Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 07/08/2010, 06:29 PM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Sigourney Weaver etc.

Somatotype involves a three way assessment involving Endomorphy, Mesomorph and Ectomorphy.

Endomorphy and Mesomorphy divide up the structure of the mass. If the person is larger in the upper trunk they are more mesomorphic than endomorphic. If the person is larger in the lower trunk they are more endomorphic than mesomorphic.

This ratio is than combined with height which is "ectomorphy"

Sigourney Weaver - 5'11' which is really tall for a woman.
Carrie Ann Moss - 5"8" which is also very tall for a woman.
James Hetfield - 6'1" would be considered a tall man

So all three of those individuals at first glance (due to their above average height) have a strong ectomorphic component. Remember though that when you combine all three components they can appear fat or muscular or skinny. However in each case their physiques are stretched out.

It takes no skill to determine somatotype when you have a properly posed photo. However, estimating each component without measuring IS a skill.

Quote:
The research simply doesn't show that these functions are dichotomous. If they were in fact dichotomous the results from a large sample would show a bimodal (two-hump) distribution. Instead you have a standard bell curve which suggests that people vary continuously on all the functions and most people cluster in the middle of the curve.
http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/...eyMBTI2001.pdf
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com

Last edited by psychdigg; 07/08/2010 at 06:29 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08/08/2010, 01:19 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychdigg View Post
Sigourney Weaver etc.

Somatotype involves a three way assessment involving Endomorphy, Mesomorph and Ectomorphy.

Endomorphy and Mesomorphy divide up the structure of the mass. If the person is larger in the upper trunk they are more mesomorphic than endomorphic. If the person is larger in the lower trunk they are more endomorphic than mesomorphic.

This ratio is than combined with height which is "ectomorphy"

Sigourney Weaver - 5'11' which is really tall for a woman.
Carrie Ann Moss - 5"8" which is also very tall for a woman.
James Hetfield - 6'1" would be considered a tall man

So all three of those individuals at first glance (due to their above average height) have a strong ectomorphic component. Remember though that when you combine all three components they can appear fat or muscular or skinny. However in each case their physiques are stretched out.
Well, I had a look at your INTj table - says there that the ectomorph category is high and that the mesomorph category is low. I think that these people have at least average mesomorphic traits and definately also a reasonably high number of endomorphic traits - see Moss, Hetfield and Brian character mentioned. Not to mention all those INFjs you haven't commented on.

Something else - this height stuff. Ectomorphy is determined by thin, light bones and muscles (source Penguin dictionary of psychology, A Reuber, Dept of Psychology, Brooklyn College) and wilki, "characterized by long and thin muscles/limbs and low fat storage; receding chin, usually referred to as slim." Which doesn't necessarily have to equate to height.

Let me explain, if you want to try to attach height (even variances of a few inches like you just did) then you have to consider race and nationality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_h...ound_the_world You'll see that in the Netherlands, the Dutch are at an average height of 6 ft 1/2 inch for a male and 5 ft 7 inch for a female (BTW I think the first one is now up to 6 ft 1) - surely you aren't claiming that this is due to ectomorphy?

Diet is one of the factors that affect height. People in the same country but middle-upper class tend to be taller than people of lower class, simply due to nutrition, exercise levels (exercise also stimulates height increase). Also you may know that some few hundred years ago people were a lot smaller than what they are now (yet hunter gatherer skeletal remains show that the average male was 5ft 11), so if you want to claim that ectomorphy is affected by diet, mental health while growing, exercise while growing then that is up to...but that's a bold claim full of holes. It also doesn't tie up with the idea that ectomorphy comes from the formation of the embryonic tissue.

Also - there's plenty examples of people that users know who don't fit the bill. Also - I note you have Simon Cowell as an ESFp and a mesomorph - he is in no way an ESFp going by Jung.

Quote:
It takes no skill to determine somatotype when you have a properly posed photo. However, estimating each component without measuring IS a skill.



http://harvey.psyc.vt.edu/Documents/...eyMBTI2001.pdf
You realise that this is MBTI?

I wanted to clarify something with you, what I spoke of earlier on about the 8 functions in the psyche as per socionics, when you read what Jung wrote about the types, the evidence is there to infer that he's saying that this is the case. It's perfectly reasonable to make this step from Jung.

MBTI on the other hand, is extremely removed from Jung. MBTI didn't even get the functions in the right order, it completely misunderstands. Also, it is psychological types - MBTI, even although incorrect from the start, has continously developed into a personality system, that all ISTps "do crazy stunts on motorbikes" etc, it's developed into not being about ways of perceiving the world and processing the world from a cognitive perspective, but into trying to tell someone what their personality is, for work purposes usually. It's actually got little to do with Jung in it's current format.

So - that link you provided me which is 'supposed to prove that Jung is wrong' is bs. We already know that MBTI is not what Jung talked about, but it is something else. Like I said earlier, Jung and socionics never meant that extraverts = chatty and such, extraversion is defined differently than how it's approached by MBTI, same as the rest of it. I had a look through it and it's confirming what we already know, that MBTI is ..... something else and not what I speak of here when I talk about Jung. You're confusing MBTI when you speak about Jung, inter-changing them it would seem.

And producing this article as 'proof' just goes to show that I was right earlier on - you don't understand what Jung was talking about.

-------------------------------------------------------

Also - this mysterious 12 classification of type you've dreamt up. I noticed on your website that you've got 24 somatotype points. I also remember you saying something about adding a third function to your 12 list to give 24 and that Jung 'missed this' - just more rubbish to show that you don't understand what Jung spoke about.

So here's what it seems you've done (as you're quite evasive about it) - you've taken this (from wiki) "Roughly the three corresponding personality types proposed by Sheldon are somewhat akin to Jung's categorization of thinking, feeling and sensing types. As such they correspond quite closely to popular stereotypes of the skinny nerd, the jolly fat man, the slow-witted tough guy." so taken ectomorph to = thinker, sensor to = meso and endo to = feeler, or something along those lines, called a sensor a "doer" and intuitive a "se-er" and such. What you don't realise is that this is all MBTI stereotypes and they are bullshit. PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE and Personality can be and actually are seperate things in the actual world, in what Jung spoke of and what socionics therefore speaks of. Anyway it seems you've tried to squeeze these horrific stereotypes about the functions into 12 -> 24 so that you can make it fit with somatotype personality.

And, to go back to Brooklyn College: "Sheldons attempts to uncover correlations between the three body types and the three classical personality types was a noble effort which reflected a touch of validity, but as a unified theory of personality it was a failure".

Along with some other 'facts' here and there.

But as we already know - and I know too because I read your discussions with MBTI'ers - they're rejecting what you are saying also, so it seems you can't even make it squeeze in with MBTI either.


--------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, about this "Jung was wrong .... and there's 12 types" or w/e (or is it 24)? Well, you're saying 12 above so let's stick with that - either way 12 or 24 you're saying it's not 16. You should realise that the jury is still out on that one, this person, http://benziger.org/ Dr such and such, I don't really care about the suit and tie, says she has direct brain evidence to support 16 types and Jungs concept of dominant, secondary and weak functions. She talks about it on her website, I don't know how good it is yet, I meant to read it, sort of but did but might come back to it. Point is "jung is wrong" based on some person or other asking a question or two or even re-interpretating his theory - some would say some people have simply advanced it, doesn't mean he's wrong, that i'm a cult devotee or anything, although i'm beginning to wonder if your apparent belief in this Sheldon personality theory stuff at the apparent expense of everything else means you're the priestess

Last edited by Cyclops; 08/08/2010 at 01:22 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08/08/2010, 05:45 PM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Cyclops:


Quote:
“I think that these people have at least average mesomorphic traits and definitely also a reasonably high number of endomorphic traits.”
Everyone has everything to a degree. We are all organisms surviving in a universe of laws and so there should be no argument about people having common tendencies. We are looking for “difference” which means the objective is to discover the differences and if at all possible scale these differences by degree or points. We need to measure something if it is going to be called science. So are you saying that whether a person is an endomorph, mesomorph or ectomorph has absolutely NO effect on the way a person behaves? Or are you saying that people can by an act of will or consequence of behavior become endomorph, mesomorph or ectomorph.
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09/08/2010, 03:23 AM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Cyclops: You also said:

Quote:
Something else - this height stuff. Ectomorphy is determined by thin, light bones and muscles (source Penguin dictionary of psychology, A Reuber, Dept of Psychology, Brooklyn College) and wilki, "characterized by long and thin muscles/limbs and low fat storage; receding chin, usually referred to as slim." Which doesn't necessarily have to equate to height.


When considering somatotype you
have to think three dimensionally which is very hard for the average person. That definition of ectomorphy is Sheldon's and since I am using his final objective method I submit the definition as follows:

Quote:
"The Component of Linearity

Ectomorphy designates a stretched-out quality. In both endomorphy and mesomorphy, mass predominates over surface. In the third component, ectomorphy, the biological investment is toward extension of surface, at the expense of both kinds of mass."

Physique and Delinquent Behavior: A 30 Year Follow Up Study of William Sheldons Variety of Delinquent Youths - Hartl, Monnelly, Elderkin 1982 Academic Press New York


The problem is that you are confusing the noun form which is "ectomorphy" with the adjective form which is "ectomorphic".

So height (stretched out-ness) is the main process involved in expressing degree of the component - defined as ectomorphy. A person that is not stretched out relative to mass would be low in ectomorphy and a person that is very stretched out relative to mass would be high in ectomorphy. In its extreme manifestation where endomorphy and mesomorphy are very low there is little mass to stretch out and therefore bone and muscular tissues are very weak.

When I said that the fact that Sigourney Weaver etc. were all tall and likely ectomorphic I was too vague. Although in the general population, people with those heights tend to be ectomorphic there are some tall types that aren't.

But height alone does not define an ectomorph. It depends on mass relative to height. Anthropologists use what is called the Ponderal Index to express leanness. The higher the Ponderal Index the more ectomorphic the physique.

Once you understand that, you should be able to understand the situation with the tall Dutch. An average height doesn't mean that their population is made up of "only" men over 6 ft. Their average height is 6'1 but there is a wide range of sizes of the people.

Consider the following example of the range of people around 6'1"


They can be

Endo 7 Meso 6.0 Ecto 1.0 488lbs@30 Ponderal Index of 9.30
Endo 6.5 Meso 4.5 Ecto 2.5 313lbs@30 Ponderl Index of 10.78
Endo 4.0 Meso 7.0 Ecto 2.5 246 lbs@30 Ponderal Index of 11.68
Endo 5.0 Meso 2.5 Ecto 5.0 183 lbs@30 Ponderal Index of 12.90
Endo 2.0 Meso 3.0 Ecto 6.5 144 lbs@30 Ponderal Index of 13.95
Endo 1.0 Meso 3.0 Ecto 7.0 134lbs@ 30 Ponderal Index of 14.30

But here is something to think about. The Dutch are tall people. Generally this means they are going to be skewed toward ectomorphy. Culture doesn't drop on a group of people from the sky. Culture, or national personality emerges from the dominant attitude of the nation. What is the dominant culture of the Dutch? Check out this link http://www.tilburguniversity.nl/netherlands/dutchsociety/traditions.html

You will find it to be a pretty good match for the characteristics of Cerebretonia which is Sheldon's word for the ectomorph's temperament. He saw extreme Cerebrotonia as being associated with a pronounced need for privacy. Extreme Cerebrotonics tend to be highly self-aware and socially restrained. Sounds like the Dutch.

I haven't assessed Sigourney Weaver etc. somatotype based on a photograph. If I find the right photo I'll eventually get around to it I'm sure.

I want you to understand that I don't just have a casual interest in somatotype. I have been studying the field for over thirty years. I personally met with Sheldon's principle colleague who worked with Sheldon from the 1940's up until Sheldon's death in 1977. I regularly exchange information with the remnant of his associates that continued some of Sheldon's research. I have assisted one gentleman in obtaining his doctorate degree involving Sheldon's theory. I have been interviewed about the sports aspect of somatotyping by Men's Health and Fitness. I was consulted by a manufacturer of golf clubs and clothing about somatotype. I corresponded with Sheldon's personal secretary so that I could know how to somatotype using Sheldon's final method. I dare say that I am the only one in the world at this point who actively applies Sheldon's objective method to assess somatotype.

I assure you I am quite up to the task of rebutting any and all arguments you may raise about the application of somatotype in discovering one's type.


__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com

Last edited by psychdigg; 09/08/2010 at 03:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09/08/2010, 10:51 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychdigg
I assure you I am quite up to the task of rebutting any and all arguments you may raise about the application of somatotype in discovering one's type.
If only that where true. I've presented numerous points to show that you don't understand Jung and you are mis-interpreting the application. You've offered no rebutal except an article done on MBTI which has nothing to do with the issue.

I'll address the rest of your posts (ie in the above two) once you actually do what you say. I don't want to have to repeat myself and I don't think i'm being unreasonable to ask you to do what you are saying you have done/can do.

BTW - for some reason you're ignoring that there's INFjs that don't fit your theory, that also there's people of every type that don't fit your theory. Have a look through the galleries here.

Also - like I said I don't want to repeat myself yet i've asked you at least twice to at least show how you've reached some of your typings via at least the four dichotomies. I'm pretty sure that there's holes in what you'll say but at least i've tried to throw you an olive branch so that I could work with you on the subject rather than telling you where to go full stop.

I noticed on another forum you were asking where the scientists were, well, maybe you could pay some attention to what you are doing yourself and therefore not be making continual claims that you don't back up.

Last edited by Cyclops; 09/08/2010 at 10:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09/08/2010, 07:28 PM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Cyclops:

This is a discussion among equals right? You have a similar obligation to acknowledge my rebuttals.

Quote:
"This height stuff"
Your defining ectomorphy seemed to be based on the idea that I didn't know what ectomorphy is.

Do you acknowledge that I know what ectomorphy is?

You brought up the Dutch and their height. You said

Quote:
surely you aren't claiming that this is due to ectomorphy?
I pointed out some "national character traits" of the Dutch that are quite similar to correlations Sheldon and others found with higher ectomorphy. So what do you say to that? No one knows the complete mechanism of genetic drift. Ectomorphs have low energy reserves because of the lack of fat storage. They also are the least common of the three somatotypes. Obviously nature favors endomorphy because they are the dominant somatoype component. Fat storage was important for survival through famine and unpredictable food supplies. The modern world has made it easier for ectomorphs to survive and have children. That could be the reason for some of the genetic drift.

So what was the point exactly for bringing up the Dutch? Was it in connection with your question which I quoted above? My answer to that question is that the height of the Dutch is that since their nutrition isn't radically different from the other homogenous groups in northern europe that they quite probably do have a genetic tendency to be ectomorphic.

I will deal with all your questions as time permits. Naturally, I may take some questions out of order because quick answers are available. But if you are going to argue in good faith you ought to at least acknowledge whether you are satisfied with the explanations I give. And if you aren't satisfied you ought to explain why. Silence on a rebuttal is not sufficient.

I haven't somatotyped Sigourney Weaver. Here is a list of those I have done. I'm willing to discuss any of them.

Steve Jobs Endo 3.5 Meso 3.5 Ecto 5.5 Balance 5.5 INTP bordering on INTJ

Bill Gates Endo 4.0 Meso 3.0 Ecto 4.5 Balance 6.0 ENTP

Sarah Palin Endo 4.0 Meso 4.5 Ecto 3.0 Balance 6.0 ENFJ

Barack Obama Endo 2.5 Meso 4.5 Ecto 5.5 Balance 5.5 INTJ

John Kennedy Endo 3.5 Meso 4.0 Ecto 4.5 Balance 6.5 ENTP

Hillary Clinton Endo 5.0 Meso 3.0 Ecto 4.0 Balance 6.0 ENFP almost INFP

Michael Jordan Endo 3.0 Meso 6.0 Ecto 5.0 Balance 5.5 ESTP

Leonardo DiCaprio Endo 4.5 Meso 3.0 Ecto 4.5 Balance 6.0 ENFP/INFP/INTP

Iggy Pop Endo 2.5 Meso 6.0 Ecto 2.0 Balance 4.0 ESTJ/ESTP/ESFJ/ESFP

George Clooney Endo 4.5 Meso 3.5 Ecto 4.0 Balance 6.5 ENFP

Rush Limbaugh Endo 7.0 Meso 4.0 Ecto 2.0 Balance 4.0 ISFJ

Matt Lauer Endo 3.5 Meso 3.5 Ecto 4.5 Balance 6.5 ENTP

Simon Cowell Endo 4.0 Meso 5.0 Ecto 2.5 Balance 5.5 ESFP

Elvis Presley Endo 5.5 Meso 3.5 Ecto 3.5 Balance 5.5 INFP/INFJ

Robin Williams Endo 4.0 Meso 5.0 Ecto 2.5 Balance 5.5 ESFP

Michael Phelps Endo 3.5 Meso 7.0 Ecto 3.5 Balance 5.0 ESFP/ESTP

Ted Kennedy Endo 5.5 Meso 3.5 Ecto 4.0 Balance 6.0 ENFP/INFJ/INFP

Serena Williams Endo 4.5 Meso 5.0 Ecto 4.0 Balance 6.5 ESFP

David Hasselhoff Endo 3.0 Meso 5.5 Ecto 5.0 Balance 5.5 ESTP

Marlon Brando Endo 5.5 Meso 4.0 Ecto 2.5 INFJ

Jim Carrey Endo 5.0 Meso 5.0 Ecto 3.5 Balance 6 ENFJ/ESFP

Venus Williams Endo 2.0 Meso 6.5 Ecto 4.5 Balance 4.5 ESTJ

Mick Jagger Endo 2.5 Meso 3.0 Ecto 5.0 Balance 5.0 INTJ

Bruce Springsteen Endo 4.0 Meso 4.5 Ecto 2.5 Balance 5.5 ESFP

Katy Perry Endo 3.0 Meso 3.5 Ecto 5.5 INFJ

Steve Martin Endo 4.0 Meso 4.0 Ecto 4.0 Balance 7.0 ENFP/ENTP

Madonna Endo 3.0 Meso 3.0 Ecto 4.5 Balance 6.0 ENTP/INTP/INTJ

Beyonce Knowles Endo 4.0 Meso 4.5 Ecto 4.0 Balance 7.0 ENFJ

Alicia Keys Endo 5.0 Meso 2.5 Ecto 4.5 Balance 5.5 INFP

John Lennon Endo 2.5 Meso 4.5 Ecto 4.5 Balance 5.5 ESTP/ENTJ

Oprah Winfrey Endo 5.5 Meso 4.5 Ecto 3.0 Balance 5.5 ENFP

Brad Pitt Endo 2.5 Meso 5.0 Ecto 4.5 Balance 5.5 ESTP

Marilyn Monroe Endo 4.0 Meso 4.0 Ecto 4.0 Balance 7.0 ENFP

Queen Latifah Endo 7.0 Meso 2.5 Ecto 4.0 INFP/ISFP

Angelina Jolie Endo 3.5 Meso 2.5 Ecto 6.0 Balance 5.0 INTP/ISTP

Robert Downey jr Endo 4.5 Meso 4.0 Ecto 3.0 Balance 6.0 ENFP/ENFJ

Johnny Depp Endo 3.5 Meso 4.0 Ect 4.0 Balance 6.5 ENTP

Jennifer Anniston Endo 5.0 Meso 2.0 Ecto 4.0 Balance 5.0 INFP

Tiger Woods Endo 4.0 Meso 5.0 Ecto 4.0 Balance 6.5 ESFP/ESTP

Mohammad Ali Endo 3.5 Meso 6.0 Ecto 4.0 Balance 5.5 ESTP

Of course this is dependent on the quality of photo I was able to utilize in somatotyping.
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09/08/2010, 08:18 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychdigg View Post
Cyclops:

This is a discussion among equals right? You have a similar obligation to acknowledge my rebuttals.
Well, i'm glad you said this psychdigg.

You said earlier:

Quote:
Jung never figured that out.
Quote:
Jung was wrong. And the research shows this. I am sorry I have to be the messenger in this case.
Among some other things...and some other things which you said to back it up.

Thing is, earlier, in post #20, and post #22 - starting from 5th paragraph, I wrote a heck of a lot to refute these above claims that you made. The situation that i'm in is that you haven't addressed them at all. BTW just to note of post #20 (incase you wish to say socionics isn't Jung - i'm quite happy to talk purely Jung, some of the first part of post #20 I mentioned was to give you an insight into what Jung was talking about), but I continued to mention this in post 22: "I wanted to clarify something with you, what I spoke of earlier on about the 8 functions in the psyche as per socionics, when you read what Jung wrote about the types, the evidence is there to infer that he's saying that this is the case. It's perfectly reasonable to make this step from Jung." as socionics take on a type is at least rather more consistent with what Jung spoke of in his psychological types. And I also mentioned at some point on these posts how MBTI has even mis-interpreted even the function order of Jung.

You see, you have to address what i'm saying as well - and you haven't done that, which is why I said: "If only that where true. I've presented numerous points to show that you don't understand Jung and you are mis-interpreting the application. You've offered no rebutal except an article done on MBTI which has nothing to do with the issue". and note that in my first post to you on this thread I said, "I'm not interested in defending MBTI..."

So from what I can tell...you are basing what you're talking about in terms of Jung on MBTI ie when you say Jung you ... at least often mean MBTI.

I'm quite happy to address the other stuff just to clarify...infact I think it could be quite interesting! But like you say it's a conversation of equals. I've presented other information to you about Jung and you've not responded. This is why I want to address your/our understanding of Jung and then we can talk about the later points. Is it just me or isn't this a good way to keep the conversation on track and in order? (I've bolded that as I think it's important for us in our commincation ) So maybe you'll address what I said first, in order of conversation so we can keep things on track etc...

Oh - if you want to talk about MBTI and somatotype, and not what Jung was/could be really getting at, please let me know, i'll do my best even although MBTI is with a different take on Jung (which I explained in one of the two posts I referenced).

Please advise.

Last edited by Cyclops; 09/08/2010 at 08:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09/08/2010, 09:09 PM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default Sigourney Weaver

Since Sigourney Weaver popped up a couple times I searched out some pictures to somatotype. Unfortunately I couldn't find any bathing suit pictures but here is my current assessment.

Endo 3.5 Meso 4.5 Ecto 5.5 Balanced 6.0

Puts her right on border between INTJ and ENTP
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10/08/2010, 02:56 AM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default Carrie Anne Moss Somatotype

Endo 3 Meso 4 Ecto 5.5 Balance 5.5

Borderline ENTP/ INTJ
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10/08/2010, 04:56 AM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default James Hetfield

Endo 3.5 Meso 5.5 Ecto 4.0 Balance 6.0

Close to boundary of ESFP and ESFJ
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10/08/2010, 01:16 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Well it seems you aren't going to address the stuff I wrote.

So i'll summarise: psychological type is about explaining psychological underpinnings. These psychological underpinnings sure do have an affect on personality and behaviour, but they also can and do impact on people of the same psychological type in different ways.

I explained this before by way of chaos theory. In a nutshell, this basically means if you hold a lit match up between two mirrors, the image is reflected for all intents and purposes infinately. Science can't predict the outcome completely due to chance random variations. This is an analogy for people, life shapes the personality yet at the same time different yet same thing.

And don't for a second assume that this explains everything, it's just a way to keep in perspective that we can have a psychological type, but still have the potential as human beings to be who we want to be, sort of.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For my own amusement, since I am at a loose end at present, i'm going to address some of the stuff you wrote later on anyway, until I get bored.

You said,

Quote:
So all three of those individuals at first glance (due to their above average height) have a strong ectomorphic component
To which I responded as I did to demonstrate how a tall person doesn't necessarily have to be an ectomorph as they can be tall and in proportion.

You then said at some later point,

Quote:
When I said that the fact that Sigourney Weaver etc. were all tall and likely ectomorphic I was too vague


So there was no need for all the theatrics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm getting kinda bored with this, but i'll say it doesn't take a genuis to work out that - taking the three extremes of body type, that someone who is a weedy wimp will be reticent about their physical space being invaded, as they can't defend themself. A strong broadshouldered hulking guy will feel confident in pushing people about or throwing things around, and that a fattie could likely get depressed because they suck at sports, not very fast and not as likely to get girls.

This is common sense and sums up the three personalities. It doesn't take rocket scientist to work this out.

People often gravitate towards their strengths *shrug*. Seen plenty mesomorphs who are couch potatoes though, known a fat person who lost lots of weight, developed self confidence and a social life, met a man and got married. Life and that's the way it is. Doesn't have to be anything magical or profound 'scientific breakthrough'.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Dutch stuff, more or less it's describing various aspects of lots of European culture. Americans are big mouths. The Dutch actually in last 100-150 years were actually on average 2.5 inches smaller than Americans, they were short arses. I don't know about if their culture changed or if it's been the same, but it's a typical reflection of aspects of the reserved European in comparison to the Yanks, not rocket science just the way it is. I can't be bothered typing much more, no doubt you'll make this somehow = the dutch all being ISTjs or sth based.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychdigg
Everyone has everything to a degree. We are all organisms surviving in a universe of laws and so there should be no argument about people having common tendencies. We are looking for “difference” which means the objective is to discover the differences and if at all possible scale these differences by degree or points. We need to measure something if it is going to be called science. So are you saying that whether a person is an endomorph, mesomorph or ectomorph has absolutely NO effect on the way a person behaves? Or are you saying that people can by an act of will or consequence of behavior become endomorph, mesomorph or ectomorph.
In terms of behaviour? I'm saying neither and both.

Last edited by Cyclops; 10/08/2010 at 01:19 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10/08/2010, 07:50 PM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Cyclops:

Thanks for your latest response. I want to continue this conversation.

And I will as I have time. My commitment is to advance my personal knowledge.

I am not doing this to "win" an argument. I want people to poke holes in my system. Every time an objection is made I discover a weakness in the presentation of my system and I can take steps to improve the process.

So far the most damaging blow is understanding that too much of psychology is almost like religion. Life is tough. People grab onto pieces of wreckage so they can float a little longer. Can I offer people anything better than their current beliefs about personality? Probably not. It is too hard to learn something new or different. By the time a person is 60 the last thing they are interested in is their "true self" let alone self-improvement.

About the article I quoted. Yes it was about MBTI specifically but they share with socionics the part of Jung that says that Introversion and Extroversion, Sensing and Intuition, Thinking & Feeling are dichotomous. This would mean that the results of any test that claims to measure those functions would have to produce results that are bimodal or two curves - two humps. Instead you have a standard bell curve indicating there is a continuous variation in the population with most people clustering in the middle. Most people are ambiverts - Slightly extraverted or slightly introverted if you draw the line in the middle. And this is what happens with typologies. They take the test once and get one score and then they take the test again and get another score. You get that with ALL paper and pencil inventories of "traits". The Jungian oriented tests build their questions around the assumption that you are either extraverted or introverted, you are either Feeling or Thinking. To the extent that socionic assessments are based on this flawed Jungian concept it is also flawed.

Please direct me to any research done on socionic categories that proves the dichotomous structure of the functions.

Just tossing abstractions around isn't sufficient. For example what IS intuition, really? The word intuition has undergone so many transformations that it is practically useless in a scientific sense. The same with Jung's use of Sensation, Feeling, Thinking. These are high order abstractions that have long been removed from any biological context where science can even construct experiments. At least phrenology was scientific to the degree that it was falsifiable and was eventually proven to be wrong. This typology stuff, including the "GREAT BIG FIVE" that is currently in vogue is vapor, statistical confabulations that is little better than astrology.
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11/08/2010, 04:34 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychdigg View Post
Cyclops:

Thanks for your latest response. I want to continue this conversation.

And I will as I have time. My commitment is to advance my personal knowledge.

I am not doing this to "win" an argument. I want people to poke holes in my system. Every time an objection is made I discover a weakness in the presentation of my system and I can take steps to improve the process.

So far the most damaging blow is understanding that too much of psychology is almost like religion. Life is tough. People grab onto pieces of wreckage so they can float a little longer. Can I offer people anything better than their current beliefs about personality? Probably not. It is too hard to learn something new or different. By the time a person is 60 the last thing they are interested in is their "true self" let alone self-improvement.
Yeah, I sometimes think that personality theories are best just left alone rather than someone using it as anchor in stormy seas so to speak.

I've no idea what people might be interest in in their 60s, although I could well imagine finding oneself sounds like something for anxsty teens or mid life crisises!

Well, hopefully we can learn something from this discussion. One of the reasons i've continued this conversation is because i'm interested in what I can learn from you about somatotype and whatever else you've picked up along the way. Perhaps it may be of use to me, or just fill up my mind for some time here and there.

Quote:
About the article I quoted. Yes it was about MBTI specifically but they share with socionics the part of Jung that says that Introversion and Extroversion, Sensing and Intuition, Thinking & Feeling are dichotomous. This would mean that the results of any test that claims to measure those functions would have to produce results that are bimodal or two curves - two humps. Instead you have a standard bell curve indicating there is a continuous variation in the population with most people clustering in the middle. Most people are ambiverts - Slightly extraverted or slightly introverted if you draw the line in the middle. And this is what happens with typologies. They take the test once and get one score and then they take the test again and get another score. You get that with ALL paper and pencil inventories of "traits". The Jungian oriented tests build their questions around the assumption that you are either extraverted or introverted, you are either Feeling or Thinking. To the extent that socionic assessments are based on this flawed Jungian concept it is also flawed.

Please direct me to any research done on socionic categories that proves the dichotomous structure of the functions.
AFAIK there's nothing to prove socionics. This is bothersome to me as it imo requires a certain amount of philosophical logic rather than emprical factual logic to facilitate oneself with it. Although bizarely so perhaps, those with the philosophical logic (Ti) are the ones most common on these types of on line communities - socionics or MBTI or w/e, the vast majority are Jungian Ti types, or, as socionics would have it, Ti valuers, those who seek Ti, eg INFps.

Which puts me in a minority as to the best of my knowledge I am a Te type, the factual empirical logic, and I am not entirely happy with the uncertainty of the construct we have. I'm not the kind of person to normally ignore the 'facts' nor do I care about crackpot spiritualists and such, except maybe for a bit of fun but not to be taken seriously.

For myself - I find use in the theory to an EXTENT. There does seem to be some merit going by my own personal experience. Although it could simply be explaining a tendency of people rather than actual psychic functions. I don't know - one of the things I intend to get round to at some point in my life is settling this once and for all - what can it do? what is it's validity? how can it be empirically measured and accurately applied each and every time. However i'm probably not old enough yet where I want to sit down and do such a large task.

Let me get to the things you're asking in the later parts of your post:

Continuing from my above paragraph about, in short for now. Lets take a look at some of the things we need to. What was Jung really classifying? Jung was classifying function attitudes rather than dichotomy attitudes, that's his Te, Fe, Ne, Se and Ti, Fi, Ni and Si.

So what does it mean when we say an ESTJ is extraverted and thinking? What it really means is that s/he has extraverted logic as his mostly highly differentiated method of approaching the world - his/her dominant function. So consider this. If you have read Jungs description of Extraverted Logic http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm, can you envision someone who operates in such a way still being a quiet fellow, not particularly focused on conversation and socialising? Of course! So you see this person, with extraverted logic as his most highly differentiated way of being could actually come out on the E/I questions as an introvert!

REALLY, to apply Jungs model correctly, you would need to combine the two dichotomies together - E and T to produce an extraverted thinker - Jungs 'Te' type. Of course, the dichotomies are two generalisations of a single entity which is the function - rather they, the dichotomies are separations.

So perhaps you will see my approach to applying Jung AND MBTI - MBTI test dichotomies, E/I, T/F, N/S - so MBTI can easily test someone who is a bit quiet - or like most people as they go through life - people who fall somewhere in the middle of extraversion or introversion but with a slight differentiation to one side or the other as eg an ESTJ as an ISTJ. This is also the flaw with MBTI testing AND the flaw with tests which at least primarily use dichotomies E/I, F/T etc - they are trying to split the whole into two parts! So you can see that the test itself is flawed, so the MBTI study that you posted is flawed. To apply Jungs theory correctly we should, we have to look at it from his functional approach. Of course this on itself doesn't mean that Jung was right - what it does mean is that a better test involves the functional attitudes - what it really means, because the scientific studies use just the E/I type questions which MBTI does, that Jung hasn't been tested AT ALL!

Quote:
Just tossing abstractions around isn't sufficient. For example what IS intuition, really? The word intuition has undergone so many transformations that it is practically useless in a scientific sense. The same with Jung's use of Sensation, Feeling, Thinking. These are high order abstractions that have long been removed from any biological context where science can even construct experiments. At least phrenology was scientific to the degree that it was falsifiable and was eventually proven to be wrong. This typology stuff, including the "GREAT BIG FIVE" that is currently in vogue is vapor, statistical confabulations that is little better than astrology.
I do have one or two links which could be taken as studies - at least one I can think of just now - in regards to socionics, and I can look at answering the above paragraph, but can I ask you something, what can or will you offer me in return? I know you want to continue to develop your theory etc as you mentioned above, but can you also tell me what's in it for me? What are you willing and/or can teach me? BTW please don't misinterpret this as me being a smart or trying to say you don't know anything, as I don't mean that at all. I'm asking because we both deserve something.

Last edited by Cyclops; 11/08/2010 at 04:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 14/08/2010, 10:31 PM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Somatotype is hard to understand because it is so simple. Socionics aims at a holistic approach to personality. This is the same with somatotype. Somatotype is based on the idea that the unifying principle is the bodies structure. MBTI and other typologies have essentially been replacements for astrology. Astrology was based on the idea that the positions of heavenly bodies determined personality. The typologies that have developed in the last 75 years are focused on describing types but have presented almost nothing that can be objectively be measured.

I can tell you what your somatotype is. This will be an objective measurement of your genotype. It will tell you which body system/function is dominant, secondary, tertiary and inferior. This maps well onto most typologies. But some are disappointed when they find their body type indicates they are likely some other type than they thought. What's going on when that happens?

Remember somatotype is your core temperament you were born with. You make adjustments and adaptations as you live your life. Some experience traumas that cause maladaptations. Others experience an authoritarian or crazy parent sibling, or culture that molds them directly into another type or that defensively take on a different role. The goal of most deep psychotherapy is to help a person rediscover their real core personality. The sad result of tests that indicate personality type is that they are often wrong and when they are right about type they merely reflect back your current state of adaptation. They don't tell you who you WERE - before you made all of those adaptations.

Somatotype tells you your basic structure - that first layer of bricks on which everything else in life is built. If the subsequent bricks or building blocks are out of plumb the whole structure can become skewed even though the mortar holds it together. Throughout life you experience sublte or major cues that something isn't right. But without knowing your basic structure you can never find yourself through all the adaptations.

Once you know your somatotype and uncover your basic structure you will become all too aware of the core types of others. You will become very sensitive to the adaptations others have made.

You can call this nonsense. But that's your "religion" talking.
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 19/08/2010, 10:21 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

^ You should probably consider posting on body building forums. As I understand it they've got some inaccurate views on the way Sheldons three body type combinations occur.

As to personality = body type. I accept that as archetypes there can be some truth to it, maybe in some individual cases true, but overall it's a more philosophical, albeit a shallow one, for general classification of people. Besides my view, as I quoted earlier from official sources, the attempt at classifying personality with body types been debunked.

So I recommend that if you're looking for feedback/converts (and why else would you be posting you're propaganda here and elsewhere) then the bodybuilding guys will likely be more receptive to a method of body measurement they're already superficially aware of. I'd recommend not going on about personality and all the other stuff you've been doing with it though, people won't be convinced...unless you want/get a kick w/e out of 'preaching' with no substance and receiving resistance accordingly.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 20/08/2010, 03:35 AM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Cyclops:

Thanks for the suggestions. I am aware of the body-building community. That might be a useful niche. However, I am interested in expanding on Sheldon's research.

You suggest that I am looking for disciples. No. I don't want to follow anyone and I don't want anyone to follow me. You don't learn a thing from people who agree with you. I learn and grow from those who disagree with me. By participating in forums such as these I can hone my arguments and find flaws that need fixing. One enemy is worth a thousand Buddahs.

Here are some things I have learned because of our discussion.
  • I need to clarify the explanation of ectomorphy. It is not simply thin but "stretched out".
  • Socionics shares the same validity problem that all type systems have.
  • The Dutch factor and height as it relates to ectomorphy may be a good example of culture emerging from physiological tendencies.
  • I should present my own typology as an integrative view of personality rather than spend so much time on trying to make my system congruent with Jungian typologies which I think is really incoherent.
  • I need to alter the section on Wikipedia that makes it look like Sheldon has actually been debunked which is completely untrue. The only research other than Sheldon's that has been carried out on body-type and personality showed the same correlations Sheldon found although generally lower but significant from a statistical standpoint.
  • People are as attached to their "type" as they are to the characters they have created on World of Warcraft.
Thanks for the discussion.
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 20/08/2010, 10:32 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychdigg View Post
Cyclops:

Thanks for the suggestions. I am aware of the body-building community. That might be a useful niche. However, I am interested in expanding on Sheldon's research.
Welcome. Maybe you can also branch out to other sports like long distance running. Runners might be more interested in the personality aspect in comparison to bodybuilders. Typcially bodybuilders are all about denial so they are less likely to want to be told they are really like X,Y,Z personality. Runners will have an interest in somatotype and are also more likely to have an open mind on other stuff.

Quote:
I need to alter the section on Wikipedia that makes it look like Sheldon has actually been debunked which is completely untrue. The only research other than Sheldon's that has been carried out on body-type and personality showed the same correlations Sheldon found although generally lower but significant from a statistical standpoint.
Ah, I was also talking about the dictionary of psychology I mentioned earlier, dunno if you'd want to contact them.

Quote:
People are as attached to their "type" as they are to the characters they have created on World of Warcraft.
Can you give me examples of this that you've encountered here? You see i'll answer for you...there's some people, generally those who've just learned the theory or those who've no interaction with the real world who hold socionics as you speak of. It saddens me to think that after all this discussion you are still stuck on insulting other people such as myself with having such an inaccurate view of me, also bizarre how you defend sheldons personality theory like there can be nothing wrong with it, seems it has the same problem as socionics as other typologies as you mention, although the difference is that socionics has never been tested. However no one should expect a personality theory to explain everything, socionics, somatotype or otherwise. It's curious to me how you seem to present somatotype personality as THE all encompassing descriptions with no faults. Some things are just simpler to explain with common sense, eg the highly skinny guy who's not withdrawn but actually really agressive, just think he's compensating for his size and leave it at that, nothing needed to be more elaborate.
Quote:
Thanks for the discussion.
No problem.

One thing you could answer for me, if anything to return the favour of the conversation, and I expect it will be of interest to you anyway. You think excessive exercise can change a somatotype? If you look at cyclists in the tour de france, a lot of them look highly ectomorphic, yet as I understand it a road cyclist is something like a 2-4.5-2 (or something like that, they often don't look like that to me) . Chris Boardman, a successful athlete, has always looked to me to be almost like a skinny endomorph. Perhaps you can take a shot of somatotyping him for me, thanks. Either way it's interesting to see the affect such things have on physiology, as somatotype or not, their physiology does change, sometimes for permanent.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22/08/2010, 05:10 AM
psychdigg psychdigg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 20
Default

Cyclops: You've got a good "eye" for somatotyping.

Chris Boardman.

Height 68.4 inches Trunk Index 1.75 somatotype 2, 5, 3.5
Endo 2.0 Meso 5.0 Ecto 3.50 Balance (5.0)
Weight Lbs/Age 137/20 145/30 151/40 155/50

ESTP
__________________
“Sheldon considers human beings as they really are - psycho-physical wholes.”

“the first serious advance of the science of man since Aristotle”

“For the first time the old insights and intuitions about the different kinds of human beings have been clarified and put on a firmly objective and measurable basis.”

___“Aldous Huxley/ A Biography” Sybille Bedford, 1974


mysomatotype.com
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 23/08/2010, 11:33 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychdigg View Post
Cyclops: You've got a good "eye" for somatotyping.
Haha, well, not sure if this is sarcasm or not but i'll take it in the positive way

Quote:
Chris Boardman.

Height 68.4 inches Trunk Index 1.75 somatotype 2, 5, 3.5
Endo 2.0 Meso 5.0 Ecto 3.50 Balance (5.0)
Weight Lbs/Age 137/20 145/30 151/40 155/50

ESTP
Thanks for the info, it's helped broaden my perspective on this subject.

I tried to find Sheldons TI and HWR charts on the internet but to no avail, dunno if they are there or not or just couldn't find them, somatotyping has piqued my interest.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 23/08/2010, 09:39 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychdigg
Cyclops: You've got a good "eye" for somatotyping.
Psychdigg, I thought i'd post sth else, see what you think.

First of all, I thought about Chris Boardman, interesting his endomorphy is so low (well, maybe not that intersting, first person thought i'd speculate a little fwiw).

I'm pretty sure you've got the answer to these things, considering your knowledge on the subject.

Anyway, continuing, I found this interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/di...old-woman.html

IMO, looking at the picture in the article where he has just won his gold medal in his early twenties, I can see his superior than average mesomorphy. His bones seem well formed, and, despite cycling being something which is not muscle bulking sport (it's typically muscular endurance with applicable power, in a nutshell, and with a good cardiovascular system), from looking at that picture, he still seems muscularly 'well formed' for such a low body fat athlete. Interesting perhaps his osteoporosis condition the link speaks about, causing him to give up cycling. Bones being one of the things involved in mesomorphy, perhaps it's interesting that such a component (his most developed) would have such a condition. Maybe in later photos this...which maybe can sort of be seen, before his treatment and change in exercise routine, one could at times (myself) pick up on the bone weakening..weaker bones but still more formed than ectomorph can look like endomorph component. Or perhaps speculation.

A side note, I know someone who's in his 40's, imo rather mesomorphic ("heart" shaped, about 5ft 7, who rode in a race with Boardman in England, he said that the whole bunch of approx 60 guys where lined out trying to chase him down, he'd broke away from the whole race basically)
----------------------------------------

On cycling, if you are aware of it at all, Eddy Merckx is regarded as the best cyclist ever









From looking at him, in first photo, despite being in a heavily orientated endurance sport, although it's in black and white, one can still see (IMO) the well formed muscle definition, even in his chest. In photo 2, one can see his large, and acute, bone structure. There are other photos of course on the internet displaying these things. Let us not forget his height, 6ft, showing imo his strong musculature and bone structure even with a reasonably tall stature.

And a quote:

Merckx: "I hated school, I loved doing all the sports, but I hated to be inside. I left as soon as I could" - here we see someone displaying the qualities of one who is dominated by mesomorphy, always wanting to be outside, not wanting to study, loves all the sports - and of course good at them.

IMO - he could well be a 6 possibly a 7 in mesomorphy. My own opinion is that mesomorphy is by far his strongest component, with endomorphy a by far smaller second and ectomorphy maybe only slightly less (maybe by .05 or 1 point).

Note as he got older he did manage to put on some excess weight, perhaps backing up the endomorphy being a little higher than his ectomorphy. FWIW, I think that, despite the sport difference, he could well have a similar towards close somatotype as Michael Phelps (sport difference in terms of focus on weights vs endurance, but just looking at overall somatotype).

---------------------------------------------------

Also, another one to consider, Miguel Indurain, 6ft 2, described as built like a wardrobe by the person who signed him to his first professional outfit. He seemed more introverted though than merxkc, MY OPINON (and this combined with not putting on weight the same as Merxkc, his strongest component is mesomorphy, possibly a 6...6.5? followed by ectomorphy and finally endomorphy. Maybe he's a 2-6.5-3.5 or sth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Final note, i've read from some things (maybe some stuff you've wrote on other websites), of an endo-ecto type.

IMO, I wonder if Jeremy Clarkson is some sort of endo-ecto. AFAIK he's also on American TV in Top Gear. Easy to view google, but let me summarise his physique, tall (6ft 5), looks gangly but also... he is kinda fat..has a pot belly. Also (and i'm sure the following can be checked on internet but i'll sumarise..info comes at least partially from reading one of his books), he doesn't enjoy exercise, he hasn't ever been in a physical fight (despite being the 'leader' in the Top Gear programme). Describing Jeremy Clarkson: He dresses and 'lives' in a way, in the past, clothes from the 70's, music from the 70's, has rather conservative views...yet at the same time reading one of his books and some of his columns in newspapers, he is also a bit of a thinker, detaching and analysing the world). I think from looking at him, his strongest components are endomorphy AND ectomorphy. Now, thinking about his personality, a mixture of conservatism and 'introspection' of the world, I believe this ties in with him being an endo-ecto. Not withstanding his gangly tall stretched out physique (ecto) with his sort of flabby, pot belly look (endo) and his dislike of sports (weak meso), seems to tie in with his personality. Perhaps he's a 5-2-5.

OK, considering that I have no access Sheldon somatotype charts (or ability to measure other than by eye, how'd I do )? ....Mmmm, maybe I have some 'eye' for somatotyping after all.

------------------------------------------------------

As you can see I find this interesting. I also thought that this could be made into it's own thread (don't see why mods can't split it). Also in my readings, I understand Sheldon typed Jung as a meso 6. Seems to tie in with how he was described by some people, ie his school colleagues often called him, "the bear". Thing is, as far as I recall.... might be on you tube, using his system of psychological types he described himself as primarily an introverted thinker with a secondary intuition, aka, by his system, INTj.

----------------------------------------------------

Anyway, if you're still around, would like to hear your thoughts on all this.

I'd also suggest perhaps that Eddy Mercxk may be someone you'd want to add to your celebrity list on your website, simply at least because he's regarded as best (and best known) cyclist. Maybe also a good comparison to compare him to others with similar somatotypes who've persued other careers (sporting or otherwise). Also perhaps Clarkson simply due to what I see as his..unusual physique?

So, with all that above, also, what do you suggest for my next move?

Last edited by Cyclops; 23/08/2010 at 09:45 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM