Consciousness is overrated

[Lithorn]

No, actually, the Jungian model is based the differentiation between thinking and feeling as decision process and this is central to the theory. It is ages old and extends all the way back to Socrates, who discussed these qualities in terms of the musical (heady thinker types) and the gymnastic (the physical feeling types). The same model was discussed by Aristotle in is distinction between barbarians and civilized men; barbarians were ruled by the passions of the body, and civilized men by their minds. Psychology comes from philosophy, and the root of the model is the same but in a psychological context instead of a political context (i.e. we anticipate that with the exception of a few that most will govern themselves according to the laws of society because of the fear of a penalty and that this fear even constitutes a common mean for all men - and women - feeling or thinking).
This is a cognitive test, and it is a measure of conscious behavior.

The essential problem is that people don't understand things for themselves and rely on other peoples' writings to comprehend things instead of looking at them from how they are constructed.

I'm not arguing against the Jungian model. I'm arguing against your assertion that the Meyer Briggs test is more accurate than someone who has made an in-depth study of the behaviors associated with the Jungian model. If you want to spin that as "relying on other peoples' writings" that's up to you, but as I said, you don't use a catalogue test to find a prescription for glasses.

 

[vash22]

Personality traits can be observed even in animals; and interestingly enough, certain personality traits comes with certain breeds. This means it is possible to capture and develop personalities of certain mammals through breeding."

I am not familiar with the personality traits you see in animals. If you are talking about IvE in dogs for example, since the higher levels of thought are blocked from our observation, we put an animal in the group of I/E depending upon whether they are good around other dogs or if they would rather sleep. How dogs are around other dogs depends greatly on exposure at an early age. While there are more chaotic variables involved, that is pretty much it. With the lack of energy, the reason it appears in certain breads and not in others is definetly a genetic thing, but that does not automatically point to personality type. The are several other genetic variables which could explain it aswell. As for S/N I am not even touching that one. backlash might kill me. T/F seeing as their problem solving skills are so much less developed than ours, and that T/F is a very internal thing we can't really figure it out. And finally P/J dogs have a mix of both, but with an emphasis on J. Maybe P just doesn't help without the ability to communicate large things, so dogs have developed a more organized system: and therefore the species has met that environment by creating more organized bossy dogs who understand the pecking order. But that doesn't necessarily point to J either. Could just be that they evolved to be bossy and organized.

In closing, personality type only truly has any meaning when applied to creatures with a higher level of intelligence. With everything else, it doesn't matter if a dog is INTP or ESFJ if all those functions are used so lightly that there is no difference.

 

[Adymus]

Vash, people have a mixture of both P/J but that does not mean we have both preferences. Secondly, I think you are missing the point of what I was talking about, I'm not trying to tie MBTI to animals necessarily, even thought that would be interesting. I am Tying personality to biology and genetics. What you see in dogs with how they behave, their judgment, the way they communicate with other dogs as well as people, their emotions, all of that is their personality. It has been proven that you can isolate certain personality traits in animals by breeding them.

 

[vash22]

Ok, yes I see how I deviated. Just to be extra clear, you are defining personality as anything other than instinctual needs and responses. Right?
Whatever case, I am not sure I still agree that personality depends entirely on genetics. There is a type of order in everything and there is always a reason. To think it is purely random, when nothing else about humanity has been, would be silly. But what if it is a trait that is developed after birth depending on their environment. A trait developed when we are still extremely young and are brains are creating all kinds of complex connections. Humans are after all a social species which needs people to fulfill certain niches in society. Genetics would do a very bad job at deciding what personality the child should be. The brain, seeing it's surroundings and what is needed, may naturally form it's 'connections' so that the child is what is needed. A village full of ESFJ's afterall would not be helped by even more ESFJ's. Society does need variety to survive, but that is something that genetics cant provide. But this alternative theory proactively solves that problem. With evolution the most helpful and efficient way is always the correct way. This is an old way of thinking though, from ~300 years ago. Well the jist of it is. Philosophically I mean.

 

[Adymus]

Ok, yes I see how I deviated. Just to be extra clear, you are defining personality as anything other than instinctual needs and responses. Right?
Whatever case, I am not sure I still agree that personality depends entirely on genetics.

They don't depend entirely on genetics, in the same way that how physically strong a person becomes does not rely entirely on genetics.

There is a type of order in everything and there is always a reason. To think it is purely random, when nothing else about humanity has been, would be silly. But what if it is a trait that is developed after birth depending on their environment. A trait developed when we are still extremely young and are brains are creating all kinds of complex connections.

Who ever said anything about randomness? Passing down genetic code is not random. Because your brain can't scope out an entire community and then decide what it needs, that is not how evolutions works. In evolution you are born with genetic traits, and those with the favorable once succeed and those with out them don't. You don't just grow extra arms just because you need them, why should personality be any different?

Humans are after all a social species which needs people to fulfill certain niches in society. Genetics would do a very bad job at deciding what personality the child should be. The brain, seeing it's surroundings and what is needed, may naturally form it's 'connections' so that the child is what is needed. A village full of ESFJ's afterall would not be helped by even more ESFJ's.

I think you might be mistaking what I am saying for personality in Genetics = passing down the exact same personality. For me to suggest that ESFJs are going to make more ESFJs is ridiculous, which is why I am not suggesting that. There is probably some correlation as to the personality of the parents and to the child, but slight changes in wiring make a big difference. You could have an ESFJ with the cognitive functions of Fe-Si-Ne-Ti, all you have to do is reverse the flow of those functions and you get an INTP.

Society does need variety to survive, but that is something that genetics cant provide. But this alternative theory proactively solves that problem. With evolution the most helpful and efficient way is always the correct way. This is an old way of thinking though, from ~300 years ago. Well the jist of it is. Philosophically I mean.

Variety is something that genetics has always provided, we would not be here if this was not true.

 

[vash22]

The comment to radomness was meant to express that the personality of individuals is not spontaneous and does not just happen. I'm not arguing with you in that respect, I am simply trying to put into stone a very basic idea so you understand the foundation of my midset. That personality is caused by a controlling variable, be it genetics or some other root survival programing. I was arguing that perhaps an alternative theory would be more likely, one that had more advantages. Generally you can approach evolution from the perspective of which one is more beneficient & efficient is the correct answer. Logical speculation & problem solving = right answer. It is a perfect environment for the INTP way of thinking.

Genetics has allowed variety in a very limited way. Genetics only has variety to test the waters and to have just enough variety to not get wiped out. For everything else, humans are designed to have the best traits. But if everyone has the best or at least has pretty close to the best traits, then almost everyone would have the same traits. But where sustained real variety is required, as it is with personality, I can't think of anywhere else where that occurrs with human genetics.

On a final note, and in counter to my position, one indicator that genetics is involved is that 1% of the population is intp, while all the ESxx people each make up about 8% of the population. INTP's don't tend to 'get as much' as those types, which would explain why ESxx's are such a larger population than us. Or perhaps humanity needs more ESxx's than INTP's to survive. The thought is somewhat repulsive, but I won't throw away a possibility simply because of personal feelings.

 

[BigApplePi]

The comment to radomness was meant to express that the personality of individuals is not spontaneous and does not just happen. I'm not arguing with you in that respect, I am simply trying to put into stone a very basic idea so you understand the foundation of my midset. That personality is caused by a controlling variable, be it genetics or some other root survival programing. I was arguing that perhaps an alternative theory would be more likely, one that had more advantages. Generally you can approach evolution from the perspective of which one is more beneficient & efficient is the correct answer. Logical speculation & problem solving = right answer. It is a perfect environment for the INTP way of thinking.

Genetics has allowed variety in a very limited way. Genetics only has variety to test the waters and to have just enough variety to not get wiped out. For everything else, humans are designed to have the best traits. But if everyone has the best or at least has pretty close to the best traits, then almost everyone would have the same traits. But where sustained real variety is required, as it is with personality, I can't think of anywhere else where that occurrs with human genetics.

On a final note, and in counter to my position, one indicator that genetics is involved is that 1% of the population is intp, while all the ESxx people each make up about 8% of the population. INTP's don't tend to 'get as much' as those types, which would explain why ESxx's are such a larger population than us. Or perhaps humanity needs more ESxx's than INTP's to survive. The thought is somewhat repulsive, but I won't throw away a possibility simply because of personal feelings.

A side comment here is about the causes of personality. Though SOMETHING is determined at birth, what about the next five years? Freud claimed the personality is setup by what happens in the first five years. Although he may have neglected genetics, we still have to be aware of the influence of those first five years and either accept it or refute it.

Comment on ESxx's 8 percent versus INTP's one percent. It's not what is needed more, but rather that personalities who can think carefully and at the same time not be obtrusive are needed to benefit society. But not too many or society would have little fun life. Robots are great, just don't let them compete with the non-robots.

 

[snafupants]

The thread starter mentioned shapeshifting - Trekkie Alert!!!

Actually, I know of a 1/2 dozen religions that posit all animals are in need of liberation. Liberation from what? Ask them, I aint no darn guru. Anyway, your assumption that boiling down everything to its simplest constituent parts (neurotransmitters, etc.) is somehow a sufficient explanation for consciousness - and by implication, personality - is a riot. The brain is basically a grapefruit looking blob, the mind no one has figured out yet. Although, many arrogant researchers have conflated the two and called it a no-brainer of an explanation. Good day!