What a lovely almost onomatopoeic word. WC mentions it today:
"Now, Mr. Bumble was a fat man, and a choleric"

I believe it comes from Latin cholericus, from greek cholerikos, which refer to the illness chlera ( described as such by Hippocrates) but also later acquired the meaning— bilious ‘complexion’, or temperament; bilious. But the stem 'chole-' also is widely used in relation to bile, whose bitter taste gives rise to the term 'choleric temperament'. This was one of the four humours described by the ancient Greeks, reflected in human personality and demeanour. We still talk of cholangitis, an iflammation of the bile ducts, and cholangiography, the x-ray technique for showing the bile ducts and gall bladder.
Do you agree it's a pity the adjective choleric does not have a wider currency?

Pearce

Years ago I read a book about the 4 temperaments . . .
choleric, phlegmatic, sanguine, melancholic

several books

I hear "choleric" used in this sense all the time.

quote:

I hear "choleric" used in this sense all the time.

You must mix in more elevated, eloquent circles than I do. Well done. This table may be of interest:

Four Humours— circa 400BC
HUMOUR
(Hippocrates)
blood
yellow bile
phlegm
black bile

QUALITIES
hot and moist
hot and dry
cold and moist
cold and dry

ELEMENT
air
fire
water
earth

TEMPERAMENT
(Galen)
sanguine
"choleric"
phlegmatic
melancholic
ASPECTS OF TEMPERAMENT
courageous, hopeful, amorous
easily angered, bad tempered
calm, unemotional
despondent, depressed, irritable


Pearce

When and how did 'humour' evolve from the meaning pearce notes (blood, yellow bile, phlegm or black bile) to its present meaning of "jokes and witticisms"?

quote:

We still talk of cholangitis, an iflammation of the bile ducts, and cholangiography, the x-ray technique for showing the bile ducts and gall bladder.

I used to tell students that I "love the liver." Some of those words are so fun because it is so easy to figure out what they mean, such as choledocholithotomy, choledochoduodenostomy, cholelithotripsy or choledochoplasty. The same goes for the signs and symptoms of liver disease. If students completely understand the physiology of the liver, they will understand each and every symptom of liver disease. It's just so logical. It's no wonder that I love the liver.

I don't think I run in elevated circles, just some where we try to understand people better. The four temperaments have helped me understand my sister much better than I could have otherwise. We are so very different. I am sanguine, she is choleric. We are both rather outgoing, but she is non-emotional and I am very emotional. :-)

The temperament descriptions above should be expanded a bit. Pearce, those of us in the melancholy category sound hopeless! We're also considered deep and thoughtful, analytical, serious and purposeful, genius prone (my personal favorite ), talented, creative, artistic, philosophical and poetic, appreciative of beauty, sensitive to others, self-sacrificing, conscientious, and idealistic. A good source of info is here. The four humours are a precursor to the Jung-Myers-Briggs typology, which is becoming more and more frequently used by businesses for their employees.

quote:

Originally posted by shufitz:
When and how did 'humour' evolve from the meaning pearce notes

According to OED the original meaning in ancient and mediæval physiology, was of the four chief fluids (cardinal humours) of the body.This usage persisted long after the 14th c. e.g. c1380 WYCLIF Serm. Sel. Wks. II. 169 "Blood is moost kyndely umour, answeringe to e love of God, re oere umors in man answeren to ree oer loves."
It appears (copied from OED again) in the sense: oddity, jocularity, facetiousness, comicality, fun—in the 17th century, e.g.
1682 " The Cup was so closed, that 'twas a difficult matter for us to open it, and therefore the General gave it us on purpose, to divert himself with the humour of it."
And, in 1709 SHAFTESBURY's "Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour."
And, many thereafter. So the two separate uses overlapped for many years.
Pearce

quote:

The four humours are a precursor to the Jung-Myers-Briggs typology, which is becoming more and more frequently used by businesses for their employees.

I need to be convinced about those "typologies." I know that many believe in the Myers-Briggs (including Richard), but I just don't. I see portions of all the types in myself, and I don't see myself as any particular one type. I feel the same about others' typologies. While the Myers-Briggs researchers have done many reliability tests, how do you obtain the validity of them? It really isn't possible. There'd have to be a comparison of actual types with the results of the Myers-Briggs. How do you obtain actual types?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

There are many different classifications of people and they all have their advantages and disadvantages. None is perfect but all are useful tools. It is wrong to condemn a psychometric instrument simply because its utility is limited; use it for what it can do and don't expect it to do everything. To say that a psychometric tool is useless (as some do) simply because it doesn't measure this aspect or that aspect, or that its measurements are not sufficiently detailed or accurate is as unfair as complaining that a surveyors' tape is no goo because you can't use it to measure the thickness of a piece of paper.

So far as the terminology is concerned, I agree that this can sometimes be obscure and I think there is often a good case to be made for using the old Greek classifications, even though they are based on false medicine. For example, which gives the better mental image: a sanguine person or a stable extrovert? A melancholic person or an unstable introvert?

First, Richard, I merely said that I don't believe in psychologic tests like the Myers-Briggs. I did not say they aren't any good. Big difference.

Second, clearly many measurements, such as measuring the thickness of something, can be reliably done. To me, personality types aren't measureable. They may be to others, and then good luck with their using them. I just wouldn't ever use them.

quote:

First, Richard, I merely said that I don't believe in psychologic tests like the Myers-Briggs. I did not say they aren't any good. Big difference.

If you believe the the tests are good, then how can you not believe in them?

I am with Kalleh. Of course there are psychometric tests, and of course they have a limited value as RE indicates. But, they are subject to many unpredictable variables during the process of testing, some of which a prospective candidate for a job can discern. He/She may accordingly modify their answers.
I would rely on my gut feelings at an interview, any time. though we vary a good deal in ability to pick good eggs and bad. (What an awful mixed metaphor!)
Pearce

He/She may accordingly modify their answers.

Yes, the first time that Timothy Leary was arrested, the police had him take a psychological test to determine his escape risk potential. He had helped design the test at Harvard, and of course answered in such a way that he was held in a minimum security jail before trial.

Of course. Any tool may be misused. That doesn't automatically make it a bad tool, just a tool that is capable of misuse.

In the same way the we take precautions against injuring ourselves and others with power tools, we need to take precautions aginst the possible misuse of psychometric tests.

Of course, many users don't understand the risks and, like the misusers of any tool, can give such tests a bad name through their misuse.

quote:

I would rely on my gut feelings at an interview

Gut feeling is a useful part of the selection process but it (like psychometric tests) can be overused and have too much reliance placed upon it.

Much research has been done on the selection process and it has been found that many of those who rely on "gut feelings" make their minds up about a candidate in just a few minutes and then spend the rest of the interview using questions that will confirm that first, often emotive, impression.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
[QUOTE]
Much research has been done on the selection process and it has been found that many of those who rely on "gut feelings" make their minds up about a candidate in just a few minutes and then spend the rest of the interview using questions that will confirm that first, often emotive, impression.

Yes, and those that rely on psychometric tests in making appointments may spend the next several years regretting that they did not give some credence to their gut feelings.

I can't just rely on gut feelings because I like everyone. I've had to learn how to ask good questions and so forth. Blah.

quote:

Originally posted by shufitz:
When and how did 'humour' evolve from the meaning pearce notes (blood, yellow bile, phlegm or black bile) to its present meaning of "jokes and witticisms"?

When someone mentions the term, "sense of humo(u)r," I always state, "Which one? Mine's black bile." A few understand, but most are nonplussed.

quote:

Gut feeling is a useful part of the selection process but it (like psychometric tests) can be overused and have too much reliance placed upon it.

This is what I said. I did not say that it was possible to rely entirely on psychometric tests.

Proper staff selection involves a mix of techniques and proper judgement. Most selections are not made properly in my experience (and I have run training courses on selection for the past 20 years).

quote:

If you believe the the tests are good, then how can you not believe in them?

Richard, don't you see a difference between the above conclusion and what I had said? "First, Richard, I merely said that I don't believe in psychologic tests like the Myers-Briggs. I did not say they aren't any good. Big difference." I, personally, don't think they are "good" ways to hire people, but I do recognize that they have been researched and that some may use them. I just wouldn't. The "any" was the operative word, and you left if out.

As for "gut feelings," or intuition being another word for it, being "emotive," have you ever read much about the Dreyfus model of becoming an expert in your field? That theory very much is based on intuition. Dr. Patricia Benner has an excellent book, entitled, "Novice to Expert," where the expert, or master nurse, relies heavily on intuition. I have seen that in practice. You just know something is wrong with the patient, but you can't quite tell what. You monitor the patient more closely, sometimes irritating the residents or interns...but, sure enough, the patient is becoming septic, or something else. Intuition or a "gut feeling" is not emotive, in my opinion. It is a characteristic of an experienced professional.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Intuition or a "gut feeling" is not emotive, in my opinion.

Not always, but it can be. And as I said, it is one of the useful tools in slection. But it isn't the only tool nor is it an infallible tool. Rather like psychometric tests, in fact.

As you your statement "...First, Richard, I merely said that I don't believe in psychologic tests like the Myers-Briggs. I did not say they aren't any good. Big difference...."

Sorry, I just do not understand what you are saying, with or without the word "any". To me it's like saying, "...I don't believe in Santa Claus - although he's very good.." If you don't believe in such tests (or don't believe they work) then you can't believe they are any good.

quote:

Originally posted by saranita:
The temperament descriptions above should be expanded a bit. Pearce, those of us in the melancholy category sound hopeless!

Are you Danish? Did your stepfather kill your father and marry your mother? Did you kill your father-in-law during a rash moment?

I just took a Myers-Briggs test. I came out as an I S O B. Hmmmmmm....

Once more, Richard.

I didn't say they weren't "any good;" I am not going to pound the streets to get them taken off the market. Some scientists (certainly not all) consider them useful (or "good"), and I respect that. However, I, personally, don't consider them valid measures (or "good"). That is, I respect your acceptance of those measures, but I don't agree with them.

My own workplace has used them, and my boss goes around saying, "Oh, of course you feel that way, you're an ENFJ" (or whatever). I think that's all a bunch of...I won't say it here.

I hope that is more clear.

I just took the Myers Briggs online and got ENFJ. Here is a link if you want to take it.

I have had most of the tests and what strikes me is how well they correspond. Of course, since the questionnaires are all being completed by the same person, then that's to be expected, However, if the tests had no validity then they would give the same kinds of results as, say, newspaper astrological predictions - bland and applicable to all. And they do not.

All the tests I have had do accurately indicate my preferred personality traits.

And preferred is the significant adjective. My traits are not immutable or exclusive. I can behave in ways that do not accord to my first preferrences and my preferences can change. However, given the choice, I am likely to behave in the ways suggested by the tests. And other people will tend behave in the ways that accord to their preferences.

I am sure we will all agree that certain people behave in certain ways, in certain circumstances - and this does not surprise us. Psychometric tests are just one tool that can tell us what prople's behaviours are likely to be and, used with other tools (including intuition) are a valuable addition to the recruiter's toolbox.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:.

I did not dream that the word choleric could dehisce into a chat on psychometric tests. Is there no escape?
Guess my present humour.

That's nothing, pearce!

You should read some of the older threads that move from topic to topic, with only the most tenuous of links between them! The connection between the ancient humours and Myers-Briggs typology is, at least, still fairly logical!

quote:

Are you Danish? Did your stepfather kill your father and marry your mother? Did you kill your father-in-law during a rash moment?

To reply, or not to reply: that is the question....

quote:

I did not dream that the word choleric could dehisce into a chat on psychometric tests. Is there no escape?

Sorry. I will refrain from further discussion on those tests...thus the escape. I've been a bit verbose, and I apologize.

quote:

To reply, or not to reply: that is the question....

Aye, there's the rub! (Maybe Hamlet was talking to his masseuse here?)