Originally Posted by
Jadae's friend
The bulk of the material seems to be based off of standard Jung. I allow for the possibility that our types are encoded in our genes. I also allow for the possibility that the way we use our brain may have some influence over our skill with our bodies and maybe even vice versa. It doesn't seem that far-fetched that our brain might not have as much density as we need, and so certain functions might overlap and need to share resources a bit. People have suggested a variety of things that might stem from a mental/motor crossover, ranging from exercise being good for the brain as well as the body, all the way to the idea that taking the effort to dot i's and cross t's may change one's ability to think and result in a better life (which I find unlikely, but I suppose it's vaguely possible). Basically, we understand so little about the brain that almost anything's possible.
--> Ok, seems reasonable.
Still, I agree with you that neither the site nor the poster offers anything in the way of solid proof. Just because one can construct a line of "obvious" reasoning that seems logical doesn't mean that it's true. I'm sure that, once upon a time, people thought it was obvious and logical that the earth was flat. After all, the floor under my feet looks pretty flat. And, if the earth is flat, it must end somewhere. Otherwise, where would the sun go at night?
--> Good point. But logic is only step one. Even as I play sports in Gym, sometimes I can't help but sit back and giggle in my head, because I see it. Once you start to see the pattern over and over again with people whom you know, seeing how all the SF/EA types use their gross motor skills dominant (and other things along those lines), you may start to see it with the same joy and enthusiasm that I do.
Also, Jung isn't all that scientific. More modern MBTI researches have postulated that the perceptions and judgments may not be so mutually exclusive after all. Ni might work in tandem with Se, and Te might work in tandem with Fi, etc. The tandem theories seem to be a bit more in line with the animus/anima idea, it's within the same person -- a function may actually like pairing with its opposite, and the two might have to simultaneously work together. (I'm starting to think that the tandem groupings might actually be another set of distinct and useful types: some people might be tandem for perception, judgment, neither, or both.).
--> Wait, are those just dual-seeking funcitons, like we already have in socionics?
And finally, more studies are coming out suggesting that our brain is physically more flexible than we thought. It has to be flexible enough to keep us ahead of the animals. We seem to change and adapt even within our own lifetimes: look at what we've done to the world even in the last decade, much less the last generation, and some are saying even our bad habits establish physical paths through our brain. There are just so many possibilities, and we just don't know. I don't honestly believe in the introverted and intuitive minorities, nor do I believe that more women were born F and more men were born T. I actually think the reported imbalances are artifacts brought on by the environment and problems in the testing mechanisms rather than genetics, which would mean that I believe that a third of the extroverts and a third of the sensors are really introverts and intuitives who have been re-coded and/or mistyped.
--> Possibally Extraverts are typed as Introverts or vicea versa, because of a poor knowledge between the two. That being said, there are qualities of true introversion and true extraversion, which we can link to the brain.
The BT stuff about the quarterbacks... That seems rather bogus... total sales fluff. There are a lot of ESTPs out there. The links just sound like they're exploiting slight-of-hand statistics. Just because someone has a certain preference doesn't mean that they're necessarily good at it. I find it to be very improbable that every properly encouraged and trained ESTP will become great NFL quarterbacks.
--> Right here, I think she missed that point. I have to admit, I originally missed the point as well when I first learned about this stuff. I have read a lot from the critics on BT, and one thing in common that they have is that they somewhat misunderstand what he is trying to say. My biggest thing is not really to predict the next Ryan Leaf/ Peyton Manning thing, but just the physical justification of types being born within you.