temperament test and poll (Hippocrates)

[disregard]

Yes, I can read.

I scored Choleric followed by Melancholic (I believe it was 23% or something along that line)

I definitely agree with the assessment.

 

[Lux]

Your personality is Melancholy Choleric.

Melancholy Strength:10 Weakness:8
45%
Phlegmatic Strength:1 Weakness:7
20%
Sanguine Strength:3 Weakness:3
15%
Choleric Strength:6 Weakness:2
20%

 

[Salomé]

That doesn't necessarily mean you are ExTJ, even though I would take it as conformation if you were wearing one of those types.

Hmm. Funny how that works.

For an INTP, I believe the Choleric lies in the NT. So the Melancholy might be the approximated social temperament or Interaction Style. For an INTP, that would be Behind the Scenes, which corresponds more to a Phlegmatic.

Can you explain what value you see in this system?

I see an arbitrary list of traits which aren't necessarily correlated. I mean, sure I'm strong-willed, independent, self-sufficient, impatient, unemotional, but I'm no Extrovert, not a Doer and certainly not an Optimist and I have no interest in leading others. I may be dominant but I certainly don't use or manipulate people. (At least I hope not).

I think it has no more value than the original assumption that bodily "humours" were responsible for temperament.
Haven't we moved on from that?

 

[miss fortune]

45% sanguine
33% phlematic
15% choleric
8% melancholy

I guess I must be agreeable or something

 

[Orangey]

Yeah, now I got Melancholy-Phlegmatic.

Melancholy 43%
Phlegmatic 33%
Choleric 18%
Sanguine 8%

Previously, I've gotten Phlegmatic-Melancholy and Phlegmatic-Choleric. Whatever.

 

[Eric B]

Yes, I can read.

I scored Choleric followed by Melancholic (I believe it was 23% or something along that line)

I definitely agree with the assessment.

Oh, OK. But I see you took the "INFP" off. That's what I was reacting to. Keirsey of course did say that NF was Choleric, but he defined it by totally different parameters then this test, which associates it with an extrovert, doer and optimist. I could not see that fitting INFP, and INFP's have not even been coming up as Choleric on these tests, so I was surprised.
Sorry if you took that as questioning your reading.

Hmm. Funny how that works.
Can you explain what value you see in this system?

I see an arbitrary list of traits which aren't necessarily correlated. I mean, sure I'm strong-willed, independent, self-sufficient, impatient, unemotional, but I'm no Extrovert, not a Doer and certainly not an Optimist and I have no interest in leading others. I may be dominant but I certainly don't use or manipulate people. (At least I hope not).

I think it has no more value than the original assumption that bodily "humours" were responsible for temperament.
Haven't we moved on from that?

Well, it has, and that's why I'm promoting the Inclusion, Control, Affection system in the other thread now. I always knew that these traits lists were a poor method of sorting temperament, however, they did prove to be a clue to type preference, and a surprising amount of people's temperament combination did match, or at least closely match what I suggested the corresonding type would be! (Which is why I'm still addressing results here).

In actuality, the six traits you acknowledged above, are what I believe are the "Choleric" aspects of the NT. The other five which you denied, would be tied to the Choleric analogue in the Interaction Stlyes, which is the "In Charge" or EST/ENJ group. So no, you're not going to have those traits if you are INTP. That illustrates precisely what I've been saying! (An ENTJ would more likely identify with more of the traits). This traits list does not sort out which area (social or action) of the temperament you fall into. So again, it is an inferior method. Dividing the temperament into Inclusion and Control, or dividing the type into Keirseyan temperament and Interaction Stlye, does explain blended temperament.

So the value I see in it is that the blended humor names divided by social skills and action skills provide a neutral identifier of type traits. We all know the humour names do not really indicate bodily fluids. The names just stuck, and are almost exclusive to the temperaments in modern use. And the root meanings of them persist in modern personality theory. Choleric indicates "expressive and task focused", whether that means "extroverted and directive" or "pragmatic and structure-focused". Phlegmatic indicates "reserved and people-focused" whether that means "introverted and informative" or "cooperative and motive-focused". So identifying an INTP as a "Phlegmatic/Choleric" to me seems better than trying to use new terms such as "Behind the Scenes-Theorist", (which is not even used in that combining form much, and) which can actually lend itself to possible stereotyping, since the terms have modern familiar meaning.

 

[Salomé]

Well, it has, and that's why I'm promoting the Inclusion, Control, Affection system in the other thread now. I always knew that these traits lists were a poor method of sorting temperament, however, they did prove to be a clue to type preference, and a surprising amount of people's temperament combination did match, or at least closely match what I suggested the corresonding type would be! (Which is why I'm still addressing results here).

In actuality, the six traits you acknowledged above, are what I believe are the "Choleric" aspects of the NT. The other five, which you denied would be tied to the Choleric analogue in the Interaction Stlyes, which is the "In Charge" or EST/ENJ group. So no, you're not going to have those traits if you are INTP. That illustrates precisely what I've been saying! (An ENTJ would more likely identify with more of the traits). This traits list does not sort out which area (social or action) of the temperament you fall into. So again, it is an inferior method. Dividing the temperament into Inclusion and Control, or dividing the type into Keirseyan temperament and Interaction Stlye, does explain blended temperament.

Right. But my issue is that I don't see any logic behind how the traits are grouped together. You might as well stick a bunch of words on a bunch of cards and shuffle the deck, drawing them at random. I don't see a logical pattern or framework which makes this anything other than a fairly random system. I also don't see a strong correlation between MBTI type and Hippocratic type.
The "logic" behind it was that temperament was dictated by imbalance in the humours so a Choleric person had too much yellow bile (I think?) and this translated to the medical treatments prescribed etc. Since we know that is nonsense, why are we still hanging on to what are otherwise random constellations of attributes? Is anger even an attribute of temperament - if temperament is innate, which is what MBTI suggests? Am I making any sense here?

 

[Little Linguist]

Your personality is Sanguine Choleric.

Melancholy Strength:3 Weakness:6
23%
Phlegmatic Strength:1 Weakness:2
8%
Sanguine Strength:8 Weakness:8
40%
Choleric Strength:8 Weakness:4
30%

Is that good or bad?

The Sanguine / Choleric
The sanguine-choleric is the most extraverted of all the temperament combinations. With the addition of the choleric aspect, the optimistic, impulsive, fun-loving sanguine becomes more adept at follow-through, taking significant leadership roles, and juggling many projects without unduly sacrificing productivity. This temperament tends to be a happy combination of charm and decisiveness, creativity and analytical skill, friendliness and focus.
Your ability to connect with people balances out the domineering and relentless temperament of the pure choleric. You value relationships highly and make friends easily. You are insightful, enthusiastic, and affectionate; your sanguine capacity for dealing with people, combined with the leadership skills of the choleric, make you an excellent manager of people. You are also capable of constancy, dedication, and serious undertakings — though at times you may have been underestimated, due to your often humorous and light-hearted manner. You not only are capable of creative inspiration, but also you will find within yourself the persistence and drive needed to carry out your inspirations.
St. Peter may have been a sanguine-choleric. He was impulsive, enthusiastic, protective, talkative, frequently wrong — yet a heroic and passionate leader of the flock.
The bad news is that, if intellectual, human or spiritual formation is seriously lacking, this temperament blend can exhibit the worst of the two temperaments: overly talkative, brassy, opinionated, loud, rash, swift to jump to conclusions, and forgetful. If intellectual depth is lacking, this temperament mixture can become superficial, bossy, and intolerant. The high-spirited humor of the sanguine can become biting and hurtful when combined with the unforgiving, vengeful nature of the poorly formed choleric. If pleasure-seeking and impulsivity are not contained, the sanguine-choleric may wind up with a lax conscience that justifies his weaknesses, ultimately resulting in habitual sin. Easily captivated by exciting new projects or opportunities, the sanguine-choleric should watch out for his tendency to come up with great ideas, put everyone to work, and then drop the ball when the project gets tiresome. On the other hand, the natural generosity flowing from the sanguine temperament will commit him to many good works.
If your temperament is sanguine-choleric, for a better understanding of your temperament it is recommended that you read the full descriptions of the sanguine and choleric.

Damn it - did they fucking interview me for this thing, or what????

 

[Eric B]

Right. But my issue is that I don't see any logic behind how the traits are grouped together. You might as well stick a bunch of words on a bunch of cards and shuffle the deck, drawing them at random. I don't see a logical pattern or framework which makes this anything other than a fairly random system. I also don't see a strong correlation between MBTI type and Hippocratic type.
The "logic" behind it was that temperament was dictated by imbalance in the humours so a Choleric person had too much yellow bile (I think?) and this translated to the medical treatments prescribed etc. Since we know that is nonsense, why are we still hanging on to what are otherwise random constellations of attributes? Is anger even an attribute of temperament - if temperament is innate, which is what MBTI suggests? Am I making any sense here?

Again, it's all about the root definitions of the temperaments. Originally, Choleric was assumed to be too much yellow bile in the system. As temperament developed, it came to be defined as a person having a "short response-time delay", and a "long response time sustain". That means, they tend to be quick to act, and will hold on to emotions like anger longer. So now, these "traits lists" group these characteristic behaviors, and have you pick out which ones fit. The root of these two traits are what we now know as "extroversion" and "task-focus". An extrovert will be characteized by a shorter delay, and a person who is task focused will respond less to people, which will come out in having a longer sustain in emotions when dealing with people.

Then, you divide this further into social vs action skills, using the traits you mentioned:

Extrovert, Doer, Optimist, interest in leading others, use or manipulate people (bad side of temperament)=Social (Interaction Style, Inclusion, affective, extraverted and directive traits).

dominant, strong-willed, independent, self-sufficient, impatient, unemotional=Ambition (Keirsey "temperament", Control, conative, pragmatic and structure-focused traits)

This is the logical pattern, even though, again, traits lists gloss over it.

LL, someone had recently said you seemed to have some Choleric in there, but Sanguine-Supine-Melancholy seemed like it made sense, and you said a description I read fit. Maybe it's Sanguine-Supine Choleric, then. (And of course, this test doesn't have Supine).

 

[Salomé]

As temperament developed, it came to be defined as a person having a "short response-time delay", and a "long response time sustain". That means, they tend to be quick to act, and will hold on to emotions like anger longer. So now, these "traits lists" group these characteristic behaviors, and have you pick out which ones fit. The root of these two traits are what we now know as "extroversion" and "task-focus". An extrovert will be characteized by a shorter delay, and a person who is task focused will respond less to people, which will come out in having a longer sustain in emotions when dealing with people.

Then, you divide this further into social vs action skills, using the traits you mentioned:

Extrovert, Doer, Optimist, interest in leading others, use or manipulate people (bad side of temperament)=Social (Interaction Style, Inclusion, affective, extraverted and directive traits).

dominant, strong-willed, independent, self-sufficient, impatient, unemotional=Ambition (Keirsey "temperament", Control, conative, pragmatic and structure-focused traits)
.

Thanks for the expansion. This doesn't gel with me though. I scored higher on weak (bad) aspects of Choleric and strong aspects of Melancholic. Also I'm not quick to act and don't stay angry for very long (don't hold grudges). I'm still struggling to see what this can tell me about myself that I don't already know (by selecting the word from the word lists). Also it seems to be telling me stuff that is blatantly wrong.

 

[Eric B]

Thanks for the expansion. This doesn't gel with me though. I scored higher on weak (bad) aspects of Choleric and strong aspects of Melancholic. Also I'm not quick to act and don't stay angry for very long (don't hold grudges). I'm still struggling to see what this can tell me about myself that I don't already know (by selecting the word from the word lists). Also it seems to be telling me stuff that is blatantly wrong.

Well, "quick to act" in this case would be "pragmatic", and if you're an NT, then by Keisey's definition, you are pragmatic, and this is what I had linked with a sort of "quickness to act". Pragmatics do what works, while cooperatives do what's right. Hence, the NT and SP will be a bit quicker to act on things. (Some quickness to act would be from extroversion, as well).

"Staying angry" was one of the original definitions of Choleric, but once again, there's traits, and there's root definitions. The traits are only possible results of the root factor. So what it translates into now is task-focus. For the NT (and SJ), task focus is what Berens calls Structure focus. It doesn't necessarily make you more angry, but it is less people-focused than the Motive focus of SP and NF.

 

[Little Linguist]

Eric, if you would like to discuss this further, which I would like to do, we'll have to do it in my blog because I don't want to derail this thread. Is that okay?

 

[JFrombaugh]

Took this test awhile ago, and I still have my results in my e-mail.

Joseph,

Your personality is Phlegmatic Melancholy
Melancholy Strength:5 Weakness:9
35%

Phlegmatic Strength:8 Weakness:8
40%

Sanguine Strength:3 Weakness:1
10%

Choleric Strength:4 Weakness:2
15%

 

[Donna Cecilia]

Melancholy 38%
Phlegmatic 13%
Sanguine 3%
Choleric 48%

Choleric-Melancholy for me. Off to the descriptions:

The Extrovert | The Doer | The Optimist
The Introvert | The Thinker | The Pessimist

But, wait.

Best of both worlds? Or this can just be an explanation of why about 90% of the people I know perceive me as a freak?

 

[Eric B]

You think you might be an E? ESTJ would fit that perfectly. Instead of "introverted", the SJ (as the Melancholy part of it) is "cooperative", which will be slower to take action.

 

[Jaguar]

Choleric (60%)

A Choleric INFP? That's wild as hell. Something is up with this combo.

 

[Saslou]

I want to give this a go but the link on page 1 is not working.

If someone can post a new link then i would be very grateful

 

[Jaguar]

I want to give this a go but the link on page 1 is not working.

If someone can post a new link then i would be very grateful

They might be having server problems.

 

[Donna Cecilia]

You think you might be an E? ESTJ would fit that perfectly. Instead of "introverted", the SJ (as the Melancholy part of it) is "cooperative", which will be slower to take action.

To be honest, I never thought of it. I can feel my soul being drained in social activities. Still, I can fake it pretty well. And I´m quick to take action most of the time. Now I understand why some users here have an "x" in their type.

What I found confusing, is that my temperament combination is made of two exact opposites, and with even scores, same for their strenghts and weaknesses.

 

[Eric B]

They're not totally opposite. They share in common "directiveness" or task-focus (as opposed to people-focus, which would explain why you would be drained in social situations just as much as a pure Melancholy. You might express yourself a lot to people, but not respond as much to them (In the system I like the most, we call it "responding as an introvert")

I guess it's the whole "pessimist vs optimist" dichotomy that makes them look opposite; but the Choleric is described as optimistic because of the expressiveness. That's only one dimension in which they are opposite.