User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 46 of 46

  1. #41
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    What is the reason behind Gabe's trolling and why has nothing been done about it?

    These open discussions between knowledgeable members are among the site's most valuable content.

    Very enjoyable reading. I'm left with nothing but gently prodding the interlocutors. Carry on.

  2. #42
    Member Srho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    INFX
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    88

    Default

    I would guess INFP or INFJ for pure Melancholy. Interesting.

  3. #43
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,442

    Default

    ISTJ fits that better.

    Also, I came up with another way of outlining the relationship I believe exists between the two systems (on my new "Super Short Version" http://www.erictb.info/temperament2ss.html):


    Expressed behavior indicates a person's quickness in initiating interaction.
    Expressed Inclusion is how fast or slow a person is to approach others for socialization.
    Expressed Control is how quick he is to make self-initiated decisions; especially those which affect others.

    The two wanted scales indicate the strictness of criteria the person has in responding to being approached by others:
    Wanted Inclusion is how much a person wants to be included in socialization.
    Wanted Control covers how much a person will allow others to influence him in decisions.

    The third area of Affection deals with deep personal relations. Again, expressed is how much the person initiates, and wanted is how much he wants others to initiate.
    This area does not seem to correspond to type. Since it is similar to Inclusion, but on a deeper level, some of the traits might be apart of the Interaction Style. It otherwise may explain some variations in type. (Like an introvert being more outgoing in his close personal relations).

    How expressed and wanted Inclusion and Control seem to correspond:
    Extraverts will tend to be quicker to approach others on a social level; introverts will be slower.
    The speed of initiation in leadership and responsibilities will be shaped in part by whether something "works" (Pragmatic) or is "right" (Cooperative).
    People who want less social interaction will have stricter criteria towards accepting people, and will tend to communicate to them in a directive fashion. People who want more social interaction will have lighter criteria, and be more readily accepting of people, and soften their communication into "informing".
    People who want less control by other people will tend to have the dictates of a structure (such as an organization or their own plans) to set the criteria that must be met for them to accept that control, and people who allow more influence by others in responsibilities will be more likely to take into account others' motives "in order to work with them" (Berens).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #44
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,442

    Default

    I just discovered that CPP has up a 7 page preview of FIRO-B® Technical Guide (Hammer & Schnell). https://www.cpp.com/pdfs/2225.pdf So you can see the full table of contents, and the first two chapters, and one page of the third.

    I even learned a part of the theory I yet hadn't heard of: compatibility theory!
    originator, reciprocal, and interchange

    Originator compatibility, involves possible clashes between expressed and wanted behaviors. The example hey give, is two people with high eC and low wC (aka "Mission Impossible" or Choleric in Control, and likely corresponding to NT). They:
    "will both want to originate the behaviors associated
    with the Control needs, and neither will want to
    receive those behaviors. Both persons will want to
    set the agenda, take responsibility, and direct and
    structure the actions of others; neither will feel
    comfortable taking direction. The result could be
    competition or even conflict."

    Reciprocal compatibility is basically what Keirsey calls "interlinking" in his latest book Personology. Keirsey uses it for the interaction roles [i.e. "Styles"] only, which would fit Inclusion, but I believe it corresponds to any area (including Control). So again, the example given is from Control, where high eC with low wC interacts with the opposite: low eC with high wC (Openly Dependent, Loyal Lieutenant, Supine in Control, and likely NF).

    "there is a high degree of reciprocal compatibility because...
    one will take charge; the other will be happy to let him or her assume the responsibility."

    Interchange compatibility measures how much individuals share the same need strengths.
    The example is two people with both high eA and wA ("Optimist" or "Sanguine in Affection"). They
    "will be compatible because both will see Affection behaviors as
    the basis of the relationship, and they will engage
    each other around Affection needs."
    (i.e. freely give and receive).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #45
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I even learned a part of the theory I yet hadn't heard of: compatibility theory!
    originator, reciprocal, and interchange
    Interesting.

    I mean, I think we're already aware of those kinds of exchanges/interactions and they've come up informally in discussion; but they just haven't been conceptualized formally as they have been here, now, with these terms.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #46
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,442

    Default

    I happened to look up Schutz's, original 1958 introduction to the theory, FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior yesterday. On Amazon, it's $179, and the only library that had it was the main NYPL reading room (it can't be borrowed), in the building with the lions out front. I had looked up several other type/temperament books there, but forgot why I never looked up this one (may have been unavailable at the time?)

    I found the primary thing I was was looking for; the source of his names from the behavior score groups in each area. I had been told what I posted in #38; that he only gave partial names for the scores:
    "Inclusion types" ("oversocial"—high E/W, "social"—medium E/W, "undersocial"—low E/W), "Control types" ("autocrat"—high E/low W, "abdicrat"—low E/high W, "democrat"—med. E/W) and "Affection types" ("overpersonal"—high E/W, "personal"—medium E/W, "underpersonal"—low E/W).
    I think someone told me this over the phone years ago, supposedly reading it from some official source or something; as it was the only way to gain the information at the time, and as much as I periodically searched online, there was no further info on it. So I wanted to see the original book myself, where he coined the terms, and the justification for the partial naming.

    Come to find out, he did name all the non-moderate score names after all, and the "over-"/"under-" and "auto-"/"abdi-" prefixes represented expressed scores only. Wanted scores have their own roots: "-compliant"/"counter-" for Inclusion and Affection, and "submissive"/"rebellious" for Control. For some reason, these latter terms aren't mentioned as much as the former ones, so they did look like whole "type" names.

    We thus end up with the six dimensions as follows:
    eI: "I initiate interaction with others" (High: "oversocial"; low "undersocial")
    wI: "I want to be Included" (High: "social-compliant"; low: "countersocial")
    eC: "I try to control others" (High: "autocrat"; low: "abdicrat")
    wC: "I want to be controlled" (High: "submissive"; low: "rebellious")
    eA: "I try to be close and personal" (High: "overpersonal"; low: "underpersonal")
    wA: "I want others to be close and personal with me" (High: "personal-compliant"; low: "counterpersonal").

    Putting them together, yields the fifteen "Descriptive Schema and appropriate terminology for each Interpersonal Need Area":

    Score Inclusion Control Affection
    Low e and w Undersocial
    Countersocial
    Abdicrat
    Rebellious
    Underpersonal
    Counterpersonal
    High e, low w Oversocial
    Countersocial
    Autocrat
    Rebellious
    Overpersonal
    Counterpersonal
    high e and w Oversocial
    Social-compliant
    Autocrat
    Submissive
    Overpersonal
    Personal-compliant
    low e, high w Undersocial
    Social-compliant
    Abdicrat
    Submissive
    Underpersonal
    Personal-compliant
    moderate e and w Social Democrat Personal

    All of this was part of a larger "Matrix of Relevant Interpersonal Data", which he called "The Elephant". Each area consisted of a smaller matrix of "act" and "feel" by "Self to Other" (Action), "Other to Self" (Reaction), and "Self to Self".
    "Act" and "Feel" divided the rows, which were:
    "Desired Interpersonal Relations (Needs)", which denoted "satisfactory relations" in each area;
    "Ideal Interpersonal Relations" is what would correspond to "moderate" expressed and wanted scores;
    "Anxious Interpersonal Relations" was subdivided into rows of "Too much activity" (covering high expressed scores) and "Too little activity" (covering low expressed scores); both being divided into "Act" and "feel".
    The last row was "Pathological Interpersonal relations", which was divided into "too much" and "too little", yielding:
    "Psychotic (Schizophrenia)" as Too Little/Inclusion; (There was no "Too Much/Inclusion")
    "Obsessive-compulsive" as Too Much/Control and "Psychopath" as Too Little/Control; and
    "Neurotic" as too much and too little Affection.
    "Self-to other (action)" corresponded to the expressed dimension, and "Other to self (Reaction)" was the basis for the wanted dimension (though it is phrased in terms of what people do, rather than what we want them to do, which would be similar to the later Element B).

    It becomes more clear that FIRO is not about inborn type or temperament, but rather dealing in more pathological terms (which would explain why some of the concepts and names; especially Ryan's, are so negative). Moderate behavior is what's "healthy" (or "ideal"), everything else is either "too much" or "too little".
    The APS I discuss uses the structure to measure inborn temperament, and it still seems accurate, and appears to correspond with type.

    Speaking of Element B, I should add what I've learned about that system recently as well. It differs in expanding the definitions of Inclusion, Control, and Affection (renamed "Openness"), into an additional six scores to measure how much a person wants to include, control, and be close to others, and how much other people include, control, and like to be close to the client. "Expressed" is renamed "See" (current behaviors) while "Want" remains desired behaviors. Each of the three areas is split into "Do" (initiating interaction with others) and "Get" (the level received from others). Differences between See and Want scores indicate levels of dissatisfaction.

    I had known that this version split each of the six dimensions, and "I want to do" made sense as figuring in the person's behavior; I thought what others do (what we "get") wasn't about us; it's about them. But rethinking this, more recently, especially in light of the Johari Window, I guess it should figure also. It does potentially, at least, tell us somerhing about ourselves.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI in the 100 Acre Woods
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-18-2010, 09:41 PM
  2. The practicality of MBTI in real life
    By NewEra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-15-2009, 10:19 PM
  3. MBTI in graphic novel / comic book characters
    By edwartica in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-01-2009, 06:05 PM
  4. MBTI in mainstream media II
    By Economica in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 07:15 PM
  5. MBTI in mainstream media
    By Economica in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 10:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO