Is MBTT type compatible with Keirsey type?

[Ezra]

I've mentioned Keirsey a fair few times in answering certain questions about MBTI types. But what struck me was the reminder that they're actually two different theories. Keirsey actually mentions the discrepancies in the notes at the back of Please Understand Me II. Near the beginning of the book, he mentions that while MBTT is based on cognitive processes, Keirsey is based solely on observable behaviour. This would introduce the notion that we could actually be two different types; for example, in MBTT we could think like an INTJ (with our thoughts relating strongly to idiosyncracy etc.), while, we could act like Keirsey's ISTJ (e.g. at work and at play).

Do you think one could be two different types?

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Ezra

I've mentioned Keirsey a fair few times in answering certain questions about MBTI types. But what struck me was the reminder that they're actually two different theories. Keirsey actually mentions the discrepancies in the notes at the back of Please Understand Me II. Near the beginning of the book, he mentions that while MBTT is based on cognitive processes, Keirsey is based solely on observable behaviour. This would introduce the notion that we could actually be two different types; for example, in MBTT we could think like an INTJ (with our thoughts relating strongly to idiosyncracy etc.), while, we could act like Keirsey's ISTJ (e.g. at work and at play).

Do you think one could be two different types?

Theoretically, yes. But that would assume that MBTT (What's MBTT? Is it the same as MBTI?) could test for cognitive functions independently of observable behavior. In reality, I think they're likely to either use subtly different standards to measure behavior (resulting in different types in the respective systems), or else have similar results despite the apparent disparity.

I think Socionics is definitely different enough to result in a different type, FWIW.

["?"]

Athenian is on point. The two systems are only similar in that Keirsey used the four letter codes to introduce his types. However, I was skimming "Gifts Differing" several days ago and was reminded why I eventually went to the source in reading Jung. It was Meyers-Briggs who first introduced dichotomies in her book, referring to differences in E/I, S/N, etc. She eventually discusses each type by dominant cognitive preferences.

Ezra you're correct that essentially I could resonate more with a temperament different than my own. However Berens (a student of Keirsey) has made leaps and bounds on defining Improvisers (SP) better, which makes it easier to relate. Now if I read PUM II, I can see the subtle differences in SP and NT.

[Splittet]

Well, from a behaviourist perspective MBTI has no value anyway, Big Five is just so much better. MBTI from a cognitive functions perspective might have some value though. Personally I would really like to see some research on MBTI in a cognitive functions perspective. The dichotomies perspective, related to the behaviourist perspective, has been researched quite a lot, and this research has been very critical, with good reason.

[Ezra]

Originally Posted by athenian200

What's MBTT? Is it the same as MBTI?

I used MBTT instead of MBTI, unless I'm referring to the test(s) itself. Basically, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is like Keirsey Temperament Sorter, or RHETI (the Enneagram test). MBTT (Myers-Briggs Type Theory) is akin to KTT (Keirsey Temperament Theory) and the Enneagram. I use these terms when referring to the theory itself, and making comparisons between each theory (unless it's a comparison between each test).

Originally Posted by "?"

She eventually discusses each type by dominant cognitive preferences.

Do you know when she did this; i.e. what year she discusses them or in what book?

Now if I read PUM II, I can see the subtle differences in SP and NT.

According to Keirsey, while NTs and SPs are both utilitarian in the way they work, NTs are distinctly abstract and SPs are distinctly concrete. It's going back to his matrix of types.

Originally Posted by Splittet

MBTI from a cognitive functions perspective might have some value though. Personally I would really like to see some research on MBTI in a cognitive functions perspective.

As would I. I want to know how certain things are explained in MBTT. Like why we only use four functions (instead of all eight, like in socionics), or why a 'rational' function like Fi, when dominant, means that the individual will be a Perceiving.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Splittet

MBTI from a cognitive functions perspective might have some value though. Personally I would really like to see some research on MBTI in a cognitive functions perspective.

I personally think that MBTI is somewhat languished on it's functional side, and places too much emphasis on dichotomies in the way it tests for things. I think it might be more effective, if you want to earnestly pursue the cognitive functions perspective, to research and build upon the Socionic understanding instead. Even without the Russian material (which could be translated in the future), I believe it's still more complete and coherent in terms of it's functional relationship model.

[marmalade]

I will I consider those who have extended MBTT as being a part of MBTT. Accordingly, Beebe's descriptions of the 8 roles provides the same type of thing that you find in Socionics. I consider KTT to be a bit different, but still in the MBTT family because its using the MBTI language that is based on MBTT. Berens' aknowledges this by how she combines the two theories together. If you include Beebe and Kiersey with MBTT, then you have a system that covers all the same basic aspects as Socionics.

KTT always throws me off, and I've been trying to figure it out off and on for some time. I accept it is pointing out a pattern that Kiersey for whatever reason wasn't capable of figuring out his own language to describe it and so he turned to MBTT. The only way he managed to get 16 types out of 4 temperaments is by working back from MBTT. However, I've thought that KTT might be more valid if it could discover its own language, and I recently realized that Bererns' has accomplished this even though she doesn't point it out clearly. She doesn't need MBTT at all to describe temperaments and interaction styles and with these two she can come to the same basic 16 types.

In her books on Temperament and Interaction Styles, she shows 3 orthogonal traits for each Temperament and each Interaction Style. However, both theories each borrow one orthogonal trait from MBTT(E/I, N/S). We can discard these borrowings because the remaining 4 orthogonal variables are all that is necessary to create the 16 types using absolutely no MBTT whatsoever. I just figured this out and I'm surprised that Berens hasn't pointed this out herself, but I have yet to see her do so.

I have a theory as why the MBTI letters can be used to describe the KTT which is seemingly contradictory to MBTT. In MBTI Step II(I haven't seen Step III), the letters are broken down in the style of traits. According to Jungian theory of cognitive processes, J/P make no sense. If considered from a behavioral viewpoint, they do make sense. The letters refer to behavioral traits, and its from interpreting these behavioral traits according to MBTT that we infer the cognitive processes. Type code and cognitive processes are two different things.

So, this is why type code can be used to also describe KTT. Type code is a descriptive language that isn't limited by MBTT. On the level of traits, J/P and T/F are equivalent categories and so that is why its fair for Kiersey to use them this way. Kiersey was correct that, even though the theories contradict, the observations of the two systems correlate.

I'm just playing around with these ideas right now. I still don't know if Temperaments and Interaction Styles makes sense to me or not, but I'm trying to understand them.

[Ezra]

Originally Posted by athenian200

I personally think that MBTI is somewhat languished on it's functional side, and places too much emphasis on dichotomies in the way it tests for things. I think it might be more effective, if you want to earnestly pursue the cognitive functions perspective, to research and build upon the Socionic understanding instead. Even without the Russian material (which could be translated in the future), I believe it's still more complete and coherent in terms of it's functional relationship model.

I completely agree.

Originally Posted by marmalade

So, this is why type code can be used to also describe KTT. Type code is a descriptive language that isn't limited by MBTT. On the level of traits, J/P and T/F are equivalent categories and so that is why its fair for Kiersey to use them this way. Kiersey was correct that, even though the theories contradict, the observations of the two systems correlate.

As a side point, in the Please Understand Me II notes, Keirsey talks about how the ESTJ and the ENTJ are vastly different, as opposed to MBTT, which sees these two types as very similar.

[marmalade]

Originally Posted by Ezra

I completely agree.

I don't understand Socionics well enough yet. However, given my limited knowledge, I don't get these criticisms.

If you think MBTI is somewhat languished on its functional side, then study the theories of Beebe and Thomson which are built off of MBTT. If you feel that too much emphasis has been put on dichotomies in the way it tests for things, then expand your understanding using Step II and III as there are some good books describing the facets.

Also, Myers explored the couplings and Gianninni wrote in depth about them in terms of Jung's archetypal theory. In Giannini's book he also describes the connection between individual development according to Erickson's theory and Lowen's modelling of brain and type. In MBTI Step II and elsewhere, the functions are described in how they develop over time in the way they're used. There are numerous books that detail how type plays out in group interactions. Then, when you add in Temperaments and Interaction Styles, you have a pretty in-depth system. On top of all of this, there are the strong corelations to FFM which is as well-researched as personality studies go.

I realize that Socionics system is interesting and has great potential, but I think your too lightly dismissing MBTI. I plan on further studying Socioncs and I definitely look forward to more and better translations of material. I just don't think one system is better in all ways to the other. Like Temperaments to MBTI, they're different and yet not utterly different as they're both based on Jung. I'm sure that both systems can learn something from the other.

Originally Posted by Ezra

As a side point, in the Please Understand Me II notes, Keirsey talks about how the ESTJ and the ENTJ are vastly different, as opposed to MBTT, which sees these two types as very similar.

The two systems are simply talking about two different patterns even though they correlate to an extent. Both can be true simultaneously. What is same or different can be seen from many perspectives. ESTJ is the opposite of INFP as far as the letters go, but functionally speaking ESTP could be considered more opposing. Confirming this, ESTP is the opposite Temperament and opposite Interaction Style as shown in diagrams. So, there is an example where the two theories end up pointing one to similar insights.

[Nocapszy]

Socionics = MBTI = Kiersey

They all have such miniscule differences you may as well call them by the same name:

Type theory.

Personally, I prefer the socionics lettering system best.

ILE
intuitive logical extratrim
N first T second
Because N is first, and I'm extratrim, it's Ne which forces Thinking into the introverted position.

QED ILE = ENTP

QED II Socionics = MBTI

Keirsey even uses the same letters. His only claim to fame is that he organized them all into the four groups. It's the same types.
Keirsey == MBTI.