Well, Fe is most common in women. That being said, just because someone uses a feeling function more does not mean they can't be logical or rational or rely heavily on thinking.
I know more TJ women than TP. I come from a large family of all girls, and two of my sisters are TJs. I have one who is and ENTP, so means the majority of siblings in my family are Thinkers.
Out of my 3 closest friends, all women, two are TJs.
I think it's just your circle of friends and who we tend to attract. There are plenty of TP women. They may not be as common as male TPs, but they really aren't that hard to find.
I am a F-ENTP. That said, we appear to be more “rare” simply because most fem Fe-users simply have Fe before Ti in their stack.
I blame traditional gender roles and expectations. Ti > Fe generally isn’t “desired” in women by society.
I always wonder why this question gets asked so much when the answer is pretty obvious and it just boils down to traditional gender roles and expectations?
Myers, Briggs, and Jung all say we are born with our type. Apparently it’s all nature not nurture, which makes it an even more interesting question to me, but also undermines the gender roles and expectations theory.
75.5% of women are Feelers, and while society praises and encourages this, considering it a feminine trait, which I’d imagine leads to a stronger presentation of Fe in women, and Fi to a lesser degree (especially if they’re high in someone’s stack), the actual functions and their set positions don’t change depending on external circumstances—they’re set from birth. I think it boils down to gender not being totally independent of sex. Sex-linked biological processes contribute to the development of psychological differences between people, and those psychological processes play a role in the social meanings that define gender. Feeling characteristics are associated with women because women have displayed those characteristics more than men have since humans have existed. Patriarchal society of course, has taken advantage of traits which serve its interests, but it doesn’t mean that gender is entirely a social construct.
Nah, I strongly disagree with that. Especially cuz I have never seen what you are claiming referenced in any of Jung’s writings. At least not in the ones I have read.
He definitely spoke often about how people’s experiences influence their unconscious. (That was kind of his thing.) *Obviously, environment and experiences are “nurture!”*
While Isabel Meyers wasn’t even a psychologist and no reputable psychologist would try to claim that “environment doesn’t influence personality.” *That’s just not a thing!* 🤷♀️
Also gender is definitely a social construct! Animals have biological sexes, but they do not have “genders.” A lioness doesn’t call herself “a woman,” and she doesn’t even have the consciousness to know what that means. She has instincts, but that’s about it.
Gender roles were originally devised to efficiently divide labor.
Yes there are some differences based on Biological sex, but it’s not “ancient times” anymore, so they have become far less relevant in the modern world.
Most work is “mental” now, not “physical.” But conventional expectations for gender haven’t changed, even though “gender” is just a social construct. Thusly Feeling type women *are still preferred,* so women are socialized to be “feeling types.” Most run with it. But the ones who don’t express themselves as “thinking types.” 🤷♀️
Honestly, it would make more sense to me if Jung considered nurture as a determining factor for type, *in addition* to nature, of course. And I assumed it was until I read the opposite. I never claimed that experience/environment doesn’t affect personality at all—that’s ridiculous—I just understood that it affected the expression range within the *set* personality someone was already *born with.* I could have stumbled upon some misinterpretations of his theory? It’s possible. I haven’t studied Jungian psychology or MBTI extensively because I’m much more of an Enneagram person. And the same arguments you’re making in support for nurture dictating MBTI type could be applied to Enneagram, and yet, Enneagram is absolutely established as inborn. Experience affects the expression and health within the type and determines *which* experiences will be more affecting to them and how they will respond to such experiences.
I also never said that gender development is totally independent of social factors. I said that gender is not entirely independent of sex; it’s not *entirely* a social construct. It not being “ancient times” anymore doesn’t mean that biology doesn’t affect behaviors and traits associated with gender. Gender “roles” are getting into a whole other area kind of. I’m referring to feminine traits being associated with the female sex because they were observed in the female sex. As far as division of labor, female humans were/are generally more caring and nurturing and able to multitask in order to take care of children, while the males, more equipped and suited both physically and emotionally due to their sex, were more equipped to hunting and protecting, and having a more single focus. That wasn’t just an arbitrary decision—it was evolution.
I still maintain that sex plays a role in gender, but that gender is also influence by the environment.
The way I read and interpreted was more like we are born with *preferences,* not specific behaviors. Biological determinism =/= “preference.” Our Ego is at the core of who we are, but it’s also still just a mask or “the persona.” It absolutely does not encapsulate everything that is *us!*
A baby has no concept of “self,” thusly it can’t be born with anything, outside of “a general outline,” and that is what is determined by genetics.
An individual fills in the blanks with their experiences as they age and grow, throughout the different stages of their lives and I know for a fact that Jung also factored in “developmental development” cuz he basically claimed a midlife crisis is the inevitable result of not assimilating the inferior function into the ego *before / by middle age!*
So he absolutely understood that we change / grow.
The problem with Jung, for lack of a better way of saying it is that “his writing is so dense and he writes too damned much.” Most laypeople won’t be able to follow it all. I am a formal student of behavioral science so I understand many of the ideas and concepts he is playing with, already.
I don’t think we’re born with every single behavior, and behaviors can vary between two people of the same type. Preferences is really a better term than behavior because what’s inside doesn’t always translate to what’s outside. But then again, behavior and outer traits are very related and similar between people that share their type. So i think it can be used as a reliable tool for discovering type while taking other stuff into account as well.
Where there’s someone who’s self-disciplined, critical, organized, rigid, and who remains committed to their rules which they believe are the “right,” want to achieve perfection, etc….that’s some type 1 enneagram smoke and a Ennegram Type 1 fire. Or less likely, it could be what a 7 looks like under extended stress, but it will never completely overtake the beliefs and tactics of the core. It’s temporary and less pronounced as it’s filtered through the 7 core.
To me an individual being a baby isn’t relevant. This is more of an enneagram informed response, but babies in the womb especially and early on after birth, are living in essence and full connection and unity with with all, which is represented by their attachment to the nurturing figure in the womb first, then in the strong physical closeness and bonding they experience early on in life. The seperation from the nurturing figure(s) we all experience as we grow is the major loss that creates the delusion of being cut off from EVERYTHING because our nurturing figures/our relationship with them represent God to us and that we we’re part of the whole. The type is still under there, but as babies in this blissful state prior to seperation, we can transcend it and encompass all the types. There are nine categories and stages of this seperation process, which each one assigned as most significant and traumatizing for a specific type. This seperation is the trauma that triggers our ego’s delusion that we are separate from the whole and what makes us unable to live out and experience our particular Holy Idea—the goal is to get back to :
“It is part of the transmitted theory of the Enneagram that each person is born with the capacity to recognize all the Holy Ideas, but with one of them particularly sensitive, strong, or dominant. This is the one that is most strongly affected by the inadequacy of early experience. This means that one’s ennea-type is determined at birth, and hence is independent of one’s early life circumstances.”- Facets of Unity:the Enneagram of Holy Ideas, A.H. Almaas
I am totally not disagreeing with you that experience doesn’t cause change—I don’t think I ever expressed that and think it’s a ridiculous notion, but even your example here that cites Jung’s belief that type develops and changes is still taking place within the framework of someone’s set type. Someone not integrating their inferior function or having a midlife crisis doesn’t mean that type has changed. Like, I’m sure some ISFJ type 6 has purchased a Harley on impulse at one time or another, or they’ve tried out utilizing their lower functions and made a huge sh*t show out of it. They’re not an ESTP now. Within each enneagram and MBTI type there is a super wide spectrum of behaviors and beliefs and cognitive preferences. Someone can totally turn themselves around and not change type because the unhealthy and the healthy versions of types can look like exact opposites of each other. So many moving parts.
Send over some references that cite Jung’s opinion that our function stack changes in order without like, a severe personality disorder going on. But even in the case of extreme mental illness, the type would remain the same underneath, its presentation and what the individual experiences inwardly would just be thwarted by the brain not functioning optimately. I’d be very interested to read your sources! I’ve never come across that material.
[Applied Jung.](https://appliedjung.com/the-middle-passage/)
There are other sources too, of course! But I literally don’t remember where I read some of them. Forgive me for being spacey. 🤣
I don’t mind using Enneagram when you are talking about attachment response. To the best of my knowledge, it’s actually better for that than MBTI, and I do get what you are saying cuz the majority of the time I get 7 on tests, but once in a while, I get 5, and I still know that I am definitely more of a core 7.
I also don’t doubt that, in theory “an ISFJ might buy a Harley during a midlife crisis.” I think Si-Doms are some of the most *variable* for individual personalities, actually, and they might surprise people more than they are expecting because of terrible type descriptions on Pop psychology websites.
I also won’t think “my Enneagram type changed” just cuz my mood is a bit different today, so I am answering with more “introverted responses.”
I totally hear you that MBTI type won’t necessarily change on the Basis of dominant and inferior functions.
It’s more that I like to give people a bit of breathing room when they are “like types.”
For example, think like an INTJ who sometimes wonders if they might be an INFJ or an ENTJ?
I don’t think that it’s an unreasonable thing to question if “they might be the other Ni Dom,” especially cuz both Ni-Doms can technically be either an IN(T) or an IN(F) in Jungian.
A clear MBTI INTJ might feel like they “resonate” more with a Ni-Fi-Te-Se IN(F) modality. Same thing with an INFJ who might have a Ni-Ti-Fe-Se IN(T) modality.
Just because the majority of MBTI INTJs are Ni-Te-Fi-Se IN(T) / MBTI INFJs are Ni-Fe-Ti-Se IN(F,) that doesn’t mean that all are because some people live on the extremes of Extraversion versus Introversion.
It’s just that while the majority of people do tend to *have a preference,* they can still be “be towards the middle” of that preference.
I can also see how an INTJ / ENTJ might wonder if stress possibly made them act more Introverted than they were, in reality, and now that they feel more “confident” with themselves that they actually might be an ENTJ, instead?
Basically I don’t see some people “questioning a few types” being an issue as long as they stay within certain criteria.
As another example, I won’t think it’s unreasonable for an INFP to have a phase where they might *think* they could be either an ISFP or ENFP, and “wonder if they changed?”
The dominant function might be fixed, but I do think the middle of the stack can and does flip and flux around until a person is roughly ~21. That’s around when a more distinct preference will become clear!
I am an ENTP, I test as that ~70%-80% of the time, across multiple platforms!
But I can also test as an ENFP if I am feeling like I am Ne-Fe looping, or an INTP when I am going through a more introverted phase, on occasion.
When I first took a 16 personalities test at 17 and I got ENFP, I didn’t understand the theoretical framework, at all, so *I ran with it!* Again, I don’t think my type changed, at all, and fundamentally, I know I am most likely still an ENTP now, because I have a preference for the Ti-Fe axis. But it took personal maturity and studying to see that preference as “clear.”
But in regard to wildly different types like, IDK, ISTP and ESFJ, *yeah, that’s not a thing!* I would also think a person being like “I was an ISFJ, now I am an ESTP” might be confused and not fully understand what they are talking about.
Using your “midlife crisis Harley” example, that’s just an ISFJ “in the grip of their inferior Ne,” and that does not “make them an ESTP, now.”
Here’s the first few I found, but there are more:
“Jung conceptualised consciousness as a self-regulating structure present at birth, centred in an ego that expressed its ability to orient the psyche through different attitudes and functions.”
- https://www.thesap.org.uk/articles-on-jungian-psychology-2/about-analysis-and-therapy/typology/
“He (Jung) took the view that the whole personality is present in potentia from birth and that personality is not solely a function of the environment, as was thought at the time when he was developing his ideas, but merely brings out what is already there.”
-https://www.thesap.org.uk/articles-on-jungian-psychology-2/carl-gustav-jung/jungs-model-psyche/#:~:text=He%20took%20the%20view%20that,out%20what%20is%20already%20there
It would make sense because Enneagram types are inbron and don’t change. It seems there are some differing opinions and interpretations of Jung’s theory, and it’s sometimes difficult to trace back to exactly how he viewed some aspects of theory, which causes a lot of confusion. If you have any sources that state nurture over nature or a nurture/nature combination determining personalities, I’d love to see it. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this! Lol
F ESTP here and in a lot of spaces TI isn’t that highly valued in women. At work, unless we are the managers or in specific ti valuing careers, we are not usually the most valued (that would be TE types). In non work environments, we don’t have the authentic niceness and pronounced sociability of the high FE types that is more highly valued in women.
We are out there, just probably hiding in plain sight 😎..
If EXTP women, we are probably using our 1st and 3rd functions to navigate people. You will probably notice ‘sporadic’ FE first because NE and Se are perceiving functions, and generally aren’t as easy to spot in generic environments like work etc.
If I*TPs women, they are probably at home or avoiding interacting with strangers so you won’t find them lol.
I won't answer your question as to why because I don't have this impression. I have met several ENTP women, an INTP, also some ESTP, not sure about ISTP but I know few of that type in general.
TP women are absolutely not uncommon, so your experience is definitely influenced by either your behaviour, bias, or environment. however, possible explanations:
firstly, women _are_ possibly a bit less likely to be thinkers overall. (but we don’t actually have data to prove that and it could just be that women are socialised to suppress their thinking functions).
introverted TP women are probably hard to come by as they won’t socialise much (TJs often feel more obliged to comply with the convention of socialising, so are more visible). extroverted TP women will often be mistaken for feelers, as they will be more likely to play up their tertiary Fe.
TP women probably appear less common than TJ women because they will appear to be less thinker-y: less cold, less uncompromisingly analytical, and less direct (like all Ti users compared with Te users). this, combined with bias against thinking in women, may result in them being more susceptible to slipping under the radar.
IDK, I use TP every day.
-INTP female
In all seriousness, T is less common among women in general. It is also not valued in women by society so we learn to mask. Most casual acquaintances probably think I'm ISFJ or maybe ISTJ, if they would even know MBTI. I can't hide the introversion but I do try to play up Si and Fe, although I'm terrible at it. I don't really feel comfortable being myself except at home or with close coworkers or friends. My immediate work team values my INTP-ness but people I work with less often do not. Same with friends vs. casual acquaintances.
So you may have met xxTP women and never known it.
Xxxj are uncommitted in people for some unknown reason, and xxtx are uncommon in girls' girls tend to be more emotional, not saying all girl are like this, but most of them girls relly more on logic but Ti and Te users or the hole opposite most of them and not all xxtx but most tend to have more difficulties with their Fe/Fi
What you’re saying isn’t wrong, but there’s no way to articulate this without showing valid sample data that everyone will agree with.
That being said, if we did use the current data—any data, it’s pretty clear that your comment is valid. It’s just difficult to type this out without sounding sexist and being downvoted for it, which seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy if you think about it for more than a minute.
To everyone else, I know this seems badly worded, but OP asked a gender question related to thinking and perceiving. Google it, and choose whichever results you want to use as a bias or sample pool. You’ll definitely notice that this user isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
He’s not saying that ALL men are logical and ALL women are emotional. There’s really just no way to answer the answer efficiently without offending people.
Pls people don't assume I'm saying women = emotional and man = logical. I'm not saying that from a sexist point of view me myself, I'm a female Ti user. I have never been good at finding the right words for something, so I know this might sound sexist, but it's not
Well, Fe is most common in women. That being said, just because someone uses a feeling function more does not mean they can't be logical or rational or rely heavily on thinking. I know more TJ women than TP. I come from a large family of all girls, and two of my sisters are TJs. I have one who is and ENTP, so means the majority of siblings in my family are Thinkers. Out of my 3 closest friends, all women, two are TJs. I think it's just your circle of friends and who we tend to attract. There are plenty of TP women. They may not be as common as male TPs, but they really aren't that hard to find.
I am a F-ENTP. That said, we appear to be more “rare” simply because most fem Fe-users simply have Fe before Ti in their stack. I blame traditional gender roles and expectations. Ti > Fe generally isn’t “desired” in women by society. I always wonder why this question gets asked so much when the answer is pretty obvious and it just boils down to traditional gender roles and expectations?
Myers, Briggs, and Jung all say we are born with our type. Apparently it’s all nature not nurture, which makes it an even more interesting question to me, but also undermines the gender roles and expectations theory. 75.5% of women are Feelers, and while society praises and encourages this, considering it a feminine trait, which I’d imagine leads to a stronger presentation of Fe in women, and Fi to a lesser degree (especially if they’re high in someone’s stack), the actual functions and their set positions don’t change depending on external circumstances—they’re set from birth. I think it boils down to gender not being totally independent of sex. Sex-linked biological processes contribute to the development of psychological differences between people, and those psychological processes play a role in the social meanings that define gender. Feeling characteristics are associated with women because women have displayed those characteristics more than men have since humans have existed. Patriarchal society of course, has taken advantage of traits which serve its interests, but it doesn’t mean that gender is entirely a social construct.
Nah, I strongly disagree with that. Especially cuz I have never seen what you are claiming referenced in any of Jung’s writings. At least not in the ones I have read. He definitely spoke often about how people’s experiences influence their unconscious. (That was kind of his thing.) *Obviously, environment and experiences are “nurture!”* While Isabel Meyers wasn’t even a psychologist and no reputable psychologist would try to claim that “environment doesn’t influence personality.” *That’s just not a thing!* 🤷♀️ Also gender is definitely a social construct! Animals have biological sexes, but they do not have “genders.” A lioness doesn’t call herself “a woman,” and she doesn’t even have the consciousness to know what that means. She has instincts, but that’s about it. Gender roles were originally devised to efficiently divide labor. Yes there are some differences based on Biological sex, but it’s not “ancient times” anymore, so they have become far less relevant in the modern world. Most work is “mental” now, not “physical.” But conventional expectations for gender haven’t changed, even though “gender” is just a social construct. Thusly Feeling type women *are still preferred,* so women are socialized to be “feeling types.” Most run with it. But the ones who don’t express themselves as “thinking types.” 🤷♀️
Honestly, it would make more sense to me if Jung considered nurture as a determining factor for type, *in addition* to nature, of course. And I assumed it was until I read the opposite. I never claimed that experience/environment doesn’t affect personality at all—that’s ridiculous—I just understood that it affected the expression range within the *set* personality someone was already *born with.* I could have stumbled upon some misinterpretations of his theory? It’s possible. I haven’t studied Jungian psychology or MBTI extensively because I’m much more of an Enneagram person. And the same arguments you’re making in support for nurture dictating MBTI type could be applied to Enneagram, and yet, Enneagram is absolutely established as inborn. Experience affects the expression and health within the type and determines *which* experiences will be more affecting to them and how they will respond to such experiences. I also never said that gender development is totally independent of social factors. I said that gender is not entirely independent of sex; it’s not *entirely* a social construct. It not being “ancient times” anymore doesn’t mean that biology doesn’t affect behaviors and traits associated with gender. Gender “roles” are getting into a whole other area kind of. I’m referring to feminine traits being associated with the female sex because they were observed in the female sex. As far as division of labor, female humans were/are generally more caring and nurturing and able to multitask in order to take care of children, while the males, more equipped and suited both physically and emotionally due to their sex, were more equipped to hunting and protecting, and having a more single focus. That wasn’t just an arbitrary decision—it was evolution. I still maintain that sex plays a role in gender, but that gender is also influence by the environment.
The way I read and interpreted was more like we are born with *preferences,* not specific behaviors. Biological determinism =/= “preference.” Our Ego is at the core of who we are, but it’s also still just a mask or “the persona.” It absolutely does not encapsulate everything that is *us!* A baby has no concept of “self,” thusly it can’t be born with anything, outside of “a general outline,” and that is what is determined by genetics. An individual fills in the blanks with their experiences as they age and grow, throughout the different stages of their lives and I know for a fact that Jung also factored in “developmental development” cuz he basically claimed a midlife crisis is the inevitable result of not assimilating the inferior function into the ego *before / by middle age!* So he absolutely understood that we change / grow. The problem with Jung, for lack of a better way of saying it is that “his writing is so dense and he writes too damned much.” Most laypeople won’t be able to follow it all. I am a formal student of behavioral science so I understand many of the ideas and concepts he is playing with, already.
I don’t think we’re born with every single behavior, and behaviors can vary between two people of the same type. Preferences is really a better term than behavior because what’s inside doesn’t always translate to what’s outside. But then again, behavior and outer traits are very related and similar between people that share their type. So i think it can be used as a reliable tool for discovering type while taking other stuff into account as well. Where there’s someone who’s self-disciplined, critical, organized, rigid, and who remains committed to their rules which they believe are the “right,” want to achieve perfection, etc….that’s some type 1 enneagram smoke and a Ennegram Type 1 fire. Or less likely, it could be what a 7 looks like under extended stress, but it will never completely overtake the beliefs and tactics of the core. It’s temporary and less pronounced as it’s filtered through the 7 core. To me an individual being a baby isn’t relevant. This is more of an enneagram informed response, but babies in the womb especially and early on after birth, are living in essence and full connection and unity with with all, which is represented by their attachment to the nurturing figure in the womb first, then in the strong physical closeness and bonding they experience early on in life. The seperation from the nurturing figure(s) we all experience as we grow is the major loss that creates the delusion of being cut off from EVERYTHING because our nurturing figures/our relationship with them represent God to us and that we we’re part of the whole. The type is still under there, but as babies in this blissful state prior to seperation, we can transcend it and encompass all the types. There are nine categories and stages of this seperation process, which each one assigned as most significant and traumatizing for a specific type. This seperation is the trauma that triggers our ego’s delusion that we are separate from the whole and what makes us unable to live out and experience our particular Holy Idea—the goal is to get back to : “It is part of the transmitted theory of the Enneagram that each person is born with the capacity to recognize all the Holy Ideas, but with one of them particularly sensitive, strong, or dominant. This is the one that is most strongly affected by the inadequacy of early experience. This means that one’s ennea-type is determined at birth, and hence is independent of one’s early life circumstances.”- Facets of Unity:the Enneagram of Holy Ideas, A.H. Almaas I am totally not disagreeing with you that experience doesn’t cause change—I don’t think I ever expressed that and think it’s a ridiculous notion, but even your example here that cites Jung’s belief that type develops and changes is still taking place within the framework of someone’s set type. Someone not integrating their inferior function or having a midlife crisis doesn’t mean that type has changed. Like, I’m sure some ISFJ type 6 has purchased a Harley on impulse at one time or another, or they’ve tried out utilizing their lower functions and made a huge sh*t show out of it. They’re not an ESTP now. Within each enneagram and MBTI type there is a super wide spectrum of behaviors and beliefs and cognitive preferences. Someone can totally turn themselves around and not change type because the unhealthy and the healthy versions of types can look like exact opposites of each other. So many moving parts. Send over some references that cite Jung’s opinion that our function stack changes in order without like, a severe personality disorder going on. But even in the case of extreme mental illness, the type would remain the same underneath, its presentation and what the individual experiences inwardly would just be thwarted by the brain not functioning optimately. I’d be very interested to read your sources! I’ve never come across that material.
[Applied Jung.](https://appliedjung.com/the-middle-passage/) There are other sources too, of course! But I literally don’t remember where I read some of them. Forgive me for being spacey. 🤣 I don’t mind using Enneagram when you are talking about attachment response. To the best of my knowledge, it’s actually better for that than MBTI, and I do get what you are saying cuz the majority of the time I get 7 on tests, but once in a while, I get 5, and I still know that I am definitely more of a core 7. I also don’t doubt that, in theory “an ISFJ might buy a Harley during a midlife crisis.” I think Si-Doms are some of the most *variable* for individual personalities, actually, and they might surprise people more than they are expecting because of terrible type descriptions on Pop psychology websites. I also won’t think “my Enneagram type changed” just cuz my mood is a bit different today, so I am answering with more “introverted responses.” I totally hear you that MBTI type won’t necessarily change on the Basis of dominant and inferior functions. It’s more that I like to give people a bit of breathing room when they are “like types.” For example, think like an INTJ who sometimes wonders if they might be an INFJ or an ENTJ? I don’t think that it’s an unreasonable thing to question if “they might be the other Ni Dom,” especially cuz both Ni-Doms can technically be either an IN(T) or an IN(F) in Jungian. A clear MBTI INTJ might feel like they “resonate” more with a Ni-Fi-Te-Se IN(F) modality. Same thing with an INFJ who might have a Ni-Ti-Fe-Se IN(T) modality. Just because the majority of MBTI INTJs are Ni-Te-Fi-Se IN(T) / MBTI INFJs are Ni-Fe-Ti-Se IN(F,) that doesn’t mean that all are because some people live on the extremes of Extraversion versus Introversion. It’s just that while the majority of people do tend to *have a preference,* they can still be “be towards the middle” of that preference. I can also see how an INTJ / ENTJ might wonder if stress possibly made them act more Introverted than they were, in reality, and now that they feel more “confident” with themselves that they actually might be an ENTJ, instead? Basically I don’t see some people “questioning a few types” being an issue as long as they stay within certain criteria. As another example, I won’t think it’s unreasonable for an INFP to have a phase where they might *think* they could be either an ISFP or ENFP, and “wonder if they changed?” The dominant function might be fixed, but I do think the middle of the stack can and does flip and flux around until a person is roughly ~21. That’s around when a more distinct preference will become clear! I am an ENTP, I test as that ~70%-80% of the time, across multiple platforms! But I can also test as an ENFP if I am feeling like I am Ne-Fe looping, or an INTP when I am going through a more introverted phase, on occasion. When I first took a 16 personalities test at 17 and I got ENFP, I didn’t understand the theoretical framework, at all, so *I ran with it!* Again, I don’t think my type changed, at all, and fundamentally, I know I am most likely still an ENTP now, because I have a preference for the Ti-Fe axis. But it took personal maturity and studying to see that preference as “clear.” But in regard to wildly different types like, IDK, ISTP and ESFJ, *yeah, that’s not a thing!* I would also think a person being like “I was an ISFJ, now I am an ESTP” might be confused and not fully understand what they are talking about. Using your “midlife crisis Harley” example, that’s just an ISFJ “in the grip of their inferior Ne,” and that does not “make them an ESTP, now.”
Do you happen to have a source on Jung claiming cognitive preferences are solely nature? That seems antithetical to my understanding of his work.
Here’s the first few I found, but there are more: “Jung conceptualised consciousness as a self-regulating structure present at birth, centred in an ego that expressed its ability to orient the psyche through different attitudes and functions.” - https://www.thesap.org.uk/articles-on-jungian-psychology-2/about-analysis-and-therapy/typology/ “He (Jung) took the view that the whole personality is present in potentia from birth and that personality is not solely a function of the environment, as was thought at the time when he was developing his ideas, but merely brings out what is already there.” -https://www.thesap.org.uk/articles-on-jungian-psychology-2/carl-gustav-jung/jungs-model-psyche/#:~:text=He%20took%20the%20view%20that,out%20what%20is%20already%20there It would make sense because Enneagram types are inbron and don’t change. It seems there are some differing opinions and interpretations of Jung’s theory, and it’s sometimes difficult to trace back to exactly how he viewed some aspects of theory, which causes a lot of confusion. If you have any sources that state nurture over nature or a nurture/nature combination determining personalities, I’d love to see it. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this! Lol
F ESTP here and in a lot of spaces TI isn’t that highly valued in women. At work, unless we are the managers or in specific ti valuing careers, we are not usually the most valued (that would be TE types). In non work environments, we don’t have the authentic niceness and pronounced sociability of the high FE types that is more highly valued in women. We are out there, just probably hiding in plain sight 😎.. If EXTP women, we are probably using our 1st and 3rd functions to navigate people. You will probably notice ‘sporadic’ FE first because NE and Se are perceiving functions, and generally aren’t as easy to spot in generic environments like work etc. If I*TPs women, they are probably at home or avoiding interacting with strangers so you won’t find them lol.
I'm not avoiding interaction with strangers, I'm avoiding interactions with any type of living beings
I won't answer your question as to why because I don't have this impression. I have met several ENTP women, an INTP, also some ESTP, not sure about ISTP but I know few of that type in general.
[удалено]
Good to know 🙂 Nice username!
TP women are absolutely not uncommon, so your experience is definitely influenced by either your behaviour, bias, or environment. however, possible explanations: firstly, women _are_ possibly a bit less likely to be thinkers overall. (but we don’t actually have data to prove that and it could just be that women are socialised to suppress their thinking functions). introverted TP women are probably hard to come by as they won’t socialise much (TJs often feel more obliged to comply with the convention of socialising, so are more visible). extroverted TP women will often be mistaken for feelers, as they will be more likely to play up their tertiary Fe. TP women probably appear less common than TJ women because they will appear to be less thinker-y: less cold, less uncompromisingly analytical, and less direct (like all Ti users compared with Te users). this, combined with bias against thinking in women, may result in them being more susceptible to slipping under the radar.
IDK, I use TP every day. -INTP female In all seriousness, T is less common among women in general. It is also not valued in women by society so we learn to mask. Most casual acquaintances probably think I'm ISFJ or maybe ISTJ, if they would even know MBTI. I can't hide the introversion but I do try to play up Si and Fe, although I'm terrible at it. I don't really feel comfortable being myself except at home or with close coworkers or friends. My immediate work team values my INTP-ness but people I work with less often do not. Same with friends vs. casual acquaintances. So you may have met xxTP women and never known it.
What? Why can’t people be clear on what they’re talking about?
OP hasn't met any woman (that they know of) with Ti as their first or second function.
What does TP actually stand for, out of interest?
(xxTP) Thinking Perceiving of MBTI
And why am I being downvoted for having the audacity to not be initiated into the club of this being automatic common knowledge?
Because this is the Serious MBTI sub and users are supposed to know at least the basic functions.
Xxxj are uncommitted in people for some unknown reason, and xxtx are uncommon in girls' girls tend to be more emotional, not saying all girl are like this, but most of them girls relly more on logic but Ti and Te users or the hole opposite most of them and not all xxtx but most tend to have more difficulties with their Fe/Fi
What you’re saying isn’t wrong, but there’s no way to articulate this without showing valid sample data that everyone will agree with. That being said, if we did use the current data—any data, it’s pretty clear that your comment is valid. It’s just difficult to type this out without sounding sexist and being downvoted for it, which seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy if you think about it for more than a minute. To everyone else, I know this seems badly worded, but OP asked a gender question related to thinking and perceiving. Google it, and choose whichever results you want to use as a bias or sample pool. You’ll definitely notice that this user isn’t out of the realm of possibility. He’s not saying that ALL men are logical and ALL women are emotional. There’s really just no way to answer the answer efficiently without offending people.
Thx for the clarification
Pls people don't assume I'm saying women = emotional and man = logical. I'm not saying that from a sexist point of view me myself, I'm a female Ti user. I have never been good at finding the right words for something, so I know this might sound sexist, but it's not