Posted by Mike O on: 07.17.2008 /
This is the 4th (and probably my favorite!) in a five-part series on a class I’m taking at church called “S.H.A.P.E Workshop.” Just to recap, there are five basic components that make up who a person is - that make up your “S.H.A.P.E.” They are:(click on the links for previous posts) -
S - Spiritual Gifts
H - Heart/Passion
A - Abilities
P - Personality
E - Experiences
This week we learned about the four main personality types, and how everyone’s personality is made up of different combinations of these four.
There were two main points that were made in class. The first is that there are no “good” and “bad” personalities. All four personality types have positives and negatives, but none of them are inherently “bad.” The second is that by understanding not only your own personality, but the personalities of those around you, you will be much more successful maintaining good relationships. Sure, you personalities may clash, but if you can understand why they behave the way they do, you will be able to handle it (them?) with a lot more grace and understanding.
Here are the four personality types:
A Sanguine is a very fun-loving, lively, affectionate personality. They absolutely LOVE being with people. They are very expressive emotionally. One minute they laugh gleefully, the next minute begin crying over a sad story. They live for the moment, never really considering the long-range plan. They can be very undisciplined. They are very impulsive and everything sounds great when they hear it, but actually following through with the plan or commitment is difficult. Simon Peter was a biblical example of a Sanguine.
A Choleric is a doer. They are constantly on the move. They also are an extrovert like the sanguine, but are more concerned with getting the project or task done than relating to people. If there is such a thing as a born leader, it is the Choleric. They are very independent, decisive, opinionated and strong-willed. If you want something done give it to a Choleric. They are visionaries, always looking at the big picture in everything. Since they are so focused and goal-oriented, they can be short-tempered, uncaring or even harsh sounding. You can pick out many Cholerics by their sarcastic sense of humor. Paul the Apostle was a biblical example of a Choleric.
A Melancholy is a deep thinker. Very analytical and detailed. They are always thinking things through, figuring things out and asking the tough questions. They are very creative and gifted. Many of the great composers and artists were Melancholies. They can be very introspective and may seem unsociable at times. They are sensitive and therefore can easily be offended by things that others may not even notice. They love to organize things. Try looking in a pure melancholy’s cupboard! Everything will be organized and labeled. Moses was a biblical example of a Melancholy.
A Phlegmatic is very easy-going, slow-moving, and peace-making personality. This personality brings balance to the fast paced world. They are very introverted and very quiet. They seldom speak unless asked a question directly. They like to be spectators in life, watching the world go by, unmotivated to join in. They are very happy that way. Phlegmatics are calm and cool and work well under pressure. They have a witty/dry sense of humor. They usually have a hard time making decisions and tend to compromise their position depending on what sounds good at the moment or who has persuaded them. Abraham was a biblical example of a Phlegmatic.
The personality types can also be paired a couple of different ways. Two of these, sanguine and choleric, are considered “extroverted” while the other two, phlegmatic and melancholy, are introverted. Two of them, sanguine and phlegmatic, tend to be people-oriented while choleric and melancholy are more task-oriented.
The idea is that each person’s personality is some mix of the four. I, for example, am a sanguine-phlegmatic with a good dose of melancholy, but not much choleric. My dominant personality traits lean towards the fun-loving, outgoing activities. But at the same time, I really need my down time. I can sit for an entire day and do nothing but watch TV or movies. I love people, but I also love to be alone.
An observation that my wife has made over time is that older people can be more balanced between the four. Perhaps this is because they’ve had some time (and gained some wisdom?) to temper their traits, getting rid of the negatives of their primary personality type and picking up more of the positives of the other personalities.
This last section I’m quoting directly from the material. It was written for a Christian audience, but I think the points it makes are still valid - with or without the spiritual angle.
TEMPERAMENT FACTS
1. Temperament is the combination of inborn traits that subconsciously effect our behavior. We are born with them. They are in our genes, transferred from our parents & grandparents. The four temperament descriptions are a way of understanding the different types of people in the world.
2. We each naturally prefer to do things in a certain way, depending on our temperament. We have certain natural strengths and natural weaknesses. As we understand our temperament and that of those around us, we will be able to better fulfill our specific destiny and be respectful and live in harmony with other people.
3. We each have a different temperament blend. Even people who have the same spiritual gifts and passion will serve differently. For example, someone who is an introvert (predominately melancholy or phlegmatic) and has a teaching gift, will probably be more comfortable teaching in a small group setting versus in front of a large group.
4. Our temperament can be modified. That is the most important thing to understand about temperaments. We never should say “I was born like this, I can‘t change.” As we submit to the Holy Spirit, He will begin to make us more like Jesus. He will soften and transform our weaknesses and strengths with the fruits of the Holy Spirit. A Choleric will begin to love people. A Melancholy will forgive and have his thoughts brought under control by the Holy Spirit. A Sanguine will become disciplined and develop follow-through. A Phlegmatic will use the spiritual gifts that God has given him and make a difference in the world. How exciting! Each will fulfill the destiny God has for them.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Sago
1 07/17/08 6:18 AM | Comment Link |Personality classifications are interesting and can give some valuable insights.
If you enjoyed this scheme (based on the ‘four humours’ model of physiology put forward by Hippocrates), you might also like Myers-Briggs classification, or its sister the Kiersey temperament sorter. There are a bunch of others, some very complex and put forward for us in recruitment, others even more simple, such as the Type A/B personality. Google any of them for more info.
Psychologically they are just coarse post-hoc classifications, of course. They are a very poor indicator of actual behavior. In my school this was a standard 1st year psych experiment.
But it is a fun angle, and one I wouldn’t have expected a church to go down.
Comment by: Mike O
2 07/17/08 9:47 AM | Comment Link |.
The thinking is that part of understanding what God wants you to do spiritually, you need to understand how God created you physically and emotionally.
Comment by: Karen
3 07/17/08 7:55 PM | Comment Link |Is this based on the Trent and Smalley workshops of the 80s and 90s? I remember going through those personality types in one of their seminars years ago.
Comment by: Jason
4 07/17/08 10:47 PM | Comment Link |The four personality type that you list were once considered to be elemental parts that made up the body. The four humors of Hippocratic Medicine. Sanguine related to air, phlegmatics to Earth, cholerics to fire and melancholy was to water. We now know that this is a very limited model for the structure of the human body although quite insightful given the limitations of science during the Iron Age where the theory arose.
These personality classifications are similarly interesting but very simplified as a model. Human beings are much more complicated than four basic types even in combination. I think a simple model can give us some insight and entertain us but I think it falls short of any kind of clinical analysis. Not that it’s meant to be.
That probably explains why I take such issue with these simplified models. Just as horoscopes seek to classify a dozen generalised fates for the entire population and draw out vague predictions for them the four elements in personalities can be taken as fact rather than interest. That’s how we ended up with melancholy people being bled to release the build up of black bile in their blood. What I’m saying really is that a simplified model is just that and cannot and should not be used except as a basis for further investigation.
Someone may well have the temperament for teaching a small group but implying that this is due to natural physical properties I think is limiting. In my own life I regularly get called upon to train people. It’s a task that I dislike but I happen to be very good at it. This means I get to do it more often than I like. Yet stick me in front of a crowd and I’m as effective at teaching as a quivering blancmange but curiously I’d prefer that over several small group training sessions.
Comment by: Mike O
5 07/18/08 2:08 AM | Comment Link |No - I’m not sure which it is, but i don’t think that’s it. I’ll find out.
Comment by: Mike O
6 07/18/08 2:23 AM | Comment Link |Hmm, I never heard that before, but I’ve never really studied it, either. I’m just relaying what was taught.
I’m not sure I get your point?
I’m not saying we believe the whole four humors thing - that just happens to be where Hypocrites started with it 2500 or so years ago. I’m not saying the personalities can be attributed to Humorism, the theory that all diseases and disabilities resulted from an excess or deficit of one of the four humors - black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood.
We’re just saying that there tends to be four basic “bents” to personalities that, in combination, can explain them. I heard something about a fifth one coming about now, but we didn’t go into that.
I’m not sure what you think is missing - like you said, it’s not meant to be clinical analysis but rather just a means of categorizing. But what exactly do you take issue with? I think I’m missing your point.
Comment by: Jason
7 07/18/08 10:44 AM | Comment Link |I think my real problem with this is that it smacks too closely of star signs and ancient “wisdom” and people can take it all too seriously. Imagine if you suffered from or knew a sufferer of a bi-polar disorder. Is it beyond imagination that a corrective treatment for a manic phase might advocate cooling the blood by exposing the person to cold or a depressed phase might be treated with bleeding?
It might seem barbaric and foolish to perform medieval medicine on the mentally ill but people might actually believe some of these old wives tales. Someone could get hurt. As an interesting psychological game it’s harmless but it’s close enough to the idea of humourism that some people might just take it seriously.
Do you think I’m over-reacting? I almost certainly wouldn’t have this issue if the names of the personality types were flowers, spices or colours or something neutral that held no negative connotations.
Comment by: Sago
8 07/18/08 11:32 AM | Comment Link |There’s a more widespread and insidious problem with personality typing in the workplace, which I could see potentially happening in church, but wouldn’t be the same livelihood issue.
The issue is that when you classify your own or someone else’s behavior in a type you expect to continue to behave that way (but as I said, research shows these types do not predict behvior successfully).
So you say “hey, Jo is a Melancholic, so I’ll not ask her to do task X”. It can be a form of personality discrimination that is damaging. It wouldn’t be a problem if the types could be shown to indicate anything, of course, but because they don’t it is no different to a company saying “Let’s not ask Bob to do that because he’s a Virgo, and that’s a bad star sign for this…”
Obviously when its a cute way to examine yourself, then it isn’t a problem, but it definitely shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
9 07/18/08 12:08 PM | Comment Link |Jason I’m surprised that the old names are used; I would have updated them.
Otherwise it seems to be a fairly standard version of personality typing. I’ve heard of a few. I think Smalley and Trent’s, mentioned by Karen, uses cute animal names like otter and beaver. You’d probably prefer those :)
I like how personality typing helps people quantify a little why they are different from their coworker or neighbor or spouse. It validates them being different, which I think is good.
I agree with Sago that if it’s used to limit people then it ceases to be good.
Comment by: Mike O
10 07/18/08 1:37 PM | Comment Link |I do. First of all, we’re not talking about mental disorders. And secondly, we’re just making note of the fact that there does seem to be four basic types - of course nobody has just one in it’s purest form. A person’s personality is like a recipe, with only four ingredients. There are a zillion different ways to mix four ingredients.
Comment by: Mike O
11 07/18/08 1:40 PM | Comment Link |I think I agree with you, Sago. If we can understand how/why people react the way they do, it makes it easier to accept them and their behaviors.
Comment by: Mike O
12 07/18/08 1:41 PM | Comment Link |I think that’s a good distinction, Helen. It should be used to understand, not limit.
Comment by: Karen
13 07/18/08 5:40 PM | Comment Link |Yup, that’s the one I was talking about. I remember golden retriever and lion(?) being two of the major personality types, but they correlated with the “humours” of olden days.
I believe the seminar I attended was on parenting and it linked the personality types with birth order. Cholerics were said to be first-borns, sanguines second-borns, melancholy third-born and phlegmatic fourth-borns. It was supposed to be a way to understand your child’s personality, and I actually found it fairly accurate for my two boys.
However, I also dislike anything that pigeonholes anyone too much or makes a unique person into a foregone conclusion. I think parents are especially prone to do that (”Oh, that’s my difficult child!”), often to their children’s detriment. I always tried not to do that, and tried to approach my kids as individuals rather than “types.”
It’s easy to put them into a box based on things you notice early on that they later outgrow.
Comment by: Mike O
14 07/20/08 8:28 PM | Comment Link |My wife, who’s teaching the class, has some feedback to some of the posts. Hope this helps.
Sago said,
and Karen said,
Teacher says :),
Jason said,
Teacher says,
Comment by: Jason
15 07/21/08 3:18 AM | Comment Link |He he, I’ve clearly got the wrong end of the stick. The problem that I have, I think, is that the personality of an individual is very complex and has a huge range of factors that influence it. Lumping everyone into four categories, even mix and match categories like the four humours, is simplifying things a bit too far. For me anyway. As I mentioned, as a bit of fun, it’s fine but I don’t think it can be taken as proof of anything.
As an example, now that I’ve got a better idea, my own personality is both introvert and extrovert. Some things I am very loud and passionate about. I like to be heard and seen when performing in the kitchen or when reading to a group. Not that I do this much now the kids read themselves. I’m introverted when it comes to formal presentations in front of strangers or when I’m in a crowd. You’ll never get me on a dance floor or performing karaoke.
There are thousands of personality traits. Some may well fit together naturally or a person may tend to have related traits. An introvert may also be contemplative for example. Categorising an introvert as someone who contemplates a situation before acting is doing them a disservice and it is making often unwarranted assumptions about them.
Mike, you mentioned the ingredients idea (thanks for the cookery related imagery) earlier. If a personality were made from four ingredients, eggs, flour, salt and sugar for example, then you’d have a very bland cake no matter how you mix them or what proportions you use. Add a little ginger and you might get a gingerbread man. Cut back on the eggs and sugar and make the flour whole meal and add some yeast and you have a bread dough to make a rich pizza base. Add a little chocolate and butter and you can have chocolate chip cookies.
Meh! I take these things far too seriously and now I’m hungry. :)
Comment by: Sago
16 07/21/08 4:54 AM | Comment Link |Thanks teacher - I didn’t mean to imply you should have taught other schemes, just that if you enjoyed this scheme, then others are also interesting. And by reading many on their own merits, you get the sense that none of them is ‘right’, they are all post-hoc classifications.
These models are fun (fun as in TV-mag personality quiz-fun), they give you a structure for introspection (clearly the aim of this course), but they don’t give you any reliable insight in terms of how people will act or think.
In other words if I am categorized as a Choleric (or 50% Choleric, 25% Melancholic), you will not be able to predict how I will respond to a particular situation with any reliability.
You can show this very easily by creating a questionnaire of 100 questions about behaviors or actions. Give someone the first 50, use the answers to classify them (in any combination of any personality typing system), then predict their answers to the remaining questions (on the basis of the classification alone). You probably expect that you would get most of the remaining 50 right, but actually you won’t. This is a freshman psych experiment that’s easy to do and clear in its results.
Unfortunately most of the time this material is presented, the participants leave with the impression that the classification does somehow describe how a person thinks and acts.
Jason is right, of course, there are far more ingredients in a personality, and crucially (nicely brought out by the metaphor) it is those small factors that are more indicative of the result, not any broad categorizations.
Still, we’ve launched down a very negative road, and I suspect that the reason for first using this model is entirely appropriate: to allow participants to think about their own personality in a structured way.
Comment by: Jason
17 07/21/08 5:39 AM | Comment Link |Good point. In 90 minutes you’d only touch the surface.
Mike, you say that it’s a five part series but couldn’t a sixth session be added to bring it all together and answer questions from pedantic so-and-sos like me?…Maybe a seventh as well.
Comment by: Mike O
18 07/21/08 11:23 AM | Comment Link |Exactly correct. To determing the general personality, we actually went through an extensive series of questions, rating ourselves on multiple traits of the different personalities. For example, while I tend to score high on melancholic traits, I’m not much of a clean freak (I’m actually a bit of a slob). And while I typiclaly score lower on choleric traits, I can be quite opinionated, which is a choleric trait I do have.
True statement. But given a particular response, understanding the underlying personality traits would help to explain that response.
Yes. I didn’t think that through all the way, but my intent was that there are literally thousands of ingreadients in the recipe example.
Actually, yes … sort of. We handled some questions as we went along, but also after the last week, it is the intent to meet 1-on-1 with each of the class participants to apply the material specifically to them as a living, breathing, person. We remove pedantic so-and-so such as yourself from the class halfway through week 1, so as not to bog things down. I’M KIDDING! Questions like yours are welcomed and handled 1-on-1. It is not our intent or style to jam information down unsuspecting gullets and run away before the questions come up. it’s a learning process for everyone, even the teacher.
Comment by: Mike O
19 07/21/08 6:07 PM | Comment Link |My wife said that, in light of the feedback she got here, she is going to clarify the personality information this week before we move on to “Experiences.”
She says thanks for the feedback, and that you have good insights.