Talk:Personality type

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Goopletss. Peer reviewers: GermanShepherdMom1, Ecruz6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging and combining articles

I will be adding this to the page from an article i found about Jung's theories correlating with worry The relationship between worry and Jung's (1921) model of psychological types has been correlated with worry. Jung's model suggests that the superordinate dimension of personality is introversion and extraversion. Introverts are likely to relate to the external world by listening, reflecting, being reserved, and having focused interests. Extraverts on the other hand, are adaptable and in tune with the external world. They prefer interacting with the outer world by talking, actively participating, being sociable, expressive, and having a variety of interests. Jung (1921) also identified two other dimensions of personality: Intuition - Sensing and Thinking - Feeling. Sensing types tend to focus on the reality of present situations, pay close attention to detail, and are concerned with practicalities. Intuitive types focus on envisioning a wide range of possibilities to a situation and favor ideas, concepts, and theories over data. Individuals who score higher on intuition also score higher on general. Thinking types use objective and logical reasoning in making their decisions, are more likely to analyze stimuli in a logical and detached manner, be more emotionally stable, and score higher on intelligence. Feeling types make judgments based on subjective and personal values. In interpersonal decision-making, feeling types tend to emphasize compromise to ensure a beneficial solution for everyone. They also tend to be somewhat more neurotic than thinking types. The worrier's tendency to experience a fearful affect, could be manifested in Jung's feeling type. Similarly, worry has shown robust correlations with shyness and fear of social situations. The worrier's tendency to be fearful of social situations might make them appear more withdrawn. Pagelyn (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Pagelyn

The articles on typology are pretty thoroughly confused, and need to be straightened out. Personality type leads one place, Psychological type and Psychological Types lead to another, and Psychological types leads back to Personality type. God knows what other confusions exist. Somebody with a lot of Wikipedia skills and a bit of personality type knowledge needs to work on this. How can that be brought about? Lou Sander 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychological types now redirects to Psychological Types, with a hatnote linking to this article. Psychological Types refers to the book by Jung and deserves its own article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuum of traits

Yes, there is a continuum of personality traits. There are also continuua of gender traits and of the handedness trait. Yet few people have a problem identifying most people as male or female, or left- or right-handed. So what's the problem with personality types? Lou Sander (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lou. Gender and handedness are usually viewed as dichotomous traits. Yes, the existence of hermaphrodites and ambidextrous individuals could suggest a third, in-between type, but we are still talking about qualitatively different types of people here. Likewise, Jerome Kagan argues that inhibited children are qualitatively different from outgoing children. The notion of "types" in psychology is typically interpreted as qualitative differences between people-- apples and oranges, so to speak. In sharp contrast, most psychometric researchers and trait theorists currently believe that differences in personality are in degree, not in quality. When tested, most people are somewhere in that middle area between extreme introverts and extraverts, not obviously categorized as one or the other. When they talk about themselves, many people spontaneously describe themselves as somewhat extraverted, sometimes introverted, not entirely in either camp. Thus the emphasis on normal distributions and a continuum of traits in this article. Types are a convenient shorthand, but nature exists on a continuum. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. One of Jung's ideas was that yes, there is a continuum, and everybody has, for example, some thinking and some feeling tendencies, but in the end, if feeling for example predominates in an individual, that person will tend overall to make feeling-type decisions. He expressed it better than I am right now, but overall there is the notion that where you are on the continuum matters, even if you're only slightly one way or the other from the center. Lou Sander (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think in general, Jung's ideas were much more complex than what followed in his wake. In fact, I believe he referred to the attempt of trying to assess people's personality types as a "parlor game" at one point. This page could use some additional work, but I wanted to try to at least clarify what generally characterizes a "type" and how it differs from a "trait", as psychologists typically see the terms. Best regards --Jcbutler (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

disputing that Carl Jung was the originator of personality types

I would largely dispute that Carl Jung was the originator of personality types. Mystics have been making typologies for centuries under cosmological pretexts; a good example of an ancient typology created from cosmological reasoning would be the 36 strategems from china, which are types and forms. However, it is accurate to say that Carl Jung has been the most influential in the creation of modern typologies. It is not accurate in the least to say that he was the only one to originate personality types. --Rmcnew (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

From my reading, I found that he seemed to be part of a group that was working with bipoles, but that only he made it into print. They were working from philosophy (and the Bible) as psychology was still a philosophy (see my writing below for some information about Plato and Aristotle wrt Jung's view of subjective-, objectiveness).--John Bessa (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Article needs better organization

This is an important topic, but this entire page needs to be organized better and much more information needs to be provided. Perhaps into general categories like business and social environments. One overriding question I have is how many personality types are there? It appears that the number of categories is arbitrary. Are there 5 types as some suggest? Are there 9 types as suggested by others? Can there be an infinite number? If so then studying them would be quite pointless. Tarzan7 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The number of types varies based on the theory, but it isn't infinite. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has come a long way, but better organization is needed. It goes from a general introduction, to a large section on Jung, then back to some general material. Important aspects are relegated to a "See also" section. I'll try to work on this as I have time, but others are more than welcome to try their hand if they agree with my assessment. Lou Sander (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I shuffled some sections around and renamed them. IMHO the article has a much better flow now: general material, brief coverage of various type theories, major exposition of Jung's theory. The "brief coverage of various type theories" isn't much more than a list with links. It needs to be expanded and improved. --Lou Sander (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the article goes in depth on Jung's theories but only mentions other theories in passing. Having links to other articles is sufficient for now, but I do think that there should be an expansion.-AosbBYUI (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

CG Jung material: proposed text

This material was originally about the Myers-Briggs test, but went to the underlying Jungian material. Please copy or alter if you find it useful for the article (it got an A+):

Jungian personality types

Personality traits are described in Jung's personality code as letters are biopolar in that they represent opposing traits along a linear measure. They measure the distance along a pole an individual tends to that trait, and away from the opposing trait. Jung described introversion and extraversion as the key polar traits and referred to them as attitudes; they comprise the first letter of the code. The next two letters in the code measure sensing versus intuition, and feeling versus thinking; Jung referred to them as functions. The final pole, perceiving versus judging, comes from the Myers-Briggs typographic model, and is also a function.

extensive text see table of contents at TOP

I will be adding a part about Jung's theories and how they correlate with Worry The relationship between worry and Jung's (1921) model of psychological types has been correlated with worry. Jung's model suggests that the superordinate dimension of personality is introversion and extraversion. Introverts are likely to relate to the external world by listening, reflecting, being reserved, and having focused interests. Extraverts on the other hand, are adaptable and in tune with the external world. They prefer interacting with the outer world by talking, actively participating, being sociable, expressive, and having a variety of interests. Jung (1921) also identified two other dimensions of personality: Intuition - Sensing and Thinking - Feeling. Sensing types tend to focus on the reality of present situations, pay close attention to detail, and are concerned with practicalities. Intuitive types focus on envisioning a wide range of possibilities to a situation and favor ideas, concepts, and theories over data. Individuals who score higher on intuition also score higher on general. Thinking types use objective and logical reasoning in making their decisions, are more likely to analyze stimuli in a logical and detached manner, be more emotionally stable, and score higher on intelligence. Feeling types make judgments based on subjective and personal values. In interpersonal decision-making, feeling types tend to emphasize compromise to ensure a beneficial solution for everyone. They also tend to be somewhat more neurotic than thinking types. The worrier's tendency to experience a fearful affect, could be manifested in Jung's feeling type. Similarly, worry has shown robust correlations with shyness and fear of social situations. The worrier's tendency to be fearful of social situations might make them appear more withdrawn. Pagelyn (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Pagelyn Jungian personality types Personality traits are described in Jung's personality code as letters are bipolar in that they represent opposing traits along a linear measure. They measure the distance along a pole an individual tends to that trait, and away from the opposing trait. Jung described introversion and extraversion as the key polar traits and referred to them as attitudes; they comprise the first letter of the code. The next two letters in the code measure sensing versus intuition, and feeling versus thinking; Jung referred to them as functions. The final pole, perceiving versus judging, comes from the Myers-Briggs typographic model, and is also a function. Poles For Jung, an attitude "plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life" (1921, para. 1). The two factors for this pole, extraversion and introversion, describe how a person draws mental energy. The extravert draws mental energy from the surrounding environment, or as Dyce explains, "from a crowd" (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.). The introvert draws mental energy internally from the ideas that develop within his mind. The mental energy, what Dyce also calls "psychic energy," is called libido in Jung's model. An individual's approach to life, or attitude, is determined by his prefered way to obtain libido; either externally from the surrounding environment, or interally from personal thoughts (Jung, 1976). Libido: Nutrition for the mind Jung describes the need for libido as a driving force, or what BF Skinner might think of as a hunger; libido is effectively nutrition for the mind. Jung describes the extravert as absorbing llibido from the surrounding environment by attaching to it as an "object." To Jung, the extravert is, hence, objective, as the psychic energy is based on surrounding reality. The introvert, conversely, develops this nutrition within his mind from the "subject" of his thoughts; the introvert is subjective to Jung, and his psychic metabolism (to extend the nutrition analogy) is synthesis. Bi-poles as a "bent universe" Jung is emphatic that mental health hinges on a person's adaptability along the poles of his bipolar model (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.). Thinking problems may result for extraverts when they are overwhelmed by the information that they pull in, whereas introverts may attempt to "coerce facts" to resemble a preconceived image that they have created (Jung, 1921, para. 87). When individuals tend to extremes along either pole, and neglect the qualities of the other end of the pole, they will very likely compensate for the trait of the pole they have neglected (Jung, 1976, p. 3) and move towards the counter-pole (p. 291). His three pole model can be thought of as a "bent universe" because those at polar extremes will ultimately compensate in some way. In his "bent universe," the extreme extrovert cannot help but return to the subject of his thoughts, or his "soul" (p. 293). In the opposite polar direction, the introvert cannot help but crash into reality, or the "object" that defines surrounding reality. If the extravert is intent on his attachment to the object (as the participant self-reported that he has experienced at times), then he creates a mythology that serves as a substitute for introverted thought, or the subject. However, if he is not careful, the compensating restoration of the "soul" may ultimately destroy the material benefits that extroversion may have provided (p. 340). In a similar sense, the extreme introvert creates a facsimile of reality that Jung describes as a "dream" (p. 169). Jung's two other bipolar measures describe how an individual functions with respect to his role. They are "function-types" (1976, p. 330), and describe how an individual collects information and makes decisions based on how he "attends" (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.). Information can be collected through the normal senses, which is sensing, or through a "sixth sense" (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.) of intuition. Intuition is how the unconscious perceives. Decisions can be made logically and in a detached way, or in a personal value-oriented way, creating the thinking/feeling bipole. The fourth pole from the Myers-Briggs model adds a third functional dimension that describes prefered lifestyle in terms of either judgement, which is rigidly well-ordered and highly-organized, or perception, which is flexible as it allows for spontaneity, providing an ability to shift between tasks (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.). Plato and Aristotle: Jung's approach to subjective- and objectiveness To help illustrate the fundamental importance of the introvert/extravert pole, and to show that Jung's theory was not entirely his own invention, but was based on others' supporting ideas, including the classics, Jung inserted a passage by Heine at the very beginning of the book describing Plato in introverted terms, and Aristotle in extraverted terms. Plato, in Heine's passage, is mystical, and hence subjective in Jung's model; and Aristotle is orderly and practical (presumably with respect to information organization). Aristotle is openly attached to the "object" of his surrounding environment, and hence an extravert and objective. This assessment contradicts the common perception of both Plato and Aristotle being objective, but in different ways. Plato's Forms created a basis for orderly science, and Aristotle's disciplined observational approach contributed to the scientific method. Both of them are further perceived as highly objective because of their resistance to sentimentality. Jung further contradicts the common perception of Plato as objective by attaching the concept of "empathy," and hence sentimentality, to objectivity (p. 48), and by showing that empathy's antithesis, abstraction, is used by the introvert to synthesize a version of the world within his mind--as he may be afraid of the real world (p. 505). As Jung's ideas are the basis for the instrument of this assessment, this conclusion by Jung underscores the necessity to assess the individual in the context of his personality and experiences, and not in the context of contemporary society with its many preconceptions. Sense/intuition and thinking/feeling Jung's two functional bipoles, sense/intuition and thinking/feeling, also obey the rules of his "bent universe" that forces compensation at the extremes. Dyce describes intuition as an added, or sixth sense (J. Dyce, personal communication, n.d.). This implies that unintuitive individuals who are sense-oriented rely on superficial cues from the surrounding environment, and hence may not be able to interpret the meanings of surrounding phenomena, and therefore are distanced, and possibly afraid (p. 505). "Sense," therefore, might be counter-intuitively interpreted as an introverted pole and "intuition" an extroverted, and also empathic, pole. Jung self-debates the extra- and introverted nature of the sensing/intuition bipole, but agrees that intuition is important, along with empathy, for understanding others (p. 473). Thinking and feeling are even easier to explain; thinking is the domain of the introvert. Jung describes it as thinking of subjects, and, as thinking is the polar opposite to feeling, the thinking/feeling bipole further attaches Plato to subjectivity. References Jung, C. (1921). Psychological types. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm Jung, C., (1976). Psychological Types. Princeton: Princeton University Press Vacha-Haase, T., & Thompson, B. (2002). Alternative ways of measuring counselees' Jungian psychological-type preferences. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(2), 173.

--John Bessa (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC) There needs to be more then three resources/ references for this kind of article. In identifying someones personality type, many elements contribute to this outcome. Therefore needs more professional research to not only identify this topic but to discuss how to diagnose a personality type. (Dwade11 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Worry

This new section starts with the assertion that Jung's typology has been correlated with worry. It goes on, but doesn't really show how. The first sentence has redundancies that should be fixed. IMHO, the rest of it needs to be reworked to say something about the correlation. Also, it includes a lot of stuff that is covered elsewhere in the article. I don't want to mess with somebody's educational project, so I'll leave the correcting to others, if they see fit to do it. Lou Sander (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, bad English throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.183.173 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

8 or 16 types?

In Jung's own model of psychological type there are 8 types ~ two forms (introverted or extraverted) of each of the four dominant functions; sensation, intuition, thinking and feeling. In the Myers-Briggs version of Jung's typology there are 16 types but these are actually subtypes (2 x 8) of Jung' 8 types created by an additional preference which was originally added to the model in order to indicate people's first auxiliary functions. When referring to Jung it is correct to only speak of 8 types. Afterwriting (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! Lova Falk talk 10:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Afterwriting (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Proposed: merge Character theory (media) into Personality type. It's much the same subject, but from a slightly different perspective. John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support the other article is a bit of a mess. It's got info on real people (Bartles) mixed in with info on fictional characters... I think it was an attempt to create a POV fork, and seems to be a honey pot for sockpuppets and perma-banned users. It's going to need at least two brand new sections; one covering types of fictional characters, and one for Bartle's types (which are limited to games, yet widely cited within the game developer's community). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't imagine someone interested in personality types would want a huge chuck of multiple paragraphs on media in there. We have means of navigation for a reason. Pwolit iets (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above red link editor. Lou Sander (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed Merge proposal. Not only was there no consensus for the merge, the article proposed to be merged here no longer exists. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The existence of personality types remains extremely controversial?

It is wrong to quote only the beginning. This is deceiving the Wiki readers. It is necessary to quote both the statement of the problem and the result. Or not to quote at all. So I already added a post about the result from the abstract of the article [1]. This will be more correct. --ThesariusQ (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. The review of literature that identifies that this is controversial is a secondary source, as it is summarizing other papers. The result that you want to add is a primary source - the primary sourced parts should not be added unless and until they are verified in some secondary source. At any rate, there isn't any shortage of sources for this, so I added a second one to assuage any concerns. - MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T. & Ozer, D. J. Person-factors in the California adult Q-set: closing the door on personality trait types? Eur. J. Pers.20, 29–44 (2006)."Abstract. To investigate recent hypotheses of replicable personality types, we examined data from 1540 self-sorts on the California Adult Q-Set (CAQ). Conventional factor analysis of the items showed the expected Five-Factor Model (FFM). Inverse factor analysis across random subsamples showed that none of the previously reported person-factors were replicated. Only two factors were replicable, and, most importantly, these factors were contaminated by mean level differences in item endorsement. Results were not due to sample size or age heterogeneity. Subsequent inverse factor analysis of standardized items revealed at least three replicable factors; when five person-factors were extracted, they could be aligned precisely with the dimensions of the FFM. The major factors of person similarity can be accounted for entirely in terms of the FFM, consistent with the hypothesis that there are no replicable personality types in the CAQ". This is just about the California Adult Q-Set (CAQ) results. But not all research in the field of Personality types. --ThesariusQ (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Donnellan, M. Brent; Robins, Richard W. (2010). "Resilient, Overcontrolled, and Undercontrolled Personality Types: Issues and Controversies". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 4 (11): 1070–1083. «Personality types refer to common or typical configurations of the dispositional attributes that define the individual. Research over the last 20 years has identified a set of three replicable personality types: resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personalities. Resilient individuals are characterized by self‐confidence, emotional stability, and a positive orientation toward others. Overcontrolled individuals are emotionally brittle, introverted, and tense, whereas undercontrolled individuals are disagreeable and lack self‐control. In this article, we provide a brief history of current research on the three personality types and identify key areas of controversy. We also outline several directions for future research and discuss the importance of maintaining both attribute‐ and person‐centered perspectives in contemporary personality psychology».. --ThesariusQ (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Yes, that is a copy and paste of the abstract. So what? - MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a secondary source for Gerlach M. etc.. "A person‐centred approach to personality traits using latent profile analysis (LPA) has gained popularity in recent years (e.g. Daljeet, Bremner, Giammarco, Meyer, & Paunonen, 2017; Ferguson & Hull, 2018; Specht, Luhmann, & Geiser, 2014). A person‐centred approach allows the identification of unobserved subgroups with distinct personality profiles and the study of their impact on other variables of interest (Asendorpf, 2015; Howard & Hoffman, 2018). This approach allows, for example, the identification of different types of personality profiles, as defined by their respective level on neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. These profiles may give a useful representation of the personality structure and capture the nuances in it. It has to be noted that the person‐centred approach is neither worse nor better than any other approach (Howard & Hoffman, 2018). It has its own aim, which may be beneficial to a varying degree, depending on the purpose of the study. The reason we consider it particularly suitable for investigating personality in the current study is that a person‐centred approach helps to derive conceptually useful profiles and understand their relations with other psychological constructs, an aim that can on its own contribute to theory and practice (Woo, Jebb, Tay, & Parrigon, 2018). To date, most of the studies that considered Big Five personality traits using a person‐centred approach by applying cluster analysis have identified three personality profiles. Specifically, they denote resilient (well‐adjusted profile with low scores in neuroticism and average to high scores in the four other traits), undercontrolled (low scores in conscientiousness and agreeableness), and overcontrolled (high scores in neuroticism with low scores in extraversion) personality profile (RUO; Asendorpf, 2015; Rosenström & Jokela, 2017). This RUO typology was then associated with different variables of interest. For instance, Donnellan and Robins (2010) noted that individuals presenting the undercontrolled profile were at risk of developing mental health problems (e.g. depression and anxiety) and behaviour problems (e.g. aggression). On the other hand, resilient individuals reported higher life satisfaction and more frequent positive affect than the other two profiles (Steca, Alessandri, & Caprara, 2010). However, some studies have questioned this three‐type solution (e.g. Herzberg & Roth, 2006) and found slightly different profiles—from three‐type to five‐type solutions—using mainly LPA (e.g. Conte, Heffner, Roesch, & Aasen, 2017; Ferguson & Hull, 2018; Specht et al., 2014). Interestingly, while all these studies found the same well‐adjusted profile (i.e. low scores in neuroticism and average to high scores in the four other traits), they also found other different profiles, each of them often characterized by a combination of socially undesirable personality characteristics such as introversion, neuroticism, unconscientiousness, or disagreeableness. Recently, Gerlach, Farb, Revelle, and Amaral (2018) identified at least four distinct personality profiles—respectively labelled the average type, role model, self‐centred, and reserved—using four large datasets (more than 1.5 million individuals) and applying computational approach to the classic clustering method. Similar to other studies, the two latter profiles were characterized by less socially desirable traits when compared the first two profiles. In sum, whether using cluster analysis or LPA, studies on Big Five personality profiles have systematically pointed out a well‐adjusted profile together with at least one profile presenting socially undesirable personality traits". [2]--ThesariusQ (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Please stop filling up talk pages with lengthy, context-free cut and pastes. It obscures the discussion and we can click on links ourselves. - MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. How are we going to write about this in the article now?--ThesariusQ (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

By respecting consensus and following the sources. The sources seem to be clear that the existence of personality types and (if they exist) which is the proper set of categories is not widely accepted. Do you have some other wording you would prefer to convey that idea? - MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest making the most of this text from a new secondary source: "At present, and although there is evidence about the existence of personality types, there is also controversy regarding the number of types and the configuration of the traits of each type [41,46]. For example, the study of Kövi et al. (2019) [42], which used a sample of 15,529 participants including 23 subsamples from 22 countries and with 16 different languages, proposes the existence of five types of personalities: over-controlled, resilient, under-controlled, reserved, and ordinary. On the other hand, the study of Gerlach et al. (2018) [12], based on the analysis of four large datasets comprising a total of more than 1.5 million participants, identified four types: reserved, self-centered, role model, and average. Regardless of the controversies described above, there are advantages of the personality type approach to the analysis of human behavior. According to Donnellan and Robins (2010) [44], these benefits can be described as follows. First, its high level of abstraction contributes to creating knowledge focusing on the common characteristics of individuals. Second, it shifts attention to how traits are organized and integrated within individuals. Third, it is useful in helping to describe the findings of personality research to the general public. Finally, it serves to propose efficient moderating variables to understand why individuals have different responses to everyday events. In this study, the personality type approach was used based on the traits approach». [3].--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Way, way too verbose for a lead section. Can you boil it down to a sentence? - MrOllie (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

OK."There is evidence about the existence of personality types, but but there is disagreement about their number and the configuration of the traits of each type [12, 41, 46, 42]. The advantages of the personality type approach are: 1) its high level of abstraction contributes to creating knowledge focusing on the common characteristics of individuals; 2) it shifts attention to how traits are organized and integrated within individuals; 3) it is useful in helping to describe the findings of personality research to the general public; 4) it helps to understand why individuals have different responses to everyday events [44]". --ThesariusQ (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my request. I asked if you could suggest a sentence that would convey that personality types are generally not accepted science, not a list of POV bullet points on how everyone should be doing more research on personality types. - MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"There is evidence about the existence of personality types, but there is disagreement about their number and the configuration of the traits of each type [12, 41, 46, 42]"--ThesariusQ (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

'Personality traits' or 'personality profiles' are not the same as 'personality types'. This source — [4] — does not contain a definition of the term "personality type" and may confuse different concepts. --Q Valda (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"Type C personality" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Type C personality. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#Type C personality until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Shenandoah University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)