Converging Personality Type Systems

[Doctor Cringelord]

Not all Ti types employ all "Ti games". Keep in mind I'm looking at this from a Te point of view, where things are usually considered in very direct terms, and a lot of what Ti types do and say looks very much like a "game" from our direct point of view. I intend the term descriptively, not pejoratively. Instead of going straight for conclusions like a Te type, a Ti type will go around in various logical circles, playing with ideas in various ways. Nothing wrong with the playing, but it can be frustrating for us Te types. It is also a good litmus test: if you see those kinds of logical games going on, you're very likely dealing with a Ti type.

Or to put it very generally, think of "Ti game" as "lack of directness from a Te point of view". I sense that lack of directness very acutely in conversations.

(If this is getting too tangential Ene, I'll just shut up about it. I don't mean to derail the thread with my tangential thoughts on your question.)

This is understandable.

Also Ti dominant types seem to dwell on accuracy of speech--"you said this earlier, but what you say now contradicts that. please clarify what you meant." "let's define the word _____ first." And so on. It can make them appear nit-picky. They can also appear nitpicky about details. Shit has to line up with their definition and if it doesn't they might get stuck on semantics and veer away from the original meat of whatever was being discussed or argued.

This can be their own worst enemy in an argument or discussion.

 

[Ene]

[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION]First, thank you for taking the time to make this response. It really means a lot to me when people provide thoughtful responses (that goes for all who have been discussing this with me), because I believe time is One of the most important things you can give a person. So, thank you for really hearing I was trying to say. You managed to get right to the heart (or should I say mind) of it.

The first book I read about personality type was something called The Platinum Rule, which included four types: Director, Socializer, Thinker, Relator. Interestingly, they had 16 types, where you would have a primary and secondary of any of those four (sound familiar)? I came out as Relating Director but close between Relating and Thinking (think Enneagram 6 for relating + INTJ for director).

Sounds very familiar.

1) The dumbed down polarities version (P vs J or N vs S) which was created to simplify things for an uneducated public; later enhanced to include the facets under each letter, making it more interesting but somewhat distorting the original concept which had been based on jungian functions
2) The more nuanced ordering of the the first two of the 8 cognitive functions, which I think is the more logically consistent way to view things and I thought what MBTI was supposed to be based on anyway
3) Kiersey Temperaments, which seems like a creative interpretation of the first two, adding it's own spin, but fundamentally sound in some really important ways. I tend to think of parts of it as genius and other parts fiction. On those three, I tend to lump them all together with a view that #2 is the actual correct way to look at things, with 1 and 3 offering useful shorthand that is imperfect in real application.

I would have to agree with you.

All the further evidences you go on to mention, except the Enneagram, seem to be able to be boiled down in their simplistic forms, to four basic types, which line-up with some aspect of MBTI. Whether they be lumped as ST, SF, NT, NFs or as ExxPs, ExxJs, IxxPs, IxxJs or Ne, Ni, Se, Si or however. It still comes down to the four basics. I guess it's just my nature to need to know how each system relates to the others when I encounter it. Apparently, it's in your nature, too. Haha.

Thanks for the helpful Enneagram link. I have to confess that I have never been comfortable with the Enneagram system. Still, varying instincts do account for why two people of the same type, while basically put together the same way, can yet be so different.

 

[Xander]

This can be their own worst enemy in an argument or discussion.

Correction, your worst enemy, our super power!

 

[INTP]

Yes i think many modern personality measurements are just refinements of old ones. Even Jung bases his typology largely on other peoples work, much of psychological types is reviewing older models and jung talking about why/how aspects of personality should be viewed a little differently. Then big 5, eysencs model incorporates I/E on them, which was introduced by jung(which he refined from earlier models of personality). I think its useful to learn as many models as possible to get the full picture of things. Big 5, jungian, enneagram maybe most important imo. But also there is some research done on eysencs model(which is basically first version of big 5, dealing with only 3 aspects of personality) for example, like some study that one showed that extraverts have more info going to their visual cortex(and thus create sort of expectations about the external world) and introverts have more info leaving visual cortex(for further processing and abstractions), which i think really helps to understand I/E in any model(and gives proofs for jungs idea of I/E), even tho the study was made based on eysencs model.

 

[Ene]

Yes i think many modern personality measurements are just refinements of old ones. Even Jung bases his typology largely on other peoples work, much of psychological types is reviewing older models and jung talking about why/how aspects of personality should be viewed a little differently. Then big 5, eysencs model incorporates I/E on them, which was introduced by jung(which he refined from earlier models of personality). I think its useful to learn as many models as possible to get the full picture of things. Big 5, jungian, enneagram maybe most important imo. But also there is some research done on eysencs model(which is basically first version of big 5, dealing with only 3 aspects of personality) for example, like some study that one showed that extraverts have more info going to their visual cortex(and thus create sort of expectations about the external world) and introverts have more info leaving visual cortex(for further processing and abstractions), which i think really helps to understand I/E in any model(and gives proofs for jungs idea of I/E), even tho the study was made based on eysencs model.

First, I apologize for being slow in getting back here and secondly, thank you for this post. What I really found interesting is bolded. I think you're right in saying the model lends proof to Jung's idea of I/E.

 

[Lark]

I still think Fromm's theories about social character have yet to have their day.

Although that said he'd have thought it a more fluid idea than even the categories he identified in his own day or the overarching dichotomy of biophilious and necrophilious.

 

[INTP]

First, I apologize for being slow in getting back here and secondly, thank you for this post. What I really found interesting is bolded. I think you're right in saying the model lends proof to Jung's idea of I/E.

Oh the model itself is basically big 5's earlier model, with only 3 dimensions(introversion/extraversion, which is similar to big 5's I/E, neuroticism also another thing incorporated to big 5, and psychoticism/socialisation) Eysenck Personality Questionnaire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . This study was just one study made on topic and it could had as well be done on big 5 or jungs model and im sure that similar results would had came out because the definitions for I/E are so much alike. But do note that this isnt the only thing they have found in brain scans about I/E, for example there is a difference on brain arousal and now just recently they published this study: The neuroanatomical delineation of agentic and affiliative extraversion - Online First - Springer

 

[INTP]

I still think Fromm's theories about social character have yet to have their day.

Although that said he'd have thought it a more fluid idea than even the categories he identified in his own day or the overarching dichotomy of biophilious and necrophilious.

They do teach fromms theories in social psychology at least in finland, i think its one of the most well known names in the field of social psychology..

 

[Lark]

They do teach fromms theories in social psychology at least in finland, i think its one of the most well known names in the field of social psychology..

That's interesting because he's not well known at all in the UK or Ireland, from what I can tell, sometimes he's afforded a footnote and described as a popularising or a bridging theorist and of no real consequence, wrote a couple of self-help books, that sort of thing, or was some sort of social critic, still worse that he was a one time traitor to marxism and a lot of lies about his differences with the frankfurt school for social research and discourse with Marcuse are still peddled.

I saw some good resources about Fromm on one or two university professors websites from the states, which is something, its not the entire english speaking world who have forgot about him but by and large he's forgotten, like Karen Horney, Wilhem Reich or Harry Stack Sullivan.

 

[INTP]

That's interesting because he's not well known at all in the UK or Ireland, from what I can tell, sometimes he's afforded a footnote and described as a popularising or a bridging theorist and of no real consequence, wrote a couple of self-help books, that sort of thing, or was some sort of social critic, still worse that he was a one time traitor to marxism and a lot of lies about his differences with the frankfurt school for social research and discourse with Marcuse are still peddled.

I saw some good resources about Fromm on one or two university professors websites from the states, which is something, its not the entire english speaking world who have forgot about him but by and large he's forgotten, like Karen Horney, Wilhem Reich or Harry Stack Sullivan.

But the thing with academia is that science on social psychology(and psychology in general) has advanced quite a bit since horney(she was also mentioned in our personality psychology 1 class, and quickly went through some of her concepts). Their ideas still live, but their ideas have been advanced since their time and these new ideas influenced by fromm are studied more than fromms original work.

I dont really know what people over the world think of fromm, but his wiki page says this about him: "Erich Fromm oli Suomessa erittäin suosittu yhteiskuntafilosofi jo 1960-luvulla, mutta erityisesti 1970-luvulla. Hänen suomennetun tuotantonsa määräkin kertoo paljon tästä suosiosta. Vain harva ulkomaalainen filosofi ja yhteiskuntakriitikko on päässyt vastaaviin lukuihin.". Which translates to: Fromm was extremely popular social philosopher 60's and more so in 70's. His vast amount of translated works to finnish tell about his popularity. Only a few foreign philosopher and social critic has reached same numbers in translations.

 

[Lark]

But the thing with academia is that science on social psychology(and psychology in general) has advanced quite a bit since horney(she was also mentioned in our personality psychology 1 class, and quickly went through some of her concepts). Their ideas still live, but their ideas have been advanced since their time and these new ideas influenced by fromm are studied more than fromms original work.

I dont really know what people over the world think of fromm, but his wiki page says this about him: "Erich Fromm oli Suomessa erittäin suosittu yhteiskuntafilosofi jo 1960-luvulla, mutta erityisesti 1970-luvulla. Hänen suomennetun tuotantonsa määräkin kertoo paljon tästä suosiosta. Vain harva ulkomaalainen filosofi ja yhteiskuntakriitikko on päässyt vastaaviin lukuihin.". Which translates to: Fromm was extremely popular social philosopher 60's and more so in 70's. His vast amount of translated works to finnish tell about his popularity. Only a few foreign philosopher and social critic has reached same numbers in translations.

Horney I'd suggest is a little less relevent, given that the popularity of psycho-analysis has waned and therefore the critical neo-Freudians too, although I liked reading the books and thought they were useful, Adler and Harry Stack Sullivan are two examples of authors who have been virtually eclipsed.

I would say that Fromm is a little different though, it could fit the category of his influence rather than the man himself or his own theorising, but recent books like Reclaiming The Sane Society make a good case of arguing the continued relevence and I do think that some of the less well known stuff, if you make certain allowances and know that he wasnt working at a time when attachment theory for instance was as well known, its possible to support the arguments that he was ahead of his time.

 

[INTP]

Horney I'd suggest is a little less relevent, given that the popularity of psycho-analysis has waned and therefore the critical neo-Freudians too, although I liked reading the books and thought they were useful, Adler and Harry Stack Sullivan are two examples of authors who have been virtually eclipsed.

I would say that Fromm is a little different though, it could fit the category of his influence rather than the man himself or his own theorising, but recent books like Reclaiming The Sane Society make a good case of arguing the continued relevence and I do think that some of the less well known stuff, if you make certain allowances and know that he wasnt working at a time when attachment theory for instance was as well known, its possible to support the arguments that he was ahead of his time.

Weird because i always thought adler as one of the big names as well . I mean the whole idea of superiority/inferiority complex comes from adler, he founded the school of individual psychology and he has had quite big influence on todays psychology. Wiki says that he havent had the credit he deserves from his contribution to psychology tho..

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah, I wouldn't say Horney is "forgotten" at least in typology circles... her concepts of moving against, moving towards, and moving away (for example) is a basis for enneagram theory (it describes the three groups of compliants, assertives, and withdrawers) and it also is a basis for the exploration of attachment issues in both children and adults.

But I haven't really done a canvas of what theories are most prevalent in today's psychology circles.

 

[Eric B]

I've been analyzing these connections between the systems for probably 20 years looking for commonalities and differences. In answer to your question, I have never researched the original four temperaments. My lens has been towards Kiersey temperaments but yes, I believe many of them do tie back to all of the same things. Here are examples:

The first book I read about personality type was something called The Platinum Rule, which included four types: Director, Socializer, Thinker, Relator. Interestingly, they had 16 types, where you would have a primary and secondary of any of those four (sound familiar)? I came out as Relating Director but close between Relating and Thinking (think Enneagram 6 for relating + INTJ for director).

Then I read about MBTI, Kiersey and Cognitive Functions. We all know what those types are. It seems to operate from three perspectives -
1) The dumbed down polarities version (P vs J or N vs S) which was created to simplify things for an uneducated public; later enhanced to include the facets under each letter, making it more interesting but somewhat distorting the original concept which had been based on jungian functions
2) The more nuanced ordering of the the first two of the 8 cognitive functions, which I think is the more logically consistent way to view things and I thought what MBTI was supposed to be based on anyway
3) Kiersey Temperaments, which seems like a creative interpretation of the first two, adding it's own spin, but fundamentally sound in some really important ways. I tend to think of parts of it as genius and other parts fiction
On those three, I tend to lump them all together with a view that #2 is the actual correct way to look at things, with 1 and 3 offering useful shorthand that is imperfect in real application.

There is Helen Fisher's system which she uses for Match.com. Her types which roughly correspond to temperaments are Builder (SJ), Explorer (SP), Negotiator (NF), Director (NT). Of course, she has a similar thing to the Platinum Rule, where there is a primary and secondary dimension - again totaling to 16 types. I have tested as a Director primary and Builder secondarily. She has another system for businesses to use, which includes Driver, Guardian, Pioneer, Integrator. I'm not sure if it's the same exactly as the dating thing but on that, I came out as Driver primary and Pioneer secondary, which is pretty much an INTJ profile. The key difference in her research is that she focused on the hormones in our bodies or something and not specifically on cognitive thought processes. I have wondered if there is some kind of relationship between those two that nobody has researched or published on.

There are more. I read a book called Brainstyles, which had four key types are deliberators, knowers, conceptors, and conciliators. Conceptors are sort of like NTs but not completely. Conciliators are sort of like NFs and Deliberators like SJs - but the match wasn't perfect. There is another book that was once popular called The Art of Thinking. Sally Hogshead's stuff is more recent and interesting but I don't know quite what to make of it yet. It seems like further derivation and nuanced version of MBTI. I could bore you with others, but that is a summary of a few of the major ones I've looked at, which all seem to derive from a temperaments and cognitive brain function/thinking patterns.

Enneagram to me is a completely separate and different system and one that provides completely separate data points. I see it as based on basic fears and distortions in the way we perceive and respond to stimuli. A INTJ 5 vs 8 vs 1 vs 6 for example is going to have some substantial differences, and I do believe that each of the 16 types has a wide variety of possibilities for enneagram, though there are obvious commonalities. Instincts are really important as well and have nothing to do with temperaments.

You can look at it as being two different strains of personality theory. Plato, whose "four character styles" dealt more with leadership, and then, Hippocrates (and Galen) dealt with basic surface social skills, thought to be affected by various "humours" in the body.

I'm not sure what Plato's original factors were, but Galen plotted a matrix using the temperature of the humours: hot/cold and wet/dry. These became metaphors for the person's "expressiveness", or speed of approaching others (extrovert="hot"; introvert="cold"), and their speed of holding on to emotions, which ultimately also affects their general response to the approaches of others (task-focus="dry", people-focus="moist").

These I say is the fundamental elements of personality, and everything anyone would come up with afterward would in some way have either or both of these two systems implicit, if not just a renamed rehash of them.

So other systems, such as Allessandra (Platinum Rule) you mention, which is basically Merrill "Social Styles" under new names, follow Galen, with corresponding "expressivness" and "responsiveness" dimensions, as did Fromm, Adler, DISC, Blake-Moutin, TKI, CPI, LIFO, FIRO, etc.
A few others followed Plato, such as Adickes, Kretschmer and Spränger.
(Kant's system was ultimately like a hybrid of both strains).

They all probably didn't just deliberately copy older systems and rename them. They probably went by observations of people, and the systems they put together simply followed these same patterns.

The one system that was drastically different was Jung's four functions, but when put together into typology, then it was possible to yield the other systems from it. From the getgo, you already have the old introversion and extraversion poles.

That's where Keirsey came in. He resurrected essentially the Plato system, via Kretschmer and the other two mentioned above, and also occasionally attempted to match them to the Hippocrates "humour" names (Even though the resultant type groups are very different from the socially oriented classic temperaments. They are "conative", meaning dealing with "action", which also seems to figure in "leadership" skills, which type is often used for). He didn't use I/E, but instead used concrete/abstract and cooperative/pragmatic, both of which had their roots in those other three (and the former tied right into MBTI's S/N).
Fisher and most of those "color" systems also basically follow Keirsey.

He also discovered "informative/directive", which turned out to be the other classic dimension usually factored with I/E, but did not used I/E to divide them further, but instead outlined eight "intelligence" groups. So that's where Berens comes in with "Interaction Styles", which end up very similar to Social Styles (and Platinum Rule), DISC, and other systems using the old "humors" for social skills, like LaHaye/Littauer, Steiner, those Catholic systems, etc.
She also added "structure/motive" to the temperament groups, and I figured that and cooperative pragmatic as the "conative" analogues to the the old social factors of people/task and I/E. So you had two levels of "temperament": social and leadership, and by using the same names, it could explain "blends", such as Allessandra uses, as well as LaHaye, and Arno, who, using the FIRO system, divides them into social and leadership areas (and another one dealing with deeper relationships).

Even Big Five, is basically something like the four MBTI factors plus Eysenck's old "Neuroticism", though I would say Agreeableness (which gets correlated to T/F) is closer to "directive/informative" (and also structure/motive), and "conscientiousness" (correlated to J/P) might be cooperative/pragmatic.

So that's why all of these systems "converge" like that.

 

[Ene]

Thank you, [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION], for breaking down these origins for us so concisely. I love this post! And it's apparent that you really know your stuff.


Yes, this is where I think I was trying to go:

These I say is the fundamental elements of personality, and everything anyone would come up with afterward would in some way have either or both of these two systems implicit, if not just a renamed rehash of them.

I think I'll bookmark this post as a reference page. I love how you briefly outline the history of the systems.

Of course, now I'm wondering, of the systems, which do you feel most accurately allows for the scope of human personalities? Or do you have a preference? I mean ultimately, no matter how we slice it, it looks like human personalities are all variations on the same basic themes.

 

[Eric B]

My preference is simply APS (4 classic temperaments + 1 on the FIRO expressed/wanted + Inclusion/Control/Affection system), used with 16 types (realizing that Interaction Styles≈Inclusion and Keirsey≈Control), and the functions and eight archetypal complexes in each type.
Berens' "CORE" model (formerly "Multiple Models") is pretty good (though I might express some things differently).
(And the fifth commonly recognized factor of Neuroticism is actually built into the classic temperaments, but since the temperaments are blended, pus there is a third area you could be another temperament in, then people will have different measures of it, and then some of it will be from circumstance as well).

That gives you a good scope of personality, and a wide range of simple to advanced concept.

 

[Purge the Mind]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] I wouldn't say Sullivan's been eclipsed. He may not be as highly cited as some of his peers, but he definitely has had an influence on contemporary psychoanalytic theory.
[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] Object relations theorists had more of a hand in preempting attachment theories than Horney.

 

[Lark]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] I wouldn't say Sullivan's been eclipsed. He may not be as highly cited as some of his peers, but he definitely has had an influence on contemporary psychoanalytic theory.
[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] Object relations theorists had more of a hand in preempting attachment theories than Horney.

Do you ever read Horney and think she's talking about attachment theory though but hasnt the language down to a tee.