Why are some types more common and others more rare? - Page 3

Why are some types more common and others more rare?

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 28 of 28
Thank Tree27Thanks

This is a discussion on Why are some types more common and others more rare? within the Myers Briggs Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Originally Posted by Dedication From my understanding and in my own opinion, with the cognitive functions we are just describing ...

  1. #21
    INFJ - The Protectors

    Quote Originally Posted by Dedication View Post
    From my understanding and in my own opinion, with the cognitive functions we are just describing how our brain works.

    In our country it is a well known fact that drinking alcohol from age 25+ is no problem at all because your brain will have been fully developed... A statement which I personally consider to be nonsense, but at times it used to rationalize excessive alcohol usage as if it somehow won't stunt growth.

    According to this: Human brain development does not stop at adolescence: Research our brain doesn't stop developing, certain parts continue to develop over time, even behond the years of 30.

    I think that you can view cognition development the same way as you can see the development in a child. If you actively give your child mental stimulation: in forms of complex toys, intellectual puzzle's, make sure the child does homework, etc, then the child will turn out to be a bit smarter and brighter than most other children around his age, it does mean that a bit of experience will help development. But nevertheless, all children will reach adulthood and will develop with time, the difference will be quite small, but noticeable.

    I do think that cognition can be developed with experience, but only to a small degree, I think it largely depends on age. But, I don't want to undermine the importence of experience, I think that it is the single most important ingredient in becoming succesful, but that would derail this thread even further as it could become a topic on its own.



    My little country is run by INFP's, our biggest partys are just different groups of INFP's with different clashing visions, when they have to work together they are never able to comprise, and when they do, they all fail to delever on their promises. We can't handle money, and it shows, our taxes are high. It is all being used to make sure everybody is safe and that everybody is well taken care off, in a way this isn't a bad thing. We constantly get promises, but there is never any decisive action being taken. Luckily, our country has a couple of very succesful entrepreneurs and they make sure we are constantly doing business with everybody all over Europe, if it wasn't for them we would be nothing.

    I suspect that the 'everyone over X years old gets to vote' is closely related to Si/Ne cognition. Si can be an incredibly nice function, I noticed from personal experience that it desires and creates softness, harmony, equality, a hug, internal peace, etc. It cares about this so much that it hinders all potential, it stunts the growth of the individual if it could have a negative impact on the group. It does not care about sacrificing something today, in order to have a much better tomorrow, if it means things will not be equal for all and everybody. Si and Ne are blind to Ni, they really can't see futher than tomorrow.

    Warren Buffet, the richest ISTJ in the world would be a perfect example. He never dared to put a single penny in technology because he had no way of telling its potential. Even today, he avois technology like the plague and sticks to what he knows, the only investment he makes in these area's are through Bill Gates (ENTJ) and Charlie Munger (INTJ). Charlie Munger is also the man who was his business partner in the first place, they made an investment model and found Coca Cola together. Warren Buffet relience on Charlie Munger has been huge, as Warren Buffet has said that Charlie Munger has been his adviser numerous of times, everytime he gets stuck he asks Charlie Munger for help.

    Warren Buffets strategy to get rich is pretty simple in a nutshell: Invest in an already succesful company and maintain it, over the years it will net you profit. And for him, it did.

    Imo, Si runs politics, it can do a whole lot, but don't expect it to care about Ni.
    There are plenty of studies to show how we create new neural pathways all the time even well passed our 90s. For those who continue to have active brains and lifestyles into advanced years are more likely to live passed their 100th birthday and not develop dementia.

    Si-s would probably care more about Ni when it comes to war on their country.

    From what it appears that some countries utilise Ni more than others and I think Sweden and Germany nurture Ni more than most which gains them an edge in technology and future economics.

    Oh yes, and, alcohol doesn't really harm neurons as much as the dendrite connections at any age. Excessive drinking leads to damaged dendrites which leads to slower motor and mental responses over a prolonged period of heavy drinking. When longevity is linked to alcohol the centenarian who drinks will normally only drink half a glass of wine or half a glass or beer or one shot of liquor a day which is much less than the average drinker.
    Last edited by Eudaimonia; 05-25-2014 at 12:25 PM.

  2. #22
    Unknown

    Some are just really tasty as not as well done meat.

  3. #23

    Quote Originally Posted by Dedication View Post
    Ascribing masculinity to thinking doesn't have to be based on a feeling evaluation, it can also come from personal observation. This link: Myers Briggs Statistics | Statistic Brain says that while 56.5 % of men are thinking types, 75.5 % of women are feelers.
    And how much should we trust the dichotomy tests, do you think? Should we blindly believe that there is no societal and/or environmental pressure placed upon people to answer in a certain way to a ~90 question inventory? I'll quote myself from another topic where I brought up this simple thought about the exact same statistics:

    Quote Originally Posted by disguise View Post
    Interesting. I would rather see a more credible source on this. Which study was this related to? What are the sample sizes?

    I'll use Wikipedia to provide a point. (Pardon my lack of "source correctness", if you will, but you'll find the actual credits behind the link placed in the end of these paragraphs.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In 1991, the National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from MBTI research studies and concluded that only the I-E scale has high correlations with comparable scales of other instruments and low correlations with instruments designed to assess different concepts, showing strong validity. In contrast, the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. The 1991 review committee concluded at the time there was "not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs". This study based its measurement of validity on "criterion-related validity (i.e., does the MBTI predict specific outcomes related to interpersonal relations or career success/job performance?)." Studies have found that there is insufficient evidence to make claims about utility, particularly of the four letter type given after the test.

    The accuracy of the MBTI depends on honest self-reporting by the person tested. Unlike some personality measures, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or the Personality Assessment Inventory, the MBTI does not use validity scales to assess exaggerated or socially desirable responses. As a result, individuals motivated to do so can fake their responses, and one study found that the MBTI judgment/perception dimension correlates with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire lie scale. If respondents "fear they have something to lose, they may answer as they assume they should." Source
    Also the Myers-Briggs Foundation has themselves stated the possible invalidity of the T-F scale:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Myers-Briggs Foundation
    The T-F pair tends to have the lowest reliability of the four scales. Source
    Are you sure it is not society trying to push people for a more desirable result for their gender (or making them try to be "honest" about themselves and answer in a way that a woman/man "is supposed to")? I want to be viewed as a kind and sweet person, but do I really fulfill those traits? (Are they traits of a Feeler anyway?) Besides, many can agree by their personal experience that the at least online tests can be quite off course when compared to the original Jungian cognitive functions. Mistyping is common.
    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by ISTPersonality View Post
    Why are ISFJs so common among woman, nurturing instincts of course. It tells us that biology and gender do have an influence on the innate personality we are all born with.
    Sure gender plays role at least in how the environment/society acts towards a person (and this way could be innate), but if no societal pressure was imposed would there be less female ISFJs and more ISTJs instead? You might want to watch this video I stole from @DualGnosis 's thread.

    The woman explains how such a simple thing (that might be innate) as how fast an infant is comforted when he cries could effect the character. If you think about it, an ISFJ's (which is according to some statistics, the most common type among females) most prioritized function is Si just like an ISTJ's (which is according to some statistics the most common type among males). It could well be that the dominant function is innate, but maybe the auxiliary develops into its place only later and due to the environment. Let's link this back to the video: the society imposes that a girl needs to tend to her feelings while the boy needs to contain/ignore them. A girl learns to value Fe while the boy learns to value Te through societal influence, resulting in the ISFJ female and the ISTJ male.

    What I am getting at here is that the environment demands a certain kind of structure from the society that will help the species to survive. If we continue trying to rid off gender roles it might well be that in the future there are a more equal amount of Feelers and Thinkers for each gender. There could be other similar conditions for the N/S dichotomy as well.
    DualGnosis thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Quote Originally Posted by disguise View Post
    And how much should we trust the dichotomy tests, do you think? Should we blindly believe that there is no societal and/or environmental pressure placed upon people to answer in a certain way to a ~90 question inventory? I'll quote myself from another topic where I brought up this simple thought about the exact same statistics:
    I'd like to quote the infamous intjonn on you: 'R U Kidding? First of all there is No 'Us''. It is kind of hard to take your post seriously when you start a question with 'should we blindly believe' when you're talking to an INTJ. INTJ's don't do this Fe unity, community stuff, just the individual case by case.

    I used that source to show that a feeling evaluation isn't the only way to come to such a conclusion. I never stated that the method, the conclusion or even the source in itself was correct.

  6. #25

    Quote Originally Posted by Dedication View Post
    I used that source to show that a feeling evaluation isn't the only way to come to such a conclusion. I never stated that the method, the conclusion or even the source in itself was correct.
    K'.

    All's good, the world is not falling apart. Just relax.

  7. #26
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Quote Originally Posted by disguise View Post
    K'.

    All's good, the world is not falling apart. Just relax.
    It's not? Well that's no fun
    disguise thanked this post.

  8. #27
    INFJ - The Protectors

    Well, it would actually be extremely strange if the world had an equal balance of personalities. That isn't "natural." It doesn't happen. Perfect bell-shape curves also don't happen, due to the chaos theory. In fact, I would be more inclined to not believe as much in Myers Briggs if it was even across the board.

    There are different amounts of personalities because it is the path the world took. There are FAR too many variables to consider to even begin mapping out how our society got this way. Something as simple as someone dying hundreds of years ago could have caused a major shift in the distribution of personalities.

    ---

    Mathematically speaking, we can predict where a pool-table ball will land. We calculate the strength of the push, the weight of the ball, and the length of the table. We plot it in the computer 100 times and it lands exactly where we predict. Yet, when we do it in practice, the ball lands no where near where it was originally predicted. Why?

    Due to small imperfections on the ball, indents in the table, combined breathing patterns of those watching, breeze from the window, uneven distribution of fibers on the table causing difference in resistance, and uncontrollable variables within the body that causes different hits to the ball, it will land somewhere else.

    This is also why weather still can't be fully predicted, because there are too many unseen variables at play. With something as sensitive as personality, I can only imagine all the things at play that caused shifts in society. Every war--every election--every marriage--and even every step that altered the path of humanity and it's combined personality.
    disguise thanked this post.

  9. #28
    INFJ - The Protectors

    Quote Originally Posted by Scelerat View Post
    I would think that if type has a genetic component, certain types have been more suited for survival throughout the history of humanity.
    I don't see this as the answer because the types all seem equally capable of bearing children of any type. I'm not sure if there's any biological plausibility to what I'm about to suggest, but I believe it may reflect the necessity of the types within society. That's not to say that my own type, for example, are unnecessary, only that great numbers of us would be. Nor is it to say the opposite of a more common type.


     
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. What MBTI types are most common for each of the Enneagram types?
    By MyName in forum Enneagram Personality Theory Forum
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-27-2018, 08:47 PM
  2. [INTP] Why are some personality types rare?
    By revendel in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-12-2013, 12:00 PM
  3. [ENFP] Why are ENFP 8s rare? You'd think they would be more common
    By Swordsman of Mana in forum ENFP Forum - The Inspirers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-21-2012, 10:30 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 07:11 PM
  5. [INFP] Why are some types so rare?
    By InWonder in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-23-2011, 04:15 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:46 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0