Theories & Models Menu

The Basics
Temperament Totem
Diplomatic Intelligence
Cracking the INFJ Code
Dynamic Interaction
The Tandem Principle
The Transcendant Function
E/I Mistakes
2 Communication Styles
Interaction Style Pattern
INFJ Archetypes
Stress Style Survival Games
Mapping to Other Models
No Excuses Miscellania
J/P Stereotypes

Last revised

Theories & Models

There are a number of models that deal with personality type.  I will emphasize the three listed above (among others).  Please use the menu to navigate through the system to learn more.

Please understand that these are different, separate models and cannot be mashed into one model.  (Trust me, if they could be elegantly blended into a single model, some INTP would have done it by now.)  If you have no experience in this area, please don't imagine you can readily outsmart all the so-called experts and prove it can be done. At minimum, learn the rules before you set out to break them.

Why multiple models?

Each of these models is constructed from different dimensions and springs from a different school of psychology.  Each one sheds a unique light onto our personality.  It's really cool that they map together so well, but they do not reveal the same information.

I've had people complain that learning the function (Type) model alone is hard enough -- what's the point of mucking about with other theories and other models?  It makes it too much work; it's too complicated, and who's got time for that?

Good question!

I discussed this matter on a previous page, so let me address it now using a metaphor.

Suppose you want to learn your IQ.  To determine it, I am going to administer a test.  That test will tell us what your IQ is.  If you can solve the problem in less than 30 seconds, you have the highest IQ, which happens to be (for the sake of this example) 100.  One hundred is a genius.  So let's give you the test.  Are you ready?

r(cos(t) + i sin(t)). r'(cos(t') + i sin(t')) = r r'(cos(t+t') + i sin(t + t'))

If you can solve this problem in less than 10 minutes, you have a pretty high IQ.  If you can't answer this problem, well... I'm afraid your IQ is pitiful.  But you can always find a job at a McDonald's!

Do you think this method of determining your IQ is fair?  If you're as bad at Math as I am you won't.  I don't really appreciate having my IQ determined by a single test that judges me based on such limited criteria.

So let's change the rules.  I will add a second test.  We will then average the results in order to determine your overall IQ.  Okay?  Again, if you can answer the question in less than 30 seconds, you will get the genius score of 100.  So let's give the test.  Ready?

  What word rhymes with "orange"?

You may have noticed that this IQ test calls on a completely different set of faculties than the first test did.  So we're getting a broader understanding of what areas you have intelligence in.  So let's take the score from this test and average it with the first test results.  It's very possible that your rank improved, though for some it might not.

But this is still a bit limited, don't you think?

Let's add one more test -- one that challenges an entirely different set of competencies than the two we tested previously.  As before, answer in less than 30 seconds, a high score is a hundred, we average with the other two scores, blah-blah-blah.  Same-old same-old.  Okay?  So are you ready?

  Why did the chicken cross the road?

Now I have this wild idea that people who were able to solve that first test with ease may not be as skillful in answering this last test!  Do you think that could be true?  So if I take your scores from all three of these tests and average them, do you think I'm getting a truer picture of what your real intelligence is?  Does your score reflect a little more balance?  Does it more effectively portray who you are than any one of the intelligence tests does on its own?

If you can answer "yes" to those questions, then you should by now grasp the logic and usefulness of employing more than one model (or "test") to determine one's psychological type.

My friend Dario calls this method "triangulation."  It's like when the ancient mariners wanted to determine their location at sea.  Simply finding the North Star was not enough -- they used two other points to determine their precise location.  One point on its own was unreliable.

Yes, this makes using Type a lot more complicated and difficult, but do you owe discerning someone's Psychological Type any less?  I don't want my IQ determined by one test that only "measures" one aspect of my self -- and neither do I want my personality determined by one point on the compass.  Multiple models are the only way to approach the richness of who I really am.

* * *

Click the floating dolphin on the right to find your next destination. The air bubble takes you to the sub-menu for this section, while the dolphin returns you to the Main menu.