Rick's Schmystem of Schmubtypes

[Rick]

I saw the post on subtypes and thought I'd put in my two cents, but it probably deserves a new thread.

I personally don't "use" (i.e. don't think about) any of the existing subtype systems. Rather, what I generally apply as I get to know someone is this -- in addition to their socionic type:

1. Are they an endomorph, mesomorph, or ectomorph?

The personality and behavior differences between these three body types are significant enough to warrant making a mental note of it. An ectomorphic LII is different from an endomorphic one, simply by virtue of body type. The ectomorph will be more reserved and will internalize his emotional reactions more, whereas the endomorph will be more emotionally open. Call them " and subtypes," if you will, but I think the somatotypes are closer to the truth.

2. Are they a physical, emotional, or mental person?

Somewhat related to the above, but not entirely. Quite related to socionic type, but not entirely. For example, there are mental IEEs and then there are emotional ones. The emotional ones exert their energy more on people and getting to know them. The mental ones are more distant and focused on intellectual pursuits. Some SLEs are more physical than others. A thin SLE may seem more mental, maybe even ectomorphic, whereas a heavy-set one may seem more physically dominating.

3. How intelligent are they?

I look at the scale and universality of a person's interests, and what kinds of things they are drawn to and excited by. This affects intertype relations, because your "most real" conflictor, for instance, will be someone who's at a very different level than you. Your "most real" dual will be very close to your own level. Have you ever felt sucky in your own quadra because of intellectual differences? Then you know what I'm talking about.

None of these "scales" is discrete, as opposed to socionic types. I prefer to keep what is meant to be discrete, discrete, and what is part of a continuum, continuous.

___________
(added later)

Another thing that may be very important as well is the degree of social domination.

4. How much do they force themselves upon others?

Two people of the same type may be very different if one of them always demands to be in the center of attention, while the other lets other people have attention and is calm about his place in the group or community. You might equate this scale to the psychological definitions of extraversion and introversion.

[Rick]

As an example, I know two SEEs who are quite different. One is a pronounced endomorph, highly emotional and physical, with underaverage intelligence. The other is mixed mesomorph and endomorph, about an even mixture of mental, emotional, and physical, and highly intelligent.

The first is rude, loud, superstitious, materialistic, and gullible. The second is poised, charming, filled with a sense of purpose, and idealistic. Guess which one I have an easier time with?

Among EIEs, for instance, I have an easier time with the more more mental ones. I have an EIE friend (ectomorphic, mental, highly intelligent) who is fascinating to me, sort of like Sigmund Freud. I know another EIE who is mesomorphic, emotional, and of average intelligence, and he really grates on me. Naturally, I would have problems with both EIEs if I were to live with them.

[redbaron]

Hmmm, interesting... yes, I can see this.

[Ms. Kensington]

schmakes schmore schmense

[JRiddy]

Rick, some of the things that you mentioned I think can be explained partially by Enneagram and instinct stackings. Not that that would capture everything you mentioned, but it's something.

Although I do like the words "endomorph" and "ectomorph." They sound cool.

[Jarno]

The body type correlates to my experiences with subtypes. Very interesting. I'm going to pay more attention to it.

The intelligence level does not affect my relationships that heavy IME.

[redbaron]

schmakes schmore schmense

heehee

[Not A Communist Shill]

lol, this is a wonderful thread. It's useful too .

[Creepy-Cyclops]

i'm going to put on weight to be more emotional and get on with my conflictor better.

[Not A Communist Shill]

i'm going to put on weight to be more emotional and get on with my conflictor better.

I'm not sure it quite works like that. Although I suppose people who eat lots of sugar all the time do seem to be more emotional than sensible people.

[redbaron]

okay so the problem with number one (endomorph, ectomorph, mesomorph) is that I know some people who simply don't fit in one of the categories. Take the SEIs I know for example. Of the six I know (five male, one female), three are the skinny kind. And one is the chubbier kind but the other two simply don't fit in any category. The first one is very tall, but overweight in his middle. skinny legs and arms but carries weight in his belly. but there have been times in his life that he's been thinner. he just likes to eat. The other SEI I know seems like he might be in the middle category (mesomorph) but he's not particularly muscular necessarily, just not over or underweight. Not tall and thin but quite introverted. medium to small boned. average height. ??

And I don't feel like I fit into one of those three categories either. I'm quite tall and thin at the moment. but growing up, I was a chubby kid and there have been times in my life that I wouldn't have described myself as thin although I've never officially been 'overweight' according to the charts. I eat what I want but I'm NOT naturally muscular or grounded. I'm quite introverted and spend a lot of time in my head.

[Ritella]

redbaron, i was just about to post something similar.
the only problem that I have with the body type things is that it's not really real-life applicable IME. I'm 5'10", weigh around 125 lbs, and have like TEXTBOOK ectomorph body type. I'm also incredibly loud and rambunctious - you might want to say - for an INFJ. Two INFJs I know are average weight and rounded. They're very very quiet and very .
If I were to make a hypothesis, I would say that it's not related to body "type"- ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph- though I think there might be a correlation there for various reasons.
In general, I think that anyone with a low body fat percentage will seem naturally more introverted because they take up less physical space and have, arguably, less energy to exert. Very thin people are also "frail" in a way that looks introverted because their body doesn't have enough fat to function properly- i.e. the person is frequently cold, tired, pale.
The exception I would make to this "thinner = more introverted" rule is when the person associates thinness with a good personal image. The increased self confidence will make him/her appear considerably more extroverted, not introverted. As a corollary, if the person has lowered self-confidence because s/he has gained weight, then s/he will appear more introverted, rather than extroverted. So, for example, the times when I've gained weight I've become really shut off and reclusive.

[redbaron]

redbaron, i was just about to post something similar.
the only problem that I have with the body type things is that it's not really real-life applicable IME. I'm 5'10", weigh around 125 lbs, and have like TEXTBOOK ectomorph body type. I'm also incredibly loud and rambunctious - you might want to say - for an INFJ. Two INFJs I know are average weight and rounded. They're very very quiet and very .
If I were to make a hypothesis, I would say that it's not related to body "type"- ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph- though I think there might be a correlation there for various reasons.
In general, I think that anyone with a low body fat percentage will seem naturally more introverted because they take up less physical space and have, arguably, less energy to exert. Very thin people are also "frail" in a way that looks introverted because their body doesn't have enough fat to function properly- i.e. the person is frequently cold, tired, pale.
The exception I would make to this "thinner = more introverted" rule is when the person associates thinness with a good personal image. The increased self confidence will make him/her appear considerably more extroverted, not introverted. So, for example, the times when I've gained weight I've become really shut off and reclusive.

I know two INFjs who are rounded and quiet also.

Good point about the body image and self confidence. Definitely true for me that the thinner I am, the more confident I am and thus seem more extraverted. yep.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

This Sheldon correlation seems like a form of VI. What's your views on VI Rick?

[redbaron]

also, what role does gender have in this? for instance, would females of any type be more likely to be focused on the emotional rather than the physical?

[Rick]

i'm going to put on weight to be more emotional and get on with my conflictor better.

Actually, I've talked to people who have confirmed that weight changes have a subtle effect on their personality. For instance, a thin, wiry SLI who's into yoga and stuff may seem more mental and individualistic, but just 10 pounds higher, and they become more emotional and group-oriented. Add muscle, and you become more action-oriented and slightly more aggressive. Put everyone in a concentration camp, and they develop traits of ectomorphs. No joke!

[Rick]

This Sheldon correlation seems like a form of VI. What's your views on VI Rick?

I don't know what VI is.

[Rick]

also, what role does gender have in this? for instance, would females of any type be more likely to be focused on the emotional rather than the physical?

My experience with IEEs is that mental female IEEs are rarer than mental males. Female SLIs are usually more emotional than males.

I agree that there are exceptions to the ectomorph=reclusive rule. The exceptions I can think of all happen to be rational.

Ectomorphism isn't defined just by weight, but by thin bones and joints, long necks, thin skin, etc.

I know one extraverted LSE who is very ectomorphic. However, he is much more sensitive to touch than heavy LSEs. In my opinion, ectomorphs have less physical protection and therefore are more sensitive to things like being touched, threatened, etc.

[Gilly]

Rick already mentioned this, but I wanted to chime in and emphasize that body type is not necessarily related to physical weight or muscle/fat mass, but bone structure and build.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Actually, I've talked to people who have confirmed that weight changes have a subtle effect on their personality. For instance, a thin, wiry SLI who's into yoga and stuff may seem more mental and individualistic, but just 10 pounds higher, and they become more emotional and group-oriented. Add muscle, and you become more action-oriented and slightly more aggressive. Put everyone in a concentration camp, and they develop traits of ectomorphs. No joke!

Interesting. I know some skinny aggressive people and some big guys who are easy going. The research into correlating bodily humours to one's psyche has popped up every so often. Sheldon was the most recent of this and the most sophisticated. The results in the psychological world is that it was a noble effort with a touch of validity, but overall a failure. Too many gaps and discrepencies.

I'm willing to accept that epidermal fat layers can have an effect on mood, because their is some scientific study to give credence to this. But there are other factors in that hormones aren't necessarily affected depending on the type of fat and if the person does some exercise. Even Sumo wrestlers have a relatively low metabolically active fat level.

The problem I have with your approach is not only it's subjectivity, but also that it is implying one's sub type changes theoretically as many times as possible, because it depends on ones weight. Of course a sub type lifestyle can affect ones lifestyle hence ones weight, but we can override that and diet, exercise. Studies show that although sub types can change, it is not a quick process and is a very rare occurance over a persons life. We loose weight and gain weight too easily.

I don't know what VI is.

Well your method is supporting an aspect of it. My question was genuine. Wouldn't you say your using it but at same time discrediting it? If you see validity in VI of sub types I think it would be interesting to look into VI further, or abandon your sub type outlook. One or the other..or option 3+ if you have it?

[Rick]

Interesting. I know some skinny aggressive people and some big guys who are easy going. The research into correlating bodily humours to one's psyche has popped up every so often. Sheldon was the most recent of this and the most sophisticated. The results in the psychiatric world is that it was a noble effort with a touch of validity, but overall a failure. Too many gaps and discrepencies.

I'm willing to accept that epidermal fat layers can have an effect on mood, because their is some scientific study to give credence to this.

The problem I have with your approach is not only it's subjectivity, but also that it is implying one's sub type changes theoretically as many times as possible, because it depends on ones weight. Of course a sub type lifestyle can affect ones lifestyle hence ones weight, but we can override that and diet, exercise. Studies show that although sub types can change, it is not a quick process and is a very rare occurance over a persons life. We loose weight and gain weight too easily.





Well your method is supporting an aspect of it. My question was genuine. Wouldn't you say your using it but at same time discrediting it? If you see validity in VI of sub types I think it would be interesting to look into VI further, or abandon your sub type outlook. One or the other..or option 3+ if you have it?

What I'm saying is that the dimensions I apply here are continuous, not discrete. I don't use subtypes.

People's body type changes very rarely; usually the changes are very minor. Some aspects of body type (bone structure) cannot change -- those are the ones that are defined by Sheldon's system in the first place. These would not depend on weight fluctuations.

As for VI, I simply don't understand your question. Do you mean, do I identify some aspects of people's personality by looking at them?

For reference, here's a summary of somatotypes and the psychological characteristics they're generally associated with: http://www.kheper.net/topics/typology/somatotypes.html

[Rick]

-

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What I'm saying is that the dimensions I apply here are continuous, not discrete. I don't use subtypes.

OK i'm confused. I'm confused because the title of this thread contains sub types, and in your initial post you seem to implying a correlation between somatotype and sub type. But essentially this has nothing to do with sub types, or socionics?

Why don't you use sub types?

People's body type changes very rarely; usually the changes are very minor. Some aspects of body type (bone structure) cannot change -- those are the ones that are defined by Sheldon's system in the first place. These would not depend on weight fluctuations.

I agree that peoples body types don't change that much, but it does happen. It's more common in some athletes as they move in and out of training.

Sheldon's theory also comprises muscular system as well as bone structure.

As for VI, I simply don't understand your question. Do you mean, do I identify some aspects of people's personality by looking at them?

I see. My mistake. I thought what you were talking about in this thread had something to do with sub types, and socionics.

Sheldon's theory of personality is an interesting one. But fails as a scientific study (of which he himself conducted)

Just to let you know, some of this somatotype information comes from Brooklyn College, Uni of NY,

[Ritella]

Rick already mentioned this, but I wanted to chime in and emphasize that body type is not necessarily related to physical weight or muscle/fat mass, but bone structure and build.

That's true. And that is something that many people misunderstand when describing body types. OTOH, there's perhaps a good reason for this confusion: unless you're a textbook example of one of the 3 types, it can be rather arbitrary to name your body type. Physical feature combinations vary tremendously and don't really fall neatly into 3 categories. For example. what do you call a tall, thin, narrow person with long limbs and a giant ass? An ectomorph or an endomorph? And then if the person has huge boobs, it gets even more confusing.
Weight can also "hide" someone's body shape. So like, anyone who is incredibly underweight will appear to be an ectomorph. Keira Knightley, for example, looks like an ectomorph but I really think she's just an incredibly skinny mesomorph. She doesn't gain weight at all like an ectomporph and she develops muscle tone exactly like a mesomorph.

[Rick]

Basically, beyond the 16 types I don't classify people, but characterize them in any number of ways based on factors that I have seen to be influential. This is my way of mixing and in a proportion that I feel does justice to the subject. Socionic types are by nature discrete and have to be, but empirical psychology leans far more towards continuous parameters. If you look at only continuous parameters, I think you miss some key phenomena because you are unable to think of things in terms of types. If you become overenthralled with the idea of breaking up everything into increasingly meaningless dichotomies, you start making mountains out of molehills and ignoring other factors that are obvious, highly influential, and easy to use.

[Rick]

To what's been said here so far, I would add:

All artists are similar. All scientists are similar. All musicians are similar. All philosophers are similar. All corporate workers are similar. Etc. All these people have similar psychological and behavioral traits regardless of their types, and for the most part they were born with them.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Rick, what do you think of Meged's sub type descriptions?

Or do you think it should be replaced not on functional emphasis, but on how fat/skinny/muscular they are to describe the definite variations within the type (which coincidentally match functions within the block) ?

[Ms. Kensington]

lmao about the fat skinny muscular/ a fourth to round it out.. i dunno but i do see the category as something biological and a muscular body type who gained weight and not a muscular body type that became a fat type. not to say biology cannot change.

[Ritella]

Basically, beyond the 16 types I don't classify people, but characterize them in any number of ways based on factors that I have seen to be influential. This is my way of mixing and in a proportion that I feel does justice to the subject. Socionic types are by nature discreet and have to be, but empirical psychology leans far more towards continuous parameters. If you look at only continuous parameters, I think you miss some key phenomena because you are unable to think of things in terms of types. If you become overenthralled with the idea of breaking up everything into increasingly meaningless dichotomies, you start making mountains out of molehills and ignoring other factors that are obvious, highly influential, and easy to use.

Right, I get that and I agree with that approach. I was just saying that I don't personally consider body type to be an influential factor because I'm not even convinced that there is such thing. I do, however, think differences amongst individuals of the same type might be attributable to the person's weight and overall body-build, insofar as it impacts his/her perceived physical energy and response to external stimuli and/or projected self confidence.

[Ritella]

To what's been said here so far, I would add:

All artists are similar. All scientists are similar. All musicians are similar. All philosophers are similar. All corporate workers are similar. Etc. All these people have similar psychological and behavioral traits regardless of their types, and for the most part they were born with them.

Yes, I definitely agree with this and, I think, almost all of your other points in the OP. This is why I feel more comfortable around people whom I perceive to be culturally similar and within close range of my IQ, regardless of quadra.
I also think it's important to explicitly state these non-socionic factors in influencing compatibility and similarities between people, as they're all too often overlooked.

[aestrivex]

but empirical psychology leans far more towards continuous parameters.

no, it doesn't. at all. empirical psychology is all about statistical methods based on aggregated categories and observations. sometimes the observations are fairly well described and don't leave much room for interpretation. at other times they're very, very discrete.

[Ritella]

no, it doesn't. at all. empirical psychology is all about statistical methods based on aggregated categories and observations. sometimes the observations are fairly well described and don't leave much room for interpretation. at other times they're very, very discrete.

you're alive! (wel)come back.

[Rick]

Rick, what do you think of Meged's sub type descriptions?

Or do you think it should be replaced not on functional emphasis, but on how fat/skinny/muscular they are to describe the definite variations within the type (which coincidentally match functions within the block) ?

I don't know; I have only looked at them (if you're talking about their system of two subtypes for each type) in passing, and it's not my kind of thing. Meged and Ovcharov have other work where they apply non-socionic subtypes; that I like much more because they are coming from observation rather than working within the socionics framework. One of their categories is "fantasizer," for instance.

In general, I don't take Meged at all seriously these days since she completely changed her typing paradigm under the influence of some delusions ideas about the role of different types in society. (see http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Meged). The subtype descriptions were admittedly written before that and shouldn't be affected by later flaws.

I don't have an opinion on what a socionics-based subtype system should be like, since that's outside the realm of my interests.

(added later)

I think I should clarify my position on subtypes. There are philosophical or logical reasons for my position, i.e. that after enough discrete classification has already introduced in socionics, the value of additional categories at some point succumbs to the law of diminishing returns. For this reason I reject the Reinin Dichotomies as well.

The other aspect is more personal. There are few socionists who I have an abiding intellectual respect for, and none of the socionists who have invented or deeply espouse subtype systems are among them. These, I feel, have become bogged down in mental masturbation. The system has gotten the better of them.

[Rick]

no, it doesn't. at all. empirical psychology is all about statistical methods based on aggregated categories and observations. sometimes the observations are fairly well described and don't leave much room for interpretation. at other times they're very, very discrete.

I'm talking about personality psychology: the Big 5 and things like that. Can you clarify your post? I don't understand.

Maybe I'm throwing around terms too carelessly. I was referring to the practice of characterizing personality through the use of discrete types or through the use of continuous measures, such as "degree of extraversion" versus calling people only "extraverted" or "introverted."

[aestrivex]

I'm talking about personality psychology: the Big 5 and things like that. Can you clarify your post? I don't understand.

big 5 is a model that does use more of a continuum to measure traits, opting for several specific traits rather than a broader picture of the individual. even so these traits are always aggregate rather than descriptive -- nearly all assessments require responses of "always me," "sometimes me," "neither me nor not me," etc. these individual questions themselves are often only loosely related to general traits such as extroversion or conscientiousness. asking 500 different questions on a particular trait allows you to break up the categories into very particular continuums to accumulate statistical information rather than taking the averages over a broad range of subjects (which, of course, is necessary given that personality is measured only on a given subject). the point though is that even this method requires aggregation of data into relatively distinct packets of quantitative information.

most kinds of psychological research are not even so flexible as this, often allowing for very little interpretation or variability.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't know; I have only looked at them (if you're talking about their system of two subtypes for each type) in passing, and it's not my kind of thing. Meged and Ovcharov have other work where they apply non-socionic subtypes; that I like much more because they are coming from observation rather than working within the socionics framework. One of their categories is "fantasizer," for instance.

Are you talking about the dominating, creating, normaliser etc sub types? If so I understand that they are related to socionic functions.

I thought I should make a post about my understanding of Sheldon's constitution theory. I thought it would be useful to clarify it for your sake (if you don't know) and for any others. His theory is based on the structure of embryonic tissue. The inner layer is responsible for the nervous system, the middle layer for skeletal and circulatory, and the outer layer for the gut and fat etc.

Sheldon hypothesised that one of these layers took dominance in the embryo to give rise to the three body types. We of course know that for the most part this is flawed as we all come in a variety of shapes and sizes. There is evidence that we see all around us that in a sizeable amount of people that they are not simply one type.

What I would say is the temperaments he tried to attach, are more like that, like temperaments. I believe SSmall made a thread recently to see how well ancient personality types of phlegmatic etc tied up with socionics (which are quite similar to Sheldon's) and the results were inconclusive - not really tying in very well as I recall.

In general, I don't take Meged at all seriously these days since she completely changed her typing paradigm under the influence of some delusions ideas about the role of different types in society. (see http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Meged). The subtype descriptions were admittedly written before that and shouldn't be affected by later flaws.

I don't have an opinion on what a socionics-based subtype system should be like, since that's outside the realm of my interests.

Why do you object to it? There seems to have been a large number of ENFj's who make a big impression on their countries or world.

In regards to their two sub type descriptions. They are I think very good and describe very well those that have a sub type (because of course not everyone should be expected to have a sub type) It also seems to fit in very well with the dichometric effect of functions (ie their introversion and extraversion levels)

I'm glad the position that this thread has nothing to do with sub types has been clarified. To be honest it was a little mis-leading for some people at first.

[dbmmama]

I'm glad the position that this thread has nothing to do with sub types has been clarified. To be honest it was a little mis-leading for some people at first.

interesting, i knew what he meant right from the first post. but i can see how others may have misconstrued it. just as i have done with other things myself, just by a difference in the wording...

[unefille]

i'm going to put on weight to be more emotional and get on with my conflictor better.

Ew. I avoid emotional people.

[Rick]

Why do you object to it? There seems to have been a large number of ENFj's who make a big impression on their countries or world.

In regards to their two sub type descriptions. They are I think very good and describe very well those that have a sub type (because of course not everyone should be expected to have a sub type) It also seems to fit in very well with the dichometric effect of functions (ie their introversion and extraversion levels)

I'm glad the position that this thread has nothing to do with sub types has been clarified. To be honest it was a little mis-leading for some people at first.

I have met Meged and Ovcharov in person and have written a lengthy rebuttal to their concept of typing actors, and I believe them to have basically gone of the deep end, socionically speaking, though they are nice people otherwise. In practice, anyone who is highly motivated to do something in society or change the status quo will likely be typed by them as EIE or ILE. Any actor must by definition use and to create an image, thus virtually all actors are EIE. At this page (http://www.famo.ru/meged_ovcharov_2004.php), the second line chart shows the prevalence of different types in their typings of famous people from 2004. As you can see, 91% are EIEs, 4% ILEs, etc. They have built a paradigm which puts them on the distant periphery of society, far from any power and influence. It justifies their own sense of helplessness and lack of recognition. In 1997 (http://www.famo.ru/meged_ovcharov.php, see 2nd chart), their typings were completely different, with ILI, SEE, and EIE the three most prevalent types among their list of famous people. I suppose this has nothing to do with their subtypes, which was elaborated before 1997.

Personally, I don't think that if I am more introverted than the average IEE, that I use more . I think I use , but for things that are generally more distant from socializing. That's my objection to the accepting and receiving subtype system. I prefer to think instead of the use of functions on different levels - the mental, emotional, and physical.

I do remember one things Meged and Ovcharov wrote about that I did find interesting -- the idea of people having "accents" on one or more functions. This approach is more flexible and intuitively rings more true (to me at least). For instance, if someone is into a particular kind of activity at the present, he may develop something akin to an "accent" on the function that the activity is most related to. Let's say I go through a period where I'm focused on earning money through various business schemes, and talk about it a lot. You could say I have an accent on . That description works for me. Basically a temporary accentuation.

Subtypes, though, are generally seen to be very long-term structures in a person's personality. I just haven't found any socionic subtype systems to provide any explanatory value whatsoever. In the "accent" example, we can surmise that the accent is the result of an activated need at this time of life and an intense focus on a certain category of tasks. That makes complete sense psychologically. When someone says, "IEI Ni subtype", there's no explanation contained in that. It's just a term used for convenience, with no clear logical substance. It just means, "one of those dreamier IEIs." So why not say, "an introverted IEI"? That makes sense, and it has substance. "IEI Ni subtype" suggests that the somehow use more than other IEIs. I disagree with that. Someone who uses too much of one function becomes imbalanced. And yet the person being referred to as "IEI Ni subtype" isn't necessarily imbalanced at all.

Sorry, this is just turning into a rant about "bad " in socionics

[Rick]

Sheldon rated people on three dimensions: endomorphy - mesomorphy - ectomorphy. An average individual might have the somatotype: 4-4-4. Whereas a very muscular and powerful person might have the somatotype: 1-7-1. It may not be the best system for classifying physique. But it was a good idea at the time.

Sheldon's correlations between physique and personality traits were large enough to justify further research into individual and group differences. But they were not large enough to warrant their use in assessments.



There are two biological factors in the model I use:

Intermediate Arousal Potential (RAS): the continuing stream of information necessary to activate the reticular formation, produce arousal, and optimal autonomic functioning

Dominance and Initiative Variables (ANS): through which interactional adjustments become stabilized

These are along the lines of "intelligence" and "16-types" respectively.

Microvibrations in muscle fibers are coordinated in conjunction with the hypothalamus, giving rise to the fundamental rhythm. So we can expect a correlation between the relative amounts of fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers (physique) and the basal values of the rhythm (temperament).

I like your line of thought, Kioshi.

I also remember reading that the correlation of somatotypes to the psychological traits described was actually quite high as psychological traits go -- something like 0.7. And I would say that among the people I've met at our socionics meetings, looking at their individual personalities through the lens of somatotypes made sense at least 3/4 of the time. Ritella may have been a rare exception, but it basically fit for Jonathan, Niffweed, Thehotelambush, MysticSonic, Jimbean, Steve, his brother, and many many others.