Re: Personality type and conlangers

Stephen DeGrace <stevedegrace@...> wrote:

>--- In conlang@y..., "Freedberg, Bruce"
><Bruce.Freedberg@S...> wrote:
>> I would expect to see a variety of the Myers-Briggs
>(i.e. Kiersey)
>> personality types involved in conlang doings, with
>the exception of the
>> second letter, which, I am hypothesizing, is almost
>always going to be an N
>> (iNtuitive), rather than an S (Sensing).  The
>creation of languages involves
>> a fascination with the hypothetical and the
>potential that would be unusual
>> in the practical, real-world, here-and-now outlook
>of the "S" personality.
>> As to the other types (the 8 of 16 which include N),
>I imagine there they
>> will account for some of the diversity in interests
>seen on the list, such
>> as emphases on fantasy-world languages, language
>universals, or quirky
>> linguistic exotica.  Anyone want to write a paper?
>>
>> B. Freedberg (INFP)
>
>That's consistent with my own hypothesis. I add a
>couple extra predictions that I'm interested in seeing
>how they shape up:
I also would have guessed that about the N/S divide, however,
I wanted to point out that we do have at least one ISTJ on
board, interestingly enough.


>- 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).
Might I suggest "engelang" as the term to contrast with artlang?
:-)  BTW I agree with your view on the T/F divide here.



>- I expect that you get very few _really_ extreme
>introverts or extreme extroverts. Introverts need
>access to the extroverted side and interest in people
>and their doings to go about something like this, but
>more than that, it's just a hunch I have. I'm on more
>solid ground wiuth the extroverts, conlanging is a
>solitary activity requiring concentration for good
>chunks of it, so an extrovert would need strong access
>to their introverted side.
I would not rule out extreme introversion on this list.
Extreme introverts are known to become moderately sociable
strictly when discussing their deep, but often highly
idiosyncratic interests.  Extreme extraversion does seem
to me unlikely for conlangers however.



>- I don't know what to make of J/P in all of this, but
>I have a feeling that J may be a loglangy-predisposing
>factor ("we need a language with RULES dammit!! What
>IS this crap our natural language tries to feed us!?"
><G>) and P an artlangy predisposing factor ("oooh,
>pretty!" <g>), so that in this prediction, Thinking
>Judgers would be the most loglangy and Feeling
>Perceivers the most artlangy.
I am not sure about this.  I am a perceiver who is strongly
predisposed to loglangs.  I think the more likely distinctions
will be found in questions such as, how many conlangs one has
started but not completed?  How much does one revise his or
her conlang?  Does one stick with one's design decisions, or
is there a constant tempation to change one's mind?



>Also, a couple people have equated Keirsey with
>Jungian or Myers-Briggs viewpoints. In fact, my
>opinion is that Keirsey is actually very heterodox.
>His theory of "temperaments" is completely empirical
>from a Jungian or MB perspective with nothing in the
>orthodox theory to suggest that such a style of
>grouping would occur or to explain them. Personally I
>am not such a Keirsey fan at all, although he does
>have some points... I like the Jungian/MB perspective
>for the theoretical system it offers (which I actually
>decomposed and reconsitituted to suit myself and get a
>different vantage point on it - hey, I can tend a
>little INTPish sometimes too <g>)
>
>Stephen (INFP :) )
I have to admit I have not read much about Kiersey's views,
but what I have read seem derivative to me.


Regards

---   Mike (INTP)

Reply