Personality Cafe banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've heard alot of conflicting theories about this. One book I've read puts the youngest age at around six. I've heard others say that even infants personalities are apparent. I think you might be able to get at an infants basic temperament. Not necessarily Myers-Briggs temperament but something like choleric or phlegmatic. I'm kind of skeptical that you can assess an infants four letter type.

I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts

·
Cafe Legend and MOTM Jan 2011
Joined
·
15,420 Posts
I was always an INFP, even as a pre-verbal infant. There was never a time when I wasn't one. I have memories from my babyhood that make this very clear to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SarahWilliams

·
Old Man
Joined
·
2,834 Posts
If you follow the age-function theory it's sort of:

Dominant function, it's ageless. A Constant.

Axillary tends to develop in the Teens.

Tertiary I've seen chocked up to 30s.

Inferior is rare to develop on a consistent level.

Being interested in MBTI skews the development though, more awareness.



I would say around 14-15 you can somewhat type someone, and 20-30 is about ideal. Older tends to be more balanced.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
what i don't understand is *why* you would attempt to type someone who is less than 10 years old.
Ever hear of curiosity? It's not all about practicality, you know.

And I think you can get hints of a child's type very early, around 3 - 6. From 6- 12 you can start to see their dominant function develop. At 12+ they might start developing their second and will display signs of their preferences from 6+ probably. So I would say that a child can be decently typed at around age 10 - 12 (although it won't be entirely accurate in the least).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
Ever hear of curiosity? It's not all about practicality, you know.

And I think you can get hints of a child's type very early, around 3 - 6. From 6- 12 you can start to see their dominant function develop. At 12+ they might start developing their second and will display signs of their preferences from 6+ probably. So I would say that a child can be decently typed at around age 10 - 12 (although it won't be entirely accurate in the least).
haha, such a snarky reply. yes i've heard of curiosity. it's practically my life mantra. hence me reading about myers briggs, hence me posting on this website, hence me working in a library, hence 20 other things.

im just not sure what typing a 6 year old is going to tell you. like for example, if we were to determine the appropriate ages for function development - how could we as humans, use this to better society?

i tutored middle schoolers for a few years and it was really interesting to see how formed their personalities were at the age of 12. like already, very clear preferences for I vs. E. kind of amazing to see that when you are looking at people who have so many formative years ahead of them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
haha, such a snarky reply. yes i've heard of curiosity. it's practically my life mantra. hence me reading about myers briggs, hence me posting on this website, hence me working in a library, hence 20 other things.

im just not sure what typing a 6 year old is going to tell you. like for example, if we were to determine the appropriate ages for function development - how could we as humans, use this to better society?

i tutored middle schoolers for a few years and it was really interesting to see how formed their personalities were at the age of 12. like already, very clear preferences for I vs. E. kind of amazing to see that when you are looking at people who have so many formative years ahead of them.
If you notice, you said two things which seem contradictory: curiosity is your mantra in life, yet you said, "how could we, as humans, use this to better society?" If curiosity really were your lifeblood, you'd understand that there would have to be no particularuse behind the desire to know at what exact ages functions develop; people could simply desire to know purely out of curiosity, without a care in the world as to whether or not it would actually benefit society. So either you really are curious and don't care for particular, actual practical use, or you care for practical use and really aren't as extremely curious as you think you are. A truly curious person wants to know anything, even if it's completely useless.

Although, I do think that learning how the mind develops - even in terms of Jungian cognitive function development - is beneficial to humans, both in terms of practicality or pure desire to know (curiosity). Hence, developmental psychology (the study of how the mind develops as we age).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
If you notice, you said two things which seem contradictory: curiosity is your mantra in life, yet you said, "how could we, as humans, use this to better society?" If curiosity really were your lifeblood, you'd understand that there would have to be no particularuse behind the desire to know at what exact ages functions develop; people could simply desire to know purely out of curiosity, without a care in the world as to whether or not it would actually benefit society. So either you really are curious and don't care for particular, actual practical use, or you care for practical use and really aren't as extremely curious as you think you are. A truly curious person wants to know anything, even if it's completely useless.

Although, I do think that learning how the mind develops - even in terms of Jungian cognitive function development - is beneficial to humans, both in terms of practicality or pure desire to know (curiosity). Hence, developmental psychology (the study of how the mind develops as we age).
fair enough. i agree that i was being somewhat contradictory. however im not sure how that makes my original point any less valid. i still question the practicality of typing anyone under the age of lets say 10.

furthermore, i dont see how asking for practicality means im not curious. it's nice that you've attempted to generalize that from one internet forum post, but unfortunately the world just isn't that neat and tidy. one can be curious and practical, just as one can be curious and impractical. in fact, there might even be different situations where one person uses these qualities in different ways.

and yes, i do agree that developmental psychology is a very reasonable answer to my original question. perhaps you could have answered that originally rather than going into this sidebar about whether or not im curious? it wouldve saved us both a lot of typing. ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
fair enough. i agree that i was being somewhat contradictory. however im not sure how that makes my original point any less valid. i still question the practicality of typing anyone under the age of lets say 10.

furthermore, i dont see how asking for practicality means im not curious. it's nice that you've attempted to generalize that from one internet forum post, but unfortunately the world just isn't that neat and tidy. one can be curious and practical, just as one can be curious and impractical. in fact, there might even be different situations where one person uses these qualities in different ways.

and yes, i do agree that developmental psychology is a very reasonable answer to my original question. perhaps you could have answered that originally rather than going into this sidebar about whether or not im curious? it wouldve saved us both a lot of typing. ;)
I suppose typing someone under 10 isn't very practical (even from the perspective of serious developmental psychology, since developmental psychology isn't entirely related to trying to type someone), which is why my answer was basically "curiosity." Do people not have the right to type someone under the age of 10 out of curiosity, just because it's not very practical? Many things in life aren't practical and we still find them meaningful. Extrinsic motivation (external motivation like money/good grades) isn't always the point; sometimes intrinsic motivation (internal desire to attain what might bring pleasure or just seems subjectively important) is enough. Curiosity is a basic intrinsic motivation that has little to do with actual practicality, and practicality sounds a lot more like a very important extrinsic motivation. So learning what type an 8 year old might be may be entirely impractical and have little to do anything that actually matters, but just seems important to someone for their own sake.

And looking at practicality doesn't mean you're 'not curious,' it just undermines this notion that you're extremely curious, to the point where you can actually understand that someone might want to do something for intrinsic reasons (just because they feel that it's something valuable to them). For instance, I like thinking about ideas and scenarios that will never happen. What's the point of this? Practically, there is no point, but I just find it worth doing in and of itself, because it brings me pleasure to do so. It serves my insatiable curiosity. "What would happen if these people went into that building?" (knowing full well they won't) And of course people can be curious and practical; I never said otherwise. But you aren't curious in the sense that you would do something without asking "What's the point of that?" A truly curious person wouldn't care about practicality, as you obviously do, so perhaps you aren't as inherently curious as you think you are. Curiosity must have a point for you: "I wonder what this is, because if I find out, I'll get a reward?" For me, it's the opposite: "I wonder what this is because it's bothering me that I don't know and I think it would be really interesting to find out."

So I do think it was warranted to question your level of curiosity, if you really don't see the point of knowing something unless it has a very specific purpose that is going to benefit you in a very certain way. I'm very curious and I really wouldn't care how it might serve a purpose. I wonder about things "just because."

Here's an interesting way to get this point across: what's the point of wondering if there are multiple universes? What's the point of studying distant stars in the galaxy? Those stars and galaxies have already developed beyond the way we see them, because the light takes many, many, many years to reach our planet. So it's essentially the study of objects we will probably never actually visit and aren't even viewing in-real-time. So what's the point? Well, we humans are so curious and inquisitive that some of just like to know things for the hell of it. Perhaps we might learn something new that is somewhat valuable. Perhaps it's just fun to wonder what our new understanding says about the world around us. There isn't always a clear-cut practical reason for everything we humans desire to inquire into. Sometimes we just want to know things for their own sake. And this is what I'm trying to get across to you, and it obviously makes me question your true curiosity, in the sense of inherent inquisitive wonder. True wonder cares not for practicality with such strictness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,005 Posts
I thought I read that the ideal minimum is 18 for MBTI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SarahWilliams
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top