The Type Constancy Debate

[tcaudilllg]

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.

[Gilly]

type is a...genetically-coded construct.

lol

[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.

[Park]

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!

[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!

[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.

[tcaudilllg]

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.

[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.

Exertion theory has nothing to do with the debate.

OK, thanks. That answers that.

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.)

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

~

[Park]

what a d**k!

[Blaze]

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.

[Creepy-bg]

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

[FDG]

Temeperament is clearly nature, the functions most developed into it are nurture.

[Expat]

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.

[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?

[Expat]

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.

[Blaze]

Temeperament is clearly nature, the functions most developed into it are nurture.

yeah...even better.