Interesting temperament correlation

[Paladin-X]

So in Development Psych class, we covered temperament of infants/toddlers among other things.

They showed some statistics about different temperament types:

• The easy child (40% of sample) quickly establishes regular routines in infancy, is generally cheerful and adapts easily to new experiences.
  
• The difficult child (10% of sample) is irregular in daily routines, is slow to accept new experiences, and tends to react negatively and intensely.
  
• The slow to warm up child (15% of sample) is inactive, shows mild, low key reactions to environmental stimuli, is negative in mood, and adjusts slowly to new experiences.
  
• 35% did not fit any of the categories, instead they demonstrated mixed blends of temperamental characteristics.

What I find interesting about these numbers is how closely they related to the 4 Keirsey/MBTI temperaments statistics.

• SJs 46%
• NTs 10%
• NFs 16%
• SPs 27%

Not saying that one stat is indicative of the others, I'm just saying that the similarity is interesting.

 

[Chess]

Were difficult children also prone to spilling buckets of tadpoles in the lounge? Because that's what I did.

 

[OJay]

I was probably a difficult child. I was an asshole.

 

[barbad0s]

There are a lot of coincidences out there. But who knows? Maybe nature does have a Golden Ratio like way of distributing personality traits.

 

[Gktr]

I'm not sure nature distributes personality traits, though. If genetics played a larger role than the environment in the formation of personality traits, people wouldn't change over time the way they do. This pattern is probably just a coincidence, but it would be interesting to see an experiment in which a group of monozygotic twins were seperated at infancy and placed in different environments.

 

[CindyLou]

Interesting. My daughter was a very easy going infant and fell right into a routine, but is slow to adapt to new experience and reacts with intensity

for sure.


I guess she is in that 35%



I'm loving these threads PX. I look forward to them.

 

[barbad0s]

I'm not sure nature distributes personality traits, though. If genetics played a larger role than the environment in the formation of personality traits, people wouldn't change over time the way they do. This pattern is probably just a coincidence, but it would be interesting to see an experiment in which a group of monozygotic twins were seperated at infancy and placed in different environments.

It's been done? o_o Check out twin studies.

Genetics do play a large role.

 

[CindyLou]

lol I was just getting ready to say that.

I still have to do those things.

 

[Paladin-X]

I'm not sure nature distributes personality traits, though. If genetics played a larger role than the environment in the formation of personality traits, people wouldn't change over time the way they do. This pattern is probably just a coincidence, but it would be interesting to see an experiment in which a group of monozygotic twins were seperated at infancy and placed in different environments.

I don't understand the debate between nature vs nurture in the realm of psychology. In my opinion, it is very clearly both, in just about any given subtopic. There's an innate foundation that can be altered by interactions with the environment.

Furthermore, temperament is a cornerstone of personality, but they are two separate, but related things.

The above given temperament statistics were based on these 9 dimensions:

• Activity level -- ratio of active periods to inactive ones
• Rhythmicity -- Regularity of body functions, such as sleep, wakefulness, hunger, and excretion
• Distractibility -- Degree to which stimulation from the environment alters behaviour -- for example, whether crying stops when a toy is offered
• Approach/withdrawal -- Response to a new object, food, or person
• Adaptability -- Ease with which child adapts to changes in the environment, such as sleeping or eating in a new place
• Attention span and persistence -- Amount of time devoted to an activity, such as watching a mobile or playing with a toy
• Intensity of reaction -- Energy level of response, such as laughing, crying, talking, or gross motor activity
• Threshold of responsiveness -- intensity of stimulation required to evoke a response
• Quality of mood -- Amount of friendly, joyful behaviour as opposed to unpleasant, unfriendly behaviour

Thomas & Chess 1977

 

[Gktr]

It's been done? o_o Check out twin studies.

Genetics do play a large role.

The only relevant study I could find was one in which 800 sets of monozygotic and dizygotic twins were asked a series of questions. The study found that monozygotic twins agreed with each other more often than dizygotic twins. The experiment had nothing to do with Jungian Psychology or MBTI; it focused on very specific personality traits such as determination and the ability to overcome challenges.

Jungian personality types are typological descriptions of different personality traits. You do not act and think the way you do because you're an INFJ or an ENTP; you're an INFJ or an ENTP because you act and think the way you do. If you change, so will your personality type. I believe it's quite evident that people can change. I used to be quite extraverted as a kid, but now I'm a recluse who doesn't like interacting with other people. Is that because my genes changed or because I did?

As a human, I have a genetic predisposition to have two legs. Does this mean I have a genetic predisposition to be a world-class football player? Genes have an effect on everything we are and do as humans, the question is how great that effect is when compared to the effect of the social environment.

I don't understand the debate between nature vs nurture in the realm of psychology. In my opinion, it is very clearly both, in just about any given subtopic. There's an innate foundation that can be altered by interactions with the environment.

That is more or less what I was trying to say. I guess I'm just not very good at expressing myself clearly

I wonder if that's genetic.

 

[barbad0s]

The only relevant study I could find was one in which 800 sets of monozygotic and dizygotic twins were asked a series of questions. The study found that monozygotic twins agreed with each other more often than dizygotic twins. The experiment had nothing to do with Jungian Psychology or MBTI; it focused on very specific personality traits such as determination and the ability to overcome challenges.

Jungian personality types are typological descriptions of different personality traits. You do not act and think the way you do because you're an INFJ or an ENTP; you're an INFJ or an ENTP because you act and think the way you do. If you change, so will your personality type. I believe it's quite evident that people can change. I used to be quite extraverted as a kid, but now I'm a recluse who doesn't like interacting with other people. Is that because my genes changed or because I did?

As a human, I have a genetic predisposition to have two legs. Does this mean I have a genetic predisposition to be a world-class football player? Genes have an effect on everything we are and do as humans, the question is how great that effect is when compared to the effect of the social environment.

Hmm. Some people like to believe that a person's MBTI type doesn't ever change (assuming MBTI is even ~real~).

Anyway, obviously people's genes do not change after conception, and people can be drastically altered by their environments, but any change a person goes through is still going to be influenced by who they were and what they were made of originally. It's impossible to build a whole new person from scratch.

Perhaps you merely looked like you had changed on the outside, but it was a part of you that was bound to come out sooner or later.

I'm not trying to argue that personality isn't nature and nurture in tandem, only that nature is definitely there. I think we are all on the same page here at this point.

 

[Paladin-X]

The only relevant study I could find was one in which 800 sets of monozygotic and dizygotic twins were asked a series of questions. The study found that monozygotic twins agreed with each other more often than dizygotic twins. The experiment had nothing to do with Jungian Psychology or MBTI; it focused on very specific personality traits such as determination and the ability to overcome challenges.

That's because MBTI/Jungian types is not really as recognized in the psychological community. They study personality in different ways.

Jungian personality types are typological descriptions of different personality traits. You do not act and think the way you do because you're an INFJ or an ENTP; you're an INFJ or an ENTP because you act and think the way you do. If you change, so will your personality type. I believe it's quite evident that people can change. I used to be quite extraverted as a kid, but now I'm a recluse who doesn't like interacting with other people. Is that because my genes changed or because I did?

According to MBTI theory, your type is innate. You can still learn to behave any other way, much like a left handed person might learn to write with their right hand, but it still does not change the natural preference. Like my ENFP friend who got into accounting, which is more of an ISxJ type job. She was very good at it. Over time however, she realized she hated being enclosed in an office by herself with little interaction with others and having to be super detail-oriented and organized all the time. She left her job and went back to school to become an elementary school teacher.

Furthermore, introversion/extraversion does not mean less/more outgoing in Jungian/MBTI terms.

As a human, I have a genetic predisposition to have two legs. Does this mean I have a genetic predisposition to be a world-class football player? Genes have an effect on everything we are and do as humans, the question is how great that effect is when compared to the effect of the social environment.

No. However, you might have a genetic predisposition towards superior athletic ability. However, let's say you never had the opportunity to get into sports to realize that potential. Instead you ended up being the scrawny nerdy kid. You have the genes to be the next Micheal Jordan (sorry, don't know any famous football players), but the environment turned you into a comic-con nut.

That is more or less what I was trying to say. I guess I'm just not very good at expressing myself clearly

Well my response was more triggered by yours as opposed to a direct reply. However, I did mention that we were talking about infants/toddlers, so at this stage, the environment probably would not have had much impact on their innate temperaments.

I wonder if that's genetic.

:O

 

[Gktr]

It would be very difficult to prove that personality types are innate, which is why I brought up the idea of an experiment involving monozygotic twins raised in different environments.

You can't really compare handedness with Jungian personality types. A person is either right-handed or left-handed, whereas a person's personality is the sum countless different traits. Besides, nurture also seems to play a role when it comes to handedness - monozygotic twins share the same DNA, but they don't always share the same handedness.

I believe genes do play a role in forming people's personality, but I still maintain that the social environment is much more important.

 

[Sriracha]

My difficult infant/toddler is my ISTJ child. He's practically militant in structure.

My easy infant/toddler is my ENFP child. He's a mess. LOL

My kids obviously fall outside of the statistic. The other factor they should consider is birth order and attachment style.

 

[Radiantshadow]

So in Development Psych class, we covered temperament of infants/toddlers among other things.

They showed some statistics about different temperament types:

• The easy child (40% of sample) quickly establishes regular routines in infancy, is generally cheerful and adapts easily to new experiences.
• The difficult child (10% of sample) is irregular in daily routines, is slow to accept new experiences, and tends to react negatively and intensely.
• The slow to warm up child (15% of sample) is inactive, shows mild, low key reactions to environmental stimuli, is negative in mood, and adjusts slowly to new experiences.
• 35% did not fit any of the categories, instead they demonstrated mixed blends of temperamental characteristics.

What I find interesting about these numbers is how closely they related to the 4 Keirsey/MBTI temperaments statistics.

• SJs 46%
• NTs 10%
• NFs 16%
• SPs 27%

Not saying that one stat is indicative of the others, I'm just saying that the similarity is interesting.

I have no direct comment on correlations between temperament & attachment styles and personality in infants. However, verifying personality by way of MBTI measurements has been largely discredited in the psychological community, as far as I am aware. MBTI tests are neither verifiable, predictive, nor reliable; the questions for each axis are dualistic and two-dimensional, not allowing room for either subtley or the complex interdependence within Jung's cognitive functions. {A popular myth is that the poles of each axis, if we're to totally ignore the presence of in-out focus at each end, are mutually exclusive, when they are, as per the mother-theory, arranged in a ladder that is meant to synergize}.

Accordingly, I would argue that no substantiative claims can be made until a) better instruments are created, b) the theory is refined, and c) research is expanded in tandem. One such route may lie in the care of neurologist Dario Nardi, who used brain scans and accepted knowledge of what certain brain regions govern to correlate particular brain activity patterns with different personality types. Relevant information: Book. Video. Overview. {This is not a sales pitch; just providing an alternative.} Fierce insularity notwithstanding, another, more theoretical branch connecting physiology and psychology is Pod'lair.

/end methodological derailment

That's my two cents. For what it's worth, I (an INFJ) adapt very quickly to change, and even enjoy the surge of challenge that comes with it. Adversity is the best way to see how well my worldivew, mental models, and general understanding of things holds up. I have always had a solitary streak and, growing up, was often left to my own devices; dealing with just about everything myself made changing patterns easy, even fun after after a while. Personal anecdote and tangent over.

Carry on!

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

I also just learned that roughly 2% of the population has borderline personality and most of them are women.

Sounds a lot like INFJ's.

 

[Paladin-X]

I also just learned that roughly 2% of the population has borderline personality and most of them are women.

Sounds a lot like INFJ's.

Haha! I have borderline borderline personality disorder! :O

I definitely think it's related to Fe. Probably IxFJ.

On another note, I did see a study that correlated INxJs to eating disorders. Damn you inferior Se!!



I can see that my initial correlation is bunk, but it was interesting nonetheless.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

Haha! I have borderline borderline personality disorder! :O

I definitely think it's related to Fe. Probably IxFJ.

On another note, I did see a study that correlated INxJs to eating disorders. Damn you inferior Se!!



I can see that my initial correlation is bunk, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Do you consider yourself INFJ?