An interesting short little read. Though, I feel no closer to knowing which temperament I am. I resonate with all of them in different ways. I resonate with the faults of phlegmatic (lazy at times), sanguine (strive to be seen and seek approval), and choleric (anger). I tend to scruples and I’m really hard on myself like the melancholic. But I’m more on the outgoing side, generally friendly, and sometimes overshare like the sanguine as well. But I don’t particularly care to share my ideas and speak in large groups like a sanguine or choleric would. Though, my initial reaction to strong emotions is more like the sanguine because I don’t really have a problem letting go. If I’m making a decision, I do change my mind about things, which I often do, but it’s usually after compulsively thinking about nothing else for days, weeks, or months depending on the gravity of the decision. And sort of like the book alludes to, I wouldn’t say it’s because I’m shallow. I also get along with everyone like the sanguine. But I don’t think there’s anyone that I would strike as a shallow thinker. I don’t have any problem meditating on my faults and beliefs. I hardly think about anything else. I don’t mind talking to people about shallow things because I like to be approved of and enjoy getting along with people, but I intentionally push the conversation to the Faith or philosophy any chance I get. Like the choleric, though not in temporal matters, I don’t think I desire anything more than to be known and loved by God. But again, like the melancholic, I fear failure and that He hates me when I sin. I simultaneously have no problem going to confession and the most difficulty. I have no problem saying all my faults like the sanguine, but even after confession I fixate on past sins and try and do random penances so I can renew my relationship with God. The author says melancholic and choleric are full of passion, while sanguine and phlegmatic are passionless. And if there’s one word someone that knows me would describe me with, it would likely be passion. I get into arguments with people any chance I get. It’s usually not in a harsh way, though they can get that way with the right interlocutors. So in some ways I’m like the sanguine because I react quickly and quickly move on. But it also has nothing to do with indifference. It’s usually born out of recognition of my own faults in the conversation, which helps me understand why the person would do what they did. This, paired with the fact that I like the other person (I like most people). If I had to point to a mix, I’d say likely Sanguine and Melancholic, but those almost seem mutually exclusive. I say that now, but as I was reading I was thinking more Sanguine and Choleric. So I still have no idea. If anyone else does, I’m all ears.