance is judgemental and reductionist. I enjoy using type theory no fictional characters and the occasional dead important person, but typing by sight as a means of affecting them (i.e. using type during a job interview) is a crime against them and a service to no one.

Some people may be, but some and perhaps are not really all that good at matching their desires/aspirations/self-knowledge to answer the test properly. I am one of these.

I think the personality types change both during the lifetime and during the day and night. Thinking is suppressed whilst asleep. Intuition may develop through experience.

There is a documented case of Jumping Badger changing to Sitting Bull.

 

[Decaf]

Some people may be, but some and perhaps are not really all that good at matching their desires/aspirations/self-knowledge to answer the test properly. I am one of these.

You bring up a good point. The MBTI is a level B psychological instrument. That means that for ethical usage is must be followed by a face-to-face meeting with a qualified professional for verification of type (although we've recently been given the ability to conduct it over the phone if face to face isn't possible). I'm horrible at that part unfortunately. Introverted Feelers appear to be the best in my experience.

Internet MBTIs (which are usually home-made versions with not backing research for validity) do not follow the ethics guidelines of the American Psychology Association for the proper use of psychological instruments.

I think the personality types change both during the lifetime and during the day and night. Thinking is suppressed whilst asleep. Intuition may develop through experience.

There is a documented case of Jumping Badger changing to Sitting Bull.

You're describing this qualities in a way inconsistent with how they were defined by Jung. Thinking and Feeling are both rational judging functions. There is not biological process that supresses one or the other. Its possible that Judging itself is turned off during dreams to allow your Perceiving Function (Sensing or Intuition) to stretch itself out.

All types are capable of using all functions. They just tend to develop them to a greater or lesser degree. It honestly sounds like you're talking about a different theory of personality type, which is fine. I feel like the MBTI only describes part of a person's mental processes, so maybe your theory might match up better to one that attempts to predict behavior.

 

[Jordan~]

We're all Jungian Native American Chiefs now.