Personality Cafe banner

61 - 75 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Not to mention that everyone exhibits different functions to different degrees.....like S is preferred at 75% in your test or J is preferred at 12%. And that can change when you develop through life and heck, even when your mood changes through the day.

I'm basically both and INFP and and ENFP because I have been both at various times in my life, and my latest test put me at only a 1% preference for I. So how the heck do I skew the statistics? MBTI might point to a few common characteristics, but we all still do have some room for variance...

It makes gathering stats a bit complicated, and yes, I do think, as much as we all are interested in studying MBTI, most of us here probably don't want to be put in a box, so to speak. It makes sense that people hope to be the most unique or rare type.....we all want to feel special!
Yes. Since MBTI is stereotyping. Many are but slightly tilted towards E/I, S/N, T/F etc. They must display characteristics of many types, and fit no description fully. I myself is quite a caricature with stron values in al, so the descriptions are quite accurate. But I am more empathic than the stereotype...

So the problem is knowing yourself when you type. Not that the statistics derived from lots of typing is useless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
On Type Distribution Statistics

Though this thread is a bit stale, I can't help but put my two cents in ...

I value knowing the relative frequencies of the types because I am a Female INTP and have never met another ... :unsure:

Here's a chart I made a while back ...


I'm not sure where the data came from (PUE? Types Differing? TypeWatching? Internet? somewhere else?) ... It says MyPersonality.info but the stats there are not the same (changed?).

I'm planning on updating it sometime with the best stats I can find ... (suggestions?) ...
and providing the spreadsheet (with internal check sums) on my website ...

Oh, and here's a chart to keep track of all the lingo in the Keirsey books/sites:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,721 Posts
I find that second chart quite interesting because it shows that for each temperament, there is one type who is a responder, initiator, coworker and contender. It's neat because it shows how each type can have something in common with a type of each of the other three temperaments. I definitely feel a bit of a connection to ISFP's and INFP's, and I guess in some ways INTP's. So it's interesting.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,896 Posts
Thank you for recognizing this. I was wondering how there are mbti statistics for the entire population of the United States. :happy:*hugs*
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
70 Posts
To be honest, I really don't care about my type. I find MBTI extremely fascinating. I like the idea of categories for people, it's a nice, boxy idea. I think just because of how individual everyone is, it's not going to be possible to shove everyone into a label. But this is certainly the closest you can get. It's cool to look at your type and think that this is why you do so much of the weird shit you do. I like this site because it's like, look at all the other people who do the same shit as me! I actually am more interested in this forum than I am in trying to find myself or whatever. I can see why my friend is fond of this whole thing, it's neat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
Where is the evidence that sensors are such a vast majority? I really don't buy it.
I have thought this many times. It seems to me that S basically means: won't accept anything but concrete data (either documentation from a respected source or observation from personal experience). But most everyone I know seems very comfortable with accepting wildly speculative ideas they get from one another (oftentimes gossip). How can 'most' of these people be S's? The only way I could see that supporting 'S' traits is that they trust their friend as a respectable source? I find that in the description of S traits, there is the suggestion that S's are much more likely to trust/have high expectations of authority than N's. I have noticed that the vast, vast majority of people I come in contact with DO have way more faith in authority than I do and seem to be unsettled (if not offended) by my cynicism. Maybe it is implied that this trust/expectation is pervasive with S's, and therefore it applies to their close friends as well as authority? Though I am trying to rationalize this, I still think this is a contradictory idea and can't understand why attention to detail and mistrust for theory should in anyway be grouped together with trust for certain people/institutions. However, the myers-briggs type indicator, to me, seems to imply it. Whereas I do not agree with this, I overlook it as not being detrimental enough to undo the test's positivity or usefulness. I 'theorize' that most people probably score some mixture of S and N, and this may be why. I suppose, for example, an American who scored S all the way would not only be a 'show me the proof' kind of person, but also a 'God Bless America, respect the cops and the President' type person. An American who scored N all the way would be an 'I don't need evidence, I can just tell it'll work. To hell with the cops and the President' type person. Let's hope no one scores 100% either way. ha ha ha
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
sensors have intuition as well... why is that so difficult to comprehend?

ISFP: Fi-Se-Ni-Te <-- INTJ <-- ENTJ <-- ESFP
INTJ: Ni-Te-Fi-Se <-- ISFP <-- ENTJ <-- ESFP

and i've said it before. around 50% of this board is mistyped.
and it's simply because people prefer stereotypes. just look at these threads, the forum is filled with them:
"do you, as an INTJ, hover over the toilet when you take a poop?"
and if over 50% of the people say "yes" then the other half that said "no" is not considered INTJ anymore.
not only are these questions ludacris... the way people are being typed is ludacris.

Se and Si prefer realistic material.
Ne and Ni prefer bullshit.
that is it. there is no need to further complicate these functions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surreal Snake

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
The Most Important Question of All . . .

When it comes to type statistics, the most important question to ask is, what are you going to do with this information? Why do you need to know how common or rare a certain type is? How is this going to change your personal development? That is something you have to figure out for yourself.
I'm a restless person and I prefer to cut to the chase and skip unnecessary details as much as I can, but having a good overview of a situation is still important to me. Therefore I enjoy statistics, and other sources of information which appeal to me on a wider scale. Also, I enjoy telling someone whom I've just typed a little bit about their type, and among other things I tell them how rare their type is. In some cases they become quite moved and may say something along the lines of "oh, so that's why I feel like I never fit in."

I'm seeing a lot of pretty hostile debating here, but I must admit that I'm really having trouble understanding the purpose of this thread. Of course there is always room for miscalculation when conducting a statistical evaluation, especially with something as complex as personality typing. (I've had a lot of friends attempt to type themselves - fail at it - and have to interview and type them myself because they misunderstood the questions, or didn't like their own honest answers.) But does that give you a reason to condemn this information? Statistics may not be an exact science, but can be a good estimation or prediction of the truth, and that is valuable enough to me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
There fixed two words for you...
thanks for ruining the purpose behind Se and Si,
making everyone on the entire planet completely incapable of realistic thoughts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
sensors have intuition as well... why is that so difficult to comprehend?

ISFP: Fi-Se-Ni-Te <-- INTJ <-- ENTJ <-- ESFP
INTJ: Ni-Te-Fi-Se <-- ISFP <-- ENTJ <-- ESFP

and i've said it before. around 50% of this board is mistyped.
and it's simply because people prefer stereotypes. just look at these threads, the forum is filled with them:
"do you, as an INTJ, hover over the toilet when you take a poop?"
and if over 50% of the people say "yes" then the other half that said "no" is not considered INTJ anymore.
not only are these questions ludacris... the way people are being typed is ludacris.

Se and Si prefer realistic material.
Ne and Ni prefer bullshit.
that is it. there is no need to further complicate these functions.
That's why I said I figured most people probably score a mixed percentage of S and N. As for the stereotype thing- that's what the myers-briggs is about. The point of the test is to simplify people down into nice, neat and generalized boxes so a person can get the 'gist' of themselves, or give other people a general idea of themselves. If it didn't stereotype it wouldn't be useful. As for people expecting you to fit into the box perfectly or you are not 'XXXX' anymore, I'd say that's pretty true and a bit less useful. ;) You think I think I fit the INTJ thing perfectly? Hell no! First of all- I have a HUGE dislike for 'theory', am a painstaking observer of details, and only trust what I have actually seen work in the physical world. But I seem to ALWAYS test a slightly higher percentage of N, and have traced it back to the many questions in the test that asked about- not focus on observation or mistrust for theory, but social ideas. Here are some examples from the last test I took: "are you predictable?"- answer: no. "Are you conventional?". answer: no. "Are you traditional?" answer: no. "Are you novel?"- answer: yes. "I am random." answer: yes. They might as well have asked "Do you wear polo shirts, khakis and believe in marriage as a sacred institution or are you a dirty hippie?" Ha ha ha. This is what makes me believe the test is intertwining respect for traditional values (i.e. institutions) into the hard facts preference described as S traits. (which, as I mentioned before, I don't agree with but accept as a not too terribly serious flaw, as I suspect it is reflected in hardly anyone testing 100% either way.)

By the way, that last test I took is pretty good. It's on a 1-5 scale for the responses and tells you what type you ARE, what type you prefer to BE, and what type you are attracted to. Here's the site: Jung Preference Exploration Personality Test
According to it I AM an INTJ, I'd PREFER to be an ISTJ (go figure) and I'm attracted to XXXJ. (I,E,S, N, T and F all scored 50% 50% here) So as long as you're neat, you've got a chance with me. :shocked:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
The Problem with Type Statistics​

Biases can influence both test results and behavioral observations. Books have been written about sources of bias, so I won't go into detail on every possible source of bias.
I have wondered recently if I am more likely to think people are INTJs (like me) than other types. I have thought of this because I made a mini-questionnaire for fun and tried it out on a person I talk to at work. I pegged him as an ENTJ pretty fast and I thought to myself:' that seems like a bit of a coincidence that the first person I try it out on comes out relatively close to my own type'. Haven't had a chance to test my suspicion yet, but it will be very interesting to find out whether or not this is likely. If it is likely, not only could that mean that I have trouble understanding people who are not like myself, it could mean I have trouble understanding that there ARE people unlike myself. Or, possibly, I don't want to be different. But, then again, maybe that's why him and I can talk- because we are similar. (But I can't see that being too significant as I've been married to my best friend for five years, who is an ENFP and I've never talked to someone more in all my life).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
That's why I said I figured most people probably score a mixed percentage of S and N. As for the stereotype thing- that's what the myers-briggs is about. The point of the test is to simplify people down into nice, neat and generalized boxes so a person can get the 'gist' of themselves, or give other people a general idea of themselves. If it didn't stereotype it wouldn't be useful. As for people expecting you to fit into the box perfectly or you are not 'XXXX' anymore, I'd say that's pretty true and a bit less useful. ;) You think I think I fit the INTJ thing perfectly? Hell no! First of all- I have a HUGE dislike for 'theory', am a painstaking observer of details, and only trust what I have actually seen work in the physical world. But I seem to ALWAYS test a slightly higher percentage of N, and have traced it back to the many questions in the test that asked about- not focus on observation or mistrust for theory, but social ideas. Here are some examples from the last test I took: "are you predictable?"- answer: no. "Are you conventional?". answer: no. "Are you traditional?" answer: no. "Are you novel?"- answer: yes. "I am random." answer: yes. They might as well have asked "Do you wear polo shirts, khakis and believe in marriage as a sacred institution or are you a dirty hippie?" Ha ha ha. This is what makes me believe the test is intertwining respect for traditional values (i.e. institutions) into the hard facts preference described as S traits. (which, as I mentioned before, I don't agree with but accept as a not too terribly serious flaw, as I suspect it is reflected in hardly anyone testing 100% either way.)

By the way, that last test I took is pretty good. It's on a 1-5 scale for the responses and tells you what type you ARE, what type you prefer to BE, and what type you are attracted to. Here's the site: Jung Preference Exploration Personality Test
According to it I AM an INTJ, I'd PREFER to be an ISTJ (go figure) and I'm attracted to XXXJ. (I,E,S, N, T and F all scored 50% 50% here) So as long as you're neat, you've got a chance with me. :shocked:
i had my cognitive functions reassessed after i did these tests and had random people type me telling me what kind of types i was. i was typed as an INFP by tests for the longest time. and had people type me as INFP for the longest time. and then i was typed as INTJ by tests, and then ISFJ by people for a while, and then INFJ. and then back to INFP. and then, finally ISFP, my real type. only INTJ was close to my real type (cognitive functions Ni-Te-Fi-Se / Fi-Se-Ni-Te). i'm apparently still an "ixfj" to some people even though i'm not because they consider me "judgmental".

today i'm 100% sure about my MBTI / JCF type, because i've had time to pick all the information i've gathered apart and strung it back together again my own way (that's the easiest way for me to learn (Ni-Te)).
 
  • Like
Reactions: mickey

·
Retard
Joined
·
16,329 Posts
..

i had my cognitive functions reassessed after i did these tests and had random people type me telling me what kind of types i was. i was typed as an INFP by tests for the longest time. and had people type me as INFP for the longest time. and then i was typed as INTJ by tests, and then ISFJ by people for a while, and then INFJ. and then back to INFP. and then, finally ISFP, my real type. only INTJ was close to my real type (cognitive functions Ni-Te-Fi-Se / Fi-Se-Ni-Te). i'm apparently still an "ixfj" to some people even though i'm not because they consider me "judgmental".

today i'm 100% sure about my MBTI / JCF type, because i've had time to pick all the information i've gathered apart and strung it back together again my own way (that's the easiest way for me to learn (Ni-Te)).



I respect Michael's judgement.This is his reality.He has always been very honest.
 
61 - 75 of 75 Posts
Top