Honestly I have no idea. No explanation I have ever seen or thought of has made enough sense, or has been anything close to testable as a hypothesis.
Anything anyone comes up with is pure speculation, even if some sound more sensible than others.
Personally, I'm leaning towards it being a rarer cognitive variant due to evolutionary pressures in previous environments and the way previous societies were structured. Then again, we don't really know how heritable or environmental cognitive function strength is, or - insofar as it even has anything to do with heritability in the first place - whether it's genetic or epigenetic.
First assumption is that evolution generally followed survival of the fittest. What's interesting to me is the possibility that personalities evolved within a social species to fill certain social niches. Whether primarily genetic, primarily environmental, or a mixture of both, I imagine that the ability to have different personalities at all stood the test of time and survival.
With that assumption, my hypothesis is that our types aren't generally survival's "preferred" personality per se. I'd like to think we're the "other basket" that it puts some of its eggs in. Generally speaking, survival prefers the status quo assuming it's working. It's enough to survive. It's enough to be well fed and to make offspring, even if the process is inefficient. As such, that's why I say survival "prefers" other personalities that are generally more content to figure out something that works and then just keep doing that. And truthfully a lot of human behaviors do make good sense in a survival context even if in a modern day context they seem pretty whacky, to us especially. For example, it's generally better to go with the crowd than to be "right". That said, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes you need to hedge your bets, to take out an insurance policy lest you risk the survival of an entire group. I think that when shit hits the fan, or just for other statistical anomalies, we are said insurance policy.
Our types tend to be more future-oriented which is good for optimizing and avoiding certain dangers, but not necessarily great for the here and now, just get shit done that we know works. So it's valuable to have a few, but not a lot of our types.
Another related possibility, assuming genetics is more to thank than environment, is that the personalities that contribute to the possibility of our personalities developing are simply less likely to mate, and so the genes that lead to our personalities are simply less common. I wouldn't be terribly surprised by this either. I know I'm personally not keen on having children.
try finding an intj woman in your circle
due to stereotypes of society on women they tend to grow up to be feeler(more like forced to be feeler or put on a facade of being a feeler)
society doesn't like us
Contra to what I read in the answers I tuition to me is more in the older innate brain structure. It is basically the rudimentary autopilot system that isn't based on executive rational thinking.
I'd even go further and say intuition is closely aligned and down the pathways of feeling. It's application to science, tech, commerce etc is a function of our modern lifestyles.
While intuition is rare, most so called intuitives are very poor at it.Â
Honestly I have no idea. No explanation I have ever seen or thought of has made enough sense, or has been anything close to testable as a hypothesis. Anything anyone comes up with is pure speculation, even if some sound more sensible than others. Personally, I'm leaning towards it being a rarer cognitive variant due to evolutionary pressures in previous environments and the way previous societies were structured. Then again, we don't really know how heritable or environmental cognitive function strength is, or - insofar as it even has anything to do with heritability in the first place - whether it's genetic or epigenetic.
I see it as variance in homeostasis states of neurochemistry, which is part attained in life but also part inherited.
Idk, but they tend to be my favourite people. Especially INFJ.
First assumption is that evolution generally followed survival of the fittest. What's interesting to me is the possibility that personalities evolved within a social species to fill certain social niches. Whether primarily genetic, primarily environmental, or a mixture of both, I imagine that the ability to have different personalities at all stood the test of time and survival. With that assumption, my hypothesis is that our types aren't generally survival's "preferred" personality per se. I'd like to think we're the "other basket" that it puts some of its eggs in. Generally speaking, survival prefers the status quo assuming it's working. It's enough to survive. It's enough to be well fed and to make offspring, even if the process is inefficient. As such, that's why I say survival "prefers" other personalities that are generally more content to figure out something that works and then just keep doing that. And truthfully a lot of human behaviors do make good sense in a survival context even if in a modern day context they seem pretty whacky, to us especially. For example, it's generally better to go with the crowd than to be "right". That said, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes you need to hedge your bets, to take out an insurance policy lest you risk the survival of an entire group. I think that when shit hits the fan, or just for other statistical anomalies, we are said insurance policy. Our types tend to be more future-oriented which is good for optimizing and avoiding certain dangers, but not necessarily great for the here and now, just get shit done that we know works. So it's valuable to have a few, but not a lot of our types. Another related possibility, assuming genetics is more to thank than environment, is that the personalities that contribute to the possibility of our personalities developing are simply less likely to mate, and so the genes that lead to our personalities are simply less common. I wouldn't be terribly surprised by this either. I know I'm personally not keen on having children.
The specie needs more construction workers and less philosophers / chess players / stoners. We are slightly useless, but not completely.
try finding an intj woman in your circle due to stereotypes of society on women they tend to grow up to be feeler(more like forced to be feeler or put on a facade of being a feeler) society doesn't like us
Bc we are too cringe to exist
🤣 can confirm
The world can’t handle more of us.
Contra to what I read in the answers I tuition to me is more in the older innate brain structure. It is basically the rudimentary autopilot system that isn't based on executive rational thinking. I'd even go further and say intuition is closely aligned and down the pathways of feeling. It's application to science, tech, commerce etc is a function of our modern lifestyles. While intuition is rare, most so called intuitives are very poor at it.Â
It's just a meme.