• 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.

What matters more - Type or Gender?

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
My experiences are based on the itialicized last few lines, which summarize everything above it, and it happens regardless of type.
I never said I didn't desire a connection. It's just that eventually these roles will play out.

Men and women often perceive the same message in different ways.

Let me be a little more clear - I'm explicitly telling you that these roles have played out in the opposite direction for me. I don't have a desire to talk about a relationship when it's going well, and I've dated guys who were unhappy at this "lack of connection".

I agree that women are often on the "wanting more communication" half of the relationship, but my experience tells me that it is not universal. Not everyone fits the stereotypes for their gender, race, nationality, etc. Direct assessment of personality (i.e. type) is far more meaningful than relying on stereotypes, even if the stereotypes are based on real observations (note: many aren't).
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I agree.

I also notice that there's a very strong trend in this thread for people whose type "aligns" with their gender to say that gender is most important, and for people whose type does not align with their gender to say that type is more important. (I'm no exception.)

edit: if I'm not mistaken, people from both groups have supported type as the most important, but I haven't seen any female Ts or male Fs saying that gender is the most important factor. I may have missed it, though.

That's an interesting point.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,446
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think INTPs are weirdos regardless of gender, honestly. Maybe female INTPs "have it worse" but it's only a matter of degree.
 

hornet

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
62
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx
Well you can't erase the effect of gender.
When man and woman meet, the bodylanguage screems acceptance or rejection on a sexual level right away.
What type they are impact on what level the courting will operate on and of the likelyhood of chemistry besides physical attraction.
Many a time I've been physically attracted to a woman only to find her to be some type that makes it impossible to get to know each other beyond casual sex.
This used to bug me a lot and it took me ages to get over my crush once everything else didn't work out.

Only relationship I've ever had that worked out for more than a week or two was a half year relationship with an INFP 1w9.
We related a lot, but she wanted marriage and kids sooner than later. Her Si vision for our relationship scared me and I broke up.

I guess type matters a lot in longterm relationships.
Gender plays in mostly in the sexual realm. Mating game etc.
In my experience type trumphs most gender stereotypes.
 

Cantus Firmus

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
36
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Let me be a little more clear - I'm explicitly telling you that these roles have played out in the opposite direction for me. I don't have a desire to talk about a relationship when it's going well, and I've dated guys who were unhappy at this "lack of connection".

I agree that women are often on the "wanting more communication" half of the relationship, but my experience tells me that it is not universal. Not everyone fits the stereotypes for their gender, race, nationality, etc. Direct assessment of personality (i.e. type) is far more meaningful than relying on stereotypes, even if the stereotypes are based on real observations (note: many aren't).

Agreed. Lists like those read as lists of the stereotypical norms to which I am supposed to conform, but don't. Also, I think most people fall somewhere in the middle between those falsely dichotomous "male" and "female" extremes. Reducing everyone to two categories reduces the meaning of those categorizations.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm starting to consider an unsubstantiated hypothesis about T and F women. That T women have higher levels of testosterone with a lower end spectrum of estrogen and F women have lower to mid-level testosterone and higher end estrogen.

The reason I say this is because of the impacts of testosterone, where it's been documented to reduce empathy and appears to impact on the need for social dominance. Testosterone is also more interested in equity and is also more assertive/aggressive. Even neural pathway carving is heavily impacted during the puberty years, although part of this would be nurture.

I think there are F's with very high levels of testosterone though.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Weird, I've never dated a guy who didn't want the "feminine" closeness and attention you describe. It's almost like connection is a universal human desire or something. At least if you're looking for more than a fuck buddy.
This makes sense. If you are going to be in an intimate relationship, whether you are male or female, that involve intimacy. How you get there and end up expressing that will be influenced much more by type, with the exception of some residual gender expectations up front, e.g. women possibly waiting for men to make the first move.

I point this out because I would say type helps us understand someone more. But gender, by a strong margin, helps us "deal" with someone in day to day life. By which I mean, if we want to befriend, socialize with, convince, seduce, relate to etc etc someone it is much more helpful to know their gender than to know their type. This is not because their gender, as a trait, explains more than their type, or defines more of their personality, but because people don't fulfill the roles of ESFJs or ESTJ etc in real life, they fulfill the roles of men and women. Furthermore, they are expected to fill such roles and are aware on some level they fulfill those roles and identify with such roles. In other words, if you want to interact with someone you have to interact with the person you are supposed to think they are--man or a woman, with who that person actually is being of less direct importance.
I couldn't disagree more. Interacting with someone based on a (likely inaccurate) social supposition or stereotype rather than who they really are as a person is a recipe for misunderstanding and in fact the root of prejudice. MB types are not roles in the same sense as gender expectations are. They are shorthand notations for how the person actually is inside; if the ESFJ "role" is a bad fit for the person, they are probably not an ESFJ.

I fulfull many roles in my life, but none of them have much to do with being female. The same seems true of folks I interact with. Even with strangers, I will deal with them as store clerk, dentist, new neighbor, colleague's spouse, etc. Gender is at most a minor influence in how the interaction plays out, and is far less influential than type.

My experiences are based on the itialicized last few lines, which summarize everything above it, and it happens regardless of type.
I never said I didn't desire a connection. It's just that eventually these roles will play out.

Men and women often perceive the same message in different ways.
As you quoted from the OP: this reflects T/F differences much more than gender. It will mirror gender to the extent that the T/F distribution does. The experience of female Ts and male Fs shows where the real correlation is, and why/how it is a mistake to see these traits as inherently male/female.

Well you can't erase the effect of gender.
When man and woman meet, the bodylanguage screems acceptance or rejection on a sexual level right away.
Unless one or another of them is gay. There is strong correlation between gender and sexual preference, but it is far from absolute, and the two are not the same.

I guess type matters a lot in longterm relationships.
Gender plays in mostly in the sexual realm. Mating game etc.
In my experience type trumphs most gender stereotypes.
This seems reasonable. People will often have gender-based attractions, whether for same or opposite sex partners, and traditional male/female expectations will influence relationships of those who have internalized them sufficiently. A person's real personality will come out eventually, though, and when it does, type will describe it much better than gender.
 

hornet

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
62
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx
Unless one or another of them is gay. There is strong correlation between gender and sexual preference, but it is far from absolute, and the two are not the same.

Well gay people do have body language too. And no matter their sexual disposition, they will use their body language to reject straight people
of the opposite sex in the same way disinterested nongay people do. If they are disinterested in you sexually it will be shown clearly.
So I don't see how they are special snowflakes in this regard.

This seems reasonable. People will often have gender-based attractions, whether for same or opposite sex partners, and traditional male/female expectations will influence relationships of those who have internalized them sufficiently. A person's real personality will come out eventually, though, and when it does, type will describe it much better than gender.

Yup you take on a gender role, I'll do the X in the relationship.
The way you approach X will tell us all about your type.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well gay people do have body language too. And no matter their sexual disposition, they will use their body language to reject straight people
of the opposite sex in the same way disinterested nongay people do. If they are disinterested in you sexually it will be shown clearly.
So I don't see how they are special snowflakes in this regard.
That should be obvious. They don't follow the traditional male/female role breakdown, as that does not accommodate same-sex relationships. I'm not gay, but from what I have read, they find the implication that someone in the relationship will take on the opposite gendered role as rather insulting, not to mention inaccurate. Yes, gays use body language just like anyone else, but it will express their individuality rather than a gender role (as it does with plenty of straight folks as well).

Yup you take on a gender role, I'll do the X in the relationship.
The way you approach X will tell us all about your type.
You may take on a gender role. I simply take on a role. Sometimes it coincides with a traditional gender role; more often, it does not. How I approach these (non-gendered) roles is strongly affected by type, as is which roles I choose to take on to begin with. Gender has a relatively minor influence in my approach. E.g. at a formal event, I will wear an evening gown rather than a tux. The rest is relatively gender-neutral, driven by what it makes sense to do in the situation.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
I think there are F's with very high levels of testosterone though.

Testosterone administration reduces empathetic behavior: A facial mimicry study

Summary
Although high baseline testosterone levels correlate with low empathy, there is no causal evidence for this association in humans. The present study tested the causality of this relationship by manipulating testosterone levels in a double-blind placebo controlled crossover design. 20 healthy female participants received either a sublingual administration of a single dose of testosterone or placebo on 2 days and were tested 4 h after administration. Because research has shown that facial expression mimicry is a non-obtrusive index of empathy, facial electromyography was measured in response to dynamic facial expressions of happy and angry faces. Results showed that testosterone generally decreased facial mimicry. These findings are consistent with models that assign a critical role to mimicry in the ability to develop and communicate empathy towards conspecifics, and provide a potential causal mechanism of effects of testosterone on empathy.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453006000734

Fetal testosterone and empathy: Evidence from the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and the ‘‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’’ Test

Empathy involves an understanding of what others are thinking and feeling, and enables us to interact in
the social world. According to the EmpathizingSystemizing (ES) theory, females on average have a
stronger drive to empathize than males. This sex difference may in part reflect developmental differences
in brain structure and function, which are themselves under the influence of fetal testosterone (fT).
Previous studies have found that fT is inversely correlated with social behaviors such as eye contact in
infancy, peer relationships in preschoolers, and mentalistic interpretation of animate motion. Male
fetuses are exposed to higher levels of testosterone than are female fetuses. The present study
investigates empathizing in children, as a function of amniotic measures of fT. One hundred ninety-three
mothers of children (100 males, 93 females) aged 6 - 8 years of age completed children’s versions of the
Empathy Quotient (EQ-C), and the children themselves were tested on ‘‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’’
Task (Eyes-C). All mothers had had amniocentesis during the 2nd trimester of pregnancy. There was a
significant negative correlation between fT and scores on both measures. While empathy may be
influenced by post-natal experience, these results suggest that pre-natal biology also plays an important
role, mediated by androgen effects in the brain. These results also have implications for the causes of
disabilities involving empathy, such as autism spectrum conditions, and may explain the increased rate of
such conditions among males.

http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2006_Chapman_etal.pdf
 

Honor

girl with a pretty smile
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
1,580
MBTI Type
?
Instinctual Variant
so
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? 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

I recall reading Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus and it seemed like a comparison between stereotypical male/female MBTI types but perhaps this is a wrong assessment.

Gender differences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few quotes from the above Wikipedia article:

"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)."

"Males are generally more aggressive than females. There is evidence that males are quicker to aggression and more likely than females to express their aggression physically. However, some researchers have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive, but that they tend to show their aggression in less overt, less physical ways. For example, females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection."

"When measured with an affect intensity measure, women reported greater intensity of both positive and negative affect than men. Women also reported a more intense and more frequent experience of affect, joy, and love but also experienced more embarrassment, guilt, shame, sadness, anger, fear, and distress. Experiencing pride was more frequent and intense for men than for women."
Both matter a lot.
 

hornet

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
62
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx
That should be obvious. They don't follow the traditional male/female role breakdown, as that does not accommodate same-sex relationships. I'm not gay, but from what I have read, they find the implication that someone in the relationship will take on the opposite gendered role as rather insulting, not to mention inaccurate. Yes, gays use body language just like anyone else, but it will express their individuality rather than a gender role (as it does with plenty of straight folks as well).


You may take on a gender role. I simply take on a role. Sometimes it coincides with a traditional gender role; more often, it does not. How I approach these (non-gendered) roles is strongly affected by type, as is which roles I choose to take on to begin with. Gender has a relatively minor influence in my approach. E.g. at a formal event, I will wear an evening gown rather than a tux. The rest is relatively gender-neutral, driven by what it makes sense to do in the situation.

And after all the hairsplitting was done we where none the wiser anyway.
We agreed on what was going on we just felt it necissary to point out meaningless details that the other really wasn't at odds over anyway... :dry:
This was a waste of time... :shrug:
Bye.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
And after all the hairsplitting was done we where none the wiser anyway.
We agreed on what was going on we just felt it necissary to point out meaningless details that the other really wasn't at odds over anyway... :dry:
This was a waste of time... :shrug:
Bye.
You stated up front that type is the greater influence on personality, but that we should instead let gender govern how we interact with people. I pointed out both the internal contradiction and the practical pitfalls in this approach. If you consider this hair-splitting, then it is indeed a waste of time for you to discuss it. Your understanding should improve with age and experience.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Bolded the parts that pretty much speak my own mind on the subject. In my own experiences as both a female and an ENTP, I couldn't have said it better. There is a reason why I'm extremely aware when speaking to F females (which is most of them) AND males of all F types that I need to change the manner in which I communicate and the way I act. Because I can't just wing it and be understood.

There's also a reason why I can relax much more around male Fs. They're more "T" than the females. Tell the truth, people, when talking to a female T, who is being herself, do you not quickly perceive that difference?
It's difficult for me to understand how you can both agree with me and then go on to suggest something completely at odds with what I said... :huh:

Functional preference strength varies from individual to individual, but it certainly isn't the case that the individuals with the strongest F preference are all women or the strongest T preference are men. It may be that F men and T women "tone down" the expression of their preferences given society's expectations ( in fact, F men have told me they do this - to avoid being bullied for example) which might account for your observations. But no, they are not inherently more T than females. Compare a INfJ like Z Buck with an ENFP like Elfboy and tell me who is more "F"?
In borderline cases, it is more likely that male Fs will mistype as Ts (and females as Fs), in recognition of which fact, practitioners administering the MBTI will adjust scores accordingly. So that tends to imply the opposite conclusion: given a group of self-typed male and female Fs, the males are likely MORE F (i.e. have more strongly expressed preference).
In other words, if you want to interact with someone you have to interact with the person you are supposed to think they are--man or a woman, with who that person actually is being of less direct importance.
Worst. Advice. Ever.

That's a good post until you got to the last paragraph. I'm not supporting anything. I just said it was interesting.

Stop trolling me.
It's a good post in its entirety. It's unfortunate that you feel so threatened by someone merely highlighting the errors and inconsistencies in your argument, maybe you should include a [safe space] tag if you can't stand to be challenged? ..Except that would probably be an abuse, since your OP is so blatantly sexist, perpetuating naive and antiquated oppressive stereotypes, as does the "literature" you cite. Until you stop doing that, you should expect to be challenged.

I'll concede that you haven't offered *anything* to support the prejudice you espouse, if it makes you happy, though why you think that's something to advertise eludes me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's a good post in its entirety. It's unfortunate that you feel so threatened by someone merely highlighting the errors and inconsistencies in your argument, maybe you should include a [safe space] tag if you can't stand to be challenged? ..Except that would probably be an abuse, since your OP is so blatantly sexist, perpetuating naive and antiquated oppressive stereotypes, as does the "literature" you cite. Until you stop doing that, you should expect to be challenged.

I'll concede that you haven't offered *anything* to support the prejudice you espouse, if it makes you happy, though why you think that's something to advertise eludes me.

I’m not threatened nor affected by what you claim to be errors or inconsistencies in my argument. In fact, I have no argument or prejudice at all. I’m simply raising a question.

Maybe it would help to provide some perspective on the origin of the OP. I was made aware of a point of view that women interacted differently than men in some certain ways in the workplace. My initial reaction was one of disbelief because I don’t hold these kinds of views. I have always perceived people to be the same. The assertion that people of different genders preferred to interact differently was made not by me but by others. These are women that have done well – better than me and quite likely much more successful than you. It caused me to take a step back and wonder if indeed there was a reason why I should consider interacting differently towards women vs. men.

I brought this up all in the spirit of open discussion and argument. I have no preconceived views.

The fact that you attack me on such matters is unfortunate. It is like Don Quixote attacking windmills. If I advocated a position earlier in the thread, it was more to stimulate discussion than any kind of real opinion.

Do you actually think there is any difference between women or men or do you think they are exactly the same? What is your opinion?
 
Top