# New Estimated Percentage of Type



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> Unless I'm interpreting the chart wrong, I don't quite get this link that you mentioned in the other thread:
> 
> politicaltypes.com - Psychological Type and U. S. Political Party Affiliation
> 
> ...


I explained that in my linked post. The article's overall conclusion (which I quoted) was based on _all_ the studies they reviewed, not just the one reflected in that table at the top.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

reckful said:


> I explained that in my linked post. The article's overall conclusion (which I quoted) was based on _all_ the studies they reviewed, not just the one reflected in that table at the top.



I see your point, but I also think that statement about N/S is in itself is too broad, especially based on some of the other sections in the link, particularly the TJ one:



> _*TJ Republicans*_. Our second observation about the Consulting Psychologists Press data is that the TJ types appear to indentify themselves with a Republican party affiliation more so than do the other types. As can be seen in the type table presented here, the TJ preferences include the four types found in the corners of the traditional type table.
> 
> 
> * ISTJ*
> ...




I think that's the issue with even using words like "conservative" and "liberal" especially politically. Someone can identify themselves as one or the other for completely different reasons than someone else, and someone who's not independent can still identify with both.




And, as the article mentions, all of this is very loose anyway.



> * Concluding Comments*
> 
> What we have tried to do here is outline some introductory ideas about how Jung's psychological types might relate to political orientations. As mentioned, the research in the area is sparse (at least there is little published research). We thus invite your comments, and will revise this page as ideas develop.


----------



## narwhalcupcake (Jan 26, 2013)

antahon said:


> So that would make 49% of women introverts, while 51% are extroverts. And 55.5% of men introverts, and 44.5% extroverts.
> 
> So, there are more introverts in the world than extroverts. Hm. I thought it was the other way around. (Probably is)


We are all hiding... XD jk


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> And, as the article mentions, all of this is very loose anyway.


As reported in one of the articles I linked to (a recent and very sizeable survey), Democrats outnumber Republicans among U.S. scientists by a ratio of _nine to one_. If you assume that a typical scientist's N preference is responsible for a substantial proportion of that massive lopsidedness — and I find it pretty hard to imagine that it isn't — that suggests that the correlation between S/N and political views isn't exactly what I'd call "loose."


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

reckful said:


> As reported in one of the articles I linked to (a recent and very sizeable survey), Democrats outnumber Republicans among U.S. scientists by a ratio of _nine to one_. If you assume that a typical scientist's N preference is responsible for a substantial proportion of that massive lopsidedness — and I find it pretty hard to imagine that it isn't — that suggests that the correlation between S/N and political views isn't exactly what I'd call "loose."


But that's just one area. A scientist may just identify as a Democrat because to them, science is the most important factor in terms of politics. An N scientist could have more conservative viewpoints in other areas, but still vote for Democratic candidates because they want to support liberal political decisions that affect science...because that's what affects them the most.

My ENTJ dad is a good example of the opposite. He is a scientist and has liberal stances on scientific policies. But, economically, he has conservative viewpoints, and that's the most important to him, so he votes Republican. 

That's what I mean when I say it's loose. Everyone isn't liberal about everything and conservative about everything, no matter what party they identify with. In cases of STJs and NFPs, there's probably less of a conflict, but with types like NTJs and SFJs, there's more of a mix. My point being that even though we're talking generally, saying S = conservative and N = liberal is merely a surface assessment and ignores all kinds on individual factors.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

QrivaN said:


> Yeah. Sorry, I messed up. I think I said a trillion because I used that as an example recently. Just got a bit mixed up. But hey, 210,000,000 isn't to be disregarded either. It's still a fairly large number. *shrugs*


Very big group,
Agreed!


----------



## Faiora (May 23, 2010)

Staffan said:


> It seems the MBTI overestimates all the rare preferences - I, N, T, P. This is probably for commercial reasons since it will maximize the overall uniqueness of the types. The idea that ISTJ is the most common type for males feels completely and utterly wrong. I rarely see any of this type. I would say the overall most common type to be ESFJ for both sexes, they probably make up at least 25 percent of the population.
> 
> As for ******* SJs, this is probably true in America, but at least here in Sweden lots of them are more what you'd call nerdy life-style conservatives, interested in history and traditions etc, but they are not very religious. I don't know how they vote. There are studies on personality and political affiliation that have liberals scoring higher at openness, a trait fairly similar to N.


Assuming there isn't a key difference where you live, or in the crowds you spend time with (which there may well be), it's possible you're not seeing the ISTJ qualities of males around you. Of the men I am in touch with in my extended family (about 7-8 in total), probably half fit the ISTJ profile more than any other profile. My sister's boyfriend is clearly an ISTJ type, and has a definite sense of responsibility about him, and the expressed wish to have a family, and to be a hardworking, supportive husband. He works two jobs and buys my sister more stuff than he should. I don't mean to say this can't apply to other types, but SJ types in general make it their priority to live the way they're "supposed to." 

Also, in general there are fewer "F" type men, which may or may not have to do with T over F being more valued in men, and vice versa for women. So you end up with a lot of male STJ's. The I/E may be a bit more balanced... but, the statistics generally look pretty good to me. 

I don't think commercial reasons have driven type rarity. This opinion is based purely on observation and a mental count of people in my own life who fit certain descriptions - but I think it makes sense that this is just the way the distribution sits. Obviously the statistics can't be perfect (statistics never are, and in this case it's even tougher to discern), but I don't see any suggestive evidence that they're very far off.

Regarding SJ's in groups: It actually doesn't matter whether the group is *******, religious, nerdy, or any other particular quality. The point is, SJ types are more likely to want to fit in with whatever group is in place. Is this what you were already saying?


----------



## Faiora (May 23, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> I don't think I quite agree with this one, though...at least not in the sense that I'm interpreting it. People are all individuals and unique, and I don't think anyone, SJs included, doesn't want to be their own person and doesn't want freedom.
> 
> I don't think it's that SJs just want to do what's expected of them...I think it's that SJs want there to be a consistent system in place. I think SJs are also practical in the aspect that they will accept a system that's already in place and just make the most of it, utilizing it to achieve their goals.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply any lack of individuality or uniqueness - only that SJ's seem to enjoy fitting into the picture as a whole. Some of my favourite people are SJ's - for example, my sister's boyfriend (ISTJ). My sister's boyfriend works hard, treats my sister like a lady, and strives to do everything that's expected of him in a societal sense. He generally trusts other people's experiences they share with him (like "I touched a hot stove once and got burned" - would probably keep him from touching a hot stove ), and he reads the assembly instructions if he gets something new that's not like anything else new he's gotten. At the same time, he's an individual and has different interests and does his own thinking for himself.

Maybe I picked some words that didn't have quite the right connotation - but I don't mean to say SJ's don't think for themselves. Only that on the grander scale, they have an interest in being part of things and fitting in.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> But that's just one area. A scientist may just identify as a Democrat because to them, science is the most important factor in terms of politics. An N scientist could have more conservative viewpoints in other areas, but still vote for Democratic candidates because they want to support liberal political decisions that affect science...because that's what affects them the most.
> 
> My ENTJ dad is a good example of the opposite. He is a scientist and has liberal stances on scientific policies. But, economically, he has conservative viewpoints, and that's the most important to him, so he votes Republican.
> 
> That's what I mean when I say it's loose. Everyone isn't liberal about everything and conservative about everything, no matter what party they identify with. In cases of STJs and NFPs, there's probably less of a conflict, but with types like NTJs and SFJs, there's more of a mix. My point being that even though we're talking generally, *saying S = conservative and N = liberal is merely a surface assessment and ignores all kinds on individual factors*.


Temperament isn't behavior. It's about tendencies and correlations that can affect behavior, but so can other things. Anybody who says things like "all N's are liberals" and "all S's are conservatives" is pretty much sure to be misapplying the typology.

So nobody who understands how this stuff works would deny that individual factors come into play. But the fact is that, individual factors notwithstanding, among U.S. scientists, Democrats outnumber Republicans _nine to one_, which suggests to me that there must be one or more common contributing factors that correlate _very strongly_ (above and beyond the individual variations) with both being a scientist and being a Democrat.

You mentioned that a scientist might support Democrats because they tend to favor more pro-science policies but, not only did the Pew study involved lots of scientists of all kinds (including plenty of private sector scientists) but it's also undoubtedly true that, for many scientists (your father, for example), that would just be one factor they'd be likely to take into account in deciding to affiliate themselves with one party or the other. I'd be very surprised if that issue was enough to account for anything like a nine-to-one ratio.


----------



## Faiora (May 23, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> I think that's the issue with even using words like "conservative" and "liberal" especially politically. Someone can identify themselves as one or the other for completely different reasons than someone else, and someone who's not independent can still identify with both.


This is a really good point. I was confused at the result for my type (INTJ), because I would sooner align myself with a Liberal than a Conservative party if it came down to it (in a social sense I'm very left wing, and the social aspect is decidedly more important to me in the scheme of things). With that said, I disagree with usual left-wing fiscal views (i.e. I believe companies should have the right to make good money), so I tend not to vote for either major party (I'm in Canada). Some would call this a libertarian viewpoint, I think... I'm not really sure which box I fit into; maybe that's the one. 

I find it oddly difficult to talk about my own political views, because in most ways I like to consider myself neutral. Finding ways in which I'm clearly _not_​ neutral is disconcerting. -_-;;


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

> Assuming there isn't a key difference where you live, or in the crowds you spend time with (which there may well be), it's possible you're not seeing the ISTJ qualities of males around you. Of the men I am in touch with in my extended family (about 7-8 in total), probably half fit the ISTJ profile more than any other profile. My sister's boyfriend is clearly an ISTJ type, and has a definite sense of responsibility about him, and the expressed wish to have a family, and to be a hardworking, supportive husband. He works two jobs and buys my sister more stuff than he should. I don't mean to say this can't apply to other types, but SJ types in general make it their priority to live the way they're "supposed to."


There is always a risk that you see a certain kind of people in your closest circles. This traits are heritable and also the fact that people in general are attracted to those sharing their traits. This of course goes for me too, but in reverse.



> Also, in general there are fewer "F" type men, which may or may not have to do with T over F being more valued in men, and vice versa for women. So you end up with a lot of male STJ's. The I/E may be a bit more balanced... but, the statistics generally look pretty good to me.


I think it's a matter of image. In my experience most men turn out to be feelers if you get to observe them for awhile. If we look at the Big Five, a more valid measure, the difference in neuroticism (the closest to F) the difference is moderate. And even that research is based on self-reports. 




> I don't think commercial reasons have driven rarity. This opinion is based purely on observation and a mental count of people in my own life who fit certain descriptions - but I think it makes sense that this is just the way the distribution sits. Obviously the statistics can't be perfect (statistics never are, and in this case it's even tougher to discern), but I don't see any suggestive evidence that they're very far off.


You would need some criterion to validate the statistics, and the whole model for that matter. Thus far, the criterion has mainly been career and education choices. But a woman wanting to be a nurse doesn't really tell us if she is a warm and caring person or just mainstreaming in general. At any rate, I'm skeptical of a happy accident, especially when it's financially rewarding.




> Regarding SJ's in groups: It actually doesn't matter whether the group is *******, religious, nerdy, or any other particular quality. The point is, SJ types are more likely to want to fit in with whatever group is in place. Is this what you were already saying?
> type



They have their typical interest so that's a factor, but yes, they are a bit conformist in that way.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Staffan said:


> If we look at the Big Five, a more valid measure, the difference in neuroticism (the closest to F) the difference is moderate. And even that research is based on self-reports.


The Big Five dimension that correlates relatively strongly with F is Agreeableness, not Neuroticism (here's a table from McCrae and Costa of MBTI/Big Five correlations), and women typically score high on Agreeableness significantly more often than men (much like the MBTI male/female-T/F correlations).


----------



## Faiora (May 23, 2010)

Staffan said:


> There is always a risk that you see a certain kind of people in your closest circles. This traits are heritable and also the fact that people in general are attracted to those sharing their traits. This of course goes for me too, but in reverse.


Oddly, in my circles, the ISTJ's are all the ones that married in. Not sure why they're attracted to all us non-conforming kooks (e.g. my mother's a very artsy off-in-wonderland-doing-crafts type, and happily remarried to an ISTJ.... my sister's an INFJ, with her ISTJ boyfriend). I'm only including people I've been able to identify type for, mind you, which rules out some people and possibly some types.

But, the fact that my situation lines up fairly closely with statistics... hmm. I'm a sample size of one, but I'm the only sample size I've got - know what I mean? It might not be legitimate, but it's possible you're one of the ones surrounded by an odd sample group. Just saying  



> I think it's a matter of image. In my experience most men turn out to be feelers if you get to observe them for awhile. If we look at the Big Five, a more valid measure, the difference in neuroticism (the closest to F) the difference is moderate. And even that research is based on self-reports.


I think the MBTI (measuring preferences) and Big Five (measuring "traits") aren't directly comparable. I prefer the MBTI because in my mind, people's_ intentions _are my measure of how "good" they are, and preferences influence one's intentions more than traits do. Traits have more to do with the actions themselves, rather than the reasons behind them. Traits are more likely to change as you grow as a person. 

In some ways, yes, this makes the Big Five more useful. But usefulness is contextual. 
I think the Big Five can be seen as more valid because it more directly applies to people's actions, which are less subjective and more discernible than people's thoughts and preferences. I personally think MBTI digs deeper into the reasons we act the way we do. 

Anyway, going with what you said: I'd say agreeableness is a lot more similar to F, at least if I think about my own T qualities. Jungian functional preferences might have some further play there in my case; I'm not sure. I'm also not sure if that makes any difference to what you're saying about F statistics for males. It seems to me you can't use any of the Big Five traits for a comparison because they're analysing a different aspect of personality (preferences vs. traits). 



> You would need some criterion to validate the statistics, and the whole model for that matter. Thus far, the criterion has mainly been career and education choices. But a woman wanting to be a nurse doesn't really tell us if she is a warm and caring person or just mainstreaming in general. At any rate, I'm skeptical of a happy accident, especially when it's financially rewarding.


I agree: it's difficult to use career as an indicator, because people choose their careers for different reasons/aspects. As has been mentioned, it's difficult to get a legitimate (varied) sample group to take the questionnaire, and then to verify questionnaire results. All we can say, until a current large-scale study is done (which doesn't seem likely as the hype has died down), is "well, the people around me look like this, so that makes sense" (or doesn't make sense).


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

reckful said:


> The Big Five dimension that correlates relatively strongly with F is Agreeableness, not Neuroticism (here's a table from McCrae and Costa of MBTI/Big Five correlations), and women typically score high on Agreeableness significantly more often than men (much like to the MBTI male/female T/F correlations).


You're right, I was thinking about the trait with the biggest gender difference. Agreeableness is closer to F (although I personally think N is closer to what Jung meant but that's a different story). However, I can't find any numbers to suggest that A is that more common among women. Here is a quote from a fairly recent article in Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011), reviewing the results,

"When reported at the FFM level, male/female differences in personality
traits have generally been found to be negligible."

If I remember correctly, the link to gender is the strongest in neuroticism, so the link to agreeableness can't possibly be much at all. Unless you have some other sources on this.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

> But, the fact that my situation lines up fairly closely with statistics... hmm. I'm a sample size of one, but I'm the only sample size I've got - know what I mean? It might not be legitimate, but it's possible you're one of the ones surrounded by an odd sample group. Just saying


Yes, there seems to be more intuitives here in Sweden. We would need some accurate measure. But I'm beginning to doubt that the MBTI will ever be that measure. 




> I think the MBTI (measuring ) and Big Five (measuring "traits") aren't directly comparable. I prefer the MBTI because in my mind, people's_ intentions _are my measure of how "good" they are, and preferences influence one's intentions more than traits do. Traits have more to do with the actions themselves, rather than the reasons behind them. Traits are more likely to change as you grow as a person.


Intentions are hard to measure. The Big Five is focused on behavior and that's problematic but they at least have a moderately accurate measure. Traits don't change very much though. Regardless of measure it seems like the only change is a slow process of maturing, less impulsivity and more conscientiousness. Interestingly, gender differences decrease somewhat with age (in Big Five at least) although rank order is still maintained on all five.



> In some ways, yes, this makes the Big Five more useful. But usefulness is contextual.
> I think the Big Five can be seen as more valid because it more directly applies to people's actions, which are less subjective and more discernible than people's thoughts and preferences. I personally think MBTI digs deeper into the reasons we act the way we do.


I agree, it's a trade-off or a matter of what you're looking for. I used to be more into MBTI but now I'm interested in measures with validity, that predict real life outcomes. 



> Anyway, going with what you said: I'd say agreeableness is a lot more similar to F, at least if I think about my own T qualities. Jungian functional preferences might have some further play there in my case; I'm not sure. I'm also not sure if that makes any difference to what you're saying about F statistics for males. It seems to me you can't use any of the Big Five traits for a comparison because they're analysing a different aspect of personality (preferences vs. traits).



Agreeableness is more similar to F, at least MBTI F, but perhaps the Big Five is not useful as a comparison in this case. Although at some point I think preferences must translate to behavior, otherwise we wouldn't have any behavior typical of a type and I believe we can agree that's not the case. The little validity the MBTI has is after all in educational and career choices and that is behavior.




> I agree: it's difficult to use career as an indicator, because people choose their careers for different reasons/aspects. As has been mentioned, it's difficult to get a legitimate (varied) sample group to take the questionnaire, and then to verify questionnaire results. All we can say, until a current large-scale study is done (which doesn't seem likely as the hype has died down), is "well, the people around me look like this, so that makes sense" (or doesn't make sense).


I don't think that large-scale study is not going to happen unless the MBTI is reformed into a dimensional measure. And it probably needs to become more behavior-oriented too. But I guess it's a matter of where it should belong - in the philosophical or scientific branch of psychology.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Staffan said:


> If I remember correctly, the link to gender is the strongest in neuroticism, so the link to agreeableness can't possibly be much at all. Unless you have some other sources on this.


Gender Differences in Five Factor Model Personality Traits in an Elderly Cohort: Extension of Robust and Surprising Findings to an Older Generation

ISDP Big Five Sex Differences | David Schmitt - Academia.edu

Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

reckful said:


> Gender Differences in Five Factor Model Personality Traits in an Elderly Cohort: Extension of Robust and Surprising Findings to an Older Generation
> 
> ISDP Big Five Sex Differences | David Schmitt - Academia.edu
> 
> Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five


It does seem odd. But I would assume that the writers of the article I quoted have read these and are summing up the overall picture. Note that two of your studies are several years old and may or may not have been replicated. And there are always studies that will differ from the overall pattern. In fact those studies you quote show very different results, finding gender differences in 2-4 of the 5 factors.

Update: I'm no statistician but scrolling down on your third study it looks like White men scored higher on Agreeableness than Asian women. That rather casts a shadow over it since there are more Asians than Whites. And, at least to me, it seems a bit unlikely.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

reckful said:


> Temperament isn't behavior. It's about tendencies and correlations that can affect behavior, but so can other things. Anybody who says things like "all N's are liberals" and "all S's are conservatives" is pretty much sure to be misapplying the typology.
> 
> So nobody who understands how this stuff works would deny that individual factors come into play. But the fact is that, individual factors notwithstanding, among U.S. scientists, Democrats outnumber Republicans _nine to one_, which suggests to me that there must be one or more common contributing factors that correlate _very strongly_ (above and beyond the individual variations) with both being a scientist and being a Democrat.


I agree with you that there are likely many factors that contribute to that 9 to 1 ratio. I think it's hard to say how much of that is due to S vs. N, though. I'm not arguing that there's *no* connection. But I think it's really hard to say without knowing the S/N type of that particular group of scientists. It would be helpful to know out of all of the N types, what percentage chose Democrat and what percentage chose Republican. Same with the S group. 

For that 6% that chose Republican, it would be nice to know what percentage were N and what percentage were S. Same with the 55% that chose Democrats. 

This is especially true because the public one is quite different. There were 35% D, 23% R. It doesn't seem like there are 35% Ns in the population, even if they all happened to choose D. Even if we said that the population was 25% N and they all happened to choose D...that means that the 75% S population would be 10% D, 23% R and 34% I (and 8% that aren't included in these three groups in the survey). That's still 52% of the whole population (about 2/3 of the whole S group) who didn't choose Republican, and only about twice as many who chose R over D. 






reckful said:


> You mentioned that a scientist might support Democrats because they tend to favor more pro-science policies but, not only did the Pew study involved lots of scientists of all kinds (including plenty of private sector scientists) but it's also undoubtedly true that, for many scientists (your father, for example), that would just be one factor they'd be likely to take into account in deciding to affiliate themselves with one party or the other. I'd be very surprised if that issue was enough to account for anything like a nine-to-one ratio.



I think it would be a pretty large factor, especially considering that a lot of the questions in the study involved opinions about scientific viewpoints. I don't think it could account for the entire 9 to 1 ratio, but it certainly would have an impact. 

I also think it's interesting that when asked about being conservative or liberal, it shifts to 52% L and 9% C. This is more like a 6 to 1 ratio. That means that 3% could have conservative viewpoints but might choose D because of things like the Democratic party's view of science. 


But I also think with all of this...that first chart posted can't be completely ignored, either. I think the other preferences/functions also play a part, even if S vs. N would be the strongest one if you had to pick one. 









But the reason why I'm going on about this is because of what you said here in the first paragraph. My problem is likely a personal one, but I've seen it so much on PerC that it really gets to me. There is so much stereotyping that goes on, and I think when a lot of people start seeing these general trends, they do start making these assumptions about Ns and Ss. So that's why I have such a problem with phrases such as "very strongly". What does this mean exactly? I think a lot of times it leads people to making jumps about type which aren't true, even if the general trend is true. 


So I think that's what's been bugging me about all of this, and I know I'm probably letting some of my emotions affect me in regards to it all. For me it's a very emotional/personal topic and I know that for a lot of people it probably isn't. I try not to let my emotions affect my responses, but sometimes I get caught up in the moment about it. I know this leads to a lot of personal bias, but at the same time it's something that affects me deeply.


So I'm not trying to cloud the facts or data...I just want everyone to be careful about how it's interpreted.

I'm not trying to completely refute your claims. I just often see people reading a statement like it and making way too much out of it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Staffan said:


> It does seem odd. But I would assume that the writers of the article I quoted have read these and are summing up the overall picture. Note that two of your studies are several years old and may or may not have been replicated. And there are always studies that will differ from the overall pattern. In fact those studies you quote show very different results, finding gender differences in 2-4 of the 5 factors.
> 
> Update: I'm no statistician but scrolling down on your third study it looks like White men scored higher on Agreeableness than Asian women. That rather casts a shadow over it since there are more Asians than Whites. And, at least to me, it seems a bit unlikely.


My studies are "several years old"? Um, yeah, 2007, 2008 and 2011. And those are just three recent examples from the top of the Google list, and _all three studies_ note that the female-Agreeableness correlations they found were the expected results because they were in line with what the first article refers to as the "robust" and already "well-replicated" results of previous FFM studies.

Your cite is incomplete, by the way. Vol. 50 refers to an entire year of Personality and Individual Differences. What specific article are you looking at?


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

KateMarie999 said:


> I don't think there are nearly as many ENFPs as that. I've met far more ESFPs and I get the feeling there are a lot of ESFPs mistyped as ENFPs. ESFPs can be very creative and fit a lot of the ENFP stereotypes. I've also seen ISTJ women mistyped as ENFPs (a phenomenon I don't necessarily understand but I've seen it). But as a confirmed ENFP, I can say that I've met very few ENFP women and no ENFP men. It may well be the most common intuitive type but I doubt it since I've seen so few. In fact, I've come across far more INFPs, including male INFPs. I also think there are more NTs. I haven't had too much trouble finding them and I live in SJ-land. I think the most common types for women are all the xSFx types while the common ones for men are the xSTx types. I've run into many, MANY of them, a vast majority.
> 
> I may have a skewed view of it all. I live in the DC area and though there are more people, it's not a good environment for NFs or NTs. It places insane emphasis on sports and rules and math with not enough on arts or sciences. As a result, SJs and SPs thrive so there are a ridiculous amount of them in this area. When I was in middle school, my group was the "weird creative people" which, looking back, consisted of the only NFs in the entire grade, a grand total of 4 in seventh grade and 3 in eighth. The NTs had their own group too. There were 4 in seventh and eighth grade. This is all speculation but that's what it's like to grow up in this area so that's why I find it odd that they even call ENFP one of the most common types for women.


I would not be the least bit shocked if ESFPs are being underreported and ENFPs are being overreported. 

And not just to blame the instrument for many of its 25-50% failure rate being that it's not picking up enough extraverted sensing types(okay yes a lot of the blame is probably there), but that it is somehow more enticing for ENFPs to take in the first place. (There seems to be a _ton_ of ENFP MBTI professionals, and many ENTPs too....... some extraverted intuitive black hole that it is.....)


----------

