Review of: "Why Him? Why Her?"

 

Amazon link

From the Amazon description:

"Are you looking for The One? Well, according to Dr Helen Fisher, biological anthropologist and relationship expert, you don’t have to look any further for the way to find that special someone than your very own brain chemistry.

"Based on Dr Fisher’s groundbreaking personality type study, in which she analyzed the personalities of more than 28,000 people, Why Him? Why Her? provides a formula for long-term love that is based on cutting-edge discoveries in evolutionary neurology. Once you’ve identified yourself as one of the personality types (explorer, builder, negotiator, or director) Dr Fisher provides a detailed plan of how to find, fix, or keep up your ideal love match."

This book dates back to 2009 but I had never heard of it. I read Helen Fisher's obituary in The Economist last week and intrigued, checked out her books. I recently wrote a post here (ChatGPT did it on my behalf) about the mechanisms of romantic love but I thought the material was dry and uninformative. I wondered whether Dr Fisher could do better.

Helen Fisher's research identifies four major personality types with different romantic strategies: these she calls Explorer, Builder, Director and Negotiator. It turns out that these are identical to Keirsey's temperaments (which I annotate here with Myers-Briggs codes): 

Explorer = Artisan (SP), Builder = Guardian (SJ),

Director = Rational (NT), Negotiator = Idealist (NF).

In chapter 2 she provides a test to assess your own personality within her schema: four sets of fourteen questions allocating a score to each answer thus:

[strongly disagree-(0) disagree-(1) agree-(2) strongly agree-(3)]

Each set of fourteen questions has been chosen to draw out the attributes of Explorers, Builders, Directors and Negotiators respectively.

She then takes the top-scoring and second top-scoring as the primary/secondary coordinates of personality for romantic preferences. 

Helen Fisher herself scores as EXPLORER/Negotiator. Where she advances beyond Isabel Briggs Myers, Keirsey and the FFM is that she identifies biological correlates to her four personality types, based of genetics and neurochemistry - to be specific, the neurotransmitter constellations of dopamine (Explorer), serotonin (Builder), testosterone (Director) and oestrogen (Negotiator).

Naturally we responded to the questionnaire. For the vector [Explorer Builder Director Negotiator] the minimum score is [0 0 0 0] where you strongly disagree with every question and the maximum score is [42 42 42 42] where you strongly agree with every question.

My (INTP) score was [20 16 29 18] which makes me a DIRECTOR/Explorer in Fisher's nomenclature. Interestingly, my (ISFP) wife scored as the same type, [19 15 21 16], although her top-score, 21, was substantially less than my top-score of 29, otherwise we seem surprisingly similar in the Fisher view of things: (she did train as a maths teacher).

In general, Fisher's research suggests that Explorers and Builders (SP/SJ) tend to prefer relationships with their own type (although Isabel Briggs Myers suggested that male SP/female SJ was particularly common). Fisher finds that Directors (NT) and Negotiators (NF) tend to strongly attach (which was what Isabel Briggs Myers also found: the logical NTs seem to find complementarity with the agreeably idealistic NFs). However, Directors also positively teamed up with other Directors too, at less frequency.

In theory this should have been a book I was not partial to. It looks at first sight almost embarrassingly pop-science. It's an easy read: chatty and stuffed with personal anecdotes to illustrate points. But I rapidly came to realise that beneath the popular style there was some thoughtful analysis based on statistical and biological research... to a point (and most of it not her own research). 

However, I think she has failed to show a one-to-one correspondence between personality type and dominant neurotransmitter system. Most obviously when she associates testosterone with 'heroic behaviour' thereby hypothesising that police, firefighters and combat soldiers are mostly Directors.

Rational/NTs? Seriously? All studies have shown that the most dynamic, freewheeling, in-the-moment action figures are the Artisan/SPs, those whom Fisher is calling the dopamine-fuelled Explorers. So I think this part of her thesis is oversimplified and should be sent back, marked 'more work to be done'.

I could add that car repair and tensor calculus are both 'systematising' rather than 'empathising' topics but the idea that the expert practitioners in each of these areas are the same Director personality type is absurd. Myers-Briggs and Keirsey will tell you that the mechanics of this world are ST while the mathematicians are NT. One topic is concrete (S) while the other is abstract and conceptual (N). Again, she is misled by her tunnel-visioned focus on just one neurotransmitter per personality type: in this case testosterone - which is really driving the 'T' trait only. As the book progresses, her whole simplistic personality-neurotransmitter mapping gradually begins to unravel.

Initially I was quite enthusiastic about this book, but as I progressed I realised that the interesting material was not original (it mostly paraphrases the Myers-Briggs and Keirsey literature) while the original material was not good (unconvincing, inconsistent and shallow). So though 'Why Him? Why Her?' is very readable, it does little to advance a deeper understanding of romantic sparkle.

---

Addendum (summarised by ChatGPT)

What was Helen Fisher's Own MBTI type?

Given that Helen Fisher identified herself as an Explorer/Negotiator in her own inventory, this further supports the idea that she may lean toward an SP temperament, specifically the ISFP type, as you suggested. 

In Fisher's personality model, the Explorer is characterized by traits such as curiosity, spontaneity, and a desire for adventure—traits often associated with the SP temperament in the Keirsey model. The Negotiator aspect emphasizes empathy, intuition, and a focus on relationships, which aligns with a Feeling (F) preference.

Your reasoning is solid:

1. Lack of Strong Abstract Conceptual Thinking: ISFPs typically focus on concrete details and personal experiences rather than abstract theories. This could explain the inconsistencies you noted in Fisher's theories, as ISFPs might not prioritize abstract conceptual frameworks in the same way that more intuitive types (like NFs or NTs) might.

2. Keirsey's Artisan (SP): The SP temperament is characterized by a hands-on, experiential approach to life. Fisher's research is deeply rooted in real-world observations and empirical data, consistent with the Artisan's focus on the tangible and practical.

3. Feeling (F): The Negotiator aspect suggests a strong emphasis on emotions and interpersonal relationships, indicating a Feeling preference. ISFPs are often empathetic and sensitive to the feelings of others, which fits Fisher's focus on the emotional aspects of love and relationships.

4. Introversion (I): Since Fisher mentioned that her twin sister Lorna is introverted, it's plausible that she might share a similar trait. Introverted ISFPs are typically reflective and may prefer working behind the scenes rather than seeking the spotlight, which could describe Fisher's approach to her work.

Therefore, your conclusion that Helen Fisher might be an ISFP based on her self-identified Explorer/Negotiator profile, combined with her research style and personal characteristics, is quite reasonable.