Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: History: The Four temperaments - The Four Humours

  1. #1
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,899
    Mentioned
    735 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default History: The Four temperaments - The Four Humours

    Since I shared this site in the other thread I wanted to post some information I found useful. I had lost the bookmark for this site, in the sea of other personality theory websites, but last night I found it. This information may not be new to some but may be eye opening for others. After reading it again last night I have formed a new opinion on socionics and have tied up some loose ends with the correlations I have made between all the different personality theories that I have explored, in relation to myself. I might not be able to document my ideas like @zap does but concepts are expanding and elements are falling into place.

    the four temperaments - the four humours/humors

    The Four Temperaments, also known as the Four Humours, is arguably the oldest of all personality profiling systems, and it is fascinating that there are so many echoes of these ancient ideas found in modern psychology.

    The Four Temperaments ideas can be traced back to the traditions of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilisations over 5,000 years ago, in which the health of the body was connected with the elements, fire, water, earth and air, which in turn were related to body organs, fluids, and treatments. Some of this thinking survives today in traditional Eastern ideas and medicine.

    The ancient Greeks however first formalised and popularised the Four Temperaments methodologies around 2,500 years ago, and these ideas came to dominate Western thinking about human behaviour and medical treatment for over two-thousand years. Most of these concepts for understanding personality, behaviour, illness and treatment of illness amazingly persisted in the Western world until the mid-1800s.

    The Four Temperaments or Four Humours can be traced back reliably to Ancient Greek medicine and philosophy, notably in the work of Hippocrates (c.460-377/359BC - the 'Father of Medicine') and in Plato's (428-348BC) ideas about character and personality.

    In Greek medicine around 2,500 years ago it was believed that in order to maintain health, people needed an even balance of the four body fluids: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. These four body fluids were linked (in daft ways by modern standards) to certain organs and illnesses and also represented the Four Temperaments or Four Humours (of personality) as they later became known. As regards significant body fluids no doubt natural body waste products were discounted, since perfectly healthy people evacuate a good volume of them every day. Blood is an obvious choice for a fluid associated with problems - there'd have generally been quite a lot of it about when people were unwell thousands of years ago, especially if you'd been hit with a club or run over by a great big chariot. Phlegm is an obvious one too - colds and flu and chest infections tend to produce gallons of the stuff and I doubt the ancient Greeks had any better ideas of how to get rid of it than we do today. Yellow bile is less easy to understand although it's generally thought have been the yellowish liquid secreted by the liver to aid digestion. In ancient times a bucketful of yellow bile would have been the natural upshot, so to speak, after a night on the local wine or taking a drink from the well that your next-door neighbour threw his dead cat into last week. Black bile is actually a bit of a mystery. Some say it was congealed blood, or more likely stomach bile with some blood in it. Students of the technicolour yawn might have observed that bile does indeed come in a variety of shades, depending on the ailment or what exactly you had to drink the night before. Probably the ancient Greeks noticed the same variation and thought it was two different biles. Whatever, these four were the vital fluids, and they each related strongly to what was understood at the time about people's health and personality.

    Imbalance between the 'humours' manifested in different behaviour and illnesses, and treatments were based on restoring balance between the humours and body fluids (which were at the time seen as the same thing. Hence such practices as blood-letting by cutting or with with leeches. Incidentally the traditional red and white striped poles - representing blood and bandages - can still occasionally be seen outside barber shops and are a fascinating reminder that these medical beliefs and practices didn't finally die out until the late 1800s.

    Spiritually there are other very old four-part patterns and themes relating to the Four Temperaments within astrology, the planets, and people's understanding of the world, for example: the ancient 'elements' - fire, water, earth and air; the twelve signs of the zodiac arranged in four sets corresponding to the elements and believed by many to define personality and destiny; the ancient 'Four Qualities' of (combinations of) hot or cold, and dry or moist/wet; and the four seasons, Spring, Summer Autumn, Winter. The organs of the body - liver, lungs, gall bladder and spleen - were also strongly connected with the Four Temperaments or Humours and medicinal theory.

    Relating these ancient patterns to the modern interpretation of the Four Temperaments does not however produce scientifically robust correlations. They were thought relevant at one time, but in truth they are not, just as blood letting has now been discounted as a reliable medical treatment.

    But while the causal link between body fluids and health and personality has not stood the test of time, the analysis of personality via the Four Temperaments seems to have done so, albeit tenuously in certain models.

    The explanation below is chiefly concerned with the Four Temperaments as a personality model, not as a basis for understanding and treating illness.
    Read More
    overview history of the four temperaments - or four humours

    From various sources and references, including Keirsey and Montgomery, here is a history of the Four Temperaments and other models and concepts related to the Four Temperaments or Four Humours. The words in this framework (from Hippocrates onwards) can be seen as possible describing words for each of the temperaments concerned, although do not attach precise significance to any of the words - they are guide only and not definitive or scientifically reliable. The correlations prior to Hippocrates are far less reliable and included here more for interest than for scientific relevance.

    N.B. the colours in these charts do not signify anything - they merely assist (hopefully) with continuity between the different tables. The initials K and M denote interpretations according to Keirsey and Montgomery. Ancient dates are approximate. Some cautionary notes relating to the inclusion of some of these theorists and interpretations is shown below the grid. For believers in astrology and star-signs please resist the temptation to categorise yourself according to where your star-sign sits in the grid - these associations are not scientific and not reliable, and are included merely for historical context and information.


    Keirsey/MBTI® reference artisan/SP sensing-perceiving guardian/SJ sensing-judging idealist/NF intuitive-feeling rationalist/NT intuitive-thinking
    Ezekiel 590BC lion ox man eagle
    Empedocles 450BC Goea (air) Hera (earth) Zeus (fire) Poseidon (water)
    The Seasons Spring Autumn Summer Winter
    Signs of Zodiac Libra, Aquarius, Gemini Capricorn, Taurus, Virgo Aries, Leo, Sagittarius Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces
    Hippocrates 370BC blood black bile yellow bile phlegm
    Hippocrates 370BC 'Four Qualities' hot and moist cold and dry hot and dry cold and moist
    Plato 340BC (M) artistic sensible intuitive reasoning
    Aristotle 325BC 'contribution to social order' (K) 'iconic'- artistic and art-making 'pistic' - common-sense and care-taking 'noetic' - intuitive sensibility and morality 'dianoetic' - reasoning and logical investigator
    Aristotle 325BC Four Sources of Happiness (K) 'hedone' - sensual pleasure 'propraieteri' - acquiring assets 'ethikos' - moral virtue 'dialogike' - logical investigation
    Galen 190AD Four Temperaments or Four Humours sanguine melancholic choleric phlegmatic
    Paracelsus 1550 'Four Totem Spirits' (K) Salamanders - impulsive and changeable Gnomes - industrious and guarded Nymph - inspiring and passionate Sylphs - curious and calm
    Eric Adickes 1905 Four World Views (K) innovative traditional doctrinaire sceptical
    Eduard Spranger 1914 Four Value Attitudes (K) artistic economic religious theoretic
    Ernst Kretschmer 1920 (M) manic depressive oversensitive insensitive
    Eric Fromm 1947 (K) exploitative hoarding receptive marketing
    Hans Eysenck 1950s (trait examples from his inventory) lively, talkative, carefree, outgoing sober, reserved, quiet, rigid restless, excitable, optimistic, impulsive careful, controlled, thoughtful, reliable
    Myers 1958 (M) perceiving judging feeling thinking
    Myers 1958 (K) probing scheduling friendly tough-minded
    Montgomery 2002 on Jung/Myers SP - spontaneous and playful SJ - sensible and judicious NF - intuitive and fervent NT - ingenious and theoretical
    Montgomery 2002 on Keirsey's Four Temperaments says what is,
    does what works
    says what is,
    does what's right
    says what's possible,
    does what's right
    says what's possible,
    does what works

    Empedocles (c.450BC), the Sicilian-born Greek philosopher and poet was probably first to publish the concept of 'the elements' (Fire, Earth, Water, Air) being 'scientifically' linked to human behaviour: in his long poem 'On Nature' he described the elements in relation to emotional forces that we would refer to as love and strife. However 1870 Brewer says that Empedocles preferred the names of the Greek Gods, Zeus, Hera, Poseidon and Goea. (1870 Brewer, and Chambers Biographical, which references Jean Ballock's book, 'Empedocle', 1965.)

    Aristotle explained four temperaments in the context of 'individual contribution to social order' in The Republic, c.325BC, and also used the Four Temperaments to theorise about people's character and quest for happiness. Incidentally 1870 Brewer states that Aristotle was first to specifically suggest the four elements, fire, earth, water, air, and that this was intended as an explanation purely of the various forms in which matter can appear, which was interpreted by 'modern' chemists (of the late 1800s) to represent 'the imponderable' (calorie), the gaseous (air), the liquid (water), and solid (earth).

    Paracelsus was a German alchemist and physician and considered by some to be the 'father of toxicology'. His real name was Phillippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, which perhaps explains why he adopted a pseudonym. According to Chambers Biographical Dictionary he lived from 1493-1541, which suggests that his work was earlier than 'c.1550'. Keirsey and Montgomery cite the connection between Paracelsus's Four Totem Spirits and the Four Temperaments, however there are others who do not see the same connection to or interpretation of the Four Totem Spirits. If you are keen to know more perhaps seek out the book The Life Of Paracelsus Phillippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, by A Stoddart, published in 1911, referenced by Chambers Biographical.

    Hans Jurgen Eysenck was a German-born British psychologist whose very popular scalable personality inventory model contains significant overlaps with the Four Temperaments. It's not a perfect fit, but there are many common aspects. See the Eysenck section.

    Galen was a Greek physician (c.130-201AD - more correctly called Claudius Galenus), who became chief physician to the Roman gladiators in Pergamum from AD 157, and subsequently to the Roman Emperors Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Aurelius Commodus and Lucius Septimus Severus. Galen later interpreted Hippocrates' ideas into the Four Humours, which you might more readily recognise and associate with historic writings and references. Galen's interpretation survived as an accepted and arguably the principal Western medical scientific interpretation of human biology until the advancement of cellular pathology theory during the mid-late 1800s, notably by German pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902, considered the founder of modern pathology), in his work 'Cellularpathologie' (1858), building on the work of fellow cellular scientists Theodor Schwann, Johannes Muller, Matthias Schleiden and earlier, Robert Brown.

    Beware of erroneous correlations between the various sets of four temperaments, humours, elements, body organs, star-signs, etc - it's easy to confuse so many sets of four. I believe the above to be reliable as far as it goes. Please let me know if you spot a fault anywhere. Also remember that the correlation between these sets is not precise and in some cases it's very tenuous.

    The above table of correlated four temperaments and other sets of four is not designed as a scientific basis for understanding personality - it's a historical over view of the development of the Four Temperaments - included here chiefly to illustrate the broad consistency of ideas over the past two-and-a-half thousand years, and to provoke a bit of thought about describing words for the four main character types. Keep the Four Temperaments in perspective: the history of the model provides a fascinating view of the development of thinking in this area, and certainly there are strands of the very old ideas that appear in the most modern systems, so it's very helpful and interesting to know the background, but it's not a perfect science.

    You'll see significant echoes of the Four Temperaments in David Keirsey's personality theory, which of all modern theories seems most aligned with the Four Temperaments, although much of the detail has been built by Keirsey onto a Four Temperaments platform, rather than using a great amount of detail from old Four Temperaments ideas. The Four Temperaments model also features in Eysenck's theory, on which others have subsequently drawn. To a far lesser extent the Four Temperaments can also be partly correlated to the Moulton Marston's DISC theory and this is shown in the explanatory matrix in the DISC section. Jung, Myers Briggs® and Benziger's theories also partly correlate with the Four Temperaments; notably there seems general agreement that the phlegmatic temperament corresponds to Jung's 'Intuitive-Thinking', and that the choleric temperament corresponds to Jung's 'Intuitive-Feeling'. The other two temperaments, sanguine and melancholic seem now to be represented by the Jungian 'Sensing' in combination with either Jungian 'Feeling' or a preference from the Myers Briggs® Judging-Perceiving dimension.

    The Four Temperaments are very interesting, but being over two-thousand years old they are also less than crystal clear, so correlation much beyond this is not easy. Connections with modern theories and types and traits, such as they are, are explained where appropriate in the relevant sections below dealing with other theories.

    Dr Stephen Montgomery's 2002 book 'People Patterns' is an excellent guide to the Four Temperaments, in which he provides his own interpretations, and explains relationships between the Four Temperaments and various other behavioural and personality assessment models, notably the David Keirsey model and theories. Incidentally Montgomery is Keirsey's long-standing editor and also his son-in-law. Keirsey's acknowledges Montgomery's depth of understanding of the Four Temperaments in Keirsey's book, Please Understand Me II, which also provides a very helpful perspective of the Four Temperaments.

    Read more @
    http://www.businessballs.com/persona...ylesmodels.htm

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  2. #2
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,899
    Mentioned
    735 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am going to use this thread to post things I find interesting about personality theories. The articles may or may not reflect my own views/beliefs..

    Psychology
    How scientifically valid is the Myers Briggs personality test?

    submitted 1 year ago by juliachildcia

    I'm tempted to assume the Myers Briggs personality test is complete hogwash because though the results of the test are more specific, it doesn't seem to be immune to the Barnum Effect. I know it's based off some respected Jungian theories but it seems like the holy grail of corporate team building and smells like a punch bowl.
    Are my suspicions correct or is there some scientific basis for this test?





    Top 200 Comments
    sorted by: best
    [–]Mockingbird42

    Psychometric Methods | Statistics and Measurement 1772 points 1 year ago*

    I am the lead psychometrician at a personality test publisher, so I will attempt to answer your question.
    To begin, it is important to note that no test is "scientifically valid". Validity is not an element of a test, but specifically has to do with test score interpretation. (see the Standards for Educational and Psychological testing 1999, or Messick, 1989). That being said, the Myers Briggs is not a scientifically valid personality assessment. However, personality assessments can be validated for specific purposes.

    Moving onto the bigger issue with the Myers-Briggs: Decision consistency. The Myers-Briggs proclaims a reliability (calculated using coefficient alpha) of between .75-.85 on all of its scales (see Myers-Briggs testing manual). These are general, industry standard reliability coefficients(indicating that if you were to retest, you would get a similar score, but not exact). However, the Myers-Briggs makes additional claims about bucketing individuals into 1 of 16 possible personality types. That you can shift up or down a few points if you were to retake the test on any of the four distinct scales means that you may be higher on one scale than another simply through retaking the test due to measurement error. In fact, literature shows that your personality type will change for 50% of individuals simply through retesting. (Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Brigg Type inventory, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and research, summer, 2005). This result indicates very low decision consistency. The low decision consistency is also a mathematical inevitability given 16 personality profiles using 4 scales and scale reliability around .8.

    Given the low decision consistency, and given that claims the Myers-Briggs makes about about your personality(validity information) depends on the decisions made by the test to be consistent and not subject to change simply based on retesting, it is highly unlikely that there can be a solid validity argument supporting the Myers-Briggs as a personality indicator. Maybe there are studies showing that it can be used in a very specific context, but sweeping generalizations about the tests use are not going carry much weight.

    Now, as a working professional in the field, the Myers-Briggs does NOT have a good reputation as being a decent assessment. It has marketed well to school systems and has good name recognizability, but it is not a well developed exam. There are much better personality assessments available, such as SHL's OPQ32 or The Hogan personality inventory. Now, I don't want to say any of these are good. The best correlations between job performance and personality assessments is about .3 (indicating about 9% of the variance in a persons job performance can be accounted for by a personality assessment). That is the BEST personality assessments can do in terms of job performance... and a correlation of .3 is not worth very much (considering that tests like ACT or the SAT can correlate upwards of .7 with first year college GPA under ideal circumstances).

    ~~~

    [–][deleted] 109 points 1 year ago

    In terms of strongest personality assessments I'd have to go with the MMPI-2 / MMPI-2/RF. The Myers-Briggs has been abandoned by psychologists long, long, long ago. If I saw one on a psych report today (I'm a licensed psychologist, and member of the Society for Personality Assessment) I would have to laugh. For one thing you can buy a book (I believe it's called, "Please Understand Me" and the test is included in the book. It is not a protected test you have to have a license to purchase.

    The MMPI-2 compared to the Myers-Briggs is like comparing a Ferrari to a Ford Pinto. The complexity and level of development that went into the MMPI-2 is mind boggling. When I graduated at the time there were more Ph.D. dissertations done on MMPI research than any other psych test in the world, if that gives you any idea of the level of complexity and research that went into it.


    [–]fezzikola 16 points 1 year ago

    What sorts of questions do the better tests have that are better indicators of personality? (Or is it more the scale and evaluation than the questions themselves that make this MMPI2 better?)

    [–]whitebox3 7 points 1 year ago

    Here's the entire test and a way to score it.

    https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/fo...m=1381771174/0


    [–]PressureCereal 5 points 1 year ago*

    If these questions are an accurate representation, I can't understand how this test is as accurate a predictor of personality as the above posters seem to indicate. One of the problems, for example, is that there are a lot of questions that ask you for a "yes/no" answer, but do not readily admit one. If a psychologist were to ask a patient one of them in an evaluation, he'd expect a much lengthier reply. For example:
    17.My father was a good man
    28.When someone does me a wrong I feel I should pay him back if I can, just for the principle of the thing.
    45.I do not always tell the truth
    75.I get angry sometimes

    These questions, and there's many, many more like them, often do not admit a yes/no answer, and if you are forced to give one such, your answer will be approximate as pertains to you. I can believe that the test may be accurate in predicting the personality of someone whose answers are exact, but not a real person, whose answers in questions like the above fall between the range of yes and no.

    Unless, of course, some of those are control questions, to judge whether you lie or not. After all who doesn't get angry sometimes? Who tells the truth always? But then the issue remains, what about the rest of the questions that are like that.
    Correct me if I'm wrong.

    [–]barabuski 4 points 1 year ago*

    No, you're spot on with your last point. The last two questions you listed are designed to likely measure constructs relating to perception of reality or truthfulness in general - everyone gets angry sometimes, and people lie sometimes. There's many items measuring the same construct for reliability purposes, and this helps narrow a person's view to be more readily determined. If that makes any sense!

    edit: to clarify my last point, if someone answers differently to "I do not always tell the truth", "I lie sometimes", "I bend the truth occasionally", for example, it allows researchers to further pinpoint someone's personality levels.

    READ MORE
    Edit: Inspiration to add stuff to this thread comes from chatbox.

    AylenToday 03:18 PM

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell...Carroll_theory

    PookieToday 03:10 PM

    I think you could almost certainly presume a difference in what the Patient would say is good, and the Tester would say is good. What the patients says should be discarded.


    AylenToday 03:07 PM

    Just because I can check a box that says I am good at something doesn't mean I am, right? I think some people are inclined to see themselves as being something they probably are not or rating themselves better at something than they actually are. Or the alternative, they would rate themselves less than or not even recognize their strengths in some areas that might be very developed. I would participate in a real world study though. It would be fun.

    PookieToday 03:05 PM

    Beta irrationals conquering the world today

    PookieToday 03:05 PM

    Aylen for the win

    AylenToday 03:04 PM

    there would have to be tests that measure the cognitive skills in real world situations. I imagine http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../chctheory.png

    AylenToday 03:03 PM

    Ananke Today 02:15 PM "what questions would you ask to check somebody's cognition?"
    Ananke Today 02:15 PM "I was thinking about how socionics is said to be about cognition and not behaviour, yet all tests seem to ask about behaviour and behavioural patterns"



    Last edited by Aylen; 03-26-2015 at 09:55 PM.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  3. #3
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,899
    Mentioned
    735 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default



    Edit: Just doing some random decorating.





    http://subversify.com/
    Last edited by Aylen; 03-26-2015 at 09:40 PM.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    TIM
    f a g g o t
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    quadra

  5. #5
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,899
    Mentioned
    735 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    This guy is pretty religious, quoting the bible all over the place but I wanted to see what he had to say.

    Common Mistakes

    When you are trying to discern an Enneagram style in yourself or others, here are some dead-ends you might run into.

    First, you might assume their style is obvious. Now, in a few cases, their style leaps out at you. If it does, you might be a bit apprehensive, because our Enneagram style is often neurotic; it is a coping mechanism that has roots in our childhood, do beware.

    Second you might make your judgment on one or two characteristics. Many Enneagram books discuss the styles in terms of "traits," so if you see one of those traits, you think you have the style. "Oh, she has all her credentials on her wall, she must be an image-conscious Three." Or "she offered me a glass of water when I came to her office, she must be a Two."

    Third, you might see unusual efforts to solve problems because of an unusual situation. Under punishing deadlines, the most light-hearted Seven can look like a Three, and if a Five gets upset enough, he might look like an Eight, especially if he is in an argument.

    Your mistake would be ignoring context.

    When you try to determine your own style, go back to when you were 20. And make sure you picture yourself in a variety of situations. In graduate school, everyone has to be a Five to survive, but what about your preferences and behavior in other situations?

    Another mistake I call snapshot. Look at your behavior over a long period of time, not one dramatic moment or one specific situation.

    This is subtle, but people often look at behavior instead of energy. A Six and an Eight both can get angry, but you need to calibrate the energy. An Eight is much more apt to be a feral force whereas a Six gets over the anger quickly and often will back down in a fight.
    Be careful of typing

    An Enneagram number is NOT Identity. Have you noticed that even after you have all the information about the types, in the sense of having the characteristics you can find in a dozen books, there are still some people you can't type? And sometimes, actually quite often, you can't type people you know quite well?
    Part of the reason is that the list of character traits you find in the books are just that - traits. They are behaviors - that's all we can see directly. Your Enneagram style, or as I prefer to call it, your Enneagram strategy is about energy and motivation. To get at someone's motives requires inference from a variety of sources: repetition of certain things, predictability under stress, large patterns and intensity of some behaviors, not to mention body configurations and breathing patterns and other physical and mental attributes.


    But there is another, more sinister problem. What are you looking at? If you are looking at a person with love and affection, you don't see the type first, you see the person. This person has a type, just like they have a skin color or ethnic origin, but if you love them, they aren't your focus. Remember those pictures that have a foreground/background option? If you look at you can see either the vase or the two profiles of faces? Or the old woman or the young one?
    Those are examples of foreground/background choices. If you put the person in the foreground, then you related to them with all the nuance and complexity of a person. If, however, you become type-happy, you begin to look for their style, you may put that in the foreground and the person in the background. You say silly things to yourself like, "Well, she's a four, so I'll treat her this way," instead of saying, "I think Jane needs some time alone, or she needs company, or she needs whatever."
    Helen Palmer has a fine book that could be dangerous, The Enneagram in Love and Work. In it, she tells just how each type is most apt to relate to any other type. For example, if a Three and a Five are working together and the Five is the boss, "here are the problems that may arise." Then she gets detailed, and her details are based on years of experience.


    Here's the problem. Every Five is slightly different in age, gender, size, intelligence, ethnic background, socioeconomic class or a hundred other categories. Five style behavior is going to be modified by all those plus the level of health of the strategy. The great danger here is arrogance (not Palmer's, yours and mine). If we know all about being a Five, an implicit assumption can creep in that I know all about the person.


    This is called using your Enneagram style as an identity. If you think this is abstract, let me point out that at the International Enneagram Conference in Chicago in July, (a fine conference, by the way), when people were issued the ID card, it included their Enneagram number. Sorry. Your Enneagram style is NOT your identity. It would be much more accurate to say it is the direction in which your identity is skewed.


    Carolyn Myss (pronounced Mace) is a New Age darling. She was on the cover of both New Age Journal and Yoga Journal. She is a medical intuitive whose topic is "Why we don't heal." She argues that for many of us, our psychic wounds become our badge of belonging and our claim on other's attention/affection. She calls this identification and appreciation of our problems "woundology." It's a clumsy word, but if you've ever been introduced to someone and within five minutes you know they've lost their inner child, or been sexually abused, or love to watch the 700 Club or any other physical or spiritual aberration, you are in the presence of what we're talking about. It's one thing to introduce yourself at an AA meeting by saying, "I'm Tom and I'm an alcoholic," it's quite another to so identify with that problem that you start doing it at social or business meetings.


    So typing is good clean fun when you know what you're doing, when you have a right to do it publicly and when you see the person first. For example, in a issue of Vanity Fair, Elizabeth Dole is profiled. It's a fine article and you can tell from the article that she is a 3 with a 2 wing. We have a right to observe these things in a public figure whose personality may affect us and the whole country. That's not all she is, it is, like her leadership talents, part of what we ought to know about a possible first lady. But it is one fact among many, it isn't her identity. Oprah Winfrey is a three, also and she certainly is different from "Liddy."
    So to answer the question I began with, the reason it can often be really hard to type your parents or others close to you is that you love them and you see them as persons. You don't see them as types. They are so unique to you - and part of love is seeing how unique the person is. Every teenager justifies their crush by saying, "he or she is different." Mothers worry about what the difference might be, but it is a code word that means, "I see the uniqueness with the eyes of love."
    There is one qualifier. If you are in love with someone and are having conflicts with that person, no matter how much you love them, their Enneagram style is apt to become annoyingly clear. And also may certainly be at the heart of your conflict. Of course, your own Enneagram style may emerge in a conflict, too.
    So remember, our Enneagram style is what is wrong with us. Don't use it as an identity, either for yourself or others. You'll miss a lot.

    http://www.enneagramcentral.com/

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The main thing the MBTI does not do is actually establish dichotomies. The MBTI types are more or less correlated with Big 5 dimensions of personality (with the differences irrelevant to this particular point I'm making), which are continuous and normally distributed - neither discrete nor bimodally distributed. As such, the idea that MBTI reliably sorts you into 16 boxes is a fantasy. What it does do though is indicate degree of preference, which you can place on a scale of strong, mild, moderate, in-the-middle, etc.

    The reason those people who retake the MBTI retest as something different is generally that you don't get sorted into a reliable type unless you really fall significantly on one end of a continuous scale or another, relative to the overall population. Not a knock on the inventory aside from its associations to dichotomous types.

    The MBTI inventory also fails at sorting people by functions, albeit this isn't a knock on the inventory by itself so much as a knock on the type practice community, which pretends the elephant in the room doesn't exist.

    Overall I find that the better way is to go with Jung for ideas on the functions, and the Big 5 inventories for clearer empirical sorting.

  7. #7
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,312
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    The main thing the MBTI does not do is actually establish dichotomies. The MBTI types are more or less correlated with Big 5 dimensions of personality (with the differences irrelevant to this particular point I'm making), which are continuous and normally distributed - neither discrete nor bimodally distributed. As such, the idea that MBTI reliably sorts you into 16 boxes is a fantasy. What it does do though is indicate degree of preference, which you can place on a scale of strong, mild, moderate, in-the-middle, etc.

    The reason those people who retake the MBTI retest as something different is generally that you don't get sorted into a reliable type unless you really fall significantly on one end of a continuous scale or another, relative to the overall population. Not a knock on the inventory aside from its associations to dichotomous types.

    The MBTI inventory also fails at sorting people by functions, albeit this isn't a knock on the inventory by itself so much as a knock on the type practice community, which pretends the elephant in the room doesn't exist.

    Overall I find that the better way is to go with Jung for ideas on the functions, and the Big 5 inventories for clearer empirical sorting.
    I find the T/F to be the most difficult. Most of the MBTI questions aim to get you to answer whether you prefer the impersonal over the personal, but the approach seems incorrect. The questions are fixed to reflect the categories they've constructed, rather than whether the categories are legitimate categories to begin with.

    I think it would be more intellectual honest to ask questions as to how you react in certain situations. Certainly, one would prefer a more logical response in some situations and an ethical response in others. Of course, MBTI's assortment into T and F rely more on placing a person into rational and irrational categories by it associating F with making decisions based on how you feel about the situation. The situation and environment are equally important in preference determination. Being "on the clock" requires different preferences than being at home with your family.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Jimmers I think it will help to note that T/F as a dichotomy is more or less a mix of Jungian thinking and feeling heavily watered with "level of compassion". I think the best way is to treat those components as separate....socionics logic and ethics is best treated as closer to thinking and feeling as Jung presented. This is one reason I somewhat prefer the five factor model for empirical sorting. It divides each of the five into many subcategories, showing how you can be high in one aspect of the broad dimension and low on another.

    Functions are not dichotomies, in that it is plain that the level of development of the two sides of a so called function dichotomy vary hugely. Some develop both sides very well.

    It is often going to come down to a philosophical call, where your level of development of each side may be good, but one seems more the absolute focus, the other remaining more relative.

  9. #9
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,899
    Mentioned
    735 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another article on cognitive function.


    Theory of Mind and Moral Judgments


    THIS IS PART 5 OF 6 IN MY SERIES ON MORALITY. LINKS TO PREVIOUS ENTRIES ARE BELOW THE POST.

    In our recent discussion on morality, I’ve been putting forth the argument that to understand the nature of our morality we must look to science. So far we’ve discussed issues relating to moral decisions as they pertain to our personal actions. But there is another side to moral reasoning, and this has to do with how we view the actions of others. There is a presupposition inherent in this endeavor though, which is that other people have their own thoughts and beliefs and desires and can be judged objectively on the basis of this knowledge of them being separate and distinct beings from us. This understanding of the intentional states of others is called Theory of Mind. What are the mechanisms that underlie Theory of Mind, and how important are they in judgments regarding the actions of others?

    Let me describe for you two experiments. The first of which finds an intriguing correlation between Theory of Mind and moral judgments, and a second which goes a step further and finds a causal connection. In the first experiment patients were given four distinct situations and were to judge how much blame to give an individual who committed an act.

    The situations were as follows:

    1) Harm was intended, but none occurred.

    2) Harm was intended, and harm occurred.

    3) No harm was intended but harm occurred

    4) No harm was intended, and no harm occurred

    Not surprisingly, participants in general attributed blame based on intention more than whether harm occurred or not. If the situation was such that harm was intended, but no harm occurred, participants still gave a high degree of blame to the individual attempting to do harm. Importantly, though most participants attributed low amounts of blame to individuals who caused unintended harm, they still on average attributed more blame to them than when no harm was intended or incurred.

    Here was the most important thing they got from this experiment: The degree of blame attributed to the individual committing unintended harm was inversely correlated to activity in one particular brain region, the Right Temporoparietal Junction (RTPJ). (the more activity in the RTPJ, the less blame was attributed. Less activity in the RTPJ, more blame attributed).

    Their follow up experiment is where things get really interesting. Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), the researchers were able to temporarily disrupt the neuronal firing in the RTPJ as participants made these same moral judgments. What they found was that they were actually able to change the participants’ moral judgments. In cases where harm was intended, but no harm was committed, participants gave less overall blame. And where no harm was intended, but harm was committed, participants gave more overall blame.

    These findings are interesting not just for localizing moral decision making regarding other people’s behavior to a particular brain region, but for indicating the causal role that same region plays in influencing the judgment. When we make a moral judgment regarding someone else’s actions, we automatically incorporate our understanding of their intentional stances. We analyze not just what happened, but what someone intended to happen. We show compassion and empathy when appropriate. We attribute blame if we feel the intent of the individual deserves it. This is obvious in how parents interact with their children as well as in how our justice system functions. Attempted murder comes with a lesser sentence than murder, but it still comes with a sentence. And yet, it turns out that our ability to make these sorts of judgments is dependent on a very specific region in the brain, without which our judgments suddenly become more utilitarian in nature, contemplating only the result of the action committed.

    So much of the way we interact with each other is dependent our ability to see other people as conscious and intelligent agents. People with beliefs and desires, fears and hopes. It’s so integral to our nature that we set up our society with this idea as a presupposition. Any parent will tell you that this understanding is not present in young children, and is something that develops over time. Psychology has been able to tell us the age this change occurs (around 4 years old). And now neuroscience can tell us what brain region is responsible. But only a more thorough philosophical exploration can help us think about how this affects the way we as humans interact with each other. Next time we wrap up this entire series with a quick recap of the ideas we've explored.



    1. Science and Morality
    2. Moral Intuitions vs. Moral Standards
    3. Philosophical Hypotheticals
    4. Emotion and Rationality
    5. Theory of Mind and Moral Judgments
    6. Morality Wrap-up

    http://cognitivephilosophy.net/ethic...ral-judgments/


    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  10. #10
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,899
    Mentioned
    735 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default


    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  11. #11
    The sleeping beauty Velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    303
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    This guy is pretty religious, quoting the bible all over the place but I wanted to see what he had to say.





    http://www.enneagramcentral.com/
    Talked to him a bit, seemed like a knowledgeable guy, he has that good balance of spirituality and religion, without overwhelming people with religious dogmas.

  12. #12
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm choleric-phlegmatic and this doesn't intersect in any plausible way with typology...be it mbti or socionics. guess not even with astrology hah.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •