Talk:Somatotype

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

please add this to this large list of crap wikipedia articles that talk about a subject without actually explaining what it is. Complete rubbish article

Contents 1 Ectomorphs becoming fat? 2 Outdated theory? 3 Health Danger 4 Merge proposal 5 Unreferenced box added to article 6 I'm a little confused ... 7 Stereotype: the "Klein" 8 Merged 9 noncompliance/NPOV 10 Science Behind the Theory

[edit] Ectomorphs becoming fat?

One of the paragraphs here mention this.

I'm not sure this is at ALL possible. I mean, perhaps, there is a terribly low chance, but nontheless, this is almost an impossibility. All the males, from my father's (Who can be described as an ectomorph) side , are all skinny, and all of which had been underweight at some point in their lives, including myself. There is not one overweight male from this, obviously genetically skinny, family. I'm not sure you can so sure you can positively suggest that an ectomorph can become overweight, unless, the tactics an ectomorph uses are drug-related. And even with gained weight, the chances of going over the average weight, for an ectomorph, seems almost outrageous in my mind. Perhaps this is just my bias talking, but being an ectomorph, and researching my family, we've all had issues where becoming fat, as an ectomorph, is almost a fairy tale. Growing even to a normal weight is extremely difficult, never mind becoming overwight.

Yes, it is possible. Christina Aguilera is an ectomorph, and there was a time herself had become overweight. You have to go by more than your family. Black Kat 16:06 10 December, 2006 (UTC)

For a TRUE ectomorph, that is, a basically impossible somatotype, becoming overweight would definitely be challenging. Nevertheless, with the proper eating habits ANY type can become pysically like another type (as far as weight and muscle goes... I don't mean that losing fat will be easier for an endomorph after he loses weight because he resembles an ectomorph more relatively, I mean that they can look like the other, at least on the outside). If you do any studying up on fitness and weightlifting you will see that any person without disabities can gain muscle and lose fat.

[edit] Outdated theory?

This article seems to indicate that the somatotype theory is outdated, but this is only clear with the New Age part. For the rest, it is ambiguous (except for physical training). Please clarify wether or not this is an outdated theory and why. Reply to David Latapie, an ectomorph ;-)

I've tried to make a more constructive analysis of the legacy of William Sheldon's work. The behavioral conclusions are quite laughable if carried very far, but there is a valid biological core...deeply buried, but useful. To pretend that slender build, muscular build, and portly build, don't exist as "extremes" of type, is about as "PC silly" as saying that nobody is "tall" "medium" or "short". Lets keep the core idea, but cut out the behavioral "stereotyping". My handle means,"Native-born Californian", I'm no right wing wacko, just a guy who contributes a lot of Wiki stuff about my state.Nativeborncal 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health Danger

"Many slender men consciously "carbed up" to gain an unhealthful forty extra pounds so that they could look more like the stereotypical mesomorphic "Jock". These same men may now be more obese than they appear, or may have even died from the transformation. Seventy pounds over ideal weight for your true body type can be deadly."

I would love to see a source on this. The idea that there is a mortal danger in bulking 70lbs of muscle over a so-called "ideal weight" sounds very much unfounded to me.

I don't think the writer was referring to muscle, but I'm commenting-out the whole section for now. -Objectivist-C 18:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more facts and insights into the section for accuracy sake. Sheldon's theory is not "outdated" by any means; it just was never taken seriously because of it's unfortunate debut during the Nazi era. Sheldon's work just didn't fit in with the secular humanism movement which took over psychology departments; talk of biolgoical contributions to behavior were just dismissed because it did not fit with cherished political views. Nobody wanted to talk about Darwin either. That's all changed since Jerome Kagan started looking at temperament. I'm not saying Sheldon's theory is right, I'm just saying it was never really followed up on. Doc Stone

[edit] Merge proposal

The article at Body type (exercise), while largely a set of "how-to" exercise tips (see #8 under What Wikipedia is not), repeats a great deal of what is already included in this article, and is entirely based on this principle. I propose removing the exercise tips and merging whatever is left of that article with this one. Kafziel 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been more than a week with no objections, so I'll merge them. Kafziel 16:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with merging them is that the personality part of the theory is presently believed by almost no-one, while the physical part is a widely used tool. It's like including a lot of phrenology in an article on the skull. matturn 10:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, while your section adds important information about Sheldon's work, it is teetering on POV. Your above statement of Secular Humanism is much more meaningful than "Left-Wing". Using the information you provided above I'll attempt a reword.

What is POV? I agree that Left-Wing was a tad harsh, although generally accurate. Regarding Phrenology, it's a knee-jerk reaction to laugh at it. In reality, phrenology represented two major advances over the Standard Social Science Model of the time: (1) The mind was a physical organ, and (2) social-cogntiive functions are localilzed. The history of neuroscience has been a struggle between the materialists and the Cartesian generalists; The Cartesians have steadily been losing. How do I time-stamp my comments with Username like the others? I want to get in the flow here Docstone

The timestamp thingy is done by typing four tildes (the symbol above the `). If phrenology is too useful, how about including a lot of stuff on the Nazi perception of the Aryans in the article on the proto-Indo-Europeans? Or the flatness of the earth on an article about the globe. matturn 13:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think merging is a good idea -- I think it's important that the terms endo- ecto- and meso-morphic are connected with Sheldon, and seen as part of a larger theory of personality. Disconnecting the morphological terms makes them appear a bit too self-evident, I'd say.. as if they are theory-neutral. Citynoise 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merge71.142.94.189 02:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced box added to article

This article needs more sources and citations, especially the popular culture section. I tagged it as such (especially because of lines like "for political and not intellectually honest reasons"... which to me, almost never reads NPOV). Janet13 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... why was the box removed? It's still largely unreferenced, although it claims to have been sourced from books and various papers... but that's not verifiable... right?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a little confused ...

This article begins: "Using anthropometric methods Sheldon studied the photographed bodies of some 4,000 men ..."

and toward the end says: "Sheldon's 4,000 photographs of nude Yale undergraduates were destroyed. An interesting footnote is that the collection included George H. W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and many other famous political figures."

Wasn't this study done in the 1940's? Was it done with men or women or both? How could Hillary Clinton have been part of the photo collection? I too would like to see some clarification and citation. --Glitterspray 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, that whole section is suspect. It's shouldn't be where it is, for one, because it has nothing to do with popular culture. Second, it reads like a "rehabilitation" of somatotypes by a Sheldon True Believer. Especially considering that the usefulness of the personality types associated with the somatotypes is debunked rather neatly by the observation that the "jolly fat folk" endomorphs in realy have a higher rate of depression -- which is mentioned in this very article. Couples with the lack of citations, ridiculous claims, and the classic True Believer defence that Sheldon was only ignored because people conflated his work with Nazism (and not because, say, he was wrong), I'd say the whole section should go. However, I won't delete it. Instead, I'll create a new section for it called "A Defence of Sheldon". The supporters of that section's claims should find references for them. Joshua Nicholson 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotype: the "Klein"

What is a Klein? Is this a common term? Shouldn't we have a link to a definition of this term or do away with it altogether?

I've never heard it before, but Urban Dictionary indicates that it might have the sense of "pretentious, pompous person". 惑乱 分からん 12:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged

I've merged endomorphic, mesomorphic, and ectomorphic, and various of their redirects, to here. The external links need checking (and probably trimming). --Quiddity 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hey guys just wondeirng, some people refer to ectomorphs as people with small, possibly brittle bones and/or joints for whatever reasons, dietary or hereditary...of course other types can have brittle bones but its a marker for the ectomorph body type i think, in general. i was thinking, though, doesnt everyone have small bones relatively speaking? like when people say im not fat im just big boned...how big?! arent most humans extremely small skeleton?[ie. we all look thin as hell without muscle mass and body fat]

let me know, its bugging me.

Thanks. --AF1987 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It all depends, really. It's more than just bones...it's actually your muscle and metabolism. I've done some editing, because someone who wrote this definitely had a mesomorphic bias. I've seen a good amount of slender endomorphs and overweight mesomorphs. Ectomorphs can still put on muscle, though it takes more work. Plus they added stereotype, though wrote is more as "fact," but if you look at people there are a lot of very depressed ectomorphs and mesomorphs, artistic endomorphs and mesomorphs, and ectomorphs that have been able to put on weight and muscle. Body build actually depends on the origins of your ancestory, not your personality. That's why full Africans are usually ectomorph and whites tend to be mesomorph and endomorph...it's based on location of origin for weather tolerance, not personality. Personality is just what you turn out to be. I'm an endomorph/mesomorph (endo dominant), but my personality is definitely most suited towards the ectomorph stereotype. Plus, talk about brittle, my great aunt is a mesomorph and her bones are dangerously brittle. Black Kat 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] noncompliance/NPOV

This article was quite comical in its condescending tone to a set of vocabulary that is in standard use. Saying the types are obsolete, hinting at them being the basis for apocalyptic eugenics, and refusing to discuss them without associating in some extreme stereotypes makes this article totally NPOV. Personally, I'm so endomorphic I've had multiple weight-trainers quit on me because after an hour a day for months on end, my body builds no muscle. It simply doesn't. In fact, a weight training professor back in college graded everyone on performance, and eventually pulled me aside and said he'd never seen anyone show up every day to class, work out the whole time (with a weight training PhD watching), and show little to no progress. And no, it's not a chemical or a nutrition thing--we've checked those. My boss is similar--she's been 100% vegetarian for 40 years, and she would count as morbidly obese on any BMI. Anyway, I think the article needs be cleaned up by someone to make it more neutral in tone and so as to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Mrcolj 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Behind the Theory

I'm not at all knowledgeable in this area (hence my turning to WP for info), but it seems to me as though there are several key explanations missing from this article:
• What causes a person to develop into their particular somatotype? Since Sheldon named the types after embryonic germ layers, is the person's somatotype determined in utero?
• Is there any non-anecdotal research indicating that a person's somatotype can change?
• Is there any research indicating that this theory does/doesn't apply to women? The article only refers to Sheldon's research with men. What about application to other species?
• There are references to this theory being obsolete. Are there new theories to replace it, or is it simply discredited?
• Is this even technically a scientific theory?
Those were the obvious questions that occurred to me while I was reading the article. is that info available? It seems kind of weird that it's not in the article. Mattymatt 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)