From Abracadabra to Zombies
reader comments: personology
10 Aug 1999
Your article was very interesting, however, you didn't seem to have gotten the information that we connect our work to biology, physiology, genetics, and a number of other true sciences. Our work is more tangible than is psychology or even the medical profession.
My husband, William F. Burtis, trained Naomi Tickle in a "Crash course" type of classroom, at her request. She stated she wanted to use personology as an adjunct to her "color consulting business". She tried to teach personology classes, but because she did not study long enough to understand the intricacies of our work she did not succeed. George Roman is currently a student of Bill Burtis' and so not fully trained as yet. Bill Whiteside, as far as I am aware, has used his knowledge of personology in Sales Training seminars, and been quite successful. However, he has not been involved in the research as of late, and I don't believe I know of any personologists that he has trained.
Teaching a subject causes any instructor to have to learn more and dig deeper into their subject, constantly. That is true if they want to be a truly knowledgeable teacher on any subject. You apparently interviewed people who are very familiar with the subject but not aware of all the connections and research that has been done in the area. Mr. Burtis has been working in personology for almost 45 years. He studied with Jones, and with Robert and Elizabeth Whiteside. He helped Robert Whiteside validate the 68 traits and was in the group who categorized the traits into groups. He and I are currently teaching several personologist, have graduated many, and are continuing the research as best we can with no funding to assist us. Other personologists are doing their own individual studies and findings.
We would welcome the chance to test our work with any of the other "accepted" personality tests out there. Most of our clients (who have had other tests) tell us their personology analysis was much more helpful because it was so specific. Our profiles fit ONLY the person for whom they were designed. They are not biased by the person's feelings about themselves, or by us for the most part, because we put the profile together from cell proportions compared to cell proportions. It's all in the head, face, hands, and body. I am sure there is still an enormous amount of information to be discovered about our work. I welcome all the help we can get. I also welcome anyone who would like to do further "scientific tests and research" on our work. I know it would prove itself true!!
The reason you don't find it in any of your "scientific" studies books is because it is so unique there are really no "peer groups" with which to compare it. And it was and is used by the "everyday" people and not by the hard scientists. I'd love to an in depth scientific study happen. We have little money and even less time, but someday you will see structure-function "Personology" worldwide. And it is NOT like astrology or phrenology. It is like physiognomy and psychology and genetics and physics and biology and anatomy! Its real, it works. Ask any sports coach, ballet coach, or tennis coach, etc, if structure doesn't play a HUGE role in champions. Ask a race horse trainer. Structure equals function! That is a fact. Humans have the ability to CHOOSE how to use their structure but when under pressure we revert to our innate patterns.
If you'd like more information on this subject call my husband
William F. Burtis, M.S. (831-476-1632) He is probably the world's most
knowledgeable person on the subject of personology. Both its history and
what is going on currently, as he is still involved in it.
Sincerely, Janelle M. Heyes-Burtis
reply: Personology doesn't seem that unique to me that it couldn't be tested. In fact, as mentioned in the entry, these ideas have already had their day in the past under different names.