Socio-economic background and MBTI

[purplesunset]

Many of the type stereotypes on this board and other places online seem to exist within their own, tidy little vacuums, and one important aspect is rarely factored in: viz. the effect of socio-economic background on shaping someone's personality.

Most of the type stereotypes and type descriptions work best if the frame of reference is your typical all-white, middle-class, white-picket fence suburban western culture. Sheltered people who only read newspapers about "those lazy poors" who seemingly live in an entirely different galaxy.

What if someone grew up in an urban ghetto? How stereotypically INFP can one be in a poor, industrial town? Perhaps a lot of the disdain people show against sensors come about as a result of this kind of socio-economic misunderstanding?

If you live in a rat-infested apartment, mulling over the ills of the world in your blog while sipping your latte macchiato won't help you pay the rent. The only language your landlord understands his "give me the %$%%*& money or your ass is out!!" You have to be more grounded and sensor-like to survive in such socio-economic circumstances.

In certain environments, you need to develop both Se and Te (aka "street smarts") if you don't want to get mugged. In my highschool, one of my classmates got stabbed by a gang member over his game boy advance (he didn't die thankfully). I also know that the stereotypical jocks, nerds, and hippies division did not develop in my high-school. So the culture of the socio-economic environment seems to have an effect on the personalities and roles that people take on, then why not on type? or perhaps it only affects what functions you choose to manifest?

Even so the type descriptions seem awfully sterile and narrow to me because there are other factors that come into play in shaping someone's personality, and the socio-economic one is important, imo.

 

[tcda]

I see what you mean, though I come from a working class environment, and within that frame of reference you can type people as N or S.

Though trouble is though as you say, that when coming onto a forum with people from all different backgrounds, those who have been coached from a young age in Theory and Logic will seem to be more "intuititive" and "rational".

This is why what I look for in iNtuition, is ability to question established norms, to "look through" the "face value" of our society, and understand the essence of it.

This is a better indicator than "an interest in absract ideas", because the children of proffessionals, are coached in "abstract ideas" froma young age, and I think there is many an XSTJ, especially, from a priveliged background, who will consider themselves an N, when in reality they are an S who is good at learning theory.

Ins ome ways, it's even harder to question the status quo when you are from a rich background than from a humble background, because it means questioning your whole family, all the values you were brought up with etc. This may be why, the two most intuitive people I've met in my life and who had the biggest influence on me (both ENTP's), were from the poorest of poor backgrounds.

 

[miss fortune]

rural working class background (farm country! and we didn't have a very big farm)

went to college

moved to the 'hood

got robbed a few times and moved in with a friend

now live in a lower working class ethnically diverse neighborhood surrounded by the hood

 

[purplesunset]

This is a better indicator than "an interest in absract ideas", because the children of proffessionals, are coached in "abstract ideas" froma young age, and I think there is many an XSTJ, especially, from a priveliged background, who will consider themselves an N, when in reality they are an S who is good at learning theory.

Excellent point. I have also noticed on forums especially that a lot of times when people talk about the S/N divide, it seems suspiciously similar to the rich/poor divide.

Perhaps this topic is taboo because I can't recall anywhere else where people talked about type in terms of socio-economic influences. If someone could point some research on this matter, I would be very grateful.

 

[cafe]

My own socio-economic background is sort of a mixed bag. I'm white and have been poor most of my life, but my grandmother (who was influential in my upbringing) was from an upper-middle class family and my family was religious and those factors probably always made me seem more middle class.

If I've ever lived anyplace truly dangerous while exercising normal precautions, I was oblivious to it, but I've lived near dealers (some of the best neighbors I've had) and been on just about every kind of public assistance you can get. I've been that so-and-so with the junk car that broke down in the middle of the intersection and that person ahead of you in the grocery store check-out with the WIC voucher and too many kids.

I can talk to just about anybody on their level and identify with them, but I don't think I fit in very well with any particular group. But I'm more introverted, articulate, analytical, and cause-oriented than the (mostly white) people I encounter regardless of their socio-economic status.

We do have a decent number of people on the forum who identify as iNtuitives that are not white and/or middle class or above.

 

[tcda]

Excellent point. I have also noticed on forums especially that a lot of times when people talk about the S/N divide, it seems suspiciously similar to the rich/poor divide.

Perhaps this topic is taboo because I can't recall anywhere else where people talked about type in terms of socio-economic influences. If someone could point some research on this matter, I would be very grateful.

I doubt there has been much research, because personality typing is so marginal within psychology, that the psychologists who orient to it are already probably quite consolidated into the idea that "consciousness determines social being" and not the other way around.

As a Marxist I believe it's the other way around but meh, I stil find MBTI interesting as a descriptive tool, even though I agree with you, it's pretty much useless at explaining how and why we acquire the behaviour patterns we do.

I see MBTI as describing the roles people play in relation to each other and not any kind of depeer truth - for a deeper truth, you need a materialist and not a subjectivist analysis IMHO.

 

[neptunesnet]

Many of the type stereotypes on this board and other places online seem to exist within their own, tidy little vacuums, and one important aspect is rarely factored in: viz. the effect of socio-economic background on shaping someone's personality.

Most of the type stereotypes and type descriptions work best if the frame of reference is your typical all-white, middle-class, white-picket fence suburban western culture. Sheltered people who only read newspapers about "those lazy poors" who seemingly live in an entirely different galaxy.

What if someone grew up in an urban ghetto? How stereotypically INFP can one be in a poor, industrial town? Perhaps a lot of the disdain people show against sensors come about as a result of this kind of socio-economic misunderstanding?

If you live in a rat-infested apartment, mulling over the ills of the world in your blog while sipping your latte macchiato won't help you pay the rent. The only language your landlord understands his "give me the %$%%*& money or your ass is out!!" You have to be more grounded and sensor-like to survive in such socio-economic circumstances.

In certain environments, you need to develop both Se and Te (aka "street smarts") if you don't want to get mugged. In my highschool, one of my classmates got stabbed by a gang member over his game boy advance (he didn't die thankfully). I also know that the stereotypical jocks, nerds, and hippies division did not develop in my high-school. So the culture of the socio-economic environment seems to have an effect on the personalities and roles that people take on, then why not on type? or perhaps it only affects what functions you choose to manifest?

Even so the type descriptions seem awfully sterile and narrow to me because there are other factors that come into play in shaping someone's personality, and the socio-economic one is important, imo.

Good point.

I agree that type behavior would manifest differently depending on socio-economic status. For example, I'm sure an SJ who was brought up around theory would look differently from an SJ who wasn't; an INFP who grew up in poverty would look starkly different from one who wasn't; an SP who grew up in a family of iNtuitives may look differently than one who did not, etc. Socio-economic status, along with countless other external factors, could alter the way type is manifested. It adds to our individuality.

I see what you mean, though I come from a working class environment, and within that frame of reference you can type people as N or S.

Well, that's the opposite of her point.

In typing, preference is something you're naturally inclined to do. If you're an SJ, for instance, and theory has been emphasized in your family then you'll think more abstractly although that may not be your affinity. You'll still an SJ but one whose good at theory. Typing people in that frame of reference wouldn't be typing at all in the traditional sense because it would be more about the person's aptitude than preference.

Though trouble is though as you say, that when coming onto a forum with people from all different backgrounds, those who have been coached from a young age in Theory and Logic will seem to be more "intuititive" and "rational".

I think some here have made that mistake.

This is a better indicator than "an interest in absract ideas", because the children of proffessionals, are coached in "abstract ideas" froma young age, and I think there is many an XSTJ, especially, from a priveliged background, who will consider themselves an N, when in reality they are an S who is good at learning theory.

Great point!

This is the type of thing I've struggled with both in high school and in college: the pretense I've witnessed others have because they consider themselves "intellectual" when in fact they've merely had more, and earlier, exposure to ideas and modes of learning than, say, a child in the projects who took a natural interest in books. That type of behavior has always bothered me because in a sense it's a way of rubbing your socio-economic status and your privilege into someone else's face, particularly someone who's less privileged and may not have had the same opportunities afforded to them.

 

[proteanmix]

I wrote this before and I think it's applicable.

The things people often use as examples differentiating sensing and intuiting seems to me to come down to education, experience, and exposure.

What I notice on the forum is if anyone can talk about politics, science, current events, and their feelings, with any intelligence they're an N. I'm from DC so any Joe or Jane Blow on the streets of downtown DC can talk politics and current events and I can go to the theater or a make-up counter to hear people talking about their feelings.

These are my opinions of why people think intuitives are so rare:

Location: People from smaller population centers tend to be more like-minded than those from larger metropolitan areas. That like-mindedness is often thought of as being "sensing" which it isn't necessarily. Your immediate culture impacts how you conceive of things, which brings me to the second reason:

Culture: I'm a racial minority and I find it hard to scrape off the thick patina of Fe, Si, and Se from most of the black people I try to type. I know two black INTJs that are more Fe than me! And frankly the way my Fe manifests itself feels different than the way the other Fe-dominants on the forum manifests itself so I've basically given up trying to find people who I typologically identify with on the forum.

Exposure: You can be the strongest ISxJ ever and if you've been exposed to many different types of people, foods, ideas, languages, whatever I completely think you'll be more open to experience than an ENxP who's been in one place their whole life. In fact, the larger vat of knowledge Si has to pull from it begins to look like an encyclopedia of knowing virtually anything.

Education: This ties to exposure as well, but you can be taught things like critical thinking skills, argumentation, metaphor use. A lot of what people consider being intuitive comes down to being culturally literate, i.e. "Did you get my [obscure] reference?" Yes: N. No: S. Being culturally literate is dependent upon how much you're plugged into the dominant culture. If you're not, a lot of metaphor use will go over your head. Or you'll use metaphor that is within your domain of knowledge but doesn't necessarily map to the dominant culture.

And these gawd-awful typing threads!!!:steam: Think about this: if you have an incredibly popular movie or fictional character that everyone seems to relate to and enjoy they're probably a sensor or close enough to the S/N line for people to see a bit of everyman in that character. Ye average sensor, will not identify with a hardcore N and vice versa. When I researched correlations between MBTI and the Big Five I found studies that most people hover around the middle of the Openness factor, which roughly relates to what MBTI considers "sensing" and "intuiting." The Openness factor as has subfactors:

1. Fantasy - the tendency toward a vivid imagination and fantasy life.
2. Aesthetics - the tendency to appreciate art, music, and poetry.
3. Feelings - being receptive to inner emotional states and valuing emotional experience.
4. Actions - the inclination to try new activities, visit new places, and try new foods.
5. Ideas - the tendency to be intellectually curious and open to new ideas.
6. Values - the readiness to re-examine traditional social, religious, and political values.

If I had to guess, I think the ONLY factors that indicate a preference for intuiting are Ideas and Values. Fantasy, Aethetics, Feelings, and Actions, are anyone's game. And guess what? You can score highly on those subtraits and still get a high Openness score without having high Ideas and Values scores. Conversely, you can score high on the Ideas and Values subtraits and still have a low Openness score. I personally think a truly open person would score highly on all subtraits not just a few, or rather the most important ones.

Based on my experience I think the population of S/N is around 60/40 rather than 75/25 or that impossible 90/10.

Also there's a majority of poor, college graduates here:

as well as childless 18-34 year olds

I think that if you switched up any of those demographic factors (more affluence + children OR no post-secondary education + children) the forum would become more "sensor" with children being the deciding factor. I think many people here are "allowed" to be a stereotypically scatterbrained and head-in-the cloud sensotards because they don't have the responsibility that comes with taking care of a family. When children come into the equation you must learn certain characteristics that are associated with sensing and judging. Also why don't we have more 35-49 year olds here? If they can find their way to eBay and youtube then they can find their way here. My reason: they're more comfortable in their skin and don't need personality indicators like MBTI to tell them who they are.

And here's something that annoys the hell out of me: THERE ARE NOT MORE INTUITIVES ON THE INTERNET! Whenever I see someone saying that I want to come through the screen and throttle them. What you mean to say is that on the small corner of the internet you inhabit, it seems that way to you. If you hung around a different neighborhood on the internet you would see other things that lead you to a different conclusion. The internet is freaking huge.

Also to have home internet access is still a sign of higher SES. I think most people here although they may not be affluent themselves, many of them still live with parents so maybe the affluence is a little skewed. Which is another factor I find interested in the S/N debate and SJs. Why don't more people have SP, NF, or NT parents? I think there are boatload of mistypes regarding parents because people tend to assume SJ. Which goes back to my first point of how I think children are a main factor: responsibility comes with children and responsibility is associated with S and J.

I wish I could find some data on where most people on the forum are geographically located. I've nursed the thought for some time now that most of the American audience is from the Midwest and the South. There are people here from the East and West coasts, but I think the culture of the American South and Midwest tends to give the illusion of a sensing personality. States very much have their personality types; think of what comes to your mind when someone says they're from New York (I tend to assume NYC) or Kansas or Wyoming. I have an ENFP friend from Mississippi and she's always saying "Well I'm from the South and we do/don't do ________." She's very much about her southern heritage and what she does based upon that, but also very much Ne-dom.

I don't know much about the international audience so I can't say much about them. Of course, MBTI is mostly in English-speaking countries and that's no surprise.

 

[miss fortune]

^ great post!

 

[tcda]

I think that if you switched up any of those demographic factors (more affluence + children OR no post-secondary education + children) the forum would become more "sensor" with children being the deciding factor. I think many people here are "allowed" to be a stereotypically scatterbrained and head-in-the cloud sensotards because they don't have the responsibility that comes with taking care of a family. When children come into the equation you must learn certain characteristics that are associated with sensing and judging. Also why don't we have more 35-49 year olds here? If they can find their way to eBay and youtube then they can find their way here. My reason: they're more comfortable in their skin and don't need personality indicators like MBTI to tell them who they are.

Yes this is true. I know many adults who in their youth dabbled with N hobbies and theory, but once they had kids, all their time had to go on this.

Again wealth comes into play, because wealthier people can afford to work less hours or get help in the home. Also people with "careers" tend to have kids older.

Incidentally this goes against the idea that "we develop our inferior functions as we get older". Both my parents - SJ's - wre more iNtuitive in their youth than they are today.

 

[SillySapienne]

I think your type is relatively intrinsic/innate.

I have two full sisters who come from the same background as I do, and one is an SJ and the other is an xp, regardless, both have major sensing preferences.

 

[SillySapienne]

You don't need to be wealthy to be an N, or to facilitate or foster your N.

There are soooooooo many hours and minutes each day, even while you're working, when you can choose to engage your world however you want to.

 

[FDG]

I don't think there's such a big change. I used to live a getto-ish neighborhood when I was a small kid, now I live in a relatively good suburban area. I also still have friends from the ghetto-ish neighborhood, along with really affluent friends; I have never noticed an higher leaning towards intuitiv-ness among the affluent people, I only have noticed that they're generally more willing to acquire an higher education, perhaps better able to force themselves to study and more academically savvy, thus better at understanding complex language and mathematics.

My father is marshal in the military (which is really SJ stuff), my girlfriend's father is a high-level engineer (thus really NT stuff), yet she's absolutely much more S than me (this doesn't mean I'm an irresponsible scatterbrain, I don't think you got the dichotomy right proteanmix).

Also there's a majority of poor, college graduates here

You can't use that easily the definition of "poor". A single 25-yo living on 30k a year is likely not poor, a married 40-yo living on 50k a year with 3 children might in some cases be poor. I don't know anyone that has been able to directly enter the job market with a 100k per year paycheck. Since you're meausing income, not wealth (thus crowding out potentially family-wise rich people), the results are prefectly in line with the average age demographic.

 

[proteanmix]

I don't think there's such a big change. I used to live a getto-ish neighborhood when I was a small kid, now I live in a relatively good suburban area. I also still have friends from the ghetto-ish neighborhood, along with really affluent friends; I have never noticed an higher leaning towards intuitiv-ness among the affluent people, I only have noticed that they're generally more willing to acquire an higher education, perhaps better able to force themselves to study and more academically savvy, thus better at understanding complex language and mathematics.

My father is marshal in the military (which is really SJ stuff), my girlfriend's father is a high-level engineer (thus really NT stuff), yet she's absolutely much more S than me (this doesn't mean I'm an irresponsible scatterbrain, I don't think you got the dichotomy right proteanmix).

I didn't use anecdotal "well my friend/parent/whatever" to make my points, I got some hard demographic data to support myself. From that information I extrapolated. I'm no statistician, but I did try to base my conclusions on more than what my family member who also happens to be XXXX type does.

If you don't think I have the dichotomy right (which I may not, I have no problems admitting that) please feel free to supply some of your own based on more than anecdotal observations.

People commonly and frequently on this forum admit to not having basic life skills and if they do have them it was like tunneling to the center of the earth to acquire them. If such a lack doesn't apply to you or anyone you know, then no worries.

As far as the education part is concerned, I wasn't insinuating that more educated people are intuitives, actually I think education is why someone would mistype as intuitive because of the skills you learn while in college. Many intuitive qualities are falsely equated with things like critical thinking skills, abstract reasoning, metaphor usage, etc.

Income I think relates to this (I speculate that many people here live at home w/ parents or guardians) because the more income you have, the less time you have to spend seeing to your basic life needs and more time engaging in navel-gazing, floating, roaming, daydreaming, being less aware of your environment or creating a fantasy world to inhabit. I think people like to call that being "imaginative" and "eccentric."

You can't use that easily the definition of "poor". A single 25-yo living on 30k a year is likely not poor, a married 40-yo living on 50k a year with 3 children might in some cases be poor. I don't know anyone that has been able to directly enter the job market with a 100k per year paycheck. Since you're meausing income, not wealth (thus crowding out potentially family-wise rich people), the results are prefectly in line with the average age demographic.

Actually the demographic data of that single 25 YO and married 40 YOU would tell us more about them than anything else. What is the cost index of the area they live? Do they have student loans? Are they renting, own, or live at home? Do they children? What other debts and expenses do they have? I relied on Quantcast to define what is affluent/less affluent. Feel free to investigate how they define affluence. I said poor, which was my own phrasing not theirs but I based it on the stats that said that most people at the forum are less affluent. If you re-read my post I said I think the affluence data may be skewed because people here may be living at home and their individual income pushes them into lesser affluence, but not their family income.

 

[neptunesnet]

You can't use that easily [as] the definition of "poor". A single 25-yo living on 30k a year is likely not poor, a married 40-yo living on 50k a year with 3 children might in some cases be poor. [...] Since you're meausing income, not wealth (thus crowding out potentially family-wise rich people), the results are prefectly in line with the average age demographic.

 

[Thalassa]

On one hand I see what you're driving at - for example, ENFPs who come from working class or poor backgrounds probably develop Te at an earlier age than ones from more affluent backgrounds, and may also seem a little less consistently fluffy and sweet - but on the other hand I think people are who they are despite socio-economic status.

For example - what Protean was saying about us not having children so being more free to have our head in the clouds - what if Ns are just more likely to put off having children to an older age (or completely) because we're Ns and not because of socio-economic background. I think we might be more likely to choose to do things with our lives that aren't stereotypically SJ that also has very little to do with socio-economic status.

 

[tcda]

I As far as the education part is concerned, I wasn't insinuating that more educated people are intuitives, actually I think education is why someone would mistype as intuitive because of the skills you learn while in college. Many intuitive qualities are falsely equated with things like critical thinking skills, abstract reasoning, metaphor usage, etc.

This is true. Like I said before, a priveliged education will make people appear to be more N, especially online - and therefore believe themselves to be.

Income I think relates to this (I speculate that many people here live at home w/ parents or guardians) because the more income you have, the less time you have to spend seeing to your basic life needs and more time engaging in navel-gazing, floating, roaming, daydreaming, being less aware of your environment or creating a fantasy world to inhabit. I think people like to call that being "imaginative" and "eccentric."

This is partly true though I wouldn't say that all the traits of being forced to concentrate on concrete survival above iNtuitive pursuits are positive.

Just like navel-gazers and people who divorce themselves from reality are unhealthy, so it's negative that the majority of working people are forced into pragmatism - "the misery of the possible" as it's called in some countries ("la miseria de lo posible")

Which is why it's important to unite theory and practice, for the former to be a guide to the latter, and to be able to use a deep understanding of our society, to answer the pressing nes of working people.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

In concurrence with many posters in this thread, I agree that childhood environment as affected by socio-economic class has a DRASTIC affect on the way people perceive others(as well as themselves).

Whether or not this affect will be reflected in type test results I cannot say.

To be perfectly honest I think the the socio-economic divide is the last great taboos/elephant in the room in this country.

 

[proteanmix]

On one hand I see what you're driving at - for example, ENFPs who come from working class or poor backgrounds probably develop Te at an earlier age than ones from more affluent backgrounds, and may also seem a little less consistently fluffy and sweet - but on the other hand I think people are who they are despite socio-economic status.

For example - what Protean was saying about us not having children so being more free to have our head in the clouds - what if Ns are just more likely to put off having children to an older age (or completely) because we're Ns and not because of socio-economic background. I think we might be more likely to choose to do things with our lives that aren't stereotypically SJ that also has very little to do with socio-economic status.

College graduates are more likely to put off having children. There is an above-average amount of college graduates here. Since when is having children stereotypically SJ? Last time I checked reproductive instincts were alive and kicking in all humans.

So that makes me ask:
does sensing or intuitive preferences affect the decision to attend and graduate from college?
are intuitives (with or without college education) less likely to have children? are sensors (with or without college education) more likely to have children?

My basic point is people need to sort out the pieces that make the whole instead of just assuming the whole part is the way it is because that's just the way it is. SES is a looming and I'd say dominating factor in why you are they way you are.

 

[tinkerbell]

Ok can't swear to it, but I think MBTI is representative of each of the demographic bands.

An INFP in a poor socio ecconomic group is stil INFP but they struggle to meet thier bills.

Rationalist still rationlise etc. Personality isn't means tested.