Feeling types big gender difference

[badatlife]

I did admit the last was speculation. Regarding MBTI, I have seen evidence that links E/I to brain physiology, and more limited evidence regarding qualities related to the Big 5 "conscientiousness" factor, which seems related to J, or perhaps Je. MBTI is supposed to describe cognitive processes, which seems more likely tied to how our brains are wired. Enneagram relates more to motivations, which seem more open to influence by our experiences.

Theoretically that makes sense, but neither have actually been proven. I'm just going off popular descriptions and the way they're applied. Enneagram descriptions tend to be more indepth and go deeper into the psyche while mbti descriptions are more shallow (even the official mbti is very shallow). It's the core/instinctive motivations which is what makes it deeper than mbti-and also there's no poles/spectrums in the enneagram, there's 9 distinct types. I think this is less likely to be nurture, because you can't teach someone to have core motivations; maybe everyone can be raised to want the same thing, but the way they go about it is instinctively different

The thread talks about T vs F for men and women, I think this could be influenced by nurture. 60-40 is not a big difference at all, and there is a lot of social pressure when it comes to emotions and expressing or suppressing them, or whether we should value emotions or logic. I'm sure a lot of men mistype as T as well. I actually know this from experience-one of my friends took the test in high school and got ENFP and he is clearly an F, but a few years later he thought he was INTP. It wouldn't surprise me if the actual split is closer to 55/45 or 50/50

But I don't feel the same way about the enneagram. Although I think it's very likely a lot of women mistype as 2's because they are helpful haha. But still, especially with types 2 and 8, I find the gender imbalance there to be interesting. The only explanation I can think of is mistyping though

 

[Coriolis]

Theoretically that makes sense, but neither have actually been proven. I'm just going off popular descriptions and the way they're applied. Enneagram descriptions tend to be more indepth and go deeper into the psyche while mbti descriptions are more shallow (even the official mbti is very shallow). It's the core/instinctive motivations which is what makes it deeper than mbti-and also there's no poles/spectrums in the enneagram, there's 9 distinct types. I think this is less likely to be nurture, because you can't teach someone to have core motivations; maybe everyone can be raised to want the same thing, but the way they go about it is instinctively different

The evidence for E/I is fairly conclusive, and I wouldn't be surprised if we learn more about the connection between cognitive processes and physiology. I don't know how discussion of cognition is any more shallow than discussion of motivations. It is just a different axis of human variation/perspective. You may not explicitly teach motivations, but they can very definitely be influenced by our experiences, starting from infancy. I'm sure you have read those studies of attachment disorders that come from being neglected as a baby, for example. It is quite straightforward to see how that will affect one's motivations in life, where one's insecurities and fears lie, which is a huge part of enneagram. Perhaps you are simply saying that the workings of our brain are more superficial than the more subjective dealings of our psyche, or even soul: the difference between brain and mind. I wouldn't disagree, but that is still compatible with my linking MBTI more to nature and enneagram to nurture. In fact, that would explain the greater gender disparity in the latter to large degree.

But I don't feel the same way about the enneagram. Although I think it's very likely a lot of women mistype as 2's because they are helpful haha. But still, especially with types 2 and 8, I find the gender imbalance there to be interesting. The only explanation I can think of is mistyping though

Some of it may be mistyping, or the self-reporting bias I mentioned earlier. If I am right that enneagram is more strongly influenced by our experiences, though, that would explain some as well, since women and men still often have rather different experiences from earliest years. It would be interesting to see how if at all the percentages change with each generation, but I doubt the data on this go back very far.

 

[Earl Grey]

But I don't feel the same way about the enneagram. Although I think it's very likely a lot of women mistype as 2's because they are helpful haha. But still, especially with types 2 and 8, I find the gender imbalance there to be interesting. The only explanation I can think of is mistyping though

The cost of popularization is the dumbing down of the core details of the theory so that more people can relate to their descriptions. 16personalities is one of those sites where the type descriptions become extremely generalized yet taken from a very narrow scope due to narrowing them down to very few traits; confirmation bias is also at work, people think something is good, they relate to it, cherrypick and drop the bits that don't fit (and some sources don't even describe those weaknesses well, or list them without regard of the why). It becomes clear when you realize even two people of the same type can appear very differently, so listing down a few traits as determinant of type pretty much fails once you understand that the theory, at the core, is not about 'personality', but cognition.

I typed as core 2 for almost a good year, guess what? Because I identified with being a 'helpful person'. Archetypes work that way. I can argue myself into types other than my own if all I need to do is cherrypick or type behaviourally. Certain types are certainly glamorized more than others, and it does not help that certain ones like type 2 and type 8 are cookie-cutter archetypes of the ideal woman and the ideal man in contemporary society. Think about it; both are ideals of the 'best' image of what a 'normal' woman and man should be. It is something familiar. As glamorized as say, E5 can be, in real life as an archetype it doesn't compute well, the stoic woman and the nerdy introverted man. Less immediately identifiable with if you are entirely new to the theory of personality unless you knew yourself well.

 

[Earl Grey]

Some of it may be mistyping, or the self-reporting bias I mentioned earlier. If I am right that enneagram is more strongly influenced by our experiences, though, that would explain some as well, since women and men still often have rather different experiences from earliest years. It would be interesting to see how if at all the percentages change with each generation, but I doubt the data on this go back very far.

I'd like to chip in as well, though this is just personal opinion; I think enneagram is also inherent, what traits we extravert depends on our environment, but why we choose to react that way at all is something much more inherent. Various people reacting to the same environment in different ways. But most of all, if it was dependent on nurture, then logically we would be able to 'raise' people into certain enneagram types, or there would be a greater number of enneagram types associated with certain types of backgrounds and parenting methods; and that does not quite make sense.

 

[Coriolis]

I'd like to chip in as well, though this is just personal opinion; I think enneagram is also inherent, what traits we extravert depends on our environment, but why we choose to react that way at all is something much more inherent. Various people reacting to the same environment in different ways. But most of all, if it was dependent on nurture, then logically we would be able to 'raise' people into certain enneagram types, or there would be a greater number of enneagram types associated with certain types of backgrounds and parenting methods; and that does not quite make sense.

I don't know that certain enneagram types are not associated with certain types of backgrounds. Has that been studied or documented anywhere? I doubt we understand all these connections enough to deliberately raise someone to be a certain type. There is definitely an interplay between our inherent nature and our experiences. Perhaps different kinds of experiences activate different latent tendencies. Besides, I would point instead to different people reacting to the environment in the same way (observable behavior), but for different reasons. It is those reasons (motivations), not the reactions themselves that are most revealing.

 

[Earl Grey]

I don't know that certain enneagram types are not associated with certain types of backgrounds. Has that been studied or documented anywhere? I doubt we understand all these connections enough to deliberately raise someone to be a certain type. There is definitely an interplay between our inherent nature and our experiences. Perhaps different kinds of experiences activate different latent tendencies. Besides, I would point instead to different people reacting to the environment in the same way (observable behavior), but for different reasons. It is those reasons (motivations), not the reactions themselves that are most revealing.

Wisdom of Enneagram, my first source, does state it- though WoE clarifies that it is only a possibility.
There are also others you can look up using keywords right up like 'Enneagram Childhood Wounds' and 'Enneagram Childhood Message'. The problem is that some of them are written from the POV of the parent and parenting style.

Here's an excerpt from the first link I pulled up using the first set of keywords; "ONES were rewarded for being good and excelling and punished for being bad and performing poorly. They were often “hero” children who did everything right to help out their parents. They hoped their being good would hold the family together. They started out with the sense that everything, including themselves, was fine as it was. But then significant people came along and informed them that their spontaneous responses weren’t O.K."

Maybe certain children just happened to be 1s and reacted accordingly, but not all children respond similarly to the same parenting style. This excerpt, at the very least, implies that you can raise people into certain personality types, and that people raised this way would also react in those specific ways and develop into and according to that type.

I personally don't really follow this theory, because it does not make sense and does not align with my personal experiences, so I have not looked into it deeply enough. I am not sure if it is only theory or if it has been observed, but there are accounts of others who lack the 'Childhoods' or 'Childhood Wounds' of their type and still do have good reason to identify with their type. And indeed, it is the reasons that matter. Using my siblings and I as an example, all three of us are vastly different even if I and the older one are a little similar- but on the surface, and only on the surface. He would react to the same situation with motivations and methods that I found made absolutely no sense; that I could not understand. We had different motivations and upheld different things according to those motivations. No one taught us what to do or explained why it was 'right', we just thought it was.

"Perhaps different kinds of experiences activate different latent tendencies." yes, this is what I am trying to say. The point is the latency. Also, not everyone will uphold absolutely the same cause or react in 100% the same way. Again, it's the motivation and reasoning.

 

[badatlife]

The evidence for E/I is fairly conclusive, and I wouldn't be surprised if we learn more about the connection between cognitive processes and physiology. I don't know how discussion of cognition is any more shallow than discussion of motivations. It is just a different axis of human variation/perspective. You may not explicitly teach motivations, but they can very definitely be influenced by our experiences, starting from infancy. I'm sure you have read those studies of attachment disorders that come from being neglected as a baby, for example. It is quite straightforward to see how that will affect one's motivations in life, where one's insecurities and fears lie, which is a huge part of enneagram. Perhaps you are simply saying that the workings of our brain are more superficial than the more subjective dealings of our psyche, or even soul: the difference between brain and mind. I wouldn't disagree, but that is still compatible with my linking MBTI more to nature and enneagram to nurture. In fact, that would explain the greater gender disparity in the latter to large degree.


Some of it may be mistyping, or the self-reporting bias I mentioned earlier. If I am right that enneagram is more strongly influenced by our experiences, though, that would explain some as well, since women and men still often have rather different experiences from earliest years. It would be interesting to see how if at all the percentages change with each generation, but I doubt the data on this go back very far.

Yes should clarify, when I said there is no evidence for either I meant no evidence for cognitive processes & enneagram-not introversion/extroversion. I definitely do not think cognitive functions are shallow, but MBTI is. I assumed the thread was only talking about T/F because they pulled the 60/40 statistic, which is from "official" mbti statistics, which is just a decades old sample of random people who took the questionnaire once So if we are going the other route then we should just trash those statistics and forget about them, in which case the thread title is just a hypothesis. There isn't any way to measure cognitive processes though other than self reflection and reading descriptions, all of which is so subjective

That's a pretty good summary of it, so you definitely understand where I'm coming from. I don't know about soul haha, but the enneagram covers a different part of our psyche-whatever you would call that. I know views vary on this and a lot of people I talked to think personality can change, but from my perspective that hasn't been the case for me at least. As far back as I can remember (which is up to age 5), I have very much been the same person. Some traits were suppressed and some were encouraged, but I am still very much the same on the inside. Even when I look back on old questionnaires I filled out as a teenager on this forum they are identical to me now. My argument is that MBTI tests for more surface behaviors (how you make decisions; how you live your outer life; etc.) while enneagram goes much deeper in detail, so those core traits are less likely to be influenced by nurture compared to mbti. I don't see the functions as shallower, but it's difficult for me to separate the functions from the type descriptions. For example, once you settle on a type (say ESFJ), reading an online description gives a very vague description of somebody and just basic surface level behavior. Whereas if you were to read an enneagram 2 or 3 profile a lot of it goes deeper into actually explaining their motivations and fears. I won't say that I'm educated about the functions though, because I've only ever read random website descriptions about them... but at least when it comes to self improvement, reflection, things like that, I don't find mbti as useful

I had no idea there were any studies like that. If so, it would definitely change my perspective a bit. As I said, I can only remember up till around age 5; before then I have no idea though. So, is it possible that throughout our infancy when the brain is malleable it can influence our personality? I didn't even consider that, but I could see it. After pre-school age though, I don't think so... maybe it's some combination of nature and nurture then.

 

[wildmoon]

I think socialisation simply causes people to mistype.

 

[Cellmold]

The Heuristic subsumes.

 

[Coriolis]

That's a pretty good summary of it, so you definitely understand where I'm coming from. I don't know about soul haha, but the enneagram covers a different part of our psyche-whatever you would call that. I know views vary on this and a lot of people I talked to think personality can change, but from my perspective that hasn't been the case for me at least. As far back as I can remember (which is up to age 5), I have very much been the same person. Some traits were suppressed and some were encouraged, but I am still very much the same on the inside. Even when I look back on old questionnaires I filled out as a teenager on this forum they are identical to me now. My argument is that MBTI tests for more surface behaviors (how you make decisions; how you live your outer life; etc.) while enneagram goes much deeper in detail, so those core traits are less likely to be influenced by nurture compared to mbti. I don't see the functions as shallower, but it's difficult for me to separate the functions from the type descriptions. For example, once you settle on a type (say ESFJ), reading an online description gives a very vague description of somebody and just basic surface level behavior. Whereas if you were to read an enneagram 2 or 3 profile a lot of it goes deeper into actually explaining their motivations and fears. I won't say that I'm educated about the functions though, because I've only ever read random website descriptions about them... but at least when it comes to self improvement, reflection, things like that, I don't find mbti as useful

I don't think cognitive functions or the theory behind MBTI are more superficial than enneagram, but I do agree that many type descriptions and tests treat it that way. The focus on behavior is easy but misplaced, and tests that ask mostly about that can miss the mark. The better descriptions do go into more detail about how people process information, make decisions, and approach the world. That relates more directly to the cognitive processes as processes, independent of the actual decision or behavior that results As a simple example, consider that I changed my last name to my husband's when we got married. On the surface that looks very traditional, and reveals nothing about our quite non-traditional approach to the matter, or my reasons for doing what I did.

I had no idea there were any studies like that. If so, it would definitely change my perspective a bit. As I said, I can only remember up till around age 5; before then I have no idea though. So, is it possible that throughout our infancy when the brain is malleable it can influence our personality? I didn't even consider that, but I could see it. After pre-school age though, I don't think so... maybe it's some combination of nature and nurture then.

Throughout our lives, our experiences have the power to shape our motivations, though I agree that our earliest experiences usually make the strongest and most lasting impressions. Here are a couple links with some top-level information:

Attachment theory
Harry Harlow's experiments

If my speculations are correct and MBTI comes more from nature and enneagram from nurture, imagine how people of different (assumed inborn) MBTI types would react to the scenarios described in these experiments, namely absence of attention/affection at early ages. Will it lead the person to become detached and self-reliant, or to spend their life seeking the approval they never received in their earliest years? This might help to explain the different combinations of MBTI and enneagram.