Forum Statistics - % Of MBTI Types

[EJCC]

You're projecting.
You don't annoy me. I don't even read your threads. The only time I've noticed you do something annoying is when you voted in a thread for INTPs, on their behalf. If you can't figure out why that's offensive then, no, you wouldn't last long [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION]c.

Myself and Spartacuss might have been the only people to comment on your faux pas, but I assure you you probably pissed off every INTP in that thread, as well as the OP.

Still, water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. I know a lot of ppl are happy you're here.

I actually didn't offend every INTP in that thread, because I received positive reps, and one INTP even asked me to elaborate on my experiences. But I digress; I can see why the two of you were offended, because you explained it to me, and I'm glad to understand that perspective a little better now.

However, the fact that the reaction to my post was so immediate and so hostile is the exact situation I was thinking of, when I said that people wouldn't like me on INTPc.

Good that it's water under the bridge, though. When I see reactions like that to my statements, I assume that they're taking it personally and using it to make a value judgment/personal grudge. But that's because I hang out with so many NFs; I forget that NTs don't necessarily operate that way.

But by trying to explain why she had voted INFJ, she also made herself an easy target.

I know that now. I even thought I was helping by doing that; I thought INTPs preferred it when they got more complete data. Obviously that instinct misled me.

In general, I'm not a big fan of sensors, but the ones that stick around tend to be much more sophisticated than average.

Do you have Sensor friends? Do you prefer your iNtuitive friends? (Just curious and not provoking)

Edit: The reason why I posted in that thread for someone else, was honestly because I have not seen a single thread on TypeC that was directed at one type, that wasn't answered by another type on that type's behalf. I've had INTPs answer questions about the ESTJs they know. Which is why Spartacuss and Salome blew me out of the water when they reacted that way; I had seen INTPs who were completely fine with that, because they had partaken in that pattern of behavior themselves. I thought I was following the correct conduct code.

 

[highlander]

ISFJs like to learn new things all the time, just like anybody with any ounce of curiosity about the world.

I see there is no point in arguing with you, though, as you will simply deny that there is anything wrong with the descriptions because, for whatever reason, you are motivated to do so.

I didnt say they dont like to learn anything new. I simply agree with the description based on my personal experiences. Do you know any ISFJs that skipped a grade in school? Do you know any with a 140 IQ? I do.

That is two different people by the way.

 

[EJCC]

I didnt say they dont like to learn anything new. I simply agree with the description based on my personal experiences. Do you know any ISFJs that skipped a grade in school? Do you know any with a 140 IQ? I do.

In what areas do they use this excellence in school, and high IQ? Part of the issue with that description, I guess, is that people associate disinterest in book learning with lack of intelligence, lack of critical or abstract thinking skill, and inability (as opposed to unwillingness) to spend a lot of time thinking philosophically -- even though that isn't necessarily true.

 

[Rasofy]

Do you have Sensor friends?

Yes. I think my best friend irl is an ESTP-ish ESFJ. But to be honest, we don't talk much. He's pretty fun, but not intelectually stimulating.

Do you prefer your iNtuitive friends?

I think law school attracts a lot of sensors here, so I haven't made intuitive friends irl. I met a pretty smart INTJ there, but he was a bit arrogant for my tastes.

A big part of why I enjoy mbti personality forums so much is because I need to make up for the lack of intuitive stimulation irl. Even with all the mistyped people, I do believe the ratio of intuitives here is much bigger than average.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy a sensor perspective on things I find interesting. I learn a lot reading you, Halla, Orangey, among others.

I'm asking for information; not trying to provoke.

edit: ^I wasn't being sarcastic.

 

[RaptorWizard]

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

Why do you think MBTI is BS? I have similar opinions and especially on the functions.

 

[Rasofy]

I know that now. I even thought I was helping by doing that; I thought INTPs preferred it when they got more complete data. Obviously that instinct misled me.

Edit: The reason why I posted in that thread for someone else, was honestly because I have not seen a single thread on TypeC that was directed at one type, that wasn't answered by another type on that type's behalf. I've had INTPs answer questions about the ESTJs they know. Which is why Spartacuss and Salome blew me out of the water when they reacted that way; I had seen INTPs who were completely fine with that, because they had partaken in that pattern of behavior themselves. I thought I was following the correct conduct code.

You weren't supposed to vote, but you acknowledged it before giving your perspective. Which btw was pretty interesting.

Problem is some people seem to have an automatic ''lololo stupid sensor!'' reaction whenever they see a sensor making a minor mistake.

 

[Orangey]

A big part of why I enjoy mbti personality forums so much is because I need to make up for the lack of intuitive stimulation irl.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy a sensor perspective on things I find interesting. I learn a lot reading you, Halla, Orangey, among others.

One big reason I find this perspective to be BS (i.e., the idea that there's such thing as a sensor perspective or intuitive perspective) is because no one would even know the difference if I said I was an N type.

When I identified as an N, it was an N perspective. Now it's an S perspective because I say I'm S.

Wonderful. If I didn't find a more solid way to understand type than the stuff that gets propagated on this forum, I'd have given up on it as completely full of shit.

 

[Orangey]

I didnt say they dont like to learn anything new. I simply agree with the description based on my personal experiences. Do you know any ISFJs that skipped a grade in school? Do you know any with a 140 IQ? I do.

That is two different people by the way.

You said:

It doesn't say they don't like learning or school. It doesn't say they aren't intelligent. They don't like studying theory. They are about practical application and prefer to do things they know how to do and to do them well vs. theorizing about application of abstract concepts or having the stress of having to learn and do new things all the time.

This has a couple of problems.

1. Like [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] said, all academic learning involves theory and abstraction. So to say that SJs like to learn in school, but they don't like to learn theory makes no sense. The description I quoted recognizes this fact and at least has the sense to be consistent about it.
2. You suggest that learning new things is stressful for SJs.

And all of this was in an effort to make the original description that I quoted seem more innocuous. You said "it doesn't say they don't like learning or school." Well, but it does. It literally and specifically says, "ISFJs learn best by doing, rather than by reading about something in a book, or applying theory...Traditional methods of higher education, which require a lot of theorizing and abstraction, are likely to be a chore for the ISFJ."

So I don't know what you're on about.

 

[Salomé]

Edit: The reason why I posted in that thread for someone else, was honestly because I have not seen a single thread on TypeC that was directed at one type, that wasn't answered by another type on that type's behalf. I've had INTPs answer questions about the ESTJs they know. Which is why Spartacuss and Salome blew me out of the water when they reacted that way; I had seen INTPs who were completely fine with that, because they had partaken in that pattern of behavior themselves. I thought I was following the correct conduct code.

Then I apologise for misreading the situation. I think another non-INTP posted who she thought was best for her Dad or something, rather than who he was currently with, which is a massive . I think the OP even specifically requested that people not do that. Anyway, it's just a damned poll, not that important. INTPs can be resentful of the way ESJs have a habit of encroaching or giving unsolicited advice or just telling us we're basically doing it wrong in our day2day lives (most of us have SJ parents/teachers/bosses), so we can bit a bit tetchy and sensitive about it.

 

[Cellmold]

(most of us have SJ parents/teachers/bosses),

Really?

Is there a reason for that? More SJ's?

 

[Salomé]

Pretty much. They make up ~50% of the population.

 

[Rasofy]

One big reason I find this perspective to be BS (i.e., the idea that there's such thing as a sensor perspective or intuitive perspective) is because no one would even know the difference if I said I was an N type.

Like Salomé pointed out, you seem to be ignoring essential differences between intuitive and sensory focus. While I agree that you would be able to pretend you're an intuitive quite well, the point is: that's not the rule.

Wonderful. If I didn't find a more solid way to understand type than the stuff that gets propagated on this forum, I'd have given up on it as completely full of shit.

Whatever.

 

[Totenkindly]

Definitely true.
The thing is, this is one of the few places that we can associate with people who see the world the way we do (other iNtuitives). Do we really have to sacrifice that too? The whole fucking world is Sensor dominant. Let us have our little corner of the interwebz!!

Yeah, there are two sides to it. I see this as a "multi-type" site in theory (just based on the name), so I like the idea of having a place at the table for everyone regardless of who or what they are. it offers an opportunity as a meeting ground with open dialogue conscious of the differences among people.

Yet at the same time, I think I've mentioned it before, in my entire family (including cousins) of 30+ people, I only had one other N relative... and she lives 700 miles away. Any group I've ever been in has been about 80-90% Sensors. And even at my workplace, which you would expect to have more NTs than other settings, it's still been heavily populated by S types and I only have 1-2 N people I can talk to.

Going to INTPc back in 2006 was an eye-opener for me. I had been studying and reading about type for 9-10 years at that point, but it was like -- BAM -- I was suddenly not even a minority but a majority, and finally I could say things that other people followed without me having to explain everything in monotonous detail while receiving that "oh wow you're bat-shit crazy but I guess we need to tolerate you until we can change seats" look. In fact, not only did people understand what I was saying, but they could immediately come back with something I might not have had ever thought of before... and I couldn't remember the last time I had been challenged intellectually that way.

In that sense, INTPc and then TypC (for me) were my homes in ways that real-world communities/locations had never been. *insert Cheers snippet here*

So I think it's good to have various types represented, but ... I'm not losing a LOT of sleep over this inequity. What are we going to do -- start bussing in ISFJs and ESFPs from across the 'net?

I remember when that was going around the forum. I ended up not writing an ESTJ description because I feel unqualified to write it. I feel like, if I wrote one, it would seem completely amateurish. I don't know what everyone else's motivation was, but that was mine.

I faintly remember you choosing not to do it... I mean, whatever... it is what it is. I'm sure it would have been at least as good as anything else that might be written. I don't think anything ever was, though.

If it means anything, the first draft of something is typically crap anyway, but this is why we have a community here. I just think, as far as writing descriptions goes, the first goal is to get all the right content tossed into the pot; the second and later drafts just try to make sense of it and weave it together.

 

[Orangey]

Like Salomé pointed out, you seem to be ignoring essential differences between intuitive and sensory focus. While I agree that you would be able to pretend you're an intuitive quite well, the point is: that's not the rule.

And just what are they? My point was that they're only what we say they are as someone identified as N or S. When I identified as an N, anything I decided to declare as being a sign of N would have been accepted. Why? Because none of this has any referent outside of itself. It's self-referential.

Whatever.

Indeed.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I pulled some numbers this evening on how many forum members we have of different MBTI types. There are actually two sets of numbers. First, I pulled the % of members that joined before 1/1/2010 - so that would be some of the original members. Then I pulled the currently active members, which are those that have posted since 1/1/2012.

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?

2- Because we seem to be the type most likely to waste time in our heads and on the internet instead of living life in places where there is sunlight and moving air and maybe a mountain waving in the distance.
3- A good chunk of them are not INFPs.
4- I am not sure how possible that is. Like calls to like. PerC seems to have an enormous population of sensors and cosplay intuitives. I like how TypoC is much better... it's quirky and fun and has a smaller community that one can get to know.
5- To me, it makes sense that the numbers are skewed this way versus IRL. I don't think sensors are stupid or that intuitives breath smells like fresh baked cinnamon buns.

 

[Cellmold]

Pretty much. They make up ~50% of the population.

I dont wish to be a dick...but since I cant end that sentence...is there any proof of that?

 

[Southern Kross]

Obviously I can't speak for all Sensors, but my iNtuitor friends have generally been much more receptive to the MBTI than my Sensor friends have been. Some examples of their reasons:

ISFJ (female, women's studies major): "God, I HATE the MBTI. I took the test and it told me that I should be a stewardess, or something. It was offensive."*
ISTJ (female, math major): "It's a form of stereotyping! It's not scientifically accurate! COMPLETELY speculative."
ISFP (female, goes to RISD): "I don't need someone else to tell me who I am. I know who I am."

In theory, I'm guessing that a lot of Sensors either wouldn't see the practical possibilities of the test, or wouldn't be interested in it enough to seek out more evidence on a forum, or would be annoyed by internet forum culture in general (which I find common; SJs aren't huge fans of NT trolling and pseudo-trolling, and would probably prefer more rule of law than internet forums allow for). I, for one, would never have joined this forum were I not motivated to Te-based action by idiotic anti-ESTJ stereotyping here. Were it not for that, I doubt that I ever would have joined any MBTI forum, let alone this one. It was a fluke.


* I'll bet this is a pretty common reason with SJs and STPs; our type descriptions aren't the best. It's common knowledge that NT descriptions make them look like scientific geniuses, SFP descriptions make them look like artistic geniuses, NF descriptions make them look psychic, whereas SJs and STPs are relegated to manual labor and and the corporate rat race.

Yeah, this is similar to my experience. Although I must say, I avoid talking about it to people I believe to be N, because they can also respond like that.

I remember discussing this in a thread a few years back and I think [MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION] said that part of the problem is that MBTI isn't explained in a way that appeals to Sensors as much. I've tried different ways of explaining it to my ISFJ and ISTP parents and they took interest when I did. It simply involved applying it more, such as when we discussing a person's (or character's) behaviour; why that person seems to have that particular blind-spot or what makes them so good at something etc. It seems to mean more to them than having some meaningless abstract label put on themselves, because it was made to be actually useful. (and INFPs can have trouble understanding that other people don't give a shit about useless information - strange as that sounds )

To be honest, my perspective is that N types (who end up writing many of these online descriptions) are generous with the subjects they know... iNtuition. They don't really grasp Sensing very well, so you don't really see a lot of great descriptions of it. So I wouldn't say it's necessarily purposeful diminishing of Sensing behavior and motivation, it's just a form of cluelessness about how such a thing works.

I know we tried to encourage more Sensors to write their own type descriptions, or maybe Sensors and Intuitives work together on this site to create descriptions for all the types and/or functions, but I'm not sure how much progress was really made in that area.

I have always thought the sensing descriptions were no worse or better than the intuitive descriptions. ISTJs sound quite accomplished for examples. ISFJ descriptions seem dead on for those I know. ESTP is pretty impressive. A lot of the INTJ descriptions don't sound so flattering. INTJ - The "Scientist"? I'm no scientist. INTP - the absent minded professor? Not the ones I know.

I think the fact that many Sensors aren't drawn to their type descriptions is quite telling. People tend to like hearing what their type is good at (I know I do), because it's like tailored praise - it should incite pride in your own abilities. But, if a ISTJ doesn't think it's flattering to be described as organised and efficient, then we need to do better.

I hate the mysticism associated with functions. So much b/s, particularly surrounding Ni. While it's a fun and useful function, it's not magical. There's just a lot going on in the unconscious mind, regardless if it's a conscious use function.

So please, please don't try to romanticise Se or Si. Se is crazy fun and impulsive. It's unbelievably useful in the pragmatic world. But it's neither magical or mystical.

Oh, I don't mean getting carried away in that sense. I only meant that there's little about what makes those functions really amazing, special and insightful; what do they do that just leaves Ne and Ni in their wake. The best you get for Se is, "in the moment" or "observant of surroundings", that sort of stuff. It's just not very sexy or even very well explained why those are such fantastic qualities. Se is a function that is about straightforward-ness but that doesn't mean it's "simple" and bland.

For example, I was thinking the other day about what skills a Se actor can bring that a Ni (or Ne) actor can't; what they can easily do that N actors would struggle to do or would have to achieve through indirect means. It was fascinating to think about and it made me appreciate Se so much more. Unfortunately, you just don't get that sort of thing being discussed or described - there just isn't enough insightful discourse on the Sensing functions

 

[Salomé]

@AA There are estimates based on sampling. Like this one: http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/estimated-frequencies.htm

Why would an ENFP or ENTP be interested in this and an ENTJ or ENFJ not be?

Js of all sorts have a much higher drive to be "productive" and "get shit done". Ne likes to play, and most of what goes on on this forum is fluff and play.

Bias?

Against elitist N-ery.

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?

I suppose if the difference were that stark, no one would choose to self-identify as a Sensor. When I think of the Sensors on this board, they all seem pretty proud of who they are. There is a lot of dismissive shit written about Ns too. My mother is SJ and thinks Ns are "away with the fairies". She admires the pragmatism and common sense of her type. I don't see why most people with clearly defined preferences wouldn't end up liking and identifying with the type that shares their passions and priorities. For boundary cases, there is probably more of an argument for someone "choosing" to be N.

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.

I didn't reduce it to that. But that is part of it, otherwise it fails as an instrument designed to place people in type-appropriate work.
What do you think the differences can be reduced to?

What does it say, then?

It says you feel strongly about some of the elitist attitudes expressed on this board. I've always seen it as a protest. Basically, because I'll always see you as INTx.

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.

The stats are not based on self-report though. They are correlations between (professionally) assessed MBTI and grades in school + major in college. That kind of thing.

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.

It's an abstract model of personality, not a good way of understanding individual differences. Most Ss glaze over when you talk about cognitive function theory etc. (Not that I blame them).

It seems obvious to me that Ns are less at home in the world, being a clear minority, and that finding something that validates them as worthwhile and not just freaky weirdos is going to have more of an appeal than for an S type, who gets that validation constantly. For me though (and probably a lot of T women) the main appeal of the model was debunking the gender binary. I don't have any particular attachment to being N, I just am.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think the fact that many Sensors aren't drawn to their type descriptions is quite telling. People tend to like hearing what their type is good at (I know I do), because it's like tailored praise - it should incite pride in your own abilities. But, if a ISTJ doesn't think it's flattering to be described as organised and efficient, then we need to do better.

Yes, I remember a stupid moment with my ISFJ ex back in the first few years we were looking at type theory, and I got a lot of flak over "well, you have a lot of good traits -- you're organized, methodical, and ... uh... punctual!"

At least we got over it at some point, because "punctual' became our code word for "stupid compliment when you don't know what else to say." And we'd laugh.

But it's certainly not glamorous.

Really?

Is there a reason for that? More SJ's?

There's more of them, and frankly they're good at a lot of "management related" issues. That's why there seems to be a decent number of ESTJ administrator types.

 

[Randomnity]

It seems obvious to me that Ns are less at home in the world, being a clear minority, and that finding something that validates them as worthwhile and not just freaky weirdos is going to have more of an appeal than for an S type, who gets that validation constantly.

Not sure why you would think that. It has certainly not been the case with me. I might not be a "weirdo" for being N, but I can be one for many other reasons. Even sticking purely to type, an ISTP woman is seen as far more "abnormal" by society overall than an ENFJ, and maybe even all the NF types.

I'm not trying to compete at "who has it worst", just pointing out that N is only one of MANY factors that influence how "at home" you feel in the world.