Keirsey's Guardians Outdated?

[nolla]

I got the "Please Understand Me 2" some weeks ago and there is something bothering me.

See, Keirsey writes with a long experience and the observations he made goes back decades. So he has a bit different perspective from mine. His view of the temperaments mostly matches my own observation, exept for the SJs. Keirsey talks about their values and such, but I can't connect his view with the real life. I thought about this and came to a conclusion that his observations might have been outdated.

This is quite logical, actually. The SJs are for the reason of maintaining the culture, so they must be easily shaped into that culture and the shaping has to last a long time, a lifetime maybe. So, if the SJ of the sixties would think that marriage is "the thing to do", today's SJ might think that "sex in the city" is the way. And, even if they seem to do exactly the opposite now, they do it for the same reason than fifty years ago.

I think this is quite important to consider when trying to think about the things the temperaments do. If this is true, it means that most of the stuff written about SJs are too time-and-culture related. What do you think?

[spirilis]

Totally agree with you on that.

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by nolla

I got the "Please Understand Me 2" some weeks ago and there is something bothering me.

See, Keirsey writes with a long experience and the observations he made goes back decades. So he has a bit different perspective from mine. His view of the temperaments mostly matches my own observation, exept for the SJs. Keirsey talks about their values and such, but I can't connect his view with the real life. I thought about this and came to a conclusion that his observations might have been outdated.

This is quite logical, actually. The SJs are for the reason of maintaining the culture, so they must be easily shaped into that culture and the shaping has to last a long time, a lifetime maybe. So, if the SJ of the sixties would think that marriage is "the thing to do", today's SJ might think that "sex in the city" is the way. And, even if they seem to do exactly the opposite now, they do it for the same reason than fifty years ago.

I think this is quite important to consider when trying to think about the things the temperaments do. If this is true, it means that most of the stuff written about SJs are too time-and-culture related. What do you think?

I haven't read as much about the types and temperaments, but what I have read seems rather limited about what really makes SJs tick. I know that I don't feel like someone who wants to preserve things for their own sakes, but rather for their value to me and to others. I don't think that SJs are necessarily easily shaped into the culture, though. We can be very stubborn about what we consider to be right and wrong.

[nolla]

Originally Posted by pure_mercury

I know that I don't feel like someone who wants to preserve things for their own sakes, but rather for their value to me and to others. I don't think that SJs are necessarily easily shaped into the culture, though. We can be very stubborn about what we consider to be right and wrong.

But, if we think back, it could be that the things you find worthy are the things (unconsciously) set by your parents and childhood friends. This would mean that they have "shaped" the person you are and your "mission" is to take their values to the next generation (stubbornly, if the need be). Basicly it leads to a form of democracy as the child obeys the strong and group has power. So most of the children of a generation will have vaguely similar values.

[Jennifer]

I only skimmed the post, but the gist seems right:

SJ's generally stabilize and maintain the culture.

The specific traits we might label as "SJ" (such as "marriage between a man and woman") are not inherent SJ, they would only be the "given" for SJ thought because that's what the standards were.

At some point, if other types of marriages become openly accepted and the new standard, then SJs would seemingly support THAT standard instead. (ESJs are much more inclined to let the standards shift, too. It's your ISJ's who are most liable to cling fiercely to the past way of doing things or thinking of things.)

So you have to be very careful about what gets assigned to "SJ beliefs." Much of the actual content of the beliefs is inconsequential, it's the fact that the beliefs (whatever they are) were the given standard / accepted truth that has a bearing on things.

Again, Keirsey's SJs derive their reality from the way things seem to be and what they've experienced. It becomes the model by which other things are judged.

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by nolla

But, if we think back, it could be that the things you find worthy are the things (unconsciously) set by your parents and childhood friends. This would mean that they have "shaped" the person you are and your "mission" is to take their values to the next generation (stubbornly, if the need be). Basicly it leads to a form of democracy as the child obeys the strong and group has power. So most of the children of a generation will have vaguely similar values.

I don't think that is true in my case. I mean, my parents taught me a lot, but I was skeptical of my religious education and form my own set of values a fairly young age.

[nolla]

Yes, sure. But you might have had some other idol to follow. You never know. Well, at least I can't figure out the exact point when my most profound values were formed... I remember so few things about the past.

And, if we think about it, you broke away from the church at the right time, because everyone else is doing the same. So, one could say that you were following the spirit of era unconsciously.

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by nolla

Yes, sure. But you might have had some other idol to follow. You never know. Well, at least I can't figure out the exact point when my most profound values were formed... I remember so few things about the past.

I admire people, but I am not big on idols. It's weird; I think my personal values are probably the most intuitive part of my personality.

[Uberfuhrer]

I would think that the Guardian temperament would extend to youth subcultures, as well -- even freaky ones such as Goths.

[nolla]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

I would think that the Guardian temperament would extend to youth subcultures, as well -- even freaky ones such as Goths.

Yeah, why not. The first goths obviously had to be artisans (or derailed idealists) but when any movement gets enough momentum, the guardians start to join in.