The Fisher Temperament Inventory

I thought you would max out the Dictator Director trait. :p :tongueclosed: Hmm... How do you use your builder trait if you don't mind explaining? That is almost maxed out too. Just curious.
Honestly, I don't really know.

I guess that is a reflection of how I am in social situations: polite.
 
Yeah, you were right.

100% director.
95% builder.

Making me a Director/Builder, meaning that I am dominant in testosterone and secondarily dominant in seratonin.


Those are high percentages. A director and builder combination describes the Pin you present on the forum.


@Freaky Chameleon - How interesting. Was this system effective for dating?
 
I took a quiz somewhere else and got this:

sSMWFcR.png


I wish "low energy" was a type. XD It was actually difficult to answer a lot of the questions with anything other than "fuck it, I don't know" or "it depends, obviously" also.

Having taken the other quiz it was similar. Really even results, nothing too high (all around 50), slight edge for director.
 
Last edited:
How interesting. Was this system effective for dating?

Sorry but no it wasn't. The Chemistry.com web site displayed everyone's Fisher temperament on their profile page. I guess with the idea that people would match themselves up according to the temperament theory. But finding a compatible mate is a whole lot more complicated than just 4 categories. And the Fisher temperaments just proved to be a distraction. Think about it, everyone actually has all 4 temperaments within them. The test results show exactly that and everyone has them at different strengths too. So how the 4 temperaments blend together along with all the other qualities that everyone has is what makes us unique.

But what I did do with the new information is go back and read descriptions of how INTJs relate to the SO. I found out that INTJs are the complete opposite of the Negotiator temperament when relating to the SO. So I added better descriptions of myself to my profile like that I'm romantic and that I like to have deep conversations. That's all I kind of knew about my INFJ traits at the time. It's really hard to see yourself when INTJ traits fit in every other part of my life. I hope this time around things will be different. At least my profile will be very different and a much more accurate description of myself. We'll see.
 
I broke the test. :grin:

Your score on the Explorer scale is 24 out of a possible 42, or 57%.
Your score on the Builder scale is 21 out of a possible 42, or 50%.
Your score on the Director scale is 35 out of a possible 42, or 83%.
Your score on the Negotiator scale is 35 out of a possible 42, or 83%.
You have a tie between Director + Negotiator!

Director-Negotiator.


On a first glance, the fisher temperament seems to map nicely onto keirsey's temperaments, no? Explorer = SP, Builder = SJ, Director = NT and Negotiator is NF.
 
Your score on the Explorer scale is 36 out of a possible 42, or 86%.
Your score on the Builder scale is 10 out of a possible 42, or 24%.
Your score on the Director scale is 22 out of a possible 42, or 52%.
Your score on the Negotiator scale is 38 out of a possible 42, or 90%.

Your Primary personality Type is Negotiator.

Attracted to my opposite? Absolute poppycock.

And when it comes to a drink, an estrogen and oxytocin spritzer with a dopamine chaser is the business.

I wonder if that’s why back in the day I loved phenethylamines that led to energized starry-eyed cuddling. :P

Cheers,
Ian
 
Last edited:
That's why I do that: paywalls are articles disappear from the web.


This personality indicator is interesting, but so far it seems too simplistic. I'm trying not to have a knee-jerk reaction about personalities being sculpted by surges of hormones when we're in the womb. (I can't even find where I read that is how it works to quote it right now, but I just got up and coffee hasn't zapped me yet.) I had a similar aversion to MBTI when I first encountered it because I kept getting INFJ when I wanted to be an ISFP because it suited my chosen path better, so I accept that what we want isn't how it is. Haha. Testosterone and Estrogen based personalities also reinforce traditional gender roles and that causes me to be skeptical, too, both due to personal experience and from observing others. I do accept and like the idea that many physical factors –hormones during development, brain development and dominant functions, etc – go into building our personalities and it makes sense that chemicals could play a part.

While the test seems to indicate the chemicals present during development are what shapes us, it does cause me to wonder how personalities change with chemical/hormonal fluctuations during life. (–More than we are already aware of, I mean.)

I think perhaps I can clear some things up for you. The test is simplistic, but the bulk of the research done that Helen Fischer based her personality types on is standard well documented research the fields of affective neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and anthropology. Now, of course all scientific knowledge is provisional is therefore subject to change and revision as we gain more data, but at this point we know that personality is genetically and environmentally determined to varying degrees, with the strictest estimates being personality is 30% hereditary and looser estimates being 60%, either way these estimates leave much to be desired in explaining why people have the personalities they do. Yet do not conflate personality with temperament. Temperament is what is determined by genetics and the prenatal environment. Personality is the result of a self-organizing process between one's temperament and their developmental environments. I'm going to avoid talking about gender roles and instead focus on some facts about testosterone and estrogen from the vantage point of behavioral genetics and animal evolution. We know that when you increase testosterone in mice, rats, cats, dogs, chimpanzees, and humans their behavior and attitudes change and the same has been observed in hormonal treatment of trans individual, testosterone seems to increase libido, increases object oriented and spatial thinking, and a willingness to be aggressive and compete for status. Because hormones exist across all mammals and many other animals, they have a long interrelated evolutionary history with animal emotions that we don't understand well but does reveal that testosterone is agonistic with other neurotransmitters and hormones, specifically dopamine and norepinephrine which are involved in motor function, reward, goal pursuit, risk taking, and the fight or flight response as well as agonistic or is suppressed by estrogen, progesterone, and oxytocin. We can observe this kind of relationship between estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone in the production of these sex hormones by female ovaries and male testicles as the ovaries produce estrogen, progesterone, and small amounts of testosterone while testicles produce testosterone and synthesizes small amounts of estrogen and progesterone. One might ask, why might this hormonal relationship have evolved across a wide number of mammals including human beings, and the answer just might come down to female members of most mammalian species put greater investment of rearing offspring across mammalian evolutionary history while male members of most mammalian species put greater investment in competing against one another across mammalian evolution and when you look out in nature this pattern tends to hold with most mammals, though there are quite a few exceptions, they're not what's typical. Now, when it comes to primates, hominids, and specifically human beings the story seems to be no different, because women have ovaries, can become pregnant, and have to rear an infant their psychology differs from male psychology, not in all ways, not so much that men and women do not have much in common, but enough for human males and females to serve differing functions in human natural and sexual selection which is why men have more testosterone present in their bodies than women on average about 20 times more, because before there was modernity there was an evolving humanity and this is where Helen Fischer's personality models comes from. These physiological realties will have noticeable effects on psychology, attitude, and behavior. gender norms or no gender norms, social roles or no social roles, because we're not only social cultural animals. However, I think when looking at Fischer's personality scheme that it's best to think of her personality types as possible variants on each MBTI type as its more appropriate to be seen as temperamental realties than explicitly personality ones, because human beings likely only have personality as we're cultural, historical, social animals where most other animals just have a temperament as temperament is more general and basic than personality and is more affectual in its orientation rather than identity oriented, because other animals likely don't have egos and have to fit into a culture like human beings. For instance, dogs and differing dog breeds have differing cluster of temperamental variances, but dogs don't seem to have awareness of their temperamental dispositions and have less diversity in their temperamental realities than humans who literally may evolved to have personalities where dogs have other evolutionary niches like coats, claws, and fangs. There is much variation in human beings, but there is typicality as well, what you may not observe in your observations of 20 people is far more obvious in a sample of 100,000. Now, Certain aspects of personality change overtime and others do not and much what changes overtime with a personality is based on occupation and lifestyle, what you do and how you live consistently, but it's very difficult to change certain things about personality like you can't make yourself less neurotic without a lot of intervention and you will never be the least neurotic person in the world. From a big five standpoint in western European societies including America and Canda, people become more conscientious and agreeable as they age likely due to the demands of existing in western society, changes in hormones, and participating in capitalistic a marketplace. To your point, there is still much the scientific community is not aware of, or did you mean personally not aware of as in each individual?
 
I think perhaps I can clear some things up for you. The test is simplistic, but the bulk of the research done that Helen Fischer based her personality types on is standard well documented research the fields of affective neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and anthropology. Now, of course all scientific knowledge is provisional is therefore subject to change and revision as we gain more data, but at this point we know that personality is genetically and environmentally determined to varying degrees, with the strictest estimates being personality is 30% hereditary and looser estimates being 60%, either way these estimates leave much to be desired in explaining why people have the personalities they do. Yet do not conflate personality with temperament. Temperament is what is determined by genetics and the prenatal environment. Personality is the result of a self-organizing process between one's temperament and their developmental environments. I'm going to avoid talking about gender roles and instead focus on some facts about testosterone and estrogen from the vantage point of behavioral genetics and animal evolution. We know that when you increase testosterone in mice, rats, cats, dogs, chimpanzees, and humans their behavior and attitudes change and the same has been observed in hormonal treatment of trans individual, testosterone seems to increase libido, increases object oriented and spatial thinking, and a willingness to be aggressive and compete for status. Because hormones exist across all mammals and many other animals, they have a long interrelated evolutionary history with animal emotions that we don't understand well but does reveal that testosterone is agonistic with other neurotransmitters and hormones, specifically dopamine and norepinephrine which are involved in motor function, reward, goal pursuit, risk taking, and the fight or flight response as well as agonistic or is suppressed by estrogen, progesterone, and oxytocin. We can observe this kind of relationship between estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone in the production of these sex hormones by female ovaries and male testicles as the ovaries produce estrogen, progesterone, and small amounts of testosterone while testicles produce testosterone and synthesizes small amounts of estrogen and progesterone. One might ask, why might this hormonal relationship have evolved across a wide number of mammals including human beings, and the answer just might come down to female members of most mammalian species put greater investment of rearing offspring across mammalian evolutionary history while male members of most mammalian species put greater investment in competing against one another across mammalian evolution and when you look out in nature this pattern tends to hold with most mammals, though there are quite a few exceptions, they're not what's typical. Now, when it comes to primates, hominids, and specifically human beings the story seems to be no different, because women have ovaries, can become pregnant, and have to rear an infant their psychology differs from male psychology, not in all ways, not so much that men and women do not have much in common, but enough for human males and females to serve differing functions in human natural and sexual selection which is why men have more testosterone present in their bodies than women on average about 20 times more, because before there was modernity there was an evolving humanity and this is where Helen Fischer's personality models comes from. These physiological realties will have noticeable effects on psychology, attitude, and behavior. gender norms or no gender norms, social roles or no social roles, because we're not only social cultural animals. However, I think when looking at Fischer's personality scheme that it's best to think of her personality types as possible variants on each MBTI type as its more appropriate to be seen as temperamental realties than explicitly personality ones, because human beings likely only have personality as we're cultural, historical, social animals where most other animals just have a temperament as temperament is more general and basic than personality and is more affectual in its orientation rather than identity oriented, because other animals likely don't have egos and have to fit into a culture like human beings. For instance, dogs and differing dog breeds have differing cluster of temperamental variances, but dogs don't seem to have awareness of their temperamental dispositions and have less diversity in their temperamental realities than humans who literally may evolved to have personalities where dogs have other evolutionary niches like coats, claws, and fangs. There is much variation in human beings, but there is typicality as well, what you may not observe in your observations of 20 people is far more obvious in a sample of 100,000. Now, Certain aspects of personality change overtime and others do not and much what changes overtime with a personality is based on occupation and lifestyle, what you do and how you live consistently, but it's very difficult to change certain things about personality like you can't make yourself less neurotic without a lot of intervention and you will never be the least neurotic person in the world. From a big five standpoint in western European societies including America and Canda, people become more conscientious and agreeable as they age likely due to the demands of existing in western society, changes in hormones, and participating in capitalistic a marketplace. To your point, there is still much the scientific community is not aware of, or did you mean personally not aware of as in each individual?


Where to begin? Not to be rude, but there is so much 1. basic info 2. bias 3. assumption in this paragraph that I don't know where to start. It is really hard to read without properly sectioning the information into paragraphs (plus blocks of text cause people's interest to wane). You're probably on your phone, though.

Every adult should have a basic understanding of how hormones work and what traits are associated with them. Please don't assume that I don't know basic reproductive biology because I don't think human temperaments can be sectioned off into <sarcasm>boy/girl</sarcasm>.

These physiological realties will have noticeable effects on psychology, attitude, and behavior. gender norms or no gender norms, social roles or no social roles, because we're not only social cultural animals.

– I disagree.


You make a lot of assumptions about other species I also disagree with.


From a big five standpoint in western European societies including America and Canda, people become more conscientious and agreeable as they age likely due to the demands of existing in western society, changes in hormones, and participating in capitalistic a marketplace. To your point, there is still much the scientific community is not aware of, or did you mean personally not aware of as in each individual?

I don't think this happens because of the demands of living in "western society," or changing hormones, or participating in the capitalist marketplace. Growing more conscientious is not exclusive to those who live in western society nor those who live in capitalist societies. Life experience likely plays a bigger role than hormones. There is also no guarantee people will grow more conscientious as they age. Yes, it happens to a percentage of the global population, but not to everyone. People also grow closed-off and bitter as they age, often due to experiences.
 
Where to begin? Not to be rude, but there is so much 1. basic info 2. bias 3. assumption in this paragraph that I don't know where to start. It is really hard to read without properly sectioning the information into paragraphs (plus blocks of text cause people's interest to wane). You're probably on your phone, though.

Every adult should have a basic understanding of how hormones work and what traits are associated with them. Please don't assume that I don't know basic reproductive biology because I don't think human temperaments can be sectioned off into <sarcasm>boy/girl</sarcasm>.



– I disagree.


You make a lot of assumptions about other species I also disagree with.




I don't think this happens because of the demands of living in "western society," or changing hormones, or participating in the capitalist marketplace. Growing more conscientious is not exclusive to those who live in western society nor those who live in capitalist societies. Life experience likely plays a bigger role than hormones. There is also no guarantee people will grow more conscientious as they age. Yes, it happens to a percentage of the global population, but not to everyone. People also grow closed-off and bitter as they age, often due to experiences.

I see, well I find even though information might be basic in certain ways that often when I'm speaking in the real time, I have to explain to them exactly why I'm concluding certain things and what is my evidence for such claims. Well, I might be biased about certain things, but that doesn't mean I'm inaccurate or incorrect about what I do state. There are assumptions in any person's thinking, human reasoning is not infallible nor is logic without assumptions or reason without intuition, so I feel like you're gunning after a white whale. Also, I was on my cell phone.

Okay, what are the assumptions I make about other species that you disagree with and why do you disagree?

I'm not assuming you don't know certain things. I'm trying to present my evidence for why I come to certain conclusions and reason about things in the way that I do, because if I wrote, "you should you think Helen Fischer's work is credible, cause science and that you shouldn't assume her personality theory is like MBTI, because I said so" you'd think I was a jerk who didn't know what he was talking about especially someone already made a case for her personality model fitting the Keirsey quadrants, so I couldn't be like. "Yo, here's my theory with no evidence" when it's contrarian to other well thought out opinions.

I see, I've only known of the study featured in the Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology vol. 85, and that was conducted in the US, so I assumed that this had something to do with the data, but I don't know more studies about personality changes across people's lifetime than this one. I agree that a certain amount of people become bitter and closed off as they age, but you must then agree that we're not disposed to processes our experiences the same way and as there are many reasons for this being true, hormones are an important part of this reality as they form the basis of emotions for any animal that's been observed to have emotions or things analogous to emotions.
 
Back
Top