• 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.

Temperament by Inclusion, Control and Affection

noyo

New member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
36
Inclusion: Choleric Phlegmatic
Control: Phlegmatic Melancholy
Affection: Supine Phlegmatic
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Since you don't seem to know a type, then from this, how about ESTJ? (Choleric in Inclusion: EST + Melancholy in Control: SJ).
Since all of them are "Phlegmatic" variants, then you're very moderate, and close to other temperaments.

So you could also look at:
Choleric Phlegmatic in Inclusion = close to Sanguine: ESF or ENP
Phlegmatic Melancholy in Control = close to Choleric: NT
Phlegmatic by itself: ISF/INP, NF.
 

Ghost

Megustalations
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
1,042
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Inclusion: PM Phlegmatic Melancholy
Control: SP Supine Phlegmatic (perhaps MP Melancholy Phlegmatic or PM Phlegmatic Melancholy)
Affection: MP Melancholy Phlegmatic

I think so, anyway.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
@Eric B - How do the expressed vs. wanted conditions factor into the MBTI correlations? I have tried skimming through your website to determine this, but I have been unsuccessful in doing so.

I managed to find this table, but I am unsure which temperaments correlate to which values of the 16 type model/FFM.



For example, I know that the melancholic and supine eI correlate to introversion (and choleric and sanguine eI correlate to extraversion)...but I am a bit lost on the rest (and not entirely sure how phlegmatic fits in the first...though it seems to be introverted).
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
I didn't read all of them, but I skimmed them all to see if they were close, then read the ones that were close. Granted, I pretty well know my temperment so I knew what it would be from the get go:

Inclusion = C Choleric (God damn. This is spot. Freaking. On. In every single way)
Control = M Melancholy (I'm somewhere between C and M with this one, neither is completely correct, but this is closer).
Affection = ...no idea (none of these fit well. This could be due the fact that I have never been in a romantic relationship before, and the entirety of deep affection just confuses me and I don't know how I act or what I need).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
@Eric B - How do the expressed vs. wanted conditions factor into the MBTI correlations? I have tried skimming through your website to determine this, but I have been unsuccessful in doing so.

I managed to find this table, but I am unsure which temperaments correlate to which values of the 16 type model/FFM.



For example, I know that the melancholic and supine eI correlate to introversion (and choleric and sanguine eI correlate to extraversion)...but I am a bit lost on the rest (and not entirely sure how phlegmatic fits in the first...though it seems to be introverted).
OK, "Informing/Directing" are Interaction Styles terms (originally derived from Keirsey), and "informing" corresponds to high wI, and is represented by SF and NP. "Directing" is a low wI, and corresponds to ST and NJ. (Think of the "mirro temperaments", or the flipside of the Keirseyan groups. They figure in Interaction styles, and were what Keirsey discovered in his eight "intelligence variants" in Portraits of Temperament).

I'm sure you know what "cooperative/pragmatic" are "cooperative"=SJ and NF=low eC; "pragmatic"=SP adnd NT=high eC; and "Structure/motive" is a dimension Berens came up with, shared by the temperaments that had nothing else in common in Keirsey's matrix: structure=SJ, NT=low wC; motive=SP, NF=low wC.

I don't know which website you looked through (I have several pages on different specific topics), but this is the one specifially on the correlation: ERICA vs EISeNFelT
This shorter primer on type also goes into it: MBTI Type: “Super Short” version
tere's also this blog entry: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/steps-to-the-keirsey-classic-temperament-mapping
My avatar shows the correlation directly with the two systems overlaid graphically.

Here (from that page) is how the Keirsey/Berens factors translate into e/w I and C:

Extraverts will tend to be quicker to approach others on a social level (i.e. high expressed Inclusion);
introverts will be slower (low eI).


The speed of initiation in leadership and responsibilities will tend to be a bit quicker (high eC) when based on whether something "works" (Pragmatic)
or slower (low eC) when based on whether it is "right" (Cooperative).


People who want less social interaction (low wI) will have stricter criteria [<APS] for accepting people, will define the relationship [<Keirsey], and thus tend to communicate to them in a directive fashion.

People who want more social interaction (high wI) will have lighter criteria, and be more readily accepting of people; allowing them to define the relationship, and soften their communication into "informing".


People who want less control (low wC) by other people will tend to have the dictates of a structure (such as an organization or their own plans) to set the criteria that must be met for them to accept that control.

People who allow more influence by others in responsibilities (high wC) will be more likely to take into account others' motives "in order to work with them" (Berens).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I didn't read all of them, but I skimmed them all to see if they were close, then read the ones that were close. Granted, I pretty well know my temperment so I knew what it would be from the get go:

Inclusion = C Choleric (God damn. This is spot. Freaking. On. In every single way)
Control = M Melancholy (I'm somewhere between C and M with this one, neither is completely correct, but this is closer).
Affection = ...no idea (none of these fit well. This could be due the fact that I have never been in a romantic relationship before, and the entirety of deep affection just confuses me and I don't know how I act or what I need).

If you're between C and M, that would be PC or PM:
Temperament Phlegmatic Choleric In Control
Temperament: Phlegmatic Melancholy In Control

The "Phlegmatic" in this case indicates that expressed Control is moderate, where M is low, and C is high.

As an NF, I would expect your Control to be at least in the Phlegmatic range (rather than pure C or M, which would be, respectively, an NT or SJ), so you should check those out too, and maye also the pure Phlegmatic, if you didn't really read it already.
I would expect a C/M to be an ESTJ, and a C/PM or C/PC to be either that or an ENTJ, and I notice you have both high Fe and Te (they are "left brain alternatives", and so can both come out "strong"), but as function preference is not really about relative "strength" (as measured by an imperfect test that likely doesn't take into consideration why or in what contexts a given function comes out so "strong") I wonder if it's possible for Te to be the dominant.

Affection is not just about "romantic" relationships, but just "deep relationships" (including any close family) in general, and how open or closed one is in them (and includes how much physical affection one likes to give or receive).
 

strychnine

All Natural! All Good!
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
895
I am Informative, People-Oriented, and Initiating = Get Things Going (Keirsey Coworker)
I don't have a Directive bone in my body! If there is an In Charge person present, I might default to Behind the Scenes. But other than that I am Get Things Going through and through.

Pragmatic (as opposed to Cooperative)

idk Structure/Motive

Inclusion: Sanguine Phlegmatic
Control: Phlegmatic
Affection: Choleric Phlegmatic

What type is this? ESFP? [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]

Thanks.


Driving needs are between these from [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] 's website:

Sanguines are motivated by the need for socialization or attention, and this drives them to like being around people, and be very outgoing and usually bright and friendly. They are also regenerated by socialization.

Cholerics are motivated by goals, which drives them to approach and use people for accomplishments, often being bright and charming, but not otherwise associate with them. They are regenerated by meeting their goals.

Probably more Choleric and less Sanguine. I want to say almost superficially Sanguine and really Choleric, although I am genuinely Sanguine (it's not a pretense; just doesn't feel as essential to me a Choleric.)
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
If you're between C and M, that would be PC or PM:
Temperament Phlegmatic Choleric In Control
Temperament: Phlegmatic Melancholy In Control

The "Phlegmatic" in this case indicates that expressed Control is moderate, where M is low, and C is high.

PC fits, PM not really. The big thing is while I need praise, recognition, it's for the sole purpose of getting objective proof that I am doing well and am competent and am valued for what I bring to the frey. In the absence of that I get worried I am ineffective. I don't want praise for the sake of praise.

The thing is, I am quite pushy/demanding/controling, and will almost always seek out a leadership position if I get heavily involved with something. My dedication/passion is inexoribly linked to the amount of effort I put into something. As such, the more time I put in, the more I care and the more involved I will want to be. I really, really want things to be done right, and if I see them not being done correctly I will want to get right into and fix it. I can be immensely critical/cruel if people are incompetent and will go to lengths to overthrow them. That said, I am very friendly, and quite understanding at the same time, and am never cruel for the sake of cruel. Choleric for this just sounds out and out mean, wanting control because it's control. Not for any sort of end goal, reason, or for the betterment of something. I also fully recognize that some people are at their best when not controlled. I don't want to let people do their thing, and that has a slow persistent leak, but I let them do it. It's simply unfair to control everything that someone does even if they're wrong. It drives me nuts, but I leave it be for the sake of the greater good. I'm very goal/future oriented.

Another way to put it, is I want to impart a significant amount of control over people, but in practice only impart moderate. It goes up and down though, and the majority of the time it's quite covert and very tactful. That said, my friends would all likely say I am immensely controlling. Wouldn't be surprised if people on the forum said that too. Also, I will almost always relent if someone is objectively right.

As an NF, I would expect your Control to be at least in the Phlegmatic range (rather than pure C or M, which would be, respectively, an NT or SJ), so you should check those out too, and maye also the pure Phlegmatic, if you didn't really read it already.
I would expect a C/M to be an ESTJ, and a C/PM or C/PC to be either that or an ENTJ, and I notice you have both high Fe and Te (they are "left brain alternatives", and so can both come out "strong"), but as function preference is not really about relative "strength" (as measured by an imperfect test that likely doesn't take into consideration why or in what contexts a given function comes out so "strong") I wonder if it's possible for Te to be the dominant.

I really don't relate to phlemegic traits all that much. I kinda do, but I also kinda don't. You would not be the first person to float the idea that I am a Te dom. It's kinda common, actually. On the surface I do appear to be ESTJ, but I am not. [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] has met me in person and completely confirm this. A lot of it comes down to I am a strong 1w2, and it effects how I "use" my Fe and present it to the world. It's absolutely Fe though. On the surface I relate to Te quite well, and aspire towards it's goals, but I don't actually use it.

Affection is not just about "romantic" relationships, but just "deep relationships" (including any close family) in general, and how open or closed one is in them (and includes how much physical affection one likes to give or receive).

I'm close with people, but I can't categorize it right :(. I fit bits and pieces of most of them. I also want and get very different things from everyone that I am close to, but permanently feel stifiled, and like I have an itch I can't find to scratch.

(I have aspergers, and there are some aspects of human behavior/relations that leave me flummoxed even with the most concerted effort).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I would think Phlegmatic in Control would be NF, and ESFP and ENFP will be very similar on the surface. The Phlegmatic in Control probably won't be very pragmatic (they have a low energy reserve, and take the path of least resistance. As you can see there, they're more "democratic" than "autocratic"). Though really, Phlegmatic is inbetween, and won't be totally reserved either, but overall, would probably be more "cooperative".

SP is likely Sanguine in Control. would be the purest Sanguine of the types.

If you're Choleric Phlegmatic in Affection, you probably can't say you don't have a "directive" bone in your body, because Choleric is the epitome of directive, and very aggressive about it. Though the Phlegmatic will greatly temper it down.
"Directive" is really Interaction Style, and would likely correspond to Inclusion more, but "Affection" is like a deeper level of social interaction. (Inclusion is surface; "who's in or who's out", and Affection is how closed or open you are with those who are "in"). But a Choleric in Affection will still have some amount of directive behavior, even if Inclusion is is opposite. (Thus it can explain some behavior that might not fit the regular Interaction Style).

So CP will be inbetween in that dimension.
So this "goal" orientation will be in your deep relationships only (and again, be very moderate at that), while your surface relationships will be more purely "people"-oriented. You'll want to socialize with a lot of people, but once home or whatever, you'll only need affection and closeness under a moderate criteria.
However, Affection is the deepest level of personality, so that's why Choleric would ultimately seem more "essential".
 

strychnine

All Natural! All Good!
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
895
I would think Phlegmatic in Control would be NF, and ESFP and ENFP will be very similar on the surface. The Phlegmatic in Control probably won't be very pragmatic (they have a low energy reserve, and take the path of least resistance. As you can see there, they're more "democratic" than "autocratic"). Though really, Phlegmatic is inbetween, and won't be totally reserved either, but overall, would probably be more "cooperative".

SP is likely Sanguine in Control. would be the purest Sanguine of the types.

If you're Choleric Phlegmatic in Affection, you probably can't say you don't have a "directive" bone in your body, because Choleric is the epitome of directive, and very aggressive about it. Though the Phlegmatic will greatly temper it down.
"Directive" is really Interaction Style, and would likely correspond to Inclusion more, but "Affection" is like a deeper level of social interaction. (Inclusion is surface; "who's in or who's out", and Affection is how closed or open you are with those who are "in"). But a Choleric in Affection will still have some amount of directive behavior, even if Inclusion is is opposite. (Thus it can explain some behavior that might not fit the regular Interaction Style).

So CP will be inbetween in that dimension.
So this "goal" orientation will be in your deep relationships only (and again, be very moderate at that), while your surface relationships will be more purely "people"-oriented. You'll want to socialize with a lot of people, but once home or whatever, you'll only need affection and closeness under a moderate criteria.
However, Affection is the deepest level of personality, so that's why Choleric would ultimately seem more "essential".

Thanks Eric. Seems accurate, if internally inconsistent. I put the functions above this though, so I'm not an NF, but I can see why ESFP/ENFP are superficially similar obviously.


Can someone please explain why the interaction styles are as below instead of as below:

http://s2.postimg.org/5z6fsramf/Interaction_Styles20151128.png


Also why does this "seem" to work? I hope it's self-explanatory because it's 1:30 am here...basically I for some reason have the impression that ISFJ for example is the most NF-like of the SJs, and that ENFP for example is the most SP-like of the NFs, etc. ESFP is the quintessential SP, thus the SP of the SPs. Does this ring true to other people? I might switch INTJ and INTP but I just made this quickly so I am not going to fix it. I just put INTJ as the most NF of the NTs because they are a dominant intuitive whereas INTP is a dominant thinker.

http://s28.postimg.org/z44jcovq3/Temperament_Styles20151128.png

Edit: OH WAIT I just realized that if I switch INTJ and INTP like I said, then SJ = In Charge, SP = Get Things Going, NF = Behind the Scenes, NT = Chart the Course... how did that work out?! That's so weird.
 

Hawthorne

corona
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
1,946
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Well, this was somewhat difficult to understand and I even think my mind bent a little bit.

So, when it came to the Inclusion and Control columns, I related to Phlegmatic-Choleric and Melancholy respectively. Deciding for Affection was impossible. Now, if I am interpreting this correctly, I would fall somewhere in the SJ range of things. Specifically ISFJ?

Edit: Mildly surprised by the lack of Sanguine relatability.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
Thanks for that, [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]!

I do have further questions then, which mostly relate to how exactly this correlates to the five temperaments.

Is the following correct?



Where does sanguine fit in control if it is alternating? Furthermore, if phlegmatic is the middle of everything, why is the middle option in control a democratic option? Wouldn't it be more so someone who occasionally likes to control others and occasionally likes others to control them (which is what I identify with)? I see that this is apparently more in the line of the sanguine description, but I don't quite follow the reasoning behind this.

Edit: I also think strychnine raises a good question in regards to the first image s/he posted.

-----

Edit 2: This is unrelated to my above comments, but I find it very interesting that I relate strongly to supine in inclusion, yet I also relate strongly to the chart the course interaction style. According to the correlations, this cannot be true.
 
Last edited:

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
PC fits, PM not really. The big thing is while I need praise, recognition, it's for the sole purpose of getting objective proof that I am doing well and am competent and am valued for what I bring to the frey. In the absence of that I get worried I am ineffective. I don't want praise for the sake of praise.

The thing is, I am quite pushy/demanding/controling, and will almost always seek out a leadership position if I get heavily involved with something. My dedication/passion is inexoribly linked to the amount of effort I put into something. As such, the more time I put in, the more I care and the more involved I will want to be. I really, really want things to be done right, and if I see them not being done correctly I will want to get right into and fix it. I can be immensely critical/cruel if people are incompetent and will go to lengths to overthrow them. That said, I am very friendly, and quite understanding at the same time, and am never cruel for the sake of cruel. Choleric for this just sounds out and out mean, wanting control because it's control. Not for any sort of end goal, reason, or for the betterment of something. I also fully recognize that some people are at their best when not controlled. I don't want to let people do their thing, and that has a slow persistent leak, but I let them do it. It's simply unfair to control everything that someone does even if they're wrong. It drives me nuts, but I leave it be for the sake of the greater good. I'm very goal/future oriented.

Another way to put it, is I want to impart a significant amount of control over people, but in practice only impart moderate. It goes up and down though, and the majority of the time it's quite covert and very tactful. That said, my friends would all likely say I am immensely controlling. Wouldn't be surprised if people on the forum said that too. Also, I will almost always relent if someone is objectively right.


I really don't relate to phlemegic traits all that much. I kinda do, but I also kinda don't. You would not be the first person to float the idea that I am a Te dom. It's kinda common, actually. On the surface I do appear to be ESTJ, but I am not. [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] has met me in person and completely confirm this. A lot of it comes down to I am a strong 1w2, and it effects how I "use" my Fe and present it to the world. It's absolutely Fe though. On the surface I relate to Te quite well, and aspire towards it's goals, but I don't actually use it.


I'm close with people, but I can't categorize it right :(. I fit bits and pieces of most of them. I also want and get very different things from everyone that I am close to, but permanently feel stifiled, and like I have an itch I can't find to scratch.

(I have aspergers, and there are some aspects of human behavior/relations that leave me flummoxed even with the most concerted effort).

You sound like someone very “Choleric” on the surface (“In Charge” Interaction Style), but with a higher wanted Control (which would fit NF's “motive focus”). That's why I suggested Phlegmatic in Control.
Maybe you could look at Supine in Control (the other one I associate with NF. And there's Phlegmatic Supine and Supine Phlegmatic as well).
You'll see in those an emphasis on “dependency” you might not identify but so much with, but keep in mind, the different temperament areas modify each other, and Choleric is the diametric opposite of Supine, and on the surface, that will lead to a greater appearance of less dependency and passivity.

So it's on the surface of social dealings with people where you display those Choleric traits, but in actual leadership and responsibilities, you're not as “goal” oriented, but have a measue of people-orientation. That would match what I've read about ENFJ's.

Since people have basically tacked Enneagram on as a virtual fifth letter of type (modifying the overall behavior), I often wonder if that might have something to do with the remaining area of Affection. Since you say 1w2, then maybe Melancholy or Phlegmatic Melancholy? You would be “inbetween” in expressing a need for closeness and affection, and having a low want of it. Perhaps explaining why you don't identify with the area so much.

Many people wonder how Asperger's would work with preferred Fe. Must be difficult.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Thanks Eric. Seems accurate, if internally inconsistent. I put the functions above this though, so I'm not an NF, but I can see why ESFP/ENFP are superficially similar obviously.


Can someone please explain why the interaction styles are as below instead of as below:

http://s2.postimg.org/5z6fsramf/Interaction_Styles20151128.png


Also why does this "seem" to work? I hope it's self-explanatory because it's 1:30 am here...basically I for some reason have the impression that ISFJ for example is the most NF-like of the SJs, and that ENFP for example is the most SP-like of the NFs, etc. ESFP is the quintessential SP, thus the SP of the SPs. Does this ring true to other people? I might switch INTJ and INTP but I just made this quickly so I am not going to fix it. I just put INTJ as the most NF of the NTs because they are a dominant intuitive whereas INTP is a dominant thinker.

http://s28.postimg.org/z44jcovq3/Temperament_Styles20151128.png

Edit: OH WAIT I just realized that if I switch INTJ and INTP like I said, then SJ = In Charge, SP = Get Things Going, NF = Behind the Scenes, NT = Chart the Course... how did that work out?! That's so weird.

OK, what you've done there (in the first image) is simply make P "informtive" and J "directive" across the board. It may seem that way, but then, as I always point out, there's also structure and motive which are a parallel to directing and informing, both of which represent "wanted" behavior or "responsiveness". P is obviously more "responsive", so if it's not informing, it is at least "motive focused", as is the case for the STP's. And J is less responsive, and if not "directing", is at least "structure" focused, as for the SFJ's. You could think of "Judgment" as less responsive in general, so when it's extraverted ("J"), it definitely shows, but when introverted ("P"), this softens it and makes the overall type at least part responsive.
T/F is the flipside of this. Both are [less responsive] "judgments", but F is "softer" than T, which is the least "responsive" of all. So FP's will be both informing and motive focused, and TJ's will be both directing and structure focused. FJ's and TP's will mix those responsive poles, and hence seem either way or inbetween on them. It actualy makes those types a bit "enigmatic" in ways (which is basically exemplified in what I was explaining to Hard).

Also, what we end up with is the Interaction Styles and Keirsey temperaments paralleling directly each other as different levels of the classic temperaments. This is key to understanding why an ENFP would seem the most "SP"-like of the NF's, and an ISFJ the most "NF"-like of the SJ's. And INTP the most NF=like of the NT's. And also why ISP's often have trouble fitting into some of Keirsey's descriptions of the SP.

The parallels are as such:

Sanguine: ESF/ENP, SP
Melancholy: IST/INJ, SJ
Choleric: EST/ENJ, NT
Phlegmatic or Supine: ISF/INP, NF.

So each type is revealed as a blend of two temperaments (like you have in some of those cheap four temperaments tests):
ISTJ: pure MelancholyISFJ: SupineMelancholyINFJ: MelancholySupineINTJ: MelancholyCholeric
ISTP: MelancholySanguineISFP: SupineSanguineINFP: Phlegmatic and/or SupineINTP: PhlegmaticCholeric
ESTP: CholericSanguineESFP: pure SanguineENFP: SanguineSupineENTP: SanguineCholeric
ESTJ: CholericMelancholyESFJ: SanguineMelancholyENFJ: CholericSupineENTJ: pure Choleric

Thanks for that, [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION]!

I do have further questions then, which mostly relate to how exactly this correlates to the five temperaments.

Is the following correct?

high eI = sanguine, choleric
low eI = melancholy, supine

high wI = sanguine, supine
low wI = melancholy, choleric

high eC = choleric (be in control), supine (being controlled)
low eC = melancholy

high wC = choleric (be in control), supine (being controlled)
low wC = melancholy

Not sure about the control categorizations. I think I'm confusing some of the terminology/definitions.

high eA = sanguine
low eA = choleric (not sure on choleric here?), supine, melancholy

high wA = sanguine, supine
low wA = melancholy, choleric

Phlegmatic is the intermediate option out of any of these.

Inclusion you have completely right, but the e/w definitions of the temperaments does not change according to the areas. They follow [i.e. define] the temperaments themselves. Choleric is always high e and low w, and Supine is always low e and high w. Wanting to be controlled is high wC, not high eC.
Where does sanguine fit in control if it is alternating?
They initially are quick to taking action in leadership, but then "swing" to a more "dependent" or "narcissistic" phase where they drop everything. (You can even see some evidences of this in some of the Keirsey SP descriptions!)
And this would make sense, given Se's "go with the flow in the immediate moment" perspective. The Choleric in Control will more likely continue to push. Choleric is more "win-lose", and this will connect to the NT's need of "mastery".
Furthermore, if phlegmatic is the middle of everything, why is the middle option in control a democratic option? Wouldn't it be more so someone who occasionally likes to control others and occasionally likes others to control them (which is what I identify with)? I see that this is apparently more in the line of the sanguine description, but I don't quite follow the reasoning behind this.
It might work that way sometimes, but the reason the Phlegmatic is in the middle to begin with, is because he's not energized in either of the two dimensions (which basically move one toward or away from people, in expressing or wanting). So the Phlegmatic is all sbout preserving the low energy reserve, and taking the path of least resistance. (Which leads to the "democratic" approach).
Edit 2: This is unrelated to my above comments, but I find it very interesting that I relate strongly to supine in inclusion, yet I also relate strongly to the chart the course interaction style. According to the correlations, this cannot be true.

Well what about Supine do you relate to? You relate to it more than Melancholy?
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
OK, what you've done there (in the first image) is simply make P "informtive" and J "directive" across the board. It may seem that way, but then, as I always point out, there's also structure and motive which are a parallel to directing and informing, both of which represent "wanted" behavior or "responsiveness". P is obviously more "responsive", so if it's not informing, it is at least "motive focused", as is the case for the STP's. And J is less responsive, and if not "directing", is at least "structure" focused, as for the SFJ's.
T/F is the flipside of this. So FP's will be both informing and motive focused, and TJ's will be both directing and structure focused. FJ's and TP's will mix those responsive poles, and hence seem either way or inbetween on them. It actualy makes them a bit "enigmatic" in ways (which is basically exemplified in what I was explaining to Hard).

I think I am beginning to understand the divisions a bit better now, thank you. And I see where the interaction styles now come into play. Can you perhaps expand on what is meant by "motive?"

Also, if FJ and TP types are more of a "mix" between the FP and TJ types, why are the FJ and TP types still rigidly placed within their certain categories in the interaction styles? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that, for example, an ESFJ may be either in charge or get things going, depending on the individual?

Inclusion you have completely right, but the e/w definitions of the temperaments does not change according to the areas. They follow [i.e. define] the temperaments. Choleric is always high e and low w, and Supine is always low e and high w. Wanting to be controlled is high wC, not high eC.
So then high eC = the need to be the boss, low eC = the lack of need to be the boss, high wC = the need for someone to "boss" them, and low wC = lack of want for someone to "boss" them? It seems kind of like we are defining the scale a bit oddly then...or perhaps I just am not really fond of the terminology in this case.

They initially are quick to taking action in leadership, but then "Swing" to a more "dependent" or "narcissistic" phase where they drop everything. (You can even see some evidences of this in some of the Keirsey SP pdesriptions!)
And this would make sense, given Se's "go with the flow in the immediate moment" perspective.
So then this occurs because the sanguine has both a high need for control and a high need to be controlled, correct? These are both conflicting states and their only option is to swing back and forth between the two, right? I think I am understanding that one now.

It might work that way sometimes, but the reason the Phlegmatic is in the middle to begin with, is because he's not energized in either of the two dimensions (which basically move one toward or away from people, in expressing or wanting). So the Phlegmatic is all sbout preserving the low energy reserve, and taking the path of least resistance. (Which leads to the "democratic" approach).

So then what of the scenario I described then for myself? Would that be sanguine in control? I don't feel that my fluctuations in my need to control or be controlled are that wild, strong, impulsive, etc. Yet, I do not at all relate to the democracy aspect.

Well what about Supine do you relate to? You relate to it more than Melancholy?

I suppose probably appear more as a melancholy in inclusion than anything. I am very closed off to other people and often do not let other people in. However, I want desperately for others to initiate and include me. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that I am able to take people up on their offers when they do try to include me. So there is a conflict between how much I express to others that I want to be included and how much I actually want to be included.

I am definitely melancholy in affection, though.

Though, given a task, I'm much more interested in doing the task than associating with other people. I also do not enjoy working in teams and prefer to do things alone.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think I am beginning to understand the divisions a bit better now, thank you. And I see where the interaction styles now come into play. Can you perhaps expand on what is meant by "motive?"
The term is from Berens, who described it as "a focus on...why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure”. It should be easy to see why this might correspond with a higher wC (And "Wanted" is not necessarily always "wanting to be controlled"; but may mean allowing it more, as there's a lower criteria [whis is what the "Wanted" scale is really about] to be met). The NT will only accept something if it makes intuitive, logican sense, or fits the goals (abstract "structure").
For the SJ, it has to be an "authorized" authority or familiar fact, for them to accept control (concrete "structure"). So those two temperaments end up with a stricter "criteria" for accepting control.

Also, if FJ and TP types are more of a "mix" between the FP and TJ types, why are the FJ and TP types still rigidly placed within their certain categories in the interaction styles? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that, for example, an ESFJ may be either in charge or get things going, depending on the individual?
Because S and N, which the Interaction Styles are otherwise "blind" to (they don't directly figure, and each style is composed of and equal number of S's and N's), are what determine which "area" (Inclusion/interaction, or Control/conation) the dichotomies refer to.

S/N is really connected to Control for some reason, yet tying together the opposite temperaments:
S: Sanguine, Melancholy
N: Choleric, Phlegmatic and/or Supine.
(And a perceptive factor had matched them like this in Kant's old theory).

So the Inclusion temperaments or Interaction styles will have two sets of type groups; one S and one N, and the "responsive" factors end up getting swapped between them:

T/F: wI for S's, and wC for N's
J/P: wI for N's and wC for S's

So EFJ may be either In Charge [ENJ] or Get Things Soing [ESF], but when you put the S in there, you're completing the SJ temperament, which is cooperative and structure focused (low e/wC; Melancholy in Control), and then the S forces the Interaction style to ESF, which is expressive and informative (GtG). In Charge would then have to be EST, but we've already started out with F.

All of this is because the frameworks of classic temperament and Jungian type were so different. So they partially correspond (particularly I/E), but the other factors, while related, still do not map evenly across from one to the other.

So then high eC = the need to be the boss, low eC = the lack of need to be the boss, high wC = the need for someone to "boss" them, and low wC = lack of want for someone to "boss" them?
Yes, that's basically it.
It seems kind of like we are defining the scale a bit oddly then...or perhaps I just am not really fond of the terminology in this case.
I don't uderstand what's odd about that.
So then this occurs because the sanguine has both a high need for control and a high need to be controlled, correct? These are both conflicting states and their only option is to swing back and forth between the two, right? I think I am understanding that one now.

So then what of the scenario I described then for myself? Would that be sanguine in control? I don't feel that my fluctuations in my need to control or be controlled are that wild, strong, impulsive, etc. Yet, I do not at all relate to the democracy aspect.
You mean "occasionally likes to control others and occasionally likes others to control them"? There are serveral temperament needs that could cause that. It could be Sanguine, if, as I described, you're quick to take action, but then "crash", so to speak, and give up for awhile. The APS literature, including this book: http://jacksonsnyder.com/mgi/studies/GCY.pdf (and which I review here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/review-god-created-you) described the Sanguine in Control as "After taking on too many responsibilities and making too many decisions, she is driven to the opposite side of the temperament need, which is to be narcissistic, self-indulgent, lacking persistence and weak-willed; the dependent mode. Sandy Sanguine can only stand to be in the dependent mode for a limited amount of time. She will begin to feel worthless, unloved, selfish, inferior to everyone else and irresponsible. After a period of time (which differs for each individual), she will be driven back to the independent mode."

If it's from a lack of drive, and you just follow the path of least resistance, then it could be Phlegmatic. (Like I guess they would be controlling others if wanting something from them, but again, would not have the sticktoitiveness of the Choleric. And this likely wouldn't last long.
They are described as usually just using a sarcastic humor and stubbornness in dealing with unwanted control. But a lot of times, just giving in, to keep the peace, will be the path of least resistance).

While not discussing it, I've also thought that the Melancholy has their own version of the "swing" (though not nearly as prominent as the Sanguine), as they again, will accept control from an "authorized" souce, but then not accept control from anyone else. Like SJ's around me, from my family growing up, to my work environment today are always saying stuff like "that's life, just accept it". And they don't want to take action to change it. But when they are in positions of power in their own turf, or position granted to them; including parents and bosses (which is of course an "authorized" setup), then they can be like Cholerics in Control, and controlling, and pushy (both taking action, and trying to coach others to as well), and yet react strongly if you try to push something else on them (especially the abstract or "unknown" or unauthorized); and ultimately have a worse attitude (negative, critical, etc.) than what they criticize others for. (It was something I always noticed as hypocritical, but now type acknowledges it).

So if you're SJ, then this could be why you would experience wanting to control others "sometimes", and wanting to accept control other times. You have to look at the context. (However current sensations or burning out and feeling unappreciated
dictate you to respond, or however memorized sensation [i.e. "facts"] and authorized responsibility lead you to respond, or however a low energy reserve determines the path of least resistance).

Unlike Inclusion and Affection, where you expect a person who expresses to want what they're expressing a need for, and assume one who does not express, must not want (so that the Sanguine, Phlegmatic and Melancholy are more "consistent", and the Supine and Choleric are enigmatic), In Control, we would instead expect the person who wants to express control over others, to naturally not want it over themselves, and the person who does not express control, to want someone else to take control. So the Supine and Choleric are more "normal", and "interlink" (to borrow Keirsey's term) in that way. The Sanguine and Melancholy then end up as the "enigmatic" ones, for either wanting to control and be controlled, or to neither control nor be controlled [in both cases, this ends up being at different times and contexts].

I suppose probably appear more as a melancholy in inclusion than anything. I am very closed off to other people and often do not let other people in. However, I want desperately for others to initiate and include me. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that I am able to take people up on their offers when they do try to include me. So there is a conflict between how much I express to others that I want to be included and how much I actually want to be included.

I am definitely melancholy in affection, though.

Though, given a task, I'm much more interested in doing the task than associating with other people. I also do not enjoy working in teams and prefer to do things alone.

That sounds compatible with Melancholy, then. Really, "want/not want" can't be taken too literally. It's like with functions, where we all "use" all of them, but type preference is about consciousness of the perspectives. So I recently figured, these temperament needs work the same way. I had addressed this not too long ago here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/introduction-to-temperament-theory/#comment-32947

"The Sanguine is [one who is] fully conscious of this need [of socialization], and then approaches people to have it met. The Supine is also conscious of the need, but his fear of rejection (the low expressiveness that ultimately stems from overstimulation by the environment) leaves him in a bind by pushing him to withdraw and hope the others will prove themselves accepting, and invite him instead.
The Melancholy is not conscious of the need, and so all he is left with is his fear of rejection, which then pushes him to also withdraw, and not want to be approached, unless a stricter criteria is met."

But the need is still there; and can come into awareness at times; especially when he finds himself totally alone, which no sane person will ever want. Still, even then, the person will be more likely to continue to filter the offers of others through a tighter criteria (as you basically desribed) than a Supine would.

(To complete the remaining two temperaments, "The Choleric is not conscious of the need either, however, his lack of fear of rejection leads him to approach others, not to fulfill a need of people in themselves, but for his goals.
The Phlegmatic tends to be conscious of the need (at least, moderately so), but his low energy doesn’t push him, to either approach or want others beyond a certain point. So he can take them or leave them."
 

strychnine

All Natural! All Good!
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
895
OK, what you've done there (in the first image) is simply make P "informtive" and J "directive" across the board. It may seem that way, but then, as I always point out, there's also structure and motive which are a parallel to directing and informing, both of which represent "wanted" behavior or "responsiveness". P is obviously more "responsive", so if it's not informing, it is at least "motive focused", as is the case for the STP's. And J is less responsive, and if not "directing", is at least "structure" focused, as for the SFJ's. You could think of "Judgment" as less responsive in general, so when it's extraverted ("J"), it definitely shows, but when introverted ("P"), this softens it and makes the overall type at least part responsive.
T/F is the flipside of this. Both are [less responsive] "judgments", but F is "softer" than T, which is the least "responsive" of all. So FP's will be both informing and motive focused, and TJ's will be both directing and structure focused. FJ's and TP's will mix those responsive poles, and hence seem either way or inbetween on them. It actualy makes those types a bit "enigmatic" in ways (which is basically exemplified in what I was explaining to Hard).

Also, what we end up with is the Interaction Styles and Keirsey temperaments paralleling directly each other as different levels of the classic temperaments. This is key to understanding why an ENFP would seem the most "SP"-like of the NF's, and an ISFJ the most "NF"-like of the SJ's. And INTP the most NF=like of the NT's. And also why ISP's often have trouble fitting into some of Keirsey's descriptions of the SP.

Thanks, this actually makes sense to me. I figure this would also explain second temperaments on those temperament tests, e.g. ISFPs seem to test out SP-NF and ISTPs seem to test out SP-NT (or even NT-SP). (Confusingly, I've never scored SP on those tests...)

I do think I am structure focused, after reading more. But I am also informing. So that means I'm an FJ or a TP? That seems right. The more I read and think about it, Fi/Te just seems totally foreign to me while Ti seems second nature and Fe seems...er...third nature? haha. I do think I am kind of 'split' in that way. I also think I am more likely a TP.

In the case of ExTP and IxFJ it might be even more ambiguous, right, because the Ti/Fe are in the middle functions?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Structure focused and informing is specifically SFJ and NTP. And yes, for ETP and IFJ, TiFe are the "arm" functions, where for ITP and EFJ, they're the "spine" functions (the dominant and its relfection, the inferior), and so, mor eintegral to the ego. (Also, a Ti/Fe preference itself is now called "Aligning assessments", while FiTe is "Ordering assessments").
 

strychnine

All Natural! All Good!
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
895
Structure focused and informing is specifically SFJ and NTP. And yes, for ETP and IFJ, TiFe are the "arm" functions, where for ITP and EFJ, they're the "spine" functions (the dominant and its relfection, the inferior), and so, mor eintegral to the ego. (Also, a Ti/Fe preference itself is now called "Aligning assessments", while FiTe is "Ordering assessments").

More and more signs point to NTP... o_O :huh:

What do you mean by the function pairs are "now" called that? Never heard that anywhere else except from you. I think it's great terminology. I get the impression that Ti is aligning systems/theories to each other, mapping things to one another, interlinking things. While Fe is aligning with other people. I think that's right.

Thanks again.
 
Top