The Types of Children
For those who believe that type is inborn, not subject to change due to environmental influence...
Would it be easier to identify a child's type as opposed to an adult's? I would think as, as a kid, one would display a more 'natural', uninhibited self to the world since he does not know anything else that might 'cloud' his mind (social graces, etc).
I'm curious.
There are observable traits from when they are as little as being able to pick up favorite objects; I was always drawn to pencils and pens, my ISTp brother to little toy cars; my ISFp niece to flowers. ESFp kids to asking a bazillion questions. There are observable traits in the way they organize their toys, etc. Introverts are easy to tell apart in kids; they look like adult introverts but more so introverted when they are younger (that absent, inside their head and slow movement looks).
It would be harder to type kids Visually, because their skull is still shaping and visually, I think about age 18 and up is the easiest to tell; But think of their brain as a concrete hard ware and they are still looking to fill the pages from external data, so that they can tell you what they are like (process of differentiation).
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I've read that children of a dual couple become the same types as their parents. Which is positive for their learning because they then have identicals as parents.
No it's easier to tell a personality type when they mature, even though they're the same type when born.
Where have you read this? I don't think it's true.Originally Posted by Jarno
One couple I know:
LIE+ESI
children: IEE, LSI
Yup they do; every single dual pair that I've observed has had this trend thus far. This is why I may be so idealistic about duality; I'd like another one of my cousin as my own child, with some unique personality differences of their own.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 07-29-2010 at 03:12 PM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
And I suppose that means you've figured out what exactly makes a type in one's childhood? Because if you say for certain that the children of 2 duals are one of their types, you must know how exactly types are made. Please, share your knowledge with us so that we may understand. And leave out the morphology; various physical characteristics can be obtained and inherited by chance or at random, so physical characteristics are no certainty.
That goes for anyone who thinks type is inherited from 2 duals; again, genetics makes no difference because traits are inherited at random and mutations can occur.
Anyway...
LIE+ESI
produced one EIE and ILI
LSI+EIE
produced one LSI
SLI+IEE
produced one SEI
That's all I've got for you. Their types were determined by a group of us, so none of them were typed by any one person.
Also, is it possible that if type is obtained through environmental influence then your parents are the greatest influence? In this way a child who is most educated and sheltered by his parents may come out as one of their types or at the least in the same quadra. If only we could take a poll of children who were home schooled...
If a person has a slouchy neck and big head, their child will too. This is obviously because of Socionics. Not sure what's so difficult to understand.
Source: Aushra Augusta - The dual nature of man
I don't know about easier, but it's definitely possible. I know an ESE kid and an SxE kid, and others I haven't been able to type but who have clear differences in personality, even before they can talk.
Children are just like tiny little people, it's weird.
Quaero Veritas.
Removed at User Request
Simple way of knowing. If it's two white mates, and the child is born black, it's not the duality.
40% or our personality seems to be genetic I just read in an article on DNA, so I can see some dual couples producing offspring with their own types being MORE LIKELY than a person having non-dual parents being one of those two same types.
ah oke. thanks.
What if the child is Chinese?
Well, this thread took a strange turn.
Speak for yourself, I am offended by your disrespect of Chinese people and I demand that you perform the ritual suicide for your disgraceful action as long as we may have gay sex first.
If at all possible, I'd prefer the order of events reversed.
It can be a little difficult when the children are young. But sometimes it's fairly easy to see the introverted types responding differently than the extroverted types..but not all are so obvious. Also, as children, initially there is a lot of S and F being shown.
For my daughter, her social extroversion and use of emotions was obvious. She enjoyed sitting on the top of my car and waving and saying hi to people, as well as walking up to strangers and start babbling at them. She'd also go into the restroom, shut the door, and practice all sorts of emotions in front of the mirror, like it was a game. And then she'd try to use some of them to get her way, lol.
Initially I was confused about her being more J vs P (not socionics I know). She seemed more P, but there was that rule orientation that kept throwing me for a loop. Socionics' Se+Te HA helped me understand that one.
Over time it became more obvious that she was Se base + Fi creative, and all that entails (Ti polr, Te HA). Our conflicts finally started making sense to me, as did where we could get along, helping to smooth our relationship a little better.
I would say that she was maybe 8ish before my brother and i were convinced she was esfp.
I haven't typed her friends. I don't get to know them as well. But I know that the one's who've stuck through her emotionally volatile times were primarily introverts. One Ni, possibly infp, another possibly ifxj, and currently another girl who I think might be TeJ (the only extrovert who's stuck by her).
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Rule orientation? Could you clarify?
In PM...Rule orientation? Could you clarify?
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
1. I don't know how accurate your typings are.
2. I only really trust my own typing.
3. If type is morphological then no amount of schooling can change that hard wired genotype.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
1. Funny, because most of them aren't even my typing.
2. Yeah, but you use morphology ->>
3. If type is morphological (or based on genes) then to use this method type is unreliable and uncertain because the passing of physical traits from parent to offspring isn't 100%; genetics is a complicated field with many different outcomes taken from many different possibilities and cannot predict possible mutations, which occur fairly frequently as well as the various methods life has to mix things up a bit to encourage diversity. Unless you can somehow prove to me that your morphological traits are 100% passed down from parent to offspring based on certain 'type' pairing, I am inclined to accuse you of using unreliable methods.
If you can't provide this reasoning, I would be disappointed in an Ne creative, who should be well aware of the all the different outcomes genes can become
If you can link me the article I would be grateful. However, if it doesn't provide research, I wouldn't know if they are in the same boat as morphology woman here, so...
If I showed you the two genetically inherited traits that make up rational and irrational types, I think you would find that I have looked at all the Ne possibilities.1. Funny, because most of them aren't even my typing.
2. Yeah, but you use morphology ->>
3. If type is morphological (or based on genes) then to use this method type is unreliable and uncertain because the passing of physical traits from parent to offspring isn't 100%; genetics is a complicated field with many different outcomes taken from many different possibilities and cannot predict possible mutations, which occur fairly frequently as well as the various methods life has to mix things up a bit to encourage diversity. Unless you can somehow prove to me that your morphological traits are 100% passed down from parent to offspring based on certain 'type' pairing, I am inclined to accuse you of using unreliable methods.
If you can't provide this reasoning, I would be disappointed in an Ne creative, who should be well aware of the all the different outcomes genes can become
If you can link me the article I would be grateful. However, if it doesn't provide research, I wouldn't know if they are in the same boat as morphology woman here, so...
And please don't use dynamic objects mixed with static things in discussion with me; I can't focus well. It gives me nausea and vertigo.
You are ESFx type; guessing ESFp.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 07-30-2010 at 03:07 AM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
...Waiting...
You'll have to wait a few days; I'm working on another project; I will put it in my PLANS, however; and for your information, Ne types PLAN....
I'm guessing you are ESFp type because you are demanding and expecting in an Se way; my duals are Te, they are and don't act as immediately as Se types do. Hence, your request is stressing me out.
I hope that NOW you understand how Se polr works, because you just kit it across the head.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Well jeez, if you actually provided that proof, the entire forum would back you because it would be so convincing. I dunno why you've withheld it for so long.
And no, asking for proof isn't Se; it's just Se to you because you can't provide it, and if you did it would probably not be convincing.
inconsistency
I did not say it was 100% genetically inherited
look back at my posts and copy and paste where I actually said that.
Now you're trying to manipulate the public to gain credibility and strength over me. YOU WIN, because I can't win with competing with Se types.
You do not value Ti and consistency.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Keep in mind the public doesn't give a shit whether you and I destroy this topic with pathetic banter. Well, maybe OP does, but it was already on its way off course, so if I may add more weight to the sinking ship...
You said;
You personally believe that this is the case; a dual pair will pass down their 'type' genetically which will morphologically show itself. If you did not believe this, you would not use morphology nor would you claim that dual pairs pass their types to their children.
And when I said you can't provide it, I was making an assumption; I haven't won at all and am on my way to losing this penile inspection contest if you destroy these caustic accusations by providing indisputable proof of your theory, which hitherto has been kept in the dark for your entire stay at this forum. That's just a little suspicious...
That's why I wrote that it was a clear OBSERVATION. Not a matter of proven data.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Are you talking about morphology here or duality's offspring?
Only in dual pairs, from all of the ones that I have observed, so, if I did a statistical analysis from my immediate observation, every single one of the offsprings were either of the dual pair's type, morphologically. Other pairings produced kids of any 16 type spectrum, even identicals.
I'm still trying to put together studies for my many observations. I took a long break from school.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
@ Skeptic
You slowed down for me...interesting.
I remove Se from your ego block based on your second choice of actions. Still devalued Ti.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Removed at User Request
There are lots of dual couples in my family, and in this case this rule works only with some gamma couples. In my opinion, some functions are inherited and if a couple has several kids, one of them will surely be the identical of his/her father/mother.
There r families in which 90% of its members are Se egos, or Si egos or whatever.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
yeah I think there's some genetic thing that goes on for sure. My grandpa, my dad, my brother and my son are all very close in type. Two of them SEI-Fe and two of them IEI-Fe. (plus the SEIs might actually be IEIs)
And I believe very strongly that you're born with a type. That's not to say that environment doesn't affect it, only that the type itself is there from the beginning. It seems so obvious to me, having had three kids and looking back on my own childhood, etc.
Typing kids can be tricky at times because they're changing and learning so fast. Here's something funny: my brother in law is ISXj and he married ESFp. They had one boy and one girl. The boy is ISXj and the girl is ESFp. The kids are like mirror images of each of them. Makes me laugh.
My grandparents were duals. ESE and LII. They had five kids: ILE, IEE, EIE, EII and LII. Of those five kids, the first four married. Of those four marriages, two of them were duality, one was semi-duality and the other, supervisory (my EIE aunt married an alpha). Of the two dual marriages, one of them (ILE-SEI) couldn't have biological kids so they adopted. The other one (LSE-EII) ended up with a girl IEE and a boy XXX. The boy married but never had kids. The girl IEE, ended up marrying her dual, SLI and they're incredibly happy together, I might add. I do think that having her own parents as duals growing up probably helped her to know what sort of relationship she was looking for. Anyway, they have three kids now. XEI, XXX and IEE, with the last one exactly like her mother.
I don't buy into the "duals will have kids of the same type" theory. But this is a pretty interesting topic.
Oh, I also think it's interesting to note that in my family of origin there is an absolute lack of any Se-ego types anywhere. We're FULL of intuitive feelers with a smattering of Si here and there.
Nah, carry on.
As duals, your grandparents definitely set good examples for their kids. Rather, instead of "duals will have kids of the same type", I believe that duals create a better atmosphere for their children, something they will attempt to recreate as they get older. Hence, I think that children of dual-couples have a better chance of finding a dual (not that duality is the be all and end all of relationships).
I find it interesting how your family members are so similar in type. That would certainly reinforce the opinion that type is genetic, or at least partly genetic. I'm not so sure about that, though, especially in the context of my own family. I typed my parents INTp/ISTj, and almost all of my siblings are delta, in my experience... ESTj, INFj, ENTp, ENFp.
Translation: "If your typings supported my hypothesis, then I would have completely trusted your typings with gusto and enthusiasm. Therefore, I am conveniently discounting your counter evidence so I can maintain my spurious hypothesis. "
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
