[MBTI General] Wanting to be both T and F, what made u decide which?

[Park]

N / S - Differential, in that open people and closed people don't tend to get along as well... but it seems like S:S and N:N tend to get along roughly equally (I think slightly worse for Ss, but... not terribly significant).

T / F - Absolute; the more T you are, the less satisfied your partner is.

J / P - Strangely enough, not statistically significant, except that male Js are more sexually satisfying to female partners. (The joke being - they get the job done). Or was it J female partners... hrmm... Well, one or the other.

Hehe, the source of my biggest problems is probably, at this moment, the J/P difference (not related to the reason you brought up ). My husband is an INTJ but I could for some reason imagine that ISTP/INTJ would in some ways be an easier match than INTP/INTJ. The way INTJs plan and carry out can in a way resemble something linier (sorry can't formulate that better right now just an intuitive feeling) and I could imagine that the ISTPs concrete style of reasoning would appeal to the judging INTJ. Then again, my husband is a weak N so that may be why I came to that conclusion.

My T preference is stronger than my husbands - pretty cool to be on the favourable side of the satisfaction scale - poor guy.

 

[alexkreuz]

Of course Just as people are more complicated than MBTI/etc.

( http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/relationships/1221-what-your-attachment-style.html might be interesting. I'm quite against personality being used for relationship information.)

well i understand that but i mean you used the verbiage "very little to bearing" for E/I .. i think thats an overstatement .. for example in an E / I relationship, the E can actually have a significant drain on the I due to social over-exertion .. that can leads to all sorts of stress .. granted that with better communication, etc. that can be avoided but nevertheless it shouldn't be summarized as "little to no bearing" ..

thats just one example ..

Anyways, carry on ..

 

[ptgatsby]

well i understand that but i mean you used the verbiage "very little to bearing" for E/I .. i think thats an overstatement .. for example in an E / I relationship, the E can actually have a significant drain on the I due to social over-exertion .. that can leads to all sorts of stress .. granted that with better communication, etc. that can be avoided but nevertheless it shouldn't be summarized as "little to no bearing" ..

Oh, that's the mantra here. It's been shown quite a few times that the I/E divide isn't the fundamental issue... it's that a subset of Is are seriously avoidant, which is a huge problem for relationship styles. (I think the thread I linked touches on this, but if not, you can measure for yourself how scary some of the scores were).

That isn't to say that partners at the extreme ends of I and E aren't an issue, but in general (and I/E is pretty normally distributed) it won't be. Double moping Is and double doing Es aren't significantly better off than the E dragging the I behind them, or the I slowing the E down.

The general biological truth behind I/E is that Es are better suited to being happy and Is should learn from them. Having some in your life (my best friend, and my fiance's are both strong Es, for example) will only help.

 

[alexkreuz]

The general biological truth behind I/E is that Es are better suited to being happy and Is should learn from them. Having some in your life (my best friend, and my fiance's are both strong Es, for example) will only help.

Well now thats a biased over generalization if I've ever seen one. Lock an E in a room by him or herself without any means of contacting the outside world. Do the same with an I. Then we'll see who is best suited to be happy.

The truth is you feel safe making that over-generalization because this society we live in was by Es for Es. Is it any wonder that literacy is so low? Its only natural to assume Es are better suited to be happy because they get to enjoy life the way they want it in a world tailored to them.

I too grew up with plenty of E's leading the path for me to follow and somehow I ended up growing up with issues revolving around the negative effects that lack of self-determination provided me with.

So no, I don't believe the true path to happiness is to surround myself with E's. I'd like to live my life in a world that I mold for myself, not a world that the E's have molded for me to adapt to.

 

[ptgatsby]

Well now thats a biased over generalization if I've ever seen one. Lock an E in a room by him or herself without any means of contacting the outside world. Do the same with an I. Then we'll see who is best suited to be happy.

Biologically what I said is true - this is beyond personality test and such and an empirical comment.... Not in the biased sort of way, in the "extraverts have different wiring in their brains that cause higher levels of happiness and arousal than introverts" kind of thing.

The truth is you feel safe making that over-generalization because this society we live in was by Es for Es. Is it any wonder that literacy is so low? Its only natural to assume Es are better suited to be happy because they get to enjoy life the way they want it in a world tailored to them.

You are talking to someone who saw a psychologist about being overly withdrawn. I know what it's like. I still suffer from these issues.

It doesn't change the biological reality.

So no, I don't believe the true path to happiness is to surround myself with E's. I'd like to live my life in a world that I mold for myself, not a world that the E's have molded for me to adapt to.

I didn't say that - I said having them around is helpful.

 

[alexkreuz]

"extraverts have different wiring in their brains that cause higher levels of happiness and arousal than introverts"

And you never ask yourself why that is? You don't suppose it has to do with the environment in which they grow up? You don't suppose they have an environment that positively reinforces their E behavior?

The way I see it thats equivalent to arguing (and im not deliberately trying to play the race card here) that black people are biologically intellectually inferior when throughout the better part of american history, whites have done everything possible to negatively suppress them ..

Sorry if I don't agree with that biologically analysis but when you raise a person in an environment custom tailored for that person, it shouldn't come as a surprise that their nervous system is better developed vs one raised in an antagonistic environment ..

However, I will agree that given the E oriented world, yes E's as a whole will naturally be happier than I's as a whole. That's common sense.

That still doesn't mean that an I should adapt their ways to E in order to be happier. Sorry I find myself getting depressed, not happy, by that thought.

I didn't say that - I said having them around is helpful.

Well in that case having everyone around is helpful. But you said that I's should learn from them. While I agree all people should learn from all people, the way you said "learn from them" seemed to suggest to me the equivalent of "adapt" .. E is happier than I, therefore I should learn from E.

That doesn't take into account that E's happiness comes from the means of being social, and I would have to pursue being social to achieve an ends (which is 50/50 if its there).

Like I said, its far more complex than that, but I have to pick up my wife (who is an E, and an incredible drain on me, hence I say what I say) .. so I give you the floor ...

 

[proteanmix]

alexkreuz, maybe these articles will help you understand what pt is getting at. To disregard the data that supports what he's saying just because you don't believe it to be true doesn't make it any less true.

And I don't know if you know this, but E/I is about 50/50 in the American population (with I slightly edging out E).

The PDFs are mostly related to the Five Factor Model. I don't know if they define extroversion and introversion the same way MBTI does, but the data in the articles suggest that extroversion is linked to a happier existence, basically in regards to having more social support and the desire to find adequate social support if necessary. I don't know if this is a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" situation, but this is the best data that researchers have out right now. I hope they know to take causality into consideration when doing these studies.

Internet Usage and Adolescents
Social Network and Immune Response

 

[ptgatsby]

And you never ask yourself why that is? You don't suppose it has to do with the environment in which they grow up? You don't suppose they have an environment that positively reinforces their E behavior?

Sure I have - it has to do with cortial arousal. It's been talked about here before (specific, entire thread)

The way I see it thats equivalent to arguing (and im not deliberately trying to play the race card here) that black people are biologically intellectually inferior when throughout the better part of american history, whites have done everything possible to negatively suppress them ..

It's not the same - it would be like saying (x) has a thinner brainstem and has been shown that during multitasking, that stem is active. It has also been shown that the brain stem relates to how well multiple tasks can be performed at the same time.

In this case, (x) is men.

Well in that case having everyone around is helpful. But you said that I's should learn from them. While I agree all people should learn from all people, the way you said "learn from them" seemed to suggest to me the equivalent of "adapt" .. E is happier than I, therefore I should learn from E.

Ah, I see... in that sense, you are right. This was, however, about relationship costs... Although there are cases of the gap being a problem, when isolating variables, it is extremely rare that E/I is the underlying problem. In many cases, least in MBTI-talk, E and/or F is associated with neuroticism, which is the outburst/emotional stuff that is extremely draining.

However, I will contend there is some truth to the stuff - E is happier and I, so I should learn from E. It isn't that simple, I agree, but it certainly isn't a bad idea either! Thing is, Is can't be like Es... fundamental wiring differences and all... but at the core of practical solutions, Is aren't all that different - the arousal of doing what the E does is a seriously important part of life. The I isn't well toned to do it and depression and such are linked to it... All I'm saying is do what you can to counteract it rather than embrace it. When all is said and done... it is possible and it is helpful.

 

[Ms. M]

I'm sorry, it's the nitpicky lawyer in me, but proteanmix, do you have any evidence to support the assertion that the U.S. is roughly 50/50 for extraversion versus introversion? I have an outdated book that indicates it's 70E/30I, and would be interested in reliable updated statistics. Thanks!

 

[ptgatsby]

I'm sorry, it's the nitpicky lawyer in me, but proteanmix, do you have any evidence to support the assertion that the U.S. is roughly 50/50 for extraversion versus introversion? I have an outdated book that indicates it's 70E/30I, and would be interested in reliable updated statistics. Thanks!

Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org

Its come up a lot, might be able to search the forum for other talks on it. As a challenge, I dare you to find the first instance that showed the 70:30 mix... it took me a very very long time

 

[proteanmix]

Not nitpicky at all

Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org

Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT) This was updated in 2003.

CAPT About Us page

 

[Ms. M]

Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org

Its come up a lot, might be able to search the forum for other talks on it. As a challenge, I dare you to find the first instance that showed the 70:30 mix... it took me a very very long time

I've seen that link before, but have yet to see the methodology for getting the numbers. I guess that comes from the sociologist in me (one of my undergrad majors)....and the knowledge that almost any social science study can be manipulated into giving you the results you want. I know, I'm a dork.

The 70/30 reference I have is from the book Life Types by Sandra Hirsh and Jean Kummerow, copyrighted in 1989, page 20. As I said in my previous post, I know my source is outdated.

 

[Ms. M]

Not nitpicky at all

Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org

Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT) This was updated in 2003.

CAPT About Us page

Thank you for the link on their methodology, I'd not seen it when I tried to find it before...though their own admission in the discussion of the samples, both introversion and intuition may be overrepresented based upon the inherent characteristics ("selection bias") of the sample group.

Sorry, it's just my nature to over-analyze. Please don't take it as my questioning the validity of your assertion, just whether you can back it up (which you can.) Sidebar over, back to on-point discussion

 

[ptgatsby]

I've seen that link before, but have yet to see the methodology for getting the numbers. I guess that comes from the sociologist in me (one of my undergrad majors)....and the knowledge that almost any social science study can be manipulated into giving you the results you want. I know, I'm a dork.

The 70/30 reference I have is from the book Life Types by Sandra Hirsh and Jean Kummerow, copyrighted in 1989, page 20. As I said in my previous post, I know my source is outdated.

I'm sure the full information is out there, but from memory, roughly 400,000 of the records come from consultants in the workplace, split between Form F and G (and probably some Ms now). Roughly the same amount are from academics. I believe under 100,000 are from high school and special other scenarios split over 30 or so years.

I guess it depends on how percise you need it to be in order to be happy with the results. To put it in perspective, the 30/70 split was done under less ideal conditions with a badly validated instrument with selective bias While I don't know exactly how perfect the million odd records for MBTI tests support the 50/50, it is certainly better than the backing for the 30/70 split.

---

Dammit! I'm recording that link right now Prot Lemme see how close I was... A fair bit off. Oh well, not horrific... only a 10:1 ratio on the high school tests. GAH.

 

[proteanmix]

Thank you for the link on their methodology, I'd not seen it when I tried to find it before...though their own admission in the discussion of the samples, both introversion and intuition may be overrepresented based upon the inherent characteristics ("selection bias") of the sample group.

Sorry, it's just my nature to over-analyze. Please don't take it as my questioning the validity of your assertion, just whether you can back it up (which you can.) Sidebar over, back to on-point discussion

No problem I'd much rather people ask for data than just pull stuff out of the abyss of their ass.

 

[Ms. M]

I'm sure the full information is out there, but from memory, roughly 400,000 of the records come from consultants in the workplace, split between Form F and G (and probably some Ms now). Roughly the same amount are from academics. I believe under 100,000 are from high school and special other scenarios split over 30 or so years.

I guess it depends on how percise you need it to be in order to be happy with the results. To put it in perspective, the 30/70 split was done under less ideal conditions with a badly validated instrument with selective bias While I don't know exactly how perfect the million odd records for MBTI tests support the 50/50, it is certainly better than the backing for the 30/70 split.

To be honest, when it comes to sociological (and I suppose by extension psychological) reviews, I'd prefer a completely random/blind study, where they know next to nothing about the background of the person being questioned. Unfortunately, such a sample is next to impossible to produce in social studies....sigh. I wouldn't be surprised to see most (if not all) of the dichotomies to be close to 50/50 in a genuinely random sample.

 

[ptgatsby]

To be honest, when it comes to sociological (and I suppose by extension psychological) reviews, I'd prefer a completely random/blind study, where they know next to nothing about the background of the person being questioned. Unfortunately, such a sample is next to impossible to produce in social studies....sigh. I wouldn't be surprised to see most (if not all) of the dichotomies to be close to 50/50 in a genuinely random sample.

The control samples that I know of, and I'm not an MBTI guy so I can't say for sure, have shown the strong N:S 70-30 divide. How random? I don't know, but it seems pretty much the norm.

I'd recommend sending Rivercrow a PM - she isn't around much right now but she'd be able to answer your concerns. Having MBTI being commercial makes it difficult to get access to all the information. "Student ID not accepted here" signs always float around my head

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I'm sorry, it's the nitpicky lawyer in me, but proteanmix, do you have any evidence to support the assertion that the U.S. is roughly 50/50 for extraversion versus introversion? I have an outdated book that indicates it's 70E/30I, and would be interested in reliable updated statistics. Thanks!

Please do not read this question and idea of mine as combative, but I have something unclear about this.

The way I see it, psychometric (as well as other) "measurements" produce values that reside on a continuum, with some distribution. Then to make that a dictomy, some dividing line is chosen.

If one's purpose were to tell as much of the value in question, one would do best to put the dividing value at the average value. Now the average value may not necessarily be the median, i.e. to divide the sample in half.

So I would ask, has there been any realeased information on what kind of distribution type the S/N resembles? Normal distribution, or something else?

The situation becomes more difficult, if there is a non-linear correlation between the value in the test and it's significance to some other measure.

 

[INTJMom]

I think it's a shame of having to choose between T and F. Does the T side handle the emotions adequately, and is it fun and ethical? Does the F side handle thinking adequately, and is it consistent and logical?

I have sometimes been unsure of my preference, thinking that I'm in the middle. Then seeing NT vs NF forums has been the deciding factor, as NF topics have seemed ok and lovely, they are not such topics that I think constantly about.

Also when going too deep in the NF terrain I feel sometimes coming across as ridiculous and hurt. NT feelinglessness is kind of dull emotionally and leaves much to be desired, but NT type intellectual goals are damned great to do, and they work better for me than NF things.

Have you been uncertain of your preference on the T/F scale and what made you decide which one you are?

I struggled between T & F for 3 years!
We develop our dominant function around age 6
and our auxiliary function around age 12,
so what I did was I went back in my mind to my childhood
and thought about how I was back then.

In simple terms the most outstanding characteristic of a T is that they are tactless.
They are brutally honest, with themselves and others.
Children who a primarily F are diplomatic and care about people's feelings.

As a matter of fact, it was Kiersey's section on children's type in Please Understand Me that helped me with this.

The T child might ask why they have to do something,
where the F child wants to please.

Also, I read the differences between NT and NF.

The Fs I know seem to be natural born diplomats.
They say things in such a nice way, even if it's something kind of critical.

 

[TenebrousReflection]

I struggled between T & F for 3 years!
We develop our dominant function around age 6
and our auxiliary function around age 12,
so what I did was I went back in my mind to my childhood
and thought about how I was back then.

In simple terms the most outstanding characteristic of a T is that they are tactless.
They are brutally honest, with themselves and others.
Children who a primarily F are diplomatic and care about people's feelings.

As a matter of fact, it was Kiersey's section on children's type in Please Understand Me that helped me with this.

The T child might ask why they have to do something,
where the F child wants to please.

Also, I read the differences between NT and NF.

The Fs I know seem to be natural born diplomats.
They say things in such a nice way, even if it's something kind of critical.

I gave consideration to that idea as well for trying to figure out my preferences, but as mentioned by others in this thread, at least for males in the U.S. F behaviour tends to be discouraged and at best not rewarded so many of us end up adapting and trying to become somethign we are not. I do think looking at our past has a lot of validity in trying to make this analysis, but in doing so its important to ask yourself if what you were doing at that time felt completley natural to you or if you felt you were doing it either to meet expections, try to fit it, or just avoid being criticized for it.

With the exception of imaginary friends, I see myself displaying Ni at an early age and don't see any problem with that stage of my development.

In my teens (and earlier) I also worked on various T type interests (math, computer science etc) while at the same time I was struggling with Fi and Fe related value and emotion issues. During that phase, I think I was simultaneously developing Ti and/or Te (through education and practice of skills) and Fi and/or Fe (through introspection and internal conflicts). The way I see it, I was focused on improving T to adapt to society (the abilities did come naturaly to me and some of them I even enjoyd doing (both then and now)), but I had a natural inclination to F that could not be ignored and I still spent a lot of time focused on intorverted feeling contemplating values and emotions. I can speculate that I would have developed differently if societies values were different, but there is no way to be certain of that.

I have adapted to the environment by supressing my emotions when in public as well as with people that have known me for a long time. I've gradualy got a lot better at accepting my strong Fi side (and moderate Fe), but only show that side of mself with new people I meet in a non-work environment (or ones in a work environment if they decide they want to get past my cold and aloof appearance to get to know me).

Thats just the theory I use to explain my T/F conflict. Even though I think Fi is my dominate trait, I've developed Ti and Te as a result of environment and since Fi, Ni and Te are all traits of INTJ, I sometimes think thats a better fit for me than INFJ or INFP. Even though Fi (which would point to INFP) and Ni (which would point to INFJ) are the traits I feel most comfortable using, my Ne and Fe both feel less developed to me than me Ti and Te. It never realy felt un-natural to do thinking related activities of any kind, but if I look at my core values, they are most certainly NF and not NT.

Here is how I rank my traits accopmapied by how I scored on the cognative processes test. The test felt like it asked too few questions to give it much credibility, but it does match the two aspects I do clearly relate to.

My ranking -- Test ranking
1) Fi -- Fi (47.8)
2) Ni -- Ni (43.0)
3) Ti -- Ne (29.7)
4) Si -- Fe (27.9)
5) Te -- Ti (26.7)
6) Ne -- Te (23.5)
7) Fe -- Si (21.4)
8) Se -- Se (19.8)

This does also point to a pretty clear NF preference, but when I read descriptions for INFP and INFJ both have a lot of elements I relate to and I find I often get along withe NTs better than NFs so I feel I can't completely rule out the idea of being an NT with an overdevloped Fi when neither INFJ or INFP are a flawless fit.