Are MBTI types generational?

[Ruthie]

Just an idea I was playing around with that I thought I'd open up to the board:

OK, I'm going to ask this question in two parts - the first is just sort of the backdrop for question 2 and is based on the defining (or at least stereotypical) characteristics of different generations in recent U.S. history; the second is based on the relative importance of the functions in a changing world.

1. Hard to tell if these are accurate, or just the lasting impressions created by the media. Most likely, a bit of both. Generational quirks are probably magnified in pop culture (not everyone in the 20s was a flapper, not everyone in the 60s was a hippie...), but magnified or not, the quirks existed.

The generation that came of age in the '30s and '40s ("The Greatest Generation") seems to be quintessential SJs. This is the duty generation.

The '50s into the early '60s still had some residual SJness, but this also seems like an NT decade. Technological advances exploded, Ayn Rand was writing about the "New Man," and there was a lot of optimism regarding the future.

The later '60s and '70s saw the generation gap between the SJs from The Greatest Generation and their more hedonistic, less duty-bound SP children. The New Age and hippie movement had a very NF feel to them.

The '80s strike me as very SPish. Wheeler dealers on Wall Street, pop music on the radio, bright colors were in style.

The '90s had the obvious NT technological boom, but kept a bit of SP style as well (remember the foosball tables in dot com offices trend?) On television, family shows were decidedly out of style, and shows about groups of friends lounging around were all over TV. Most seemed to combine the introspective self-awareness of the NF temperament (think Dawson's Creek) with the aimlessness of SPs.

Anyway, I think it's too soon to type the current decade, but you get the general idea.

2. Do generational realities actually change the percentages of of MBTI types - sort of an evolutionary process regarding type? Certain functions get more practice, children are raised in a world with different needs, etc...

If so - two more questions: first, given the world we live in (technologically, globally, economically...) which types would likely become more numerous, and which types would we likely see less of? Second, think that would be evolutionary or cyclical?

 

[nolla]

Maybe the question should be something like: "How different types get media attention". I don't believe that any of the tags given to generations tell much about them.

 

[Grace]

I was actually just thinking about this. For instance, if you had to type each generation, what would you type it? I don't know if this should be a different thread or not, but I defintely agree with a lot of what you were saying. I also think nolla had a point about a lot of it being what the media covered in a given decade. But, if I had to type certain decades, a few come to mind.

1950s: ISFJ
1960s: Maybe ENFP. I think NF because if I had to generalize hippies and such I would say they would be idealists. Although I do understand how you could get SP as well. Maybe ISFP.

I don't know, maybe I should start a new thread? I'm not trying to digress from your original post, so I apologize if that's what I'm doing.


As far as your second question, I think perhaps you could look up information to see if there have been any shifts in percentages of certain types since MBTI was first introduced. That would be an interesting thing if it actually did occur.

 

[Quinlan]

It's funny applying one vague generalisation on to another vague generalisation.

 

[Grace]

It's funny applying one vague generalisation on to another vague generalisation.

That's what we love to do here!

 

[nolla]

It's funny applying one vague generalisation on to another vague generalisation.

Well, that's what we call science!

 

[Ruthie]

Well, in fairness, I did say that a lot of the generational stereotypes are media creations. I still don't buy that they're entirely fictional though. Same as when people talk about "the good 'ol days..." Even though the 'good ol' days' aren't as ideal as they likely remember, it also doesn't make sense to dismiss that nostalgia as hallucination. I think there is some truth to the memory.

There's a book called Generations (full disclosure - I haven't read the book, just read about it) that basically suggests that generations flip back and forth between the Duty generation and the Freedom generation - eg the generation that came of age at the turn of the 20th century and again in the 40s were Duty generations, those who came of age in the 20s and the 60s were Freedom generations [There's a lot more to it, but that's one of the theories].

Anyway, I was thinking about it, and it seems that we've had 3 consecutive Freedom generations (those who came of age in the '60s, the '80s and today), and haven't had a Duty generation for quite a while.

 

[Ruthie]

I was actually just thinking about this. For instance, if you had to type each generation, what would you type it? I don't know if this should be a different thread or not, but I defintely agree with a lot of what you were saying. I also think nolla had a point about a lot of it being what the media covered in a given decade. But, if I had to type certain decades, a few come to mind.

1950s: ISFJ
1960s: Maybe ENFP. I think NF because if I had to generalize hippies and such I would say they would be idealists. Although I do understand how you could get SP as well. Maybe ISFP.

I don't know, maybe I should start a new thread? I'm not trying to digress from your original post, so I apologize if that's what I'm doing.


As far as your second question, I think perhaps you could look up information to see if there have been any shifts in percentages of certain types since MBTI was first introduced. That would be an interesting thing if it actually did occur.

You're not digressing at all - it's an interesting thought.
I don't know of any way to look up shifts in percentage type (especially since even the current ones seem so far off the mark and rarely even in agreement with each other), but it would make sense that it occurred. Lots of other basics have changed (average height, average IQ...) between generations.

 

[Skyward]

Seems to me that it's almost random. Many people here are Ns who are in an all Sensor family, while I have two NF parents (Both INFJ) and my sister is an INFP. My brother is the black sheep and an ES-something, but I wont rule out him being an N. I know him too well to be sure of his type.

Maybe it's that certain types get more focus during different generations. Post WW2 (50s) it was a very 'cul-de-sac and neighborhood homeliness, and apple pie on the sill.' and the 60s were a rebellious decade when all the heavy music started cropping up (When people started adding more distortion onto their guitar in a band). The 80s might be ESTP? I didnt live them so I wouldn't know. I just think of bands like Motley Crue and Guns N Roses when I think of the 80s.

The 70s might have been more INFP.

Just my thoughts in typed form, take it or leave it.

 

[nolla]

There's a book called Generations (full disclosure - I haven't read the book, just read about it) that basically suggests that generations flip back and forth between the Duty generation and the Freedom generation - eg the generation that came of age at the turn of the 20th century and again in the 40s were Duty generations, those who came of age in the 20s and the 60s were Freedom generations [There's a lot more to it, but that's one of the theories].

The duty generation was during and after the war. This is when there was a big mission for the people. It was same here in Finland, the land had to be rebuild and the people united to make this happen (but this was after the second WW). That kind of generation is not media hype, I'm pretty sure. But I think the other kind of generations are. Because, they don't have anything important to do. Fighting a WW and building a country is pretty damn important. The other reason for this to really be the time that really corresponds with it's image is because the SJs are the heroes of this time. The hero is from the majority. In other times the media heroes don't correspond with the majority, as the majority is always SJs.

Anyway, I was thinking about it, and it seems that we've had 3 consecutive Freedom generations (those who came of age in the '60s, the '80s and today), and haven't had a Duty generation for quite a while.

Yeah, that is because there is no big mission. Well, now there is going to be. Once the people see as their duty to save the planet, we'll have a long row of duty generations. That is btw an NF-inspired SJ-generation. The idea of saving the planet comes from NF but who is going to make it happen.

 

[Ruthie]

I don't think I agree that it's entirely random. The solid majority of people in my family (myself and one of my nieces excepted) are Ns. There's a broad range in terms of education and interest, but from what I've heard from others, this isn't unusual - many people seem to come from families that are disproportionately of one temperament (my family is evenly split between NT and NF, with one SP and one SJ).

Also, I don't know how it's possible to *know* that the majority has always been and will always be SJ. Just one measurement: If SJs populate most civic groups, and membership in all groups has dropped drastically over the past 40 years, isn't it possible that SJs are less common than they used to be? Same with other obvious bastions of the SJ - mainline religion, major political partys, neighborhood associations... all down. People are less likely to stay in the same job for their entire career, and more likely to move away from their hometown. I know there are other contributing factors for each of these trends, but it does seem that taken as a whole, maybe there just fewer SJs out there.

 

[nolla]

Also, I don't know how it's possible to *know* that the majority has always been and will always be SJ. Just one measurement: If SJs populate most civic groups, and membership in all groups has dropped drastically over the past 40 years, isn't it possible that SJs are less common than they used to be?

Yeah, sure it is possible. The way I see it is that there is a reason for the type percentages. Evolutionary reason. When humans evolved there was some point for having most of them being traditional, while the rest were doing their stuff. The NFs were maybe the priests and shamans, the SPs were there to build stuff and the NTs were to invent stuff. So, this is if we assume that the type is in the genes. Then it would be highly unlikely it would change in as short time as generations.

Of course if the type is somehow set when you are brought up, then the chances are that you will have many changes in many directions during a generation. Would it be that the types are in a way a response of a society to the current situation? How would it work? When there is a duty to fulfill the parents would unconsciously raise children to be SJs? I don't know, what do you think? To me it just seems more likely it is in the genes.

 

[Ruthie]

Yeah, sure it is possible. The way I see it is that there is a reason for the type percentages. Evolutionary reason. When humans evolved there was some point for having most of them being traditional, while the rest were doing their stuff. The NFs were maybe the priests and shamans, the SPs were there to build stuff and the NTs were to invent stuff. So, this is if we assume that the type is in the genes. Then it would be highly unlikely it would change in as short time as generations.

Of course if the type is somehow set when you are brought up, then the chances are that you will have many changes in many directions during a generation. Would it be that the types are in a way a response of a society to the current situation? How would it work? When there is a duty to fulfill the parents would unconsciously raise children to be SJs? I don't know, what do you think? To me it just seems more likely it is in the genes.

I don't know for sure. The only parallel I can think of is average IQ. I remember reading that average IQ increased about 20 points within a 70 or 80 year period. It can't be explained by genes or evolution but there's speculation that it's related to what people need to understand. For instance, if shown a picture of a spoon and asked what, from a selection of objects, is like the spoon - people today would likely choose a shovel, while a century ago, they would've chosen a knife. People used to think in terms of utility, now they think in terms of comparison. Since IQ tests are geared toward answers of comparison over utility, the average score increased.

If the mind adapts to changing realities that quickly, maybe the percentage of certain functions are equally as fluid. What do you think?

[I still think it's cyclical rather than evolutionary. Evolutionary would suggest that there is a "highest" function that eventually we will all reach.]

 

[nolla]

If the mind adapts to changing realities that quickly, maybe the percentage of certain functions are equally as fluid. What do you think?

I can basically buy the idea about mind evolving more quickly, but I don't see any reason for the percentages to change.

[I still think it's cyclical rather than evolutionary. Evolutionary would suggest that there is a "highest" function that eventually we will all reach.]

By evolutionary I didn't mean that some types are higher in evolution, but that evolution has shaped the percentage in a way that in a random society there will be enough of different type of people to fill certain roles that are necessary for the society's survival and wellbeing. This society is thus stronger, in terms of evolution, than a society of any other combination of types.

I don't see why it would be logical to go in cycles.

 

[proximo]

Fashions change, but human nature does not and has not, as any student of history can tell you

What's fashionable in a particular era will be portrayed as the "norm", but I think you'll find that what's fashionable is not necessarily the norm. How many people actually wear the sorts of clothes you see on a catwalk? How many people actually live the lifestyles of Hollywood hedonists - or even want to?

What's fashionable grabs the headlines, and what's fashionable depends on what represents the values that whoever controls the headlines believes will act as an effective counterbalance to whatever values they think are too heavily weighted at any particular time. Culture and counterculture.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

 

[Ruthie]

By evolutionary I didn't mean that some types are higher in evolution, but that evolution has shaped the percentage in a way that in a random society there will be enough of different type of people to fill certain roles that are necessary for the society's survival and wellbeing. This society is thus stronger, in terms of evolution, than a society of any other combination of types.

I know. I was mostly just clarifying myself on the evolutionary point.

I don't see why it would be logical to go in cycles.

I guess I would say because society's needs aren't static, and there's no natural progression, only cycles.

 

[Quinlan]

By evolutionary I didn't mean that some types are higher in evolution, but that evolution has shaped the percentage in a way that in a random society there will be enough of different type of people to fill certain roles that are necessary for the society's survival and wellbeing. This society is thus stronger, in terms of evolution, than a society of any other combination of types.

I don't see why it would be logical to go in cycles.

I agree, so the societies (tribes) operate like organisms, if a tribe made of even SP/SJ/NT/NF out-competes another tribe made of all SJs, then that is natural selection. Percentages of traits become a selective trait at the higher level, maybe?

 

[Ruthie]

Fashions change, but human nature does not and has not, as any student of history can tell you

What's fashionable in a particular era will be portrayed as the "norm", but I think you'll find that what's fashionable is not necessarily the norm. How many people actually wear the sorts of clothes you see on a catwalk? How many people actually live the lifestyles of Hollywood hedonists - or even want to?

What's fashionable grabs the headlines, and what's fashionable depends on what represents the values that whoever controls the headlines believes will act as an effective counterbalance to whatever values they think are too heavily weighted at any particular time. Culture and counterculture.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Well, that's a bit different than what I believe. I agree with you that headlines highlight what is "fashionable" (in this case, fashionable societal values) at a given time. Unlike you though, I just don't think they pull it out of thin air.

If society was basically the same and only the trendsetters (and the trends they set) changed, how do you explain the major societal changes I mentioned earlier (the thing about declining membership in groups, mainline churches, career stability, etc...)?

Those are based on real numbers, not headlines. When the numbers move in one direction so quickly and so notably, that's no longer counter-culture... that's the new culture.

 

[proximo]

Seems we're misunderstanding each other. I quite specifically said where I believe they pull the headlines out from, as you put it, and it was far from "thin air":

what's fashionable depends on what represents the values that whoever controls the headlines believes will act as an effective counterbalance to whatever values they think are too heavily weighted to serve their purposes at any particular time. Culture and counterculture.

Perhaps I ought to have added the bolded part in, originally. I also explained the changes you mention:

Culture and counterculture.

Also I said it's the *fashions* that change, not the "trendsetters". They (that is, their humanity and their general motives for doing what they do) don't change at all (only the particular means they use to express those motives), and the trends they "set" are seldom truly new - just rehashed and regurgitated. They're as trapped in the culture/counterculture circle as anyone else, except perhaps more accurately, sub-culture and sub-counterculture.

 

[Quinlan]

Also, I don't know how it's possible to *know* that the majority has always been and will always be SJ. Just one measurement: If SJs populate most civic groups, and membership in all groups has dropped drastically over the past 40 years, isn't it possible that SJs are less common than they used to be? Same with other obvious bastions of the SJ - mainline religion, major political partys, neighborhood associations... all down. People are less likely to stay in the same job for their entire career, and more likely to move away from their hometown. I know there are other contributing factors for each of these trends, but it does seem that taken as a whole, maybe there just fewer SJs out there.

I don't think they were as much bastions of SJness as you're making out, what's more likely is that cultural changes have allowed the NFs, NTs and SPs to drift away from those institutions (and the more they do that the more "traditional" it becomes to move away from them, the more SJs will move on as well).

Cultural influence has little to do with numerical numbers anyway, so SJ dominance can decrease while still maintaining the same population proportions.