[NT] Keirsey's book proves NT's are Choleric, not Phlegmatic

[Eric B]

Funny, as I have only recently gotten around to reading Keirsey's Please Understand Me II. I previously lived off of the descriptions I could find online, and eventually got Berens' books.

So in the book, I have found even more evidence for my premise that Keirsey had gotten Phlegmatic and Choleric backward as in his comparisons of his temperaments (derived from Plato) with Galen's humors.

It might seem like a trivial detail, but I believe looking at both temperament and Interaction Styles as blends of the classic temperaments not only merges different systems, but also helps understand type traits. (Like ISFP's who question being SP because of it's "Sanguine"-like descriptions. However, their type is a blend of Sanguine with the Phlegmatic ISF (Behind the Scenes) Interaction Style, which tempers the Sanguine traits, so it is not going to be as Sanguine as the ESFP).

So here are some great evidences that the NT is really the Choleric:

"

Rationals are wont to think of themselves as the prime movers who must pit their utilitarian ways and means against custom and tradition, in an endless struggle to bring efficiency and goal-directedness to enterprise, an attitude regarded my many as arrogant.

"

Rationals pride themselves on their ingenuity in accomplishing the many and varied tasks they set their minds to.

"

Fun for NTs means figuring out how to get better at some skill, not merely exercising the skills they already have, and so for the Rational the field of play is invariably a laboratory for increasing their proficiency.

Rationals are self-confident in so far as they sense in themselves a strength of will or an unwavering resolution. NT's believe they can overcome any obstacle, dominate any field, conquer any enemy--even themselves--with the power of their resolve.

Once Rationals resolve something, they have in a sense made a contract with themselves, a contract they dare not go back on. Indeen, their worst fear is that their determination might weaken, their will power might falter, and that they will fail in their resolve.

And yet, even though they know some things must happen of themselves, Rationals can dread this loss of control. This is why so many NTs turn out to develop unreasonable fears, especially of germs and other forms of filth, something they have no control over.

But make no mistake, although they might hold back on any intermperate displays, Rationals are not the cold and distant persons they are often made out to be. for one thing they can get quite intense and pressured about matters under their control (and few things they will admit they cannot control), becoming as tight as a bowstring, when they think they might be able to solve a problem if they put their mind to it.

One of the most important things to remember about the Rationals, if they are to be understood, is that they yearn for achievement. Some might suppose that these seemingly calm and contemplative types have no strong desires. But beneath the calm exterior is a gnawing hunger to achieve whatever goals they set for themselves. While NTs prefer to acquire knowhow and would like to be ingenious, they must achieve, and their longing is never fully satisfied.
Because their hunger for achievement presses them constantly, Rationals live through their work not so much for the pleasure of action (like the Artisans), nor for the security a job provides (like the Guardians), nor for the joy of helping others (like the Idealists). Rationals work with a single-minded desire to achieve their desires; indeed, once involved in a project, they tend to be reluctant, if not unable, to limit their commitment of time and energy. Unfortunately, at this this point they can be unreasonably demanding of both themselves and others, setting their standards too high and becoming quite tense under stress. No wnder that NT's frequently achieve notable success intheir chosen field.

Rationals demand so much achievement from themselves that they often have trouble measuring up to their own good standards. NTs typically believe that what they do is not good enough, and are frequently haunted by a sense of teetering on the edge of failure. This time their skill will not be great enough. This time, in all probablility, failure is at hand.
Making matters worse, Rationals tend to ratchet up their standards of achievement, setting the bar at the level of their greatest success, so that anything less than their best is judged as mediocre. The har-won triumph becomes the new standard of what is merely acceptable, and ordinary achievements are now viewd as falling short of the mark.NT's never give themselves a break from this esaclating level of achievement, and so constant self-doubt and a niggling sense of impending failure are their lot.

Clearly, this is all describing a type exhibiting a high level of expressiveness, and a low level of responsiveness in the high standards they set (they do not want control to be out of their hands). This was the original definition of "Choleric" (Galen's "hot/dry", and later, "short delay/long sustain").

And this, in the area of leadership and responsibilities, rather than social skills (that's what the Interaction styles are), we clearly see MBTI's counterpart to FIRO's "Mission Impossible", and the conative analogue to the affective "In Charge" or "Initiator" styles (EST/ENJ). It is clealy NOT a Phlegmatic, whose "calm and cool" really stems from lack of energy. Here, we clearly see a very energized temperament!

(I believe "expresssiveness" in this case is "Pragmatic", and responsiveness is Berens' "Structure-focus" which ties the NT to SJ, which Keirsey said had nothing in common. Yet you can see the task-focused commonality in his descriptions, though).

Amazing Keirsey did not recognize this as the true "irascible Choleric". (which he called Idealists). Idealists might have this "emotionality", but clearly, they are the people-focused "diplomats" the Phlegmatics were traditionally portrayed as.
Irascibility or emotionalism can be from an expressive or extroverted Interaction Style (affective temperament, basically), but this is the conative area of leadership and action, so the parameters are different.

ENTJ (Initiator Rational or In Charge Theorist) seem to be widely recognized as the most Choleric. ENTP's are definite Sanguine Cholerics, and INTJ's almost always come out as Melancholy Cholerics.

It's the INTP who often doesn't fit. They usually come out as Phlegmatic and Melancholy. What I believe is happening, is that since Phlegmatic (or a possible Supine) are the most opposite of Choleric, when they mix, the Choleric gets tempered into a Melancholy.
Sanguine and Choleric both share expressiveness (extroversion or pragmaticism). Melancholy and Choleric share task-focus (direxctiveness or structure-focus). so those blends will preserve both temperaments better. But the INTP's would be the least Choleric of the NT's, so it often seems to not show up in the cheap online tests (The official Arno Profile System or FIRO would separate out the Inclusion and Control aspects). However, if INTP's acknowledge all those descriptions above (though perhaps a bit modreated), then it is clear they too are Cholerics.

 

[King sns]

I read it, no comment, just interesting and makes a really good point. My first thought was, "where do INTP's fit in this?" But then you actually mentioned that as well.

 

[Salomé]

I agree that Phlegmatic is wrong for Rationals, but so is Choleric. Cholerics are extroverted. (Heat = Extroversion, so sanguines are also Extroverts, which means the introverted (cold) types are the other 2). You seem to admit this yourself when you say "Here, we clearly see a very energized temperament!"

Actually, the 2 systems are describing different traits so they can't be effectively mapped to each other - that was Keirsey's mistake.

Galen's types are created by 2 dichotomies (hot v cold, dry v wet) not the 3/4 of Jung/MBTI.
They more closely match Eysenck's scales of Extroversion and Neuroticism. (An observation he made himself.)

I could also see a mapping to DiSC - which essentially is E/I + T/F
There is no room for the N/S dichotomy. Therefore, there is no mapping to NT.

I see it like this: Choleric = Extroverted Thinkers (as characterised by the ETJs), Sanguine = Extroverted Feelers, Melancholic = Introverted Thinkers, Phlegmatic = Introverted Feelers, or, in the 5 temperament system, Supine = Introverted Feelers and Phlegmatics are balanced/ambiverts.

ETA. I don't think the mapping of test results proves/disproves anything, since the tests are built on the test maker's assumptions about what the categories mean.

I find the original associations, not with bodily "humours" but the notion of temperamental or constitutional "imbalance" more interesting lately. Galen originally classified 9 types (8 types of imbalance + one 'ideal'), but we are only usually familiar with 4 or 5. His idea was that any imbalance was suboptimal, and the goal of medicine was to try to reestablish balance in the organism.

I like this approach. Recently, I've been thinking about which systems might be "out of balance" when it comes to type characteristics. For example, is introversion created by an imbalance between the sympathetic and the parasympathetic parts of the autonomic nervous system? This could be a sound biological basis for the characteristic sensitivity of introverts, and recalls Galen's mind/body connection.

 

[INTPness]

I see it like this: Choleric = Extroverted Thinkers (as characterised by the ETJs),
Sanguine = Extroverted Feelers,
Melancholic = Introverted Thinkers,
Phlegmatic = Introverted Feelers

I've come to see it like this as well. OP, of the little bit of stuff I've read on temperaments, I've always related very much to the melancholy descriptions. I'm not sure how the things I've read compare or stack up against "the original definitions", however. Maybe the definitions have been warped over time.

Melancholic traits that I identify with: -a "rich" temperament, analytical, perfectionist, somewhat sensitive emotionally, enjoyment of artistic things (writing, music, etc.), prone to introversion, seems somewhat gloomy with periods of high intensity, reserved, does not "push himself" to make friends, etc.

I'd love to post some brief material I have that compares and contrasts melancholic with choleric, but I'll have to do that at a later time. I relate much more to the melancholic description of this particular author, however.

 

[Eric B]

I agree that Phlegmatic is wrong for Rationals, but so is Choleric. Cholerics are extroverted. (Heat = Extroversion, so sanguines are also Extroverts, which means the introverted (cold) types are the other 2). You seem to admit this yourself when you say "Here, we clearly see a very energized temperament!"

Actually, the 2 systems are describing different traits so they can't be effectively mapped to each other - that was Keirsey's mistake.

Galen's types are created by 2 dichotomies (hot v cold, dry v wet) not the 3/4 of Jung/MBTI.

Basically, "hot" translates into "expressive" (extroverted) and "cold" would be "reserved" (introverted). Wet is people-focused and dry is task focused. This might not seem to figure as well, but task-focused also translates into "directive" communication, which has taken on the description of being "dry", while informatives tend to be more "light" in speech (while that is not really "wet", still, we see the connection at the other pole).

In the conative area, expressiveness (or "heat") is pragmatism. Look at the descriptions, the NT is clearly "hot", and "fiery", though not always in emotions.

The two different "traits" are the affective and conative areas, and each type is a blend of both.

They more closely match Eysenck's scales of Extroversion and Neuroticism. (An observation he made himself.)

Yes, Neuroticism is another kind of "response-delay" (how long you hold onto emotions). But Eysenck is from not even 100 years ago. The "delay" factor in classic temperament theory was more comparable to Agreaableness.

I could also see a mapping to DiSC - which essentially is E/I + T/F
There is no room for the N/S dichotomy. Therefore, there is no mapping to NT.

Yes, DISC is very similar as well (to Interaction Styles, at least).

I find the original associations, not with bodily "humours" but the notion of temperamental or constitutional "imbalance" more interesting lately. Galen originally classified 9 types (8 types of imbalance + one 'ideal'), but we are only usually familiar with 4 or 5. His idea was that any imbalance was suboptimal, and the goal of medicine was to try to reestablish balance in the organism.

I like this approach. Recently, I've been thinking about which systems might be "out of balance" when it comes to type characteristics. For example, is introversion created by an imbalance between the sympathetic and the parasympathetic parts of the autonomic nervous system? This could be a sound biological basis for the characteristic sensitivity of introverts, and recalls Galen's mind/body connection.

Those would be "moderate temperaments", which are recognized in FiRO and APS, but not MBTI or KEirse, where the poles are either/or. I tried working out a ttype system with moderation, but it needs a lot of work.

I've come to see it like this as well. OP, of the little bit of stuff I've read on temperaments, I've always related very much to the melancholy descriptions. I'm not sure how the things I've read compare or stack up against "the original definitions", however. Maybe the definitions have been warped over time.

Melancholic traits that I identify with: -a "rich" temperament, analytical, perfectionist, somewhat sensitive emotionally, enjoyment of artistic things (writing, music, etc.), prone to introversion, seems somewhat gloomy with periods of high intensity, reserved, does not "push himself" to make friends, etc.

I'd love to post some brief material I have that compares and contrasts melancholic with choleric, but I'll have to do that at a later time. I relate much more to the melancholic description of this particular author, however.

Again, because the type is a blend of temperaments, it won' likely fit mamy temperament descriptions, which are based on a "pure". Temperament. So that might be why you seem more Melancholy.

 

[Salomé]

Basically, "hot" translates into "expressive" (extroverted) and "cold" would be "reserved" (introverted). Wet is people-focused and dry is task focused. This might not seem to figure as well, but task-focused also translates into "directive" communication, which has taken on the description of being "dry", while informatives tend to be more "light" in speech (while that is not really "wet", still, we see the connection at the other pole).

Yes - people-focused =F and task-focused =T. Hence E-I, T-F.

In the conative area, expressiveness (or "heat") is pragmatism. Look at the descriptions, the NT is clearly "hot", and "fiery", though not always in emotions.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If heat=extroversion, it cannot also=pragmatism. How can you overload definitions like that, within the same system?

The directive/informative roles require another dichotomy: J/P, which isn't present in Galen's system. And NTs don't have a monopoly on pragmatism...

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes - people-focused =F and task-focused =T. Hence E-I, T-F.

I agree with this.

The right categories are ET/IT/EF/IF.

 

[Eric B]

Yes - people-focused =F and task-focused =T. Hence E-I, T-F.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If heat=extroversion, it cannot also=pragmatism. How can you overload definitions like that, within the same system?

The directive/informative roles require another dichotomy: J/P, which isn't present in Galen's system. And NTs don't have a monopoly on pragmatism...

Again, there are two different temperament matrices overlaid in the system: the affective and the conative. For the affective, expressiveness (Galen's "heat") is extroversion. For the conative, it is pragmatism. Two different forms of expressiveness. One is quicker to approach others on the social level, and the other is quicker to act. Both have a shorter "response-time delay".

Responsiveness is directing/informing on the affective level, and structure/motive on the conative level.

Galen's systems and most of the others did not recognize the different levels or areas of temperament, so there was only one matrix of expressivness and responsiveness. These seemed to correspond more to what we know as Interaction Styles, so the comparison to Keirsey's temperaments don't seem to correspond well.
But then the Interaction Styles were later identified in other letter groups (E/I + S + T/F and E/I + N + J/P). Nobody else had anything like this, save the FIRO's Inclusion and Control, but nobody ever made the direct connection to that system.
Kant introduced blends, but not of diametric opposite temperaments (like SanMel and PhlegChlor). Tim LaHaye introduced the system with all 12 blends in addition to the four "pure" types. I've identified the 16 types as mapping onto those, according to affective/conative areas.

I agree with this.

The right categories are ET/IT/EF/IF.

Yes, for S's.
For N's, it's J/P. (EJ/IJ/EP/IP)

Funny, as you never hear of the E/I + T/F group, but I believe they are useful as what I call "social image".
What you do hear a bit more of is E/I + J/P, which are the "sociability temperaments", and also said to be the first letters that develop in young children.
So both do correspond to Interaction Styles, but only in their respective S/N half.

I see it like this: Choleric = Extroverted Thinkers (as characterised by the ETJs), Sanguine = Extroverted Feelers, Melancholic = Introverted Thinkers, Phlegmatic = Introverted Feelers, or, in the 5 temperament system, Supine = Introverted Feelers and Phlegmatics are balanced/ambiverts.

Yes, Te types (save ISTJ) are Choleric in one area or the other or both. Fi types (save ESFP) are Phlegmatic and/or Supine in one area or the other or both.

With Fe and Ti, it doesn't work like that, because the purest temperament types all seem to be the Te/Fi variety, and Ti/Fe end up as blends of opposites:
Fe: SanMel and ChlorPhleg; Ti: PhlegChlor and MelSan.
What you have is a mix of responsive factors, so again, the PhlegChlor or SupChlor (introverted, informative, pragmatic, structure) can appear to mesh together into a kind of Melancholic (introvert +the "task focus" of "structure"), and the ChlorPhleg or ChlorSup (extraverted, directive, cooperative, motive) can appear on the surface to be a Sanguine (extrovert + the "people-focus" of "motive").

The other FJ and TP do in fact happen to be a Sanguine or Melancholic Interaction Style, but mixed with the opposite (also Sanguine or Melancholic) in the conative area.

 

[Salomé]

Again, there are two different temperament matrices overlaid in the system: the affective and the conative. For the affective, expressiveness (Galen's "heat") is extroversion. For the conative, it is pragmatism. Two different forms of expressiveness. One is quicker to approach others on the social level, and the other is quicker to act. Both have a shorter "response-time delay".

Yes, for S's.
For N's, it's J/P. (EJ/IJ/EP/IP)

I don't see how a model where the same trait means something different depending on the existence of other traits can possibly be sound. It just looks like a case of massaging definitions to force the model to fit. Then when you start to blend 'humours' (essentially meaningless other than as labels for collections of traits), the whole thing starts to lose any kind of coherence as a typology.
What is the appeal of this model, for you?

 

[FDG]

You can't "prove" anything like this. It's not a theorem.

 

[Eric B]

I don't see how a model where the same trait means something different depending on the existence of other traits can possibly be sound. It just looks like a case of massaging definitions to force the model to fit. Then when you start to blend 'humours' (essentially meaningless other than as labels for collections of traits), the whole thing starts to lose any kind of coherence as a typology.
What is the appeal of this model, for you?

It seems pretty simple to me, though I started out from the perspective of expressiveness and responsiveness, and in these different areas of interaction (social, action, and actually, a third one dealing with deeper personaly relations).

We can tend to approach others, or want others to approach us socially; and we can tend to act quickly or slowly in leadership and responsibilities, or go along with or have a stricter criteria as to the actions of others we will accept.
These can be put together into what are known as temperaments. Different combinations will shape cognitive preferences. Each model looks at it at a different angle.

 

[Thalassa]

I don't think Choleric is right for Rationals. I'm Choleric, lol. (Well ...Choleric/Melancholy) Phlegmatic makes more sense because you guys, in your best form, you are externally calm and eternally reasonable.

At any rate, they're both theories - and the humours theory is so much more sketchy and older than dirt - so there's no way it's "proven."

 

[Eric B]

Didn't you do at least one of the Galen tests, perhaps the Inclusion/Control/Affection one?
I had already been thinking of checking, because I saw that you seemed to be reconsidering your type again recently, and that model comes in handy as a good clue for those uncertain of their type.
But I didn't remember you being Choleric. Greed was the ENFP Choleric, and it turns out he is very inbetween on both systems.

But anyway, the conative model is not about "calmness". That's more the affective model (Interaction Styles), and it all got mixed up by people like Keirsey not realizing that there were two different "areas" of temperament, and that Galen, Fromm and others were more affective, while Plato (who he draws more from), Adickes, Spränger and Kretschmer were likely more conative.

Clearly, by the old factors of response delay and response sustain, or aggressiveness and people/task focus, the Rational (as we see in these descriptions) is aggressive and task focused, or hot/dry ("fire") and this is what defined Choleric, even though he might be outwardly "cold" and "calm" about it (which in the area of action are also very Choleric traits).

Edit:
OK,I found it, and you had
Inclusion Phlegmatic-Sanguine

Control either Phlegmatic-Sanguine or Melancholy-Phlegmatic

Affection one of the Sanguines

I don't know if you got Choleric on one of the other tests, but I hold this one as the most accurate, because of the fact that it sorts out the different areas.

I briefly commented on the fact that this was an example of NF's coming out in the Phlegmatic areas of the grid.
Otherwise, it seemed to fit close enough to ENFP.

 

[5231311252]

Well I'm classified as a Melancholic-Phlegmatic.....and I am far from being a choleric.

 

[Eric B]

Well, which test was that on? As I explained, if you take tests that just list the temperaments by strengths and do not sort out the social vs leadership areas, then it is possible that the Phlegmatic will temper the Choleric into a Melancholic. Melancholic and Choleric are similar in many ways; just that one is more expressive than the other, and this seems to get diminished when mixed with Phlegmatic.

In other words, if you picked "traits" out of a list, the Choleric traits will include a lot of socially agressive stuff you might not identify with, because of the phlegmatic Interaction Style. Yet if you identify with all that NT stuff I quoted, those are also Choleric traits that might be skimped over on those traits lists.

On LaHaye's temperament traits chart in his book, I got PhlegMel too. On Oneishy, I got MelChlor. Those sorts of tests just don't sort it out right.

 

[Eric B]

Here's a quote I forgot:

From early on NT children seem calm and contemplative, leading an observer to suppose them without strong desires. But the calm exterior conceals a yearning for achievement that all too often can turn into obsession.
As is the case with adult Rationals, all else becomes unimportant to these children once in the pursuit of achievement, once caught in the grip of accomplishing some goal. Unfortualately, this obsessiveness can make NT kids demand more of themselves than they can ddeliver, so that tension builds as they struggle to rid themselves of error.
Once calm and focused, they now become overly tense and high-strung, impatient with everything and everyone around them.

Berens had also mentioned "obsesses" as part of an NT's stress.

All of this is definitely classic Choleric behavior. Also, the "Self-respect in autonomy" he mentions (p.185-6) as well. (In Will Schutz's FIRO, the Choleric scores are called "autocrat").

This makes it funny, as he (in Portraits of Temperament), rationalized making NF Choleric based on the notion that they had a tendency to "occasionally fly into fits of rage, despite their normally placid, harmonious nature". Yet, we see that the NTs have their own version of this "irascibility" as well. And it fits in with the rest of their pragmatic, task-focused behavior, where for NF's, it's almost being admitted as basically out of character!

 

[entropie]

People who are never choleric frighten me

 

[wildcat]

I agree that Phlegmatic is wrong for Rationals, but so is Choleric. Cholerics are extroverted. (Heat = Extroversion, so sanguines are also Extroverts, which means the introverted (cold) types are the other 2). You seem to admit this yourself when you say "Here, we clearly see a very energized temperament!"

Actually, the 2 systems are describing different traits so they can't be effectively mapped to each other - that was Keirsey's mistake.

Galen's types are created by 2 dichotomies (hot v cold, dry v wet) not the 3/4 of Jung/MBTI.
They more closely match Eysenck's scales of Extroversion and Neuroticism. (An observation he made himself.)

I could also see a mapping to DiSC - which essentially is E/I + T/F
There is no room for the N/S dichotomy. Therefore, there is no mapping to NT.

I see it like this: Choleric = Extroverted Thinkers (as characterised by the ETJs), Sanguine = Extroverted Feelers, Melancholic = Introverted Thinkers, Phlegmatic = Introverted Feelers, or, in the 5 temperament system, Supine = Introverted Feelers and Phlegmatics are balanced/ambiverts.

ETA. I don't think the mapping of test results proves/disproves anything, since the tests are built on the test maker's assumptions about what the categories mean.

I find the original associations, not with bodily "humours" but the notion of temperamental or constitutional "imbalance" more interesting lately. Galen originally classified 9 types (8 types of imbalance + one 'ideal'), but we are only usually familiar with 4 or 5. His idea was that any imbalance was suboptimal, and the goal of medicine was to try to reestablish balance in the organism.

I like this approach. Recently, I've been thinking about which systems might be "out of balance" when it comes to type characteristics. For example, is introversion created by an imbalance between the sympathetic and the parasympathetic parts of the autonomic nervous system? This could be a sound biological basis for the characteristic sensitivity of introverts, and recalls Galen's mind/body connection.

Original dichotomy:
The search for the optimal activity level of the cortex brings about introversion and extraversion.
Introversion is an attempt to decrease the activity level of the cortex. Extraversion is an attempt to increase it.
Both parties search to gain the optimal level.

The dichotomy of the autonomous nervous system follows.
It is the second dichotomy.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, that would be for E/I, which figures in the affective temperaments known as the Interaction Styles. In the conative model (Keirsey's groups), extraversion/introversion is basically replaced by pragmatism/cooperativeness. I'm not sure if that works the same way neurologically, but it is possible.
Pragmatism is the quickness to take action, and it would be an attempt to create activity, while cooperativeness would be an attempt to decrease it.

This would make temperament (on both levels) the root of personality, rather than the functions! It goes along with the notion that E/I and J/P are more primal in a childs's development!

 

[Eric B]

Just found some more evidence, on the flipside, showing the NF is not Choleric (figured I might as well throw this here and not make a new thread in the NF forums, since it is not as extensive as the NT evidences).

PUMII p316: Idealists almost never take forefront as political or military leaders.
(So this is definitlely NOT the conative analogue of "Initiator" or "In Charge".)

"They are first and foremost people-oriented". (Phlegmatic & Sanguine, [and Supine]=People oriented. Choleric and Melancholic=task oriented).

317
"They can subordinate their own wants and needs to the wants and needs of others, sometime to the degree that the wants and needs of others almost erase those they hold themselves."

318
Need to be replenished by expressions of recognition and approval (=Supine)

Value words of appreciation; Need acknowledgment from leaders, colleagues and subordinates.

May find themselves torn between the needs of their subordinates and requests of superiors, since they are so sensitive to helping those below them and pleasing those above them.

So in tune with the feelings of others that they are vulnerable to finding themselves trying to please all of the people all of the time.

All of this fits APS "Supine" descriptions. They have "a servant's heart".
This is just not a Choleric, who is aggressive, independent and focused on his own goals.

A couple more points for NT's:
321: ENTJ is a "leader of leaders". This is, the Initiator Rational, not the ENFJ Initiator Idealist.

325ff, Rationals are clearly the ones into leadership, and again, the conative counterpart to the affective Initiator role (EST/ENJ).