[NT] How do NT women differ from NT men?

[runvardh]

Who you kiddin'?

Still hoping for that box to open?

Grab your lead, you've pulled.

I lead not for it is up to the individual to save their own soul. However, when Bassanio chose the lead box Portia gladly wed him.

 

[tinkerbell]

my 2p worth

Women have a harder time with their T function - I think everyone expects women to be less rational, and it can be intimidating to have a strong T.

I also think both NTP and NFP women tend to be more flakey, they jump from subject to subject and sometime lack focus, however both sets of women seem to be a lot more creative than J types.

I did a MBTI thing with my team last week. Myself and one other girl were P types, and the rest of the team were J's. We are both loud, colourful people and very creative. She is a better communicator because she is co-operative and sensitive to people far more than I am. Both my boss and one of my collegues are ENTJ, they value my rational nature and in soem ways are softer because they are less hard line than I am.

I would say that other women give me less crap in difficult situations because they know they can't turn the water works on if they are being challenged, and they would with a man.

I have a lot of NTs in my life so I can see how they are different, mainly they are really solid thinkers which I absolutely adore.

Lis

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah, but that's questionable evolutionary strategy.
Abandoning your kids instead of protecting them (by being a good dad) results in greater odds of their LOSING at life, lowering your chance to spread your genes.

And those who have more of it (good breadwinner, good relationship with kids) help their kids spread their genes.

But if we're talking evolutionary behavioralism here, the only behavior in the male that is mandatory is the "spreading of the seed" because the female has developed in a way to protect the kids regardless. The kids merely have to survive long enough to reproduce sufficiently for genes that contribute to behavior to be passed on. Their quality of life is judged SOLELY on whether they live long enough to reproduce.

Males who abandon their kids are not actually punished; they pass on their "virility factor" behaviorally and otherwise as soon as the egg is fertilized; and since the woman keeps her kids alive long enough for them to procreate (and honestly, they probably procreate sooner due to a host of emotional issues involving unstable family life and absent fathers), well, the behavior perpetuates. Voila.

So in a society where there's not a lot of death, i.e., where the line between life and death is not finely drawn, there can be a lot of behaviors that are still acceptable enough to propagate, even if some behaviors might be better than others.

I guess the question is whether NT moms are devoted enough to keep alive the progency of this loser males. [Maybe it's of social benefit for someone to put her foot down!]

 

[Usehername]

I'm sure the other proven sex differences might come into play too. There are probably fewer female INTP geniuses and retards, for instance.

It's hard to isolate it down to genetics/hormones or just the socialization that occurs. i wonder what the type development is like across national boundaries where different socialization rules are in effect.

(Sort of like the "women in math" situation.)

Since those statistics are taken from the general population of women, is it necessarily true that the distribution of geniuses and retards will be the same for every personality type?

Same with men. How do we know that NT men will have more geniuses and retards than those in the middle ground in-between? It could be the case that there are more genius NT men and very few retards (not saying that it is), which would not reflect what the general trend is in the population of men. But there really isn't any reason to believe that because, overall, men have more geniuses and retards than women, that populations of INTP men or women will reflect this phenomenon.

I agree with Booya. Basic genetics says that because men have less genes than we do (the XX contains more genetic information than the XY because the Y is smaller) it means they are rolling far less dice than us.

As a consequence, women gravitate toward the average because they have a larger sample of genes to get them there. Really unintelligent males are more common than really unintelligent females, just like really intelligent males are more common than really intelligent females.
That doesn't mean it's impossible to get a female at an extreme, but I can't see how booya's point can be contested.

(Which is not to say there aren't sociological reasons, but only that there are strong genetic reasons that one can't ignore.)

 

[Totenkindly]

I agree with Booya. Basic genetics says that because men have less genes than we do (the XX contains more genetic information than the XY because the Y is smaller) it means they are rolling far less dice than us.

I agree with that concept being in play as an explanation for why there are less extremes in the female INTP population; but it seemed like she was including a lot more things under that very broad umbrella.

 

[MacGuffin]

Men have more idiots and geniuses. Our bell curve is flatter.

 

[pippi]

Our bell curve is curvier. Nuff said.

 

[Totenkindly]

Men have more idiots and geniuses. Our bell curve is flatter.

In contrast to your pot bellies?

 

[MacGuffin]

Our bell curve is curvier. Nuff said.

In contrast to your pot bellies?

Your asses.

 

[runvardh]

Our bell curve is curvier. Nuff said.

Which makes my filter work better...

 

[Salomé]

I agree with Booya. Basic genetics says that because men have less genes than we do (the XX contains more genetic information than the XY because the Y is smaller) it means they are rolling far less dice than us.

You must work at the cutting edge of genetic science, 'cos last time I checked, the genes that code for intelligence haven't been identified. They sure as hell don't live on the Y chromosome.
Please don't perpetuate this rubbish.

All that can be said about X/Y is that men are susceptible to all the same mutations of X that women are, plus a few of their own. The Y is mostly junk DNA.

If most women gravitate towards the centre, it is because society pressurizes them more to do so and because they have fewer opportunities/encouragement to excel.

 

[Jess]

Aside from feeling alienated from the cultural stereotype of women, what, generally, do NT women do differently? (i.e. 1) Are they more emotional, 2) better at relationships, 3) less agressive? 4) Do they desire more to get married and 5) have kids than their male counterparts? etc) This is something I've been interested in, but alas, I am the only NT female I know of IRL, and my view of myself is ultimately biased.

I have bolded what I will answer from an INTJ female perspective I know no other NT females so I can't really judge from experience of that.

1) No really really not, unless it is hormonal, of which isn't really emotion
2) Absolutely NOT.
3) Definitely not. Though I don't tend to be aggressive but can come off as aggressive.
4) Absolutely not
5) DEFINITELY not.

 

[Usehername]

You must work at the cutting edge of genetic science, 'cos last time I checked, the genes that code for intelligence haven't been identified. They sure as hell don't live on the Y chromosome.
Please don't perpetuate this rubbish.

All that can be said about X/Y is that men are susceptible to all the same mutations of X that women are, plus a few of their own. The Y is mostly junk DNA.

If most women gravitate towards the centre, it is because society pressurizes them more to do so and because they have fewer opportunities/encouragement to excel.

I never claimed they were directly and 100% the cause; in fact, I clarified that clearly there were sociological explanations.

Your bolded claim is far less substantiated than my claims you are refuting.

 

[INTJMom]

I don't think there's a difference between NT males and females other than the biological differences.

 

[Salomé]

I never claimed they were directly and 100% the cause; in fact, I clarified that clearly there were sociological explanations.

Your bolded claim is far less substantiated than my claims you are refuting.

In general women have fewer opportunities and less encouragement. This is a well-substantiated and historical fact. Logically then, there are going to be fewer women that will excel in typically male fields until the balance is redressed.

As for there being more retarded men than women - I don't know I haven't reviewed the data, it certainly seems that way though.

Your claim is that men have fewer genes than women? That is false, they have more - they have the Y. Women inherit an X from each of their parents but only one set is expressed - the other is 'switched off' as with all other genes that come in pairs. The disadvantage for men is that if their only copy of a gene on X is faulty, they have to live with it (or die with it). They fly without a co-pilot, so to speak.

And in any event more isn't better, see Down's Syndrome.

 

[INA]

s. The kids merely have to survive long enough to reproduce sufficiently for genes that contribute to behavior to be passed on. Their quality of life is judged SOLELY on whether they live long enough to reproduce.

And if they don't because they did not have the protection of their fathers (quite often, moms can only do so much), then they won't survive or thrive long enough to reproduce. I would expect the demographic for progeny who die before they get anywhere to skew towards the fatherless, and I'm not just about out in the wild. Out in the wild, suitors will kill other men's progeny or steal their food while getting with the mom.

 

[Totenkindly]

And if they don't because they did not have the protection of their fathers (quite often, moms can only do so much), then they won't survive or thrive long enough to reproduce. I would expect the demographic for progeny who die before they get anywhere to skew towards the fatherless, and I'm not just about out in the wild. Out in the wild, suitors will kill other men's progeny or steal their food while getting with the mom.

We're not talking about the sort of environment in the United States where this happens. That's what I mean. In a harsh environment, YES, you're right. But not today, not in a modernized country. Things survive even if their lives suck. (As a mild example, note all the people that wear glasses. That's a negative trait. 1000 years ago, it might have been whittled down by inability to survive; nowadays, the technology level compensates, so we all suffer.)

That's where all of this theory breaks down and I think evolutionary biology is misunderstood and misapplied. If you survive long enough to reproduce, the trait survives even if it's not the best. There's lots of residual things left in the human body that isn't nearly the best design, but it's just sufficient enough for survival so it never disappears.

 

[hermeticdancer]

I don't think so I can't tell you.
My type is ENFP (if only I was an ENtP) then I could tell you!

 

[Usehername]

In general women have fewer opportunities and less encouragement. This is a well-substantiated and historical fact. Logically then, there are going to be fewer women that will excel in typically male fields until the balance is redressed.

As for there being more retarded men than women - I don't know I haven't reviewed the data, it certainly seems that way though.

Your claim is that men have fewer genes than women? That is false, they have more - they have the Y. Women inherit an X from each of their parents but only one set is expressed - the other is 'switched off' as with all other genes that come in pairs. The disadvantage for men is that if their only copy of a gene on X is faulty, they have to live with it (or die with it). They fly without a co-pilot, so to speak.

And in any event more isn't better, see Down's Syndrome.

I'm aware of the "flying without a co-pilot" fact (I think the sex difference in incidence of colour-blindness is the most common and easy example to cite) and perhaps my wording of "more" was a little sloppy, but I fail to see how the very thing you're asserting isn't actually proving my point: women aren't gambling with as few chances as men are. The male's lack of an alternative option means he's playing with different odds. Women are far more likely to come out "safe" but men are far more likely to "go big or go home." If one assumes any correlation between genetics and intelligence (given how biological v. adopted children score relative to both sets of parents, it's likely there's a genetic component somewhere) they can also assume it will follow the same trend as stated above.

All that aside, it's illogical to assume that when you're adding multiple variables (differences in genetic material, differences in hormones which is brain chemistry, sexual characteristics, overall metabolism and everything else) the single differentiator is purely sociological.

I'm sure you've also learned that it's never just environment and it's never just genetics--there's always an interaction.

 

[Darjur]

NT women are somewhat more balanced.
NT men tend to specialize more.
This is what I believe to be true from personal experience.


On the note of fucking and running not being a good choice in the olden days, it actually was the preferred one.

Whore yourself out, get ~110 or so offsprings, more then half of which die due to the mother/the mothers family not being capable of sustaining them. You get ~50, out of which another 60% or so die out of disease, you get 30 theoretical offspring with no responsibility.

Get a mate for which a male cares for, get ~3-15(a shit ton of offspring was usual back in the olden days) offsprings, out of which none die out of starvation, but still ~40%(lower percentage because of a possibly healthier lifestyle) of them would still die due to disease. 2-9 survive.

Then, once you factor in other social catastrophes like mass famines, mass epidemics... ect. You might end up with a 0 altogether, which is far less likely if you were to whore yourself out, because your population would be far far wider spread. Not to mention the cases where a male would impregnate someones else female, and the other male would still end up taking care of the offspring.



From a numbers point of view, there really isn't any advantage for a male to not whore himself out.