tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post349381448364010538..comments2024-02-14T03:38:31.560-05:00Comments on An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: Personality Types mapped to Positions on Origins: Student Survey ResultsSteve Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-4830357690612020172012-11-19T08:06:52.401-05:002012-11-19T08:06:52.401-05:00It was stated that there is no connection between ...It was stated that there is no connection between T-J and IQ, yet many studies show INTJ to have the highest probability of having 130+ IQ out of all types, and indeed T-J types in general have the highest probability, with S-F types having the lowest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-12622008122147473462009-12-25T22:34:48.850-05:002009-12-25T22:34:48.850-05:00Interesting line or argumentsInteresting line or argumentsAnnahttp://www.ycen.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-6629972211727637142009-12-20T20:03:22.569-05:002009-12-20T20:03:22.569-05:00INTJ (female), checking in.
Due to religious bac...INTJ (female), checking in. <br /><br />Due to religious background, I was initially a creationist and enjoyed trying to demonstrate how logical my view of origins was. This was reinforced, in part, by a view that the 'establishment' was biased against my worldview, or had their conclusions determined by theirs. That is to say, they were supposedly 'irrational' whereas I imagined myself to applying common sense to problems.<br /><br />Later I studied the evidence for evolution more thoroughly and concluded that my previous position was untenable intellectually. Thus I am now some type of theistic evolutionist, although I find Richard Dawkin's arguments to be elegant and even compelling at times.<br /><br />I have over time developed a healthy scepticism about the limits of human knowledge. Thus I crave certainty but despair of obtaining it. However, my NT impulses do make me something of a collector and systematizer of beliefs, data, etc. I want things to make "sense." Thus I wind up making statements that sound like this: "I can know with reasonable certainty that certain knowledge on x topic is impossible. However, by putting different factors together we can see how several elegant belief systems or solutions are possible ... "<br /><br />Anyway, very interesting findings!Daniellehttp://www.finallyfaithful.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-23095492622557774182009-12-19T02:04:00.883-05:002009-12-19T02:04:00.883-05:00Solidly INTP here. Analyze as you wish...
Thanks ...Solidly INTP here. Analyze as you wish...<br /><br />Thanks for posting this, Marlowe - very interesting indeed.Dennis Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04585271870331546892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-12109301211369588832009-12-18T07:19:00.356-05:002009-12-18T07:19:00.356-05:00OBTW, in future research I hope to ask members of ...OBTW, in future research I hope to ask members of different type/worldview combinations how they came to the conclusions about origins that they have. Since type is probably more determinative of process than content (content = a combination of data inputs and type-based processing methods), this should prove even more compelling. Those among you who know your type - though comments here seem a bit numerically sparse, sadly - might want to comment about how you see your type as having influenced your own conclusions.<br /><br />As an F, I'm aware of my tendency to care more about defending core values than about dispassionate weighing of evidence. Naturally I try to moderate that when doing (or assessing) science!<br /><br />As a P, I'm always scandalized by people's (to me) rigid postures on things. FPs can be rigid, too, but only when a line has been crossed (the violation of a core value).Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D.http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/psychologynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-32282779763789606622009-12-18T07:10:42.715-05:002009-12-18T07:10:42.715-05:00I'm not aware of any genetic-personality studi...I'm not aware of any genetic-personality studies other than the connection between the two forms of the D4DR gene and extraversion-introversion, which is well understood. On the other hand, there is good evidence of a neurology-personality link, which is best understood for E-I, but also somewhat understood for S-N (probably related to hemispheric lateralization). Regrettably, those interested in both Jung and genetics are rare indeed. My technical knowledge of genetics is mostly restricted to having my own DNA.Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D.http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/psychologynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-28186159322328490802009-12-17T19:27:48.932-05:002009-12-17T19:27:48.932-05:00Hi jonathan,
I think the key point is that perso...Hi jonathan, <br /><br />I think the key point is that personality, as Marlowe pointed out, is not deterministic. That is a good thing for me, since depending on the day-of-the-week I take the MB test, I think I am something between a INTJ and ENTJ – the two quadrants most likely to be SE. <br /><br />Marlowe: Thanks for the answers to Don’s question above. Very interesting that clergy and scientists traditionally both score NJ but have (pretty strong?) differences in the FT category. Makes me wonder how those rare-bird scientist-clergymen like Polkinghorne would score. <br /><br />Also, you mentioned “genetic propensity” in the OP. Have there been studies that tie specific genetic mappings (biology) to personality mappings (psychology) in some cases?Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-10633098945653763032009-12-17T15:43:55.023-05:002009-12-17T15:43:55.023-05:00Personality isn't a deterministic influence, b...Personality isn't a deterministic influence, but it does (I think I can reasonably claim on the basis of the data) meaningfully impact the kinds of data we find relevant and the ways in which we weight, combine, and process that data.<br /><br />Remember, my research isn't about whose views are more justified or valid (to decide that, one must have a consensual method for addressing such questions - a method that is, in part, a product of how one naturally processes information). My notion is that we all tend to default to our natural style of processing information when dealing with questions of that sort.<br /><br />Of course, many other factors other than personality are equally relevant, but I never claimed that they were not. I didn't even begin to study the plethora of other factors (age, education, prior religious socialization, and so on) that obviously would also impact how people address such issues.<br /><br />I'm not claiming to explain the whole pie, but only to eludicate one slice of the pie - a slice that happens to be of interest to me.<br /><br />Besides, if I did manage to convince an INTJ or INFJ, that would be a miracle! (How people react to what I'm saying here will also be mediated by their personality type - an indirect confirmation of the model's validity and utility). Independence of thought is part of your makeup, and is something to be celebrated (for those of your type).<br /><br />As an INFP, I naturally see things a bit differently. That's something to be celebrated, too.Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D.http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/psychologynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-56332468575652351542009-12-17T15:04:27.944-05:002009-12-17T15:04:27.944-05:00This is very interesting, but I must admit to bein...This is very interesting, but I must admit to being somewhat skeptical. I'm INFJ on Myers-Briggs, so this suggests I ought to be SE, but am in fact TE (Christian theist). <br /><br />Perhaps, my preferences allowed greater openness to the concept of God in the first instance, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the creation/evolution issue. Frankly, if more Christians were biblically trained the whole problem would not arise (speaking as someone with a degree and masters in Biblical Studies and Theology [BA/ThM - UK]). Genesis reflects Ancient Near Eastern cosmology, not a technology manual of God's "How to make a Universe.." Such information - not the preferences of temperament - dictate how the biblical narratives must be understood in context. <br /><br />As such, was the level of biblical education and literacy factored into how theists' responded? If not, does it not lessen the strength of any findings on the theist positions? Rather than reflecting personality preferences, it may simply say more about the theists' knowledge (or ignorance) of the meaning of their own biblical texts.<br /><br />I don't mean to be too critical, but this does seem to be a convoluting factor which wasn't mentioned (maybe I missed it somewhere).ichthus888https://www.blogger.com/profile/04869159907423803033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-21983066384283348312009-12-17T09:35:37.105-05:002009-12-17T09:35:37.105-05:00Here are SSR values for a group of scientists and ...Here are SSR values for a group of scientists and a group of clergy members, both from Macdaid et al. (1991). The higher the SSR value, the greater the "type imbalance" or propensity of this group to have that type preference.<br /><br />Scientists: I 1.18, N 1.24, T 1.56, J 1.16<br /><br />Clergy: E 1.23, N 1.51, F 1.85, J 1.10<br /><br />As in my study, both are J, but scientists are strongly T and clergy are strongly F.Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D.http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/psychologynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7604561879604816848.post-29857286512113437652009-12-17T09:13:05.044-05:002009-12-17T09:13:05.044-05:00You noted that ---
“This makes sense given that J...You noted that ---<br /><br />“This makes sense given that Judgers seek closure and certainty (whether theistic or atheistic certainty) that might preclude seeing any value in their opponents’ positions, while Perceivers seek openness and flexibility (which might include a desire to find value in both sides of a debate or a tendency to presume that no simple answers can be correct).”<br /><br />Maybe a little off topic but have there been MB studies on a group of scientists? I’d presume they’d come out high on the judging side --- but on the otherhand science is all about “openness and flexibility” when seeking conclusions. <br /><br />Don A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com