# Lewis Temperament Order, a variation on Myers-Briggs



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

I don't know if this site has been posted before, so I thought I'd put it here in case people haven't seen it. Whoever Lewis is, they've taken the 16 types and expanded them into 48 types.

Lewis Temperament Order

The most interesting sections imo were "Personality Types" and "History." I love charts.


----------



## chill.take.over (Apr 26, 2011)

Hopefully they'll update soon.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

You mean the "coming soon" with regard to the personality test? If so, who knows how long that note has been there. 3 days? 3 years? lol

When I get time I'm going to outline the 48 types so I can understand his system better. I know it's not along the lines of official MBTI and functions theory, but I'm always open to learning new systems, especially if they have some workability.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Keirsey (SP, SJ, NT, NF):

SPs all have in common: Se and introverted judging
ESFP SeFi
ESTP SeTi
ISFP FiSe
ISTP TiSe

SJs all have in common: Si and extroverted judging
ESFJ FeSi
ESTJ TeSi
ISFJ SiFe
ISTJ SiTe

NTs all have in common: nothing
ENTJ TeNi
ENTP NeTi
INTJ NiTe
INTP TiNe

NFs all have in common: nothing
ENFJ FeNi
ENFP NeFi
INFJ NiFe
INFP FiNe

----------------------------

Lewis Temperament Order (IJ, IP, EJ, EP):

Introverts:

Cultivating Organizers (INFJ, ISFJ) have in common: auxiliary Fe
Economizing Organizers (INTJ, ISTJ) have in common: auxiliary Te

Artistic Designers (INFP, ISFP) have in common: dominant Fi
Constructive Designers (INTP, ISTP) have in common: dominant Ti

Extroverts:

Growth Instructors (ENFJ, ESFJ) have in common: dominant Fe
Operations Instructors (ENTJ, ESTJ) have in common: dominant Te

Liberating Motivators (ENFP, ESFP) have in common: auxiliary Fi
Commercializing Motivators (ENTP, ESTP) have in common: auxiliary Ti

So half the introverts (IJs) have an auxiliary in common, the other half (IPs) have a dominant in common, same for the extroverts, and they're all grouped by judging functions.


*tears out hair in methodology frustration* I do like gaining new insights though, no matter how confusing the system seems to be.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Interesting. Not well explained. Out of the three INTJ's I guessed that I'd be riga ("Methodizer"). I have Fi, but very little Si.

It seems unclear, and perhaps overdone. I have noticed a variation between people of a specific type, but that's to be expected.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

I noticed the following at the bottom of the website: "Personality theory registered copyright © 2008 Brian Lewis, under the unpublished title Knowing Your Role...." Maybe if we yell loud enough from this site? :tongue: There can't be too many books in the world, especially on personality typing. :happy:


A couple days before finding the LTO site, I was telling my husband I hadn't found any sites or books that cover the variations within types, so at least this is a stab at it. I agree that we need more info and hope the author is planning on releasing a book soon.


Actually, the LTO site was the first ever that showed me what types I've taken on and which type is inherent. I'm too embarrassed to say what type I am, lol, but after years of being out of type, I do make a good ENFP and could be mistaken for one because of my beliefs, or at times ENTP through my writing and objectivity when it comes to making decisions, both NF and NT being trained into me from childhood onward. What helped me finally see my type was his comment, "The LTO (TM) types also have secondary names to help clarify what each type is natural at doing." Though I've read similar comments before, his titles for the 48 types did help me see what I'm good at and what I'm not.


My husband thinks he might be INTJ.rgai Evaluator mastermind. He scored 50/50 N/S on an official MBTI test, plus he seems more SP than NF.


----------



## LewisTemperamentOrder (Jan 12, 2012)

Cheers. This is Brian Lewis, author of Temperament Order. Happy to answer any questions. 

LTO types are not an expansion of Myers-Briggs 16 Types, they are orderings of the Plato/Keirsey observable behavior 4 Temperaments, combined with Jung Introvert/Extrovert. An LTO personality type is just the four temperaments (Artisan/Guardian/Idealist/Rational) in a sequential order, plus extrovert or introvert, ends up being 48 combinations (types). Very simple system. It's observable behavior, not what's in your mind psychology like Myers-Briggs. But Myers-Briggs are similar and popular, so I show the mapping for familiarity. 

I am doing research now and working on observable extrovert/introvert definitions, then I can publish the completed book.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Lewis Temperament Order (IJ, IP, EJ, EP):
> 
> Introverts:
> 
> ...


This still makes much more sense relative to JCF/MBTI than Kiersey. And the roles are more accurate (as long as people don't take the adjectival terms like Artist or Cultivator too literally - which seems to be a problem when it gets interpreted for the masses).


----------



## LewisTemperamentOrder (Jan 12, 2012)

The Jung to Myers-Briggs relationship is more simple. The Myers-Briggs types are based on Jung functions. For example, "IF" letters in Myers-Briggs explicitly mean Introvert-Feeling. "INF" means Introvert-Intuitive-Feeling. Jung called them dominant functions, Myers/Briggs called them preferred traits. The first three letters in each Myers-Briggs type are Jung. Myers/Briggs added the fourth letter, P or J, which does not relate to Jung. Someone else later mapped Jung's auxiliary functions (not sure who actually). But not Myers/Briggs, they split the traits up and didn't use auxiliary functions.

In the mapping above would "dominant Fi" and "auxiliary Fe" mean the same thing, Introvert Feeling, every type with IF?

Keirsey mapped each Myers-Briggs type to a temperament. I mapped each Myers-Briggs letter to a temperament order. And I laid out the roles in a way where the Myers-Briggs mappings are apparent, and kept the Myers-Briggs letters for familiarity. They ended up mapping well, but the LTO types are based on temperament order not on Jung/Myers/Briggs functions traits, except I still use Introvert/Extrovert directly.

These mappings are explained hopefully clearly in my history on the temperamentorder website.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Well, if I go just by the chart and frame it in terms of separate MBTI types, I'd conform most closely to the INTP theorist/discoverer, but kind of on the line across from the INFP philosopher/revealer.

The funny thing is that if I go to the chart with the INFJ (the MBTI F type I score most closely to), I'd be the INFJ advisor/revealer, which is also a typical role I find myself playing.

In any case, both deal with concepts of truth, it's more a matter of how detached one wants to be -- is it aimed at just creating frameworks/philosophies of truth, or is one aiming that similar sense at individual people to provide them with wisdom they can use?




LewisTemperamentOrder said:


> Cheers. This is Brian Lewis, author of Temperament Order. Happy to answer any questions.
> 
> LTO types are not an expansion of Myers-Briggs 16 Types, they are orderings of the Plato/Keirsey observable behavior 4 Temperaments, combined with Jung Introvert/Extrovert. An LTO personality type is just the four temperaments (Artisan/Guardian/Idealist/Rational) in a sequential order, plus extrovert or introvert, ends up being 48 combinations (types). Very simple system. It's observable behavior, not what's in your mind psychology like Myers-Briggs. But Myers-Briggs are similar and popular, so I show the mapping for familiarity.
> 
> I am doing research now and working on observable extrovert/introvert definitions, then I can publish the completed book.


Wow, now that's service!  No one mentioned the author would be stopping by.

Good distinction mentioned between MBTI and your approach, it helps clarify any differences and where you are coming from. Thanks for explaining.

I'm definitely interested in seeing where you're going with this, but I probably won't have many specific questions until you're to a point where more of the material is available for review -- I like to make sure I understand as much as possible about a theory/system before I start critiquing it. Right now, though, I suppose my entry point into any critique would be the four major groups you settled on and why, whether they can encapsulate the entire spread sensibly, whether the types assigned to them make the most sense, how you determined the three roles within each type, etc.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Agreed so awesome for you to be here Brian. Definitely interested.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I will look more into this, but I love the language description of Artisans: "Sensorate Anecdotally."

Hahahaha! That is me, in a nutshell. 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have more Rationals to annoy with my anecdotes.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I am in the _Whimsical _box of Artisan + Idealist i.e. "Emotive."

I'm definitely aigr (Artisan, Idealist, Guardian, Rational).

I like that they say that Extragating doesn't mean friendly or sociable, but that E's are good at verbal communication and/or think out loud. 

However, when you get to the 48 types, it says that EPs are highly social. 

I'm either a Styler or an Entertainer. xSFP aigr. 

I wish there were a test.

For some reason I'm very amused that one of the ESFJs is called "Keeper - Trainer." I am picturing a person with an exotic animal in a cage who teaches it to do tricks.


EDIT: Actually...if we are to go by the *names* of the types, I would be a Portrayer or a Depictor, actually. I depict things in words. I have even been accused of being excessively descriptive or detailed in my speech. But airg instead of aigr? Hmm...I would think if I was closer to being a rational I would get along with Rationals better than I do Guardians, which simply is not always the case.

EDIT EDIT: Well, if I cross the line into Idealist, though, I would still make sense being rational before guardian, because I tend to Advocate/Encourage (plead or argue the case of another), right? Or would I be a Champion? Aren't Champion loud-mouths who stand up to "champion" certain causes? I think an Advocate would be more rational in putting forth their defensive argument, like a lawyer, and a Champion would be more passionate. Also, I think in my extroverted role I Entertain more than I Portray - I always have to put my own spin on things, my own "flair" versus a straight-up portrayal. I think a Portrayer is a more rational, true-to-life mimic, while I would be Entertainer pulling strings and trying to get a reaction from my audience. In the Styler role, I could still be quite descriptive, but still put a "spin" or "flair" on my descriptions, rather than being a more completely factual reporter. An Illustrator/Healer would also illustrate concepts and give examples in order to show what they meant, as well, huh? A _clarifier. _

I see the difference now!

I think?

Sticking with *aigr*, then.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> Well, if I go just by the chart and frame it in terms of separate MBTI types, I'd conform most closely to the INTP theorist/discoverer, but kind of on the line across from the INFP philosopher/revealer.
> 
> The funny thing is that if I go to the chart with the INFJ (the MBTI F type I score most closely to), I'd be the INFJ advisor/revealer, which is also a typical role I find myself playing.
> 
> In any case, both deal with concepts of truth, it's more a matter of how detached one wants to be -- is it aimed at just creating frameworks/philosophies of truth, or is one aiming that similar sense at individual people to provide them with wisdom they can use?


I think it's interesting that all the types you relate to are in the the _Abstract _"Conceptual" box, and all the ones I relate to are in the _Whimsical _"Emotive" box ...it leads me to believe that his theory is sound.

Of course, it took me about an hour to realize that aigr really does make more sense for my personality (you can see my rambling above figuring out how I'm indeed much more Styler > Entertainer = Champion = Illustrator than a Depictor/Portrayer/Advocate/Composer) ...and I can definitely see where you show Idealist traits, particularly in the nature of an Advisor role (especially in my interactions with you) or Philosopher role.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

It would be cool if there were descriptions for each of these 48 types too, but that's probably too much to ask 

I am probably closest to Commercializing Motivator, and if I can simply transplant my temperament order into that, I'd be a Deviser Forumaltor (RAIG). Drafter Architect is the only other one that is RAIG...


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

from a quick glance i'm guessing my result to be Advisor INFJ or Mentor INFJ. the *a* would definitely be at the very end


----------



## stayawake (Dec 21, 2011)

This is really interesting - pouring through the site right now and trying to piece it all together.


----------



## Alediran (Aug 31, 2011)

From reading the descriptions and the whole site I'm definitely an INFP.irag (Philosopher), no wonder SJs are the type I least relate to.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

This appears to be similar to Keirsey's theory of temperament preference order. In this part of his theory, he uses the "skills" terms (T=Tactics, S=Strategics, L= Logistics, D=Diplomacy) rather than temperament initials as this LTO theory does.

To translate Keirsey's hierarchy, it would be: a-gri; i-rga; r-iag; g-air. 
That's in PUMII, but in Personology, it's g-iar; i-gra; a-rgi; r-aig

The order of the second and third have changed; but the least preferred is always the S/N-C/U (cooperative/pragmatic) diametric opposite. (The ones paired together by Berens with Structure/Motive).

I figured this LTO might be based on this, as I notice that for each temperament, one temperament is never second place, and another is never last place. However, it's not always the same in Keirsey's system, as the temperaments are even split in preference. 
Basically (assuming the one in second place twice, which is also never last place, is second in preference, and vice-versa for the one in last place twice); it's 

xNFJ i-gra (matches Personology); 
xNTJ r-gia; 
xSFJ g-iar (matches Personology), 
xSTJ g-rai
xNFP i-arg
xNTP r-aig (matches Personology)
xSFP a-igr
xSTP a-rgi (matches Personology)

What I see right away is that informative intelligences always have *motive* focused temperaments as the second preference, and *directive* intelligences have *structure* focused temperaments as their second preferences!!
Yet another link between D/Inf and Str/M, which are the "responsiveness" factors (people/task). 

It ends up corresponding with what are known as the "mirror temperaments".
NJ's (Guardian)
NP's (Artisan)
SF's (Idealist)
ST's (Rational)

The least preferred one is the second preferred temperament's S/N opposite (which is also opposite in Str/M). The third place temperament, (which is falls second, third and last in preference in one variant for each type) is the one sharing S/N.

For me, since I had struggled between NT and NF at one point, (which I believe is part from being Supine rather than Phlegmatic for INP), than I'm sure I'm a "Theorist/Discoverer". The other two have Artisan in second place, and I know it isn't for me. On the other hand, even with a strong tertiary Si, I see more and more, the Guardian way of seeing things drives me up the wall, and would fit being last. 
(I also notice that the subtitle will be shared by the two variants sharing the same second preference, and thus my variant is the odd man out among the others, who have Artisan in second, and are thus known as "architects", which was Keirsey's name for the type. Those are probably more "typical" INTP's. The Modeler, who has Idealist last, is probably the most typical in the whole "detachment" sense).

Possible theory, the least typical types (with the Str/M opposite second place) might be those who in APS are more towards "moderate" in temperament (e.g. "Phlegmatic" blends), and the most typical are more solidly in a temperament.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

Hm...interesting. When thinking about the Keirsey temperaments, I'm reminded of the True Colors test I took a part of a college class. Looking at it now, true colors is pretty much the Keirsey temperaments in a different format. My order for that is Blue-Green-Gold-Orange (idealist, rational, guardian, artisan). (Well, I originally got green instead of blue first, but that's because I easily figured out the test and answered the way I wanted. :tongue: Taking a better online version, that is my order.) So that means I'm either an Advisor-revealer (INFJ) or a Director-enlightener (ENFJ) in this system. If there's any correlation with actual MBTI types and/or how people operate in a JCF sense, then perhaps this could help a lot of people narrow down their type.

EDIT: Possible problem here. I usually get either phlegmatic or melancholy with the four classical temperaments. Yet idealists are matched up with choleric. The only thing cholerics would have in common with idealists is their emotional nature. The descriptions of cholerics I've seen is that they want power and are controlling. I don't really see that as being related to idealists at all, and may even be anathema to them. Of course, this was just a thing mentioned in the history page and not really connected with this system, but it's something I thought I would bring up. @_Eric B_ or @_LewisTemperamentOrder_ ? Want to shed some light on this?


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Ms. Holmes said:


> Typo 0.0
> 
> Are you usually typed* as an INTP?
> 
> ...


Usually but I score one of the other INxx types fairly often. I'm only slightly T and P.


----------



## shakti (Oct 10, 2012)

Hah, interesting. I would definitely have A and I as the first two, which means I can't be ENFJ...so I would be either AIRG (ESFP - portrayer energiser) or IARG ( ENFP - advocate encourager) according to this


----------

