[Greensbr]

I think the reason the world is far from "perfect," or has alot of problems that could easily be solved but still remain unsolved, is because there is an imbalance of each of the 16 functions.

For some reason the MBTI claims that 75% of the people tested are S's, and 30% are introverted (or something). I guess it is based on pretty subjective principles, of which I cant explain, otherwise we would see a 50:50 ratio in each of the types (or 6.25% of the population for each personality type)

But lets just say its imbalanced.

The reason the world is what it is, is due to a dominance of ESTJs, creating an "ESTJ bias" in almost all institutions, legally, socially etc. (mentioned here: Toward a Diversity of Psychological Type in Organization)

What I want to know: Is there hope? What is the root of all evil we see here in society? Do you think 2012 will bring about any metaphysical change which will bring balance.. in terms of the mbti? (Lol, im serious though.) Is there anything I can do to contribute to balancing the world, if only in my practical life? Or do you have any better ideas?

 

[Psilocin]

Yeah.

Sure man.

 

[sarek]

It might be better to have a different distribution of functions away from the current ESTJ dominance.

But how? I dont think such a change could come about in any other way than as a result of a change of the entire social paradigm.
By thinking in terms of rearranging the functions you are most likely reversing the cause and the effect. If the paradigm changes, the ordering of the functions will change as a (side)effect.

 

[Hammerhand]

If we see it in terms of Darwinism, is it really odd that we are so rare? :tongue:

Considering that we are born as the person we are, I actually find it to be highly possible that personality is a 'trait' stored in Dna, if we look at society, and history, does it look like a Infp friendly world?

Could it actually be so that in the beginning, there was a equality, which via evolution was lessened, favoring others?

Please do note, this is NOT meant as a rant in any way, I'm just hungry for others view on this.

 

[heartturnedtoporcelain]

I've always about how MBTI played out among the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens - mostly in terms of how it worked out for us folk who were loners or ant-social or were not valuable in some distinct way to immediate survival. How did any of us truly survive? How did types like INTPs and INFPs etc find any kind of niche in the world? I know we don't really have a place in the world right now (us INFPs - well, a lot of people think that that's the case), but we are able to survive. Maybe that's the key, we would have been doing what a lot of us do now - somewhat crappy jobs so we can survive and yet it would not have been fulfilling ... hmmm I need to think about this, my ideas are all muddled/stream-of-consciousness-like.

Thoughts?

ETA - none of this makes sense :frustrating:

ETA2 - apparently it does haha

 

[ponyjoyride]

I'm starting to get a little bored of this demonizing of ESTJs.

 

[Hammerhand]

I've always about how MBTI played out among the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens - mostly in terms of how it worked out for us folk who were loners or ant-social or were not valuable in some distinct way to immediate survival. How did any of us truly survive? How did types like INTPs and INFPs etc find any kind of niche in the world? I know we don't really have a place in the world right now (us INFPs - well, a lot of people think that that's the case), but we are able to survive. Maybe that's the key, we would have been doing what a lot of us do now - somewhat crappy jobs so we can survive and yet it would not have been fulfilling ... hmmm I need to think about this, my ideas are all muddled/stream-of-consciousness-like.

Thoughts?

ETA - none of this makes sense :frustrating:

It does make sense, relax slacker :tongue:

 

[heartturnedtoporcelain]

I'm starting to get a little bored of this demonizing of ESTJs.

I have no problem with ESTJs - I just have a problem that their point of view seems to be the gold standard in society when that it is almost the exact opposite of how I see the world. There is nothing inherently wrong with them at all - I have just have a pet peeve about how the world is generally structured.

 

[Drea]

I hate topics like this. SJs aren't evil soul-sucking tyrants, guys. :/

 

[wisdom]

If you asked any Intuitive types, they'd probably agree that the world would be a better place if the percentage of INFPs were higher. ISFPs likely would agree, too.

 

[Halcy0n]

I think the main point here is that the MAIN view of the world seems to be largely based off of your average (and I'm making a HUGE generalization here) ESTJ's view. Think about it - their preferences would make them ideal workers, and in this society, it's all about getting lots of work done in little time. ESTJs are great at that, from my experience. My ESTJ aunt works like 4 jobs and still finds time for her family and fun time. Isn't that ideal?

Now, we INFPs tend to focus on different things, like the more "fluffy" aspects of life. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. We need dreamers as much as we need doers. It is a little sad that today's society has little use for the dreamer, but is society always right? Hell no.

Really, the world is what it is. Hopefully we can all, in the future, have equal valued insight into the world, and feel equal and valued.

And I happen to really respect STJs, no matter how much they scare me. :crazy:

 

[wisdom]

I don't respect STJs. About the only thing they do well is show loyalty to family. They don't even treat their children nicely, from what I've heard. The actual way they operate in the business world is not particularly ethical, so f- their work ethic.

"Hopefully" is an overused word. We should do something more than dream. INFPs should be trying to push ideas and values into the mainstream. Maybe we need to work with other Intuitives to do that. Also, INFPs who want to reproduce and like like-minded types should find a way to do that. Because if most of us are always single, there probably will be fewer INFPs in fewer generations.

 

[youll.never.know]

I think that the reason that ESTJs are so prominent is because they are the best worker-type people, and on an animalistic, evolutionary level that is a good thing. In nature, the goal of a species is to survive, just for the sake of surviving, which some types(most apparently ESTJs) are best suited for.
I think that INFPs(and other similar types) are the more human humans, if that makes any sense. We have developed further off of from living life just to live(which in our modern world is best described by the: make money, nice house, nice car, breed well mentality) to think more about the meaning of life than survival, and to feel more, and to empathize with other humans and creatures, and to develop more human ways of gathering information(intuition) rather than animalistic ones(sensing).



and also, I agree with everyone who is defending the ESTJs. They were born to be that way, just as we were born to be this way, and neither way is wrong or should be criticized or disrespected.

 

[youll.never.know]

Also, INFPs who want to reproduce and like like-minded types should find a way to do that. Because if most of us are always single, there probably will be fewer INFPs in fewer generations.

I disagree. I think that it makes more sense that INFPs are actually becoming more prominent as evolution continues and allows us(the human race) to develop more human qualities and separate further from our animalistic tendencies.

 

[Lex]

if it's not too arrogant to assume this-- we're very capable of dealing with and accepting types like STJs. I think we accept them as they are more than they accept us as we are. I'm not saying that they're heartless, judgmental assholes, I just think that NFPs are a little more laid-back about conformity and such. Maybe there's so many more STJs in the world because they wouldn't be able to handle a world of NFP's. Although I must say that I am very fond of STJs. But perhaps I just love everybody too much, heh

It's a shame to think that there's so few INFPs out there.....but at the same time it's okay, because I like to think that we're genuine... I like that about us

 

[wisdom]

I disagree. I think that it makes more sense that INFPs are actually becoming more prominent as evolution continues and allows us(the human race) to develop more human qualities and separate further from our animalistic tendencies.

Until a few decades ago, probably. Since then, no. Maybe it's not a coincidence that IQ has stagnated in many developed nations. Although a trend from S to N could be ongoing.

 

[sarek]

I think we may be looking at this too much from the point of view of the individual. But evolution is not only driven by the survival of the individual, its also driven by the survival of the species.
If there is a genetically determined distribution of personality traits and types, than it is most likely to have been largely established during the ice age eras and our present distribution of traits will more or less reflect that.
However, the demands of a highly technological civilisation may require a different distribution of subtypes. Evolution simply has not been fast enough to adapt to the new fitness landscape as our brain works a million times faster than evolution ever could.

 

[wisdom]

Things could shift rapidly if epigenetics contributes to personality or if personality type is somewhat heritable and changes in social structure/social norms make it harder for some people to find mates. I'm convinced that urbanization favors extraverts over introverts in that, and many societies have increasingly urbanized over the past 150 years.

 

[Greensbr]

It seems like we are accessing this based on genetics, which may mean that people have certain "genetic" limitations as well as allowances. Aside from nature/nurture and other such theories which seek to describe the cause and effect of human experience, it comes down to two questions:

What is ultimately the most unchangeable part of yourself? What is the most changeable?

The MBTI states that personality does not change... but then it states that personality becomes "balanced" over time. It also states that certain functions, which exist as a result of your preferences, develop. In order to develope, that is also a result of change right?

It just appears sometimes that the MBTI is like following a religion with unanswered questions. The MBTI tries to classify consciousness (just like a neurologist would classify say, your nervous system), and it makes sense that you cannot develope feeling while developing thinking, or you cannot develop sensing while developing intuition, and that these relationships are dichotomous (MAYBE it makes sense)... but I mean where the hell does it get the idea that 75% of the population are dominately sensing and so on... what is the criteria for that? How can you EVER quantify consciousness like that, or merely say that one preference is more potent then the other?

I've been on the MBTI for years now and I rarely hear anyone explore these fundamental problems or offer any explanation (cognitively, evolutionarily etc. or what have you!) pertaining to the MBTI.

I mean I DONT CARE if you get metaphysical, at least its an explanation.. I just see it so little here.

 

[Sgtshanky]

I don't respect STJs. About the only thing they do well is show loyalty to family. They don't even treat their children nicely, from what I've heard. The actual way they operate in the business world is not particularly ethical, so f- their work ethic.

Well what exactly are INFP good at anyways?

I kid of course, but I want to know what you are basing these generalizations on. What exactly makes their work style "not particularly ethical"? Almost all STJs I know are incredibly responsible and hard working.