Why are certain types more prevalent than others in this world?

Well, the answer to this question depends on what you think the source of MBTI is. There are several choices. Here are a couple of the most predominant beliefs:

1. MBTI is genetic. You are born with a personality and you develop different traits later on in life.
2. MBTI is conditioned. You are brought up by (parents, society, enviornment) to act a certain personality and it changes according to the situation.

This, roughly, contrats the argument I always find in things like this: nature vs nurture.

You could say that
1. MBTI, from an evoluntionary standpoint, has evolved because certain personality types reproduce due to survival of the fittests
2. MBTI is the result of the survival of the fittest in a non-genetic way; the personality types that are needed during certain situations will occur and be discarded. The amount of e/s/ etc is due to the demand of it, not the birth of people with that particular type since, in this theory, MBTI is more flexible and not set in stone.

 

Sorry. Ignorance alert!!!
What does prevalent mean?

 

If something is more prevalent, then it occurs more often or is more obvious.


I believe that there is a sort of necessary balance between types. Yes, there's more S types, but they are also the doers and the detail-oriented people of the world. They ground things and ideas, and really incorporate them into society. There are less N types because the N types are more future and theory oriented -- it's more efficient for there to be a smaller group to create the framework, and a larger group to build and fill in that framework practically.

And so on with I/E, etc. I'd like to think that there's a sort of intelligence to it -- yeah, it isn't so much fun for the smaller group, but it tends to be more balanced and efficient...although as population grows and gets all out of whack, I'm not sure how well that will continue to work

 

The main skills of Artisans and Guardians were needed more back then for survival then those of Idealists and Rationals.

 

Taking what slant has just stated into account, and since I believe that MBTI is not genetic but conditioned, I could propose that the types who are most prevalent are the ones that are based on what society projects to it's citizen as being the most needed in society. A certain way of thinking and acting that is more accomodating to the nature of western society.

I doudt it has to do with skills, since all typologies can learn to perform different skills and jobs equally well. It is after all a personality type and not an I.Q test.

 

Part, maybe. But when one says that it is genetic only, he is automaticaly implying that it can never change. To say something like that would be to completely disregard the importance of social influence on the individual.

 

Well...I'm fairly certain that it's what everyone else has been saying: survival of the fittest.

If you think about it, it makes complete sense. Go back to the stone age (and you really don't even have to go back that far). Those who were Ns didn't stand a chance. Those who existed primarily in their heads could get killed very easily. Ss, those who were in tune with their outer world (and learned from past experiences well, etc.) were MUCH better adapted to avoid danger, get food...basically: survive!

Of course, there WAS need for Ns...they were the ones who envisioned new things for the advancement of their civilisations. However, you only need a FEW "visionaries," but you definitely need a LOT of those who will carry out the details and construction of those visions.

As for E versus I...communication is VERY important for survival! Introverts are less inclined to be involved with their societies and, in the past, probably left out of the loop, so to speak. When your life depends on what your tribe is doing, and you miss out on something simply because you aren't involved, you could have very easily died! Also, because extroverts tend to voice their thought processes out loud, they are likely to get more input from others. Not only does this strengthen bonds, but it gives a better chance at things getting done and being created.

Because introverts (especially INs) internalise our thought processes, we come to conclusions without other people involved so who is there to carry them out? Us. Just us....

Anyway! These are just some thoughts as to why Es and Ss are more prevelant. As to whether type in a person is due to nature or nurture...I cannot say But nature certainly prefers extroverts and sensors.

 

If you think about it initiatives are more like planners and sensors are more like doers. It takes less people to plan and more people to work. Extraverts are necessary to communicate important information efficiently and promote group thinking. Introverted initiatives will often shun many of the shallow norms and traditions in society and can be critical of those who would willingly follow it blindly. But blind following is part of what has stitched human society together. Though it might also result in mass stupidity. It makes sense that Infj would be so rare. Sensing is our weakest function. Could you imagine being in a dangerous jungle and allowing yourself to drift off into lala land on a regular basis? Introverted initiatives tend to want to observe then withdraw to analyze and pick apart their new information. This results in two things: The ability to have a great depth of understanding of the subject ,form new ideas, hypothesis ,and the innate knack of being totally out of tune with the danger that surrounds you during your planning stage.

 

The types are in the following order, with approximate percentage.

STJ - 28%
SFP - 24%
SFJ - 15%
STP - 12%

NTP - 8%
NFP - 5%
NTJ - 3%
NFJ - 2%

According to the model, the S types are < 80% of the population, while the N types are > 20%.

 

"Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians" comes to mind.
God = NTJ
Jesus = NFJ
Interesting....

 

I would guess that it would be survival of the fittest type distribution, rather than survival of the fittest individual. Groups with that particular genetic type distribution, must have been more successful (than groups with different distributions) and spread that distribution.

 

MBTI is definitely genetic.....in the beginning stage of life. Yes, it can be and is influenced I would think. The percentages may actually be well-balanced.

 

The environment plays a big role, as the overall meaning of humanity changes so does the percentages of personality types. Each type has something integral to offer to the path of our species.

Then the next question would be, what is our current path and what do these types offer to that broad vision?

 

I think that MBTI percentages have alot to do with the survival of the fittest and a subconscious/natural desire for balancing things out.

If the world was full of too many opinionated, headstrong people there would never be co-operation - hence we die through overwhelming conflict.

If the world was full of too many pushovers noone would ever do anything - hence we die through lack of production.

I think our thought processes are genetic and how we use those thought processes are conditioned.

 

When robots do all the work we won't need Ss anymore

just joking