It's hard for me to say. I guess I am never one who has focused too much on the lives of other people. Maybe I am just too self-absorbed, but I tend not to dive deep into other people and instead focus on the things we are doing together. I have become more aware of people in the last several years, but I still feel more comfortable dealing with "thing"-related issues as opposed to interpersonal ones. For example, I really do not want a career that has me focusing on people (nurse, customer service, etc.).
But yet, I identify with supine in inclusion because I really need other people (but don't show it obviously). For better or for worse, humans are social creatures. Even when I am in a terrible mood...somehow whenever someone talks to me about whatever random bullshit, I tend to light up and forget about my problems. I need to talk to people to be happy.
In your simplistic description, I identify with supine and melancholy, depending on my mood.
I'll admit that I relate more to behind the scenes than I do with the extraverted interaction styles, but still not as much as chart the course. When we have a task to do, I'm interested in progressing towards the task (when I am not being lazy). I'm not interested in debate and meandering around the goal for people to dick around. I just want to accomplish the goal. There is a time and a place to dick around...and when you are working as a group to accomplish a goal is not one of them.
Obviously this tends to relate more to work scenarios, but I'll give an example of when it doesn't. I'm involved at school with a dance club...choreographed dancing, that is, not club dancing. When I go to practices, I love socializing with everyone, but I absolutely hate it when we just sit around and don't actually practice the dances at practice. There is a way to both socialize and still stay on the task at hand, but our current leader doesn't seem interested in doing so. So I guess it comes down to this...when there is a task...I want it to be accomplished in the time we allotted to do so. It's also one of the reasons I've always hated group projects...people like meeting together to work on it, but that is incredibly inefficient. What I like to do is decide who works on what part, then meet together when we are done to go over anything that needs tweaking. It's just more efficient that way, and you don't end up with people dicking around and wasting time. I dunno if any of that made the sense that I am trying to make.
The affection bit as my interaction style could make sense, seeing as it's how I express myself/desire for people to express to me. So why is it that for the most part, you appear to look mostly at only the inclusion and control aspects for type correlations? I haven't read all of your website by any means, but it appears to focus on the first two and the affection aspect isn't related back as much. Why does this "flip" seem to only happen in some people?
(I just realized I used the phrase "dick around" a lot...)
Yeah, you sound like a very typical ISTJ-Melancholy (grew up under two of them, plus a whole bunch of others around, so I can spot them a mile away).
I see you're using the Interaction Style "cross factors" of "process vs outcome" (formerly control vs movement), which is the factor I've discussed the least, though as a BtS, I to can testify to wanting outcomes rather than processes (like I use paying bills as an example. I want it all paid off where my GtG wife doesn't mind bargaining with partial payments and catching up more slowly).
But what you're describing sounds actually more like a Melancholy or CtC/SJ [or just "J" in general] "business before pleasure" mindset. I hadn't really gotten into that other factor, because it seems to be easily confused with other aspects of the temperaments, and I'm not sure where those poles even came from (i.e. how they're related to the main two, of I/E and directing/informing).
In APS, the cross factor (tying together opposites) are that the Melancholy and Sanguine are more "direct" (express what they want, and want what they express, either a lot or a little interaction), while the Supine and Choleric are "indirect": the Supine doesn't express as much as he wants (and "want" will be further clarified below), while the Choleric does express, but really only for his goals and terms, and so is considered not really "wanting".
Then Keirsey himself went on and added another corresponding factor for the same groups, called "interlinking vs intersecting" (the passive-responsive "Responder" [his name for the BtS] will "interlink" with the aggressive-directive "Initiator" or In Charge. One will naturally lead the other, who is willing for someone else to take the lead). That one too, is clearly obvious how it relates to the other two dimensions.
So I wouldn't go just by "process/outcome" in deciding between BtS and CtC.
Regarding "task" orientation, here are some excerpts from this book
http://jacksonsnyder.com/mgi/studies/GCY.pdf I review here:
https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/review-god-created-you/
"
Melody Melancholy [a hypothetical 'character' he created for the temperament] is a task oriented
person. She understands tasks and systems much better than
she understands people. As far as I can tell, the Melancholy in Inclusion
is not born with any relationship skills. All these skills must be learned."
As for your Inclusion "
needs":
"
Being a natural loner and introvert (this does not mean Melody
Melancholy does not have any social needs, she has more than she admits
to even to herself) provides her with the opportunity to think.
Melvin Melancholy does not need a high amount of social
interaction. Relationship-oriented temperaments do not understand this
about him and think he will be happier being more social. They devise
ways to cunningly get him into social settings. Being forced (real or
perceived) to socialize causes Melvin Melancholy stress and anxiety.
Being around people for long periods of time in a social setting causes
him stress and anxiety. He usually needs more social interaction than he
likes to admit. He likes to convey to the world he wants to be a hermit,
but this is only true in his own mind. In reality, Melvin Melancholy
needs and enjoys social interaction, when it is his choice to socialize.
Even this is tiring for the Melancholy. Relationship-oriented
temperaments, like the Sanguine, draw energy and enjoyment from being
around people. It is the opposite for task-oriented temperaments. People
drain energy from Melvin Melancholy.
Melvin Melancholy tends to be selective with whom he socializes. He
tends to make people jump through many hoops before they can be
considered friends and social interaction is possible. Social interaction
is not readily available to mere acquaintances – and for Melvin
Melancholy there is a distinct difference between acquaintances and
friends. Thus loneliness becomes a problem. Too often he finds himself
in this position: What is this strange thing I am feeling? It is not hunger.
It is not the flu. I am not depressed. Oh, it is loneliness. And even then,
he does not know what to do to combat it.
Melvin Melancholy knows loneliness all too well because he does
not show his tender feelings.
Because he is not showing
these feelings, people are not showing these feelings towards him. This
causes a person to be lonely."
To this, I later pointed out:
"this is based on a point that
everyone really has the same needs, such as interaction with others, affection, recognition and independence. The Melancholy conveys little need of any interaction, though still has it. So
'Want' simply refers to the typical way the temperament goes about getting their need met, while 'need' in that respect is a basic human need. The Melancholy says 'I don’t want', and truly in his mind doesn’t want, yet the underlying need is still there.â€
Just like the functions and archetypal complexes we discuss in type are about "awareness", the temperaments, also being complexes, are also about
awareness of needs. (And hence, about the "understanding" of tasks or people better). So
when the need is not being met, then the Melancholy is more likely to be aware of it.
The difference with the Supine, is that they start out more aware of the need, but are simply too shy to approach others on their own."
So
do you think this might explain why you identify with Supine in Inclusion? (The actual APS would sort it out, as it uses techniques in both the questionnaire and the way it is administered, that bring out the true need, rather than just relying on behavior, as we are doing here). Can you identify with responding to people in that way?
Otherwise, it may just be the Affection coloring the type profession, as I've said. Or, being inbetween on the wanted Inclusion scale (MP or SP).
The reason why I focus on the first two areas, is because they seem to be what most closely correspond to Interaction Style and Keirsey temperament, respectively. Once you have those, the type is complete, so there's no room for a third matrix like that (unless you just rehash the other dimensions already present, as Keirsey had been doing in his last book, but then there will be a lot of overlap).
So realizing that Affection might include traits connected with Interaction Style (for it is basically a deeper level of "interaction"), I realized that those might possibly be picked up in the person's type preference as the true "style" of interaction. (For many people, such as myself, Inclusion and Affection are the same or similar temperaments, so there's no conflict. So I'm on both fronts, a solid "Behind the Scenes"). But they can be different, and we have to allow that these different traits may show up, explaining variation in their type.
I think I am Supine-Phlegmatic, Supine-Sanguine, or Phlegmatic-Sanguine.
There's no Supine-Sanguine, in any one area. "Supine-Sanguine" would be something like Supine in Inclusion, Sanguine in Control, but you're saying the whole blend lies within Control. For something between Supine and Sanguine in that area, look at
Phlegmatic-supine and
Phlegmatic-sanguine. ("Phlegmatic-" in that case, indicating "expressiveness" is
moderate, which lies between Supine [low] and Sanguine [high]).
So this would basically be either NF or SP, and thus (As DG said), would point to ISFP or INFP.
I just took a look at this.
Based on the pages with the descriptions for each one, what I think I relate to the most is:
Inclusion: Phlegmatic Melancholy
Control: Supine
Affection: Phlegmatic Supine
Now what's all that mean? I can't wrap my head around all these connections and correlations.
Inclusion; on the "I" side, but bordering on E. Control would be NF.
So, do you think, I
NFJ?