Something I Have Been Thinking About

[Faye]

-To Everyone-

I do agree that an individual INFJ could become ruthless if needed, but if we consider the issue in terms of survival in general as opposed to an individual in specific situations, are we being bred out? I'm much more concerned with mating than simply finding food. I would bet that we can be ruthless, but can we be as ruthless as other types? Next, consider this; the ratio of male INFJ to female INFJ is 1:2. There are twice as many female INFJs as there are male, according to some random thing I read. If that is true, then aren't the men at a disadvantage in social structures that require the men to actively and/or aggressively pursue the women? We might be willing to become ruthless to gain food, but are we willing to become ruthless to defy the social structre and find women? I don't think I personally could handle that in many situations. This could explain why there are fewer male INFJs than females, assuming the genetics work out.

I honestly couldn't say if I would rob someone of their last bit of food and leave them to starve in order to survive myself. I think that sort of decision is the definition of hell for an INFJ. However, the point still stands that we wouldn't go that extra mile to get ahead, and when there are so many people who are willing to do that, we are at a disadvantage

This is how I feel. I don't know if I could choose the life of others over myself if that is what it came down to. Other types can without a second thought.

The question you'd first have to answer is:

Is MBTI genetically influenced? It wouldn't matter if INFJs didn't survive if this was not the case.

Personality is genetically influenced, so MBTI is influenced. How and to what extent I do not know, but would you expect a couple of ESTPs to have a child that is INFJ?

Maybe some people were misperceiving the initial statement a little bit at first. I think they almost completely focused on survival in terms of desperation, than on the general question of are we that "pure" and selfless as INFJs or is it based on certain circumstances that we display our unusual level of stability and role of the voice of reason. I actually find it almost impossible to break my moral code even if I considered it, I couldn't go through with it.

I agree with this, and I think we also need to consider the question in terms of survival both of ourselves and our offspring. A good question ask is this: are types like ours less abundant because we were or are less willing to rape, in general, than other types? I know I couldn't live with myself if I did that, and thus I've never done it.

Also consider this as a process that has occured over thousands of years instead of something that is particular to modern society.

I'm an INTP and I can relate to the OP.

I don't think the evolutionist theory is totally off, but I think types have more to do with environment than with genetics. Surely, people like us don't have much chance of surviving and having success or happiness as others types, on the other hand we don't suffer that much about not succeeding because we don't value the things society usually do and that's part of the reason why we don't fit socially. (...)

Answering the question, I end up living by my ideals as much as I can, sometimes for necessity I have to cross over them, but I'm not good at doing things I don't believe in and I end up failling at it.

I agree with you for the most part, but I am somewhat split on whether or not my values are the things that society values. I feel sometimes that I value very highly the things that society values, and other times I don't, so I am not really sure.

I disagree strongly with the OP. I think the %s of types can fluctuate to a certain degree from society to society, but for humanity as a whole the % have been fairly constant over time. The majority have been Sensors and the majority have been Extroverts for obvious reasons related to the functioning of society, INxx types have always been uncommon. We were the shamans, the mystics, the prophets, the monks and nuns, the deep thinkers, the philosophers, all rare things.

I don't think humanity has gotten more violent and corrupt. There very much probably was a phase of increased violence and corruption as early societies developed so much that traditional tribal taboos and rules disintegrated, but this phase is always temporary as socio-cultural innovators, many of them INFJs, helped create new social-religious-ideological systems to fit the new complex societies. Many parts of Africa are going through this phase now.

If we go back to say band level societys, and it turns out that our function is that of the mystic, monk/nun, deep thinker, etc... then isn't that function becoming more and more obsolete as society becomes more and more individualistic? A person like a shaman is group oriented, is concerned with the survival of the group. Is that a strength or a weakness now and over the past few thousand years as societies developed? I don't know.

Now, the issue with being monks and nuns is they typically don't have children, famous philosophers often didn't have children.

I do think that society has gotten more corrupt, more violent, and more individualistic. Why? Well, in the past, band/tribal societies, which make up the vast majority of human existence on earth, violence was too costly. If you have a group of 40 people, having someone die is a huge burden. You need that person. Therefore, if another band is being aggressive, you simply walk away. There were enough recources thousands of years ago for people to spread out instead of fight, at least most of the time.

As societies grow, you are able to spare individuals. Look how many spare people we have now. Millions of us could die, and it wouldn't take very long for us to be replaced population wise. There are millions of people to spare, millions of young women and children. Movies are so violent now, people don't react at all if dozens of young men are killed in movies. How is this mentality going to play out when whatever resource gets scarce? Are we going to be smart about things, or are we going to create armies and go to war?







INFJs have been called the protector type. We protect others, but how futile is it to protect others in this crazy world? Who wont screw you over? Your immediate family (hopefully) and maybe your spouse or life partner, but that is about it. If you are like me, then you are not that important to other people, and it wouldn't make a difference if you were dead or not. The world has become violently individualistic, so people who care about the survival and happiness of others, group oriented individuals, are being bred out.

 

[court]

I would never break my moral code and I have a very strict moral code for myself. I do feel that I get left behind a lot and I struggle in this dog eat dog world. I hate suffering but I know I would feel more suffering if I went against my values just to get my piece of the pie.

As far as genetics go, there are five children in my family, I am the only INFJ. There is one ISTJ, one ISFP, one ESTJ, on ENFP. My dad is an ISTJ and my mom an ENFP (she drives me up the wall). If its genetically influenced I am wondering where I came from?

 

[Duty]

Personality is genetically influenced, so MBTI is influenced. How and to what extent I do not know, but would you expect a couple of ESTPs to have a child that is INFJ?

Why do you think this? Do you have a source I can read?

 

[Poetic Justice]

It's probably possible for any tyes of paarents to have any type of child. I wouldn't be surprised though if certain types of parents are more likely to a certain type of child. MBTI is affected by genes but not governed by it.

 

[Tamagochi]

I do agree that an individual INFJ could become ruthless if needed, but if we consider the issue in terms of survival in general as opposed to an individual in specific situations, are we being bred out? I'm much more concerned with mating than simply finding food. I would bet that we can be ruthless, but can we be as ruthless as other types?

Are you implying that INFJs do not steal, do not rape, do not kill and are generally a prime saint material? I don't think so. Or maybe that people of other types suffer less when committing a crime? Again that would be a huge overstatement. Feelings cannot be compared.

Next, consider this; the ratio of male INFJ to female INFJ is 1:2. There are twice as many female INFJs as there are male, according to some random thing I read. If that is true, then aren't the men at a disadvantage in social structures that require the men to actively and/or aggressively pursue the women? We might be willing to become ruthless to gain food, but are we willing to become ruthless to defy the social structure and find women? I don't think I personally could handle that in many situations. This could explain why there are fewer male INFJs than females, assuming the genetics work out.

From a genetical point of view the distinction between genders does not make sense, because contrary to the popular belief we all have the full genetic code of both genders inside. The only plausible explanation why there seems to be more INFJ females than males is because how the society labels intuition and feelings as "girly" characteristics. I suspect that a lot of males get mistyped because of how they would like to position themselves according to popular stereotypes. And even if MBTI types can actually be linked to gender there is no reliable data to support it. The test itself is only 70% accurate at best.

More importantly why do you believe that men must act ruthlessly in order to get a mate?

I don't know if I could choose the life of others over myself if that is what it came down to. Other types can without a second thought.

Again a huge overstatement. How do you know that it comes easier to other types? Is it simply because they do not show it on the outward appearance? What if they are carrying a living hell inside?

If we go back to say band level societies, and it turns out that our function is that of the mystic, monk/nun, deep thinker, etc... then isn't that function becoming more and more obsolete as society becomes more and more individualistic? A person like a shaman is group oriented, is concerned with the survival of the group. Is that a strength or a weakness now and over the past few thousand years as societies developed? I don't know.

Groups have always played a huge role in our society. Nowadays they are even more important than ever - we have corporations, schools, religions, politics, cyberspace etc. There are LOTS and LOTS of space for group oriented people to thrive.

As societies grow, you are able to spare individuals. Look how many spare people we have now. Millions of us could die, and it wouldn't take very long for us to be replaced population wise. There are millions of people to spare, millions of young women and children. Movies are so violent now, people don't react at all if dozens of young men are killed in movies. How is this mentality going to play out when whatever resource gets scarce? Are we going to be smart about things, or are we going to create armies and go to war?

From the evolutionary point of view such thinking actually improves your chances of survival, therefore it's an advantage. INxx are much harder to convince to go to war and die. They see no point in it and choose "safer" activities for themselves instead.

INFJs have been called the protector type. We protect others, but how futile is it to protect others in this crazy world? Who wont screw you over? Your immediate family (hopefully) and maybe your spouse or life partner, but that is about it. If you are like me, then you are not that important to other people, and it wouldn't make a difference if you were dead or not. The world has become violently individualistic, so people who care about the survival and happiness of others, group oriented individuals, are being bred out.

Other type literature calls us "counselors", "catalysts", "people fixers". The "protector" title does not resonate with me very much. Protect from what? The only enemy left for human race is it's own ignorance and stupidity.

And I completely disagree that we are not important. I firmly believe that today group oriented people are more valuable than ever.

 

[poetrygirl]

I'm no where near being a saint. But yes I'd be a martyr for most my higher morals. I'm not saying that I couldn't turn around tomorrow and become a terribly horrible person tomorrow ,but I feel it is highly unlikely. I believe every person has the capacity for great good and great evil it's whatever side you chose to stay in touch with within your self and whichever you avoid.

 

[Faye]

Why do you think this? Do you have a source I can read?

Nope, no source. It seems like a simple assumption really that our personalities are affected by genetics. Environment is a contributor, of course, but if we actually do have consistent cognitive functions, those would have to be genetic because if they were purely environmental, then we would not have any kind of stability in our personalities. Of course, the exception would be if you adopted Freud's model or something, then it could be environmental.

I suppose a couple of ESTPs could have an INFJ child, but I would still suspect that the cause is genetic.

I honestly don't know. I might be wrong, but that'd be a real shock. It would mean that Sartre is right.

Are you implying that INFJs do not steal, do not rape, do not kill and are generally a prime saint material? I don't think so. Or maybe that people of other types suffer less when committing a crime? Again that would be a huge overstatement. Feelings cannot be compared.

No, I'm saying we are relatively less ruthless than other types. Of course we still do all the evil things possible on this planet, but I don't think we do them as willingly, and I'm wondering if this is a weakness in the present day and age.

From a genetical point of view the distinction between genders does not make sense, because contrary to the popular belief we all have the full genetic code of both genders inside. The only plausible explanation why there seems to be more INFJ females than males is because how the society labels intuition and feelings as "girly" characteristics. I suspect that a lot of males get mistyped because of how they would like to position themselves according to popular stereotypes. And even if MBTI types can actually be linked to gender there is no reliable data to support it. The test itself is only 70% accurate at best.

So we should just throw out MBTI then because it isn't accurate enough? I wouldn't be surprised if many males were being mistyped though, maybe females as well.

More importantly why do you believe that men must act ruthlessly in order to get a mate?

Because I've fucking tried, and I've watched as my asshole "friends" got almost every girl they wanted. They use (for sex) and abuse the women they get with, and the women can't seem to get enough of it or their lies. Of course, this is usually disastrous in the long term; however, the fact remains that all the time aggressive men end up with women who don't deserve their shit, yet that is what society expects so it happens often enough.

Again a huge overstatement. How do you know that it comes easier to other types? Is it simply because they do not show it on the outward appearance? What if they are carrying a living hell inside?

Well, I wouldn't say all other types can or all members of a type can. Sorry, "Other types" is way too vague. I really miscommunicated there.

Keep in mind we are talking types, not individuals. There could be individuals of a given type that take killing much worse than all the members of another type. I just can't brush things aside the way some people can, and I'm wondering if this is a tendency. I could never forgive myself for killing someone, and I could never accept the forgiveness of another either. Some people will kill others for a few dollars. Who is at an advantage?

Groups have always played a huge role in our society. Nowadays they are even more important than ever - we have corporations, schools, religions, politics, cyberspace etc. There are LOTS and LOTS of space for group oriented people to thrive.

But are these groups not hierarchies, power struggles, and indifferent for the most part? Sure you'll make connections within them, thrive within them, but I tend to hate these institutions. I have serious issues with the business world, schools, religion, and politics. The relationships are superficial, power struggles, a competition for power, prestige, and wealth.

From the evolutionary point of view such thinking actually improves your chances of survival, therefore it's an advantage. INxx are much harder to convince to go to war and die. They see no point in it and choose "safer" activities for themselves instead.

War is an institution, not a choice. You make a good point though.

Other type literature calls us "counselors", "catalysts", "people fixers". The "protector" title does not resonate with me very much. Protect from what? The only enemy left for human race is it's own ignorance and stupidity.

Exactly.

And I completely disagree that we are not important. I firmly believe that today group oriented people are more valuable than ever.

Yes, group oriented people are important, but they are not "important". This is a society of "individuals". You see the problem? What groups do we have anymore that aren't actually a product of fear?

 

[Duty]

Nope, no source. It seems like a simple assumption really that our personalities are affected by genetics. Environment is a contributor, of course, but if we actually do have consistent cognitive functions, those would have to be genetic because if they were purely environmental, then we would not have any kind of stability in our personalities. Of course, the exception would be if you adopted Freud's model or something, then it could be environmental.

It does seem like an obvious assumption that genetics have an affect on personality. Well, it must have some affect, as we couldn't have our personality if our genetics were radically changed to that of say, a chimp.

Still, I postulate that the real question is "How much do our genetics affect us in comparison to other humans?" How significant is it? The answer to that is not obvious, and the failure of the points of view of eugenicists (and subsequent findings in psychology to prove them wrong) suggest that the environment plays no less then an enormous part in how our personality develops.

The true complexity of this can be highlighted in a simple thought experiment: take an infant who is active, loud, and loves physical activity. This is a temperament the infant has that is different from that of another infant, such as one that is quiet, curious, and reserved. One set of parents may treat our active infant with encouragement...as the parents may have cultural and personal influences that say physically active behavior makes for good, industrious people. Another set of parents may be annoyed by this "hyperactive" behavior. It's then easy to see how the environment is easily going to produce completely different children from our one with physically active roots.

I honestly don't know. I might be wrong, but that'd be a real shock. It would mean that Sartre is right.

And if we don't honestly know, doesn't it follow that the original question can't be answered?

 

[Faye]

It does seem like an obvious assumption that genetics have an affect on personality. Well, it must have some affect, as we couldn't have our personality if our genetics were radically changed to that of say, a chimp.

Still, I postulate that the real question is "How much do our genetics affect us in comparison to other humans?" How significant is it? The answer to that is not obvious, and the failure of the points of view of eugenicists (and subsequent findings in psychology to prove them wrong) suggest that the environment plays no less then an enormous part in how our personality develops.

The true complexity of this can be highlighted in a simple thought experiment: take an infant who is active, loud, and loves physical activity. This is a temperament the infant has that is different from that of another infant, such as one that is quiet, curious, and reserved. One set of parents may treat our active infant with encouragement...as the parents may have cultural and personal influences that say physically active behavior makes for good, industrious people. Another set of parents may be annoyed by this "hyperactive" behavior. It's then easy to see how the environment is easily going to produce completely different children from our one with physically active roots.

But the behavior, whether it is outgoing or "hyperactive/annoying", is still part of the child's personality. You can condition people to act in almost any way, just like programming a computer- humans can be programmed. However, don't we have a base personality that responds to our environment which we are born with? Some of us are naturally more anxious than others.

I tend to think of personality as the static basis that underlies our reactions to our environment. If I were an ENTJ or any T type, I would be much happier with my life than I am now because I would have reacted much differently to my family setting and past experiences.

And if we don't honestly know, doesn't it follow that the original question can't be answered?

Yes, but if you want to get philosophical about it, then we can't ever really know anything.

 

[Duty]

But the behavior, whether it is outgoing or "hyperactive/annoying", is still part of the child's personality. You can condition people to act in almost any way, just like programming a computer- humans can be programmed. However, don't we have a base personality that responds to our environment which we are born with? Some of us are naturally more anxious than others.

I tend to think of personality as the static basis that underlies our reactions to our environment. If I were an ENTJ or any T type, I would be much happier with my life than I am now because I would have reacted much differently to my family setting and past experiences.

See, it's this question that is of curiosity. My friends here are producing an information product dealing in part with MBTI, and I have constant discussions with one of them about how influenced by genetics/innate temperament our personalities are. Neither of us is totally convinced of either side and we generally suspect that it's a combination of both. I personally think it's our innate temperament that has been mailed and adjusted with learned behaviors that have been taught to us through various reinforcements that makes our current personality.

Yes, but if you want to get philosophical about it, then we can't ever really know anything.

Depends on your definition of "know," I'd certainly contend you can know 2+3=5, and indeed it can't be possibly any other way that 2+3 gives you anything but 5.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Depends on your definition of "know," I'd certainly contend you can know 2+3=5, and indeed it can't be possibly any other way that 2+3 gives you anything but 5.

What if what was meant was in fact 2 + 3 dozen eggs. does that give you 5 eggs. You could have been missing a vital piece of information which prevented you from seeing what the true answer is. As we can never be sure if we have every piece of information available we can never truly know ANYTHING for sure. are you sure of your own name? what if you were really a crazy person locked in a mental hospital and were hallucinating all this? and your real name was Ingelbert. Far fetched yes, but the possibility exists, therefore we cannot ever be 100% sure of anything.

 

[rory]

Genetics is weird. For example, my mother is ISTJ, my brother is ESFJ, my dad is ISFP- his mother also ISFP, my grandma is ESTJ and grandpa is INFJ or INTJ. I am not sure because he is sometimes quite emotional, but he resemble INTJ with his harsh words against anyone who acts dumb- and he often thinks that people act dumb .He also scored as INTJ. Anyway, without me he is only one Intuitive type living in our family. Its quite strange. Sensors in my family seems not to understand simply things and my grandpa who is intellectual, intelligent, witty is also cold, unpleasant and has excessive demands of his family members- people should hard work to achieve their goals and pleasure is for losers. Sure he is INTJ.I would like to have some NF family members. I feel so lonely

 

[Duty]

What if what was meant was in fact 2 + 3 dozen eggs. does that give you 5 eggs. You could have been missing a vital piece of information which prevented you from seeing what the true answer is. As we can never be sure if we have every piece of information available we can never truly know ANYTHING for sure. are you sure of your own name? what if you were really a crazy person locked in a mental hospital and were hallucinating all this? and your real name was Ingelbert. Far fetched yes, but the possibility exists, therefore we cannot ever be 100% sure of anything.

This is just semantics/symbol representation. When I tell you 2, it means one thing and another. When I tell you 2 dozen I tell you something totally different.

2+3 means a certain thing, and it can't come to anything but 5.


And no, I don't think it's possible to not have the relevant information here. 2+3 can't be anything but 5. It's impossible for it to be otherwise.

 

[Faye]

Moderators, please close the thread.