Personality Cafe banner

Body Type of Famous People and Their MBTI Type

32K views 60 replies 25 participants last post by  HIX 
#1 ·
 
See less See more
1
#36 ·
Originally Posted by Iapetus

As it turns out the INFP is really a special case of ENFJ. Read the descriptions for those two types and you'll notice some very strong similarities.
INFP - Fi Ne Si Te Fe Ni Se Ti

ENFJ - Fe Ni Se Ti Fi Ne Si Te

Same order, just I and E inverted on every pair. Still a huge difference between the 2 types. And how can you call yourself a "special case" of another type?
 
#37 ·
1. I am not big boned or big waisted (as endomorphs are sometimes described).
2. My BMI is within normal range.
3. I am certainly not muscular in appearance like a mesomorph, and it is very difficult for me to obtain that "muscular look."

In conclusion, I think I am a small boned ectomorph, only I do not look as small as I am, because my body is covered in flabby-endomorphic-fat. I do not know how being an endomorphic ectomorph influences my personality. I am pretty sure it does not.
INFPs come in all shapes and sizes, which is a lovely thing.

The end!
I am out of things to say.
 
#40 ·
Peter:

My presentation of probable location of MBTI types in the context of somatotype is not an
endorsement of the validity of the MBTI or of Jung’s presentation of psychological types. This is
a courtesy because so many have come to define themselves according to the distinctions made in
the MBTI.

No typology should be accepted automatically. If anyone here thinks that the Jung or Myers-
Briggs system is the final word on personality you simply haven’t considered the data or are in
someway biased or unable to consider any other alternative.

For starters it would be good to consider some of the writings and research of the Jungian
“apostates “ ie, Ralph Metzner, June Singer, Mary Loomis and many others. These dissidents
among the Jungian oriented researchers have concluded that the bipolarity assumption needs to
be abandoned. This assumption states that if you show a Sensing preference you cannot have
Intuition as an auxiliary function. The same relationship is claimed for Thinking and Feeling.
However if you construct the test so that people can express their choice on a scale you find
many people do in fact have Thinking as a primary coupled with Feeling as secondary or
Sensation as a primary and Intuition as secondary. In fact you have 12 possibilities for
combining 4 functions in pairs.

Feeling-Thinking
Feeling-Sensation
Feeling-Intuition

Sensation-Feeling
Sensation-Thinking
Sensation-Intuition

Thinking-Feeling
Thinking-Sensation
Thinking-Intuition

Intuition-Feeling
Intuition-Sensation
Intuition-Thinking

If you include an inferior function you would have 24 types:

Feeling-Thinking-Intuition-Sensation
Feeling-Thinking-Sensation-Intuition

Now if you have a coherent typology based on abandoning the bipolar assumption then Jung fails
to account for:

Feeling Dominant - Thinking Auxiliary
Thinking Dominant - Feeling Auxiliary
Sensation Dominant - Intuition Auxiliary
Intuition Auxiliary - Sensation Dominant

So with either system you are ousting at least four types.

Of course those types are there. There can be an unlimited number of types. We are talking
about ways to cut the pie that reflect significant differences while at the same time allowing for
continuous variation as is reflected in nature.

This brings us to explaining Introversion and Extraversion.

These dimensions emerge from the configuration of the four functions.

Thinking is by definition an inner focused function. You think AFTER you have gathered your
data. You make decisions (deciding is thinking) AFTER you have your facts. Thinking is linear
and sequential - logical. It excludes all but one choice so it is exclusive. No body can think for
you. Thinking is independent. Therefore thinking is Introverted.

Feeling is also focused on you. Where do you feel? When someone asks you how do you feel do
you start searching around your environment or do you try to tune into inner signals of comfort or
discomfort. No body can make you feel. Therefore feeling is Introverted.

Sensation is closely connected with the practical. Sensation is related to doing. Action is
something you do that involves the external world. Even your body is treated objectively in this
state or attitude. Athletes PUSH their bodies by forcing themselves to do things even though
they don’t feel comfortable and sometimes experience pain. Muscular activity is the organisms
way of contacting the environment and it is most associated with what Jung labeled Sensation.
Unfortunately the word Sensation carries a lot of extra baggage that should have disqualified its
use in describing something as simple as ACTION or DOING. Action is extaverted.

Intuition is understanding the relationship or orientation of things. It is based on Seeing. That’s
why diagrams are so useful in expressing intuition. Seeing, Touch, Taste, Hearing are
information gathering organs. They orient you in your environment. Orientation defines where
you are in your environement. Your environment is External. Therefore Intuition is extraverterd.

Eysenck has discovered two types of extraversion and two types of introversion. So if your
functions are chosen in the following hierarchies you will be Extraverted, Introverted or
Ambiverted.

Sensation-Intuition- Thinking- Feeling - you would be Extraverted.

Sensation-Thinking-Feeling-Intuition you would be slightly Extraverted

Sensation-Thinking-Intuition-Feeling you would be Ambiverted

My next post will discuss exactly why somatotype is the only system of explaining type at this
point in time.
 
#41 ·
What about identical twins who do not share a type (Any personality typical system, not necessarily MBTI)?

I can't say I feel myself to be that similar to the ESFJs I've met...

By the logic of those types you've dismissed...INTP, ISTP, ISFJ and ISTJ would be excluded too...

Also, can you describe the bottom eight to me:

Feeling-sensing - ISFP/ESFJ
Sensing feeling - ESFP/ISFJ

Thinking-sensing - ISTP/ESTJ
Sensing-thinking - ESTP/ISTJ

Feeling-intuiting - INFP/ENFJ
Intuiting-feeling - ENFP/INFJ

Thinking-intuiting - INTP/ENTJ
Intuiting-thinking - ENTP/INTJ

Intuitin-Sensing - INSJ/ENSJ
Sensing-intuiting - ESNJ/ISNJ

Thinking-feeling - ITFP/ETFP
Feeling-thinking - EFTP/IFTP

???

Then there would also be the FFs, the TTs, the NNs and the SSs...

I think you're misconstruing the fucntions...
 
#43 ·
Liminality:

First of all extroversion emerges from a combination of Sensation and Intuition. Jung says you can't be high on both. This is not true.

Introversion emerges from a combination of Thinking & Feeling. Jung says you can't be high on both. Again this is not true.

So there is no need of including Introversion and Extroversion as a type description since it is a second order characteristic. And when you understand that there are two types of extroversion and two types of introversion you have to separate the factors. So there would not be an I or an E. If a person is SI or IS they are automatically extroverts.

The same thing with P and J. The Perception functions are Sensation and Intuition. The Judging functions are Feeling and Thinking. In other words they could be subsumed under Extroversion and Introversion. They are simply aspects of Introversion-Extroversion. Introverts behave as if all the necessary information has been gathered whether the source is bodily sensations (gut feeling) or previous experience (thinking). Isn't that judging? On the other hand perception is concerned with what is out there - the way things are put together or the way they relate to each other. Perception like extroversion is absorbed in the wide open spaces of the world outside one's body, making closure difficult because there is always something else in the environment that might be considered.

So it comes down simply to the order in which you prefer S,N,T,F. There are 24 permutations of these four functions. In reality there are no sharp lines. There is only a cloud of preferences and each individual can benefit from this knowledge.

Later I'll post more on how Jung's obsession with the Mandala construct threw off his perception of the relationship these four functions have to each other.
 
#44 ·
I am interesing in understanding the cause and effect relationship between Personality, Genetics, and Body type.

One idea is that the genes for personality and body type may be carried on some of the same chromosomes...

However, current theory suggests that body type is controlled by the genes, mostly by controlling eating habits. This would suggest that the genes control the personality, which in turn influences the somaotype.
 
#45 ·
Interesting user name you have there. Why not just call yourself "Pi?"

I actually remember pi to 57 places past the decimal. Not that it matters.
Next stop for me is to remember all 66 books of the Bible (in order). I'm about three quarters of the way there.

I would have liked to have gone by Æ (aesc) but this forum wouldn't allow odd symbols and what not.
 
#48 ·
dfoster:

Kretchmer didn't do nearly as much research into somatotyping as Sheldon. I have read all of Sheldon's books including the 30 year follow up to his study of delinquent youths. I own a couple of his books that I found on Amazon.
 
#49 ·
Jung's Obsession With Mandalas Produces Fatal Flaw In His Typology

When you look closely at Jung it becomes clear that he doesn't always use terms according to dictionary definitions. Because my main concern in this discussion is with the relationship between the four functions I will endure Jung's sometimes idiosyncratic definitions. Later we can deal with the meanings of the individual functions.

Here is the problem:

"I (Jung) had to abandon the idea of the superordinate position of the ego. ... I saw that everything, all paths I had been following, all steps I had taken, were leading back to a single point -- namely, to the mid-point. It became increasingly plain to me that the mandala is the centre. It is the exponent of all paths. It is the path to the centre, to individuation.
... I knew that in finding the mandala as an expression of the self I had attained what was for me the ultimate." - C. G. Jung. Memories, Dreams, Reflections


Jung fell victim to "box" thinking. He was searching for any figure that would systematize the four functions. Jung grabbed the most obvious geometric form available to the western mind . He naturally thought of the square. This is about as enlightened as saying "cat" when asked in the word association game what comes to your mind when you hear the word "dog"? Jung believed the mandala was the best expression of the relationships between the four functions. Even though we tend to think of a mandala as a square it can vary culturally. For instance the Yin- Yang symbol (Taijitu) is a kind of harmonizing of four dimensions. Actually mandala is sanscrit for "circle". For whatever reason (probably a tendency toward dichotomous thinking) Jung chose the cross as the main figure for illustrating the relations of the four functions. The diagram below ends up as Jung's definitive structure.




A square may be an obvious choice when picking a figure to represent four basic elements but it creates a big question. That question concerns the meaning of the middle of the square. What happens when a person is balanced on all four functions. Jung apparently felt that individuation ought to move a person to the center of the square where a person would achieve equal strength in all four functions. No such person can possibly exist. We are individuals to the extent that we present an imbalance in our function preferences. It is this imbalance that is best utilized in the context of a group with "gifts differing" for the enrichment of the whole. The real job for a human is not to see how they can be complete by themselves but how they can by understanding their assets and limitations form a synergy in community. The even distribution of energy is death. There is no value- no energy to homogenization. Wind is a good example. Wind is the movement of air due to the inequality of temperature at two locations.

Many psychological tests that are expressed as a score on various scales refer to "flat" or "tight" patterns. The Strongs Vocational Interest Blank and the DiSC are two examples. These terms refer to the situation where all the scales are practically equal. Whenever this kind of profile is encountered it raises a red flag. Generally something is not exactly right when this happens. A counselor uses this signal as a reason to probe for possible causes. The point here is to illustrate that individuation as a process of equalizing the four functions may not be desirable. However, an awareness of the rank order of the strength of these functions is of utmost importance, because that's what guides a person's social preferences for vocation, mate, friends and understanding their enemies.

The problem with the "square" model is that once you explain the center you now have a "fifth" factor. What are you going to do? Are you going to conceive of a pentangular polygon to accommodate that "fifth" function? You have to stop somewhere. The place to stop is at the beginning. There is quite a bit of agreement on the significance of four-ness. But is there a better way of conceiving four-ness using a geometrical figure?

ENTER THE TRIANGLE

Instead of thinking about a chair with four legs we need to think about the old-fashioned milking stool. I don't know if Jung ever met Buckminster Fuller but if he didn't he should have. Both had a fascination with four-ness,but Fuller found the triangle to be the shape of preference if not necessity.

Consider the results if Jung and "Bucky" would have collaborated:




That's as far as I care to go with this. From this point on it is a matter of unraveling Jung's poorly conceived labeling of the basic functions. The solution is to understand that the functions need to reflect actual organismic systems. There is almost a universal understanding that we are feelers, doers, thinkers and seers. We feel, do, think and see. So, we can map this as follows:





Jung was not uniquely blind to the possibility of a triangle representing his concepts. Sheldon remarked that he looked repeatedly for a fourth dimension in constructing his scheme but was unable to find one. It was hiding in plain sight. In one of his books he included a chart wherein he used a very large font to label the middle as "HUMOR". This is just a short step away from a sanguinic's optimism.

"Whatever else may be true of humor, it represents a singular inclination to take life lightly, or whimsically, and a readiness to tolerate (indeed to enjoy) incompatible conceptions. The person with a sense of humor does not put himself in too serious a light and does not desire to be taken too seriously. He avoids the responsibility of exercising power [ mesomorphy (my note)] People with humor are not directly leaders in the world's affairs. But humor is in no sense a polar trait. It involves both the relaxation of viscerotonia [endomorphy (my note)] and the restraint of cerebrotonia [ectomorphy (my note)]. Varieties of Temperament (W.H. Sheldon p. 53, 1942)

It is significant that somatotypes can best be expressed as a triangle or tetrahedron. This harmonizes perfectly with Jung's view that the fourth or inferior function is not immediately apparent. It is hidden. It emerges from the relationship of the main three.








 
#50 ·
Well, for what it's worth, I'm INFJ on the MBTI, and pretty sure I'm a mesomorph body type. I took some kind of test awhile back online that put me into the mesomorph category, and it seemed to describe me best. I was an ectomorphic twig as a child, but now that I'm older, I can gain and lose weight rather easily, and I build muscle much easier than most women. Although the latter could result from the fact that most women are scared crapless to lift any free weight above 10 pounds..I've been going to the Y two to three times a week for nearly two years now, and I see this reluctance to lift bigger weights constantly from most women. It's like they think they'll turn into Schwarzenegger if they lift bigger weights, lol. Meanwhile, I'm curling 20 pound dumbbells.
 
#51 ·
KDM:

The average man is a "4.0" mesomorphy on a scale of 1 (minimum) to 7 (maximum). The average woman is a"3.0" mesomorphy. So there isn't a big difference between men and women on mesomorphy. However women rarely get up into the maximum mesomorphy levels of 6 and 7 which is where you would need to be to look like Arnold. The truth is that the average man can't get a build like Arnold or Atlas no matter how much they lift weights.

Somatotype can only be determined from actual physical measurements of the body or using a properly posed photograph. A written test to determine somatotype is practically useless. I use William Sheldon's method because it is based on the somatotype being static. The most popular method of determining somatotype is the Heath-Carter method. It's used in training of athletes because it is best suited to track "changes" in muscle and fat.
 
#52 ·
I see. I've read extensively on shoulder width, WHR, and the BMI, and I've seen some inexact body fat calculators that also take neck size into account, but I'd never considered how those (and perhaps other) measurements work in relation to the three body types.
 
#53 ·
Jung's Somatotype

If it weren’t for CPS (Consulting Psychologists Press) Jung would have faded out of public
awareness. CPS holds the publishing rights for the MBTI. Although 2 million people take it
each year and there are dozens of discussion boards with endless conversations about the
subtleties of the various types there is no way of being sure that these types are real. People
retake the test and get different results. A large number of dedicated Jungian therapists don’t
find it useful in their practice and there are quite a few therapists that have offered alternative
theories that eliminate the problems of the dichotomous structure of Jung’s type theory. It is hard
to know which function is even taking the test.

W.H. Sheldon, knew Jung from when he worked at his institute in Switzerland. Sheldon
determined that Jung’s somatotype was 4,6,2½ . That would make him 4 endomorphy, 6
mesomorphy, 2½ ectomorphy and 5 equimorphy (balance). Translated into a body-type he was
extremely muscular - actually athletic. Combined with 4 in the visceral (gut) component he
would have made a decent NFL line man. His ectomorphy (nervous system) was below average
for most men. In fact his low ectomorphy suggests that his inferior function would be - thinking.
So basically his organismic systems would rank as follows:

Muscular- (Sensation type) 6
Orientaional -(Intuitive) 5
Visceral - (Feeling) 4
Nervous - (Thinking) 2½

Muscular in the first position suggest a desire for raw power and control. Orientational system in
the second position means a person is “searching-scanning” for the means to control. So this is a
person who wants to develop a system for dominating. Nervous being last means he avoids
restriction and boundary.

He was an extreme extravert that was interested in dominance and control of everything in his
environment including people. He was more interested in showing off and impressing others
than actually helping them. Instead of liberating people from occultism he set himself up as a
high priest of his own mystic religion. His interest in mythology and symbol helped him avoid
doing the hard thinking and research that would make him vulnerable to peer review. This is the
profile of a cult leader.

While the exact names of the MBTI types is distorted some of the descriptions possibly describe
real types. The type description that best fits Jung is the ENTJ. However there is little
connection between those particular functions and attitudes and the actual description.

MBTI is 90% religion.
 
#54 ·
INFJ here. I'm pretty much Endomorphic physically. I've been obese my whole life, but carry it fairly well because of my short-legged, stocky, heavy-boned build. I am 250lbs and 5ft 8in tall. I have a wide pelvis and narrow shoulders. I have wide wrists and ankles. I have a large roundish (brachycephalic) head, small mouth and jaw, and a slight but noticeable brow ridge.

I have no interest in physical competitions, very introverted, have low emotional stability (that is, I'm very moody), and have poor balance and eye-hand coordination. I can be both extremely sentimental and warm on one hand and be logical and brutally honest on the other.
 
#55 ·
TaylorS:

Your somatotype is probably in the area of 6.5 Endomorphy, 3.5 Mesomorphy, 2 Ectomorphy, 4 Balance - Equimorphy

You are caught between the intersection of ISFJ, ESFJ, ENFJ but more likely ISFJ.

Your visceral system is dominant definitely making you a feeling person. Your auxiliary would be Muscular system but it is very close to your orientational system possibly giving you the feeling that you are more intuitive than you really are. You aren't an extreme introvert but definitely bend in that direction.
 
#61 ·
In real life the most in shape people I meet are more often then anything else SJs. It makes sense as well since the most common trait you'd have to have in order to go to the gym on a regular basis is discipline and discipline is usually associated with Si.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top