PDA

View Full Version : What are the most and least common MBTI types?



DisneyGeek
03-20-2009, 04:13 AM
As said above, thanks. :)

Apollanaut
03-20-2009, 04:29 AM
Accurate statistics are hard to come by, and it probably varies from culture to culture, but most experts agree that INFJs are possibly the rarest type, closely followed by the other INXX types.

DisneyGeek
03-20-2009, 04:47 AM
Haha, you must be a rarity then.

BlackCat
03-20-2009, 04:51 AM
NJs are pretty rare in general, then NPs. S types are common.

DisneyGeek
03-20-2009, 05:03 AM
Yeah, I hate how I'm common. I wish I was special. :(

Haha.

Qre:us
03-20-2009, 05:13 AM
Yeah, I hate how I'm common. I wish I was special. :(

You are special. Your type is common.

You > your type (math symbol cuz a birdie whispered that you liked math)

paisley1
03-20-2009, 05:56 AM
I'd happen to agree that you are special disneygeek, you have a huge group of people who relate to you very easily, us INFJ's aren't so fortunate. Here's the list of frequencies:

Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org (http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/estimated-frequencies.htm)

Hope that helps. Think of it this way, us INFJ's are very alone in our struggle for bringing about world integrity, although, not very lonely.

INFJ Profile (http://typelogic.com/infj.html)
ISTJ Profile (http://typelogic.com/istj.html)

Apollanaut
03-20-2009, 06:06 AM
Haha, you must be a rarity then.

I've met several hundred people in real life who know their MBTI type with a fair degree of confidence. Out of those people, I've met maybe three or four INFJs, all of them female. I've yet to meet a fellow male INFJ.

And being rare is highly overrated! I've gotten used to being misunderstood all the time, or labelled as different, weird, eccentric, dreamy, odd etc, but sometimes I think life would be so much easier if I belonged to a more common or accepted type.

the state i am in
03-20-2009, 06:16 AM
i've never met another infj male. i might have met an infj female, once.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 06:25 AM
I know a couple infj females, but never met another infj male.

Dali
03-20-2009, 06:52 AM
I've met several hundred people in real life who know their MBTI type with a fair degree of confidence.

Wow. I only know two people that knew what MBTI was. Did you attend conferences or something? Are there even MBTI conventions?

paisley1
03-20-2009, 07:12 AM
My social circles for the most part, know their mbti if I just ask them for their myers briggs or personality type, or if they're still lost, then start using the letters like estp or infj, then they know or try to remember what it is. For the most part, male S types that I know (clear S types that you can see coming a mile away) don't know their mbti. If your circle of friends are N types, you'll know more people that know their mbti, is all I'm getting at. I know about 20 N types and 2 S types, that know for sure what their mbti is.

Nice attempt at humor with the mbti conventions though.

Quinlan
03-20-2009, 07:43 AM
I know a thousand people that know their type and 764 of them are INFJs.

BallentineChen
03-20-2009, 07:47 AM
A lot of my friends know their MBTI. It helps that many of us know each other through volunteer work for youth development, so we have a natural interest in this sort of stuff. Secondly, I wouldn't trip over the rarity thing. In my experience, the only thing it plays to is your ego, and I bet all INFJs know that they're supposed to be the rarest type. I've seen that this really might not be the case, I don't remember where I saw the statistic. I would be skeptical of any statistics that I saw to begin with. A self-select survey, for example, would be very iffy. I wasn't able to find the backing for the statistics provided at CAPT. Don't feel bad about being a common type. You can think that it's just a greater opportunity to further break the mold.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 08:40 AM
When I first realized the rarity of my type I felt more distant from the world than unique. It was only those who brought it to my attention that rare is good, did I make that connection, that I offer something distinct. More like extinct! I see it as a hindrance for life and relationships. I was already aware of how dissimilar I rationalize, compared to everyone around me, and learning I was an INFJ didn't really help. Most people just call us weird, and I happen to agree, we're weird compared to you. Being an INFJ in my opinion is not a good thing, statistically and financially speaking. I think of it as a predestination for a harder life compared to other types. Not a "boo freaking hoo, woe is me" but simply a gap in commonality is created by being INFJ which makes life a little harder.

As far as the CAPT statistic being accurate, most stats that I find hold the INFJ and INFJ male to be the lowest percentage.

My MBTI Personality Type - My MBTI Results - How Frequent Is My Type? (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp)
Personality Type Indicator | web.forret.com (http://web.forret.com/tools/personality.asp?lang=EN)
MBTIŽ Type Frequency Table for USA | Mivista Consulting, Inc. Michelle Villalobos, Sales Consulting, Workshops & Seminars based in Miami, Florida. Delivering hands-on, interactive, business skills-building workshops to corporations, chambers of comme (http://www.mivistaconsulting.com/services/what_we_do_-_services/MBTI/mbti_type_frequency_table_f.html)

It's not really up for that much question in my mind. Maybe if we took a sample in a profession dominated by INFJ's like religious studies professors, than maybe we could fix the results, but in a fair cross section of humanity, it makes sense we're the lowest frequency. What are we clearly capable of and how important are those roles? Not that important really. Genetic lottery losers imo. It's hard saying that, when I know there are positive traits among fellow INFJ's with our dominant introverted intuition about relationships.

Lightyear
03-20-2009, 09:07 AM
but in a fair cross section of humanity, it makes sense we're the lowest frequency. What are we clearly capable of and how important are those roles? Not that important really. Genetic lottery losers imo. It's hard saying that, when I know there are positive traits among fellow INFJ's with our dominant introverted intuition about relationships.

Can you please stop bringing down my type? I like my type and think that we are emotionally and intellectually very gifted and find it offensive to be called a "genetic lottery loser" just because we happen to be rare.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 09:44 AM
I already said we have "positive traits" and already conceded we're highly talented and gifted, the lot of us male INFJ's, like I said with our natural introverted intuition and extroverted feeling sitting on a higher cognitive playing field than the rest of the world, but still at a disadvantage as far as commonality with the world. I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist, and as far as commonality with the world we're at a disadvantage. Do you see yourself a man of the people or a man for the people? I'm definitely the latter! My highly tuned abilities seem contrary and unnecessary to the norm.

How about I put it this way, if the mbti types were 16 ice cream flavors chocolate and vanilla would be ISTJ and ISFJ, and INFJ would be like all the flavors combined. If this were a pop metaphor it would be the equivalent of coke and pepsi to swamp water (all the current fountain drinks in one). It's just not something you want everyday.

Genetic lottery loser/winner is interchangeable by how you look at it really, but in this aspect, we haven't been given the easy go.

Oh, I didn't preface, I'm talking about MALE INFJ's not female. There are more female INFJ's which precludes them from this line of thinking. I could maybe make a case for female INTP's 3% or female INTJ's 3% (not substantially), but not female INFJ's 4%.

tibby
03-20-2009, 11:17 AM
What is the reason why some types are more common and some are rarer?

Dali
03-20-2009, 11:40 AM
Nice attempt at humor with the mbti conventions though.

First ripping into Wolfy and then this... did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or are you always this charming?

paisley1
03-20-2009, 12:00 PM
Mo really doesn't like sarcasm, but I'll forgive him/her/it! Tone is never conveyed on a post and may be seemingly hurtful however all is said in the funniest possible way. And I wouldn't call it ripping, Wolfys post came out of left field!

Why some types are more common and some are rarer? Well, I'd say the predestination of God. It's God's way of administering his sovereignty and perfection. A sovereign imprint onto our social order. Do you have an evolutionary reason? Just cuz? Is there a way of tampering with the genome to get the proper balance of personality types necessary for a functioning society? Predestination and the sovereignty of God is the best answer in my mind.

The Outsider
03-20-2009, 12:08 PM
Do you suggest Odin is an INFJ?

EDIT: I am cursed to always have my posts on the next page. This was directed to paisley1.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 12:18 PM
Odin? The God of War? Odin is fictitious, but he may be an INFJ, I don't know. Are you responding to my "higher cognitive playing field" comment, only meant to boast and at the same time demean? LOL.

No, I'm talking about the Christian triune Monotheist God. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I don't think Odin qualifies in terms of predestination of all events and such like.

The Outsider
03-20-2009, 12:27 PM
Odin? The God of War? Odin is fictitious, but he may be an INFJ, I don't know. Are you responding to my "higher cognitive playing field" comment, only meant to boast and at the same time demean? LOL.

No, I'm talking about the Christian triune Monotheist God. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I don't think Odin qualifies in terms of predestination of all events and such like.

Not just a God of war, also a creator. Fictitious perhaps to you, but not necessarily to me.

But it seems we have different conceptions on the matter at hand.

Also, I understand that I misunderstood your post, when you added to it. I thought you were implying that God himself is an INFJ, and is thus showering his divinity into INFJs, but I believe this was a misconception on my part.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 12:35 PM
The connection I will make is that INFJ's in history have been prophetic and have the pre set gifting for prophesy, like Nathan in the Bible. In that sense INFJ's have a divine like attribute, but this is no indicator of divine quality, only a correlation from mbti. God's personality is simply the combination of all personality types, in my mind, as we are made in his image, it stands to reason. Again, Christian God. As far as the Christian God, who was the one who wrestled with God? Jacob? And what is Jacobs personality type? The opposite of INFJ, ESTP! To this very day, an entire Nation was named after him, Israel. Sheer coincidence?

ESTP Profile (http://typelogic.com/estp.html)
INFJ Profile (http://typelogic.com/infj.html)

I find it interesting you believe in Odin and Norse mythology, very unique. How does that work? I'm interested in the why and what that looks like in practice.

The Outsider
03-20-2009, 01:11 PM
In all honesty, I said it mostly to see your reaction. :cheese: I'm that evil.
I don't worship the gods in Norse pantheon. Worshiping anyone or anything goes against me. I'm an agnostic at heart. But, possibly because of my heritage and my home, I feel some sympathy towards Norse gods.

As for being fictitious, as I said, not necessarily. I don't see why they are any more fictitious than Jehovah.

Dali
03-20-2009, 01:11 PM
Mo really doesn't like sarcasm, but I'll forgive him/her/it! Tone is never conveyed on a post and may be seemingly hurtful however all is said in the funniest possible way. ...

Why some types are more common and some are rarer? Well, I'd say the predestination of God. It's God's way of administering his sovereignty and perfection. A sovereign imprint onto our social order. Do you have an evolutionary reason? Just cuz? Is there a way of tampering with the genome to get the proper balance of personality types necessary for a functioning society? Predestination and the sovereignty of God is the best answer in my mind.

Oh, Mo loves sarcasm. At least, the type which he deems witty. ;)

I completely agree with the second paragraph.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 01:45 PM
Evil? Seemed like a perfectly valid question Outsider. I simply see no credibility in a pantheon of God's (Norse to Hindu) due to the convictions I have about Christ being a living reality within my life.

Witty sarcasm? I thought it was a state of mind? Either you've been sarcastic or you haven't, don't think you can really measure sarcasm, because it's tonal. ;)

Surprised I haven't got scolded for my firm unapologetic stance on the predestination of God? That's sweet. Adding Mo, to friends list, now.

Dali
03-20-2009, 01:53 PM
Witty. Sarcasm.

The commas in that final sentence were rather unneccessary, don't you think?

How's that for criticism. ;)

Accepting Paisley's, friends-list, request now.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 01:57 PM
I should've used dots. Adding mo.....to friends list.....now. As though I was doing it while I was writing. Thank you for the strongbadian grammeriterical remarks!

BlackCat
03-20-2009, 02:08 PM
Yeah, I hate how I'm common. I wish I was special. :(

Haha.

I personally like how ISTJs are common, seeing as how you are one of my ideal matchups. ;)

Dali
03-20-2009, 02:29 PM
I personally like how ISTJs are common, seeing as how you are one of my ideal matchups. ;)

ISTJ + INFP = ideal?. I mean, even keeping in mind all the "everyone is a unique individual blah blah snore", I've never heard that one before.

I'm interested in knowing what typical ISTJ qualities you find most attractive. Humour me.

Jeffster
03-20-2009, 02:31 PM
What is the reason why some types are more common and some are rarer?

So that human society has a certain balance to it. The largest group want to protect the status quo, so the resistance to that is tempered and we don't move so fast that we O.D. on progress...or something like that. Short hand, God wants to keep us in line. ;)

mlittrell
03-20-2009, 02:31 PM
ESXJs are the most commom (keirsey)

INFJs are the least common (keirsey)

supposedly INFJ males but i dont believe that to be true

Funkadelic
03-20-2009, 02:48 PM
ESXJs are the most commom (keirsey)

INFJs are the least common (keirsey)

supposedly INFJ males but i dont believe that to be true

Agreed.

ISTJs are very common, as well. SJs are the most common types by a long shot. I'd think NFs and NTs are the most rare.

Just from experience, alone, I think that ENTPs, ENTJs, and INFPs may be the least common type.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 02:53 PM
From experience, ENTP's are everywhere, doing everything all the time. Not tons, but definitely identifiable and not as rare as other types. INFP's have some males in the group, so they aren't as scarce in my experience. Don't know any ENTJ's, maybe you're right?

BlackCat
03-20-2009, 03:00 PM
ISTJ + INFP = ideal?. I mean, even keeping in mind all the "everyone is a unique individual blah blah snore", I've never heard that one before.

I'm interested in knowing what typical ISTJ qualities you find most attractive. Humour me.

They are introverted, they are super loyal, they aren't retarded about feelings. Also if you take a look at the functions then we pretty much reinforce each other's weaknesses. INFP- FiNeSiTe, ISTJ- SiTeFiNe. I also like seeing their Fi come out in the open. Most of the time I've found that I can confide in thinkers very well (especially the TJs), whenever I ask one for advice they point out things that I wouldn't think about (such as real factors), since I have the emotional side of the issue covered in my mind. I don't conflict with them too much, and when I do it's usually minor, but even if it's not I resolve conflicts with these people very quickly generally.

I could go on and on, I even started a thread about it. :tongue: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/sj-guardhouse/3119-praise-istj-s-4.html#post557882 It got merged with another ISTJ praise thread, but that is where mind started.

All of that combined with the fact that they are (I think) something like 15% of the world? Yes please. :tongue:

Winds of Thor
03-20-2009, 08:29 PM
When I first realized the rarity of my type I felt more distant from the world than unique. It was only those who brought it to my attention that rare is good, did I make that connection, that I offer something distinct. More like extinct! I see it as a hindrance for life and relationships. I was already aware of how dissimilar I rationalize, compared to everyone around me, and learning I was an INFJ didn't really help. Most people just call us weird, and I happen to agree, we're weird compared to you. Being an INFJ in my opinion is not a good thing, statistically and financially speaking. I think of it as a predestination for a harder life compared to other types. Not a "boo freaking hoo, woe is me" but simply a gap in commonality is created by being INFJ which makes life a little harder.

As far as the CAPT statistic being accurate, most stats that I find hold the INFJ and INFJ male to be the lowest percentage.

My MBTI Personality Type - My MBTI Results - How Frequent Is My Type? (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp)
Personality Type Indicator | web.forret.com (http://web.forret.com/tools/personality.asp?lang=EN)
MBTIŽ Type Frequency Table for USA | Mivista Consulting, Inc. Michelle Villalobos, Sales Consulting, Workshops & Seminars based in Miami, Florida. Delivering hands-on, interactive, business skills-building workshops to corporations, chambers of comme (http://www.mivistaconsulting.com/services/what_we_do_-_services/MBTI/mbti_type_frequency_table_f.html)

It's not really up for that much question in my mind. Maybe if we took a sample in a profession dominated by INFJ's like religious studies professors, than maybe we could fix the results, but in a fair cross section of humanity, it makes sense we're the lowest frequency. What are we clearly capable of and how important are those roles? Not that important really. Genetic lottery losers imo. It's hard saying that, when I know there are positive traits among fellow INFJ's with our dominant introverted intuition about relationships.

I haven't read your threads...but are you tested as INFJ?

Winds of Thor
03-20-2009, 08:32 PM
When I first realized the rarity of my type I felt more distant from the world than unique. It was only those who brought it to my attention that rare is good, did I make that connection, that I offer something distinct. More like extinct! I see it as a hindrance for life and relationships. I was already aware of how dissimilar I rationalize, compared to everyone around me, and learning I was an INFJ didn't really help. Most people just call us weird, and I happen to agree, we're weird compared to you. Being an INFJ in my opinion is not a good thing, statistically and financially speaking. I think of it as a predestination for a harder life compared to other types. Not a "boo freaking hoo, woe is me" but simply a gap in commonality is created by being INFJ which makes life a little harder.

As far as the CAPT statistic being accurate, most stats that I find hold the INFJ and INFJ male to be the lowest percentage.

My MBTI Personality Type - My MBTI Results - How Frequent Is My Type? (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp)
Personality Type Indicator | web.forret.com (http://web.forret.com/tools/personality.asp?lang=EN)
MBTIŽ Type Frequency Table for USA | Mivista Consulting, Inc. Michelle Villalobos, Sales Consulting, Workshops & Seminars based in Miami, Florida. Delivering hands-on, interactive, business skills-building workshops to corporations, chambers of comme (http://www.mivistaconsulting.com/services/what_we_do_-_services/MBTI/mbti_type_frequency_table_f.html)

It's not really up for that much question in my mind. Maybe if we took a sample in a profession dominated by INFJ's like religious studies professors, than maybe we could fix the results, but in a fair cross section of humanity, it makes sense we're the lowest frequency. What are we clearly capable of and how important are those roles? Not that important really. Genetic lottery losers imo. It's hard saying that, when I know there are positive traits among fellow INFJ's with our dominant introverted intuition about relationships.

I'm not buying it. How harsh you sound...even to slam 'your own type..' You got eyes on you.

Winds of Thor
03-20-2009, 08:54 PM
Mo really doesn't like sarcasm, but I'll forgive him/her/it! Tone is never conveyed on a post and may be seemingly hurtful however all is said in the funniest possible way. And I wouldn't call it ripping, Wolfys post came out of left field!

Why some types are more common and some are rarer? Well, I'd say the predestination of God. It's God's way of administering his sovereignty and perfection. A sovereign imprint onto our social order. Do you have an evolutionary reason? Just cuz? Is there a way of tampering with the genome to get the proper balance of personality types necessary for a functioning society? Predestination and the sovereignty of God is the best answer in my mind.

This sounds ESTP.

NewEra
03-20-2009, 09:15 PM
Very interesting statistical compilation here - Meyers-Briggs Statistics (http://www.theanconas.com/MBTI/mfstats.htm)

According to it, ISFJ is the most common and INFJ is the least. The gender differences are very interesting too. Most common male personality is ISTJ, most common female personality is ISFJ.

http://i43.tinypic.com/14uerd2.jpg

paisley1
03-20-2009, 10:26 PM
I'm not buying it. How harsh you sound...even to slam 'your own type..' You got eyes on you.

My test results are on every post. I just took another test, hoping it was different and it came out even more INFJ than the last one. Don't know what kind of male INFJ's you've met, but my comments are far from harsh, because tone isn't conveyed on a post. As well, on the post you take, I'm quoting the muppets! I'm laughing. What do you find harsh?

Jeffster
03-20-2009, 10:47 PM
Yeah, I still don't buy those numbers. Specifically that there are significantly more ISFPs than ESTPs. I highly doubt that.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 10:51 PM
Yeah, I still don't buy those numbers. Specifically that there are significantly more ISFPs than ESTPs. I highly doubt that.

Why do you highly doubt that?

Jeffster
03-20-2009, 11:06 PM
Why do you highly doubt that?

My own observation of people and things I've read. Also my inherent skepticism of the results of surveys with so much room for bias.

paisley1
03-20-2009, 11:30 PM
So basically, your feelings. :newwink:

NewEra
03-20-2009, 11:33 PM
These statistics are for Americans. For another nation, it would probably be pretty different. Study said it sampled 3009 Americans out of a pool of about 16,000.

Stanton Moore
03-20-2009, 11:38 PM
I know that my type is rare, but I think I know a lot of like-minded people, (although I'm new to MBTI, so I have never typed anyone I know.) I chalk this up to hanging around musicians (and being one, of course). Musical friendships can be very deep...

paisley1
03-21-2009, 03:21 AM
I know that my type is rare, but I think I know a lot of like-minded people, (although I'm new to MBTI, so I have never typed anyone I know.) I chalk this up to hanging around musicians (and being one, of course). Musical friendships can be very deep...

Agreed, musical relationships I've had are deep, and at the same time, highly volatile due to creative differences like Mr. Schneebly!

"I pledge allegiance... to the band... of Mr. Schneebly... and will not fight him... for creative control... and will defer to him on all issues related to the musical direction of the band."

Does anyone have any tangible evidence, beyond their gut feelings, why the mbti frequencies would be out, when all the tests support similar findings? Why they don't sit well? Why such disagreement? Anyone here support them, like myself? Does 70% S types and 30% N types bother anyone, or do you see the reason for its necessity in society?

Glycerine
03-21-2009, 06:50 AM
Agreed.

ISTJs are very common, as well. SJs are the most common types by a long shot. I'd think NFs and NTs are the most rare.

Just from experience, alone, I think that ENTPs, ENTJs, and INFPs may be the least common type.

This is interesting. I know at least 5 or 6 INFPs (2 males and 4 females). From my experience, INFPs don't seem to be that rare. But then again, it's all based on our own observations. :) I also know 2 ENTJs who happen to be females. There must be really rare odds for that.

D'Artagnan
03-21-2009, 07:21 AM
This is interesting. I know at least 5 or 6 INFPs (2 males and 4 females). From my experience, INFPs don't seem to be that rare. But then again, it's all based on our own observations. :) I also know 2 ENTJs who happen to be females. That must be really rare odds for that

I know at least 6 INFPs (2 f, 4 m) and was puzzled by this as I'd read they were fairly uncommon. I then remembered a description of INFPs that I'd read stating something about being interested in the arts and alternative scene. I realized that most INFPs I knew were in bands, going out with people in bands or were just part of the 'arts' scene.

Quinlan
03-21-2009, 08:42 AM
Do you have an evolutionary reason? Just cuz? Is there a way of tampering with the genome to get the proper balance of personality types necessary for a functioning society? Predestination and the sovereignty of God is the best answer in my mind.

I reckon the answer would lie in evolutionary psychology, if MBTI had more validity.

nanook
03-21-2009, 09:09 AM
These statistics are for Americans. For another nation, it would probably be pretty different.

so the government really puts stuff in your drinking water :shock:

paisley1
03-21-2009, 02:53 PM
Evolutionary psychology towards personality frequency in general, if not mbti if you'd like. Even granted that, how does evolutionary psychology explain the, why, it works out harmoniously? Again, just sounds like, just cuz. "It does ok." "That's how evolution works." Why questions usually end with such blanket statements by evolutionists when it comes to matters of metaphysics when there's really nothing scientific for why it should work out harmoniously. Out of randomness, somehow, magic order. (eye roll) I try not to buy into thinking so blatantly riddled with logical fallacy.

Quinlan
03-21-2009, 07:27 PM
Evolutionary psychology towards personality frequency in general, if not mbti if you'd like. Even granted that, how does evolutionary psychology explain the, why, it works out harmoniously? Again, just sounds like, just cuz. "It does ok." "That's how evolution works." Why questions usually end with such blanket statements by evolutionists when it comes to matters of metaphysics when there's really nothing scientific for why it should work out harmoniously. Out of randomness, somehow, magic order. (eye roll) I try not to buy into thinking so blatantly riddled with logical fallacy.

It doesn't work because it exists, it exists because it works.

If that mix of "types" worked better for one genetic group of people than another group with a different mix, then the first's groups chance of survival would be higher, and then that pattern of types would be refined and amplified after each successful generation of the first group.

If you see order in nature it exists because order provided some sort of advantage over chaos. If that mix of types didn't work or remained chaotic, it would have proved unfit long ago and it wouldn't be evident for us to talk about it now.

I suppose.

nanook
03-21-2009, 07:52 PM
i just read a non-type related journalistic article about forms of intuition and in particular about how economic businessmen men deal with "gut feeling" when they make decisions about share stocks and stuff.

anyway, it claimed that 70% of American businessmen "admit" to use "gut feeling", but only 30% of german business men.

so apparently we are the bigger suckers for SJ culture values.

The Outsider
03-21-2009, 08:37 PM
Evolutionary psychology towards personality frequency in general, if not mbti if you'd like. Even granted that, how does evolutionary psychology explain the, why, it works out harmoniously? Again, just sounds like, just cuz. "It does ok." "That's how evolution works." Why questions usually end with such blanket statements by evolutionists when it comes to matters of metaphysics when there's really nothing scientific for why it should work out harmoniously. Out of randomness, somehow, magic order. (eye roll) I try not to buy into thinking so blatantly riddled with logical fallacy.

The idea that some invisible all-powerful God just made it work sounds even more magical to me.

speculative
03-21-2009, 08:52 PM
i just read a non-type related journalistic article about forms of intuition and in particular about how economic businessmen men deal with "gut feeling" when they make decisions about share stocks and stuff.

Interesting. More businesses are differentiating themselves based on "feeling"-related themes rather than technical themes nowadays. For example, Subaru is one of the only car companies in the world whose sales are up (although slightly) and they have won several awards for their "Love" ad campaign. (And it's not just hype - this is what that company really believes in, over the course of many, many years...) So, this makes sense that people would pick stocks partly based on gut feeling...

nanook
03-21-2009, 08:56 PM
hm, that article was about the perspective of neuroscience on desicion making, on how subconsciousness is involved and often superior in results. so "gut feeling" was just an ambiguous term for .... anything unconscious. whatever it is.

the way i see it, "gut feeling" is statistically most often a term that non intuitive people (like SP) use to refer to their inferior (unconscious) intuition/instinct. since it is unconscious, it eventually "somatizes" to the gut, to get some attention.

Samvega
03-22-2009, 12:03 AM
I refuse to contribute to this thread due to moral and religious conflicts.

simulatedworld
03-22-2009, 12:15 AM
I've read that INFJ is the rarest overall type and that ISTJ is most common.

This is for the overall population, though--for men, it happens to be the same. ISTJ is most common; INFJ is rarest.

For women, though, INTJ is rarest and ISFJ is most common.

OrangeAppled
03-22-2009, 07:40 AM
There's a lot of contradicting statistics out there, and you have to wonder how they gather the data. I think there's a lot of mis-typing going on too. People mis-type themselves and others a lot.
I thought for a long time I was an INTP, and now the idea seems ridiculous.

Anyway, I can believe that INFJs are rare. I have a hard time believing that ISTJ is the most common, even if very common. I think extroverts out number introverts; I don't buy the almost 50-50 thing. I can say that whatever type is the most common must be the kind I don't click with :D.

As an INFP, I certainly have gone through life feeling like an alien. It is sooo rare to meet people who "get" me. I realize that INs probably all experience this, just because of our passive & abstract communication styles, and the way it may actually keep us from engaging in conversation with similar people.

Quinlan
03-22-2009, 07:47 AM
I think extroverts out number introverts; I don't buy the almost 50-50 thing. I can say that whatever type is the most common must be the kind I don't click with :D.

Although when you think about it, extraverts by their very nature should be far more noticeable than introverts. It probably seems like there are more because their "energy" is always coming at you.

NewEra
03-22-2009, 03:46 PM
There's a lot of contradicting statistics out there, and you have to wonder how they gather the data. I think there's a lot of mis-typing going on too. People mis-type themselves and others a lot.
I thought for a long time I was an INTP, and now the idea seems ridiculous.

Anyway, I can believe that INFJs are rare. I have a hard time believing that ISTJ is the most common, even if very common. I think extroverts out number introverts; I don't buy the almost 50-50 thing. I can say that whatever type is the most common must be the kind I don't click with :D.

As an INFP, I certainly have gone through life feeling like an alien. It is sooo rare to meet people who "get" me. I realize that INs probably all experience this, just because of our passive & abstract communication styles, and the way it may actually keep us from engaging in conversation with similar people.

I think part of it is some people unknowingly fake being extroverted just to be comfortable in a particular setting. They are introverts at heart, they can just fake it better than others. Also, what Quinlan said, that in general, extroverts are more noticeable than introverts. I hear that in England, there are a lot more introverts proportionally than in the U.S.

garbage
03-22-2009, 04:09 PM
Trying these two ideas together..


I think part of it is some people unknowingly fake being extroverted just to be comfortable in a particular setting. They are introverts at heart, they can just fake it better than others. Also, what Quinlan said, that in general, extroverts are more noticeable than introverts.


I hear that in England, there are a lot more introverts proportionally than in the U.S.

.. perhaps England has let go of the fact that extroversion is to be greatly valued over introversion and those in the U.S. are still forced to "fake" it.

But then I guess I'd expect ESTJ to be the most common type since those seem to be the most valued traits, but that doesn't appear to be the case..

juggernaut
03-22-2009, 04:33 PM
Judging by the responses so far, it does appear that female ENTJs are somewhat less common than many other types. I'm sort of a wimpy E, with very strong Te and Ti functions followed by a fairly strong Ne. The middle of the road N in my signature seems to be the result of a non-existent Ni rather than a leaning in the S direction. This is, apparently, an unusual female profile. I don't like confrontation, but I have no problem letting someone know when I find his/her reasoning inconsistent. This approach has led to the general impression that I'm something of a ball buster. I don't actually feel any need to bust balls or lead in any way (supposedly common ENTJ traits), but I have very little patience with flawed logic or sloppy justification. Again this is, according to Kiersey and others, not a personality type seen very frequently in females.

My eight function test came out as follows:
-**************** Te
-**************** Ti
-************ Ne
-********* Si
-******** Fi
-*** Se
-* Fe
- Ni

OrangeAppled
03-22-2009, 06:02 PM
Although when you think about it, extraverts by their very nature should be far more noticeable than introverts. It probably seems like there are more because their "energy" is always coming at you.


I guess that is true. They are more noticeable.

DisneyGeek
03-22-2009, 06:11 PM
ISTJ - 11.6% |ISFJ - 13.8% |INFJ - 1.5% |INTJ - 2.1%
ISTP - 5.4% |ISFP - 8.8% |INFP - 4.3% |INTP - 3.3%
ESTP - 4.3% |ESFP - 8.5% |ENFP - 8.1% |ENTP - 3.2%
ESTJ - 8.7% |ESFJ - 12.3% |ENFJ - 2.4% |ENTJ - 1.8%

I find it hard to believe that there are that many introverts versus extroverts. But I suppose Quinlan is right.

the state i am in
03-22-2009, 10:47 PM
so if i'm a male infj and i start dating a female intj, does that mean i win?

juggernaut
03-22-2009, 10:54 PM
Not sure anyone ever truly "wins" with an xNTJ female...mwuhahaha!

paisley1
03-23-2009, 05:34 AM
It doesn't work because it exists, it exists because it works.

If that mix of "types" worked better for one genetic group of people than another group with a different mix, then the first's groups chance of survival would be higher, and then that pattern of types would be refined and amplified after each successful generation of the first group.

If you see order in nature it exists because order provided some sort of advantage over chaos. If that mix of types didn't work or remained chaotic, it would have proved unfit long ago and it wouldn't be evident for us to talk about it now.

I suppose.

It exists because it works, assumes we have a say? What say do you have on being one MBTI type over another really? You're definitely going to lean one way over another.

Your answer presupposes an untruth and really doesn't answer "why". All you've said, is, "It is because it is", essentially. Your answer presupposes that it wasn't always so. There's no scientific evidence for completely contrary frequencies ever existing.

As well it doesn't answer why it should be so, over those other possibilities. Those others wouldn't on account of what? That we just don't know? We are always in the best possible state? That's definitely not necessarily so. You'd have to presuppose chaos, and what evidence is there of that? My point is that the evolutionist is starting with chaos, and then somehow, magically, it turns into order. ?? :huh: What is the scientific mechanism that introduces the occurrences to decide the best fit and what is the scientific mechanism that allows the best fit to be chosen? If the starting block is chaos, than oblivion is what should exist, not order. From nothing something came? Given the mathematical improbability and the lack of a fossil record actually showing all the failed attempts, you'd have to assume that evolution got it right almost at the first go around. That out of nothing, things work out, to me is a bigger leap than God.

I suppose. ;)

Quinlan
03-23-2009, 06:16 AM
It exists because it works, assumes we have a say?

No, nature has a say and it will select whatever psychological mix that provided the best survival rates.


What say do you have on being one MBTI type over another really? You're definitely going to lean one way over another.

I think we all have an innate type.


Your answer presupposes an untruth and really doesn't answer "why". All you've said, is, "It is because it is", essentially. Your answer presupposes that it wasn't always so. There's no scientific evidence for completely contrary frequencies ever existing.

I assume that our ancestors were not as psychologically refined as we are now, I'm not saying it came out of nowhere just that along our development (over very long periods of time) there has been a natural trial and error going on and that the most optimal mix survives better than the rest and therefore overtakes and dominates the species.


As well it doesn't answer why it should be so, over those other possibilities.

Perhaps it provides just the right mix of stablility (SJ), focus (SP), change (NF) and planning (NT) that led to communities where population growth and sustainability could be nutured, these communities would be the most successful, would dominate the others mixes and make the rest obsolete.


Those others wouldn't on account of what? That we just don't know? We are always in the best possible state?

It's just irrelevent, if another mix had been more successful perhaps Myers & Briggs would have wrote up one that one.


That's definitely not necessarily so. You'd have to presuppose chaos, and what evidence is there of that? My point is that the evolutionist is starting with chaos, and then somehow, magically, it turns into order. ?? :huh: What is the scientific mechanism that introduces the occurrences to decide the best fit and what is the scientific mechanism that allows the best fit to be chosen? If the starting block is chaos, than oblivion is what should exist, not order.

The universe is not chaotic, it has laws. All you need to suppose is that:


Things that increase survival will last
Things that hinder survival won't last (obsolescence/extinction)
That mix increased survival



From nothing something came?

It didn't come from nothing, it came from huge amounts of time + near constant change + survival of the fittest. All those things make up a refining process that creates the complex living world around us.


Given the mathematical improbability and the lack of a fossil record actually showing all the failed attempts, you'd have to assume that evolution got it right almost at the first go around.

No you don't, it probably took millions of years of refinement.



That out of nothing, things work out, to me is a bigger leap than God.

I suppose. ;)

If things hadn't worked out you and I wouldn't be sitting here typing away right now, just think of it, near infinite possibilities + truly massive amounts of time = anything can happen.

paisley1
03-23-2009, 06:33 AM
Then how does nature have a say? That's the why I'm getting at. If it came from huge amounts of time and near constant change, why do we not see evidence for this in the fossil record over millions of years? The evidence, statistically speaking if we were to survive, should be absolutely overwhelming in the fossil record, with a near limitless amount of transitory species that didn't work out. Even punctuated equilibrium presupposes a whole step, rather than a slight step. Yet my science question remains, why does it start from imperfection in the first place, and what scientifically causes it to change for the better. We're talking about near perfection out of an anything can happen. Doesn't answer why it began happening or why it changes for the better in the first place instead of oblivion. Just as you are not surprised that you exist under such a worldview, does not negate that I am surprised that I do exist under such a worldview. I am of the inclination that under an evolutionary worldview that some agency was tampering with nature, not nature following it's own role, as it seems like a stacked deck. The anything can happen, is just too highly highly improbable mathematically as well as historically, to be truthful. As well, it doesn't explain the why it should exist in the first place. Why nature somehow chooses to leap forward, rather than digress into oblivion. Like I said, highly improbable.

Quinlan
03-23-2009, 08:20 AM
Then how does nature have a say? That's the why I'm getting at. If it came from huge amounts of time and near constant change, why do we not see evidence for this in the fossil record over millions of years?

Well how many fossils do you want? A full record of every species and every genetic variation on that species? Fossils don't come about all that often, conditions have to be right for preservation. We are lucky we have any record at all, we can only assume for the fossils we do have and fill the gaps with common sense, I can see the similarities between Lemur and Monkey and Ape and Man, I can see how that might be part of a larger chain of development from simple to advanced.


The evidence, statistically speaking if we were to survive, should be absolutely overwhelming in the fossil record, with a near limitless amount of transitory species that didn't work out.

Well if the species didn't work out, they're hardly going to be numerous, the fittest species will be more successful and will leave much more fossils.



Even punctuated equilibrium presupposes a whole step, rather than a slight step. Yet my science question remains, why does it start from imperfection in the first place, and what scientifically causes it to change for the better.

The cause is the laws of the universe. Don't you agree with these?

# Things that increase survival will last
# Things that hinder survival won't last (obsolescence/extinction)

Things that are successful will multiply and be evident, things that are unsuccessful will die out and not be evident.




We're talking about near perfection out of an anything can happen.

How do you define perfection? There is always room for improvement and what might be perfect for today's conditions may be useless for tomorrows'.


Doesn't answer why it began happening or why it changes for the better in the first place instead of oblivion.


The universe has laws, it is not chaotic, nature adheres to those laws and from that base comes structure and complexity. Whether or not god made those laws is irrelevant, he is not necessary to explain our psychology.


I am of the inclination that under an evolutionary worldview that some agency was tampering with nature, not nature following it's own role, as it seems like a stacked deck.

Stacked deck?


The anything can happen, is just too highly highly improbable mathematically as well as historically, to be truthful.

Well then I think you're underestimating the amount of time and the amount of variation between generations that has occurred. The closer you get to infinity the more probable that anything could occur is, I suppose if you think the universe was created 4000 years ago then all this would be very improbable. I happen to think the universe has been around an incomprehensibly long time.


As well, it doesn't explain the why it should exist in the first place. Why nature somehow chooses to leap forward, rather than digress into oblivion. Like I said, highly improbable.

"Forward" doesn't exist for nature, it is a concept that man applies to what he sees. If you want something to be evident in nature what matters most is that it works (survives), complex life obviously works pretty well. Somewhere in the mists of time a cell was formed, that cell multiplied, from there whatever was successful was passed on, what wasn't was not.

The Outsider
03-23-2009, 04:32 PM
The anything can happen, is just too highly highly improbable mathematically as well as historically, to be truthful. As well, it doesn't explain the why it should exist in the first place. Why nature somehow chooses to leap forward, rather than digress into oblivion. Like I said, highly improbable.

The low probability argument is meaningless. That's just how the universe works.

Take a shuffled deck of cards, deal them out into 5 stacks and remember the exact order in each deck. You can spend the rest of your life dealing the cards out and you'll never get the same order in all the decks.
Nevertheless, the first time around, you did.

ColonelGadaafi
03-23-2009, 04:46 PM
Most uncommon FNJ/NTJ, most common esxj.

Guardian types are the most common, upholding the traditions and construct of nations, while sps are less common forms of sensors, usually found in the form of being the lazy ass bums in the family or the drunken uncles, or the cool ass uncle who is a adrenaline junkie flying choppers, owning a cool car and what not.

ENFP/ENTP's seem to be the most common amongst the inuitives types, based on what ive observed.

simulatedworld
03-23-2009, 06:09 PM
There's a lot of contradicting statistics out there, and you have to wonder how they gather the data. I think there's a lot of mis-typing going on too. People mis-type themselves and others a lot.
I thought for a long time I was an INTP, and now the idea seems ridiculous.

Anyway, I can believe that INFJs are rare. I have a hard time believing that ISTJ is the most common, even if very common. I think extroverts out number introverts; I don't buy the almost 50-50 thing. I can say that whatever type is the most common must be the kind I don't click with :D.

As an INFP, I certainly have gone through life feeling like an alien. It is sooo rare to meet people who "get" me. I realize that INs probably all experience this, just because of our passive & abstract communication styles, and the way it may actually keep us from engaging in conversation with similar people.

It's even rarer to meet an INFP who understands that s/he doesn't "get" everyone else, either. ;)



Not sure anyone ever truly "wins" with an xNTJ female...mwuhahaha!

Don't they know who the fuck you are??

polikujm
03-24-2009, 12:50 AM
Sensing types, common!? Wow, you guys will believe anything you hear on the internet.

Eagle
03-24-2009, 01:46 AM
You guys are going to make Disney's head spin... :yes:

DisneyGeek
03-24-2009, 02:03 AM
You guys are going to make Disney's head spin... :yes:

:D

paisley1
03-25-2009, 09:07 PM
"Forward" doesn't exist for nature, it is a concept that man applies to what he sees. If you want something to be evident in nature what matters most is that it works (survives), complex life obviously works pretty well. Somewhere in the mists of time a cell was formed, that cell multiplied, from there whatever was successful was passed on, what wasn't was not.

So time doesn't exist? That's all I mean by forward. One event preceding the next. Ok, so you think time doesn't exist, that's nice.

The chances of just an amino acid forming, never mind a cell, is impossible, forming a cell and that cell forming more ordered cells out of disorder is impossible. From what we've learned about the cell in recent history we know it's unbelievably complex. The cell to us, is like the Saturn 5 rocket to Darwin. All the working parts put together unbelievably well, is not just improbable, it's impossible. It's science fiction, not science! You can believe that hypothesis if you want, but it's totally unprovable and there lies no evidence for that initial occurence in history actually happening with no set of plausible scientific explanations to explain how it could actually happen. I've heard a lot of science fiction like it forming on the backs of crystals, but there's no proof for anything, it's just conjecture. You take it as fact, and logical people take it as the weak foundation of an entire theory.

Make you wonder why new forms of life don't pop into existence with such a theory.

Quinlan
03-25-2009, 09:37 PM
So time doesn't exist? That's all I mean by forward. One event preceding the next. Ok, so you think time doesn't exist, that's nice.

I never said time doesn't exist. So you were saying nature leaps forward through time? What is that even supposed to mean and how is it relevant?


The chances of just an amino acid forming, never mind a cell, is impossible, forming a cell and that cell forming more ordered cells out of disorder is impossible.

How do you know? and how can you rule out the possibility?


From what we've learned about the cell in recent history we know it's unbelievably complex. The cell to us, is like the Saturn 5 rocket to Darwin. All the working parts put together unbelievably well, is not just improbable, it's impossible. It's science fiction, not science! You can believe that hypothesis if you want, but it's totally unprovable and there lies no evidence for that initial occurence in history actually happening with no set of plausible scientific explanations to explain how it could actually happen. I've heard a lot of science fiction like it forming on the backs of crystals, but there's no proof for anything, it's just conjecture. You take it as fact, and logical people take it as the weak foundation of an entire theory.

Make you wonder why new forms of life don't pop into existence with such a theory.

So the cell is too complex to form on it's own? so you fill that hole in the theory with something infinitely more complex (god). That makes no sense whatsoever.

I actually don't think it (the cell) is all that improbable, all it takes is for conditions to be right somewhere in one of the 60ish sextillion stars in our universe (or in one of the billions of other universes), with immense numbers like that the chances of it not being formed somewhere start looking very small.

All it takes is one cell with the ability to multiply and vary between generations to ignite the flame of life and evolution. Which is more probable, a little cell or an immensly powerful and complex being?

Eagle
03-25-2009, 09:39 PM
Why some types are more common and some are rarer? Well, I'd say the predestination of God. It's God's way of administering his sovereignty and perfection. A sovereign imprint onto our social order. Do you have an evolutionary reason? Just cuz? Is there a way of tampering with the genome to get the proper balance of personality types necessary for a functioning society? Predestination and the sovereignty of God is the best answer in my mind.

I sorta like that pargraph.


I personally like how ISTJs are common, seeing as how you are one of my ideal matchups. ;)

lol


I think part of it is some people unknowingly fake being extroverted just to be comfortable in a particular setting. They are introverts at heart, they can just fake it better than others. Also, what Quinlan said, that in general, extroverts are more noticeable than introverts. I hear that in England, there are a lot more introverts proportionally than in the U.S.

Indeed. I have been asked twice if I'm schizophrenic or not when I teach classes. I talked about the MBTI with a group of cadets at my CAP squadron and a lot of them, one who is even one of closest friends (supposedly one of my closest friends) thought I was an extrovert. We can appear energized, it's a question of what's energizing us. That it the source of being an introvert. Being energized by thoughts and ideas, not people and things.. most of the time.


I find it hard to believe that there are that many introverts versus extroverts. But I suppose Quinlan is right.

The typically theory as I hear it is that approximately 51% of the entire population is introverted and 49% is extroverted.


:D

I knew someone was getting dizzy. :yes:

paisley1
03-25-2009, 09:56 PM
God is not complex, where do you get that from? As a concept, God is very simple but his nature to us, may be very complex. As an entity, very simple.

All of what you're saying, doesn't explain where the universe came from in the first place. The best you can do is that out of nothing, the universe came to exist, or you don't know. God explains why the universe exists and why life should exist.

Given you can't explain why the universe should exist but it does, and given all the right life producing agencies are on earth, how do you explain the chances that out of a pool of random inorganic elements, that an amino acid would and should form. Science should explain the process of that formation, and it doesn't. It's a great big guess. Once you look into the fine tuning of macroevolution, it looks like some agency was tampering with elements and not the product of blind random coincidence. Given the right properties for life, a pool of random elements, I don't care how long, will never produce life. Science fiction and a mathematical improbability.

It's that there is intelligence behind it, that we can understand the universe, in the first place.

Lasting_Pain
03-25-2009, 10:01 PM
I think INFP is the most uncommon type and some ST or SF is the most common type in the world.

Quinlan
03-25-2009, 10:23 PM
God is not complex, where do you get that from? As a concept, God is very simple but his nature to us, may be very complex. As an entity, very simple.

Well how can such a simple thing create and manage such complexity, without being complex itself? If god is so simple, then something equally simple, like the laws of physics, could also drive the creation of complexity, god is unnessesary then.


All of what you're saying, doesn't explain where the universe came from in the first place. The best you can do is that out of nothing, the universe came to exist, or you don't know. God explains why the universe exists and why life should exist.

Explaining where the universe comes from is irrelevant, I can explain how and why a mug works without having to explain where and how the mug was made. God is one explanation for why life and the universe exist, so is the flying spaghetti monster, whether those explanations are accurate or relevant are for you to decide. Why should you expect an explanation for everything? We are only just beginning to explore this stuff.


Given you can't explain why the universe should exist but it does, and given all the right life producing agencies are on earth, how do you explain the chances that out of a pool of random inorganic elements, that an amino acid would and should form. Science should explain the process of that formation, and it doesn't. It's a great big guess. Once you look into the fine tuning of macroevolution, it looks like some agency was tampering with elements and not the product of blind random coincidence. Given the right properties for life, a pool of random elements, I don't care how long, will never produce life. Science fiction and a mathematical improbability. It's that there is intelligence behind it, that we can understand the universe, in the first place.

As big a guess as "magic man in the sky did it"?


will never produce life.

How can you rule this out and how could you measure it?

paisley1
03-26-2009, 12:38 AM
Exactly, as big of a guess as a magic man in the sky did it; exactly! (note: God is outside of time and space and created space time, so he doesn't count in such a statement as well, to answer your question God is a simple concept with infinte complexity, but you do prove the point, macroevolution is exactly like magic!)

The burden of proof isn't on me to measure it, the burden of proof is on the one in whom can actually justify thinking it is real and believes it as fact without any evidence to back it up. I say God did it as a matter of faith, not fact. Whether you say taken on faith or theory, you're talking about the same thing; an entire field of inquiry attempting to justify a foundation where there is no justification. It's akin to saying something came from nothing. It's irrational. I can at least say, God created the universe out of his own ability to do so.

Macroevolution at it's best is science fiction, not science, and is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. Science would be better off saying they don't know, then proposing the preposterous.

cascadeco
03-26-2009, 01:02 AM
Exactly, as big of a guess as a magic man in the sky did it; exactly! (note: God is outside of time and space and created space time, so he doesn't count in such a statement as well, to answer your question God is a simple concept with infinte complexity, but you do prove the point, macroevolution is exactly like magic!)

The burden of proof isn't on me to measure it, the burden of proof is on the one in whom can actually justify thinking it is real and believes it as fact without any evidence to back it up. I say God did it as a matter of faith, not fact. Whether you say taken on faith or theory, you're talking about the same thing; an entire field of inquiry attempting to justify a foundation where there is no justification. It's akin to saying something came from nothing. It's irrational. I can at least say, God created the universe out of his own ability to do so.

Macroevolution at it's best is science fiction, not science, and is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. Science would be better off saying they don't know, then proposing the preposterous.

Your entire post is ironic. The same could be said of your views. One could switch words in your final paragraph and say: Creation/God is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. We would be better off saying we just don't know, than proposing the preposterous.

paisley1
03-26-2009, 01:04 AM
That's why I prefaced it by saying I BELIEVE as taken on faith, whereas the science community would have us think as FACT that macroevolution actually IS the way it all started. There's a huge difference. One is a personal statement, the other is a forced unproven truth claim.

cascadeco
03-26-2009, 01:18 AM
Actually to my knowledge evolution is and always has been a theory posed by the scientific community. But theory within the scientific community tends to have a lot of evidence to back it up. It is continuously being tested and refined, though, and is open to being disproved.

Quinlan
03-26-2009, 01:20 AM
The burden of proof isn't on me to measure it, the burden of proof is on the one in whom can actually justify thinking it is real and believes it as fact without any evidence to back it up.

We may not understand how it happened, yet we do have evidence that indicates a pattern, from which we can assume it did happen. Surely as an INFJ you can recognise patterns of development throughout nature and in fossils? It's one thing to draw connections between the dots of evidence, but it's something else entirely to start drawing your own picture on a different piece of paper (which is what religion does with god).



I say God did it as a matter of faith, not fact. Whether you say taken on faith or theory, you're talking about the same thing; an entire field of inquiry attempting to justify a foundation where there is no justification. It's akin to saying something came from nothing. It's irrational. I can at least say, God created the universe out of his own ability to do so.

Well then where did god come from?


Macroevolution at it's best is science fiction, not science, and is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. Science would be better off saying they don't know, then proposing the preposterous.

Science DOES say that it doesn't know, science is completely open to being wrong, our scientific understanding of the world is our best guess at that point in time, science is open to and accepts new theories and evidence. "Science" will never claim to have all the answers even when it has evidence on it's side, unlike religion which claims to have all the answers with no evidence. There may be holes in scientific evidence, yet they're small compared to the gaping voids of evidence in support of god.

paisley1
03-26-2009, 01:26 AM
Well, still by your own admission you've said macroevolution is akin to a magic man in the sky, which is good enough for me to show your doubt.....most in the scientific community are not so open minded.

Quinlan
03-26-2009, 01:49 AM
Well, still by your own admission you've said macroevolution is akin to a magic man in the sky, which is good enough for me to show your doubt.....most in the scientific community are not so open minded.

I never stated that, I asked you the question, whether evolution is more improbable than a magic man in the sky. I think it's obvious which is more probable but that's just a personal belief I suppose.

paisley1
03-26-2009, 04:59 AM
I don't know about more, but it's the same as magic. Somehow a pool of inorganic material magically turns into amino acids and magically turns into a cell and magically turns into more cells and magically turns into a simple being or simple plant and magically creates more plant and animal life that helps to support each other and work together for mutual benefit. It came into existence without an explanation and the ordered process started without an explanation by a given randomness and chaos which should lead to more chaos, but actually turns into order and organization, by magic. There's no explanation for it and its taken completely on faith that it happened that way, and everyone seems to take it as absolute, when there's nothing holding anyone to it as being scientific or truthful.

Again, it doesn't give any real answer for why, it just states that it is because it is, and we don't need to think about it because we don't have to think about it. It's so redundant and unintelligent. Altogether grasping at straws while attempting to prop up a failed theory.

I don't know why you ask the old school boy question of who created the creator but God is uncaused and exists infinite, beyond our comprehension of space and time, and created the known universe. God by his very nature is without beginning or end, your concept is some sort of person in the sky idea, which is still within space and time as though God is trapped within space and time and only capable of being within what he created, which is not the concept of God. God is infinite and exists outside of space and time, and in Christianity is made of three personhoods; a Father, Son, and Spirit. That's the common ancient answer of a monotheistic triune God. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with that.

The Outsider
03-26-2009, 01:45 PM
Altogether grasping at straws while attempting to prop up a failed theory.


That's what creationism is about. Evolution is a scientific theory that will be debunked when something more plausible comes up.

Creationists have a conclusion ready, which they try to prove with "evidence"
Science gathers evidence and makes conclusions based on it.

Speed Gavroche
03-26-2009, 02:02 PM
US adult population stats (the UKs are similars): ISFJ: 13.8% ESFJ: 12.3% ISTJ: 11.6% ISFP: 8.8% ESTJ: 8.7% ESFP: 8.5% ENFP: 8.1% ISTP: 5.4% ESTP: 4.3% INFP: 4.3% INTP: 3.3% ENTP: 3.2% ENFJ: 2.4% INTJ: 2.1% ENTJ: 1.8% INFJ: 1.5%

French adult population stats: ENFP: 16.2% ISFJ: 9.2% INFP: 8.6% ESFJ: 8.2% ISTJ: 7.7% INTP: 6.6% ENTP: 6.4% ISFP: 5.9% ESTJ: 5.8% ESFP: 5.7%ENFJ: 4.8% INTJ: 4,2% ENTJ: 3.6% ISTP: 3.6% INFJ: 3% ESTP: 2.9%

Take in count that T types are more frequents with males and F types are more frequents with females.

EcK
03-26-2009, 03:00 PM
where'd u get ur stats from speed?

DisneyGeek
03-26-2009, 07:00 PM
I think it's really interesting how different cultures have different frequencies of MBTI types.

Lasting_Pain
03-26-2009, 07:05 PM
US adult population stats (the UKs are similars): ISFJ: 13.8% ESFJ: 12.3% ISTJ: 11.6% ISFP: 8.8% ESTJ: 8.7% ESFP: 8.5% ENFP: 8.1% ISTP: 5.4% ESTP: 4.3% INFP: 4.3% INTP: 3.3% ENTP: 3.2% ENFJ: 2.4% INTJ: 2.1% ENTJ: 1.8% INFJ: 1.5%

French adult population stats: ENFP: 16.2% ISFJ: 9.2% INFP: 8.6% ESFJ: 8.2% ISTJ: 7.7% INTP: 6.6% ENTP: 6.4% ISFP: 5.9% ESTJ: 5.8% ESFP: 5.7%ENFJ: 4.8% INTJ: 4,2% ENTJ: 3.6% ISTP: 3.6% INFJ: 3% ESTP: 2.9%

Take in count that T types are more frequents with males and F types are more frequents with females.

Yeah where did you get those statistics from?

The Outsider
03-26-2009, 07:16 PM
Kind of makes sense in my mind that in France there would be more INFPs.

Quinlan
03-26-2009, 07:20 PM
Again, it doesn't give any real answer for why, it just states that it is because it is, and we don't need to think about it because we don't have to think about it. It's so redundant and unintelligent. Altogether grasping at straws while attempting to prop up a failed theory.


"Why's" are usually outside of the realm of science, "why's" are for philosophers and INFJs to deal with. I feel that you are looking for meaning where there doesn't need to be any, it's just something that happened.

the state i am in
03-26-2009, 07:22 PM
i love france. i've always loved france, and now i know why.

Domino
03-26-2009, 07:28 PM
Weirdly enough, I know a million INFJs, INTJs and INFPs. Not so much of the extroverts. *puzzles*

"?"
03-26-2009, 08:17 PM
Ummm.. oh never mind..... on second thought folks please show me statistics where cognitive functions are considered, let alone used. When basing stats on dichotomies, you are muddling the functions. How do you separate Ni from Si in considering I? How do you separate Ni from Ne in considering IN? How do you separate Ni-Te from Ti-Ne when considering INT and so on. If we even assumed that Ni was the rarest function (which Jung never says there are rare functions), then as I have argued Ne gets to be rare by association and the same goes for the opposite if Si is the most common, then Se also becomes common due to being "S".

paisley1
03-26-2009, 09:11 PM
"Why's" are usually outside of the realm of science, "why's" are for philosophers and INFJs to deal with. I feel that you are looking for meaning where there doesn't need to be any, it's just something that happened.

Oh no they're not! Science is exactly about finding out "why's" and does go as far as to find out "why" we exist and cross over into the area of metaphysics, when it shouldn't. It's only in the case of the unexplanable that scientists either wisely say they don't know, or ignorantly (like the vast majority) shut their brains off and say there is no need to ask why as a front to outside views, because they think religious faiths are somehow going to stop them from making and testing an hypothesis. Which is ridiculous! It's only when science makes truth claims about an unproven theory that they show their idiocy, like macroevolution. For you I congratulate, for recognizing you can't explain why, but also question your thinking when saying there is no meaning, when the exact opposite is the case. There is meaning in everything where science is the uncovering and exposing of meaning and why things work as they do, especially in the area of the pure sciences like Math. A statement like "there doesn't need to be any" with respect to the origin of where everything came from just shows a lack of thought and ignorance to the question, not a conclusion to settle it.

Quinlan
03-26-2009, 09:36 PM
Oh no they're not! Science is exactly about finding out "why's" and does go as far as to find out "why" we exist and cross over into the area of metaphysics, when it shouldn't. It's only in the case of the unexplanable that scientists either wisely say they don't know, or ignorantly (like the vast majority) shut their brains off and say there is no need to ask why as a front to outside views, because they think religious faiths are somehow going to stop them from making and testing an hypothesis. Which is ridiculous!

If something is unexplainable by science, I tend to say "I don't know", I'm happy with loose ends, I'm sure that in time our understanding of the universe may grow and we'll eventually be able to explain them. I'm ok with the unknown, but I'm not going to reach out into the unknown and take things which are unverifible and unable to be shared objectively with other people and try and enforce those beliefs on others, or try and change the objective world that we all share based on subjective beliefs. As a society we cshould be striving for objectivity, it's only fair.


For you I congratulate, for recognizing you can't explain why, but also question your thinking when saying there is no meaning, when the exact opposite is the case. What I mean is there is no obvious underlying meaning or purpose to it, there might be, but it's prudent not to jump to that conclusion.


There is meaning in everything where science is the uncovering and exposing of meaning and why things work as they do, especially in the area of the pure sciences like Math. A statement like "there doesn't need to be any" with respect to the origin of where everything came from just shows a lack of thought and ignorance to the question, not a conclusion to settle it.

Our understanding of the universe is too limited to draw any definitive conclusions about everything, we can only work piece by piece, gradually putting the puzzle together. Catch-all conclusions like God arent really conclusions at all, it's like drawing a picture and sticking it over top of the jigsaw puzzle and pretending it's finished.

paisley1
03-26-2009, 10:46 PM
Macroevolution is just as subjective and unverifiable!!! Macroevolution is the EXACT same thing as the problems you are describing in that "drawing a picture and sticking it over top of the jigsaw puzzle and pretending it's finished." Macroevolution to the wider group who disagree with it's validity and are forced to put up with unending theories to try and prop it up, are feeling the same thing as evolutionists who are forced by religious nutters to believe something they don't agree with. Faith is to believe, and that is the same thing as macroevolution to the scientist, they believe it so strongly, without any verifiable evidence.

If in any way you think I'm forcing you believe what I believe, I'm not, I just want you to understand where I'm coming from....meet me half way on this discourse.

Domino
03-26-2009, 10:53 PM
Science is fairy majikz.

EcK
03-26-2009, 10:59 PM
Weirdly enough, I know a million INFJs, INTJs and INFPs. Not so much of the extroverts. *puzzles*

They run from you ?

Domino
03-26-2009, 11:05 PM
They run from you ?

My flying monkeys will deal with you, little boy.

DisneyGeek
03-27-2009, 12:21 AM
My flying monkeys will deal with you, little boy.

*throws a bucket of water onto Pink*

Maybe you don't know many because extroverts prefer to interact with other extroverts. (I noticed that you have a "weak E") Or at least, that's what my assumption is. :P

paisley1
03-27-2009, 12:41 AM
I'd say at the margin sounds nicer than weak, but ya, it's weak. :)

EcK
03-27-2009, 01:00 AM
pais? where's ur avatar from ?

I know I know it >_<

EcK
03-27-2009, 01:59 AM
My flying monkeys will deal with you, little boy.

that's coz u don't have the guts to confront me by urself

Quinlan
03-27-2009, 02:00 AM
Macroevolution is just as subjective and unverifiable!!! Macroevolution is the EXACT same thing as the problems you are describing in that "drawing a picture and sticking it over top of the jigsaw puzzle and pretending it's finished." Macroevolution to the wider group who disagree with it's validity and are forced to put up with unending theories to try and prop it up, are feeling the same thing as evolutionists who are forced by religious nutters to believe something they don't agree with. Faith is to believe, and that is the same thing as macroevolution to the scientist, they believe it so strongly, without any verifiable evidence.

What is it about macroevolution that is so preposterous to you? I assume you're fine with microevolution?


If in any way you think I'm forcing you believe what I believe, I'm not, I just want you to understand where I'm coming from....meet me half way on this discourse.

Oh I didn't mean that at all, I'm enjoying our discussion.

paisley1
03-27-2009, 02:31 AM
Eck:
Bruce Campbell in Goldrush....fun little made for tv movie.

Quinlan:
I've gone over why macroevolution is science fiction many times, because there's no scientific answer to explain how the process happens. Microevolution doesn't deal with the origin of the species, microevolution is applicable to present day and is just variation, mutation, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, which are all basically saying the best survive and can all be logically deduced and explained by opening any text on the subject, it's explainable. There is no explaination for the process of macroevolution which puts it in the time travel, body swapping, super power, scifi theme pile of explanations.

Cool
03-27-2009, 06:26 AM
Ok so now this topic is about INFJ people....nice

sleuthiness
03-27-2009, 07:04 AM
i've never met another infj male. i might have met an infj female, once.

I spent the other morning at Vons, looking for salsa. Keanu Reeves tic'd his head to his right a few thousand times after explaining which aisle I could find it. It was an awesomely wrong sleepy guess, but his portrayal in the sequel put me in the right frame of mind. Robert DeNero's younger, fatter sister scanned my pick as Michael Stipe carefully walked up behind me in line, making certain that he didn't step on any divisions between the tiles. As I watched my feet leaving the supermarket, I could hear the cashier asking for his autograph...

sleuthiness
03-27-2009, 07:34 AM
In conclusion (for tonight), it helps to have some years of familiarizing yourself with the old, worn leather boot that is typology. After a while you meet all kinds of types and it gets difficult to take statistics as anything close to concrete fact because people are so different and may or may not congregate or mix in various settings. It's a bit of a whirlwindish situation for me because I'm not outside, supplementing my bad memory by taking notes on everyone I see. My Pness shows. Not remembering facts, losing them, then uncovering them later. My feet are glued stuck to a spinning carousel of faces.

the state i am in
03-27-2009, 07:17 PM
I spent the other morning at Vons, looking for salsa. Keanu Reeves tic'd his head to his right a few thousand times after explaining which aisle I could find it. It was an awesomely wrong sleepy guess, but his portrayal in the sequel put me in the right frame of mind. Robert DeNero's younger, fatter sister scanned my pick as Michael Stipe carefully walked up behind me in line, making certain that he didn't step on any divisions between the tiles. As I watched my feet leaving the supermarket, I could hear the cashier asking for his autograph...

we should write a script.

this either reminds me of a chuck palahniuk novel on acid, or a very cosmic example of Ne gone awry like sweaty gym socks stored in a sweaty gym locker for 20 years then discovered by a scuba diver at the bottom of the ocean. the ebb and flow of wafting in the aquamarine purity and the accumulated stank of the wonder years slow-roasting on a rotisserie in purgatory.


In conclusion (for tonight), it helps to have some years of familiarizing yourself with the old, worn leather boot that is typology. After a while you meet all kinds of types and it gets difficult to take statistics as anything close to concrete fact because people are so different and may or may not congregate or mix in various settings. It's a bit of a whirlwindish situation for me because I'm not outside, supplementing my bad memory by taking notes on everyone I see. My Pness shows. Not remembering facts, losing them, then uncovering them later. My feet are glued stuck to a spinning carousel of faces.

in other words, it helps you expand your insanity until the world flushes (depending on hemisphere) down the bowl of the universe, replenishing itself and flowing back into the inner depths of your own bowels?

Serendipity
03-28-2009, 08:15 PM
And being rare is highly overrated! I've gotten used to being misunderstood all the time, or labelled as different, weird, eccentric, dreamy, odd etc, but sometimes I think life would be so much easier if I belonged to a more common or accepted type.

That's how I am seen, except that I am ENFJ. :P

Apollanaut
03-30-2009, 01:16 AM
That's how I am seen, except that I am ENFJ. :P

ENFJs are rare too! There seem to be many more ENFPs for some reason (at least in my life). Also my ENTP partner seems to collect them. They are all female. Here's a brief list:

Partner's adopted sister.
His bestest friend in the UK (a vet).
His bestest friend here in NZ (currently on maternity leave).
Another close friend who flits back and forth between England and NZ (she is the flightiest ENFP I've ever met).
At least three or four of his other past and present work colleagues.
Three or four of their friends (now mine as well), including a lovely HR professional based in NZ, who is also MBTI accredited (she was my discovery - yay!).
A great friend I met on an NLP course who works as a life-coach and shaman(!) in the UK.
Oh, I almost forgot a really amazing ENFP work colleague and friend of mine, who recently had her picture on the front page of a major Auckland magazine, in relation to her hobby.

I only know two ENFJs:

A female Canadian vet who has recently relocated to Perth, Australia.

My bestest male friend at my old workplace back in the UK. We still have a link that is best described as psychic. He's married with 3 kids and I'm gay, and I'm sure people thought we were having an affair, but neither of us cared - we were just on a very similar NFJ wavelength. He started out as my boss - the best kind of supportive, coach-type manager one could possibly wish for! (Oh dear, I'm starting to sound very gay again - you can see how the rumours started!).:wubbie:

paisley1
03-30-2009, 01:30 AM
I don't know any ENTJ's come to think of it. Can you guys give me an idea of what they're like from experience?

Apollanaut
03-30-2009, 02:00 AM
I don't know any ENTJ's come to think of it. Can you guys give me an idea of what they're like from experience?

There's a great, well-balanced ENTJ scientist at my workplace. He is very witty and fast-thinking, but gets himself into terrible trouble with the top bosses by being controversial. For example, in meetings, he is the only one brave enough to say out loud what everyone else is thinking. I really like him, but apparently other people find him intimidating. Can't see it myself; they must be very dim not to see the sparkle in his eyes when he's trying to get a reaction out of someone who's taking themselves way too seriously!

He has a tough exterior, but someone told me he suffers quite a lot of workplace-related stress, possibly because he dares to speak up on ethical issues. He doesn't suffer fools, that's for sure - his sees through bulls**t like a laser on steroids!

Ezra
03-30-2009, 08:55 AM
NTJs are rare. That's not just because I'm one. ;) Besides that, I don't know.

The most common are probably Extraverted Sensors of all kinds.

raz
03-30-2009, 02:20 PM
The world is being taken over by SFJ women and STP men.

the state i am in
03-30-2009, 08:41 PM
The world is being taken over by SFJ women and STP men.

america, yes.

Apollanaut
03-30-2009, 10:36 PM
If you combine perceiving preference (S or N) with outer orientation (J or P) the most common combo seems to be SJ, and the least common NJ. There are national variations, but this general rule seems to hold up for most countries with known MBTI statistics. Here's a list with the most common combo at the top and the rest in descending order:

SJ
SP
NP
NJ

Apollanaut
03-30-2009, 11:09 PM
Same list but with approximate percentages added, based on the figures for the USA. Please don't take these figures as Gospel - there hasn't been enough work done to truly validate them - but they are the best we have at present:

SJ - 46%
SP - 27%
NP - 19%
NJ - 8%

This gives a J/P ratio of 54:46 and a S/N ratio of 73:27, which is in line with most other statistical studies carried out in the USA.

I've seen the figures for the UK as well - I don't have them to hand, but they are surprisingly similar to the USA. The main differences were more Introverts (no surprises there), more SJs and fewer SP-types. I suspect many SPs probably fled (or were forcibly removed) to the British colonies during the SJ-dominated Victorian Empire.

CJ99
03-31-2009, 12:53 AM
There's a great, well-balanced ENTJ scientist at my workplace. He is very witty and fast-thinking, but gets himself into terrible trouble with the top bosses by being controversial. For example, in meetings, he is the only one brave enough to say out loud what everyone else is thinking. I really like him, but apparently other people find him intimidating. Can't see it myself; they must be very dim not to see the sparkle in his eyes when he's trying to get a reaction out of someone who's taking themselves way too seriously!

He has a tough exterior, but someone told me he suffers quite a lot of workplace-related stress, possibly because he dares to speak up on ethical issues. He doesn't suffer fools, that's for sure - his sees through bulls**t like a laser on steroids!

That sounds quite like an ENTP to me.

paisley1
03-31-2009, 12:59 AM
EZRA, is anything apollanaut said true? What are you like, what do you do (how do you do) and what kind of things do you naturally gravitate towards....over than 9.8 straight down.

Apollanaut
03-31-2009, 01:17 AM
That sounds quite like an ENTP to me.

They can be hard to tell apart sometimes, but this guy knows all about type and has confirmed that he is an ENTJ. As I said, he's quite well balanced and mature, so the usual TJ certainty has been toned down quite a bit. He's clearly in touch with his Fi inferior - hence the concern with ethics and his inner sensitivity. However, he needs closure and can't stand loose ends - he once got into trouble for finishing someone else's project without asking! In his opinion, the work was very important but was taking far too long to complete, so he stepped in and did it himself. He actually thought the project manager would be pleased about this, instead the manager was livid and lodged an official complaint!

This strikes me as very ENTJ-like behaviour. I can't see an ENTP wanting to finish things for others - they're far more interested in starting new projects than completing old ones.

BTW, he guessed straight away that I was an NF, based on the type of questions I usually ask at meetings and presentations. He thought I might be an ENFP, which was a fair guess as I can be quite outspoken and confident in some situations, such as the aforementioned workplace meetings.

paisley1
03-31-2009, 01:23 AM
A thinker doer finisher! Power people then! From what you're saying, their line would go something like, "Your words don't cut no shit with me!" ENTJ's are kinda awesome then, like business executives and power brokers and corporate merger Jack Campbell from "The Family Man" types.

Oh ya, and I get confused for everything but INFJ, because we're so eclectic and undefinable.

Apollanaut
03-31-2009, 01:32 AM
Yeah, an ENTJ in full motion would leave me standing in their dust trail! My own Te function is very erratic and unreliable, so I am quite in awe of the sheer amount of stuff these people manage to achieve in their lives. It makes me tired just thinking about it!

paisley1
03-31-2009, 02:31 AM
Type A's! Definitely wouldn't want one that's unhinged! Far too much destruction could be laid waste in their tracks.

I was just reading about this, and nobody said JIM CARREY! The definitive ENTJ, who'll say anything and do anything to get a laugh! Makes sense, after what he said about TMZ on Letterman. I get the ENTJ now.

guesswho
08-24-2010, 10:43 AM
INT in women is rare.
INF in men is rare.

Although I'm not sure about INFP men. But it's just my theory.


Someone said ENTPs are everywhere. ?!
I only met one I am sure of lately.

Random Ness
08-25-2010, 12:23 AM
Here are the tallies for people I'm kinda close to [not just random acquantainces] whom I've typed (excluding me):
ESFP - 2
ESTP - 1
ESTJ - 1
ISFP - 1
INFP - 1
INTJ - 1
INFJ - 2
It's odd that I know two other INFJs well.