Re: Personality type and conlangers

--- 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 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 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 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.

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 :) )

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

Replies