We are not one but three types, and not three but one personality

On the Needs for a Meta-typology and A Psychometrics of Triune Personality

THERE CAN BE no doubt that humans do exist in types, even as we are each a fluid and dynamic being that cannot be boxed in as a this-or-that “type”; otherwise we cannot even speak of some one person as, for instance, “intellectual,” or “lively,” or “perfectionistic,” or in any other typified descriptions. In fact, Types have become an indispensable tool for both individuals and organizations who want to assess personal tendencies and competencies: almost 90% of Fortune 500 companies use MBTI to meet their HR needs.

But what exactly is a type? Is a type a group of traits that are, somehow, derived from some one “basic” trait? Can there be such a thing as a basic trait? If so, what constitutes one?

In the first place, are traits basic?

Until we’ve established a meta-typology—that is, locating the grounding principle(s) of a type—we run the risk of establishing a type that is not in fact basic and therefore does not properly constitute a type.

Most current systems consist of a number of—four or five or six or thirty-four—“basic types” that are each built from a “basic” trait. If you’re “extraverted” (a basic trait), for example, your type consists of other secondary traits such as “friendly and gregarious” or “enjoy being with people”; or, if you’re “dominant” (a basic trait), you are also “direct,” “daring,” and “adventuresome” (secondary traits). Whilst type systems have given us very useful information about how we behave, they don’t tell us why; given that they are not based on a more fundamental component of our behavior, namely, the motivations that drive traits. (Or, if based on motivations, they lack logical reasoning and structure to substantiate how and why there are x number of “basic motivations” in the system.) When the grounding principle(s) of a type is/are absent, we run the risk of including traits into a “type” that do not in fact belong together; resulting in a “type” that is actually a mix of types. A type, apart from meeting the criterion of basicity, need to also be simple, to be a type.

The study of motivations, however, is problematic; given their subjective nature. If we want to investigate on human motivations—which are, though sometimes empirically met and manifested, are always intrinsic and subjective—we need to advance, though not divorce, from any studies that are confined to an empirical epistemology.

A Psychology and Philosophy of Types

The 18th century philosopher Christian Wolff has a theory of motivation to offer. (Italics added.) “The knowledge of what is good,” he observed, “is a motive of the will.” We humans have an instinct that wills, and the rational need to know, that one’s action is good. We do that which we deem “good,” and avoid that which we deem “no-good.” All human acts presuppose such a “motivating ground” that Wolff called a “maxim,” which may be formulated as: “x is good.” For one who enjoys a good read at home, “perceptivity is good”; and for another who goes out to party, “vivacity is good.” These maxims, according to Wolff, make it possible for one “to determine himself to do certain actions and omit other [possible actions].” (Wolff, 1720) They are conditions of necessity to any human act.

Wolff’s philosophy of maxims is consistent with Hazel Rose Markus’ psychology of “self-schemata”; according to which individuals are exposed at any given moment to a variety of information “vastly greater than a person can process,” which makes us necessarily “selective” in what we “notice.” (Markus, 1977) Our selective tendencies are dictated by our self-schemata, which can be formulated as, “I am x.” If “I am intellectual and self-sufficient,” I tend to notice and select a good book at home over a great time out at a party; or if “I am lively and full of friends,” then selecting the latter is more congruent with who I am. The “x” in Markus’ self-schemata, it turns out, is one and the same “x” in Wolff’s maxims.

“X” is the grounding principle of our behavior; an IDEAL. It dictates how we choose to act and, over time, our consistent acts on the same IDEAL results in a “type.” For instance, if one is inclined to act on Perfection (an IDEAL), she also tends to become perfectionistic, self-governing, and set high standards (traits), resulting thereby in a type: the Governor; or, if one is inclined to act on Fascination (an IDEAL), he also tends to become variety-seeking, lively, and free-spirited, resulting in another unique type: the Stimulator.

There is a basic type for each of the nine basic and universal IDEALS.

Now that we have established a meta-typology based on human motivations, we would also have introduced an anchoring principle, a grounding basis, for a type. However, we all know, that in the real world, humans are dynamic and complex persons; rather than one-dimensional and static types.

The Need for A Psychometrics of Triunity

We are on one hand really typical—John is “intellectual,” Jane is “lively,” Jim is “perfectionistic”—but on the other hand, dynamic and complex—John may also be “perfectionistic,” Jane may also be “intellectual,” and Jim may also be “lively.” The inherent paradox in real personalities makes it difficult for any psychometrics system to pinpoint all the dynamic properties that make any one personality.

Whilst most Types practitioners do acknowledge the fact that each of us tends to possess traits of every type, their personality outputs would nevertheless assign an individual to one type, often at the expense of another “opposing” type—Are you a Thinker or a Feeler?—when, in reality, humans are not thinker-or-feeler types but each of us is a thinking-and-feeling-and-doing person. In doing so, type profiles are in fact excluding our other inherent assets that could have otherwise complemented, and reinforced, our dominant type. Jane would have been instructed that she is enlivening, outgoing, and entertaining (the Feeler/Extravert type), but not the fact that she is also intellectual, informed, and inventive (the Thinker/Introvert type). Jane and her employer could not have known her full potential—if she were assessed based on her one-dimensional profile.

Based on our Triune Neurobiology, each personality is a necessary confluence of three—“heart” and “head” and “gut”—types that, together, form one person; for we can no more remove a psychological nature (“heart” or “head” or “gut”) from our personality than we can a portion off of our brain(s). Our triune neurobiology behooves upon us to establish a triune personality; whereby Jane, for instance, is a dynamic trio of enthusiasm, enlivenment, entertainment (the Motivator); and intellect, critical thinking, innovation (the Thinker); and integrity, quality, orderliness (the Governor); that, altogether, are consolidated in one personality: the Chef.

“The Chef” is one of 81 personalities that is composed of three types. Discover your types and personality here.

A Progression in Workplace Psychometrics

In summary, Jane, the Chef, is one personality composed of three—the Stimulator, the Thinker, and the Governor—types. Workplace psychometrics may now (truly) identify each of Jane’s core values and motivations (Fascination, Knowledge, and Perfection); and identify her complete suite of core competencies (basically Stimulation, Ideation, and Governance) and array of correlated soft skills; and not assign her to a dominant type at the expense of her entire personality.

The implications and benefits for both Jane and her employer are manifold.

_____

Wolff, Christian. 2003 (1720). “Reasonable Thoughts About the Actions of Men, for the Promotion of Their Happiness.” In Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant, edited by J. B. Schneewind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 333–350.

Markus, Hazel Rose. 1977. “Self-Schemata and Processing Information About the Self.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

_____

Discover your Triune Personality