Why are INTPs such a small percentage?

[Thermo]

I have read that INTPs are estimated to be between 1% and 5% of the US population. I am leaning more toward 1 or 2 percent. The average for the 16 types is just above 6%.

Why do you think this is? I have two theories.

A.) 1984 Theory - INTPs values are not important to society and that lack of emphasis moves people into other types. What society wants a bunch of procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?

B.) Elitist Theory - Societies need sheep so human evolution favored creating more sheep than thinkers.

[cloakable]

I favor the theory that the INTP type is rare because the type didn't lend itself well to survival in the past - I, at least, tend to be a 'head in the clouds' type, dreaming up new theories, which may or may not be connected with reality. In the past, humankind needed SJ types - people who noticed the concrete details in the world, and reacted to that. Therefore, the DNA that would increase the possibility of a child having another, less suitible for survival traits became rarer, but was not actually eliminated from the gene pool. Now, in an enviroment that can actually favor NT/NP personality types, the numbers are rising.

[melancholeric]

We need more working bees taking care of the mundane details of everyday life, thus the sensor majority.

One proverbial Einstein every here and there is enough for the population as a whole, because everyone benefits from the inventions. There's no need for everyone inventing the wheel.

Society with INXX majority would never get anything done, they'd all be too busy daydreaming.

How's this for elitism?

Edit: Just put this way: Different types have different strengths and weaknesses, and are all needed in different quantities. I'm under the impression that modern evolution theory puts more emphasis on the population as a whole, rather than individual.

2 edits so far. must be a personal record.

( Damn, I have to marry an ISFJ to keep my kitchen clean. The smell is slowly getting on my nerves... )

[Clara]

:rofl:

*walking away, laughing, to see if file cabinet's list has "why do things the obvious way, when I can make them long, and oh so complicated" on it yet*


edit : ( INTP/J humour is the most laughter-provoking )
... I advise loud, lively music, by the way, to accompany the housework ;)

edit 2 : *sigh* That's it. I'm swearing off trying to make jokes where facial expression and intonation don't work. ( For the record - unconventional motivations for pursuing someone / any goal are probably better keys to happy reults... than otherwise. And, I think you should invite us all to the wedding - *starting a Travel to Europe budget plan* )

[Elro]

I have read that INTPs are estimated to be between 1% and 5% of the US population. I am leaning more toward 1 or 2 percent. The average for the 16 types is just above 6%.

Why do you think this is? I have two theories.

A.) 1984 Theory - INTPs values are not important to society and that lack of emphasis moves people into other types. What society wants a bunch of procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?

B.) Elitist Theory - Societies need sheep so human evolution favored creating more sheep than thinkers.

I would tend to think B moreso than A. Although.. I haven't had much luck with the ladies so far. I wonder if that has anything to do with it? :D

[MacGuffin]

I would tend to think B moreso than A. Although.. I haven't had much luck with the ladies so far. I wonder if that has anything to do with it? :D
"Yo baby! INTP here! I'm only 2% of the population! We are the elite thinkers like Einstein! Get with me!"

I don't know why that shouldn't work....

[cjs55]

We talked about this in a different thread actually. When humans evolved into communities it certainly makes sense for a few INTPs to pop up now and there as advisors, to make sure nothing extremely stupid is decided upon, etc. But the INTPs abilities wouldn't really stack in that setting: Only one or two would be needed per community. Meanwhile the STP and STJs would stack wonderfully, as they are very useful from everything to building stuff to hunting to making sure we don't get devoured in the night etc. The more of them the better in said society (and probably still in ours. We need accountants and construction workers dammit! [somewhat tongue in cheek...])

[Lee]

Now, in an enviroment that can actually favor NT/NP personality types, the numbers are rising.

I would question this as it requires NT/NP types to have more children, it seems to me artisans and gaurdians breed like rabbits compared to NT/NP types and seem to survive even better because of the advancements NT/NP types have made in medical science and such. This of course is only in reference to percentages of population.

[jimkopelli]

It's to keep us from taking over the world, getting bored, and forgetting about it.

[Philo]

I would also argue that INTP is not necessarily based on lineage, as a couple of threads here indicated that INTPs came from two E parents.

Isn't it bees that can change their "type" depending on what's needed by the hive? Perhaps 2% of the population is INTP because that's all the community needs, based on some as-yet undetermined natural phenomena?

[QrioCT]

either way if it's genetic or environment, i think the population of each type goes around in cycles producing similar types that change very slowly. for example, an S family would more likely to produce an S child both genetically and environmentally.
so eventually worldwide, the amount of each type would probably stay the same or change slowly according to how much environmental and genetic influence they have.

[sbw]

I would also argue that INTP is not necessarily based on lineage, as a couple of threads here indicated that INTPs came from two E parents.

I don't know the statistics (or if there are any), but at least in my family there doesn't seem to be a genetic link...parents: ESTJ & ISFJ; 4 kids: INTP, ISTP, ISFJ, XNXP (probably ENFP)...seems to be a pretty random sampling.

Scott

[Clara]

But the INTPs abilities wouldn't really stack in that setting: Only one or two would be needed per community. Meanwhile the STP and STJs would stack wonderfully, as they are very useful from everything to building stuff to hunting to making sure we don't get devoured in the night etc. The more of them the better in said society (and probably still in ours. We need accountants and construction workers dammit! [somewhat tongue in cheek...])
( What thread, cjs55 ? ) Once again, someone had already posted what I was thinking, as I came looking for a certain thread. There are "ingredients" that are required only in small amounts, for them to be effective ( hahah - I was also thinking about what to cook, for supper. :) )

And... reading between the lines, when ( we - sheesh ! of course I mean, *I* also :rolleyes: ) INTPs rant about people who are currently annoying to us... doesn't *everybody* - at some time or other - land on that list ? So, doesn't that suggest that, "it's not *them;* it's *us* ?" ... Or am I the only sometimes-unreasonably-cantankerous person here <_<
:whistle: And... I really enjoy the strangled expressions of frustration ... I think it's something that some of us ... every now and then ... do so eloquently, that it's art - or something very close to it... I know that I've known people who tried to manipulate me into that (tip : bad move; and, I *never* houseclean when angry or upset - and another myth bites the dust ).

By the way, there's nothing intrinsically unINTPish about accounting or constuction - now a team of only INTPs doing those things... :unsure:

[Miss Anthropic]

I have read that INTPs are estimated to be between 1% and 5% of the US population. I am leaning more toward 1 or 2 percent. The average for the 16 types is just above 6%.

Why do you think this is? I have two theories.

A.) 1984 Theory - INTPs values are not important to society and that lack of emphasis moves people into other types. What society wants a bunch of procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?

B.) Elitist Theory - Societies need sheep so human evolution favored creating more sheep than thinkers.
Do you REALLY believe that people 'choose' what type to be? Because your A.) theory suggests that. As for your B.) theory I really don't think evolution has anything to do with INTPs not being a larger percentage. Regarding evolution its not like INTPs have some behavior that is so contrary to survival with others that they would die off or thin out even if the low numbers did have anything to do with survival of the fittest. Because if INTP numbers were in decline due to lack of fitness, we would have to presume that INTPs produced INTP offspring and that other personality types didn't produce INTP offspring. But it doesn't work that way. We are born wired with the basic personalities that we have. We can adapt and mold our behaviors by being aware of different perceptions and ways of thinking (S/N), or training ourselves to be more organized (the J/P) for example.

With 30,000 genes to work with, I believe it is just a less common genetic combination that creates INTP wiring in the brain. I don't know about you, but it is really difficult and tiring to "act" a differect personality type, (my very together structured mother really tried to make me into a J)...my default is always INTP whether society needs another sheep or not.

[CreativeChaos]

We talked about this in a different thread actually. When humans evolved into communities it certainly makes sense for a few INTPs to pop up now and there as advisors, to make sure nothing extremely stupid is decided upon, etc. But the INTPs abilities wouldn't really stack in that setting: Only one or two would be needed per community. Meanwhile the STP and STJs would stack wonderfully, as they are very useful from everything to building stuff to hunting to making sure we don't get devoured in the night etc. The more of them the better in said society (and probably still in ours. We need accountants and construction workers dammit! [somewhat tongue in cheek...])

Yes, we did have a talk about this in a different thread. My answer was that "abstraction" is a later development of humans. Vertually all other animals do not have the ability to "abstract". Thus when humans were developing from ape to human, the majority, if not all were S's. This was the natural way to operated an live in the world. "Abstracting" minds are a later development of human minds, and it thus fewer than "concrete" ones.

[sbw]

When humans evolved into communities it certainly makes sense for a few INTPs to pop up now and there as advisors, to make sure nothing extremely stupid is decided upon, etc.

I love our arrogance...

Scott

[Six]

*starting a Travel to Europe budget plan* )
yes, please do :D

we are getting the real thing by tomorrow, as nobody will be able to get to work because of HIM :rant:

[PsiKik]

I agree with the evolutionary theory -SJ's are better at going out and hunting/gathering/grouping.
Does this mean that INTP's are a relatively new type?
Some time ago would there have been even less of us, say less than 1%?. Could advances in medical technology be the reason for the increase in our numbers, now that evolutionary, survival of the fittest pressure has been taken of us?

I hold the arrogant, elitist view that we are indeed a newer type, and better suited to solving the problems that have been rising in the technological age.

[Architectonic]

How new is "new"? I mean there is clear evidence that NTs have existed for at least 5000 years, I would expect longer.

[Geoff]

How new is "new"? I mean there is clear evidence that NTs have existed for at least 5000 years, I would expect longer.

Go on then, enlighten me with the 5000 year old NT evidence. I love our arrogance :lol: as a group.

Speculating on the evidence, have you found something on the Sumerian Cuneiform from that era? At that date I thought all we had was STJ accountants recording lists of sheep and so on...? That is I thought the only written record from about 3000bc or so.. the earliest writings appearing in Uruk etc.

-Geoff

[Lee]

Considering the speed at which genetic evolution works I doubt that INTP's have only evolved over the last 5000 years and would suggest that one of the INTP's best survival traits is our ability to predict and stay out of trouble, our sit on the sidelines appraoch to life means we survive simply because we are not generally noticed and help as impartial mediators when SJ's and SP's start quarraling.

[Geoff]

Considering the speed at which genetic evolution works I doubt that INTP's have only evolved over the last 5000 years and would suggest that one of the INTP's best survival traits is our ability to predict and stay out of trouble, our sit on the sidelines appraoch to life means we survive simply because we are not generally noticed and help as impartial mediators when SJ's and SP's start quarraling.

Oh, I agree that it is highly unlikely we recently evolved. I am just amused by the 'clear evidence' of 5000 years ago...

-Geoff

[Lee]

Oh, I agree that it is highly unlikely we recently evolved. I am just amused by the 'clear evidence' of 5000 years ago...

-Geoff

oh sorry, my mistake I only glanced over the post, got the wrong end of the stick.

[Philo]

Go on then, enlighten me with the 5000 year old NT evidence. I love our arrogance :lol: as a group.

Speculating on the evidence, have you found something on the Sumerian Cuneiform from that era? At that date I thought all we had was STJ accountants recording lists of sheep and so on...? That is I thought the only written record from about 3000bc or so.. the earliest writings appearing in Uruk etc.


You're right. The STJ's were recording the lists of sheep, etc. We INTP's told them to do that instead of doing it ourselves.

You did say you loved our arrogance. ;P

[Geoff]

You're right. The STJ's were recording the lists of sheep, etc. We INTP's told them to do that instead of doing it ourselves.

You did say you loved our arrogance. ;P

I work with enough STJ accountants, and they dont mind being told to record the list of sheep while you get on with the big picture. It works just fine...

-Geoff

[Thermo]

Do you REALLY believe that people 'choose' what type to be?

I didn't say it was and I don't.

A.) No one is purely INTP. They are degrees. I think socialization can influence those degrees inconsciously.

B.) Maybe in some collective way humans genetically chose what type to produce. Some animals can change sex to suit what is needed. Maybe chemicals in the brain produce a preference for Type?

[CreativeChaos]

I work with enough STJ accountants, and they dont mind being told to record the list of sheep while you get on with the big picture. It works just fine...

-Geoff


This is so true Geoff. And SO amazing! It's hard to realize that they actually LIKE doing that stuff!

[CreativeChaos]

I agree with the evolutionary theory -SJ's are better at going out and hunting/gathering/grouping.
Does this mean that INTP's are a relatively new type?
Some time ago would there have been even less of us, say less than 1%?. Could advances in medical technology be the reason for the increase in our numbers, now that evolutionary, survival of the fittest pressure has been taken of us?

I hold the arrogant, elitist view that we are indeed a newer type, and better suited to solving the problems that have been rising in the technological age.

I do too, PsiKik. Note my previous post. Abstracting is a purely human ability and it is a new numan ability. Humans WERE found exhibiting abstract thought on those earliest cave drawings in (France?) I think N's or abstracters ARE a new invention on the horison of human evolution. But when I saw new, I'm talking in millions of years. How long has the human species been on this earth as bipeds? Don't forget there WAS another species of human, the (Neanderthal?), that got wiped out by our present day human species. So evolution was working the ape type into larger brained huminoids in more than one species. It's a shame that species didn't survive. But then, we would have even MORE prejudice, I guess.

I don't remember specifics, but I know I'm right about the main poinst in remembering what I read. (i.e. INFP, global thinker)

[Architectonic]

Go on then, enlighten me with the 5000 year old NT evidence.

The pyramids are a nice start I would think.....

(sure its not exactly 5000 years, but close enough)

[Miss Anthropic]

Considering the speed at which genetic evolution works I doubt that INTP's have only evolved over the last 5000 years and would suggest that one of the INTP's best survival traits is our ability to predict and stay out of trouble, our sit on the sidelines appraoch to life means we survive simply because we are not generally noticed and help as impartial mediators when SJ's and SP's start quarraling.
It doesn't matter! The genetics that make up these behavioral personality traits aren't inherited directly. Any personality type could have a child of any other personality type---in order for INTPs to die out, there would have to be a direct genetic link from parent to child, INTPs would only have INTP children and parents of other types couldn't have INTP children. So regardless the same percent of INTPs would be born to replace those that didn't survive. (assuming there was some reason for INTPs to not survive)

[FactsDontMatter]

Perhaps a valuable trait that evolved enabling the success of humans as a species was variability and flexibility in personality and thinking styles. The style we get may be the luck of the draw, because the variability is built in to the way our brains grow and develop. That is, [perhaps] you don't inherit the style, but you do inherit a flexible, growing brain which may develop into a customized style based on nurture and some other inherited characteristics. Viva la difference!

[Geoff]

The pyramids are a nice start I would think.....

(sure its not exactly 5000 years, but close enough)

It depends how you view them. A rigid belief system, following a closely and mind bogglingly time consuming process to ensure the deification of pharaoh....

Now, a 1,000 years later from Predynastic when you start hitting detectibly modern writings, and thoughts, recorded.. that I would accept.

-Geoff

[Lee]

It doesn't matter! The genetics that make up these behavioral personality traits aren't inherited directly.

eeerrrr If children do not aquire physical and behavioural genes from thier parents where do they get them from.


Any personality type could have a child of any other personality type---in order for INTPs to die out, there would have to be a direct genetic link from parent to child, INTPs would only have INTP children and parents of other types couldn't have INTP children.

I did not mean that non-INTP parents could not have INTP children I only suggested that becasue of genetics there is very likely to be more INTP children to NT parents than INTP children to SJ parents. I am talking in averages not blanket rules.


So regardless the same percent of INTPs would be born to replace those that didn't survive. (assuming there was some reason for INTPs to not survive)

If this were the case how do you explain the fact that different cultures contain different percentages of types.......we all evolved from somewhere in africa and if this rule applies then there should be no variancy in type percentages.

[Philo]

Heh, it just dawned on my how much this is like the subjective/objective thread over in Philosophy. Type is just a construct of the human mind meant to describe and explain phenomena experienced subjectively. From the point of view of the describing process, nature or nurture really doesn't matter a whole lot, but, given how wild the other thread got 8O, I'm not sure we want to go there.

However, I do agree with you, Facts: the genetic aspects were in the creation of a flexible and variable organization to the brain, and that type is more of a nurture thing.

This does bring up an interesting question, though. I believe brain research on stroke victims has indicated that our brains can and are constantly restructuring themselves based on inputs. As pathways fall into disuse, they tend to get ra-absorbed so that new pathways can be generated. If type is based on nurture, does this mean we can, through probably considerable effort, change our types?

[Geoff]

Heh, it just dawned on my how much this is like the subjective/objective thread over in Philosophy. Type is just a construct of the human mind meant to describe and explain phenomena experienced subjectively. From the point of view of the describing process, nature or nurture really doesn't matter a whole lot, but, given how wild the other thread got 8O, I'm not sure we want to go there.

However, I do agree with you, Facts: the genetic aspects were in the creation of a flexible and variable organization to the brain, and that type is more of a nurture thing.

This does bring up an interesting question, though. I believe brain research on stroke victims has indicated that our brains can and are constantly restructuring themselves based on inputs. As pathways fall into disuse, they tend to get ra-absorbed so that new pathways can be generated. If type is based on nurture, does this mean we can, through probably considerable effort, change our types?

Theoretically we can, because as you say our synapses are trained and retrained. It is easily visible in a learning child. Witness a small baby trying to pick up something, the way the arm misses and then hits as it swings around. Everytime the brain detects a success the neurons fire, and a pathway is formed. Overtime these pathways join together to reinforce an activity. Learning to ride a bicycle is a classic example.

These can be retrained and reused apparently. The brain is to a certain extent like a EPROM (Erasable programmable read only memory) when it comes to learned activity. Albeit a very complex one.

I see no reason why type is intrinsic to brain structure. I wonder whether people who suffer total memory/personality loss (for example brain damage that wipes the slate clean) become the same type again?

-Geoff

[Thermo]

This does bring up an interesting question, though. I believe brain research on stroke victims has indicated that our brains can and are constantly restructuring themselves based on inputs. As pathways fall into disuse, they tend to get ra-absorbed so that new pathways can be generated. If type is based on nurture, does this mean we can, through probably considerable effort, change our types?

Very interesting ideas.

I would say nuture is possible and a part of our development. As an INTP, I have weak social skills, but I worked hard to improve them and develop my E and S and J traits.

Nature, I am not as sure about. I don't know if we are genetically wired as types or predisposed to types. I am guessing there is research out there on this.

[Thermo]

http://www.innerexplorations.com/psytext/rt.htm

"There is considerable evidence that whatever the biological foundations to introversion and extraversion are, they have a genetic basis...Introversion and extraversion has also been the subject of innumerable studies that have indicated a large genetic component."

Interesting. Everyone in my immediate family is an introvert and I am an introvert. My wife's family is all extroverts, with one exception, and she is an introvert.

[Bluehaze]

I hope that is within regards to the thought process, not "appearing" or "acting" introverted (I).

I mainly say that, because one of the items that INTP/Js are said to be desparately in need of is developing the "Extraverted(E) Thinking" function and process. I'm sure that if most here were to watch me from a third person perspective that I would seem an E, not I.

However, as so many type indicators explain, the characteristics of: I/E, N/S, T/F, P/J, are geared towards how one is built in the mind. I have developed the E through practice and thinking it through on my terms, not Feeling (F) for it as a natural way of acting (although everyone has a little bit of E/S/F/J that they use every now-and-then).

On with the topic though, I have read and been under the impression that INTJs are even more uncommon than INTPs.

[Roger]

Both are 0.5 * 0.5 of 1/16 or 1.56%. Of course the statistics could have changed in the last 30 years. I think they are actually changing.

Why are these types so scares. Well think of a medieval society where these types did not exist. Very little progress was made in terms of maths or science and this society would fall behind eventually and get taken over by other cultures. One of the reasons is that INTJ and INTP make good strategists in war. So if the genes of one generation of humans of this society could not bring forth at least 1% of INT 's another tribe would have conquered them . So therefore the tribe with at least 1% survived. If however there was 10% of these types.. they would have been too many useless theorist who are best at insulting others ... : )

Now what use does the INFP's have in survival and how this trait 'survived ' is another topic .

[TaylorS]

*casting a necromancy spell on an interesting thread...*

There arn't that many INTPs because there are a lot less Ns then Ss in the human population.

I'll speculate that the occurrence of N at 20-25% of the population is the result of stabilizing selection, that is, a human population that has 20% of it's population being xNxx types has a higher evolutionary fitness then populations where xNxx types are found at significantly higher or lower percentages. I'll guess that a 1:4 is the most "efficient" ratio of "visionary" Ns to "skillful" Ss.

[Marston]

What society wants a bunch of procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?

You make us sound like The Sex Pistols.

[garak]

Because we are important but only in relatively small doses. Or we're not important and just haven't faded away yet for some reason.

[Dunearhp]

It only requires a couple of people to point out that we are building the village in a dry riverbed, and that we all would enjoy the monsoon a whole lot better from the top of that hill.

[NightCrawler]

RE: Thread title

Do you think that the world could handle more of us?

[Ghost-Girl]

Why are INTPs such a small percentage?

The best ingredients are often the rarest.

[AllAboutSoul]

^^^^

Good answer.

[Jivinjeffjones]

Hrmmm.

[fripping]

i've said this once before but:

i've you're playing axis and allies and you always blow all of your money on gambling for a 1/6 chance to successfully research new technologies (only a couple of which are good in the first place), you will probably lose.

[rek]

In sports why can only one team get first place?

Because there's no point in being a winner if you don't have a bunch of losers to be better than.


It's to keep us from taking over the world, getting bored, and forgetting about it.

So true!


What society wants a bunch of procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?

This is why I love this forum: none of you know me and yet you all know me so well!

[xNTP]

I think it has to do with the fact that logic, introspection, and people who question and try and figure out what's up is rare in our times. People have become more and more ambitious and driven, and don't care to stop and examine why.

That, and people aren't really encouraged to ask why. Most parents who can't answer their questions signal to their kids to stop asking. I've often described myself as a child who never stopped asking why (but with the ability to try and bring order to the answer).

[ApeTheDog]

Because not a lot of people see value in thinking hard about things - what is the purpose of it? There are other things you can exercise yourself in that have a far greater, and more immediate, payoff. That's why the majority of the people will aim for those.

[sorabji_66]

extremely strong inner compass?

or completely clueless about what's going on around them?

[Family Guy]

Perhaps INTP's are disinclined to breeding.
Eg. Poor social skills, inability to flirt, never leave the house, excessively value autonomy, etc.

[Tlatoani]

What the fuck? Do you people really believe that you can explain this with Evolution Theory? We're not a different species for god's sake. Neither our percentage in the population is decided on democratic elections: "Why would we want procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?"

Typology isn't decided upon, we're INTPs because of a mix of genetics (if you're male or female, your tendency to Anxiety, Depression, etc) and they way you were raised, i.e. if you have been granted liberty to decision on your life (religion, opinion, whatever).

[aphemix]

is there a cohesive study on what environmental/upbringing-related factors tend to produce what personality types? If there was, I could probably figure this out eventually; I'm good at this sort of thing.

hello, btw...first post outside of introductions, woo

[intpgolfer]

In utero - about the same time the body determines sex - the developing brain chooses which type.

This process is 99% error free - when it is not - the world has another INTP?

[monolith]

OKay I havent done any research at all, but I want to know what you think determines our mbti type.

My belief is that we are born either a thinker or a feeler, and our environment is in charge of determining the way our brains will function.. something like that..

and why arent intps as common as other types?

[monolith]

omg i just asked this same question in the mbti type forum FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[attila_the_hunny]

I think we are born with it, sort of like it's already imprinted. Then our environment shapes our preferences. I really don't think it's genetic, but whatever it comes down to, it's still a crapshoot.

[ctnd]

I think it's probably mostly related to your childhood and your environment. I'm very skeptical about being born with a particular hard-coded personality.

[Ivy]

I think it's probably mostly related to your childhood and your environment. I'm very skeptical about being born with a particular hard-coded personality.

What about a soft-coded personality? (Keeping in mind that I may not be using the programming metaphor correctly.) I do think we're born with something written in the personality field, although whatever it is seems to be pretty elastic. Written in pencil, you might say.

I realize I mixed about four metaphors in this post but I trust you to tease them all out.

[ctnd]

What about a soft-coded personality? (Keeping in mind that I may not be using the programming metaphor correctly.) I do think we're born with something written in the personality field, although whatever it is seems to be pretty elastic. Written in pencil, you might say.

I realize I mixed about four metaphors in this post but I trust you to tease them all out.

Yeah, soft-coded i.e. the fact that people's minds can be altered with treatment and whatnot. I haven't read much about mental traits people are born with, apart from that babies have a sense of perspective and balance, things like that.

[rhinosaur]

I think that people are born with most of their personality already intact, but it surely can't be completely genetic.

We are born with a certain base. Babies are often classified as "easy," "difficult," or "slow to warm up," which I believe is the foundation of personality. Mine hasn't really changed, as far as I can tell.

But if it's genetic, it's weird how a family of SPs (my mom's parents, for example) can have an NT child (my mom), or how a family of NTs (mine) could have an SP child (my sister). Recessive genes, I guess, but which is recessive?

[Ivy]

Yeah, soft-coded i.e. the fact that people's minds can be altered with treatment and whatnot. I haven't read much about mental traits people are born with, apart from that babies have a sense of perspective and balance, things like that.

All I can say, and I do realize that it is very unscientific, is that my two kids have been COMPLETELY different from each other, from birth. They have required very different kinds of parenting. In essence, the rudimentary personality they were born with affected the style of nurturing they received.

I don't believe in blank slates anymore.


I think that people are born with most of their personality already intact, but it surely can't be completely genetic.

We are born with a certain base. Babies are often classified as "easy," "difficult," or "slow to warm up," which I believe is the foundation of personality. Mine hasn't really changed, as far as I can tell.

But if it's genetic, it's weird how a family of SPs (my mom's parents, for example) can have an NT child (my mom), or how a family of NTs (mine) could have an SP child (my sister). Recessive genes, I guess, but which is recessive?

Maybe it's not really genetic, but just a quirk of the particular way our particular brains develop? Unique snowflakes and so forth?

[Ivy]

void0x00's thread from today merged with Thermo's thread of yesteryear (which has seen action today and yesterday).

[ctnd]

EDIT: This has turned into a fairly incoherent rant, I'm quite tired now. So, I'll post it while I've written it. But I would've much prefered to make a orderly cronological post but there you go.

I'm going to go ahead and bring in something sort of off topic. I've got a friend with attention deficit disorder. Since a child he's been taking medication to "deal with it", however, I think most of us were (at least was) a little hyperactive and in my own world most of the time. Most of us grow out of it, but some don't. I've always thought that it was a behavioural thing, and so does the friend I mentioned. It seems to me that we're sort of dooming our kids because we shape the way they are, and then diagnose them with a disorder, give them a prescription and leave them. My mother's foster caring two children at the moment. One of them is thought of as "slow" because he's hyperactive and in his own world all the time. He pretty much seems like me when I was his age. I don't want to make poor judgement on my mother or the boy's mother (his actual mother is 16 and lets him do what he wants/pays little attention to him/doesn't teach him anything), but it looks to me like his treatment has been the cause of the way he is. No one ever pays attention to him, and when they do, it's because he's done something wrong. There's no way he can just sit and read a book with me. I've tried. He just craves attention and approval/judgement based on his actions, so he gets up and starts playing with ornaments to watch your reaction, things like that. Constantly being hounded by my mother, I can see why.

[HilbertSpace]

Maybe it's not really genetic, but just a quirk of the particular way our particular brains develop? Unique snowflakes and so forth?

I think this is the most likely case - genetic bias, with environmental activation (including possibly during development). There are a lot of complex traits that develop this way.

[TaylorS]

OKay I havent done any research at all, but I want to know what you think determines our mbti type.

My belief is that we are born either a thinker or a feeler, and our environment is in charge of determining the way our brains will function.. something like that..

IMO the S/N dichotomy is mostly genetic, the rest are a mix of genetics and enviromental influences before birth and during childhood. The environmental component of F/T is probably mostly the result of hormonal influences in the womb and early childhood, since 75% of women are Fs and 75% of men are Ts. During the teenage years the personality "solidifies" into it's ultimate form.

[puzzled-observer]

IMO the S/N dichotomy is mostly genetic, the rest are a mix of genetics and enviromental influences before birth and during childhood. The environmental component of F/T is probably mostly the result of hormonal influences in the womb and early childhood, since 75&#37; of women are Fs and 75% of men are Ts. During the teenage years the personality "solidifies" into it's ultimate form.

I read there was decent evidence that I/E was genetic, i agree about S/N but the fact that 75% of men are T's and 75% of women are F's could indicate that it's a socially instilled trait. i.e., women are taught that they should be more emotional, and men are taught they should be logical and less emotional.

(edit) also, when you think about it, all there is to a person is the genetics they have plus they environment they're put in. everything about them is determined by both of these factors. the genes react to the environment and develop what kind of person you become. so, really, all of our traits are both genetic and environmental. Some traits are more difficult to change, some less so. So the only real quesiton is how much environment or genetics effect each trait.

[Chaselation]

I doubt genetics in the strictest sense has any bearing on type. If S type made S types and Ns made Ns we would evaporate rather quickly. Ns tend to be more educated and produce less offspring then any other type. (I'll posts stats if anyone doubts this). We would be bread out of existence fairly quickly. (anyone seen Idocrasy?)

It think what is more likely is an indirect genetic component. I did a lot of reading on handedness's prior to delving into MBTI. I noticed the quirkiness of lefties and our particular way of viewing the world. The quirkiness is what MBTI calls N vs. S. I'm not saying all lefties are Ns but most are in my experience. I know at least 30 lefties.

My point? If being left-handed is tangent to being N why has left-handedness not been found to be genetic? There is a genetic component, two lefties are more likely to have a lefty kid but it is not guaranteed. There was some suggestion that lefties were created in-utero due to stresses on the fetus. This would make it genetic in the sense that the mothers genes were causing the left handedness. Apply something similar to Ns. It would be possible for us to exist in any family and continue to pop up with out the need for either parent to be N. Our population distribution would remain rather stable as well.

[aphemix]

I don't understand how anyone can claim genes play any more than a very loose role in the development of personality. Pretty sure our genes dictate our capacity for growth and succeptibility to influence more than anything else. I have confidence any human being can be warped into any mold during early developmental stages.

[Tayshaun]

There simply is a small percentage of nearly all N groups. According to many sources (example (http://16types.free.fr/16types.html)), there are fewer INFJs. ENFP is the only N group with a significantly higher percentage. Except for these two intuitive personality types, the others have similar percentages (unless if all the numbers I have are wrong).

[TaylorS]

I don't understand how anyone can claim genes play any more than a very loose role in the development of personality. Pretty sure our genes dictate our capacity for growth and succeptibility to influence more than anything else. I have confidence any human being can be warped into any mold during early developmental stages.

The notion of the blank slate as been pretty much eviscerated by behavioral genetics research. Our behavior is a complex combo of nature AND nurture.

[Veradicere]

I have read that INTPs are estimated to be between 1% and 5% of the US population. I am leaning more toward 1 or 2 percent. The average for the 16 types is just above 6%.

Why do you think this is? I have two theories.

A.) 1984 Theory - INTPs values are not important to society and that lack of emphasis moves people into other types. What society wants a bunch of procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?

B.) Elitist Theory - Societies need sheep so human evolution favored creating more sheep than thinkers.

They were all killed off for being so damn contrary :sadbanana:

[Veradicere]

eeerrrr If children do not aquire physical and behavioural genes from thier parents where do they get them from.



I did not mean that non-INTP parents could not have INTP children I only suggested that becasue of genetics there is very likely to be more INTP children to NT parents than INTP children to SJ parents. I am talking in averages not blanket rules.



If this were the case how do you explain the fact that different cultures contain different percentages of types.......we all evolved from somewhere in africa and if this rule applies then there should be no variancy in type percentages.

I think you are right. There is good evidence that The Big Five personality traits are genetic, and I imagine that most MBTI traits are as well, since many of them correlate with the Big Five (Extraversion/Introversion being the most obvious).

I think it's like having brown eyes...If both your parents have brown eyes, than there's a damn good chance you will too. My parents were both major introverts, so that's probably why I am as well.

I don't think environment can change your personality, just the expression of it.

[HilbertSpace]

I don't understand how anyone can claim genes play any more than a very loose role in the development of personality. Pretty sure our genes dictate our capacity for growth and succeptibility to influence more than anything else. I have confidence any human being can be warped into any mold during early developmental stages.

To whatever extent there is a genetic component to human behavior or personality, it is non-trivial. It's not the sort of thing you'd be able to model with a Punnett square from Bio 101. There are going to be many genes (in many combinations) each interacting with each other. Then you have the environmental components that will make additional determinations (locking down degrees of freedom), both during development (to whatever extent neurological or other physiological components play a role), and during formative periods of childhood. Plus, it's probably something that can continue to develop as long as learning continues.

["?"]

As Mark Twain quotes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." (http://infj.com/INFJ_Statistics.htm) There is no empirical evidence to support any breakdown in type, just subjective and controlled samples. There are statistics where some ST groups are more rare than INTP, and in fact ENTs are said to be more rare. This is one of those unfortunate delusions that precludes from finding their true type, in the need to be different in some way.

[Wolf]

All I can say, and I do realize that it is very unscientific, is that my two kids have been COMPLETELY different from each other, from birth. They have required very different kinds of parenting. In essence, the rudimentary personality they were born with affected the style of nurturing they received.

I don't believe in blank slates anymore.
From watching them first-hand, I'd have to strongly agree. Brain structure and therefore some preferences are partially defined before birth.

My mother has mentioned that my sister and I were the easiest babies to deal with, and we're both introverted intuitive types... While hardly scientific, I'm providing this as fuel for the fire. All the basics come from your original wiring, then more advanced structures are built upon that base through environmental factors.

[Ivy]

From watching them first-hand, I'd have to strongly agree. Brain structure and therefore some preferences are partially defined before birth.

My mother has mentioned that my sister and I were the easiest babies to deal with, and we're both introverted intuitive types... While hardly scientific, I'm providing this as fuel for the fire. All the basics come from your original wiring, then more advanced structures are built upon that base through environmental factors.

I think so. It would be a pretty skeletal personality at (and before) birth, to be fleshed out with growth and socialization and nurturing.

But I also don't believe nurturing happens in a vacuum. It can't be totally separated from nature. When my children were born I was completely surprised with the "mama bear" instincts that surfaced. I have always been meek, deferent, a people-pleaser. I am still some of those things, but I'd also tear the throat out of anybody who tried to hurt one of my babies. That's not a conscious thing-- my nurture is informed by my nature.

Edit: my first clue that there was more to it than simple blank-slate, everything-is-nurtured, was when my daughter turned into the girliest of girls despite our attempts not to genderify her. We bought her Tonkas-- she used them to carry the Barbies she REALLY wanted (which a certain uncle provided) to their tea parties at the houses she built with the Legos we got her. :)

[enjoysham]

Not that this is totally related... but a while ago I was driving in my car with my best friend. He's a religious studies major, whereas I study economics. I also tend to be agnostic, while he is definitely a devout Episcopalian.

Him: "You know, this whole atheism movement, it's really recent. I think that a lot of it has to do with urban decay, don't you agree?"

Me: "Uh... what are you referring to? Nietzsche? Ayer?"

Him: "Well, everyone. Church attendance is down all across the board. I think the last two hundred years, with the industrial revolution, you know, created all these problems, so people are acting rebellious against God. Five-hundred years ago, people weren't atheists."

Me: "Uh, maybe. But I think it's much more than that. One-thousand years ago, if you were an atheist, you were stoned to death, or tortured. I don't think atheism is a new development by any means, I just think that only recently have people actually been able to express what they're thinking without being killed for it... or rather, in some places in the world at least."

Him: "Hmm..." *Awkward silence and glare.*

I think this goes along with INTPs not being favored by society, and today's environment being 'more conducive' to INTP qualities. Still... I doubt we will ever truly be acknowledged or appreciated. It seems we are doomed to play the part of counselor to humanity... a humanity that may even hate us. Maybe we're co-dependent--go figure.

[nittanylion302]

I think the past actually might have been more favorable to INTPs. The ability to be a jack of all trades was extremely useful in the past eras of small human tribal groups.

Now with massive populations, specialization is all the rage. It's hard for an INTP to do that.

[SolitaryWalker]

It seems to me that the external environment has nothing to do with what types are born.

Human nature is more like what SJs are.

It seems to me that it is more common for an ordinary human being to be a concrete and a methodical individual than theoretical and imaginative.

It is simply antithetical to human nature to see a lot of NPs.

Societal environment can not control the amount of types that are born.

And type cant change.

[Sojourner]

I have read that INTPs are estimated to be between 1% and 5% of the US population. I am leaning more toward 1 or 2 percent. The average for the 16 types is just above 6%.

Why do you think this is? I have two theories.

A.) 1984 Theory - INTPs values are not important to society and that lack of emphasis moves people into other types. What society wants a bunch of procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?

B.) Elitist Theory - Societies need sheep so human evolution favored creating more sheep than thinkers.

Procrastinating - check. Rebellious - maybe. Atheist - definitely not. Anarchist - nah.

:/ That's 37.5%

As for the low-percentage thing... well, surveys can never be truly accurate, and especially not these surveys. It may be that more people perceive themselves to have more socially-acceptable traits, which would show up as positive indicators for non-INTP types on the Myers-Briggs. Besides, how did they get that information? Who are they polling? Did they actually administer the test to everyone they surveyed, or did they just ask?

[htb]

A procreative success rate of 95 to 99 percent is something to analyze only for the purposes of shoring it up. Har!

[ctnd]

It seems to me that the external environment has nothing to do with what types are born.

Do you know of conducted tests of humans born of the same parents and environmental treatment where types are different and therefore must be predetermined from birth?


It seems to me that it is more common for an ordinary human being to be a concrete and a methodical individual than theoretical and imaginative.

This is what the statistics about INTPs indicate.


Societal environment can not control the amount of types that are born.

This is implied by your first sentence. But do you have any refutable data about this?


And type cant change.

Nonsense.

[Jennywocky]

I don't understand how anyone can claim genes play any more than a very loose role in the development of personality. Pretty sure our genes dictate our capacity for growth and succeptibility to influence more than anything else. I have confidence any human being can be warped into any mold during early developmental stages.

You should study gender psychology and the attempts made by behavioral scientists to overwrite brain wiring in infants when "circumcision incidents" occurred.

The mind is not a blank slate at birth. That was debunked and finally admitted over the last 20 years or so.

As far as personality goes:

Certain general factors seem prewired into us by our gentics. (For example, our sensitivity to stimulation.) Extroverts need more stimulation to create the same effect; introverts need less by nature.

Some people are more profoundly affected by their environment; others are detached from it, emotionally, and can withstand a lot more.

And so on.

These genetically derived traits are then built upon by society in fairly predictable ways, resulting in the sorts of personality types that we observe.

So personality is not "directly" hard-wired in, it's the general traits that are hard-wired, then personality itself develops from that. At least, that's my best guess. It would explain why personalities have some similarities from culture to culture but can differ greatly in how they are expressed.

(Jazc and I briefly talked once about how INTPs in Sweden might "look different" from those born and bred in the US, for example.)


Edit: my first clue that there was more to it than simple blank-slate, everything-is-nurtured, was when my daughter turned into the girliest of girls despite our attempts not to genderify her. We bought her Tonkas-- she used them to carry the Barbies she REALLY wanted (which a certain uncle provided) to their tea parties at the houses she built with the Legos we got her.

Incredible, isn't it?

When I became a parent, I moved from theoretical to hard data (at least, a few examples) and when I compare stories with parents, they say the same thing you do. Everyone is surprised at how much is ingrained before socialization truly occurs.


Do you know of conducted tests of humans born of the same parents and environmental treatment where types are different and therefore must be predetermined from birth?

What exactly are you asking, ctnd?

Obviously there are no true "controlled" experiments because medical ethics refuses to experiment on human babies as a matter of principle.

However, you talk to any parent, and they will tell you how each child was different from Day #1, from the stay in the hospital. Maybe the parents have changed a little from child to child, and it's a different year, and the family composition is slightly different, but the differences in personality are apparent very very early on (sometimes the day of birth... based on how fussy or compliant the child is -- and that personality persists through time rather than being based on the circumstances of the birth).

A couple we know just had their third child. Child #1 was energetic, loud, go go go, from day one, but good-natured. Child #2 was stubborn, fussy, and very loud from day one... and still is. Child #3 is quiet, placid, peaceful from the first night in the hospital.

This seems to be typical experience. The base personality is fixed, and then experience creates further differentiation.

[Chaselation]

It seems to me that the external environment has nothing to do with what types are born.

Human nature is more like what SJs are.

It seems to me that it is more common for an ordinary human being to be a concrete and a methodical individual than theoretical and imaginative.

It is simply antithetical to human nature to see a lot of NPs.

Societal environment can not control the amount of types that are born.

And type cant change.


Do you know of conducted tests of humans born of the same parents and environmental treatment where types are different and therefore must be predetermined from birth?

I think a lot of focus is on the nature vs. nurture axis. I think a big part of what is missing is the in utero influence the mother has on the baby. The mother is subject to society and the world at large and those forces often would be passed along to the fetus.

In extreme examples: the mother is with an abusive father, mother is a heavy smoker, a heavy drinker, drugs (crack babies) she lives in a heavily polluted area (lead poisoning) etc. These are extreme examples agreed, but there is likely a continuum of influence from ideal to abysmal. If they any affect on how the baby turns out the argument that society has no impact is false. It is likely there are few if any INTP mentally retarded babies.

When my GF was pregnant with our daughter we played the prescribed music into her belly. I can't say it had any influence on her out come, I can say with certainty she heard it. I heard this may help develop intelligence (society) so I pushed for it. If it did help then society changed in some way her outcome. (She is a ENXX) BTW. This can't be proved obviously. I do think stimulation in this way can only be a good thing.

The brain is very plastic in utero and I believe it's very structure can be changed with good or bad influences.

[ctnd]

This seems to be typical experience. The base personality is fixed, and then experience creates further differentiation.

I'll abstain from considering this to be fact until I come across evidence that is more reliable than subjective experience. I prefer to see statistics and results, with as little variables as possible, as opposed to a normal family's experience, where there are too many unresolved variables to draw a strong conclusion from. Hence the reason that I asked if the proposition made by Wolf was supported by any hard evidence, as it sounded factual.


When my GF was pregnant with our daughter we played the prescribed music into her belly. I can't say it had any influence on her out come, I can say with certainty she heard it. I heard this may help develop intelligence (society) so I pushed for it. If it did help then society changed in some way her outcome. (She is a ENXX) BTW. This can't be proved obviously. I do think stimulation in this way can only be a good thing.

The brain is very plastic in utero and I believe it's very structure can be changed with good or bad influences.

My other point is that I don't accept this notion that a person's personality type cannot be changed because it is hard-coded in utero. And also, if it cannot be changed, I am not sure whether that would be because of this hard-coded nature, or because the brain has been exposed to such environmental conditions for so long to create the personality type, that it could never change. On the other hand, software could be viewed as a machine with rewritable software, whereby that software could be changed by the environment completely with enough exposure. Note that I am not stating any of these as fact, just because I have observed that I have seen the personality change of a few people. I think this is important.

[TaylorS]

You should study gender psychology and the attempts made by behavioral scientists to overwrite brain wiring in infants when "circumcision incidents" occurred.

One of those cases (a certain John/Joan who was used when he was a kid to "prove" that gender distinctions were nurture-based) was famous for showing a certain blank-slatist psychologist to be a fool.

[ctnd]

One of those cases (a certain John/Joan who was used when he was a kid to "prove" that gender distinctions were nurture-based) was famous for showing a certain blank-slatist psychologist to be a fool.

Apparently not:



"In 1967, an anonymous baby boy was turned into a girl by doctors at Johns Hopkins Hospital. For 25 years, the case of John/Joan was called a medical triumph - proof that a child's gender identity could be changed - and thousands of 'sex reassignments' were performed based on this example. But the case was a failure, the truth never reported. Now the man who grew up as a girl tells the story of his life, and a medical controversy erupts."


- The Case of John/Joan (http://www.infocirc.org/rollston.htm) by John Colapinto

Er, just for interest about the actual test, unrelated to this topic (doesn't contribute anything to this discussion):



The reassignment was ultimately unsuccessful, and Reimer assumed a male gender role at 15. He later went public with his story to discourage similar medical practices. He committed suicide at the age of 38.


- Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John/Joan_case)

[jyakulis]

B.) Elitist Theory - Societies need sheep so human evolution favored creating more sheep than thinkers.

couldn't you make the same argument vice versa...? natural selection is slowly breeding us out.

[ctnd]

couldn't you make the same argument vice versa...? natural selection is slowly breeding us out.

"Us?"

[jyakulis]

Yes, we did have a talk about this in a different thread. My answer was that "abstraction" is a later development of humans. Vertually all other animals do not have the ability to "abstract". Thus when humans were developing from ape to human, the majority, if not all were S's. This was the natural way to operated an live in the world. "Abstracting" minds are a later development of human minds, and it thus fewer than "concrete" ones.

i don't know about all this.

this is still a good read...can't stress it enough...don't know how much weight it holds but it is a very intriquing read.
http://www.serpentfd.org/index.html

[jyakulis]

"Us?"

intps

[tinribz]

While acknowledging direct experience of my own children it is statistically insignificant I too would agree that there is a massive bias to it being a nature not nurture thing.

I can't understand why people have such a hard time coming round to the genetic explanation, maybe they don’t understand the probability side of it. Let’s say there are 70&#37; Es and 30% Is in society. The way I'd see it in my lay perspective is we all inherit and carry 7 E genes and 3 I genes. But only one is used to determine your brain structure. So you inherit all 10 and randomly pick the one used to develop your brain with. ~On average 7 out of ten will use an E, 3 an I.

The same would be true for N/S, T/F, P/J and a combination of INTP would be 1 in 32 (3%) in a similar to the way the probability of pulling 5 red balls out of 5 bags of 50 red and 50 blue is about 1 in 32. Only the first bag has 70 red, 30 blue.

In actuality it would most likely be more complex with pair combinations, other random but probability biased genes that account for the degree of any trait and maybe even and a small preference to the choice inherited from parents.

The fact that some cultures have different distributions could be down to them having 6 E and 4 Is etc. And / Or nurture could account for a 20% swing in any direction from the natural.

[paintzee]

Considering that type is choice, not genetically determined and the difficulty of sticking with these choices during the development of personality, it is not surprising that only 2% have this type.

[Chaselation]

Considering that type is choice, not genetically determined and the difficulty of sticking with these choices during the development of personality, it is not surprising that only 2% have this type.

To say type is choice is to say that an infant or new born is choosing their out come. There is no evidence to support that here or in any study I've seen.

My children are very young they behave much the same way they have when they are born. My daughter is more Barbbies then Tonkas despite my best efforts. She did not make this "choice" at the age of 1 month. It is how she was at birth. My son is much the same way. He like to busy with "things" and always has.

If they can make a choice then surely we could influence that choice. That does not seem to be evidenced in the experience here or in research (noted above).

I think the score is settled with type when the mind/brain is fully developed in terms of structure likely at 7-8 months. Perhaps sooner.

For reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

[Nightning]

Temperaments as I look at it is pretty much stable through our lives. Looking at myself, despite my best efforts to force myself to be more outgoing, it just doesn't work very well. While the heritability of personality traits are high, (I think correlation for Big 5 is around 0.6-0.7. Not sure if people have done it for MBTI though.) the correlation isn't 1.0. Environmental factors do come in to play. It's just has a much smaller effect.

Speaking of choices... since when do we consciously decide what our temperaments should be when we're infants?

[Nut&Milk]

I think the score is settled with type when the mind/brain is fully developed in terms of structure likely at 7-8 months. Perhaps sooner.

Thats an absurd thing to say because your brain doesn't fully develop its structure till you hit about 25 years or so. Also, the human brain is highly adaptable and constantly changing as you progress even after you have reached maturity.

[Jennywocky]

Thats an absurd thing to say because your brain doesn't fully develop its structure till you hit about 25 years or so. Also, the human brain is highly adaptable and constantly changing as you progress even after you have reached maturity.

That's not really what is being said. The basic framework is actually laid down, enough to establish a baseline personality. It's simply that it has to be fleshed out into maturity, which doesn't finish until later. This latter part is what you're describing.

(For example, the notorious "lack of discretion" exhibited by teenagers because their brain is not yet fully developed -- it doesn't mean the teenager doesn't have an established personality yet, it simply means certain aspects of the brain, and thus behavioral mind, have yet to reach maturity and function in the most productive way.)

In any case, have a few kids, or be involved with kids from birth or for prolonged periods of time in their childhood, and you'll see what is being said here.

[s0978]

What about a soft-coded personality? (Keeping in mind that I may not be using the programming metaphor correctly.) I do think we're born with something written in the personality field, although whatever it is seems to be pretty elastic. Written in pencil, you might say.


I'm interested in your personal guess as to what % nature, what % nurture.

[Ivy]

I'm interested in your personal guess as to what % nature, what % nurture.

I'm also skeptical of the hard line between nature and nurture, since nature informs nurture, to an extent. So it would be difficult to pin it down to a percentage. I do think we're born with an OS, then we load different kinds of software on it based on our experiences. Maybe 25/75?

[MacGuffin]

I'm also skeptical of the hard line between nature and nurture, since nature informs nurture, to an extent. So it would be difficult to pin it down to a percentage. I do think we're born with an OS, then we load different kinds of software on it based on our experiences. Maybe 25/75?
Wrong! It's 50/50!

;)

[Ivy]

Wrong! It's 50/50!

;)

Hey, I'm not married to that 25/75 number. I could go with 50/50.

[Alv]

I do believe it's more like 75&#37; nature/ 25% nurture.

I look at it as at appearance:
We are born as brunets or blonds, with grey eyes or green and so on. One can use colour lenses, one can dye one's hair or shave it off to comply with demands of current fashion but the only way to make any drastic changes is a surgical operation.

[Ivy]

I do believe it's more like 75% nature/ 25% nurture.

I look at it as at appearance:
We are born as brunets or blonds, with grey eyes or green and so on. One can use color lenses, one can dye one's hair or shave it off to comply with demands of current fashion but the only way to make any drastic changes a surgical operation.

Don't you think personality is a bit more complex than eye or hair color? Those are sort of toggle switches, whereas personality is more of an analog thing with the transistors and the whatnot.

(I don't know what is going on with me and the geeky metaphors today.)

[meanlittlechimp]

I read a study that in Korea that aren't very rare. Aparrently the Korean Gov't MBTI tests all childen somewhere in middle school. Korea for some reason has 75% introverts, so there the ENTJ, ENTP, etc is far more rare than INTP, INTJ, INFJ.

Which makes one question how much E/I is influenced by environment.

[pangolin]

I read a study that in Korea that aren't very rare. Aparrently the Korean Gov't MBTI tests all childen somewhere in middle school. Korea for some reason has 75% introverts, so there the ENTJ, ENTP, etc is far more rare than INTP, INTJ, INFJ.

Which makes one question how much E/I is influenced by environment.

or cultural breeding?

[Oculus Sinister]

Fuck it.

[Nightning]

I read a study that in Korea that aren't very rare. Aparrently the Korean Gov't MBTI tests all childen somewhere in middle school. Korea for some reason has 75% introverts, so there the ENTJ, ENTP, etc is far more rare than INTP, INTJ, INFJ.

Which makes one question how much E/I is influenced by environment.

But you can't neglect genetics could play a role here. Maybe Koreans are more likely to have "N" alleles? Trait frequency drift?

[meanlittlechimp]

But you can't neglect genetics could play a role here. Maybe Koreans are more likely to have "N" alleles? Trait frequency drift?

It's defiinitely possible. My Korean friend who is getting her phd in criminal psychology had the same opinion. The same study she sent me said the US had 75% extroverts.

She had an interesting theory that introverts are more likely to commit suicide in the US because they felt more misunderstood and that in Korea it's the extroverts who are more likely to kill themselves for the same reason.

[Alv]

Don't you think personality is a bit more complex than eye or hair color? Those are sort of toggle switches, whereas personality is more of an analog thing with the transistors and the whatnot.

(I don't know what is going on with me and the geeky metaphors today.)

I think of personality as of 'way of thinking'. And I believe it's [almost] completely inbred. But If you regard personality as a way of thinking + moral regulations then nature/nurture correlation would be about 50/50 (in my humble opinion). Or even lean more towards nurture as in some situations way of thinking play no significant role while moral regulations are always highly important while we live inside social groups.

[Wolf]

couldn't you make the same argument vice versa...? natural selection is slowly breeding us out.
It's probably more of an equilibrium that is created based on the society. SJs and Extroverts do better in western societies than eastern ones.

They need us to invent and create their future, while we need them to maintain the baseline society upon which we depend. Therefore, we all need, use, and envy other people for their abilities. Usually people that do really boring work wish they could do what we do...then many try, but they're not naturally suited, so they are just a drain on what we do. If people were just more willing to do what they do well and like to do naturally, we'd all get a lot more done and be happier.

Because western society has so many Extroverts and they are so prominent, it seems people are trying very hard to discriminate against and phase out Introverts at every opportunity. Does anyone else see the obvious discrimination when "Interpersonal skills" are the top of the list on jobs that have neither contact with customers nor much contact with anyone else? I just skip applying for these jobs...

[meanlittlechimp]

It's probably more of an equilibrium that is created based on the society. SJs and Extroverts do better in western societies than eastern ones.

They need us to invent and create their future, while we need them to maintain the baseline society upon which we depend. Therefore, we all need, use, and envy other people for their abilities. Usually people that do really boring work wish they could do what we do...then many try, but they're not naturally suited, so they are just a drain on what we do. If people were just more willing to do what they do well and like to do naturally, we'd all get a lot more done and be happier.

Because western society has so many Extroverts and they are so prominent, it seems people are trying very hard to discriminate against and phase out Introverts at every opportunity. Does anyone else see the obvious discrimination when "Interpersonal skills" are the top of the list on jobs that have neither contact with customers nor much contact with anyone else? I just skip applying for these jobs...

I would imagine in Asia, when you are too vocal or step out of the hiearchy to buck tradition, they are more likely to be the extroverts which might get them into trouble. I almost went nuts thinking my high school and work places were too rigid, structured and dogmatic. I probably would have snapped if I grew up in Asia. What do you mean I have to bow because you're older?? I would have been a pariah or maybe turned into an introvert... But I'm starting to lean towards the idea that my extroversion was probably more genetic than environmental/cultural. Someone should isolate the gene for extraversion/introversion, if it's possible.

[Nightning]

I would imagine in Asia, when you are too vocal or step out of the hiearchy to buck tradition, they are more likely to be the extroverts which might get them into trouble. I almost went nuts thinking my high school and work places were too rigid, structured and dogmatic. I probably would have snapped if I grew up in Asia. What do you mean I have to bow because you're older?? I would have been a pariah or maybe turned into an introvert... But I'm starting to lean towards the idea that my extroversion was probably more genetic than environmental/cultural. Someone should isolate the gene for extraversion/introversion, if it's possible.

More than one gene is involved in extraversion/intraversion... Otherwise we wouldn't get our nice bell curve spectrum. Looking at Big 5 extraversion trait... it is mostly genetic... correlation between monzygotes twins is like 0.74 or whatnot in the Minnesota twin study. Don't quote me on the exact numbers.

[Sojourner]

Too true! Is anybody here in the genetics sort of department? I mean, something so complex as "introversion"! Even the concept itself is complex.

Of course, wouldn't it be too funny if it turns out to be one single gene after all.... -_-

[cafe]

Too true! Is anybody here in the genetics sort of department? I mean, something so complex as "introversion"! Even the concept itself is complex.

Of course, wouldn't it be too funny if it turns out to be one single gene after all.... -_-
It would be until they decide it was a defect and screened for it prenatally, repairing it or terminating the pregnancy. Not that I'm paranoid or anything . . .

[Chaselation]

I would imagine in Asia, when you are too vocal or step out of the hiearchy to buck tradition, they are more likely to be the extroverts which might get them into trouble. I almost went nuts thinking my high school and work places were too rigid, structured and dogmatic. I probably would have snapped if I grew up in Asia. What do you mean I have to bow because you're older?? I would have been a pariah or maybe turned into an introvert... But I'm starting to lean towards the idea that my extroversion was probably more genetic than environmental/cultural. Someone should isolate the gene for extraversion/introversion, if it's possible.

I think the I vs. E is the most influenced of the personality axes. This is where nurture can have an impact. I very much hated my own introversion for much of my youth and made every effort to change. I was only marginally successful but I have no doubt I would be much more introverted had I not made those efforts. My introversion was extreme as a youth.

I also tried to be more J vs. P (before I knew what those meant) as did my parents this failed miserably. This I feel would be much harder for me to change for many reasons.

I have no desire to change the NT because it's why were all so awesome.

[Wolf]

Introversion/Extroversion is almost certainly a genetic trait. Extroverts are actually inferior to introverts, but they claim we're inferior to them.

[Nightning]

Introversion/Extroversion is almost certainly a genetic trait. Extroverts are actually inferior to introverts, but they claim we're inferior to them.

You can't exactly say that... evolutionary speaking, human survival was heavily dependent upon social interactions. It's where we introverts get our nice big cortex from. (Brain size is correlated to effective group size in primates). Without them, there's no us.

[Wolf]

You can't exactly say that... evolutionary speaking, human survival was heavily dependent upon social interactions. It's where we introverts get our nice big cortex from. (Brain size is correlated to effective group size in primates). Without them, there's no us.
Yes, but Extroverts are broken. They're not using their brains as the design dictates. In fact, they don't need all the grey matter they have...

Working basic human societies require more introverts by a massive margin, just as they need more SJs by a large margin.

[Sojourner]

If everyone and everything were useful, the world would be more pleasant and more terrible.

[meanlittlechimp]

Yes, but Extroverts are broken. They're not using their brains as the design dictates. In fact, they don't need all the grey matter they have...



Can you elaborate on that?

[Nut&Milk]

Going back through this thread and reading a little more, I have to say that some of you are over relying on the influence genetics plays in shaping a person's personality. Personality is a very murky trait to explain solely by genetics and also there is no set personality center inside a human brain which one could point to and say that this is a person's baseline personality because no such thing exists. Besides, no one really knows how much of it is genetics and how much of it is shaped by environmental factors and an individuals overall life experiences.

[Jennywocky]

Going back through this thread and reading a little more, I have to say that some of you are over relying on the influence genetics plays in shaping a person's personality. Personality is a very murky trait to explain solely by genetics and also there is no set personality center inside a human brain which one could point to and say that this is a person's baseline personality because no such thing exists. Besides, no one really knows how much of it is genetics and how much of it is shaped by environmental factors and an individuals overall life experiences.

I don't think anyone in general is arguing against that. Most people seem to be saying that there are certain tendencies that are based on genetics, and the tendencies are influenced and developed according to environmental influences.

as you say, it is difficult to pinpoint any *specific* personality constructs in the physical brain (although some people have tried, using such things as brain imaging and seeing which areas were being used more during particular types of activities).

That's why personality development and discussion is more of an art than a science. There are just far too many factors involved, and no way to isolate any of them... let alone do so in an ethical manner (since people are not too keen on experimenting on children in development).

[Nut&Milk]

I don't think anyone in general is arguing against that. Most people seem to be saying that there are certain tendencies that are based on genetics, and the tendencies are influenced and developed according to environmental influences.

Please, define these tendencies?

[Ivy]

Going back through this thread and reading a little more, I have to say that some of you are over relying on the influence genetics plays in shaping a person's personality. Personality is a very murky trait to explain solely by genetics and also there is no set personality center inside a human brain which one could point to and say that this is a person's baseline personality because no such thing exists. Besides, no one really knows how much of it is genetics and how much of it is shaped by environmental factors and an individuals overall life experiences.

I don't think anyone is saying personality is SOLELY explained by genetics. I certainly am not. I do think there is something there at birth (before, even-- you have a brain and experiences way before you come down the tube) but obviously there's no way to totally pin down what that is. Especially since IMO there is no clear distinction between nature and nurture-- the way we are nurtured is informed, in part, by our parents' instincts, which ARE hard-wired.

[Jennywocky]

Please, define these tendencies?

Well, I think I've already mentioned elsewhere how the nervous system of extroverts generally needs more stimulation than introverts. This contributes to extroverted and introverted behavior.

This is a concrete physiological structure that impacts personality.

Irritability/Aggression (such as anger issues) are also inbred. This not only shows up in animals such as dogs [which can be BRED to be either more friendly or more temperamental -- this is common cultural knowledge] but in people as well. I think they've found genetic markers for this trait. Overt irritability/Aggression can show up as a personality trait; certain types exhibit more aggression and anger than others.

This is all basic research. You don't even need to do a lot of hardcore reading to discover this, you could simply browse Wikipedia and find basic information on this sort of thing if you were interested.

Again, the physiological aspects of personality are then either diminished or accentuated by environmental pressures. A natural introvert can develop extroverted skills if they need to do so, to survive. Someone who has small anger issues can develop large amounts of aggression if they are threatened/hurt enough when developing; likewise, people who tend to withdraw will learn to withdraw more often if punished enough or made to feel futile.

As Ivy says, it's very difficult to disentangle nature and nurture. Nature influences nurture, and nurture influences nature.

[Maxi]

I've been recently wondering if there's any connection between zodiac signs and MBTI types. I don't tend to believe in magic and prediction of the future, but it's just hard to deny that there's really something there when most Virgos and Capricorns I've met were xNTx and all Tauruses were xSFx.. There are 12 zodiac signs but 16 MBTI types, so you can't probably map them directly, but from what i can tell by analyzing people I know, there are many INTPs born in the last dates of august (leo-virgo), then there are INTJs (virgo), then ENTJs, ENTPs.. There are also a lot of IxTxs born in January (copricorns).. Never met an introverted gemini, most geminis i know ar ESFJs or something..

May be I/E is defined by genes, P/J by environment, food that mother ate and nurture and S/N/F/T by stars.. what?! :) if the moon faces affect females, why can't more complex state of outer space affect things in more complex way?

[Mr.Miagi]

Why are INTJ's such a small percentage?
Why are INFJ's such a small percentage?

[Methofelis]

I find the correlation between astrological signs/type to be amusing.
If I went with the TRUE sign I was born under (sticking to original astrological charts,) I'd be Capricornus, which seems to only hold some minor relevance, if any.


My boyfriend, also an INTP, is a Leo. Generally, Leos are a bit rough and pushy, bossy and the like, right? He's not of that ilk, so I don't know about that connection...

Now if I was to claim Aquarian, like my sign is in the new, bastardized version of astrology, I'd say hell no.
They're a bunch of hippies. :)

[563 740]

I've been recently wondering if there's any connection between zodiac signs and MBTI types. I don't tend to believe in magic and prediction of the future, but it's just hard to deny that there's really something there when most Virgos and Capricorns I've met were xNTx and all Tauruses were xSFx..

I am a Taurus, and absolutely not SF.

[Jennywocky]

May be I/E is defined by genes, P/J by environment, food that mother ate and nurture and S/N/F/T by stars.. what?! :) if the moon faces affect females, why can't more complex state of outer space affect things in more complex way?

It probably affects us with the same regularity that subliminal advertising was found to affect sales. (Which is to pretty much say, not really.)

And, if you think about it, the universe is never in the same state. Things are moving away from each other at a rapid rate. With that in mind, two people with the same birthday born a year apart should still not be the "same" -- let alone if they were born *centuries* apart.

Besides that, there seems to be no predictable pattern found in personality based solely on zodiac symbolism. The descriptions are generic and can't really be used predictively.

[563 740]

Besides that, there seems to be no predictable pattern found in personality based solely on zodiac symbolism. The descriptions are generic and can't really be used predictively.

As much as I love their buffet, the Chinese are even more outrageous with their typing - by year?!?

[Ivy]

As much as I love their buffet, the Chinese are even more outrageous with their typing - by year?!?

True, but when else do I get to be a Dragon?

[Jennywocky]

True, but when else do I get to be a Dragon?

*grumble &**@&^# 1968 = freakin' Monkeys @#@&&%% grumble*

[563 740]

True, but when else do I get to be a Dragon?

I'm a Dog - I'm OK with that.

But the implication that I am the same type of person as everyone in my graduating class? Right...

[Nightning]

I just look at those things for amusement sake... I'm a rat though, hence the avatar bit. Plus there is a personality fit, but that's just coincidence.

Also with astrology signs, people have a tendency to confirm to their type. Once they read that their specific types is suppose to be x y z... familarity and recognition might just make it more likely for them to endorse in those traits. Whether they have it or not is a different matter.

[Chaselation]

I've been recently wondering if there's any connection between zodiac signs and MBTI types. I don't tend to believe in magic and prediction of the future, but it's just hard to deny that there's really something there when most Virgos and Capricorns I've met were xNTx and all Tauruses were xSFx.. There are 12 zodiac signs but 16 MBTI types, so you can't probably map them directly, but from what i can tell by analyzing people I know, there are many INTPs born in the last dates of august (leo-virgo), then there are INTJs (virgo), then ENTJs, ENTPs.. There are also a lot of IxTxs born in January (copricorns).. Never met an introverted gemini, most geminis i know ar ESFJs or something..

May be I/E is defined by genes, P/J by environment, food that mother ate and nurture and S/N/F/T by stars.. what?! :) if the moon faces affect females, why can't more complex state of outer space affect things in more complex way?

I'm a Libra this seems to jive well with being an INTP.

If I take myself for example I was conceived sometime in January. If we told parents conceiving your child in January would increase the odds of your child being bright or a social misfit (depending on the spin your after) I think more people would consider it ridiculous. Unless my dads swimmers were being affected by SAD I don't see how egg or sperm would care what time of year it was they were hooking up.

[HilbertSpace]

May be I/E is defined by genes, P/J by environment, food that mother ate and nurture and S/N/F/T by stars.. what?! :) if the moon faces affect females, why can't more complex state of outer space affect things in more complex way?


A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual"--find out how he feels about astrology.
-- Lazarus Long

[shyfulpanda]

As an INTP that has struggled to survive in a world of otherwise since childhood, I would have to agree that society doesn't have much of a universal use for INTP's for normal functions. No one likes the people that think too much for their own good, tells you an unapologetic opinion when asked for it, possesses common sense, and has no desire to become a "people person" just to pander to other's needs and wants. Though there are many fields of study where INTP's flourish better than most, "fitting in" comtemporarily has never been one of our strengths.

[cafe]

I am a Taurus, and absolutely not SF.
Oh. I just saw this one. I'd have to say that my Taurus daughter is also clearly not an SF. There's an outside chance she's an ST corrupted by her crazy IN parents, but definitely not an SF.

[satesone]

i believe that it's a design much like the bell curve. i don't believe that nurture has much to do with it. if so, wouldn't most siblings share the same temperaments? rather, i believe that we are all functioning in a primitive system with our faulty governing and politics. just like we could probably change the statistics of i.q but not warp the shape of the bell curve, we can't change the design of our temperaments. i believe everyone is here for a reason, with each his own strengths, abilities and crafts but order and tyranny has forced us to go against the grain by creating an environment where types like intp's will either be shunned or ignored. i mean think about it, we have entj's as doctors who are only there for the big bucks when we could potentially have a more suited type there who cares for the genuine well being of a person. we have police officers and judges who put people behind bars based on subjective feelings rather than objective reasoning. we have homeless humans sleeping on the streets and it remains a problem when there is always a solution. truth is, theres a place for everyone here and at the time, we're all playing musical chairs because some dickhead took one chair out of the circle and created hierarchy and now everyone fell into the motion of trying not to get left out. maybe i'm placing too much faith, but i believe that our consciousness in our everyday observations and immediate activities manifests the demand for the intp population but humans as a race are too fucking stupid to get with the program. scratch that, i'm aware that most of the human population are followers and worker bees,but the wrong people are obviously head of the table and everyone naturally follows with a loyalty like that of a dog defending his owner... but we intp's know better. i envision a world where no one gets left behind and all potential is applied. being wasteful would be a crime but the judging system would be more accurate and less bias by introducing a new method where we no longer apply one single standard to our diverse race. as time passes everything becomes more complex and intricate, and i don't see why our ways of evaluating or judging another person when their freedoms are at stake would be any exception. im no visionary though, i'm only basing this from the errors i observe. in fact i believe individuality is a problem and i would imagine that if it was illegal to wear a color other than gray or wear make up or shoes different than everyone else, there'd be alot of pissed off people. i kinda went off the subject but yea, i believe it's design and we as a whole are ignoring it and trying to go with what the people on top are forcing on us. hence our feeling of alienation.

[MontyBrogan]

We're the byproducts of a cultural cesspool.

[Limey]

I think it's because INTPs enjoy masturbation more than sex.

[fishjello]

I have read that INTPs are estimated to be between 1% and 5% of the US population. I am leaning more toward 1 or 2 percent. The average for the 16 types is just above 6%.

Why do you think this is? I have two theories.

A.) 1984 Theory - INTPs values are not important to society and that lack of emphasis moves people into other types. What society wants a bunch of procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?

B.) Elitist Theory - Societies need sheep so human evolution favored creating more sheep than thinkers.

its hard to say. i disagree with both theories. it would be interesting to see a graph through history to see the percentages of the different types but i dont think that it would have changed much.

Ya im not sure on the intp percentage. ive seen it less thean 1% and several others lower than intp (intp then jumping from 5% or greater). I can say that i have never met an intp in my life that i know of. Ive met ENTP and ISTP. thats as close as its got.

[Vagabond]

I think it's because INTPs enjoy masturbation more than sex.
I wonder what that says about INTJs. You are more rare supposedly, aren't you :p

[Limey]

I wonder what that says about INTJs. You are more rare supposedly, aren't you :p

+choking

[1104]

someone had to do it.

[Rozza]

Probably due to nature's INTP cull programme.

Scenario:
INTP wanders around completely wrapped up in head - unaware of external dangers.

Pre-historic times = Deep-in-thought INTP trips over bear/sabre tooth tiger/etc = THE END.

Modern times = Deep-in-thought INTP wanders onto road meant for fast moving traffic = THE END.

RESULT?
The scant remnants of the international INTP gene pool, stay indoors in low-density populated areas around the world and occasionally emerge from head to post.
:happpy:

[1104]

A.) 1984 Theory - INTPs values are not important to society and that lack of emphasis moves people into other types. What society wants a bunch of procrastinating, rebelious, atheist, anarchists?

B.) Elitist Theory - Societies need sheep so human evolution favored creating more sheep than thinkers.

no difference.

i like it better than genetics.

knowing that MBTI isn't a clean classifications system, i'm leaning more toward the simple explanation that naturally, some people happen to be more intelligent then the general population. just as some happen to be taller. they're extremes and therefore represent a small percentage of the population. then we gave them the name "iNtuitive".

IE, TF, and PJ could be aspects of personality, or they could be further indicators of intelligence. whatever.

[matty_uk]

no difference.

i like it better than genetics.

knowing that MBTI isn't a clean classifications system, i'm leaning more toward the simple explanation that naturally, some people happen to be more intelligent then the general population. just as some happen to be taller. they're extremes and therefore represent a small percentage of the population. then we gave them the name "iNtuitive".

IE, TF, and PJ could be aspects of personality, or they could be further indicators of intelligence. whatever.

I disagree with this. S types are certainly better than Ns at remembering details, keeping presentable, playing sports, decorating the house, noticing things, and so on. It's not just that we are more intelligent, there are definately different mental functions going on.

[1104]

sure, sensers have their own merits, but it's not intelligence as defined by IQ. i won't bother being politically correct.

the theory may be more palatable if one didn't connote intelligence and superiority.

[atom]

the theory may be more palatable if one didn't connote intelligence and superiority.



conflate. Vocabulary usage is also often conflated with intelligence and superiority.

[1104]

thanks.

[Doctor-Alvis]

It's to keep us from taking over the world, getting bored, and forgetting about it.

Just like Doctor Doom! And you really only need a little bit of Doom.

[jyng1]

According to the 1995 atlas of type I have, there are eight types which make up less of a percentage of the population than intps. 55.2% S and 44.8% N. Not Special.

[Resonance]

According to the 1995 atlas of type I have, there are eight types which make up less of a percentage of the population than intps. 55.2% S and 44.8% N. Not Special.
That's because every typologist assesses type differently, isn't it?

[pangolin]

It would be until they decide it was a defect and screened for it prenatally, repairing it or terminating the pregnancy. Not that I'm paranoid or anything . . .

Given that the people that discovered such a thing would almost certainly be introverts, it probably wouldn't get out there. If it did get to the phase of "screening", such a society would crumble after three generations or so.

[pangolin]

It probably affects us with the same regularity that subliminal advertising was found to affect sales. (Which is to pretty much say, not really.)

And, if you think about it, the universe is never in the same state. Things are moving away from each other at a rapid rate. With that in mind, two people with the same birthday born a year apart should still not be the "same" -- let alone if they were born *centuries* apart.

Besides that, there seems to be no predictable pattern found in personality based solely on zodiac symbolism. The descriptions are generic and can't really be used predictively.

If I were going to make any kind of link between personality and astrological sign, it would have less to do with the stars and more to do with the seasons. All of them happen due to the tilt and revolution of the planet.

[Oolon_Colluphid]

:offtopic:


we have police officers and judges who put people behind bars based on subjective feelings rather than objective reasoning.

Of course they believe they are using objective reasoning. You believe you are using objective reasoning. I think INTP is best described as someone who thinks in terms of facts and reason whether or not they are actually being rational. I don't believe that INTP individuals are significantly more rational than the general population. By some degree, yes, but more often than not they tend to frame their explanations using the rhetoric of logic and reason even if their actions are just as biased as the next man.

This is why people find INTPs arrogant, because they tend to presume that they are possessed of a unique insight that others could never hope to achieve. It's bollocks of course, being INTP does not equal greater intelligence or even greater rationality. It equals viewing the world in more systemic, and thus usually logical terms, but it doesn't grant a greater ability to determine truth.

I'm not trying to rag on all INTPs (I am one myself according to most of the tests I've taken) or even to attack you satesone. My point was that the people of this board tend to almost fetishize reason as some classic daemon whispering truth into their ear rather than an imperfect process that is far too easy to attribute to (or attribute the lack of to) a person falsely.

Maybe I should have just started a separate thread.

[Void]

:offtopic:
Of course they believe they are using objective reasoning. You believe you are using objective reasoning. I think INTP is best described as someone who thinks in terms of facts and reason whether or not they are actually being rational. I don't believe that INTP individuals are significantly more rational than the general population. By some degree, yes, but more often than not they tend to frame their explanations using the rhetoric of logic and reason even if their actions are just as biased as the next man.

This is why people find INTPs arrogant, because they tend to presume that they are possessed of a unique insight that others could never hope to achieve. It's bollocks of course, being INTP does not equal greater intelligence or even greater rationality. It equals viewing the world in more systemic, and thus usually logical terms, but it doesn't grant a greater ability to determine truth.

I'm not trying to rag on all INTPs (I am one myself according to half the tests I've taken) or even to attack you satesone. My point was that the people of this board tend to almost fetishize reason as some classic daemon whispering truth into their ear rather than an imperfect process that is far too easy to attribute to (or attribute the lack of to) a person falsely.

Maybe I should have just started a separate thread.

I don't know about others but I read satesone's comment as a relative reference.

Quite obviously, INTPs just like any other human is incapable of objectivity but as a relative comparison, when emotionally calm, they rank nearer the top.

Perhaps I'm speaking out of turn though...

[Oolon_Colluphid]

I don't know about others but I read satesone's comment as a relative reference.

Quite obviously, INTPs just like any other human is incapable of objectivity but as a relative comparison, when emotionally calm, they rank nearer the top.

Perhaps I'm speaking out of turn though...

No, no, that's perfectly fair and that's why I said "by some degree". Relative to all other types INTP may, on average, display superior reasoning ability. I didn't intend to attack Satesone or their specific wording but saw a good opportunity to bring up a point about the idealization of INTP as some sort of perfectly rational philosopher-king that I see far too often here. It's actually quite tribal, but that may be in the nature of internet forums moreso than the nature of INTP.

[Void]

Relatively...

We're prone to arrogance, even for humans, but we tend to be more open to recognising it as well, in our calmer moments.

Comparatively to other types IMHO. ;)

[dee64]

According to the Personality page website the percentage of intp = 4%
According to google.com/publicdata the global population in 2009 was 6,775,235,741 people.
Intp global population = 271009429.64

[composer]

I suspect the possibility that type is genetically determined. Totally unscientific, but I notice that all sensor parents tend to produce mostly sensors, with exceptions. My parents produced three sensors and one INTP (me). Looking around my neighborhood I see a lot of apparently 'all sensor' families, and among our friends. Mine is the exception, as an 'all intuitive' family. Wife is an INFJ, I'm and INTP, and we made an INTP son (by now it's a positive identification)

Now if it's not genetically determined, then it's somehow determined by the parents influence. Also unscientific, but I have doubts about this. My observations of the children I know from conception (my son and his cousins) show that personality, if not type, is evident from the beginning. My kid was quiet while in the womb, we never felt a kick. His cousin (a strong Sensor) was crazy, kicking and moving around. They're personalities were obvious when they were born and even before they could walk.

Either way, as sensors tend to have more kids and on the whole will tend to overpopulate with more sensors.

[Baltar]

AS the poster above just said, sensors have more kids. Ns have just as much survival value as Ss, but perhaps in different ways(Ss just refuse to see it). I think a society with, not all Ns, but a 50/50 mix would do just fine-even in an agrarian society-the problem would be the close-mindedness of the S types which I know all about. Back to the orginal point-S women are probably more hell-bent on breeding and are turned on by the athletic ability and social conformity of S men. So S=more S tadpoles.

I also suspect, if there ever was a time when the S/N mix was closer to 50/50, Ns were cut down over time(say 3000BC through the 1600s) by stoning, burning at the stake, social ostracism leading to less opportunites to get laid for Ns, etc. I am not kidding. Who likes to enforce harsh rules, that I might add, often have little survival value? SJs, I am sure this was even more so from the neolithic through the middle ages and the puritan communities. "She's a girl and can do algebra-she's a witch!". Who do you think would dream up shit like that?

Anecdotally, I am pretty sure there is a genetic component, but could be recessive.
INTP is common among my male blood relatives(dad, maternal grandpa, uncle and I suspect some distant cousins), but is supposed to be rare in general and I did not
grow up in a house with any of them-I was raised by an ENTJ mom and ISTJ stepdad.
My half-sister-similar situation-grew up with ISTJ dad, ENTJ mom(they do not understand their spacy IxxP kids-and never actually tried, anyway) and INTP brother-me, but she is ISFP,
her grandmothers and at least one aunt are ISFx.

In terms of belief systems...which has more Darwinian (apart from physical survival) value(applies to science and religion). the SJ way "2 plus 2 is five and you better believe it, too, or else".
the NT way-"I am pretty sure 2 plus 2 is almost always 4, but I will concede for the occasional crazy possibility of it being five"
So, who will "get their way", then attract the opposite sex and breed more".

[Flatchett]

Because they tend to be annoying little pricks, so people hunt them down and kill them.

[jyng1]

Because they tend to be annoying little pricks, so people hunt them down and kill them.

There's probably quite a lot of truth to that lol... It probably took weapons of considerable complexity until an INTPs survival statistics rose to the level of the majority of S's.

[Hermione]

I beg your pardon. I have never ever in my life been an annoying little prick. Not once.
[adorable little smart alec]

[jyng1]

I beg your pardon. I have never ever in my life been an annoying little prick. Not once.
[adorable little smart alec]


You would have been retained for your breeding value!!! You know, the slave Hermione... Spoil of war.

[Hermione]

Sure, whatever. I doubt your theory. I am way more trouble than mere mortals can hope to deal with. Always think I'm right. Quite accurate.