INTx Eye Color

[crippli]

I have received many many comments about my eyes, most commonly about how "unique" they are, sometimes "weird", especially at a young age. I can't rule out that this contributed somehow to me regarding myself as different and ultimately becoming a non-conformist.

I've had some of those as well Especially one. Staring alluringly into my eyes and telling my that could see that stars of the universe and then kissing me.

I found that to be lovely. But when I sobered up I settled on drunken talk and rehearsed lines. My eyes are besides a light blue rather colourless.

 

[soraya]

I actually think this thread is interesting so I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed. Even if a thread were to have a flawed hypothesis it can still draw out interesting discussion.

Crippli: I included blue to account for differences in color perception since there is often little difference between the two and I don't think any of us have actually run our DNA sequence. It's quite possible that one of us thinks we have green eyes but is actually carrying a blue allele.

Hadoblado: This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned biased pools. You previously stated that you have green/hazel eyes and you know a few INTPs (MBTI untested) who have green eyes. Let's say that you interact with 50 people on a given day, including the 2 green eyed INTPs.

• Firstly, as I stated, you are most likely to interact with people of a similar ethnic origin so that immediately means that the pool is biased (you have limited access to brown-eyed INTXs).
• Secondly, would you be able to tell me the eye color of all 50 of those people at a moment's notice without looking at them? No. But you can tell me the eye color of the two INTPs, and probably a handful of others with whom you are more familiar.
• Why? Because similarities in personality, not eye color, caused you to take notice of those two INTPs. Their eye color probably did not become of interest to you until you had already begun to consider that they might be INTPs (you were paying more attention to them). But, 20 of the 50 people could have green eyes and be non INTX types. You simply haven't noticed that their eyes are green because there was no personality similarity which cause you to take enough notice of them to realize that they have green eyes.

I say this because 16.6% of the US Population has green eyes. But, if we combine all American INTJs and INTPs into a beautiful rational orgy of awesomeness and delight we still equal out to only 2% of the US population. Meaning that, even if all INTXs in the US had green eyes, the vast majority of green eyed people (some 14.6%) are not INTX. So green eyed people are actually far more likely to not be INTX. In Iceland some 85-87% of people have green eyes. I don't know the percentage of INTXs in Iceland but I'm going to guess it's not 8-9 out of every 10 people (although that would be wicked awesome!).

Sensi Star: It never seemed to me as though you were committed to the theory, just that you were bringing it up for debate. So don't worry. I don't think you're silly or anything.

My degree is actually in History of Philosophy (no money) although I am a translator/gov. official (money) and, as an historian, incorrect conclusions usually are not arrived at because someone isn't noticing a correlation. It's usually because someone has indeed noticed something, but the sample being studied is inherently biased or because other factors are not being taken into account and so the correlation is being attributed to something incorrectly. I have a really good example if you'd like me to explain further but I have a reputation for long posts so I'm going to cut this off now.

 

[Sensi Star]

I say this because 16.6% of the US Population has green eyes. But, if we combine all American INTJs and INTPs into a beautiful rational orgy of awesomeness and delight we still equal out to only 2% of the US

You bring up some valid points, and the one above led me to notice a flaw in the wording of my original postulation ("most").

Because the total percentage of people with deviant personality types is so low, it is highly unlikely that these would compose most (>50%) of ANY data sample.

So, I would like to revise this question:

Does the population of predominantly green-eyed persons contain the highest percentage of persons with deviant/uncommon personality traits compared to other eye colors?

(I'm sure some of the points argued STILL apply to this revision, but this is a much more reasonable starting point for discussion)

 

[soraya]

Not some of the points, all of them still apply.

Ok, this is the same question, just with the terminology way abstracted, which still doesn't change the premise. The data was not meant to note the error of particulars. It was merely a fraction of the illustration of the fact that the theory is flawed. It doesn't matter how much you abstract or change the language of the question when it is the theory behind the language that is the problem.


First of all, “predominantly green-eyed,” what does that mean, that ¾ of the eye is green and ¼ is brown? Also, what are you going to define as “deviant/uncommon personality traits” and by which standard?


Secondly, you already disproved your own thesis. “Because the total percentage of people with deviant personality types is so low, it is highly unlikely that these would compose most (>50%) of ANY data sample.” But that's not true. For example, we could probably say that most artists are NF. Of course, artists can also be many other types but this kind of hypothesis could actually be legitimate. But we can't say, for example, that most black people are SP. That just doesn't make sense and, essentially, the theory behind such a statement is exactly the same as your hypothesis.


But I think what you might be wanting to know is whether the way that one is treated as a green-eyed person correlates to the development of INTX traits. This would lead us back to the age old nature vs. nurture question, to which I would reply nature.

 

[Hadoblado]

Actually Sorayo I knew people's eye colour before I knew anything about MBII, as I have only known MBII for a month now, and my memory of eye colour is of people I haven't seen for years. I also took notice of their eye colour because it was the same as mine, and then upon reflection began to theorise as to whether it was related to intellect. Upon learning about MBII I then reworked the theory to fit in with personality types, as my definition of 'intelligence' was inadequate and required updating.
I still take your point, it is not a particularly strong theory and has little to no scientific evidence. However we are not writing a scientific report here, if anything this would be the speculation that births scientific investigation. Your history books are safe :P

As to NvN, ruling out the nurture influence is generally a mistake. Most psychologists consider a person to be the result of a complex interaction between both nature and nurture. A person with zero nurture is analogous to zero person, as has been found with case studies on Genie, the Romanian orphans, and other similar cases where external stimuli are limited from birth.

If you want to know which has more influence on a person, their nature or nurture, then you are almost certainly correct in your conclusion of nature. However I would argue that a much better question would be 'what is the influence of nurture on nature?'. To answer the current question of debate I would first seek to determine what influence eye colour has on the way people are treated, and then I would move to what this treatment does to personality.

 

[Sensi Star]

[/quote]

Ok, this is the same question, just with the terminology way abstracted, which still doesn't change the premise. The data was not meant to note the error of particulars. It was merely a fraction of the illustration of the fact that the theory is flawed. It doesn't matter how much you abstract or change the language of the question when it is the theory behind the language that is the problem.

First of all, “predominantly green-eyed,” what does that mean, that ¾ of the eye is green and ¼ is brown? Also, what are you going to define as “deviant/uncommon personality traits” and by which standard?

Okay, the reason for rewording was not to change the premise, and it wouldn't of course, neither would it change the relevance of data. The original question was just too specific to be a realistic basis for inquiring on the subject (INTx is not the only type with uncommon personality traits). I'm just trying to put the overall subject into perspective by broadening the stipulations for discussion. The overall subject paraphrased is "Does the rare eye color green correlate to uncommon personality traits?"

What does predominantly green-eyed mean? This isn't a hard one. Does green dominate the eye color, in other words, if an eye contains green and other color(s), is green the color that prevails as the most noticed one?

I'm not sure how to best define deviant/uncommon personality traits. If I had to give an example in a hurry, I'd say non-conformism is a good one: the tendency of one to critically evaluate a claim or course of action before accepting/rejecting it, independently of popular opinion. i.e. traits that are generally viewed by the majority as "rebellious," "weird," "unique."

Secondly, you already disproved your own thesis. “Because the total percentage of people with deviant personality types is so low, it is highly unlikely that these would compose most (>50%) of ANY data sample.” But that's not true. For example, we could probably say that most artists are NF. Of course, artists can also be many other types but this kind of hypothesis could actually be legitimate. But we can't say, for example, that most black people are SP. That just doesn't make sense and, essentially, the theory behind such a statement is exactly the same as your hypothesis.

I wasn't disproving my thesis, I was changing it because above 50% is unrealistic in this particular situation. For example, a higher percentage of people with uncommon traits within the green-eyed population is a more realistic suggestion than >50%. I'm not following what you are pointing out with the examples.

But I think what you might be wanting to know is whether the way that one is treated as a green-eyed person correlates to the development of INTX traits. This would lead us back to the age old nature vs. nurture question, to which I would reply nature.

Right. But remember INTx is probably too specific a criteria, rather a broader range of what people agree upon as "uncommon/deviant" traits would be a more sensible criteria for the postulation.

And would you elaborate on why you say nature?

 

[Sensi Star]

I still take your point, it is not a particularly strong theory and has little to no scientific evidence. However we are not writing a scientific report here, if anything this would be the speculation that births scientific investigation. Your history books are safe :P

Right. I'm not implying anything I have researched and evidenced to be true, I am just providing some scenarios that highlight the merit of the postulation as something worth discussing.

However I would argue that a much better question would be 'what is the influence of nurture on nature?'.

Oh great. A chicken-egg debate is just what we need. But for the record, I believe that nurture has an impact on nature.