PDA

View Full Version : Body Type and Personality Type



fduniho
24 Mar 2011, 04:44 AM
When I took Psychology 101 in college, I learned about Sheldon's three body types: endomorph, ectomorph, and mesomorph. I generally saw myself as an ectomorph, except that ectomorphs are supposed to be tall, and I am short. More recently, I have come across the book How to Analyze People on Sight (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30601) by Elsie Lincoln Benedict and Ralph Paine Benedict. Instead of three body types, it has five, and one of these fits me much better than any of Sheldon's. The five types in this book are distinguished by one part of the body being more developed than others. The Alimentive has a good digestive system and seems to match Sheldon's endomorph. The Thoracic is distinguished by strong lungs and circulation. The Muscular has stronger muscles and seems to match Sheldon's mesomorph. The Osseous has big bones and is the tallest of the types, perhaps most closely matching Sheldon's ectomorph. However, the ectomorph is supposed to be the most intellectual of Sheldon's types, and it's not the most intellectual of Benedicts' types. The Cerebral is the most intellectual, being distinguished by a large brain and a small body. That's the one I fit in best, and the description of the Cerebral personality fits me very well.

In reading about these types, I tried to match them up with Enneagram types. Here is how I match them up:

Alimentive - 9 and/or 7
Thoracic - 4 and/or 7
Muscular - 8
Osseous - 1
Cerebral - 5

The Alimentive and Thoracic touch on different aspects of 7. The Alimentive is the most gluttonous of the types, gluttony being associated with type 7. The Thoracic appreciates variety, something else the 7 is noted for. However, I'm more inclined to associate the Alimentive with 9 and the Thoracic with 4.

The Enneagram types are noted for being associated with different centers of intelligence, and these are sometimes associated with different parts of the body. The intellectual types (5,6,7) are associated with the head, the emotional types (2,3,4) with the heart, and the physical types (8,9,1) with the gut. My pairing of body types with Enneagram types corresponds with this. The Cerebral type is associated with the head. The Thoracic type is the most emotional of the body types and is associated with the heart. The Alimentive is the type actually associated with the gut. The Muscular and Osseous are associated with the structural components of the body more than the others are, making them more physical than they are intellectual or emotional. The four remaining Enneagram types might be mixes of the five body types, but I don't yet have any set theory for what they might be. My working theory, which could easily be wrong, is that they are combinations of the two they fall between, such that 6 and 7 would be combinations of Cerebral and Muscular, and 2 and 3 would be combinations of Osseous and Thoracic. This is mainly because it is the simplest theory to come up with without further observation or analysis. It could be wrong.

This thread is for any general discussion of the relation between body types and personality types. They do not have to be the types I am discussing now, but I have to start somewhere. With that in mind, my first question is what is your body type, and how well does the description of that type fit you? I'll post pictures of examples later. In the meantime, you can read the book.

fduniho
24 Mar 2011, 10:59 PM
It is looking to me like there are two ways to be a thinking type and two ways to be a feeling type. I don't mean Te vs. Ti or Fe vs. Fi. I mean you can be a thinking type by being strongly intellectual or by being relatively unfeeling, and you can be a feeling type by being strongly emotional or by being relatively unintellectual. This shows up in comparing the different body types to each other. The Cerebral is strongly intellectual, whereas the Osseous is, due to his bony structure, more resistant to strong feelings. The Thoracic is strongly emotional, whereas the Alimentive is described as the least intellectual of the body types, due to the digestive system using up the resources that the Cerebral uses for mental activity. So, instead of there being a simply continuum between thinking and feeling, there are two sets of preferences here. One is between being intellectual and being unintellectual, the Cerebral and Alimentive being opposites on this. The other is between being emotional and unemotional, the Thoracic and the Osseous being opposites on this. My own body type is primarily Cerebral with Thoracic secondary, which fits with me being a 5w4. It also indicates that I am a thinking type due to the dominance of my intellect over my emotions, not from being emotionally insensitive. So it has surprised some of the more emotionally insensitive members of this board when I have expressed an interest in such emotional fare as Korean romantic dramas. I have much of the sensitivity described for the Thoracic type, and much like the pure Thoracic, who is said to enjoy every kind of music due to experiencing so many moods, I have built up a huge music collection mainly to have something to cover every one of my moods. At the border of 4 and 5, there is a conflict between emotions and intellect. The Five is known for being distant from emotions, and I think this is principally because his intellect needs distance from the strong emotions at Four to function smoothly. So, to focus on the intellect, the Five will disengage from his emotions from time to time.

In contrast to this, the conflict between 9 and 1 is between soft and hard. The Nine is inclined to go with the flow, while the One is inclined to stick to principles and stand firm. This is not actually a conflict as much as intellect vs. emotions is for the Five and Four. It's more a matter of being one way or the other, soft or hard. If type One matches the Osseous body type, then the firmness of the One is due to a strong skeleton that keeps him from being swayed by strong emotions. Compared to the Five, the One is fairly unemotional, and this allows him to more easily contain his emotions. The Five has a harder time containing his emotions, because they are generally too strong, leading him to disengage from his emotions more than the One does.

Although the One is not typically the intellectual equal of the Five, Sheldon's idea of the ectomorphic type might be a combination of the Osseous and the Cerebral types. This combination would combine the Cerebral intellect with the Osseous resistance to strong emotions, allowing the intellect to work with less emotional distraction than the pure Cerebral would normally meet. This combination would probably be the most intellectual of all body types.

skip
25 Mar 2011, 01:14 AM
Not sure who Sheldon is but ecto, meso and endo don't have anything to do with height.

fduniho
25 Mar 2011, 01:56 AM
Not sure who Sheldon is but ecto, meso and endo don't have anything to do with height.

That might be true. Some illustrations portray ectomorphs as taller, but I can't presently find any description of Sheldon's somatotypes that mentions height. What they do mention is that these three types are distinguished by different body compositions. Each is predominated by body components from a particular germ layer of embryonic development. The endomorph is named for the endoderm, which develops into the digestive tract and the respiratory tract. The mesomorph is named for the mesoderm, which becomes muscle, heart, and the blood vessels. And the ectomorph is named for the ectoderm, which becomes the skin and the nervous system. Based on this, the Thoracic would be part endomorph for the respiratory tract and part mesomorph for the heart and circulatory system, and the Cerebral would be an ectomorph. Although bones are not part of the endoderm, I've seen it mentioned that endomorphs have "a large bone structure." With this in mind, the Osseous type might get categorized as an endomorph.

In comparing Sheldon's system with that of the Benedicts, the latter seems more nuanced and scientific. Just because certain organs develop in the same germ layer doesn't mean they will have the same effect on the personality. A strong heart is likely to have a different effect than strong skeletal muscles. A strong respiratory system is likely to have a different effect than a strong digestive system. Instead of looking at what things developed together in embryos, the Benedicts look at the final components of the body. It is more plausible that these will have distinctive effects on the personality.

greenblob
27 Mar 2011, 05:11 AM
Anything that connects body types to personalities is BS. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some correlation, but it would be due to lifestyle choices and social pressure (but then I guess that's not body type but development).

I'm an extreme endomorph, and I almost always score >80% I, N, and T and >60% P (the first time I took the MBTI I scored 100% N and T and 90something% I and P) and enneagram tests always result in strong 5.

fduniho
27 Mar 2011, 09:06 PM
Anything that connects body types to personalities is BS.

This is a political statement, not a scientific statement. Science investigates hypotheses by looking for evidence. The hypothesis that constitution affects temperament is a respectable one and should not be dismissed as BS without due investigation. I understand the political sentiment behind wanting to dismiss this idea. It smacks of eugenics, which led to the Holocaust during World War II. With this in mind, we should note that the body types described by the Benedicts each have their good points and their bad points. The main benefit behind looking into their system is that it may provide you with a better understanding of yourself and of others, including more of an appreciation for people who are different from yourself.


I'm an extreme endomorph, and I almost always score >80% I, N, and T and >60% P (the first time I took the MBTI I scored 100% N and T and 90something% I and P) and enneagram tests always result in strong 5.

I don't have much faith in test scores, and despite your claims to be the same types as I am, I have not yet found us to be alike in any significant way. Also, my suggestions about correlations with the Benedicts' types and personality types remain more speculative, and the first thing I want to focus on is whether the Benedicts are accurately describing personality characteristics of the body types they describe. Since you describe yourself as an extreme endomorph, I'm assuming you're primarily an Alimentive. Are you a pure Alimentive with a small head, or possibly an Alimentive-Cerebral combination with a big head, or possibly an Alimentive-Osseous combination with big bones, sort of like Eric Cartman? Putting aside my suggestions for how these body types match personality types, how well does the description of the Alimentive fit you? Do the personality descriptions for any of the other body types fit you better? In particular, how well does the description of the Cerebral fit you?

YHWH
27 Mar 2011, 09:17 PM
fatty's jolly, skinny's nervous, tally's stupid, shorty's angry.

fduniho
27 Mar 2011, 09:25 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some correlation, but it would be due to lifestyle choices and social pressure (but then I guess that's not body type but development).

Here is how I think of it, and there could be more to it than this. The components of our body affect what we can do, which in turn affects the skills and abilities we develop in life. As Keirsey has pointed out, the psychological types described by Myers and Briggs correspond to different kinds of intelligence, and we tend to develop certain kinds of intelligence by focusing on things we're good at and becoming better at them. It's not so surprising that my body type would be better at Chess than at sports, because being small and weak doesn't suit people to sports, and I consequently spent more time playing Chess than I did playing sports. To put it more simply, constitution affects ability, which affects the type of intelligence developed, which affects personality.

But the Benedicts do suggest more than this. They suggest that the brain develops to think in a way that reflects the body type. This might be true, though I don't have sufficient evidence to say one way or the other. But I do think it is likely that similar body types will meet enough similar conditions in life that different people with the same body type may develop along the same lines.

fduniho
2 Apr 2011, 01:47 AM
It may be too time consuming to hunt down pictures of every body type for one post. So I'll break down the task into separate posts. Here are some examples of people with Osseous bodies:

Abraham Lincoln
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/lincolngettysburgsmall.jpg

Katharine Hepburn
http://the100.ru/images/actors/id325/4523-KatharineHepburnWomanoftheYear.jpg

http://www.silverscreensuppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/katharine_hepburn.jpg

Osama Bin Laden
http://junaidghumman.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/osama-bin-laden.jpg

Sigourney Weaver
http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/le/paul_premiere_6_080211/sigourney_weaver_3196108.jpg
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/110915/Sigourney%20Weaver-331x500.jpg

The Osseous type is noted for being able to stand against things more firmly than other types. Lincoln held the Union together and abolished slavery. Hepburn defied societal conventions. Bin Laden has been a staunch opponent of America. Weaver starred in movies where she fought menacing aliens. So the examples I've chosen here all seem to exemplify something of the personality description given for the Osseous type. On a personal note, I have an Osseous uncle who went into the woods and built his own log cabin. The Benedicts describe the Osseous as typical of the pioneer, because this type can better withstand harsh conditions than other types. Given the personality descriptions of the body types, building one's own log cabin in a time and place when it is no longer common or necessary to do is something an Osseous would more likely do than some other type would.

fduniho
2 Apr 2011, 04:42 AM
The Thoracic is described as the opposite in personality as the Osseous. Where the Osseous is firm and insensitive, the Thoracic is emotionally responsive and sensitive.

John Wilkes Booth
http://richmondthenandnow.com/Images/Famous-Visitors/John-Wilkes-Booth.jpg

http://www.josephhaworth.com/images/Other%20Actors/John%20Wiles%20Booth/Booth,JohnWilkes1-Resized.jpg

Audrey Hepburn
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Audrey_Hepburn_screentest_in_Roman_Holiday_trailer.jpg

http://cinemaclassic.free.fr/audrey/audrey_hepburn_63.jpg

Errol Flynn

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y-tEEhcFOKM/S9xznhFhhCI/AAAAAAAABBg/NlEOfIPzHGs/S730/errol+flynn.jpg

http://goldenhollywoodera.com/sites/LumicisiKathryn/_files/image/Errol%20flynn.jpg

Lee Hyori
http://www.emagasia.com/images/korean-girls/korean-girls-lee-hyori/korean-girls-lee-hyori.jpg

http://www.igoo.com/forums/gallery/files/3/2/7/2/6/1/lee-hyori-sexy2.jpg

fduniho
2 Apr 2011, 04:51 PM
Now for examples of the Muscular type:

Carl Palmer (Drummer for Emerson, Lake & Palmer and for Asia)
http://festivals.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/703/media/images/800px-Carl_Palmer_7040.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~ericb36//pwpimages/.__359_480_Palmer.jpg

Renée O'Connor (Gabrielle from Xena)
http://img1.tvloop.com/img/showpics/e9/49/m34bc17b10000_1_14245.jpg

http://playback.iamhuman.co.uk/assets/images/0001/8408/renee-o-connor-as-gabrielle-in-xena-warrior-princess-playback-image-2.jpg

Alexander Zass
http://www.animal-kingdom-workouts.com/image-files/alexander-zass.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Falk,_Benjamin_J._%281853-1925%29_-_Eugen_Sandow_%281867-1925%29-_1894_.jpg/300px-Falk,_Benjamin_J._%281853-1925%29_-_Eugen_Sandow_%281867-1925%29-_1894_.jpg

Denise Austin
http://www.celebs101.com/gallery/Denise_Austin/28453/denise_austin_photo_3.jpg

http://www.starling-fitness.com/wp-content/krogh_denise_austin.jpg

Tlalocone
2 Apr 2011, 06:18 PM
http://5b.hu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/vv.jpg

And what d'ya think his/her bodytype could be???
:ĐĐ

fduniho
2 Apr 2011, 08:42 PM
Some examples of Cerebrals:

Albert Einstein:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tDE48Ur4Xas/SK628cMtvZI/AAAAAAAAASs/uPm9BE2aqqE/s400/lgpp30265%25252Beinstein-on-bicycle-albert-einstein-poster.jpg

http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2067232.jpg

Marie Curie
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1298/1207764760_bc5d4f9d24.jpg

http://femmss.org/curie.jpg

http://faculty.ssfs.org/~doschel/Images/MarieCurie.gif

Bertrand Russell
http://geopolicraticus.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/bertrand-russell.jpg

http://www.lehman.edu/deanhum/philosophy/BRSQ/br1.jpeg

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_B5gmU-FOcOQ/TP84qjR0lGI/AAAAAAAAByc/_1sUGm_fm3w/s1600/mary_kate_ashley_olsen_twins.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_B5gmU-FOcOQ/TP84Z4KHd-I/AAAAAAAABxo/-uUSgW1GqUI/s640/02m.jpg

YHWH
2 Apr 2011, 09:15 PM
vmhjvhv..gfy gu i giugfi yluriyug;oijO"hpigoufi;gihogt7iu;

fduniho
2 Apr 2011, 09:25 PM
Finally, here are some examples of Alimentives. Although Alimentives have a tendency toward being fat, they are not always fat. It is also possible for other body types to put on weight. So it would be a mistake to assume that someone is an Alimentive simply for being fat. In some cases, I have shown the same person as fat and thin.

Jackie Gleason
http://www.shockya.com/interviews/billy_west/jackie_gleason_honeymooner.jpg

http://www.gotwhooped.com/fantasy/images/1208147039JackieGleason.jpg

Delta Burke
http://www.pasazz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/DeltaBurke.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-iU3xpSrY7A/SUAgOAYuy4I/AAAAAAAABBU/rv2aX2HeyQg/s400/delta+burke.jpg

Al Capone
http://www.officialpsds.com/images/thumbs/Al-Capone-psd53402.png

http://bestofsobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/al-capone-150x150.jpg

Oprah Winfrey
http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/22414-oprah-winfrey-i-weigh-200-lbs/oprah-o-b.jpg

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/685041_f520.jpg

fduniho
2 Apr 2011, 09:29 PM
(The picture above is magnifiable!!!)

I'm sorry I looked.


And what d'ya think his/her bodytype could be???
:ĐĐ

Photoshopped.

Tlalocone
2 Apr 2011, 09:38 PM
Sir, you REALLY do excel.(Not being cynical.)

fduniho
2 Apr 2011, 10:03 PM
According to the Benedicts, Thoracic women are the most beautiful, and Alimentive women are the prettiest. Given the pictures I selected for each type, this seems accurate. Audrey Hepburn and Lee Hyori, who were my examples of Thoracic women, are among the most beautiful women I have ever seen. Delta Burke looks very pretty, especially as Miss Florida, but even when she's fat. And even Oprah looks prettier than the Osseous, Muscular, and Cerebral women I included pictures of. I like the Cerebral women, but it is less from an aesthetic experience and more from an appreciation of what is like me. I appreciate the Muscular women for being fit, but I otherwise find the Thoracic, Alimentive, and Cerebral women more appealing. You might think that this has nothing to do with personality, but I think that personality is a factor. Notice how the Thoracics play the camera more than the other types do. It's not just that they're good looking. They are trying to show off their best side to the camera. Contrast this with the Cerebrals, who show no sense of style and are doing nothing to look good for the camera. The Osseous types may show a little bit more style than the Cerebrals, but they would rather show defiance than play to the camera. The Alimentives are the friendliest looking bunch here, even Al Capone in his mug shot. The Musculars look fit, but they lack the charm of the Thoracics and the amiability of the Alimentives.

fduniho
3 Apr 2011, 03:08 AM
The thought has occurred to me that the sense of style I was talking about in my last post can be associated with Se, extraverted sensing. Someone with Se is more aware of the impact that his looks and behavior will have on others. I was attributing it mainly to the Thoracics, whom the Benedicts believe comprise a large majority of the world's entertainers. For the record, many of the entertainers I appreciate are Thoracics. For example, I am a fan of several girl groups -- such as Girl's Generation, Wonder Girls, Kara, After School, Girl's Day, Miss A, and 5 Dolls -- whose members are all more or less beautiful Thoracic women. One of the reasons for this is that Thoracics have better developed lungs, making them better at singing and speaking, which directly involve the lungs, and even dancing, an aerobic activity that requires good breathing. But so many of them also seem to have a strong sense of the impact they are having on others, regularly making use of this sense to direct their actions. Notably, Keirsey attributes this quality to the SPs, and he maintains that most of the world's entertainers are SPs. So there may be a strong correlation between Thoracics and SPs.

Other body types seemed to be showing less awareness of their impact on others, and the Cerebrals seemed to be showing the least. This would fit with the Cerebrals being NPs. As NPs, they are iNtuitives who favor Si over Se. Speaking as an NP myself, I do have little awareness of the effect my dress and behavior have on others. Although I can appreciate other people's sense of style, I lack the sort of awareness it takes to have much of a sense of style myself. I may sometimes think about what colors I want to wear, but once I'm dressed, I don't give much attention to how I'm affecting others.

If a sense of style is mainly a product of Se, then we may expect that ISTPs and INTJs both have a greater sense of style than INTPs have. Although we cannot see each other, one way we convey our sense of style or lack thereof is through our avatars. Some people have very stylish, visually striking avatars, and some do not. My present avatar (a baby ogre doll) was not chosen for its visual impact but for its meaning: that baby ogre has my name. With this in mind, I will posit that INTPs will tend to choose avatars for their meaning, whereas ISTPs and INTJs will more likely choose avatars for their visual impact.

fduniho
3 Apr 2011, 03:21 AM
If Thoracics are mainly SPs, what can we make of the Benedicts' claim that Thoracics are intuitive? Maybe it just comes down to different definitions of intuitive. It is probably safe to assume that the Benedicts did not have in mind Jung's understanding of intuition. Awareness of how I appear to others goes beyond simple awareness of how I appear. I'm usually not standing in front of a mirror. But even without mirrors, some people act more like they can see themselves in the mirror than others do. This might be described as a kind of intuition, even if it is not what Jung means by intuition.

Resonance
3 Apr 2011, 06:43 AM
This is atrocious.

You don't pick a theory that you can narcissistically fit yourself into and then pick examples that also fit it to support it. Those are two very well-known cognitive biases: self-serving bias, and confirmation bias.

What you're supposed to do is pick a theory that you think might be right and try to find examples that disprove it.

Here's one: My body type is ectomorph/osseous, but I'm brilliant, physically weak, and 5w6. Oh dear!



It is looking to me like there are two ways to be a thinking type and two ways to be a feeling type. I don't mean Te vs. Ti or Fe vs. Fi. I mean you can be a thinking type by being strongly intellectual or by being relatively unfeeling, and you can be a feeling type by being strongly emotional or by being relatively unintellectual.
This is a good start, but you spiral out of control pretty quickly after that.

The digestive system only consumes about 11% of the body's energy, and is absolutely essential to keeping the brain supplied with energy and vitamins. So a healthier digestive system is going to make a person more intellectual, not less. I don't even know where to go from there.

angelique
3 Apr 2011, 03:33 PM
fatty's jolly, skinny's nervous, tally's stupid, shorty's angry.

=))

fduniho
3 Apr 2011, 07:02 PM
This is atrocious.

You don't pick a theory that you can narcissistically fit yourself into and then pick examples that also fit it to support it. Those are two very well-known cognitive biases: self-serving bias, and confirmation bias.

I see you have a gross misunderstanding of what I'm doing.


What you're supposed to do is pick a theory that you think might be right and try to find examples that disprove it.

Here's one: My body type is ectomorph/osseous, but I'm brilliant, physically weak, and 5w6. Oh dear!

When it comes to counterexamples, I remain skeptical that people who claim to be a particular type actually know what they are talking about. But I also remain skeptical of my correlations between body type and personality type, classifying them as SPECULATION. Anyway, since you claim to be an Osseous 5, and I have speculated that the Osseous is type 1 and the Cerebral is type 5, let me ask you whether the personality description the Benedicts give of the Cerebral fits you better than the personality description they give for the Osseous.



This is a good start, but you spiral out of control pretty quickly after that.

The digestive system only consumes about 11% of the body's energy, and is absolutely essential to keeping the brain supplied with energy and vitamins. So a healthier digestive system is going to make a person more intellectual, not less. I don't even know where to go from there.

On this point, I am following what the Benedicts say. An Alimentive is distinguished more by the size of the digestive system than by its efficiency. A pure Alimentive can eat more than a pure Cerebral, because the Alimentive has a bigger stomach. Eating more will prolong the duration of digestion, and digestion, they say, competes with mental activity for the energy it needs. They point out that a large meal can make a person sleepy, which detracts from mental activity. Also, food that doesn't get burned for activity, mental or physical, gets stored as fat. So eating more than is necessary is not going to go far toward making a person smarter.

angelique
3 Apr 2011, 07:24 PM
So, out of all the different types, after reading their descriptions, it would appear INTPs are of the Osseus variety:

"¶ As an employee, give him responsibility and then let him alone to do it his way.[Pg 215]

Then keep your hands off.

Don't give him constant advice; don't try to drive him.

Let him be as systematic as he likes.

When dealing with him in other business ways rely on him and let him know you admire his dependability."

❤ INTP!!!!!! ❤

fduniho
3 Apr 2011, 07:31 PM
So, out of all the different types, after reading their descriptions, it would appear INTPs are of the Osseus variety:

"¶ As an employee, give him responsibility and then let him alone to do it his way.[Pg 215]

Then keep your hands off.

Don't give him constant advice; don't try to drive him.

Let him be as systematic as he likes.

When dealing with him in other business ways rely on him and let him know you admire his dependability."

❤ INTP!!!!!! ❤

As an INTP, I can certainly relate to what you quoted. I prefer to work my own way with hands off from others. However, the larger point the Benedicts were trying to get across here is that the Osseous is responsible and dependable. Would you say that the INTP is the most responsible and dependable of the personality types? Or might some other type win on these two counts?

angelique
3 Apr 2011, 07:37 PM
As an INTP, I can certainly relate to what you quoted. I prefer to work my own way with hands off from others. However, the larger point the Benedicts were trying to get across here is that the Osseous is responsible and dependable. Would you say that the INTP is the most responsible and dependable of the personality types? Or might some other type win on these two counts?

I would say that INTPs are very reliable and dependable coworkers. We need more INTPs in the workplace! INTPs are easy to work with and extremely detail oriented. They are project driven not deadline driven, nor 9-5 creatures of habit.

This description is great:

"The Osseous Walk

¶ The extremely raw-boned person has also a formal gait. His walk, like all his other movements, is inclined to be deliberate and somewhat mechanical.

¶ Nothing about the five types is more interesting than the walk which distinguishes each. The Alimentive undulates or rolls along; the Thoracic is an impulsive walker, and the Muscular is forceful in his walk. But the Osseous walks mechanically, deliberately, and refuses to hurry or speed up."


❤ INTP!!!!!! ❤

Resonance
3 Apr 2011, 10:01 PM
oh my goodness. Okay.


Prominent ankles, wrists, knuckles and elbows are sure signs that such an individual has a large osseous or bony element in his makeup.
I'll include a picture of my hand just so you can see that I am not mistyping myself according to their system. Warning, it is large and detailed!
http://i.imgur.com/MAm5F.jpg (http://imgur.com/MAm5F)

And now.

Physical Rigidity

An impression of physical rigidity is given by the extreme Osseous. Such a man or woman looks stable, unchanging, immovable—as though he could take a stand and keep to it through thick and thin.

So vividly do very tall, angular, raw-boned people convey this impression that they are seldom approached by beggars, barked at by street vendors, or told to "step lively."
Nope. Not at all. I'm constantly moving or wiggling or dancing about, and very rarely move in rigid, linear patterns. Also, beggars seem to think I look like an easy mark, because they will go past dozens of other people and then ask me. Some of them I recognize and I haven't given them a penny in the 30+ times they've asked me over the course of the past year. You'd think they'd get it!


The power of his physique is evident to all who look at him. The strength indicated by his large[Pg 181] joints, angular hands and general bulk intuitively warns others to let this kind of person alone.

He is therefore unmolested for the most part, whether he walks down the streets of his home town or wanders the byways of dangerous vicinities.
Well, I do think my monstrous height causes others to steer clear of me. But that's a common thing and has nothing to do with personality.


This type also looks rugged. He reminds us of "the rugged Rockies." He appears firm, fixed, impassive—as though everything about him was permanent.

Externals are not accidental; they always correspond to the internal nature in every form of life. And it is not accidental that the Osseous looks all of these things. He is all of them as definitely as they can be expressed in human nature.
Oh, sure, I'd like to be fixed, firm, impassive... but I don't think so. Many guys have expressed that they could snap me like a twig! Even though I think if they tried, they would have trouble; I suspect my bones are quite strong, since I have never broken one. As for internally, I'm as fickle as a dandelion. I s'pose I can be pretty impassive sometimes, but I'm working on that!


Of all human types the Osseous is the most dependable and reliable. The phrases, "that man is steady," "never flies off the handle," "always the same," etc., are invariably used concerning those of more than average bony structure.
I definitely don't fly off the handle easily, but as I said before I'm quite fickle. I actually have a reputation for being inconsistent rather than dependable!


Once he settles into a place of any kind—a town, a home, or even a chair—he is disinclined to move. He does not settle as quickly as other types but when he does it is for a longer stay.

Think how different he is from others in this psychological trait and how it coincides exactly with his physiological structure.
lol, I'm exactly the opposite. I can't settle for very long. Of course, I can sit down in front of the computer for days at a time, but I'm always getting up to pee or make tea or run to the store or tidy something up or whatever. And always changing positions. Right now I'm sitting in an inverse lotus position on my bed. Two minutes ago I was leaning against my pillow on the wall. Soon, I suspect, I will get up and run to the post office.


more physical description
pretty much me, idk


Like each of the other types, the Osseous is a result of a certain environment. Rigorous, remote regions require just such people, and these finally gave rise to this stoical nature.
I hate harsh environments. I do OK in them because my parents forced me to learn, but it's not natural for me at all. I would rather be in a nice warm house with running water and all the modern luxuries.


The Osseous does not give way to his feelings. He keeps his griefs, sorrows, ambitions and most of his real opinions to himself. He is the farthest from a "softie" of any type.
I guess this is sort of accurate. But it's not so much that I keep my 'real' opinions to myself as that I have multiple different opinions and usually pick one for the sake of argument.


A bunch of confirmation bias-reinforcing bullshit
ugh.


"He is too slow for me,"
In sports and the like? Certainly. In academia? Quite the opposite.


The Straight-Laced
Yes, I am this. If I take on a rule, I strictly conform to it. I don't 'cheat'.


"A place for everything and everything in its place" is a rule preached and practised by people of this type.

The Osseous person does not mislay his things. He knows so well where they are that he can "go straight to them in the dark." Such a man is careful of his tools and keeps his work-bench or desk "shipshape." A woman of this type is an excellent housekeeper. Her sewing basket, dresser drawers and pantry shelves are all systematically arranged in apple-pie order.
Ahahahahahahahahaha.

Well, my mother is of this type as well and she mislays her things all the time. But other than that, she does have a place for everything and everything in its place.

As for me personally, I have a place for everything: on the floor or strewn across the various surfaces available. But I can always go straight to where I left it. I occasionally misplace something but I never have to spend more than a minute or two searching for it.

I do like to arrange my house systematically, but only if doing such will reduce the amount of effort involved in retrieval/replacement. I have been known to leave cupboard doors open at all times, for example.


Extremely Osseous people are inclined to be somewhat formal in their movements. They make fewer motions than any other type. They do not wave their hands or arms about when talking and are almost devoid of gesticulation of any kind. They sit upright instead of slumping down in their chairs, except when tall and lanky, and usually prefer "straight-backs" to rockers.
I probably gesticulate less than other people, but I am certainly not devoid of it.

*******

Okay, that's enough for now. I'll address the rest of it if you really want me to but I think that should show that there are enough inconsistencies for it to be inaccurate! BTW: I now have one leg under my butt and the other leg crossed over it. I don't even remember shifting like this. Oh dear!

fduniho
3 Apr 2011, 10:31 PM
Under the heading "Likes Responsibility," they say this of the Osseous, "Responsibility, if it does not entail too many different kinds of thought and work, is enjoyed by the Osseous." In addition to being responsible, would you say this is true of yourself or other INTPs you know?

And let me constrast this with descriptions of the Cerebral:


Doesn't Fit

¶ The world of today is ruled by people who accomplish. "Putting it over," "delivering the goods," "getting it across," are a part of our language because they represent the standards of the average American today.

The Cerebral is as much out of place in such an environment as a fish is on dry land. He knows it and he shows it. He doesn't know what the other kind are driving at and they know so little of what he is driving at that they have invented a special name for him—the "nut."

Doing isn't his line. He prefers the pleasures of "thinking over" to all the "putting over" in the world. This type usually is a failure because he takes it all out in dreaming without ever doing the things necessary to make his dream come true.


Little Sense of Time

¶ The extreme Cerebral often has a deficient sense of time. He is less conscious of the passage of the hours than any other type. The Muscular and the Osseous often have an almost uncanny time-sense, but the extreme Cerebral man often lacks it. Forgetting to wind his watch or to consult it for hours when he does, is a familiar habit of this type.

We know a bride in Detroit whose flat looked out on a bakery and a bookstore. She told us that she used to send her Cerebral hubby across the street for the loaf of bread that was found lacking just as they were ready to sit down to dinner—only to wait hours and then have him come back with a book under his arm, no bread and no realization of how long he had been gone.

Here is part of the Cerebral description that really fits me well:


Indifference to Surroundings

¶ A wise man it was who said, "Let me see a man's surroundings and I will tell you what he is." The Cerebral does not really live in his house but in his head, and for that reason does not feel as great an urge to decorate, amplify or even furnish the place in which he dwells.

Step into the room of any little-bodied large-headed man and you will be struck by two facts—that he has fewer jimcracks and more journals lying around than the rest of your friends.

In the room of the Alimentive you will find cushions, sofas and "eats;" in that of the Thoracic you will find colorful, unusual things; the Muscular will have durable, solid, plain things; the Osseous will have fewer of everything but what he does have will be in order.

But the pure Cerebral's furnishings—if he is responsible for them—will be an indifferent array, with no two pieces matching. Furthermore, everything will be piled with newspapers, magazines, books and clippings.

My bedroom is scattered with books, clothes, CDs, and various odds and ends. In this respect, I am definitely not like the Osseous, who is said to have fewer of everything and in order too. My stuff is not well-ordered, and I'm more accumulative than minimalistic about possessions.

fduniho
3 Apr 2011, 10:37 PM
This description is great:

"The Osseous Walk

¶ The extremely raw-boned person has also a formal gait. His walk, like all his other movements, is inclined to be deliberate and somewhat mechanical.

¶ Nothing about the five types is more interesting than the walk which distinguishes each. The Alimentive undulates or rolls along; the Thoracic is an impulsive walker, and the Muscular is forceful in his walk. But the Osseous walks mechanically, deliberately, and refuses to hurry or speed up."


❤ INTP!!!!!! ❤

Since that description mentions every type except the Cerebral, let me add what they say about the Cerebral's walk:


His Jerky Walk

¶ Because he is short the Cerebral takes short[Pg 239] steps. Because he lacks muscle he lacks a powerful stride. As a result he has a walk that is irregular and sometimes jerky.

When he walks slowly this jerk is not apparent, but when hurried it is quite noticeable.

This probably doesn't describe me, since my legs have noticeable muscles. But I compensate for my Cerebral tendencies by working out. Depending on my pace, I can walk forcefully or deliberately.

proverbs6:13
4 Apr 2011, 01:31 AM
I'm definitely the muscular type.

fduniho
4 Apr 2011, 01:41 AM
I'll include a picture of my hand just so you can see that I am not mistyping myself according to their system. Warning, it is large and detailed!
http://i.imgur.com/MAm5F.jpg (http://imgur.com/MAm5F)

Your hand looks very much like my right hand. The knuckles on my right hand are as knotty as yours, maybe even knottier. But the knuckles on my left hand are not knotty, and the fingers on that hand can be described as smooth like the Cerebral's.

When I mentioned my skepticism about people's types, I meant personality types. A body type is normally easier to spot, whereas spotting a personality type normally requires self-awareness and deeper knowledge of the system. My interest in comparing body types with personality types is that it may provide a shortcut to understanding people's personalities.

However, it may be simplistic for me to say that certain body types match up in a one-to-one way with certain personality types. In my own case, I'm not a pure body type. Although I'm mainly Cerebral, I have a large muscular neck, a large roman nose, which is more typical of the Thoracic than the Cerebral, and apparently an Osseous right hand. So I'm a Cerebral with touches of Muscular, Thoracic, and Osseous. Overall, I would say that the Cerebral personality description fits me best, the Alimentive least, and the other three to varying degrees. So there may still be something to it.

You have identified yourself as an Osseous. Would you say that you are a pure Osseous or that you have traits of other body types too?

fduniho
4 Apr 2011, 01:43 AM
I'm definitely the muscular type.

Do the personality descriptions the Benedicts give for the Muscular type fit your personality?

kali
4 Apr 2011, 01:50 AM
Please abandon this retarded construct out of respect for science. When you have to make a million ad hoc changes to this theory, that's a good indicator the theory is wrong.

fduniho
4 Apr 2011, 02:07 AM
Please abandon this retarded construct out of respect for science. When you have to make a million ad hoc changes to this theory, that's a good indicator the theory is wrong.


Please take your negative attitude and shove off. And please don't talk about respect for science when you don't know what that means. The object here is to explore the Benedict's theory to see what value it has, as well as using it as a launching point for further speculation. Even if the theory as a whole is wrong, the question remains whether it just needs tweaking or is wholly worthless. I have not yet seen the evidence that their theory is wholly worthless, and I still consider it worthy of investigation.

YHWH
4 Apr 2011, 12:36 PM
use your N for once. the theory is worthless.

Aaaw
4 Apr 2011, 01:23 PM
Anything that connects body types to personalities is BS.

Exactly.

angelique
5 Apr 2011, 12:44 AM
Here is part of the Cerebral description that really fits me well:

My bedroom is scattered with books, clothes, CDs, and various odds and ends. In this respect, I am definitely not like the Osseous, who is said to have fewer of everything and in order too. My stuff is not well-ordered, and I'm more accumulative than minimalistic about possessions.

It could be that you are part Cerebral part Osseous. Osseous type seems to me closer to the description of an INTJ. Those adorably cute Mark Zuckerberg types.

I would say I'm closest to the Thoracic type, although I probably have the chubby babyface of the Alimentive type with the head shape of the Cerebral.

angelique
5 Apr 2011, 12:50 AM
Exactly.

People used to think the world was flat too. I think taking into consideration the POV of the author is interesting. It makes a correlation between body chemistry, Greek thought and something I think people don't consider- perhaps certain body functions relate to moods and personality types. Although there might be too much of a variation between types, Jungian theory also uses archetypes to categorise people's thinking processes.

Nevertheless it's an interesting perspective and viewpoint that takes into account what people at the turn of the century thought as the beginning of cognitive neuroscience.

proverbs6:13
5 Apr 2011, 01:59 AM
Do the personality descriptions the Benedicts give for the Muscular type fit your personality?

It describes aspects of my personality that MBTI doesn't cover. Muscular/Cerebral does a good job of covering more of my personality.
I am a 7w8. So good guess at least.

Resonance
5 Apr 2011, 06:03 AM
ok skimming it


Now poles, bridges and structures are less movable, less alterable than any of the other parts of a transportation system, and likewise the bony element in man makes him less alterable in every other way than he would otherwise be. A predominance of it in any individual indicates a preponderance of this immovable tendency in his nature.
nope jeez


The Large Head on the Small Body
not at all


proportionately undeveloped stomach system.
ok, probably, I don't know. I have a small stomach anyway.

Some of this stuff is totally irrelevant and kind of dubious too

Clear thinking demands a clear stomach because an empty stomach means that the blood reserves so necessary to vivid thinking are free to go to the brain. Without good blood coursing at a fairly rapid rate through the brain no man can think keenly or concentratedly. This explains why you think of so many important things when your stomach is empty that never occur to you when your energy is being monopolized by digestion.
I know a lot of people experience this with gluten and not with other foods. Could this be an alternate explanation?

idk. I guess my fingers could be classified as 'smooth, elegant'. And I do forget to eat, but I would attribute that to several other factors rather than 'having a large brain'.

Pretty much the rest is just masturbatory snowflake talk. We've seen it all before.

Aaaw
5 Apr 2011, 05:47 PM
People used to think the world was flat too. I think taking into consideration the POV of the author is interesting. It makes a correlation between body chemistry, Greek thought and something I think people don't consider- perhaps certain body functions relate to moods and personality types. Although there might be too much of a variation between types, Jungian theory also uses archetypes to categorise people's thinking processes.

Your comparison between this kind of theory and people thinking the world was flat is apt - but not for the reasons you suggest. It is apt because, like the theory that the world is flat, this kind of thinking has been thoroughly discredited by science. This is very, very primitive thinking.

If someone was to come on this forum and suggest an interesting new concept - that the world was flat - I would not bother taking him/her seriously. Similarly, if someone comes on here and tries to suggest that personality type correlates with body types, I will not take him/her seriously. It's not an "interesting viewpoint", it's a stupid viewpoint.

angelique
5 Apr 2011, 08:58 PM
Your comparison between this kind of theory and people thinking the world was flat is apt - but not for the reasons you suggest. It is apt because, like the theory that the world is flat, this kind of thinking has been thoroughly discredited by science. This is very, very primitive thinking.


My point is that the majority tyranny are often forgetting to question those ideals taught to them, and are obviously to quick to dismiss an idea that might lead to a better comprehensive understanding of the world.

Quick to dismiss an idea as worthless without examination is a sign of a lack of Te.

Not intuition.

You might also consider that people used to discredit ideas in eastern philosophy as "mysticism" however, in the past century with advances in cognitive neuroscience, the findings ended up (strangely enough) being re-iterated with those ancient thoughts from eastern philosophy.

Let's open our minds and not be dominated by insular thinking :)

Anand
14 Jan 2013, 05:52 PM
plz ,send me some more photos of muscular women who are not body builders

Limey
14 Jan 2013, 09:35 PM
plz ,send me some more photos of muscular women who are not body builders

Are you Ashok Anand Kumar?

D33P7HR047
15 Jan 2013, 07:54 PM
http://afteramerica.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/eugenicscoldspringharborracial.jpg?w=320
http://afteramerica.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/bhusseinobamamarxistindoctrination.jpg?w=400

Actually. . . never mind.

Anand
16 Jan 2013, 06:21 AM
no. no.

D33P7HR047
20 Jan 2013, 02:14 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dDxzr7XBatI/TdlHBvD-MxI/AAAAAAAAYfg/PK0CcfeQay4/s1600/phrenology.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BL5xn6KXnbg/UCBF0snUTWI/AAAAAAAAAyE/LPy3frqGxcA/s1600/quasimoto1.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VhzUqIsB0Ag/S48vrSITGYI/AAAAAAAAAJE/MwCL6bXtXas/s320/sloth-the-goonies.jpg

http://indiainkelephant.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/elephant_man.jpg