Migrating personality theories Part 2: towards a theory of the balanced personality?

Abstract

Purpose -Some personality schemas are seen to compete with others, but are they really complementary? The purpose of this paper is to show that two trait approaches, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Mindscape theory, which are normally considered to be competitive, shall be migrated into a more complex modeling space using knowledge cybernetics, when they are shown to have a complementary potential. Design/methodology/approach -The paper uses the meta-framework of knowledge cybernetics (KC) part of the relevantial universe identified by Maruyama, to migrate different theoretical approaches and relate them. A consequence is the possible development of a more sophisticated trait theory that is capable of providing more complex information about personality. Findings -The findings indicate that current type theories are not necessarily stand-alone, but may be seen as complementary within a broader conceptual framework. Research limitations/implications -This paper is limited to the investigation of MBTI. However, it offers a generic approach that can be applied to other solitary theories like MBTI. Practical implications -The paper leads to the possibility of improved explanatory power for a type theory than is currently possible. Originality/value -Very little comparative work has been done relating representations of MBTI and Mindscape theory. This also appears to be the first serious extensive direct comparison between any form of MBTI and Mindscapes. KC uses Habermas's three world theory and shows that it is possible to consider MBTI and Mindscape theory as conceptually distinct and complementary, and together contributing to a new way of exploring the field of personality theory.

Understanding Normative Personality

“…We reiterate that though the traits are important, it turns out that the states that they take (which determine personality type) are fundamental to understanding the orientation of the personality (Yolles and Fink 2009). Ultimately, the personality types that an agent maintains are a reflection of its attitudes, emotive imperatives, and formative perspectivist information, and it is these that determine what has epistemic value to the personality.…”

“…As a result of these considerations, a trait model is offered in Figure 4 that adopts the same trait logic offered by Yolles (2009) in his exploration of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator model. This model represents trait systems that are connected by intelligences through which information is manifested and that are subject to efficacy that controls the emotive impulses that influence the manifestation processes.…”

“…Now, mindscapes arise from a type theory that enables behaviors to be predicted under known contexts (Yolles and Fink 2009). Types are values taken by formative traits that compose a trait space that defines a personality, and such a trait space has been considered by Boje (2004) the three personality orientation traits that better fit with organizational agencies: technical interest power, social-oriented ethics, and knowledge disposition, which we explore here.…”

“…It is not, therefore, highly relevant in what way the names of these traits vary, as long as their characteristics can be related. This has been illustrated by Yolles (2009b) and Yolles and Fink (2009), where trait schemas have been set into a characteristics typology and compared and related.…”

Personality, pathology and mindsets: part 2 – cultural traits and enantiomers

“…The traits establish regulatory processes that enable the emergence of stable patterns of behaviour. Different traits therefore have different control functions and hence necessarily reflect different definitive characteristics (Yolles, 2009;Yolles and Fink, 2009;Yolles et al, 2011a).…”