Difference between MBTI and Keirsey Temperament Sorter

[Arioch]

What is the difference between Keirsey and MBTI theories?

Preferably your own opinion although websites are good too.

[Jezebel]

This is a website, not my opinion, but this is much more in depth than what I have to offer (with a bias toward Keirsey): http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/difference.html


The bottom line of the difference between the theories comes in describing the "aspects" of personality. Keirsey has done an in-depth, systematic analysis and synthesis of aspects of personality for temperament: that included the temperament's unique interests, orientation, values, self-image, and social roles. Whereas, Myers' brilliant simplifications of Jung's work facilitates the talking about four scales. For example, "Introverts" in general as a useful concept of group behavior (such as INTJ, ISFJ, INTP, ISTP), whereas Keirsey says, sorry, its more complicated than that, and if one tries to push the concept of "Introverts" too far, you will make assertions that aren't true for all temperaments.

[Arioch]

This is a website, not my opinion, but this is much more in depth than what I have to offer (with a bias toward Keirsey): http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/difference.html


The bottom line of the difference between the theories comes in describing the "aspects" of personality. Keirsey has done an in-depth, systematic analysis and synthesis of aspects of personality for temperament: that included the temperament's unique interests, orientation, values, self-image, and social roles. Whereas, Myers' brilliant simplifications of Jung's work facilitates the talking about four scales. For example, "Introverts" in general as a useful concept of group behavior (such as INTJ, ISFJ, INTP, ISTP), whereas Keirsey says, sorry, its more complicated than that, and if one tries to push the concept of "Introverts" too far, you will make assertions that aren't true for all temperaments.Bleh. Hardly a unbiased site (like you said) However I would even go as far as calling this site nothing more then propaganda for Keirsey.

I once read a good refute for this site. But it's in another group and I can't find it anymore

[INTrPosr]

What is the difference between Keirsey and MBTI theories? Preferably your own opinion although websites are good too.

Okay, my own opinion..... you asked for it. When I began studying type at the end of 2000, I first read Keirsey's PUM II. I pained over the arduous attempt to find my true type through the varied systems out there because I have made the fatal flaw of correlating the various systems. This is how I see the differences

TEMPERMENT - David Keirsey’s system is based on what the ancients called temperament, i.e., Phlegmatic, Choleric, etc. As with all subsequent type theorists, instead of Keirsey allowing their work to thrive on their own merits, they muddled the systems by correlating their systems and using the MBTI type letters. David Keirsey clusters the 16 types into the four groups (SP/Artisans, SJ/Guadians, NT/Rationals and NF/Idealists) and believe that much of their character will be similar or the same. Myers- Briggs originally broke the pairings down as ST, NT, SF and NF.

MBTI - MBTI enthusiasts like Lenore Thomson, Joe Butts and Naomi Quenck try to urge those interested in type to delve deeper into the subject, by taking the time to learn and understand Jung and Myers/Briggs original intent. Therefore, it’s important to read and understand type functions (Ti, Ne, Si , etc.). They tell you there is no pure type and that we use all type functions, however, dominant function is as natural as your dominant hand.

SOCIONICS - Socionics enthusiasts considered Myers/Briggs assessment of Jung’s theory to be in error. Socionics followers (namely Dave Kelly) also believe that each type is dominated by their dominant function. However, socionics says that, like extraverted types, introverted types are also dominated by a judging or perceiving type function. Thus, like ENTPs who type functions would be (Ne, Ti, Fe, Si), INTPs would have (Ni,Te, Fi, Se) and INTJs would have (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe) as their functions. Although I initially considered the socionics theory plausible and to make sense, I was reminded years ago that since Isabella Myers went directly to the horses mouth (Jung), he was okay with her theory. Note that socionics distinguishes the four letter codes by using a lower cased letter for J/P.

DICHOTOMIES - Finally some theorists like Otto Koeger, and Paul and Barbara Tieger base their systems on simply using the dichotomies (I-N-T-P) to make it easier and more convenient for people to type themselves. However, I think that people who like Linux over Windows would agree that easy and convenient does not always equate to the better system. I have yet to find where Myers/Briggs used the term “preferences”. That is a dichotomous word to simply say you are one function or the other (E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P), don’t concern yourself with the complexities of type functions.

HYBRID - I think it wise that anyone interested in the study of type, not be too quick and intent on correlating the varied theories (Yeah right ask INTPs not to make elegant connections). Especially be careful not to become bogged down with the system that I fondly call the Hybrid. This system is used by Linda V. Berens and the people at 16 Types, which has inundated the market with their books, audio tapes, t-shirts, etc. The system had truly combined MBTI/Temperment together for what they call your “true type”. Although it angers me to see the four letter codes used, I do have to admit that reading 16 Types has helped me considerably. Like temperment and dichotomy systems, the hybrids also given their descriptions individual names, but muddled things by also referencing to MBTI’s four letter codes.

I can't argue that any system is better or worse than the other, however, Isabel Myers received her blessings directly from Jung, in addition to her daughter Katherine Briggs originating the four letter codes. Thus, regardless of the other systems the true INTP description would be that in “Gifts Differing” and Lenore Thomson’s Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual.

JMHO