I AM GREEN, WHAT COLOR ARE YOU?
Personality Typologies and Their Informative Power
If you've ever taken a psychological test that revealed a certain personality type, you probably marveled at the accuracy of the description of your personality traits. Those that you're proud of and like, as well as those you may find difficult to admit but you know they're true.
I am green. This means I am analytical and value order and structure. I think things over carefully before deciding and I aim to be fair. Because of this, others might see me as stubborn, nitpicky, rigid, or even suspicious.
I am blue. This means that the most important aspect of life for me is relationships. I like to help others, and I'm insightful and empathetic. As a result, others might sometimes see me as overly trusting, lenient, subservient, or even naive.
I am red. This means I am ambitious, and achieving my goals is extremely important – by any means necessary. I am confident, determined, and aspire to lead others. As a result, others might sometimes see me as overly competitive, ruthless, arrogant, or even dictatorial.
The descriptions provided for the three types are typical of personality typology approaches. Personality typologies are concepts that classify individuals into specific categories or personality types based on the expression of one or more personality traits. These personality traits are often presented as dichotomies, seemingly dividing individuals into one side or the other. One of the most well-known typologies (and generally one of the most known psychological questionnaires) is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), whose popularized version is also available freely online (with limitations in freely accessible versions, but let’s leave that discussion for some other occasion). It is based on four dichotomies, resulting in 16 possible personality types.
Personality typology tests are structured in a way that results reflect whether you're more "this" or more "that," or which generalized personality type among n-possible types you are based on the combination of results of individual measured traits. The results presented in this manner are generally seen by test-takers as bearing some level of "truth." Why is that? Because the results usually describe general guidelines of thinking and behavior stemming from the presence or absence of particular traits or their extremes. Extremes are quite easy to understand and describe, hence individuals leaning toward a certain extreme can usually identify with the description at a fundamental level.
However, therein lies the major pitfall of all typologies: when we talk about personality traits, there aren't actual extremes. Even the most pronounced "green" individuals are sometimes "red" or "blue," and each personality type sometimes exhibits signs of other personality types according to some theories. Why does this happen? As mentioned earlier, personality typologies theoretically comprise traits in an apparently binary system: a trait is either present or not (or its opposite extreme is present). However, in reality, the manifestation of personality traits isn't binary but rather exists on a continuum and generally adheres to a normal (Gaussian) distribution. Typologies rely on determining the minimum value or value intervals for measured personality traits, which then form the combination of personality types.
For a practical example, let's borrow the dichotomy of introversion–extraversion, one of the most well-known concepts in popular psychology representing two extremes on a continuum of a personality trait. A quick refresher: Introverts direct their energy inward (thoughts, emotions, ideas, etc.), while extraverts direct it outward (activities, socializing, experiences, etc.). Introverts are generally thoughtful, deliberate, and reserved, while extraverts are more likely to be energetic, sociable, and responsive. How can we measure this?
In theory, it's rather straightforward. The more introverted an individual is, the less extraverted they are, and vice versa. For instance, if we follow a scale from 0 to 100, let's say the lower half (from 0 to 50) represents introversion, and the upper half (from 50 to 100) represents extraversion. So, if the psychological test measuring this trait yields a result above 50, you're extraverted; otherwise, you're introverted. Fundamentally, this holds true. However, it's important to note that it matters whether you score 88 or 60. In the first case, your traits are likely quite close to the description of the extreme of extraversion, but in the second scenario, although you fall into the area of extraversion, your behavior often has introverted tendencies in practice. Can we precisely determine when this behavior is introverted solely based on this number? Unfortunately, no.
"There is no such thing as a pure introvert or extrovert. Such a person would be in the lunatic asylum."
Carl Gustav Jung, psychoanalyst and author of the concepts of introversion and extraversion
Personal typologies are essentially a reflection of human tendency to categorize the world around them and themselves within it. If we are professionally—psychologically honest, they mostly fall into the pseudoscientific realm, and experts in psychometrics (note: a branch of psychology dealing with psychological testing) mostly do not support them or even consider them as having a horoscope-like significance. However, they are not without value, as they help us understand elements of personality in a simple, popular, and often amusing way. They encourage us to understand interpersonal differences and apply these insights in practice—into interpersonal relationships.
However, it should be acknowledged that descriptions obtained in this manner will never precisely unravel an individual's personality, as they cannot specify their thinking in every specific situation or predict their behavior with certainty. There are many more influences on it than just personality preferences. Besides that... if there were only, for example, 20 personality types among the seven, now almost eight billion people in the world, scientists would likely have long discovered the ultimate recipe for communicating with each type to ensure positive interaction that all personality types would recognize. Unfortunately, as we know, this is not the case.
Due to generalized descriptions, typological approaches – if used as the sol source of evaluation - are unsuitable and informationally inadequate for more accurate personality diagnostics or job fit assessments.
If white and black represent two extremes of one characteristic, in practice, all people are gray - we differ only in shades of gray, and there are as many shades as there are people on Earth. Even the famous "50 Shades of Grey" don’t suffice, as each individual is a unique combination of personality traits. Not even two are entirely the same. This is the magic and the nuisance of human nature and its integration into the surrounding social environment.
So, what does it mean if a (future) leader is predominantly green, predominantly red, or predominantly blue?
Back
