Talk:David Keirsey

Temperament traits cause mental illness?

Commentary removed from article: He believes also that boys with intuitive and perceiving (*N*P) traits would be frequently mis-diagnosed as having the attention deficite disorder AD(H)D, ignoring that an AD(H)D condition could well be regarded as the cause of an *N*P temperament.

This is the last straw

This is the last straw. It is obvious that every person publishing anything regarding controversies concerning adhd and psychiatry on this website are blatantly injecting thier points of view and it makes me sick. I will never ever use wikipedia again, it is completely unprofessional and misleading.

Your commentary is completely unproffesional (though unlikely to mislead or otherwise impress upon anyone), Mr. Mystery (you failed to sign your post). David Keirsey does not attack the entire profession of psychiatry, but merely the glaringly obvious overuse (and abuse) of clinical drugs to treat situations which could, with much better effects, be dealt with in a psychological manner. ADHD and ADD are very prominent examples, since the administration of drugs has not really been shown to improve the 'symptoms' of this ill-defined 'disorder', and yet psychological analysis of the individual aimed at reforming their habits HAS been shown to be markedly reliable. Although of course it all depends upon the decisions of the particular individual, in the end. Why do you rail against the idea that ADHD and ADD are commonly misdiagnosed? What is your personal agenda? Have you made a dogmatic belief system out of the idea that Ritalin and/or other drugs are THE treatment for these 'disorders'? David W. Keirsey is known as one of the top psychologists with regard to personality types and temperaments, worldwide. Matthew A.J.י.B. 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Stimulants are one of the few classes of medications to be regarded as both safe and effective in the the treatment of symptoms in a mental disorder. There is a wide body of clinical evidence that supports this. Keirsey would do well to stay away from the language of the Anti-Psychiatry movement which is clearly biased and lacking any sort of scientific creditbility. Some of his past writings may weigh heavily on his reputation. --Scuro 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Scuro obviously likes to make statements that are patently false, and most likely has a personal agenda in promoting stimulants (much like a drug pusher). There are plenty of cases where prolonged use of proscribed stimulants have played havoc with a person's life. Pill pushing has no "scientific" basis either -- no one can say what happens to the brain long-term when given neurotransmitter effecting chemicals. Dr. Keirsey personally knew individuals that had been damaged by institutional (school) sanctioned drugging.

Oh yes, the ancedotal story as proof of a viewpoint. Name calling also gives one credibility.

Here is the Surgeon General's report card on theraputic stimulants. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/images/fig3_2.jpg --Scuro 14:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Scuro does not understand much. His scientific evidence is pretty lame: a government report, I can't think of anything more unscientific than a government report. It looks like a committee's subjective grades of psychopharmalogical drugs. Probably the same quality of the DSM IV: mostly bunk. One might ask oneself what the report means by "long-term safety" -- did they do a long term study to determine this, how can they determine "safety." Why do some kids on Ritalin, make money selling their drugs for others to get high? Name calling-- ok, Scuro is a legal drug pusher or a shill for the drug companies. A Spade is a Spade.

I believe everyone here needs to look back and realize what is going on here. We are not publishing point of view papers, then why are we arguing about point of view. Unfortunatly Scuro, although badly worded in some areas, which I will do my best to fix, most of what is said in that paragraph is truth, it is true that Keirsey advocates that point of view. This is not a forum for you to argue with him, I doubt very much that he is looking. Brynstick 15:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have gone over the controverted paragraph, making sure that every time a fact was stated it was preceded by "Keirsey thinks". Feel free to comment but, although you may argue with his opinion, I don't see how anyone could disagree with this article. Dr. Keirsey does say this stuff. Brynstick 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just finished reading one of Keirsey's own articles about ADHD/ADD, which really got under my skin! (I'm a happily medicated and functional ADHDer.) That being said, although there are possibly a couple sentences in the ADHD Controversy section that might betray a slight pro-Keirsey bias, I'm satisfied with its overall NPOV tone. Since no one has added anything here in several months, I'm taking down the NPOV tag. Hope you all agree with me. Grease Bandit 23:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to the original comment that Wikipedia is unprofessional - you're right, it is. It's not written and edited by professionals, but by volunteers, thousands of them from all over the world. There's no vast Wikipedia conspiracy for or against a particular point of view. Sometimes people interject their own beliefs, either consciously or unconsciously. So if you think an article violates NPOV, tag it - or better yet, fix it. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinions about ADHD and ADD are irrelevant. THIS is relevant: The article has no references other than to Keirsey's own website! That is not satisfactory for Wikipedia content. No, that isn't quite correct. There is a good reference from the Pomona College Alumni Magazine, which was an interview of Keirsey in 2005. It has been hidden down below all the cruddy "See also's" and other external links though. Sorry, they aren't all cruddy. The references to books written by Carl Jung and Isabel Myers are great. They just aren't especially relevant, and not as the sole primary sources for Keirsey. E.g. Carl (Karl?) Jung was dead before Keirsey had finished school, for example, so there is no way that Jung was writing about Keirsey. He shouldn't be cited here.

This article needs serious work. The single good reference from Pomona College has a lot of material, and is credible. More important, it is acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. I'm going to tag this if I can figure out how, and hope that some of the unsourced content can be cut away.--FeralOink (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

innapropriate

It is innappropriate and biased to cite this(removed portion)

C. G. Jung

It should be noted that the majority of Keirsey's work is in fact based on that of C. G. Jung. Keirsey just simplified and commercialized it in order to make a business of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.209.184 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Death

Apparently David Keirsey has recently died. I am sorry to hear of this. Some editors will insist as a matter of policy that dates of recent deaths are only added if a reliable reference can be included for verification. I understand the sensible reasons for this but sometimes this is difficult to do for some time and sometimes it is not possible at all. If anyone can provide some reliable citation for David's death please include it as soon as possible. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Keirsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901175026/http://www.pomona.edu/Magazine/pcmfl05/FSkeirsey.shtml to http://www.pomona.edu/Magazine/pcmfl05/FSkeirsey.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)