Temperament by Inclusion, Control and Affection

[Eric B]

More and more signs point to NTP...

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.

Those are new terms from Berens as apart of her new "Intentional Styles" model. The Intentional Styles themselves are the groups sharing all four primary functions (so that both SFJ and NTP are the same style, called "Enhancing"; it's basically similar to the quadras), and some presentations sheets also named the individual function tandems as well.
So that's another lens to look at type through, since you're reconsidering. Here's an article on it, back when it was still called "Cognitive Styles": Cognitive Style, Respect, and Forgiveness (though it only mentions the Styles, not the tandems). Here's one on the "tandem principle": http://lindaberens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TandemPrincipleParts1-2.pdf

 

[EJCC]

Subscribing, to remind myself to revisit this topic. IIRC the last time I looked into it, I didn't relate to the modes of inclusion/control/affection that I was "supposed" to relate to. Maybe I've grown into those boxes, in the past few years.

 

[Eric B]

I thought you always pretty much matched. You had "Choleric Melancholy" (or at times, "Melancholy Choleric") in you signature for a long time. (an't find any older posts here by you, right now).

 

[á´…eparted]

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.

The statement about me being choleric on the surface is accurate. I'd argue it is the largest part of me though, even though it is surface. That only turns down when I have gotten to know someone well, and they have proven themselves to be good, competent, trustworthy, and a good match (in whatever regard). In leadership roles though, the first thing anyone would say about me would be "he runs a tight ship". I soften and become more personal on individual basis's when people have shown reason to be so. Until then I am fairly distant/detatched, and individuals who try to get close of be person run the chance of meeting a very robotic/surface presence. I describe myself as highly goal oriented, but I do my best not to forget the people element, but only for "my people". If someone is bad for the mix, I basically disregard them all together. I do not fit the stereotype of the "fluffy bunny ENFJ" who wants absolutely harmony for everyone. I want harmony for everyone that correctly fits in the group only. Outside of that, it's all about objective good/bad/right/wrong.

The thing is, I go through periods where I want a lot of affection, then I want none at all. That can change over the course of hours. I also go through phases where I want express affection for someone and am totally comfortable with it, and then periods where I don't want to even slightly. I can't predict or reason why this changes so quickly, and is part of my confusion. Generally speaking though, I do believe that I express affection/like for individuals more than I want to receive it, if we boil it down to interaction, and the "ways" in which I express like or fondness for someone. My feelings are on the surface, and when I am happy/excited it's very obvious. I emote and express a TON, and never expect all of that in return with that level of energy. Getting that can feel like too much. Again, that's all sans romance, which is a whole nother beast.

I do not relate to supine at all though. I am not dependent in the slightest. I love people, and I do best when I have lots of people around me. The dependency only goes insofar as needing others to get my social fix and have fun. That's it.

Yeah, Asperger's + Fe is odd. Difficult to explain how it works, but it definitely works. I'm very social and friendly, but I have this persistent air of detatchment and diffuse focus. In a group there is more of a sense with interacting with the group as a whole, and much less towards individuals.

 

[Eric B]

All of that sounds like Choleric in Inclusion, which has a "Exclusive Club" mentality, of (probably said it before) "Don't call me, I'll call you".
You also sound like Choleric in Affection as well. (Giving more than you want to receive. Though maybe it's the negative descriptions or "weaknesses" you're having trouble with?)

Supine in Control can "run a tight ship", but usually if set by someone else. Though this may not be immediately seen, like if it's a boss or other authority. They will just look controlling themselves, perhaps like a Choleric. (And the same with an SJ, really).
What often gets called "dependency" is really a fear of being alone. Which matches some descriptions of the NF (particularly a guy named Riemann, and you can even see some of this in Keirsey). They actually don't wish to be controlled and dominated; they just want oters to take responsibility. And once those others do, then they will "run a tight ship" based on that.
This book: http://jacksonsnyder.com/mgi/studies/GCY.pdf which I review here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/review-god-created-you really gives a good description of the Supine in Control, that goes more in depth than those reports. (And this again would affect being Choleric in the other areas).

And you said, "The dependency only goes insofar as needing others to get my social fix and have fun". So the Inclusion (Choleric) approaches others to get that social fix, and filters according ot the goal, and the Control (which is the next deepest level of personality in this system) is what "needs" the people for that, and opens up when the people have proven themselves.

 

[strychnine]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] , I'm definitely Sanguine in Inclusion. Get Things Going in Berens's whatever types...Interaction Styles(?). Which is correct for ESFP.

But then, after I get everybody in "Everyone in! Everyone in! Everyone welcome!" in a typical Sanguine way, I start to get controlling: "You! Get out! You! Out! You can stay in. You! Out! You can stay in too." Etc. I'll start telling people to GET OUT!! While other people are still welcome. What is that - is that Control or Affection?

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Finally got around to reading these

Inclusion: Melancholy
Control: Melancholy-Phlegmatic
Affection: Melancholy

 

[Eric B]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] , I'm definitely Sanguine in Inclusion. Get Things Going in Berens's whatever types...Interaction Styles(?). Which is correct for ESFP.

But then, after I get everybody in "Everyone in! Everyone in! Everyone welcome!" in a typical Sanguine way, I start to get controlling: "You! Get out! You! Out! You can stay in. You! Out! You can stay in too." Etc. I'll start telling people to GET OUT!! While other people are still welcome. What is that - is that Control or Affection?

Might be Control. Could even be apart of Inclusion, depending on why you're telling them to get out. Sanguines have hot tempers, but are generally moment to moment, and don't usually stay rejecting of people.
So why do you tell some people to get out?

 

[Punderstorm]

PhelMel Inclusion
PhelChor Control
MelPhel Affection
[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION], what does this say about me?

 

[Eric B]

PhegmaticMelancholy and PhlegmaticCholeric are both between Melancholy and Choleric, and are lower energy versions of the main temperaments. A Choleric's emotional energy pushes him outward, toward expressiveness, while a Melancholy's energy pushes him inward, toward reservation. So these variants are driven neither way (which is why they're called "Phlegmatic"), and thus end up more expressive than a regular Melancholy, and more reserved than a regular Choleric

In Inclusion, this is basically an "ambivert". But since you have to be either E or I in type, and you already have the I there, then that would fit.
In Control, Melancholy is SJ and Choleric is NT. You have the N and P there, so SJ is less likely on both counts. So NT is more likely. Though if you're PhlegmaticMelancholy in Inclusion, for an N, that would be iNJ. (For an S, it's iST). Though since this is part Phlegmatic as well, then I could see it possibly being the other Interaction Style, INP.
You're not sure about T/F, and Phlegmatic [in Control] might be NF, but since it's PhlegmaticCholeric, it would point more to NT.

So it looks like INTP. (And NTP's often have T/F uncertainty largely in part due to what amounts to the higher wanted Inclusion —Berens calls it "Informing communication", which is softer than the "Directing communications" held by all the other T's. They also identify with Melancholy a lot, I believe, because of the blend of certain temperament traits, when not taking the official APS test which sorts it all out). Otherwise, (especially if you're not completely sure about the P also) it could be INTJ.

In my correlation, Affection doesn't really match type, but it could be like an extension of Interaction Style, or even modify it. MelancholyPhlegmatic is a bit more "responsive" than the regular Melancholy (or PhlegmaticMelancholy), so overall, your Affection will seem to match Inclusion, but you'll be a little more reserved in deeper relationships, and want more affection and closeness than you do in regular socialization. Perhaps this higher responsiveness in that area could also be what pushes your Interaction Style toward INP.

 

[strychnine]

Might be Control. Could even be apart of Inclusion, depending on why you're telling them to get out. Sanguines have hot tempers, but are generally moment to moment, and don't usually stay rejecting of people.
So why do you tell some people to get out?

"generally moment to moment, and don't usually stay rejecting of people." - that's me!

If I tell people to get out, it's usually because:

- Person is being an ass to others in the group / disrupting the group
- Person is being belligerent/hostile or overly aggressive

- Person is not listening to other people, yelling at people, just yelling in general, etc.

- Person is threatening other people or actually hurting them
- Person is threatening to break other people's property, behaving in a manner that is likely to cause damage to other people's property, or actually breaking other people's property

Those are the most common reasons I tell people to get out. Much of it is probably not related to my type, though.

But, as you said, it's moment-to-moment. A person who was thrown out one day might be back in the next. I'm not rejecting the person themself; it's not a judgment of the person. It's simply a statement that "You cannot be here unless you can behave yourself." They are welcome back if they behave themself.

I'm quite welcoming and will generally welcome people in, no problem, but then sometimes if I feel a sense of responsibility for the space, I'll take charge of the space and control the atmosphere. That can include removing people who are misbehaving (for that context; obviously, appropriate behavior is context dependent).

 

[Eric B]

Ok, that sounds like Sanguine in both areas.

 

[/DG/]

Hey @Eric B, I was wondering if you could shed some light on this... (though don't feel obligated to respond)

So it's been a while since I've thought of the concepts of expressed vs. wanted inclusion and control. But when I come back to it, I find that I always gravitate to the same temperaments...supine in inclusion and either phlegmatic or melancholy in control.

Now, according to type correlations, this would put me as a feeling type (no matter which temperament in control I decide on). Now, I also heavily identify with sensing, putting my supposed type as ISFJ.

However, ISFJ has never been a type that I have ever that strongly associated with (though with all sensing types, I associate with it more than the intuitive ones). I'm not sure what to make of this, seeing as my temperaments in inclusion, control, and affection seem rather constant.

If it means anything, I also heavily identify with descriptions of the chart-the-course interaction style over the behind-the-scenes interaction style (because I am very structure-focused as opposed to motive-focused). But I don't really know that my speech is all that directive...

 

[Punderstorm]

PhegmaticMelancholy and PhlegmaticCholeric are both between Melancholy and Choleric, and are lower energy versions of the main temperaments. A Choleric's emotional energy pushes him outward, toward expressiveness, while a Melancholy's energy pushes him inward, toward reservation. So these variants are driven neither way (which is why they're called "Phlegmatic"), and thus end up more expressive than a regular Melancholy, and more reserved than a regular Choleric

In Inclusion, this is basically an "ambivert". But since you have to be either E or I in type, and you already have the I there, then that would fit.
In Control, Melancholy is SJ and Choleric is NT. You have the N and P there, so SJ is less likely on both counts. So NT is more likely. Though if you're PhlegmaticMelancholy in Inclusion, for an N, that would be iNJ. (For an S, it's iST). Though since this is part Phlegmatic as well, then I could see it possibly being the other Interaction Style, INP.
You're not sure about T/F, and Phlegmatic [in Control] might be NF, but since it's PhlegmaticCholeric, it would point more to NT.

So it looks like INTP. (And NTP's often have T/F uncertainty largely in part due to what amounts to the higher wanted Inclusion —Berens calls it "Informing communication", which is softer than the "Directing communications" held by all the other T's. They also identify with Melancholy a lot, I believe, because of the blend of certain temperament traits, when not taking the official APS test which sorts it all out). Otherwise, (especially if you're not completely sure about the P also) it could be INTJ.

In my correlation, Affection doesn't really match type, but it could be like an extension of Interaction Style, or even modify it. MelancholyPhlegmatic is a bit more "responsive" than the regular Melancholy (or PhlegmaticMelancholy), so overall, your Affection will seem to match Inclusion, but you'll be a little more reserved in deeper relationships, and want more affection and closeness than you do in regular socialization. Perhaps this higher responsiveness in that area could also be what pushes your Interaction Style toward INP.

So basically PhelMel makes me more expressive than the average melancholy and MelPhel gives me more wanted inclusion?

 

[Eric B]

Hey @Eric B, I was wondering if you could shed some light on this... (though don't feel obligated to respond)

So it's been a while since I've thought of the concepts of expressed vs. wanted inclusion and control. But when I come back to it, I find that I always gravitate to the same temperaments...supine in inclusion and either phlegmatic or melancholy in control.

Now, according to type correlations, this would put me as a feeling type (no matter which temperament in control I decide on). Now, I also heavily identify with sensing, putting my supposed type as ISFJ.

However, ISFJ has never been a type that I have ever that strongly associated with (though with all sensing types, I associate with it more than the intuitive ones). I'm not sure what to make of this, seeing as my temperaments in inclusion, control, and affection seem rather constant.

If it means anything, I also heavily identify with descriptions of the chart-the-course interaction style over the behind-the-scenes interaction style (because I am very structure-focused as opposed to motive-focused). But I don't really know that my speech is all that directive...

You had a different handle before, right? (Because I remember that Mickey Mouse avatar, and you've been here for awhile). You were always wearing ISTJ? (That seems to be what I remember).

If you seem to identify with Supine in one system, and with Chart the Course (the Melancholic of the Interaction styles, as Berens likely even acknowledges) in the other, then an inbetween would be these:

Melancholy Phlegmatic in Inclusion
Christian Counseling and the Supine Phlegmatic in Inclusion

They're less responsive than a regular Supine, but more responsive than a regular Melancholy, and so as in type you have to be either on one side or the other, I could see as going either way.

Also, Structure/Motive isn't Interaction Styles, it's the Keirsey temperament. So if SJ, then either way, you'd be Structure focused. The difference in Interaction Style is directing/informing, and you did indicate not being sure about directing, so that would also really point to those inbetween variants.

Also, have you looked at Choleric in Control and NT (INTP)?
Temperament: Choleric in Control
related variants:
Temperament: Choleric Phlegmatic In Control
Temperament Phlegmatic Choleric In Control
http://www.pastoral-counseling-cent...-of-Control/phlegmatic-melancholy-control.htm

That way, you could still be Supine and a Thinking type. That's the sole exception, where the other Supine types are all Feelers.
(INTP's will often end up identifying with Melancholy, as the Choleric is toned down by the other temperaments in the mix. And really, Phlegmatic in Control by itself technically should be any Keirsey temperament, so I would grant you could still be NT [or SJ]. I put it with Supine as NF because the traditional temperament fits the "diplomatic" Idealist more).

What makes you identify with S more than N?

 

[Eric B]

So basically PhelMel makes me more expressive than the average melancholy and MelPhel gives me more wanted inclusion?

Yes, (though you said MP was in Affection, so it would give you more "wanted Affection", and what I said, was that in the translation to type, it could affect which Interaction Style you ultimately fall into, since Interaction Syles doesn't distinguish between surface social and deep personal skills like Inclusion/Affection).

 

[Punderstorm]

Yes, (though you said MP was in Affection, so it would give you more "wanted Affection", and what I said, was that in the translation to type, it could affect which Interaction Style you ultimately fall into, since Interaction Syles doesn't distinguish between surface social and deep personal skills like Inclusion/Affection).

Ah, thanks! How were you able to find these correlations?

 

[Eric B]

Here's the whole story (which IIRC started out as a topic post here): https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/soooo-what-got-me-interested-in-personality-types/

 

[/DG/]

You had a different handle before, right? (Because I remember that Mickey Mouse avatar, and you've been here for awhile). You were always wearing ISTJ? (That seems to be what I remember).

Yes, my previous username was DisneyGeek. I think I have said ISTJ for a majority of the time, but at some point I was floating around other ideas, most notably ISFP.

Essentially I identify with all of the IS__ types more than other tyes.

If you seem to identify with Supine in one system, and with Chart the Course (the Melancholic of the Interaction styles, as Berens likely even acknowledges) in the other, then an inbetween would be these:

Melancholy Phlegmatic in Inclusion
Christian Counseling and the Supine Phlegmatic in Inclusion

They're less responsive than a regular Supine, but more responsive than a regular Melancholy, and so as in type you have to be either on one side or the other, I could see as going either way.

Yeah, I could definitely see myself as a blended type, though I was mostly speaking in terms of pure types. Looking back at the descriptions, I am changing my mind a bit from earlier (I didn't re-examine the descriptions). In control, I am definitely phlegmatic or a phlegmatic blend (not sure which because the blends are all so similar), not pure melancholy.

I still stand by supine (or supine-phlegmatic as you've stated) in inclusion aside from the one sentence on being relationship-oriented. I wonder if maybe the thing that is conflating things is that I am likely a melancholy in affection. I know the affection bits don't seem to be involved in the other bits, but perhaps this is why thing don't seem to fit precisely.

Also, Structure/Motive isn't Interaction Styles, it's the Keirsey temperament. So if SJ, then either way, you'd be Structure focused. The difference in Interaction Style is directing/informing, and you did indicate not being sure about directing, so that would also really point to those inbetween variants.

Sorry, I was confusing structure/motive with movement/control somehow...

What I am essentially trying to get at here is that I am a very task-focused person. If I am understanding things correctly, this equates to in-charge or chart-the-course interaction styles, no? But I don't really have a need to be a very directive person unless I am stressed or something needs to be done ASAP, etc.

So it isn't about me necessarily needing to be a thinking type, but rather that I just do not identify with the behind-the-scenes interaction style...even though I am not necessarily a very directing person.

Also, have you looked at Choleric in Control and NT (INTP)?
Temperament: Choleric in Control
related variants:
Temperament: Choleric Phlegmatic In Control
Temperament Phlegmatic Choleric In Control
http://www.pastoral-counseling-cent...-of-Control/phlegmatic-melancholy-control.htm

That way, you could still be Supine and a Thinking type. That's the sole exception, where the other Supine types are all Feelers.[/quote]

I don't really identify with that temperament.

(INTP's will often end up identifying with Melancholy, as the Choleric is toned down by the other temperaments in the mix. And really, Phlegmatic in Control by itself technically should be any Keirsey temperament, so I would grant you could still be NT [or SJ]. I put it with Supine as NF because the traditional temperament fits the "diplomatic" Idealist more).

Phlegmatic seems to be the "path of least resistance" temperament. They can take or leave controlling others and being controlled by others. I feel this way, unless under stress, a strict deadline, if something really needs to be done the "right" way (for example, if people working on a project are doing it poorly or something similar), and related scenarios. Then, I can become rather directing, but for the most part I don't really like doing that and prefer to share the responsibilities.

What makes you identify with S more than N?

This is one bit that I've never been able to put into words very well. I guess I just have a lot of faith in facts, data, things you can see and touch. I don't have a lot of use for pointless debates about theoretical nonsense (though MBTI and other pointless personality games are fun ). I'm not interested in talking about how to change the world...either do something about it or stop talking. I'm not necessarily a very practical person, but I have a large appreciation for practicality. I know there is a bit more to the S/N division than that, but there you go.

 

[RobinSkye]

Yes, and this also explains why you bounce between the types you do. Here is the FIRO/APS matrix:

The APS temperaments are in black, and the colorful stuff are the Leo Ryan FIRO names for the score ranges (which differ according to I, C & A, and the boundaries even differ).

Phlegmatic blends (the gray "cross" on the map) mean that you express or respond moderately. And it means that you are on the borderline between two temperaments!

Sanguine-Phlegmatic in Inclusion (also known as a "Conversationalist") is actually on the border of Choleric. It mean you express yourself as an extrovert, but do not respond to people quite as much as a Sanguine, but ultimately can take them or leave them, (but slightly favor taking them). This would basically amount to being between people/task or informing/directing. You're almost a Choleric in Inclusion. This would explain why you would think you were an In Charge type like ENTJ.

Phlegmatic-Choleric in Control is a "Self-Confident". It lies between Choleric and Melancholy. It means you express a moderate amount of Control, but don't want (respond to) control by others, which does seem to fit how you described yourself. Of course, you don't have an exact score, but on the responsiveness dimension, you can be up close to Phlegmatic or Matcher, and thus allow a bit more control than lower scores, and hence fall into the NF range.

Phlegmatic-Sanguine in Affection is a "Cautious Lover In Disguise". The Cautious Lover is the pure Supine in Affection (like me), but "in Disguise" means that you can express moderately in that area. That would be basically being an ambivert in your close relationships. This is between Supine and Sanguine. So this would be where your Supine-tendencies would come from.

So since you fluctuate in all three areas,
Sanguine in Inclusion + Phlegmatic in Control = ENFP.
+ Choleric in Control instead = ENTP.
Choleric in Inclusion and Control = ENTJ.
Here are the last three types you tried on!
Choleric in Inclusion + Phlegmatic in Control = ENFJ; and IIRC, you even considered that type once.

According to the chart, I think I'm somewhere toward the center under the melancholy-phlegmatic "loner" row. Reading through the descriptions on the site, all of them have at least one point that clearly contradict my temperament.