[Kate7]

I would like to really look into this.

This whole question seems fundamental to me. Male and female are the first and fundamental 'type category' and must surely affect all other type differences. Any comments/opinions/ideas/observations on this subject would be much appreciated!

- What are the clear differences ... internally programmed, biologically driven, motivational and functional?
- How would this affect type in general?
- How would this play out in the particular type models?
- How would this play out in career choice/relationship application/personal development for the different type models?

 

[skycloud86]

- What are the clear differences ... internally programmed, biologically driven, motivational and functional?

There appear to be few differences between the male and females sexes (I'm not too knowledgeable about intersexed people, so I'll have to leave them out, but they tend to present as a male or female anyway). The main differences are biological, namely the reproductive system and some skeletal and neurological differences. Males also tend to be hairier and taller than females due to hormonal differences.

Internally programmed differences do exist - many little girls, if given a toy may treat it like a child whilst many little boys would not. This doesn't mean that all little girls would do this, and it doesn't mean that all little boys would not, but there is a more nurturing instinct in females in general.

Society likes to impose many differences on males and females, and although nowadays there is a lot more freedom for people to act like people, there is still a lot of social conditioning to make females act feminine and males act masculine. Some people, however, are very feminine or very masculine naturally.

- How would this affect type in general?

I personally think that social differences mean that there are more female Feeler types than Thinker types, and more male Thinker types than Feeler types, although many females would be Feelers and many men would be Thinkers even without social differences anyway.

As for Extroversion and Introversion, this is another of the letters which is strongly affected by society - males are brought up to be assertive and outgoing, whilst females are brought up to be passive and quiet. Again, there are many female Introverts and male Extroverts who would be so naturally anyway.

Sensing, which is more likely to be seen as typically male, and iNtuition, which is more likely to be seen as typically female, are also affected by social differences, but there are still natural male iNtuitives and natural female Sensors.

Perceiving and Judging are probably the least affected by any differences between the sexes, although Perceiving is probably more female in the eyes of society, whilst Judging is probably more male.

- How would this play out in the particular type models?

I think societal and biological differences between the sexes would affect someone regardless of type model, and so a female of a certain type may seem different to a male of that type, although their preferences would still be the same.

- How would this play out in career choice/relationship application/personal development for the different type models?

I think it would depend more on the individual, at least nowadays.

 

[Nitou]

I think Skycloud answered the question well and I will add some more. I see this stuff through the lens of sociobiology, that the physical and psychological differences between the sexes have their root in evolution. People today recoil at the idea of sexual division of labor, but it may be one of the things that made our species successful. If two people want to eat, it is more efficient if one of them hunts while the other gathers. Trade makes everyone richer. Physically, the male body is specialized for hunting and fighting and the female body for nurturing babies. Psychologically, males and females are somewhat aligned with their ancient roles. For this reason, more men are thinkers and more women are feelers. However, these differences are tendencies not absolutes.

Sex hormones make a big difference. I found this out because I used to have a female friend who had a hormone disorder that gave her a more masculine persona than she would have had normally. Her self-concept changed as she began the therapy. She experienced emotions she had not felt before. Her attractions toward potential sex partners changed. She was still the same person to me and the behavioral changes were subtle, but her subjective experience was one of great turmoil as she shifted into a more feminine persona. The purpose of the therapy was not to change a woman's personality, but because the wrong levels of hormones put her at greater risk of developing health problems like cancer. I heard that for some women, the change in their personality is so unsettling that they choose to take the risk rather than go through with the therapy. So, the hormones will contribute to differences between males and females of the same type.

As for career choices, I think the differences between the sexes will lead them to different, but overlapping, preferences. I don't see anything wrong with the fact that there are more male CEOs than female; I don't think it necessarily indicates discrimination (although it could), but is more likely attributable to the fact that men and women make different choices. In fact, I kind of resent the degree to which business leaders are more highly valued by society than good nurturing parents and community workers. The former is important, but the latter are more important to the future of our civilization and we're fucking ourselves over by devaluing it.

 

[Kate7]

This is interesting, thanks both of you.

My observations have led me to believe that social conditioning only affects the current generation, but our innate drives are permanent and don't change much over time at all, just as our fundamental activities - getting food, preparing food, eating, sleeping, having sex, having babies, making a home e etc etc - don't change

The fact that women are the ones that bear children should give us a clue that, alongside our physical attributes, we are bound to be equipped with a set of inner motivations/functions that cater for this fundamental function as well. It seems also that men have a complementary set of these. As Nitou said, the male body is suited to the 'outside world' of hunting and fighting and the female body to the 'inside one' of nurture - comfort, sustenance etc. And the inner drives match. Men are MOTIVATED to hunt and fight - boys notably 'train' themselves in fighting from the earliest age by making everything into weapons and wrestle fighting one another etc. They also like to compete and do this well. Girls do not do this naturally, rather they co-operate in groups and avoid physical confrontation. My son is far more motivated and focused on his career than his sisters, who are interested in their careers more in terms of personal meaning, enjoyment and creativity and LESS in terms of sheer success. And these are modern children who have been raised with equal opportunities. Also, whilst circumstances have changed since hunter/gatherer days, they haven't changed all that much. Still it makes sense - and still most families live like this for a significant portion of their life - with one partner nurturing the vulnerable in the safety of home and the other going out to proved for and defend this.

What you said in your last paragraph, Nitou, is the reason we balk at this 'traditional model' I think. For a while now we have valued 'progress' and material wealth more than anything else - thus, in order for women to feel powerful, they have felt they ought to become CEO's or whatever. I would argue that this drive in a woman is not innate, but rather socially driven. More recently, it seems to me, we are realising how short sighted this view is and are valuing child raising again .. and thus the women that engage in that role. I thought what you said was spot on and expresses this changing view really well: "I kind of resent the degree to which business leaders are more highly valued by society than good nurturing parents and community workers. The former is important, but the latter are more important to the future of our civilization and we're fucking ourselves over by devaluing it"

Not to say that women woudn't naturally engage in 'the outer world' at all - clearly they do and always have, especially when there ARE no children to take care of anyway. We all live longer now and domestic duties are so much easier that there is less necessity for a woman to be full time 'keeping the home fires burning'.

In terms of how this affects type, I think it means that, while there are male and female representives of every type, still a woman's MOTIVATIONS are different. Thus much of the 'love and relationships' and 'careers' descriptions and advice offered in the type descriptions, are a little out of whack and can leave people confused or, worse, squashing important parts of themselves. I think society, recently, has made women feel they are somehow 'lesser' if they devote themselves to nurturing children .. wasting their talents. There is a sterotype also, that nurturing is all to do with food and cuddles, yet you can (and should) nurture intellectually, creatively, and using every function, actually. We sterotype women, and thus motherhood, and make many women feel as if they would be second rate as mothers and are better put elsewhere. This is a tragedy for society, in my opinion, as it inevitably means that the 'best' of our women will reject this role, when it is the 'best' of our women that we need doing this role.

Those are my thoughts - not very critical thinking I know but I am new at this! Please do go ahead and tear it apart all you NT types - I want to see if it stands. :happy:

 

[pro at filing]

Some tendencies that have, if I am not mistaken, all been considered scientifically:

In the book "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus", which I assume to be backed by research, it says that men are more concerned with the physical world, while women are concerned more with relationships. When women have a problem, they find someone to talk to about it, while men retreat until the problem is solved, or until they have adequately put it into words, so as to be able to properly communicate it to someone. This has to do with the fact that women are able to verbalize better/quicker. Women can multitask well, men cannot do this well. Men go more in-depth with one issue at a time.

Furthermore, neuro-scientifically:
Language processing occurs very much in the left brain hemisphere in men, and much more in both hemispheres in women (that is why women are more likely to regain speech after a stroke in the left hemisphere).
Not only in language, but generally, women's brain hemishperes interact more with one another than men's (though this is not due, as was long thought, to a larger corpus callosum).
Women have smaller brains, but if one takes fat under the skin out of the equation (of which women have more than men), then both sexes have the same brain mass to total body mass ratio.

 

[xezene]

I think, put fairly simply, men are expected not to be NFs, and women are expected not to be STs in our society. Since society is an integral part of forming a personality, I think this affects those who are these types by making them either be completely misunderstood and/or guilty about who they are.

I sometimes joke to my INFP friend that we are two little INFPs living in a big ESTJ world. But I kind of think it's true.

 

[pro at filing]

I hope I will be able to expand the above list in the future, I plan on getting my hands on some information of that sort, but it might take a bit.

As far as mapping gender to type goes, the ENTP forum has something of a thread on that:
http://personalitycafe.com/entp-forum-visionaries/28655-masculine-feminine-type-gender.html

Among other things, a statistic is included, which shows the frequency of the different types, differentiating between male/female:
Frequency of Personality Types by Population & Gender

I am going to go ahead and pretty much duplicate a post that I made in that thread that deals with type and gender stereotype - I see things slighty differently than skycloud86 in this respect:

I must mention that I think this analysis is of limited use and there are a truckload of phenomena that cannot or can hardly be explained with typology. One should be careful in trying to map the various non-typological characteristics that we humans have, to type. But heck, we're in a typology forum, so let's check it out, if nothing else, then for giggles.

I personally like Keirsey's preferences, in addition to the MBTI ones.
The utilitarian/cooperative axis doesn't seem to have much to do with gender stereotype, but the informing/directing one does. I would say directing is stereotypically male, informing stereotypically female. The directing types are the STs and NJs, the informing ones the SFs and NPs. Though I would say that the NFJs are directing in a pretty specific, spiritual/emotional guidance sort of way, so that's not so stereotypically masculine. Something like "In order to be happy, you have to do this."
Apart from that, extraversion and thinking (which Keirsey calls "tough-mindedness") seem "male".
As directing is therefore "masculine", that might explain why one is tempted to deem iNtuition as "feminine" - because the NFJs are directing in an un-male-stereotypical sort of way.
ESTJ, ESTP and ENTJ would be the only types with "all male" preferences, and ISFJ, INFP and ISFP the only ones with "all-female" preferences (though the INFJs would come pretty close).

So that would mean for example that, in terms of average stereotypical masculinity of certain types,

ESTJ > ISTP > INFJ > ISFJ,
ESTP > ENFJ > INTP > ISFP,
ENTJ > ENTP > ESFJ > INFP

This is without attempting to put these three "male" typollogical features in order of "masculinity", i.e. directing > thinking > extraversion.

But then people like Joe Butt come along and say stuff like "ESFJs tend to enact gender roles a lot, hence male ESFJs will act very masculine, and female ESFJs will act very feminine".
So, my best attempt at mapping typology to gender stereotypes is probably futile. I guess I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Kate7]

I think we need to get beyond stereotypes. We all know what the stereotypes are, but what is the truth?

It seems to me that all types can be male or female - in which case you can have directing females and NF males etc. There may be a tendency towards female's being F, but still, there are clearly plenty who are T.

Yet there is still a difference between the male and the female. If you took a male and a female of the same type and compared them, what would the differences be?

I agree with whoever wrote Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, that men are more oriented to the physical world and women to relationships. THis is clearly necessary given our biological functions. In which case would it be true to say, for example, that an NT woman, would focus on relationships in an NT way - but still, she would focus on relationships. Whereas an NF man might focus on the physical world in an NF way - but still he would focus primarily on the physical world. If so, what would that look like?

I think the 'tough-mindedness'' thing is true too. A male F will still be more tough minded than a female F as they have a fundamentally different orientation - men have an instinct and an ability to 'withdraw' and look objectively at things. Women have to work at this as they 'stay involved' more readily (again, a necessary aspect of raising children).

Still, however, we are all different and there are no clear stereotypes. The only way you can truly 'see' the male/female differences, I think, is if you put a female and male of the same type together and compare them. I think we would then see that the woman would act in a 'female' way IN COMPARISON to the male of the same type. Whereas if you put two opposites together, you might think the whole thing is interchangeable. For example, a male enfj looks positively feminine next to a female istp in superficial ways. Dig deeper, however, put two of any type together and give them some children, and you'll start to see the male/femaleness express itself, albeit in type-ical ways.

Personally, I have observed that it is just as restrictive and blinkered to box people outside of a male/female orientation as it is to box them in it. It would be better if we could embrace our male/femaleness (though this is not done in a vacuum and usually happens only when a famiy is started) and add type to that, rather than the other way round - trying to squeeze our male/femaleness into type. Does this make sense? Can anyone understand what I'm trying to say and put it better than me :happy: It's like we should add truth to truth, expanding outwards, rather than start with a box - however true - and try and fit every other truth into that.

 

[Kate7]

The two differences I have noticed in observing children are: 1. Boys like to fight physically. Girls don't like to fight at all, but if they do, it will more likely be verbal.
And: 2. Boys like machines, especially moving ones - they notice cars, planes etc. with great delight. Girls may like them too but far less, they show far less excitement during their early years when they come across them and often only develop an interest because a boy-friend of theirs, or thier dad/brother is interested - they get into it via (and perhaps because of) the relationship.

Oh and one other thing: Young boys seem more emotionally vulnerable than girls, particularly in relation to their mother. This seems to swap over later on when, after adolescence, they don't seem to 'need' their mother at all, whereas the girls do more than ever. Maybe it is the same the other way round, with fathers and daughters?

 

[ENTrePenuer]

Don't listen to these idiots.

Type usually coincides with sex. For example enfp's, infp's and infj's are usually female and as such are associated with femininity simply by numbers. it is then only rational to find male enfp's or infp's as odd.
or perhaps a better word would be queer.

Use your common sense clearly genitalia defines sex strictly but sex is also associated with behavior sets which is what types amount to.
And what defines your behaviour if not physiological makeup.
Natrue vs. Nurture is intellectual masturbation.

The people most likely to disagree are those whose behaviour sets don't match their sex.

So you should probably ask people their type and sex to get a baseline or more importantly to see if I'm correct in my assessment.

 

[Kate7]

"what defines your behaviour if not physiological makeup"".
Fundamentally, yes - but then we all exhibit different 'flavours' of this, which is where type comes in. I'm glad you are brave enough to say this though, as many people seem bullied by popular thought and the propoganda we have been fed in the name of equality. I believe in equality, but I don't believe that pretending men and women are the same will help with that. Quite the opposite. However, we DO need to make sure we are not defining male/female rigidly according to our own 'type' and preference. Clearly we are all unique. You say that a male infp would be 'queer', yet I know two male infp's and they are far from queer. They are quiet and thoughtful and creative, but definitely masculine and not at all odd. To me. But then, I'm probably an ÏNFP too Have you ever met any female ENTP's Mr ENTrePreneur? I think you would not find them odd, but rather quite marvelous and definitely feminine specimens ...

 

[ENTrePenuer]

Feminists don't want equality anyway, they want to redefine the natural order of things and by that I mean the physiological order.

Women avoid the sciences because %90 of them suck at it.
The %10 of women who are good at math can't imaginethat there is something different about them that makes them an outlier and so they fabricate nonsense about the tyranny of men.

The raw naked truth is that men and women are different and women's and mens roles emerge naturally and what people keep trying to do is alter those roles so they can fit in.

The hurtful thruth is that to other types an infp male would definitely behave less masculine and an estj woman would behave more masculine and any grown estj woman who reads this knows exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm sure they have heard :"you think like a man" a million times.

BTW I didn't say be queer, I said they would appear queer.... in their behaviour.
They may try to alter this perception by working out, sporting tattoos or doing whatever else to not stand out but anyone who gets to know them will definitely find them feminine.

 

[pro at filing]

I think we need to get beyond stereotypes. We all know what the stereotypes are, but what is the truth?

You are right, I made that post in part because I thought that in a thread like this, these kind of considerations have to at least be gotten out of the way (unless someone wants to dwell on them). Also, others had already made similar comments which I thought I would add to.

 

[pro at filing]

The raw naked truth is that men and women are different

I can't see that anyone here is doubting that ... which is good because doubting it would be the same fallacy which feminism championed. Where feminism was right of course, was in that men and women have the same worth as human beings.

Type usually coincides with sex. For example enfp's, infp's and infj's are usually female and as such are associated with femininity simply by numbers. it is then only rational to find male enfp's or infp's as odd.
or perhaps a better word would be queer.

That's not the issue here ... the question is mainly, how would a male of a certain type behave differently to a female of the same type?

 

[ENTrePenuer]

He'd act more "male" at great personal expense to himself.

In essence he would trade one sort of pain for another, psychological anguish for physical pain and emotional torture at the hands of the outside world. The grand irony of course is that majority of the outside world is doing the same thing.

 

[pro at filing]

He'd act more "male" at great personal expense to himself.

In essence he would trade one sort of pain for another, psychological anguish for physical pain and emotional torture at the hands of the outside world. The grand irony of course is that majority of the outside world is doing the same thing.

Ok, then what about those who *do* act like themselves, or what about the moments in which those who you just described act like themselves? (these people/moments are surely gonna exist, and you can't exclude the possibility that their numbers will be significant)

 

[ENTrePenuer]

Ok, then what about those who *do* act like themselves, or what about the moments in which those who you just described act like themselves?

They'll be picked on, bullied, perhaps murdered.
Every once in a while you hear about hate crime that involves someone being mistaken for homosexual and killed . That's your infp being himself. A shooting spree and or genocide is not out of the question.
Look at what happened to hitler?
He doesn't make it into art school = 6 million dead jews.

(these people/moments are surely gonna exist, and you can't exclude the possibility that their numbers will be significant)

Sure I can.
Step outside see how many straight male infp's you meet.

Certain types are harder to find because they don't want to be found.
introverted types that border on the male/female behavior axis are especially prone to this.

 

[pro at filing]

Thus much of the 'love and relationships' and 'careers' descriptions and advice offered in the type descriptions, are a little out of whack and can leave people confused or, worse, squashing important parts of themselves.

Could you give examples of that?

Yet there is still a difference between the male and the female. If you took a male and a female of the same type and compared them, what would the differences be?

I can't say much on that because I haven't been typewatching long enough (and/or don't get out enough :laughing. But here's an example: I know a male ENFP who seems to have seriously contemplated going radical and can sympathize with terrorist groups that rebel against the system (for idealistic reasons of course, because he regards the system to be corrupt). Maybe this is a typically male expression of ENFP-ness?
The same person also reported that he is quite bad at multi-tasking, which is typically male, which struck me as noteworthy at the time because I would have expected ENFPs to be one of types most capable of multi-tasking.
Would be interesting to hear ENFP comments on that.

It would be better if we could embrace our male/femaleness (though this is not done in a vacuum and usually happens only when a famiy is started) and add type to that, rather than the other way round - trying to squeeze our male/femaleness into type.

Typologists generally (as far as I can tell) take the approach you are describing and pleading against, because they regard type to have a significantly stronger impact on behavior than gender. They would probabaly regard the gender question you posed as a refinement on type.
But what exactly do you mean by "embracing our male/femaleness"? I think this isn't discussed much because most people do it during puberty anyway. As far as starting a traditional family, sure, that provides new ground for embracing one's gender. For example, no matter what type say, a father is, to his children he will always be the daddy. But even here, there are limits on what you propose, for example nowadays it can definitely happen that the woman is the breadwinner and the man takes care of the children and the household more.
Outside of a traditional family setting, I would take a two-pronged approach regarding embracing one's gender: for one, searching for things in oneself that are typical of one's gender, for example, I would say I tend to go into depth more readily than breadth, which is typically male. But types that have fewer traditional characteristics of their gender(like ISFJ for males, ENTJ for females) may not find much using this approach. On the other hand, searching for things within oneself that one can interpret as being defining of one's gender in one's own individual case, even if they are perhaps not traditionally associated with one's gender. I personally would be tempted to take the second approach largely within the framework of type ...

 

[pro at filing]

Personally, I have observed that it is just as restrictive and blinkered to box people outside of a male/female orientation as it is to box them in it. It would be better if we could embrace our male/femaleness (though this is not done in a vacuum and usually happens only when a famiy is started) and add type to that, rather than the other way round - trying to squeeze our male/femaleness into type.that.

Maybe one could take maturity as an approach to this as well - for example, patience is basically an indicator of maturity, and I would say if one has patience, then one can use that do define one's maleness *or* one's femaleness...
Starting a family does, of course, tie into maturity ...

By the way, I hope noone is offended by me considering this question the only way I know how - from a male heterosexual perspective with no aspirations of having a different gender than the one defined by the sex I was born with

 

[Kate7]

Gosh, this is interesting. I haven't been able to get on the site till now so good to see some discussion going on.

ENTrePreneur - I agree with you that some of feminism seems to have been aimed at obliterating the differences between the sexes (or pretending they don't exist). However, you seem to be saying that male infp's are somehow less masculine - less MEN than those of other types. This is precisely the point I would like to challenge. I think a male infp (or any other F type male) who is generally healthy in every other way and with a reasonable amount of self confidence will definitely be masculine since his masculinity is a central part of who he is. So, for example, he will have; 1. The desire to act as protector and provider to his family. 2. The ability to be objective in threatening/emotionally charged situations. 3. The desire to make his mark in the world, to 'conquer it' in some way. I think that when we start to define masculinity as some kind of TYPE, then we are actually causing those kinds of problems you describe when F type males feel they must 'squash' themselves into a mould or are rejected by society.

Would it not be BETTER to realise that masculinity is something ALL MEN have and to recognise that they will (and will NEED to) bring that INTO their own particular type expression, and circumstances.

Basically, I am arguing here, that masculinity and femininity come BEFORE type - as in, these two 'boxes' are more fundamental generalisations than the typology boxes/generalisations and thus deeply affect them and that this should be taken into account when describing type and also in giving career suggestions for various types. I think people's desires and identities are rooted in their masculinity and femininity first and foremost and that they will therefore find the deepest satisfaction and utmost creative opportunity on these paths first and foremost. Type then REFINES that path, but does not supercede it.

The danger is that if we DON'T try to define masculinity in real terms, honestly, then it will just remain confined to popular stereotypes/ideals and all the bullying (and worse) will continue for those that don't 'fit'.

Pro-at-filing. I don't think masculinity and femininity really come into their own at puberty - they start there, but they only really find their true expression when we begin a family - eg. begin a sexual relationship and have children. What I have noticed time and time again is that no matter what the 'type' of the person - as soon as they get married and have children - they find incredible satisfaction in taking on their so-called 'traditional' roles in regard to both their partner and their children. OR they get unhappier and unhappier trying to work against these 'roles'. It looks to me, honestly, as though in working against the roles we are following a societal pressure rather than our natural instincts in which case it is an uphill struggle - it just doesn't work. The trouble is, feminism has scared us off trying to define these 'roles' and what masculinity and femininity are and are for, so what has happened instead is that the stereotypes are what we fall back on again - which I think is bad. These stereotypes become 'ideal' types which make many men and women feel 'lesser' and not 'up to' what they would like to be up to. Yet this is false. We may play our 'roles' differently, but we can still play them well, no matter what 'type' we are.

The problem we have here, in many respects, is that it's hard to seperate the true from the false in the feminist agenda. I agree with what you said , pro-at-filing, that the good part of feminism was in fighting for the truth that women are of equal value as human beings to men. The bad part, was that we are the same. The women that have taken this on have had to 'deny' themselves greatly (much as ENTrePreneur described male infp's as doing) - they have squashed a myriad of desires and instincts along the way in order to fit this 'ideal' and much damage has been done, not least to their children and no doubt to their own selves as well. Margaret Thatcher is a good example of this. (sorry Mags!)

Pro-at-filiing: you asked for some examples of careers for various types that were out of whack. Well it's hard to get specific here but there are some roles that 'squash' a woman's femininity, and some which 'squash' a man's masculinity. i don't think this should be encouraged, much as i don't think squashing of type should be encouraged either. As an obvious example I would say that for a woman to be in position where she must be very hard - either physically or emotionally - would be damaging to her. Like as a soldier, or Donald Trump :wink: Are there any jobs you can think of that might be 'squashing' to the male psyche?

Also, it really is true that most women are not going to have a 'straight line' career and will likely at some point decide that raising their family is more important to them, and their job comes second (they will 'multi-task'). When a man starts a family, however, he will more likely work harder than ever at his career because he knows/wants instinctively to bear the brunt of providing for the family (he will focus and win) . These instincts fit in not only with the needs of children and society in general, but also with the unique abilities men and women clearly have. None of this is taken in to account when advising young men and women in their careers and I think this is a mistake. Really we are just too scared to call a spade a spade because there has been such a good social conditioning job done on us. It is almost shameful to say such things these days. Emperors new clothes.