View Poll Results: Are you an INTj?

Voters
159. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am a male INTj

    0 0%
  • I am a female INTj

    0 0%
  • 159 100.00%
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Are there more male INTj's than female INTj's?

  1. #1
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Are there more male INTj's than female INTj's?

    What do you think?
    Do the INTj type is more common among male gender?
    That would be quite interesting to find out so please give your sincere contribution to this poll.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I doubt this forum would be an accurate representation.

    I believe there'd probably be more male INTJs though, or at least, more male INTJs that are comfortable with *being* INTJ.

    Just like there's probably more female ENFPs.
    ENFP - Ethical Subtype.
    In touch with semireality.

  3. #3
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll bet it's even, but I'll also bet that the males are more honest with themselves.

    BTW, INTjs are soooo hot!
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    INTJs are a minority in the general population but a majority in the gifted!

    I'm the stereotypical loser but one day I'll be popular for all the right reasons.
    Remember to keep things simple and not any simpler like Einstein once said.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snowyc
    I'm the stereotypical loser but one day I'll be popular for all the right reasons.
    Hmm, arrogance or optimism?

    Quote Originally Posted by NeonMonk
    I believe there'd probably be more male INTJs though, or at least, more male INTJs that are comfortable with *being* INTJ.
    Well, I was uncomfortable being INTj before I knew about it... Once I discovered I was INTj it was a relief (e.g. "Hey! I'm like this for a reason, namely, because I'm an INTj.").
    TiNe, LII, INTj, etc.
    "I feel like I should be making a sarcastic comment right now, but you're just so cute!" - Shego, Kim Possible

  6. #6
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks Pedro for the statistic data.
    This result I expected.

    And yes I think for male INTj is easier to accept their personality. As a male it isn't such a big deal if you prove to be a reserved person, intellectual analytical type. On the contrary, people seem to value this traits, but not regarding women, unfortunately.

    Well, I was uncomfortable being INTj before I knew about it... Once I discovered I was INTj it was a relief (e.g. "Hey! I'm like this for a reason, namely, because I'm an INTj.").
    Yes XcaliburGirl that's exactly about me too
    It's a relief to know it's not my fault for being the way I am, but that of course doesn't mean I can't improve some things, but this with the help from others. Can't be different and there's no doubt about it.

    INTJs are a minority in the general population but a majority in the gifted!
    I'm the stereotypical loser but one day I'll be popular for all the right reasons.
    snowyc
    well yes I know we are a minority, but that doesn't implies that we are gifted. For me I think we are just as gifted as other types
    So there's no need to feel like a loser. People often take the reserveness and seriosity for the high intellectual level

    [/quote]

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BTW, I think Pedro mentioned that the ratio is by MBTI internet stuff because it is somewhat unreliable (and probably wrong). There are probably as many logical and ethical males as there are females. I also don't think that LIIs are in the minority. I know I've seen those numbers before, but they've never explained where they got them from. IMO, it's probably made up. I'd guess that there are about 6-6.5% of all types spread about the population.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  8. #8
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So you guys think that there is an equal distribution?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the distribution of type is analogous to the distribution of wealth under captalism.
    Remember to keep things simple and not any simpler like Einstein once said.

  10. #10
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    haha very funny but I was interested in some figures

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm just making an educated guess that the world needs more extroversion then introversion. More sensory then intuitives. An equal amout of logic to ethics and irrational to rational types.

    Educated guess of figures:

    E: 66% I:33%
    S: 66% N:33%
    F: 50% T:50%
    j: 50% p:50%
    Remember to keep things simple and not any simpler like Einstein once said.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...ushra%2f5.html

    ^^ Based on 200, studied, persons.

    Quote Originally Posted by snowyc
    i'm just making an educated guess that the world needs more extroversion then introversion. More sensory then intuitives. An equal amout of logic to ethics and irrational to rational types.

    Educated guess of figures:

    E: 66% I:33%
    S: 66% N:33%
    F: 50% T:50%
    j: 50% p:50%
    ^^ That's what MBTI says, but I've never seen it BASED on something.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  13. #13
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I saw a study about something similar a few months ago. I tried to find it, but I couldn't. I found another study (probably more precise). This is MBTI, but it should be accurate because socionics differs from MBTI only by j/p. The distribution of j/p seems to be close enough to 50-50 in both sexes.

    http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/...requencies.htm

    They have the distribution: 1-3% of women are INTj-s and 2-6% of men are INTj-s. I guess that meant that 2 out of 3 INTJs are men. But still, what the hell? I would say that 1-3 is not very precise. There is a HUGE difference between 1 and 3. I like the individual distributions more.

    I'll summarize:
    % of females
    I 45-55%
    N 25-30%
    T 24-35%
    J 55-60%

    % of males
    I 50-55%
    N 28-35%
    T 55-67%
    J 52-58%

    The distributions are very similar in most parts. Slightly more male introverts and male intuits... Slightly more female judging. The biggest differences are in thinking (T/F). Men are more often thinking, so it's only absolutely logical to assume, that about 60-70% of INTj-s are male.
    Damn, the same conclusion - that's about the same as 2 out of 3.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    I saw a study about something similar a few months ago. I tried to find it, but I couldn't. I found another study (probably more precise). This is MBTI, but it should be accurate because socionics differs from MBTI only by j/p.
    It makes me so very, very sad when people keep saying things like that...

    For one thing, the ISxx types in MBTI seem to line up with the socionics types more than any others. So you can throw that introverted j/p crap out the window.

    As for those numbers, I want to here where they came from. The table just seems to say "estimation" and I'd bet that it is just like all the other MBTI numbers; made up. What are the numbers based on? Who did they study?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  15. #15
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    I saw a study about something similar a few months ago. I tried to find it, but I couldn't. I found another study (probably more precise). This is MBTI, but it should be accurate because socionics differs from MBTI only by j/p.
    It makes me so very, very sad when people keep saying things like that...

    For one thing, the ISxx types in MBTI seem to line up with the socionics types more than any others. So you can throw that introverted j/p crap out the window.
    If you you take a trustworthy MBTI test, the only difference you can have from socionics type is j/p. If there are more differences, the test was bad or you didn't know your type. The conclusion: Other than the j/p difference, people have the same type in socionics and MBTI. Therefore the distribution of MBTI and socionics types must be the same in a population. That means that we can look at the MBTI distribution and find out the distribution of socionics types. All that except the different approach to the j/p issue.

    Since no one can really define the difference clearly and it can't really be tested, we can forget about the j/p in this discussion. And please don't argue with that. There are tons of people who have done multiple tests and read lots of information about socionics j/p compared to MBTI and they STILL end up coming here, totally confused, asking what type they really are. If there was a clear difference, they wouldn't have a problem, now would they?

    I am still ready to say, "This is MBTI, but it should be accurate because socionics differs from MBTI only by j/p.", but now, with the explanation I hope it doesn't sound so rude and ignorant anymore. I hope I didn't make your day worse. I often say things that I find difficult to explain. (very clear in my head and the explanation could go on for pages) I usually have a reason why I say something, but I avoid explaining my every sentence because that wouldn't be very efficient. OK, I'm not sure I even explained that well enough. Long story short, there are huge differences between socionics and MBTI, but not when we discuss distribution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    As for those numbers, I want to here where they came from. The table just seems to say "estimation" and I'd bet that it is just like all the other MBTI numbers; made up. What are the numbers based on? Who did they study?
    sarcasm-> Well, sadly the numbers don't seem half as trustworthy as the usual comments about the distributions. Like for example I would definitely believe it more, if the number were the usual 75% E, 25%I or from the same study (on the Web) 75% of Thinking are male and 25% are female. /sarcasm :wink:

    PS! I am not very good at clairvoyance. If you want to know where the numbers came from, go to a psychic. And making up lots of numbers is much more difficult than you might think. They got them somehow and I don't think they made them up.
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North
    Posts
    567
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here are my two Oere:
    In observing any group of about 20 people, I usually observe around 5 cases of introversion (Myself included, of course). Now, allowing for introverts "extraverting" and extraverts "introverting", and also for the introverts being more inclined not to be in any kind of group, I'd say that the value is about 7/8 to 12/13. Not a huge difference, but a difference still.
    Beware! Nerd genes on the prowl.

    INFj - The Holy CPU Saint
    Dishonorary INFp
    Baah

    (Very good place for emoticons. Right-click on the one you want and select "properties" for direct link)

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina
    PS! I am not very good at clairvoyance. If you want to know where the numbers came from, go to a psychic. And making up lots of numbers is much more difficult than you might think. They got them somehow and I don't think they made them up.
    That was pretty much my point with the numbers. They don't actually TELL you where they came from. They tell you that it is an estimate, but they have no way of backing up the numbers, so why believe them? If they told me how they got them I would be a little more convinced. The socionic link that I posted explained where they got all the numbers, and it turns out (according to that) that we are split about half and half on both S/N and E/I (actually, there were slightly more intuitives, but a small sample size).

    As for socionic/MBTI types relating to each other, you have to remember that 1)if you test as a P in MBTI you are likely also a socionic P; 2)MBTI tests are about as reliable as a Guetamalin car, anyways; 3)if you go by type descriptions, you might even be more off. Take a look at this table that I found on Dimitri Lytov's site:

    We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.

    The table below represents the result of this experiment:




    Interesting how 5 of the 7 most reliable correlations were INTROVERTS! INTROVERTS! And even then, they are not reliable. Too many problems like this make it hard to correlate MBTI to socionics.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •