Question pertaining to personality types and continuance of the universe

Question

I have been thinking about this for some time and curious what your perspective is. I will try my best to write coherently so you can understand my view point. I am unsure if this would be in the psychology or philosophy section and the question pertains to both.

With Kersey typology which has 4 main personality types (Artisan, Guardian, Rational, Idealist) and then that breaks down into 4 more subtypes (to equal 16), or you can even take the famous Myers-Briggs (16 personality types, basically similar to Keirsey) and each individual can fit into one of these personality types. I should say, through my years of research and observation I have yet to find an individual that does not fit into one of the personality types.
Does that mean if each individual can fit into one of the personality types that each personality type has an unseen purpose in the continuance of life and the universe? Would this a coincidence, something pertaining to genetics that has yet to be discovered or part of a larger complex system that is not yet known?

I realize that there are aspects of the universe that are beyond our control (say asteroid hits the Earth), but let's say the Rationals are the ones to think in terms of mathematics, external world, science, abstract natures, astronomy and with their existence on this Earth they serve a function in the world that is part of the whole for continuance increased technology and society. Then you can take the Guardians, which are the ones that deem following the rules and justice as highly needed, so they are needed on Earth for a particular function.

In my view there has to be an underlying reason for a personalty type, otherwise, how could there be a construction of personality types?

What do you think about this thought? And, if you do not understand, as if was difficult to put my complex thoughts into words, then please tell me so.

Thanks everyone!

Answer 1

Some simplified definitions from Wikipedia:



Artisian: Operator/Entertainer

Guardians: Conservator/Administrator

Idealist: Mentoring/Advocating

Rationals: Engineer/Coordinator



________________



Yes, taking Darwin's worldwiew of 'Survival of the Fittest'; any species would likely be more prone to play-up their strengths then their weaknesses...



1) Historically man has had to evolve through each of these stages:



A) Hunter:Gatherer/Coordinator/Rational

B) Tool:Weapon-implementaion/Operator/Artisian

C) Agraian:Agriculture/Conservator/Guardians

D) Tribes:Despots:Government/Mentoring/Idealist



2) So I agree each level or paradigm of evolution needed and required the one before it.



3) The interesting thing to note here is, that even at the 'Idealist" stage you still need the Rationals to gather and engineer raw-material, the Artisians to improve and process those raw-materials, the Guardians to make due and conserve what they have to work with of those raw-materials, and finally the idealist to brainstorm systems of ethics that prevent the coercion of taking from anyone's needs... and once established how all can improve the quality of those needs and feel free to pursue individual-wants in a way(ethics) that doesn't harm anyone else's supply of needs.



4) It's a great premiss, and I hope I've helped you flesh-it-out in one way that may prove useful in applying it to several societies across the board including the society we all find ourselves in: The Human One!



5) Best of Luck, wherever you take this though..

Answer 2

It's a curious thought, but consider this: Maybe we're just animals, like all of the others on this planet, and maybe all of the other animals fit into these same buckets. Maybe these constructs and subdivisions that people create to try to make logical sense of stuff is a fabrication where, in reality, it's nothing more than organisms finding the best way to survive. Regardless of creature, there will always be diversity in the group. Some will gravitate toward rationalism, some toward guardianship, etc. Perhaps these traits are more fundamental, and here because of our will to survive....

Answer 3

nicely, in the beginning, Myer-Briggs has been critised for lacking supportive information. Kersey sounds worse... the assumption of character varieties is that folk in good shape extra or much less into one or the different. that may not spectacular. even nevertheless it is not a function of the universe, that is a few thing we are describing. I.e. we've chop up the day up into 24 hours, that are nicely suited completely into sometime. we ought to have finished 18. we ought to have finished 30. it could have meant moving the obstacles a touch, yet we ought to do it... similarly, we've the length it is guy or woman version in character (that's a length. scores kind a normative curve many times) and chop up it into sixteen. anybody will in good shape a classification. yet you're turning out to be chop up it into 4, like Eysenck (choleric, phelgmatic, sanguine, melancholic.) anybody in good shape right into a sort of, besides. and in fact, Myer-Briggs try effects do no longer prepare varieties. scores generally kind a normative distribution - maximum persons are in the middle. So despite elementary experience type you thinlk this try shows, scores do no longer seem to assist it.

Answer 4

Well you are a pretty heavy duty thinker in my book and your study with observation puts me to shame. I would however say that your kind of reasoning would work best in progaming fantasy games that is so popular these days. One of the movies I think that explored this line of resonning was "Lady In The Water" directed by M. Night Shyamalan who also directed the movie "The Sixth Sense". Perhaps the movie Matrix uses this as well.



From what I've read of your post it sounds reasonalbe as well choherent and logical. But it is equally important to note that if you say a the personality types is due to genetics then it shows a curiosity of sorts. For we know that a man by his will cannot alter his genetics in any way that we know of. This would be true even for all living creatures. Instead we would think they all must live within the genetic constructs of their inhereited natures.



If that is the case then the process that allowed man to exist with their genetic difrerences had a reason for this condition to exist within the different personality types of human beings. The most privimite reasoning would be that the existence of these types and the coperation between them with their strengths and weaknesses enable the survival of the human race.



I think your thought is well worth considering but I say this from a laymanm's point of view. It truly is something to look into. And since I am a layman perhaps even my reasoing of your post may not be correct as well. Anyway thanks again for your post and allowing me to look at it.



Edit: I reviewed the answers from previous posters and I seemed to only reiterate what the first poster "sireland" did. Sorry buddy.

Answer 5

I would say no... or more specifically, I don't have sufficient reason to doubt that personality types don't play a cosmic role. I think your question kind of boils down to whether personality types are essential or existential. I see them more as existential... they're measures decided and agreed upon by human beings such as Kersey, Myers, and Briggs, rather than natural laws they uncovered. For instance, they're not really absolute. One is not either perceptive or judgemental, but rather, one is X% perceptive and 100-X% judgemental. So... to me, it's just mathematical that everyone fits one type or another.

Answer 6

We all serve a niche in this world. Personality types may begin to categorize this, but it will never fully account for the human factor. And there can be no universals because these personality tests would likely be debunked if applied to every culture on the planet.