Bones of type theory contention! My Te is hanging out...

[maliafee]

I will introduce three subjects that frequently frustrate me regarding the common understanding/viewpoint of various aspects of personality type theory. You can like or hate what I have to say, but I'd rather hear good arguments for or against what I'm suggesting. A lovely discussion!

BONES :steam:
1. Why do people often have such a hard time believing that physical appearance could be related to their personality type?

The belief that people are blank slates at birth has largely been tossed out in the cognitive science community and we know that what goes on in our brains (and what is determined by DNA) expresses itself physically quite often.

I will agree that the Socionics physical descriptions can be hit or miss. But if you look at the "Types and Celebrities" page the similarities on the faces of people of the same type are uncanny.

What are people so scared of when it comes to the theory that a person's type expresses itself visually on a person's face in the form of physical characteristics and especially facial expressions? I'd like to hear about it.


2. Why the need to be an X anything? For instance, IXFP, XNTJ, etc.? For those of you who really understand different type theories, I find it confusing that you would think X is legitimate. Just because you relate to two sides does not mean you are X. Because it's about functions. They are either dominant or not. Dominant is not all-encompassing, it is simply dominant. A cat dominating a mouse does not necessarily mean that the mouse ceases to exist, the cat is simply in charge. I would liken that analogy to functions. One function will be dominant, and two functions never equal.


3. I get confused when people say they were at one time a certain type and then another later on, that they changed types, because they tested differently before. And I hear that this is maybe because of how they were raised, pressured to behave, etc. But that is not really possible. Just because you tested a certain way because you were conditioned to behave a certain way does not mean you "used to be" a certain other type. It merely means you were not being yourself and therefore answered how you were conditioned to. Or am I way off base?

 

[Quinlan]

I agree with most of what you've said, even facial expressions, I just draw the line at physical characteristics because so often looks are deceiving.

 

[nanook]

you actually want a contention? that reminds me of the jeans advertisement, where the guy goes into the gay bodybuilder bar and shouts an insult or something.

 

[entropie]

hahaha, Bone of Ne-ness @jeans ad

 

[maliafee]

I agree with most of what you've said, even facial expressions, I just draw the line at physical characteristics because so often looks are deceiving.

*nods*

 

[maliafee]

you actually want a contention? that reminds me of the jeans advertisement, where the guy goes into the gay bodybuilder bar and shouts an insult or something.

Hehe... I don't know. My Te wanted to speak its mind. I personally don't like fighting too much.

 

[nanook]

okay, i will invest some Fe loyalty, (assuming we are both down with Pi,Fe,Pi,Te)

1) cuz people are ignorant ie their first cognitive function is not perceiving but judging, so the will have wishful believes, like "if it were true, it could be abused for discrimination, therefore it can not be true" or "if it were true, i would have to reconsider my world view which is based on chaos theory and reductionism and so many beautiful little proofs, and i can no do that, cant start all over again, building myself into a box of meaningless profs, therefore it can not be true" then both will argue "show me your VI skills, and if you are not impressively good, i will take it for proven that it VI is not possible" LOL ... but you see, people believe in atheism, because the mere thought of reincarnation or facing their true self after death, or worse, their ancestors, scares them shit less. and they believe, that they have a choice, like that shit would go away if you just would not believe in it. that is just normal pre rationality. lets have compassion.


also, they are often rather blind in terms of facial recognition, and really dont want to admit that. very understandable!

okay, in all sincerity, let's let aside the obvious impairment of dominant judgers, for a second: rationality is not really related to that, it gets evoked once at least 3 or 4 functions are consciously used, but even then some people may be visually impaired, which is unrelated to type.
i used to be pre rational in my own Fe style, back in the days. still, physiognomy was allays obvious to me.


2) we just had a thread about that. for me its because of how people would interpret J and P. i don't want to be associated with the worst of their ill informed prejudices, if i can get associated with less bad prejudices instead.

3) i am with you, if we are taking about what is generally the case, but on the other hand, you can not prove what is possible or impossible, so lets be modest. (this is actually my Te talking)

 

[maliafee]

3) i am with you, if we are taking about what is generally the case, but on the other hand, you can not prove what is possible or impossible, so lets be modest.

Umm, are you asking my Te to be modest? Hahahahahaha... My Te thinks it's the shit. That said, I'm embarrassed now, just a bit. I hope I didn't offend anybody, honestly.

 

[Randomnity]

2. Why the need to be an X anything? For instance, IXFP, XNTJ, etc.? For those of you who really understand different type theories, I find it confusing that you would think X is legitimate. Just because you relate to two sides does not mean you are X. Because it's about functions. They are either dominant or not. Dominant is not all-encompassing, it is simply dominant. A cat dominating a mouse does not necessarily mean that the mouse ceases to exist, the cat is simply in charge. I would liken that analogy to functions. One function will be dominant, and two functions never equal.

So you'll prefer every function to varying degrees, right? Like you prefer various foods. What says that there has to be a hierarchy? Maybe you prefer broccoli to carrots sometimes, and sometimes vice-versa, with neither one occurring more often. Maybe you eat them both because you don't like choosing and couldn't bear to live life without either one.

That's why X is possible. Even though in theory, one will probably have a miniscule "preference", in reality if the difference is so small to be undetectable, it's not a distinction worth making. The theory goes that most people will be in binomial groups, but I think reality is closer to a bell curve, with many near the middle.

 

[nanook]

Umm, are you asking my Te to be modest? Hahahahahaha... My Te thinks it's the shit. That said, I'm embarrassed now, just a bit. I hope I didn't offend anybody, honestly.

you know what its like with Te. there can be only one

 

[maliafee]

you know what its like with Te. there can be only one

Haha... Yeah.

 

[maliafee]

So you'll prefer every function to varying degrees, right? Like you prefer various foods. What says that there has to be a hierarchy? Maybe you prefer broccoli to carrots sometimes, and sometimes vice-versa, with neither one occurring more often. Maybe you eat them both because you don't like choosing and couldn't bear to live life without either one.

That's why X is possible. Even though in theory, one will probably have a miniscule "preference", in reality if the difference is so small to be undetectable, it's not a distinction worth making. The theory goes that most people will be in binomial groups, but I think reality is closer to a bell curve, with many near the middle.

Interesting. I tend to think type is more like species specialization so there MUST be a preference.

 

[garbage]

What are people so scared of when it comes to the theory that a person's type expresses itself visually on a person's face in the form of physical characteristics and especially facial expressions? I'd like to hear about it.

agree

2. Why the need to be an X anything? For instance, IXFP, XNTJ, etc.? For those of you who really understand different type theories, I find it confusing that you would think X is legitimate. Just because you relate to two sides does not mean you are X. Because it's about functions. They are either dominant or not. Dominant is not all-encompassing, it is simply dominant. A cat dominating a mouse does not necessarily mean that the mouse ceases to exist, the cat is simply in charge. I would liken that analogy to functions. One function will be dominant, and two functions never equal.

I just liken it to a number line.. that you've got, say, an integer ranging from -100 to 100. Demystifying the "X" is just stating whether the number is positive or negative; the actual value is the strength of preference. The mouse can still put up a good fight.

Now, given that an exact number is necessary.. if you don't know the exact number but think that it could range from, say, -9 to 11.. what would the "preference" be there? Sure, the preference exists, but it's also unknown.

"X" is just a way of expressing that they're very, very close in their preference or that they're unsure. No big deal.

Also, even the official MBTI has a gradient for the dichotomies rather than the underlying function preferences. It, like Socionics, Lenore, and all the rest, is just another way of looking at (largely) the same information.

3. I get confused when people say they were at one time a certain type and then another later on, that they changed types, because they tested differently before. And I hear that this is maybe because of how they were raised, pressured to behave, etc. But that is not really possible. Just because you tested a certain way because you were conditioned to behave a certain way does not mean you "used to be" a certain other type. It merely means you were not being yourself and therefore answered how you were conditioned to. Or am I way off base?

It's theoretically not possible to change ingrained preferences. But as we're exposed to different situations, we come to a better understanding of what our natural strengths really are, and, therefore, what our type really is.

 

[CJ99]

Well i think its less natural looks and more the way people move and act.

Like Ne people all seem to have this sparkle in there eyes as ILE socionics points out.
And INTx seem to all have a thoughtful piercing look.

Its not natural physique as must as they way personality affects how we use that physique!

 

[maliafee]

Possibly, possibly. Still, there's a bit more to it, in my experience.

 

[Apollanaut]

Excellent points, maliafee. Your reasoning is sound and your conclusions are accurate, but you can't blame people too much for getting confused by all the contradictory, misleading and just plain incorrect type-related information flying around cyberspace!

I'll address your point 1 first:

I also believe that there is some correlation between type and physical appearance. Many cognitive experts consider the mind and body to be one system. In other words we "think/feel/sense/intuit" with our bodies as well as our brains. However, the question of whether our type influences our appearance or vice versa is a bit like trying to decide which came first: the chicken or the egg! There was a recent thread on a similar topic here:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/14962-physical-description-infj.html

A man named William Sheldon (1898-1977) attempted to create an ingenious constitutional psychology based on a careful examination of normal bodily and temperamental differences which he expressed in terms of the classic body shapes known as endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy.

In his view, there is a strong correlation between ectomorphic body types (tall, thin, wiry, fast metabolism, lots of nervous energy) and Introverted Intuitive types (INFJs and INTJs). He also equated endomorphs with Se-types (ESFP, ESTP) and mesomorphs with Te-types (ESTJ, ENTJ). All other types are formed from different blends of the 3 basic body types.

I fit this classification perfectly, being both INFJ and a tall, thin, ectomorph, with lots of nervous energy. I am able to eat huge amounts of food without putting on weight (at least I could before I reached mid-life!).

My immediate family also fit Sheldon's theory: Mum is an endomorphic ESFP, Dad is INFP - mainly ectomorphic like me, but with more meso musculature. My brother is ISFP and is an endo-meso type.

Still, my personal investigations suggest that there is only a loose correlation between body-type and MBTI-type; there are plenty of people who buck the trends Sheldon describes.

For more information, check out the following links. Highly recommended, because this same website has masses and masses of free information about Jung, Psychological Types, and all the other stuff we love to discuss on this forum:

William Sheldon
The Psychology of C.G. Jung and the Body and Temperament Types of W.H. Sheldon

I don't hold much stock with the whole "socionics" nonsense, however. I believe that socionics adds a whole additional and unnecessary layer of complexity and confusion to an already complicated subject.

 

[Apollanaut]

OK, now for points 2 and 3:

You are right, there is no such thing as an X in any of the 4 type letters. Nor do we change type over time. Some of the tests will score you as X is the results are 50:50 for a category and that's fine for the short term, as it at least points you in the right direction (as long as all four letters are not XXXX!). It means the individual has to do some more work to narrow down which of the two options is their true preference. There are many ways to do this, probably the easiest is reading some of the better type descriptions and seeing which one "fits" best.

The tests are far from being 100% accurate (even the hallowed MBTI itself ), so continuing to take test after test is a really bad way to narrow down one's type - it will probably just give you even more possibilities to consider!

Cognitive process analysis can also be confusing - we all use all of the processes at different times and will have varying levels of development in them, regardless of our innate and natural type. However, this knowledge becomes highly useful once we've established our true type.

Temperament theory is a good approach - the temperaments are one of the easiest aspects to determine for an individual. These are particularly helpful when there is confusion between S and N categories.

It can be very frustrating for someone who finds it hard to pin down their natural type, for whatever reason. It can cast doubts about the theory in that person's mind, or lead to the X phenomenon you describe, or all sorts of other justifications for distorting the original theory of types. However, it is well worth persisting with this work if a person is serious about wanting to better understand themselves. According to the accepted version of type theory, based on the work of Jung and Myers-Briggs, every person has an innate preference for one of sixteen possible approaches towards both outer reality and the inner world of the psyche.

When we discover our innate, true four-letter type, our whole approach to life begins to make sense. Rather than placing us into one of 16 narrow little boxes, it instead frees us from always doing the same things in the same way. At the same time, it may reveal something we have always suspected: that we are living our lives out of accordance with our true preferences and gifts. This is more likely for the rarer types, but can happen to anyone.

A poorly-understood or out-of-control dominant function can be extremely dictatorial within our psyches. It may insist on acting out stereotyped behaviours, consistent with its preferred approach to life, and may even insist that others should behave in the same way. Too much of this narrow approach, and the other parts of our psyches will rise up in rebellion, much like a nation suffering under the rule of a firm dictator.

At the very least, a too-narrow attitude inevitably leads to conflict, either internal or with other people. We may become very defensive and even more rigid in our approach, which tightens the noose still further. Taken to its extreme, this can lead to alll forms of mental, physical and emotional problems, including breakdowns, neuroses and even psychosis.

Knowing one's true type provides us with a better understanding of the situations we habitually find ourselves in, as well as a roadmap of alternatives and possibilities, of do's and don'ts.

It's also a starting point for recognising and accessing much of our innate, but hidden, resources and potential.

OK, lecture over! I seem to be making this same point on many different threads at present, but my own Fe function seems determined to share my Ni's belief in the usefulness and power of accurate type knowledge with as many people as will listen!

 

[maliafee]

Fascinating!