Somatotyping and Myers-Briggs

The very first thing I have written in my notes for Nonverbal Communication:

What are you saying and do you mean to say it?

Nevertheless, I have found our study of somatotypes slightly disturbing .  The idea that people would draw conclusions about our personalities from body-type seems somehow un-American or something.

Somatotyping is the system of body typing and constitutional psychology based on research by William Sheldon in the ’40s.  Most of us have heard the terms endomorph, mesomorph, and ectomorph.  What troubled me was research showing the following characteristics related to body type:

endomorphy

softer, shorter, old fashioned, warm-hearted, less strong, amiable, talkative, dependent, trustworthy

mesomorphy

stronger, more masculine, better looking, adventurous, younger, more mature, self reliant

ectomorphy

very thin, very tall, very ambitious, suspicious, tense, pessimistic, stubborn

Yikes!  How many of us would fit these descriptions? And do we tend to get grumpy and difficult when people assume things about us that are not true?

But look at this chart I found at mySomatotype.com, overlaying somatotype with myers-briggs personality type.

chart overlays Myers Briggs type onto somatotypes, with the ES types generally in the mesomorphs, IT types generally ectomorphs, IFs generally endomorphs, and ENs in the middleAt first glance, this fits at least myself and the hero fairly precisely.   How about you?

4 thoughts on “Somatotyping and Myers-Briggs”

  1. From the WIkipedia entry on somatotype, which I think is rather kind and restrained:
    “Sheldon himself was more a behavioral psychologist than either an anatomist or a physiologist. His behavioral conclusions were based largely on interviews which he or his students carried out over a long span of time, and the actual psychometric data was often more suggestive than conclusive. The prevalence of kindred ideas in folklore and spiritual philosophy, though, suggests that ideas similar to Sheldon’s will continue to be held until they are conclusively proven or disproven.”

    Ask to see the hard data, not interviews..

    I have a lot more time for the MBTI, which is based on Jungian psychology… but still many psychologists are not satisfied with the validity and reliability of the instrument.

  2. When Wikipedia says Sheldon’s “conclusions were based largely on interview which he or his students carried out over a long span of time, and the actual psychometric data was often more suggestive than conclusive” you may be led to believe that these interviews were less reliable than some kind of paper and pencil test. Each interview averaged about twenty hours over a period of months so they were not casual by any means.

    When it comes to clothes and personality type I prefer Max Luchers discussion in his book Personality Signs (Warner Paperback 1981) Chapter 3 describes:

    Blue Type (Feeling) Traditional
    Red Type (Sensation) Unique
    Green Type (Thinking) Classic
    Yellow Type (Intuition) Fashionable

    This is just a brief outline. He elaborates on each of these.

  3. Yes, WIkipedia can supply an opinion or conclusion with which others do not agree. The interview format is still not adequate rigour for me, though.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.