The (16+x) types

[1981slater]

Perhaps what I am going to write has been discussed before. I dunno

I know very little about ants, but I think that there are basically three types of ants: Queen, Warrior and Worker. They have different sizes, mentalities, bodies, traits, etc

At the same time, I believe that sensors have stronger, more muscular bodies whereas intuitors have quicker brains, able to handle abstract data, etc, etc

Perhaps some kind of specialization exists in the human species, as it exists within the Ants. Do you agree?

So, provided that this specialization is real. Do you think our ancestors (homo erectus and such) could be classified into 16 types? There was lots of types but only 16 have survived to evolution? --> If some type becomes useless, will it become extint? On the contrary, has the 16 types system been there, unchanged, since the birth of our species?

As necessity arises, can we expect the "birth" of new types?

Does nature promote the birth of certain types (SLE?) in extreme environments whereas it allows lots of N types to thrive in mild environments?

Will Batman escape?

[Gilly]

More gay people are born in times of war/high social stress.

[DividedsGhost]

The thought crossed my mind once that maybe all Jung did was define types of intelligence by showing how one species is differentiated in experience from another species.

So basically any species that expects to be of higher intelligence than man has to at least be capable of these 8 modes of experience. I'm not sure I would say man has ever transcended the 8, historically speaking.

[Gilly]

Types of intelligence, ehhh, it's much more basic than that IMO but I see what you are saying.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Only the human mind categorizes things as 'useless' or not. In nature, everything is possible...that is why nature is so diverse and weird. And colorful. And brutally challenging and competitive... because everything needs to have a weakness, a predator: so that everything else can exist.

So only humans can rise above nature. And socially...only we could ever band together and say a certain group of people is 'useless' or not, like when we nearly wiped out all of the native americans. My intention of this post isn't to get you to cry over them or feel guilty, but just showing you that the natural world wouldn't ever view a type as useless or not.

But the subjective and overly emotional nature of humans might for example say, an INFp is useless in times of high war (which is actually backwards since the INFp would help calm everybody down and mediate them) and an ENTj is useless in a hippie, non-capitalist era. (which is also backwards because the ENTj would help motivate people to get over their feelings?) But logic and rational and compassion go out the window when some asshole wants to build a Wal-Mart. We all know that right? xD

What is interesting about people to me, is everybody mocks the hippie thing now, but back then it's what we believed in so strongly and it wasn't questioned. Nowadays of course, it's much more socially respectable to have a job, and you're the 'loser' if it's the other way around. I don't think what you're talking about is so much 'natural' in origin has it has to do with human culture and the subjective biases people have in their communities.

And so I guess the bad side is if types were somehow determined and there was a test for the truth of this shit, then yeah- you would have to worry about certain assholes trying to totally exterminate certain types. But it wouldn't be evolution or something based on a 'natural' process. It would be nasty, disgusting, raw human hatred and greed. The very natural thing about nature is that it lets everything exist, by giving all life things that it hunts and things that hunt it. Nature makes us compete and get stronger but that's entirely different then insecure individuals wanting to totally wipe out certain types of people because they don't want that type to be in powerful positions of society.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Example:

20s: Gays are cool
30s: Gays suck
40s: Gays still suck... I think?
50s: Gays really suck
60s: There are gay people? Wtf?
70s: Gays are cool
80s: Gays are really cool...but no they have AIDS so they suck. MAKE FUN OF THEM AGAIN SOCIOPATHICALLY.

90s: Gays are REALLY cool. XENA WARRIOR PRINCESS AND BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. Gays have never been cooler, and run most of the world after being victims. People are tho thilly!

early 2000s: Bush era. Ew, ew, ew. Gays are icky again. Stupid fag stop trying to entertain us and FIGHT IN A WAR FOR OIL LIKE A STRAIGHT MAN.

mid 2000s: Gays are bullied so much a lot of them commit suicide and don't want to go to school. The it gets better campaign starts to try and save the brutalized homosexual.

nowadays: gays are cool again. We have Glee! Hilary Duff says hi!

[Absurd]

[Gilly]

Perhaps what I am going to write has been discussed before. I dunno

I know very little about ants, but I think that there are basically three types of ants: Queen, Warrior and Worker. They have different sizes, mentalities, bodies, traits, etc

At the same time, I believe that sensors have stronger, more muscular bodies whereas intuitors have quicker brains, able to handle abstract data, etc, etc

Perhaps some kind of specialization exists in the human species, as it exists within the Ants. Do you agree?

So, provided that this specialization is real. Do you think our ancestors (homo erectus and such) could be classified into 16 types? There was lots of types but only 16 have survived to evolution? --> If some type becomes useless, will it become extint? On the contrary, has the 16 types system been there, unchanged, since the birth of our species?

As necessity arises, can we expect the "birth" of new types?

Does nature promote the birth of certain types (SLE?) in extreme environments whereas it allows lots of N types to thrive in mild environments?

Will Batman escape?

I don't believe its consistent that either intuitives have more "nimble" brains nor that sensors are more agile/well-muscled.

[redbaron]

Will Batman escape?

of course!

[The Ineffable]

Perhaps some kind of specialization exists in the human species, as it exists within the Ants. Do you agree?

It will be loosely related to your topic, but I'd mention that IMO these types of cognition form a finite set. At least for humans. This would differentiate a bit this kind of specialization in psychotypes, than say the specialization of ants, that could vary indefinitely.

[Leader]

Okay I was writing my reply but...

At the same time, I believe that sensors have stronger, more muscular bodies whereas intuitors have quicker brains, able to handle abstract data, etc, etc

Nope. Thread down the drain.

[Ave]

haha