Ever since the inception of science, scientists have
been trying hard to classify and fit everything and everyone from plants and animals to
humans into distinct categories. For instance, the Greek physician and
philosopher Galen based his four different types of personality on a person’s “humor,”
which could be classified as either black or yellow bile, as blood, or as
phlegm, while each category would be equipped and charged with specific
criteria and personality characteristics.
The Big Five personality traits aside, the division of
human personality into four distinct elements – earth, water, air and fire - has
also been practiced by the field of astrology, yet it was refreshing for me to
see that biological anthropologist / evolutionary psychologist Helen Fisher in
her analysis broke down humans into four distinct categories based on
differences in their brain chemistry.
I learnt about this classification when attending her
lecture in Vancouver on attraction and human relationships, a topic that Helen
Fisher knows best and most about due to her extensive research in the field. Yet
in order to find out who could be matched with whom (keep in mind that Helen Fisher
has also been involved in the creation of match.com and chemistry.com), it is
important to first know where oneself exactly stands on a specific spectrum of
personality.
As she was talking about the different types of brain systems with
both their positive and negative aspects and connotations and as she was giving
famous real-life examples of each one of them, I could not help but mentally position
myself into two distinct groups.
In fact, it turned out that I was correct in my
self-analysis as we were given a free test to gauge our very own brain system.
Although I am unfortunately not able to make that gift to you, I can at best give
you a summary of each of the systems so that you may self-classify yourself
along the given spectrum.
If interested, by all means do opt for the full test
that Helen Fisher offers, which would come with relatively detailed
explanations and charts; in fact, it is not unlike the astrology charts offered
by astrologers except that her account is more embraced, accepted and backed up
by science.
As a rule, there are four different brain systems
based on individual variations and fluctuations in levels of dopamine,
serotonin, testosterone, and estrogen. Although some may immediately assume
that men will have higher testosterone levels and that women would thrive on
estrogen, this is not necessarily the case. Brain chemistry levels can
certainly be triggered and influenced by one’s gender, but there are various
other factors that could come into play when dealing with the brain and one’s
personality, such as genetic predisposition, upbringing, and culture.
In fact, when I heard the characteristics, I
immediately knew that I was not going to fare well in the testosterone
department, and indeed, I did not. But overall and in most cases, there would
be two predominant traits among each of us, and they would set, define and / or
favor a certain personality type.
Now let us look at each level on its own merits and
drawbacks. To start off, we have the dopamine type of personality. These are
usually explorers; they like to take risks, and they are rather curious. They
are the ones who end up making the most amount of money but are at the same
time capable of losing the most amount of money as well. This may be due to
their impulsive and optimistic nature, but they are generally enthusiastic and
generous people. They also tend to generate more ideas. In Helen Fisher’s
words, they tend to vote for Democrats in the United States.
Yet dopamine explorers can have the following negative
traits. They are easily bored and can become reckless. Their drive can keep
them motivated and keep them on their toes, but it can also make them manic and,
in some cases, even insincere. If you think, that all this makes it sound like
an entrepreneur type of person, look no further than entrepreneur and venture
capitalist and co-founder of PayPal Peter Thiel, who was held up as an example
of such a type of person alongside journalist, feminist and political activist Gloria
Steinem.
Then there are the serotonin builders. They tend to be
the pillars of society. They are generally traditional and cautious in their
outlook and approach to life. They are often modest, calm, and self-controlled,
and they like to plan and schedule ahead. They are certainly not averse to
routines, but at the same times they are precise, detail-oriented (they are
generally very good with numbers and figures) and persistent. By the looks of
it, it sounds like they would make good accountants as well as computer
scientists.
Due to their traditional nature, they also tend to be
religious as well as dutiful, respectful, and loyal. They are not
revolutionaries but like to follow the rules and the established law. Indeed,
they respect authority and do not like breaking rules or guidelines. At the
same time, they are not fearful and can be stoic when facing dangers, obstacles,
and difficulties.
On the negative side, they might end up being
close-minded and rigid in their set and pre-established views, and they would also
tend to be controlling. Two of the famous examples are current American
Vice-President Mike Pence and Queen Elizabeth II. It may seem rather odd to
have both of them in the same category, yet at the same time, it seems to make
perfect sense.
The next brain chemistry category is the
testosterone-driven director. They are analytical and logical, but also
ambitious and competitive. They tend to be independent and self-disciplined,
but they are also inventive. They are, for better or worse, emotionally
contained and can also be skeptical of others. They are the ones, according to
Helen Fisher, who would say the following to their spouses: Do I love you? I
said, I love you last month, and nothing has changed since then, so why ask me
the same question all over again?
Their negative traits reveal themselves in their
impatient, exacting and demanding attitude towards others. In fact, when
testosterone levels go up, empathy levels tend to decrease as well. This is also
why men tend to be less emotional and empathetic compared to women.
But think about it, Helen Fisher told us. Men’s task
and job was in fact not to be emotional and caring throughout evolution. Our
ancestors would not have been able to kill animals for food had they been overly
empathetic towards their prey. However, they also tend to be fair and that is
an essential positive character trait they are endowed with. Famous examples
include, not too surprisingly, Steve Jobs as well as Hillary Clinton.
Last but not least, there is the estrogen negotiator.
They tend to be holistic and engage in what is referred to as web thinking
(Helen Fisher stated that she used the term before the advent of the Internet).
They are also imaginative and mentally flexible and can tolerate ambiguity.
Moreover, they are intuitive, introspective, nurturing,
and empathetic, and they are good at reading faces and body posture. They are
emotionally expressive as well as diplomatic and have strong people skills. In
fact, they tend to be trusting and seek meaning and harmony in everything they
do.
Conversely, they can also be scattered and indecisive.
They could harbor negative feelings and ruminate about what you said or did
five years ago. They can be hypersensitive (I would not be surprised if most or
all Highly Sensitive Persons or empaths would fall into this category) and they
tend to overthink things and could also be gullible due to their sensitive and
trusting nature.
Famous examples include Oprah Winfrey, who seems to be
the embodiment of almost all of the above traits as well as Charles Darwin who
astonishingly managed to connect and encompass the whole of humanity and human
history with his theory of evolution. In fact, Darwin was also high in dopamine
adding the element of curiosity with the drive for exploration.
Finally, Helen Fisher quipped that many say that there
has never been a female president in the history of the United States, but this
may not be entirely true. There was indeed Bill Clinton with his soft face who
scored high on most of what is traditionally designated as feminine traits and
characteristics.
There you have the four brain systems by Helen Fisher!
Should you take everything at face value? It is grounded in science, but one
should still take it all with a proverbial grain of salt. But at the same time,
I find it most interesting to combine neuroscience with personality traits.
It may not be perfect as of yet, but there could be
more precise and more accurate measurements and predictions in the future, and
ones that do not solely rely on self-survey questions but that would combine
quantifiable information of brain chemistry alongside genetic codes and signposts.
Does this sound scary? Would we be better off because
of it? Hard to say for now, but I would highly recommend ways and attempts of understanding
oneself and others better, and this brain system is most interesting and
promising in those aspects, and more.
8 comments:
Surely its sole claim to be scientific is her reference to measurable chemicals in the body, as opposed to the speculative humours & “star signs” of old.
Has she done thousands of tests and correlations between her theories and the actual measurements of those chemicals?
Is she implying that the “personality traits” and measurements are pretty much constant for a given person?
The remarks about Queen Elizabeth are absurd. How can you or she know who she really is? She keeps her public and private life so separate that it is not possible for outsiders to make the claims mentioned in your piece.
I took a few minutes to take the questionnaire. It was hard to make sense of them, so as to know which answer to choose. But I’m pretty sure that I would have answered differently in earlier years, if not on different days.
And if proper research did establish a correlation with the aforementioned chemicals and measurable personality traits (which I’m certain this questionnaire couldn’t do), then it still doesn’t say anything useful, in my humble view.
For it does not show that the chemicals cause the behaviour. Possibly the life-experience and inherited traits cause the proportion of chemicals.
What really is Helen Fisher’s agenda? Is she suggesting that injections of the chemicals can turn us into a different kind of person?
Thanks for your comments, Vincent, and I shall try to answer your questions and concerns to the best of my abilities ; )
"Surely its sole claim to be scientific is her reference to measurable chemicals in the body, as opposed to the speculative humours & “star signs” of old."
Yes, what else could there be?
"Has she done thousands of tests and correlations between her theories and the actual measurements of those chemicals?"
Yes, she has. She has done myriads of brain scans alongside countless surveys.
"The remarks about Queen Elizabeth are absurd. How can you or she know who she really is?"
Actually, they are not at all absurd. A trained psychologist whose worth their salt can tell a whole lot about a person through their communication, word choice as well as gestures and body language.
"But I’m pretty sure that I would have answered differently in earlier years, if not on different days."
Yes, absolutely. We all change, but there is still a core identity that will have remained similar, if not the same.
"And if proper research did establish a correlation with the aforementioned chemicals and measurable personality traits (which I’m certain this questionnaire couldn’t do), then it still doesn’t say anything useful, in my humble view."
I cannot comment on that as it is a matter of opinion / viewpoint.
"What really is Helen Fisher’s agenda? Is she suggesting that injections of the chemicals can turn us into a different kind of person?"
I doubt she has an agenda, but she would be the only one who could answer that question more accurately. There was never any mention of injections and that seems to be a concern of yours, valid, but again not part of the talk she gave us.
Thanks Arash for taking such trouble to respond point by point.
You missed out one of my points though. It's the most important and I wish I'd just said these words & left out the rest:
"For it does not show that the chemicals cause the behaviour. Possibly the life-experience and inherited traits cause the proportion of chemicals."
---just as everyone knows that emotions affect our bodies, often giving visible evidence. Knowing the chemicals involved doesn't tell us more about the person, though it can and does assist in the development of pharmaceuticals. Which are not a concern of mine. I'm dependent on daily drugs to stay alive.
She may have done myriads of brain scans or whatever but obviously not of the famous "examples" she quotes. The moment she does that, she’s being unscientific like an astrologist.
I'm not trying to win an argument, just stating impressions.
I mean the moment she starts classifying people without testing their chemicals, it's just guessing according to the system she's devised, thus devoid of significance.
Sorry, Vincent, I must confess that I intentionally chose NOT to answer that particular issue. Why? Because no one has the answer to it, and it goes back to the age-old question of the chicken and the egg!
Is the theory unscientific? I don't know, but I would think not, as she is working within the parameters of science (whatever that means or signifies).
Is astrology untrue? I would say not, but then again, I'm not a scientist myself ; )
But I like science that dares to dream and is not narrow-minded, and that is why I appreciate and respect what she represents and what she has done here. The rest is not silence but may be up for interpretation.
Thanks for being so gracious, & taking the time to answer my persistent quibbles! I'll try to behave better.
Thank you, Vincent, for keeping me on my toes and for spotting logical inconsistencies, fallacies and the occasional typo ; )
You have indeed graced this blog with your wonderful and insightful thoughts and comments for almost a decade now: Thank you for that, and please keep them coming!
(And please, DON'T behave ; )
Dear Arash, I completely take back my defensive objection to your remarks about "our" Queen, after watching "The Crown" on Netflix. Have you been watching it? Even taking account the portrayal in exaggerated caricatures. How much damage she has done, with her stiffness and false priorities, especially on Charles & Diana's official visit to Australia, when she insisted on taking baby William along, and never wanting him out of her sight.
But as the Crown also shows, the damage caused by the Queen to her own family is nothing compared with the disastrous premiership of Margaret Thatcher. I'm shocked that I voted for her, three times.
Just wanted to set the record straight ...
Post a Comment