MBTI and Evolution: INFJs need to reproduce more

[bickelz]

Butters has 2 Sensor parents, yet is an intuitive.

 

[Galileo]

lol....I can just see it now....classes on producing the personality type baby of your dreams....

 

[the]

Im an ISTJ and my dad is ISTP and my mom is ISFJ. I think it is genetic.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

If you say that cloning is a solution, then you are implying that personality type is completely based on genes.

Someone on the forum commented that there is a trend with INFJ's being the only child and being the oldest child. I believe there is a genetic element and an intangible element to becoming an INFJ. Sorta like how serial killers are made; they are born with certain bad traits and they usually experience some type of abuse. The combination of the two makes a serial killer. There are people out there with bad traits but they have good upbringings so the negativity never surfaces. Likewise, there are also people who experience abuse but don't have the bad traits. It takes a combination of the two to create a serial killer. Perhaps the creation of an INFJ is similar. Maybe it relates to upbringing and genetics in combination.

yeah.. I just compared INFJ's to serial killers..

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Is it really "well-known" that INFJs are the rarest type? It might be common opinion, but we have no good reason to think that it is the case. MBTI statistics are not to be taken too seriously. All the NJs might be equally as rare; I think NPs are probably more common. We also don't really know whether there really are so many more female Fs and male Ts; hell, there could be equal numbers in both.

Eugenics ftw, though.

 

[54192&#cmy]

 

[lincostinko]

The studies I've read posit significant heritability for introversion/extraversion, slight to moderate heritability for feeling/thinking and judging/feeling, and no heritability whatsoever for intuition/sensing.

My dad is an INTJ and my mom is INFJ

My sisters are ISFJ and INFJ
My brother is ESFJ and I am INFJ

I've never thought to look up studies for heritability and MBTI. That's very interesting to hear.

On the nature vs. nurture question, if genetics and survival of the fittest is not the leading factor for MBTI traits, then the leading factor should be nuture, aka societal and familial influence promotes behavioral modification leading to personality traits. I guess the new question is this: do you believe certain nurturing/environment factors influenced you to become an INFJ (insert personality type), and if so, what do you think those factors were?

And also, it still begs the question why INFJs are so rare, since only 1% are molded or have chosen to be INFJ based/due to their social environment. Society has no love for INFJs? Because if nurture is more important than nature, then some undetermined social force is not encouraging more INFJs in the world

 

[bickelz]

Because if nurture is more important than nature, then some undetermined social force is not encouraging more INFJs in the world

Well nobody knows what infj means and there is a great deal of misunderstanding about introverts in general. Just because we are a small portion of the population does not mean that we're special. I also doubt there are 3 infj's along with an intj in your family.

Plus mbti is a personality model that is not proven to be entirely correct. There are others out there. E/I makes sense as a genetic inheritance because there are differences in the ways our brains function. Just look up introversion vs extroversion blood flow through the brain.

 

[Saru Inc]

OMG my estj boss totally screwed me at work. fortunately, I don't mean that sexually.

I was getting calls pulled for quality and she was like "oh you missed this and this" BITCH QUIT NITPICKING. I GOT THE MAJORITY OF IT.


At the same time I get a long really well with my ISTJ boss... when I'm not myself.

this isn't related to the topic at hand.

nor is the fact that right now our australian members our finding out their whole lives they've been told a lie. THE WAY YOUR TOILETS FLUSH IS NOT THE CORRECT WAY. WE MUST REPROGRAM.

 

[bronson_]

Damn, you wasted a perfectly good chance to discuss that excellent article by Roy Baumeister (seriously, it's been more or less in my head for the last two years or so), and talk about INFJ breeding? The MBTI is interesting, but it's far from scientific. Although much of our personality has been shown to be heritable, I know of no data/studies showing MBTI type to be.

But hey, if any attractive INFJ females need some INTP seed ... Hybrid vigor, etc.

 

[bickelz]

The MBTI is interesting, but it's far from scientific. Although much of our personality has been shown to be heritable, I know of no data/studies showing MBTI type to be.

Yeah, mbti isn't a science exactly and there are no studies on this. I don't know how much of our personality is inherited and how much of it is conditioned though. More likely the latter. I have two extroverts as parents who are great salesmen and I am an introvert who hates selling stuff.

 

[ceri]

The studies I've read posit significant heritability for introversion/extraversion, slight to moderate heritability for feeling/thinking and judging/feeling, and no heritability whatsoever for intuition/sensing.

What studies (what are their names, authors)?

Just curious as i have access to most journals and so i'd like to look em up.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

The thing to remember about MBTI is it's just a model to explain behavior, same as the Big 5 or any other personality matrix. It's great for getting a ball-park figure and furthering our understanding of people, but it's not in any way set in stone.
The genetics involved would be much more complicated than just spitting out a combination of letters. Once we get into wiring and biology, a personality model isn't going to cover it as well as we might like

 

[lincostinko]

Damn, you wasted a perfectly good chance to discuss that excellent article by Roy Baumeister (seriously, it's been more or less in my head for the last two years or so), and talk about INFJ breeding? The MBTI is interesting, but it's far from scientific. Although much of our personality has been shown to be heritable, I know of no data/studies showing MBTI type to be.

But hey, if any attractive INFJ females need some INTP seed ... Hybrid vigor, etc.

Haha, my apologies. It is an awesome article. I just thought the chance to correlate MBTI with differences in pre-modern reproductive success leading to significant differences in population percentages was too juicy of a theory to pass up. I mean, I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan was no INFJ, and his blood flows though most of us. And ESTJs, being the quintessential corporate leader and executive type, is also the most numerous type? It's almost too coincidental to not make the correlation.

Btw, about INFJ breeding...lol. I purposely made the thread provocative to try to attract interest and reader response. Sorry if I offended anybody. Anyway, there's been a lot of good feedback from this thread and it's definitely opened my eyes a bit on certain flaws of this theory.

 

[Orion]

According to evolution, it may be because INFJs suck at reproducing. Or to be more specific, our INFJ male descendants were less successful than other types at impregnating large amounts of women. This is the conclusion I came to after reading this talk from the American Psychological Association.

ESTJs are natural leaders, and their presence is overwhelming in corporate and executive leadership positions when compared to other personality types. In the ancient world, ESTJs may have been leaders of a tribal clan, an exploration expedition, a commander of a warband...all which would have led to more reproductive opportunities for a male.

Assuming there is a relevant genetic component to personality type, does this theory make sense at all? And I'm not even considering other unquantifiable factors that would lead to decreased INFJ reproductive success, like our general tendencies towards altruism and martyrism, our obsession with finding our one "soulmate" (as opposed to multiple sexual relations), etc.

I think this is a very relevant and fascinating subject. But I am surprised at the responses here, because this is absolute gold! Your tribe analogy can be easily paralled by modern society to explain the distribution of type.

I don't think INFJs necessarily beget INFJs...

my parents and sister are all sensors
two of which are ESFJ
nobody else ever talks

I come from a large family and have yet to identify another INFJ.
And no, I was not adopted. I checked.

Also, I've reproduced three times. Two of the three
turned out to be...
SENSORS!!!!!

It's a pretty big assumption that it is genetic, there would likely be way less family conflict if this were true, so many misunderstandings come from relative just not "getting" where the other is coming from.

Everyone who is commenting "My parents are sensors- I'm an INFJ" to disprove the OP are missing the point. The idea that two INFJ's who mate will make an INFJ is not the point of this theory, but to explain that the more INFJ's who procreate with each other, then chances of having a child with Ni dominance will dramatically increase..

I mean, ask yourselfs... why is the ESTJ the most prevalent?

We live in an SJ world, where SJ values are more appropriate and common place. So any child that is floating in the middle between Ni and Si dominance will most likely become Si dominant.

A child who is born with strong preference for Ni who has Si parents can go either way in that they feel out of place or rejected, will develop stronger Ni in resistance. Or, (rare) the Si parents could still offer a conducive environment for the Ni dominant, so they grow up healthy and well adjusted. Or they get pushed from Ni use to Si.

(Ni and Si are on the same hemispheres of the brain as introverted irrational perceiving functions according to Lenore Thomson's theory.)

INFJ's by preference, don't seek the same sort of social status that ESTJ's do, and just by random civilisation just happened to prefer ESTJ ways of doing things. It is entirely possible that it could have gone any other way, and that INFJ's could have been preferred.

There's no reason to suppose that MBTI comes from genes, because the MBTI is a human creation and not a mapping of our DNA. Furthermore, if MBTI was even partially genetic, we would be able to tell about someone's personality type very shortly after birth. Instead, it takes until age 13 or so for this to be clear.

I disagree. Want makes you think that anyway?

Some children are born with strong preferences to certain functions. Simple as that. I know I was an Ni dominant child from the get go because of analysis of my behaviour and my knowledge of the differences between Si and Ni.

Just as some children are born with middle of the road attitude to different preferences, in which case, they would develop slowly into their preferred type as the years went by (but I don't think it's as late as 13, though again, it's different for everyone).

Is it really "well-known" that INFJs are the rarest type? It might be common opinion, but we have no good reason to think that it is the case.

The easiest gauge? Look at society.

Analyse the media, trends, groups, sociology, crimonology, politics... other 'ologies and so on. Do you see a strong Ni element in society at large? No. Do you see a strong Si and Se element to society at large? Yes? Because the majority type will logically determine the consensus.

The MBTI is interesting, but it's far from scientific. Although much of our personality has been shown to be heritable, I know of no data/studies showing MBTI type to be.

Forget MBTI, it's all about JCF. Saying JCF is not scientific is really redundant because anyone who goes into Jung's theory of type should go into it aware of that context. Plus, strides in brain scanning and neuroscience have consistently reported correlations between jung's cog' functions and how the brain actually works. Jung was ahead of his time, and still is.

The thing to remember about MBTI is it's just a model to explain behaviour, same as the Big 5 or any other personality matrix. It's great for getting a ball-park figure and furthering our understanding of people, but it's not in any way set in stone.

Type is not really comparable to the big 5 at all. And JCF doesn't define behaviour (which means nothing) but unconscious motivations (which means everything).

The genetics involved would be much more complicated than just spitting out a combination of letters. Once we get into wiring and biology, a personality model isn't going to cover it as well as we might like

Of course, but that's the whole point of type! It's a way for mere mortals to conceptualise and understand something that is incredibly complex, something that will take a very long time to understand as science progresses. Jung was ahead of curb in that he sought out to process his intuitive theoretical understanding of how the brain works in his opinion in relation to unconscious motivation, into something that could be understood.

Type is a signifier of what is to come and will give way to advances in neuroscience but as I've said before, I think science will reveal that a lot of Jung's theories could actually be substantiated. But again, type is just a language, the way it looks will change as science progress but I, along with others, think he was on to something.

 

[grt$5vb]

In my experience abuse & gross neglect spawn an INFJ child.

 

[This]

In my experience abuse & gross neglect spawn an INFJ child.

My parents where fantastic and loving

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Type is not really comparable to the big 5 at all. And JCF doesn't define behaviour (which means nothing) but unconscious motivations (which means everything).

I was relating it more in terms of the fact that they are both theories on personality, not so much comparing the theories themselves It's also good to note that in the classes I've taken in psychology, they relate the nature vs. nurture argument to the Big 5, as opposed to MBTI, which may or may not have to do with the prevalence of Big 5 and the ability to test it (who knows?).
Either way, it still remains that they are both just theories to explain behavior and are not founded in the neurological, biological, or genetic components of personality. While they are most definitely somehow related in some way or another, the original foundations of the theories were not based in these physical sciences, so some complications occur when you try to apply MBTI to neurology or genetics.

Of course, but that's the whole point of type! It's a way for mere mortals to conceptualise and understand something that is incredibly complex, something that will take a very long time to understand as science progresses. Jung was ahead of curb in that he sought out to process his intuitive theoretical understanding of how the brain works in his opinion in relation to unconscious motivation, into something that could be understood.

Type is a signifier of what is to come and will give way to advances in neuroscience but as I've said before, I think science will reveal that a lot of Jung's theories could actually be substantiated. But again, type is just a language, the way it looks will change as science progress but I, along with others, think he was on to something.

He was on to something But it was not genetic or neurological. While the theory can change to meet these needs as science furthers, we can't really make any assumptions on it quite yet, especially because we still have so much difficulties just determining what is biological and what is due to environmental influences.

My parents where fantastic and loving

Same here I can still convince myself that they are the best people in the world! But mine are ENFJ and INTJ, so we get along easily

 

[grt$5vb]

[MENTION=3255]Sali[/MENTION] I am glad for that. I suppose I will have to reform my thinking....

 

[Chamomile]

I think a well functioning society needs more of certain type than of others. If the population was 50% INFJ.. ugh just imagine