# Hormones and MBTI



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

niss said:


> Makes sense. Hormones are static and wouldn't be different for males vs. females, or for females during menstruation, menopause, or pregnancy. And they certainly wouldn't change because of age, stress, or being in a depressed state.
> 
> Yeah, makes total sense.
> 
> /ISTJ injection of reality into ENTP abstract discussion


If you consider the theory of pre-natal hormonal organisation, where levels of exposure during the development of the brain also influences the brains sensitivity to them later in life it makes more sense. Studies have suggested various links to pre-natal conditions and behaviour/orientations later in life. For example, sexual orientation differences as well as links to high levels of pre-natal testosterone and increasing signs of autistic traits (note, not actually to autism, just higher incidences of certain behaviours). 

Obviously, different areas of the brain would be affected during different stages of fetal development. 

Hormones not being static is exactly why, to me, it makes a lot of sense. It seems to go further than nature/nurture in explaining how personality types could be so randomly distributed throughout the world. The initial effects on the brain structure while it's forming and during the earliest stages, are unlikely to be undone by later hormonal influences, but they could set up susceptibility to the later effects.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> As far as it goes there's a lot out there:
> 
> View attachment 53628
> 
> ...


I know you are just citing that, but it seems incredibly fishy because when we look at say, enneagram... the correlation goes poof and disappears! This is because not all 5s will be NTs, not all NFs will be 4s (then wtf am I? I have a combination of NT and NF traits in me according to these descriptions). 

I also see more enneagram than actual... Jungian descriptions in these descriptions. E.g. NT sounds very 5-ish with a flair of 8, 3 and 1 (essentially the competency triad + 8), NF a focus on 4, 2, and 9, SJ 1, 2 and 6 (triple super-ego) and lastly SP 3, 7, 8 (triple id). 

Yep. I really wished reality was that simple, eh?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ok, and to tackle this whole SPs are more likely to be addicts BS I am seeing, what if I also say that enneagram 4 core types when unhealthy are also more likely to seek drugs and that there's a correlation between enneagram 4 and NF types? Does this suddenly mean that NFs are more likely to be drug addicts? Nope, hardly. 

I wish people would refrain from typism in this thread. I'm a bit of a thrill-seeker. I do like me some thrills once in a while and I have almost no ounce of Se in me (whatever's there is so weak and underused I should feel ashamed at myself and I do envy strong Se users). You cannot use the description of Se to justify that Se dom and aux types are more likely to be thrill seekers. That's just a stereotype description that needs to be killed with fire and I am very sure most SPs will agree with me on this. Se does not mean that you are naturally driven to enjoy the thrills of life. Se is simply a way to take in information around you in an as-is manner. That's the only thing we need to know and understand about Se. Any other aspect of SPs are generalized tendencies probably unrelated to their Jungian type and more related to enneagram. The fact that SP as a group is at all described as a type that say, enjoys thrills, especially SeTi types, is such a big fat lie and is more related to enneagram tendencies and actual type and that's why I dislike the MBTI as an assessment tool. It's so fucking focused on external behavior so every NF is a person who is focused on authenticity. But this isn't true. Aside being a knowledge hoarder, I am also extremely focused on being authentic and feeling authentic. Why? Because of my enneagram! This does not make me anymore NT or NF. 

Like for real. I wish people would study the theories in more detail before they start spewing nonsense around.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

niss said:


> Then it (sensation seeking), as you've described it, isn't an addiction.


No, it's a personality trait linked to drug addiction.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Staffan said:


> No, it's a personality trait linked to drug addiction.


Personality trait =/= Jungian type.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

celticstained said:


> i'm not saying it's a hard and fast rule, but to me the "thrill seeker" model would fit an extrovert more so than introvert, and a sensation dominant more than an extroverted intuitive just by the nature of the act they are drawn to. but that's not to say that there aren't other avenues or "combinations" that could have the same result even though they're working from a different base.


Yes, they both act as if understimulated. But in different ways. There is usually less problems linked to extraversion. It correlates to drinking and smoking but much less than sensation seeking or Eysenckian Psychoticism (which is very similar). And while extraverts are more sexually active sensation seekers are also more likely to cheat. The behaviors are similar but sensation seekers are more anti-social. They are much more overrepresented in jail for instance.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Personality trait =/= Jungian type.


No, that's right. A Jungian type is constructed from a personality trait using cutoff points. But there are still correlations. MBTI and Big Five extraversion are for instance highly correlated.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Staffan said:


> No, it's a personality trait linked to drug addiction.


That is playing fast and loose with a small subsection of data. Zuckerman, who developed the scale, didn't find a correlation between sensation seeking and major personality types.

What is much more likely is that we have a partial understanding of sensation seeking, addictive behaviors, and MBTI (SP types), and see enough correlation in our minds to draw false conclusions. The truth of the matter is that we do not have one properly conducted study indicating any correlation suggested in this thread.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Without further studies, this is a dead topic.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Staffan said:


> No, that's right. A Jungian type is constructed from a personality trait using cutoff points. But there are still correlations. MBTI and Big Five extraversion are for instance highly correlated.


Then let me put this way: how we think =/= how we behave. Are there sometimes correlations? Yes. Does it mean that we always behave the way we seem to thnk? No.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> If you consider the theory of pre-natal hormonal organisation, where levels of exposure during the development of the brain also influences the brains sensitivity to them later in life it makes more sense. Studies have suggested various links to pre-natal conditions and behaviour/orientations later in life. For example, sexual orientation differences as well as links to high levels of pre-natal testosterone and increasing signs of autistic traits (note, not actually to autism, just higher incidences of certain behaviours).
> 
> Obviously, different areas of the brain would be affected during different stages of fetal development.
> 
> Hormones not being static is exactly why, to me, it makes a lot of sense. It seems to go further than nature/nurture in explaining how personality types could be so randomly distributed throughout the world. The initial effects on the brain structure while it's forming and during the earliest stages, are unlikely to be undone by later hormonal influences, but they could set up susceptibility to the later effects.


No issue with it, as long as we stick with what we know. When we start trying to correlate hormones with MBTI type in some type of causal relationship, it doesn't take a great deal of thought to detect problems with that line of thinking.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Then let me put this way: how we think =/= how we behave. Are there sometimes correlations? Yes. Does it mean that we always behave the way we seem to thnk? No.


If measure of a trait correlates with any of the MBTI preferences then it too is a measure of that trait. The validity of the MBTI is based mainly on behavior such as educational and vocational choices and performances.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Staffan said:


> If measure of a trait correlates with any of the MBTI preferences then it too is a measure of that trait. The validity of the MBTI is based mainly on behavior such as educational and vocational choices and performances.


Yes, and any person who's more into type theory and Jungian theory will realize how flawed the MBTI is as an assessment tool in this manner. As I already pointed out, based on the NF description provided by @tanstaafl28, I would thus be considered an NF for this reason. I would dare say that the MBTI assessment tool mostly gets the type wrong than right because people get too hung up on behavior compared to how they genuinely think. You often find that some thinkers think they are feelers because they realize they have feelings (LOL) or some feelers think they are feelers because they are logical (LOL). That's entirely missing the point of what's T/F is about and it's just the icing on the cake really.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

SPs are not all thrill seekers who are more prone to addiction. That bit is complete and utter bullshit.

This is why I despise the excessive attributing certain functions to certain behaviors and concepts that are not necessarliy limited to any type. It leads to the use of data and stereotypes to back up fallacious reasoning, and passes severely flawed subjective biases off as some sort of "truth." Se dominant and auxiliary users (SPs) are not automatically thrill seeking people prone to addiction just because they have Se. Se is a reasoning process in which someone uses the sensory data in the present moment around them, not necessarily thrill seeking. 

Also, I don't think that all addiction is always driven by seeking a thrill. Some people need comfort, or support, or a way to disconnect from their sorrows if you will. The factors for addiction vary from person to person. And I'm sure there are plenty of NTs, NFs, and SJs that are addicts. 

As @Spades put it sweetly, our chemical levels are not constant and change on a regular basis. MBTI does not determine your biological processes, and that includes the levels of certain hormones being released throughout your body. Therefore I do not think it is wise to associate neurotransmitters and hormones with MBTI types and Keirsey temperaments. It just creates a new set of inaccurate stereotypes for people to use.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

niss said:


> That is playing fast and loose with a small subsection of data. Zuckerman, who developed the scale, didn't find a correlation between sensation seeking and major personality types.
> 
> What is much more likely is that we have a partial understanding of sensation seeking, addictive behaviors, and MBTI (SP types), and see enough correlation in our minds to draw false conclusions. The truth of the matter is that we do not have one properly conducted study indicating any correlation suggested in this thread.
> 
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Without further studies, this is a dead topic.


Did he investigate the connection between his scale and "major personality types" (whatever that is)? Most scientific researchers avoid the MBTI precisely because it is a typology. It certainly correlates to other well-known measures. 

While it's true that there is no study (that I know of) that shows a direct correlation, I was merely mentioning the MBTI type that seemed the closest match. But if speculation killed this topic then the entire thread seems to be dead right from the start.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Staffan said:


> Did he investigate the connection between his scale and "major personality types" (whatever that is)? Most scientific researchers avoid the MBTI precisely because it is a typology. It certainly correlates to other well-known measures.
> 
> While it's true that there is no study (that I know of) that shows a direct correlation, I was merely mentioning the MBTI type that seemed the closest match. But if speculation killed this topic then the entire thread seems to be dead right from the start.


Speculation needs facts, if it would advance. Real facts, not those supposed facts that are randomly generated by confused suppositions.










Off topic: Interesting blog.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

niss said:


> Speculation needs facts, if it would advance. Real facts, not those supposed facts that are randomly generated by confused suppositions.
> 
> Off topic: Interesting blog.


I agree, I just find that there is so much speculation in this thread that it seemed like a speculative thread. I could of course have been more clear and said, "SP seems like the closest match for sensation seeking". 

Thanks.


----------

