Re: Personality type and conlangers

--- In conlang@y..., And Rosta <a-rosta@A...> wrote:
> Stephen DeGrace:
> > - I expect a a bit of a T/F divide in
> > loglanging/artlanging (however you want to define
it,
> > who gives a frig, as long as the basic idea gets
> > across <g>), with more Thinkers in loglangy things
and
> > more feelers in artlangy things (however, I would
be
> > surprised if this proved to be an iron-clad rule).
>
> I'm sure you're right, but one complicating factor
is
> that for some conlangers, conlanging is their
primary
> artistic/creative outlet, while for others it isn't.
> For me, the artistic outlet is poetry, while my
> engelangy conlanging expresses a creative
manifestation
> of Thinkeriness.
Well, at least it probably works in a rough sense. :)
I suspect creativity can be channeled through Thinkery
or Feelery means, and probably gets channeled somewhat
both ways in most folks (my Thinkery creativity comes
out in tinkering with computer programming, for
example :) ), which is complicating, you're right, but
at least the trend should enable you to predict where
you'll find more Thinkers, say.

Of course, another complicating factor is where your
talents lie. Talents are on a dimension (or are a set
of dimensions :) ) that in my experience does not have
to be strongly linked to personality, although shows
some level of statistical clustering and efect from
other personality factors, true. For example, my
experience is that the talent for math is more likely
in Ts and especially IPs, but can show up in anyone...
interestingly enough, EJs, even if they have some
talent in that direction, in my admittedly
non-exhaustive observation tend to approach math
"wrong" and have more frustration with it than is
really necessary. Meaning that when you combine
factors, a top flight mathematician is far more likely
to be an INTP than an ESFJ. On the other hand, I'm a
Feeler, but I'm talented at math, and since talents
seem to "like" to be used, I get real pleasure from
math and math-like pursuits. And I know some INTP-ish
people who are not born with the math talent and are
hopeless at it...

It goes back to what you're saying about personality
being a thing that exists in a sort of
multidimensional space. I think that is most true and
I have pondered on that. Mixing theories, like the
common practise of mixing MBTI, Keirsey temperaments,
and the enneagram, seems to be one home-grown approach
to begin to address that problem. (My mother's system
of discussing personality in terms of inherited family
tendencies is also quite a useful dimension if you
have a sprawling clan and enough info on it
<g>). But many people in the field _seem_ to have a
tendency to be rather irrationally attached to
particular theories, in my opinion, and I cannot say I
have seen a single personality theory of any sort,
either these "pop" ones or the ones used by
credentialed psychologists, that I would say satisfies
the criteria you are talking about. In fairness, one
is dealing with a horrendously complex system, and one
that is (IMO) almost sure to be subject to chaos. It
may be that beyond a certain level the patterns just
break down and it becomes a task on the level of
predicting the weather in Iqaluit 100 years from today
to describe things rigously.

I think the best we can do is to use imperfect
theories as a tool, and to be aware of their faults
and not allow ourselves to become too invested in
them. And to be aware that at some point you might as
well throw up your hands in dealing with human
differences in terms of types and just deal with
individuals, it's actually less complicated. :)

Stephen
INFP

______________________________________________________________________
Movies, Music, Sports, Games! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca