Eric B
ⒺⓉⒷ
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,621
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 548
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
After years, I had some extra money, and decided to get a bunch of stuff on a sort of backlogged wish list. So I get the entire series of Super Mario cartoons (Never even saw much of the first series), and just finishing up the latest Super Mario game, and looking into getting some previous games I never owned next, I got the game guides for several of them. So I also took the opportunity to catch up on the temperament/type books I had never read.
So I got both Please Understand Me books, as well as Lenore Thomson's Personality Type: an Owner's Manual. (Was inspired to get it during one of our meetups, when Ballantine Chen had it with him, and it looked so interesting. Have been corresponding with her, and she confirmed that she has changed some of her views since).
I kept putting it off, because I hate mail order. Just in finally getting the PUM's and the game guides and other stuff, it was often a hassle with the USPS or UPS, FedEx, etc. delivering, and you either have to be home, and they still don't deliver it, and send it back. We have some of them delivered to a friend, and you have to go over there to pick them up, and then PUM II and Personality Type were still sent back to the post office (I had to borrow the friend's ID card, and it's lucky they still allow that). But I finally got all of them now, and might get at least one more.
So in the Keirsey books, I finally got to see for myself his complete rationale for making the NF the "Choleric" temperament, and NT, "Phlegmatic". He doesn't really cite anyone on that (see below).
In the process, I try to look up Galen to see if I could get some quotes on how exactly he defined Choleric and Phlegmatic. I did not find them yet, but what I find is even more interesting. Galen actually had NINE temperaments! Four humours, marked in a matrix of hot/cold vs wet/dry, and with moderate scales, yielding five additional temperaments.
Here are the links I have found where you can see this:
Greek Medicine: INHERENT TEMPERAMENT
Hot Foods
http://sun2.science.wayne.edu/~tpartrid/Manuscripts/HEETemperament1.25.0\2.doc
Some others are in journals you would have to pay to read online, like this one:
Wiley InterScience
The most current book that seems to have the information on this is Jerome Kagan's Galen's Prophecy: Temperament In Human Nature. The main NYC library, and one Barnes & Noble uptown, have copies, so I'll probably go look at it first. The book seems to argue that Galen was really onto something, and compares his concept of humors, with modern medicine or neurological science.
On the greekmedicine site, you can even see a map of all the different body parts associated with the hot/cold/wet/dry factors. Dead Center is "skin". But only the four in the corners are humors. Black Bile is not even the furthest in its corner, but rather "hair, nails". I don't know yet if these other temperaments have names.
Adding of a moderate scale was exactly what I was once trying to do, yielding 9 temperaments and 9 interaction styles, matching Enneagram, and resulting in 81 types. Then, jackandthebeast did something similar with 76 types. These moderate temperaments would correspond to the "Phlegmatic Blends" in the "Inclusion/Control/Affection descriptions we have been discussing. I also believe they correspond to Enneagram types 1-4.
Also, this site: Early Medicine and Physiology mentions the fourelements associated with the humors and the two factors, and it's as I always remembered:
Hot-wet: air/blood
hot-dry: fire/yellow bile
cold-wet: water/phlegm
cold-dry: earth/black bile
Berens, following Keirsey, has
Choleric: water (NF)
Phlegmatic: air (NT)
Sanguine: fire (SP)
This shows that they're the ones who are off. Choleric as fire makes sense for the traditional portrayal of the temperament, and NF as water would actually be correct with Phlegmatic!
I've thought of what elements the balanced temperaments would have:
inbetween water and earth: mud
inbetween earth and fire: magma
inbetween water and air: fog
inbetween fire and air; plasma
Dead Center would be aether, the "quintessence".
Really, Phlegmatic should be there, and Supine should be wet/cold (water), with white blood cells as a fifth humor.
It would makes sense that phlegm (which was considered "wet" like water) would really be inbetween wet and dry. White blood is fully wet. Phlegm I would also think is really between hot and cold. White blood would be warm like red blood (Aether is neither hot nor cold).
Continuing on Keirsey:
He offers no other evidence for his claim on p29 PUM1, citing Maslow regarding the "cholerics" being "concerned with making the self real", and Adler, that "phlegmatics look upon themselves with pride when their powers increase". I doubt either Maslow or Adler named the temperaments in those particular contexts; Keirsey basically identified these characteristics they mentioned, and linked them to different temperaments, and then assigned the ancient temperaments based on his own rationale.
Well, in PUM1, when mentioning Kretschmer (the obvious most direct source for his model) on p3, he says "Thus, some people are born too sensitive, some too insensitive, some too serious, some too exciteable".
This of course referred to Kretschmer's character styles, and it seems to be the only basis in this book of making the link. Now, when you look at it as "sensitive vs insensitive", then, you might still match them the same way, yet it at least becomes easier to see the former as Phlegmatic, and the latter as fitting the Choleric. The classic portrayal of the Choleric's anger is not about "sensitivity", but rather the opposite. He is cold and reacts to people more critically. The Phlegmatic is the one portrayed as sensitive, and desiring harmony, however, since he is more reserved, you will not see this, and he will look more calm and cool. (And then, you have fifth temperament Supine, as well as the fact that there are two different sets of temperament overlaid, and the Interaction Styles "In Charge" will include the more stereotypical portrayal of the "angry, hot-headed Choleric". Keirsey's groups are about action and leadership rather than social skills).
Like in one "Promethean" description, I clearly saw my own "Choleric" behavior. P.50-51: demanding (which would fit the classic Choleric "angry" behavior), and hard on his own performance, even at play. You should have seen me playing Super Mario these last three months! And I kept pushing, until I got that last Star Coin on the last level, just a few days ago (I got the game Christmas Eve). Now, I've reached the goal of finishing it, and can NOW go and randomly select any level and play just for fun. I've reached the goal, and work came before play, even on something that is supposed to be 100% play!
One thing I also learned from this book (which I had noticed, pointed out and wondered why), is why Keirsey left off two of Spränger's six "value attitudes": Social and Political. (p.30) They "pertained to all, and thus were not distinguishing". (Though I would have thought Social would be the Sanguine moreso than "Artistic"). In PUM II, he clarifies it further: "political" was a category containing both theoretic and artistic, and "social" contained economical and religious. (p340)
In PUM II, you have his account of Galen's description of all four on p23:
Sanguine = "eagerly optimistic";
Melancholic = "doleful",
Choleric = "passionate"
Phlegmatic = "calm".
I don't know if those descriptions actually came from Galen, or they were just Keirsey's, but again, they actually fit the Interaction Styles better.
P.119 he says "Those with a choleric temperament are bilious, that is, easily annoyed and quick to show their displeasure, unable, in other words to put their feelings on hold. Note that Galen was more interested in the negative side of temperament, the irascible Cholerics being seen as different from but no worse than the taciturn Phlegmatics, the over-optimistic Sanguines and the doleful Melancholics".
Still, those descriptions seem to fit NT's. Remember what was cited above from the first book about how hard they are on themselves and others. They are the ones known to be critical, and that would be the negative side of the temperament. The NF wants harmony, and usually gets over any angry reactions quickly to restore harmony (long_delay/short_sustain = Phlegmatic). From a cognitive perspective, also remember that Thinking Types have Feeling in a lower position, and it will actually come out more negatively when it does surface.
On p.163, he ties the "Phlegmatic" with "disinterested, bland, distant, seemingly detached from social involvement, and that Rationals seem this way because of their concern with logical investigation. But the original Phlegmatic was really that way, for his lack of energy, which also led to his desire for peace and harmony!
PUM II supposedly also contains his first mention of his own version of the Interaction Styles; the "roles of interaction" mentioned in his latest book Brains and Careers: (Coworker, Initiator, Responder, Contender), but I don't see them in there. I think it might be the next book, Portraits of Temperament.
So I got both Please Understand Me books, as well as Lenore Thomson's Personality Type: an Owner's Manual. (Was inspired to get it during one of our meetups, when Ballantine Chen had it with him, and it looked so interesting. Have been corresponding with her, and she confirmed that she has changed some of her views since).
I kept putting it off, because I hate mail order. Just in finally getting the PUM's and the game guides and other stuff, it was often a hassle with the USPS or UPS, FedEx, etc. delivering, and you either have to be home, and they still don't deliver it, and send it back. We have some of them delivered to a friend, and you have to go over there to pick them up, and then PUM II and Personality Type were still sent back to the post office (I had to borrow the friend's ID card, and it's lucky they still allow that). But I finally got all of them now, and might get at least one more.
So in the Keirsey books, I finally got to see for myself his complete rationale for making the NF the "Choleric" temperament, and NT, "Phlegmatic". He doesn't really cite anyone on that (see below).
In the process, I try to look up Galen to see if I could get some quotes on how exactly he defined Choleric and Phlegmatic. I did not find them yet, but what I find is even more interesting. Galen actually had NINE temperaments! Four humours, marked in a matrix of hot/cold vs wet/dry, and with moderate scales, yielding five additional temperaments.
Here are the links I have found where you can see this:
Greek Medicine: INHERENT TEMPERAMENT
Hot Foods
http://sun2.science.wayne.edu/~tpartrid/Manuscripts/HEETemperament1.25.0\2.doc
Some others are in journals you would have to pay to read online, like this one:
Wiley InterScience
The most current book that seems to have the information on this is Jerome Kagan's Galen's Prophecy: Temperament In Human Nature. The main NYC library, and one Barnes & Noble uptown, have copies, so I'll probably go look at it first. The book seems to argue that Galen was really onto something, and compares his concept of humors, with modern medicine or neurological science.
On the greekmedicine site, you can even see a map of all the different body parts associated with the hot/cold/wet/dry factors. Dead Center is "skin". But only the four in the corners are humors. Black Bile is not even the furthest in its corner, but rather "hair, nails". I don't know yet if these other temperaments have names.
Adding of a moderate scale was exactly what I was once trying to do, yielding 9 temperaments and 9 interaction styles, matching Enneagram, and resulting in 81 types. Then, jackandthebeast did something similar with 76 types. These moderate temperaments would correspond to the "Phlegmatic Blends" in the "Inclusion/Control/Affection descriptions we have been discussing. I also believe they correspond to Enneagram types 1-4.
Also, this site: Early Medicine and Physiology mentions the fourelements associated with the humors and the two factors, and it's as I always remembered:
Hot-wet: air/blood
hot-dry: fire/yellow bile
cold-wet: water/phlegm
cold-dry: earth/black bile
Berens, following Keirsey, has
Choleric: water (NF)
Phlegmatic: air (NT)
Sanguine: fire (SP)
This shows that they're the ones who are off. Choleric as fire makes sense for the traditional portrayal of the temperament, and NF as water would actually be correct with Phlegmatic!
I've thought of what elements the balanced temperaments would have:
inbetween water and earth: mud
inbetween earth and fire: magma
inbetween water and air: fog
inbetween fire and air; plasma
Dead Center would be aether, the "quintessence".
Really, Phlegmatic should be there, and Supine should be wet/cold (water), with white blood cells as a fifth humor.
It would makes sense that phlegm (which was considered "wet" like water) would really be inbetween wet and dry. White blood is fully wet. Phlegm I would also think is really between hot and cold. White blood would be warm like red blood (Aether is neither hot nor cold).
Continuing on Keirsey:
He offers no other evidence for his claim on p29 PUM1, citing Maslow regarding the "cholerics" being "concerned with making the self real", and Adler, that "phlegmatics look upon themselves with pride when their powers increase". I doubt either Maslow or Adler named the temperaments in those particular contexts; Keirsey basically identified these characteristics they mentioned, and linked them to different temperaments, and then assigned the ancient temperaments based on his own rationale.
Well, in PUM1, when mentioning Kretschmer (the obvious most direct source for his model) on p3, he says "Thus, some people are born too sensitive, some too insensitive, some too serious, some too exciteable".
This of course referred to Kretschmer's character styles, and it seems to be the only basis in this book of making the link. Now, when you look at it as "sensitive vs insensitive", then, you might still match them the same way, yet it at least becomes easier to see the former as Phlegmatic, and the latter as fitting the Choleric. The classic portrayal of the Choleric's anger is not about "sensitivity", but rather the opposite. He is cold and reacts to people more critically. The Phlegmatic is the one portrayed as sensitive, and desiring harmony, however, since he is more reserved, you will not see this, and he will look more calm and cool. (And then, you have fifth temperament Supine, as well as the fact that there are two different sets of temperament overlaid, and the Interaction Styles "In Charge" will include the more stereotypical portrayal of the "angry, hot-headed Choleric". Keirsey's groups are about action and leadership rather than social skills).
Like in one "Promethean" description, I clearly saw my own "Choleric" behavior. P.50-51: demanding (which would fit the classic Choleric "angry" behavior), and hard on his own performance, even at play. You should have seen me playing Super Mario these last three months! And I kept pushing, until I got that last Star Coin on the last level, just a few days ago (I got the game Christmas Eve). Now, I've reached the goal of finishing it, and can NOW go and randomly select any level and play just for fun. I've reached the goal, and work came before play, even on something that is supposed to be 100% play!
One thing I also learned from this book (which I had noticed, pointed out and wondered why), is why Keirsey left off two of Spränger's six "value attitudes": Social and Political. (p.30) They "pertained to all, and thus were not distinguishing". (Though I would have thought Social would be the Sanguine moreso than "Artistic"). In PUM II, he clarifies it further: "political" was a category containing both theoretic and artistic, and "social" contained economical and religious. (p340)
In PUM II, you have his account of Galen's description of all four on p23:
Sanguine = "eagerly optimistic";
Melancholic = "doleful",
Choleric = "passionate"
Phlegmatic = "calm".
I don't know if those descriptions actually came from Galen, or they were just Keirsey's, but again, they actually fit the Interaction Styles better.
P.119 he says "Those with a choleric temperament are bilious, that is, easily annoyed and quick to show their displeasure, unable, in other words to put their feelings on hold. Note that Galen was more interested in the negative side of temperament, the irascible Cholerics being seen as different from but no worse than the taciturn Phlegmatics, the over-optimistic Sanguines and the doleful Melancholics".
Still, those descriptions seem to fit NT's. Remember what was cited above from the first book about how hard they are on themselves and others. They are the ones known to be critical, and that would be the negative side of the temperament. The NF wants harmony, and usually gets over any angry reactions quickly to restore harmony (long_delay/short_sustain = Phlegmatic). From a cognitive perspective, also remember that Thinking Types have Feeling in a lower position, and it will actually come out more negatively when it does surface.
On p.163, he ties the "Phlegmatic" with "disinterested, bland, distant, seemingly detached from social involvement, and that Rationals seem this way because of their concern with logical investigation. But the original Phlegmatic was really that way, for his lack of energy, which also led to his desire for peace and harmony!
PUM II supposedly also contains his first mention of his own version of the Interaction Styles; the "roles of interaction" mentioned in his latest book Brains and Careers: (Coworker, Initiator, Responder, Contender), but I don't see them in there. I think it might be the next book, Portraits of Temperament.
