Posted by pork on October 31, 2001 at 14:14:47:
In Reply to: Re: Does it seem like more girls are 4's than guys? (CORRECTION) posted by FRED on October 31, 2001 at 01:20:14:
: : Maybe it turns out that way, maybe it doesn't. If you're suggesting that the F-Judgment/non-Four : F-Judgment/Four ratio applies equally to both genders (If the other stats we've discussed concerning Fourness and F-Judgment show differences between gender, why not this?), I can neither agree nor disagree. I don't know enough to take a positive position, but if you or anyone you know ever conducts an extensive survey, tell me about it.
: You think male Feelers are going to type as 4 more frequently than other types to balance M/F for type 4? Seems kind of a stretch.
Not at all. I said "Maybe it turns out that way, maybe it doesn't." If males are 40% Feeler and females 50% Feeler, and practically all Fours are within the Feeler group, then the male group might still comprise more Fours than the female group, and then again, it might not.
To answer one of your questions, I don't see why the 40:60 ratio of males to females in the Feeling group should "parlay" directly into a fewer:more ratio of male Fours to female Fours.
: That would depopulate the 7,8,9,3 points of thier males.
I wonder, might the female Feeler group represent a more even proportion of Enneatypes (i.e., closer to 11% per Enneatype) than the male Feeler group does (i.e., more Fours than any other type)? I have absolutely no reason to believe you would hold this opinion, but while we're playing the gender bias game, I may as well ask that question out of curiosity. Think about it....
: Even less likely that Female Feeling types will bias away from type 4.
What of the possibility that female Feelers might bias toward other types more than male Feelers would? If so, the result may be more male Fours than female Fours. Or, it may not be.
: But don't hold your breath on that extensive study. I am behind in my E-gram reading. I must be one of the only e-gram-o-philes that has read Naranjo and not Riso and Hudson.
No wonder you think more females are Fours. That's Naranjo talking. :P
Anyway, I recommend Riso and Hudson for a more comprehensive overview of the types - "healthy" as well as "unhealthy." Naranjo's focus is almost exclusively on the pathological nadir of human nature.
^(oo)^