If INTPs made up a majority of society

[onthewindowstand]

Assuming it had been this way for all of man's existance where would we be at scientifically and technilogically?

I also think that there would be significantly less war but thats just me.

 

[Adymus]

There would be significantly less war... because we would all be dead.

We cannot survive with just one personality. We are incomplete as a human collective without all 16 types.

 

[WorkInProgress]

^ It's only the majority, not all.

Though I still have to go with dead.

Caveman 1-"Hey I've got this new idea for making our spears sharper so we can penetrate woolly mammoth hide!"

Caveman 2- "Great, let's see it!"

Caveman 1- "Well I'll get to actually making one later, right now I've got an idea for building our own fires!"

And so on. We need enough doers to justify us thinkers.

 

[Adymus]

Some of you guys seriously need to get over this idea that we are single-handedly progressing mankind.

 

[WorkInProgress]

Sorry, but was it me that made you think that? Certainly wasn't anywhere near my thought process.

 

[walfin]

We cannot survive with just one personality. We are incomplete as a human collective without all 16 types.

What if the question was what if INTPs were at the % population level of an SJ type, rather than 1%, and the other types were less common than they are now?

I should think that the population would re-balance out within perhaps 2-3 generations. That aside, I think governments would be a lot more libertarian, and more things that are considered weird today would not be considered so weird.

 

[Adymus]

Sorry, but was it me that made you think that? Certainly wasn't anywhere near my thought process.

No no no, not at all.


It's just that these "The world would be a better place if everyone was an INTP" threads are sickeningly all too common.

 

[Architectonic]

If INTPs made up the majority, then the world's population density would be a lot lower.

 

[onthewindowstand]

No no no, not at all.


It's just that these "The world would be a better place if everyone was an INTP" threads are sickeningly all too common.

No, I just think that world would be a better place if INTP was a common personality type rather than a extremely rare one.

It is the science of the bell curve. INTPs are thinkers but we do not hold enough political power because non-thinkers overwhelm us I think with literacy tests and other intellect test to limit voters we would be much better off.

 

[vash22]

It's just that these "The world would be a better place if everyone was an INTP" threads are sickeningly all too common.

Your anger, while overall deserving, is misplaced on this thread. Pretty much no one has said the world would be any better other than "there would be less wars", but even that is only because we would all be dead. Find another more deserving forum to rage in. It's not like it's hard.

I agree with most of the other people here. If INTPs made up most of the population, humanity would have died off long ago. Now, if the % of INTPs was closer to 6.25% (the % if the population was distributed equally to all personality types) then I think things actually would be a bit better. Not a ton better, just a little better. The other personality types would still do what they do, and INTPs wouldn't have that much more of an impact. There would still be wars and dictatorships and all that bad stuff.
Now, the biggest difference would be that INTPs would have more people to relate with and talk to. Well, I know in reality we have plenty of people to talk to, but it just isn't the same. It would be interesting to see what effect that has on INTP psyche.

 

[Puffy]

I agree with Adymus if MBTI is accurate then there are 16 types for a reason, that all are required for the human collective to be whole and to operate efficiently. Would society be more advanced if everyone was an INTP? Doubtful, it's likely we only make up 1% of the population now for a reason, because 1% is all that is required.

Imagine humanity as a machine, all the parts are required to be working together, completing all their unique roles, for the machine to operate. I think there are as many INTP's as they are as that is all that is needed for the machine to operate, any more and it may become more likely to breakdown.

Interesting point Vash, though don't you think if there were more INTP's and this was to 'change the INTP psyche' that their role would change in society. For better or worse? I don't see how the whole human system benefits from 1% of it having 'more people to relate to' maybe it would cause more harm to the psyche's of the other personality types?

 

[Razare]

Assuming it had been this way for all of man's existance where would we be at scientifically and technilogically?

I also think that there would be significantly less war but thats just me.

If it had been this way since the beginning or at least for ages, then I don't think we'd be nearly as far as we are. We might not be totally killed off as some suggest, but we'd be in a far worse state. INTP's are not doers, doers accomplish 95% of what makes society tick. INTP's are just here to offer an occasional insight or invention. We improve the functioning of groups by being able to provide honest, intelligent, objective insight. Without a diverse group our ability wouldn't be much use.

There would be less war, though; but then there would be a whole lot less of humanity. I wager reproduction would be lower because of our logical behavior impedes spontaneous procreation.

The one benefit would be that humanity would make sense. We'd all sort of "get" each other, but then that'd be kinda boring.

 

[vash22]

Interesting point Vash, though don't you think if there were more INTP's and this was to 'change the INTP psyche' that their role would change in society. For better or worse? I don't see how the whole human system benefits from 1% of it having 'more people to relate to' maybe it would cause more harm to the psyche's of the other personality types?

I wasn't referring to its effect on the rest of the population, just its effect on INTPs. Not many people seem to "get" INTPs. well, what if that was changed and more people were INTPs? Would the fact that INTPs could relate with many more people that they can in our reality effect how they act? Just random thoughts really. Would be an interesting scenario though.

 

[Adymus]

Your anger, while overall deserving, is misplaced on this thread. Pretty much no one has said the world would be any better other than "there would be less wars", but even that is only because we would all be dead. Find another more deserving forum to rage in. It's not like it's hard.

I agree with most of the other people here. If INTPs made up most of the population, humanity would have died off long ago. Now, if the % of INTPs was closer to 6.25% (the % if the population was distributed equally to all personality types) then I think things actually would be a bit better. Not a ton better, just a little better. The other personality types would still do what they do, and INTPs wouldn't have that much more of an impact. There would still be wars and dictatorships and all that bad stuff.
Now, the biggest difference would be that INTPs would have more people to relate with and talk to. Well, I know in reality we have plenty of people to talk to, but it just isn't the same. It would be interesting to see what effect that has on INTP psyche.

First of all Vash, don't tell me where I can and can't post. My anger and oppinion is quite appropriately placed. the premise in this thread is: "The INTP approach to reality is superior to, and more important to the world than everyone else's." It doesn't matter if nobody said these exact word, this is clearly the paradigm that inspired this thread.

While he may not have said "If only everyone was an INTP", the message that is in this thread is something along the lines of: Feelers are causing of most of the world's problems, and if there were only more INTPs, that could be fixed."

INTPs are thinkers but we do not hold enough political power because non-thinkers overwhelm us I think with literacy tests and other intellect test to limit voters we would be much better off.

This is complete bigoted bullshit. INTPs don't hold political because INTPs don't want to hold political power. INTJs are just as rare as we are, but there are actually quite a few INTJ politicians, yet there are still no INTP politicians. Could it be that the dreaded feelers are keeping the INTP down, but not the INTJ, or ENTJ, or ESTJ, or ISTJ!? No, it's probably because INTP do not aspire to, nor are they comfortable with pushing their agendas as a politician should be. So what exactly would adding more INTPs to the mix do? Oh great, now we have more people who want to understand how everything works, but want nothing to do with the political system.

It is not often that I have to say this to an intuitive, but right now calls for it: You are not seeing the bigger picture. Think for a second about what all of the types aspire to, and then think about what the INTP aspires to. Is have a majority of the population aspiring to gaining unapplied knowledge really so important that we should be swapping out people who aspire to the more basic necessities of a community? Everyone is contributing something, and deciding that what you contribute is more important than everyone is making a huge mistake."

One more thing, drop the Thinker > Feeler crap, I hate to break this to you, but a significant proportion of the scientific community, as well as the community of progressive thinking minds are in fact, feeling types.

 

[Bårris]

I think it would be better if the majority of the population were introverted rather than extroverted
You know, the population being something like 65% introverted and 35% extroverted.

The world would probably be a lot different, but also a lot saner

 

[Adymus]

I think it would be better if the majority of the population were introverted rather than extroverted
You know, the population being something like 65% introverted and 35% extroverted.

The world would probably be a lot different, but also a lot saner

Uhhhm, that statistic that claims extroverts are the majority, I believe is way off. I personally think the two are actually equal, or that there are slightly more introverts.

But that is just from my own observations.

Also: What exactly is your conjecture founded on? In what way is introversion more sane than extroversion?

 

[onthewindowstand]

First of all Vash, don't tell me where I can and can't post. My anger and oppinion is quite appropriately placed. the premise in this thread is: "The INTP approach to reality is superior to, and more important to the world than everyone else's." It doesn't matter if nobody said these exact word, this is clearly the paradigm that inspired this thread.

While he may not have said "If only everyone was an INTP", the message that is in this thread is something along the lines of: Feelers are causing of most of the world's problems, and if there were only more INTPs, that could be fixed."

This is complete bigoted bullshit. INTPs don't hold political because INTPs don't want to hold political power. INTJs are just as rare as we are, but there are actually quite a few INTJ politicians, yet there are still no INTP politicians. Could it be that the dreaded feelers are keeping the INTP down, but not the INTJ, or ENTJ, or ESTJ, or ISTJ!? No, it's probably because INTP do not aspire to, nor are they comfortable with pushing their agendas as a politician should be. So what exactly would adding more INTPs to the mix do? Oh great, now we have more people who want to understand how everything works, but want nothing to do with the political system.

It is not often that I have to say this to an intuitive, but right now calls for it: You are not seeing the bigger picture. Think for a second about what all of the types aspire to, and then think about what the INTP aspires to. Is have a majority of the population aspiring to gaining unapplied knowledge really so important that we should be swapping out people who aspire to the more basic necessities of a community? Everyone is contributing something, and deciding that what you contribute is more important than everyone is making a huge mistake."

One more thing, drop the Thinker > Feeler crap, I hate to break this to you, but a significant proportion of the scientific community, as well as the community of progressive thinking minds are in fact, feeling types.

I am saying thinkers in a broad sense not the personality type. Yes I said INTPs could fix things but that is because they are almost always a thinker in the broad sense. Also I wasn't saying "holding political power" meaning a position of power(referring to the fact that my vote counts just as much an illiterate who has never had a real thought in their life) I was simply stating that people who don't know what they believe or why they believe it shouldn't be seen as having valid opinions. This is because they DONT, an opinion based on nothing isn't valid! I know here in America and probably other places too that this is a big problem. I was merely proposing a logic and a literacy test that would cut out the bottom 70 percent of the population from voting.

Also a thinker is greater than a feeler in intellectual circles. A feeler who has developed thinking skills is a different thing entirely.

Edit- I would like to point out that a thinker is 2.5* more likely to be in the high IQ category then a feeler. While the IQ test is far from perfect a correlation that strong indicates something.

 

[Puffy]

Is that a fair system? Are we saying because ones level of logic or literacy is not as high as anothers that their opinion is in fact of less value or even 'invalid'? The idea of a democratic election is that the country can choose their new leader/ government rather than it being determined by the elite.

Say one worked as an 'illiterate' janitor in a hospital, everyday cleaning he sees sick people perhaps not getting the care they could. Say he then discovered that one party running for government was proposing putting more money in to healthcare and he decided to vote for them. You might say well he made a valid decision, he wanted something done the party said they would do it so he voted for them. His illiteracy or intelligence had nothing to do with his choice however it was based on his experiences/ observations in the hospital.

It's true there are people who just vote for whoever without any particular reason and it's a problem but can you really narrow this group down to the unintelligent or the illiterate? If you were to say the janitor couldn't vote because he failed the test he wouldn't have been able to make his vote based on a decision that was valid. Which to me isn't fair.

Back on the course of the thread it would also be dangerous to say that INTP's choices are more valid than others, very dangerous indeed.

 

[onthewindowstand]

Is that a fair system? Are we saying because ones level of logic or literacy is not as high as anothers that their opinion is in fact of less value or even 'invalid'? The idea of a democratic election is that the country can choose their new leader/ government rather than it being determined by the elite.

Say one worked as an 'illiterate' janitor in a hospital, everyday cleaning he sees sick people perhaps not getting the care they could. Say he then discovered that one party running for government was proposing putting more money in to healthcare and he decided to vote for them. You might say well he made a valid decision, he wanted something done the party said they would do it so he voted for them. His illiteracy or intelligence had nothing to do with his choice however it was based on his experiences/ observations in the hospital.

It's true there are people who just vote for whoever without any particular reason and it's a problem but can you really narrow this group down to the unintelligent or the illiterate? If you were to say the janitor couldn't vote because he failed the test he wouldn't have been able to make his vote based on a decision that was valid. Which to me isn't fair.

Back on the course of the thread it would also be dangerous to say that INTP's choices are more valid than others, very dangerous indeed.

I honestly think that they situation that you presented with the janitor is beyond the capacity of a lot of people in america. (even if that janitor is illiterate)

Also, I think that an opinion that has more thought and intelligence is clearly more valuable. Not excluded to INTPs but there is a very strong correlation between someones personalty type. Just 4 personality types making up 6% of the population make up 66% of the high IQ population. So was I was merely talking correlatively in relations to someone personality and their perpensity to make valid opinions/ choices.

To be honest I do not view suffrage as a right. Suffrage is an act of political power, that not everyone is fit to make. In other words liberty does NOT entail suffrage. Should kids be allowed to vote? Most will say no. The difference between some adults is really that drastic.

 

[Razare]

I do prefer introverts over extroverts. An extrovert minority would be enjoyable.

 

[universe34]

Have any of you ever read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? In that book, people are deliberately put into classes by intelligence. This class is determined before birth and determines the type of work one will do, etc. The highest is Alpha Double Plus, the lowest Epsilon Semi-Moron. In the book, it is stated that there was an experiment in which 22,000 Alpha Double-Pluses were sent to an island and were left to their own devices. "Within six years there was a first-class civil war." While this is, of course, a simple thought experiment of sorts in a book, I liken the Alphas to INTPs. Rare, but considered somewhat superior.(?) I feel that this would be the case in a world of INTPs.

 

[TheHmmmm]

Uhhhm, that statistic that claims extroverts are the majority, I believe is way off. I personally think the two are actually equal, or that there are slightly more introverts.

But that is just from my own observations.

Also: What exactly is your conjecture founded on? In what way is introversion more sane than extroversion?

I read somewhere that only 44% of the world is extroverted. They're only perceived as more common because they obviously stand out more.

 

[Adymus]

I read somewhere that only 44% of the world is extroverted. They're only perceived as more common because they obviously stand out more.

Nobody really knows though, accurate testing still does not exist...

Actually let me rephrase that, accurate testing has still not been released for public usage.

 

[~~~]

Societies have died out in the past. Thinking is important. INTPs are an important part of society. Is thinking as valued in the West today? Anecdotally a lot of kids are not studying much science in more recent times. If valid logic does not have a significant role in the decision-making of societies then can we expect our societies to continue to better able survive?

 

[BigApplePi]

What if society had bicycle riders?

I - favors riding alone. Will there be enough bikes?
N - will address concerning the meaning of it all.
T - would enhance the bike's function. Better biking, more value.
P - will answer where can we go and what can we do as possibilities.

E - prefers togetherness with other bicyclers. Contagion will lower cost.
S - will have fun. Means doing it again.
F - glorifies or condemns riding. What is important is all for motivation.
J - will promote and organize or may disfavor.

Bike ride anyone?

 

[Dr. Zombie]

Societies have died out in the past. Thinking is important. INTPs are an important part of society. Is thinking as valued in the West today? Anecdotally a lot of kids are not studying much science in more recent times. If valid logic does not have a significant role in the decision-making of societies then can we expect our societies to continue to better able survive?

An odd corollary to that is the fact that societies have definite up and down cycles (the down cycle sometimes resulting in permanent destruction). It wouldn't surprise me if the introversion/extroversion ratio had something to do with this. Truly, the world needs both, which must be why evolution/darwinism/God/whatever allowed for such a state to come about. However I think societies tend to lean towards favoring extroverts as they grow older, until it gets screwed up enough that they need the INTPs to come out of the woodwork and fix everything again .

Just a thought, though.

 

[LifeLine]

If INTP's were the majority of society, life would be as boring as hell. Differences make the world unique. Imagine if everyone ate the same food and talked the same way. I'd imagine that a lot of progress would be made with INTPs as the majority, but it would also be a much less social world, since there are fewer extroverts.

 

[Black Rose]

I wonder what it would be like in a world where each type was 6.25%

I do not think this would be bad, just a little different.