Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: The Type Constancy Debate

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The Type Constancy Debate

    We all know what this debate is (we see it argued every other day it seems) so let's digress to the positions themselves.

    First position:
    type is a static, genetically-coded construct. Type is defined as the arrangement of personality functions in a definite sequential order of information processing (Model-A), with each function possessing determined by the individual's biological characteristics. Type is considered a structured concept. This is the view espoused by Aushra Augusta, founder of socionics. It is also expressed in the psy, when Jung notes that raitional functions must always follow irrational functions, and vice versa. (Jung's functions correspond to Augusta's information elements) Jung also posits solidly that type does not change in people of physiologically sound mental health.

    Second position:
    type is prioritization of thought processes, and is measured by the frequency of focus on specific aspects of information. A person who primarily considers logic is a logical type, a person who primarily focuses on feelings is a feeling type. From this point there exist two subpositions: those who consider the plausibility of static type as a means of seeing different aspects of the primary mental focus, and those who reject it out of distrust for biological constancy (specifically, the concept of order in general), and fear that type may entail a limitation of theirs or society's ability to adapt to changing phenomena. In support of this position it is necessary for them to reject Augusta's theory of information elements, because the theory explicitly postulates that the capacity exists for the socion to respond effectively to all observable phenomenon due to the specializations inherent to static type.

    The former position is solidly in favor of nature; the latter for nurture. Therefore, the type question is another manifestation of the nature vs. nurture debate. It is notable that the former position does not exclude the latter as regards the question of content consideration; indeed, there is substantial evidence it is the various aspects of base function content that one most often considers. However, the extreme form of the position, taken to its logical conclusion, denies all constancy of type in normal individuals, and is inconsistent with all empirical research.

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Type Constancy Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    type is a...genetically-coded construct.
    lol
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Type Constancy Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    type is a...genetically-coded construct.
    lol
    Witness, a proof of the above. Gilligan, a 2nd position adherent, is so frightened of that possibility, that he chooses to hide it by mocking the concept of type constancy.

    You're ENTp, Gilly. Live with it. Oh, and an INFp exertion type.

  4. #4
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Type Constancy Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    You're ENTp, Gilly. Live with it. Oh, and an INFp exertion type.
    How do we find out our exertion type? I wanna know mine!
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Type Constancy Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Winterpark
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    You're ENTp, Gilly. Live with it. Oh, and an INFp exertion type.
    How do we find out our exertion type? I wanna know mine!
    Although we've got a good idea of how the exertion elements behave, we're still trying to figure out how they interact with each other. What I've figured so far, is in this thread.

    http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13374

    Difficult to determine now without a good sense of intuition is all I can say.

    However, think what your talents are. Pinpoint talents that are difficult to correlate to socionics type (for example, how you use energy) and you've got a good base of information from which to determine your exertion type.

    Tell me what your talents are (your hobbies especially) and let's see what we can come up with!

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Type Constancy Debate

    So are you trying to unify these two positions with your exertion theory?

    I'm currently more inclined to agree with the nature stance. As for the nurture component, well - if it even DOES need to be accounted for beyond a single type theory, then maybe one will grow from his/her root type according to a limited number of possible paths (ie, functional "gateways"). That seems more natural, IMO, than fusing two *any* types together to account for both nature and nurture. Just my two cents.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Type Constancy Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    So are you trying to unify these two positions with your exertion theory?

    I'm currently more inclined to agree with the nature stance. As for the nurture component, well - if it even DOES need to be accounted for beyond a single type theory, then maybe one will grow from his/her root type according to a limited number of possible paths (ie, functional "gateways"). That seems more natural, IMO, than fusing two *any* types together to account for both nature and nurture. Just my two cents.
    No, I don't care about the debate. Exertion theory has nothing to do with the debate. But other people care about it and the debate itself seems pointless and divisive.

    Why do you think I care a bit about your pointless nature-vs-nurture debates? The answer is (always) in the middle, and unless the middle is respected by either side then the debate is a waste of time and energy, and a problem in itself.

    By the way, I don't care if you disagree, because if you do, then you are just wrong.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: The Type Constancy Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by astralsilky
    So are you trying to unify these two positions with your exertion theory?

    I'm currently more inclined to agree with the nature stance. As for the nurture component, well - if it even DOES need to be accounted for beyond a single type theory, then maybe one will grow from his/her root type according to a limited number of possible paths (ie, functional "gateways"). That seems more natural, IMO, than fusing two *any* types together to account for both nature and nurture. Just my two cents.
    No, I don't care about the debate ...
    Oh.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Exertion theory has nothing to do with the debate.
    OK, thanks. That answers that.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    But other people care about it and the debate itself seems pointless and divisive.

    Why do you think I care a bit about your{?????} pointless nature-vs-nurture debates? The answer is (always) in the middle, and unless the middle is respected by either side then the debate is a waste of time and energy, and a problem in itself.
    (So you do affirm a middle position, as suspected - not that either of us really care about this debate which we continue posting about, upon your initiative.)

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    By the way, I don't care if you disagree, because if you do, then you are just wrong.
    ~

  9. #9
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what a d**k!
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  10. #10
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    to me, the lead function is nature, the creative function influenced by nurture. i'd have to think about which types' creative functions are more influenced by nurture though.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  11. #11
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by diamond8
    to me, the lead function is nature, the creative function influenced by nurture. i'd have to think about which types' creative functions are more influenced by nurture though.
    for some reason I want to say N and T but don't hold me to that. you can hold me to something else if ya want though

  12. #12
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Temeperament is clearly nature, the functions most developed into it are nurture.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  13. #13
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Temeperament is clearly nature, the functions most developed into it are nurture.
    If someone pointed a gun to my head and said I had to take a position on this matter, that would be it.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  14. #14
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Temeperament is clearly nature, the functions most developed into it are nurture.
    If someone pointed a gun to my head and said I had to take a position on this matter, that would be it.
    Not to be devil's advocate, but wouldn't your case be evidence of the opposite, since you should have become an ESFj?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  15. #15
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG

    Not to be devil's advocate, but wouldn't your case be evidence of the opposite, since you should have become an ESFj?
    Ah. If by "nurture" you mean especifically that you are "taught" the functions by your parents, then yes, you are right and I disagree with that position.

    What I meant is that I think that the temperament is more likely to be inborn, and the functional use - the quadra - develops later, but not necessarily adopting the same as your parents'. Your environment as a whole does the "nurturing", which may even lead you away from your parents' quadra or functions.

    Take my case. ESFj mother and ISFp father, with ENTp and ENTj sons. So perhaps my brother was somehow "led" to develop our parents' super-id functions, while for some reason (no idea what) in my case the environment led me to develop our parent's super-ego functions? If so, why? No idea.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  16. #16
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Temeperament is clearly nature, the functions most developed into it are nurture.
    yeah...even better.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •