Talk:Type A and Type B personality theory

LOWERCASE LETTERS (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnwashington.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwinch17, DeanMoir. Peer reviewers: Mpsmith15, Camimitchell35.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe this article is rather unflattering to its subject as it often reads as though Type A Personality is a disorder, such as in the phrase "they may exhibit some or all of these characteristics, it does not mean that people with the type A personality are incapable of showing love, affection or other types of non-pessimistic behavior." In order to improve this article in this respect, I think more references are the best route rather than simply rewording what is already here. Before I make any drastic changes, though, I wanted to get the thoughts of others who have invested in this page. How can we best improve the article? VigilancePrime (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, yes this article is bizarre! Type A Personality is not a "syndrome".... it's one, of two types! Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.194.73 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My goodness!!! This article should be removed - the sooner the better. If this 'syndrome' (sic) should be 'cured' by medication as stated, than I suppose the majority of world leaders and captains of industry should be put on 'medication' (as 'prescribed in the article), not to leave out all those highly motivated artists and authors.14:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peucer (talk • contribs)

Well, I think this article pretty well sums up the Type A personality (I don't think its a personality disorder, just a personality type.) They've always annoyed me. After reading Type A behavior and your heart some years ago I warned my boss he needed to back off a few notches because he was an obvious candidate for a heart attack. Of course, after his heart attack he had to stop working, whereas I still could, but just don't feel like it. How much money do you really need anyway? Call me Mr. Type "B". Cheers, RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really believe you can categorise the human brain into two types... the thing is, Type A and Type B could both describe the same person in differing circumstances or situations. Personally, I know that I can exhibit Type B characteristics when it's about one thing, but Type A about another. In the same way, I exhibit introverted behaviour when I am feeling apathetic towards a situation but extroverted when I care. But if you really think you can describe, group and predict the behaviours of a hundred billion neurons then if anything, you're just being a Type A. Kookas (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you all. I am a Type A personality, am on medication to balance the aggressive behaviour. I do believe that if a group of characteristics, in an identified coctail of behaviour can adversely affect your health (stress induced heart attack, manic-depression, ovarian cysts, to name those I am aware of) then it warrants the term 'syndrome'. 'Treatment' could help a number of people to greatly improve their quality of life and their relationships with friends and family. Treatment does not necessarily medication, but would include lifestyle changes, self-discipline coaching and/or diet. Regards, Mrs 'Type A' 196.30.218.211 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What you guys have hit upon is the crux of the issue with this typology...it is too broad and is made up of factors that do not correlate (as this article even states) - so 1 type A may be a CEO but another could be an Axe murderer bc there is no "real" type A... there are too many dimensions/factors of "type a" -- agression, impatience, hyper-vigilance (etc etc) that do not correlate with each other universally. In some people they do - but not everyone. So, it's cute for pop psychology, but as this own article says, psychometric analysis reveals that there are no type a and type B personalities. Just like, there are no "left brain and right brain" people. Yes, there are quant people and creatives...but it's not quite that simple. Humans are insanely complex and we love to put things in buckets and make them black & white (or A and B) -- I do agree this needs to be rewritten so it is less of a syndrome, but it's so dated im not quite sure how to do it. Nobody has done research on this in decades...perhaps this should be written from a more historical perspective? For example, we'd never write an article about lobotomy (i cant spell that) from such a perspective...though it is still used in rare migraine cases...still, it is dated and the article probably reflects that. The same needs to be done here. Angelatomato (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a 'type B' person wrote this article. Type A is also considered outgoing and personable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.175.77 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No matter what type of personality you are, this article is not neutral. Type A personalities are described as "impatient, excessively time-concious, insecure..., highly competitive, hostile & aggressive...incapable of relaxation...workaholics." Type B personalities are described as "patient, relaxed, and easy going...creative and imaginative." Perhaps better wordings for Type A personalities would be "driven, puncutal, having high expectations of themselves, outgoing, go-getter, etc." Words that are less pejorative. Eeyorezsmile (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the types A and B were made to help describe people who frequently showed such traits. Type A points out the noticable parts; one side of the yin-yang (the 'bad' parts) and Type B is (quite literally defined as) the absence of Type A. Therefore also taking to light the other side of the yin-yang, or the 'good' traits. It is necessary for each type to seem to have some bias. ALSO- it is EXTREMELY rare to find a person who is entirely one type. People are usually part of both, if or if not leaning more to one side. JustTori (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

why are there symptons listed for type a but not type b. this article seems to overwhelming focus on type a negatively. It reads more of an as a anti-type A article than an article about type A and B. —02:59, 5 February 2009 70.123.118.118

Well, keep in mind that the theory was originally developed as a way of predicting coronary heart disease. In that sense, Type A is the psychological equivalent of high cholesterol. Would you say that Hypercholesterolemia suffers from POV as well? If you are aware of research showing that it is unhealthy to be Type B, then include it in the article by all means. But also keep in mind that the theory is pretty much obsolete in health psychology anyway, so we're talking about the quality of the paint on a condemned building. Maybe that is what needs to be made more explicit in the article. --Jcbutler (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not what I learned about Type A and Type B personalties in college psychology class. Type A and Type B are simply two different types of personalities. This article pretty clearly states that Type A is 'bad' and type B is 'good.' This is simply not true. Type A people are generally more succesful in their careers, are very high acheivers, top in their field, sport, etc. Type B people dislike Type A, but Type A people don't dislike Type B people, nor do they dislike other type A's. I suspect this was written by a Type B who is frustrated that they never accomplished anything in their lives and are always wondering why they're passed over for promotions, settled for mediocre spouses, etc. But then again, they would not have taken the time to write it in the first place, so maybe not. Why do Type B's always assume that Type A's are secretly insecure? Remember this: the cat that watches birds and mice through the window lives longer that the cat that is outside catching/eating birds and mice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.147.21 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The main distinction is that Type As feel insecure and are driven towards their distinct type of behavior. Type Bs would not be concerned with how they progress in their careers because they establish their self worth through internal channels. As a person with type A personality traits, I am not so naive to admit it is better to be Type B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.233.189 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I know a wise man who was indisputably Type A, and he only spoke of his jealousy toward Type B individuals. He observed that life could be so much easier if it were Type B. Yet he could never change who he was. One interpretation of this sentiment is that neither type should be used as "better" than the other – each type has its advantages. Jake Westerhof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.2.58 (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

What's missing from this article is where these definitions come from. --194.144.19.47 (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there any criticism that this is all Forer effect bullshit wrapped up in vague descriptions and false dichotomies?--Loodog (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any type "C"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by H.meligy@ieee.org (talk • contribs) 11:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention (that I'm aware of) on Wikipedia about "Type C." I have, however, read about Type C personality on this (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/personality-types-a-b-c.html) website. The website also mentions a "Type D," which is somewhat different than the Wikipedia article on the same subject. Tha Pyngwyn (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a horribly inaccurate article. Why do under-achievers always think/wish that over-achievers are secretly insecure and have low self esteem? I think it's a defense mechanism and excuse for their lack of success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.147.21 (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

To clear up a few things: BOTH type A and type B were based on company executives, this isn't about comparing a successful person with a pot smoking basement dweller and saying it's better to be the basement dweller. The idea was comparing how people in high stress occupations (management) deal with stress differently, and how this relates to the risk of heart disease. It was noticed that managers classified as "type A" (competitive, always in a hurry, bring work home...) were significantly more likely to develop heart disease than type Bs (relaxed, getting the job done vs proving yourself, don't work in their free time, etc). That's why A was considered the "bad" type, and B the "good" type, not because of the childish dick-waving bullshit on this talk page (with the exception of user Jcbutler, who has already mentioned this and was ignored in favor of more dick-waving.) The theory is not about correct values, goals in life, or about liking/disliking people, it's about dealing with stress in a healthy way. Also, the theory is not very significant or smart, it greatly oversimplifies human behavior, but the fact is that the authors did not consider the types "different but equal", type A was considered "bad" for the reason I've explained, and this is an article about this particular theory, no matter how stupid the theory may be. The fact that the expressions "type A" and "type B" have somewhat entered the pop culture doesn't suddenly change the original theory to fit the popular perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.169.105 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins

In this page, Mike Jordan is mentioned as the collaborator in Meyer Friedman's early work, but even Friedman's page here has no mention of him, naming instead Ray Rosenman, whose name I remember being prominently mentioned in articles from the 1970s. Lacking outside sources, I don't propose to modify anything-yet-but I'm confused. Hushpuckena (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

This article is the loosest piece of crap I have seen at wiki for a long time. There are dozens of statements that are left unsubstantiated (such as relation between personality and various deceases). This article should to my mind be trimmed by about 50% and seriously rephrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.213.200.171 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here. Please feel free to improve this article. Lova Falk talk 09:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Former Issues

In the years since the neutrality and lack of citations of this article has been noted, much has been done to to this article.

Concerning neutrality: I hope that the current article clearly explains that this is a theory & only a theory, which was proposed several years ago, which has been partially discredited & which some dismiss altogether. As such, as it is currently written, I hope few will take it as a personal insult in their own personality traits.

Concerning citations: While almost any article could profit from additional citations, this article has far more citations than when this article was first flagged in 2010. If anyone would like to see specific citations added, I would hope they would mark what specifics they would like to see.

Being the concerns on the talk page have generally been addressed & barring any mention of more specific notes concerning any citations still missing, the current flags at the top of this article seem outdated & therefore I will remove them. If anyone feels this to be premature, feel free to add them back in, but please also be specific as to your concerns. Gregogil (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is concerning because it make It seem that these types of personalities are set and stone. A person doesn't have to fall under one of these categories, in fact their personality can be made up of all three things; type A, type B, and in between. I feel like there are just a bunch of quotes throughout it and it gives information that may not even be accurate due to all the controversy over this topic. You could go through and see if the information is correct especially under the "study" heading and maybe try not to quote as much; paraphrase more. Abbyswope1 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Abby Swope

Type A Section suggestions

This article isn't particularly pleasing to the eye, but I think the addition of subheading within explaining Type A and B personalities will remove the deterrence of a wall of text that some may get when opening a wiki page. This also can be combated through the usage of tables or graphs using statistics of the claims that are used. Regarding the claims made in this section, some are needing citation and is does not seem reliable to use.

Structure wise, I believe that the some of the traits describing each personality type should be mentioned early in the section with links to their respective wiki page if it were not to be expanded upon here.LOWERCASE LETTERS (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Drug abuse/substance abuse and type a/b personality section:

I think this section of the page should include more information on drug abuse and its relation or correlation to personality types. One study is a good start to the credibility of the information, but in regard to scientific discussion (medical or psychological) should have an abundance of support for claims and relationships. An experiment is better when it is retested or manipulated to find other information. More information in this last section would be beneficial or even add sections of other behaviors correlated with personality types. For example, dating (mate seeking/acquisition fundamental social motive) and personality types would be interesting.

Additionally, with more information there should be more citations and links connected. With these additions also requires placement of citations in the references sections. kksxc5 (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.146.78 (talk)

Type B Personality Section

I think the Type B section is severely under-developed compared to the Type A section. Everything included there could essentially be shortened to "Type B is just the opposite of Type A." Also, there are several unsubstantiated clams that need a source. I plan on rewriting the majority of this section in the coming weeks after doing some more research and finding sources that more accurately define how Type B personality individuals act. If anyone has any suggestions on some good sources to check, that'd make my job a lot easier. Thanks. HendoJ (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)