Are we born as INTPs ?

[Aryan]

Well were we INTPs by birth or did Environment shape us?
I think I/E T/F are by birth while N/S and P/J are shaped by our surrounding social environment.

Any thoughts on these ?

[SheepDog]

That is VERY hard to answer. I've thought about it a lot. As I've indicated elsewhere, my wife and I are expecting soon, so we're reading a lot about childhood development. There are stages that children go through where they learn all sorts of things. I can see how experiences during these stages could have a lasting effect on personality. For example, there is a time when the infant starts to notice subtleties in expression, and what they learn during that period could have a huge effect on things like intuition or social strengths (or weaknesses).

On the other hand, babies have unique temperaments, even from the beginning. I've seen it over and over with friends and relatives who have children. There is no doubt in my mind that the beginnings of personality are there at birth.

I just cannot decide to what degree the inborn tendencies are affected by experience.

[MacGuffin]

It is a mix of both, but I think there is a template at birth for personality.

[Nindy]

Well, I believe the I/E factor to be fixed at birth and I blame the development of all other functions on natural disposition and influential environments. But that are just my thoughts on the matter.

[Lucas]

It is a mix of both, but I think there is a template at birth for personality.

I agree. It can't be completely nature because personality types vary greatly in different cultures, such as the higher prevalance of Introverted types in Asia.


We are born with a certain amount of plasticity regarding our personality, which is shaped by our enculturation.


-Lucas

[mgb]

I would just have to say that both my parents were SJs. One was an ISTJ and the other an ESTJ. My year younger sister is an ESTJ too. We moved around a lot in my younger years so I can't say that outside of my family I had a consistant environment to shape my behavior.

I think we might have some sort of framework established in our minds at birth as to how we will respond to certain situations, from there we develop our instincts as we will see them later.

As an example, I remember when I was about 6 or 7 at my first summer camp. It was a Christian camp like the one my mom went to growing up. I remember our counsellor preaching something about the start of the world and me asking where god came from. There was no answer he could have given me to get me to believe what he was saying. I did not get that from home. So where?

[Birdsnest]

Its got to be DNA, and I think we were born with it. How could siblings turn out so differently, even twins in same womb condition turn out so differently if it were JUST environment. Sure, environment does play a part, but not that big of a part.

Well, you know me, I give long-winded answers. I think we are shaped some by our environment inside the womb but that its our dna which has our specific recipe the instant we are conceived, and that will always be, but we can conciously balance out who we are when we make decisions every day.

On the other hand, think of evolution and how it can adapt to things. A giraffe and its neck had to reach the branches, so it somehow grew a long neck. Ok, so somewhere, I think there is this "magic" want that CAN change anything that was imprinted on us, IF we have to have it for survival.

Just because we were one way at age 2, though doesn't mean we can't accept a whole new self if we need it to adapt. So, we can let something take precedence over our original ways if we need it to. It might not seem natural, but it can be "balanced" from the top so to speak.

I guess underneath we will always be the same at core, but if we purposefully need to be another way, or if we think our way needs to have more balance, or if for some reason our old ways no longer serve us, we can do that balance. (Except, as an introvert I won't like socializing unless I do a whole bunch of layers of convincing myself that I do). Still I will come away from social situations less well off because its not my strong point. I may never be as strong socially as an extrovert is naturally, but i can change if the purpose for it allows it to take over.

Think of two hands, one has one decision, the other has another. Whichever helps you most in that particular situation can be conciously chosen because it will offer you more. My feelings are that under it all, we might be same to start with, but can bridge the gap by conciously chosing something to remedy something.

And thats not totally true either. I am also an hsp, and I know that too much social stimulation really wears on me. So I have to work WITH myself to give myself the best balance socially, and really am going to be limited somewhat by my introversion and hsp'(ness) no matter what I "convince" myself or how much I want to bridge the gap, there will be limitations on how social I can be, and I can't change that.

So I guess we can try but we have built in limitations to work around.

I think we were born with our traits, for how else could twins be so different if they were in the same womb with same conditions, its got to be dna...

Well, once again, you have two ends of a spectrum, your concious mind and your natural limitations. Do what you can, thats all.

[Aryan]

I think we were born with our traits, for how else could twins be so different if they were in the same womb with same conditions, its got to be dna.

Interesting !
Do identical twins have different personalities ?

Hey identical twins have same DNA

[Birdsnest]

Well, lets take Mary Kate and Ashley for instance. Not the same at all. They are identical, but have different personalities totally.

[Witticism]

My twin and I, though fraternal, are different: she's an ENFP and I'm an INTP. I think that I/E is probably fixed at birth, though I'm not terribly sure about the others.

[Boneca]

Well were we INTPs by birth or did Environment shape us?
I think I/E T/F are by birth while N/S and P/J are shaped by our surrounding social environment.

Any thoughts on these ?
Would you care to elaborate on that? It's rather the opposite to what I believe.
I think that the N/S is innate. How could S parents raise a child to get an N preference? I don't think you can learn to be intuitive. And I'm sure I couldn't stop being N, even if I should really want to.

P/J I think is also innate...the world would like us all to be J's, but still some of us are not, right? Why would anyone learn to be P?

T/F is possibly environmental, but I think you have some kind of natural preference that can later be developed or repressed.

I/E I'm actually not sure about, but I could imagine that early childhood events could at least influence the preference. (F.ex. a child that is frequently left alone may learn to cope better with being alone).

[mgb]

Would you care to elaborate on that? It's rather the opposite to what I believe.
I think that the N/S is innate. How could S parents raise a child to get an N preference? I don't think you can learn to be intuitive. And I'm sure I couldn't stop being N, even if I should really want to.

P/J I think is also innate...the world would like us all to be J's, but still some of us are not, right? Why would anyone learn to be P?

T/F is possibly environmental, but I think you have some kind of natural preference that can later be developed or repressed.

I/E I'm actually not sure about, but I could imagine that early childhood events could at least influence the preference. (F.ex. a child that is frequently left alone may learn to cope better with being alone).

In my case I think that makes a lot of sense. I grew up with all Ss and Js, so adopting an introverted personality was quite easy for me because then I could just avoid them.

I could also see the T as being a product of the I because I probably spent more time with books and less time with people so it became harder to relate to people.

[blue_eye]

That's tough.

I/E is learnt, a child going to school know's who's popular and who's not and learns to live in that reality hence continuing to be an E or and I. My question here is "what is the cause of popularity." You throw kids in the mix at school and it just happens.

S/N that's innate. But consider a child who's grown up in a religious background being told about God etc. wouldn't they be more prone to be an N to make sense of this on a rational level NT, or a fantasy level NF than an empircal or pragmatic SP or SJ level?

T/F both judging functions. I think it comes down to you are a T if you think thinking will give you better control of you external world, you're an F if you think feeling will give you better control of your world. (i.e. INTP's like to make systems to control the world, ENFP's would like to control it from the perspective of their feelings)

P/J Now everyone wants to be a P since it's so much more fun, but noone wants the consequence that sometimes go along with it (i.e. a lack of planning). If I think that I'll get more please with sporatic behavoir, I'm a P, if I think that the consequences will hurt enough I'm a J. It's all about pleasure and pain.

[Boneca]

P/J Now everyone wants to be a P since it's so much more fun, but noone wants the consequence that sometimes go along with it (i.e. a lack of planning). If I think that I'll get more please with sporatic behavoir, I'm a P, if I think that the consequences will hurt enough I'm a J. It's all about pleasure and pain.Are you sure? I would love to be a J, and I trust me, I have tried. My poor mother has also tried her best to make me a bit more organised, but it doesn't work. I don't want to constantly change my mind, forget stuff, be late, have a messy desk...but I still do.
Therefore I think that J/P is indeed innate.

[Sackanaka]

Are you sure? I would love to be a J, and I trust me, I have tried. My poor mother has also tried her best to make me a bit more organised, but it doesn't work. I don't want to constantly change my mind, forget stuff, be late, have a messy desk...but I still do.
I do trust that you have tried, but I sometimes wonder if it requires certain "trigger events" to really cause a distinctly change in personality; seems to be the case if I imagine myself being forced (or significantly coaxed) to do my homework and stop fooling around on the computer. I was much more of a hardworker back in elementary school, when my dad used to push me hard, but after awhile he stopped and laziness ensued. That was during my teen years, a time of independence, developing self-awareness and whatnot; I wonder what would've happened if I were still pushed into working hard during all those years? I guess I'll never know unless someone invents one of those mythical time machines. And I won't bother determining what's innate and what's not for now; there's too little info and too much biased speculation at the moment.
As far as biological v conditioning goes, I'm sure the neurophysiostructural (is that even a word :wacko: ) differences amongst individuals plays a great role in the otherwise "random" interpretations and reactions to certain events; how the sensory input gets interpreted and integrated into the preexisting conscience, I assume, is invariably limited/guided by an individual's level of hormones, their synapse/axon connective structure, etc. Thus both ought to play a role; that's why I was wondering in my other thread: does evolution determine what the appropriate ratio is? That we indeed have variation of biology, plus the social stimuli variation then further molds individuals into an order for a "balanced" society. Those that don't balance don't quite cut it (and this then ties into our Politics and the World/Rants and Raves sections)
Key words of my argument: "trigger events", conditioning, impossible time-travel :p

[mgb]

I do trust that you have tried, but I sometimes wonder if it requires certain "trigger events" to really cause a change in personality; seems to be the case if I imagine myself being forced (or significantly coaxed) to do my homework and stop fooling around on the computer. I was much more of a hardworker back in elementary school, when my dad used to push me hard, but after awhile he stopped and laziness ensued. That was during my teen years, a time of independence, developing self-awareness and whatnot; I wonder what would've happened if I were still pushed into working hard during all those years? I guess I'll never know unless someone invents one of those mythical time machines. And I won't bother determining what's innate and what's not for now; there's too little info and too much biased speculation at the moment.
Key words of my argument: "trigger events", conditioning, impossible time-travel :p

I am not so sure about "trigger events" and "conditioning". Like your signature implies as INTPs we are likely to conform to make our lives easier. So when you "acted" like a J as little kid you were really just waiting to slack off. In essense your "natural" P came out and took over...hence you ended up here...

Oh yeah, anyone want to write a history paper for me? Anyone...

...feeding your P like a maniac. So my key words are "conformity" and "paper".

[Sackanaka]

ahh sorry made an edit while you responded :D

you are right mgbradsh, I do know how to act, but not sure if I knew back then. I wonder if my edit changes/clarifies things a bit more on my view?

[Lucas]

Its got to be DNA, and I think we were born with it..... A giraffe and its neck had to reach the branches, so it somehow grew a long neck. Ok, so somewhere, I think there is this "magic" want that CAN change anything that was imprinted on us, IF we have to have it for survival.

No magic, just natural selection picking out certain traits that increase survival or enhanced functioning in an ecosystem.

We can't change anything imprinted on us, it doesn't work like that.

As humans we have the capicity for culture, an inherent plasiticity for any type of culture. We also have a certain amount of phenotypic plasticity that allows for rapid adaption, for example to high altitudes. Children growing up at high altitude have barrel shaped chests and other differences than children living at sea level.

[last_caress]

I would say 75% nature, 25% nurture.
Take into consideration the studies of twins raised apart, if they are valid of course.
Personally, retrospective analysis reveals an int pattern of behavior even in my earliest years. I would say I was probably intj until about 12 and then intp.
I just stopped giving a shit about school.
My mom is intj. A wild guess at my genetic father would be estp.

[hemanthraz]

I think I/E is definitely inherited.Babies can be introverted too.

T/F may be environmental, being in an environment where everyone bases decisions on thinking leaves one no room for F thoughts

N/S -dont know

J/P- surely inherited. Nothing can make me organized.All my family is organized, im the only one whos not

Of course im speaking only wrt my own circumstanes.

[INTrPosr]

I think that we are born and are always one type. Clearly, environment and upbringing affects our behavior, which precludes anyone from being a pure type. I have seriously considered myself as INTJ (very briefly) INFJ and ENTP, because some of the descriptions fit me better. I guess I have to guage this by MBTI II and the DISC, which say that I prefer the INTP functions.

[gypseymothlee]

Well, lets take Mary Kate and Ashley for instance. Not the same at all. They are identical, but have different personalities totally.
They are fraternal twins, not identical.

This whole thing is just a rephrasing of the whole nature vs. nurture question, which has yet to be completely solved. I'd say it's a combination because while I believe that I've had the same thinking patterns for as long as I can remember, I was fairly extroverted as a kid.

[Durroch]

I used to be all for tabula rasa... Or blank slate, as in everyone starts out with the same thing and we are shaped by experience. But if this were so, there would be alot more confomity out there, eh?

Sure, there is enough conformity already... But Look at the situations people are placed in. They all come out differently, so there must be some predisposition for certain traits. I just rephrased what INTrPosr just said. See? Difference. But I've been up to late to think with any great clarity.

Anyone else see any holes in my theory? Tear it apart, as if you need permission.

[Jezebel]

Well, lets take Mary Kate and Ashley for instance. Not the same at all. They are identical, but have different personalities totally.

I think twins are a great place to start with seeing just how much nature and nuture do affect personality.

There have been many studies done that show that identical twins do, in fact, share more personality traits than normal siblings even if they didn't grow up in the same enviroment. In fact, many identical twins who were separated end up having strikingly similar personalities. Mary-Kate and Ashley are a bad example because they are popularly cited as being fraternal and therefore would not share all the same genes.

[Werdna]

I also think that a combination of upbringing and genes shapes our personality, I don't see how anyone can believe it's only one or the other.
How much of each probably depends on genetics, some of us are born with personalities more easily molded by the environment. Maybe even most of us. Not most INTPs though.

[Jezebel]

I also think that a combination of upbringing and genes shapes our personality, I don't see how anyone can believe it's only one or the other.

I believe it is definetely a combination.

[Aryan]

I believe it is definetely a combination.

Does genes shape our beliefs or environment ?
I think its not a combination always.

Some beliefs are definitely shaped by our environment only.

If i had the genes of an extroveted, sensing, .... etc can environment then take me to the level of INTP ?

[Aryan]

Another question ?

What do you get when u cross an INTP with ESTP (say) ?
The answer is definitely not fixed.
It doesnt depend therefore on the genes.

In fact what actually depends on the genes ?
E/I N/S T/F P/J
If a trait does depend on genes then it has to do something with the brain.

I now know right brain dominant people are more N than left brain dominant people, who are more S. ( a test: http://similarminds.com/brain.html )
I think i should post a poll on this.

So i take back (not totally) what i have said (N/S is shaped by environment: becoz i thought people when came in contact with words ie, books became more intuitive ... see http://209.87.142.42/y/book2/Book_057.htm)

[Werdna]

Another question ?

What do you get when u cross an INTP with ESTP (say) ?
The answer is definitely not fixed.
It doesnt depend therefore on the genes.
No, but there can be many different sets of genes that give rise to an ESTP personality. And there is such a thing as a random element in our procreation. I still think it depends as much on the genes.

[Sackanaka]

A case can be made for recessive/dominant traits; just because the phenotypic traits (in this case, personality type) don't seem to add up doesn't mean the genotypic makeup of each parent doesn't contain what's necessary for determining certain personality traits.
Just because a father is INTP doesn't mean he doesn't have the genes for extroversion, sensing, feeling, judging (if indeed there are such correlated genes). For whatever reason, the INTP-ness became the father's phenotype, and if you get enough of a population sample and run some statistics you might find out why. Perhaps we could pinpoint recessiveness vs dominance of each type one day, or even revise the typology for more accuracy/precision. :D
Don't rule out genetics too quick.

[Clara]

I know that we're born with our personality (infantile version, obviously, but with all the beginnings of what we'll later elaborate)

Note: I meant the word "personality." Type preference is just that: choices. Please don't leap, I'm not done. Choice is a complex thing, based on many factors - one of which is recognizing that a choice is possible, and taking it...

I think we have to remember: INTP is a short way of saying how our preferred functions work out in practical terms.

:zzz: (maybe try again another time - :smooch: we're tucked up with colds, here. Soup, and tea, and blankets).

[knome]

It seems to me that we are likely born into our personality types. I remember from when I was a child the classic "what do you want to be when you grow up" question. The more populous types of course had their various firefighter and presidential dreams, while I, even then, knew such things would never do for me, and stated instead of the more popular choices, that I would rather be a scientist. No particular type of course, just something locked away in a lab slaving over work most people will never comprehend. :)

That said, merely being an INTP leaves extraordinary room for difference in how one is. Typing is, as any here with a qualifier attached to their type knows, not a precise art, and itself only meant to generalize a few concepts of personality. There are variations in a type, even without the odd "INTP/J" or "I - 50.0012%" to throw a monkey wrench into the typing works.

Here's something rather related. (http://homepage.mac.com/bahlberg/iblog/B1386252977/C715152919/E467503953/)

Not verifying or disclaiming anything in the previous, just throwing it out as something of interest to the thread.

[Aryan]

In fact what actually depends on the genes ?
E/I N/S T/F P/J
If a trait does depend on genes then it has to do something with the brain.

I now know right brain dominant people are more N than left brain dominant people, who are more S. ( a test: http://similarminds.com/brain.html )
I think i should post a poll on this.

So i take back (not totally) what i have said (N/S is shaped by environment: becoz i thought people when came in contact with words ie, books became more intuitive ... see http://209.87.142.42/y/book2/Book_057.htm)

So, I think my theory about N being more right dominant is in the right direction I guess, after this small sample, http://intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1434

Though only INTPs have voted there, i guess it holds for other Ns also.

Hence for N/S , thats dependent on our genes.

[Edmond Zedo]

Well, I believe the I/E factor to be fixed at birth and I blame the development of all other functions on natural disposition and influential environments. But that are just my thoughts on the matter.

Strangely, I think just the opposite is most likely true. It's so logical that a person age 0-5 who concentrated on interpersonal exchanges would be come E, and one who spent a lot of time more alone would become I

[lexiphanic]

Something that people may have only hinted at is that there might also be a firmness of personality (or lackthereof) present at birth that dictates how much the environment will affect (or have no effect) on a person's personality.

As an example: My friend's dad is ridiculously talkative to anybody and everybody while my friend talks so rarely to people he isn't close to they think him socially retarded. His own words were that he doesn't like to talk unnecessarily.

[Clara]

I don't know, and I'm just throwing this into the discussion...

Don't you think a part of that *might* be a reaction to his dad talking so much -- like, if someone eats far too much chocolate one time, they may turn green at the very thought, for some time after that? :)
When his dad talks, does he pay attention to whether anyone else has something to say? (Does he interrupt people when they talk? Listen attentively?)

[lexiphanic]

No, he just doesn't stop. Honestly. He is one of the people that will drag you from place to place, from conversation to conversation until you at one point make it known obviously that you are going to do something else or are just leaving.

I guess the post wasn't clear. I was originally proposing that with along with personality at birth, there may also be a genetically gifted amount of bend that can be put on a person's traits affectable by their environment (them).

[tragula]

My vote goes for N/S and F/T functions being mostly hard-wired or genetic.

But I think the E/I and J/P are probably environmental and set in the first 3 years of life. My view is that perhaps the amount of parental and social ATTENTION sets E/I. And that the amount of CONTROL allowed a baby/toddler sets J/P. I do believe in learned helplessness, which is something that does seem to explain P.

I'm sure others have said pretty much the same thing somewhere, this is just my tentative conclusion/agreement.

It does raise the question though, and I know it's not pretty at all, of whether I and P are in fact negative traits. I hate thinking like that, but it just seems to me that they do make people less happy. (Of course any individual can enjoy life in their own way, and make significant contributions to the world. And being on the outside and not fitting in can certainly be big advantage for creativity and innovation. But from a SOCIAL perspective...)

[coffeezombie]

But I think the E/I and J/P are probably environmental and set in the first 3 years of life. My view is that perhaps the amount of parental and social ATTENTION sets E/I. And that the amount of CONTROL allowed a baby/toddler sets J/P. I do believe in learned helplessness, which is something that does seem to explain P.


"Learned helplessness" is a pretty negative way to describe something I see as "observing and exploring all possibilities." I've seen cases when INTJs got things wrong because they were "pig-headed" and refused to look at other alternatives than the first ones that came up in their minds.

As for the nature/nurture thing, I know that my parents gave me plenty of attention, yet I was still extremely uncomfortable around strangers as a child. I was also much more curious about everything around me and less focused and organized than a J is. All of my family is I and P, so maybe I unconsciously absorbed their traits, but I doubt it, since I know people who grew up around all E's or all J's and still ended up I or P.

[Edmond Zedo]

It does raise the question though, and I know it's not pretty at all, of whether I and P are in fact negative traits. I hate thinking like that, but it just seems to me that they do make people less happy. (Of course any individual can enjoy life in their own way, and make significant contributions to the world. And being on the outside and not fitting in can certainly be big advantage for creativity and innovation. But from a SOCIAL perspective...)
"But if you try sometime...You just might find...You get what you need." (RS)

Since Es need people more, and Js need order more, it seems like they are much more easily hampered by shortages than Is and Ps, and therefore we are all fundamentally unhappy!

[tragula]

It's amazing how little we actually know about our own early years sometimes. I mean parents could stumble on some hot baby manual that advocates "strictness" for one child and then take a different tack on the next.... Or they could both be working for one, and at home for the next. Or there could be a grandmother or great nanny for one that is missing for the next. Or they could not breastfeed one child and breastfeed the next. Or they could have a favorite child...

So while I won't dismiss anecdotal family evidence, I don't embrace it either.

I don't mean to sound too negative about "learned helplessness. But I do think that the more you are convinced you will have an impact, the more likely you are to act decisively. If you are convinced you can't change things, you are more likely to just detach and observe. And this quickly becomes habitual. If I really question myself sometimes about the big obstacles in my life I find that I have a reluctance to tackle them because I'm not convinced I can succeed.

[jyakulis]

what do you think anxiety correlates to n/s or e/i?
Also, I dunno bout P/J. I always come with a new elaborate scheme to get more J like and it never works out. I'm guessing F and T are more enviornmental. Intuition is very mysterious to me.....

[Edmond Zedo]

what do you think anxiety correlates to n/s or e/i?
Also, I dunno bout P/J. I always come with a new elaborate scheme to get more J like and it never works out. I'm guessing F and T are more enviornmental. Intuition is very mysterious to me.....
I feel certain that if T/F were environmental, I'd be F. I was such a little wacko. But maybe the opposite is true. My emotions and thoughts are so often completely separate, it could have been a defense mechanism. I've talked myself into indecisiveness, haven't I.

[Miss Anthropic]

Well, lets take Mary Kate and Ashley for instance. Not the same at all. They are identical, but have different personalities totally.
They are fraternal twins....regular siblings who happen to share the womb at the same time..........speaking of wombs and babies and such I believe we are who we are at birth the whole INTP thing. Environment can shift you from one position on the spectrum to a couple of notches to the left or right, but the thought processes are biological. The I or E is evident from the moment of birth. Try to pass an I baby around and they will train you really fast that being overhandled by strangers is unacceptable. Pass an E baby around...no big deal. The thing with kids is they are born, you have expectations that are inevitably unrealistic and the babies turn into the people they are supposed to be in this life regardless of the environment. My daughter is 13 and when she was born her personality was already very distinct. While I couldn't picture what she would develop into, I can definitely see where she came from quirks and all. The expectations I had of having a "mini-me" (I don't know why in the hell I would have wanted that, but I really sort of expected it) were dashed...and she is a fabulous individual. Somehow she is an F instead of a T, and has shown signs of being an animal rights activist from about the age of 5. YIKES! I think PETA should stand for People for Eating Tasty Animals. Anyway, I really think genetics and soul form a personality and environment just shapes behaviors which we are capable of changing.

[tragula]

They are fraternal twins....regular siblings who happen to share the womb at the same time..........speaking of wombs and babies and such I believe we are who we are at birth the whole INTP thing. Environment can shift you from one position on the spectrum to a couple of notches to the left or right, but the thought processes are biological. The I or E is evident from the moment of birth. Try to pass an I baby around and they will train you really fast that being overhandled by strangers is unacceptable. Pass an E baby around...no big deal. The thing with kids is they are born, you have expectations that are inevitably unrealistic and the babies turn into the people they are supposed to be in this life regardless of the environment. My daughter is 13 and when she was born her personality was already very distinct. While I couldn't picture what she would develop into, I can definitely see where she came from quirks and all. The expectations I had of having a "mini-me" (I don't know why in the hell I would have wanted that, but I really sort of expected it) were dashed...and she is a fabulous individual. Somehow she is an F instead of a T, and has shown signs of being an animal rights activist from about the age of 5. YIKES! I think PETA should stand for People for Eating Tasty Animals. Anyway, I really think genetics and soul form a personality and environment just shapes behaviors which we are capable of changing.

Babies are complicated. They go through specific stages where most of them hate strangers and stages where they don't mind them. I don't think you can tell a baby's I or E by that at all. Some babies who are really docile are the ones who have been desensitized, and those are the ones you really have to feel sorry for.

My theory is that "attachment parenting" a parenting theory that probably won't mean much to most people here but is basically about being really responsive to babies needs, will produce E and J types.

I am going to start a new thread about I and P and all this stuff.

[KentOhio]

My vote goes for being all nature. We didn't learn our types; they were already there to allow us to learn in the first place. I think types are all about how the brain is wired. Barring some kind of brain injury, we are the same type, from pre-birth development to death. My sister had a baby last year, and there was never a phase when he disliked social settings. He's never cried around people. By the time he was 6 months old I had him figured as an EXFP. He's over a year old now, and he acts the same as he did then.

[Miss Anthropic]

Babies are complicated. They go through specific stages where most of them hate strangers and stages where they don't mind them. I don't think you can tell a baby's I or E by that at all. Some babies who are really docile are the ones who have been desensitized, and those are the ones you really have to feel sorry for.

My theory is that "attachment parenting" a parenting theory that probably won't mean much to most people here but is basically about being really responsive to babies needs, will produce E and J types.

I am going to start a new thread about I and P and all this stuff.

I take it you haven't had a lot of "real" experience with babies...just a lot of reading. In REAL life there are easy babies and fussy babies. The I and the E are definitely determined chemically. I's have a lot more going on chemically inside the head and the E's need more outside stimulation. I's get overstimulated and get fussy more easily. You would have to really neglect a baby severely to desensitize it to the point of apathy. When I say "easy" baby, I don't mean docility I mean they are easy-going. Of course they can be fussy sometimes (that's what babies do) but you don't get that immediate overstimulation like you do with an I. btw, if you are taking credit for your fabulous parenting skills for conditioning your child into an E, forget about it. If you have another one or two your theories of nurture vs. nature will come back and bite you in the ass.

[Wrath Mania]

I think it's all genetic, recent studies would definetly support that.

How much you repress or grow your temperaments might have more to do with your own childhood and life. But the inborn braintype, IMO, is always there.

If you spend the first twenty years of your life, particularily adolescenthood, developing your two strongest traits, and then the latter grow through adulthood and middle age, then it's not unreasonable to think people who believe their personality change are actually just developing their own traits naturally.

How you are raised could affect the molding of your personality, even if the inborn braintype is fixed. As a kid I believe I showed some F traits, often worrying about interpersonal matters. I'm now growing convinced this was because I grew up in Catholic Schools, and was taught to worry about them. It wasn't until preteen-early adolescenthood that I questioned and rejected it.

[tragula]

I take it you haven't had a lot of "real" experience with babies...just a lot of reading.... If you have another one or two your theories of nurture vs. nature will come back and bite you in the ass.

Ok. First of all, how do you know I don't like it when things bite me in the ass?!? Didn't think of that did you ms. smarty pants... ;P

Personally I have settled on the nature AND nurture. I think that parenting can definitely make children either more or less secure by how responsive they are, and that is going to impact personality in a big way.

I definitely believe that there is such a thing as a fussy baby. (And always have believed that.) I don't think it's possible to say that this can usually be attributed to overstimulation... But the whole fussy baby debate probably belongs on babycenter, so, I'll leave it at that.

[nBT]

It's amazing how little we actually know about our own early years sometimes. I mean parents could stumble on some hot baby manual that advocates "strictness" for one child and then take a different tack on the next.... Or they could both be working for one, and at home for the next. Or there could be a grandmother or great nanny for one that is missing for the next. Or they could not breastfeed one child and breastfeed the next. Or they could have a favorite child...

So while I won't dismiss anecdotal family evidence, I don't embrace it either.

I don't mean to sound too negative about "learned helplessness. But I do think that the more you are convinced you will have an impact, the more likely you are to act decisively. If you are convinced you can't change things, you are more likely to just detach and observe. And this quickly becomes habitual. If I really question myself sometimes about the big obstacles in my life I find that I have a reluctance to tackle them because I'm not convinced I can succeed.

did you already start that I/P thread?

all my brothers and one sister are in*p. my dad is an intp. my mom is an*s*j and has a little autism running in her family. so its genes allright. we as 3 brothers were born each a year after eachother. so we recieved each a similar upbringing, had the same environments. our parents never 'forced' an upbringing upon us. there were hardly any rules as far as i can remember. since we never tried to seek our SJ borders. (duh) all my mom can tell that we sought the world. tried every new thing, break things open. looking at discovery channel etc. draw, read, explore.

i vote for the all inburnt template. if a choice was to be made as a child (T or F for instance) there has to be preference. some functions are more or less controlable by culture or teaching. a wrong bias can be set during school. but i think it creates an unhappy person.

[Elro]

so its genes allright.
Possible, but who's to say that each of the four preferences is determined by only one gene? What happens if, say, S/N is determined by three genes and not all of the genes for one type are passed down? What makes up MBTI, though fairly accurate, is also fairly arbitrary and I think the idea of each preference being contained by only one gene is off. How else could seemingly random types materialize in families (e.g. an INTP being born to an ESFP and ESFJ)? And there is a chance that MBTI is partially environmental.. But I think it is from birth most of the time.

[nBT]

Possible, but who's to say that each of the four preferences is determined by only one gene? What happens if, say, S/N is determined by three genes and not all of the genes for one type are passed down? What makes up MBTI, though fairly accurate, is also fairly arbitrary and I think the idea of each preference being contained by only one gene is off. How else could seemingly random types materialize in families (e.g. an INTP being born to an ESFP and ESFJ)? And there is a chance that MBTI is partially environmental.. But I think it is from birth most of the time.

arent genes able to skip a generation? or mutate/adapt some? i dont know my grandparents too well. let alone my great-grand parents. also as lexiophanic (sp?) suggests: there might be a persistent preference? or a waek one? those would lie on the border (S/N for example). the preference would then be achieved by nurture.

[Crispy]

I think I personelly may have been born with INTP qualities or traits that later devleped into an INTP personality, as when I was a baby I was apparantly very very quiet and sedate, in fact my parents have said I was a perfect baby in terms of my behaviour and noise I made, I have also always only had a small group of friends though every stage of my life as I find i only identify with certain people (mostly people like me) and often I latch on to people who are more extroverted but with simliar thinking or feeling personlaities, as they are traits that I have.

I think that wherever you are an INTP though preety much depends on how you were when you were born, and also enviromental factors like how you were baught up and the people you grow up with , as you find or identify a self that you identify as your own due to your percieved position in the social world.

[nBT]

id like to add a new observation to this thread:
namely the culture we were born in. this is the reason: i only have arabs as collegues. these people have an F culture. west europe has a T culture. now i consider culture as a layer upon our initial preferences. seeing how they react and take desicions - and seeing dutch cultural preferences. i think i might have underestimated nurture somewhat. culture is passed on in your upbringing, even more so than family values. int's are least vulnarable to cultural preaching. still childhood and teenage years can doctrinate you alot.

[Miss Anthropic]

id like to add a new observation to this thread:
namely the culture we were born in. this is the reason: i only have arabs as collegues. these people have an F culture. west europe has a T culture. now i consider culture as a layer upon our initial preferences. seeing how they react and take desicions - and seeing dutch cultural preferences. i think i might have underestimated nurture somewhat. culture is passed on in your upbringing, even more so than family values. int's are least vulnarable to cultural preaching. still childhood and teenage years can doctrinate you alot.

Yes, but if you are primarily looking at the I/E factor I don't believe that is cultural. You could cultivate the other traits more easily to one side of the spectrum or the other...

[CapnEnnui]

Without reading any of the previous posts due to laziness and the possibility that people are just saying what I've already heard on this issue:

No way is personality something that is innate.

Consider this: You track down Albert Einstein during his terrible twos. You take him and chuck him deep into the woods of Siberia. Assume that he somehow survives, like that feral kid they found in France somewhere 200 or so years ago. Now, after 15 or so years, you come back and find him. Would he be a genius, an innovator, an incredible thinker and reasoner? No, he'd be a sensing, feral, moralless moron due to a complete lack of socialization, education, and the completely different experiences. He'd have no concept of ownership or personal space. Chances are he wouldn't take up working at a patent office.
If you put the same baby in ten different families, ten different sequences in life, ten different feelings, ten different educations... you're not going to have ten of the same person, or ten of the same MBTI type.
As for I/E, I'd say that's definitely influenced by socialization, by life experiences. It may depend on how much your parents would talk to you and interact with you, maybe on traumatizing experiences that sent you inwards... maybe introversion happens when people feel shame for being outgoing... looking back on my own experiences, I can think of possible turning points from the once-unreserved leader I was as a young child... but personal experience is hardly scientific.
Erik Erikson makes a strong case for personalities as developed... I guess maybe identical twins that are raised separately would be one way to test scientifically, but even then, they supposedly have 'empathic links' that connect them even when apart, so that takes this completely out of my domain for speculation.

[euterpenc]

The way you are raised most surely has an impact on personality. I can't be sure, but I/E *might* be inherent. From my parents explanations and my observations, I have deduced that I was always an I and my sister always an E. My parents left me alone long times in the crib (so they say) and they said I didn't cry or anything, unless I was hungry, diaper etc. while other babies may have cried for their parents hungry or not. I was thinking well because I was left alone I became an introvert, but not all babies would have been able to stay alone. However, this was at the age of 1-2, so there may have been previous imprints, I'm not sure.

My sister on the other hand, was placed in a social enviroment at a daycare center. And she's as ES as you can get. She calls me a freak because I listen to rock music, and don't mind being alone. My sister and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum and no in an opposites attract way either, it's more like disgust on my part and alienation on hers. But anyway, the point is, we were raised by the parents, with the same morals and guidelines, but we are completely different. Not just in personality, but morals as well. She's still 3 years yonger than me, but she doesn't show much prospect for change. I don't think that helped the thread lol, but try and make what you can out of it, thanks.

[CapnEnnui]

Yet, that seems to be good evidence that people are influenced as introverts or extroverts by experience. Your sister being placed in a social environment may have cultivated her extroversion, while you being left alone in the crib may have increased your introversion. And I'm definitely not saying that parents, or that the people who raise children, are the people who plant the seeds of personality. Parents are not the only people who socialize children, and certainly not the only source for their knowledge and learning. Children can be influenced by a variety of things; having a pet die, a death in the family or divorce, maybe even breaking their leg one summer. Friends in school probably play a large part in our development as well, as we're interacting with people of the same age and therefore similar levels of development... It just makes more logical sense that, during childhood, children begin to try out different methods of interpretation of the world, and those stick with us, more or less. Babies have very, very few instincts, and they learn through socialization how to function.
And, if we're speaking from personal experience, I was quite extroverted as a young child. After a few years, I was most definitely not... but really, it seems more likely that that was due to what happened over those years, and what situation I was in. Going back to the Einstein-In-Siberia possibility, would all of the extroverts of today be extroverts if thrown into the woods with nobody else?

[Crispy]

would all of the extroverts of today be extroverts if thrown into the woods with nobody else?

Maybe they would develop imaginery friends to cope? Maybe compensating for the loss of company by inventing imaginery friends (as many young children do) based on themselves.

This idea is of course assuming extrovert qualitites are more gentic than enviromental.

[Aryan]

I think I/E is environmental

Lets look at an INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe

Since N/S is genetic ( Ne and Ni are considered to have different genes here e/i arent extrovert and introvert but extroverted intuition and introverted intuition) so it (the person) now has Ne in-built.
Depending on the environment he grows in he would prefer to use Ne more or less
So now Ne will be on the 1 or 2 rank of functions.
Again T/F is also genetic (Ti and Te having different genes)
So in this case where Ti is in-built it ranks either as 1 or 2 because the person is T
So depending on the environment we have the Ti-Ne or Ne-Ti characters.
and wholla! we have an ENTP or INTP

Remember
1. Ti/Te doesnt depend on E/I but on P/J
A TJ has Te but a TP has Ti
2. Ti-Ne is enough to define an INTP the last functions are actually complements of
the first two namely Si (comp. of Ne) and Fe (comp. of Ti)
Since Ti is the strongest Fe becomes the weakest by the principle of complements.


PS. There is still confuision in my mind though where P/J depends on the genes, but i assumed it to be true.

[euterpenc]

I talked to my dad about this (he's an INTJ). He said some of it *is* in the genes. But he's a J not a P like me. What is the source of these genes? Does it skip genereations? or is it a certain opposition or balance of the parents?

[jjt]

My cousin, an MBTI instructor, is married to an identical twin. She has done the extended test on both twins and found them different. Sorry I cant remember the details of the differences. It was only in one thing like I / E.
So I guess environment must play some part.
I knew another set of identical twins once and one was definitely far more extravert.

[mgb]

My cousin, an MBTI instructor, is married to an identical twin. She has done the extended test on both twins and found them different. Sorry I cant remember the details of the differences. It was only in one thing like I / E.
So I guess environment must play some part.
I knew another set of identical twins once and one was definitely far more extravert.

I could see that being a product of their development. With one of the twins always playing the dominant role.

[Nighthawk]

It is my belief that we are born with a certain personality template, and what we learn is influenced by that template. We can move outside it to some extent, but it becomes more difficult the farther out we move.

I underwent intensive training at a military academy to be an E and a J. For 13 years, I became very proficient at being extraverted and scheduling. In essence, I learned those attributes. I became an ENTJ to outward appearances. (The irony of the Field Marshal moniker is not lost on me.) Inside however, I was under extreme stress and hated my life. I acted out in many destructive ways. I wonder if it was my psyche trying to sabotabe me back into being who I really was.

Within months of leaving the military, I became a solid INTP again ... reverting right back to what I had been as a child ... before I tried to reinvent myself as a teenager and young adult.

I think INTP's have a difficult time with this concept of learning vs. template, because we spend at least some part of our lives wrestling with the desire to be like "every body else." (i.e. the SJs and SPs). We convince ourselves that we can learn to be different. I don't belive it is possible. We can learn to act differently, but actually being different is another matter entirely.

[Nighthawk]

OK ... here is a very wild theory about how personalities might develop. Our brain is just a complex neural network with billions upon billions of pathways. The more you use a pathway, the stronger it becomes ... hence repetition is how we learn most things. Addictions or obessions are also well used pathways in our minds. That's how we sometimes make the same mistakes or pursue the same destructive behavior over and over again.

Is it possible that people are born with a certain set of pathways already pre-wired towards a certain personality type? Or there could be certain "soft" areas on the neural network that are more conducive to traffic and forming pathways there. The next question is (assuming this theory is true) ... what affects how these pathways or soft areas are created? This might have nothing to do with DNA.

[Zero Angel]

You know, I had that exact same theory. Think about if you had a carving knife and you made a path in a block of wood, sliding your knife down the already carved part would eventually become very easy, because the shape of that path would eventually match the shape of the blade and become smooth and polished, however re-aligning that knife to go along a less carved path would require quite a bit of effort because you are taking a path of higher resistance and the wood grains of the less used path would also interfere, you would have to twist the knife slightly and apply more pressure to smooth out the less used and higher path.

I'm sure that your EJ functions got a good work out and that you can use them with little effort for short durations which I suppose is a good thing in the long run, despite all the mental exhaustion that you had to endure.

[euterpenc]

good theories.

[CapnEnnui]

I think Nighthawk sums up pretty much what I believe to be true. We begin to use certain methods to think, to absorb information, and to talk about. Genetics would suggest that children of parents of the same type would end up with that type, or at least something close. I think that this might tend to be true, but that's because those parents are cultivating in their children their own personalities, and leading them to the path of personality that they took. However, there are also cases where children are completely unlike their parents. I think i read in the forums somewhere about how someone has SJ parents and siblings, but ended up himself as an N and a P. My parents, both of whom I'm sure are Js due to their constant desire to work on some project, raised two P children. I'd hypothesize that we are because our parents were doing everything all the time for us, and neither of us really had to do any work was school when we were 9, at which point school work was a joke for the both of us, so we still didn't learn any real work skill. Well, yet again, personal experience isn't a good indicator, but having one case where children end up to be unlike their parents is a good indicator that genetics might not be in play here. After all, it would suggest that our personalities are hard-coded in the sperm and the egg. And it's hard to imagine an ENFP being the same, fantasy-driven ENFP if they were forced to survive on their own since they were only a small child. They'd have no people to talk to (they wouldn't even know other people exist!), and have nobody cultivate their emotions, and really had no time or immediate *need* to cultivate abstract thought. Even IQ has been shown to be something that changes, that can rise or fall during childhood depending on the cultivation of the mind and the self-image the child has.

[euterpenc]

makes sense.

[QrioCT]

yeah great point captain e.

i *dont* think its perfectly in the genes, although i've heard of twins being similar. that probably comes from 1. twins shares family environment 2. twins share physical characteristics which might affect how people react to them and their own image of themselves. 3. if twins are separated and adopted, they share the environment of being an "adoped child" 4. they both share a life in which there's someone looking just like them. 5. ok i'll shut up now...

twins arent the best subjects of study i guess.

whatever it is, i know pretty confidently that environment affects personality in general(not necessary MBTI type). unless u lived ur whole life holed up somewhere in the mountains and had no human contact, i think most people would know so i don't need to bore you again with a long list of explanations.