• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[SJ] SJs, Nature vs. Nurture

FallaciaSonata

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
159
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Greetings.


I read somewhere that "most children are probably born as SJs, and then alter as they age". This seems to be just another wild hypothesis, but I entertained the thought nonetheless.

Let's say that children are indeed born with a default of 50/50 on the I/E scale, a preference for S, default of 50/50 on T/F scale, and a preference for J. I'll be the first to point out that since the senses and motor skills are developing that babies would obviously seem to be favoring the "S", but that doesn't mean nothing is happening cognitively. Also, some babies (myself included) preferred a schedule for feeding/sleeping and went on a cycle, whereas some do not.

Anyway, let's say that Nature puts them at that preset default level of "personality". Temperament, as some say. This says that everything else must be affected by Nurture, and I would like to know:

As an SJ, how much of your personality do you think was affected externally, and how much of it were you simply born with, due to genetics?

There is a lot of data out there that I am too lazy to compile that suggests that genetics make up about 60% of one's temperament/personality. I tend to agree with that, seeing how the older I get, the more I'm told I have my grandfather's mannerisms. (He is deceased, so I highly doubt that I am doing the unconscious "monkey see, monkey do" thing.)

I will attempt to briefly break down some of the facets of my own personality, in attempt to get my meaning across.

1. Introversion
I tend to think that I was born this way. As a child, I was given frequent attention (source: mother) and almost never left alone. However, I am told I would (on an every day basis) play alone in my bedroom for hours on end, building something or working on something (I was a lego maniac). When I learned how to read, I began doing a lot of that, as well.

I personally tend to think that someone's level of I/E is at least 90% genetic. I read an interesting theory that our brains are hard-wired to need a certain amount of external stimulation, and that introverted brains require significantly less and do not like over-stimulation. The opposite applies as well.

2. Sensing
I've been studying Piaget's theory of cognitive development and how some people can "get stuck" at concrete operation, or rather, being only able to work with 'reals'. A while ago, I thought I could have been an INTJ, and then more correctly figured out that I'm just using a great deal of Ne.

Now I have an idea that perhaps, rather than using the letters or functions, I'm simply using more of what Piaget called the formal operation, or rather, being able to work with abstracts and imaginary things. The format in which I work with these abstracts would be Ne.

3. Thinking
This one, for me at least, is pretty easy to figure out. However, I tend to think that this is mostly Nurture, for me. Both of my parents favor T, and I spend a great deal of time with them. My mom is still emotional, as are most women, but she is significantly less emotional than other women her age, I've noticed. My dad, well, he's just incredibly smart.

Another note I'll add is the Te "putting in order" thing. My mom is the professional neat-freak and has to have everything in its place, and so am I. I hypothesize that I "get this from her". (Both genetically and from observation.)

4. Judging
Preference for using Te is slightly higher on my cognitive functions test score, just above (and just a hair above) the Si score. I would even go as far as to say that I use TeSiNeFi, but I'm an introvert. So....I'm an introvert that is built like an ESTJ then? Who knows.

All I can say is my dad and sister do not share the same inclinations that my mother and I do, as far as order/cleanliness/conventional way of doing things goes.



So, what do you think? Comments, questions, concerns, opinions? :D
 

Andy

Supreme High Commander
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
1,211
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Interesting piece. I'd agree with you about E/I being genetic, and there is at least some proof to back it up, see this little story here

Rare syndrome points to sociability gene - health - 25 February 2009 - New Scientist

You also said 50/50 on the T/F scale. Do you know that most men are T and the majority of women F types? I suspect that here we have nurture reinforcing nature. Men are expected to think in a particular (because they often do so by genetics) and they are incouraged to do so by upbringing, as it is manly. Similar for women. I have no proof of this supposition, however.
 

wrldisquiethere

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
233
MBTI Type
xSFJ
Enneagram
2w1
I don't have a whole lot to say, but here's something:

I was born into a family of introverts. My dad and mom were both introverted, as well as one of my sisters. I think I showed a lot of introverted characteristics as a child and teenager. It was only as I got older and began to create a life of my own that I realized I thrive on social interaction. I see now that the same thing happened with my sister--she is an extroverted that lived like an introvert until she got out on her own. While I believe I am an extroverted person who is energized by being with people, I also see that I may be more reserved and quiet than a lot of stereotypical extroverts.
 

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
Good topic, OP.

For me:

1. Introversion
During childhood, I was just the opposite of introverted. Then around age 10, I completely molded into the ISTJ type. But come to think of it, I believe my introversion was from Nature. Of course there's the well-recognized idea that introverts' brains are different from extroverts'. An introvert processes outside information much slower, while an extrovert does it faster.

2. Sensing
This was from Nature for me. My parents are both Ns, and I could never get used to that way of thinking and internalizing information. From a young age I was known for my amazing ability to recall precise facts, dates, and details. So much so that if someone needed to know what happened on a certain day or when a certain event happened, they would just ask me and I would tell them accurately. I've had this trait since I was a little kid, though it actually grew stronger as I went into double digits (age).

3. Thinking
Hmm... I think this for me was half Nature, half Nurture. When I was younger, I didn't really consider the feelings of others (then again I didn't really use my head when making decisions). However, when I got older, I learned that for me, using my head was the way to go (probably the development of Te). I didn't really have 'feelings' per se, nor did I understand them very well. I guess now that I look at it, it too is mostly Nature. The only Nurture part came in when people encouraged me to look at things analytically.

4. Judging
This is mostly Nurture. Both my parents encouraging me to go the ways of Judging, and of course school did the same. When I was a little kid (before age 10), I acted like a certain P. Then I began to get a little discipline (because I was taught that way), got a little more responsibility, and I never got involved with the wrong crowd thankfully.
 

wrldisquiethere

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
233
MBTI Type
xSFJ
Enneagram
2w1
I also believe my sensing is nature. I believe I'm the only xSxx out of Mom, Dad, me, and the two sisters who were around when I was growing up.
 

SubjectA

New member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
164
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1
I'm pretty sure I was a P when I was little. I remember that I always explored and I always wanted to know more. I was also not too shy around other people, especially if I had a strong opinion. And I suspect that I was an N, because I was always in my own head or playing games that required a lot of imagination. As for the T/F difference, I'm not too sure, but I'll default to T.

So I'm thinking I was an ENTP.

Though it's hard to say if this was nature or nurture. I'm thinking my N was probably nature, since both of my parents were S's. I'm only speculating.
 

d@v3

Perfect Gentleman! =D
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,830
MBTI Type
ISTJ
I was definitely a lot more extraverted when I was younger. :yes:
 

forzen

New member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
547
MBTI Type
INTJ
I believe S and N is nature, but you could make a logical assumption that everyone are born an S and due to the lack of interesting stimulation in their surrounding, they turned to their imagination for entertainment. This explanation could also carry over to any activities. Furthermore, the human brain develops very early, human interactions with a child between the age the child was born to maybe 3 years old could determined if a child favors human interactions or not (E or I). Perhaps if the parents were attentive to the child's need they will enjoy interacting with people because the child would become accustom to it (aka spoiling) or if the child is taugh that he or she can't always get what they want, they will be less sociable due to being accustom to less stimulus socially.

This really all boils down to the reward center of our brain, the limbic system. A child being showered with attention and loving will be more likely to enjoy interacting with people, because dopamine would react to the feeling of attention. In contrast, a child that had parents who doesn't interact with said child will more likely evolve into someone who is less sociable and seek inanimate object as a stimulation. Also, just like any language, reading human body language is develop in the early stage of a child's life cycle. A person not equip with the ability to read body language would be less likely to enjoy interacting with people, therefore will not enjoy activate the reward system of the brain. Explanation to extrovert thinking could based on if they have extrovert/introvert thinking influences (parents or family members) in the early stages of their childhood. A result of the inability to read body language, a child could develop to either assume a person's behavior or look at the facts at hand, thus becoming a S or a N. This could extend to all of that child's activities.

So the main factor is the reward system being a major part of the development of your personality. I will also add, that self control is almost none existant to a child so they would give in to the reward system more. This extend to the notion that if it feels good, nature dictates to continue doing it since it must be good for survial. That's why our mouth water when smelling something good or why sex feels good. Again, when the limbic system is stimulated, we tend to repeat the process of whatever stimulating it and as a result become successful at what ever it was, and we all know that success builds upon itself. That's why we hear the saying, "do what you want and success will follow."
 

kiddykat

movin melodies
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
1,111
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4, 7
I believe S and N is nature, but you could make a logical assumption that everyone are born an S and due to the lack of interesting stimulation in their surrounding, they turned to their imagination for entertainment. This explanation could also carry over to any activities. Furthermore, the human brain develops very early, human interactions with a child between the age the child was born to maybe 3 years old could determined if a child favors human interactions or not (E or I). Perhaps if the parents were attentive to the child's need they will enjoy interacting with people because the child would become accustom to it (aka spoiling) or if the child is taugh that he or she can't always get what they want, they will be less sociable due to being accustom to less stimulus socially.

This really all boils down to the reward center of our brain, the limbic system. A child being showered with attention and loving will be more likely to enjoy interacting with people, because dopamine would react to the feeling of attention. In contrast, a child that had parents who doesn't interact with said child will more likely evolve into someone who is less sociable and seek inanimate object as a stimulation. Also, just like any language, reading human body language is develop in the early stage of a child's life cycle. A person not equip with the ability to read body language would be less likely to enjoy interacting with people, therefore will not enjoy activate the reward system of the brain. Explanation to extrovert thinking could based on if they have extrovert/introvert thinking influences (parents or family members) in the early stages of their childhood. A result of the inability to read body language, a child could develop to either assume a person's behavior or look at the facts at hand, thus becoming a S or a N. This could extend to all of that child's activities.

So the main factor is the reward system being a major part of the development of your personality. I will also add, that self control is almost none existant to a child so they would give in to the reward system more. This extend to if it feels good, nature dictates to continue doing it since it must be good for survial. That's why our mouth water when smelling something good or why sex feels good. Again, when the limbic system is stimulated, we tend to repeat the process of whatever stimulating it and as a result become successful at what ever were doing, and we all know that success builds upon itself. That's why we hear the saying, "do what you want and success will follow."
Wow. Succinct!
 

Laurie

Was E.laur
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
6,072
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
This works until you have children. My sister's daughter would cry as a young baby if she was around loud people for too long of a time, and would be happy when I put her in the other room in her car seat. She needed that down time.

My SP started walking furniture at 6 months and walking at 8 (most kids are around 11 - 13 months) No one would ever confuse her with an SJ.

My IJ has been obviously IJ her whole life. When she was 10 months old she was so frustrated she couldn't walk but wouldn't start until she could walk perfectly. She told me as a 10 year old that she wished there wasn't phone or email because she talked too much at school already.

My little EP has always loved people and been energized by being with and around people.
 

forzen

New member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
547
MBTI Type
INTJ
This works until you have children. My sister's daughter would cry as a young baby if she was around loud people for too long of a time, and would be happy when I put her in the other room in her car seat. She needed that down time.

My SP started walking furniture at 6 months and walking at 8 (most kids are around 11 - 13 months) No one would ever confuse her with an SJ.

My IJ has been obviously IJ her whole life. When she was 10 months old she was so frustrated she couldn't walk but wouldn't start until she could walk perfectly. She told me as a 10 year old that she wished there wasn't phone or email because she talked too much at school already.

My little EP has always loved people and been energized by being with and around people.

That's why i said possitive stimulation. Loud people are negative stimulation, therefore does not stimulate the reward system. However, this could reenforce the behavior of introvercy, because the assumption that she likes to be alone can make the parent leave her be more often versus a child stimulated by loud noises. This could lead the child into becoming an INFP or an INTP. Assumptions are fun :D.
 

Laurie

Was E.laur
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
6,072
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Some children like loud people so that would be a reward for them.
 

forzen

New member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
547
MBTI Type
INTJ
Some children like loud people so that would be a reward for them.

True, but the child your describing perceives it negatively. Hence, within the context of my post, it's consider negative stimulation :D.
 

FallaciaSonata

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
159
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
I've consulted with my parents and my grandmother frequently about my childhood, for many reasons, and if what I've gleaned from them holds true, then I was very well taken care of and always given attention. Oddly enough, they told me that I didn't always *want* their attention, and I was known for being the quiet kid who stayed in his room with his Legos when people came over (and when they weren't).

This is where I'm split on my introversion....how much of it was innate, genetic, "nature", and how much wasn't? Seeing how both of my parents are on the introverted side of the spectrum, it seems to follow logic that I would become that way because I idolized (still idolize) both of them.

I was studying some of Bandura's social cognitive theory and how we learn by mimicking others, and also some of Freud's opinion on how we "reconcile" with our same-sex parent (Oedipus complex issue, won't go into that, sort of goofy) (mostly just getting at the mimicry thing) and I tend to believe that....whatever you're exposed to as a kid, it becomes your "reference standard".

I apply this reference standard to many things.....I think it's why when I find a girl attractive, I look at specific features and compare them to mine and my mother's --- they usually turn out similar. (I'm talking nitty-gritty here, like fingernail shape/size, hair color and level of straight/curly, shape of nose, mostly natural features.)

Anyway, I went off on a little tangent there. Returning to my original thought, I think it's possible that I am introverted because my parents are, and my introversion is partially learned. Example: Seeing Mom spend a lot of time reading or working on something made me "think" as a child that doing those things was "the norm". (The reference standard, if you will.) Also, my tendency to please my parents could have also played a small role here, too, seeing how I hated disappointing them.



On another similar, related note, I compare myself to my sister at times. She is still on the introverted side of the spectrum, *perhaps* (still working on that) but she is *significantly* more.....sociable than me. People commonly mistake me as being shy, but the truth is I have no interest in speaking with them. I bring this up because my sister and I are only one year and three months apart and we were both raised in the same house, with the same parents, same....everything. Yet she's wildly different from me --- so I conclude that her personality must be mostly genetic --- as is mine.

Thoughts?
 

forzen

New member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
547
MBTI Type
INTJ
I've consulted with my parents and my grandmother frequently about my childhood, for many reasons, and if what I've gleaned from them holds true, then I was very well taken care of and always given attention. Oddly enough, they told me that I didn't always *want* their attention, and I was known for being the quiet kid who stayed in his room with his Legos when people came over (and when they weren't).

This is where I'm split on my introversion....how much of it was innate, genetic, "nature", and how much wasn't? Seeing how both of my parents are on the introverted side of the spectrum, it seems to follow logic that I would become that way because I idolized (still idolize) both of them.

I was studying some of Bandura's social cognitive theory and how we learn by mimicking others, and also some of Freud's opinion on how we "reconcile" with our same-sex parent (Oedipus complex issue, won't go into that, sort of goofy) (mostly just getting at the mimicry thing) and I tend to believe that....whatever you're exposed to as a kid, it becomes your "reference standard".

I apply this reference standard to many things.....I think it's why when I find a girl attractive, I look at specific features and compare them to mine and my mother's --- they usually turn out similar. (I'm talking nitty-gritty here, like fingernail shape/size, hair color and level of straight/curly, shape of nose, mostly natural features.)

Anyway, I went off on a little tangent there. Returning to my original thought, I think it's possible that I am introverted because my parents are, and my introversion is partially learned. Example: Seeing Mom spend a lot of time reading or working on something made me "think" as a child that doing those things was "the norm". (The reference standard, if you will.) Also, my tendency to please my parents could have also played a small role here, too, seeing how I hated disappointing them.



On another similar, related note, I compare myself to my sister at times. She is still on the introverted side of the spectrum, *perhaps* (still working on that) but she is *significantly* more.....sociable than me. People commonly mistake me as being shy, but the truth is I have no interest in speaking with them. I bring this up because my sister and I are only one year and three months apart and we were both raised in the same house, with the same parents, same....everything. Yet she's wildly different from me --- so I conclude that her personality must be mostly genetic --- as is mine.

Thoughts?

Mimicking would not really describe the behavior since if that was the case, every christian parents would have christian kids. Yet, many people have different ideologies from their parents. Although i do agree in why your attraction is similar to your parents. But i'm basing it more on the fact that comfort of familiarity is based on the human species survivility in the past. Gambling on the unknown is very hard since it's safer to take the familiar route. The girl you have a crush on have familiar features, so you unconciously assume that she's healthy because your mom is healthy and therefore worthy to procreate with, but it doesn't stop with your parent and perhaps extend to anyone that influenced you positively. Also, in the past, human is likely to be in the alert mode when in a foreign environment (due to a more hostile environment) and when in the alert mode human tend to feel uncomfortable. So being in a familiar setting, as well as seeing familiar people gives people comfort and are free to let their guard down.
 
Last edited:

Matthew_Z

That chalkboard guy
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
1,256
MBTI Type
xxxx
There certainly is evidence to suggest that N/S, perhaps even correlated with J/P, is at least partially nurture related. I've observed (note, anecdote, not a statistic) that many NJs, perhaps most, have described themselves as "being raised by the television," IN_Js moreso than EN_Js. Of course, It could be that the NJness caused the TV proximity, not the other way around. The statistical investigation is for another day.

Assuming that N/S is largely nurture, not nature, we can reasonably conclude that this preference likely is created in the first three years of life. (based on present knowledge of infant brain development and neurology in general) How? Theoretically, brain matter could be open any form of functioning initially and later make connections later on. General patterns of these connections create the functions as we know them. For whatever reason, the infant brain may favor some connections. This can be in part due to the chemical composition of the brain, in large part from the genetic makeup of the individual. However, as has been observed in the study of identical twins, any given DNA makeup does not guarantee type. Given that, from an evolutionary standpoint, the ability to adapt and specialize in one's environment is preferred, how one perceives the world relates to the world that is being perceived. Ergo, the perception is not innate.
 

FallaciaSonata

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
159
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Interesting. I'm half-tempted to have children of my own so I can study them. :D

You mentioned that the infant brain may favor some connections. Just curious, but what do you think about Piaget's theory on cognitive development? It seemed, when applied to type, that all children would be S types. (Assimilation, perhaps?) But then again, when my teacher explained Accommodation in detail, that screamed "Ne" to me for some reason.

Another thought, slightly unrelated. Do you think children with slightly-overactive amygdala (fearful temperament?) favor being S types? It seems logical to me that if you're overly alert you pay more attention to immediate surroundings than imagination, but then again, I could be totally off-key here.

I say this because as a child I think I would have had a fearful, or at the very least, inhibited temperament. I imagine this would just be shyness coupled with introversion --- as I grew older, I "outgrew" the shyness and now I'm just introverted. (Not afraid to talk to people at all, just don't want to.)

Just some fluff for thought.
 

Matthew_Z

That chalkboard guy
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
1,256
MBTI Type
xxxx
Interesting. I'm half-tempted to have children of my own so I can study them. :D

You mentioned that the infant brain may favor some connections. Just curious, but what do you think about Piaget's theory on cognitive development? It seemed, when applied to type, that all children would be S types. (Assimilation, perhaps?) But then again, when my teacher explained Accommodation in detail, that screamed "Ne" to me for some reason.

Another thought, slightly unrelated. Do you think children with slightly-overactive amygdala (fearful temperament?) favor being S types? It seems logical to me that if you're overly alert you pay more attention to immediate surroundings than imagination, but then again, I could be totally off-key here.

I say this because as a child I think I would have had a fearful, or at the very least, inhibited temperament. I imagine this would just be shyness coupled with introversion --- as I grew older, I "outgrew" the shyness and now I'm just introverted. (Not afraid to talk to people at all, just don't want to.)

Just some fluff for thought.
My particular interest is in the area of the interaction between behavior and personality, especially pertaining to cause and effect. Does behavior lead to personality? Does personality lead to behavior? More likely to not, the effect works both as both slowly solidify at a complementary pace.

To be honest, I must confess that I am not too familiar with Piaget's theory.

As for perception, I think it is more important to differentiate J perception from P perception than it is to differentiate S perception from N perception. As some have suggested, a J/P preference emerges before an S/N preference. Both extraverted perceiving functions desire to explore what is unknown or not fully known. Both introverted perceiving functions tend to explore what is already known. Se can be thought of as exploring the physical world, while Ne envisions what could be explored and how these could interact, with a slightly smaller emphasis on the physical realm. In a similar manner, Si thrives on "reliving" past experiences as raw as they initially were. Similarly to how Ne is to Se, Ni seeks to explore different interpretations of the original data, to know more of it and fill in the blanks.

In this sense, one could infer that P perception arises from input that suggests to the brain that it should adapt to constant exploring, while J perception arises from the input that what has been observed is sufficient and merely needs to be processed. N/S perception is determined later on the basis of what "side" of data perceived is significant. SJs and NJs could be raised in an environment of relative stability, while SJs adapt to more physical relationships and connections, such as those that would come from a strong parental attachment. NJs could adapt from knowing their constancy but still require their picture completed, possibly coming from how the nature of interactions between experiences was first introduced to them.
 
Top