Identifying Operating Systems

In an earlier post, I talked about Temperament and Personality Type as Operating Systems. When we are born, in a process unknown to us, our hardware accepts an operating system that will create the lens through which we will then experience the world. In subsequent posts we will explore the vast and often subtle differences between these operating systems but for today I want to simply focus on how we arrive at an understanding of who is operating with what system.

“How do we determine my system?”

Well, there are a lot of tests out there that will be happy to waste an hour of your time and then spit back at you some generalities that sound not unlike the Saturday paper’s horoscope, that you could reasonably argue apply to anyone.

That’s not what we want to do.

Unfortunately, I have not (yet) developed my own instrument for determining type that I am comfortable handing over to someone and confident will yield accurate results. The MBTI is a great instrument, as is the Keirsey Temperament Sorter-II, and if you’re interested in taking the long form paper version, either of those are easily found online. Knock yourself out, and let me know how you score in the comments below.

I use a little different approach and base my observations on a couple different criteria when “typing” someone, that I’d like to share here. This approach is my approach and is based on my understanding of the subject at hand, and admittedly will not work for everyone, especially not without proper context. I hope to teach that to you all later, however, and first wanted to just simply introduce what I believe is the most basic and distilled differences that exist between Types.

Two variables

one having to do with how we communicate with others, and the other with how we function in our surroundings.

The first, is Language.

---

LANGUAGE

In our use of language, we each tend to favor one type of communication over the other; namely, we are more often concrete, or we are abstract.

Concrete Language

Concrete language primarily concerns itself with things as they really exist in the natural, physical, tangible world. They are words that invite the use of your 5 senses. They are generally specific in nature, there are no hidden meanings in their use. A statement like; “I really like the Corvette because it looks great and goes fast” is very specific, very concrete and has nothing to do with anything but the Corvette, its aesthetics and its speed.

If I can see it, hear it, smell it, taste it or touch it, then its a real, tangible thing and my discussion of said thing is typically concrete. Half of all the people you encounter are going to be concrete communicators.

Abstract Language

Abstract language, while sometimes utilizing concrete and specific words, is much more interested in the “things behind the things”. It’s not about the car, its about what the car represents. It’s not about our current political system, its about the ideals that it embodies.

Abstract language is more general, more global. It’s about what it points to, not what it is on the surface, that matters.

Differentiating between these two types of language can be quite difficult at first. After all, we are all speaking English. We are using the same words, and whether you are concrete or abstract, you hear what you want to hear. Consequently, we assume that we are all speaking the same language, with the same intent behind our words.

In the future, we will explore this in some depth, as I believe these language differences are responsible for a significant portion of our interpersonal “communication” breakdowns. So much of where we disagree with each other comes from the almost imperceptible variations of how concrete and abstract people use language to convey meanings.

---

ENVIRONMENT

The next dimension we want to examine is how someone interacts with their environment. There are two options here as well;

Cooperative

A “cooperative” type of person will generally want to know what the rules, expectations and requirements of the environment consist of. they are natural rule follows (though why they follow the rules will vary between the two cooperative types). Generally speaking, cooperative types will be willing to conform to the expectations of others around them and are less likely to “buck the system” or cause a problem.

This includes everything from institutions like school, church, etc. where they will observe the rules, norms and customs. As well as things like friendships, dinner parties, or a public outing to a zoo or a mall. All of these actions in environments carry with them certain expectations, and they will be sure to familiarize themselves with these expectations.

Utilitarian

A “utilitarian” type is much less concerned about the rules, norms and customs for the sake of getting along with everyone in their environments, and is much more focused on their immediate and long term goals. They tend to engage environment with a purpose. Consequently, some rules and expectations of a given environment can become a hurdle to overcome, rather than a sign post to follow. Utilitarians are much more likely to throw out a rule in favor of “what works”, and will often give little thought to the rippling consequences outside of the thing they’re trying to achieve.

Utilitarians are far less likely to go along with something if the only reason it exists is “because this is how it has always been done, and everyone else is doing it”. While a cooperator will give heavy weight to such a consideration, a utilitarian cares very little about that reasoning, and is instead focused on what purpose a rule or norm serves, or perhaps perceived more keenly, what purpose it prevents.

This matrix helps us visualize the break down a little bit better.

So we have the first operating system (1) as a Concrete Cooperator, (2) is a Concrete Utilitarian, (3) is an Abstract Cooperator and (4) in an Abstract Utilitarian.

These types have names given and trademarked by Keirsey (so I will not use them here) and they have corresponding letters as given by Myers and discussed in Part 2 of my introductory posts.

The MBTI letters correspond in this way;

1 = SJ type

2 = SP type

3 = NF type

4 = NT type

I personally don’t use the MBTI letters very often unless I am dealing with someone all ready familiar with them. David Keirsey included them in his work to signal the similarity between his work and that of Myers, but it was rumored that he later regretted doing so. I will be renaming these types entirely in an upcoming post.

SO, here we are for the time being. Every one of us will fit into one of these four boxes.

Now, comments that I usually get at this point are, “well, I sometimes am a cooperator and sometimes I’m a utilitarian, it just depends on the situation”

Yes. That’s true. It’s true the same way that you sometimes use abstract language and other times its concrete.

The point here is, what’s the default? Which are you more prone to most of the time?

To answer this question personally takes a fair amount of personal objectivity, which I’m not sure any one of us are actually capable of. I don’t ask a client if they’re more often abstract or concrete, I ask them questions about their lives, relationships, wants, goals hopes and desires, and then I listen to what they tell me. Is the language specific and largely limited to the subject at hand, or is it more general and does it point to other things not present or tangible? This is what I hope to teach you to do as well!

So, mull it over and let me know what you think in the comments below!