50 pages • 1 hour read
Erikson explores how different types experience anger, and what their triggers may be. He claims that Reds lose their temper the most often and the most easily, but that their episodes usually do not last very long. While Reds do not consider themselves to be angry people, their temperamental displays may make them seem this way to others. Erikson warns Reds that losing their temper makes others keep their distance from them, robbing the Red of valuable interactions and feedback.
Meanwhile, it is more obvious and gradual when a Yellow will become angry, as this expressive type tends to show their emotions in their gestures and tone of voice. While Yellows may become very upset, they tend to feel bad about it later, and usually try to make up for their behavior. This forward-looking type is also quick to forgive and forget.
Greens, on the other hand, have a huge capacity for holding on to repressed anger and resentments. This type often represses their true opinions in order to reduce conflict, but their negative feelings can build over time and may eventually come bursting out. Erikson encourages the reader to make a safe environment for Greens to constructively disagree in order to prevent them from compiling stress and anger for months or years. He writes, “I suspect that this is the reason why Greens suffer burnout. They carry anxiety, anguish, and even anger for so long that it eventually makes them ill” (Location 3084). Similarly, Blues also have a vast capacity for accumulated anger, but tend to let some of their dissatisfaction show from time to time. Since Blues are more comfortable complaining, Erikson argues that they are less prone to massive rages or repression-based burnout. He suggests that the reader observe what makes people angry, and how they express their anger, as another tool to decide which type they are and how to best communicate with them.
All personality types experience stress, but their stressors often differ. For instance, Reds are more likely to be stressed out when they feel left out of decision making and are deprived of authority and control. A lack of interesting challenges, or too much dull routine, can also be stressful for them. Since Reds prize efficiency and productivity, wasting time and failing to achieve good outcomes is also very frustrating for this type. A stressed Red may blame others, become excessively critical, or simply work much harder. To ease their stress they should be encouraged to exercise, preferably in a competitive race or similar activity, to manage their stress in a healthful way.
Yellows feel stressed when they are overlooked, isolated, or confronted with pessimism or negativity. They hate feeling contained by rigid routines and structures, and are easily wounded by criticism. A stressed Yellow may cope with their tension by becoming more delusional, and proposing “wild and outlandish” ideas (Location 3216). They might also become overly attention-seeking and intrusive. Erikson recommends tasking a Yellow with organizing a social function in order to relieve their stress.
Meanwhile, Greens feel disturbed when they are unable to complete tasks, and work in ever-changing, unstable conditions. They are very discouraged when they have to redo their work, or work while in conflict with other people. Green people suffer when they are deprived of privacy and alone time. This personality will de-stress by relaxing, or by doing a fun solo activity like gardening or watching a movie.
Lastly, Blues are stressed by unexpected, spontaneous decisions that depart from their expected plan. Even pleasant surprises can feel disruptive to a Blue person. Asking a Blue to be flexible and work moment-to-moment will likely cause them major distress. Making careless mistakes and taking risks also contribute to Blues’ stress, as does working with very emotional people. Stressed-out Blues may become grumpy and pessimistic, or overly rely on their intellect and critical thinking. Giving a Blue plenty of time and space to complete their tasks will help them regain the structure and privacy they need to do their best work. The author reiterates that by paying attention to what each personality interprets as a stressor, people can avoid unnecessary tension and conflict.
Erikson reflects on how, historically, different cultures have understood the concept of personality. Greek thinker Hippocrates’s notion of “humoral pathology” claimed that people are either “Melancholic,” “Choleric,” “Phlegmatic,” or “Sanguine” (Location 3336). Erikson praises Hippocrates’s outlook on the human body, crediting him for his relatively rational approach in a time when medicine was largely superstitious. He emphasizes that Hippocrates’s four temperaments correspond neatly to the theory of personality described in Surrounded by Idiots.
Erikson explains that the Aztecs, a civilization based in modern-day Mexico, also grouped people into four categories. In their culture these were based on the four elements: Fire, Air, Earth, and Water. He emphasizes the parallels between the DISC method, Hippocrates’s theory, and the Aztecs’ personality groups, claiming they are all “different names for the same thing” (Location 3359).
Erikson explains that, in the early 20th century, William Moulton Marston, an American psychologist, was interested in understanding the emotional and behavioral patterns of healthy people. In an effort to categorize people into broad personality groups, Marston developed the DISC method, an acronym for the following categories: Dominance, Influence, Stability, and Compliance. Later, American Bill Bonnstetter built on Marston’s theories in his work at Target Training International, a company which provides assessments and advice on how to achieve cooperation in the workplace.
In these chapters the author compares people’s capacity to hold onto anger and resentment to different sizes of glasses. Erikson’s analogy helps him illustrate his belief that the most easily angered types do not stay very mad for long, while more cooperative and conflict-avoidant people are able to store resentments for years.
He compares a Red’s temper to a shot glass: It does not take much to fill the glass and cause a spillage, but only a small amount spills out each time. Erikson claims, “A Red’s strength is that when they explode they rid themselves of any anger or irritation they’ve been feeling [...] The shot glass may be quick to reach capacity, but it doesn’t take long to empty it” (Location 3028). Erikson continues this analogy, comparing a Yellow’s capacity for anger to an “everyday drinking glass,” while Green and Blue types have a much larger “fifty-gallon beer barrel” (Location 3068). He claims, “Greens don’t release any anger or frustration but control their emotions so as to not create trouble or stand out” (Location 3076). This dramatic comparison emphasizes Erikson’s belief that the more reserved and cooperative personality types tend to repress negative feelings, and may suffer from their deeply buried feelings of anger and unresolved stress.
Erikson also tries to create connections between the DISC system and historical interpretations of personality. By emphasizing the parallels between Hippocrates’s views and those of Marston’s, Erikson argues for the timelessness and universal nature of the four personality types he has described. He claims, “People have always been like this” (Location 3322). His inclusion of the Aztecs’ understanding of personality serves the same purpose. By presenting the Aztecs’ beliefs in a four-square chart with colors corresponding to each type, Erikson frames this system as another manifestation of the four elemental personality types described by Hippocrates and Marston. He writes, “As you can see, these divisions bear quite a resemblance to the theories propounded by Hippocrates” (Location 3359).
The author may have chosen this approach due to the fact that the DISC system has not been subjected to rigorous scientific testing by modern psychologists, and so Erikson cannot support his claims by referencing specific studies (See: Background). Instead, he tries to lend his theory gravitas by emphasizing its similarity to other historical beliefs. With only two examples of such systems, however, Erikson’s historical argument may not be persuasive for some readers.
Plus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features: