My Photo


  • Michael Moorcock
    "a genuine philosophy for the 21st century"
  • Mary Midgley
    "this matters - read it!"
  • Kendall Walton
    "wonderfully refreshing and inventive"


Game Design

Philosophy: Epistemology

Blog powered by Typepad

« Justifications and Criticisms | Main | Reluctant Hero: Tech Demo »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Introduction to Temperament Theory:


I think I may be of the Idealist persuasion, with the secondary pattern of an artisan. I'm rational in the sense that I rate as an NT on the MB typology, but the rest breaks down as such. Its kind of a sticky model, but it has some illustrative power.


I fit the "Abstract-Pragmatic-Structure" pattern- in fact, I think (based on how you described them) I'm an extreme example of all three, to the extent that I have difficulty comprehending concrete examples, social rules and motives. But I do not fit the "Rational" Temperament very much. I desire neither knowledge nor competency, I do not trust logic, and I despise long-term planning. The rest I can relate to -theory, relativity, a fondness for rationalizing- but overall I think I'm much closer to the Artisan mold.

So I don't know what to make of this whole theory.

Very Abstract.
Mostly Pragmatic.
Flick between Structure and Motive depending on the situation. If I'm coding, I'm Structured. If I'm teaching, I'm generally around Motive. In social situations, it depends.

M-B: INXP (the X denotes sitting on that rather thin boundary between T and F).

This puts my strongest temperament as Rational (accurate) and my weakest as Guardian (also accurate). In my case, my secondary is probably Idealist, usually when teaching or in the more touchy-feely social situations (I spend considerable time as an informal counsellor).

Patrick, Mory: don't take your self assessment by axis as anything but a general indicator at this point in time; a starting point, not a conclusion. You can't skip the process of self discovery if you want to get the most out of this system. I would wait until I've written the pieces on each of the individual Temperaments before rushing to any conclusions.

And Mory, you may not think you fit the Rational temperament very well, but on the basis of your comments thus far on my blog I would say you show a lot of indicators for Rational. (The presence of "Modeling Test Responses by Multivariable Polynomials of Higher Degrees" on your desk would also seem to be confirming evidence! ;> )

In fact, the vast majority of people who come to this blog express Rational very strongly - and since that is what I consider to be my native Temperament, this can hardly be considered a surpise. I look forward to hearing your thoughts after I've written in more detail on the Rational Temperament, which for this very reason is the first I'm going to tackle - although I expect you will have a very guarded, one might say sceptical, attitude to the whole affair! ;)

Also, please remember the goal is not to place oneself in a labelled box but to see what one can learn about one's behaviour as a product of the interaction of these four observed patterns. You seem to match yourself up to Artisan to some extent, so I'm going to have a guess that your best fit pattern will be Rational with Artisan, or INTP in Myers-Briggs terms.

But my guess means absolutely *nothing* - see what you think when I get to the more detailed profiles. :)

Peter: I also come out INXP by Myers-Briggs. In Temperament terms I see myself as having Rational as my native Temperament, with Guardian and Idealist as my supporting Temperaments. It has taken me a while to get to this understanding - talking to other people about how *they* see my behaviour has been a factor in recognising that although I express Idealist strongly in my own view of myself, but when other people look at me, what they see is Rational and Guardian (INTJ by Myers-Briggs).

My habitual dislike of the Guardian pattern throughout my teenage years was probably a barrier to my accepting how much this pattern expresses itself in my life. :(

Take care everyone!

Chris, I don't see how "self-discovery" fits into your assertation that TT should be taken as a science. A system which produces an incorrect result, of which we are meant to hold on faith that it will make sense in the end following a personal and subjective experience, is not scientific.

"The presence of "Modeling Test Responses by Multivariable Polynomials of Higher Degrees" on your desk would also seem to be confirming evidence! ;>"
Now this I don't understand a bit. What the heck are you talking about? I have no such thing on my desk. On the other hand, I have no idea what that phrase means, so maybe you're talking about something like a yo-yo, which I do have on my desk. How can I know what you're talking about when you use language like that?

Sorry Mory! My mistake! I must have got you mixed up with someone else with the same name. :( Hazard of the blogosphere, but I do apologise profusely for my mistake.

In answer to your specific question: how does one interpret psychiatry if not as a discovery process assisted by science? Behaviour interpretation is not and never has been an objective process - we have no tricorder we can point at people and get definitive measurements. (For that matter, a large portion of all medical diagnosis is in the same space).

We use humans as our measuring instruments in many sciences - no more so than in evolutionary science. The entire interpretation of the fossil record is entirely subjective, for instance; the Burgess shale is the classic example usually cited.

Subjectivity is inherent to much of modern science. (In fact, I have argued earlier that it is inherent to all science).

It is a general position within psychology that *self*-assessment is both subjective and inaccurate. But that does not preclude people from participating in it. And it does not exclude the methods employed by psychologists from science, per se, it just places any *personal* psychological discovery process outside of the domain of scientific research. I find no contradiction in this.

The scientific validity of Temperament Theory rests at a statistical level. It's employment at an individual level must necessarily be a more subjective concern. This is true of a great many sciences including much of psychology, sociology and especially economics.

Hope this clarifies.

Wow, Rational describes me to a frightening amount of detail. I would probably put "strongly agree" behind each sentence if the paragraph describing rational was a phone poll. Especially being calm. And wanting precision. And especially everything ;)

I stumbled upon this blog when I tried to find out if Sid Meier had really ever said "a game is a series of interesting decisions"--clearly I was looking for precision in thought there. Now I'm curious to see how these temperament types can be mapped onto gaming.

This is great stuff. Its seems I have reading material for the next few days.

Daniel: thanks for dropping by! Hope you will find the oddities here to be of interest.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)