Origin of Type

[nanook]

I often wonder if we should classify only four types, the one's which share the same four functions, as objective types, meaning they "can be nailed down with certainty, appear to be genetically inborn" and the other types as subtypes, defined by a character that has grown in life, reflecting circumstances. That character would be like a housholder to a house, he could in principle change his type, using given material, even though renovating is a lot of work. If you think about houses, they can be difficult to classify. They may all have windows, doors, rooms, perhaps a Veranda, but there are more than 4 ways of mixing those elements up. More than four subtypes of "houses"/real types. Sure, you could enforce categories violently "your veranda is too small, it counts only as doormat", but who is to judge. Certainly it's a house, nobody argues that.

Perhaps introversion is decided by circumstance, but hormonally in the womb, so after birth we would have eight sub types.

I've been looking at children, and there is a physical transformation at age 3 or so, but i'm not sure of it's meaning. Children look more similar to each other, before that.

I've also been thinking more about apes, how we are still apes and in how far apes are already like humans, having types perhaps. I'm clueless about apes though.

 

[Jennywocky]

People create new typology systems all the time.
The Big Five looks at five [non-binary] qualities, for example.

I know of other systems that use archetypical frameworks more like the Enneagram.

There is no "definitive" way to look at type, in terms of how to categorize. Each system is self-contained and picks a particular perspetive by which to view type. Sometimes it's useful to look at type from a multiplicity of perspectives, not just one, if you want a "complete" picture of an individual... just like you'd walk around an object and look at it from multiple angles (not just one) if you wanted to really grasp it better.

 

[Brontosaurie]

^ big 5 isn't typology though. that's why people can pretend it's valid.

 

[Luzian]

I often wonder if we should classify only four types

The bottom line is that MBTI makes no claims to be the typology you want it to be.

 

[Cherry Cola]

^ big 5 isn't typology though. that's why people can pretend it's valid.

Word. Lexical Hypothesis.. don't even know where to begin, the limitations are wast and there to begin with. Saying a little for certain by using the most sweeping generalizations without any possibility of ever saying more that's Big 5 for you.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I've also been thinking more about apes, how we are still apes and in how far apes are already like humans, having types perhaps. I'm clueless about apes though.

This will help with that. She's a primatologist. You can thank me after you've read it.

Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species: Sarah Hrdy: 9780345408938: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51fzd0aTcnL.@@AMEPARAM@@51fzd0aTcnL