Atheism

Politics

Memes

Mind

Matters

String

Random

Interact

Feedback

Email

Links

Debate

Home

The Cedars of Lebanon

The Big Problem

Sex Education

Chick Food

How not to be eaten by aliens

The Passions

One World Government

Respectful Silence

The Colour of Music

Food Spirits and Calorie Demons

Astrology is Bunk

The Great Teleport Debate

Sheldon developed his unusual theory with the help of some rather unorthodox methods of the kind that gave science in the middle years of the twentieth century the bad name it has to this day. But as they probably might say in Alabama it don't matter if yer uses a shootin' iron or a Chevvy, either ways a freshly kilt possum is good vittles. The information might not have been gathered in the most scientifically orthodox, or even ethical, way but to ignore it doesn't change the past or the truth, or otherwise, of the theory.

Do I believe in this theory? I am not sure, but I think it is worth a further airing. If ideas are wrong but everybody has forgotten why it was agreed that they were wrong they might resurface later, and if they are right we should not let science be dominated by anything as fickle as fashion.

Humanity has taken it for granted that the shape of a person's body has a bearing on the character of the person. All great and most lesser known literature shows the traces of this concept. Santa Claus is a big jolly fat man, in the same mould as Falstaff. Rainier Wolfcastle has never played the role of a serial killer who steals underwear from washing lines and Anthony Perkins has never been cast as a rugged action hero. We know what we mean by acting to type although spelling it out like this makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. Apparently it is acceptable to say that people have their lives determined by the position of stars or planets but it is far too close to evil determinism to suggest that people have a character that can be read by observing their body shape. And yet at the same time we all know what a pencil-necked geek is, what a fat slob is and what a "typical politician" looks like too. It seems that type-casting is a game we can all play although we like to deny that we know how to.

These are Sheldon's three extremes:

Ectomorph, brain and nerve people. Thin, spare, calculating, can be cold and cunning, can be very intellectual, and very sensitive, their nervous system is literally very close to the surface. Pencil-necked geeks.

Mesomorph, muscle people. Barrel chested, heavy upper torso, strong bones and strong muscles. Thrusting personalities. Every wrestler and Grid Iron footballer you have ever heard of. Meatheads.

Endomorph. Gut people. Fat when allowed. Jolly. Slower moving, warmer natured, soft and caring. Idle fat slobs.

Most people are in the middle, with medium doses of all three characteristics. The extremes are rare. As a thought experiment, think about casting “a Mafia Boss”. What does he look like? He is not thin and weedy is he? He is heavily built, muscular, a touch overweight. He is an endomorphic-mesomorph. Just slightly on the muscular side of Santa Claus. Any competent actor who could play a Mafia Godfather could also play the Mayor of New York or the leader of a trade union, but not a librarian or a man who poisons pigeons in the park for pleasure. Whereas Sherlock Holmes is much taller and thinner, an ectomorph with a touch of the mesomorph to help in getting around, of a similar build to Scrooge. Action Man / GI Joe is a pure mesomorph, whereas James Bond has a little dash of the cerebral ectomorph to balance his otherwise extreme mesomorph nature and build.

If you think that this is all stuff and nonsense just look at an illustrated work of Dickens, a writer who had a world class keen eye for type casting and character.

If there is substance in this theory or something of a similar sort then it has profound implications. If there are different types of people, different characters inherent in their physical make-up, then there could be different strategies for seeking the best from the different kinds of people. If people are different why do we deny it so strongly?

Didn't there used to be two personality types, extrovert and introvert? Is it just my imagination or has there been a profound change from seeing introversion as one of two broadly equal types of personality to the case now, when we treat introversion as being almost as problematic as schizophrenia and shouting at invisible people or masturbating in public places. The modern world pays lip service to diversity and pluralism but basically expects all people to act normally and healthily which apparently means:-

1) Enjoying going out for a laugh

2) Keeping all negative emotions to yourself

3) Expressing joy and enthusiasm at all times

4) Being profoundly interested in the minutia of social situations

5) Being interested in the same sports, television programs and members of the opposite sex that the rest of the mob is interested in

Is this normality, or is it only normal for some people?

You're Standing on My Neck

I strongly suspect that many people do not have “normal healthy social skills” in their repertoire of behavioural responses. I think there are many people who are quite content never to be invited to a party and who gain their pleasures in other ways, in fact there are some people who can be happiest on their own or in the smallest groups without considering themselves to be twisted psychopaths. But this is not allowed for in many societies. The introverted are persecuted, taunted and bullied. Does it have to be this way? Is the persecution of the introverted by nature inevitable in human societies? I suspect that many people will not be in a position to fulfil their potential until there are changes in the social structure and the way people perceive normality. This is not likely to happen if the myth of the single healthy personality type is perpetuated.

It does not seem either true or desirable to expect everybody to be fundamentally the same. We are different. Some people have drive that will make them attempt the impossible, but who burn out if the challenge is either too easy or too prolonged. Other people can plod away for years at a task.

I am not sure if Sheldon's three categories are the last word in describing the differences between people, probably not. Although they are an advance on the melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic and choleric.

There are different types of people, different types of healthy normality. There has been a tendency recently in western countries to value a particular personality type too highly and to regard it as normal, and worse, as the only permissible form of normal, from which any deviation is dysfunctional. Not every girl wants to be a cheerleader, not every boy wants to be quarterback. There are millions who are best left to get on with being what they actually are, not forced into the shape of another personality.

On behalf of the dweebs and geeks, nerds and slobs of the world I would just like to make a plea for tolerance from you superficial “fun-loving” meatheads. We are not you, and while we might not be exactly happy about it we can no more change our characters than we can change the colour of our skin.

© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett.

mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited