Last revised

Mapping Onto
Other Models

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?

* * *

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.

* * *

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.

Hippocrates c450BC

Plato c35OBC

Galen c250

Paracelsus c1530

Adickes 1905

Spranger 1914

Kretschmer 1920

Fromm 1947

Myers 1955

Keirsey/Bates 1960s

Keirsey 1970s

Berens 2006













* * *

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? 

* * *

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.

* * *


To come...

* * *

Strengths Finder (Marcus Buckingham, etc.)

To come...  (Leona Haas is correlating)

* * *

VIA Signature Strengths ("Values in Action"; Positive Psychology, Martin Seligman)

To come...  (Leona Haas is correlating)

* * *

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.

* * *

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.

* * *

Dario Nardi's new book uses NLP techniques to experience the eight cognitive processes.  It's groundbreaking!

This is how they look when they're facing you.


The modalities are one way of categorizing exactly what a person does inside their head when they think. They are a model for what a person does in their head as they make up an Internal Representation (I/R). In the process of creating NLP, Bandler and Grinder discovered that by looking at someone's eyes, you could tell HOW they think. Not what they think, but HOW they think. You can tell what they're doing inside.

(Note: This model is accurate in the main for right handed people and approximately 50% accurate for left handed people. The remainder are reverse organized in one or more planes. Reverse organization is not, however, restricted just to left handed people - anyone can be reversed organized in any plane. This is why it is essential to calibrate to the individual rather than to assume that they are "normally" organized. It is also important to realize that "construction" does not equate to "invention.")

Based on observations by Bandler and Grinder, when people look up, they're visualizing. When they look horizontally to the left and right, they're either remembering or constructing sounds. When they look downward and to our left, they're accessing their feelings. And when they look downward and to our right, they're talking to themselves (Auditory Digital). The chart above is for a "normal" right handed person. Many left-handed people and some ambidextrous people will have eye movements that are reversed.

Vr Visual Remembered
Visual Recall - Seeing images from the memory, recalling things you're have seen before.

  • "What color was the room you grew up in?"

  • "What color is your bedroom now?"

  • "What does your coat look like?"

Vc Visual Constructed
Visual Created - Images of things that you have never seen before. When you are making it up in their head, you are using Visual Constructed.

  • "What would your room at home look like if it were blue?"

  • "What would your dog look like if it had the head of an elephant?"

In addition, some people access visually by defocusing their eyes. When this happens, the eyes will usually stay in the center.

Ar Auditory Remembered
Auditory Recall - When you remember sounds or voices that you've heard before or things that you've said to yourself before. When you ask someone, "What was the very last thing I said, they typically look in that direction.

  • "Can you remember the sound of your mother's voice?"

Ac Auditory Constructed
Auditory Created - Making up sounds that you've not heard before. For example

  • "What would I sound like if I had Donald Duck's voice?"

  • "What would Swan Lake sound like if it were played on bagpipes?"

K Kinesthetic
Feelings, Sense of Touch - You generally look in this direction when you're accessing your feelings.

  • "What does it feel like to touch that rug?"

Ad Auditory Digital
Talking to Yourself - This is where your eyes move when you're having internal dialogue.

  • "What does an elephant sound like?"

Typically, every time we access our brain, we move our eyes in that particular direction which facilitates our using that part of our neurology. The mind and body are absolutely interconnected, so each time we access our Visual Memory, for example, we move our eyes upward and to our left. (If you're watching someone access Visual Memory, you will see them move their eyes upward and to your right.)

Based on our model of communication, and how we make an internal representation, you'll remember that people rely on their 5 senses to make I/R's about the world around them. Internally, we also generally come to depend on one representational system or modality more than another as we access information, and also use that information to create I/R's. So, some people are using their Visual representational system more, some people use their Auditory representational system more, and some people use their Kinesthetic more than the others.

Usually an individual will prefer to use a certain modality or will use primarily a certain modality as their primary representational system.

Whew!  So that's a quick explanation of the NLP modalities.  How does it link to type?  Well, there may be links between functions and modalities.  For instance, the modalities related to introverted Sensing might be those that have to do with memory.  Those related to introverted iNtuiting might require the visual modalities -- in fact, "visual constructed" sounds like a euphemism for Ni as a whole.  Listening seems curiously related to introverted Feeling -- albeit not reliably so.  These are merely some off-the-cuff hypotheses of where NLP and the 8 cognitive processes might intersect.

More to come!

* * *

MTR-i (to come)

* * *

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.

* * *


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."

INFJs are "Analytical."  See above.

INFJs are "Thinkers."  See above.

INFJs are "Avoiding."  See above.

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."  The idea is based in Jung, but it smacks more of being a pseudo "diagnosis" than anything (and Jung was somewhat opposed to diagnosing).  Certainly it's not a model of any kind, which is why virtually anybody can call themselves HSP.  It's fair game for anyone.

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.

The reason HSP doesn't work so well as a concept for me is because I feel I get similar but better information 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 believe they do.  And therein lies the hook.  Aren't we all fond of believing we are victims of life and have special needs?

I made a point of asking John Beebe about this the last time I spoke with him.  He thought it was true that Elaine was onto something with this concept, but that perhaps it was getting blown out of proportion.  Mostly he was unwilling to give it much credence if people are using it as a refusal to engage with the world.  He seems absolutely unwilling to give anybody an "out" from facing the obstacles life puts in front of them (which is why he's a brilliant therapist, of course!).  So I think we might extrapolate from that an idea that people should take care of themselves, and not expose themselves unnecessarily to circumstances that are troublesome BUT it's not an excuse to hide in one's cave and whine about how awful it is "out there."  Your own conscience would be your guide.  Perhaps you need to search your soul and ask yourself, am I refusing to engage with the world?

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.

The link to purchase this article is here.

* * *


Following are my scribbly notes / trash.  It may get developed eventually.

Jung-invented terms:  introversion, extraversion, synchronicity, personality complex (Jung as INTJ)

Aboriginal Dreamtime


(Yin & Yang = Perceiving & Judging?  Balance requires we do both effectively.)


Jung said "A depression is a blessing of God. I mean, in the individual it's the greatest blessing somebody can have. Jung always talked about the blessing of a neurosis because it's the only way you are tempted to look within."

Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakens.

Carl Jung 1875-1961, Swiss Psychiatrist on Vision

Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. -- Carl Jung

"There can be no transforming of darkness into light and of apathy into movement without emotion." - CARL JUNG

Nothing worse could happen to one than to be completely understood.

Carl Gustav Jung

ugly duckling

energy locator

* * *