MBTI Proximity Chart
| ' (.I.N.T.P.) "architect" . | ' (.I.S.T.P.) "crafter" . | ' (.I.S.F.P.) "composer" . | ' (.I.N.F.P.) "healer" . | |||||||
| np | X N T P "engineer" | tp | X S T P "operator" | sp | X S F P "player" | fp | X N F P "advocate/disciple" | np | ||
|
(.E.N.F.P.) "cham- pion" | E N X P | E N T P "inventor" wiki typelogic 4.0% of men, 2.4% of women | E X T P | E S T P "promoter" wiki typelogic 5.6% of men, 3.0% of women | E S X P | E S F P "performer" wiki typelogic 6.9% of men, 10.1% of women | E X F P | E N F P "champion" wiki typelogic 6.4% of men, 9.7% of women | E N X P | (.E.N.T.P.) "inventor" |
| en | E N T X | et | E S T X | es | E S F X | ef | E N F X | en | ||
|
(.E.N.F.J.) "tea- cher" | E N X J | E N T J "fieldmarshal" wiki typelogic 2.7% of men, 0.9% of women | E X T J | E S T J "supervisor" wiki typelogic 11.2% of men, 6.3% of women | E S X J | E S F J "provider" wiki typelogic 7.5% of men, 16.9% of women | E X F J | E N F J "teacher" wiki typelogic 1.6% of men, 3.3% of women | E N X J | (.E.N.T.J.) "field- marshal" |
| nj | X N T J "organiser-coordinator" | tj | X S T J "monitor" | sj | X S F J "conservator" | fj | X N F J "mentor" | nj | ||
|
(.I.N.F.J.) "counselor" | I N X J | I N T J "mastermind" wiki typelogic 3.3% of men, 0.8% of women | I X T J | I S T J "inspector" wiki typelogic 16.4% of men, 6.9% of women | I S X J | I S F J "protector" wiki typelogic 8.1% of men, 19.4% of women | I X F J | I N F J "counselor" wiki typelogic 1.3% of men, 1.6% of women | I N X J | (.I.N.T.J.) "master- mind" |
| in | I N T X | it | I S T X | is | I S F X | if | I N F X | in | ||
|
(.I.N.F.P.) "healer" | I N X P | I N T P "architect" wiki typelogic 4.8% of men, 1.8% of women | I X T P | I S T P "crafter" wiki typelogic 8.5% of men, 2.4% of women | I S X P | I S F P "composer" wiki typelogic 7.6% of men, 9.9% of women | I X F P | I N F P "healer" wiki typelogic 4.1% of men, 4.6% of women | I N X P | (.I.N.T.P.) "archi- tect" |
| np | X N T P "engineer" | tp | X S T P "operator" | sp | X S F P "player" | fp | X N F P "advocate/disciple" | np | ||
| ' (.E.N.T.P.) "inventor" . | ' (.E.S.T.P.) "promoter" . | ' (.E.S.F.P.) "performer" . | ' (.E.N.F.P.) "champion" . |
Reading the Chart
This is a Karnaugh map, arranging the 16 temperament types so that each type is surrounded by the four types that most closely resemble it (by having three letters in common). Note that when you go off the edge it "wraps around" to the other side. So for example, INTP is surrounded by its four nearest neighbors ENTP, ISTP, INFP, and INTJ.
Each temperament has one exact opposite. This opposite is always located two squares away in a diagonal direction — go whichever direction you need so you stay on the grid. For example, ESTP and INFJ are opposites.
The most common temperaments (those that include S and J) are positioned in the center, for convenience.
The T types (more common among men) occupy the left half of the chart and the F types (more common among women) occupy the right.
|
The E-I Dimension
E = expressive, speaking, socially promiscuous ("Extroverted")
I = reserved, listening, socially intimate ("Introverted") Men are slightly more likely to be I (46% to 54%) and women more likely to be E (52% to 48%).
|
The S-N Dimension
N = abstract in thought and speech ("iNtuitive")
S = concrete in thought and speech ("Sensing") About 73% of the population is S. Among men the split is 72% to 28%; among women it is 75% to 25%.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The T-F Dimension
T = utilitarian in using tools ("Thinking")
F = coorperative in using tools ("Feeling") According to Myers[5], about 60% of the population is F; with the breakdown differing widely by gender: men are 57% T and 43% F, while women are 40% T and 60% F. Fitzgerald[3] claims that men are roughly 65% T and women roughly 65% F.
|
The P-J Dimension
J = organized/scheduled/inflexible ("Judging")
P = flexible/unscheduled/disorganized ("Perceiving") There are slightly more J's than P's; among men the split is 52% to 48%; among women it is 56% to 44%.
|
X Types
The thirty-two types that have a single "X" are placed midway between the two types whose combination they embody. Only a few of these have links to descriptions. Eight of them have characteristic names (like "engineer") given by Keirsey.
X-X Types
For the record, there are 24 types that have two X's; 16 of these are represented by the little squares with a two-letter label like "et", and the other eight comprise the four rows (ep, ej, ij and ip) and the four columns (nt, st, sf and nf).
The four "archetypes" described in Keirsey's books are different from the eight Jungian archetypes. Keirsey's four are the four temperaments of antiquity. They have been known by various names for over 2000 years; Myers, Briggs, Keirsey, and Bates associate them with the NT "Rational", SP "Artisan", SJ "Guardian" and NF "Idealist". This chart matches each with the most well-known of the ancient terms:
|
They are arranged like this on the chart at the top of this page:
|
Some readers (NT's in particular) will notice that this division is "non-symmetrical" — two columns, a square, and two "half-squares", rather than four squares or four columns. This results from the fact that the population is being divided into four groups based on their two most significant dimensions. For all people, the S-N dimension is the most significant. However, the second-most significant dimension depends on whether the individual is an S or an N. For S types, the P-J dimension is the second-most significant, and for N types it is the T-F dimension.
Distribution of the Types in the General Population
According to a few sources, a "1964 study" concluded 1 that the population is:
75% E, 25% I
75% S, 25% N
50% T, 50% F (but 60% T among men and 60% F among women)
50% J, 50% P
Based on that, and assuming completely orthogonal distribution, the statistics would be:
| ENTP 4.7% | ESTP 14% | ESFP 14% | ENFP 4.7% |
| ENTJ 4.7% | ESTJ 14% | ESFJ 14% | ENFJ 4.7% |
| INTJ 1.6% | ISTJ 4.7% | ISFJ 4.7% | INFJ 1.6% |
| INTP 1.6% | ISTP 4.7% | ISFP 4.7% | INFP 1.6% |
and within each type, the T types (the left two columns) would be 60% men, and the F types (the right two columns) 60% women.
I based an earlier version of the table at the top of this web page on those statistics, with the IP row along the top rather than the bottom, and the ES types in the center 4 squares. However, the 3-to-1 distribution of E-vs-I is not shown in any of the more recent sources, so I have deprecated it.
In the 1998 book Please Understand Me II by Keirsey[4], many of the articles on the specific temperament types include a comment like "comprising no more than, say, two percent of the population". Those statements are summarized here:
| ENTP 2% | ESTP % | ESFP % | ENFP 2.5% |
| ENTJ <2% | ESTJ 10+% | ESFJ % | ENFJ % |
| INTJ 1% | ISTJ % | ISFJ % | INFJ % |
| INTP 1% | ISTP % | ISFP % | INFP % |
In the 1998 edition of MBTI Manual the following statistics are given[5]. They are also quoted on the Wikipedia page for MBTI, which mentions that a form of "inferential statistics" was used to estimate them:
| ENTP 3.2% | ESTP 4.3% | ESFP 8.5% | ENFP 8.1% |
| ENTJ 1.8% | ESTJ 8.7% | ESFJ 12.3% | ENFJ 2.5% |
| INTJ 2.1% | ISTJ 11.6% | ISFJ 13.8% | INFJ 1.5% |
| INTP 3.3% | ISTP 5.4% | ISFP 8.8% | INFP 4.4% |
Based on that, one can get the following derived statistics:
E-vs-I: 49.3% is E, 50.7% is I
S-vs-N: 73.2% is S, 26.8% is N
T-vs-F: 40.3% is T, 59.7% is F
J-vs-P: 54.1% is J, 45.9% is P
Here is the distribution for the four classical archetytpes of (Aristotle, etc.), (again with with their Galen, Spränger and Myers names):
SP Artisans
(Sanguine, Aesthetic, Probing): 27.0%
NF Idealists
(Choleric, Religious, Friendly): 16.5%
SJ Guardians
(Melancholic, Economic, Scheduling): 46.4%
NT Rationals
(Phlegmatic, Theoretic, Tough-minded): 10.4%
The 4 rows: EP: 24.1% EJ: 25.3% IJ: 29.0% IP: 21.9%
The 4 columns: NT: 10.4% ST: 30.0% SF: 43.4% NF: 16.5%
The 16 2x2 "square"s or "quad"s:
ET: 18.0% ES: 33.8% EF: 31.4% EN: 15.6%
TJ: 24.2% SJ: 46.4% FJ: 30.1% NJ: 7.9%
IT: 22.4% IS: 39.6% IF: 28.5% IN: 11.3%
TP: 16.2% SP: 27.0% FP: 29.8% NP: 19.0%
Keirsey has a website to which you can go and take a test to assess your own type or "profile". It is similar to the Keirsey Temperament Sorter that was published in the 1978 Keirsey/Bates book. The site collects statistics, which are also available to anyone interested. As of June 2006, the statistics were[6]:
| ENTP 2.33% | ESTP 2.68% | ESFP 4.65% | ENFP 8.64% |
| ENTJ 3.57% | ESTJ 11.71% | ESFJ 12.14% | ENFJ 7.53% |
| INTJ 5.19% | ISTJ 10.56% | ISFJ 9.39% | INFJ 7.11% |
| INTP 2.99% | ISTP 2.07% | ISFP 2.84% | INFP 6.61% |
Please note that these statistics are biased because they only count people who go to a website and take a personality test! In general any activity that requires agreement to participate will have self-selection bias, but websites are notoriously poor in that regard.
For example, an Enneagram-related site keeps statistics of how many women and men take their survey. The women outnumber the men by a ratio of about 3 to 1. (It is believed that the website attracts women and theories include the notion that women are more interested in personality types.) There might be type-correlated bias (such as an "expressive bias") affecting who is likely to use the Internet as a whole, or to be curious enough about personality types to find their way to the Keirsey site.
It is based on the above two sources (Keirsey and Myers) that I have assigned the percentages in the main table at the top of this page, but rather than copying or averaging the figures, I computed arbitrary figures based on the model: S:N = 3:1, J:P = 3:1, and T-F is 3:2 among men and 2:3 among women.
If you like structured charts related to categories of personality, you might also wish to check out my archetypes chart.
This distinction goes back to Jung; by the time Myers-Briggs got to it they were called "extraverted" and "introverted". Over time these words developed clear (and often negatively judgmental) stereotypes. Possibly to address this, Keirsey has come to calling them "expressive" and "attentive".
When looking over the attributes in the two columns, I'd like you to consider two pairs of archetypes that are near and dear to me and many of my generation: Felix versus Oscar of "The Odd Couple", and the Establishment versus the Hippies of American culture during the period that TV show was popular.
In each column are the negatively-biased names that were typically used against that type. For example, Felix was called "uptight" by Oscar and Oscar was called "lazy" by Felix.
| MBTI J Type | MBTI P Type |
| Scheduler | Prober |
| Felix | Oscar |
| the Establishment | the Hippies |
| "too rule-bound" | "indecisive" |
| "in too big a hurry" | "foot-dragging" |
| "rigid and inflexible" ("driven", not "driving") | "aimless" |
| "uptight" or "driven" | "lazy" |
| "slave-driving" | "uncooperative" |
| "wearing blinders" | "quibbling" |
| "stressed-out" | "being a roadblock" |
| "arbitrary" | "sloppy" |
| "neat-freaks" | "slovenly" |
Under the Strauss-Howe generational theory, there are four phases of societal attitudes and political tactics that (usually) occur in a fixed sequence and last about 20 years each: The "High" (or "Boom"), the "Awakening" (or "Enlightenment"), the "Unraveling", and the "Crisis" (which is then followed by another "High").
The 1960's and 1970's was the most recent Awakening period in United States history. During this period the P-types were the Hippies and the J-types were those they criticised including "The Establishment" and its supporters.
As in all Awakenings, the raging debate is fundamentally one between the dominant J-type philosophy that achieved so much progress during the preceding High, and the P-type philosophy that had been squelched during that period. The cultural struggle that became obvious and prevalent during the 1960's, and continued to rage during the 1970's, was one of P-type philosophy saying "it's time for new insights and fresh communication".
Perhaps the largest conflict of P versus J in any cultural history is seen in the debate over wars and foreign policy. I have already mentioned the Vietnam debate of the 1960's and 1970's in the United States. The P types (the war protesters) marched in Washington and cities across the country protesting that the J types (those in charge of the war action decisions) were "wearing blinders", "rigid and inflexible", and blindly committed to the point of blatant irresponsibility. Their ultimate goal (seeing an end to the Cold War and the domination of much of the world by Communism) was achieved years later — but not by either the P-types or the J-types working alone.
(The following "profile" of INTP is from Wikipedia, circa June 2009. It is provided here as an example; the other types (below) have links to similar profiles on Wikipedia.)
INTP types are quiet, thoughtful, analytical individuals who enjoy spending long periods of time on their own, working through problems and forming solutions. They are curious about systems and how things work. Consequently, they are frequently found in careers such as science, architecture, and law. INTPs tend to be less at ease in social situations or in the "caring professions," although they enjoy the company of those who share their interests. They also tend to be impatient with the bureaucracy, the rigid hierarchies, and the politics prevalent in many professions. They prefer to work informally with others as equals.[7]
INTPs organize their understanding of any topic by articulating principles, and they are especially drawn to theoretical constructs. Having articulated these principles for themselves, they can demonstrate remarkable skill in explaining complex ideas to others in simple terms, especially in writing. On the other hand, their ability to grasp complexity may also lead them to provide overly detailed explanations of "simple" ideas, and listeners may judge that the INTP makes things more difficult than they are. To the INTP, however, this is incomprehensible: They are merely presenting all the information.[7]
Given their independent nature, INTPs may prefer working alone to leading or following in a group. During interactions with others, if INTPs are focused on gathering information, they may seem oblivious, aloof, or even rebellious — when in fact they are concentrating on listening and understanding. However, INTPs' extraverted intuition often gives them a quick wit, especially with language. They may defuse tension through comical observations and references. They can be charming, even in their quiet reserve, and are sometimes surprised by the high esteem in which their friends and colleagues hold them.[7]
When INTPs feel insulted, however, they may respond with sudden and crushing criticism. After such an incident, INTPs are likely to be as bewildered as the recipient. They have broken the rules of debate and exposed their raw emotions. To INTPs, this is the crux of the problem: emotions must be dealt with logically — because improperly handled emotions, INTPs believe, can only harm.
Examples:
In his 1993 profile of INTP, Joe Butt of Typelogic speculated that Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein and several oher scientists were INTP. However, according to the guidelines for the ethical use of the MBTI, a type can only be identified through interaction with the person.[8]
Opposite: ESFJ
Most similar: ISTP, ENTP, INFP, INTJ
corresponding Socionics type: ILI
ISTP
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ISTPs!
Opposite: ENFJ
Most similar: INTP, ESTP, ISFP, ISTJ
corresponding Socionics type: SLI
ISFP
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ISFPs!
Opposite: ENTJ
Most similar: ISTP, INFP, ESFP, ISFJ
corresponding Socionics type: SEI
INFP
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other INFPs!
Opposite: ESTJ
Most similar: ISFP, INTP, INFJ, ENFP
corresponding Socionics type: IEI
ENTP
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ENTPs!
Opposite: ISFJ
Most similar: ENFP, ESTP, INTP, ENTJ
corresponding Socionics type: ILE
ESTP
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ESTPs!
Opposite: INFJ
Most similar: ENTP, ESFP, ISTP, ESTJ
corresponding Socionics type: SLE
ESFP
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ESFPs!
Opposite: INTJ
Most similar: ESTP, ENFP, ISFP, ESFJ
corresponding Socionics type: SEE
ENFP
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ENFPs!
Opposite: ISTJ
Most similar: ESFP, ENTP, INFP, ENFJ
corresponding Socionics type: IEE
ENTJ
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ENTJs!
Opposite: ISFP
Most similar: ENFJ, ESTJ, ENTP, INTJ
corresponding Socionics type: LIE
ESTJ
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ESTJs!
Opposite: INFP
Most similar: ENTJ, ESFJ, ESTP, ISTJ
corresponding Socionics type: LSE
ESFJ
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ESFJs!
Opposite: INTP
Most similar: ESTJ, ENFJ, ESFP, ISFJ
corresponding Socionics type: ESE
ENFJ
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ENFJs!
Opposite: ISTP
Most similar: ESFJ, ENTJ, ENFP, INFJ
corresponding Socionics type: EIE
INTJ
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other INTJs!
Opposite: ESFP
Most similar: INFJ, ISTJ, ENTJ, INTP
corresponding Socionics type: LII
ISTJ
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ISTJs!
Opposite: ENFP
Most similar: INTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTP
corresponding Socionics type: LSI
ISFJ
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other ISFJs!
Opposite: ENTP
Most similar: ISTJ, INFJ, ESFJ, ISFP
corresponding Socionics type: ESI
INFJ
Profile on Wikipedia
speak with other INFJs!
Opposite: ESTP
Most similar: ISFJ, INTJ, ENFJ, INFP
corresponding Socionics type: EII
I have written a couple "profiles" for "X-types", the types that include one dimension that is halfway between its extremes. These profiles are based loosely on the format of the well-known profiles written by Joe Butt and Marina Margaret Heiss. Those are available on their website, TypeLogic.
---X--- iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving
by Robert Munafo mrob (at) mrob.com
Often quiet and reserved, but often stimulating company, alert and outspoken. Usually interested mainly in ideas. Often enjoys parties and small talk — may argue for fun on either side of a question. Enjoys theoretical and scientific pursuits. Tend to have sharply defined interests. Enjoys solving problems with logic and analysis. Quick, ingenious, good at many things. Apt to turn to one new interest after another. Resourceful in solving new and challenging problems, but may neglect routine assignemnts. Need careers where some strong interest can be used and be useful. Skillful in finding logical reasons for what they want.
Some XNTP's I've found:
ExTP
ExTJ
Profile: ExTJ
Revision: 1.0
Date of Revision: 28 May 1996
Extraverted ---X--- Thinking Judging
by Robert Munafo mrob (at) mrob.com
ExTJs promote concepts that are logical and objective, planned and organized, and they advertize these concepts to other people. They are equally likely to develop these concepts on their own as they are to take them from others. As a result, an ExTJ placed in a position of leadership will perform well, implementing/enforcing existing rules when they seem applicable, and creating his own solutions when the rules do not apply or when information is not readily available. They excel at taking an existing system and modifying/improving it until it works better.
Other EXTJs I've found:
[Leila Dolan|mailto:Leila_Dolan (at) ccmail.com]
Footnotes
1 : By some the "1964 study" is attributed to "David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates", but I have been informed that Dr. David Keirsey (Jr.) himself denies the existence of such a study. Other copies of the statistics, with the (mis-)attribution, can be found here and here.
2 : Total does not add to 100% due to roundoff error in the individual figures.
References
[3] Fitzgerald, C. (1997) (three papers, I'm not sure which was the original source of the data — the titles are "The MBTI and Leadership Development: Personality and Leadership Reconsidered in Changing Times"; "Type Development and Leadership Development: Integrating Reality and Vision, Mind and Heart"; and "Applying Type Dynamics to Leadership Development".)
[4] Keirsey, David, Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar California: Prometheus Nemesis Books (1998).
[5] Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L. and Hammer, A.L., MBTI Manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press (1998).
[6] "Keirsey Temperament Distribution", web page by David Keirsey, 2006 June 28. http://keirsey.com/cgi-bin/stats.cgi
[7] Barron-Tieger, Barbara; Tieger, Paul D. (1995). Do What You Are. Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-84522-1.
[8] Myers & Briggs Foundation, Ethical Feedback of MBTI® Results, internet page retrieved 2009 June 2, http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-the-mbti-instrument/ethical-feedback.asp
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® and MBTI® are registered trademarks of Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
This page was written in the "embarrassingly readable" markup language RHTF, and was last updated on 2022 Apr 02.
s.27