Seems like certain types are more common through race. how does culture influence this? what types are more prelevant where? Discuss
Race & Impact on Personality Types
Seems like certain types are more common through race. how does culture influence this? what types are more prelevant where? Discuss
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" isand not
well, for instance, asians seem more likely to be IJ, while latinos seem more likely to be EP.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
oh dear.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Race has nothing to do with type. Except that racists have stereotypes. For example, EIE for Latinos, SLE for Blacks, IEI for Asians, LIE for Whites, EIE for Arabs, LSI for Jews or such.
-Ti says this is a dumb idea. Besides, professional socionists have demonstrated that type distributions are even through statistical samplings. Or did you ignore the "socionics and genetics" thread?Originally Posted by thePirate
Calling on all INTjs to help me get this guy to shut up with his stupid theories. (no offense, thePirate, but type + race = dangerous combination).
The facts are, race has nothing to do with type. You can expect perhaps an ENFj to be more outwardly bothered by racial issues than an INTj or ISTj, but that's it. Race is a social concept based around a few dominant inherited traits that have nothing to do with type.
Japan seems IJ because it was dominated by the U.S. after WWII and transformed into a technologically advanced culture: an INTj-type culture is naturally pacifist, and that's exactly what the U.S. wanted. China is definitely NOT IJ, so that disproves your theory right there.
No, not culture. Only "race" (meaning genetical differences at the group level) has an effect on which types are more prevalent in different cultures. And there is at least some truth in thePirate's hypothesis about Asians and Latinos.
It would be interesting to do a more serious study of the type differences between different parts of the world through a comparison with the Human Dynamics model, which claims that they have found (empirically) very clear differences between the fundamental types of thinking described in that model and different cultures and countries. They specifically claim that two types that, according to their international studies, are rather rare in the West (around 15 percent of the population) are predominant in China and Japan. Until we have investigated such hypotheses in much more depth we can't rule them out as false. It would not be very surprising if such type differences really exist, and if so, they would of course be reflected in the distribution of the socionic types as well.
This is sham science. There are just as few INTjs among U.S. blacks as there are amongst U.S. whites, latinos, etc.
This thread is threatening to lower my IQ level. Bye.
They certainly haven't. If they think they have, they have clearly mistyped a lot of people in those samplings. We know for a fact that type distributions are not even.
I'm sorry, tcaudilllg, but you are totally wrong about this.
You don't know that, and there is no reason to assume that race has nothing to do with type. It would be rather strange if it had nothing to do with type. But more research is of course needed to establish the exact correlations.
That is a totally false statement. You should get rid of your own social constructionist fantasies too, tcaudilllg.
Nonsense. Japan was IJ hundreds of years before that.
Only if we interpret the hypothesis very narrowly. According to the Human Dynamics model (which is probably a false theory, even though it may contain many true statements, just like the Enneagram) Japan has more people with a physical-mental thinking pattern, wheras China has more people with a physical-emotional thinking pattern. In a socionic perspective the most obvious aspect of that difference is that Japan would be a more logical country and China a more ethical, according to the findings of Human Dynamics.
Get a grip on yourself, tcaudilllg. You are a victim of your own prejudices here. It is totally irrational to assume that the types are evenly distributed among different groups of people. Most likely they are not. And we definitely know for a fact that there are more sensory types overall than there are intuitive types. That empirical fact simply cannot be ignored.
You're only basing that off the nerdy asian stereotype. Key words in your post- "seem more likely".
I've met more EP asians than IJ, and still, that has nothing to do with race. ..
IEI, perhaps Fe sub.
This reminds me of a thread I started to ask how we determine the integral type of a nation.
It seems to me that, as my country is almost all Celt, then to give my country a nationial type would sort of imply an integral type of the race. This makes me think of the integral types of other predominantly Celtic countries such as Ireland, and it makes me think if there are any similarities between the integral types of the countries-which helps to assist somewhat in determining if "race" type affects nationial type (cause if race type exits would there be similarities in the integral types of the countries?)
It's pretty hypothetical, and there probably isn't a correlation, because I would expect all groups to reach a natural equilibrium in such things, but it's a fair question asked by Pirate, and I don't think he or she meant to be controversial by it.
Since we already know that there are more sensory types than intuitive types, we also know that the types can't be evenly distributed. So there simply must be something wrong with those socionic studies. They probably haven't used test results as a primary source of information on people's types but instead some more unreliable typing method, but I'm not sure of that. Maybe they have just used a totally unreliable test.
We must get rid of this myth that the types are evenly distributed, because it prevents us from making progress in our understanding of the types.
Yes indeed. Given his stances, among other things, that MBTI INTJ == LII, I think we can dispense with his viewpoint.
@Cyclops:
a nation exists only as an idea. For someone to conceptualize of an idea as a personality, one must define (intuitively) its strengths/weaknesses, and thus its type. Of course, the type of a nation is only that, the type of an imaginary figure. (not to say that ideas are not important -- they are -- but the validity of an idea can be distinct from "real" conceptualizations like DNA and genetics. An idea may die, but nature doesn't even live).
Have you read the actual integral type theories that have been proposed, as written by the proposers of the same?
---
Stupid theory? I posed a question, stop projecting your insecurities.
JXRTES, both, actually. Genetical & Cultural impact.
Hkitty, these weren't drawn based off stereotypes, but my own experiences.
---
Look, cut the racist/stereotype bullshit.
Granted, this is an emotional/touchy subject, however, I would expect this to be able to be discussed without resulting in irrational assumptions
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Nations have their own identity, but in this part of the world, a nation exists not only as an idea, but as whats regarded as a distinct race of peoples. That *could* have an impact on the ideas of the nation, which impacts on nationial type?
Well, when you put it like that, maybe it's safer to give a nation a quadra rather than a type? I'm really just sitting on the sidelines of this debate for now, but it does make me think about the typical person I meet in Scotland and the typical person I meet in Ireland. When I think about it, typical person of each country is different, so this makes me wonder if individual type is affected by the national type.For someone to conceptualize of an idea as a personality, one must define (intuitively) its strengths/weaknesses, and thus its type. Of course, the type of a nation is only that, the type of an imaginary figure. (not to say that ideas are not important -- they are -- but the validity of an idea can be distinct from "real" conceptualizations like DNA and genetics. An idea may die, but nature doesn't even live).
It actually makes me think about a lot of related stuff-I think Ireland is more Alpha, and I think Scotland is more Beta-historically the Picts were conquered by the Celts, so it makes me wonder if the Celts who initially came to Scotland were in the majority Beta-and that is why the two groups of Alpha and Beta seem to remain today-which theoretically implies some sort of genetic link to either type or just quadra.
I'm not sure, I've read one or two things on Ricks site. Do you have any links for me?Have you read the actual integral type theories that have been proposed, as written by the proposers of the same?
It's far from a matter of insecurity. There in fact a name for this line of thought, which is "pathological science".
Get some history, kid.
@Cyclops: I think there are some ideas in Bukalov's "Physics of Consciousness and Life" journal. I think Gulenko said something about it also.
You know I think would be better to ask ourselves how people ascribe personality traits to a nation than to speculate as to whether or not it has a type.
No, you can't. We don't have to assume anything about a possible one to one correlation between the types in the two models. We only have to look at the evidence of a some millions of MBTI test results.
Since the four scales in MBTT and Socionics are so similar (they don't even have to be identical for our purposes here), and the test results clearly show a huge predominance of S types over N types, despite the general tendency to associate N with intelligence and other positive attributes, there is no other possible explanation for this phenomenon than that there are more socionic intuitive types than socionic sensory types.
The evidence for an uneven distribution of the types is conclusive.
Now you're forgetting dual-type theory, or I guess you never bought into that?
MBTI questions both method and execution, which leads to blurring. Socionics tests only method.
Augusta is on record as saying that questioning over the use of work as opposed to processing leads to type blurring.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
Irrelevant. If the empirical evidence is conclusive and contradicts a theory, then the theory is necessarily false.
What exactly do you mean by that? Your way of phrasing your thought it is not very clear.
Irrelevant.
I vote that it be closed.
If the facts are too hard to accept for you, you decide to close your eyes and return to your theoretical models -- is that your preferred solution to the problem? Your suggested solution is a sign of ignorance of the truth on your part. And you claim that you identify with Paul James's INTP description? Pathetic! You are not interested in the objective truth, you are totally ignorant to it.
Well as far as that goes, I would state adherence to jRiddy's viewpoint that you (by which I mean, "you" as in "Phaedrus") can't distinguish between subjective and objective forms of truth!
There is such a thing as bias in factual reporting.
Phaedrus if you cannot make the distinction then it would be better to admit it to yourself as a limitation than to refute it. You say that you want others to accept as truth your postulation that MBTI and socionics types directly correspond, yet what example does it set to demand this without observing your own shortcomings and asking how they influence your POV? Why ask us to embrace truths when there are truths that you yourself are not facing?
Be serious man. We're actually dealing with a classic form of tragedy here. In fact, this single issue may be the dominant social conflict of our generation.
Do you think Osama Bin Laden cares for the distinction between subjective truth and objective truth? (granted there is a world of difference between Phaedrus and Bin Laden, but still...!) I don't think he would be insisting we all convert to Islam if he understood the difference between subjective and empirical truths.
What I meant as the tragedy, was the fact that we have all these people who cannot distinguish between objective and subjective forms of truth are attempting (most of them) to impress their subjective ideals of truth onto the rest of us as the only truth, and often going to any lengths to do it.I'm hopelessly puerile, you're the serious one.And you do a much better job of it than I can.
Although if it's worth anything, if only to add to this thread, I believe that defining truth (esp. objective truth) has been the dominant issue of all past generations, and moreover the indirect goal of civilization itself.
cheers and good night
I do think though, that if all subjective truth was rendered objective, we might be able to solve the problem. Perhaps. However, we would need appropriate social conditioning for such.
Since that is only a subjective opinion of yours, it is irrelevant and not worthy of consideration.
The sheer amount of test results (some millions) makes any bias in factual reporting totally irrelevant, because the general pattern is extremely obvious. If you don't understand that argument, you don't understand the laws of statistics.
We don't have to assume that MBTT and Socioncs types directly correspond. As I said, we only have to look at the MBTI test results. And they prove that the socionic types are unevenly distributed -- even if there is no direct correlation between the types in the two models.
There are no subjective truths. That is a contradiction in terms. A truth can never be subjective. Beliefs can be subjective, but certainly not truths. I hate this misuse of language.
You cannot make such a decision, because no truth can be subjective.
Every person who believes that it is possible to make a logically meaningful distinction between a subjective truth and an objective truth is deluded and simply don't understand the meaning of the concept truth.
This question is not a matter of different opinions. It is only a matter of being educated and have a minimum of capacity for logical reasoning.
Which is a logical impossibility, so no sane person can recognize the existence of subjective truths.
And so must you too -- unless you are a lunatic or don't understand the meaning of your own words due to a very low IQ.
You certainly leave no room for doubt that you really are a LII. And there is also no doubt that you are not an INTP in MBTT.
It is also clear that what you say here is pure nonsense, a sophisticated (you might call it "esoteric") form of mumbo-jumbo, expressed in a an intellectual package designed to hide the absence of meaningful logical thoughts. It's the legacy of Hegel, the unequalled king ofthinking, I suppose.
Don't you understand Phaedrus... this lunacy is a dominant trait in humans! You, in your peerless wisdom, are exhibiting recessive traits. It is a simple matter of practicality for you to look the other way as they practice their delusion, lest they hang you as a witch!Every person who believes that it is possible to make a logically meaningful distinction between a subjective truth and an objective truth is deluded and simply don't understand the meaning of the concept truth.
Accept our lunacy and protest not our truths, for our numbers are far greater than yours!
(Yeah I know that could have been so much better, ...but I lost enthusiasm for it. Subterranean, please show us the TRUTH).
Oh, so are these the conclusions you've reached as regards the psychic domain theory I've presented, too? Only through unifying the various subjective truths is objective truth congealed.You certainly leave no room for doubt that you really are a LII. And there is also no doubt that you are not an INTP in MBTT.
It is also clear that what you say here is pure nonsense, a sophisticated (you might call it "esoteric") form of mumbo-jumbo, expressed in a an intellectual package designed to hide the absence of meaningful logical thoughts. It's the legacy of Hegel, the unequalled king of
Not a single relevant argument in this entire post of yours. Nothing but more mumbo-jumbo. You call it lunacy to insist on logical coherence. You focus on everything else but what is most important here: to defy logical contradictions. You accept logical contradictions, which is not a surprising trait to find in LIIs of course, but people here should take notice of that fact, because just maybe they will get a better understanding of the real nature of
A disgustingly false statement. You can't handle the concept of truth, because you don't understand it.
Oh really? Tell me then, on which path is it that you walk in history, if not the side of those you disagree with? On what grounds do you defy history's own path, and tread your own, Mr. ILI?
You regard your idealism as resting on the path you walk through history. People will go their path, and they shall exploit the potential it offers them; but you shall go your own path which offers a potential all your own. What of the people who walk with you on this path? Do you not need, when walking a path dictated by your own instincts, a truth upon which to guide the same?
Let me ask you this: who do you think would make the better leader, Barack Obama or George W. Bush? What path do you find yourself walking along others as you extricate yourself from the masses? Are you comfortable with bits of information that don't fit neatly in with the rest of what you know? Or do you prefer only sticking with that which fits neatly together, and think information irrelevant until it does? Must you look to faith in a supreme being to comfort you against that which you do not know?
There's evidence that Kerry voters had on average more flexible brain wiring than Bush voters. Are you really going to argue that said wiring cannot lead to an illusion of subjective truth, even if it's not real?
I look a subjective truth as incomplete truth, but I don't see it as overtly false because it's true to me, at least, and makes sense to me. Conservatives may not agree with it, but even if I didn't have the full picture at the time, that subjective truth may still be observed as a part of the mix.
No, it's insecurity. Your posts in this thread reek of it. That's fine, all I ask is that you leave, since you've basically contributed little, besides asinine comments.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
It's very difficult for me to guess what you really mean by saying such things. Are you a Hegelian in spirit? Do you see yourself as a "process" thinker?
http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/process-philosophy/
This is actually a very interesting subject to discuss, because it has direct relevance on whether Gulenko is right or wrong in his groupings of the types in his article on Forms of Thinking (see the Articles section on this forum).
Do I? What does that mean exactly?
And what is this "truth" you are talking about?
I have actually no idea, because I know too little about Barack Obama. I haven't followed your internal political debates much, especially not lately.
Every piece of information must be scrutinized, especially if it does not fit neatly together with the rest of what we know. We should stick to a rational, scientific approach when we seek knowledge. Unjustified beliefs that go against established science should be viewed with the utmost suspicion until they have proven their worth to be taken seriously.
Absolutely not. There is no supreme being. Religious beliefs are one of the worst kinds of mumbo-jumo.
What is the empirical evidence for your claims here?
That is a clear example of a misuse of language. It is nonsense as it stands. An incomplete truth is still a truth, and as such it is objective. Nothing can be true to you and false to someone else at the same time. You can have your subjective belief that something is true, of course, and another person can have another subjective belief that what you believe is false, but only one of you can be objectively right, because anything else would be a logical contradiction. You fundamental logical errror is to confuse beliefs with knowledge. A belief is either true or false, but it is never both, and it is never neither true nor false. Knowledge logically implies that what is known is (objectively) true, and a "subjective" truth cannot exist, because it is logical contradiction.
What you say here is the result of brain-spinning. Your words may look nice, but they express no logically coherent line of thought. What you say is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo.
Where did these come from?
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
No, don't ask him to leave. I am genuinely interested in knowing how tcaudilllg justifies what he says, and how exactly we shall understand his way of thinking. Is he a process thinker or not? Is he a Hegelian? Those are very important questions to ask here, and the answers to them will have a potentially huge impact on our views on the types LII and ILI.
[QUOTE=Phaedrus;358901] No, not culture. Only "race" (meaning genetical differences at the group level) has an effect on which types are more prevalent in different cultures. And there is at least some truth in thePirate's hypothesis about Asians and Latinos.
[QUOTE]
Whoa. This is a real jem right here.
What you mean is not "race" but "population". Still a pretty crazy thing to say.
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
