A Genetic Hypothesis: What is Type
May 1, 2017 16:24:59 GMT -5 by Auburn
sitbone, mystery, and 1 more like this
Post by Auburn on May 1, 2017 16:24:59 GMT -5
This is the first time I attempt to put this hypothesis into words, so I apologize for the roughness of it. But I hope the core argument can be extracted from it somehow. This hypothesis relates to what type is. Not what type is in the sense of how the theory defines it, but what it is and where it came from.
But before getting into this question, I have to preface it with a conversation I had with Collo recently. I mentioned my struggle contemplating the proposition of an 8 function model. And how it seems like it would resolve some of the problems and make life easier. He mentioned having an instantaneous repulsion to it, and I actually echoed that feeling.
Thinking further I managed to phrase my objection by saying that if we all had 8 functions, the distribution would be a lot more even. But instead, organically what we find is the vast majority of people show one set or the other. We don't see people commonly showing or blurring the psychological/visual qualities together. It is as if something innate is at play that aims for exclusivity of expression among function pairs.
And it's pretty clear to us now that this large exclusivity we are witnessing isn't just imagined or contrived. The samples continue popping up this way, without deliberate efforts to constrain the data into one pair or the other. Even accounting for the fact that there is a 5%-15% gap of overlap that muddle the two (and does make my Ti go nuts) it remains more true than not, that function pairings mutually exclude as a far more regular occurrence. And some of that may be due to practitioner error, so the percent of contradiction might be lower.
What is type and where did it come from?
I have to try to address this question not like a typologist but like an evolutionary biologist... although I'm highly unqualified, but perhaps the general hypothesis will come through.
Starting with what we know so far:
Pairings appear to be directly hereditary in nature. That much seems clear. But the same family can have an Fi/Te child and then an Fe/Ti child --- and importantly, both can show clear exclusion of the other pairing. This suggests that "Ti/Fe" as a pair and "Fi/Te" as a pair are fighting for gene expression.
Dominance vs CoDominance
So just like one of your children might have blue eyes and the other has brown eyes*, one of them has (Te/Fi) while the other has (Fe/Ti). It appears to be the exact same process as genetic heredity. If the mother is NeFi and the father is SeTi (the combination of which contains all 8 functions) the kids don't come out with all 8 functions visibly and psychologically expressed. They come out as NeTi or SiTe, and so on. So we can tell it's not genetic codominance that's at work here in the children.
To put it simply; rather than being a pedigree like this:
Where the outcome is the net aggregation of the inputs, type is more of a pedigree like this:
If it was a case of codominance like skin color (which blends traits into a medium), given the sheer level of interbreeding our species has undergone, we would expect the great majority of people to possess all 8 functions in some obvious cognitive representation. But instead we see the opposite, a highly-exclusive function pairs expression. Meaning type follows an inheritance pattern more akin to blood type (as above).
Why do we have these redundant strategies?
Indeed, why do we have both Fe/Ti and Fi/Te in our population?
To start with a straightforward axiom, everything complex came from simpler origins. Humanity did not just pop out of nowhere as a 16+ divergent personality system. The most rational explanation would be to say these bifurcations were accumulated evolutionary. And we have some clues as to how this may have happened from the demographic distributions we see.
One thought I've been having (and this is only speculation) is that we know that homo sapien interbred with other homonin such as neanderthals some 100,000+ years ago. And most people on the planet have Neanderthal DNA. The notable exception being people from directly African descent, who also show a near exclusivity of the Te/Fi dimension. If we assume the Fe/Ti duality is more native to our African descent and to tribalism in general, then it's also feasible to suggest the Fi/Te duality developed to meet the demands of different (colder) conditions faced by homonin branches outside of Africa. It's conceivable to me that the two opposed strategies we find in people for dealing with judgment (Fe/Ti and Fi/Te) developed by separation, then came back together in us through interbreeding. Whether of two different homonin, or two different lines of human ancestry. And so then the expression of either Te/Fi or Fi/Te would be a kind of genetic battle. We either get one or the other expressed, like eye color, blood type or other features of our anatomy.
Why is that?
Any species that carries dual properties inherited them from two parent species that had different lineages.
As we see that Fe/Ti and Fi/Te are genetically prone to exclude one another, this suggest that came from different evolutionary origins, and now coexist in our present race.
But again this is my current hypothesis, from what I've seen of types in family units and societies at large. If there are any geneticists in the building, please feel free to criticize this. And of course, anyone else too! What do you think of the idea?
But before getting into this question, I have to preface it with a conversation I had with Collo recently. I mentioned my struggle contemplating the proposition of an 8 function model. And how it seems like it would resolve some of the problems and make life easier. He mentioned having an instantaneous repulsion to it, and I actually echoed that feeling.
Thinking further I managed to phrase my objection by saying that if we all had 8 functions, the distribution would be a lot more even. But instead, organically what we find is the vast majority of people show one set or the other. We don't see people commonly showing or blurring the psychological/visual qualities together. It is as if something innate is at play that aims for exclusivity of expression among function pairs.
And it's pretty clear to us now that this large exclusivity we are witnessing isn't just imagined or contrived. The samples continue popping up this way, without deliberate efforts to constrain the data into one pair or the other. Even accounting for the fact that there is a 5%-15% gap of overlap that muddle the two (and does make my Ti go nuts) it remains more true than not, that function pairings mutually exclude as a far more regular occurrence. And some of that may be due to practitioner error, so the percent of contradiction might be lower.
But to give this context, most 'significant' findings in psychology have less than 1 standard deviation, which puts the consistency of something at 68% or less. And while the estimation of 5%-15% outliers is informal, I doubt a more robust evaluation would find it higher than 30%.
And this is a very interesting concept when you think about it biologically. How could this even happen?
Because things like this don't just emerge in nature for no reason. And we are no longer merely armchairing ideas which may have no bearing on reality. We're witnessing a very real, measurable set of bifurcations in the human race which deserves explanation.
And this is a very interesting concept when you think about it biologically. How could this even happen?
Because things like this don't just emerge in nature for no reason. And we are no longer merely armchairing ideas which may have no bearing on reality. We're witnessing a very real, measurable set of bifurcations in the human race which deserves explanation.
What is type and where did it come from?
I have to try to address this question not like a typologist but like an evolutionary biologist... although I'm highly unqualified, but perhaps the general hypothesis will come through.
Starting with what we know so far:
- The functions of the parents have a high likelihood of becoming the child's functions.
- Family units usually share a set of functions.
- But the ordering of the parent's functions does not necessarily match the child's ordering.
- If two parents of different functions come together, the child can be any aggregate of those functions. I.e. A Delta dad and an Beta mom can produce an Alpha child.
- And yet, function pairings appear to want to mutually exclude one another, if not always then at least in general.
- There are demographic differences in type, most notably with African American descendants and Fe/Ti, and Anglo-Saxon descent and Fi/Te, even though there's plenty of overlap overall.
Pairings appear to be directly hereditary in nature. That much seems clear. But the same family can have an Fi/Te child and then an Fe/Ti child --- and importantly, both can show clear exclusion of the other pairing. This suggests that "Ti/Fe" as a pair and "Fi/Te" as a pair are fighting for gene expression.
Dominance vs CoDominance
So just like one of your children might have blue eyes and the other has brown eyes*, one of them has (Te/Fi) while the other has (Fe/Ti). It appears to be the exact same process as genetic heredity. If the mother is NeFi and the father is SeTi (the combination of which contains all 8 functions) the kids don't come out with all 8 functions visibly and psychologically expressed. They come out as NeTi or SiTe, and so on. So we can tell it's not genetic codominance that's at work here in the children.
To put it simply; rather than being a pedigree like this:
Where the outcome is the net aggregation of the inputs, type is more of a pedigree like this:
If it was a case of codominance like skin color (which blends traits into a medium), given the sheer level of interbreeding our species has undergone, we would expect the great majority of people to possess all 8 functions in some obvious cognitive representation. But instead we see the opposite, a highly-exclusive function pairs expression. Meaning type follows an inheritance pattern more akin to blood type (as above).
Why do we have these redundant strategies?
Indeed, why do we have both Fe/Ti and Fi/Te in our population?
To start with a straightforward axiom, everything complex came from simpler origins. Humanity did not just pop out of nowhere as a 16+ divergent personality system. The most rational explanation would be to say these bifurcations were accumulated evolutionary. And we have some clues as to how this may have happened from the demographic distributions we see.
One thought I've been having (and this is only speculation) is that we know that homo sapien interbred with other homonin such as neanderthals some 100,000+ years ago. And most people on the planet have Neanderthal DNA. The notable exception being people from directly African descent, who also show a near exclusivity of the Te/Fi dimension. If we assume the Fe/Ti duality is more native to our African descent and to tribalism in general, then it's also feasible to suggest the Fi/Te duality developed to meet the demands of different (colder) conditions faced by homonin branches outside of Africa. It's conceivable to me that the two opposed strategies we find in people for dealing with judgment (Fe/Ti and Fi/Te) developed by separation, then came back together in us through interbreeding. Whether of two different homonin, or two different lines of human ancestry. And so then the expression of either Te/Fi or Fi/Te would be a kind of genetic battle. We either get one or the other expressed, like eye color, blood type or other features of our anatomy.
Why is that?
Any species that carries dual properties inherited them from two parent species that had different lineages.
As we see that Fe/Ti and Fi/Te are genetically prone to exclude one another, this suggest that came from different evolutionary origins, and now coexist in our present race.
But again this is my current hypothesis, from what I've seen of types in family units and societies at large. If there are any geneticists in the building, please feel free to criticize this. And of course, anyone else too! What do you think of the idea?