FIRO-B & MBTI in conjunction

[rivercrow]

As for corrolation between MBTI and FIRO-B I would expect a certain amount of it to show as it would make sense that preferances for certain cognative functions would also display a similar preference for the seemingly corresponding behaviour. However I'd lay good money that there's a lot of those who fall outside such links. Myself being one.

You, Xander, fall outside a lot of links.

This is where statistics are used. Not 100%, but preferably upwards of 70%. Or lower than 30%. Either suggests other than simple chance. As you move into the edges (<10% or >90%), then you have more reliable evidence.

Perhaps it displays what could be termed as the actualised self where as the MBTI is more the raw self? (strictly ignoring the imbalance between the two systesm and other such intricacies)

I'm not comfortable with this. I'm much more comfortable with saying you're looking at different aspects of the personality.

 

[Xander]

You, Xander, fall outside a lot of links.

I suppose I am alone in this ol' Crowsie?

This is where statistics are used. Not 100%, but preferably upwards of 70%. Or lower than 30%. Either suggests other than simple chance. As you move into the edges (<10% or >90%), then you have more reliable evidence.

Precisely why other systems integrate to provide better insight and allow for higher tolerances even within one system. If the context is clarified then the content is illuminated etc.

I'm not comfortable with this. I'm much more comfortable with saying you're looking at different aspects of the personality.

Actualised as in what you are (what you are being more what you do than what you say or think) more so than heirarchy type actualised. Still, yes the wording would need improving.

 

[rivercrow]

Precisely why other systems integrate to provide better insight and allow for higher tolerances even within one system. If the context is clarified then the content is illuminated etc.

I don't see any reason for an all in one tool. That's my final offer.

Actualised as in what you are (what you are being more what you do than what you say or think) more so than heirarchy type actualised. Still, yes the wording would need improving.

I'm not following you.

 

[ptgatsby]

I think the commercialization of these instruments is what causes them to be more widely available, not the other way round.

I would disagree in part, simply because I can go and take a half dozen FFM tests without too many issues. The public MBTI tests are styled after decade old theories and research. How many MBTI tests are as robust as something like this?. Or even something like the twins test?

Good or bad is open to interpretation - Someone needs to take these tests and model them into something that companies and individuals can use... But it doesn't remove that these companies are dependent upon keeping their tests proprietary and profitable, hence it does influence the way research is done, the way information is disseminated and their motivations in furthering the tools.

(FWIW, I’ve been very impressed with CAPT, no doubt because of its dedication to the founders of the organization!)

You can't take free online versions of the SAT/ACT/GRE/etc and use those scores for getting into school. You *can* use those scores as a study guide *if* the tests are considered valid. How do you know if the tests are valid? Someone compares the methodology or wording used in the free tests against the actual tests.

Yah, don't get me wrong. I hate having the crappy free tests around. I also, however, hate that I can't get the tests without shelling obscene amounts of money. I just got my quote for the KAIT test I wanted to take - $450. In fact, if I want any g loaded test, I need to shell out enough for a little vacation. For a test an hour long.

That divide irritates me… a lot. I understand the need for keeping the tests under wraps (especially IQ), but the cost still seem outrageous.

Hm. The other technical certification exams I've taken are all copyrighted. Reproducing the test is a theft of intellectual property rights. So are these online free exams violating copyright as well?

No, because they are depreciated versions of the same test. It is not a violation if you recreate an original work that emulates another - you just can't work from their test - hence why FFM, MBTI, 15FQ, 16pf, FIRO, DISC... are all similar. It's only the instrument itself that is copyrighted.

 

[Xander]

I don't see any reason for an all in one tool. That's my final offer.

That never was the point but if you have a screwdriver, a saw, a drill and a block of wood it don't mean you know how to make joints properly. For that you need to understand what the tools can do and what they represent in the process of making something with the wood.

Ok that's a poor analogy. However all these little tools are fine. You've got your MBTI, your enneagram, your FIRO-B etc etc. You can test a person under each system and then end up with results from more than one system. However for each of those sets of results to be of any use then you need to be able to interpret one in reference to another. An INTP with low wanted control is not the same as an ESTJ with low wanted control. The two differ in style and how they actually play out. Ergo at some point the tools and results from these theories, therefore the theories themselves too, must integrate.

I'm not following you.

Your actualised self being that which others experience as a result of your type & enneagram. The experience which is Rivercrow.

 

[meshou]

Your actualised self being that which others experience as a result of your type & enneagram. The experience which is Rivercrow.

Uh, all these types are just descriptions. Person causes test results, they are not all inherent characteristics.

The test which comes closest to describing inherent universal characteristics, I believe, is the Big 5, but even so, it's a description.

 

[Xander]

Uh, all these types are just descriptions. Person causes test results, they are not all inherent characteristics.

The test which comes closest to describing inherent universal characteristics, I believe, is the Big 5, but even so, it's a description.

Okay you got me. I should have said as a result of those things which those tests look at. Specifically I'm not good at specifics.

To relate it to Johari if the two windows you can see are 1 & 2 and the two that others can see are 2 & 3 then the MBTI and enneagram test windows 1 & 4 where as the FIRO-B is more about 2. 3 is of course hearsay

 

[Eric B]

Sorry to "necropost", but I had just found this on a periodic search of FIRO-MBTI comparisons I do in looking for new insights.

I had actually been trying to strike up a discussion on this since I joined, but it seems people can't really get intot he FIRO system. Then, I discovered Xander as being interested in it, and have been discussing it privately. He was interested in making a thread about it, but I was relectant being it was so hard to find any interest. But now since there was this thread here already, I might as well add to this.

I had made my own comparison of how the systems roughly correspond. My wife uses a Christian temperament analysis directly based on FIRO. Unlike FIRO, which only measures "behavior"; this new one was somehow tailored to measure inborn temperament, much like the Keirsey sorter. It was when a friend introduced us to that test, that I became interested in comparing it and the MBTI. Obviously, E/I will parallel expressed Inclusion and Affection. It was T/F and J/P that seemed to correspond to the "wanted" scales, and the task for me was finding out how, and where S/N would fit.

It was when I learned about Linda Berens Interaction Styles, that I saw a good match for expressed and Wanted Inclusion (E/I and Directing/Informing). When I found about about her additional "Structure/Motive cross factor pairing NF with SP and SJ with NT, that seemed like wanted Control. I've recently been pointing this out, in discussions of why the TJ's are "the most directive". Because they are both "directing" and "structure" focused, and both are forms of low w! So then I determined that Cooperative/Pragmatic would be a good fit with expressed Control. And most of the types fit really well:

Melancholic: (low E and W); Inclusion: "Chart the Course" or IST/INJ
Control: SJ "Guardian"

Sanguine: (high e and w); Inclusion: "Get Things Going" or ESF/ENP; Control: SP "Artisan" or "Improvisor"

Choleric: (high E/low W); Inclusion: "In Charge" or EST/ENJ; Control: NT "Rational"

Phlegmatic: (low E/high W); Inclusion: "Behind the Scenes" or ISF/INP; Control: NF "Idealist". There is also a fifth temperament, "Supine" that fits the low E/high w place, with Phlegmatic being more moderate in fact, but both seem to fit this place in the four temperament models.

Here is my site explaining not only this, but also the comparison to Enneagram as well. Enneagram is actually very similar to FIRO, and once FIRO is understood, it may actually provide an intermediate point in MBTI-Enneagram comparisons.

Temperament Part 2: The APS and other theories and Instruments
The first part explains the basis of the temperament system and FIRO scales from scratch:
Temperament for Dummies

These are different ways of looking at one thing--the individual. MBTI looks at processing/gathering information. Enneagram looks at motivation and barriers. FIRO-B (and some of the others) look at interpersonal relations and outward behaviors.

And all of this may correpond to each other in indirect ways. FIRO does discuss motivations (such as the fears tied to low expressed or high wanted behaviors, for instance), and our temperament theory emphasizes this even more. Perception, which may appear both Enneagram (tap3x.net article) and FIRO may be "blind" to, in my theory tie together diametric opposite Control scores. If BOTH e and w are either high OR low, the person will be more concrete focused. Those with opposite e and w scores are more abstract. In this excerpt, I explain why:

[It makes sense that] the area of information gathering ("perception"), by which we then gain the knowledge of the world around us; allowing us to make the decisions to survive with; would fall into the "Control" area. A person's wanting or not wanting of "interaction" in that area (to control or be controlled) would be indirectly tied to his preference for perception. If his perception is concrete; and then if it is also inward-oriented [Si/SJ], he won't want any interaction in control, from the outside. He won't want to control or be controlled by others. [low e and w, or Melancholic/Guardian] If his perception is outward instead [Se/SP], then he will swing back and forth between controlling and being controlled based on the concrete input he is receiving from the outside world. [high e/w or Sanguine/Improvisor] For people whose preference is intuition, the "self preservation" temperament will not be determined by whether the perception is inward or outward. That is too "concrete", where they are abstract. So rather, it will be the judging function the perception is paired with that determines the Control behavior. Thinking (Tough mindedness) will desire to control, but not be controlled 9high e low w or Choleric], and Feeling (Friendliness) will not desire to control, but be more likely to allow control by others. [low e/high w, fifth temperament]

Even the supposed fifth factor of Neuroticism or Comfort/Discomfort, by Eysenck's original N definition, is implied in the e/w scales. Any "low" score in either dimension will tend to be high N or Discomfort, as it is driven by some sort of distrust of people, or moves the person away from others in some way. The person will tend to be either critical or reclusive, or both. The original "low N" Sanguine and Phlegmatic are repsectively, high and moderate in both scales.

Another key to looking for comparisons of the systems is to realize that MBTI focuses largely on personality strengths" (more "positive" traits), while Enneagram focuses on what we would call "weaknesses" (or "negative" traits). FIRO; at least Leo Ryan's Interpretation of it, also leans towards the weaknesses, but mentions some of the positive as well. This made it hard to compare. The Temperament system we use is balanced between both strengths and weaknesses.

I also discuss the statistical correlations. There are three main ones: Thompson, Schnell & Hammer, and Fleenor.
The latter two particularly do seem to somewhat support my theory. Like NT's and some SP's having the highest Expressed Control (which would be their Pragmatism).
It is Affection that does not fit directly in this comparison. In some respects, it parallels expressed Inclusion and hence, E/I. In other respects, it may throw some of the other comparisons off (like it seems to make me an NF, when I expected to be an NT).

 

[Totenkindly]

Sorry to "necropost", but I had just found this on a periodic search of FIRO-MBTI comparisons I do in looking for new insights. I had actually been trying to strike up a discussion on this since I joined, but it seems people can't really get intot he FIRO system.

Feel free to post what you'd like.

It seems us "type theory" junkies who like digging into the guts of things are a minority now, so it's hard to get a topic rolling. But then no one posts anything along these lines. By all means, if you have some ideas (just like you did here), post them... and hopefully it will attract the attention of current members or even new people passing through and perhaps encourage them to stay.

I had made my own comparison of how the systems roughly correspond. My wife uses a Christian temperament analysis directly based on FIRO.

Are you referring to the LaHaye humors system that's been around since the 70's, or something different? (No, I didn't visit your page yet, but I will...)

Melancholic: (low E and W); Inclusion: "Chart the Course" or IST/INJ
Control: SJ "Guardian"

Sanguine: (high e and w); Inclusion: "Get Things Going" or ESF/ENP; Control: SP "Artisan" or "Improvisor"

Choleric: (high E/low W); Inclusion: "In Charge" or EST/ENJ; Control: NT "Rational"

Phlegmatic: (low E/high W); Inclusion: "Behind the Scenes" or ISF/INP; Control: NF "Idealist". There is also a fifth temperament, "Supine" that fits the low E/high w place, with Phlegmatic being more moderate in fact, but both seem to fit this place in the four temperament models.

I really never personally liked the humors thing, it never seemed to capture a "full person" within the archetypes. Most people I knew just did not fit into a category. And MBTI tends to deal with perception and motivation, the humours are more about specific externalized behavior...so it's hard to get a good correlation between the two systems to me. I didn't find the humours very useful to me because I think behaviors can change based on conditioning or circumstance... so many of the people I knew didn't even seem to fit.

I'll read up on your stuff, tho, and come back when I'm done.

 

[Ezra]

I can't be arsed with any test that isn't free. The MBTI is absolutely crap, and that costs $99. I don't need a test to tell me what I'm good and bad at. I know how tests work - they base a profile upon what questions you answer "yes" and "no" to, which is essentially giving you no new information about yourself (unless you have poor introspection skills). You'd be better off analysing yourself and your actions and recording them for a year. The thing is, people are always willing to spend money for quick results. They'd rather pay for someone else to do the job they can't be bothered to do; and, interestingly, the results of free self-analysis are always of a higher quality than a test that you pay lots of money for.

 

[Eric B]

Feel free to post what you'd like.

It seems us "type theory" junkies who like digging into the guts of things are a minority now, so it's hard to get a topic rolling. But then no one posts anything along these lines. By all means, if you have some ideas (just like you did here), post them... and hopefully it will attract the attention of current members or even new people passing through and perhaps encourage them to stay.

Thanks. Many boards frown on necroposting, so just making sure.

Are you referring to the LaHaye humors system that's been around since the 70's, or something different? (No, I didn't visit your page yet, but I will...)

No. It's the Arno Profile System. We were given LaHaye's book to read before the APS' own manuals arrived, to give us the basics on temperament theory, but APS then goes much further with it, with the FIRO scales and the fifth tempersment.

I really never personally liked the humors thing, it never seemed to capture a "full person" within the archetypes. Most people I knew just did not fit into a category. And MBTI tends to deal with perception and motivation, the humours are more about specific externalized behavior...so it's hard to get a good correlation between the two systems to me. I didn't find the humours very useful to me because I think behaviors can change based on conditioning or circumstance... so many of the people I knew didn't even seem to fit.

I'll read up on your stuff, tho, and come back when I'm done.

Well, APS goes beneath just behavior, and identifies the driving needs and motivations. And then the divisions into FIRO's three areas makes it even more precise. As I've said; it really does seem to parallel the Keirsey temperament and Interaction Styles model. Both have four type groupings that have been compared to the old humors. So each type can be seen as a "blend" between two humors. This is what LaHaye does, and when I get a chance, I'll post what I think each of the 16 types correspond to. (It's also on the page).

 

[Eric B]

OK; so LaHaye believes there are twelve mixtures of the four temperaments, representing people who have the traits of two temperaments, called Mel-Chlor, Chlor-San, San-Phleg, Phleg-Mel, Mel-San, Chlor-Phleg; and the reverse of these: Chlor-Mel, San-Chlor, Phleg-San, Mel-Phleg, San-Mel, and Phleg-Chlor. The order of temperaments in these pairs was based on which temperament was the "dominant" one (this is usually expressed by percentages). These plus the four "pure" temperamts equals 16. So considering that both the Keirsey Temperament and Berens Interaction Styles models have been linked to these same four temperaments, we see a link between LaHaye and MBTI. Now enter Arno, and instead of "dominant" temperaments based on percentage, we substitute two of FIRO's areas, with the "dominant" being considered "Inclusion" (social skills; the first and most prominent thing you will see in a person), and the secondary becoming "Control" (leadership). You get the same 16 combinations. And comparing them in all three systems seems to give very accurate parallels.

So to use LaHaye's combining forms for each type, with the following correlations reiterated as the "key":

Melancholic: (low E and W); Inclusion: "Chart the Course" or IST/INJ
Control: SJ "Guardian"

Sanguine: (high e and w); Inclusion: "Get Things Going" or ESF/ENP; Control: SP "Artisan" or "Improvisor"

Choleric: (high E/low W); Inclusion: "In Charge" or EST/ENJ; Control: NT "Rational"

Phlegmatic: (low E/high W); Inclusion: "Behind the Scenes" or ISF/INP; Control: NF "Idealist".

ISTJ: pure Melancoly
ENTJ: pure Choleric
ESFP: Pure Sanguine
INFP: pure Phlegmatic
INTJ: Mel-Chlor
INTP: Phleg-Chlor
ISTP: Mel-San
INFJ: Mel-Phleg
ISFJ: Phleg-Mel
ISFP: Phleg-San
ESTP: Chlor-San
ENFP: San-Phleg
ENFJ: Chlor-Phleg
ESTJ: Chlor-Mel
ESTP: San-Chlor
ESFJ: San-Mel

The closest comparisons are all the Sensors, and the NTJ's.

 

[Totenkindly]

I can't be arsed with any test that isn't free. The MBTI is absolutely crap, and that costs $99. I don't need a test to tell me what I'm good and bad at. I know how tests work - they base a profile upon what questions you answer "yes" and "no" to, which is essentially giving you no new information about yourself (unless you have poor introspection skills). You'd be better off analysing yourself and your actions and recording them for a year. The thing is, people are always willing to spend money for quick results. They'd rather pay for someone else to do the job they can't be bothered to do; and, interestingly, the results of free self-analysis are always of a higher quality than a test that you pay lots of money for.

Of course, you assume that most people are able to self-analyze and are as self-aware as you are.

What's easy for you isn't necessarily easy at all for some others. So it's not quite as ridiculous as you make it sound. But, then again, it's also easy for them to be snookered by someone who has an aura of expertise but actually knows little.

 

["?"]

Wanted Control (wC): I want others to provide well-defined work situations and clear expectations and instructions.

• Extroversion was related to higher scores on all Firo-B dimensions except Wanted Control.
• Feeling was positively related to high scores on both dimensions of Affection.
• IxTx had lowest levels of both Affection dimensions.
• Judging was NOT shown to be significantly related to Expressed Control.
• Expressed Control was determined to be related to ExTx.
• Thinking had the highest need for Expressed Control.
  [*] Sensing was not related to Wanted Control.
  [*] Feeling was significantly associated with Wanted Control.
• Highest levels of Wanted Control associated with ISFx types; lowest levels, with all NT and ST combinations.
• xNxP was significantly associated with Wanted Inclusion.
• Wanted Affection was the first or second highest interpersonal need for all 16 types.

I highlighted the two for Wanted Control, which seems to be contradictive. I would think that the average sensing type, in particularly those who prefer "Chart the Course" interaction styles to have a high wC (ISTP and ISTJ) and for EFP types preferring "Get Things Going" to have low wC. Even if you dismiss ISTP, can it honestly be said that ISTJs would not want a well defined work situation and clear expectations? That would run counter to ENFPs as dominant intuitives, wanting this. Did I read this wrong?

 

[Totenkindly]

I highlighted the two for Wanted Control, which seems to be contradictive. I would think that the average sensing type, in particularly those who prefer "Chart the Course" interaction styles to have a high wC (ISTP and ISTJ) and for EFP types preferring "Get Things Going" to have low wC. Even if you dismiss ISTP, can it honestly be said that ISTJs would not want a well defined work situation and clear expectations? That would run counter to ENFPs as dominant intuitives, wanting this. Did I read this wrong?

I posted this a very long time ago, so I can't recall all the details.

All I can say is that the results are, well, the results. You know as much about the study as I do; it's all listed in the OP.

Remember that we're talking about "overall S" not specifically being tied to wC. So perhaps there would be a few MBTI types that would be high in wC but when you just look at S correlation in general, there would be no overall correlation?

Same thing with F. We're not looking at specific MBTI types, we are looking at overall F -- which includes many types of F's (e.g., all FJs and all FPs). While a particular MBTI type might have a correlation or might not have a correlation, apparently F in general when looked at broadly DID correlate.

That's how I read it. But yes, if you generalize their basic F or S results across all F or S-related MBTI types, it could be misleading in terms of how a particular type might fit into things.

(Example: Sort of like saying people from Norway are blond. This a basic generalization that I'm guessing is true, but it doesn't mean you won't find any Norwegians who are not blond.)

 

[Eric B]

Quote:
Wanted Control (wC): I want others to provide well-defined work situations and clear expectations and instructions.

I highlighted the two for Wanted Control, which seems to be contradictive. I would think that the average sensing type, in particularly those who prefer "Chart the Course" interaction styles to have a high wC (ISTP and ISTJ) and for EFP types preferring "Get Things Going" to have low wC. Even if you dismiss ISTP, can it honestly be said that ISTJs would not want a well defined work situation and clear expectations? That would run counter to ENFPs as dominant intuitives, wanting this. Did I read this wrong?

I found that definition of wC to be rather confusing, and that's what's throwing you off. But that is by Schnell & Hammer who are primarily working to correlate it with MBTI.

The definition by Leo Ryan (Clinical Interpretation of FIRO-B), who worked more exclusively with FIRO:

"A high wanted Control score reflects abdication of responsibility and a disposition towards accepting Control from others".

That is what is meant by "want[ing] others to provide well-defined work situations and clear expectations and instructions". They can't make the decisions themselves.

I have not been able to really find any direct comparison to this in the 16 types. The closest you come to it would be the Motive-focused temperaments (SP, NF). This is defined by Berens as a focus on "why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure". That there may not in itself sound like a high want of Control from others. But when you compare it to Structure-focus (NT, SJ): "a focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of control over life's problems and irregularities rather than be at the mercy of random forces." Right there, you can see what would be called a "low wanted Control". So for the Motive-focus, the wC would be higher, though apparently not as high as what FIRO is measuring.

Low e/high wC is called by Ryan "Openly Dependent". (if wC is 6, then it's "Loyal Lieutenant"). There does not seem to be any direct match for this in MBTI. The closest would be NF, which probably compares better with the Checker (wC=5, moderate) or Matcher (e/wC is both moderate). These have more independence as well as stubbornness. Ryan describes the Matcher: "His democratic attitude is reflected in the statement 'I want you to work shoulder to shoulder with me'". (Now doesn't this sound like the typical NF "Peace-activist" stereotype?)

For high eC with high wC, Ryan calls it "independent/dependent conflict". They take control quickly, but then will "swing" into a dependent mode, where they drop responsibilities and indulge in dependent or narcissistic behavior. This also you don't clearly see in MBTI, but there are in fact hints of it in three of the SP's. They are described as "impulsive", and yet have "cool off periods". (The ESTP is also an "In Charge" and seems to have this "cool off" trait the least). It would make sense with an Se preference: they are driven by "the current external circumstances--a desired change, a want, an immediate goal". So something looks fun or exciting; they want to go for it. They see responsibilities they can take that can gain them attention; they move to take over it. They see that they are doing all of this, yet are not getting the recognition they want; they now crash and swing to their dependent or narcissistic mode. They then begin to feel worthless, and swing back to the independent mode.

Chart the Course, and Get Things Going, being Interaction Styles, would most likely match Inclusion (surface social skills) more.

 

["?"]

I have not been able to really find any direct comparison to this in the 16 types. The closest you come to it would be the Motive-focused temperaments (SP, NF). This is defined by Berens as a focus on "why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure". That there may not in itself sound like a high want of Control from others. But when you compare it to Structure-focus (NT, SJ): "a focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of control over life's problems and irregularities rather than be at the mercy of random forces." Right there, you can see what would be called a "low wanted Control". So for the Motive-focus, the wC would be higher, though apparently not as high as what FIRO is measuring.

Thanks for the insight Eric. I have never really studied FIRO, Belbin or any of the other theories. But based on the highlighted part, I would think that Berens' Control (In Charge-Behind The Scenes)/Movement (Chart The Course-Get Things Going) theory would come closer to your example.

 

[Eric B]

Berens' "control vs Movement" links opposite Interaction styles. What links the opposites in the FIRO/APS system is that Sanguines (People Gatherer/Independent-Dependent/Optimist) and Melancholies (Loners/Rebels/Pessimists) both express what they want, and want what they express, while Supines (Inhibited/Dependent/Cautious Lover) and Cholerics (Now You See Him Now You Don't/Mission Impossible/Image of Intimacy) are very "indirect" in that respect. So people have asked me if there is any connection. In reading Berens' description, I noticed this "control" defined as "Controlling some aspect of the interaction" (As opposed to "Moving things along"). I then saw a definite connection there. Cholerics or IC, of course, are by nature controlling. But what about the opposite Supine? Because they do not express, but do want interaction, they basically have to influence people to gain this, and that's what their "service" (doing tasks for people) basically is. The Choleric of course expresses to people to manipulate them for his task oriented goals. So they both do have in common this kind of "control". The Melancholy on the other hand doesn't even want to be bothered with people, so neither expresses to them. The Sanguine gains the interaction they want by expressing upfront. So both basically focus on "moving things along" to their goal (either socialization, or solitude), without using any indirect behavior to achieve those things.

Further supporting the connection, is the partial list of names Dr. Schutz came up with for his FIRO-B scores. (I have been using Leo Ryan's names. He named all of the score ranges in the three areas, but Schutz had only created a partial list). He divided them into "Inclusion types", "Control types" and "Affection types". The "Inclusion" and "Affection" types are high E/W, medium E/W and low E/W ("overpersonal", "personal" "underpersonal"). However, the "Control" types are the high E/low W, low E/high W, and med. E/W, (named "autocrat", "abdicrat", "democrat"). This would be Choleric, Supine and Phlegmatic; or IC and BtS, just like Berens says! (BtS encompassing the latter two; and even though those are the Control counterparts to them while Interaction Styles are Inclusion). So apparently, there IS a connection between both uses of "control". I wonder if Berens might have even drawn from Schutz there.

In the areas of Inclusion and Affection, we would expect someone who expresses to also want; and someone who doesn't want to not express. That would be "direct" behavior. That would be Berens' "Movement". It has nothing to do with wanting control by others over one's life. It's about how the person goes about meeting his temperament needs (socialization, solitude, etc).

 

[Gabe]

"A high wanted Control score reflects abdication of responsibility and a disposition towards accepting Control from others".

That is what is meant by "want[ing] others to provide well-defined work situations and clear expectations and instructions". They can't make the decisions themselves.

That's quite a facile assumption about people's motives.

 

[Eric B]

Well, I didn't make this one up; it is something that is measured by the instrument (and doesn't seem to be something clearly represented in MBTI, so perhaps that would be why it might be so foreign to you).