Percentage of N users.

[Dreamer]

I have a similar experience. I find NPs more obvious Ns than NJs due to NPs extroverting their N and NJs introverting theirs so to speak. I have a similar type of experience with you spotting N types as it is just a vibe I get from them. The ratio of sensors to intutives on this site is less unbalanced than Personalty Cafe which is swarming with N types. On this forum I see a decent number of S types. I can see why Ns would be more attracted to typology than S types as it is a abstract system but many aspects of typology are pretty concrete if you think about it (MBTI tool is pretty concrete IMO as it is about observable and concrete data).

Glad to know what I'm talking about regarding feeling out other intuitives. I thought perhaps I was crazy! Well, just a little. But that's the thing though, is I can't directly say why I sense someone is an intuitive, there is just something different about them. Some people are easier to spot than others. I think you may have a point there in being better able to spot the extroverted intuitives since they're putting their intuition out there more readily than Ni users.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Glad to know what I'm talking about regarding feeling out other intuitives. I thought perhaps I was crazy! Well, just a little. But that's the thing though, is I can't directly say why I sense someone is an intuitive, there is just something different about them. Some people are easier to spot than others. I think you may have a point there in being better able to spot the extroverted intuitives since they're putting their intuition out there more readily than Ni users.

For me different N types give off different vibes. I can spot a INxJ from a mile away (at least suspected) as they give off a "ethereal" vibe almost like they are holograms out of a sci fi film. ENxPs are also obvious as they are spewing that Ne everywhere with analogies and metaphors and talking to them is like a machine gun of figurative language (I do this myself). INxPs and ENxJs are less obvious. INxPs seem more like ISxJ types with a Ne edge while ENxJ types tend to look like ESxP types with strong Je. The tert N types (ISxP and ESxJ) can be mistaken for N types if their Ne/Ni is well developed. ESFJs are often mistyped as ENFPs (For some reason ESTJs seem less Ne than ESFJs which is probably due to Te). ISxP types can look like INxJ types if they have weak Se and strong Ni.

 

[Rebeka]

N are the weirdos, only because of that, you have tyo suppose we are very few... I've always thought that I was only interesting to the mass of people when I was extroverted and showing out my leading characteristics.. but when my Nness shew out... only Ns stayed for a long hahaha!

 

[Rebeka]

Glad to know what I'm talking about regarding feeling out other intuitives. I thought perhaps I was crazy! Well, just a little. But that's the thing though, is I can't directly say why I sense someone is an intuitive, there is just something different about them. Some people are easier to spot than others. I think you may have a point there in being better able to spot the extroverted intuitives since they're putting their intuition out there more readily than Ni users.

simply, you see a weirdness that is very attractive and a critical view that does not rely on proud or posturing, but a intend to understand the world and feelings. I've always liked N people, maybe becaue i'm an N too and feel the vibe XD

 

[OrangeAppled]

[MENTION=29457]Abendrot[/MENTION] are you familiar with Dario Nardi?
He does the whole EEG thing to find cognitive process patterns among types. He notes that as people age, it becomes hard to distinguish the brains of near opposite types (i.e. INFP + ISTJ, who in function theory have the same function stack in opposite order, and who are both introverts).

What Jung was talking about was ego types though, and so this would probably be called integration; and it wouldn't be about changing type so much as broadening the ego.

 

[OrangeAppled]

[MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION]

I made a typo...it was supposed to say "Isn't it only about 25% of people with an IQ of 110+ ?"

The don't divide this data at the 100 mark though, so who knows how many of the 90-109 group falls below 100 to even it out... the way it is, it looks like a disproportionate amount of people at or over 110.

----

My personal observations are that
- I feel like I am getting more NP with age, but it's really about being less shy. I am also more openly emotional, but I feel as "non Fe" as ever. I'm just more assertive with a Fi angle on emotions. These changes align with what I observe in older people...
- I have been in environments with lots of senior citizens, and I didn't feel like there were less N types than in younger groups, but then I don't equate N preferences with trendy social values. I try and observe their thinking and what their behavioral patterns indicate. People's personalities in some ways seem more balanced with age, but they also seem more comfortable to be themselves, so that I wouldn't say that there is less variety of personalities (ie people don't mostly turn into SJs).

 

[Poki]

I find a pretty even split of S vs N people.

 

[Poki]

N are the weirdos, only because of that, you have tyo suppose we are very few... I've always thought that I was only interesting to the mass of people when I was extroverted and showing out my leading characteristics.. but when my Nness shew out... only Ns stayed for a long hahaha!

What if I said Ns just want to be weird, your are all actually pretty normal.

 

[Lord Lavender]

What if I said Ns just want to be weird, your are all actually pretty normal.

I do personally think many Ns like to play up how strange and weird they are. The way some Ns talk you'd think they were gods standing over the mere mortal S types when this is not the case.

 

[Abendrot]

[MENTION=29457]Abendrot[/MENTION] are you familiar with Dario Nardi?
He does the whole EEG thing to find cognitive process patterns among types. He notes that as people age, it becomes hard to distinguish the brains of near opposite types (i.e. INFP + ISTJ, who in function theory have the same function stack in opposite order, and who are both introverts).

What Jung was talking about was ego types though, and so this would probably be called integration; and it wouldn't be about changing type so much as broadening the ego.

I've heard about Nardi and his EEGs, but haven't dug too much into it. The thing about research like this which attempts to bridge the gap between MBTI and experimental psychology (there's also Juan Sandoval's with his research on the pattern of facial expressions and Jungian types), is that I don't have confidence that their experiments are properly conducted. Do you know if their work is peer reviewed? Is it reproducible?

I am aware of the similarities between type pairs with the same functions (eg. INFP & ISTJ, ESFP & ENTJ), so Nardi's results would make sense from that point of view, but I'm fairly skeptical of the idea that people's types must remain fixed throughout their entire lives.

There's also the problem that there seems to be several systems of MBTI, and these researchers don't make it clear which one they are using. There's the function based MBTI, and there's also the Jungian type (which I presume is similar to function MBTI but more faithful to Jung's cognitive functions) and then there's also dichotomy based MBTI systems like Keirsey's KTS and the test created 16personalities. It seems that the general consensus is that dichotomy based MBTI types deals more with superficial behaviour while the function based MBTI deals with deeper cognitive preferences, and so dichotomy MBTI is more alterable. Is this what you are implying? MBTI is quite a mess isn't it?

 

[Abendrot]

Well, the MBTI instrument holds up quite well compared to the Big Five... see Reckful's post on type dynamics (and there are some related posts). I think you can still get value from function descriptions, as long as you treat them description of preference combinations. So "Fi" because "F+P", etc.

So it seems that letter MBTI is more scientific than function MBTI, but isn't this just because dichotomy MBTI is pretty much the same thing as the FFM minus the neuroticism axis with the P-J axis being a composite of openness and conscientiousness? In that case, what is the point of dichotomy MBTI compared to a FFM dichotomy model? You'd really think that the SLOAN system would be more popular.

 

[Seymour]

Thanks for the clarification @OrangleAppled... that makes sense! The unusually high IQs might be another sign that the sample isn't representative.

So it seems that letter MBTI is more scientific than function MBTI, but isn't this just because dichotomy MBTI is pretty much the same thing as the FFM minus the neuroticism axis with the P-J axis being a composite of openness and conscientiousness? In that case, what is the point of dichotomy MBTI compared to a FFM dichotomy model? You'd really think that the SLOAN system would be more popular.

Well, S-N is also a little bit of a mixed bag.

Some, MBTI has some nice advantages over FFM when used for non-research purposes:

• MBTI's terms are much more value neutral. For the FFM, the terminology has a biases that would lead one to think that one should be an extraverted, open, agreeable person with low neuroticism.
• It provides descriptions of combinations of preferences (not that one COULDN'T do such a thing for FFM). Generally these are done via descriptions of "the functions" (which need to be untangled a little bit), and things like "the temperaments". Clearly there are other combinations that could be meaningfully described.

If you haven't (and are interested) I'd recommend looking at Reynierse's approach (and arguments). I also find Wilde's approach to be fun, in that it tries to keep the functions (kind of) in light of Reynierse.

 

[Abendrot]

Thanks for the clarification @OrangleAppled... that makes sense! The unusually high IQs might be another sign that the sample isn't representative.



Well, S-N is also a little bit of a mixed bag.

Some, MBTI has some nice advantages over FFM when used for non-research purposes:

• MBTI's terms are much more value neutral. For the FFM, the terminology has a biases that would lead one to think that one should be an extraverted, open, agreeable person with low neuroticism.
• It provides descriptions of combinations of preferences (not that one COULDN'T do such a thing for FFM). Generally these are done via descriptions of "the functions" (which need to be untangled a little bit), and things like "the temperaments". Clearly there are other combinations that could be meaningfully described.

If you haven't (and are interested) I'd recommend looking at Reynierse's approach (and arguments). I also find Wilde's approach to be fun, in that it tries to keep the functions (kind of) in light of Reynierse.

Thanks, I'll give them a read. It's strange that so many psychologists complain about the popularity of MBTI, and yet they hardly put in any effort to use the FFM to build a similar dichotomy based model which explores personality traits arising from certain combinations of the axes.

 

[Obfuscate]

I do personally think many Ns like to play up how strange and weird they are. The way some Ns talk you'd think they were gods standing over the mere mortal S types when this is not the case.

in my personal experience it is others that make a fuss of my oddity... even when it is explained to me, i (often) don't see what is abnormal about my demeanor or behavior... i am not sure what value "strangeness" or the lack thereof hold...

post script:

on the other hand, perhaps i am merely reinforcing your point... *shrugs* what the fuck do i know anyhow? =)

 

[Lord Lavender]

in my personal experience it is others that make a fuss of my oddity... even when it is explained to me, i (often) don't see what is abnormal about my demeanor or behavior... i am not sure what value "strangeness" or the lack thereof hold...

post script:

on the other hand, perhaps i am merely reinforcing your point... *shrugs* what the fuck do i know anyhow? =)

I would say overall that N types are more "quirky" than odd. At least that is what Ive been called. What are your thoughts on the N vs S divide.

 

[Obfuscate]

I would say overall that N types are more "quirky" than odd. At least that is what Ive been called. What are your thoughts on the N vs S divide.

i guess that my primary thought is that in reality, most people aren't so clear cut... i think people like to think of these traits as "cut and dry"; in reality we are all on a sliding scale of one kind or another...

as cultural/familial norms change, it stands to reason that the types of personalities that form will change as well... i also think that most people have a tendency to try to fit in with their peers, increasing the pressure on each of us to "conform"... we all like to identify with traits we admire, and for others to admire us for the traits we identify with... i don't think that these pressures completely override a person's individuality, nor do i think that we are all able to separate ourselves from the "role" we would like to play... typology relies on accurate self reporting, which is something that some people are unwilling/unable to do...

the main issue i hold with n vs s is the idea that n sees a big picture then zooms in, while s sees details and then creates a larger whole from those details... i am very much n, but i work from both sides towards the middle...

 

[ZNP-TBA]

You're going to see a higher concentration of N types on typology forums than in the general population.

S's are out there actually 'living out' their type instead of being here theorizing about it.

 

[Yama]

You're going to see a higher concentration of N types on typology forums than in the general population.

S's are out there actually 'living out' their type instead of being here theorizing about it.

This is something I hear a lot, but really, I think it's only true to a certain extent. I think a lot of Ns on the internet are mistyped sensors. While I do believe there are more sensors than intuitives, I don't think intuitives are as rare and snowflakey as internet profiles make them out to be in the population. And while there probably are more intuitives than sensors into typology, I don't think it's really as drastic a divide as it's made out to be (because of mistypes).

 

[Poki]

I do personally think many Ns like to play up how strange and weird they are. The way some Ns talk you'd think they were gods standing over the mere mortal S types when this is not the case.

They are when you play by their rules and their vision...

 

[Obfuscate]

They are when you play by their rules and their vision...

everyone should... think of how much more fun would all be having!

a vote for n is a vote for fun!