💕 The Affection Scale

AngelNextDoorAngelNextDoor
in General

Okay, I accidentally fell down a personality/affection rabbit hole and now I'm dragging everyone else down here with me. 😂

I started looking into the different "affection temperaments" because I already knew about the classic Sanguine/Choleric/Melancholy/Phlegmatic personality temperaments, but I did NOT realize there is an entire system that separates your personality into different interpersonal areas—including how you experience AFFECTION.

And apparently being "a Sanguine" doesn't necessarily mean you're Sanguine in every area.

This gets really interesting when you think about cuddling, relationships, emotional closeness, physical affection, reassurance, boundaries, and why two people can genuinely like each other but want COMPLETELY different amounts of connection.

So, welcome to my rabbit hole. 😂🐇

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💕 FIRST: WHAT ARE AFFECTION TEMPERAMENTS?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The system I found is called the Arno Profile System (APS).

APS uses five temperaments:
• Sanguine
• Choleric
• Melancholy
• Phlegmatic
• Supine

But instead of simply assigning you ONE temperament and saying "that's your personality," 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.

And THEN it looks at these needs in terms of what you express toward other people versus what you want other people to give you.
This is the part that made everything click for me.

You could theoretically be:
Inclusion: Sanguine
Control: Choleric
Affection: Supine

Or:
Inclusion: Sanguine
Control: Phlegmatic
Affection: Melancholy

Apparently, it's actually unusual in APS to have the exact same temperament in all three areas.

So when somebody says:
"I'm Sanguine!"

My immediate question now is:
SANGUINE WHERE?! 😂

Because being extremely outgoing socially does NOT necessarily mean you have the same needs in your closest one-on-one relationships.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💕 WHAT DOES "AFFECTION" ACTUALLY MEAN?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This is important because "Affection" in these systems isn't simply:
"Do you like hugs?"
It's much broader.

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 I found another rabbit hole UNDER the rabbit hole.
The APS model is related conceptually/historically to William Schutz's FIRO interpersonal-needs framework.

FIRO looks at three interpersonal needs:
INCLUSION
CONTROL
AFFECTION

But each one gets divided into:
EXPRESSED — What I initiate toward YOU.
WANTED — What I want YOU to initiate toward ME.

So with Affection:
EXPRESSED AFFECTION =
How much warmth/closeness/connection I tend to initiate toward another person.
WANTED AFFECTION =
How much warmth/closeness/connection I want another person to initiate toward me.

And OMG.
Think about how many interpersonal misunderstandings THAT alone explains.
Someone can desperately WANT affection while rarely initiating it.
Someone else can be very comfortable GIVING affection while needing surprisingly little reassurance in return.
Someone can want ALL OF IT.
Someone can want almost none of it.
Neither person necessarily dislikes the other.
They may simply be walking around with completely different affection settings. 😂

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🔥 SANGUINE IN AFFECTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Basically:
"Come here. I love you. Do you love me? Tell me again." 😂
Sanguine Affection is the very high-affection territory.

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.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💜 SUPINE IN AFFECTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This one FASCINATES me.
Supine is the fifth temperament in the APS system, and Supine Affection can almost look like an inverted Sanguine.

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 IN AFFECTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The easiest description I found for this one is:
"Getting into my inner circle requires security clearance."
😂

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.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💛 CHOLERIC IN AFFECTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This one surprised me because Choleric does NOT necessarily mean cold or unaffectionate.

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 IN AFFECTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This one makes me laugh because my unofficial summary is:
"I love you. Can everybody please calm down?"
😂

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.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💕 THE PART THAT BLEW MY MIND
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Your SOCIAL temperament and your AFFECTION temperament can theoretically be completely different.
THIS explains some people so well.

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!!!
😂😂😂

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
💕 WHY THIS IS ESPECIALLY INTERESTING HERE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Obviously this sent me down a whole separate rabbit hole thinking about professional cuddling.
Because think about how differently clients could experience the SAME amount of affection.
A person with very high Wanted Affection might experience an extremely warm, attentive, cuddly session as:
"Finally. 😭 This is exactly what I needed."

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.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🧪 SO HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY TEST THIS?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

There are TWO rabbit holes you can go down.
1. THE ARNO PROFILE SYSTEM (APS)
If you specifically want to know whether you're:
Sanguine
Choleric
Supine
Melancholy
or Phlegmatic
in:
Inclusion
Control
and Affection...
then you're looking for an APS temperament assessment.

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:
https://crosspointe.education/become-a-christian-counselor/arno-profile-system/

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🧠 RABBIT HOLE #2: FIRO-B
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

THIS is the more established psychometric rabbit hole and personally I think it may be even more interesting.
FIRO-B comes from psychologist William Schutz's work on interpersonal needs.

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:
https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US/Products-and-Services/FIRO

This is also a really good explanation of the three interpersonal needs and Expressed vs. Wanted behavior:
https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-us/access-resources/articles/understanding-motivation-for-behavior

And this PDF explains Wanted vs. Expressed interpersonal needs:
https://www.themyersbriggs.com/-/media/Myers-Briggs/Files/Global-Resource-Hub-Files/Resource-Library/Guide/Wanted-and-Expressed-Interpersonal-Needs-and-the-FIROB-Tool_US.pdf

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
⚠️ 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:
https://asia.themyersbriggs.com/instruments/firo/history-reliability-and-validity-of-the-firo-b-instrument/

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.

So now I'm curious:
If you had to guess BEFORE taking an assessment, what do you think you are in Affection?

🔥 Sanguine — GIVE ME ALL THE AFFECTION AND I'LL GIVE IT RIGHT BACK.
💜 Supine — I want a ton of affection, but please initiate it with me.
🖤 Melancholy — Very few people get access, but my inner-circle bonds run DEEP.
💛 Choleric — I can be very affectionate, but I choose who gets access and how.
💚 Phlegmatic — I like affection, but everybody please remain emotionally hydrated without drowning me. 😂

And more importantly:
Do you think your SOCIAL personality matches your AFFECTION personality?
Because THAT is the rabbit hole I didn't know existed.
Thank you for coming to my completely unnecessary TED Talk. 😂
Now everybody take the tests/research your type and come back because I need to know what everyone gets. 🐇💕

  1. How do you rank on The Affection Scale?10 votes
    1. 🔥 Sanguine
      30.00%
    2. 💜 Supine
      20.00%
    3. 🖤 Melancholy
      40.00%
    4. 💛 Choleric
        0.00%
    5. 💚 Phlegmatic
      10.00%
«1

Comments

  • Finnegan2017Finnegan2017

    I think I'm all of the above.

  • LilyAnneNovaLilyAnneNova

    Holy crap that's a long post. It's interesting, so far, I admit I have other things to do but want to come back to read the whole thing!

  • sosubtlesosubtle

    Thats not a post, that's a Thesis Statement

  • IronicMaidenIronicMaiden

    I like this better than most attempts to fit people into buckets. It recognizes that there are multiple axes to consider. No one is ever in the same bucket all the time. And your bucket can easily change based on circumstances, even circumstances which seem minor at first glance.

    FIRO-B is far more interesting to me. It recognizes that people don't or can't always say what they want. I think the difference between the two is always worth exploring. For example, a people pleaser will give until they have nothing left, and still feel unworthy to ask for anything for themself. Also consider someone who enjoys being with people, but being in a crowd is a sensory nightmare. There are a lot of variables involved in personality, both expressed and perceived.

    I disregard APS because of its strong religious ties. Especially since this description

    The people and organizations that teach APS sometimes make much stronger claims about temperament being innate, unchanging or "God-given."

    says that once you're put into your bucket, that's the bucket you'll be in the rest of your life. People can and do change. Saying that temperament is innate feels like a method of control to me.

  • JoyfulAbandonJoyfulAbandon

    Read it. Super interested. But also it's the kind of thing I'd want to explore with someone (or with many), not by myself. Like, let's hold hands and help each other through this because I'm already doing so much thinking and processing on my own (and maybe you are too). As in, maybe I don't know the answers abstractly but if we dialog for some time, I'll get there and hopefully you will too. Of course that says something about my personality. Beats me how to label it. 🤣

  • Goonie4lifeGoonie4life

    I missed everything said 🤣🤣

  • AngelNextDoorAngelNextDoor
    edited September 3

    💕 THE “ANGEL WROTE A THESIS AND I HAVE THINGS TO DO” VERSION 😂

    Okay, I HEAR YOU. 😭 Apparently when I said “rabbit hole,” some of you didn't realize I meant bring snacks and possibly a sleeping bag.

    So before you read my entire dissertation, here's the Cosmo-quiz version. 😂

    Don't overthink these. Pick the answer that sounds MOST like you most of the time — especially in close relationships.

    1. When you walk into a room full of people you don't know, you usually…
      A. Start talking to people pretty quickly. New people are fun!
      B. Naturally take charge or figure out what's going on.
      C. Hang back and observe until you know who you actually want to talk to.
      D. Find somewhere comfortable and let interactions happen naturally.

    2. When you really like someone, your affection tends to look like…
      A. LOTS of affection. Touch, talking, attention, excitement — come here! 😂
      B. Doing things for them, protecting them, helping them, taking initiative.
      C. Deep, intentional affection that means a LOT because I don't give it to everyone.
      D. Quiet, steady affection. Being there, being close, making things feel peaceful.

    3. Someone you care about is upset. Your instinct is…
      A. Comfort them immediately — hugs, reassurance, talking it out.
      B. Figure out what happened and how we can fix it.
      C. Listen closely and try to understand what they're really feeling.
      D. Sit with them calmly and give them whatever kind of support they seem to need.

    4. When YOU need affection…
      A. I'm usually pretty comfortable seeking it out.
      B. Asking for it can feel vulnerable. I'm more comfortable being the strong one.
      C. I want it deeply, but only from people I really trust — and I may struggle to ask.
      D. I enjoy it, but I'm unlikely to make a huge production out of needing it.

    5. Your ideal cuddle session sounds most like…
      A. Talking, laughing, moving around, lots of interaction and affection.
      B. Confident, engaged affection where we're both comfortable communicating what we want.
      C. Deep conversation, emotional connection, trust, and meaningful affection.
      D. Cozy, peaceful, low-pressure cuddling where we can both completely relax.

    6. If somebody crosses one of your boundaries…
      A. I'll probably say something, but I may soften it because I don't want things to get awkward.
      B. I'll tell them directly. Boundary = boundary.
      C. It affects me pretty deeply, especially if I trusted them, and I'll probably think about it afterward.
      D. I dislike conflict and may initially try to redirect things quietly.

    7. How quickly do you generally become comfortable with someone?
      A. Pretty quickly! I can feel like I've known someone forever after an hour. 😂
      B. Quickly enough if I respect them and they seem straightforward.
      C. Slowly. Trust has to be earned before you see the really affectionate/vulnerable version of me.
      D. I'm easygoing around most people, but deeper closeness develops gradually.

    8. Which sounds most like you during conflict?
      A. Emotional and expressive — let's TALK about this.
      B. Direct. I'd rather address the problem and resolve it.
      C. I analyze everything, including what was said, what wasn't said, and what it meant. 😭
      D. Can everybody please stop fighting? 😂 I'd rather find a compromise.

    9. What drains you fastest?
      A. Too much isolation or not enough connection.
      B. Feeling powerless, inefficient, or unable to change something.
      C. Superficial relationships, emotional uncertainty, or feeling misunderstood.
      D. Conflict, chaos, pressure, or too much stimulation.

    10. Which sentence makes you go, “Oh God, that's me”?
      A. “I make friends in the bathroom line.” 😂
      B. “Fine. I'll do it myself.”
      C. “I've been thinking about something you said three Tuesdays ago…”
      D. “I'm genuinely fine with whatever everyone else wants to do.”

    ✨ NOW COUNT YOUR LETTERS
    Mostly A = Sanguine
    Mostly B = Choleric
    Mostly C = Melancholy
    Mostly D = Phlegmatic

    BUT WAIT. 👀
    If your answers are all over the place, that is actually part of why I found this rabbit hole so interesting. Most people aren't walking around as a perfect textbook example of one temperament, and different frameworks treat these categories differently.

    You might also notice that you're one way when giving affection and completely different when asking for or receiving it. Or you're one way with strangers and another once you trust somebody.

    So tell me your score in the poll at the bottom of my OP! 👀
    Were you overwhelmingly one temperament? Split between two? Completely chaotic? 😂 And do you think the result actually sounds like you?

    Then, if you want to understand what any of this has to do with affection, cuddling, FIRO-B, APS, wanted vs. expressed affection, attachment, and why I disappeared down this rabbit hole in the first place…

    THAT'S what the ridiculously long OP is for. 😂

  • IronicMaidenIronicMaiden

    Interesting. Some of the questions are difficult to answer. For 5, the possible answers all look the same to me. And it doesn't seem to take neurodivergence into account. A few of the melancholy answers just mean "I need time to process this" to me. If I were taking this administered by a professional, I'd be asking for clarification about the answers a lot.

  • JessAZJessAZ

    @Jeremiaaahhh

  • JeremiaaahhhJeremiaaahhh

    Thanks for tagging me in @JessAZ

    I think I’m probably sanguine both ways except sometimes when it comes to receiving I can be Supine

  • JessAZJessAZ

    I feel similarly. I think Supine mostly - strongly prefer the other to initiate to get things going - then I'm responsive.

  • TrialKingTrialKing

    I'm an Author you literally put me in a rabbit hole and put a cement lid on top so I can't get out....thanks for that. Lol I love the read BTW! @AngelNextDoor

    We could totally do a virtual in the future and exchange ideas

  • AngelNextDoorAngelNextDoor

    Okay THIS is exactly what I was hoping would happen when I posted this!! 😂🤍 I wanted to see whether other people actually recognized themselves in these distinctions or whether I had just spent an unreasonable amount of time disappearing into a personality-theory abyss by myself. 😭

    @IronicMaiden — I think your criticism of the questions is completely fair, especially regarding neurodivergence. The little quiz I added definitely isn’t meant to function like an actual professionally administered assessment — I basically made it as the Cosmo-magazine version for everyone who informed me that my original post requires a syllabus and course credit. 😂 But what you’re describing is actually one of the limitations I find interesting: the same observable behavior can come from completely different internal reasons.

    Someone might hesitate because they're naturally reserved, because they need extra processing time, because they're overstimulated, because they don't feel safe yet, because they're waiting for the other person to initiate, etc. From the outside those could look identical even though internally they're VERY different. And I think that's where trying to reduce a whole human being to one temperament starts falling apart.

    @Jeremiaaahhh and @JessAZ — YESSS, Supine is actually one of the ones I find most fascinating specifically because of that initiation/response distinction! 👀 Wanting closeness but strongly preferring the other person to initiate it is very different from simply not wanting closeness. And Jeremiah saying Sanguine in both directions except sometimes Supine when receiving is exactly why the giving-vs.-receiving piece sent me down this rabbit hole in the first place. 😂

    Because “How affectionate are you?” suddenly isn't one question. It's: How much affection do you want? How much do you initiate? How much do you give when someone else initiates? How comfortable are you asking for what you want? Does any of that change depending on the person?

    And @TrialKing I AM SO SORRY. 😂 I apparently didn't lead everyone down a rabbit hole; I shoved you in and installed infrastructure. But now that you've announced you're an author, I feel considerably less guilty because you are exactly the kind of person I wanted trapped down here with me! I would absolutely be down for a virtual sometime and exchanging ideas — I'm fascinated by where people take this once they start applying it to actual human interaction instead of just reading the labels.

    This is already making me think the more interesting question might not actually be “Which temperament are you?” but “Where is the mismatch between what you feel, what you want, and what other people actually see you doing?” 👀

  • JeremiaaahhhJeremiaaahhh

    It’s definitely an interesting conversation
    So that is for going down the hole and bring us with you 🤗 @AngelNextDoor

  • AngelNextDoorAngelNextDoor

    @Jeremiaaahhh Any time, my love! 🫂 Rabbit holes are my ADHD specialty. 😇

  • SunsetSnugglesSunsetSnuggles

    This isn't a rabbit hole, this is a wormhole into another dimension. 😅 I'm super interested, but also feel like I'd need a week to read and process all this.

    ~ Sunset Snuggles

  • AmazenHugs55AmazenHugs55

    Thank you for your TedTalk. What category is “sopping up like a biscuit”?

  • JeremiaaahhhJeremiaaahhh

    @AngelNextDoor

    This is already making me think the more interesting question might not actually be “Which temperament are you?” but “Where is the mismatch between what you feel, what you want, and what other people actually see you doing?” 👀

    That is a great question. Most people probably see me as a supine when it comes to receiving affection. Most don’t even seem to notice the golden retriever that I am, and or maybe they do and just decide they want to opt out. And I’ve only started to be more sanguine with close friends.

    I often get in my head on what will happen if people say no to being close to me. Recently Ive been doing a lot better at saying, “crew that,” and just asking and seeing where things go.

  • LadyVelLadyVel

    I started to fall in and clawed my way back out of the hole.

    I'll have to come back to read later when I'm more awake.

  • SnuggleFroggieSnuggleFroggie

    I find this fascinating but, I am a psychology geek. I appear very social but I am only superficially with most people. I force myself to go to concerts and events. If I don't I might become a hermit lol.

  • IronicMaidenIronicMaiden

    Not only that a behavior may have multiple distinct causes, but also that multiple distinct behaviors may have the same cause. We're complex creatures.

    You've already acknowledged the limitations of a short magazine quiz. But I think you've achieved your goal of making people think quite well.

  • AngelNextDoorAngelNextDoor

    Okay, I accept that “rabbit hole” was false advertising. 😭😂 Apparently I opened a wormhole, gave a TED Talk, installed a cement lid, and nearly claimed several casualties. My apologies to everyone who needs to return later with snacks and a full night’s sleep. 😂🤍

    @AmazenHugs55 I have absolutely no idea where “sopping up like a biscuit” falls on any recognized psychological assessment, but I desperately need you to elaborate because now we may need a sixth temperament. 😭😂

    @Jeremiaaahhh THIS is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping people would start thinking about. What you’re describing is fascinating because your internal experience and the behavior other people see may tell two completely different stories. You can want a TON of affection and closeness internally while hesitating to initiate it because you’re anticipating rejection — so another person could easily interpret the hesitation as “he doesn’t want that much affection.”

    Meanwhile you're internally standing there like HELLO?? THERE IS AN ENTIRE GOLDEN RETRIEVER IN HERE. 😂

    And I actually love that you’ve started just asking. Because even outside of temperament theory, that seems like such an important distinction: wanting something and feeling comfortable expressing that you want it are not remotely the same thing.

    @SnuggleFroggie YES! 👀 “I appear very social but I am only superficially with most people” is another perfect example of why observable behavior doesn't necessarily tell us what's happening internally. Someone could look extremely extroverted/social from the outside while actually being very selective about genuine closeness and connection. And now I want to know whether your affection style follows that same pattern. 😂 Are you outwardly affectionate with lots of people too, or does the affectionate version of you only really show up once someone gets past that more superficial social layer?

    @IronicMaiden — YES. And your inverse point is even better: not only can identical behavior have completely different causes, but the same underlying need/cause can produce completely different behavior. Which makes the idea that we can watch someone behave one way and confidently know what they want internally pretty questionable.

    I think that might actually be my biggest takeaway from this entire ridiculous wormhole. 😂 What someone expresses, what someone wants, and what someone feels are three different pieces of information.

    And thank you — “you made people think” was genuinely the entire goal. 🤍 I wasn't trying to find the One True Cuddle Personality Test™ so much as throw something weird and interesting onto the forum that apparently nobody had really talked about before and see where everyone took it.

    Mission accomplished, I think. Although I'm still waiting for clarification on the biscuit. 😭😂

  • JeremiaaahhhJeremiaaahhh

    @AngelNextDoor thank you again for starting this conversation
    And do not apologize for the casualties to the work hole, you warned them 😜 😆

    Also your humor makes me smile. Thank you

  • MeltMyWayMeltMyWay

    @AngelNextDoor this is very cool and is very intriguing to me.. but I'll have to revisit when I have the time to properly give to it. Thanks for sharing 🫂

  • farofaro
    edited September 5

    thats great

  • KrishaKrisha

    With me it's a mix of sanguine, supine and melancholy, depending on the other person and the situation.

    I can also see which attachment styles, love languages, and neurodivergent conditions typically correspond to which category.

  • AngelNextDoorAngelNextDoor

    Okay, I'm bumping my own wormhole because several of you said you were coming back when you had enough brain cells available to process it. 😂👀

    TAKE THE POLL!! I’m genuinely curious where everyone lands. Only 5 people have voted so far and one of them is literally me, which is an absolutely unacceptable sample size for the completely unauthorized psychological research study I have apparently decided to conduct on the Cuddle Comfort forum. 😭😂

    What still blows my mind is that I can't find where we've ever really discussed this here before. On a CUDDLING website. We talk constantly about affection, connection, boundaries, initiation, touch, comfort, attachment, chemistry, etc. — but apparently we've never collectively gone, “Wait… how differently do all of us actually experience and express affection?” 👀

    And that's the part I find so fascinating. The more we've talked about it, the less it seems like four or five neat little personality boxes and the more it starts looking like a spectrum with multiple axes.

    How much affection do you want?
    How much do you initiate?
    How readily do you respond when someone else initiates?
    Are you different giving versus receiving?
    Does it change with trust? With the person? With your environment? With neurodivergence? With fear of rejection?

    Someone can be incredibly affectionate internally and barely initiate it externally. Someone else can give affection constantly but struggle to ask for it. Someone can look wildly social while being extremely selective about actual closeness. And apparently some of us change temperament entirely depending on who we're with. 😂

    THAT is the part I want to know about you guys.

    So even if you don't have time to read my entire Wormhole Dissertation™ 😂, take the poll and drop your result. Sanguine? Supine? Melancholy? Phlegmatic? Choleric? A chaotic cocktail of several?

    And bonus points: do you think you're the same temperament when GIVING affection as you are when RECEIVING it? 👀

    I'm Sanguine enough that I literally put it in my bio, so obviously I've already outed myself. 😂 Now I want everybody else's answers. 🤍

    This is obviously for fun/self-reflection and not me attempting to diagnose the entire Cuddle Comfort membership from my laptop. Please don't revoke my imaginary psychology license. 😇😂

  • gfrederic24gfrederic24

    Interesting study and I'm impressed how you broke it down. My answers were all over the board EXCEPT I had no B choleric. Soni might not know exactly what I am, but I do know what I'm not Thanks for posting very interesting!

  • IronicMaidenIronicMaiden

    I've been thinking about this and considering recent experiences, and I think I'm all five at once. Either that or just plain confused.

  • cuddlefaerycuddlefaery

    @IronicMaiden you're not alone. For a while during the pandemic I got REALLY into personality typing deep dives. But the further I got into it, the more I struggled, because I tend to be a "both and" person in general. It bugged me that I could never fully decide which I was - I'd waffle between two options, second-guess myself, and then start all over with a different type.

    So I started digging into the science... and, well, let's just say the "science" of personality typing is shoddy at best, shady marketing most of the time, and harmful to minority communities at worst. The big problem with personality typing systems, color season systems, love language systems, etc. is that by nature they have to be broad and relatively vague to limit the number of options people pick from. Humans are far too complex to fit neatly into 4, 8, or 16 boxes.

    For some people, these systems are a great introduction to self-reflection and give people common language for communicating internal feelings, identity, and needs. But for a lot of people (especially neurodivergent, disabled, LGBTQ+, and non-Western folks), they can feel frustrating because they land as both too broad AND not inclusive enough at the same time. But for people who haven't had other frameworks for understanding themselves (multi-modal therapy, philosophy of mind, intersectional identity theory, etc.), these systems can provide validation they've been missing elsewhere.

    Not to yuck anyone's yum, but for me, personality typing is no more accurate than astrology. It's a useful tool for self-reflection and for having common language to talk about deeply personal stuff - but people should be wary of over-identifying with any one result or type. We're far too dynamic a species to sort ourselves into boxes and call it a day. 🤷🏻‍♀️

    So yeah, it's not uncommon to feel like you're All The Above™️, especially over time or in different environments and situations.

Sign In or Register to comment.