Christian Carnival LXV

| | Comments (24)

The 65th Christian Carnival (yes, I know, this is last week's; I'll eventually get around to this week's) is at AnotherThink. My entry for this one is Reflections on the Schiavo Case.

I've already linked to, but I like this stuff so much and find it valuable enough that I might as well continue to promote it by pointing out Marla's post on her own blog about the venture.

At the outer..., we have an argument for why Christians have a moral obligation to seek out and befriend those of other racial and ethnic groups. It sneaks in the back door out of a consideration for why Christians ought to seek out fellow believers beyond our natural tendency to form friendships with those people we've got something in common with. The Christian call is to be part of friendships with other believers both to build into them and to be encouraged and sharpened ourselves, and in a multicultural society that's going to require active initiation with those across ethnic and racial lines. We're certainly not going to be drawn to worship with those whose preferences for worship are very different from our own. I think this is right. If we're actively engaged in the lives of those who are very different from us, we will be worshiping with them in the more general New Testament sense of what worship is, and that will lead over time to a tendency to work into our sense of public worship as iron sharpens iron to make each different ethnically-associated public worship (or otherwise divisive exclusivity of style) into something that seeks biblical principles to guide it and allows our differences to shape the rest. This may be a long-term that process, but it's likely to have more long-term effect than anything else I can think of.

all kinds of time... compares our situation with the early church in terms of the two sorts of culture, the one Christians found themselves coming out of and the one that shared far fewer assumptions, about the nature of reality and the nature of morality. Our cultural centers are far removed from the basic assumptions most Christians have, which small town life more easily fosters. I do hesitate at thinking of the Judaism Christianity came out of as the friendly culture, given how strongly Paul critiques his contemporaries' reactions to Christ, describing their resistance to the gospel as just as strong as the resistance of the Gentiles. It's true, though, that they shared more assumptions with the Jews who accepted their Messiah than the Gentiles tended to share, and both elements (the resistance to the gospel and the shared assumptions) are true of small-town America, as opposed to the cultural centers. David argues that we need people like Paul to go into the cities and do what Paul did, speaking the gospel in the language people of the cultural centers will understand. Amen.

Pseudo-Polymath raises some good pros and cons regarding world unification.


Thanks for the publicity, Jeremy. Much appreciated! little thing, though. I can't get it out of my head that you're an N rather than an S. Are you sure you're an ISTJ and not an INTJ? C.S. Lewis was an INTJ. I just can't imagine anyone as heady as yourself not being an N. I mean that as a compliment (not that I'm prejudiced against S's -- my mom is one and is my best friend). It just seems like anyone dealing in something as abstract as philosophy would have to be intuitive rather than sensing. And NT especially makes sense. I promise I won't challenge your type again but I just had to get that out :)

I'm most definitely S. I'm awful at big picture stuff. I'm a detail person. I focus on one thing at a time and can't concentrate on different tasks. I'll start things and switch, but I can't keep two things in mind at once. My music composition professor told me I write stuff that's microscopically excellent. Each section or transition impressed him, but he didn't think it ever came together as a whole piece. My wife insists that there's information I'm totally oblivious to that any N would notice, but I claim that it's just not there, and she's reading into it.

I think what's confusing you is something that confuses Keirsey also. If he's your guide, I understand the problem. He, as an NT, pretends that only NTs are interested in abstract philosophical issues. He's dead wrong. Ts are interested in such issues. NTs are interested in coming up with systems of thought. STs can be more interested in evaluating and critiquing such systems of thought, particularly ISTJs. The personality type doesn't determine what your interests are. It determines how you go about pursuing them.

I've discussed this all at length here, including a detailed argument against Keirsey's determination of personality via interests.

Jeremy, your earlier post was very helpful. Keirsey was tripping me up, which is interesting since his temperament groupings were different than Isabel Myers'. I've never been quite sure that his are accurate--they don't at all seem to correlate with the Sanguine, Melancholic, etc. types even though people make that claim (and there are several charts that try to correlate all the different personality typing systems). I really think the MBTI measures different preferences than the original four temperaments.

What's also interesting is that while I am definitely a big picture person, I like to work with details. I'm not good at observing them (unless it's deliberate) or remembering them, but things like crunching numbers and editing come fairly easily to me. I think part of it is that I am a perfectionist so I am willing to go the microscopic level to make things turn out exactly as they should. But I'm definitely still an "N."

Anyway, what you shared helped me understand how my mom (an ESFJ) often seems "N-ish" to me. She's in seminary right now (to be a pastoral counselor) so I've been seeing a lot more of her N than ever before, but like you (yet much different because of her E & F), she is truly an "S" because she doesn't live in abstractions but she enjoys studying them. This is also helping to balance her T and F (her F was much too dominant prior to going back to school). Okay, I'm rambling now, but I find the little pieces and the bigger picture of the study of temperament fascinating, though certainly deficient in terms of "defining" each individual uniquely designed by God.

The way the temperaments are defined in the test I took, there are two axes. One of them is how much of the trait you display, and the other is how much of it you desire in others. Then the three areas were inclusion (how much you include others, how much you want to be included), control (how much you control others, how much you want them to set limits on you), and affection (how affectionate you are, how affectionate you want others to be to you).

Sanguines are high on both. Melancholics are low in both. Cholerics are high displayed, low need. Phlegmatics are low displayed, high need. I'm melancholic on control and affection but phlegmatic on inclusion. I was at the top on desired inclusion, but I tested below average on all the others.

It seems to me that introversion/extroversion in MBTI is desired affection, inclusion, and control. Extroverts want more of others in these ways, and introverts want or need less. I would say that thinking/feeling is the closest thing to displayed affection and inclusion, and judging/perceiving relates more to displayed control, but it's not always over other people but often over your immediate environment.

Given this, I tentatively think ETs are more likely to be cholerics and EFs sanguines, while ITs are most likely melancholics and IFs phlegmatics. S and N are another issue entirely, and J and P only affect it a little bit. My reasons for this are only a rule of thumb, though, because they don't line up entirely, and someone can be phlegmatic in inclusion but melancholic in control and sanguine in affection. There might be other elements that the test I took didn't measure that would map onto the MBTI types even better, but I still think S/N is totally irrelevant, whereas Keirsey thinks it's the most determinative feature of the temperaments. The result is just that he's ended up with a different set of four temperaments, and they don't match up.

That's fine except that he pretends they do match up. He even has a whole chapter with these ridiculous attempts to match every occurrence of fours in the history of thought with the four temperaments, when it doesn't even match up to the history of fours in temperament theory, never mind with the four living creatures in Ezekiel and Revelation. I do think he's on to something with the temperaments of the gospel writers, though. Mark was definitely an SP, and Matthew clearly an SJ. I'm less sure of Luke as an NT and John as an NF. In fact, I might have reversed those. Still, that was better than reducing all sets of four temperaments to his set of four. It doesn't work.

While most the writers on MBTI have concluded that C.S. Lewis was INTJ, I feel fairly certain Lewis was actually an INFP. Yes, I know this sounds crazy. But I am not without my reasons, having read the majority of his writings, and a couple biographies on him.
It wouldn't be all that unusual for most folks to mistype a dead celebrity, considering most type experts have also mistyped such living celebrities as GW Bush, in my researched opinion.

You wrote: C.S. Lewis was an INTJ.

Marla said that, David, and I doubt she's going to be checking back to this post. In case you are checking back, I'm curious how you peg the current president. What type do you think he is, and what type do you think people wrongly classify him under?

As for Lewis, I don't know much about his life and can't comment on J vs. P. You may be right that Lewis was an NF. It would explain some key elements of his writing both in his fiction and in his more intellectual discussions.

I know this is almost 2 years old, but I came across this board in a search on type theory, and I was wondering which test Jeremy Pierce was using. What he described sounds like the Arno Profile system, or Worley ID, but in both of those systems, the "low displayed, high need" constitues a FIFTH temperament, called "Supine", or "Introverted Sanguine". The Phlegmatic is a MODERATE displayed/need temperament, which is what leads to its characteristic sluggish or indifferent traits. This was discovered when the trmperaments were mapped to the FIRO-B scale, which is where "Inclusion, Control, Affection" comes from. Ohher systems that use scales similar to "displayed/need" yet don't recognize a fifth type (Such as Social Styles, Interaction Styles,etc) don't use the ancient temperament names. You can read all about it here:
So is there another system that uses display, need (expressed and wanted behavior), Inclusion, Control and Affection, but does not recognize a fifth temperament? Or were you just learning about the APS or WIDP tests, and didn't learsn about thr fifth yet? (When my wife, who is an APS counselor, first began, and tested herself and me, she didn;t know about it until the results came back, and then I remember then, she learned about it and explained it to me. She herself could not read the manuals until she had taken the test herself. I happened to fall into that fifth category in the areas of Inclusion and Affection. I think this is a superior model of temperament, though it is still largely unknown!)

I was tested using the FIRO-B, and it included all five. The phlegmatic was in the middle of the map, with the other four temperaments in each corner of a square. That was the only system I was aware of before I encountered people on the internet who were putting phlegmatic in the spot where I had learned supine.

So no, I know of no system that does it differently and treats four quadrants with no moderate type and does it according to inclusion, control, and affection along the scale of displayed and needs. I was taking from other discussions I had read that FIRO-B was unusual in using phelegmatic as a moderate position rather than what FIRO-B calls supine, so I was adapting what I knew to the terminology I had later discovered seemed to be more standard.

Oh, hi. (didn't think anyone would catch the new post so fast. Didn't know if you'd even still be around :-) ).

FIRO-B does not use the ancient temperament names, nor the new one "Supine". That is strictly the Arno Profile system. (WorleyID uses the ancient four, and has to change the name of the fifth, plus the E,R,I,C,A scales, since they are all copyrighted). For one thing, FIRO-B's creator William Schutz claimed that FIRO was not measuring inborn temperament, and that the type you came out as could change. Dr. Arno basically mapped the ancient temperaments to the FIRO-B scale, and discovered that Phlegmatic was in the middle, and not the low E high R type that other systems place Phlegmatic into.

I was trying to find out the original names FIRO-B did use were, as I had found out that Low E Low W in Inclusion was called "the Loner", and I even called up CPP who owns FIRO-B now, and one thing they told me was that they really avoid using the names because Schutz felt it would lead to typology, which he was not advocating. They apparently can only be found on the "Locater charts", which cost $40. (I was able to get one additiona name out of them: Low E/W in Control; "The Rebel", but snce the names are different for the same scores in I,C and A, there were too many to have them give me over the phone). They even had some newer names, which I added when I expanded the Wikipedia article this morning.

Also, none of the eystems I have heard of ever use the terms "displayed and needs". FIRO-B, it is expressed and wanted. APS, it is expressive and responsive. WorleyID, is demonstrated and desired. That's what made me think you were using a totally different system. Meanwhile, there are other systems that use scales that correspond to E/W, such as DISC, Social Styles (Merrill), Personality Styles (Allesandra), and Berens' Interaction Styles (which are mapped to the MBTI, and Keirsey's S/N-Cooperative/Pragmatic temperaments). None of them, however, have Inclusion, Control and Affection. Enneagram has something like that, called Social, Self-survival, and Sexual, but they are used differently. They are in addition to one's basic type, and not everyone uses them in enneagram.

So was that the Arno Profile System you used? Or if it was FIRO-B, did it give you their own names, and you simply translated them to the APS names?

I'm certain it said FIRO-B. It was something like 15 years ago, so it may have changed since then. It was the version Tim and Beverley LaHaye distribute. The pastor of my church was administering it, and he had their materials. Perhaps he translated it himself, but he gave me a computer printout that said both the name 'FIRO-B' and the positioning of five temperaments. I've still got it somewhere, but I'm not sure where offhand.

It probably said "expressed and wanted". I wasn't trying to capture the exact terms. when I said "dislayed and needs".

But then LaHaye only uses the four temperaments (We read Why You Act the Way You Do? to get a basic idea of temperament). I'm not sure which scales he uses (in the book he only has a "blob" as he calls it, where you pick your traits out of a circle), but he does not divide it into Inclusion, Control or Affection either. What he does is simply "blend" the temperaments into various combinations (San-Mel, Chlor-Phleg, etc) according to "percentages". APS with its I,C,A areas tells you exactly which area you are one or the other temperament, and that is why I think it is so much better.
My wife just joined NCCA (Richard and Phyllis Arno's organization) just over 2 years ago. So if you took it 15 years ago, things were probably very different. I know for one, it was not even known as APS back then, but rather "TAP" (Temperament Analysis Profile). It was 2000 when it was renamed, I believe. So I imagine that is probably what you took. (I was looking through our files where we keep the APS reports, and there was some FIRO-B pamphlet for some particular issue, so perhaps this is what you saw as well. The two systems are closely related, after all). Perhaps your pastor used products from all three (Arno, FIRO, LaHaye).

OK. So I don't know where my pastor got it from. It definitely said FIRO-B, though. The actual test was that one.

Well, if it used the name "Supine" it had to be Arno, because only he uses that name. It's exclusively his. Perhaps the older version of his form had the FIRO-B logo on it, or something. He did have to gain permission to use their scales, and part of the price for an APS report is the licensing fees paid to FIRO. It is basically the same test (54 questions, etc), the difference being that FIRO disclaimed the notion of inborn temperament. (I don't know if the questions are the same, though).

Anyway, it's nice to see someone else who has used that test. Do you remember what your scores were? Do you know of other boards online where it is discussed?

I don't know where it might be discussed, and I don't know my exact scores. I know I was in the melancholic range for affection and control and the supine range for inclusion.

As I'm looking back on the conversation above, I'm not sure how you were tying this stuff into the Keirsey/Myers-Briggs stuff. That is a wholly different sort of test. On that test, I am ISTJ. On the new Keirsey II temperament test, I come out as a rationalist, which is NT (which is not what I am on the Myers-Briggs test). That's what the earlier conversation was, and that's what the test I was talking about above was. But I did take a test of this sort at one point also. For some reason I thought the conversation above must have included something about that for you to have asked about it, but now that I look at it I guess it doesn't.

Your next to last statement at April 25, 2005 9:22 PM (two posts above my first) mentioned the test, yet you had Phlegmatic as low display, high need. That's why I asked, because it sounded like APS, but APS has Phlegmatic in the middle. This you then acknowledged.
I actually have been trying to figure out how the two systems map to each other. I learned about the Interaction Styles mapped to the MBTI by Linda Berens, and an ISTJ is a "Chart the Course", which does basically correspond to a Melancholy. "Directing-Informing" basically is what corresponds to "wanted" behavior, and of course, EI is "expressed" behavior. Directives are TJ and/or NJ and/or ST, and Informatives are FP and/or NP, and/or SF. ESFP is very Sanguine. The ETJ's are Choleric. But they don't see the interaction styles as temperament, but rather Keirsey's SP/SJ/NF/NT combinations.
I was trying to understand these better, and how they correspond to our system, and they appear to be some sort of I/C/A combinations. I'm Supine-Choleric-Supine, and I came out as ENFJ on KTT at Advisorteam (that sounds too socially extroverted for me), and at Socionics, INFJ, and at, ISFJ. (these sound more like me). My wife is Sanguine-Melancholy-Sanguine, and she came up ENFJ on Advisorteam (that sounds more like her). So it seems FJ's (which are a cross between the informing-leaning F's and the directive-leaning J's) are D/Inf combinations across I/A and C.

Oh, there it is. Sorry.

Just jumping in here. I've completed the course on Creation Therapy from the NCCA and will soon be administering the APS reports. I might be able to answer some more of your questions regarding the Temperaments as taught by Dr. Arno.

Oh, wow! I had stopped reading, and didn't realize another aspiring APS counselor was present.
I finally got Leo Ryan's Clinical Interpretation of FIRO-B, and it is pretty interesting. So I got the rest of his names for the scores, and he even names some of the ICA combinations. FIRO really helps you understand APS.

Anyway, I think I've finally figured out a working conceptual mapping of APS to MBTI.

For now, after looking over Lifexplore's detailed definitions of the types ( which include both Hirsch & Kummerow, and Keirsey); I'm for now going with the the idea that the Keirsey temperaments correspond to our Control temperaments. (The Inclusion temperaments are the Interaction styles).

First, to answer Marla's earlier statement, you have to understand that Keirsey's temperaments were influenced by Kretschmer and Spranger moreso than Galen, Adler and Eysenck, which is what APS, LaHay and others using the classic temperaments are based more on. Keirsey's temperaments were originally Dionysian, Appolonian, Promethean and Epimethean. He later renamed then into the present names. So while two of them easily corresponded to Sanguine and Melancholy, the other two were more cloudy in comparison. He defined "Phlegmatic" as "cool and calm", and "Choleric" as someone who is normally peaceful, but becomes excitable under stress. These then he mapped to NT and NF Promethean (Rational) and Apollonian (Idealist) respectively.

But looking at the individual types on lifexplore, NT is obviously Choleric in Control. If it "becomes Phlegmatic under stress", then that is the Choleric burning itself out.

Looking over the description of the INTJ on that site; both H&K and Keirsey mention "they tend to withhold their deep feelings and affections from the public and sometimes even from the object of their affections" "When scorned, INTJs retreat to their own world and may share none of their feelings with others".
"Thus colleagues find the INTJ apparently unemotional and, at times, cold and dispassionate. Because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they do themselves, INTJs often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy". "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 those interpreted as "cool" in a "phlegmatic" sense, but looking at the rest of it, that "coolness" and "dispassion" is for more Melancholy and even Choleric reasons. (SInce INTJ is introverted, his Interactions Style or "Inclusion" would be Melancholy, but it's the Control we are discussing, which in all four NT's is clearly Choleric). Look how they drive themselves and others. In other words, if you come to them with your problems, don't expect any "mushy" emotions, such as sympathy from them. That seems to be what it means when "Emotion" is spoken of there. Not *any* emotion, like a phlegmatic, who lacks the energy for it. This person has a lot of energy. But as directive as they are, if you don't do what they want, then you can expect some "emotion" and "passion" then (of a certain kind--ANGER). A real Phlegmatic on the other hand would use wry humor instead!

I wasn't sure about some of the types in the middle, but it 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. 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 "Amiable"/"Relater"/"Steadiness" style of other systems altogether. This is because both temperaments share the same definition in their respective systems: Informing and introverted.

Introversion in the area of control would basically be Keirsey's "Cooperative". Extroversion is "Pragmatic". They are bold and do whatever works. Informing and directing in the area of control would seem to correspond roughly to Linda Berens' "Attention—Interest and Focus (Motive ----- Structure)". Note the "Theorist & Stabilizer [NT, SJ] have in common Structure - Focus on order and organization." Sounds directive in the area of leadership and responsibilties, doesn't it? "Focus on why people do things.", probably somehow corresponds to informing Control behavior.

If NF's "become Choleric" under stress, the Supine does react if taken advantage of. Dr. Arno describes it as having "aggressive disorders" and "having the most problems with anger". This is because they do not express, and are expected to stand on their own two feet. They then also become "defensive against loss of power". (When in power, they are strong enforcers of others rules). And they appear dominating when maipulating 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.
SP would correspond to a Sanguine in Control. Sanguines in control are rare (1%) and predominantly male, according to Arno. I imagine the Artisan temperament does not have those characteristics according to Keirsey. (The INTJ is the one always desccribed as rare-1%, and again, this seems like a Melancholy-Choleric) 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.

I had suspected something like this a long time ago, but what threw me off was the S/N/C/U factors. For instance, it is obvious that Sanguines are sensors, but since Melancholies are thinkers, one would assume they are "intuiters", especially when Keirsey uses “Introspective“ as another word for “Intuiting“. But actually, in the area of Control, Melancholies are *very* concrete-oriented. They want to know exactly what's going on, and don't want to hear any abstract uncertain suppositions! I began suspecting C/U might be I/E(c), 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, and 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). Also; 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 ougoing and energetic than a Phlegmatic, so in theory, that can be a Sanguine in Control. Perhaps it may not even correspond to a pure Sanguine or Phlegmatic in Control. There are other variations, such as Phlegmatic Sanguine (which is a bit less aggressive) and Sanguine Phlegmatic (which does not have the dependant-independant "swing"); neither of which Arno has specified as rare or predominantly male. So maybe those are what Artisans (Improvisers) are.

The biggest thing missing in both of the SP and NF is the *dependency* problems the Sanguine and Supine in Control are known for. The NF's are not described as "dependent" or wanting control over their lives. The SP's don’t seem to have the independant-dependant "swing" conflict tendency either (though there may be faint hints of it in Keirsey's ISTP and ESFP profiles). In fact, you do not see any clear dependency trait in ANY of the 16 type descriptions. It is hard to tell, as I notice such generally "negative" traits as "dependency" are not really focused on. In any case, it would perhaps suggest that SP and NF correspond closer to a Sanguine-Phlegmatic and Supine Phlegmatic or perhaps pure Phlegmatic with some Supine traits. (Perhaps a 3/5 Control score or something in that area)

So here is how it would all break down:
IST/INJ Melancholy in Inclusion/Affection
EST/ENJ Choleric in Inclusion/Affection
ISF/INP Supine or Phlegmatic in Incl./Aff.
ESF/ENP Sanguine in Inclusion/Affection
"expressed Bahavior" = "E"(High)/"I" (Low)
"responsive Behavior" = SF, NP (high)/ST, NJ (low)

SJ Melancholy in Control
SP Sanguine or SanguinePhlegmatic in Control
NF Supine or Phlegmatic in Control
NT Choleric in Control
Expresses behavior = P, T: "Pragmatic" or "Utilitarian" (high)/F, J "Cooperative" (Low)
Responsive Behavior = F, P: "focus on Motive"(high)/T, J: "Focus on Structure" (low)

I've even emailed NCCA, but they have not responded yet (they responded so quickly 2 years ago when I first proposed a wikipedia article on it.

I disagree with a few of those. It's very hard for me to see ESTJ as melancholic in control. All the ESTJs I know want to be in control rather than just wanting things to be orderly, and thus they are more like cholerics than melancholics on the control issue.

Your long quote about INTJs sounds more supine than melancholic on the issues of affection and inclusion. I would have to say that the same is true of some ISTJs and ISFJs I know (including me) on inclusion and in terms of affection with people of already-ongoing relationships (but melancholic with respect to relationships with other people).

In terms of percentage of the population, Keirsey claims that there are about as many T as F and about as many J as P, but there are about half as many N as S and half as many I as E. So it's the IN combination that's rare. INTJ, INFJ, INTP, and INFP are all going to be equally rare. It's not just INTJ. The most common types will be the ES group, according to Keirsey's numbers. These numbers do not even come close to matching up to my own experience, though, although perhaps part of that is that certain types are more likely to refuse to take a test and so I don't ever get a type for most of the people I know who are ISFP, ESFP, ISTP, ESTP, or other types I rarely see. It may also be that the circles I run in are more likely to include people who are INFJ, INTJ, INFP, and INTP.

My impression of the phlegmatic is that you won't be able to match it up with any Myers-Briggs type, because by definition the phlegmatic is someone balanced in the middle on everything. It would be like coming out XXXX on the Keirsey scale, with numbers right in the middle of all four categories. I would say that anyone with at least two X traits who isn't very extreme on the other two traits is likely to be phlegmatic. That's a prediction, though, and not an observation, because I've never known anyone who I've known to have tested as a phlegmatic.

As for the ESTJ, I see what you mean, but what you are seeing seems to be the influence of the Choleric INCLUSION or EST "In Charge" Interaction Style. The ICA temperaments all modify each other when blended like that. The Melancholy and Choleric both share in common task-orientation or "directiveness" (low "wanted" behavior). All scores in this category are very serious, and critical. Melancholies do not want to control others, but first of all, because they do not like to be controlled, they do often end up taking charge. They are basically described as good leaders. So coupled with an extroverted, but equally task oriented Inclusion, they will be significantly more aggressive in their resposibility-taking, decision-making and leadership than a regular Melancholy.

Still, look at their need for [preexistent] structure. That is not really characteristic of a Choleric in Control, who can start from an environment with no structure, and try to create their own from scratch. The purest form of Choleric is the ENTJ. The Choleric is purely a pragmatist who does not have a fear of the unknown, while the ESTJ is cooperative. This is one thing that indicated to me that C vs. Prg. corresponded to eC.

There is one close friend we believe is a Choleric Melancholy (he is such a ball of fire, my wife doesn't want to test and counsel him). The ESTJ description basically fits him. He does demand order and structure. He is a motivator in person, basically critical of people, but he is not someone who would PUSH you, or cross your boundaries. That would be the difference between a Choleric-Melancholy, and a pure Choleric. (I'm somewhat the opposite. I do not have the social graces to be a good motivator, but if I want something from someone, I can be very pushy, and I have had problems crossing boundaries).

As for the INTJ's and ISTJ's, remember, the Melancholy has a fear of rejection as well. He is very sensitive to it (this is basically a common INTROVERSION trait), but simply responds by rejecting others first, and putting on a tough exterior. If you look at the rest of the profile, you will see that these types are purely directive, or task-oriented, and not people oriented. (IST/INJ "Chart the Course" style). The ISFJ in my proposal WOULD be a Supine in Inclusion, with a Melancholy Control, which is exactly what you said you were. Affection appears to be lumped in with Inclusion (from the profiles, it seems that however a person relates on the surface is pretty much how they relate in deep relationships). In that case, three-way blends are not represented at all. But still, the main distinction between the types would be Inclusion and Control, and Affection traits that are different from inclusion might not be picked up at all, especially since for you, they share something in common--being introverted.

As for the Phlegmatic; I came to the same exact conclusion as you. I fact; I'm even working on an "extended MBTI type" tablethat adds "A" for "ambiversion" to E/I, and "W", "X" and "Y" to the other function pairs. Not only is a pure Phlegmatic "AWXY", but you can also figure some of the "Phlegmatic blends" where either e or w is moderate. A Phlegmatic Melancholy or Phlegmatic Choleric in Inclusion/Melancholy in Control is a ASTJ and a Sanguine Phlegmatic or Choleric Phlegmatic in Inclusion/Choleric in Control is ENTY. The hardest thing about it is the Phlegmatic blends in Control. The Phlegmatic blends lie between adjacent temperaments, so In Inclusion, it is easy to figure what would lie between an EST and IST (AST) or an EST and ESF (ESX), but what lies between an NT and SJ is harder. My theory does not follow Keirsey's scales of S/N and C/Prg. I maintain the latter, but I make Beren's "Structure/Motive" the other axis, so S/N are swapped so that they are the diametric opposite temperaments (The Melancholy and Sanguine are "S", and the Choleric and "Supmatic" are "N". This appears to tie in with the fact that the S's express and want the same, and the N's are "indirect" in behavior). So it's harder to figure what the intermediate scores would be.

But anyway, the extended typing might not be accurate, because again, there do not seem to be any pure Supine or Sanguine in Control behavior (dependency problems) represented in the types. So Again, it is probably Supine Phlegmatic or Pure Phlegmatic, and Sanguine Phlegmatic. So where I had Sanguine Phlegmatic and Choleric Phlegmatic as "WP" (or basically, XxP), and Melancholy Phlegmatic and Supine Phlegmatic as WF, they might be the actual SP and NF represented in the types, so that the W would not even need to be distinguished.

Anyway, here is a model of our 125 basic ICA types I just put up yesterday:

Sorry; I keep forgetting I left the "3D" out of the address. The correct URL is

Also forgot to add that in translations from five temperament s to four temperament system, the Supine and Phlegmatic become blended together. So even the ISF/INP is like a mix. INTP is the type closest to me, but it is not as needy for social interaction as I am. So it would be more like a Phlegmatic-Choleric-Phlegmatic. However, the Phlegmatic has a low energy reserve, yet these types have a lot of energy, so again, they are blended with Supine.

Also noteworthy is the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Modes, which uses the same scales of assertivness and responsiveness, and has a moderate fifth mode in the middle. Many people comparing this to the four type models often omit the middle one, "Compromising" which corresponds to the Phlegmatic, and have "Accomodating" as the Phlegmatic instead.

Here are some additional correlations I have found between the two systems:

("introversion" and "extroversion" for "R" refer to low and high "responsive" behavior, repectively, which are considered "responding as an introvert or extrovert").

SP extroverted Sensing (Se)=extroverted E AND R in CONTROL (direct e/wC)
SJ introverted Sensing (Si)=introverted E AND R in CONTROL (direct e/wC)
NP extroverted iNtuition (Ne)=extrovered R in INCLUSION (direct wI)
NJ introverted iNtuition (Ni)=introverted R in INCLUSION (direct wI)
TJ extroverted Thinking (Te)=introverted R in ALL AREAS (inverse wI/C)
FP introverted Feeling (Fi)=extroverted R in ALL AREAS (inverse wI/C)
TP introverted Thinking (Ti)=extroverted E in CONTROL (inverse eC)
FJ extroverted 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 CNTRL
NF(abstract/abstract) low E high R in CNTRL

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 (extroverted or assertive)
and F cooperative (introverted, reserved). The outward preference then
determines responsive behavior in INCLUSION ("wI": J directive, P

OK, I have put together two whole pages explaining temperament theory from scratch, including the comparisons

I have even expanded the four letter MBTI codes so that Phlegmatic type is in fact, XXXX (I call it AWXY), pkus all of the other "moderate" types, expanding from 16 types to 81!

The explanations of the methods employed:

Regarding C.S. Lewis' type:

Most definitely an INTJ and most definitely not an INFP. One must recall that INTJs are the most Feeling-oriented of the NTs ( talks about the true Myers-Briggs level of analysis-cognitive processes).

Definitely an Introvert, he uses Introverted iNtuition (Ni dominantly used in INxJ types and secondary use in ENxJ types) to view the world in a way that examines patterns, predicts, and imagines; he uses Extraverted Thinking (Te) to explain these, and he has a high level of Introverted Feeling (Fi) due to him developing it. He also wrote a lot while he was older, when one has better control of their tertiary processes.

INTJ is just a code for Ni, Te, Fi, Se. Thou Shalt not forget the Cognitive Processes (the basis of type) that are represented through MBTI 16 types.

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04