Skyscript Astrology Forum

I think that this subject has been raised before but after a search I couldn't find it.Your employer's trainer gives you a questionnaire to fill in and you calculate your personality. The four types are unarguably akin to the four temperaments. Has anyone compared how accurate they are compared with astrology?

I had intended to study this at the time but soon after the test was busy jobhunting instead. I told them what to do with their job and left the lazy idiot promoted above me to flounder.

(The Test diagnosed me manipulative and aggressive)

Matt

ps I tried google but did not find exactly what I wanted

Hi, Matt.

first my advice: stick to astrology and the temperament concept. Is both classic, "pure", and it works. Why go with the copycat ?

Now my reasoning:

If you read (with extreeeeeme pacience) Jung?s book: psychological types (I am not sure the title in english), you will see that Jung based his work in the temperament concept. Then he goes and see that in universal culture you have a lot of symbols based in number 4 (obviously, as the number 4 and the 4 elements are one of the basis of traditional magic). So we have 4 elements, 4 horses of the apocalipse, 4 directions, 4 evangeslists, etc.

so, in his own reading of "as above so below", Jung said "so in culture, so in psychology". So, he postulates that the human psyche was also divided in 4. And so he analyses several dream in which the element 4 appears (see Psychology and Alchemy). In them he often uses the scheme ego, shadow, "inconscient function", and other.

The inconscient function (not sure how it is in english again) is the opposite of your conscient function. Example, if you are a Extrovert Intuitive, then your inconscient function is Introvert and Sensation, etc.

So, some critique.

Jung healed what was not broken. He incorporated the concept of temperament into his own scheme of things, which to my view is reductionist... His attempt to bind all forms of symbolism, mysticism, occult, etc into his psychology is, by definition, a reductionism of all these previous concepts. by that you can deduce my opinion about "junguian astrology" - the astrology which lost his foundation and has to look in other places.

[Babbling]One time I had the horror of reading an "astrologer" which write "according to my understanding of Jung, we will discover three more planets to fit his scheme of the human unconscious (!)". Heavens waited thousand of years so Jung could be born and show how many planets we should have ! Neither christ, Maome or Buda did that, but apparently they were not as important... [/Babbling]

When Jung fitted the concept of temperament into his scheme of things, he separated the concept of "extrovertion - introvertion" from the 4 humours. So, a choleric is always more outgoing and active (masculine dimension) than a pleugmatic. But he separated cholera from extroversion and called it intuition. Now intuition, not like cholera, can be either extroverted or introverted. That?s an important modification that you have to be aware of.

Ugh, as it this was not enough, there were further modification. Jung planned his theory to psychanalysis and nothing more. No mechanical tests allowed, only "amplification" and dream analysis. But then Myer and Briggs thought that would be nice if they made a test of it, and so they made it, no matter if the author planned it to be used this way. You may think of this as Karma.

The rest is history... as the scheme of "dry/humid", "hot/moist" is so deep into human inconscient and culture, every now and then show a new test. Not to talk about endless matrix like "poor country - rich country" vs "solid democracy", "democracy at risk", etc, etc. For some reason, people think this kind of things are knowledge.

for an example I have to do an thesis about an test of "learning styles". Surprise, surpise, there were 4 learning styles ! And no, they are not based in temperament, they were "discovered by research on students". Of course !

As another side note, the Myers-Briggs test is hated by "serious" psychometrists because of the associations with Jung and temperament. But the test is so rooted into business, education, human resources, etc, that they can?t wipe his influence out.

Best regards and sorry for the long rambling post.

Oh, I forgot one thing.

In my experience, using a natal chart is better to discover the person?s real temperament.

all this tests are "almost" temperament, but they "interpret" the concept using modern lights, or fashionable concepts like "agressive", "passive", and "passive agressive", or "left brain/right brain", etc. So we have hundred of test all showing the same thing, under the lights of a particular author, giving hundreds of different tests.

My temperament, for example, is fleugmatic with some choler. In some tests I am a Introvert Intuition (choler without extrovertion). In other?s I am agressive. In other still I am a thinker. Etc, etc, etc. So you can see which is the simple version.

Hi Yuzuru,

Employees don't get to choose this test, it is forced on them by employers. Imagine some pathetic computerised astrology program trying to inform an employer of the kind of person you are, and you'll understand why I think they are an infringement on empoyee rights. When I was working in business the employers (and this was a huge company) tried to make us all take a 'Thomas test', which is a similar type of analysis scheme based on tick box answers to questions. I refused and told my senior manager that he could work out what kind of personality I was based on the fact that I refused to take the test. After a lot of kerfuffle I was exempted and about a year later I left that company for another. (Now me, I would have seen I was trouble from the start - there's no way I'd have let myself off the test whilst everybody else was having to take it )

Hi, Deb

I know that, in some countries at least, these tests can?t be used to select personal. But I think in general the employer is allowed to use them after you have being hired.

But yes, I also agree that it is invasive, prejudicial and potencially harmful. You shouldn?t be forced to answer a test that can harm your possibilities.

I refused and told my senior manager that he could work out what kind of personality I was based on the fact that I refused to take the test.

Yes, I think trouble maker is the right description.

As a good phleugmatic, with Saturn as lord of manners, I usually avoid this kinds of conflicts. I just fake the results so that I look like a social, sanguine person. They are usually looking for that. It has worked in the past, got my last job that way. :-)

sorry for the long rambling post.

I recently read "Mysterium Coniunctionis" Your post was short and to the point in comparison

At my test they let us work out the result for ourselves in confidence.The idea was to tell us how to assert ourselves effectively. My new employer does not like the test as they do not want assertive people. I have since seen training material connected with this system. They tell you to look at someone's desk and decide their character by how many fluffy toys they have.

It is a well-known fact (irony) that astrology is nonsense because you cannot divide people into only twelve types yet companies spend big money for this new-age mumbo-jumbo.

I will heed good advice and start assessing temperament.

Marsilio Ficino seems to be an ideal test candidate for practice and his biog and chart are right at hand on the site

Matt

I think the temperament is primarily due to the position of Sun, Moon and Asc in signs.

Yes
I also add something from aspects to the ASC, the lord of ASC, and the seasonal influences of sun and moon

Hi Matt,

Peter Case and I wrote a paper about this a few years ago - specifically about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (which is probably the most popular test of the type you mention) and its relationship to astrology and alchemy via Jung and the four elements.

Versions of the talk appeared in a few places. The most complete version is the one that appeared in 'Organization' Vol.11 No.4 (July 2004). Here's a useful link:

http://org.sagepub.com/content/vol11/issue4/

... although the last time I looked, they were asking huge sums of money from anyone who wanted to download the article. None of which we ever get to see. If you want to get hold of a copy but are having trouble doing so, you're welcome to get in touch with me directly, I might be able to help.

yuzuru wrote: If you read (with extreeeeeme pacience) Jung?s book: psychological types (I am not sure the title in english), you will see that Jung based his work in the temperament concept.

Problem is that it?s not very easy to connect traditional temperaments with the four Jungian types, also Dorian Greenbaum points that out in her book. The most commonly known scheme is this:
Fire ? Intuitive
Earth ? Sensation
Air ? Thinking
Water ? Feeling.

Let?s take out the most obvious discrepancy, that of Air and Thinking. Jung writes about the Extraverted Thinking type in his Psychological Types, Chapter X:

This type of man elevates objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, into the ruling principle not only for himself but for his whole environment. By this formula good and evil are measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. Everything that agrees with this formula is right, everything that contradicts it is wrong, and anything that passes by it indifferently is merely incidental. Because this formula seems to embody the entire meaning of life, it is made into a universal law which must be put into effect everywhere all the time, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for their own good, everybody round him must obey it too, for whoever refuses to obey it is wrong ? he is resisting the universal law, and is therefore unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience.

His moral code forbids him to tolerate exception; his ideal must under all circumstances be realized, for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and therefore must also be a universally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of mankind. This is not from any great love for his neighbor, but from the higher standpoint of justice and truth. Anything in is own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is a mere imperfection, an accidental failure, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, dearly pathological. (---)

?Oughts? and ?musts? bulk large in this programme. If the formula is broad enough, this type may play a very useful role in social life as a reformer or public prosecutor or purifier of conscience, or as the propagator of important innovation. But the snore rigid the formula, the more he develops into a martinet, a quibbler, and a prig, who would like to force himself and others into one mould.

So, this description should correlate with warm and moist Air, Jupiter and the sanguine temperament known for its tolerance and humaneness! No way. But what temperament is this description closest to? Water / phlegmatic ? certainly not. Earth / melancholic ? perhaps. Fire/choler ? that might be one option too. If we think feminine signs / elements as accommodating and soft and masculine ones as active and hard, then the only option is Fire / choler. But choleric as the ?thinking type?, that doesn?t quite fit. Shouldn?t ?thinking? (and the picture we get from Jung about it), rather be something cold, if we think attributes like ?rational?, ?logical?, ?consistent?, etc.? That leaves us Earth / melancholic as the thinking type. Maybe that fits best after all.

So we have Fire / choleric, Air / sanguine, and Water / phlegmatic left. I consider here only the extraverted versions of the Jungian types because they are clearer and more distinctive. About the feeling type Jung says first that it?s undeniably a more obvious characteristic of feminine psychology than thinking and examples of this type that Jung himself can call to mind are almost always women. We used the other feminine element, Earth, for thinking (which according to Jung should be a more masculine function!), so we have only Water / phlegmatic left.

For Jung the Extraverted Feeling type represents a conventional society lady like Hyacinth Bucket in British comedy series Keeping Up Appearances. Jung writes:

The woman of this type follows her feeling as a guide throughout life. As a result of upbringing her feeling as developed into an adjusted function subject to conscious control. (---) Her personality appears adjusted in relation to external conditions. Her feelings harmonize with objective situations and general values. This is seen nowhere more clearly than in her love choice: the ?suitable? man is loved, and no one else; he is suitable not because he appeals to her hidden subjective nature ? about which she usually knows nothing ? but because he comes up to all reasonable expectations in the matter of age, position, income, size and respectability of his family, etc. (---)

Then Jung goes on to discuss what happens when the importance of the object (which applies to all the Extraverted types which take their impressions from the world outside) reaches a higher level. Then the subject becomes so assimilated to the object that the subject of feeling ? the feeling person herself ? is completely engulfed. Feeling becomes feeling for its own sake and the outcome is exaggerated expressions that have a bit artificial quality about them:

This shows itself first of all in extravagant displays of feeling, gushing talk, loud expostulations, etc., which ring hollow: ?The lady doth protest too much.?

Now this could be Fire too in the modern sense: Leonine drama and show. But it?s not that easy to connect choler with this kind of expression, it?s not aggressive as such and even less it represents a masculine archetype. It?s more like a gay caricature! So this is a bit confusing.

Let?s go forward to the Extraverted Sensation type. In the Jungian scheme his is the most realistic type of all and probably that?s why it's given to Earth associating Saturn with it. But the rest is less Saturnine:

His whole aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is oriented accordingly. (---) It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of aesthetic purity without ever deviating from his principle of concrete sensation however abstract this sensation may be. (---)

On the lower levels, this type is the lover of tangible reality, with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate. To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them ? this is his constant aim. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, his lively capacity for enjoyment makes him very good company; he is usually a jolly fellow, and sometimes a refined aesthete.

Well, this should be our melancholic ? little inclination for reflection! This simply doesn?t fit. The closest we could get would maybe be Water / Venus (if we think Venus as a cool and moist planet like medievals did) / phlegmatic.

Now we have Thinking as Earth / melancholic and Sensation as Water / phlegmatic. The feeling type was a bit unclear but we have Fire / choleric and Air /sanguine left. The last type is Extraverted Intuitive type. Jung writes about it:

The intuitive is never to be found in the world of accepted reality-values, but he has a keen nose for anything new and in the making. Because he is always seeking out new possibilities, stable conditions suffocate him. (---) Consideration for the welfare of others is weak. Their psychic well-being counts as little with him as does his own. He has equally little regard for their convictions and way of life, and on this account he is often put down as an immoral and unscrupulous adventurer. (---) Many business tycoons, entrepreneurs, speculators, stockbrokers, politicians, etc., belong to this type. (---)

He is the natural champion of all minorities with a future. Because he is able, when oriented more to people than things, to make in intuitive diagnosis of their abilities and potentialities, he can also ?make? men. His capacity to inspire courage of to kindle enthusiasm for anything new is unrivalled, although he may already have dropped it by the morrow.

What could this be? Jung says that this is more feminine function but we have used our feminine elements already. And if we tried to connect it with feminine elements that would seem difficult: this is not indeed melancholy, neither it's phlegmatic. So it should be either Air / sanguine of Fire / choleric.

If we give the Intuitive type to Air, then the Feeling type would be Fire. In any case, Jung would have confused the masculine and feminine temperaments. Another option would be to give Sensation to Air / sanguine and Feeling to Water / phlegmatic. Then the Intuitive type would be Fire. Well, why not? But in that case we should forget the idea about Air as a non-tangible, theoretical and aloof element. In any case there's a lot of confusion.

PS. I saw Garry's post only after I had posted myself, and I will look what Garry and Peter Case have written about the subject.

A final thought from me before I return to my studies. Terms like Sanguine and Melancholy were once common parlance, though over time they lost their original meaning a little.

Not so in older times methinks. Would not a patient go to an apothecary and say "Have you got something for a little choler in the gut?" An experienced practitioner would probably assess his temperament as soon as he walked through the door and doubtless astrologers also did this and checked in the chart later. Given the importance of the ascendent degree and the state of timekeeping in those days he might well go with the visual clues.

We still do this do we not? Fat people used to get fed up with others assuming they were jolly. Would we make a character assessment by looking at a tall thin stooped man? I make assumptions about strangers in the street by the way they carry themselves. Mind you I would not prescribe medicine on that basis!

They tell you to look at someone's desk and decide their character by how many fluffy toys they have.

I used to work for a company owned by a family until we were bought out by a national corporation. Anyway the owner and founder of the small company had an Aries Sun and if I had to wager, I'd say he had Aries rising, too. He had, on his desk, a small statue of two rams butting heads. It was appropriate. I doubt he would have built the business he did, if he were the fluffy toy type.

Tom