_
_
_
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.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Most women are ethical. So are most men.
Perhaps where you live...Originally Posted by Joy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
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).
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
That has also been my observation, most people are ethicals. I'd guess something like 60%.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I've heard that autism is becoming more frequent because of intermarriage in engineering schools/companies, which could say something about type being somewhat related to profession+genetics.
Idiotic belief.
False.
why?
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Statistics. Empiricial evidence contradicts Expat's personal observation. Therefore Expat's belief is false.
lol
Oh? I didn't realize that the blood test to determine type was already available (or that mass samplings had been taken from every population in the world).
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.
Oh? I didn't realize that the types were impossible to determine due to totally unreliable tests and due to the fact that nobody knows how to spot a type in the first place. And I forgot that no one knows what the heck we are talking about when we observe differences along the four dichotomies or the five factors. Sorry, I forgot that.
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.
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.
It is absolutely certain that the types are unequally distributed ... and there are probably around a 50/50 distribution of logicals and ethicals. We know, however, that most men are logical types and that most women are ethical types (around 2/3 of each).
And I forgot for a second that you are unable to draw the correct conclusions from empirical studies.
There certainly are FAR fewer "feelery" men than there are ethical men. I'll give you that much.
I am unable to draw conclusions regarding the distribution of Socionics types from MBTT studies.
No, you're wrong.
Yes, that's what I thought, and that's what I said ...
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.
No. I don't accept that you disagree with the empirical facts, and I don't respect your opinion on this matter. You are simply wrong, and it is your duty to realize that.
Phaedrus, why must you be so hostile?
Because I am loyal to the objective truth. That means that there's no room for a compromise. I am "hostile" towards those who are disrespectful to the truth, to science, and to logic.
The truth will always be there, even if people don't see it. You shouldn't waste your time telling people how wrong they are.
I know that I am wasting my time. But that doesn't change the fact that I am right, and that people should be able to see the truth.
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
If you really believe that this is important, then how can you possibly let yourself do anything that you know to be against it?
What do you mean? People should be able to see the truth without my help. That people are blind to the truth, that they are ignorant and stupid, that they refuse to study and learn, that they are unable to think logically, etc. is a strong argument for the hypothesis that the world is not a good thing overall. It would probably have been better if the world never existed.
That's not very logical. A belief that the world is intrinsically bad can have no possible bearing on your actions within that world. Predicating your actions on it is just another way of being blind to the truth! Which is, that you exist in this world and that you have to make the best of it.
Better question yet: why can't he keep a lid on his idiocy?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
It's not illogical, so there's nothing wrong with it.
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.
Why do I have to make the best of it?
Every lid I've tried was either to small or too big.
You underestimate the importance of chance in local distributions.
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?
INFp-Ni
You shouldn't be. We have an enormous amount of statistical data to draw conclusions from. It is an indisputable proven fact that the types are unequally distributed. We know that sensory types are in the majority. We know that men are more likely to be logical types than women. We know that some types are much more common than others. To be skeptical of these facts is utterly stupid behaviour.
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).
Posting Permissions
