From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The part about temperament being genetic is completely theoretical. Further, it shows a Western bias. (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Temperament - is the early-appearing, stable individiual differences in reactivity and self-regulation. Reactivity refers to variations in quickness and intensity of emotional arousal, attention, and motor action. Self-regulation refers to strategies that modify reactivity (Rothbart, 2004; Rothbart &Bates, 1998).

re "Rudolf Steiner and the four temperaments" section[edit]

If this article is intended to deal with some marginally scientific take on temperament, then Rudy doesn't really belong here. Steiner also wrote about how the Buddha went to Mars to teach the "mars men." Caveat emptor. Clocke 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

cf. Myers-Briggs, suggested below, while we're caveat-ing.Jean Mercer 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition moved from article[edit]

The following unreferenced paragraph was added to the end of the article:

What is temperament and what qualities make up my behavioral style?

Categories of temperament or behavioral style indicate how the individual responds to the environment around him or her, and uses 9 categories to describe these reactions: activity level, regularity, adaptability, approach to novelty, emotional intensity, quality of mood, sensory sensitivity, distractibility and persistence --Niels Ø 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the bulk of this article stems from theories by "Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hertzig and Korn", whereas I am sure there are other aspects of "Temperament" that are not related to those theories. Keirsey and Myers-Briggs for example. Yet there is not even a reference to them from this article. Perhaps it should be replaced with a broader scoped, all-covering text, moving the specific Thomas et al theory to its own page? Lasse Hillerøe Petersen 12:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Oh please let's not have Myers-Briggs, a test without an evidentiary foundation.

I would like to see the entire checklist removed. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that there is any magic about two or more than two discrepancies, and a good deal of evidence that problems associated with temperament may be situational (e.g., crowded home) as well as interpersonal.

I am adding some recent work by Kagan.Jean Mercer 17:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has a substantial evidentiary foundation, based on 50 years of research. But the MBTI was designed to identify personality differences in healthy people, not temperament problems that may indeed be situational. The real validity question about the MBTI is not whether it accurately measures what it purports to measure, in terms of the dichotomies (statistically speaking, it does), but whether putting those dichotomies together to form a catalog of personality types is valid. Proponents argue apples, and critics argue oranges.
At any rate, the MBTI isn't really about temperament, it's about personality types. The closely related Keirsey Temperament Sorter is about temperament, and in fact this article could benefit from the addition of David Keirsey's research into temperament theory from a historical perspective.ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Artistic temperament[edit]

Is that section for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Who turned this article into a child psychology thing with horrible grammar and punctuation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of deleting the section on Artistic temperament, unless someone wants to rewrite it from a scientific perspective. Right now, it's pure silliness. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The Thomas and Chess stuff, which forms the bulk of the article, is solid, and well within the mainstream of psychology. The rest of the stuff is nowhere near that level and doesn't seem to belong here. I could see keeping a bit of the historical stuff about the four humours, moved up to create a sort of historical intro, but not giving it the kind of undue weight that presenting it as essentially an alternative to Thomas and Chess does. I'm new to editing... how do we know when we have consensus to do something bold? Mirafra (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to broaden this article to include a range of theories. I've looked at a number of contemporary reviews and see no sign that Thomas and Chess have been any more successful than their predecessors in evoking consensus. All WP:notable psychological theories that have used temperament should be included; some of these could be in a "history" section if they are no longer commonly used. Still missing: Keirsey, Myers-Briggs. hgilbert (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Since there's no ongoing controversy about this article, be as bold as you like. If someone objects, they're sure to let you know. :) ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes to the opening to re-establish a clear distinction between "temperament" as the innate aspects of personality and "character" as the learned aspects. I think it's important to define temperament in some way—that is, to distinguish it from personality—rather than to leave it wide open. I also think it's important, if temperament is defined as innate, to give a name to those aspects of personality that are not innate. The opening now makes it clear that there's no consensus about the nature of temperament, and no conclusive evidence of a biological basis of personality. So I think that using and defining those terms as I have done is unlikely to cause confusion. Those are the terms that this article uses, even if the larger community doesn't agree on the terms. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1 + 2 = 2[edit]

Temperament is defined as that part of the personality which is genetically based. Along with character, and those aspects acquired through learning, the two together are said to constitute personality. This doesn't make any sense, and yet just replacing the word 'two' with 'three' doesn't seem like much of an improvement. Comments? Dlabtot (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the article history to see how this discrepancy was introduced. Originally, "those aspects acquired through learning" was used an appositive for "character." Someone apparently misunderstood the sentence and added the word "and." I corrected the error.
BTW, it looks like some good information has been edited out of this article. If anyone's interested in going through the history to improve the article, that would be a worthwhile endeavor. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know... I've never heard of "character" as being defined as "those (personality) aspects acquired through learning".... WP's page on moral character doesn't say anything like that... Dlabtot (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm only saying that that's what the original author of the sentence wrote. I'm not saying it's accurate. No source is cited for confirmation. But the quotation from Martin Luther King Jr. at Moral character does suggest that it is learned—the product of education. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the best books on a particular temperament is Elaine Aron's The Highly Sensitive Person. (1996) Broadway Books. The book is very useful, for people with this body/personality type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Big 5[edit]

Given this article I would suggest linking to it in this article where it is mentioned. I'd do that myself, but the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)