# What would the world be like if NF�s especially INFP�s were the majority



## Grey

Even healthy INFPs wouldn't be able to accomplish what you speak of. Even in this theoretical world, other factors have to be considered. Would INFPs have always been in the majority, or would it have been a sudden overhaul? That would lead to more problems than less. Would all of these INFPs be healthy? If not, how would they judge if they were healthy or not? If an INFP or group of INFPs were chosen to be leaders simply because they were healthy, wouldn't that imply that the people who the INFPs would be leading had no choice in the matter?

Even the things you attribute to INFPs that they naturally do would fail in a leadership role. I don't think this is feasible, even if this is all purely theoretical and ignoring all of the issues at hand.


----------



## lando034

*From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Or something like that?*


----------



## Blue Butterfly

I think what is being misunderstood about INFP's is that we do value other types. We can see both the strengths and weaknesses of all types. We would make sure there is always fairness for everyone. We would make sure everyone is taken care of and would be happy doing it. Even though INFP's are not natural leaders I still think we could being on greater benefits to the world that what we have right now. There would be less crime and violence. Virtually no war, hunger or homelessness. People would be free and happy to cultivate in peace what is truly important to them. For the people that valued fighting or conflict we would be creative enough to create games for them to satisfy that need. In fact we would have the creativity to make sure everyone was happy. And I am not saying INFP's are the most special of the types. But we do have some pretty special qualities just like each of the other types have special qualities. I am just enjoying the thought of what changes we could bring to the world if we were the majority and in the leadership roles.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

lando034 said:


> *From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Or something like that?*


 
Yes, each person would be valued according to his ability. No one would be expeced to go beyond their ability and each perosn would be loved for who they truely are. Each type is very special in my mind. Everyone would get their needs met in a healthy way.


----------



## 480

I don't think much of anything would change. It simply doesn't work that way. 

I do not derive my ego, and strength of will and drive of focus and ability to lead and accomplish things because ENTJ are in the majority. In fact, I'm too much for people in general to handle as it is and ENTJs make up 2-4% of the population. It is not strength and capability in numbers... I am what I am for my own sake, and would be the same person capable of the same things even if there was no other human on earth like me. Others would respond to me the same way as they do now, and would respond the same if there were billions of me, too.

There are INFPs in the world now. And what do they do? How much change do they affect? Same thing as above. Create more of them, and you'd have more people doing the same thing. So *if* INFPs are not impactful on the world now, how would a greater quantity make a difference? Sheep will never lead the sheepherder until sheep change their behavior, and work together. If they change enough... then they're not really sheep anymore. It does not matter if there are 20 sheep, or 200. The sheepherder will always be in control, because that is the nature of things. It doesn't make the sheepherder inherently bad, anymore than it makes the sheep inherently pitiful. It is what it is. You never find a wolf laying dead in a field because it was beat to death by 300 sheep. The wolf gets its meal, every time.

Also... the idea that war is created by thinkers... computers do not wage war on one another. Nor is it a lack of compassion that creates war. Hurt feelings create anger, and breed resentment. If there were only "unfeeling" thinkers in the world, that would go away. Computers do not call each other names, or act out in spite. History is full of examples of wars waged on idealism. Look at the Gaza strip. What logical advantage is that piece of land? How many mouths will it feed? What resources does it supply? And yet blood has been spilt in such volume for so many years you'd think the hills are made of solid diamond, and the valleys pure gold. Where is the logic and reason in it? If anything minds that lack feeling wont get them hurt. Emotions like greed and lust, and hatred are divorced from belonging solely thinking or feeling minds. Neither type of mind is more pure and gentle than the other. One just spends more time wishing it was, and wishing others were as well. 

I'm not seeking to insult any type or group of people here. But be mindful of the relationships that exist. Be willing to accept that not liking it, and wishing it was different does mean it is, nor does it cause anything to change. Quantity is just a number.


----------



## Grey

INFPs could bring a lot of things -- but what you seem to be avoiding is what weaknesses they would bring to society, or if none, that the society brought upon by the INFPs would be perfect. You do acknowledge that we would have different problems, which is good, but you still seem to think that INFPs would be the best of all. I just don't think INFPs could make that much of an impact, especially considering you didn't seem to address the questions concerning the 'planning' I asked.

Do you think INFPs would make the best leaders? What about another type, like ENFJs, since the original question first addressed NFs?


----------



## 480

Grey said:


> Do you think INFPs would make the best leaders?


Perhaps you're not asking me. But my response to this is: No.

Read my previous post. If INFPs made the best leaders we'd have seen evidence of it before now. The issue isn't quantity.


----------



## Grey

I absolutely agree with your last post, Grim. My question, however, was directed at the original poster. I personally think no pure type would be the best sort of leader, and that every type ought to be addressed for their strengths and weaknesses, to provide the best picture of things. Theoretically, this could be the 'best', but anything would have problems and not make a great deal of difference in any short time. There can be no leadership without its faults.


----------



## lando034

Hurting said:


> Yes, each person would be valued according to his ability. No one would be expeced to go beyond their ability and each perosn would be loved for who they truely are. Each type is very special in my mind. Everyone would get their needs met in a healthy way.


Karl Marx would agree with you.... If everyone was a healthy INFP it might work, otherwise see how the USSR worked out.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

For the most part INFP’s are the sheep and we like it what way. But violate one of our highly held values and we can quickly become the wolf. And as for people being in charge we are not the natural leaders and we know that. In fact most of us have no desire to lead anything but our own personal lives. But it is fun to think what changes we could bring to the world if we were the ones in change. If I was in charge I would see that there are the natural leaders like the ENFJ’s. They would most definitely be promoted to a position of leading people because they are naturally go good at that sort of thing. INFP’s are not naturally good at leading people. But what we are good at is making sure that everyone is treated fairly and is made to feel that we love them. That is the change that I would love to see happen to this world. And we as INFP’s (the healthy ones) would always respect other peoples personality and personal choices. I think that kind of world would be much better than the one we have now. And I am not putting blame on any of current or past leaders. I think they have done the best they could do under their circumstances. But I just want to mentally wonder what an INFP’ dominated world would be like. I still think it would be awesome!


----------



## Liontiger

If NFs were the majority, I would have more dating options.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

lando034 said:


> Karl Marx would agree with you.... If everyone was a healthy INFP it might work, otherwise see how the USSR worked out.


 
No I don't mean it like that at all. I would want a society where people respected and cared for everyone. Everyone would have equal rights and could progress as they do now. But there would be love and caring and respect in this world. That is what is missing right now.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Liontiger said:


> If NFs were the majority, I would have more dating options.


 
you made me laugh. Thanks!


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Grey said:


> INFPs could bring a lot of things -- but what you seem to be avoiding is what weaknesses they would bring to society, or if none, that the society brought upon by the INFPs would be perfect. You do acknowledge that we would have different problems, which is good, but you still seem to think that INFPs would be the best of all. I just don't think INFPs could make that much of an impact, especially considering you didn't seem to address the questions concerning the 'planning' I asked.
> 
> Do you think INFPs would make the best leaders? What about another type, like ENFJs, since the original question first addressed NFs?


 
Yes, this is the type of discussion I was wanting. What do you think the world would be like if other types was the majority?
　
I am just fantasizing about what it would be like. I don't have a thought out plan to rule the world. So I don't know what all the problems there would be. And nether would I really want to rule the world. I am doing my INFP thing and having a nice fantasy.


----------



## Grey

I don't mean to come off as 'attacking' you -- I think this is an interesting subject, but I don't think fantasizing about a perfect world 'owned' by one type would get anywhere. It would simply be a lot of repeating.

Since you've made your topic clearer, though...

The point stands that no society would be perfect under any one type. If we were to ignore the existing problems and focus on the 'reign', however, it might be interesting. If society were ruled by INTJs, for example, I believe there would be an emphasis on technology, which suits our current post-modern age. While leaps and bounds would be made, there might be a larger threshold for bias because INTJs, stereotypically, come off as very arrogant and can be very stubborn when they think they've discovered what is right and what is wrong. This seems like it would be a problem with ENTJs as well, and although it might not be true, they seem to come across as even more stubborn than INTJs.

I could make more points on INFP reign, but I think it's been thoroughly explored. Overall, any 'NF' society would be somewhat accommodating, but not very practical and ill-suited for this current era. I theorize it would be much like the Renaissance: a return to more classical forms of art and culture, and an attempt to salvage the styles of the past to create new approaches for the future.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Grey said:


> I don't mean to come off as 'attacking' you -- I think this is an interesting subject, but I don't think fantasizing about a perfect world 'owned' by one type would get anywhere. It would simply be a lot of repeating.
> 
> Since you've made your topic clearer, though...
> 
> The point stands that no society would be perfect under any one type. If we were to ignore the existing problems and focus on the 'reign', however, it might be interesting. If society were ruled by INTJs, for example, I believe there would be an emphasis on technology, which suits our current post-modern age. While leaps and bounds would be made, there might be a larger threshold for bias because INTJs, stereotypically, come off as very arrogant and can be very stubborn when they think they've discovered what is right and what is wrong. This seems like it would be a problem with ENTJs as well, and although it might not be true, they seem to come across as even more stubborn than INTJs.
> 
> I could make more points on INFP reign, but I think it's been thoroughly explored. Overall, any 'NF' society would be somewhat accommodating, but not very practical and ill-suited for this current era. I theorize it would be much like the Renaissance: a return to more classical forms of art and culture, and an attempt to salvage the styles of the past to create new approaches for the future.


 
I was not taking your post as an attack. I understand and respect INTJ's. I could see your points but I was just fantasizing what it would be like if INFP's were the majority. I still think it would be amazing. 
　
I could also see good things come if INTJ's were the rulers. I think that would interesting to fantasize about too. Tell me how you would see society changed if you were the ruler?


----------



## Selden

Grey said:


> Since our (or the American) culture is so focused on entertainment, the 'roles' of the entertainers would change -- there would be an emphasis on imagination over the visually suggestive, for example.




So focused on entertainment??? If anything, it's not focused on entertainment. With reality shows, youtube stupidity, and a bunch of other crap, it's not INFP entertainment. It's just people killing time. I'm not artsy and I love "mainstream" films (James Cameron films, Arnold Schwarzenegger films, John Hughes films, etc.) but I think we need to go back to entertainment and stories. And let the NFs take the reigns of Hollywood.




Grey said:


> At the same time, the educational system might change: it's been addressed, and I would think education would take on a role similar to the entertainment industry, with a focus on imagination and ideals and everything NFs seem to hold in high esteem.




Sounds like a good plan to me. Besides, they'd still have schools for "intellectuals", just like they have artsy private schools. Also, with the way public schools are going now, can things really get worse?




Grey said:


> Introverted behavior would, obviously, be considered less taboo. Much of the same that would exist for the NF majority would be true for the INFP majority, although perhaps specifically tuned in to what INFPs consider 'good' on the whole. We would see much innovation that had never been created or thought of before, provided with the tools to create and see as a reality.




I think that would go with any I types and specifically, any IN types.




Grey said:


> Negatively, the SJ types would be shunned, and possibly the SP types. They would likely have the same pressure that INFPs face today as a small minority of type in society, which could provide an environment of unhealthy behavior and self-esteem, if no one were around to 'help' them. For acceptance of their types, there would be a 'fight', which could go on for many generations, either until the INFP majority accepted them, or SJs and SPs became the majority type of the society's era. If they were not to become a majority at one time, I believe the truly 'famous' people, great thinkers and scholars, would be of their temperaments, just because they would be known to think differently and introduce new areas of thought.




BAWWWWW!!!!!

No, I don't think INFPs would be discriminatory against SJs or SPs, as long as they're not jerks. Since SJ/SP tend to use pratical applications, society would still need and value them. INFPs tend to be shunned here because they don't have "practical" applications and unfortunately you can't explain to most the value of creativity, kindness, etc. It's more a matter of SJ, SP, or Ts wanting to take control or not.
 



Grey said:


> I think it would be frustrating. Too many INFPs.












I don't see a problem, unless you can give me a good reason. It seems to me, Tjs are arguing that they aren't systematic enough. But it still seems like more their problem (OCD/controlling) than INFPs. I admit though, a lot of INFPs seem to dramatic (not to be confused with melancholy).


----------



## Grey

If I were ruler, it would be a disaster. I have no desire to rule over anyone, specifically not a society or anything smaller than that. I would take others' concerns as suggestions only, and my pride would prevent me from admitting any mistakes. Since good leading usually requires good ties to those you work with or lead, I would believe I would be in a bad mood for so much interaction, even if only with representatives or however it worked.

Overall, a failure.

Selden:

Did my post strike you as complaining? I think the 'WAHHHHbulance' is inappropriate, mostly because I'm not complaining or even irritated; INFPs certainly aren't perfect, and the majority has regularly suppressed the minority throughout history. INFPs would make this no exception. If they didn't, it would certainly be against all odds, and it likely wouldn't last. INFPs may be kind, but how can you speak for society as a whole? The leaders don't always determine how the rest of society acts against a minority.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis

An INFP majority would cause quiet a beautiful, yet hopeless mess.
It would be nice to watch the ES's squirm as they have to suffer as outcasts.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Grey said:


> If I were ruler, it would be a disaster. I have no desire to rule over anyone, specifically not a society or anything smaller than that. I would take others' concerns as suggestions only, and my pride would prevent me from admitting any mistakes. Since good leading usually requires good ties to those you work with or lead, I would believe I would be in a bad mood for so much interaction, even if only with representatives or however it worked.
> 
> Overall, a failure.
> 
> Selden:
> 
> Did my post strike you as complaining? I think the 'WAHHHHbulance' is inappropriate, mostly because I'm not complaining or even irritated; INFPs certainly aren't perfect, and the majority has regularly suppressed the minority throughout history. INFPs would make this no exception. If they didn't, it would certainly be against all odds, and it likely wouldn't last. INFPs may be kind, but how can you speak for society as a whole? The leaders don't always determine how the rest of society acts against a minority.


Your admission made me laugh. I would not want to rule either but it is fun to think about something I would never really want to do. 

And I don't think any one personality type is perfect. But if all the personality types worked together and respected each other I think as a whole we could be perfect. And I don't think healthy INFP's would be discriminating toward other types. I think we as INFP's want the best for everyone. I think we would be the most likely to learn about other people and make sure no one is discriminated against. And I think we would look out for the minority no matter who that minority is. That is just the kind of people the healthy INFP's are.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Grey said:


> I would enjoy debating with you at another time, especially if this continues.
> 
> So in this world, no problems with war or violence would exist, essentially? In that case, the earlier problem ought to be dismissed. I suppose I know where you're coming from, but how would these people be introduced to their leadership and follower roles? Would they go by type? Would these people have a choice? You also speak of being a follower and a leader in more than one area, and speak of INFPs as being, essentially, Human Resource Managers. Would unhealthy INFPs be able to hold any jobs at all?


Unhealthy people should not have any leadership. The whole as a society would be healthy because there would be so much love that most people would become healthy. But there are a few people that should not lead because they may be sick in physical or chemical imbalance that can't be healed. These people would not be leaders. And leadership should just be natural. Something that Grim said before strikes my attention on this matter. He is a natural leader over people. People just naturally follow him and respect his leadership. I would not see it as someone introducing them to the leadership role or appointing them. Leadership would not come out of wanting control or power. The leadership would come out of who is best for the job. And everyone would be thinking about what is best for everyone and not what is best just for themselves. That would be selfish and unhealthy for society. If you were the best leader then I would happily submit my leadership over to you and be happy and content that you would better serve in the role than I could. If everyone had the mentality then the best person for the job would just surface and everyone would be happy and unselfish. I am talking about a fantasy world here. Not that is ever going to happen but here is how I would see it happening.


----------



## InvisibleJim

The world would be diminished, without lots of S types to support a minority group of NFs and NTs not much would be done.

Its one thing to complain and be upset about world hunger, but both NTs and NFs are pretty useless at actually getting down to sorting the problem. I also have seen INFPs have very different but equal strong opposing internal beliefs (Fi being dominant); I don't see how we could stop people factionalizing to push their viewpoints. :sad:


----------



## Grey

So this may be, but if these people were not appointed to their roles, how would they know who was unhealthy and who was not? Many unhealthy people are very charismatic and good at leadership, but this does not make them healthy individuals. Additionally, why heal with only love? Medicine has done wonders for centuries, and proper motivation and care from others usually comes second to that. It's necessary, but takes a step back to the physical remedies.

It's interesting watching this fantasy world unfold. You did speak of, however, everyone holding the same mentality. Wouldn't this diminish individuality, and blur the lines between independence when it does not serve society?


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Grey said:


> So this may be, but if these people were not appointed to their roles, how would they know who was unhealthy and who was not? Many unhealthy people are very charismatic and good at leadership, but this does not make them healthy individuals. Additionally, why heal with only love? Medicine has done wonders for centuries, and proper motivation and care from others usually comes second to that. It's necessary, but takes a step back to the physical remedies.
> 
> It's interesting watching this fantasy world unfold. You did speak of, however, everyone holding the same mentality. Wouldn't this diminish individuality, and blur the lines between independence when it does not serve society?


I am enjoying the fantasy very much. Watching the questions that come up and me respond right off the top of my head. This if fun but remember it is only a fantasy because I have no desire to really rule or lead over anyone.
　
In my fantasy world most people would just be healthy. And as for medication there would still be a need for some of that. I am not saying that love could cure everything but love would cure most mental illness. And I hope you did notice that I said most and not all. There are some things that love can't cure but love can make the immune system stronger so a lot of the physical illness would diminish too. And in my fantasy world people that were the natural leaders would be intelligent enough to know when someone that is currently leading is not leading in a healthy way. And in my fantasy world people would care about other people very much and would just want to do what is best for everyone including themselves. And I don't see this as diminishing individuality. In fact I see this as helping people to be more individuals. People would not have to try to change to fit into a system that did not value their individuality. I am talking about changing how people interact with each other not make slaves out of each other. People would be loving and tolerant of each others differences seeing that these differences are a benefit to society instead of a determent to society. We would all be very much individuals and would listen and care about other peoples opinions. We would support each other even if opinions were very different because we would want to make others happy and feeling loved and cared for.


----------



## Selene

Wtf guys...65 posts in under 6 hours? LOL.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Selene said:


> Wtf guys...65 posts in under 6 hours? LOL.


 
I never noticed that. I am getting a high on my fantasy life. Who needs drugs when one has an imagination!


----------



## Grey

This fantasy world of yours seems near-perfect, but somewhat reasonable for a fantasy (compared to what it could be).

It's good that you note that love isn't everything. Love and caring can do a lot -- firstly, it can diminish stress and create acceptance, which reduces the risk of future stress, and stress is one of the big ailments that affects everything in your life. If you're not stressed, your life goes smoother, your illnesses usually fade away faster or become more manageable, and the risks that could have come on during the period of stress pretty much disappear. I don't think love can truly 'cure' mental illnesses, though. It can do all of the above, and make it manageable, but the true mental diseases, which impair functioning, aren't likely to just up and stop even with medication and care.

A thought struck: if INFPs would be the majority in this group (51% or higher), and SJs and SPs the minority (10-15% together?), where would the NT temperament fall? What would their role in this society be?


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Grey said:


> This fantasy world of yours seems near-perfect, but somewhat reasonable for a fantasy (compared to what it could be).
> 
> It's good that you note that love isn't everything. Love and caring can do a lot -- firstly, it can diminish stress and create acceptance, which reduces the risk of future stress, and stress is one of the big ailments that affects everything in your life. If you're not stressed, your life goes smoother, your illnesses usually fade away faster or become more manageable, and the risks that could have come on during the period of stress pretty much disappear. I don't think love can truly 'cure' mental illnesses, though. It can do all of the above, and make it manageable, but the true mental diseases, which impair functioning, aren't likely to just up and stop even with medication and care.
> 
> A thought struck: if INFPs would be the majority in this group (51% or higher), and SJs and SPs the minority (10-15% together?), where would the NT temperament fall? What would their role in this society be?


 
Well thank you very much. I think it would be as near perfect as any society could be. 
　
I think there are some mental illness that could be cured with love alone. But there are some that would need medication. In my world we would know the difference and people that truly needed the medication would get properly treated.
　
The NT's would be very important in my fantasy world. We would need that objective decision making to make sure we did not overlook something important. We would need people of every personality type because each type would have their own special role in this new world of peace. I am not sure how everyone would fit in but I could guarantee that if INFP's was the majority they would make sure all types would be considered and cared for and would make sure they were all happy.


----------



## Grey

In this fantasy world, would the events ever 'progress', or would everything just stay nearly perfect? If it were to progress, with changes as reality has, then the INFP majority could eventually shift, depending on how the general opinion shifted and changed and how favored things went 'out of style' or returned or even began. How would this fantasy world be if, say, the INFJ type came into the majority? What if the ISFP type became the majority?


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Grey said:


> In this fantasy world, would the events ever 'progress', or would everything just stay nearly perfect? If it were to progress, with changes as reality has, then the INFP majority could eventually shift, depending on how the general opinion shifted and changed and how favored things went 'out of style' or returned or even began. How would this fantasy world be if, say, the INFJ type came into the majority? What if the ISFP type became the majority?


That is a very good question. I think things would progress naturally and should progress naturally. We would continue to progress to perfection. As for how it would be if an INFJ or ISFP was the majority I have to admit I would not know. Maybe we can recruit some of them to let us know how they would change this world. I am sure it would change quiet a bit depending on who was the majority. I am sure people of all different personality types could find flaws with what I have stated.


----------



## Grey

There are flaws in everything, but it appears you are developing this idea, which is good. If you can't personally answer how ISFPs and INFJs would act in the majority, however, how do you think they would be treated in a society of an INFP majority, from your personal experience? You've stated that everyone would be respected and loved, essentially, as well as not forced to fit to a system, but how do you think they would interact after all of those standards?


----------



## Selden

Grey said:


> You do make a good point, though, Selden. My phrasing was wrong, but I did mean what you said. At least in some classical situations, with some notable exceptions, the majority is usually in 'the lead', or holding positions of power. In my sort of society, to address any non-Americans, those in power (the government, as an example) are commonly elected or voted in. People do have a tendency to vote for those who are similar to them, and I don't think INFPs would be an exception.


Not necessarily. My personality may not be like Al Gore or Barack Obama, nor do I agree with their social values 100%. Still, I voted for them anyways based on what I felt they could offer with leadership. I think it would have less to do with the leaders having an INFP personality, but perhaps more about the campaign focusing more on INFPs or the news media covering INFP themes.

Also, you make the mistake of thinking that if there are a majority of people of a certain type, then society will cater to them. Not necessarily. Again, it's who's in power and what they dictate. Also, even with catering, you'd still have statistics that may not be true and a system that "thinks" what the people want rather than "knows" what the people want.


----------



## Blue Butterfly

Grey said:


> There are flaws in everything, but it appears you are developing this idea, which is good. If you can't personally answer how ISFPs and INFJs would act in the majority, however, how do you think they would be treated in a society of an INFP majority, from your personal experience? You've stated that everyone would be respected and loved, essentially, as well as not forced to fit to a system, but how do you think they would interact after all of those standards?


These are all very good questions and don't have all the answers. It is not like I have thought about this before today. But if INFP's did rule and was the majority and I was the leader I would do research and a lot of it on all the different personality types. I would hear the voices of these types and find out what issues was important to them. I would make sure that their concerns was addressed. Again I don't have all the answers because I just had this thought today and have studied on all the possible problems. That is where it would take each type to come together and work as a whole to make sure no one group felt misrepresented. Each type has very special qualities that other types do not have. In my world each of these types would excel in their special quality area. Again I don't know all the details and I am sure there would be problems until everything was worked out.

And I don't see this new world as really having standards. But everyone would just have so much love for each other that the respecting of each others differences would just be natural. And we would care about taking care of each other so I would see it as more of all the different types as working as one to make sure everyone is happy.


----------



## Grey

I'm not saying any of these things are 'for sure', but these are the things I have observed. My observation may be skewed, but it does seem that candidates' campaigns target the groups which most fit the candidates image and values (for Barack Obama, this was specifically the younger, more progressive crowd, with a larger focus on African American voters than the other candidates).


----------



## Selden

The other problem about these arguments, is that we're all assuming that everyone will know the Myers Briggs and/or care about personality types. If Myers-Briggs/typology is as known and revered as much as it is now, I don't think a population shift is going to cause type prejudice. 

Also, you're also assuming that all INFPs (or any types) will flock amongst each other. Is it easier for me to get along with NFs? Yes. Would having more INFPs make it easier for me in society? Probably so. But you know what, all my friends are very diverse in personality types. It works that way because our personalities have different strengths and each of us have something to contribute in our group outings. As long as people are nice and have some common interests, I don't have reservations with them.


----------



## Selden

Grey said:


> I'm not saying any of these things are 'for sure', but these are the things I have observed. My observation may be skewed, but it does seem that candidates' campaigns target the groups which most fit the candidates image and values (for Barack Obama, this was specifically the younger, more progressive crowd, with a larger focus on African American voters than the other candidates).


USA is large and diverse enough of a country, to where you can appeal to any demographic and get a large enough number. If you look at different presidents that have won in the past fifty years, they all have different personalities and have all appealed to different audiences (e.g Regan targeted older audiences, Bill Clinton targeted younger audiences).


----------



## Grey

A majority implies that there will be more of that group than any other group. Therefore, a majority of one personality type (INFP), would mean that INFPs are more common. Of course they'd all be diverse, personality types or not, but the odds would suggest that, with relationships, INFPs would know at least one other INFP in that society. It'd be a large chance, too; the personality type that is thought to be the largest, in America, is estimated to be at 13-14%, and a majority would at least be 51% or more.

The INFP part is just naming the group. Not everyone would have to know about the MBTI or other such theories.

On the demographic, however, you're right. Reagan was a 'big-time' Republican, conservative, however, and stereotypically, that role is applied to the older generation. Bill Clinton targeted the younger and more liberal generation.


----------



## Selden

Grey said:


> A majority implies that there will be more of that group than any other group. Therefore, a majority of one personality type (INFP), would mean that INFPs are more common. Of course they'd all be diverse, personality types or not, but the odds would suggest that, with relationships, INFPs would know at least one other INFP in that society. It'd be a large chance, too; the personality type that is thought to be the largest, in America, is estimated to be at 13-14%, and a majority would at least be 51% or more.


Not necessarily true. Again, it depends on who does the ruling or has the positions that have more power in society. For example, most would agree that the ESTJ is the favored and "success determined" personality type in America, yes? However, while ESTJ does represent a huge number, it is close to ESFJ, ISTJ, and ESFP (depending on where you get the stats). The reason why ESTJ is considered the archtype for society, is probably because they hold a majority of the administration and higher career jobs. Whcih they then set up a system that values ESTJ virtues and is promoted throughout society. Again power>majority.

Likewise though, INFPs represent a majority of musicians and writers, making their type accepted and promoted in the arts. What I'm trying to say is, it probably comes down more to who has what role, rather than what percentage a type holds in society.

Toward a Diversity of Psychological Type in Organization


----------



## Grey

With these favored personality types, I would say those have a good part in determining the personality types of the younger generations. It may not change their inherent preferences, but how they act on them. Therefore, I would say that power influences majority, and influences it in a way that there is a larger preference for the 'most powerful' personality type.


----------



## TreeBob

holy Christ. I tried reading all of this and got bored half way through. You guys just go around and around! Nothing like an intuitive debate eh? 

So basically if the world were ruled by INFP all mind altering drugs would be legalized and half the population would be high. It would be flower power times 10!

One of the funnest things I read was how basically you claim that thr SJ and SP would be ridiculed and pushed aside. I imagine a world full of INFP as a pleasure dome. The SPs would be manipulating you and the SJs would be telling you what to do. Even in small numbers those 2 types would continue doing what they do best. The funny thing is you wouldn't stop it even if you have 10 times the numbers you have now. Being the majority won't make you mean, or grow the balls you need to deal with us. You'd all be sitting around waiting for someone else to step up. It's like in a concentration camp where the people highly outnumber the guards. Nobody ever thinks to overpower them. 

I do agree with one poster. i would have a lot more dating options.


----------

