# Theory on WHY We Have so Few xNxxs Around. -Nature vs Nurture-



## EGIdrA (Dec 16, 2011)

Education have basically remained unchanged since the industrial revolution. Students aren't being made to think, they are systematically being turned into factory workers, manual labours and soldiers. From the inception of childhood, kids are being taught strictly SJ values: follow the rules, do not question authority, conform to fit in. All of which are excellent qualities for both blue collared workers and robots. N related virtues on the other hand, such as introspection, contemplation and other more grandeur cerebral conquests are almost never encouraged by teachers who were never instructed to do so. Another point worth mentioning is the fact that the vast amount of "inspirational" figures that children encounter during their formative years are generally SPs: Entertainers, Sportsmen, and fictional Super Heroes.

Physiologically there are only very minute differences in new borns. I believe it is the type of exposure during a child's development that determines his or her values and personality.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

You are confusing cause and effect. The education system isn't structured to produce sensors... its the amount of sensors that naturally exist that caused the way the education was structured. The inspirational figures aren't engineered - they are popular because entertainers, sportsmen, and super heroes appeal to the masses.

Its like saying the church is brainwashing people to believe in God... or do people who are predisposed to believe in a God more willing to attend church.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

So any other theories on the lack of xNxxs?

I'm particularly curious on why only 1% of the World Population is ENTJ... what makes us so... rare? What makes us ENTJs (or any xNTx)?


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

We're a bunch of weirdos?

We're a future evolutionary race of humans, slowly taking over generation by generation?

In primitive times, it was more convenient to be a sensor because oh hunting, gathering, etc?

Because of their actions, sensors are more likely to procreate and kids are more likely to be raised in sensor homes, inherit sensor genes, etc?

Our society deems SPs to be the ultimate cool badass creature. this is where society is wrong. Obviously it's the NTP who does this.

In other words, we have no idea.


----------



## EGIdrA (Dec 16, 2011)

wiarumas said:


> You are confusing cause and effect. The education system isn't structured to produce sensors... its the amount of sensors that naturally exist that caused the way the education was structured. The inspirational figures aren't engineered - they are popular because entertainers, sportsmen, and super heroes appeal to the masses.
> 
> Its like saying the church is brainwashing people to believe in God... or do people who are predisposed to believe in a God more willing to attend church.


Have you heard of Jesus camp? It's difficult for anyone to come out that shit and not be a total screw up.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

That is an astoundingly ignorant claim about what it is to be an SJ. Go revisit what Si actually means. Its ironic that you are downing sj types as being robotic, and less contemplative when I see nothing really contemplative or well thought out in this biased and typist idea.

Furthermore, its mostly believed that one's mbti type is nature, not nurture. You will see many intuitives born in s type families, who have the same educational experience as the s children -- yet somehow stunningly they are not "trained to be s types" as you are basically proposing here. There is no "nurture" in many cases for young intuitives.. they simply -are-.

I would also like to know what intuition -means- to you beyond these scathingly ignorant stereotypes of s vs n. I suspect the stereotypes are all you are going on, and that also makes me wonder if you have typed yourself correctly as well. You may be surprised once you actually understand the system.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

goguapsy said:


> So any other theories on the lack of xNxxs?
> 
> I'm particularly curious on why only 1% of the World Population is ENTJ... what makes us so... rare? What makes us ENTJs (or any xNTx)?


Typology statistics can't be assumed as accurate because there is no way of knowing if those who are self-reporting are typed correctly, and as most of the population is not typed, there is no real random sample. Those stats are pulled from groups that have been administered an mbti test for some reason - internet/workplaces, and most people answering questions for a workplace are going to tell them what they think they want to hear, then there are the masses who answer the questions as nothing less than the idealized version of themselves.


----------



## EGIdrA (Dec 16, 2011)

Promethea said:


> That is an astoundingly ignorant claim about what it is to be an SJ. Go revisit what Si actually means. Its ironic that you are downing sj types as being robotic, and less contemplative when I see nothing really contemplative or well thought out in this biased and typist idea.
> 
> Furthermore, its mostly believed that one's mbti type is nature, not nurture. You will see many intuitives born in s type families, who have the same educational experience as the s children -- yet somehow stunningly they are not "trained to be s types" as you are basically proposing here. There is no "nurture" in many cases for young intuitives.. they simply -are-.
> 
> I would also like to know what intuition -means- to you beyond these scathingly ignorant stereotypes of s vs n. I suspect the stereotypes are all you are going on, and that also makes me wonder if you have typed yourself correctly as well. You may be surprised once you actually understand the system.


What makes you so self assured?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

EGIdrA said:


> What makes you so self assured?


This wasn't asked of me although i couldn't resist. You have a total of 9 postings and you're asking someone who has been involved in typology with more than 6500 post what makes her so assured. Perhaps if you had spent as many hours studying the cognitive functions as she has , you may have a clue why this thread is filled with ignorance.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

EGIdrA said:


> What makes you so self assured?


I have been studying mbti for nearly nine years, and what I see in your post are the same bitter stereotypes that I see from people who have newly discovered mbti and apply it in all the wrong ways for all the wrong reasons. If it wasn't so insulting to Ss, it would just be plain laughable.

Now, where is your assurance, to dodge what I have -actually- said? (I would still like to hear a "contemplative" response to my post.)


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

EGIdrA said:


> What makes you so self assured?


Why are you not taking into account what she's had to say? Instead of getting upset that she has a different view, take it into consideration.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

Was this inspired by.... Kanye West's tweets last night? 

"@kanyewest 
Schools should be designed to prep human beings for real life.
13 hours ago 

@kanyewest
Help education. School systems were designed to turn people into factory workers.
13 hours ago"


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

viva said:


> Was this inspired by.... Kanye West's tweets last night?
> 
> "@kanyewest
> Schools should be designed to prep human beings for real life.
> ...


LOL, leave it to the ENFP with the social variant to point that out  Nicely done.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

I don't want to play devil's advocate - and for the most part I agree with you - but for the sake of routing this conversation to something useful:



Promethea said:


> Furthermore, its mostly believed that one's mbti type is nature, not nurture. You will see many intuitives born in s type families, who have the same educational experience as the s children -- yet somehow stunningly they are not "trained to be s types" as you are basically proposing here. There is no "nurture" in many cases for young intuitives.. they simply -are-.


I don't believe nature and nurture to be a black and white topic. Its both. For ENTJs at least, I've seen a very strong correlation to first borns. I'm not saying nurture determines the entire personality type, but I'd be willing to bet there may be some impact on the level of introversion/extroversion with family size, birth order, and other nurture influences. In the same vein, its definitely not nurture alone - in contrast to what the OP said, you can DEFINITELY tell personality differences in babies prior to any drastic "nurturing" takes place. You can tell differences within the first hour after birth in some cases.



Promethea said:


> Typology statistics can't be assumed as accurate because there is no way of knowing if those who are self-reporting are typed correctly, and as most of the population is not typed, there is no real random sample. Those stats are pulled from groups that have been administered an mbti test for some reason - internet/workplaces, and most people answering questions for a workplace are going to tell them what they think they want to hear, then there are the masses who answer the questions as nothing less than the idealized version of themselves.


I don't think it can be assumed to be inaccurate to the point where its useless either. Mistyping is probably common, but most likely evenly distributed - I can't see a huge chunk of the data being shifted. I think an example that highlights this is that ENTJs are 1% of the population. Yet, I find the profile very... ideal... for business that distribute personality tests all the time in the workplace. When I went to a seminar for a management consulting firm, I was the only ENTJ in a room of 50 or so. Not saying this is proof that it is accurate, but I don't think the inaccuracies is as skewed as you are proposing.



viva said:


> Was this inspired by.... Kanye West's tweets last night?
> 
> "@kanyewest
> Schools should be designed to prep human beings for real life.
> ...


What kayne and the OP fail to recognize is that it would be literally impossible to cater the education system to meet the individual needs of millions. Rather its easiest to cater to the needs of the masses to ensure that the majority gets educated. Its not that the school systems were designed to turn people into factory workers, its that the majority of people are only capable of being factory workers. An intelligent person will find a way to better themselves rather than just succumb to public education. And while an intuitive won't get to fully stretch their wings because the curriculum isn't catered to them, they will do fine... and it surely won't transform their personality unless they are very weak minded.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

Fairly simple.

Sensors->FOOTBALL! PRODUCE KIDS! BEEEEER! REPEAT CYCLE!

Intuitives->''Well, we have been thinking about kids, but decided not to as the economy is in turmoil and we wish to raise our kids in a stable economy.''

(I ain't serious)


----------



## M1R4G3 (Aug 21, 2011)

Well, to put it bluntly, S-types are generally better at keeping things going. They are more inclined to work to provide things that we would not be able to live without. Farms, being as key as they are to our existence, would not be near as likely to be run by an N as it would be by an S. S-types have also been shown to be more physically oriented in general and would probably tend to make better survival decisions in general.

Most N-types are effective catalysts for improvement or moving things forward. However, their is much less necessity for them, because a good majority of them don't contribute to actually keeping things afloat. Innovation and inspiration are more key to an N. It is (for the most part) not necessary in everyday civilization, but it is done so that things can be improved, optimized or made more ideal.


----------



## Afruabarkio (May 29, 2011)

Promethea said:


> That is an astoundingly ignorant claim about what it is to be an SJ. Go revisit what Si actually means. Its ironic that you are downing sj types as being robotic, and less contemplative when I see nothing really contemplative or well thought out in this biased and typist idea.
> 
> Furthermore, its mostly believed that one's mbti type is nature, not nurture. You will see many intuitives born in s type families, who have the same educational experience as the s children -- yet somehow stunningly they are not "trained to be s types" as you are basically proposing here. There is no "nurture" in many cases for young intuitives.. they simply -are-.
> 
> I would also like to know what intuition -means- to you beyond these scathingly ignorant stereotypes of s vs n. I suspect the stereotypes are all you are going on, and that also makes me wonder if you have typed yourself correctly as well. You may be surprised once you actually understand the system.


I think your responses to this guy are totally disproportionated, even if he's wrong or not. You're tone is arrogant, reactive and disdainful. And since nobody seems to say it, there you have it. Your "6.500" posts should have bring you more temper.


----------



## EGIdrA (Dec 16, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> This wasn't asked of me although i couldn't resist. You have a total of 9 postings and you're asking someone who has been involved in typology with more than 6500 post what makes her so assured. Perhaps if you had spent as many hours studying the cognitive functions as she has , you may have a clue why this thread is filled with ignorance.


It's so much more sweeter when people with the "a lot of forum posts must be correct" status quo mentality gets proven wrong...


----------



## Apra (Dec 4, 2011)

I think in general, S's are better at working within a system. N's are good at creating the systems... but you only need 1 N to do that, and several S' to use it. Excess Ns just play world of warcraft.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

EGIdrA said:


> It's so much more sweeter when people with the "a lot of forum posts must be correct" status quo mentality gets proven wrong...


That seems immature, though perhaps you were only being playful? Given the context, I wouldn't think so. Anyhow... o.0 I'm having a hard time trying to decipher whether or not you actually want opinions or if you're just looking to troll. Forget how many posts she has... back to the topic at hand. Could you perhaps list reasons as to why you don't agree with her analysis? That might actually get you somewhere here. I mean, you did create this thread for this purpose, did you not? What do you not agree with and why?


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

The reason is simple. Many centuries ago, intuitives didn't have GPS, wikipedia, and frozen foods they could rely on to survive. Only now are our numbers finally increasing, from the estimated 5% since 1971.


----------



## Zerosum (Jul 17, 2011)

sly said:


> Fairly simple.
> 
> Sensors->FOOTBALL! PRODUCE KIDS! BEEEEER! REPEAT CYCLE!
> 
> ...


Wish the only thing I had to think about was Football, sex and the pub!


----------



## Zerosum (Jul 17, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> That seems immature, though perhaps you were only being playful? Given the context, I wouldn't think so. Anyhow... o.0 I'm having a hard time trying to decipher whether or not you actually want opinions or if you're just looking to troll. Forget how many posts she has... back to the topic at hand. Could you perhaps list reasons as to why you don't agree with her analysis? That might actually get you somewhere here. I mean, you did create this thread for this purpose, did you not? What do you not agree with and why?


Lol I was actually looking forward to seeing his theory.. But this debate seems rather one sided and doubt he will be responding now..


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Afruabarkio said:


> I think your responses to this guy are totally disproportionated, even if he's wrong or not. You're tone is arrogant, reactive and disdainful. And since nobody seems to say it, there you have it. Your "6.500" posts should have bring you more temper.


In threads, I like to stick to the thread topic instead of point out how posters' tone upsets my sensibilities - usually.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Zerosum said:


> Lol I was actually looking forward to seeing his theory.. But this debate seems rather one sided and doubt he will be responding now..


I want to see his theory, too. He might think of something I haven't


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

EGIdrA said:


> It's so much more sweeter when people with the "a lot of forum posts must be correct" status quo mentality gets proven wrong...


I detect some playful smartass in this quote. That aside the mentality isn't about post count, i was only using this as an example. The mentality is about people who have put time and energy into research by studying the functions and how they work in reality, not applying stereotypes to the system. I haven't seen anyone proven wrong yet, so, keep me updated when that happens, k


----------



## Magnificent Bastard (Sep 22, 2010)

Promethea said:


> That is an astoundingly ignorant claim about what it is to be an SJ. Go revisit what Si actually means. Its ironic that you are downing sj types as being robotic, and less contemplative when I see nothing really contemplative or well thought out in this biased and typist idea.
> 
> Furthermore, its mostly believed that one's mbti type is nature, not nurture. You will see many intuitives born in s type families, who have the same educational experience as the s children -- yet somehow stunningly they are not "trained to be s types" as you are basically proposing here. There is no "nurture" in many cases for young intuitives.. they simply -are-.
> 
> I would also like to know what intuition -means- to you beyond these scathingly ignorant stereotypes of s vs n. I suspect the stereotypes are all you are going on, and that also makes me wonder if you have typed yourself correctly as well. You may be surprised once you actually understand the system.


Why the ad hominems?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Magnificent Bastard said:


> Why the ad hominems?


I like to post things that will give people a chance to _try_ to use the terminology correctly that they learn in their first year of college - basically. 

Now point out where anything in my post is actually incorrect?


----------



## Magnificent Bastard (Sep 22, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I like to post things that will give people a chance to _try_ to use the terminology correctly that they learn in their first year of college - basically.
> 
> Now point out where anything in my post is actually incorrect?


I think you're correct, but you don't have to call someone ignorant to show they are.


----------

