Skip to content

Classic temperament and MBTI type correlation

September 27, 2012

Full article:

generic term Area code Keirsey Berens FIRO/APS
affective social E/I + S + T/F; E/I + N + J/P “roles of Interaction” Interaction Styles Inclusion; Affection
conative action S + J/P N + T/F “temperament” “temperament” Control
cognitive processing S,N,T,F + J/P N/A (rejected) Cognitive Processes (Jung/Beebe) omitted, but implied by possible correlation

The way the factors, styles and temperaments seem to line up:

code Keirsey Berens APS (approximate)
SJ Guardian Stabilizer Melancholy in Control
SP Artisan Improviser Sanguine in Control
NF Idealist Catalyst Phlegmatic or Supine in Control
NT Rational Theorist Choleric in Control
IST/INJ Contender Chart the Course Melancholy in Inclusion
ISF/INP Responder Behind the Scenes Phlegmatic or Supine in Inclusion
EST/ENJ Initiator In Charge Choleric in Inclusion
ESF/ENP Coworker Get Things Going Sanguine in Inclusion
E Expressive Initiating High Expressed Inclusion (eI)
I Reserved Responding Low Expressed Inclusion (eI)
[S]+F; [N]+P Role-Informative Informing High Wanted Inclusion (wI)
[S]+T; [N]+J Role-Directive Directing Low Wanted Inclusion (wI)
[N]+T; [S]+P Pragmatic, Utilitarian Pragmatic High Expressed Control (eC)
[N]+F; [S]+J Cooperative Affiliative Low Expressed Control (eC)
[N]+F; [S]+P [see comment below] Motive High Wanted Control (wC)
[N]+T; [S]+J [see comment below] Structure Low Wanted Control (wC)
N/A Intersecting Process (Movement) eI≈wI (Direct)
N/A Interlinking Outcome (Control) eI≠wI (Indirect)
S concrete concrete eC≈wC
N abstract, introspective abstract eC≠wC

Resultant blended temperaments of each type:




Melancholy or


Phlegmatic or






Sanguine or


Pure Phlegmatic
or Supine or blends


Choleric or
Supine Choleric






Phlegmatic or








Phlegmatic or


Pure Choleric

Matrices overlaid:

See also:

  1. In the vein of the “Eight Step Into To Type”, here is a few step correlation between temperament and type:

    1) Keirsey temperaments are Control:
    SJ Melancholy, SP Sanguine, NT Choleric, NF Supine or Phlegmatic
    a) This tells us where S/N fits in temperament: Opposite Controls.
    2) I/E is expressed Inclusion (I low; E high)
    3) Both T/F and J/P are connected with “wanted” scores
    a) We already see them in the Controls. For the S’s, it’s J (low) and P (high). For N’s, it’s T (low) F (high)
    b) so the poles not represented in the Keirsey code will be associated with Inclusion: for S’s: T (low) F (high) and for N’s: J (low) P (high)

  2. At one point, the temperament matrix was factored in terms of response time delay and sustain (Both “long” or “short”, corresponding respectively to low or high expressiveness or responsiveness).

    While I’ve pointed out how Supine is the true low E/high W, and Phlegmatic is actually moderate, I’ve never really addressed how exactly they fit delay/sustain.

    Phlegmatic and Supine are BOTH long delay, short sustain. Though for different reasons.
    Phlegmatic is so because it lacks the energy to express much (i.e. have a quick delay) or hold on to things (i.e. long sustain). Supine on the other hand is energized by fear to prolong a delay of expression, and by a need of acceptance to be more responsive and not hold onto negativity.

    However, this “indirect behavior” leads to an endless loop of not having the need met, and then being unhappy a lot of the time. (They’re not “holding on” to it; the cause of unhappiness is just repeated constantly).
    So they will nevertheless end up fitting the definition of “Neuroticism” just as much as the long sustain (and low responsiveness) temperaments (Choleric, Melancholy) who do hold onto things. (Where the Phlegmatic doesn’t have as much of that fear and need energizing the long delay and short sustain either. Hence, an appearance of “indifference”, and thus traditionally being “Stable”, or low in Neuroticism).

    This is where Neuroticism becomes differentiated from responsiveness (“Agreeableness”), and why Phlegmatic and Supine are represented by the same quadrant in the translation from five back to four temperament systems (including Keirsey and Interaction Styles).

  3. Someone recently points out, in Keirsey’s last book Personology, that he “inadvertently touched upon the structure-vs-motive dimension here”:

    Though a state of arousal like enthusiasm, excitement is fundamentally different from it. Excitement is different from enthusiasm for the reason that to be enthused is to be aroused from within–by an idea, an image, a desire, an emotion, while to be excited is to be aroused from without–by the stimulus of a game, a contest, a challenge. Thus the disposition of the Artisans is opposite that of the Idealists, with Artisans frequently and easily becoming excited, but only slowly and rarely becoming enthused; and with the Idealists frequently and easily becoming enthused, but only slowly and uneasily becoming excited. However, both excitement and enthusiasm are contagious, such that one’s companions are affected by one’s excitement as well as one’s enthusiasm. But does this mean that the tranquility of the Rationals or the seriousness of the Guardians are also contagious? Clearly not, for the latter two dispositions are not only not contagious, but a little annoying to companions, whatever their temperament. For example, the Rational who remains calm in a crisis, keeping his or her cool when Artisans are intemperate, is sometimes seen as a dud by Artisans. And the Guardian who evinces gloom in the midst of gaiety is sometimes seen by Artisans as a sad sack.
    (p.136-7, emphasis added)

    The “contagious” temperaments are SP and NF; the potentially “annoying” temperaments are NT and SJ.
    “Excited”, “Enthusiastic”, “Tranquil” and “serious” are alternate “temperament” descriptions
    and, note the distinction between “excited” and “enthusiastic”, with Idealists only slowly and uneasily becoming “excited”. This again is the “Expressive” difference of the temperaments, and “enthusiasm” has become confused with “excitement”, in justifying Keirsey making NF Choleric. (Even though NT seems “tranquil”, his “expressiveness” lies more in his pragmaticism, or being quick to take action, then it does in emotional response, which is a more affective than conative trait).

  4. Here’s a video on the infamous “INFJ door slam”:

    This is when the type reaches a point in a relationship where he gives up, and then cuts if off, often in a fiery display of anger (which I think is not mentioned in the video). He then cuts off contact; at least self-initiated contact. Yet, as the video does point out, the person is really “crushed” inside.

    While the more “aggressive” part of it might seem to go along with Keirsey’s view of the NF as “Choleric”, what we can hear described in this video is clearly compatible with a Supine; particularly (in the case of this type), a Melancholy in Inclusion [INJ], and Supine in Control [NF].
    It perfectly fits the APS descriptions of the Supine’s willingness to “serve” and keep trying to gain the acceptance or ackowledgment he needs, but eventually, if the person doesn’t give it to him, will react, possibly violently. (The Melancholy’s characteristic “directiveness” of the low responsiveness on the social level will aid in the coldness of the reaction, and the person will be kicked out of that temperament’s [low W] “exclusive club”. Affection temperament, which could be any of the five, will naturally be very involved as well, leading to different possible variations on how the door slam is carried out).

    INFJ’s in type discussions, who take a free “five temperaments test” someone put up online (and a few who even went and took the actual APS!) often score high on Melancholy and Supine! (Or at least Phlegmatic. Those who take four temperament tests also often get Melancholy and Phlegmatic).

  5. Mike permalink

    Assuming this is true, how would Supine fit into DISC, assuming they correlated as: Choleric-Sanguine-Phlegmatic-Melancholy ?

    • Supine would be “S” Steadfastness (“Passive” and “Open”), like Phlegmatic. Phlegmatic is really a moderate (inbetween) temperament, but it is what filled the fourth slot from ancient times, where Supine was mistaken for either it or Melancholy, because of its low expressiveness, and not making known his high need (i.e. what corresponds to “oppenness”).

      This is explained further in the second comment, above (discussing “delay/sustain”).

  6. It was somehow just recently that I realized another way to express the parallel of structure vs. motive 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!
    (Added to

  7. Functions as “yes/no” processes, and the RESPONSIVE behaviors

    As I’ve been saying for awhile, the functions can all be seen as determining “yes” or “no” in their respective ways. Yes or no also basically correspond to being more or less “responsive” to someone.

    “Yes” = “responsive” (or “wanted”)
    “No” = “non-responsive” (low “wanted”; “reluctant”)

    Se: “yes” if an object is there; “no” only if nothing is there
    Ne: “yes” if the object can imply something, and “no” would only be if it couldn’t imply anything, which like Se, would also pretty much mean there was no object.

    Since this perception is much more malleable, going beyond the presence of a physical object itself, Ne doesn’t really say “no” on its own

    So extraverted Perception (Pe) is totally dependent on the environment, and “no” is simply lack of current data

    Si: yes if there was ONCE an object (connections made in brain), no if there wasn’t.
    Ni: yes if an implication comes from the unconscious (connections in brain not made from tangible input); no if it doesn’t

    (Just came to more of a realization that we should begin to focus on neurology in regard to functions. People think typology is like astrology; functions are “nonsense”, etc. but like everything else in our consciousness, it’s all about neurological connections which are of course more concrete where typology is abstract).

    So introverted Perception (Pi) is more likely to say “no” (and not for a readily obvious reason), because either the neurological connection is there or it’s not (where Pe is about the connections being made on the spot; hence more “open”). If not, then “that’s just the way it is” (or more accurately, “isn’t”) as they often say when people ask “why”, or keep trying to find alternatives to something.
    Pe will continue to look or wait for the “yes”, and if it (the data) ever shows up, then, the “yes” is automatic. So the “yes” will be more likely to be found.

    This is what leads in the type code, to “J” (Je/Pi) being less responsive, and “P” (Pe/Ji) being more responsive. This figures in both “temperament” (Keirsey) and the Interaction Styles; and parallels T/F.

    With T/F, “yes/no” is “rational”, or of the “will”, and thus figures even more for responsiveness, or “introvolition”/”extrovolition” as I call it. (Internally or externally WILLing, to match other classic temperament dimension “introversion”/”extroversion” or internal or external TURNing).

    The judgments’ responsiveness is for starters, built into the function, as “yes/no” (“rightness”) is determined by affect on people (responsive, whence “people”-focus), or objects (less responsive, or “task”-focus).

    The attitude also adds to this, with extraversion of the judgment increasing the task-focus.
    Yes or no is determined by “objects” (even if people), rather than a “subject”
    . Je works with Pi, whose “yes/no” is again fixed according to already “set” data.
    Ji is determined by a personal “subject” (even if that subject’s perspective is “impersonal”), and works with Pe (whose “yes/no” is again, more “open”), and so usually ends up more “flexible”, at least in giving other people’s perspectives a chance.

    So Fi (F+P) ends up as the “most responsive”, Te (T+J) as the least responsive, or most “directive”, and Ti (T+P) and Fe (F+J) are somewhere inbetween (“Achilles Tendencies” page), as you have a mix of more responsive and less responsive poles. TP’s and FJ’s (particularly the N variants of them) often struggle with T/F or J/P.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Temperament blends « "ERIPEDIA"
  2. Best and worst love match for ENFPs from your experience? - Page 2
  3. Some basics about psychological types (5 of 7) | Achromant
  4. Personality. – Thoasp

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: