Forum Statistics - % Of MBTI Types

[highlander]

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.

I was looking at the dominant function. There are large numbers of people who have Ne or Ni as a dominant function. I guess what I was overlooking is that there a lot of Ti doms as well as Fi doms - both which have Ne as an auxiliary function. They key thing in common is Ne which seems to have a big influence on someone's interest in this stuff. Or maybe relative to people who have Ni as a dominant function, there are just more Ne'ers around in general. Haven't added up the statistics but I think Ne is much more common than Ni in the world.

There are a lot fewer individuals with Ni as an auxiliary function. Maybe that is because they are extraverts and on average, extraverts would rather be connecting with people face to face vs writing things down in front of their computer.

I think I'm tripping over myself in what I'm trying to communicate. If in fact intuitives are more interested in this stuff, it is interesting that the exception are those who have Ni as an auxiliary function. I wonder why that is.Why would an ENFP or ENTP be interested in this and an ENTJ or ENFJ not be?

 

[sprinkles]

 

[Mal12345]

If I could see that you had a coherent argument, I would know whether I agreed with it. At this point, I'm unclear.


Thank you for your highly relevant uncited document which singehandedly negates my experiences with online ISTP descriptions, which is what I was discussing.

Even an S can read between the lines, my friend. If you take a look at the online descriptions out there, I'm sure your 135 IQ can manage to parse a few implications from the literal text.

This is from the site I always go to first:
"As an ISTP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things rationally and logically."

 

[Oaky]

You've got all these statistics of people who labelled themselves a specific type and then there are those who don't label themselves too. What are they?
You've got the people who mistype themselves and the ones who type themselves beautifully enjoying a good bit of self-satisfied descriptions. Then it's the arguments of "N is beautified and S is an over-beaten pinata" which disproves itself when its the majority of people repeating the same thing. Unless some of us are enjoying a game of hypocrite, hmmm?
We can say that mbti is in itself a subject matter to do with theoretical models of cognition... which of course is all mind fun about mind fun... so meta... and who likes to have fun with the mind about mind fun? This is no theory about the stars and planets. To some, maybe... but not to most. So why are the INs here testing IN? Bias? Self-denial? An inherited interest in psychology as an intangible subject? Sensors who believe they're intuitives on typec would more likely appear here on differing motivations than playing with their thoughts on theoretical models that hold to 'definition of intuition'. Tons of reasons an S might mistype themselves but not as many for the S to be interested in intuitive games. We have a problem... and that problem is the intangibility of psychology... the truth is playing with us like a snake on the 100th mark of snakes and ladders. Gotta play a bit more abstract.

 

[Randomnity]

This is from the site I always go to first:
"As an ISTP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things rationally and logically."

Perhaps the sarcasm was a little too abstract. Let me rephrase to be more direct.

My experience with the online S descriptions (as in, the ones that pop up in google when you say "ISTP description" or similar) is that they are overwhelmingly negative and boring, and I view them as inaccurate for myself and other Ss I've known.

Quoting snippets from one or two unnamed sites which (you believe) don't show this bias is fine and all, but does not negate my experiences as an S reading those descriptions, particularly when the same thing has been stated by many other Ss here over the years. This is hardly revolutionary information.

 

[Mal12345]

I used to write like that ^^ (Oakyage) back when I used QWERTY. After reading that excellent post I'm beginning to think typing with a Colemak setting is nothing but a huge liability.

 

[Mal12345]

Perhaps the sarcasm was a little too abstract. Let me rephrase to be more direct.

My experience with the online S descriptions (as in, the ones that pop up in google when you say "ISTP description" or similar) is that they are overwhelmingly negative and boring, and I view them as inaccurate for myself and other Ss I've known.

Quoting snippets from one or two unnamed sites which (you believe) don't show this bias is fine and all, but does not negate my experiences as an S reading those descriptions, particularly when the same thing has been stated by many other Ss here over the years. This is hardly revolutionary information.

I forgot to add the site http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTP.html

It sounds like it's about time the Ss started writing the type descriptions.

 

[Mal12345]

I'm reading another page on the ISTP and I can only conclude that - since all type descriptions are equally boring - you as a type don't want to be seen as boring or that you don't like boring things such as this.

 

[Randomnity]

I forgot to add the site http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTP.html

It sounds like it's about time the Ss started writing the type descriptions.

We tried to write some up awhile ago, actually - search the forums for type description wiki or something like that. It trailed off, too many Ps.

But if you find that thread, there is some good commentary on exactly what makes the descriptions inaccurate and biased. I don't really want to go through the details of the description again, but personalitypage is certainly one of the guilty sites.

 

[Mal12345]

We tried to write some up awhile ago, actually - search the forums for type description wiki or something like that. It trailed off, too many Ps.

But if you find that thread, there is some good commentary on exactly what makes the descriptions inaccurate and biased. I don't really want to go through the details of the description again, but personalitypage is certainly one of the guilty sites.

It's good enough for gubmint work. I've always been one to tout BOOKS over websites.

 

[Randomnity]

It's good enough for gubmint work. I've always been one to tout BOOKS over websites.

The question isn't which is better (that's debatable anyway, but not the point). The question is which is most easily accessible to people who have just found out their type. What's the most likely source of information for a young 20s person (the biggest demographic here) who just found out about MBTI? The almighty google, of course (along with wikipedia, heavily drawn from the same few sites). Why go to the library to read a book written 20 years ago when google is right there, with constantly updated results?

The personality tests that come up first on google will be the ones that most people use to find out their type. The sites that come up first on google searches are where most people will read about their discovered type. When the descriptions there are perceived as negative and/or inaccurate, many of us don't identify with the descriptions and conclude either that MBTI is BS or that their type is wrong. That's all I'm saying. It's not every internet description ever (there are a few out there that are ok), it's the most popular ones that are problematic.

 

[Mal12345]

The question isn't which is better (that's debatable anyway, but not the point). The question is which is most easily accessible to people who have just found out their type. What's the most likely source of information for a young 20s person (the biggest demographic here) who just found out about MBTI? The almighty google, of course (along with wikipedia, heavily drawn from the same few sites).

The personality tests that come up first on google will be the ones that people use to find out their type. The sites that come up first on google searches are where people will read about their discovered type. When the descriptions there are perceived as negative and/or inaccurate, many of us don't identify with the descriptions and conclude either that MBTI is BS or that their type is wrong. That's all I'm saying. It's not every internet description ever (there are a few out there that are ok), it's the most popular ones that are problematic.

But since the MBTI really is bs, it doesn't matter.

 

[PeaceBaby]

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.

First, you offer no link to the source of this IQ data, ergo initial credibility cannot be established.

Second, you drag IQ into an argument that wasn't discussing IQ at all ... unless you are positing that INXX = higher IQ = interest in typology, which again was NOT the point, was it?

Third, do you not think people tend to significantly exaggerate their self-reported IQ? (InterwebZ tests don't count. Where's their Stanford-Binet or Weschler scores?)

Fourth, speaking of tests, are people using the real MBTI tests to identify type, or the many cheap crappy free online tests available? Without consistent testing, again inconsistent measures.

And fifth, well, when it comes to threads, just look around. I don't see a lot of deep and insightful threads going on, do you? Empirical evidence for intelligence may be lacking too ...

Those who disagree with me should also disagree with you. I bet they don't have the balls to.

If I knew what you were arguing, it would be easier to disagree.

However, to show I've got the balls:

 

[EJCC]

The question isn't which is better (that's debatable anyway, but not the point). The question is which is most easily accessible to people who have just found out their type. What's the most likely source of information for a young 20s person (the biggest demographic here) who just found out about MBTI? The almighty google, of course (along with wikipedia, heavily drawn from the same few sites). Why go to the library to read a book written 20 years ago when google is right there, with constantly updated results?

The personality tests that come up first on google will be the ones that most people use to find out their type. The sites that come up first on google searches are where most people will read about their discovered type. When the descriptions there are perceived as negative and/or inaccurate, many of us don't identify with the descriptions and conclude either that MBTI is BS or that their type is wrong. That's all I'm saying. It's not every internet description ever (there are a few out there that are ok), it's the most popular ones that are problematic.

^ Very good post. This pretty much sums it up.

But since the MBTI really is bs, it doesn't matter.

It's this sort of thing that drives SJs away from the forum.

If you want to debate, then debate! Don't take the easy way out.

 

[Mal12345]

First, you offer no link to the source of this IQ data, ergo initial credibility cannot be established.

That's fine.

Second, you drag IQ into an argument that wasn't discussing IQ at all ... unless you are positing that INXX = higher IQ = interest in typology, which again was NOT the point, was it?

Third, do you not think people tend to significantly exaggerate their self-reported IQ? (InterwebZ tests don't count. Where's their Stanford-Binet or Weschler scores?)

Fourth, speaking of tests, are people using the real MBTI tests to identify type, or the many cheap crappy free online tests available? Without consistent testing, again inconsistent measures.

And fifth, well, when it comes to threads, just look around. I don't see a lot of deep and insightful threads going on, do you? Empirical evidence for intelligence may be lacking too ...

If I knew what you were arguing, it would be easier to disagree.

However, to show I've got the balls:

View attachment 7846

Actually, when I was about 11 years old I told people, before I knew my score, that my IQ was 115. So I under-reported by 20 points, mainly because I didn't HAVE [feel the need] to exaggerate it. I was ok with 115 as my estimate.

The part about finding deep, insightful threads is subjective. I went to INTPc, before I came here, looking for some deep, insightful threads, and didn't find any. While disappointing and puzzling, it didn't affect my estimate of the INTP average IQ because I don't base IQ off of thread quality, or forum quality. I stayed here because the quality of the forum is superior, and because the deep, insightful threads do exist. They're usually not quite up to my standards, but sufficiently enough to maintain my interest level. But I think the lower-quality stuff drags down the forum, and makes higher-quality stuff less likely to occur.

Yes I dragged IQ into it because the thread/poll on IQ was disappointing - one of those lower-quality products here - and I used this thread to make a point. And I will believe it until someone offers me convincing evidence otherwise.

 

[highlander]

I also think forum culture has something to do with the distribution of types on the forum. How that fleshes out exactly, I'm not entirely sure.

 

[rav3n]

I also think forum culture has something to do with the distribution of types on the forum. How that fleshes out exactly, I'm not entirely sure.

Is there any way to dredge up statistics of member types as at when they joined, rather than a snapshot in database time?

 

[highlander]

Is there any way to dredge up statistics of member types as at when they joined, rather than a snapshot in database time?

There is. I won't have time to do it for a couple of days though. What do you think would be helpful to see? I don't think it will reveal much change from that distribution in the chart above but who knows.

 

[Randomnity]

Is there any way to dredge up statistics of member types as at when they joined, rather than a snapshot in database time?

Yes. http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/memberlist.php?do=search. Enter desired join date ("before" and/or "after" desired dates), and type.

Highlander's OP shows members joining before 2010, for example.

edit: I put together types posting since Aug 1 as a more accurate reflection of "active", but the trend was similar enough to the others that I didn't bother posting it.

INTP 59 17%
INFP 53 15%
INFJ 51 15%
INTJ 42 12%
ENFP 37 11%
ENTP 31 9%
ISTP 16 5%
ENFJ 6 2%
ENTJ 12 4%
ISTJ 5 1%
ISFP 11 3%
ISFJ 5 1%
ESTP 6 2%
ESFP 3 1%
ESTJ 3 1%
ESFJ 2 1%
342 100%

 

[Orangey]

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

Bias?

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.

Why is it that everyone admits of this possibility but refuses to consider that its extent is anything but minimal? Especially in light of the very real strain of N superiority in both the descriptions and the typology communities?

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.

I don't think differences between types can be reduced to differences in interests and aptitudes, no. That's not to say there are no differences between types, though. I'm not sure where you got that from.

Your vehement rejection of your former INTPness says something to me (and it's not that you're ESTP).

What does it say, then?

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

I don't take any of that seriously for the same reasons that I've said earlier in this thread. People will self-report as the type that most closely embodies the values of their environment. It doesn't help when type descriptions explicitly list occupations and activities, because then this tendency is exacerbated.

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".

People are drawn to MBTI because they like to study the differences that they observe between themselves and others. I'm not sure how much more concrete you can get.

While I do agree with Orangey and have seen her posts in the past, I am unsure of what to do with the idea. I am not going to argue with others about their types as I don't care or know enough and the general pointlessness of those debates. Many members have said in the past that there are more sensors here and point fingers at each other while sticking to their own bloated N's. This idea then leads to myself, while I do believe that I'm INFJ, how in fact do I know that I am not self-deceiving myself? Should I change to IXXJ and let other members decide how to view me (and unfortunately my arguments) while leaving doubt on both sides, bite the bullet and change it to ISTJ even though I feel I'll be deceiving others, or leave it as INFJ and live with my own doubt and others' doubts as I accuse others mentally of a mistake that I, myself, may be making? The best solution I've come up with so far has been to tell people when asked that I am hypothetically INFJ which still isn't ideal. Anyone have ideas on how to deal with that general situation? How do you truly determine your own type in spite of biases? If there are such strong biases present, are there truly types at all?

Well, you can do several things.

1. Don't take what anybody has to say about celebrity types seriously.
2. Be skeptical about what anyone says regarding the functions, though some of it tends to be on the mark. You have to learn how to judge.
3. Regarding your own type, be open to typing as an S type. Truly open. Find better descriptions to help you along. Socionics is generally better about it.
4. Regarding your own type, solicit feedback from people IRL. People unconnected to these type communities. Try to see the patterns and fit them honestly...don't rationalize them into the type you're stuck on being.
5. Regarding your own type, move away from descriptions and look at interaction/communication styles and solicit feedback about it from people IRL.

edit: I put together types posting since Aug 1 as a more accurate reflection of "active", but the trend was similar enough to the others that I didn't bother posting it.

INTP 59 17%
INFP 53 15%
INFJ 51 15%
INTJ 42 12%
ENFP 37 11%
ENTP 31 9%
ISTP 16 5%
ENFJ 6 2%
ENTJ 12 4%
ISTJ 5 1%
ISFP 11 3%
ISFJ 5 1%
ESTP 6 2%
ESFP 3 1%
ESTJ 3 1%
ESFJ 2 1%
342 100%

LOL.
All Ns at the top.
ENJs down with the Ss (though still above the majority of S types), because like I said they get treated here and in descriptions largely like the SJs of the Ns.
If people are willing to be an S type, it has to be an ISxx type. Introversion over extraversion.

So, yeah. N over S, I over E, and INTP über alles.