[MBTI General] What MBTI types are most likely to pursue further knowledge of MBTI and personality?

[INTPness]

Right now, I see this:

MBTI forum - 106 viewing.

How many of the 106 viewers are N or S?

NT forum - 58 viewing.

How many of the 58 viewers are N or S?

NF forum - 90 viewing.

How many of the 90 viewers are N or S?



And no, using one of these is not permitted:

There are a variety of ways we could deal with this issue you raise. First, we could look at the number of posts (as a percentage) made in the S forums by N members. And we could look at the number of posts (as a percentage) made in the N forums by S members. I'm not going to take the time to do that, but I'm *confident enough* to say that the N's post more (again, as a percentage) in the S forums than the S's do in the N forums. I see way more threads started by N's in the S forums than I see threads started by S's in the N forums. If this *assumption* is true, it means that N's are posting frequently in the N forums and N's are also posting frequently in the S forums. It would also indicate that S's are posting infrequently in the N forums and relatively (key word) infrequently in their own forums as well. The conclusion wouuld then be that there must certainly be more N's on the site than S's. (Note: Yes, I do think that some people have mistyped themselves, but I don't think there are hundreds of S's on this site who mistakenly call themselves N's. If this were the case, then it would be just as likely that many N's have mistyped themselves as S's - i.e., the error would balance out).

Secondly, we could ask: Why in the world are so many more people (regardless whether they are S or N) constantly viewing the N forums rather than the S forums? I find it very hard to believe that a ton of S's are sitting there viewing the N threads (but not commenting a whole lot). On the other hand, I find it very likely and explainable that lots of N's are viewing the N forums because the content is more familiar to them.

Third, we could look at it like this: Of those 254 members that you refer to in your post, does anyone really believe that 50% or more of them are S's? Does anyone truly think that 127 or more of them are S's? If anyone does think that, it would be interesting to hear *why* they believe that. Taking it even further, it's commonly accepted that there are more S's than N's in the world. So, in order for S's to be representing themselves proportionately to society at large, even 50% representation wouldn't cut it. There would need to be 60% or 70% S's on the site, or whatever the true number is (it's well above 50%). So, of those 254, you'd need the vast majority of them to be S's.

 

[ICUP]

MBTI doesn't really address behaviours or motivations.

Yes, mbti categorizes people; enneagram explains motive and behavior moreso. I think mbti also describes behaviors, just in a bigger, overall picture, sort-of way..... and mbti can help to explain the motivations behind different actions and choices.... "why is that istp jumping off a bridge?!" Answer: He's seeking a thrill, and he's counterphobe (judgment on motivation made upon information taken from mbti + enneagram).

Secondly, we could ask: Why in the world are so many more people (regardless whether they are S or N) constantly viewing the N forums rather than the S forums?

Because there is nothing interesting in the SP forum lol.... There are threads full of thoughts, information, and discussion in the N forums.

 

[INTPness]

Because there is nothing interesting in the SP forum lol.... There are threads full of thoughts, information, and discussion in the N forums.

Are you saying that you think there are more S's on the site than N's? Or just stating why you personally browse the N forums?

 

[rav3n]

Yes, mbti categorizes people; enneagram explains motive and behavior moreso. I think mbti also describes behaviors, just in a bigger, overall picture, sort-of way.....

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[INTPness]

By the way, just to be clear, my argument here is not that N's are more "interesting" or "important" or any of that hogwash. I also found that part of the OP to be ludicrous. My contention is simply that the discrepancy we see in the numbers of people viewing N forums vs. S forums is fairly representative of the membership we have on this site. I believe we have many more N's here than we do S's, for whatever reason.

 

[ICUP]

Correlation does not imply causation.

In this particular situation: Not always, but it seems to in many, many instances. "can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation can be a hint"....
I generally check-out the person and situation well before i decide that the description does provide knowledge concerning motives and behaviors. Anything else in my mind is fairly speculative.
mbti/enneagram knowledge tends to be reliable more often than not, if used in the way I am using it.

Or just stating why you personally browse the N forums?

I was compelled to offer some insight into the situation from one SP perspective hehe.

By the way, just to be clear, my argument here is not that N's are more "interesting" or "important" or any of that hogwash. I also found that part of the OP to be ludicrous.

I didn't think you of the sort to discriminate, or to be exclusionary.....

My contention is simply that the discrepancy we see in the numbers of people viewing N forums vs. S forums is fairly representative of the membership we have on this site. I believe we have many more N's here than we do S's, for whatever reason.

I don't doubt that! I think so too.....

But it doesn't bother me anyway if people think I am less interesting..... People are free to think whatever they want, even if it's something negative about me!

 

[Anew Leaf]

The amount of energy I have to expend to divert the 'S' type folks' attention towards the MBTI has left me exhausted. I don't know of many who have further pursued it with any naturally-occuring, genuine interest in educating themselves about personality types. Whether it be for self-help or something to read on the shitter (pending you are using a mobile source for your viewing pleasure, although the motivation for that is questionable), I find that N types seem to generally question themselves and the "genetic makeup" of the human's cognitive existence in general.

Although I am quite aware that most of you have read this and said to yourself: "that's a rather simple conclusion, what a stupid ENTP", I put this in perspective for you:

Perhaps the only valuable argument to counter this is that we're simply more... interesting? (Don't tell me there are two threads that happen to be on fire in both sections thanks).

Hi, long time listener, first time caller here.

Can you extrapolate further on the data you have gathered in regards to this phenomenon? Are you speaking of "Essfolk" that you encounter in your real, physical life? Or are you speaking of Essfolk that roam this website here? Also, do you test your subjects yourself? Or do they take tests and then hand over the results for you? Do you have a test group of non-tested individuals as a control group from which to extrapolate data from? Do you have the data in regards to how many Ennfolk do pursue this topic? How do you define "genuine" and "naturally-occuring and "education"? What does "in general" mean? Also, what does "interesting" mean? And what is your data in regards to what is interesting to an N versus an S suggest?

Thanks for your time. I eagerly await an influx of relevant pie charts, line graphs, and the ever popular mean distribution graph.

 

[rav3n]

@ICUP - I can get behind correlation, as long as it's understood that it's only correlation.

Arguing for the other side, take people who wear public faces which covers a substantial percentage of the population. Their behaviours which includes what they articulate, can be quite polarised from what they're thinking. One aspect of this is tact or being politically correct. What is their motivation for being tactful or politically correct and how does this map back to MBTI?

 

[Xenon]

By the way, just to be clear, my argument here is not that N's are more "interesting" or "important" or any of that hogwash. I also found that part of the OP to be ludicrous. My contention is simply that the discrepancy we see in the numbers of people viewing N forums vs. S forums is fairly representative of the membership we have on this site. I believe we have many more N's here than we do S's, for whatever reason.

Yeah, I think so too. I've seen a number of people argue that all these self-typed Ns must really be sensors in denial, because just look at the population statistics: 75 percent of the population prefers Sensing. But when you look at the types of people who are interested in a particular thing, you often do get a very different picture than you would if you just look at the general population. The book "Gifts Differing" has a whole chapter on this. When you look at engineering or fine arts students you find a disproportionate amount of INxx types, when you look at science students you find a disproportionate amount of NTs. Occupational therapy students include a disproportionate amount of ExFx types. People studying to be counsellors are mostly NFs. Etc. A message board dedicated to an obscure topic like personality theory most likely will have a type distribution that differs quite a bit from the general population, and in this case N/S seems to make the biggest difference. It's not the only factor, and there are plenty of Ns who aren't interested and some Ss who are, but it does have an effect.

I think it's very silly though, to declare that a group of people are "more interesting" just because they happen to share your particular interests. What is interesting and what is not is completely subjective. People who don't share my interests aren't "less interesting"; they are just interested in different stuff.

 

[ICUP]

What is their motivation for being tactful or politically correct and how does this map back to MBTI?

It depends on the person. There are many reasons behind it, I'm sure.... from "because I will get fired", to "I don't want to offend", to "I want to present the proper image,"...... Mine would probably be more the first two than the last.... I would think that their motivation for being tactful or politically correct would be insight into figuring out what type they are. (And, HOW tactful or politically correct they actually ARE would provide insight into what type they are. ) I tend to be on the lower end of "tactful" in many situations, unless I HAVE to be tactful....
I think behaviors, even when people are acting differently than what they are thinking, still predict type. Then again, sixes are known to be able to see behind outward appearances and to read implications moreso (or at least try to .) What's the point in tact, in many instances? I suppose I think it depends on the situation. Sometimes people need to hear certain truths about themselves, and that, imo, comes way-before-tact, and my own popularity. If you can't even hear and know the truth, how are you going to improve yourself?! In the same way, I don't expect others to be dishonest or tactful in communications with me, either (to a certain extent, of course. I mean, they can't come up to me and say, "You are a stupid, ugly, b****" lol).

I have found myself actually ACTING ON the behaviors of people, without them ever saying a word to me. And it's because I am reading who they are, and it's making me feel something in response. Then, I respond based on what I "know" about the other person. And when I act on it, other people are very puzzled.... LoL..... I have proven that I have been right on occasion. I do wonder if other sixes do this....

 

[ICUP]

I've seen a number of people argue that all these self-typed Ns must really be sensors in denial, because just look at the population statistics: 75 percent of the population prefers Sensing.

I've thought that also, some people here could be claiming they were N's, and working to appear more N, to fit in.

I think it's very silly though, to declare that a group of people are "more interesting" just because they happen to share your particular interests. What is interesting and what is not is completely subjective. People who don't share my interests aren't "less interesting"; they are just interested in different stuff.

I do too, but actually, sixes are known to do it, according to a book I have.... It explains that they get a sense of being better than others through their affiliations and social identifications. ("Nobody's better than the Tarheels!" or "Christians are better than athiests" or "NT's are better than SP's") I definitely USED to do it, but I think I've grown out of it to a certain degree. People are people, and I've found that underlying link that binds us all together.

 

[NickNaylor]

Saturned,

As a perceiver, I cannot commit to this data via text, charts, graphs, nor reply you with a compilation of time-well-wastedness with an observation that I have received no funding to further my study. If you were so kind to provide me with the R&D capital, I can swiftly arrange for the most conclusive study milestoned by the motivation to reply to your post (or pay an INTP to do it).

However, I can provide you with a --general-- observation from myself (as it is my thread) that the higher proportion of people TEND to tip the scales towards a certain consonant. The internet community tends to lean towards various interest groups. The idea here is the physical proportion between types. Although there are "absolutes" in place (MBTI testing and its results), there can be ambiguities which I am well aware of. The motive for this thread was a mere self-promotion in a humourous nature... yes I use u's in those words because I am Canadian.

Judging by my post count and lack of repertoire, no, it is not likely I have pursued the "Essfolk" of TC in combining an aggregate. That is also creepy, but I will note your strategy for potential implementation for some time in the near future.

All pretense and jokes aside, you really sound like me at work when my coworkers seem vague.

 

[NickNaylor]

You said it. Not anyone else.

I get the drift of this forum, thanks for putting it into perspective.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Saturned,

As a perceiver, I cannot commit to this data via text, charts, graphs, nor reply you with a compilation of time-well-wastedness with an observation that I have received no funding to further my study. If you were so kind to provide me with the R&D capital, I can swiftly arrange for the most conclusive study milestoned by the motivation to reply to your post (or pay an INTP to do it).

However, I can provide you with a --general-- observation from myself (as it is my thread) that the higher proportion of people TEND to tip the scales towards a certain consonant. The internet community tends to lean towards various interest groups. The idea here is the physical proportion between types. Although there are "absolutes" in place (MBTI testing and its results), there can be ambiguities which I am well aware of. The motive for this thread was a mere self-promotion in a humourous nature... yes I use u's in those words because I am Canadian.

Judging by my post count and lack of repertoire, no, it is not likely I have pursued the "Essfolk" of TC in combining an aggregate. That is also creepy, but I will note your strategy for potential implementation for some time in the near future.

All pretense and jokes aside, you really sound like me at work when my coworkers seem vague.

ENTPs gotta stick together, ya know?

I can set aside about 200k from my pin money if that can help. I highly recommend hiring an INTP to help with interpreting the data. They have great focus.

I will expect pie charts in 4-d though, A line graph from here to the heavens, and a complimentary piña colada to refresh my parched throat while I look over your findings.

You have two weeks.

 

[Hera]

Saturned,
I can swiftly arrange for the most conclusive study milestoned by the motivation to reply to your post (or pay an INTP to do it).

 

[rav3n]

@ICUP, I've read your post and found it confusing and not exactly relating my question. If Mary Jane was being tactful, what is her motivation for doing so? Unless she told you, you'd have no idea of what her motivation was and what type she is. And even if she told you her type, there's no way you'd be able to accurately figure out her motivation.

There's no correlation between MBTI and motive. Behaviour might display some correlation but for certain, this isn't a one-to-one comparative.

 

[King sns]

Hi, long time listener, first time caller here.

Can you extrapolate further on the data you have gathered in regards to this phenomenon? Are you speaking of "Essfolk" that you encounter in your real, physical life? Or are you speaking of Essfolk that roam this website here? Also, do you test your subjects yourself? Or do they take tests and then hand over the results for you? Do you have a test group of non-tested individuals as a control group from which to extrapolate data from? Do you have the data in regards to how many Ennfolk do pursue this topic? How do you define "genuine" and "naturally-occuring and "education"? What does "in general" mean? Also, what does "interesting" mean? And what is your data in regards to what is interesting to an N versus an S suggest?

Thanks for your time. I eagerly await an influx of relevant pie charts, line graphs, and the ever popular mean distribution graph.

We have trained you (and other folks) so nicely!! I remember back in the day when there was little resistance against the S bias. Now, thanks to years of S influence and correction, we are turning out some nice intuitive crusaders for our cause.

 

[King sns]

The amount of energy I have to expend to divert the 'S' type folks' attention towards the MBTI has left me exhausted. I don't know of many who have further pursued it with any naturally-occuring, genuine interest in educating themselves about personality types. Whether it be for self-help or something to read on the shitter (pending you are using a mobile source for your viewing pleasure, although the motivation for that is questionable), I find that N types seem to generally question themselves and the "genetic makeup" of the human's cognitive existence in general.

Although I am quite aware that most of you have read this and said to yourself: "that's a rather simple conclusion, what a stupid ENTP", I put this in perspective for you:

Perhaps the only valuable argument to counter this is that we're simply more... interesting? (Don't tell me there are two threads that happen to be on fire in both sections thanks).

Not to be too nitpicky, and I mean this to come off in the most lighthearted way possible. This first part sounds a bit intense. Ever consider that some people just don't have the same interest as you? It sounds a bit religious to me. A "Jehovah's witness" of typology spreading dogma amongst all the "S folk" and judging them for not reading up on/ discussing/ and spreading the "true word." Like, "Boy, I am just exhausted trying to get these excuses for people on the same page as me!!!" MBTI isn't exactly a worthy cause. You don't like people walking up to you and trying to get you to take a passionate interest in botany- or astrology- or any other boring topic. Nobody does.

 

[skylights]

hehe, it might be the "6" thing more than type..... I think the 6 means "less trust in people", and that's one reason I was drawn to explaining their behaviors.
I think there is some truth to the N/S thing, but I am also finding that enneagram means alot. As a 6, I found early-on that I felt comfie around intelligent people..... and I trusted them more (even if they didn't much want me around ). I've been told I'm about 50% nerd haha.... I need some intellectual in my life, and I seem to identify with some intellectual and some less-intellectual activities. I've had estp friends who weren't intellectual at all, and some esfj friends who seeked intellectuals, but I mostly valued my naturally more-intellectual friends, especially the ones who were incredibly trustworthy. I actually need some of both.... so that is why I think I ended up in the "least intelligent of the intelligent people" category.

i've actually been thinking about 6 lately and the way it causes me to be more like a J and/or an S than some crazy freewheeling ENFPs sometimes. i like my theories to have tangible support and application, i like my calendars to have solid plans, i like to know all the details and i like to do things the way they've been done in the past when it comes to tradition and ceremony.

so, yeah. definitely with you here in terms of enneagram makes a big difference in motivations.

-

i also think it's curious that there seems to be some type of bias in that pursuing the mbti further, or even personality psych, is better. whereas a little practical part of me is saying, geez, why does anyone want to admit to being such a nerd and spending all day talking about this stuff instead of doing something more productive and/or creative?

MBTI doesn't really address behaviours or motivations. But it does attempt to identify and categorise processes.

As far as type most likely to pursue et al., less type, more individual who's looking for answers to self and others. Ha ha..MBTI and JCF might be part of the process since they attempt to identify processes, where the answers are in the infinity and beyond!

finally... it occurs to me that on perc, there is an enneagram 6 forum that i often check but rarely post in. i've tried starting a few threads but it's really generally just rather slow and/or not interesting to me for whatever reason. but i don't think that really actually says anything about 6s and their interest in the enneagram.

 

[wildcat]

The amount of energy I have to expend to divert the 'S' type folks' attention towards the MBTI has left me exhausted. I don't know of many who have further pursued it with any naturally-occuring, genuine interest in educating themselves about personality types. Whether it be for self-help or something to read on the shitter (pending you are using a mobile source for your viewing pleasure, although the motivation for that is questionable), I find that N types seem to generally question themselves and the "genetic makeup" of the human's cognitive existence in general.

Although I am quite aware that most of you have read this and said to yourself: "that's a rather simple conclusion, what a stupid ENTP", I put this in perspective for you:

Perhaps the only valuable argument to counter this is that we're simply more... interesting? (Don't tell me there are two threads that happen to be on fire in both sections thanks).

Is knowledge ahead or is it in the past?
It is in the past.
Is further knowledge ahead then?