Light ROM 1/LIGHT-ROM 1 (Amiga Library Services)(1994).iso/ffdisks/d974.lha/DDLI/pts

Text File | 1994-01-04 | 45KB | 905 lines

============================================================================

                       Personality Type Summary

                   Revision 4.2 - ASCII Text Version
                            06-October-1993

                      Jon Noring, Editor and INFJ
                          ([e-mail])


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:  [e-mail]
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 ([e-mail]), INTP,
Frank Fujita ([e-mail]), ENTJ,
Marina Margaret Heiss ([e-mail]), INTJ, and
Brian Yamauchi ([e-mail]), 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 [phone].

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 [phone], 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 [phone].  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 [phone].

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 [phone].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--

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          | [e-mail]        | "Fanny Hill" and other   |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | famous literary works in |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : [phone]   | Windows 3.1 Help format  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: [phone]   | are available!  Ask me!  |
=============================================================================
       Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.