Excerpted from the book

Who am I?: Personality Types for Self Discovery edited by Robert Frager. Putnams: New York,
1994
Page 5
TYPOLOGY AND THE SEARCH FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE
The perennial question "Who am 1?" has been asked throughout the ages. In many cultures, it has been
answered by the spiritual traditions, in particular with maps of the psyche known as typologies These
ancient typological systems reveal universal patterns among human beings They also reveal our
differences, or uniqueness.
Many of the greatest minds throughout history have been fascinated with why we are different and the
nature of our differences. In the third century BC., a student of Aristotle named Theophrastus asked,
"Why is it that while all Greece lies under the same sky and all Greeks are educated alike, we are all
different with respect to personality?"
Pages 9 - 13
UNIQUENESS VS. UNIVERSALITY
While working on this book I have become particularly aware of issues related to personality types and
type differences. I have noticed that most of those who write about human nature tend to focus either
on the ways that people are fundamentally the same or on the ways that people are fundamentally
different. At their extremes, neither approach is very useful.
To assume that we are all alike is to ignore our very real differences in such aspects as age, sex, or
temperament. To assume that we are all unique is to give up on trying to develop any general theories
of human behavior.
Most psychological theories ignore type differences. They tend to look for universal principles of
human behavior. However, if there are, in fact, fundamental type differences among people, the search
for universals is bound to end with relatively trivial generalities or with serious distortions for large
segments of the population. For example, most psychological systems have been created by men, and
tend to describe male behavior, ignoring fundamental differences between male and female
psychology. In addition, modern personality theories have been developed by highly educated, white,
middle-class professionals; they overlook styles of thinking and acting common in other
socioeconomic, ethnic and cultural groups. Yet the advocates of virtually every personality system
claim that they have developed a universally applicable psychology.
In some ways we are all the same, and in others we are each unique. We share the same basic
physiological structure and sensory apparatus, and we share the same existential facts of birth and
death. Yet each of us has a different personal history, family constellation, and life experience.
However useful any typology system may be for understanding at-id working with different people, it
falls to give a full account of all individual. Every individual is a unique combination of countless and
varying factors.

In between these two extremes, we do fall into various groupings or types. Some obvious ones are age,
sex, and nationality. Children share many important characteristics, as do men, women,. Americans,
Japanese, introverts, Virgos, and mesomorphs. Perhaps what we need most to learn is which categories
are most appropriate to which issues. The psychology of the future may include various personality
typologies using different typology systems for different purposes. For example, we might use a
learning style typology system for deciding how to teach a child math, a temperament typology system
for figuring out how to motivate or discipline that same child, and a relationship typology system to
help the child get along better with a friend.
TYPOLOGY AND RELATIONSHIPS
Besides understanding ourselves, we seek deeper knowledge of and intimacy with others. An
understanding of type helps us develop greater tolerance and respect for individual differences. We
come to appreciate others' gifts. Working with any of the systems may help you recognize that there
are fundamental variations in ways of experiencing life, that our paths through life are not all the same.
We cannot assume that other people's minds work the same way that ours do, that they take in data the
same way we do, that they reason as we do, or that they value what we value.
To understand another's type is to understand their strengths and also their limitations and therefore to
work with others more effectively- On the job, for instance, a good fit between a persons tasks and
constitutional makeup will result in productivity and satisfaction. A poor fit will result in stress, fatigue,
and poor performance. Sometimes we may expect too much from someone else who simply does not
share our gifts or our interest in a certain area. Our type preferences may be relatively unimportant at
some times and crucial at others, often when we least expect it.
For example, sensate types are skilled at accounting and similar activities that require keeping track of
details, which would be a terrible strain on an intuitive type. One intuitive medical researcher had to
spend hours every day carefully examining specimens under a microscope. She became chronically
fatigued and irritable, but no physical cause could be found. The stress of constantly having to use her
inferior sensation exhausted her.
In a way, personality types are like automobile models. Many distinctions among cars are relatively
superficial, like color and styling. (In fact, it is not uncommon that two cars will have contrasting
shapes and styles on the outside, yet have the same engine underneath the hood.) Some cars get much
better gas mileage, some have far greater acceleration or speed, but these differences really don't matter
for everyday driving, such as commuting to work or going to buy groceries.
There are times when the differences do matter. A rugged four-wheel drive vehicle will ride easily over
rough terrain that would damage a finely machined sports car. A car with a powerful engine and heavyduty suspension can pull a heavy trailer, a load that might burn out a light car built mainly for gas
economy. When you buy a car you need to match what it is built for with the kinds of tasks you are
planning to use it for. Similarly, type theory can help you know others' strengths and limits and
understand what kinds of tasks they are "built" for and what challenges may cause them to break down.
It is easiest to understand others whose type is the same as ours. These people are likely to have similar
interests and values, to see the world as we see it. We are more likely to understand them and feel
understood by them, as they tend to look at things in the same way we do and come to similar
conclusions. Mesomorphs will tend to understand and appreciate the value of being active and getting

things done. Thinking types are likely to agree on the importance of logic and rational organization.
Most sensate types will concur on the need for attention to detail. Enneagram "sixes" will probably be
in accord concerning the dangers and the attractions of power and authority.
We may be fascinated by those who operate differently in the world, confirming the old saying that
opposites attract. But people who are truly of a very different type are hard to understand and hard to
predict. On most issues they are likely to take a different position. Constant misunderstanding and
opposition can create great strain. Unfortunately, attraction without understanding does not make for a
successful long-term relationship as evidenced by the high divorce rate in this country.
The worst kind of relationship occurs when another type style is treated as inferior. For example,
someone who operates from feeling and intuition may be put down as an incompetent thinker instead of
valued as someone who can bring new skills and an alternative perspective to decision making. In one
couple who sought therapy, the husband complained that his wife was disorganized and untidy and,
worst of all, illogical. The wife asserted that her husband was rigid and hypercritical. Each felt that the
other was acting out of spite or malicious motivation, because each judged the other by the standards of
his or her own type. After ten hours of therapy with a Jungian analyst, they became conscious of each
other's type and learned to recognize and affirm each others strengths. Their relationship began to
blossom.
Another advantage of understanding type is that it can provide insight into our relationship with the
larger society in which we live. Our society values certain types of personality more than others.
Thinking is valued far more than feeling, for example. We are an extraverted society, and our
institutions often fail to take into account introverts' needs for quiet and solitude, for example, we even
have Muzak in the elevators. Most schools and churches are like prisons to mesomorphs, who need
active learning and who generally find it extremely difficult to sit still for long periods of time. For
centuries, Christianity has tended to favor the ascetic, intellectual ectomorphs and has devalued the
sensory endomorphs and the active mesomorphs.
If your way of functioning in the world is not valued by society, your faith in your own gifts may
diminish. In fact, these gifts may not develop fully because of your own doubts and also because
society may provide few opportunities to exercise your own particular talents.
This may have happened on a smaller scale in your family as you grew up. If your parents understood
and valued your type, you probably felt that your own particular gifts and interest, were worthwhile.
On the other hand, your self-confidence may have suffered severely if you felt that your parents did not
value your character and your preferences, but wanted you to be "more physical" or "more intellectual,"
for example. Trying to change a child's personality type can be like forcing a left-handed child to be
right-handed. That kind of pressure can seriously inhibit the development of anyone's natural gifts.
In one family, the daughter reported that her parents had been extremely upset when she had
difficulties with arithmetic and similar tasks at school. Both parents and her younger brother were
sensation types and she was an intuitive, whose inferior function was sensation. The father was an
engineer and the brother later became an accountant. She could never live up to their standards for
tidiness and attention to detail and eventually sought therapy.
A boy who was an introverted feeling type grew up in a family of extraverts. He was ridiculed for his
love of reading and constantly badgered to become more active in school affairs. As an adult he tried
business and sales with little success. He had fantasies of getting a doctorate in English literature or

becoming a professional in human services, but did nothing about them. Because his basic character
choices had been invalidated for so long, he literally did not know what was good for himself anymore.
In both cases, an understanding of typology helped the individuals appreciate their own strengths and
accept their own character preferences. This enabled them to move beyond the painful psychological
impasse created by childhoods in which their personality type was unrecognized and unappreciated.
CATEGORIZING: A BASIC HUMAN HABIT
Descriptions of human types can be found in many cultures and eras, from Greek philosophy to
Chinese medicine to the Indian caste system to modern Western psychology. It used to be taken for
granted that personality varied with culture and social class. Today we tend to think that it is somehow
"undemocratic" to talk of fundamental individual differences. It is as if we have forgotten that the
Constitution states that all people are equal under the law, but does not claim that we are all the same.
Equality is not uniformity, yet in our search for equal rights and equal opportunity, we may fall to
acknowledge individual uniqueness. As a result, typing has gained a bad reputation in some circles and
may be judged politically incorrect, although we still tend to do it unconsciously.
We frequently classify people by stereotypes, such as age, sex, intelligence (for example, smart,
average, or dumb), race, and nationality. The term "stereotype" originally meant a one-piece printing
plate which is cast from a mold. Today, "stereotype" is defined as a fixed and unchangeable idea or a
mental pattern having no individuality, as though cast from a mold. Stereotyping is one of the great
dangers of typing. It occurs when we ignore individuality and treat all people in a given category as if
they were all stamped from the same mold.
Often we judge others by stereotypes of appearance (good-looking, average, or ugly) and of
psychological state (normal, neurotic, or crazy). One of the most common categorizations we make
about others is to distinguish between those we like and those we don't, such as "good guy"' vs. "bad
guy" or trustworthy friend vs. dishonest enemy.
It is hard not to categorize. Our minds tend to organize all our experience into a relatively few
categories. Most of us will lump together different experiences under a single, broad label, unless we
are deeply interested in the topic. For instance, most Egyptians think of "snow" as a single category.
Skiers will differentiate snow into corn snow, powder snow, and several other varieties. Eskimos, who
are far more concerned with snow than skiers, have dozens of words for different kinds of snow.
Categorization may be a basic human tendency, but there are also problems inherent in categorizing.
Stereotyping occurs when we create a category and then attribute certain traits to everyone in that
category. So, for example, all body builders are seen as dumb, or all Latin men are judged macho.
These stereotypes distort our perceptions and our understanding of others.
Moshe Feldenkrais, a brilliant observer of human behavior and founder of the Feldenkrais Method,
insisted that all generalizations are distortions. An expert in human movement, he worked with an
extraordinary range of people, from gifted professional athletes and musicians who wanted to improve
their skill to patients in wheelchairs who were partly paralyzed from serious accidents or illnesses.
Feldenkrais hated labels and generalizations. He tried to see each individual as a unique case, without
prejudging or labeling. Feldenkrais wrote that when he worked with someone, he even tried to stop

thinking in whole sentences. He felt that the very structure of language interfered with his developing
an intimate understanding of the unique qualities of functioning and movement in that person.
Feldenkrais once discussed a serious medical error. Two patients were scheduled for surgery at the
same time and somehow their charts got switched. The surgeons removed a healthy gallbladder from
the patient with a diseased liver and took out a perfectly healthy Ever from the patient with a
malfunctioning gallbladder.
Feldenkrais commented that this was a clear example of the danger of operating in terms of labels and
categories, and not looking at what is actually in front of us. If the doctors had looked, they certainly
would have seen that the organs they were about to remove were healthy. Instead, they relied more on
labels and charts than on the real bodies in front of them.
A young man once asked Feldenkrais if his system might help women in labor. He gave several
dramatic examples of the short and easy labors of pregnant women he had worked with. The man then
asked just which of Feldenkrais' techniques were best for pregnant women. Feldenkrais replied, "You
idiot! There is no such thing as a pregnant woman!" There was a long moment of silence as we all
reflected on this astonishing statement. No one knew what to say.
Feldenkrais went on, "A girl of fourteen having her first baby is nothing like a woman of thirty-five
having her fourth child. What I would do with each is completely different." We realized once again
how easily we can get caught by labels and categories. Because we have the term "pregnant women,"
we begin to think of all members of this category as alike and tend to ignore their differences.
The systems of personality typology contain important insights into human nature. They can help us
better understand ourselves and those around us. They also can obscure our understanding if we forget
that the map is not the territory and pay more attention to a system than to the people it is describing.