Is there a possible relation between the body types(ectomorphs, endomorphs and mesomorphs) and sociotypes?
I have noticed that most EIIs are ectomorphs, and most Extroverted sensing dominants are at endomorphs or mesomorphs.
Correlation between sociotypes and body types
Is there a possible relation between the body types(ectomorphs, endomorphs and mesomorphs) and sociotypes?
I have noticed that most EIIs are ectomorphs, and most Extroverted sensing dominants are at endomorphs or mesomorphs.
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Somatotype is a taxonomy developed in the 1940s, by American psychologist William Herbert Sheldon, to categorize the human physique according to the relative contribution of three fundamental elements, somatotypes, named after the three germ layers of embryonic development: the endoderm, (develops into the digestive tract), the mesoderm, (becomes muscle, heart and blood vessels) and the ectoderm (forms the skin and nervous system).[1] His initial visual methodology has been discounted as subjective, but later formulaic variations of the methodology, developed by his original research assistant Barbara Heath, and later Lindsay Carter and Rob Rempel are still in academic use.[2][3][4]
Constitutional psychology is a now neglected theory, also developed by Sheldon in the 1940s, which attempted to associate his somatotype classifications with human temperament types.[5][6] The foundation of these ideas originated with Francis Galton and eugenics.[2] Sheldon and Earnest Hooton were seen as leaders of a school of thought, popular in anthropology at the time, which held that the size and shape of a person's body indicated intelligence, moral worth and future achievement.[2]
In his 1954 book, Atlas of Men, Sheldon categorised all possible body types according to a scale ranging from 1 to 7 for each of the three "somatotypes", where the pure "endomorph" is 7–1–1, the pure "mesomorph" 1–7–1 and the pure "ectomorph" scores 1–1–7.[7][8] From type number, an individual's mental characteristics could supposedly be predicted.[7] Barbara Honeyman Heath, who was Sheldon's main assistant in compiling Atlas of Men, accused him of falsifying the data he used in writing the book.[2]Criticism
Sheldon's ideas that body type was an indicator of temperament, moral character or potential—while popular in an atmosphere accepting of the theories of eugenics—were soon widely vilified.[2][11]
The principal criticism of Sheldon's constitutional theory was that it was not a theory at all but one general assumption, continuity between structure and behavior, and a set of descriptive concepts to measure physique and behavior in a scaled manner.[3]
His use of thousands of photographs of naked Ivy League undergraduates, obtained without explicit consent, from a pre-existing program evaluating student posture, has been described as scandalous, and perverted ("the study of nude people by lewd people").[2][12]
His original visual assessment methodology, based on the photographs, has also been criticised as subjective.[2][3][4]
His original thesis has also been described as fraudulent for knowingly failing to acknowledge/account for body shape changing with age.[2]
His suggestion of a genetic link to both body shape and personality traits has also been described as objectional.[4]
Sheldon's work has also been criticised as being heavily burdened by his own stereotypical and discriminatory views.[2][5]
Sheldon's theories enjoyed a vogue through the 1950s.[12] Some modern scientists dismiss his claims using insults such as "outdated" or "quackery".[3][4][5][13][14][15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somato...nal_psychology
And these articles:
So what?
Psychological profiling based on anatomical features is generally not considered to be reliable these days. Nevertheless, such patterns do have some level of interest, and old theories are often ingrained in society, as well as being based on some form of observation.
The best approach is to use this as a test. When you meet a person who seems to fit in with the physical characteristics above, be curious to see if they also fit into the psychological profile. If it all works as predicted, then well and good (it may be that they are actually in a self-fulfilling prophesy, where they fit themselves to the appropriate model). Otherwise, look elsewhere for ways to understand the person.
Sheldon's original work included attempts to characterize criminals (in the style of Lombroso's original work in this area). Unsurprisingly, he found that a number were muscular mesomorphs, as violent crimes are likely to be carried out by strong men. The trap beyond this is to assume that all mesomorphs are criminal in nature. This is not unlike the work that 'proved' women to be less intelligent than men because they have smaller brains!
http://changingminds.org/explanation...ersonality.htm
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-1117...Beginners.html
http://personalityjunkie.com/02/face...e-personality/
So many other theories about this but I chose some of the better known.
I think there is a huge gray area in this so you have to decide for yourself. Does some of it conflict? Does some of it not match your personal experience? Does some of it just ring false? I think you should probably think twice before typing someone based on looks. I think you can notice patterns but there is nothing absolute in any of it. Probably as many overweight intuitive types as there are thin. I probably would not take anyone too serious who took it all too serious but it is fun to think about sometimes.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
According to his theory, I would assign Endomorphs to High Fe, Ectomorphs to high introvertedness(mostly intuitive) and mesomorphs to High Se. It's quite accurate according to actual observations I've made.
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
Body types are entirely to do with Genetic background.
Me and my dad share a super endomorph body type. (Bigger calves than everyone, never worked them out, put on muscle mass and fat super easy, muscle developed deteriorates much slower, wide birth giving hips and comically broad shoulders). Personality wise we're very far apart. LSI-Se, Sx/Sp 371 & IEI-Ni, So/Sx 629
If I have a son he will most likely Inherit the same body type from me, guessing his future personality type from those genes I think is a little far fetched.
For example, most African/African American Men are either EctoMorph or a mix between Ecto and Meso, but rarely ever endomorph. High surface area (skin) cools the body, and so it developed into predominance in the hotter regions of the world. India, Middle East, equatorial Africa, all areas where stocky people are rare. And inversely, colder areas, Russia, Mongolia, North/Eastern Europe, are all areas where Stocky people are common, because low surface area retains heat.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I am an endo/meso combo. I am highly stocky and short at 5'0 tall. I gain weight quick but I lose it just as fast and gain a lot of muscle in a short amount of time. I am LSI. My SLE brother is the same combo as me. My EIE brother is a true ectomorph who worked really hard to gain some weight and picked up boxing. My EII sister is an ecto/endo, tho her weight gain never happened until she became a bloger/researcher and spent more time sitting down, I'm not sure which type she is, she is similar to my EII mom. My LSE dad is the same type as me and my SLE brother.
LSI-Se 836 Sp/Sx
I believe there's a relationship between sociotypes and body types, but it's a bit more subtle than what you're proposing (though what you've said so far is a good start!). For example, for EIIs, I think there was a thread a while back on how EII-Fi are usually skinny (ectomorph) while EII-Ne can be on the muscular or chubby side (meso/endomorph).
Another trend I've noticed is that LII sp/sx are very skinny. I can think of 5 LII sp/sx off the top of my head, 4 male and 1 female, and all are skinny. The males are also quite tall despite being so skinny, so they are very lanky.
No other trends stick out to me, though perhaps I just have insufficient data.
How someone takes care of their body can be an indicator of their type (sociotype as well as instincts), in my experience.
On average, the most muscular people are/were a Sensing type (particularly ESxp and ISxj, once in a while Delta ST) who is also either Sx/Sp or So/Sp with a 6 fix and a 3 fix.
They'd enjoy engaging a lot in weight training and developing a certain physical "aesthetic".
The least muscular people are/were an Intuitive type (particularly INxj) who is also either So/Sx or Sx/So with a 5 fix.
But there can be exceptions. Some people are naturally a certain body shape, or they get out of shape. What body type someone is dealt with is mostly genetic. Meaning, if your parent is an Ectomorph, you'll probably be an Ectomorph too; no matter whether you two have got the same sociotype or not. There are Intuitives who are naturally mesomorphic, and Sensors who are naturally ectomorphic. What someone makes out of their shape, however, can give hints about their type. Women in general rather avoid looking too muscular unless they are SX 6w7, in my experience. The most muscular people I've come across were both blessed genetically (or simply took steroids), as well as had the specific type combination I've mentioned above.
People can be quick to equate someone being overweight with them being an endomorph and/or a certain sociotype. Except for hardcore Ectomorphs, everyone can get overweight. Just being overweight doesn't make you a specific type. There are a lot of obese people of all kinds of types in the U.S. Being overweight does not mean you must be a certain type. (Same principle applies to being underweight or not etc.) Having said that, in my experience the people who'd stay overweight for a considerable amount of time were predominately Ethical types with a natural tendency towards being an Endomorph, and who'd "emotionally eat" and hence be overweight.
ISxx people have the highest internal physical awareness generally, and many of them are SP first or second, so it is less common for them to be out of shape on average; but again, it can happen to them as well, especially if they are Type 9 and engage in some kind of "comfort eating" (applies best to some ISxp people) or again "emotional eating" (applies best to ISFx).
If I had to summarize my findings, I'd say...
The most muscular: A (male) mesomorphic Se ego type who is SP second and 3 and 6 fix.
The most skinny: An ectomorphic INxj who is SP last or first and 5 fix, or an ectomorphic ISxx who is SP first.
The most overweight: An endomorphic Ethical Type 9 (core, followed by fix).
Rare. She should get into fighting. Long limbs, natural thickness in areas that create power.Originally Posted by Starfall
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Combination of Endomorph with Ectomorph is actually more common than it may seem.
Examples of Ecto-Endo celebs: Katy Perry, Dita von Teese, Sofia Vergara, Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson
Examples of Endo-Ecto celebs: Kim Kardashian, Christina Hendricks, Nick Offerman, Louis CK, Russell Crowe
That combo usually has more body fat, little to no visible muscle tone, and more delicate looking ankles or limbs.
The women tend to be stereotypically curvy, though not always. Ecto-Endo people are those who are the most prone to being/looking "skinny fat" (if they don't work out well etc).
P.S: As you can probably tell, the examples aren't all the same sociotype or enneagram type, but they do share the same body type.
While I am at it, I can just mention other celebrity examples of all the body type combos.
Ecto-Meso: Justin Bieber, David Beckham, Daisy Ridley, Bruce Lee, Johnny Depp, Sandra Bullock
Meso-Ecto: Ryan Gosling, Michelle Rodriguez, Cameron Diaz, Brad Pitt, Hugh Jackman
Meso-Endo: Marlon Brando, Gina Carano, Gerard Butler, Ronda Rousey, Serena Williams, Chris Pratt
Endo-Meso: Frank Mir, Stefania Ferrario
And here some "pure"/classic Body type examples...
Ecto: Taylor Swift, Tilda Swinton, Conan O'Brien, Obama, Snoop Dogg, Gwyneth Paltrow, Blake Lively
Meso: Jessica Biel, Fabio Lanzoni, Jason Momoa, Chris Evans
Endo: Jack Black, Melissa McCarthy, Rebel Wilson
Genetics and personality are related (not saying something like sociotype, but temperament and "Big 5"-type traits have some degree of heritability AFAIK).
Genetics and body type are certainly related.
So it should follow that .... some overlap is highly plausible, between genetics/personality and corresponding body types.
potential correlations i gleaned from socionics descriptions:
ile - usually slender, female reps tend to resemble attractive boys
sei - rounder frame, chubby or curvy, "soft" in a pleasing way
lii - slender build, even limp at times, potential anesthesia
ese - solidly built, slender or round probably depends on the individual
sle - solidly built, sometimes even athletic, including female reps
iei - slender frame, freakishly flexible (ime)
lsi - undefined, but probably solidly built with agile movements
eie - slender frame, aristocratic vibes which may make them appear "bigger" than they are
see - slender yet strong, with athletic inclinations
ili - the ultimate chameleons, more likely slender than not
esi - similar to lsi
lie - similar to see, sans athleticism
iee - usually slender, but a few descriptions claim they may have trouble with over-eating in young age
sli - solidly built with lazy movements, female reps are somewhat stocky
lse - solidly built, "strong" and in control frame
eii - similar to lii
intuitives seem "skinnier" overall, especially introverted intuitives, but it isn't so much that they're skinnier, as it is that they have less muscle tone? they have a less defined physical presence, so to speak, with se-polrs appearing almost "sickly" in appearance. i wouldn't say this is the be-all, end-all because there are so many other factors to consider (genetics, athletics, personal diets, mental health, etc), but i did once have a theory going that iles are attracted to seis because there's more cushion for the pushin. something about a correlation between comfort and curvy figures.
This is all very accurate and matches up with my experience too
i'm an ecto-endo (small-boned with a large appetite) esi
Last edited by suedehead; 06-24-2017 at 07:00 PM.
I'm meso-endo. I've been starting to like it and been wanting to take advantage of my ability to gain muscle after lamenting not being ecto for most of my life.
http://stateofobesity.org/rates/
I can imagine that Russians may actually be thinner than Americans because we are such a mix of different ethnicities and cultures. Perhaps their observations of people in their culture are easier to correlate with type, or a lot of americans are SEI.Eighty percent of American adults do not meet the government's national physical activity recommendations for aerobic and muscle strengthening. Mississippi had the highest reported percentage of inactivity among adults at 36.8 percent.
Having said that, I am one of those freakishly flexible people but not too freakish. I took gymnastics as a child and I am way more flexible than my EII or ESE sisters, who also took gymnastics. We are all small framed, like my mom who is only 5'2. My ESE sister is taller, 5'5/6. I would say my mom was always pretty agile and much stronger than she looked. She had a physical job that required it. She and my ILI stepdad gained a lot of weight when the younger kids were born but both lost it when they dieted together.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
It depends on genetics and what you choose to do with your body. Any type can be muscular if they diet/exercise in an adapted way.
But overall it's covered by VI (I shared the link), inuitives have leaner/drier muscles compared to sensors, even if they are chubby. The results from dieting/exercising will be different.
I am a hardcore ecto fwiw, very flexible.
Not much of muscle but body frame is probably quite reasonable size.
In terms of strength:
Some expect me much more than I can deliver others just think that I have nothing in reserves (closer to truth). Bit scared of sport weights. Looks like those things more likely damage me for life than do any good. But yeah I can carry things.
I can go whole day without eating and feeling that there is nothing weird going on. One of the problems I face is that people require scheduled eating which (I think) is bad for my body. I'm one of those who is ready to have one meal a day preferably at the end of the day so it does not interrupt things.
What I see online is that categorization usually follows weight. Is it proper way to display endomorphs as fat? How do you distinguish underweight endomorph from underweight ectomorph?
I find that those types are pretty bad. This is an area you can just clearly measure. No need for those. I can not distinguish bodytypes if we give them random mass.
If you go to basics you change someone completely in terms of endurance etc.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 06-24-2017 at 08:32 PM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
The difference isnt in weight, but in frame.Not much of muscle but body frame is probably quite reasonable size.
In terms of strength:
Some expect me much more than I can deliver others just think that I have nothing in reserves (closer to truth
I can go whole day without eating and feeling that there is nothing weird going on. One of the problems I face is that people require scheduled eating which (I think) is bad for my body. I'm one of those who is ready to have one meal a day preferably at the end of the day so it does not interrupt things.
What I see online is that categorization usually follows weight. Is it proper way to display endomorphs as fat? How do you distinguish underweight endomorph from underweight ectomorph?
I find that those types are pretty bad. This is an area you can just clearly measure. No need for those. I can not distinguish bodytypes if we give them random mass.
If you go to basics you change someone completely in terms of endurance etc.
Endomorphs have broad shoulders, wide hips, thick legs, and put on both muscle and fat to fill that frame easily. And underweight Endo would be like Mike Tyson.
Mesomorphs can have broad shoulders (and may not), hips are normal, legs are thinner, calves especially, and they can put on alot of muscle. The skip leg days meme guys are almost always mesomorphs.
Ectomorphs rarely have broad shoulders and usually have compact ones, legs and arms are longer and thinner, hips are thinner, they dont put on fat easy or muscpe mass. An overweight Ectomorph would be the skinny fat people. Poochy belly and frail looking frame.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Common body type specific problems...
Bulky: Endo-Meso or overweight Meso-Endo
Skinny-fat: Ecto-Endo or skinnier Endo-Ecto
Hardgainer: Ectomorph or skinny Ecto-Endo
Slow Metabolism: Endomorph or overweight Endo-Meso
Muscular with skinny calves: Meso-Ecto or muscular Ecto-Meso
I have never met someone with calves thicker than mine, and I've never worked them out. When I was 147 lbs with a 8% body fat at 5'7" my waist size was still 34". Those two qualities are not mesomorphic.Are you sure you're not actually a mesomorph or an endo/meso mixture? Your endomorph description sounds a bit closer to how mesomorphs are often described. Mesomorph usually have the broadest shoulders out of all 3 of the body types and I've seen plenty of mesomorphs with thick muscular legs. Overweight or "beefy" mesomorphs are also not at all uncommon. This body type easily gains both fat and muscle, but at the same time they can also cut fat just as quickly. I have read that a lot of people with extra chub who think they are endomprphs are actually overweight mesomorphs.
Janet Jackson would be a great example of this phenomenon. She can go back and fourth from overweight to lean and muscular in a relatively short duration of time.
The people who gain weight easily and struggle to lose that weight are the true endomorphs.
Mesomorphs can have broad shoulders. The difference between endo and meso here is that Meso form a noticable triangle shape, shoulder to hip. Endos don't. More trapezoid-square.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Well, that's what the model was about in the first place... But not socionics types. More like some weird Western version of the Aryuvedic system. I'd be surprised if it wasn't ripped straight from that since the personalities are the same.
Mesomorph, Endomorph, and Ectomorph are primarily about Food Metabolism and Muscular Development.
Ectomorphs have the highest metabolism, Endomorphs the slowest, and Mesomorphs are in the middle.
Mesomorphs have the highest amount or capability of developing muscle mass, Ectomorphs the least, and Endomorphs are in the middle.
Bone structure may play a role as well.
Ectomorphs tend to have the most frail-looking and delicate bone structure.
Anyone with more delicate features in terms of bones or calves usually has an Ectomorph component somewhere.
But the exact body shape (as in, V shape, A shape, X shape or whatever) is not strictly tied to any particular body type.
Having said that, people with "curves" usually have an Endomorph component, and people without them often have an Ectomorph component.
The resting metabolisms of people of similar weight+height don't actually differ by all that much. Most people with "fast metabolisms" move a lot (even fidgeting can burn a lot of calories) and/or don't actually eat all that much outside of the occasional splurge, while most with "slow metabolisms" are more sedentary with poor eating habits perpetuated by poor nutritional knowledge (e.g. they think eating a salad or fat-free yogurt offsets all the soda drinking and cupboard rummaging they do) or a warped perception of the effort they're expending
Last edited by suedehead; 06-25-2017 at 11:18 AM.
Alright, so Ectomorphs naturally fidget around more and Endomorphs less so.
At the end of the day, an Ectomorph burns more calories than an Endomorph either way.
i associate with contact subtypes stockier build, round faces (round nose), medium height (or tiny), can look more muscular or heavier.
i associate with inert subtype sometimes exceptionally tall and/or thin, pointier facial features. (especially in IJ temperament). sometimes very fragile look (mostly IEI-Ni, ESI-Fi, etc..) just as a general trend. there are plenty of exceptions.
i'm not even sure whether that it is true (or i notice random patterns which don't exist) but i've been interacting with a few LSI, LIIs and EII-Fis a while ago ... and there was such a remarkable difference between the EII-Fi, LSI-Ti and LII-Tis who all had a similar look (described above), compared to the LSI-Se and LII-Ne. (i thought of this way before, 'inert sub somewhat pointy, contact sub more round' but i'm always surprised when i see it so clear-cut in reality)
I'm personally not really sold on subtype theory, but this is something I will definitely look out for more. I feel like you might be on to something here.
OOC would you be able to VI me (subtype) with your theory here based on photos in the last page of the member photos thread?
i am not very good at recognizing the different subtypes, especially not in SLEs (still trying to figure that out). not VI wise, but in behaviour. IJ/EJ temperament is easier, because it's so noticeable also in body movements. then, i guess, zero subtype is a thing too, and i don't know how that is expressed. but based on my observations (this is pure speculation right now), i would assume that a SLE with a body type like Alexa Chung would be more likely to be the inert subtype, whereas someone like Pitbull would be more likely the contact sub (ok, whether he's SLE is up for debate, but i think he is. anyway, that's what i associate with contact sub appearance). but i have to check how that plays out in reality and observe SLEs more closely ...
@lynn
My main problem with subtypes is that most people appear to be a blend of the two, and I haven't really ever seen anyone with a tendency to be much more one description than the other in reality (or I otherwise disagree as to why most of the differences map to differences cognitively/IE-wise... it doesn't seem clear to me). That's just me though. I need things to be very consistent. There are obviously plenty who disagree with me.
i never paid much attention to subtypes in the beginning, but now i've seen enough examples where the differences were so extreme that i actually wonder whether they can be actually considered the same type. but yes, everyone who falls in between is not so easy to differentiate. (i'm still not sure whether i'm IEI-Fe or no visible subtype. or whether it's possible to shift from one mode to the other.) but it also creates different interaction patterns, imo. it's so much easier for me to get close to an LSI-Ti for example, than LSI-Se. etc..
While I think that there almost certainly *must* be some sort of correlation, I think it's likely to be so complex that in might not even be worth exploring. I say there must be a correlation just because type and body are both heritable to some extent or another from your parents, and genes code for more than one thing at a time, so I think it's quite likely that genes which code for certain neurological features likely also code for certain physically expressed ones. It's not just genes either, since exposure to specific levels of certain hormones will affect your entire body (brain included), so I would expect that X amount of estrogen exposure in the womb for example will have predictable affects on both brain and body development (with estrogen I'd imagine it would tilt things towards retaining more body fat as well as tilting the psyche in a more Fe and perhaps Si direction for example) which will be roughly consistent regardless of race, such that certain physical features could indicate something about the person's neurology.
However, I really doubt these effects are all that obvious in most cases, and there's such a huge variety of factors which may influence someone's body morphology that I don't think morphology is a very reliable method of typing people. I do personally take how someone looks into account when typing them, but I tend to look more at *how* they take care of the body they have rather than paying much attention to what body they happen to have been born into.
To add to the data pile though in case someone is collecting it, I'm IEI-Fe and very ectomorphic. I'm 5'6 (168cm), and I can't put on weight no matter what I do. In my teens I tried everything to build muscle and over three years I had gotten from 106 to 113 lbs (48 to 51 kgs). I lost it all pretty much immediately when I graduated high school and didn't care anymore. I get told I look like a girl a lot lol
By the way I consider facial VI to be a bit different. I think it's subject to a lot of the same issues, but I think facial features tend to develop based on how the person "inside" is using them. The different elements sort of "possess" the face differently and over time I think this may change the structure of the facial muscles and dictate the sorts of wrinkles that form. In either case though I wouldn't recommend basing typings off of still photos since I think the elements are most apparent in the movement and transitions between expressions and gestures. I think photos are a bit too sterile to go off of and may lead to wildly incorrect typings
Body traits, except the ones following from a behavior, is doubtful to be linked with Jung types.
S types should to have more predisposition to have higher weight and better muscles due to higher interest to physical materia and activity. In average such difference should be noticed, though concrete people may varie as someone with S type to have the said traits lesser than someone with N type.
as @lynn pointed out, base function subtypes have longer pointier faces and narrower build (especially narrower, more fragile build with less fat), while it's generally the opposite for creative function subtypes. ILE-Ti and SLE-Ti and IEE-Fi females have much wider stronger shoulders/upperbody and naturally slimmer legs, flatter buttocks, and more torso fat than ILE-Ne and SLE-Se and IEE-Ne females.
LSI-Se are generally very heavy wide sturdier shoulders, fat torso, flat buttocks, and slim legs and they're more attractive than the other subtype (which is usually thin with fatter legs and larger buttocks and has very pointy, long face).
ESI-Se are much fatter and have wider shoulders than ESI-Fi and ESI-Se are more sexually attractive. ESI-Se look strong physically, ESI-Fi look pretty fragile and have narrow ugly masculine shoulders, and have larger/uglier/more masculine buttocks.
A good example of a classic LSI-Ti body type would be Eamon De Valera (he was Irish Catholic and they were slimmer/had narrower shoulders than the Anglo-Irish), a good example of the Se subtype body would be Catherine Zeta Jones (someone on her direct maternal line probably converted to Catholicism).
Generally, Creative Function subtypes are livelier (except with SEE-Se and SEE-Fi) and enjoy life a lot more and tend to be more dynamic, have more drive, are more creative, and interact better in space and tend to be better athletes, more sexually attractive, and more likely to be female, and Japanese/Jewish>Non-Jewish,Non-Anglo-Irish,Non-Afrikaner White/Chinese>Black/Middle eastern. ILE-Ne don't interact as well in space and despite being slimmer/having less fat they're actually less physically active and move slower than ILE-Ti.
I'm sorry, but I'm psychologically disturbed.
i no longer think there is
-
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
genetics probably play a bigger role, imo.
However my mother has her fathers body type and they had a pretty similar personality. Actually, I think they may have been the same type, or at least the same temperament. I have the same body type as my dad, and we have the same temperament as well. My oldest daughter and her father have the same body type and their personalities are also pretty similar. My son and his grandfather also have same body type temperament- so possibly some correlation, possibly I’m being biased/and or suck at typing.
coincidence? Idk.But I think it’s worth mentioning now that I think about it
I'm 5'3" last time I weighed myself about a week ago, I weighed 106-107 lbs. I have a really small upper body frame. My shoulders are small & slant down (basically the opposite of broad shoulders), so much so that straps always fall off my shoulders. My measurements last time I took them were bust- 31" rib cage- 27" waist- 25" hips- 35" so basically I'm a small pear shape.
I also have some of the smallest hands, fingers, wrist, & feet I've ever seen. Lol Even small gloves at work are big on me. I take size 5.5 in women's shoes, sometimes 6.
What does that say about my type?
weird, we are kind of similar in size! I figured from the pics of you I saw, you were taller
im just under 5’3” (5’2.5” to be exact) but I lied on my license and said I was 5’4” because that’s what I am with shoes on lol
I usually weigh between 107-112 and am pretty small boned. Right now I’m at 112 ugh. I hate myself right now, but I’m not going to get into it. I’m 31” bust, 25”waist and 37” hips, last I checked...but I have pretty wide shoulders, 37” (you could call me an hourglass or pear depending if you go by shoulders or bust, Idk I don’t get it)
I usually wear a 6.5-7 shoe (you’ve got some small feet!)
Awesome! It's prolly cuz the people I'm next to in my pictures are fairly short too. Yeah I'm technically 5 feet 2 & 3/4 I think lol but I usually just say 5'3". You sound like a good size/weight for your height imo. : )weird, we are kind of similar in size! I figured from the pics of you I saw, you were taller
im just under 5’3” (5’2.5” to be exact) but I lied on my license and said I was 5’4” because that’s what I am with shoes on lol
I usually weigh between 107-112 and am pretty small boned. Right now I’m at 112 ugh. I hate myself right now, but I’m not going to get into it. I’m 31” bust, 25”waist and 37” hips, last I checked...but I have pretty wide shoulders, 37” (you could call me an hourglass or pear depending if you go by shoulders or bust, Idk I don’t get it
I usually wear a 6.5-7 shoe (you’ve got some small feet!)
A higher wish to ask questions about your psyche traits based on random strange hypotheses points on valued Ne.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
