o_19kdfsn0q18e31dfraas1esh19vta.pdf

One further note on giving. I suspect that Rationals are rather cool about donations because a.)
They have a strong work ethic (the NT apostle Paul, who collected charity for those in need, wrote,
"a man who will not work shall not eat.") and therefore fear that a free lunch may discourage
industry, and b.) They would rather solve a problem once and for all rather than continue to
endlessly pour maintenance into it. As the saying goes, give a man a fish and he will eat for a day;
teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime. Rationals are the type least likely to be attracted
by a short term solution, but most "save the children" pleas seldom go further than seeking to
provide one more meal—while leaving the roots of problem untouched.
Type and Cultural Stereotypes for Males and Females
I am always impressed by how much ordinary people know about type. Not that they’ve ever heard
of the MBTI or read a single book about it; they just picked it up naturally by observation.
For example, one study found that non-type-knowledgeable observers were able to describe Feeling
women as having an “open” face and being attractive and good-looking. The observers also noticed
that Thinking women have facial blemishes. 25
Oh, did I mention the cultural bias?
Sadly, most people are unconscious type bigots unless they’ve been taught otherwise. Each culture
has a certain “ideal type” for men and women. Women, of course, are typically expected to behave
like Feelers and men like Thinkers. In the United States, the ideal (and most common) type for
women is ESFJ. 26 INTP women, on the other hand, are viewed the most negatively of all
type/gender combinations. 27 In fact, the non-type-knowledgeable observers did not use a single
positive adjective to describe female INTPs. INTJ women have only one letter in common with
ESFJs. What does this mean for their cultural portrayal?
Thorne and Gough (1991) did a study of the adjectives and phrases that non-type-savvy observers
used to describe people of various types of both genders.
Female INTJs
The sample of 24 female INTJs included 7 Berkeley sophomores, 10 women mathematicians, 6 law
students, 1 student writer, 8 female mathematicians, 9 law students, and 1 resident of an ordinary
county. The list below shows the statements and adjectives that non-type-savvy observers
considered characteristic and uncharacteristic of the female INTJs.
High positive numbers indicate that the trait was considered strongly characteristic (i.e. .28), while
low positive numbers indicate that it was considered less strongly characteristic (i.e. .19).
Low negative numbers indicate that a trait was considered strongly uncharacteristic (i.e. -.19), while
high negative numbers indicate that it was considered less strongly uncharacteristic (i.e. -.11).
The descriptors were drawn from the Adjective Check List and the California Q-Set.
25 Thorne & Gough, 1991
26 Myers & McCaulley in Barger & Kirby, 1993
27 Thorne & Gough, 1991