• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

FIRO-B & MBTI in conjunction

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
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.
 

Srho

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
88
MBTI Type
INFX
I would guess INFP or INFJ for pure Melancholy. Interesting.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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).
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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":

ScoreInclusionControlAffection
Low e and wUndersocial
Countersocial
Abdicrat
Rebellious
Underpersonal
Counterpersonal
High e, low wOversocial
Countersocial
Autocrat
Rebellious
Overpersonal
Counterpersonal
high e and wOversocial
Social-compliant
Autocrat
Submissive
Overpersonal
Personal-compliant
low e, high wUndersocial
Social-compliant
Abdicrat
Submissive
Underpersonal
Personal-compliant
moderate e and wSocialDemocratPersonal

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.
 
Top