[firedell]

If figuring out someone's type was only just as easy as that.

[Eric B]

Temperament and type aren't the same thing. And in fact temperament in the Kiersey sense is different than how we generally conceive of temperament (for example we refer to certain dogs as having a certain inbred temperament towards being docile or aggressive, but that's not what Kiersey and the other temperament theorists are really talking about either).

In Psychological Types, Jung does bring up temperaments. For example he alludes to certain types having a tendency toward being melancholic or that the Extraverted Sensation type might be a 'jolly fellow' as he puts it. But what he is not saying is that, for instance, introverts will necessarily be melancholic which is more like Kiersey and others are trying to assert, or that extraverts will always be social and outgoing, which is definitely a perpetuated stereotype.

@Eric B often points out that people may have a somewhat innate (or seemingly innate) disposition toward say Choleric or Melancholic or whatever but this very difficult to truly ascertain because so much of this can be described from the standpoint of persona. There are many people who think they've always been a certain way who have just habituated a way of being, because we develop our personas so early in life, often before we have any real cogent memories these things may seem innate even if they really aren't. Jung talks about the introvert's tendency to withdraw from his environment and how he noticed this tendency even at very young ages (toddlers) but i don't think even he would go as far as to say 'this means all introverts will have x or y temperament.' That would be an overgeneralization, and the problem that so many people have with many of the temperament theories out there is that they claim something that may be learned as innate. (Even if you habituate something to the point where it feels natural, doesn't make it so).

It's one thing to say a German Shepherd will have an instinctual temperament toward aggression. It's a whole another thing to say people will have a temperament of 'Guardian' or 'Artisan.' That is much, much more learned behavior.

Temperament has come to mean different things The "humor" concept, pretty much like type, has been dismissed by mainstream psychology (not "scientific" enough), so when they talk about "temperament", they mean individual factors such as "mood, distractability, etc".

When Jung says that the "majority" of females have a "priority of introverted Feeling" and, who "not infrequently their temperament is melancholic", I'm not sure what to make of any of that. (It seems way overgeneralized, you know, women as Feelers, which is based more on societal roles, which of course are male=T, female=F. He seemed to be very susceptible to this, such as associating a male's anima with eros while a female's animus is logos. Actually, both anima and animus are about eros! Else, a woman's attraction to a man would never be "erotic"!)
So I wonder if he might have had a looser concept of the temperaments. I had heard he looked into different temperament models and rejected them. So maybe "melancholic" to him was more about "mood", like the modern Kagan concept.

I think he was probably also observing a lot of ITJ women (who are genuine "Melancholic": Chart the Course; and one of the two types, SJ-Guardian as well), whose tertiary Fi is strengthened by those societal female roles.

[Jennywocky]

Across cultures, the personality types appear very consistent (approximately 65% sensing and 35% intuitive, 50-50 E/I, 50-50 J/P, 50-50 T/F), which is almost like gender (about 50% male and 50% female).

References on the S/N pairing being consistent "across cultures"?

Gender is actually not as consistent across cultures, although there are cultural influences. There's also one clear chromosomal indicator of genetic sex, despite a number of things that can derail sexual differentiation in the womb... unlike personality. Chromosomal sex is easy to detect and track.

Probably the most biologically determined pairing would be E/I. I's are wired to be more sensitive to stimulation, typically, while E's need more stimulation in order to feel happy. Hence, I's and E's approach the environments differently.

The other traits don't really have as obvious biological indicators... at least none that have been able to be quantified.

[Angelic Gardevoir]

There's also one clear chromosomal indicator of genetic sex, despite a number of things that can derail sexual differentiation in the womb... unlike personality. Chromosomal sex is easy to detect and track.

Dang, beat me to it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some genetic components to personality. But unless one of our 23 chromosome pairs determines the F/T dimension (which I highly doubt), for example, personality type is not determined in any way like sex. If anything, there may be a number of genes involved and various allele combinations may correlate roughly to type.

[KateMarie999]

Personally I don't think genes determine personality at all. I was definitely an xNFP from birth and I'm the only intuitive in my family. This includes grandparents. If there were genetics involved, I don't think I'd be intuitive. And my best friend is the only feeler in her family. Unless there are some incredibly recessive genes that determine different types that skip generations at a time, I really doubt genetics have anything to do with it.

[LiquidLight]

When Jung says that the "majority" of females have a "priority of introverted Feeling" and, who "not infrequently their temperament is melancholic", I'm not sure what to make of any of that. (It seems way overgeneralized, you know, women as Feelers, which is based more on societal roles, which of course are male=T, female=F. He seemed to be very susceptible to this, such as associating a male's anima with eros while a female's animus is logos.

You know, and I'm just guessing but I think, we might be looking at this from 2012 eyes not 1912 eyes, in which it probably might have been appropriate, if not questionable, (especially pre-Women's movement and even women's suffrage) for stereotypes like that to have been perpetuated to a point as to be normative. Certainly nothing of Jung's contradicts any of the prevailing notions of the day about gender and gender roles). Marie Von Franz has some more enlightening things to say about the evolution of women (as she was much younger and lived well into the 1990s some of her opinions on the Women's Lib movement and so forth are very interesting).

As far as the anima/animus and eros, Hillman has some interesting things to say to further your point

Anima by definition is the feminine aspect of the masculine psyche and is always feminine. Eros, however, is masculine. Its imagery in various cultures confirms this. Kama, Eros, Cupid, Frey, Adonis, Tammus -- all are male; and the incarnations of enlightened love, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus -- for all their gentleness and forbearance in regard to sexual fertility -- are masculine. The eros principle is active and aimed; preaching, teaching, traveling, leading souls to redemption, or heroes and men to the fateful embrace, or shooting its darts into flesh -- love is male deed and power. It makes effects in the world and the psyche. Whether the movement be the homing of grace downward or the yearning upward from the imperfect to the perfect, eros remains in every context, Christian or not, a spiritual, creative dynamus, a prime mover.

As we too often insist the anima has to do with eros and feeling, so we mistakenly identify the animus with logos and ideas. But the animus, especially in therapy where so much is made of feeling, can well manifest as a feeler, and again, like anima-feeling it will just be off. All the values and all the hear twill be peculiarly half-values and half-hearted. This pseudo-feeling of the animus creeps into many analytical sessions as soon as the people try to "Express their feelings." Key words for detecting the animus are "really," "my own," "good," "positive," "related," and the word "feeling" itself.

[Eric B]

What I had been told (which shaped my view on Eros/Logos; wonder if this was derived from Hillman):

Philosophically, Logos is the rational principle that structures and informs matter, seeing to it that different parts of a system behave differently and independently of each other. Eros is the affective principle that pulls things together, seeing to it that different parts of a system are connected to each other and so bound to the fate of the whole.

In typological terms, Logos is differentiation; Eros is integration. We need Logos to discriminate between good and evil and to recognize ourselves as rational creatures capable of free choice. But we need Eros to unify opposing psychological elements and to create new states of consciousness.

Psychological development obviously requires the existence of both elements.

So Logos could seem like Feeling as well as Thinking; either judging or "rational" function.