What matters more - Type or Gender?

[highlander]

First you ask which one impacts our understanding of each other more (if I'm understanding you correctly), but then you pose that genders are more differentiated from each other than types. Can you more clearly define what your question is, Highlander?

If it's the second question you insinuated in your more recent post, then I think you're comparing apples and oranges and asking "Which one tastes more fruity?" In fact, I think that's the tone of this whole thread.

My gut tells me our genders have greater effects on social awareness, followed by our preferences for either extraversion or introversion.

Our predilections for genders affect our understanding of others more so than typology because everyone except for scandalous, hooker craving politicians draws distinctions between the genders, whereas typology is very obscure.

There are two questions, with the second being multi-part:

1. What matters more in understanding someone -gender or type?

2. 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

 

[Totenkindly]

I think type is more important than gender. A T female probably comes in communication and behavior as more like a T male than as an F female. Same sort of thing goes for F males. They too resemble F females more than T males.

That's more my view too, although there are nuances.

It's kinda like a stacking system, not an either/or system.

e.g., if you start as F, you have all your personality sliders within certain level ranges. Then you add variations for gender on top of each slider, adjusting the sliders from their original positions (not starting from scratch). And so on.

So eventually all the things that impact personality are stacked/added together to give you a "final mix"... that then continues to be adjusted as you gain life experience.

The example's not perfect, but I think it's better to view it as all these things interacting rather than one dominating by default.

 

[highlander]

Lol I treat everyone in one of 2 ways. Friend or not friend. I don't differentiate between men and women. If a girl punches me in the shoulder I punch them in the shoulder. I don't hesitate because my philosophy is "Treat people equally regardless of differences such as gender, race and sexuality".

I don't believe this works. I may have thought that way at one point in the past.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't believe this works. I may have thought that way at one point in the past.

Heh. I missed his comment.

It might work with NT girls. For me, if I whack someone, I acknowledge their right to measure back the same to me (but no more) out of fairness. But most women I know would be pretty put off, I think, with guys who hit them; it's just not "proper," muscle/body composition and mass is different, guys are cast as physical protectors in our culture, so even the image of hitting a girl triggers negative response regardless of what she does.

Besides, relationally (and again maybe different types respond differently), but most women I know don't want to be the guy's "buddy" if they're a couple, they want to be his girlfriend, which is a bit of a different situation. (Remember "Some Kind of Wonderful"?) They can overlap a bit but aren't the same. Treating all girls like one of the guys might make one's dating life flounder.

 

[Mr. Sherlock Holmes]

That's possibly true. Though I did mention the exclusion of romantic and sexual situations.

 

[nozflubber]

I think it depends on for what. i think in philosophical matters, temperament matters more. in attitudes that form about the self, about the world etc, gender matters more....

I wonder what the conditional probabilities are for presence of feminist sentiment, for example-

is p(feminist|INTP) > p(feminist|female) ? i'd tend to assume so.

 

[Coriolis]

1. What matters more in understanding someone -gender or type?

2. 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

1. I see type as more important than gender if one really wants to understand someone. It says much more about how someone thinks, understands, and communicates than gender. Gender is set by biology, and also determines a large part of the social programming one receives. As such, as someone already mentioned, it will have a greater influence on observable behavior. Different types will react to this conditioning in different ways as well. It is easy to determine someone's gender, and to make assumptions based on it that are incorrect, leading to misunderstanding and conflict. This is especially so for male F's and female T's. Type does not tell everything about a person, either, but to me, offers more insight into understanding who they really are.

2. Much of the answer to this depends upon the degree to which a person accepts and implements the social programming they were raised with. None of us may be entirely free of it, but I would suspect some types are more resistant to it than others, more willing just to go their own way. These people will communicate, think, decide, and behave much more in keeping with their type. People who accept the social programming may at least behave more in keeping with the corresponding gender expectation, though their information handling, thinking, and decision making will still probably follow type more.

 

[Salomé]

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?

"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)."

I'm a bit confused about what you are doing here.
Why remove gender effects from one system and not the other?

Big Five findings and MBTI stats are in agreement: women are more likely to be "Agreeable"/exhibit F-type traits than men.

But if gender mattered more, wouldn't all women be Fs?

 

[Coriolis]

All women may be pressured more to act like F's, but their internal processing and motivations won't be F-like if that is not their real type/preference. That's why I made a distinction between readily observable behavior, and how someone really processes information and makes decisions. Gender will likely have more effect on the first than the second.

 

[FemMecha]

It's a more nebulous issue because many of the descriptors of men vs. women have to do with externally expressing an internal experience. In a culture where men are conditioned to not express emotion, they will tend to not express the emotion, but also could be less likely to admit to experiencing the emotion, and in the more extreme cases of cultural inundation will become unaware when they are experiencing that emotion.

Take any culturally tight environment in which there are certain thoughts or feelings that are permissible and others that are not. People will tend to not admit and in some cases be unaware of experiencing the non-permissible thought and emotions.

My impression is that the MBTI T/F dichotomy is inundated with gender stereotypes. It could be that it is derived directly from these, or it could be that the more prevailing stereotypes of gender have now been overlaid on the system. In this way it is difficult to ask which matters more because the intertwining of the two is complex. They play out almost identically from a social perspective which is something I have found rather interesting. The dynamic between T and F online mirrors the dynamics I have seen between men and women in concrete social space.

One reason society allows for greater emotional expression in women comes from a long history of dividing gender roles. The woman as caretaker of small children has to adapt to a range of communication that includes all the developmental stages. This requires empathy of non-verbal signals while her offspring is an infant. It requires clearer, somewhat more exaggerated facial expressions of emotion for young children who cannot read the subtler messages. It means not requiring children to guess at a feeling, but being able to place it out there in words and expression as clearly as possible just as the child does. At the adult level this empathy and emoting is then intertwined with more complex layers of communication between adults. Men have been compartmentalized to have work/thought space and home/emoting space. The requirement on their functioning is historically different.

I do not see either category as significantly important. It says a little something about a person, but not actually that much. When the categories become stereotypical and black-and-white, then it says far less about a person than is actually the case. I've said this before, but the T/F pole does not create mutually exclusive traits and does not work entirely as a way to categorize people. The presence of one trait does not require the absence of the other trait. For E/I, the ability to gain energy from external stimuli and being around people is not going to be the case typically for the person who gains energy by being alone. Those are opposite states. The T/F categories are might not often overlap, but there isn't anything inherent to the one trait that requires the absence of the other, and more importantly the absence of one trait does not suggest the presence of the other trait.

 

[Salomé]

All women may be pressured more to act like F's, but their internal processing and motivations won't be F-like if that is not their real type/preference. That's why I made a distinction between readily observable behavior, and how someone really processes information and makes decisions. Gender will likely have more effect on the first than the second.

So F-women are that way because of conditioning and T women aren't because they're not susceptible to conditioning? F is the "susceptible to conditioning" trait? I don't buy it. What about F men?

My impression is that the MBTI T/F dichotomy is inundated with gender stereotypes. It could be that it is derived directly from these, or it could be that the more prevailing stereotypes of gender have now been overlaid on the system.

Or it could be that gender stereotypes derive from the actual T/F difference. This seems likely to me.

For E/I, the ability to gain energy from external stimuli and being around people is not going to be the case typically for the person who gains energy by being alone. Those are opposite states.

I don't believe they are opposite. I think they exist on a spectrum.

The T/F categories are might not often overlap, but there isn't anything inherent to the one trait that requires the absence of the other, and more importantly the absence of one trait does not suggest the presence of the other trait.

T/F doesn't describe traits. It describes habits of mind. Are you suggesting the T/F divide is entirely arbitrary? After also suggesting that there is a characteristic "dynamic" to T/F relations? How do you account for this discrepancy?

 

[slowriot]

First you ask which one impacts our understanding of each other more (if I'm understanding you correctly), but then you pose that genders are more differentiated from each other than types. Can you more clearly define what your question is, Highlander?

If it's the second question you insinuated in your more recent post, then I think you're comparing apples and oranges and asking "Which one tastes more fruity?" In fact, I think that's the tone of this whole thread.

My gut tells me our genders have greater effects on social awareness, followed by our preferences for either extraversion or introversion.

Our predilections for genders affect our understanding of others more so than typology because everyone except for scandalous, hooker craving politicians draws distinctions between the genders, whereas typology is very obscure.

I tend to agree with this. What one can assume is that type transcends physiology only to a certain degree. As much as feeler men stereotypically have female tendencies, if one would take it so far, they still have a penis. So they will act differently than female feelers. Just look at this forum, you can see that. Its very clear. As do thinker females they act differently than male thinkers. Physiology and type are only related in a certain degree. So if you ask me in most cases you cant take type away from gender. But you also cant take gender away from type in most cases.

 

[Salomé]

^Yeah. That's not what he said.

 

[Orangey]

I recall reading Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus

That's a problem in and of itself.

 

[highlander]

I'm a bit confused about what you are doing here.
Why remove gender effects from one system and not the other?

Big Five findings and MBTI stats are in agreement: women are more likely to be "Agreeable"/exhibit F-type traits than men.

But if gender mattered more, wouldn't all women be Fs?

I think a good number of the gender stereotypes do seem to center around F/T, but there is more to it than this. It appears to me that there are fundamental differences between men and women - in the way they think, react, respond, etc. Physiology is different. Hormones are different. Some of this is inborn and some is how we develop through our environment. In Western culture, we are perhaps discouraged from focusing on those differences - that everyone is "the same" or "equal". However, for men and women to truly understand each other and for us to progress as a society I think would behoove us to understand those differences. That really I guess is my point.

I'm not really talking about romantic involvement or attraction. I'm talking about people understanding and relating to each other and the differences that exist between them.

Maybe I said gender matters more than type partially for effect. The thing is I don't think the differences are in any way trivial.

 

[rav3n]

That's a problem in and of itself.

Couldn't agree more. That book celebrates stereotypes!

As far as gender or type being more a driving force behind personhood, I would say gender.

Gender is bombarded by biological drives and environment which encompasses parental guidance, peer pressure, educational pressure, societal pressure and opposite gender stimuli. It's at our core and is reflected in the male and female dichotomies within each type.

Taking into consideration mistypes on TypeC, there's a clear delineation between genders. Watch behaviour and it will become obvious.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I thought I'd bold the ones I relate to & strike the ones I don't.... In instances where I relate to both, I will leave the lesser one as-is or bold both. I also added a note next to asterisks. I'm just using this to illustrate that as a Feeler & a woman, I do not relate to the stereotypical woman in every instance, nor do I see everything so black & white.

Women tend to see communication more as a way to connect and enhance the sense of closeness in the relationship
Men see communication more as a way to accomplish objectives
*** Being an introvert, I often prefer the "male way", as unnecessary talking can annoy me. However, I also see emotional bonding as an objective. This means I like to talk about feelings & emotions, but I don't like talking about life activities a lot or what I see as pointless exchanges of info; and I'm only interested in emotional conversations with those I want to bond with. At work, I am a get to the point person. Schmoozing annoys me.

Women give more response cues and nonverbal cues to indicate interest and build a relationship
Men use feedback to signal actual agreement and disagreement
*** I don't know what this even means... I guess it means men initiate more? Well, I am not an initiator, so I bolded the first one. I have a feeling a lot of INFP men will relate more to the women here....

For women, "ums" "uh-huhs" and "yeses" simply mean they are showing interest and being responsive
For men, these same responses indicate is agreement or disagreement with what is being communicated
*** Not so much interest as validation. I can see someone else's feeling without needing to agree with it, and I may not have any personal interest. I am confirming that I understand, not that I agree or even care. Here again, I see it as an F/T difference.

For women, talking is the primary way to become closer to another person
For men, shared goals and accomplishing tasks is the primary way to become close to another person
*** I can't choose either. Talking can be important to form closeness, but just talking becomes grating to me. I like to have a balance. I can feel close to someone through shared experiences.... just being around them, not necessarily talking. With my ex ESFP bf, he wanted to talk NON-STOP. It exhausted me. I wished we could just BE sometimes & not have to talk.

Men are more likely to express caring by doing something concrete for or doing something together with another person
Women can avoid being hurt by men by realizing how men communicate caring
Men can avoid being hurt by women by realizing how women communicate caring
Women who want to express caring to men can do so more effectively by doing something for them or doing something with them
Men who want to express caring to women can do so more effectively by verbally communicating that they care
*** This is odd to me because I show it one way & receive it another & I am okay with that....I like verbal & physical displays, but that is not MY preferred method of showing, and I have been called cold by people because of it. I show affection through giving my time & showing personal interest in someone. However, I can appreciate any of the "love languages" from someone else. My ENFJ male friends are MUCH more gooey than I am, and I actually have learned a lot about expressing feelings from dealing with them. I actually had an INTP male friend who was better with verbal affection than I am....


Men emphasize independence and are therefor less likely to ask for help in accomplishing an objective
Men are much less likely to ask for directions when they are lost than women
Men desire to maintain autonomy and to not appear weak or incompetent
Women develop identity within relationships more than men
Women seek out and welcome relationships with others more than men
Men tend to think that relationships jeopardize their independence

*** I relate to the male side here. I tend to avoid relationships when they threaten my autonomy, and I perceive threats where there are none. This is why I am single most of the time...however, I am very open to new friendships. I do not define myself by my relationships though. I've always been a loner....I see myself more as an individual than part of a group.

I have no problem "asking for directions", but I tend to try and figure things out myself first, and I am often successful at it. On the job, it would annoy me when someone would ask before trying to figure it out themselves. I had to stop what I was doing & help them, but rarely did anyone have to stop & help me.

However, I am not above feedback. I don't see it as a weakness to seek another opinion. For me, it's getting a different perspective so as to refine my ideas. It seems arrogant to me to think you don't need feedback.

For women, relationships are a constant source of interest, attention and communication
For men, relationships are not as central
The term "Talking about us" means very different things to men and women
Men feel that there is no need to talk about a relationship that is going well
Women feel that a relationship is going well as long as they are talking about it

I don't need to talk about MY relationship with someone to know all is well. In fact, if we're talking about it, then it's probably because there is a problem. Once again, I learned from ENFJ male friends about relationship validation by referring to people as best friends or other expressions which confirm the status of the relationship. For me, it's like, if I seek you out (or respond to you) & you're in my life, then I like you, duh. I've had an INTJ I was dating complain he couldn't tell if I liked him for that reason (no verbal validation). When a male INTJ has to initiate relationship talk, that says a lot .

However, relationships in general interest me a lot, but more in an abstract way. I like to consider the dynamics between people and human relationships in a theoretical way. In that sense, it is a constant interest, but it has less to do with maintaining my own relationships than just being a topic I like to analyze for its own sake.

1. What matters more in understanding someone -gender or type?

I think type matters more. Since most people don't know what "types" are, this leads to gender stereotyping, and then people who don't fit certain gender stereotypes are left misunderstood. I don't like a lot of assertions made about how women are as they don't often don't apply to me. I am tired of family calling me cold when I see the male family members act the same & its accepted.

In another thread, there was discussion of what the stereotypical woman role looks like. I think it's SFJ, which is what most women type as, and so now you will see most women behaving a certain way; there may lie the source of the assertions made by books like "Men are from Mars...".

In that same thread, I related a discussion with my ISFJ mom about "the way women are" vs. "the way men are" and even she agreed I resembled the man more in her assessment, and yet, I am a Feeling type & a woman (and IMO, I think I am quite feminine). So I don't think that the female gender role = Feeling so much as Extroverted Feeling, and or in some cases an Extroverted woman who uses Introverted feeling (ExFJs & ExFPs, with some IxFJs, especially ISFJs). The reason we "see" these roles played out all around us is because there ARE more of these women than anything. SFJs alone may make up as much 37% women, over 1/3.

 

[Xenon]

^I was going to say the "female communication style" sounded like F, but some of it sounds Fe specifically (and some don't have to do with either). I've heard these called "report talk" and "rapport talk" (Deborah Tannen's work). I think this stuff is mostly due to a combination of type and gender socialization.

I remember picking up one of those 'Mars and Venus' books as a pre-teen and thinking, wow, this guy's going around telling everyone that all women are like my mother. I often read some similar "how men and women communicate" materials and either identified more with the man or didn't really identify with either.

I do believe there are some gender differences mostly caused by hormones and physiology, such as physical aggression, physical recklessness, frequency of crying, sexual proclivities...I'd expect to see significant gender differences in these even within the same type.

So it depends what differences you're talking about.

 

[Snuggletron]

probably gender and sexual orientation, then type. Most all my friends are males. I still don't consider a female a friend in the genuine aspect unless we are both not attracted to each other. Even then, I've never had a close female friend like that. My close friends aren't traditional guys (most are NP or SP) but I still identify first with being male and communicating like a male before being INFP I guess. I have a penis first, and an mbti type second. And it only accentuates my genitalia.

 

[Salomé]

It appears to me that there are fundamental differences between men and women - in the way they think, react, respond, etc.

All you are doing here is stating your beliefs. Where is the evidence? I've studied gender in some depth, looking for concrete differences, and I haven't been able to come up with anything compelling. Frustrating as that is.

It seems absurd to me that you can suppose putting someone into one of two categories based on primary sexual characteristics could tell you more about how that individual thinks than knowing which of the 16 MBTI types best fit that individual.

Your version of "understanding" seems to consist of simply reinforcing stereotypes. I think we can all do without that kind of understanding.