# DISC + the Four Temperaments = MBTI



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

DISC has two dichotomies; E/I and F/T (red, blue, yellow and green types)


Linda Berens

In-Charge: ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, ESTP (red)

Chart-the-Course: INTJ, ISTJ, INFJ, ISTP (blue)

Get-Things-Going: ENTP, ESFJ, ENFP, ESFP (yellow)

Behind-the-Scenes: INTP, ISFJ, INFP, ISFP (green)



Keirsey temperaments: SJ, SP, NF, NT


I think this is inaccurate since ENFJ is yellow, INTP is blue, INFJ is mostly green and ENTP is mostly red (see attached images). Keirsey's second ring is the problem. What does he actually mean by cooperative vs. pragmatic? Aren't all Feeling types cooperative?


The four temperaments (Wikipedia)

*Sanguine (SP)

*The sanguine temperament is traditionally associated with air. People with this temperament tend to be lively, sociable, carefree, talkative, and pleasure-seeking. They may be warm-hearted and optimistic. They can make new friends easily, be imaginative and artistic, and often have many ideas.They can be flighty and changeable; thus sanguine personalities may struggle with following tasks all the way through and be chronically late or forgetful. 

Pedagogically, they can be best reached through awakening their love for a subject and admiration of people.


*Choleric (NJ)*

The choleric temperament is traditionally associated with fire. People with this temperament tend to be egocentric and extroverted. They may be excitable, impulsive, and restless, with reserves of aggression, energy, and/or passion, and try to instill that in others. 

They tend to be task-oriented people and are focused on getting a job done efficiently; their motto is usually "do it now." They can be ambitious, strong-willed and like to be in charge. They can show leadership, are good at planning, and are often practical and solution-oriented. They appreciate receiving respect and esteem for their work.

Pedagogically, they can be best reached through mutual respect and appropriate challenges that recognize their capacities.


*Melancholic (NP)*

The melancholic temperament is traditionally associated with the element of earth. People with this temperament may appear serious, introverted, cautious or even suspicious. They can become preoccupied with the tragedy and cruelty in the world and are susceptible to depression and moodiness. They may be focused and conscientious. They often prefer to do things themselves, both to meet their own standards and because they are not inherently sociable.

Pedagogically, they can be best met by awakening their sympathy for others and the suffering of the world.


*Phlegmatic (SJ)*

The phlegmatic temperament is traditionally associated with water. People with this temperament may be inward and private, thoughtful, reasonable, calm, patient, caring, and tolerant. They tend to have a rich inner life, seek a quiet, peaceful atmosphere, and be content with themselves. They tend to be steadfast, consistent in their habits, and thus steady and faithful friends.

Pedagogically, their interest is often awakened by experiencing others' interest in a subject.

People of this temperament may appear somewhat ponderous or clumsy. Their speech tends to be slow or appear hesitant.


*Conclusion: DISC + the four** temperaments = MBTI
*
Do you agree or disagree with this viewpoint?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Largely, I think both DiSC and the four temperaments, given that they're (mostly) intended to operate independently of other personality theories, tend to represent stances that deviate from MBTI a bit, in that each type within these systems tends to contain something pertaining to each of the four MBTI dimensions, perhaps accentuating one dimension more than another. So I don't think a straight parallel can really be had.

That said, if I were to look at both systems as neatly dividing the sixteen MBTI types into four groups, the first problem with your take is that both theories clearly have something to say on I/E - Melancholic and Phlegmatic in the four temperaments, along with S and C in the DiSC, are clearly introverted, and the others extraverted. I'd agree that T/F is clearly the other dimension most pertinent to DiSC - for the reasons in my first paragraph, I wouldn't say it's a one-to-one correlation, but I think it's true to say that generally C and IT, S and IF, I and EF, D and ET all pair together. I think it's murkier with the four temperaments, but it certainly doesn't seem to me that they neatly divide along S/N and J/P lines, and I'd actually be more inclined to correlate them with DiSC (Melancholic and C, Phlegmatic and S, Sanguine and I, Choleric and D) than with specific MBTI types and preferences (beyond I/E).

The above notwithstanding, your model _does_ accurately reach my type - Melancholic being NP and C being IT fits for an INTP - so I can't fault it on that.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> Largely, I think both DiSC and the four temperaments, given that they're (mostly) intended to operate independently of other personality theories, tend to represent stances that deviate from MBTI a bit, in that each type within these systems tends to contain something pertaining to each of the four MBTI dimensions, perhaps accentuating one dimension more than another. So I don't think a straight parallel can really be had.
> 
> That said, if I were to look at both systems as neatly dividing the sixteen MBTI types into four groups, the first problem with your take is that both theories clearly have something to say on I/E - Melancholic and Phlegmatic in the four temperaments, along with S and C in the DiSC, are clearly introverted, and the others extraverted. I'd agree that T/F is clearly the other dimension most pertinent to DiSC - for the reasons in my first paragraph, I wouldn't say it's a one-to-one correlation, but I think it's true to say that generally C and IT, S and IF, I and EF, D and ET all pair together. I think it's murkier with the four temperaments, but it certainly doesn't seem to me that they neatly divide along S/N and J/P lines, and I'd actually be more inclined to correlate them with DiSC (Melancholic and C, Phlegmatic and S, Sanguine and I, Choleric and D) than with specific MBTI types and preferences (beyond I/E).
> 
> The above notwithstanding, your model _does_ accurately reach my type - Melancholic being NP and C being IT fits for an INTP - so I can't fault it on that.


Yes, these descriptions of the four temperaments are very murky and the E/I dichotomy does overlap. Fortunately, the four temperaments are based on two dichotomies as well.

Five Temperaments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*sanguine (SP*) quick, impulsive, and relatively short-lived reactions. (hot/wet)

*phlegmatic (SJ)* a longer response-delay, but short-lived response. (cold/wet)

*choleric (NJ)* short response time-delay, but response sustained for a relatively long time. (hot/dry)

*melancholic (NP)* Also called "melancholy" - long response time-delay, response sustained at length, if not, seemingly, permanently. (cold/dry)

"From the beginning, with Galen's ancient temperaments, it was observed that pairs of temperaments shared certain traits in common... Therefore, it was evident that the sanguine and choleric shared a common trait: quickness of response, while the melancholy and phlegmatic shared the opposite, a longer response. The melancholy and choleric, however, shared a sustained response, and the sanguine and phlegmatic shared a short-lived response. That meant that the choleric and melancholy both would tend to hang on to emotions like anger, and thus appear more serious and critical than the fun-loving sanguine, and the peaceful phlegmatic. However, the choleric would be characterized by quick expressions of anger, while the melancholy would build up anger slowly, silently, before exploding. Also, the melancholy and sanguine would be sort of "opposites", as the choleric and phlegmatic, since they have opposite traits."


What do you think about Keirsey's temperaments? Can you explain the second ring; cooperative versus pragmatic (utilitarian)? Are xSTJs more cooperative than xSFPs?

"Keirsey uses the words cooperative (complying) and pragmatic (adaptive) when comparing the differing temperaments. People who are cooperative pay more attention to other people's opinions and are more concerned with doing the right thing. People who are pragmatic (utilitarian) pay more attention to their own thoughts or feelings and are more concerned with doing what works. There is no comparable idea of Myers or Jung that corresponds to this dichotomy, so this is a significant difference between Keirsey's work and that of Myers and Jung."


----------



## Adena (May 14, 2014)

I personally think it's generally:
ExxJ- Choleric
ExxP- Sanguine
Ixxx- Phlegmatic and Melancholic, it can vary because the J/P are very mixed.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Tellus said:


> Yes, these descriptions of the four temperaments are very murky and the E/I dichotomy does overlap. Fortunately, the four temperaments are based on two dichotomies as well.
> 
> Five Temperaments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Less "based on" two dichotomies and more incorporating them, I would say. I still don't see how the hot/cold and dry/wet dichotomies link to S/N and J/P centrally, either: "length of sustained response" (wet/dry) to S/N seems quite a stretch, and I'm not even sure how you've decided to set up J/P, since it doesn't match with the excerpt you've linked.

In any case, none of that discards the fact that I/E forms a significant part of the temperaments, so you've got a problem when you want to characterise a type like ISFP (a DiSC S + sanguine by you), since the more introverted ISFPs would be less likely to fit with sanguine given its extraverted nature (to show but one example). I think it's perhaps a touch disingenuous to equate the temperaments - and, to a lesser extent, DiSC - to just two MBTI dimensions, when it's clear each of the types in those theories aren't exclusively framed like that (it's hard to doubt, for instance, that a Type C in DiSC matches up more with a J preference - being systematic, organised, orderly, &c. - than a P preference, which your theory fails to account for).



> What do you think about Keirsey's temperaments? Can you explain the second ring; cooperative versus pragmatic (utilitarian)? Are xSTJs more cooperative than xSFPs?
> 
> "Keirsey uses the words cooperative (complying) and pragmatic (adaptive) when comparing the differing temperaments. People who are cooperative pay more attention to other people's opinions and are more concerned with doing the right thing. People who are pragmatic (utilitarian) pay more attention to their own thoughts or feelings and are more concerned with doing what works. There is no comparable idea of Myers or Jung that corresponds to this dichotomy, so this is a significant difference between Keirsey's work and that of Myers and Jung."


Kiersey's foundation is problematic - by splitting Ns on the T/F axis but Ss on the J/P, he's not comparing like-for-like - but, even ignoring that, is there any merit to the co-operative/utilitarian divide? Largely, SP/NT corresponds to TP (half the group are TPs, and all group members are either T or P) and SJ/NF to FJ (for the same reasons), so it's no surprise it falls apart when you compare the members of each group that least fit that split (as with your example of xSTJs and xSFPs), since it seems to be that which Kiersey is mostly aiming to describe... which I guess is brought about largely because of his failure to compare like-for-like.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Gray Romantic said:


> I personally think it's generally:
> ExxJ- Choleric
> ExxP- Sanguine
> Ixxx- Phlegmatic and Melancholic, it can vary because the J/P are very mixed.


Humorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Sanguine*: courageous, hopeful, playful, carefree

*Choleric*: ambitious, leader-like, restless, easily angered

*Melancholic*: despondent, quiet, analytical, serious 

"They can become preoccupied with the tragedy and cruelty in the world and are susceptible to depression and moodiness"

*Phlegmatic*: calm, thoughtful, patient, peaceful


Are ESFJs easily angered?

Are ISFPs either analytical or patient?

Are ENFPs carefree?

Are ENTPs more courageous than ISTPs?

INTJs are neither melancholic nor phlegmatic. We get angry... ZERO depression or moodiness.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

And yet, I tend to be a mix of Sanguine and Melancholic, and I'm ENTP. It's almost like the tides with me. I rush in and roll back out. I definitely and an initiator though...or is that instigator?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> And yet, I tend to be a mix of Sanguine and Melancholic, and I'm ENTP. It's almost like the tides with me. I rush in and roll back out. I definitely and an initiator though...or is that instigator?


ENTP = active and outgoing (E) + task oriented (T) + melancholic (NP)

Do you agree?


----------



## Adena (May 14, 2014)

Tellus said:


> Humorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Sanguine*: courageous, hopeful, playful, carefree
> 
> ...


Okay, I'm sold :3


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Aren't all Feeling types cooperative?





Tellus said:


> What do you think about Keirsey's temperaments? Can you explain the second ring; cooperative versus pragmatic (utilitarian)? Are xSTJs more cooperative than xSFPs?


This is one of those things that may surprise, but no. Not all Feeling types are necessarily cooperative, and not more cooperative than SJ types. What ISFPs are not (and probably INFPs) is diplomatic. We tend to be blunt and rather dismissive if you disagree, or seem to be disingenuous, so there are strong limits. 

Also, in my experience, STJs are much better at working on consensus. It's like they value getting people on board, whether for a smoother running machine or for the sake of their own need to have rapport, or maybe due to their need for recognition, or whatever. But the ESTJs I've known, and the ISTJs have all been guys (and gals) who have worked hard to bring people around to their view point, and to work from a stance of diplomacy. Sometimes, this has meant a bit of... disingenuousness--there I said it--at least from my perspective. Unfortunately for them, when I run into that, I tend to call them on it, which has, of course, caused problems.

I've read Keirsey's book several times now, and compared it to people I know. I find it easy to type people using his book, and the principles there. I think that sometimes, for instance, Princess Diana, there are differences between Keirsey and Jung (INFP--I agree with Keirsey, that according to his system, she's probably an INFP-- vs ISFP--I think that functionally, she is probably more of a sensor), but I do not think that the two systems are incompatible--just different, with different emphases. And the same is true for DiSC. My dad took some evaluation via DiSC. In it, he sounds an awful lot like me, but more of an SJ, but I also know that in real life, he's _not_ and SJ at all. The DiSC evaluation just doesn't cover things in the same way. 

I don't know if it's possible to try to reconcile all the different systems--each comes from their own point of view, so each sees everything differently. And the whole is us--people--people who are each of us unique, with unique experiences, backgrounds, in different places, both physically, emotionally, geographically, etc. All of these influences come to bear, and I bet there are still facets of our personality that nobody's quite thought out enough to put words to, which means that somebody else could come along, and wipe away all these systems--I doubt reconciling them is the way about it, except as a way to find perspective, vocabulary and common ground. But them's just my thoughts. And it's always possible that we are all wrong, and there's no such thing as ISFP or INTJ or ENFJ or any of it... We're all just deceiving ourselves into believing it. :-D


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> Kiersey's foundation is problematic - by splitting Ns on the T/F axis but Ss on the J/P, he's not comparing like-for-like - but, even ignoring that, is there any merit to the co-operative/utilitarian divide? Largely, SP/NT corresponds to TP (half the group are TPs, and all group members are either T or P) and SJ/NF to FJ (for the same reasons), so it's no surprise it falls apart when you compare the members of each group that least fit that split (as with your example of xSTJs and xSFPs), since it seems to be that which Kiersey is mostly aiming to describe... which I guess is brought about largely because of his failure to compare like-for-like.


Have you actually read his book? I ask because he talks about this to some extent. 

And I'll be honest, to me, it makes vital sense. 

Sensing is influenced more by its orientation--inward or outward, not by the judging function with which it is paired.
Intuition is influenced more by the judging function with which it is paired than by its orientation. 

Let's look at where such thinking leads. People who orientate via introverted sensing, regardless of whether they are Feeling or Thinking types, tend to take a more held-back approach to the immediate physical world around them. They trust "where they've been" more than where they are at the present moment. Their judging function is extraverted, which means that they take a more aggressive attitude toward bringing order, not to their physical environment, but people and structures (social structures, organizations, etc.). 

People who orientate via extraverted sensing, regardless of Feeling or Thinking type, tend to operate in the world as it is right now. They prefer to take advantage of the possibilities that exist right now. They are less people-orientated in the sense that they have less desire to bring order to people or systems, but to order their own life as they see fit where they are. They tend to be opportunists and pragmatic, and less concerned with messy things like rules and regulations. 

People who orientate by intuition, however, are a bit different. Regardless of whether they are orientated towards Introverted Intuition or Extraverted Intuition, they relate more to how they judge the world, whether Feeling or Thinking. 

Intuiting Thinkers, regardless of the orientation of their Intuition, tend to seek linear, rational, logical solutions to their Intuition-led perceptions. They don't care, or care less, about things like feelings, or emotions, and especially about what other people will think about their decisions, judgments or even their perceptions. They have a certain skepticism or hesitancy towards systems such as SJs would construct. 

Intuiting Feelers, on the other hand, are almost the exact opposite. They are people-orientated--even more so than SJ types, but their approach to people is entirely different from SJ types. They may be cooperative, but it's different. I think it's more focused on the individual, than the system. It is more focused on potential than reality. They tend to have ideas that are less grounded on "reality" and more based on what could be and what should be. "Pragmatism" is not in their vocabulary, whereas it is very much in the vocabulary of the NT.

And that last point--the contrasts between the temperaments as Keirsey identifies them--each of the four is unique, individual, with obvious differences, orientations, goals, viewpoints, etc. It's not just a hack job that lifted and distorted or ignored MBTI or Jung. If anything, I think his biggest mistake was to use the same four-letter code for his temperament roles. That leads, maybe, to false expectations and understandings. 

Keirsey's system is a complete, whole and internally consistent system in its own right. It really doesn't need Jung or Myers and Briggs, or Socionics, or any of that. The mistake, I think, is for us to try to shoehorn his system into MBTI. That's what I think...


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Have you actually read his book? I ask because he talks about this to some extent.
> 
> And I'll be honest, to me, it makes vital sense.
> 
> ...


No, I've not read his book(s), and so any criticism I'm offering is based solely on the basic premises of the theory that I'm familiar with.

I don't think your defence of the way he splits the temperaments really serves as justification for splitting them that way - you've essentially described what is common to each of SJ, SP, NT and NF, and then asserted that SJ and SP tell us more than ST and SF do (or NT and NF do more than NJ and NP), but how so? Especially given that Kiersey disavows type dynamics, so a lot of what is said to be true for Si or Se that doesn't directly arise from xSxJ or xSxP preferences can't really be treated as part of his system. I'm just not sold on the claim that J/P matters more for S types than N types, and T/F for N more than S: what reason is there to suppose it doesn't vary too much on the individual level to make such broad claims?

Could you view Kiersey as creating an entirely separate theory? I guess so - do his books indicate that this is what he intends when he makes the claims he does? I suppose the rejection of type dynamics implicitly suggests as much... either way, I think my criticism stands. Kiersey still works with a sixteen-type model, and still presents the insufficiently-supported claim that J/P matters more for S-types, and T/F for N-types (this failure to compare like-for-like also means we make conclusions like "NFs are the most people-oriented types", when it's easy enough to see that, had we split them ST, SF, NJ, NP, we would instead claim that "SFs are the most people-oriented types" - essentially "type gerrymandering", for want of a better term to express the concept I'm trying to succinctly summarise). So Kiersey could be seen as posing an entirely separate system - but that system still inherently has the same problems I was criticising before.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> I don't think your defence of the way he splits the temperaments really serves as justification for splitting them that way - you've essentially described what is common to each of SJ, SP, NT and NF, and then asserted that SJ and SP tell us more than ST and SF do (or NT and NF do more than NJ and NP), but how so? Especially given that Kiersey disavows type dynamics, so a lot of what is said to be true for Si or Se that doesn't directly arise from xSxJ or xSxP preferences can't really be treated as part of his system. I'm just not sold on the claim that J/P matters more for S types than N types, and T/F for N more than S: what reason is there to suppose it doesn't vary too much on the individual level to make such broad claims?


Well, my point was to show that there are stronger correlations between Se and the judging function vs Si and the judging function, than between ST and SF. I didn't go into it, but, for instance, I have far more in common with ISTPs than I do with ISFJs. We mesh, we understand each other. We get along almost frictionlessly. The same is true for ESTPs. On the other hand, ISFJs (I have an ISFJ best friend and partner of fifteen years who is a male ISFJ) create all kinds of friction--often subtle friction, but there is friction, nonetheless. In fact, often that subtle friction is something you don't notice right away, but over time, that friction builds. My friend and I called it a mirror-type relationship (He has never heard, to the best of my knowledge, of MBTI, and we worked together for fifteen years, while I never had either--he's moved away, and we are still friends, but we no longer work together). It was like we are alike but opposite in everything. We often saw things in ways that seemed the same, but were backwards from each other, and we usually could come to comparable solutions, but always via different pathways. I'll be honest, it wasn't always an easy work relationship. And, to my chagrin, I know he probably felt the friction more than I did, but he bore it, in true ISFJ fashion, silently, and uncomplainingly, in such a way that I never knew. It was only after discovering MBTI, and learning about ISFJs, etc. that I realized how much of a burden I must have been to him. I was able to brush aside most issues I had with him--not that they weren't irritations or problems, but due to being an introverted judger, I tend to be harsher on myself, so it's easy to forgive and forget. Actually, now I think about it, this is an important thing with SP types. I think, as a rule, SP types tend to brush aside affronts much more easily than SJ types. That's huge, IMO. 

In any case, overall, I do feel a much greater affinity towards all SP types than with SJ types. Looking back over my life, my closest friend have all been either SP or NP types, and most of them SPs. And among them ISTPs are some of the closest. 

The theory that SFs would get along better with each other, have more in common, and supposedly, less friction doesn't hold up in my experience. In fact, the people I've had the most problems with in my life have all been SFJs. The second biggest group would be STJs. After that, NPs, but the issues there are of a vastly different character than with SJs as a group. 




> Could you view Kiersey as creating an entirely separate theory? I guess so - do his books indicate that this is what he intends when he makes the claims he does? I suppose the rejection of type dynamics implicitly suggests as much... either way, I think my criticism stands. Kiersey still works with a sixteen-type model, and still presents the insufficiently-supported claim that J/P matters more for S-types, and T/F for N-types (this failure to compare like-for-like also means we make conclusions like "NFs are the most people-oriented types", when it's easy enough to see that, had we split them ST, SF, NJ, NP, we would instead claim that "SFs are the most people-oriented types" - essentially "type gerrymandering", for want of a better term to express the concept I'm trying to succinctly summarise). So Kiersey could be seen as posing an entirely separate system - but that system still inherently has the same problems I was criticising before.


Keirsey goes to lengths to distance himself, both from Myers and Briggs, but more importantly, from Cognitive functions as a whole. His main reason, he says, IIRC, is because cognitive functions are internal, and not really discernable (and now I have to dig out my Kindle app...) ok. here's the quote: "I must say I have never found a use for this scheme of psychological functions, and this is because function typology sets out to define different people's mental makeup—what's in their heads—something which is not observable, and which is thus unavoidably subjective, a matter of speculation and occasionally of projection."

He later adds: "To take some of the guesswork out of temperament theory, I base my definitions on what people do well, and their intelligent actions, which are observable, and which thus can be defined more objectively." 

Personally, I think that you would enjoy reading Keirsey. His book reeks of INTP to me (my wife writes very similarly to him), and he is very thorough and precise throughout. I think his one "weakness" is that I am not sure he accurately represents Myers and Jung when he says they conflate introversion with intuition. I don't know enough about Myers, and I'm not sure that Jung did that, though if what he quotes about Jung and Myers is correct, I can see where he gets that. 

BTW, he also discusses the differences between Myers ST, SF, NT, NF functional differences, and his own intelligent roles theory, which goes SP, SJ, NT and NF. It wasn't accidental, nor based on simply misunderstanding cognitive functions or Jung or Myers. It was quite intentional. (another quote: " In considering the contrasts please bear in mind that Jung and Myers were trying to figure out what the different types have in mind, while I am trying to figure out what they can do well under varying circumstances." )

Hope that clarifies things a bit better. But honestly? Just by the book. I can't imagine you would regret it. It's on the Kindle store, so you can buy it and start reading it immediately. I hope Kindle is available in AU.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Well, my point was to show that there are stronger correlations between Se and the judging function vs Si and the judging function, than between ST and SF. I didn't go into it, but, for instance, I have far more in common with ISTPs than I do with ISFJs. We mesh, we understand each other. We get along almost frictionlessly. The same is true for ESTPs. On the other hand, ISFJs (I have an ISFJ best friend and partner of fifteen years who is a male ISFJ) create all kinds of friction--often subtle friction, but there is friction, nonetheless. In fact, often that subtle friction is something you don't notice right away, but over time, that friction builds. My friend and I called it a mirror-type relationship (He has never heard, to the best of my knowledge, of MBTI, and we worked together for fifteen years, while I never had either--he's moved away, and we are still friends, but we no longer work together). It was like we are alike but opposite in everything. We often saw things in ways that seemed the same, but were backwards from each other, and we usually could come to comparable solutions, but always via different pathways. I'll be honest, it wasn't always an easy work relationship. And, to my chagrin, I know he probably felt the friction more than I did, but he bore it, in true ISFJ fashion, silently, and uncomplainingly, in such a way that I never knew. It was only after discovering MBTI, and learning about ISFJs, etc. that I realized how much of a burden I must have been to him. I was able to brush aside most issues I had with him--not that they weren't irritations or problems, but due to being an introverted judger, I tend to be harsher on myself, so it's easy to forgive and forget. Actually, now I think about it, this is an important thing with SP types. I think, as a rule, SP types tend to brush aside affronts much more easily than SJ types. That's huge, IMO.
> 
> In any case, overall, I do feel a much greater affinity towards all SP types than with SJ types. Looking back over my life, my closest friend have all been either SP or NP types, and most of them SPs. And among them ISTPs are some of the closest.
> 
> The theory that SFs would get along better with each other, have more in common, and supposedly, less friction doesn't hold up in my experience. In fact, the people I've had the most problems with in my life have all been SFJs. The second biggest group would be STJs. After that, NPs, but the issues there are of a vastly different character than with SJs as a group.


What reason is there to suppose this holds universally? It may well be true for you, or for people you know... but why should it be enshrined in the structure in the theory, what makes it true for everyone? I don't see what precludes the possibility that, say, some ISFP other than yourself might be fine with xSFJs but have problems with xSTPs. My claim is not that SF is a preferable classification to SP necessarily; rather, I'm saying that we shouldn't impose a stringent rule without good reason to believe it holds universally, which I'm not convinced we have.



> Keirsey goes to lengths to distance himself, both from Myers and Briggs, but more importantly, from Cognitive functions as a whole. His main reason, he says, IIRC, is because cognitive functions are internal, and not really discernable (and now I have to dig out my Kindle app...) ok. here's the quote: "I must say I have never found a use for this scheme of psychological functions, and this is because function typology sets out to define different people's mental makeup—what's in their heads—something which is not observable, and which is thus unavoidably subjective, a matter of speculation and occasionally of projection."
> 
> He later adds: "To take some of the guesswork out of temperament theory, I base my definitions on what people do well, and their intelligent actions, which are observable, and which thus can be defined more objectively."
> 
> ...


"Please Understand Me II" is in the state library system here, so I may borrow that out and give it a read when it's convenient to do so. Certainly, I'd be interested in digging further to see whether he addresses some of the concerns I've got that derive solely from the basic structuring of his theory. (I presume this is either the book you're referring to, or similar enough that it would cover most, if not all, of the same ground.)

I've got no issue with his disavowing cognitive functions - indeed, he's got some good points just in the quotes you provide here. And, without having read it, I'm not surprised to hear that argument can be made to the effect that some works conflate introversion and intuition. But my problem is like this: suppose you were to divide all people into four groups, namely blue-eyed males, blue-eyed females, brown-eyed adults and brown-eyed children (let's ignore, for the sake of simplicity, the fact that neither gender nor eye colour are binary). Because the division isn't done using the same method, any comparison between one blue-eyed division and one brown-eyed division becomes inherently flawed, since we can't tell for sure that the comparison doesn't actually attach to age or gender alone. Likewise with a comparison between an S temperament and an N temperament - if I say "NTs are more likely to [X] than SPs", does the claim hold for NTPs vs. STPs, or is it only true because of the division we're using (i.e., because it largely attaches to T>F, which is true for all NTs but only half the SPs)? That's the kind of thing I meant when I referred to "type gerrymandering" in my last post - the ease with which comparisons like that can be technically true but that's the case only/primarily because of the categorisation method, rather than the individuals who the system purports to pertain to - and it's a split I simply don't think can be justified. 

Obviously, giving at least some of Keirsey's works a read would make it possible for me to offer a more nuanced critique. But solely in terms of the SJ/SP/NT/NF divide, I think the above criticism makes sense. I find type dynamics problematic because of what it assumes about a person without good reason to do so (which of their two preferred functions is dominant, the attitudes of said functions, &c.), since that limits the field of possibilities unduly, leaving people without a place in the system; I think similar holds here, since it invites us to see S-types as on the whole less driven by their judging function than N types, and other similarly questionable claims. So, whilst I've not read deep enough to know for sure, I'm skeptical that Keirsey satisfactorily addresses these issues.

*Side note - just noticed I've been spelling Keirsey's name incorrectly for quite some time (as "Kiersey"); I normally pick up on such things quicker than that...


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

StunnedFox;17539946
"Please Understand Me II" is in the state library system here said:


> Yeah, PUM II is his main work. I don't know that he's written other, popular-type titles than the two editions of Please Understand Me. He does, I think, have scholarly stuff, but it's not published like a book. PUM II is a major refinement, from what I've read, from the first edition, and it is the result of a lot larger sampling and observation. My own examples are just that--examples and illustrations of a larger whole--yes, qualitative, not quantitative. I give them, not as definitive, but as illustrative. I've been around a while, and the friction that exists between SP types and SJ types is not just one man's idea, but quite observable--starting in elementary school. ;-) But that's neither here, nor there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> Less "based on" two dichotomies and more incorporating them, I would say. I still don't see how the hot/cold and dry/wet dichotomies link to S/N and J/P centrally, either: "length of sustained response" (wet/dry) to S/N seems quite a stretch, and I'm not even sure how you've decided to set up J/P, since it doesn't match with the excerpt you've linked.
> 
> In any case, none of that discards the fact that I/E forms a significant part of the temperaments, so you've got a problem when you want to characterise a type like ISFP (a DiSC S + sanguine by you), since the more introverted ISFPs would be less likely to fit with sanguine given its extraverted nature (to show but one example). I think it's perhaps a touch disingenuous to equate the temperaments - and, to a lesser extent, DiSC - to just two MBTI dimensions, when it's clear each of the types in those theories aren't exclusively framed like that (it's hard to doubt, for instance, that a Type C in DiSC matches up more with a J preference - being systematic, organised, orderly, &c. - than a P preference, which your theory fails to account for).


Yes, sanguine is related to extroversion according to the descriptions that are presented in OP. I think these are better:

Humorism (Wikipedia)

*Sanguine (SP): *courageous, hopeful, playful, carefree

*Choleric (NJ):* ambitious, leader-like, restless, easily angered

*Melancholic (NP):* despondent, quiet, analytical, serious 

*Phlegmatic (SJ):* calm, thoughtful, patient, peaceful


Are _systematic, organised_ etc really related to J? Jugding in Myers-Briggs implies that Te or Fe is an ego function (aux or dom). Are ISFJs systematic? I think IT more accurately matches up with _systematic__._


*Wet/dry* is largely linked to S/N, since SPs and SJs don’t see the point in dwelling on subjects that do not directly affect them. It isn't as precisely expressed as Jung's Sensing and Intuition, but it is getting at the same thing.

*Hot/cold *is indirectly linked to NJ, SP/NP, SJ. Why are ENTJ, INTJ, ENFJ and INFJ hot? Because they have Te or Fe as an ego function. Okay, so why aren't ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFJ and ISFJ hot as well? The only way to explain this is by using Socionics Model B, which has +/- IM elements (i.e. functions). NJs (LIE, ILI, EIE and IEI) and SPs (SLE, LSI, SEE, ESI) value -Te/+Ti and +Fe/-Fi. Hence, NJs and SPs make harsher and hastier judgements.

´+´ maximizing the positive, subjective, optimistic

´-´minimizing the negative, objective, realistic



> Kiersey's foundation is problematic - by splitting Ns on the T/F axis but Ss on the J/P, he's not comparing like-for-like - but, even ignoring that, is there any merit to the co-operative/utilitarian divide? Largely, SP/NT corresponds to TP (half the group are TPs, and all group members are either T or P) and SJ/NF to FJ (for the same reasons), so it's no surprise it falls apart when you compare the members of each group that least fit that split (as with your example of xSTJs and xSFPs), since it seems to be that which Kiersey is mostly aiming to describe... which I guess is brought about largely because of his failure to compare like-for-like.


Let’s agree that Keirsey’s foundation is problematic (because of asymmetry and his 2nd ring).


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Tellus said:


> Yes, sanguine is related to extroversion according to the descriptions that are presented in OP. I think these are better:
> 
> Humorism (Wikipedia)
> 
> ...


"Systematic", "Methodical", "Planful" and "Scheduled" are four of the five facets of Judging in MBTI Step II, so the link between such traits and the J preference is quite explicit.

I don't think it helps to select only those definitions of the other models that best suit the theory you're trying to propose: the I/E link with the four temperaments is the clearest exception to it, but it's easy enough to find other aspects showing that theories such as DiSC don't neatly align with MBTI types (the aforementioned link between DiSC C and MBTI J, for example). As I said before, it's a touch disingenuous, and largely relies on you taking only those factors which support your claim whist discarding the others. Sure, there's a link between, say, the primary dichotomies in DiSC theory and MBTI - I think it's reasonably clear that those dividing aspects are roughly analogous to the I/E and T/F dimensions - but that's not the whole story, and your hot/cold link with the four temperaments relies on concepts not present in the MBTI just to propose it (hot seems to be extraversion and cold introversion, fairly straightforwardly). I'd also like to know how you make NP analogous to "despondent, quiet, analytical, serious", when little of what is said of either NPs or Ne seems to match up with that.

Basically, it's too much of a stretch; they're different theories, and the link simply isn't strong enough to make.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> "Systematic", "Methodical", "Planful" and "Scheduled" are four of the five facets of Judging in MBTI Step II, so the link between such traits and the J preference is quite explicit.


If MBTI Step II is a reference then DISC's two dichotomies (Extroversion/Introversion and Task/People) are identical to MBTI's E/I and T/F (and 2 out of 5 in Big Five). But MBTI Step II is not compatible with the functions. Again, are ESFJs and/or ISFJs systematic or methodical? 



> I don't think it helps to select only those definitions of the other models that best suit the theory you're trying to propose: the I/E link with the four temperaments is the clearest exception to it


If you disregard the descriptions (which are innately problematic) and consider the dichotomies, do you still think E/I is a problem?



> ... your hot/cold link with the four temperaments relies on concepts not present in the MBTI just to propose it


Well, the connection between SPs and NJs is still there, right? The problem is that MBTI functions are too imprecise and they are incorrectly ordered.



> I'd also like to know how you make NP analogous to "despondent, quiet, analytical, serious", when little of what is said of either NPs or Ne seems to match up with that.


Are SJs, SPs or NJs despondent? This just proves that any descriptions are problematic. One should always stick to the definitions (if they exist... I didn't know about hot/cold and dry/wet when I wrote OP).


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> This is one of those things that may surprise, but no. Not all Feeling types are necessarily cooperative, and not more cooperative than SJ types. What ISFPs are not (and probably INFPs) is diplomatic. We tend to be blunt and rather dismissive if you disagree, or seem to be disingenuous, so there are strong limits.
> 
> Also, in my experience, STJs are much better at working on consensus. It's like they value getting people on board, whether for a smoother running machine or for the sake of their own need to have rapport, or maybe due to their need for recognition, or whatever. But the ESTJs I've known, and the ISTJs have all been guys (and gals) who have worked hard to bring people around to their view point, and to work from a stance of diplomacy. Sometimes, this has meant a bit of... disingenuousness--there I said it--at least from my perspective. Unfortunately for them, when I run into that, I tend to call them on it, which has, of course, caused problems.


Keirsey: "People who are cooperative pay more attention to other people's opinions (a) and are more concerned with doing the right thing (b)."

a) matches up with ESFP and ISFP, and b) matches up with ESTJ and ISTJ. Do you agree?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Tellus said:


> If MBTI Step II is a reference then DISC's two dichotomies (Extroversion/Introversion and Task/People) are identical to MBTI's E/I and T/F (and 2 out of 5 in Big Five). But MBTI Step II is not compatible with the functions. Again, are ESFJs and/or ISFJs systematic or methodical?
> 
> If you disregard the descriptions (which are innately problematic) and consider the dichotomies, do you still think E/I is a problem?
> 
> ...


That's the inherent problem, though, isn't it? Lack of definition. Precisely none of these theories have been sufficiently clear about the exact structure of their theory, particularly in relation to which statements are definitional and which merely descriptive. You want me to disregard "innately problematic" descriptions - but what reason is there to believe the temperaments are defined/constituted by any of the mooted dichotomies, rather than said dichotomies simply being another form of description? If we stick solely to definitions, then we have the not insignificant problem of not actually having any to work from. Hence, we need to infer the "essence" of each type - something vaguely akin to a definition - from the descriptions we do have, which is what I've been doing. 

Both "cognitive functions" and MBTI Step II are a part of the MBTI theory, so any discussion involving MBTI needs to accept that. Whether the two aspects of the theory are compatible, or any issues either aspect might itself have, are obviously important considerations, but to disregard either of them is to move outside the confines of the theory you're seeking to work within. But even if you were to set aside Step II, it's clear from how J is described (and see above for why there's a need to infer something akin to a definition from descriptions) that the vast majority of J types will be systematic and methodical - necessarily, this includes xSFJs, so the answer to your question is "yes, ESFJs and ISFJs are systematic and methodical". That this might seem to run against some other expectations the theory leads to is a problem with the theoretical model of MBTI, and the conflicting claims it makes.

I think hot/cold, as a dichotomy, is a reasonably close parallel of E/I, so its exclusion from your approach is problematic, yes.

No, the correlation between SPs and NJs is not still there, unless you include the separate theory of Socionics, which takes us away from "DiSC + Four Temperaments = MBTI". Your claim that "MBTI functions are too imprecise and they are incorrectly ordered" is immaterial to whether that "equation" holds or not.

"Are SJs, SPs or NJs despondent?" No more or less than NPs are, I would think. Why assume that despondency attaches to a pairing of S/N and J/P in the first place? I think my key point from all of this is largely in the first paragraph - what do we actually have that is precisely defined in each of these theories? MBTI, in particular, seems reticent to be precise about anything, which makes this exercise practically impossible unless you can extract a semblance of definition from the multitude of descriptions that are provided.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Keirsey: "People who are cooperative pay more attention to other people's opinions (a) and are more concerned with doing the right thing (b)."
> 
> a) matches up with ESFP and ISFP, and b) matches up with ESTJ and ISTJ. Do you agree?


I couldn't find your quote in PUMII, but I did find the following:



> To put it simply, the Cooperators 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, the Utilitarians 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.
> 
> Keirsey, David (1998-05-01). Please Understand Me II (Kindle Locations 623-626). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Kindle Edition.


Which drives a stark contrast between the SFJ and SFP types, and which, I have to say, has borne out in real life among the SJs I know, and the SPs I know. In fact, I have heard SPs say things along the line that they don't care about social rules for solutions they employ--and I know that my desire to create effective solutions, and fix things using seemingly mismatched tools for the job has caused no end of consternation for my ISFJ partner in the past, even to the point of using, for instance, a wrench to hammer in a nail. It was mortifying to him to watch me do such things! And my ESTJ friend always sided with him ISFJ in such "disputes". I used to think it weird, in fact, that these guys, who differed in some strong ways (the one a "cold, hard" thinker, and the other a very conciliatory, and caring guy) would almost always agree on issues such as this. It wasn't until I read Keirsey, in fact, that I realized that here was the key... I have so many stories about these two guys that follow these lines of thinking that it's almost scary.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> To put it simply, the Cooperators 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, the Utilitarians 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.
> 
> Keirsey, David (1998-05-01). Please Understand Me II (Kindle Locations 623-626). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Kindle Edition..


Your quote corresponds with Keirsey .com:

"Second, at every turn people are trying to accomplish their goals, and if you watch closely how people go about their business, you see that there are two fundamentally opposite types of action.

Some people act primarily in a utilitarian or pragmatic manner, that is, they do what gets results, what achieves their objectives as effectively or efficiently as possible, and only afterwards do they check to see if they are observing the rules or going through proper channels.

Other people act primarily in a cooperative or socially acceptable manner, that is, they try to do the right thing, in keeping with agreed upon social rules, conventions, and codes of conduct, and only later do they concern themselves with the effectiveness of their actions."

Okay, so 'J' makes SJs cooperative and SPs utilitarian, right? But what about the Idealists? Is it 'F' that makes them cooperative? Are ENFJs more cooperative than INTPs?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Okay, so 'J' makes SJs cooperative and SPs utilitarian, right? But what about the Idealists? Is it 'F' that makes them cooperative? Are ENFJs more cooperative than INTPs?


If my wife and daughter are anything to go by, then yes. ;-) I don't think that Keirsey gets into _what_ makes them cooperative--actually, I know he doesn't. He tossed out the functions at the beginning of working on his theory, in favor of observable, repeatable and distinguishable behavior.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

ferroequinologist said:


> If my wife and daughter are anything to go by, then yes. ;-) I don't think that Keirsey gets into _what_ makes them cooperative--actually, I know he doesn't. He tossed out the functions at the beginning of working on his theory, in favor of observable, repeatable and distinguishable behavior.


Okay, so INTPs don't "try do the right thing, in keeping with agreed upon social rules, conventions, and codes of conduct..." and they aren't "law-abiding"?

I think Keirsey's cooperative vs. utilitarian is partly incorrect.

Is ENFJ yellow (DISC) or In-Charge (Linda Berens)?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> That's the inherent problem, though, isn't it? Lack of definition. Precisely none of these theories have been sufficiently clear about the exact structure of their theory, particularly in relation to which statements are definitional and which merely descriptive. You want me to disregard "innately problematic" descriptions - but what reason is there to believe the temperaments are defined/constituted by any of the mooted dichotomies, rather than said dichotomies simply being another form of description? If we stick solely to definitions, then we have the not insignificant problem of not actually having any to work from. Hence, we need to infer the "essence" of each type - something vaguely akin to a definition - from the descriptions we do have, which is what I've been doing.


I agree 100%. I don't think we get much further unless someone finds a better definition (or description) of hot/cold and wet/dry. 

What is the essence of the four temperaments; sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic?



> Both "cognitive functions" and MBTI Step II are a part of the MBTI theory, so any discussion involving MBTI needs to accept that. Whether the two aspects of the theory are compatible, or any issues either aspect might itself have, are obviously important considerations, but to disregard either of them is to move outside the confines of the theory you're seeking to work within. But even if you were to set aside Step II, it's clear from how J is described (and see above for why there's a need to infer something akin to a definition from descriptions) that the vast majority of J types will be systematic and methodical - necessarily, this includes xSFJs, so the answer to your question is "yes, ESFJs and ISFJs are systematic and methodical". That this might seem to run against some other expectations the theory leads to is a problem with the theoretical model of MBTI, and the conflicting claims it makes.


'J' in MBTI (not Step II) implies that Fe or Te is an ego function (aux or dom). ISFJs have Fe as auxiliary function, so why would they be systematic? 



> I think hot/cold, as a dichotomy, is a reasonably close parallel of E/I, so its exclusion from your approach is problematic, yes.


I disagree... for example, are ESFJs or ENFPs hot? Do they respond quickly? In what sense?



> No, the correlation between SPs and NJs is not still there, unless you include the separate theory of Socionics, which takes us away from "DiSC + Four Temperaments = MBTI". Your claim that "MBTI functions are too imprecise and they are incorrectly ordered" is immaterial to whether that "equation" holds or not.


My point isn't that DISC + The Four Temperaments _is_ MBTI, but that someone who is _blue_ (in DISC) and _melancholic_ corresponds to MBTI's INTP. 

I think it is very difficult to explain why SPs and NJs are _hot_ without using Socionics Model B.



> "Are SJs, SPs or NJs despondent?" No more or less than NPs are, I would think. Why assume that despondency attaches to a pairing of S/N and J/P in the first place?


Isn't _despondent _relevant to the melancholic temperament? I have already explained the connection between S/N and wet/dry. Which types are melancholic according to you?



> I think my key point from all of this is largely in the first paragraph - what do we actually have that is precisely defined in each of these theories? MBTI, in particular, seems reticent to be precise about anything, which makes this exercise practically impossible unless you can extract a semblance of definition from the multitude of descriptions that are provided.


I agree.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Tellus said:


> Okay, so INTPs don't "try do the right thing, in keeping with agreed upon social rules, conventions, and codes of conduct..." and they aren't "law-abiding"?
> 
> I think Keirsey's cooperative vs. utilitarian is partly incorrect.
> 
> Is ENFJ yellow (DISC) or In-Charge (Linda Berens)?


I wouldn't know. I am not keen to mix different systems, though. I'm not fond of trying to do that... But as to in charge, I'm just guessing, but I would guess that ENFJs would be more likely to take the lead, and take the oversight over a group. IMO, they would make good teachers and group leaders, inspiring and dragging along the doubters. But that is just my hunch. ;-)

As to INTPs not being law abiding... that's an overstatement of the differences. The key difference is that when it comes to utilizing methods or tools, the first concern is whether or not it will work, and then, only afterwards, the other ramifications. What works comes before what's right. But it is true that there are people who think they are above things like social rules and conventions--that they are smarter and better, and that those rules ought not apply. Those are more likely to be NT types. SP types are slightly different. We are more likely to simply say--that is inconvenient or stupid in general, I'm just going to ignore it, and not make airs of superiority about it.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Tellus said:


> I agree 100%. I don't think we get much further unless someone finds a better definition (or description) of hot/cold and wet/dry.
> 
> What is the essence of the four temperaments; sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic?


I don't know if it's necessarily clear, since descriptions differ in sometimes quite substantially ways. Without knowing what sources might be deemed to reliably reflect the theory proper, and which are essentially different theories, I couldn't provide a specific "essence" for each, except to say that the general gist of the descriptions should provide it.

What makes it clear that hot/cold and wet/dry is the best way to read the four temperaments? Perhaps those dichotomies are merely attempts to "explain" the temperaments, that might not capture the full picture of what each type is supposed to be.



> 'J' in MBTI (not Step II) implies that Fe or Te is an ego function (aux or dom). ISFJs have Fe as auxiliary function, so why would they be systematic?


What is inconsistent about Fe-aux and systematicity? Yes, J means someone whose first extraverted function is a judging one, but this is the problem with the dual description/definition of J/P, since J clearly is associated with being systematic in more than just Step II. In any case, why do you make it that ISFJs would generally not be systematic (I think Step II, if not just the general structure of the theory, means that it's clear not everyone matches up to everything about their preferences, so I wouldn't expect every ISFJ to be systematic, just most of them).



> I disagree... for example, are ESFJs or ENFPs hot? Do they respond quickly? In what sense?


Extraversion involves "[receiving] energy from interacting with people and from taking action" (Introduction To Type, page 6), and I don't think it's a huge stretch to suggest that this drive towards "[directing] energy and attention outward" (same page) might lead extraverts, in general, to respond quicker than introverts. I'm not convinced any of these correlations to MBTI hold up especially well (if the correlation is present, it tends to be muddied by association with other things - here, the drive for J types to "make decisions, come to closure" and "have things settled" (page 7) would be a factor as well, for instance), and because of that, I wouldn't necessarily expect these associations to be anything more than reasonable correlations. But yes, I think you could say that the average ESFJ and ENFP would each be more hot than cold.

It's worth noting (from the Wikipedia "Four temperaments" page) that Eysenck associated the temperaments with the Five Factor Model's Extraversion and Neuroticism dimensions - giving Melancholic (Low Extraversion, High Neuroticism), Phlegmatic (Low Extraversion, Low Neuroticism), Choleric (High Extraversion, High Neuroticism) and Sanguine (High Extraversion, Low Neuroticism). That would suggest only I/E in MBTI strongly correlates (given the demonstrated association between MBTI I/E and FFM Extraversion), and whilst I'm not convinced by that, I would still say that I/E is the most readily evident division between the temperaments.



> My point isn't that DISC + The Four Temperaments _is_ MBTI, but that someone who is _blue_ (in DISC) and _melancholic_ corresponds to MBTI's INTP.
> 
> I think it is very difficult to explain why SPs and NJs are _hot_ without using Socionics Model B.


Is "blue" equivalent to "C" in DiSC? I'm not familiar with any colour-based terminology for DiSC types. Regardless, I don't think it would be difficult to find substantially many people for whom the relationship you're proposing doesn't hold - especially if the person has a quite mild preference on some dimensions. As I said, it does hold for me, but I still don't see the NP connection to Melancholic (see below).

That it is difficult to explain with Socionics Model B suggests that the correspondence you're proposing doesn't work, or else that all MBTI types perfectly correspond to their supposed Socionics equivalents. I won't claim to know a great deal about Socionics, but given the discrepancies between the two theories, it's far too easy to conceive of a person matching an MBTI type but not the "equivalent" Socionics type. For a first example, MBTI gives no attitude for the tertiary function, so a person who matches that, but doesn't match the claim in Socionics that the one sharing the attitude of the dominant is conscious and the other is unconscious, is an MBTI type but doesn't match the "equivalent" Socionics type; for a second example, if the distinction between + and - functions in Socionics is a meaningful one, then any person who matches their MBTI type, but doesn't match the corresponding +/- stuff in Socionics, is an MBTI type but doesn't match the "equivalent" Socionics type. Hence why the introduction of the Socionics stuff is problematic, because it means your claim that temperament and DiSC type combined correspond to a particular MBTI type can't stand outside of a very specific set of assumptions about said MBTI type (such as everything which pertains to the +/- distinction in Socionics holding true for the equivalent MBTI types).

As I said above, I don't claim a great deal of Socionics knowledge, so if I've gotten the theory wrong in the above paragraph - particularly if having done so renders my argument deficient - then let me know. 



> Isn't _despondent _relevant to the melancholic temperament? I have already explained the connection between S/N and wet/dry. Which types are melancholic according to you?


Your explanation provides some link between S/N and wet/dry, but there's much more to S/N than just that, and if the rest of the temperament doesn't bear out the link then focusing solely on the overlapping aspect is disregarding significant elements of both the Four Temperaments and MBTI. 

As at the start of this post: without a clear idea of which sources can be considered reliable in regards to what is and isn't part of the Four Temperaments theory, I wouldn't want to make too many specific claims. But on what I do know, I can see a clear I/E divide (Melancholic/Phlegmatic = I, Choleric/Sanguine = E), and I've seen various associations that have posited T/F (Melancholic/Choleric = T, Phlegmatic/Sanguine = F), J/P (as with T/F, substituting J for T and P for F), N/S (as with T/F and J/P, N in the T/J spot and S in the F/P spot), and the Big 5 Neuroticism link (with the same split). So without further clarity, I wouldn't want to state anything too certainly, except that I do think the I/E link is reasonably clear - I definitely don't think it's an absolute link, or even near to it, but rather I simply think more Choleric and Sanguine types will be E in MBTI than I, and the reverse for Melancholic and Phlegmatic types.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> I don't know if it's necessarily clear, since descriptions differ in sometimes quite substantially ways. Without knowing what sources might be deemed to reliably reflect the theory proper, and which are essentially different theories, I couldn't provide a specific "essence" for each, except to say that the general gist of the descriptions should provide it.
> 
> What makes it clear that hot/cold and wet/dry is the best way to read the four temperaments? Perhaps those dichotomies are merely attempts to "explain" the temperaments, that might not capture the full picture of what each type is supposed to be.
> 
> ...


I apologize for my delayed response... and I appreciate your detailed comment. 


This is the most definition-like source that we have got. Do you agree?

Five Temperaments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*sanguine* quick, impulsive, and relatively short-lived reactions. (hot/wet)
*phlegmatic* a longer response-delay, but short-lived response. (cold/wet)
*choleric* short response time-delay, but response sustained for a relatively long time. (hot/dry)
*melancholic* long response time-delay, response sustained at length, if not, seemingly, permanently. (cold/dry)

"Therefore, it was evident that the sanguine and choleric shared a common trait: quickness of response, while the melancholy and phlegmatic shared the opposite, a longer response. The melancholy and choleric, however, shared a sustained response, and the sanguine and phlegmatic shared a short-lived response. That meant that the Choleric and melancholy both would tend to hang on to emotions like anger, and thus appear more serious and critical than the fun-loving sanguine, and the peaceful phlegmatic. However, the choleric would be characterized by quick expressions of anger, while the melancholy would build up anger slowly, silently, before exploding. Also, the melancholy and sanguine would be sort of "opposites", as the choleric and phlegmatic, since they have opposite traits."

If there is a connection between S/N and wet/dry (which I think is obvious), then ENFP belongs to the melancholic temperament or the choleric temperament, right?

My mother is ISFJ and my father is ISTJ. Neither of them holds a grudge, and _melancholic _or _choleric_ doesn't fit. SJs are very focused on their own life and don't like to dwell on problems.

Victor Gulenko (describing ILI, i.e. INTJ):

+Ni (ILI) = *constraining their hot temper*, these sociotypes prefer to advance gradually into the future, though they may sharply reject obsolete ideas, criticizing past mistakes. Advancing step by step, they generally believe in the linearity of development, i.e. according to their deep convictions, it is only necessary to remove obstacles, remnants of the past, and immediately this will open endless possibilities for growth. This quadra is not afraid of chaos and upheavals: they know how to conduct their work under conditions of change, risk and confusion.

Vargo + Lewis Career Consultants

Implementor (INTJ, see post # 1) : creative... and *temperamental


*Are ESFJs quick and impulsive? Watch Jessica Alba and Jennifer Lopez on Youtube.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

What do you think about these descriptions?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Tellus said:


> I apologize for my delayed response... and I appreciate your detailed comment.
> 
> 
> This is the most definition-like source that we have got. Do you agree?
> ...


I think it's hard to say that the concepts of hot/cold and wet/dry aren't an inherent part of the Four Temperaments theory, but what about them makes them definitional to the exclusion of other potentially defining factors? (The same argument, I think, holds for most sources.) In the absence of any answer I can really see to that question, we can't simply use the seeming connection between S/N and wet/dry, since we don't know whether any other defining factor of Four Temperament theory intersects with S/N in any way - an important consideration, since it may be the case (and I think it fairly clear is if you accept full descriptions in most theories) that the differences between the two theories make linking them implausible (say, if you wanted to link MBTI to another theory where what T and F typically mean are so intersected that discerning anything about a person's T/F preference in MBTI from their type in the other theory is practically impossible). And that point means that we can't simply take any N type in MBTI and assume dryness, &c., &c.

Why ought I to assume that the two people you've listed are ESFJs? How was that determined? 



Tellus said:


> What do you think about these descriptions?
> 
> View attachment 332601


They're very specific; accept any particular claim made there as necessary for being that type, and it's quite plausible that someone exists who seems otherwise to belong to that category, but won't match that particular claim. I'm not sure what to make of it beyond that it makes a lot of claims but, as with most sources, provides no clarification as to the specific workings of the system.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> I think it's hard to say that the concepts of hot/cold and wet/dry aren't an inherent part of the Four Temperaments theory, but what about them makes them definitional to the exclusion of other potentially defining factors? (The same argument, I think, holds for most sources.) In the absence of any answer I can really see to that question, we can't simply use the seeming connection between S/N and wet/dry, since we don't know whether any other defining factor of Four Temperament theory intersects with S/N in any way - an important consideration, since it may be the case (and I think it fairly clear is if you accept full descriptions in most theories) that the differences between the two theories make linking them implausible (say, if you wanted to link MBTI to another theory where what T and F typically mean are so intersected that discerning anything about a person's T/F preference in MBTI from their type in the other theory is practically impossible). And that point means that we can't simply take any N type in MBTI and assume dryness, &c., &c.


Which "other potentially defining factors"?



> Why ought I to assume that the two people you've listed are ESFJs? How was that determined?


Well, Jessica Alba and Jennifer Lopez _are_ ESFJs. This is according to my typing and this: 

http://personalitycafe.com/guess-type/99937-jennifer-lopez.html

"I think she's a poster girl for ESFJ honestly."

Famous ESFJs - CelebrityTypes.com




> They're very specific; accept any particular claim made there as necessary for being that type, and it's quite plausible that someone exists who seems otherwise to belong to that category, but won't match that particular claim. I'm not sure what to make of it beyond that it makes a lot of claims but, as with most sources, provides no clarification as to the specific workings of the system.


Yes, they are very specific, but I still think these descriptions suggest that my claim about the four temperaments is pretty accurate. SJs: love to talk about food, dress conservatively, good memory (Si), show calm strength etc SPs: the present... here and now (Se), new and colorful clothing etc NJs: interested in the self, world and future (Ni), walk firmly, like challenges NPs: well, do you think these descriptions match xNxP?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Tellus said:


> Which "other potentially defining factors"?


Any element of the Four Temperaments theory that might be definitional in nature. The question of what aspects of the theory are necessary for a person to be of that temperament has not yet been satisfactorily answered; what basis is there for assuming that hot/cold and wet/dry are necessary, to the exclusion of any other information about temperaments? That assumption is key to the argument you're presenting, but I don't see how it's substantiated.



> Well, Jessica Alba and Jennifer Lopez _are_ ESFJs. This is according to my typing and this:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/guess-type/99937-jennifer-lopez.html
> 
> ...


What does that prove? Why should I trust your typing, or that of other PerC members, or CelebrityTypes? I don't really have any reason to view any of those as reliable sources of information about individuals' types.

In any case, I would agree with the general point you were making there about the "quick and impulsive" character ascribed to Sanguine not matching up too well with ESFJ, and that it associates far better with a perceiving preference (worth noting that all of this is based on general impressions, given the continued lack of clear definitions). I think that just supports my point, though, that treating Four Temperaments theory as though it applies to only two MBTI dimensions is fraught with issues, because each temperament attempts to contain a full picture of personality and thus touches on all four dimensions (and beyond, given, for instance, the link to Big 5 Neuroticism). So no, the "quick and impulsive" aspect of Sanguine doesn't really line up with ESFJ, because it clashes with the P-like nature of Sanguine - but the same problem is encountered when trying to link ESFJ with Phlegmatic, particularly in relation to I/E. 



> Yes, they are very specific, but I still think these descriptions suggest that my claim about the four temperaments is pretty accurate. SJs: love to talk about food, dress conservatively, good memory (Si), show calm strength etc SPs: the present... here and now (Se), new and colorful clothing etc NJs: interested in the self, world and future (Ni), walk firmly, like challenges NPs: well, do you think these descriptions match xNxP?


Would you say that NPs, considered as a whole group, tend to dress in "drab, dark, solid colours", or that their interest is in the past, or that they have a good memory concerning the self, or that suffering is a central plank in their worldview in a way it isn't for non-NPs? I'm not necessarily denying that you can make out some links between the temperaments and the preferences you're claiming they correspond to, but there's a lot of confirmation bias involved as far as excluding those elements which don't seem to fit goes - the biggest issue, for me, being that the clear I/E connection is completely disregarded. 

I don't see how this argument can really be made to work unless some reason can be given for why the four temperaments can be reduced solely to hot/cold and wet/dry.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

I may be a broken record here (does anybody even know what one is? what it sounds like? anyway...) but I think that Keirsey does probably the best job of anybody even remotely connected with MBTI (and the sixteen types) at linking temperament to MBTI.

What he does is go back to the very beginning of the theory/idea, and look for terms that described the four temperaments, and compile them all together, tracing their usage through the various proponents and their theories up to the present. He sometimes seems a bit loose in his interpretation. For instance Spränger's (I think) theory envisioned six types, and he only mentions four. He doesn't give his reason for it, but when I looked at Spränger's theory, I could see why--the last two are a bit redundant, kind of like the fifth temperament in the four temperament theory (limpid?). But this part of the book wasn't intended to be a major part, just a quick tracing of his path to his theory, and I presume he didn't want to get bogged down on all the rabbit trails. 

And to come back to the whole four temperament theory. I remember studying this in college, and every time I was presented with it, I felt it came short. For most people, no one description fit them perfectly. It always seemed to me, that I, and most people I knew, were a combination of two, or even three temperaments. On the other hand, the way that Keirsey divides them up, it is very clear that one is either an SJ or an SP or an NT or an NF. And yes, there are differences within each of his four temperaments, but still, one would probably find it hard to identify themselves as straddling between temperaments according to what Keirsey says. 

One can break down the sixteen types into four groups with other arrangements of letters, but then they don't create distinct groups that don't have that same "crossover" effect as Keirsey's four groups--for instance, NPs. There are big differences between NFPs and NTPs that preclude any real coherence. Or look at IPs. There are common traits among all of them, yet they are very different in very significant ways. However, the differences between SPs, despite the fact that some of us are introverts and others extraverts are small enough that the bond between us is much stronger than the differences. It is this coherence that, IMO, makes Keirsey's theory so much more workable than all the other four groups breakdowns. I think that Keirsey nailed the two most salient characteristics (two letters) for each grouping. This is based on my own observations of people I know and spend time around. 

I gotta comment on this one point, though: 



> In any case, I would agree with the general point you were making there about the "quick and impulsive" character ascribed to Sanguine not matching up too well with ESFJ, and that it associates far better with a perceiving preference




I think that almost all Je-doms are impulsive, in the sense that they tend to speak their mind first, and only later regulate it. They tend to be quick to judge in my opinion. Pe-doms are quick to do or observe (or comment on what they have observed), but Je-doms are quick to judge. This is more an extraverted thing than judging or perceiving. At least, that's been my experience. 

And.... I doubt I've added much here... I guess that, since I wrote it, I'll send it... But honestly, the more I "play" with Keirsey's theory, and the more I understand it, the more I like it...


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I gotta comment on this one point, though:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that almost all Je-doms are impulsive, in the sense that they tend to speak their mind first, and only later regulate it. They tend to be quick to judge in my opinion. Pe-doms are quick to do or observe (or comment on what they have observed), but Je-doms are quick to judge. This is more an extraverted thing than judging or perceiving. At least, that's been my experience.


To your point, according to MBTI there is this idea of do-think-do for Extraverted types and think-do-think for Introverted types.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> Any element of the Four Temperaments theory that might be definitional in nature. The question of what aspects of the theory are necessary for a person to be of that temperament has not yet been satisfactorily answered; what basis is there for assuming that hot/cold and wet/dry are necessary, to the exclusion of any other information about temperaments? That assumption is key to the argument you're presenting, but I don't see how it's substantiated.
> What does that prove? Why should I trust your typing, or that of other PerC members, or CelebrityTypes? I don't really have any reason to view any of those as reliable sources of information about individuals' types.
> In any case, I would agree with the general point you were making there about the "quick and impulsive" character ascribed to Sanguine not matching up too well with ESFJ, and that it associates far better with a perceiving preference (worth noting that all of this is based on general impressions, given the continued lack of clear definitions). I think that just supports my point, though, that treating Four Temperaments theory as though it applies to only two MBTI dimensions is fraught with issues, because each temperament attempts to contain a full picture of personality and thus touches on all four dimensions (and beyond, given, for instance, the link to Big 5 Neuroticism). So no, the "quick and impulsive" aspect of Sanguine doesn't really line up with ESFJ, because it clashes with the P-like nature of Sanguine - but the same problem is encountered when trying to link ESFJ with Phlegmatic, particularly in relation to I/E.
> Would you say that NPs, considered as a whole group, tend to dress in "drab, dark, solid colours", or that their interest is in the past, or that they have a good memory concerning the self, or that suffering is a central plank in their worldview in a way it isn't for non-NPs? I'm not necessarily denying that you can make out some links between the temperaments and the preferences you're claiming they correspond to, but there's a lot of confirmation bias involved as far as excluding those elements which don't seem to fit goes - the biggest issue, for me, being that the clear I/E connection is completely disregarded.



This illustrates the difference between INTP's -Ti and INTJ's +Ti. (Ti = subjective logic, to theorize... 
'-' minimize the negative, '+' maximize the positive) 




> I don't see how this argument can really be made to work unless some reason can be given for why the four temperaments can be reduced solely to hot/cold and wet/dry.



You don't trust hot/cold, wet/dry and you haven't provided "the essence" (your word) of the four temperaments. I have nothing more to add.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Tellus said:


> This illustrates the difference between INTP's -Ti and INTJ's +Ti. (Ti = subjective logic, to theorize...
> '-' minimize the negative, '+' maximize the positive)


As before, I'm claiming no great knowledge of Socionics, but:
+ Ti - specificity, itemization, detailed study, thoroughness, accuracy, strictness, place in hierarchy, regulations, instructions, choosing the best option, precision of function, logic of organization, indicators, reporting;
− Ti - abstractness, generality, universality, system, classification, typology, general regularities, objectivity, truth, justice, comprehensive review, analysis, dissection, the logic of science, criteria;
(Gulenko, apparently; sourced from here. I gather this is now not adhered to by most Socionists, but my brief search found no more modern encapsulations of what you were referring to, hence why I've linked this one.)

Care to demonstrate how our interaction illustrates this difference? I'm not seeing it.



> You don't trust hot/cold, wet/dry and you haven't provided "the essence" (your word) of the four temperaments. I have nothing more to add.


I should think the onus is on you to show why the assumptions you make are reasonable ones. If you've no interest in doing that, then I guess that's where the discussion on that topic ends.



ferroequinologist said:


> I gotta comment on this one point, though:
> 
> [...]
> 
> I think that almost all Je-doms are impulsive, in the sense that they tend to speak their mind first, and only later regulate it. They tend to be quick to judge in my opinion. Pe-doms are quick to do or observe (or comment on what they have observed), but Je-doms are quick to judge. This is more an extraverted thing than judging or perceiving. At least, that's been my experience.





PaladinX said:


> To your point, according to MBTI there is this idea of do-think-do for Extraverted types and think-do-think for Introverted types.


Fair points, actually, and an angle I rather neglected. I'd also add that J types are said to seek closure, which could also motivate "quick and impulsive" behaviour (in contrast with the P types' desire to keep things open). I still think Sanguine seems to me more P-like overall, but there's certainly scope for it to apply to J types (particularly if they match up on other factors, such as E and F).


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> As before, I'm claiming no great knowledge of Socionics, but:
> + Ti - specificity, itemization, detailed study, thoroughness, accuracy, strictness, place in hierarchy, regulations, instructions, choosing the best option, precision of function, logic of organization, indicators, reporting;
> − Ti - abstractness, generality, universality, system, classification, typology, general regularities, objectivity, truth, justice, comprehensive review, analysis, dissection, the logic of science, criteria;
> (Gulenko, apparently; sourced from here. I gather this is now not adhered to by most Socionists, but my brief search found no more modern encapsulations of what you were referring to, hence why I've linked this one.)
> Care to demonstrate how our interaction illustrates this difference? I'm not seeing it.


This is off topic so I will keep it short. There could be some truth to those distinctions from Gulenko, but I am not convinced.

+Ti: maximize the positive, optimistic, narrow focus, personal (INTJ has +Ti as an ego function)

-Ti: minimize the negative, realistic, a wide range of interests (INTP has -Ti as an ego function)

Another big difference is that INTP has -Ti as an accepting function, but INTJ has +Ti as a producing function. Learn more about Socionics... it is superior to MBTI in every way.

-Ti (INTP): focus on both the positive and the negative aspects of Ti. INTPs are careful when it comes to theories. This is not the case with INTJs, since our understanding is based on -Ne/+Ni (model B). +Ti isn't interested in the negative aspects of Ti. I don't want to consider the negative aspects of my "theory", partly as a result of my 4-dimensional (most preferred) -Ne. 



> I should think the onus is on you to show why the assumptions you make are reasonable ones. If you've no interest in doing that, then I guess that's where the discussion on that topic ends.


I was a bit unfair since you actually have provided a viewpoint.

You: extroversion/introversion + the essence of the four temperaments, which you want me to define (?).

I: dry/wet, hot/cold + various descriptions


I have just learnt that there is a strong connection between bipolar disorder and ENxP. This makes me even more convinced that those melancholic people Galen observed 2000 years ago actually were NPs.

INTJs are neither melancholic nor phlegmatic, which makes the E/I-connection very problematic.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

For the millionth time:

*THINKING AND FEELING AREN'T A DICHOTOMY! THEY ARE UNRELATED!* *THEY WOULD BE SEPERATE SCALES ON A QUALITY TEST LIKE BIG 5 OR MMPI(AS IT SHOULD BE).*


Really why do people keep insisting on that?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Ixim said:


> For the millionth time:
> 
> *THINKING AND FEELING AREN'T A DICHOTOMY! THEY ARE UNRELATED!* *THEY WOULD BE SEPERATE SCALES ON A QUALITY TEST LIKE BIG 5 OR MMPI(AS IT SHOULD BE).*
> 
> ...


Because they are.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Ixim said:


> For the millionth time:
> 
> *THINKING AND FEELING AREN'T A DICHOTOMY! THEY ARE UNRELATED!* *THEY WOULD BE SEPERATE SCALES ON A QUALITY TEST LIKE BIG 5 OR MMPI(AS IT SHOULD BE).*
> 
> ...



LOL 

"Do you use T or F?" is not the same as "Do you prefer T over F?"

Unrelated??? Okay, so Jung and everyone else are dead wrong?

BIG 5 is superior in some ways but inferior when it comes to typology.


----------

