How to group the 16 types?

[dissonance]

lots of those groupings are useful, but i probably make the biggest distinction between NP, NJ, SP, and SJ.

so _x_x

also, @ everyone who is calling IJ the doer....i don't think that's quite accurate. i'd call IJ the data-collector or something like that. the doer is more like EJ.

(i'm definitely not a doer.)

IJ: the data collector/observer
IP: the thinker
EJ: the doer
EP: the explorer

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by dissonance

@ everyone who is calling IJ the doer....i don't think that's quite accurate. i'd call IJ the data-collector or something like that. the doer is more like EJ.

The thing with the IJ being the 'doer' is that that's their external expression -- quiet yet decisive straight-forward action. Most of their energy is spent internalizing information, but this is never seen.

IP may be creating understanding of the world through creation of rules to explain phenomena, but the IJ is creating understanding of the world by watching it and seeing what happens. Through this they figure out what needs to be 'done' and do that. The IP doesn't feel the need to do this, though. I guess the best explanation is that the IJ has a constant finger on the pulse of the 'flow' around them and only jump in to protect interests.

Pretty much... I guess IJs are kind of like EPs, only they sacrifice exploration for searching for nuances, while EPs sacrifice stability for their adventurousness. It's like, instead of building a space ship to go where no man's gone before like the EP, the IJ will build a microscope and check all the familiar places for things they overlooked.

[Randomnity]

Originally Posted by Santtu

What makes the types within those groups similar with each other, and different from types in other groups, in your opinion?

I think for me it's just the "feel" I get from each of these groups. Their attitude towards life, basically.

( Warning: gross stereotypes ahead, as may be expected when you try to extrapolate from the people you know and jam the whole world into 4 categories. also all is in my opinion, in my experience, blah blah blah)

FJs, for instance: they're all very concerned with what other people are doing/feeling, they can have hissy fits in response to particular things that push their buttons (some common, some individual), they get very unhappy if they feel left out or out of control of the situation.

TPs tend to be passive, mellow, and laid-back (also commonly late).

FPs are all bubbly/dreamy and love being around people (in small doses if I), and want everything to be happy, like the FJs, except instead of trying to fix the other person's feelings, they just get upset themselves.

TJs: they are very driven and logical in approaching their goals. They might run all over you to get there, unless they care about you. You'll rarely see them unprepared for something that's important to them.

Or from a functions perspective,

FJs - running off Fe + Ni or Si. "people-oriented" "goal-oriented"
TPs - running off Ti + Ne or Se. "idea-oriented" "journey-oriented"
FPs - running off Fi + Ne or Se. "people-oriented" "journey-oriented"
TJs - running off Te + Ni or Si. "idea-oriented" "goal-oriented"

[Colors]

Everyone's just interested in what their type is interested in :P. The perception doms want to know about primary/auxilary perception. The judging doms want to know about the primary/auxilary judging.

I *do* find it easiest to determine --XX, first just because that's how I think. When I meet someone I want to know what that they're thinking and their yes/no, good/bad, true/false process. (And someone who withholds their opinion is of little use to me at all.)

However, I think I would use X--X the most. In my mind I can see the general sort of attitude that person has towards the world and their general pattern of interaction.

[ofugur]

i like --xx the best because it allows for the most harmony within each group. -xx- was runner up, but i wouldn't support it most because of the strong differences between types such as ISTPs and ESTJs.

as for naming, using the classical elements is fun.



--xx:

sj - earth-types; pragmatism and consistency
sp - fire-types; energy and sensuousness
nt - air-types; abstract and objective thought
nf - water-types; emotional depth

[Eric B]

E/I + S/N (I call them "communication styles", since Keirsey speaks of "concrete/abstract communication")

ES extraverted dominant function, preferred perception function is Sensing (expressive, concrete)
EN extraverted dominant function, preferred perception function is iNtuition (expressive, abstract)
IS introverted dominant function, preferred perception function is Sensing (reserved, concrete)
IN introverted dominant function, preferred perception function is iNtuition (reserved, abstract)

E/I + T/F (I call them "Social image temperaments" because after E and I, we often think of a person as more logical or emotional)

EF extraverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Feeling (ETB: "expressive feelers")
ET extraverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Thinking (ETB: "expressive thinkers")
IF introverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Feeling (ETB: "deep feelers")
IT introverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Thinking (ETB: "deep thinkers")

E/I + J/P ("Sociability Temperaments" --George Frisbie writing in JPT)

EP dominant extraverted perceiving (Bissell: "extraverted eMpiricals" —Jung's "irrationals")
EJ dominant extraverted judging (Bissell: "extraverted Rationals", not to be confused with Keirsey's "Rational")
IP dominant introverted judging/aux. extraverted perceiving (Bissell: "introverted Rationals")
IJ dominant introverted perceiving/aux. extroverted judging (Bissell: "introverted eMpiricals")

S/N + T/F (Original Myers "Temperaments"; preferred function combinations)

SF preferred Sensing and Feeling (Concrete Feeling)
ST preferred Sensing and Thinking (Concrete Thinking)
NF preferred iNtuiting and Feeling (Abstract Feeling; Apollonian/Idealist)
NT preferred iNtuiting and Thinking (Abstract Thinking; Promethean/Rational)

S/N + J/P ("Cognitive Temperaments", "[Janet] Germane Temperaments", "Perceiving attitudes")

SP preferred extraverted Sensing (Dionysian/Artisan)
SJ preferred introverted Sensing (Epimethean/Guardian)
NP preferred extraverted iNtuiting ([Janet] Germane: true Promethean)
NJ preferred introverted iNtuiting (Germane: True Apollonian)

T/F + J/P ("Normative Temperaments", "Judging temperament model", "Judging attitudes")

TJ preferred extraverted Thinking (Bissell: "the most directive")
TP preferred introverted Thinking (Bissell: "the most pragmatic")
FJ preferred extraverted Feeling (Bissell: "the most cooperative")
FP preferred introverted Feeling (Bissell: "the most friendly")

When trying to fogure out how MBTI compared with the FIRO system, and seeing E/I of course, as "expressive", and that both T/F and J/P seemed to be "responsive", I had hoped for a symmetrical correlation. I had heard a suggestion that the "sociability temperaments" (E/I + J/P) were in fact the "real" interaction styles, instead of Beren's asymmetrical model. So then you could have E/I=eI, J/P=wI, S/N=eC, T/F=wC. The standard 16 types table would be divided by perfect horizontal rows representing Inclusion (the Sociability Temperaments) and vertical columns representing Control (the original Myers preferred function "temperaments"). The sociability temperaments would only differ from Berens' model by each style swapping an STP for an SFJ. The former, as an EP or IP becomes "informative", and the latter, as an EJ or IJ becomes "directive"). Still, it didn't fit the more familiar temperaments.
The idea I liked better was E/I + T/F (which I call "social image temperaments"), which would be paired with S/N + J/P (Cognitive Temperaments; used by Germane. There is also an argument that NP and NJ were the "real" "Apollonian" and "Promethean" instead of Keirsey's NF and NT). So having eI=E/I, eC=S/N and swapping the other pairs to wI=T/F and wC=J/P would end up with the styles trading an NFJ for an NTP; yet the former as an EF or IF becoming informative, and the latter as an ET or IT becoming directive. These too did not seem to fit.
So the existing Berens Interaction Styles plus Keirsey temperaments seems the best match for linking with the ancient temperaments (in social and leadership areas, respectively).

It is the addition of a perception scale (S/N) that make the true "temperament" groupings so "asymmetrical" to the MBTI dichotomies. (And S/N does not fit eC as I had wondered, but instead pairs opposite e/w ranges). The way it turns out, is that for Sensors, the Interaction Styles follow ET, IT, EF and IF, and for iNtuitors, they follow EJ, IJ, EP and IP! Just like for S, temperament is J/P, and for N, it is T/F.

Two "asymmetrical" groupings the yielded even higher numbers of difference in a study using EAR data were the "extraverted function" set: SP, NP, TJ, FJ; and also SP, SJ, EN, IN). There's also discussion of a notion of "Mirror Temperaments": ST, SF, NP, NJ.

[htb]

Originally Posted by Eric B

T/F + J/P ("Normative Temperaments", "Judging temperament model", "Judging attitudes")

Now, that limns the sixteen in ways that are most easily observed. I like that.

[edcoaching]

There are whole books out there that help you decide which division to use, depending on the purpose (The MBTI Teambuilding Program by the Hirshes is excellent).

In a nutshell, for many applications, 16 types is too many for team members or workshop participants who are new to type to grasp thoroughly enough to make use of them. Because the preferences are about energy source (E_I), Information needs (S-N), Decision style (T-F), and approach to life (J-P) one chooses the grouping based on purpose AND on who is in the group. For example at one school I worked with, only the principal had NT preferences. Grouping by function pairs (ST, SF, NF, NT) would have isolated her in an unhealthy way, so I chose a different grouping.

Here's the gist of most common purposes:

Quadrants (IS, IN, EN, ES): learning styles, change
Function pairs (ST, SF, NF, NT): communication, careers
Temperaments (SJ, SP, NF, NT): leadership, work styles
Dominant functions: problem solving, influencing, communication, spirituality
Last two letters (TJ, TP, FJ, FP): conflict resolution
Attitude/orientation (IJ, IP, EJ, EP): work styles

edcoaching, INFJ

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by edcoaching

There are whole books out there that help you decide which division to use, depending on the purpose (The MBTI Teambuilding Program by the Hirshes is excellent)].

Originally Posted by edcoaching

one chooses the grouping based on purpose AND on who is in the group.

That's a novel idea. Perhaps it would indeed be useful to learn the dynamics of each of the divisions! I hadn't thought it that far. Thanks.

Originally Posted by edcoaching

Quadrants (IS, IN, EN, ES): learning styles, change
Function pairs (ST, SF, NF, NT): communication, careers
Temperaments (SJ, SP, NF, NT): leadership, work styles
Dominant functions: problem solving, influencing, communication, spirituality
Last two letters (TJ, TP, FJ, FP): conflict resolution
Attitude/orientation (IJ, IP, EJ, EP): work styles

edcoaching, INFJ

The bolded seem most recognizable to me. I can see how bulk of the workforce in many industries seem to be divided with the grouping ST, SF, NF, NT.

Well, actually almost all of them seem well labeled. Of course, the styles overlap a bit, but that's a useful categorization. Thanks.

What do you mean by conflict resolution? This grouping seems like one of the most used "team role" division I've seen. Impersonally directive, impersonally informational, personally directive and personally informational, or something to that effect.

How would you describe the different conflict resolution styles with the TJ, TP, FJ and FP?

[edcoaching]

Conflict resolution...when I'm called into teams/organizations where people disrespect or hate each other, or assume their manager is out to get them. 90% of the time type is involved--normal behaviors are construed as wrong, evil, or conspiratorial. The other 10% of the time, the individuals are nuts

The lenses do overlap, making considering purpose and group makeup of equal importance and my work of infinite variety.

Borrowing from Damian Killen's Introduction to Type and Conflict (CPP), (2003) describe the different approaches to conflict of people with preferences for Thinking and Feeling.
"Our preferred decision-making process determines where we focus our attention in conflict. In a conflict situation, those with a preference for Thinking (T) tend to pay most attention to or focus most strongly on
• What the conflict is about
• Opinions and principles
• Analyzing and tolerating differences
• Succinct delivery
• Maintaining a firm stance
Those with a preference for Feeling (F) tend to pay most attention to or focus most strongly on
• Who is involved
• Needs and values
• Accepting and appreciating differences
• Tactful delivery
• Ensuring give and take (p. 11).

In addition, people who prefer Judging often seek rapid closure in conflict situations while those who prefer Perceiving often seek to process what happened thoroughly to avoid recurrences. "