I saw somewhere, I think in our article section, a list of type dispersals like LSIs are 13% of men, but only 7% of women, and so on. Where is that article? It was a translation.
I saw somewhere, I think in our article section, a list of type dispersals like LSIs are 13% of men, but only 7% of women, and so on. Where is that article? It was a translation.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Extraverted
Women Men
64.34% 48.21%
Introverted
Women Men
35.66% 51.79%
Sensing
Women Men
92.22% 93.62%
Intuitive
Women Men
7.78% 6.38%
Emotional
Women Men
82.33% 22.45%
Intellectual
Women Men
17.67% 77.55%
Conceiving
Women Men
16.53% 31.89%
Perceiving
Women Men
83.47% 68.11%
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Where did you get that?
Socionics -
the16types.info
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It's up to God.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
There are no real type distribution statistics. For that we need a shallow system that fits the mold of a mass test. Like that one pop psychology that named itself after its test...
My opinion is that all types carry about the same distribution, if I had to guess, worldwide. They surely seem to here, and intuition isn't some rare phenomenon like that of a wiz who philosophizes the big picture and spaces out about visions and fantasies. That's a shallow misconception brought on by intellectuals who feel isolated from the rest of the world. For most of us, intuition is an ordinary mental process that goes hand-in-hand with sensing. We relate to acting on information instinctually and holistically rather than directly specifying seen phenomena, it's basic human comprehension. If you don't believe me then try observing the slight differences in people instead of stereotyping them simply as intellectuals and normies. Honestly, everyone does both, but intuitives aren't going to so thoroughly orient themselves to exact information, the same as sensors aren't going to be so presumptuous about possible interpretations.
Last edited by 717495; 04-03-2013 at 12:46 PM.
Yeah, I've honestly come across insane amounts of intuitive people. I'd say that those popular MBTI population distribution statistics or ones like Maritsa's are completely unreliable.
A lot of pop Socionics is MBTI, especially on the Russian sites. That's where people get that crap from.
According to my typelist.
Male:
E - 55,5%
N - 48,0%
T - 60,4%
P - 50,8%
ENTp - 7.88%
ESTp - 8.50%
ESFp - 6.25%
ENFp - 4.88%
INTp - 5.12%
ISTp - 6.88%
ISFp - 5.50%
INFp - 6.00%
INTj - 8.00%
ISTj - 6.25%
ISFj - 2.75%
INFj - 3.75%
ENTj - 7.38%
ESTj - 10.50%
ESFj - 5.12%
ENFj - 5.25%
Female:
E - 55,6%
N - 47,8%
T - 43,9%
P - 42,1%
ENTp - 3.29%
ESTp - 7.09%
ESFp - 9.87%
ENFp - 5.32%
INTp - 6.84%
ISTp - 1.52%
ISFp - 3.04%
INFp - 4.81%
INTj - 6.33%
ISTj - 5.82%
ISFj - 7.59%
INFj - 7.85%
ENTj - 5.57%
ESTj - 6.33%
ESFj - 11.65%
ENFj - 7.09%
Dichotomic calculations include half-typed persons as well.
This is more telling of types of people on my typelist than of society in general.
The list seems pretty good. Only a few types have a vast superior percentage on one sexual group compared to the other, and those are, by bias, expected. ESFj, INFj, ISFj (+women); ISTp and ENTp (+more men).
Filatova did a statistical study of 299 people which shows approximately even distribution of types. Her sample contained more intuitive types (60%) than sensing (40%); nearly 50/50 distribution of rationals/irrationals and introverts/extraverts among men and women; slightly higher percentage of men scoring as logical types (60% T) and slightly higher percentage of women scoring as ethical types (55% F) which is similar to MBTI figures. (in machine translations "FEL" is LSE, "OR" is ILI, "IEA" is IEE, and SLI comes up as "SSI").
One of the results of this study was interesting - since she was typing families she looked into how types of children were related to types of parents and found a significant number of cases where the child is of dual type to mother and/or identical of the father.
I also ran stats some time ago for my typings on the 16T spreadsheet, however, I don't think that the forum population is representative of the general population for multiple reasons.
These are the results that I got from ~180 type entrees: