Comparisons with MBTI: "ERICA" versus "EISENFELT": Evolving the Correlation
•The Apparent Correspondence
•The temperament correspondences
•How the Factors Correspond
•How Sensing and Intuition correspond
•Comparison of Factors table (and descriptions of temperaments according to letter grouping)
•Comparison of Factors image
•NF/NT Choleric; Phlegmatic mixup: The unlikely "blending" results of Keirsey's correlation
•Image: Key to Galen and Five temperament correlation with Keirsey temperament and Interaction Styles
•The weak points in this Correspondence, and clues to its correctness
•Looking for Evidence in the MBTI-FIRO Statistical Correlations
•Other Possible Reasons For Discrepancies; Supine in Control, and ENFP type
•In passing: Two kinds of "Control"
•Entire rundown of how everything would fit together
•16 types—Blended [Galenic] temperament correlation image
•The Cognitive Functions, Satir Modes, Reactive Behaviors and ERICA
What about the Five Factor Model?
Summary of theory: the unifying principle of personality
Type Names table
Summary of ERICA/EISeNFelT correlation points
MBTI APPENDIX
Type as binary code
Objective vs Subjective
A rundown of the functions
Naming the preference blocks and type groups based on tandem functions
How "extraversion" and "introversion" compare in both systems
Other Versions of Eight Function Theory
•Back to Basics: A fresh look at Jung
The 28 possible tandem combinations
How the eight positions are generated from two by mirroring and shadowing
•More on the gender of the archetypes
Standalone meanings of various letters and letter combinations
•How each MBTI factor directly changes the FIRO/APS factors
•Cognitive Opposites and how switching letters affects functions
Cognitive PReferences of similar temperament blends
Intertype Dynamics
Original Jungian three letter concept
More ERICA/EISENFELT factor comparisons
INTP vs ENTP and the Supine-Choleric-Supine. What exactly is my type
To SHORTER Essay on correlation
"for dummies" part 2 discussing MBTI from scratch
To "Super Short" version of essays (15KB)
Again, this is my own theory as to how the systems fit together, and nothing is set in stone. I have already come out as a few different types in different 16 types based tests, so right there, how do you absolutely compare it with APS, if 16types tests don't always match up even with each other? (And MBTI is said to be only 70% accurate). So this is basically a conceptual mapping, not a scientifically "proven" correlation. (the scientific method usually involves statistics, but those are still imperfect and subject to the factors I mentioned. You can see statistical correlation between the MBTI functions and the expanded FIRO Element B at http://www.hpsys.com/Articles/Why_FIRO_ElementB.htm, and also with the regular FIRO-B discussed below. You can also see the comparisons of both systems to a 3D set of scales at http://www.symlog.com/menu-01a.asp). So please don't react that it is not verified or taught by the theorists involved, as if I am claiming they support this. It's just a basic, admittedly loose, rough idea of what one type in one system corresponds to in another system. It is to create interest in the idea, and throw out some ideas, (and the notion of a "Grand Unified Theory of Personality") that maybe someday someone might test empirically.
After my wife had tested several of our friends, some of them came back to us offering other tests they had taken. The first was the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II available at www.advisorteam.com. In the beginning, we both had studied LaHaye's Why You Act the Way You Do, to get an understanding of temperament theory after we took the APS test, but before she got her NCCA license and the APS manuals and Missing Link book arrived. (I want to eventually get the license to administer the tests also, but right now it's a matter of saving the money for me to take the required Creation Therapy course. My wife took it because she is the one entering the Christian Counseling profession as her vocation). So first herself, then I, began studying the APS and became familiar with temperament theory. But upon trying to examine this other test, the KTS knocked me for a loop. It had four temperaments and scales that at the first glance seemed completely unrelated to the ancient four temperaments. At first, I notice a temperament called "the Artisan", and right away, "Oh, of course, that must be the Melancholy; they're the most artistic". But upon reading more, it sounds more like a Sanguine. What's worse, is that my wife and I scored the same thing: as an "ENFJ" also called "Teacher-Idealist". It sounded somewhat like her, but was way off for me; like at the most, what I wished I could be; someone who had a social command over people, rather than no social command, (yet a desire for control)! The Keirsey temperaments and their four variants used the four MBTI scales and letter codes, which after Introversion and Extraversion (I/E), I had no understanding of. Over the next couple of years, I research it, slowly figure out the rather convoluted way of reading the type codes. For example; it is J and P (the last letters) that tell you which function is "extraverted", not E and I (the first letters), which simply tell you which function is dominant, by its being the introverted or extraverted one as determined by J and P, which point to the middle two letters (the actual functions).
Noted also, is that it was the functions that "introverted" or "extraverted" referred to, and all types were both "introverted" and "extraverted" in different functions, and each of Keirsey's temperaments were equally divided between "E" and "I" types. How could this be? If, as I found, the Artisan was in fact the Sanguine, then since Sanguine is extraverted, how could half of its types be introverted? The Melancholic was said to be the Guardian, but Melancholy is introvetrted, yet two of the Guardian types were extraverted!
I also joined a discussion group on KTS, where alot of things were explained. I find, much to my surprise, that KTS and MBTI are quite separate, as David Keirsey did not even recognize the Jungian Functions MBTI was based on, and had simply mapped his temperaments to the MBTI's 16 types (similar to the way APS mapped the Galenic temperaments to the FIRO-B) to benefit from its popularity. However, a lot of [non-Keirseyan] MBTI users have incorporated these "temperament" groupings into the types. Christian writer Kathy Callahan-Howell, ("Mary Heart, Martha Brain") speaks of SP/SJ/NT/NF as "meditation temperaments" in the MBTI, and Team Technology.uk uses them as "classic temperaments" in its 16 types profiles. (Another person, Linda Berens, however purposedly recombines Keirseyan temperament theory with the Jungian functions, as well as deriving an additional model from the types, which will be discussed below).
I then devised acronyms for both systems: The FIRO/APS is "ERICA": Expressive+Responsive×Inclusion/Control/Affection. (It would also include any other system using this scale. Another one is the Worley ID PRofile, which is an identical system, but using its own original 60 question test instead of FIRO-B and APS's 54 questions; and renaming the scales, need areas, and fifth temperament -which reverts back to "Introverted Sanguine").
The 16 types models (MBTI, KTS, Berens, Socionics, etc.) though different, can be categorized by the letter codes they still use; as "EISENFELT": Extroversion/Introversion/Sensing/iNtuition/Feeling/Thinking. I also tried three other "EISeNFelT" tests, and come out as more likely ISFJ (Team Technology), INFJ (Socionics) or plain "NT" (Bestfittype/Careerchoice).
To make a long story short, I find that Keirsey's temperaments, while ultimately derived from the same Galenic ones we use in fact, really stemmed from a different strain of temperament theory (Explained also in the Wiki article on the Two factor models). While temperament had initially been observed according to dimensions similar to ours (response time "delay" being "expressive", and "sustain" shaping "responsive/wanted" behavior); beginning at least with Immanuel Kant, around 1800, temperament also began to be measured in terms of perceptive type scales. He measured them according to high or low recognition of beauty or of the sublime. This paired the Sanguine with the Melancholy as having a high recognition of Beauty, and the Phlegmatic and Choleric as having a low recognition of Beauty. The Melancholy and Choleric were high in recognition of the Sublime, and the Phlegmatic and Sanguine were low in that scale. This was sort of an inverse of our "low/high responsive behavior" (task/people orientation); however, the Beauty scale completely twisted what would have been the expression scale, where it's the Melancholy and Phlegmatic who share the low score, and the Sanguine and Choleric who share the high score. This new scale made Phlegmatic the opposite of Melancholy (instead of Choleric), and Sanguine the opposite of Choleric, instead of Melancholy. It gave what were previously seen as the opposite temperaments, a factor in common.
Apparently picking up on this, was Eric Adickes (1905) and Ernst Kretschmer (post-WWI), who came up with totally new names for the scales and temperaments. Adickes had "heteronomous" types Innovatives and Traditionalists, and the "autonomous" were Agnostics and Dogmatics. Kretschmer had the scales of Cyclothymic—gay vs. sad and Schizothymic—sensitive vs. cold, yielding Anesthetic, Hypomanic, Depressive, and Hyperesthetic.
You also had Eduard Spränger (1914), whose four types were Theoretics, Aesthetics, Religious and Economical. Some mistakenly add two more, "Social" and "Political", but these were actually the categories the other four were divided into, similar to Adickes' and Kretschmer's systems. Theoretics and Aesthetics were "social", and Religious and Economical were "political".
It was these four type models that David Keirsey picked up and at first named according to a "Greek god" typology created by pairing together the philosophical "Apollonian and Dionysian" concept (held by Nietzsche and others) with Carl Spitteler's Prometheus and Epimetheus epic (1881), rather than using purely the Galenic concept.
He later renamed them "Idealist", "Artisan" "Rational" and "Guardian", (after Plato's "four types of men") and mapped them, respectively, to the NF, SP, NT and SJ groupings of the MBTI types, said to share traits that matched his temperaments.
By this time, the Galenic association was basically buried, and attempts to match them would become very conflicting. Keirsey himself correlates Artisan=Sanguine, Guardian=Melancholic, Idealist=Choleric, and Rational=Phlegmatic. However, other observers correlate them differently. The Guardians are sometimes linked to the Phlegmatic, with the Melancholic being the Idealist. (Xandria Williams' Love, Health and Happiness: Understanding yourself and your relationships through THE FOUR TEMPERAMENTS and Dave Kelly's Ptypes.com appear to be the source of this, and http://www.fisheaters.com/fourtemperaments.html is also an examples of this). Another variation I hear sometimes has Guardians as Phlegmatic and Rationals as Melancholic! (http://www.friesian.com/jung.htm, http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1342452)
The first thing I noted on the more popular Keirsey version was the "Feeling" Idealist being Choleric, and the "Thinking" Rational being Phlegmatic! "Feeling" is anything but a Choleric trait, let alone a defining factor! (Even though "feeling" is not necessarily in a literal sense, as it is used when describing the Choleric's lack thereof in APS literature, it is still related, and F types; NF's in particular, generally have traits such as "empathy" which Cholerics are very low on). In fact, I began to see that F and T sounded a lot like our old "Responsiveness" scale of people versus task orientation, which I was looking for in the 16 types model. I looked into this, but still couldn't make anything of it yet. Where would the other two scales that define the types fit? One of them, J and P also sounded kind of like Responsiveness as well. It has been compared, respectively, to Felix and Oscar. One very serious and orderly, and the other sloppy and laid back. What did this mean?
After discussion of this, it was suggested that Keirsey defined the NT's "calm and coolness" or "coldness" as "Phlegmatic", and the NF's "exciteability" as "Choleric". (NF's "become Choleric" under stress, and are "more likely to be 'hot-headed activists'"; one said. Keirsey would eventually suggest the anger was only a negative, pathological aspect of the personality). Then, a quote was given, of Keirsey's first book Please Understand Me (Prometheus Books, 1984), where quoting the likes of Freud, Maslow and Adler's writings on the temperaments, he somehow comes to define Phlegmatic as "look[ing] upon themselves with pride as their powers increase", and Choleric as "concerned with making the Self real" (i.e "self-actualization"). While the latter could be true, the first one definitely sounds more like a Choleric drive! The Phlegmatic, as we know it, has no desire for power! This shows that clearly, something is quite amiss in these correlations.
We must keep in mind that we have by now strayed far from the original Galenic concept, and the initial dimensions of delay and sustain. Keirsey inadvertently acknowledged this, in distancing himself from the Galenic concept, which he saw as "misleading"; (as well as moving away from the 16types profiles in PUM 1 in favor of a more exclusive focus on his own temperaments, in PUM II). So to many Keirsey fans, all of this inconsistency in the correlations does not mean much.
It was also at the same time, that I was introduced to the Interaction Styles of former Keirsey student Linda V. Berens. These sounded more like the familiar temperaments. Keirsey's temperaments were based on the Sensing and iNtuition scale inherited from MBTI (now changed to "Concrete" or "Observant" vs. "Abstract" or "Introspective"), plus a new scale called "Cooperative" vs. "Pragmatic" (or "Utilitarian"), which maps to a mixture of the J/P and T/F scales. The S/N dichotomy corresponded with Adickes' and Kretschmer's divisions, while Cooperative/Pragmatic corresponded with Spranger's dichotomy.
These at first sounded to me like what we call "learned behavior" (as opposed to inborn temperament), but I couldn't dismiss it that fast.
What Berens did, was, in addition to pairing S/N with C/U, she also paired E/I (Called "initiating/responding") with another new scale, Directing and Informing, also loosely associated with J/P and T/F. Now, THIS sounded like our "Responsive behavior". Matched with E and I, four new groupings were carved out from the 16 types, each sharing one type each with one of Keirsey's temperaments (which she renamed "Improviser" (SP) "Catalyst" (NF) "Stabilizer" (SJ) and "Theorist" (NT)).
Berens herself stated "Directing communications seem to have a task focus and Informing communications have a people focus. MBTI practitioners have long related task focus to a preference for Thinking and people focus to a preference for Feeling". "Descriptors of 'responsive' seem to go with the Informing style of communication and descriptors of 'less responsive' seem to go with the Directing style of communication." (Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles Telos Publications, 2001, emphasis added).
The "D/Inf" scale was originally created by Keirsey along with his C/U. Introduced in Portraits of Temperament (1987), they were defined as defining the roles we have with others (p.13-4). A person "directing" someone tends to take on a more authoritative role, placing them in a submissive role. If one is "informing", he is basically waiting for the other person to propose the role he is to play, and his "information" is a sort of "assent" to it.
The way he factored them, the temperaments (which are seen as "indivisible") would map to a matrix that starts with S and N, which are then divided by C and U (creating the four), and then factor in D/Inf (creating eight "role variants" or "intelligence types"), and finally by adding E/I (the "least important" factor), you get the 16 types. (This has unofficially been compared to the "rings of a tree", based on a description by David W. Keirsey's son David M. Keirsey at http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/difference.html, which then spread to the Wikipedia article on KTS). So while the Interaction Styles were implicit in Keirsey's system, it was Berens who brought them out by factoring them separately.
Directives are the more "serious" type, defined by Keirsey as "those who communicate primarily by directing others", and Informatives are defined as "those who communicate primarily by informing others". The initiating/directing Berens calls In Charge, and behaves like a Choleric, as the name itself even implies. The responding/directing is called Chart the Course and corresponds to the Melancholy, who is very analytical and needs order and familiarity. The initiating/informing is called Get Things Going and fits the description of the Sanguine, who is upbeat, enthusiastic and focused on interaction. The responding/informing; Behind the Scenes is a calm peacemaker who sees value in many contributions and consult outside inputs to make an informed decision and is linked to the Phlegmatic. (And also sounds in some respects like our "Supine", who again, we have discovered is the true "introverted-informing" type).
This led to a kind of awkward mapping to the 16 types. While Keirsey's temperaments neatly fit into two-letter code groups, the Interaction Styles had to be spelled out with at least three letters, which actually vary according to S and N. That is because the factor of D/Inf. does not perfectly match any of the MBTI scales, but is rather a combination of T/F and J/P. All TJ's are directing, and all FP's are informing, but not all T's or J's by themselves are directing, and not all F's or P's by themselves are informing. This is because there are also TP's and FJ's, which will go either way depending on S and N. Thinking or “Toughmindedness” as well as Judging or "Scheduling" as Keirsey calls it, are very compatible with "Directing". Likewise, Feeling or “Friendliness” as well as Perceiving or "Probing" (Keirsey) are compatible with Informing. "TJ" in the Jungian-Myersian system represents "extraverted Thinking", meaning the people of these types use critical logic or objective criteria in dealing with the outer world of people, words and actions (resulting in their characteristic "directive" behavior); while FP is "Introverted Feeling" (meaning they use values or subjective criteria in dealing with the inner world of thoughts and emotions, in which they tend to do what they would want to be done to them). So each of the four types that make up each directing style have a T and/or J, and the informatives have an F and/or P. Since there are only two TJ or FP combinations per E and I, each style also contains one TP and one FJ type. The directives tie TP with S and FJ with N; and the informatives tie TP with N, and FJ with S. So Directives can also be categorized as containing all NJ's (Introverted iNtuition) and ST's (Sensing and Thinking together as the primary and auxiliary functions). Informatives also contain all NP's (extraverted iNtuition) and SF's (Sensing and Feeling together as the "preferred" functions). In fact, NP, NJ, SF, ST can be seen as "mirror temperaments", (Keirsey's "Mirror Temperaments" and the MBTI: A New Bridge between Type and Temperament", by Roger E. Bissell, APT Conf. 1999), though this, like the Keirsey temperaments, ignores the E/I dimension.
I also began seeing how common the interaction style model really was. The next instrument another friend introduced us to around the time was DISC. I immediately recognized its parallel with our E/R matrix, and hence Berens' E/I/D/Inf., and the four styles, which were in fact compared with the four ancient temperaments; and from there, began looking at many other models, (Social Styles, Personality Styles, etc) and seeing the correspondence. Berens herself compares the Interaction Styles to Social Styles and others.
Interestingly enough, Keirsey would eventually divide his eight intelligence types to yield the same four groupings, which he calls "four differing roles that people play in face-to-face interaction with one another" in his new book Brains and Careers (2008). (http://www.keirsey.com/brains.aspx)
Initiators: ENTJ, ESTJ, ESTP, ENFJ (Extraverted and Directive)
Coworkers: ENTP, ESFJ, ESFP, ENFP (Extraverted and Informative)
Contenders: INTJ, ISTJ, ISTP, INFJ (Introverted and Directive)
Responders: INTP, ISFJ, ISFP, INFP (Introverted and Informative)
So all of that now helped me get what I saw as the "true" four temperament patterns onto the map. It also confirmed the "E/R"-like factors and resulting "styles" as more "universal" in personality theory. But what about these 16 S/N and C/U variants of them? It all kept raising the question, of how these other four groups and these two odd factors they were based on really fit in. What exactly were Keirsey's temperaments, which his advocates said were the "real" ones; the "root" of personality; the "why" of behavior, while the Interaction Styles were only the surface "how"? It looked like there were still these two totally incompatible temperament systems, somehow cross-mapped to the same set of 16 types; with Keirsey's apparently being more popular (because of its association with MBTI) than the Galenic-based temperaments, kept alive today largely by LaHaye and to a lesser extent, Arno and some others, and rehashed as Berens' Interaction Styles and others. I also wondered how exactly S and N, which were otherwise uninvolved in the Interaction Styles, determined the directiveness and informativeness of the TP and FJ types. That too tied into how a perceptive scale and the temperaments based on it fit in with all of this.
The best leads I had for a while were the MBTI-FIRO statistical correlations done by Henry L. Thompson, Schnell & Hammer, and others (discussed more below). But this did not show, directly how it actually mapped out to the different type comparisons. S/N generally had higher correlations than J/P for scales like eI. Did this mean, for example, that Sensors were high eI and iNtuiters low eI? Or was it wI, or eA or wA, since they all had high correlation? J and P were clearly significant factors in the Directing/Informing dimension of the Interaction Styles, which would seem to correspond to high and low w (responsiveness) of Inclusion, at least. S and N were the least significant factors; only coming into play for the TP and FJ blends. How could this be? The Interaction Styles have what is known as "S/N Blindness". (This page: http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page1b.html describes the Enneagram types as "S/N Blind" as well). The influence of S/N in the TP and FJ types comes purely from the Keirsey temperaments.
It is pointed out that J and P are really only telling you the person's preference of functions (used in dealing with the outer world). Yet an "MBTI Step III" being developed will apparently go deeper into the J/P factors, in which stronger correlations will come up.
So this "scientific correlation" was not the conceptual mapping I was looking for. It does not really give you any idea of which type in one system corresponds to which type in the other. Thus it continued to make it look like they are completely unrelated, conceptually.
But it turns out they may not be that incompatible after all. In researching all of this stuff over the course of more than a year; I came across Lifexplore's detailed definitions of the 16 types (which include excerpts of both Hirsch & Kummerow (Introduction to Type in Organizations), and Keirsey from the first PUM), at http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/mbtypes.htm. The descriptions were the best I could find anywhere. Just like APS focuses equally on temperament strengths and weaknesses, and Enneagram focuses more on the weaknesses, the KTS, MBTI and other "16types" profiles generally focus on the strengths. This is part of what made it very hard to compare. (I think I can remember someone telling me the 16types model fans and theorists do not even like to think in terms like "strengths" and "weaknesses", because it sounds so potentially negative. However, some replace the concept of "weakness" with a focus on the "shadow" which consists of the final four functions and their archetypes). However, Hirsch and Kummerow's descriptions, and even PUM I (which Keirsey has kind of moved away from, after writing PUM II in 1987) gave a more well-rounded glimpse into the traits of each type, (including what we would call "weaknesses") and I clearly saw some familiar descriptions emerging along definite lines. For one thing; I began realizing that one way to arrive at 16 types, is to take four types, and blend them together. This yields 12 blends, which, added to the original four "pure" types, add up to 16! This is what LaHaye had, and there are even versions of this for the Merrill/Bolton Social Styles and Alessandra Personality Styles. You can see this, mapped to the MBTI even, at "Linking Interaction Styles to Other Models" by Linda V. Berens ; image by itself at http://www.16types.com/images/app/products/learning/istyles_other.gif. Notice, that "Chart the Course" is correlated with Bolton&Bolton "Analytical", Allesandra "Thinker", (and also DiSC "C"); Behind the Scenes is B&B "Amiable", Aless. "Relater" (and DiSC "S"); Get Things Going is B&B "Expressive", Aless. "Socializer" (and DiSC "I"); and In Charge is B&B "Driver", Aless. "Director" (and DiSC "D"). But at the same time, look at the "Keirseyan temperament" groupings, and you will see those same four types used as modifiers of the Social/Interaction/Personality style! INTJ is an Analytical Analytical, and a Thinking Thinker, while ENTJ is an "Analytical Driver" and a "Thinking Director". While the Interaction/Social/Personality styles correlations are the same as mine, the "temperament" correlation used in this case would be SP="Driving"/"Directing", NF="Expressive"/Socializing"; SJ="Amiable"/"Relating" and NT="Analytical"/"Thinker". These I do not agree with, but they show how it is recognized that both Keirseyan temperament and Interaction Style can correspond to the same "styles", which are blended together in the 16 types. Again, notice there is a "pure" type, such as "Analytical Analytical" or "Driver Driver", and then "blended" types, such as "Analytical Driver" or "Driver Analytical". The four "pure" types plus 12 two-way "blends" fit right into the MBTI 16 types!
So it seemed the Keirsey Temperaments and the Interaction Styles both corresponded to the ancient temperaments in their own peculiar ways! Remember that Keirsey did once, after all, correlate his temperaments to Galen's, even if he did later move away from that thought. The Team Technology site (www.teamtechnology.uk) in its profiles of each type even adds the "classic temperament", consisting of both the "old Keirsey" (PUM1—Greek gods) names, as well as the Galenic names! Even the Yahoo Group I discussed this stuff on acknowleged this, in an "information" file post that stated:
Important note: There are two "four-temperament" theories around, so try not to get confused. Here we discuss Keirseyan temperament theory (KTT), where some of the names for the four temperaments are: (1) SP/Artisan/Improviser, (2) SJ/Guardian/Stabilizer, (3) NF/Idealist/ Catalyst, and (4) NT/Rational/Theorist. The other "temperament" theory, uses the names of the ancient "four humors": Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholic, and Phlegmatic. The two theories do NOT correspond to each other. It may be that the modern version of "four humors" theory actually corresponds to Dr. Berens' interaction-styles model: Sanguine = Get Things Going; Choleric = In Charge; Melancholic = Chart the Course; Phlegmatic = Behind the Scenes. (However, Keirsey matches the old names up with his four temperaments as follows: NT = phlegmatic, SP = sanguine, SJ = melancholic, NF = choleric.)
There we see that while it is claimed they do not correspond, that both have in fact been compared to the same ancient four temperaments. It really helped when I finally recognized these two "strains" of temperament theory, and traced them and their respective scales to their origins. Remember, one stems from the ancient factors of the delay and sustain of a person's responses to other people, and the other is ultimately derived from Kant's scales of perception (Beauty and the Sublime), yet both systems originally claiming to measure the same four temperaments, which have been renamed in these modern instruments.
So looking at the two temperaments whose correlations are not disputed, if, (as we see it is acknowledged) Get Things Going (ESF) is a kind of Sanguine, and Artisan/Improviser (SP) is also a kind of Sanguine; and Chart the Course (IST) is a type of Melancholic, and Guardian/Stabilizer (SJ) is also a type of Melancholic, then putting them together, ESFP (ESF+SP) is a "Sanguine-Sanguine", and ESFJ (ESF+SJ) is a "Sanguine-Melancholic"! ISTJ (IST+SJ) is a "Melancholic-Melancholic", and ISTP (IST+SP) is a "Melancholic-Sanguine"! If "In Charge" (EST) corresponds to "Choleric", then ESTP is "Choleric-Sanguine", and ESTJ is "Choleric-Melancholic". Here we see what looks like LaHaye's temperament combinations, but without the "percentage" basis! (And looking at LaHaye's blends, they do behave very similar to the corresponding types that will be indentified: The MelChlor's intensified anger and being hard to please, for instance, or the ChlorMel's industriousness, capability, making mincemeat of you if you don't get your facts straight; the MelSan's artisticness, the SanMel's emotionalism, the PhlegChlor's detachment, etc.)
So if these were actually blends of the temperaments, what criteria were they drawn along? In other words, in what way exactly is the ESFJ "Sanguine", and in what way is it also "Melancholic"? And once again, where did the S/N and C/U factors fit in? LaHaye's blends were based on the use of percentages to determine "primary" and "secondary" temperaments, and we used three need areas, of Inclusion, Control and Affection. Of course, we also had a fifth temperament which none of the other systems had, but it was obvious to me by that time that it was sort of eclipsed by the fourth type corresponding to "phlegmatic", such as "Behind the Scenes". So where that fit in was no problem at that point. The pressing problem was how could the three matrices with two factors each on one side, and the four factors in one or two intertwined matrices on the other side fit together? And key to this is how did a factor of perception blend with factors of interaction?
The Apparent Correspondence (Drumroll...!!!)
It was the Lifexplore site that gave me the clearest model of how they fit. It basically seems that while the Interaction Styles match our "Inclusion" temperaments, the Keirsey temperaments correspond to our Control temperaments! Affection, as a separate "need area" appears to be either omitted, or blended in with Inclusion, as the profiles' "Loving" behavior descriptions (which would cover "Affection" traits) seemed to pretty much match the Interaction Style. However, from MBTI-FIRO correlations, it would be evident that a person's Affection scores will affect the overall MBTI type (and its related functions), and possibly throw some of the following Inclusion/Control correlations off. This will become evident as we go on.
The ultimate proof of this, before we even get to the temperament behavior comparisons, is that Berens refers to the Keirseyan temperaments as “conative”, and this fits with the area of Control: leadership and responsibilities. The definition of "conation" is "It refers to the ability to act on what is known. From the Latin verb "conari" which means to attempt or to strive. The power or act that directs or impels to effort of any kind, whether muscular or psychical." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conation) Keirsey himself labeled the C/U factor as action (while S/N was "communication"). I think I also remember seeing them somewhere described in terms of "ambition", so I think of them as "Ambition Styles" to match the social-based "Interaction Styles", which Berens categorizes as "affective", in addition to the "cognitive"; all three areas combined in her "Multiple Models" theory. Then, there are Kathy Kolbe's "Conative Styles": Quick Start, Fact Finder, Implementor and Follow Thru (Oprah, with Martha Beck "How To Be Wildly Successful", O Magazine, 1-06; http://www.kolbe.com/the_kolbe_concept/action_modes.cfm), which are very similar, and have "concrete"ness as a factor. Even the claim that the conative temperaments are "the root" or "the why" supports this "Control" connection. Recall from the first page, that Ryan said that Control was higher in the order of importance than Inclusion. Berens describes the Interaction Styles, being the Affective "how we do things" as "Kinds of motoric predispositions to react to stimuli in certain ways. Patterns characterized by a drive toward an aim, with an underlying core belief. The styles show up as observable energy patterns as we interact with others." Then, the conative "why we act the way we do" is "Core psychological needs and value sets, with accompanying talents that help meet those needs and values. These form the basis for our will or deep motivations". ("Into the Next Century—Temperament Evolution by Linda V. Berens" http://www.4temperaments.com/temperamentevolution.html). Of significant note is the fact that Dr. Arno links Control with "the Will", as well, while Inclusion is "the Intellect" (which would include "beliefs"; and Affection is the emotions)! As conjectural or even force-fit as all of this might seem at times; I think it is clear that I am on to something!
The temperament correspondences:
The profiles from Lifeexplore convinced me that NT is Choleric in Control. If it seems "cool and dispassionate" like a Phlegmatic, then that is the Choleric's lack of feeling, not the Phlegmatic's low energy. If he becomes that way under stress, then that is the Choleric burning itself out, precisely as Arno describes!
We can see this correlation clearly in the INTJ profile, which reads "The emotions of an INTJ are hard to read, and neither male nor female INTJ is apt to express emotional reactions. At times, both will seem cold, reserved, and unresponsive, while in fact INTJs are almost hypersensitive to signals of rejection from those for whom they care."
I could see that interpreted as "cool" in a "phlegmatic" sense, but then look at the rest of it: "Because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they do themselves, INTJs often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy". Now this is definitely not Phlegmatic! That "coolness" and "dispassion" is for more Melancholy and even Choleric reasons. In other words, if you come to them with your problems, don't expect any "mushy" emotions, such as sympathy from them. Their Inclusion tendency is non-expressive, while their Control will tend to insensitivity. (The INTP will have the same dynamic). That seems to be what it means when "coolness" or "lack of emotion" is spoken of there. Not lack of just any emotion, like a phlegmatic, who lacks the energy for it. Also, fear of rejection is a major Melancholy trait, and they try not to show it. And most importantly, look how they drive themselves and others. This person has a lot of energy. But as directive as they are, if you don't do what they want, then you can definitely expect some "emotion" and "passion" then, alright! (of a certain kind: that is, "anger"). Melancholy in Inclusion/Choleric in Control is described as being the most angry temperament, and the most (potentially) abusive in bad relationships, and that would certainly fit this type, even though that much is not delved into in the 16 types profiles. This would be from the Melancholy Inclusion's low expression which leads both to increased sensitivity to rejection and also causes building up of anger, and then exploding, which also leads to vengeance; coupled with the Choleric Control's tendency to be controlling (and readily cross boundaries) and thus go further in the (built up) reactive words and actions. A pure Choleric would be constantly venting his/her anger, and would less likely let it build up to that level. A pure Melancholy would build up anger, but would be less likely to take it as far. Ryan even describes this combination in FIRO ("The Dictator") as "cold and overbearing", matching both of INTJ descriptions regarding the "coolness" and "driving others".
Before learning to recognize the Choleric traits in this type; I had thought that this might be the pure Melancholy. The ISTJ looked very Melancholy as well, but I did not yet recognize the difference, and how exactly the S/N switch would differentiate the E/R behavior. According to the letter codes, INTJ is the diametric opposite of the pure Sanguine ESFP. Dr. Henry Thompson uses them as examples of opposite types in his article "Why FIRO Element B" (http://www.hpsys.com/articles/why_firo_elementb.htm) where he compared the updated FIRO with MBTI, and compares the INTJ and ESFP in reacting to a fear of being insignificant that developed from being ignored as a child. "This same interpersonal fear might play out behaviorally in the INTJ in the form of 'I will not give you a chance to exclude me. I will exclude you first.' This person then becomes withdrawn and limits interpersonal interaction. The same fear may play out in the ESFP as 'I will not give you a chance to exclude me. I will be so inclusive of you that you can’t exclude me.' This person becomes very outgoing, talkative and invites him/herself readily into your activities." Of course, this reflects FIRO's belief that behaviors such as being withdrawn or outgoing are learned. The way each person reacts to the same experience is tied to the MBTI type, as if an acknowledgment that only MBTI of the two deals with inborn traits. But as we are seeing, the MBTI and FIRO are pretty much measuring the same behavioral scales. Anyway, the behaviors being discussed here reflect more the Inclusion or social tendencies. So in that case, the INTJ's Melancholy Inclusion (fear of rejection) is what is seen. But it is the ISTJ that has the Melancholy Control's fear of the unknown, and the INTJ apparently does not. In fact, he does appear as determined as a Choleric in Control not to let anyone in to hurt him again: "I will not let...", rather than "I am afraid you will exclude me so I will not give you the chance to".
Now, this site: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-10232002-104908/unrestricted/etd.pdf mentions that INTJ's "have quick wit, dry humor and deadpan delivery; may produce bizarre responses and comebacks; it may be difficult to know when they are being humorous". Now this sounds like the traditional definition of the Phlegmatic (especially with the frequent mention of "dry humor" in the APS literature). But again, in the Phlegmatic, it is from the lack of energy necessary for other reactions. It is basically their substitute for anger, used to show displeasure. Yet this INTJ type, again is described as having a lot of energy. So again, different types or temperaments can display similar reactions for different reasons. This "Phlegmatic-like" behavior in this type again seems to be from a mixture of a less-expressive social style with a critical social and "Control" style. (The dry humor does not seem to be mentioned in any of the other NT descriptions on this site, suggesting this is not a common NT trait, but rather unique to the INTJ).
The INTP would be a Phlegmatic in Inclusion/Choleric in Control. The type's familiar emotional "detachment" would fit this combination. It would also include the Supine in Inclusion, and thus place me in this type, and this shall be examined further on the next part of this series.
The ENTP sounds like what would simply be a more "extraverted" version of myself. They are mentioned as being "nonconformists" and "challenging" authority (parents, teachers, etc) alot, and more openly, while the INTP is "impatient" with bureaucracy, rigid hierarchies, etc. and "rebels" against societal expectations, but not challenging them as openly. This "challenging of authority", or dominating, I could see in different ways in all four NT's is what finally tipped me off that NT was Choleric in Control. So the ENTP sounded like those more badly behaved kids I remember, who were always sassing the grownups. They basically liked people and social interaction, but just did not respect authority. This would be a Sanguine in Inclusion/Choleric in Control blend. "SanChlor"* blends are often described as very rambunctious. In the article "Carl Jung" by Dr. C. George Boeree (http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html), the ENTP is described as "They...make good entrepreneurs. They do tend to play at oneupmanship". Even better is PUM1's description: "The ENTP regards a comment like 'it can't be done' as a personal challenge, and will spare no expense to discover a solution once properly motivated". That is definitely Choleric in Control behavior! This is harder to detect in INTP's, but it does come up! Berens herself once guest starred on a Yahoo group and described herself as under stress getting "seduced" into a belief that she can get anything and everything done; and then taking on too many projects. This is the essence of the Choleric in Control, or FIRO's "Mission Impossible"! (And I'm certainly like that too). You can catch a bit of this tendency in her own reflection here: http://www.interstrength.com/articles/tempstress.html
Meanwhile, ENTJ sounds like a pure Choleric, as type names such as "Fieldmarshal" even suggest. "ENTJs have a natural tendency to marshall and direct. This may be expressed with the charm and finesse of a world leader or with the insensitivity of a cult leader. The ENTJ requires little encouragement to make a plan." (Joe Butt, University of Virginia)
Finally getting Keirsey's books later in the game, I saw the biggest evidence of all can be found in Please Understand Me II:
Rationals are wont to think of themselves as the prime movers who must pit their utilitarian ways and means against custom and tradition, in an endless struggle to bring efficiency and goal-directedness to enterprise, an attitude regarded my many as arrogant. (p. 169)
Rationals pride themselves on their ingenuity in accomplishing the many and varied tasks they set their minds to.
Fun for NTs means figuring out how to get better at some skill, not merely exercising the skills they already have, and so for the Rational the field of play is invariably a laboratory for increasing their proficiency.(p184)
Rationals are self-confident in so far as they sense in themselves a strength of will or an unwavering resolution. NT's believe they can overcome any obstacle, dominate any field, conquer any enemy--even themselves--with the power of their resolve.
Once Rationals resolve something, they have in a sense made a contract with themselves, a contract they dare not go back on. Indeen, their worst fear is that their determination might weaken, their will power might falter, and that they will fail in their resolve.
And yet, even though they know some things must happen of themselves, Rationals can dread this loss of control. This is why so many NTs turn out to develop unreasonable fears, especially of germs and other forms of filth, something they have no control over.(p.186)
But make no mistake, although they might hold back on any intermperate displays, Rationals are not the cold and distant persons they are often made out to be. for one thing they can get quite intense and pressured about matters under their control (and few things they will admit they cannot control), becoming as tight as a bowstring, when they think they might be able to solve a problem if they put their mind to it.(188)
One of the most important things to remember about the Rationals, if they are to be understood, is that they yearn for achievement. Some might suppose that these seemingly calm and contemplative types have no strong desires. But beneath the calm exterior is a gnawing hunger to achieve whatever goals they set for themselves. While NTs prefer to acquire knowhow and would like to be ingenious, they must achieve, and their longing is never fully satisfied.
Because their hunger for achievement presses them constantly, Rationals live through their work not so much for the pleasure of action (like the Artisans), nor for the security a job provides (like the Guardians), nor for the joy of helping others (like the Idealists). Rationals work with a single-minded desire to achieve their desires; indeed, once involved in a project, they tend to be reluctant, if not unable, to limit their commitment of time and energy. Unfortunately, at this this point they can be unreasonably demanding of both themselves and others, setting their standards too high and becoming quite tense under stress. No wnder that NT's frequently achieve notable success intheir chosen field.
Rationals demand so much achievement from themselves that they often have trouble measuring up to their own good standards. NTs typically believe that what they do is not good enough, and are frequently haunted by a sense of teetering on the edge of failure. This time their skill will not be great enough. This time, in all probablility, failure is at hand.
Making matters worse, Rationals tend to ratchet up their standards of achievement, setting the bar at the level of their greatest success, so that anything less than their best is judged as mediocre. The hard-won triumph becomes the new standard of what is merely acceptable, and ordinary achievements are now viewd as falling short of the mark. NT's never give themselves a break from this esaclating level of achievement, and so constant self-doubt and a niggling sense of impending failure are their lot.(188-9)
From early on NT children seem calm and contemplative, leading an observer to suppose them without strong desires. But the calm exterior conceals a yearning for achievement that all too often can turn into obsession. As is the case with adult Rationals, all else becomes unimportant to these children once in the pursuit of achievement, once caught in the grip of accomplishing some goal. Unfortualately, this obsessiveness can make NT kids demand more of themselves than they can ddeliver, so that tension builds as they struggle to rid themselves of error. Once calm and focused, they now become overly tense and high-strung, impatient with everything and everyone around them.(p.274)
We also see:
•321: ENTJ is a "leader of leaders". This is, the Initiator Rational, not the ENFJ Initiator Idealist who would be "Choleric" in both areas in his interpretation.
•325ff, Rationals are clearly the ones into leadership, and again, the conative counterpart to the affective Initiator role (EST/ENJ).
All of this is definitely classic Choleric behavior. Also, the "Self-respect in autonomy" he mentions (p.185-6) as well. (In Will Schutz's FIRO, the Choleric scores are called "autocrat").
Clearly, this is all describing a type exhibiting a high level of expressiveness, and a low level of responsiveness in the high standards they set (they do not want control to be out of their hands). This was the original definition of "Choleric" (Galen's "hot/dry", and later, "short delay/long sustain").
And this, in the area of leadership and responsibilities, rather than social skills (that's what the Interaction styles are), we clearly see MBTI's counterpart to FIRO's "Mission Impossible", and the conative analogue to the affective "In Charge" or "Initiator" styles (EST/ENJ). It is clealy NOT a Phlegmatic, whose "calm and cool" really stems from lack of energy. Here, we clearly see a very energized temperament!
This makes it funny, how he rationalized making NF Choleric based on the notion that they had a tendency to "occasionally fly into fits of rage, despite their normally placid, harmonious nature" (see below). Yet, we see that the NTs have their own version of this "irascibility" as well. And it fits in with the rest of their pragmatic, task-focused behavior, where for NF's, it's almost being admitted as basically out of character!
*From here on, I will use LaHaye's combination forms as shorthand for I/C blends (prefix is Inclusion, suffix is Control). This would sort of assume that Inclusion would correspond to LaHaye's "primary" temperament, and Control, the secondary. Inclusion traits are the first and primary thing we see in a person, even though internally, the order of importance might be reversed, as was just reiterated above. It also works, especially if it happens to be true that Affection is apart of Inclusion in the 16 types. Then, the first part of the combined temperament name truly would be of a dominant percentage of the whole type!
It also seems that all four SJ's can be mapped to Melancholy in Control. The profiles stress the need for order, which is the Melancholy's leading demand in the area of Control. The association of SJ with the ancient Melancholy temperament was never as disputed as the NT, so this too seems obvious. Only it is a different aspect of the Melancholy temperament from the Chart the Course interaction style. One clearly deals with social skill, the other deals with what we call "Control" traits (leadership and responsibilities).
The ISTJ would be the pure Melancholy, and the descriptions fit; and the ESTJ would be a Choleric/Melancholy. This type is very Choleric upfront, but differs from the pure Choleric in their maintaining of institutions and "the status quo", rather than trying to overturn them in favor of their own visions. They would be vociferous "motivators", but not push you to do what they want like a Choleric in Control. They would be completely "directive", but not usually cross others' boundaries. Also on the ncsu.edu site above, both ENTJ and ESTJ are described as "attempting to beat you into submission", verbally, in confrontations; except that the ENTJ might seek confrontation, where the ESTJ does not! His confrontational behavior is purely defensive, from the lower eC!
Meanwhile, the ESFJ is very Sanguine socially, but still has the need for order tempering it, perfectly fitting the Sanguine-Melancholy blend. The ISFJ is the socially introverted counterpart to this.
It was the need for order common to all SJ's that tipped me off that SJ was Melancholy in Control. They like "status quo's", where the NT's, while just as critical, generally do not like things such as status quo's! With both NT and SJ clearly fitting those two Controls, (and the cross-factor they share in common, discussed below); that was when the entire correlation finally came together. The other two comparisons will be not be quite as strong, however.
NF's are a sort of hybrid temperament we can call "Supmatic". They have elements of both Phlegmatic, and Supine. The same thing with the Behind the Scenes/(Amiable, Relater, Steadiness, Leaning, etc) interaction style altogether. This again is because both temperaments share the same definition in their respective systems: low expressiveness and high responsiveness (In APS terms). The Supine however, is going to be higher in "wanted" behavior, such as need for acceptance or dependence, which may not be covered much in the type profiles. But overall, it will be best represented by NF and the ISF/INP range. The purest form of "Supmatic" would be the INFP, combining the NF with Behind the Scenes. The Boeree article even mentions the type as "Self-sacrificing", like our Supine, and "cool and reserved" like a Phlegmatic. Even Berens' name for the temperament: "Catalyst", conveys a sense of a possibly somewhat more passive agent of change! As we shall see when we discuss more the tricky ENFP correlation, they may be "enthusiastic", but they do not seem to write the policies they champion or actually force change themselves, directly. And Arno did describe the Phlegmatic in Control in such a fashion. They see things that are wrong, and do nothing to change it, but they will try to move others to do it instead! The Supine in Control might be like that too, especially if it is a responsibility they do not want to bear themselves, and/or it somehow meets their dependency needs. One of the biggest proofs of this correlation is that the Supine's behavior is driven by his need for being valued as a person, and the NF's "core need" is "meaning and significance", and "unique identity"!
Furthermore, in the Boeree article, the ENFJ is described as (despite his aggressive and directive interaction style): "They...make good parents, but have a tendency to allow themselves to be used.". Now THERE is a definite evidence of a Supine Control! They do frequently find themselves being "used", and then react, as we shall see next! They like to serve people, and want some sort of acknowledgment for it. A Choleric (particularly, in Control) is not going to allow himself to be used. He is the "user"! In PUM 1, we see: "They also are deeply devoted to their children, yet tend not to be domineering to either the children or mate. In fact, the ENFJ is so even-tempered that he or she can be victimized by a mate who might have become more and more demanding." And all of this with a Choleric Interaction style! Clearly, there is an opposite temperament in this mix! Hirsch & Kummerow: "Their time can be imposed upon easily; however, they need to guard against excessive responsiveness to avoid reaching overload."
More I discovered from PUMII:
•p316 Idealists almost never take forefront as political or military leaders.
So this is definitlely NOT the conative analogue of "Initiator" or "In Charge".
•"They are first and foremost people-oriented".
(Remember, Phlegmatic & Sanguine, [and Supine]=People oriented. Choleric and Melancholic=task oriented).
•p317 "They can subordinate their own wants and needs to the wants and needs of others, sometime to the degree that the wants and needs of others almost erase those they hold themselves."
•p318 Need to be replenished by expressions of recognition and approval [=Supine]
•Value words of appreciation; Need acknowledgment from leaders, colleagues and subordinates.
•May find themselves torn between the needs of their subordinates and requests of superiors, since they are so sensitive to helping those below them and pleasing those above them.
•So in tune with the feelings of others that they are vulnerable to finding themselves trying to please all of the people all of the time.
All of this fits APS "Supine" descriptions. They have "a servant's heart". This is just not a Choleric, who is aggressive, independent and focused on his own goals. You can clearly see the higher wanted Control.
If NF's "become Choleric" under stress, the Supine in Control does react if taken advantage of. Dr. Arno describes it as having "aggressive disorders" and "internally harbor[ing] the most anger". This is because they do not express, and thus are not asked their opinions (making them feel worthless); yet are expected to stand on their own two feet (which they lack the self-confidence for). Dr. Arno links the proverbial "Butler [who] did it" of the murder mysteries with the Supine who "faithfully served his master for years, felt used, and then reacted with murderous rage". They also become "defensive against loss of power". (When in power, they are strong enforcers of others’ rules). And they do appear dominating when manipulating others to take care of them. I can see how all of that could be interpreted as a peaceful person "becoming Choleric" even though that is the diametric opposite temperament. However, the motivations are very different, and in fact, basically opposite. Recall from the first page, that temperaments can have similar reactions, but for different reasons. The Choleric wants to dominate just for the sake of dominating (meeting a need for recognition and independence), while the Supine wants to be taken care of in some way, or at least acknowledged, made to feel worthwhile, etc. (To clarify, the Supine, is also described at times as as having a need for "recognition"; particularly in the Inclusion area, but that would be a recognition (or more correctly, acknowledgment) of his worthiness as a person, which he doubts. The Choleric's issue is not doubting his "worthiness", but rather showcasing his adequacy, which he believes in and simply wants others to recognize.)
The NF I do not see from the descriptions as having these self-confidence problems described, so this is why in some respects it could also be more Phlegmatic; or perhaps the problems are there, but just not dealt with in the profiles.
I have corresponded with one ENFP (who for a time thought she was ENFJ), who on one hand despite describing some very Choleric behavior upfront, admitted to such problems as feelings of lack of confidence and worthlessness, particularly in performance (which is where we would expect it in a Supine in Control!) I have also corresponded with a few NF's who admit to having difficulties making decisions.
So it seems that both "iNtuitives" (NF/NT) have been "swapped" in their correlation to the ancient temperaments. It is evident from reading Keirsey or Berens' "history of the four temperaments" why this mixup occurred. From Berens: "In 450 BC, Hippocrates described four such dispositions he called temperaments—a choleric temperament with an ease of emotional arousal and sensitivity; a phlegmatic temperament with cool detachment and impassivity...". It is this "ease of arousal" that was seen as defining the Choleric, and "cool detachment" associated with the Phlegmatic. However, what was apparently not realized, was that the REASONS behind this "arousal" and "detachment" in the original Choleric and Phlegmatic temperaments, and what is being observed in the modern NF and NT are very DIFFERENT. (The clue right away should have been in the word "sensitivity" for the Choleric, with the key word being "ease"). Again, part of this is from making the switch from interaction scales to perception scales, where the whole criteria for categorizing the various traits changes.
Another interesting point, is that Arno in his outline of temperament history, while not mentioning directly Kant's perception scales; instead describes his theory of blood temperature and "vitality" as causing temperament. Melancholy was heavy blooded, Sanguine was light blooded (so then, with the Beauty perceivers, it was connected with these terms of "weight"), and Choleric and Phlegmatic were both COLD-blooded! This is perhaps how the mixup between the two occurred in the eventual translation to the Keirseyan system. Both temperaments were "cold", but in different ways. Keirsey mapped the Choleric's "cold-bloodedness" to NT, but interpreted it as the Phlegmatic's "coolness". The NF was "cool" as well, but also had this "exciteability" (which may be more from a widely unknown fifth temperament [in an area called "Control"], along with the cross-blended Interaction Styles, than from the Phlegmatic), so that was interpreted as the more familiar Choleric "angry, hot-headed" traits. In PUM II, Keirsey would modify this by pointing out that Galen was a physician and concerned mainly with the negative, pathological aspects of personality; thus he identified only one tiny aspect of NFs: their tendency to occasionally fly into fits of rage, despite their normally placid, harmonious nature. So once again, the NF is usually portrayed as normally peaceful, and displaying this "exciteability" after a period of time, where the Choleric has an "ease" of exciteability. This is the original "short response-delay"; but what the NF normally exhibits is a longer response delay!
And while the "choleric" behavior may have originally been associated with temporary inflictions of the perceived sickness, "the temperaments" came to refer to behavioral disposition marked by those characteristics most of the time (especially once it was realized that temperament was not actually caused by the humours!) Remember, in addition to the short response-delay, the Choleric also had the long sustain. And just think how long does the NF stay in this angry, exciteable mode? Doesn't he want to quickly get back to his peaceful state? This would be the short sustain! Long delay, short sustain is the definition of the Phlegmatic!
Also worthy of note is that both Keirsey and Berens do mention that an NT, when stressed "obsesses", which is another great clue of "Choleric" behavior.
Also, we can just look directly at the old "people/task" focus. Clearly, the SP and NF are described in terms of being people-oriented, and the SJ and NT are task-focused. In everyone else's model of the temperaments throughout the centuries, the Choleric is the expressive and critical one, not someone normally peaceful who only erupts when he gets too much bile in his system! (Just like the other temperaments are not perceived to act out their familiar characteristics only at certain times.
SP would correspond to a Sanguine in Control. Sanguines in control are supposedly rare (1 or 2%) and predominantly male, according to both FIRO and Arno. The Artisan temperament does not seem to have those characteristics according to Keirsey either. In fact, he has said that most people are either SP's or SJ's! So I don't know how this fits together, as that is on the statistical level; but on a conceptual level, the SP's are rather spontaneous, quick to take responsibilities; etc. not as critical as the NT's, as the Sanguine Control would be. Berens' term "Improviser" better conveys the high "expressed Control" of this type. The most purely "Sanguine" of all the types is the ESFP. ESTP sounds both very Sanguine and very Choleric, and when I first looked at the types trying to figure out what was what, it was very hard to figure out this one. Keirsey's profile, for instance, states: "When someone of this personality is present, things begin to happen. The lights come on, the music plays, the game begins". But when I learned the Interaction Styles, I realized the EST would make it "In Charge", (and hence its "Inclusion", Choleric), and later figured that the Sanguine would then lie in the area of Control. They are described as so "fun"-oriented, but this is not necessarily "people"-oriented. If you look at it closely, it is really more about personal goals. (It's actually more "action" oriented). One clue as to a higher "wanted" Control is Hirsch & Kummerow's brief description of their "careers", where they basically follow whatever their friends do. There are other "self-indulgent" or "narcissistic" tendencies mentioned as well, though not explicitly as part of any "dependent" swing, of course. So, completely "extroverted" in both Inclusion and Control, they will seem very Choleric or very Sanguine, but there is some of the other temperament in there. He is just as driven, but not quite as serious as his "pureChlor" ENTJ cousin, and just as expressive, but not as people oriented as his "pureSan" ESFP brother.
So basically, to redo the Keirsey temperament/Social Style/Personality Styles correlation, it would be NT="Driving"/"Directing" (Choleric), SP="Expressive"/Socializing" (Sanguine), NF="Amiable"/"Relating" (Supmatic) and SJ="Analytical"/"Thinker" (Melancholic). Keep in mind that Allessandra's "Thinker" is not necessarily tied to the Thinking function as used in MBTI's NT. The name "Thinker" would more correspond with the traditional sense of the word, in which the corresponding Melancholy temperament (in Inclusion) is associated with "thinking". (Like when "T" along with "I" are combined with "Sensing", as opposed to iNtuition. Likewise, the NT is often considered the "analytical" one, but this again is an overall trait in the conative area, and not the same as the Social Style, named "Analytical" by Merrill, corresponding to the familiar Melancholy social skills). Here is a couple of sites that links the ancient temperaments to Keirsey's (And DiSC also in the first one) the same way I do: http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Warfield2.html http://www.davenevins.com/personalities/main/4-temperaments.htm.
There is also Helen Fisher's Four personality types (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Fisher_(anthropologist) ), which are directly compared to the Keirsey temperaments, (as well as brain chemicals):
explorer (artistic, Artisan temperament, orange) - dopamine
negotiator (intuitive, Idealist temperament, blue) - estrogen
director (reasoning, Rational temperament, green) - testosterone
builder (sensible, Guardian temperament, gold) - serotonin.
Notice that the "director" is the Rational, and the "negotiator" is the Idealist. "Director" suggests Choleric (as in Allessandra's system), and "Negotiator" suggests Phlegmatic (as in "diplomat")!
How the Factors Correspond: (Two primary scales)
Low Expressed Behavior in the area of Control (FIRO's "low eC") would basically be Keirsey's "Cooperative". High Expressed Control (eC) is "Pragmatic". They are bold and do whatever works, while Cooperatives are more reserved in doing things, in order to not do wrong by others. Pragmatic is also described by Berens: "Pragmatic means having autonomy and calling the shots on your own actions. It means taking a utilitarian approach to things rather than seeking consensus or adherence to norms—taking independent action." This is the essence of high eC! Cooperative (affiliative) want to have roles clearly defined. (Perfectly matching descriptions of low eC temperaments in APS!) Keirsey had written in PUM II: [People expressing Affiliative] try to get where they want to go by getting along with others, that is, by being law-abiding and accommodating with those around them, so that they are in full accord with the agreed-upon rules and mores of the social groups they belong to. In contrast, [people expressing Pragmatic] tend to go after what they want in the most effective ways possible, and they choose tools that promise success with minimum cost and effort – whether or not they observe the social rules.
The Melancholy in Control is sometimes described as a "Rebel" (and even named this by Ryan), which sounds like it would contradict "cooperativeness" (or Berens' "Affiliative"); but this is only when others try to impose on them; denying their concrete needs. In other words, "rebellion" is their responsive behavior, not their expressive behavior, which is where "cooperativeness" lies.
"Wanted Behavior" in the area of Control (wC) would seem to correspond roughly to Berens' additional [cross] factor of "Attention—Interest and Focus (Motive — Structure)", pairing diametric opposite temperaments. Note the "Theorist" and "Stabilizer" [NT, SJ] have in common "Structure - Focus on order and organization." Sounds "directive" (serious, critical) in the area of leadership and responsibilities, doesn't it? Berens, in “Essential Qualities of the Personality Patterns” states: “The Rational and Guardian patterns are characterized by a focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of control over life's problems and irregularities rather than be at the mercy of random forces”. You might think "gaining control" would sound like high expressed Control, but look at the reason: to not be at the mercy of random forces. This is defensive, and such defensiveness characterizes low “wanted” Control! (even though it doesn't go into control by other people here. Still, the need being met is that of independence). "The Idealist and Artisan patterns are characterized by a focus on motives and why people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying to force them into a preconceived structure”. [e.g. Less serious and critical; and thus might be more willing to accept control by others also; e.g. be affected by others' wishes].
As one person online put it, regarding how the three factors work together:
Guardians prefer to act cooperatively according to the needs of a CONCRETE structure. Such a structure may be the family cell or classroom or workplace.
Rationals prefer to act pragmatically according to the needs of an ABSTRACT structure. Such a structure may be a plan, a system, or logic itself.
Artisans prefer to act pragmatically according to the needs of a CONCRETE motive. Such a motive will usually be found in the current external circumstances--a desired change, a want, an immediate goal.
Idealists prefer to act cooperatively according to the needs of an ABSTRACT motive. Such a motive may be ethics, a cherished ideal, or a moral impetus.
So "Pragmatic" fits well with the behavior of a Choleric or Sanguine in the area of leadership and responsibilities. They are quick to make decisions, and will often act before thinking, and would rather apologize later, than ask for permission now. Hence "do what works, rather than what is right", or "pragmatic". This fits the NT and SP's behavior. Melancholies and Phlegmatics (and/or Supines) in Control, for instance, will be much slower in taking on responsibilities, and more conscientious in trying to not step on other's toes, or cross their boundaries.
"Structure Oriented" fits well with a Melancholy or Choleric in Control. They both want things to be in order, and to have control, or at least appear to be in control. As was pointed out in the description above, one uses concrete "structures", and the other uses abstract structures such as plans or logic. The difference is that the need for a concrete structure will create a fear of the unknown when it is not provided, (and hence, less expressive "control" behavior, and by extension, "cooperativeness") and the need for an abstract structure will eliminate that fear, and the person will have a high expressed Control and be pragmatic, enjoying the challenge of creating or employing his abstract plans and logic! This explains why PUM 1 claimed "the melancholic hold themselves in higher regard when they achieve position and belong to social units". I had been greatly thrown off by this as well. Melancholies want to 'belong' to "social units"? But this refers to the "concrete structures" mentioned (family cell, etc.), not basic social skills. Thus it further distinguishes this as the "Control" area of the Temperament in contrast to Inclusion. (And the other part of the quote, regarding "position" is correct as well, that while Melancholies in Control do not want to control others, they do still like to "appear" to be in control, and like being leaders in known or familiar areas as the APS manuals point out).
And while not necessarily evident in our descriptions, "focusing on motives of why people do things, in order to work with them", is compatible with a higher Responsive score in Control (wC), at least in theory. The Supine in Control, particularly, works with people, serving and enforcing others' rules. In fact, it first seemed that the "Cooperative" factor might correspond to Responsiveness (as it does in TKI's counterpart to the responsive scale, and also described as "empathetic", with low responsives being "utilitarian"), but if you really look at it, cooperativeness as used in KTS deals with what a person does (i.e. "expresses"), and motive focus deals with a person's response to others.
This time, the Concrete needs will produce the more "pragmatic" high expressed Control, and the abstract needs will produce cooperativeness, and by extension, lower expressed Control.
The fact that NT falls in the "Structure" category and NF in this "Motive" category would further speak against the NF=Choleric/NT=Phlegmatic correlation in favor of the reverse.
Earlier on, I began suspecting C/U might be low or high "Expressed" behavior in Control (or "eC"), but wasn't sure. Reading Arno's definitions of both the Sanguine and Choleric in Control, and how they are capable of undertaking any behavior or task; that does sound like "doing what works" rather than "what is right". Plus, I had never paid attention to that third factor of Berens', which pairs the diametric opposites (NT/SJ &SP/NF). This was the last piece of the puzzle, which when I realized, the whole correlation was complete.
How Sensing and iNtuition correspond
The biggest enigma was still Sensing and iNtuition. I had been suspecting the C/U=eC connection for a while, but what still threw me off was the S/N dichotomy. The first question was naturally, if C/U is eC, then would that make S/N correspond to wC? It didn't seem like it at all, especially considering the types said to hold the S or N in common. Even earlier, when I saw that both T/F and J/P seemed to determine responsive/wanted behavior, I then looked into one being wI and the other being wC, and the other two factors fitting eI and eC. Since T/F were called "Decision-making" functions; that right there is one thing that gave me the idea that they might deal specifically with Control. (And J/P were called "Lifestyle", making them seem like that dimension is about sociability). That would have made a nice, neat correspondence. But then if E/I is eI, then S/N would be left as eC (or perhaps vice versa). But that didn't fit either.
Then, you had C/U described as "action". That would turn out to be the true "clue", but I did not yet understand how that factor worked, since it did not completely match the other four letters. Other neat correspondences I looked into were stuff like ET, IT, EF and IF (E/I + T/F), or EJ, IJ, EP and IP (E/I + J/P; especially when I saw a suggestion that the latter were the real interaction styles, or so-called "Sociability Temperaments". They only differ from Berens' model by each style swapping an STP for an SFJ. The former, as an EP or IP becomes informative, and the latter, as EJ/IJ becomes directive). Considering that the four "temperaments" Myers-Briggs suggested were said to be ST, NT, SF, and NF (preferred function pairs); wouldn't it be nice if one set was Inclusion and the other was Control, I thought? (Most likely, E/I=eI, J/P=wI, S/N=eC, T/F=wC). The standard 16 types table would be divided by perfect horizontal rows representing Inclusion and vertical columns representing Control. Still, it didn't fit the more familiar temperaments, again because of S/N not fitting any area of "expressed behavior".
As for the reconfigured interaction styles, Berens' model still seemed more likely, as ISTP did not really fit in with the other IP's, and ESFJ did not seem to be socially directive like the other EJ's. We can look at the similar symmetrical model I first thought of: eI=E/I, eC=S/N and swapping the other pairs to wI=T/F and wC=J/P. I call these the "social image temperaments", because they are somewhat similar to the sociability temperaments, and after "introverted and extraverted", thinking and feeling are usually what people are thought in terms of, and probably easiest to indentify in social situations. This would end up with the Berens styles trading an NFJ for an NTP; yet the former as EF/IF becoming informative, and the latter as ET/IT becoming directive still does not match those affected types. And all of these other ideas still did not deal with S/N. You also sometimes see ES, EN, IS, IN (E/I + S/N. I call these "language styles" since S/N is supposed to be "communication"); or SJ, SP, NJ and NP ("Cognitive Temperaments": S/N + J/P), or TJ, TP, FJ, FP, ("Normative Temperaments": T/F + J/P) but the language styles do not match the classic temperaments, and the other two, while describing levels of directing, informing, cooperativeness, or pragmatism, map better to I/C combinations, as will be discussed later. Two "asymmetrical" groupings that yielded even higher numbers of difference in a study were the "extraverted function" set: SP, NP, TJ, FJ; and also SP, SJ, EN, IN).
So it seemed all of the E/R matrices were totally S/N blind. (The way it turns out, is that for Sensors, the Interaction Styles follow ET, IT, EF and IF, and for iNtuitors, they follow EJ, IJ, EP and IP! So both of those two-letter groupings are correct, for respective halves of the types!)
The "formulas" for the asymmetrical groupings are thus: Interaction Styles (generically, the "Affective Temperaments") : E/I + S + T/F; E/I + N + J/P. Conative Temperaments: S + J/P; N + T/F.
Furthermore, what about opposite temperaments like Sanguine and Melancholy sharing this factor? If so, how? For instance, Sanguines are widely known to be "sensors", but one might assume the opposite Melancholies would then be "intuiters" (which Keirsey calls "introspective"), since they are "thinkers" (or “introspective”).
But actually, when you really think about it; in the area of Control, Melancholies are very "concrete"-focused! (i.e. "sensory"). They want to know exactly what's going on, to see and hear things for themselves, desire closure (resolution, etc) in situations, and don't want to hear any "abstract" uncertain "concepts" or suppositions! Whenever I go somewhere far, or have a changing work schedule, my wife would be grilling me about when exactly I would leave, be back, etc. Both her and my parents always seemed greatly aggravated with some of the abstract statements I make in more serious discussions. (Keep in mind, while "intuitive/ion" and "thinking" are often associated, one is a perceptive function, by which the person gathers information, while the other is a judging function, by which he makes a decision. So being a "thinker" does not necessarily make one an "iNtuiter". Else, they would not be separate functions!)
Basically, what has resulted here, is a flipping of two sets of factors. S and N, which are primary factors of Keirseyan temperament, now become "cross-factors" linking diametric opposite temperaments. The former cross-factors of Structure vs. Motive now become primary factors (low/high wC) matched with Cooperativeness and Utilitarianism (or low/high eC). This basically converts the Kant model back into the E/R matrix, but on a whole new level! (leadership and responsibilities, instead of social skills). Kant's "Beauty" was basically the forerunner to "Sensing", while "Sublime" would correspond to Structure-orientation. By simply trading in the Sublime scale for "Cooperativeness" and filling in the "low Beauty" score with "Intuition", you attain Kretschmer's and Keirsey's system. Sensing then conforms to the congruence of one's expressed and wanted behavior in leadership and responsibilities.
What this means is that where Sensing and Intuiting actually fit on the FIRO/APS scale is that Control temperaments whose expressed and wanted scores are similar are Sensors, and those who do not express and want the same are iNtuitors.
| 16 types models ("EISeNFelT") | FFM Category ("Big Five") | FIRO/APS ("ERICA") |
| E/I (extraversion/introversion) | Extraversion | "Expressed" Inclusion (eI) |
| "Informing/Directing"* | Agreeableness | "Wanted" Inclusion (wI) |
| "Cooperative/Pragmatic"* | Conscientiousness | "Expressed Control" (eC) |
| "Structure/Motive" orientation"* | "Wanted Control" (wC) | |
| S/N (concrete/abstract) | Openness (to new experiences) | eC-wC congruence/incongruence** |
| (Comfort/Discomfort —TDI only) | Neuroticism | Low e and/or w—high or mod. e and w** |
Sanguines in Control, as "SP's" in this theory would be driven by extraverted sensing (Se), which is using the function of concrete perception in the outer world of people and actions. (Recall, the "P" tells you the "S" is the "extraverted" function!) So this would lead to their characteristic impulsiveness. As was stated above, they are driven by "the current external circumstances--a desired change, a want, an immediate goal". Something looks fun or exciting; they want to go for it. They see responsibilities they can take that can gain them attention; they move to take over it. They see that they are doing all of this, yet are not getting the recognition they want; they now crash and swing to their dependent or narcissistic mode. They then begin to feel worthless, and swing back to the independent mode. This covers the equally high e and w scores in Control.
Melancholies in Control are so focused on order and fear the unknown. So naturally, they neither express much control, nor want it over them (which in either case might lead to unknown areas, or make them look like a fool). They want to appear in charge, but only in a defensive stance, to not be dependent themselves. This would be basically connected with "introverted Sensing" (Si), (a "J" telling you the "S" is "introverted") which is defined as using concrete perception in the inner world of thoughts and emotions. How does one do this? By relying on "memory". You've already taken the information in through the senses, now, it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside, you are using "introverted Sensing". Se is described as focusing on "what IS", while Si is described as focusing on "what WAS" (You can see a great analogy of this at "How to tell iNtuiting from extraverted Sensing" by Linda V. Berens and Judy Robb). So any situation that the Melancholy in Control cannot relate to his Si will be "unknown", and cause him stress. This covers his equally low e and w scores in Control.
What this means is that Melancholies in Control are actually just as much "sensors" as Sanguines! The difference is that the Melancholy in Conrol's sensing is inward-focused rather than outward-focused. This is perhaps what made them look more "introspective" or "intuitive" compared to Sanguines!
Cholerics in Control are tough-minded conceptualizers whose "intuitive thinking" leads them to always try to change things. They have the drive to try to realize their concepts, (high eC), and want no interference (low wC), including any supposedly "concrete" limitations! The Melancholies in Control in my life were always saying "that's life" or "that's the way it is", about things in life that seemed unchangeable, while the Choleric Control drive, (with its concepts of how it wants things to be), was to overthrow the whole system, or burn yourself out trying! A person who I think may be ESTJ was very driven to try to get into institutions (such as church or business), and move up into positions of authority. If it didn't work, he would just move on, and try somewhere else. I felt for him; knowing how it must feel to be at the bottom looking up at the top, and wanting to be there. However, the way I tend to meet my Choleric need is, realizing that it would be nearly impossible for me to be able to move to the top like that (due to the "social" factor); I basically tear down the institution, ideologically, so that everyone, and thus I, can be "equal". This meets the Control need by illegitimizing the vehicle of control, and also aims to meet the Inclusion need by removing a barrier between people that makes some seem more "worthy" or "up there". According to Hirsch & Kummerow: "INTPs tend to either respect and go along with society's rules, or to question and rebel against them. Their response to these rules depends on how the rules might affect them. When INTPs do not like the rules, they are quick to find the flaws in the rule makers' thinking, regardless of their status, position in the hierarchy, or renown." It was pointed to me that this behavior in the INTP's is really more from thinking institutions are "irrelevant". But as I will discuss further, the Supine's increased "feeling" will alter this, and make it more people-focused than with a Phlegmatic in Inclusion. I have always noticed that I do want to respect and go along with rules. This is from the high wI need to be accepted. Yet, the way many things are done is just too much to sit by and go along with sometimes. So then I DO think that the status, position, or possibly the entire institution is "irrelevant" when it comes to the determining of the truthfulness of what they are imposing. This is the low wC coupled with the high eC.
(For instance, I do genuinely feel the institutionalized nature of the modern Church is not what it was originally supposed to be, and provokes jealousy, since it is a base of power and even to some extent, wealth; and of course, secular business and government are by their natures, often power and wealth bases. This is a "flaw" I have found in the institution, which I believe is a legitimate problem, but many others basically overlook, especially those with a more concrete focus who just "accept it as it is").
The ENTP would react similar to me, but be more likely and able to actively challenge the system, and through inspiring people, move in, and then dismantle or at least influence it; where again, I only do it ideologically. The ENTJ "Fieldmarshal" would try to move up into it, and if he can't, then create another institution to compete with and outdo/destroy the first one. Yet compared to these Cholerics in Control, the ESTJ "Supervisor", while Choleric in Inclusion and having a desire to dominate on the social level, is nevertheless a Melancholy in Control who will be more respecting of the institution and its status quo's. It "is what it is", and he simply wants his part in it. The NT's want no part in it if it does not meet their abstract criteria. American Society is said to be very ESTJ'ish, and that would make sense. It is Choleric enough to be aggressive and dominating, yet has the Melancholy's guardianship of institutions. The status quo (vehicle of control) has to be maintained in order to keep control. You would think the pure Choleric ENTJ's would rise up to dominate society, but because of their dislike of status quo's, such a society would probably become anarchical and disorderly with everyone trying to overturn everyone else's rule; or to maintain order, an ENTJ leader would install ESTJ's under him who would maintain the order, but then they would end up gaining the influence anyway.
Another big hint of this correlation can even be found in the APS manual Temperament Theory itself (p.74), describing the Choleric in Control: "[Their] decisions are made quickly and intuitively"! It is again mentioned for the Melancholy-Choleric-Melancholy blend. Intuition, the few times it is mentioned in the APS literature, is associated with the Choleric in Control.
The Supine in Control is an abstract feeler who seems to be driven by his own internal concept of worthlessness and inadequacy, (without any necessary "concrete" input), and this leads him to want to receive others' control over his life, (high wC) but not want to express control over others (low eC) or bear responsibility, (unless enforcing someone else's rules). The Phlegmatic in Control again seems to fit in with the Supine in the correlation, yet it does have a congruent e/wC (both scales moderate) like the Sanguine and Melancholy. That might make it seem to be a Sensor, in the definition I have given. So here too, I am not sure how that fits in. On the other hand, you would really think a Phlegmatic would be neutral in all scales. That would make sense, since in one case it seems to fit in with iNtuitors, and in the other, it seems to fit in with Sensors. The "16 types" fans I spoke to seem to deny that there can be any "moderation" in the four dichotomies of the Eisenfelt system. (And Socionics, which seems to recognize "ambidextrous" functions, is looked on as unorthodox). It is all about "preference", which is "either/or". So again, perhaps the NF is closest to a Supine Phlegmatic in Control, with traits of both temperaments, but still leaning towards the Supine's low expressed (e=0-4) and high wanted (w=5-9) behavior, and hence, its abstract-feeling focus. (While I have considered the Phlegmatic and its blendings with the other temperaments as "moderate", still, the blends are in pairs, with one leaning towards a "high" score (5), and the other towards a "low" score (4). The pure Phlegmatic range in the center is evenly divided between 4/4, 4/5, 5/4 and 5/5; each falling into one of the non-neutral "quadrants").
All of this makes some sense, if you think about it. Remembering that the Enneagram counterpart to Control is called "Survival" or "Self-Preservation", the area of information gathering ("perception"), by which we then gain the knowledge of the world around us; allowing us to make the decisions to survive with; would fall into the "Control" area. A person's wanting or not wanting of "interaction" in that area (to control or be controlled) would be indirectly tied to his preference for perception. If his perception is concrete; and then if it is also inward-oriented, he won't want any interaction in control, from the outside. He won't want to control or be controlled by others. If his perception is outward instead, then he will swing back and forth between controlling and being controlled based on the concrete input he is receiving from the outside world. For people whose preference is intuition, the "self preservation" temperament will not be determined by whether the perception is inward or outward. That is too "concrete", where they are abstract. (That will instead determine their social orientation). So rather, it will be the judging function the perception is paired with that determines the Control behavior. Thinking (Tough mindedness) will desire to control, but not be controlled, and Feeling (Friendliness) will not desire to control, but be more likely to allow control by others.
"Concrete" and "abstract", according to Keirsey, (who downplays "cognitve functions") are also the "communication" or "language" people use. At first, this threw me off by making me think it would tie to the social interaction category of "Inclusion". But when looking at it through both the Cognitive and Conative models, the communication would be a product of their perception, and hence more tied to Control.
Converting the Galen/Marston/Merrill Matrix to Kant/Kretschmer/Keirsey
Again, I am seeing where this is helpful to know about yourself and others. For instance, I thought my family, being almost purely Melancholy, and thus also deep "thinkers" would be really interested in temperament theory. (They do often talk about people and were heavy into family and relationships). However, while they took the APS for my wife's initiation into the NCCA, they otherwise were not really interested, and could only understand it but so much. Now, looking at it in terms of "concrete" and "abstract", they may be "thinkers", all right; but they are concrete thinkers! Personality theory is more abstract. Personality in itself might be more concrete, but the personality typing system, (of which temperament theory is apart of) and its measured factors is basically a method of classifying the aspects of personality, and hence is really abstraction. The fact that different theories measure the same things in different ways proves it is something that is not concrete, but rather fluid or nebulous. I remembered the term "abstraction", as my father was always using it. But what generally was he doing when he mentioned it? Criticizing it! Especially areas such as religion, and political debates such as morality, the Constitution, "American values", etc.; which basically consist of sets of ideals others fight over as if their lives depended on it; but may or may not have as much practical value or especially provability. My family's outlook was more on concrete things such as "the need to survive". I on the other hand, am an abstract thinker, so temperament theory was right up my alley! Often, in Keirseyan discussions, you will see topics like whether religion and politics appeal more to whichever temperament (particularly S types or N types). A recent news article discussed "Red Brain-Blue Brain", suggesting that a person's conservativism or liberalism might be "hard wired" acording to needs such as order and familiarity, or for freedom and creativity. And such discussion seem to be populated mostly by N types.
My wife always suggests that I do not really talk to my family enough; as it is sometimes hard, as we are all introverts, and thus not as expressive or outgoing as she is. I feel I do not really know what to talk to them about. But now; looking at it in terms of concrete vs. abstract; I can keep all of this in mind, and try to think of more concrete things to talk to them about. And I will continue to try to show them the concrete potential of temperament theory, as far as helping us understand each other better. So seeing how it appears to correspond in the APS system (implicitly); you can get an idea of whether people who have taken the APS or FIRO are more concrete or abstract without them having to take MBTI, KTS or other "perception" measuring tests.
Again, all of this fits right in with the "order of importance" defined in Keirseyan temperament. S and N are seen as the most important aspects of personality, followed by Cooperative/Pragmatic, Directive/Informative, and E/I. Since the first two define conative temperament, and the last two define Interaction Style, conation ends up seen as more important than Interaction. According to FIRO, Control is more important than Inclusion. Since S/N and C/U tie into Control's e/w factors, and E/I/D/Inf correspond to Inclusion, then we see the same order.
INCLUSION
AFFECTIONCONTROL INCLUSION
AFFECTIONCONTROL Melancholy & Choleric
have in commonDirective (low w) Structure (Low wC) Supine & Sanguine
have in commonInforming (high w) Motive (high wC) Choleric & Sanguine
have in commonextraversion (high e) Pragmatic (high eC) Melancholy & Supine
have in commonIntroversion (low e) Cooperative (low eC) Choleric & Supine
have in commonIndirect Behavior (e≠w) Abstract focus (eC≠wC) Melancholy & Sanguine
have in commonDirect behavior (e≈w) Concrete focus (eC≈wC)
Phlegmatic comparisons (all areas in general):
Phlegmatic & Supine have in common:
Amiability, Peacefulness, no need to appear in control
Phlegmatic & Sanguine have in common:
Low Neuroticism (i.e. less problems with prolonged negative emotions)
Phlegmatic & Choleric have in common:
Less problems with fear
Phlegmatic & Melancholy have in common:
Less need for recognition
How EISeNFelT and FFM factors fit on APS E/R matrices. Temperament key is small matrix to left of title
NF/NT Choleric; Phlegmatic mixup: The unlikely "blending" results of Keirsey's correlation
That Keirsey's "NF=Choleric/NT=Phlegmatic" correlation cannot be true is shown by looking at what the blends would be under that theory. Remember, the "Inclusion" correlations I have drawn come straight from the Interaction Styles, whose correlations to the ancient temperaments are not disputed. Keirsey himself had labeled eight three-letter combinations (NTJ, STJ, NTP, etc) as either "role-informative" or "role-directive", and by pairing them with E and I, you arrive at the same factoral definition of the old temperaments. So it is agreed that In Charge (extraverted, Directive) corresponds to a Choleric (and styles in other systems, like "Ruling", "Dominance", Driving", etc). But if NF were also a kind of Choleric, then in the 16 type "blends", the purest Choleric would be, not the ENTJ, but rather the ENFJ! (ENTJ would now be the "Choleric/Phlegmatic"). While this "Teacher" type will have some Choleric traits, from being "In Charge", it is in no way more Choleric than the "Fieldmarshal". From its descriptions, it is still too much of an empathetic "Feeling" type to be a pure Choleric! And also the fact, again, that they allow themselves to be used, unlike a Choleric. A Choleric will be tempered by a Phlegmatic mixture, and it is clearly the ENFJ that appears to have this blend effect, not the ENTJ. The same thing comparing the INTJ "Mastermind" and the INFJ "Counselor".
The NTJ's together comprise the "Coordinator" role, while the NFJ's are simply the "Mentors". Both lead in different ways, but the NT's clearly have a more "dominant" role as even their names convey. Likewise, the NTP "Engineer" consists of the extraverted "Inventor" and the introverted "Architect", compared to the NFP "Advocate". The introverted "Healer" does not sound Choleric either. However, the extraverted "Champion" from its name does sound possibly Choleric. But from the Wikipedia article on the type: "they are often hoping to use their convictions to motivate others to participate in advocacy or they hope to reveal a hidden truth about the human experience. Champions are greatly concerned with ethics and justice and have a strong desire to speak about current issues and events. They are the most inspiring and animated of the role variants". At least part of this outgoingness is coming from their "Get Things Going", or Sanguine "Inclusion". That temperament, is the most "inspiring". But even their getting others to participate in advocacy would be somewhat compatible with the APS definition of a Phlegmatic in Control. (The "Champion" moniker is intended to convey the meaning of "advocate of a cause", more than someone who always "wins" at things; which is what I originally took it as, throwing me off).
Again, first looking at all the types, and observing that the ESFP and ENFP were both very Sanguine; I wondered what was really the difference, which of course pointed to how the S/N distinction would play out in the ERICA system. But after I figured out the whole correlation, I could see how basically, the ENFP differs from the ESFP "pureSan" by having a lower "expressed Control"; at least as far as the decisions he actually makes, rather than inspiring others to do things. One uses Se, which is about tangible current experience, and often includes more daring endeavors, while the other uses Ne, which is about possibilities, including negative ones in a daring lifestyle. The ESFP's concrete focus causes them to swing into off periods based on external input, while the ENFP with its abstract focus will not have this swing tendency, but his behavior will be more shaped by the Interaction Style, as we will explore more shortly. In any case, this is not a Choleric, who most likely would not be as focused on others so much in the first place (that's empathy, again!), as much as his own goals! And again, the ENTP sounds more like the rambunctious SanChlor blend, not the ENFP.
Also, as will be discussed later, in comparing the judging types, the FP's are the most informative, and the TJ's are the most directive. But if NF is Choleric and NT is Phlegmatic, then the NFP's would not be the most informative, because there would be some "Choleric" in there, which is anything but informative. And the NTJ's would have a non-directive Phlegmatic in there tempering its directiveness.
Also, as was touched on before, the NT is commonly described in terms of "mastery of concepts, knowledge, and competence" (as well as the "power" increase that supposedly makes their pride increase). That is definitely a Choleric drive. It is basically a way of conquering, dominating, controlling things! The Phlegmatic does not have the energy for that sort of stuff! Remember, it is the temperament of PHLEGM! In Berens' Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the Four Temperaments, we see the "stressors" of the Theorist are Powerlessness, Incompetence, and Lack of Knowledge". The first two in particular are definitely Choleric Control traits, and from my own experience, the lack of knowledge ties in with it as well. If something goes wrong, and I don't have the power, or I see incompetence; I want to know why.
The NT's overall need of "mastery" is usually claimed to be self-mastery, rather than control over others. However, in two of the NT's: The ENTJ and INTJ it clearly does extend to being controlling over others, from the descriptions. The NTP's won't be as controlling over others, because their temperament is blended with "informing" Interaction Styles which temper the Choleric traits, as I recount in my own experience. The INTP will be the least "Choleric" of the four, being the Interaction Style is the opposite of that temperament; while the ENTP's interaction will share the expressiveness of the Choleric. Still, the common thread of the NT's is "mastery", which is more Choleric than just the "exciteability" of the NF's. In the NTP's it still comes out; in the form of their challenging of things. Again, we must look at motives of behavior!
The NF's are also commonly described as having the need for "the meaning and significance that come from having a sense of purpose and working toward some greater good". That really does not sound so much like a Choleric's goals, which, again, are more about dominance. Stressors are "Insincerity and betrayal, Loss of Meaning and Lack of Integrity". This NF description actually sounds more compatible with the Supine's "service". Or at least, the Phlegmatic's peacemaking. So NF also is generally associated with peacefulness, like the Behind the Scenes Interaction Style, and of course the Phlegmatic temperament. This also suggests that NF is the "conative" counterpart to that style. Also, in PUM2, Keirsey associates four kinds of intelligence with the four temperaments:
SP = Tactical Intelligence (seizing opportunities, troubleshooting)
SJ = Logistical Intelligence (managing resources, setting procedure)
NT = Strategic Intelligence (long-range planning, system analysis).
NF = Diplomatic Intelligence (communicating, working with people).
In the APS, the Phlegmatic in Control is described as a DIPLOMAT!
Much like APS, German psychologist Fritz Riemann (Grundformen der Angst [Elementary Forms of
Fear"]: E. tiefenpsycholog. Studie ; 1961) described the four in terms of their fears:
SJs fear change
SPs fear stasis
NTs fear closeness to others
NFs fear separation from others
This again strongly suggests against the NF being choleric, as well as highlighting the NT's independence. In fact, he also states: "So while the NT strives for autonomy and independence, the NF fears nothing more than the loneliness of becoming an autonomous, independent individual". (Riemann then goes into the NF's need for love and "dependence on love relationships", strongly suggesting that high wanted Affection scores may be apart of the temperament as well). Continuing: "In order to facilitate the fulfillment of their deepest wish (to find love), they tend to idealize people in general and their (potential) partner in particular". "In order to enable the desired harmony, NFs strive to be good human beings themselves and try to develop altrusitic virtues. By giving up their own egotistical desires and wishes, they make themselves more able to live for others". All of this is Supine behavior! "The danger is that NFs often turn their own desired good behavior into an ideology they want everyone else to adopt, and they use that to justify feeling superior to those who are not as selfless, peaceful etc. as they are (or believe themselves to be)". Even this is compatible with the Supine. Recall, they can become manipulative! (Having everyone adopt their ideology would be apart of the need to feel worthy).
Better yet are the full descriptions of the prototypes of Keirsey's Idealist and Rational: Kretschmer's hyperesthetic and anasthetic (from Ptypes.com):
Hyperesthetic:
Tender sensibility
Sensitivity to nature and art
Tact and taste in personal style
Sentimental affection for certain individuals
Hypersensitivity and vulnerablity with regard to the daily irritations of life
Passion working in combination with 'complexes'
Anesthetic:
Cutting, active coldness
Passive INsensitivity
Canalization of interest into well-defined autistic directions
Indifference, or unshakable equilibrium
Indolent instability or active caprice
Tenacity: steely energy, stubborn wilfulness, pedantry, fanaticism, logical systematism in thought and action
Here we can see that the Hyperesthetic, even in its enthusiasm, cleary has very UNCholeric traits; while the Anasthetic, having the typical "calm, cool" descriptions, also has another, more active side to him, which matches the classic "Choleric" profile. Of course, we would normally think, if one of them is "hyper-" anything, it must be anything but Phlegmatic. So it was probably because one was "hyper-", and the other "a[n]-", that they were matched with Choleric and Phlegmatic, respectively. But the "[a]esthetic" one lacks and the other has an overabundance of is "feeling" and "sensitivity" itself; not just any emotion. So both can be calm and cool (as Kant had seemed to acknowledge in his model of the temperaments), and both can energetically react, (though the Hyperesthetic seems to get its energy from blending with a fifth temperament or the Interaction Styles rather than from the Phlegmatic alone). However, both the coolness and reaction will be for different reasons, and the Anasthetic clearly is the "Choleric", while the Hyperesthetic's "values" are clearly NOT Choleric. The demi-god Prometheus was also more "Choleric" than Apollo. (Yet now I have seen an argument that the true "Promethean" grouping is NJ, while the true "Apollonian" grouping is NP. (A New Look at David Keirsey's Temperaments by Roger E. Bissell; http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11.html) Since those partially define Directing and Informing, it shows that the Choleric/Phlegmatic comparison of Prometheus and Apollo was mixed up).
Also of note, in Beren's table of comparisons in "Into the Next Century—Temperament Evolution", we see Choleric—Nymph/Water, Melancholic—Gnome/Earth, Phlegmatic—Sylph/Air, Sanguine—Salamander/Fire. Notice how Choleric is associated with the element of "water" (And eventually, with the Idealist). Yet, traditionally, the humour of phlegm was associated with water (cold and moist). And Melancholic=earth (cold and dry—correct in this case), Sanguine=air (warm and moist, and the sanguine is basically "airy" in personality), the Choleric=fire (warm and dry, and the choleric is "fiery") Now, if water is made the Choleric, then we can't make Phlegmatic, Fire, of course, so that becomes Sanguine, while Phlegmatic is left as air. All of this shows that a mixup has occurred in the correlations.
Also, if NF=Choleric, NT=Phlegmatic, then it would be the Phlegmatic that would share "Structure" focus with the Melancholic. Structure would then represent the conative counterpart to "introversion", since Melancholic and Phlegmatic were both "introverted". Choleric and Sanguine would then share Motive-focus, which would become the conative counterpart to their common "extraversion" (expressiveness). NT would fall into the "low Sublime" category along with SP, which would equate to "pragmatism" which would then be the conative coupterpart to "people-focus", shared by Phlegmatic and Sanguine. Meanwhile, the Choleric and Melancholic would share "cooperative" (which would then equate to Kant's "Sublime" recognition, and the conative counterpart to "task-focus"). But none of this makes sense, now. Choleric is definitely not "cooperative", nor "motive-focused"; and this is perhaps the biggest proof that NF can't be Choleric! For the indirect Control temperaments (eC≠wC), what Keirsey basically ended up doing is reversing the "high" scores, and substituting making the Choleric high want(motive)/low express(cooperative), and the Phlegmatic high express (pragmatic)/low want (structure).
Also, in my own informal reasearch, where INTP's and others on a type forum took free online four and five temperament tests, most INTP's did come up with high Choleric, with Phlegmatic (of course) and also Melancholy in the mix. It is a good bet that the "average" textbook INTP is Phlegmatic in Inclusion, Choleric in Control and Melancholy in Affection. That would definitely yield the typical "detached" profile we see. A few came out with just Phlegmatic and Melancholy. (Coming out high in Melancholy would also seem to go along with being Enneagram type 5, as even I came out. When I take four temperament tests, I also usually come out a Melancholy-Phlegmatic mix). ENFP's generally came out Sanguine and Phlegmatic, just as we would expect! INFP's often as Phlegmatic, Supine and Melancholy. Again, the Melancholy may be in Affection, with Inclusion and Control Supine and/or Phlegmatic, as those I have corresponded with seem to be. With both INP's coming out Melancholy, it could also be the tertiary Si, being that Si in the top two positions defines a Melancholy in Control, so the INP's would be "next in line" with Si influence. INTJ's were Melancholy and Choleric, but some were Melancholy and Phlegmatic. ENTJ's were very Choleric, as it would figure. INFJ's were also usually Melancholy and Phlegmatic, but IIRC, some may have had some Choleric as well. The surest evidence yet; one INFJ eventually took the actual APS and came out Melancholy Compulsive-Supine-Phlegmatic Melancholy!
I had also raised a topic on NF's and "control and power" issues, to hear from they themselves whether or not they are really closet Cholerics. They all answered to the negative, except as a reactive stance (against violated values), mentioned by a few.
But again, admittedly, the NF correlation is the weakest one. While it may not appear to perfectly fit a Supine or Phlegmatic Control, it is certainly closer to those in theory than it is to a Choleric. In fairness to Keirsey, the NT=Phlegmatic/NF=Choleric correlation (my only criticism of him) is not an integral part of his theory. Nothing stands or falls on it. It was just a passing reference he made in his earlier writings, to make a connection with the "legacy" of historic temperament theory, and then he basically abandoned the Galenic terms and apparently never looked back. So the issue is just of importance to this correlation I am making with a system still using the Galenic names.
The weak points in this correlation, with clues to its correctness
The biggest thing missing in both the NF and SP profiles are the key dependency problems associated by FIRO and APS with all high "wanted" behavior scores in Control. For the Supine, it is outright dependence, and for the Sanguine, it is the dependent-independent "swing". However, there are hints of it in PUM 1's descriptions of the ISTP: "They can even be somewhat on-again, off-again in their intense interests, which causes them to be seen, at times, as unpredictable and unstable, even impulsive"; and ESFP: "may become impatient and may want to absent themselves"; "They are inclined to be somewhat self-indulgent". The best evidence for the whole temperament is on p.32: "He must do whatever his impulse dictates and continue the action as long as the urge compels. When the urge lets up, he no longer "feels like" racing climbing, or whatever".
But none of these are explicitly described in terms of dependency. In fact, I have not seen any major dependency or self-confidence problems mentioned in any of the 16 types profiles I have read so far. For such a common aspect of personality to be omitted, it seems like something is missing, somewhere; either in the profiles I have seen so far, or in the theories themselves. So we have to look for clues of them in the types, such as the ones just mentioned. In any case, in judging the two temperaments from our framework of E/R, they both do seem to be more "responsive" than the Structure-focused groups, even if this responsiveness doesn't quite manifest as "dependence"; and this factoral comparison is what we are primarily looking for. In fact, even the FIRO term "wanted" I find can be misleading at times, especially in the Control area, as some types with high "wanted" behavior might not always necessarily want people to control them, but simply allow or tolerate them to. Hence, APS' "respond" being a better term, as it could be more passive. The NF's and SP's from the descriptions do seem more willing to tolerate decisions being made by others than NT's and SJ's.
Dr. Ryan in his Clinical Interpretation of FIRO-B does describe high and moderate w of Control as having “narcissistic” or “self-indulgent” needs, and high e as having a need of recognition. (both conflicting factors causing the "swing"). For the moderate and high expressed blending of high/mod w, he emphasizes the "narcissistic" aspect, which is not necessarily about being dependant on another person, per-se. This is what we clearly see in the above quote.
Interestingly, Keirsey’s term “Artisan” originally in PUM 1 applied only to the ISTP, before he expanded it to the entire SP group, which had previously been called “Dionysian”; and subsequently renamed ISTP “the Crafter” in PUM 2. ISTP would be a Melancholy in Inclusion/Sanguine in Control in my theory. Keirsey, in the PUM 1 excerpt on Lifexplore describes surfers as being common in this type. When you think about it, the typical “surfer dude” profile generally is a “loner” socially, but does have both a need for recognition, and narcissism, which would also certainly be associated with a “Dionysian” mindset. (Think of the actual surfers themselves, not the average laid back "California beach dude" who spend all their time watching the surfers, and the beach scene has come to be associated with. That appears to be a very Phlegmatic personality). "Artistic"ness for this profile would come from the Inclusion area, which would be MELANCHOLY, of which Inclusion is the area of that temperament described as artistic. The Sanguine Control would give them their drive to master surfing and show off their skills. It would also give them their impulsive, "unpredictable" need to swing into an "off" mode at times. As Melancholies in Inclusion, they would probably use this "self-indulgent" period for reflection, in relative solitude. (You know, to "cool out"!) The same with the "performing artists and craft artisans" Keirsey also ties to this type. Arno links such artists (whose works "greatly capture" you) with the Melancholy in Inclusion (irrespective of their Control), so with a Sanguine Control, they would still be just as artistic, but more active and needing of recognition for it.
At first, for types like the ISFP I wasn't sure, and thought to be perhaps Phlegmatic in Control, but it does have "spontaneity" mentioned, and seems a bit more energetic and outgoing in responsibilities than a Phlegmatic, so in theory, that can be a Sanguine in Control as well. http://www.murraystate.edu/secsv/fye/ISFP.htm says it has "a very low need to lead and control others", and Lifexplore said they are likely to be pacifists, and that bookkeeper was one of the professions appealing to them, which is one of the things Arno associates with the Phlegmatic in Control. But then, upon further reading in both sites, we see that this type is driven to various causes, and very active —but in hobbies and other interests, rather than in controlling others. For one thing, keep in mind that Inclusion temperaments modify Control temperaments and vice versa. So it seems that it is the peaceful Supine or Phlegmatic Inclusion of this type that redirects the apparent extraverted Control away from control over people, and focuses it towards hobbies. And of course, there will often be the dependant periods of the temperament as well. This is much like the ISTP, except that the Interaction Style is more accepting of people. The same with my most likely INTP (which another profile says also does "not like to lead or control people"). Most of my drive is to my hobbies, such as creating projects like this page. However, since the Control is more critical and never wants to be controlled by others, I do generally dislike the way people do things, or at least want my way, and thus have a bit more of an inclination to try to control others, in some situations. But then the Inclusion also hampers me from being able to easily motivate or lead people, so I'm not usually able to pull it off, and I don't usually bother trying to. Hence "do not like to lead or control people", though I may be nevertheless inclined to sometimes. I really am nervous when leading, and when controlling, fearful that people will react (i.e. rejection), so it is true that I don't like doing it. My way of "controlling" people will usually be something like when I was young, before I could travel on my own, I would try to direct people driving down a certain road in order to see the view along the way, (and annoying the Melancholies in Control, with their need for familiar, more practical routes). So I came to much prefer seeing things on my own now, without other people complaining or curtailing my itinerary. Hence the Choleric Control ends up acting out in a more solitary fashion. (Like the NT description of the need of self-mastery).
Ryan even describes the purely extraverted [SanChlorSan] "Ball of Fire" (which would correspond to an ENTP) as being "paternalistic" rather than dictatorial in its Control style because of the high wanted score in the other areas. So with a Sanguine Control instead of Choleric, paired with such an impressionable, withdrawn (or a low-energy) Inclusion, the desire to actually "control" others will be less, and the drive will be focused more inwardly. The projects and such are basically tied in with a need for recognition and influence, which is the other aspect of high eC besides just "controlling" others directly.
Murraystate also adds "As Sensing-Perceivers, they usually prefer doing something to nothing, but the activity is often spontaneous and scattered rather than goal-oriented. While this can be a source of fun, the result may be a long list of unfinished activities that can be frustrating, not only to others but to ISFPs themselves." Here is the evidence of the "swing" tendency, again. (This marks the third SP profile to show evidence of the "swing" tendency. The remaining type, the ESTP will display this trait the least because of the highly driven "In Charge" or "Choleric in Inclusion" interaction style).
One INFJ I've run across could get very irate and almost dominating, and I thought "Uh-Oh! Does this mean NF really is Choleric after all?" However, there was evidence in the behavior of a need of "appreciation" which was expected, but not expressed. [Determined that person is more likely an ENTJ "pure Choleric" after all, and Arno said they will undertake any behavior necessary (including that of other temperaments) to attain their goals]. This is definitive Supine Control behavior! (Some of criticalness of the behavior would also be from the "directing" NJ style). The APS manuals say if you cross them or make them feel like they have been used, they can become very violent. (Physically even, as well as verbally). This might shed some light on the NF's supposed "hot-headed activism". The ncsu site's NF profiles point out, if "a personal value has been stepped on; then they will attack with a vengeance". This "personal value" could certainly include things such as their need for acknowledgment. Again, the motives behind behavior is the key to temperament! Melancholy in Inclusion/Supine in Control behavior is described by both Arno and Ryan in terms of "foot-stomping". (Which is the basis of Ryan's name for the score range combination). I know one Melancholy/Supine, and it definitely fits the bill!
Yet in the discussions with the INFJ and other NF's describing their relationships with NT spouses, it was clearly a pattern of a Choleric in Control spouse with a more passive NF "first"-person.
Then there was also the extraverted NF with the self-confidence problems mentioned before. The person apparently has no problem getting a job, but feels that feared inadequacies will be "found out". This is like the opposite of me, where I believe I can do things, and often, that my way is always right, but just have a lot of trouble on the person-to person level mustering the confidence or charm to sell my talents to others. My father always lectured me about "self-confidence" in doing things, but the issue with me was actually more about the people involved, than my own capabilities. (One thing that made answering some test questions so difficult, as on one hand, I knew I did have confidence problems, but on the other hand was very driven in projects and confident about my way being right; not knowing about the different "areas" the problem could lie in. The APS seemed to weed it all out perfectly!)
Oprah is said to be ENFJ, but from what I have heard, descriptions of actually being around her sound like Choleric in Control, as well as her looking more socially expressive than responsive on the surface. Still, all of this is outward behavior, yet we do not see the internal issues driving it unless they reveal them to us.
If a Supine/Choleric likes who people are, but not what they do, then the flipside to this, internally, is that they will not like who they, themselves are, but they will like what they themselves do. A Choleric/Supine however will be the total opposite. They will not like who others are, but will not have as much of a problem with what others do. Internally, they will not have as much of a problem with who they themselves are, but will not feel worthy in what they do. I don't know any people who have tested as this combination in APS, and have a strong curiosity of what this temperamental "opposite" of myself is like. But it seems that I can look at ENFJ's as a clue, because they do seem to be fitting the bill to some extent, from what I have seen so far.
Again, this illustrates that Supines in Control do appear to become "Choleric"-like or bossy and dominating on the surface, and if the Inclusion is already Choleric, they definitely will use that to mask their inner vulnerabilities in the Control area! (If the MelSup is reportedly a "foot-stomping dependant", then what must the ChlorSup be? I imagine, a "table-pounding dependant", perhaps?) The richest woman in the world is certainly going to be very bossy with all of these people hired to serve her, and want things her own way; but that is simply meeting, ultimately, a kind of dependency need (again, think of all the people she must have taking care of her needs; personal advisors, PR reps, etc.), though again, the ENFJ profile will gloss over this. Part of the trick is figuring out which traits are coming from the Inclusion area, and which are coming from the Control area. If a person is bossy and "dominating", we naturally will think they are Choleric in Control. But the Choleric in Inclusion is like this as well, and even the Supine in Control can be like this at times, though for a totally different reason. Combine the two, and you will have a very "dominating" kind of person! The question is, is Oprah bossy like that just to gain control over people's lives? Is it a need for recognition of her own adequacy? In who she is? Or is it what she does? Or is it rather a need to be taken care of in some way, or for acknowlegement of worthiness of what she does? While "decision-making" is supposed to be the Control area, it can be influenced by Inclusion. It certainly is with me. My decision making can be hampered by having to get past people, covered by the Inclusion and/or Affection areas. Since the Choleric in Inclusion is a "go getter" type person described by APS as a "user", this will modify a Supine Control. The person probably will have some decision making capabilities (which other Supines in Control will lack), but it will, I imagine, be on a more person to person level, than self-preservation —again, the reverse of me. (And is one thing that makes that combination so intriguing). The APS manual describes the Choleric's "envisioning [of] new projects" and "undertaking" them "quickly and efficiently" under the Inclusion area of the temperament. Control will determine how well they carry the projects through. The Choleric in Inclusion will envision and undertake the projects and make them appear very bossy and demanding in doing so. The Supine in Control will get other people to carry the projects through for them. (which may also make them look bossy!) So perhaps those Inclusion traits are what are being seen in Oprah and other ENFJ's. While it is people around her who apparently experience this bossiness, outside of that, she does seem to have more of a "servant's heart" like a Supine in Control, or the diplomatic skills of a Phlegmatic in Control, at least; with all the charitable stuff around the world she does. If she was pure Choleric, she would probably be more about self-promotion than all that.
Perhaps these two Keirseyan groupings may not even correspond to a pure Sanguine, Supine or Phlegmatic in Control. There are other variations, such as Phlegmatic Sanguine (Ryan's "Let's Take a Break", which is a bit less aggressive than the Sanguine) and more probably, Sanguine Phlegmatic (Ryan's "Mission Impossible with Narcissistic Tendencies" which according to APS does not have the dependent "swing"). Neither of which I have seen specified as particularly rare or predominantly male in either FIRO or APS. So maybe those are what Artisans (or "Improvisers") are.
Likewise, the NF may also more closely match a Supine Phlegmatic in Control (or Ryan's "Checker"), who the APS manual describes as "appear[ing] dependent, but is really independent", and becomes stubborn and strong-willed; or again, perhaps just an unblended Phlegmatic (Ryan's "Matcher") in some respects.
The Checker is also described as "not dependant", but simply having some doubts about his ability to make decisions and take on responsibility. This is not precluded by the descriptions of the NF, even with its "activism". The Matcher is also capable of making decisions and assuming responsibility, yet having doubts about his ability. He just wants reassurance and support from others, and to share the responsibility. "His democratic attitude is reflected in the statement 'I want you to work shoulder to shoulder with me'". Now doesn't THIS sound like the typical NF "Peace-activist" stereotype?
There is also Phlegmatic Supine in Control (Also apart of Ryan's "Let's Take a Break" range), who will take on more responsibilies and can be stubbornly independent, yet under certain circumstances respond as a dependent. (Thus this can also be easily overlooked by the 16types profiles). According to FIRO, their "dependency" will be narcissistic instead of wanting others to take on all responsibility for them. I think it is most likely the Supine Phlegmatic. It seems the NF is a combination of Phlegmatic peacefulness and a lack of outright dependency, yet with some form of "energy". Although other systems do not focus as much on the Phlegmatic's low energy as Arno does, still, again, it seems this energy in the NF's is what was interpreted as "choleric" (and the NTs' lack of feeling thus had to be the "Phlegmatic" trait). Yet if NF is really more of a Supine Phlegmatic, it would receive its energy from the Supine in the expressive (low wC) area (driving its cooperativeness), and yet have the Phlegmatic's Diplomatic skills (and hence, Motive focus), along with the stubborness and independence.
Also, another possibility is that the "exciteability" of the NF's comes from the Interaction Style. Exciteability would be more of an "Inclusion" trait anyway, more than a Control trait! So with the NF, being a Supine Phlegmatic, the Inclusion will dominate the overall type, and thus provide it's "exciteability", which will be used to meet the Control need. Hence, exciteability appearing to be a common NF trait. The Supine is a more docile temperament as it is, which is usually dominated within the person by his other temperament needs. The Phlegmatic, again, can be seen as the absence of temperament. So when either of the two is present in the Control area of a person's temperament, it will be primarily the social skills providing all the drive of the behavior. So the extraverts will have the short response-delay, with its characteristic quick, hot temper or excitement, and the introverts will have the long delay, in which anger builds up more slowly, and then erupts, sometimes violently, from being pent up. This will be most evident in the two directives (NFJ). This is what will be seen more prominently in the NF's. Most of the "hot headed 'Choleric' NF's" were probably ENFJ's, who are, after all, Choleric, but in Inclusion. Next would be the INFJ's who will be just as critical when they react, but simply react slower than their extraverted counterparts. (People like Hitler and Osama are generally believed to be INFJs! I still believe they are more likely ENTJ pure Cholerics, who according to APS, can undertake any type of behavior to meet their goals, which would include the supposed "extraverted Feeling (gone awry)" people think they see in these two!) The ENFP is a Sanguine in Inclusion, which despite the friendliness of the type, does also have a quick hot temper, and can behave badly for attention. (We will look more closely at some of these behaviors in this type shortly). The INFP, being Supine and/or Phlegmatic in both areas, is the least "enthusiastic" of the four. Hence, this comes from the "E" rather than the "NF" part of it!
Since "exciteability" is a "social skills"/"intellectual energies" trait, and the Keirseyan groupings are "conative" (dealing with "action" or leadership skills), the Choleric in the area of Control is not necessarily "exciteable". It just indicates the person's determination to complete tasks, and unwillingness to be controlled by others. And this we clearly see in the NT's. The reaction to these needs not being met will be shaped largely by the Inclusion temperament. Neither is the Phlegmatic or Supine in Control necessarily "impassive". By themselves, they will be, compared to other temperaments, but the overall behavior will be determined more by the Inclusion scores.
So it seems it might be like blind people touching different parts of an elephant sometimes. There is correspondance, but we are seeing different aspects of the behavior of the types in each instrument.
More than likely, another explanation of anomalies will be a simple overlap of temperaments between the two systems. Since it appears MBTI does not cover extremely high wanted Control behavior, and it also might not include extremely low expressed Control, perhaps the matrix is simply smaller when overlayed over the APS Control matrix (see diagram). In this way, NF would simply indicate a higher wC and lower eC in comparison to the others, but not cover the full Supine range. It would on the other hand, however overlap with Melancholy, Sanguine, and yes, even Choleric in Control, as well as of course, encompassing Phlegmatic in Control. In addition, SJ would also cross into the lower expressed scores of the Choleric range, and SP would cross into the higher wanted area of the Choleric range. So the factors would generally still correspond, but as was mentioned, the ranges would be different. This may turn out to be closest to the truth!
Possible overlay of two matrices, with me possibly as both NF and Choleric. I've since determined a more likely NT preference
Looking for Evidence in the FIRO-MBTI Statistical Correlations
On this point, it should be pointed out that there will of course be discrepancies in these correlations when people take tests of both systems. Again, you can take different 16 types tests, and come out differently. The Keirsey test supposedly only has a 63 percent match with MBTI. That some who take one test come out differently in the other does not mean Keirsey's E, I, S, N, T, F, J and P scales do not correspond to MBTI's E, I, S, N, T, F, J and P scales. Take the fact that I and my wife both came out ENFJ with the KTS II. There is no way that we are the same type*. Since the questions and focus of that test are completely different from the APS, you could have a scenario where a particular question in one test might interpret a behavior it is measuring as social, rather than conative or leadership. As I had discussed on the first page regarding how my temperament's different factors can mix, (And I can add to that that Paul James links the INTP with "melancolic" [sic] types because of the tertiary Si) if you pair my wife's low wC with the high eI; I could see how another test might pick that up as some sort of "Choleric", and the high wI with the low eC as some sort of "Supine" or "Phlegmatic". She is both expressive, but with a critical edge, and in another sense, non-expressive and agreeable. Since the factors only loosely correspond, the personal interactions some of one test's questions considers social, the other might consider conative. With me, the interaction/conation was completely backwards. Two other tests correctly identified me as introverted, but still made me an FJ. One, N, and the other, S. For the N type, aside from more accurately measuring my definite "abstract" focus, again interpreted what is my true social temperament as conative (sharing the abstract focus), and making me, basically, Melancholy in Inclusion (pairing the low e with the low w missing from Control)**. The S type got my Inclusion right, but at the expense of making me a concrete-focused Melancholy in Control (sharing the low wC). Then finally, the BBC Science & Health test (and possibly Bestfittype) measured me as INTP. Since we use all functions (which many of the "Eisenfelt"-type test scores are based on), perhaps the questions of one 16 type test will interpret answers as measuring different functions as well. For people whose Affection is different from their Inclusion, that might be picked up and affect the results as well.
In Thompson's study, E/I, S/N and T/F end up generally having high correlations with what corresponds to eC/wC and eA/wA, while J/P has no significant correlation with anything. (In Thompson's case, working with the expanded "Element B", Affection is renamed "Openness", and new factors added to how we express to others and want them to express to us: how we want to express to others, and how others do express to us). E/I correlations were all negative. Control had significant correlations only with E/I (negative) and T/F (one negative; one positive).
In Schnell & Hammer's "Integrating the FIRO-B With the MBTI" in Fitzgerald: Developing Leaders: Research and Applications in Psychological Type and Leadership Development, none of the types reviewed match what we would expect the FIRO scores to be. The same on most of the sample combination FIRO-B/MBTI reports on CPP's site and others. (However, the joint profile for Pat Michaels at http://www.caravela.us/pdf/LeadershipReport.pdf has him as both an ESTJ and eI=7; wI=1; eC=0; wC=3; matching the scores of the Choleric/Melancholy as we would expect (eA and wA are both 4).
Three ENFJ's came out as three different FIRO combinations; one a Mission Impossible or Autocrat :-(
; one an Openly Dependant Person or Abdicrat :-D and one a compulsive (0/0) Rebel. The Mission Impossible was also an Inhibited Individual (and thus similar to my I/C temperament, and the other two were compulsive People Gatherers or Oversocials. All three were compulsive Optimists or Overpersonals). My theory would have expected them to come out as high eI/low/wI/low eC/low or mod eC/high or mod. wC: Now You See Him Now You Don't coupled with Matcher, Checker or even Openly Dependent. So the expressed Inclusion of all three matched, but the Controls were all very different, and in two cases, opposite. There was another, similar correlation by John W Fleenor, in the same book ("The Relationship Between the MBTI and Measures of Personality and Performance in Management Groups").
These correlations were based on having people take both tests, and comparing the scores. But since the orientations of the tests were completely different, that might not tell you much. Plus people come out as several different types in taking different 16 types tests, so there was not even a perfect score correlation right within the EISeNFelT system itself! It may even be that S/N scored high in the Inclusion and Affection areas, because the scale would affect people's perception of interaction in those areas, as I have heard suggested. The S/N-Control part of it would actually make a lot of sense in this theory, since as we have seen, Perception does seem tied to Control. However, Schnell and Hammer's report showed significant associations for iNtuition and Perceiving [together] and high wI. I don't know if Schnell and Hammer were aware of the Interaction Styles model, but they hypothesized on the meanings of this for the two factors separately, but it is together that they equal the "Informing" preference that appears to correspond to high wI! (so S/N's high correlation with Inclusion might not be by itself, but in conjection with those additional scales -J/P T/F, that tie it to Interaction Style).
One of the ENFJ's, Richard (5/9-7/2-9/9) described one of his strengths as "entrepreneurial flair and the ability to launch new projects"; whatever the odds against him. Here, it is of course attributed to his high expressed Control, however, recall, that in APS, launching of new projects is associated with Inclusion, and the In Charge Interaction Style of this type would suggest that he is really Choleric in that area, rather than a Supine. (This is the same thing that occurred in my KTS score). This is one of the many ways these scores can be mixed up in correlations. All three reported that their relationships with their superiors were nonassertive, and this attributed to both their Wanted Affection and Feeling preferences.
In Schnell & Hammer's factoral comparisons, the numbers are explained as positive correlations being associated with I, N, F and P, while negative are associated with E, S, T and J.
E/I have high negative correlations with everything except wC. The largest is with eI, at 59. S/N correlations are now small, with the largest being with wI, at 11. T/F have mostly moderate correlations, the highest positive one being eA (23) and eC being -23. J/P again has very small correlations; the largest being with wI, at 12.
FIRO-B Scale | E-I | S-N | T-F | J-P |
Expressed Inclusion | -59 | 04 | 11 | 00 |
Wanted Inclusion | -28 | 11 | 12 | 12 |
Expressed Control |
-23 | 03 | -23 | -01 |
Wanted Control | 04 | -09 | 16 | -05 |
Expressed Affection | -52 | 06 | 22 | 07 |
Wanted Affection | -31 | 02 | 17 | 07 |
Fleenor's correlation:
FIRO-B Scale | E-I | S-N | T-F | J-P |
Expressed Inclusion | -.49 | .04 | .14 | -.01 |
Wanted Inclusion | -.29 | .07 | .12 | .04 |
Expressed Control |
-.16 | .08 | -.21 | -.01 |
Wanted Control | .02 | -.03 | .16 | .00 |
Expressed Affection | -.42 | .07 | .25 | .03 |
Wanted Affection | -.27 | .02 | .23 | .02 |
This one has an even lower correlation with S/N, but also J/P. In both cases, T has high correlation with expressed Control. This is good, as T is not only associated with Directing and Structure-orientation ("wanted" behavior type scales), but also Pragmatism as well, which is what I have proposed as best representing high eC!
So these correlations both go a bit more along with this theory
In Schnell & Hammer's table from "Relationships Between the MBTI and the FIRO-B: Implications for their joint usage in leadership development" In Fitzgerald proceedings of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Leadership: An International Research Conference P.186; http://www.olmsteadassoc.com/file_manager/files/docs/Dissertation-26-50.pdf) they list the types with the highest FIRO-B scores for each type:
Supporting this correlation:
All NT's have expressed Control as highest score!
ESTP and ISTP have expressed Control as highest
All EF's have expressed Inclusion as second highest
Going against this correlation:
ISTJ has expressed Control as highest score; ESTJ has expressed Control as second highest
(All other scores are wanted Affection, which are first or second in all types! For the IF's, it is the only score listed. This suggests that Affection is spread out through the EISeNFelt scores, influencing the whole type).
In all of this, we must keep in mind that these correlations are with FIRO, and not APS. FIRO and APS are supposedly the same test, but APS has tweaked it up somehow to measure inborn temperament (much like Keirsey Temperament and MBTI type). FIRO is not measuring inborn temperament, but admittedly, changeable behavior, so if the measured behavior can change, it will not always correlate perfectly. There don't seem to be any of these correlations done with APS, which is not mainstream enough. The results of that would probably come out more consistent. Also, if a factor analysis was done directly with Keirsey and Berens' concepts (Informing, Directing, Pragmatic, Cooperative, Structure, Motive), instead of T, F, J and P, which they only loosely correspond to. (The same with FFM correlations being done directly with those Keirsey and Berens factors, being that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness by definition are closer to D/Inf and C/U than they are to the MBTI scales).
ISTJ's seem to be pure Melancholy. (The person who introduced us to the KTS was an ISTJ, and a Melancholy in Inclusion and Control. The site of the similar WorleyID profile also mentions an ISTJ who they tested as Melancholy). But if the FIRO responses are reflecting learned behavior, then since, according to APS, they have a need to appear in Control, and like being leaders in known areas, and can seem dominating when they have their positions of authority, then if they take the test during a period where they are having these needs met, it is easy to see why the FIRO might interpret them as having high expressed Control. The same with the ESTJ, and since he is extraverted, he will actually be part "Choleric", and quick to envision new projects.
My parent's (Probably ISTJ's) may well have come out with high expressed Inclusion if they had taken the FIRO when they were younger. They seemed more outgoing back then, but this was more from "societal expectations". You're "supposed to" have friends and be social. But as time went on, they let go of more of these abstract standards, and in retirement, their true Melancholy selves are showing in full force. Remember, "Expressed behavior" in APS is all about the "Approach"; in this case, the approach to control others. Melancholies do express a lot of control, but they do not approach others with it. Approaching in this case would mean entering their sphere of control. If you come to them to be employed by them, if you cross their boundaries, if you are born to them even, you "approached" them, and will experience their "controlling" nature. But they do not otherwise go out looking for control. So perhaps the FIRO result did not take into consideration who approached who; it was only measuring their behavior in whichever situation they were in at the time.
This will also throw off the S/N correlation, because with the high eC (assuming wC is still low) you will end up with what corresponds to a Choleric in Control being a Sensor, instead of iNtuitive. The Supine in Control as well, if he takes the test at a time when his dependency need is being met, and is strongly enforcing others' rules and defensive against loss of position; according to his behavior, may well come out as a Mission Impossible (autocrat) instead of Openly Dependant (abdicrat). Or as a Rebel or Dependant-Independent, in which case he will appear to be a Sensing type as well.
(Even though things may not always match up perfectly, at least we don't seem to have ISTJ's coming out with full Sanguine scores (People Gatherer/Independent-Dependent), or ESFP's coming out with full Melancholy scores (Loner/Rebel), or stuff like all NF's having high expressed Control the way NT's did).
*I rushed through the test, being not interested in the KTS/MBTI yet, and only focusing on the APS at that point. Also, I was thrown off by questions such as "fundamentals vs Overtones", and the rigid two choice only format. I have since taken it over (the self-scoring version), and came out a close INTP!
**That result was, however, from Socionics, in which "j/p" (deliberately lowercase) have a somewhat different meaning than in regular MBTI, and the INFj's first two functions are actually Fi-Ne, making it really more of an INFP, or pure Supine or Phlegmatic.
Other Possible Reasons For Discrepancies: Supine in Control and SJ; ENFP type's "Strong Willed" behavior
Someone whose scores amount to Supine in Control (i.e. Openly Dependent) may also come out as an SJ, because of their similar need for an ordered system. (Hence, in Enneagram-MBTI correlations, the 6 is often tied to SJ). However, it will really be because of their dependency need (which will not be based on anything concrete) rather than introverted Sensing and its resultant structure focus. Supines in Control do not crave decisions to be made by others because of not remembering what to do, or not being familiar; but rather it is just a largely ungrounded fear of failure and criticism.
A Supine in Control would be much more likely to follow someone else's direction into the unknown than a Melancholy. Just as long as that person takes the responsibility, the Supine will not resist like the Melancholy in Control would. Thus the pure Supine is not really "scheduling", on his own; but in relation to the others they seek to make decisions for them, would fit as more "probing", extraverting his perception. (Hence, just like my temperament combination makes me an INTP with I/E and T/F ambiguity; a pure Supine might thus be an INFP with S/N and J/P ambiguity, being in some respects like an ISFJ). You would also think that the servant-natured pure Supine would have an Fe preference, but again, their values, such as the need for affirmation and to be taken care of, can still be internally sourced, and thus Fi. As we have seen, and will see again next, Fi does give the FP types some of the typical Supine characteristics as capitulating to people. When you recall that Fe is concerned with external harmony or interpersonal values, from the APS manuals which focus on the pure temperaments, the Supine is described as serving others to meet his own need for appreciation and acceptance, and this is internal harmony, and hence Fi. The same would hold true for the pure Sanguine, who has the same needs from people, and is more expressive towards them, and the pure Phlegmatic who keeps the peace to protect his low energy. It's only when mixed with a directive or structure-focused temperament that Supine (or Phlegmatic, or Sanguine) would then have external value standards, which by their objective nature tend to lower responsiveness.
Another great evidence of this is that fact that Ryan named as "Let's Have a Party" the People Gatherer/Rebel/Optimist (corresponding to the SanMelSan), rather than the pure Sanguine People Gatherer/Independent-Dependent Conflict/Optimist, as you would think. Clearly, the SanMelSan is an extraverted Feeling type, in contrast to the pure Sanguine.
Along these lines, there had been some apparent discrepancies with the ENFP that make it seem like it has high eC and low wC, rather than low eC and high wC. As I'll explore in Part 3, I have even gotten typed as ENFP by some because of my "enthusiasm". The PUM 1 profile states: "ENFPs may find it difficult to work within the constraints of an institution, especially in following rules, regulations, and standard operating procedures. More frequently, institutional procedures and policies are targets to be challenged and bent by the will of an ENFP. Colleagues and superiors sometimes find themselves in the position of having to accommodate and salvage." They are also called "nonconformists". This might be the more "Phlegmatic in Control" aspect with its stubborness, or perhaps the influence of the Sanguine Inclusion with its focus on fun. (Though it does mention "the will", which is more associated with "Control". Now, this NF sounds like an NT!) Most likely, in the case of that "bent by the will" thing, there were some Supine/Cholerics being observed, and maybe some Sanguine Cholerics (who are naturally extraverted like this type) would fit as well (I imagine those with the highest wI and wA scores, as this is what would increase the "Feeling" traits). Then, "ENFPs generally are the ones in charge of the home". However, it continues "...and a conflict free home is desired, almost demanded"; the avoidance of conflict matching both Sanguine in Inclusion and Phlegmatic in Control. Hirsch & Kummerow state: "ENFPs are energetic and enthusiastic leaders who are likely to take charge when a new endeavor needs a visionary spokesperson", and "...are often charismatic leaders". All of this "energetic"ness contradicts the Phlegmatic, but again is most likely coming from the Inclusion. Note; it's when the endeavor needs a visionary spokesperson, and not necessarily so much about "rule-making". Notice, the endeavor already exists; they are simply becoming its "spokesperson". They did not "write the policy" of the cause; they only "enforce" it; and "strongly" at that (Arno). Yet, ENFP and the other NF's, despite enthusiasm or rule bending, still seem to be ultimately "abdicratic" or at least "democratic", while NT's are more "autocratic". (Schutz's name for low eC/high wC, mod. e/wC, and high eC/low wC, respectively. See tables at bottom). Despite this strong will at times, Typelogic.com profile by Marina Margaret Heiss says "Perhaps the combination of introverted Feeling and childlike introverted Sensing is responsible for the silent pull of ENFPs to the wishes of parents, authority figures and friends. Or perhaps it's the predominance of indecisive intuition in combination with the ambiguity of secondary Fi and tertiary Te that induces these kind souls to capitulate even life-affecting decisions. Whatever the dynamic, ENFPs are strongly influenced by the opinions of their friends".
Again; it's the Inclusion that jumps up and gets involved in the endeavor. They are "champions of causes and services relating to human needs and dreams." Here, now, a service-oriented Control kicks in. That is another area where it seems different from me. Most of my Control pursuits are for myself, or for logical clarity (such as challenging many of the illogical teachings by some religionists). Some I figure would benefit mankind; like some of my writings. I have often thought "There's always room for others" in my wishes. But that is usually secondary; like a "fringe benefit"; they are mainly driven by the Control need of recognition. The ENFP does not quite seem to be like this. It seems more genuinely altruistic or "others"-driven. After all, it is "Motive"-oriented, and "Friendly" while I seem more Structure-oriented and Tough-minded. Also, from discussing the idea of me as ENFP with others, there were two people with ENFP husbands, and they did not seem to have the same motives as me for their enthusiasm. They were even described as not "controlling". One of the wives was an NF herself, and the husband, while having a "strong opinion" on things nevertheless asks her opinion, and she basically does whatever benefits others, even if it seems like sacrifice. If NF was Choleric, both would be battling each other over doing things their own way!
While putting all of this behavior off on the Inclusion may not seem to carry but so far, a clue of this is that the introverted counterpart to this is described as "...only reluctantly do INFPs assume leadership roles", now matching the Supine Control. So clearly that is not the NF causing the aggressive behavior. That type also is described as "They do not like following all the rules and regulations, but they are not overtly rebellious. They seek to get things done in their own style". (H&K) Again, this seems like the more Phlegmatic aspect. In PUM 1: "For INFPs, their home is their castle". However, a few sentences later: "In the routine rituals of daily living, INFPs tend to be compliant and may even prefer having decisions made on their behalf, until their value system is violated! Then INFPs dig in their heels and will not budge from ideals." This now sounds like both the Supine and Phlegmatic in Control, respectively. Perhaps, specifically, expressing as a Supine initially, and then responding as a Phlegmatic when the values are violated! This again points strongly to the Supine Phlegmatic blend!
Also, there is the possibility that some of this behavior in the ENFP is more reactive. The other big evidence is that the ENTP is also described as "non-conformist", as we saw above! Clearly, the nonconformism appears to be coming from the Interaction Style! which again is very oriented on fun and socialization (and in both cases is shaped by the dominant Ne). The fact that the INTP's are also to a lesser extent described as nonconformists, suggests that as a conative trait, it is more associated with the NT, and not the NF. So both GtG and NT tends towards nonconformity, and it is the ENTP that will bear this behavior the most, but the ENFP will have some of it as well. (For a type like the ESFJ, this will be cancelled out by the SJ's need for concrete structures). Also again; that many with temperament mixes like mine (who are genuinely Choleric in Control, with a high wanted Inclusion and Affection) may have gotten mixed up in the type, for lack of any other type fitting the fifth temperament mixed with Choleric.
Still, even though these ENFP traits may sound like high expressed Control and low wanted Control, the traits mentioned are not enough to make the pure type in itself Choleric, and it is not a Melancholy in Control either. It does not seem to fit a Sanguine in Control as well (as the ESFP matches up with better). By process of elimination alone, it would have to be some sort of Phlegmatic or Supine or combination, in Control, modified by the expressive Inclusion. This would be the reverse of the ISFP just discussed above where an introverted Inclusion tempers the extraverted Control.
I would love to see APS do short profiles for all of the 125 basic I/C/A combinations, as was done for a few of them in both the Temperament Theory manual, and The Missing Link. Even the 25 I/C-only combinations would help with the comparisons to the 16 types. That might shed light on some of this behavior we are seeing described and which EISeNFelT type really most closely matches which ERICA combination. Luckily, one of the three discussed in the latter book was Sanguine-Supine-Melancholy (GSM). Ignoring the Affection; this we would expect to fit into the ENFP category according to this correlation. Sure enough, what is described is the Inclusion need for socialization overshadowing everything else, leaving the Control (and Affection) needs neglected! The Control need would be to have deep personal relations help them make decisions and share the responsibility. Instead, they will "undertake whatever behavior is necessary to be accepted". You will note, the ENFP profiles did not tell us exactly WHY they challenged rules and bureaucracies or took charge (from a more behavioral viewpoint). What you will get from that system will be on the functions level, where this would be attributed to the "personal values" of the auxiliary Fi coupled with the tertiary Te. This APS profile would confirm that the Inclusion (Get Things Going Interaction Style) is what is driving the behavior, with the dependency need [of the conation area] being left unmet. Once again, dependency is not covered in the 16 types profiles, and "weaknesses" are generally not discussed much either. Also notice in the SanSupMel, it's deep personal relations whom this dependency would be placed on, not necesarily everybody! (The Affection temperament only determines how open or loving the person is with those in his life. So the GSM will have only a few whom they will need to make decisions for them; yet they will be so caught up in the Inclusion need, this need will be ignored. Other Affection temperaments with this combination would be more or less open or affectionate with more people, but still have the same problem in the I/C areas; hence, Affection can be ignored in these correlations).
One person who was ENFP, from taking a five temperaments "trait chart" test, we did determine to be, in fact, Sanguine-Supine-Melancholy. She had high Melancholy along with Supine, and for a time considered ISFJ (Supine-Melancholy), but then using cognitive theory, settled on ENFP, and we determined the Melancholy lied in the area of deep personal relations. She did say the GSM description sounded like her.
The 16types profiles do not make the "deep personal" distinction either. For the ENFP, it just shows the person's expressiveness to others without breaking down which area of personality it is coming from. The drive of behavior in that system is viewed through the cognitive functions (or Keirseyan Temperament), moreso than "needs" such as the ones dealt with in FIRO/APS (dependency, fear of rejection, need of recognition, etc). And remember, "undertaking any behavior necessary" is usually described for high expressed Control. Yet now, it is Inclusion that seems to be producing that trait. The more expressive temperaments in one area are described as "dominating" even the other areas. Plus, as we saw, it is really Inclusion that determines the speed of "undertaking" projects (as well as traits such as "exciteability"), while Control deals with actually carrying them out. Team Technology describes the ENFP as "initiating too many projects, and not being able to deliver on all of them". Here we see the quickness in undertaking them, yet, we do not have the full determination to complete them. This is a clue possibly indicating some form of higher wC! The high eI would be driving this behavior for the sake of somehow moving people, to gain attention, for acceptance (which will not be directly covered in the ENFP descriptions).
As was mentioned, there is also the Supine Phlegmatic blend as a possibility for the NF. In Dr. Phyllis Arno's "Temperament Corner" article series, the Supine Phlegmatic in Control is described as tending to "take on too many projects because they cannot say no". Now this matches the ENFP profile, and it is the high wC being described, rather than high eC! Part of the Supine need is the aim to please people, and this can also lead to taking on responsibilities; in service. (And don't forget the angry reaction when they feel used!) This was neither covered nor ruled out by the ENFP profiles either. So if you pair Supine Phlegmatic in Control with the high social expressiveness of the Sanguine Inclusion, (which again crowds out the need to have someone make decisions for the person, and both temperaments driven to gain acceptance from people) this person will definitely be someone who appears to "take charge", energetically and have charisma! They will also respond with the Phlegmatic stubbornness towards rules at times, and even have a measure of independence!
In passing: Two kinds of "Control"
It should also be mentioned in passing that Berens also has similar cross-factors for her Interaction Styles as well. "Focus on movement towards the goal" pairs Get Things Going with Chart The Course, and "Focus on Control over the outcome" pairs In Charge with Behind the Scenes. When I first mentioned the ERICA area of "Control" in discussions with EISeNFelT users, they thought it had to do with Berens' "Control vs Movement", and I said it was probably different, and that what links the opposites in our system is that Sanguines and Melancholies both express what they want, and want what they express, while Supines and Cholerics are very "indirect" in that respect. Soon, in reading Berens' description again, I noticed this "control" defined as "Controlling some aspect of the interaction" (As opposed to "Moving things along"). I now saw a definite connection there. Cholerics or IC, of course, are by nature controlling. But what about the opposite Supine? Because they do not express, but do want interaction, they basically have to move to gain this, and that's what their "service" basically is. The Choleric of course expresses to people to manipulate them for his task oriented goals. So they both do have in common this kind of "control". The Melancholy on the other hand doesn't even want to be bothered with people, so neither expresses to them. The Sanguine gains the interaction they want by expressing upfront. So both basically focus on "moving things along" to their goal (either socialization, or solitude), without using any indirect behavior to achieve those things. So basically, "Control versus Movement" is sort of like the "Concrete vs abstract" (S/N) of Interaction (Inclusion)!
Of course, a similar dynamic occurs in the Control area as well. Dr. Arno even describes the Supine in the area of Control as appearing dominating, because they manipulate people to take care of them.
Further supporting the connection, when I look at the partial list of names Dr. Schutz came up with for his FIRO-B scores, he divided them into "Inclusion types", "Control types" and "Affection types". I didn't pay much attention to the pattern, at first, but looking again, I saw the "Inclusion" and "Affection" types are high E/W, medium E/W and low E/W (which would correspond to Sanguine, Phlegmatic and Melancholy, but he gives them names like "overpersonal", "personal" "underpersonal"). However, the "Control" types are the high E/low W, low E/high W, and med. E/W, (named "autocrat", "abdicrat", "democrat"). This would be Choleric, Supine and Phlegmatic; or IC and BtS, just like Berens says! (BtS encompassing the latter two; and even though those are the Control counterparts to them while Interaction Styles are Inclusion). So apparently, there IS a connection between both uses of "control". I wonder if Berens might have even drawn from Schutz there.
Word is now, that Berens is renaming this factor to "Process" vs. "Outcome". This is better, as "control", as we see, was a bit misleading. Thus again, it explains my passivity in some areas, even as a "Choleric in Control", because the Inclusion (corresponding to Interaction Style) desires the outcome over the process. Credit and bills are perfect examples; where I want things to be paid, where my wife is more willing to make payments towards the goal of total payment, sometimes requiring shuffling of different amounts of partial payment. If I can't pay off everything and be done with it my way, I'll become passive and leave it all to her. (And she'll sometimes even comment "you're supposed to be Choleric in Control! Why do you become so passive?") This then is again evidenced to be apart of the "direct/indirect" behavior of the e/wI matrix. I want the outcome, but do not want to do but so much (i.e. "express") to get it. In contrast to this "holding back" of the Behind the Scenes; the In Charge (Choleric) is described as "pushing things through" to get the result as quickly as possible. (They're apparently not as concerned with the best results possible, like the BtS goes slower for. Hence, indirect in being expressive yet not responsive (e.g. not seeking the best results, not checking inputs and outputs like the BtS). Get things Going or Sanguines (like my wife) focus on getting the fastest start of the process, and checking with people along the way. (Direct, in being expressive and responsive). With Chart the Course or Melancholies (like my parents), the focus is on determining the best action to take, and monitoring the progress along the way. (Direct, in being less expressive and less responsive).
In the areas of Inclusion and Affection, we would expect someone who expresses to also want; and someone who doesn't want to not express. That would be "direct" behavior. Control is different, as we would expect someone who expresses control to naturally not want control over him, and someone who wants control by others to not express it himself. So rather than e=w of C being "direct" behavior; it turns out to correspond to "concrete" focus or "sensing".
Here is the entire rundown of how everything would fit together.
IST/INJ Melancholy in Inclusion/Affection (Chart the Course)
EST/ENJ Choleric in Inclusion/Affection (In Charge)
ISF/INP Supine, SupinePhlegmatic or Phlegmatic in Inclusion/Affection (Behind The Scenes)
ESF/ENP Sanguine in Inclusion/Affection (Get Things Going)
"Expressive Behavior" (eI/eA): High=E; Low=I
"Responsive Behavior" (wI/wA): High="Informative" ([S]+F; [N]+P); Low="Directive" ([S]+T; [N]+J)
SJ Melancholy in Control (Guardian/Stabilizer)
SP Sanguine or SanguinePhlegmatic in Control (Artisan/Improviser)
NF Supine, Supine Phlegmatic or Phlegmatic in Control (Idealist/Catalyst)
NT Choleric in Control (Rational/Theorist)
"Expressive Behavior" (eC): High="Pragmatic" ([N]+T; [S]+P) Low="Cooperative" ([N]+F; [S]+J)
"Responsive Behavior" (wC): High="Focus on Motive"([N]+F; [S]+P); Low="Focus on Structure"([N]+T; [S]+J)
To recap from the first page how the basic ERICA system works; it seems people strictly into the EISeNFelT systems do not understand the ICA system, and how temperaments can be blended. (Since the Keirsey temperaments are never blended with each other). Many also don't even understand the Galenic temperaments, or at least see their continued relevance. But general temperament profiles include entire sets of behavior tendencies, in all interaction areas, measured by E (E/I or C/U) and R (D/Inf or Str/M). In other words, what we call a "Melancholy" is someone who does not express and does not want interaction; be it social inclusion, control, or deep personal. That is the basic definition of the set of behaviors given that name, and we would expect a hypothetical "model" person of that type to be like that socially, responsibility-wise, and deep-personally. ICA divides between these areas, realizing that different people will have the different low or high E, and low or high "R" needs in each area, and thus exhibit the different temperament traits in those areas. So someone may have the Melancholy "Introversion" and "Directive" (both low) needs socially only, but have other needs (high E and/or R, or even moderate) in the other areas. This person we would say has a blended temperament. Most people, it seems, have some blending, though there are "pure" types who fit the whole profile of one temperament. To reiterate: in a person's relationship skills, "Inclusion" is "who is (how many people are) IN or OUT of the relationship". "Control" is who maintains the POWER and makes the DECISIONS for the relationship. And Affection is how emotionally CLOSE or DISTANT the relationship. To again break it down factor by factor, we can look at it in terms of a person's willingness to enter another's space (physical or intellectual), and have others enter their space. I/E or expressed Inclusion tells us how much one approaches others for surface interaction. Directing/Informing or Wanted Inclusion tell us how much a person wants others to approach him (and thus affect how the person communicates with the others). Cooperative/Pragmatic (expressed Control) will tell you how much one is willing to cross others' boundaries (based on what's "right" or what "works"), while Structure vs. Motive (wanted Control) will tell you how much a person allows others to cross his boundaries (one's own "structure" vs. subjection to others' structures for the sake of their motives). Expressed Affection tells how much a person wants to probe into another on a deep personal level, while wanted Affection tells how open or closed they are to others on the deep personal level. This last area, again, appears to be omitted in the 16 types profiles, or is meshed in with Inclusion (interaction), and ultimately spread out, affecting the overall score. So what I have done here is identify the classic temperaments as being divided between the "conative" (Keirseyan) temperaments, and the Interaction Styles.
The Cognitive Functions, Satir Modes, Reactive Behaviors and ERICA
So all of this put together would explain the varying degrees of C/P and D/Inf. that are described by Roger Bissell, on his "Achilles Tendencies" page. (Bissell is a freelance type theorist involved with the APT who makes a lot of excellent insights on MBTI and Keirseyan theory in his essays). The FP is the most friendly (informative), the TJ is the most directive, and the TP and FJ are "somewhere in between". The TP is the most pragmatic, the FJ is the most cooperative or empathetic, and FP and TJ are somewhere in between. If you match E/I and D/Inf of the Interaction Styles, with the C/U and Str./M of the conative temperaments; as respectively, two sides of the same coin, and then blend the temperaments and Interaction Styles into the 16 types, you will have the varying degrees of those traits.
With me being INTP, for instance, you have an informing Interaction Style (Behind the Scenes; corresponding to the shy, "inhibited" Supine or at least a peaceful Phlegmatic in Inclusion); combined with the iNtuitive/Thinking; with T generally being both more directive and more pragmatic. This corresponds with Choleric in Control. So I can tend to be conscientious (socially), from liking people and not wanting to offend them, as well as introverted; but then I can also be very pragmatic, and aggressive (Have you seen any of my Christian debate pages on this ftp space? Index). But even the social aspect can also be weak-willed and impressionable (even by something that may not be right), for that same reason of liking people, and thus may additionally lead to "pragmatic" behavior, in terms of doing "what works" --in gaining acceptance, rather than what is right. This is how I can be both Informing and Pragmatic! It easily fits into the Inclusion-Control division. I describe my temperament combination as "liking who people are, but not liking what they do".
The most Informing, as Bissell said, would be FP's which would be Sanguine/Supine (or at least Phlegmatic) combinations; both of which are Informing. FP "Introverted Feeling" (Fi) means they use value judgments on the inner world of thoughts and emotions; leading to them doing what they want done to them. (though since it is inward, they may appear to fail to respond to the feelings of others, according to http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/wword/types.htm). Gary Hartzler and Margaret Hartzler, Functions of Type: Activities to Develop the Eight Jungian Functions (Telos Publications, 2005) describes the function in people as "This can lead to the person going along with just about anything the people around him want to do, but sometimes being surprised by how bad he feels when he does something that violates his deeply held values." All of this is a sign of high Wanted behavior in all areas! Since I also seem to have some NFP traits, I can also identify with this, though it is more of a "weighing" of choices and going either way with me. However, a true Fi preference, while making the person stubborn about personal values over others at times, would still tend to be ultimately more tolerant about such surface things such as "power" and "status" issues than I am, as Fi tends to go beneath that to "what is really important". Haas and Hunziker Building Blocks of Personality Type also describe Fi as "accepting life as it happens" (p.104) and also not imposing itself on others, nor caring to argue over values. Any reaction is purely defensive; when a value is violated. Hence, an Fi type (which will also have Te in tandem) will be a bit more suited to accept and possibly even submit to the structures of a dominant Te ESTJ society; hence high W!
The TJ's are the most directive. Those are Melancholy/Choleric combinations; which are purely directive. TJ "extraverted Thinking" (Te) means using critical logic in dealing with the outer world of people and words and actions. Such persons will generally project this to others in a strict, no-nonsense way. This also shows that "structure-orientation" is in fact a type of "directiveness" (in the area of Control, instead of Interaction); because the TJ's are all distinguished by combining a "directing" Interaction Style with a "structure-oriented" conative temperament. That thus makes them "the most directive" as has been noticed here.
FJ's are either Informing in Inclusion (for S types--SF) with a Melancholy Control (SJ) or Directive in Inclusion (for N types--NJ), with a Phlegmatic or Supine Control (NF). It seems this combination produces the most cooperative behavior. Sanguine-Melancholies like my wife are very hospitable, caring, seek to do what's right, etc. The Melancholy in Control is very much into "what is right", and I believe when combined with a people-oriented (informing) social style, is what makes it the most cooperative. Likewise, a critical, task-oriented Inclusion which will stick to its principles, with an abstract, Feeling preference in Control. FJ "extraverted Feeling" (Fe) means using value judgments in dealing with the outer world of people and words & actions. It in theory sounds like it would be purely "informing" or relationship oriented, but since all J types are described as "projecting values outward" or "ordering the external world", this "Feeling" can be directive (in the case of the S types, "structure-oriented") as well, as they do in fact impose it onto others. (unlike the FP's inward feeling judgment). Feeling, when extraverted, is still a judgment projected on others, and any [outward] judgment will have some directive (low w) traits involved somewhere. Fe is generally about group norms, and these will generally be upheld in a directive way. Keep in mind that "feeling" regards a person's subjective values, and outwardly, they will reflect group values, which can be projected in a directive or structured fashion. When this judgment is turned inward is when it comes out as purely informative behavior, because it is then only perception that is turned outward. The person will be more likely to perceive (by his outward S or N) the other person's point of view by putting himself in their shoes, than if he were projecting his own judgment outward at them, even if it is "Feeling". Likewise, Thinking, which is the most directive function will be tempered (made less directive) when turned inward.
Perception functions are the opposite, becoming more directive when turned inward, and less directive/more informative when turned outward. That's because the only thing being "imposed" on the world is "an impersonal perception function" as Bissell points out. Also, as Keirsey (not using the functions), helpfully renames "P", they will be more "probing", rather than rigidly "scheduling" or fixed to whatever their judgment determines. However, if it is turned inward, the person's judgment is turned outward. He judges (by his outward T or F) the world based on either his (interior) concrete rememberances (C area), or his abstract vision (I/A). So again, the SFJ's will pair the Fe with Si and be "structure" oriented (directive in the area of "Control"). The NFJ's will be directive in Inclusion (IC or Ctc), and more conscientious and motive oriented in Control.
With the TP's, you always have a pragmatic, extraverted Control (NT or SP). The combination of a by nature pragmatic, recogniton-seeking Choleric leadership style (for N types) with an impressionable social style (from being informing; they are easily swayed by people from their high need of acceptance, and find it hard to say no) is what makes it the most pragmatic. Ryan, for instance, considers any high eC/wA combination as a "Patsy". STP's will pair tough-minded social styles with a more expressive and less structure-oriented leadership style, so that combination would also be the most pragmatic. Again, think of the ISTP "surfer dudes". Introverted Thinking (Ti) means they use critical objective judgment in the internal world of thoughts and ideas. This also produces a mixture of directing and informing traits across Inclusion and Control.
(Bissell himself does not accept Keirsey or Berens' models, but rather prefers the more "symmetrical" Normative and Cognitive temperaments, mentioned above. However it was his comparisons of the FP/FJ/TP/TJ (Normative) group in terms of varying degrees of "friendliness" to "directiveness" in light of the judging functions involved, that was one of the keys to my identifying the "other" e/w matrix (Control) in the conative temperaments. (Along with helping me understand the judging functions a little bit better since they weren't included in Berens' "forest for the trees" analogy on her site). It was then just a matter of recalling "didn't Berens have a cross-factor linking opposite temperaments?" The answer, Structure vs Motive, became the final key).
| Nonresponsive | Responsive | Concrete (S) | Abstract (N) | |
| Orientation of preferred decision making function | Judgments/decisions are based on EXTERNAL standards ("that's just the way it is; too tough; nothing can be done about it") perception is internally referenced ("I KNOW inside that this is true; I remember/foresee...") | Perception is what is externally referenced ("let's see what we can do about this; let's look at the options; let's experience the thrill of the moment") judgments/decisions are based on INTERNAL standards ("this is how I think/feel; my opinion is...") | (perception attitudes) +J=Internal: schedules according to familiar structure +P=External: probes current reality (and motives) | (perception attitudes) +J=Internal: schedules and directs according to foresight +P=External: probes possibilities, open ended, informative |
| The decision making functions themselves | THING oriented (IMPERSONAL) judgment/decision making is based on logical principles ("This is true/false; that's just the way it is; the way we feel won't change that") | PERSONAL oriented Judgment/decision making is based on values or ethics ("This is good/bad; it means so much to me/us; we should empathize and offer help") | (preferred function pairs) +T: directs according to concrete principles +F: informs according to concrete values | (preferred function pairs) +T: acts in accordance with logical structures +F: acts in accordance with ethical motives |
Since all TJ's are the least responsive, and all FP's the most, then it is the FJ's and TP's we will look at to sort the different wanted scores.
For the NTP, Toughminded impersonal judging in terms of what's valid makes him independent in the leadership area, and his open ended Probing makes him more responsive to people in social skills. For the STP, the Toughminded impersonal judging on validness makes him less responsive to people socially, while the Probing makes him more responsive in the leadership area.
For NFJ's, "Friendly" decision making based on what's desired for people makes them more responsive in the area of leadership, but the external standards of their judgment lends to scheduling ("scheJuling") or task orientation in the social area. For SFJ's, their Friendly decision making based on what's desired for people makes them responsive socially, but their external judgment standards make them independently scheduling in the area of leadership.
The difference across S/N seems to come from the perception attitudes themselves. Simply put, Sensing preference (either attitude) determines the Control area for those types (e="high e and wC"; i="low e and wC"), and iNtuition preference determines wanted Inclusion for its types (e=high; i=low). Why this is; perhaps again, because a concrete focus (based on what's known; either past or present) ties into personal boundaries and leadership and responsibilities. So the sensing preference itself determines Control; while the judging preference (logic or values) determines social responsiveness. An abstract focus (based on patterns, and what is not concretely known) simply reverses it, with the judging preference determining leadership skills, and the perception attitude determining social skills.
At this point; I can explain further what I mean when I refer to Structure-vs. Motive as the "directive and informative of Control". For a Sensor, T defines "directing" while J defines "Structure-oriented"; and F defines "informing", while P defines "motive-oriented". But an iNtuitor switches this, with the T defining Structure, and the J defining directing; and the F defining Motive, and the P defining Informing. So we see here that T and J, and F and P are basically interchangeable in defining those two factors, thus, directing and structure are counterparts of each other, as are informing and motive orientation. When mapped to the ERICA scale, particularly the APS version using the same temperament names for the same scores on each level, then it makes perfect sense. The factors are describing the same scales, but on a different level of interaction. One is Inclusion (social skills), and the other is Control (leadership and responsibilities). It's just that in the original Myersian system, the factors became intertwined in the T/F and J/P scales. They do not evenly fit either, so they cross back and forth between one letter pair or the other. So sometimes T/F measures the Inclusion counterpart (D/Inf), and sometimes it measure the Control counterpart (Str/M). J/P would always measure the other factor.
Directing and Structure orientation have certain traits in common, which could be called either "directive" or "structure oriented". But the names are divided according to whether it is [social] Interaction or Conation that is being measured by the factor. But on the FIRO/APS scale, both factors are simply called "low Wanted behavior", and in APS encompass the temperaments known as Melancholy and Choleric, but in two separate matrices measuring either social skills or leadership skills. (In Ryan's FIRO charts, each matrix has separate names; see table at bottom). Likewise, Informing and Motive orientation will have the opposite traits in common. They both will have high Wanted behavior in social or leadership skills. So then this is why T's and J's together will be "double"-directive, and F's and P's together will be "double"-informative.
Cooperative and Pragmatic also end up tied into the T/F/J/P web, but this time, it is F and J taking turns measuring "cooperativeness", or "low expressed Control", and T and P taking turns measuring "Pragmatic", or high expressed Control. This time, informing-Sensing or directing-iNtuiting will tend to be the "Inclusion" counterpart to "cooperative", while directing-Sensing and informing-iNtuiting will be the Inclusion counterpart to "pragmatic". Cooperative and Pragmatic being the Control counterpart to I/E also makes sense, especially when comparing it using Berens' term for E and I: Initiating and Responding. Pragmatics or Utilitarians are naturally more "initiating" in projects and leadership, while Cooperatives or "Affiliatives" will act based more on "responding" to someone else.
By looking at the data drawn by Bissell in a study of the Step II subscales (Lend Me Your EARS! Using the MBTI's Expanded Analysis Report to Assess Claims about Type and Temperament Theory, not currently published) to be consistent, we could also map out a "mirror-Cooperative/Pragmatic" scale linking SF's with NJ's, and ST's with NP's. These then would blend together with C/U leading to TP's being the most pragmatic and FJ's being the most cooperative, the same way that D/Inf + Str/M add together in the FP's and TJ's. Bissell does not recognize this, of course, and neither does it have any place in my model, as E/I makes the perfect "expressiveness" match for C/U. (The FIRO scales would also be totally blind to this mirror factor). In that sense, cooperativeness and pragmatism would diverge from being forms of "expressed behavior", and instead simply indicate slight differences in the EAR subscale preferences.
We can look at it in terms of the APS temperaments and Rule-making. High eC's make rules, and low eC's enforce others' rules, in their own way. Or one leads and the other follows. The Choleric in Control will make rules based on his own abstract structures. The Supine in Control will follow other people's lead and enforce their rules. The Melancholy in Control we would expect to follow rather than lead or to not make rules either, but they usually do end up in charge, and like being leaders in "known or familiar areas". However, from what I have seen of them growing up under them and now married to one, they do not really think of themselves as "making" the rules up (i.e. out of their own concepts), but rather see the rules being set by the prevailing circumstances, or "life" in general. In other words, they base their rules generally on "the way it is". So they in effect are "following" and "enforcing", not necessarily other people's rules, but rather the "rules" imposed by concrete reality. And that may include other people's rules when it fits their need for concrete structure, or if the concrete reality dictates that there is no other choice. "Grit your teeth and deal with it" is their motto for realities they or you don't like and can't change, which I find is much harder for a Choleric in Control to swallow!
A Melancholy in Control parent might enforce strict rules to his children, but this will be because he thinks the child needs that kind of structure. They do need a lot of care, after all. However, when he grows up and goes out on his own, the parent, while still encouraging him to keep the values he was taught, will still basically relinquish the control over his life and tell him "you can do whatever you want to do, now". The Choleric in Control parent will be more likely to continue to try to control and influence the grown up child. The mother on Everybody Loves Raymond is a possible example of this; always butting in and being nosy to her son and daughter in law from across the street. One is dealing with the concrete reality that the children are grown and must make their own decisions, while the other is hung up on some abstract idea of the way they should always be.
But of course, even "concrete reality" is subject to interpretation, and the Choleric will feel that a situation can be changed if enough people try hard enough. The Melancholy will also be annoyed by the Choleric making noise about it, even, feeling nothing can be done about it. But to the Choleric, it only seems that way because others won't join him in doing something about it. As the Choleric pushes, and the Melancholy resists and then reacts against his space being invaded, this creates much clashing between the two temperaments. The situations may be irritating to both people, and both will be crabby about it, but from what I have experienced, the Melancholy will react more to the Choleric's reaction than to the situation itself! The lower expressed Control means that they do not seek or desire to conquer more ground, like the Choleric in Control. They only want to main absolute control over the turf they already have.
The Sanguine in Control will also make up rules, but it will be based on concrete reality. I still don't understand them as much from first hand personal experience, but their action might be more along the lines of simply seeing practical things that need to be done, rather than just enforcing their own concepts. (There are two Sanguines in Control in my circle, but these are teenage girls, and I do not have but so much interaction with them. Another female I knew from a previous job I think appeared to be Sanguine in Inclusion and Control; the first day on the job, just meeting everybody, she went around starting a "Susu" or "sociedad" (A money pool that everyone pitches into and takes their turns collecting each payday). I quickly remembered that when I started learning about temperament and the area of Control, trying to think of an example of what Sanguine in Control behavior might be like in comparison to Choleric in Control; because it was very expressive and almost aggressive in the area of leadership (as well as socially), but not as critically oriented as the kinds of things I embark on. Hence, looking at it in terms of the KTT/BTT scales, it was very Pragmatic, but Motive-oriented (working with people), and also concrete-focused. It was also a very good sign of tertiary Te: arranging the outer world for efficiency as a "relief" function).
Bissell also compared the J and P types to the Satir modes and Bradshaw's Reactive Behaviors. TJ is a "Blamer" or "Persecutor" who "attacks". The FJ is a "Placater" or "Doormat" who "attaches". The TP is a "Computer or Super Reasonable" who "Freezes out" or "detaches". The FP is a "Distracter" who "walks out" or "retreats". There is actually also a fifth Satir Mode omitted by Bissell, the "Leveler", who basically tells you things, upfront, without attacking. (Like in Horney's Coping Strategies and Type A theory, Leveler is an only "functional" mode out of dysfunctional ones). Right away, it would look like Blamer=Choleric, Placater=Supine, Computer=Melancholy (that type being known to "freeze" you out!), Distracter=Sanguine and Leveler=Phlegmatic. Yet, TJ is not just Cholerics, but includes the pure Melancholy and the MelChlor and ChlorMel combinations. The Satir modes are dealing not necessarily with basic social or leadership interactions, but particularly, stressful reactions. So in actuality, all Melancholy or Choleric pure types and combinations tend to become blamers. I grew up with pure Melancholies as parents, and I know first hand! Before my father was tested, I thought he was Choleric. But this was mistaking responsive aggressiveness for expressiveness. When you are close to, and particularly in positions of subordination (such as child or employee) to Melancholies, and they are unhappy with you, their behavior will be much less inhibited than when dealing with other people outside their responsibility, so you see their full "directive" nature coming right down on you, and they for all practical purposes will look Choleric. (You can think of it by remembering that "cholera" is "bile", and this temperament is simply a less colorful, "black" cholera!) For one thing, the Melancholy's need to be left alone is being unmet in such a situation, so when he is unhappy with someone he has to deal with, he really is unhappy! The Choleric's need to be bossy and controlling is being met in such a situation, so he is actually likely to be less unhappy, and perhaps even enjoying himself, in some morbid way! Notice, how the Melancholy (even a parent) will frequently say "when you get out on your own, I don't care what you do". This reveals their true "low e" (introversion or cooperativness) need to not want to be bothered and control you. While you are involved in their sphere of influence, and thus affecting their lives, then they will seem controlling. They DO like to lead their own "known" areas, such as family or work units! This apparent "extraversion" can be seen as apart of the "extraverted thinking" function.
And again, the Melancholy-Choleric blend is supposed to be the worst at "blaming" type abuse. However, I have noticed, that when you are in conflict with someone else, and go to TJ types for advice, they become Levelers, telling you your fault in the matter, but without attacking. They are not emotionally involved in that case, so they can be much more reasonable, though just as critical and directive. (Since the Leveler is supposed to be the "functional" mode, all the other judging types can become levelers when they are not being dysfunctional). So the Satir modes do not map to individual temperaments, but they do seem to some extent to map to the temperament combinations represented by the J and P types.
Bissell even distinguishes the S/N variants of the types. STJ "sensing" blamers will focus on concrete things such as details about you, and ignore your goodness. NTJ iNtuitive blamers will start from their negative view of you (abstract concept), and ignore details that contradict it. STJ's are all Melancholy in Control, and from my lifetime of experience with them, this is definitely true. NTJ's are Choleric in Control, and from what I have seen, that certainly fits the bill on them too! On the flipside, a Sensing Placater (SFJ) will be overly apologetic over specific actions and out of touch with his overall goodness. This again is a Melancholy in Control (with a relationship-oriented Inclusion), and they will be remorseful that they have possibly crossed anothers' boundary. An iNtuitive Placater (NFJ) will start from his own negative view of himself, and ignore details that contradict this. This is a Supine in Control, and another big evidence of that correlation! The Supine in Control's behavior revolves around his low self-esteem.
So with my combination, in as much as I lean towards TP, the Inclusion tends to push me towards Placating (from guilt and wanting to please and be accepted), however the Control inclination is Blaming, which then is used as the counter-defense. This conflict results in a mixture of reactions that averages out to "freezing out" or "detaching" emotionally (outside of bursts of defensive anger; mentioned in Paul James, An INTP Profile: "Since the INTP normally wishes to hide his emotions; when they do come out, they do so in outbursts with an almost childlike innocence.") So I am often accused of being "cold", and brushing off people's feelings when they show strong emotion. I "have to", to prevent (as I fear) becoming a doormat. This would fit with the TP tending to the "Computing" mode (though I don't seem to use the "computing" style language a lot, which according to most of the Lady Fribble site (link below) examples, is basically admitting what the blaming person says about you as a diversionary tactic. Again, because I'm Supine and not Phlegmatic in Inclusion, I have more of the "feeling" traits (including guilt), where a pure INTP seems to have less of that. In my written debate tactics, however; I do often make a point to admit points the other side makes). But I see that it is from a combination of mixed emotions in conflicts as as the acts of taking blame upon onesself and throwing it onto others cancel each other out and cause an emotional shutdown as a defense mechanism.
As abstract computers, NTP's are more theoretical, using abstract, general language, while concrete Computers (STP) are more practical, referring to specific details and issues.
You might think pure Supines would be pure Placaters or Doormats. I don't know any (at least any close friends my wife has tested), to know by experience, and can only go by the textbook APS definition. However, Supines are not always these docile little placaters. They will tend to become doormats, but like their fellow reserved Melancholies, will react, often explosively, after awhile. (Remember, "the Butler did it". The difference, seems to be that the Supines are more willing to forgive when the issue is resolved, while with the Melancholy, you may well have completely "torn it" with them, even after resolution. Hence the original short or long "sustain"). So perhaps they, like pure Sanguines in this theory, would be more of "Distracters" (FP) which are defined as cycling rapidly through all of the modes. When you look at the discussion of the modes at http://members.tripod.com/~LadyFribble/verbal/satir.html, where it says "The underlying feeling of the Distracter is panic: 'I don't know what to say, but I've got to say something, and the quicker the better!'"; that now does sound like something you would expect from a pure Supine (as well as pure Sanguines and Sanguine-Supine combinations in the theory). The pure Supine does seem like the person, when in the angry reaction with a "blaming" outburst, might then suddenly feel a pang of guilt and quickly switch to placating, and then perhaps cycle through the other two modes on the way back to a blaming posture as his anger rises again, and then repeat the cycle over. An example might be (from http://web.ionsys.com/~remedy/VERBAL%20SELF-DEFENSE.htm): "Why don't you ever ask me what I'd like to do on the weekend? [blaming] Not that it matters...you know how I am, anything that makes you happy.[placating] But simple courtesy would seem to indicate that the desires of both individuals be taken into account.[computing] But whatever you want is okay with me, you know. [placating again]"
These "abstract distracter" NFP's will convey this in a more linguistic way, while the Sanguine in Control "concrete distracter" SFP's will have more physical gestures. Having some NFP leanings, I may be a bit more emotional and defensive than TP's are described, and use a combination of the modes sometimes, but not cycling through them as fast, and really excluding placating, though when I was a child I would often respond to my parents' blaming with facetious self-deprecating remarks, for lack of any better response. (which I now associate with a very "destructive" shadow Fi!) Overall, again, it will amount to an overheated "computing".
What about the Five Factor Model?
So with all of this, all five factors of the Big Five (Basically, the four factors of MBTI,* plus "Neuroticism"), are in some way represented in the APS. E/I (FFM extraversion) is eI; D/Inf. or T/F, loosely (FFM Agreeableness) is wI; C/U or J/P loosely (FFM Conscientiousness) is eC; S/N (FFM Openness**) flips into the cross factors of Structure vs. Motive, which is wC; and FFM Neuroticism (which an updated version of MBTI is importing under the name "Comfort-Discomfort") is implicit in comparisons of low e and/or w with moderate or high e/w. (combinations of the factors, with the "low" scores being higher in N).
For this last factor, if we go back to Eysenck's original definition of Neuroticism (the tendency to experience negative emotions), we can look at which temperaments were considered high N, or Low N, and for systems using the four Galenic temperaments, you will already have it! For the 16 types model, you only have to find the conation temperaments and Interaction styles that match those old temperaments, and there you will have it!
As the other factor besides Extraversion in Eysenck's system, it paired Sanguine and Phlegmatic in the low range, and Melancholy and Choleric in the high range. In this model, it was basically the inverse of the factor that became Agreeableness. It can also be compared to the original factor of response-sustain. Those with sustained negative emotions will tend to have more "neuroticism" or "discomfort". So Agreeableness and Neuroticism sort of "split off" from each other at Eysenck. (He would indirectly pick up Agreeableness again later, as we will observe. The "people/task-orientation" of Adler's "social interest" and Marston's I/S vs D/C (or "Open" vs. "Guarded") scale, which more closely matches Agreeableness, came before Eysenck developed his model). Add the fifth temperament, it is both more reserved and more agreeable than the Phlegmatic. This actually increases Neuroticism. Reserved behavior (Low expressiveness or Introversion) is driven by fear of rejection, and Agreeableness is connected with a need for people, which also causes fear of rejection and other "neurotic" behaviors. So it will also be high N, and Neuroticism will no longer be the inverse of Agreeableness. The need to separate Agreebleness and Neuroticism into separate factors is probaly another missed evidence of the fifth temperament, as well as being different temperaments in three separate areas!) The pattern that results, is that any low scores in E and/or R will indicate high[er] N. It is only moderate or high scores in both E and R that are low N. This makes sense; because low E/R scores both indicate some sort of movement "away" from people. (Recall Horney's scale). Either from fear or distrust. And that would be associated with Neurotic behavior. Introverts fear rejection. Affiliatives fear discord (and also by implication, failure). Directive or task-oriented, as well as Structure-focused people distrust others, and in a way "do not like" people (hence, the task-focus). Sanguines like people and know how to charm them, so their high R fear of rejection does not faze them as they have the confidence to get the acceptance they want from people. Phlegmatics can take them or leave them, so these two end up with the "healthiest" overall traits. (Low N). Recall also from the first page, the "I'm OK/You're OK" analogy. Low scores indicate basically "NOT OK" (self and/or others), which is obviously a kind of neuroticism. The fifth temperament says essentially "You're OK; I'm not OK". This is definitely Neurotic! Only the Sanguine says both self and others are OK, and the Phlegmatic says "whatever", hence they have the lowest Neuroticism.
Thus (like S/N), Neuroticism is implicit in the E/R scales without being a separate factor. (I'm sure that FFM and MBTI's Type Differentiation Indicator (TDI) probably added other traits to the factor. But this should give one an idea of how Neuroticism fits in the Two-Factor models). Likewise, all the other systems that break it down into even more factors (16PF, etc) seem to be breaking down the same things into smaller parts.
Eysenck had also added another factor to Extraversion and Neuroticism, called "Psychoticism", resulting in what was called the "P-E-N" model. This was sort of a predecessor to the FFM, as the new factor was found to correlate with both Conscientiousness and Agreeablenesss, leaving out only Openness or S/N. In this correlation, if Conscientiousness is eC, and Agreeableness is wI, then those two FIRO/APS factors can be put together in a new matrix that would represent Psychoticism. (On the first page, I mentioned my being a "wannabe Sanguine", using high eC to fill in for the low eI to sort of meet the high wI need . This is where I would in fact fall in this new matrix, which would be a moderate range, with the most "psychotic" probably being low wI + high eC). Agreeableness might also correspond to wA, and Ryan put together high eC with high wA as a "Patsy" from their being easy to motivate to do something.
Of course, as in so many other areas of this field of discussion, this does not mean that all people of particular types are psychotic. It's just that high levels of this trait were believed by Eysenck to be linked to increased vulnerability to psychoses such as schizophrenia.
So we see that even though ERICA has been described as apart of the two-factor models, it is really a SIX-factor model! This because it consists of three two-factor matrices! So it also adds (in addition to the fifth temperament), a distinction between surface and deep relationships (eA, wA) the others don't really address.
A quick conversion guide for the SLOAN version of FFM:
This version correlates their types neatly to MBTI. The key basically is:
I/E=R/S (Reserved/Social=Extroversion)
S/N=N/I (Non-curious/Inquisitive=Openness)
T/F=E/A (Egocentric/Accomodating=Agreeableness)
J/P=O/U (Ordered/Unstructured/=Conscientiousness)
Each of the 16 types is then divided into a C or L version (Calm/Limbic=Neuroticism; Comfort/Discomfort in MBTI Type Differentiation Indicator) for a total of 32.
From Global 5 Type Descriptions
INFP RCUAI, RLUAI
INTP RCUEI, RLUEI
INFJ RCOAI, RLOAI
INTJ RCOEI, RLOEI
ISTJ RCOEN, RLOEN
ISFJ RCOAN, RLOAN
ISTP RCUEN, RLUEN
ISFP RCUAN, RLUAN
ENFP SCUAI, SLUAI
ENTP SCUEI, SLUEI
ENFJ SCOAI, SLOAI
ENTJ SCOEI, SLOEI
ESTJ SCOEN, SLOEN
ESFJ SCOAN, SLOAN
ESTP SCUEN, SLUEN
ESFP SCUAN, SLUAN
Again, instead of mapping two of the factors to T/F and J/P, Agreeableness might be a better fit to Informing/Directing, and Conscientiousness to Cooperative/Pragmatic. (For Sensors, it would work out as fitting T/F and J/P respectively).
INTP, however/for instance, would go from being an E to an A. But it actually makes some sense. Thinking is not necessarily "egocentric", but Directing (which is also known as task-focused as opposed to people-focused) might be. Since INTP's are Informing, they might be more "Agreeable". (Though I believe that Structure/Motive would also be a kind of Agreeableness or people/task, and they are Structure-focused, which is more oriented towards tasks).
Especially note on the page how there is only medium correlation between E/A and T/F.
C/L is also correlated to T/F "very low". Of course, it's supposed to correlate better to Comfort/Discomfort. Since I suspect that Neuroticism is already implicit in the temperament/Interaction Style matrices, I would tend to expect higher N in types with Introversion, Directiveness, Cooperativeness and Structure-focus, and lower N in Extraversion, Informativeness, Pragmatism and Motive-focus. There are various reasons why an MBTI type might still be either C or L.
As a Supine in Inclusion and Affection, all of my areas are high N, hence I came out as RLUEI. I imagine an RCUEI would likely be Phlegmatic in Inclusion, Choleric in Control (or maybe even cross into adjoining Sanguine or Phlegmatic ranges), and Sanguine or Phlegmatic in Affection. With types who are low N in Inclusion and control (such as ESFP-SCUAN/SLUAN), it is probably the affection area that would determine C/N.
*A correlation study by Donald Johnson (reported in 1994 at the APT International Conference) showed that FFM Conscientious correlated strongly with MBTI Judging, and FFM Agreeable correlated strongly with MBTI Feeling. So in MBTI-FFM comparisons, such as appears on the Wikipedia article on MBTI, "Agreeableness" is mapped to T/F, and "Conscientiousness" is mapped to J/P. In my correlation, for Sensors, that is true, but for iNtuitors, it is the reverse. T/F shapes the Control temperament, and J/P determines social "agreeableness". So the factors more consistently correspond to Keirsey's C/U and D/Inf respectively.
It was at this same conference that Psychoticism was linked to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness).
**FFM "Openness" refers "to new experiences" (and hence, "perceptive" type traits), and not deep personal relations, like the FIRO Element B "Openness", which is a renamed "Affection" area
SUMMARY: The unifying principle of personality
To repeat from the first page, 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. To recap my process of making this correlation:
The FIRO scales I was introduced to personality theory through consisted of three matrices (representing different areas of interaction) of these two scales directly. And it seemed to fit everything I saw in relationships. I could see
how when I was younger, it really could have helped me deal with people. I knew of Introversion and extraversion, but nobody talked about the other scale, "responsiveness", which I can now see would have been very helpful in finding friends, as this told us what the person really was underneath the "expressiveness" of E and I. (i.e. people-oriented and thus more friendly, or task-oriented, and thus tending to be more critical). So when I was suddenly introduced to the KTS, and by extension, MBTI; I immediately looked for that framework/those principles in it. I could instantly see I/E as "expressiveness", of course. Through studying the types and letters, I could deduce that Responsiveness was covered by T/F and J/P, but I was not sure exactly how, since you now had two "responsiveness" scales to one expressiveness scale. Worse yet, the S/N and Keirsey's Cooperative/Pragmatic dichotomies did not seem to fit the framework of E/R at all.
It was through Berens' Interaction Styles model that I seemed to find a clearer articulation of that framework: Informing and Directing and Structure-Motive looked like closer fits for Responsiveness. Both were loosely based on T/F and J/P, but only in an "alternating" way, with S and N as the "switch" as to which set of behaviors the two dichotomies were measuring. This still left two responsive scales to one expressive scale. The remaining dichotomy, S/N still did not fit as the other "expressive" scale. However, I had at the same time began seeing how Cooperative and Pragmatic did actually fit as forms of "expressiveness". Even looking at it in terms of the original E/R scales; someone who "does what's right" will tend to have a longer response-delay in taking action than someone who does "what works"; who will naturally have a shorter response-delay.
From there, with two complete E/R matrices identified; one, more "social", and the other more about "action", the comparison to FIRO's Inclusion and Control became quite evident! I then finally saw how even S/N tied into the E/R matrix, as in Kant's matrix, perception tied together opposite temperaments. Then, it made sense that people who express and respond similarly (i.e. both either high or low) in the area called Control would have more of a "concrete" focus, and those who were more "indirect" would be more "abstract".
Type Names
| Type | Old Keirsey w/Bates (PUM1) | Current Keirsey (PUM2) | Berens, Nardi | Hirsch & Kummerow | Personality Page | Inclusion/Control by Ryan | Inclusion/Control by ETB |
| ISTJ | Trustee | Inspector | Planner Inspector | Reliant | Duty Fulfiller | Loner/Rebel | pureMel |
| ISTP | Artisan | Crafter | Analyzer Operator | Realist | Mechanic | Loner/IDConflict** | MelSan |
| ISFP | Artist | Composer | Composer Producer | Aesthete | Artist | Inhibited*/IDConflict** | PhlegSan or SupSan |
| ISFJ | Conservator | Protector | Protector Supporter | Nurturer | Nurturer | Inhibited*/Rebel | PhlegMel or SupMel |
| ESTP | Promotor | Promoter | Promoter Executor | Adventurer | Doer | NYSHNYD/IDConfl** | ChlorSan |
| ESTJ | Administrator | Supervisor | Implementor Supervisor | Enforcer | Guardian | NYSHNYD/Rebel | ChlorMel |
| ESFP | Entertainer | Performer | Motivator Presenter | Joker | Performer | Gatherer/IDConflict** | pureSan |
| ESFJ | Seller | Provider | Facilitator Caretaker | Helper | Caregiver | Gatherer/Rebel | SanMel |
| INFJ | Author | Counselor | Foreseer Developer | Mystic | Protector | Loner/Checker*** | MelPhleg or MelSup |
| INTJ | Scientist | Mastermind | Conceptualizer Director | Free-Thinker | Scientist | Loner/Mission | MelChlor |
| INFP | Questor | Healer | Harmonizer Clarifier | Dreamer | Idealist | Inhib*/Checker***; |Sup. & Phleg. pure and blends**** | |
| INTP | Architect | Architect | Designer Theorizer | Wizard | Thinker | Inhibited*/Mission | PhlegChlor or SupChlor |
| ENFP | Journalist | Champion | Discoverer Advocate | Visionary | Inspirer | Gatherer/Checker*** | SanPhleg or SanSup |
| ENFJ | Pedagogue | Teacher | Envisioner Mentor | Sage | Giver | NYSHNYD/Checker*** | ChlorPhleg or ChlorSup |
| ENTP | Inventor | Inventor | Explorer Inventor | Innovator | Visionary | Gatherer/Mission | SanChlor |
| ENTJ | Field Marshall | Fieldmarshal | Strategist Mobilizer | Leader | Executive | NYSHNYD/Mission | pureChlor |
Summary of points on ERICA-EISeNFelT correlation
•Interaction Styles appear to correspond to FIRO/APS Inclusion (social skills); conative temperaments (SP/SJ/NT/NF) roughly correspond to Control (leadership & responsibilities)
•Supporting this, both conation temperaments and Interaction Styles have been correlated with the ancient four temperaments (Sanguine, Melancholic, Choleric and Phlegmatic). For instance, the SJ "Guardian" temperament, and the "Chart the Course" Interaction Style (IST or INJ) are both considered Melancholic. Artisan (SP) and Get Things Going (ESF or ENP) are considered Sanguine. In addition, they have been compared to Social Styles and DiSC.
•The 16 types thus consist of a combination of the four ancient temperaments with each other; (yielding four "pure" types such as ESFP "Sanguine-Sanguine" and 12 "blends" such as ESFJ "Sanguine-Melancholic".
•David Keirsey, in passing, linked NF with Choleric and NT with Phlegmatic. This was based on Kretschmer's "Hyperesthetic" and "Anasthetic". However, the full set of behaviors of both temperaments suggests the reverse: NT=Choleric; NF=Phlegmatic; and the latter possibly blended with a fifth temperament, who has more energy, and can be exciteble at times. Kant had regarded both temperaments as "cold blooded", but they were "cold" in different ways.
•While "hyper" is normally anything but "Phlegmatic", and "calm and cool" generally does describe Phlegmatic; the "-esthetic" indicated in Kretschmer's names involves emotions amd values like empathy, desire for unity, and "tender sensitivity"; in which it is the Choleric who rather then being "hyper" would have less than the Phlegmatic, and especially a proposed fifth temperament with a higher need of people that will give it a "feeling" preference.
•The NT's "tough-mindedness" and "desire for mastery" fit a Choleric in the area called "Control"; while the NF is "diplomatic" or "democratic" like a Phlegmatic in Control, and even at times tends to be more of an "abdicrat" and needs assurance of his own identity and meaning, like the fifth temperament. For instance, they will be more likely to "follow the crowd" for the sake of unity and other values.
•FIRO's "Matcher" Control score range (corresponding to a Phlegmatic) is described as wanting reassurance and support from others, and having a "democratic" attitude, reflected in the statement "I want you to work shoulder to shoulder with me". This fits the common NF characteristics, and in fact goes along with its stated "core needs". The Phlegmatic in Control is also called a "Diplomat" in APS descriptions, matching the NF "skills set". The "Checker", with the same wC scores and lower eC, will have similar characteristics.
•While "Idealist" types such as ENFP's may "champion" causes, this still does not necessarily mean they "write the policies", as someone with a high eC like Choleric, does. Hence, even with all their "enthusiasm", this may still be compatible with a Phlegmatic or fifth temperament in Control.
•The emotional energy evident in NF types along with other behaviors may be from either the Interaction Styles (if the Control is Phlegmatic, which can be seen as the "absence" of temperament), or a fifth Control temperament.
•A fifth temperament (Implied by observation as well as remapping of the moderate Phlegmatic from an "introverted-agreeable" position) would be eclipsed by Phlegmatic in both the conative (NF) and Interaction Styles (Behind the Scenes) models. Types in those categories can be either temperament, or a blend of both.
•The higher wI of the fifth temperament may also be interpreted as "Extraversion"; since it does in fact "respond" or "want" socialization as an extravert. (even though he does not express as one). This may in some cases set it apart from Behind the Scenes, which does not necessarily want the same as the Get Things Going style, which also expresses as an extravert.
•The area called "Affection" appears to not be directly covered in the comparison, but may also affect one's type. Wanted scores may affect T/F preference, and Expressed scores may affect E/I; despite the Interaction Style/Inclusion. Otherwise, deep personal relations skills appear to follow the Interaction Styles in the 16 types.
•The pure ENFP type is in theory a Sanguine in Inclusion with a Phlegmatic or fifth temperament in Control. An APS description of a Sanguine/Supine, portrays the high socialization need of the Inclusion area as overshadowing the dependency need of the Control area. This may drive the person to the kind of aggressive behavior that is generally seen in the ENFP.
• A blending of the fifth temperament with Phlegmatic in that area combines the energy of the fifth temperament with the Phlegmatic's stubbornness and independence. This Control combination is described as "taking on too many projects because they cannot say no". Here a moderately high wanted Control influences apparent "expressive" behavior. This, combined with the Sanguine Inclusion, will even moreso match the ENFP.
•ENFP traits, such as hatred of bureaucracies, noncomformity, and strong will, which would contradict the normal submissiveness of the fifth temperament in Control, may also be from the social focus of the Interaction Style (Inclusion); again, overshadowing the Control need. It could also be the Phlegmatic's stubbornness.
•The influence of the Interaction Style in this "nonconformity" is evident from other "Get Things Going" types such as ENTP. It could also have taken on this reputation from numerous Cholerics in Control with high wanted Inclusion or Affection scores being tested as the type. Otherwise, the type is generally described as "capitulating" to others' wishes.
•High wA/high eC mixtures are described by Leo Ryan as "Patsies", who can be easily motivated by others, and hence, the Feeling preference and FP type appear to fit, despite the strong will of a Choleric Control. However, the motivations will be different from normal ENFP's (with higher wC). This anomaly results from lack of knowlege of both the fifth temperament, and a "deep personal relations" distinction in the Jungian-Myersian system.
•The conative model appears to cover a smaller range of behavior when mapped to the FIRO/APS "control" matrix. For instance, no "dependency" problems associated with high wC appear to be addressed in any of the 16 types. So even with the factors loosely corresponding, this may cause some overlapping of temperaments with corresponding adjacent or even opposite temperaments in the other systems. This also may explain some NF's or SJ's being Choleric, for instance.
•Statistical correlations have been done between MBTI and FIRO. However, FIRO measures changeable behavior and not inborn traits. So correlations done with APS, which uses the same scales to measure inborn temperament, would probably have more consistent results.
•If correlations and factor analyses would be done directly between the FIRO scales and Keirsey and Berens' factors of Directing/Informing, Cooperative/Pragmatic and Structure/Motive, instead of S/N, T/F and J/P; this might yield higher correlations, since these seem to be closer comparisons, which only map loosely to T/F and J/P.
While Se and Si were addressed above, the remaining two functions are Ne (extraverted iNtuition) defined by NP, and Ni (introverted iNtuition) defined by NJ. Ne means that one uses abstract perception (conceptualizing) in dealing with the outer world of people and actions. I can certainly attest to this! All of this stuff I am writing, both here and elsewhere is the work of Ne.
Just like Se and Si focus on "what is" and "what was", Ne focuses on what "COULD be" This also makes the person's interaction Informing, and lean towards Pragmatism, especially coupled with Thinking (as the person then seeks to use his high eC to realize his vision). Just like my realizing that a pairing of ERICA with EISeNFelT "could be", despite others' skepticism!
Ni means that one uses abstract (conceptual) perception in the inner world of thoughts and emotions. It conveys a sense of "what WILL be". The way this is described often sounds mystical, like ESP or something, as it supposedly does not rely on any outside "concrete" perception. But the basic description is realizing that a particular event is inevitable (perhaps by conceptualizing patterns seen around you, and projecting what it will lead to). So like Si; you have taken in the information; but this time, abstract, and now it's inside. When you perceive the implications from it, you are using Ni. This tends to make people's interaction Directive, as well as less pragmatic. There is no room for turning or variance, from the foreseen vision.
http://endlessflow.blogspot.com/2008/01/reading-people-part-1.html also connects extraverted judgment with a focus on "results" (applies the judgments to the intended and actual effects of one's actions), and introverted judgment with a focus on "process" (applies the judgments to the actions themselves). This is really helpful in understanding the difference between the attitudes. As we saw above; "process vs outcome" is also Berens' new name for the "Control vs Motive" cross factor of Interaction Styles. But they do not correspond well, as Behind the Scenes, for instance, is Outcome focused; yet the dominant judging functions of all four BtS types are introverted, and hence, "process" oriented. This would simply be two different ways in which a type can be one way in one sense; or the other way in another sense. For one thing, it is the functions themselves that are oriented either way in the cognitive model; where the interaction model, it is the overall set of behaviors (marked by E/I-D/Inf) that is oriented one way or the other.
Basically, the perception functions can be grouped together in that Sensing always deals with what's known. Either what's currently being experienced; or what was experienced already. Both are known, familiar information. iNtuition, on the other hand, either deals with the unknown: the future; or basically, "alternate reality" information (counterfactual) that we hope to make real. Now, I'm making Ne sound mystical, but all it is, is like the way I'll come up with ideas of how things "could be". Such as MBTI and FIRO/APS theories being combined. They are quite separate in current reality, and most people are not even thinking about the FIRO based systems, let alone how they fit with MBTI. Yet to me, they are pretty much combined, and I see this in the present. I hope in the future for it to be something known or looked at by others. You could make a Minkowski-style space-time "light cone" diagram, showing four areas, divided by crisscrossing lines at 45° angles. You are in the center where the lines cross: "here and now". Above, is the future, and within the lines is all the possible places in spacetime you can go. (You cannot cross the diverging lines, which would represent faster than light travel). Beneath you is the past, and inbetween the lines, all the places you could have come from to get where you are now. Left and right is "elsewhere"; which cannot be accessed without impossible FTL travel. However, events located elsewhere will trace "world lines" into the future which will cross the "cone" boundary into your possible future.
Se is here and now. Si is the past, Ni is the future (including implications that will be revealed or verified in the future), and Ne can be seen as "elsewhere", with the hope that it becomes real in (enters) the future. So what happens, the four functions form a cross, with extraverted functions having a "present" orientation (horizontal in the diagram), and introverted functions have an othertimely orientation (vertical). It would be harder to do this with the judging functions (probably why Berens never completed the analogies), because they do not have the time orientation like the perceiving functions. That's probably because the perception functions deal with information originally from the outside, which can be from either the past, present, future or alternate reality. The judging functions are processes executed from within. So the extraverted attitudes are described, again, as "having more of a here-and-now quality than a universal, future or past quality" (Berens). So instead of past and future, the introverted judgments have universal qualities.
 Minkowski space-time diagram showing orientations of perception functions |
Type as binary code
The hypothesis is that the factors of temperament are the root of personality through neurological elements, rather than the cognitive processes, which themselves are believed to have a neurological basis.
It's all about a person's stimulatability.
We can make 1 a need for more stimulation, and 0 a need for less stimulation.
There are two dimensions of stimulatability.
How much one is willing to actively move to gain stimuli (e), and how much he wants to passively receive it from others (w).
If we divide this into the areas of surface social skills (I), leadership and responsibilities (C), and closer personal relationships (A), we will have a six digit binary code.
xxxxxx (x=variable)
The values of each digit represent:
ewewew
IICCAA
For the 16 types, we only need the first four digits.
The way it translates into the type factors:
eI = extraversion (1)/introversion (0)
wI = informing (1)/directing (0)
eC = pragmatic (1)/cooperative (0)
wC = motive (1)/structure (0)
ISTJ 0000xx
INFJ 0001xx
INTJ 0010xx
ISTP 0011xx
ISFJ 0100xx
INFP 0101xx
INTP 0110xx
ISFP 0111xx
ESTJ 1000xx
ENFJ 1001xx
ENTJ 1010xx
ESTP 1011xx
ESFJ 1100xx
ENFP 1101xx
ENTP 1110xx
ESFP 1111xx
Temperaments, Interaction Styles
SJ xx00xx
NF xx01xx
NT xx10xx
SP xx11xx
Chart the Course 00xxxx
Behind the Scenes 01xxxx
In Charge 10xxxx
Get Things Going 11xxxx
We now can also map the cognitive functions to this neurological binary, through their common effects on type:
(Also, Y and Z will indicate that the values must be different from each other, and it can be either way: Y=0, Z=1 or Y=1, Z=0).
Se xx11xx (dominant: 1x11xx)
Si xx00xx (dominant: 0x00xx)
Ne x1YZxx (dominant: 11YZxx)
Ni x0YZxx (dominant: 00YZxx)
Te x0x0xx (dominant: 10x0xx)
Ti xY1Zxx (dominant: 1Y1Zxx)
Fe xY0Zxx (dominant: 1xYoZxx)
Fi x1x1xx (dominant: 01x1xx)
My full type binary code: 011001
This is also useful in outlining Leo Ryan's partial ICA combinations:
The Rock: 000000
The Hollow Man: 101010
Full Blown Neurotic/High Expectations: 010101
Ball of Fire: 111011
Let's Have a Party/Party Time/Flower Child: 110011
Dictator/Controller: 001000
Foot Stomping Dependent: 000100
Affectionate Homebody: 00xx11
Table Hopper: 11xx00
Have your cake and eat it too: 10xx01
The Patsy: xx1xx1
This would be basically the same as what we used on the first page: 0="l"[low]; 1="h" [high]
We could also extend it to the moderate scores, with "M", and for APS, to distinguish between the neighboring Phlegmatic blends, 4=m; 5=M.
Thus, Phlegmatic-Melancholy-SanguinePhlegmatic, would be MM001M.
Looking at it this way, there would be six "switches" in the brain so to speak, determining our personality; with the first four determining our cognitive preferences.
(It would also further explain why the preferred functions-- the first two determining type --must always be Ji/Pe or Pi/Je alternations. Try to pair two e's or i's; or P with P or J with J, and you will get a conflict in one or two digits).
While I was able to produce codes for the eight function-attitudes, the four original functions by themselves (S, N, T, F) were a bit more difficult. S/N have a definite pattern, but it's T/F that required much more thought.
S: --XX-- (xx00xx—SJ/Si, xx11xx—SP/Se)
N: --XY-- (xx01xx—N+F, xx10xx—N+T)
Again, of the two middle digits; the first is cooperative(0)/pragmatic(1), (which I associated with "expressed control"). The second is Structure(0)/Motive(1), (which would fit "wanted Control").
I think there might be something to this in the brain. The expressive/responsive factors I am using may be connected with stimulatability to the outside world, and thus may have to do with particular regions of the brain. So I could see where having the two areas governing our conative skills with similar levels of stimulatability might make us focus more on concrete or tangible reality, while having them different might make us focus away from the tangible, onto the abstract or conceptual. Don't know exactly how, but I can't help notice that the congruence of one would figure in a person preferring to see what's there, and incongruence would lead one to focus on what is not there.
T and F were harder to define
(Omitting the first digit, which is I/E):
T: 000 (STJ), 010 (NTJ), 011 (STP), 110 (NTP)
F: 001 (NFJ), 100 (SFJ), 101 (NFP), 111 (SFP)
It's hard to see a common thread in those numbers.
Trying different things, what I found is from looking at the "pure" tendencies of the preference:
T: directive (0--), pragmatic (-1-), structure-focused (--0).
F: informative (1--) , cooperative (-0-), motive focused (--1).
The T/F preference will be determined whenever two or three of these digits are matched.
What made it hard is that I was looking at patterns of 0 and 1, with T leaning towards 0's representing "low wanted' or "task-focus, and F leaning towards 1's representing "high wanted" or people-focus.
However, T/F also figure in expressed Control, but in a reversed fashion. T will tend towards pragmatism (1), and F towards cooperativeness (0).
From there, I could finally see the pattern, of two out of three determining the preference.
The "purest" T in this respect would be NTJ (010), directive, pragmatic and structure focused.
STJ (000), is directive, cooperative and structure focused. STP (011) is directive, pragmatic and motive focused. NTP (110) is informative, pragmatic and structure focused.
So you look at something like 001, which has these two 0's together, but one of those 0's represents cooperativeness, and the other directiveness, and the single one represents motive focus. So there's only one match to the ideal T leaning, so this falls on the F side (NFJ).
The most "pure" F in this respect is NFP (101), informative, cooperative, motive. SFP (111) is informative, pragmatic, motive. SFJ (100) is informative, cooperative, structure,
It also works for J/P (which I discovered first, from noticing the patterns in the 1's and 0's):
J: 000 (STJ), 001 (NFJ), 010 (NTJ), 100 (SFJ)
P: 011 (STP), 101 (NFP), 110 (NTP), 111 (SFP)
The J's clearly favor the 0's, and the P's, the 1's. This I looked for in T/F, but it fit J/P instead. J/P are similar to T/F, in the wanted scales, with J favoring 0, and P favoring 1. Yet in cooperative/pragmatic, they are opposite of T/F, with J favoring 0 (cooperative) and P favoring 1 (pragmatic). That actually matches the other two digits, hence, it is more obvious.
So it's the same principle: two or three out of three.
STJ (000: directive, cooperative, structure) is the "purest" J in this respect. SFJ (100: informative, cooperative, structure); NFJ (001: directive, cooperative, motive); NTJ (010: directive, pragmatic, structure)
SFP (111: informative, pragmatic, motive) is the purest P. NFP (101: informative, cooperative, motive); NTP (110: informative, pragmatic, structure); STP (011: directive, pragmatic, motive).
So again, the point is that if these digits might represent points in the brain (through their stimulatability), then this might show where functional preference might be formed in neurology.
Objective vs Subjective
On a bit of a side note, "objective" and "subjective" are sometimes used to describe both the functions themselves, and where they were used. I was trying specifically to understand how they shaped directing and informing communications in the eight three letter groups (STJ, SFP, etc) that Keirsey had identified. So I began paralleling things up along the line of subjective and objective. (I had thought that "directing" communications, such as S and T together might have had to do with "objectivity". Turned out it might work to some extent for judging functions, but it seems for perception it is the opposite).
"Extraverted attitudes" (outside use) are considered "objective", while introverted attitudes are considered "subjective", because they are taking place within the person. Jung had originally defined the attitudes as being focused on "the object" and "the subject". (For perception, the attitude is the "source" it is taken from, and for judgment, it is the source of the "standard" it is based in, and in some descriptions, the "realm" it is used in).
Thinking is also frequently condsidered "objective", based on logic and facts, while Feeling is considered subjective "values".
Sensing (concrete perception) is also occasionally considered more "objective", while iNtuiting (abstract) is considered subjective, because it involves the person drawing from patterns and stuff.
Then, perception in itself can be considered objective, because it is taking information (of an object) in, while judgment is what the subject does with the information.
With this:
Objective processing=Perception (P)
Subjective processing=Judgment (J)
Objective data=concreteness (S) or logic (T)
Subjective data=abstractness (N) or value (F)
Objective source=external (E)
Subjective source=internal (I)
The eight functions are then expressed as:
Objective processing of Objective data from Objective source (OOO): Se
Objective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (OOS): Si
Objective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (OSO): Ne
Objective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (OSS): Ni
Subjective processing of Objective data from Objective source (SOO): Te
Subjective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (SOS): Ti
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (SSO): Fe
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (SSS): Fi
This basically reduces the four dichotomies down to one!
When looking at other E/R style models, I had noted the way Tony Alessandra seems to put down "the Golden Rule" in promoting his "Platinum Rule" (Personality Styles, at http://www.alessandra.com/abouttony/aboutpr.asp). The Golden Rule is the Judeo-Christian based principle of morality coined by Hillel, and reiterated by Jesus. "Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You". The "Platinum Rule" is "Do unto others as they would want done uuto them". Seems to make a bit more sense, doesn't it? He says this is better, as if the other is outmoded or something forced on others. But both are true, as evidenced in the fact that they correspond to both Feeling attitudes. The Golden Rule is covering universal moral principles, such as not killing, stealing from, etc. another; just as you would not want anyone to do those things to you (Fi). The Platinum Rule would be for more personal interactions, where you consider the individuals particular wants (Fe).
While "introversion" and "extraversion" in the original Jungian/Myersian system, had a slightly different meaning; regarding functions rather than "expressed behavior"; it turns out that if a person's dominant function is E or I, their "Interaction Style" will have a matching "expressive" behavior after all!
While originally, Jung and Myers only focused on the first four processes, called the "ego-syntonic" functions (with the fourth or inferior process or the diametrically opposite type with the four functions in reverse order considered the "shadow"); modern analyst John Beebe uses a full eight function model with the remaining four, which are "ego-dystonic" as the "shadow", and this is what Berens uses. The function order is arranged as such:
The FUNCTIONS are S, N, T and F.
The process MODES are Judging and Perceiving
The "attitude" is extraversion and introversion
KEYS:
Blocks
A/B: Preferred functions (1/2; including shadows, 5/6)
@/ß: non-preferred functions (3/4; 7/8)
Judgment or Perception (rational/irrational) tandems:
A/@: Dominant mode (aka "Spine") (1/4; 5/8)
B/ß: Auxiliary mode (aka "Arm") (2/3; 6/7)
The function order:
A: Dominant function/mode
B: OPPOSITE mode
ß: OPPOSITE FUNCTION of opposite mode
@: OPPOSITE FUNCTION and same mode from dominant
1: dominant attitude
2: opposite attitude
The notation and place name used for the functions:
A1: Dominant (hero; but can become overdominating)
@2: Auxiliary ("[good] parent", but can become overprotective)
ß1: Tertiary ("relief" or "[good] child"/can become "unsettling")
B2: Inferior ("Aspirational"/can become "projective")
Shadows:
A2: (Oppositional/Backup)
@1: (critical parent/can lead to discovery)
ß2: (deceiving or "bad child"/can be comedic)
B1: (destructive, but can become transformative)
(The "shadows" are thus the same four functions, in the same order, but with the attitudes reversed).
INTP and ESFJ use the same four "primary" functions: Ti, Fe, Si and Ne. However, for the ESFJ, the Fe is the "dominant" (The J tells you that the extraverted function is Feeling, and the E tells you that it is dominant because of it being extraverted. The auxiliary function then is the opposite P function Si, the tertiary is the other P function Ne and the inferior is Ti). For the INTP, the Ti is dominant. (The P tells you that iNtuition is extraverted, which means Thinking is introverted. The I tells you that the introverted function is dominant. Auxiliary is Ne, tertiary is Si, inferior is Fe). The remaining four functions follow: same order, but with i/e inverted; as the "shadow". ISTJ will have introverted Sensing as dominant, followed by extraverted Thinking, introverted Feeling and extraverted iNtuition. Notice how this greatly directive TJ type has the highly "informative" Fi in third place. This matches well with Arno's description of the Melancholy as having alot of deep feelings, but lacking the mechanism to show them. So what they project outward to the world is their Thinking. (and their dominant function, Sensing, is turned inward). So they look and act cold and aloof, but they do have feelings deep down inside. They may not show much feelings toward your dilemma, and might say something like "well, that's life", but they will be more likely to do as much as they can to help you, if possible, then others who might show a lot of feelings, but not be able to do much. The inferior Ne also explains why the Melancholy is often into a lot of conceptual information from the outside. (Hence, their artisticness, or love for science fiction, science theory, and other such interests). It will just take a back seat to their inward concrete focus. Likewise, the highly "directive" Te in the tertiary position of the informative EFP's. However, this is the "relief" or "eternal child" position, so it will be more associated with fun, relief, or childlike innocence and vulnerability than being critical of others. It also seems to make them more tolerant of preferred Te types, and hence more "responsive" in both Inclusion and Control! They look up to it, and types more mature with it! (More on this shortly).
The dom/aux. pair make up the "preferred" functions, while the ter. and inf. pair are the "nonpreferred", and thus will play out differently than the same functions in the preferred pair. Hence the otherwise opposite FP's and TJ's (as well as FJ's and TP's) having the same functions in the primary range. (Three other pairings are the "spine" which links the dominant with the inferior, and the "arm" which links auxiliary with its adjacent tertiary. These axes will always consist of diametrically opposite functions, which form a "tandem" (Opposite function with the opposite attitude). The "faces" are the alternating functions with the same attitude. So there's the "introverted face" and "extraverted face").
One important key to help understand and distinguish the different archetypes, is realizing that the spine and arm are more than just the apparent positions of the tandems in the diagrams Beebe uses to illustrate it. (A cross with the spine as vertical with the dominant as the "head" and the inferior as the "tail"; and the arms as horizontal). They actually shape the ways the functions are used! (As described in the two part article above). The spine, which in defining our identity concerns itself more with what we can be or do in and for ourselves. The arm is more focused on the ways in which we use our consciousnesses to reach out to others. Think; a child will look up to others (for help, approval, etc). Just like the parent will try to help children.
So we have the axis of our relation to self, and the axis of our relations to others. It also creates a distinction between "rational" and "irrational" (Jung's term for judgment and perception functions) spine types.
So now we can better understand Berens' distinction between becoming "stubborn" with a process (5th position or "Opposing"), and being "critical" with it (6th position or "Immobilizing"; "Critical Parent"). This was one roadblock in fully understanding the concepts. The Opposing Personality simply aims to defend the hero, so it will stubbornly challenge others who offend the hero, yet its main purpose is supporting the ego (hence, the person's relation to self). The Critical Parent's main purpose is to find fault with others and criticize. (Hence, "point out flaws" according to the definitions, and thus, dealing with the person's relation to others). Hence, it will be more sharp in its attacks, with descriptions of "low blows" and "looks that stop you dead in your tracks". It will tear the person up inside as well, yet this will always be projected out onto others somehow. People will likely be blamed for the person's own misery, just like the proverbial grumpy old man or ugly witch. Likewise, the Trickster, also being on the arm, also deals with other people; basically getting them off your back. Hence, why Beebe described both witch and trickster as "tying others down" ("A Closer Look at the Auxiliary Function").
I would also divide all eight functions into pairs, which all display similar roles. (Socionics does this, calling them "blocks"; however the order of the last six functions is different from John Beebe's, which I'm using here). Both dominant and auxiliary (lead and supporting) as "preferred", by themselves determine the one-in-sixteen type.
The tertiary and inferior develop later, and the tertiary is known as "the eternal child" or "relief", while the inferior remains immature even longer. The way we behave with it is also described as "childish" and immature. So we see a common thread with both postions of functions: immaturity, "childlike innocense" and "vulnerability").
Likewise, the fifth and sixth (in the nearest area of the shadow) are "opposing personality" and "immobilizing" or "critical". The common theme here is resistance to something, either present or future. I also call them the "near shadow".
The deepest shadow consist of "deceiving" and "destructive". Both share in common a regretting of actions taken with the function.
So I would name the four resultant pair blocks:
1,2: Preferred
3,4: Vulnerable (aka "non-preferred")
5,6: Resistant (or "near shadow")
7,8: Regrettable (or "deep shadow")
This is useful for grouping together the functions shared in common by either the two-letter function attitude combinations (SP, SJ, NP, NJ, TP, TJ, FP, FJ) or three letter "intelligence types": STP, STJ, NTP, NTJ, SFP, SFJ, NFP, NFJ), for whom either one or both functions will fall into the same block. Keirsey had said that I/E was the least important factor, and even the EAR study supported it. So when speaking of TP's, for instance, we can mention "resistant Te", or "regrettable Fi". When talking about NTP's, they will both have "immature Si".
I have found a great parallel between the blocks and the four playing card suits:
1/2: ♦ diamonds: the ego's most cherished goals
3/4: ♥ hearts: the vulnerable, innocent area
5/6: ♠ spades (sharp weapon)
7/8: ♣ clubs (blunt weapon)
I also decided to give names to the tandems by which process occupies them; based on the short definitions of each function, above:
Se/Ni: experience + anticipate = "aspective" (ad "to", -spect "look". Originally considered "prostatospective (pro "forward", stat "stand"; but people said it was too complicated, and it was even hard for me to remember on the spot)
You deal in the now and forward
Ne/Si: relive + conceive from = circumspective (to "look around").
You look around both to the past, and to all the possibilities in the present. Much less about the "here and now". Possibilities are known from past experience, so the two functions naturally work together. In the "spacetime" illustration, above, This pair governs all but the top quadrant.
Te/Fi: evaluate + organize = systemic (short for "systemiorational", since "systemic" can be confusing because of its commonality)
This is one of the ones that really got me thinking of this. Like in the political debates. This is obviously a very Te society. Yet Fi seems to be a bit more suited to it. I think of the dominant "organizing" forces, which organize things to be efficient, with themselves as the main beneficiaries, and despite the rest of the economy (and thus are very much into what is important to themselves). Then you will have apparently diametric opposite Fi types (like Joe the Plumber), who look up to them, and oppose government intrusion because it violates their value that a person should keep whatever they "earned". I being stuck in this mess with so many others being passive like that; the term that comes to mind is "The System". To be fair, on the liberal side, others will speak out against this from their Fi and then organize demonstrations or whatever. This is would be basically an attempt at an opposing "system".
So the common theme of Te/Fi seems to be "system". Te aggressively "leads" in "organizing", and Fi seems more passive, but is nevertheless still supporting the system with its valuing. You evaluate what's important, and then go build on it.
Fe/Ti: analyze + relate to = harmonic (short for "harmoniorational")
Inbetween the directiveness or informativeness of the other J tandem, Ti and Fe aren't as much about systems. Ti analyzes to find underlying principles, and then build theoretical models to solve problems, such as finding common denominators, harmonizing, clarifying, and hoping to find the simplest formula that can explain the universe.
Fe of course builds interpersonal connections. So it seems different types of "harmony" are the common theme of this pair.
Of course, some of these terms may seem ambiguous. You can look at TiFe as building "systems" (theoretical or social), and of course, Fi is connected with "harmony"; but that is inner harmony. You could even stretch it and call Te's "efficiency" a kind of "harmony". But "system" is a better fit for that one. The terms thus tend to lean toward what is extraverted (shown to the outer world) of the two.
Surprised nobody in MBTI ever named these. Beebe named the tandem positions (spine/arm, which are called "rational" or "irrational" depending on whether they are occupied by J or P functions), but the actual processes occupying them would be useful as well. You can even be more specific and use these new terms with those names.
In Socionics, however, the perception groups are the "Romance Styles", and the judging groups are apart of the "Reinin Dichotomies":
Aspective = "Aggressor/Victim"
Circumspective = "Caregiver/Infantile"
Harmonic = "Merry"
Systemic = "Serious"
So when I help with looking for the best-fit preferences for many supposed "NiTi" types in discussions, who often weigh between INTP and INFJ, because of high Ti and Ni in cognitive process tests; I can now say that they have an obvious "aspective" preference, since Ni and Se are high, and Ne is low. So INTP is very unlikely, though the person looks like it because of the Ti + abstract focus. I can then suggest another aspective type into the mix, such as ISTP. (In addition to INFJ). ISTP will be Ti dominant, followed by Se. If they think their Ni is high, we can point out that it may actually be tertiary, which is said to often "inflate" itself, and appear preferred.
When discussing relationship type matches between an NFP and NTP, we can say "you're both 'circumspective' types, so you'll 'perceive things the same way'". In a personality clash, instead of "the real clash is Ne/i-Si/e; not Te/i-Fi/e”; I can say “the real clash is between a circumspective and aspective perception preference rather than a systemic and harmonic judgment”. More to type, but easier to say or even think than all those process codes!
Each pair of three letter Intelligence type can be addressed by their tandem pairs (Socionics had already done this identifying "Quadras" using Greek letter names):
SFP/NTJ: "aspective systemicists" (Gamma)
STP/NFJ: "aspective harmonicists" (Beta)
STJ/NFP: "circumspective systematicists" (Delta)
SFJ/NTP: "circumspective harmonicists" (Alpha)
How "extraversion" and "introversion" compare in both systems
Linking the "introversion" and "extraversion" of functions to the introversion and extraversion of the ER/ICA scales results in the following correlations ("introversion" and "extraversion" for "R" refer to low and high "responsive" behavior, respectively, which are considered "responding as an introvert or extravert". Also, both "Sensing" and "Thinking" tend to be more "concrete" in their own respective scales, and "iNtuiting" and "Feeling" are more "abstract"):
SP extraverted Sensing (Se)=extraverted E AND R in CONTROL (direct e/wC)
SJ introverted Sensing (Si)=introverted E AND R in CONTROL (direct e/wC)
NP extraverted iNtuition (Ne)=extraverted R in INCLUSION (direct wI)
NJ introverted iNtuition (Ni)=introverted R in INCLUSION (direct wI)
TJ extraverted Thinking (Te)=introverted R in ALL AREAS (inverse wI/C)
FP introverted Feeling (Fi)=extraverted R in ALL AREAS (inverse wI/C)
TP introverted Thinking (Ti)=extraverted E in CONTROL (inverse eC)
FJ extraverted Feeling (Fe)=introverted E in CONTROL (inverse eC)
ST (concrete/concrete) low R in INCLUSION
SF (concrete/abstract) high R in INCLUSION
NT(abstract/concrete) high E low R in CONTROL
NF(abstract/abstract) low E high R in CONTROL
If a person is a SENSOR, then his judging function (T/F) determines his responsive behavior in INCLUSION ("wI": T directing, F informing), and his outward preference (J/P) determines expressive behavior in CONTROL ("eC": J cooperative or P pragmatic). Since Sensors express and want the same, then it determines their responsive behavior (wC) as well (J directing, P informing).
If a person is an INTUITOR, then it is all opposite: the judging function determines his responsive behavior in CONTROL ("wC": T directing, F informing). Since intuitors' expressed and responsive behavior in control are always opposite, then it also tells you the expressed behavior (eC): T becomes pragmatic (extraverted or assertive) and F cooperative (introverted, reserved). The outward preference then determines responsive behavior in INCLUSION ("wI": J directive, P informing).
Other Versions of Eight Function Theory
Both Socionics and Lenore Thomson have other models of where the non-primary four functions fit in our psyche. Both actually place the seventh and eighth functions (in Beebe's model) as the next after the preferred functions! These actually more closely match people's results on Nardi's Cognitive Processes Test, originally offered as a survey on Berens' site (http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/assessment/surveyOriginal.html) and now moved permanently to Nardi's site at http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm. (An older version that groups the questions according to the process being measured is at http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/assessment/develop_old.html). Many INTP's on an MBTI and an INTP forum took the test, and generally came out with Si and Fe on the bottom, and strong Se and Ni. (My scores were closer to Beebe's model, as I'll mention on the next part). In Socionics, it's Ti-Ne-Fi-Se-Fe-Si-Te-Ni, and in Thomson's model, it's Ti-Ne-Fi-Se-Ni-Te-Si-Fe. Most of their scores are close to Thomson's model, and Socionics is close, except for Fe and Ni. Thus many people in the type community question Beebe's model or lean towards the others. Some people just focus on the four "naked" functions, with both attitudes together: Ti-Te-Ni-Ne-Si-Se-Fi-Fe. Some people's scores resembled this as well.
The way I interpret this is that the function strengths do not have to fall into the archetype order! Thus, the CP test I find is very good, because it measures the strengths, rather than measuring the four dichotomies and putting together the type from those (percentages of E vs I; S vs N; T vs F; J vs P), as most other tests do. The Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory (SL-TDI) is another one, though not online or free.
This is very important for many people struggling fitting into a "best-fit type". A lot of people are typing others or even themselves based on outward behavior, often from one or two functions they see the person use. But that really doesn't necessarily mean it is their true preference, as defined by the Jung/Myers system. This highlights the point that APS makes; that you can't always look at outward behavior. Because a person can wear masks and display learned behavior. The out of place scores may also be indicative of the active shadows. Functions can also be developed more, as Nardi and Hartzler teach us to do. Traumatic periods in one's life can cause some (especially shadows) to develop more. Being that the functions are preferences, a person can have a preference for sweets, but then decide to eat healthier, and force himself to eat yucky dietary supplements. You then see him eating this stuff and think he "prefers" it over the sweets, but he really doesn't. But this affirms that people are much more diverse than 16 types with the functions all in the same order. So a better way to look at the functions is by the archetypal roles they fit into, rather then the strengths or visibility to the outside world. The type code then becomes an indicator of these "preference" roles, but not necessarily the order of strengths of the functions, at least below the first two.
I think a combination of Beebe's model with Thomson's is the best picture of type. Many INTP's admit having high Fi, including myself. Many, when this is picked up by others, will often be typed as NFP's by the observers. Using Beebe's model alone, you would think that our "demonic" eighth place function would hardly ever be used. But Thomson would show why it would be strong. According to Thomson, whenever our preferred functions cannot solve a problem, their right or left brain alternatives (for P or J types, respectively), which are the bottom two, will kick in. Thus, the INTP's introverted judgment will stay in place, but simply shift from logic to values. This gives us a big clue as to what triggers these "deepest shadow" functions! So the process model becomes more of a circle rather than just a line!
What was also interesting about these two other models is how they attempted to map more accepted psychological concepts to the function blocks. Thomson maps the functions to the brain quadrants (http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type2.html):
Front Left: Te, Fe (extraverted Judging)
Front Right: Se, Ne (extraverted Perceiving)
Back Left: Si, Ni (introverted Perceiving)
Back Right: Ti, Fi (introverted Judging)
The pattern that results is Front: E; Back: I; Left: J; Right: P; S, N, T, F: diagonals
This then figures in her function order, as the dominant pair (which as a Ji/Pe or Je/Pi combination will be on the same left/right hemisphere), will be backed up by "alternatives" on the same and opposite hemispheres.
Socionics attempts to map Freud's "psychic apparati" to the blocks: the "id", "ego", "superego", and another one called "super-id".
| Beebe by ETB | Socionics | Thomson | Basic S/N/T/F with Shadow |
| EIEI/IEIE or IEIE/EIEI | EIEIEIEI or IEIEIEIE | EIEI/IEIE or IEIE/EIEI | E/I-E/I-E/I-E/I or I/E-I/E-I/E-I/E |
| ♦Preferred Block 1, 2 | Ego Block 1, 2 | [ego or differentiated block] 1, 2 | Dominant Process (1/5) |
| ♥Vulnerable Block 3, 4 | Super Ego Block 8, 7 | Crow's Nest 8, 7 | Auxiliary Process (2/6) |
| ♠Resistant Block 5, 6 | Super Id Block 4, 3 | Double Agent (R/L brain alternative) 6, 5 | Tertiary Process (3/7) |
| ♣Regrettable Block 7, 8 | Id Block 5, 6 | [immature block] 3, 4 | Inferior Process (4/8) |
Some caution should be taken in using Thomson's model, as an extensive discussion with her shed light on the depths of her theory. Some of this can be viewed here:
Carl Jung Psychological Orientation
Temperament Theory & Carl Jung Types
John Beebe Archetypes
She aims to go back to Jung, whom type theory has supposedly deviated from. So she goes into concepts such as differentiation and individuation, which type theory has used to denote "developing" unused functions, but Jung originally used differently.
She holds Beebe's archetype model as really referring to "complexes". And I think Beebe partly implied this by naming some of them that, such as "Opposing Personality Complex". What this means, is the way we have been using them treats the complexes, which we call the "archetypes" as synonymous with the process playing the role for each given type. Therefore, in practice from what I have seen, it ends up assumed that we only use the process according to this role (either the good side or the bad side), and this is where we have run into most of our problems trying on types; especially regarding "shadows", which we expect to be hardly ever used. (especially from descriptions such as Berens': "The other four processes operate more on the boundaries of our awareness. It is as if they are in the shadows and only come forward under certain circumstances"). So if it doesn't "fit", we end up questioning our (or others') type. Or perhaps, trying to force it into a particular archetype role. We also become confused when Cognitive Process test results seem all out of place, with supposed "shadows" strongly used.
But to Jung, it seems (as is evidenced from the Psychological Types chapter, Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10) that we start out with our dominant function, and the "comfort zone" (as Lenore calls it) of the inner or outer world. I always noticed that Jung calls his types "introverts" or "extroverts" who use sensing, intuiting, thinking or feeling; rather than speaking of introverted or extraverted "sensors/intuiters/thinkers/feelers".
So one thing to keep in mind is that the orientations are more attached to the ego itself, than to the functions themselves.
This perspective makes it understandable why in the MBTI, E/I is a separate dichotomy to begin with. Looking at cognitive processes as eight distinct entities in themselves, it was tempting to say that E/I really did not mean much; as it only indicated the "attitude" of the "dominant" function. (I had started saying that the cognitive process test should have been the official MBTI). But seeing it the original Jungian way, E/I once again becomes a personality factor in its own right (like it was in our older temperament theory, as discussed in part 1!)
The ego is 'compensated' by whatever is rejected by the ego. That is, the unchosen functions and the opposite orientation.
They remain undifferentiated, like embryonic cells that have not take on their distinct functions yet (You can see some of her teaching on this here: Jung MBTI Theory | Lenore Thomson Bentz). When the dominant is established in the preferred attitude, the other three functions and the opposite attitude are rejected into the unconscious. Hence, in the original order, the aux. tertiary and inferior were all said to be the opposite attitude. Hence, a old dispute of which attitude the tertiary actually bore! Of course, we do choose an auxiliary function, which is the opposite kind of process (j or p) from the dominant, and takes on the opposite orientation. Everything else remains more fuzzy.
Some have all along said something like this. After all, the type is determined by the first two. Most will add on a tertiary and inferior function. But beyond that, it seemed up in the air. So this perspective offers a more structured theoretical basis for apparent out-of-preference "process" use.
So the auxiliary is in the opposite attitude, and then the Puer complex (according to Lenore Thomson) when it comes into consciousness then adopts the tertiary function and orients it in the dominant attitude. ("Tertiary Temptation", where the tertiary is more a defense mode that provides justification for remaining in the dominant atitude when the person avoids the tempering influence of the auxiliary).
In contrast to the older MBTI theory, Beebe seemed to find good places for the unused four with his system of parallel archetype roles. The hero is shadowed by an opposer, and good parent and child were shadowed by bad parent and child figures. What was "most rejected" by the ego lied at the very bottom, shadowing the inferior. These archetypes were actually chosen out of hundreds Jung had outlined.
So many who know of his model have come to treat the different "function attitudes" as totally separate animals, or almost like separate egos in themselves; that totally clash with one another. But to Jung, there were really just the four (which were considered "forms of consciousness" or "kinds of intelligence"), with the dominant used in the person's comfort zone, which would then make it take on the internal or external orientation we associate with Xe or Xi. So likewise, there are really four complexes, which consist of what the ego has accepted (the "good" roles") vs what it has rejected (the "bad" roles). This means that the line between one "attitude" and the other is not as sharp as we have been using it.
To Lenore, the two lowest complexes, the Trickster and Demon, come out when the ego is in danger of disintegration. So this is where her brain lateralization theory comes in.
This however is not a usual occurrence. She used examples such as war. So at first, that seems to bring us right back to the problem of how to explain when these processes are strong. But that is making the mistake of conflating the processes with the complexes. The complexes simply take the shape of the processes falling into the role.
But outside of those situations, we are free to manifest the processes, in any context, and without worrying that they might be "ego-syntonic" or "preferred" and that thus we must be mistyped. The processes simply are undifferentiated. This frees us from having to force all of the processes into archetypes every single use, or conclude that Ne preferring egos somehow reject current senses and thus can't see or hear well.
To undertand the eight archetypes as complexes removes all of this and makes it all simple. According to Lenore, a T does not have to "use" F when having emotions. It's just apart of being human. She says that our dominant function (whichever it may be) gives us emotional investment in what we're doing. This helped me, who had at one point been led to believe I had too much emotion or enthusiasm to be a T!
I believe it is a cross between Beebe and Thomson. Notice, her descriptions of them involved only how they affect the person inside.
So perhaps both views are right, in the different realms. The trickster only turns on you in severe cases, to protect the ego. Otherwise, it is used mostly against other people, and in that form does appear much more frequently. It can also be irritating when others use it a lot, as it is hitting you in an unconscious place.
To recap, here is how I now understand a person develops with the functions:
•The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world.
•The ego chooses its dominant function, which it uses in its preferred realm.
If Thinking (for instance) is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the rejected orientation; this case being the outer world).
•Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the rejected perceiving mode of processing, as well as it being in the rejected outer orientation.
These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes.
•So the rejected outer orientation of the [otherwise internal] Thinking then becomes apart of an oppositional complex.
•The perception rejected from the internal world by the auxiliary then takes on a negative parent role.
•The opposite function from the dominant, Feeling, will be inferior and most rejected, yet in the opposite outer orientation will be what the ego believes will complete it.
•Internally, it will remain the most rejected of all by the ego, and take on the most negative role.
•A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude.
•The aspects of the perception function not internalized by the child remain external, and take on a negative childlike nature.
So using Lenore's theory with Beebe's theory seems to fill in some gaps and create a more complete theory!
The 28 possible tandem combinations
So with brain lateralization, we could also make tandems out of the resulting pairs of alternatives. The dominant and last place (1/8) I think of as the "superspine", and the auxilary and 7th place (2/7) as the "superarm". Since both inferior and oppositional (4/5) are said to be opposite gender, and are in the middle of the list, they can be called the "contrasexual core".
Even more tandems can be made out of other pairups that might occur. Like under stress, I might make the lateral transformation from Ti to Fi, but maintain my Ne. Hence, I will come off as an NFP (which I believe is part of what was happening in the discovery process I discuss at the bottom). So that is the parent working with the demon (2/8), sort of simulating the NFP's hero-parent (1/2) combination. It's like a "block" split between the primary and shadow ranges. The same can hold true for a hero-trickster (1/7) combo (when I'm using logic and facts to try to trap someone in an argument), a child-opposing personality (3/5), and anima-witch (4/6). These I guess I'll call "superblocks". While the ego block will represent the type's "intelligence variant" (last three letters), the other blocks and superblocks will yield the other seven variants. 3/6 (child-witch) would be "compensatory arm", since the witch will step in to protect the child. And then, 1/6, 2/5, 3/8 and 4/7 can be called "superfaces" (since they also will share the same attitude). Since there are two pairs of introverted and extraverted, they can be distinguished as "upper" and "lower". the parallel function attitudes of the primary and its shadow (1/4, 2/5, 3/7 and 4/8) are basicaly the original "whole" functions!
So for te INTP:
TiNe ego (preferred/mature) block (NTP)
TiSi primary introverted face
TiFe primary spine
TiTe whole dominant function (T)
TiNi upper introverted superface
TiSe dominant superblock (STP)
TiFi superspine
NeSi primary arm
NeFe primary extraverted face
NeTe upper extraverted superface
NeNi whole auxiliary function (N)
NeSe superarm
NeFi auxiliary superblock (NFP)
SiFe vulnerable/immature block (SFJ)
SiTe tertiary superblock (STJ)
SiNi compensatory arm
SiSe whole tertiary function (S)
SiFi lower introverted superface
FeTe contrasexual core
FeNi inferior superblock (NFJ)
FeSe lower extraverted superface
FeFi whole inferior function (F)
TeNi resistant block (NTJ)
TeSe shadow extraverted face
TeFi shadow spine
NiSe shadow arm
NiFi shadow introverted face
SeFi regrettable/reactive block (SFP)
How the eight positions are generated from two by mirroring and shadowing
This diagram shows how basically, type is really shaped by just the two preferred functions (and their associated archetypes), and the other six are generated through both reflection and shadowing. This creates a two way symmetry, where you have reverse images, and a double-reverse image, which then becomes congruent in shape to the original image. This ends up indicating certain similarities.
Of course, it was Beebe who split off #'s "5-8' as the "shadows" of 1-4. Also, as one can gather in some of his esays, there is also a mirror dynamic, where parent becomes child, and such. I also suspected a larger overall mirror dynamic in the fact that the Anima/Animus and Opposing Personality were both "usually opposite gender", yet the demon ended up same gender. (I would have thought the demon would be opposite gender like the anima it is shadowing, and associated with the sensitive Fi for me). At first, while it was easy to imagine Fe as the female "anima" it was hard to imagine the ever so powerful Te being female in my psyche; but as I then began pondering how femininity really came across in my lifetime of thinking, fantasizing, etc.; it quickly came to mind how my image of femininity had been divided between a more "innocent", vulnerable ideal "other half" as the perfect mate for the hero and persona, and a less innocent role that took some of the power from the hero, and used it in a way only a female could. Its goal was to "buck the system" of the male world, and overturn it with externalizations of my logical conclusions, or rationalizations for them. Hence, a kind of "negative hero" as Beebe identified it. Sometimes in challenging things, I have had the sense of acting like a sassy female. It is perfectly embodied in this representation I have put together from cartoon characters
.
The anima is an innocent princess-like character (from the old Gulliver cartoon from the 60's) while the OP is a villain from the Powerpuff Girls who brags how "NO MAN has ever defeated me", and then begins to take over their world. Both are attractive (similar curvy shape, even), but one is more modest and sweet, and the other more seductive and even "avoidant", as further descriptions of the OP archetype go.
(I also believe these two archetypes correspond to the "madonna/whore complex" in some immature men, where they are torn between the innocent wife and the seductive mistress).
The girl from Gulliver does seem to be an Fe type. Probably more of an ISFJ. The PPG villain is definitely a dom. Te figure, thwarting the world of men. The other Gulliver character is clearly an Ni Senex, as seen in his familiar catch phrase printed there. Gleek (Superfriends) is a definite Se Trickster. Precious Pupp is an Fi Demon, as his integrity is very ambiguous. He on one hand is supposed to be a good guy, in defending Granny. Yet the way he goes about it is very evil. Sometimes, he is just plain bad and bullying of others, but Granny never sees it. So he maintains this image of integrity and ethical character. Clearly triggers a "demonic" projection for me.
So for a male, the hero is male, yet its initial reflection is female. Its direct shadow is also female. If you rotate the shadows to be right side up, you'll see that they are congruent to each other, and both reverse of the hero.
The demon is the reflection of the shadow, which is a double-negative, that ends up congruent with the original positive shape. Hence, it is also male. This apparently only works with the spine archetypes. The arms are all presumed to be the same gender. This is probably because of the fact that the spines concern the ego's relation to self, and the arms are focused more on others.
It also ends up yet again harmonizing with Lenore's theory. The right/left brain alternatives are the same shape as the preferred functions.
Many of the tandems listed above all stem from mirroring.
Elsewhere, I have outlined "blocks' of functions as either confident or vulnerable (or at least compensating for vulnerability). Here, I propose that the shadow blocks are really underneath, opposite of what they convery on the surface:
1, 2 truly confident
3, 4 truly vulnerable
5, 6 appear confident; hiding vulnerability
7, 8 appear vulnerable; hide confidence
5, 6 take on a mask of confidence from 1, 2, which they shadow. But it's really covering up the vulnerability from 3, 4, which they mirror
The villain and witch (or old man) are really acting out of feelings of powerlessness. So their confidence becomes aggressiveness to further hide the deep seated vulnerability of the child and anima.
7, 8 take on a mask of vulnerability from 3, 4 which they shadow. But they are really covering up the confidence of 1, 2 which they are mirroring.
The Trickster and Demon are both characterized by deceiving by appearing innocent on the surface. This phony innocence makes their attacks more deadly.
More on the gender of the archetypes
Here are some comparisons I have been thinking of for the anima in three similar dominant types. I'm proposing that the Opposing Personality (which is the mirror of the anima, in also being contrasexual) might be the image of the ideal fantasy ego that has integrated at least some aspects of the anima. With it, we basically take the opposite orientation and opposite gender and combine it with our dominant function and heroic persona image. This combines the external acceptance the anima supposedly grants and what is desired sexually (what we ourselves don't possess) with the dominant perspective:
Dom. Ti: confident in internal world and with technical knowledge. Feel inferior in external world and in humane matters.
male Fe anima: I feel inferior to the outside world in my human existence. I would be best completed by a female who by my side would make me somebody in the external world
Feel "love" towards women whom this is projected on. Projection will likely be shaped by the person's mother, including her type.
To attack the anima is to confirm my inferiority as a human in the world, making me feel unworthy of the female image the hero is supposed to protect, and thus feared to be forever doomed to incompleteness.
OP: integrates the opposite gender and external orientation to the dominant heroic persona and technical (impersonal) focus.
The ideal fantasy ego completed by the anima.
Accepted by the outside world (fulfilling the role of the anima), and thus able to establish the ego's logical order.
Te-using women come off as sexy, for this is the aspect of femininity that needs to be conquered rather than mated to the ego. (women with "spunk").
Dom. Fi: confident in internal world and with humane knowledge. Feel inferior in external world and in technical matters.
male Te anima: I feel inferior to the outside world in technical order. I would best be completed by a female who would make decisions for me, and by my side, would help me bring order in the external world
Feel "love" towards women whom this is projected on. Projection will likely be shaped by the person's mother, including her type.
To attack the anima is to confirm my inferiority in technical matters in the world, making me feel unworthy of the female image the hero is supposed to protect, and thus feared to be forever doomed to incompleteness.
OP: integrates the opposite gender and external orientation to the dominant heroic persona and humane (personal) focus.
Ideal fantasy ego completed by the anima. Would be accepted by the outside world (fulfilling the role of the anima), and thus able to establish the ego's sense of humane harmony in the world.
Fe-using women come off as sexy, for this is the aspect of femininity that needs to be conquered rather than mated to the ego. (this perspective might lead to things such as sexy maid/nurse fetishes).
Dom. Te: confident in external world and with technical knowledge. Feel inferior in internal world and in humane matters.
male Fi anima: I feel inferior inside in my human existence. I would best be completed by a female who by my side would give me a sense of integrity
Feel "love" towards women whom this is projected on. Projection will likely be shaped by the person's mother, including her type.
To attack the anima is to confirm my inferiority in internal integrity, making me feel unworthy of the female image the hero is supposed to protect, and thus feared to be forever doomed to incompleteness.
OP: integrates the opposite gender and internal orientation to the dominant heroic persona and technical (impersonal) focus.
The ideal fantasy ego completed by the anima.
Having more of an internal grounding (fulfilling the role of the anima), and thus able to universalize the ego's logical order.
Ti-using women come off as sexy, for this is the aspect of femininity that needs to be conquered rather than mated to the ego.
The Demon it seems is the cast off corner of the psyche where the worst state of the dominant gender is paired with the inferior function.
What I'm thinking now, is that the complex becomes split, and a more devious version gets projected onto others, while a more hapless and pathetic version is what we project onto ourselves. (i.e. this is what we fear we will be reduced to if we don't fight the demon without).
It represents the feared death of the ego; think "Ichabod". A weak helpless person who basically becomes taken over by and merged with the Headless Horseman.
So to me, in a battle, I will see an opponent whom I project an evil self-contentment (Fi) onto as Precious Pupp. I myself will feel that if I "lose" to him; I'll be like one of the hapless villains in cartoons.
Characters like Sylvester and most other cats, and various wolves or foxes who chase other prey come to mind; including most of Precious Pupp's opponents.
They are like the diametric opposite of Precious Pupp, who, is technically a good guy who basically manages to use evil to beat his opponents. They, on the other hand, are bad guys, being "bullies" to some prey, and are yet totally hapless against the defender of the victim. You also have a character like the one-shot Ricochet Rabbit bandit Half-pint Pinto ("Big Thinker") who wanted to be a bad guy, but was too wimpy (rejected by all the other bad guys), and had to unsuccessfully rustle an elephant to try to prove himself. (This is actually the example that comes to mind first. As far as innocence and gender, he is just as opposite the image of the Gulliver girl as Precious Pupp is, though pretty much as vulnerable as she is, totally unlike Precious Pupp).
This is what shadows the vulnerability of the anima, and yet again, the image is otherwise the total opposite of the beautiful and innocent feminine anima. (I thought of this new premise specifically in trying to come up with a better parallel of the Demon with the anima's vulnerability. Precious Pupp is really not vulnerable at all, but only makes himself look like he is on a very superficial level. These other characters I'm mentioning truly are vulnerable, though still evil).
Charlie Brown (INFP?) also constellates these feelings, though he's ultimately the hero and not a bad guy. He is virtually a kind of bad guy ("goat", etc) to the other kids (a demonic projection on their part?) when they scold him for doing everything wrong, and remember, for me, this is shadowing inferior Fe which bases personal worth on what the collective believes.
Again, one might wonder how such a tenderhearted Fi could be associated with "evil". But the way the complex is constellated for me, is that such "wishy-washy" people are basically allowing evil to prevail. If Tweety and other prey can hit or otherwise outsmart the cat or other predator chasing them, and then a dog or other strong protector is constantly punching the predator out, then why can't Sylvester and the others ever pick up something and knock the dog out, or otherwise outsmart them? They totally wimp out, nearly every time. Like on the Jonny Bravo episode ("Intensive Care") where the Igor-like hospital orderly is abusing him to keep him from coming on to the nurse. The stories end with the character uttering some wimpish line in defeat (e.g. "just not my day" or something like that). Why can't they attack back?
To me, this is shadow/reflecting heroic Ti, which demands a perfectly symmetrical order to things. Punishments must match the crime. Why is it so wrong for Johnny to hit on girls (the same with all those hardnosed women in the show who always beat him to a pulp just for saying "Hello there, pretty mama")? If it's OK for dogs to chase cats, then why are cats villified for chasing birds or mice?
In the case of Charlie Brown, recall, the demon is shadowing a vulnerable anima Fe. If people hate you so much, why would you stay there and keep taking it? Why would Sylvester or Tom stay in a yard with a bulldog making them teach the young pup how to chase cats? That is allowing the evil to continue. If it were me, I would long have told such a crowd to screw themselves, and stormed off, disengaging (which is one of the negative traits of Fe. You don't want to be where you are not wanted or respected. Fi on the other hand stands up for what's "right", when the group is in violation of universal ethics).
I take it, their humane focus tries to believe the best about mankind, and give them a chance. "If I keep trying, maybe they'll accept me". Hence, IFP's being the more pure "Supine" or "Supine-Sanguine" blend (or at least a "peaceful Phlegmatic" who doesn't care as much) who are more likely to keep "taking" it (and end up forever frustrated), where the T (with the N) tempers the Supine by giving me the Choleric drive to either master the situation, or at least run away so I can fight another day. I realize humanity is basically apart of the "jungle", and trying to get people like that to change is futile.
I imagine an IFP's Demon Ti might be most embodied in the Unabomber. Or, among those with a strong sexual ethic; perhaps Woody Allen.
An ETJ's Demon Fe might match "Mrs Smith" on the Powerpuff Girls (Supper Villain; Just Desserts), who became evil when she felt her hosting of her neighbors was unappreciated.
Standalone Meanings of various letters and letter combinations:
E extraverted dominant function
I introverted dominant function
S preferred perception is Sensing (concrete)
N preferred perception is iNtuition (abstract)
T preferred judging function is Thinking (objective, logic)
F preferred judging function is Feeling (subjective, values)
J judging function is extraverted, perception is introverted
P perception function is extraverted, judging function is introverted
E/I + S/N (ETB: "language styles")
ES extraverted dominant function, preferred perception function is Sensing (expressive, concrete)
EN extraverted dominant function, preferred perception function is iNtuition (expressive, abstract)
IS introverted dominant function, preferred perception function is Sensing (reserved, concrete)
IN introverted dominant function, preferred perception function is iNtuition (reserved, abstract)
E/I + T/F (ETB: "Social image temperaments")
EF extraverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Feeling (ETB: "expressive feelers")
ET extraverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Thinking (ETB: "expressive thinkers")
IF introverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Feeling (ETB: "deep feelers")
IT introverted dominant function, preferred judging function is Thinking (ETB: "deep thinkers")
E/I + J/P ("Sociability Temperaments" —George Frisbie writing in JPT)
EP dominant extraverted perceiving (Bissell: "extraverted eMpiricals" —Jung's "irrationals")
EJ dominant extraverted judging (Bissell: "extraverted Rationals", not to be confused with Keirsey's "Rational")
IP dominant introverted judging/aux. extraverted perceiving (Bissell: "introverted Rationals")
IJ dominant introverted perceiving/aux. extroverted judging (Bissell: "introverted eMpiricals")
S/N + T/F (Original Myers "Temperaments"; preferred function combinations)
SF preferred Sensing and Feeling (Concrete Feeling, concrete [role-]informatives)
ST preferred Sensing and Thinking (Concrete Thinking, concrete directives)
NF preferred iNtuiting and Feeling (Abstract Feeling; Apollonian/Idealist)
NT preferred iNtuiting and Thinking (Abstract Thinking; Promethean/Rational)
S/N + J/P ("Cognitive Temperaments", "Germane Temperaments", "Perceiving attitudes")
SP preferred extraverted Sensing (Dionysian/Artisan)
SJ preferred introverted Sensing (Epimethean/Guardian)
NP preferred extraverted iNtuiting (abstract informatives; [Janet] Germane: true Apollonian)
NJ preferred introverted iNtuiting (abstract directives; Germane: True Promethean)
T/F + J/P ("Myers/McCaulley groups", "Normative Temperaments", "Judging temperament model", "Judging attitudes")
TJ preferred extraverted Thinking (Bissell: "the most directive")
TP preferred introverted Thinking (Bissell: "the most pragmatic")
FJ preferred extraverted Feeling (Bissell: "the most cooperative")
FP preferred introverted Feeling (Bissell: "the most friendly")
E + FJ/FP/TJ/TP
EFJ dominant extraverted Feeling
EFP aux. introverted Feeling
ETJ dominant extraverted Thinking
ETP aux. introverted Thinking
I + FJ/FP/TJ/TP
IFJ aux. extraverted Feeling
IFP dominant introverted Feeling
ITJ aux. extraverted Thinking
ITP dominant introverted Thinking
E + SP/SJ/NP/NJ
ESP dominant extraverted Sensing
ESJ aux. introverted Sensing
ENP dominant extraverted iNtuition (abstract Get Things Going)
ENJ aux extraverted judging/dominant introverted iNtuition (abstract In Charge)
I + SP/SJ/NP/NJ
ISP aux. extroverted Sensing
ISJ dominant introverted Sensing
INP aux. extraverted iNtuition (abstract Behind the Scenes)
INJ dominant introverted iNtuition (abstract Chart the Course)
E + SF/ST/NF/NT
ESF Dominant extraverted function; preferred Sensing and Feeling (concrete Get Things Going)
EST Dominant extraverted function; preferred Sensing and Thinking (concrete In Charge)
ENF Dominant extraverted function; preferred iNtuition and Feeling
ENT Dominant extraverted function; preferred iNtuition and Thinking
I + SF/ST/NF/NT
ISF Dominant introverted function; preferred Sensing and Feeling (concrete Behind the Scenes)
IST Dominant introverted function; preferred Sensing and Thinking (concrete Chart the Course)
INF Dominant introverted function; preferred iNtuition and Feeling
INT Dominant introverted function; preferred iNtuition and Thinking
N + FJ/FP/TJ/TP (Keirsey intelligence Variants—abstract)
Mentor (NFJ) Introverted iNtuition/extraverted Feeling
Advocate (NFP) Extraverted iNtuition/introverted Feeling
Strategic Coordinator (NTJ) introverted iNtuition/extraverted Thinking
Entailing Engineer (NTP) extraverted iNtuition/introverted Thinking
S + FJ/FP/TJ/TP (Keirsey intelligence Variants—Concrete)
Logistical Administrator (STJ) Introverted Sensing/extraverted Thinking
Certifying Conservator (SFJ) Introverted Sensing/extraverted Feeling
Tactical Operator (STP) Extraverted Sensing/Introverted Thinking
Instrumenting Entertainer (SFP) Extraverted Sensing/introverted Feeling
How each MBTI factor (E/I S/N T/F J/P) directly changes the FIRO/APS factors (high or low e or w of I or C)
E/I toggles expressed Inclusion (E=high eI, I=low eI)
S/N (S: eC≈wC N: eC≠wC)
Cognitive Opposites
So as we have seen, a type with all four letters opposite of another type is not completely opposite as far as I/C temperament blends go. This is because of the factor of S/N, which ties together opposite Control temperaments. So the I/C opposites (such as a Sanguine in both areas vs. a Melancholy in both areas) will have three of the letters as opposites, but will share the same S or N (S in this case). Likewise, the cognitive opposites will all share one or two e/w × I/C style factors in common.
It also turns out that switching all four letters is not as cognitively opposite as one would think either!
| MBTI opposites | FIRO factor in common (and Berens counterpart) |
|---|---|
| ESFP INTJ | high eC (pragmatic) |
| ESFJ INTP | high wI, low wC (informing, structure-oriented) |
| ESTP INFJ | low wI, high wC (directing, motive-oriented) |
| ESTJ INFP | low eC (affiliative) |
| ENFP ISTJ | low eC (affiliative) |
| ENFJ ISTP | low wI, high wC (directing, motive-oriented) |
| ENTP ISFJ | high wI, low wC (informing, structure-oriented) |
| ENTJ ISFP | high eC (pragmatic) |
How switching different dichotomies changes the cognitive dynamics.
Often, people in trying to find a type will look at them dichotomy by dichotomy, and may identify two or even three of the letters, and teeter on the remaining one. Someone may realize they are clearly introverted and intuitive, and perhaps perceiving, but not be sure of thinking or feeling. Or they might know they prefer thinking, but not be sure of judging or perceiving. They may even place an "X" in the questionable slot(s). However, while types may seem similar in differing by only one letter, they can actually be very different, cognitively! The last letter, for instance will swap all of the primary functions with the shadows! INTJ and INTP have very little in common, except for the dominant introversion, and the TNSF order! Meanwhile, to change the last three letters, you get a very similar type.
Here's how changing the letters affects the functions:
E/I: blocks maintain same order, functions in pairs switched (2,1; 4,3; etc) (Keirsey: "least important dichotomy")
S/N: same attitudes in place; perceiving functions swapped (and also reversed in tandem order) and take opposite attitude (types will "see things differently", but judge the same way).
I Types: primary/shadow "irrational arms" (i.e. perceiving function) are swapped and reversed - 1,7,6,4,5,3,2,8.
E types: primary/shadow "irrational spines" are swapped and reversed 8,2,3,5,4,6,7,1
T/F: same attitudes in place; judging functions swapped (and also reversed in tandem order) and take opposite attitude (types will see things the same way, but "judge things differently").
I types: primary/shadow "rational spines" (i.e. judging function) are swapped and reversed - 8,2,3,5,4,6,7,1.
E types: primary/shadow "rational arms" are swapped and reversed - 1,7,6,4,5,3,2,8
J/P: same attitudes in place, but the blocks swapped between primary and shadow with pairs reversed; all functions taking opposite attitudes (total shadow opposites; most drastic dichotomy switch: 6,5,8,7,2,1,4,3)
E/I + J/P (two middle letters the same; Bob McAlpine “Opposing Personality”; Ken Liberty “attitude-antagonistic”) same processes in place with attitudes reversed; even swap of four function primary/shadow ranges (diametric attitude opposite: 5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4)
S/N + T/F (two middle letters changed; McAlpine’s “Dynamic Opposite”): All eight functions reversed in order (attitudes fall into the same places). Most diametrically opposite type, cognitively, though types will differ only by expressed or wanted Control except for NFP/STP and SFJ/NTJ. (8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1)
E/I + S/N (first two letters) judgment compatible only; spine becomes arm and is replaced with shadow arm as new "spine" with pairs reversed: (7,1,4,6,3,5,8,2)
E/I + T/F perception compatible only; arm becomes spine; and is replaced with shadow spine as new "arm" with pairs reversed: (2,8,5,3,6,4,1,7)
S/N + J/P reverse perception compatible (same primary perception functions; arm reversed and becomes spine, and is replaced with shadow spine as new "arm": 3,5,8,2,7,1,4,6)
T/F + J/P (last two letters) reverse judgment compatible (spine reversed and becomes arm and is replaced with shadow arm as new "spine": 6,4,1,7,2,8,5,3)
S/N + T/F + J/P (opposite intelligence type, same attitude): Even block swap within primary/shadow range. Next most similar type after E/I swap, also is also usually similar in e/w-I/C (3,4 - 1,2, etc.)
All letters opposite: (Keirsey’s "Opposites Attract"; Beebe “inverse relationship”): four functions reversed within primary/shadow blocks (4,3,2,1,8,7,6,5)
(See also http://www.typeinsights.com/FreeArticles/Relationships.pdf)
Cognitive Preferences of similar temperament blends
ESFP, ESFJ both sensory, which is generally associated with Se, but the ESFP relies directly on external stimulus, while the ESFJ measures it against internal stimulus (usually memory), and judges the current sensory data negatively if it doesn't hold up, but also enjoys it if it fits the internal standard.
This internal focus is the Melancholy's contribution to the SanMel blend.
(The ESTJ ChlorMel will probably have a bit less of the sensory pleasure focus, due to the Thinking).
The Choleric or Supine's leadership influence on the social Sanguine is to make the type altogether abstract, in which Sensing becomes inferior. (and the current external senses, the shadow of internal sensing).
So while the Sanguine may be associated with the current sensory perspective due to the purest Sanguine being a dominant Se type, the sensory focus is not really fixed to that temperament.
Alternate explanation:
While Beebe's order makes "abstract Sanguines" ENFP and ENTP look like, cognitively, the furthest things from the Pure sanguine (ESFP; which are close to in sharing three out of four e/w factors), with that type's dominant Se all the way in 8th place, while the ESFJ seems the most similar from at least sharing the S preference (even though in the opposite attitude) despite the Sanguine being blended with the diametrically opposite Melancholy; looking at it in Lenore's order (which often more closely matches actual strength):
ESFP SeFiNeTi ENTP NeTiSeFi
ENFP NeFiSeTi ESFJ FeSiTeNi
Now, the three similar blends now have the same four functions in common (being right brain "P" attitudes), and also, the Sanguine and its next two closest types are more similar than the SanMel, which is the only "J" out of the Sanguines.
Likewise (Melancholies):
ISTJ Mel[pure] SiTeNiFe
INTJ MelChlor NiTeSiFe
INFJ MelPhleg NiFeSiTe
ISTP MelSan TiSeFiNe
Cholerics:
ENTJ Chlor[pure] TeNiFeSi
ESTJ ChlorMel TeSiFeNi
ENFJ ChlorPhleg FeNiTeSi
ESTP ChlorSan SeTiNeFi
The Phlegmatics/Supines
INFP Phleg[Pure] FiNeTiSe
ISFP PhlegSan FiSeTiNe
INTP PhlegChlor TiNeFiSe
ISFJ PhlegMel SiFeNiTe
In these last two instances, the "odd man out" type is not the one blended with the opposite temperament, but rather the one sharing eC (cooperative or pragmatic) with the pure type. In each type, this J/P foreigner is a TP or FJ type.
People have said that they like Socionics better because it goes more into intertype dynamics, where MBTI doesn't. But what is Beebe's model but the groundwork for the same dynamics?! That is what attracted me to it in the first place, and still makes me think of it as the most complete.
Problem is, he does not seem to have any complete listing of all the intertype relations. You find only particular examples in Beebe's articles/interviews or knowledgeable people's discussions. I recently even contacted him, asking which article would contain the most information, and while he pointed to "Understanding Consciousness Through The Theory Of Psychological Types" which contained a lot of useful information about how he put together the model (goes more in depth than "Evolving the Eight Process Model"), it doesn't go into examples for all type relations, and apparently, he has not put together any such project.
So I had proposed names for all of the type relations, which do imply what the relations would be like. A few concepts are taken from Socionics, as they seem like good descriptors, and for familiarity sake.
Then, I eventually find that the Type Logic site has its own names for the intertype relations:
Relationship Pairs: Definitions
If you click on the type profiles on the site, at the bottom, you will see each Type Relation name, whih is a link to the correspondign type's profile. You can also purchase the software (link at bottom of above linked page).
Here are how the relations are determined:
Compatible (same quadra)
XXXX Identity (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 = A1, B2, C1, D2, A2, B1, C2, D1)
yXXX Pal (ETB: I/E companion) (2,1, 4,3 = B2, A1; D2, C1; etc)
Xyyy Supplement (ETB:[right/left brain] counterpart (syntonic block opposite)); (3, 4, 1, 2)
yyyy Anima (Beebe: "inverse relationship"; ETB syntonic opposite; aka "dual") (4, 3, 2, 1)
Incompatible (alternate quadra)
yXXy Contrast (opposing personality/attitude-antagonistic; ETB: dystonic parallel) (5,6,7,8 = A2, B1, etc.)
XXXy Complement (ETB: J/P antitype (aka Quasi-identity)) (B1, A2, D1, C2, etc)
yyyX Novelty (ETB: dystonic block opposite) (7,8, 5,6, etc)
XyyX Enigma (McAlpine, "Dynamic Opposite"; ETB: dystonic (total) opposite) (8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1)
Rationally compatible (adjacent quadra)
XyXX Neighbor (ETB: rational comrade/(kindred)) (A1, C2, B1, D2 etc)
yyXX Counterpart (ETB: rational semicomrade)
XXyy Advisor (ETB: semi-benefit —because of shared hero-child relationship with common S/N "language")
yXyy Pedagogue (ETB: irrational semiopposite)
Irrationally compatible (opposite quadra)
XXyX Companion (ETB: irrational comrade/kindred) D1, B2, C1, A2)
yXyX Tribesman (ETB: irrational semicomrade)
XyXy Suitemate (ETB: social image semi-antitype)
yyXy Cohort (ETB: rational semiopposite; semi-dual)
Example: INTP
Compatible (Alpha quadra)
INTP Identity
ENTP Pal
ISFJ Supplement
ESFJ Anima
incompatible (Gamma Quadra)
ENTJ Contrast
INTJ Complement
ESFP Novelty
ISFP Enigma
rationally compatible (Beta quadra)
ISTP Neighbor
ESTP Counterpart
INFJ Advisor
ENFJ Pedagogue (semi-dual)
irrationally compatible (Delta quadra)
INFP Companion
ENFP Tribesman
ISTJ Suit-mate
ESTJ Cohort
The search for a three-letter code
In one type discussion, it was suggested to go back to Jung's original concept with an alternate lettering system, that uses only three letters. This is what Socionics aimed to do, realizing that J/P were not really necessary. Yet they reassigned j/p with another purpose, but then came up with another three letter alternative for the 16 types, using terms like "LII" (Logical Intuitive Introvert) and ILI (Intuitive Logical Introvert), to differentiate the two INT types. The system Jung came up with is similar to this, but uses the regular MBTI letters except for J/P, which like in the Socionics system, is replaced by the order two of the letters fall into. E/I then tell you what the middle function (the letter it is next to), as dominant is, and the last letter is the aux.
INTJ=INT (Ni-Te)
INTP=ITN (Ti-Ne)
INFP=IFN (Fi-Ne)
INFJ=INF (Ni-Fe)
ISTJ=IST (Si-Te)
ISTP=ITS (Ti-Se)
ISFJ=ISF (Si-Fe)
ISFP=IFS (Fi-Se)
ENTJ=ETN (Te-Ni)
ENTP=ENT (Ne-Ti)
ENFJ=EFN (Fe-Ni)
ENFP=ENF (Ne-Fi)
ESTJ=ETS (Te-Si)
ESTP=EST (Se-Ti)
ESFJ=EFS (Fe-Si)
ESFP=ESF (Se-Fi)
I liked this idea, for its simplicity, and wondered why Myers hadn't used it; yet I had pointed out that the J/P dichotomy was very useful (like in the temperament and Interaction Styles model, an of course, my correlations).
Another version of this is what is known in type discussion as the "Jack Flak system" (after the user name of the forum poster who come up with it. http://jfmb.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=2). Influenced by Socionics, and seeking to uncover a system truer to Jung, it basically renames what we call an extraverted function as the true dominant or "primary". Hence, all P types are truly dominant perceiving, and J types dominant judging. Like was mentioned above in connection with Lenore Thomson's reading of Jung, introversion and extraversion are connected to the ego, not the "functions". So you have I/E, and primary function and an support.
The rest of cognitive dynamics is rejected. the other functions would basically be what we identified earlier as "undifferentiated". One thing that's better about this system above the three letter notations mentioned above, is that I/E + NT is both NTP's, while I/E + TN is both NTJ's; instead of INT=INTJ, ITN=INTP; but ENT=ENTP and ETN=ENTJ.
More ERICA/EISENFELT factor comparisons:
STJ wI: T e/wc: J
NTJ wI: J; e/wC: T
STP wI: T; e/wC: P
NTP wI: P; e/wC: T
SFP wI: F; e/wC: P
NFP wI: P; e/wC: F
SFJ wI: F; e/wC: J
NFJ wI: J; e/wC: F
Preferred Functions:
Se: high e/wC
Si: low e/wC
Ne high wI, eC≠wC
Ni: low wI, eC≠wC
Te: low wI/C
Ti: low wI, high e/wC OR high wI/eC, low wC
Fe: high wI. low e/wC OR low wI/eC, high wC
Fi: high wI/C
To SHORTER Essay on correlation
INTP vs ENTP and the Supine-Choleric-Supine. What exactly is my type?
The conation temperament plus Interaction Style correlation would make my true type INTP, and the profiles at Lifexplore, plus even better, the one at INTP.org itself (A description of the INTP Personality Type by Paul James), describe me perfectly! (Even down to the mutual attraction between this type and the ESFJ's, which would more match my wife!) I first came out as what amounts to this type in a test, BBC Science & Health 'What Am I Like?' personality test There, it is called "Strategist", and is marked by the aspects of "Introverted" (over extraverted, of course), "Ideas" (over "facts") —N; "Heads" (over "hearts") —T; and "Spontaneous" (Over "Planner") —P. I later got INTP on more tests as I went on. James describes the INTP's independence as: "The best way to get an INTP to do something is to suggest the idea as an option and let him sleep on it. Ultimately, the INTP must always believe that it is his decision. Once he is satisfied that the decision was independently reached, then he is content." This is very similar to the Choleric in Control. On another page "An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition" (http://typelogic.com/intp.html). That's kind of how I have written this page and others. As if I was teaching myself this stuff. I remember how much I wanted to know an answer, and have written what I have learned in a way that would have given me the answer I was looking for if I had discovered it written by someone else. I love to read back over it, pretending I am reading it for the first time, and excited by how the answers to all my questions unfold.
However, when we began discussing my type in the group, serious questions were raised about this. Since I was so enthusiastically "promoting" or "championing" APS and my ideas, it was suggested I was actually ENFP. That I would say was the second type that had several traits I could identify with. Also, while I had originally scored "ENFJ" on the Keirsey test, the J and P scores were actually tied at 5, meaning I could have equally been typed as ENFP (I don't know what was the criteria for giving it to the J). Then, when I began revealing more about my personality and they broke it down according to the functions, it seemed I had a much bigger preference for Feeling (personal values focus) than for Thinking, than the INTP. And what was worse, the feeling was identified as introverted feeling (Fi, in auxiliary position, rather than the INTP's inferior extraverted Feeling -Fe, with Fi in very last place at the bottom of the shadow range), which basically is characterized by greater concern with your own feelings. Extraverted Feeling is more about others' feelings. My wife clearly has this as dominant. Then you had what was called "puer aeternus [Lat. "eternal child"] extraverted Thinking" (Te), which is John Beebe's term for the tertiary archetype. This was said to be the "thinking" I did, rather than the introverted Thinking (Ti) I attributed it to. I had always remembered, for instance, how "fun" it was to stack boxes and arrange the stock at the Alexander's Dept. store I worked at in my 20's. I called it "real-life Tetris". But this is clearly "extraverted" Thinking; or "applying logic, organizing, sorting", etc. Sometimes, it can be diffficult to understand the differences between the introverted and extraverted expressions of the thinking and feeling functions. Berens had broken it down nicely for the Perception functions in the "How to tell iNtuiting from extraverted Sensing" article online, but it was Bissell's article on the the Judging functions I had to rely on for those. All of this gave me a basic understanding of how the preferred functions (first two) shaped the types, particularly in comparison to the E/R model I was comparing it to. Just by having these first two functions identified, the rest fall into place. Yet they also shape the type. And it was not until I got Berens' Dynamics of Personality Type, the Understanding Yourself and Others series on Personality type Code, (and Temperament, and Interaction Style), as well as Gary Hartzler's Functions of Type and Facets of Type, and Dario Nardi's 8 Keys to Self-Leadership books that I got a fuller understanding of all the functions and their archetype roles.
On Lifexplore, I could see where this type describes me in many ways: "ENFP children are 'into everything.' Their natural curiosity results in children for whom questions were invented. They often spend long periods of time devising new and original — but not necessarily practical — languages, plays, and scenarios". "ENFPs look forward to retirement as a time that can bring freedom from the restrictions of the work world and ample opportunity to pursue their varied interests." "Usually ENFP work space is arranged haphazardly, with work materials and personal momentos scattered about. In terms of the management of time, ENFPs find it particularly difficult to estimate accurately how long an activity will take. Because people's needs are more important than schedules, ENFPs are often late and characteristically full of apologies for their tardiness." Best yet; "When they are committed to what they do, they are enthusiastic to the point of preaching to the entire world about it."
This would be devastating to the correlation, and possibly prove that perhaps the NF is Choleric after all. Yet I still didn't see the more "critical" aspects of the Choleric in this type. However, remember, the 16 types profiles do not dwell alot on the weaknesses, so perhaps they were there, but only the Choleric's enthusiasm (high eC), matched with the people-orientation of the Interaction Style (high wC) was what was seen. There was something about ENFP's bending rules with their will. And both them and INFP's were said to have very negative reactions at times.
This did not look good! I then had to consider reconfiguring all the factors, such as eC and wI being paired with each other in the N type temperaments and stuff like that. Some may try to explain the NFP's "choleric" behavior by the nonpreferred Te. However that won't work, because the SFP's have the Te in the same positions, and they are not considered choleric, and on the other hand, the NFJ's do not have the Te in the primary range at all.
However, there were several descriptions that clearly did not fit me: "ENFPs are initiators of change who...energize and stimulate through their contagious enthusiasm.", "ENFP teenagers are agreeable, sociable, outgoing people..." "They are typically enthusiastic, and this is contagious. People get caught up and entranced by an ENFP. "ENFPs make excellent salespeople, advertising people, politicians, screen or play writers, and in general are attracted to the interpretative arts, particularly character acting". All of this is not me; but is obviously a Sanguine in Inclusion. In every set of type profiles, this is the way it was with these two types. I would have all of these "yesses" for the INTP, and a mixture of no's, maybe's and a couple of yesses (in the "enthusiasm" area) for the ENFP. Yet, on the cogitive dynamics (functions) level, I seemed to identify with the ENFP's order more. I then looked at the similar INFP, but I was still too "enthusiastic" for that one. One person said they detected "Get Things Going drivers" in my enthusiasm. However, according to APS, this is because I do in fact respond as a Sanguine, though not expressing as one. Responsive behavior is "what we really are", once again. I'm basically an "introverted" Sanguine, as another profile system calls it. Then, as we began discussing "extraversion", one person pointed out that in the 16 types system it is about "wanting" interaction, and not just "expressing". This fit right into the Supine. (hence, APS reports call it "both extroverted and introverted"). People even pointed out that there were a lot of ENP's who claimed to be introverted. ENFP is often called the "introverted extrovert", like I called Supine on the first page. This may shed light on why I seem different from an INTP. (And I can also see then where some Cholerics in Inclusion, particularly with lower wI scores, might possibly come out as introverted types, since they do in fact "want" like an introvert. So this might explain more anomalies that may come up in the correlations).
I had to consider that perhaps it's my being what amounts to a fifth "interaction style", in a four temperament-four interaction style system, that seems like Behind the Scenes, but nevertheless has some distinctive traits. The Phlegmatic in these four-point matrices was considered introverted and agreeable, because this is how it measured in comparison to the other three temperaments. Yet, it was not really as "agreeable" as the Sanguine, nor as introverted as the Melancholy. So we now know that it is moderate in both scales, and falls in the center of the matrix. However, the fifth temperament that replaces it in the upper left corner is just as needy for acceptance as the Sanguine, and also as "Neurotic" (negative emotions) as the equally introverted Melancholy. It is basically, a "hyper-BtS", perhaps. The five temperament system makes a distinction between "expressing" and "wanting" (also called "responding as"). Directing and Informing are the closest counterpart to "responding/wanting", but in the Interaction Style and other four temperament models, only the GtG (Sanguine) responds fully as an extravert. But of course, it also expresses as an extravert as well, so it indisputably is an E type. There really was no concept of another style wanting as an extravert, that did not also express as one. (This would be the set of "behaviors that did not fit into the other four" that eventually led to the discovery of a fifth temperament). The Behind the Scenes may have shared an "informing" style of communication with GtG in comparison with the directives, but this was not the same level of "want" in socialization.
So perhaps, this is why the Supine would add this additional "Feeling" (or "friendliness") focus, and thus might split off from the Phlegmatic in the INTP. While the other Behind the Scenes types still seem Supine OR Phlegmatic in Inclusion (Mixed with Melancholy, Sanguine or Supine Phlegmatic in Control), they are all "F" types, and will not have this conflict, so I had to consider perhaps the INTP being Phlegmatic in Inclusion/Choleric in Control only. That blend would have less of this emotion as well as enthusiasm, because of the Inclusion's low energy. They will thus be more "detached", emotionally, as the profiles describe it, and able to focus more on introverted Thinking. The Supine mixed with the diametric opposite Choleric would infuse the resulting blend with too much of the Supine's Feeling (sensitivity, etc.) for it to neatly fall into the normally less emotional NT temperament. It has to go somewhere, so it gets split along the lines of the high wI and high eC being paired together as "Extraversion", and essentially swapping Inclusion for Control (i.e; high eI and moderately high wC become the "Interaction Style"); with the low eI and low wC becoming overshadowed by the high scores; and the Choleric's expressive Control drive turned towards more "friendly" or humanitarian causes. It would then more closely resemble the behavior and function order of the ENFP, but still not quite. And then, I am not just Supine in Inclusion, but also Supine, and Compulsive at that, in Affection! Not only that, but "Feeling" traits (personal values) will definitely be associated with the needs of this deepest level of our person! And Arno did link the Affection area with "emotions"! And compulsive Supine needs in that area will naturally increase a function like the "inward"-focused version of Feeling! You're so focused on how you feel, but not expressive of it, and very sensitive and self-conscious (connected with the need for acceptance). Here again, we see how Affection influences the EISeNFelT scores.
Berens' "core beliefs" of the Interaction Styles has Get Things Going as "It is worth the energy to involve everyone and get them to want to...", and Behind the Scenes as "It’s worth the time to integrate and reconcile many inputs." Stressors include, respectively: "Not being a part of what’s going on. Feeling unliked or not accepted". "Not enough input or credit. Pressed to decide before information is integrated". I can indentify with both, but on the face to face level, I do not express that way (as normal GtG's such as the ENFP). So perhaps I can also be called a "pseudo-GtG". The Supine is known for its checking with others, as we have seen, so that is the way I express. Yet it is in the responsive area that I have more of a "Sanguine" style eagerness. Note "feeling unliked or not accepted" is mentioned for GtG but not BtS. This shows that BtS is in that respect closer to the moderate Phlegmatic, while Supine fits to a certain extent, but otherwise, some of its traits will be associated with GtG because of the equally high wI. (So some Supines in Inclusion blended with the other temperaments in Control might also still come out as E types as well. Particularly the Supine/Sanguine, who like me will also have the eC making him more expressive at times, and possibly pushing him into ESFP instead of ISFP. It may also depend on how high the wI score, and also what the Affection temperament is).
Then, the high eC is what gives me the desire to involve others in causes. I have to do it either indirectly, such as on the internet, or I will be more bold with close associates.
One person pointed out to me: "NTs in general, and INTPs in particular, are very enthusiastic about theory. Once you get started talking about theory, you can't seem to stop!"
There are also several places in PUM 1 showing how INTP's can have feeling:
"Sometimes the feeling types are seen as more emotionally sensitive than the T people, but this is not the case in actuality. Both types can react emotionally with the same intensity...When the T person becomes emotional...the same body reactions are not as evident [as they are with an F person], and, therefore, not as much noticed by others. Thus T people are often described as cold and unemotional, while in reality they may be experiencing as intense emotion as is an F person."
Then we see: "[INTPs] are very adaptable until one of their principles is violated. Then INTPs are not adaptable at all!" So it's principles being violated, instead of "values" as with the Feelers. I would think I am more "principle"-driven, though it does seem like "values" as well. The T type's "Principles" are said to involve how things work, while the F type's "values" involve what is "important", "meaningful", and "desirable".
Berens herself was once a special guest in the group, and posed some questions to determine thinking vs. feeling: whether you would choose values or principles in a situation. Like whether you would choose truth over ideals or unity. Based on the questions, the NF's clearly would be more likely to follow the crowd for the sake of unity or ideals than follow truth. Again, an indicator of an ultimately high wC! While hard to answer some of them, I ultimately choose truth, figuring that ideals or unity founded on lies then loses meaning (which would be a "principle"). Here, a possible high wC of one type is contrasted with low wC.
I continued to also look at my own processes, to see which I really favor. There is also the possibility that I have developed some of the shadow functions; an "active shadow". This could be from experience. Like I might have picked up a lot of Te from my family, which was heavily Melancholy (in both areas in my parents), with some Choleric spread around in others. Te then became a defense mechanism, and Fi (by which I determine what's important to me) naturally followed it. Fi traits are something I can remember being common apparently always, but I can also remember a time when I was young that I had a greater inclination for Fe than later, when things got tougher, and I turned my feeling more inward, and turned Thinking more outward, in defense. I eventually also learned to have more "fun" with Te. Hence, the "real life Tetris" I mentioned earlier. Yet when I really think of it, I tend to put off organizing and sorting, hating having the task looming over me, and I only "get into it" once I've forced myself to start it. And I used it in my writings, where either I explain and promote ideas (like this), or I join in debates and oppose other views, as in many of my Christian writings. ("Fight Te fire with Te fire!") I have grown a bit tired of that stuff however. One aspect of Ti, frameworks and leverage, I do seem to have a natural proclivity towards (naturally accompanying the Ne), but then the extraverted Thinking became more important. Ti does not seem to be "shadowy" (rub me the wrong way in other people, etc) at all. Here is another good explanation of the function: http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Introverted_Thinking
To be fair, if it's Fi and Te that have always been primary, and Ti and Fe that have become active shadows, then I wonder if I might at heart be more of a Sanguine/Supine or Sanguine/Phlegmatic. I think in a "perfect world", I probably would be more naturally expressive, socially, as well as tolerant of other people's decisions, and not desiring of control. But what good is the notion of a "perfect world"? Personality typing is based on the real world. Besides, the notion of Te and Fi being the defensively learned shadows makes more sense than Ti and Fe.
After doing more extensive soul-searching and remembering, I have become more convinced that I do prefer Ti. Fi and Te carry largely negative connotations. Primary functions, as articulated by Beebe and Berens, are generally positve, (hero, good parent or "supporting", relief, aspirational) though they have bad sides (dominating, overprotective, unsettling, projective; ie. of negative thoughts). The shadows have largely negative connotations (oppositional, critical parent or witch, trickster, deceiving or fox (also considered a "rebellious child"), and "destructive", "devilish" or "demonic"), but with good sides (backup, discovery, comedic, transforming). Models and frameworks are what I have always used and delight in most of the time, and clearly, it is the Te and Fi that seems to be more associated with stress. Some may suggest that Fi does not always become really noticeable to the NFP until a negative situation of a value being violated. Still, I would think, as a "hero" or "good parent" it would have more of a positive connotation more of the time; at least when the NFP thinks of it outside of the negative reaction. I am often neutral and indifferent about "feelings" about things. My wife has to try to pry something out of me, but I'm just "whatever", unless it ties to some longstanding issue or some intellectual interest. So I actually leaned too much towards Fi the first time in those tests; thinking I preferred "being in touch with what is most important to you", and stuff like that, but really thinking about it, I am more into abstract models and frameworks and stuff like that. I then remembered my parents always stressing "importance", and when I did not seem to heed to something enough, they would claim "It's not important to you!", yet I did not consciously feel that way, and wondered why they kept assuming that. Or asking me "what do you want in life", and I'm like "huh?" at what I saw as too general a question. A person in touch with inner values generally would be able to articulate something in response. I simply did not normally think in terms of "importance", while Fi was their "relief" function, and thus it has a more primary place in their thinking. Personal "importance" for me only seems to come up in stressful situations or negative moments.
I also see that Fi in others disturbs me at times. In politics, I'm greatly annoyed that many people (embodied in "Joe the Plumber") will fear taxing of the rich (even in the middle of an economic crisis in which corporate leaders flout their wealth even while asking for bailout money), which they see as a "socialist" "wealth redistribution" plan. I could never figure out why middle class who are suffering ould take offense at the idea of taxing the rich, which they call "punishing them for hard work". They often say "I wouldn't want anyone to come and take my money like that!" or even argue that they "took risks" they didn't take, and thus should be "rewarded" like that. Thus they basically project themselves into the rich person's shoes, and end up like sheep supporting their right to "freedom" from government intrusion, or living vicariously through them, or something.
Yet now; I have learned to recognize that as possibly an Fi "value". The notion that people should not be taxed just for their wealth is a subjective ethical value, and even if not aimed at the person himself; he will oppose candidates who violate the value regarding others. Hence, how they could get angry at the taxing of the rich, even though they are not rich, and are often hurt just as much by them, though they may be unaware of that. In those who prefer Fi, this will come out as basically, the "Supine"-like acceptance of the economic imbalance and their "lot" in the system. (Even though they seek others to blame, or more likely, just listen to others and let them do their thinking for them; "dittoing" their favorite pundit or political campaigner). Hence, supporting the notion that FP types are the most responsive or "wanting" of control and influence. My Choleric side despises this wishywashyness. I want people to be aware of the underlying principles of what's going on and challenge the system. On the other hand, the dominant STJ type of society, though preferring the opposite Te, has Fi as its "relief" or "aspirational", and this would also help make the evaluation method prominent. In either case, it fosters the "rugged individualism" this society and its conservative or libertarian mindset are often described with.
This, while still annoying to me, at least now would make me understand it better, and not have the dumbfounded wonderment of how people could be so 'dumb'. Me, with projective Fe, believes that those at the top should not be allowed to hoard everything while everyone else suffers. We ALL "work hard", not just the executives, and sharing is for the greater good. (Though I realize taking from others will still more than likely breed resentment, and the people can find ways to get around it; taking their business elsewhere, if nothing else. Still, they should not be allowed to "have it all", and we should be able to look for a better resolution).
On the other hand, you have the other end of the spectrum, the liberals, who often lead with Fi, which I have usually seen as weak and ineffectual. This is what drove me to try to write stronger responses to conservatives and Christian fundamentalists on my other pages. Most other responses to them use Feeling, like "let's all just love each other", or "let everybody be equal". Right away, I realize that the underlying principles of human behavior make those ideals unreachable, and the conservatives have already pointed this out. A good example is when the Bell Curve theory was published, the conservatives were holding it up as "hard fact", complete with its "statistics". The liberals jumped on this reiterating "the disadvantages faced by the minorities with the lower scores". There's a lot of truth to that, but Conservatives scoff at it, reiterating "the facts" of the numbers. Their empirical argument is based on Te, of course, which I do not trust a lot (statistics can be misinterpreted or ignore other factors, and it's only a cross section of the whole population which to me seems a large overgeneralization. Nobody ever surveyed me in that study!) and also strikes me as oppositional. Likewise, Christian fundamentalists and some other strict sects will toss around Bible texts to support their pet doctrine; usually some ethical standard or practice they are criticizing "contemporary" Christians for not following (projective Fi supporting lead Te). Much Christian debate is a battle of Te; as it treats the Bible as a jigsaw puzzle, picking and pasting scriptures for the efficiency of its "systematic theology". The contemporary Church, which does suffer from apathy and worldliness, then usually responds with introverted Feeling. "Doctrine isn't important; only fellowship or worship". "Everyone should just follow their own heart". Sometimes they'll even bring out their inferior or tertiary Te and pull a Bible verse out of context as a quick, memorized response. (Generally, their strongest!) The conservatives make mincemeat of this, and it just proves their argument on how wayward the modern Church is. Yet I believe that only logic (whichever attitude) is strong enough to counter this logical tactic. So I get annoyed when people respond in a "feely" way, and use my Ti to articulate a logical response, then then employ Te, oppositionally, to support it, usually by trying to find some sort of hard evidence.
Some other archetypes I have clearly identified: Si is definitely my relief or "eternal child". I love to reminisce about the past, especially with music or TV shows I grew up with. You can just see some of my other pages, such as [Subway] Line History, Car History, Scooby Story, and many of the essays on my interest page. (All of this can be accessed at index.html). With Te on the other hand, it's like the opposite, and I'm trying to be grown and "serious". Fe is where I project my "shoulds" (the negative side of the aspirational function), and this can be seen in many of my Christian writings. Ni is the critical parent, giving fears of the future, and Se "tricks" me all the time (see how many typos you can in the writing).
I had even joined a few ENFP online groups to see what they were actually like, and found that I with all my theorizing did not fit in any better than I did with any other NF's. One pointed out that I was too "detail" oriented. And as a person who broke down my CP scores told me, "You think too much to qualify as a natural state NFP!" (too analytical and logical, the enthusiasm for research/interests, the depth into which I go into them, and the ability to synthesize new theories, which are classic INTP traits).
Meanwhile, the ENFPs talk about concepts such as "integrity" and "ethics" which they get upset when they sense a person lacks, which while I may have some, I never thought in terms of. (After becoming Christian and adopting much of my ethics from an external source (the Bible), I often wondered on what basis people who rejected it developed their own sense of ethics). They also said they weren't as detail-oriented. When I tried to ask them a question about their function archetypes (which is a deeper concept of type theory), one of them scoffed "What does this have to do with relationships or growth?" Clearly, that is the Fi-Ti difference. INTP's also tend to have problems with INFP's for seeming covert, ("not knowing what to expect from them"), and I myself had experienced this with one. Thus, the NFP's are not ego-compatible for me. (Types ego compatible with an NTP are those that have the same primary functions, though in different order. Both E and I versions are compatible with each other, of course, as are the SFJ's. Diametric opposites (all primary functions become shadows, and vice versa) are the NTJ's and SFP's. The remaining intelligence variants will have a mixture of syntonic and dystonic functions; being compatible either in perception or judgment).
Also, there is a "Step II" of MBTI (Also known as Expanded Analysis Report), breaking down each scale into five subscales, where a person who is a thinker can have feeling traits in some areas. Someone suggested I do a "shortcut" of the massive test by just grading the subscales directly. I also tried the Cognitive Processes Test on one of Berens' sites (http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/assessment/surveyOriginal.html and http://www.keys2cognition.com/explore.htm). For both, I had overestimated Feeling traits over thinking traits, coming out barely as ENFP in the first, and INFP (but still a Theorist in temperament, which is NT!) in the second. In the "T/F" area of the EAR was one large "OOPS" (out of pattern subscale), which was a preference for "Questioning" rather than "Accomodating" ("explanation: intellectually independent, resistent to influence, self-confident vs. seeks consensus, deferential, conflict avoiding, seeks harmony"). Clearly, this was what was catching the Choleric Control aspects of my personality. And it is considered "out of pattern" for a Feeling type such as ENFP!
It actually becomes harder to answer the questions objectively once you "know too much" of this stuff. Hence, why according to APS instruction, people planning to take the test should not read information like all of this. (However, unlike APS, it is good to know some of the concepts, and in official MBTI testing, some of it is discussed with the testee before he fills out the questionnaire). Hartzler and Haas & Hunziker's books on the functions also makes it appear that I prefer Ti over Te. Te is more about "organizing for efficiency". While I may have had fun stacking boxes, in most situations of "organizing", it is more of a wish than something I can do that much. Hartzler's book on the Facets of Type also broke the subscales down further and helped me understand them, and it became a bit more clear that I preferred T in general over F. Redoing both tests, I then came out as INTP! The order of the strengths was actually Ne-Ti-Si-Fi-Te-Fe-Se-Ni. This perfectly matches what everyone was seeing! Ne appearing dominant, and the next extraverted function after that being Te rather than Fe! Yet, because the type assignment is based on how the tandem functions compare to each other, this still came ut as INTP. However, the actual roles they fall into match Beebe's model! (And older version of the test I had taken more recently at http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/assessment/develop_old.html had all the questions grouped together according to the respective functions, and it came out even closer to Beebe's order: Ti-Ne-Si-Te/Fi(tied)-Fe-Se-Ni).
Add in Lenore Thomson's theory of the brain alternatives. The INTP's right brain alternatives are Fi and Se. So they will come up when the preferred functions cannot solve a problem. I can remember a lot of things in life seeming illogical, and becoming frustrating. That would be when I would turn more to feeling. Like in politics, I recognize the 'universal' principle (Ti) of "survival of the fittest", yet it does not readily help me when I struggle in the system. I then, in frustration begin making value judgments and "congruence" or "importance" evaluations (as can be picked up in some of my writings on the subject). All of this made it difficult to sort T vs F. My intuition never seemed to be as hindered (and it is a perception process, and I always had a colorful world with unlimited things to draw possibilities out of), so Se never needed to develop as much. Many people who are aware of Beebe's model are falling into an assumption that the shadow functions are almost never used. And again, there is not enough of Beebe's own teaching readily available to see what is allowed in the theory. But Thomson's theory would explain how "last place" Fi could be used a lot by an INTP. And many INTP's, especially those who have taken the cognitive process test also attest to strong Fi. (I believe the common image of the INTP as always calm and emotionless is more a mask many wear, to fit a stereotype. But they will admit to having and even displaying a lot of emotion at times).
It has also been pointed out that the NTP can seem like a Te user because Ne acts out Ti's conclusions. Te is defined as arranging the external world, but then Ne rearranges the outer world as well, in exploring possibilities not currently realized. Te does it solely for efficiency, as an extraverted judging function. With Ne, it is information gathering, and then it is filtered through an introverted judging function determining either a logical or ethical standard. (Plus the fact that if Ti takes things apart, then someone has to put them back together in an organized way. I'm writing this stuff alone, so whatever Te work has to be done, I have to do it, and for an introverted TP, that function is "backup". And all the different angles and leverage points I'm using here, in both explaining the comparison of systems, as well as my own type, are the chief descriptions of Ti).
Otherwise, What is temperament or type theory, but a set of categories people are put in, and I clearly like to keep the mental image of the categories when I think of people. Also possibly explaining some of the apparent Te; there is not complete agreement on the shadow functions. To some, they simply follow the order they fall in, from 5 to 8; following the primaries. Another view has them truly "shadowing" their primary counterparts, perhaps being used as strongly as they. And then when you look at the archetype names, the "good side of the shadows" name for the fifth place ("oppositional") is "backup", which acccording Berens "provides depth to our leading role process, backing it up and enabling us to be more persistent in pursuit of our goals". So for a Ti dominant type, Te, as his "backup" would be used a lot as well, but still be more associated with stress. Even when I'm having fun with Te, there is still an underlying model or framework I am referencing. Like a particular way I think things should be stacked for a particular purpose. Berens says "The opposing role is often how we get stubborn and argumentative—refusing to 'play' and join in whatever is going on at the time. it might be easy of us to develop skill in the process that plays this role; but we are likely to be more narrow in our application of this skill, and it will likely take more energy to use it extensively". All of this is certainly true of my use of Te.
I would think some of both theories are true. In a normal person, the shadows would follow the primaries, but for people under a lot of stress or who have had rough times, the shadows will be more "active" and nearly equal the primaries in strength.
Yet another point is that Te for INFP's and INTP's are one place apart (fourth/fifth), and for ENFP-INTP or INFP-ENTP, two places part. If it could rise up to such a prominent position in one of those types, it could in the other, even though it might be crossing the "shadow" line. And as was discussed on thepast page, a Sanguine in Inclusion-Supine Phlegmatic in Control will share some upfront traits and functions like my temperament blend, but for totally different reasons.
So to summarize, I may appear like an ENFP because of the increased "introverted Feeling" traits of the Supine in Inclusion and Supine Compulsive in Affection, plus it being an activated shadow or right brain alternative to Ti. If I was Phlegmatic-Choleric-Phlegmatic, or perhaps even a Phlegmatic-Choleric-Melancholy, I would probably write more like an INTP, (those I have dealt with do seem like Phlegmatics in Inclusion, at least, and with some Melancholy as well). More "pure" ENFP types will more likely be Sanguine in Inclusion/Supine Phlegmatic In Control. They will be nonconformists because of the high expressed and wanted Inclusion. In the case of the SanPhlegs, it will also be the stubbornness and independence of the moderate wanted Control. So the behaviors of SupChlors and SanSups or SanPhlegs will be similar on the surface, but will have somewhat different motives, and some slightly different behaviors when broken down according to the ERICA system: particularly in expressed Inclusion, and expressed and wanted Control.
I have been so outspoken on many issues (both good, such as interests such as this, or bad, such as many of my critical christian writings, because I have always felt I had a unique perspective to express things from. Now I can see that this might be from an unusual Thinking/Feeling mix. Most people engaging in controversial subjects such as politics or religion will lean either toward Thinking or Feeling and in one attitude, to the exlusion of the other. Feelers will passionately voice their opinions, but often logic will lack. Thinkers will acknowledge many of the logical points I make, but not be as passionate in enlightening others. Extraverted Thinkers will bear control and organize everything (including even people's thought processes, according to Berens!) according to their cold agendas, such as much of political conservativism, or old-line christian fundamentalism. Introverted Feelers as you may find in liberalism or moderate new-evangelicalism, will be too much on the opposite extreme; being all "nice", but with no hard logic to counter against the logic tossed their way. Most other introverted Thinkers (who could bring in some much needed underlying principles of things; especially stuff like Bible interpretation or social development) seem to just cynically walk away and ignore all this stuff (especially religion). Extraverted Feelers also seem to ignore most of this stuff, not wanting the conflict. (We see here a division between the two tandems: Te/Fi as more involved, and Ti/Fe as less so). Hence, I see fundamentalists beating up on psychology or contemporary Christian music; deterministic Calvinists beating up on Arminian "free will" doctrine, or politial conservatives beating up on liberalism, even for decades blaming welfare for all our financial woes, while giving the rich more, or tossing around Bell Curve theories, crime statistics and other "empirical" data to justify inequity, and in all such disputes, the aggressive side touting their "hard truths", and then the other side countering only with "feeling"-based responses (which actually feed the other sides' arguments, as this is precicely what they dismiss, with statements as blunt as "This is just the cold reality; stop whining!"). Engaging in political debates on a type-based board now, I see some of the "blind sheep" I criticize for defending the rich against taxes because they wouldn't want to have their money taken away are actually Feeling types. Now, it makes more sense. Hence, I offer my mix of introverted and extraverted Thinking and Feeling as a more rounded method of offering solutions.
So I'm most likely an NTP after all, at heart, though maybe not always in expression. I won't argue as much over E/I, as like Keirsey said, E/I is the least important dichotomy. Looking at the functions, two types with only an E/I difference will have the same primary functions, in a different order (types with totally opposite T/F + J/P will have the same functions as well, but they'll be totally reversed, and this is what some call the "shadow"). As Supine was a "passive Sanguine", then it might also be a "passive Get Things Going", and my type, a "passive ENTP". And others say the enthusiasm does not necessarily make one an extravert. Some of the process roles, however, (the perception functions, actually) clearly favor INTP: Ne as what I "support" with (like tossing out all these ideas), Si as "relief" very nostalgic, though you don't see it much in his area), Ni as "critical parent", and Se as "deceiving/comedic".
It is also said that INTPs' Enneagram types are largely 6w5, 5w6, 5w4, and sometimes also 9w8. I had come out high in both 5 and 6, remember. (the test I took didn't make "wings" out of it, however). The 5 is considered "analytical, and the Paul James site even linked INTP with the "melancholic". This is yet another big evidence of INTP. ENFP's generally come out as 7 (which is the only one I got 0 on!), 4, and sometimes 9. INFP's are heavily 4 or 9.
A couple of points from above to remember:
•The fifth temperament in the area of Inclusion normally will fit the Behind the Scenes style, particularly when it is a "Feeling" type. However, when blended with Choleric in Control; we would expect it to fit the INTP type, but the higher wanted Inclusion may result in a greater "introverted Feeling" strength, appearing to push it to an NFP type.
•My own scores in both systems (Supine-Choleric-Supine compulsive, and NP with E/I and T/F ambiguities) appear to support a hypotheses that compulsively high wanted Affection scores will increase Fi strength (and also nonpreferred Te), placing me basically between ENFP and INTP. (an "XNXP", basically). The tough-mindedness, pragmatism and structure focus of the Choleric in Control is diminished by this, along with my surface introverted behavior; yet all of these are clearly evident in person, and picked up in Step II subscales such as "Questioning vs Accomodating".
To Part 3: APS and Horney's Scales, Type A Theory, Enneagram, etc.
© ETB 2007-10
