CAUTION TO PROSPECTIVE A.P.S. TEMPERAMENT TESTEES: It is advised that you STOP and take the test first, before reading this page. It may interfere with your questionnaire responses. There are links to sites where a test can be ordered at the bottom. Once you take the test, then you can return and read up on temperament theory which will help you better understand your scores when they are presented to you! Plus, it should also be noted that this is a "layman" enthusiast discussion of the theory. (Though I do have MBTI certfication, which also carries with it authorization in the FIRO-B instrument, which this temperament system is based on. And I do draw from professional temperament literature, as well). It is just my attempt to create interest in discussion of the topic, and throw out ideas, and also explain this new version of the theory that in my opinion, really deserves more exposure.
Note, for those Christians who think all psychological topics are bad, ("Psychoheresy", etc) see this page!
E-reader version of entire Personality Matrix series on Academia
[Introduction: Introversion, Extroversion, and another dimension to personality]
A fifth temperament? (and "4 to 5" image)
Responding as an introvert or extrovert? (and "movement toward/away from people" image)
Additional key characteristics of the new temperament
•Phlegmatic blends and Blends between other Temperaments
"The Need Areas": Inclusion, Control and Affection
•Table of Inclusion, Control and Affection
•125 Types image
A scientific basis for temperament?
Temperaments are complexes too
Temperament moderation, and my example
Temperament grid image
•Consistency between "expressing" and "Wanting"
•Alternative perspective [drives lie in factors themselves]; "I'm OK, You're OK" analogy; Grayscales image of driving energy
•Shared Needs: Three to two
•Fifth humour? Fifth Element?
SUMMARY: E/R, The unifying principle of personality
Graphic Representations of the Temperaments
The 125 Basic Temperament Combinations
When we think of "personality types", we have traditionally thought in
terms of "introverted" and "extroverted". This describes what we call
"expressive" behavior (how we approach people). But there is also another dimension to this, that describes how the person actually "respond" to people, or how much we "want" people to approach us.
We would think an introverted person doesn't respond to people while an extroverted person does. But that is actually not always the case. Some people who are very outgoing, and even charming, who approach people for different reasons can be elusive when you try to approach them. Think of the popular showoff in school, or some other highly 'motivational' type of person. On the other hand, a person can be very introverted, yet still have an interest in people, and be very sociable when approached by certain people or in an environment they feel secure in. Think of the shy person who wants to get involved, and is easily motivated by others. So, in discussing personality, we should ask not just one question (are they introverted or extroverted), but also do they like people or ultimately dismiss people. This is called "responsive" behavior.
So expressive behavior tells us HOW a person expresses (little, moderate, much), and responsive behavior tells us WHAT they are likely to express (criticalness, indifference, agreeableness, which corresponds to wanting little, moderate or much from people).
The root of this dimension is basically a CRITERIA of responding to interaction. Less responsive people are described as only responding to people when they meet a criteria. Hence, they might appear to exhibit less warm behavior towards others who initiate unsolicited interaction. More responsive people would have a lighter criteria, thus, more people will be accepted or wanted for interaction, and likely greeted more cheerily.
This dimension has taken on many names in the various theories written in the last few centuries, and the psychometric instruments that have been introduced in the last century:
Pavlov: "extremeness" (expressive scale: "passivity)
Adler: "social interest" (e="activity")
Fromm: "socialization" (e="assimilation")
DISC: "Open vs. Controlled" (e="Assertive/Passive")
Merrill "Social Styles" also uses the term "Responsiveness" (in which one "Controls or "Emotes". e="Assertiveness", in which one "asks" or "tells").
Allesandra "Personality Styles": "Open/Guarded" (e="Indirect/Direct").
LIFO: "Directing vs. Inspiring" (e="Planning vs.Doing")
Linda Berens "Interaction Styles": "Informing" and "Directing" (paired with MBTI's "E/I").
FIRO-B: "Wanted Behavior" (paired with "Expressed Behavior"). This is the system the theory we use is most directly derived from. But while they did not claim to measure "inborn" traits, we use the scales to measure the temperaments.
(You can see them all laid out with the four or five types generated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_models_of_personality) and Temperament Part 3: Table of Comparisons.
So we see that this is almost a universal way of measuring personality, though different names have been used for the factors and types. (Which perhaps makes it seem all the theories are completely different).
Having the two factors results in a square table consisting of the two scales of scores which basically answers the questions "is the person outgoing?", and "are they people-oriented?": NN, YY, YN and NY; or in terms of "positive" and "negative": --, ++, +-, and-+; or in terms of high, and low, ll, hh, hl and lh.
The ancient four temperaments correspond to these four types of behavior. The true introvert who is task-oriented rather than people-oriented is the Melancholy; the true extrovert who is people-oriented is the Sanguine, and the extrovert who is task-oriented rather than people-oriented is the Choleric.
In fact, from the beginning, the behavior corresponding to both scales was noted in the temperaments.
The sanguine temperament showed quick, impulsive and relatively brief reactions. (i.e. short delay, short sustain)
The choleric temperament manifested a short response time-delay, but the response was sustained for a relatively long time.
The melancholic temperament (renamed "Melancholy") exhibited a long response time-delay, and the response was sustained at length, if not, seemingly, permanently.
(Evidence-based Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine I: History Francesco Chiappelli, Paolo Prolo and Olivia S. Cajulis)
So, low scores in both "wanted" and "expressed" would fall into the lower left corner of the table, and would correspond to the Melancholy. Since the scale of "expression" lies on the horizontal axis of the chart, a high score in "expressed" with a low score in "wanted" falls in the lower right corner, and this corresponds to Choleric. The upper right corner represents a high score on both scales, and corresponds to the Sanguine.
The result, in this grid, is that the left half represents introverts, the right half extroverts, the upper half those who are more "relationship-oriented", and the lower half those who are more serious, or "task-oriented". However, there was now a totally new twist.
The fourth temperament; the introvert who is people-oriented was generally believed to be the Phlegmatic. The Phlegmatic was anciently acknowledged as characterized by a longer response-delay, (like the Melancholy) but the response was also short-lived (like the Sanguine). So it turned out that the "cool", noncommittal Phlegmatic fell into the role of the "people-oriented introvert", and basically the opposite of the hot-headed Choleric. In all the other two factor models, the corresponding type (Steadiness, Amiable, Leaning, etc) has been matched with the Phlegmatic.
For those unfamiliar, here are the basic descriptions of the traditionally known four temperaments, where you can compare and detect the two scales:
Melancholy - has an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, prone to genius, very creative, mind tends to work overtime, going over and over events of the past, needs alone time to regroup.
Sanguine - fun loving, will leave in the middle of a chore or assignment if they find out there is something fun going on somewhere, never wants to grow up, stressed out if there are not places to go and people to see.
Choleric - a drive to greatness, but will step on your toes to get there, needs lots of appreciation along the way.
Phlegmatic - quite stubborn and set in his ways, uncomfortable with confrontation and seeks peace at all costs to avoid strife, feels he needs sleep to regroup but never gets enough, very annoying to the Choleric as this is the one temperament that cannot be coerced into doing something if they don't want to.
We see here, that two are very outgoing and energetic, the other two are slower paced, and two are more "serious", while the other two are less serious. However, while the Phlegmatic is not as extroverted as the Sanguine and Choleric, nor as task-oriented as the Choleric and Melancholy; he is neither as introverted as the Melancholy, nor as relationship oriented as the Sanguine. They can basically "take people or leave them". Thus the Phlegmatic (which was even once defined by critics as the absence of temperament), is basically by definition a moderate temperament, or an "ambivert". It's at this point that the ancient four temperament theory splits off with a new five temperament model.
A fifth temperament?
So really, the two questions each have three answers: "yes", "no", and "maybe so", or "positive", "negative", and "indifferent" or "high", "low" and "moderate" (Y, N, ~ +, -, 0 or h, l, m) basically. A person who is "maybe so" in both dimensions creates a fifth primary temperament, (~~ or 00 or mm) and THIS is where Phlegmatic actually falls!
So then who is the true "people-oriented introvert"? (NY/-+/lh)
Basically, this temperament will by its very nature be rather elusive. (Perhaps the reason it went unrecognized for so long). Because of their low expressive behavior, they will at first glance on the surface look like Melancholies: very withdrawn and shy, if you don't approach them. But if you do approach them, and they feel secure with you; they will "open up", sometimes even being chatty like a Sanguine. This is the high "responsive" or "Wanted" trait. In personality tests (which reveal their true wants), they may come out Sanguine! Or perhaps Phlegmatic, (since their introverted and extroverted traits may "average out", creating a moderate profile; depending on the test). So there had been some people who did not fit into any of the other categories, and some researchers began suspecting a fifth temperament, which became known as a "passive" Sanguine.
In the 1980s, the National Christian Counselors Association, Inc. founders Richard G. and Phyllis J. Arno., after doing extensive research, identified it in fact, as a separate temperament, which they called Supine. (If you look at many of the characteristics of Berens' "Behind the Scenes" style; Adler's "Getting-Leaning", etc, you will see they are more compatible with the shy (hence "Behind the Scenes" or "Leaning") Supine, than the Phlegmatic, who can initiate a moderate amount of interaction, and likewise wants a moderate amount. BtS is often described as being "suspicious" and its "core drive" even, needing much input from others to get the best results. This stems from being a vulnerable type from needing people's acceptance, but not being able to command it like the more outgoing types.) So this new temperament was obscured all those centuries by looking like a Melancholy, being mistaken for a kind of Sanguine, and eclipsed by the Phlegmatic in the Two-factor/four-type models.
The ancient four temperaments were originally named after the body fluids thought to cause them. (Blood (sanguis), yellow bile (cholera or Gk. χoλη, kholé), black bile (µeλας, melas, "black", + kholé), and phlegm). This is now known not to be the case, but the names stuck as a good correlator of those fluids to the traits associated with them. The Arno's named Supine after a body position associated with that temperament: "lying on the back" or "with the face turned upward". (Think of a dog looking up to or rolling over for his master, or a servant slightly bowed before his master).
I happen to fall into this new category, though blended with Choleric (Blending shall be discussed shortly). Christian temperament theorists like Arno and LaHaye always like to use Biblical characters as examples of the temperaments. So Peter is the Sanguine; Paul is the Choleric, Moses is generally Melancholy, and Nehemiah has been used as an example of Phlegmatic. So who would be Supine? Naturally, Arno mentions Martha, who was a faithful servant, and wanting acknowledgment for it.
One Biblical personality you won't see "typed" in Arno or LaHaye is Jesus. You might think this is highly odd, for the central figure of the Christian Bible, but I can give my own reason for not messing with that idea. Orthodox Christians believe Jesus was divine. Critics of Christian psychology even use the idea of possibly assigning temperaments to Jesus as an argument against temperament theory, though again; I don't see any of them doing it. Since we believe temperament is influenced in a large part by fears and other "frail, faulty" human "needs" (as shall be explained shortly); Jesus, who we believe is not subject to human flaws, would not have these fears and needs. Without those things energizing his behavior, that technically would make him fall into the Phlegmatic range, but he doesn't have their (resultant) low energy reserve (and its sluggishness and indifference) either. He seems to embody all of the strengths and none of the weaknesses of all of the temperaments.
Responding as an introvert or extrovert?
Responsive behavior can also be expressed in terms of "introversion" and "extroversion", and in fact, can be viewed as an indicator of the "true" introversion or extroversion! We know what it is like for a person to "express themselves" as an introvert or extrovert, as that is what we are normally thinking of when we mention E and I. But we can also say they respond as an introvert or extrovert.
As far as "responding" as introvert or extrovert, while we would never think of the Choleric of all people as introverted, his low responsiveness to people is in fact a type of introversion, which means "inwardly oriented" ("One who focuses primarily on their own mind, feelings or affairs"). He is only outwardly oriented to use people for a goal, which is his true motive, and that is inwardly oriented, or apart of Karen Horney's "Away" (Avoiding) coping strategy definition. Likewise, the shy Supine seems the furthest from extroverted, but since he responds well to people, and acceptance by and service to people is what his real desire is, he is being "outwardly oriented", ("One who is concerned with outer affairs") which is the meaning of "extroverted". (or Horney's "Towards" or "Compliance").
"Extroversion" and "Introversion" mean outward or inward turning. So I would call the other dimension "Extrovolitional" and "Introvolitional", which (in the Latin roots) mean "outward or inward willed or desiring. ("-volition" coming from the root "-velle" meaning "will" or "desire", and connected to words like "voluntary" and "voluptuous". As a noun for people who fit into the descriptions, I would use "introvelle" or "extrovelle"). But until these catch on, Berens' "Informing/[ative]" and "Directing/[ive]" have a nice ring to them, and are not as many syllables. Also, the terms Arno uses the most; relationship-oriented and task-oriented. (I had earlier began thinking of the dimension in terms of "agreeable" and "critical", but realized such labels would tend to cast the low-responsive temperaments in a unfairly negative light. However, I later learned that the term "agreeable" was coincidentally, already used for the factor by a "Five Factor Model").
Expressed behavior is what a person initially appears like (or "what they say they want"), and responsive behavior is what they "really want". So the Supine, along with the Sanguine are called "relationship-oriented" temperaments, (and their communication to people will tend to be more "informative"); while those who are not relationship oriented, the Melancholies and Cholerics, are "task-oriented" (and thus tend to communicate in a more "directive" fashion). The differences between them are that the Melancholy avoids people and focuses purely on tasks for tasks sake. The Sanguine avoids tasks and focuses on people for people's sakes. The Choleric uses people for tasks (his goals) sake, and the Supine uses tasks (service) for people's sake. The Phlegmatic can relate to either people or tasks, moderately, as much as their low energy reserve will allow.
I even see where the knowledge of this additional dimension would have been helpful earlier in my life. Like as a teen pursuing girls, even. All I knew was introversion and extroversion (from the brief descriptions my father gave me once, in trying to help me with my social skills). In an urban "street" setting, it appeared the loud "extroverts" were "bad", and it was the quiet, withdrawn "introverts" that were "innocent". However, most of the introverts were most likely Melancholy. They basically rejected everyone, but I didn't see it this way. (The definite clues were there, looking back). I had thought all "quiet" kids were simply "shy" from wanting to be accepted, like me. But in truth, they really did not want to be bothered. I could see that the extroverts seemed to be divided between more "serious and critical" ones, and more "light and airy" ones, but I felt intimidated around both, since I was shy and figured they had so many friends, why would they accept me? Even the Phlegmatics, while basically peaceful, were still always hanging around the crowds.
So I basically spent my adolescence and college years pursuing mostly bookish looking Melancholies. To no avail, as I was horrible at expressing, and they did not express or respond much. And little did I know, they would not make good partners for me with my need for a less critical, more accepting, agreeable type, anyway. They would be a lot like my rather critical family, in fact (who are almost purely Melancholy). As it would figure, it would be a Sanguine (who happened to never be into the streets as a youth) who would become my one and only!
Also helpful to know, is that while extroverts may look more friendly, introverts will turn out to be more loyal, faithful friends. Extroverts, including even the ever-so-friendly Sanguine, because of their ability to express to many people, tend not to be as loyal. Cholerics do not really "need" people at all, beyond whatever goal they approach them for. Sanguines need "people" in general, but not as much in particular. They are so busy with the crowds, they do not have as much time to devote to any one person. This really helped me, as I have had "sanguiney" friends, with whom I've experienced Arno's description of them stopping from listening to you mid sentence to go tend to someone else. That would be like a double-blow to me, for even this so "friendly" person to do that. But now I know it is not me; it is their temperament.
And of course the Choleric will be like that as well. The Melancholy will be a faithful friend, IF you can get into their "Exclusive Club", as Dr. Leo Ryan in his Clinical Interpretation of FIRO-B calls it, regarding all low "wanted" scores in the social area. Also beware, while their loyalty can make them more patient and enduring than others, if you hurt/cross them too much, you can fall out of the Club, and will have likely "torn it" with them, for good. They hold grudges, even if the anger dies down. Afterward, they will speak to you nicely, as the occasion arises, but that is it for close friendship. Supines are both loyal, like the Melancholy, but also agreeable and more forgiving, like the Sanguine.
So basically, in terms of expressed and responsive behavior, you have an introverted introvert, introverted extrovert, extroverted extrovert, extroverted introvert, ambiverted ambivert, and pairs of ambiverted extrovert, ambiverted introvert, introverted ambivert, and extroverted ambivert.
Or, using "reserved" and "reluctant" as opposites of "expressive" and "responsive", respectively, and "noncomittal" and "indifferent" for the inbetween expressive and responsive behaviors, you could also simply call them reserved reluctant, reserved responsive, expressive responsive, expressive reluctant, Noncomittal indifferent, noncomittal responsive, noncomittal reluctant, reserved indifferent and expressive indifferent.
Additional key characteristics of the new temperament
So basically, as we have seen, this is the true "relationship-oriented introvert". That means it is the most shy, as they like people and want to be accepted, but lack the mechanism (boldness) to express this need by approaching others, like the Sanguine does. Thus, they use tasks, like service to others, to try to win this acceptance. So you can think of them as an exaggerated version of the old conception of the Phlegmatic (or "Amiable", "Relater", etc. in other systems), which used the same definitions of low E and high R. They will display more of the low expressive and high responsive traits than the Phlegmatic, whom we have deemed to be actually moderate in both scales. So Supines have some traits that are not usually mentioned in those corresponding types, but are the logical extension of their behavior.
Of these traits, the need to have people "read their minds" and know that they want interaction is one that is stressed in the APS definitions. This is from the low expression. They also harbor anger as "hurt feelings", and also need a personal invitation to activities when in a group. Some of these issues I myself do not have as much, because of the Choleric blending I mentioned, which I'll discuss more, shortly. Cholerics are also indirect, but in the opposite fashion (and in some respects can be regarded as "extroverted melancholies"). But since they are high in the expression area, their temperament was readily obvious all along.
Supines also tend to think of themselves as worthless, while others are worthy. Since they depend on acceptance by others, they have problems with guilt. This I can attest to as well. My parents filtered much of my behavior through their own Melancholy perspective, which could more easily reject everyone else and try to draw worth from self. That temperament tends to not like themselves either, but they try to fight that and develop self worth through their thinking and making personal achievements. So they could not understand why I couldn't just try to do the same.
They also often claimed I was "rejecting people", which I vehemently denied, (as a guilt-provoking accusation). While APS reports describe Supines as "rejecting people first" (similar to the way the Melancholy is described), that would only be in the sense of "I will not express myself to you: you must prove you accept me". A Melancholy on the other hand, completely rejects people. They will not respond to you either, unless you meet the criteria for their exclusive club. So again, my parents were most likely projecting their own Melancholy drive onto me. Temperament really explained a lot about my life with other people!
Other points from the Supine report is "likes to be with people, but they tend to stress him and wear him out (if he is with them for long periods of time). He needs to alternate between being with people, and doing tasks". This I can certainly attest to. I guess it's the stress from wanting acceptance and not always getting it from everyone, and just the pervasive feeling of worthlessness in the crowd that makes other people so stressful. Also, "tends to think a great deal, and needs time, throughout the day, to think and 'organize' thoughts". "Thinking" is usually associated with the Melancholy. But Supines are that way too, though perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent. It is a common "introversion" trait. You either act first, or you think first. It is the response "delay" factor. Extroverts act, introverts think about it. (This is the generic everyday definition of "thinking". There is also the "cognitive function" definition, which will be discussed in the next part of this series). Supines also need to be organized, but after awhile will set aside responsibilities to be with people.
Also, a common introversion trait is the building up of anger and exploding. So Supines will generally be nice, but if you cross them too much, then like Melancholies, they will react, and even possibly violently. Even if they do not feel appreciated enough, then they will bear a lot of resentment. The manuals even say "the murder mystery that states 'the butler did it' is the story of the faithful Supine who served his master well for years, felt used, and eventually reacted with murderous rage".
One bit of information we have not seen much, is that Galen actually had NINE temperaments! His original version of the matrix used the "hot/cold" and "wet/dry" scale used in mapping the corresponding elements:
Original Galen matrix:
On the first link, you can even see a map of all the different body parts associated with the hot/cold/wet/dry factors. Dead Center is "skin". But only the four in the corners are humors. (Black Bile is not even the furthest in its corner, but rather "hair, nails").
The most current book that seems to have the information on this is Jerome Kagan's Galen's Prophecy: Temperament In Human Nature. The book seems to argue that Galen was really onto something, and compares his concept of humors, with modern medicine or neurological science.
This provides the basis of the full model we are exploring here.
Getting back to the table, those whom the answer to ONE of the two questions is "maybe so" are a blend of Phlegmatic with one of the other temperaments. (~Y ~N Y~ N~ / 0+ 0- +0 -0 / mh ml hm lm) These are people EITHER whose expressive OR responsive needs are moderate. The blends lie in pairs midway along the edges of the table. Which temperament blending each half of the pair falls into is determined by the driving need. They will share the driving need of the temperament is it blended with.
The Arno manuals specifically address the Phlegmatic Melancholy and the
Phlegmatic Choleric as examples. Both express themselves moderately like a
Phlegmatic, but respond negatively like either a Melancholy or Choleric,
(~N / 0- / ml) and will behave very similarly; yet the PM is driven by the
Melancholy's fear, and the PC is driven by the Choleric's goals. (My
brother is a PM, and he fits the bill. They look cool and observant of
people, but tend to be very cynical and critical with a sharp wit).
So the Phlegmatic Melancholy will be moderately more sociable than a pure Melancholy, but otherwise does not have much of a real need for interaction. A Melancholy Phlegmatic on the other hand expresses himself as a Melancholy but wants the same as a Phlegmatic. This person has a moderate need for interaction, but is still not very expressive of it. He will be bordering on the Supine Phlegmatic, who will behave similarly.
These types of blends are different from the older system's "Phleg-Mel" and "Mel-Phleg", though those two blends may turn out to be a Phlegmatic blend in this theory. The order of the temperaments in these pairs is not determined by "dominance" of one, but rather according to "expressed" and "wanted" behavior, respectively.
The blends are:
Phlegmatic Melancholy (express as a Phlegmatic; respond as a Melancholy)
Phlegmatic Choleric (express as a Phlegmatic; respond as a Choleric)
Choleric Phlegmatic (express as a Choleric; respond as a Phlegmatic)
Sanguine Phlegmatic (express as a Sanguine; respond as a Phlegmatic)
Phlegmatic Sanguine (express as a Phlegmatic; respond as a Sanguine)
Phlegmatic Supine (express as a Phlegmatic; respond as a Supine)
Supine Phlegmatic (express as a Supine; respond as a Phlegmatic)
Melancholy Phlegmatic (express as a Melancholy; respond as a Phlegmatic)
In the order it is listed here, you can divide them into four pairs, which are adjacent on the map. The pairs will behave similarly, but as Dr. Arno points out in the manuals, "for different reasons". It was when I understood this, and the how the score grid (map) works, that the rest of the theory fell into place. The particular moment it clicked was when I read the descriptions of the Phlegmatic Sanguine, which "appears not to want to be with people, but has a moderately high need to be with people and socialize". On a deeper level, the other person has to prove they want a deep personal relationship before they will become involved. "That sounds like the Supine! Why; What's the difference, then?" I thought, thinking of temperaments as isolated points. Then, I happened to take a look at the grid and for the first time saw it as a map, and lo and behold, the Phlegmatic Sanguine is right next to the Supines, being but one "expressive" point higher than the most expressive range of that temperament, the Phlegmatic Supine. It is more expressive than the Supines, but less expressive than a pure Sanguine, so it does sound a bit like a Supine, in wanting more than he actually expresses. (Where the Sanguine wants and expresses mostly the same).
In LaHaye's system, you also had 12 blends of the temperaments: San-Mel, San-Chlor, San-Phleg, Mel-San, Mel-Chlor, Mel-Phleg, Chlor-San, Chlor-Mel, Chlor-Phleg, PhlegMel, PhlegSan, PhlegChlor; in addition to the four "pure" types. (Descriptions: http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Warfield2.html https://fourtemperaments.com/15-temperament-blends).
The first one in the list is said to be the "dominant" one, with the ratio usually something like 40/60%. Larger ratios would indicate a larger leaning towards one temperament.
(People sometimes ask why the spelling "Chlor" is used in the combining forms, and not "chol" or something. Actually, in the Greek, "Chlor" as in "chlorine" and "chlorophyll" did mean "yellow-green", which of course stems from the color of the original "bile"; so the spelling is fitting, and besides, it has a nicer ring to it!)
You might think that the intermediate temperaments that lie between the “outer” corner temperaments might correspond to these “Mel-Chlor” or “Chlor-San” (etc.) blends and wonder why instead they are only "Phlegmatic" blends. This appears to have to do with the driving needs of each of the temperaments. The driving needs energize the distinguishing traits of each of the temperaments, as well as the various negative reactions (such as anger) they are inclined to. One important thing to remember is that in this system, each temperament is not a POINT (where you are either on the point or off of it) but rather a RANGE (measured by the scores) that gradually change as scores increase or decrease. When you take one of the temperaments (which are strongest in the corners), and begin changing the expressive or responsive scores toward the next temperament, that driving need begins to decrease, and as you enter the adjacent temperament, it dissipates, and is replaced by the driving need of that temperament, which increases as you continue increasing or decreasing the score. So when you are inbetween temperaments, you are in a sort of “neutral” position, where the driving needs and corresponding reactions of either temperament are very low. So you end up with low energy, which produces a cool, peace-loving or observant disposition, stubborn noncommittal indifference, and the angry reactions mellow into a dry humor, —which requires less energy.
One might think that high energy lies in the high E or R scores, while the low E or R scores are low energy. But as will be discussed further on Part 3, regarding the Horney scales, the low scores are actually just as energized as the high scores —but in the opposite direction from the high scores. The high scores all gravitate towards people in one way or the other, while the low scores are driven away from people. It's the moderate scores where there is less energy driving a person one way or the other in one or both dimensions. One of the definitions of the Phlegmatic is that they have a very low emotional energy. That's what makes them "cool". And the angry reactions of other temperaments are replaced by their sarcastic humor. That takes less energy.
While these traits are what originally identified the Phlegmatic as "introverted/agreeable" (Peaceful, or Adler's "Leaning", Merrill's "Amiable", etc), in Five Temperament theory, the Supine holds that slot, and while the behavior is similar, the driving motives are completely different. The Supine is driven both away from people in the expression scale, and to like people (towards) in the responsive scale, while the Phlegmatic is a peacemaker because of the fact that he is not driven, but rather simply takes "the path of least resistance" to protect his low energy.
This is why the driving needs are important in the APS, because as has been noted above, various behaviors in a particular temperament can be similar to one or more other temperaments, but they are actually undertaken "for different reasons". This is key to understanding temperament.
For the blends, the Phlegmatic low energy and its traits will lie either in the expressive behavior, or responsive behavior, depending on whether the blend is a "Phlegmatic Expressive", or a "Responsive Phlegmatic" (my collective terms). For the Expressives, the Phlegmatic noncomittal attitude and humor will be what they look like on the surface, however, they will beneath that respond as one of the other temperaments. For the Responsives; they will initially look like the main temperament they are blended with, yet they will respond with the Phlegmatic traits.
The Phlegmatic and driving energy (cont.); Compulsive temperaments
The pure Phlegmatic is basically reached by changing both expressed and responsive scores by the same rate, which doubles the above mentioned effect.
While the Phlegmatic is well known for being "slow-paced", in the APS manuals, the Supine and Melancholy are called slow paced as well (and "lose momentum as the day progresses"). Again, this is for different reasons. Slow pace is on one hand a common introversion trait, while the extroverts are "fast-paced" (i.e. the slow or fast "response time delay" of the original conception). This is because the needs that drive one to introversion push people away from initiating things quickly. With the pure Phlegmatic, it is simply the lack of that energy that makes them slow paced.
The Phlegmatic is described as having a “moderate need” for socialization, leadership and deep relationship, and expresses moderately, not because he has more energy than the temperaments with lower needs in those areas (as one might think), but because he does not have the driving needs that incline a person to either want or avoid those interactions (push him towards or away from people in either of the two scales), so he can basically “take them or leave them”. The Phlegmatic Melancholy is even described as being slower-paced than the Melancholy! What is very noteworthy, is that at one point in history, Phlegmatic was considered to be “the absence of temperament”! (It was at that point that someone should have realized that the fourth slot was actually held by an altogether different type, but it seems they were trying to abandon temperament theory at that time).
"Compulsive" variations of the four outer temperaments lie in the squares furthest in the corner of those areas of the grid, where the highest energy would lie. Since Phlegmatic is directly in the middle, it by nature has no Compulsive variation. These are just more highly driven variations of the temperaments, and hence the opposite of Phlegmatic.
Blends between other Temperaments
You may still wonder about “blends” between the other temperaments. What about the "San-Mel", San-Chlor" and others LaHaye speaks of, then? One way you could loosely think of "blends" is as lying in the “borderline” scores of each temperament, which begin to take on distant traits of the next temperament, as stated above. As a borderline “6 point responsive Supine”, socially; I need people less than other Supines, and am more of a thinking loner, like a Melancholy. So I sometimes think of myself as a “Melancholy Supine” (or perhaps “Sup-Mel” in the style of other temperament systems). The difference between me and Melancholies is, of course, that I do still need people more, and am “regenerated” by some amount of social interaction, where the Melancholy is regenerated by solitude. In another area; I am likewise a borderline “3 point responsive Choleric”, which means that I allow more control over my life than other Cholerics. I am more likely to accept another’s treatment of an issue I feel needs to be addressed (if I like it enough), instead of embarking on a project of my own, instead. I am also quicker to give up on things especially if they are not going the way I want, or “bite my nose off to spite my face”, and have self-indulgent “cool-off" periods where it is hard to start new projects. These are distant relatives to the Sanguine “swing”. (Though part of the slowness in starting projects will be associated with the low expressed Inclusion). In both areas, I do have lower energy than others of the same temperament. This may also help explain why I come out partially Phlegmatic in the older model based tests.
Again, the grid is a map, and I came to look at it as I do a geographical map. Each temperament is like a state, and the closer you get to a boundary with another state, the more things begin to change, gradually, to the next state. If you are in Jersey City, NJ, the old architecture, the broadcast stations, the transportation system, will all be shared with New York. But if you are in Camden, it will all be associated with Philadelphia.
Still, the APS does not consider borderline scores as "blends" with neighboring temperaments. And even if it were so; didn't I say I was a blend of Supine with Choleric? Those are in diametric opposite corners, separated by the pure Phlegmatic. How do you cross them together? The same with Sanguine and Melancholy, which is my wife's blend. However, the way any temperament can be blended with any other is through what are known as the "areas of need".
Basic temperament matrix. Areas between temperaments are Phlegmatic blends. Three "areas" (different colors) are stacked on top of each other
"The Need Areas": Inclusion, Control and Affection
These are the three areas of interaction, also derived from FIRO, which behavior and personality are divided into:
Inclusion (How much you generally include other people in your life and how much attention, contact, and recognition you want from others)
Control (How much influence and responsibility you need, and how much you want others to lead and establish procedures and policies), and
Affection; (How close and warm you are with others and to what extent you want others to show warmth and support to you).
Some people I have tried to explain this to did not understand this division. Dr. Arno simplified them by framing it in terms of a hypothetical interchange between two people, where one "approaches" another for some form of interaction in a relationship (including whether to have a relationship to begin with). You can either approach people or not approach many people, and you can want or not want many people to approach you. The three areas determine "Who is IN or OUT of the relationship" (meaning how many people, generally); "Who maintains the POWER and makes the DECISIONS for the relationship"; and "How emotionally CLOSE or FAR the relationship". (Temperament Theory p.43)
So you can approach a person to include them in your presence or activities, you can approach them to control them, and you can approach them for a deeper relationship, such as to give affection. You can also tend to not approach people for these reasons, and you can either want or not want people to approach you for these interactions. The Wanted scales will indicate the strictness of criteria for accepting social inclusion, submitting to someone else's control, or deep personal interaction and affection.
To break it down factor by factor, we can look at it in terms of a person's willingness to enter another's space on the three levels, and have others enter their space. Expressed Inclusion (eI) tells us how much one approaches others for surface interaction, including such things as "motivating" or "inspiring". Wanted Inclusion (wI) tell us how much a person wants to belong, and thus also how impressionable he is to others. Expressed Control (eC) will tell you how much one is willing to control, or at least cross others' personal boundaries, while Wanted Control (wC) will tell you how much a person allows others to cross his boundaries. Expressed Affection (eA) tells how much a person wants to probe into another on a deep personal level, while wanted Affection (wA) tells how open or closed they are to others on the deep personal level.
Since the scale of "wanting" interaction from people is often called "liking" or "accepting" them, I've found it helpful to differentiate between the three areas by saying that Inclusion determines whether you generally accept or reject who people are, while Control determines whether you accept or reject what people do. Affection would be accepting or rejecting who people "are" on a deeper personal level. Expressing in those areas simply means how much you tend to approach others, either socially, or in taking on leadership and responsibilities, or in deep personal relations. (Some negative sounding terms, such as "not liking", and some of the other descriptions of the Choleric, in particular, (people as "objects", etc) which are common in APS, are not to be taken but so literally, of course! It's describing the person's focus. In this field, we will discover many such operational definition terms that are not completely literal).
|INCLUSION: Who is IN or OUT of the relationship||CONTROL: Who maintains the POWER and makes the DECISIONS for the relationship||AFFECTION: How emotionally CLOSE or FAR the relationship|
|Melancholy||Everyone OUT, except for "Exclusive Club"||"I don't control you, so please don't try to control me"||generally, emotionally FAR|
|Sanguine||Everybody "IN" ("Come on in!")||Controls or being controlled according to "SWING"||Emotionally CLOSE|
|Choleric||Don't call me; I'll call you; until then, OUT! (except for "Exclusive Club")||"I'M the Boss!"||emotionally FAR, unless I approach you for my purposes|
|Supine||Everybody IN; but you must reach out and invite me!||"YOU'RE the Boss!"||emotionally CLOSE, but you must reach out to me|
|Phlegmatic||"Take 'em or leave 'em"||Democratic; "Let's all be Boss!"||moderate; take it or leave it|
So in addition to the Phlegmatic blends within each of these areas, a temperament blend can lie "Across" the three areas. A person can be one temperament in inclusion, another one in control, and yet another in affection. This is where you can have something amounting to a "San-Mel", which might correspond to a Sanguine in Inclusion and Affection, and Melancholy in Control. Or a similar (66 : 33%) ratio (to use LaHaye's "percentage" method) could be in any other combination of two to one. LaHaye did also mention that people could be a blend of three different temperaments (though he doesn't go into that, however the fourtemperaments.com site describes the Melancholy-Phlegmatic-Choleric), and this would go right along with that!
APS does not use the ratios or designations like "San-Mel"; but rather "Sanguine-Melancholy-Sanguine"; listing all three in the order of Inclusion, Control and Affection. (It is also initialized as "GMG"; the "G" used for sanGuine because "S" is used for Supine). This yields 125 (5×5×5) blends of basic temperaments overall! (With the eight Phlegmatic blends counted separately from the primary five, the total number of possible temperament combinations is 13³ or 2197!). This is what makes this system truly unique, as it ingeniously tells you in exactly what way (which area) a person is one temperament or another, rather than just a "blind" percentage figure. As I will explain later, it is particular needs that drives one to express and respond those particular ways along the lines of those three areas. And I find it to be so accurate!
In getting to know a person, (barring their hiding their true personality behind "masks" of "learned behavior"), Inclusion will be the first area you experience. Then, as you deal with the person more, and get into "responsibility" type situations, (including issues involving personal boundaries) you will experience their Control behavior. Finally, if you get into a deep relation with them, you will experience their Affection traits.
Dr. Ryan, however, says that the level of importance as to what a person really is, is the reverse. Affection influences Control behavior, which in turn influences Inclusion behavior. This would make sense, as once again, that follows the level of deepness into the person's self each successive area deals with. The example he offers is that what we call a pure Melancholy (and he calls "the Rock") will actually take a large impersonal crowd over a small personal crowd, because the impersonal crowd meets his Affection needs which is more important than the small but personal crowd more closely meeting his Inclusion needs.
If we were to try to express the blends between other temperaments the way we define Phlegmatic blends: according to expressed and wanted behavior; we would end up with redundancies. San-Mel: Someone who expresses like a Sanguine and responds like a Melancholy is by definition a Choleric. High expression, low response. Mel-San: Someone who expresses like a Melancholy and responds as a Sanguine is a Supine. Mel-Chlor: Someone who expresses like a Melancholy and responds as a Choleric is a Melancholy. Cholerics and Melancholies have the same (low) wanted needs, so they would be both interchangeable in the responsive category. Chlor-Mel: Someone who expresses like a Choleric and responds like a Melancholy is a Choleric, because the Choleric by definition responds like a Melancholy. San-chlor and Chlor-San: Someone who expresses like a Sanguine and responds as a Choleric is a Choleric; and someone who expresses as a Choleric and responds as a Sanguine is a Sanguine, because they both express the same way, and differ in the Choleric's low responsiveness and the Sanguine's high responsiveness. With the Supine, it would be the same way. "Sup-Mel"=Melancholy; "Mel-Sup"=Supine; express the same way, responsive determines; "Sup-San"=Supine; "San-Sup"=Sanguine; respond the same way, expressive determines; "Sup-Chlor": express as a Supine, respond as a Choleric is a Melancholy, because both expressive and wanted behavior are low. "Chlor-Sup": express as a Choleric and respond as a Supine is a Sanguine, because expressive and responsive behavior are high.
So we see the most accurate correlation of temperament blends are those lying across the three need areas.
While temperament theory has sometimes been criticized for "pigeonholing" people into such a limited number of types, since it is really based on a scale, you can actually break it down into many more types. Not only do you have the 125 basic combinations of five in three areas, or 2197 when the Phlegmatic blends are divided, or 4913 when the compulsives are divided, but you can take each of the one hundred (10×10) possible scores for each area separately; each being slightly different than the next, and when multiplied by each score in the other two areas, you end up with one million possible total scores!
A scientific basis for temperament?
In the next part of this series, we will see more about Introversion and Extroversion, and its neurological roots, based on the level of stimulation one responds to. The theory is that dopamine specifically is what provides the “stimulus”.
Introversion likely results from an oversensitivity to stimulation. So in trying to keep it at bay, the person withdraws into himself, and especially after any bad experiences with people growing up, learns to fear rejection and not approach people.
Extroversion would be less responsive to stimuli, and thus seek more of it. They would thus be moved to approach others for it.
The Responsive dimension would apparently work the same way.
Task-oriented people would be overstimulated by interaction initiated by people, and relationship-oriented people would be understimulated by it and thus crave more.
So Expressiveness would be overstimulated or understimulated in how much they approach people, and for responsiveness, it would be overstimulation or understimulation to others approaching them.
The Phlegmatic in either or both dimensions would be sensitive to a moderate amount of stimulation, so would appear to take it or leave it, and not be energized to either seek nor avoid it.
Neurology ties our concept of introversion and extroversion to the more familiar version of the concepts, such as Jungian type, as we shall discuss in the next part of the series, where the factor often is described in terms of "stimulation" and "orientation". One version of that theory even ties it to brain hemispheres! (As we will see, in translating to the Jungian concepts, "I/E" will end up playing out more in expressiveness than responsiveness).
I’ve also seen a suggestion that the other factor (people vs. task focus) is based on serotonin.
This provides a neurological, and thus “scientific” basis, for our personality factors.
Dopamine: “I want.”
Serotonin: “I am satisfied.”
Sanguine: High Dopamine, High Serotonin
Wants a lot out of life and is easily satisfied. Energetic and happy.
Melancholic: Low Dopamine, Low Serotonin
Wants little out of life but is not easily satisfied. Slow and depressive.
Choleric: High Dopamine, Low Serotonin
Wants a lot out of life but is not easily satisfied. Energetic and drawn to intensity.
Phlegmatic: Low Dopamine, High Serotonin
Requires little of life but is easily satisfied. Slow, calm and undemanding.
With five temperaments, Phlegmatic would actually be moderate, and this would lead to their less “driven” behavior; while Supine would be the one that’s low dopamine and high serotonin. It should also be pointed out that “Want” in this case is not the same as in “Wanted behavior”, which in this case is connected with serotonin and thus being “satisfied”. People who are less satisfied will tend to have stronger criteria in who they will allow to approach them, which defines low Wanted behavior. “Want” in this case is Expressed behavior. So then dopamine “I want” would define want by the level we approach others for our goals. So the Choleric, for instance, “Wants” others for the goal more than they want the actual interaction from others.
It should also be mentioned that while we will discuss high responsiveness temperaments as having a high “need” for people, and low responsiveness temperaments as not needing people (or even “liking” people as it is put in APS literature sometimes), in reality, everyone needs people. The high responsive are just more aware of this need, and the low responsives are less aware of it.
Temperaments are also "complexes"
Temperaments are “archetypes” (“ruling patterns” that are collective among people), and archetypes that fill up with personal experience, beome “complexes”, which are basically “ego-states” or senses of “I”, starting with the “ego”, which is the main “I”. Archetypes and complexes get mentioned in Jungian theory, including typology and the “cognitive functions” associated with it as we shall explore in the next entry. But the concept equally applies to temperaments. In each of the three areas, we can see ourselves as having a slightly separate sense of “I” that may differ from the other areas. To be a Supine-Choleric-Supine means that in Inclusion (surface social skills) and Affection (openness in relationships), “I” tend to be more passive and accepting of people, but in the area of Control (action-taking and leadership/responsibilities), “I” then become more aggressive and critical toward people. When I switch from one to the other, I can suddenly go from passive to aggressive, and lacking in confidence (in approaching people), to very confident, and stuff like stage fright can instanly disappear.
It also explains people acting out of their normal temperament tendencies. Like “high Wanted Control” might make it sound like the person can always be easily controlled, but the Control temperament is just a complex, that is not always activated, just like others aren't. Certain sitoations activate it.
Temperament moderation, and my example
These temperament combinations modify each other. For instance, I mentioned the Supine needed to be personally invited to things. I myself will hope that someone will invite me, but if they don't, and I really want to be involved, the [opposite] Control will kick in, and I will invite myself. I know that people don't like this (and have often annoyed others over it), so the guilt-ridden Inclusion need will restrain the Control as well. I often am torn as to which way to go in such situations. It will depend on what the situation is, and which need is more important. However, the "personal" need does come out in my not liking larger, impersonal groups, such as a megachurch, over a smaller fellowship where everyone knows one another. I also generally prefer familiar old friends to meeting new people. I generally get nothing out of being in a group of people I don't know (though I might like just the idea of people being around). On the other hand, the Control has driven me to go to great lengths to track down old friends and keep in contact, even over long distance. It's almost as if I use the high expressed Control to fill in for the expressed Inclusion I lack. I consider my self a "wannabe Sanguine", but the expressed Control does not give me the social graces the true Sanguine has.
On the other hand, if I'm engaged in a project (which ties to the control drive) I may not want to be bothered with people, even if invited. (With the low expressed Inclusion plus the low wanted Control, I can be much like a Melancholy at times also, in addition to the Supine naturally growing tired of people after awhile and needing to think and reflect, as earlier mentioned). Or sometimes, I will again be torn, or try to rush through it and catch the end of a social gathering. On the other hand, in places with people I do not know, like work, I will sit by myself like a true introvert, and hardly speak to anyone. Yet, I am meeting my Control need through my interests by going online on my mobile device, so I am happier not being bothered, again. But if I hear someone discussing something I am interested in, then, I will all of a sudden become outgoing and go and join in or add a comment, and sometimes even have much to say. That would meet both Inclusion and Control needs.
Thinking about all of this recently; I can see where in the past, this has caused problems. Kids, for instance, and some really critical adults, will look on someone so quiet as conceited or something. But then to all of a sudden jump into the crowd like that is strange. It doesn't fit in with the image they have already formed of you. So some people would be like, "who [the heck] are you"? (to be jumping in, now). So I've had to learn when to do that, and when not to, and who not to. (Stuff affecting everyone on the job, such as union issues, policies, etc. or more positive things anyone can join in).
In all of these things, a pure Supine would just continue to sit around waiting to be invited, or for old friends to reach out and keep in contact. He will thus often be frustrated. But once invited, he would always drop what he is doing and go along.
A Supine is also described as always checking things out with others. NCCA counselors are even warned about this regarding Supine counselees. Ryan termed the score ranges covering a Supine Phlegmatic and Melancholy Phlegmatic in Control as a "Checker". With my blend; I notice that I can easily make my mind up, but I still check with people for assurance. Whether I change my mind based on what others say depends on the issue. But I do generally have my own idea of how things should be. A pure Supine would not even make up their own mind. A pure Choleric would make up his mind and not care what others thought.
Likewise, when I was younger, I experienced that "anger-as-hurt-feelings" problem a lot, but as I grew up, dealing with all kinds of people, I got tired of it, feeling it was "weak", and then the Control kicked in, and more and more, I began to feel "later for that 'hurt' stuff; I'm angry!" While the Choleric often gets a bad rap, as the Supine seems "innocent"; If I had been a pure Supine, I might have actually been a lot less innocent. I would have been more easily swayed by peer pressure, such as drugs and alcohol, and sleeping with loose girls or women just for the experience, as most of the kids thought that was what made you a "man". The Control area is what allowed me to resist all of that, knowing (from what I was taught and what made sense), that it was wrong. There was a sense of guilt for going against the flow, and then sadness at the resulting rejection, but then I knew the fast life was ultimately destructive, and I did not want to be brought under anyone's control in such a decision.
Likewise, for my wife, the Sanguine is well known for its irresponsibility, compared with the strict Melancholy; but having a Melancholy Control really balances the Sanguine in the other areas.
Consistency between "Expressing" and "Wanting"
The Melancholy, Phlegmatic and Sanguine, can be thought of as "consistent" or congruent temperaments. They express what they actually want, and want what they actually express. The other temperaments, however, are indirect. The Choleric expresses himself much like a Sanguine, but responds like a Melancholy; cold and distant; only relating to people according to his own terms. The Supine expresses himself much like a Melancholy: shy and aloof; but actually has the same wants as a Sanguine. The Phlegmatic blends either express themselves as a Phlegmatic and respond as one of the other temperaments; or vice-versa.
Each of the corner temperaments has a driving need, which supplies their energy and regenerates them as well.
•For Melancholies it's fear (of the unknown, and of failure). This drives them to neither express themselves much to people, nor be very responsive to them. They are basically introspective loners, and often very intellectual and artsy types who produce great works that they conjure from the solitude of their active minds. They are just regenerated by solitude, in which to reflect.
•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.
•The 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.
•The Supine is motivated by the need for acceptance, which drives them to on one hand be shy and nervous towards people, but on the other hand, have a desire to serve people and be accepted. They are regenerated by feeling loved and accepted
•The Phlegmatic has no driving need, except to protect the low energy reserve resulting from the lack of a driving need. They basically live to get through the day, taking on only the responsibilities and associations necessary for that. Arno says "The only thing that will even begin to regenerate a Phlegmatic is sleep, and that is often ineffective".
Perhaps the driving needs might actually lie in the factors that make up the temperaments in the first place, with the temperaments being a combination of the needs of both scales.
Introversion itself seems to be energized by fear of rejection (or criticism and feelings of inadequacy), which is a common feature of the introverted temperaments. How a this leads a person to respond to people (wanting or not wanting to be approached by others) is determined by the driving need of the task/relationship scale.
Extroversion seems to be energized by a need for attention (or recognition of adequacy). What the person does with this as he approaches people (relate to or use them) again depends on task/relationship.
Relationship-oriented behavior is energized by the need for acceptance (or recognition of worth). In the area called Control, it is a need for dependency. These both in turn appear to be connected with Karen Horney's "Towards" coping strategy (i.e. “If I give in, I won’t get hurt”; See second page). How they try to gain this acceptance (make the first move towards others or wish others would make the first move) is determined by E/I.
Task-oriented behavior is energized by distrust of others (the way others do things, etc). This would correspond with Horney's "away". (“If I do not let anyone close to me, I won’t get hurt”. While this can also describe introversion [i.e. in expression], the difference is that it is in the responsive areas, rather than the expressive area. This is why, however, low R is considered "responding as an introvert"). What the person does with this distrust (fear or dominate others) is determined by E/I.
•So fear of rejection plus distrust of others equals the introverted-task oriented rejection of others first and fear of the unknown. (Melancholy)
•The fear of rejection plus the need for acceptance equals the introverted-relationship oriented shyness, and desire to serve others. (Supine)
•The need of attention plus the need of acceptance causes one to be extroverted and relationship oriented, and accept and charm everyone and be the life of the party (and still maintain a fear of rejection, but unlike the introverts, this is not the primary drive). (Sanguine)
•The need for attention plus the distrust of others causes one to be extroverted and task oriented, and be outgoing to only use others for his own achievements. (Choleric)
So we have two more "negative" traits, basically types of fear of others (which drive us inward), and two more "positive" needs, basically use or need of others (which drive us outward) which combine to form the temperaments. Inbetween them, are sort of "neutral" areas of low energy which produce "Phlegmatic" traits, such as sluggishness, indifference, and dry humor replacing the more energized emotions of fear and anger. The blends will be described in the manuals as having somewhat less energy than the pure temperaments Phlegmatic is blended with. You can see this slightly lighter "Phlegmatic Cross" in the diagram below.
So "self-image", and "others-image" are also involved.
Introverts, from the descriptions, tend to have low self-esteem. They doubt their worth, either as a person (I/A), or in their capabilities or adequacy (C). Hence, they are afraid to express, fearing their inadequacy will be revealed.
Extroverts tend to have a higher self-image. They have the confidence to charm or use people (I/A), or lead and control them (C), so they freely express to them with no problem. They believe they have the adequacy; they just want others to recognize it.
Task-oriented people will have a lower image of others. They do not trust them, or value them; either who they are (I/A), or what they do (C). So they will not want interaction from others.
Relationship-oriented people will value others, and hence want them for who they are, and to gain acceptance from them for their own worth (I/A), or will depend on them in some way in what they do (C).
Hence, the Melancholy tends not to like himself OR others, and thus rejects others figuring they reject him anyway; and likes solitude to immerse himself in his own world of thinking and tasks, or at least his own sphere of control (family, etc). The Choleric does like himself, and people are not liked as people, but as "objects", as Arno describes it. So he will only deal with them according to his own terms. The Sanguine likes himself and likes others, and hence is very involved with people for both their own and his own sake. Liking who people are does give him a bit of vulnerability that the Choleric does not have, so the Sanguine has a fear of rejection similar to the introverts. His self esteem can crash if rejected. In the area of Control, this corresponds to the infamous "swing", where he will suddenly drop all of his responsibilities and leadership, and basically become dependent and/or narcissistic. (The most commonly described feature of this Control). However, he will have more of a confidence to keep trying to win others acceptance and recognition. So he will bounce or "swing" back to his expressive, confident self rather quickly. The Supine is described as seeing worth in everyone else, but not himself. So he tries to serve others to gain acceptance. He has doubly the fear of others, being both introverted (fear of exposed inadequacy and hence, rejection or criticism), and needing people's acceptance (which makes one vulnerable to them) on top of it! The Phlegmatics, again, can just take it or leave it in all areas.
The familiar concept of "I'M OK; YOU'RE OK" (the expression being the example of the most "healthy" attitude) can thus be paired with the five temperaments:
Sanguine: "I'm OK; You're OK"
Melancholy: "I'm NOT OK; You're NOT OK"
Choleric: "I'm OK; You're NOT OK"
Supine: You're OK; I'm NOT OK
Phlegmatic: "I'm whatever; you're whatever"
On the second page, we will see other concepts with "three unhealthy/one healthy type"; which loosely correspond to the temperaments.
All of this would make fear, vs. need of attention, and distrust vs. need of acceptance the "root of personality". These often are described as the basis of much of human behavior. So it would make sense that they would be the real root of temperament. These could be further summed up as "[Self]-Confidence" and "[others] reliance". The person with self confidence in any of the three areas will believe in his worth and express to others to gain recognition of it. The person with less self-confidence will fear failure and rejection of some sort, and thus express less. The person who relies on others will stake his worth on others in some way. The person who does not rely on others will be independent, and basically see others as intruding on their space. The two drives shape the expressive and responsive behavior temperament is measured by, and with the three levels make six driving factors of human personality. Six is "the number of man" in Biblical numerology!
Going beneath even these fears; the real root of the factors is likely neurological, as stated above.
Another set of traits mentioned in the APS literature is the fear of punishment vs. promise of reward. The Melancholy is motivated by neither, the Phlegmatic is motivated by both, and the Choleric is motivated by reward (the recognition he wants), but not the threat of punishment. The Sanguine is also motivated by reward (the attention or recognition they want is what is mentioned), but not punishment (Temperament Theory manual, p.165) (the threat of future [divine] judgment is said to be too far removed from the present to be of any concern to them, for instance). The Supine also, is said to be motivated by fear of punishment, but not reward. (ibid, p183) (they have the most problems with guilt, which stems from both their introversion coupled with the need for acceptance). However, for both the Sanguine and Supine, in the list of basic Inclusion traits in the actual report (including my own), it says they respond to both reward and punishment. So I'm not sure what to make of that. I could look into my own self and ask whether I'm really motivated by reward as well, but then I'm part Choleric as well, so it would be hard to determine which temperament that is coming from. But taking the overall pattern, motivation by promise of reward seems to be tied to extroversion (need for attention), and fear of punishment is associated with relationship-orientation (need for acceptance).
Shared Needs: Three to two
A key need of each temperament is shared with two other temperaments, in which it is a byproduct of their reaction to their own driving need. One other temperament, plus Phlegmatic, will not have these tendencies; not having the drives that create them.
Fear of Rejection: While the Supine and Sanguine have fear of rejection; it is connected with their driving need for people, and differs from the Melancholy who starts from a drive of fear, which causes them to reject people first before the people can reject them. (Or With the Supine, the driving fear is tempered by the need for acceptance, where in the Melancholy, it isn't). The Supine and Melancholy respond to their fear by being withdrawn, while the Sanguine responds to it by the opposite of being outgoing and the center of attention, which is to "sell themselves" or prove to themselves that they are valuable and belong. The Choleric is very self-confident, and doesn't have these problems with fear. They approach a fear of being dominated by others by being dominating themselves.
Need for Recognition: The Sanguine and Choleric both have a need for attention and recognition, but this stems from their extroversion, and differs from the Supine who starts from the need of acceptance (which would include recognition, but of personal worth rather than the self-assured adequacy the extroverts possess). The Sanguine and Supine respond to this need by liking people, while the Choleric responds by using people for his goals. The Melancholy is the most independent, often suspecting people to not like them anyway, and so doesn't have as much of a problem with "needing" or wanting anything from them.
Need to Appear Competent/In Control: The Melancholy and Choleric have problems needing to appear successful or in control, but this stems from their task-orientation. This differs from the Sanguine who is people-oriented and starts from a drive to be the center of attention. The Sanguine and Choleric respond to this need by being outgoing, while the Melancholy responds by withdrawing into his own mind or sphere of control, from which he does not want to be disturbed. The Supine has a servant's heart, and wants recognition and acceptance, but is shy and thus has no apparent need to appear successful or in control. (He wants others to bear responsibility for things).
Problems with Anger: The Melancholy and Supine both are industrious and have problems harboring anger. This stems from their being very non-expressive of their anger to people, and using tasks as their primary means of expression; and differs from the Choleric, who starts from a drive of accomplishing things, and is thus the most frustrated and angry (which he is very expressive of). The Melancholy and Choleric's anger is tied to their low responsive score (i.e. "not liking" people) while the Supine's anger is from liking people, but not receiving acknowledgment and acceptance from them. The Sanguine is so people and fun-oriented, they do not hold anger for long (even though they may have violent outbursts at times), and not as easily frustrated or bogged down with tasks. They are (emotionally) the "survivors".
This last one would appear to correspond to Hans Eysenck's original "Neuroticism" factor (defined as "tendency to experience negative emotions easily", such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability; sometimes called "emotional instability"), which he paired with "extroversion" in defining the four temperaments.
While Neuroticism did in a way fill in for the "responsive" scale (in an inverse fashion), with the Phlegmatic again holding the fourth place, and sharing the low N with the Sanguine; the Supine's behavior patterns would be defined as "high" N, like the Melancholy and Choleric.
The "low" scores in E and/or R produce neurotic traits. The Sanguine is high in both scales, while the Phlegmatic, rather than Introverted and Relationship oriented, is moderate in both, and has the least energy, since the emotional energy is highest on the ends of the scales. That is why both Sanguine and Phlegmatic were "low N", and Melancholy and Choleric, which are low in one or both scales are high N. The fifth temperament, having the low E fear of rejection coupled with a high R need for acceptance is by definition, high N. In fact, Dr.Ryan had named the behavior pattern of the corresponding FIRO-B scores when received in all three areas as "The Full Blown Neurotic", and Arno himself states that Supines "seem to have more neurotic behavioral problems than any other temperament type" (Temperament Theory, p.168).
Arno defines neuroticism as "Behaving in the way that results in the exact opposite of what the individual wants". However, this will naturally lead to "experience of negative emotions". The Sanguine also has this sort of "Neurotic behavior" described, for when they behave badly for attention. However, since they are expressive, they more easily get the attention they want, and get over negative emotions quicker, and so don't have the ongoing problems with them that the Supine experiences, despite the common high R. Supines are definitely characterized by the emotions such as anxiety and vulnerability, and also suffer a lot of anger and depression as well.
Supines have perhaps the most frustration, since they expect people to "read their minds" and know they want interaction; which they often don't get because of their low expression. They also have a lot of fear, which, according to Arno, the Phlegmatic doesn't have. (Only in the area of codependency is fear mentioned as a problem for Phlegmatics). Like most other emotions, it requires too much energy. This further distinguishes it from the "introverted-relationship oriented" definition given in the four-type systems, including even LaHaye's Phlegmatic, which he describes as having the most problems with fear.
Fifth humour? Fifth Element?
While the old humors and elements theory (the latter connected to astrology, sometimes drawing fire to temperament theory) we know to have no meaning in modern temperament theory; it is interesting that the "fifth element" which would correspond to Supine; the proverbial "quintessence", was "æther" (which in modern knowledge can now be thought of as "the fabric of space"). That would match it as the unknown, elusive temperament! We can think also of it as the "quintessential" temperament! As for a fifth body fluid; I would compare Supine to white blood cells (leukocytes: Gk. leukos, "white"). They "serve" the body by cleaning out foreign objects from the blood. So then you would have two kinds of blood, and two kinds of bile. The bloods are the high responsives, and the bile are the low responsives. The high expressives would then be colorful, while the low expressives are black or white! (Phlegm in the middle is a dull inbetween color!) Just amazing how so many of these symmetries work out in this model!
Summary: The unifying principle
All of this shows that the factors of expressive and responsive behavior provide an underlying framework for understanding personality. It is the basis of communication. We express to others, and respond to (or want from) them. As we shall see in the next pages, the E/R matrix becomes a unifying principle that will allow us to make easier comparisons to several other temperament and personality type systems. This framework even helps us right now visually represent the temperaments.
Graphic Representations of the Temperaments
Four plain "smilies" were created by fellow user Niels of Wikipedia to correspond to carved masks representing the ancient "temperaments".
"Masks" and "smilies" representing temperaments. From left, Choleric, Melancholy, Phlegmatic, Sanguine.
LaHaye's temperament characters (in their happy poses).
Smilies reconfigured for Five Temperaments. Shy looking face transferred to new temperament Supine, from Phlegmatic, which is now the new "plain featured" face in the middle.
While these masks and faces were drawn to mimick the stereotypical "expressions" associated with each temperament (sad, angry, etc); unwittingly however, the combination of "withdrawn" (sad looking) or "outgoing" (angry looking) eyes and a frowning or smiling mouth turned out to correspond to the "expressive" and "responsive" behavior of the two-factor models, including five temperament theory! Eyes represent expressed behavior, and the mouth represents responsive behavior.
So the sad eyes plus a frowning mouth make a sad looking face for the Melancholy. The carved face looked uptight. LaHaye's "Martin Melancholy" character also looked like an uptight kind of person.
Angry eyes plus the frowning mouth makes an angry looking face for the Choleric. The Choleric mask looked more intensely angry. LaHaye's "Rocky Choleric" character also fits this disposition.
Then "angry" eyes plus the smiling mouth make a "mischievous" looking face, for the playful and sometimes badly-behaved-for-attention Sanguine. The carved face looked jolly and pepped up, as does LaHaye's "Sparky Sanguine".
However, the sad eyes plus the smiling mouth makes a "shy", "bashful" or "humble", and perhaps "eager" looking face. This does NOT match the Phlegmatic mask Niels paired it with (Which had a sort of twisted Rodney Dangerfield look to it; neither happy, sad, nor angry), and neither did it match LaHaye's "Phil Phlegmatic", who looked cool and emotionless. However, the smilie does fit perfectly the profile of the Supine, who is a shy but eager temperament. LaHaye had an anonymous character shyly holding a bouquet of roses on p.90 that he used to illustrate the virtue of "love" who matched this look the most, so I think of him as what would have been a Supine character if LaHaye had recognized one.
As for a real face, there are no ancient masks, of course, but the temperament is perfectly captured by Steve Carrel's "40 Year Old Virgin". The picture on the poster for this movie (which was displayed all over the place when the movie was out) is the definitive Supine face; shy but eager looking, exactly like Niels' "Phlegmatic" smilie. The concept behind the character is classic Supine as well: someone too shy and insecure to have ever gotten a woman all that time, but nevertheless is desperate to get one. A Sanguine or Choleric would never have that problem, as they are expressive, aggressive and charming, and thus usually able to score as teens. A Melancholy is just as shy and non-expressive as a Supine, but perhaps not as openly insecure, since they reject people first, rather than depending on them for acceptance. They often put on a tough exterior to protect themselves. This aloofness is ultimately more respected in the social world, and the Melancholy tries hard to look like they are in control and self-confident; while the Supine's eagerness without aggression or confidence is disrespected and looked down on as wimpy. The Phlegmatic also is "cool" and not as "nerdy" or "needy".
So for the Phlegmatic, I created an additional smilie to replace the "shy but eager" one. The new one simply has plain, straight eyes and mouth, creating, well, a neutral, indifferent look: just like "Phil Phlegmatic", and more closely matching the ancient mask.
The Phlegmatic blends can be represented by combining the Phlegmatic features with the other ones, as you can see with the smaller faces inbetween the larger ones.
I also came up with actual ASCII style "smilies" for each of the temperaments:
¦-( "Directive" Phlegmatics (Phlegmatic Melancholy& Phlegmatic Choleric together)
¬--( Phlegmatic Choleric
-¬-( Phlegmatic Melancholy
¦-) "Informative" Phlegmatics (Phlegmatic Supine & Phlegmatic Sanguine together)
¬--) Phlegmatic Sanguine
-¬-) Phlegmatic Supine
`´-| "Extroverted" Phlegmatics (Sanguine Phlegmatic and Choleric Phlegmatic together)
`´-] Sanguine Phlegmatic
`´-[ Choleric Phlegmatic
´`-| "Introverted" Phlegmatics (Melancholy Phlegmatic & Supine Phlegmatic together)
´`-[ Melancholy Phlegmatic
´`-] Supine Phlegmatic
|How to read faces:|
´` expresses as an introvert
`´ expresses as an extrovert
( responds as an introvert
) responds as an extrovert
¦ or ¬- or -¬ expresses as a Phlegmatic
| or [ or ] responds as a Phlegmatic
|How to type characters|
` Key to the left of “1”,
¦ (broken bar, for eyes) ALT/0166
| (solid bar, for mouth) on far right of second row of keyboard
The 125 Basic Temperament Combinations:
1. Melancholy-Melancholy-Melancholy (MMM) (Ryan: "The Rock")
2. Choleric-Choleric-Choleric (CCC) (Ryan: "The Hollow Man")
3. Sanguine-Sanguine-Sanguine (GGG)
4. Supine-Supine-Supine (SSS) (Ryan: "The Full Blown Neurotic" or "High Expectations")
5. Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic (PPP).
The I/C/A blends:
1. Sanguine-Choleric-Sanguine (GCG) (Ryan: “Ball of Fire”)(p)
2. Sanguine-Sanguine-Choleric (GGC)
3. Choleric-Sanguine-Sanguine (CGG) (p)
4. Sanguine-Melancholy-Sanguine (GMG) (Ryan “Let’s Have a Party”, “Flower Child” or "Party Time")
5. Sanguine-Sanguine-Melancholy (GGM) (t)
6. Melancholy-Sanguine-Sanguine (MGG) (a)
7. Sanguine-Phlegmatic-Sanguine (GPG)
8. Sanguine-Sanguine-Phlegmatic (GGP)
9. Phlegmatic-Sanguine-Sanguine (PGG) (p)
10. Choleric-Choleric-Sanguine (CCG) (p)
11. Choleric-Sanguine-Choleric (CGC)
12. Sanguine-Choleric-Choleric (GCC)
13. Choleric-Melancholy-Choleric (CMC)
14. Choleric-Choleric-Melancholy (CCM)
15. Melancholy-Choleric-Choleric (MCC)
16. Choleric-Phlegmatic-Choleric (CPC)
17. Choleric-Choleric-Phlegmatic (CCP)
18. Phlegmatic-Choleric-Choleric (PCC)
19. Melancholy-Melancholy-Sanguine (MMG) (a)
20. Melancholy-Sanguine-Melancholy (MGM)
21. Sanguine-Melancholy-Melancholy (GMM) (t)
22. Melancholy-Choleric-Melancholy (MCM) (Ryan: “the Dictator” or "Controller")
23. Melancholy-Melancholy-Choleric (MMC)
24. Choleric-Melancholy-Melancholy (CMM)
25. Melancholy-Phlegmatic-Melancholy (MPM)
26. Melancholy-Melancholy-Phlegmatic (MMP)
27. Phlegmatic-Melancholy-Melancholy (PMM)
28. Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic-Sanguine (PPG)
29. Phlegmatic-Sanguine-Phlegmatic (PGP)
30. Sanguine-Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic (GPP)
31. Phlegmatic-Choleric-Phlegmatic (PCP)
32. Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic-Choleric (PPC)
33. Choleric-Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic (CPP)
34. Phlegmatic-Melancholy-Phlegmatic (PMP)
35. Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic-Melancholy (PPM)
36. Melancholy-Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic (MPP)
37. Supine-Sanguine-Supine (SGS) (p)
38. Supine-Supine-Sanguine (SSG)
39. Sanguine-Supine-Supine (GSS)
40. Supine-Choleric-Supine (SCS) —ETB! ´`-) `´-( ´`-) (p)
41. Supine-Supine-Choleric (SSC)
42. Choleric-Supine-Supine (CSS) (c)
43. Supine-Melancholy-Supine (SMS)
44. Supine-Supine-Melancholy (SSM)
45. Melancholy-Supine-Supine (MMS)
46. Supine-Phlegmatic-Supine (SPS)
47. Supine-Supine-Phlegmatic (SSP)
48. Phlegmatic-Supine-Supine (PSS)
49. Sanguine-Supine-Sanguine (GSG)
50. Sanguine-Sanguine-Supine (GGS) (p)
51. Supine-Sanguine-Sanguine (SGS) (p)
52. Choleric-Supine-Choleric (CSC)
53. Choleric-Choleric-Supine (CCS) (p)(c)
54. Supine-Choleric-Choleric (SCC)
55. Melancholy-Supine-Melancholy (MSM) (Ryan: “Foot-Stomping Dependant”)
56. Melancholy-Melancholy-Supine (MMS)
57. Supine-Melancholy-Melancholy (SMM)
58. Phlegmatic-Supine-Phlegmatic (PSP)
59. Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic-Supine (PPS)
60. Supine-Phlegmatic-Phlegmatic (SPP)
61. Melancholy-Choleric-Sanguine (MCG) (a)(p)
62. Melancholy-Choleric-Phlegmatic (MCP)
63. Melancholy-Choleric-Supine (MCS) (p)
64. Melancholy-Phlegmatic-Choleric (MPC)
65. Melancholy-Phlegmatic-Sanguine (MPG) (a)
66. Melancholy-Phlegmatic-Supine (MPS)
67. Melancholy-Supine-Choleric (MSC)
68. Melancholy-Supine-Phlegmatic (MSP)
69. Melancholy-Supine-Sanguine (MSG) (a)
70. Melancholy-Sanguine-Choleric (MGC)
71. Melancholy-Sanguine-Phlegmatic (MGP)
72. Melancholy-Sanguine-Supine (MGS) (p)
73. Choleric-Melancholy-Phlegmatic (CMP)
74. Choleric-Melancholy-Sanguine (CMG)
75. Choleric-Melancholy-Supine (CMS) (c)
76. Choleric-Phlegmatic-Melancholy (CPM)
77. Choleric-Phlegmatic-Sanguine (CPG)
78. Choleric-Phlegmatic-Supine (CPS) (c)
79. Choleric-Supine-Melancholy (CSM)
80. Choleric-Supine-Phlegmatic (CSP)
81. Choleric-Supine-Sanguine (CSG)
82. Choleric-Sanguine-Melancholy (CGM)
83. Choleric-Sanguine-Phlegmatic (CGP)
84. Choleric-Sanguine-Supine (CSP) (p)(c)
85. Phlegmatic-Melancholy-Choleric (PMC)
86. Phlegmatic-Melancholy-Sanguine (PMG)
87. Phlegmatic-Melancholy-Supine (PMS)
88. Phlegmatic-Choleric-Melancholy (PCM)
89. Phlegmatic-Choleric-Sanguine (PCG)(p)
90. Phlegmatic-Choleric-Supine (PCS)(p)
91. Phlegmatic-Supine-Melancholy (PSM)
92. Phlegmatic-Supine-Choleric (PSC)
93. Phlegmatic-Supine-Sanguine (PSG)
94. Phlegmatic-Sanguine-Melancholy (PGM)
95. Phlegmatic-Sanguine-Choleric (PGC)
96. Phlegmatic-Sanguine-Supine (PGS) (p)
97. Sanguine-Melancholy-Choleric (GMC)
98. Sanguine-Melancholy-Phlegmatic (GMP)
99. Sanguine-Melancholy-Supine (GMS)
100. Sanguine-Choleric-Melancholy (GCM) (t)
101. Sanguine-Choleric-Phlegmatic (GCP)
102. Sanguine-Choleric-Supine (GCS) (p)
103. Sanguine-Phlegmatic-Melancholy (GPM) (t)
104. Sanguine-Phlegmatic-Choleric (GPC)
105. Sanguine-Phlegmatic-Supine (GPS)
106. Sanguine-Supine-Melancholy (GSM) (t)
107. Sanguine-Supine-Choleric (GSC)
108. Sanguine-Supine-Phlegmatic (GSP)
109. Supine-Melancholy-Choleric (SMC)
110. Supine-Melancholy-Phlegmatic (SMP)
111. Supine-Melancholy-Sanguine (SMG)
112. Supine-Phlegmatic-Melancholy (SPM)
113. Supine-Phlegmatic-Choleric (SPC)
114. Supine-Phlegmatic-Sanguine (SPG)
115. Supine-Choleric-Melancholy (SCM)
116. Supine-Choleric-Phlegmatic (SCP)
117. Supine-Choleric-Sanguine (SCG) (p)
118. Supine-Sanguine-Melancholy (SGM)
119. Supine-Sanguine-Phlegmatic (SGP)
120. Supine-Sanguine-Choleric (SGC)
Leo Ryan Clinical Interpretation of FIRO-B names for partial I/C/A blends
(a) “Affectionate Homebody”
(p) “The Patsy”
(c) “Have Your Cake and Eat it too”
(t) “Table Hopper”
(Ryan's FIRO-B score names are unofficial, for his clinical interpretation; as Schutz did not intend to encourage typology).
Five Temperaments and Ryan names on combined I/C/A grid
Arno Profile System info:
APS Website (Basic descriptions, but otherwise for licensed users)
National Christian Counselors Association (the licensing ministry of the Arno's)
Descriptions of each temperament variation in each of the the three areas
Soul Care Ministries (also offers the test).
In any case, it has to be ordered, as the questionnaire is not allowed to be given online, due to the licensing agreement with CPP, Inc, owners of FIRO-B, which this is derived from).
Free five temperaments quizzes!
Someone who liked my discussions on type boards of the theory decided to create a series of quizzes (separate, due to the limitations of the quiz site) to divide them into the three areas:
This of course is not intended to replace the full APS system, but it can give you a basic idea.
To Part 2 MBTI, type and cognitive processes
•Part 2 "Super Short version"
APS-MBTI Correlation (short version)
Evolving the Correlation (long version)