User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 27

  1. #11
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    I don't think I agree that it's entirely random. The solid majority of people in my family (myself and one of my nieces excepted) are Ns. There's a broad range in terms of education and interest, but from what I've heard from others, this isn't unusual - many people seem to come from families that are disproportionately of one temperament (my family is evenly split between NT and NF, with one SP and one SJ).

    Also, I don't know how it's possible to *know* that the majority has always been and will always be SJ. Just one measurement: If SJs populate most civic groups, and membership in all groups has dropped drastically over the past 40 years, isn't it possible that SJs are less common than they used to be? Same with other obvious bastions of the SJ - mainline religion, major political partys, neighborhood associations... all down. People are less likely to stay in the same job for their entire career, and more likely to move away from their hometown. I know there are other contributing factors for each of these trends, but it does seem that taken as a whole, maybe there just fewer SJs out there.

  2. #12
    Senor Membrane
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    Also, I don't know how it's possible to *know* that the majority has always been and will always be SJ. Just one measurement: If SJs populate most civic groups, and membership in all groups has dropped drastically over the past 40 years, isn't it possible that SJs are less common than they used to be?
    Yeah, sure it is possible. The way I see it is that there is a reason for the type percentages. Evolutionary reason. When humans evolved there was some point for having most of them being traditional, while the rest were doing their stuff. The NFs were maybe the priests and shamans, the SPs were there to build stuff and the NTs were to invent stuff. So, this is if we assume that the type is in the genes. Then it would be highly unlikely it would change in as short time as generations.

    Of course if the type is somehow set when you are brought up, then the chances are that you will have many changes in many directions during a generation. Would it be that the types are in a way a response of a society to the current situation? How would it work? When there is a duty to fulfill the parents would unconsciously raise children to be SJs? I don't know, what do you think? To me it just seems more likely it is in the genes.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolla View Post
    Yeah, sure it is possible. The way I see it is that there is a reason for the type percentages. Evolutionary reason. When humans evolved there was some point for having most of them being traditional, while the rest were doing their stuff. The NFs were maybe the priests and shamans, the SPs were there to build stuff and the NTs were to invent stuff. So, this is if we assume that the type is in the genes. Then it would be highly unlikely it would change in as short time as generations.

    Of course if the type is somehow set when you are brought up, then the chances are that you will have many changes in many directions during a generation. Would it be that the types are in a way a response of a society to the current situation? How would it work? When there is a duty to fulfill the parents would unconsciously raise children to be SJs? I don't know, what do you think? To me it just seems more likely it is in the genes.
    I don't know for sure. The only parallel I can think of is average IQ. I remember reading that average IQ increased about 20 points within a 70 or 80 year period. It can't be explained by genes or evolution but there's speculation that it's related to what people need to understand. For instance, if shown a picture of a spoon and asked what, from a selection of objects, is like the spoon - people today would likely choose a shovel, while a century ago, they would've chosen a knife. People used to think in terms of utility, now they think in terms of comparison. Since IQ tests are geared toward answers of comparison over utility, the average score increased.

    If the mind adapts to changing realities that quickly, maybe the percentage of certain functions are equally as fluid. What do you think?

    [I still think it's cyclical rather than evolutionary. Evolutionary would suggest that there is a "highest" function that eventually we will all reach.]

  4. #14
    Senor Membrane
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    If the mind adapts to changing realities that quickly, maybe the percentage of certain functions are equally as fluid. What do you think?
    I can basically buy the idea about mind evolving more quickly, but I don't see any reason for the percentages to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    [I still think it's cyclical rather than evolutionary. Evolutionary would suggest that there is a "highest" function that eventually we will all reach.]
    By evolutionary I didn't mean that some types are higher in evolution, but that evolution has shaped the percentage in a way that in a random society there will be enough of different type of people to fill certain roles that are necessary for the society's survival and wellbeing. This society is thus stronger, in terms of evolution, than a society of any other combination of types.

    I don't see why it would be logical to go in cycles.

  5. #15
    Senior Member proximo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    584

    Default

    Fashions change, but human nature does not and has not, as any student of history can tell you

    What's fashionable in a particular era will be portrayed as the "norm", but I think you'll find that what's fashionable is not necessarily the norm. How many people actually wear the sorts of clothes you see on a catwalk? How many people actually live the lifestyles of Hollywood hedonists - or even want to?

    What's fashionable grabs the headlines, and what's fashionable depends on what represents the values that whoever controls the headlines believes will act as an effective counterbalance to whatever values they think are too heavily weighted at any particular time. Culture and counterculture.

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
    I'm male and over 30, FYI.
    Preferences: 20% Extravert, 98% Intuitive, 68% Thinker, 17% Perceiving

  6. #16
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolla View Post
    By evolutionary I didn't mean that some types are higher in evolution, but that evolution has shaped the percentage in a way that in a random society there will be enough of different type of people to fill certain roles that are necessary for the society's survival and wellbeing. This society is thus stronger, in terms of evolution, than a society of any other combination of types.
    I know. I was mostly just clarifying myself on the evolutionary point.

    I don't see why it would be logical to go in cycles.
    I guess I would say because society's needs aren't static, and there's no natural progression, only cycles.

  7. #17
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolla View Post
    By evolutionary I didn't mean that some types are higher in evolution, but that evolution has shaped the percentage in a way that in a random society there will be enough of different type of people to fill certain roles that are necessary for the society's survival and wellbeing. This society is thus stronger, in terms of evolution, than a society of any other combination of types.

    I don't see why it would be logical to go in cycles.
    I agree, so the societies (tribes) operate like organisms, if a tribe made of even SP/SJ/NT/NF out-competes another tribe made of all SJs, then that is natural selection. Percentages of traits become a selective trait at the higher level, maybe?
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  8. #18
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proximo View Post
    Fashions change, but human nature does not and has not, as any student of history can tell you

    What's fashionable in a particular era will be portrayed as the "norm", but I think you'll find that what's fashionable is not necessarily the norm. How many people actually wear the sorts of clothes you see on a catwalk? How many people actually live the lifestyles of Hollywood hedonists - or even want to?

    What's fashionable grabs the headlines, and what's fashionable depends on what represents the values that whoever controls the headlines believes will act as an effective counterbalance to whatever values they think are too heavily weighted at any particular time. Culture and counterculture.

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
    Well, that's a bit different than what I believe. I agree with you that headlines highlight what is "fashionable" (in this case, fashionable societal values) at a given time. Unlike you though, I just don't think they pull it out of thin air.

    If society was basically the same and only the trendsetters (and the trends they set) changed, how do you explain the major societal changes I mentioned earlier (the thing about declining membership in groups, mainline churches, career stability, etc...)?

    Those are based on real numbers, not headlines. When the numbers move in one direction so quickly and so notably, that's no longer counter-culture... that's the new culture.

  9. #19
    Senior Member proximo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    584

    Default

    Seems we're misunderstanding each other. I quite specifically said where I believe they pull the headlines out from, as you put it, and it was far from "thin air":

    Quote Originally Posted by proximo View Post
    what's fashionable depends on what represents the values that whoever controls the headlines believes will act as an effective counterbalance to whatever values they think are too heavily weighted to serve their purposes at any particular time. Culture and counterculture.


    Perhaps I ought to have added the bolded part in, originally. I also explained the changes you mention:

    Quote Originally Posted by proximo View Post
    Culture and counterculture.
    Also I said it's the *fashions* that change, not the "trendsetters". They (that is, their humanity and their general motives for doing what they do) don't change at all (only the particular means they use to express those motives), and the trends they "set" are seldom truly new - just rehashed and regurgitated. They're as trapped in the culture/counterculture circle as anyone else, except perhaps more accurately, sub-culture and sub-counterculture.
    I'm male and over 30, FYI.
    Preferences: 20% Extravert, 98% Intuitive, 68% Thinker, 17% Perceiving

  10. #20
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    Also, I don't know how it's possible to *know* that the majority has always been and will always be SJ. Just one measurement: If SJs populate most civic groups, and membership in all groups has dropped drastically over the past 40 years, isn't it possible that SJs are less common than they used to be? Same with other obvious bastions of the SJ - mainline religion, major political partys, neighborhood associations... all down. People are less likely to stay in the same job for their entire career, and more likely to move away from their hometown. I know there are other contributing factors for each of these trends, but it does seem that taken as a whole, maybe there just fewer SJs out there.

    I don't think they were as much bastions of SJness as you're making out, what's more likely is that cultural changes have allowed the NFs, NTs and SPs to drift away from those institutions (and the more they do that the more "traditional" it becomes to move away from them, the more SJs will move on as well).

    Cultural influence has little to do with numerical numbers anyway, so SJ dominance can decrease while still maintaining the same population proportions.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] How are MBTI types GENERALLY associated with Alpha, Beta, etc?
    By INFPtheQuietOne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-14-2015, 10:28 PM
  2. why are mbti types called personality types?
    By INTP in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 05:58 AM
  3. What are the most and least common MBTI types?
    By /DG/ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 08-24-2010, 07:23 PM
  4. [E8] E8s, what are your MBTI type?
    By Speed Gavroche in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-11-2010, 02:53 PM
  5. Are there MBTI type descriptions in German?
    By hommefatal in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-02-2009, 11:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO