Thanks to everyone who has posted so far!
I am not debating, because I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject, but, how would you account for my N, which is quite strong?
I am genuinely curious on your thoughts.
I'm not debating either. Just curious. I have no idea where your N came from.
My personal opinion is that people's genes are largely responsible for their personality types, therefore must 'come' from somewhere in your recent line, barring some bizarre childhood or something.
You have a belief that's based largely on personal experience, and while this may be a convincing argument for you, it's not enough for me. There have been a number of cases of adopted children being similar, in regards to personality, to their biological parents, but there also have been a number of cases where the children are more like their adoptive parents, in regards to personality.
I haven't even delved into studies yet. As is typical of Ni, I'm starting with my own experience>combining it with observation>attempting some primitive data gathering to see if I can see a pattern>and now if I don't find something better to think about, will probably start studying up on it.
The nature vs. nurture debate is not obsolete. You seem to be overly willing to make it so, however.
That's just my bias showing. If I didn't have bias, or stated that I didn't have bias in this situation, it would be a fallacious statement, because obviously I do, since most of my opinion involves my personal experiences. I simply see it so clearly, that I forget there are real divergent opinions on the matter. But, yeah, even in my own family, 33% think it's nurture, and 66% think it's nature over nurture. I'm not sure of the general public's opinion on it. Probably about even, I'd guess. I'll even go so far as to say I'm about 85% nature effects/15% nurture effects, given a normal environment. So that's where I personally stand on the issue.
Phenotype = genotype + environment
I'm not denying that genes have some influence on our personality. I'm just more inclined to believe that environment plays a larger role in the phenotype variable than does the genotype (and if not larger, then perhaps equal).
Yes, thanks for stating that relationship in straightforward terms. I think it also needs to be said that, well, I'll let this statement say if for me (from wikipedia):
Despite its seemingly straightforward definition, the concept of the phenotype has some hidden subtleties. First, most of the molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable (for example by Western blotting) and are thus part of the phenotype. Human blood groups are an example. So, by extension, the term phenotype must include characteristics that can be made visible by some technical procedure. Another extension adds behaviour to the phenotype since behaviours are also observable characteristics.
And
Simple single-celled eukaryotes have relatively small amounts of such DNA, whereas the genomes of complex multicellular organisms, including humans, contain an absolute majority of DNA without an identified function.
My point being that we are an accumulation of a lot more genetic material than is ever apparent, and scientists think that certain conditions might elicit expression of some of that 'hidden' DNA, which could also (my own pov next>) eventually account for the effects termed 'nurture.' But, even so, we cannot just take phenotype and say anything not readily observable in a parent or other close relative means it comes from environment, which can be a temptation for many, especially those biased toward nurture>nature.
The study that you posted corroborates that there is a link between a gene and a particular neurochemical phenotype, and that there exists a trend in the way this neurochemistry manifests as a particular psychological trait.
I certainly agree that neurochemistry and psychological traits go hand-in-hand and that neurochemical phenotypes have strong genetic ties. I'm just skeptical that neurochemistry is the primary causal factor associated with the personalities that we grow to possess.
Why are you skeptical of that? I'm especially interested in your scientific assessment since you work/study in this realm, but personal is good as well.
If one is raised by two parents that hold certain beliefs/values and possess certain personality traits, then social indoctrination (a result of the environment, rather than genetics), could theoretically influence one's personality. Thus, analyzing parent's personalities as a way to discern genetic relationships among personality is a bit inconclusive. Is the correlation between the offspring's personality and the parent's personality due to traits being passed on via internal pressures (genes), or is it due to traits being passed on via external pressures? (And again, obviously this question is moot in cases like yours, as the external pressure variable and the internal pressure variable are separated.)
Exactly. That's why they like to look to adopted children and twins to hold those variables a bit more stable than would normally be possible. Surely in your travels around the science department you know of studies that corroborate or refute nature over nurture debate.
Not really. No one in that list has Ti, so if I'm getting it from genetics, then where is it coming from?
Although there is a strong "inheritance" of Fi among my mother's side of the family. Maternal grandmother has Fi in the top 2 and so do her two children.
Well, it could be coming from anywhere, couldn't it. I have seen quite a few Ne doms (mainly Ti aux though) who can't seem to trace their Ne/Ti to any/many close relatives, mainly parents. Perhaps there is a facet to Ne that is more promoted by environmental influence, perhaps it is repressed more easily, and then seemingly appears out of nowhere, or perhaps it (by the nurture theory) is just cultivated by external events.
I certainly hope you're open to the idea that not all personality traits come from our genes...
No, I definitely think other factors are involved, but that they mainly become players when a normal loving environment is tampered with. I believe by default, a genetic organism (in this case a person) will inherently be a product of his genes, down to his mannerisms, expressions, cognitive functions, and basic mindset. I think ego plays a huge role in all our personalities, but, again, when that ego development has been screwed up for some reason. If a person has not had a normal development physically and emotionally in his primary developmental years (<20y.o), then he will manifest the fullest expression of his innate genotype, inasmuch as possible. If there is some need to survive, whether physically or emotionally, then, of course, that person will bend to whatever external pressures exist. I will propose, however, that even how the person flexes, the nuances of that, is probably an inherent mechanism at play that is normally dormant. That's why I still believe we are like 85-90% nature.
I too think it's a combination of genetics and environment. I think I may have inherited my ExxP temperament from my mother, but I was raised in an overwhelmingly SJ environment (away from her for the most part...I mean really hardly around her at all) where I was encouraged to read constantly, do well in school, and have traditional values. I was also around my grandparents in an older, more stable and affluent part of their life than my mother was in her own childhood. I think this is why my Si is so developed for an xNFP. I am actually kind of conservative compared to my biological mother, and I'm certainly more theoretical and abstract. I attribute a lot of my personality to my upbringing, but I do agree that I share my mother's ExxP temperament and that my sisters display some aspect of her personality but the one who spent the most time away from my mother (aside from me) is an ENFJ and also more "conservative" than my mother (though not really conservative in any real sense of the word.)
In fact, I decided to come back and edit this and elaborate...my ENFJ sister was heavily, heavily influenced by her ESFJ paternal aunt...which is why I say she seems more "conservative" and very well may be the reason she's an Fe dom. My EnFP sister who spent the majority of her development with my mom leans more toward ESFP (like my mother) while I lean more toward INFP (probably due to Si influence). My ISFj sister (who also spent larger amounts of time actually being raised by my mother) definitely has Fe and Si, but she's a "soft J" making her seem almost xSFP at times...like my mother.
And when I say I'm more conservative than my mother (don't laugh, seriously, I am), I don't just mean she's a batshit crazy unstable person (um, which she was for the majority of my childhood which is why she didn't raise me...my dad was her first husband, and my sisters' father was her second husband, which is why they spent more time with her)...I mean she's STILL now that she's older and more stable stupidly permissive with children, lacks discipline toward herself and others, and her political values are actually more "bleeding heart" liberal than mine, because she doesn't temper it with any real logic or value for personal responsibility at all. I attribute this to somewhat unhealthy and definitely out-of-control Se/Fi, because basically she's always done what seemed right to her in the moment without a great deal of foresight, and I'm not saying all ESFPs are like this so don't take it as that. But yeah.
Nurture over nature FTW.
Not knowing your father's type or the father(s?) of your sisters really makes it impossible to process your data objectively. But it is still interesting and food for thought.
Hmmm-well it really is a whole lotta Ne honestly. It just seems like there may be patterns but it is complicated to tease apart.
I would avoid MBTI and look at functions. The trends I noted are what I see in mine and my ex husbands family. I mapped it out by functions and could start to see the trends I mentioned-but the data is exceptionally sparse-just teases.
Yeah, functions for sure, I agree.
I'd expect the functions would be groups of SNPs that are inherited together, if I had to guess. But given there do seem to be certain ways of using these functions that are a bit more innate-at least for the dom and aux-it kind points to some sort of expression and repression that occur to form the pairs. I would be very interested in the role of enviornmental stress on the mother and epigentics in the eventual way the innate type is expressed. Under long term stress cortisol levels will be increased. This will alter other hormone levels likely due to modulation of gene expression or maybe methylation of dna, thus reducing transcription, but damn I am out of date on the molecular biology. So innate type but strong effect of the enviornment on the type expression perhaps?
Pairs is an interesting concept to ponder. Jag had a link to someone who proposed that we use pairs of functions at various times in our lives like waves, changing pairs as we go through life.
Finally, I will leave you for now with a quote from Jung pps 331-333:
In the same family one child is introverted, the other extraverted. Since the facts show that the attitude-type is a general phenomenon having an apparently random distribution, it cannot be a matter of conscious judgment or conscious intention, but must be due to some unconscious, instinctive cause. As a general psychological phenomenon, therefore, the type antithesis must have some kind of biological foundation.
The fact that children often exhibit a typical attitude quite unmistakably even in their earliest years forces us to assume that it cannot be the struggle for existence in the ordinary sense that determines a particular attitude. It might be objected, cogently enough, that even the infant at the breast has ato perform an unconscious act of psychological adaptation, in the at the mother's influence leads to specific reactions in the child. This argument, while supported by incontestable evidence, becomes rather flimsy in face of the equally incontestable fact that two children of the same mother may exhibit contrary attitudes a t an early age, though no change in the mother's attitude can be demonstrated. Although nothing would induce me to underrate the incalculable importance of parental influence, this familiar experience compels me to conclude that the decisive factor must be looked for in the disposition of the child. Ultimately it must be the individual disposition which decides whether the child will belong to this or that type despite the constancy of external conditions. Naturally I am thinking only of normal cases. Under abnormal conditions, i.e., when the mother's own attitude is extreme, a similar attitude can be forced on the children too, thus violating their individual disposition, which might have opted for another type if no abnormal external influences had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of parental influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and can be cured only by developing the attitude consonant with his nature.
As to individual disposition, I have nothing to say except that there are obviously individuals who have a greater capacity, or to whom it is more congenial, to adapt in one way and not another. It may well be that physiological causes of which we have no knowledge play a part in this. I do not think it improbable, in view of one's experience that a reversal of type often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-being of the organism, usually causing acute exhaustion.