User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 208

  1. #151
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I would think Phlegmatic in Control would be NF, and ESFP and ENFP will be very similar on the surface. The Phlegmatic in Control probably won't be very pragmatic (they have a low energy reserve, and take the path of least resistance. As you can see there, they're more "democratic" than "autocratic"). Though really, Phlegmatic is inbetween, and won't be totally reserved either, but overall, would probably be more "cooperative".

    SP is likely Sanguine in Control. would be the purest Sanguine of the types.

    If you're Choleric Phlegmatic in Affection, you probably can't say you don't have a "directive" bone in your body, because Choleric is the epitome of directive, and very aggressive about it. Though the Phlegmatic will greatly temper it down.
    "Directive" is really Interaction Style, and would likely correspond to Inclusion more, but "Affection" is like a deeper level of social interaction. (Inclusion is surface; "who's in or who's out", and Affection is how closed or open you are with those who are "in"). But a Choleric in Affection will still have some amount of directive behavior, even if Inclusion is is opposite. (Thus it can explain some behavior that might not fit the regular Interaction Style).

    So CP will be inbetween in that dimension.
    So this "goal" orientation will be in your deep relationships only (and again, be very moderate at that), while your surface relationships will be more purely "people"-oriented. You'll want to socialize with a lot of people, but once home or whatever, you'll only need affection and closeness under a moderate criteria.
    However, Affection is the deepest level of personality, so that's why Choleric would ultimately seem more "essential".
    Thanks Eric. Seems accurate, if internally inconsistent. I put the functions above this though, so I'm not an NF, but I can see why ESFP/ENFP are superficially similar obviously.


    Can someone please explain why the interaction styles are as below instead of as below:

    http://s2.postimg.org/5z6fsramf/Inte...es20151128.png


    Also why does this "seem" to work? I hope it's self-explanatory because it's 1:30 am here...basically I for some reason have the impression that ISFJ for example is the most NF-like of the SJs, and that ENFP for example is the most SP-like of the NFs, etc. ESFP is the quintessential SP, thus the SP of the SPs. Does this ring true to other people? I might switch INTJ and INTP but I just made this quickly so I am not going to fix it. I just put INTJ as the most NF of the NTs because they are a dominant intuitive whereas INTP is a dominant thinker.

    http://s28.postimg.org/z44jcovq3/Tem...es20151128.png

    Edit: OH WAIT I just realized that if I switch INTJ and INTP like I said, then SJ = In Charge, SP = Get Things Going, NF = Behind the Scenes, NT = Chart the Course... how did that work out?! That's so weird.
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.
    Likes /DG/ liked this post

  2. #152
    corona Hawthorne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sp
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Well, this was somewhat difficult to understand and I even think my mind bent a little bit.

    So, when it came to the Inclusion and Control columns, I related to Phlegmatic-Choleric and Melancholy respectively. Deciding for Affection was impossible. Now, if I am interpreting this correctly, I would fall somewhere in the SJ range of things. Specifically ISFJ?

    Edit: Mildly surprised by the lack of Sanguine relatability.
    Likes strychnine liked this post

  3. #153
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    Thanks for that, @Eric B!

    I do have further questions then, which mostly relate to how exactly this correlates to the five temperaments.

    Is the following correct?



    Where does sanguine fit in control if it is alternating? Furthermore, if phlegmatic is the middle of everything, why is the middle option in control a democratic option? Wouldn't it be more so someone who occasionally likes to control others and occasionally likes others to control them (which is what I identify with)? I see that this is apparently more in the line of the sanguine description, but I don't quite follow the reasoning behind this.

    Edit: I also think strychnine raises a good question in regards to the first image s/he posted.

    -----

    Edit 2: This is unrelated to my above comments, but I find it very interesting that I relate strongly to supine in inclusion, yet I also relate strongly to the chart the course interaction style. According to the correlations, this cannot be true.
    Last edited by /DG/; 11-28-2015 at 03:59 AM. Reason: Fixed wording, etc.
    Likes strychnine liked this post

  4. #154
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    PC fits, PM not really. The big thing is while I need praise, recognition, it's for the sole purpose of getting objective proof that I am doing well and am competent and am valued for what I bring to the frey. In the absence of that I get worried I am ineffective. I don't want praise for the sake of praise.

    The thing is, I am quite pushy/demanding/controling, and will almost always seek out a leadership position if I get heavily involved with something. My dedication/passion is inexoribly linked to the amount of effort I put into something. As such, the more time I put in, the more I care and the more involved I will want to be. I really, really want things to be done right, and if I see them not being done correctly I will want to get right into and fix it. I can be immensely critical/cruel if people are incompetent and will go to lengths to overthrow them. That said, I am very friendly, and quite understanding at the same time, and am never cruel for the sake of cruel. Choleric for this just sounds out and out mean, wanting control because it's control. Not for any sort of end goal, reason, or for the betterment of something. I also fully recognize that some people are at their best when not controlled. I don't want to let people do their thing, and that has a slow persistent leak, but I let them do it. It's simply unfair to control everything that someone does even if they're wrong. It drives me nuts, but I leave it be for the sake of the greater good. I'm very goal/future oriented.

    Another way to put it, is I want to impart a significant amount of control over people, but in practice only impart moderate. It goes up and down though, and the majority of the time it's quite covert and very tactful. That said, my friends would all likely say I am immensely controlling. Wouldn't be surprised if people on the forum said that too. Also, I will almost always relent if someone is objectively right.


    I really don't relate to phlemegic traits all that much. I kinda do, but I also kinda don't. You would not be the first person to float the idea that I am a Te dom. It's kinda common, actually. On the surface I do appear to be ESTJ, but I am not. @EJCC has met me in person and completely confirm this. A lot of it comes down to I am a strong 1w2, and it effects how I "use" my Fe and present it to the world. It's absolutely Fe though. On the surface I relate to Te quite well, and aspire towards it's goals, but I don't actually use it.


    I'm close with people, but I can't categorize it right . I fit bits and pieces of most of them. I also want and get very different things from everyone that I am close to, but permanently feel stifiled, and like I have an itch I can't find to scratch.

    (I have aspergers, and there are some aspects of human behavior/relations that leave me flummoxed even with the most concerted effort).
    You sound like someone very “Choleric” on the surface (“In Charge” Interaction Style), but with a higher wanted Control (which would fit NF's “motive focus”). That's why I suggested Phlegmatic in Control.
    Maybe you could look at Supine in Control (the other one I associate with NF. And there's Phlegmatic Supine and Supine Phlegmatic as well).
    You'll see in those an emphasis on “dependency” you might not identify but so much with, but keep in mind, the different temperament areas modify each other, and Choleric is the diametric opposite of Supine, and on the surface, that will lead to a greater appearance of less dependency and passivity.

    So it's on the surface of social dealings with people where you display those Choleric traits, but in actual leadership and responsibilities, you're not as “goal” oriented, but have a measue of people-orientation. That would match what I've read about ENFJ's.

    Since people have basically tacked Enneagram on as a virtual fifth letter of type (modifying the overall behavior), I often wonder if that might have something to do with the remaining area of Affection. Since you say 1w2, then maybe Melancholy or Phlegmatic Melancholy? You would be “inbetween” in expressing a need for closeness and affection, and having a low want of it. Perhaps explaining why you don't identify with the area so much.

    Many people wonder how Asperger's would work with preferred Fe. Must be difficult.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #155
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strychnine View Post
    Thanks Eric. Seems accurate, if internally inconsistent. I put the functions above this though, so I'm not an NF, but I can see why ESFP/ENFP are superficially similar obviously.


    Can someone please explain why the interaction styles are as below instead of as below:

    http://s2.postimg.org/5z6fsramf/Inte...es20151128.png


    Also why does this "seem" to work? I hope it's self-explanatory because it's 1:30 am here...basically I for some reason have the impression that ISFJ for example is the most NF-like of the SJs, and that ENFP for example is the most SP-like of the NFs, etc. ESFP is the quintessential SP, thus the SP of the SPs. Does this ring true to other people? I might switch INTJ and INTP but I just made this quickly so I am not going to fix it. I just put INTJ as the most NF of the NTs because they are a dominant intuitive whereas INTP is a dominant thinker.

    http://s28.postimg.org/z44jcovq3/Tem...es20151128.png

    Edit: OH WAIT I just realized that if I switch INTJ and INTP like I said, then SJ = In Charge, SP = Get Things Going, NF = Behind the Scenes, NT = Chart the Course... how did that work out?! That's so weird.
    OK, what you've done there (in the first image) is simply make P "informtive" and J "directive" across the board. It may seem that way, but then, as I always point out, there's also structure and motive which are a parallel to directing and informing, both of which represent "wanted" behavior or "responsiveness". P is obviously more "responsive", so if it's not informing, it is at least "motive focused", as is the case for the STP's. And J is less responsive, and if not "directing", is at least "structure" focused, as for the SFJ's. You could think of "Judgment" as less responsive in general, so when it's extraverted ("J"), it definitely shows, but when introverted ("P"), this softens it and makes the overall type at least part responsive.
    T/F is the flipside of this. Both are [less responsive] "judgments", but F is "softer" than T, which is the least "responsive" of all. So FP's will be both informing and motive focused, and TJ's will be both directing and structure focused. FJ's and TP's will mix those responsive poles, and hence seem either way or inbetween on them. It actualy makes those types a bit "enigmatic" in ways (which is basically exemplified in what I was explaining to Hard).

    Also, what we end up with is the Interaction Styles and Keirsey temperaments paralleling directly each other as different levels of the classic temperaments. This is key to understanding why an ENFP would seem the most "SP"-like of the NF's, and an ISFJ the most "NF"-like of the SJ's. And INTP the most NF=like of the NT's. And also why ISP's often have trouble fitting into some of Keirsey's descriptions of the SP.

    The parallels are as such:

    Sanguine: ESF/ENP, SP
    Melancholy: IST/INJ, SJ
    Choleric: EST/ENJ, NT
    Phlegmatic or Supine: ISF/INP, NF.

    So each type is revealed as a blend of two temperaments (like you have in some of those cheap four temperaments tests):
    ISTJ: pure Melancholy ISFJ: SupineMelancholy INFJ: MelancholySupine INTJ: MelancholyCholeric
    ISTP: MelancholySanguine ISFP: SupineSanguine INFP: Phlegmatic and/or Supine INTP: PhlegmaticCholeric
    ESTP: CholericSanguine ESFP: pure Sanguine ENFP: SanguineSupine ENTP: SanguineCholeric
    ESTJ: CholericMelancholy ESFJ: SanguineMelancholy ENFJ: CholericSupine ENTJ: pure Choleric

    Quote Originally Posted by /DG/ View Post
    Thanks for that, @Eric B!

    I do have further questions then, which mostly relate to how exactly this correlates to the five temperaments.

    Is the following correct?

    high eI = sanguine, choleric
    low eI = melancholy, supine

    high wI = sanguine, supine
    low wI = melancholy, choleric

    high eC = choleric (be in control), supine (being controlled)
    low eC = melancholy

    high wC = choleric (be in control), supine (being controlled)
    low wC = melancholy

    Not sure about the control categorizations. I think I'm confusing some of the terminology/definitions.

    high eA = sanguine
    low eA = choleric (not sure on choleric here?), supine, melancholy

    high wA = sanguine, supine
    low wA = melancholy, choleric

    Phlegmatic is the intermediate option out of any of these.
    Inclusion you have completely right, but the e/w definitions of the temperaments does not change according to the areas. They follow [i.e. define] the temperaments themselves. Choleric is always high e and low w, and Supine is always low e and high w. Wanting to be controlled is high wC, not high eC.
    Where does sanguine fit in control if it is alternating?
    They initially are quick to taking action in leadership, but then "swing" to a more "dependent" or "narcissistic" phase where they drop everything. (You can even see some evidences of this in some of the Keirsey SP descriptions!)
    And this would make sense, given Se's "go with the flow in the immediate moment" perspective. The Choleric in Control will more likely continue to push. Choleric is more "win-lose", and this will connect to the NT's need of "mastery".
    Furthermore, if phlegmatic is the middle of everything, why is the middle option in control a democratic option? Wouldn't it be more so someone who occasionally likes to control others and occasionally likes others to control them (which is what I identify with)? I see that this is apparently more in the line of the sanguine description, but I don't quite follow the reasoning behind this.
    It might work that way sometimes, but the reason the Phlegmatic is in the middle to begin with, is because he's not energized in either of the two dimensions (which basically move one toward or away from people, in expressing or wanting). So the Phlegmatic is all sbout preserving the low energy reserve, and taking the path of least resistance. (Which leads to the "democratic" approach).

    Edit 2: This is unrelated to my above comments, but I find it very interesting that I relate strongly to supine in inclusion, yet I also relate strongly to the chart the course interaction style. According to the correlations, this cannot be true.
    Well what about Supine do you relate to? You relate to it more than Melancholy?
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas
    Likes /DG/ liked this post

  6. #156
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    OK, what you've done there (in the first image) is simply make P "informtive" and J "directive" across the board. It may seem that way, but then, as I always point out, there's also structure and motive which are a parallel to directing and informing, both of which represent "wanted" behavior or "responsiveness". P is obviously more "responsive", so if it's not informing, it is at least "motive focused", as is the case for the STP's. And J is less responsive, and if not "directing", is at least "structure" focused, as for the SFJ's.
    T/F is the flipside of this. So FP's will be both informing and motive focused, and TJ's will be both directing and structure focused. FJ's and TP's will mix those responsive poles, and hence seem either way or inbetween on them. It actualy makes them a bit "enigmatic" in ways (which is basically exemplified in what I was explaining to Hard).
    I think I am beginning to understand the divisions a bit better now, thank you. And I see where the interaction styles now come into play. Can you perhaps expand on what is meant by "motive?"

    Also, if FJ and TP types are more of a "mix" between the FP and TJ types, why are the FJ and TP types still rigidly placed within their certain categories in the interaction styles? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that, for example, an ESFJ may be either in charge or get things going, depending on the individual?

    Inclusion you have completely right, but the e/w definitions of the temperaments does not change according to the areas. They follow [i.e. define] the temperaments. Choleric is always high e and low w, and Supine is always low e and high w. Wanting to be controlled is high wC, not high eC.
    So then high eC = the need to be the boss, low eC = the lack of need to be the boss, high wC = the need for someone to "boss" them, and low wC = lack of want for someone to "boss" them? It seems kind of like we are defining the scale a bit oddly then...or perhaps I just am not really fond of the terminology in this case.

    They initially are quick to taking action in leadership, but then "Swing" to a more "dependent" or "narcissistic" phase where they drop everything. (You can even see some evidences of this in some of the Keirsey SP pdesriptions!)
    And this would make sense, given Se's "go with the flow in the immediate moment" perspective.
    So then this occurs because the sanguine has both a high need for control and a high need to be controlled, correct? These are both conflicting states and their only option is to swing back and forth between the two, right? I think I am understanding that one now.

    It might work that way sometimes, but the reason the Phlegmatic is in the middle to begin with, is because he's not energized in either of the two dimensions (which basically move one toward or away from people, in expressing or wanting). So the Phlegmatic is all sbout preserving the low energy reserve, and taking the path of least resistance. (Which leads to the "democratic" approach).
    So then what of the scenario I described then for myself? Would that be sanguine in control? I don't feel that my fluctuations in my need to control or be controlled are that wild, strong, impulsive, etc. Yet, I do not at all relate to the democracy aspect.

    Well what about Supine do you relate to? You relate to it more than Melancholy?
    I suppose probably appear more as a melancholy in inclusion than anything. I am very closed off to other people and often do not let other people in. However, I want desperately for others to initiate and include me. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that I am able to take people up on their offers when they do try to include me. So there is a conflict between how much I express to others that I want to be included and how much I actually want to be included.

    I am definitely melancholy in affection, though.

    Though, given a task, I'm much more interested in doing the task than associating with other people. I also do not enjoy working in teams and prefer to do things alone.
    Likes strychnine liked this post

  7. #157
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by /DG/ View Post
    I think I am beginning to understand the divisions a bit better now, thank you. And I see where the interaction styles now come into play. Can you perhaps expand on what is meant by "motive?"
    The term is from Berens, who described it as "a focus on...why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure”. It should be easy to see why this might correspond with a higher wC (And "Wanted" is not necessarily always "wanting to be controlled"; but may mean allowing it more, as there's a lower criteria [whis is what the "Wanted" scale is really about] to be met). The NT will only accept something if it makes intuitive, logican sense, or fits the goals (abstract "structure").
    For the SJ, it has to be an "authorized" authority or familiar fact, for them to accept control (concrete "structure"). So those two temperaments end up with a stricter "criteria" for accepting control.

    Also, if FJ and TP types are more of a "mix" between the FP and TJ types, why are the FJ and TP types still rigidly placed within their certain categories in the interaction styles? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that, for example, an ESFJ may be either in charge or get things going, depending on the individual?
    Because S and N, which the Interaction Styles are otherwise "blind" to (they don't directly figure, and each style is composed of and equal number of S's and N's), are what determine which "area" (Inclusion/interaction, or Control/conation) the dichotomies refer to.

    S/N is really connected to Control for some reason, yet tying together the opposite temperaments:
    S: Sanguine, Melancholy
    N: Choleric, Phlegmatic and/or Supine.
    (And a perceptive factor had matched them like this in Kant's old theory).

    So the Inclusion temperaments or Interaction styles will have two sets of type groups; one S and one N, and the "responsive" factors end up getting swapped between them:

    T/F: wI for S's, and wC for N's
    J/P: wI for N's and wC for S's

    So EFJ may be either In Charge [ENJ] or Get Things Soing [ESF], but when you put the S in there, you're completing the SJ temperament, which is cooperative and structure focused (low e/wC; Melancholy in Control), and then the S forces the Interaction style to ESF, which is expressive and informative (GtG). In Charge would then have to be EST, but we've already started out with F.

    All of this is because the frameworks of classic temperament and Jungian type were so different. So they partially correspond (particularly I/E), but the other factors, while related, still do not map evenly across from one to the other.

    So then high eC = the need to be the boss, low eC = the lack of need to be the boss, high wC = the need for someone to "boss" them, and low wC = lack of want for someone to "boss" them?
    Yes, that's basically it.
    It seems kind of like we are defining the scale a bit oddly then...or perhaps I just am not really fond of the terminology in this case.
    I don't uderstand what's odd about that.
    So then this occurs because the sanguine has both a high need for control and a high need to be controlled, correct? These are both conflicting states and their only option is to swing back and forth between the two, right? I think I am understanding that one now.

    So then what of the scenario I described then for myself? Would that be sanguine in control? I don't feel that my fluctuations in my need to control or be controlled are that wild, strong, impulsive, etc. Yet, I do not at all relate to the democracy aspect.
    You mean "occasionally likes to control others and occasionally likes others to control them"? There are serveral temperament needs that could cause that. It could be Sanguine, if, as I described, you're quick to take action, but then "crash", so to speak, and give up for awhile. The APS literature, including this book: http://jacksonsnyder.com/mgi/studies/GCY.pdf (and which I review here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/02...od-created-you) described the Sanguine in Control as "After taking on too many responsibilities and making too many decisions, she is driven to the opposite side of the temperament need, which is to be narcissistic, self-indulgent, lacking persistence and weak-willed; the dependent mode. Sandy Sanguine can only stand to be in the dependent mode for a limited amount of time. She will begin to feel worthless, unloved, selfish, inferior to everyone else and irresponsible. After a period of time (which differs for each individual), she will be driven back to the independent mode."

    If it's from a lack of drive, and you just follow the path of least resistance, then it could be Phlegmatic. (Like I guess they would be controlling others if wanting something from them, but again, would not have the sticktoitiveness of the Choleric. And this likely wouldn't last long.
    They are described as usually just using a sarcastic humor and stubbornness in dealing with unwanted control. But a lot of times, just giving in, to keep the peace, will be the path of least resistance).

    While not discussing it, I've also thought that the Melancholy has their own version of the "swing" (though not nearly as prominent as the Sanguine), as they again, will accept control from an "authorized" souce, but then not accept control from anyone else. Like SJ's around me, from my family growing up, to my work environment today are always saying stuff like "that's life, just accept it". And they don't want to take action to change it. But when they are in positions of power in their own turf, or position granted to them; including parents and bosses (which is of course an "authorized" setup), then they can be like Cholerics in Control, and controlling, and pushy (both taking action, and trying to coach others to as well), and yet react strongly if you try to push something else on them (especially the abstract or "unknown" or unauthorized); and ultimately have a worse attitude (negative, critical, etc.) than what they criticize others for. (It was something I always noticed as hypocritical, but now type acknowledges it).

    So if you're SJ, then this could be why you would experience wanting to control others "sometimes", and wanting to accept control other times. You have to look at the context. (However current sensations or burning out and feeling unappreciated
    dictate you to respond, or however memorized sensation [i.e. "facts"] and authorized responsibility lead you to respond, or however a low energy reserve determines the path of least resistance).

    Unlike Inclusion and Affection, where you expect a person who expresses to want what they're expressing a need for, and assume one who does not express, must not want (so that the Sanguine, Phlegmatic and Melancholy are more "consistent", and the Supine and Choleric are enigmatic), In Control, we would instead expect the person who wants to express control over others, to naturally not want it over themselves, and the person who does not express control, to want someone else to take control. So the Supine and Choleric are more "normal", and "interlink" (to borrow Keirsey's term) in that way. The Sanguine and Melancholy then end up as the "enigmatic" ones, for either wanting to control and be controlled, or to neither control nor be controlled [in both cases, this ends up being at different times and contexts].

    I suppose probably appear more as a melancholy in inclusion than anything. I am very closed off to other people and often do not let other people in. However, I want desperately for others to initiate and include me. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that I am able to take people up on their offers when they do try to include me. So there is a conflict between how much I express to others that I want to be included and how much I actually want to be included.

    I am definitely melancholy in affection, though.

    Though, given a task, I'm much more interested in doing the task than associating with other people. I also do not enjoy working in teams and prefer to do things alone.
    That sounds compatible with Melancholy, then. Really, "want/not want" can't be taken too literally. It's like with functions, where we all "use" all of them, but type preference is about consciousness of the perspectives. So I recently figured, these temperament needs work the same way. I had addressed this not too long ago here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/09...#comment-32947

    "The Sanguine is [one who is] fully conscious of this need [of socialization], and then approaches people to have it met. The Supine is also conscious of the need, but his fear of rejection (the low expressiveness that ultimately stems from overstimulation by the environment) leaves him in a bind by pushing him to withdraw and hope the others will prove themselves accepting, and invite him instead.
    The Melancholy is not conscious of the need, and so all he is left with is his fear of rejection, which then pushes him to also withdraw, and not want to be approached, unless a stricter criteria is met."

    But the need is still there; and can come into awareness at times; especially when he finds himself totally alone, which no sane person will ever want. Still, even then, the person will be more likely to continue to filter the offers of others through a tighter criteria (as you basically desribed) than a Supine would.

    (To complete the remaining two temperaments, "The Choleric is not conscious of the need either, however, his lack of fear of rejection leads him to approach others, not to fulfill a need of people in themselves, but for his goals.
    The Phlegmatic tends to be conscious of the need (at least, moderately so), but his low energy doesn’t push him, to either approach or want others beyond a certain point. So he can take them or leave them."
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas
    Likes strychnine, /DG/ liked this post

  8. #158
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    OK, what you've done there (in the first image) is simply make P "informtive" and J "directive" across the board. It may seem that way, but then, as I always point out, there's also structure and motive which are a parallel to directing and informing, both of which represent "wanted" behavior or "responsiveness". P is obviously more "responsive", so if it's not informing, it is at least "motive focused", as is the case for the STP's. And J is less responsive, and if not "directing", is at least "structure" focused, as for the SFJ's. You could think of "Judgment" as less responsive in general, so when it's extraverted ("J"), it definitely shows, but when introverted ("P"), this softens it and makes the overall type at least part responsive.
    T/F is the flipside of this. Both are [less responsive] "judgments", but F is "softer" than T, which is the least "responsive" of all. So FP's will be both informing and motive focused, and TJ's will be both directing and structure focused. FJ's and TP's will mix those responsive poles, and hence seem either way or inbetween on them. It actualy makes those types a bit "enigmatic" in ways (which is basically exemplified in what I was explaining to Hard).

    Also, what we end up with is the Interaction Styles and Keirsey temperaments paralleling directly each other as different levels of the classic temperaments. This is key to understanding why an ENFP would seem the most "SP"-like of the NF's, and an ISFJ the most "NF"-like of the SJ's. And INTP the most NF=like of the NT's. And also why ISP's often have trouble fitting into some of Keirsey's descriptions of the SP.
    Thanks, this actually makes sense to me. I figure this would also explain second temperaments on those temperament tests, e.g. ISFPs seem to test out SP-NF and ISTPs seem to test out SP-NT (or even NT-SP). (Confusingly, I've never scored SP on those tests...)

    I do think I am structure focused, after reading more. But I am also informing. So that means I'm an FJ or a TP? That seems right. The more I read and think about it, Fi/Te just seems totally foreign to me while Ti seems second nature and Fe seems...er...third nature? haha. I do think I am kind of 'split' in that way. I also think I am more likely a TP.

    In the case of ExTP and IxFJ it might be even more ambiguous, right, because the Ti/Fe are in the middle functions?
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.

  9. #159
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Structure focused and informing is specifically SFJ and NTP. And yes, for ETP and IFJ, TiFe are the "arm" functions, where for ITP and EFJ, they're the "spine" functions (the dominant and its relfection, the inferior), and so, mor eintegral to the ego. (Also, a Ti/Fe preference itself is now called "Aligning assessments", while FiTe is "Ordering assessments").
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas
    Likes strychnine liked this post

  10. #160
    All Natural! All Good!
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Structure focused and informing is specifically SFJ and NTP. And yes, for ETP and IFJ, TiFe are the "arm" functions, where for ITP and EFJ, they're the "spine" functions (the dominant and its relfection, the inferior), and so, mor eintegral to the ego. (Also, a Ti/Fe preference itself is now called "Aligning assessments", while FiTe is "Ordering assessments").
    More and more signs point to NTP... O_o

    What do you mean by the function pairs are "now" called that? Never heard that anywhere else except from you. I think it's great terminology. I get the impression that Ti is aligning systems/theories to each other, mapping things to one another, interlinking things. While Fe is aligning with other people. I think that's right.

    Thanks again.
    Strychnine is all-natural,
    So strychnine is all good.
    It's Godly and righteous,
    So eat it, you should.
    Who are you to refuse nature's will?


    Don't use the multiquote; it was planted by the devil to deceive us.

    Social Role: Asscrack/Piece of Shit/Public Defecator/Spiteful Urinator


    A different type everyday - so no need to type me anymore. But feel free to enjoy the sound of your own asscrack.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and Affection
    By Brendan in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-16-2009, 02:40 AM
  2. [INTP] INTP and affection
    By KLessard in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 01-03-2009, 08:22 PM
  3. Type and Affective Dreams
    By beyondaurora in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-23-2008, 07:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO