P E R S O N A L I T Y V I I :T H E " O P P O S I T E S " M O D E LINTRODUCTIONI began studying personality typing in the late 1980s. Where other models claiming to explain human behavioral preferences were based on such highly questionable notions as "planetary influences" or "ancient wisdom" or birth dates, the Myers-Briggs theory was developed from empirical data on how real people actually behave, rather than data being collected to explain some plausible theory. As a result, type theory not only had a firm basis in reality, it had demonstrable predictive value. Still, it seemed somehow overly complicated. Were there really sixteen readily recognizable types of personalities? Why sixteen? Why not seventeen, or seven, or thirty-two? My understanding of personality theory took a giant leap forward when I discovered a book by David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates called Please Understand Me. While I've never been wild about the title (which always sounds to me like pathetic begging), this book contained the reduction to fundamentals for which I'd been searching. In distilling the sixteen types down to four essential temperaments, Keirsey offered a sound model that satisfactorily explained so many of my questions about character. But as I studied the temperament model by testing it in the real world, I began to suspect that there might be another level of structure, a pattern by which the four temperaments were related to each other. It seemed to me that some people in this world have even greater difficulty understanding each other's motives than could be due simply to having different temperaments. I wondered: could some temperaments be especially unlike each other? Could some temperaments be so unlike that they actually oppose each other? Keirsey's original model, published in the 1970s, made no such distinction. The four temperaments were treated as four completely different things with no relation to each other; the model contained no further structure. What if a deeper level of structure existed? Was there any advantage to thinking of certain temperaments as "opposites" of each other? BACKGROUND OF THE TWO DIMENSIONSMuch of my thinking on this was stimulated by having observed my own behavior with my brothers, and (later) by studying politics. When I was growing up I sometimes found it hard to understand people or to be understood... but I definitely seemed to have more trouble with some people than with others. It was as though we weren't merely speaking different languges; we seemed to be from different planets, totally alien to one another. It wasn't until I began exploring type and temperament theory that I had a way to resolve these difficulties in understanding and being understood. The dynamics of my own family's behavior toward one another suddenly made sense. And yet the model seemed incomplete. It didn't explain the special difficulties I had, particularly with my middle brother. For many years it seemed that he looked down on my style of dealing with the world, and I had a similar lack of respect for what I considered his incomprehensible motivations and attitudes. Despite years of growing up with the same parents, we seemed to have absolutely nothing in common in terms of goals or motivations, and in fact could not even fathom living each other's lives. This always puzzled me. That we were different, I understood... but why so different? In a roundabout way, politics was the key that unlocked the answer to this mystery. To put it briefly, temperament defines personal goals; power is the means by which goals are achieved; and politics is the expression of power. Therefore, how people in general behave politically should tell us something about temperament. Although there certainly are exceptions, years of observation strongly suggest to me that each temperament can be linked with a particular political idealogy. The Guardian concern for social structure sounds very much like conservatism. The Idealist focus on personal identity appears to be the driving force behind modern liberalism. And the Rational insistence on personal autonomy, based on an abiding faith in the power of reason to solve all problems, is at the heart of the libertarian philosophy. The Artisans, however, are a bit different. While a few may aspire to complete control by the state over individuals (the essence of fascism), most Artisans are simply too busy enjoying life's sensations to hold any one political idealogy. Instead, those who are active politically will simply pick and choose idealogies as it suits them--whatever seems at the moment to offer the most freedom to experience the world. The rest, unwilling to be tied down to any idealogy, are likely to be most of those who today identify themselves as "moderates." The Artisan, demanding complete freedom, seems to me to be most likely to state that he or she is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal." In other words, anyone who tries to prevent an Artisan from enjoying the pleasures of life had better get ready for a fight. So what does all this have to do with finally figuring out why my brother and I had so much trouble understanding each other, and how does it relate to my model of temperamental opposites? The answer lies in realizing how distinctly different the various political factions are; different, that is, in what they think are the "right" goals. Modern liberals clearly reject conservative philosophy as heartless, while conservatives equally reject liberalism as feel-goodism. And although it's not as visible, anyone hearing the scorn expressed by Jeffersonian libertarians for the mindless use of power (or for not using power at all), or the moderate's dismissal of ineffective theorizing by "ivory tower" elites, must suspect a similar special quality of misunderstanding between these philosophical pairs. If innate temperament usually lies at the heart of political differences (as I suspect that it does), then isn't it reasonable to suggest that, just as there are opposing political forces, there may be "opposite" temperaments? If some temperaments truly are radically unlike each other, wouldn't that explain why my brother and I had so much trouble appreciating each other's world-views? And if so, then what's the fundamental basis for certain temperaments being so unlike each other? How are they different? KEIRSEY'S MODELAs Keirsey perceptively observed, the most important attribute that distinguishes the temperaments from one another is what Keirsey called the style of communication. In his terms, a person tends to prefer either a "concrete" style or an "abstract" style. In Jungian terms, these correspond to the Sensing (S) and iNtuitive preferences, respectively. I agree with Keirsey on this. The S/N choice appears, by all the evidence, to be the most fundamental expression of personality. But I prefer to describe this preference with words that have a slightly different emphasis. I would say that the personality characteristic that most distinguishes individuals from one another is where they look for information about what's important, or, to put it another way, what's right and wrong. (Note that getting information requires communication.) For many persons, "truth" is found in the external world (the Sensing "S" preference). For others, knowledge of what is right and good lies within, in "the inner voice" (the iNtuitive "N" preference). In other words, some people are concerned with externals, such as form, attributes, information, and the opinions of other people. (Note how closely these terms are related to Keirsey's "concrete" communication.) Other people, meanwhile, focus on internals, such as function, essence, belief, and their own impulses. So, despite slight differences in emphasis, Keirsey and I agree that this S/N split is the first factor in distinguishing the temperaments from one another. But there are four temperaments! One division gives us only two possible temperaments, so there must be at least one other important difference in people to allow for four different temperaments. The nature of this second factor is where Keirsey and I part ways. According to Keirsey (in the 1990s updating of his ideas, Please Understand Me II), the next most important distinguishing personality characteristic reflects two opposing preferences in the use of tools, which he calls "cooperative" and "utilitarian." Although the problem may lie in the words used to express this "tool use" concept, ultimately I found it unpersuasive as a secondary division. Not only is it unclear how the "cooperative" and "utilitarian" concepts are mutually exclusive (can't people cooperate to achieve some useful end?), they don't appear to be expressions related to a single one-dimensional concept. "Where to look for truth" is a single concept with two mutually exclusive expressions: "self" and "world." But is "tool use" really a similar kind of one-dimensional concept that can be shared between two temperaments? Or isn't tool use for manipulation of the world primarily a feature of Artisans? Furthermore, "self" and "world" relate very clearly to the Jungian and Myers-Briggs type terms N and S, iNtuitive and Sensing. To what Myers-Briggs types do "cooperative" and "utilitarian" tool use relate? The matrix describing Keirsey's model is shown in the table below:
AN ALTERNATE DIMENSIONI propose a different secondary preference. It seems to me that, after where one looks for truth, the personality difference most important in distinguishing between temperaments is one's level of comfort with the unknown. Comfort with the unknown is an attitude that manifests itself early in life, and throughout a person's life it is a characteristic that rarely changes and that can be readily determined. It doesn't seem to be as deterministic a character feature as the source of truth, but it's not much less so. This makes it a good theoretical candidate for the second division that permits a two-dimensional view of temperament. (As will be demonstrated later, this theory is supported by practical evidence.) Like the source of truth, comfort with the unknown can be expressed in two mutually exclusive but related terms, like two sides of a coin. As where to look for truth can be understood as "self" versus "world," or "internal" versus "external," comfort with the unknown can be expressed as "stability" versus "change," or "structure" versus "motion." For some persons, stability, structure, pattern, order, and organization are clearly to be preferred over their alternatives. But others just as clearly prefer those alternatives of motion, change, flux, freedom, and choice. These are, in fact, two mutually exclusive kinds of impulses which form opposite poles along the one-dimensional axis of comfort with the unknown. Finally, these two opposing preferences can be accurately expressed in terms of Myers-Briggs types. Specifically, the impulse toward embracing the unknown corresponds to the combined type of Feeling-Perceiving (FP), and the preference for the known corresponds to the opposite combined type of Thinking-Judging (TJ). MY MODELThus we have two axes: one for the source of truth (N/S), and one for comfort with the unknown (TJ/FP). By combining these two dimensions we produce a 2 x 2 matrix, and--as with Keirsey's model--in each one of the four elements thus created we place the appropriate temperament. Precisely where we start to place each temperament is unimportant; it is only necessary that the four temperaments be correctly placed relative to each other. Thus, the combination of N with FP yields xNFP, for the NF temperament. (Interestingly, my original model placed both NF and NT in the same locations as Keirsey did in his later published model. I'll retain that positioning.) The combination of S with TJ yields xSTJ for the SJ temperament so it goes into that corner. Then we do likewise for NT and SP. The resulting matrix is shown in the table below:
The effect of using "comfort with the unknown" in place of "tool use" is to swap the SJ and SP temperaments from Keirsey's diagram. Instead of (as Keirsey's model has it) NT and SJ being "opposite" temperaments, and likewise for NF and SP, my model predicts that NT and SP temperaments should seem the most different. Likewise, NF and SJ temperaments should have the most difficultly understanding each other. THE EVIDENCEKeirsey himself offers evidence that supports the "opposites" model I present here. Please Understand Me II contains a number of comments suggesting meaningful differences between NFs and SJs, and between NTs and SPs.
Below are a number of these remarks by Keirsey, divided by whether they
highlight Guardian/Idealist or Artisan/Rational differences. In the
next section, I'll add my own reasons for considering each of these two
groups to be pairs of opposite temperaments.
Guardians and IdealistsIn discussing the differences between Guardian SJs and Idealist NFs, Keirsey consistently highlights two particular kinds of differences: one concerning outer morality versus inner morale, and one concerning safety versus growth. I think these distinctions can be described equally well using my terminology of world-concern versus self-concern, and the known versus the unknown. As you read read Keirsey's contrasting descriptions below, consider whether you think his "opposites" model of SJs as "concrete cooperators" and NFs as "abstract cooperators" is more useful than my model, which describes SJs as preferring a "structured world" and NFs as dedicated to "changing self." Watch for cluewords like "stable" and "social" to describe SJs, and "passion" and "inner" to describe NFs. (Idealists, it must be said, find little of personal value in learning about commerce.) Guardians, however, regard companies and corporations as indispensable social institutions that allow them to earn their keep and to provide for their families. (p. 87) Artisans and RationalsAs with Guardians and Idealists, Keirsey focuses on two kinds of differences between SP Artisans and NT Rationals: one concerning external sensation versus internal comprehension, and one concerning impulse versus control. The distinctions that Keirsey draws between SPs and NTs appear to correspond very well with the two differentiators of my model, world-concern versus self-concern, and the unknown versus the known. As you read read Keirsey's contrasting descriptions below, consider whether you think his "opposites" model of SPs as "concrete utilitarians" and NFs as "abstract utilitarians" is better at explaining the differences between Artisans and Rationals than my model, which describes SPs as preferring a "changing world" and NTs as dedicated to a "structured self." Watch for cluewords like "free" and "performance" to describe SPs, and "efficient" and "theory" to describe NTs. . . . the Artisan is looking for maximum effect, the Rational for maximum efficiency. Artisans will spend whatever amount of effort is necessary to get what they want; Rationals will not, since they require that the most result is gotten with the least effort. Getting results is more of a theoretical issue with Rationals, a more practical issue with Artisans. (p. 47) THE DIAGRAMKeirsey's comments provide evidence for organizing the temperaments by SJ-NF and SP-NT. Now let's consider the deeper reasons for grouping the temperaments in this way. I've found it useful to remember each of the four temperaments with a single word that sums up their primary goals. Represented in graphical form in my model, the structure looks like this:
Boiling it down to essentials, then, it seems that "Have" and "Feel" are opposites, as are "Do" and "Think." Does this conform with the evidence of how the temperaments actually behave with each other? GUARDIANS AND IDEALISTSFor all the misunderstandings among the temperaments, that between SJ Guardians and NF Idealists is one of the two strongest. GuardiansConsider the Guardian "Have" preference. For a Guardian, there is something disturbingly wrong with a disordered world. Only when things are in their proper place does the SJ feel comfortable. Though generally not expressed consciously, there are certain questions that SJs continually ask themselves. Do I have a nice home, with functional and well-maintained furnishings? Do I have stable relationships with others? Do I have a solid family? Do I have a job, and are the requirements of that job clearly spelled out? The way the Guardian measures the amount of structure in his or her world is by possessions. The relationships that define the SJ's world are determined by the proximity of things, and the stability of those relationships is maintained by owning them. In other words, Guardians decide whether they are happy or not by whether they can count on their worldly possessions and relationships still being there tomorrow. IdealistsNF Idealists, on the other hand, often consciously reject the notion of defining their happiness by possessions. The very word "Idealist" evokes the concept of Platonic ideals, of perfect things without physical forms that can be "owned." My model describes these NFs as concerned with "changing self." This attitude is expressed in the ways that NFs measure their happiness by how well they heed their "inner voice." Do I feel good about myself? Have I done something good today? Am I a better person today than I was yesterday? Have I made a difference? The nature of Idealists is to assume that perfection is possible, and to seek it personally. Everything is measured against that standard. For Introverted NFs, this often means personal sacrifice; for extroverted NFs, others are expected to strive for the NF's vision of perfection, too. Guardians and Idealists ContrastedThe differences between "Have" and "Feel" show up in almost every aspect of human life, but certain fields demonstrate these differences with a vengeance. Where Guardians enjoy the business world, Idealists are inclined to perceive commerce as impersonal and "dirty," and to view corporate executives as exploiters of the working class. Furthermore, Idealists, determined to change themselves and the world for the better, personalize the Guardian resistance to change as a deliberate assault on themselves and their goals. Guardians, in turn, are equally suspicious of Idealist motives. They see the NF perfective impulse as an implicit statement that there is something wrong with them and their SJ impulse toward preserving things as they are. The result is a rejection by Guardians of Idealists as crusading busybodies who stir up trouble just to make themselves feel useful. What we should see here on both sides is the lack of comprehension of the other's temperament. Both Guardians and Idealists can see virtue and utility in the Rational ability to plan and the Artisan ability to act. But SJs and NFs often see nothing of value at all in each other's styles--their world-views are just too different. Again, these sound very much like modern political distinctions. I'm fairly certain that most Idealists are today's liberals and most Guardians are today's conservatives. The language that individuals in each of these groups use to criticize members of the other group fits extremely well with what can be predicted by temperament theory. Liberals, for example, call conservatives "reactionaries." Seen in the context of temperament, that word carries an implied recognition of the conservative impulse to "conserve," to protect the structure of the world as it exists. That liberals clearly use the word as meaning something bad also demonstrates the Idealist insistence that "changing self" is more important than "structured world," that individual freedom must always trump social restraint. Conservatives, for their part, use the term "bleeding-heart" to describe what they perceive as the liberal desire for personal good feelings no matter what might be the real-world expense to others. For conservative Guardians, to exalt personal license at the expense of necessary social order is selfish, childish, destructive, and wrong. In short, liberals are concerned with rights, while conservatives are concerned with duties. Don't these sound exactly like the motivations of Idealists and Guardians? For a concrete example of this diametrical opposition, consider the 1996 presidential campaign. After conservative candidate Bob Dole spoke of returning to a simpler America of the past, candidate Bill Clinton countered with a "bridge to the 21st century." Conservatives, with their Guardian preference for a structured world, saw the proper use of political power as preserving what worked; liberals, with their Idealist preference for a changing self, saw the proper political goal as changing what wasn't working. Both sides failed to understand the temperament-determined impulse of the other side as worthwhile... and the result of this mutual incomprehension was a presidential campaign that capped forty years of personal demonization and a whipsawing of public policy. ARTISANS AND RATIONALSAlthough not as obvious in political terms, SP Artisans and NT Rationals have a level of mutual incomprehension equivalent to that between Guardians and Idealists. ArtisansThe Artisan "Do" preference is a natural way to describe the SP goal of a "changing world." For the Artisan, success in achieving this goal is measured by the volume and variety of sensation. Only in a "changing world" is the SP truly happy, and this is seen in the kinds of questions they ask themselves. Is this new? Is there some risk involved? Will I be remembered? Does this give me the chance to move around, or to make things happen? Can I win? Whatever it is, it's worthless to the Artisan if it doesn't make a difference in the real world. Anything that doesn't expand the SP's opportunities to "Do" is considered useless; likewise, whatever can help the SP to go or to do will be embraced. When seen in this light of "changing the world," typical SP choices of activity and work make sense. The SP business negotiator or entertainer gets a thrill from the split-second performance art of manipulating people's desires. The master craftsman enjoys using tools to shape materials and construct useful things. The SP jet pilot enjoys the split-second physical demands of landing on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier at night in the rain. Even the starving artist shares in this need, this intense desire, to act in some way that alters the world, even if just by a little. RationalsThe NT Rational, like the NF Idealist, is more concerned with internal goals than with satisfying worldly expectations. But unlike Idealists, Rationals are interested in bringing order to their inner selves by the strict application of reason. Above all, the NT wants a "structured self"; anything else risks inefficiency and incompetence through a failure of self-control and comprehension. More than any other temperament, a Rational's personal questioning can be extremely self-critical. Do I really understand this well enough? Why did I fail? How does this work? Why should I accept as true what others claim to be true? How can I improve? How much of myself should I reveal to others? Is this the best option? Do the costs of this proposed course of action outweigh the benefits? "Think about it" is the Rational's continual advice to him- or herself. "Look before you leap" rings true, too--especially if looking involves knowing the advantages and disadvantages of leaping, as well as why they are advantages and disadvantages. To an NT, it's never good enough to do something just to be doing it--there must always be a reason. This is how the NT relates to the world. Success to a Rational requires understanding both the situation and one's own capabilities, then acting consciously to bring about the desired result. If it wasn't deliberate, then it doesn't count. This emphasis on a "structured self" as a means by which the demands of the world are addressed explains much Rational behavior. If a Rational seems slow to "open up," it may simply be a result of that Rational's unwillingness to give a misleadingly incomplete response, or to speculate in areas that the NT considers incompletely understood. The NT's insistence on understanding cause-and-effect relationships before acting often leads them to cloistered lives in academia or opportunities to indulge their passion for science and technology. If it helps them order and organize the universe, they're for it... a passion to which other Rationals can relate, but which the non-Rational temperaments find baffling. Artisans and Rationals ContrastedAs with Guardians and Idealists, so it is with Artisans and Rationals: each temperament finds the other incomprehensible. To both Artisans and Rationals, Guardians and Idealists make some sense. SJs and NFs both provide reasons why things matter--a certainty which SPs and NTs find comforting. But SPs and NTs appear to each other to have nothing in common. To many Artisans, the calm, reserved Rational observation of SP activity can be infuriating. One cool glance from an NT, and many Artisans will feel certain that they are being criticized for enjoying life. They often respond with withering dismissals of NT theorizing as a worthless waste of time from pointy-headed, ivory-tower intellectuals. Not only (thinks the SP) do Rationals spend too much time worrying about things that aren't real, they just plain don't know how to have fun. An NT is particularly vulnerable to this last charge (especially when seeing how much fun the "undisciplined" Artisan seems to be having). Rationals, for all their carefully acquired and organized knowledge of themselves and their world, often don't understand the Artisan need for freedom of movement in the world. They correctly analyze SP activity as being simply activity for its own sake, but then fail to understand that it does have a purpose... just not a purpose of which they approve. For the SP, activity is a goal in itself; the NT finds this difficult to even imagine. What good is motion without meaning? What is the point of change without a defined purpose? An even greater insult to the careful NT is how often the reckless SP succeeds, gaining through enthusiasm and sheer chutzpah what the NT could never achieve with any amount of persistence or intellectual brilliance. (This, while forgetting that what they themselves can accomplish with their knowledge of how things work is just as impossible for the typical Artisan.) As a result, Rationals--as subject as anyone to irrational emotional responses--will sometimes feel sufficiently provoked to deny that Artisan achievements have any value. If it took no effort to obtain (they reason), then it was an undeserved victory. The result of this mutual incomprehension is not merely a rejection of each other's style. Often both Artisans and Rationals feel a strange combination of envy and pity for each other. If Rationals envy Artisans their joie de vivre, Artisans envy Rationals for their strong sense of self. Yet mirroring each of these envies is a feeling of pity--Artisans pity Rationals for focusing on trivial details and for being unable to "let go," while Rationals pity Artisans for being adrift in the world with no idea of who they are or why they do what they do. And in the end, Artisans and Rationals reject as fatally flawed each other's temperamental styles, just as Guardians and Idealists deny any value to their opposing styles. CONCLUSIONIn summary, then, I think this model of "opposite" temperaments has better explanatory and predictive powers than Keirsey's. This is not to say that Keirsey's model, with its two differentiating axes of "communication" (concrete or abstract) and "tool-use" (cooperative or utilitarian), has no value, any more than the 16-type Myers-Briggs model has no value because Keirsey later developed a different set of analytical criteria. Myers-Briggs, and Keirsey's analysis of opposites, and mine, are all simply different ways to slice the same pie of human character. What I am suggesting is that some slicing mechanisms deliver more pie than others... in the appropriate circumstances. When the question is "Which temperaments are most unlike each other?" I conclude that the best--not the only, but the best--way to analyze the available data is by examining temperament according to the two differentiating axes of "source of truth" (world or self) and "comfort with the unknown" (structure or change). On that basis, I find that the behavior of the four temperaments, especially toward each other, is explained well by the two divisions I propose: "structured world" (SJ) versus "changing self" (NF), and "changing world" (SP) versus "structured self" (NT). The conclusive test, of course, will be to try out these definitions in the real world. They work for me, but I'm interested in hearing from others who've given them a chance. FURTHER NOTES ON TEMPERAMENTHere are some further notes on temperament that I've put together since I developed this essay. Any new and interesting ideas will go there, too. I. IntroductionII. BackgroundIII. Myers-Briggs Type TheoryIV. Keirsey Temperament TheoryV. Keirsey Temperament PortraitsVI. Myers-Briggs Type PortraitsVII. The "Opposites" ModelHome
|