The APS system:
•Five temperament matrix image
•Interactive Graphic of temperaments
•"Four to Five" image
•Inclusion, Control & Affection
•The five temperaments in IC&A
•Summary: The unifying principle of personality
•Image of 125 temperament combinations
MyersBriggs/Keirsey/Berens vs FIRO/Arno/Worley (and LaHaye)
•type letter group table
•Arno-Berens overlaid matrix image
•Type/temperament blend correlation
•correlation image
•T/F/J/P "responsiveness" table
•Galen to Keirsey "flip" image
•comparisons of factors with FFM table and image
Beebe-Thomson image
•Developing of functions from Beebe/Thomson input
•differentiation image
Established tandem names
•28 possible tandem combinations
Intertype dynamics
Naming the preference blocks
Naming specific tandem function combinations
Objective/Subjective
Type Name table
Grand table of comparison of systems
Temperament/Type series:
Temperament For Dummies part 1: APS and Expressive/Responive system
"Temperament for Dummies" part 2: MBTI and the Functions from scratch
Evolving the MBTI-APS Correlation (longer page from where most of this page is taken)
To SHORTER Essay on correlation
Part 3: Enneagram and other systems
Part 4: Dynamic type (Adding moderate scales to MBTI for 81 types)
APS and the Fifth Temperament
APS "E/R×ICA" matrix:
Interactive Graphic of temperaments (From www.mindtweaks.com)
How Fifth temperament was derived:
The Three Need Areas (Derived from FIRO):
Inclusion (How much you generally include other people in your life and how much attention, contact, and recognition you want from others)
Control (How much influence and responsibility you need, and how much you want others to lead and establish procedures and policies), and
Affection; (How close and warm you are with others and to what extent you want others to show warmth and support to you).
The Five Temperaments across the three areas:
| INCLUSION: Who is IN or OUT of the relationship | CONTROL: Who maintains the POWER and makes the DECISIONS for the relationship | AFFECTION: How emotionally CLOSE or FAR the relationship | |
| Melancholy | Everyone OUT, except for "Exclusive Club" | "I don't control you, so please don't try to control me" | generally, emotionally FAR |
| Sanguine | Everybody "IN" ("Come on in!") | Controls or being controlled according to "SWING" | Emotionally CLOSE |
| Choleric | Don't call me; I'll call you; until then, OUT! (except for "Exclusive Club") | "I'M the Boss!" | emotionally FAR, unless you meet CRITERIA |
| Supine | Everybody IN; but you must reach out and invite me! | "YOU'RE the Boss!" | emotionally CLOSE, but you must reach out to me |
| Phlegmatic | "Take 'em or leave 'em" | Democratic; "Let's all be Boss!" | moderate; take it or leave it |
Summary: The unifying principle
All of this shows that the factors of expressive and responsive behavior provide an underlying framework for understanding personality. It is the basis of communication. We express to others, and respond to (or want from) them. As we shall see, the E/R matrix becomes a unifying principle that will allow us to make easier comparisons to several other temperament and personality type systems. This framework even helps us right now visually represent the temperaments.
Five Temperaments and Dr. Leo Ryan "clinical Interpretation of FIRO-B" names on combined I/C/A "locator chart" grid
| generic term | Area | code | Keirsey | Berens | FIRO/APS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| affective | social | E/I + S + T/F; E/I + N + J/P | "roles of Interaction" | Interaction Styles | Inclusion; Affection |
| conative | action | S + J/P; N + T/F | "temperament" | "temperament" | Control |
| cognitive | processing | S,N,T,F + J/P | N/A (rejected) | Cognitive Processes (Jung/Beebe) | omitted, but implied by possible correlation |
The way the factors seem to line up:
| code | Keirsey | Berens | APS (approximate) |
| SJ | Guardian | Stabilizer | Melancholy in Control |
| SP | Artisan | Improviser | Sanguine in Control |
| NF | Idealist | Catalyst | Phlegmatic or Supine in Control |
| NT | Rational | Theorist | Choleric in Control |
| IST/INJ | Contender | Chart the Course | Melancholy in Inclusion |
| ISF/INP | Responder | Behind the Scenes | Phlegmatic or Supine in Inclusion |
| EST/ENJ | Initiator | In Charge | Choleric in Inclusion |
| ESF/ENP | Coworker | Get Things Going | Sanguine in Inclusion |
| Expressive | Initiating | High Expressed Inclusion (eI) | |
| Reserved | Responding | Low Expressed Inclusion (eI) | |
| [S]+F; [N]+P | Role-Informative | Informing | High Wanted Inclusion (wI) |
| [S]+T; [N]+J | Role-Directive | Directing | Low Wanted Inclusion (wI) |
| [N]+T; [S]+P | Pragmatic, Utilitarian | Pragmatic | High Expressed Control (eC) |
| [N]+F; [S]+J | Cooperative | Affiliative | Low Expressed Control (eC) |
| [N]+F; [S]+P | N/A | Motive | High Wanted Control (wC) |
| [N]+T; [S]+J | N/A | Structure | Low Wanted Control (wC) |
| N/A | N/A | Process (Movement) | eI≈wI (Direct) |
| N/A | N/A | Outcome (Control) | eI≠wI (Indirect) |
| concrete | concrete | eC≈wC | |
| abstract, introspective | abstract | eC≠wC |
The 16 types, to use LaHaye’s combinations (with the "primary" temperament presumed to be Inclusion or Interaction Style, and the “secondary” to be Control or conative):
ISTJ: pure Melancholy Converting the Galen/Marston/Merrill Matrix to Kant/Kretschmer/Keirsey How EISeNFelT and FFM factors fit on APS E/R matrices. Temperament key is small matrix to left of title
Free online Five Temperament Test: ("traits chart" version by MindTweaks; Reg Atkins/Tori Deaux)
Temperaments.info (Pastoral Counseling Center) Most online info on APS besides this page, and questionnaire can be ordered online. Integration of Beebe and Thomson models (line becomes a circle): Based on Beebe's model with input from Lenore Thomson, here is how I now understand a person develops with the functions: •The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world.
•The ego chooses its dominant function, which it receives stimili from in its preferred realm. •Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the rejected perceiving mode of processing, as well as it being in the rejected outer orientation.
These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes.
•So the rejected outer orientation of the [otherwise internal] Thinking then becomes apart of an oppositional complex. •The opposite function from the dominant, Feeling, will be inferior and most rejected, yet in the opposite outer orientation will be what the ego believes will complete it. •A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude. So using Lenore's theory with Beebe's theory seems to fill in some gaps and create a more complete theory!
1/4; 5/8: spines (Beebe) The 28 possible tandem combinations (my extension of this)
With brain lateralization, we could also make tandems out of the resulting pairs of alternatives. The dominant and last place (1/8) I think of as the "superspine", and the auxilary and 7th place (2/7) as the "superarm". Since both inferior and oppositional (4/5) are said to be opposite gender, and are in the middle of the list, they can be called the "contrasexual core". So for the INTP: People have said that they like Socionics better because it goes more into intertype dynamics, where MBTI doesn't. But what is Beebe's model but the groundwork for the same dynamics?! That is what attracted me to it in the first place, and still makes me think of it as the most complete. So I had proposed names for all of the type relations, which do imply what the relations would be like. A few concepts are taken from Socionics, as they seem like good descriptors, and for familiarity sake. Here are how the relations are determined:
Compatible (same quadra) Incompatible (alternate quadra) Rationally compatible (adjacent quadra) Irrationally compatible (opposite quadra) Example: INTP
Compatible (Alpha quadra) incompatible (Gamma Quadra) rationally compatible (Beta quadra) irrationally compatible (Delta quadra) I would also divide all eight functions into pairs, which all display similar roles. (Socionics does this, calling them "blocks"; however the order of the last six functions is different from John Beebe's, which I'm using here). Both dominant and auxiliary (lead and supporting) as "preferred", by themselves determine the one-in-sixteen type.
The tertiary and inferior develop later, and the tertiary is known as "the eternal child" or "relief", while the inferior remains immature even longer. The way we behave with it is also described as "childish" and immature. So we see a common thread with both postions of functions: immaturity, "childlike innocense" and "vulnerability").
Likewise, the fifth and sixth (in the nearest area of the shadow) are "opposing personality" and "immobilizing" or "critical". The common theme here is resistance to something, either present or future. I also call them the "near shadow".
The deepest shadow consist of "deceiving" and "destructive". Both share in common a regretting of actions taken with the function.
So I would name the four resultant pair blocks:
1,2: Preferred (Socionics: "Valued/Strong") I have found a great parallel between the blocks and the four playing card suits:
1/2: ♦ diamonds: the ego's most cherished goals This is useful for grouping together the functions shared in common by either the two-letter function attitude combinations (SP, SJ, NP, NJ, TP, TJ, FP, FJ) or three letter "intelligence types": STP, STJ, NTP, NTJ, SFP, SFJ, NFP, NFJ), for whom either one or both functions will fall into the same block. Keirsey had said that I/E was the least important factor, and even the EAR study supported it. So when speaking of TP's, for instance, we can mention "resistant Te", or "regrettable Fi". When talking about NTP's, they will both have "immature Si".
I also decided to give names to the tandems by which process occupies them. Still reconsidering these, since the names are clunky, and did not resonate with people I mentioned them to:
Se/Ni: experience + anticipate = "aspective" (ad "to", -spect "look". Originally considered "prostatospective (pro "forward", stat "stand"; but people said it was too complicated, and it was even hard for me to remember on the spot) Ne/Si: relive + conceive from = circumspective (to "look around"). Te/Fi: evaluate + organize = systemic (short for "systemiorational", since "systemic" can be confusing because of its commonality) Fe/Ti: analyze + relate to = harmonic (short for "harmoniorational") Of course, some of these terms may seem ambiguous. You can look at TiFe as building "systems" (theoretical or social), and of course, Fi is connected with "harmony"; but that is inner harmony. You could even stretch it and call Te's "efficiency" a kind of "harmony". But "system" is a better fit for that one. The terms thus tend to lean toward what is extraverted (shown to the outer world) of the two.
Surprised nobody in MBTI ever named these. Beebe named the tandem positions (spine/arm, which are called "rational" or "irrational" depending on whether they are occupied by J or P functions), but the actual processes occupying them would be useful as well. You can even be more specific and use these new terms with those names. So when I help with looking for the best-fit preferences for many supposed "NiTi" types in discussions, who often weigh between INTP and INFJ, because of high Ti and Ni in cognitive process tests; I can now say that they have an obvious "aspective" preference, since Ni and Se are high, and Ne is low. So INTP is very unlikely, though the person looks like it because of the Ti + abstract focus. I can then suggest another aspective type into the mix, such as ISTP. (In addition to INFJ). ISTP will be Ti dominant, followed by Se. If they think their Ni is high, we can point out that it may actually be tertiary, which is said to often "inflate" itself, and appear preferred. Each pair of three letter Intelligence type can be addressed by their tandem pairs (Socionics had already done this identifying "Quadras" using Greek letter names):
SFP/NTJ: "aspective systemicists" (Gamma)
Objective processing=Perception (P) The eight functions are then expressed as:
Objective processing of Objective data from Objective source (OOO): Se This basically reduces the four dichotomies down to one!
Table of Comparisons: Moderate blends
© ETB 2007-9
ISTP: MelSan
ISFP: PhlegSan or SupSan
ISFJ: PhlegMel or SupMel
ESTP: ChlorSan
ESTJ: ChlorMel
ESFP: pure Sanguine
ESFJ: SanMel
INFJ: MelPhleg or MelSup
INTJ: MelChlor
INFP: Supine & Phlegmatic; pure or blended together
INTP: PhlegChlor or SupChlor
ENFP: SanPhleg or SanSup
ENFJ: ChlorPhleg or ChlorSup
ENTP: SanChlor
ENTJ: pure Choleric
Nonresponsive Responsive Concrete (S) Abstract (N) Orientation of preferred decision making function
Judgments/decisions are based on EXTERNAL standards ("that's just the way it is; too tough; nothing can be done about it") perception is internally referenced ("I KNOW inside that this is true; I remember/foresee...")
Perception is what is externally referenced ("let's see what we can do about this; let's look at the options; let's experience the thrill of the moment") judgments/decisions are based on INTERNAL standards ("this is how I think/feel; my opinion is...")(perception attitudes)
+J=Internal: schedules according to familiar structure
+P=External: probes current reality (and motives)
(perception attitudes)
+J=Internal: schedules and directs according to foresight
+P=External: probes possibilities, open ended, informative
The decision making functions themselves
THING oriented (IMPERSONAL)
judgment/decision making is based on logical principles ("This is true/false; that's just the way it is; the way we feel won't change that")
PERSONAL oriented
Judgment/decision making is based on values or ethics ("This is good/bad; it means so much to me/us; we should empathize and offer help")(preferred function pairs)
+T: directs according to concrete principles
+F: informs according to concrete values(preferred function pairs)
+T: acts in accordance with logical structures
+F: acts in accordance with ethical motives
16 types models ("EISeNFelT") FFM Category ("Big Five") FIRO/APS ("ERICA") E/I (extraversion/introversion) Extraversion "Expressed" Inclusion (eI) "Informing/Directing"* Agreeableness "Wanted" Inclusion (wI) "Cooperative/Pragmatic"* Conscientiousness "Expressed Control" (eC) "Structure/Motive" orientation"* "Wanted Control" (wC) S/N (concrete/abstract) Openness (to new experiences) eC-wC congruence/incongruence**
(Comfort/Discomfort —TDI only) Neuroticism Low e and/or w—high or mod. e and w**
*Factors determined by T, F, J and P
**Not official "factor"; only inferred
•Descriptions of each temperament variation in each of the the three areas
If Thinking (for instance) is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the rejected orientation; this case being the outer world).
•The perception rejected from the internal world by the auxiliary then takes on a negative parent role.
•Internally, it will remain the most rejected of all by the ego, and take on the most negative role.
•The aspects of the perception function not internalized by the child remain external, and take on a negative childlike nature.
2/3, 6/7: arms (Beebe)
1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8: blocks (Socionics)
1/3, 2/4: I/E faces (Reinhold, Personality Pathways)
Even more tandems can be made out of other pairups that might occur. Like under stress, I might make the lateral transformation from Ti to Fi, but maintain my Ne. Hence, I will come off as an NFP (which I believe is part of what was happening in my discovery process when I seemed to possibly be ENFP). So that is the parent working with the demon (2/8), sort of simulating the NFP's hero-parent (1/2) combination. It's like a "block" split between the primary and shadow ranges. The same can hold true for a hero-trickster (1/7) combo (when I'm using logic and facts to try to trap someone in an argument), a child-opposing personality (3/5), and anima-witch (4/6). These I guess I'll call "superblocks". While the ego block will represent the type's "intelligence variant" (last three letters), the other blocks and superblocks will yield the other seven variants. 3/6 (child-witch) would be "compensatory arm", since the witch will step in to protect the child. And then, 1/6, 2/5, 3/8 and 4/7 can be called "superfaces" (since they also will share the same attitude). Since there are two pairs of introverted and extraverted, they can be distinguished as "upper" and "lower". The parallel function attitudes of the primary and its shadow (1/4, 2/5, 3/7 and 4/8) are basicaly the original "whole" functions!
TiNe ego (preferred/mature) block (NTP)
TiSi primary introverted face
TiFe primary spine
TiTe whole dominant function (T)
TiNi upper introverted superface
TiSe dominant superblock (STP)
TiFi superspine
NeSi primary arm
NeFe primary extraverted face
NeTe upper extraverted superface
NeNi whole auxiliary function (N)
NeSe superarm
NeFi auxiliary superblock (NFP)
SiFe vulnerable/immature block (SFJ)
SiTe tertiary superblock (STJ)
SiNi compensatory arm
SiSe whole tertiary function (S)
SiFi lower introverted superface
FeTe contrasexual core
FeNi inferior superblock (NFJ)
FeSe lower extraverted superface
FeFi whole inferior function (F)
TeNi resistant block (NTJ)
TeSe shadow extraverted face
TeFi shadow spine
NiSe shadow arm
NiFi shadow introverted face
SeFi regrettable/reactive block (SFP)
Problem is, he does not seem to have any complete listing of all the intertype relations. You find only particular examples in Beebe's articles/interviews or knowledgeable people's discussions. I recently even contacted him, asking which article would contain the most information, and while he pointed to "Understanding Consciousness Through The Theory Of Psychological Types" which contained a lot of useful information about how he put together the model (goes more in depth than "Evolving the Eight Process Model"), it doesn't go into examples for all type relations, and apparently, he has not put together any such project.
Then, I eventually find that the Type Logic site has its own names for the intertype relations:
Relationship Pairs: Definitions
If you click on the type profiles on the site, at the bottom, you will see each Type Relation name, whih is a link to the correspondign type's profile. You can also purchase the software (link at bottom of above linked page).
XXXX Identity (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 = A1, B2, C1, D2, A2, B1, C2, D1)
yXXX Pal (ETB: I/E companion) (2,1, 4,3 = B2, A1; D2, C1; etc)
Xyyy Supplement (ETB:[right/left brain] counterpart (syntonic block opposite)); (3, 4, 1, 2)
yyyy Anima (Beebe: "inverse relationship"; ETB syntonic opposite; aka "dual") (4, 3, 2, 1)
yXXy Contrast (opposing personality/attitude-antagonistic; ETB: dystonic parallel) (5,6,7,8 = A2, B1, etc.)
XXXy Complement (ETB: J/P antitype (aka Quasi-identity)) (B1, A2, D1, C2, etc)
yyyX Novelty (ETB: dystonic block opposite) (7,8, 5,6, etc)
XyyX Enigma (McAlpine, "Dynamic Opposite"; ETB: dystonic (total) opposite) (8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1)
XyXX Neighbor (ETB: rational comrade/(kindred); semi-identity) (A1, C2, B1, D2 etc)
yyXX Counterpart (ETB: rational semicomrade)
XXyy Advisor (ETB: semi-benefit —because of shared hero-child relationship with common S/N "language")
yXyy Pedagogue (ETB: irrational semiopposite, semi-anima)
XXyX Companion (ETB: irrational comrade/kindred) D1, B2, C1, A2)
yXyX Tribesman (ETB: irrational semicomrade)
XyXy Suitemate (ETB: social image semi-antitype)
yyXy Cohort (ETB: rational semiopposite; semi-opposing personality; semi-dual)
INTP Identity
ENTP Pal
ISFJ Supplement
ESFJ Anima
ENTJ Contrast
INTJ Complement
ESFP Novelty
ISFP Enigma
ISTP Neighbor
ESTP Counterpart
INFJ Advisor
ENFJ Pedagogue (semi-dual)
INFP Companion
ENFP Tribesman
ISTJ Suit-mate
ESTJ Cohort
3,4: Vulnerable (aka "non-preferred"; also looking at "immature"; Socionics: "Valued/Weak")
5,6: Resistant (or "near shadow"; Socionics: "Subdued/Strong")
7,8: Regrettable (or "deep shadow"; socionics: "Subdued/Weak")
3/4: ♥ hearts: the vulnerable, innocent area
5/6: ♠ spades (sharp weapon)
7/8: ♣ clubs (blunt weapon)
You deal in the now and forward
You look around both to the past, and to all the possibilities in the present. Much less about the "here and now". Possibilities are known from past experience, so the two functions naturally work together. In the "spacetime" illustration, above, This pair governs all but the top quadrant.
This is one of the ones that really got me thinking of this. Like in the political debates. This is obviously a very Te society. Yet Fi seems to be a bit more suited to it. I think of the dominant "organizing" forces, which organize things to be efficient, with themselves as the main beneficiaries, and despite the rest of the economy (and thus are very much into what is important to themselves). Then you will have apparently diametric opposite Fi types (like Joe the Plumber), who look up to them, and oppose government intrusion because it violates their value that a person should keep whatever they "earned". I being stuck in this mess with so many others being passive like that; the term that comes to mind is "The System". To be fair, on the liberal side, others will speak out against this from their Fi and then organize demonstrations or whatever. This is would be basically an attempt at an opposing "system".
So the common theme of Te/Fi seems to be "system". Te aggressively "leads" in "organizing", and Fi seems more passive, but is nevertheless still supporting the system with its valuing. You evaluate what's important, and then go build on it.
Inbetween the directiveness or informativeness of the other J tandem, Ti and Fe aren't as much about systems. Ti analyzes to find underlying principles, and then build theoretical models to solve problems, such as finding common denominators, harmonizing, clarifying, and hoping to find the simplest formula that can explain the universe.
Fe of course builds interpersonal connections. So it seems different types of "harmony" are the common theme of this pair.
In Socionics, however, the perception groups are the "Romance Styles", and the judging groups are apart of the "Reinin Dichotomies":
Aspective = "Aggressor/Victim"
Circumspective = "Caregiver/Infantile"
Harmonic = "Merry"
Systemic = "Serious"
When discussing relationship type matches between an NFP and NTP, we can say "you're both 'circumspective' types, so you'll 'perceive things the same way'". In a personality clash, instead of "the real clash is Ne/i-Si/e; not Te/i-Fi/e”; I can say “the real clash is between a circumspective and aspective perception preference rather than a systemic and harmonic judgment”. More to type, but easier to say or even think than all those process codes!
STP/NFJ: "aspective harmonicists" (Beta)
STJ/NFP: "circumspective systematicists" (Delta)
SFJ/NTP: "circumspective harmonicists" (Alpha)
Subjective processing=Judgment (J)
Objective data=concreteness (S) or logic (T)
Subjective data=abstractness (N) or value (F)
Objective source=external (E)
Subjective source=internal (I)
Objective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (OOS): Si
Objective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (OSO): Ne
Objective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (OSS): Ni
Subjective processing of Objective data from Objective source (SOO): Te
Subjective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (SOS): Ti
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (SSO): Fe
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (SSS): Fi
Type Old Keirsey
w/Bates (PUM1)Current Keirsey
(PUM2)Berens, Nardi Hirsch &
KummerowPersonality
PageInclusion/Control by Ryan Inclusion/Control by ETB ISTJ Trustee Inspector Planner Inspector Reliant Duty Fulfiller Loner/Rebel pureMel ISTP Artisan Crafter Analyzer Operator Realist Mechanic
Loner/IDConflict** MelSan ISFP Artist Composer Composer Producer Aesthete Artist Inhibited*/IDConflict** PhlegSan or SupSan ISFJ Conservator Protector Protector Supporter Nurturer Nurturer Inhibited*/Rebel PhlegMel or SupMel ESTP Promotor Promoter Promoter Executor Adventurer Doer NYSHNYD/IDConfl** ChlorSan ESTJ Administrator Supervisor Implementor Supervisor Enforcer Guardian NYSHNYD/Rebel ChlorMel ESFP Entertainer Performer Motivator Presenter Joker Performer Gatherer/IDConflict** pureSan ESFJ Seller Provider Facilitator Caretaker Helper Caregiver Gatherer/Rebel SanMel INFJ Author Counselor Foreseer Developer Mystic Protector Loner/Checker*** MelPhleg or MelSup INTJ Scientist Mastermind Conceptualizer Director Free-Thinker Scientist Loner/Mission MelChlor INFP Questor Healer Harmonizer Clarifier Dreamer Idealist Inhib*/Checker***; |Sup. & Phleg. pure and blends**** INTP Architect Architect Designer Theorizer Wizard Thinker Inhibited*/Mission PhlegChlor or SupChlor ENFP Journalist Champion Discoverer Advocate Visionary Inspirer Gatherer/Checker*** SanPhleg or SanSup ENFJ Pedagogue Teacher Envisioner Mentor Sage Giver
NYSHNYD/Checker*** ChlorPhleg or ChlorSup ENTP Inventor Inventor Explorer Inventor Innovator Visionary Gatherer/Mission SanChlor ENTJ Field Marshall Fieldmarshal Strategist Mobilizer Leader Executive NYSHNYD/Mission pureChlor
*possibly Inhibited Individual, Cautious Expectations or Social Flexibility
**possibly Independent Dependent Conflict or Mission Impossible with Narcissistic tendencies
***possibly Checker, Matcher, Loyal Lieutenant, Let's Take a Break or Openly Dependent Person
****purePhleg, pureSup, SupPhleg or PhlegSup
NYSHNYD=Now You See Him Now You Don't. Can also be "Conversationalist".
[People] Gatherer types also can be Conversationalist or Hidden Inhibitions.
Mission Impossible or Rebel types can also be "Self-Confident".
(Many instruments' "types" not recognized as Inborn "temperament")
Generic Term Outer Behavior Inward Orientation Social Skills Leadership and responsi-
bilitiesdeep personal relations Introverted, Task-Oriented extroverted, Task-Oriented extroverted, Relationship-Oriented Ambiverted/Moderate and/or Introverted, Relationship Oriented Hippocrates' Four Humors (c.400 BC) Scales not recognized black bile yellow bile blood Phlegm Not recognized Galen (c. 190 AD) Response Delay
(fast or slow)Response Sustain
(short or long)Areas not recognized Melancholic Choleric Sanguine Phlegmatic Not recognized Ivan Pavlov's dog temperaments (C. 1900 AD) Passivity:
(Active or Passive)Extremeness:
(Extreme or Moderate response)Areas not recognized Melancholic (Weak inhibitory) Choleric (Strong excitatory) Sanguine (Lively) Phlegmatic (Calm, imperturbable) Alfred Adler's four styles of life (C. 1900 AD) "activity" "social interest" Areas not recognized Avoiding Ruling or Dominant Socially Useful Getting or Leaning Erich Fromm's Four types of character (C. 1947) assimilation socialization Areas not recognized Hoarding Exploitative Marketing Receptive Hans Eysenck(1947) extraversion "Neuroticism" is similar scale Areas not recognized Melancholic Choleric Sanguine Phlegmatic Not Recognized Temperament by Tim LaHaye (1966) Makes comparisons with other systems Areas not recognized Melancholy Choleric Sanguine Phlegmatic "passive sanguine" (Not recognized as separate temperament) Temperament Features by Florence Littauer Areas not recognized Perfect Melancholy Powerful Choleric Popular Sanguine Peaceful Phlegmatic Not recognized Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid Model (1964) Concern for Productivity Concern for People Areas not recognized Impoverished Produce or Perish Team Type Middle of the Road Country Club Jay Hall Conflict Management (1973) Concern for personal goals Concern for relationships Areas not recognized Leave-lose/win Win/lose Synergistic; Win/win Mini-win/mini-lose Yield-lose/win Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Modes (1974) Assertiveness Cooperativeness Areas not recognized Avoiding Competing Collaborating Compromising Accommodating William Schutz: FIRO-B (1958) (Leo Ryan's Interpretation, 1971. Schutz names in table below) Expressed
BehaviorWanted
BehaviorInclusion "the Loner" "Now You see Him, Now You Don't" "People Gatherer" "Social Flexibility" "Inhibited Individual" Control "the Rebel" "Mission Impossible" "Independant-Dependant Conflict" "the Matcher" "Openly Dependant" & "Loyal Lieut." Affection (aka "openness") "the Pessimist" "Mask/Image of Intimacy" "the Optimist" "Warm Individual/The Golden Mean"
"the Cautious Lover" Arno Profile System (fka "Temperament Analysis Profile")(1980's) Expressive
BehaviorResponsive
BehaviorInclusion Control Affection Melancholy Choleric Sanguine Phlegmatic Supine Worley Identification Discovery Profile (1995) Demonstrated Desired Social Leadership Relationship Melancholy Choleric Sanguine Phlegmatic Introverted Sanguine Enneagram "Surface Direction" and "Deep direction" similar scales Social Self-Preservation Sexual Type 5 Type 8 Type 7 Type 9 Type 6 ([Expanded] Type A Theory Friedman & Rosenham (1950's); J. Denollet (1996) Various, sometimes including "Neuroticism" Areas not recognized Type D Type A Type B (HireSuccess; Mindpub) Type B Type C William Marston (1928) and John G. Geier (1970's), DiSC Assessment Assertive/
Passive Open/Controlled Areas not distinguished Conscientious-
nessDominance Influence Steadiness California Psychological Inventory CPI 260 (c. 1948) action, social confidence/inner life, privacy Rule-favoring/questioning, Agreeable/disagreeable stability/value system, Areas not recognized Visualizer Leader Innovator Supporter Stuart Atkins, LIFO four Orientations To Life(c. 1960's) Planning vs.Doing Directing vs. Inspiring Areas not recognized Conserving-Holding Controlling-Taking Adapting-Dealing Supporting-Giving David Merrill, "Social Styles" Assertiveness Responsiveness Areas not distinguished Analytical Driving Expressive Amiable Tony Alessandra "Personality Styles" Indirect/
DirectOpen/
GuardedAreas not distinguished Thinker Director Socializer Relater Interaction Styles by Linda Berens (c2006) Initiating-
RespondingInforming-
DirectingCorresponds to SOCIAL skills area Chart the Course In Charge Get Things Going Behind the Scenes Keirsey's "roles of interaction" (1998/2008) Expressive/
Reserved"Role-Informative/
Role-Directive"Contender Initiator Coworker Responder MBTI Codes (1958) E/I S + T/F; N + J/P IST, INJ EST, ENJ ESF, ENP ISF, INP Keirsey/Berens "Conative" Temperaments Cooperative vs Utilitarian (Pragmatic) Structure vs. Motive focus (Cross factor swapped with S/N, by Berens) Appears to correspond to LEADERSHIP skills SJ
(Guardian/
Stabilizer)NT*
(Rational/
Theorist)SP
(Artisan/
Improviser)NF*
(Idealist/
Catalyst)
*Keirsey correlations: NT="Phlegmatic"/NF="Choleric" (PUM 1)
Moderate "e", task-oriented Moderate "e", relationship-oriented extroverted, Moderate "w" Introverted, Moderate "w" FIRO-B(I) "Now You See Him Now You Don't" Tendencies Hidden Inhibitions Conversationalist Cautious Expectation FIRO-B(C) Self-Confident Let's Take a Break "Mission Impossible" with Narcissistic Tendencies The Checker FIRO-B(A) "Image of Intimacy" Tendency Cautious Lover in Disguise Living Up to Expectations Careful Moderation APS Phlegmatic Melancholy
Phlegmatic CholericPhlegmatic Supine
Phlegmatic SanguineSanguine Phlegmatic
Choleric PhlegmaticMelancholy Phlegmatic
Supine PhlegmaticEnneagram Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 