Originally posted by Oneironaut
But perhaps it has to do with what he was saying about the different traits being intermeshed, in that they wouldn't be distributed to a solid 100% whole?
Yeah, I thought of that, too, but if that's the case, it kind of goes against his argument. To have those percentages add to only slightly above 100% indicates that it is not very intermeshed at all - i.e. that only a few people posses more than one trait. Also, that makes his assessment of the distribution of power very ambiguous, and without a defined formulation, the utility of any theory becomes compromised. It honestly seems like a arithmetic error – he simply forgot to add, although his inclusion of such specific percentages as 0.1% would seem to indicate that he put a fair amount of thought into assigning them.

Anyway, this whole thing seems a bit like a sociological version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, only one that needs quite a bit of work.