I suppose it's possible I could have misidentified my temperament. It's possible I could be phlegmatic or normal melancholy in inclusion, but I seem too reclusive for that. Sometimes I even dread social interaction because I usually don't particularly enjoy it. On the other hand, I often do want people to approach me and will be friendly when they do, but that's probably because of my supine affection. If I'm busy or have something else I was planning on doing, I generally don't want to be bothered.
I think my supine especially tempers this, because I do want people to approach me (unless I'm not in the mood), and that could have made it look more like phlegmatic, since I don't really mind who approaches me or wants to be friend, I can "take 'em or leave 'em".
What I'm seeing there looks very in between in the social area, which would fit Phlegmatic. Sometimes you want people, sometimes you don't.
This would not be from Affection, because remember, you have to get past Inclusion first to get to Affection.
In the FIRO theory, (here translated to APS temperament), Melancholies in Inclusion who are Sanguine in Affection are called "Affectionate Homebodies", and Cholerics in Inclusion with Supine in Affection are "Have Your Cake and Eat it Too". You can even get an idea of what I'm describing here from these names!
Both combos have a low wanted Inclusion which carries an "exclusive club" mentality that people must meet a criteria to enter.
And both also have a high wanted Affection, which wants to be open with people in relationships.
Yet neither wants more people than their Inclusion temperament normally does because of this. The temperaments do modify each other across the areas, but only in certain ways. So both combos are described as using their Inclusion to select the
few people they will then want to have an open deep relationship with. What it means is that they will be very aloof on the social level, but then more open and even needy toward those they do choose to associate with.
What you're describing appears to lie entirely in the Inclusion area, and it looks like an ambivalence, which would fit Phlegmatic.
One way in which the temperaments do modify each other for me, as that even as a Supine in Inclusion, I can feel like not being bothered with people when I'm in Control mode, trying to meet a goal, and wanting no interference. Like even trying to keep up on my daily internet circuit or other projects on the computer, and neglecting both Inclusion and Affection needs though other people. I don't think the Affection will influence the Inclusion that strongly, unless your Affection need is sorely lacking, so then you go searching for people (against your Inclusion need) to meet the Affection need.
One way Affection is described as influencing Inclusion for a person who is Melancholy in both areas, is that they will choose a large impersonal group over a small, but more personal group, because the larger group actually meets their Affection need more than the smaller group would meet their Inclusion need, and the Affection need is more important to the person.
I think I misinterpreted that chart that says melancholy is "everyone OUT except for exclusive club". I didn't think that fit me because it sounds mean, like I'll forcefully push people out or not include them, but I don't think that's really what it's like.
No, those are not to be taken too literally. I guess that table is not really good to try to fit onesself off of, but then it wasn't really designed to do that; it was to give a rough idea of the general
attitude of our needs.
One doesn't have to meanly tell others "OUT". You just don't
respond much to their approach. You would rather be left alone, unless they meet a criteria for inclusion.
I think melancholys (at least when mixed with phlegmatic and supine) don't necessarily exclude people, they just don't approach people and don't always like being approached.
Well, a pure Melancholy, and especially a Compulsive Melancholy, it would be more than just "don't
always like being approached". They for the most part
usually don't. In the FIRO concept, this was considered a form of "exclusion". Like with MBTI concepts, you can't be overly literal with these things, and there are exceptions and mitigating circumstances, of course.
If you '
don't always' like being approached, (but
do sometimes), then that sounds like a moderate wanted Inclusion. So if you're particularly low in expression, that could be Melancholy Phlegmatic or even Supine Phlegmatic as well.
http://www.pastoral-counseling-cent...Inclusion/melancholy-phlegmatic-inclusion.htm
http://www.pastoral-counseling-cent...-of-Inclusion/supine-phlegmatic-inclusion.htm
When I read the control descriptions, the one that seemed to fit me best was melancholy-phlegmatic, but I assume that the melancholy flavor comes from the melancholy in my inclusion area, so I could easily be pure phlegmatic for control. It actually makes quite a bit of sense, because when I'm in charge, I don't like to be the one making decisions, I like to get other people's opinions and have sort of a democracy.
Again, I have that same tendency, but recognize it as the influence of Supine in Inclusion and Choleric in Control. I end up torn, because I do want to make decisions, but have a hard time accepting the rejection from others for stepping on their toes. (I see this has created a glass ceiling for me on the job, where the only promotions are to supervisory positions, and in this particular environment, I don't think I can "play" people enough. Most supervisors down here are ISTJ pure Melancholy, who don't care what you think, at least on the surface).
I gave a good specific description of this dynamic, right above in post 39:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50281&p=1672795&viewfull=1#post1672795
I just took that Helen Fisher test and got Negotiator-Builder.
That would go along with some sort of Phlegmatic Melancholy combo.
By the way, how could I tell whether I'm melancholy or melancholy-compulsive? It seems like melancholy-compulsive is a more extreme version, but how extreme does it have to be to qualify as that?
Yeah, these profiles do not really make the difference that clear. It does briefly define it as
"Note: 'Compulsive' means that
this person tends to try to get this need met at any cost -- even when it is to his/her disadvantage to do so."
So somebody like that is not likely going to have the apparent ambivalence in wanted Inclusion that you seem to indicate.
I'll keep my options open, though...
