# The Four Temperaments and MBTI?



## bookbutterfly (Jul 15, 2012)

I first want to preface this with a wee anecdote...

I first heard about the "Four Temperaments" back when I took a quiz in my middle school class; after the test, the teacher had us grouped up based on our results. I remember the "sanguine" kids were the biggest group, and pretty much already looked like they were having a party (no surprise there  ). My group, "choleric", was one of the smallest.

Anywho, I recently just really thought through this memory when I heard from somewhere that NFs are considered choleric, SPs are sanguine, et cetera...

So I'm just wondering, how has the Four Temperaments been applied to Keirsey and the MBTI? I'm thinking that that test I took was maybe a sort of Keirsian temperament test. Again, I can easily see SP being sanguine (I remember a few of the students in that group specifically, and I can easily see them being ESxP's), but I was surprised to hear that NFs are choleric (and one of the girls in my "group", I remember, doesn't seem so NF in my memory...). What about SJs and NTs? And how does the "fifth temperament" of supine fit in? (Because I can see myself being a mixture of all the temperaments except sanguine...)


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

@Eric B is the expert on this around these parts. I think his website Temperament for Dummies probably will answer every question on this subject you have. Its well written and thorough.


----------



## bookbutterfly (Jul 15, 2012)

Thank you! I think I have looked at that page before, but I didn't know it belonged to @Eric B (kudos, btw!  ).

Hmm...anyone know of any good free test links? I don't really want to purchase one...some of the links to tests on that page were broken, too...


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

I have the shorter version also: http://www.erictb.info/temperament1s.html if the other one is too much for starts.

Yes, Keirsey said NF was Choleric, based on it being "emotional" which he interpreted as "bilious" (which "choler-" is based on), while NT was "calm" and thus seemed to fit Phlegmatic.
I disagree with this, and I can say that part of the problem is that there are two different "four temperament" matrices overlaid in the 16 types. Galen's temperaments, and Plato's four types of men. Keirsey's are the latter. the Linda Berens Interaction Styles are closer to the former. Galen's system was based on a matrix of *hot/cold* (which is basically I/E; E hot, I cold; makes sense doesn't it?) and *wet/dry*, which is basically "people vs task" focus, or what comes down to us as "informing/directing"

The Choleric was hot and dry, or extroverted and directive, which is the EST and ENJ Interaction Style (called "In Charge"). The Interaction Syles are generically called "*affective*" groups, dealing with surface affect of people on each other; but Keirsey's are what is called "*conative*", which deals with action (and by extension, leadership). Keirsey factored them to *S/N* (stemming from Plato and a guy named Kretschmer) and a dimension he invented called *cooperative/pragmatic*. When I first saw this, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. S/N was totally foreign to the temperament matrix I was familiar with (though it was implicit in some temperament descriptions, such as Sanguines being very "sensory"; it was just a matter of figuring what the other temperaments were). 

But I soon see cooperative/pragmatic as corresponding to "expressiveness", thus paralleling I/E. Pragmatics are quicker to take action ("do what works"), just like extroverts are quicker to approach others for socialization. Cooperatives are more reserved ("do what's right"), just like introverts. So for anyone who wonders why I/E figure in other temperament systems, but not Keirsey's (which are evenly divided between I and E types; also knocked me for a loop originally), there is your "I/E".
The ultimate key was a cross-factor Berens added to Keirsey's temperaments, s*tructure/motive*. HERE was the missing "people/task" factor to complete the matrix. Structure, which is more task focused, ties together SJ and NT; and motive, which is more people focused ties together SP and NF. If you really think of it, those temperament generally do fit people/task that way, don't they? 

So NT is pragmatic and structure focused, and thus would fit the "hot/dry" of Choleric. And when you look at its critical nature, it fits. You also see this in descriptions in Keirsey's books, but these are not really discussed much on internet sites, which focus on the positive, and often stereotypical sides of the temperaments. 
NF is cooperative/motive (cold/wet), and would be the opposite of Choleric, which was originally Phlegmatic, and I also believe the fifth temperament Supine would fit (Phlegmatic is actually moderate in both scales, but type does not have moderation, so it has to be bundled with one of the other four, and since it once was reserved/people, it gets bundled with Supine, and observations here seem to fit). In his books, you can even see the Supine-like nature of the NF in places.

The mistake was made, because we think of the temperaments classically in terms of the social skills, but that's Interaction Style, not the Keirsey groups. So the NT's "biliousness" is not as readily obvious, though it is there. The NF is the ultimately peaceful "diplomat", which is the Phlegmatic's traditional skill.

Now, @OP, if you're INFJ, that would correspond to Melancholy/Supine or Melancholy/Phlegmatic (and most of them do come out as that). If you say you came out as Choleric on temperament tests, there are various reasons that could happen.

•If you happen to be really E, then you are ENJ, In Charge, which is Choleric, in place of the Melancholy.
•It could be a poor temperament test (most of them are just picking traits out of lists, and that is not really reliable, and doesn't show how blended temperaments modify each other).
•There is a third area of temperament not covered by type, which deals with a deeper level of interaction. This is from the same system that introduced Supine, so it is not popular. Yet you could be Melancholy/Supine/Choleric, and the test picked out the Choleric, (and that last area is actually the deepest level of personality).
•The same system also has moderate ranges (hence Phlegmatic being moderate), and if you were inbetween in expressiveness (I/E), you could be a temperament called Phlegmatic-Choleric,* which is a moderate version of Choleric, yet fall on the I side.
•I see in another thread, you mention someone thinking you're an ENTP, which is Sanguine-Choleric.
*(distinct from Phlegmatic/Choleric, meaning INP+NT)

Five temperament system and breakdown of each temperament in the three areas:
Temperament Information
Free Temperament Reports for Clients


----------



## bookbutterfly (Jul 15, 2012)

WOW, this was amazingly helpful--thanks so much, @EricB! I honestly can't remember for the life of me what the questions were on that test, but I think it might have been based on Keirsey's interpretation (NF is choleric, et cetera), because thinking on it now, the others in my group did not seem NT at all (I think it was just three girls--me, and two others who were possibly an INFP and an ENFJ...). I'm pretty sure my interaction style is definitely Chart-the-Course, possibly another reason I got "choleric", which was described as being "occasionally bossy" (I don't think I'm bossy, per se, but I do tend to automatically take leadership roles in group settings). I once read about the different temperaments, including Supine, from a different website, and I really related to Supine out of all of them...

As for being on the fence of I and E, that's never an issue for me--I always get a very strong introversion score (as you can see by my mypersonality.info results in my siggie). Yes, in another thread, there is someone who seems to be implying that I'm an ENTP...but the last temperament I can relate to is sanguine, so that most DEFINITELY doesn't make sense. 

Also, on a cheapy-looking Facebook quiz I took years ago, I got phlegmatic...going by the Wikipedia descriptions here (which may be accurate, may be not), I can relate to portions of all except sanguine. Hmm...


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

You're saying that the test that said you were Choleric might have been *based on Keirsey*? Then, there is no need to try to match you to an In Charge or NT. (Chart the Course is Melancholic, and though it does share directiveness with Choleric, it is introverted and Choleric is extroverted). 
You then are not really Choleric in classic temperaments (only in Keirsey's interpretation), unless again, you're Choleric in the third area: Temperament: Choleric in Affection


----------



## bookbutterfly (Jul 15, 2012)

I think it might have been! Because it only had four results--choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic, and sanguine, and knowing that the majority of the population are SPs, and that the majority of the class ended up as sanguine (and I remember a few of the kids in that group, and they were undoubtedly SPs), I have an inkling it was actually based on Keirsey; plus, my group of "cholerics" was rather small and had mostly girls, and I'm given to understand that NFs are pretty small in stats (though not as small as NTs, of course) and typically consist of mostly females. I'd love to go ask that teacher though about that test--I think she goes to my church, and I'm sure she'd still have it (if she doesn't still use it) even though it's been almost seven years. 

Hm, I don't relate to any of the things said in that link you gave me, so I don't think I'm choleric in the "new" sense of the terms (which includes supine). Hm, that's interesting what you say about Chart the Course...because I can definitely see why I relate to certain aspects of general choleric descriptions (like on Wikipedia), and I think that's in part due to my interaction style. Reading the content on your (super helpful!) website, I'm pretty sure I'm a MelancholySupine (is that how you'd say it?  ). Thank you!


----------

