Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way. - Aristotle
The MOTIV personality theory is a refined hybrid of previous notions of personality (Big 5, Jung, Freud, Golden Rule) which posits that the entire spectrum of personality can be explained by five independent, alterable, and empirically provable personality motivations / strategies.
The most empirically proven personality model, to date, is the Big 5. It is a lexical personality model, which basically means it is based on the premise that language is a good representation of reality (as words are merely intellectual tools created to describe reality). Essentially this makes the Big 5 a wisdom of crowds approach at explaining who/how people are. The limitation of this is that this makes the Big 5 compromised by whatever biases the crowd has. If most people have a more superficial understanding of what makes people and themselves tick than that is going to be reflected in the lexicon of words understood by most to explain how others and themselves are. I think most people (even very smart people) don't know what really makes them tick, why they do what they do.
Jung and Freud represent the expert approach, intelligent individuals with fairly extensive clinical experience treating individuals. However, they were also limited by the make up of their sample size, which was more disturbed (and wealthy) than average. They were also limited by their lack of empiricism. They spent more time formulating concepts/ideas than they spent vetting those concepts/ideas via the scientific method. It's entirely implausible to think that an individual no matter how intelligent can produce flawless personality theories solely based on their instincts, logical judgment, and/or unempirical observations. That's why Jung and Freud's ideas - while profound starting points in parts - don't tell the whole story. That's why people who are really into Myers-Briggs or the Enneagram are more like religious disciples, those systems are not sufficiently rational (empirically proven/provable), and so faith/belief is required to buy into them.
The solution to the aforementioned problems is to come up with a system applicable to the general and clinical population, which accounts for all aspects of personality, which can be proven empirically.
The MOTIV theory is based around the idea of five central reward drives. These are evolutionary hard wired and/or environmental adaptation styles to life.
Materialistic - by being more externally perfect (true to the external ideal), I will have a survival advantage
Offbeat - by being more novel / unconventional, I will have a survival advantage
Thinking - by being more logical / rational, I will have a survival advantage
Intimate - by being more selfless / connected to others, I will have a survival advantage
Vital - by being more alive/healthy, I will have a survival advantage
Each of these has counter preferences, which are not necessarily as strong or common in the general population, and may not be as advantageous to survival, but they still exist.
Subjectivistic - The desire to be more internally perfect (true to my internal ideal)
Conventional - The desire to be more traditional, true to old ways
Emotional - The desire to be more instinctual/feeling/gut driven
Withholding - The desire to be more selfish, out for one's own interests
Depressed - The desire to be dead, to return to an inorganic state
Each person's distinct mix on these five motivational spectrums result in an vast number of different personality orientations, as few as 32 if you consider a high/low preference on each, 243 if you consider a high/middle/low preference on each, even more when you consider that some high/low preferences will be higher/lower than others.
A simple bipolar type can be coded as MCEID (Materialistic, Conventional, Emotional, Intimate, Depressed)
A more useful type can be coded as XOTWX (middle, Offbeat, Thinking, Withholding, middle)
A more complex type coding would be Mox|T|d, with upper case letter reflecting a strong preference, lower case reflecting a medium preference, || representing the dominant preference, and x representing a middle preference.
Another way to look at MOTIV which is slightly different is that you really have four behavioral drives, with the fifth, Vital, being more of a scoreboard of the effect of the other four preferences. So everyone is somewhere on the following four spectrums...
- I want to get preferential / special attention vs. I'm unconcerned with image / attention (Materialistic vs. Subjectivistic)
- I want to try new things / new ways vs. I'll pursue a conventional path (Offbeat vs. Conventional)
- I want to make logical sense of things vs. I follow / rely on gut / instinct (Thinking vs. Emotional)
- I want to help others vs. I look out for myself alone (Intimate vs. Withdrawn)
Your distinct preference profile on the above four spectrums results in a certain happiness or unhappiness level which is a major aspect of your Vital score. If you are unhappy and you are not changing your preferences, then you are unlikely to change your happiness level. I think for some people Vitality is a drive in itself but for others the Vital score is more of a reflection of the success or failure of their preferences on the other four drives. Some people spend their whole life being rewarded for their preference profile and suddenly it's no longer rewarded. If their happiness never recovers and they never make any changes to address that, they had the effect of Vitality (happiness) but they lacked the drive to maintain it (i.e. it was never really a drive for them).
The MOTIV personality system is the macro (wide-angle) companion to the R-Drive personality system which covers a more detailed micro (zoomed in) approach to individual personality. The 14+ R-Drive motivations (as well as pretty much any personality characteristic, or personality model type /Big 5/MBTI/Enneagram/) can all be explained by high-neutral-low preference combinations of the five MOTIV drives much the same way that every color can be decoded by it's distinct mix of primary colors. (I recently created a fairly comprehensive chart of the MOTIV factor loadings of various personality types/traits here.)
MOTIV factor analysis
*sample size 4867 (1468 men, 3357 women)
MOTIV to Big 5 (TIPI) pearson correlations
*sample size 1473, 10 test items from the TIPI Big Five test
MOTIV to Big 5 (BFI) pearson correlations
*sample size 951, 44 test items from the BFI Big Five test
The TIPI is a ten item Big Five test and the BFI is a 44 item Big Five test, both have been used frequently by academic researchers. Based on the correlations, Open-mindedness appears fairly analogous with Offbeat, Accommodation fairly analogous with Intimate, Emotional Stability is strongly analogous with Vitality. Conscientiousness (on the BFI) has a small correlation with Thinking. All five Big Five traits show significant correlations to Vitality (except BFI Openness). Materialism has little to no correlation with either Big Five inventory which means these inventories don't adequately measure a person's interest in status/power/money which I would argue is one of the most significant personality traits, historically and presently.
MOTIV to Myers Briggs / MBTI / Jung factor analysis correlations
*sample size 658, test items from an MBTI/Jung analog test on SimilarMinds
The MBTI correlations reveal Extroversion as a measure of Vitality more than as a measure of Materialism, Intuition as a medium analog to Offbeatness, Thinking as a medium analog to MBTI/Jung Thinking, and Judging as medium analog to Conventionalism (negative Offbeat preference).
MOTIV Drive Architecture
Materialism vs. Subjectivism (External vs. Internal)
The Materialistic mindset is one of external narcissism. The identity is fixated on resembling a mirrored reflection of what is considered most ideal by society (or to a lesser extent one's preferred subculture) so as to maximize the ability to get attention (narcissistic supply). Money whose only meaning is it's universal acceptance as an instrument of value is naturally prized by Materialists. The extreme Materialist male/female wants to be the ideal male/female, an Adonis/Aphrodite of their world if not the entire world.
The counter persona to the Materialist is the Subjectivist, the internal narcissist. The Subjectivist is attached to their version of truth. The quintessential Subjectivist version of truth finds agreement with no one else. Many new ideas have historically come from Subjectivists, but as soon as they become accepted by others they are no longer subjective truths. Many Subjectivists are no less ridiculous in their cognitive valuations than the average Materialist who lazily adopts whatever is popular. The Subjectivist that wants to be loved for who they are but is unattractive to everyone and/or simply objectively wrong is not well adapted to survival.
The whole purpose of this orientation spectrum is one of valuation, determining the value of things, determining what is attractive. Everyone is familiar with the phenomenon of economic bubbles where things become more valuable than they actually are due to misguided overly external group think. Alternately, many things exist and have existed whose external valuation was far below objective reality. Regardless, Subjectivists are just as liable to miscalculate the value of certain things.
Considering everything, it seems unwise to abandon the internal or the external in determining the valuation of things as both have their own unique advantages and disadvantages. Thus, I think the ideal is to be balanced on this spectrum entertaining both internal and external influences / resources in determining the most accurate value of things. On certain subjects one is justified at having a more subjective preference, like Aristarchus who figured out the Sun was the center of our planetary system 1800 years before Copernicus readopted the idea and proved it. However, the idea that an individual is going to be more right than everyone else on every valuation question is subjective insanity just as always erring on the side of what's popular is populist insanity.
Offbeat vs Conventional (New Ways vs. Old Ways)
Evolution / change seems to be the norm in human existence. There are certainly periods of cultural collapse which result in a more primitive existence than before but overall most newer cultural/intellectual/technological peaks exceed previous ones. The chase of the new, innovation, invention, is the driving force of human evolution. The Offbeat mindset seeks to live on the vanguard of existence, to step into the unknown. There are dangers to this approach, astronauts die, inventors explode themselves in their labs, revolutionaries are killed, athletes die from over-training, but there are clearly also rewards. What is the point of living a life that has already been lived before is the ethos of the Offbeat individual.
The Conventionalist on the other hand fears change and sometimes even desires an older more simple existence. The Amish are an example of a culture of Conventionalists. Orthodox versions of any religious or cultural group are another example. The Flat Earth society is a humorous extreme. Someone who celebrates Christmas or any other cultural holiday is a more mainstream example of this mindset. Some conventions have their place and you can't constantly reinvent better ways to do things at every moment but the instinct to be conventional is inherently stagnant if not regressive. There is so much that hasn't been figured out, perfected, etc. that to be conventional is to be against improvement, progress, a better life and a better world. There is nothing admirable in that and that is why no one typically admires the conventional.
So, this spectrum is about knowledge selection and discovery, experimental vs. conventional living. I think the ideal on this spectrum is to be as unconventional as you can be without risking your physical existence. I think it's really cool to watch someone do some physical stunt that no one has ever been able to do before but if they end up dying do it, it's doesn't seem as worthwhile. Maybe Marie Curie would have had an even more enjoyable and productive life had she been a little more cautious around the Radium that eventually killed her.
Thinking vs. Emotional (Cognition vs. Instinct)
The Thinker's prime motivation is to make sense of things in a logical fashion. It is not enough to understand that something feels good or that something works, the Thinker needs to know why. This mentality is a foundation of science and has resulted in a much greater understanding of the world, and a vast number of improvements to the world. The problem with this orientation is that there is so much yet that we do not know. Consequently, a Thinker can be hindered by their need to understand things when it comes to things that remain indecipherable. A big problem with thinkers is analysis paralysis or simply over-analysis delays where the Thinker spends more time on a decision than the import of the decision merits or the information available on that decision justifies.
The Emotion driven person relies on their feelings/gut/instinct. (Malcolm Gladwell wrote a fairly interesting account of this approach to life in the book Blink.) Every time you make a decision which doesn't involve habit, or analysis, you are acting on emotional intelligence. The Emotion driven person has the advantage of millions of years of proven instincts (and/or a lifetime of emotional experiences) in following their feelings, as well as the advantage of quick (often instant) decision making time. The problems of this approach are several. What feels right isn't always right for you in the long term or for others (which could also hurt you in the long term or just lower quality of life in the world). Exercise doesn't feel right for lots of emotionally driven individuals, consequently they don't do it and their long term health suffers. Novel situations are also a problem that instincts or past lifetime experiences offer no assistance for. How do you make a decision if you have no feelings/instincts on the matter?
Clearly, this personality spectrum is about decision making. Based on the aforementioned reasons, I think the ideal is to be balanced on this spectrum. One is at an advantage if they are fully connected to their emotional intelligence (gut/instincts/feelings) and also capable of analyzing things logically. It is unwise to be overly reliant on logic or feelings, either of which could be faulty. What is the point of a concept that seems to make logical sense but doesn't result in you feeling good/happy or an instinct that makes you feel good but doesn't make sense when you logically consider the suffering it causes those close to you or even strangers. Using both types of intelligence in concert gives you an advantage over reliance on just one.
Intimate vs. Withholding (Othercentric vs. Selfcentric)
It is surprising the number of people, who identify as selfless/considerate with people close to them and selfish/inconsiderate with strangers, that consider themselves nice or consider themselves perfectly normal, ideal even. The latter type of people are not really the epitome of Intimate types. Intimate types with a high Vital score care more about strangers than themselves and would rather hurt them-self than hurt another person. A lot of good can come out of that approach to life. It is the basis for a lot of the charitable and humanitarian causes which make the world a more hospitable place. However, there is also a negative to that approach to life. A society of selfless people is prime fuel for selfish people to take advantage of. Furthermore, you can unwisely avoid developing your own life by being overly devoted to the lives of others. If other people's lives are so worthy of attention, why isn't yours as well?
Withholding types are less common than Intimate types (at least in terms of self reports). If Withholding types are not hiding who they are (which they can certainly do) they kind of stand out since they are so much more disagreeable/unaccommodating than the typical person. An extreme Withholding preference is one aspect of all sociopaths of the world. They lack empathy towards others, which means they are ignorant or inconsiderate of the pain of others. One convicted serial killer murdered his first victim after a one night stand. His motivation was that he thought his victim looked so peaceful and pretty and he didn't want him to leave his bed, so he calmly strangled him to keep him there. A more common Withholding type is simply just looking out for their own interests a little more than other people's (sort of like the ideal of modern American capitalism). If you add a Materialist and Depressive orientation you get fictional characters like Ebenezer Scrooge or Mr. Potter from It's A Wonderful Life.
This trait is a bit harder to research to really decide where most people truly are on this spectrum. One limitation is intelligence, I think if people were more aware (for example of how everyone is connected, however remotely) they would be more considerate to everyone. But most are not, and most people that are very nice even to strangers typically would still probably save a loved one over a stranger from a sinking boat, even if the stranger had more to offer the world (of course a Withholding type would save them-self over a loved one). This results in the kind of culture of selfishness (conscious or unconscious) that idly stands by while a majority of the world lives a far less humane life than most in the west (for now). This also emphasizes the fact that the Intimate trait is more about inter-relational accommodation and not necessarily about a more humanitarian mindset (which only shows up with Intimate types with a high Vital score). Intimate types with a low Vital score will only tend to be overly accommodating to those close to them.
The substance of this personality spectrum is interpersonal orientation. I think the ideal is to be in the middle. If helping others hurts you (or doesn't help others), the world as a whole doesn't benefit. The wise approach is to look out for your interests and the interests of the others who demonstrate reciprocity, to cooperate with people who cooperate with you, and to defect from people who are uncooperative. (The wonderful Richard Dawkins book the Selfish Gene provides compelling evidence for this in regards to the Tit for Tat research). To be accommodating to a significant other, family member, or offspring who does not in return act accommodating to you engenders selfish behavior, an entitlement complex.
Vital vs Depressed (Optimism/Happiness vs. Pessimism/Apathy)
This is the most important drive of the MOTIV system, the most essential to individual happiness, the desire to be alive. None of us chose to be born so it understandably makes sense that not everyone is fully on board with being alive. If you have ever been happy, grateful to be alive, even for a moment, then you know what it feels like for people that have a high Vital orientation, except for them, they are like that most of the time. There was an interesting article recently about a small percentage of the population that doesn't need much sleep.
Dr. Jones says he has identified only about 20 true short sleepers, and he says they share some fascinating characteristics. Not only are their circadian rhythms different from most people, so are their moods (very upbeat) and their metabolism (they're thinner than average, even though sleep deprivation usually raises the risk of obesity). They also seem to have a high tolerance for physical pain and psychological setbacks.
"They encounter obstacles, they just pick themselves up and try again," Dr. Jones says.
Some short sleepers say their sleep patterns go back to childhood and some see the same patterns starting in their own kids, such as giving up naps by age 2. As adults, they gravitate to different fields, but whatever they do, they do full bore, Dr. Jones says.
"Typically, at the end of a long, structured phone interview, they will admit that they've been texting and surfing the Internet and doing the crossword puzzle at the same time, all on less than six hours of sleep," says Dr. Jones. "There is some sort of psychological and physiological energy to them that we don't understand." (source)
Vital types self report as liking who they are, enjoying life, being optimistic, having a strong will to live, and being self motivated. Whereas Materialistic types report wanting to be liked the most, Vital types actually report being liked the most. It makes sense that people would prefer optimistic, high energy, self motivated people to vain, competitive, attention hounds (Materialists).
Depressed types on the other hand hate who they are while also reporting that they don't even know who they are, they lack motivation, feel they have no control over life, think most people are better than them, feel unable to change their circumstances, feel broken, don't like most people, feel that being optimistic leads to disappointment, are self destructive, and have a defeatist outlook on life.
Two of most interesting and highest factor scoring differences between Vital and Depressed types are the following items.
At a certain point in my life my parents distanced themselves from me (and they remain distant).
At a certain point in my life I distanced myself from my parents (and I remain distant).
Since no one chooses to be born, it makes sense that one's parents, one's maker / original propeller, appear to have a profound effect on a person's outlook on life, their will to live. Unhealthy attachment issues appear to be the preeminent determinant in whether a person has a Vital or Depressive orientation (certainly generic inheritance plays a role here to, i.e. inheriting a negative/depressive disposition). Not all unhealthy attachment issues are about parental rejection, excessive coddling and/or closeness (over-parenting) can also result in a helpless disposition that defines the Depressive personality (as discussed in this article).
If you are someone who thinks they had/have healthy attachments BUT romantic relationship breakups are very difficult for you, break your will, then you need to reexamine your attachment history/reality because an authentic Vital type weathers romantic rejections very well, a Depressive does not. If the loss of a relationship ruins your will to live, you didn't have much of a will to live to begin with.
Serious trauma can also disrupt/injure/break someone's will to live. If something happens to you, like in war, that upsets your entire world view, that can stop the momentum of a person with even a fairly ideal background whose previous motivation was built on a lot of emotional and intellectual influences that have now been overshadowed by the greater impact of their trauma.
Certain behaviors, foremost of them developing/maintaining physical fitness, are essential to maintaining a Vital disposition to life. But if you, in your head (consciously or unconsciously), don't want to be alive, lack a will to live, nothing else really matters. For example, if you are a great driver, as far as capability, but don't voluntarily choose to turn the steering wheel when you need to on a steep mountain road, you will plummet to your death. On a less dramatic level, someone who has less internal will to live won't do, consistently, all the things necessary to maintain a healthy functional life. That's basically what the Depressive personality is for a lot of people, a slow prolonged unpleasant death (often with collateral damage).
Depressives are the people that inspire zombie movies, droning through life, hungry for life in others and therefore potentially destructive of others, but lacking sufficient authentic life drive inside. Depressives who are also Materialistic and Withholding are the villainous despots of history, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. They selfishly act out their self destructive death wishes on the whole world. To kill another person (or yourself) is a very easy thing to do if you simply don't value life.
The historical antecedent to this personality spectrum is Freud's Death instinct. Freud came up with the Death instinct in an attempt to try to explain why trauma victims/survivors (many as a result of WW1) became fixated on self-destructive patterns, specifically they tended to repeat/re-enact their traumatic experiences. He found it connected to another phenomena he noticed in other patients which was a need to repeat past trauma (unhealthy experience) as a contemporary experience instead or remembering that it had actually occurred in the past.
It stands to reason from all this many Depressives are stuck / fixated on unhealthy attachment issues and/or trauma issues (consciously or unconsciously). They don't like most people because all they care about is finding a new version of their preferred attachment choice (often similar to one of their parents) to hopefully sustain them or a re-enactment of their past trauma, everyone/thing else is invisible / meaningless to them. This is why Depressives can be very inconsiderate (and often not intentionally). Depressives score highly (compared to the average) on wanting to be carried through life which again suggests a need for a replacement parent and/or a broken will. Materialistic Withholding Depressives like Stalin and Hitler managed to coax an entire nation to carry them (although even that wasn't enough, they wanted the whole world to carry them). Some depressives though, as a result of their genetics, simply are born with a fragile will to live and might not have a particular trauma history. Again, genetics are not destiny, so a Depressive can choose to change their innate behavioral pattern if they want to.
Depressives tend to over focus on one or more of the other MOTIV drives with the notion that if only they are more of something, then they could be happy INSTEAD of focusing on actually living, being more alive.
Materialist Depressive - focus excessively on being physically attractive/perfect.
Subjectivist Depressive - focus excessively on avoiding the spotlight.
Offbeat Depressive - focus excessively on being obscure.
Conventional Depressive - focus excessively on not being different.
Thinking Depressive - focus excessively on trying to be logical.
Emotional Depressive - focus excessively on living by whims/instincts.
Intimate Depressive - focus excessively on helping others.
Withholding Depressive - focus excessively on getting their own way, helping themself.
These misperceptions of what will make them happy fuel their repetition of the same dysfunctional patterns. No one that is not similarly dead inside is going to want to tolerate them long term (no matter how pretty, non-superficial, offbeat, unchanging, logical, instinctive, helpful, and/or selfish they are), and two depressives can't make each other happy (as they are both too depressed/dead inside to energize each other), so they are never going to find happiness with that strategy. Their whole existence is about attracting life to them or an unnatural focus on death, instead of focusing on actually being more alive, enjoying life. The Depressive thinks they can only be happy if they get that thing that was always missing or became broken and/or replace what their parents can't provide for them anymore (but that they still are dependent on), i.e. a surrogate will to live. Still other Depressives are just resigned to the idea that nothing will ever make them happy, they will never have a sustainable will/reason to live.
The notion of self medication, I think, is all about using external means as a substitute for your own lack of internal motivation, will power. Alcohol (liquid courage) can be a normal occasional fun part of life if you are not a Depressive. But if you are one, then you may not be able to get by without it. Anti-depressants prescribed in unprecedented numbers are nothing more than chemical exercise/motivation (i.e. a means to raise heart rate - source). An individual responded to their test results recently with the following:
Low Vitality score: Little doubt that reflects the fact that I have been diagnosed with depression. I am, however, medicated which ought to have overcome that outcome. Interesting.
As if the solution to happiness is passively ordering it on a menu at the pharmacy. I do think if you are unwilling to exercise, that anti-depressants may be better than the alternative, nothing, which will inevitably lead to more physical deterioration. However, maybe more physical deterioration would prompt/force the individual to make a change to their behavior and all psychotropic medication does it trap the individual into not getting worse, but not getting better. Further, there's a lot written about serious withdrawal symptoms of anti-depressants which keep patients on them for no other reason than to avoid withdrawal (source). In any case, anything external that you rely on, on a regular basis, that if removed would make you less functional, less motivated, less alive, is an indication of your own fundamental lack of self propulsion. Thus external solutions even when they provide some organic benefit can serve to further weaken a Depressive's already weak internal will to live.
The best solution for the Depressive is to become aware of their unhealthy attachment issues, mindset, and/or trauma history and to give up on the need for an idealized parent/savior/love-interest/external-source-for-motivation, to look to them-self for support/healing. Only then can they begin actively living as a more independent self motivated Vital type (exercising regularly, pursuing a career / authentic interests, etc.) and no longer as a more dependent depressive unhealthy child or victim longing for something that won't sustainably fix their problem, which is that they lack the internal will to live. Only then can they actually have a chance at healthy friendships and romantic relationships.
Another item that divides Vitals and Depressives strongly is the notion that happiness is a choice. Depressives refuse to accept it because they consciously or unconsciously want to be saved by someone/something other than them-self or alternately they think there simply is no hope (which frees them of the responsibility of putting effort into life, i.e. active living). To admit that happiness is a choice undermines their entire emotionally immature psychology. The internal will to live is something that needs to be internally chosen, developed, as no one is entirely born with it. If the Depressive is otherwise physically healthy, the transition to the Vital orientation won't be so hard. If the Depressive has poor physical health, it will be a longer transition to fix the years of physical neglect, poor habits, but if they move beyond the past unhealthy attachment / dependency issues / trauma fixation there is no reason they can't rebuild themselves in time.
Life is not fair at the start. We are not all created equal. A lot of Vital types merely had/have the fortune of good genes and/or parents which gave them a lot of healthy life momentum / modeling / skills. They may or may not sustain that momentum / modeling / skills, but their lack of unhealthy attachment issues and/or trauma makes it less likely for them to fall into self destructiveness, the grips of the death instinct. Anyone who is Depressive likely had parents who had their own share of problems with likely their own set of Depressive parents and/or trauma, so often there is really no one to blame. Even if there was, it doesn't solve the problem that the Depressive fundamentally lacks the internal will to live. No amount of trauma (short of their own death), can keep someone with an internal will to live permanently down, they will keep picking them-self up no matter what. Ultimately, for the Depressive every problem that occurs in life is a chance for them to choose to keep giving up, being helpless, acting dead, for Vital types it is simply a chance to choose to overcome another hurdle, to be resilient, to act/be alive. (Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, written on scraps of paper in a Nazi concentration camp, is a good read on the topic of the will to live.)
There is one personality item that I think may exemplify the ideal personality disposition.
When I'm not happy, I make changes to my life.
The above item codes based on factor analysis scores of 851 test takers to xoxx|V|, middle preference on Materialism/Subjectivism, medium preference for Offbeat, middle preference on Thinking/Feeling, middle preference on Intimate/Withholding, and strong primary preference on Vitality. If everyone operated with that disposition, I'm inclined to think the world would be a happier, healthier, more dynamic place. Further, I think it may be empirically provable that happier / healthier cultures come closer to that personality disposition and more depressed / unhealthy ones diverge from it in an endless number of ways much like the Anna Karenina line...
Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
MOTIV drive descriptions can be found here - http://similarminds.com/motiv/materialist.html
MOTIV personality tests
In any case, understanding the system and determining your own current type introspectively and/or with those that know you well may be more accurate than any test can be.