bookmarking this for later because holy cow
@AngelNextDoor just a suggestion:
It might be a good idea to go back and edit your OP and longer comments with markdown & HTML for easier reading (if you still have editing access). I frequently use spoilers and dropdown boxes in order to condense my longer posts. This allows people to see a short version of just scrolling by, or expand sections in order to read through. It also just makes it way more readable on mobile devices.
@gfrederic24 Okay, “I might not know exactly what I am, but I know what I’m NOT” absolutely cracked me up. 😂 Apparently eliminating Choleric is as far as the scientific process is getting today. 😭
But your answers being all over the board is actually becoming one of the most interesting parts of this for me, because you're definitely not the only person getting a messy result instead of landing neatly in one category.
@IronicMaiden 😂😂😂 At this point I think “all five at once” may need to become an official sixth option. Temperament: YES.
Especially because you've been thinking about it in the context of actual recent experiences rather than just answering abstract questions. That makes me wonder whether you're actually “confused,” or whether different situations/people are pulling out genuinely different parts of you.
@cuddlefaery YES — and this is actually where this rabbit hole has gotten much more interesting to me than the original personality typing itself.
I don't really have any investment in proving that these five temperaments are scientifically true categories that humans naturally sort into. If anything, watching everyone try to apply them has made me LESS convinced that the boxes are the interesting part. 😂
What I do find useful is exactly what you described: the vocabulary they give us for self-reflection and communicating things that can otherwise be surprisingly difficult to articulate.
Because once we started talking about this, people began separating things I hadn't necessarily thought about separately before: what affection you internally WANT, what you outwardly EXPRESS, whether you initiate it, how strongly you respond when someone else initiates, how rejection affects initiation, whether you're different giving versus receiving, how much trust changes everything, etc.
And suddenly “What temperament are you?” became much less interesting to me than “Why did you choose that answer?”
Two people can pick the exact same answer for completely different reasons. And apparently one person can pick five different answers depending on the relationship, environment, level of trust, sensory load, life experience, neurodivergence, or what happened to them Tuesday afternoon. 😂
So I'm increasingly thinking of these less like five boxes and more like five reference points on a very messy multidimensional map. You might lean toward one area, move between several, express one outwardly while wanting another internally, or—as Ironic has apparently decided—simply occupy the entire map simultaneously. 😭😂
I also completely agree with the warning about over-identifying with these systems. That's where I think something that can be a fun/useful language for self-reflection can turn into something limiting: “I'm X, therefore I behave like X.” Noooo. Now the framework is telling you who you're allowed to be instead of helping you notice things about yourself.
Which is also why I keep finding everyone's mismatches more fascinating than their actual result. 👀
Like, if somebody appears extremely outgoing and affectionate but internally struggles to ask for affection… THAT tells me something interesting. If somebody rarely initiates but responds enthusiastically when someone else does… interesting. If someone is Sanguine with one person and practically Supine or Melancholy with another… why?
And on a cuddling website specifically, those differences seem incredibly relevant. We spend so much time talking about boundaries and consent, but there's this whole layer underneath that about how people signal, request, receive, initiate, and interpret affection that isn't necessarily obvious from their outward personality.
So I think you guys may have successfully broken my personality test. 😂 But unfortunately for everyone involved, you've only made me MORE interested in the underlying question.
The boxes can burn. I'm keeping the rabbit hole. 😇😂🤍
Wow! This is super interesting and I'm definitely seeing myself in certain labels. I skimmed it but am absolutely coming back to read the post in it's entirety when I have time!
I think I need a padded room after this 🤣
@Goonie4life I warned everyone this was a rabbit hole. The padded room is just where the tunnel comes out. 🤣🤣
@cuddlefaery Thank you for the heads up about the HTML for the OP! Unfortunately by the time that advice came in I was no longer able to edit it.
I just started reading this and I think I need to come back to it when I have time and the mindset. It looks very intriguing. As well as unknown territory in regards to information.
Okay, I have finally accepted the feedback. 😂
Apparently the problem isn't that nobody finds this interesting. The problem is that I handed everyone a 47-course tasting menu and then stood at the door yelling WHY HAVEN'T YOU FINISHED DINNER?! 😭😂 So I'm trying something different.
You absolutely do NOT need to read my entire Wormhole Dissertation™ to play with this.
I HAVE AN IMPORTANT QUIZ PATCH NOTE. 😭😂 When I originally made the Cosmo quiz, I accidentally built it around the classic FOUR temperaments... ...in a thread where I had literally just written an entire dissertation about a system that uses FIVE. I LEFT SUPINE OUT OF THE COSMO QUIZ. 😭
So if you took the quiz and thought: “Ehhh… none of these really feels like me?”
OR you got something like Melancholy but parts of it didn't quite fit... you may want to perform the highly scientific Supine Check™. 😂💜
Give yourself one 💜 for every statement that feels VERY “oh God, that's me”: □ I can want a LOT of affection while still having difficulty being the person who initiates it. □ Sometimes I secretly wish someone would notice that I need reassurance or closeness without making me explicitly ask for it. □ I may really want someone to come talk to me, include me, hug me, or move closer to me while simultaneously doing very little to make the first move myself. 😂 □ Rejection — or even the POSSIBILITY of rejection — can make me hesitate to initiate something I genuinely want. □ Once I feel accepted and emotionally safe with someone, I can become extremely affectionate and deeply attached. □ I sometimes appear less interested in closeness than I actually am because other people can only see what I'm EXPRESSING, not what I'm secretly WANTING. □ Asking directly for affection, reassurance, attention, or closeness can feel surprisingly vulnerable even when I desperately want it. □ I often respond VERY warmly when someone else initiates affection with me — sometimes much more warmly than they might have expected based on how reserved I seemed beforehand. □ There have absolutely been moments when my internal monologue was basically: “PLEASE LOVE ME. PLEASE COME HERE. PLEASE HUG ME.” while my external behavior was: 🙂
SO… AM I SUPINE? 💜 There isn't a legitimate numerical cutoff here because this is still my homemade Cosmo quiz, NOT an actual APS assessment. 😂
But if you just read that list thinking: 💜 yes 💜 yes 💜 YES 💜 oh no 💜 STOP 💜 WHY ARE YOU IN MY HOUSE ...go open the Supine section below. 😭😂
The easiest distinction is: 🖤 Melancholy: “I don't give intimate access to very many people. I'm selective about who gets close.” 💜 Supine: “I may desperately WANT intimate closeness, but I often need YOU to come toward ME.”
They can look surprisingly similar from the outside because both may appear reserved. Internally? VERY different story. 👀
And remember: this doesn't mean your original quiz result was “wrong.” Your social temperament and your Affection temperament may not match in the first place.
You could very reasonably discover: 🔥 Socially: Sanguine as HECK. 💜 Affectionately: ...oh crap, I'm Supine.
Which is basically the entire reason we're all still trapped in this rabbit hole. 😂🐇
THEN ask yourself just FOUR questions: 1. How much affection do I want? 2. How much affection do I initiate? 3. When someone else initiates affection, how readily do I respond? 4. Does any of that change depending on who the person is / how safe I feel / how well I know them?
That's it. You may now leave the rabbit hole. 😂
ORRRRRR… If one of those questions made your brain go WAIT A FORKING MINUTE 👀, then open whichever section below sounds interesting.
If you skipped my original Wormhole Dissertation™ (honestly, fair 😂), here's the 60-second version: The system that originally sent me down this rabbit hole is called the Arno Profile System (APS).
APS uses five temperament labels: 🔥 Sanguine 💛 Choleric 🖤 Melancholy 💚 Phlegmatic 💜 Supine
But here's the part that matters: It doesn't necessarily give you ONE temperament and say: “Congratulations. You are Sanguine. Please enjoy being Sanguine everywhere forever.” 😂
Instead, it looks at three different areas of interpersonal behavior: ❤️ INCLUSION How much social interaction, belonging, involvement, attention, and contact you want with people. ❤️ CONTROL How you deal with responsibility, decisions, independence, leadership, being directed by others, etc. ❤️ AFFECTION How you operate in close, emotionally intimate, primarily one-on-one relationships.
So theoretically, somebody could be: Inclusion: Sanguine Control: Choleric Affection: Supine
Or: Inclusion: Sanguine Control: Phlegmatic Affection: Melancholy
Which is why somebody can be the loudest, friendliest, most outgoing person at the party... …and still let approximately three people on Earth actually KNOW them. 😂
So now when somebody tells me: “I'm Sanguine!”
my brain immediately goes: SANGUINE WHERE?! 👀😂
Because your SOCIAL behavior does not necessarily tell us what you need in your closest one-on-one relationships. And for this particular rabbit hole, AFFECTION is the part we're mostly playing with.
Think: • How easily do you initiate emotional closeness? • How much closeness do you want OTHER people to initiate? • How many people do you want REALLY close to you? • How comfortable are you with vulnerability? • How easily do you express warmth? • How much reassurance do you want in return? • How important is feeling liked/appreciated? • How comfortable are you with emotional disclosure? • Do you want a handful of extremely close relationships or lots of emotionally warm connections?
And THIS is where we get to one of my favorite distinctions in the entire rabbit hole: EXPRESSED vs. WANTED.
Basically: EXPRESSED AFFECTION = How much warmth/closeness/connection I tend to initiate toward YOU. WANTED AFFECTION = How much warmth/closeness/connection I want YOU to initiate toward ME.
And OMG. Think about how many interpersonal misunderstandings THAT alone can explain. Someone can desperately WANT affection while rarely initiating it. Someone else can be extremely comfortable GIVING affection while needing surprisingly little reassurance in return.
Someone can want: ALL OF IT. GIVE IT TO ME. 😂
Someone else can want: I love you very much from approximately four feet away. 🤍
Neither person necessarily dislikes the other. They may simply be walking around with completely different affection settings.
And THAT distinction — what we feel, what we want, what we initiate, and what other people can actually SEE — is basically the rabbit hole underneath this entire thread. 👀🐇
Think: HIGH expressed affection + HIGH wanted affection
A Sanguine in Affection tends to be emotionally demonstrative, warm, open to closeness, and comfortable initiating affection. They don't simply WANT affection. They GENERATE it. They're more likely to initiate warmth, closeness, emotional connection, praise, reassurance, physical affection, etc.
But here's the important part: They generally want it BACK.
So the Sanguine equation can look something like: I give a lot ↓ I want a lot ↓ I notice when I'm not getting a lot.😂 That can mean somebody with high affection needs is wonderful at making other people feel loved and connected... BUT they can also feel rejection more strongly when that affection isn't reciprocated.
They may wonder: "Are we okay?" "Do you still like me?" "Why are you pulling away?" "Why aren't you affectionate anymore?"
And what looks "needy" to someone with low Wanted Affection might feel completely normal to someone with high Wanted Affection. This also explains why two highly affectionate people can sometimes work BEAUTIFULLY together.
Person A: "I LOVE YOU."
Person B: "I LOVE YOU TOO."
Person A: "COME HERE."
Person B: "OKAY!"
😂😂😂 Everybody's affection bucket is getting filled.
The easiest way I can explain it is: "I really, really want you close to me...but I need YOU to come toward me."
There can be a very strong internal need for: • love • reassurance • acceptance • closeness • emotional safety • deep attachment BUT difficulty initiating it.
So imagine: Sanguine: "I want a hug!" hugs you
Supine: "Please hug me. Please hug me. Please hug me." says absolutely nothing 😂
That means other people can potentially UNDERESTIMATE how much affection or connection a Supine actually wants. Their outward behavior may not reveal the size of their inward need. Once they feel emotionally safe, however, they can form very deep attachments and commitments. Which makes this temperament especially interesting when you're thinking about shy people. Someone might appear reserved or hesitant and you assume: "Oh, they're not very affectionate."
Meanwhile internally they're like: PLEASE LOVE ME. 😭😂
Melancholy Affection tends to be MUCH more selective about deep emotional relationships. This doesn't necessarily mean: "I don't have feelings." Quite the opposite. Someone can have extremely deep emotions while allowing very few people access to them. They may have a small inner circle. But once you're IN? Loyalty can run extremely deep.
And affection may not necessarily look like: "I LOVE YOUUUU COME CUDDLE ME."
It might look like: "I remembered you needed this." "I fixed that thing for you." "I showed up." "I handled this." "I kept my promise." "I remembered something you told me six months ago."
Sanguine: "I love youuuuu. 🥹 Come here."
Melancholy: "I changed your oil, picked up the thing you needed, remembered your appointment and fixed the cabinet."
And you're like: "Do you love me?"
THEY'RE LIKE: "WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CABINET WAS??" 😂😂😂
That was the love letter. And because so few people may get admitted into that intimate inner circle, losing one of those relationships can potentially hit HARD.
Think: "I choose who gets access."
Cholerics can be perfectly capable of warmth, connection and affection. The big distinction seems to involve selectivity, autonomy and initiation. They may be very affectionate when THEY choose the person and THEY choose to move toward the relationship. But they can be more resistant to another person determining how much closeness they should have or how that relationship should operate.
Basically: "I love you. But please don't climb into my emotional driver's seat." 😂
This can create a really interesting dynamic where someone is extremely affectionate while pursuing or initiating closeness... but unexpectedly resistant if the other person starts wanting MORE closeness than they want to provide.
It isn't necessarily: "I don't care about you."
It can be: "I want control over who gets access to me and how much."
Phlegmatic Affection is much more moderate.
Think: • some closeness • some affection • some reassurance • some independence
Nobody needs to crawl inside anybody else's skin.😂 They can enjoy connection without needing enormous amounts of emotional intensity. They're generally not as affection-demanding as a high/high Sanguine type, but they're also not necessarily extremely distant. The potential problem?
Someone with MUCH higher affection needs may look at a Phlegmatic and think: "DO YOU EVEN CARE ABOUT ME?!"
Meanwhile the Phlegmatic is sitting there like: "Of course I care about you. Why are we yelling?"😂
They may simply require less emotional/physical energy to feel secure in the relationship.
For example: SANGUINE INCLUSION + MELANCHOLY AFFECTION
At a party: "OH MY GOD HIIII! What's your name?! Come sit with us! Tell me everything!"
They leave with 17 new friends. But emotionally? Almost nobody ACTUALLY knows them. Their social door is wide open. Their intimate door is locked. THAT distinction is fascinating.
Or imagine: MELANCHOLY INCLUSION + SUPINE AFFECTION
Socially: "Please leave me alone."
Romantically/intimately: "Why haven't you cuddled me in four hours? 🥺" 😂
They don't necessarily need PEOPLE. They need THEIR PERSON. And that's a huge difference.
Then there's: SANGUINE INCLUSION + SANGUINE AFFECTION
Which is basically: PEOPLE!!! LOVE!!! ATTENTION!!! TOUCH!!! CONNECTION!!! TELL ME EVERYTHING!!! COME HERE!!! 😂😂😂
Someone with moderate Wanted Affection might think: "This is lovely."
Someone with low Wanted Affection might be thinking: "Okay I need approximately four inches more personal space now." 😂
And NONE of those people are necessarily doing affection "wrong." Their interpersonal needs may simply be different. It also makes me think about why certain cuddling positions, conversation styles, reassurance, eye contact, physical closeness, etc. feel completely natural to one person and WAY more intimate to somebody else.
Obviously boundaries and consent still determine what actually happens.
But knowing that people may WANT very different levels of interpersonal warmth seems incredibly useful in any profession centered around platonic connection.
Instead of simply telling you: "You're Sanguine in Affection,"
it gives you separate scores for: EXPRESSED INCLUSION WANTED INCLUSION EXPRESSED CONTROL WANTED CONTROL EXPRESSED AFFECTION WANTED AFFECTION
The individual scales are scored from 0–9.
So imagine finding out: Expressed Affection: 8/9 Wanted Affection: 9/9
versus: Expressed Affection: 8/9 Wanted Affection: 2/9
Those are two VERY different people even though both may look affectionate from the outside.
Official FIRO-B information can be found here.
This is also a really good explanation of the three interpersonal needs and Expressed vs. Wanted behavior.
And this PDF explains Wanted vs. Expressed interpersonal needs.
APS is associated with the National Christian Counselors Association (NCCA) and is primarily administered through trained/certified practitioners rather than being a random free internet personality quiz.
So if you Google: "Arno Profile System temperament assessment" or "APS temperament assessment" you'll find providers who administer it.
Here's one explanation of how the APS system works.
⚠️ IMPORTANT NERD DISCLAIMER
Before everybody takes a quiz and starts diagnosing their entire family at Thanksgiving: These aren't all equivalent scientifically.
The classical Sanguine/Choleric/Melancholy/Phlegmatic temperament tradition is VERY old and ultimately traces back to ancient ideas about the four bodily "humors."
Obviously modern psychology does not believe your personality is being caused by blood, yellow bile, black bile and phlegm. 😂
APS is a later Christian counseling framework that uses five temperaments—including Supine—and maps them across Inclusion, Control and Affection.
The people and organizations that teach APS sometimes make much stronger claims about temperament being innate, unchanging or "God-given."
Those are claims of THAT counseling framework. I would NOT treat them as established scientific facts about the human brain.
FIRO-B is a separate and much more established psychometric assessment. It was developed from William Schutz's work beginning in the 1950s and has published information regarding its history, reliability and validity.
You can read about that here.
So personally I'm treating this as: "OMG. This framework describes something about me REALLY well and gives me a useful language for understanding interpersonal differences."
NOT: "SCIENCE HAS DETERMINED THAT MY BRAIN IS BIOLOGICALLY SANGUINE." 😂
🐇 AND THEN THERE ARE RABBIT HOLES UNDER THE RABBIT HOLE
Because once you figure out your Affection profile, now I want to know how it relates to: • attachment style • love languages • physical-touch preferences • reassurance seeking • vulnerability • introversion/extroversion • Big Five personality traits • relationship compatibility • social vs. intimate behavior • platonic touch • affection deprivation/"touch hunger" • how people respond to rejection • how much closeness people need before they feel connected
Because these are NOT necessarily all measuring the same thing.
For example: Being extroverted does not automatically mean you want tons of emotional intimacy. Being introverted doesn't automatically mean you don't desperately want affection from the few people you're attached to. Being physically affectionate doesn't automatically mean you need other people to initiate physical affection toward YOU. And wanting lots of affection doesn't necessarily mean you're comfortable initiating it.
Those distinctions are what I find SO fascinating.
💕 MY FAVORITE TAKEAWAY
The biggest thing I'm taking from this whole rabbit hole is: There is a difference between: HOW MUCH CONNECTION I GIVE and HOW MUCH CONNECTION I NEED.
And there is also a difference between: HOW MUCH I LIKE PEOPLE and HOW CLOSELY I WANT TO BE KNOWN. Those sound obvious once you say them out loud.
But we constantly assume other people experience those things the same way we do. Someone who gives very little affection may secretly want enormous amounts of it. Someone who gives enormous amounts of affection may actually need relatively little back. Someone may LOVE crowds and meeting new people while allowing almost nobody into their intimate emotional world. Someone else may hate groups and socializing but want an incredibly intense one-on-one bond. And two people can genuinely care about each other while having affection settings that are completely mismatched. THAT is the part I find fascinating.
You don't have to consume all of it. Pick the piece that sounds like YOU and start there.
Because based on everyone's replies, I'm increasingly convinced that “Which temperament are you?” isn't even the most interesting question anymore.
The interesting question is: Where is the mismatch between what you FEEL, what you WANT, what you INITIATE, and what everybody else THINKS you want based on your behavior? 👀
THAT is what I want everyone to come back and tell me. No thesis required. No book report. No imaginary psychology degree. 😂🤍