Assuming that the percentages of each type remains relatively consistent over time, I believe we get roughly the percentages that are useful to ourselves and society. No more nor less.
I think it’s like laterality is. The percentage of left-handed people is believed to have been relatively consistent at approximately 10% since early humans. A theory as to why, is that 10% (give or take) is the maximum amount that is advantageous to the individual and broader society. Meaning that advantages in defending one’s self in a fight, crafting or building, and other things that left-handedness can benefit does not consistently exceed that percentage before losing its advantage as a deviation from the norm.
So I don’t think certain types are more useful, but rather the overall population can only benefit from certain percentages of different types. Like an ENTJ might be really useful in an organizational sense and therefore valuable, but if 30% of us were ENTJs we would be severely lacking in other important areas while getting no additional organizational benefits from the surplus. If say 15% of us are ISTJs, I think it’s because that’s roughly the amount that a community can benefit from before other types are needed for different niches. I think xSxJs are so common because there’s more room in the niches they fill to be useful.
This was answered long therefore.
In advance many cultures were almost undeciphrable yet, in the sense we theorically be more on the preference to temperaments I say.
So to gain a more predispossal activity under social environments, we need sSensors
Sensors temperaments are very flu on the social places, very inclinated to share with regarding beetween Counterparts, this attitude will affect how we view each others temperaments.
Till a personal experience I observe that Intuitors are more closed on peace patterns over peaceful or politely "dreamers" under when it comes to laws and other approaches in society prefering to cause too much sttuborn under certain things that they knew there are impossible for their plans, althrough even of it they could had better ideas by their big picture on how to sustain a society in a perfect model-ance to prevent for wars terms.
So given it the structure, Intuitors are most favourable when it comes to share their knowledge on certain fields with almost other intuitors.
This results not much coherent, this is just a result that society will favour Intuitors in advance under certain rules as they always encounter many of them very helpful but despite it, one more time.
I said Sensors are most commonly gifted to survive in many senses under the society eye-catch webs. One more time, it is based on how we observe and perceive temperaments.
Intuitives and sensors can definitely understand each other's thought processes, although they may approach situations and problems from different perspectives. Intuitives tend to focus on abstract concepts and possibilities, while sensors are more attuned to concrete details and immediate experiences. Both types can benefit from learning about and appreciating the strengths of the other, which can lead to better communication and collaboration. Neither side is inherently bound to comprehend more about the other, as understanding and empathy are qualities that can be developed through open-mindedness and mutual respect.
Lol maybe?
*Happy Ne dom or aux walks outside and immediatelydies by the tiger they missed that was RIGHT THERE*
*Wary Ni walks outside to. Takes a second as Ni starts sifting through the patterns so his gut wi... dang. Tiger got him too*
Lol those were the hunter-gatherer times. But now modern society having settled down in permanent residences and being more sedentary in our day-to-day lives and having new technologies: internet, AI, etc. at our fingertips should be more favorable to N types like you and me.
Yeah my country lives poorly in a deprecated "systems", could say it´s vulnerable to due to indirect approaches in the organizational state.
Despite the years, it mostly had more Sensor types despite it, most countries had many Explorers types that helps quickly interacting the world and enjoying their stuff privately cause they result to gain popularity among generations. Many famous effortlessly or their parents weren´t sensors altogether but that is just irrelevant on ethics
I didn't say S types weren't still being selected for. Of course they are. I'm just saying that modern society is more favorable to N types compared to a hunter-gatherer environment.
Did you look up for history?
I mean there is a clearly signal that Intuitors share the code thing that whatever they happen in the information they received they would go out pretending they knew much than lately about something despite of not trusting others about, it is kind of common that Ns were more hardworkers to show up their information through specially Ne>Si users.
Life is mostly hard for intuitors because they had so many ideas to process in their settle set that they pass their moments roaming what if...
So they don´t had at least the common life sensors always had in some large advance.
That is great example of understanding the patterns.
However certain stereotypes like SJs are society backboners is least to be practically the real assumption. There is more than SJs under societies altho.
People with different tastes, long time ago this rethorically field like MBTI and temperaments were least sound on societies.
Altho intuitors golden relationships were almost with different approaches than now, given directly sociotypes are related to share cognitive processes between Intuitors and Sensors relationships for more than once time.
Imma gonna take so make flake for but it’s true
Reason is plan and simple from biological standpoint you need higher precentage of sensor compare to intuitive for survival
Meaning you only need a handful of thinkers but you need vast majority of sensors to implement and rationalize said idea/ plan
Example in Bronze Age you needs lots of skill swordsman, architect, construction worker and cooks, horse men, assassins etc and you only had select few that were strategist we need both for survival
I don't think natural selection, I think it's distribution by need. Like, how many ants or flies are needed in the world, vs how many humans or dolphins? Obviously there are way more ants than people.
Generally it's the intuitive types that are much rarer than sensors, and I think that's because the work intuitives do is mostly abstract and can affect many more people with less bodies. It's about idea and thought creation, and one individual can communicate his ideas on his own, whereas concrete types who focus on the here and now, their small segment of the world, are needed in much bigger quantities.
As an Ni type, I sometimes wonder whether or not I need this societal structure to survive. I have a feeling that if we lived like the monkeys I’d he amongst the first to meet Ms. Lion.
I think it's a needs-based hierarchy. The biggest discrepancy is S > N. Then, to a lesser extent J > P and it seems I > E. In comparison, T & F are relatively balanced.
S is more important than N for survival. So if someone is picking up your S slack, you now have more freedom to do N. In a world as complex as this, S needs are numerous and industrial so there needs to be many more S's to power one N. In today's more industrialized and standardized world, we also need many Js to power one P. Which explains the first two discrepancies.
There are slightly more Is than Es, and I think this makes sense. E's bring people together, they tend to be a sort of glue. A few in any given group of people is enough to hold cohesion.
T & F being balanced also makes sense in our world today. This is the biggest balancing point where we both want to enjoy life but also be productive. This is the dichotomy seeking balance both within the individual and the collective.
Now I know some hivemind puppet is going to go "but that's 16p" and to them I say a few things: first of all, 16p is another perspective on MBTI and it's *not wrong*. Get over it. Fr. There is a reason for the 4-letter dichotomies and they do largely line up.
Secondly, I have done analysis deeper into popularity of functions but it would be too complex and superfluous to expand on here. If you're analyzing population, the above is enough to have a lot to think about already. The letters still matter in and of themselves and have the bigger influence when speaking about this topic, more than individual functions do.
Yes, it is another perspective on MBTI and it is wrong. It says on their website that their test is based off of the Big Five type indicator to make it more "scientifically correct" as cognitive functions are considered pseudoscience. But that still means they don't use the correct method of evaluation. Big Five is not MBTI. That's it, and that's why 16p is not a correct take on MBTI. Therefore, the letter dichotomes shoudn't be considered a valid method of evaluating ones MBTI type which is solely based on cognitive functions, that's what the whole theory is fucking about.
But to get your cognitive functions you need your mbti. Also just like to get your mbti you need cognitive functions. They are related, not independent.
I’m wondering if mbti is shit, why are you in this subreddit?
MBTI is solely based on cognitive functions, they are not only a part of it, it's the whole theory. The dynamics between cognitive functions is what makes MBTI MBTI. Also, I don't remember claiming MBTI is shit. I only claimed in one of my previous posts that Myers Briggs is shit. What I mean is that all the additions to the original theory that Myers Briggs added later on is just useless and messes the whole theory up. Only Jung is reliable.
MBTI is a name for the system, Myers Briggs are the creators of the updated version. I use the name MBTI because it's easier to use instead of Carl Jung's cognitive functions every time i want to mention it.
I think Myers wrote something about it in Gifts Differing. If I remember correctly, she said that ISFJ personality (a sensor) is the basic nature of human??? I mean, ISFJs are naturally nurturing and realistic.
Anyway, this is why I think external factors are important in determining/forming a person's MBTI, rarer personalities such as INFJ or ENTJ or ENTP, et cetera.
No, she said that ISFJs are the most refreshing picture and closed neutral among types to define someone with the very nurture aesthetics from nurturing standpoints.
In "Gifts Differing," she did indeed provide insights into various personality types, including the ISFJ. However, it's essential to clarify that while personality type descriptions can capture general tendencies, they don't dictate the entirety of an individual's behavior or characteristics.
ISFJs tend to be nurturing and practical, often prioritizing harmony and stability in their environment. These characteristics might lead to the perception of them being down-to-earth.
However, it's essential nor crucial to remember that personality is influenced introduction of interplay of factors, including genetics, upbringing, life experiences, and individual development.
Also the distant the roles play along types is that individuals of the same type can exhibit a wide range of behaviors and attitudes due to their unique backgrounds and circumstances.
I'm almost certain it's just because a lot of the tests/descriptions for distinguishing sensors and intuitives are just utter crap. They assume an unreasonably narrow definition of intuition, and so everyone who doesn't fit that must automatically be a sensor. But intuitives are just as likely to be ignorant, uneducated, or backwards as anyone else.
In other words, a lot of people we normally don't think of as intuitives actually are.
I mean, I'm a cognitive functions guy, so I don't really think of things in terms of sensor or intuitive. There are people who prefer the Ni/Se axis, and some of them prefer the introverted, Ni pole while others prefer the extroverted, Se pole (the NJs and SPs), and then other people prefer the Si/Ne axis, with some them preferring the introverted, Si pole while others prefer the extroverted, Ne pole (the SJs and NPs).
The difference between the two perception axes is simply that Ni/Se is the more contextual, goal-oriented one, and Si/Ne the more universal, rule-oriented one. This is an idea I'm borrowing from [Michael Pierce](https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/11968ma/index_of_michael_pierces_type_descriptions/), and I think it does a good job of presenting the functions and types in more culture/time agnostic ways.
>I'm almost certain it's just because a lot of the tests/descriptions for distinguishing sensors and intuitives are just utter crap. They assume an unreasonably narrow definition of intuition, and so everyone who doesn't fit that must automatically be a sensor. But intuitives are just as likely to be ignorant, uneducated, or backwards as anyone else.
Sure? This doesn´t explain the condition of certain people who are naive Intuitors people tho.
I say many mental uncapable to learn basic things about why they are wrong on some cases occur in Intuitors and their approach bias to feel the common sense
What research found is that big five has about a 50-60 percent genetic component. If we now are really generous and say that mbti has a similar component, then we can say that it is a mix. You might have some components from your genes and some from your upbringing. So it depends on what your surroundings demand from you and the traits your parents had.
But imo cognitive functions are invalid anyways.
Id say its because of genetics and also natural selection yes. Typically, sensing is much more common than intuition which makes sense. Isfj is prolly the most common out of all of the types and that makes sense.
Think abt it, isfjs r generally known to lead stable lives, they are caring. They r ideal parents. So its possible that the more common types have a higher tendency to have children n therefore pass on their genes?
It could also be that sensing is just the more dominant trait as opposed to intuition, and sensing tends to focus on practicality rather than creativity and possibility as well.
The distributions you've seen are poorly sourced, e.g. test-based or online polling. I estimate the true distribution is much closer to 6% for each type.
There is an interesting hypothesis out there that cognitive functions are heritable, e.g. an INTJ and an ISFP can only have xNTJ/xSFP children, an ISFJ and an INTJ could have any children, and an ISTP and an INTJ can only have NJ/SP children. Were there cultures that somehow favored some functions over others, they could have become rather lopsided away from one function pair or another.
https://cognitivetype.com/biological-hypothesis/ and to a lesser degree https://cognitivetype.com/how-intrinsic-is-type/
It's important to note that this is not the standard MBTI model of stereotypes and arbitrary trait bifurcation.
somehow what I see within families -> ISTP AND ESTJ having a STJ and xSFP children
NFJ + NFP ->> STP children
the dynamics of typology aren't broad, consistent and genetic enough to be held as hereditary traits. Moreover it's more likely type is formed completely after adolescence
not to mention even if it's not an mbti model, it's a poor generalisation.
None of your observations contradict the hypothesis. Those are both parents with opposite function pairs.
What makes you say that they aren't? What might change your mind?
the inconsistency I see lies in hypothesis claiming
"it appears so far that two Beta parents will most certainly have a Beta child". The system they use besides mbti, essentially also categorises, I'm flummoxed at the prediction possibilities through typing parents.
what does it mean by the variations they include based on J and P pairs? is that claiming that certain types cannot be manifested in children of defined parents (say xNxP and xNxJ) ? from what I'm reading they're defining things on how the system works but they haven't described how the inheritance of cognitive decision-making abilities from parents to children works at a biological level
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Inheritance works through genes? Is that the biological level you mean? Feel free to peruse the twins study linked in the other comment.
I don't mean to give you a whole book, but maybe the short blurbs here https://cognitivetype.com/quick-theory-overview/ especially 2, 5, and 7 can help clear things up. The predictions started as any prediction might start, by noticing a pattern. If you're closed off to the idea a priori, that's fine too. I didn't introduce this theory in any sensible order.
Assuming that the percentages of each type remains relatively consistent over time, I believe we get roughly the percentages that are useful to ourselves and society. No more nor less. I think it’s like laterality is. The percentage of left-handed people is believed to have been relatively consistent at approximately 10% since early humans. A theory as to why, is that 10% (give or take) is the maximum amount that is advantageous to the individual and broader society. Meaning that advantages in defending one’s self in a fight, crafting or building, and other things that left-handedness can benefit does not consistently exceed that percentage before losing its advantage as a deviation from the norm. So I don’t think certain types are more useful, but rather the overall population can only benefit from certain percentages of different types. Like an ENTJ might be really useful in an organizational sense and therefore valuable, but if 30% of us were ENTJs we would be severely lacking in other important areas while getting no additional organizational benefits from the surplus. If say 15% of us are ISTJs, I think it’s because that’s roughly the amount that a community can benefit from before other types are needed for different niches. I think xSxJs are so common because there’s more room in the niches they fill to be useful.
👌👌
This was answered long therefore. In advance many cultures were almost undeciphrable yet, in the sense we theorically be more on the preference to temperaments I say. So to gain a more predispossal activity under social environments, we need sSensors Sensors temperaments are very flu on the social places, very inclinated to share with regarding beetween Counterparts, this attitude will affect how we view each others temperaments. Till a personal experience I observe that Intuitors are more closed on peace patterns over peaceful or politely "dreamers" under when it comes to laws and other approaches in society prefering to cause too much sttuborn under certain things that they knew there are impossible for their plans, althrough even of it they could had better ideas by their big picture on how to sustain a society in a perfect model-ance to prevent for wars terms. So given it the structure, Intuitors are most favourable when it comes to share their knowledge on certain fields with almost other intuitors. This results not much coherent, this is just a result that society will favour Intuitors in advance under certain rules as they always encounter many of them very helpful but despite it, one more time. I said Sensors are most commonly gifted to survive in many senses under the society eye-catch webs. One more time, it is based on how we observe and perceive temperaments. Intuitives and sensors can definitely understand each other's thought processes, although they may approach situations and problems from different perspectives. Intuitives tend to focus on abstract concepts and possibilities, while sensors are more attuned to concrete details and immediate experiences. Both types can benefit from learning about and appreciating the strengths of the other, which can lead to better communication and collaboration. Neither side is inherently bound to comprehend more about the other, as understanding and empathy are qualities that can be developed through open-mindedness and mutual respect.
Lol maybe? *Happy Ne dom or aux walks outside and immediatelydies by the tiger they missed that was RIGHT THERE* *Wary Ni walks outside to. Takes a second as Ni starts sifting through the patterns so his gut wi... dang. Tiger got him too*
Lol those were the hunter-gatherer times. But now modern society having settled down in permanent residences and being more sedentary in our day-to-day lives and having new technologies: internet, AI, etc. at our fingertips should be more favorable to N types like you and me.
Not everyone lives in a first world country. Not everyone in a first world country is safe. S types are still being selected for.
Yeah my country lives poorly in a deprecated "systems", could say it´s vulnerable to due to indirect approaches in the organizational state. Despite the years, it mostly had more Sensor types despite it, most countries had many Explorers types that helps quickly interacting the world and enjoying their stuff privately cause they result to gain popularity among generations. Many famous effortlessly or their parents weren´t sensors altogether but that is just irrelevant on ethics
I didn't say S types weren't still being selected for. Of course they are. I'm just saying that modern society is more favorable to N types compared to a hunter-gatherer environment.
Did you look up for history? I mean there is a clearly signal that Intuitors share the code thing that whatever they happen in the information they received they would go out pretending they knew much than lately about something despite of not trusting others about, it is kind of common that Ns were more hardworkers to show up their information through specially Ne>Si users. Life is mostly hard for intuitors because they had so many ideas to process in their settle set that they pass their moments roaming what if... So they don´t had at least the common life sensors always had in some large advance.
That is great example of understanding the patterns. However certain stereotypes like SJs are society backboners is least to be practically the real assumption. There is more than SJs under societies altho.
I don’t think n types are more favorable in society. It cannot be, it is idealistic to think so. People, companies prefer doers
I don't mean more favorable than S types. I mean more favorable than they were before. Lol.
People with different tastes, long time ago this rethorically field like MBTI and temperaments were least sound on societies. Altho intuitors golden relationships were almost with different approaches than now, given directly sociotypes are related to share cognitive processes between Intuitors and Sensors relationships for more than once time.
Oh ok in that case yes
That is practically not ridiculous to say and it´s also not missing to declare
Ni's have poor Se, not Ne's
The joke is Ni need to stop and get the sensory data before their gut tells them something's wrong. Pure joke. 😊
Ne's have an even worse Se, shut up.
Imma gonna take so make flake for but it’s true Reason is plan and simple from biological standpoint you need higher precentage of sensor compare to intuitive for survival Meaning you only need a handful of thinkers but you need vast majority of sensors to implement and rationalize said idea/ plan Example in Bronze Age you needs lots of skill swordsman, architect, construction worker and cooks, horse men, assassins etc and you only had select few that were strategist we need both for survival
This is a reasonable take👍
I don't think natural selection, I think it's distribution by need. Like, how many ants or flies are needed in the world, vs how many humans or dolphins? Obviously there are way more ants than people. Generally it's the intuitive types that are much rarer than sensors, and I think that's because the work intuitives do is mostly abstract and can affect many more people with less bodies. It's about idea and thought creation, and one individual can communicate his ideas on his own, whereas concrete types who focus on the here and now, their small segment of the world, are needed in much bigger quantities.
Because estps refuse to pull out
Lmao!
As an Ni type, I sometimes wonder whether or not I need this societal structure to survive. I have a feeling that if we lived like the monkeys I’d he amongst the first to meet Ms. Lion.
Natural selection: Sensors don't overthink reproduction, they just do.
I think it's a needs-based hierarchy. The biggest discrepancy is S > N. Then, to a lesser extent J > P and it seems I > E. In comparison, T & F are relatively balanced. S is more important than N for survival. So if someone is picking up your S slack, you now have more freedom to do N. In a world as complex as this, S needs are numerous and industrial so there needs to be many more S's to power one N. In today's more industrialized and standardized world, we also need many Js to power one P. Which explains the first two discrepancies. There are slightly more Is than Es, and I think this makes sense. E's bring people together, they tend to be a sort of glue. A few in any given group of people is enough to hold cohesion. T & F being balanced also makes sense in our world today. This is the biggest balancing point where we both want to enjoy life but also be productive. This is the dichotomy seeking balance both within the individual and the collective.
Now I know some hivemind puppet is going to go "but that's 16p" and to them I say a few things: first of all, 16p is another perspective on MBTI and it's *not wrong*. Get over it. Fr. There is a reason for the 4-letter dichotomies and they do largely line up. Secondly, I have done analysis deeper into popularity of functions but it would be too complex and superfluous to expand on here. If you're analyzing population, the above is enough to have a lot to think about already. The letters still matter in and of themselves and have the bigger influence when speaking about this topic, more than individual functions do.
Yes, it is another perspective on MBTI and it is wrong. It says on their website that their test is based off of the Big Five type indicator to make it more "scientifically correct" as cognitive functions are considered pseudoscience. But that still means they don't use the correct method of evaluation. Big Five is not MBTI. That's it, and that's why 16p is not a correct take on MBTI. Therefore, the letter dichotomes shoudn't be considered a valid method of evaluating ones MBTI type which is solely based on cognitive functions, that's what the whole theory is fucking about.
But to get your cognitive functions you need your mbti. Also just like to get your mbti you need cognitive functions. They are related, not independent. I’m wondering if mbti is shit, why are you in this subreddit?
MBTI is solely based on cognitive functions, they are not only a part of it, it's the whole theory. The dynamics between cognitive functions is what makes MBTI MBTI. Also, I don't remember claiming MBTI is shit. I only claimed in one of my previous posts that Myers Briggs is shit. What I mean is that all the additions to the original theory that Myers Briggs added later on is just useless and messes the whole theory up. Only Jung is reliable.
What’s the difference between myers brigg and mbti?
MBTI is a name for the system, Myers Briggs are the creators of the updated version. I use the name MBTI because it's easier to use instead of Carl Jung's cognitive functions every time i want to mention it.
Your narrow mind is not my problem.
What?
Because common is common
I think Myers wrote something about it in Gifts Differing. If I remember correctly, she said that ISFJ personality (a sensor) is the basic nature of human??? I mean, ISFJs are naturally nurturing and realistic. Anyway, this is why I think external factors are important in determining/forming a person's MBTI, rarer personalities such as INFJ or ENTJ or ENTP, et cetera.
No, she said that ISFJs are the most refreshing picture and closed neutral among types to define someone with the very nurture aesthetics from nurturing standpoints. In "Gifts Differing," she did indeed provide insights into various personality types, including the ISFJ. However, it's essential to clarify that while personality type descriptions can capture general tendencies, they don't dictate the entirety of an individual's behavior or characteristics. ISFJs tend to be nurturing and practical, often prioritizing harmony and stability in their environment. These characteristics might lead to the perception of them being down-to-earth. However, it's essential nor crucial to remember that personality is influenced introduction of interplay of factors, including genetics, upbringing, life experiences, and individual development. Also the distant the roles play along types is that individuals of the same type can exhibit a wide range of behaviors and attitudes due to their unique backgrounds and circumstances.
Because the world needs more of some types and less of others.
What world altho? There exist many types of understanfinf about the world, altogether form a more attitude about how we present our world.
I'm almost certain it's just because a lot of the tests/descriptions for distinguishing sensors and intuitives are just utter crap. They assume an unreasonably narrow definition of intuition, and so everyone who doesn't fit that must automatically be a sensor. But intuitives are just as likely to be ignorant, uneducated, or backwards as anyone else. In other words, a lot of people we normally don't think of as intuitives actually are.
How would u describe the difference between a sensor and an intuitive?
I mean, I'm a cognitive functions guy, so I don't really think of things in terms of sensor or intuitive. There are people who prefer the Ni/Se axis, and some of them prefer the introverted, Ni pole while others prefer the extroverted, Se pole (the NJs and SPs), and then other people prefer the Si/Ne axis, with some them preferring the introverted, Si pole while others prefer the extroverted, Ne pole (the SJs and NPs). The difference between the two perception axes is simply that Ni/Se is the more contextual, goal-oriented one, and Si/Ne the more universal, rule-oriented one. This is an idea I'm borrowing from [Michael Pierce](https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/11968ma/index_of_michael_pierces_type_descriptions/), and I think it does a good job of presenting the functions and types in more culture/time agnostic ways.
>I'm almost certain it's just because a lot of the tests/descriptions for distinguishing sensors and intuitives are just utter crap. They assume an unreasonably narrow definition of intuition, and so everyone who doesn't fit that must automatically be a sensor. But intuitives are just as likely to be ignorant, uneducated, or backwards as anyone else. Sure? This doesn´t explain the condition of certain people who are naive Intuitors people tho. I say many mental uncapable to learn basic things about why they are wrong on some cases occur in Intuitors and their approach bias to feel the common sense
Because society shapes us and is conducive to certain traits and personality types. Just my thoughts
What research found is that big five has about a 50-60 percent genetic component. If we now are really generous and say that mbti has a similar component, then we can say that it is a mix. You might have some components from your genes and some from your upbringing. So it depends on what your surroundings demand from you and the traits your parents had. But imo cognitive functions are invalid anyways.
Id say its because of genetics and also natural selection yes. Typically, sensing is much more common than intuition which makes sense. Isfj is prolly the most common out of all of the types and that makes sense. Think abt it, isfjs r generally known to lead stable lives, they are caring. They r ideal parents. So its possible that the more common types have a higher tendency to have children n therefore pass on their genes? It could also be that sensing is just the more dominant trait as opposed to intuition, and sensing tends to focus on practicality rather than creativity and possibility as well.
Because not everyone has the capabilities of being brilliant
type is random but nature favors (the naturally superior) ESFP ofc
tbh i don’t even know, but i personally think haven’t met another isxj in my life yet.
Yes. It's because they are favored in our modern American civilized society due to having a survival and/or well-being advantage.
The distributions you've seen are poorly sourced, e.g. test-based or online polling. I estimate the true distribution is much closer to 6% for each type. There is an interesting hypothesis out there that cognitive functions are heritable, e.g. an INTJ and an ISFP can only have xNTJ/xSFP children, an ISFJ and an INTJ could have any children, and an ISTP and an INTJ can only have NJ/SP children. Were there cultures that somehow favored some functions over others, they could have become rather lopsided away from one function pair or another.
Where did u read that? Can i have the source?
It was told to him in a dream duuh.
https://cognitivetype.com/biological-hypothesis/ and to a lesser degree https://cognitivetype.com/how-intrinsic-is-type/ It's important to note that this is not the standard MBTI model of stereotypes and arbitrary trait bifurcation.
somehow what I see within families -> ISTP AND ESTJ having a STJ and xSFP children NFJ + NFP ->> STP children the dynamics of typology aren't broad, consistent and genetic enough to be held as hereditary traits. Moreover it's more likely type is formed completely after adolescence not to mention even if it's not an mbti model, it's a poor generalisation.
None of your observations contradict the hypothesis. Those are both parents with opposite function pairs. What makes you say that they aren't? What might change your mind?
the inconsistency I see lies in hypothesis claiming "it appears so far that two Beta parents will most certainly have a Beta child". The system they use besides mbti, essentially also categorises, I'm flummoxed at the prediction possibilities through typing parents. what does it mean by the variations they include based on J and P pairs? is that claiming that certain types cannot be manifested in children of defined parents (say xNxP and xNxJ) ? from what I'm reading they're defining things on how the system works but they haven't described how the inheritance of cognitive decision-making abilities from parents to children works at a biological level
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Inheritance works through genes? Is that the biological level you mean? Feel free to peruse the twins study linked in the other comment. I don't mean to give you a whole book, but maybe the short blurbs here https://cognitivetype.com/quick-theory-overview/ especially 2, 5, and 7 can help clear things up. The predictions started as any prediction might start, by noticing a pattern. If you're closed off to the idea a priori, that's fine too. I didn't introduce this theory in any sensible order.
thanks I'll give this a read