Race & Impact on Personality Types

[Phaedrus]

@thePirate

wouldn't you prefer to mean culture as opposed to race?

culture probably has an effect on some personality factors.

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.

[tcaudilllg]

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.

[Phaedrus]

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.

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.

[Christy B]

[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.

[Phaedrus]

Whoa. This is a real jem right here.

What you mean is not "race" but "population". Still a pretty crazy thing to say.

What are you talking about? What exactly is a crazy thing to say?

[Christy B]

What are you talking about? What exactly is a crazy thing to say?

The bit I quoted.

[Phaedrus]

The bit I quoted.

Okay, now I understand what you were getting at, but your interpretation is incorrect. I don't mean population. I don't mean the group of people that happens to live in a certain area of the world. I mean groups of people that can be identified through their genetical differences, which of course to a large extent are the result of having lived in the same region of the world for several generations.

What is controversial about this? Nothing should be. We know that there are fundamental genetical differences that explain why some groups of people with a coloured skin have a natural advantage in some sports, like trying to run 100 metres the fast as you can. I don't know of any physical sport where white people would have a natural advantage over black people, but maybe there is.

I don't know of any mental sport where it is obvious that one of these two groups of people would have a natural advantage over the other, but that can't be ruled out either before we have empirical evidence to support such a radical view. It is radical to assume that there are no significant differences between different races, because it is of course much more likely that there are such differences than that there aren't.

[tcaudilllg]

Okay, now I understand what you were getting at, but your interpretation is incorrect. I don't mean population. I don't mean the group of people that happens to live in a certain area of the world. I mean groups of people that can be identified through their genetical differences, which of course to a large extent are the result of having lived in the same region of the world for several generations.

What is controversial about this? Nothing should be. We know that there are fundamental genetical differences that explain why some groups of people with a coloured skin have a natural advantage in some sports, like trying to run 100 metres the fast as you can. I don't know of any physical sport where white people would have a natural advantage over black people, but maybe there is.

I don't know of any mental sport where it is obvious that one of these two groups of people would have a natural advantage over the other, but that can't be ruled out either before we have empirical evidence to support such a radical view. It is radical to assume that there are no significant differences between different races, because it is of course much more likely that there are such differences than that there aren't.

This is madness. Take it outside of General Discussion, if you must discuss it at all. We're walking down the path of Francis Crick here, and he has been disgraced for a reason.

Truth be told, this debate is an extension of ******'s own philosophy. It was he who in Mein Kampf hypothesized that some races were more "inventive" than others.

rmcnew, what do you think? Should we let this thread stand, or should we close it? These ideas are only fodder for the psychologically unhealthy. What do the rest of you say? Gilly, UDP, Jxrtres, Logos, Cone, Implied, Diana, and everyone else. Is the right thing going to be done here, or are we going to just look the other way in the face of a corrupting evil?

As for the liberal/conservatism article....
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodio/

[tcaudilllg]

Seems like certain types are more common through race. how does culture influence this?

You've yet to give us evidence of the above claim. Thus, why should we even ponder how culture influences it?

[Phaedrus]

This is madness. Take it outside of General Discussion, if you must discuss it at all. We're walking down the path of Francis Crick here, and he has been disgraced for a reason.

Are you a lunatic, tcaudilllg? Or what is the matter with you? Why can't you handle the truth? You attitude here is nothing but pathetic.

Truth be told, this debate is an extension of ******'s own philosophy. It was he who in Mein Kampf hypothesized that some races were more "inventive" than others.

I have just lost almost all my respect for your intellectual capacity. Maybe you are just a total fake, like Hegel. Don't you understand the logical difference between a fact and a value judgment? I am only discussion empirical facts here, I am not saying anything about the value of these facts. These empirical facts regarding differences between groups of people have no logical impact whatsoever on how we shall treat those people.

rmcnew, what do you think? Should we let this thread stand, or should we close it? These ideas are only fodder for the psychologically unhealthy. What do the rest of you say? Gilly, UDP, Jxrtres, Logos, Cone, Implied, Diana, and everyone else. Is the right thing going to be done here, or are we going to just look the other way in the face of a corrupting evil?

Burn all books that are expressing ideas that don't fit your system! Censor every discussion that threatens your feel of security! Curse the objective truth and replace it with ideological dogmatism!

You attitude here, tcaudilllg, is so morally wrong and so totally disgusting that there are no words for it. It's an extremely typical example of leading when it is showing it's very worst side to the world. I hate this pukeworthy narrow-mindedness of leading types. Your attitude is intellectually dishonest, it is a disgrace to truth and a scientific attitude of mind. Basically it is a fascist attitude that stands opposed to everything that is good and true. You want to replace the independent search for truth with the use of power to impose your own subjective ideology on society.

[Sol]

Types quantities should be close to equal in all races and cultures.
If you know a culture badly and it differs from yours - you may overesteemate a difference in a behavior caused by the personality but not from external reasons.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

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.