My ISTP Struggle with the Keirsey Temperaments
The Keirsey Temperaments are pretty popular among Myers-Briggs and 16 Types enthusiasts. People typically mix them into general type theory seamlessly, categorizing the sixteen personality types according to Keirsey. Often, those who are confused about their type also turn to Keirsey, hoping it’ll break the tie between two types or at least help narrow things down. The main reason I know this, is because I was one of those people.
Once upon a time, I began questioning my type. I had always typed as an ISTP, but as I got a bit older, I started really relating to stuff I was reading about INTPs. I could really see myself as a potential INTP, and some people in my life even agreed. So, I started reading a ton of information, including the Keirsey Temperaments. Ultimately, they didn’t help, and I want to explain why. (If you’re into the Keirsey Temperaments, I apologize. This is simply my opinion.)
An Overview of the Keirsey Temperaments
In case you’re not sure what I’m talking about, I’ll give a brief overview. Keirsey breaks the sixteen personality types into four temperaments: Artisans, Guardians, Idealists, and Rationals. The Artisans encompass the SP types, so ISTP, ESTP, ESFP, and ISFP. The Guardians are the SJs: ISTJ, ESTJ, ISFJ, and ESFJ. The Idealists are the NFs: INFJ, ENFJ, INFP, and ENFP. Lastly, the Rationals are the NTs: INTJ, ENTJ, INTP, and ENTP. In summary: SP Artisans, SJ Guardians, NF Idealists, and NT Rationals. Pretty straightforward, right? Ok, moving on.
My INTP vs ISTP Personality Type Dilemma
According to Keirsey, INTP and ISTP fall into two separate temperament brackets. At the time, I saw that as a good thing. Maybe it could be my tiebreaker. So, I started reading the descriptions of the Rationals and the Artisans from off of the main website. Unfortunately, I related to both, but in many ways, I related to the Rational (or NT) temperament more. Below I’m going to briefly cover both temperaments, and explain what my specific problem was. Let’s talk about the Artisans first.
Artisans
The Artisans are described as: optimistic, excited, playful, daring, impulsive, tactical, adaptable, enticing, and persuasive. The page goes on to essentially describe a very bold, hands-on personality that is exceptionally skilled at physical crafts. The description overall is very Se (or Extraverted Sensing) heavy, but with a lot of general Perceiver traits mixed in and a strong focus on physical skills.
Notice: I’m separating out physical skills from Se, because Cognitive Functions Do NOT Determine Skills. People like to make SPs out to be the only crafters, and that’s simply not the case. Some SPs aren’t even very good at that stuff. Their intelligence is not solely relegated to tools.
After reading the entire Artisan overview section, my condensed takeaway is that the Artisans are impulsive, fun-loving tool wielders.
Rationals
The Rationals are described as ingenious, logical, pragmatic, calm, curious, strategic, innovative, independent, and systemic. The page goes on to describe a system-focused individual bent on solving problems via analysis, curiosity, and independent thinking. Part of me wants to quote large portions of their Rational overview, because while reading, I just see so much Ti, and general Thinker traits. I’ll throw a couple of quotes in below to demonstrate what I’m saying.
“Rationals are the problem solving temperament, particularly if the problem has to do with the many complex systems that make up the world around us. …But whatever systems fire their curiosity, Rationals will analyze them to understand how they work, so they can figure out how to make them work better. ”
“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.”
“…they are completely pragmatic about their ways and means of achieving their ends. Rationals don’t care about being politically correct. They are interested in the most efficient solutions possible, and will listen to anyone who has something useful to teach them, while disregarding any authority or customary procedure that wastes time and resources.”
A lot of that, to me, just looks like a motivated or ambitious Thinker. Although, the focus on complex systems sounds a lot like Ti specifically. Oh and for the record, the description on the website seems to make the Rationals out to be a perfect blend of realistic/concrete thinking with a love for abstract concepts. (Although, the quotes I shared don’t relay that. I was focusing on the Thinker stuff in those.)
Let’s look at this through the lens of Cognitive Functions
Each of the sixteen types have four cognitive functions in its stack. In the world of cognitive functions, saying SP simple means one of the four personality types with high Se. An SP is a Se user. NT is not so cut and dry. NTPs and NTJs have completely different cognitive functions. From a dichotomy standpoint, saying NT implies pulling in both an Intuition-based Perceiving function (Ne or Ni), and a Thinking-based Judging function (Te or Ti).
My mind breaks this information down into one core observation: the Rational temperament describes a group of people with two primary cognitive functions, while the Artisan temperament reduces its group of people down to one. The same thing applies to the Idealist temperament (two functions), and the Guardian temperament (one function). Why couldn’t it have been consistent? like NJs and NPs, or STs and SFs? Honestly, to me, it feels like another case of making the intuitives more complex than the sensors, but I digress.
Who am I?
I’m an ISTP. An ISTP’s cognitive function stack is Ti-Se-Ni-Fe. So, who am I? I’m first and foremost a thinking dominant. Se comes secondary to my Ti, and always will. Sure, I relate to the Artisan (SP) temperament, but it only captures one facet of me, and not the facet that is dominant. I love diving into systems, and gaining an understanding of them. I get a thrill from problem-solving. In addition, I’m skeptical and pragmatic. I’m cold and distant when problem-solving, because I’m hyper-concentrating. I often ignore procedure and authority. Etcetera. Etcetera. I could go on and on. When I was trying to figure out if I was an INTP or an ISTP, the Keirsey temperaments ultimately made me lean INTP, because my Se is not dominant.
In Conclusion
Throughout the type community, I often see the auxiliary Se users (ISFPs and ISTPs) being described with too strong of a focus on Se, and too strong of a focus on what people think Se is. It feels like the same thing is happening here. If the Keirsey Temperaments were separate from the Myers-Briggs types, and only loosely correlated (like Enneagram), this wouldn’t be an issue. However, they’re so tightly bound to the 16 types theory, that I see these temperaments as problematic. But, like I said above, this is just my lone opinion. I welcome feedback in the comments below, and any personal experiences you have.
Hi there, reader! If you enjoyed that article, leave us a quick comment to encourage us to keep writing. In addition, if you've found our content helpful in some way, please consider Buying Us A Coffee to support our efforts and help keep this website running. Thank you!
If you believe you are TiFe and NiSe, then you might want to look into TiNiSeFe (INTJ).
Here is why:
1. Extroversion/Introversion (E/I) attitudes refer to the attitude of the person, not individual functions. Everyone is either an extrovert or an introvert. Everyone has two sides: E and I. For an extrovert, Jung explains that the E side is conscious whereas the I side, unconscious. To the introvert, the opposite is true. Hence, the function order for extroverts is EEII whereas for introverts is IIEE. You cannot have an auxiliary that has an opposite attitude to the dominant. The aux. serves the dominant whereas the tertiary serves the inferior.
2. To most people perhaps, the dominant function is always conscious and the auxiliary, which is weaker than the dominant, is more or less differentiated. The top two functions can be seen as the default cognitive setting of an individual. The tertiary and the inferior may not be conscious. The shadow functions are generally undifferentiated. This does not mean most people only rely on their dominant and auxiliary. Every function plays a role. The difference is that the further away a function is from the dominant, the more its messages need interpretation. Hence, it is important for people to know which are their proper functions and which are their shadows.
3. Do TiNe and TiNi differ fundamentally? If your auxiliary is N, it has to be Ni because you are an introvert. It does not make you a mystic though. It simply means intuition is your preferred means of perception. If it is sensing, then it becomes TiSiNeFe (ISTJ). It means the individual’s preferred means of perception is sensation.
4. People often run into difficulties in typing, mainly because they just blindly follow the Grant ‘stack’ without questioning. Say, Ti and Se have opposite attitudes, I v. E, meaning they work in different realms. How can Se possibly serve Ti? Se will have to ‘internalize’ in order to serve the dominant, which is Ti. In other words, the functions must be in the same dimension for them to work together, and that’s why EEII and IIEE make more sense (long story short, though).
5. How can one be a J while having a dominant perceiving function? To be a J means you are a ‘judger’, led by a judging function, Jungian ‘rational’ function, EJs are led by Te and Fe, IJs are led by Ti and Fi. Perceivers, P types, have dominant perceiving functions, so for EPs, that is Se and Ne, and for IP, Si and Ni. The ISTP is SiTiFeNe, an introverted sensor.
I’m not preaching here but simply trying to offer an alternative perspective. To Ti doms, reasonableness is of top importance, so maybe you want to take a look at this typing system, and see if it sounds more reasonable to you 🙂
As far as I’m concerned, what you described here is a completely different theory. I recognize that according to (what people claim) Jung’s original take is, ISTP would be Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. The stacks you’re describing look more like you’re blending Socionics in, which is a completely separate theory with different function descriptions. As for the Grant Model specifically, I prefer it because I believe it describes a healthier individual. Too much introversion is a bad thing, just like too much extraversion. Many people might manifest an IIEE or EEII stack, but I see it as ideal to strive for an IEIE or EIEI stack, in order to achieve balance.
Laurel,
You make some great points and something I have been pointing out at Personality Cafe for over a decade. However there is a key component being overlooked. You are correct that the attitude is the first to be developed, which leads to us determining our dominant function. But the attitude can only serve one function. Having another function with the same attitude will dilute the dominant function.
This is how Jung puts it. “The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function.
Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favor of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.
For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function.”
Check out, Cognitive Personality Theory, if you haven’t yet. By CPT, which is based on grass-roots, Jungian Psychology, an ISTP has the Dominant Pairing as Ti, supported by Ni. That means, you the Convergent (functions you are most responsible for and are easiest to bring to consciousness) are Ti and Ni. You WOULD relate to “NT” stuff and easily mistype as INTP by following the archetype descriptions out there.
When I was a teenager, ISTP fit really well. I never really questioned it until my early 20s, when I believe my Ni became more conscious. I only mistyped as an INTP for a couple of years around that time, until I got a good grasp of the functions and realized my error. I never really struggled with the IEIE stack before that point, and still don’t, now that I understand how my functions are interacting. Although, I’m aware that many people find the IIEE or EEII stacking more relatable, which (assuming it’s not a misinformation problem) I view as a too much introversion or extraversion imbalance.
The goal of this article wasn’t to express any confusion as to why I relate to the NT stuff, because I understand why. I just dislike the way the temperaments have been grouped. I would prefer them be consistent, like ST, NT, NF, SF OR NP, SP, NJ, SJ OR TP, FP, TJ, FJ.
Good article. Thank you.
Love the ramblings, in online tests I’m ENFP or INFP however in a face to face consult it was suggested ISFP which I can’t relate to, I don’t have any SE capabilities at all or so I thought, and find Fi tricky to recognise will
Revisit FI/SE and think about ISFP again without the stereotypes that say I should be constantly crafting, painting, acting or a policewoman or nurse! I’m in my 60’s is this why I find this so hard? Anyway I found these to be very rational ramblings and helpful.
Thank you! Actually, being in your 60s could make typing more difficult, because often, as people mature, they become less of a stereotype and a more balanced individual. Theoretically, an SFP should take on NTJ qualities as they develop the lower two functions in their stack. It might be helpful if you try to type a younger version of yourself. Your imbalances may be more obvious that way.
Also, maybe check out this: The Value of Extraverted Sensing (Se)
Good article as always. What do you think about the Socionics groups? ST, NT, SF, NF. And inside those groups are two different ways too. Like the NTs, Te+Ni users are called by Gulenko as Applied Sciences, they use their knowledge to get what they want. The Ti+Ne are the pure sciences, they don’t have so much hurry to change the reality or gain power, they are focused on their theories and deeply research things that don’t have a visible impact. I mean, u can compare as Weapons Engineering against Quantum physics…
Thank you! From what you’re saying, it looks like Socionics groups the types the same way Myers-Briggs does. That grouping definitely seems more balanced, although I don’t specifically know how each is being described.
I confirmed myself as an ISFP in the Myers-Briggs system, yet finding Keirsey’s descriptions hard to relate. Keirsey mentioned that (in “Please Understand Me Ⅱ”) his temperament theory is based on observed behaviors, but… well, what he described in the book was so one-sided. And the cognitive functions? He don’t care.
I haven’t specifically read his book, but his “observed behaviors” would be fine if he detached them from the 16 personality types. Because he did that, I think there are certain types, like yours and mine, that relate more to the other temperaments rather than the one that we’re supposed to slot into.
Actually, when I was getting to know the Keirsey temperaments I had even more confusion than you because I found that while there are some traits in each temperament I can relate to, none of the four fits me well in general. After reading the “Parenting” chapter of the book I found my teenage self mostly like an Idealist child. This is not a saying that I should be that temperament, though. In his book, Keirsey mentioned that Idealists and Artisans are opposites in word and tool usage (“Abstract Cooperators” versus “Concrete Utilitarians”), which I tend to relate to the latter. Keirsey actually take the word “Idealist” from Plato, rather than using its literal meaning. (But when I was younger I also considered myself literally “more idealistic”.)
P.S: I think the “Keirsey 16 types” should be detached from the Myers-Briggs types. The Myers-Briggs system use preference dichotomies(where my ISFP self-type come from), and Keirsey focuses on behaviors. These two have different structures, and both are the external appearance of a person. Cognitive function theory, on the other hand, tells us what’s deep inside one’s mind, or “why they do it.” So in these three systems, the same Myers-Briggs acronym actually mean different things, and I’m still struggling confirm a type based on my poor understanding of cognitive functions…
Interesting! Yeah, I agree about the Keirsey types needing to be detached.
I was meaning to reference to Linda V. Beren’s work when I posted last fall. A student of Keirsey’s Dr. Beren and Dario Nardi have revamped temperament theory to where I now at least can relate to the SP-Improviser. An explanation of her work can be found here: https://lindaberens.com/resources/methodology-articles/into-the-next-century-temperament-evolution/
All one has to do is look at the codes Keirsey is using to know that his work describes one cognitive function and not even the dominant function of ISP types. He somewhat does the same for SJ types but at least clarifies there is a perceiving and judging function involved. The only temperaments he specifies the actual functions used are the NF and NT types.
My final rant is the confusion of referring to SP types as being capable of handling tools which is relative, since we are not talking physical but cognitive. I have always wondered if Keirsey’s intent was to mean Se users learn best by hands on or first hand experience?
I wonder if the “good with their hands” label that sticks to SP could be a poor understanding of the fact that they need a practical reason to start learning something. But obviously, the fact that SPs need a practical reason to learn something does NOT mean that they can only learn practical things *facepalm*
I also find it easier to relate to the “Improviser” category as it is described there, even though it still uses the same box for different types that I don’t find so relatable. Yes, the description based on the fact that SPs constantly respond to the present moment is more interesting and relatable than the usual daredevil cliché used by most SP descriptions (that I suspect causes many mistypes).
But it still misses out some important common points, in my opinion. How are ISTP closer to ESFP than to INTP ? And I guess most of ISFP out there could be called idealist (including in Plato’s meaning).
In my opinion, the real problem is not Keirsey theory in itself.
Temperaments theory describes something different than functions : it’s a look across the 16 types to regroup them according to another type of preferences : preference for a certain type of communication, a motive to achieve goals, a way to learn new things, etc.
So in the end, maybe an ISTP and an INTP will have an easy time talking/working together, but they will still encounter some differences that will require them to adapt their communication style. And the SP would have to adapt in the same “mold” they would have to with any other NT (even though the adaptation might be easier with an INTP due to shared Ti dom), compared to adapting to a NF or a SJ, who would both require their own specific way to communicate, motive, etc.
To me, the real problem is rather how Keirsey theory is presented as fundamental to MBTI. Like it is the very first category one can use to type, an “introduction to MBTI”. The result of it is people thinking through boxes that don’t represent the complexity of types (often to the detriment of sensors).
Thanks to 16types and its colour code (SJ=blue, SP=orange…), the temperament is the first thing you notice about a type, even before the type in itself.
The problem is that the temperaments only describe very specific traits of types. They are NOT a way to understand each function/each type in depth. They don’t define types.
So I think temperament theory may be a useful though imperfect and sometimes irrelevant category to use, e.g. to improve quality of communication or effectiveness of work between the types. It’s basically a tool among others that uses jungian functions to build bridges between types, according to different criterias.
But it should only be used once the 8 functions theory is truly understood, not before. And only as a way to create specific links between the types, not to define them. And even less to lock them in narrow boxes.