That the characteristics of the four temperaments are this consistent over time is no accident, but seems to reflect a fundamental pattern in the warp and woof of the fabric of human nature. Indeed, I would argue that the four types are most likely derived from the interweaving of the two most basic human actions, how we communicate with each other, and how we use tools to accomplish our goals. Clearly, what sets human beings apart from the other animals are two advantages we have over them—words and tools. And what sets us apart from each other is the way we use words and tools. The great majority of us are predominantly concrete in our word usage, the rest predominantly abstract. And about half of us are utilitarian in our choice and use of tools, the other half cooperative.
Artisan Guardian Idealist Rational Hedonic Proprietary Ethical Dialectical Sanguine Melancholic Choleric Phlegmatic Changeable Industrious Inspired Curious Innovative Traditional Doctrinaire Skeptical Aesthetic Economic Religious Theoretic Hypomanic Depressive Hyperesthetic Anesthetic Exploitative Hoarding Receptive Marketing Probing Scheduling Friendly Tough-minded
The Basic Dimensions of Personality 27
Abstract versus Concrete Word Usage
In considering human differences some investigators have focused on differences in linguistic orientation, others on differences in cognitive orientation; both, however, are concerned with the human imperative that bids us locate ourselves in our social context as we take action. On the linguistic side Kurt Goldstein and Ernst Cassirer thought of humans as talking animals. In his Abstract and Concrete Behavior, Goldstein had some people talking more abstractly than concretely and others talking more concretely than abstractly. Similarly, in his Essay on Man Cassirer had some talking more analogically than indicatively, others talking more indicatively than analogically. In other words, some people are prone to send symbol messages, others to send signal messages—signals pointing to something present to the eye, symbols bringing to mind something absent from view.
As for cognition, Myers in The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator had some of us oriented by intuition or introspection, the rest by sensory perception or observation. Similarly David Riesman, in Individualism Reconsidered, spoke of “inner-directed” and “outer-directed” orientations. And Eric Adickes, in his Character and Worldview, saw some as “heteronomous” or other-directed in orientation, and others as “autonomous” or self-directed in orientation.
Thus our thoughts and the words that reflect them keep us oriented to reality by telling us who we and our companions are, and what we and they are to do. Thoughts of course are not observable, but words are, so some inspection of the kinds of words we choose may be useful.
Abstract words can be used in slightly different but related ways— analogical, categorical, fictional, figurative, general, schematic, symbolic, and theoretical. Likewise, concrete words can be used in slightly different but related ways—detailed, factual, elemental, empirical, indicative, literal, signal, and specific. To illustrate the relationships between these terms I have linked them together with overlapping Venn diagrams, as follows:
The diagram suggests that an analogy, for example, is both fictional and figurative, a figure of speech both symbolic and analogic, a symbol both figurative and categorical, and so on, all different forms of abstract speech. Likewise, an indicative expression is both factual and literal, a factual expression both indicative and detailed, a detail both factual and empirical, and so on, all concrete in some manner. Thus both words, ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete,’ have many, but related, uses, and we are wise to keep this in mind as we compare and contrast those who are more prone to abstract speech with those more prone to concrete speech.
Cooperative versus Utilitarian Tool Usage
Human beings are far more than word-using animals. Indeed the prolif eration of our words came only when there was a proliferation of our tools. As tools differentiated there was a reciprocal differentiation of words, neither getting ahead or falling behind the other.
Nearly everything we do to implement our goals requires several kinds of tools used both simultaneously and successively. No matter where we look we see tools in every direction, inside or outside our homes and throughout our communities. The house itself is an enormously complex tool. Everything in it is a tool—chairs, tables, books, computer, television, phone, radio, pictures, lamps, rugs, boxes, on and on and on. Our vehicles are tools as are our roads and bridges and walkways and even our clothes. Civilization itself is created and maintained by tools. We distanced ourselves from the other animals and made ourselves supreme among them by fash ioning a fantastic array of tools. Indeed, it is this array of tools that enables us to pursue goals not dreamed of in centuries past.
No matter what our goals, however, we do not necessarily choose the same tools to reach them. And this is where our character takes a hand. Some of us prefer to use tools that have been approved by our membership groups. Others will use the best tools for the job whether or not they have been approved. Let us think of the former as cooperative in going after what they want, and the latter as utilitarian in their pursuit of goals.
To put it simply, the Cooperators try to get where they want to go by getting along with others, that is, by being law-abiding and accommodating with those around them, so that they are in full accord with the agreed-upon rules and mores of the social groups they belong to. In contrast, the Util itarians tend to go after what they want in the most effective ways possible, and they choose tools that promise success with minimum cost and ef fort—whether or not they observe the social rules.
Not, mind you, that the habitually cooperative persons don’t care about useful and effective tools. Certainly they do, but they consider the ef fectiveness of tools as secondary to whether they should be used, or how they will be regarded by others—in other words, whether they are socially acceptable, or morally correct. In the same way, it is not that the habitually utilitarian persons refuse to cooperate with their social groups, but they see
pleasing others and observing rules as secondary considerations, coming only after they have determined how well their chosen tools will work in accomplishing their ends. It’s a matter of priorities. Most of us learn to get along with others most of the time, and most of us opt for effective action, but our first instinct is to pursue our goals according to our habit of cooperating or utilizing.
By intersecting the rows and columns in a four-cell matrix (see below), the four types of character can be clearly seen in relation to each other: