plaetton: I read somewhere, and I dont know if it is related to this type of personality assessment, that about 15% of people are completely immune from any type of mental programming such as Religious beliefs, mind control, Brainwashing ,hypnotism and even advertising.

I don't think that's related to this, but that's interesting. I wonder what a derren brown has to say to that. If you do remember where you read that pls post it here. I know mentalists just don't pick anyone to say hypnotize, they watch for signs of a persons susceptibility to their tricks.

With relation to this I would say Ns would actually be more succeptible then an S in some situations. So long as you tell an N what he wants to hear judiciously, leave him alone then watch his imagination go all over the place. Hell, he'll even create more imaginary friends for you. But for NTs in particular, when they do finally apply logic to the trick, they would then wonder whatthef.uckhowdidthiswhendidthiseven ... And authority doesn't work with us, you may be worshiped by others (like 'big men' in this country are) but so long as what you say does not make sense, well, f.uck you kindly. That's one of the reasons iconoclasts are usually NT (all 4 atheist horsemen are NT, for instance).

A lot of the time Ss simply don't want to deliberate (the artisans, they don't find thinking fun, they'd much rather do) or are generally afraid of the unexpected (guardians). These traits of course could be exploited by mentalists

Yeah, it kind of hit home with me because, from as far back as I could remember as child,religion never ever made sense to me. I thought I was weird.
No matter how many times I went to sunday school, no matter how many times I read the bible,It just never penetrated, but my fascination with it continued to grow.It still fascinates me greatly, which explains my addiction to Nl religious forum. lol.

The funny fact is that most of the men on my mother's side were the same,not openly atheistss but agnostics. So I wonder If I inherited the genes from that side of my family.
So the question for you is, do you that these personality traits are genetic?

plaetton: Yeah, it kind of hit home with me because, from as far back as I could remember as child,religion never ever made sense to me. I thought I was weird.
No matter how many times I went to sunday school, no matter how many times I read the bible,It just never penetrated, but my fascination with it continued to grow.It still fascinates me greatly, which explains my addiction to Nl religious forum. lol.

The funny fact is that most of the men on my mother's side were the same,not openly atheistss but agnostics. So I wonder If I inherited the genes from that side of my family.
So the question for you is, do you that these personality traits are genetic?

Nature vs nurture is hotly debated. Also debated is if it's possible to genuinely change once preferences over time, or is it at best like handedness (a right handed could learn to use his left just as well, but would still be predominantly regarded as right handed by some). Jung himself thought your preference changes over time and is affected by the environment of course.

I can't get links now to some studies but I'll post them here later. Intoversion/extroversion has been shown to have a physical basis. Introverts do actually get more feedback from their senses than extroverts, or at least perceive more, and also have observably different brain types. So introverts generally have more data to work with, making them tire more quickly than an extrovert in social situations. Extroverts on the other need more data to keep them occupied and so seek out activity more. EDIT It might not be hereditary, I'll have to confirm that, I think it is though

The rest has not been determined yet. I subscribe to the idea that it's a mixture of both nature and nurture. I think you are born within a range, and nurture influences which particular part of this spectrum you land on. You can always learn to use your left hand, but for many that would be really difficult. So I tend to think that nature is the most dominant factor, but nurture could play a role, sometimes drastic, in other situations.

Another example that supports nature having the more dominant role. We all know physiology plays a role in crafting your personality, but just read this as it's somewhat interesting. There was another study in which some poor folk who had been in accidents which affected part of their brains related to emotion, making them emotionless, where monitored. By all accounts they became rather different. One peculiar trait they all displayed was the inability to make the simplest choices, like what tie to wear. Apparently, as all the ties were now equally desirable, as all they now cared about was that tie be a tie (color etc becomes irrelevant), they couldn't make up their minds as to which was objectively best. I like this study because it illustrates how emotions, which I have very little regard for usually, are important. Anyways, the point is as we all know there are many other similar studies, so physiology definitely plays a big part in shaping personality (EDIT: also thinking vs feeling, or objective/cold vs subjective/emotional is a key part of the MBTI scale), but how much of that is hereditary is still open to debate.

There is also a rather strong correlation between having aspergers and being INTx. Basically, most people with aspergers test INTx, and aspergers has genetic roots. Sometimes, one is mistaken for the other, many INTx look like they have aspergers to the untrained but they are 2 very different things. Implications of this correlation are hotly debated too though as well. Some think confirmation bias influence the results.