User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 34

  1. #1
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default Keirsey's book proves NT's are Choleric, not Phlegmatic

    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:

    "
    Quote Originally Posted by PUM II p. 169
    Rationals are wont to think of themselves as the prime movers who must pit their utilitarian ways and means against custom and tradition, in an endless struggle to bring efficiency and goal-directedness to enterprise, an attitude regarded my many as arrogant.
    "
    Quote Originally Posted by p184:
    Rationals pride themselves on their ingenuity in accomplishing the many and varied tasks they set their minds to.
    "

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by p.186
    Rationals are self-confident in so far as they sense in themselves a strength of will or an unwavering resolution. NT's believe they can overcome any obstacle, dominate any field, conquer any enemy--even themselves--with the power of their resolve.
    Once 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by 188:
    But make no mistake, although they might hold back on any intermperate displays, Rationals are not the cold and distant persons they are often made out to be. for one thing they can get quite intense and pressured about matters under their control (and few things they will admit they cannot control), becoming as tight as a bowstring, when they think they might be able to solve a problem if they put their mind to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by 188-9
    One of the most important things to remember about the Rationals, if they are to be understood, is that they yearn for achievement. Some might suppose that these seemingly calm and contemplative types have no strong desires. But beneath the calm exterior is a gnawing hunger to achieve whatever goals they set for themselves. While NTs prefer to acquire knowhow and would like to be ingenious, they must achieve, and their longing is never fully satisfied.
    Because their hunger for achievement presses them constantly, Rationals live through their work not so much for the pleasure of action (like the Artisans), nor for the security a job provides (like the Guardians), nor for the joy of helping others (like the Idealists). Rationals work with a single-minded desire to achieve their desires; indeed, once involved in a project, they tend to be reluctant, if not unable, to limit their commitment of time and energy. Unfortunately, at this this point they can be unreasonably demanding of both themselves and others, setting their standards too high and becoming quite tense under stress. No wnder that NT's frequently achieve notable success intheir chosen field.
    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.
    Clearly, 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").

    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.
    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

  2. #2
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    I read it, no comment, just interesting and makes a really good point. My first thought was, "where do INTP's fit in this?" But then you actually mentioned that as well.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  3. #3
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    I agree that Phlegmatic is wrong for Rationals, but so is Choleric. Cholerics are extroverted. (Heat = Extroversion, so sanguines are also Extroverts, which means the introverted (cold) types are the other 2). You seem to admit this yourself when you say "Here, we clearly see a very energized temperament!"

    Actually, the 2 systems are describing different traits so they can't be effectively mapped to each other - that was Keirsey's mistake.

    Galen's types are created by 2 dichotomies (hot v cold, dry v wet) not the 3/4 of Jung/MBTI.
    They more closely match Eysenck's scales of Extroversion and Neuroticism. (An observation he made himself.)

    I could also see a mapping to DiSC - which essentially is E/I + T/F
    There is no room for the N/S dichotomy. Therefore, there is no mapping to NT.

    I see it like this: Choleric = Extroverted Thinkers (as characterised by the ETJs), Sanguine = Extroverted Feelers, Melancholic = Introverted Thinkers, Phlegmatic = Introverted Feelers, or, in the 5 temperament system, Supine = Introverted Feelers and Phlegmatics are balanced/ambiverts.

    ETA. I don't think the mapping of test results proves/disproves anything, since the tests are built on the test maker's assumptions about what the categories mean.

    I find the original associations, not with bodily "humours" but the notion of temperamental or constitutional "imbalance" more interesting lately. Galen originally classified 9 types (8 types of imbalance + one 'ideal'), but we are only usually familiar with 4 or 5. His idea was that any imbalance was suboptimal, and the goal of medicine was to try to reestablish balance in the organism.

    I like this approach. Recently, I've been thinking about which systems might be "out of balance" when it comes to type characteristics. For example, is introversion created by an imbalance between the sympathetic and the parasympathetic parts of the autonomic nervous system? This could be a sound biological basis for the characteristic sensitivity of introverts, and recalls Galen's mind/body connection.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  4. #4
    Senior Member INTPness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    2,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I see it like this: Choleric = Extroverted Thinkers (as characterised by the ETJs),
    Sanguine = Extroverted Feelers,
    Melancholic = Introverted Thinkers,
    Phlegmatic = Introverted Feelers
    I've come to see it like this as well. OP, of the little bit of stuff I've read on temperaments, I've always related very much to the melancholy descriptions. I'm not sure how the things I've read compare or stack up against "the original definitions", however. Maybe the definitions have been warped over time.

    Melancholic traits that I identify with: -a "rich" temperament, analytical, perfectionist, somewhat sensitive emotionally, enjoyment of artistic things (writing, music, etc.), prone to introversion, seems somewhat gloomy with periods of high intensity, reserved, does not "push himself" to make friends, etc.

    I'd love to post some brief material I have that compares and contrasts melancholic with choleric, but I'll have to do that at a later time. I relate much more to the melancholic description of this particular author, however.
    NTJ's are the only types that have ever made me feel emo.
    ENP's are the only types that have ever made me feel like a sensor.


    There are two great days in a person's life - the day we are born and the day we discover why. --William Barclay

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I agree that Phlegmatic is wrong for Rationals, but so is Choleric. Cholerics are extroverted. (Heat = Extroversion, so sanguines are also Extroverts, which means the introverted (cold) types are the other 2). You seem to admit this yourself when you say "Here, we clearly see a very energized temperament!"

    Actually, the 2 systems are describing different traits so they can't be effectively mapped to each other - that was Keirsey's mistake.

    Galen's types are created by 2 dichotomies (hot v cold, dry v wet) not the 3/4 of Jung/MBTI.
    Basically, "hot" translates into "expressive" (extroverted) and "cold" would be "reserved" (introverted). Wet is people-focused and dry is task focused. This might not seem to figure as well, but task-focused also translates into "directive" communication, which has taken on the description of being "dry", while informatives tend to be more "light" in speech (while that is not really "wet", still, we see the connection at the other pole).

    In the conative area, expressiveness (or "heat") is pragmatism. Look at the descriptions, the NT is clearly "hot", and "fiery", though not always in emotions.

    The two different "traits" are the affective and conative areas, and each type is a blend of both.
    They more closely match Eysenck's scales of Extroversion and Neuroticism. (An observation he made himself.)
    Yes, Neuroticism is another kind of "response-delay" (how long you hold onto emotions). But Eysenck is from not even 100 years ago. The "delay" factor in classic temperament theory was more comparable to Agreaableness.

    I could also see a mapping to DiSC - which essentially is E/I + T/F
    There is no room for the N/S dichotomy. Therefore, there is no mapping to NT.
    Yes, DISC is very similar as well (to Interaction Styles, at least).
    I find the original associations, not with bodily "humours" but the notion of temperamental or constitutional "imbalance" more interesting lately. Galen originally classified 9 types (8 types of imbalance + one 'ideal'), but we are only usually familiar with 4 or 5. His idea was that any imbalance was suboptimal, and the goal of medicine was to try to reestablish balance in the organism.

    I like this approach. Recently, I've been thinking about which systems might be "out of balance" when it comes to type characteristics. For example, is introversion created by an imbalance between the sympathetic and the parasympathetic parts of the autonomic nervous system? This could be a sound biological basis for the characteristic sensitivity of introverts, and recalls Galen's mind/body connection.
    Those would be "moderate temperaments", which are recognized in FiRO and APS, but not MBTI or KEirse, where the poles are either/or. I tried working out a ttype system with moderation, but it needs a lot of work.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTPness View Post
    I've come to see it like this as well. OP, of the little bit of stuff I've read on temperaments, I've always related very much to the melancholy descriptions. I'm not sure how the things I've read compare or stack up against "the original definitions", however. Maybe the definitions have been warped over time.

    Melancholic traits that I identify with: -a "rich" temperament, analytical, perfectionist, somewhat sensitive emotionally, enjoyment of artistic things (writing, music, etc.), prone to introversion, seems somewhat gloomy with periods of high intensity, reserved, does not "push himself" to make friends, etc.

    I'd love to post some brief material I have that compares and contrasts melancholic with choleric, but I'll have to do that at a later time. I relate much more to the melancholic description of this particular author, however.
    Again, because the type is a blend of temperaments, it won' likely fit mamy temperament descriptions, which are based on a "pure". Temperament. So that might be why you seem more 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

  6. #6
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Basically, "hot" translates into "expressive" (extroverted) and "cold" would be "reserved" (introverted). Wet is people-focused and dry is task focused. This might not seem to figure as well, but task-focused also translates into "directive" communication, which has taken on the description of being "dry", while informatives tend to be more "light" in speech (while that is not really "wet", still, we see the connection at the other pole).
    Yes - people-focused =F and task-focused =T. Hence E-I, T-F.

    In the conative area, expressiveness (or "heat") is pragmatism. Look at the descriptions, the NT is clearly "hot", and "fiery", though not always in emotions.
    Aren't you contradicting yourself? If heat=extroversion, it cannot also=pragmatism. How can you overload definitions like that, within the same system?

    The directive/informative roles require another dichotomy: J/P, which isn't present in Galen's system. And NTs don't have a monopoly on pragmatism...
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  7. #7
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Yes - people-focused =F and task-focused =T. Hence E-I, T-F.
    I agree with this.

    The right categories are ET/IT/EF/IF.

  8. #8
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    Yes - people-focused =F and task-focused =T. Hence E-I, T-F.

    Aren't you contradicting yourself? If heat=extroversion, it cannot also=pragmatism. How can you overload definitions like that, within the same system?

    The directive/informative roles require another dichotomy: J/P, which isn't present in Galen's system. And NTs don't have a monopoly on pragmatism...
    Again, there are two different temperament matrices overlaid in the system: the affective and the conative. For the affective, expressiveness (Galen's "heat") is extroversion. For the conative, it is pragmatism. Two different forms of expressiveness. One is quicker to approach others on the social level, and the other is quicker to act. Both have a shorter "response-time delay".

    Responsiveness is directing/informing on the affective level, and structure/motive on the conative level.

    Galen's systems and most of the others did not recognize the different levels or areas of temperament, so there was only one matrix of expressivness and responsiveness. These seemed to correspond more to what we know as Interaction Styles, so the comparison to Keirsey's temperaments don't seem to correspond well.
    But then the Interaction Styles were later identified in other letter groups (E/I + S + T/F and E/I + N + J/P). Nobody else had anything like this, save the FIRO's Inclusion and Control, but nobody ever made the direct connection to that system.
    Kant introduced blends, but not of diametric opposite temperaments (like SanMel and PhlegChlor). Tim LaHaye introduced the system with all 12 blends in addition to the four "pure" types. I've identified the 16 types as mapping onto those, according to affective/conative areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I agree with this.

    The right categories are ET/IT/EF/IF.
    Yes, for S's.
    For N's, it's J/P. (EJ/IJ/EP/IP)

    Funny, as you never hear of the E/I + T/F group, but I believe they are useful as what I call "social image".
    What you do hear a bit more of is E/I + J/P, which are the "sociability temperaments", and also said to be the first letters that develop in young children.
    So both do correspond to Interaction Styles, but only in their respective S/N half.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I see it like this: Choleric = Extroverted Thinkers (as characterised by the ETJs), Sanguine = Extroverted Feelers, Melancholic = Introverted Thinkers, Phlegmatic = Introverted Feelers, or, in the 5 temperament system, Supine = Introverted Feelers and Phlegmatics are balanced/ambiverts.
    Yes, Te types (save ISTJ) are Choleric in one area or the other or both. Fi types (save ESFP) are Phlegmatic and/or Supine in one area or the other or both.

    With Fe and Ti, it doesn't work like that, because the purest temperament types all seem to be the Te/Fi variety, and Ti/Fe end up as blends of opposites:
    Fe: SanMel and ChlorPhleg; Ti: PhlegChlor and MelSan.
    What you have is a mix of responsive factors, so again, the PhlegChlor or SupChlor (introverted, informative, pragmatic, structure) can appear to mesh together into a kind of Melancholic (introvert +the "task focus" of "structure"), and the ChlorPhleg or ChlorSup (extraverted, directive, cooperative, motive) can appear on the surface to be a Sanguine (extrovert + the "people-focus" of "motive").

    The other FJ and TP do in fact happen to be a Sanguine or Melancholic Interaction Style, but mixed with the opposite (also Sanguine or Melancholic) in the conative area.
    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

  9. #9
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Again, there are two different temperament matrices overlaid in the system: the affective and the conative. For the affective, expressiveness (Galen's "heat") is extroversion. For the conative, it is pragmatism. Two different forms of expressiveness. One is quicker to approach others on the social level, and the other is quicker to act. Both have a shorter "response-time delay".
    Yes, for S's.
    For N's, it's J/P. (EJ/IJ/EP/IP)
    I don't see how a model where the same trait means something different depending on the existence of other traits can possibly be sound. It just looks like a case of massaging definitions to force the model to fit. Then when you start to blend 'humours' (essentially meaningless other than as labels for collections of traits), the whole thing starts to lose any kind of coherence as a typology.
    What is the appeal of this model, for you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  10. #10
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    You can't "prove" anything like this. It's not a theorem.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NT! Why are you ASSHOLES?
    By ThatGirl in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 210
    Last Post: 06-29-2009, 09:32 PM
  2. [NT] NTs . . . Why are You Messy?
    By Haight in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 06-23-2009, 12:24 PM
  3. [NT] Question for NT Women - Are you a feminist?
    By Lauren Ashley in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 04:48 PM
  4. [NT] NT, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 05:05 PM
  5. I can prove that we are all one consciousness.
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 01:47 AM

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