User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 135

  1. #21
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    First you ask which one impacts our understanding of each other more (if I'm understanding you correctly), but then you pose that genders are more differentiated from each other than types. Can you more clearly define what your question is, Highlander?

    If it's the second question you insinuated in your more recent post, then I think you're comparing apples and oranges and asking "Which one tastes more fruity?" In fact, I think that's the tone of this whole thread.

    My gut tells me our genders have greater effects on social awareness, followed by our preferences for either extraversion or introversion.

    Our predilections for genders affect our understanding of others more so than typology because everyone except for scandalous, hooker craving politicians draws distinctions between the genders, whereas typology is very obscure.
    There are two questions, with the second being multi-part:

    1. What matters more in understanding someone -gender or type?

    2. All things being equal (from a type perspective), how does one gender vs. the other differ in the way they:

    - Relate with others
    - Communicate
    - Think
    - Make decisions
    - Act/behave

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  2. #22
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SuchIrony View Post
    I think type is more important than gender. A T female probably comes in communication and behavior as more like a T male than as an F female. Same sort of thing goes for F males. They too resemble F females more than T males.
    That's more my view too, although there are nuances.

    It's kinda like a stacking system, not an either/or system.

    e.g., if you start as F, you have all your personality sliders within certain level ranges. Then you add variations for gender on top of each slider, adjusting the sliders from their original positions (not starting from scratch). And so on.

    So eventually all the things that impact personality are stacked/added together to give you a "final mix"... that then continues to be adjusted as you gain life experience.

    The example's not perfect, but I think it's better to view it as all these things interacting rather than one dominating by default.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #23
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Sherlock Holmes View Post
    Lol I treat everyone in one of 2 ways. Friend or not friend. I don't differentiate between men and women. If a girl punches me in the shoulder I punch them in the shoulder. I don't hesitate because my philosophy is "Treat people equally regardless of differences such as gender, race and sexuality".
    I don't believe this works. I may have thought that way at one point in the past.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  4. #24
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I don't believe this works. I may have thought that way at one point in the past.
    Heh. I missed his comment.

    It might work with NT girls. For me, if I whack someone, I acknowledge their right to measure back the same to me (but no more) out of fairness. But most women I know would be pretty put off, I think, with guys who hit them; it's just not "proper," muscle/body composition and mass is different, guys are cast as physical protectors in our culture, so even the image of hitting a girl triggers negative response regardless of what she does.

    Besides, relationally (and again maybe different types respond differently), but most women I know don't want to be the guy's "buddy" if they're a couple, they want to be his girlfriend, which is a bit of a different situation. (Remember "Some Kind of Wonderful"?) They can overlap a bit but aren't the same. Treating all girls like one of the guys might make one's dating life flounder.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #25
    Consulting Detective Mr. Sherlock Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    JiNe
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    That's possibly true. Though I did mention the exclusion of romantic and sexual situations.
    JiNe
    Ti | Fi | Ne | Si | Te | Ni | Fe | Se
    Enneagram: 5w4 sx/sp

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

  6. #26
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    I think it depends on for what. i think in philosophical matters, temperament matters more. in attitudes that form about the self, about the world etc, gender matters more....

    I wonder what the conditional probabilities are for presence of feminist sentiment, for example-

    is p(feminist|INTP) > p(feminist|female) ? i'd tend to assume so.

  7. #27
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    1. What matters more in understanding someone -gender or type?

    2. All things being equal (from a type perspective), how does one gender vs. the other differ in the way they:

    - Relate with others
    - Communicate
    - Think
    - Make decisions
    - Act/behave
    1. I see type as more important than gender if one really wants to understand someone. It says much more about how someone thinks, understands, and communicates than gender. Gender is set by biology, and also determines a large part of the social programming one receives. As such, as someone already mentioned, it will have a greater influence on observable behavior. Different types will react to this conditioning in different ways as well. It is easy to determine someone's gender, and to make assumptions based on it that are incorrect, leading to misunderstanding and conflict. This is especially so for male F's and female T's. Type does not tell everything about a person, either, but to me, offers more insight into understanding who they really are.

    2. Much of the answer to this depends upon the degree to which a person accepts and implements the social programming they were raised with. None of us may be entirely free of it, but I would suspect some types are more resistant to it than others, more willing just to go their own way. These people will communicate, think, decide, and behave much more in keeping with their type. People who accept the social programming may at least behave more in keeping with the corresponding gender expectation, though their information handling, thinking, and decision making will still probably follow type more.

  8. #28
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    If we remove a statistical preference for Te/Ti vs. Fe/Fi (more women are F and more men are T), what matters more in understanding someone -gender or type?
    "In the big five personality traits, women score higher in Agreeableness (tendency to be compassionate and cooperative) and Neuroticism (tendency to feel anxiety, anger, and depression)."
    I'm a bit confused about what you are doing here.
    Why remove gender effects from one system and not the other?

    Big Five findings and MBTI stats are in agreement: women are more likely to be "Agreeable"/exhibit F-type traits than men.

    But if gender mattered more, wouldn't all women be Fs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  9. #29
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    All women may be pressured more to act like F's, but their internal processing and motivations won't be F-like if that is not their real type/preference. That's why I made a distinction between readily observable behavior, and how someone really processes information and makes decisions. Gender will likely have more effect on the first than the second.

  10. #30
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    It's a more nebulous issue because many of the descriptors of men vs. women have to do with externally expressing an internal experience. In a culture where men are conditioned to not express emotion, they will tend to not express the emotion, but also could be less likely to admit to experiencing the emotion, and in the more extreme cases of cultural inundation will become unaware when they are experiencing that emotion.

    Take any culturally tight environment in which there are certain thoughts or feelings that are permissible and others that are not. People will tend to not admit and in some cases be unaware of experiencing the non-permissible thought and emotions.

    My impression is that the MBTI T/F dichotomy is inundated with gender stereotypes. It could be that it is derived directly from these, or it could be that the more prevailing stereotypes of gender have now been overlaid on the system. In this way it is difficult to ask which matters more because the intertwining of the two is complex. They play out almost identically from a social perspective which is something I have found rather interesting. The dynamic between T and F online mirrors the dynamics I have seen between men and women in concrete social space.

    One reason society allows for greater emotional expression in women comes from a long history of dividing gender roles. The woman as caretaker of small children has to adapt to a range of communication that includes all the developmental stages. This requires empathy of non-verbal signals while her offspring is an infant. It requires clearer, somewhat more exaggerated facial expressions of emotion for young children who cannot read the subtler messages. It means not requiring children to guess at a feeling, but being able to place it out there in words and expression as clearly as possible just as the child does. At the adult level this empathy and emoting is then intertwined with more complex layers of communication between adults. Men have been compartmentalized to have work/thought space and home/emoting space. The requirement on their functioning is historically different.

    I do not see either category as significantly important. It says a little something about a person, but not actually that much. When the categories become stereotypical and black-and-white, then it says far less about a person than is actually the case. I've said this before, but the T/F pole does not create mutually exclusive traits and does not work entirely as a way to categorize people. The presence of one trait does not require the absence of the other trait. For E/I, the ability to gain energy from external stimuli and being around people is not going to be the case typically for the person who gains energy by being alone. Those are opposite states. The T/F categories are might not often overlap, but there isn't anything inherent to the one trait that requires the absence of the other, and more importantly the absence of one trait does not suggest the presence of the other trait.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

Similar Threads

  1. What matters more, intention or consequence?
    By magpie in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 12-20-2015, 07:17 PM
  2. What does your type and gender mean to you?
    By Vilku in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 07-20-2015, 09:50 PM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-11-2013, 11:56 AM
  4. What's her type? Or maybe she's a mental?
    By Typoz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-07-2012, 02:27 PM
  5. What is my type? (or not)
    By Laurie in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 12:47 PM

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