Season 15, Episode 9 Transcript


– Hey guys, it’s CS Joseph with Doing another episode for season 15, bonus. Yes, this is actually a bonus episode because we had already completed season 15 previously. And it was great, I really enjoyed that season. And I think in combination with season two, it basically gives a really solid foundation to teach people how to type themselves and others. However, this particular episode came as a result of a subscriber of this channel and on the podcast, hopefully. And that she emailed me expressing concerns that what was presented within season 15 was incomplete. And that there was some missing components to it. And so she herself is a coach and helps people in the same manner in which I do. She had made some suggestions that I look into, to basically make the content presented at season 15 better. So, her name is Wendy Gossett. So thank you Wendy for the submission, it was excellent. And she suggested that I read this book, “People Patterns” by Stephen Montgomery, PhD. And basically Stephen Montgomery is a psychologist who is in the long line since Plato to Keirsey essentially, and then Linda Barron. He is the link in between Keirsey and Barron in my opinion. 


I maintain that Dr. Linda Barron is still the most accurate methodology to be utilized when typing somebody or yourself when you’re identifying interaction styles or temperaments, so that you could use the type grid to basically figure out, “oh, you know what, Oh, you’re a starter type and you’re an intellectual, oh, you’re an ENTP.” My type for example. So, I maintain that Dr. Linda Barron is yes, she is the gold standard for utilizing the type grid to identify type. However, as Stephen Montgomery points out in his book, some of the terminology presented in this content is problematic, it’s very general, it’s not as focused. And it becomes very difficult basically for people to understand how it works, or well, follow basically. So, that being said, today’s bonus lectures. This is episode nine of season 15. What is the Temperament Matrix according to Stephen Montgomery, PhD, essentially. We’re going to be taking a look at how that works. How his terminology helps kind of refresh or bring new dimensions to Dr. Linda Barron approach. Even though she kind of, in my opinion, may have come after Montgomery or at the same time as Montgomery. I don’t necessarily know who’s published first. But based on how Montgomery writes, he’s very more supportive of Keirsey, whereas someone like me, I’m very not okay with Keirsey at all. So, the book “People Patterns” from a Stephen Montgomery’s standpoint, it’s good. I’d say probably it’s about 50-60% there in terms of accuracy of the content. There’re some aspects about his book that I completely disagree with. I completely disagree with his approach on dating and mating. I disagree with his approach on professional relationships as well and various compatibilities. Because she’s just doing it from a temperament approach, instead of being aware of cognitive functions, which temperament is not enough for example. Because yes, you can make an argument that SJs and SPs should be together, but you should not be making the argument that NTs and NFs should be together or just NTs together. There’s actually more of a hybrid variant there based on the kind of relationship that you’re at. Remember we talked about relationship styles, there’s social, there’s sexual. Social being friendship. There’s romantic, which has a lot more to do than just sexual compatibility. There’s professional compatibility. There’s a lot of different kinds of compatibility. Stephen Montgomery’s approach, I disagree with, especially since he is largely based on David Keirsey. However, his approach as a result of David Keirsey’s approach, he takes it in different direction, which I appreciate. 


And he’s able to bring up terminology that relatively makes sense. So anyway, before we do a deep dive into what the temperament matrix is, and what it means for you, let’s talk about giveaways. Yes, we have actually two giveaways going on right now. The first one is a copy of “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover” by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette. It is available. All you have to do is be a subscriber to the channel here on YouTube. Leave a like on this lecture and a comment. I believe the winner will be announced after this lecture has been posted. And will be announced on the next lecture that I do a whiteboard on. So, this is a whiteboard lecture, but the next whiteboard lecture. I believe the winner will be announced on the whiteboard, et cetera. So, be aware of that giveaway. We’re also doing another giveaway, one free hour of coaching with me. It’s like, yeah, coaching dope, right? If you would like to have a coaching session with me, one-on-one over Zoom or Skype or on the phone, whatever, that is available on my Instagram. The link to my Instagram is in the description below this lecture. Go to my Instagram, find the post. I think it’s the current post, the newest post that is available on my Instagram account right now. Go to that post leave a comment, like it and make sure you’re following my Instagram. And you’ll be entered to win for the free coaching session. Restrictions apply because my legal guy will shoot me if I don’t say that. So yeah, because that’s what we gotta do. Anyway, so great, we have giveaways. 


This is season 15 episode nine, a bonus episode. This is a bonus episode. Was not planning on doing this, but after Wendy Gosset in the audience emailed me and challenged me on some of the content that I was covering with Dr. Linda Barron and basically making it well known that, oh, Hey, your content’s incomplete. Or people are having a hard time understanding it a little bit. Okay, fine, so she suggested this book by Stephen Montgomery. I bought it, I read it. Already read the entire thing, finished reading it yesterday. If you noticed I didn’t have a lecture out yesterday is because I was reading in preparation for this lecture today. Because I wanted to be able to hit this one out of the park. So that no question, people can utilize season 15 as a playlist you’re on this channel, so that they are able to understand how to identify temperaments. A lot of people find it a lot easier to identify interaction styles, but identifying temperaments has been difficult. That’s why we added in the Linda Barron’s approach with the last few lectures. But this lecture, we’re going to be focusing on Stephen Montgomery’s methodology for identifying temperaments, as well as adding Linda Barron on top of his system. So you can kind of have an overall bigger picture of how to identify temperaments. And we do that with Stephen Montgomery’s temperament matrix. So, just so you know, this is not my intellectual property. This belongs to Stephen Montgomery. It also belongs to Linda Barron when we talk about their content here. And I’m also gonna show you how Linda Barron fits into Stephen Montgomery. So anyway, awesome. Let’s do a dive in. So, before we actually begin, I actually wanna take the moment to define what the temperaments are again. So, the temperaments are basically inherent styles. They’re styles of living your life, kind of like organizing your life. It’s all about what you say, or what you do, right? It’s all about what you say, what you do, et cetera. And those attributes are contained within your temperament. And you are one of four temperaments. So, where did the concept of temperaments actually first come from? It came from Plato. 


Plato, I believe is the first person in recorded history to actually talk about the temperaments. And he said that people makeup for groups. And that is the Guardians, the Artisans, the Thinkers, and the Idealists. So, if you’re aware of my type grid, my type grid says, Guardians, Artisans, Intellectuals, and Idealists. So, why is that? Well, because I maintain that there are thinkers outside of just the NTs, which are the thinkers according to Plato, right? And David Keirsey builds upon Plato and Aristotle and Hippocratic and it just keeps going down the chain of custody essentially, ’til it gets to Keirsey. Then it gets to Stephen Montgomery, then it gets to Linda Barron for example. And then here I am espousing the same type of content. Many millennia later, two millennia later, whatever it doesn’t matter, a long time has passed, right? So, we are continuing to develop this theory over time as a race. And as a result of that, we’re able to get a better picture into how the human mind works, right? That’s why we do this kind of sucks that the human life span is as short as it is, because it’s really making it difficult for us to complete our path to progression in terms of understanding how the human psyche works. And it kind of sucks that we have to wait ’til 2018 to finally get some decent definitions down and help promote better understanding. But it is what it is, we’re going to deal with it. So anyway, so the definitions of the temperaments, there are these inherent styles basically. So, with that being said, I’m actually going to read the definitions of the temperaments to you according to Stephen Montgomery in his book. I’m gonna read it to you verbatim. Again, this is from Stephen Montgomery, this is not me. And I’m doing these definitions so that you can understand a little bit more how they work. So, let’s get to that. I’ve got my trusty little notebook right here. So, we’re actually gonna read about the Artisans first. And I’m gonna read it to you. So, let’s do that right now. So, according to Stephen Montgomery, “Artisans tend to speak about what is right in front of them and get their hands on. And they like to do whatever is easy, whatever gives them a quick, effective payoff, even if it means bending the rules.” So, basically from an Artisan standpoint, it’s all about the best path forward. It’s about what’s gonna save them time. What’s efficient even if it means bending the rules, for example. ‘Cause there might be social rules or social norms or maybe even laws that are in the way because they wanna focus on getting that done. And basically doing what works essentially. 


Guardians, a little bit different. “Guardians tend to speak about what they can keep an eye on and take good care of, and getting things done. They’re careful to obey the laws, follow the rules and observe social conventions no matter how much effort this takes.” So, guardians are willing to put in the additional effort to making sure that they do what’s right by the rules, social conventions, as well as laws, et cetera. And no matter how much effort it takes, they had the self-discipline to move forward through that. Whereas like an Artisan it’s just gonna be like the quick path forward. No need to like get get bogged down by procedures for example. But the Guardians are willing to go through those procedures. Next up we have the Idealists. “Idealists tend to speak about what they picture in their imagination, possibilities and aspirations about what might be and what they do to reach their goals even if this takes longer. Without compromising their personal code of ethics.” So again, the Idealist observed the rules, the social conventions. It may take longer, but they’d never lose sight of what they want, what they’re imagining, the possibilities, their aspirations, what things might be, seeking their goals. But again, they’re able to do that while simultaneously sticking to the rules, the conventions, even the laws in some cases. 


But again, they’re going to get to where they want to go eventually. But it’s from the point of view of, oh, Hey, we definitely obey conventions here and procedure, et cetera. Intellectuals, and remember I call them Intellectuals because Keirsey and Stephen Montgomery calls them rational is just like Keirsey. But the thing is, is that we know the extroverted thinking is all about rationale. And introverted thinking is all about logic. And the rationals, according to David Keirsey and Steven Montgomery it is improperly labeled. I completely reject the notion that intellectuals or the rational temperament, the NTs should be named rational. Because only half of the NTs are actually rational. ENTJs and INTJs are rational. But INTPs and ENTPs are logical. So, with half of them are irrational, why are we calling them rational? This is why I call them Intellectuals. And this is why I don’t use Plato’s label the thinker, because I’m sorry INFJs who are Idealists for example. And ENFJs who are Idealists they’re thinkers too. Because they have TI and fear and TI child. So I reject that. I reject that completely. This is why I choose to call the NTs the Intellectuals. And just because they call them an Intellectual doesn’t mean like, “oh, I’m an RNFP or I’m an ESTJ or I’m an INTJ. And I have all these credentials and I have a PhD and you’re telling me I’m not an intellectual?” That is correct. I am telling you that you are not an Intellectual. What you are is an academic. That is different, right? It is not the same. Intellectuals are very theoretical. Necessarily like STJs that have like these big academic credentials and why not an academia. They are academics. And academic does not make an intellectual. They’re completely two different things. So, just to understand definitionally speaking, I’m talking about temperament when I’m talking about intellectual. I’m not talking Webster’s dictionary here. You have to understand the context. So like seriously, get off my ass over like step off, when it comes to complaining about why I’m calling NTs and only NTs could be intellectuals. 


Well, yeah, they are. And guess what? If you’re not an NT and you think you’re an intellectual, you’re an academic. I mean, that’s just how it is. And guess what? There are a lot of NTs out there that are not academics. Oh, Einstein is one of them. He’s an NT, he wasn’t an academic. You know what I mean? Like he didn’t start off in school. He just did thought experiments in his minds to come up with the theory of relativity. It had nothing to do with anything he learned in school. Maybe we should stop as a society making these stupid assumptions that everything that is known by man is known in school. We have this thing called like original thinking, which is especially attributable to INTPs and ENTPs. It’s also super attributed to ISFJs and ESFJs. Did you guys know that? So, within that quadra of thinking, you have a lot of original ideas coming out of that quadra. And what does that have to do with academia? So, really you have to understand the difference between intellectuals and academics here. That’s just not how it works. So anyway, back to the temperament definitions for the intellectuals, according to Stephen Montgomery, “Intellectuals tend to speak about what they see in their mind’s eye, their hypothesis and their strategies, plans and systems. They want to act as directly and efficiently as possible, doing whatever it takes to accomplish their objectives. Even brushing aside rules and conventions if need be.” Gosh, that sounds really pragmatic. And I love that, because that’s exactly how I am. Do I really give a dump about social rules and social conventions? Hell no, oh, but that must make me autistic, right? Oh, that must mean I have Asperger’s, right? No, it means I’m fricking pragmatic.


Would people just stop like accusing NTs of having Asperger’s or autism, because they’re like different because they’re pragmatic like that. Because they really don’t give a dump about the social rules and social conventions. And they are like, “oh, they’re not very friendly. So we have to tell them that they’re autistic and put them on drugs. And put them through a different education track than everybody else.” Wow! society, you people are morons. Stop doing this to your children, wake up. It’s like seriously stop harming the children. “Well, someone please think of the children.” Yes, I’m quoting a friend when I say that. But seriously, stop doing that. Kind of interesting how my notebook like looks like a Bible even though it’s not. Yeah, a few of you pointed that out recently and I laughed pretty hard. Anyway, done with the definitions. So, those are the definitions of the temperaments. It is important to understand temperament because if you’re able to identify a person’s interaction style, you’ve just eliminated 12 of the types of the type grid and you have four to go. Then you just need to identify the temperament. Once you identify their temperament, you know what type they are, or backwards. You can just identify their temperament and you’ve eliminated 12 types out of there. And then all you have to do is just figure out which interaction style they are. And then boom, you know what type this person is, with 100% accuracy, no test required. Even though technically I’m developing a test of my own and it will be available on my website in the very near future. Hopefully within the next five or six weeks. I know it’s taken a long time, but we had some financial challenges here at CSJ. And we’ve been able to overcome some of those challenges as real challenges as of recent and we’re back on schedule, or at least a new schedule because I’m an ENTP Sumi. And developing our own tests that we will be making available for free on the website. So, be aware of how awesome that is, and how that is the dopest, et cetera. And we will definitely see how that goes. So anyway, that is the definitions of the temperaments. One other thing I would like to say about Stephen Montgomery, he utilizes some models and some examples and some metaphors to actually talk about the temperaments. 


And it’s actually, he’s not really using them. He’s kind of identifying them in other places. And he does this through culture and through movies. One of the cool things that I do like about his book is that he talks about how certain movies talk about certain kinds of relationships when it comes to temperaments. For example, “Wizard of Oz” which we’ll talk about it in a few minutes. And also “Harry Potter” which we’ll also talk about in a few minutes. Utilizing these examples to kind of help demonstrate the importance of temperaments within society and how ever since the temperaments have made it into recorded history. They’ve been a part of popular culture, a part of lore, a part of law in some cases, a part of everything that impacts social interaction on a micro and in macro level within the human race. It’s there and it’s available and it’s being utilized if not becoming a regular standard. So, we’re gonna talk a little bit about how that affects public culture in a minute. But first, I wanna talk about the method. What is the method? How are we able to actually use the temperament matrix to identify some of these temperament? And again, this is the Stephen Montgomery method, and then I’ll actually show you how it applies directly to the Linda Barron’s method towards the end of this lecture. So, let’s talk about the method. So, we have our trusty whiteboard, which I’m like totally went out of my way to make sure that there’s just more one color this time. 


So, it’s pretty dope if not like the dopest. So, scene 15 episode nine, it is a bonus. Yes, we already talked about that. We know that also my website If you wanna download the type grid, it’s on the very front page and I am working with the graphic artist. I got two more proofs to go, maybe three, as far as I know. And then we will get a new updated type grid available, which includes all of the new information from Dr. Linda Barron. I’m thinking about even adding some of this from Stephen Montgomery as well. Just so you have a complete picture, a nice free tool that you could use to type yourself and others on the fly like that. No problem, right? Wow, it’s getting like super hot in here. Woo, it really starts to heat up in this room after when I start filming. ‘Cause I just get like really fired up and I’m going crazy like speed racer, except like I’m not speed racer more like racer X, just saying. Anyway, the method. How to use the temperament in the type grid. This is how you do it. So you have two things you have to pay attention to. The first one is, you need to listen to what people say or speak. And if they’re doing it in concrete things and experiences also known as the “what is.” Or abstract ideas and imaginings also known as the “what if.” This sounds very similar to Linda Barron’s talking about concrete versus abstract. Very interesting how that works. In fact, I’m going to use let’s do orange because why not. Now, actually we’re gonna use this pink purple color for that. Yeah, basically you’re trying to keep track of concrete versus abstract. It helps if I spell, I’m bad at this, but I do what I can. Concrete/abstracts, listen to what people say or speak. They’re speaking in concrete things and experiences also known as the “what is”. Or they’re focusing on “what is”, or they’re talking about abstract ideas and imaginings also known as the “what if”. Okay, fair enough. And then number two, which is really nice. Watch what people do. What gets results. How do people get results basically. So, you focus on what they do. And based on what they’re doing, how do they get the results that they’re seeking? 


And they do this by focusing on what works or what is the good or proper thing to do, also known as “what’s right.” Do they focus on what works, which could be a quicker effective way, or they’re doing what’s right? What’s right is all about focusing by doing it right are they following those rules of social conventions et cetera? Those laws, et cetera. They’re all about propriety and being proper, or are they just going to do what works? Which could be like the fast track towards getting things. Or ignoring the social rules and the social norms. So remember, it’s all about saying versus doing. What do people say? Are they focusing on what is the “what is,” or the “what if?” Or are they focusing on what should people do? Are they focusing on what works or what’s right? Here’s the difference between what works and what’s right. Again, back to Dr. Linda Barron. You have what works. This is what we would call pragmatic. That is what works, is a pragmatic person. And then doing the good or proper thing also is what’s right. According to Dr. Linda Barron, this is affiliative. Now, remember primary versus secondary. I talk about primary versus secondary all the time. You have to understand primary versus secondary, because there are people out there that say and speak in the “what is” and the “what if” all the time. I do, because guess what? My subconscious is a concrete SJ type, whereas my ego is an NT. So, let’s see here. Let’s see if I could actually like put that somewhere in here. I’m gonna make my little ghetto square right here. Got my little ghetto square. And then here’s chases four sides of the mind. And I have my NT is my ego right here, but this is an SJ. My NT is abstract. It’s also pragmatic. Then my SJ well it’s concrete. And then it’s also affiliative this is my subconscious. So yes, that basically means I could technically do both. I can do abstract and pragmatic. I can do concrete versus affiliative. I am capable of doing both. I am capable of speaking and doing in both ways. 


Well, how do you tell the difference? How do you know what it really is? Well, it’s all about primary versus secondary. If you’re psychoanalyzing me, maybe and using the type grid to figure me out, maybe you should just focus on what I do primarily instead of like all the time. It’s all about what is primary. So, you focus on which of these things I do more often. Is chase more abstract, or pragmatic more often than he is concrete and affiliative? Which does he do more often? What is primary for chase? So, you would know that because my ego, I’m in my ego and my mind likes to rest on my ego more than being any of the other sides. Because remember your mind is mentally at rest in its most comfortable state, when you are in your ego. Very important to understand that. And because it’s at rest, it is primarily behaving and having behavior in your ego. That means if I’m abstract and pragmatic more often than I am concrete affiliative, that means, oh, that’s my ego. So, this is the perspective that you need to realize primary versus secondary, just using this little four size as your mind model, that’s how it works. So remember, watch what people say, are they focusing on “what is,” or are they focusing on the “what if?” Watch what people do. Are they focusing on what works, or are they focusing on what’s right, basically? And that is the method. If you understand these methods, then you could utilize the temperament matrix to identify temperaments. So, let’s look at that popular culture example before we actually go into the matrix, for example. So, we have Harry Potter and we have wizard of Oz. And this is taken directly out of Stephen Montgomery’s book, “People Patterns” for example. One thing though, I would like to preface this part of the lecture, because Stephen Montgomery, he has his own ideas as to what the Harry Potter houses are temperament wise. And I completely disagree with him. I 100% disagree with him. And there’s no way that I’m like okay about that, with his point of view on it. But let’s talk about the four temperaments according to the “Wizard of Oz.” You have Dorothy, she’s a temperament. You have the cowardly Lion, he is a temperament. You have the Scarecrow, he is a temperament. And you have the Tin Man, he is also a temperament. So, you have the four temperaments represented within the characters of “Wizard of Oz.” If you’ve never seen wizard of Oz, like, what the hell are you doing? Seriously, go watch it. It’s one of the greatest films of all time. And if you weren’t freaked out by flying monkeys, when you’re a little kid like I was, seriously figure that out. 


And by the way, that like weird March music that the bad guys use, the soldiers, it’s pretty dope. It was like really awesome when I was a little kid. And besides who knew that witches would melt when they like spill water on them. Funny how that works. Anyway, so the Scarecrow represents according to Stephen Montgomery and of course, according to everyone else to be honest represents obviously courage. And then no, I completely screwed that up. That is incorrect. Dirt, doing some derping right now. Let’s stop the dirt, there we go. My bad, Scarecrow represents the brain. Yap, the brain. The Lion represents courage. And then Dorothy represents home. She thought she was lost. And then the Tin Man represents the heart. If you noticed a recurring theme within the wizard of Oz between these four characters, is that the cowardly Lion actually while he was cowardly he did actually do some courageous acts. The Scarecrow did think of a lot of things. A lot of auctions, a lot of theoretical paths forward to solve various problems. Like picking up apples and throwing them back at the trees for example. He would solve problems. The Tin Man he said, “I have no heart.” But then he was very heartfelt. And he had a good relationship with the animals and he was willing to sacrifice himself for his friends, those types of things. And Dorothy, she’s always just trying to get back home, but she always had the power to come home anyway, because she was never actually lost. She was just dreaming at home, for example, instead of actually being lost in the land of Oz, for example. So, your temperament is very similar. 


Stephen Montgomery points this out in his book, is that your temperament actually behaves this way. It’s like, you always have the power. You always have the courage. You always have your heart. You always have the brain within your temperament. You just don’t even realize it. You don’t even realize that this is just who you are basically. And Stephen Montgomery points this out in his book, this is very telling. So, basically that means the Scarecrow, guess what? The Scarecrow is an NT. The Lion, the courage, that’s an SP. The Tin Man heart, that’s an Idealist, that’s an NF. And then Gryffindor or a Dorothy, home, that’s an SJ getting back home SJ. So those are the four temperaments within the wizard of Oz. Now, this is where it gets really debatable because a lot of people are actually debating constantly what the Harry Potter houses are. According to Stephen Montgomery, he thinks Slytherin is SP. I disagree, I think Slytherin is NTs. And one of the members of the discord, I don’t even know how to say her name, but I think I’m gonna attempt to pronounce it here. I think it’s Vabrotus Ritter. I have no idea how to pronounce that. But she actually had a bunch of us take the temperament test on for example. And she’s a Slytherin and I also scored Slytherin which makes sense ’cause I’m an NT but for some reason, Stephen Montgomery thinks Slytherin is SP, and I have no idea. A lot of people think Gryffendor would be courage, but I disagree with that. I believe Gryffendor is actually SJs, the SJ temperament for sure. I definitely maintain that. In terms of Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw, I definitely believe Hufflepuff is idealist very NF and although growing plants for example, kind of happiest to be honest, you know what I mean? So yeah, definitely idealist. And then by process of elimination that would make Ravenclaw SPs basically. So again, even in Harry Potter, you have the temperaments represented with the sorting hat, et cetera, within the movie. And I’ve maintained that JK Rowling was definitely when designing the houses and how they worked within Hogwarts. 


It was based on the four temperaments according to Plato, which technically according to Aristotle Hippocratic all the way down to Kirsey, then Stephen Montgomery then Linda Barrons. But, it doesn’t matter. It exists, they are a thing. It’s not even pseudoscience at this point. It permeates every aspect of culture and it’s like, yes, this is actually a psychological thing, a very metaphysical thing, just because it’s metaphysical, we can test for it and apply the scientific method for it. Well, actually you probably could if you had the correct algorithms and the ability to search and to develop those queries and throw it in a database which we’re working on. But the point is these exist, this is real. And we’re seeing it consistently permeate our popular culture on a regular basis. So anyway, I wanted to utilize that distinction just to show you how important the temperaments are. And why it is important to identify temperaments especially when you’re using the type grid. And we do this by utilizing the temperament matrix. How do we do that? Remember the method. Listen to what people say. And are they focused on “what is” or “what if?” Watch what people do. Are they doing what works or what’s right? So, with that being said, let’s look at the temperament matrix according to Stephen Montgomery. The matrix, saying versus doing. So, we have saying up here and then we have doing on the left here. Saying on the top. And then, so the what is, if they’re saying what is, they are an Artisan or they are a Guardian. So, they are SPs and SJs are all about the what is. And then on the “what if” side you have the intellectuals also known as the NTs and the idealist also known as the NF. They’re constantly looking at “what if” or “what is.” So, if you’re utilizing a method and you’re focusing on what they’re saying. 


They are oh, why are they saying the “what is” or the “what if?” Or you instantly know that they’re one of these. So, all these very “what if” all the time. So, that means he’s either an intellectual or an idealist. Oh, he’s focusing on “what is” all the time. That means he’s an artist and/or guardian. So, you’ve at least eliminated two types. So again, going through the type grid, you’ve identified their interaction style. So, you’ve eliminated 12 types right there and it’s just down. So, let’s say you identified the in-charge or the structure types. So, you’ve eliminated all the other 12 types. You’re trying to figure out, okay, is this person an ESTJ? Is this person an ESTP? Is this person an ENTJ or an ENFJ? That’s what we’re targeting right now. And you’re going through and you’re like, okay, well, is he “what is” or “what if”? And he’s constantly talking about things that he’s done, sports he used to play. He used to be a racer. Jumping out of airplanes. Talking about all those types of things. And then talking about how him and his wife constantly go on a wine tasting trips on a regular basis. It’s very sensual or very sensing related. All about the “what is”, et cetera. Not really talking about “what if”, with his conversation. So, you’ve identified that he is a “what is”. So, we know that this person is a what is. So, they are an Artisan or a Guardian. So now, you have to figure out, okay, what does he do? Is he focusing on what works, or is he focusing on what’s right? And then he’s constantly talking about, or focused on doing the right thing. All about doing the right thing, following the rules. Constantly trying to give you advice and telling you that, Hey, if you follow the rules, if you always do what you’ve always done, or if you follow the bouncing ball in life, for example, well, guess what? That means you should probably focus on what’s doing right. 


If they’re advising you to do what’s right instead of necessarily what works, oh, that means this person is a Guardian. And the in-charge or the start or the structure guardian equals the ESTJ, we know this person is an ESTJ. So, that’s how you use the temperament matrix. You just look at what they’re saying and look at what they’re doing. Are they saying “what is” or “what if”? Or are they saying what works or what’s right? And then you instantly know what these are. Now I’d like to add a few other additional subtext provided by Stephen Montgomery, which also enriches the value of the temperament matrix. That goes just a little bit beyond saying versus doing. I think he does this in chapter one actually. Where he talks about how David Keirsey’s terminology can be very confusing. It’s very general. This is one of the reasons why I reject David Keirsey entirely, is because his ability to utilize the terminology is something I have no patience for. I have no time for, I don’t wanna have anything to do with it. Move on, for example. And I did, that’s why I was reading Stephen Montgomery and doing this lecture for you. But the point is, is that Stephen Montgomery was able to add in additional amianesia, additional items with which you can kind of help define the temperaments, Artisans, Guardians, Idealists, and Intellectuals. 


And kind of provide additional attributes so that when you’re actually trying to identify what they’re saying versus what they’re doing, you look at additional sub terminology to understand even deeper what those are. So, let me introduce those to you. So, for Artisans, he says that they are very sensual and very practical people. So, if this person is a very sensual person or in very practical. Sensual mean they’re focused on the “what is”. They are very practical. And they do what works. Is what works is very practical. And then what works is very sensual in this regard. So, that person is an Artisan. Conversely, when you’re looking at someone who’s what’s right, but they’re definitely “what is”, instead of being sensual, they’re more sensible. Sensible being common sense, or having good sense essentially. That is what it means to be sensible. And SJs are very sensible people. For example, definitionally speaking from a temperament point of view, the same thing goes we’re talking about how SPs are very sensual. They’re all about experiences, getting additional experiences, seeking new experiences, giving other people experiences, consuming those experiences right. And giving other people those experiences. So, that’s why a lot of SPs are more prone for drug use, recreational drugs, alcohol, going on roller coasters, going mountain biking, going rock climbing for example, being outdoors, et cetera. Building their own homes with their own hands and understanding construction, et cetera. And those kinds of jobs being out at sea. Or being a logger or a trucker, are typically SP types. Because they’re very hands-on individuals. They’re very sensual. Whereas SJ is a very sensible, right? They’re all are common sense, even though common sense technically common ignorance, but we’re not gonna get into that right now. Oh wait, we just did, lol. The point is though they’re very sensible people. And artisans while they’re very practical, the SJs are very just. They are focused on justice. Why? Is because things are just if you follow the rules. If you follow the bouncy ball. 


If you follow the social conventions. If you follow the laws. And if you break those laws, if you break those social conventions, if you break those social norms, you’ll be held responsible. And we will exude justice upon you. We will meet out justice upon you basically. And it’s kind of interesting how the United States has the highest amount of incarceration than anyone else on the planet, per capita per population. It’s because the United States of America is an SJ society. This entire society is organized around SJs, the SJ temperament. And the SJ temperament has absolute total cultural dominance here within the United States of America. This is also why intellectuals are kind of on the opposite of the temperament matrix here, are constantly derided and demonized by SJs, by and large by SJ society that is. Not necessarily SJs as an individual, but macro level here from a society standpoint, including delight the point where accusing them of having Asperger’s and autism because they just do what works and they’re constantly focused on “what if”, instead of “what is”. It bothered them so much. And SJs are constantly having to meet out justice on this unjust behavior on the part of the NTs. And it’s a consistent problem for example. It’s not exactly ideal for an NT much less, even an NF in this society because we are the minority. Coz remember Artisans make up 30% of the population. Guardians make up 40% of the population of the planet. But Intellectuals and NFs, there are only 15%, so 15%. So, total of 30% for all the intuitives compared to the 70% sensible and sensual people. The “what is”, literally is 70% of the population of this planet. Which is funny because the types of people that are most likely to resist change is these the Guardians 40%. But they also make up the majority. 


There’s more Guardians than there is anyone else. Whereas the “what if” are split between each other, but only have 30% mental share within the population of this planet. And that’s an issue. Why is it? I would have to say that when children are developing out of their quadrants and getting solidified in their types, it has lots to do with nurture. A lot of human nurture before they finally like choose like their handedness. ‘Cause you know a child they grow up. They’re like an infant and then they become a toddler. You don’t know if they’re left-handed right-handed. And then eventually just one of them becomes dominant and you figure out which one’s dominant. Well, it’s the same thing. Eventually you’ll have something your mind will figure out what’s dominant for itself. And we’re gonna be doing a lecture on how children actually develop their cognition and how to support that in a certain way. Although that kind of lecture is very dangerous because I don’t exactly want society built such a way where it just produces certain kinds of children, certain kinds of psychology. So, that technically people’s psyches wouldn’t rise up to challenge the system one day. I really am very anti mental eugenics. And I know that the science could be easily used to create a mental eugenic system in order to make sure that the “what if” people are not challenging the “what is”. They’re not challenging the status quo. Because the “what is” is very attached to the status quo. And that can be a problem So, anyway, so let’s talk about the what ifs here. We have the intellectuals, they’re very ingenious. They have a lot of ingenuity and it’s the ingenuity of the intellectuals that helps bring bout bigger technologies, bigger ideas, new ways of doing things, health breakthroughs, medical breakthroughs, et cetera. Because they have these amazing original ideas. And they’re able to implement these ideas in such a way, because they’re just focusing on what works. And guess what? Eventually, what they are able to utilize their ingenuity and engineer a solution, that solution gets grafted into the “what is”, because it’s no longer theoretical, because Intellectuals are very theoretical with what they’re doing. 


And they’re constantly focusing on the “what if”, with being so ingenious, right? So, because they’re so theoretical, eventually they’re able to prove and have proof of concept. Once they have proof of concept, it gets grafted into the what is. And then the 70% of the population adopted even though it’s the 30% of the population that came up with a word, technically 15% in this regard. And they do that from a standpoint of systems and new ways of doing things, new methodologies, et cetera. Like what we’ve talked about in previous lectures in this season. And then obviously you have the Idealist last here. They are very intuitive. Now yes, I get that both of these temperaments are intuitive, NTs, and NFs. Yes they’re intuitive, but more of intuitive in the cultural use of the word or the commonly accepted way of talking about the word intuitive. You would put that attached to Idealist because it’s more people focused, basically more relationship focused. And they’re very fervent with their feelings. And none of the other temperaments are as fervent with their feelings as the Idealists are. And as a result of being so fervent with their feelings, they’re able to create philosophies, new ways of doing things for social change, social order, social justice to be honest, as well as basically creating a creed or a philosophy with which the world can adopt, which it starts in the “what if”, and then it becomes part of the “what is”, and then the “what is” adopts it. It becomes a new tradition or new normal way of doing things. Also known as basically tradition is the corpse of wisdom. Because it would start out here in the Idealist, and they’re like, oh, we’re gonna have this original idea. It’s very wise. And they have that wisdom. And that wisdom gets moved over here. And it becomes a tradition. The problem is that there could be some attributes lost in translation especially over time as people go, because guess what? Tradition is nothing more than the corpse of wisdom. So, that’s why especially NTs and NFs, we have to constantly challenge tradition more so for NTs. And actually even same thing with Artisans, because remember we’re focused on what works. And because we’re so focused on what works, we challenged tradition in that way. And so that we always make sure that the wisdom behind the traditions is actually real. If that tradition is lost the wisdom, well, guess what? We have to throw out that tradition. So like, why should we do that? That’s up there with like for example church and religion. There’s constantly like Catholics talk all the time about oral tradition. Same thing with Islam, there’s oral tradition. Dallas have oral tradition. How much can we actually rely on oral tradition? What about the original wisdom, where’s the original thoughts? Where are the original ideas that are behind these traditions of men that we have here in our lives and how are we organizing them? See, these are things that we have to be aware of consistently. So, just remember tradition is the corpse of wisdom. And the wisdom actually came from the Idealist temperament, not the Guardians. The Guardians just adopted the Idealist’s point of view. 


They’re both affiliative in that way. You know what I mean? So anyway, just remember, Artisans, they’re very sensual and practical. Guardians are very sensible and just. Intellectuals are ingenious and theoretical. Idealists are intuitive and they’re fervent. Thank you, Stephen Montgomery for these terms, it really helps bring a fresh perspective. And look at how to define the temperaments basically. And basically how they work is fantastic. Now, Linda Barron. Let’s talk about where Linda Barron actually fits in this matrix here. So, if you noticed that what works, it’s literally the same as saying pragmatic. I know that I talk about pragmatic, but if you don’t wanna use complex terminology like pragmatic, just use the phrase, “what works.” It’s the same thing. What works equals pragmatic, no problem. So that’s the Linda Barron’s approach is pragmatic. Stephen Montgomery is the what works. And then Linda Barron is talking about affiliative, we did affiliative. Although for some reason I spelled it wrong here. So let me just that. We have affiliative and guess what? The affiliative type, the Idealists and the Guardians. That’s just what’s right. So, if you don’t wanna use the word affiliative just focus on the word “what’s right.” Or the phrase. The phrase what’s right equals affiliative. It’s the same thing. Now, when we’re talking about systematic versus interest, that’s a little different. So, the interest types it’s actually diagonal. 


So, we have interests. So, you have SPs and NFs. They’re very interest based. Another word for interest according to Linda Barron is motive. They’re very motivated. What are you going to get out of this? What’s your game? What’s your interest here? What’s my interest here? What am I gonna get out of this for example? SPs and NFs are very interest focused, whereas NTs and SJs diagonally on this matrix are very systematic. They’re all about systems and frameworks, and putting things into systems or frameworks or methodologies, ways of doing things for example. Follow the system, follow this procedure. Or create an entirely new procedure and ways of doing things that we can adhere to. So, that is the other Linda Barron’s direction, systematic versus interests. So, you got the diagonal here of interest, the diagonal here for systematic. And then you also have pragmatic going across. You have affiliative going across. So, that’s how you use the temperament matrix to identify Linda Barron’s methodology or terminology, versus Stephen Montgomery terminology. They’re basically 100% mappable. They’re the same. Pragmatic equals what works. Affiliative equals what’s right. The only thing that Stephen Montgomery lacks here, is understanding systematic versus interest basically. But that’s okay. Most people can get by with just understanding the difference between what works versus what’s right/ which is basically pragmatic versus affiliative. Or, the “what is” concrete and the “what if” abstract. Most people can get by in identifying temperaments with just those. They don’t necessarily have to do the systematic versus interest point of view as a tool to identify the temperament. But, it is something that you can use to check your work. Which is nice to be able to have that. And Linda Barron is why I maintain Linda Barrons is technically superior to Stephen Montgomery in the science of identifying temperament and understanding temperament, according to depth psychology. Because she has that additional tool. Whereas Montgomery is just using two different methods. Linda Barron is using three different methods. And that’s why I really appreciate Linda Barron in that direction, so awesome. 


Well, that’s it for this episode, this bonus episode, episode nine for season 15. If you found this lecture to be useful, helpful, educational, enlightening, insightful, and however many other adjectives that could fit in there, please subscribe to the channel here on YouTube and leave a like for this lecture and also subscribe on the podcast and leave a comment on this lecture. That would be dope. Do not forget about our two giveaways we have right now. Giving away a copy of “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover.” All you have to do is be a subscriber, leave a like and a comment on this YouTube. And you’ll be automatically entered to win. And then I will be announcing that in my next whiteboard lecture. It’ll be written on the whiteboard. And also we have our other giveaway, which is a free coaching session with me. And that is being made available on Instagram. Find the Instagram posts. And make sure you’re a follower of Instagram, leave a like on the post and also a comment on the post to be automatically entered to win hashtag restrictions apply. And also if you’re not under the discord server yet, I had that two hour Q&A session last Friday. It was an awesome session. If you wanna be directly a part of that Q&A session and provide additional questions, sign up for our discord. The link is in our description below. And then put your questions in the Q&A area. And we’ll definitely get your questions on the next session. And also if you haven’t been to our bay area meetup group for CSJ, the link is also below in the description. So, if you’re out in the San Francisco bay area and you would like to be a part of our meet-up groups, which we’re meeting right now twice a month, probably gonna extend that to maybe three or four times a month. We would love to have you there. So, that link is also in the description. So anyway, with all that being said, I got a lot more of these to go today. So, I’ll see you guys tonight.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This