Understanding MBTI through evolution.

[giorgaros2]

We all know that personality types are mostly genetic , meaning the core personality is the same from birth.So i guess personality types have evolved though they years as to what they are now.I believe using evolutionary psychology and making hypotheses we can understand how each personality type work better if we try.

Consider some things: Humans in their majority of existence lived in societies with monogamous relationships (often not always ) that lasted around 3-5 years.Food was gathered by the groups of females , which was sufficient to feed the tribe and the man hunted.Of course the man played a role at feeding the tribe but we can disprove the claim that "women prefered males who had the most food " , because the main food source to the tribe were women.

The main selection that led to human personalities was sexual/social selection.Different tribes gathered once in a while in something like a feast and from there the pairing happened between men and women .The main factors someone chose someone else was status, beauty, health, courting abilities,strength(men)

So using these information , can we explain how each type evolved?


Let me start with ENTJ:
Entjs are not so good at practical things, they are not good at courting and making women feel good(they can be ofc but this isnt known as a strong point for them) , they are not good warriors/hunters , so why would someone chose ENTJ ? The only thing i can think of is status.ENTJs have evolved to focus on achieving status.That is why real life ENTJs ime are so status conscious.They have evolved strategic thinking and long term planning.
IMO ENTJs have evolved to be strategic-political manipulators.Because that was the only way an ENTJ would obtain status with that abilities.Of course that isnt bad because the way someone evolved isnt equal to his/her abilities and what that person is capable of.


Ok guyz give me your opinions , am i the only one that finds this concept interesting?

 

[giorgaros2]

Okay since probably no one is going to post at least i will continue my thought expirement.

ISTP:
They are practically smart, daring , courageous, fast reflexes, like being at the here and now.This type probably evolved to be good at hunting or a good warrior(if the tribe for example had frequent conflicts with others the warriors would be neeeded, and they would have status.), So the ISTP would aim at becoming proficient at fighting or hunting or something like that, and that alone would bring him status because when you become good at something valued in a society you automatically get status without doing anything.The reason ISTP doesnt have people skills and is introverted , is because people skills werent needed since you dont need people skills if you are the best hunter of the tribe for example.Also introversion is beneficial because socializing distracts you from honing your skills.

 

[reckful]

Humans in their majority of existence lived in societies with monogamous relationships (often not always ) that lasted around 3-5 years. ...

Different tribes gathered once in a while in something like a feast and from there the pairing happened between men and women.

It's been a while since my college days, but these descriptions sound far removed from my recollection of how marriage worked in typical hunter-gatherer groups during that long phase of human evolution.

Marriage for life was more the norm, as I understand it. And I have no recollection of reading about multi-tribe gatherings where people chose their mates. What I do remember is that marriages were quite typically set up on the basis of complicated inter-tribal kinship networks that largely dictated what the matches would be, with neither the husband nor the wife being the one who got to choose.

If you want to focus on personality traits that evolution would have favored in a man (for example), I think you should arguably be focusing mainly on the ones that would have caused a guy to eventually become a well-liked, well-respected tribal elder with more grandchildren than any other guy, in no small part because of the ways that his personality contributed to his tendency to willingly and effectively provide support to his descendants, and to the tendency of his fellow tribespeople to support him (and his family) in times of need.

In other words, given the largely communal way hunter-gatherer tribes tended to work, I think you should be at least as focused on personality characteristics in the cooperative category as personality characteristics in the competitive category. Or to put it another way, you should be open to the idea that, in that kind of group, there could be major competitive advantages — from the standpoint of maximizing the number of your surviving descendants — to having a personality that made you more of a mensch than a selfishly "competitive" type.

And in any case, I don't think you should be assuming that a typical hunter-gatherer dude's recipe for maximizing his grandchild count involved having a personality that got him chosen by a hunter-gatherer chick at some kind of Paleo-KCupid inter-tribal party.

 

[giorgaros2]

It's been a while since my college days, but these descriptions sound far removed from my recollection of how marriage worked in typical hunter-gatherer groups during that long phase of human evolution.

Marriage for life was more the norm, as I understand it. And I have no recollection of reading about multi-tribe gatherings where people chose their mates. What I do remember is that marriages were quite typically set up on the basis of complicated inter-tribal kinship networks that largely dictated what the matches would be, with neither the husband nor the wife being the one who got to choose.

If you want to focus on personality traits that evolution would have favored in a man (for example), I think you should arguably be focusing mainly on the ones that would have caused a guy to eventually become a well-liked, well-respected tribal elder with more grandchildren than any other guy, in no small part because of the ways that his personality contributed to his tendency to willingly and effectively provide support to his descendants, and to the tendency of his fellow tribespeople to support him (and his family) in times of need.

In other words, given the largely communal way hunter-gatherer tribes tended to work, I think you should be at least as focused on personality characteristics in the cooperative category as personality characteristics in the competitive category. Or to put it another way, you should be open to the idea that, in that kind of group, there could be major competitive advantages — from the standpoint of maximizing the number of your surviving descendants — to having a personality that made you more of a mensch than a selfishly "competitive" type.

And in any case, I don't think you should be assuming that a typical hunter-gatherer dude's recipe for maximizing his grandchild count involved having a personality that got him chosen by a hunter-gatherer chick at some kind of Paleo-KCupid inter-tribal party.

I take what i say from the book , The mating mind , which supports what i say about women and men having freedom of choice to chose outside of the group , in the Pleistocene. Also i didnt say anything about all people having to be competitive and selfish. I said about status. The respected and loved elder had status and so did the sucessful political manipulator.They were just different strategies.