Cognitive development of parent type syndrome

[Gaze]

I was thinking today, because of the "dark ages" of gender stereotyping and rigid social expectations that many men and women appeared/were decidedly more developed as other types rather than their own.

Women were expected to subvert their thinking functions to make space for a higher Fe-ling function in order to care for their kids, and be the stereotypically "good mother," that there's probably quite a few INTJ/ISTJ mothers floating around in the world, who appear quite ISFJ because they were expected to develop their Se (physically caring for and interacting with kids), Fe (relating to kids as feelers), and Ni (understanding what's happening; knowing what everyone needs so that they can fill the need) more than any other function since these were supposedly the kind of functions needed to satisfactorily raise kids.

A similar phenomenon, is the INFJ or INFP dad who, because he was expected to be the "man of the house," expected to engage more in physical activity and be more "thinking", being seen as the more logical gender, (because of gendered expectation) tended to develop their Ti more than Fe, since it wasn't ok for fathers to be too "feeling." So, we probably have quite a few INFJ/INFP dads floating around who're more INTJ/ISTJ than their own personality type.

What do you think?

 

[Quinlan]

True

 

[athenian200]

I think it has more to do with current social expectations than with anything intrinsic that forces people towards those behaviors now.

I don't particularly think it makes sense that the bar is lowered for male Fs and female Ts to qualify as their respective types.

 

[Gaze]

I think it has more to do with current social expectations than with anything intrinsic that forces people towards those behaviors now.

I don't particularly think it makes sense that the bar is lowered for male Fs and female Ts to qualify as their respective types.

Which is why i put it in the context of the "dark ages", meaning the past. It's a bit different today. Women are not expected to sacrifice their Ti as much and it's more acceptable for guys to develop and display Fe. We all use each function to varying degrees. Just that some tasks or responsibilities require us to demonstrate the use of some functions over the others.

 

[athenian200]

Which is why i put it in the context of the "dark ages", meaning the past. It's a bit different today. Women are not expected to sacrifice their Ti as much and it's more acceptable for guys to develop and display Fe.

I don't necessarily agree that those social expectations are in the past. Many people in more conservative circles still subscribe to them.

I believe that such people exist, but I don't believe that it reflects the fact that such traits were expected in the past rather than present reinforcement of such gender roles.

I don't believe that past social expectations resulted in making different genders intrinsically more "F" or more "T."

 

[Gaze]

I don't necessarily agree that those social expectations are in the past. Many people in more conservative circles still subscribe to them.

I believe that such people exist, but I don't believe that it reflects the fact that such traits were expected in the past rather than present reinforcement of such gender roles.

I don't believe that past social expectations resulted in making different genders intrinsically more "F" or more "T."

I guess my point is that the expectations are not as widespread as they used to be, not that they aren't still there. And i didn't describe them as intrinsic. What i said, was that some functions came to be more developed than others simply because they are used more partly because it was expected based on gendered social expectations of the time. So, it's not an intrinsic change. It's a function of socialization.

 

[athenian200]

I guess my point is that the expectations are not as widespread as they used to be, not that they aren't still there. And i didn't describe them as intrinsic. What i said, was that some functions came to be more developed than others simply because they are used more partly because it was expected based on gendered social expectations of the time. So, it's not an intrinsic change. It's a function of socialization.

Oh, wait. I get it now. Are you saying that the reason older women tend to test SFJ, and older men STJ, reflects those socialization patterns?

That would make sense, as I've seen a lot of male STJs and female SFJs that seem a lot more like something else pushing themselves into that mold.

 

[Gaze]

Oh, wait. I get it now. Are you saying that the reason older women tend to test SFJ, and older men STJ, reflects those socialization patterns?

That would make sense, as I've seen a lot of male STJs and female SFJs that seem a lot more like something else pushing themselves into that mold.

Exactly

 

[the]

I think that this has the possibility to create a more balanced type of person as it exercises functions a person is not used to using.

 

[Quinlan]

I think that this has the possibility to create a more balanced type of person as it exercises functions a person is not used to using.

I think that's unlikely, type is partly about where you get your "energy" from and constantly acting "out of type" has got to be draining and feel unnatural especially in the long term. I reckon this kind of thing inspires midlife (and quarter life) crises.

I think the healthiest option for an ISTJ mother for example would be to be the best mother she can be using her own natural strengths and style rather than being a poor imitation of ESFJ.

I don't have anything to back this up but to me I expect people constantly acting out of type to be under a lot of stress and eventually breakdown.

 

[Gaze]

I think that's unlikely, type is partly about where you get your "energy" from and constantly acting "out of type" has got to be draining and feel unnatural especially in the long term. I reckon this kind of thing inspires midlife (and quarter life) crises.

I think the healthiest option for an ISTJ mother for example would be to be the best mother she can be using her own natural strengths and style rather than being a poor imitation of ESFJ.

I don't have anything to back this up but to me I expect people constantly acting out of type to be under a lot of stress and eventually breakdown.

I'd agree with this. This is probably one of the greatest causes of stress for parents, and it probably puts a lot of stress on their relationship as a couple as well.

 

[just me]

I think that's unlikely, type is partly about where you get your "energy" from and constantly acting "out of type" has got to be draining and feel unnatural especially in the long term. I reckon this kind of thing inspires midlife (and quarter life) crises.

I think the healthiest option for an ISTJ mother for example would be to be the best mother she can be using her own natural strengths and style rather than being a poor imitation of ESFJ.

I don't have anything to back this up but to me I expect people constantly acting out of type to be under a lot of stress and eventually breakdown.

I think it possible to be draining muffling the sounds of one's own drums, which does not necessarily mean acting out of type. People can learn to adapt to a lot of stress, too.

 

[Quinlan]

I think it possible to be draining muffling the sounds of one's own drums, which does not necessarily mean acting out of type.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Anyway here are some thoughts from Jung:

Under abnormal conditions, i.e. when there is an extreme and, therefore, abnormal attitude in the mother, the children can also be coerced into a relatively similar attitude; but this entails a violation of their individual disposition, which quite possibly would have assumed another type if no abnormal and disturbing external influence had intervened. As a rule, whenever such a falsification of type takes place as a result of external [p. 416] influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and a cur can successfully be sought only in a development of that attitude which corresponds with the individual's natural way.
As regards the particular disposition, I know not what to say, except that there are clearly individuals who have either a greater readiness and capacity for one way, or for whom it is more congenial to adapt to that way rather than the other. In the last analysis it may well be that physiological causes, inaccessible to our knowledge, play a part in this. That this may be the case seems to me not improbable, in view of one's experience that a reversal of type often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-being of the organism, often provoking an acute state of exhaustion.

 

[just me]

I don't understand what you're saying.

Anyway here are some thoughts from Jung:

One can somewhat suppress their identity without acting out another type, and it can be draining on that individual without causing a breakdown.