FIRO-B & MBTI in conjunction

[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).