Myers Briggs Types and the Court Cards

Aerin

I'm another who tends to think of the Keirsey temperaments as an interesting match for Tarot suits. According to Keirsey it isn't the smae as Myers Briggs although it does correlate e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keirse...-Briggs_types_versus_Keirsey.27s_temperaments

My alternative approach is to use Myers Briggs with the centre two letters as suit (I've tried with NT swords; NF cups; ST Wands; SF Pents) this is the approach I tend to use when reading courts. I then usually use the other letters like this:

EJ as King
EP as Knight
IJ as Queen
IP as Page

E - takes in info from the outer world I - from the inner world
P - more spontaneous and flexible J - more into plans

Temperaments correlates with:

Guardians SJ
Artisans SP
Idealists NF
Rationals NT

and I would tend to do SJ pents/ NF Cups/ NT Swords/ SP Wands for that split. (stefficus and I are on the same page for that I think)
 

irmata

Metafizzypop said:
Rationals are the Kings, because they don't like to get emotionally involved in their decision-making.

Queens are the Artisans because they make art out of living.

Knights are the Guardians, because they are protectors.

Pages are people who are still young enough to be Idealists.
Ooooh, I like this idea! :thumbsup:
 

Zezina

Tarot Court Card/Myers-Briggs correspondences

I don't think human personality will fit into a completely ordered pattern - there is always someone or something that doesn't fit, and I find that with the Tarot Court personalities.

So for many years I've used my own system of Court Card/Myers Briggs correspondences to select a Significator:

WANDS: PAGE INFJ, KNIGHT ENFP, QUEEN INTJ, KING ENTP
CUPS: PAGE INFP, KNIGHT ENFJ, QUEEN ISFP, KING ESFJ
SWORDS: PAGE INTP, KNIGHT ENTJ, QUEEN ISTP, KING ESTJ
PENTACLES: PAGE ISFJ, KNIGHT ESFP, QUEEN ISTJ, KING ESTP

*Z*
 

JSNYC

I apologize for intruding on your thread intuition897. But you touched on something that is not given enough credit and really explains the Tarot very well. Yes, not just the court cards. This and other Jungian principles heavily influence my view of the entire minor arcana (and the Tarot overall). But I will just narrow this to the court cards and try to keep this brief (I can’t write a jmd type article, I need to sleep sometime this week! :bugeyed:)

I mentioned that I think stefficus and Aerin got it right. I think, really proving that out would require an extensive look at the Jungian function types, and their evolution through Myers-Briggs and then Keirsey. So, for brevity, I will assume that is accurate and build on it. (stefficus and Aerin can explain! :grin: )

The proposition is this (Suit = Temperament):
Wands = Artisans (SP)
Cups = Idealists (NF)
Swords = Rationals (NT)
Pentacles = Guardians (SJ)

The temperaments are essentially groups of Myers-Briggs personality types with identifiable similarities. If you further reduce the temperaments to the individual types, they are just too similar. It doesn’t work because it is confining the Tarot, any valid framework should liberate the Tarot, not confine it. Read Keirsey’s book, Please Understand Me II, it goes into a lot of detail. The important point is that although the types within the temperaments have differences, they also many distinctive similarities as well, which is why they are grouped together. The Temperament defines the minor arcana suit.

Now I must reference Jung a little. In the beginning, he placed a heavy emphasis on introversion and extroversion, which he later recanted, at least mostly. My interpretation of the reason is because he realized, introversion and extroversion simply indicate in which direction the energy that a person creates is being focused. This is externally paramount, but internally insignificant. How and why the energy is being created in the first place is much more important. So I exclude E/I.

Next, Jung mentions that women will tend to be Feelers and men Thinkers, and I would tend to agree. (And I will also note: Jung’s Feeling has absolutely nothing, not one little thing, to do with emotions and feelings. They are two completely and totally separate things! That is such a common misconception. And I will further note that Feelers can be just as good, if not better at math and science than Thinkers, if they wanted to. Jung’s Thinking and Feeling had nothing to do with logical capability.)

And with that said, I must add one last thing. I believe this to be a fairly common view, at least among RWS adherents; the King represents the mature, masculine aspects of the suit, the Queen represents the mature, feminine aspects of the suit, the Knight is the teenager, and the Page is the child. So what defines a teenager? Raging hormones and extremes, and what defines a child? Undeveloped and immature, so my framework for the court cards is as follows:

King: the mature, masculine aspects of the suit.
Queen: the mature, feminine aspects of the suit.
Knight: the powerful, and possibly extreme or distorted aspects of the suit.
Page: the undeveloped, immature, possibly childish and juvenile aspects of the suit.

--------------------------------------------------------

OK, now we have the complete structure:

--------------------------------------------------------

Wands
King: ESTP - Promoter, ISTP - Crafter
Queen: ESFP - Performer, ISFP - Composer
Knight: the powerful, and possibly extreme or distorted aspects of the King or Queen.
Page: the undeveloped, immature, possibly childish and juvenile aspects of the King or Queen.

Cups
King: ENFJ - Teacher, INFJ - Counselor
Queen: ENFP - Champion, INFP - Healer
Knight: the powerful, and possibly extreme or distorted aspects of the King or Queen.
Page: the undeveloped, immature, possibly childish and juvenile aspects of the King or Queen.

Swords
King: ENTJ - Fieldmarshal, INTJ - Mastermind
Queen: ENTP - Inventor, INTP - Architect
Knight: the powerful, and possibly extreme or distorted aspects of the King or Queen.
Page: the undeveloped, immature, possibly childish and juvenile aspects of the King or Queen.

Pentacles
King: ESTJ - Supervisor, ISTJ - Inspector
Queen: ESFJ - Provider, ISFJ - Protector
Knight: the powerful, and possibly extreme or distorted aspects of the King or Queen.
Page: the undeveloped, immature, possibly childish and juvenile aspects of the King or Queen.

--------------------------------------------------------

Important note: the King and Queen represent the mature masculine or feminine aspects of the suit or temperament, which means you have to use the personality traits as an anchor and stretch their meaning as well, just like with the Knight and Page, but just not quite as much. Just because the personality traits are assigned to the cards, does not mean the cards are confined by the definitions of the personality traits.

Now take the combined definitions of any Tarot book or site and match them up with those personality traits. I think you will find that they compliment and confirm one another pretty well. Did the Tarot define the temperaments before Jung ever even thought of the personality types?

One final note, I talked about most assignments being “completely and utterly flawed”. What I was talking about are those books that assign a single, individual function type to an entire suit and temperament. Like, Pentacles = Guardians = sensory. I think that cannot effectively be applied by anyone who understands the function types (and the temperaments) and also the Tarot. It is a restrictive framework.

ETA:
Oh, and I should add, I am a Rational - Mastermind.

And for those who don't know, click here to view the thread with the type poll!
(We are all iNtuiters here! With the exception of a few enlightened Sensors! :) )
 

stefficus

heh.

hehe.

...MUhahahahaha!

*ahem* so, yeah, i am likewise going to have to step away from this (again) and come back in, but i can't resist a few comments:

i like the idea of assigning other letters to the "rank" of the courts - in that system, i'm the page of swords, which i can relate to and often happens in a reading. of course there are issues with that. there will be with almost any beyond the broad strokes (which by popular vote on this thread, we seem to have down quite nicely).

that there will ALWAYS be exceptions is illustrated nicely by intuition897 (who did explain in more depth than i did), who stated that rationals like everything neatly black and white. i, who once referred to my SJ husband as "grey area autistic (he would NOT see reason about all the permutations! *wiggles fingers* the intersting bits! the finer points!! gah.) immediately thought, um, no, it's SJs who do that. but after looking at it i'd have to say that instead, it really comes down to the difference between the judging/perceiving traits rather than anything to do with either rationals OR guardians... and when you add more variables to a court of 16 who wasn't intended to "fit" the MB/K gig, it'll run into just these kinds of snags. four is relatively easy.

as i always like to try to explain to people who screech, "don't put me in a box!" when i start geeking out about this personality system, it's more like a floor plan to me. the test goes a long way toward telling you why the kitchen opens into a hallway in one personality and the living room in another, or why it's a split-level instead of a ranch, but doesn't dictate that the bathroom must be mauve, or that there must be motorcycles in the driveway instead of a mercedes. an ESTJ can just as easily be a democrat as a republican... still, it's a damn sight better than the old "a dark-haired youth" designations i've seen thrown about. does anybody really use those?
 

stefficus

JSNYC said:
Oh, and I should add, I am a Rational - Mastermind.

no, really? woulda never guessed... lemme put on my "shocked" face. :laugh: :p
 

JSNYC

stefficus said:
that there will ALWAYS be exceptions is illustrated nicely by Aerin (who did explain in more depth than i did), who stated that rationals like everything neatly black and white. i, who once referred to my SJ husband as "grey area autistic (he would NOT see reason about all the permutations! *wiggles fingers* the intersting bits! the finer points!! gah.) immediately thought, um, no, it's SJs who do that. but after looking at it i'd have to say that instead, it really comes down to the difference between the judging/perceiving traits rather than anything to do with either rationals OR guardians... and when you add more variables to a court of 16 who wasn't intended to "fit" the MB/K gig, it'll run into just these kinds of snags. four is relatively easy.
I didn't quite understand your comments. But I am assuming all of it basically refers to Rationals thinking black or white. So I just wanted to clarify something, I didn't see anything black or white about that. (Other than Thinking and Feeling. :) ) The personality traits are like... gauges; in reality there is everything in between, every mixture and gradation.

My point being, I don't think there are four buckets that everyone falls into, if that is what you are assuming from my post. The temperaments are just a starting point. Since this thread was restricted to the Myers-Briggs personality types, that is what I restricted it to. Actually, I think Jung had much more to say about the minor arcana than the personality types do. But I find the temperaments add a very helpful depth and understanding when studying the cards. At least when they are more grouped and generalized, because when taken individually, they are too constrained; they represent such a narrow view of a person, as well as the population as a whole.... which I think actually agrees with your post, if I am reading it right. :confused:
 

stefficus

JSNYC said:
I didn't quite understand your comments. But I am assuming all of it basically refers to Rationals thinking black or white. So I just wanted to clarify something, I didn't see anything black or white about that. (Other than Thinking and Feeling. :) ) The personality traits are like... gauges; in reality there is everything in between, every mixture and gradation.

My point being, I don't think there are four buckets that everyone falls into, if that is what you are assuming from my post. The temperaments are just a starting point. Since this thread was restricted to the Myers-Briggs personality types, that is what I restricted it to. Actually, I think Jung had much more to say about the minor arcana than the personality types do. But I find the temperaments add a very helpful depth and understanding when studying the cards. At least when they are more grouped and generalized, because when taken individually, they are too constrained; they represent such a narrow view of a person, as well as the population as a whole.... which I think actually agrees with your post, if I am reading it right. :confused:

oh, no! i wasn't referring to your post at all, js, but to intuition's in which they basically agree with me and then are much more helpful and expand on it. *grin* specifically:

intuition897 said:
Rationals would seem to be Swords because they live in their heads, are all about logic, science, and they love the purity of a neatly defined black-and-white world.

i'm a rational. i do not have a neatly defined black-and-white world. i wasn't disagreeing that people don't always fall neatly into buckets, but rather using that example (along with my contention that seeing the world in black-and-white or not has more to do with the J/P axis) as a jumping off point for the rest of the post, pointing out why i think it's so much MORE difficult to apply the meyers/briggs to the entire court.

...if that clears it up at all. ;)

(*edit: i mis-spoke in my original post and said aerin when i meant to say intuition897. that may have led to part of the misunderstanding. fixed it!)
 

JSNYC

stefficus said:
oh, no! i wasn't referring to your post at all, js
Yep, that clarifies it! :thumbsup: My misunderstanding!

What baffled me is that we seemed to be in complete agreement, but then I got the impression that you adamantly disagreed... but I couldn't figure out with what? :)

So, with that I will say I 100% agree with you. And I like your description of the temperaments or personality types as a floor plan; that is quite pertinent! This is one of the reasons I think it is advantageous to assign two personality types to the King and Queen, it implicitly negates the natural desire (in us all) to think that this personality types describes this court card, which is restrictive. The personality types and the temperaments are simply guides to help provide a greater depth of understanding, and for us to relate to the court cards better. (And because of my personal focus on Jung, I think a study of the temperaments can lead to many other insights as well, especially when combined with Jung’s other theories!)

And for people who are completely new to Jungian function types, Myers-Briggs, and the Keirsey temperaments, I will provide a quick shortcut to applying the temperaments to the court cards (using the above post), without requiring an intricate understanding of temperaments. I think this also clarifies the approach to the temperaments that I outlined above.

First, go to Keirsey’s site, http://www.keirsey.com/ , and look at the definitions for the temperaments (the overview of the temperaments, not the individual temperament types). And then use the list of core characteristics as a general statement to help define all the court cards in that suit. I will use the Rationals as an example; here are the core characteristics (from Keirsey’s site):
  • Rationals tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, self-contained, and focused on problem-solving and systems analysis.
  • Rationals pride themselves on being ingenious, independent, and strong willed.
  • Rationals make reasonable mates, individualizing parents, and strategic leaders.
  • Rationals are even-tempered, they trust logic, yearn for achievement, seek knowledge, prize technology, and dream of understanding how the world works.
Next, simply look at the personality type assignments in my post for the Rationals:
King: Fieldmarshal, Mastermind
Queen: Inventor, Architect
Knight: the powerful, and possibly extreme or distorted aspects of the King or Queen.
Page: the undeveloped, immature, possibly childish and juvenile aspects of the King or Queen.

Don’t even read the description of the individual personality types; just use the labels. The labels alone, Fieldmarshal and Mastermind, add a depth of understanding to who the King of Swords is. Of course, the knowledge of the those personality types also adds additional depth to that understanding as well. However, I find the labels themselves to be quite descriptive on their own. The Queen is an Inventor or Architect. Then Knight is the King or Queen taken to an extreme, and the Page is the immature King or Queen.

One of my favorites is the Queen of Pentacles. I think the labels Provider and Protector almost perfectly describe how I view the personality of the Queen!

I think this is a very exciting area of study for those that are interested in the personality types and Jung! (I will also note, I didn't provide a comprehsive analysis of the function types, so why I assigned the individual traits the way I did is not explained completely. The why can add a lot of information on how I view the function types. But that is another huge post for another day! :) )
 

conversus

JSNYC said:
Knight: the powerful, and possibly extreme or distorted aspects of the King or Queen.
Page: the undeveloped, immature, possibly childish and juvenile aspects of the King or Queen.

This is a very interesting contribution to the larger conversation. However it is not enough to define the King and Queen as active adults and the Knight and Page as some sort of incomplete image of the Adult. If you are going to develop a system of Descriptors for the Honour cards you out to try harder for the Knight and Page. If the King is a Field Marshal, what scope does that leave for the Knight and Page to fill.

CED