Dear Gregg, Jason & Co

So we could also define "personality types" with "personality traits"
merely as:
- Functional in contemporary or future society
- Dysfunctional to varying degrees in contemporary or future society

Thereby uniting say Skinner, Freud and Foucault under one system of
anthropology meeting psychology.

I would be very happy with that as strong on anthropology but weak on (and
therefore deeply listening) on psychology. In the overall
social-psychological field where we operate as ToK. Right?

Interestingly, the most versatile and plastic archetypes in my studies are
also the ones least orderly. So they function less well in the inner
circuit of the tribe (run by a matriarchy that pushes the nomadic tribe
forward) if they are females or the outer circuit of the tribe (run by a
patriarchy that pulls the nomadic tribe forward) if they are males and
therefore either act as go-betweens between the two circuits (shiny happy
gay and trans people very much embraced in this model) or they frankly just
live as "the shamanic caste" at the very outskirts of the tribe (thereby
also constituting the peaceful relations to other tribes). I count about 5%
of the overall population to this category. And they are crucial at times
of dramatic change (well, hey, they built the first cities in history since
they built the first shared ritual places, there you go).

We have much much to gain by including all archetypes within one shared
anthropological-psychological model. To then frankly approach and handle
rather than treat the "dysfunctionalities" of some archetypes without ever
resorting to the naivety of Rousseau. I'm all for such work.

Best intentions
Alexander Bard

Den sön 9 dec. 2018 kl 14:57 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]>:

> Interesting “question,” Jason. I like the framing in terms of
> justification and consistency, as it allows us to see, in clear form,
> “justification dynamics” at work in the context of justification systems
> and social influence.
>
>
>
> There are a number of issues. First, for those who don’t know, Jason and I
> have a history of dialoguing about the Myers-Briggs Typology. The MBTI is a
> tool used lots by folks outside of psychology, but inside the field of
> psych assessment, the measure and system does not get much attention. I
> think there is a bit of elitist snobbery operating, as I think the MBTI is
> a useful way to carve up features of the human psyche/human behavioral
> tendencies. The second technical MBTI issue pertains to whether the theory,
> questionnaires and related concepts should be thought of in terms of
> dimensions that people score high, average, or low on, or if they represent
> genuine essential-type categories. I am happy to revisit that specific
> question if you would like. But the challenge here was more about types in
> general and so I will move to that.
>
> I am not opposed to thinking about types in “ordered” folks. Of course, as
> Alexander alluded to, the “ordered versus disordered” type distinction is
> fraught with complexity. But I think the idea of a role-model or adaptive
> personality type has good evidence for it (see attached). In fact, here is
> a half hour discussion I did with my brother on what is an “adaptive
> personality type.
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DPY8ldlE9hlM-26list-3DPLeq-5FWi59Pq5vff-5FLa7IaLC3ORr0hNLDNM-26index-3D4&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R89jVo0UP8e6af-1kJOk9AqwkPuQcxdkWXW2IqIcabo&s=T_fyhCX_5rACU8G9DYVUQ-LACv1tARxQuqzQhmXme7U&e=>”
> It is the “OCEAN” profile of high on the first four of the big five traits
> and low on the N. I would guess additional research will add “g” (as in
> general IQ) and perhaps “H” as in honor and humility
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_HEXACO-5Fmodel-5Fof-5Fpersonality-5Fstructure&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R89jVo0UP8e6af-1kJOk9AqwkPuQcxdkWXW2IqIcabo&s=yI0G2ryLtd4eA4T_2CCAUnKGPfwgJahSfJhOGIundO8&e=>
> (and probably humor), to give a “high OCEAN g H” profile for the adaptive
> “ordered” personality type. (Needless to say the idea of a “high g H
> floating on an adaptive OCEAN of traits” is appealing to myself as a
> founding ToKer 😊)
>
>
>
> I also agree with Alexander’s comment and like animus and anima as
> archetypes. In terms of personality-human psychology, the Matrix supports
> an agentic/masculine/self-oriented “type” relative to a
> communal/feminine/other-oriented type. That is the upper left versus lower
> right quadrant distinction.
>
>
>
> Two more points and I will wrap up and you can decide about my being
> hypocritical. First, if we look at medicine, we do see some justification
> for thinking more about types when we are looking at disorders than
> ordered. After all, the disordered is defined by a type of thing that has
> gone wrong. There are many kinds of kidney diseases, but not too many*
> kinds* of normal healthy human kidneys (at least I suspect this to be the
> case. In saying this, I should note there are some clear examples of normal
> typology in physiology, like the variety of normal blood types, A, B, O,
> +/- ). Of course, I argue that mental pathology is importantly different
> from bio-organic, but that is another issue.
>
>
>
> Second, if we look at the blog on personality disorders that sparked your
> comment, I actually take the categorical types and put them on a
> dimensional system and show that they are rigid extremes of underlying
> dimensions. So the current case in point is taking an overly categorical
> system (the DSM personality system) and showing that the supposed essential
> types are best understood as manifestations of high or low ends of a
> continuum of underlying relational process dimensions.
>
>
>
> Bottom line, the category type versus dimension issue is complicated. And
> surprisingly enough, given the nature of justification dynamics, I think I
> need more evidence is required to demonstrate that my arguments are of a
> “inconsistent” type 😊.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *nysa71
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 8, 2018 6:46 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Some articles on Human Relating
>
>
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> I find it odd (and quite inconsistent) that you and other psychologists
> seem to have no problem with personality types when it comes to
> "disordered" personality types, but are resistant to personality types when
> it comes to "ordered" personality types.
>
> What's the justification for that inconsistency?
>
> ~ Jason
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018, 12:25:19 PM EST, Henriques, Gregg -
> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi List,
>
>   Here is an article on “The Social Leap” and how human relationships
> (cooperation, competition, talking) set the stage for our jump into modern
> people:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.realclearscience.com_2018_12_07_why-5Fhumans-5Fevolved-5Finto-5Fsuch-5Fgood-5Fbsers-5F283901.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R89jVo0UP8e6af-1kJOk9AqwkPuQcxdkWXW2IqIcabo&s=H6ue3lLHU8V_6-fMYOlDLR5-xPXv1PCwCc3XMOPvAOg&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.realclearscience.com_2018_12_07_why-5Fhumans-5Fevolved-5Finto-5Fsuch-5Fgood-5Fbsers-5F283901.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kjvEn-CEK6mxbGHWrwLZiYKCUHKDbGrwPiexYivVfVI&s=gWjG4Fve7a-AmddKLPYuXtLkYJJ8JKOS1b5iBkfWCo4&e=>
>
>
>
>   Here is an article I did today, applying the Influence Matrix and
> Horney’s psychodynamic analysis of relational styles to the DSM personality
> disorders, showing that some personality disorders are polar opposites to
> others:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_are-2Dsome-2Dpersonality-2Ddisorders-2Dpolar-2Dopposites-2Dothers&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R89jVo0UP8e6af-1kJOk9AqwkPuQcxdkWXW2IqIcabo&s=RaRRNjK87gan4GP1azleU5qfZv8BBOQ5MuG7eRBP3xM&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_are-2Dsome-2Dpersonality-2Ddisorders-2Dpolar-2Dopposites-2Dothers&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kjvEn-CEK6mxbGHWrwLZiYKCUHKDbGrwPiexYivVfVI&s=Nu-gzpQcS4v-9eiPqDpMH9OqAgrKhQFMPVlPQ3BOmmA&e=>
>
>
>
> Happy weekending 😊,
>
> G
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
>
> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>
> Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=R89jVo0UP8e6af-1kJOk9AqwkPuQcxdkWXW2IqIcabo&s=VlQIjSagK5YU93HG3n9nYCtxsUKziRyhh1o2LgzR_yc&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kjvEn-CEK6mxbGHWrwLZiYKCUHKDbGrwPiexYivVfVI&s=68HelXcykqApclkgE9hzlVUVwaNQqcKjr36SZqypZ1I&e=>
>
>
>
> Check out my webpage at:
>
> www.gregghenriques.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gregghenriques.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kjvEn-CEK6mxbGHWrwLZiYKCUHKDbGrwPiexYivVfVI&s=vRAd0LhhSAjA6Gx8cp-AeNerZ7wzPCrcjqQ2cmn11GU&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1