The Datafile PD-CD 2

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ The Datafile PD-CD 2 / DATAFILE_PDCD2.iso / sillies / _diddly / Docs / PTS < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-01-05 | 44.1 KB | 905 lines

============================================================================ Personality Type Summary Revision 4.2 - ASCII Text Version 06-October-1993 Jon Noring, Editor and INFJ (noring@netcom.com) Copyright 1993 by Jon E. Noring. This document can be freely distributed in any format as long as it is kept intact in its entirety and not modified in any way. ============================================================================ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. A PERSONAL NOTE II. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS III. GENERAL INTRODUCTION IV. INTRODUCTION TO PERSONALITY TYPING V. DESCRIPTION OF THE FOUR PREFERENCE SCALES VI. VOCABULARY FOR EACH PREFERENCE SCALE VII. THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY TYPES VIII. THE FOUR KEIRSEY-BATES TEMPERAMENTS IX. RESOURCE MATERIALS ON PERSONALITY TYPING ============================================================================ I. A PERSONAL NOTE This document, the Personality Type Summary (PTS for short), is truly a labor of love. I originally wrote this for the distributors in my network marketing business. My intent was to help them better relate to themselves and to others by understanding the principles of personality typing. Since that first version, the PTS has been greatly modified and expanded, with contributions from many people. I do not consider this document to be "the final version", and so I welcome any and all feedback to improve it in all aspects. I especially would like to firm up the Resource Materials section by adding more titles, including some of the important articles from peer reviewed journals. If you have access to Usenet, the 'BBS' of the Internet, I encourage you to subscribe to the newsgroup 'alt.psychology.personality'. In that newsgroup, all aspects of normal (not neurotic) human personality are discussed. Well over 95% of all the discussion pertains to one model of personality modeling, generically called 'personality typing', which is the subject matter of this document. Thus the very original and not too obvious name for this document, "Personality Type Summary". In addition, an extensive archive of personality-related files has been established on the Internet, and these files can be retrieved via anonymous ftp. If you're not sure your site has anonymous ftp access to the Internet, then ask your system administrator. If you do, but don't know how to use ftp, again ask your system administrator for help. The site name is 'netcom.com', the directory path to the top of the archive directory is /pub/noring/personality . I hope you enjoy the wonderful world of personality typing as much as I do. Give it a test drive. You may just find it: fun, challenging, significant, and useful (quiz: why did I choose these four words? Find out below!). Oh, and have a great day (a typical NF closing). Jon Noring Internet e-mail address: noring@netcom.com Personality Type: INFJ ============================================================================ II. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the many people who provided input to make this Summary possible. Special thanks go out to the following individuals (listed in alphabetical order) for their extensive suggestions, contributions, proof- readings and, where needed, criticisms: Joe Butt (jabutt@sacam.oren.ortn.edu), INTP, Frank Fujita (ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu), ENTJ, Marina Margaret Heiss (mmh0m@poe.acc.virginia.edu), INTJ, and Brian Yamauchi (yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu), ENTP ============================================================================ III. GENERAL INTRODUCTION As we look at the people around us, we observe the great variety of personality traits among them. As examples, some people are very outgoing and fun-oriented, while others are more quiet and introspective; some people are highly analytical in decision making, while others use their feelings for deciding; some people feel more comfortable living a planned, orderly life, while others prefer to live spontaneously. Though the number of observed traits appears finite (albeit large), the subtle and unique interaction between these traits confidently leads us to the conclusion that every individual on this planet is gifted with a truly unique personality. Despite this conclusion, the question naturally arises: "Can we model, at least approximately, human personality?" A related and even more important question is: "If we can model human personality, does such a model have any value or interest?" To help answer these questions, let me cite an analogy. Physical scientists are continually striving to improve the models (better known as theories) of nature. It is by these theories, and only by these theories, that human beings can attempt to understand and make sense of what is observed. For example, physicists have developed several theories (e.g., relativity, quantum mechanics, electromagnetics, etc.) to explain particular phenomena. Because a common link between all these theories has not yet been found despite great effort (the elusive, almost quixotic Grand Unified Theory), many physicists consider it probable these individual theories are incomplete, being subsets of more complete, but as of yet undiscovered, theories that can be linked together. Yet, despite their probable incompleteness, physicists and engineers confidently apply these theories to real world problems, with usually great success. Though the above analogy of modeling the physical world does not exactly apply to personality modeling, some of the underlying principles do hold true. Many personality models have been developed from the beginning of recorded history, each of them having their strengths and shortcomings. No "true" model of human personality has yet been developed, and it can be argued that human personality is just too complex to ever be able to model perfectly. However, many of the models that have been developed do seem to approximately and reasonably model human personality, or at least some aspects of it, to an accuracy that makes them useful and predictive. This last point, admittedly, is one of current debate by psychologists and non-psychologist alike (e.g., what is "reasonable accuracy?"; what is "predictive"?; what is "useful"?). So, assuming that we can model human personality with "reasonable accuracy", what value would such a model have? I can see two values: 1) giving an individual a better understanding of themselves and thus helping them to personally grow and to build self-esteem, and 2) helping an individual understand and thus relate more effectively with others - not only for their personal relationships such as with a spouse and with close friends, but for other relationships as well, such as co-workers. Some people have personal, even emotional, difficulties with any kind of personality modeling. As an example, one common and recurring argument used against personality modeling is that it "puts people in boxes" (this exact phrase, or a variant of it, is heard quite often). On the surface this argument sounds good, but as you explore that argument further, you generally find that it is really a statement expressing either a fear that personality modeling can be misused or abused (which it can, just like everything else in the world), or, a feeling that personality modeling somehow devalues people, or, for a few people, their ignorance combined with a neurotic level of skepticism. I would counter these underlying reasons by saying that personality models do not put people in boxes, people put people in boxes - all developers of modern personality models do acknowledge the imperfections and limitations of their models and associated metrics, and reasonably intelligent and responsible users heed these warnings. Also, personality models do not devalue people. In reality they show us the diversity of normal human personality which helps us to better understand and appreciate others who are different from ourselves, and to understand and accept people is to value them. This in itself is sufficient reason to develop practical models of normal human personality that can be used by all people, not only by psychologists. ============================================================================ IV. INTRODUCTION TO PERSONALITY TYPING As stated in the General Introduction, many personality models have been developed. The personality model/system presented in this Summary is the most well-known one in the world-at-large, generically called "Personality Typing". Personality typing was first developed by Carl Jung in the early 1920's. In its purest form, Jungian personality typing is arguably the most complex view of human nature ever described, and even today it is quite a task to attempt to understand Jung's writings on personality (see the Resource Material section at the end of this Summary for references to Jung's works). Fortunately, in the 1950's, Myers and Briggs resurrected Jungian personality typing, modified it somewhat by adding a fourth scale, simplified its description, and developed a psychometric called the MBTI, the "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" for measuring their revised system of personality typing. The MBTI test and associated model has become so famous that today many people refer to personality typing as the "MBTI", but in a rigorous sense this is not true; the MBTI is only one test instrument among several for determining personality types, though it is by far the most widely used. Hereafter, unless qualified, 'personality typing' refers to the personality model developed by Myers and Briggs, and adapted by others such as Keirsey and Bates, while the MBTI refers to their test. In a somewhat oversimplified nutshell, personality typing as defined by Myers and Briggs, and more recently by Keirsey and Bates and others (I will not even attempt to explain Jung's view of personality typing), essentially assumes that much of our personality can be defined by dividing it into four orthogonal (or independent) preference areas or scales: energizing, attending, deciding, and living (defined in detail below). Within each scale we have a preference for one of two opposites that define the scale (also described below). This makes for a total of 16 different combinations (2x2x2x2), each of which defines one particular and unique personality archetype.* ----- *Here's where Jungian thought comes into play since particular combinations of preferences can have profound effects on overall personality by interacting in quite complex and dynamic ways, even though the preference scales themselves appear to be independent of one another in a practical sense. (Some minor correlation has sometimes been observed in the preference scales. From a practical viewpoint, however, the four scales can be considered orthogonal). ----- It is a curious and interesting observation that personality typing is not used nor studied much within the research/academic psychological and psychiatric communities, at least compared to other models/metrics, nor is it universally accepted. Some reasons for this are that, first of all, personality typing is automatically rejected by some schools of thought on purely philosophical grounds (e.g., cognitive psychology, social psychology); it would not matter to many of the proponents of these schools of thought whether or not personality typing was shown to work in the real world! These people tend to focus more on scientific purity/orthodoxy than on "engineering" practicality. (Both of these "world views" of science and its application are equally valid and important.) The second reason is more pragmatic: personality typing does not measure mental health since it assumes that all preferences and types are equally normal and healthy. Thus, many therapists who are treating mental illness do not usually find it useful for their purposes since they almost always need to understand the mental health of their patient and so they tend to use other psychometrics, such as the MMPI, which are specifically designed for this purpose. However, this doesn't mean that practicing psychologists totally eschew personality typing - some do use this system for their patients/ clients, particularly for helping people to "find themselves" and for other non-mental health related purposes such as marriage and career counseling. In addition, counselors find that their clients can quickly understand this model, and the many lay-oriented books on the subject of personality typing are a great aid to understanding, thus augmenting the efforts of the counselor. Outside of the psychological community, however, personality typing (with the MBTI being the most used metric) is by far the most widely-used model of human personality. It is used extensively in career counseling and development, business and education. Its penetration into these areas stems partly from the fact cited above that it does not touch upon the tricky aspect of mental health, which is better dealt with by trained counseling psychologists and psychiatrists. Personality typing also assumes that all types, preferences, and temperaments are equally valid and good, which fosters an appreciation rather than a mistrust of diversity. This, combined with its "intuitive" credibility, makes personality typing very popular. For those who take a more scientific approach to personality, let me make four final comments (and if you quickly get bored by the following deeper discussion you can skip to the next section). First of all, many researchers in personality typing believe that other independent scales could be added to the four to more accurately model human personality, and they are probably correct. However, this is an area that has not been well researched. To many, the four Myers-Briggs scales appear to be adequate for most practical purposes. The second comment concerns the scientific validity of personality typing and its associated metrics, which is of great interest to scientific psychologists and others who generally take a rigorous scientific approach to matters (and personality typing can identify those people!). Though there is no universal agreement, partly for the reasons cited above, it is my belief that over 30 years of data gathering has essentially confirmed the usefulness and accuracy of personality typing. For further discussion about its reliability, validity, and overall quality, which to psychometric specialists have very specific meanings, consult the review article by DeVito in the 9th Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY) as referenced in the Resource Materials section of this Summary. Overall, this review article is quite comprehensive and objective, showing both the strengths and weaknesses of personality typing and its most often used metric, the MBTI. It essentially supports the viewpoint that personality typing is useful and accurate. The third comment deals with how we are to view the four preference scales. Some view them as strictly dichotomous (some relax that a bit and assume a third choice, no preference, is equally valid). Others view the scales as continuous scales, which can be measured by the appropriate metric. This Summary, by default, takes the pure dichotomous approach, but the continuous approach has some interesting possibilities in fine tuning the model. The continuous scales approach, however, makes the interpretation much more complex, putting it out of the reach of the average lay person to quickly comprehend. It is also unclear whether an accurate measurement along the continuous scale is even possible, since it is highly dependent on the choice, number, and quality of the questions used in the measuring metric - no metric can possibly cover all the life situations that a person could experience. The fourth comment concerns whether personality types are genetically determined, or develop during childhood and adolescence from cultural and family influences (better known as the "Nature" vs. "Nurture" debate). This is a very controversial area which has become quite politicized because of the obvious social/political ramifications with accepting either extreme. The general consensus seems to be that personality type is determined by both in a fairly complex way, though which one dominates has not been established. To complicate matters even further, there are theories as well as observations that personality type can change or shift as a person ages. Some view this shift as a natural progression towards the "true" or "innate" personality, due in part to the stripping away of the personality masks that many put on in early life in response to strongly incompatible type-influences, such as from family and the surrounding culture. Others, who believe that "Nurture" plays the dominant role in human personality, view the personality type change as more of a random process due to the integral effect of outside influences. Further discussion on the "Nature" vs. "Nurture" debate is beyond the scope of this Summary. I personally take the view that human personality is at least 50% genetic - this is mentioned so the reader is aware of my bias in the event I elsewhere make or imply such a viewpoint in this Summary. There are many personality type experts/proponents who do not share my views in this regard. Personality typing is just as valid for the "Nurture" school of thought - it just has different interpretations and ramifications. ============================================================================ V. DESCRIPTION OF THE FOUR PREFERENCE SCALES For each of the following four preference scales which underlie personality typing, every person usually has a preference for one of the two opposite, and equally good, choices (designated by a letter as shown). This does not mean that they do one at the exclusion of the other - most people will go either way depending on circumstances outside their control. But most people usually do have an overall, clear-cut *preference* for circumstances where they do have control. How these scales are put together to form a personality "picture" or type for an individual will be dealt with later.* ----- *When a person does not perceive of a clear and resounding preference for a particular scale, the letter 'X' is used to designate this "I don't know" condition. There are differences of opinion as to the meaning and significance of this inbetween/no preference, which is briefly commented upon in the previous section. The 'X' preference will not be discussed any further in this Summary. ----- The four scales are: Energizing - How a person is energized Attending - What a person pays attention to Deciding - How a person decides Living - Lifestyle a person prefers Following are the preferences for each of the four scales: 1. Energizing - How a person is energized: Extroversion (E)- Preference for drawing energy from the outside world of people, activities or things. Introversion (I)- Preference for drawing energy from one's internal world of ideas, emotions, or impressions. [Note: In a deeper sense, energizing is only one facet of this scale -- it's really a measure of a person's whole orientation towards either the inner world (I) or the external world (E).] 2. Attending - What a person pays attention to: Sensing (S)- Preference for using the senses to notice what is real. Intuition (N)- Preference for using the imagination to envision what is possible - to look beyond the five senses. Jung calls this "unconscious perceiving". 3. Deciding - How a person decides: Thinking (T)- Preference for organizing and structuring information to decide in a logical, objective way. Feeling (F)- Preference for organizing and structuring information to decide in a personal, value-oriented way. 4. Living - Life style a person prefers: Judgement (J)- Preference for living a planned and organized life. Perception (P)- Preference for living a spontaneous and flexible life. [Note: An alternative definition of this scale is "Closure - whether or not a person prefers an open-ended lifestyle."] It is interesting to observe the distribution of these preferences in the actual population. Keirsey and Bates give the following distribution from a 1964 study: E (75%), I (25%) S (75%), N (25%) T (50%), F (50%) J (50%), P (50%) It is obvious that these percentages are only approximate, and more recent studies appear to give somewhat different percentages. The general trend, however, of the 'I' and 'N' preferences significantly being in the minority seems to hold true from all studies of general populations. Once statistics are gathered, it is possible to test the original Myers-Briggs theory that these four preference scales are orthogonal (independent) of one another. Some studies indicate they are indeed orthogonal, while other studies seem to indicate that they are orthogonal with the exception of some observed minor correlation between the S-N and the J-P scales. There is also a small gender shift in the T-F scale, with approximately 60% of all females being 'F', and 60% of the males being 'T'. ============================================================================= VI. VOCABULARY FOR EACH PREFERENCE SCALE There are several approaches to determine a person's preference for each of the four preference scales. One approach is to take a test such as the MBTI or the Keirsey-Bates (which is found in their book "Please Understand Me"). Another excellent approach is to study the preferred vocabulary for the four scales. Summarized below are word lists associated with each preference for the four scales. By reading and comparing the two word lists for each scale, and determining which list you better relate and/or prefer, will be a very strong indicator of your preference for that scale. Consider these word lists to comprise a mini-test on personality typing! The preferred vocabulary lists also further explain what the four scales actually measure or denote. EXTROVERSION-INTROVERSION PREFERRED VOCABULARY Extroversion, E Introversion, I ================ ================ sociability territoriality breadth depth external internal extensive intensive interaction concentration expenditure of energy conservation of energy interest in external events interest in internal reaction multiplicity of relationships limited relationships SENSING-INTUITION PREFERRED VOCABULARY Sensing, S Intuition, N ================ ================ experience hunches past future realistic speculative perspiration inspiration actual possible down-to-earth head-in-clouds utility fantasy fact fiction practicality ingenuity sensible imaginative THINKING-FEELING PREFERRED VOCABULARY Thinking, T Feeling, F ================ ================ objective subjective principles values policy social values laws extenuating circumstances criterion intimacy firmness persuasion impersonal personal justice humane categories harmony standards good or bad critique appreciate analysis sympathy allocation devotion JUDGEMENT-PERCEPTION PREFERRED VOCABULARY Judgement, J Perception, P ================ ================ settled pending decided gather more data fixed flexible plan ahead adapt as you go run one's life let life happen closure open options decision-making treasure hunting planned open ended completed emergent decisive tentative wrap it up something will turn up urgency there's plenty of time deadline! what deadline? get show on the road let's wait and see... ============================================================================= VII. THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY TYPES The two preferences for each of the four independent scales give 16 unique combinations (2x2x2x2), each combination being designated a personality type. The commonly accepted order for describing each combination is given as: Energizing:Attending:Deciding:Living . For each of the these 16 types, quite detailed personality profiles have been assembled from many years of application and analysis on large populations of normal people, as well as theoretical analysis of how the preference scales interact with each other. It is VERY important to realize that these personality profile descriptions (which could also be referred to as archetypes) are derived from large populations, and some variation from the archetype is expected to occur from individual to individual. One major source of variation, but not the only one, is the possible presence of mental illness/trauma (most often low self-image), which is not measured nor even considered by the personality typing model. It is plausible that the observable behavior from some forms of mental illness may be strongly influenced by innate personality type (assuming there is such a thing as an innate personality type). There seems to be widespread agreement among those who study personality typing that these personality profiles closely describe the real personality of MOST people once their four-scale preferences have been determined, either by taking a test such as the MBTI and/or by a qualitative assessment such as studying the previous sections of this Summary and the materials listed in the Resource Materials section at the end of this Summary. Anecdotal statements such as "the description was so right on the money that I fell out of my chair", and "the profile was so much like me it was eerie!", and similar anecdotes, are commonly expressed by many people after reading their personality profile for the first time. I myself had a similar reaction when I first read the profile for the INFJ personality type; subsequent study of the other 15 types confirmed that indeed the personality described in the INFJ profile fits me much, much better than any of the others. Though anecdotes do not form proper scientific "proof", nor should they, the sheer number of such anecdotes have alone led many personality typing researchers to privately conclude that personality typing is a sufficiently accurate and useful model of normal human personality. Following is a very brief overview of the summary profiles for each of the 16 types. Included for each type is the approximate percentage of the general population being that type, using the 1964 Keirsey-Bates percentages and assuming scale orthogonality. In addition, as mentioned above, more comprehensive and accurate profiles exist (again, see the Resource Materials section at the end of this Summary; the anonymous ftp archive also contains more comprehensive profiles.) ENFJ: "Pedagogue". Outstanding leader of groups. Can be aggressive at "helping others to be the best that they can be". 5% of the total population. ENFP: "Journalist". Uncanny sense of the motivations of others. Life is an exciting drama; emotionally warm; empathic. 5% of the total population. ENTJ: "Field Marshall". The basic driving force and need is to lead. Tends to seek a position of responsibility and enjoys being an executive. 5% of the total population. ENTP: "Inventor". Enthusiastic interest in everything and always sensitive to possibilities. Non-conformist and innovative. 5% of the total population. ESFJ: "Seller". Most sociable of all types. Nurturer of harmony. Outstanding host or hostesses. 13% of the total population. ESFP: "Entertainer". Radiates attractive warmth and optimism. Smooth, witty, charming, clever. Fun to be with. Very generous. 13% of the total population. ESTJ: "Administrator". Much in touch with the external environment. Very responsible. Pillar of strength. 13% of the total population. ESTP: "Promotor". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence. 13% of the total population. INFJ: "Author". Motivated and fulfilled by helping others. Complex personality. 1% of the total population. INFP: "Questor". High capacity for caring. Calm and pleasant face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 1% of the total population. INTJ: "Scientist". Most self-confident and pragmatic of all the types. Decisions come very easily. A builder of systems and the applier of theoretical models. 1% of the total population. INTP: "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 1% of the total population. ISFJ: "Conservator". Desires to be of service and to minister to individual needs - very loyal. 6% of the total population. ISFP: "Artist". Interested in the fine arts. Expression primarily through action or art form. The senses are keener than in other types. 5% of the total population. ISTJ: "Trustee". Decisiveness in practical affairs. Guardian of time- honored institutions. Dependable. 6% of the total population. ISTP: "Artisan". Impulsive action. Life should be of impulse rather than of purpose. Action is an end to itself. Fearless, craves excitement, master of tools. 5% of the total population. ============================================================================= VIII. THE FOUR KEIRSEY-BATES TEMPERAMENTS There are other systems that have been developed to model human personality. The most well-known and oft-used ones are those that divide human personality into four major groups or temperaments. Hippocrates in ancient Greece described the first four temperament system, also known as the "Four Humors": Sanguine, Melancholic, Choleric, and Phlegmatic. More recently, Keirsey and Bates took the sixteen personality types and categorized them into four recognizable temperaments based on certain combinations of three of the four scales: SJ, SP, NT, and NF. In addition, they named each temperament after the Greek mythological figure who best exemplifies the world-view attributes of that temperament: NF Apollo ("Reach for the Sky"). NT Prometheus ("Foresight") SJ Epimetheus ("Hindsight") SP Dionysius ("Let's Drink Wine") The four Keirsey-Bates temperaments appear to represent a person's "Key Focus and/or Fundamental Emotional Need", while the 16 types appear to represent a person's complete, day-to-day personality. The Keirsey-Bates temperaments could also be described as the "bottom line", the "motivation", or the "world-view" of one's personality. There is some correlation and overlap between the Hippocratic Humors and the Keirsey-Bates temperaments, but the fit is nowhere near perfect. The main differences lie mostly in focus: the Hippocratic Humors focus more on the neurotic aspects seen in some people, and so have an overall negative connotation, while the Keirsey-Bates temperaments focus strictly on normal, healthy personality and so are much more universal and positive. The four Keirsey-Bates temperaments are summarized as follows: (Note: The lists of focus/needs/beliefs/behaviors for each temperament is an aggregate list, meaning any one person of that temperament will probably exhibit or have only some of these attributes. The other two preference scales play a role in this variation.) NF: SPIRIT/ETHICS (Apollo) Key Focus/Emotional Need: Search for Self, and/or Peace and Harmony Beliefs/behaviors -- "How do I become the person I really am?" -- Value relationships -- Harmony with others - can be very amiable -- Desire to inspire and persuade -- Need to live a life of significance -- Search for unique identity -- Tend to focus on the good in others -- Especially abhors "evil", which is anything that violates cherished values -- Management Style: Catalyst, Spokesperson, Energizer -- Spiritual Style: St. Augustine NT: SCIENCE/THEORETICAL (Prometheus) Key Focus/Emotional Need: Competence, Knowledge, and/or To Lead and Control Beliefs/behaviors -- Tries to understand "whys" of the universe (especially if a 'P') -- Very demanding of selves and others -- Goal setter -- A driver (especially if a 'J') -- "Should have known" and "Should have done better" (especially if a 'P')** -- Cooly objective; straightforward and logical in dealing with others -- Reluctance to state obvious; little redundancy in communications -- Work is for improvement, perfection, proof of skills -- Love of knowledge -- Management Style: Visionary, Architect of Systems, Builder -- Spiritual Style: St. Thomas Aquinas SJ: DUTY/COMMERCE/ECONOMIC (Epimetheus) Key Focus/Emotional Need: Responsibility, Tradition and/or To Maintain Order Beliefs/behaviors -- Conserves heritage and tradition, or establishes new ones -- Very attentive to details -- Belief in hierarchy: subordination and superordination -- Rules: compelled to be bound and obligated -- My duty is to serve, give, care, save, share -- "Shoulds" & "oughts"; "be prepared" (see footnote below)** -- Fosters and creates social units: clubs, church groups -- Management Style: Traditionalist, Stabilizer, Consolidator -- Spiritual Style: St. Ignatius SP: JOY/ARTISTRY/AESTHETIC (Dionysus) Key Focus/Emotional Need: Freedom, Independence, Spontaneity and/or To Have Fun Beliefs/behaviors -- Impulsive -- Can be very expressive (esp. if an 'E') -- To do what I want, when I want -- Action to fulfill my current needs, impulses, not as investment for longer term need -- Works dramatically and quickly in crisis -- Hungers for action without constraints -- Tremendous stamina -- Management Style: Troubleshooter, Negotiator, Fire Fighter -- Spiritual Style: St. Francis of Assisi ------ **Both the SJ and NT temperaments list similar beliefs. However, there is a major difference between the two: to an SJ, a person "should" and "ought" because that is the most "responsible" thing to do, while to an NT, a person "should" and "ought" because that is the most "competent" way to be. The fundamental motivations between the two temperaments are quite dissimilar, despite leading to a similar belief. ------ ============================================================================= IX. RESOURCE MATERIALS ON PERSONALITY TYPING BOOKS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Please Understand Me, An Essay on Temperament Styles_, by David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates. Prometheus Nemesis Book Company, P.O. Box 2748, Del Mar, CA 92014, phone (619) 632-1575. One of the more widely known books describing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It includes a self-test (many do not consider it to be as good as the MBTI test). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Portraits of Temperament_, David Keirsey. Prometheus Nemesis Book Company, P.O. Box 2748, Del Mar, CA 92014, phone (619) 632-1575, 1987. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Gifts Differing_, Isabel Briggs-Myers (with Peter Myers). Consulting Psychologists Press, 1980 ISBN 0-89106-011-1 (pb) 0-89106-015-4 (hb). The real _Please Understand Me_, from the horse's mouth (i.e., the daughter in the original mother/daughter pair). A good bridge between Jung and PUM, but no self-test included. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator_, by Isabel Briggs-Myers and Mary H. McCaulley. Consulting Psychologists Press, 1985. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _LifeTypes_, by Sandra Hirsh and Jean Kummerow, ISBN 0-446-38823-8 USA and ISBN 0-446-38824-6 Canada. Warner Books, Inc., 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Facing Your Type_, George J. Schemel and James A. Borbely. Published by Typofile Press, Church Road, Box 223, Wernersville, PA 19565. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Type Talk_. Otto Kroeger and Janet M. Thuesen. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. (Tilden Press also mentioned.) ISBN 0-385-29828-59. An easy-to-read book that gives profiles for all sixteen personality types. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Type Talk at Work_. Otto Kroeger and Janet M. Thuesen. ISBN 0-385-30174-X. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Type Watch_. Otto Kroeger and Janet M. Thuesen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _The Leadership Equation_. Lee Barr and Norma Barr. Eaking Press, Austin, Texas. 1989. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in Organizations_. Sandra Krebs Hirsh. Consulting Psychological Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA. 1985. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _People Types and Tiger Stripes_. Gordon Lawrence. Available from Center for Application of Psychological Type, Gainesville, Florida. ISBN 0-935652-08-6. This book is written primarily to help teachers counsel students, but it applicable for other related uses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Working Together_. Olaf Isachsen and Linda Berens. New World Management Press, Coronado, CA. 1988. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _From Image to Likeness -- A Jungian Path in the Gospel Journey_, W. Harold Grant, Magdala Thompson and Thomas E. Clarke. Paulist Press, 545 Island Road, Ramsey, NJ 07446. ISBN: 0-8091-2552-8, 1983. This book deals with people's spiritual growth vis-a-vis personality types. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Prayer and Temperament_, by Michael and Norrisey. Other bibliographic information not known at present. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Personality Types and Religious Leadership_, by Oswald and Kroeger. Available from the Alban Institute, 4125 Nebraska Ave NW, Washington, D.C., 20016. Phone (800) 457-2674. Other bibliographic information not known at present. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Psychological Types_, C.G. Jung, H.G. Baynes (translator). Bollingen Series, Princeton U.P., 1971 ISBN 0-691-01813-8 (pb) 0-691-09770-4 (hb). This book (originally written in the early 1920's) inspired Myers and Briggs to create the MBTI test. If you've only read _Please Understand Me_, then you'll have some trouble making the correlation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _An Introduction To Theories of Personality_, B.R. Hergenhahn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1990. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "An Empirical Investigation of the Jungian Typology", by Leon Gorlow, Norman R. Simonson, and Herbert Krauss. In _Theories of Personality, Primary Sources and Research_, editors: Gardner Lindzey, Calvin S. Hall, Martin Manosevitz, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, 1988. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _The Measurement of Learning Style: A Critique of Four Assessment Tools_, Timothy J. Sewall, University of Wisconsin, 1986. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Dichotomies of the Mind: A System Science Model of the Mind and Personality_, Walter Lowen (with Lawrence Miike). John Wiley, 1982 ISBN 0-471-08331-3. A bizarre, but intriguing attempt to "correct" the MBTI's inherently 'F' focus to a 'hyper-T' perspective. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERIODICAL LITERATURE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _The Type Reporter_. Susan Scanlon, Editor. For Subscription information, mail to: 524 North Paxton Street, Alexandria, VA 22304. Phone (703) 823-3730. It comes out roughly 8 times a year, and costs $16 for a year's subscription; I've found it worth the money. Recent topics include "Mistakes When Teaching Type", "Spending and Saving", and "Making Love". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Journal of Psychological Type_. The official research journal of the Association for Psychological Type, 9140 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64114. One of the few outlets for research on the MBTI as most 'real' personality psychologists usually do not publish on it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Mental Measurements Yearbook_ (MMY). Has lists of references to articles in peer-reviewed journals in which the MBTI test is used. An excellent review of MBTI is given by Anthony DeVito in the 9th MMY, and two additional reviews in the 10th MMY. The recently published 11th MMY does not include these. The MMY are available in the reference section of most college and university libraries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consulting Psychologists Press is the publishing arm of the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT). It distributes the official MBTI tests and official interpretation guides, a thick _Atlas of Types_ which gives empirical type distributions for a wide range of population categories (e.g., policemen, system analysts, high-school students), and many studies. CAPT puts out a catalog of available resources. CAPT can be reached at: CAPT 2815 NW 13th Street Suite 401 Gainesville, FL 32609 (800) 777-CAPT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Madness and Temperament: A Systems View of Psychopathology and Treatment" An audiocassette package consisting of verbatim, unedited presentations from a seminar at the Holiday Inn, March 4&5, 1989, by Dr. Eve Delunas. Ordering information: InfoMedix, Garden Grove, CA 92643, phone (714) 530-3454. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- If you are an INFJ, then join the INFJ mailing list - ask me for more details. If you don't know what INFJ means, ask me, and I'll send more info (46Kb file). ============================================================================= | Jon Noring | noring@netcom.com | "Fanny Hill" and other | | JKN International | IP : 192.100.81.100 | famous literary works in | | 1312 Carlton Place | Phone : (510) 294-8153 | Windows 3.1 Help format | | Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101 | are available! Ask me! | ============================================================================= Read alt.psychology.personality! That's where the action is.