PERSONALITY MATRIX: Toward an integrated multiple-lens theory of typology.

Eric Bolden
1 Classic temperament
The theory of personality began with temperament, which has traditionally been measured in
terms of expressive and responsive behavior. Expressive behavior is generally how much a
person approaches others in interaction. Responsive behavior is how much a person wants to be
approached by others. These are the terms employed by a modern version of temperament
theory, but they have had various names throughout the centuries.

Factoring these two dimensions together generated four temperaments. Here are the basic
descriptions:

Melancholy - has an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, prone to genius, very creative, mind
tends to work overtime, going over and over events of the past, needs alone time to regroup.
(Also prone to "black moods").
Sanguine - fun loving, will leave in the middle of a chore or assignment if they find out there is
something fun going on somewhere, never wants to grow up, stressed out if there are not places
to go and people to see.
Choleric - a drive to greatness, but will step on your toes to get there, needs lots of appreciation
along the way.
Phlegmatic - quite stubborn and set in his ways, uncomfortable with confrontation and seeks
peace at all costs to avoid strife, feels he needs sleep to regroup but never gets enough, very
annoying to the Choleric as this is the one temperament that cannot be coerced into doing
something if they don't want to.

We see here, that two are very outgoing and energetic, the other two are slower paced, and two
are more "serious", while the other two are less serious.

These temperaments (popularized in modern times by Tim LaHaye and others) were named after
body fluids, or "humours" which were at the time believed to cause the associated behaviors.
(Blood (sanguis or Gk. αιµα haima), yellow bile (cholera or Gk. χoλη, kholé), black bile (µeλας,
melas, "black", + kholé), and phlegm). This is now known not to be the case, but the names stuck
as a good correlator of those fluids to the traits associated with them.
The first form of this matrix tied the humors to the four elements.

Original Galen matrix:

wet dry
hot air/blood fire/yellow bile
cold water/phlegm earth/black bile
Basically, the more outgoing ones are "hot", the slow paced ones are "cold", the less serious are
"wet", and the more serious are "dry". This latter scale actually makes sense in modern
expression, people of the more serious temperaments do tend to be a bit more "dry" in speech.
The outgoing and less serious temperament likewise also tends to be "light and airy".

The next version of the matrix focused directly on the person's behavior, in terms of the time it
took for them to act or change their mood.

The sanguine temperament showed quick, impulsive and relatively brief reactions. (i.e. short
delay, short sustain)
The choleric temperament manifested a short response time-delay, but the response was
sustained for a relatively long time.
The melancholic temperament (renamed "Melancholy") exhibited a long response time-delay,
and the response was sustained at length, if not, seemingly, permanently.
The Phlegmatic was characterized by a longer response-delay but the response was also short-
lived.
(Evidence-based Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine I: History Francesco
Chiappelli, Paolo Prolo and Olivia S. Cajulis)

So we can see the basis of the more or less "outgoing" and "serious" dimensions. The more
outgoing are those with a short delay, reserved have a longer delay, people focused have shorter
sustain, and thus hold onto both positive and negative emotions much less (so seem more open
and "light"), while the task-focused do hold onto emotions longer, including negative ones,
which often come to color the whole temperament.

Eventually, we would get what has become the most popular version of the factors:
introversion/extroversion and people/task focus.
Introverts would be the more reserved types, extroverts would be the more outgoing and
gregarious ones, people-focused would respond more to people, and task-focused would respond
more to tasks and less to people. This one is important to consider, because we would think
extroverts would be "people-focused", and perhaps introverts be "task-focused", but that is not
necessarily the case. And this question comes up a lot in discussions on personality.

It was later determined that one dimension determined how a person expressed, while the other
determined how much they wanted from others. While people can express themselves as
introverts or extroverts, the truly people-focused are those who can be said to respond as
extroverts (despite how they actually express), while the task-focused respond as introverts
(again, despite how they express).
You would wonder why someone would approach others and not want from them. This is the
Choleric temperament, and they express to others for a particular goal, and they respond when a
criteria is met according to their goals. You would also wonder why someone would want and
not express. This will be discussed a bit below.

The FIRO-B instrument, created by Dr. William Schutz, (and once very popular) named the two
dimensions "expressed" and "wanted", and mapped out generally nine behavioral groups
based on the two factors, and adding moderate scales in each dimension (which is what pushed it
from four to nine. You don't hear it much, but Galen also actually had nine temperaments, from
moderate points on the scale, between hot and cold, and warm and dry, yielding five "balanced"
temperaments, including one in the center that is balanced in both scales).
Schutz designed this system as a measurement of changeable behavior, rather than temperament
or personality type, which are both presumed to be inborn. However, in the 1980s, the National
Christian Counselors Association, Inc. founders Richard G. and Phyllis J. Arno began using the
FIRO-B scoring system, and after extensive research, found that it could be used to determine
inborn temperament! Under license of Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. They renamed the
questionnaire at first, the Temperament Analysis Profile, and then later, the Arno Profile
System (APS).

One major development from the use of the moderate scales, was the discovery of a fifth
temperament, in addition to the ancient four. The new temperament that was moderate in both
scales was determined to be the familiar, ancient Phlegmatic. The Phlegmatic had always fit into
the low expressive (introvert, long delay), and people-focused (responsive, short sustain) position
of the matrix. However, while the Phlegmatic is not as extroverted as the Sanguine and Choleric,
nor as task-oriented as the Choleric and Melancholy; he is neither as introverted as the
Melancholy, nor as relationship oriented as the Sanguine. They can basically "take people or
leave them". They both express moderately to people, and respond equally to people or tasks,
depending on their low energy reserve, which is their real driving motivation. (Hence, not being
very driven). Thus the Phlegmatic (which was even once defined by critics as the absence of
temperament), is basically by definition a moderate temperament, or an "ambivert".

So the low expressive, high responsive area, which another FIRO-B expert, Dr. Leo Ryan, had
called "Inhibited Individual" and "Openly Dependent" was deemed to be the previously
unrecognized fifth temperament.
The Arnos called it Supine, meaning "lying on the back" or "with the face turned upward".
(Think of a dog looking up to or rolling over for his master, or a servant slightly bowed before
his master. So instead of body fluids, it's named after a body position).

So then this is the true "people-oriented introvert".

Basically, this temperament will by its very nature be rather elusive. (Perhaps the reason it went
unrecognized for so long). Because of their low expressive behavior, they will at first glance on
the surface look like Melancholies: very withdrawn and shy, if you don't approach them. But if
you do approach them, and they feel secure with you; they will "open up", sometimes even being
chatty like a Sanguine. This is the high "responsive" or "Wanted" trait. They like people and
want to be accepted, but lack the mechanism (boldness) to express this need by approaching
others, like the Sanguine does. Thus, they use tasks, like service to others, to try to win this
acceptance.

A need to have people "read their minds" and know that they want interaction is a trait that is
stressed in the APS definitions. This is from the low expression. They also harbor anger as "hurt
feelings", and also need a personal invitation to activities when in a group. This may vary,
according to blending with other temperaments, as will be discussed next.
Supines also tend to think of themselves as worthless, while others are worthy. Since they
depend on acceptance by others, they have problems with guilt.

Other points from the Supine report is "likes to be with people, but they tend to stress him and
wear him out (if he is with them for long periods of time). He needs to alternate between being
with people, and doing tasks". Also, "tends to think a great deal, and needs time, throughout the
day, to think and 'organize' thoughts".

Also, a common introversion trait is the building up of anger and exploding. So Supines will
generally be nice, but if you cross them too much, then like Melancholies, they will react, and
even possibly violently. Even if they do not feel appreciated enough, then they will bear a lot of
resentment. The manuals even say "the murder mystery that states 'the butler did it' is the story of
the faithful Supine who served his master well for years, felt used, and eventually reacted with
murderous rage".

In LaHaye's system, you also had 12 blends of the temperaments: San-Mel, San-Chlor, San-
Phleg, Mel-San, Mel-Chlor, Mel-Phleg, Chlor-San, Chlor-Mel, Chlor-Phleg, PhlegMel,
PhlegSan, PhlegChlor; in addition to the four "pure" types.

The first one in the list is said to be the "dominant" one, with the ratio usually something like
40/60%. Larger ratios would indicate a larger leaning towards one temperament. The possibility
of three-way blends are also mentioned.

In the APS, you also have blends between temperaments, but these are a bit more structured,
with specific meanings. Like the rest of the matrix, this was inherited from FIRO: the three areas
of interaction, which behavior and personality are divided into:

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).

Dr. Arno framed it in terms of a hypothetical interchange between two people, where one
"approaches" another for some form of interaction in a relationship (including whether to have a
relationship to begin with). You can either approach people or not approach many people, and
you can want or not want many people to approach you. The three areas determine "Who is IN or
OUT of the relationship" (meaning how many people, generally); "Who maintains the POWER
and makes the DECISIONS for the relationship"; and "How emotionally CLOSE or FAR the
relationship". (Temperament Theory p.43)

So you can approach a person to include them in your presence or activities, you can approach
them to control them, and you can approach them for a deeper relationship, such as to give
affection. You can also tend to not approach people for these reasons, and you can either want or
not want people to approach you for these interactions.
The Wanted scales will indicate the strictness of criteria for accepting social inclusion,
submitting to someone else's control, or deep personal interaction and affection.

A person can be one temperament in Inclusion, another one in Control, and yet another in
Affection. The different temperaments will modify each other. Like someone with low expressed
Inclusion and a high expressed Control will normally be very reserved, but will at times be quick
to approach others, for some course of action or leadership! A person could also be the same
temperament in all three, in which we would say they were a "pure" temperament.

CONTROL: Who maintains

AFFECTION: How
INCLUSION: Who is IN the POWER and makes the
emotionally CLOSE or
or OUT of the relationship DECISIONS for the
FAR the relationship
relationship
"I don't control you, so
Everyone OUT, except for generally, emotionally
Melancholy please don't try to control
"Exclusive Club" FAR
me"
Everybody "IN" ("Come Controls or being controlled
Sanguine Emotionally CLOSE
on in!") according to "SWING"
Don't call me; I'll call you; emotionally FAR, unless
Choleric until then, OUT! (except "I'M the Boss!" I approach you for my
for "Exclusive Club") purposes
Everybody IN; but you
emotionally CLOSE, but
Supine must reach out and invite "YOU'RE the Boss!"
you must reach out to me
me!
Democratic; "Let's all be moderate; take it or leave
Phlegmatic "Take 'em or leave 'em"
Boss!" it

There is also another kind of blend, WITHIN each of the areas, of the Phlegmatic with the other
four temperaments. These are people EITHER whose expressive OR responsive needs are
moderate. The blends lie in pairs midway along the edges of the matrix. (Where Leo Ryan's
FIRO charts had only one group in moderate range for a total of nine, except in Control, where
there is a tenth division, also fairly moderate). Which temperament blending each half of the pair
falls into is determined by the driving need. They will share the driving need of the temperament
is it blended with.

The Arno manuals specifically address the Phlegmatic Melancholy and the Phlegmatic Choleric
as examples. Both express themselves moderately like a Phlegmatic, but respond negatively like
either a Melancholy or Choleric, and will behave very similarly; yet the PM is driven by the
Melancholy's fear, and the PC is driven by the Choleric's goals.
So the Phlegmatic Melancholy will be moderately more sociable than a pure Melancholy, but
otherwise does not have much of a real need for interaction. A Melancholy Phlegmatic on the
other hand expresses himself as a Melancholy but wants the same as a Phlegmatic. This person
has a moderate need for interaction, but is still not very expressive of it. He will be bordering on
the Supine Phlegmatic, who will behave similarly.
The blends are:
Phlegmatic Melancholy (express as a Phlegmatic; respond as a Melancholy)
Phlegmatic Choleric (express as a Phlegmatic; respond as a Choleric)
Choleric Phlegmatic (express as a Choleric; respond as a Phlegmatic)
Sanguine Phlegmatic (express as a Sanguine; respond as a Phlegmatic)
Phlegmatic Sanguine (express as a Phlegmatic; respond as a Sanguine)
Phlegmatic Supine (express as a Phlegmatic; respond as a Supine)
Supine Phlegmatic (express as a Supine; respond as a Phlegmatic)
Melancholy Phlegmatic (express as a Melancholy; respond as a Phlegmatic)

There are also "compulsive" variations, which combine the highest or lowest expressed and
wanted scores. These are the more energized versions of the four temperaments besides
Phlegmatic (which is in dead center), and are thus in the extreme corners of the matrix.
While temperament theory has sometimes been criticized for "pigeonholing" people into such a
limited number of types, not only do you have the 125 basic combinations of five in three areas,
or 2197 when the eight Phlegmatic blends are divided, but up to 4913 when the four additional
compulsives are divided.

A scientific basis for temperament?

In our next section, we will see more about Introversion and Extroversion, and its neurological
roots, based on the level of stimulation one responds to. The theory is that dopamine
specifically is what provides the “stimulus”.
I’ve also seen a suggestion that the other factor (people vs. task focus) is based on serotonin.

This provides a neurological, and thus “scientific” basis, for our personality factors.

So together:

Dopamine: “I want.”
Serotonin: “I am satisfied.”

Sanguine: High Dopamine, High Serotonin

Wants a lot out of life and is easily satisfied. Energetic and happy.

Melancholic: Low Dopamine, Low Serotonin

Wants little out of life but is not easily satisfied. Slow and depressive.

Choleric: High Dopamine, Low Serotonin

Wants a lot out of life but is not easily satisfied. Energetic and drawn to intensity.

Phlegmatic: Low Dopamine, High Serotonin

Requires little of life but is easily satisfied. Slow, calm and undemanding.
With five temperaments, Phlegmatic would actually be moderate, and this would lead to their
less “driven” behavior; while Supine would be the one that’s low dopamine and high serotonin.
It should also be pointed out that “Want” in this case is not the same as in “Wanted behavior”,
which in this case is connected with serotonin and thus being “satisfied”. People who are less
satisfied will tend to have stronger criteria in who they will allow to approach them, which
defines low Wanted behavior. “Want” in this case is Expressed behavior. So then dopamine “I
want” would define want by the level we approach others for our goals. So the Choleric, for
instance, “Wants” others for the goal more than they want the actual interaction from others.

It should also be mentioned that while we will discuss high responsiveness temperaments as
having a high “need” for people, and low responsiveness temperaments as not needing people (or
even “liking” people as it is put in APS literature sometimes), in reality, everyone needs people.
The high-responsives are just more aware of this need, and the low-responsives are less aware of
it. This will be covered again, when we bring all of personality theory together, with the concept
of “consciousness”.
 2:
MBTI and the 16 Types and Cognitive
Functions
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI)'s 16 types (based on the theory of cognitive
processes by Carl Jung) is the most popular form of personality theory today, surpassing both the
FIRO-B® system and the old Galen temperaments used by APS, LaHaye and others.

Building the Type Code

The backbone of type is the array of Jungian cognitive functions, whose preference in a
dominant or auxiliary fashion define each of the 16 types.

The basis of type is the way we divide reality between opposites. We have two different ways of
processing information, and those are divided into opposite poles as well. We can think of them
in terms of how a computer works: input, processing and output. We take in information,
process it, and then act upon on it.

Basically, the functions (divided first, into perception and judgment) can be framed as answering
one of two questions:

1) What things are we being aware of? (input)

2) What are the proper relationships between things? (processing).

(Then, how we respond to the processed data will form the basis of our "output").

The two functional poles for each question determine the type of information or relationships
being processed.
They really represent artificial divisions of reality, where each person pays more attention to one
aspect of experience or the other.

For the input (data-gathering) processes, these will correspond with the "dimensional" divisions
of space vs. time. Of the four coordinates "events" in the universe are plotted on, three of them
are random-access, meaning you can go back and forth between different points. This is called
"space", and by interacting through it, we can therefore locate or come into contact with objects
at different points using our senses. The remaining dimension is "time", which is one-way in
progression, and thus we cannot return to previously visited coordinates, and also, cannot access
ones we have not reached yet! (And we all travel together, through the same point every
instance). While a special form of sensation we will introduce below can look back at the
previous points of time (but still not actually return to them), we must use a different, non-
sensory form of perception to access this dimension overall! This will follow the "patterns"
of things and events through the time dimension, and by which we can get a sense of what may
happen in the future, and even things that may have happened in the past that were not
experienced via sensation, and also, perhaps why things are the way they are now.
For the data-processing, these will correspond to the nature of objects in the universe: things vs.
people. One function will pay attention to things, while the other will be more about considering
the affect of things on people.

Sensing (S) and iNtuition (N) are the information-gathering ("Perception") functions. Sensing
deals with experience of what's tangible (often called "concrete"), in which we consciously
register reality as picked up by the senses (through space) as significant in its own right
(rather than taking it for granted), while iNtuition deals with implications drawn from reality
(through time), or inferring what's intangible or conceptual, such as "larger contexts", "ideas" of
things, and symbols (often called "abstract").

Thinking (T) and Feeling (F) are the decision-making ("Judging") functions. Thinking deals in
evaluation based on simply how things work, which is also known as “technical”, and more
popularly, “logic”, which can be expressed in terms of what's “true” or “false”. Our reactions to
things will tell us about the object itself. Feeling evaluates or sorts out our personal feelings or
emotions (though it's NOT the emotions themselves), which are determined by the affect of
things on human souls. Our reactions will tell us about the state of our souls. Thus it will often
deal in values and ethics which have more of a "humane" dimension; often determining
"good/bad".

The processes basically can be framed in terms of "positive"/"negative" data, or YES or NO (i.e.
something is TENABLE i.e. "able to be held" by the ego, or not):

1) IS or ISN'T. This takes the form of what's "known vs unknown" or "guessed vs "naysayed".
2) RIGHT or WRONG. This takes the form of "true vs false" or "good vs bad".

With judgment, we use our will to decide “yes” or “no”. With perception, it’s essentially the data
itself that determines “yes/no”.
They've also been expressed as "S/N are “functions of the given”, and T/F as “functions of
option”. (I.N. Marshall, "The four functions of: A conceptual analysis" Journal of Analytical
Psychology 13(1), 1-32, 1968)

Functional terms:
basic passive
What it does deals in active product
product product
registers tangible reality as real and
S material substance actual behold
reacts accordingly
registers the implications of reality;
N hypothesis idea potential infer/imagine/guess
filling in one situation from another
assesses, understands, and responds
T mechanics impersonal truth correct/incorrect
to the way things work
assesses, understands, and responds
F soul-affect personal goodness like/dislike
to emotional affect on people
Understanding basic Function definitions

Jung has been quoted in saying "that we need a function to tell us what is*, and that is sensation.
We need a function to give it a name [i.e logically categorize it], and that’s thinking. We need a
function to tell us what it is worth, and that’s feeling, and we need a function to tell us what its
possibilities are, where it is headed, and that’s intuition". (Beebe, "A Jungian Analyst Talks
About Psychological Types" at Inner Explorations).
Jung also expressed them as S: “registers reality as real", N: connected with time; that things
have a past and a future, and thus “come from somewhere and go to somewhere, and you cannot
see where they came from and you cannot know where they go to, but you get what Americans
call a hunch”. So this function “divine[s] the implications or possibilities of the thing that has
been empirically perceived, logically defined, and discriminatingly evaluated” [i.e. S, T and F].
From there, we can simplify it as N dealing with time, and S dealing with space, since
sensation comes through waves or other stimuli directly from objects in space. Any "pattern",
"hypothesis", "theory", "implication", or "inference" you deal with involves something playing
out in time.

F is "merely the function that places the highest premium on the psychological act of
assigning value." It is “neither affect (or what we sometimes call ‘feelings’) nor the result of
more unconscious emotion-based processes, even though [Jung] admitted our complexes are
‘feeling-toned'”. The difference between “Feeling” and “feelings” (emotion) is that Feeling is
“the function that sorts out feelings”. Or, “discriminates affect”. (Beebe: Energies and Patterns
in Psychological Type, 2016, p10, 148, 158).
T “defines for us” that what we are perceiving “is” there. You can think of it in terms of “how
things work”. “Defining” is done basically by determining “what it is” by how it works, or what
it does, which yields the judgment of “true” that things are measured true or false by (as opposed
to how we feel about it, which determines "good or bad").

*(While Jung associated "what is" with S, that would assume everything that exists is perceived
through the senses only. But to our consciousness, patterns of "where it's heading" are "things"
that exist as well. They are simply inferred, or basically "guessed", and if guessed against, this
may come off as "naysaying"; i.e. objecting just for the sake of objecting, without any visible
reason. You could distinguish it as S="WHAT it is" [“it” is granted], and p="THAT it is", to
begin with. Basically, what "is" tangibly = "known"; what "is" hypothetically = "guessed")

Just what is a "preference"?

Now, we all do all of these things, so one can wonder what this is all about. What do we mean
when we declare some of these processes as “preferred” in making up a “type”? The answer is
that there are what can be described as more "general" and "special" instances of these
perspectives; and it's the "special" instances that connect to the type "preferences" we are
discussing here.
(The key to understanding "preference", is what's called "ego-states". The ego is our main sense
of "I", and will generally choose one function as its main "world-view", and various lesser
"states" will hold other world views, represented by the other functions. These all represent
"special" uses that will be specific to the different types. The "general" uses are those whose
senses of meaning are not set apart and interpreted by a particular ego-state).

What each “type” by single letter does

A Sensing type (_S__) is one whose primary outlook is to register reality as real, through
tangible, material or practical "at hand" data and/or experience, located in space, which they
generally "itemize", and thus think in terms of what simply is "known" or "unknown", or the
substance of reality (which is what sets the idea, or what’s inferred or "guessed").

An iNtuitive type (_N__) is one whose primary outlook is inferring the implications of things;
"filling in" experience with [mental] "constructs" that work or play out through time, such as
concepts, hypotheses, or theories, which all involve "larger contexts" or meanings behind
things and [non-physical] "patterns". Even physical or visible things, like in comparing one thing
to something separate, but has some sort of inferred similarity. Focusing on a property to
compare, like its shape; they have turned into an “idea”. They can be said to generally
"philosophize" experiences based on putting these ideas together. This is about what is
"guessed" or "nay-sayed" (which explains or improves what is "known", or "substance" of
reality).

A Thinking type (__T_) is one whose primary rational outlook is looking at the world
"impersonally" or "technically", in terms of objects and how they work, which we can call the
"mechanics" of things, (including people), often with a focus on goals such as efficiency. They
tend to think in terms of "true" or "false" (which is what will automatically determine
"like/dislike").

A Feeling type (__F_) is one whose primary rational outlook is paying attention to or sorting out
feelings (theirs and by extension, others), looking at the world in terms of people or humanity,
and the elements that makes them “subjects”, which is basically what could be called
"anthropic" (or "humane"), and ultimately deals with the "soul", with its emotions and values;
usually with a focus on goals such as individual or group harmony. (They will often mirror the
other person's inner state and adjust their behavior accordingly). They approach life in terms of
being human first, and seeing others as humans to interact with, and objects are to be looked at
and used from the perspective of how we relate to them. This leads them to "think" in terms of
"good" or "bad" (which will assume what is "correct/incorrect").

Coming up with good definitions is pivotal to understanding the concepts, as many become
confused in their or others' types from looking at behaviors, thinking "such-and-such type can't
do that", or "He does such and such too much to be this type"; often using terms such as
"emotions".

Of these four functions, one will be "dominant", which makes it the ego's main perspective. A
function of the opposite rationality (judging T/F if dominant is perceiving S/N, or perceiving S/N
if judging T/F is dominant) is then "auxiliary", (and also in the opposite attitude, as we shall
explain next).
This is what defines the MBTI® type, with the middle two letters of the four-letter code being
the two functions (S or N, followed by T or F), and the outer two letters indicating their position
and orientation.
The other two non-preferred functions will become the tertiary, which is the opposite function
from the auxiliary, and the inferior, which is the opposite of the dominant.

The J and P at the end of the code tell you which of the preferred functions is used in the
external world, and from that, E and I at the beginning tell you that either the external or internal
one is the dominant function.
There are thus sixteen possible combinations of function-attitudes using these measures. This is
by any combination of: E/I + S/N + T/F + J/P

So to complete the definition of the type codes:

An extravert (E___) is a person whose ego focuses on the environment through the dominant
function. Jung described the ego or “subject” as essentially “merging with the object”. The
environment itself, or its judgments (consensus of other people, efficient courses of action, etc.)
then are taken as his own.
An introvert (I___) is a person whose ego focuses on its own individual perspective through the
dominant function. The perspective is described as approaching the environment and eliminating
what is irrelevant according to his own internally held standard or "model" of a situation.
A Judging type (___J) is one whose preferred judgment (decision making) function is
oriented environmentally. They will tend to take on the “judgments” of a group (consensus,
harmony, etc.), or courses of action determined by the environment (e.g. what’s most efficient,
pleasing to all, etc.) as their own values. The person then seems to desire more “closure”, since
he expects decisions to be “set” according to external factors. (His preferred perception is then
what will be oriented individually, according to a model of experience).
A Perceiving type (___P) is one whose preferred perception (information gathering) function
is oriented environmentally. The person tends to remain “open” to new, emergent (often
variable) information, before making a judgment (which is what will then be individually
oriented, according to a model of rational principles).
So the four letter type code comes together as follows:
1 Dominant orientation: introvert (individual-focused) or extravert (environment focused): I/E
2 Preferred perception function: Sensation (tangible or material focus) or iNtuition
(hypothetical focus): S/N
3 Preferred judgment function: Thinking (impersonal, mechanical focus) or Feeling (“soulish”
focus): T/F
4 Function orientation and position:
a) function of indicated letter (J/P) is environmentally oriented (deemed important in personal
interaction)
b1) If this matches with dominant orientation (#1="E”), then this is the dominant function.
b2) If not, (i.e. #1="I”) then this function is auxiliary, and the other function is dominant
and introverted.
From here, we are able to identify 16 “types”.
The attitudes

The type code, on the level of the functions, carries a whole dynamic that is actually more than
the simple E/I + S/N + T/F + J/P addition of letters. Type consists of the two preferred functions,
Sensing or iNtuition and Thinking or Feeling, making up the two middle letters. There’s also two
other factors, telling us the position and “attitude” or orientation of the functions. So now we see
there that not only people are “introverts” or “extraverts”, but also the functions themselves!
What does this mean?

It actually represents the division, between the individual and the environment, as it extends to
the data itself, as separated out by the functional perspectives it is filtered through.
So when discussing the functions by in this fashion, lowercase "e" or "i" are placed after the
function letters indicating an "introverted" or "extraverted" orientation of the function. (Thus
denoted "Xe" or "Xi", with "X" here used as the variable for all of them).
The resultant eight combinations are then called "function-attitudes" or sometimes, "processes".
The different attitudes are distinguished because they change some aspects of the functions
within themselves. Data that's received from or shaped by the environment (outer world) will be
different from that derived or filtered individually (i.e. inner world).
Extraverted functions draw directly upon the external environment of "objects" or situations,
while introverted functions draw on an internal model of situations referenced individually by
the "subject". With judgments (T/F) in particular, introverted perspectives will be what one has
learned also through nature (hence often dealing in "universals"), while extraverted perspectives
are generally acquired from culture (such as consensus). The attitudes also often thus end up
applied in the realms where they derive, or our "energy" is described as "flowing" in that
direction. (A more technical term for this process is ego or object “cathexis”).

So this indicates the matter of WHERE the standard the observations or evaluations are drawn
from is located. Either the external world of people and action, or the internal world of thoughts
and emotions. In MBTI certification class, they were described as "turning" or even "going"
"inward" or "outward", as if describing literal movement to one or another literal place to
perform the process. This I found helped clarify the difference the direction creates within each
function when they are used in one area or the other.
Jung called this "extraverting" or "introverting" the functions (notice the verb form of the
words. "-vert" means to turn.
Also, he insisted on spelling "extraversion" with the "a", where others have used "o" as we did
above in the first part for the classic temperaments). Extraversion and Introversion of functions
are also called "attitude" or "orientation".

So a person can prefer tangible data, but if his orientation is outward, he will prefer current
experience received from the outside, while the person who prefers the same tangible data with
an internal orientation will instead prefer stored (already learned and internalized) experience,
which he will tend to measure current experience by.
I have found it good to express introverted perception as dealing with stored data, and
extraverted perception as dealing with emergent data. Extraverted judgment deals with set
standards, while introverted judgment deals with variables (that are determined by an internal
model of things).
Introversion and Extraversion likely start from neurology, where a person is either oversensitive
or undersensitive to stimulation by external data. If he is undersensitive, he will want more
stimulation, and move to gain it from the external world; and if he is oversensitive, he will want
less, and turn inward, where he has stored data from previous experience or constructed his own
standards of decision-making.

So the way these orient the functions:

e attention or evaluation is derived directly from external object, or the environment.
i attention or evaluation is filtered through internal subjective blueprint, learned individually.

Another way of putting it is that the introverted function focuses our cognition on the "inner
world" of our own senses, intuitions, thoughts, and feelings, while extraverted function directs
our cognition to the "outer world" of the sources of sensations, intuitive patterns, people's
feelings, etc.

Jung had described an introverted functions as "one that has turned away from the object and
toward the archetypal ‘idea’ that the object might be closely matched to. This archetypal idea,
residing in the inner world, can be understood as a profound thought, a value, a metaphorical
image, or a model of reality”, depending on the respective introverted function being T, F, N or
S, and when orienting something external, “it is in the end, the comparison to the archetype
[i.e. "ruling pattern"], not the stimulating object of situation itself, that finally commands
the attention of the function".
To translate, an image of “true/false”, “good/bad”, what’s tangibly “known”, or an image itself
(i.e. “an image of an image”, basically). Or, more simply, the introvert’s attention drawn to
one’s own thoughts, feelings, sensations or intuitions, where the extravert’s attention is drawn to
the environment.

Yet another way of deciphering the two attitudes of each function; the question to ask is:
WHAT is creating the actual sensation? (The object in the environment, directly, or the
subject’s individual storehouse of memory)
WHAT is creating the actual intuition [i.e. pattern connection]? (The object in the
environment [of ideas; directly implies connection to something else] or the subject’s individual
unconscious impressions [inferring connections by some other means than the object itself])
WHO is doing the actual ‘Thinking’? (The subject, or an object: i.e. other person, group,
computer; e.g. statistics, etc.)
WHO is doing the actual ‘Feeling’? (Subject, or an object; i.e. other person, group, culture).

So each person will have a preferred dominant orientation, of the inner or outer world. The
dominant function will take the attitude of the dominant orientation.
Everyone uses all four functions (S, N, T, F), both internally (i) and externally (e), but for each
type there is a particular order they fall in. One function will be dominant, and the others will
follow.
(For an in depth step by step construction of the type code and the order of functions below the
auxiliary, see spun off volume The Dynamics of the Four Letter Type Code: Putting it Together
from Scratch.)
The code comes together

Myers and Briggs came along, and grouped this into the four letter codes. These consist of only
two of the functions: the two most preferred, and the other two letters convey how the function
is oriented and from that, which is first. (These are called "pointer variables").
They designated the second letter as the information gathering or "perception" code, for S or N,
and the third letter as the decision making or "judging" code, for T and F.

The fourth letter was then given to new "J" or "P" codes indicating which of the two functions
(denoted in the "perception" or "judgment" slots) were "extraverted" or referenced externally.
This orientation was deemed important in personality type, and it makes sense, as this process
will likely be the one that is more readily visible to the outer world (and thus figure more in our
interactions), even if it is not the dominant. The other function of the two most preferred would
then be presumed to be introverted.

So some common behaviors do result from having an extraverted J or P function, which appear
in "J/P" dichotomy descriptions. Extraverting a judgment (decision-making function), tends to
lead people to desire to establish order in the external world. Such as planning, scheduling, and
other ways of desiring "closure". Extraverting a Perception function instead tends to make the
person more open to emerging information or situations.
(Jung had his spoke about types being either “rational” or “irrational”, which referred to the
dominant function being either a “judging” or “perceiving” one. This was seen as indicating
what was more central to the ego. But Myers was more interested in how people interacted).

To show why extraverted attitude was deemed more important, it's pointed out that in some ways the dominant
introverted perceiving type, who ends up bearing a "J", is actually the introvert more "open" to new information, and
the dominant introverted judging type, who bears a "P" is more "closed" in ways; favoring his internally based
decisions. (Socionics, the Russian version of type theory, aimed to correct that by making [a lowercase] "j/p" refer
to the dominant function, as will be addressed in the appendix). But this "openness" or "closure" is internal, and
though it does influence external behavior, what is more visible will be what matches the "extraverted function" J/P
code.
The dominant introverted judgment type, for instance, may stubbornly hold onto internal "values" or "principles", as
often described, but the nature of his judgment function is such that it does not really often latch onto fixed values or
principles so hard in the first place; at least not as often as an extraverted judgment, where it's "set" by objective
factors. There will usually be room for new variables to be taken into consideration, so that decisions (especially as
carried out in the outer world) will be more flexible. Meanwhile, dominant introverted perception types will be
"open" to information coming from within, and so will likely not be as open to new information from without. What
the external world sees then is the "set" standard of the extraverted judgment.

We can look at the characteristics of the dominant rationality of the types:

An "irrational" type [E__P or I__J] is one who's primary outlook is recognizing "what is"
(whether tangibly "known"[S] or mentally "guessed"[N]). They will live to "take in" information
to inform their judgments.

A "rational" type [E__J or I__P] is one whose primary outlook is determining "right" or "wrong"
(whether impersonal "truth"[T] or humane "goodness"[F]). They will live to form decisions out
of their perceptions, and to somehow make "right" what is deemed "wrong" (even if mentally
rather than always implementing things).
The dominant

The first slot was given to E or I codes identifying which one was dominant, by it being the one
already identified —by J/P, as extraverted or by elimination, introverted. (This is one point
where it is easy to get thrown off, as you would expect I/E to be what directly tells you which
function is extraverted or introverted. It's telling you the ego's dominant orientation, and by
extension, the function that falls in the dominant position). The function in the other slot would
then be secondary or "auxiliary".

The dominant orientation shapes the orientations of the other functions as well. Thus, the
function order is alternated, starting with the dominant, which consists of a function and its
attitude.
The second or "auxiliary" function will be the other kind of process; if the dominant is
perception; the aux. will be judging, and if the dominant is judging the aux will be
perception. It will also be in the opposite attitude of the dominant. This is for the sake of
cognitive balance (i.e. supplying data for or "informing" one's dominant judgment, or organizing
one's dominant perceptions with rational assessments, and keeping us in touch with both inner
and outer realms).
These two determine the type, and the rest of the functions follow in an alternating order.

Definitions of the Function Attitudes

So we can see how the auxiliary function is in the opposite orientation from the dominant, and
these two functions with their attitudes determine the type and are normally notated as follows:

ISTJ: SiTe ISFJ: SiFe INFJ: NiFe INTJ: NiTe

ISTP: TiSe ISFP: FiSe INFP: FiNe INTP: TiNe
ESTP: SeTi ESFP: SeFi ENFP: NeFi ENTP: NeTi
ESTJ: TeSi ESFJ: FeSi ENFJ: FeNi ENTJ: TeNi

The functions have now been differentiated according to e and i, basically fanning them out from
four to a total of eight: Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Fe and Fi (which are often called "processes", but
more properly designated "function-attitudes". There are also collective notations for
extraverted or introverted Judgment or Perception: Je, Ji, Pe, Pi).

To start to understand the eight function-attitudes, we can look at the common human "faculties"
they are associated with. Extraverted Sensing (Se) involves the basic senses, of touch, taste,
sight, hearing and smell. Introverted Sensing (Si) is involved with "memory", where we store our
sensory experiences to bring back up to consciousness to compare with current experience. Now,
the natural mistake to make is to define simply "Se=current experiences" and "Si=memory". This
is not totally true. For one thing, only certain types have a normal preference for Se or Si, but
every person has both current sensation and memory! So the function-attitudes are specialized
attention to the data taken in through the faculties, as used by the ego-structure.
The eight faculties are:
Current sensation (associated with Se products; stimulation via space)
Memory (associated with Si products; stores and filters spatial data)
The ‘imagination’ (associated with Ne products; of potential changes through time)
The unconscious (associated with Ni products; filters temporal patterns)
Common Sense (associated with Te products; learning from outside authority how things work)
Reason (associated with Ti products; learning or determining for yourself how things work)
Sociability (associated with Fe products; connecting with people via the environment)
The conscience (associated with Fi products; our own human values used to relate to others).

Also, these functions are often treated as skills or behavior. But they don't always line up with
behaviors. Like a Thinking type having strong feelings about something, and then having to
wonder if he might be an F type.

A better way to define the functions are as perspectives.

It is often phrased that a person "uses extraverted Thinking" (Te) to organize his desk. Instead,
he sees a disorganized desk through the lens of Te; in which it is deemed incorrect by an
environmental standard of efficiency, and then makes a logical decision to organize it.

These functions involve the ways the emotions interplay with our "rational mind". Every person
goes though life having to process both concrete and abstract information, and then make both
impersonal (logical) and personal (value) judgments. Where type theory begins, is in the way this
processing affects us emotionally. They carry what can be called a "sense of meaning" when
brought into consciousness by the ego, and when not conscious, come out as felt reactions. In
consciousness, they become the "interpreters" of these emotional events.
The functions are differentiated when a greater value is given to those choices where emotion
and reason are in synch. When we use a function that is destined to become "preferred", we
feel an emotional investment in what we're doing, so we keep on doing it. The function then
appears to "develop" or get "stronger", and behaviors associated with it will increase.

The basic "function-attitude" proclamations and definitions:

S: “behold!” (the environment or via individual recollection).

N: “imagine!” (inspired by objects in the environment, or images that come up from within)
T: “true!” (determined by environmental dictates or individual reflection).
F: “good!” (determined by environmental values or individual reflection).

Se recognition of objects (in space) is stimulated by the environment (as they emerge)
Si recognition of objects (in space) is stimulated by individual reference (internal recollection)
Ne recognition of patterns (through time) is stimulated by the environment (one implies another)
Ni recognition of patterns (through time) is stimulated by individual reference (unconscious)
Te determination of how things work (what's "correct") is stimulated by environmental necessity
Ti determination of how things work (what's "correct") is stimulated by individual reference
Fe determination of what’s desirable (to people) is stimulated by the environment
Fi determination of what’s desirable (to people) is stimulated by individual reference
Even simpler descriptions:

Perception: object provides the perception; subject does the perceiving

(Pe: subject adopts object; Pi: subject filters object)

Se apparent reality
Si self-referenced reality
Ne apparent implications
Ni self-referenced implications

Judgment:
Je: object provides the judgment (“revealing”); subject adopts it: “they said it, that settles it”
Ji: subject does the judging, filtering the object through this: “they said it, this is my take on it”

Te revealed truth
Ti self-determined truth
Fe revealed good[ness]
Fi self-determined good[ness]

The functional perspectives:

Se: I must pay attention to the sensory data as it emerges in the environment (Such as exploiting
new experiences)

Si: I must pay attention to an individual recollection through memory to match things to (Life
must be familiar to my experience)

Ne: I must fill in experience with imagination, inferred from the environment (there must be
alternative patterns to follow)

Ni: I must fill in experience with individual impressions from the unconscious (patterns must
take into consideration my hunches)

Te: I must assess things according to an impersonal standard of "true/false" set by the
environment ("common" object or group sets what must be efficiently organized)

Ti: I must assess things according to an impersonal standard of "true/false" determined by my

individual reasoning (Life must make sense to my internal knowledge)

Fe: I must assess things according to an interpersonal standard of "good/bad" set by the
environment (The object or group determines what is socially friendly)

Fi: I must assess things according to a personal standard of "good/bad" determined my individual
understanding (Life must be congruent to my internal values or conscience)
 Simple type profiles by the definitive Dominant and Auxiliary functions

Many people can determine their preferred functions, but still might not be sure which is really
dominant or auxiliary. It can also be hard to determine, regarding the functional perspectives,
what’s really “internal”, because really, all of our processes are technically “internal”.
External world (environment): source of all data
Internal world (individual): where we receive and process all data
The process of data going from the environment to the individual is perception (“input”)
The process of data being [‘internally’] assessed as right or wrong is judgment (“processing”)
The process of data going from the individual to the environment is behavior (“output”)
The extraverted subject [or complex/ego-state] simply goes to the environment to get to the
[objective] source of the incoming data.
The introverted subject filters it within
(Input is differentiated as a perception function and processing differentiated as a judgment
function when connected to a typological complex. Extraverting is more than passive perception;
it’s the ego state actively engaging the environment; seeking the input. With Se, tangible data is
constantly coming in, but the ego state is already going out seeking it, and thus “paying more
attention” [as we’ve often put it] to it).
The two preferred functions are still not on an equal footing. The dominant is the one the ego
really invests in. The auxiliary is just there, supplied by a “supporting” complex or ego state,
because of the need for balance (to balance the dominant’s judging or perception with the
opposite mode of rationality, and the dominant’s introverted or extraverted attitude with the
opposite).
I realized that what I’ve always most “relished” is judgments, of true (T), by my own internal (i)
assessment. Ne is just what I will tend to apply those truths to, as “ideas”.
So to start with my type, and compare with all the others:
INTP:
Ti ego: lives for the proclamation of “true! true! correct! correct!” as determined by the
individual. I’ve recognized that I’m what’s called an “Intellectual narcissist”; I look back over
my writings, [type, politics, other interests, etc.], noting the key points, and subconsciously
relishing “true!” via the emotions (which are based on an impersonal declaration of “truth”, not
on the emotional state in its own right). Things that are “false” bring very negative emotions,
especially when affecting the ego, but at other times, can be totally trivial, like simple lack of
symmetry of something. A nice symmetry brings a warm feeling of an un-spoken “true”. Broken
symmetry will feel dissonant. When it’s a symmetry involving interaction with other people
(such as “respect me as you want me to respect you”), then it’s particularly bad (because that
now gets into negative Feeling).
Ne support: draws them to the “philosophical” side of things; shares truths as “ideas”, telling
others to “imagine” them as possibilities, to see the truth in them, or how they work
ENP:
Ne ego: lives to “imagine! imagine!” Already geared to the environment (patterns extracted from
real life), it’s not initially as much about sharing with others. It’s for them to relish the world of
ideas, and then share them via their Ji perspective. (Will not be as grounded upon “truth” or
“goodness” as the Ji dominant. This was brought to mind by someone on a transit forum, who
always puts out wild ideas of how to rearrange subway lines, even though many have shown him
they will never be seen as efficient by the Transit agency. I myself had begun coming up with all
sorts of ideas years ago, but quickly learned [and then internalized] the agency’s principles of
how to run things (and this even before working for the agency myself). Some may think
someone ignoring “logic” like this might not be a Ti type; he might be an ENFP with an active
tertiary Te. But the fact that his focus is so strongly on technical judgments of how to arrange
things suggests a strong “mechanical” focus, and they are totally his judgments; ignoring the
judgments of the external authority. An ENFP would not remain so focused on such impersonal
elements. So it’s not lack of Ti; it’s Ne being perhaps a bit overdriven, and thus
not grounded enough with the T judgment of whether the principles behind the ideas are
“correct”, and, which when dominant and more mature, would also know when to back itself up
with the opposite attitude. An ENFP with an overdriven dominant will still have more of a
“personal” focus, but not realize the ideas are not really doing anything for the people).
Ti support (ENTP): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares imaginations by showing
others how the ideas work.
Fi support (ENFP): draws them to the human side of things, sharing imaginations by showing
others how the ideas affect people, like spreading happiness through “silliness”, or using theories
like this to improve self and personal relationships
INFP:
Fi ego: lives for the proclamation of “good! good! nice! nice!”. I imagine they might look back
over their writings, noting the key points, and subconsciously relishing “good!” via the emotions,
which are what are focused on.
Ne support: shares niceties as “ideas”, telling others to “imagine” them as possibilities, to see
the goodness in them
ISTP, ISFP
Se support: draws them to the practical side of things; shares truths or niceties as practical
experience such as the arts, mechanics, etc. showing others how tangible things work, or how to
experience the joys of life
ESP:
Se ego: lives to take in “what is” (i.e.”known” in the current environment). Already geared to the
environment, where emergent data is taken in 'as is', it's not initially as much about sharing with others.
It’s primarily for them to relish the moment of tangible reality, and then share the experiences
with others via their Ji perspective. (Will not be as grounded upon “truth” or “goodness” as the Ji
dominant. If too overdriven above a Ti sense of how things work, a person may do all sorts of
stunts figuring from Se alone that he’s mastered it, and yet make critical mistakes and get hurt. If
too overdriven above an Fi sense of what affects people, may engage in offensive verbal or
physical play).
Ti support (ESTP): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares experiences by showing
others their sense of how the dynamics of them work.
Fi support (ESFP): draws them to the human side of things, sharing experiences by showing
others their sense of how they affect people, like spreading happiness through “fun”, or using
internet venues like this to interact with others.
ISJ:
Si ego: lives to draw on the experience of what’s “known”, as maintained and filtered by the
individual. Relishes what was previously “known”, used to navigate what currently “is“.
Te support: (ISTJ): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares practical knowledge by
showing others how they work to produce efficiency.
Fe support (ISFJ): draws them to the human side of things, sharing practical knowledge by
showing others how to meet needs, like spreading happiness through service
INJ:
Ni ego: like Ne, lives to “imagine! imagine!”, but now the patterns are extracted from the
individual’s own reflection or sudden insight, which do not come directly, immediately from the
environment. This is for them to relish an internal world of ideas. (Will not be as grounded upon
“truth” or “goodness” as the Je dominant)
Te support: (INTJ): draws them to the mechanics of things, and shares their visions by showing
others how they work to produce efficiency.
Fe support (INFJ): draws them to the human side of things, sharing their visions by showing
others how to meet needs, like spreading harmony through giving insights
ETJ:
Te ego: lives for the “truth” of efficient order. Will point to “objectivity”, but the ego still is
gratified, relishing the “correctness” of things working to create order, and frets at “incorrect“.
Si support (ESTJ): draws them to the tangible side of things, drawing upon their individual
knowledge of “what’s known” in how to create efficiency.
Ni support (ENTJ): draws them to the philosophical side of things, drawing upon their
individual visions of how to create efficiency
EFJ:
Fe ego: lives for the “goodness” of environmental personal harmony. Relishes “good!” “nice“,
“liked” in the environment, and frets at “bad” or “disliked” as well.
Si support (ESFJ): draws them to the tangible side of things, drawing upon their individual
knowledge of “what’s known” in how to create interpersonal harmony.
Ni support (ENFJ): draws them to the philosophical side of things, drawing upon their
individual visions of how to create interpersonal harmony.

We can sum up the basic "natural" (i.e. regardless of attitude) function preferences (the middle
two letters) as such (“anthropinism” means “the looking at things in their relation to man”):

ST: practical mechanics ("realistic"; what really does work)

SF: practical anthropinism ("aesthetic"; what really does help people)
NT: philosophized mechanics ("rationalistic"; the idea/theory of what works)
NF: philosophized anthropinism ("idealistic"; the idea/theory of what helps people)

(For the N’s, it actually corresponds with two of four groups of type we will see next).
 3
Temperament, Interaction Style and correlating the systems
The 16 types have also widely been divided into some sub-groups, consisting of different two or
three letter combinations. The most popular are the four “temperaments” of David Keirsey: SP,
SJ, NT and NF. This grouping is called “asymmetrical”, because it does not map to the same
dichotomies across the board like our “sociability temperaments” mentioned earlier. Notice, for
Sensors, temperament is determined by J/P, while for iNtuitors, it is T/F (This would be
formulated S + J/P; N + T/F). For the Sociability groups, it was E/I + J/P across the board. Myers
and Briggs had suggested the symmetrical function pair groupings: S/N + T/F (SF, ST, NF, NT)
as the “temperaments”. So for the N's the temperament is the preferred functions, and for
S's, it's the attitude of the function!

Some understandably think Keirsey's arrangement is strange, but the reason for this is that he
derived his temperaments from a source external to the MBTI framework; namely the old
Hippocratic/Galenic ones we discussed above! Originally determined by the factors of delay
(expressiveness) and sustain (responsiveness); Plato (whose "four kinds of men" became the
basis of Keirsey's temperaments) is cited by Keirsey as making an "observant vs imaginative"
distinction. Immanuel Kant also added a form of perception as a factor: Beauty vs. the Sublime.
Beauty actually paired together Sanguine and Melancholic (high perception of beauty), which in
the old matrix were diametric opposites. Likewise, Phlegmatic and Choleric were now both
"low". You can see where this is sort of an early forerunner to the Sensing vs iNtuition scale.
(Sublime was sort of an inverse of sustain, with Melancholic and Choleric as “high”). Eric
Adickes, Ernst Kretschmer and Eduard Spränger introduced new factors in four type systems.
Adickes had "heteronomous" types Innovatives and Traditionalists, and the "autonomous" were
Agnostics and Dogmatics. Kretschmer developed his four “Character Styles”: depressive,
hypomanic, anesthetic and hyperesthetic, which made up the two categories "cyclothymes" and
"schizothymes".
It was these types Keirsey apparently utilized and mapped to the MBTI’s 16 types, across its S/N
dichotomy factored by a new scale he called “Cooperative” vs. “Utilitarian”. (SJ’s and NF’s
are “cooperative”; meaning “do what’s right”, and SP’s and NT’s are “utilitarian” or
“pragmatic”, meaning “do what works”.
While the dichotomies introduced by Adickes and Kretschmer would correspond to S/N,
Spränger's division of his four types would correspond to Cooperative/Pragmatic).

The SJ he said was Melancholic, the SP, Sanguine, the NF, Choleric, and the NT, Phlegmatic.

One thing to remember about Keirsey, is that even though he uses the same four dichotomy
codes and 16 types as MBTI, his theory is still rather different, and focuses on the temperaments.
The types are really considered just "variants" of the temperaments. He even rejected Jung’s
functions by the time of his second Please Understand Me book, and redesignated the
dichotomies as standalone factors of “Expressive vs. Reserved” (E/I), “Concrete vs. Abstract”
(S/N), “Tough-minded vs. Friendly”, and “Scheduling vs. Probing” (J/P).
There are disputes as to whether this combination of temperament with Jung's cognitive theory is
valid, and whether they can work together. Jung rejected temperament models, and analysts
trying to be truer to his theory, such as Lenore, follow suit. They see temperament as behavioral
("affective"), while the cognitive perspective goes beneath that to our inner drives. Others like
Keirsey, as just stated, reject the cognitive processes. Christian temperament theorists LaHaye
and Arno seem to avoid mention of Jung altogether. Yet, a student of Keirsey’s; Linda Berens
adopted his model and recombined it with the cognitive processes. I go along with this view.

General limbic "temperament" (embodied in the modern theories of Chess, Birch and others; as
discussed by Lenore, and shared by animals) starts out as natural, universal reactions to
situations; such as "fight or flight". None of the "functions" are differentiated. When we begin
preferring a particular perspective (an attitude and a function, or the "towards/away", etc. drives
discussed on the first page), then it begins to differentiate temperament types, that can be divided
up into particular numbers, such as "the four temperaments". These are basically combinations of
expressive and responsive behavior, which as we shall see further, do parallel functions and
attitudes. Other perspectives are suppressed. We then fit into a particular temperament or type
category distinct from others.

When we identify that type by a particular function/attitude combination, it's not that only that
type "uses" that "process"; it's just that the particular type is marked by choosing it as its main
perspective in perceiving and judging information. Hence, in type discussions; "Xy" functions
associated with particular types are best understood in terms of the type's archetypal complexes,
or "ego states". (Which will tend to be more mature for the first two, less mature for the next
two, and have more negative and unconscious connotations for the rest).

So Berens incorporated the cognitive processes into the temperament model, and also added a
new set of groupings in addition to the temperaments; the Interaction Styles™. (Her full system
being called originally the "Multiple Models™", and presently, "CORE™ Approach"). These
are also connected to the ancient temperaments, and are similar to other models such as Social
Styles and DiSC, which also use a similar matrix. This model essentially reverts back to the old
factors of delay and sustain (or expressive/responsive), via the E/I dichotomy (expressive) and a
new one called “Informing/Directing”, which she has even linked to “responsiveness” or
“people/task”. This factor was actually created by Keirsey (called “role-informative/directive”),
though he used it in dividing his temperaments into eight “intelligence types” consisting of the
last three letters. STJ, STP, NFJ, NTJ were “directive” (tend to communicate through giving
directions), and SFJ, SFP, NFP, and NTP were “informative” (tend to communicate through
giving information). You could see right there where those would correspond to responsiveness.

He may have also possibly divided them further by I/E into these four groups as Berens is more
known for doing, but it was not until afterward, in his book Brains and Careers that he made the
groups (which he calls “roles of interaction”) more publicly known. The codes for them are
IST/INJ [introverted/directive: Melancholic], ISF/INP [introverted/informative: Phlegmatic],
EST/ENJ [extraverted/directive: Choleric], and ESF/ENP [extraverted/informative: Sanguine].
This also is very asymmetrical, dividing according to S/N like Cooperative/Pragmatic did. So the
formula for Interaction Styles is E/I + S + T/F and E/I + N + J/P.
Different aspects of behavior can be described by these different models. For instance, SJ is the
temperament that values family cells, and such (Keirsey even associates it with a need to "belong
to social units"!) This sounds like Fe, but it is not necessarily so; of course, because there are
both SFJ's (who do prefer Fe) and STJ's (for whom it is in the deepest shadow). The common
need among SJ's of both stripes is Si, for which a family cell (or other organization) meets their
need for something familiar that matches their storehouse of individually recognized tangible
(what’s “known") data, rather than an environmental or externally set standard of humane
("good/bad") judgment. So two different perspectives lead to a similar need (intensified in the
type pair that prefers both functions).

Correlation with APS?

So we can see from here, that the Interaction Styles will correspond with the Sociability
temperaments for N types, but for S types, they might not. SFJ’s will start out as EJ’s or IJ’s, but
once the S and F develop, their Interaction Style will become Sanguine or Phlegmatic (or
Supine) and not Choleric or Melancholic. STP’s will start out as EP’s or IP’s, but once the S and
T develop, their style will become Choleric or Melancholic instead of Sanguine or Phlegmatic.

Berens also introduced another factor for the temperaments called Structure vs. Motive, which
links opposites in Keirsey’s matrix. (SJ/NT = Structure, “focus on structures...to not be at the
mercy of others; SP/NF= “Motive”, “focus on motives of why people do what they do, in order
to work with them”. Keirsey would in his final two books Brains and Careers and Personology
mention, in passing (p.136 in the latter), corresponding descriptions, of the respective pairs of
temperaments being either "annoying", or "contagious"). As this seemed to be another direct
form of “responsiveness”, this was the key for my own correlation of the FIRO/APS with MBTI.
I have determined that Interaction Styles corresponds to our old area of Inclusion, and the
Keirseyan temperaments (called by Berens, “conative”, meaning “dealing with action”),
are Control. The third area, of Affection is either not represented well, or might be apart of the
Interaction Style, if the person’s temperament is the same in both Inclusion and Affection. If not,
it might either just not affect the type pattern much, or it could possibly throw the correlation off.
It otherwise might simply explain some variations in type, like an introvert being more outgoing
in his close personal relations. (Berens calls the Interaction Styles "affective", and the generic
term for Interaction Styles would basically be "affective temperaments", while Keirsey's groups
are "conative temperaments". The area of Affection would be affective also, though on a
deeper level).

The way the factors seem to line up;

Expressed Inclusion (eI) = E/I

Wanted Inclusion (wI) = Directing/Informing (S + T/F; N + J/P)

Expressed Control (eC) = Cooperative/Pragmatic (S + J/P; N + T/F)

Wanted Control (wC) = Structure/Motive (S + J/P; N + T/F)

Role-Informative and Directive are defined by Keirsey as defining the roles we have with
others (Portraits of Temperament, p.13-4). A person "directing" someone tends to take on a
more authoritative role, placing them in a submissive role. If one is "informing", he is basically
waiting for the other person to propose the role he is to play, and his "information" is a sort of
"assent" to it.
We can see how this would tie to "wanted Inclusion". If low, the person does not want to be
approached by others on a surface interaction level (except the person meets a criteria). So the
person will, in a defensive stance, try to define the roles in the interaction, and fit the other
person into it. The person who does "want" interaction more, will be more willing to allow the
other person to define the roles.

To Berens, "Directing communications seem to have a task focus and Informing

communications have a people focus. MBTI practitioners have long related task focus to a
preference for Thinking and people focus to a preference for Feeling". "Descriptors of
'responsive' seem to go with the Informing style of communication and descriptors of 'less
responsive' seem to go with the Directing style of communication." (Understanding Yourself and
Others: An Introduction to Interaction Styles Telos Publications, 2001, emphasis added).

Cooperative and Pragmatic are defined by Keirsey as "Doing what's right" vs. "Doing what
works". APS descriptions of both the Sanguine and Choleric (who have the higher
"expressiveness") in the area of Control fit this. They are "capable of undertaking any behavior
or task", and will often act before thinking, and would rather apologize later, than ask for
permission now. Hence, "do what works, rather than what is right", or "pragmatic".
Melancholies and Phlegmatics (and/or Supines) in Control, will be much slower in taking on
responsibilities, and more conscientious in trying to not step on other's toes, or cross their
boundaries. This is motivated by a fear of failure.

Berens, in “Essential Qualities of the Personality Patterns” states: “The Rational and Guardian
patterns are characterized by a focus on structure, order, and organization to gain a measure of
control over life's problems and irregularities rather than be at the mercy of random forces”. You
might think "gaining control" would sound like high expressed Control, but look at the reason: to
not be at the mercy of random forces. This too is defensive, and such defensiveness characterizes
low “wanted” Control! (even though it doesn't go into control by other people here. Still, the
need being met is that of independence). Expressed Control is about who approaches another
person for Control. SJ's, being cooperative, will not approach others to dominate (unless
instructed by the organization/their superiors or their role as parents or superiors), but do need to
appear in control.
Continuing; "The Idealist and Artisan patterns are characterized by a focus on motives and why
people do things in order to work with the people they are communicating with rather than trying
to force them into a preconceived structure”. [e.g. Less serious and critical; and thus might be
more willing to accept control by others also; e.g. be affected by others' wishes].
(Keirsey, while usually saying the opposite temperaments had nothing in common, actually
alluded to this new dimension in his last two books Brains and Careers (2008) and Personology
(2010), where the "enthusiasm" of Idealists and the "excitability" of Artisans were said to be
"contagious", while [in situations calling for these reactions] the "tranquility" of Rationals and
the "seriousness" of Guardians was "annoying". "Motive" focus will basically lead to
enthusiasm and exciteability as the situations among people call for them, while structure focus
will naturally lead to more ordering of emotions, and of course, seriousness).

If we convert the Interaction Styles and temperaments back to the Galenic names, we will further
see the correlation. First, looking at the two temperaments that are most obvious, if (as we see it
is acknowledged) Get Things Going (ESF) is a kind of Sanguine, and Artisan/Improviser (SP) is
also a kind of Sanguine; and Chart the Course (IST) is a type of Melancholic, and
Guardian/Stabilizer (SJ) is also a type of Melancholic, then putting them together, ESFP
(ESF+SP) is a "Sanguine-Sanguine", and ESFJ (ESF+SJ) is a "Sanguine-Melancholic"! ISTJ
(IST+SJ) is a "Melancholic-Melancholic", and ISTP (IST+SP) is a "Melancholic-Sanguine"!
If "In Charge" (EST) corresponds to "Choleric", then ESTP is "Choleric-Sanguine", and ESTJ
is "Choleric-Melancholic". Here we see what looks like LaHaye's temperament combinations,
but without the "percentage" basis! (And looking at LaHaye's blends, they do behave very
similar to the corresponding types that will result: The MelChlor's intensified anger and being
hard to please, for instance, or the ChlorMel's industriousness, capability, making mincemeat of
you if you don't get your facts straight; the MelSan's artisticness, the SanMel's emotionalism, the
PhlegChlor's detachment, etc.)

To give a quick summary of the FIRO factors:

Expressed behavior indicates a person's quickness in initiating interaction.

Expressed Inclusion is how fast or slow a person is to approach others on a surface social level.
Expressed Control is how quick he is to make self-initiated decisions; especially those which
affect others.

Wanted behavior indicates the strictness of criteria the person has in responding to being
approached by others:
Wanted Inclusion is how much a person wants to be included on a social level.
Wanted Control covers how much a person will allow others to influence him in decisions.

The third area of Affection deals with deep personal relations. Again, expressed is how much the
person initiates, and wanted is how much he wants others to initiate.
Again, since this area is similar to Inclusion, but on a deeper level, some of the traits might be
apart of the Interaction Style, or otherwise may explain some variations in type.

How expressed and wanted Inclusion and Control seem to correspond:

Extraverts will tend to be quicker to approach others on a social level;

introverts will be slower.

The speed of initiation in leadership and responsibilities will tend to be a bit quicker when based
on whether something "works" (Pragmatic)
or slower when based on whether it is "right" (Cooperative).

People who want less social interaction will have stricter criteria towards accepting people, will
define the relationship, and thus tend to communicate to them in a directive fashion.
People who want more social interaction will have lighter criteria, and be more readily accepting
of people; allowing them to define the relationship, and soften their communication into
"informing".

People who want less control by other people will tend to have the dictates of a structure (such
as an organization or their own plans) to set the criteria that must be met for them to accept that
control.
People who allow more influence by others in responsibilities will be more likely to take into
account others' motives "in order to work with them" (Berens).

To clarify, even the FIRO term "wanted" I find can be misleading at times, especially in the
Control area, as some types with high "wanted" behavior might not always necessarily want
people to control them, but simply allow or tolerate them to. Hence, APS' "respond" being a
better term, as it could be more passive. The NF's and SP's from the descriptions do seem more
willing to tolerate decisions being made by others than NT's and SJ's who are clearly more
independent.

The root of Wanted behavior (in any area) is a CRITERIA of interaction. Low w temperaments
are described as only responding to people when they meet a criteria. This can be for social
inclusion, submitting to someone else's control, or deep personal interaction and affection.

So to be focused on people's motives and willing to "work with them", thus in some way
allowing yourself to come under their influence, then indicates a lighter criteria for control
than someone who instead demands a fixed structure. Whether concrete or abstract, that will
obviously create a stronger more rigid criteria for them to accept external control.

In fact, we can further see the parallel to directing and informing [both as "wanted" behavior;
D/Inf representing Inclusion and Str/M representing "Control"] in looking again at Keirsey's
definition of those terms in terms of "defining the relationship". The person who is guided by
"motives" is obviously allowing the other person to define the ["Control"] relationship.
The person who is guided by a structure is technically allowing the structure to define the
relationship, however, between him and another person whom he is relaying these "dictates" to,
he is basically the one setting the definition of the relationship!

So to pick up with what was mentioned in the beginning regarding the sociability temperaments,
while I/E will generally correspond with expressed Inclusion, in the correlation I have made
between the two systems, J/P can correspond to either wanted Inclusion OR Control. The full
temperament combination (Inclusion and Control) will be determined by the other letters.

Another thing, regarding correspondence with the APS system, is that the 16 types are based on
groupings of four (4×4=16), and have no provision for a fifth temperament. That's because there
are no moderate scales. The dichotomies are either/or. So the Phlegmatic reverts to the
"introverted/responsive" place it held in older temperament theory. Therefore, in these
correlations, Supine is basically melded back into Phlegmatic.
Actual statistical correlations have been done between FIRO and MBTI, but they do not use
Keirsey and Berens' factors, but always the four MBTI dichotomies themselves. These yield
mixed results, because of the fact that the factors are so intertwined. T/F, for instance, are not
only connected with informing/directing (for S's) and structure/motive (for N's), but also
cooperative/pragmatic (also for N's). Hence, that dichotomy we would expect to affect wI, wC
and eC. (In one of the studies, T correlated high with eC, which would fit pragmatism! T, along
with P is generally more "pragmatic", while F and J are more "cooperative"). E/I does correlate
well with both eI and eA, and both N and P correlate well with wI. Sure enough, N and P
together yields Informing communications, which I have linked to high wI! (The correlations are
discussed with more detail on the other MBTI-APS correlation essays).

The pattern that emerges: recall, we identified J/P as a form of "responsiveness" that could
represent either Inclusion or Control. It turns out that T/F is also a form of responsiveness, which
will represent the opposite area from J/P. This makes sense, as "Feeling" will tend to be more
responsive than "Thinking"; just as "Perceiving" is more responsive than "Judging" in (or
ordering) the outside world.

Recall, the "responsiveness" factor is also known as "people vs task", and in both the affective
and conative areas, the corresponding factor (D/inf. and Str/M) convey a people or task focus.
Yet Feeling and Thinking themselves directly indicate a "personal" or "humane" vs impersonal
or technical focus. So every Thinker will have at least one task-focused factor, and both if he's
also a Judger. And every Feeler will have at least one people-focused area, and both if he's also a
Perceiver.
When one dichotomy is wanted Inclusion (affective: directing/informing), the other is wanted
Control (conative: structure/motive)!

The dividing line is S/N (perceptive), which as it turns out, ties together opposite e/w
temperaments in the Control area. In Keirsey/Berens' matrix, S/N was a primary factor, while
structure/motive was a "cross-factor" Berens added, tying together opposites. We have reversed
this, making structure/motive primary factors. S/N now becomes the cross factor.
(In the Interaction Styles, Berens also has a cross-factor, called "process vs. outcome", or
formerly, "movement vs control". An example of this, is someone who is willing to break a
project up into intermediate steps, slowly leading to a goal, as opposed to someone who prefers
to aim for the goal right away. Keirsey would even go on to add a corresponding factor to his
corresponding "roles of interaction": "Interlinking vs Intersecting". In the former, the role of
one person is related to the role of another such as to be linked or fit together. Such as when one
person directs, and the other does as directed. You could see how the Choleric and Supine would
fit right into this. An example of the latter is when we line up opposite of opponents, and besides
proponents, the roles intersect; each person intent upon their own agenda. Such as in any
competition where we side with our team mates, and oppose the opposite team. The Sanguine
will be personable, while the Melancholy is trying to be alone. Both will tend to gravitate to like-
minded people.
These would roughly correspond to the "direct/indirect behavior" of congruent (Sanguine,
Melancholy) or incongruent (Choleric, Supine) e/w scores discussed in APS theory.
Cooperative/pragmatic ends up as the "conative" form of "expressiveness", and hence the
conative analogue to I/E.
(People often ask, "if Keirsey's groups are 'temperaments', then why do they not use I/E?", like
classic temperament. Basically, Cooperative/Pragmatic is what replaces the old factor!)

But all of this leads to the corollary that Keirsey had gotten NT and NF backwards in the
correlation to the ancient temperaments.
NT is actually Choleric, which better fits the "pragmatic/structure focused" pole, and NF,
Phlegmatic (or possibly Supine, or a combination), which would be "cooperative/motive
focused". Keirsey decided that the NF’s “sensitivity” matches Choleric, or Kretschmer’s
“hyperesthetic”, while the NT’s “cool dispassion” was Phlegmatic or "anesthetic". Yet, if you
realize that Keirsey’s temperaments correspond to the Control area (leadership and
responsibilities), and not the surface social skills of Inclusion, then it figures we would look for a
different set of behaviors in determining the temperament. NT’s “cool dispassion” actually
better fits the classic Choleric’s lack of feeling and coldness. Kretschmer had even said the
anesthetic displayed a “cutting active coldness and passive insensitivity”, which you will see
described for Cholerics in Arno or LaHaye’s systems and others. German psychologist Fritz
Riemann (Grundformen der Angst [Elementary Forms of Fear"]: E. tiefenpsycholog. Studie ;
1961) states: "So while the NT strives for autonomy and independence, the NF fears nothing
more than the loneliness of becoming an autonomous, independent individual". That clearly
sounds like a Choleric vs Supine contrast in the area of Control! Independence versus
dependence! (Or in Dr. Will Schutz' original FIRO names, "autocrat rebellious" vs "abdicrat
submissive")

Kant had said the Choleric and Phlegmatic were both “cold-blooded”. But the Phlegmatic’s
characteristic “coolness” is actually from his lack of energy, while the Choleric’s coolness was
true coldness, and quite “active”. Even Keirsey’s “skills sets” and Berens’ “core temperament
needs” confirm this, as the NT is “Strategic” skills, and has the need of "mastery and
competence", which matches classic Choleric descriptions, and the NF has the “Diplomatic”
skills set, perfectly matching the traditional portrayal of the Phlegmatic as diplomatic. Thus on
the flipside; Berens describes the NT's stressors as powerlessness and incompetence, and that
when stressed, he "obsesses". (Which we might associate with F, but is really a primitive form!)
You can actually see a lot of this right in Keirsey's own Please Understand Me II (p.169, 184-9,
274, 325ff) where he discusses the Rational's determination to achieve, and how beneath his
calm exterior, he is not really "the cold and distant persons they are often made out to be", and in
fact, becomes obsessive and even "high strung"! The ENTJ is described as the "leader of
leaders", rather than the ENFJ, and the Rationals in general are clearly the ones who are more
into leadership.
In total contrast, on p.316ff, we see that the Idealist hardly ever takes the forefront as political or
military leaders, "They are first and foremost people-oriented" and that they have a need of
appreciation and approval that leads them to end up trying to "please all of the people all of the
time". This perfectly matches the "servant's heart" description of the Supine! It is just not a
Choleric, who is aggressive, independent and focused on his own goals; and definitely NOT the
conative analogue of the affective "Initiator" or "In Charge".
Obviously, when we hold the original temperaments up to the terms "technical" (or
"impersonal") vs "humane" or "personal", it becomes clear that:
["peaceful"] Phlegmatic = humane/personal = NF;
["powerful"] Choleric = technical/impersonal = NT

This does not affect the validity of Keirsey's theory, as the Galen correlations were just a passing
reference he made to continue the "legacy" of temperament theory, and he otherwise moved past
them. However, it is in my correlation where the Galen connection becomes more significant.

Comparisons of Factors

16 types models
FFM Category FIRO/APS ("ERICA")
("EISeNFelT")
E/I
extraversion "Expressed" Inclusion (eI)
(extraversion/introversion)
"Informing/Directing"* Agreeableness "Wanted" Inclusion (wI)
"Cooperative/Pragmatic"* Conscientiousness "Expressed Control" (eC)
"Structure/Motive"
*** "Wanted Control" (wC)
orientation"*
Openness (to new eC-wC
S/N (concrete/abstract)
experiences) congruence/incongruence**
(Comfort/Discomfort — Low e and/or w—high or mod. e
Neuroticism
dropped from analysis) and w**

*Factors determined by T, F, J and P

**Not official "factor"; only inferred
***Likely would be another part of Agreeableness

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
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. Phlegmatic and
Supine are interchangeable):

ISTJ: pure ISFJ: INFJ: INTJ:

Melancholy PhlegmaticMelancholy MelancholyPhlegmatic MelancholyCholeric
ISTP: ISFP: INFP: Phlegmatic and/or INTP:
MelancholySanguine PhlegmaticSanguine Supine PhlegmaticCholeric
ESTP: ENFP: ENTP:
ESFP: pure Sanguine
CholericSanguine SanguinePhlegmatic SanguineCholeric
ESTJ: ESFJ: ENFJ:
ENTJ: pure Choleric
CholericMelancholy SanguineMelancholy CholericPhlegmatic

People I have discussed this with, who take four and five “humour” temperament tests (including
a few I know who have taken the actual APS) do tend to come out close to what their type would
suggest using this correlation. (e.g. Most INFJ’s are Melancholy Phlegmatic or Melancholy
Supine rather than Melancholy Choleric, —which most INTJ's come out as!)

These are helpful, in understanding "temperament blending". Like an ISFP might object to
some SP stereotypes, which are often based on a general "Sanguine" profile (which actually tend
to reflect the original "extroverted" traits of the temperament in its purest form, embodied in the
ESFP). So they may even think they are more NF-like instead. However, that type is basically
Sanguine (in action skills) mixed with Phlegmatic or Supine (in social skills), which will greatly
temper the Sanguine traits, and since NF also seems to be Phlegmatic or Supine (though in
"action" skills), the type might seem like some sort of "blend" or cross between SP and NF.

It should also be pointed out that the correlations of NF and SP to Supine or Phlegmatic in
Control and Sanguine in Control might be looser, because in FIRO and APS, high wanted
Control leads to a form of "dependency", which is focused on in the descriptions. This does not
seem to be seen so much in the type profiles, though there are evidences of it in places. Like
some _S_P type profiles mentioning a "cool off" period, that appears to be a hint of the
Sanguine's independent/dependent "swing". Keirsey alluded to this in his first book when
mentioning the SP's impulsiveness. While not necessarily a form of "dependency" in itself; this
is what that behavior is associated with in FIRO and APS (where it's also called "narcissistic").
And many NF's do say they have problems making decisions, which is characteristic of Supine.
This was also clearly implied in the Riemann quote, above. The moderate wC Phlegmatic does
not have this problem, but instead lacks energy, which the NF does not seem to have a problem
with. (However, that does lead the Phlegmatic to become "diplomatic" like the NF. They want
responsibility to be "shared"). So these two Keirseyan groups might fit the moderate blended
Supine Phlegmatic or Sanguine Phlegmatic [not the same as "SanPhleg", above] instead.
All about “consciousness”

While “consciousness” has gotten mentioned a lot in the Jungian theory type is based on, we see
that its factors do connect with classic temperament. I earlier mentioned dopamine and serotonin
as possible stimulants for the expressed and wanted factors (with expressed Inclusion connecting
directly to the “extraversion/introversion” of type). Consciousness is connected by Jung to I/E,
but it can also be extended to people vs task (responsiveness or “Wanted”), as well. Everyone
needs people, and those with “high” wanted behavior are more conscious of this, and those with
low wanted are less conscious.

expressed Inclusion: consciousness of need of stimulus from the environment

high (E):
feels understimulated, turns to environment to seek more
dominant ego-state and associated cognitive function are “extraverted”
low (I):
feels overstimulated and withdraws to “individual” to regroup
dominant ego-state and associated cognitive function are “introverted”
wanted Inclusion: consciousness of the need of other people
high:
wants inclusion by others, allows them to “define the relationship”, softens communication to
“informing”, tends to consider “people” in judgments (F), and/or has the “openness” to them
provided by and environmentally oriented perception function (P).
low:
only wants interaction according to a stricter criteria; wants to define the relationship; hardens
communication to a dry “directing”, more “task” focused, tends to be more “impersonal” in
judgments (T), and/or prefers the “closure” of an environmentally focused judgment function (J)
expressed Control: consciousness of the need to take on action or responsibilities
high:
quick to take action, based on simply what “works” (pragmatic)
low:
slower to take action, needing to verify what’s “right”
wanted Control: consciousness of the need to share responsibilities
high:
allows others to make decisions, including following the dictates of their “motives”
low:
does not want to follow others’ decisions unless a strict criteria is met according to the dictates of
a “structure”
(Affection is likewise similar to Inclusion).
Neuroticism is the “fifth factor” added by the “Five Factor Model” or “Big Five” centered
around the NEO-PI and is currently the most respected model in psychology. Neuroticism was
originally introduced by Hans Eysenck with the classic temperaments, in place of
responsiveness. Both can be connected to the old “response-time sustain” factor, where positive
or negative emotions are held onto longer or shorter. Where responsiveness would then cover
how this comes out in our interaction with people, Neuroticism would be defined strictly in terms
of the negative emotions (its opposite is “Stable”). It was sort of the inverse of responsiveness,
with Melancholy and Choleric as “high” and Sanguine and Phlegmatic as “low”. When the fifth
temperament, Supine is added, it breaks the inverse symmetry, as the temperament is “high” in
both responsiveness and Neuroticism, rather than being high in one and low in the other. How
could this be?
When we put it together on the expressed/wanted matrix, we see that all three “neurotic”
temperaments have at least one “low” score. The “stable” Sanguine has both high scores, and the
Phlegmatic has both moderate scores.
So now we’re suggesting that “low” e/w scores represent a lack of consciousness of some form
of need of interaction. This would make sense. It seems Neuroticism then, can be connected to
this lack of consciousness. The Supine is Neurotic (and definitely described as such in both
APS, and for the corresponding FIRO-B scores) because he does not match his awareness of his
need of people with a consciousness of a need to actively engage with the environment. He
awaits others to invite him, and remains frustrated. The Choleric on the other hand, is aware of
the need to engage, but not that he genuinely needs the people he approaches other than for his
goals. The Melancholy is conscious of neither need, but still ends up feeling lonely and sad (and
often not knowing why), hence “melancholy”. The Phlegmatic’s moderation gives him low
energy, but not the stress of these disparities, hence ending up “stable”.
Eysenck later added another factor, Psychoticism, calling it “PEN” (Psychoticism, Extraversion,
Neuroticism) and the developers of FFM later broke the new factor down into Agreeableness,
Openness and Conscientiousness, completing the Big Five. Agreeableness is basically classic
Responsiveness. When correlated with MBTI, it’s matched to T/F, while Conscientiousness is
J/P and Openness is S/N. (I believe they should try correlating Agreeableness with
“informing/directing” and “structure/motive”; and Conscientiousness with
“Cooperative/Pragmatic”). While Neuroticism was once analyzed by Myers in what became the
“subscale” systems of MBTI Steps II and III (and was called “Comfort/Discomfort”), it was
ultimately deemed too “negative” for the type theory and eventually folded into the subscales of
the other factors; especially T/F. However, the correlation we have here suggests it is already
built into type, via the classic temperaments mapped to the Interaction styles and Keirsey
temperaments.
Also, since consciousness comes through “ego-states” (which shall be discussed further in The
Dynamics of the Four Letter Code and Function Stack), then it follows that temperaments, like
the archetypal complexes that form the function stack, are also archetypal complexes, and thus
also ego-states. Since there are three different areas of need in which three different
temperaments can be blended, then these represent separate ego-states as well.

For more on my correlation: A New Look At FIRO-MBTI Correlations

https://www.academia.edu/36105543/A_New_Look_at_MBTI-FIRO_Correlations.docx

©2010-17 ETB
 APPENDIX:

The type functions' operational definitions, derived from common function terms

Thinking and Feeling function's connection to literal "thinking" and "feeling":

The literal terms are based on the emotionality of the process, with emotion representing more of
a deeper personal involvement in the process, in contrast to a detached impersonal pondering of
subjects. This is where the confusion about "Feeling=emotions" comes from, but it says nothing
about the humane or technical focused content of the process, which is what the T/F functions
are about. A person can be "thinking" of how something affects him and how to react, and we
see him sitting there "thinking", but in our sense of the terms, he's actually "Feeling". And a
person can be having an emotional reaction because he sees something is incorrect; it won't
work, and will lead to some sort of problems, if nothing more than inefficiency. We'll look and
say he "feels" strongly about that, but his judgment is actually "Thinking"!
So the experience of emotions, wants and likes is not the Feeling function; it's the rational
assessment of them that is.

Indeed, the feeling function, as a mode of psychological orientation, must above all not
be confused with emotion. The latter, more properly called affect, is invariably the
consequence of an active complex. "Feeling is distinguished from affect," writes Jung,
"by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor
less than an ordinary thinking process." (Jung, Psychological Types, par. 725) Affect
tends to contaminate or distort each of the functions: we can't think straight when we are
mad; happiness colors the way we perceive things and people; we can't properly evaluate
what something is worth to us when we're upset; and possibilities dry up when we're
depressed.
PERSONALITY TYPES: Jung’s Model of Typology, Daryl Sharp, Toronto, Inner City Books,
1987 p.18 http://www.innercitybooks.net/pdf/books/personalitytypes.pdf)

In our usage, thinking is basically a decision-making (even if just mental) process based on linear
cause-and-effect principles. It tends to be more "detached" from emotions or "impersonal", as it
deals in logic. I found that it can be summed up as dealing with the TECHNICAL or the
MECHANICS of things, expressed as what's VALID.
Feeling is basically a decision-making process based on values where evaluations generally take
into consideration what's DESIRED. This process will tend to have more emotion involved, and
include personal ethics. It can be summed up as PERSONAL, as such "valuing" puts a personal
aspect on things. Because "personal" can mean many different things, the term HUMANE or
ANTHROPIC seems to cover its focus more specifically. Or we could say SOUL-AFFECT.
These two processes are also described as "arranging" or ordering one of two realms (below).
Sensing and iNtuition function's connection to literal "sensation" and commonly mentioned
"intuition":

Sensation is of course the data taken in through the five senses, which everyone does, including
animals. The difference between a Sensation type and iNtuitives and animals is that they derive
the most meaning from the sensory data itself, moreso than extracting unseen inferences from it
(like N's), or only reacting to it according to instinct (like animals).
"Intuition" is frequently used in a sense like "woman's intuition", which is just a "sense" or
"hunch", only partly based on what's seen before you, but the meaning is extracted from this
often less conscious impression from within. An iNtuitive type will be more drawn to these
meanings behind things, often "reading between the lines", as its put.

Understanding Ni and its difference from Ne (and Si and Se).

Introverted iNtuition has been the hardest function to understand and explain, because it’s doubly
about the “unconscious”. While extraversion and Sensing are the “conscious” orientation, and
perception function, respectively, introversion (of any function) is considered unconscious
because it’s drawing from something stored in memory, rather than immediate external stimulus.
iNtuition is considered unconscious because it’s the means of taking in information that’s not
stimulated by the senses, but rather observation of patterns of “where things are heading”, as
Jung put it. i/e are basically about the “access”, and S/N, the experience of consciousness. So Se
is “conscious consciousness”, Si is “unconscious consciousness”, Ne is “conscious
unconsciousness”, and Ni is “unconscious unconsciousness” (and hence, “meta”-awareness).

So, with cognition basically answering "yes/no" (breaking down into perception telling is it “is”
or “isn’t”, and judgment telling us if it's "right or wrong"):

Ne yes/no (pattern of where it "could be" heading or not) determined by the objects involved
themselves
Ni yes/no (pattern of where it "could be" heading or not) determined by internal unconscious

(Where Se is yes/no (what’s "known" or not) determined by whatever is physically before you,
and Si is yes/no (what is "known" or not) determined by whatever you remember physically
experiencing).

Both Ne and Ni "fill in" things from a "big picture", but Ne lets the object or entire
environment fill in its own big picture, where Ni looks within to access a wholly separate
big picture, that others likely can't even be made to see.

So Ne will tend to say "yes" to everything, because looking at an object, you can imagine
anything for it. It's basically the judgment function or Si working in tandem with it that would
have to indicate an outcome is not tenable or viable.

Ni will say "yes" or "no" (and more often says "no", especially to things Ne takes for granted)
based on a hunch, gut instinct, or image that just comes up. Then, Je will be used to verify the
"yes" as "right", or "no" as" wrong".
One NJ's Ni might say "no" to something, while another’s' says "yes". Both then use Je to verify
their perceptions. Either may appear to be just "pulling things out of the air" when it comes to
either an idea, or an objection to something (as I’ve often felt when debating them), but it's Ni,
behind the scenes just perceiving it as tenable or untenable (able or not able ''to be held''), for
reasons that might not even be conscious.

Any image or interpretive thought that comes up (that isn't a past concrete experience), that
locks on to a "yes" or especially "no" to a possibility, regardless of what the involved
object itself would allow, is likely Ni.

A Word on Socionics:

Socionics uses a lowercase "j/p" to indicate "dominant" instead of "extraverted" function. (This
was done to more closely match Jung's "rational/irrational" type designation, which was based on
the dominant function). This will yield the same code for extraverts, since the dominant is the
extraverted one. However, for introverts, j/p will be swapped, such as Ti+Ne indicating "INTj"
instead of INTP; and there is dispute over which one really corresponds to the MBTI.
Sometimes, the Ti and Ne for the INTj are even said to 'act like' MBTI's Te and Ni for the INTJ.
And Te and Ni for INTp like Ti and Ne for INTP. Hence, INTj might turn out to be INTJ (and
INTp be INTP) after all.
When you realize, again, that there are really only four functions, and that the ego is the one who
bears the "attitudes", then you can see why these different versions of the theory could diverge
so, while ultimately still be attempting to describe the same thing.

So, to recap the entire definitions and process:

What the perspectives of the eight letters tell us:

S: Spacelike object recognition: What it is; tangible; practical; the substance of things; known
N: Timelike pattern recognition: What's its trajectory; concepts, the idea of things, inferred
T: Impersonal "truth" determination: What it is, technically; true or false
F: Human affect determination: What's it’s worth, humanely; good or bad
e: directly engage external "objects" (think "not I"), or the environment itself
i: filter things through an internal "model" of them referenced individually by the "subject" ("I").
J: Judgment has external standard; perception has individual focus (focus on “order”)
P: Perception has external focus; judgment function has individual standard (more “open”)

Our ego chooses the inner or outer world (environment or individual), and begins choosing a
dominant function to use in its world. First, the class of function is chosen: either an information
gathering or decision making function. Then the specific function is chosen (tangible {"known"}
or conceptual {"guessed"} information gathering, or technical {"true/false"}
or humane {"good/bad"} decision making). An auxiliary function will be the opposite class of
function in the opposite orientation.
And there, the type is set, and the rest of the functions will eventually fall into place!