Growing ENTJ/INTJ/ENFJ Populations


He invented the A-bomb... I personally think the world would have been nicer without nuclear weapons :laughing:
I do think that all the types contribute to the world - in good or bad ways. But I prefer to be around N-types :slight_smile:


Isn't J. Robert Oppenheimer the father of the A-bomb?

Here are some of Einstein's contributions to the world:

* The special theory of relativity, which reconciled mechanics with electromagnetism
* The general theory of relativity, a new theory of gravitation obeying the equivalence principle.
* Founding of relativistic cosmology with a cosmological constant
* The first post-Newtonian expansion, explaining the perihelion advance of Mercury
* Prediction of the deflection of light by gravity and gravitational lensing
* The first fluctuation dissipation theorem which explained the Brownian movement of molecules
* The theory of density fluctuations in gasses and liquids, giving a criterion for critical opalescence
* The photon theory and wave-particle duality derived from the thermodynamic properties of light
* The quantum theory of atomic motion in solids
* Zero-point energy
* The semiclassical version of the Schrödinger equation
* Relations for atomic transition probabilities which predicted stimulated emission
* The quantum theory of a monatomic gas which predicted Bose-Einstein condensation
* The EPR paradox
* A program for a unified field theory
* The geometrization of fundamental physics.


Ace, you're right about that I think; in fact Wikipedia doesn't even mention Einstein in the article History of nuclear weapons :nerd:
I'm glad you cleared his name - I've always considered Einstein responsible for nuclear weapons, which is obviously really unfair :naughty:
And that is a good example of one ENTJ-issue; jumping to conclusions and being hard on others. Good thing we're not alone :mrgreen:




Your theory that the other types want to be ENTJs because they admire certain qualities about them is flawed. All the types receive admiration at some point, and I see no evidence that ENTJs receive any more praise than any of the other types. Also, I can just as easily find a post where someone is praising ISFPs and by your logic this means that all the people on that forum want to be that type.

Here's a thread praising ENFPs: ... php?t=1729

Does that now mean that all the people on that forum want to be ENFPs?

Just because I respect, admire or even envy someone, doesn't mean I want to be them. I admire, respect and envy Chris Cornell's singing voice, but that doesn't mean I want to be Chris Cornell, nor does it mean I want to sing exactly like Chris Cornell, I place too much value on individuality for that. It just means that I would like to be able to sing as well as him. The same goes for ENTJs, there are traits about them that I admire and that I'd like to be able to do as well as them, but that doesn't mean I want to be one of them. Even in the example you posted of an INTJ saying he admired ENTJs, the INTJ in question also mentioned how INTJs are better then ENTJs when it comes to self-understanding and self-awareness. Why you would use this as an example of a different personality type expressing an inherent inferiority to ENTJs is beyond me. Did you simply filter that part out because it didn't fit in with your belief that everybody wants to be an ENTJ?

And also, what does your theory make of ENTJs that profess an admiration for the qualities of other types? What if an ENTJ on this board said that they love the creativity of ISFPs, for example? What would you make of that post and why (if at all) would you treat it any differently from an ISFP professing admiration for the self-motivational abilities of an ENTJ for example?

Oh , and your theory that ENTJ are the most "admired" type is just plain wrong anyway. There are usually threads on all the forums about "which type would you like to be if you couldn't be your own type" and "which types do you like the most". On the NF forums in particular ENTJs don't come anywhere even near the top choices. ... hp?t=10083

Regarding your arguments for the genetic side of personality, there's no sure proof either way but I think it likely that it works in the same (or at least a similar) way as other "mental" qualities. That is, that you will have inherited tendencies (like with mental illness, for example). Whilst your genes will give you an increased tendency to develop into a certain type, ultimately it will be your environment that determines whether or not you will turn out that way. That's why there are so many ENTJs in your family, inherited potential was combined with an environment that encouraged ENTJ development. If you'd been adopted out at a young enough age to say, an ENFP family that placed a high emphasis on ENFP qualities, you would have been less likely to develop into an ENTJ, despite your inherited genetic tendency. It still would have been possible, just less likely.

Therefore, as far as your plan goes, it wouldn't be enough to simply pair up ENTJs together, you'd have to control the environment to an incredible level of detail to avoid what we might call "pollution". Also, random mutations and latent recessive genes could still lead to other types turning up regardless of your efforts. What would you do with these random examples, should they occur? If you prevent them from breeding, you will have created an intolerant, repressive and unjust society, which is what you were trying to avoid in the first place.

And anyway, even if you could make the whole world just those three types you want, it would not guarantee peace, because all types have their bad eggs, including those three. For example, Stalin was quite possibly an ENTJ, and Charles Manson is quite possibly an ENFJ (etc. etc.).

As for your claim that ENTJs are the rarest type. That simply is not supported by the evidence. ... evelopment

As you can see from these sites (and others), ENTJs on average come in at roughly the third or fourth rarest. The rarest type tends to be INFJ.

Moving on, as others have already said Einstein didn't help create the atom bomb, he came up with the theory that was used as the basis for the bomb, but he had no control over how that theory was used, and that same theory has been used in many other more positive ways that have helped to make the world a much better and more informed place to live in. All the other types can produce examples of people that have contributed positively to the world and even if those individuals did things that could be described as negative contributions, they were only human and nobody who has ever lived has been perfect. This applies just as much to even the greatest and most wonderful ENTJs, INTJs and ENFJs who have ever lived too.

In your opinion, you haven't actually provided any real evidence to back that assertion up whatsoever.

As others have mentioned, INTJs love to be independent. There is absolutely no guarantee that they would follow the orders the ENTJs gave them. Also, ENFJs love to lead too, there is likewise absolutely no guarantee that they would follow the ENTJs orders either. In fact, I think it likely that the majority of ENFJs and ENTJs would end up fighting for dominance and the INTJs would attempt to secede from both of them altogether, thereby introducing war and conflict into your idealised world.

Plus, N types generally tend to dislike physical labour. You would therefore basically have to force people (through things like ballots perhaps, if not just brute force) to do things like construction work, for example. Unless you set up some sort of rota system they would inevitably begin to resent this, and they may well come to resent it anyway (they may be interrupted whilst working on a theory for example). Additionally, S types generally are capable of having more profound insights into improvements that can be made to physical systems than N types are, so progress in these areas would be slowed, plus they can also give new and unusual insight into areas that are more traditionally N territory, so progress would be slowed here too. And that's just the N/S divide, the same applies to the other letters too.

No-one uses just one judgement function exclusively, and everyone can learn to use the others more effectively. They will always have a preference for their main type, but that doesn't preclude them from making decision using the other functions. For example, I prefer to use Fi to make decisions, but that doesn't stop me from using Fe, Ti or even Te if I think the situation calls for it. The more mature and developed an individual is, the more comfortable he or she is with this fact and the more he or she does it.

That's fair enough, but do you then give money to charities that help homeless people out of their predicaments? If not your statement is a touch hypocritical isn't it? "I'm not going to give you money because you wont use it to improve yourself, but I wont give money to a group that can help you to improve yourself either. So I'm not actually doing anything to help you whilst still judging you for not doing anything to help yourself, despite the fact that you lack the means to do so".


I will try to keep this simple.

I already defined that the original plan is flawed.

I appreciate the sites you used as evidence to show that ENTJs are not the rarest type. The site I used to make my statement that ENTJs are the rarest type had us at 1.2% and INFJ at 1.3%. I can't find it, you win until I do. I highly doubt that I was mixed up; more probably, the site was updated. Regardless, your examples outweigh my example.

I was harsh when I said that all of the other types are "ruining" the world. A better way of saying what I mean more clearly is that other types are causing more problems than ENTJs. We get things done, beneficial things.

I have surveyed plenty of sites and ENTJs get the most admiration.

I'm not Hitler. I value free will. I believe in peace by peace, and violence only in self defense.

Einstein theorized about bringing the atom bomb into existence, he is not innocent. (Emphasis on the period that ends that sentence) Einstein was a terrible example to use as someone who didn't ruin the world. A better example would have been Gandhi. Also, Einstein was a terrible father.

We don't "need" all of the types to make the world go 'round. If a type was gone tomorrow, existence would move on. World leaders should all be altruistic and rational. We don't need to wipe any type out, but we should increase the amount of rational, altruistic people to make the chances of our world leaders being of an altruistic, or at least rational type increase.

Choosing exactly what tool(s) you will use to make a decision is part of the process of making a decision.

Charities: Yes, I suggest


In 1999 Time magazine named him the Person of the Century, beating contenders like Mahatma Gandhi and Franklin Roosevelt, and in the words of a biographer, "to the scientifically literate and the public at large, Einstein is synonymous with genius."



Einstein: "My part in producing the atomic bomb consisted in a single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt, pressing the need for experiments on a larger scale in order to explore the possibilities for the production of an atomic bomb.
I was fully aware of the terrible danger to mankind in case this attempts succeeded. But the likelihood that the Germans were working on the same problem with a chance of succeeding forced me to this step. I could do nothing else although I have always been a convinced pacifist. To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder."

From: ... Quotes.htm

This thread is an embarrassment to mankind. I suggest you delete it.


On what are you basing this? On the surface this statement sounds like nothing more than your own subjective opinion, but if you have evidence that shows otherwise I'd be glad to see it.

Yes, some of you are remarkable people, truly shining examples of the positive potential of humanity. Some of you however are c*nts, people who make the world a worse place to live every time they breathe. Most of you are somewhere in between.

In this, you are just like every other type.

We appear to have a difference of opinion, one that I think stands little chance of being resolved between us. I suggest we leave it to others to decide for themselves which of our respective assessments (if either) they agree with.

Need? No. Benefit from? Yes.

It appears that you are under the impression that only the types you mentioned are capable of altruistic, rational thought. I see absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever, nor do I see any evidence that the types you mentioned are any more altruistic than any other type. Additionally, I see no evidence that the types you mentioned are inherently more "rational" than the other types.

While it can be argued that NT types are generally more logically minded than other T types and the F types, this does not raise *NTJs to a higher level of "rationality" than the other NTs. Plus, Feeling types are just as capable of reason as any Thinking type, it's just that their reasoning places a higher emphasis on people's emotional well-being than the reasoning of T types does. (There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. Some Feelers can be entirely unreasonable, as can some Thinkers. Plus, even average Thinkers can place just as high a level of value on people's emotional well-being as Feelers do, as long as that makes logical sense to them. Equally, even average Feelers can place just as high a level of value on objectivity as Thinkers do, as long as they think that that is what would be best for people's emotional well-being).

All the types are subject to subjective decision making, that includes *NTJs as they rely primarily upon Ni as their primary perceiving function, a function that due to its nature makes leaps of perception without having all the facts, something which is inherently irrational.

Well, whether I agree with him or not, whether I think his arguments and opinions are well thought out or not, he has the right to air them and defend them. As long as the discussion remains open and drama-free (which so far it has) I for one don't have any problem with this thread's continued existence.


I'm not deleting the thread, and even I disagree with the original idea.

Correct, it was based on opinion. The opinion was based on the ability of types to make rational decisions and the ability to get things done. We do need worker bees, but eventually they won't be necessary due to improved technology.

Benefit? Perhaps. Benefit most? Perhaps not.

Einstein still played a part in creating the atomic bomb. Yes, he was a genius (and a terrible father), but that doesn't get him off the hook.

Agree, we will not resolve our issue. Regardless, it's not worth talking about anymore and a resolution by facts won't help either of us in any way.

I still think the world needs more rationals.

If you look at the famous people of each type you will see the trend that the types I have described are altruistic. FDR and Nixon, both ENTJ, tried to improve the lives of their fellow man by altruistic means. By todays standards they would both be borderline socialists. Nixon started welfare and wanted the minimum allowance to be much much higher and also universal healthcare, which was only passed partially for children after many negotiations as CHIP. Look up the other types yourselves. Remember you are looking for trends, not just individuals. ... ruism.html


Hmm, I'm really not a fan of Perseus' theories, they seem to be based on a lot of ideas I just can't get behind. For example, he mentioned over on the ENTP forum that he thinks Ti is the primary cognitive function of all NTs, personally I think you'd have an extremely hard time finding a statistically significant amount of people who are familiar with the MBTI who would agree with that.

(Oh and FWIW, regardless of his politics Nixon's never struck me as an ENTJ, I'd have said ESTP).


I think a world with more ENTJ, INTJ or ENFJ would be a good thing for most Ns. Most Ns would be able to get more friends and partners.

I don’t think the ENTJ, INTJ or ENFJ would like it that much though, they would find more competition in their niche and so they would be relegated to the niches of other types, but they wouldn’t be as good as those other types so they would become redundant.

To make this happen I think genetically engineering babies would be easier than what you suggested.


I think it would be a good thing for the world to have more of these types, not just N's. I would like to find an MBTI density map. I believe that this map could potentially illustrate what I believe to be true... or it could prove me wrong. Let me know if any of any of you ever come across one!


First of all, it is not hereditary. If anything, when you try to dominate or decide what your child's temperament is, chances are, they will rebel and grow as a different type that is vastly different to how you wanted. They may become an SP for instance.

I know this because my mom is an ESTP while my dad is an ISTJ whom I share nothing in common with and hate talking to.

Secondly, to say that the other 13 types provide no value is vastly short sighted. How boring and lacking variety would the world be? Instead of antagonizing others, you should understand their motivation and values, only then can we synergize and do things more efficiently.


Personality is both hereditary and learned/developed through social interaction. I would like to put more emphasis on the hereditary side, as is accepted by the evidence provided in previous posts. Do you have any evidence to back up any of what you state to be true? (I'm not trying to be combative here, just trying to sort out the opinion from science).

The main idea behind this post is: The more smart, reasonable, and altruistic people the Earth has (rationals mostly), the better off it is.

Regarding your personal genetic situation, I believe a lot of ENTJs are actually ESTPs. Read some ESTP descriptions and see what you think (I wouldn't mind hearing what you think either)...


Do YOU have the evidence?

I know for a fact that in the nature AND nurture debate, it is accepted that our genetics gives us the flexibility to be all types, however it is the environment that leads us to favour one over the other. Only certain traits of personality such as shyness is inherited genetically, and even then, it can be overcomed by working on it. Note that I said certain traits, and not a temperament or personality at large. The only difference is that, it would be easier to some than others to overcome these traits depending on which sensative periods in your life that you are exposed to certain environmental stimuli that makes you the way you are.

On the ESTP comment, you may be right about some people. There are definitely some similarities. However I do see some discrepancies too. For example, I excelled in school and always liked new and interesting theories. Even though I do love fast pace, unpredictability and an ever changing experience, the way I approach things are mostly methodical and planned.


I do have evidence, which was posted earlier in this topic. The genetics side of the debate is overwhelmingly favored; nature always wins. You are and always will be the same type. Anyone can become funny or mean or cynical or social or antisocial... but deep down, your type is what you naturally prefer.


I really found this thread fascinating regardless of how much dispute their was.

I think by now we can say all types have their goods and bads, and we know that Iron Mickie sees both sides and would just like to see more of certain qualities in this world.

I believe in both sides of the nature/nurture argument. I think trying to change society by spreading our genes more would be a very large waste of time though. I think nurture plays a bigger part, but I still believe genes shouldn’t be forgotten.

Personally, I think that N is what needs to be worked on most. I think that we need to promote seeing the big picture and planning long term. I think it would create an effect similar to what IM was looking for, and it would be far more reasonable to plan out through schooling and other factors.



I appreciate your understanding of this argument/thread. I agree that N is the big fish. Long term planning/solutions are what will keep people safe, happy, creative, and productive. Everything can be changed with education, for better or worse. Every generation is a fresh start…

I am still sticking to my guns about XNTJs and ENFJ’s being the best for society, and that there should and can be more of them.

I think that the best society possible would have a majority XNTJs and a lesser majority ENFJs (that is with all of the other types included in smaller percentages). Anyway you slice it, decisions need to be made rationally without idealistic influence. What works works, and what doesn’t doesn’t; things change over time; don’t cling to what YOU want… the greater good is what needs to be looked after.


Born or learned I don’t know, but as I studied this topic I found this:
If NT’s are 1.5% of the population, out of 6 children my parents had 3 NT’s and at least one NF others undetermined
My offspring are ENTJ INTJ ENTP INFJ
I am an ENTJ

All my children were homeschooled, with a lot of logical discussion in school and after supper.

My wife is an …ISFP!!!
She definitly knows what it feels like to not fit in.

But as her life has progressed she has developed the N the T and the J sides of her as well as the E
But still when she tests, she is an ISFP as her preference

Genetic or enviorment? Interesting question.

How did she produce all N children?
How come none of her offspring were S’s at all if it is all genetic?

Research needs to be done.

My own observation of this subject is that most of the information is by observation and is very subjective.

Roger b.


Yes, most of what i’m saying is subjective. Research does suggest that personality is at least partially genetically based. I believe that it has more to do with genetics than anything else… and I am rarely wrong.

The research is out there, let me know what you find.