• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

My Temperament?

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Any more thoughts from anyone?
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
"You are what you is." - Frank Zappa
:yes:

Always-Remember-You-Are-Unique.png
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[f I had been getting my notifications for quotes, etc, I would have seen this earlier. Were the settings reset or something? Oh well, anyway:]
Tests and "vibe" typings have gotten me nowhere -- I've been typed as everything but Supine. [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] provided me with a link in another thread to some more detailed/subdivided temperament descriptions, and based on those (and some other stuff I casually looked at online)...

Inclusion: Choleric would sound right -- I definitely have a "box" for my social interactions, and very specific functions that those interactions serve -- except that I wouldn't call myself cruel, abusive, or manipulative. At all. My flaws lie elsewhere.
Control: Definitely, definitely Melancholic.
Affection: Phlegmatic seemed the most accurate, re: flexibility and re: using detachment and humor as coping mechanisms, although it doesn't account for my people-pleasing streak. Not sure at all about this one though.

But what does that make me generally? One of these has to win out -- or at least, two of them, ranked. But which, and how do I tell?

Permission to speak candidly, sir...

I've said this before, but there's no way the ESFJ is Sanguine-Melancholic and the ESTP is Choleric-Sanguine. If you look at just their core temperaments, that would make ESFJ Sanguine and ESTP Choleric.
It would also make sense to make ESTJ pure Choleric and ENTJ Choleric-Melancholic, if this makes any sense. ESTJ anger blows up in your face like a hair-trigger. I know Cholerics are supposed to "bottle up" their anger, but a Melancholic secondary type would bottle it up only more so, if this makes any sense.

I mean, look at the thing. SJ is Melancholic and NT is Choleric? I beg to differ. At least switch THOSE TWO. It's so obvious.

In fact, the SP-SJ-NF-NT dichotomy is completely arbitrary. SP-SJ each denote one cognitive function; NF-NT denote two and say nothing of their position.

If motivations are taken into account, it should be FP-FJ-TP-TJ.

If working style is taken into account, it's EP-EJ-IP-IJ.

If interaction style more or less, it's SF-ST-NF-NT for Sang, Chol, Phleg, and Mel respectively.

That would make ESTJ pure Choleric, which it most certainly is, and ENTJ Choleric-Melancholic.

ENFP and ENFJ are unchanged.

ISTJ is now Melancholic-Choleric, most likely of all types to die of heart attack. And INTJ is suitably Pure Melancholic.

ESFJ would be Choleric-Sanguine to contrast w/ ENFJ's Choleric-Phelgmatic. and ESTP is Sanguine Choleric, makes much more sense than Choleric-Sanguine if you look at their lifestyles.

thoughts?

That's not what I meant. What I meant was, the traditional SP-SJ-NF-NT dichotomy is flawed. An individual ESTJ could be a Phlegmatic-Sanguine, but ESTJs as a whole are pure Choleric. INTJs are totally Melancholic. And there's nothing Choleric about NT.

"Inclusion," "Control" and "Affection" are all terms you'd see in the SP-SJ-NF-NT nomenclature for putting primary temperaments (ESF/ENP-EST/ENJ-ISF/INP-IST/INJ) and secondaries (SP-SJ-NF-NT) into temperaments.

OK, the mistake being made is this whole "primary"/"secondary" or "core" thing. There is no "rank" or "order of strength" in Inclusion/Control/Affection. It's not like those "pick the traits chart" quizzes we used to do here. These are standalone [equal] "areas of need" covering surface social skills, leadership, and deeper relationship openness. (Thus, the first two likewise corresponding to Interaction styles and conative aka Keirseyan temperaments, respectively).

Inclusion might seem "primary", because it is what we see on the surface; like our 'first glance' of the person. Hence, the ESTJ will look like a "pure Choleric", and the INTJ will look like a "pure" Melancholy (and when I was first sorting all of this out over 7 years ago, I at first didn't know what the difference between those two types and the similar ENTJ and ISTJ respectively, which also looked pure Choleric and pure Melancholy. I was totally unfamiliar with the S/N difference back then). Likewise, ESFJ will look like a pure Sanguine, and the ESTP also looks Choleric.
What you're seeing is their "style of interaction"— Interaction Styles!

When you get into Control situations with the person, you'll see that the ESTJ (and ESFJ) are more reserved in initiating their own course of action (they'll tend to enforce what the authorities say), while the INTJ will be a bit more aggressive (and take things into his own hands). This is what Keirsey identified as "cooperative vs pragmatic".
The ESTP will be fully aggressive, yet a bit less "serious" and "closed" because of the P or Sanguine in Control.

One FIRO (which is where ICA comes from) expert claimed that the order of importance was actually reverse. Affection is most important (the deepest level of the personality, basically), then Control, then Inclusion.

Still, no one temperament "wins out" or out-"ranks" another. In fact, they blend, and alter one another, so many people may still not identify with the profiles in that book or the other site I link to, because these (as the book says) are based on an assumption of a pure temperaments (i.e. the person being the same in all three areas), but for me, I'm Supine in Inclusion and Affection, and the total opposite Choleric in Control--essentially pulled two totally different ways from one area to another.
There really is no "general" temperament, though the blends may make it look like a totally different "general temperament". Supine and Choleric may appear to "average out" to Melancholy and/or Phlegmatic. I've gotten these on simpler tests, and I believe it explains why INTP's generally come out as one of those two.

Choleric and Melancholy are a bit easier, because they both share in common low responsiveness, or "task focus", and are very similar, but differ only in expressiveness. So an ESTJ will again, on the surface look a lot like a pure Choleric, yet in some instances be a bit less aggressive, because Choleric is very "intuitive", yet the ESTJ is operating off of introverted Sensing, and will want things to be familiar and official. The INTJ will on the surface look like a Melancholy, but does have the intuitive preference, instead of the Si need for familiarity the Melancholy does, so will be a bit more proactive in taking risks, doing whatever works, etc.
Choleric and Sanguine are also similar, having in common expressiveness, and differ in people/task. So the ESTP will also on the surface look like a pure Choleric, but again, he is a lot less serious, and that is the Sanguine influence, in the area of Control. I think of Keirsey's statement "the lights come on, the music plays, the games begin".

Keirsey's groups were not arbitrary; he traced them from Plato through Kretschmer and others, and when mapped to MBTI, they fit those groups. He then compared them to Hippocrates/Galen's humours, but got NF and NT backwards. But the Interaction Styles would turn out to be what more closely fit the classic "humors", which were more "social"-focused, while Plato's concept was more about leadership. Hence, my mapping them to Inclusion and Control.

And if you look at the history of the four humors, "Choleric" and "Melancholic" used to just mean you were neurotic, hence the "domineering" and "manipulative" you don't identify with.
That was one version of the theory, by Eysenck. "Neurotic" was sort of like task-focused.

Also, the difference between Choleric and Melancholies is that Cholerics don't bottle up their anger. They constantly vent, since they are "expressive". the Melancholy is the one who bottles it up, and then it explodes later.
 

valaki

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
940
MBTI Type
SeNi
Enneagram
8+7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Tests and "vibe" typings have gotten me nowhere -- I've been typed as everything but Supine. [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] provided me with a link in another thread to some more detailed/subdivided temperament descriptions, and based on those (and some other stuff I casually looked at online)...

Inclusion: Choleric would sound right -- I definitely have a "box" for my social interactions, and very specific functions that those interactions serve -- except that I wouldn't call myself cruel, abusive, or manipulative. At all. My flaws lie elsewhere.
Control: Definitely, definitely Melancholic.
Affection: Phlegmatic seemed the most accurate, re: flexibility and re: using detachment and humor as coping mechanisms, although it doesn't account for my people-pleasing streak. Not sure at all about this one though.

But what does that make me generally? One of these has to win out -- or at least, two of them, ranked. But which, and how do I tell?

Hey interesting link, thanks.

I think it's okay if you can't rank them in order. I can't either, I'm half sanguine and half choleric, even if I break it down into these three areas. So.. You're just even more complex :) I think the pdf says the same thing.

Oh and the thing about cholerics vs cruelty, the pdf just says "they *can be* cruel". Not the same as stating they are cruel.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
If the relationship between MBTI and temperament was that clear, I wouldn't have made this thread. I see myself as far too subdued and controlled* to be pure Choleric or Choleric-Melancholy.

*Focused significantly more on controlling myself, than others -- contrary to every Choleric description I've ever read

I am not that good with temperment, but I came to say this. You are definitely not choleric. You explained how that is as well, those with it are often outwardly controlling of others. Not so much that they are trying to get them to do something, but they just apply pressure to them. I often see Se as the prototypical relationship to chloeric. Se itself isn't that control, though it might be seen that way. You could also draw 8 parallels to it as well. I think a more apt way to describe it would be forceful and blunt. It's not big on being careful; it's unimportant.

I am rather controling of others, and do apply direct pressure, but mine is covert mostly and very calculated, which is not Choleric. In fact it's my lowest of them all.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] Control is the area that would most closely cover the tendency to be "controlling", and in the area of Control, he identified with Melancholy. Melancholy is low in expressed Control. Their creed, so to speak, is "I don't control you, so don't control me".

So this would perfectly explain his self-description of being "subdued and controlled"— "Focused significantly more on controlling myself, than others". (Remember, Choleric in the first position is not some higher "rank"; or anything).

"Every Choleric description I've ever read" is not taking into consideration the tempering influence of a blend. Again, even the book is admitting being based on a pure Choleric (Choleric in Inclusion with Choleric in Control and Affection).
Melancholy's lower expressiveness (particularly in the area of Control) is what will "subdue" the "controlling" influence of Choleric.

So again, he may look pure Choleric on the surface, quick to approach others, and respond to them on his own terms, but he won't be as controlling as one, at least not with his own authority.

Any Se preference will generate an SP temperament, which in this correlation would be Sanguine in Control. Sanguine in Control will be similar to Choleric in Control, and quick to take on responsibilities and action. The difference will be that the Choleric sticks to it and fights to the finish, while the Sanguine will eventually drop out of it. Even in Keirsey's books you can see this, if you're looking for it.

Now, ENFJ will also be Choleric on the surface, but Supine or Phlegmatic in Control (do you identify with either of these?) Now, you say you're more controlling, but "covert mostly", and least like Choleric, and a Supine Control (which is the diametric opposite of Choleric) would perfectly explain that. The book discuses how a Supine in Control can appear dominating, and most of the time, it will be in a more covert way. It's for a total oppsite need than the Choleric's domination.
It perfectly fits the "peacemaker with a hidden irascible side" what Keirsey identified in the NF (which led him to believe NF was the Choleric of the four). And combined with a Choleric Inclusion ("In Charge" Interaction Style), it would match what you're saying about yourself.
 
Top