I think I could make a viable fit for the old temeperaments based on other groupsings too. I could probaby fit any quartering into some relative humor claffications fairly easily (and be more consistent about it, too
), maybe the outer letters, for example. I have a hard time seeing ENTJs as phlegmatic or ESTJs as melancholic. But those type orientations make sense in Keirsey's sytem because he hammered the whole system around the need for it to make sense. It's correct by redefinition. It's one of those (many) things I don't like about Keirsey. I prefer dissecting things down into the functional parts, and seeing what patterns, frameworks, and categories logically manifest themselves from there. Keirsey seemed to do things in the reverse process, making the patterns, frameworks, and categories, and then jamming the parts in until they fit.
Even if his choice of groups did reflect the temperaments the best, is that worth anything?
Keirsey, in his own system, considers himself and INTP. Well his system of course is quite different from mine more orthodox cognitive approach. After really going over his work several times, I'm thinking he's an ISTJ.
the bold bit above... that may be because your veiw of phelgmatics and melacolic may be being skewed by actual words, which have changed meaning.
For instance phelgmatics are considerd to value calm... which fits much more closely with ENTJ's.
I'm not sure why you don't see ESTJ's as being melancolic: materialistic, traditional, upright members of society, wanting respect... all sounds pretty ESTJ to me....
There is an interesting fit between NF and Idealisim... Choleric are campaigners, for rights, and benefits etc.. reformers if you like... and the hub of idealisim is the campagners... NF's have been given permission to own emotion, which personally speaking I think is bollox, it's a lighter way to look at emotion, they live within emotion rather than chart the depths as such... (but thats more of an astrological perspective)
I don't believe that will be necessary. I have studied Hippocrates's and Galen's humor based temperaments in their own right. I know what the words mean as opposed to their casual usage today. There's a quite a lot that Keirsey obviously
did not take (for example, you're supposed to play a different kind of music for each of them
). With ENTJs, or perhaps I instead should have gone for INTJs,
I find them too intense to be your typical phlegmat.
I might also look at ENFPs. Choleric? They could just as plausibly be Sanguine if you ask me. The temperaments included an enormous (unreasonably large) amount of qualities attributed to each type, and accordingly, you can basically cherry pick them into whatever form you want. We discard these things now because we know they are too pidgeonholing.
This reminds of how each of Keirsey's temperaments generally seem more like one of it's members than any other. For example, the Guardian description leans way toward ESTJ. The Artisan toward ESTP. Harder to say with NF and NT (he's not as dead simple with their descriptions), but it seems to me like INFJ and INTP (the atter being no surprise since he self-identifies with it).
It's what I've been saying all along.
There are two temperament matrices interwoven into the types. One is the
conative model, which are the
Keirseyan groupings. The other is the
affective model, which are known as the
Interaction Styles.
Each type is a
blend of the two.
The Galen temperaments were originally factored in terms of what we would now call introversion/extroversion (expressivness), and people/task (responsiveness, or agreeableness). So how do Keirseys's temperament figure, when all four are equally divided between E and I types? This is what I wondered when I first encountered the types through Keirsey's theory. What this tells us is that
the "classic" Galen temperaments as we have known them would more closely match the Interaction Styles, which
are drawn along E/I, with J/P or T/F shaping the people/task factor, which has become known as "informing/directing".
These are the familiar "social" temperaments; dealing with surface "interaction". So we
do not look for the same behaviors in the Keirseyan groups. It's a
different area or level of temperament. "Conative" means "
action", and it can also be seen as
leadership skills.
So in action, the closest analogue to expressiveness would be Keirsey's
cooperative/pragmatic. Pragmatics would be quicker to act, just like extraverts are quicker to engage in social behavior. Cooperatives would be slower to act, because they have to make sure it's "right", where pragmatics go by what "works". People/task would be
motive vs structure. Motive focus takes people into consideration, while structure-focus deals more with things or tasks ; the concrete or abstract "structures".
So you see the same temperament matrix, but on two different levels. So the ESTJ is Choleric in surface social skills: E + ST; extraverted; directive. However, in his action or leadership skills, SJ is cooperative and structure focused. And SJ is another code for
Si. They rely on what is
familiar, and on concrete structures such as the organization or family. They will be more cooperative towards these structures, and
slower to act apart from them. This will come out as a kind of Melancholic, when compared to the ENTJ, who is pragmatic instead of cooperative, and is more visionary with his Ni, and will thus be
quicker to act. So the ENTJ would be the pure Choleric, while ESTJ is Choleric Melancholy. On the surface, they will both be Choleric and very similar.
Now, notice, I said ENTJ is
pure Choleric, and not Choleric-
Phlegmatic. Keirsey did not define the Galen temperament correlation by cooperative/pragmatic, and structure/motive (the latter which he did not even invent; Berens invented it afterward). It should have been obvious that the Choleric is pragmatic and structure focused, and not cooperative and motive focused like the NF. Keirsey based the Galen correlation for the N's purely on "coolness" vs "exciteability". Hence, the NT sounded more like Phlegmatic, and the NF like Choleric. As I had said, he derived them from Kretschmer's Character Styles, but if you look at how Kretschmer defined the anasthetic's "coolness"; it should have been clear that the anasthetic was Choleric. Not simply "calm" as in "peaceful", but rather
cold. When we say someone is "cold" (as in "cold and heartless"), we think he
lacks Feeling, rather than being a Feeling type!
Yes, it would seem very far out to say that the hyperesthetic was a Phlegmatic. For one thing, I believe there is a fifth temperament, which is similar to Phlegmatic, but does have a lot more emotion and enthusiasm. When people take five temperament tests, NF's generally do come out high in this temperament, while a lot of NT's do come out Choleric. (
Especially the INTJ--Melancholy-Choleric! That's why he's so "intense". That combination is said to be the most intense in Galen temperament descriptions such as APS and LaHaye!)
The biggest clue is that
the hyperesthetic or NF is really the one who desires peace, and the classic Phlegmatic is among other things the peaceful diplomat. NF is the one said to have the "diplomatic" skills" set. Keirsey matched it as Choleric because of the tendency to
temporarily fly into fits of rage. But the classic Choleric was not about temporary behavior. (And that description actually fits the fifth temperament a lot, which is the diametric opposite of Choleric). And again, we are not dealing with surface
social skiils. You would look to the In Charge (EST/ENJ) for that one. In action and leadership skills, the NF does fit Phlegmatic better. Even in his "campaigning", he usually wants others to join him, rather than being totally independent or autocratic.
So in that light, an ENFP would be a Sanguine-Phlegmatic or Sanguine-Supine. You have people like Greed who are ENFP, and Choleric, but then he's actually on the border between Choleric and Phlegmatic (we went through some APS descriptions recently), and you see he also drifted between that and more Choleric types such as ENTP and ENTJ. So still, its a close match, and most other ENFP's do not come out Choleric. Some try to say Little Linguist is, but I don't think so. We went though the APS descriptions too, and she seems to be Sanguine-Supine-Melancholy.
(There's got to be some way to convey all of this in less words).
