Percentage of N users.

[Methylene]

-

 

[Lord Lavender]

From this data it seems that the older generations lean towards SJ types and the younger generation NP types. Maybe this is a natural growth as stereotypically young people are more NP while older people are more SJ but I have many theories as to why this could be. First of all I think that MBTI type portions haven't changed that much over the years. In the old days SJish traits and behaviours were valued while NP traits were "beaten" out of people meaning that even if they are not naturally a S or a J type they would type as one as they have been raised to be that way. Another theory is that young people in general are wired to have NP traits (Whether they are or not actually a NP type) which makes sense as youngsters need to make connections between things to learn (N) and need to be adaptable (P).

 

[FemMecha]

I wonder if it is because society drains the imagination out of people (edit) and the longer people live the more they need to focus on the pragmatic? That is really interesting about preferences changing over time because it speaks to the fluidity of these tendencies, rather than a set-in-stone genetic concept of type.

 

[Yama]

From this data it seems that the older generations lean towards SJ types and the younger generation NP types. Maybe this is a natural growth as stereotypically young people are more NP while older people are more SJ but I have many theories as to why this could be. First of all I think that MBTI type portions haven't changed that much over the years. In the old days SJish traits and behaviours were valued while NP traits were "beaten" out of people meaning that even if they are not naturally a S or a J type they would type as one as they have been raised to be that way. Another theory is that young people in general are wired to have NP traits (Whether they are or not actually a NP type) which makes sense as youngsters need to make connections between things to learn (N) and need to be adaptable (P).

There are still a ton of SJs in the younger generation. Half of the NPs are mistyped SJs because people think SJs today look the same as they did in the 1950s. They don't.

 

[Lord Lavender]

I wonder if it is because society drains the imagination out of people. That is really interesting about preferences changing over time because it speaks to the fluidity of these tendencies, rather than a set-in-stone genetic concept of type.

Exactly that is what is probably behind those statistics. The status quo is that you are born with your type but I do think environments do change people far more than we think going by the data. I never brought into the crap that N types are 15% of the population and always have thought that it was more 50/50 between S and N.

 

[Lord Lavender]

There are still a ton of SJs in the younger generation. Half of the NPs are mistyped SJs because people think SJs today look the same as they did in the 1950s. They don't.

This is just crap stereotypes about SJ types. Everyone seems to think that Si is the function used by traditionalists but it isn't. Si along with Ni are very hard to understand for some reason. I get the feeling that Si types are more diverse than other types as wouldn't Si mean that you base things on past experience meaning that one ISxJ would look very different from another ISxJ depending on the data their Si has taken in.

 

[Yama]

This is just crap stereotypes about SJ types. Everyone seems to think that Si is the function used by traditionalists but it isn't. Si along with Ni are very hard to understand for some reason. I get the feeling that Si types are more diverse than other types as wouldn't Si mean that you base things on past experience meaning that one ISxJ would look very different from another ISxJ depending on the data their Si has taken in.

Exactly. Also, I'd say that Si and Ni are more similar than people recognize. At least, I think Si is more similar to Ni than it is to Se, and same for Ni being more similar to Si than it is the Ne. Pi vs Pe and all that. The difference being that Si draws from concrete data it has personally experienced and Ni (from what I've read) draws more from a sort of "collective unconscious."

 

[Yama]

Of course. The problem is if that typing is official or not. I've find out that it's from a study ( this) so I assumed it was official. As soon as I can get on the computer I'll look into it more. If the typing is actually correct it would be an enormous shift in the population's preferences.

Yeah, I find that there's a lot of mistypes in self-typing among youth (specifically SFJs mistyping as NFPs--confession: I always assume new INFPs who join the forum are mistyped until I see a good reason not to because of this). It's difficult to get an accurate measure for statistics--on the one hand, people know themselves best, and so self-typings should be more accurate than being typed by someone else... but on the other hand, there are personal biases that play into those self-typings.

I do agree that there are probably a lot more Ns than the magical unicorn snowflake statistics most websites feed us. Sensors are probably the majority, but not as vast a majority as they're made out to be. Maybe like a 40/60 type of deal.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Exactly. Also, I'd say that Si and Ni are more similar than people recognize. At least, I think Si is more similar to Ni than it is to Se, and same for Ni being more similar to Si than it is the Ne. Pi vs Pe and all that. The difference being that Si draws from concrete data it has personally experienced and Ni (from what I've read) draws more from a sort of "collective unconscious."

Would this explain the difference between Si and Ni. A Si user instantly knows a person is lying due to subtle physical signs from this person while a Ni user would know likewise via connecting the dots about this person not trust them.

 

[Dreamer]

Exactly. Also, I'd say that Si and Ni are more similar than people recognize. At least, I think Si is more similar to Ni than it is to Se, and same for Ni being more similar to Si than it is the Ne. Pi vs Pe and all that. The difference being that Si draws from concrete data it has personally experienced and Ni (from what I've read) draws more from a sort of "collective unconscious."

Personally I've always found it much more useful to understand the perceiving functions of the same orientation, rather than trying to understand Si as the opposite of Se, I find it much more useful to understand Si vs Ni. Well, flip that since I understand Si, and not Ni personally. And I totally agree. There is much less difference between Si and Ni than some people would like to admit or believe. I came to this conclusion upon comparing Ne to Se. Both explore their outer environments with a rather childlike excitement, but the N/S directs what information is being picked up.

This goes for the other functions as well. I've been better able to understand Ti through my understanding of Fi rather than through my understanding of Te.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Personally I've always found it much more useful to understand the perceiving functions of the same orientation, rather than trying to understand Si as the opposite of Se, I find it much more useful to understand Si vs Ni. Well, flip that since I understand Si, and not Ni personally. And I totally agree. There is much less difference between Si and Ni than some people would like to admit or believe. I came to this conclusion upon comparing Ne to Se. Both explore their outer environments with a rather childlike excitement, but the N/S directs what information is being picked up.

This goes for the other functions as well. I've been better able to understand Ti through my understanding of Fi rather than through my understanding of Te.

This also fits my experience as well. I at one time have thought I was a Fi user as Ti is similar to Fi in many ways (More so than Te). What are your thoughts regarding the ratio of S to N types.

 

[Dreamer]

This also fits my experience as well. I at one time have thought I was a Fi user as Ti is similar to Fi in many ways (More so than Te). What are your thoughts regarding the ratio of S to N types.

S is far more prevalent in my experience. I'd say so much as 3/4 are Sensors. I don't usually have to guess people's type to know, but over time, have come to recognize Intuitives rather easily amongst the crowd. They tend to think and speak differently. Sounds obvious I know, but it's always a peculiar feeling I get from Intuitives when I meet one, and think, "they are just like me!". The real interesting thing about this hunch I get, is that I noticed I do this before I even got into the MBTI or even knew about Intuitives and sensors. The personality system just so happens to align with this difference in people I picked up, eh, right around high school.

But ya, sensors outrank Intuitives by far. What you'll see on this site however, are probably more Intuitives over sensors only because of the content discussed on this site, so it's important to remember that national statistics will not directly apply to the pool of people we have on this site.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Lots of scattered thoughts...

It says they took the MBTI, so I am guessing it is the official MBTI which is better than many online Jungian type tests; but I still wonder how much verification of type occurred post-test?

I think that more people could type as Ns than those who really have that preference because:

- Social values and climates vary and change. Many type profiles are outdated. Certain types are likely to gravitate towards the progressive values of the social climate in their youth, and you may not see their SJ "guardian mentality" until they have to guard those values as the world begins to shift in their older years. Also, beliefs and values, etc, are not personality types. The SJ guardian mentality could be geared towards a liberal viewpoint, for example (and I'd argue that many militant SJWs are such people :X ).
- Tests have awful questions:
• dated concepts and/or language (see social values changing)
• misleading language (ie feeling is presented as emotion; intuition is presented as imagination or even intelligence)
- Profiles have heavy N bias
• Many profiles start out telling you how rare/common a type is. How is that useful in anyway for typing yourself? The natural human tendency is to see yourself as unique, and this will produce a bias to relate to N profiles over S profiles.
• Other bias occurs in the language and phrasing used. It can make N types seem like they are clever, super intelligent, gifted, etc, and S types seems like bland everyday people. I think this is N bias, considering who often makes tests & writes profiles.
• The profiles are often written by N types, and they describe S types from an outside view, not how they experience themselves. According to Jung & Van der Hoop, Si types may actually be hyper aware of how they differ from "norms" or other people, which, IMO, may lead them to experience themselves differently than how they appear. That is really a risk with all types, and the best profiles are ones which actually tap into the ego itself, not a social role a person tends to take on (aka the writings of Keirsey ).

I recently was around a group who had done an unofficial MBTI online for fun, and most of them tested N, even though I think most of them are SJ. In discussing the results, it came to light that my high percentage of I and N were MUCH higher than everyone else's.

Percentage is not strength of preference, which is how people are tempted to interpret it. Because the test is an indicator of type, the percentage is an indicator of how likely that is your preference, based on the questions asked. If the questions are poor or you don't see yourself clearly, etc, then it could indicate the wrong preference for you.

Apparently, that is quite common for even the official MBTI. It is something like 75% of people that mistype up to two letters initially (I don't recall the exact numbers). So for someone who scores close on a dichotomy, without verification of type, reading the "bordering" type profiles, etc, they may easily conclude they are the wrong type.

For SPs, there is a correlation with testing N and P, which suggests to me that SPs may test N types, as the test is not describing an N preference solely so much as it is testing a Pe preference. The test is possibly unable to divide the dichotomies cleanly because there is overlap between types who at first glance don't share a preference (ie all ExxPs are "Pe types" in Jungian typology). I see this with Feeling - it seems to test more for an xxFJ preference.

What I see in typology communities is far more people mistyping as Ns, especially INxx types, and then eventually retyping as sensing types and/or extroverts.

I DO think it is reasonable to consider there are more N types in the population than old stats suggest.

Am I wrong in reading the chart from the OP as having a higher percentage of people with IQ above 110 than probably occurs in the overall population? Isn't it only about 25% of people with an IQ of 100+ ? I honestly don't remember, but this looks high.
That touches on the matter of N types perhaps having higher concentration in above average IQ population and, just my conjecture, and that book smart people may mistype as N types due to all the bias for them.

 

[Lord Lavender]

S is far more prevalent in my experience. I'd say so much as 3/4 are Sensors. I don't usually have to guess people's type to know, but over time, have come to recognize Intuitives rather easily amongst the crowd. They tend to think and speak differently. Sounds obvious I know, but it's always a peculiar feeling I get from Intuitives when I meet one, and think, "they are just like me!". The real interesting thing about this hunch I get, is that I noticed I do this before I even got into the MBTI or even knew about Intuitives and sensors. The personality system just so happens to align with this difference in people I picked up, eh, right around high school.

But ya, sensors outrank Intuitives by far. What you'll see on this site however, are probably more Intuitives over sensors only because of the content discussed on this site, so it's important to remember that national statistics will not directly apply to the pool of people we have on this site.

I have a similar experience. I find NPs more obvious Ns than NJs due to NPs extroverting their N and NJs introverting theirs so to speak. I have a similar type of experience with you spotting N types as it is just a vibe I get from them. The ratio of sensors to intutives on this site is less unbalanced than Personalty Cafe which is swarming with N types. On this forum I see a decent number of S types. I can see why Ns would be more attracted to typology than S types as it is a abstract system but many aspects of typology are pretty concrete if you think about it (MBTI tool is pretty concrete IMO as it is about observable and concrete data).

 

[Obfuscate]

The status quo is that you are born with your type but I do think environments do change people far more than we think going by the data.

i can attest to the truth of that... when i was young i was very much an enfp... as i became more isolated and things in my life became "difficult" i became an intp... it wasn't all at once, but more and more i retreated into myself... i don't think that i thought less about things as an enfp, and i am not a fan of the idea that critical thinking is the domain of xxtx... i think it was more a change of focus and processing, than a change in who i was inside or how deeply i thought about things...

post script:

i think that young me is still very much a part of my thinking, and it is part of why i have listed myself as iNtP...

 

[Abendrot]

Thanks for digging this up. The data was very interesting.
This data suggests a number of things:

1. MBTI type changes with age, which is reasonable, given that personality also changes with age.

2. Function development theory is bs.

3. Among the younger generation, SJ types are actually the rarest temperament, with SP types being the most common. This is more or less in line with my personal observations, although the N/S boundary is very arbitrary (At what point does Ni turn into Si and Ne turn into Se?). The SLOAN model does not face this problem, because it divides down the middle at 50 percentile for each axis. I personally peg the N/S boundary at the 75th percentile, so I think this experiment has overestimated the number of N types.

4. It is known that fluid intelligence decreases with age while crystallized intelligence slightly increases with age. Therefore, it can be presumed that there is a correlation between the NP-SJ axis and fluid/crystallized intelligence axis.

If we assume that the four dichotomies are independent (they line up with the Big Five axes, so they have to be somewhat independent) the frequency of each type can be estimated using the data above:

 

[Abendrot]

I'm really tired so I'll look better tomorrow, but it looks like that data is somehow biased. Take any type from the youth and compare his frequency against the one opposed on the N/S axis. It is strange as the numbers come out to be the very same.

Yep, that's because according to the experiment, the ratio of N/S in the 14-19 bracket is 50:50. I wouldn't call it biased, because everyone has a different definition of where the N/S boundary lies.

 

[Seymour]

Thanks for digging this up. The data was very interesting.
This data suggests a number of things:

1. MBTI type changes with age, which is reasonable, given that personality also changes with age.

2. Function development theory is bs.

3. Among the younger generation, SJ types are actually the rarest temperament, with SP types being the most common. This is more or less in line with my personal observations, although the N/S boundary is very arbitrary (At what point does Ni turn into Si and Ne turn into Se?). The SLOAN model does not face this problem, because it divides down the middle at 50 percentile for each axis. I personally use the 75 percentile rule for the N/S boundary, so I think this experiment has overestimated the number of N types.

4. It is known that fluid intelligence decreases with age while crystallized intelligence slightly increases with age. Therefore, it can be presumed that there is a correlation between the NP-SJ axis and fluid/crystallized intelligence.

If we assume that the four dichotomies are independent (they line up with the Big Five axes, so they have to be somewhat independent) the frequency of each type can be estimated using the data above:

I entirely agree that function development theory (and function theory) is BS.

Secondly, in the original table, I'd be curious where the data came from. We can't tell from just the table how the participants were selected, and whether that data is applicable to the general population.

Thirdly, (to respond to OA) the IQ scale is recalibrate over time such that the average IQ remains 100... so half of people are above, and half below. Average IQ had been rising over time (see the Flynn Effect) but recently has begun falling.

Finally, when one looks at Big Five studies on traits over the lifespan, people tend to become more Introverted and Agreeable (if less Open) as they age. Also, Conscientiousness peaks in middle age. So, translating this into MBTI form (always tenuous, since we are talking correlations of correlations) we would expect people to become more I, S, and F as they age... with J peaking around middle age.

 

[Abendrot]

I entirely agree that function development theory (and function theory) is BS.

Secondly, in the original table, I'd be curious where the data came from. We can't tell from just the table how the participants were selected, and whether that data is applicable to the general population.

Thirdly, (to respond to OA) the IQ scale is recalibrate over time such that the average IQ remains 100... so half of people are above, and half below. Average IQ had been rising over time (see the Flynn Effect) but recently has begun falling.

Finally, when one looks at Big Five studies on traits over the lifespan, people tend to become more Introverted and Agreeable (if less Open) as they age. Also, Conscientiousness peaks in middle age. So, translating this into MBTI form (always tenuous, since we are talking correlations of correlations) we would expect people to become more I, S, and F as they age... with J peaking around middle age.

1. In my opinion, function theory, along with most things in MBTI is about half BS. Functional development theory however, seems to be not much better than astrology.

2. Unfortunately, there is nothing about their selection method, so sampling bias is a possibility. I think this is from the same paper:

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe statistical IQ (not chronological iq) is calibrated such that the mean is 100 for every age group. So Flynn effect should only be measurable if we give the same test to people of the same age across a time span.

4. Interesting, there seems to be broad agreement with the FFM results and this study, although here there is a slight increase in T preference with age.

 

[Seymour]

1. In my opinion, function theory, along with most things in MBTI is about half BS. Functional development theory however, seems to be not much better than astrology.

Well, the MBTI instrument holds up quite well compared to the Big Five... see Reckful's post on type dynamics (and there are some related posts). I think you can still get value from function descriptions, as long as you treat them description of preference combinations. So "Fi" because "F+P", etc.

2. Unfortunately, there is nothing about their selection method, so sampling bias is a possibility. I think this is from the same paper:

Frustrating... you'd think they could have included a sentence or two.

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe statistical IQ (not chronological iq) is calibrated such that the mean is 100 for every age group. So Flynn effect should only be measurable if we give the same test to people of the same age across a time span.

I believe that's correct... and that's effectively what is done to recalibrate the tests (and to study the Flynn Effect). The wikipedia article describes some of that.

4. Interesting, there seems to be broad agreement with the FFM results and this study, although here there is a slight increase in T preference with age.

Yep... although the FFM results draw on some nicely large national samples. Would be interesting to google around and see if there are other studies lurking about.