Animal typology

[wadlez]

Animal typology.
I begun applying MBTI to different animals about a year ago to try and get a better more practical grasp of there personalitys. Animals do definately have
different personalitys within each species ,any dog or cat owner can tell you this. Most people attribute the differences to orientation in the pack (eg alpha male) but this is very simple and does not account for the variation and is a very broad explanation (about as good as using it to explain our personalitys).
It is difficult to identify the factors and functions of personality for animals and even harder to measure them. When I set about this I began testing animals on trait theorys rather than type theorys which work on continuums (the big 5, 16 pf).
I began with the simplist observable trait of Extroversion versus Introversion. This was not as hard as I thought it would be and I easily accomplished this with a few games outside where I would give them treats for performing tasks, Extroversion is pretty much immediately observable through an animals shyness.
I switched back to MBTI rather than traits as these were created from factors they originally identified through the english language using factor analysis. I borrowed friends/familys pets on and off over a period of a few months, this is so I would have a large sample to contrast each animal against. After finding the results for many animals by measuring them on each function (NSFT, E or I for each) I was amazed to find that each of the types were so quickly identifiable and interacted with me and other animals just as the type description described. This gave me very deep insights into the minds and behaviours of pets, opening my eyes to a dimension I had previously never observed, a very enlightening and life changing experience.
I have recorded these findings and now I am looking to put forward this theory to the scientific community so it finds common acceptance, It also has practical applications such as allowing you to understand and be more selective of a pet before you purchase it (hopefully pets may one day be purchased with there printed type indicator). Development of MRI research and gene technology should allow animals to go through a scan to find there type so they can be identified as puppys/kittens.
Throughout life I have had trouble with various pets of mine, never really striking up a bond with some and being very attached to others. Understanding now that this is due to there inate personality type I can now act confidently and have greater knowledge of my pets behaviour. I adopted 4 cats a week ago (partly for this experiment) after typing them I knew that I would not like 2 of these cats as they were types I personally do not like or bond with (from human experience with these types: intj and istj).
Rather than take them to the pound which already is over populated I had the animals destroyed. The sad apart about this was that since people are so narrow minded and prejudiced about the possibilitys of MBTI I could not have them put down by the vet so rather had to do this myself which was very hard for me as I had not done this before (also probably due to the repressed F of INTP's). I have friends of mine who are also very pashionate about MBTI who after testing there pets we decided that it would also be best to have some of there animals destroyed (This gave me solace). One particular friend was strong minded and brave enough to put down there 2 year old, 400$ pure bred boxer which they were very attached to.

I invite the people of this forum who have demostrated much open mindedness previously to test animal typology themselves and also to spread this idea so it can be embraced by the community at large. The methodology for testing pets is still in its basic stages, the techniques I have used could be much improved upon and are also better replaced by those of the pet owner who knows there animal the best. Also the type descriptions might be better if customised for animals.

Anyone who has any queries about the theory or practise of animal typology can ask me here

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

*Reverse is squished underneath a wall of text*

 

[Alice?]

Animals are one of the few things I feel strongly for and get emotional about, so:
I'm sorry, but I find a lot of this so wrong. While I do find it interesting to type pets (out of curiousity a while back, I typed my cat and my rabbit), it's absolutely, under no circumstances, right for you to have adopted those cats purely for experiment. The fact that you had them put down instead of taking them to the pound almost makes me physically sick. Why even adopt them in the first place? There are plenty of pets ALL OVER THE PLACE that you could have used for the experiment. These are LIVES you are talking about. LIVES. Those animals are innocent, and could have been loved by someone.
I am thoroughly disturbed.

 

[Adymus]

I haven't really put very much thought, and no work into this. But I support what you are doing completely. The Jungain processes had to have been products of evolution, and I find that it is very likely that you will find some form of them in animal hardware. Animals have expressions and emotional content that is meant to be read and communicated. This could very well be an analog to the human use of Fe and Fi.

I have also noticed that one of my dogs appears to be directive (J): He takes what he wants from whomever he wants, he is extremely pushy and tries to express dominance on my other dog.
while my other one is very adaptive (P): Does not try and dominate other dogs. She doesn't really care about being dominated by dog #1 above. she is very reactive and does not start trouble with other dogs, but gets defensive if others try and push themselves onto her.

I don't know, those are just some observations I've made, I'm sure the breed means a lot too. If I were to tie Dog #1 (Shiba-inu) to a type I would say ISFJ. and my other dog (Maltese/poodle) to ISFP.

 

[Mary]

I haven't really put very much thought, and no work into this. But I support what you are doing completely. The Jungain processes had to have been products of evolution, and I find that it is very likely that you will find some form of them in animal hardware. Animals have expressions and emotional content that is meant to be read and communicated. This could very well be an analog to the human use of Fe and Fi.

I have also noticed that one of my dogs appears to be directive (J): He takes what he wants from whomever he wants, he is extremely pushy and tries to express dominance on my other dog.
while my other one is very adaptive (P): She doesn't really care about being dominated by dog #1 above. she is very reactive and does not start trouble with other dogs, but gets defensive if others try and push themselves onto her.

I don't know, those are just some observations I've made, I'm sure the breed means a lot too. If I were to tie Dog #1 (Shiba-inu) to a type I would say ISFJ. and my other dog (Maltese/poodle) to ISFP.

AWW~
(I have a Shiba-Inu too)
I love my doggy. She'd probably be an ESFP., I have no real idea why, but that's how she acts.

 

[Mary]

I'm sorry, but I find a lot of this so wrong. While I do find it interesting to type pets (out of curiousity a while back, I typed my cat and my rabbit), it's absolutely, under no circumstances, right for you to have adopted those cats purely for experiment. The fact that you had them put down instead of taking them to the pound almost makes me physically sick. Why even adopt them in the first place? There are plenty of pets ALL OVER THE PLACE that you could have used for the experiment. These are LIVES you are talking about. LIVES. Those animals are innocent, and could have been loved by someone.
I am thoroughly disturbed.
Beyond that, I am skeptical that the scientific community will even accept your research on a topic such as this.
I am going to go vomit now.

I have to agree with you on the adopting-then-putting down thing. I dunno..


Was there any way you could've typed them /at/ the pound? It just doesn't seem to be the right thing to do. In addition, why did your friend have to put down the pet he loved so much? Was it sick/dying? You made it seem like it was just for the experiment?

I'm sorry.. The information you did find out from your experiment is fascinating. Let us know how it goes, okay?

 

[Anthile]

You make it sound like wadlez was some kind of 'Typology Mengele'.

 

[Mary]

You make it sound like wadlez was some kind of 'Typology Mengele'.

I was trying to not do that.
It just upset me a little. And confused me.
But I think over all it was an interesting experiment.
(Sorry if I offended anyone.. D: )

 

[Hawkeye]

Animals are one of the few things I feel strongly for and get emotional about, so:
I'm sorry, but I find a lot of this so wrong. While I do find it interesting to type pets (out of curiousity a while back, I typed my cat and my rabbit), it's absolutely, under no circumstances, right for you to have adopted those cats purely for experiment. The fact that you had them put down instead of taking them to the pound almost makes me physically sick. Why even adopt them in the first place? There are plenty of pets ALL OVER THE PLACE that you could have used for the experiment. These are LIVES you are talking about. LIVES. Those animals are innocent, and could have been loved by someone.
I am thoroughly disturbed.
Beyond that, I am skeptical that the scientific community will even accept your research on a topic such as this.
I am going to go vomit now.

x2

This is probably the only time I've wished someone was a troll.

You treated those cats as mere variables in your experiment.

To have them 'destroyed'

I can't believe you used that word like all those other freaks who think 'animals have no souls and that humans are God's Gift to the planet'...


Your logic for having them put down wasn't even logical. It was just wrong.

 

[shoeless]

what the fuck.

PUT THE GODDAMN THING UP FOR ADOPTION, ASSHOLE.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

I don't know, those are just some observations I've made, I'm sure the breed means a lot too. If I were to tie Dog #1 (Shiba-inu) to a type I would say ISFJ. and my other dog (Maltese/poodle) to ISFP.

I think the real question is: What happens when Adymus' dogs tell him that he's INFJ?
I don't think the answer involves adoption.
:-P

 

[Adymus]

I think the real question is: What happens when Adymus' dogs tell him that he's INFJ?
I don't think the answer involves adoption.
:-P

My dog's knowledge of MBTI is way to high to make that mistake.

 

[intuitivet]

x2

This is probably the only time I've wished someone was a troll.

You treated those cats as mere variables in your experiment.

To have them 'destroyed'

I can't believe you used that word like all those other freaks who think 'animals have no souls and that humans are God's Gift to the planet'...


Your logic for having them put down wasn't even logical. It was just wrong.

Agreed. Put them up for adoption, return them to the pound or maybe actually look after them?
Plus, if you think of them as gifts, why don't you treat them with respect. If I remember the bible well enough it said something along the lines of respecting all creations. 'Breaking' a gift isn't respectful.

 

[wadlez]

what the fuck.

PUT THE GODDAMN THING UP FOR ADOPTION, ASSHOLE.

This is unconstructive feedback (to say the least).

Thank you to the people who havent brought there ideals into this thread and who have taken a liberal view point. I didnt put any animals down for the experiment, but rather did so because the MBTI theory has been supported to the point that it was logical to do so.
As mentioned I have managed to convince others to do the same so any criticism falls on many others aswell (who also did not believe at first).

[QOUTE]I haven't really put very much thought, and no work into this. But I support what you are doing completely. The Jungain processes had to have been products of evolution, and I find that it is very likely that you will find some form of them in animal hardware. Animals have expressions and emotional content that is meant to be read and communicated. This could very well be an analog to the human use of Fe and Fi.

[/QOUTE]

It was this thought which motivated me to begin the research in the first place

[QOUTE]
I have also noticed that one of my dogs appears to be directive (J): He takes what he wants from whomever he wants, he is extremely pushy and tries to express dominance on my other dog.
while my other one is very adaptive (P): Does not try and dominate other dogs. She doesn't really care about being dominated by dog #1 above. she is very reactive and does not start trouble with other dogs, but gets defensive if others try and push themselves onto her.[/QOUTE]

These are the types of observations I used to find the type data for my research. People generally explain behaviour such as this on the simple pack hierarchy model, to me this does not account for all the variations and scope of animals personality. I hope this opens peoples eyes to the potential depth of an animals mind, rather than simply viewing them as instinctual robots

 

[shoeless]

how the fuck does the model for personality typing condone the murder of innocent animals?

i lashed out, because this is the kind of fucked-up bullshit that makes me hate the I LIVE BY LOGIC!, emotions-are-weak we-should-all-live-like-computers mindset that's so ingrained in (a small percentage of) thinking-types (specifically INTx types). there is no fucking justification for this. the fact that you're defending it with your "logic" only makes it worse.

what the fuck kind of constructive criticism are you after?
"i don't believe you should have 'destroyed' your test subjects -- you could have used them for future experiments!"

bullshit.
complete, utter bullshit.

just because you "knew you wouldn't like them" based on their mbti types.
does that mean it's okay to kill people you don't like?

i'm all for experimentation. i'm all for progressing our knowledge and understanding. but there is such a thing as a goddamn code of ethics, and it really sickens me to my core that you don't even seem to have any inkling of that.

you must be a goddamn psychopath.

 

[Melkor]

Alright, we can all agree (most especially me) that Waldez is an utter asshole, and the sort of scum we should destroy when we rule the world.

On the other hand, I do enjoy listening to *POINTS*, made by *PEOPLE*.

And unless I'm mistaken, Waldez is a person, and this a point.

I also have a feeling that Waldez is talking out of his ass here, because no INTP would be so idiotic as to value kitty life over logic (Humans maybe, but cats! CATS DAMNIT!).

In response to the actual topic and not the drama surrounding it:

I have came to consider this various times in relation to my cat, and thus, I think it's something all of us have contemplated at one point or another.
However, I also feel that a simplified version of the MBTI is required for animals, because they do not exhibit emotional characteristics as we do, nor, (I assume) do they have the same level of thought we do.

I have no doubt that extroversion and introversion appear in animals, other traits I am doubtful of, though not decided upon.

 

[Adymus]

However, I also feel that a simplified version of the MBTI is required for animals, because they do not exhibit emotional characteristics as we do, nor, (I assume) do they have the same level of thought we do.

Are you kidding me? If anything it is emotions that animals appear to have a most similar use of. Specifically dogs that is, they way they communicate to one an other is purely through emotional expression and gesturing. Canines are pack animals, and community oriented, there are a lot of analogs between the way they function and we function in a community.

Simplifying your model before doing research is completely counter intuitive, that would be like adapting a set of principles first to what you think they should be, and looking for only those. What you should be doing is observing their use of said functions and compare them to the human model, that will tell you just how much "simpler" or even more complex the model need to be.


Wadlez: In what way does MBTI support the "logical" killing of your test subjects? I support this field of research, but not the methods you have been practicing. Do not drag a theoretical model down with your unethical treatment of animals.

 

[Wish]

Why simply destroy it? You could probably scrape enough meat off your kitty for a future picnic!

 

[wadlez]

Why simply destroy it? You could probably scrape enough meat off your kitty for a future picnic!

Although this post appears to be sarcastic its not actually a bad idea. Dog and cat is commonly consumed in asian countrys, why waste a meal just because of social stigma? In future I will consider cooking the animal rather than just putting them in the bin. This would call for a different approach to there destruction though as I currently poison them (ratsack) or run them over with my car. If they taste bad I will just feed them to my pets

 

[Anthile]

What the hell. Seriously. When I read "Rather than take them to the pound which already is over populated I had the animals destroyed." I really didn't think that you really killed those animals because that's not what sane people do. It wouldn't be not only severely immoral, violate animal testing regulations but it would also a case of animal cruelty and thus illegal.

 

[Puffy]

What I find funny is that you are trying to apply a human personality test to animals and then refer to them as objects that can be 'destroyed'. I would have thought this experiment would teach you to respect animals not the opposite.

Honestly if you guys were attached to your pets why would you put them down [unless they were seriously ill]? If animal typing became widely used I can imagine some pets becoming more isolated, being less popular the other types. In practical terms I don't think it's a useful experiment. I've had tons of pets over my time [I currently have 17] and I have loved them all and I am certain they have all had different personality types. As fascinating as this experiment is for scientific purposes, I can't help but feel you have missed the point..

 

[Melkor]

Are you kidding me? If anything it is emotions that animals appear to have a most similar use of. Specifically dogs that is, they way they communicate to one an other is purely through emotional expression and gesturing. Canines are pack animals, and community oriented, there are a lot of analogs between the way they function and we function in a community.

Simplifying your model before doing research is completely counter intuitive, that would be like adapting a set of principles first to what you think they should be, and looking for only those. What you should be doing is observing their use of said functions and compare them to the human model, that will tell you just how much "simpler" or even more complex the model need to be.

I am not propsing 'simplifying' the model, I am proposing adapting it.

The MBTI was made for humans by humans.

It is therefore not suited to animals who by and large have different behaviour patterns to us.

A dog may howl when upset or hurt, a human may cry when upset,hurt, happy, feigning unhappiness, or imitating another.

Just a small example there, in case you have trouble comprehending me.

In fact, I don't think the MBTI should be used at all, rather, an entirely different model, for determining different behaviours and actions is better suited to the tast at hand.

 

[Adymus]

I am not propsing 'simplifying' the model, I am proposing adapting it.

The MBTI was made for humans by humans.

It is therefore not suited to animals who by and large have different behaviour patterns to us.

A dog may howl when upset or hurt, a human may cry when upset,hurt, happy, feigning unhappiness, or imitating another.

Just a small example there, in case you have trouble comprehending me.

In fact, I don't think the MBTI should be used at all, rather, an entirely different model, for determining different behaviours and actions is better suited to the tast at hand.

You're missing my point. I am saying you should not simplify, adapt, or even invent a model before you even begin researching and testing your subjects. You would be shrinking your scope before you even know what you are looking at

 

[Melkor]

Oh, well I never said that honey:P


I would never suggest applying a model before extensive research!

Though some simply, open ended form must be adpated in order to get the research to make the model to do more research, don't you agree?

 

[wadlez]

I am bored now and I have enough responses.

LOL I put down my cat becuase I thought it was an INTJ

This is a troll thread, I dont really believe in animal MBTI and havent killed any animals.

I havent simply been trying to troll people though, this was rather an experiment of sorts.

There are many giveaways for this being a troll thread, but one which should of been picked up by MBTI enthusiasts is the J like character required of someone to do this, not only for actually sticking out such a massive task but for being so sure of themselves and wanting to push there idea onto the real world.

 

[Melkor]

*eyeroll*

Just you be thankful we were kind enough to play along, otherwise mister Kitty Anthile would be playing with your head right about now.

 

[BigApplePi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wadlez

I am bored now and I have enough responses.

LOL I put down my cat becuase I thought it was an INTJ

This is a troll thread, I dont really believe in animal MBTI and havent killed any animals.

I havent simply been trying to troll people though, this was rather an experiment of sorts.

There are many giveaways for this being a troll thread, but one which should of been picked up by MBTI enthusiasts is the J like character required of someone to do this, not only for actually sticking out such a massive task but for being so sure of themselves and wanting to push there idea onto the real world

.

Although this thread there can be used for pleasantly trolling I don't see why there can't be can't be an effort devoted to more carefully at least attempting to type there aminal typology. After all the MBTI typology there means Maximum Beast Typing Intentionally. So do we agree? Typing there cats and there dogs and other wild animals is within reason. Once we do this we can extend there typing to humans. It's commonly known pets there very close to human at least in there facial appearances.

Passing trollish thought: I propose we ferret out and type all violent humans beings and then dispose of them immediately on site before they can do any more damage. That will leave only the peaceful ones. Then as nature naturally takes nature's course and there have there violent offspring we do away with those too until all there violence is bred out of there nature. We could even create a separate thread for this there somewhere not here.

Spoiler

Insert more trolling here

http://www.education.com/worksheet/a...-theyre-third/

 

[Puffy]

Not everyone on this forum is an INTP I personally am a INTJ, so you exhibiting J behaviour doesn't neccessarily mean it's a troll thread. I'd be careful experimenting with people on the forum, people have been banned for it in the past..

 

[Anthile]

I am bored now and I have enough responses.

LOL I put down my cat becuase I thought it was an INTJ

This is a troll thread, I dont really believe in animal MBTI and havent killed any animals.

I havent simply been trying to troll people though, this was rather an experiment of sorts.

There are many giveaways for this being a troll thread, but one which should of been picked up by MBTI enthusiasts is the J like character required of someone to do this, not only for actually sticking out such a massive task but for being so sure of themselves and wanting to push there idea onto the real world.

I find it rather insulting that apparently you equal Jness with psychopathy. I will assume that it was just you being unclear.
Furthermore, you are absolutely mistaken. Animal experimentation and testing was, is and will be absolutely necessary for scientific progress. Pretty much every kind of medicine or hygiene product is first tested on animals before it is allowed for humans. Biology as a science would be virtually non-existent. It is us humans who profit from the suffering of these animals. Oh, don't worry - most scientists would love to experiment on humans, but it's just not allowed.

Sadly, there are enough people who would actually do such things. Back in school I knew people who found nothing more amusing than killing bugs with hairspary-lighter 'flamethrowers'. Those people were considered well-adjusted.

 

[shoeless]

i don't know you personally. i've seen you around the forum and based on comments from other people assumed you were being sincere, because frankly, i don't see the point in trolling a forum you are well acquainted with.

but, whatever. i suppose i should be relieved that a bunch of harmless animals weren't murdered at the hands of a psychopath. though i'm not particularly fond of having an emotional response insincerity provoked by somebody i don't know.

alas, i should have kept my guard up.

 

[BigApplePi]

I suppose we can learn an awful lot from animals. After all they are our weaker siblings in life. Lots of people love animals wishing for their survival and well-being. But sometimes our desire to observe them takes precedence over their freedom. That's why we put them in zoos.

Spoiler

Zoos also protect them if they can't survive in the wild.

Then also when we get hungry we don't mind, we even relish eating them as long as we don't have to witness their murder

Spoiler

(as if that word applied outside of humans)

.
Here at the hospital the elevator never stops at the 3rd floor. Why not? Because that's where the labs are. They don't want an invasion of animals protestors do they? Out of sight. Out of mind.

 

[Hawkeye]

You do realise of course that you have broken several forum 'laws' by creating this thread.

Laws that others have been banned for breaking such as Face and XIII.

 

[Polaris]

Not to mention grammar and paragraphing, argh....

 

[BigApplePi]

You do realise of course that you have broken several forum 'laws' by creating this thread.

Laws that others have been banned for breaking such as Face and XIII.

Hawkeye, is there some way you can describe the forum laws broken without being directly accusative and getting anyone into trouble? Animal treatment is a real issue and I wouldn't want to hide it though it's possible to present it in a less than optimum way.

I am fond of wadlez, for example, and just kid him about his grammar. I wasn't there when he got his training and I am not a psychologist but take an interest.

A few years ago I was on a thread where someone took on the role of Hitler. As an INTP (I had no idea I was that), I had to play to this role as I thought it extremely sociologically important. I acted totally T, but before I could launch into trying to analyze this "Hitler"'s beliefs, some F's screamed bloody murder and got him banned. They acted as if he were real! Not only that even if he were real, I'd want him right there in front of me to expose what I could. Yet I realize many people are sensitive to rough stuff. We need to protect them, but how?

I had a big argument about freedom of speech.

 

[Hawkeye]

I'm not bothered if he's banned or not. I was merely pointing out that he has created a thread designed to annoy people on purpose. Trolling as the 'hipsters' call it.

according to the rules - No Trolling is allowed.

I'm not an Admin, I have no control over this forum. All I am saying is that the rules seem to be rather flexible. Certain members are banned and others aren't.

It's an observation and not an accusation.

 

[wadlez]

I dont think I should be banned for this as it is not a classic troll attempt. For starters I have actually raised an important question: Does MBTI or some sort of personality typing apply to animals. The thread topic was also relevant for the subsection MTBI & Typology and would have been perfectly acceptable if I had actually carried out those experiments.

While the idea of applying MBTI directly to animals and then putting down your cat for finding its an INTJ is halarious, it is a far cry away from the typical trolling that would actually threaten a forum.

Also I have been coming here for a while and would miss some members

 

[Polaris]

I dont think I should be banned for this as it is not a classic troll attempt. For starters I have actually raised an important question: Does MBTI or some sort of personality typing apply to animals. The thread topic was also relevant for the subsection MTBI & Typology and would have been perfectly acceptable if I had actually carried out those experiments.

While the idea of applying MBTI directly to animals and then putting down your cat for finding its an INTJ is halarious, it is a far cry away from the typical trolling that would actually threaten a forum.

Also I have been coming here for a while and would miss some members

Well I would certianly agree that you have rattled the forum a little lately, and that cannot be such a bad thing. Also I do not think you will be banned, there was no malice directed towards specific individuals in the thread.

I have to say I was a little uneasy there for a while....so thank you for clarifying intent of topic.

 

[BigApplePi]

I went back to read your OP and find more than one different kind of issue. How we treat animals and typing them are different topics.

I have three pets: one dog and two cats.

The dog is ESFP
One cat is ENFJ
The other cat is IxTP

Not sure how to type the 2nd cat. It loves to eat. Should I make it an S? But it is cool toward everything else, very affectionate, but a contemplator. I don't think I'm good at typing.

Are you going to publish the results of your studies?

Animal typology.
I begun applying MBTI to different animals about a year ago to try and get a better more practical grasp of there personalitys. Animals do definately have
different personalitys within each species ,any dog or cat owner can tell you this. Most people attribute the differences to orientation in the pack (eg alpha male) but this is very simple and does not account for the variation and is a very broad explanation (about as good as using it to explain our personalitys).
It is difficult to identify the factors and functions of personality for animals and even harder to measure them. When I set about this I began testing animals on trait theorys rather than type theorys which work on continuums (the big 5, 16 pf).
I began with the simplist observable trait of Extroversion versus Introversion. This was not as hard as I thought it would be and I easily accomplished this with a few games outside where I would give them treats for performing tasks, Extroversion is pretty much immediately observable through an animals shyness.
I switched back to MBTI rather than traits as these were created from factors they originally identified through the english language using factor analysis. I borrowed friends/familys pets on and off over a period of a few months, this is so I would have a large sample to contrast each animal against. After finding the results for many animals by measuring them on each function (NSFT, E or I for each) I was amazed to find that each of the types were so quickly identifiable and interacted with me and other animals just as the type description described. This gave me very deep insights into the minds and behaviours of pets, opening my eyes to a dimension I had previously never observed, a very enlightening and life changing experience.
I have recorded these findings and now I am looking to put forward this theory to the scientific community so it finds common acceptance, It also has practical applications such as allowing you to understand and be more selective of a pet before you purchase it (hopefully pets may one day be purchased with there printed type indicator). Development of MRI research and gene technology should allow animals to go through a scan to find there type so they can be identified as puppys/kittens.


I invite the people of this forum who have demostrated much open mindedness previously to test animal typology themselves and also to spread this idea so it can be embraced by the community at large. The methodology for testing pets is still in its basic stages, the techniques I have used could be much improved upon and are also better replaced by those of the pet owner who knows there animal the best. Also the type descriptions might be better if customised for animals.

Anyone who has any queries about the theory or practise of animal typology can ask me here

 

[Adymus]

Everyone who typed their pets as a N of some kind:

What is your reasoning for this?

 

[BigApplePi]

Everyone who typed their pets as a N of some kind:

What is your reasoning for this?

I don't think I "reasoned" all that much. I guessed.

The dog is ESFP - I chose "S" because she has to sniff everything out there including things I would stay far away from after spotting visually.

One cat is ENFJ - I rated her "N" because she has no interest in sniffing or special interest in food. Instead she surveys her environment, looks for play but can still take it or leave depending on what she finds.

The other cat is IxTP - this one takes only sensual interest in food. No other activity. He is a lap pussy. Don't know how to rate S or N. He keeps his thoughts pretty much to himself.

I also have goldfish. They are ENxP - I say that because they swim anywhere randomly in the acquarium with no particular choices. They survey their environment with eating the only apparent sensuality. Does that mean they "intuit" their surroundings?

 

[Words]

There are "N" animals? Is it really possible? Do they contemplate on the complexities of life?

how would a rational(NT) animal behave?

 

[Adymus]

There are "N" animals? Is it really possible? Do they contemplate on the complexities of life?

how would a rational(NT) animal behave?

Yeah it's possible. Also N does not mean you contemplate the complexities of life, it just means you thrive on perceiving patterns.
I'm sure Animal minds would have some ability to abstract patterns, to what extent is the question.

 

[BigApplePi]

There are "N" animals? Is it really possible? Do they contemplate on the complexities of life?

how would a rational(NT) animal behave?

They would behave as an NT human would. They would survey their broad surroundings with thoughtful observational judgment. Think of a bird searching for a nesting place.

Disclaimer: this is just a proposal. You may freely assume I haven't the vaguest idea of what I'm talking about. I may assume differently, lol.

 

[wadlez]

I think all the types you have given your pets are just projection.
Think of typing your pets as the Thematic Apperception test. This was originally part of the joke as I was saying I put down my cat because it was an INTJ, which would of all been projection.

There probably is some sort of personality types for animals which have a biological basis which would extend to humans aswell, but an animals mind is very simple and is wired very differently to a humans so starting with MBTI would be way off.

 

[shoeless]

if i had to take a stab at my two kitties...

my mom's cat, qi, would probably be an INFP (very skittish, doesn't seem interested in playing and eating as much as my other cat, very affectionate, very passive) while my cat, poppy, would probably be ESTP (very in-your-face, loves eating and playing and sensory stimulation essentially, not as affectionate, very passive -- doesn't bully qi or anything).

of course the S/N dichotomy is kind of a stupid thing to place on animals i think, because even if they do have differing cognition in that sense, that's not something that you can really... observe, in an animal.

 

[Anthile]

Yeah it's possible. Also N does not mean you contemplate the complexities of life, it just means you thrive on perceiving patterns.
I'm sure Animal minds would have some ability to abstract patterns, to what extent is the question.

I'd say it's exclusive to only some animals with advanced brains like birds of the genus Corvus, aquatic mammals or monkeys.

For example, here is a TED talk on the intelligence of crows: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joshua_klein_on_the_intelligence_of_crows.html

 

[Adymus]

I'd say it's exclusive to only some animals with advanced brains like birds of the genus Corvus, aquatic mammals or monkeys.

For example, here is a TED talk on the intelligence of crows: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joshua_klein_on_the_intelligence_of_crows.html

Not necessarily. like a said, having some ability to abstract and see patterns is neccesary to survival. I am not saying you will have dominant Ni animals or anything, but they might use intuition in a similar way that ESFJs or ISTJs use intuition.