Forum Statistics - % Of MBTI Types

[Cellmold]

I think this thread throws up the general inconsistancy of MBTI in general, or perhaps of peoples understandings of it. Because once you start questioning your type or that of others, it does throw up a series of questions.

Are you right? Are others right? Which definitions on types and functions are correct or most accurate? Where is the objectivity?

If we give over to collective agreement that means you have no say, if we give over to individual assumption then everyone has a say; but with no solid footing to go off.
There should be a middle ground inbetween this that throws light on the information...but where is it? Where is clarity?

I cannot throw this idea in my mind that at some point MBTI and in fact Jung; was misappropriated or interpreted in a certain way and that this interpretation has caused a chain reaction of misunderstandings all down the line.

 

[Totenkindly]

As a side note, this site was seeded from INTPc, which explains the starting imbalance of INTPs as well as INxx. Of course, that was five years ago.

 

[Salomé]

Yes. And no. Yes, the numbers are inflated; no, it's not really an appealing type. It's just one of the types that (1) has gushy descriptions and (2) is described at length to the point that almost all personality traits are in some way or another rationalized to be connected to it. No wonder all these people relate to it.

Add to that a tendency for the other types, especially any S type (but even some ENxx types like ENTJ and ENFJ, which get treated almost like the N equivalent of SJs), to be given short shrift in descriptions, both in terms of content (some is plain wrong and uses language that would turn anyone off to the type) and length (you're not going to find long, loving, in-depth explanations of the ESTP, for instance, like you do with the INTP), and it all makes a lot of sense.



What other reason could there be? It's absurd how many are willing to believe that INXXs are just drawn to typology more than any other type on the internet. How weak. Sometimes I feel like I'm in some sort of twilight zone when people say that stuff in all seriousness.

This is the first time I've ever seen you make a poor argument.
I think your bias is showing ...


Yes, people don't all have a clear understanding of type and wrongly self-identify with attributes they deem attractive rather than those that are real strengths. But to suggest there are no differences between the types in terms of typical interests and aptitudes is to say typology is bunk. In which case, why study it, why be here, and why call yourself an ESTP? The term is meaningless, according to you.
Your vehement rejection of your former INTPness says something to me (and it's not that you're ESTP).

Myer's provides plenty of evidence to support the statistically significant differences between the interests/aptitudes of the types in Gift's Differing.

INXXs are, by definition, people drawn to theoretical speculation and systems analysis. How could it come as a surprise to anyone that they find typology alluring? Similarly, who hasn't had a conversation with a Sensor about typology that didn't end in "oh, I don't have time for all that speculative crap".


OP. re q4: Why would you want to? This is a typology forum. People interested in typology can and do find it.

 

[Salomé]

Other observation: The chart is proof that the member IQ poll was correct in that the most popular range of IQs here is 132-145.

*questions your definition of "proof"*

 

[Mal12345]

*questions your definition of "proof"*

What's your definition of "proof"?

 

[Salomé]

The volume of substandard posts constitutes better "proof" that you are wrong in your assumption.

Also see the Downing Effect.

 

[Southern Kross]

Add to that a tendency for the other types, especially any S type (but even some ENxx types like ENTJ and ENFJ, which get treated almost like the N equivalent of SJs), to be given short shrift in descriptions, both in terms of content (some is plain wrong and uses language that would turn anyone off to the type) and length (you're not going to find long, loving, in-depth explanations of the ESTP, for instance, like you do with the INTP), and it all makes a lot of sense.

Yes, this is something I've noticed. I've recently taken a real interest in Se (and SPs in general) and felt the lack of "loving" descriptions to the point that I've thought about starting a thread on the function (and I rarely start threads). However, I felt discouraged by the thought that others would not reciprocate, and that it might a waste of time.

It just seems ridiculous that certain types or functions are made to seem more "cool" than others. I just feel that if more effort was made to outline the amazing and mystical qualities of Se and Si, we wouldn't have such a heavy bias toward N.

What other reason could there be? It's absurd how many are willing to believe that INXXs are just drawn to typology more than any other type on the internet. How weak. Sometimes I feel like I'm in some sort of twilight zone when people say that stuff in all seriousness.

I have to disagree. It seems to gel more with INXXs in general - not that other types can't gel with the theory just as much, if not more.

I remember when we first took the MBTI in my college humanities course (I think it was some BS general "internship" seminar), we had to divide into groups based on type and there were a shitload of people in the INFP and INFJ groups. Why? Because most of the people in this class fancied themselves as intellectuals/writers/activists, and they picked accordingly (I particularly remember this one ridiculously stereotypical ESFP girl heading to the INFP table.) Hell, I even landed in INTP or INTJ, I can't remember. It was one of them, but I could only deceive myself for so long. The groupiness of this forum and some honest feedback IRL shook me out of it.

I know what you mean. I have sensed that before. I've had MBTI conversations with (so-called) xNFPs where I felt like it was all a bunch of BS nonsense. Some people seem to be more keen to mimic the type through this contrived empathising and agreeing with everything people of that type say - it's like they want to prove that they fit the type. It has happened more at at Personality Cafe than I have here, but it does seem to be more common to younger members or people who are relatively new to MBTI.

It's only some feeling I get and it's probably just me being silly and irrational, however I can't help but find it false and irritating. Well frankly any sort of deluded, BS, "groupiness" irritates me.

 

[Mal12345]

Yes, this is something I've noticed. I've recently taken a real interest in Se (and SPs in general) and felt the lack of "loving" descriptions to the point that I've thought about starting a thread on the function (and I rarely start threads). However, I felt discouraged by the thought that others would not reciprocate, and that it might a waste of time.

It just seems ridiculous that certain types or functions are made to seem more "cool" than others. I just feel that if more effort was made to outline the amazing and mystical qualities of Se and Si, we wouldn't have such a heavy bias toward N.

I have to disagree. It seems to gel more with INXXs in general - not that other types can't gel with the theory just as much, if not more.

Yes. It's like saying it's "weak" to actually look at reality, do some real typology, determine in reality who likes what and for what reason, and consider in reality which types have identity issues, or who are actively seeking typology as a spiritual source, and which types have an identity so set in stone typology serves utterly no purpose for them. It's like saying that studying typology and real people for 20 years of my life is weak.

Most people who have been introduced to typology had to take a test for a particular reason: as a requirement of a job search, a marriage counselor who tests his clients, a psychology class taken for the credits and then forgotten about.

I would be surprised if the number of typologists in real life amounts to even .5% of the population.

My proof is in reality, not in this little box that connects me to cyberspace. Yes, that's soooo weak to people who have been brought up and raised around computers so much that a little screen has become their only contact with reality.

 

[PeaceBaby]

A few questions:
1. The consistency of the membership MBTI types across time sort of amazed me. Any ideas on why the percentage MBTI breakdown of the original members is so similar to the breakdown today?
2. Why do you think there is such a heavy concentration of INXXs?
3. We have a lot of Ni and Ne doms but there is a statistically significant number of INFPs in there as well. Thoughts on why this is?
4. Do you have any suggestions on how to encourage participation of some of the less represented types?
5. Do you have any other observations on this?

1.) The same types of people are drawn to discuss the material, or at least, discuss any material in an extensive way and have an opinion. Although, there aren't many threads that link typology to the subject matter at hand ... and sometimes some very poor debating around here at that.

2.) I think it's a venue that suits the written expansion of ideas that real life (and the people in your real life) just don't have time for. It's a place to talk about the wiggly things that are on my mind.

3.) Not following the question? Something different about Fi that stands out to you? Do you see interest in typology more related to the intuitive preference? The chart indicates the highest preference to Ji.

4.) Doubt I could drag any of my sensor friends here with a 10 foot pole. My ESTJ hubs feels this place is a waste of time, although he sees value in typology and how it helps him appreciate differences in people. But come here and share his thoughts? Unlikely. And he's right in a way, there's a point of diminished return being online here compared to getting stuff done in the "real world". The best way I can think of though to draw folks here is to share the benefits of typology in general. That part at least does grab one's attention, because it has application in reality for any type. However, all newbies would have to see is a bunch of crap threads and a whole bunch of people arguing in them to get turned off.

5.) Not really, aside from the fact the interwebs has always appealed more to the "geek" factor ...


Plus I'd like to address some of the points below here that claim there are a "LOT" of mistyped N's here. First, estimated percentages would be nice. I would guess myself it's maybe as high as 10 - 15%. Still that's not enough to account for the chart trending to INXX types. But hey, it could be higher. I think the people who might be mistyped don't stick around here very long though. All I know is that I am an INFP.

And as for Mal's IQ correlation, pfft. You looked at the threads around here?

 

[Mal12345]

And as for Mal's IQ correlation, pfft. You looked at the threads around here?

I posted this information here over a year ago, but it was posted by someone else before that. It's not speaking to an individual's type and IQ, only to groups taken as averages. I don't know what your vague reference to threads is about.

 

[Salomé]

My proof is in reality.

lol. Not.

 

[Mal12345]

lol. Not.

You are welcome to your personal set of beliefs built from your many years of googling websites.

 

[Salomé]

 

[wolfy]

I think some of the N bias is a me bias as well. I imagine there are a percentage of people mistyped for whatever reason. And there is also people who really are N and think that is where it is at. I am okay with that, I think S is where it is. It seems inevitable that the combination of an abstract concept and ego would cause an N bias overall.

 

[Mal12345]

I think some of the N bias is a me bias as well. I imagine there are a percentage of people mistyped for whatever reason. And there is also people who really are N and think that is where it is at. I am okay with that, I think S is where it is. It seems inevitable that the combination of an abstract concept and ego would cause an N bias overall.

Name one person who you know has an N bias.

 

[Salomé]

I think some of the N bias is a me bias as well. I imagine there are a percentage of people mistyped for whatever reason. And there is also people who really are N and think that is where it is at. I am okay with that, I think S is where it is. It seems inevitable that the combination of an abstract concept and ego would cause an N bias overall.

You're talking about 2 different things.

The N bias of the site in terms of # of Ns. And the N bias of the sentiment of many of the post(ers).

You don't need the latter to explain the former.

 

[wolfy]

Name one person who you know has an N bias.

MacGuffin. He has an N bias in the way I described. I thought of him because of my type thread and him saying istp, or intp the best type. He just feels his N rocks and why not? It makes perfect sense to have a bias towards yourself.

 

[Salomé]

Doesn't really make sense if you're not N though...

 

[wolfy]

You're talking about 2 different things.

The N bias of the site in terms of # of Ns. And the N bias of the sentiment of many of the post(ers).

You don't need the latter to explain the former.

They seem related to me. More Ns, more N bias. Maybe N types are not as objective as they thought they were? There is also the tendency for a group of the same type to talk each other up.

 

[Salomé]

They seem related to me. More Ns, more N bias. Maybe N types are not as objective as they thought they were? There is also the tendency for a group of the same type to talk each other up.

I didn't say they weren't related.