Myers Briggs, what's yours?

Mavet wrote:I'd say some are learned but some things make me think about genetics more than I did years ago. For instance, I hardly ever spent any time with my dad, but I ended up with the same ridiculous traits.

Animal personalities are fun. I think even my goats have personalities. Maybe it's there because it's a simpler way to give everything a natural place.

My personal belief, but unprovable I admit, it is some of both. We're predisposed to have a certain kind of personality, but social training, our experiences, can shape that. Just a personal belief. It's very hard to prove since it's very hard to know what someone's innate traits are before they develop. Some of the twins studies affirm that twins tend to have similar personalities despite being brought up in different families (though others are argue they tend to be brought up in families of similar values). Don't know. One of those questions of the ages I guess

A lot of people are similar here, as it's a rural area, but some of the differences are awesome. So here's my question (and the answer may be obvious):

How does your personality turn into a pd? Are people more predisposed to them? How much harm is there in them? I mean, if they're toxic, we wouldn't adapt this way, would we?

INTP

INTPs are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually are oblivious to the world around them.

Precise about their descriptions, INTPs will often correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine discrimination ability gives INTPs so inclined a natural advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists.

INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to almost anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not wishing to make spectacles of themselves.

Mavet wrote:A lot of people are similar here, as it's a rural area, but some of the differences are awesome. So here's my question (and the answer may be obvious):

How does your personality turn into a pd? Are people more predisposed to them? How much harm is there in them? I mean, if they're toxic, we wouldn't adapt this way, would we?

Sorry, never got back to this and by now it likely is forgotten, but sure, some misc thoughts.

I don't think anyone really knows for sure how much of a person's personality is nature vs nurture. So just my personal opinion, I find it hard to overlook a lot of indirect evidence that nature plays a role. We see people's personalities change under the influence of drugs, or after a brain injury. There is good evidence that changes in brain chemistry, like a drop in serotonin, can dramatically affect people. There is good evidence that conditions like bi-polar disorder are physical in nature. So I personally don't believe everyone's brain is equal, or that our personalities are strictly learned.

Plus like you wrote, interesting how people brought up in similar backgrounds vary so much, but even many parents are aware that their own children's personalities vary.

Anyway, it looks like in the DSM-5 they are dropping a lot of PDs and instead focusing on ranking personality traits. Kind of like the Myer's Briggs, but more dimensions. Like a person's personality is the sum of all these different traits, which everyone has in varying degrees. My feeling is that no personality trait in and of itself is necessarily maladaptive. Let me give an example -

If I go to a use car salesman (stereotype yes), odds are good he will try to butter me up, you could even say, manipulate me to a degree to sell a car. Odds are good that it works on more people then not, and it is part of what makes him a successful salesman. So in that context, his ability to be somewhat manipulative is adaptive. On the other hand if we were out having lunch as friends, and he repeatedly tried to manipulate me into paying for every lunch, I'd find that aspect of his personality maladaptive. Not from his point of view. From his me buying lunch is a win for him. From my point of view he becomes someone I can't trust to share lunch with in a mutually beneficial way, so in time I'd likely stop having lunch, along with most other contact. In the end he'd lose all free lunches from me. Of course he might not care, there is always someone else he could try with.

So one last thought then I'll get to the point. There is that old saying about survival of the fittest, that can be misinterpreted as every man for himself. The thing is that the odds of any of our genes surviving depends on us surviving, and the odds of us surviving, in most cases, is better if our species survives and thrives too. Like 1 ant just isn't going to survive. They survive better as a group, and as a group they end up dividing up into different roles. It could be that overall we are stronger as a group because our personalities vary, because we tend to choose different roles. Genetically it's also adaptive that if a particular strategy one of us might choose doesn't work, perhaps another strategy might. Overall our intellectual/personality diversity may be exactly what makes us a prolific species.

You asked about toxicity and my only guess is that in a large enough group, any group, there are going to be variations, sometimes extreme variations, even if we're just talking about extreme variations in physical height, so why not variations in personality traits, even to extremes? How well those extremes work out for a person, or those around them? Like the used car salesman analogy above. An extreme personality trait can be quite successful under the right conditions. Under other conditions they can be problematic. Like unbalancing the unspoken but well understand rules of mutual benefit that we depend on to survive, and often so does the person with an extreme personality. I mean without the rest of society playing 'nice' people with extreme personalities would live a much harsher life.

I guess you could say then, the person with extreme personality trait(s) is probably not the one to perceive there is a problem. More likely it is others whose personality traits tend to be closer to the norm who are most negatively affected. The negative effect on a person with an extreme personality is likely more indirect, like others giving up repeatedly trying to have a mutually beneficial relationship.

It's like if we were at dinner in a group, and one of us repeatedly took so much food that the rest of us were repeatedly left hungry, even though that is good for that one person, if it's not a fair deal for all of us, eventually it's entirely reasonable that the group will give up on that person, stop feeding them altogether, and then that over-taker is negatively effected.