Last edited by ifmd95; 04-13-2011 at 12:18 PM.
I would say that most socionics thought that the equal distribution was valid on a worldwide scale.
fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza
Most women are ethical. So are most men.
I would say that equal distribution may be valid on a global scale, but in a microcosm therein there can be clustering. For instance, my home town exists to support the employees of the neighboring nuclear research facility. It's a small town, about 4200 people, and the vast majority of those people are employees of AECL, the children of employees or retired employees. If you believe that certain types are naturally predisposed to certain areas of study, then you have to agree that the logical conclusion is that an isolated region built to foster one specialized and technical facility would have an uneven distribution of types. That doesn't mean that it exludes certain types entirely, but one would expect a huge influx of logicals (which seems to hold true).
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
Anyways, I don't see any reason to assume that types are equally distributed, just like there isn't an equal distribution of each hair and eye color in the world.
Right. You often don't see any reason in anything. It is a proven fact that the types are unequally distributed, but of course you don't care about such things.Originally Posted by Joy
So you're saying that types are unequally distributed... and that there are more logical types than ethical types in the world?
Never mind... I forgot for a minute that you'd be referring to MBTT studies. Let's not have this discussion.
There certainly are FAR fewer "feelery" men than there are ethical men. I'll give you that much.
I'm not interested in further discussing MBTT vs. Socionics correlations with you, so I'm going to suggest we agree to disagree and be done with it.
Phaedrus, why must you be so hostile?
Well, I seem to come into contact with more F's, so for my wee world that I function in, there's more F's! ha! ;P
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Wrong. It certainly can but it doesn't need to. But all your actions are determined anyway, so you will do what you will do.Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Why do I have to make the best of it?Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I find it's relatively difficult for me to make confident assumptions on type distribution for a couple of reasons:
1) Certain types stand out more than others increasing the likely hood of you noticing them i.e. extroverts and ethical types
2) Certain types are under-represented in almost any kind of social setting - i.e. Introverts
For these reasons the best I can do is try to remember high school. High school I think would be a solid place to look for type distributions because it's mandatory (at least in Ontario) so all types should be there in whatever distribution they are in society as a whole. However, even then, distribution would not be equal in all classes. In woodshop from what I remember there were mostly sensory types, perhaps sensory introverts being most represented.
I think sensory types as a whole outnumbered intuitive types. My high school was pretty small (900 students maybe, with five grades) and so in my grade there would be about 130ish people. I don't have my yearbook near me at the moment or else I could try to VI and remember lol.
I'll have to think about it, in the meantime though if any of you have a good memory what was the type distribution (by your own estimation) of your high school graduating class?
Even putting the fact that those are MBTT statistics aside, there's no way to know how accurate the information used in those statistics is (in other words, no way to know if those people had been accurately typed).
Of course men are going to generally appear (and test) less "feelery" than not. That doesn't make them logical types.
As far as whether there are more sensory types than intuitive types, it's quite possible. I doubt it's a dramatic difference though (as in, I tend to doubt that more than 60% or possibly 65% of people are sensory types).
I think the comment about Gamma being under represented is interesting, too, because I've noticed the same... I've wondered though if it isn't just a matter of Gammas not standing out to me the way a lot of other types do. (It's usually differences in quadra values that I notice, so if someone has the same quadra values I may not even think about what type they could be.) The exception, of course, is SEE's. There are plenty of those around.
So anyways, based on what I've observed, the overall distribution of clubs is as follows: ST/SF > NF > NT.
Does it seem like there are more irrational types than rational types? There seem to be fewer EJ's and IJ's than EP's and IP's among the people I know. That could just be a perception based on my noting irrationality more than rationality though, similar to what I said about quadra values.
Bleh. Anyways, it doesn't really matter to me how common types are. There's no way to KNOW, and even if there was it wouldn't really make a difference. (If there was a way to KNOW, I would be more curious though.)
What reason is there to believe type a matter of dominant or recessive traits? It seems to me a 50/50 chance per dichotomy, and a 1:16 chance for personality dominance per IM element. Now I do believe having irregular function pairs is a recessive trait, because the sociopathic population segment is small in comparison to the non-sociopathic fragment (about 6% or so according to experts). I don't think any real principle can be presented now which argues for a non-even type distribution.
I should warn that if people operate on stereotypical definitions of types like we tended to have at this forum a few years ago, then there will be a lot of mistypings going on. ENTps are not all inventors, and not all INTjs are masterminds. (even though all ENTps seem to be capable of appreciating how something was made, and all INTjs can apprehend the reasoning behind a (preconceptualized) logical conclusion).