Personality types making most and least amount of money

[Gaze]

Found this article. What do you think of the results of their study?

[h=1]The personality types that make the most and least amount of money[/h] By Jacquelyn Smith February 20, 2015 9:15 AM





A lot of things determine how much money you make: your level of education; the job you choose to pursue; the company you work for; your hard skills; and your ability to negotiate.

But one thing you really have no control over that affects your pay is your personality type.

According to the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator, which tests behavioral binaries, there are a total of 16 distinctive personality types.
The Career Assessment Site created an infographic that, among other things, shows the average household income for each one.

Here's a look at average pay by personality type: View gallery
.

Career Assessment Site

Individuals with the ENTJ (Extroverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging) type, who tend to be natural leaders, earn the most money, on average.
"They're typically short- and long-term planners who are able to read into data effectively, leading them to find patterns and creative solutions to problems," explains Jonathan Bollag, an executive coach and founder of Career Assessment site. "They put this information through a logic-based filter in order to make objective decisions. You then add their preference for extroversion that translates to them having an easier time networking and communicating with large groups of people."
These personality preferences combine to create the potential for an individual who stands out as an effective and efficient problem solver with a long-term vision.
"These people also tend to present their positions from a logical perspective, and are able to create the right connections to create leadership opportunities," Bollag says. "Not coincidentally, these leadership positions come with some of the highest possible income potential."
At the other end of the spectrum you'll find the INFP (Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiving)Â type.
"Individuals with the INFP personality type are introverts and they tend to be less comfortable with networking and 'reaching out' in general," he says. "This may lead them to miss opportunities to make contacts that propel them to positions of higher income levels."

View gallery
.

Flickr/Wiertz Sébastien

"Individuals with the INFP personality type are introverts and they tend to be less comfortable with networking and 'reaching out' in general."And in a world where "who you know" matters more than "what you know," this can be detrimental.
These individuals also tend to be attracted to career paths that offer a lot of flexibility and freedom where their creative expression can manifest itself on their terms, Bollag says. "This is why you find that a lot of INFP's go into fields like music, arts, and creative writing," he explains. "Unfortunately for income statistics, there is a very good reason why we use the term 'starving artists' and the few examples of famous artists, novelists, and musicians that make it big are a very small percentage of the population."
Finally, he says, these individuals tend to lean on subjective analysis of situations when making decisions. "They consider the impact their decisions have on other people and aim to have harmony in their environment. While there is nothing wrong with this perspective, it may lead them to shy away from positions that force them to make hard, logic-based decisions that effect others in a negative way."
For example, an INFP may have a much harder time making a corporate level decision that lays off a thousand employees for the betterment of the company than someone who had a Thinking ("T") based personality type. "A T-based personality type may be able to justify the action, but an F-based personality type, like the INFP, may have lingering issues with such a past decision long after it has been made."
When you combine all of these aspects you find a combination that is less likely to be naturally attracted to some of the high-income career paths, Bollag adds.
He says it is important to note that these are "averages" and it does not mean that you cannot make a great living while having the INFP personality type.
"Your personality type does not dictate how good you will be at something. It only lets you know which preferences are most natural for you," Bollag explains. "What you do with that knowledge and how hard you work at your chosen career path will have the biggest impact on your income potential."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/personality-types-most-least-amount-140826566.html

 

[Erlian]

Nice read. I think the results are quite logical.
J seems to be the success factor. Unless you're a IxFJ. They're probably too nice and careful.

 

[drummergirlbk]

The bit with the ENTJ having the highest average income makes a lot of since to me, considering that a lot of CEOs are ENTJ.
Just keep in mind that the graph looks a litttle scewed since the bottom of the graph is $55k. The difference in the size of the bars can look a little deceiving at first.

 

[Elegant Winter]

Really interesting article! Thanks for sharing, pics.

As an INFP, I think the results are fine. They don't bother me. I'm not too bothered by the explanation either. Who cares if you make less money if you already have enough?

 

[j654dgj7]

I think that it's a gross generalization of many very hard-to-define groups of individuals.
I don't find it to be accurate, and I'm a little offended by it.
They're basically basing their wild theory around the idea that introverts would be worse at "networking". Networking is about who you knew growing up and going to school with and then reaching out to more people. There's so many ways networking can occur, and I've found that it's completely random who gets to network the most and the best.

EDIT: But it is a very interesting article, thank you for sharing, [MENTION=1669]pics[/MENTION]!

 

[Skarekrow]

They are also more likely to be psychopaths too…it’s that same drive to succeed and surpass everyone misdirected into twisted personal power-trips.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Screening-Psychopaths-in-Government&id=4630682

 

[J. Cardigan]

I think that it's a gross generalization of many very hard-to-define groups of individuals.
I don't find it to be accurate, and I'm a little offended by it.
They're basically basing their wild theory around the idea that introverts would be worse at "networking". Networking is about who you knew growing up and going to school with and then reaching out to more people. There's so many ways networking can occur, and I've found that it's completely random who gets to network the most and the best.

EDIT: But it is a very interesting article, thank you for sharing, @pics!

This.

This doesn't take into account what type of profession one has, location, company, salary negotiation skill, etc. There are way too many variables involved to extrapolate payscale with any kind of accuracy here.

Thanks for the article, though.

 

[Elis]

statistics address the general outcome, not the underlying causes.

 

[Solongo]

They are also more likely to be psychopaths too…it’s that same drive to succeed and surpass everyone misdirected into twisted personal power-trips.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Screening-Psychopaths-in-Government&id=4630682

I agree with this. Power attracts certain types of functioning behavior. Money is a byproduct of power plays and networks. But this is astill a very general census as the ability to spot opportunity can be learned and practiced. But to actually walk the walk to reach a certain level of monetary standing requires a lot of personal sacrifice and right mindset to "achieve" as opposed to learning to be happy with what one has got. I think if one wishes to reach to become a billionaire or some sort; one cannot ever be happy and content with what is given to them. This drive can fuel to "succeed" as well as spiritually bankrupt the individual over a long period of time. Hence, once money and reputation and power is established; it becomes necessary to buy back time, health and love with the money. This type of living does give money a bad reputation; but money is not the culprit. It's the pursuit of power and achievement over everyday happiness and this tradeoff will always be consciously or subconsciously in play for the individual. This type of sacrifice needs to be evaluated carefully before one commits to it as it can take away many years of your prime living.

 

[Skarekrow]

I agree with this. Power attracts certain types of functioning behavior. Money is a byproduct of power plays and networks. But this is astill a very general census as the ability to spot opportunity can be learned and practiced. But to actually walk the walk to reach a certain level of monetary standing requires a lot of personal sacrifice and right mindset to "achieve" as opposed to learning to be happy with what one has got. I think if one wishes to reach to become a billionaire or some sort; one cannot ever be happy and content with what is given to them. This drive can fuel to "succeed" as well as spiritually bankrupt the individual over a long period of time. Hence, once money and reputation and power is established; it becomes necessary to buy back time, health and love with the money. This type of living does give money a bad reputation; but money is not the culprit. It's the pursuit of power and achievement over everyday happiness and this tradeoff will always be consciously or subconsciously in play for the individual. This type of sacrifice needs to be evaluated carefully before one commits to it as it can take away many years of your prime living.

I wouldn’t want to be a stock broker or trader or anything like that….fuck that.
I am happy with what I have now…which is a fairly decent home…I have some furniture most of which has been found, salvaged, restored…but it isn’t much…I’m okay with that….and that is the difference between them and me.
I found it very interesting quoting the article here -

Clinical psychopaths are only 1% of population yet are disproportionately represented in prisons (over 20%) and on Wall Street (close to 10%).

Anyhow…if Wall Street is close to 10% psychopath, one can easily see how there can be a blatant disregard for their actions while they grab up as much money as possible…there is a total disconnect IMO.

How many do we actually have in Government is a good question that the article doesn’t really answer (I misquoted the 20% in prisons to someone - sorry).

Government functions are less studied but should be comparable to if not higher than business. In addition to these numbers there are subclinical psychopaths (who have just enough empathy, emotional understanding, and narcissism to be a career politicians) and highly unemotional introverts (non-psychopathic schizoid strategists). This makes for a total % of people often working against the general population at 6%+. Thus there is a predatory core within a predatory core with clinical types influencing the others within 6% in unhealthy ways and counteracting the influence of over 90% of the population.

90% influence over the population is insane…we should at least screen for them and not allow them to hold certain jobs…but that opens a whole can of worms in regards to personal freedoms.

This year…the 1% of the world owns 50% of all the wealth.
This is while children are starving…I cannot emphasize that enough…because people just don’t seem to give a fuck anymore.
That makes me furious…this damned apathy throughout society!
Maybe one day people will smarten up and fight for people over profits….because right now, that is exactly the issue…profits have been put before people…who would be okay with that…psychopaths.
Just saying…I know people work hard and sacrifice a lot to get where they are…that doesn’t give them ANY rights to trample the rest of those who were not able to reach the same level of personal wealth.
You know I’m not arguing with you…I agree with what you said…just elaborating.
Hope you are well!

 

[Gaze]

I think that it's a gross generalization of many very hard-to-define groups of individuals.
I don't find it to be accurate, and I'm a little offended by it.
They're basically basing their wild theory around the idea that introverts would be worse at "networking". Networking is about who you knew growing up and going to school with and then reaching out to more people. There's so many ways networking can occur, and I've found that it's completely random who gets to network the most and the best.

EDIT: But it is a very interesting article, thank you for sharing, @pics!

agree with your criticism. I think it paints INFPs with too broad a stroke. I think introverts are in general more cautious about their networks. They are less about quantity than quality. I think INFPs are better at networking when the cause is important or they form deeper and lasting connections. I don't think INFPs are fans of having many expansive connections without any purpose. For example, I quit LinkedIn and didn't visit Facebook for a while because I didn't see the purpose of being on these sites when the connections didn't create anything substantive or real. I'm not one of those who feels any benefit from thinking "oh, I am so excited to have 500 people on my friends or contact list!" I'm very selective. I am not interested in having a large network especially if there's no purpose or mutual benefit. I don't mind being on someone's friend list but I don't feel I get anything out of simply having "contacts" especially when they rarely come through and end up simply being a name and icon on a friend's list.

 

[SpecialEdition]

I can't say that any of that shocks me. I can't access everything at work, so am just wondering if they link to the typical jobs that each type has that would give them that level of income.

 

[La Sagna]

They are also more likely to be psychopaths too…it’s that same drive to succeed and surpass everyone misdirected into twisted personal power-trips.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Screening-Psychopaths-in-Government&id=4630682

That's a pretty scary article. I wouldn't want anybody to start using something unscientific like the MBTI to start deciding who should be 'weeded' out of anything. It is also misleading since psychopathy is not considered a clinically diagnosable disorder, but a group of traits. What we often characterize as psychopathy and which is found in a high percentage of people in prison is Antisocial Personality Disorder. These tend to be people who don't care about societal rules and don't have much empathy, but that are generally average in intelligence. The psychopaths found in positions of power and influence are the really smart ones that don't play by the rules and don't have empathy, and they are very good at fooling people so I don't think they would let themselves be turfed out by an MBTI test.

The graph doesn't fit in with the people that I know.

 

[Skarekrow]

That's a pretty scary article. I wouldn't want anybody to start using something unscientific like the MBTI to start deciding who should be 'weeded' out of anything. It is also misleading since psychopathy is not considered a clinically diagnosable disorder, but a group of traits. What we often characterize as psychopathy and which is found in a high percentage of people in prison is Antisocial Personality Disorder. These tend to be people who don't care about societal rules and don't have much empathy, but that are generally average in intelligence. The psychopaths found in positions of power and influence are the really smart ones that don't play by the rules and don't have empathy, and they are very good at fooling people so I don't think they would let themselves be turfed out by an MBTI test.

The graph doesn't fit in with the people that I know.

It’s just one article.
I’m sure we can find opposing information if we wanted.
I agree…the MBTI being used against people is no bueno.

Still, you would think that there would be a way to weed out the dangerous ones without disrupting everyone.
Maybe as neuroscience gains a better understanding of the brain and consciousness that can be accomplished…I agree with your statement as a whole though.

 

[j654dgj7]

statistics address the general outcome, not the underlying causes.

That's a completely accurate statement.

So where's the numbers for those stats? How many people participated? How can we be sure that someone tested as INFJ but was really an INFP? Was there even any statistical analysis done to this, or is this basically, as I suggested, someone going

"Networking it important, and introverts don't talk well to other people"

The only reason that I get into this discussion is that I don't want anyone feeling limited by their MBTI results. People should feel like it sets them free and helps to explain who they might have had trouble figuring out who they were before. It shouldn't put a career label and financial estimate on you. It offends me when people think that's even possible.

 

[Elis]

That's a completely accurate statement.

So where's the numbers for those stats? How many people participated? How can we be sure that someone tested as INFJ but was really an INFP? Was there even any statistical analysis done to this, or is this basically, as I suggested, someone going

"Networking it important, and introverts don't talk well to other people"

The only reason that I get into this discussion is that I don't want anyone feeling limited by their MBTI results. People should feel like it sets them free and helps to explain who they might have had trouble figuring out who they were before. It shouldn't put a career label and financial estimate on you. It offends me when people think that's even possible.

I won't try to defend the article. I haven't read its source, and it doesn't really lie in my interest to do so either. I agree that there isn't much validity to statistics without proper analysis but I feel like you're addressing two different things here. First there is the validity of statistics, to which I agree.

As for your other point, regarding labeling and MBTI - I understand not wanting to hamper people with general estimates, but I definitely think it can be done. I think I can fairly safely say that most people will not make as much money as Bill Gates, and if they were it wouldn't be worth as much. You could find statistics over peoples finances and arbitrary traits, just as you could find between MBTI and traits. Inevitably there will be correlations on the bigger scale.

But yeah, stigmatization isn't something to strive for. And stigmatization based on MBTI is just dildos.

 

[Trifoilum]

Comparing in broad strokes, I can see the point.

But :

1) it does not take into account personal variations (the ENTJ artist, the INFJ CEO)

2) ultimately, money is but one answer. If measured by other standard, we might see an entirely different graph.

 

[Trifoilum]

That's a completely accurate statement.

So where's the numbers for those stats? How many people participated? How can we be sure that someone tested as INFJ but was really an INFP? Was there even any statistical analysis done to this, or is this basically, as I suggested, someone going

"Networking it important, and introverts don't talk well to other people"

The only reason that I get into this discussion is that I don't want anyone feeling limited by their MBTI results. People should feel like it sets them free and helps to explain who they might have had trouble figuring out who they were before. It shouldn't put a career label and financial estimate on you. It offends me when people think that's even possible.

Also agreed with this. Too much confusion. Especially when MBTI itself has been a source of confusion and misunderstanding.

 

[The Anchor]

Wow, I certainly didn't expect ENTP to be the 2nd lowest on the list and tbh it kinda makes me doubt this list. Especially since they are often depicted as entrepreneurial types that see lots of opportunities. The downside would be their difficulty in focussing, but still it surprises me they are so low.

 

[barbad0s]

Those with extroverted, rational functions (Te and Fe), but in particular Te, high in their stack of function preferences, make the most money. Te is associated with taking action.

Anyway, money =/= happiness. An average happiness by MBTI type study would be more meaningful to me.

Also, if many ENTJs and ESTJs are taking on ISFPs and INFPs as their partners as Jung suggested that they ideally should, then their income will be tempered naturally lol.