Temperament Checkup
Do you have a comment about this page?
posted by Vicky Jo at 2:44 AM
Thursday, June 15, 2006
About Me
- Name: Vicky Jo
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
I coach people to identify and develop their natural personality strengths in order to maximize their potential.
Please contact me to arrange a free strategy session -- I would be delighted to speak with you.
Previous Posts
12 Comments:
I guess you could conclude those things. I always prefer to conclude that
1) the person's Rational personality (possibly their "work self") is taking the assessment
2) the person is lacking in some self-awareness
3) assessments are commonly inaccurate, so it's a poor idea to rely on them for results.
Then I try to sign them up for a Temperament Self-Discovery package so I can teach them the model and help them self-select based on its dimensions. (Then I go on to sell them other packages so we can "triangulate" with other models and derive additional datapoints, which is then likely to give us the most accurate "picture" overall.)
ZACTLY!
Which is why I dispute that whole myth about INFJs being the rarest type -- it's unprovable!
I'd like to say something about temperment here.
I like the idealist/rational/guardian/artisiandistinctions, but I think that the old Greek philosppher ones are a pain in the butt to have to consider. They seem to me like a kind of inneffective dichotomy right through the letters on the cake frosting and leave us with a bunch of gobbly-gook. I don't think that choleric-phlematic-sanguine-meloncholic describe different types of people. I think they discribe how people act at times. I also think that the body-fluid based names don't indicate anything about the types. Keirsey was able to interperet them to fit the Myers-brigs model, but (quack) Rudolph Stiener was able to use them to explain away the difficulties that children were having at his schools.
(by the way, I'd like to think that I have tertiary introverted thinking. If that stuff above indicates extroverted thinking, go ahead and tell me. it would be annoying if it did, cause it would mean that I've been operating in an incorrect 'frame' of reference when thinking about type)
Well let's address your parenthetical moment of doubt first, shall we?
In the first part of the comment you wrote a bit of stuff... so if we use http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/ as our guide, or my little one-word synonyms, were you "segmenting" (Te), or "analyzing" (Ti)??
The trouble is, even if we accurately identify which of these you were doing, it wouldn't necessarily determine your type preferences, since ALL of us can and DO use all EIGHT of the cognitive processes. (An occasional use of a cognitive process does not a type pattern make!)
In spite of that, I challenge you to use type the way Jung did, and identify the PROCESS you were engaged in for the first part of your comment. What do you come up with... ??
Well, I think I was using Ti and Se to try and word a metaphor that I'd been thinking about for a while. Looking at my writing, I did a pretty lousy job (the part about the letters on the cake is supposed to be an important point, but I hopelessly screwed that sentence up)The thing is, I usually have a "quit putting people in boxes" reaction to what I think are bad categories (cake letters thing), not categories in general. Also, if you noticed a bit of harshness in the criticism, that is probably Fe coming through ocassionally (if you were rudolph stiener, I would be a lot nastier with the criticism) By the way, aside from this stuff what is your opinion of the old Meloncholic-phlematic-sanguine-choleric stuff? (I think that the Myers-briggs types can be skewed and misinterpreted too, but I think they were effective categories in the first place)
I'm reviewing your review, and I'm a little puzzled as to how you think Se plays into the picture?
But I definitely agree with you that you are using Ti to examine Temperament. It seems you are seeking the "underlying principles." What I also notice is your objection to Ti being "used badly." What I make up is that you are probably objecting to Te. As John Beebe has stated, Te often tries to "codify" the categories that Ti identifies. So a rigidity manifests, and that makes Ti uncomfortable.
As to whether Temperament is "better" than Humours, it feels like we are stepping into some Feeling judgment there -- "good" vs. "bad." So perhaps that's the other side of Ti, invoking the tandem process.
What I make up over here is that there is surely value to both, but my primitive Ti isn't terribly interested in doing all the research and figuring out all the connections. So call me lazy, but I'm leaving it to David Keirsey to link it up for me using his Heroic Ti -- that's what he's good at (mapping categories to each other and finding commonalities amongst systems). Me, I find the Humours useful sometimes for particular situations, but I am also aware that there are contemporary interpretations of the old Humours theory that disagree with Keirsey -- and I'd just as soon sidestep that mess.
I'd have to hear more about your specific objections before I felt qualified to comment on them. I WILL say that sometimes I experience myself as "choleric" in contrast to my husband's "phlegmatic," and that can be a useful insight at times.
O.K, I was using Ti. Whew! (mark in 'second' opinion box)and I'm almost ready to be fully sure about what type I am.
O.K, about the humours, I'll admit that I don't have very good sources for them. I know the wikipedia interpretation, and the interpretation of a particular (quack) philosopher, Rudolf Stiener (do you know about him?)
Anyway, what I hear from those sources is that phlematics are supposed to be depressed, thoughtful types. For Them the descriptions also imply introverted-ness. Choleric's are described as really motivated and bossiness and extraverted-ness is implied. I think if you read one of these descriptions to, for example an INFP (according to they temperment-type match thing they're supposed to be choleric, right) they would really disagree with it. Also, looking through time at different peoples names for 'four different kinds of people' it seems that the archetypes change. I think they (philosophers) cut personality down different lines each time. This inconsistency is just annoying, and it can't be glossed over and generalized. sometimes it just seems like someone's throwing a bunch of traits out there and hoping that they form into something coherent.
- I used Se to try to make an effective metaphor that physically effective. (If I could I'd put in cartoon sound effects into half of this)
- What do you mean when you say that Te trys to 'codify' the categories?
I'm going to wander around a bit, and hope you can follow the bouncing ball.
I wonder if what you mean by using Se to create a metaphor was that you were trying to create a "picture" to symbolize what you were communicating? If so, I wonder whether it's possible you were honoring the tandem processes of Ni <---> Se? Ni creates symbols, and then painting a picture of it for others (complete with details and sensory experience) sounds like Se. Does that seem right?
As far as Te "codifying" Ti, it shows up for me that it's the way many people interact with type. So, for instance, you may have a *preference* for extraverted Feeling. That's a simple Ti category: "prefers extraverted Feeling." But then Te comes along and says, "You ARE a Feeler." So now what was a category turns into something set in stone. It's no longer a preference, now it's definite and absolute -- and segmented! By preferring Feeling, we have *eliminated* your access to Thinking. So what looked like a preference originally morphed into a "box" from whence you cannot escape.
Does that explain it better? (If not, let me know and I'll make another attempt.) I see this tendency show up in my ENTJ nephew sometimes. If we say we want to "enjoy the sunset" (for instance), he will sometimes take it upon himself to go around and make sure everyone in the house ENJOYS THE SUNSET, no matter what, whether you want to or not!! Thus a simple preference gets amplified into an "absolute."
Last... the Humours. I am NOT familiar with Rudolf Stiener's work -- at least not that I remember. Like I say, I know there are some contemporary interpretations of the Humours that I pretty much stay clear of.
Here's how I think of them: the Theorists/Rationals are phlegmatics. They tend NEVER to get emotional. In fact, the more emotional you get in their presence, the LESS emotional they become. (Ironically, this can increase one's hysteria if you are attempting to get them to respond in kind -- I speak from experience.)
Catalysts/Idealists are cholerics. It's easy for us (me?) to get worked up about something and climb onto a soapbox, much as you seem to have done about Rudolf Stiener. ;-)
The melancholics map to the Stabilizer/Guardians. I struggle with that one, because I don't really see my ISTJ sister through that lens -- UNLESS I talk to her about insurance. For the topic of insurance, I will hear about "the 100-year flood," and every other problem up to and including a plague of locusts! It's most dire, and that's when I know the "melancholic" side of her has been activated.
Last but not least, the sanguine is the Improviser/Artisan. This type knows how to have fun, and will try to have fun whenever possible. This is a gift that many of us could use more of in our lives -- especially those of us who are stressed out of our minds! They whistle while they work, and truly do not care to be around difficulty and disabling responsibility. I think the movie "A Beautiful Life" portrays the life of a sanguine inside a concentration camp and his determination to "keep it light" despite dire circumstances.
I find the Humours to be useful guidelines for certain situations (such as when I'm wanting my husband to be as upset about some social evil as I am and he isn't playing along), but generally speaking, I get enough richness from Dr. Berens' current version of the temperaments to inform my coaching work and satisfy my personal/professional needs such that I don't really need to get bogged down in the similarities and differences or argue the finer points.
Does this answer your question?
O.K, for the temperment thing, your use is fine, I don't have any real gripes with it. I was just wondering what you thought about it.
With Te codifying Ti, I recogognize this now, thanks for the description. It also links to how NFPs often think in terms of left-brain right brain. I had a sixth grade teacher (probably ENFP) who had pretty much earned a degree in left-brain right brain-ism, and who pretty much had decided that the mind just did one or the other. (maybe I could transfer this to the inferior process page. The temperment conversation is pretty much gone by now, but this is interesting too)
For SE-Ni, yes, I was probably using both. The idea of innefective dichotomies along with a vague metaphor was on my mind months before I wrote this. (the metaphor just sort of sat around without ever being expressed in coherent words, because I didn't think the idea was that big a deal. I just sort of 'used' the symbol, and then moved on.
2 last thoughts:
YES, that whole right-brain/left-brain thing is completely overdone in my opinion, and I do think it reflects some form of Te.
I also recognize you were struggling to express your metaphor -- perhaps Ti failed you there, since it's Thinking that's supposed to be able to "name" things. I find I can either express myself with brilliant eloquence, or I fail miserably -- which is typical of tertiary Ti. :-(
After doing lots of reading (in part to this site), taking many tests, and doing a lot of internal reflecting, I discovered that I am an INFP. But, after taking a recent test at http://www.mypersonality.info, I was surprised to find out the results told me I am an INTP. According the the percentage, I am 47% F and 53% T. I checked the differences between INTP and INFP and found out that the only difference between the two types is
INFP has Primary introverted feeling and Inferior introverted thinking, where as, INTP has the exact opposite, Primary introverted Thinking and Inferior introverted Feeling. My question is: Is it possible to develop ones inferior though practice at places that make you think, such as college, to the point where one can choose to use "introverted thinking" when it is needed? such as solving a logic or math problem? Some may call it INXP. Through experience, I myself find it unreliable to solve problems with feeling alone and attempt to use logical reasoning to find solutions to every day problems. Thank you for taking the time to read my rambling and questions :)
First of all, any assessment that sorts on dichotomies this way is not telling you "how F" or "how T" you are -- all it indicates how CLEAR your preference is, no more. And those numbers you cite seem to indicate a great deal of uncertainty (another reason why I like Temperament assessments).
Furthermore, solving a math or logic problem sounds more the domain of extraverted Thinking, not introverted Thinking. (Although one type expert I know claims that it takes extraverted iNtuiting to do advanced maths due to the "patterns" involved.)
What I do notice is that a number of INFPs claim to be INXP or even INTP because they want to account for the aspirational extraverted Thinking in the 4th, Inferior process position.
Also, technically, Feeling and Thinking work together as a "tandem." They pair up because of COURSE Feeling is inadequate for solving every problem.
Last but not least, many people display well developed extraverted Thinking because our culture reeeeally encourages it. So that's another factor to consider. Do you enjoy it and does it come naturally to you -- or is it hard, maybe a struggle?
Post a Comment
<< Home