Talk:Keirsey Temperament Sorter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
I think the correct name according to Keirsey is "Rational" and not "Rationalist." --Estr4ng3d 03:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- That's a good point. I can do the same thing another way. Eincrat 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] (→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)
What is the validity of this questionnare?
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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
