9 types of personalities according their culture

To be honest with ourselves we have to recognize this: We love short list articles that simplify everything. And we love much more if is about people. That is the main reason why internet has plenty of articles that are tilted like this one. But sorry folks, this article doesn't have a list, but something much more interesting...Why we love lists about "types of people" and how culture helps us to do that.

Now, If you really really really want to classify people by culture, go ahead, there are plenty of consultant services that sells lies such services, following the scientific method of flipping a coin, and use pre-judgements as theory. Otherwise, be smart and keep reading.

How we understand our world

One of the main functions of culture is to bring us explanations of how the world works. Culture (through socialization) brings us the main frame to understand everything that surrounds us. It is in that way because our brains can't handle the complexity of our world (such theories about we just use 10% of our brains- are false, we use it all, well, not everybody), so culture helps us. Otherwise we should re-invent everything. That is neither clever nor possible. Could you do it?

Just imagine that you are the only survivor of your civilization. Could you bring it back with your actual knowledge? We live surrounded by many things that we don't know where they come from neither how they were made. As nobody is specialist in everything, culture helps to fill the gaps.

Ofcourse that means some difficulties as well. As culture helps us to not think everything again, giving us some pre-constructed scheme, there is a trap of not thinking at all. Pre-built concepts, better known as prejudice, could makes our life hard as rock. Not just limiting our knowledge, but suffering by other's limited knowledge.

Luckily, a dynamic culture could avoid such issues (as scientific culture does), changing those concepts to adapt better to reality, whether is social or material.

Anyway, we simplify everything in order to put it inside our mind. Ofcourse, this applies for people too.

Azimuthal equidistante: Commonly see in UN's flag

Not scientific reasons to put north on top, but political: Australia and New Zealands version, on top and in the middle.

World maps: Literally culture brings us schemes of the world. We are probably used to Mercator world map projection, but there are many. Some are much more accurate to how real world looks like. So, Mercator is one among other cultural possibilities.

Reducing social complexity

With our actual world population (7 billion), humans cannot get to meet eachother very well. Nevertheless our system works (bad, good, but works) and we trust and live with many strangers. There is too much people to be processed by our brains, so culture helps us again, putting them into categories. And sometimes we help to improve them.

For example, some societies tend to classify people by ancestry, linage, totem or family name. That allow us to build a "mental map" to know who is who. It is certainly a pretty common system. Ancient Rome used to divide their populations in 12 tribes to identify their citizens, while in actual european (and others) aristocracy, family name is an important social classificator.

In larger societies, with more complexity, people use several categories as interest groups (religion, political parties, sport teams, etc), place (neighborhood, city, country), skin color, social class. According to that, isn't weird to find a very strict classification social system in India. With huge amount of people, with several languages, ethnics, religions, "caste system" brings certain kind of traversal order to deal with such a complexity.

Horoscope is an old people classification system by day of birth. But, Can we be reduced to just 12 kind of personalities?

It is likely that we try to make our own complexity reduction of people, trying to anticipate their behavior, get to know if someone is trustworthy. Ofcourse we put different levels of stringency and some of those categories could led to prejudice. But we hold them because allow us to deal with complexity and we'd feel disarmed and frightened without such "mental map".

So isn't strange that some sciences, as psychology, tried to sort "types of personality", and magazines and internet has plenty of "personality test" to get to know who you are. Or try to predict if we will like someone by the music they hear. But, Is it really possible classify human complexity into a couple of categories?

It looks like that humankind is much more complex, but we keep trying to reduce it to make it fit into our minds. So, What lesson we take of all of these? Besides that we love to sort people out. We have to keep in mind that when we put the world into categories, we are also doing it with ourselves. We put limits to our actions, trying or pretending to don't look like the others. I think that is enough with categories that others put on us to add some more. If we are going to use them (because are useful) is good not to be too strict, because "Whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt back to you".

Some sources:

R. Rappaport, 1994, Spatial organization

E. Durhkeim and M. Mauss, 1902, Primitive Classification

How to survive in large crowds: Cultural techniques.

It is likely that you live surrounded by thousands of people in a big city, in a country of millions of people. And it is likely as well that you feel used to it, despite just meet a few. Have you ever noticed all they with you share your life whom you don't know?  They that you cross in the streets, on the bus, or they whom you buy. Some of them that you trust despite you don't even know their names as police officers (whom you trust your safety), banks cashiers (whom you trust your money) or restorant chefs (your food and health). It even seen pretty normal. But all these thinks aren't normal, were developed as "social technologies". Which are such techniques? What enables us to live in large crowds?

Models of Human organization evolution.

Let's check out a little about political evolution analysis to solve this questions. By the way, keep in mind that social evolution doesn't mean "better than" or superiority among societies, but changes across the time, new social adaptations or different complexity within a society. In the other hand, politics isn't just political parties and laws. Politics is the way that humans get organized, solve conflicts, and compete and distributed power

Adrian Bejan and Peder Zane have described evolution as a flow. They compare it with other flow models as rivers. Where flows diverge and converge according environment resistance. To left, satellital view of a river, to right full evolution chart.

There are many models that describe and combine several variables (such as knowledge, population, environment, conflict, culture, etc.) because most are synthetic and systemic. They appeal to multiple factors that reinforce each other, but giving priority to one factor or another. But Which one is the most correct? It will depend on every case. One model could be useful to explain the rise of the state in middle Andes, while another will explain segmentary tribes in High Nilo or corporations structure in USA.


To put it extremly simple we are going to use an "hypothetical group" to make these models work. Then this is a travel that will show us many options, not just one way, as a river flow to the present. So please, take a deep breath and try to forget all that things that you considered "obvious" or "normal", because we are going to places where such a things not even existed.

The hypothetical group.

Imagine a 200 people group, which is in an environment, where they get resources to survive (hunting and gathering). If they can't get enough food, they move. Then, they've had good health and nutricion (no- hygienic problems, a lot of exersice, rich diet), and don't need to work to much to survive. They distribute their products through reciprocity (favors exchange). There is neither specialization, nor bosses. Leadership is spontanious, temporary and depend on the task to be done.


But then, something changes: 1) An increase of population: several effects occur. Group's mobility decreases, getting less chances to get resources (Packing group hypothesis); there are more stomachs to feed (demographic pressure). Likewise, there is more people than we can naturally handle (Dunbar number). With too many unfamiliar faces, reciprocity doesn't work and conflict arises with people that we don't know so well. Further, scarce of resources increase competition and conflict.


2)It is time to make a decision. The group could reduce its numbers, could be divided and dispersed or the population pressure could lead to an innovation (Boserup's Theory), as looking for new food sources (Broad-spectrum theory) or agriculture development. Complementary strategies could be done to keep group cohesion: From a point of view that a group is a net of social relationships, someone - in the middle of that social network with access to many people - could articulate the group (weak ties hypothesis). Because more people is able to trust on him, he can managed it, but he must spend time on that. He becomes specialist, becomes leader/manager (Information theory). Other option is sub-divide the group into categories. Could be done by family names, linages or maybe by age groups. They'll try to reduce complexity of social reality into more simple categories. Also they'll set some norms and rules among those sub-groups. Finally they'll tied them by strong alliances (as marriages) between them.

Flowchart mixing different simplified models, the entire chart is fed back to the flow giving more complexity.

3) Dispersion is just a temporary solution if environment is restricted (as valleys among mountains or oasis on desert). Groups will rapidly found  limits to use such strategies, when they face other groups or the limits of productive areas. They'll divide them continuosly until they fulfill the habitat. Then, any group's expansion will mean reduction for another, that leads to conflict. Groups will avoid their full extintion, and losers will move to another place (competitive exclution). But if there is no more place, losers have to chose between go even further - to marginal territories and look for alternative food sources (Board-spectrum and marginal zone theory)- or submit to the other group (Environmental circunscription). In other hand, whether agriculture was developed, people is able to work more to produce a surplus (which is not possible with hunting/fishing system, where you could extinguish you food source working more hours). That surplus could be managed and redistributed by a  leader (Big man/woman), which gains prestige, that could transform into power (practice/agency theory). Or, the surplus could lead into trade among different groups, and traders become key members reaching high status that could transform into power (Communication media theory). Or agriculture may require to develop planner specialists to organize big irrigations works, and those specialist become leaders in the whole society (hidraulic theory). Or sedentarism makes the group vulnerable and a permanent defense has to be organized (external conflict). All of these specializations could lead to stratification. By itself stratification and inequality aren't stable (nobody wants to be beneath someone else) and tends to dispersion. 

4) In order to hold stratification or leadership some factor could suffer some feedback, like that leadership encourage surplus production and surplus strengthens leaders power. But leadership has to last enough to feedback could occurs. That could be achieved through coercive force (internal conflict) or that the whole group receives or perceives benefits from leadership (Management benefits theory), either by redistribution rol, technical knowledge, defensive, comunication management or ideology, as religion. Any kind of actions that bring legitimacy to leadership and even to the use of physical coercion. Whether this point is reached, it is possible that leadership sets some succesion mechanism, which make it more "permanent".


So far, complexity has taken many forms. The more complex societies with the biggest number of people often take shape as Chiefdoms and States. But there is much more complexity  and diversity to understand. Todays world is looking toward more politic integration, mainly because the same factors that we saw here (economics, demographics, conflict, environment, ideology, etc.).  Like many little changes that become bigger across the time, human organization evolves. Are we able to predict the future of human organization? Would you? Write your bet.

Sources:

T. Lewellen , 1994, Introdución a la antropología política

D. Kurtz, 2001 Political Anthropology: Power and paradigms
Lewis and Jurmain, 2012, Understanding Humans: An Introduction to physical anthropology and archeology
B. Trigger, 2003, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study
M. Fried, 1960. On the evolution of social stratificiation and the state
Ferraro, 2009, Cultural anthropology: An Applied Perspective.