the turtles Zodiac/personalities
 

since this started in the Episode discussion and it caused the entire thread to go way off topic.....I decide to put it here.

....
 

umm... whats the topic exactly??

in the new episode discussion thread in the New TMNT section, people went off topic and started to talk about the family order, zodiac personalities, when are the TMNT birthdates....so I put it here. In the other discussion,

http://www.thetechnodrome.com/forums...c&start=80

it became very interesting on what people thought about the TMNT's personalities, family order, and zodiac.

i believe that this is the family order

Leo--Leo??
Don--Aquarius
Raph--scorpio??
Mikey--capaicorn??

Hmm, well I remember figureing out their zodiac signs at some point. I remember I had Don as an Aquarius (an air sign noted for intelligence and creativity), and Raph as a Scorpio (passionate, "dark" and sometimes violent. And very compatable with Libra. *cough*)

I'll have to dig my books out this weekend and go over things. Hmmm, wonder what Splinter's sign would be...

You're right. I remember that! Hmm... I know my brother kept all his old boxes. I just have to find them...

Okay, this is just a repeat, so ingnore it if you have already been reading on the other topic.

There actually several studies out there in psychology concerning "Birth Order" and how it affects your personality. The best source of information on the subject is "The Birth Order Book" or "The New Birth Order Book", which is just and updated edition. Written by a guy named Leman I think. Anyway its very interesting in how different people are based entirely upon where they were born into their family.

I had no idea that the creators had specifically stated the birth order of the Turtles. Leonardo and Michelangelo are pretty obvious ones. I had always debated how Donatello and Raphael, the middle ones, fell into things.

LEONARDO is the spitting image of a first-born. First-borns tend to be the most motivated in families. They are more likely to go to college and become professionals and executives. More doctors, lawyers, etc are first-borns. Nearly all astronauts have been first-borns. And the majority of American presidents, like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, are first borns. Leonardo fits perfectly. He acts as Splinter's lieutenant and heir apparant. The eldest tends to take after the parent(s) much more than the younger siblings who are actually affected more by their older sibling(s) than they are by their parents. As the leader and the most skilled and discplined of the Turtles, Leo is obviously the oldest (and I'm guessing this was confirmed by Eastman).

DONATELLO is apparently the second-born. Middle children are unusual in that there is little difference in their personality whether they are second, third, fourth, etc, as long as they have at least one sibling older and one younger. The second oldest is most impacted by the firstborn. We can see this among the Turtles. While Leonardo is consumed with ninjitsu and spirituality, Donatello went the opposite way, as is typical with secondborns. Donatello has gone as far from Leo's interests as possible with science, math, technology, engineering, mr fix it, etc. Donatello, unconsiously, knowing that he could not upsurp Leonardo as far as training and leadership, went to find his own path. In additition, Donatello is typically the second most responsibly and mature, below Leonardo.

RAPHAEL has classic middle-child syndrome. He is completely out of place within the Turtles. He has nothing of his own. He isn't discplined like Leonardo, smart like Donatello, or artistic and humourous like Michelangelo. No wonder he's the loner and the first one to go off on his own. Middle children are almost always the ones to move far away from home, if this happens mind you. That said, Raphael seems to upsurped Donatello as the number two Turtle. Raphael also has many big brother qualities, particularly toward Michelangelo. Only Leonardo, Raph's eldest brother, can exercise the least bit of control over him.

MICHELANGELO is as obviously the lastborn as Leonardo is the firstborn. He the baby of the family if there ever was one. Mikey loves being the center of attention and will do anything to get it. With his older brothers having pretty much covered all possible accomplishments, Mike has to work hard to get his cut of Splinter's attention. He's the one who'll get a "booboo" and expect everyone to take care of him. Lastborns are usually the creative, artistic, or funny ones of the family. The majority of actors, comedians, and muscians are the youngest in their family. Michelangelo follows suit.

Yeah, that's something I mentioned earlier. I was asking if that was true. I'm glad I'm not crazy and that really was true. Huh...I wish I still had my boxes. I've got the figures in the attic at home, but I don't think I have any boxes. Maybe somebody else does, or maybe they are on the web scanned somewhere.

Either way, thanks for the info.

Actually under certain circumstances a Leo will have similar personality traits to Raph... Both my younger sisters being good examples (both are middle) And yes... when the turtles came out there were many arguments on who was like who among me and my three sisters... The youngest was to young to say anything so she was always Mikey, And I was always Donnatello...

Actually, this is pretty good insight into their psychology. It really does fit in with what's seen on the show. Now if only we had some sort of psychological model for the relationship between another quartet: Rocksteady, Bebop, Shredder and Krang. Despite the fact that they're not siblings, they still seem like a kind of weird, lopsided family at times.

This topic is flawed since, like people have said, the Turtles are all the same age. After all, they DID come from the same bowl.

ahem
 

No offense to everyone whose put a lot of thought into this topic, but it is all sheer projectionism. People are reading stuff into the TMNT that is, frankly, not there.

According to the "official story", the TMNT are all "born" on the same day (the day they were mutated). Their actual births are irrelevant since they lacked any humanoid personality or intelligence prior to their exposure to the mutagen. And, they were all mutated at the same time.

In any event, and this is regarding the Mirage TMNT and not other versions, none of the Turtles are Zodaic/Godai archetypes to begin with. They are genuine characters that develop, not stagnant cliched archetypes that have been done a thousand times in other formats. That's the catch here. The TMNT are independent unique characters.

For a long time, I tried to "link" each of the Mirage TMNT to one of the four elements via the Godai. I found it to ultimately be fruitless as they were not created on the basis of either the Godai or the Zodiac. The turtles have different personalities, yes, but this is better explained with a deep knowledge of human experience and developmental psychology than using some archaic, empirically-disproven, mythic symbols.

A while back, I did something of a "psychoanalysis" of the "original" TMNT, the Mirage versions (all the other versions are really just later abberations or alterations of the original characters). I found it much more useful to label them in the general preconventional/conventional/postconventional schema, or to use the Spiral Dynamics system. They were far more accurate because they are empirically used to analyze actual personalities and not stagnant archetypes like Zodiac or Five Elements.

It actually come out to the following:
1) Leonardo: conventional/sociocentric, primarily, just beginning to reach the postconventional/worldcentric levels; blue to organge memes.
2) Raphael: preconventionl/egocentric, primarily, just beginning to reach the conventional/sociocentric levels; red to blue memes.
3) Donatello: postconventional/worldcentric, with only a vignette of conventiona/sociocentric remaining; orange to green memes.
4) Michelangelo: full postconventional/worldcentric; green to yellow memes.

I believe the TMNT were designed to reflect realistic, life-like personalities... and not simply be "been there done that" stereotypes or archetypes.

Well, those are my opinions anyway. Laterz.

Re: ahem
 

The strange thing about Birth Order, is that it doesn't really matter that they were "born" at the same time. Twins, triplets, quadruplets, will all develop birth order roles even though they were born at the same time. For instance with twins, if there are no other children in the family, one twin will develop a firstborn personality and the other will develop a lastborn personality. So it doesn't matter whether or not the Turtles were born at the same time or not, they would still, and apparently have, developed birth order roles.

We know that age still affects them, even if they were mutated at the same time. Splinter was older and much more mature than the Turtles at the time of mutation, so that carried over. So if Leonardo had been hatched before Michelangelo and had matured more pre-mutation, then that would have carried over to post-mutation just as Splinter did over the Turtles.

We don't really know when the Turtles hatched, or whether they are actually brothers or not. Seems like on the old toys (not that they are a reliable source of info) the Turtles were not birth brothers. They had different ages and may have even been different types of Turtles.

But if Eastman gave particular birth orders to the Turtles, then that must mean something. I wish I could find where he said that.

Well I have always tought the Turtles hatched at the same time. If you buy 4 babe turtles in a class bowl, wouldn't it be starnge if some would have been there months before other came in... Well who knows.

It's true that the "elemental" system often greatly oversimplifies people and personalities, but in a way, it can still be used to ROUGHLY classify people into groups. And even if it's not the most precise method to get inside turtles' heads, it'll still be brought up a million times over, because its appeal lies in its simplicity of comprehension.

Besides, people have to keep in mind that the primary reason for their character differentiations wasn't to prove one psychological theory over another, it was simply marketing at its finest. In order for the kids to buy each individual toy, they better have vastly different personalities (and colours) so that they could be easily identified. I don't think I need to elaborate on that any more.

But if we are going to liken them to humans, then yes, it is true that even if they are twins or whatnot, they would develop differently. In human siblings, it is usually theor overwhelming similarity that pushes people to act differently and thus become a different person. So even if the turtles were born at the same time, or months apart, the outcome would be the same.

Appreciated.

Well, just because the TMNT were all in the same bowl at the same time, doesn't mean they were all born, errr hatched at the same time. And anyway, even if they were, there's a lot more to a horoscope than the "sun sign" we're all familiar with. Every planet, and a couple moons, and stars are all charted, and change by the minute.

And it makes a BIG difference, believe me. (And no, I'm not charting all four of them out. This is fun, but not THAT fun.)

hoo boy
 

I wouldn't matter either way. They didn't have humanoid personalities or intelligence then, so even if this "birth order" has any relevance it certainly wouldn't apply to them. And, regarding the Zodiac/Astrology, considering it has been empirically disproven time and time again (I believe the actual Zodiac correlations in real-life individuals is a less than 1% accuracy), it most certainly doesn't hold any relevance.

In either case, the TMNT were not obviously modelled after any little-known psychological models or archaic mythic symbols. They were meant to be fairly realistic and "life-like" personalities.

Its the five element system in Japanese tantric buddhism (earth, water, fire, wind, and void).

*nods* Yes, possibly.

That is because, as the Palladium RPG pointed out, Splinter was already a mutant of some form before he was ever exposed to the mutagen.... possessing extraordinary intelligence and memory, not to mention human-like compassion, as a "simple rat".

No. There is nothing at all to indicate the turtles were mutants of some form like Splinter prior to their mutation. In any event, the "party line" given by Eastman and Laird is that they are all roughly the same age (thus making any developmental differences based on age irrelevant). Whenever their ages are asked for in fan letters, the same age is given for all four.

According to Eastman and Laird, they are biological brothers.

He didn't. They are always given the same ages in the Mirage/Palladium books, and always regarded as biological brothers. This means (if you know your biology) they all came from the same "litter" of turtle eggs at roughly the same time and place.

If he and Laird's past answers to these questions are any indication, he will most likely tell you they are roughly the same age and biological brothers. Thus making this entire discussion kind of pointless.

I already provided a more accurate and realistic system to accomplish this.

*chuckles* Apparently you've never heard of a little comic book company called Mirage Publishing. :roll:

Yes. But this has nothing to do with 'birth order' or with the Zodiac. It has to do with their respective life experiences.

It doesn't matter either way, considering astrology as a means of empirical predictions has been disproven time and time again (even when tested by scientific experiments designed by astrologists themselves). The actual predictive "power" of the Zodiac (or any astrological system for that matter) has been found to be less than 1%.

Now, this is not to say astrology is "meaningless" or "wrong", it most certainly has its value and provides an important function among its adherents, but it has been demonstrably proven to have no predictive power whatsoever (no more than random guessing, that is).

Laterz.

*sigh* Well, now I know the answer to that one question.

I, for one, do not put a signifigant amount of faith in the zodiac, or any simliar system. In fact, I think that the influence might be the other way around. Being told that you should be "this way" may push you in that direction. And I've found many people who were very different from what their "sign" said. (I however, seem to be a near-perfect Libra. *grumbles*)

Not that I'm taking this discussion seriously. It's just for fun, and interesting to disect their personalities. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a system we're using for comparison.

hee
 

Huh?? :-?

*nods* Oh, ok.

Jeez...I thought this was a "fun" discussion...

I don't put any stock in zodiology or any other such element talk, so I haven't participated in any of that. But I certainly don't mind everybody doing it and I've read all the posts with some interest.

However you can't discount Birth Order. That's pyschology, and you can look it up. There is absolutely no biological difference between siblings that were born at different times (except that males are slightly more likely to be homosexual if they have an older brother, something about hormones in the womb, seems farfetched, I think there was something about it in a recent Time or Newsweek magazine, dunno how accepted that theory is.)

Birth order is based on LIFE EXPERIENCES, it is NOT based on biology. It is psychology. Birth order is nurture, not nature. For instance, a mother gives birth to her fifth child, but she gives it up for adoption. A couple adopts that fifth-born child and later concieve or adopt other children. That fifth-born child is the oldest of his family. He will develop a firstborn, not a fifthborn personality. Birth order is not biological.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if we are going to liken them to humans, then yes, it is true that even if they are twins or whatnot, they would develop differently. In human siblings, it is usually theor overwhelming similarity that pushes people to act differently and thus become a different person. So even if the turtles were born at the same time, or months apart, the outcome would be the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes. But this has nothing to do with 'birth order' or with the Zodiac. It has to do with their respective life experiences.

Actually that has a LOT to do with 'birth order.'

ahem
 

I hate to break this to you, Nagi, but virtually everything you've said is limited to an individual basis. Different couples treat their children differently.

As for the TMNT, Splinter "adopted" them all at the same time so any chronological birth order is irrelevant.

Re: ahem
 

You are absolutely 100% correct. You ought to read up on the subject, I'm sure there is some information out there on the web somewhere, maybe even some scientific studies. People do treat their children differently, and the way people treat their children has a huge impact on them. Parents can even reverse birth order, making a younger sibling develop a "firstborn" personality and causing an elder sibling to develop a "lastborn" personality. Of course doing so is pretty akin to child abuse...

But I'm sure you realize there are tendencies for human beings to act a certain way. I learned that in Psychology 101. If we didn't have certain tendencies, than there would be no science of pyschology or sociology or politcal science etc. Heck, learning history would be almost pointless if humanity did not have tendencies. We can make generalizations based on these tendencies. That's what birth order is. Its something that is going to be correct probably 9 out of ten times. That doesn't mean that there is a particular formula for birth order, there is wide divergence within all family roles.

On Splinter adopting the Turtles at the same time, once again, siblings of the same age will still develop birth order roles.

You ought to look it up somewhere, personally I find it to be pretty dang interesting. But then I just like pyschology period.

By the way, where did you find out Splinter was already mutated? I've never heard that before. Or did you just assume so? It's obvious he had to be pretty special, but I haven't heard anything about a mutation. Thanks.

hmm
 

Its in the Palladium TMNT rpg. According to its rules, Splinter was already a mutant of some kind before he was exposed to the mutagen (i.e., he seemed to possess human or semi-human intelligence, compassion, and memory before ever being exposed to the mutagen). He was basically born that way.

In addition, Splinter lived an extraordinarily long life (for a rat, which typically has a life span of 2 years) before ever being mutated, as well.

Hmmmmm....cool. Thanks.

:lol: I think heretic found a new friend... ;) :D

Raph as a Scorpio (passionate, "dark" and sometimes violent. And very compatable with Libra. *cough*)

yeah it figures...me:libra oct 16.... hahahahahaha

Shellmund Freud
 

Anyone who thinks that the turtles couldn't have personalities before they mutated is a little too anthropocentric, especially considering that we are talking about frickin' turtles here. Obviously they had personalities before they were mutated. Don't your pets have personalities?

Of course, I also think it's a little silly to be discussing their signs and whatnot. I mean, event he most profound psychoanalytic models never took into account the psychological effects of being born as a reptile and then suddenly growing to enormous size and becoming anthropomorphic. That's gotta mess you up but good.

Still, the turtles are ripe for Freudian analysis. There is a lot of castration anxiety evident in Raphael's behavior, for instance. And something messed with Leonardo during his anal development phase. Michaelangelo clearly never wanted to give up his mother (even though she abandoned him at the pet store) and so never developed a fully adult personality. It's clearly all very Oedipal.

Also, perhaps a postmodernist reading. How do turtles fit into the functioning of the cultural Big Other when they are not even humans? How did they so effectively learn masculine gender roles in the sewer? Or do some of them actually exhibit feminine gender roles? How would they develop sexually in such a habitat. This is a major question that needs to be answered. In most male-exclusive communities, homosexuality is rampant, but never once have wee seen Don and Mike kiss, even though they'd make a great couple.

Serious issues need to be answered!

The turtles's male role model was Splinter. I think that one was pretty obvious. They said several times that "he taught them everything he knew" which obviously included proper social conduct, mindset as well as weapons training.

Then how come splinter behaves in an appropriate "Japanese" fashion, and the Turtles act like americans? Also, I am very glad that Forsquirtlemynurtle brought up the issues of anthropology and how that fits in with the turtles. I believe that you may be right about the homosexual nature of the turtles. You are correct in saying that homosexuality is rampant in all male communities. I mean come on. Four, teenage boys, alone in the sewer? Concerining Gender roles and accepted forms of cultural behvior: It is pretty lame to think that a rat could really learn ninjutsu and the tea ceremony while he was a pet rat in a cage. Even if we assume that animals think, there is no way that a non tool using animal is ever going to even begin to understand the habits of their human masters.
Also, the bone structure of a rat is not designed to do double flying dragon kicks, no matter how long he practices. Just assume for a moment that a rat can do the impossible and learn to fight like a man. His ninjutsu would be a hybrid style of ninjutsu and rat fighting. By this I mean that the rat would probably do kicks, but they would be four footed or two footed kicks. There would probably be no punches to speak of as the kicks take care of that. Once more, how did splinter learn to use weapons. It is true that rats have a type of thumb so it is possible that as he mutated, the thumb would become more like a mans. Fine. But, if he mutated at the same time as the turtles, then he would of had to spend the years he was training them training himself to use his new thumbs, let alone complex weapon techniques. Finally, how did he get the weapons to begin with? Did he create a forge in the sewers and melt down pipes and what not to make them? Or did he steal them? This is the most likely answer, although he doesn't strike me as a thief. One more little thing, friends. How come splinter is not a cocaine addict? People flush condoms full of drugs down the sewers of new york all the time. I am assuming that his human master was not a drug addict, so splinter would have no frame of reference on what these substances were. The first time he gnawed open a package of coke, he would be hooked, just like lab rats. Either the turtles were just made up by somebody, or there is something that they are not telling us. :dead:

Re: Shellmund Freud
 

Dude, Don and Mike? No way!

Leo and Mike. :D Though I do agree with the above statement and have hinted that "experimentation" existed between the four in my fics. But over all, I think TV and basic "spying" taught them how to behave as well as Splinter's teaching. Though I think their little group has a lot of tweaks to it.

As for Splinter. Rats are SCARY smart. Very intelligent. Okay, so a normal rat wouldn't become a ninjutsu master, but it's possible that he retained the knowledge, and on mutating, his human-like mind suddenly understood what he'd been doing.

Of course, Laird hints that Splinter wasn't even a "normal" rat to begin with.

I have to admit that incestual homosexual beastality never occured to me while watching cartoons. And I never really wanted it to...

I'll just go back to the fantasy world where Ninja Turtles aren't real and fun to watch.

my horses:

Zane--Jan. 29 (aquarius)
Patrick--feb. 13 (Aquarius)
Lucky--March 2
Oliver--April 5 (in greener pastures)
Chipper--May 1

dogs
Shadow--June 1
pelto--Nov. 26
sam--December (capaicorn)

if anyone was curious about my animals' bdays
Oliver

*sighs*
 

Actually... no, they don't.

I'm not being anthropocentric, you are being anthropomorphic. It is rather quite common --- most people have a tendency to project human qualities and sentiments onto things that do not possess so they can 'relate' to them better. The quirks, emotions, and feelings most commonly associated human personality traits do not exist in animals like dogs and cats (although their existence, in a limited degree, in more developed species like dolphins and chimpanzees is possible).

The simple explanation is that these animals have not developed the parts of the organic brain that support the correlative types of consciousness and "personality" you are referring to.

Not to discount the many contributions Freud made to psychology, but the kind of analysis you are referring to is, to be blunt, complete bunk. Your analysis of their personalities as a whole is also horridly skewed.

Hmmm.... this sounds like a lot of projectionism to me.

It has been discussed before that Splinter was already a "mutant" of some kind before he was ever exposed to the mutagen. Especially considering rats only live about 2 years.

Which wouldn't matter, considering he was learning Ninpo and not Tae Kwon Do.

Ninpo is based on internalizing principles, not mimicking exact movements. The Taijutsu of each practitioner is completely unique, there is nothing strange about this.

Laterz.

Yeah, I have to say that despite the fact that Freud made significant and fundamental changes/contributions to the science of psychology, his theories aren't accepted in practice anymore, just in theory. That's why psychiatrists don't practice psychoanalysis, and haven't since the 50's - it's just too broad and general and incorrect to classify people's behavious based on a few events in their early development. In fact, there is a lot more going on than just a few complexes. So the TMNT can't be classified using this approach either.

Animals DO have personalities, to a degree. Maybe not as complex as a humans, but they do act differently from one another. Not all dogs act the same, not all cats act the same, not all horses act the same, etc.

There's something in them that makes them individuals, a sort of "personality". They have preferences and get annoyed and upset. Not saying they have human-like mental/emotional wiring, but they aren't automatons.