Trouble with Keirsey definitions...

[The Ü™]

I'm kinda having confusion on how David Keirsey defines SP temperament on wishing to make an impact on others. The way I see it is that all temperaments have that desire. I think either S or N temperaments could want to make an impact, particularly if Extraverted, but they just do it in different ways.

S will probably want to impact/entertain others through the use of physical, concrete action (i.e. sports, dancing, talking about their experiences). My thought is that S takes more pride in craftiness. They'd rather be seen not as imaginative, but as skillful in what they do.

N will probably want to impact/entertain others with their fanciful ideas (through telling fictional stories, creating imaginative artwork, or coming up with a new way of doing things). My thought is that N takes more pride in their creative ideas. They'd like to be seen by others not as skillful, but more imaginative.

Also, I think in this case, being practical or meaningful has more to do with the T or F preference.

I think that regardless of your S or N preference, I think the T function will emphasize practicality and usefulness. Examples: an ENTP will look to see how their conceptions would be applied, possibly making them good inventors. The ESTP will more likely notice practical opportunities as they come up.

If your preference is F, then I would think, regardless of an S or N preference, both types would likely wish to entertain. ENFP will entertain with imaginative ideas, while ESFP will entertain through physical action.

Am I getting this right?

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm kinda having confusion on how David Keirsey defines SP temperament on wishing to make an impact on others. The way I see it is that all temperaments have that desire. I think either S or N temperaments could want to make an impact, particularly if Extraverted, but they just do it in different ways.

I have not read Keirsey for awhile. i usually look at it that SPs are "actors" in the sense that they act on things in order to cause something to happen. They are act-ive. And it's usually just for the sheer interest in taking action, as the underlying desire. They don't need a particular reason to do something, they just simply want to "take action" on something and interact with things because they're alive.

NTs usually want to understand things deeply, NFs want to actualize themselves and others, and SJs are usually supporting some sort of social structure or the status quo or trying to contribute to others in tangible ways and "play their part." These tend to be the deepest motivations. But it doesn't mean that an NT does not want to actualize, or that an SP can't do something to want to support the status quo, or that NFs can't just enjoy "acting upon" something. [And I can find examples of "moralistic SPs" -- such as Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, for example. Billy seems more SJ in nature, while Franklin wants to "make things happen" but the things he wants to make happen are based on his SJ upbringing/value set.] We are all a mix of different desires.

S will probably want to impact/entertain others through the use of physical, concrete action (i.e. sports, dancing, talking about their experiences). My thought is that S takes more pride in craftiness. They'd rather be seen not as imaginative, but as skillful in what they do.

Skillful is a good word, probably. It's like "impacting something on a tangible/surface level."

N will probably want to impact/entertain others with their fanciful ideas (through telling fictional stories, creating imaginative artwork, or coming up with a new way of doing things). My thought is that N takes more pride in their creative ideas. They'd like to be seen by others not as skillful, but more imaginative.

Or innovative. Or "substantial". They want to impact the underlying nature of things or people.

I think that regardless of your S or N preference, I think the T function will emphasize practicality and usefulness. Examples: an ENTP will look to see how their conceptions would be applied, possibly making them good inventors. The ESTP will more likely notice practical opportunities as they come up.

If your preference is F, then I would think, regardless of an S or N preference, both types would likely wish to entertain. ENFP will entertain with imaginative ideas, while ESFP will entertain through physical action.

Not necessarily entertain, but at least to make meaningful connection or express values of some sort. ExFPs live to engage others. ExTPs live to engage the "world" in some way. Personal versus impersonal, possibly?

It's a good start.

 

[The Ü™]

I have not read Keirsey for awhile. i usually look at it that SPs are "actors" in the sense that they act on things in order to cause something to happen. They are act-ive. And it's usually just for the sheer interest in taking action, as the underlying desire. They don't need a particular reason to do something, they just simply want to "take action" on something and interact with things because they're alive.

NTs usually want to understand things deeply, NFs want to actualize themselves and others, and SJs are usually supporting some sort of social structure or the status quo or trying to contribute to others in tangible ways and "play their part." These tend to be the deepest motivations. But it doesn't mean that an NT does not want to actualize, or that an SP can't do something to want to support the status quo, or that NFs can't just enjoy "acting upon" something. [And I can find examples of "moralistic SPs" -- such as Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, for example. Billy seems more SJ in nature, while Franklin wants to "make things happen" but the things he wants to make happen are based on his SJ upbringing/value set.] We are all a mix of different desires.




Skillful is a good word, probably. It's like "impacting something on a tangible/surface level."



Or innovative. Or "substantial". They want to impact the underlying nature of things or people.



Not necessarily entertain, but at least to make meaningful connection or express values of some sort. ExFPs live to engage others. ExTPs live to engage the "world" in some way. Personal versus impersonal, possibly?

It's a good start.

Because on the rare cases where I'm out in the world with other people, I like to express my own shocking or off-the-wall views and ideas sometimes just to see how people react. (People are actually surprised of my Introverted preference.)

This is partially due to my ego and insecurities, but I don't perform to show off skill or craftiness, but to show off a unique perspective; I like to press people's buttons and rebel against social norms.

Same thing happens when I draw or write. I don't want to be seen as someone who is skilled, but as someone who has an active imagination; an out-of-the-box thinker.

So in other words, I'm guessing that this sort of thing is due to an N preference.

 

[rivercrow]

Because on the rare cases where I'm out in the world with other people, I like to express my own shocking or off-the-wall views and ideas sometimes just to see how people react. (People are actually surprised of my Introverted preference.)

What you're describing sounds *to me* like an NT in playful/analytic mode where you're poking the bear to see what it does.

Watch Mac and Meshou here--they do that a lot in ways that are pretty transparent. It *may* be an N thing, but I don't see NFs do it so much, maybe because the F keeps them from being experimentally objective. Or maybe NFs don't drag the experiment out as long as NTs.

As for SPs..... What Jennifer said, with the addition that in MBTI, SPs are very into play and fun. Most of the identified SPs I've met enjoy gambling and wave-running and stuff--much into "I do this, and SOMETHING HAPPENS!"

NTs will play but it's more of a "If I do this, I wonder what will happen and will it confirm or disprove my theory" kind of thing. Future-oriented rather than SP's present-oriented focus.

 

[Totenkindly]

Because on the rare cases where I'm out in the world with other people, I like to express my own shocking or off-the-wall views and ideas sometimes just to see how people react. (People are actually surprised of my Introverted preference.)

This is partially due to my ego and insecurities, but I don't perform to show off skill or craftiness, but to show off a unique perspective; I like to press people's buttons and rebel against social norms.

I do that sort of thing as well, but usually only after I have "felt out" the situation and think there won't be any real or permanent damage. People I know (especially friends and family) are much more prone to hear me say something just because it's entirely the wrong thing to socially do or say, and it is my way of being funny, or pointing out something silly in the social expectations, or just showing that my mind is leaping outside the box.

So I guess it is similar to what you do... but I am probably more low-key about it.

Same thing happens when I draw or write. I don't want to be seen as someone who is skilled, but as someone who has an active imagination; an out-of-the-box thinker. So in other words, I'm guessing that this sort of thing is due to an N preference.

I know I am much more prone to not complete an artistic work or written piece because I find it conventional and/or redundant, rather than because it's not done skillfully. (iow, i really care about originality and sometimes do not allow others to see decent things I've done simply because I am embarrassed that it's not as original or fresh or new as some other things.)

Probably an N thing. I am not sure if T/F factors into it at all, we need to hear from some solid F's first. Another thing to consider: Do E's care as much about originality as I's do?

What you're describing sounds *to me* like an NT in playful/analytic mode where you're poking the bear to see what it does. Watch Mac and Meshou here--they do that a lot in ways that are pretty transparent. It *may* be an N thing, but I don't see NFs do it so much, maybe because the F keeps them from being experimentally objective. Or maybe NFs don't drag the experiment out as long as NTs.

Well, that is true. Typical xNFPs seem to shy away from it, unless they know the people VERY well. But usually they are too empathetic with the feelings of the people involved to be able to poke them; there is a detachment that comes from the NT combination that allows for much more curious (even if benign) "poking." I feel bad sometimes because I poke people, but I can't seem to feel bad enough to stop... or sit there wondering, "Hmm, if I do/say this... well, what WOULD they do?"

Yes. Mac is very transparent. A little bit of nuance would be nice on occasion.

As for SPs..... What Jennifer said, with the addition that in MBTI, SPs are very into play and fun. Most of the identified SPs I've met enjoy gambling and wave-running and stuff--much into "I do this, and SOMETHING HAPPENS!"

Groan: It sounds like my three children with a pocket of money playing silly "ticket/trinket-winning" games at the fair or arcade.

INTP: "What a waste of money. And it's all rigged. I'll just play the video games."
INFJ: "The games are a waste, but I feel good doing special things with my friends. And we split the tickets and got matching trinkets."
ESFP: "omigod I put in a quarter and hit something and 10 tickets came out! Only 2900 more tickets and I can trade it all in for a pencil eraser and a piece of bubble gum! Yay! Can I borrow $5???!!! I'll pay you back!!!"

 

[The Ü™]

What you're describing sounds *to me* like an NT in playful/analytic mode where you're poking the bear to see what it does.

Watch Mac and Meshou here--they do that a lot in ways that are pretty transparent. It *may* be an N thing, but I don't see NFs do it so much, maybe because the F keeps them from being experimentally objective. Or maybe NFs don't drag the experiment out as long as NTs.

As for SPs..... What Jennifer said, with the addition that in MBTI, SPs are very into play and fun. Most of the identified SPs I've met enjoy gambling and wave-running and stuff--much into "I do this, and SOMETHING HAPPENS!"

NTs will play but it's more of a "If I do this, I wonder what will happen and will it confirm or disprove my theory" kind of thing. Future-oriented rather than SP's present-oriented focus.

Yes, I'm more into the NT playfulness. I'm not much into fun or enjoyment -- my actions are much more calculated.

Really, what I would do, if I had the sort of power I'm about to describe, is write and direct a shocking movie and see how the critics respond. My movies would also be laced with politically incorrect and socially offensive overtones, so I imagine liberal and anti-defamation protests against it, and I laugh just at the thought of what I conceive what will happen.

Of course, some of the things I do and say don't end up being like how I predict them. As a result, my habits of expressing shocking views have caused me to be expelled from school and to be fired from jobs.

Nonetheless, I really don't care what people think of me. People will often think I'm crazy, but it doesn't bother me; it actually makes me feel happy. The fact that I'll then perceive most people as shallow and less open-minded than they claim to be gives me a satisfying feeling inside. It's healthy for my ego!

So I guess, in a way, what I do is sort of like a scientific experiment -- much in tune with the NT temperament from a broader perspective.

 

[nightning]

What you're describing sounds *to me* like an NT in playful/analytic mode where you're poking the bear to see what it does.

Watch Mac and Meshou here--they do that a lot in ways that are pretty transparent. It *may* be an N thing, but I don't see NFs do it so much, maybe because the F keeps them from being experimentally objective. Or maybe NFs don't drag the experiment out as long as NTs.

We experiment with people... well at least I can say I do. What I noticed the difference between my NT friends and I is the manner we conduct our "experiments". They have a tendency to go out of their ways to set up the experiment. I just modify the current situation to run mine. Therefore to an observer, NT poking the bear is a lot more apparent compared to NF using something/somebody else to poke at the bear. But I think it's an N trait as well.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I'm kinda having confusion on how David Keirsey defines SP temperament on wishing to make an impact on others. The way I see it is that all temperaments have that desire. I think either S or N temperaments could want to make an impact, particularly if Extraverted, but they just do it in different ways.

S will probably want to impact/entertain others through the use of physical, concrete action (i.e. sports, dancing, talking about their experiences). My thought is that S takes more pride in craftiness. They'd rather be seen not as imaginative, but as skillful in what they do.

N will probably want to impact/entertain others with their fanciful ideas (through telling fictional stories, creating imaginative artwork, or coming up with a new way of doing things). My thought is that N takes more pride in their creative ideas. They'd like to be seen by others not as skillful, but more imaginative.

Also, I think in this case, being practical or meaningful has more to do with the T or F preference.

I think that regardless of your S or N preference, I think the T function will emphasize practicality and usefulness. Examples: an ENTP will look to see how their conceptions would be applied, possibly making them good inventors. The ESTP will more likely notice practical opportunities as they come up.

If your preference is F, then I would think, regardless of an S or N preference, both types would likely wish to entertain. ENFP will entertain with imaginative ideas, while ESFP will entertain through physical action.

Am I getting this right?

Nevermind Keirsey, I'll just give you the Jungian definitions.

E-Predispositioned to derive energy more proficiently from external sources. Or at least faculties that focus on the external are more firmly seated than those on the internal.

N-Predispositioned to be more in tune with the imagination that distracts from senses.

T-Predispositioned to pay more attention to what is, the cause and effect principle rather than what is important to the person.

J-Predispositioned to apply judgment (feeling/thinking) primarily to the external world.

 

[htb]

Because on the rare cases where I'm out in the world with other people

Observation is critical. Spend a few hours with SPs -- after watching the inimitable way in which SPs connect with their physical surroundings, you will understand what Keirsey means.

 

[rivercrow]

Still, the N playfulness doesn't have the same WAHOO!! in-the-moment quality the SP playfulness has.... Not in my experience, anyway. Much more an experiment to see what *will* happen.

I have in mind my brother who, as a young SP, took on category 4 rapids in a 18-ft canoe without life vests and without knowing how to swim--the first time he had his canoe. The idea was to get in the water and go. Whereas an N could do the same thing, but the idea would be "what will the other end of these rapids look like/what will the view be like over there?" not just "What's it like to experience these rapids?"

 

[Totenkindly]

I have in mind my brother who, as a young SP, took on category 4 rapids in a 18-ft canoe without life vests and without knowing how to swim--the first time he had his canoe. The idea was to get in the water and go. Whereas an N could do the same thing, but the idea would be "what will the other end of these rapids look like/what will the view be like over there?" not just "What's it like to experience these rapids?"

That is exactly it: The experience IS the goal for the SP, that's "living" -- while for the NT the experience can be gleaned for knowledge to make future projections and understand the world better. The NT utilizes the experience for things other than itself.

 

[ptgatsby]

J-Predispositioned to apply judgment (feeling/thinking) primarily to the external world.

I don't remember anything Jung-ish about those ones... especially J. Where did they come from?

 

[rivercrow]

That is exactly it: The experience IS the goal for the SP, that's "living" -- while for the NT the experience can be gleaned for knowledge to make future projections and understand the world better. The NT utilizes the experience for things other than itself.

Yup.

I'm kind of amazed that there are any OLD SPs, to tell you the truth.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yup.

I'm kind of amazed that there are any OLD SPs, to tell you the truth.

Totally.

When I read about Everest climbs, for example, or other people in high-risk sports (risk skiers / climbers caught in avalanches for example)... you would be amazed at the number of SPs and how many have died cutting things too close.

NTs too, although they tend to plan and envision a lot better... still, in those situations, there's too little control over the environment and they can still get caught.

 

[The Ü™]

Yup.

I'm kind of amazed that there are any OLD SPs, to tell you the truth. :wry:

Haha!! I always thought the same thing. Likewise, I am amazed that there are any young SJ's.

But when I think about it, I think most of the bullies in schools are SJ's gone bad, since an unhealthy SJ would more likely be intolerant of people who are different. They probably would repress feeling inferior by looking superior.

When I put it into perspective, the SJ is probably more likely to be involved in sports than even the SP.

I stereotype the school-age temperaments as follows:

SJ: jocks, preps, teacher's pets, straight A students (Emilio Estevez and Molly Ringwald in The Breakfast Club)

SP: stoners, troublemakers, goofballs (Judd Nelson in The Breakfast Club)

NF: artists, emos, peer mediators (Ally Sheedy in The Breakfast Club)

NT: geeks, Goths, nerds, dorks, "oddballs," loners (Anthony Michael Hall in The Breakfast Club)

I differentiate emos and Goths because emos seem to display more NF sensitivity and drama that Goths don't seem to.

 

[ptgatsby]

But when I think about it, I think most of the bullies in schools are SJ's gone bad, since an unhealthy SJ would more likely be intolerant of people who are different. They probably would repress feeling inferior by looking superior.

FWIW, the only real pro-bully behaviour comes from the T (agreeableness) divide, least as far as MBTI goes, as well as those that support bullies. Victim behaviour is determined more by being a P. There is no particular correlation between J or S and being a bully, supporting a bullies or helping victims.

 

[rivercrow]

PT, That reminds me of the JPT article linking T preference and Machiavellian mindset. Anyone else read that one?

Yup, off topic.....

 

[LadyInWaiting]

I agree that simply saying SPs "yearn to make an impact on others" is confusing and simplistic. I prefer Linda Berens assessment of the core SP needs, "freedom to act" and "ability to make an impact". That could be making an impact on other people in some way (which is what Keirsey focuses on, social impact) but it can also mean making an impact...on ANYTHING in a concrete way. rivercrow nails it: "I do this, and SOMETHING HAPPENS!"

Here's how Linda Berens describes the "ability to make an impact": Many of us want to have an impact, but the need to see a result from their actions or to elicit an immediate response from others is stronger and more concrete (here and now) than for the rest of us. This need for impact shows in their drive for action.

When I put it into perspective, the SJ is probably more likely to be involved in sports than even the SP.

While there are plenty of SJs involved in middle and high school sports, I would bet that a lot of professional and college athletes are SPs, especially in the team sports. After all, they get to play for a living.

 

[Totenkindly]

While there are plenty of SJs involved in middle and high school sports, I would bet that a lot of professional and college athletes are SPs, especially in the team sports. After all, they get to play for a living.

Yes, for professional team sports, most of the athletes seem to be SP types, followed then by SJ types who enjoy the team/loyalty/honor aspects, followed then by NT (with the strategic skills), and then probably NF.

 

[The Ü™]

SP athletes are probably more likely to be the ones who are carried through college just because they're good. On the other hand, they may be less likely to play sports in school because their grades are poor.

SJ athletes are probably the ones who act more professional.