Follow TV Tropes
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Rewrite?, started by Vyctorian on Apr 28th 2011 at 11:00:16 PM
To call a bit more attention to what's sort of been the elephant in the forum, we should use Myers and Briggs' original temperament organization, rather than Keirsey's. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter is really seen as its own offshoot of MBTI, and it has an unbalanced temperament scale that is not very efficient. Instead of the imbalanced scale of SP, SJ, NF, NT, we should use the original standard: SF, ST, NF, NT. I have studied this format for a while, and agree with its level of organization. What does everyone else think?
Well, do we have to change? Our Myers-Briggs system is a sort of fan game, not a serious psychiatric/personality evaluation.
While this is true, it is still a model of a valid psychiatric test. Therefore, it is probably best to stick to the original model, rather than mixing it with Keirsey, which is often viewed as an entirely separate entity.
If we had to mix it with another system, I'd argue that the Socionics quadras  would be the best candidate. However, ignoring that, I would also argue for discontinuing the use of Kiersey's system. It was based on what occupations Kiersey thought the types would be attracted to. It also carries some of Kiersey's Intuitive bias.
Overall, the descriptions of the types used, as well as the descriptions of characters and why they fit that particular type, reek of stereotypes. The use of Kiersey's system and teachings promotes those stereotypes.
I say we should remake the tropes for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instead of Keirsey Temperament Sorter because it's more efficient and also the pages are called Myers Briggs, not Keirsey
I agree. Regardless of nomenclature, Keirsey's formula is unbalanced: SP-NF, SJ-NT is an unbalanced system. You have to measure the temperaments by the same functions. I suggest that we separate them into temperaments by one of two ways: FJ, TJ, TP, FP or NF, NT, ST, SF.
Now that I think about it, another viable alternative in terms of organization would be NJ, NP, SJ, SP.
The way the four groups are is confusing. Two in each group are introverted and two in each group are extroverted. I get that. There there are two sensing groups and two intuitive groups. The sensing groups are divided into Judging and Perceiving. But the two intuitive groups are divided into Thinking and Feeling. I don't understand why they're divided this way. Please help me understand the meaning to this all.
The division is mainly among people with similar characteristics, ways and means of thought, feeling, action, and so on. These particular dividing lines among the temperaments make more sense if you boil down the MBTI to the underlying Jungian cognitive functions for comparison.
Let's take my own type, INTJ, as our example of how the MBTI relates to Jungian cognition and how the person typed thinks, feels, acts, and interacts with both their own conscience and the outer world around them.
Intuition (second place, N) is the perceiving function, while the judging function (third letter, in this case T) is Thinking.
The fourth place (here it's J) means I extrovert the judging function, which as we previously established is Thinking. It also means I introvert my perceiving function of Intuition.
Finally, the first letter: I, for Introversion. It simply means my cognition is dominated by my introverted function, which for me is Intuition. Thinking plays a support role to this of course, handling the input/output between myself and the world.
So, my cognitive processes, in order of precedence, are Introverted Intuition (Ni), Extroverted Thinking (Te), Introverted Feeling (Fi), and Extroverted Sensation (Se).
If we apply this dissection to all 16 possible types, we discover that the Sensors are divided into the Guardians (who use Si), and the Artisans (who run on Se).
Intuition...is a little different. With Ni and Ne, the judging function "shines through" more than it does with Sensation.
It makes sense, then, that these people would be divided according to whether this understanding and idea forming is more human and emotion oriented (as Idealists), or logical and reasoned and rational.
P.S. Did you know only 25% of the world's population have either form of Intuition as one of their superior (dominant or secondary) functions? And you thought Introverts (35% of the population) had it bad.
Let's put these 4 cognitive functions in Layman's Terms:
Much of this can also be taken from the way people communicate, especially with the extroverted functions and even someone's choice of clothing. The introverted functions are harder to spot, but it can be done; just think about how and/or why they are saying the stuff they say.
If you still don't get all of these functions, then watch DaveSuperPowers since he explains them much more thoroughly in his many type comparisons and contrasts.
I am pretty sure that "introversion" have no relation with follow rules or not but yes with more reserved and solitary behavior. The opposite to extroversion.
I'm willing to say this:
Guardian: The Spock.
Idealist or Rational: The Kirk.
Artisan: The McCoy.
I disagree, and I'll explain why:
The Spock, Rational: They are the kind of characters that are the masters of information. They will archive, gather, and think their way though any logical question that has any depth and would demand an answer. Here's a few scenes of Spock himself displaying the hallmarks of being a Rational.
The Mccoy, Idealist: This is the character that "sees through" people, and immediately forms opinions based on their behavior. People of this temperament are experts in interpersonal matters on abstract and philosophical levels. They are the people's people. Telepaths typically belong in this temperament because the abstractness of the human mind actually is concrete to them. Here's a compilation of McCoy himself being a Most Triumphant Example of this temperament.
The Kirk: Either Guardian or Artisan. This character is the intermediary between logic and emotion, and these two temperaments have the greatest variance to show for that. How this character is this intermediary would determine which temperament (s)he belongs in. Let's throw in a few rhetorical questions to explain this a bit more simply:
Bear in mind that there are outliers to these archetypes, so these aren't exactly definitive; just highly likely.
Just need to say: I love who's ever idea it was to ad the LOTR quotes.
The big problem here is that people are mixing Myers's and Keirsey's systems.
Since I follow the latter, an "ESFP" isn't "Se + Fi + Te + Ni", it's "S -> P -> F -> E", and an INTP is "N -> T -> P -> I" (yes, the orders are different in the S and N paths).
MBTI considers I vs E to be fundamental, Keirsey thinks it's the least important, and as a result the types can have different meanings between the two systems (sometimes subtle, sometimes critical). All the pages around here need to choose which they're using, and re-evaluate everything from that lens.
Why do we have this? It is nothing to do with tropes.
Personally I don't like keirsey.com (each type is too stereotypical). I usually use personalitypage.com or mypersonality.info which links to it because they feel more comprehensive to me.
This entire article needs to be rewritten from scratch.
The discussion of Myers-Briggs here gives the Theme Park Version of the theory but doesn't accurately represent the way the MBTI works. The four-letter types are not based on the "scales" described, and you will not understand the theory at all if you think that typing someone means choosing between "E/I", "N/S", and so on. The reason some of you have had trouble with online tests is that those online tests are bastardizations of the MBTI. You can't actually be "20% introverted" or any nonsense like that, and even if you could there's no way a short internet quiz would be able to measure it. Types in the Myers-Briggs are based on cognitive functions, not "scales", and there are 8 of them, not 4:
- Extroverted sensing (Se)
- Introverted sensing (Si)
- Extroverted intuition (Ne)
- Introverted intuition (Ni)
- Extroverted feeling (Fe)
- Introverted feeling (Fi)
- Extroverted thinking (Te)
- Introverted thinking (Ti)
So, there are two distinct types of "T": Ti, which is about considering abstract concepts in a strict and logical way; and Te, which is about organizing, planning, and dominating in the real world. Ti is dominant in people like Albert Einstein and a lot of mathematicians, whereas Te is dominant in people like Napoleon Bonaparte and Judge Judy. But if you only go by the theme park version, you'd lump all of these people together as "T's". Then you'd run into the problem that people with strong Te can be shrill and irritable and passionate, which might lead you to mistakenly conclude that they were actually "F's" because you're expecting that "T's" are all emotionless logical robots, which isn't true. That's because a person who prefers Te also prefers Fi (concern for their own feelings and values). The same distinction is true for all the other things that get lumped together as "N" or "F" or "S".
So, when you look at a typing like ESFP, it's not "E + S + F + P". It's "Se + Fi + Te + Ni" (in that order. And there are no "percentages" anywhere in this and there are no "middle" types—there are eight distinct functions, not four muddled spectra. Also, there is no such thing as "changing" your type. Your use of the different functions will become more developed (or not) over time as you mature, but the typing remains the same—an INTJ who has mellowed out a bit in later life is simply an older and mellower INTJ, not an ENFP or anything else.
As it stands, the first half of the article is completely useless. I'll do a rewrite when I get the time in the next few days, and perhaps add in a somewhat broader list of "characteristic tropes" for each type to help link this all back to the site's purpose.
I know I'm posting two years later, but I wholeheartedly agree. Did you forget about the rewrite, or did you already do it only to have it changed back?
It seems like not only is the page severely biased, but it can't decide which way it's biased. It goes straight from talking about how useless the test is to proclaiming its great accuracy and utility.
For my two cents, the test only gives someone the same result twice about 50% of the time if they take it twice about a week apart.
But many people, this troper for one, have taken the test many times over the years and gotten the same thing each time.
So has this troper. Perhaps our mental image is unchanging? Or perhaps we're really like that. Perhaps both.
If someone answers truthfully (and not delusional) they will get the same result (for me that's INFP). Using a fiction example from a cynical shows does not prove anything, the main issue that (most) modern psychologist have with the myers brigges is that it's not a diagnosis and treatment system.
The person who wrote this also clearly only had passing knowledge of the myers briges and it is very biased more so in against than for.
Also this is now in the repair shop and looking like it might get Cut D:
I took a test like this some years ago, online. The result of that test was that you could get from -10 to +10 point on each of four axes, like on Introversion you could get -10 points and be super-Extroverted (super-non-Introverted) or +10 points and be super-Introverted, or anywhere in between.
The problem is, for two of these axes I got very close to zero. For one axis I was perhaps 1 point towards one side, and for another axis I was something like 1 or 2 points towards one side.
This means that if I retook the test a few days later, or if I took a differently crafted test based on the same concept (i.e. one with differently phrased questions, or one asking about slightly different things), I might well score 1 or 2 points over on the other side of one of those two axes, or on both of them. So one day I'm an "ABCD" and a week later I'm an "AFGD or "ABGD" or "AFCD".
For another axis on the test I got like 4 or 6 points to one side, so one would except me to score consistently there (my "D" above), and on the first axis, Extrovert/Introvert, I'm very clearly I (my "A" above).
So really, if one is close to average on one or two of those axes, it gets arbitrary where one lands on any given test taking, and it's silly to classfy a 10% J person as a J-person because he's so slightly J that it doesn't *matter*. It has always seemed to me that the only rational "fix" of the Myers-Briggs is to introduce a third possibility for each axis: "Middle".
So, to take I/E, if you score 40% I or more then you're I. If you score -40% I or less, then you're E. Otherwise you're *neither*.
This means 3 possible outcomes for each axis, and so instead of 16 (2^4) personality types we have to deal with 81 (3^4) personality types.
Well, for the record, I've taken the test many times and consistently turned out as INTP.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?