Chacham's Journal: Rant: Keirsey thinks GWB is an Artisan

Well, Keirsey makes another mistake. He lists George W. Bush as an Artisan. GWB is clearly ESFJ, and with Keirsey's own methods of recognizing hand and speech patterns this is obvious.

Then again, Keirsey mistyped Jung as an NF, when he is obviously INTP (even said so himself, in his own words, though van der Hoop disagrees) and he also has no notion of the difference between Introvert and Extravert. Making them just shy/not shy, which is ludicrous. Keirsey considers himself INTP, though i'm relatively sure he's actually just a shy ENTP, which would explain the genius is mapping the four-types and the MBTI (ENTPs are great at making different things work together), the misunderstanding of introverts (only an extravert would think an introvert is "shy"), his horrid writing (INTP are technical and short in writing style, which is nothing like Keirsey), and he fantastic ideas about how the types use speech and hand motions (an extraverted trait, especially extraverted intuitive (ENTP/ENFP) which will easily recognize patterns in the outside world).

With all that, his book (Please Understand Me II) is quite good, and i'm planning on getting his earlier books (Please Understand Me, Portraits of Temperament, and Presidential Temperaments) because he notices things very well, and most of what he says is on the mark.

I guess the worst part of his whole idea is that he doesn't recognize that types develop throughout their life (Jolande Jacobi explains it very well in The Psychology of C G Jung) and he basically addresses the immature or underdeveloped types. Anyone who has gone though mid-life (that is the "crises" and did not shy away from it) will see themselves as more than one of Keirsey's types because they have matured.

It's too bad though. To see someone so close to the truth and then fall away.

First book much better

[peacefinder]

I read "Please Understand Me" many years ago, and found it to be an immensely valuable tool for understanding myself and others. I bought copies for friends, and eventually loaned out (and lost) my last copy.

When I went to replace it, I accidentally bought the sequel. (They look very similar, and I didn't know there *was* a sequel.) After reading it, I came to a fairly startling conclusion: I think Kiersey has gone off his rocker.

The first book is sober and convincing; what the authors say about Myers-Bri

Re:First book much better

[Chacham]

Heh, thanx for the comment. I'm really thinking about reading the first one.

I do like the second one however. The things he points out are very good, as long as he doesn't say "why". On the "why"s, he is many times incorrect, especially when disregarding the MBTI. Though, on many points of what is going on inside our heads, he is correct.

I also think his ADD rant is correct, though poorly written. I do not believe in this "ADD" thing, and i do believe what Keirsey suggests does and will work. I see it all

Re:First book much better

[peacefinder]

As I understand it, the problem with ADD/ADHD isn't that it doesn't exist so much as it has been overdiagnosed and overmedicated. A lot of parents or docs have sought medication where it wasn't really appropriate or necessary. ("Can't you just give little Johnny a pill?")

I happen to work with a clinic full of pediatricians, and I have heard them say that true ADHD cases are extremely obvious in the exam room... but they're not all that common.

As for Kiersey, yeah.. I really found the concepts in his first

Re:First book much better

[Chacham]

I guess i don't outrule the possibility of ADD or ADHD, but i think i can say that i have never seen a "real" case of it, and i do doubt its existence.

As Keirsey points out, most teachers are Guardians or Idealists, the vast majority being Guardians. Guardians want control and for the people under their command to follow the rules. When they do not, they try tried and true rules that work vey well on other Guardians, and are exasperated when they do not work on Artisans. If they would just appreciate that

Off Topic: Relationship Change

[eno2001]

Hi Chacham. I'm intrigued that you added me to your friends list. May I ask what persuaded you to do that? I had you marked as a friend in a previous account and we interacted in your journal a few times, but you never added me as friend. I'm just wondering if it was based on a comment I made, one of my JEs or my SIG. Whatever the case (even if you unfriend me later) thanks. :)

Re:Off Topic: Relationship Change

[Chacham]

I think i saw a Keirsey comment or JE by you or something. :)