Intuitives Becoming More Common?

[Forever_Jung]

It seems to me that personality type distribution can change depending on the need of society. After all, personality is fundamentally an adaptation, a specialization we make to survive and manage (as Jung describes it anyway.). I have read other old timey theorists like von Franz talk about how types didnt exist back in the day, since we could not afford to be so specialized back in the more primitive times (crude paraphrase disclaimer). Nowadays, the rationalization people always use for SJs being so common is that they are the backbone of society, we need them the most, they are practical, etc.

Is it possible that as our society had changed, as technology and the world at large continues to change at a faster and faster rate, and as the way we interact with the world has become increasingly abstract and symbolic, that intuitive types have become far more common, since their mindset is now more relevant and practical?


I know a lot of people mistype due to the shitty descriptions, I know a lot of people claim that most INFJs are actually INFP and ISFJ wannabes, and ENFPs just ESFJs with delusions of grandeur. But is it possible maybe intuitives are actually more common than everyone says? Like maybe INFJs are 5% of our population instead of 1? Don't extraverted intuitives seem fairly common to you as well?

Last month I saw a poll in a podcast group where out of 1076 people, 85% reported themselves to be intuitives types. 223 reported themselves as INFJ (20.7%), far and away the most common result. In 2nd and 3rd, ENFP and INFP were at like 12% apiece. ENFJs and INTJs were 11ish%.


The most common S type was ISFJ at 6%.The least common intuitive result was ENTP (3% of the poll). SPs and STJs made up the bottom 6 results.

I know that isn't a statistically random group (it's like a nerdy pop culture podcast), but that certainly is interesting to me.

 

[Pionart]

From my understanding, type has existed since the beginning of humanity. It is essentially determined from conception I think, maybe with some room for movement but not a lot. I could be wrong. But basically, what that means is that the percentage of Ns in the population would barely be shifting at all. Human genetic drift isn't that rapid. But people can of course use more or less of a given function, and what I suspect may be happening is that maybe Ns are using less S (e.g. increase in technology decreases need for practicality) and thus typing more often as Ns. Not sure though.

(adding a lot of "not sure" comments, as although I would prefer to just say what I think and leave it at that, people seem to react negatively to that and I haven't found a suitable way to phrase myself that is both authentic and inoffensive )

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Cognitive functions are in essence the directionality of one's perception and processing. As such, it really does not make any sense that it would be developed and change over time. If it is, I highly doubt that occurs after infancy. A person is simply not going to switch from a primary mode of gathering abstract patterns to encouraging collective ethical harmony, for example. It does not make sense if you really sit and think about it.

I think introverts are born introverts and extroverts are born extroverts, whether that be referring to perception or judgement (not social level!). I think the manner in which the functions are paired is where variation comes into play (people who spend most of their time internally processing [TiSi or NiTi, for example] will appear much different than people who spend most of their time actively interacting with the world around them [FeSe or NeTe, for example], or even others of the same 4-letter type who spend most of their time using their top two functions in order [TiNe or NiFe, for the first examples, respectively]).

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Sorry - I skimmed through your post first and now realize I am a bit off topic for your intentions.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What was the podcast about? Depending on the topic, do you think there could have just been a higher percentage of intuitives in that group than in the general population? Or could it be some of those people were themselves mistyped?

That said, I often wonder if the supposed percentages people often reference that point to the rarity of intuitives are incorrect. However, it’d be difficult to get an accurate percentage without a larger sample size, and even then we’d have to wonder how many people reporting were incorrect. Not sure what the margin of error might be for something of this nature

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

And regarding theories about type not existing in olden tymes, I’m not sure about that. It’s possible that people of certain types may have still gravitated toward certain roles and tasks more in line with their preferred cognitive styles. Would not be surprised if cro mag INFJs and INFPs were more likely to end up as medicine men/women or cave painters, whilst ESTPs might be more likely to be warriors and hunters, TJs might more often end up tribal leaders, NTPs might be the ones inventing new tools, etc. But I don’t really know. Everyone would have been pretty limited by the harsh conditions and their biology.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

I disagree with the notion that personality is an adaptation. It is not jung's position.
This is a quotation from Psychological Types p 415-416

The fact that often in their earliest years children display an unmistakable typical attitude forces us to assume that it cannot possibly be the struggle for existence,
as it is generally understood, which constitutes the compelling factor in favour of a definite attitude. We might, however, demur, and indeed with cogency, that even
the tiny infant, the very babe at the breast, has already an unconscious psychological adaptation to perform, inasmuch as the special character of the maternal influence
leads to specific reactions in the child. This argument, though appealing to incontestable facts, has none the less to yield before the equally unarguable fact that two children
of the same mother may at a very early age exhibit opposite types, without the smallest accompanying change in the attitude of the mother Although nothing would induce
me to underestimate the well-nigh incalculable importance of parental influence, this experience compels me to conclude that the decisive factor must be looked for in the
disposition ofthe child The fact that, in spite of the greatest possible similarity of external conditions, one child will assume this type while another that, must, of course, in
the last resort he ascribed to individual disposition. Naturally in saying this I only refer to those cases which occur under normal conditions. Under abnormal conditions,
l.e. when there is an extreme and, therefore, abnormal attitude in the mother, the children can also be coerced into a relatively similar attitude ; but this entails a violation of
their individual disposition, which quite possibly would have assumed another type if no abnormal and disturbing external influence had intervened. As a rule, whenever
such a falsification of type takes place as a result of external influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and a cure can successfully be sought only in a development of that attitude which corresponds with the individual's natural way. As regards the particular disposition, I know not what to say, except that there are clearly individuals who have Either a greater readiness and capacity for one way, or for whom it is more congenial to adapt to that way rather than the other. In the last analysis it may well be that
physiological causes, inaccessible to our knowledge, play a part in this. That this may be the case seems to me not improbable, in view of one's experience that a reversal
of type often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-being of the organism, often provoking an acute state of exhaustion.

 

[Vendrah]

From reckful posts I remember Jung and Myers stating that type can change.
Considering that, and considering that MBTI reliability is about 60% (over the years, I think? I mean, 40% of chances to change a letter in a year, although thats partially due to the people with X on one of the scale), Big 5 combining all scales have about the same, I came up one day with a private hypothesis that the MBTI personalities could be a state of personality, and what the person "truly are" (the core unchangable-unadaptable you) is beyond that state and it is related on the dynamics and how the person react and adapt to the enviroment OR by a very complicated relation with the cognitive functions. The former is unexplorable and is far from being testable; About the latter, I gather data some days ago with 19 persons that had keys2cognition taken in at least 2 different years here in-forum, just 19 required some tiring work but I couldnt stop my curiosity. In these 19 includes people with changes in personality type (6 considering X as 'any'), but I couldnt make sense of the switches in cognitive functions, and I would need a special computer program to test hundreds or thousands of different equations/relations (in form of symetrical scales) from the cognitive functions in order to try to identify patterns. However, I suck at programming. In my own, after some few try and error (with some logic), I could find only that Ti+Ni<=>Se+Fe was the only relation that was kept in all 19 people, including those who change type.

About the types in the past, there was some search in South Africa personality types that included a special kind of South African that was called something as "afrikkan", that seems to be a tribe, and it had a very peculiar type distribuition. As far as I remember, 50% were composed by ESTJs and ISTJs, while the SP house barely had less than 10%, all NFs summed 1-2%, and INTJs and ENTJs summed about 10%. I, and very likely 80% or more of the internet, would expect lots of SPs for a tribe, but, well, reality seems different.

And about intuitives becoming more common, I never read anything about it, but it is possible indeed. But I would be surprised if MBTI types are changing fast, I would expect a slow change (like an increase of +0,1% to +0,5% of more intuitives per year).

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Not sure, but functioning in society is becoming more and more abstract with computer interfacing.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

From reckful posts I remember Jung and Myers stating that type can change.

Unfortunately, you don't support this by mentioning the references like which book (what title) that is written by Jung or Isabel Briggs Myers at what page, that state the type can change, So that we can check directly to the sources.

 

[Forever_Jung]

I guess I just think: We seem to have roughly the right amount of each type for the world to run. So it seems reasonable to wonder: Does type adapt to environment, to some extent? Like, if the world changes, does the type breakdown change slightly to fit that new reality? There is some basis for environment influencing type within the Jungian typology framework, based on what I have read of Jung and von Franz. I wish I could find the quotes I'm thinking of. I will add them when I do, I just don't own the books and they aren't all in print.

That doesn't mean it's true of course, but it would be theoretically consistent, anyway.

What was the podcast about? Depending on the topic, do you think there could have just been a higher percentage of intuitives in that group than in the general population? Or could it be some of those people were themselves mistyped?

It was Binge Mode which deep dives into IP like Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, Marvel movies, etc. So it definitely skews the data. And I am sure many people were mistyped.

I'm not here to defend the purity of the data (it's not even close to perfect data), it just got me wondering, just as you wonder, at what point do we start questioning the established percentages you hear bandied about?

I also thought, since many of the numbers come from old studies, and many of the sensor descriptions are super old-fashioned, that maybe type has changed as the world has changed. Or maybe sensors just look differently now, and they're not all old dusty administrators and clerks.

That said, I often wonder if the supposed percentages people often reference that point to the rarity of intuitives are incorrect. However, it’d be difficult to get an accurate percentage without a larger sample size, and even then we’d have to wonder how many people reporting were incorrect. Not sure what the margin of error might be for something of this nature

Yes I wonder that too.

So that poll for example had a fairly large sample size (over 1000 people), but again the margin for error is huge, and the subjects are far from random. That being said, how can intuitive self-typing be so dominant, especially because many people were just reporting test results from 16personalities and didn't think of type as something you could read up on and self-type?

Despite the compromised data, you have to think: surely INFJs aren't actually 1% of the population, considering how many websites cater to infjs (introvertdear, vickyjo, and even on more balanced websites there is a lot of infj content). Even though they're obviously not 22% of the population, might they be 2.2%? Or even 5%?

What about the other intuitive types?

And regarding theories about type not existing in olden tymes, I’m not sure about that. It’s possible that people of certain types may have still gravitated toward certain roles and tasks more in line with their preferred cognitive styles. Would not be surprised if cro mag INFJs and INFPs were more likely to end up as medicine men/women or cave painters, whilst ESTPs might be more likely to be warriors and hunters, TJs might more often end up tribal leaders, NTPs might be the ones inventing new tools, etc. But I don’t really know. Everyone would have been pretty limited by the harsh conditions and their biology.

I don't think INFJs were necessarily only just invented. But I do remember something from reading in von Franz's lectures on the inferior function, that she believes the functions were more balanced in early days, since specialization wouldn't be as advantageous in smaller groups.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I would guess INFJs make up between 1 and 5 percent of the general population. But it's not really an educated guess. I don't think human evolution would benefit from having them in much higher numbers than 8 or so percent. I do think that intuitives overall are probably a minority, but I think they may be a fairly sizable minority, perhaps between 25 and 45 percent. Again, not really educated guesses I'm making here.

 

[Forever_Jung]

But people can of course use more or less of a given function, and what I suspect may be happening is that maybe Ns are using less S (e.g. increase in technology decreases need for practicality) and thus typing more often as Ns. Not sure though.

(adding a lot of "not sure" comments, as although I would prefer to just say what I think and leave it at that, people seem to react negatively to that and I haven't found a suitable way to phrase myself that is both authentic and inoffensive )

You could be right...I am thinking along those lines as well.

This idea of type or function adjusting to environment was spurred from this passage from von Franz:

That being said, even in this passage she isn't specifically writing about how these "primitives" aren't an intuitive or a sensor, but rather they are unable to get as specialized when in smaller communities, and when more at the mercy of the elements.

So maybe there aren't more intuitives in society than before, rather society has become more intuitive and so sensation types have been forced to learn how to use their intuitive function more. As you kind of said above. That's an interesting thought, isn't it?

From my understanding, type has existed since the beginning of humanity. It is essentially determined from conception I think, maybe with some room for movement but not a lot. I could be wrong.

I appreciate you hedging your bets, but I have to ask: Where did you get this notion? I'm not saying I disagree but I'm wondering why you think that. I started this thread because I don't know what determines type, and if it isn't innate, then who is to say it has always existed?

But basically, what that means is that the percentage of Ns in the population would barely be shifting at all. Human genetic drift isn't that rapid.

I guess what i'm questioning is: on what basis do we believe that type is genetic? If it's not genetic, than genetic drift has no bearing on type.

I think it's reasonable to wonder if type is strongly influenced by environment. They are called functions, and it seems reasonable to say these specialized functions were developed so we could, well, cognitively function.

This would seem to make our functions more akin to skills/active processes, as opposed to genetic traits like eye colour. I know that's a murky distinction, because genetics has a bearing on skills, but I hope you know what I mean.

 

[Forever_Jung]

I disagree with the notion that personality is an adaptation. It is not jung's position.

The fact that often in their earliest years children display an unmistakable typical attitude forces us to assume that it cannot possibly be the struggle for existence,
as it is generally understood, which constitutes the compelling factor in favour of a definite attitude. We might, however, demur, and indeed with cogency, that even
the tiny infant, the very babe at the breast, has already an unconscious psychological adaptation to perform, inasmuch as the special character of the maternal influence
leads to specific reactions in the child. This argument, though appealing to incontestable facts, has none the less to yield before the equally unarguable fact that two children
of the same mother may at a very early age exhibit opposite types, without the smallest accompanying change in the attitude of the mother Although nothing would induce
me to underestimate the well-nigh incalculable importance of parental influence, this experience compels me to conclude that the decisive factor must be looked for in the
disposition ofthe child The fact that, in spite of the greatest possible similarity of external conditions, one child will assume this type while another that, must, of course, in
the last resort he ascribed to individual disposition. Naturally in saying this I only refer to those cases which occur under normal conditions. Under abnormal conditions,
l.e. when there is an extreme and, therefore, abnormal attitude in the mother, the children can also be coerced into a relatively similar attitude ; but this entails a violation of
their individual disposition, which quite possibly would have assumed another type if no abnormal and disturbing external influence had intervened. As a rule, whenever
such a falsification of type takes place as a result of external influence, the individual becomes neurotic later, and a cure can successfully be sought only in a development of that attitude which corresponds with the individual's natural way. As regards the particular disposition, I know not what to say, except that there are clearly individuals who have Either a greater readiness and capacity for one way, or for whom it is more congenial to adapt to that way rather than the other. In the last analysis it may well be that
physiological causes, inaccessible to our knowledge, play a part in this. That this may be the case seems to me not improbable, in view of one's experience that a reversal
of type often proves exceedingly harmful to the physiological well-being of the organism, often provoking an acute state of exhaustion.

This is a quotation from Psychological Types p 415-416

Thanks for sharing this! So that's not Jung's position, good to know! However, he does state in this passage that under abnormal influence a child can be warped to have a similar attitude to the parent, the only catch is that the child usually becomes neurotic later on as a result.

So what if the overwhelming, rapidly changing and abstract world we live in today is warping our innate dispositions, and causing us to be highly neurotic later in life? Maybe the innate disposition isn't altered by time, but what if the innate disposition is getting squashed, resulting in the harm, neurosis and general exhaustion of humanity.

 

[Vendrah]

Unfortunately, you don't support this by mentioning the references like which book (what title) that is written by Jung or Isabel Briggs Myers at what page, that state the type can change, So that we can check directly to the sources.

[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]
He did read it and mentioned it, I have no idea where these sources are. Just for reckful not needing to read the thread, here is the context:

From reckful posts I remember Jung and Myers stating that type can change.

 

[Pionart]

You could be right...I am thinking along those lines as well.

This idea of type or function adjusting to environment was spurred from this passage from von Franz:

That being said, even in this passage she isn't specifically writing about how these "primitives" aren't an intuitive or a sensor, but rather they are unable to get as specialized when in smaller communities, and when more at the mercy of the elements.

So maybe there aren't more intuitives in society than before, rather society has become more intuitive and so sensation types have been forced to learn how to use their intuitive function more. As you kind of said above. That's an interesting thought, isn't it?



I appreciate you hedging your bets, but I have to ask: Where did you get this notion? I'm not saying I disagree but I'm wondering why you think that. I started this thread because I don't know what determines type, and if it isn't innate, then who is to say it has always existed?



I guess what i'm questioning is: on what basis do we believe that type is genetic? If it's not genetic, than genetic drift has no bearing on type.

I think it's reasonable to wonder if type is strongly influenced by environment. They are called functions, and it seems reasonable to say these specialized functions were developed so we could, well, cognitively function.

This would seem to make our functions more akin to skills/active processes, as opposed to genetic traits like eye colour. I know that's a murky distinction, because genetics has a bearing on skills, but I hope you know what I mean.

The functions are cognitive processes that manifest sequentially in the psyche. Nothing about that suggests that it would be an artefact of culture or anything along those lines. The idea that there is a greater flexibility in how the processes manifest when in more natural conditions could have some kind of merit, in that one's identify may not be as solidified, but I doubt that the effect is too strong unless given reason to suspect that it is.

As you mentioned, the passage isn't stating that the primitives did not have types. Even today I would think it is generally the case that people make use of more than just their top two functions; when a person is highly functional they make use of all 8. Though there are some for whom the most conscious functions are given more priority because of their attitude which is egoic and wary of the unconscious. Such people would exist today and would have existed back then. Then there are others who are more adept at delving into their unconscious.

So basically I see no reason to think that type isn't genetic. What is the mechanism by which a certain sequence is solidified in the mind today, but was not at all solid in the past; in fact being so liquid as to not have any clear resting state?

So what if the overwhelming, rapidly changing and abstract world we live in today is warping our innate dispositions, and causing us to be highly neurotic later in life? Maybe the innate disposition isn't altered by time, but what if the innate disposition is getting squashed, resulting in the harm, neurosis and general exhaustion of humanity.

Well, yeah, it's been said that the way the world is at the moment, for example the one-size-fits-all approach to "normal" "mental health" espoused by much of the modern mental health system, but being very widespread, and also as a result of nature itself and not just cultural bias... is causing people to become very psychologically stressed because they're being made to fit into forms that are not natural for them.

This effect is supposedly not going to effect, say, an ESTJ male as much because that type is well suited to the 9-5 working life, but for NFs there is a phenomenon where they become more S or T in order to survive in the modern world, and engaging in one's natural proclivities can be labelled mental illness whereas altering one's behaviour to fit into the dominant paradigm lets one live in peace.

Though, as you've stated, perhaps the dominant paradigm is shifting to become more N than it used to be. I don't know whether that's the case, but it could be.

So, say you have an INFP who uses a lot of Si to survive, and so in a dichotomy test they might score as ISFJ. They might be regarded as mentally healthy for being so responsible and whatnot, but really they're mentally unhealthy because they should be prioritising Ne over Si, even if the intuitive functions often get one labelled as weird, crazy etc.

This occurs to a lot of the population. People aren't behaving in ways which are natural to them and would lead to high amounts of energy. In fact, even having a high amount of energy is associated with mental illness via the concept of "mania".

That's one reason I'm fond of typology. It's a way of showing how people best function, which totally goes against the joke that is modern psychology.

 

[Pionart]

In the 8 Circuits of Consciousness model, I've read that the overall trend across civilisation was for a movement up through the various circuits. My interpretation of this regarding cognitive functions, is that actually people are generally not only as able to use their tertiary/inferior functions, but are in fact, generally speaking, more able to transcend even this - going first through the unconscious functions, and then through the levels of the unconscious beyond the 8 functions. It is these "levels beyond" the cognitive functions that have primarily been developing over the last few hundred/few thousand years (so the story goes, anyway).

So it suggests therefore that people today would be more able to deal with things that would have been difficult for primitives.

But possibly, without specialisation in the tribe, it does require a greater modulation in order to cover one's own weaknesses. That's the view that seems to be being put forward.

 

[reckful]

Unfortunately, you don't support this by mentioning the references like which book (what title) that is written by Jung or Isabel Briggs Myers at what page, that state the type can change, So that we can check directly to the sources.

You've quoted Jung with respect to the possibility that an inborn type could end up being "falsified" by external influences, and Myers subscribed to that view, and I can't recall any passage where Myers suggests that someone could be born one type but effectively end up as a different type (as distinguished from what you might call a thwarted type).

Jung was arguably less consistent, though. In Chapter 1 of Psychological Types, he tells the story of two early Christian leaders — Origen and Tertullian — who were each led to effectively (and permanently) change their types under the influence of their religious beliefs.

In Chapter 10, discussing what can happen to a Ti-dom whose introverted thinking becomes too extreme and one-sided, Jung seems to suggest that one of the unconscious functions may end up overthrowing Ti and supplanting it as their dominant function. In Jung's words, the "extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking" that occurs if it's "carried to extremes" can lead to the result that "the further development of life is crowded out of the thinking function into the domain of the other psychic functions" — in which case one of the formerly unconscious functions may "supersede the thinking function as the vehicle of life."

 

[typologyenthusiast]

What I understand is: Jung did not say that he had the case that his patient type was indeed falsified, based on which he could tell that a falsification of type did happen at least in his patients. He seems to me only thinking up a hypothetical condition he foresee might happen. He suggested, Although he think up that a falsification of type could happen, it, can only hardly happen in reality since it requires abnormal condition.
[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION]
I skimmed ch 10 but did not find it that jung suggested as you post.

In the foregoing section I emphasized the tendency to a certain one-sidedness in the extraverted attitude, due to the controlling power of the objective factor in the course
of psychic events. The extraverted type is constantly tempted to give himself away (apparently) in favour of the object, and to assimilate his subject to the object

Psychological Types, p 422.
When I found that quotation, I stopped. But I may have missed that anyway. So It'd be better, if all of us double checked the Psychological Types here.

 

[Vendrah]

Here it is the type distribution in the South Africa study I was talking about (wasnt hard to re-find):



EDIT: I dont know why the resolution of the image attachment is dropping, please check source, I cant fix it now.

Here is the source:
https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/services/Download/uj:9268/CONTENT1
Page 243/358 in the PDF.

Since I was looking for MBTI distribuition in South Africa country, I dindt read this study (I just looked for the numbers), but it seems that the indigenous language are indeed South Africa tribal natives somehow (maybe I should read later), which is the closest thing we have to past MBTI profile that can be measured. I couldnt find any other indigenous population public studies, but there should be more.

7 types are nearly non-existent (less than 1%) back then, while ISTJ and ESTJs sums 2/3 of the whole indigenous language population. Its very likely that in moving backwards ISTJ and ESTJ were likely >80%. This makes me to come up with a theory that looking even more in the past, if there was any MBTI back then, it would take the characteristics sensing, thinking and judging as a thing of all normal human beings (since 80% or more of the population had it), which would only make I/E as a distinguishable trait. So, someone could arrive that there were two types of people: The one that talks a lot (Estj) and the ones that doesnt talk much (Istj), with one or another disguintishiable I/E trait.

I had a look on this article by truity which has an interesting quote:

For example, a 2009 analysis of Chinese "Big Five" personality traits actually found seven factors, only three of which resembled the Anglo-American Big Five traits. And a Filipino study based on the revised NEO personality inventory (which is closely aligned to the Big Five) found that indigenous traits such as social curiosity (Pagkamadaldal) and risk-taking (Pagkamapagsapalaran) gave a more accurate personality prediction than tests based on the Big Five alone. Similar results have been observed in an isolated forager-farming community in Bolivia. Rather than displaying a Big Five of personality traits, the Bolivian Tsimane were found to display a "Big Two": industriousness and prosociality. These findings represent the unique personality development of highly communal, subsistence societies.

This reinforces my idea/hypothesis - just idea, I am not stating the ultimate truth here - that in the earlier times the only distinguishable trait was I/E and then with time others arrives. Its just an interesting thought.