# Sticky  DISC Personality Profiles



## starri

*The DISC Personality System* is the universal language of behavior. Research has shown that behavioral characteristics can be grouped together in four major divisions called personality styles. People with similar personality profiles styles tend to exhibit specific behavioral characteristics common to that profile. All people share these four styles in varying degrees of intensity. The acronym DISC stands for the four personality styles represented by the letters:


D (Drive)
I (Influence)
S (Steadiness)
C (Compliance)


*D (Drive)*

General Characteristics:
Direct. Decisive. High Ego Strength. Problem Solver. Risk Taker. Self Starter

Value to Team:
Bottom-line organizer. Places value on time. Challenges the status quo. Innovative

Possible Weaknesses:
Oversteps authority. Argumentative attitude. Dislikes routine. Attempts too much at once.

Greatest Fear:
Being taken advantage of.

Motivated By:
New challenges. Power and authority to take risks and make decisions. Freedom from routine and mundane tasks. Changing environments in which to work and play.

Ideal Environment:
Innovative focus on future. Non-routine challenging tasks and activities. Projects that produce tangible results. Freedom from controls, supervision, and details. Personal evaluation based on results, not methods.

Remember a High D May Want:
Authority, varied activities, prestige, freedom, assignments promoting growth, "bottom line" approach, and opportunity for advancement.

DO:
Be brief, direct, and to the point. Ask "what" not "how" questions. Focus on business; remember they desire results. Suggest ways for him/her to achieve results, be in charge, and solve problems. Highlight logical benefits of featured ideas and approaches.

DON'T:
Ramble. Repeat yourself. Focus on problems. Be too sociable. Make generalizations. Make statements without support.

While analyzing information, a High D may:
Ignore potential risks. Not weigh the pros and cons. Not consider others' opinions. Offer innovative and progressive systems and ideas.

D's possess these positive characteristics in teams:
Autocratic managers - great in crisis. Self-reliant. Innovative in getting results. Maintain focus on goals. Specific and direct. Overcome obstacles. Provide direction and leadership. Push group toward decisions. Willing to speak out. Generally optimistic. Welcome challenges without fear. Accept risks. See the big picture. Can handle multiple projects. Function well with heavy work loads.

Personal Growth Areas for D's:
Strive to be an "active" listener. Be attentive to other team members' ideas until everyone reaches a consensus. Be less controlling and domineering. Develop a greater appreciation for the opinions, feelings, and desires of others. Put more energy into personal relationships. Show your support for other team members. Take time to explain the "whys" of your statements and proposals. Be friendlier and more approachable.

*I (Influence)*

General Characteristics:
Enthusiastic. Trusting; Optimistic. Persuasive; Talkative. Impulsive; Emotional

Value to Team:
Creative problem solver. Great encourager. Motivates others to achieve. Positive sense of humor. Negotiates conflicts; peace maker.

Possible Weaknesses:
More concerned with popularity than tangible results. Inattentive to detail. Overuses gestures and facial expressions. Tends to listen only when it's convenient.

Greatest Fear:
Rejection.

Motivated By:
Flattery, praise, popularity, and acceptance. A friendly environment. Freedom from many rules and regulations. Other people available to handle details.

Ideal Environment:
Practical procedures. Few conflicts and arguments. Freedom from controls and details. A forum to express ideas. Group activities in professional and social environments

Remember a High I May Want:
Social esteem and acceptance, freedom from details and control, people to talk to, positive working conditions, recognition for abilities, opportunity to motivate and influence others.

DO:
Build a favorable, friendly environment. Give opportunity for them to verbalize about ideas, people and their intuition. Assist them in developing ways to transfer talk into action. Share testimonials from others relating to proposed ideas. Allow time for stimulating, sociable activities. Submit details in writing, but don't dwell on them. Develop a participative relationship. Create incentives for following through on tasks.

DON'T:
Eliminate social time. Do all the talking. Ignore their ideas or accomplishments. Tell them what to do.

While analyzing information, a High I may:
Lose concentration. Miss important facts and details. Interrupt. Be creative in problem solving.

I's possess these positive characteristics in teams:
Instinctive communicators. Participative managers - influence and inspire. Motivate the team. Spontaneous and agreeable. Respond well to the unexpected. Create an atmosphere of well being. Enthusiastic. Provide direction and leadership. Express ideas well. Work well with other people. Make good spokespersons. Will offer opinions. Persuasive. Have a positive attitude. Accomplish goals through people. Good sense of humor. Accepting of others. Strong in brainstorming sessions.

Personal Growth Areas for I's:
Weigh the pros and cons before making a decision; be less impulsive. Be more results oriented. Exercise control over your actions, words, and emotions. Focus more on details and facts. Remember to slow down your pace for other team members. Talk less; listen more. Consider and evaluate ideas from other team members. Concentrate on following through with tasks.


*S (Steadiness)*

General Characteristics:
Good listener; Team player. Possessive. Steady; Predictable. Understanding; Friendly.

Value to Team:
Reliable and dependable. Loyal team worker. Compliant towards authority. Good listener, patient and empathetic. Good at reconciling conflicts.

Possible Weaknesses:
Resists change. Takes a long time to adjust to change. Holds a grudge; sensitive to criticism. Difficulty establishing priorities.

Greatest Fear:
Loss of security.

Motivated By:
Recognition for loyalty and dependability. Safety and security. No sudden changes in procedure or lifestyle. Activities that can be started and finished.

Ideal Environment:
Practical procedures and systems. Stability and predictability. Tasks that can be completed at one time. Few conflicts and arguments. A team atmosphere.

Remember a High S May Want:
Security in situations, sincere appreciation, repeated work patterns, time to adjust to change, limited territory of responsibility.

DO:
Create a favorable environment: personal and agreeable. Express a genuine interest in them as a person. Provide them with clarification for tasks and answers to "how" questions. Be patient in drawing out their goals. Present ideas or departures from current practices in a non-threatening manner; give them time to adjust. Clearly define goals, procedures and their role in the overall plan. Assure them of personal follow-up support. Explain how their actions will minimize the risks involved and enhance current procedures.

DON'T:
Be pushy, overly aggressive, or demanding. Be too confrontational.

While analyzing information, a High S may:
Be openly agreeable but inwardly unyielding. Internalize their concerns and doubts. Hesitate to share feedback during presentation. Slow down the action. Provide valuable support for team goals.

S's possess these positive characteristics in teams:
Instinctive relaters. Participative managers - accomplish goals through personal relationships. Make others feel like they belong. Show sincerity. Can see an easier way of doing things. Focused and intuitive about people and relationships. Full of common sense. Buy into team goals. Dependable. Identify strongly with the team. Strive to build relationships. Provide stability. Consider elements of a total project. Realistic and practical. Even-tempered. Provide specialized skills. Show patience with others. Loyal.

Personal Growth Areas for S's:
Be more open to change. Be more direct in your interactions. Focus on overall goals of the team rather than specific procedures. Deal with confrontation constructively. Develop more flexibility. Increase pace to accomplish goals. Show more initiative. Work at expressing thoughts, opinions, and feelings.


*C (Compliance)*

General Characteristics:
Accurate; analytical. Conscientious; careful. Fact-finder; precise. High standards; systematic.

Value to Team:
Perspective: "the anchor of reality." Conscientious and even-tempered. Thorough to all activities. Defines situation; gathers, criticizes and tests information.

Possible Weaknesses:
Needs clear-cut boundaries for actions/relationships. Bound by procedures and methods. Gets bogged down in details. Prefers not to verbalize feelings. Will give in rather that argue.

Greatest Fear:
Criticism.

Motivated By:
Standards of high quality. Limited social interaction. Detailed tasks. Logical organization of information.

Ideal Environment:
Tasks and projects that can be followed through to completion. Specialized or technical tasks. Practical work procedures and routines. Few conflicts and arguments. Instructions and reassurance that they are doing what is expected of them.

Remember a High C May Want:
Autonomy and independence, controlled work environment, reassurance, precise expectations and goals, exact job descriptions, planned change.

DO:
Prepare your case in advance. Delineate pros and cons of proposed ideas. Support ideas and statements with accurate data. Reassure them that no surprises will occur. Submit an exact job description with a precise explanation of how that task fits into the big picture. Review recommendations with them in a systematic and comprehensive manner. Be specific when agreeing. Disagree with the facts rather than the person when disagreeing. Be patient, persistent, and diplomatic while providing explanations.

DON'T:
Refuse to explain details. Answer questions vaguely or casually.

While analyzing information, a High C may:
Become overly cautious and conservative. Get too bogged down in details. Avoid or postpone decisions, especially if they perceive a risk. Be an effective trouble shooter.

C's possess these positive characteristics in teams:
Instinctive organizers. "Do it yourself" managers - create and maintain systems. Strive for a logical, consistent environment. Control the details. Conscientious. Evaluate the team's progress. Ask important questions. Maintain focus on tasks. Offer conservative approaches. Emphasize quality. Think logically. Will share risks and responsibilities. Work systematically. Will strive for consensus. Diplomatic. Analyze obstacles.

Personal Growth Areas for C's:
Concentrate on doing the right things, not just doing things right. Be less critical of others' ideas and methods. Respond more quickly to accomplish team goals. Strive to build relationships with other team members. Be more decisive. Focus less on facts and more on people. Take risks along with other team members.


SOURCE: http://www.discinsights.com/cyber/scripts/disc.asp#used


----------



## Caledonia

This is a great analysis. I'm going to print it out and give it to my roommate, who is the executive director of a non-profit.


----------



## Happy

Wow! Thanks Nyx. Great article.:happy:


----------



## starri

:happy::happy:


----------



## Kevinaswell

I don't like how there are only 4 options.

I couldn't really see where I fit in any of those descriptions >.<


----------



## starri

alot of systems depend on 4 types;

like:

Merrill-Reid Personal Styles:
expressionist
driver
analytical
amiable

for more reading: http://web.archive.org/web/20010608...s/LAS/cta/emcglone/13/files/social_styles.htm

usually they aren't there to define who you are, but rather the approach you take to certain situations. they are employed mostly by business and marketing professionals and so on..


----------



## Mizmar

Here's another 4-optioned system: All 4 Learning Styles

Based on those descriptions, I can easily see myself as a Reflector with a touch of the Theorist thrown in.


----------



## Fanille

I remember doing the DiSC in a class. Profiles are based on the *combination* of the four traits - everyone has a little of all four but to varying degrees, and while one often stands out it is possible to score high in multiple traits (for example, both D and C). So there are more than just four possible results.


----------



## Kathryne

It's another chart thing...

you can be fast or slow paced,
and task or people oriented.

The D is the fast-paced task-oriented,
The I is the fast-paced people-oriented,
The S is the slow-paced people-oriented, and
The C is the slow-paced task-oriented.

I have a hypothesis that this all might correlate to MBTI in the "Interaction Styles" theory.

Maybe the 
"In Charge" (ENxJ & ESTx) would be D
"Get Things Going" (ENxP & ESFx) would be I
"Behind the Scenes" (INxP & ISFx) would be S, and
"Chart the Course" (INxJ & ISTx) would be C.

You could take it further with
D => Choleric => Lion
I => Sanguine => Otter
S => Phlegmatic => Golden Retriever
C => Melancholy => Beaver

... I don't think that anyone is one straight letter. I am a "CD".
My ESFP sister is an "IS," and my INFP mother is a "SD" (somehow).

There might be a way to plot out the "wings" or secondary letters, but I'm not sure about that. My idea would probably only work for the dominant letter.


----------



## Iapetus

The disc system usually describes 15 profiles based on the rank order of the score on the 4 scales. But that is really incomplete. There are 4! (4 factorial) possible combinations. 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24 Why do they only have 15? Where are the other 9 profiles? Something is basically wrong with that.

The mbti also lacks a coherent construction because they make the scales dichotomous. Each dichotomy should be one continuous scale; 
J------P, 
S------N, 
T------F,
E------I. 

That way you could come up with 24 possibilities depending on rank order. If these are really important functions we will express them all to some degree in a rank order. 

These tests were designed by people who had no sense of system.

And then you have the enneagram. At least they rank those in some kind of hierarchy. But 7 scales would produce 7x6x5x4x3x2x1 possibilities = 5,040 . Can you imagine a typology being useful where there are 5,040 different profiles.

The five factor model also lays the foundation for a rather unwieldy typology. 120 cobinations when arranged in rank order.

4 factors seems to be the optimum. Only 24 possibilities. That would give you about a 4% accuracy in sizing up a person.

3 factors is almost useless with 6 possibilities.

2 factors isn't useful because it would be too general and so all inclusive that your describing what would be obvious in assesing a complete stranger.


----------



## Kevinaswell

Also, where is the research that shows these things as indicated?

I've never heard about it any of my courses >.<


----------



## Quelzalcoatl

Mizmar said:


> Here's another 4-optioned system: All 4 Learning Styles
> 
> Based on those descriptions, I can easily see myself as a Reflector with a touch of the Theorist thrown in.


I've tried the DISC thing, but it failed to make much sense to me, unlike the learning style information. That cites that I am thoroughly a "Theorist" type of person.


----------



## dizzygirl

@starri thanx for sharing the article! :happy: it was an interesting read! I can see how the 'I' profile suits me in a work environment. I'd behave a lot like this in school, during projects, participation etc.


----------



## Roudy79

Mizmar said:


> Here's another 4-optioned system: All 4 Learning Styles
> 
> Based on those descriptions, I can easily see myself as a Reflector with a touch of the Theorist thrown in.


These seem to me to be a spin off the Keirsey temperaments. SP, SJ, NT and NF. NF would be the reflector.


----------



## Roudy79

Thanks for this. I actually paid good money once to take this test. I still have the results somewhere. I got weird results according to my counselor at that time. Most people come up with one dominant 'letter' where I came up with two. I believe they were D and C. I disliked taking the test, since while answering the questions I got the feeling that the test would just be a reflection of my self-image - according to which I answered the questions. So if my self-image is off - and why wouldn't it be since I was interested in testing myself to see who I was - the test results were (probably) off.

In any case, it didn't lead to any new insights that I could capitalize upon somehow.


----------



## Aelthwyn

interesting, but it felt somewhat confusing to me. It didn't feel like the groupings of traits entirely fit together somehow.....

In particular the word Compliant didn't really strike me as being the defining factor in that set of traits. It felt more like it was tacked on "oh yeah, and they're compliant" but it didn't seem to really mesh with the rest of that description in my oppinion. Also it mentions that their greatest fear was criticism, and yet then describes them as being criticle and having high standards....so that just doesn't really seem to fit if you ask me.


----------



## RachelAn

* I took the Quiz*

As a Contemplator style, Rachel An is detail oriented and has high standards. Contemplators are analytical and logical people. They are driven to do the best, and they think there is always room for improvement. Contemplators tend to be competitive and want to have the best quality job done. Rachel An is sensitive to people, but the logical, task-oriented side can take over quite easily. Rachel An loves being appreciated for the quality work produced. Contemplators are able to move tasks ahead and achieve their goals. Rachel An is very centered on the task at hand, and is steady and dependable.

Rachel An likes working in small, rather than large groups. A Contemplator is good at working through problem situations and will aggressively and carefully work with people to resolve conflicts. They take their time and don't jump into situations where they open up to people. They may be careful and analytical in their relationships, thought processes, and work situations. Contemplators take time in making decisions and want facts and figures to study before coming to a decision. Accuracy is extremely important to them. Contemplators may take offense to criticism of their work because precision is their main objective.

Because of aggression, Contemplators are able to drive projects, however, they will not allow quality to be compromised. When they are involved in a situation, they want it done correctly. Rachel An is sensitive to others and strives to do the best for them. Contemplators care about others, but may seem unemotional. Contemplators are centered on "the facts" and while they have good intentions, they may lose sight of what is best for people while focusing on protocol, facts and details.


 * I don't like details & am not afraid of criticism*.


----------



## Gregory Start

I'm kind of wondering whats behind it and how valid it is. Having only a few categories it seems a little too vague. sorry for the suspicious critique... its and INTP think.


----------



## Sybok

Did the tests 7 years ago  was an ISG (234), but MBTI is more... valuable for me -.-'


----------



## Azure Bass

I found a newer (and free) test, I thought it would be helpful. 

Personal Strengths Profile | DISC self-assessment profile | Understand yourself | AnthonyRobbins.com

My results were:

Natural :: Adaptive

D 42 :: 35 D
I 46 :: 10 I
S 77 :: 53 S
C 77 :: 74 C


----------



## TreeBob

I had this done at work, I am:

Natural :: Adaptive

D 100 :: 67 D
I 87 :: 73 I
S 09 :: 07 S
C 45 :: 47 C

Persuader


----------



## Dauntless

Kathryne said:


> It's another chart thing...
> 
> you can be fast or slow paced,
> and task or people oriented.
> 
> The D is the fast-paced task-oriented,
> The I is the fast-paced people-oriented,
> The S is the slow-paced people-oriented, and
> The C is the slow-paced task-oriented.
> 
> I have a hypothesis that this all might correlate to MBTI in the "Interaction Styles" theory.
> 
> Maybe the
> "In Charge" (ENxJ & ESTx) would be D
> "Get Things Going" (ENxP & ESFx) would be I
> "Behind the Scenes" (INxP & ISFx) would be S, and
> "Chart the Course" (INxJ & ISTx) would be C.
> 
> You could take it further with
> D => Choleric => Lion
> I => Sanguine => Otter
> S => Phlegmatic => Golden Retriever
> C => Melancholy => Beaver
> 
> ... I don't think that anyone is one straight letter. I am a "CD".
> My ESFP sister is an "IS," and my INFP mother is a "SD" (somehow).
> 
> There might be a way to plot out the "wings" or secondary letters, but I'm not sure about that. My idea would probably only work for the dominant letter.



I took it in the past, and I came out Chart the Course, and I'm INFJ. I was less in D (natural and adaptive), moderate in I (higher in adaptive), High for S and C (both natural and adaptive).:happy:


----------



## Atypicalanalogue

I remember one of my classes going over the DISC model, and we ended up taking a quiz on it. I was a C/S personality type. I've found that it describes me pretty well. This article definitely confirms what I've read on it so far. I'm definitely a high C-trait personality, and I've got a fair amount of the S, too. Glad to see methods of personal improvement for the types, since I'm sure I'll need them in the future


----------



## Eric B

Wow; missed this one. What @Kathryne said was the same basic thing I've always said:

D: EST/ENJ
I: ESF/ENP
S: ISF/INP
C: IST/INJ

It can also be extended to the conative level:
D: NT
I: SP
S: NF
C: SJ
(Based on "Pragmatic"="fast paced"; "Cooperative"="slow paced"; "motive"="people oriented"; "structure"="task-oriented")

Putting them together would yield the two-letter blends for each type (four of them being the "pure" types).


----------



## Modal Soul

i can't decide whether this test is accurate or inaccurate because of how confusing the profiles are, haha. (the test @Azure Bass posted)

i scored insanely high on both D (99) and I (81) for 'natural style' and high on I (88) for 'adaptive style'. everything else seemed abnormally low (D-35, S-39, C-10) for 'adaptive style'.

hmm... but if D = NT and I = ENP, does that mean this test is more accurate than i think?


----------



## KaiteW

When I'm working on something, I'm a D and a C equally. I took this test in a leadership theory class. It's really interesting though because naturally, I'd shy away from it, but due to life experiences, I was conditioned to be like a D and C. 

Make sense? I love people more, am definitely more of an ENFP, but I can be D and C


----------



## Coburn

Did this at work.

*Natural*
D: 99
I: 53
S: 46
C: 46

*Adaptive*
D: 84
I: 60
S: 17
C: 10


I'm pretty sure I ramp up the I and tone down the D a little more than my adaptive graph shows. I've burned too many relationships because of my D-lean, and it's made me incredibly cautious about how assertive I am around others, particularly in work settings. Often to the point where I appear as a pushover to others.


----------



## Konkelvonk

You can find DISC test here

Personal Strengths Profile | DISC self-assessment profile | Understand yourself | AnthonyRobbins.com

I did it, damn good!


----------



## Cosmic Hobo

Natural style:
D: 99
I: 99
S: 39
C: 25

Adaptive style:
I: 91
D: 56
S: 10
C: 10

Values:
Individualistic: 93
Theoretical: 83
Political: 50
Altruist: 48
Aesthetic: 43
Economic: 24
Regulatory: 11

SK: 11
ST: 23
LK: 7

So I'm energetic and decisive, make up my own mind, and want stimulation and variety - and detest stability, procedure, rules, routine and unthinking tradition.


----------



## Meowmixmuffin

I took this a while ago! I'm a very strong I.


----------



## katjang

I don't think this should be correlated in anyway with Jungian/MBTI types, since what I think that Jungian/MBTI is about how we gain information and act upon it. While DISC is about our behavior style. OK, so I'm vague about the differences of Jungian vs DISC, but the thing is, I see these two complement each other, and attempting to find the corresponding Jungian Type/Combination on DISC might bring false tendencies and confusions.

Anyway, I took the test @_Azure Bass_ posted and the results they gave me are pretty detailed, which gives information on the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect (D/I/S/C), including ideal job or environment for my behavior style, and also describes areas for continual improvement.

The 'natural' and 'adaptive' are pretty useful, which helps me identify: 
* what are my inner behaviors are (natural), which will be apparent when in pressure; 
* and the exterior behaviors or 'business face' (adaptive), which is also the style I'd tend to want to be when thinking about it.

Worth a try, but also be patient with the results.. It's about 20 pages long and not as 'direct' as Jungian .

Here are my results:

[Type]: [Natural] | [Adaptive]
D: 49 | 56
I: 28 | 39
S: 99 | 32
C: 67 | 60

I'm also an ISTP, which probably contributes to the low 'I'.


----------



## Chas23

INFJ: S then C. I related to both pretty equally.


----------



## kirsche

INTP: DSC

I forgot the values of those DSC...
"orz


----------



## Eric B

katjang said:


> I don't think this should be correlated in anyway with Jungian/MBTI types, since what I think that Jungian/MBTI is about how we gain information and act upon it. While DISC is about our behavior style. OK, so I'm vague about the differences of Jungian vs DISC, but the thing is, I see these two complement each other, and attempting to find the corresponding Jungian Type/Combination on DISC might bring false tendencies and confusions.


 What you're calling "behavior style" is what would be built into type as "Interaction Style". Still doesn't always come out exactly, but they are based on similar factors.


----------



## PaladinX

Anyone else get Developer type? (High D, low everything else)


----------



## Villainous

Big D over here


----------



## Aha

D 48%
I 43%
S 7%
C 2%
Inspirational Pattern


----------



## Annabee

I took training in DISC a couple of years ago, the idea is that there are 4 "clear" types but a very low percent of population has it - about 1-2% for each color. Most of us fit somewhere in the middle of two, usually it's two types located next to each other. It can be two opposite ones too but it sometimes means a person is struggling some inner conflict. The more complexdiagram looks like that:


----------



## Desiderium

Natural:
D:99
I:39
S:32
C:88

Adaptive:
D:63
I:10
S:25
C:74


----------



## Cryoshakespeare

[Natural] --- [Adaptive]
99 -D- 56
39 -I- 25
39 -S- 32
77 -C- 67

Of particular interest to me is the dramatic decrease in D for the adaptive style. I can certainly understand how that has related to my life. This is a good test.

In terms of values I got:
Aesthetic: 38
Economical: 40
Individual: 63
Political: 73
Altruistic: 16
Regulatory: 28
Theoretical: 98

Quite the spike on theoretical, about four standard deviations away from the mean! xD
It certainly does make sense, given how I tend to value things in my life.


----------



## S33K3RZ

Iapetus said:


> The disc system usually describes 15 profiles based on the rank order of the score on the 4 scales. But that is really incomplete.
> ...
> These tests were designed by people who had no sense of system.


Agreed. The DISC is more of a pop-cultural assessment going around right now because it is easy; yet no one seems to pay attention to the issues with accuracy of the test. We had people all over the place and had serious problems with inconsistent results due to the phrasing of the question.

While I hope they work on it and are not discouraged from a setback because I would love to have something easier than the MB; the DISC test is unreliable.

It makes me sad that people keep trying to oversimplify what is a really complex and messy thing. Maybe I am misunderstanding the results; after all it is new; but out of 50 people that took from my group it everyone except for 2 people got the same basic results.. which seems off since we all have significantly different personalities and behaviors.


----------



## krabkrab

*Natural ---- Adaptive*
14 - D - 10
60 - I - 25
88 - S - 70
99 - C - 60

I wonder what the stats for my I mean, I mean that's a pretty big jump. Then again my C is an even bigger jump, if only value-wise and not percentage-wise.

*Values*
Aesthetic.........53
Economic.........34
Individualistic...60
Political...........38
Altruist............46
Regulatory.......41
Theoretical.......81
That high theoretical isn't a surprise... I am an INTP after all. :wink:


----------



## Peter

Kevinaswell said:


> I don't like how there are only 4 options.
> 
> I couldn't really see where I fit in any of those descriptions >.<


that's why there is a test.

DISC Personality Testing


----------



## Ixim

starri said:


> alot of systems depend on 4 types;
> 
> like:
> 
> Merrill-Reid Personal Styles:
> expressionist
> driver
> analytical
> amiable
> 
> for more reading: http://web.archive.org/web/20010608...s/LAS/cta/emcglone/13/files/social_styles.htm
> 
> usually they aren't there to define who you are, but rather the approach you take to certain situations. they are employed mostly by business and marketing professionals and so on..


Like say MBTI (  ) ? Sorry, I HAD TO! Here:

Extroversion scale
Theoretical scale(called intuition)
Emotional scale(called feeling) // I do agree that T and F really SHOULD be seperated to two dichotomies
Executive scale(called judging)


----------



## emspace

Oddly, I find barely any correlation between MBTI and DISC, but that’s because my DISC profile came back as LEVEL, which perfectly describes how I behave around people. I judge what the dominant traits are of everyone I’m with and then fall back to the one(s) that are least represented. 

This does correlates to many other profiles I’ve taken; _Adaptability_ comes up as a strength or talent in all of them.


----------



## newbie const

It is sad that there are only 4 options.Very much limited and I kinda see me in all 4 traits.

I might be ISDC or SICD?Don't know,expanding the theory might help me.


----------



## The Dude

Took the test... 

Natural...
D:56
I:39 
S:53 
C:88 

Adaptive...
D:56 
I:39
S:46
C:42 

Values
Aesthetics:68 (high) 
Economic: 38 (low-average) 
Individualistic: 73 (very high) 
Political: 40 (average) 
Altruist: 20 (very low) 
Regulatory: 40 (upper average) 
Theoretical: 75 (very high)


----------



## The Exception

Natural Style: D=17, I=46, S=99, C=99
Adaptive Style: D=10, I=25, S=46, C=88

Values
Aesthetic 55%- above average
Economic 15%- well below average
Individualistic 75%- well above average
Political 33%- below average
Altruistic 65%- well above average
Regulatory 26%- below average
Theoretical 81%- well above average


----------



## Pinina

According to a source I just read, which is in Swedish, DISC is based on Carl Jung, and has the same base as MBTI, in Sensing, Intuition, Thinking and Feeling. 

Dominance would correlate to thinking and intuition, influence would be intuition and feeling, steadiness sensing and feeling, and compliance thinking and sensing. 

So according to that, there should be a correlation, though I don't quite agree, and certainly wouldn't put, say INTP as D, generally speaking. 

(Here's the source, for everyone who knows Swedish.)


----------



## Eric B

(Chrome has a translate function).
DISC was by William Marston Moulton (the same guy who created Wonder Woman), and I don't think he claimed to "further develop" Jung's theory; that seems to be this site's interpretation in linking the theories. DISC was more like classic temperament, and similar to other "four type" systems being developed at the time, such as Social Styles. 
As a matter of fact, this was what Katherine Briggs' was trying to develop around the same time, with four types, Spontaneous, Sociable, Executive, and Meditative. (which right away resembles Erich Fromm's four character styles, also from around this time).

It was when she tried to integrate Jung's concepts that she worked them around, and ended up with the four dichotomies of type. DISC, like classic temperament, Social Styles, and Fromm were based on a two factor system of what amounts to extraversion/introversion ("expressiveness", basically), and people/task focus. (In DISC, the I/E analogue was called "Assertive/Passive", and the other factor was "Open/Controlled"). 
Now that type has been put together, and other matrices have been carved out of it, this would be best represented by Interaction Styles, which use I/E, and another factor called informing/directing (which tie loosely to both T/F and J/P, but differing in that between S and N types. Keirsey temperament can be factored like this as well, if you use cooperative/pragmatic with another one, called structure/motive). 

In that respect, D (assertive/controlled) would be the classic Choleric, and thus NT. It's also the Interaction Style represented by E + NJ or ST (In Charge. So the type that will be "D" on both levels will be the ENTJ). 
C as ST does make some sense, as thats the Meancholy, which is the introverted counterpart to the Choleric, and represented by I + ST (and also I +NJ). In the Keirsey groups, it would most obviously fit SJ, with the ISTJ being the most solid C. The other two I would switch. Steadiness would be NF, and Influence, SP (which would include SFP's, of course).


----------



## pivot_turn

We just had a customer service training thing with work this week and DISC was talked about so I had a look to see if PerC also had something about it somewhere. The thought about it there was to mainly think of how both staff and customers can be of different types, and to remember that we can react differently in situations, like giving feedback or something. There was also a point made that I liked, that even though we are more of one type each, then we can still in different situations adapt to different styles from our own to make communication easier if we recognise that. 

At this thing we didn't take any tests or anything, just talked more generally about it and everyone just self-evaluated which type they were (we were a pretty varied bunch). I put myself as Steady. Though then I did some tests online to see what they said and I got more compliant as first and then steady and then I and last D. I just tried another one and got something called Advocate, which is apparently S first and then IC or CI and that sounded pretty accurate. From descriptions and examples at the training thing I thought that I would be most S but closer to I than C possibly, but always least D. But yeah I'll go by Steady. 

But yeah, anyway I liked that as a tool in talking about how to meet different kinds of people as customers at work and also get along as coworkers.


----------



## Scoobyscoob




----------



## Judson Joist

I'm a type CS and these descriptions hit me right in the soul. In my late teens, I had a more strongly expressed "D" side to me, but was still primarily "C." The modern-day workplace - which demands speed, "perfection," _and_ conformity (while keeping us in the lowest income bracket possible) - is entirely unfriendly toward people like me. The system, itself, is a paradox. It demands conformity, yet its acolytes criticize everyday workers for a lack of ambition, not realizing that their idolatrous institutionalized psuedo-religion (aka "principality" if you don't mind my using a biblical term) is exactly what broke the spirit of the working poor. Or at least is a massive contributor to the process that breaks peoples' spirits down through the generations. If you want people to express ambition, then stop demanding conformity. It's not rocket surgery. Contrariwise, if people are satisfied with their workplace position, there's nothing wrong with that either. Someone has to do the hands-on grunt-work. So why not let the grunts have job stability? Why not let the grunts enjoy something resembling prosperity? Keep in mind that the working poor aren't the least bit interested in living like royalty, so when I say "prosperity," I mean in practical terms.

Long story short, we live in a world filled with institutions that keep wages low and stagnant while the cost of living skyrockets every year. Not sure how I went off on this spiel, but you can probably understand how the CS perspective would come in handy in this situation. People produce better work when they have well-defined responsibilities. When responsibilities are left ill-defined, that's when exploitation takes hold. It also increases stress because a lot of workplace stress is caused by wasted effort. Wasted effort often results from lack of streamlining in the process of things (which, in turn, is often the result of every worker being expected to do some portion of everything instead of being given specific tasks to accomplish).

*We need to declare war on stress.*










Denholm Reynholm is totally a caricature of a "D."



Kathryne said:


> D => Choleric => Lion
> I => Sanguine => Otter
> S => Phlegmatic => Golden Retriever
> C => Melancholy => Beaver


I'm a Beaver Retriever!
:tongue:


----------



## Scoobyscoob

So what's your disc profile?


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Googled: https://www.123test.com/disc-personality-test/


----------



## Strelnikov

Judson Joist said:


> *We need to declare war on stress.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denholm Reynholm is totally a caricature of a "D."
> 
> 
> I'm a Beaver Retriever!
> :tongue:












I loved that show! British comedy is the best!


----------



## Judson Joist

Strelnikov said:


> I loved that show! British comedy is the best!


I'm always getting compared to Maurice Moss. I can't imagine why.
:tongue:


----------



## angelfish

I remember being surprised when I took this that my strongest trait was "Steadiness", but reading about it again confirms that it's right on. After that I score moderately on i, then C then D. I was curious to see what careers those traits might point to - _Many individuals with this personality (Si) become counselors, teachers, advisers, support specialists, and therapists._

Anyway... I'm... mostly golden retriever with some otter? So like... ???


----------



## 3Wize




----------

