Originally Posted by Jonathan
agreed.
INTp
INTj
other
I dunno
agreed.
i'm resurrecting this thread after all of two days of inactivity because i'm still not entirely sure of my type.
phaedrus has largely convinced me, but i would still like to hear an argument from somebody who thinks i'm INTj.
INTj is the ultimate default type. When people are unsure, they are INTjs. You have passed that phase.There was reason to think that you were INTp. It was a signal for you to change the default to INTp.
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/
...
INTj is the ultimate default type. When people are unsure, they are INTjs. You have passed that phase.
i'm not sure i totally understand this.
nonetheless, there are undoubtedly people who still think i'm INTj. i would like to hear what they have to say on the matter.
How can that be? What is your explanation of that? The truth is probably the opposite of what you claim here (if I understand what you mean). At least I am a proof of the contrary. I have been very unsure of my type, but finally it turned out that I am an INTp. Anyway, it is a definitive fact that INTps tend to gather more and more information (more so than INTjs), and their conclusions are always alterable if new information points in another direction and has to be pondered about. INTjs are less inclined to change their views.INTj is the ultimate default type. When people are unsure, they are INTjs. You have passed that phase. There was reason to think that you were INTp. It was a signal for you to change the default to INTp.
And now I realize that I probably misunderstood what you meant, Kriistina ... Are you suggesting that niffweed17 really is an INTp?
obviously so, but i still don't understand her argument.
The reason I think you are an INTp is because of an intuitive feeling/gut feeling.obviously so, but i still don't understand her argument.
And when people join this forum and they don't know much about socionics they are the most likely to be typed INTj. They later read about socionics and find out that they are not INTjs. But INTj is the default type IMO, because so many people come here as an INTj but then later change their type.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
Good. Then we all agree that niffweed is an INTp. The is no reason to doubt that anymore.The reason I think you are an INTp is because of an intuitive feeling/gut feeling.
You might be right about INTj being a default type. And that is interesting. I know that some (or many) socionists believe that the types are more or less equally distributed, but I would be extremely surprised if that turned out to be true. I think that MBTI and Keirsey are probably much closer to the truth about how common each of the 16 types are. Here are a few things I believe to be true.And when people join this forum and they don't know much about socionics they are the most likely to be typed INTj. They later read about socionics and find out that they are not INTjs. But INTj is the default type IMO, because so many people come here as an INTj but then later change their type.
1. S types are most likely more common than N types.
2. Most males (about 2/3) are T types, most females (about 2/3) are F types. Here Socionics seem to agree, and this unequal distribution is confirmed by neuroscientific research, which talk about the S-brain (system) being typical of men, and the E-brain (emotional) being typical of women.
3. Some typologists have claimed that introverted intuition (Ni) is the least common as a leading function, and some also claim that the typical introverted intuitive has an ectomorph body type.
http://www.innerexplorations.com/catpsy/t1c5.htm
The problem with that claim is that it is probably based on the assumption that those real life ectomorphs are INTJs/INTjs and INFJs/INFjs. From my own empirical observations INTjs and INFjs are really very often slim ectomorphs, more so than INTps and INFps. So, they may have spotted which types are the most ectomorph, but they might be wrong about which leading function they have. INTps and INFps are slightly less ectomorph than INTjs and INFjs, but they are much closer to the body types of INTjs/INFjs than for example ESFps or ISFps.
But one thing is clear from this though. The least common type should be one these four: INTj, INFj, INTp or INFp. These four types are probably much less common than the Sj and the Sp types. I am aware of the counter argument that if that is true, it is a threat to the intertype relations. I don't know about that, but I still think that in general there are more S types than N types, and the introverted N types are probably the least common among the N types. If that is incompatible with the intertype relations, there is probably something wrong with our understanding of those relations.
I don't think it's as simple as MBTI/Kiersey claim. They just make assumptions with no backing to them. I think the distribution to the types is far more eratic then you'd think.
I also think that there are more perceivers than judgers on average...
...oops...
It seems to be highly difficult to screen out cultural/social construct bias, eh?
I have been hoping that someone would provide a believable argument on why nature would allow for a large % of Ni/Ne, though. I guess this sounds dumb but it seems rather important to me.
There are a huge amount of empirical evidence which suggests that there are more N than S types. I am thinking of the MBTI tests. And since they are describing the same groups of people, the test results are probably not so wrong and misleading that the types could be equally distributed.I don't think it's as simple as MBTI/Kiersey claim. They just make assumptions with no backing to them. I think the distribution to the types is far more eratic then you'd think.
?
Well, they're wrong about half of the time anyway. Even your boyfriend says that. Use some sense, there aren't nearly that many ISxJs...
Survival characteristics via environment. I can see all the survival mechanisms in all types but N's seem to be a bit, hmm, inefficient at this.?
What do you mean? Who are wrong about what half of the time? I am not talking about individual test results, I am talking about what a lot of test results (millions) indicate together. Since the MBTI type descriptions and the socionic type descriptions are not totally different but show some clear similarities, that entails that if we test so many people and get a clear differentiation in the distribution of the types (according to the tests), that must be explained somehow. I would say that it is probably totally out of the question, based on those statistics, that the types are equally distributed.Well, they're wrong about half of the time anyway. Even your boyfriend says that. Use some sense, there aren't nearly that many ISxJs...
I agree with Jadae. Most people are normal people, and S types are more normal in their thinking and behaviour than N types, and some of the N types are perhaps even more abnormal than the others. For example an INTp is not normal according to most people's understanding of "normal", and to claim that INTps are about as common as ESFjs or some other fairly normal type, is almost absurd in my opinion. How can anyone believe that? If they really are equally common that is a very mysterious fact that has to be explained somehow, because it seems so improbable.Survival characteristics via environment. I can see all the survival mechanisms in all types but N's seem to be a bit, hmm, inefficient at this.
We can compare with autism and autism spectrum disorders. How common is that? Well, that is open for debate, but we can all agree that most people are not autistic, actually very few are. And, in comparison with an ESFj, an INTp is very close to have an autistic or Asperger personality. That can not be a "coincident". They must at least share some common characteristics based on their brain structure that can explain their similarities, and those characteristics are not very common in the total population.
It is explainable; those are the most likely types people choose on MBTI tests, that's all. They're not accurate though. Like I said, even MBTI supporters and David Kiersey admit that the tests are wrong a lot of the time (%30-50). So I wouldn't believe it.
And no, I don't think types are equally distributed. Just not distributed the same as MBTI stats claim.
But of course you realize that if the tests are right more than 50 % of the time, we would still get a clear, statistically significant result. That rules out the possibility that the types are equally distributed.It is explainable; those are the most likely types people choose on MBTI tests, that's all. They're not accurate though. Like I said, even MBTI supporters and David Kiersey admit that the tests are wrong a lot of the time (%30-50). So I wouldn't believe it.
How do you think they are distributed?And no, I don't think types are equally distributed. Just not distributed the same as MBTI stats claim.
I'll give my own opinion on type distribution, since it's a topic that interests me.
The one thing I have consistenly observed, in any group of people with any claim to be random, and where I can have any claim of typing correctly, is that sensors are far more numerous than intuitives. I'd say by a factor of 3 to 1 at least. Dmitri Lytov says that in Russia intuitives are the majority. Perhaps, but in all the 5 countries I have lived, I have observed a vast sensor majority.
What I'm not sure about is the supposed thinker preference in men.
Types I meet most rarely: INTp, ENTj, ENFj, INFp, INTj.
Types I meet most frequently: ESFj, ISFp, ESFp, ISTj.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Good. Then your estimation is roughly the same as MBTI's and Keirsey's, even though Keirsey's estimation is even more extreme than what the MBTI test results indicate.The one thing I have consistenly observed, in any group of people with any claim to be random, and where I can have any claim of typing correctly, is that sensors are far more numerous than intuitives. I'd say by a factor of 3 to 1 at least.
If that is true, then I think that would indicate that the differences in type distribution between different countries and parts of the world are far more extreme than I have imagined. Maybe that is possible, but I wouldn't be too surprised if the Russian socionists have made some serious mistakes in their typings. I can't determine which of those two alternatives is the most likely.Dmitri Lytov says that in Russia intuitives are the majority.
But that we will find differences in type distribution in different parts of the world is not surprising in itself. I think we should expect to find more extraverts in the US than in for example Sweden, and that is also what the tests indicate. The more daring types (of which most are extraverts) left their home country to seek a better life somewhere else, whereas the safety seeking ISFjs (and similar types) stayed at home. That is just one example of how our genetic heritage might influence type distribution. (We know that there is a positive correlation between your parents extraversion/introversion and your own. But exactly how we inherit that trait is still not known, to my knowledge.)
That, I think, is the most uncontroversial claim of all. We could consider it an established fact. But if it is 60/40 or 75/25 or something else, I don't know.What I'm not sure about is the supposed thinker preference in men.
Well, I used to think that, too. And I'm still not sure. What I do consider as established fact is that men would have greater inclination to see themselves as thinkers. But looking carefully at the men I have typed myself, I do not see a thinker over feeler preference.
But you know that the brains of men and women are biologically different, don't you? There is indisputably statistically clear differences between men's and women's thinking processes. We know that men in general are more disposed to think in a way that fairly well matches a preference of T over F, and that it is the opposite for women. It is very natural to believe that what we can observe in the different types is the same phenomenon, i.e the difference between T and F.Well, I used to think that, too. And I'm still not sure. What I do consider as established fact is that men would have greater inclination to see themselves as thinkers. But looking carefully at the men I have typed myself, I do not see a thinker over feeler preference.
yes, that one i agree with. biologically, it makes perfect sense that there be different tendencies within men and women; i.e. women have the biological task of nurturers and mothers, while men are hunters. by darwinian reasoning, it makes sense that women be more ethical types while men are more logical.
you do sound like user Capitalist Pig.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
he would probably contest that.
Hahaha...he would probably contest that.
I agree.
EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
E3 (probably 3w4)
Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/
BTW, My original statement really isnt a conclusion. It is an exploration. Im curious.
Reply With Quote
