# Masculinity of functions



## FarAndAway (Mar 3, 2015)

Ni: Feminine
Se: Masculine

Si: Masculine
Ne: Feminine

Fi: Feminine
Te: Masculine

Ti: Masculine
Fe: Feminine


Masculine types: ST
Feminine types: NF
Androgynous types: NT - SF


Do you agree ?


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Why put gender labels on the functions? There's no reason to, it's just another way to add unnecessary society-induced sexism to MBTI.


----------



## FarAndAway (Mar 3, 2015)

Queen of Mars said:


> Why put gender labels on the functions? There's no reason to, it's just another way to add unnecessary society-induced sexism to MBTI.


Because, it's obvious that some types tend to fit in generalized visions of sexual identity


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Considering that masculinity/femininity differ per culture, trying to designate them to functions would only illuminate your perception of your own culture rather than finding some intrinsic quality within the functions that show feminine and masculine traits, which by the way doesn't exist. Basically this is just another pointless endeavor plagued by subjectivity.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

From statistics I saw, men are more likely to test as T's. Also slightly more likely to test as I's, N's and P's. 

But that likely can be attributed to lots of factors. There are no 'masculine' or 'feminine' functions.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Didn't Jung associate Fi, Fe and Ne with women? At least that's what I remember reading. Not that this means that much, but I'm still confused about why he associated Ne with women, seems more stereotypically masculine to me, if anything.


----------



## FarAndAway (Mar 3, 2015)

Well, according to Wikipedia, Femininity is linked to gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity, which is more likely associated with Feeling functions.
Masculinity is linked to courage, independence, and assertiveness, which is more likely associated with Thinking functions.

Femininity is linked to day dream, and imagination, which is more likely associated with Intuitive functions.
Masculinity us linked to concrete reality, which is more likely associated with Sensing functions.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

FarAndAway said:


> Because, it's obvious that some types tend to fit in generalized visions of sexual identity


Who cares? Our society's idea of sexual identity is utter shit and we should just ignore it rather than embrace it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Didn't Jung associate Fi, Fe and Ne with women? At least that's what I remember reading. Not that this means that much, but I'm still confused about why he associated Ne with women, seems more stereotypically masculine to me, if anything.


He meant that the majority of people who have those functions that he came across were women, not that the functions in of themselves were feminine.


----------



## FarAndAway (Mar 3, 2015)

Queen of Mars said:


> Who cares? Our society's idea of sexual identity is utter shit and we should just ignore it rather than embrace it.


Why should we ignore something that is widely accepted? Your argument is irrelevant, unless, you give me proofs that sexual identity doesn't exists.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

FarAndAway said:


> Why should we ignore something that is widely accepted? Your argument is irrelevant, unless, you give me proofs that sexual identity doesn't exists.


I am not saying that it _doesn't_ exist, I am saying it _shouldn't_. You can accept something as a truth, without liking it.


----------



## Consolidated Potato (Feb 2, 2015)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Didn't Jung associate Fi, Fe and Ne with women? At least that's what I remember reading. Not that this means that much, but I'm still confused about why he associated Ne with women, seems more stereotypically masculine to me, if anything.


Jung said Fi and Fe in Western cultures tended to embody the definition of femininity. He also pointed out that it was a curiosity that's specific to the West as East Asian societies didn't discriminate in the same way. AFAIK, he said extroverted perceivers tend to be mostly androgynous -- or both masculine and feminine traits, which I would agree with. I don't strongly identify with masculinity, but I'm certainly not feminine either. I think describing myself would be androgynous with an orientation toward masculinity.


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

FarAndAway said:


> Why should we ignore something that is widely accepted? Your argument is irrelevant, unless, you give me proofs that sexual identity doesn't exists.


Well this argument can continue down nooneagrees lane or we can find common ground. Queen of Mars, feel free to continue fighting social stigmas. I'm apathetic on the matter but I cannot fault you for caring about the topic. I do think the original post is based on perceptions rather than actual categorization. FarAndAway, there are general trends that support your argument but it's way to dumbed down.

In my experience, the divide is as simple T vs F. I personally view EFJ & IFP as the most feminine and ETJ & ITP as the most masculine. This because of the differences between the feeling/thinking functions are dominant versus inferior. As an ENTP, I can be goofy and "feminine" although I am a alpha male at heart. Ultimately, I do not push these observations onto people. I do however, use them as a personal reference so that way I might know better how to interact with somebody, which boils down to type, anyway.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Queen of Mars said:


> Why put gender labels on the functions? There's no reason to, it's just another way to add unnecessary society-induced sexism to MBTI.


Perhaps because he/she is an intuitive and enjoys making these connections?



Deus Absconditus said:


> Considering that masculinity/femininity differ per culture, trying to designate them to functions would only illuminate your perception of your own culture rather than finding some intrinsic quality within the functions that show feminine and masculine traits, which by the way doesn't exist.


Yes. Very much.



Sporadic Aura said:


> From statistics I saw, men are more likely to test as T's. Also slightly more likely to test as I's, N's and P's.
> 
> But that likely can be attributed to lots of factors. There are no 'masculine' or 'feminine' functions.


I wonder why men would be more likely to test as Ps? I would expect the opposite. I would expect women to test as Ps more and men to test as J's more.



ElectricSparkle said:


> Didn't Jung associate Fi, Fe and Ne with women? At least that's what I remember reading. Not that this means that much, but I'm still confused about why he associated Ne with women, seems more stereotypically masculine to me, if anything.


Why would you think Ne was masculine? I can't see an argument either way. . . I don't see how Ne really fits either masculine or feminine. It seems rather androgynous.



FarAndAway said:


> Well, according to Wikipedia, Femininity is linked to gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity, which is more likely associated with Feeling functions.
> Masculinity is linked to courage, independence, and assertiveness, which is more likely associated with Thinking functions.
> 
> Femininity is linked to day dream, and imagination, which is more likely associated with Intuitive functions.
> Masculinity us linked to concrete reality, which is more likely associated with Sensing functions.


Yes. I agree very much with your interpretations.



Queen of Mars said:


> Who cares? Our society's idea of sexual identity is utter shit and we should just ignore it rather than embrace it.


Can you go be a hater in another thread?



Consolidated Potato said:


> Jung said Fi and Fe in Western cultures tended to embody the definition of femininity. He also pointed out that it was a curiosity that's specific to the West as East Asian societies didn't discriminate in the same way. AFAIK, he said extroverted perceivers tend to be mostly androgynous -- or both masculine and feminine traits, which I would agree with. I don't strongly identify with masculinity, but I'm certainly not feminine either. I think describing myself would be androgynous with an orientation toward masculinity.


I agree. That's how I view Ne, too.



sah6635 said:


> In my experience, the divide is as simple T vs F. I personally view EFJ & IFP as the most feminine and ETJ & ITP as the most masculine. This because of the differences between the feeling/thinking functions are dominant versus inferior. As an ENTP, I can be goofy and "feminine" although I am a alpha male at heart. Ultimately, I do not push these observations onto people. I do however, use them as a personal reference so that way I might know better how to interact with somebody, which boils down to type, anyway.


So you don't think intuition is feminine? In modern Western culture, intuition is often considered a woman's thing. They even call it "woman's intuition." They even write about how being pregnant makes you psychic. If intuition represents either gender in the West, it's the feminine one.


----------



## Parrot (Feb 22, 2015)

emberfly said:


> So you don't think intuition is feminine? In modern Western culture, intuition is often considered a woman's thing. They even call it "woman's intuition." They even write about how being pregnant makes you psychic. If intuition represents either gender in the West, it's the feminine one.


If we must categorize, I'll agree. For me personally, I don't perceive it as either way. Most people are sensory and focusing on your appearance is feminine, right? The T vs F has much stronger correlation than S vs N.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

sah6635 said:


> If we must categorize, I'll agree. For me personally, I don't perceive it as either way. Most people are sensory and focusing on your appearance is feminine, right? The T vs F has much stronger correlation than S vs N.


I think Western culture says:

Si: masculine
Ne: the West is ambiguous here.

Ni: feminine
Se: feminine


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Feeling 
Intuition 
Introversion 
Unconscious 
= feminine 

Thinking 
Sensing 
Extraversion 
Consciousness 
= masculine


----------



## HigherFrequencyYou (Nov 22, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> Feeling
> Intuition
> Introversion
> Unconscious
> ...


No.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

HigherFrequencyYou said:


> No.


Just "No"? 

What's the point in that


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Normative expectations plus our own identity colour our view, 
so much that we just knee jerk react to this it seems.
Few want to be the odd one out especially when it comes to sexuality.
As usual people just bicker instead of agreeing on a definition on masculinity and feminimity first.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@johnnyyukon I think it's relevant. 

I'm pretty sure Jung was into tarot and i ching too. He believed that they could be used as tools for accessing the unconscious and aid psychological growth and development. 

The major arcana are supposed to represent the main archetypes and all together they depict stages of the hero's journey, psychological death-rebirth archetype and the path to individuation. 

They tarot suits also correlate somewhat with the functions. 

Thinking = Swords 
Feeling = Cups 
Sensing = Pentacles
Intuition = Wands 

I need to find out why the priestess card has BJ on it. It's distracting.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

Neverontime said:


> @johnnyyukon I think it's relevant.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Jung was into tarot and i ching too. He believed that they could be used as tools for accessing the unconscious and aid psychological growth and development.
> 
> ...



Yeah, a bj from a priestess would probably be the best bj of all time.


Yup, you are correct. He was down to try anything and everything, ha. Jung also participated in séances and other darker occult stuff that a lot of people don't realize. The guy was DEEP and I think a lot of his work was truly timeless. 


Ok more on the tarot that maybe no one else is interested in so I'll spoiler it: 



* *





Right again on the suites. I've been studying the tarot off and on for about 10 years and STILL learning. SOOOO much of it can relate to MBTI (amongst pretty much everything as the Tarot is kind of supposed to encompass all the energies, human experiences in the Universe) That BJ thing just took me down a rabbit hole. Never even noticed it, I have 3 different decks (though I really should get the rider waite deck. that site is one of the best I've found, simple and to the point link to the cards description if ya innerested: Individual Tarot Cards)

OOHHHH K. So here's what I found on B & J, just 3 paragraphs but good god, there was way more:



_Since the dawn of civilization, the entrance of sacred and mysterious places have been guarded by two pillars. Whether in art or in architecture, twin pillars are archetypal symbols representing an important gateway or passage towards the unknown. In Freemasonry, the pillars are named Jachin and Boaz and represent one of the Brotherhood’s most recognizable symbol, prominently featured in Masonic art, documents and buildings. 

The Masonic usage of the terms Jachin and Boaz originates from the Biblical account of King Solomon’s Temple. The master builder of the Temple of Solomon was Hiram Abiff, a prominent figure in Masonic ritual. The verses 1 Kings 6:1-38, 1 Kings Chapter 7, and Chapter 8 describe the dimensions, the construction and the dedication of the Temple under Solomon. One passage describes more specifically the twin pillars standing in front of King Solomon’s Temple.

The account of Solomon’s Temple is of great importance in Freemasonry as each detail of the building holds an important esoteric meaning. The Twin pillars act as a “portal to the Mysteries” by standing on each side of the entrance to a sacred place._


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

FarAndAway said:


> Ni: Feminine
> Se: Masculine
> 
> Si: Masculine
> ...


Complete nonsense. The behavior of functions don't have gender related properties.

Just shows a lack of understanding of the functions. Functions them selves don't create behaviour. They process information and the output is largely the result of the input. The brains of women receive different input than the brains of men. (The obvious different kinds of bodies they´re connected to and also the experiences of women are different from the experiences of men.)


----------



## FarAndAway (Mar 3, 2015)

Peter said:


> Complete nonsense. The behavior of functions don't have gender related properties.
> 
> Just shows a lack of understanding of the functions. Functions them selves don't create behaviour. They process information and the output is largely the result of the input. The brains of women receive different input than the brains of men. (The obvious different kinds of bodies they´re connected to and also the experiences of women are different from the experiences of men.)


I've already described how Cognitive Functions are associated with Masculinity or Femininity, in my second post! But, i will prove why they are, taking Feeling Functions for examples.

I will demonstrate that Feeling Functions (Fe and Fi) are Feminine Functions, in a very simple manner so that everyone can understand. I will use definitions and deductive logic, so that everyone can agree.

1) Feeling Functions are associated with Empathy 
Here's the proof :Examination of the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and empathetic response. - PubMed - NCBI

2) Empathy is Feminine
Here's the proof in the wikipedia definition of Femininity!: Femininity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3) So, if Feeling --» Empathy
and Empathy --» Feminity
Then, Feeling Functions are Feminine Functions

We can apply the same with every other function.

Now, if you don't agree you can fuck off


----------



## Miuni (Jan 21, 2015)

FarAndAway said:


> I've already described how Cognitive Functions are associated with Masculinity or Femininity, in my second post! But, i will prove why they are, taking Feeling Functions for examples.
> 
> I will demonstrate that Feeling Functions (Fe and Fi) are Feminine Functions, in a very simple manner so that everyone can understand. I will use definitions and deductive logic, so that everyone can agree.
> 
> ...


I don't agree and i won't fuck off either.

Functions are not that simple. The function "Feeling" is not necessarly "empathy". Take a Fi-dom that only cares about him/herself. Is that person NOT a Fi-dom because a lack of empathy?

From what i understand, Feeling is a judging function. Your perseiving functions take whatever they perseived and then you judge it. For a F-dom, it'll pass for a "value filter". And that value system can be ANYTHING, but the end result will be if you like the thing, you hate it, you find it right or wrong, w/e. It is also assosiated with morals, but that's not everything.

For example, i'm a Te-aux with terciary Fi. I like and appreciate logic, but that's my Fi, since i put more *value* on logic. On the other hand, i analyze why (some)people feels things a certain way. That's my Te, since it takes *analyzing and looking for evidence* to reach that conclusion. But i'm still talking about logic with my Fi and emotions with my Te.


NOW, TO THE POINT. Functions are just how our brain process and reach conclusions, not emotions or even ideas. You can take any function and look for a stereotypical femininine or masculine trait and you'll probably find it after you take away your bias on the functions themselves. Fe-doms protecting people? That sounds like a mother, but also like your typical hero in most stories. Fi-doms being emotional? That sounds like a shy girl, but also like a confident guy, or even an abuser (remember, being emotional includes ALL emotions).

What we culturally associate with masculine or feminine traits are not the functions themselves, but certain behaviors, topics, stuff, emotions, etc. As another example, take Te in an engineer: he'll look for information on different processes, he'll be mothodical and rational. Now do the same with Te in a modist. It's the same, yet a lot of the characteristics the engineer needs the modist will use too, but she'll apply them to making clothes instead of machines. And now a modist looking in magazines, exchanging methods with other modists and applaying all that to make perfect dresses is feminine.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

I disagree with the breakdown but on the whole, if we're being extremely stereotypical and superficial, the ST=Masculine, NF=Feminine proposal makes sense. Although I can definitely see why some people say gender and cognitive functions are unrelated. Still, since the very notion of gender itself is a social construct, it's not ridiculous to link it to factors which determine personality


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

FarAndAway said:


> I've already described how Cognitive Functions are associated with Masculinity or Femininity, in my second post! But, i will prove why they are, taking Feeling Functions for examples.
> 
> I will demonstrate that Feeling Functions (Fe and Fi) are Feminine Functions, in a very simple manner so that everyone can understand. I will use definitions and deductive logic, so that everyone can agree.
> 
> ...


Interesting. You ask people if they agree and then when they don't, you tell them to fuck off.... Next time you should tell people: "Reply only if you agree."

But to go back to the subject.

I'll follow your logic,.... I used data from this page: Frequency of Personality Types by Population & Gender 

If you do some math you'll find that the functions are pretty evenly spread over each gender. But per type there are differences:

NT: 18% of men are NTs, 7% of women are NTs.
NF: 10.5% of men are NFs, 17,5% of women are NFs
N: 28.5% of men are Ns, 24,5% of women are Ns.
Why do you consider N to be a female function?

SF: 24% of men are SFs, 48% of women are SFs
Why do you consider SF to be androgynous?


The problem I have with your logic is that when trying to corelate the "gender" of functions to the gender of the people using these functions, you end up with inconclusive results.

Besides that, for example Fe in a man isn't the same thing as Fe in a woman. So a man having Fe as his first function for example, doesn't have to seem more female. Personality type does not determine how male or female a person is.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

In general, I find it interesting that people try to shoehorn gender into cognitive functions. 
Just look at a couple of stereotypical male archetypes:
a) the extroverted, obnoxious, narcissist leader
b) the strong, silent, mysterious man
- they are pretty much the exact opposite



Peter said:


> I'll follow your logic,.... I used data from this page: Frequency of Personality Types by Population & Gender
> 
> If you do some math you'll find that the functions are pretty evenly spread over each gender. But per type there are differences:
> 
> ...


Like the stats, but the way I see it, I think that MBTI will always have a wide margin of error that is based on 
1) how people are raised/the culture in which we are raised
2) errors in typing/self-typing 
3) general gender bias, which exists in pretty much all cultures in various forms and to various degrees 

(Btw, @_Miuni_'s post is brilliant; she managed to more crisply express (by using examples) what I was trying to get at earlier.)

It would be really interesting to see MBTI stats based on culture, for example - will there be more NT women in a society that is considered more gender equal or where it is more common for women to go into STEM? I have a strong feeling that this would be the case.

I like your posts, but the statements "The brains of women receive different input than the brains of men." and "Fe in a man isn't the same thing as Fe in a woman" are a little bit iffy to me. They are interesting, but for now I have a hard time agreeing right off the bat - probably especially since I am an INTJ woman, so a very 'atypical' woman. 
- Anyway, if we want to prove that the first statement is true, we would have to analyze brain scans as connected to cognitive functions - so using your stats above. I doubt that this has been done, but if so, I'd be interested in checking that out (too lazy to do the research right now, though).
- The second one I have a hard time with because we are back to my argument (and many studies that show) that our surroundings often automatically interpret our actions as a function of gender - the bias is therefore built in as soon as we are immersed into a culture.


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

How-dee neigh-bur...'just scratchin' ma extraverted sensing here *spits tobacco, blows nose on wife-beater, crushes beer-can on head, and goes inside to watch The Expendables 3 in ******* HD*

Interesting premise but:


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i don't think it's as simple as function-A is masculine while function-B is more feminine. even Fe--i mean, who do you think most of your high school football coaches were? ESFJ's maybe? i know mine were, and i know that Fe can take on quite a bit of it's environment in an affectational way, and if the way to be a "manly man" is to really care about football to the point of ridiculousness and rage like an overly dramatic idiot, then that's what these guys did... 

lol. not picking on any Fe-users, i myself am one, just pointing out that there are many ways a manifestation can take in a person, many ways a "function can go", many different ways to be masculine or feminine (and i'm not speaking in the ultra politically correct fashion here, i'm just stating a literal fact: there are many archetypes to both the masculine and the feminine, some that are a mix of the opposing realm (more masculine female, etc.), but we still see them as residing clearly in only one category, even while they have a sense of "otherness", as if diverging slightly gave them their own unique display of their sexuality... and yet, even while different, they are still recognized as female, or male, and so substantiate that mix into what we think of as "masculine" or as "feminine".


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Swede said:


> In general, I find it interesting that people try to shoehorn gender into cognitive functions.
> Just look at a couple of stereotypical male archetypes:
> a) the extroverted, obnoxious, narcissist leader
> b) the strong, silent, mysterious man
> ...


The MBTI / Cognitive functions don't have the objective to exactly describe a person's personality. That's why they are called types. They merely describe how a person's brain processes data and what preferences are used when processing this data. In fact, if you go really deep, it basically is just a matter of preferences within the incoming data. The actual processing of data is the same in all brains. But when there is a preference for the emotions of other people, we call it Fe and when emotions of other people are specifically ignored (or not perceived) than we call it Te. (just some simplistic examples to make a point.) But in the end, in every brain 1 + 1 = 2.


You are an INTJ woman, so, as you say, not a typical woman,... but are you male in your behavior or still female, just not in a typical female way?

The NT women that I know are female too. Their preferences aren't that different from non NT women. But they express it in different ways. You can have whole debates about this subject but the one thing that is clear is that they are not men. :happy:


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Peter said:


> The MBTI / Cognitive functions don't have the objective to exactly describe a person's personality. That's why they are called types.* They merely describe how a person's brain processes data and what preferences are used when processing this data. In fact, if you go really deep, it basically is just a matter of preferences within the incoming data. The actual processing of data is the same in all brains.* But when there is a preference for the emotions of other people, we call it Fe and when emotions of other people are specifically ignored (or not perceived) than we call it Te. (just some simplistic examples to make a point.) But in the end, in every brain 1 + 1 = 2.
> 
> 
> You are an INTJ woman, so, as you say, not a typical woman,... but are you male in your behavior or still female, just not in a typical female way?
> ...


Ah, when reading the bolded part, it looks to me like you and I see things the same way. 
(Which I find interesting because it is pretty easy to pick out the INTJs responses in this type of thread, btw. We tend to have the same view in this area.)

In regards to my 'INTJ woman' statement, I do definitely see myself as a woman (which interestingly enough, it seems that a fair number of INTJ woman do not), but at the same time, I view myself as a human and as an individual first and foremost. 
What I mean by 'not typical woman' is that parts of society assume/expect that I will conform to certain 'feminine traits' (like what is discussed ion this thread) and I am not interested in conforming. When certain people tell me that "women are more emotional than men" and "men are more logically driven than women", I just roll my eyes and sigh. A person like that will automatically interpret everything I do as 'emotional' and not 'logical' based on their own personal bias connected to my physical appearance, if that makes sense?

The preference statement I am not real sure how to interpret. I see some pretty big differences in how INTJ women approach life to how more 'traditional' women do. Note, not necessarily better or worse, but most definitely different - like the need to not conform for example (which is a pretty typical INTJ trait).


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Swede said:


> In regards to my 'INTJ woman' statement, I do definitely see myself as a woman (which interestingly enough, it seems that a fair number of INTJ woman do not), but at the same time, I view myself as a human and as an individual first and foremost.
> What I mean by 'not typical woman' is that parts of society assume/expect that I will conform to certain 'feminine traits' (like what is discussed ion this thread) and I am not interested in conforming. When certain people tell me that "women are more emotional than men" and "men are more logically driven than women", I just roll my eyes and sigh. A person like that will automatically interpret everything I do as 'emotional' and not 'logical' based on their own personal bias connected to my physical appearance, if that makes sense?
> 
> The preference statement I am not real sure how to interpret. I see some pretty big differences in how INTJ women approach life to how more 'traditional' women do. Note, not necessarily better or worse, but most definitely different - like the need to not conform for example (which is a pretty typical INTJ trait).


To conform is not specifically a female trait. To not conform is not specifically a male trait either. It's not like all men in the world try to go against the machine. Most people (men and women) want to conform. Perhaps for different reasons, but the basic need to conform is genderless. So I don't see that as something that as a proof of being less of a typical female. That just means you´re not a typical person.

This idea that women are more emotional than men and men are more logical driven than women is a general statement and as a general statement it's true. It applies to most people. But it doesn't apply to everybody. That people tend to have biases is normal too. When you see a woman you'll have certain expectations, not based on what society tells you, but based on your own experiences. That probably also applies to you too even though you probably keep a very open mind initially until you know the person a little better. But having biases is normal, it's the result of one of the main tasks of our brains (specifically, the neocortex): Finding patterns in the incoming data.

I'm curious now. There is a very typical female trait that, as far as I can see, is typical also in NT women.... when talking in a group of just women: changing the subject all the time....... Does that ring a bell?


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Peter said:


> To conform is not specifically a female trait. To not conform is not specifically a male trait either. It's not like all men in the world try to go against the machine. Most people (men and women) want to conform. Perhaps for different reasons, but the basic need to conform is genderless. So I don't see that as something that as a proof of being less of a typical female. That just means you´re not a typical person.
> 
> This idea that women are more emotional than men and men are more logical driven than women is a general statement and as a general statement it's true. It applies to most people. But it doesn't apply to everybody. That people tend to have biases is normal too. When you see a woman you'll have certain expectations, not based on what society tells you, but based on your own experiences. That probably also applies to you too even though you probably keep a very open mind initially until you know the person a little better. But having biases is normal, it's the result of one of the main tasks of our brains (specifically, the neocortex): Finding patterns in the incoming data.
> 
> I'm curious now. There is a very typical female trait that, as far as I can see, is typical also in NT women.... when talking in a group of just women: changing the subject all the time....... Does that ring a bell?


Actually, pack mentality and the need to conform is more prevalent in men than in women. Men do also generally force other men (and women) to conform in a much more aggressive manner than women do. It is however unusual for INTJs to feel the need to conform.

The beginning of your second segment I don't agree with. Again, 'logical' and 'emotional' are open for interpretation. Some men conveniently interpret women as emotionally driven because that makes it easier to justify ignoring women's needs, wishes, ideas, conclusions, etc. Likewise, many men think that they are logically driven while in fact they are not. 

In regards to bias/prejudice: UnderstandingPrejudice.org: The Psychology of Prejudice
_



The Ultimate Attribution Error 

Taking the fundamental attribution error one step further, Thomas Pettigrew (1979) suggested that an "ultimate attribution error" occurs when ingroup members (1) attribute negative outgroup behavior to dispositional causes (more than they would for identical ingroup behavior), and (2) attribute positive outgroup behavior to one or more of the following causes: (a) a fluke or exceptional case, (b) luck or special advantage, (c) high motivation and effort, and (d) situational factors. This attributional double standard makes it virtually impossible for outgroup members to break free of prejudice against them, because their positive actions are explained away while their failures and shortcomings are used against them. Although the research record is somewhat mixed, studies generally support Pettigrew's analysis (Hewstone, 1990). 

One study found, for example, that White students were more likely to interpret a shove as violent -- and more likely to explain it dispositionally -- when the shove came from a Black person than a White person (Duncan, 1976). 

Another study found that Hindu participants were more likely to make dispositional attributions for negative behaviors than positive behaviors when the actor was Muslim, but showed the opposite pattern when the actor was Hindu (Taylor & Jaggi, 1974). 

And a review of 58 different experiments found that on traditionally masculine tasks, male successes were more likely than female successes to be attributed to ability, whereas male failures were more likely than female failures to be attributed to bad luck or lack of effort (Swim & Sanna, 1996)

Click to expand...

_I was going to add links to a few other studies, but I'll hold off for now.

In regards to changing the subject, I don't seem have the same experiences that you do (and one could argue that you just switched the subject... ;-)). And in all honesty, the definition of sticking to a topic is not real well defined. It is often highly subjective, don't you think?
For me personally, I prefer to socialize with people who enjoy sharing ideas and thoughts and who are open to discuss and expand upon them, independent of gender. I like the exchange, so this is the type of people that I find myself intacting with voluntarily.
I socialized way more with men than with women back when I lived in Sweden. We talked about pretty much everything and anything, so I wouldn't say that men more often rigidly stick to a topic. We jumped from topic to topic and often tied them back together by association, etc. I view it as 'brain play'. (To me, PerC is a huge brain playground). 
When I moved to the US, I noteced that men and women are significantly more separated than they are in Sweden. My best friend in college here in the U.S. was a man, and again, we had pretty fluid discussions. At work, I socialize pretty much exclusively with women, that seems to be the norm at the company I work for, and I don't see much of a difference in the way they approach and carry out discussions, tbh.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Queen of Mars said:


> Why put gender labels on the functions? There's no reason to, it's just *another way to add unnecessary society-induced sexism to MBTI.*


Alternatively, it could be a good way of explaining why pretty much everyone's life is fucked up because of society-induced sexism.


----------



## Rivara (Feb 15, 2011)

I definitely see these attitudes. One just needs to check out any random MBTI article. If there's an "F" in the type, the text will use "she" and "T" will always be "he". I've sometimes seen women acknowledged as possible Thinkers, but never has a Feeler been referred to as a man in my experience. 

I'm always grinding my teeth reading about my type. It's totally arbitrary and stupid, just like cats and dogs being gendered (the former even considered "sexy"...).


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Queen of Mars said:


> I am not saying that it _doesn't_ exist, I am saying it _shouldn't_. You can accept something as a truth, without liking it.


I'm in the middle between you and the OP.
I agree that gender roles etc. _shouldn't_ exist. On the other hand: if there's a typical distribution of functions, let's say if most Fe-ers are female, then people will make subconscious correlations: if they see an Fe male, they'll perceive him as 'feminine'. I agree that there is nothing intrinsically feminine or masculine in the functions themselves. 
But I'm also pretty sure that many people will associate certain functions with men and others with women. (When I say functions, I don't mean that everybody in the world is a Jungian scholar, but most people are able to describe the functions in their own everyday words without ever having studied MBTI).


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

johnnyyukon said:


> Yeah, a bj from a priestess would probably be the best bj of all time.


You just haven't met the right priestess yet, hurr durr durr. :tongue:


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

FlaviaGemina said:


> You just haven't met the right priestess yet, hurr durr durr. :tongue:


Ha, maybe not, but I think I have met the Devil. Her bj technique was unholy. Or maybe she was like Robert Johnson (usually ranked in top 5 as greatest guitarists of all time) and sold her soul to the Devil to learn.


:laughing:


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Relevant (and I'm done beating the dead horse now, promise): Math performance in boys and girls as a function of gender equality.

Interesting/relevant because
- many people believe that men are more logical, and therefore also better at math, than women are
- bias and culture have a major impact on gender related performance 
- the study indicates that gender equality benefits everyone (at least in this specific area)

Note the comments. The first two are truly sigh-worthy....


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Peter said:


> Interesting. You ask people if they agree and then when they don't, you tell them to fuck off.... Next time you should tell people: "Reply only if you agree."
> 
> But to go back to the subject.
> 
> ...


Just saying, this data analysis that you've done doesn't really show anything for two, simple reasons:

1.) There is _very_ low validity with regards to MBTI testing (low test-retest reliability, kind of essential stuff). Thus, any subsequent data analysis would, really, be quite useless. 

2.) Your analysis isn't really showing anything of substance. You should be splitting it along functional lines, rather than Kiersey groupings.

So, stop the data fight. That's not going to solve anything.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

While I appreciate the thought exercise, I don't feel particularly feminine though my type as the least amount of males. You can employ functions in various ways, they are much more adaptable than one might think.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Raawx said:


> Just saying, this data analysis that you've done doesn't really show anything for two, simple reasons:
> 
> 1.) There is _very_ low validity with regards to MBTI testing (low test-retest reliability, kind of essential stuff). Thus, any subsequent data analysis would, really, be quite useless.
> 
> ...


OK, Einstein..... As you command!


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Peter said:


> OK, Einstein..... As you command!


About time I got some appreciation. :wink:


----------



## Gurpy (Aug 8, 2014)

According to the OP I lead with a masculine function and I would say I'm masculine so it makes sense for me.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

FarAndAway said:


> Why should we ignore something that is widely accepted? Your argument is irrelevant, unless, you give me proofs that sexual identity doesn't exists.


The world disagree with you I think


----------

