Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Genetics and their relation to psychological type

  1. #1

    Default Genetics and their relation to psychological type

    Has it not been pretty much been agreed that genetics are the only contributing factor to the type of a person? The advances in this area are startling. So, can it not be agreed that in the future people will be manipulated from mere cells to be a certain type?

    Doesn’t every one want the perfect XSXj child? Is it possible through manipulation of genetics to create a whole new breed of human being with all of the “desirable” functions sky rocketed and all of the “undesirables” nearly done away with?

    I wonder how long it will take people to understand that flaws are not flaws.

  2. #2
    Creepy-

    Default Re: Genetics and their relation to psychological type

    Quote Originally Posted by Sycophant
    I wonder how long it will take people to understand that flaws are not flaws.
    This is a very sad thing... Is there any chance the means to do this can be kept from those people too small-minded to realise the consequences (i.e. everybody)?

    Aside from any ethical reasoning, the survival of a species depends a lot on diversity... like if we all had the same immunity - along comes a new bug and bye-bye human race! With psychological type the consequences might be more obscure but it's no less serious.

    *sigh*

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    i forgot
    Posts
    558
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Perfect balance = perfectly average.
    Flaws = existence of above average ability.

    Everyone wants to be perfect. They seem to have differing ideas as to what that is, however.

    Society is pulled towards one definition (by means of attention lovers, insecure "fluff talkers," the mass-marketing empires looking to guarantee their longivity, and people who are enviably successful) of perfection, and some people adopt that, though it may not be their idea.

    It seems irrelevant, though.. because apparently perfection is measured by gaining and maintaining attention, "fluff words," mass-marketing, and success.

    The measure of it all. Ha!

    But, in a way, its like listening to what women say they want: Don't. Why? Because they rarely know.

    Perfection = envied.
    Success = envied.
    Intelligence = envied.
    People skills = envied.

    If people envy you, then you are doing "well."

    If you accomplish something, and feel accomplished, then you have arrived.

    It seems to all be contrived.

    Essentially, people don't know what they think. If they once did, then "society," and failure has polluted their opinion.

    Flaws become perfection at the point of success.

    ha!

    Fat women today are seen as not "ideal." Everyone's conscious about it. Let one big woman steal hearts, catch the eye of a promoter, and have the effect trickled to the ears of those who speak. Now, everyone needs to big, and if you aren't big, then you have failed.

    Misconception. Failure to identify.

    Ok, ok.. I agree on this one.
    thing.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Then humanity would fail. A macro "providence" exists due to the type distributions throughout the human population. Messing with it is probably a bad thing.

    Although I can't help but think that the types... no, no it would be doom. Absolute death. No hope. Can't let that happen.

  5. #5
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default Re: Genetics and their relation to psychological type

    Quote Originally Posted by Sycophant
    Has it not been pretty much been agreed that genetics are the only contributing factor to the type of a person? The advances in this area are startling. So, can it not be agreed that in the future people will be manipulated from mere cells to be a certain type?

    Doesn’t every one want the perfect XSXj child? Is it possible through manipulation of genetics to create a whole new breed of human being with all of the “desirable” functions sky rocketed and all of the “undesirables” nearly done away with?

    I wonder how long it will take people to understand that flaws are not flaws.
    Monozygotal twins in exact conditions have 0-100% exact behaviors and traits. Nature, like us (cause we are nature as well!), is just as fluid as it is static.

    But given that it would be 100% for the sake of arguement, I say screw designer genetics. There are more negative outcomes that positive outcomes in this line of thought.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Doesn’t every one want the perfect XSXj child? Is it possible through manipulation of genetics to create a whole new breed of human being with all of the “desirable” functions sky rocketed and all of the “undesirables” nearly done away with?"

    I don't think there would be any "undesirables" though. Imagine a Brave New World mentality: "All men are physico-chemically equal."

  7. #7
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One thing is for sure: Diversity is life. Uniformity is death

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm actually inclined to believe that types emerged just because it was beneficial for a community to have a diversity when it came to perception and decision-making...

    For most of our evolutionary history, we have lived in small groups, and children were educated jointly, i.e. environmental factors were nearly identical for all. Thus, genetical differences in information metabolism were required in order to generate diversity.

    I think it was very useful to have different personalities in the small hunter-gatherer group, e.g.:
    "Hey, let's see what happens if we do like this instead!"
    "Stop fooling around and get to work, damn it..."
    "I wonder what's behind that mountain!"
    "It might be dangerous, we better prepare our expedition well."
    "We might be able to do this better if we collaborate with the Muddy Valley tribe."
    "We've better be careful, though, I don't trust them..."

    And so on...

    However, benefits from personality have to be measured in both individual and societal terms. The group as a whole might have benefited from diverisity, but some types should have been more suited to gain a wide offspring, i.e. getting the chicks...

    I'm also inclined to thik that benefits from diversity were shared more equally in the small hunter-gatherer community than they would be today, so I don't know where that leaves us....

    EDIT: dang, I spelled inclined with an e twice... can't leave that for posteriority

  9. #9
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edanius
    I'm also inclined to thik that benefits from diversity were shared more equally in the small hunter-gatherer community than they would be today, so I don't know where that leaves us....
    The benefits of diversity are far more important for the species than for any individual. Individuals are relatively unimportant in the scheme of things.

  10. #10
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,750
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Genetics and their relation to psychological type

    6w5 sx
    model Φ: -+0
    sloan - rcuei

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think society is ashamed of its SF and proud of its NT atm. SFs are allowed to look good and sing well but we must make fun of them to be socially acceptable.
    Probably also prouder of its E than its I as well.
    Anyway, I think flaws are beautiful. Humanity is beautiful. Well, I kind of oscillate between thinking that and thinking that it all sucks.

  12. #12
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Genetics and their relation to psychological type

    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    Quote Originally Posted by Sycophant
    Doesn’t every one want the perfect XSXj child?

    i admit, i actually want a bunch of little intps. ):
    <3
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  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 Louise
    I think society is ashamed of its SF and proud of its NT atm. SFs are allowed to look good and sing well but we must make fun of them to be socially acceptable.
    Interesting, can it be a "greener grass" thing? I don't think XNTxs tend to see society as ashamed of XSFxs, nor proud of XNTxs. I think the feeling most XNTxs get is that society expects them to behave more like XSFxs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Louise
    Anyway, I think flaws are beautiful. Humanity is beautiful. Well, I kind of oscillate between thinking that and thinking that it all sucks.
    Very ISFj, Louise :wink:
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    oh, society is proud of its NTs, all right. they just don't want to have to associate with them personally, that's all. :wink:

    NTs are fine for telling people of our collective achievements as a society, how smart we are as a society, how many ideas we have, etc. but after the displaying exercise, society is uncomfortable with NTs and their ideas.

  15. #15

    Default

    "Oh wow, that great... I'm glad I have a microwave now go away you are strange."

  16. #16
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why the type distribution is what it is btw? Are types inherited from parents and how strong the "inheritance" is? I don't know anyone whose child is the same type as they are but N people tend to get more N kids than S people do I think (or?). Does the type distribution stay fairly constant in time in a certain cultural environment? How about very different cultures or if the cultural environment suddenly changes?

    So as a summary:
    Why type distribution is what it is?
    How constant is the type distribution in relation to time and to culture?

  17. #17
    Creepy-

    Default

    Heredity is a little more complex than "you get what your parents have". That would work for monogenic dominant/recessive traits.

    Type is more than likely polygenic and might not be overall dominant or recessive. And what if there are also multiple alleles? Co-dominance? Incomplete dominance? Mutation? All the random things that happen to chromosomes during meiosis? Not to mention the idea that there are multiple genes interacting...... psychological type might be genetic but probably not very predictable.

    In the spirit of the original post, this is fortunate.

    As for distribution, it's likely to be as random as any other trait. Sexual selection is probably the most influential environmental factor.

  18. #18
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    I don't know anyone whose child is the same type as they are but N people tend to get more N kids than S people do I think (or?).
    Do you know that for sure? It might be true, that's why I'm asking. It could be similar with the eye colour, for example. I've read somewhere that people with a dark eye color or hair can have children with blonde hair or light- eye color, but not the inverse (blonde people cannot have children with dark hair or eyes, because the pygment is too wonky. This is true in my family. My father has green eyes, but neither of the children has green eyes. And if it happens it means that the children inherited the traits from the ancestors, not from the parents (it's the recessive traits that are not visible with every generation, only randomly).

    Making an analogy, I'm inclined to believe S people would have the chances that their children would be S or N, while N people will have only N children. Does this sound plausible to you?

  19. #19
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [quote="gugu_ baba"]
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Making an analogy, I'm inclined to believe S people would have the chances that their children would be S or N, while N people will have only N children. Does this sound plausible to you?
    This would imply that the percentage of Ns is bound to rise over time.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  20. #20
    Creepy-

    Default

    [quote="FDG"]
    Quote Originally Posted by gugu_ baba
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Making an analogy, I'm inclined to believe S people would have the chances that their children would be S or N, while N people will have only N children. Does this sound plausible to you?
    This would imply that the percentage of Ns is bound to rise over time.
    Only if N's stop having children with S's.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    270
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    edit

  22. #22
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ILENTp
    Why do you think N is dominant?
    I think he was actually implying that N is recessive. If N parents will only have N children, but S parents can have both S and N children, S is dominant over N (and the S parents with N children would be heterozygous for the perceptive trait). But that's really oversimplified...

  23. #23
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [quote="ishysquishy"]
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by gugu_ baba
    Quote Originally Posted by XoX
    Making an analogy, I'm inclined to believe S people would have the chances that their children would be S or N, while N people will have only N children. Does this sound plausible to you?
    This would imply that the percentage of Ns is bound to rise over time.
    Only if N's stop having children with S's.
    Not really:

    Let N people have high chances of having N childs

    Let S people having equal chances of having S or N childs

    There follows that N+N have very high chances of having N children, whereas S+S have equal chances of having S or N.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  24. #24
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ishysquishy
    Quote Originally Posted by ILENTp
    Why do you think N is dominant?
    I think he was actually implying that N is recessive. If N parents will only have N children, but S parents can have both S and N children, S is dominant over N (and the S parents with N children would be heterozygous for the perceptive trait). But that's really oversimplified...

    Oh wait, this adds another layer
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  25. #25
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by ishysquishy
    Quote Originally Posted by ILENTp
    Why do you think N is dominant?
    I think he was actually implying that N is recessive. If N parents will only have N children, but S parents can have both S and N children, S is dominant over N (and the S parents with N children would be heterozygous for the perceptive trait). But that's really oversimplified...

    Oh wait, this adds another layer
    Ja. If N is recessive for perception (and there are only two alleles, the other being S), N types must be homozygous. S types can be heterozygous or homozygous.

    P = S
    p = N

    parents --> children

    pp(N) + pp(N) --> pp(N), pp(N), pp(N), pp(N) ... 100% chance of N children

    Pp(S) + pp(N) --> Pp(S), Pp(S), pp(N), pp(N) ... 50% chance of N or S children

    PP(S) + pp(N) --> Pp(S), Pp(S), Pp(S), Pp(S) ... 100% chance of S children

    Pp(S) + Pp(S) --> PP(S), Pp(S), Pp(S), pp(N) ... 75% chance of S children, 25% chance of N children

    PP(S) + Pp(S) --> PP(S), Pp(S), PP(S), Pp(S) ... 100% chance of S children

    PP(S) + PP(S) --> PP(S), PP(S), PP(S), PP(S) ... 100% chance of S children

    If this was the case in real life, the probabilities would probably be somewhat reflected, but inheritance is random so it won't be exact. After all, there is a 50% chance of being male or female but sex isn't distributed 50/50.

  26. #26
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Not really:

    Let N people have high chances of having N childs

    Let S people having equal chances of having S or N childs

    There follows that N+N have very high chances of having N children, whereas S+S have equal chances of having S or N.
    and S+N would have greater than average chance to have N children, is it true?

    So how can it be explained that - supposedely - there are more S people than N people?

  27. #27
    Creepy-

    Default

    Look at the post above you, gugu_baba

  28. #28
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gugu_ baba
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Not really:

    Let N people have high chances of having N childs

    Let S people having equal chances of having S or N childs

    There follows that N+N have very high chances of having N children, whereas S+S have equal chances of having S or N.
    and S+N would have greater than average chance to have N children, is it true?

    So how can it be explained that - supposedely - there are more S people than N people?
    You have to assume that N is recessive. Your postulate, that is, the possibility that S+S has a split probabilirty in regard to S or N of their children contradicts genetics.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  29. #29
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ishysquishy
    Look at the post above you, gugu_baba
    yes, i see now, damn you were fast

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    umm, both my parents are Ns, and they had two S kids. Sorry.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  31. #31
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    you are one of those exceptions, then, in that category of small percentage, the miracle of life etc

  32. #32
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    umm, both my parents are Ns, and they had two S kids. Sorry.
    As I said, I'm sure it's polygenic and that it's not overall dominant or recessive.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sycophant
    "Oh wow, that great... I'm glad I have a microwave now go away you are strange."
    fuck you

  34. #34
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Louise
    Quote Originally Posted by Sycophant
    "Oh wow, that great... I'm glad I have a microwave now go away you are strange."
    fuck you
    ... I thought Sycophant was responding to Kirana?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirana
    oh, society is proud of its NTs, all right. they just don't want to have to associate with them personally, that's all. :wink:

    NTs are fine for telling people of our collective achievements as a society, how smart we are as a society, how many ideas we have, etc. but after the displaying exercise, society is uncomfortable with NTs and their ideas.
    followed immediately by

    Quote Originally Posted by Sycophant
    "Oh wow, that great... I'm glad I have a microwave now go away you are strange."

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ishysquishy
    Quote Originally Posted by Louise
    Quote Originally Posted by Sycophant
    "Oh wow, that great... I'm glad I have a microwave now go away you are strange."
    fuck you
    ... I thought Sycophant was responding to Kirana?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirana
    oh, society is proud of its NTs, all right. they just don't want to have to associate with them personally, that's all. :wink:

    NTs are fine for telling people of our collective achievements as a society, how smart we are as a society, how many ideas we have, etc. but after the displaying exercise, society is uncomfortable with NTs and their ideas.
    followed immediately by

    Quote Originally Posted by Sycophant
    "Oh wow, that great... I'm glad I have a microwave now go away you are strange."
    oh well i dont konw
    i thought she was commenting that she found my ideas useless and out of place (i'm glad i have a microwave now)

  36. #36
    XoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,407
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Louise
    Quote Originally Posted by ishysquishy
    ... I thought Sycophant was responding to Kirana?
    oh well i dont konw
    i thought she was commenting that she found my ideas useless and out of place (i'm glad i have a microwave now)
    Hehe People seem to interpret things very differently. ISFj sees social expectations from SF perspective and INTp from NT perspective. Both seem to agree society expects them to be somewhat different than they really are (paradox?). Maybe society doesn't do this after all. Maybe people just create these expectations in their minds?

    And I didn't see Sycophant trying to imply you are wrong, more like expressing/summarizing how the world looks like from NT point of view. Your ideas are just as valid and not useless at all. You both contribute to this discussion.

  37. #37

    Default

    Louise, I'm sorry. That was in respnce to the "We appreciate NTs but we don’t want to communicate with them” thing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  38. #38
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd figure that genetics and pre-natal hormonal influences are both factors in type, but I'd also take into account one's formative years and the behavioral and nutritional factors that accompany it, though I'd place a latter on the former set of influences, with the former of the former set being the prime determinant.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry, Sycophant. Thanks for your apology, even though there was no need for you to apologise.

Posting Permissions

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