Evolution of typology

[SolitaryWalker]

Anyone who has read Charles Darwin's origin of species will have a difficult time arguing that we have evolved from brutes. Over a long period of time, our intellect has developed. It is also clear that man adapts to his environment. In the land of brutes and at the given time, the environment did not allow for much contemplation, species were forced to ensure of their physical survival.

At this point man's environment is much conducive to reflection, and that is why we have become smarter than our ancestors.

It is clear that among us, some are more like the evolved species, and some are more reminiscent of our predecessors. Some of us are 'better made' for action like apes and other animals out of which we have evolved, yet others are better made for contemplation and more intellectual endeavors.

The human race could be divided into 2 classes. The passionate and the intellectual.

Extroverts, sensors and Feelers are best categorized as the passionate. David Hume persuasively argued that it is not intellectual notions that make us act, but our passions. This is a truism as an abstract idea, if it is not relevant to me in any way will not inspire me to act. I will only act, consciously or unconsciously if in some way I think it is relevant to me. Extroversion is in closer affinity with action. Feeling for the same reason. Feeling is what makes all action possible because if we did not process emotion, it would not be possible for us to survive. Jung however calls Feeling a rational function. One may see this faculty as an intellectual assessment of emotions. That is false. When Feeling is backed up by thinking, such an assessment is possible, but feeling as an intellectual faculty is only capable of allowing our minds to clearly focus on emotion. Sensation is better identified with the passionate because it aims us at the concrete, external world. Our physique is what first and foremost fuels our bodies into action. Our physical needs play a great role in our need to act out externally.

Intuition, Thinking and Introversion are to be better identified with the intellectual. Intuition is an abstract collection of perceptions. Primarily concerned with imagination and vision. Introversion is concerned with allowing us the necessary down time to properly think. Introversion therefore in itself is not a faculty of the intellect or contemplation, but only an accomplice. It is the platform for intellectual endeavors, much like Extroversion is the platform for the passionate endeavors. However, Introversion is better identified with the former because it conduces to the intellectual pursuits more than to the passionate.

Hence, the passionate and those primarily concerned with action are in closer affinity with our primates than with the evolved modern man. One may argue that despite that they are this similar to animals, they have enough of the intellectual aspect within them to be more comparable to people than to animals. As even the most retarded of us, or the most outgoing and least analytical are superior in intelligence to animals.

Thus, we have the most passionate of all beings, as the ESFJ, this is likely the type the primitive man inhabited. Intensely externally focused, intensely feeling oriented and intensely sensation oriented.

ESFP is less externally focused, and less feeling oriented, thus it is secondary.

1)ESFJ
2)ESFP
3)ISFP
4)ISFJ
5)ISTJ
6)ESTP
7)ESTJ
8)ISTP
9)INFP
10)ENFJ
11)ENFP
12)INFJ
13)ENTJ
14)ENTP
15)INTJ
16)INTP

[CaptainChick]

Wing, stop it, please.

You are smarter than this!

[CaptainChick]

Also, I don't know if you are in some intoxicated place, whether emotionally or drug-induced, but this thread is *not* a good look.

And by *not* a good look, I mean, it makes you seem like you're a complete lunatic moron.

And I don't necessarily think that you are either of those things.

As a person who cares about you and your well-being, I would strongly advise you to delete this thread.

[MetalWounds]

^ Pshaw...you're just angry 'cuz ur number 11.

*woot* 15

Someone give me a giant club made out of a mammoth bone, I'm gonna par-tay.

[Rajah]

Okay, my problems with your argument, BlueWing.

You created an artificial divide between passionate and intellectual, then attempted to organize a continuum of the types (actually, a hierarchy thinly disguised as a continuum). Yet I'm confused about how you think this works. How on earth can you assign levels of passion to type? And why are you putting that much faith in MBTI?

In fact, why do you always put this much faith in MBTI?

In any event, a bigger, glaring problem is equivocation. "Passionate" is not the same as "dumb," which is what your theory requires to survive. You can't have "passionate" on one side and "intellectual" on the other - the continuum doesn't work logically. You can't have two utterly incomparable things - passion and intellect - and pit them against one another in this continuum.

As my special friend noted, you started with a really shaky foundation and built a skyscraper on it.

A total INTJ thing to do.

[Night]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Anyone who has read Charles Darwin's origin of species will have a difficult time arguing that we have evolved from brutes. Over a long period of time, our intellect has developed. It is also clear that man adapts to his environment. In the land of brutes and at the given time, the environment did not allow for much contemplation, species were forced to ensure of their physical survival.

At this point man's environment is much conducive to reflection, and that is why we have become smarter than our ancestors.

It is clear that among us, some are more like the evolved species, and some are more reminiscent of our predecessors. Some of us are 'better made' for action like apes and other animals out of which we have evolved, yet others are better made for contemplation and more intellectual endeavors.

What is 'better made'?

Are you creating a cultural link? A physiological bridge?

This baseline suggests an intractable uniformity. What of the Thinker who prefers to, as you describe it, work as an ape or other animal?

Originally Posted by BlueWing

The human race could be divided into 2 classes. The passionate and the intellectual.

You are waxing unequal terms, BW. Can neither fluidly transcend origin/socially incorporate the qualities of the other?

How are these concepts empirically linked?

Originally Posted by BlueWing

David Hume persuasively argued that it is not intellectual notions that make us act, but our passions.

Goethe believed that passion and intellect were of indivisible merit.

“Our passions are the true phoenixes; when the old one is burnt out, a new one rises from its ashes.”

Originally Posted by BlueWing

This is a truism as an abstract idea, if it is not relevant to me in any way will not inspire me to act. I will only act, consciously or unconsciously if in some way I think it is relevant to me. Extroversion is in closer affinity with action. Feeling for the same reason. Feeling is what makes all action possible because if we did not process emotion, it would not be possible for us to survive. Jung however calls Feeling a rational function. One may see this faculty as an intellectual assessment of emotions. That is false. When Feeling is backed up by thinking, such an assessment is possible, but feeling as an intellectual faculty is only capable of allowing our minds to clearly focus on emotion.
Sensation is better identified with the passionate because it aims us at the concrete, external world. Our physique is what first and foremost fuels our bodies into action. Our physical needs play a great role in our need to act out externally.

Our "physical needs"? "Physical" behavior is a superabundant description of the collective metabolic activities people do. Whether it be exercise or simple reading, it doesn't seem rationale to differentiate Extroversion v. Introversion on the presumption that one favors physical needs more than the other.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Intuition, Thinking and Introversion are to be better identified with the intellectual. Intuition is an abstract collection of perceptions. Primarily concerned with imagination and vision. Introversion is concerned with allowing us the necessary down time to properly think. Introversion therefore in itself is not a faculty of the intellect or contemplation, but only an accomplice. It is the platform for intellectual endeavors, much like Extroversion is the platform for the passionate endeavors. However, Introversion is better identified with the former because it conduces to the intellectual pursuits more than to the passionate.

I see how you're creating an architecture here. I like this part.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Hence, the passionate and those primarily concerned with action are in closer affinity with our primates than with the evolved modern man. One may argue that despite that they are this similar to animals, they have enough of the intellectual aspect within them to be more comparable to people than to animals. As even the most retarded of us, or the most outgoing and least analytical are superior in intelligence to animals.

Is this a serious insert?

If the MBTI (and your assertions) incorporated absolute comprehension of personality as it applies to - culture; genetics; socioeconomics; psychiatric health; psychology...etc, perhaps you'd have an argument.

Intelligence is a profound expression of Neurological evolution and; as such, can be correctly anticipated to embody a cornucopia of possible formulae.

Our capacity to wield and recognize it depends on our openness to its diverse signature.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Thus, we have the most passionate of all beings, as the ESFJ, this is likely the type the primitive man inhabited. Intensely externally focused, intensely feeling oriented and intensely sensation oriented.

ESFP is less externally focused, and less feeling oriented, thus it is secondary.

1)ESFJ
2)ESFP
3)ISFP
4)ISFJ
5)ISTJ
6)ESTP
7)ESTJ
8)ISTP
9)INFP
10)ENFJ
11)ENFP
12)INFJ
13)ENTJ
14)ENTP
15)INTJ
16)INTP

All this demonstrates is wholesale inexperience, BW.

This line of thought is disappointingly narrow.

[Modern Nomad]

I think the world is more dependent on women for evolution.

Its the women who decide what traits get passed on to their children. Most of the time.

So throughout history I think that knowing the mental/feeling/watever/man picking process is more relevant.

In societies, I think in general philosophy and war abilities are probably the two most important things for a societies survival. And since today's societies are more city based, rather than village/based dynamics for survival, there is less focus on character in general. And what characteristics do women look more for nowadays to pass on their genes? Well I have no idea what it was like centuries ago. So I don't have any comparisons.

But given that women can also take after their mom's or dad's personalities, there are too many random variables to prove anything related to a maternal or paternal line of characteristics in the long run contriibuted to "evolution". But overall, I think there is a closer link to "evolution" in women's tastes. But then again, given that a long time ago, many marriages were arrainged for tribal peace and harmony among powerful tribes, you can also say that genes conducive to peace were passed on because obviously it was the peaceful tribes that would have inter tribal marriages between warring tribes, or you can say warring tribes had more women having their babies...

there are so many different variables at play if you try to connect things with characteristics. there are a thousand hypothesis, no solid proof supporting one of the other. so i think its just something to be like hey, lets shoot the shiet. lol

[SolitaryWalker]

[quote=Night;243971]What is 'better made'?

Are you creating a cultural link? A physiological bridge?

This baseline suggests an intractable uniformity. What of the Thinker who prefers to, as you describe it, work as an ape or other animal?



You are waxing unequal terms, BW. Can neither fluidly transcend origin/socially incorporate the qualities of the other?

How are these concepts empirically linked?



Goethe believed that passion and intellect were of indivisible merit.

[i]

[SolitaryWalker]

This isnt MBTI, I have my own system.

It is clearly obvious that we better think dispassionately rather than amidst intense emotions. And we better think in solitude. One may say Goethe, Kierkegaard and Virgil (many others of their intellectual kind) were passion centered thinkers. Yet also very intelligent. They had great insights into human nature. One may say that they were also internally focused and this compensated for them being passionate.

People who are externally focused and driven by passions tend not to have the gifts that they did. Yes, it is indeed the case that passions and intellect are inseparable. However, it is possible to emphasize one aspect over the other. Passion in its pure essence will lead one to act relentlessly. Yet, when it is reconciled with the intellect, or the more dispassionate aspects of mind, we have something akin to what Goethe achieved. Where they could intellectualize their passions and come up with great works of art and literature. Even though they were very passionate, their intense internal focus leads one to think that the passions were subjugated to their intellect and contemplation.

Originally Posted by Night

"Physical" behavior is a superabundant description of the collective metabolic activities people do. Whether it be exercise or simple reading, it doesn't seem rationale to differentiate Extroversion v. Introversion on the presumption that one favors physical needs more than the other.
.

That is true, but irrelevant to what my ideas were about. The reason to maintain that extroversion is more physically oriented is as follows: Extroversion is naturally aimed at the external world, which is necessarily physical. Introversion is aimed at the inner life which is less physical to say the least.

We have here a continuum between action and contemplation. Former gives rise to passion, the latter to contemplation. Yes, I realize this is all very narrow and crude, but I am not trying to cover all things concerning evolution and human nature, but present one very basic and broad way of thinking about the problem.

[Modern Nomad]

^ Hey don't u think its natural to shape the world though to something that is most advantageous to themselves?

I notice you put yourself 16? Is that the worst or the best one? Just curious...