Difference between revisions of "Temperament theory"

From Typology Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m (typos)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Temperament theory''' is an ancient model of personality types that has been adopted into the MBTI-based 16 types theory, dividing it into some sub-groups, consisting of different two or three letter combinations.  
 
'''Temperament theory''' is an ancient model of personality types that has been adopted into the MBTI-based 16 types theory, dividing it into some sub-groups, consisting of different two or three letter combinations.  
  
−
Temperament theory began with two different models dividing humanity into four categories. Plato had "Four kinds of men", while Hippocrates, and then Galen matched tempeament to four body fluids, called "humors", which originally were believed to influence man's dispositions.  
+
Temperament theory began with two different models dividing humanity into four categories. Plato had "Four kinds of men", while Hippocrates, and then Galen matched temperament to four body fluids, called "humors", which originally were believed to influence man's dispositions.  
  
 
They were also tied to the ancient "four elements" as such:
 
They were also tied to the ancient "four elements" as such:
Line 18: Line 18:
 
(''Evidence-based Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine I: Histor''y Francesco Chiappelli, Paolo Prolo and Olivia S. Cajulis)
 
(''Evidence-based Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine I: Histor''y Francesco Chiappelli, Paolo Prolo and Olivia S. Cajulis)
  
−
In type theory, the most popular version of this is the four “temperaments” of '''[[David Keirsey]]''': SP, SJ, NT and NF. This grouping is “asymmetrical”, because it does not map to the same dichotomies across the board. Notice, for Sensors, temperament is determined by J/P, while for iNtuitors, it is T/F (This would be formulated S + J/P; N + T/F). For the Sociability groups, it was E/I + J/P across the board.
+
In type theory, the most popular version of this is the four “temperaments” of '''[[David Keirsey]]''': SP, SJ, NT and NF. This grouping is “asymmetrical”, because it does not map to the same dichotomies across the board. Notice, for Sensors, temperament is determined by J/P, while for iNtuitors, it is T/F (This would be formulated S + J/P; N + T/F).
  
 
Some understandably think this arrangement is strange, but the reason for this is that he derived his temperaments from a source external to the MBTI framework; namely both the old Hippocratic/Galenic "four humors" temperaments and Plato's "four kinds of men", which became the basis of Keirsey's temperaments. Their names ('''Guardian, Artisan, Idealist, Rational''') are what Keirsey settled on (intitially, they were taken from Greek gods: Epimethean, Dionysian, Apollonian and Promethean).
 
Some understandably think this arrangement is strange, but the reason for this is that he derived his temperaments from a source external to the MBTI framework; namely both the old Hippocratic/Galenic "four humors" temperaments and Plato's "four kinds of men", which became the basis of Keirsey's temperaments. Their names ('''Guardian, Artisan, Idealist, Rational''') are what Keirsey settled on (intitially, they were taken from Greek gods: Epimethean, Dionysian, Apollonian and Promethean).
  
−
Plato is cited by Keirsey as making an "observant vs imaginative" distinction; adding a perceptive factor to the theory. Immanuel Kant also added a form of perception: Beauty vs. the Sublime. Beauty actually paired together Sanguine and Melancholic (high perception of beauty), which in the old matrix were diametric opposites. Likewise, Phlegmatic and Choleric were now both "low". You can see where this is sort of an early forerunner to the Sensing vs iNtuition scale. Eric Adickes, Ernst Kretschmer and Eduard Spränger introduced new factors in four type systems. Adickes had "heteronomous" types Innovatives and Traditionalists, and the "autonomous" were Agnostics and Dogmatics. Kretschmer developed his four “Character Styles”: depressive, hypomanic, anesthetic and hyperesthetic, which made up the two categories "cyclothymes" and "schizothymes" .
+
Plato is cited by Keirsey as making an "observant vs imaginative" distinction; adding a perceptive factor to the theory. Immanuel Kant also added a form of perception: Beauty vs. the Sublime. Beauty actually paired together Sanguine and Melancholic (high perception of beauty), which in the old matrix were diametric opposites. Likewise, Phlegmatic and Choleric were now both "low". You can see where this is sort of an early forerunner to the Sensing vs iNtuition scale. <br>
 +
Eric Adickes, Ernst Kretschmer and Eduard Spränger introduced new factors in four type systems. Adickes had "heteronomous" types Innovatives and Traditionalists, and the "autonomous" were Agnostics and Dogmatics. Kretschmer developed his four “Character Styles”: depressive, hypomanic, anesthetic and hyperesthetic, which made up the two categories "cyclothymes" and "schizothymes" .
  
−
It was these types Keirsey utilized and mapped to the MBTI’s 16 types, across its '''Sensing/iNtuition''' dichotomy factored by a new scale he called “'''Cooperative'''” vs. “'''Utilitarian'''”. (SJ’s and NF’s are “cooperative”; meaning “do what’s right”, and SP’s and NT’s are “utilitarian” or “pragmatic”, meaning “do what works”.  
+
It was these types Keirsey utilized and mapped to the MBTI’s 16 types, across its '''Sensing/iNtuition''' dichotomy factored by a new scale he called “'''Cooperative'''” vs. “'''Utilitarian'''”. (SJ’s and NF’s are “cooperative”; meaning “do what’s right”, and SP’s and NT’s are “utilitarian” or “pragmatic”, meaning “do what works”. <br>
 
While the dichotomies introduced by Adickes and Kretschmer would correspond to S/N, Spränger's division of his four types would correspond to Cooperative/Pragmatic).
 
While the dichotomies introduced by Adickes and Kretschmer would correspond to S/N, Spränger's division of his four types would correspond to Cooperative/Pragmatic).
  
 
The SJ he said was Melancholic, the SP, Sanguine, the NF, Choleric, and the NT, Phlegmatic. (Other interpreters using his theory assign these differently).
 
The SJ he said was Melancholic, the SP, Sanguine, the NF, Choleric, and the NT, Phlegmatic. (Other interpreters using his theory assign these differently).
  
−
While though he uses the same four dichotomy codes and 16 types as MBTI, his theory is still rather different, and focuses on the temperaments. The types are really considered just "variants" of the temperaments. He even rejected Jung’s functions by the time of his second ''Please Understand Me II'', and redesignated the dichotomies as standalone factors of “'''Expressive vs. Reserved'''” (E/I), “'''Concrete vs. Abstract'''” (S/N), “'''Tough-minded vs. Friendly'''”, and “'''Scheduling vs. Probing'''” (J/P).
+
While though, he uses the same four dichotomy codes and 16 types as MBTI, his theory is still rather different, and focuses on the temperaments. The types are really considered just "variants" of the temperaments. He even rejected Jung’s functions by the time of his second ''Please Understand Me II'', and redesignated the dichotomies as standalone factors of “'''Expressive vs. Reserved'''” (E/I), “'''Concrete vs. Abstract'''” (S/N), “'''Tough-minded vs. Friendly'''”, and “'''Scheduling vs. Probing'''” (J/P).
  
 
There are disputes as to whether this combination of temperament with Jung's cognitive theory is valid, and whether they can work together. Jung rejected temperament models, and some analysts trying to be true to his theory follow suit. They see temperament as behavioral, while the cognitive perspective goes beneath that to our inner drives.
 
There are disputes as to whether this combination of temperament with Jung's cognitive theory is valid, and whether they can work together. Jung rejected temperament models, and some analysts trying to be true to his theory follow suit. They see temperament as behavioral, while the cognitive perspective goes beneath that to our inner drives.
Line 35: Line 36:
 
'''Interaction Styles'''
 
'''Interaction Styles'''
  
−
[[Linda Berens]] adopted Keirsey's theory (pairing it back with the cognitive functions in the process), and adding another version of the temperaments, the '''Interaction Styles'''. These now resemble more the original Galenic model, mapping to '''I/E''' (which Keirsey's temperaments were "blind" to; meaning I/E was not a factor in them; each temperament consists of an even number of I and E types) and "'''directing/informing'''", which matches the old "task vs people" factor. (This grouping is even more asymmetrical, factoring as E/I + S + T/F and E/I + N + J/P; yielding the groups:<br>
+
[[Linda Berens]] adopted Keirsey's theory (pairing it back with the cognitive functions in the process), and adding another version of the temperaments, the '''Interaction Styles'''. These now resemble more the original Galenic model, mapping to '''I/E''' (which Keirsey's temperaments were "blind" to; meaning I/E was not a factor in them; each temperament consists of an even number of I and E types) and "'''directing/informing'''", which matches the old "task vs people" factor of classic temperament.  
 +
 
 +
This grouping is even more asymmetrical, factoring as E/I + S + T/F and E/I + N + J/P; yielding the groups:<br>
 
"Get Things Going" (ESF/ENP; extraverted, informing; Sanguine)<br>
 
"Get Things Going" (ESF/ENP; extraverted, informing; Sanguine)<br>
 
"In Charge" (EST/ENJ; extraverted, directing; Choleric)<br>
 
"In Charge" (EST/ENJ; extraverted, directing; Choleric)<br>
Line 43: Line 46:
 
These actually stemmed from the eight groups Keirsey had outlined in ''Portraits of Temperament'' (1987) consisting of the last three letters of type (STJ, SFJ, STP, SFP, NTJ, NTP, NFJ, NFP). Keirsey had introduced the "role-informative" and "role-directive" factors here, and found that it divided his temperaments into these eight groups. Factoring in I/E, as Berens would later do, yielded the four Interaction Styles. (In Keirsey's last two books ''Brains and Careers'' (2008) and ''Personology'' (2010), he would finally adopt the groups, calling them simply "roles of interaction").   
 
These actually stemmed from the eight groups Keirsey had outlined in ''Portraits of Temperament'' (1987) consisting of the last three letters of type (STJ, SFJ, STP, SFP, NTJ, NTP, NFJ, NFP). Keirsey had introduced the "role-informative" and "role-directive" factors here, and found that it divided his temperaments into these eight groups. Factoring in I/E, as Berens would later do, yielded the four Interaction Styles. (In Keirsey's last two books ''Brains and Careers'' (2008) and ''Personology'' (2010), he would finally adopt the groups, calling them simply "roles of interaction").   
  
−
To Keirsey's temperament matrix, Berens also added another factor of "'''structure vs motive'''", which ties together opposites SJ and NT "focus on structure") and NF and SP ("focus on motive"). Keirsey would imply these himself in ''Personology'', under the terms "annoying" and "contagious".
+
To Keirsey's temperament matrix, Berens also added another factor of "'''structure vs motive'''", which ties together opposites. SJ and NT "focus on structure") and NF and SP ("focus on motive"). Keirsey would imply these himself in ''Personology'', under the terms "annoying" and "contagious".
  
 
She also did likewise for the Interaction Styles: "Attention: Focus and Interest (Control/Movement)", which pairs the diametric opposite styles. In-Charge and Behind-the-Scenes have in common "Control": Focus on control over the outcome, and Chart-the-Course and Get-Things-Going have in common "Movement": Focus on movement toward the goal. In 2008, Berens released version 2.0 of ''Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles'', in which she renamed this dimension into Process/Outcome. In-Charge and Behind-the-Scenes focus on the outcome of tasks (which as already implicit in the "control" definition), while Get-Things-Going and Chart-the-Course focus on the process (hence, the act of movement toward the goal).
 
She also did likewise for the Interaction Styles: "Attention: Focus and Interest (Control/Movement)", which pairs the diametric opposite styles. In-Charge and Behind-the-Scenes have in common "Control": Focus on control over the outcome, and Chart-the-Course and Get-Things-Going have in common "Movement": Focus on movement toward the goal. In 2008, Berens released version 2.0 of ''Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles'', in which she renamed this dimension into Process/Outcome. In-Charge and Behind-the-Scenes focus on the outcome of tasks (which as already implicit in the "control" definition), while Get-Things-Going and Chart-the-Course focus on the process (hence, the act of movement toward the goal).
Line 74: Line 77:
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
Other sub groupings of the types have been called "temperaments". Myers and Briggs had suggested the symmetrical function pair groupings: S/N + T/F [SF, ST, NF, NT] as the “temperaments”. E/I + J/P (EJ, IJ, EP, IP) were called "socibility temperaments").
+
Other sub groupings of the types have been called "temperaments". Myers and Briggs had suggested the symmetrical function pair groupings: S/N + T/F [SF, ST, NF, NT] as the “temperaments”. E/I + J/P (EJ, IJ, EP, IP) were called by another writer, "socibility temperaments".
  
  

Revision as of 14:09, 6 November 2015

Temperament theory is an ancient model of personality types that has been adopted into the MBTI-based 16 types theory, dividing it into some sub-groups, consisting of different two or three letter combinations.

Temperament theory began with two different models dividing humanity into four categories. Plato had "Four kinds of men", while Hippocrates, and then Galen matched temperament to four body fluids, called "humors", which originally were believed to influence man's dispositions.

They were also tied to the ancient "four elements" as such:

Sanguine: blood (air) — hot and moist
Choleric: bile (fire) — hot and dry
Melancholic: "[black] bile" (earth) — cold and dry
Phlegmatic: phlegm (water) — cold and moist

The typical behaviors of the temperaments would be factored as such:

The sanguine temperament showed quick, impulsive and relatively brief reactions. (i.e. short delay, short sustain)
The choleric temperament manifested a short response time-delay, but the response was sustained for a relatively long time.
The melancholic temperament exhibited a long response time-delay, and the response was sustained at length, if not, seemingly, permanently.
The Phlegmatic was characterized by a longer response-delay but the response was also short-lived.
(Evidence-based Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine I: History Francesco Chiappelli, Paolo Prolo and Olivia S. Cajulis)

In type theory, the most popular version of this is the four “temperaments” of David Keirsey: SP, SJ, NT and NF. This grouping is “asymmetrical”, because it does not map to the same dichotomies across the board. Notice, for Sensors, temperament is determined by J/P, while for iNtuitors, it is T/F (This would be formulated S + J/P; N + T/F).

Some understandably think this arrangement is strange, but the reason for this is that he derived his temperaments from a source external to the MBTI framework; namely both the old Hippocratic/Galenic "four humors" temperaments and Plato's "four kinds of men", which became the basis of Keirsey's temperaments. Their names (Guardian, Artisan, Idealist, Rational) are what Keirsey settled on (intitially, they were taken from Greek gods: Epimethean, Dionysian, Apollonian and Promethean).

Plato is cited by Keirsey as making an "observant vs imaginative" distinction; adding a perceptive factor to the theory. Immanuel Kant also added a form of perception: Beauty vs. the Sublime. Beauty actually paired together Sanguine and Melancholic (high perception of beauty), which in the old matrix were diametric opposites. Likewise, Phlegmatic and Choleric were now both "low". You can see where this is sort of an early forerunner to the Sensing vs iNtuition scale.
Eric Adickes, Ernst Kretschmer and Eduard Spränger introduced new factors in four type systems. Adickes had "heteronomous" types Innovatives and Traditionalists, and the "autonomous" were Agnostics and Dogmatics. Kretschmer developed his four “Character Styles”: depressive, hypomanic, anesthetic and hyperesthetic, which made up the two categories "cyclothymes" and "schizothymes" .

It was these types Keirsey utilized and mapped to the MBTI’s 16 types, across its Sensing/iNtuition dichotomy factored by a new scale he called “Cooperative” vs. “Utilitarian”. (SJ’s and NF’s are “cooperative”; meaning “do what’s right”, and SP’s and NT’s are “utilitarian” or “pragmatic”, meaning “do what works”.
While the dichotomies introduced by Adickes and Kretschmer would correspond to S/N, Spränger's division of his four types would correspond to Cooperative/Pragmatic).

The SJ he said was Melancholic, the SP, Sanguine, the NF, Choleric, and the NT, Phlegmatic. (Other interpreters using his theory assign these differently).

While though, he uses the same four dichotomy codes and 16 types as MBTI, his theory is still rather different, and focuses on the temperaments. The types are really considered just "variants" of the temperaments. He even rejected Jung’s functions by the time of his second Please Understand Me II, and redesignated the dichotomies as standalone factors of “Expressive vs. Reserved” (E/I), “Concrete vs. Abstract” (S/N), “Tough-minded vs. Friendly”, and “Scheduling vs. Probing” (J/P).

There are disputes as to whether this combination of temperament with Jung's cognitive theory is valid, and whether they can work together. Jung rejected temperament models, and some analysts trying to be true to his theory follow suit. They see temperament as behavioral, while the cognitive perspective goes beneath that to our inner drives.

Interaction Styles

Linda Berens adopted Keirsey's theory (pairing it back with the cognitive functions in the process), and adding another version of the temperaments, the Interaction Styles. These now resemble more the original Galenic model, mapping to I/E (which Keirsey's temperaments were "blind" to; meaning I/E was not a factor in them; each temperament consists of an even number of I and E types) and "directing/informing", which matches the old "task vs people" factor of classic temperament.

This grouping is even more asymmetrical, factoring as E/I + S + T/F and E/I + N + J/P; yielding the groups:
"Get Things Going" (ESF/ENP; extraverted, informing; Sanguine)
"In Charge" (EST/ENJ; extraverted, directing; Choleric)
"Chart the Course" (IST/INJ; introverted, directing; Melancholic)
"Behind the Scenes" (ISF/INP; inroverted, informing; Phlegmatic)

These actually stemmed from the eight groups Keirsey had outlined in Portraits of Temperament (1987) consisting of the last three letters of type (STJ, SFJ, STP, SFP, NTJ, NTP, NFJ, NFP). Keirsey had introduced the "role-informative" and "role-directive" factors here, and found that it divided his temperaments into these eight groups. Factoring in I/E, as Berens would later do, yielded the four Interaction Styles. (In Keirsey's last two books Brains and Careers (2008) and Personology (2010), he would finally adopt the groups, calling them simply "roles of interaction").

To Keirsey's temperament matrix, Berens also added another factor of "structure vs motive", which ties together opposites. SJ and NT "focus on structure") and NF and SP ("focus on motive"). Keirsey would imply these himself in Personology, under the terms "annoying" and "contagious".

She also did likewise for the Interaction Styles: "Attention: Focus and Interest (Control/Movement)", which pairs the diametric opposite styles. In-Charge and Behind-the-Scenes have in common "Control": Focus on control over the outcome, and Chart-the-Course and Get-Things-Going have in common "Movement": Focus on movement toward the goal. In 2008, Berens released version 2.0 of Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles, in which she renamed this dimension into Process/Outcome. In-Charge and Behind-the-Scenes focus on the outcome of tasks (which as already implicit in the "control" definition), while Get-Things-Going and Chart-the-Course focus on the process (hence, the act of movement toward the goal).

Temperament and Interaction Style
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
Temperaments and Interaction Styles in the MBTI.

Other sub groupings of the types have been called "temperaments". Myers and Briggs had suggested the symmetrical function pair groupings: S/N + T/F [SF, ST, NF, NT] as the “temperaments”. E/I + J/P (EJ, IJ, EP, IP) were called by another writer, "socibility temperaments".


Brief descriptions of Keirsey's temperaments (and the "intelligence variants" they are divided into):

  • Artisans are concrete and adaptable. Seeking stimulation and virtuosity, they are concerned with making an impact. Their greatest strength is tactics. They excel at troubleshooting, agility, and the manipulation of tools, instruments, and equipment. (Montgomery, Stephen People Patterns: A Modern Guide to the Four Temperaments page=20, Archer Publications, 2002) The two roles are as follows:
  • Operators are the directive (proactive) Artisans. Their most developed intelligence operation is expediting. The attentive Crafters and the expressive Promoters are the two role variants.
  • Entertainers are the informative (reactive) Artisans. Their most developed intelligence operation is improvising. The attentive Composers and the expressive Performers are the two role variants.
  • Guardians are concrete and organized (scheduled). Seeking security and belonging, they are concerned with responsibility and duty. Their greatest strength is logistics. They excel at organizing, facilitating, checking, and supporting. The two roles are as follows:
  • Administrators are the directive (proactive) Guardians. Their most developed intelligence operation is regulating. The attentive Inspectors and the expressive Supervisors are the two role variants.
  • Conservators are the informative (reactive) Guardians. Their most developed intelligence operation is supporting. The attentive Protectors and the expressive Providers are the two role variants.
  • Idealists are abstract and compassionate. Seeking meaning and significance, they are concerned with personal growth and finding their own unique identity. Their greatest strength is diplomacy. They excel at clarifying, individualizing, unifying, and inspiring. The two roles are as follows:
  • Mentors are the directive (proactive) Idealists. Their most developed intelligence operation is developing. The attentive Counselors and the expressive Teachers are the two role variants.
  • Advocates are the informative (reactive) Idealists. Their most developed intelligence operation is mediating. The attentive Healers and the expressive Champions are the two role variants.
  • Rationals are abstract and objective. Seeking mastery and self-control, they are concerned with their own knowledge and competence. Their greatest strength is strategy. They excel in any kind of logical investigation such as engineering, conceptualizing, theorizing, and coordinating. The two roles are as follows:
  • Coordinators are the directive (proactive) Rationals. Their most developed intelligence operation is arranging. The attentive Masterminds and the expressive Fieldmarshals are the two role variants.
  • Engineers are the informative (reactive) Rationals. Their most developed intelligence operation is constructing. The attentive Architects and the expressive Inventors are the two role variants.

Here is how the factors break down:

Temperament Role Role Variant
Concrete
or
Abstract? 		Cooperative
or
Utilitarian? 		Informative
or
Directive? 		Expressive
or
Attentive ?
Observant
(S) 		Guardian (SJ)
Logistical 		Conservator (SFJ)
Supporting 		Provider (ESFJ): Supplying
Protector (ISFJ): Securing
Administrator (STJ)
Regulating 		Supervisor (ESTJ): Enforcing
Inspector (ISTJ): Certifying
Artisan (SP)
Tactical 		Entertainer (SFP)
Improvising 		Performer (ESFP): Demonstrating
Composer (ISFP): Synthesizing
Operator (STP)
Expediting 		Promoter (ESTP): Persuading
Crafter (ISTP): Instrumenting
Introspective
(N) 		Idealist (NF)
Diplomatic 		Advocate (NFP)
Mediating 		Champion (ENFP): Motivating
Healer (INFP): Conciliating
Mentor (NFJ)
Developing 		Teacher (ENFJ): Educating
Counselor (INFJ): Guiding
Rational (NT)
Strategic 		Engineer (NTP)
Constructing 		Inventor (ENTP): Devising
Architect (INTP): Designing
Coordinator (NTJ)
Arranging 		Fieldmarshal (ENTJ): Mobilizing
Mastermind (INTJ): Entailing

Adapted from:
"Personality Matrix: MBTI and the 16 Types and Cognitive Functions"

Retrieved from "https://www.typologycentral.com/wiki/index.php?title=Temperament_theory&oldid=1248"