Talk:Keirsey Temperament Sorter

Cleanup

I think the correct name according to Keirsey is "Rational" and not "Rationalist." --Estr4ng3d 03:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made alot of changes and I am still in the process of editing this article. There is a lot of information about temperaments that this site hasn't addressed and probably should address. The one site I found to be incredibly useful in writing was 4temperaments.com. I have been doing my best to present the information I have found in a new form but I am still worried about copyright issues. I felt it was best to present what I have done so far and seek advice on here. Eincrat 04:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The expanding of information about the four temperaments on the Keirsey Temperament Sorter wikipedia page should be based on Keirsey's writings since the page is about the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, not from secondary sources (or based on Linda Beren's views) like 4temperaments.com.

Point taken. I will remove that information.

To do list - I am thinking about making individual pages for temparament and role variants. I am also thinking about trying to make the following diagram - Extraterrestials and Earthlings at the top, the temperaments that correspond to those groupings below them, the eight 'intellegence types' grouped below the temperaments, and the role variants grouped below the intellegence types. In this diagram, at least the temperaments and the role variants will have links to the aforementioned individual pages. I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia to make this diagram pretty, but I think I can do a 'rough' diagram fairly effectively. Let me know what you think about the idea. Eincrat 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestials? Earthlings? IMHO this should not be in the diagram. This might cause unwanted discussions and at least I am confused about it. So, if this is not really crucial important do it without this part. JKW 22:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I can do the same thing another way. Eincrat 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about Martians and Earthlings - is this from "Please Understand Me"? It's not in "Please Understand Me II." I think it's outdated and should be removed. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one expressed a desire to keep these terms, I deleted them. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra-Terrestials!? John Mark Wagnon (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 16 Role Variants

Why is there so many edits to this section that don't go anywhere? Skinnyweed 19:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added articles for the missing role variants. They're sparse, but they're there. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Eight Roles

The links for the eight roles (Mentor, Advocate, etc.) don't go anywhere. Should articles be created for these? Or is that overkill? They could be developed under the role variants (Mentor under Counselor and Teacher, for example). For now, I think I'll redirect the roles to the temperaments. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links for these. I don't think articles are needed - the roles can be explained under the temperaments, and there are plenty of links in this article to the temperatment articles. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Validity

What is the validity of this questionnaire?

Psychometric validity for a questionnaire does not make a whole lot of sense. Those who maintain or assert the validity of other similar instruments are either disingenuous or naive.

Am I reading the previous correctly as saying that psychometric validity doesn't make sense or that comparing the validity of this instrument to other instruments is invalid? But I do think there needs to be some effort at validation even it it contains flaws. Some may be skeptical of assertions that validity issues can not be examined.

Correction on the elements

If I remember correctly, Keirsey aligned the four "western" elements with the following qualities: blood/air, black bile/earth, yellow bile/fire, phlegm/water, and so on down the columns, to each of the other references. Now, I realize that Keirsey is professional psychologist, and he must have done at least a fair research to come up with such a timeline (and then publish them in a book under his name), but if he had done any research on the traditional western elements he would have realized how horribly misarranged they were in the catagories where he placed them. In my own experience, I have taken a mundane look at the 12 (or 14) psychological archetypes in astrology throughout its recorded history, each of which (excluding the two "late-comers": Ophiuchus and Cetus) have corresponded to one of four elements. Now some science-minded individuals reading this may want to dismiss the historical relevance of these archetypal groupings simply because of their nebulous association with the 'arcane', but facts are facts and history is history. Whether there is anything to the archetypes, or whether they are another shot in the dark at pigeon-holing the human soul with hocus-pocus, the fact remains that their traditional connotations were misrepresented in Keirsey's book. That is why they have been corrected on the page. If anyone editing this page finds fault with that argument, feel free to respond on this board.

Nobody seems to have mentioned this...but, for example, shouldn't 'black bile'be above the 'melanchonic'temperament? Four Temperaments says 'Melancholic is the personality of an individual characterized by black bile'. Just my two cents. David88 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is considering the UPDATED elements!!!

Consider this too: recent research into the accuracy of the four elements has revealed that the classic "Passive Sanguine" and the "'Fearful' Phlegmatic" hid an extra element, the truly relationship orientated element.

The contradiction was: phlegmatics by nature is NOT prone to the fears it apparently hid... which would only occur IF the phlegmatic was suffering from co-dependency. Believe or not, the research clearly points out the possibility of a fifth element, the REAL water element (leaving in total, 13 elements, and a whole new way to measure temperament elements). WHERE DOES THIS FIT ALREADY!!?

I get the feeling this new research is just being ignored for one reason or another, and it's certainly not a new discovery, these guys just didn't IGNORE the "Passive Sanguine" and the "'Fearful' Phlegmatic". The problem is, where does the relationship orientated Supine FIT?

QUOTE "The Phlegmatic person is by definition, ambiverted, being capable of interaction with people, but overall, can "take them or leave them". This left a range of people with a high "wanted" score in the areas of control, inclusion and affection, (like a Sanguine) but a low "expressed" score (like a Melancholy); the true "relationship-oriented introverts". Other researchers had been suspecting that there might be a fifth temperament, but most simply regarded it as a "passive sanguine.""UNQUOTE >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_temperaments

can SOMEbody give this modern research a chance?? PARTICULARLY note the temperamanent blends about two thirds the way down the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.6.196 (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. The information above does not apply to the KTS, which takes a historical approach to the elements. Keirsey's point is that the concept of temperament is not new, and he's simply supplied a fresh, more empirical perspective. To my knowledge, the Keirsey folks aren't involved in the above-described research, and therefore it has no place in this article. I added links to some of the other temperament articles, including the Five Temperaments article, which addresses this theory. ThreeOfCups (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rational/Idealist correlation to Phlagmatic & Choleric reversed?

I see in the lists both here and in the Four Humours article, the Idealist is placed in the column corresponding it to Choleric, and the Rational is in the Phlegmatic. But when you look at the descriptions of the temperaments, and even the sub-types, clearly the Rational is more Choeric, while the Idealist would be more comatible with Phlegmatic. For one thing, the Rational is a Thinking type (Which Keirsey also calls "Tough-minded), while the Idealist is a Feeling type (which he also calls "Friendly"). From http://www.advisorteam.org's own descriptions:

Rationals have an insatiable hunger to accomplish their goals and will work tirelessly on any project they have set their mind to. They are rigorously logical and fiercely independent in their thinking--are indeed skeptical of all ideas, even their own--and they believe they can overcome any obstacle with their will power. Often they are seen as cold and distant, but this is really the absorbed concentration they give to whatever problem they're working on.

This is clearly Choleric

Idealists are sure that friendly cooperation is the best way for people to achieve their goals. Conflict and confrontation upset them because they seem to put up angry barriers between people. Idealists dream of creating harmonious, even caring personal relations, and they have a unique talent for helping people get along with each other and work together for the good of all. Such interpersonal harmony might be a romantic ideal, but then Idealists are incurable romantics who prefer to focus on what might be, rather than what is.

This is clearly not Choleric!

So I wanted to change this, but I did see the same correlation elsewhere, so I felt it should be discussed.Eric B 18:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first one, Rationals, is Melancholic, not Choleric. Cholerics are the guardian type. The second one, Idealist, sounds Phlegmatic to me. --75.191.135.245 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember right, NT is Melancholic, the rational type. SP is Sanguine. SJ is Choleric. NF is Phlegmatic. I see the types mixed up in at least 2 articles. I memorized these years ago, and I think I have them right. --75.191.135.245 (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Please Understand Me II,

Artisan (SP) is Sanguine
Guardian (SJ) is Melancholic
Idealist (NF) is Choleric
Rational (NT) is Phlegmatic

ThreeOfCups (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of the Idealist temperament is that the best way to draw them into conflict is to act without regard for their desire for harmony. They may regard a small inconsiderate act to be a violent breach of their ethics, and the two types with Extraverted Feeling (ENFJ and INFJ) may respond with righteous outrage. This is less likely of the two types with Introverted Feeling (ENFP and INFP), who will be equally distressed but will internalize the feeling, using their iNtuition to categorize the experience into their ever-evolving code of moral conduct. The key word in the advisorteam.org description of the Idealist is upset; Idealist are upset quite easily, because in their estimation, every human act has ethical overtones. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D. Tieger and Barbara Barron-Tieger explain it this way in The Art of SpeedReading People: "Perhaps surprisingly, while Feelers will go to great lengths to avoid conflict, they may become hostile or even aggressive if their values are violated. ... Feelers may be unable or unwilling to just let it go. Instead, they can become angry and punishing. Such volatility is seldom seen in Thinkers, who are less inclined to take things personally, and therefore are less likely to become offended." And while Sensing Feelers may see the offending action as constrained by the specific circumstances (he treated me insensitively), Idealists are more likely to view the action in a global context (she treats people insensitively). ThreeOfCups (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keirsey Temperament Userboxes

This article has things I haven't seen in Keirsey's writing. It really needs a major rewrite. Also, all the temperaments need articles. The Artisan one is pretty poor, and the rest don't even exist. When I have some time, I'll give it a try. In the mean time, I created userboxes for the four temperaments:

SP	This user's Keirsey Temperament is Artisan.

SJ	This user's Keirsey Temperament is Guardian.

NT	This user's Keirsey Temperament is Rational.

NF	This user's Keirsey Temperament is Idealist.

If you want to show one on your user page, just copy the code starting and ending with the double curly brackets. Nathanm mn 15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

systems field theory model

"Myers' descriptions use a linear four-factor model; Keirsey's descriptions use a systems field theory model." What does this mean? This article is the only Wikipedia hit for "systems field theory", and what Google comes up with looks like physics to me. --128.208.46.125 (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent question. The term seems to have originated with Dr. Keirsey himself. Here's what Keirsey.com says:

There are some major practical differences and a large theoretical difference between the two bodies of work. The first essential difference is that Keirsey describes observed long term behaviorial patterns, Myers often describes what people have in mind. The second essential difference is Myers used a linear four factor model to characterize "invariant" patterns of behavior of the individual throughout their lifetime, whereas Keirsey uses a systems field theory model to characterize these patterns…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.

From that, I'm not sure I can deduce what Keirsey means by "systems field theory model," but I'll see if I can rewrite this so it makes sense to ordinary mortals like us. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need separate tables for the Keirsey and Four Humours articles?

A lot of the information in the temperament table doesn't apply to the this article. I'm thinking of copying the table code into the article and simplifying the table overall. Does anyone object? Or would it be better to create a new template? ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I have in mind:

Date	Author	Artisan temperament	Guardian temperament	Idealist temperament	Rational temperament
c. 400 BC	Hippocrates' four humours	cheerful (blood)	somber (black bile)	enthusiastic (yellow bile)	calm (phlegm)
c. 340 BC	Plato's four characters	artistic (iconic)	sensible (pistic)	intuitive (noetic)	reasoning (dianoetic)
c. 325 BC	Aristotle's four sources of happiness	sensual (hedone)	material (propraietari)	ethical (ethikos)	logical (dialogike)
c. 185 AD	Irenaeus' four temperaments	spontaneous	historical	spiritual	scholarly
c. 190	Galen's four temperaments	sanguine	melancholic	choleric	phlegmatic
c. 1550	Paracelsus' four totem spirits	changeable salamanders	industrious gnomes	inspired nymphs	curious sylphs
c. 1905	Adickes' four world views	innovative	traditional	doctrinaire	skeptical
c. 1912	Dreikurs'/Adler's four mistaken goals	retaliation	service	recognition	power
c. 1914	Spränger's four value attitudes	artistic	economic	religious	theoretic
c. 1920	Kretschmer's four character styles	manic (hypomanic)	depressive	oversensitive (hyperesthetic)	insensitive (anesthetic)
c. 1947	Fromm's four orientations	exploitative	hoarding	receptive	marketing
c. 1958	Myers' Jungian types	SP (sensing perceiving)	SJ (sensing judging)	NF (intuitive feeling)	NT (intuitive thinking)
c. 1978	Keirsey/Bates four temperaments (old)	Dionysian	Epimethean	Apollonian	Promethean
c. 1998	Keirsey's four temperaments	Artisan	Guardian	Idealist	Rational
Keirsey, David (May 1, 1998) [1978]. Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence (1st Ed. ed.). Prometheus Nemesis Book Co. ISBN 1885705026. `{{cite book}}`: `\|edition=` has extra text (help)
Montgomery, Stephen (2002). People Patterns: A Modern Guide to the Four Temperaments (1st Ed. ed.). Archer Publications. p. p. 20. ISBN 1885705034. `{{cite book}}`: `\|edition=` has extra text (help); `\|page=` has extra text (help)

ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) I like the simpler table, aesthetically, but
b) the chart was identical to one on Four Temperaments#Historical Development - I've removed it from this page and referenced the history section there.
c) I like that you removed the irrelevant wiki links to topics like "Theory" for "Theoretic" -> not the same thing. Why don't you make the same changes to the template page?
d) Is the chart (or your chart above) built upon original research (WP:NOR)? That is to ask, did wikipedian's make the intellectual comparisons between the theories over time as judge if Kiersey was inspired by that particular theory, or does the comparison come fom the referenced sources? If it comes from references, I'd suggest it would be in line with wikipedia to maintain the same comparisons, and only the comparisons, that were made in the sources, with reasonable copyediting for visual appeal. That means don't add or drop information, but simplification is ok. If it's a comparison made by wikipedians, I suggest we would do better to come to a single consensus rather than create multiple separate versions of history.
e) ultimately, it doesn't seem like a template is what is needed here. The Four Temperaments page wants a table about how the four temperaments is a recurring theme throughout a long history, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter page wants a table about what specifically Kiersley was inspired by. I'd be in favour of dropping the template, and using a table on the Kiersey page that is relevant to Kiersey's work. I'm not an expert at all in this area, so I'd leave it to the community to decide if your table above is supported by the references.

-- Jethero^Talk 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the table, based on the information in Please Understand Me II by Keirsey and People Patterns by his colleague Stephen Montgomery. This isn't OR - Keirsey himself made these comparisons. ThreeOfCups (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

A very similar table exists in Table of similar systems of comparison of temperaments

Unless I hear comment to the contrary, I would propose (a) merging this table's information into that external page and (b) changing reference on this page to that external page.

If people feel there's value retaining the subset of the information as a table on this page, however, I'm happy to do (a) but not (b).

Thoughts? Somersetlevels (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion has already been tried, and it didn't work out. The table in this article is specific to the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. The other table isn't similar enough to accurately capture Keirsey's theory. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation versus Pragmatism

I'm not sure if I'm cooperative or pragmatic. What can help me? Twipley (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know your type (role variant)? Rationals and Artisans are pragmatic; Idealists and Guardians are cooperative. If you want to discuss this further, you can post a message on my talk page. ThreeOfCups (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four interaction roles

I couldn't find any reference to these interaction roles in Please Understand Me II, so I'm removing that as a reference. Perhaps it's in the orginal Please Understand Me. Page references would be helpful for verifiability. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quote from Carl Jung about abstract / concrete

I would like to see a citation for the sentences in the "2 Understanding the sorter descriptions" section:

"Carl Jung used the word sensing when describing concrete people... Carl Jung used the word intuition when describing abstract people."

In his book Psychological Types, Jung differentiates between "concrete sensation" and "abstract sensation". Abstract sensation is attention to one specific aspect of sensory perceptions. When describing a flower Jung says "abstract sensation immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, its brilliant redness, for instance, and makes this the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all other admixtures" (Psychological Types, paragraph 794). ^[1]
So I doubt Jung used the word 'sensing' just for "concrete people" as is being claimed here!

tom (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "sensing" to "sensation," since that's what my translation of Psychological Types uses. Sensation refers to sensory perception, while intuition refers to unconscious perception. ThreeOfCups (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean subconscious perception?Edifyingdiscourse (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jung, Carl (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01813-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |paragraph= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |translators= ignored (help)

article needs a criticism section

See Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, it looks like a better, well-developed article. In my cursory research, I've come to the assumption that Keirsey effectively replaces Myers-Briggs. But in the MBTI article, there is a good description of how the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the MBTI test. I'd like to know what they thought of Keirsey's test. Xaxafrad (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four Totem Spirits in Incorrect Spots According to Elements?

Currently, the totem spirits correlate to the other temperaments like so:

Sanguine Salamanders
Melancholic Gnomes
Choleric Nymphs
Phlegmatic Sylphs

But the Gnomes seem to be the only ones in the right place when the elements the temperaments and spirits represent are taken into account:

Air is Sanguine, but Salamanders are fire elementals
Fire is Choleric, but Nymphs are water elementals
Water is Phlegmatic, but Sylphs are air elementals

Is this just a weird inconsistency due to the multitude of people's ideas this chart puts together, or should Sylphs be Sanguine, Salamanders by Choleric, and Nymphs be Phlegmatic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.119.62 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kant's and Eysenck's temperaments also seem misaligned. They're identical to the classical four humors but are not in the same order.--2.204.226.11 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strengths-Quest? True Colors? iPersonic? (etc....)

hmmm - according to the NACTA Journal there's also the "Strengths-Quest," "True Colors," and "iPersonic." (i'll attempt to find links to their webpages.. brb! )--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strengths-Quest (Clifton (licensed by Gallup)) LINK to full list on pg 81 - a list
WP's True Colors (personality) - a chart?
iPersonic LINK
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ID16, by Jarislaw--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Big Five personality traits (also see Big Five personality traits#Limited scope about additional traits e/g "religiosity? manipulativeness/machiavellianism? honesty? sexiness/seductiveness? thriftiness? conservativeness? masculinity/femininity? snobbishness/egotism? sense of humour? risk-taking/thrill-seeking? etc--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HEXACO model of personality structure (Big Five plus honesty/humility; see Google books LINK
(Geert Hofstede's cultural factors: Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance)
Perseus system ("[...E]mphasises the Judging-Perceiving scale and virtually ignores the Introversion-Extroversion scale [and was...] developed by the work of Frances Wickes and from literature and parables...." - LINK

See here: Talk:Two-factor_models_of_personality#iPersonic--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mastermind (role variant" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mastermind (role variant has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 11 § Mastermind (role variant until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jung, Carl (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01813-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |paragraph= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |translators= ignored (help)

[1]