A Critique
Keirsey's model of temperament is based on people's "core needs" having the need for freedom, to be useful, to be competent or to
become. The Myers-Briggs or Jungian model of personality is
based on cognitive functions: Sensing, Intuition, Feeling and
Thinking; and in the Myers-Briggs operationalisation of Jungian
theory, the arrangement of the functions leads to 16 different
personality types.
In Please Understand Me, and Please Understand Me II, Keirsey
asserts that there is a direct correspondence between temperament
and four groups of four Myers Briggs personality types:
•
•
•
•
Dionysian temperament = -S-P types
Epimethean temperament = -S-J types
Promethean temperament = -NT- types
Apollonian temperament = -NF- types
However, in Psychological Types, Carl Jung said the correspondence was:
•
•
•
•
Dionysian temperament = E--- types
Epimethean temperament = E--- types
Promethean temperament = I--- types
Apollonian temperament = I--- types
Jung also said that one couldn't make a clear distinction between Dionysian and Epimethean
(and Promethean and Apollonian) using his function theory.
So why did Keirsey make the association that he did? When he formulated his temperament
questionnaire (the Keirsey Temperament Sorter), rather than report the results as Dionysian,
Epimethean, Promethean and Apollonian, he chose to report the same four letters as the
MBTI® - E/I, S/N, T/F and J/P. Is Keirsey's association true? Here are two theories, with two
completely different theoretical bases, and using two languages. The same words or labels are
being used in both systems, which gives the impression that they are the same. But it appears
from Jung's writing that a different mapping should have been used.
First of all, it is important to realise that, just because two systems use the same words it does
not mean that they are talking about the same thing. To use a metaphor, this is akin to using
the term "trunk". Any two people speaking English might be forgiven for thinking that when
they say "put something in the trunk", the other person fully understands what is being said.
However, in the US, this term refers to the luggage compartment of a motor car; in the UK, it
means a large box (a sort of large wooden suitcase) used for travelling. They misunderstand
each other - and because they assume that the other person has understood the term in the
same way as themselves, they may not realise that they have misunderstood each other.
In the same way, the Keirsey temperament system uses the term "SP" to mean Dionysian or
Artisan - having a core need for freedom. But in the Myers Briggs/Jungian system, the term
"SP" means the use of the Sensing cognitive function in an extraverted orientation. The same
term is used in the two different languages, to mean different things. But because the same
expression "SP" is used in both cases, the misunderstanding is not recognised.
The key question, therefore, is "are the two meanings of SP in the temperament and Jungian
systems equivalent, or not?".
Whilst there may be correlation between temperament and type, Jung and Keirsey mapped the
classic temperaments in different ways - so I don't think we should assume that they are
equivalent.
Keirsey's comments on typology
In Please Understand Me, Keirsey makes the association between Jungian typology and
temperament. However, he does not make a straight association - rather, he:
• points out what he sees as errors in Jung's theory
• states that, to make Jungian typology fit with temperament, it has to undergo some
rearrangement (pp29,30)
So, according to Please Understand Me, the two theories cannot be directly put together Jungian typology has to be changed in some way to make it fit with temperament.
Keirsey expands on his criticism of Jung in Please Understand Me II. For example, on p331,
he states that:
"Myers' E-I scale is badly flawed because she
inherited Jung's error of confusing extraversion with
observation (S) and introversion with introspection
(N). And so to make the E-I distinction useful at all,
we must define the two concepts, not in terms of
mental focus or interest, but in terms of social address
or social attitude".
This changes the meaning of the Jungian terms quite radically: social attitude, as appears to
the outside observer, is a very different concept to mental focus of cognitive functions.
Clearly, when Keirsey refers to "E/I", he means something quite different to what Jung and
Briggs-Myers meant. When we talk about extraversion, or the letter "E" in the type code, then
it is akin to using the word "trunk" in the US or UK. When we are talking temperament, we
mean one thing; when we are talking type, we mean another. Unfortunately, because the same
letter is used in both systems, the misunderstanding may not be recognised.
Confusion of Extraversion with Sensation
Another criticism from the above quotation is that Jung confused Sensation with
Extraversion. In fact, this is not true. This misunderstanding probably emanates from either:
• Jung's description of the thought processes he went through before arriving at his final
theory. He had, at one point, associated intuition with introversion, but he moved
away from that view before arriving at his final theory, or
• a misunderstanding of Jung's use of the term "concrete" in Psychological types.
("Concretism" was a technical term that, according to Jung, reflected a primitive state
of a function where it is fused with Sensation, and it results in a person's actions being
determined by outer (extraverted) objects. However, the term concretism was not
intended under any circumstances to apply to a normal, differentiated Sensing
function.)
It is clear, from Psychological Types, that in Jung's final theory, Sensing and Intuition had
been completely separated from Extraversion and Introversion, and there was no confusion in
his own mind.
The confusion only arises when one tries to make Jung's theory fit into the framework of
temperament. For example, in Please Understand Me, Keirsey starts his description of an
INTP with:
"INTPs exhibit the greatest precision in thought and
language of all the types; they tend to see distinctions
and inconsistencies in thought and language
simultaneously. The one word which captures the
unique style of INTPs is architect - the architect of
ideas..."
From a Jungian perspective, this section is clearly defining INTP in terms of the dominant
introverted function: introverted Thinking. The description focuses on the inner world of
ideas, thoughts, understanding, and explanations.
The description of ISTP, however, starts with:
"Just as impulsive as other SPs, the ISTP's life is artful
action - and action is end in itself. Action for the ISTP
is more gratifying if it is born of impulse than purpose.
If the action is in the service of an end or aim, let the
aim look out for itself; it cannot be allowed to
influence execution"
From a Jungian perspective, this section is clearly defining ISTP in terms of the extraverted
auxiliary function: extraverted Sensing. The description focuses on action, and the outer
(extraverted) world is so pre-dominant that it cannot be influenced by any inner world
thoughts. There is no mention, whatsoever, in the ISTP description, of the introverted
dominant function: introverted Thinking.
Clearly, when Keirsey describes an ISTP he uses terms that are much more 'extraverted', and
when he describes an INTP he uses terms that are much more 'introverted'. By comparison,
Isabel Briggs-Myers description of ISTP is written in terms of the introverted Thinking
dominant function:
"ISTPs have a vested interest in practical and applied
science... ISTPs can use general principles to bring
order out of confused data and meaning out of
unorganised facts" (p91 Gifts Differing)
In fact, Isabel Briggs-Myers description is in some ways opposed to Keirsey's: whereas he
describes them as action-driven, she states that they are "great believers in economy of
effort".
Keirsey resolves this difference by stating that Isabel Briggs-Myers "inherited Jung's
confusion between Sensing and Extraversion", but in this respect her writings are completely
consistent, and she portrays ISTPs as introverts. Keirsey portrays ISTPs in an extravert
fashion because his system of temperament is different to Jungian typology - and the use of
the same system of letters to describe both is unfortunate because of the confusion it both
causes, and hides.
Temperament, type and the MTR-i(TM)
The differences between Keirsey's version of temperament, and psychological type, are
particularly important when using the MTR-i. The MTR-i is based on the same Jungian theory
as the MBTI, and it measures cognitive functions and orientations by assessing the effect that
an individual is having on the outer world of people/things, or the inner world of
ideas/information.
Used in conjunction, the MBTI and MTR-i can provide a valuable insight into the differences
between personality preferences and work role. However, if comparisons are made between
Keirseyan temperament and the MTR-i, they are at best less meaningful and at worst may
confuse. In the context of the MBTI and the MTR-i the label "ISTP" means one thing: that a
person has an innate preference for introverted Thinking (which involves understanding the
principles involved, identifying discrepancies and inconsistencies between ideas, logical
analysis of ideas, etc.). An ISTP is working with his/her primary preferences if he/she is
undertaking the Scientist team role.
In the temperament system, however, "ISTP" means something completely different - having
a core need for freedom. The Keirseyan description of ISTP has, as can be seen from the
above, an extraverted orientation. For this reason, care should be taken when using
temperament alongside the MBTI and MTR-i.
Please note that the above comments only apply to Keirseyan temperament. For example,
Linda Berens' temperament research institute has adapted the concept of temperament to more
closely fit with the theory of psychological types, and the criticisms above, say, of ISTP
descriptions do not apply to TRI's descriptions.