Temperament by Inclusion, Control and Affection

[Aleksei]

The correspondence of I/N to N/S is weak -- weaker still in a forum like this (seriously, do you really expect to find one single non-curious person with an account here? Come on now). Further as the systems are indeed not interconnected and all measure different things (MBTI measures cognition, Enneagram measures core motivation, SLOAN measures observable behavior, Socionics measures character and APS measures temperament) even apparently contradictory types have no reason to really be in conflict.

 

[wolfy]

As far as I can tell these fit best...

Inclusion: Phlegmatic Supine
Control: Sanguine Phlegmatic
Affection: Sanguine-Phlegmatic

 

[Eric B]

The correspondence of I/N to N/S is weak -- weaker still in a forum like this (seriously, do you really expect to find one single non-curious person with an account here? Come on now). Further as the systems are indeed not interconnected and all measure different things (MBTI measures cognition, Enneagram measures core motivation, SLOAN measures observable behavior, Socionics measures character and APS measures temperament) even apparently contradictory types have no reason to really be in conflict.

The Global 5 site says the correlation on that dichotomy is "Medium-High"
Global 5/Big 5 to Jung/MBTI/Kiersey correlations

I say all of these things are looking at the same stuff from different angles. Temperament affects our cognitive choices, motivations, and of course, behavior. One could argue that it is cognition that is the prime shaper, but I'm not sure about that; I lean towards temperament, with the E/I and J/P scales (the primitive expressive/responsive matrix) said to develop first.

So even though there are discrepancies, it does all really seem to fit together, if no more than roughly, at least. (Now you can add DISC to that as well!)
Case in point: another good match - ISFP: PS-GP.

 

[wolfy]

Case in point: another good match - ISFP: PS-GP.

What does this mean? Edit: I kind of made sense of it from your page on it. G is the code for sanguine because S is used for supine. And isfp would tend to be a combination of those two PS-GP. Is that right?

 

[Aleksei]

The Global 5 site says the correlation on that dichotomy is "Medium-High"

Medium-high compared to letter-based typology and Keirseyan role variants -- which superficially describe a hypothetical expected behavior for a given order of cognitive attitudes. I'm sure if they measured it against actual functional attitude the correlation would weaken some.

Which of course does not address the matter of your environment. Look around you -- how many non-curious people would be interested in this? This site is self-selectingly laden with I people. If Sensors could not be inquisitive, then there would be no sensors on this site.

I say all of these things are looking at the same stuff from different angles.

That's an interesting way to look at it. It is right in a way, but what I think goes down with this is that all these seemingly conflicting types all describe different aspects of a given personality, which is more complex than the scope of any one could accommodate. Human complexity just can't be reduced to sixteen types, much less four temperaments with three or four possible variants each.

Temperament affects our cognitive choices, motivations, and of course, behavior. One could argue that it is cognition that is the prime shaper, but I'm not sure about that; I lean towards temperament, with the E/I and J/P scales (the primitive expressive/responsive matrix) said to develop first.

E/I and J/P merely affect functional attitude -- how our functions are ordered and which way they face. They aren't functions in and of themselves.

 

[Eric B]

Medium-high compared to letter-based typology and Keirseyan role variants -- which superficially describe a hypothetical expected behavior for a given order of cognitive attitudes. I'm sure if they measured it against actual functional attitude the correlation would weaken some.

Which of course does not address the matter of your environment. Look around you -- how many non-curious people would be interested in this? This site is self-selectingly laden with I people. If Sensors could not be inquisitive, then there would be no sensors on this site.

That's just an unfortunate choice of terms to label the factor with. I have learned that you can't take these things to literally. It's the same reason I have come to say that the eight function-attitudes are really perspectives. They often get described in terms of behaviors or skills, but it you take them too literally, then it becomes impossible to fit into a type, because we all "use" all of them.

So still, for that SLOAN dichotomy, it is the closest thing to an S/N perspective.

That's an interesting way to look at it. It is right in a way, but what I think goes down with this is that all these seemingly conflicting types all describe different aspects of a given personality, which is more complex than the scope of any one could accommodate. Human complexity just can't be reduced to sixteen types, much less four temperaments with three or four possible variants each.

Of course; so all of this is basically approximation. There is absolute measure of anything.

E/I and J/P merely affect functional attitude -- how our functions are ordered and which way they face. They aren't functions in and of themselves.

Yes, for differentiated function, those dichotomies determine orientation. But apparently, orientation is something the ego chooses separately from the function, so that the functional perspectives thus fall into their preferred attitude.
(There are really only four functions, and it's the ego that assigns them into the different orientations).

So in my view, for now at least, I/E and J/P, which partly define the expressive and responsive dimensions of temperament, are the first things that develop in a person.

 

[Eric B]

What does this mean? Edit: I kind of made sense of it from your page on it. G is the code for sanguine because S is used for supine. And isfp would tend to be a combination of those two PS-GP. Is that right?

Yes.
Basically, ISF would be Supine in Inclusion, and SP[MBTI code] is Sanguine in Control. Phlegmatic Supine is basically the ambiverted variation of the temperament, expressing a moderately, but still a bit on the I side. ISF could also be the pure Phlegmatic in Inclusion as well.
Sanguine Phlegmatic in Control is pretty nuch the same as Sanguine, but there is less of a "narcissistic" swing. You likely stick to your Control endeavors and don't quit to "cool off" as much. Translation to type lingo (Berens); you're likely less drawn away by other people's motives as other SP's.

 

[Donna Cecilia]

Just curious; how strong would your S preference be?
I see you also have S in Socionics; however RCOEI (SLOAN) corresponds to INTJ, as does Mel-Chlor.

So strong that for a very long time I found it hard to deal with situations in which information is missing, or when I am in an all new context. Now, mostly my job, and life circumstances, have taught me (by forcing me), to use intuitive reasoning, to the point of surprising myself and people around me sometimes.

Still, when I think about how I learn, and process everything in my everyday life, Si is my dominant function, since my first impulse is comparing everything to my own personal experience, or finding inside my mind if there is something similar to any new thing that crosses my way.

I use intuition only when I am forced to: for example, when information is missing and I need to draw a conclusion despite of that. It happens quite often when my friends come to me with their problems but they don´t tell me the whole story because there is a part that they are ashamed of making public, and don´t want anyone (even myself) to know it. Using my Si to look at the problem itself, and find if there are some details in their story that can describe accurately what the problem is (to use them as a starting point to get to the desired solution), and intuition to fill the existing gaps.

 

[BlackCat]

Inclusion- Phlegmatic Melancholy
Control- Phlegmatic Melancholy
Affection- Phlegmatic Sanguine

What's your take on that?

 

[Eric B]

I thought you did this one already. I guess I was thinking about the others.
Phlegmatic Melancholy is between Melancholy and Choleric. It is ambiverted (moderate expression) and directive (low responsive).

I know you used to say you were part Choleric, yet you changed it to Phleg-San* which was the perfect match for ISFP.
Yet now, you're identifying with a directive type again.

When this happened in the other threads with people, I always used to put it off onto Affection. But now we have your chosen Affection, and Phlegmatic Sanguine is ambiverted and responsive. I don't think that's going to be the source of any apparent Choleric or PM behaviors.
*(Phlegmatic Sanguine in this case is different from the earlier "Phleg-San". I took that to translate to "Phlegmatic in Inclusion, Sanguine in Control". Here, the spelled out version, it means "express as a Phlegmatic, respond as a Sanguine within the area of Affection").

So I don't know why you come out so directive. Perhaps just from seeing the general Phlegmatic traits in those profiles. Looking back over the PM description in Inclusion, I see where one may not see the directive traits, but the key terms there are "happier when not approached by people" (Is this true for you?), and "task-oriented". Pure Phlegmatics and blends with higher responsiveness say "people AND task". Another key is "strong minded", though that is something a lot of people might describe themselves as.

Phlegmatic Supine, it starts out saying "Extrovert..." which may have driven you off, but that means in the responsive dimension (how much interaction you want, not how much you approach others). In the expressive dimension, it too is an ambivert.
The Phlegmatic "expressive" traits will be similar to PM, it will just have more people-oriented descriptions.
Otherwise, do you identify with that one at all? Or I should ask what do you identify with in one over the other?

In your videos, you did not seem like a PM at all. (My brother is a PM, and they're more cynical and 1-ish). You definitely seemed like a higher responsive Inclusion. (light and airy).

In Control, PM I would think to be more a "structure-focused" SJ or NT. I guess there too, the distinctions get lost in the general Phlegmatic trait descriptions. Again, what do you identify with in that one over PG or GP?

Otherwise, I would think PM in both Inclusion and Control would be ixTJ. If you take the Phlegmatic part of it by itself, then it might be stretched to some of the Behind the Scenes and/or Idealist types. But it seems like a bit of a longer shot for an ISFP.

Donna,
I could see why an STJ might identify with some aspects of Choleric in Control. The Melancholy in Control, while also being independent and not wanting any control over them, also "Must appear competent and in control".

The Choleric on the other hand "Must have a great deal of control over the lives and behaviors of other people". Is that true for you? Or might it be a more defensive thing of trying to appear in Control?

 

[Donna Cecilia]

Donna,
I could see why an STJ might identify with some aspects of Choleric in Control. The Melancholy in Control, while also being independent and not wanting any control over them, also "Must appear competent and in control".

The Choleric on the other hand "Must have a great deal of control over the lives and behaviors of other people". Is that true for you? Or might it be a more defensive thing of trying to appear in Control?

Surely I don´t want any control over me, since I control myself pretty well. Still, my control over other people´s behaviour is part of my defense mechanisms.

 

[Eric B]

OK. Then would you possibly identify with the Melancholy in Control description at all?

Choleric in Control is driven to be controlling, and it's not just in defense. It basically corresponds with Keirsey's "pragmatic" dimension. In the original Will Schutz FIRO system this was derived from, the Choleric range was called "Autocrat". In the Leo Ryan version, it was "Mission Impossible".

Melancholy is Cooperative, and more willing to "follow individuals whom he/she...has respect for...as leaders". So you can see the connection to the SJ "Guardian" need for a "concrete structure". Also, "Demands order, truth, reliability and dependability from himself/herself and others"; "needs facts, research, information". Clearly, SJ, and always the most obviously likely accurate correlation.

 

[BlackCat]

I thought you did this one already. I guess I was thinking about the others.
Phlegmatic Melancholy is between Melancholy and Choleric. It is ambiverted (moderate expression) and directive (low responsive).

I know you used to say you were part Choleric, yet you changed it to Phleg-San* which was the perfect match for ISFP.
Yet now, you're identifying with a directive type again.

When this happened in the other threads with people, I always used to put it off onto Affection. But now we have your chosen Affection, and Phlegmatic Sanguine is ambiverted and responsive. I don't think that's going to be the source of any apparent Choleric or PM behaviors.
*(Phlegmatic Sanguine in this case is different from the earlier "Phleg-San". I took that to translate to "Phlegmatic in Inclusion, Sanguine in Control". Here, the spelled out version, it means "express as a Phlegmatic, respond as a Sanguine within the area of Affection").

So I don't know why you come out so directive. Perhaps just from seeing the general Phlegmatic traits in those profiles. Looking back over the PM description in Inclusion, I see where one may not see the directive traits, but the key terms there are "happier when not approached by people" (Is this true for you?), and "task-oriented". Pure Phlegmatics and blends with higher responsiveness say "people AND task". Another key is "strong minded", though that is something a lot of people might describe themselves as.

Phlegmatic Supine, it starts out saying "Extrovert..." which may have driven you off, but that means in the responsive dimension (how much interaction you want, not how much you approach others). In the expressive dimension, it too is an ambivert.
The Phlegmatic "expressive" traits will be similar to PM, it will just have more people-oriented descriptions.
Otherwise, do you identify with that one at all? Or I should ask what do you identify with in one over the other?

In your videos, you did not seem like a PM at all. (My brother is a PM, and they're more cynical and 1-ish). You definitely seemed like a higher responsive Inclusion. (light and airy).

In Control, PM I would think to be more a "structure-focused" SJ or NT. I guess there too, the distinctions get lost in the general Phlegmatic trait descriptions. Again, what do you identify with in that one over PG or GP?

Otherwise, I would think PM in both Inclusion and Control would be ixTJ. If you take the Phlegmatic part of it by itself, then it might be stretched to some of the Behind the Scenes and/or Idealist types. But it seems like a bit of a longer shot for an ISFP.

Yeah Phlegmatic Sanguine sounded way more extroverted than I thought it was, that's probably what was throwing me off. Thanks for the clarification, Phleg-San still fits me the best.

 

[Polaris]

I had very little experience to draw from when I posted in this topic a few months ago. Now that I've had more experience, I've gone back and tweaked things a bit:

Inclusion: Phlegmatic-Melancholy (Melancholy-Phlegmatic is close, as well)
Control: Phlegmatic
Affection: Supine (with just a pinch of Sanguine-Phlegmatic)

 

[Eric B]

Even better fit!

Black Cat, how did Phlegmatic Supine (Inclusion) sound, (other than the "extroversion" term)?

 

[BlackCat]

Even better fit!

Black Cat, how did Phlegmatic Supine (Inclusion) sound, (other than the "extroversion" term)?

Phlegmatic Supine sounds good for inclusion actually. Except I'm not as reactive to not being recognized as the description portrays (I don't get angry), but I still get disappointed in an interaction if it doesn't go like that. Another thing to consider is that I'm words of affirmation dominant in the love languages, so that probably adds to it.

 

[Eric B]

OK. So you're probably lower down in the wanted scale in that range, close to a Phlegmatic (like right above and left of center). Either way, it fits.

 

[Eric B]

Found a full (220 page) book someone did on the system (some people would ask me if there was a book on it): http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/mgi/studies/GCY.pdf
The title sounds purely theological, but it's about the temperaments.

 

[Daydreaming Swan]

Inclusion: Melancholic-Compulsive
Control: Melancholy
Affection: Melancholic-Compulsive

 

[Eric B]

I didn't even see this one (now after 8 months; because I hadn't been as active this year, and on old threads, it stops notifying you).

An INFP coming up so almost purely Melancholy Compulsive? (but then Phlegmatic and Supine in the signature as well).
I gues if you're very withdrawn, you might not recognize a higher want of people (which is what distinguishes the Supine from the Melancholy).