Reply To: Who are you, really? The puzzle of personality | Brian Little

[Juan E. Sandoval]

fayest! 🙂 good to see you.
You're right that "right" or "wrong" are not objective terms, but contextual (system-dependent) terms, and Brian Little may classify as introverted or extroverted depending on the system of measure. The OP was a while ago but I think that was part of my initial point -- to show how it is that, depending on how you parse out traits, you can land anywhere. And the arbitrariness of these parsing differences is certainly problematic.
I also don't I think the Big Five has truly solved this parsing matter, since it establishes consensual adjective clustering among people -- which may or may not have a physical link to the biology of humans - which I hold should be prioritized in the establishment of static or innate typology. Without establishing a good link to some biological origin point, the 5 categories remain at a certain level of emergence only, and can vary with time. Which is fine, but it shouldn't be understood as more than what it is (i.e. not the hallmark of personhood). It's one's behavioral classification within a broadly consensual human language descriptive system. It's like a democratic process for generalizing about human beings, by surveying how humans describe each other. All methods of this variety have instrumental value, but I think they have a natural 'cap' when it comes to making progress regarding the inception of cognition from neural circuitry.

I guess the theory is that your CT type (sorry for the RAS syndrome) stems from your cognition and that can have an affect on your personality and/or temperament? What do you think Auburn?

Oy, tough question!
Some of this is semantics but I'll try my best to give my own brief definitions (I don't know if this aligns with other usages). I would say that personality is the sum total of all factors that go into the constitution of personhood. That would make personality a holistic category which is unspecific in what it describes. I would then have to further divide personality into subcomponents, including (but not limited to):
Personality = Nature x Nurture

• PERSONALITY:
  •  Nature:
    • 1: innate cognition
    • 2: innate physiology
  • Nurture:
    • 1: cognitive development
    • 2: emotional fixations
    • 3: emergent temperament (largely a result of 1 and 2)

On the nature side of things:
Innate cognition can involve things such as: cognitive type, autism, neurodiversity, etc. Innate physiology can involve things like hereditary schizotypal tendencies, hereditary inclinations towards anxiety, depression and aggression. Hormonal profiles, and what that does to personality. These are part of 'nature' from the emotional side of things.
On the nurture side of things:
Cognitive development can involve things like: CT's dev levels, actualizing mental areas involved in spatial coordination, language centers, visual centers, executive centers, etc. These areas can be more or less 'wired', and when not wired, people will have deficiencies. Emotional fixations can involve attachment styles, learned/habitual coping mechanisms, so called personality disorders, traumas and so forth (i.e. enneagram overlap).
Now.. emergent temperament is, to me, some sort of aggregation of all the above things within a specific metric system, collapsing all that complexity into a final value on a set number of behavioral spectra. I typically don't like temperament because it's so face value and it lacks any psychodynamic understanding of cause. But I guess that must be why it's also attractive in many ways to academics, since it's so straightforward.
I don't know if this answers the question, but it's a rough outline of how I parse out the matter. But my understanding is also evolving as I learn more.