Personality typology: «My friend is a spitting image of Taurus!»

For what reasons did they not try to distinguish between psychological types! According to the fluids in the body (the same four types of temperament), according to external physical data and marks (phrenology, palmistry, Kretschmer and Sheldon typology), according to the specifics of nervous activity (Pavlov’s typology) … In modern psychology and psychiatry, there are a lot of different typologies, according to which tried and are trying to «sort» the psychological characteristics of people. One of the most popular in psychiatry is the typology of Gannushkin’s psychopathic characters, in psychology — the typology of Leonhard-Lichko accentuations (however, it is strongly associated with Gannushkin). Of the near-scientific typologies, socionics is the most well-known, and of non-scientific typologies, astrological ones.

• What type of personality is schizoid?

A distinctive feature of scientific typologies is their relativity and limitations. They do not claim to be a comprehensive characterization of the individual, being mostly private. That is, some sign or set of signs is taken as the basis of the typology, and people are “ranked” according to them, while there is a clear understanding that many other psychological characteristics of people remain outside the typology.

And here lies one trap. A person who is far from disputes and discussions around different typologies does not take into account the indicated feature — relativity and limitation. However, this is often forgotten by the experts themselves. The remarkable Russian biologist A. Markov spoke about the peculiarities of our thinking in this way: “You cannot half-rush into battle or half-run away … Because of the need to constantly make unambiguous decisions, our thinking works “categorically”: we continually try to find clear boundaries between concepts, in including where they actually do not exist, and divide the continuous series (continuum) into segments, gluing label words to them.

• Socionics: science or sectarianism?

The problem of typology in biological science is perfectly illustrated by the following incident: “It is impossible to draw a clear line, to find a point in time when the biological evolution of hominids gave way to cultural evolution. Just as it is impossible to pinpoint exactly the moment when the “non-human ape” turned into a “human” one … This is purely arbitrary and, to tell the truth, rather meaningless: it’s like trying to absolutely accurately establish the amount starting from which there is “little money” turns into a lot of money.

In psychology, it’s the same. There are no clear boundaries between psychotypes, they smoothly flow into each other, mix, create new combinations — in full accordance with the mix of genes (natural basis) and cultural influences (upbringing, personal experience) in our soul. However, a correction can be made. In people with a pronounced deviation from the norm, psychotypes are presented very clearly and are easy to recognize. One of the main criteria for deviation from a healthy psyche is a rigid stereotype of behavior. It is not for nothing that the typologies of Gannushkin and Leonhard-Lichko are based precisely on deviations. People with personality disorders in many of their manifestations are quite monotonous and standard (but also not 100%). The more healthy a person is mentally, the more difficult it is to fit him into the framework of some kind of classification, and if possible, then with a large number of “buts”. Well, or you can just ignore what does not «correspond».

But what about situations when a person says: “My friend is a spitting image of Taurus!”, or “He definitely fits the Robespierre type of informational metabolism (this is in socionics)? In this situation, two factors are involved: this is a “comprehensive” typology that explains everything about a person, as well as hanging a strictly defined type — a label. The label has a two-way effect. On the one hand, it affects the perception of another person — our consciousness / unconscious begins to simply “cut off” everything that is superfluous that does not fit into the stereotype. On the other hand, a person who agrees with the proposed/attached label begins to adapt to the typology, to make a «cut-off», but with himself. Anything can act as a label type. From name to blood group.

There are situations when the inconsistency of the personality with the type selected “for it” is so strong that consciousness cannot ignore it. Then the desire for simplification takes on a new form — a combination of types is introduced. “You are 60% like this, and the other 40% are explained by this type.” But in fact, these reservations are a recognition of the limitations of the typology, its functioning in a narrow range. The more “buts” one has to introduce (for example, to come up with a combination of three or four types), the more helpless the typology becomes. Lost its practical meaning.

• Hysteria vs Hysteria — What’s the difference?

But this circumstance rarely confuses those who are strongly committed to the rigid typing of people. There may be several reasons for this:

• Typology facilitates the perception of oneself and others.
• Typology eliminates a significant part of the anxiety and tension that can be caused by communicating with a new, unfamiliar person (choose a type for him and it will become clear how to communicate with him).
• The ability to «type» creates a sense of one’s own insight, intelligence, one’s difference from other people. With the appearance of a person who knows all the secrets of being, one can indulge in the illusion that you know what is happening in the soul of another person.
• Referring yourself to some kind of comprehensive type means that you are already prescribed feelings, hobbies, meanings of life (and even illnesses). The eternal “search for oneself” is removed, a template is given that is much easier to follow.

Freedom is the absence of an external structure, but this absence is an eternal, original source of internal tension, which can be eliminated either by self-building a structure, or by searching for a suitable external structure (that is, by giving up freedom). In this context, typology can have a pronounced psychotherapeutic effect, which any external structure has if a person does not have his own, internal structure.

So what can be said in conclusion? Typologize for health, it can be quite a fascinating activity. But do not forget that a healthy or at least relatively healthy person has a bad habit of not fitting into the framework outlined for her.