Funny, as I have only recently gotten around to reading Keirsey's Please Understand Me II. I previously lived off of the descriptions I could find online, and eventually got Berens' books.
So in the book, I have found even more evidence for my premise that Keirsey had gotten Phlegmatic and Choleric backward as in his comparisons of his temperaments (derived from Plato) with Galen's humors.
It might seem like a trivial detail, but I believe looking at both temperament and Interaction Styles as blends of the classic temperaments not only merges different systems, but also helps understand type traits. (Like ISFP's who question being SP because of it's "Sanguine"-like descriptions. However, their type is a blend of Sanguine with the Phlegmatic ISF (Behind the Scenes) Interaction Style, which tempers the Sanguine traits, so it is not going to be as Sanguine as the ESFP).
So here are some great evidences that the NT is really the Choleric:
""Originally Posted by PUM II p. 169"Originally Posted by p184:
Fun for NTs means figuring out how to get better at some skill, not merely exercising the skills they already have, and so for the Rational the field of play is invariably a laboratory for increasing their proficiency.Originally Posted by p.186Once Rationals resolve something, they have in a sense made a contract with themselves, a contract they dare not go back on. Indeen, their worst fear is that their determination might weaken, their will power might falter, and that they will fail in their resolve.And yet, even though they know some things must happen of themselves, Rationals can dread this loss of control. This is why so many NTs turn out to develop unreasonable fears, especially of germs and other forms of filth, something they have no control over.Originally Posted by 188:Originally Posted by 188-9Clearly, this is all describing a type exhibiting a high level of expressiveness, and a low level of responsiveness in the high standards they set (they do not want control to be out of their hands). This was the original definition of "Choleric" (Galen's "hot/dry", and later, "short delay/long sustain").Rationals demand so much achievement from themselves that they often have trouble measuring up to their own good standards. NTs typically believe that what they do is not good enough, and are frequently haunted by a sense of teetering on the edge of failure. This time their skill will not be great enough. This time, in all probablility, failure is at hand.
Making matters worse, Rationals tend to ratchet up their standards of achievement, setting the bar at the level of their greatest success, so that anything less than their best is judged as mediocre. The har-won triumph becomes the new standard of what is merely acceptable, and ordinary achievements are now viewd as falling short of the mark.NT's never give themselves a break from this esaclating level of achievement, and so constant self-doubt and a niggling sense of impending failure are their lot.
And this, in the area of leadership and responsibilities, rather than social skills (that's what the Interaction styles are), we clearly see MBTI's counterpart to FIRO's "Mission Impossible", and the conative analogue to the affective "In Charge" or "Initiator" styles (EST/ENJ). It is clealy NOT a Phlegmatic, whose "calm and cool" really stems from lack of energy. Here, we clearly see a very energized temperament!
(I believe "expresssiveness" in this case is "Pragmatic", and responsiveness is Berens' "Structure-focus" which ties the NT to SJ, which Keirsey said had nothing in common. Yet you can see the task-focused commonality in his descriptions, though).
Amazing Keirsey did not recognize this as the true "irascible Choleric". (which he called Idealists). Idealists might have this "emotionality", but clearly, they are the people-focused "diplomats" the Phlegmatics were traditionally portrayed as.
Irascibility or emotionalism can be from an expressive or extroverted Interaction Style (affective temperament, basically), but this is the conative area of leadership and action, so the parameters are different.
ENTJ (Initiator Rational or In Charge Theorist) seem to be widely recognized as the most Choleric. ENTP's are definite Sanguine Cholerics, and INTJ's almost always come out as Melancholy Cholerics.
It's the INTP who often doesn't fit. They usually come out as Phlegmatic and Melancholy. What I believe is happening, is that since Phlegmatic (or a possible Supine) are the most opposite of Choleric, when they mix, the Choleric gets tempered into a Melancholy.
Sanguine and Choleric both share expressiveness (extroversion or pragmaticism). Melancholy and Choleric share task-focus (direxctiveness or structure-focus). so those blends will preserve both temperaments better. But the INTP's would be the least Choleric of the NT's, so it often seems to not show up in the cheap online tests (The official Arno Profile System or FIRO would separate out the Inclusion and Control aspects). However, if INTP's acknowledge all those descriptions above (though perhaps a bit modreated), then it is clear they too are Cholerics.