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 structureâ€. 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 ES
T, 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."