Socionics Personals
Eastern Europe
South America
Join now!

Questions & Answers
Question #1190534368Sunday, 23-Sep-2007
Category: Family
I am curious as to whether or not there is any research concerning family type relations. For example, which parental types/mixes produce which children types, if in fact a correlation exists. I am quite interested in factors such as introversion and intuition among families, and am hoping somebody might point me towards some findings, be it Jungian, MBTI, or socionics-based. -- Chris
Bookmark and Share

Your Answers: 1+
A1 this question comes up again and again. i don't know any sources. when i was still reading the baseline literature from English translated Russian publications... provided by one site, it did not seem to me asif the research phase had progressed so far (more confined to original authors who broadenned and first defined the field). SO i thought FORUMS would be the first place to discuss the issue. I was wrong. Each time i answer, broadly trying to get a grasp of the categorical questions to be asked in research, that is where the trend stops. Perhaps because i am an INTP, everyone, including the original poster seems intimidated from adding or critic-ing anything after i post (necassary, cuase ego to hell, that is what discussion is). Otherwise, lets ask the moderators, certainly there must be someone reading more Russian than we do?- hey Chris? My broad solution is as follows. Type your own family. See if any trends come up. Others will type there own families etc. I once had the idealic solution. Children will share a leading function or definitely have a secondary function of the parent. for instance, my father is typed LIE ????, i am INTP, with sisters INTJ, and ESTJ, (the is from my mum ????). SO there u can see the trends i would make into a rule, Leading or Secondary functions of parent. Also, another is same Quadra parents. But i was recently confused about my fathers type, Gulenko life typology put him as , that is in life-developmental flow, but recently from this site, i say that the temprement of my father fits the type. So i got to thinking, that children types are really not defined as closely by Rules 1 and 2 that i set. Rather, and this, if u can read, is where it becomes interesting. For u must remember that first we empirically try and define the trend, without saying anything about development (that is the chicken and egg thing.. does atmosphere define type, or genetics, or is it a mutually assistive directive). ... my thing is this: children really can't define or know there parents typing to the specific variable Ne,Ni,Si,Se,Te,Ti,Fi,Fe etc, but are aware of the interactive flows. humans have a developmental tick, which because of our developmental state advanced above monkeys, we are really not aware of consciously. we develop by interaction, and as we sense interaction, we virtualize our own state relative to it. so for instance, i developed my ni , dependant on my father, but it really did'ent matter what his secondary function was te or te , i would still sense it, and develop a complementary flow of or , cause in the self-cognitive sense, these are really the same, except, broadly, when one considers the tools over which each dispose, then we come to the point where or is defined... and later social interaction forces the seperation more and more clearly. Even do this exercise, ask your mother, my mother says that each of us children had a different play sense, we would prefer different environments as kids, and from what i have heard, the descriptions fit typologies of INTP,estp, and really, i have become ambigious again in the solution i offer. so u to do the same. also, i have to admit, that if i had a Beta parent, it would have severly have affected my development, and have made me more rebellious, but rather, i viewed my rebellions and actions as part of the mutual famil cause...if one can say Bismarck, Makaveli and all the rest, these really put the final seals on my development by freeing me in society -- @sirac
A2 i had asked a similar question before and was expecting the moderators or anyone better read in socionics to respond. to minimize effort spent here so if i agree with about 4 in 5 things you say i don't bother add anything else. socionics makes sense as "theory" but has the potential misuse ... i.e. the reader voluntarily plugs himself back into the matrix garbed in some cookie-cutter model of his/her new-found "personality." -- Anonymous
A3 i agree, a cookie-cutter. there is very little depth, and great potential for misuse. but i have recognized some trends,.. really, i believe these theories need another indepth phase. To much is written about the cheif socionics types like INTP,ENTP,INTJ and not much about the other types,.. People have refered to these other types as _SFJs, and i have refered to the non-socionics active group by my bais group def. as Betas. However, cause INTPs etc. are around to argue there cause...well etc.etc. i have noticed this insufficiency in descripto typings with , and especially (that i can now recogcile the mis-trends, is beyond your answer, and i should probably post it somewhere else) but an answer to your assert,... at one point, especially a superficial one, Socionics is a cookie-cutter. However, if viewed with a certain developmental need depth, than not so. I don't know what type u are, but as INTPs are a very introverted type, there is plenty of potential for INTROVERSION MISSUSE, even before we have socionics there. Infact, we are probably best able to use correctly, and may see many used avenues as 'short-circuits'. i am aware of most of these short-circuits, and probably will put pen to paper if i see a good month open, but, your assertion, has now been answered with another categorical assertion, so take in mind atleast those points. -- @sirac
A4 In time, there may be a possible algorithm for estimating each type's success-potential after x-much interaction with each of a combo of x-other-types over time, innate capacities equal ... but for that more would need to be known/made-public about each indiv. function. Ex: Being an ISTp "delinquent" when young only invites more reprisals from establishmentarian psychoanalysts (probably ExFjs) who may consider joining the army and subordinating to ISTj rules "a positive change for the little youngster." The same applies with many other types: We're probably missing out on some talent because of early-age inhibition. I consider most metalanguage parlance useless ... but refuse to type myself (if you see a pattern be my guest). -- Anonymous
A5 thats apt, i can to see the american army system as ISTJ. u welcome in not typing yourself, but though it seems u have made the best use of avaible knowledge by equating yourself to X (istP) and saying u are negatorily evaluated by Y (est. psyc). u will probably take what u need again. i see no patterns, u are not more or less likely to have said what u said based on type -- @sirac
A6 My mother is an isfj and I'm an entp and my sister is an entj. -- entp
A7 I think the variables involved include so much more than the family that to the extent that we're going to admit that our types are anything less than 100% genetic, we will never fully know what % is developmental, and thus can know even less about how certain elements affect our development. I've read child-order theories, but all the studies show exceptions to every rule, and not always for extraordinary reasons. For example, I'm 2nd of 4 in my family, but almost 6 years after my sister, so "psychologically" another oldest. My brother is 2 yrs younger, and my sister 10 yrs younger than him. Psychologically, that makes him a youngest and her another oldest. But the way we've developed bears more resemblance to oldest = oldest, me = middle, him = oldest, youngest = youngest. And we're all strong-willed and idiosyncratic as hell, so beyond these generalizations it gets a lot more muddled. I think theories of human interaction will remain theories for a long time yet! -- iAnnAu
A8 My sister is an ISTj and I'm an ENTj. Our parents are (I think) ENFp and ISTp. -- Anonymous
A9 Interesting what iAnnAu says, and as is always As Always what you say! As a general thread/rule I would raise what psychologists reckon holds very true for the children family types-the eldest are the most ambitious and achievers (Type A personalities) middle child (children) tend to be the most flexible and have the most friends. The youngest would be typified by being charming and friendly..but yet always have to get their own way! .. Now as Sirac says, I'm as also sure i've noted this question before (but before my time, only by searching) Now one thing I've read is that it's genetic (sure have read this somewhere on this site) Now yet (as-yet) I have no answer to this, - but I've read one or two posts trying to compare it to simple mendel principles. But really, common school teaching on this is incorrect (ie take eye colour it is not as simple as BB Bb bb etc) as [I keep up to date somewhat with genetics] and fairly recent research shows eye colour is controlled by at least sixteen genes not just the simple genes of two- where of one dominant and one blue recessive. For well, sixteen for the eyes, if that carries onwards then for sixteen types one could easily say sixteen squared or is it sixteen times sixty four, or some other astronomical number? If then its genetically controlled how many could be involved - lots hehe!. In fact I've just asked myself a good question I will try to have a think about it (coz it's not without the realms to think it's within genetics) But then not wholly surely because cannot we underestimate the sociobiology?) I may raise more thoughts than sols but such is the way and even ce la vie to say? Will have some more thoughts for you/it in more regards re et- all tho! -- Cyclops
A10 I suppose we could all collate a database of family types on this site, but then that would rely on us all being capable of typing. However on first thought these typeing error anomalies would perhaps iron out as small statistical variations over the wider statistical spread -- Cyclops
A11 parents: INFJ and INTJ (he thinks he's an ENTJ tho...haha) Siblings: ISTP and ENFP Self: ISFP Isn't it weird that our parents are both Js and we all ended up Ps? hahaha we drive our parents CRAZY because of it! -- ISFP
A12 A11: Though apparently not all that uncommon. Parents are ISTJ and ISFJ and my brother and I turned out ISTP and INFP, respectively. Interesting stuff, to be sure. -- Anonymous
*Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of*
Page 1
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)

Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")

10 Most recent
By category
All questions
Submit a question