# MBTI Stats...go figure (stereotypes)



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Meyers-Briggs Statistics

According to this, the ISTJ is the most common type for males and the ISFJ is the most common type for females. Of course the "Duty Fulfillers" would be the most common type for males. That's how our culture perceives them. Men are supposed to do all of the work to put food on the table so that the "Nurturers" (ISFJ Females) can spend all day raising the damn children. Furthermore, it claims that INFJ and INTJ are the rarest for males and females respectively. Of course men are not supposed to be Fs and women are not supposed to be Ts. That would throw all of the pre-established gender roles out of proportion. 

Anybody else find this a little ironic? :dry:


----------



## missushoney (May 16, 2011)

haha. Not at all. This makes perfect sense: Not everyone can be a genious but they can nurture and fulfill duties. 

but really it is kind of ironic. I wonder if the studies on who is rare or not can really hold true? I am an INFJ and I am usually attracted to INTJ types because to me smarts=>success=>power. And I love power. And I'd like to think INTJ's like my feeling, caring nature. But to me it's interesting because it seems more like whether a guy is F or T or whether a girl is F or T doesn't matter when it comes down to it. They may handle things differently but it's almost a primal instinct for a man to take care of his family and a woman to nurture. It might not always happen like in a perfect family sitcom but there are elements of it that you can usually see.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Wait, so the most common types include the least common trait? Not sure if serious.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

missushoney said:


> I am an INFJ and I am usually attracted to INTJ types because to me smarts=>success=>power. And I love power. And I'd like to think INTJ's like my feeling, caring nature.


A power hungry INFJ. Now I've seen everything.


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

@missushoney

So the question becomes: are types genetic? If so, then it seems strange that Is would be more prevalent than Es since natural selection would be in the E's favor. Humans who are drained by other humans, introverts, would have less of a survival rate than Es, who fit the "humans are social creatures" standard that science believes and continuously thrusts upon us. Also, with women repeatedly being executed throughout history for their desire and attempts to be Ts, it would explain why INTJ females are rare...they never got a chance to pass on their INTJ-ness. I'd imagine the same would be true of male INFJs. Society just didn't want us to exist. But, with the women's rights movement and increasing tolerance towards F males, it seems that our numbers should eventually be on the rise...right? (Assuming that such types even choose to reproduce. As far as I know, most INTJ females, including myself, would prefer to adopt.)


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Stephen said:


> A power hungry INFJ. Now I've seen everything.


Lol...the one flaw of humanity...


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Yeah it basically comes down to reproduction rates. In contrast to the tendency to shit out babies at epic rates, I took a poll over at INTJf that concluded that almost all of the rationals there that are in their mid-20s or older don't have any kids. I don't know if I'm ready to be responsible for raising a kid to live in this society.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

missushoney said:


> haha. Not at all. This makes perfect sense: Not everyone can be a *genious *but they can nurture and fulfill duties.
> 
> but really it is kind of ironic. I wonder if the studies on who is rare or not can really hold true? I am an INFJ and I am usually attracted to INTJ types because to me *smarts=>success=>power*. And I love power.


Not only did your equation contain countless logical leaps and flaws, but are you implying somehow that "INTJ" types are "smarter" than others, and that you can't be all of smart, hard-working, _and_ nurturing? Yes, ironic indeed.


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

@_benr3600_ 

That still doesn't explain the existence of Is and their prevalence over Es though. My reason for not having kids is that the current society is not worth it...among other things. Why would I bring another being into this fucked up world to suffer like I have? Besides, the planet is over populated anyway and I'm more of a "nurturer" when it comes to the nature v. nurture argument. 

...Perhaps the INTJ and INFJ traits continued, despite the historical executions, because they were passed down from the opposite, socially approved gender and just happened to mutate to the wrong gender of the child.


----------



## Finagle (Jun 4, 2011)

Reproduction rates...









More seriously, I didn't see anything wrong with those stats.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

:\ da fuck cares lol...odd thread.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Stephen said:


> A power hungry INFJ. Now I've seen everything.


I know right? Besides I tried eating power before when I was hungry, 56 hospital trips later I can eat breakfast cereal without my right hand flying up and hitting my face involuntarily.

Back on topic this is actually the first time ive seen statistics that put an introverted personality as the most prevelant for either gender.

Of course this is also the first time when a statistical table wishes to be taken seriously when it is entitled 'Meyers-Briggs".

Ok ok, so I know spelling has nothing to do with it, but most statistics for this are....just...shitty. I dont even think I should go into more detail as to why; I think ive bored people to death with my repetition.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

Worriedfunction said:


> I know right? Besides I tried eating power before when I was hungry, 56 hospital trips later I can eat breakfast cereal without my right hand flying up and hitting my face involuntarily.


LMAO at work, thanks a lot. :dry:


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

INTJ_Eagle said:


> @_benr3600_
> 
> That still doesn't explain the existence of Is and their prevalence over Es though. My reason for not having kids is that the current society is not worth it...among other things. Why would I bring another being into this fucked up world to suffer like I have? Besides, the planet is over populated anyway and I'm more of a "nurturer" when it comes to the nature v. nurture argument.


I have to disagree. I do not believe I vs. E is anywhere near 50/50 in our society, I believe that there are far more extroverts than introverts. Either that, or there are a HELL of a lot of introverts out there that have learned exactly how to act like an introvert.


----------



## missushoney (May 16, 2011)

Spades said:


> Not only did your equation contain countless logical leaps and flaws, but are you implying somehow that "INTJ" types are "smarter" than others, and that you can't be all of smart, hard-working, _and_ nurturing? Yes, ironic indeed.


No, I was joking about a person not being able to do all those things. -_-' I was just sort of playing devil's advocate with that first part. And I don't think other types can't be as smart. I'm just using INTJ as an example because I know more about them than other guys' types. But what I'm trying to say is usually when guys are thought of as strong or whatever, they are considered better at taking care of the family and what not. I'm saying that to me taking care of the family is about being smart. I don't need a guy to be big or strong or macho or anything like that. I actually prefer skinny, kind of nerdy guys. So to me, that is a good "duty fulfiller" or what have you.

Sorry if the way I write makes things sound weird. I'm a "neither here, nor there" type of person so I'm not one to consider any of my ideas to be the end all be all. These are just things I observe.


----------



## missushoney (May 16, 2011)

Stephen said:


> A power hungry INFJ. Now I've seen everything.


Actually a friend on here told me that both Hitler and Lenin were INFJ's. There's of course no way to know that for sure probably, but I think it would explain my world domination dreams.


----------



## missushoney (May 16, 2011)

INTJ_Eagle said:


> @missushoney
> 
> So the question becomes: are types genetic? If so, then it seems strange that Is would be more prevalent than Es since natural selection would be in the E's favor. Humans who are drained by other humans, introverts, would have less of a survival rate than Es, who fit the "humans are social creatures" standard that science believes and continuously thrusts upon us. Also, with women repeatedly being executed throughout history for their desire and attempts to be Ts, it would explain why INTJ females are rare...they never got a chance to pass on their INTJ-ness. I'd imagine the same would be true of male INFJs. Society just didn't want us to exist. But, with the women's rights movement and increasing tolerance towards F males, it seems that our numbers should eventually be on the rise...right? (Assuming that such types even choose to reproduce. As far as I know, most INTJ females, including myself, would prefer to adopt.)


Hmm...That is really interesting. I think you might be on to something actually. I think if they were able to successfully type everyone in America there wouldn't be a "rare" type among males and females, maybe introverts would still be rare in general though because, like you said, we're supposed to be an extroverted society. And perhaps there are so few because of people hiding their true selves. I wonder if that was taken into consideration?


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

missushoney said:


> Sorry if the way I write makes things sound weird. I'm a "neither here, nor there" type of person so I'm not one to consider any of my ideas to be the end all be all. These are just things I observe.


Thanks for the clarification.

God I need to stop posting my snappy reactions on PerC =P (i.e. Stop reading things which aren't of interest).


----------



## missushoney (May 16, 2011)

Spades said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> God I need to stop posting my snappy reactions on PerC =P


Nah, keep on saying what you want and don't worry about how it might make people feel. I hate when people try to make it seem that my opinions or thoughts on a subject don't matter so I wouldn't wish that on you. Your post helped me to understand how people might perceive the things I say and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

missushoney said:


> Nah, keep on saying what you want and don't worry about how it might make people feel. I hate when people try to make it seem that my opinions or thoughts on a subject don't matter so I wouldn't wish that on you. Your post helped me to understand how people might perceive the things I say and there's nothing wrong with that.


Oh don't you worry. It's not _other_ people I'm worried about, it's _my own_ tendency to be bothered needlessly by half the posts around here =P Solution: Don't spend so much time on PerC. Thanks for the response though.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Why are these stats so hard to believe?


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

INTJ_Eagle said:


> Meyers-Briggs Statistics
> 
> According to this, the ISTJ is the most common type for males and the ISFJ is the most common type for females. Of course the "Duty Fulfillers" would be the most common type for males. That's how our culture perceives them. Men are supposed to do all of the work to put food on the table so that the "Nurturers" (ISFJ Females) can spend all day raising the damn children. Furthermore, it claims that INFJ and INTJ are the rarest for males and females respectively. Of course men are not supposed to be Fs and women are not supposed to be Ts. That would throw all of the pre-established gender roles out of proportion.
> 
> Anybody else find this a little ironic? :dry:


 The world (generally speaking) has made it quite clear to me how much I am not supposed to be myself. My boss wants me to care about how much I am paid, my mom always got mad at me for being too emotional, etc, etc. At least here I can be closer to what I really am though. I'm thankful to PerC for that.

I know my INTJ wife had a lot of similar experiences with growing up. Other girls would always think she had a superiority complex because she didn't want to be like them. Her and I make a good couple though, I think. Neither of us are very traditional and we both come from broken families, so we relate to each other very well.


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> I have to disagree. I do not believe I vs. E is anywhere near 50/50 in our society, I believe that there are far more extroverts than introverts. Either that, or there are a HELL of a lot of introverts out there that have learned exactly how to act like an introvert.


Personally, I also believe that Extraverts rule the world, but according to these Stats it's the other way around...which doesn't really make sense to me...


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Arrow said:


> Why are these stats so hard to believe?


It's not that they're hard to believe. I'm just curious of the underlying principle as to _why_ they are what they are. I'm an INTJ...I question and analyze EVERYTHING. Perhaps an INTP would better appreciate this. They'd probably have a really good explanation for it...which I'm dying to hear. Any of you INTPs here care to help me out a bit?


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

INTJ_Eagle said:


> Meyers-Briggs Statistics
> 
> According to this, the ISTJ is the most common type for males and the ISFJ is the most common type for females. Of course the "Duty Fulfillers" would be the most common type for males. That's how our culture perceives them. Men are supposed to do all of the work to put food on the table so that the "Nurturers" (ISFJ Females) can spend all day raising the damn children. Furthermore, it claims that INFJ and INTJ are the rarest for males and females respectively. Of course men are not supposed to be Fs and women are not supposed to be Ts. That would throw all of the pre-established gender roles out of proportion.
> 
> Anybody else find this a little ironic? :dry:


I don't know if the site is a reliable source.

And it does look a little fishy to me, lol.
It's like it just happens to fit every stereotype ever made! (mildly exaggerated for humor)


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Agent Blackout said:


> I don't know if the site is a reliable source.
> 
> And it does look a little fishy to me, lol.
> It's like it just happens to fit every stereotype ever made! (mildly exaggerated for humor)


:laughing:


----------



## Finagle (Jun 4, 2011)

You know, if your concern is the validity of some statistics, it might be more productive to search the source of your information and the way they got those results than arguing their validity based on your own intuition of what those stats should be.

Here are some others stats for comparison :
MBTI® Type Frequency Table for USA | MIVISTA | Michelle E. Villalobos
My MBTI Personality Type - My MBTI Results - How Frequent Is My Type?
Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org
very close to the ones in the OP

ESTJ being the most valued type for men in North America doesn't mean it is the most frequent type. No correlation.
Introverts are 1,4% more frequent than extrovert, I don't see how that's such an unbelievable number.


----------



## White River (Feb 13, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> I have to disagree. I do not believe I vs. E is anywhere near 50/50 in our society, I believe that there are far more extroverts than introverts. Either that, or there are a HELL of a lot of introverts out there that have learned exactly how to act like an introvert.


I read recently, at least in the US, that it was 1 in 3 that was introverted, which seems closer to reality to me. It certainly varies between countries. Maybe worldwide, introverted societies might balance out the extroverted ones. I'm not sure.


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Logically speaking, Introverts shouldn't even exist...


----------



## Finagle (Jun 4, 2011)

... Or you could say, if they exist, there must be a logical reason for it. Lets find why.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Blue Ocean said:


> I read recently, at least in the US, that it was 1 in 3 that was introverted, which seems closer to reality to me. It certainly varies between countries. Maybe worldwide, introverted societies might balance out the extroverted ones. I'm not sure.


Yeah it seems like every portrayal of Japanese culture makes it seem rife with introverts. Seems like everybody there is an ISxJ.


----------



## MyNameIsTooLon (Apr 28, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> Yeah it seems like every portrayal of Japanese culture makes it seem rife with introverts. Seems like everybody there is an ISxJ.


I don't see how their cultural expectations have anything to do with introvertedness. Just like westerners seem to embrace extroverts more, I guess Eastern culture does the opposite. It doesn't change a person's natural inclinations towards being either, though.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

MyNameIsTooLon said:


> I don't see how their cultural expectations have anything to do with introvertedness. Just like westerners seem to embrace extroverts more, I guess Eastern culture does the opposite. It doesn't change a person's natural inclinations towards being either, though.


If they were a bunch of extroverts with repressed extroverted behavior, I would think their society would be a lot worse off than being one of the best in the entire world in several measures. 

Twin studies show a genetic component to I/E. It's not unreasonable to assume that cultural expectations could alter the prevalence of traits in the gene pool, kind of like having brown eyes in most populations.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

I suppose the very nature of extroversion means that it is far more easily noticed than introversion.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Depends; if you're an extrovert, introversion may stick out like a sore thumb.


----------



## snapdragons (Feb 1, 2011)

I agree with analyzing _why_ these stats are the way they are. Does this mean MBTI functions have some sort of genetic basis, and therefore a biologically-driven function? When you think about it, if the majority of men were INFP's and the majority of women were ENTJ's, wouldn't that have set up a rather different dynamic over the course of human history? 

I also wonder-- for men and women whose types are atypical or "rare," do those serve a function, too? ISTJ women aren't rare, for instance, as I think it's 6% of the female population, but what about in the case of INTJ women? Or ENFJ men?


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

It's more difficult for them to find a mate that will accept them. Sheeple expect T behavior from men, F behavior from females. Insecure people couldn't handle these anomalies. The reproduction rate would be lower than average, therefore reducing their prevalence slightly in subsequent generations. In anything, because it takes longer to find somebody due to having a limited "market," if you will. 

If you think about it, your traditional "conservative" family is typically made up of an STJ father, and SFJ mother. How crazy would it be to see an NFP father and an NTP mother in Conservative America? Probably quite rare.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

INTJ_Eagle said:


> Logically speaking, Introverts shouldn't even exist...


_Why?_ Where is this idea coming from?


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

I'm wondering if the focus is really on T vs. F or if it's on S vs. N. 

For instance there are tons of SF males (they make up 30% out of 70% of all Sensors, that's damn near half) I don't think that they would have any problem fitting into society and finding mates. The thing that really seems to divide the types is intuition and sensing more then anything else. If you were to add up the NT males for their thinking preference it would still only be half of the 30% intuitive's side in terms of the general pie. NT's in general are the lowest temperament anyway you slice it. The NT males (15%) don't have much if any lead over the NF males in terms of sheer number (13%). Ultimately both INFJ and ENTJ are the rarest types across the board while E/I-SFJ and E/I-STJ are all the most popular types. The difference isn't really in thinking/feeling, the difference is on perception.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

That's true, but it doesn't address the fact that T behavior is desired in men, and F behavior in women, speaking in societal generalization. There are exceptions, but it's a rule in general. It's not a causation, but more of a numbers game. If you have to look for a needle in a haystack, your success rate is simply reduced. It may be an exaggeration, but it's something to think about. 

The very rare types most likely have way more likelihood of psychosocial issues than the common types. This can make an individual nearly untouchable as a result. Taking one set of genes out of the pool as a consequence, reducing the prevalence in the next generation. And of course, as a certain trait becomes more rare, it will become more difficult to accommodate, also. In theory.


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Finagle said:


> ... Or you could say, if they exist, there must be a logical reason for it. Lets find why.


True...but I can't find one :frustrating: *head explodes from failure to rationalize my own existence*


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> It's more difficult for them to find a mate that will accept them. Sheeple expect T behavior from men, F behavior from females. Insecure people couldn't handle these anomalies. The reproduction rate would be lower than average, therefore reducing their prevalence slightly in subsequent generations. In anything, because it takes longer to find somebody due to having a limited "market," if you will.
> 
> If you think about it, your traditional "conservative" family is typically made up of an STJ father, and SFJ mother. How crazy would it be to see an NFP father and an NTP mother in Conservative America? Probably quite rare.


Perhaps this is why arranged marriages are typically more successful than those based on "true love".


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Arrow said:


> _Why?_ Where is this idea coming from?


Give me a logical explanation as to why they should...


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Arrow said:


> I'm wondering if the focus is really on T vs. F or if it's on S vs. N.
> 
> For instance there are tons of SF males (they make up 30% out of 70% of all Sensors, that's damn near half) I don't think that they would have any problem fitting into society and finding mates. The thing that really seems to divide the types is intuition and sensing more then anything else. If you were to add up the NT males for their thinking preference it would still only be half of the 30% intuitive's side in terms of the general pie. NT's in general are the lowest temperament anyway you slice it. The NT males (15%) don't have much if any lead over the NF males in terms of sheer number (13%). Ultimately both INFJ and ENTJ are the rarest types across the board while E/I-SFJ and E/I-STJ are all the most popular types. The difference isn't really in thinking/feeling, the difference is on perception.


Interesting perspective...now the question becomes: what makes N such a rare quality?


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

snapdragons said:


> I agree with analyzing _why_ these stats are the way they are. Does this mean MBTI functions have some sort of genetic basis, and therefore a biologically-driven function? When you think about it, if the majority of men were INFP's and the majority of women were ENTJ's, wouldn't that have set up a rather different dynamic over the course of human history?
> 
> I also wonder-- for men and women whose types are atypical or "rare," do those serve a function, too? ISTJ women aren't rare, for instance, as I think it's 6% of the female population, but what about in the case of INTJ women? Or ENFJ men?


These are things I typically ponder about...still no logical answers though


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

If by "successful" you mean lower divorce rates than people who rush into marriage for the completely wrong reasons, then I agree. One of the biggest problems with marriage these days is that they are not based on the proper type of love. I subscribe to the theory of D-love and B-love. An example of D-love being the cause of, and end of a relationship, is when the relationship goes down the shitter as soon as money even begins to be an issue. Another example is, like people I know, those who meet each other, and are engaged in a matter of a few months, are destined to fail. Actual love can't possibly develop that fast, and many people mistake infatuation for love. 

I don't actually know anybody who is in an arranged marriage, so I can not comment on that. I would assume social pressure/norms would be responsible for the "success" of it, because the odds of somebody falling in love with one particular person because they were told to just doesn't compute. Unless they have a detachment disorder :tongue:


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> That's true, but it doesn't address the fact that T behavior is desired in men, and F behavior in women, speaking in societal generalization. There are exceptions, but it's a rule in general. It's not a causation, but more of a numbers game. If you have to look for a needle in a haystack, your success rate is simply reduced. It may be an exaggeration, but it's something to think about.


I understand the stereotypes and generalizations, my argument however was pertaining to the theory that the 'needle in the haystack' feeling stems from intuition rather then feeling. Again there are tons of SF males, according to this data 42% of male sensors have a feeling preference. That's not far at all from being half of the sensor male population, and again we have to take into account that sensors in general comprise 70-75% of the general population at least in the US if nothing else. That's a lot of feelers who comprise a large chunk of the population. If it were feeling that was causing that divide you would see a lot less feelers in males and that's not really the case. Even in intuitives the feeling preferences in men are pretty much neck and neck with the intuitive thinkers. Intutive male thinkers (15%) have a small gap (2%) over the intuitive male feelers (13%). That rarity for a lack of a better term comes from intuition rather then feeling. The N temperament in general is more at risk then any F temperament is. 



> Taking one set of genes out of the pool as a consequence, reducing the prevalence in the next generation. And of course, as a certain trait becomes more rare, it will become more difficult to accommodate, also. In theory.


Yes, understood. But I think the 'gene' we are talking about being more difficult to accommodate is dominant intuition rather then dominant feeling. Feeling isn't the trait that is becoming endangered, even in males although Thinking has higher preference. What is the rarest characteristic in danger of being lost is intuition more then anything else because it represents less then a third of the population (25-30%) and may be much harder to "breed" for lack of a better term. 



INTJ_Eagle said:


> Give me a logical explanation as to why they should...


That's not how debating works (laughs). You stated that it makes no sense for introverts to exist and then gave no reason to support your claim. I can't make your argument for you. I have no clue where your frame of reference is coming from. It would be easier to discuss this if I knew why you though introverts shouldn't exist, then to try to argue against a "maybe" point.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Good points. Didn't know they were that close in rarity. 

To be honest, it makes no sense that intuitives should exist. Maybe it is a mutation; since human beings, for the most part, have been enjoying the luxury of having absolutely no significant predators/competition in the animal kingdom for decades. I mean, if the pharmaceutical juggernaut can make people believe that ADD/ADHD went from affecting 0% of kids to affecting 5% of kids within two generations (there is virtually no record of ADD-like behavior in young children before the 1960s, in fact, it was normal for teachers to teach classes twice the size with virtually zero behavioral problems to impede), why not believe we are becoming genetically altered as a species to cope with the lack of need to utilize our senses on a constant basis or become dinner? Same thing is happening with our wisdom teeth. It's postulated that hypothetical, very advanced alien species could have advanced cognitive abilities, why not entertain the thought that we are currently experiencing the onset of the exact same thing? Maybe intuitives have existed in infinitesimal quantities for quite a long time, but have gotten a chance to increase in recent generations?

Of course this would suggest N is so rare because it is in its infancy, not an endangered phenotype. I really doubt any MBTI/Jungian studies have been done to study the trending rate of N in the population over generations, since it's only been around for so few generations and it seems like something that exploded in popularity with the internets.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> Depends; if you're an extrovert, introversion may stick out like a sore thumb.


Depends on how you define introversion. Some introverted types can come across as quite extroverted in some situations and vice versa for extroverts appearing introverted. In this sense you need to observe people closely to get an accurate determination.

And since extroverted traits are far more expressive and obvious, they are far more likely to be the ones which catch a person's attention, regardless of whether or not the person expressing them is primarily extroverted or introverted.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Given that MBTI test statistics are only as accurate as the people partaking in the test it is obviously very save to assume that giving it any thought is a waste of everyone's time.



> they make up 30% out of 70% of all Sensors, that's damn near half


wat.


----------



## FreeSpirit (Jun 1, 2011)

INTJ_Eagle said:


> @_benr3600_
> That still doesn't explain the existence of Is and their prevalence over Es though. My reason for not having kids is that the current society is not worth it...among other things. Why would I bring another being into this fucked up world to suffer like I have? Besides, the planet is over populated anyway and I'm more of a "nurturer" when it comes to the nature v. nurture argument.
> 
> ...Perhaps the INTJ and INFJ traits continued, despite the historical executions, because they were passed down from the opposite, socially approved gender and just happened to mutate to the wrong gender of the child.


Concerning the I vs E thoughts: in the Myers Briggs, introversion and extroversion merely
determine the order of an individual's functions. So, if most men are ISTJs (just as an example)
that means that they use Si then Te, instead of Te then Si. It doesn't necessarily
mean that they come off as introverted- they may be talkative, smiling, and generally
successful people at dealing with others. It just means their strongest function is Si.

Anyway, I don't trust statistics in general. They are so easily manipulated into 'proving'
whatever the statistic sponsor wants to prove. And it seems to me that so many
Myers-Briggs enthusiasts try to use the MBTI to prove their own worth/uniqueness
over others. I wouldn't put it past any of them (not even the official sites). And the
way it generally goes is: "NTs are the bestitty bestest! I'm a _real_ NT- and all these
other poor saps claiming it are wanna-be's and fakers! NTs are actually sooooooo 
rare- naw, dude- you're just an SJ!"

(BTW, Si is cool.)

Off subject- I also don't have children or even want to have children.
I also think that life is nothing to get excited about, and don't think it's a 
good idea to make more of it because of the child's inherent suffering 
(among other things).

But I lean a bit towards nature over nurture, though.


----------



## FreeSpirit (Jun 1, 2011)

snapdragons said:


> I agree with analyzing _why_ these stats are the way they are. Does this mean MBTI functions have some sort of genetic basis, and therefore a biologically-driven function? When you think about it, if the majority of men were INFP's and the majority of women were ENTJ's, wouldn't that have set up a rather different dynamic over the course of human history?


I don't think that this would have made a difference in human history because the reasons why things have developed between men and women the way they have are because of physical (not personality) differences (in my theory).

This is because: 

1. Women tend to be smaller than men, and power in human society all
comes back down to violence. Women, in general, because of their lower weight and
stature (and lower testosterone, which aids in muscle-building) have a more difficult time
kicking any random guy's ass than a man would have (as he is more likely to be on more
even physical footing with other men.)

2. Women birth children. This means two things: *A.)* A woman always knows that a child
she has is _her _child. But for a man, any child he has he must _trust_ is his (barring DNA
tests). I believe this is the root of marriage- a bond of trust that is supposed to _prove_
that a certain woman's children are also the children of a certain man (so the man
can be confident that his DNA is being passed on.) And as we all know, marriage has had some restrictive effects on woman's freedom in the social sphere *B.)* A would-be mother is generally out-of-commission for awhile when pregnant- esp. in an ancient world (in which most tasks would require physical strain). If she births many children, it becomes obvious that she should watch them, as her ability to provide for the family is constantly being hindered by her pregnancy. Not only that, but remembering that the woman tends
to be smaller than the man (and ancient tasks, in general, required physical strain)
it is pretty logical that she should watch the kids while the man 'takes care of business'-
because he is their heavy-hitter, and _someone_ has to watch the children!

However, that does not- in anyway- rely on any personality traits. Every woman on
the planet could have been an ENTJ and the above points would still be true. In fact,
the ENTJ woman may be the first to realize it! Anyway, Fi is pretty fierce. Fi is fitting
for masculinity, if you ask me...


----------



## snapdragons (Feb 1, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> To be honest, it makes no sense that intuitives should exist.


Well, after humans stopped migrating as hunter-gatherers and settled, there was more to work with. Over time, wouldn't it make sense for humans to eventually develop the ability to think in symbols, which are a representation of something more? Of course intuitives should exist.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

snapdragons said:


> Well, after humans stopped migrating as hunter-gatherers and settled, there was more to work with. Over time, wouldn't it make sense for humans to eventually develop the ability to think in symbols, which are a representation of something more? Of course intuitives should exist.


Thank you for capitulating what I said in the rest of my post. 

Maybe Si exists because humans started to "guard" the earliest villages and order and organization was needed, after the advent of tools, and civilization? It could be a mutation of Se, as intuition would be a mutated version of sensing. Se users would have been the hunters and gatherers, and Si users would have been guardians, farmers etc. Intuitives would have been the weird guys getting beat up and having their lunch stolen from them :tongue:

Actually, I recall reading an article recently attempting to prove that logic = atheism, and intuition = religiosity (not the cog functions, as it would suggest the INTJ type is an anomaly, being N-dom and the highest rate of atheism, but the propensity for believing what you can not prove logically), and it stated that the part of the brain responsible for intuition, is actually more archaic than the part used for logical thought. I will have to try to dig up this article and look into it and find out if there is any Jungian/MBTI basis in it.


----------



## FreeSpirit (Jun 1, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> Actually, I recall reading an article recently attempting to prove that logic = atheism, and intuition = religiosity (not the cog functions, as it would suggest the INTJ type is an anomaly, being N-dom and the highest rate of atheism, but the propensity for believing what you can not prove logically), and it stated that the part of the brain responsible for intuition, is actually more archaic than the part used for logical thought. I will have to try to dig up this article and look into it and find out if there is any Jungian/MBTI basis in it.


It makes sense. Atheism can not be proven. (You can't prove there is no God).
So atheism has an element of faith to it (just like theism). It's the agnostics
that are truly logical- now if we just had a poll to how many ISTPs and INTPs
were agnostics...

(I know the article is trying to say atheism = logic. It is mistaken, but
only on that small part!)


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Arrow said:


> That's not how debating works (laughs). You stated that it makes no sense for introverts to exist and then gave no reason to support your claim. I can't make your argument for you. I have no clue where your frame of reference is coming from. It would be easier to discuss this if I knew why you though introverts shouldn't exist, then to try to argue against a "maybe" point.


Lol. Actually, I did. I'll restate it below...



> So the question becomes: are types genetic? If so, then it seems strange that Is would be more prevalent than Es since natural selection would be in the E's favor. Humans who are drained by other humans, introverts, would have less of a survival rate than Es, who fit the "humans are social creatures" standard that science believes and continuously thrusts upon us...


I can understand snapdragon's perspective when she states:


snapdragons said:


> Well, after humans stopped migrating as hunter-gatherers and settled, there was more to work with. Over time, wouldn't it make sense for humans to eventually develop the ability to think in symbols, which are a representation of something more? Of course intuitives should exist.


 but it still seems strange that introverts would continue to exist. It's like we are here simply to be manipulated by Es...


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Arrow said:


> Why are these stats so hard to believe?


I was wondering how much of these stats represents projected persona, rather than the person's actual cognitive process or anything underlying about them.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

INTJ_Eagle said:


> but it still seems strange that introverts would continue to exist. It's like we are here simply to be manipulated by Es...


That's generally not the way extroversion and introversion work. Extroversion and Introversion is just about where one focuses their attention. I's are concerned about their internal life and focus on things on how they are inside. E's focus on the outside and the external. You make it sound like E's are vampires or leeches or something sucking the life out of I's (laughs). Ultimately at some point all E's begin to lose their energy and they need time to recharge to get that balance and energy back. 

Why do you think ENTP's and ENFP's completely disappear and are nowhere to be found when they get exhausted in a bad way? Introversion and Extroversion is just focus and head space -- not necessarily about energy level of what invigorates you. Any type can be energized. 



Flatlander said:


> I was wondering how much of these stats represents projected persona, rather than the person's actual cognitive process or anything underlying about them.


That's interesting, it wouldn't surprise me MBTI is mostly letter by letter for the most part, not by cognitive function.


----------



## Xiong Mao (Apr 19, 2012)

Arrow said:


> You make it sound like E's are vampires or leeches or something sucking the life out of I's (laughs).


Haha! :laughing: It certainly feels that way! lol


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Stephen said:


> LMAO at work, thanks a lot. :dry:


It's always a pleasure to cause the 'snort of trouble'. :tongue:


----------

