I have always been suspect as to the breakdown of percentages in type. I have no reason to believe that at best there is a 6.25% across the board. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence to support Myers-Briggs or Keirsey
I am referring to percentages based on population of type, not an individuals type functions.
Did you see ptGatsby's reference a month ago or so? He linked to one of the statistical online charts that broke things down for m/f/combined for all types and seemed to show a more reasonable balance than the seemingly erroneous ones based on the
- E75/I25
- S75/N25
- T50/F50
- J50/P50
split. I'll post it here if I happen to find it first.
Thanks Fortunato. I will try to find it. I agree with all of the correlations referenced above, however wonder whether the S/N is can be skewed by cultural biases at the moment, creating a 50/50 split as well.Did you see ptGatsby's reference a month ago or so? He linked to one of the statistical online charts that broke things down for m/f/combined for all types and seemed to show a more reasonable balance than the seemingly erroneous ones based on the
- E75/I25
- S75/N25
- T50/F50
- J50/P50
split. I'll post it here if I happen to find it first.
Thanks Fortunato. I will try to find it. I agree with all of the correlations referenced above, however wonder whether the S/N is can be skewed by cultural biases at the moment, creating a 50/50 split as well.
We're on the same page Wolf. Yet with the age of the computer, high oil prices, downsizing, continued manufacturing jobs being outsourced, etc., I think it will change the dynamics of work, making telecommuting the norm, thus skewing the E/I and S/N, at least from a superficial viewpoint. Just a thought.However, I've wondered whether a change in needs and attitudes in the society might change the numbers of each type. You don't need 25 doctors, 30 engineers, and 35 scientists per 100 population. Right now, our economy in the US is highly biased toward ESXX types, particularly ESXJ, and it always has been SJ-oriented, but the E is new, and reflects our new interest in "people skills" and our "services economy", which means there is a distinct preference for Extroverts.
Will that mean we have more in the future? Who knows.
Thanks Fortunato. I will have to review the information closely.Found this one, plus one posted by Hustler involving HS kids... so here's you's goes....
CAPT.ORG (adults) (drat! Gatsby beat me!!!)
High school kids
? said:Thanks Fortunato. I will have to review the information closely.
Thanks Fortunato. I guess to preclude biasness, specific questions as to the reason a person preferred a particular dichotomy over the other cannot be asked. This is where my inquiry is leading. Why? Are the answers truly a result of how the person sees themself? How much of a margin is given for error with people who cannot distinguish their true selves from roles (a definite problem with many extraverted types)? If there is a problem in detaching from role playing, would not the prevailing industries of that time period come into play (i.e., not only am I a J, but because I also resonate with a certain industry such as banking, ergo I prefer sensor and judging).Here is the original attachment (PDF) describing potential selection bias for the CAPT.ORG numbers -- might be useful for you to look at as well.
Sorry, don't meant to overwhelm you with links here, but I figured the probable selection bias is important for interpreting the results...
BTW, I made a post on the MBTI vs Step II thread, for you. Since you and Pgatsby seem quite familar with adminstering the assessment, maybe you guys can help me.