A source for those numbers would be a very good and interesting thing.
So, are women predisposed to their own genetic glass ceiling?
Are you saying that having a T function is an inherent advantage, career wise? What are you basing that on?
Also, as far as I'm concerned, the different MBTI function preferences aren't genetically determined. I would argue that traditional gender roles, still very much at large in our society, encourage women to develop their F function and men to develop their T function. *shrug*
I'd say there's a very positive genetic correlation with MBTI type.
I'm sure I read that types have genetic predisposition, bit like hair coloring type.
Both my parents tested INTJ and I'm INTJ.
How, could F be so more prevalent with women than men? If it was predetermined?
Me, I'd say in evolutionary biology terms F for women would be more likely to help them bond in a group situation and be more caring. I'd say T is more for the hunt and protecting against predators etc.
I'm sure I read that types have genetic predisposition, bit like hair coloring type.
Heh! I'd like to see the survey that could prove any such thing. Nature versus nurture in personality/psychology patterns - especially gender-based differences - are notoriously near-impossible to research.
Sociological studies have proven time and again that people interact differently with 24-hour-old babies depending on what gender they believe the baby to be. Essentially, we're exposed to a massive amount of gender expectations and gender sterotypes from birth.
I'd say in evolutionary biology terms F for women would be more likely to help them bond in a group situation and be more caring. I'd say T is more for the hunt and protecting against predators etc.The idea that in the Neolithic, women stayed at home and cared for the babies/the elderly (and maybe did a bit of berry picking on the side), and men went off hunting, is an ad hoc theory to explain our current gender roles. It has no foundation in any proven fact. Actually, the little
( ... )
So is anyone prepared to say why more males rate as T and more women as F?
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that boys and girls behave differently. If anyone saw a documentary on the huge problems that occurred when "deciding" physically gender non specific children it is clear that you cannot be assigned. It’s how you think, it’s who you are.
I am an INTJ. My parents and brother are all extroverted Sensors. I highly doubt MBTI type to be heritable.
If you're interested in sociobiology/"evolutionary biology" you will have heard of Antonio Damasio. The entire premise of his book Descartes's Error was that emotion is vitally necessary for making correct value-judgments, and cannot legitimately be said to be separate from reasoning.
My opinion is that, for the most part, evolutionary psych is a lot of non-falsifiable intellectual masturbation, that it's usually characterized by sloppy thinking and sloppier articulation, and that regardless of the intent of its pioneers, lay people primarily reference it to legitimate bigotry and antisocial behavior.
You responses have been mostly from J's. J's like data erudition.
You're showing a lack of understanding and some arrogance and conceit.
You can get away with the latter two if you have a good deal of the first.
You're coming from a very 'P' place dude. NTJs have vision and the ability to project into a hypothetical future but they are a good deal more distrustful of it than a 'P'. J's don't do impulsive very often. They do the looking before the leaping and they buckle their parachute before they leave the edge.
Whilst there may be some 'nature' when it comes to structure and effectiveness of a mind, I believe the brain/mind is one area where there is vast potential when you include 'nurture'. A very intelligent and functional children can and do spring from the loins of some dullards. It's simply a case of the odds being stacked in your favour if you have intelligent parents, they will nurture your mind and give you a much better chance of being
( ... )
That was somewhat similar to my thought upon reading the previous post, only I had thought of it more in terms that someone could use more Te.
> Whilst there may be some 'nature' when it comes to structure and effectiveness of a mind, I believe the brain/mind is one area where there is vast potential when you include 'nurture'.Agreed. A long time ago, siderea had likened it to a "feedback loop" between genetics and environment. If we want to use more simplistic analogy, genetics only provides a seed. Just because you have a seed doesn't mean it'll grow, and especially not that it'll grow properly. Furthermore, it's also possible to graft plants onto each other. Humans do this all the time: take grafts from the environment and try them out. Sure, the root stock will contribute some characteristics, and some root stocks hold some grafts better, but the plant can still incorporate quite a lot from the environment. There is no such clean line between nature and nurture. We can change
( ... )
Comments 17
So, are women predisposed to their own genetic glass ceiling?
Are you saying that having a T function is an inherent advantage, career wise? What are you basing that on?
Also, as far as I'm concerned, the different MBTI function preferences aren't genetically determined. I would argue that traditional gender roles, still very much at large in our society, encourage women to develop their F function and men to develop their T function. *shrug*
Reply
I'd say there's a very positive genetic correlation with MBTI type.
I'm sure I read that types have genetic predisposition, bit like hair coloring type.
Both my parents tested INTJ and I'm INTJ.
How, could F be so more prevalent with women than men? If it was predetermined?
Me, I'd say in evolutionary biology terms F for women would be more likely to help them bond in a group situation and be more caring. I'd say T is more for the hunt and protecting against predators etc.
Reply
Heh! I'd like to see the survey that could prove any such thing. Nature versus nurture in personality/psychology patterns - especially gender-based differences - are notoriously near-impossible to research.
Sociological studies have proven time and again that people interact differently with 24-hour-old babies depending on what gender they believe the baby to be. Essentially, we're exposed to a massive amount of gender expectations and gender sterotypes from birth.
I'd say in evolutionary biology terms F for women would be more likely to help them bond in a group situation and be more caring. I'd say T is more for the hunt and protecting against predators etc.The idea that in the Neolithic, women stayed at home and cared for the babies/the elderly (and maybe did a bit of berry picking on the side), and men went off hunting, is an ad hoc theory to explain our current gender roles. It has no foundation in any proven fact. Actually, the little ( ... )
Reply
So is anyone prepared to say why more males rate as T and more women as F?
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that boys and girls behave differently. If anyone saw a documentary on the huge problems that occurred when "deciding" physically gender non specific children it is clear that you cannot be assigned. It’s how you think, it’s who you are.
Reply
I am not aware of any confirmed link between type and genetics, again if you could provide a source or reference this would be excellent.
I am an INTJ, my parents and sister are SJ types.
Reply
If you're interested in sociobiology/"evolutionary biology" you will have heard of Antonio Damasio. The entire premise of his book Descartes's Error was that emotion is vitally necessary for making correct value-judgments, and cannot legitimately be said to be separate from reasoning.
My opinion is that, for the most part, evolutionary psych is a lot of non-falsifiable intellectual masturbation, that it's usually characterized by sloppy thinking and sloppier articulation, and that regardless of the intent of its pioneers, lay people primarily reference it to legitimate bigotry and antisocial behavior.
Reply
that's what those skins hanging on the wall over there are... trolls...
Reply
Reply
You need to work on your 'angry'
You responses have been mostly from J's. J's like data erudition.
You're showing a lack of understanding and some arrogance and conceit.
You can get away with the latter two if you have a good deal of the first.
You're coming from a very 'P' place dude. NTJs have vision and the ability to project into a hypothetical future but they are a good deal more distrustful of it than a 'P'. J's don't do impulsive very often. They do the looking before the leaping and they buckle their parachute before they leave the edge.
Whilst there may be some 'nature' when it comes to structure and effectiveness of a mind, I believe the brain/mind is one area where there is vast potential when you include 'nurture'. A very intelligent and functional children can and do spring from the loins of some dullards. It's simply a case of the odds being stacked in your favour if you have intelligent parents, they will nurture your mind and give you a much better chance of being ( ... )
Reply
That was somewhat similar to my thought upon reading the previous post, only I had thought of it more in terms that someone could use more Te.
> Whilst there may be some 'nature' when it comes to structure and effectiveness of a mind, I believe the brain/mind is one area where there is vast potential when you include 'nurture'.Agreed. A long time ago, siderea had likened it to a "feedback loop" between genetics and environment. If we want to use more simplistic analogy, genetics only provides a seed. Just because you have a seed doesn't mean it'll grow, and especially not that it'll grow properly. Furthermore, it's also possible to graft plants onto each other. Humans do this all the time: take grafts from the environment and try them out. Sure, the root stock will contribute some characteristics, and some root stocks hold some grafts better, but the plant can still incorporate quite a lot from the environment. There is no such clean line between nature and nurture. We can change ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment