People have different ways of interpreting and explaining the world they live in.  Some of these explanations are somewhat logical or scientific, and some are not.  Nevertheless, those notions exist, and sometimes people become so attached to them that they preclude their using the type model effectively.  Some of these less-reliable concepts describe ethnic attributions ("She has an Irish temper." "His German side is very hard to deal with."); some invoke parental influences ("He takes after his father."  "She takes after her grandmother." "They raised those kids to be hellions."); and gender is a common scapegoat ("All men want the same thing."  "She's just a typical woman.").

It can be very difficult to trade in these comfortable old explanations for a new one, especially a model as complex as Type.  It's far easier for most people to stick with the old habits and reflexively blame the old influences -- even though part of them knows these models aren't sound.

What about you -- can you trade in your old models for new ones?

* * *

ASTROLOGY
A popular model many people rely on is Astrology.  It's a very interesting model that has been around since the dawn of time.  In fact, the earliest recorded attempts of humans to explain the differences among us are found in ancient Astrology.  Astrologers claimed that the movement of the sun, moon, and planets would influence your behavior patterns or your fate.  They used twelve constellations in the sky and four major groupings, symbolized by earth, air, fire, and water.  It's particularly interesting because astrology claims that your personality is not formed by what's inside you, but is determined by something completely outside of you.  Astrology said that the way the heavens were aligned when you were born determined your behavior.  Thousands of years ago, stars were what they went by.  So it's no surprise that Astrology persists today, and many people have tried to map personality type and Astrology together.

Unfortunately, there is NO correlation.  None.  Nada.

Here's what Dr. John Beebe says on the matter:

Astrology is the Ancient World's psychology.  It is a psychology of the unconscious -- a proto-psychology, a pre-psychology.  We can't correlate typology with astrology.  Astrology speaks to an instinctive underpinning, an infrastructure to our psychology, but doesn't in itself explain consciousness.

And Jung says:

Astrology is assured of recognition from psychology without further restrictions because Astrology represents the summation of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity.

As I am a psychologist, I am particularly interested in the particular light the horoscope sheds on certain complications in the character. In cases of difficult psychological diagnosis, I usually get a horoscope in order to have a further point of view from an entirely different angle. I must say that I have very often found that the astrological data elucidated certain points which I otherwise would have been unable to understand.

We are born at a given moment, in a given place and, like vintage years of wine, we have the qualities of the year and of the season of which we are born. Astrology does not lay claim to anything more.

I suspect Beebe or Jung himself would have found a parallel if there was one.  After all, both of them have found Astrology to be very intriguing and worthwhile.  So I figure if Dr. Jung and Dr. Beebe can't link the two concepts together, it's probably pointless for the rest of us to attempt it.  

However, Astrology can be very interesting when used in conjunction with Jungian archetypes, as Jung himself appears to have done.  It brings a whole new dimension to both models.

My husband and I had our horoscopes cast by a world-famous astrologer, Alice Howell,  who is also a Jungian.  Alice diagrams the astrological influences in one's chart and maps it to the Jungian archetypes that are probably influencing you.  And she's eerily accurate.  When I did my session with her, she nicknamed me "Crusader Rabbit" and "Sparkle Plenty" in order to describe some of the archetypal influences governing me.  Alice has written an interesting book, Jungian Symbolism in Astrology, that describes her methods.  (She's written a number of wonderful books, so check them all out!)  I highly recommend you schedule a session with her if you can -- she lives in the Berkshires in Massachusetts.  (Her roof leaks, so it'd be doing her a favor to become a paying customer.  Email me if you'd like the contact details.)

To summarize, while it isn't possible to link Astrology to personality type, it is an extremely worthwhile tool for getting at some psychological influences and exploring unusual facets of your personality.

* * *

HUMOURS
Catalysts are categorized as "Cholerics" in the ancient Hippocratean typology system.  I have heard from certain sources that the Humours model still exists today, but differs wildly from what Hippocrates first proposed, and that "Catalyst" no longer maps effectively to this contemporary version of the Humours.  (I don't know what Catalysts map to now, because I don't know this contemporary method.  I've heard people say that the current version of "Humours" better maps to the Interaction Styles model.)

Below is taken from a matrix created by Dr. David Keirsey to show how the Hippocratean typology maps to other systems that have been espoused over the centuries.

* * *

ENNEAGRAM
The Enneagram is not my thing.  Other people swear by it, but I'm not one of them.  The three models I rely on can each be reduced to a single matrix that reflects "tension of opposites," but the Enneagram starts at a level of complexity that's uncomfortable for me, and appears to be a philosophical model.

Because I know little about it and tend to avoid it, another Catalyst shared with me an in-depth explanation (aversion?), which may be found here.

The only other piece I can share is that someone told me "Margaret Frings Keys' book Emotions and the Enneagram: Working Through Your Shadow Life Script, has the best discussion  published on relating Jungian and Enneagram thought."  Maybe someone else reading this can tell me what's great about it? 

* * *

NIEDNAGEL & BRAINTYPES
It seems Niednagel took Temperament and put his own twist on it.  But he left something out in the process.  For instance, I don't trust his assessments.  Such as, his website claims that George Bush, Sr., has ENFJ preferences.  Um, ENFJ -- for the man who said he doesn't "do the vision thing"??  Hm, can't say that sits right with me.  And he claims George's son, Dubya, has ENTJ preferences.  Wow.  Most of the leading type experts I know attribute him with preferences for ISFP or ISTP.  So there's a pretty big disparity from Niednagel and the rest of the Type community.

* * *

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Daniel Goleman)

To come...

* * *

TRUE COLORS 
This is an easy one!  It's no secret that True Colors (tm) is based on Keirsey's Temperament.  The authors freely admit their model is a derivative of his work.  The mapping is thus:  blue = Catalyst/Idealist; green = Theorist/Rational; gold = Stabilizer/Guardian; orange = Improviser/Artisan.

* * *

ELEVATIONS 
Same as above -- it's based on Keirsey's Temperament.  Helen Scully (INFJ) acknowledges this is a derivative of his work.  Instead of colors, Elevations uses symbols as its Temperament labels as a tool for career counseling.

* * *

NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING (to come)
Dario Nardi's new book uses NLP techniques to experience the eight cognitive processes.  It's groundbreaking!

* * *

MTR-i (to come)

* * *

SOCIONICS
I think Socionics is the Scientology of the personality type world.  I simply can't take this theory seriously. It seems like a "wannabe" theory based on Jung's work, which leaves me wondering what's wrong with Jung's work and that of his antecedents?  Socionics mixes the letters up and has all manner of claims about matching one's image to an online picture.  (I get sooo many questions about this.)  While I do think there is some connection between personality and body type, Socionics does not (in my experience) capture that relationship.

* * *

SOCIAL STYLES MODELS

DISC ASSESSMENT
According to the DiSC assessment, INFJs would be categorized as "C."  The problem with the DiSC is that the way this personality type gets described sounds like a seriously rigid ISTJ!  One article I read describing C's was that they probably have broken glasses with tape around them, wear a pocket protector, and carry a slide rule!  (Do I LOOK like that description?!?)  It's very uncomfortable to be with the DiSC's "C" description, which is why I prefer the Berens Interaction Styles model -- it is much less stereotyping and insulting to INFJs, INTJs, and ISTPs.  It also doesn't "map" perfectly to the MBTI, and Berens Interaction Styles does.  So I go with the one that "maps" and "fits."

BOLTON AND BOLTON
INFJs are "Analytical."  See above.

ALESSANDRA
INFJs are "Thinkers."  See above.

THOMAS KILMAN CONFLICT MODEL (TKI)
INFJs are "Avoiding."  See above.

BERENS INTERACTION STYLES
INFJs are "chart-the-course" in their interaction style.

* * *

HSP -- Highly Sensitive Persons
HSP is not a model per se.  Elaine Aron wrote a book titled The Highly Sensitive Person, and many people latched onto the idea and self-diagnosed themselves as "highly-sensitive."  Below, I include an abstract to an article by Aron that provides more information on the internet.  Amazon's book review says more as well.

However, let me quickly say that people I've met who are attached to the idea they are "highly sensitive" tend not to have INFJ preferences.  (The ones I've met generally have INFP preferences, though it's not a rule!)

The reason HSP doesn't work well as a concept for me is because I feel I get the same information (but better!) via Beebe's archetypes.  Truthfully, I believe we're all sensitive with some aspect of our selves.  I don't believe any type owns the corner on sensitivity, yet some types feel they do.  And therein lies the hook.

*

Revisiting Jung's concept of innate sensitiveness
Elaine N. Aron
Abstract: Jung suggested that innate sensitiveness predisposes some individuals to be particularly affected by negative childhood experiences, so that later, when under pressure to adapt to some challenge, they retreat into infantile fantasies based on those experiences and become neurotic. Recent research by the author and others is reviewed to support Jung's theory of sensitiveness as a distinctly thorough conscious and unconscious reflection on experiences. Indeed, this probably innate tendency is found in about twenty percent of humans, and, in a sense, in most species, in that about this percentage will evidence a strategy of thoroughly processing information before taking action, while the majority depend on efficient, rapid motor activity. Given this thorough processing, sensitive individuals readily detect subtleties—including whatever is distressing or threatening. Hence, as Jung observed, given the same degree of stress in childhood as non-sensitive individuals, sensitive persons will develop more depression, anxiety, and shyness. Without undue stress, they evidence no more of these difficulties than the non-sensitive—or even less, being unusually aware of supportive as well as negative cues from caregivers. Given this interaction, one treatment task is to distinguish the effects of such childhood difficulties from what does not need treatment, which are the typical effects of the trait itself on an adult without a troubled developmental history.

Link to purchase article is here.