Evolution of typology

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Yeah, I have a hard time imagining a potential environment that would make survival contingent upon the ability to pursue "intellectual" endeavors.

Heh, well I supose it depends on what country you live in, but in the US the trait most important in dominating the gene pool is the ability to make donations at a sperm bank.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I understood your claim. I don't think it was well-supported.

You need to analyze the claims given to support that proposition and show why they do not support it well.

 

[intrepid_wanders]

This poor old nag can not get out of the starting gate. I personally do not care about the labels used, or even the hierarchal structure. The fatal flaw is the implication that "intellectuals" are good thinking and the "passionate" are motivated by causes that does not get themselves killed.

History is littered with thinking types that believed they were good at this, so we have Ptolemy's Spheres, Aristotle's Gravity, etc. Thinkers intuits, and wrong. Even the base of logic with it's deterministic approach, wrong at the quantum level.

It is amazing how a simple "S" thing like testing can ruin a great "N" hypothesis.

EDIT: But I must also add that a parallel thinking and feeling strategy is always unsuccessful.

 

[pure_mercury]

You need to analyze the claims given to support that proposition and show why they do not support it well.

One claim I can refute right off the bat is that introversion, intuition, and thinking are coterminous with being an intellectual. That doesn't follow logically at all.

 

[Haphazard]

ISTP ~ passionate-intellectual?

ENFP ~ meditative-passionate?

Huzzahellno they're not!!!

ENFP= passionate intellectual

Fo' shizzle

If we equate passion with being entirely physical, the way BlueWing seems to, then I'd definitely say ENFPs would be meditative-passionate, as in spiritual-physical -- or something. It doesn't really have much to do with actually being passionate about something or being intellectual.

However I don't like the term 'passionate' here used because it implies a great many things...

The argument is fallacious and the terms used are making matters worse.

 

[SillySapienne]

Fellatious, hahaha thanks Hap, reading your post stimulated my neurons to crossfire and now I have created my new favorite word, fellatious!!!!

 

[SolitaryWalker]

One claim I can refute right off the bat is that introversion, intuition, and thinking are coterminous with being an intellectual. That doesn't follow logically at all.

Okay, you have a thesis. Now you need to go through with defending it.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

This thread is laughable. Passion helps to make someone human, and not an animal.

Passion is what seperates us from animals? This is what makes us human? Or in other words distinct from brutes? Passion is what we have and all other animals lack?

I don't think so. Animals are full of passion, just listen to the agony of the pig when you butcher it.

Now, passionate poets and novelists come up with work of literature. That is truly beautiful. This is not inspired by pure passion. It is a synthesis of intellect and passion. They intellectualize their passions (which direct them at the phenomenon of emotion and the human element) and in effect express their deepest thoughts, and acquire deep insights into people and the phenomenon of emotion.

It is the intellect that renders this possible, of course pure intellect without passion is not capable of this, yet it is manifest to me that this kind of work has been achieved as a result of the intellect deciphering passion.

If those authors were driven by pure passion, it is highly unlikely they would have been able to settle down enough to come up with a coherent design for their ideas. Or even be level-headed enough to understand what their ideas are.

So no. It is the intellect that makes us human. Not passion. Passion is our animalistic essence which we can put to good use should if we are to function intellectually in a sound fashion and therefore subjugate our emotions to the agenda established by the intellect.

 

[pure_mercury]

Okay, you have a thesis. Now you need to go through with defending it.

The only proof I can give you is anecdotal, but I know many Extroverts and Sensors who are writers, intellectuals, artists, etc. I am a very expressed Extrovert myself (and a moderate SF), and I have tested at genius levels, was in gifted programs all through grade and school, etc. I don't consider myself to be particularly unevolved or ape-like in intelligence or behavior.

 

[pure_mercury]

Passion is what seperates us from animals? This is what makes us human? Or in other words distinct from brutes? Passion is what we have and all other animals lack?

Way to change what I wrote. "Passion is what separates us from animals" is not the same thing as "passion helps to make us human." Passion, reason, ethics, and a lot all combine in humans. And, let us not forget, we ARE animals.

I don't think so. Animals are full of passion, just listen to the agony of the pig when you butcher it.

Physical pain is not coterminous with passion. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, passionate poets and novelists come up with work of literature. That is truly beautiful. This is not inspired by pure passion. It is a synthesis of intellect and passion. They intellectualize their passions (which direct them at the phenomenon of emotion and the human element) and in effect express their deepest thoughts, and acquire deep insights into people and the phenomenon of emotion.

It is the intellect that renders this possible, of course pure intellect without passion is not capable of this, yet it is manifest to me that this kind of work has been achieved as a result of the intellect deciphering passion.

If those authors were driven by pure passion, it is highly unlikely they would have been able to settle down enough to come up with a coherent design for their ideas. Or even be level-headed enough to understand what their ideas are.

So, their passion inspires them to produce great works. How does that dispel anything I've written? And I don't think a great intellect is necessary to make great art, either. Some of the greatest music ever made has been written, played, and sung by illiterate, poor, totally disenfranchised people who poured their hearts out, or interpreted songs handed down through the generations.

So no. It is the intellect that makes us human. Not passion. Passion is our animalistic essence which we can put to good use should if we are to function intellectually in a sound fashion and therefore subjugate our emotions to the agenda established by the intellect.

I can't convince you otherwise if you truly believe that. We obviously have completely different ideas of what "passion" is.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Way to change what I wrote. "Passion is what separates us from animals" is not the same thing as "passion helps to make us human." Passion, reason, ethics, and a lot all combine in humans. And, let us not forget, we ARE animals.



Physical pain is not coterminous with passion. Not by any stretch of the imagination.



So, their passion inspires them to produce great works. How does that dispel anything I've written? And I don't think a great intellect is necessary to make great art, either. Some of the greatest music ever made has been written, played, and sung by illiterate, poor, totally disenfranchised people who poured their hearts out, or interpreted songs handed down through the generations.



I can't convince you otherwise if you truly believe that. We obviously have completely different ideas of what "passion" is.

Physical pain is only a manifestation of passion. There are many other ways to exemplify how animals experience passion.

I too do not think that you need a great intellect to come up with works of art, but you need an intellect of some kind. One far superior to that of most brutes.


Indeed, there are many highly intelligent ESs, for the present day applied typology this point is moot. As regardless of what type you are, you are in the position to use your faculties of abstract thought with relative ease.

The point was that of pure typology, of philosophy of mind and not of applied typology and or psychology.

The argument is Intution, Thinking and Introversion have evolved from Sensation, Extroversion and Feeling. At the present day being an Extrovert, Sensor and an Extrovert still gives you ample access to the intellectual faculties of Introversion, Intuition and Thinking as we really have come a long way up the path of evolution. In other words, because we are already highly evolved, all of us, irrespectively of natural predilections have a high potential to further our intellectual faculties.

For this reason it is possible and many of us may have observed this happen, for the ESs to surpass the INs in intellect.

Most of the bickering in this thread here resulted due to a confusion of pure typology for applied typology.

 

[Gabe]

Physical pain is only a manifestation of passion. There are many other ways to exemplify how animals experience passion.

I too do not think that you need a great intellect to come up with works of art, but you need an intellect of some kind. One far superior to that of most brutes.


Indeed, there are many highly intelligent ESs, for the present day applied typology this point is moot. As regardless of what type you are, you are in the position to use your faculties of abstract thought with relative ease.

The point was that of pure typology, of philosophy of mind and not of applied typology and or psychology.

The argument is Intution, Thinking and Introversion have evolved from Sensation, Extroversion and Feeling. At the present day being an Extrovert, Sensor and an Extrovert still gives you ample access to the intellectual faculties of Introversion, Intuition and Thinking as we really have come a long way up the path of evolution. In other words, because we are already highly evolved, all of us, irrespectively of natural predilections have a high potential to further our intellectual faculties.

For this reason it is possible and many of us may have observed this happen, for the ESs to surpass the INs in intellect.

Most of the bickering in this thread here resulted due to a confusion of pure typology for applied typology.

"pure typology"

spare me.

What you haven't explained is why any of the "pure" function-attitudes is inherently worse or better than the others. Society has progressed because of contributions from all 8 functions.

And "passionate vs. intellectual" (a totally false dichotomy) is NOT an explaination.

 

[Didums]

The argument is Intution, Thinking and Introversion have evolved from Sensation, Extroversion and Feeling.

Which, in and of itself, is wrong. In your reality maybe its true, but in mine it isn't.

In humans, you can think of these things as simply "alleles" to a "gene", one did not come from the other, the other "allele" was always present (scientifically this isn't quite true but just think of it in the abstract okay?). You cannot prove that there was no Introversion, Thinking, and Intuition in early Human ancestry, that is why your argument is void, you can't prove it. Surely in our early history, the "Medicine-Man" or "Shaman" had these traits, what about the first men to create Fire, along with many other examples one can think of.

 

[Nadir]

Someone tipped me off to this thread, (edit after reading some more: okay, not this thread -- but I'm sure this was influenced by the other) and now that I've read the OP, I must say, BlueWing -- it's unimpressive. And I have my doubts about the esteem you hold your audience in... do you take them for children?

I wasn't going to bother with this because my hunches about you say that -- especially in a self-constructed framework like in yer post -- it's no use trying to convince you of anything besides your own points, but let's see...

I'm not going to assault the parts relating to the Jungian concepts, rather, I'm going to assault your self-prepared framework on which the argument rests. It saves time. And my current stance towards MBTI and typology could be best summed up in a shrug.

Anyone who has read Charles Darwin's origin of species will have a difficult time arguing that we have evolved from brutes. Over a long period of time, our intellect has developed. It is also clear that man adapts to his environment. In the land of brutes and at the given time, the environment did not allow for much contemplation, species were forced to ensure of their physical survival.

At this point man's environment is much conducive to reflection, and that is why we have become smarter than our ancestors.

No qualms here, except that us getting smarter is not relevant to "the current point" -- this process of honing our intellect has been going on for a few thousand years now at least (thinking of civilization), and what we're witnessing today as we live is a progressive result. In another thousand years the result will change.

It is clear that among us, some are more like the evolved species, and some are more reminiscent of our predecessors. Some of us are 'better made' for action like apes and other animals out of which we have evolved, yet others are better made for contemplation and more intellectual endeavors.

This is the main premise of your post. I believe it has some issues, and let me demonstrate why. First off, your first statement, "It is clear that among us..." is an arbitrary one. It does not rely on rational reasoning to be convincing, instead it appeals to what could be described as a "common ground" shared by otherwise different human beings. Basically, you're asking your audience to just nod along as you continue with your post, banking on the chance that they would have certainly felt the same way as you do at some point in life where they, for some reason, thought some people are more like apelike and some others, probably the thinker included, are among the more intellectuals. Nothing new here -- it's how we keep a healthy ego, but it's not a way to make an argument that's not arbitrary. Moving on...

Your second statement, "Some of us..." is of more importance given that it forms the base of your following statement:

The human race could be divided into 2 classes. The passionate and the intellectual.

Combined with the second statement of the above paragraph, I think the main issue here is that, again, you're trying to be convincing in a manner that undermines your argument. Because you have made an assumption here without justifying it. That assumption is that the evolved species you cite in your preceding paragraph is the so-called intellectual. This is not justifiable, and you're making it up to suit your argument. You can not prove to anyone that we evolved, or rather, that we're evolving, from simple brutes to simple intellectuals. I could just as easily say that the evolved species is simply the "modern human being" and that it as species includes both the modern action-man and the modern intellectual, (among other archetypes you're free to add) combined and fused in a manner which forms the modern society. And it would be as valid as the fine-print claim you're making, and perhaps even more, given that your claim is more one-sided, more or less denying action to intellect and intellect to action.

Now let me combine the two concepts. Let's assume that, indeed, some of us are more primitive and some of us are more intellectual, "evolved." It is an agreeable statement, I'll give you that, but I notice that you haven't mentioned one issue: How big is the resemblance? I ask you this, because when I see a mechanic or a blacksmith working, I still see the modern human being. And to dip my toe, when I see an acrobat -- I see his well-honed, tuned-by-repetition intuition guiding his movements, hand in hand with his sensate side. I see no ape. When I read a writer's work I get hints about his character, and witness the human themes within the script. In all cases I witness both passion and intellect, and the wonders of the evolved human being regardless of the focus. And I believe this is why you chose not to mention the size of the resemblance to our primitive ancestors: It's small, miniscule -- dominated by the modern contemporary, the evolved human being.

One thing before I move on to my counter-theses. In one of your follow up posts, you asked for reasoning. But I see that you yourself do not offer any that is not colored by your judgment. In such cases, your arguments, like I've mentioned before, become little more than arbitary, propulsed by an internal agenda that is your judgment. From a certain perspective it's not really practical to ask for "reasoning" -- in your post you have provided opinion, and you'll get opinion, not refutations, back -- there's nothing to refute.

Anyway, my counter-theses, then I'm out.

1) Adaptation to the environment made the primitive human beings evolve. We agree on this.
2) The primitive human beings did not evolve into intellectuals -- that would be a one sided path of evolution. The primitive human beings evolved, and continue to evolve, into the multifaceted modern human being, the result forming such (perceived) archetypes as the intellectual, the man of action.
3) The resemblance of the modern human being to the primitive human being does not deserve its own continuum for the sake of argument.
4) Typology is a pseudoscientific concept and to tie it to an established topic such as evolution would be self-serving and arbitrary.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Someone tipped me off to this thread, (edit after reading some more: okay, not this thread -- but I'm sure this was influenced by the other) and now that I've read the OP, I must say, BlueWing -- it's unimpressive. And I have my doubts about the esteem you hold your audience in... do you take them for children?

I wasn't going to bother with this because my hunches about you say that -- especially in a self-constructed framework like in yer post -- it's no use trying to convince you of anything besides your own points, but let's see...

I'm not going to assault the parts relating to the Jungian concepts, rather, I'm going to assault your self-prepared framework on which the argument rests. It saves time. And my current stance towards MBTI and typology could be best summed up in a shrug.

No qualms here, except that us getting smarter is not relevant to "the current point" -- this process of honing our intellect has been going on for a few thousand years now at least (thinking of civilization), and what we're witnessing today as we live is a progressive result. In another thousand years the result will change.

This is the main premise of your post. I believe it has some issues, and let me demonstrate why. First off, your first statement, "It is clear that among us..." is an arbitrary one. It does not rely on rational reasoning to be convincing, instead it appeals to what could be described as a "common ground" shared by otherwise different human beings. Basically, you're asking your audience to just nod along as you continue with your post, banking on the chance that they would have certainly felt the same way as you do at some point in life where they, for some reason, thought some people are more like apelike and some others, probably the thinker included, are among the more intellectuals. Nothing new here -- it's how we keep a healthy ego, but it's not a way to make an argument that's not arbitrary. Moving on...

Your second statement, "Some of us..." is of more importance given that it forms the base of your following statement:

Combined with the second statement of the above paragraph, I think the main issue here is that, again, you're trying to be convincing in a manner that undermines your argument. Because you have made an assumption here without justifying it. That assumption is that the evolved species you cite in your preceding paragraph is the so-called intellectual. This is not justifiable, and you're making it up to suit your argument. You can not prove to anyone that we evolved, or rather, that we're evolving, from simple brutes to simple intellectuals. I could just as easily say that the evolved species is simply the "modern human being" and that it as species includes both the modern action-man and the modern intellectual, (among other archetypes you're free to add) combined and fused in a manner which forms the modern society. And it would be as valid as the fine-print claim you're making, and perhaps even more, given that your claim is more one-sided, more or less denying action to intellect and intellect to action.

Now let me combine the two concepts. Let's assume that, indeed, some of us are more primitive and some of us are more intellectual, "evolved." It is an agreeable statement, I'll give you that, but I notice that you haven't mentioned one issue: How big is the resemblance? I ask you this, because when I see a mechanic or a blacksmith working, I still see the modern human being. And to dip my toe, when I see an acrobat -- I see his well-honed, tuned-by-repetition intuition guiding his movements, hand in hand with his sensate side. I see no ape. When I read a writer's work I get hints about his character, and witness the human themes within the script. In all cases I witness both passion and intellect, and the wonders of the evolved human being regardless of the focus. And I believe this is why you chose not to mention the size of the resemblance to our primitive ancestors: It's small, miniscule -- dominated by the modern contemporary, the evolved human being.

One thing before I move on to my counter-theses. In one of your follow up posts, you asked for reasoning. But I see that you yourself do not offer any that is not colored by your judgment. In such cases, your arguments, like I've mentioned before, become little more than arbitary, propulsed by an internal agenda that is your judgment. From a certain perspective it's not really practical to ask for "reasoning" -- in your post you have provided opinion, and you'll get opinion, not refutations, back -- there's nothing to refute.

Anyway, my counter-theses, then I'm out.

1) Adaptation to the environment made the primitive human beings evolve. We agree on this.
2) The primitive human beings did not evolve into intellectuals -- that would be a one sided path of evolution. The primitive human beings evolved, and continue to evolve, into the multifaceted modern human being, the result forming such (perceived) archetypes as the intellectual, the man of action.
3) The resemblance of the modern human being to the primitive human being does not deserve its own continuum for the sake of argument.
4) Typology is a pseudoscientific concept and to tie it to an established topic such as evolution would be self-serving and arbitrary.

You need to read my replies to others. All the issues you raised have been covered and you've misunderstood the OP in ways that others in this thread have misunderstood it before you.

 

[Nadir]

You need to read my replies to others. All the issues you raised have been covered and you've misunderstood the OP in ways that others in this thread have misunderstood it before you.

Yes, rather predictable. I have read your replies to others before posting the post I made. I do understand you correctly, and I doubt you've read my response; the follow up posts you're asking me to read delve into the specifics of typology and how it relates to evolution, which are based on the premises you've built on the original post. I have not tackled those specifics regarding typology: I have tackled the premises. Others, Night and Rajah specifically, have done the same, but you have chosen not to engage them the same way you've refused me now, choosing to limit your audience to those who -- having accepted your arbitrary premises -- discuss the typological portion of your text.

The internet has indeed given you an ivory tower from which you can tell your challengers to "enlighten" themselves rather than do it yourself; but that is no way to do proper debate, and certainly, no way to change the world!

 

[Didums]

Bluewing its over, nobody agrees with you lol, if your argument made any sense whatsoever I'd predict that atleast one person would agree with you. I know you think thats an appeal to popularity but it really isn't, many people have dealt with your argument in various ways but you just won't accept defeat.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Yes, rather predictable. I have read your replies to others before posting the post I made. I do understand you correctly, and I doubt you've read my response; the follow up posts you're asking me to read delve into the specifics of typology and how it relates to evolution, which are based on the premises you've built on the original post. I have not tackled those specifics regarding typology: I have tackled the premises. Others, Night and Rajah specifically, have done the same, but you have chosen not to engage them the same way you've refused me now, choosing to limit your audience to those who -- having accepted your arbitrary premises -- discuss the typological portion of your text.

The internet has indeed given you an ivory tower from which you can tell your challengers to "enlighten" themselves rather than do it yourself; but that is no way to do proper debate, and certainly, no way to change the world!

We need to take this a piece at a time.

There is no purpose to evolution. We evolve to be more intelligent only if our environment rewards intelligence. Just like we learn to climb trees if we need to get coconuts.

Modern ESFJ and modern INTP arent much different in intellect, as we already evolved far up. Quintissence of Sensing, Extroversion and Feeling are less intellectual than that respectively of their opposites. Now, since we have evolved far up in intellect, all types have enough access to the Intellectual typological faculties. I could explain why these faculties are more intellectual, but we will tackle that piece next time.

Let me know what you think of this for now.

 

[Nadir]

We need to take this a piece at a time.

There is no purpose to evolution. We evolve to be more intelligent only if our environment rewards intelligence. Just like we learn to climb trees if we need to get coconuts.

Modern ESFJ and modern INTP arent much different in intellect, as we already evolved far up. Quintissence of Sensing, Extroversion and Feeling are less intellectual than that respectively of their opposites. Now, since we have evolved far up in intellect, all types have enough access to the Intellectual typological faculties. I could explain why these faculties are more intellectual, but we will tackle that piece next time.

Let me know what you think of this for now.

The first thing to note is that you seem to be considering me as a child who must be spoonfed. I might be mistaken here, correct me if I am... but if I'm not, it is again, not surprising, given what I've said in my first response. Therefore I don't have any qualms with what I perceive to be your attitude.

Your statement on evolution seems hasty. There is a purpose to evolution, and it is survival. And survival is the reward of the environment you're referring to. However, you shouldn't give the tree climber any less credit -- if he has learned it, that was his intellectualism.

Otherwise, it seems like a moderated version of a portion from your original post, clear of some provocatively selected phrases likening the passionate to the apes, for instance. Again, there is nothing new here... you continue to post in a manner that does not take into account my first response.

If you had read my original response, you would have considered that I did not challenge your post on the basis of your typological views. Part of that is simply because typology is quite arbitrary and I don't quite agree with it as a whole; you mention "modern ESFJs" and "modern INTPs" like they are uncontested truth. That isn't true. Viewed on the whole, typology (and to a lesser extent MBTI, a system you believe you've seperated from) is a belief system. There isn't anything about what you say above that can be proven or falsified: What you can do is to observe your surroundings and mold the observations into a concept brought on by the belief -- in this case, the concept is "psychological type" and the belief is that in "typological faculties."

So, to end this post, you do not need to post another "piece" -- I'm already aware of what you're driving at. And I don't care much for it, not because I'm too simple to understand your words, but because I'm more interested in the foundation beneath your words.

 

[Gabe]

Which, in and of itself, is wrong. In your reality maybe its true, but in mine it isn't.

In humans, you can think of these things as simply "alleles" to a "gene", one did not come from the other, the other "allele" was always present (scientifically this isn't quite true but just think of it in the abstract okay?). You cannot prove that there was no Introversion, Thinking, and Intuition in early Human ancestry, that is why your argument is void, you can't prove it. Surely in our early history, the "Medicine-Man" or "Shaman" had these traits, what about the first men to create Fire, along with many other examples one can think of.

Good points.


It is possible to be stupid or smart with any of the cognitive processes.

For instance, a stupid introverted intuition type, or someone using introverted intuition stupidly might:
-believe in predeterminism; that because they have envisioned the future in a certian way or had a certian premonition, it cannot be changed (beginning attitude of Tom Cruise in Minority Report)
-alternately use pollyannish optimism and overwhelming pessimism to justify non-action
-anthropomophize things that shouldn't be anthropomorphized (causality, science), and un-anthropomorphize other things as a way of making people not responsible for thier actions.

In fact, Dario Nardi even created a few basic models of this (one has four levels of a process). So with a process, you can be a beginner, an intermediate, or advanced user of a process. And the ESFP who's developed Se to level four would be way smarter than an INTP who regularly relies on level 1 and 2 Ti.

And, contrary to many of bluewing's assertions and type profiles, a function is developed to more advanced levels with its own help, and the help of all the other functions (not just the help of the auxiliary or inferior functions). Yes, I included "with its own help"!!