Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 80

Thread: ENTp is the most common type?

  1. #1
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,695
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default ENTp is the most common type?

    I've heard in a few places that, according to Socionics, ENTP is the most common type. This confused me greatly because according to MBTI (which I'm more familiar with), ENTP is one of the rarest (I think third rarest; not positive) types. Is there a reason for this?
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  2. #2

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

    Default Re: ENTP=Most common type?

    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    I've heard in a few places that, according to Socionics, ENTP is the most common type. This confused me greatly because according to MBTI (which I'm more familiar with), ENTP is one of the rarest (I think third rarest; not positive) types. Is there a reason for this?
    .. not only socioncs.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrainTypes.com
    ..the more BTI researches the 16 BTs, it is realizing there are more FCIRs [ENTPs in MBTI or ILEs in socionics] in the world than any other innate design.
    I find it interesting that socionics and BrainTypes come from to seperate corners of the world, but have realzied that same conclusion.


    ... and every MBTI distribution figure is made up....
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see Sj and Sp types everywhere. I don't know about ENTps being the most common.

  4. #4

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan.
    I see Sj and Sp types everywhere. I don't know about ENTps being the most common.
    .. I see them everywhere. That's why I found comfort in knowing that both Socionics and BrainTypes say that they are the most common type. I used to think I was crazy because I was seeing too many ILEs.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rocky would you direct me to where on Brain Types they said that ENTp is the most common type?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  7. #7
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,695
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The thing is, I'm almost positive that I only know one other ENTP. I'm sure if they were the most common type (which I'm highly doubtful of) that, even with my stringent standards for what I would call an NT, I would know at least four or five. At least.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  8. #8

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    The thing is, I'm almost positive that I only know one other ENTP. I'm sure if they were the most common type (which I'm highly doubtful of) that, even with my stringent standards for what I would call an NT, I would know at least four or five. At least.
    You probably know more than one. They can have various diffrent personalities. Why are you positive that you know only one? Maybe you need to broaden your perception on what an ILE is.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rocky regarding the issue, this is what I "got" from the two sites you posted.

    The ENTP is the most common quarterback in the NFL.

    So, this is basically saying that in the NFL, the ENTP is one of the most common types of quarterback. It does not actually say how commonly ENTps are found in other positions besides quarterback in the NFL or how many ENTps are to be found in the general population outside the NFL.

    Yet the more BTI researches the 16 BTs, it is realizing there are more FCIRs(ENTPs) in the world than any other innate design.

    There is an implication here that they have not concluded research(hence the use of the word realizing). How can they make such a statement that the ENTP is most common if the have not finished collecting evidence?
    They have lost quite a lot of credibility in my mind by issueing such information prematurely.

    I just do not believe that ENTps are very common myself. I think the world would be a very different place if they were the most common type. If they are, I think I will be making arrangements to move to another galaxy far far away:wink: .

    I am speculating, but it seems to me that society needs a lot of Sj types moreso than any other to hold society together.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    ...Maybe you need to broaden your perception on what an ILE is.
    @ Rocky

    Would you expand on how to broaden perception of what an ILE is? Is there some factor being prejudically included or excluded.

  11. #11

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    The ENTP is the most common quarterback in the NFL.

    So, this is basically saying that in the NFL, the ENTP is one of the most common types of quarterback. It does not actually say how commonly ENTps are found in other positions besides quarterback in the NFL or how many ENTps are to be found in the general population outside the NFL.
    .. they also said that there were a lot more ENTPs than ESTPs walking around on a whole (which is diffrent from what most MBTI stats would say).

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    Yet the more BTI researches the 16 BTs, it is realizing there are more FCIRs(ENTPs) in the world than any other innate design.

    There is an implication here that they have not concluded research(hence the use of the word realizing). How can they make such a statement that the ENTP is most common if the have not finished collecting evidence?
    They have lost quite a lot of credibility in my mind by issueing such information prematurely.
    I don't know how it is really possible to conduct a true "study" on types-population. What I do know is they have been claiming to asses people for over 30 years now. Jon N also gets hired to type thousands of people each year. Don't you think that they would be able to notice a trend? If they starting seeing ENTPs pop up more often then other types on a consistant basis, you don't think that has some credability?

    Quote Originally Posted by Herzblut
    Hey, that article said that there's many many more ILEs than SLEs. What do you think about that, Rocky?
    ... probably true...

    @ Rocky

    Would you expand on how to broaden perception of what an ILE is? Is there some factor being prejudically included or excluded.
    One thing is that people seem to have this ideal of what someone of one type should be, without realizing that people in the same type can act very diffrent. For one, I think some ENTPs can be confused for sensors. Even at ENTP.org, some of them deny people like Snoop Dogg and Will Smith as being ENTP... they think that people like that are more "SP" types when, really, it's just more of an image. I know one ILE guy who reminds me a lot of Will Smith. But then I know other ILEs who aren't percieved as that "cool", and maybe focus more on school (more of the nerdy kind). Some ILEs can be more of the aggessive, George Carlin type (Se subtypes?). I've seen these ILEs talk more about sex, etc.. and push more of the tough Se at you (I think this can happen with the role funciton). I even know one ILE who I played baseball with and was a real hothead. I actually thought he was SLE (SeTi) at first, but no go for that one. He even looks very, very much like pitcher Roy Oswalt, who was typed as another ENTP in that link. Anyway, that's a start, but I think you get the idea...

    EDIT: And, yeah, some of them can be confused for feelers, too. Those are the more Jon Stewart/ Robin Williams types. Probably has something to do with the hidden agenda. Also, some ILEs are quite, so they maybe considered introverts.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Rocky
    .. they also said that there were a lot more ENTPs than ESTPs walking around on a whole (which is diffrent from what most MBTI stats would say).
    Yes, but like I said before the evidence just does not seem to be there to fully support that theory yet.


    I don't know how it is really possible to conduct a true "study" on types-population. What I do know is they have been claiming to asses people for over 30 years now. Jon N also gets hired to type thousands of people each year. Don't you think that they would be able to notice a trend? If they starting seeing ENTPs pop up more often then other types on a consistant basis, you don't think that has some credability?

    Actually I think it is quite possible to conduct a study of the number of types in the population. However, I better system for type identifcation may be needed.
    Also, the Brain Types researchers might have identified trends but I would not come to any final conclusions based on just the trends. Trends may point towards a phenomena, but they don't confirm its existence exactly.



    [quote="Herzblut"]Hey, that article said that there's many many more ILEs than SLEs. What do you think about that, Rocky?

    ... probably true...


    I say probably not true


    I also agree with you that Will Smith is an ENTp, I have thought that for a long time now.
    I think he was on his way to M.I.T (or some such place)when his music career beckoned.

  13. #13
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is no way that ENTp is the most common type.

    There seem to be a whole lot of ENTps and INTjs in this forum though.
    SEE

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

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If there were so many entp's then there would be more female entp's besides me and Joy at this forum!
    Entp
    ILE

  15. #15
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still think implied in an ENTp.
    SEE

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

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Really? I thought she was infp or something. But maybe - I'll have to looke more closely at her posts.
    Entp
    ILE

  17. #17
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I admit that I haven't read all that many of her posts, but here writing style is T, imo.
    SEE

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

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    I admit that I haven't read all that many of her posts, but here writing style is T, imo.
    @Joy
    How can T writing style be recognized?

  19. #19
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ummmmmmmmmmmm I dunno. I just do.
    SEE

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

  20. #20

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    Really? I thought she was infp or something. But maybe - I'll have to looke more closely at her posts.
    http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=956
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Megan.

    I asked that last question of you Joy.
    Darn, I wish there was a more systemic way to recognize T style. Anyway, implied does seem to be NT at times though I could not explain why I think this either .

  22. #22

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

    Default

    For one, I think ethics are more "attached" to their emotions while they right. Logics type in a more detached sort of way.. it's hard to explain. Ethics are also more consious of keeping the peace, whereas logical types are more prone to "attacking" people to get their point across.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  23. #23
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I attack no one. Besides Mercutio, and he asks for it.
    SEE

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

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Rocky

    For the love of someone, lets' not turn this into another "implied's type" thread but I must ask, in your opinion what type do you think she is?

    I am curious.

  25. #25

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    @Rocky

    For the love of someone, lets' not turn this into another "implied's type" thread but I must ask, in your opinion what type do you think she is?

    I am curious.
    ... was it not clear? Logical-intuitive Intratim. I think I've said that since the first day she's been here...

    EDIT: I tried going back to her old, original thread where she described herself, and she edited out the description... hmm...
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  26. #26
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,695
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    I attack no one. Besides Mercutio, and he asks for it.
    Don't attack Mercutio, he's an ENTP for sure...
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  27. #27
    Creepy-Paul

    Default

    I very seriously doubt that ENTp’s are the most common type.

    Really, if they were, don’t you think they would have legalized weed by now?

    Paul

  28. #28

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul
    I very seriously doubt that ENTp’s are the most common type.

    Really, if they were, don’t you think they would have legalized weed by now?

    Paul


    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/11/5/19722/9438
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  29. #29
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    I attack no one. Besides Mercutio, and he asks for it.
    Don't attack Mercutio, he's an ENTP for sure...
    Can I have some of whatever you're on?
    SEE

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

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    545
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is hard for me to find an ENTP in my town. Or haven't studied enough what describes an ENTP(I would but I'm too lazy right now ).
    ISFP, SEI

  31. #31
    Creepy-Paul

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    I attack no one. Besides Mercutio, and he asks for it.
    Don't attack Mercutio, he's an ENTP for sure...
    Can I have some of whatever you're on?
    Yep, if ENTps really where the most common type, weed would be legal.

  32. #32
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    maybe it changes, like those moths that got eaten by owls in england or something.

    before the industry came in the lighter ones were more common, but when the industry came in the smog covered the trees and the darker ones survived more cause the camo worked better.

    there is also a genotype-phenotype issue. I might be a little off, but i'll give this a shot: Some plants have a phenotype(explicit physical characteristics) which expresses dependent upon environmental demands. So although the the genotype(implicit genetic structure) has potential traits these traits only express in a given environment. So we could have the predisposition for multiple types but only one expresses explicitly based upon the way the functions organize themselves naturally.

  33. #33
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But no, I don't accept those results as valid. I don't think ENTp's are the most common type.

  34. #34

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

    Default

    Some people here seem to think that "most common type" equals "more than half of the population". Not true. "Most common type" might mean that there are 7% of them in the general populace, while the rest are evenly distributed at 6.2%. Or, indeed, that there are 6.30% of them, compared to 6.247% of all the others. Or even less.

    @Rocky: Are there any similar figures for the other types?
    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)

  35. #35

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

    Default

    @Rocky: Are there any similar figures for the other types?
    ... what I remember is that they claim that the ILI (INTP) is the LEAST common type... I could probab;y find some of the other statistics, too...
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  36. #36
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ... what I remember is that they claim that the ILI (INTP) is the LEAST common type...
    No wonder I can't find any INTps, yet I keep finding ENFps...
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  37. #37
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I had an INTp colleague in high school. So striking INTp

    I think it's easy to identify INTps and ENFps the most

  38. #38
    detail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    495
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I tried to collect the number of people of each type that i know, mostly in my area. + means that i see some representatives of the type every now and then in public places. ++ means that i see a lot of them. No + or ++ means that every representative of said type that i know is counted. It's because some people may seem more interesting to me so i end up talking to them.

    ENTp: 14
    INTj: 7
    ISFp: 5+
    ESFj: 11++
    ESTp: 25++ (I stopped counting at 25)
    ISTj: 3+
    INFp: 11
    ENFj: 6+
    ESFp: 3++ (Not that i don't see many)
    ISFj: 2+
    INTp: 5+
    ENTj: 5+
    ENFp: 16+
    INFj: 5
    ISTp: 5+
    ESTj: 4+

    I guess i don't spend my time in places where there are many ESTjs, cause i really don't see that much of them. + and ++ are relative to the places i go which mostly consist of bars, schools, , shows, shopping malls, restaurants. This could explain the ridiculous quantity of ESTps that i've come to know. The numbers themselves are relative to my type, ENTp, in that the intertype relations system is not bullcrap. Also, there's a Cegep (You guys don't have it in your educationnal system if you don't live in Québec) with a music program so many of the people i meet are musicians. I may forget some other factors or deliberately ignore them because they're obvious.


    What does this gives us? Well it's clear to me that ENTp is not the most representated type in my area. It's also clear that there are fewer intuitive people (note the frequent lack of + or ++ next to most of them) than sensing ones. I don't know if these apply to your area, or to the sample of people typed via BrainTypes (Are BrainTypes really compatible with Socionics types? Never checked that myself.) but one things for sure, here, ENTp is not the most representated type.

  39. #39

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

    Default

    Are there any other ways to understand the differences between BT and what others often label "typologies", especially Jung/Myers?

    The Brain Typing system is far different than any other assessment methodology we’ve ever encountered. Of course, there are two sides to this issue as there are to all issues. (And by the way, if someone wants to be argumentative, one could debate any issue under the sun—regardless of position—and speak some truth into the argument.) One side of the coin is how BT resembles many typological approaches, especially Jung-Myers. We couldn’t agree more. If it weren’t for Jung, Briggs, Myers and other disciples of this form of typology, BT would not exist. The 8 letters we have shared with the public prior to 2003 are the same that scores of variations within Jungian typology employ. (We also have other terminology for a deeper and more scientific understanding of BT--some of which we have recently made public.) We, like all others who support the 8 mental preferences, owe complete gratitude to Carl Jung for 6 of them, and 2 to Myers and Briggs—neither of whom were psychologists). These three people and many thereafter, have provided a rich understanding of what the preferences mean as well as how each of the 16 Jung/Myers types generally operate.

    Before moving to the other side of the coin, let’s take a slight diversion and consider Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers, mother and daughter. Speaking of Katherine Briggs in Isabel Myers’ book “Gifts Differing” (p. x):

    “Katherine, a thinker, a reader, a quiet observer became intrigued with similarities and differences in human personality about the time of World War I. She began to develop her typology, largely through the study of biography, and she then discovered that Jung had evolved a similar system which she quickly accepted and began to explore and elaborate.”

    It goes on to speak of daughter Isabel:

    “With no formal training in psychology or statistics, with no academic sponsorship or research grants, Myers began the painstaking task of developing an item pool that would tap the attitudes, feelings, perceptions, and behaviors of the different psychological types as she and her mother had come to understand them.”

    JN can strongly relate to the experiences of Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers.

    Renowned temperament and personality type expert—and clinical psychologist, David Keirsey, Ph.D, writes in his best-selling book “Please Understand Me” (p. 15):

    (some 5 years out of graduate school)

    “And along comes a little old lady from Princeton New Jersey, Isabel Myers, to tell me about myself, about who I was and what I was good for. Oh, I already knew some of that stuff about myself, but I didn’t know that I was a kind or type of person, and that therefore there had to be others just like me.”

    Briggs and Myers have passed along numerous examples and benefits to us all.

    Back to the other side of the coin, there are numerous dissimilarities (in Brain Typing) to the understanding that millions of Jung-Myers advocates have on typology. Each of the 8 preferences we have attempted to take out of the ethereal realm of the mind and provide a basic cerebral understanding (cognitively, physically, and spatially). In this respect, BT’s definitions go further into each of the 8 preferences than any Jung-Myers supporters of which we are aware. For instance, rather than saying Judging (J) seeks closure, order, structure and so on, and Perceiving (P) is open-ended, adaptable, and non-judgmental, we try to help people see that “J” essentially describes the left brain and “P” correlates with the right hemisphere. (Actually lesser degrees of J and P are within both hemispheres but that is a more cavernous discussion and not relevant to this explanation.) So if Jung-Myers’ devotees can understand the basic right and left brain processes, they, too, can better comprehend why the aforementioned definitions of J and P make sense—even scientifically. Better yet, however, is that they can acquire a much deeper understanding of J and P by seeing how much more comprehensive they are from a cerebral perspective—far more than they ever imagined.

    From an athletic standpoint, right-brained P’s have much better [natural] spatial acuity—3 dimensional vision and peripheral awareness (especially when experiencing pressure in competition). For example, after having assessed (or Brain Typed) one of the top picks in a forthcoming draft a few years ago, JN was told by the team’s GM that the athlete scored in the top few of all time with a high-tech vision test (administered by an renowned eye specialist and professional)! The exam was especially designed to evaluate athletes requiring optimal vision. This covered all facets of sight, especially peripheral and stereoscopic vision. This highly regarded athlete was found to have “superior peripheral vision.” Also, His report read “He can physically adapt himself to visual changes as quickly and as well as anyone tested.” “His vision-motor performance was high in critical areas for a (his playing position.)” Understandably (for those who don’t comprehend BT), JN was told that if there was anything the team DIDN’T need to concern themselves with it was the young man’s visual giftedness—straight ahead and sideways.

    Knowing, however, the athlete’s specific Brain Type (which JN told the team but not the public) and that he was inherently heavily left-brained, JN told the team that the athlete would function poorly with the spatial awareness necessary for this man’s playing position. With all due respect, JN told them he didn’t care how well the young man “tested” in every area of vision; his inborn BT would never allow him to perform as they expected—physically and spatially. It would be equivalent to putting a 150-pound lineman in the NFL and expecting him to play all season against 300 lb. (and over) brutes. He just wouldn’t hold up over time and especially when the 300 pounders were mad and wanted to win—like in the playoffs. And by the way, the athlete under consideration—JN has never found his BT at point guard in the NBA.

    Well, sure enough, the young man with professionally-tested and supposed superior visual acuity was drafted—very high. The team paid a boat load of money for him, and guess what happened? Not only did he fail miserably at his position but he failed primarily because he couldn’t see the field or court before him! His peripheral vision was dreadful—especially under pressure. As he tried to direct his team, he became known as a gifted athlete yet one that resembled a “deer in headlights.” He repeatedly passed the ball into heavy defensive coverage. He couldn’t see the whole field/court of play. As far as BTI knows, only Brain Typing can point out this kind of limitation BEFORE it occurs—especially in pro ball. Yet, this gifted athlete was a STAR in college. Did his vision go bad all of a sudden? No, the pro game is much quicker and sophisticated than college ball and some problems do not manifest themselves until the highest levels of competition—all the more reason for knowing and applying Brain Typing (especially if you own or coach the team).

    JN’s book, “Your Key to Sports Success” goes to great length in explaining the much deeper aspects of Brain Typing as compared to Jung-Myers typology; 400 pages clearly demonstrate Brain Typing’s uniqueness and scientific emphasis.



    Why call it Brain Types® rather than personality or psychological types?

    Many typology advocates have loosely used the terms “personality or psychological types” to describe the 16 different kinds of people. JN is very uncomfortable with these expressions. When he first became exposed to the Jung-Myers theories, as a young disciple he tried to help others understand and identify the 16 “personality” or “psychological” types. Inevitably, many became confused when two persons JN was comparing (identified by type “experts” at the time) fell within the same Jung-Myers type—yet they appeared to have very differing personalities.

    Jung coined “function types” and “psychological types,” being quite precise in his label*s. He knew he had identified commonly shared yet distinguishable behavioral characteristics in the thousands of people he had studied. His era did not possess 21st century neuroscientif*ic and genetic evidence; therefore, he had to rely on older ideas of psychology (the study of the mind), and his empirical observations of people (as does JN empirically observe others, yet with an emphasis on modern-day scientific understanding). Thus, “psychological types" was a most appropriate label for Jung. Before long, however, people started using personality types to describe Jung’s classifications, rendering a vernacular more relevant to the layperson, removing it from the mysterious and often abstract world of psychological theories.

    “Personality” to the layperson conveys the sum total of the mental, emo*tion*al, and social characteristics of an individual. The term “personality,” however, originates from the Latin “persona.” It corresponds to the Greek word for face. Actors in an*cient Greece could perform more than one role on stage by donning differ*ent personas or masks. But type behav*ior is not dictated primarily by the faces we randomly choose to wear. Instead, BTI and others (including neuroscientists and geneticists) believe it is driven by the orderly and systematic func*tion of the brain, which controls not only our mental skills, but motor skills, as well. Jonathan Niednagel therefore coined and much prefers the term Brain Types to both “personality” and “psychological” types. He wants others to think of Brain Typing as describing the internal workings of the brain, an objective and tangible schematic allowing us to understand the neural regions/circuits that regulate our cerebral/mental/emotional and body actions. JN wants you to focus more on “why” you (or others) do what you do—from inborn neuroscientific and genetic perspectives. This doesn’t mean you need to know scientific intricacies but by just comprehending the raw basics, you’ll have a much greater understanding, appreciation, and tolerance for why folks (including yourself) do what they do. If cognitive traits have a significant and inborn biological basis, they are much easier to accept as “normal.”

    What greatly frustrated JN regarding “personality” or “psychological” types following his first serious exposure to them in the 1970s was their strong link to the abstract and ethereal “mind”. Having a “concrete” and “tangible” mindset, JN was compelled to take this conceptual typology and give it flesh—establishing a biological basis if possible. To convince himself and others, he knew it had to be measured tangibly and accurately. After studying this area intensively, JN believed there was a strong association to the brain and body. In addition, since he wasn’t a psychologist nor did he want to be connected in any way to psychology (even for personal spiritual reasons), JN attempted to distance himself as far as possible. He went through the time-consuming and costly process of Trademarking ® Brain Types and began publishing his findings regarding the brain and body. Much of JN’s findings have not been published, especially as they relate to genetics. Since there are those who have attempted to steal as well as undermine JN’s work, he is saving his proprietary information until completing his genetic studies—where he hopes and intends to establish patents on each Brain Type. For most this seems improbable, but for JN it seems a near reality.

    ...

    So in contrast with the Jung-Myers model of personality theory, BTI believes Brain Typing is able to:

    1/ identify the 16 different designs with greater accuracy (explained cerebrally, biologically, and physically),

    2/ demonstrate through empirical studies (and hopefully soon, genetics) they are inborn, indelible traits,

    3/ show the differences within each of the cerebral-mental processes and how they vary in function depending upon the brain hemisphere in which they reside,

    4/ empirically (including video digitization) measure the inborn motor skill proficiencies and deficiencies for each Type,

    5/ explain and demonstrate logically the reasons for variations within each Type, both cerebrally and physically.

    Though there are more contrasts than these 5 areas between the 2 methodologies, this should suffice for now. The distinctions between the 2 approaches are quite significant, to say the least.

    http://www.braintypes.com/questionsandanswers.htm
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


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

  40. #40
    detail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    495
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If functions are direct brain processes, how can some ethical types be good at math? Wold that mean that they're even better at things equivalent to Socionics ethic in BrainTypes than other ethical types? All i can see is a dissimilitude between BrainTypes and Socionics. If what BrainTypes measure is accurate, i can see how functions would be the abstract vehicles to the actual brain processes. Functions would be how our personnality uses the brain and not the result of direct potential. Anyways, whether functions are like i speculated or not, they don't seem to be the same thing as JN measures, resulting in Socionics type not being the same thing as BrainTypes type.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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