Personality theory

Disclaimer

(Dammit, Jim,) I'm a physicist, not a psychologist. (That's why I put this on a "back" page.) & psychology is the least exact of all the sciences: Experiments are hard to control, considering the subjects. In particular, theory of personality is generally controversial: e.g., it discusses politics & religion. However, some use is made of it -- mostly vocational counseling. The following is based on history, vocations & their educational level, & personal experience, with some ideas taken from certain earlier models. (I'm a theorist, not an experimentalist.) Probably it isn't totally unreasonable.

The personalities

traitmotivationinstinctphilosopherlearningeconomicspoliticshistory
intellectual ⎧

(ideas) ⎩
passive6scientistknowledgecuriosityAyerscientific methodignoreautomation(future)
aggressive5artistcreativitybeautyThoreauinspirationavoidanarchism
social ⎧

(people) ⎩
passive4humanitarianfriendshiploveLennonconsensussharesocialismPostmodern
aggressive3entrepreneurinfluencereciprocityRandrhetoricinvestcapitalismModern
physical ⎧

(things/action) ⎩
passive2officialsecuritytrustMosestrainingsavefeudalismMedieval
aggressive1athletevigorthrillsNietzscheinstinctspendslaveryAncient

Personality traits are primitive emotions made reasonable: premeditated to be viable in the long term & over broad circumstances. A person's dominant trait changes only under stress, mostly before adulthood, so you should be familiar with all these types from high school (giving enough observational data to render controlled experiments redundant). All these traits have existed (@ least) throughout recorded history. But due to societal pressures & lack of availability, not everyone's vocation matches their personality; so the above traits may refer instead to an avocation. Most jobs & personalities have prioritized mixtures of traits.

A person's philosophy is a statement of their personality. This means not only ethics, but also epistemology -- their definition of truth/reasoning. This is why political/religious differences have no logical resolution. (Just as it's pointless to have a debate, e.g., on whether chocolate or vanilla is "better" based on nutritional or financial data.)

My classification scheme is based on the age-old trichotomy of subjects of interest -- people, things, & ideas, each subdivided into those who are (relatively) agressive (subjective) or passive (objective) in their approach toward these 3 types of objects. (Related ideas & some of their history are discussed below.)

An example is recent American politics. The dominant traits (with strong mixtures of neighboring ones) for most politicians is:

Democrats
3Republicans
2
1Trump

Hierarchy

The nature of a society @ any period in its history directly corresponds to that of its individuals. ("Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny", & vice versa, but now applied after birth.) Thus the chronological relation of most of these traits (for both societies & individuals) is well documented by the history of humanity. (A close analog to personality classification is biological taxonomy.) Each trait peaks in popularity in its own era.

This "stratigraphic" ordering also matches educational level, as knowledge in a society increases with time (apparent "dark ages" notwithstanding). Correspondingly, there is an increase in education required in going from manual/clerical work (things), to dealing with other people, to intellectual endeavors (ideas). Within these 3 divisions, there is subdivision for aggressive/passive (or subjective/objective) attitudes, as greater knowledge is required to understand the world than to assert oneself. Polls show a correlation between educational level & politics (@ least with respect to progressive vs. conservative).

The emphasis on knowledge makes this a level-6 oriented ordering; other orderings (or lack thereof) follow from different levels of view: E.g., a deteriorationist (like Hesiod) might claim this table is better represented upside-down.

A coincidental analogy is quarks, which come in 6 "flavors", discovered in order of increasing mass. They come in 3 (weakly interacting) pairs, each of electric charges +⅔ & -⅓. The most recent is sometimes called "truth", & its partner "beauty".

Another coincidental(?) analogy is the stratigraphic ordering of body parts metaphorically associated with the 3 types of decision making: brain (ideas), heart (people), & gut (things). A better anatomical association is with the triune brain theory of Paul D. MacLean, dividing it chronologically into the reptilian (physical), paleomammalian (social), & neomammalian (intellectual) complexes. ("Mammalian" should be generalized to homeothermic or "warm-blooded" to include birds, & "reptiles" to the rest of the verterbrates.)

In other words

connotative
to same level (+)to other levels (−)
6thoughtful, considerate
understanding
objective
concise
intelligent
well educated
calculating
know-it-all
unfeeling, unintuitive
brusque
naive
elitist
5independent
avant-garde
innovative
eccentric
poetic
unrealistic
bohemian
fanciful
abnormal
obscure, mystical
4cooperative, helping
caring, empathic
sociable
supportive
mainstream
dependent, aimless
soft
gabby
patronizing
common
3leader
charismatic
famous
popular
objectivist
free
domineering
demagogic
infamous
faddish
rationalizing
greedy
2loyal, dutiful, respectful
righteous
strict, procedural
consistent
purist, patriotic
hierarchical
fearful, slavish, dupe
self-righteous
pedantic, narrow-minded
habitual
xenophobic, jingoist
authoritarian
1strong
victorious
boisterous
spontaneous
fun, carefree
brutish
unfair
rowdy
impulsive
irresponsible, careless
ambiguous


understanding ⎨

scientific6
inspired5
empathic4

numbers ⎨
mathematics (proofs)6
arithmetic (accounting)2

data ⎨
empirical6
bookkeeping2

technology ⎨
engineer6
technician1

libertarian ⎨
left5
right3

intuition ⎨
inspiration5
instinct1
collectivist  ⎧

(conformist) ⎩
horizontal (humanity)4
vertical (group)2
power  ⎧

(politics) ⎩
soft3
hard1

warrior ⎨
right2
might1

sports ⎨
team 2
individual1

religion ⎨
monotheism (super parent) 2
polytheism (super α-dog)1

survival ⎨
challenge1
threat0

Also confused for ends are means:

Relative terms, chronologically: conservative (right) for earlier, progressive (left) for later. (Liberal & libertarian are also used oppositely, but switch roles in Europe vs. the United States.) Misnomers: Soviet "Socialist" (Communist), like National "Socialist" (Nazi), is authoritarian (2), not socialist (4), & thus right of capitalist (3).

I added a level 0 for no/pre-personality, sometimes confused with level 1. In the corresponding Neolithic prehistory, villages were homogeneous in lifestyle & architecture, with a subsistence economy, & thus not "true societies" (civilization).

Relation to other models

hierarchyunorderedcircle
chronologyvaluevocation
society onlysociety & individualindividual only
Marx →Heard (4) →Graves (5)       ←Maslow (4)            ←Spranger (2) →Guilford →Roe →Holland
185919631966|701943[54]{69}1914195319(54)561959,69
67 cognitive
   (theoretic,
   information)
cognitive understanding
knowledge
2 theoretic
   (cognitive,
   scientific)
scientific6 science5 Investigative
   (scientific)
56 communism
   (future)
6|8 creative|
      intuitive (poetic)
[esthetic]2 esthetic (beauty)esthetic
expression
8 arts4 Artistic
   (esthetic)
45 socialism
   (soon)
5 leptoid5|6 sociocentric
      (community)
{transcendence}
self-actualization
(community feeling)
3 social (love)social
welfare
7 cultural
1 service
3 Social
   (supportive)
34 capitalism
   (Modern)
4 humanic4|5 materialistic
      (entrepreneurial)
4self-esteem
esteem
3 political (power)business2 business
   (persuasive)
2 Enterprising
   (persuasive)
23 feudalism
   (Medieval)
3 ascetic3|4 saintly (security)
2 traditional (safety)
3 belonging (group)
2 safety (security)
4 religious (God)clerical3 organizations1 Conventional
   (clerical)
12 slavery
   (Ancient)
2 heroic−|3 survival
      (might is right)
mechanical
(outdoor)
4 technology
5 outdoor
6 Realistic
   (motoric)
01 primitive
   communism
   (Neolithic)
1 coconscious1 physiological1 physiological1 economic
   (biological)

Each author's level of view (when it affects their hierarchy) is given next to their name. (Not all scientists have 6 as their dominant level.) Their own ordering is indicated by numbering in the body of the table, but circular orderings have no true origin nor orientation.

  1. Karl Marx didn't apply his evolution of society explicitly to psychology. (His communism is now commonly called "anarchism".)
  2. Eduard Spranger's "types of individuality" was the 1st personality trait/type theory (before even Freud & Jung).
  3. Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" had 5 basic levels. A self-described "humanist" (anthropocentrist), his esthetic & cognitive needs were auxiliary, & thus not entered into the hierarchy: From the 1st chapter of his book,
    `… the limit to which the "pure" scientist approaches is not an Einstein or a Newton but rather the Nazi "scientist" of the concentration-camp experiments or the "mad" scientist of Hollywood. … Science for science’s sake can be just as sick as art for art’s sake.'
    (So much for his "positive theory of motivation". Maybe playing the Nazi card was more common back then.)
  4. Gerald Heard's described "five ages of man":
  5. Clare W. Graves' "levels of existence" (1966) modified Maslow's hierarchy. Rather than the predetermined responses and classification of standard multiple choice questionnaires of some popular personality theories, his levels were based on giving students in his personality course 4 weeks for "their own personal conception of the psychologically mature human being". He described Heard’s alternation as (1970): He then adapted the ordering of levels 0-4 to history. He paired only the top 2 levels, as (‘66) individualistic (aggressive/pacifistic) or "being" levels (‘70). But:
  6. Joy P. Guilford, Paul R. Christensen, Nicholas A. Bond, Jr., & Marcella A. Sutton surveyed interests to classify vocations, defining the groups better. (Actions speak louder than words.)
  7. Anne Roe modified Guilford et al.'s vocations in the "groups" dimension of her better, "cylindrical" ordering (1956; "truncated cone", 1969), with a non-circular "levels" dimension indicating education/training. Originally (1954) she included all jobs requiring power tools (1) @ lower levels of science (e.g., aviator, electrician, repairman, truck driver, unskilled factory hand, and even chauffeur), forcing the relationship of that group to "physical" (later technology/outdoor), including technical jobs not requiring power tools (though perhaps using them). Then (1956) she included all technicians in technology, but also all engineers (6), @ different levels. E.g., some distinctions I would make:
    6railway engineerelectrical engineerrocket scientist"nerd"
    1railroad engineerelectriciantest pilot"jock"
    Nowadays, all jobs relate to technology (but not necessarily to science).
  8. John L. Holland based his "Holland codes (RIASEC)" on the vocations of Guilford et al. (in 1959), circular ordering of Roe (in 1969, with Douglas R. Whitney, Nancy S. Cole, & James M. Richards, Jr.), & his own surveys.

Among less-related models:

abnormalvirtues
Fiske →Lee (2)Peterson & Seligman (2) →Roth (1)
1949197320042011
6wisdom and knowledge
(critical thinking)
1 erudite
   (scientist)
5 openness to
experience (esthetic)
   eros
   (esthetic)
   amity (flaky,
   art, communes)
4agreeableness
(cooperative)
   storge
   (friendship)
humanity
(love)
   abnegation
   (humanitarian)
3extraversion
(assertiveness)
   pragma
   (trade)
2conscientiousness
(organized)
6 agape
   (religious)
transcendence (religiousness)
justice (loyalty)
temperance (self control)
   candor
   (trust, judge)
1   ludus
   (fun)
courage
(vitality, vigor)
5 dauntless
   (adrenaline)
neuroticism   mania
  1. "Character strengths and virtues" by Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman had related categories, but without ordering.
  2. The popular "Big Five" model (Donald W. Fiske, 1949; Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal, 1961), unordered, includes "neuroticism" as a trait. Inclusion of neuroses/psychoses makes this also a model for abnormal psychology, unlike any of the previous. Mental disorder no more defines a personality than suffering from a disease defines a species.

The "Myers–Briggs Type Indicator" (Isabel Briggs Myers & Katharine Cook Briggs, 1944), based on the work of Carl Jung (1921) treated pairs of approaches to various subjects as opposites. They can better be treated as complementary or redundant; roughly (cf. the top table):

dichotomyattitudefunction
informationextraversion6sensing (empiricist)
introversion5intuition (poetic)
decisionsextraversion4feeling (empathic)
introversion3thinking
outer lifeextraversion2judging (rules)
introversion1perceiving (spontaneous)
(These use the Jungian meaning of "extraversion/introversion" as "objective/subjective". The "dichotomy" column lists the 3 dichotomies, which form a trichotomy: 6 = 2×3.) Thus I instead interpret "extraversion" & "introversion" as closely related levels rather than opposites, and "function" as redundant to the rest.

Comparison

In 1967 I based my model on my interpretation of the models I had seen, which were Marx & the earlier version of Graves, but later found these other models support it (to varying degrees). However, unlike my model, none of these people
  1. used both alternation & pairing, which implies a unique classification & ordering,
  2. & considered both history & jobs,
  3. & thus recognized educational level gives an ordering in agreement with the historical one.