Trait ScoresBack To Products
The PTI measures eight naturally occurring behavioural traits within a series of four paired attitudes: React (Extroversion, Introversion), Look (Sensing, Intuition), Decide (Thinking, Feeling) and Organize (Judging and Perceiving). The numeric scores assigned to each trait do not measure the efficacy or proficiency of the trait. Rather, the scores are intended to indicate the strength of the preference for one trait against the other trait within each attitudinal pairing.
Likewise, the numerical scores for each trait are used for comparison with the other trait scores in determining a ranking among the preferred traits. There is a significant correlation between the ranked ordering of the traits and the behavioural attitudes of the Personality Type. Differences in the ranked ordering of the preferred traits account for observed, behavioural variations among individuals with identical Personality Types.
Individual trait scores are then used to create the Differential Scores for each attitudinal pairing in determining the Personality Type preferences. The Differential Scores are produced by subtracting the lower trait score from the higher trait score within each attitudinal pairing. Differential Scores that are below five are considered too inconclusive to be reliable. Alternatively, high scores demonstrate clarity and are normally associated with individuals who are capable of demonstrating behavioural characteristics that are associated with either of the opposing traits.
That is to say, those with high Differential Scores frequently demonstrate more flexibility that those with moderate or low Differential Scores. In fact, low Differential Scores frequently indicates ambiguity with regard to using either of the traits. This pattern of attitudinal confusion results in deliberately using compensating behaviours in an attempt to accommodate the situation.
An example of the flexible behaviour pattern of a high Differential Score in the Thinking trait is the ability to at one and the same time present a logical position combined with an emotional, rather than, objective substantiation. In this case, allowing for more emotional sensitivity when express their Thinking preference does not lead to trait confusion or an ambiguous presentation of the logical analysis expressed. This characteristic trait flexibility is only demonstrated under certain conditions and with a degree of intentionality, otherwise the clear logical objective attitude will naturally prevail.
PTI ScalesBack To Products
Unlike other behavioural assessments the PTI provides a remedy for Personality Type identification in cases where the Differential Scores are too low, or are below five. There are many factors that may contribute to this result and therefore there ought to be some clear method of resolving this issue. When an individual is reported in one or more attitudinal pairings with a Differential Score less than five there is an alternate method for clarifying the issue of which trait is preferred.
Administering one or more of the PTI scales allows the individual the opportunity of “pre-testing” in order to repeat the original PTI assessment. Completing one or more of the Scales allows the person to concentrate on items pertaining to either of the attitudinal traits. The resulting report provides the individual with a summary or combination of summaries that potentially represent the individual’s Personality Type. The Scales, however, have no effect on the Personality Type designation. The Scales merely add a mini report as an addendum to the existing PTI Personality Type Profile to indicate that there may be possible discrepancies with the Personality Type designation.
The overall purpose of the Scales is to pre-position the individual prior to retaking the PTI. Retesting is the only methods of reassigning a new Personality Type. Participation in one or more of the Scales is the recommended procedure for all individuals who are contemplating retesting the PTI. The results of completing the Scales indicate that upon retesting with the PTI there is an increase in the clarity of the Personality Type Profile due to the exercise of having answered the Scales.
Adaptation Style PercentageBack To Products
The PTI Survey offers the means of determining the reliability of the Personality Type Profile by measuring the consistency of the responses given in the assessment. There is an overall consistency measurement for the Adaptation Style Percentage and there are percentages indicated for each of the attitudinal pairings. When the percentages are low there is a greater degree of reliability that the trait scores are fairly achieved. A margin for error exists among all self reported assessments and therefore the PTI must undergo rigorous construct validations to ensure that the trait indicators are valid and also reliable.
When an individual reports two or more Adaptation Style Percentages this data is reflected in the PTI Personality Type Profile. Once again, caution must be observed in determining the root causes for this condition before any conclusions are drawn. Stress is often reported to be one of the determining factors in achieving higher Adaptation Style Percentages. There are other factors which may be involved in achieving high Adaptation Style Percentage scores that can be attributed to the misperception of the preferred trait, or a perception of a preferred Type which amounts to favourable self presentation.
In either case, the PTI Survey is equipped to monitor all responses and report back in terms of statistical significance of these variations. This information gives an opinion as to the reliability of the report and or possible areas for coaching and strengthening trait clarity; one of the desired outcomes of using the PTI Survey as a coaching tool.
Under all circumstances and in every situation retesting is the assured method of determining the PTI Personality Profile of an individual. The test and retest results of the PTI demonstrate significant correlations in determining the Personality Type Profiles of individuals. Bearing in mind, the PTI does not measure the functionality of the traits and only clarifies or identifies trait preferences there is no adverse affects from repeated testing. In fact the Adaptation Style Percentage component will consistently deliver reliable results with each retest. This means that the results of coaching and other behavioural interventions can be monitored for gauging the effectiveness of the PTI reporting structure.
CompatibilityBack To Products
The unique feature of the PTI is the ability to predict compatibility between individuals, between individuals and their roles, and between members of a team. This feature is measured on a four point scale where the lowest compatibility is level one and the highest level is four. Each level has four sublevels that are measured alphabetically. Level A is the lowest and level D is the highest. For example a 1D and a 2A are somewhat similar in compatibility, whereas a 4D is the highest compatibility designation.
The content structure for compatibility within the PTI is explained in a two by two table (see table 1)
Table 1 Compatibility
Constructive Compatibility expresses both the desire and the capability to engage in mental, physical, emotional and spiritual activities with another person, job role or group. Constructive Compatibility as a natural occurrence between Personality Types leads to building relationships, community and other constructive formations of individuals. In short, this describes the condition where people have similar interests and common goals that are truly sustainable in Type and not just as a result of conforming attitudes that are part of our own unique personalities and are subject to change.
“I can’t help but agree!” represents Constructive Compatibility in the most profound way possible. When individuals are paired together by Type to perform a job or task, there needs to be a high degree of Constructive Compatibility which does not require behavioural energy, so that the energy can be focused synergistically on the goal.
Reserve Compatibility is derived from the ability within the relationship to release stress and allow for risk taking behaviours that may also expose one’s vulnerabilities. This characteristic of compatibility is the premier attitude to demining the level of compatibility between individuals, between individuals and job roles, and between individuals within groups. The presence of Reserve Compatibility indicates a high degree of trust and in naturally occurring situations does not require that energy or attention be diverted away from the goal.
Pairings with high degrees of Reserve Compatibility with provide both for individual self-care and also contribute significantly to the ability of the other partner to the pairing to achieve their own self-care. This form of compatibility is ranked slightly higher and therefore more significant than Constructive Compatibility given the exact nature of the way in which it is expressed.
Compatibility LevelsBack To Products
When a pairing utilizes both Constructive and Reserve Compatibilities at a high level the compatibility factor is at Level 4. As mentioned, there are four degrees of this compatibility structure and each is equally proficient in meeting the needs of the individuals.
At Level 3 there is a high degree of Reserve Compatibility, however, Constructive Compatibility is low. This produces a relationship where there is often constructive competition going on because there is a higher degree of trust happening within the relationship. People in this level of compatibility seldom want or need to see “eye to eye” however their communication patterns are respectful and conscientious. Once again there are four sub levels of this compatibility structure.
Level 2 features high Constructive and low Reserve Compatibility. The phrase “We love doing our thing together” abounds, nevertheless, there is often a need to re-establish trust after conflicts and there is seldom the opportunity taken to let down the guard.
Level 1 is the least compatible structure. In fact all of the others demonstrate acceptable levels of compatibility which leads to respect and appreciation except in the case of Level 1s. Level 4 is extremely compatible, Level 3 is slightly above average and Level 2 is slightly below average, but Level 1 is incompatible. Neither Constructive nor Reserve Compatibility is apparent or even achievable. In the short term the focus is on the differences and in the long term there is very little possibility for reconstruction of the relationship once it breaks.
Level 1 is the unfortunate consequence of there being a Level 4 Compatibility. Yet surprisingly there are several learned behavioural coping mechanisms that can override the apparent incompatibilities of the Level 1. And yes there are also four Level 1 sublevels for a combined total of 16 sublevels.
Managing Level 1 relationships within companies, organizations, and teams requires constant vigilance and an ability to suspend all aspects and expectations for a normal co-existence between the individuals. It takes tremendous energy to sustain a Level 1 pairing and the often unrepeatable outcomes are ordinarily felt after 18 months if not sooner. What can seem like a shooting star relationship can fall back down to earth with a thud and with little or no possibility of there being a reconstructive intervention.
The irony of Level 1 breakups is that we judge them on the basis of behaviours, trust levels, and other social conditions whereas they are true polarities where neither side is able to comprehend the position of the other through no fault of their own. It is as if one listens to an AM band frequency and the other listens solely to the FM band. No communication possibilities exist for true Level 1 pairings which is often the subject matter for movies, plays, dramas and other portrayals of human relationships.
Tragic as this report may sound and incomprehensible as it may seem to those persons with an optimistic approach, Level 1 relationships do exist and they make possible the full spectrum of human relationships that follow from a variety of Personality Types. By the same token there is very little difference between the trait combinations for Level 4 Compatibility, however, Level 1s attest to the “genetic” trait theory of Personality Type which says that we do not altar our Personality Types by choice or by environmental influence. If that were to be the case then the alterations to theoretically “grow” from a Level 1 to a Level 4 would be accomplished because the actual nature of the differences at this level are almost insignificant. That is to say in most cases, altering one and only one of the preferred traits will result in a natural Level 4 pairing.
The popular movie Mrs. Doubtfire starring Robin Williams as Daniel, and Sally Fields as Miranda points out the possibility most adequately when Daniel becomes Mrs. Doubfire he represses for a short while his spontaneous trait to become more organized and conservative as the nanny of his children. Here we witness the incredibly painful yet funny parody on the Level 1 and Level 4 Compatibility pairing. Were it not for the fact that Daniel is entirely capable of understanding and reaching his estranged spouse only when masked the relationship might thrive as a Level 4, however, in Miranda’s eyes once the disguise is removed the reality quickly returns and the incompatibility is once more the norm for this Level 1 couple.
StylesBack To Products
This then introduces the possibility of their being many different styles associated with each Type and in fact we are entirely capable of acting out or choosing alternate behaviours for ourselves, but only on a temporary basis. It takes considerable energy and practice to do this and be even partially successful as in the case of the movie Mrs. Doubtfire. The same truth bears itself out during the interview process when an employer is attempting to becomre familiar with a job candidate. There exists the possibility of interviewing an imposter who will easily revert back from a persona Style to their actual Personality Type once the initial probationary period has expired.
Styles account for the fact that we may not fully accept that Personality Types are more genetically produced than behaviourally defined. The fact that we choose our behaviours is always an indication that we are more than robots or machines. The PTI Survey, however, uncovers each behavioural trait and examines how it is expressed and whether or not there is any consistency in the application of each behavioural choice. This breakthrough in psychometrics allows the PTI to more accurately assess the Personality Profile and therefore make better predictions as to the compatibilities among teams and pairings.
Rational and Irrational TraitsBack To Products
Underlying the attitudinal pairings there is a basic pattern that fits the behavioural expression of each trait. Our discovery of these patterns allows the PTI Survey to more accurately define both the Rational Traits (Thinking and Feeling) as well as the Irrational Traits (Intuition and Sensing). One particular reason for misinterpreting Type is that the Traits are culturally defined in other typological assessments rather than being psychologically constructed.
This means that the Rational attitude expressed by the Thinking and Feeling Traits can easily be understood as being objective or subjective, logical or emotional, analytical or sensitive as a means of observing the resulting behaviour. We tend to equate Thinking with being cold, unemotional, logical and even stereotype the Trait as masculine. That is part of our culture because we tend to see things in that manner. We would also argue that the opposite is the case for the Feeling Trait and because we understand the nurturing aspect of this Trait we might also label it to be feminine.
While the PTI Survey acknowledges that there are behavioural differences between these two Traits our research has attempted to redefine them in terms of their psychological construction so that the cultural bias is eliminated. The Thinking Trait and the Feeling Trait for our purposes represent the same attitude. Just like there is no such thing as darkness, only the absence of light, there is likewise no tangible difference between the way in which Thinking and Feeling operate as Rational Traits. With that being said, why then are they opposites of each other and how are they both expressed? The answer is found in the directional flow of what Carl Jung defined as libido (psychic energy). In the case of the Thinking Trait the libido moves from a singular object of concern toward a series of multiple objects of concern while in the process of making a rational decision. Take note of the fact that the Thinking Trait requires that the individual embraces a condition of moving from singular concept toward multiple options in a “proactive” manner. That is to say in moving forward to a new object of concern the former object of concern is left behind. Picture a person crossing a river on stepping stones, or climbing a rock face using hand hold and foot holds. Once the new position is established the old starting point is left behind.
In the case of the Feeling Trait the libido moves from the singular object of concern toward the multiple objects of concern as it does in the Thinking Trait but with one important exception. This time the individual embraces the condition of the multiple concepts and regards the singular concept as an external condition that it may or may not acquire. The literal meanings are reversed. The Feeling Trait observes the libido flowing toward the person whereas the Thinking Trait views it as moving away from the individual. The Feeling Trait governs the actions of the individual by embracing the multiple pre-existing conditions that the person already has acquired and evaluates the eventualities of incorporating any new concept or concern in light of the changes that might occur.
The Feeling Trait is therefore Reactive in nature as opposed to its counterpart the Thinking Trait which is proactive. The Feeling Trait leads the behaviour toward conservation of the primary concerns (note the plural) while the Thinking Trait leads toward expending the primary concern to analyze and then contemplate the multiple concerns of possibilities that naturally follow as a result of moving along a particular analytical pathway.
When understood under these conditions it is easy to see how the gender bias and the cultural norms and stereotypes disappear. We are still left with the characterizations of Thinking and Feeling; however, at some point in the future these obtuse and somewhat primitive explanations for the differences between the attitudinal Traits of Thinking and Feeling may prove to be more diversified than our current definitions which hold only to a fraction of the behaviours that this attitude represents.
By seeking to psychologically construct the Traits the PTI is looking for those attitudinal preferences that display a marked preference for Singular or Multiple Reasoning. Thinking being the Singular Reasoning Trait on the basis of the fact that the individual’s libido moves away from singularity toward multiplicity and then re-establishes its singularity. And Feeling being the Multiple Reasoning Trait because the individual’s libido moves again from the singular context toward the multiple context but then quickly re-establishes the importance of the multiple context.
This is precisely why the Feeling or Reactive Multiple Reasoning Trait takes more time in reflection than its counterpart Thinking. That is precisely why individuals with the Thinking trait exhibit impatience because they require the movement of their libido away from the singular concept. Their goal is to get started and move forward as soon as possible. That is not to say that they are impulsive but that their impatience gets the better of them if there are too may Multiple Reactives trying to slow things down.
The PTI measures eight naturally occurring behavioural traits within a series of four paired attitudes: React (Extroversion, Introversion), Look (Sensing, Intuition), Decide (Thinking, Feeling) and Organize (Judging and Perceiving). The numeric scores assigned to each trait do not measure the efficacy or proficiency of the trait. Rather, the scores are intended to indicate the strength of the preference for one trait against the other trait within each attitudinal pairing.
Likewise, the numerical scores for each trait are used for comparison with the other trait scores in determining a ranking among the preferred traits. There is a significant correlation between the ranked ordering of the traits and the behavioural attitudes of the Personality Type. Differences in the ranked ordering of the preferred traits account for observed, behavioural variations among individuals with identical Personality Types.
Individual trait scores are then used to create the Differential Scores for each attitudinal pairing in determining the Personality Type preferences. The Differential Scores are produced by subtracting the lower trait score from the higher trait score within each attitudinal pairing. Differential Scores that are below five are considered too inconclusive to be reliable. Alternatively, high scores demonstrate clarity and are normally associated with individuals who are capable of demonstrating behavioural characteristics that are associated with either of the opposing traits.
That is to say, those with high Differential Scores frequently demonstrate more flexibility that those with moderate or low Differential Scores. In fact, low Differential Scores frequently indicates ambiguity with regard to using either of the traits. This pattern of attitudinal confusion results in deliberately using compensating behaviours in an attempt to accommodate the situation.
An example of the flexible behaviour pattern of a high Differential Score in the Thinking trait is the ability to at one and the same time present a logical position combined with an emotional, rather than, objective substantiation. In this case, allowing for more emotional sensitivity when express their Thinking preference does not lead to trait confusion or an ambiguous presentation of the logical analysis expressed. This characteristic trait flexibility is only demonstrated under certain conditions and with a degree of intentionality, otherwise the clear logical objective attitude will naturally prevail.
PTI ScalesBack To Products
Unlike other behavioural assessments the PTI provides a remedy for Personality Type identification in cases where the Differential Scores are too low, or are below five. There are many factors that may contribute to this result and therefore there ought to be some clear method of resolving this issue. When an individual is reported in one or more attitudinal pairings with a Differential Score less than five there is an alternate method for clarifying the issue of which trait is preferred.
Administering one or more of the PTI scales allows the individual the opportunity of “pre-testing” in order to repeat the original PTI assessment. Completing one or more of the Scales allows the person to concentrate on items pertaining to either of the attitudinal traits. The resulting report provides the individual with a summary or combination of summaries that potentially represent the individual’s Personality Type. The Scales, however, have no effect on the Personality Type designation. The Scales merely add a mini report as an addendum to the existing PTI Personality Type Profile to indicate that there may be possible discrepancies with the Personality Type designation.
The overall purpose of the Scales is to pre-position the individual prior to retaking the PTI. Retesting is the only methods of reassigning a new Personality Type. Participation in one or more of the Scales is the recommended procedure for all individuals who are contemplating retesting the PTI. The results of completing the Scales indicate that upon retesting with the PTI there is an increase in the clarity of the Personality Type Profile due to the exercise of having answered the Scales.
Adaptation Style PercentageBack To Products
The PTI Survey offers the means of determining the reliability of the Personality Type Profile by measuring the consistency of the responses given in the assessment. There is an overall consistency measurement for the Adaptation Style Percentage and there are percentages indicated for each of the attitudinal pairings. When the percentages are low there is a greater degree of reliability that the trait scores are fairly achieved. A margin for error exists among all self reported assessments and therefore the PTI must undergo rigorous construct validations to ensure that the trait indicators are valid and also reliable.
When an individual reports two or more Adaptation Style Percentages this data is reflected in the PTI Personality Type Profile. Once again, caution must be observed in determining the root causes for this condition before any conclusions are drawn. Stress is often reported to be one of the determining factors in achieving higher Adaptation Style Percentages. There are other factors which may be involved in achieving high Adaptation Style Percentage scores that can be attributed to the misperception of the preferred trait, or a perception of a preferred Type which amounts to favourable self presentation.
In either case, the PTI Survey is equipped to monitor all responses and report back in terms of statistical significance of these variations. This information gives an opinion as to the reliability of the report and or possible areas for coaching and strengthening trait clarity; one of the desired outcomes of using the PTI Survey as a coaching tool.
Under all circumstances and in every situation retesting is the assured method of determining the PTI Personality Profile of an individual. The test and retest results of the PTI demonstrate significant correlations in determining the Personality Type Profiles of individuals. Bearing in mind, the PTI does not measure the functionality of the traits and only clarifies or identifies trait preferences there is no adverse affects from repeated testing. In fact the Adaptation Style Percentage component will consistently deliver reliable results with each retest. This means that the results of coaching and other behavioural interventions can be monitored for gauging the effectiveness of the PTI reporting structure.
CompatibilityBack To Products
The unique feature of the PTI is the ability to predict compatibility between individuals, between individuals and their roles, and between members of a team. This feature is measured on a four point scale where the lowest compatibility is level one and the highest level is four. Each level has four sublevels that are measured alphabetically. Level A is the lowest and level D is the highest. For example a 1D and a 2A are somewhat similar in compatibility, whereas a 4D is the highest compatibility designation.
The content structure for compatibility within the PTI is explained in a two by two table (see table 1)
| Constructive Compatibility | Reserve Compatibility |
| High or Low | High or Low |
Constructive Compatibility expresses both the desire and the capability to engage in mental, physical, emotional and spiritual activities with another person, job role or group. Constructive Compatibility as a natural occurrence between Personality Types leads to building relationships, community and other constructive formations of individuals. In short, this describes the condition where people have similar interests and common goals that are truly sustainable in Type and not just as a result of conforming attitudes that are part of our own unique personalities and are subject to change.
“I can’t help but agree!” represents Constructive Compatibility in the most profound way possible. When individuals are paired together by Type to perform a job or task, there needs to be a high degree of Constructive Compatibility which does not require behavioural energy, so that the energy can be focused synergistically on the goal.
Reserve Compatibility is derived from the ability within the relationship to release stress and allow for risk taking behaviours that may also expose one’s vulnerabilities. This characteristic of compatibility is the premier attitude to demining the level of compatibility between individuals, between individuals and job roles, and between individuals within groups. The presence of Reserve Compatibility indicates a high degree of trust and in naturally occurring situations does not require that energy or attention be diverted away from the goal.
Pairings with high degrees of Reserve Compatibility with provide both for individual self-care and also contribute significantly to the ability of the other partner to the pairing to achieve their own self-care. This form of compatibility is ranked slightly higher and therefore more significant than Constructive Compatibility given the exact nature of the way in which it is expressed.
Compatibility LevelsBack To Products
When a pairing utilizes both Constructive and Reserve Compatibilities at a high level the compatibility factor is at Level 4. As mentioned, there are four degrees of this compatibility structure and each is equally proficient in meeting the needs of the individuals.
At Level 3 there is a high degree of Reserve Compatibility, however, Constructive Compatibility is low. This produces a relationship where there is often constructive competition going on because there is a higher degree of trust happening within the relationship. People in this level of compatibility seldom want or need to see “eye to eye” however their communication patterns are respectful and conscientious. Once again there are four sub levels of this compatibility structure.
Level 2 features high Constructive and low Reserve Compatibility. The phrase “We love doing our thing together” abounds, nevertheless, there is often a need to re-establish trust after conflicts and there is seldom the opportunity taken to let down the guard.
Level 1 is the least compatible structure. In fact all of the others demonstrate acceptable levels of compatibility which leads to respect and appreciation except in the case of Level 1s. Level 4 is extremely compatible, Level 3 is slightly above average and Level 2 is slightly below average, but Level 1 is incompatible. Neither Constructive nor Reserve Compatibility is apparent or even achievable. In the short term the focus is on the differences and in the long term there is very little possibility for reconstruction of the relationship once it breaks.
Level 1 is the unfortunate consequence of there being a Level 4 Compatibility. Yet surprisingly there are several learned behavioural coping mechanisms that can override the apparent incompatibilities of the Level 1. And yes there are also four Level 1 sublevels for a combined total of 16 sublevels.
Managing Level 1 relationships within companies, organizations, and teams requires constant vigilance and an ability to suspend all aspects and expectations for a normal co-existence between the individuals. It takes tremendous energy to sustain a Level 1 pairing and the often unrepeatable outcomes are ordinarily felt after 18 months if not sooner. What can seem like a shooting star relationship can fall back down to earth with a thud and with little or no possibility of there being a reconstructive intervention.
The irony of Level 1 breakups is that we judge them on the basis of behaviours, trust levels, and other social conditions whereas they are true polarities where neither side is able to comprehend the position of the other through no fault of their own. It is as if one listens to an AM band frequency and the other listens solely to the FM band. No communication possibilities exist for true Level 1 pairings which is often the subject matter for movies, plays, dramas and other portrayals of human relationships.
Tragic as this report may sound and incomprehensible as it may seem to those persons with an optimistic approach, Level 1 relationships do exist and they make possible the full spectrum of human relationships that follow from a variety of Personality Types. By the same token there is very little difference between the trait combinations for Level 4 Compatibility, however, Level 1s attest to the “genetic” trait theory of Personality Type which says that we do not altar our Personality Types by choice or by environmental influence. If that were to be the case then the alterations to theoretically “grow” from a Level 1 to a Level 4 would be accomplished because the actual nature of the differences at this level are almost insignificant. That is to say in most cases, altering one and only one of the preferred traits will result in a natural Level 4 pairing.
The popular movie Mrs. Doubtfire starring Robin Williams as Daniel, and Sally Fields as Miranda points out the possibility most adequately when Daniel becomes Mrs. Doubfire he represses for a short while his spontaneous trait to become more organized and conservative as the nanny of his children. Here we witness the incredibly painful yet funny parody on the Level 1 and Level 4 Compatibility pairing. Were it not for the fact that Daniel is entirely capable of understanding and reaching his estranged spouse only when masked the relationship might thrive as a Level 4, however, in Miranda’s eyes once the disguise is removed the reality quickly returns and the incompatibility is once more the norm for this Level 1 couple.
StylesBack To Products
This then introduces the possibility of their being many different styles associated with each Type and in fact we are entirely capable of acting out or choosing alternate behaviours for ourselves, but only on a temporary basis. It takes considerable energy and practice to do this and be even partially successful as in the case of the movie Mrs. Doubtfire. The same truth bears itself out during the interview process when an employer is attempting to becomre familiar with a job candidate. There exists the possibility of interviewing an imposter who will easily revert back from a persona Style to their actual Personality Type once the initial probationary period has expired.
Styles account for the fact that we may not fully accept that Personality Types are more genetically produced than behaviourally defined. The fact that we choose our behaviours is always an indication that we are more than robots or machines. The PTI Survey, however, uncovers each behavioural trait and examines how it is expressed and whether or not there is any consistency in the application of each behavioural choice. This breakthrough in psychometrics allows the PTI to more accurately assess the Personality Profile and therefore make better predictions as to the compatibilities among teams and pairings.
Rational and Irrational TraitsBack To Products
Underlying the attitudinal pairings there is a basic pattern that fits the behavioural expression of each trait. Our discovery of these patterns allows the PTI Survey to more accurately define both the Rational Traits (Thinking and Feeling) as well as the Irrational Traits (Intuition and Sensing). One particular reason for misinterpreting Type is that the Traits are culturally defined in other typological assessments rather than being psychologically constructed.
This means that the Rational attitude expressed by the Thinking and Feeling Traits can easily be understood as being objective or subjective, logical or emotional, analytical or sensitive as a means of observing the resulting behaviour. We tend to equate Thinking with being cold, unemotional, logical and even stereotype the Trait as masculine. That is part of our culture because we tend to see things in that manner. We would also argue that the opposite is the case for the Feeling Trait and because we understand the nurturing aspect of this Trait we might also label it to be feminine.
While the PTI Survey acknowledges that there are behavioural differences between these two Traits our research has attempted to redefine them in terms of their psychological construction so that the cultural bias is eliminated. The Thinking Trait and the Feeling Trait for our purposes represent the same attitude. Just like there is no such thing as darkness, only the absence of light, there is likewise no tangible difference between the way in which Thinking and Feeling operate as Rational Traits. With that being said, why then are they opposites of each other and how are they both expressed? The answer is found in the directional flow of what Carl Jung defined as libido (psychic energy). In the case of the Thinking Trait the libido moves from a singular object of concern toward a series of multiple objects of concern while in the process of making a rational decision. Take note of the fact that the Thinking Trait requires that the individual embraces a condition of moving from singular concept toward multiple options in a “proactive” manner. That is to say in moving forward to a new object of concern the former object of concern is left behind. Picture a person crossing a river on stepping stones, or climbing a rock face using hand hold and foot holds. Once the new position is established the old starting point is left behind.
In the case of the Feeling Trait the libido moves from the singular object of concern toward the multiple objects of concern as it does in the Thinking Trait but with one important exception. This time the individual embraces the condition of the multiple concepts and regards the singular concept as an external condition that it may or may not acquire. The literal meanings are reversed. The Feeling Trait observes the libido flowing toward the person whereas the Thinking Trait views it as moving away from the individual. The Feeling Trait governs the actions of the individual by embracing the multiple pre-existing conditions that the person already has acquired and evaluates the eventualities of incorporating any new concept or concern in light of the changes that might occur.
The Feeling Trait is therefore Reactive in nature as opposed to its counterpart the Thinking Trait which is proactive. The Feeling Trait leads the behaviour toward conservation of the primary concerns (note the plural) while the Thinking Trait leads toward expending the primary concern to analyze and then contemplate the multiple concerns of possibilities that naturally follow as a result of moving along a particular analytical pathway.
When understood under these conditions it is easy to see how the gender bias and the cultural norms and stereotypes disappear. We are still left with the characterizations of Thinking and Feeling; however, at some point in the future these obtuse and somewhat primitive explanations for the differences between the attitudinal Traits of Thinking and Feeling may prove to be more diversified than our current definitions which hold only to a fraction of the behaviours that this attitude represents.
By seeking to psychologically construct the Traits the PTI is looking for those attitudinal preferences that display a marked preference for Singular or Multiple Reasoning. Thinking being the Singular Reasoning Trait on the basis of the fact that the individual’s libido moves away from singularity toward multiplicity and then re-establishes its singularity. And Feeling being the Multiple Reasoning Trait because the individual’s libido moves again from the singular context toward the multiple context but then quickly re-establishes the importance of the multiple context.
This is precisely why the Feeling or Reactive Multiple Reasoning Trait takes more time in reflection than its counterpart Thinking. That is precisely why individuals with the Thinking trait exhibit impatience because they require the movement of their libido away from the singular concept. Their goal is to get started and move forward as soon as possible. That is not to say that they are impulsive but that their impatience gets the better of them if there are too may Multiple Reactives trying to slow things down.