How about Herman's Head? (remember that?) That was about four characters inside one person.
(The concept of inner conflict within a person is explored in Sigmund Freud's concepts of Ego, Superego and Id, and Eric Berne's transactional analysis).
Angel represented his sensitivity. As the only female character in his brain, Angel also represented his feminine side, or in Jungian terms the
anima, and sometimes used this fact to manipulate the male characters.
Animal represented his lust or hunger. He was an archetypal fratboy, and possibly derives his name from Animal House. He usually bullies Wimp.
Wimp represented his anxiety. He was a paranoid hypochondriac. But since he always expected the worst, he was often the best prepared to handle crises when the others could not decide.
Genius represented his intellect and logic and because of this he clashes with the naive nature of Angel and stupidity of Animal. At times he could get overworked, as in one episode where his face is blackened by soot and he exclaims "I think I blew a fuse!", after Herman makes a ridiculous decision.
Seeing LaHaye's temperament characters reminded me of this, and I thought it would be nice for them to do a show like this with characters representing the temperaments.
I always pictured LaHaye's "Rocky Choleric" to be like Animal. However, LaHaye's temperaments would correspond more to the Interaction Styles. These four; Angel would obviously be NF, Genius, NT. I guess Wimp would be closest to SJ from the descriptions, and Animal would end up SP.
Or, it seems since they are in one single person, and Angel was already identified as the "anima", perhaps they are function archetypes. So Angel would be Inferior, but what would the others be? It might depend on what Herman's actual preference order is. Some of them sound more like they would fit shadows.
As for the different combinations, I was told that Otto Kroeger gives lectures on those. As one person points out, any of the groupings may be "better" or the most useful for a particular purpose. If you want classic "temperament", there's Keirsey's groups or Beren's styles. If you want symmetrical groups using the function pairs, there's the original ST, SF, NT, NF, or function attitudes (S/N+J/P, T/F+J/P). If you want the strongest distinctions, Keirsey's are good, but the "mirror" grouping (NP, NJ, ST, SF) is better. Even more distinct (according to analysis data) is another "assymetrical" set: SP, SJ, EN, IN.
Xander said:
Anyhoo... people always talk about NTs and NFs on here and SJs get mentioned a lot as do SPs (less so but still present). Those combinations represent strong characteristics. EJ doesn't say anything about a person really. It lacks context. NT however does give you a fair grounding to a person even without the extra preferences.
I/E + J/P are called "sociability temperaments" (George Frisbie writing in JPT)
What they tell us is:
EP dominant extraverted perceiving (Jung's "irrationals")
EJ dominant extraverted judging
IP dominant introverted judging/aux. extraverted perceiving
IJ dominant introverted perceiving/aux. extroverted judging
For N types, they also correspond to the Interaction Styles. (and for S types, it would be E/I + T/F)