Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet, 2021a

18 <strong>Human</strong> Factors 314
Axis % Share % Share
I/E I: 51 E: 49
S/N S: 73 N: 27
F/T F: 60 T: 40
J/P J: 54 P: 46
If we imagine that the four axes do not correlate with each other, 43 43: in practice, they do
we could approximate the fraction of the population that is ESFP
as 0.49 · 0.73 · 0.60 · 0.46 0.103, or approximately 10%. 44 What
would you expect the most abundant personality type to be, <strong>and</strong>
what percentage of the population would be this type? What is
the rarest, <strong>and</strong> what percentage would you expect in this type?
How do the results compare to the probabilities in Figure 18.1?
3. Reproduce the numbers in Figure 18.3 from the percentages in
Figure 18.1. The visual width of each of the four columns in Figure
18.1 also speaks to this.
44: Actual frequency is 8.5%, which is close
but not exact.
Hint: Largest factors yield the largest product.
4. In reference to box sizes in Figure 18.2, answer the following
questions:
a) Which three types are vastly over-represented 45 in the survey? 45: . . . i.e., far more respondents than is
b) Which three types turn out to be almost perfectly represented?
c) Which column is most poorly represented (what common
letters in four associated types)?
d) Which two types are most vastly under-represented, <strong>and</strong> by
roughly what factor, 46 based on area of the squares?
e) What relationship do you notice between the types in comparing
the two most over-represented types <strong>and</strong> the two most
under-represented types?
f) How would you explain to a fellow student who disparages
the Myers–Briggs scheme as little better than astrology
what this figure/result means in terms of far-from-r<strong>and</strong>om
outcomes <strong>and</strong> predictiveness?
consistent with the general population frequency
of Figure 18.1
46: Form a rough guess on ratio of areas.
5. Imagining for a moment that the distribution of human personality
types is adaptive 47 in an evolutionary sense, we might try to
underst<strong>and</strong> the asymmetry between “S–types” <strong>and</strong> “N–types.”
When trying to plot a course for the future, what advantages does
each type bring, <strong>and</strong> what disadvantages? Another way to frame
the question is: how can the contributions of each help things go
right, <strong>and</strong> how might each one contribute to wrong decisions?
47: . . . emerging to best serve collective survival
interests
way. You run into someone who challenges your choice, pointing
6. How might you propose getting people of all personality types on
board with a collective campaign to fight a credible future threat
that may involve sacrifice <strong>and</strong> the recognition that our own habits
are part of the problem?
48: E.g., allow a larger indoor temperature
7. Let’s say you have decided to reduce your footprint 48 in some
range as it gets colder/warmer outside; eating
less meat; conserving water via shower
habits
© 2021 T. W. Murphy, Jr.; Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Lic.;
Freely available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions.