PDA

View Full Version : Keirsey's Description of for knowledge. Some of them are so relentless in their searcRationals(NTs)



Curtis24
02-23-2011, 07:59 PM
Here's Keirsey's description of the values of Rationals. Also, I chose Rationals because I believe this is the type that most accurately describes most of the people here :)




Self-Esteem in Ingenuity
Rationals pride themselves on their ingenuity in accomplishing the many and varied tasks they set their minds to. Indeed, so important is ingenuity to the Rationals' self-esteem that artistry, dependability, and empathy, so important to other character types, pale into insignificance for them. It doesn't matter whether the task be to design a machine or an experiment, to develop a theory or a long-range plance, to build a computer or a business. The degree of inventiveness which they bring to these tasks is the measure of their ingenuity and therefore the measure of their pride in themselves. Rationals aren't comfortable bragging on themselves, but listen on as one of the engineers of the national information highway lets his NT pride show for a moment when he speaks of ingenuity:

You want to be the first to do something. You want to create something. You want to innovate something... I often think of Edison inventing the light bulb. That's what I want to do. I want to drive over the bridge coming out of New York there and look down on that sea of lights that is New Jersey and say, 'Hey, I did that!'

And yet Rationals do not confine their ingenuity to business or professional matters; they apply it to almost anything they set out to master. For example, Rationals play not so much to have fun but to exercise their ingenuity in acquiring game skills. Fun for NTs means figuring out how to get better at some skill, not merely exercising the skills they already have, and so for the Rational the field of play is invariably a laboratory for increasing their proficiency. In tennis or golf, for example, each game or round must be the occasion for pondering the physics of the most effective swing, and for trying out new strokes that seem to fit the paradigm.

Thus it is impossible for Rationals to play with the thoughtless abandon of Artisans(SPs). For the Artisans, playing is a free, impulsive activity, engaged in for the fun of it, with improved game skills coming as a result of the doing. Rationals are just the opposite, in that they mightily tax themselves with improving their skills during play, which makes improvement come rather slowly and with great difficulty. In this sense the Artisans are the Rationals mirror image. Both can become absorbed in practicing their sport or game, but if the SP's practice is absorbing because it is free, unconscious doing, the NT's doing is absorbing, and less effective, because it is deliberate, conscious practice. If the Artisan is naturally impulsive and effortless in action, the Rational is naturally thoughtful and purposeful in action. If the Artisan cannot be induced to try, the Rational cannot be induced not to try.

Althought it is too much to say Rationals are grim in their recreational activities, they can be quite unhappy with themselves when they fail to elminate errors. When an NT plays sports, or even cards and board games, there must be continuous improvement, with no backsliding. On the golf course or the tennis court, at the bridge table or the chess board, others may shrug off mistakes, but not Rationals. In other words, just as ingenuity is the NTs' pride, so lack of it is their shame, and when they see themselves as slow or second-rate in any activity they are merciless in their self-condemnation, calling themselves "klutz," "idiot," "numbskull," "turkey," and other pejoratives. Such self-recriminations are not mere critiques of their performance, but are also likely to be scathing self-denunciations, with each term indicating the unforgivable crime of stupidity.

Rationals are easily the most self-critical of all the temperaments regarding their abilities, rooting out and condemning their errors quite ruthlessly. But others beware. NTs allow no one else to criticize them without warrant - and even with warrant, the critic is advised to be cautious and accurate. Just as NTs hold themselves to be precise, so they require those who remark on their errors to be precise as well, at the risk of learning the precise value they put upon such criticisms. And when unjustly or inaccurately criticized, Rationals burn with resentment and have even been known to fantasize about revenge, efficiently and poetically executed.


Self-Respect in Autonomy
While ingenuity is the basis of Rational self-esteem, autonomy is the basis of their self-respect. As much as possible, at times even regardless of the consequences, Rationals desire to live according to their own laws, to see the world by their own lights, and they respect themselves in the degree that they act independently, free of all coercion. Individualists all, NTs resis any effort to impose arbitrary rule on them. Indeed, they prefer to ignore any law, regulation, or convention that does not make sense to them, though they are willing to obey those that do. Little wonder that the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were largely the work of Rationals such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison.

Rationals want to govern themselves, and also to think for themselves. From an early age Rationals will not accept anyone else's ideas without first scrutinizing them for error. It doesn't matter whether the person is a widely accepted authority or not; the fact that a so-called "expert" proclaims something leaves the Rational indifferent. Title, reputation, and credentials do not matter. Ideas must stand on their own merits, and NTs simply do not trust anyone else to have done the necessary research and applied the rules of logic adequately. "I understand that Einstein said so," comments the Rational, "but even the best of us can err." This natural lack of respect for established authorities tends to make the Rationals seem irreverent, some might say arrogant.

Instinctively taking autonomy to be the greatest virtue, Rationals regard dependence on others as the greatest vice. Whether or not they agree entirely with Ayn Rand's political and economic theories, Rationals are hard pressed, after careful consideration, not to join in her contempt for interpersonal dependency: "All that which proceeds from man's independent ego is good," she wrote in The Foutainhead, "All that which proceeds from man's dependence upon men is evil." Self-respecting Rationals want to be self-directed and self-determined, and their own occasional lapse into dependency is their only source of guilt.


Self-Confidence in Resolution
Rationals are self-confident in so far as they sense in themselves a strength of will or an unwavering resolution. NTs believe they can overcome any obstacle, dominate any field, conquer any enemy - even themselves - with the power of their resolve. In Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, Rochester must will himself to live with the secret of Thornfield Hall:

He ground his teeth and was silent: he arrested his step and struck his boot against the hard ground. Some hated thought seemed to have him in its grip, and... to hold a quivering conflict... under his ebony brow. Wild was the wrestle which should be paramount; but another feeling rose and triumphed: something hard... self-willed and resolute: it settled his passion and petrified his countenance; he went on: - 'During the moment I was silent, Miss Eyre, I was arranging a point with my destiny.'

Once Rationals resolve to do something they have in a sense made a contract with themselves, a contract they dare not go back on. Indeed, their worst fear is that their determination might weaken, their will power might falter, and that they will fail in their resolve. Why is this? Why are NTs so fearful of their will power weakening? It is because they can never take will power for granted, however strong it has proved itself in the past. They know, perhaps better than others, that they are not in charge of their will, but that their will is in charge of them. Einstein was fond of quoting Schopenhauer's words: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills." Rationals know, for instance, that they cannot will themselves to control involutary functions, such as speech, sexual desire, digestion, warding off infection, and so on. After all, involuntary is by definition not subject to the will, but must occur spontaneously.

And yet, even though they know some things must happen of themselves, Rationals can dread this loss of control. This is why so many NTs turn out to develop unreasonable fears, especially of germs and other forms of filth, something they have no control over. The Rationals Mark Twain, Nikola Tesla, Howard Hughes, and Buckminster Fuller each developed disease phobias, some of them incapacitating, as in the case of Hughes. And speech is a special problem for the Rationals, who are the most likely of all the types to develop gestural tics when they try to take control of their speech. Though it tends to impair their performance, strength of resolve is of such extreme importance to Rationals that, under stress, they have no choice but to invoke their will and try harder.


Being Calm
The preferred mood of Rationals, as Galen suggested, is one of calm. This is particularly true in stressful situations, when things around them are in turmoil, as C.S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower discovers in a moment of crisis, after having set fire to the enemy ship which held him captive:

A side pane fell in as they watched, and a rush of flame came through the opening. That store of paint, Hornblower calculated - he was calmer now, with a calm that would astonish him later, when he came to look back on it - must be immediately under the cabin, blazing fiercely.

Artisans(SPs) like to be excited, Guardians(SJs) are likely to get concerned about their responsibilities, and Idealists(NFs) give their enthusiasm free rein, Rationals prefer to remain calm, cool, and collected. And if they cannot avoid these emotional states, they will try hard to avoid letting their concern, excitement, or enthusiasm show. SPs, SJs, and NFs are puzzled more by this seeming unflappability in trying circumstances than by any other trait of the NT character. Indeed, because they are reluctant to express emtions or desires, NTs are often criticized for being unfeeling and cold. However, what is taken for indifference is not indifference at all, but the thoughtful, absorbed concentration of the contemplative investigator. Just as effective investigators carefully hold their feelings in check and guage their actions so that they do not disturb their inquiry or contaminate their results, so Rationals are prone to examine and control themselves in the same deliberate manner, being careful to avoid reading their own desires, emotions, and expectations into their observations.

But make no mistake, althought they hold back on any intemperate display, Rationals are not the cold and distant persons they are often made out to be. For one thing they can get quite intense and pressured about matters under their control(and few things they will admit they cannot control), becoming as tight as a bowstring when they think they might be able to solve a problem if they put their mind to it. For another, being closet romantics, their feelings are just as varied and strong as those of other character types, though again, and more than others, Rationals tend to hold them tightly in check.


Trusting Reason
The only thing Rationals trust unconditionally is reason - all else they trust only under certain conditions. Thus they trust their intuition only now and then, their impulses even less often, and they completely distrust titular authority. Of all these only reason, NTs say, is universal and timeless, and only its laws beyond dispute. Thus Rationasl take it for granted that "if men would but reason together," even the most difficult of problems might be solved. When the Rational Thomas Jefferson wrote the charter for the University of Virginia, he insisted that here education "will be based upon the illimitable freedom of the human mind, for here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

Jefferson's vision was of a free competition of ideas, unfettered by convention or tradition, an inquiry limited only by the scope of the human mind and the laws of reason. In this he was a typical Rational. More than the other temperaments, NTs listen carefully to new ideas as long as they make sense - as long as they are logical. But they have little or no patience for ideas that don't make sense, and they will not be swayed by any argument that fails to meet their criterion of logical coherence.


Yearning for Achievement
One of the most important things to remember about Rationals, if they are to be understood, is that they yearn for achievement. Some might suppose that these seemingly calm and contemplative types have no strong desires. But beneath the calm exterior is a gnawing hunger to achieve whatever goals they set for themselves. While NTs prefer to acquire know-how, and would like to be ingenious, they must achieve, and their longing is never fully satisfied.

Because their hunger for achievement presses them constantly, Rationals live through their work. For them, work is work and play is work. Condemning an NT to idleness would be the worst sort of punishment. However, Rationals work not so much for the pleasure of action(like the Artisans), nor for the security a job provides(like the Guardians), nor for the joy of helping others(like the Idealists). Rationals work with a single-minded desire to achieve their objectives; indeed, once involved in a project, they tend to be reluctant, if not unable, to limit their commitment of time and energy. Unfortunately, at this point they can be unreasonably demanding of both themselves and others, setting their standards too hgih and becoming quite tense under stress. No wonder that NTs frequently achieve notable success in their chosen field.

Achievement eats at NTs in this way because it demands of them ever greater knowledge and skill, a challenge they eagerly accept, as Sinclair Lewis explains in Arrowsmith, his novel about a giftend young scientist:

There was no strength,... no knowledge, that Arrowsmith did not covet, when consciousness of it has pierced through the layers of his absorption. If he was but little greedy for possessions, he was hungry for every skill.

Thus, and because of their persistence, Rationals tend over their lifetimes to collect a large repertoire of skilled actions, few of which they employ very extensively. In this they are quite unlike the Artisans, who also become skillful. For the SPs, skills are opportunities for action and have no meaning if they are not used, while for the NTs skills are competencies to be sharpened through practice, then held in reserve until actually needed.

Rationals demand so much achievement from themselves that they often have trouble measuring up to their own standards. NTs typically believe that what they do is not good enough, and are frequently haunted by a sense of teetering on the edge of failure. This time their achievement will not be adequate. This time their skill will not be great enough. This time, in all probability, failure is at hand.

Making matters worse, Rationals tend to ratchet up their standards of achievement, setting the bar at the level of their greatest success, so that anything less than their best is judged as mediocre. The hard-won triumph becomes the new standard of what is merely acceptable, and ordinary achievements are now viewed as falling short of the mark. NTs never give themselves a break from this escalating level of achievement, and so constant self-doubt and a niggling sense of impending failure are their lot.


Seeking Knowledge
While Artisans go in search of stimulation, Guardians security, and Idealists identity, Rationals are on the lookout for knowledge. Some of them are so relentless in their search, that(like Prometheus) they would steal knowledge even from the gods. Francis Bacon declared at the beginning of the 17th century that knowledge is power, and advised that nature be "put to the rack," so that her secrets could be extracted by scientific experimentation. In doing so he established the Rational method of scientific investigation which has prevailed in the West for 400 years.

The Rationals' search for knowledge has two objectives: they must know how to as well as know about. To know about is to comprehend the necessary and sufficient conditions under which events occur. To know how to is to comprehend the operational capabilities and limits of technologies - the possibilities and constraints of their tools, be they cutters, carbines, or computers. By knowing about and knowing how to, Rationals increase their capability to predict and to control events.

Knowledge for Rationals is never merely speculative. When NTs ask "why?" they are really asking "how?" or even "how to?" To ask why the sky is blue, why water is wet, why a lever has power, is not to ask for the meaning or significance of these things(something that greatly concerns their abstract cousins, the Idealists). The Rationals' questions are about why things take the form they do, about how things work - and thus about definition and description of structure and functions. As his biographer James Gleick notes, Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman had no use for what he called the philosopher's "soft" questions:

Feynman's reinvention of quantum mechanics did not so much explain how the world was, or why it was that way, as tell how to confront the world. It was not knowledge of or knowledge about. It was knowledge how to... There were other kinds of scientific knowledge, but pragmatic knowledge was Feynman's specialty. For him knowledge did not describe; it acted and accomplished.

Such a quest for pragmatic knowledge arises early for Rationals, as soon as they have the language for inquiring, and seems fueled by insatiable curiosity. But since they are likely to pose their question as a "why?" they will often be unsatisfied with the answer they receive, for they are actually interested in "how?" not "why?" And since they can be insistent in their questioning, they often dismay their parents and teachers, who don't understand what they are really asking. Further, NTs want to be given a rationale in the answers they receive, something most parents and teachers have difficulty giving them.

As Rationals grow up, their pursuit of knowledge leads them to grapple with an ever-widening range of complex problems. Whether the problem is one of engineering machines or of coordinating operations, Rationals consider problems of central importance, and they will persist in their search for models and maps, for paradigms and algorithms, with which to construe and attack these problems. Problem-solving for the Rationals is a twenty-four hour occupation, and if they don't have a problem to work on they will actually set one for themselves as a way of exercising their skills. They are especially drawn to problems that tax their knowledge base, since practice with such problems adds to their knowledge and naturally expands their repertoire of useful models. And the more extreme the Rational style, the more exacting and stringent the demand they place on themselves for acquiring knowledge.

Another way of looking at this is that, in contrast to the social and moral shoulds and oughts of the Guardians and Idealists, the Rationals have a good many should-knows itemized in massive lists inside their heads. And though they can concentrate fully on one thing at a time, they are inclined to accumulate more and more useful knowledge, rarely deleting or forgetting any, and to work continually on solutions to the many problems that intrigue them. Having won a Nobel prize in 1972 for his work on immunology, biologist Gerald Edelman was not at all content to cease his inquiries:

About three years after Edelman won the prize he essentially left the field to pursue even bigger questions - the biggest ones imaginable, concerning the essential mysteries of biology... 'I have a small romantic streak and a very definite belief that's coupled to it, which is that the asking of the questions is the important thing... So if you said to me, "Well, now you're the czar of immunology." Horrors!... None of that really interests me. What interests me is dark areas.'

So intent are Rationals in their pursuit of knowledge, that they might be thought of as the "Knowledge-Seeking Personality." Of all the traits of character that set the Rationals apart - and at the same time group them together - it is their life-long search for knowledge.


Prizing Deference
What is pleasing to one sort of person may not be nearly as pleasing to another. Artisans are quite pleased by generous treatment, Guardians by gratitude, Idealists by being recognized as their unique selves. Certainly Rationals are not indifferent to generosity, gratitude, or recognition, but they are much more pleased when asked by an admirer to comment on something the NT has produced, especially if the request is for an exposition of their rationale. NTs regard such deference as being given not so much to themselves personally as to their productions. After all, when they make something or do something it is usually after long and sometimes obsessive analysis. So even if they are not especially brilliant, it is to be expected that their productions have been carefully devised, with pros and cons considered, and errors of inclusion and exclusion rooted out.

But Rationals cannot ask for deference, any more than Guardians can ask for appreciation, or Idealists for recognition. It must come to them spontaneously, out of interest in their work. And, of course, if in their view they haven't achieved anything they regard as worth noting, then they have no desire to be consulted in the matter. But if they have done something rather well, they are pleased when someone defers to them for definition and explanation of their production, and they can be disappointed if none comes their way, or worse, if someone else is asked to expound on what they've accomplished.

Their problem is that their accomplishment is often so highly technical - designing a computer chip for instance - that most people are only vaguely aware of how difficult it was to make, and so have little or no reason to acknowledge and give credit to its maker. So the vast majority of Rationals who manage to achieve something great are unsung heroes to the public, and therefore heroes only to their family or their colleagues - and perhaps in their own eyes.


Aspiring to be a Wizard
Because Rationals value the strategic intellect so highly, they tend to take as their idol the technological wizard, especially the scientific genius. After all, a wizard is the ultimate scientist, with what seems an almost magical power over nature, and in single-minded pursuit of the four aims of science: the prediction and control of events, and the understanding and explanation of their contexts. Scratch a Rational, find a scientist; but glimpse the figure the Rationals would aspire to become, and behold a wizard. Listen as Merlin, King Arthur's wizard in Lerner and Loewe's Camelot, teaches young Arthur what he considers the most important lesson of all:

Merlin: There's only one thing for all of it. Learn! Learn why the world wags and what wags it.
Arthur: How could I learn if I couldn't think?...
Merlin: Yes... thinking, boy, is something you should definitely get into the habit of making use of as often as possible.

But listen also to Jonas Salk as he explains his view of the magic of biological science:

When I discovered there was moe to learning than the books we were exposed to, and then when I became interested in bringing science into medicine, I recognized that there was a logic to magic. Life is magic; the way nature works seems to be quite magical... I started to try to understand how that system works. I began to tease out the logic of the magic that I was so impressed by

Agrippa
02-23-2011, 08:24 PM
The typical anaesthetic of Kretschmer could be often rather - let's put it that way, "intellectually and emotionally dead", yet that is certainly not true for INT, which is just the male version of rather more top-heavy schizothymes, with a "theoretical tendency" and while NF is more emotional, it is not necessarily just the "aesthetic and more nervous" end of the spectrum.

Just to relate it somewhat to the scheme of Kretschmer, which is less clear cut in certain instances at least.

Curtis24
02-23-2011, 09:53 PM
Yes, Kretschmer was more interested in the extreme versions of each type. I still believe Keirsey's system can stand on its own feet however as a means of organizing people, and for occupational/psychological counseling.

I'll post Keirsey's description of the NFs("Idealists") next. Don't feel pressured to analyze it in a Krestchmer context if you are tired :)

Agrippa
02-24-2011, 05:01 PM
Yes, Kretschmer was more interested in the extreme versions of each type. I still believe Keirsey's system can stand on its own feet however as a means of organizing people, and for occupational/psychological counseling.

I'll post Keirsey's description of the NFs("Idealists") next. Don't feel pressured to analyze it in a Krestchmer context if you are tired :)

To me it is quite clear, or you could say it is my opinion, that the extremes are ESF vs. INT = zyklothymic vs. schizothymic.

I think nobody could doubt that, yet to me it is a problem to simply use T vs. F as aesthetic-nervous vs. anaesthetic, even if there is a certain correlation, it is far from clear cut.

And S vs. N alone is in my experience absolutely insufficient, because the IST versions in particular are usually typical male schizothymes - often of the more anaesthetic/less emotional/fantasy oriented version/very practical kind ("craftsmen", "engineers" etc.).

Curtis24
02-24-2011, 06:20 PM
Thanks for your input... Keirsey also wrote individual descriptions of the types - for instance, an individualized description for say INTP separate from the general overview of the NTs - that I will write up when I find time.

Keirsey's organization of the four temperaments is clearly different from Kretschmer's organization of schizothyme vs. cyclothyme(is that how its spelled?). However, he's still following the general principles of MBTI I think. Both systems seem valid to me, but perhaps for different purposes.

Agrippa
02-24-2011, 06:28 PM
Thanks for your input... Keirsey also wrote individual descriptions of the types - for instance, an individualized description for say INTP separate from the general overview of the NTs - that I will write up when I find time.

I know these, they are quite interesting indeed.


Keirsey's organization of the four temperaments is clearly different from Kretschmer's organization of schizothyme vs. cyclothyme(is that how its spelled?).

I guess yes, though it depends on the way you pronounce th f.e. In German it is just t.


However, he's still following the general principles of MBTI I think. Both systems seem valid to me, but perhaps for different purposes.

Yes, indeed.

The third is that of Sheldon, which is interesting too, though totally different about the mesomorphic/athletic component, I guess mostly because he used a high level social selection of mesomorphs, which are not representative for the typical coarse Athletics in Kretschmers system, but often closer to sinewy Leptosomic schizothymes.

Curtis24
02-24-2011, 06:49 PM
Yeah, Keirsey's scheme, supposedly, is how the types organize themselves in life. In Keirsey's opinion, a schizothyme INTP for instance would rather be friends with a cyclothyme ENTP than a fellow schizothyme ISTP. Whereas the ISTP would would rather associate with a cyclothyme ESFP than a schizothyme ISTJ. Unfortunately, Keirsey has no raw data for this, though many people on the Internet seem to follow him.

However, when associating MBTI with phenotype(that is, subrace and race), Kretschmer is probably superior since he found correlations - with data - to body types, which we can in turn correlate with phenotype(for instance, we can say that Nordids would tend to be I-T since they have leptosomic/ectomorphic body types, Alpinids E-F since they tend to have pyknomorophic/endomorphic body types.

In my opinion though, Keirsey is better for seeing how people will organize themselves, who will be friends with who. Even Kretschmer - a schizohtyme - admitted that he found certain kinds of cyclothymes more pleasant than certain kinds of schizothymes(according to Wikipedia).

However, Kretschmer is superior for describing how people behave in an individual context, what occupations different types of people will be good at(I disagree with much of what Keirsey says about the career aspirations of his temperaments), and of course, as mentioned before, and perhaps most importantly, how one can determine personality by observing one's physical phenotype.


The third is that of Sheldon, which is interesting too, though totally different about the mesomorphic/athletic component, I guess mostly because he used a high level social selection of mesomorphs, which are not representative for the typical coarse Athletics in Kretschmers system, but often closer to sinewy Leptosomic schizothymes.

I have great confusion about the way Kretschmer correlates athletic types with personality. Let us put it this way:

strong leptosome = I-T
strong pyknomorph = E-F
strong athletic = ?
athletic-leptosome intermediate = ?
athletic-pyknomorph intermediate = ?
leptosome-pyknomorph intermediate = ?

Finally, I would also like to know how gender factors into this. Is a strong female leptosome more likely to be I-F rather than I-T?

Agrippa
02-24-2011, 07:08 PM
Finally, I would also like to know how gender factors into this. Is a strong female leptosome more likely to be I-F rather than I-T?

Yes, definitely. T vs. F is one of the strongest sex type related correlations you can find in the MBTI. As a rule, T is more often male, F female, yet this is just a tendency, and there are of course plenty of T females and F males around. Yet a very pronounced F is, in my opinion, almost incompatible with an otherwise strongly masculine individual - I'm not speaking about muscles or the like, but brain structure.


I have great confusion about the way Kretschmer correlates athletic types with personality. Let us put it this way:

Well, Athletic types are, usually, mentally "slower", more tenacious and I would correlate them, on average, more with slower paced, orderly, less creative-fantastic-theoretical subjects, so typically variants like ISTJ f.e. could fit in a comparison.

Curtis24
02-24-2011, 07:36 PM
There are so many directions I would like to go with this, and more specifications I would like to ask about. Perhaps more in-depth at a different time. However, if you have time, how would the intermediates correlate?

Agrippa
02-24-2011, 07:53 PM
There are so many directions I would like to go with this, and more specifications I would like to ask about. Perhaps more in-depth at a different time. However, if you have time, how would the intermediates correlate?

I guess they would mostly combine aspects of the extremes. F.e. ENTJ or ISFP etc. or score lower in all respects.

F.e. I score extremely high in N all the time (my most stable feature), if someone scores very low in N, it is obviously a less clear thing, so it is not just about whether you are f.e. INTJ, but also how you score in detail.

In my case f.e., N is much more important than P-J, which is less pronounced.

Curtis24
02-24-2011, 08:38 PM
The P-J aspect seems less important in general.

In regards to mesomorphs/athletics/viscoes, in my anecdotal experience, perhaps it correlates more to ISTP without any correlation to J. This is just from what I"ve seen...

Agrippa
02-25-2011, 06:50 AM
The P-J aspect seems less important in general.

In regards to mesomorphs/athletics/viscoes, in my anecdotal experience, perhaps it correlates more to ISTP without any correlation to J. This is just from what I"ve seen...

I think we can agree that IST+ in general is most important among typical calm-viscoes (male) mesomorphs.

Curtis24
02-25-2011, 08:02 AM
Yes, certainly. More likely to be in touch with their physical environment, responsive to what's going on around them, but sacrificing creativity and abstract reasoning.

Leptosome: INT-
Athletic: IST-
Pyknomorph: ESF-

But the following are for men. I believe its reversed for women... even for the pyknomorphs. I recall reading somewhere that high testosterone in women creates brachycephaly, whereas the opposite is true for men. So a pynknomorphic woman will be more "masculine" and tough-minded.

So for women:

Leptosome: INF-
Athletic: ISF-
Pyknomorph: EST-

Now I must really stop myself :P

Agrippa
02-25-2011, 08:13 AM
Yes, certainly. More likely to be in touch with their physical environment, responsive to what's going on around them, but sacrificing creativity and abstract reasoning.

Leptosome: INT-
Athletic: IST-
Pyknomorph: ESF-

But the following are for men. I believe its reversed for women... even for the pyknomorphs. I recall reading somewhere that high testosterone in women creates brachycephaly, whereas the opposite is true for men. So a pynknomorphic woman will be more "masculine" and tough-minded.

So for women:

Leptosome: INF-
Athletic: ISF-
Pyknomorph: EST-

Now I must really stop myself :P

Rather not, because the zyklothymic tendency is stronger in women, the schizothymic in men, that's why I used ESF+, yet this is obviously more common in the women sex. The zyklothyme males might still be more often ESF+, but also more often (relatively) EST+ in comparison to their female counterparts.

As a tendency (not strict rule!), it is therefore:
IN = schizothymic
IS = viscoes
ES = zyklothymic
T = masculine-rational tendency
F = feminine-sensitive tendency
P-J might be more related to the energy level and openness.

Curtis24
02-25-2011, 08:38 AM
How does Kretschmer or yourself define energy and openness, and relate it to P-J?

Agrippa
02-25-2011, 08:50 AM
How does Kretschmer or yourself define energy and openness, and relate it to P-J?

Well, the most anaesthetic schizothymes are actually more like hollow, spiritless puppets. Born subalterns quite often. This is the lowest end of the energy level in schizothymes. They don't have that "energy spots" of other calmer variants, which are very calm and seem tired often, but get energy ones their points of interest being touched. Those at lowest ends don't even have too much of that points and their reaction remains under most circumstances very - weak.

So usually, the more energetic schizothymes have most of the time that sort of sensitive-nervous energy, even if it might be well hidden in their behaviour.

In Zyklothymes it is even easier, because a high energy level zyklothymic almost always tends towards hypomanic, the low level towards subdepressive moods and behaviour.

Curtis24
02-25-2011, 04:34 PM
So P= low energy; J = high energy?

Agrippa
02-25-2011, 04:36 PM
So P= low energy; J = high energy?

Well, not generally speaking probably, I think this is a weak correlation, but it is one of my suspicions to put it that way, not one of my fixed opinions.

Curtis24
02-25-2011, 05:17 PM
At INTPCentral, I knew a fellow who claimed to have correlated the different types with physical appearance. He posted many pictures(50+) of different celebrities he felt represented the different types. I am going to try to get him to come here, or get his threads and copy paste them in the Anthropology forum.

Curtis24
02-25-2011, 05:37 PM
Here is some info from the same guy, on the "P-J" difference(BTW this is credited to "Technical" from INTPCentral):


The Actual P/J Difference
Concise summation: Perception (S&N) is the attempt to grasp objective reality. Judgment (T&F) is mental output in the form of subjective conclusions. Therefore those who tend toward Perceiving are predisposed toward objectivity, and those who tend toward Judgment are predisposed toward subjectivity.

(I reference definitions, concepts, and conclusions discussed here: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=1156087&postcount=33)

I will now define Perceiving itself as primarily objective, and Judging itself as primarily subjective.

Perceiving: Sensing, being direct input, scarcely needs its objective nature defended. Intuition could be said to be subjective, because it adds to and subtracts from the actual observed data, but I propose it's sufficiently objective because the modifications to the data are based on previous experience with actual data, as far as we are aware. It also leaves the judging to be done by T or F.

Judging: Feeling, based on ones personal, internal desires and attitudes, is obviously subjective. Thinking could be said to be objective, but I argue that the actual "output of fact" is subjective, because it can always potentially be disproven, potentially by the same person later (And the reason Intuition is exempt from this clause is that it doesn't actually produce conclusions.)

We perceive objects, and then we judge, subjectively. What is, is, but we can never entirely grasp it due to simple uncertainty. Our output is always subjective.

I hypothesize that what makes Ps laid back, and Js industrious, is the objective vs. subjective nature of the respective types' preferred states of mind.

Perceivers are predisposed toward objectivity, and thus a relaxed attitude about their personal position in relation to the world. In addition, this objective stance provides the P with greater capacity to predict outcomes passively, thus they don't need to intervene, interact with, and alter their environments in order to be confident of security, success, et al.

Judgers are predisposed toward subjectivity, and thus an active stance on their personal position in relation to the world. This subjective stance provides the J with a greater capacity to make decisions and intervene, interact with, and alter their environments--Which they do in order to be confident of security, success, et al. It is, of course, a factor, that Js are not as gifted with objectivity as Ps, and thus are less able to predict outcomes passively.

An analogy to describe the decision making process difference between Js and Ps could be (From thread, later):

Imagine that there is a square grid, with all possible decisions on it, and that there are blocks available to place onto the grid, which will indicate a decision has been made. However, the grid lays flat for Ps, and it is vertical for Js. The P starts anywhere at the outside of the grid, and the J starts facing it.

That means that the J will have to stack up multiple blocks (minor decisions) in order to reach a spot on the grid which is at a great distance from the base of the grid (major decision). The P can mull over a major decision, walk over, and place the block where he sees fit, however far from the starting point.

This analogy also ties in decision strength, as the J would have to disassemble at least part of the stack of blocks in order to change the position of the top block (major decision). --And objectivity/subjectivity, as the J must concentrate on stacking blocks (minor decisions/subjective output) while the P contemplates the grid (no decision/objective input).

Curtis24
02-25-2011, 07:34 PM
The Actual Difference Between Introversion and Extraversion



The Actual I/E Difference
I abstractly define it as "The desire and tolerance for tangible interaction." However, I believe that varies (If it's not absolutely obvious), and I believe whatever type is, is innate. An E is an E is an E, always, whatever their present mood. I believe it to be biological, and I'm not the only one: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199902282...trunc_sys.shtml

I primarily post the above so that no one wonders if I have no idea what the I/E difference is, being that I've explained my conception of everything else. Others have explained the actual I/E difference (Which isn't as Jung or Myers, et al described) likely as well as I can.

+I've heard it described within the field of psychology as the "ease of stimulation." Introverts are more easily psychologically stimulated by external stimuli, and thus can't handle as much before blowing a gasket, so to speak.



I think most of the I/E thought differences are based on motivation. Firstly, the desire to interact with others can distract one from concentrating on a "problem." Second, the desire to interact with others will and does affect the type of "problems" one chooses to work on, and what he/she deems is an acceptable solution.

An ENTP is much more likely to search for an answer which could somehow improve their relations with others than an INTP. INTPs tend to search for horrible, ugly truths.

And here is some further info on the P-J axis:


Okay, let me give you some quick examples of allowance in my system which doesn't work in MBTI or Socionics.

-INTPs tend to be better at tactical, mechanical tasks like driving than INTJs. (This leads me to consider that Sensing may be higher due to the P preference, thus allowing a full order, say N-T-S-F for INTP, but I need to give it more consideration.)

-If you look at The N/S Diff., you'll see that I specify the tendency to concentrate on abstract concepts is "most noticeable" in NPs, and less so in (N)TJs...And, I got sidetracked and now I have to leave, so I'll get back to you.

Curtis24
02-26-2011, 08:47 AM
The Actual T/F Difference
(I wrote this a few days ago. I totally don't lie on the couch anymore.)

I was just lying on the couch, analyzing what makes INTPs and INFPs different, and I believe I've figured out the actual difference between those who prefer T and those who prefer F: Complexity. (Respective complexity in logical and emotional processing, more specifically.)

It takes an F longer than a T to figure out if something is right or wrong, according to their values, because what they're using to process information emotionally is more complex, and grander, perhaps, than what the T uses in emotional processing. The emotion-based conclusions an F comes to will often be beyond the grasp of a T--indecipherable.

Similarly, the F will often come quickly to rather simple logical conclusions, whereas the T will perform a more complex, grander logical analysis, and come to logical conclusions quite beyond the scope of the F.

I'm sure you've noticed Ts instantly decide whether something is morally right or wrong, and move on, while an F insists on contemplating it further. And noticed Fs, upon being introduced to a complex, logical idea, say something like "Yeah, it could make sense," and be done with it.



Describing a difference (What I've done) is not the same as describing the cause of the difference. It is entirely plausible that there is something akin to a switch which is flipped T or F in everyone, which determines whether emotional or logical processing will be more complex in the individual.


I must concede to logic that any given decision must be the result of either logical or emotional processing.


Theoretically speaking, every tiny conclusion the brain produces is either like "X is correct/incorrect," or "X is wanted/unwanted." Logical, or emotional.


I'm sympathetic* when I care about someone, and so are a great many Thinkers.

*The real definition, I specify, since many are unaware of it.


I think it's an issue of complexity, just as I said in the OP. When I care for someone (Or an animal), I feel as they do, but likely not to the same level of complexity, if that person is an F.


Ideas are ideas, but the thinker will analyze them to greater complexity, on average, with respect to logic.


Okay, I think I've been able to integrate this with the OP, and my serial info. processing model, theoretically.

Imagine the consideration of a phenomenon--An idea, for example. It will be perceived, nearly continuously, for the duration of consideration. At many stages along the way, decisions are made about the phenomenon, judgments by both the Thinking and Feeling function. If the user has an F preference, more judgments will be made by Feeling. [Add: Potentially a great deal more, due to the "lean" of preference.]

Thus, the resulting notions will be more complex with respect to Feeling than with respect to Thinking.



Ethics would generally have logic involved in the creation, but the cause for each choice is always an F judgment. I happen to think some of the worst ethics ever followed or preached were developed by people with F preferences, however.

This is because forecasting (How do we achieve X goal?), if it is to be accurate, must be T-judgment derived. I've recently heard that serial killers make the best stock market analysts, because their emotional rationale (If even present) doesn't interfere.



Negative. T is the evaluation of what makes logical sense, and provides conclusions related to that. F is the evaluation of what one finds right, wrong, desired, or undesired, and provides conclusions related to that.

It's really a lot simpler than you think. Consider that for all intents and purposes, we use every function to think about anything.



Imagine the consideration of a phenomenon--An idea, for example. It will be perceived, nearly continuously, for the duration of consideration. At many stages along the way, decisions are made about the phenomenon, judgments by both the Thinking and Feeling function. If the user has an F preference, more judgments will be made by Feeling. Potentially a great deal more, due to the "lean" of preference.

Thus, the resulting notions will be more complex with respect to Feeling than with respect to Thinking."


Narrowing it down to T, according to me when things are built mentally, say "logical rule systems," it's T. It can be based on data input (sensing), or abstract analysis (intuition), or both. Once you decide "This creation makes sense," It's T output. Application is irrelevant.




Feeling is always emotion. Thinking is always logic. They are most likely both used during every conscious second in the mind of a "normal" person. Some people give more consideration to emotion, and some give more consideration to logic.





Yes, and it's entirely within the definitional boundaries of my system. Not to say many people act purely on emotion, but in a T it is of secondary relevance--given less consideration, typically.

It would mean, and it is the case, that in a situation such as this, I have an emotional impulse (F, always), but then rationalize and forecast (T, always). Which means my actions will have a noticeable Tinge to them.

I'm sure I will have to mention this here, as well (I normally wouldn't): Behavior varies. That is, a T will usually simply be more detached, but on occasion will act nearly directly out of emotion


We're all driven by emotion, but it's the T preference which makes me okay with irritating people now in exchange for better understanding of thought and behavior in the long run. Which I think will help society.



An analogy to illustrate bipolarity resulting from only a slight preference: If there is a suspended plane, and it's tilted only slightly to one side, it will still result in at least the vast majority of spheres placed on it rolling off that side.



I think we agree, but I think you don't know it. I claim that my analogy accounts for the T "impulsion" to judge logically, and it all ties in with my notion of respective complexity. Because the T will make more logical judgments over any typical timeline, his resulting notions will be more logically complex, and emotionally simple.

Curtis24
02-26-2011, 09:02 AM
The Actual N/S Difference
'Twas on the couch, yet again, that I may have discovered a basic explanation of the practical difference between those who prefer N, and those who prefer S. Specifically, the ability to concentrate on abstract objects or ignore them, and the ability to concentrate on the physical world, or ignore it.

One who prefers Intuition will tend to concentrate on abstract concepts, even when that would interfere with some concrete task being performed.

One who prefers Sensing will tend to concentrate on the physical world, even when that would interfere with some abstract task being performed.

The above is most pronounced in NPs with respect to Intuition, and SPs with respect to Sensing. (TJs and FJs lie closer to the middle.)



Ns can usually understand both preferences, because it's essentially impossible not to notice the real world once in a while. On the other hand, a Sensor spends little enough time in, and has little enough interest in the abstract world that he tends to lack the ability to grasp what it actually means to prefer Intuition to Sensing.

Quite often, he equates N with intelligence, instead of "preferring another state of mind," and erroneously thinks that if he's intelligent, he must have an N preference. As stated in the OP, it's the draw which defines a person. An N may be skilled at some concrete tasks, and an S may be able to solve abstract problems.

But it is not the N's natural tendency to be keenly aware of detail, and concentrate heavily on the concrete world; And it is not the S's natural tendency to regularly divorce his consciousness from his senses, and occupy himself with vague, abstract concepts.

The N must usually make an effort to be in touch with reality, and the S must usually make an effort to ignore it.



I've said before that fiddling around with perfect systems is an ENTP trait. I don't agree with most of your assessments.

Realistic-Imaginative are 1, not mutually exclusive, and 2, not at all related to J/P. Consider the INFJ and the ISTP, as hard counterexamples to your hypothesis.

Practical/Conceptual is only tangentally related to I/E due to motivation. Es are slightly more inclined toward problems with easy, immediate solutions due to the satisfaction they will receive from others as a result of solving them.

Experiential/Theoretic is tied to S/N, with respect to tendencies. Though balancing heavily affects this. To counter your proposition, I present the 16-year-old ISTP and the 16-year-old INTP. As a rule, the S laughs at theory, and the N could take or leave reality.

Traditional-Original: No, it's not tied to J/P. Consider the INTJ. While his decisions tend to be tied together based on logical connections, he is not explicitly traditional, only tied to his own past. It's difficult for him to change his own positions.

Some more stuff about Introversion vs. Extroversion:


When I analyze Jung through his work, what I believe is that he realized there are obvious differences in the degree people seem to want to be around others, and tangibly interact with them. This, I state, is the fundamental I/E difference, which is independent of function use.

But Jung, perhaps in creative haste, assumed that the behavior and function use (information processing) were locked in a causative relationship. Maybe he didn't think twice about it, or at least didn't want to openly second-guess himself. He applied an E/I orientation to each function, and equated it with object and subject (Because we do interact with objects, and we are ourselves).

I am now confident he was in error. He failed to consider that I and E behavioral differences may be caused by something independent of information processing. I am confident they are, and as evidence I offer people like Isabel Myers, Isaac Asimov, Dan Ariely, David Keirsey, myself, and countless other Introverted Perceivers. We clearly focus on objects, including people, more than we focus on ourselves

Curtis24
02-26-2011, 07:44 PM
I find a diagram on the Internet explaining how it would be correlated to Sheldon's scheme:

Asthenic: IN-
Athletic: ET-
Pyknic: ES-
-

Don't know if that correlates with Krestchmer, though I used his terminology obviously.

Agrippa
02-27-2011, 07:39 AM
I find a diagram on the Internet explaining how it would be correlated to Sheldon's scheme:

Asthenic: IN-
Athletic: ET-
Pyknic: ES-
-

Don't know if that correlates with Krestchmer, though I used his terminology obviously.

Sheldon used the more pro-active and dynamic version, which is still rather schizothymic, for his mesomorphs, like I said, probably because he had a socially selected sample, while Kretschmer used more of the average people and psychiatric patients.

So ET is not typically viscoes, but could correlate with what Sheldon had in mind.

Curtis24
02-27-2011, 09:06 AM
Right, this is more what I'm thinking represent the extremes:

Leptosome: INTJ
Viscoes: ISTP
Pyknic: ESFP

Curtis24
03-05-2011, 08:51 PM
Actually, I now believe that N-S can't be correlated to body type or "progressiveness". It is both related to education as well as physical markers that haven't been identified yet. N(Intuition) also seems to be a very modern development, occuring only infrequently in the past.

Supposedly the Corded People were the most progressives to date. I doubt they were N or spent a lot of time in abstract reasoning. There were probably a bunch of ISTJs and ISTPs who had to focuse most of their time on their environment.