Nature or Nurture?

[Tom]

My ILI friend and I were discussing socionics and came across the topic of genetics. We couldn't really come to a solid conclusion because we didn't really have enough info on the subject, and couldn't really find anyone with a good answer.. So, what's the deal? Is your type based entirely on genetics, the culmination of your experiences, both, or does nobody really know?

[Tom]

Hmm.. That was my original thought, as well as the general consensus we had. Well, what does the16types.info think about the subject, then?

[1981slater]

In my opinion, genetics defines our type and experience our subtype. Furthermore, if you eat too much, you get weight. If you run a lot, you lose weight. If you are detected, you fail and if you fail, you die.

[Gilly]

It's got to be both; anyone who says it's strictly one or the other is a nut.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

Hmm. Well type is not based off of experiences. What experiences could possible force someone into becoming an IEI?

However, it is not based solely off your family's types. If it were to be my guess, type is derived from many different genes, and many genes derive each dichotomy. No one or very few people in the world have only logic-genes and no ethic-genes. This leads to variation among the types. That is why members of lots of families get along, and also why some people are disappointed with their families, go online, and learn socionics.

[Khola aka Bee]

Why IEI, specifically?

My family:

Me: INFp
Brother: INTj/ENTp (closer to LII)
Mum: ISFj
Dad: INTp

We seem to have the odd similarity I suppose?

I'd say it's genetic to some extent, but as far as what percentage is and what tendencies are more dominant (or if they are) who knows?

Environmental factors probably also play a part, but you're probably looking more along the lines of development at a young age, general health and diet and it's affect on the brain, and emotional/rearing at an very young age, although parents can have conflictor kids, so it's grey area.

[1981slater]

My theory about this: you cannot change your type, but you develop your "closest to the environment" ego function. For instance, by living at a "beta home" I have developed more than , in spite of I used to be an subtype when I was a kid: my parents are ISTj-ENFj, I am an ENTp (closer to beta quadra than subtypes) and my sister is an ESFp subtype (closer to beta quadra than subtypes).

[ZTCrawcrustle]

Why IEI, specifically?

Not specifically. Pick one of the other many types that are quite unfit for day-to-day life in the world. Really any type outside the pragmatists.

[Khola aka Bee]

Haha thanks <3

I'm going to go pour out some tears.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'd say it's about 65% nature, 35% nurture.

[crazedrat]

If it was based entirely on genetics, then twins would turn out the same type. They don't. But there does seem to be genetic dispositions towards dominant brain regions; and this will imply a particular socionics type over the other. I would say it's something which evolves out of both as we mature. Either way, we cannot change type just like we cannot unlearn the world.

[FDG]

Tenure or Turner?

[FDG]

If it was based entirely on genetics, then twins would turn out the same type. They don't.

In my experience, homozygotic twins turn out the same type.

[crazedrat]

well in my experience they don't. i know two sets of twins who aren't. so there you go, less than a 100 percent correlation

[Khola aka Bee]

If it was based entirely on genetics, then twins would turn out the same type. They don't. But there does seem to be genetic dispositions towards dominant brain regions; and this will imply a particular socionics type over the other. I would say it's something which evolves out of both as we mature. Either way, we cannot change type just like we cannot unlearn the world.

What about genetic permutations after cell separation? Haha, got you there.

[consentingadult]

well in my experience they don't. i know two sets of twins who aren't. so there you go, less than a 100 percent correlation

Are you sure about this? I recall documentaries and scientific articles on identical twins being remarkably similar in personality, even those that have been separated after birth and were not brought together again until adult life. This is why identical twins that didn't grew up together are so much in demand by behavioral scientists.

[crazedrat]

If you're talking about genes which change in relation to their environment, then you've taken the point out of the nature nurture debate; and that is predeterminedness vs. adaptation. Generally in a nature vs. nurture conversation when a person says 'it's genetic' they are saying 'it is predetermined by genetics', and when a person says 'it's environmental' they are saying 'it varies depending on environmental variables'. Genes which vary depending on environmental variables, in this context, are not considered nature; they are considered nurture. K, no more Ti HA please.

Consentingadult: Notice I didn't say there was no correlation; but that there wasn't a 100 percent correlation. This part should be really obvious.

[consentingadult]

If you're talking about genes which change in relation to their environment, then you've taken the point of out the nature nurture debate; and that is predeterminedness vs. adaptation.
Notice I didn't say there was no correlation; but that there wasn't a 100 percent correlation. This part should be really obvious.

I get you now.

[Logos]

My ILI friend and I were discussing socionics and came across the topic of genetics. We couldn't really come to a solid conclusion because we didn't really have enough info on the subject, and couldn't really find anyone with a good answer.. So, what's the deal? Is your type based entirely on genetics, the culmination of your experiences, both, or does nobody really know?

Nature vs. Nurture is a false dichotomy since both are required for species. A cheetah is genetically suited for the African plains with its yellow coloration, black spots, and swift speed for catching gazelle. If you were to put the cheetah in the Canadian tundra, those genetic traits suited for the plains will not fair terribly well for the cheetah.

In my experience, homozygotic twins turn out the same type.

This is generally dependent upon the external environment in which their genes are expressed.

[Tom]

Logos:

While I see what you are getting at, there are two flaws. 1.The 'cheetah' would still retain and use those traits, regardless of where it was (so the 'person' you refer to would still retain their type). 2. While they may be slightly related, the human psyche is quite different in quality than the dominant genetic features of the species (ie.We all have one brain, but it does not mean we all have the same information metabolism).

Also, when I said "nature vs.nurture", I mean: is type based purely on genetics, purely on circumstance (circumstance of action, not construction, and I believe this is where you see the 'false dichotomy'), or a mixture of both? As of now I would conclude 'both'.

P.S.- My name is a play on words; "A Te.Ni. White L.I.E.", if said aloud with the acronyms sounds like "A Tiny White Lie" (I'm also caucasion, if the hint wasn't sinking in), a common phrase used to describe a falsehood which is not a big deal. The second part of the joke is that I, being a LIE really can't stand falsehood in any form, and to say that a lie is insignificant is something I simply cannot bear; it's funny because it is incongruous to my type. Hope you've gotten it now; have a very LIE christmas.

[Logos]

Logos:

While I see what you are getting at, there are two flaws. 1.The 'cheetah' would still retain and use those traits, regardless of where it was (so the 'person' you refer to would still retain their type). 2. While they may be slightly related, the human psyche is quite different in quality than the dominant genetic features of the species (ie.We all have one brain, but it does not mean we all have the same information metabolism).

Regardless, the cheetah would find that those traits would not be advantageous or well suited in its new environment.

Also, when I said "nature vs.nurture", I mean: is type based purely on genetics, purely on circumstance (circumstance of action, not construction, and I believe this is where you see the 'false dichotomy'), or a mixture of both? As of now I would conclude 'both'.

This still seems to be an unrealistic construction that would not necessarily exist.

[sigma]

My ILI friend and I were discussing socionics and came across the topic of genetics.

Pleasure intake of people is 50% genetically determined. But in becoming happier, pleasure is only one aspect and even with pleasure, attention or focus could compensate for unfavorable genetic makeup.

I suspect that socionic type might be the same. You might be predisposed towards a certain type but what you get I guess is determined more by your environment. Especially by direct models (parents).
Anyway... it is only guesswork. Socionics is not financially powerful enough to afford large scale studies.

Maybe with the development of Positive Psychology, Socionics could become interesting, especially because of the interpersonal insights (the only correlation they found in the studies on happiness is rich social life).