The natural order of "Types"

[Veneti]

Ok, we can see that there are various types of people in society (In the way they think/feel etc in the MBTI matrix)..

So, do you believe there is a natural balance within the population for these types? That we are just like a big colony of ants and each has a specific niche, and part to play....?

[Matt22]

Yes, I think you're right, but it's no fun to admit it. It's like saying that the brand name, "Coca Cola," stick in our minds because its two words, starts with the same letter, and rhymes.

[Veneti]

Originally Posted by Matt22

Yes, I think you're right, but it's no fun to admit it. It's like saying that the brand name, "Coca Cola," stick in our minds because its two words, starts with the same letter, and rhymes.

To me, if there were too many NTJ's there would be continual war. We need plenty of soothing types to placate the situation....

Its like you need a significant number of people that are just plodders, who enjoy routine and don't aspire to anything more than a comfortable life.

It would be interesting to know the different profile percentages in different countries/races, as some cultures seem to have significantly different priorities.

[ptgatsby]

Is society planned? No. Is it trimmed? Not much anymore.

Society manifests from the distribution of types, not the other way around. (Assuming that the genetic influences and biological conditions are as strong as we think.)

I just had a flash of planned evolution arguments. We assume what we see now is 'planned', a sort of bias, rather than emergent.

[Veneti]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Is society planned? No. Is it trimmed? Not much anymore.

Society manifests from the distribution of types, not the other way around. (Assuming that the genetic influences and biological conditions are as strong as we think.)

I just had a flash of planned evolution arguments. We assume what we see now is 'planned', a sort of bias, rather than emergent.

Ahh... lets move onto evolutionary biology.

Just maybe the whole of society is moving more and more towards being NT... its just the bell shaped distribution around the NT that stays constant, so in a relative context it appears constant.

Or maybe the NT's through less socialisation have less offspring... the meek are supposed to inherit the earth are they not?

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Veneti

Or maybe the NT's through less socialisation have less offspring... the meek are supposed to inherit the earth are they not?

I think that would of eliminated NTs from the population, although we could say we are moving towards that.

More accurately, I think that it should be said that the tail ends are eliminated from the gene pool, so there is a pruning off both sides (the mentally unstable ones). As such, the core personality traits remain the same... I'd say that the distribution is dependent on the series of gene combination that create express these traits.

Another reason for one particular set to be dominant over the other is historical survival rates, which could be associated to Ss (philosophers and such don't tend to get much respect in rough times!)... but currently that isn't much of an issue. However, IQ and children are anti-correlated, so that could be an issue of reproducability... smart people not being all that horn doggy. That might off been true before now too.

So, I think the three core factors are;

1) Gene configuration is balanced around the presence in society (dominance, etc)
2) Survival traits historically have weeded out certain traits (namely S:N)
3) Certain traits lead to less offspring

[Veneti]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

I think that would of eliminated NTs from the population, although we could say we are moving towards that.

More accurately, I think that it should be said that the tail ends are eliminated from the gene pool, so there is a pruning off both sides (the mentally unstable ones). As such, the core personality traits remain the same... I'd say that the distribution is dependent on the series of gene combination that create express these traits.

Another reason for one particular set to be dominant over the other is historical survival rates, which could be associated to Ss (philosophers and such don't tend to get much respect in rough times!)... but currently that isn't much of an issue. However, IQ and children are anti-correlated, so that could be an issue of reproducability... smart people not being all that horn doggy. That might off been true before now too.

So, I think the three core factors are;

1) Gene configuration is balanced around the presence in society (dominance, etc)
2) Survival traits historically have weeded out certain traits (namely S:N)
3) Certain traits lead to less offspring

Actually, I think the INTJ's in their desire to control the world developed such devices as religion to control the masses, the S and F (touchy feely ones) would be happy and productive. (Incidentally, the Church of England got very powerful through people leaving their lands to them...).

lol lol...

I do think however, there are ecological niches for all the various types of people and there is a natural order, which depends on what perspective you take on being important.

I think different traits have different dominance in different situations. Think Feast or Famine. I'd sure what to be a rational in a famine where survival instincts become seriously important. (Probably also the NT's are storing cash away for the impending recession if it kicks in... I apply my contingency thinking to everything, works well in business strategy and engaging in any conflict (business or otherwise) we do probability).

I do think though IQ is probably more important than traits.. However I believe IQ begins to skew a persons thought process towards NT over time.