Thanks for the link. I'm much more impressed by her response to you here than I am by her book.
Yeah; she's changed some things a bit since writing the book. I think she says somewhere that the publisher also influenced the content that could be included, and Beebe's model was not really out yet at that time; hence she came up with her own order. So she has expanded since the publication.
So, Type Theory (Jung) says that what our dominant preference is results from conditioning and free will, and not so much biological factors or instincts. (Although it could be argued that a particular conditioning could arise because we innately choose it because we naturally have some sort of biological proclivity for it.) And Temperament Theory holds more that how we behave is a result of our unconscious processes springing forth unbidden, so to speak. And she defines it thus: NF, SP, NT, SJ.
No; actually, when she speaks of temperament (and this was in her discussion with me; it's not in the book), she means in a very general sense, as is used in more mainstream psychcology. Basically; there is only ONE temperament, and that is our natural, limbic reactions.
Here is more, from the original version of the section you posted, but edited when she posted it in that article:
Temperament, by contrast, is a matter of the innate -- reactivity, adaptability, mood, distractibility, persistence, attention span, sensory sensitivity, and the like. These are bona fide aspects of the personality, but Jung talks about none of them when he outlines his theory of type.
In fact, most of the monographs in "Psychological Types"... [cont'd in your quote]
So, if I'm understanding this (and I might still be a bit fuzzy), Type Theory is 'nurture,' and Temperament Theory is 'nature.' Nurture being chosen by us as a comfortable and preferable way of being, becoming fully human at the cost of suppressing our innate desires; and nature being represented in a sort of economics outlook of social roles being manifested for our collective society.
I asked her about that, and I think she said she didn't believe in nature vs nurture.
Then, again, it was taking time for it to sink in what she was saying about temperament. Temperament is not nurture, but she clearly says there it was nature. However, it is not the
four (or five) divisions we speak of. She believes "the four temperaments" are largely stereotypical roles expected in society.
She did say "Jung's own concerns, however, were of a different order. He maintained that
a person is most likely to differentiate the function that best equips him to accomplish the biological tasks of youth (job, house, marriage, family)." That makes it sould like even the cognitive, and all of type altogether is nurture. But I still don't fully understand it, so maybe I'm missing something.
I still think there must something hardwired in us, because what determines what equips one person to accomplish his tasks, while another does it for another person? Like if they are siblings, and growing up in the exact same environment? They can still become different types. So there has to be something in each of us besides just this single limbic "temperament".
Interesting take. I'd say it's both. Early conditioning can be very influential on our human development, as can genes. Perhaps when there is a large discrepancy between the two (as in a harmful or non conducive environment or subject) is when you are more likely to get neuroses and pathological processes or deviances in behaviors, ego disruptions, and lack of individuation.
And, as much as I hate to side with Keirsey, there is some truth to temperament theory as well.
What I believe, is since she holds temperament as limbic (which also is in common with animals as well; while cognitive development; unique to humans, is from the frontal cortex), and Pavlov identified the same four temperaments in dogs; then that is evidence that the division of temperaments
is as innate and limbic along with it.
I always wondered which was more elemental, and perhaps thus which caused which. It looks like the functions are more elemental, but then I, taking from the particular temperament system hail from, take it to be the temperament factors as outlined in FIRO. (expressed vs wanted, in Inclusion, Control and Affection, totalling six:
eI, wI, eC, wC, eA, wA). These stem from
needs which motivate one to either express and/or want from others, or not express or want.
The first four of them translate (in type) into
I/E, directive/informative, pragmatic/cooperative, and structure/motive. The last two are a variation of the first two.
So introversion/extroversion is one of these factors (eI), and Personality Page (Brenda Mullins) suggests I/E and J/P are the first type preferences to develop. J/P can be either wI or wC, depending on the S or N that develops. When the middle two letters develop, then, at least three of the other factors become evident and the type is complete.
So if a person has high eC and high wC hardwired into them, they will have a tendency to be pragmatic (quick acting) and also at the same time abdicratic (drop what they are doing suddenly). This will come out as the behaviors associated with an extraverted Sensing preference. If e/wC are low, they will instead be cooperative and yet independent, which will lead them to depend a lot on memory and find security in concrete structures (introverted Sensing perspective).
So the question, is Se or Si hardwired into the person, and leads them to manifest high or low e/wC, or are neither Se/Si nor e/wC hardwired, or are the high or low e/wC "needs" hardwired into them,
leading Se or Si to be that function he differentiates, "which best equips him to accomplish the biological tasks of youth"?
The latter makes sense to me, but I'm really not sure at this point. FIRO itself holds these things to be
not inborn, but the APS temperament system says it is inborn temperament. If temperament division is really limbic,
that is what would seem to make that more elemental, and cognitive development something that springs forth from it in addition, for humans.
When I suggested these "needs" (based on "fears" of rejection leading us to not express or want, and such) to Lenore, she said it sounded like a pathological basis of personality (or something like that).
And then, it got into the whole thing of the Christian doctrine of man being "fallen". APS is from a Christian ministry, so it would fit perfectly, though others will have problems with this, of course. Since Jung did call differentiation a "wound on the psyche", then that does sound like something out of whack. So perhaps "patholigical" explanations are not that far off after all.
When I mentioned Pavlov, the discussion was winding down, because she's been having problems with a hard drive; so I don't know her answer on that yet.