Humanity's MBTI?

[citrusbreath95]

Well I'm sure this has probably already been posted, and I apologize if so.
Well, it's obvious that INTPs are an atypical personality, along with some others. So, what exactly is the average human personality? I know ESFJ is the "feminine" side, so I'm assuming that the majority of women own this title, but what about men? Is mankind more prone to being extroverted vs introverted? Sensing over intuitive? Thinking more than feeling? Judging over perceiving?

I wonder this, as for me (I found this matches the INTP profile as well) I view people as being too alike and interdependent. So, it must initiate from personality. What could this personality be? I wonder if it's even possible to decide on one general personality (or two if we consider one per gender) as everyone has their own history, culture, and experiences. Is it possible to group the majority of mankind into one specific persona? If so, wouldn't it be a lot easier for people to understand each other, thus resulting in much less conflict (though emotions could get in the way).

Part of me thinks it's impossible to group everyone into a specific personality, yet, people are very much alike, and where is the explanation in that? Why do the majority of people not enjoy theories as much as INTPs do? Or rather go out dancing than look at the stars and think alone for a while? Why do some prefer building mega cities, and others raising a family in the suburbs? (I'm going off the people I know and observe <<<this guy's a stalker as well as a borg) Is it that most personalities (the more common ones) are relatively similar to each other and the rare ones, including INTPs and the few others are the exceptions? (It feels good to be the exception of nature

 

[CoryJames]

For one, please do get off your high horse about being an INTP. Our type's benefits (if you can call them that) come with a heavy price, everything evens out in the end.

Also, it is relatively easy to research the estimated percentage of the population that falls into each of the 16 typologies, so try that for starters.

I believe that without a balance, or at least a wide spread, of all the typologies, society would not function very well. Each of the typologies fits a role, and the people in that typology play that role and the world turns as it should.

Since you are so into our group, take a look at the INTPs. We, the "great minds", constitute, based on the last couple of sites I researched on, anywhere between 1%-5% of the population. This seems about right. The people like Albert Einstein and Carl Jung are quite rare, as society does not REALLY need great scientists or engineers or architects to function. Certainly, we are helpful, when we aren't sitting around thinking aimlessly, but we are not necessary. ESFJ's, on the other hand, constitute a much larger percentage of the population. Nurturing, Guiding, Administrating types are much more necessary to keep society working the way it should.

The day the world is 100% INTP, we shall have a fantastic debate about the relative merits of faster than light travel due to its potential effects on time, (if faster than light travel was possible), change nobody's original viewpoint, then realize that everything has broken down and the world has ended.

 

[citrusbreath95]

For one, please do get off your high horse about being an INTP. Our type's benefits (if you can call them that) come with a heavy price, everything evens out in the end.


I believe that without a balance, or at least a wide spread, of all the typologies, society would not function very well. Each of the typologies fits a role, and the people in that typology play that role and the world turns as it should.

Since you are so into our group, take a look at the INTPs. We, the "great minds", constitute, based on the last couple of sites I researched on, anywhere between 1%-5% of the population. This seems about right. The people like Albert Einstein and Carl Jung are quite rare, as society does not REALLY need great scientists or engineers or architects to function. Certainly, we are helpful, when we aren't sitting around thinking aimlessly, but we are not necessary. ESFJ's, on the other hand, constitute a much larger percentage of the population. Nurturing, Guiding, Administrating types are much more necessary to keep society working the way it should.

QUOTE]

I understand and agree with what your saying, and in no way was I trying to aggrandize the INTP personality in any way. I'm merely asking if there is a general personality that we can associate with the rest of people. I know the world needs the other types no less than us, and us no more than the others. I didn't in any way excuse ESFJs of being unimportant to our society. I am just curious as to how these personalities, the more common ones, become so common. What makes these the majority of the human race? It doesn't mean they are of inferior status, it's simply in means of quantity.

 

[CoryJames]

Well I guess we must ask ourselves if MBTI types are born or made.


If made, I suppose not many kids are "nurtured" (euphemism for fucked up to the point that) they become severely introverted and lack emotional response and value percieving over judging. I suppose that most kids become molded to other types, while not as many get molded into "interesting" types.

If they are born, then there is no reason, apart from that god handpicks a certain number to each group.

 

[Dormouse]

If they are born, certainly more than a god comes into play. If personality types are inheritable, I suppose we could assume that certain aspects are more dominant than others and therefore show up more, whilst the recessive traits don't appear terribly commonly.

Another possibility is that certain types are just better equipped to survive and pass along their genes.

Or, it's possible (quite likely, really) that personalities are forged by both nature and nurture. Perhaps some traits require environmental stimulus to become active.

There's a myriad of possibilities, really. A hand wave won't suffice.

 

[citrusbreath95]

If they are born, certainly more than a god comes into play. If personality types are inheritable, I suppose we could assume that certain aspects are more dominant than others and therefore show up more, whilst the recessive traits don't appear terribly commonly.

Another possibility is that certain types are just better equipped to survive and pass along their genes.

Or, it's possible (quite likely, really) that personalities are forged by both nature and nurture. Perhaps some traits require environmental stimulus to become active.

There's a myriad of possibilities, really. A hand wave won't suffice.

Perhaps it's strictly a mixture of all human contact in an individual's life. Of course, everyone has both preferences of the two options in the MBTI (ex, thinking and feeling) the test only demonstrates the dominate one. So, I suppose it is strictly on the people you associate with. The problem is if someone hangs out with feelers all the time, and is a feeler, another person could hang out with that same group and turn out to be a thinker. So perhaps it's all based on observation and how your mind works/takes in data to the situation. I don't know if I'd say God hands out personalities (wouldn't that make some superior to others, or pose as some form of "favoritism") and that would go against freewill, and lean more towards predestination. Perhaps the personalities work as a balance for each other. Whether they are handpicked or not. To obtain that stability, results in the quantity of the personalities. Maybe we need more ESFJs for this reason and less INTPs or INFPs. That ideas seems strange, but why do we even have personality types? Why are so many people grouped into these personas, and find them quite accurate? If there was a completely different personality for every person, then more than likely no one would get along, who knows if we could even be classified as humanity , So personalities could just be passed down from observations of people in your life, analysed, and "attach" to you. Don't many people change over time from different events and people?

 

[CoryJames]

I also believe its a combination of genetic predisposition (things like one's IQ) and then what they are raised into being based on life experience, not simply god's handpicking.

In another thread I discussed my belief that ones personality is simply a developments of acquired learned responses to stimuli from one's environment. It is a combination of defense mechanisms to try to deal with things that do not please us, and mechanisms to create and maintain situations that are pleasurable to us. We are more flexible as children and are able to change the way we deal with things more because we have less experiences, but as we grow older we become more and more ingrained until we really do not/are not able to change much. (You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Young dogs learn to do what you say for treats (pleasurable stimuli). Old dogs will always do what you taught them at a young age and are less inclined to try new things, instead going with what they have learned will earn them a treat.)

I believe we form our own personality based on the cards we are given and how we learn/are conditioned to use them. Thus humanity cannot have one overarching or even a vast-majority typology. Everyone has different starting cards and situations to play them in. Also, a change in one person will thus effect everyone they come into contact with's environments, creating an endless ripple effect. Sure, on the bell curve of IQ's and standards of living, there are majority's, but still, everyone's life will progress differently, producing a wide array of different types.

 

[CoryJames]

I also believe its a combination of genetic predisposition (things like one's IQ) and then what they are raised into being based on life experience, not simply god's handpicking.

In another thread I discussed my belief that ones personality is simply a developments of acquired learned responses to stimuli from one's environment. It is a combination of defense mechanisms to try to deal with things that do not please us, and mechanisms to create and maintain situations that are pleasurable to us. We are more flexible as children and are able to change the way we deal with things more because we have less experiences, but as we grow older we become more and more ingrained until we really do not/are not able to change much. (You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Young dogs learn to do what you say for treats (pleasurable stimuli). Old dogs will always do what you taught them at a young age and are less inclined to try new things, instead going with what they have learned will earn them a treat.)

I believe we form our own personality based on the cards we are given and how we learn/are conditioned to use them. Thus humanity cannot have one overarching or even a vast-majority typology. Everyone has different starting cards and situations to play them in. Also, a change in one person will thus effect everyone they come into contact with's environments, creating an endless ripple effect. Sure, on the bell curve of IQ's and standards of living, there are majority's, but still, everyone's life will progress differently, producing a wide array of different types.