Talk:Four temperaments/Archive 0

I'm unsure of the order of the four temperaments in the mask image. To me it seems like the last two should be swapped (i.e., I think we have choleric - melancholic - sanguine - phlegmatic). Comments?

Whats this stuff about a possible new fifth temperament. I thought this an article about historic views of medicine and personality. --Dumbo1 23:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I've tried first to get rid of it, and, when it was re-inserted, to rephrase it in such a way that we could all live with it. But I really think the article would be better without it See also Talk:Four humours.--Niels Ø 10:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Something like the discovery of a fifth temperament would be quite significant and "historic". Finding something more accurate should help make temperament theory more popular, and show that it has readily testable, scientific support (I have seen one blog where the people dismiss the ancient four temperament theory as some unscientific, long-discredited ancient myth, like astrology; as if we still believe that it is the four fluids that cause the temperaments). (BTW, the fifth temperament can perhaps be likened to white blood cells. So you have two types of bile, and two types of blood, with phlegm in the middle). I've also given Five Temperaments its own article; which gives more information about how this was discovered. It really is quite an accurate description of temperament, as there are some traits that do not really fit into the other four (though they have always ended up classed in one of the others). Also, Niels, I made a new "faces" image to reflect the five, and incuded that in the article, and I thought you'd find it interesting (I also had mentioned in on your User Talk page).Eric B 22:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If the temperaments do not exist, how can you discover them? Of course they do exist as a theory of historical importance, and as a first approximation to identifying different personality types, and some of the associations that can be found in Four humours make sense. But to say that before we thought there were four, now we know there are five (and then the twelve blends on top of that - why not add Mel-Sup and another 7 new blends, now we are at it?) - that's silly; at best, it is a psychological theory put forward by a few people that hasn't attracted enough attention to deserve to be called controversial.

As for the new emoticons, yes I got your message on my talk page; I didn't respnd as I wasn't sure how to say it without offending you (and we Danes seem to have caused enough offence for the time being). Since you insist, you now have my views: Sorry, but I don't think they are interesting.

The theories you promote may deserve an article (like Five Temperaments, or Five temperaments as I believ it should be called, or like Supine (Temperament)), and that article may deserve a link from Four temperaments, probably under See also, but that's all - unless you can provide references to manistream psychological literature or the like discussing those theories. Also, I think one of your two new articles should just redirect to the other.

So I have removed the paragraph, and added See also. Here's what I removed:

==Possible fifth temperament and temperament blends==

In recent years, a fifth temperament, the Supine, has been suggested. Supines like and need people, however, they have a fear of rejection and do not initiate in relationships. The four-temperament model also has twelve mixtures of the four temperaments: Mel-Chlor, Chlor-San, San-Phleg, Phleg-Mel, Mel-San, Chlor Phleg; and the reverse of these: Chlor-Mel, San-Chlor, Phleg-San, Mel-Phleg, San-Mel, and Phleg-Chlor. These represent people who have the traits of two temperaments. The order of temperaments in these pairs was based on which temperament was the "dominant" one. A person can also be a blend of three temperaments.

--Niels Ø 08:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The four emoticons I added may have the character of original research as I cannot give any references for them. However, I think they are nice, and do no harm on this page. If anyone disagrees, go ahead and remove them. They hint at a view of the four temperament as four "corners" in a 2D representation of personality types, like the four cardinal directions. The 12 blends discussed by Eric B are like the wind's twelve corners (NNE etc.). In Jung: Man and his Symbols (p.60 in my copy), there is a circle with the points "Sensation" (at 12 o'clock), "Thought" (at 3), "Intuition" (6) and "Feeling" (9). So sensation and intuition are opposites, as are thought and feeling. So here really is another four temperamets theory, which may (or may not) deserve mention in the article.--Niels Ø 08:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Just to let you know, the 12 blends I mentioned afterwards are apart of the four temperament model, not the five temperament model. LaHaye is one who uses them, and says that most people are actually blends. In fact; I was thinking of reversing that paragraph (mentioning the blends first) because I knew some might think that was apart of the five temperament model.

There would be no "Mel-Sup" in the five, because in this system, only Phlegmatic is blended with the other temperaments. In fact; what lies between Supine and Melancholy is Supine Phlegmatic and Melancholy Phlegmatic, which have traits of both. They are considered "Phlegmatic" blends, rather than "Mel-Sup/Sup-Mel" blends, because they represent a mid range score in the area called "responsiveness" (Supines respond to people more than melancholies), and in this system, anything mid-range is defined as Phlegmatic. So once again, these 8 "Phegmatic" blends in the five temperament system are not to be confused with the 12 blends I mentioned which are apart of your four temperament model. The info on those 12 blends should be put back in the four temperament article.

The new emoticon chart I added is based on the FIRO-B oriented score chart used by the five temperament system. Scores go up in the areas of expressed (horizontal) and responsive (vertical) behavior, and the different temperaments are identified by the different scores. It is the same as yours, except that the new temperament ends up taking over the face Phlegmatic had in the 4 temperament model, and Phlegmatic is now a new "neutral" face directly in the middle, because that's where Phlegmatic scores lie, and that is more characteristic of the Phlegmatic traits. There is nothing wrong with your faces at all. It was a great idea. Why would anyone want to remove it? They represent the four temperament system, and mine represent the five.

Also, we believe the temperament always existed, but was not recognized, because Supines do not express their wants. So they look like Melancholies (or Phlegmatics to some extent) even though they share the desires (of people) that Sanguines do. In fact, some systems call them "passive sanguine"!Eric B 04:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I've made my views clear. I think an article on the historic four temperaments should stand on its own, without other than a couple of links or a passing mention of recent developments. Perhaps one could write an article called "Moderns temperamental theories", have "Four temperaments" link to that, and have the new article either coser the new theories, or link to articles that do. You mention some names that obviously should be referenced in those articles.

Another possibility would be some sort of disambiguation. Actually, in "Four temperaments" we could say, "This article is about the historical temperamental theory. For other temperamental theories, see the article Temperament, and links therein."--Niels Ø 07:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the way you have done it (the "See also" section). That's fine, and I just did not think of doing it that way at the time I put it up.

Still; since those 12 blends I mentioned are apart of the historic four temperaments, they should be mentioned in this article also. I don't know how "recent" a theory that is, but from what I am seeing in discussions and writings of people holding the four temperament model, they all hold that most people are a blend of more than one.

Also, the reason I thought you would be interested in the image I put up, is because it shows you exactly how to read the faces: the eyes represent "expressed behavior" and the mouth represents wanted behavior"

So

`´ (expresses as an extrovert) + ) (responds as an extrovert) = Sanguine.

´` (expresses as an introvert) + ( (responds as an introvert) = Melancholy.

`´ (expresses as an extrovert) + ( (responds an an introvert: i.e. unapproachable) = Choleric.

So then, you have

´` (expresses as an introvert) + ) (responds as an extrovert). This is NOT Phlegmatic! Phlegmatics, though they are not as extroverted as the Sanguine and Choleric, are not as introverted as Melancholies. They are "indifferent", and would be better represented by a neutral face: -- + |. This is additional evidence for a fifth temerament.

And yesterday you said something about "mainstream psychological literature", but 1, isn't FIRO-B (from which this is derived) a bit more established and closer to mainstream?

2. How many in mainstream psychology are talking about temperament now?

Eric B 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer the original question

The last two masks should NOT be reversed. The third one is Phlegmatic, and the last one is Sanguine. The last one is clearly a happy, bright eyed face, corresponding to Niels' `´) emoticon, which is Sanguine. (And of course, the first mask is an angry face, and of course is Choleric; the second one is an uptight looking face that would be Melancholy). The smiling but shy eyed ´`) emoticon is supposed to be Phlegmatic. The third carved mask is neither a smile nor a frown, (the twisted, bug-eyed look strikes me as resembling Rodney Dangerfield), and represents a more "indifferent" look. Basically; I guess ´`) is supposed to correspond to that. However, the --| emoticon I added for the five temperament article represents an "indifferent" look. Eric B 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

spelling

Chlor is a poor abbreviation for choler; is it a mere lapse? —Tamfang 00:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I basically copied that from Tim LaHaye. He probably contracted it like that to make it a nicer combining form. (to keep it one syllable like the others, and it is better than "chol") Eric B 03:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

New link

Hello, I found an excellent article about the temperaments which is very plainspoken and clear for the novice - I believe it will help other trying to understand this concept.

Positives and Negatives

I am concerned that this article has unintentionally distorted the theory by making it sound like one temperament is seen as being better than another. Each temperament has both positives and negatives as is put forth in the link I added and the second link I am about to add, Temperaments in a Nutshell. I would like to invite others to help balance the article itself and I will make time to come back and edit as well. Any feedback? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderactivist (talk • contribs)

Looks great. You did a nice job of concisely explaining the positive and negative aspects of each of the personality types. -TangentIdea 04:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate for replacement image

The image from Johann Kaspar Lavater's work regards the Four temperaments contained this image, which is much more detailed and comprehensive than the current image of the Four temperament faces carved into stone. Lavater's image is in the public domain. To my mind, it better illustrates the extremes of all four temperaments than the current image. Thus, could we replace the current image with Lavater's? Note that it would be downsized appropriately, conforming with this article's overall construct. If fellow editors would kindly view the Lavater image, and then reply here with their views, then we may see whether or not Lavater's illustration can replace our current image. Thanks. -- D-Katana 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Go ahead.--Niels Ø 08:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but though the new picture looks nice, the masks were still better. The choleric looked like a choleric. Here, he looks almost as neutral as the Phlegmatic. And the sanguine also has a slight smile that does not really fit his character. That would be more like a San-Phleg or something. They should at least keep the masks up somewhere.Eric B 03:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

We're all different - I think the new images illustrate the four classical temparaments much more clearly than the old one did.--Niels Ø 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Iw is wrong. Czech equivalent article is cs:Čtyři povahy. I don't know how should I deal with the other (Phlegmatic). Could you PLS fix it somehow? Thanks. Petr K 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)