Types Amounts

[dark]

Was thinking, there are 16 different general personality types, so each type should statistically be capable of 6.25% but this is not the case. From the charts I have seen INFJ is the rarest at 1.5%, but I think this may be skewed since my mother is an INFJ, and I have noticed she will NOT do a survey of any kind, will not part take in any form of statistical information. But me on the other hand, I will as an INTP do any survey, do any statistical thing, just because I know someone will be calculating something somewhere. Something like that. And the same chart gives INTP a 3.3%. I am wondering if these charts are really accurate. Or should the %'s be closer to 6.25 like the coin toss comes closer and closer to 50 the more you toss it. Like say if we did a mandatory personality test on every human alive, would it come close to the 6.25?

 

[dark]

Oh and I forgot, almost every thing I see says each personality is rare, wouldn't this be the case for each one? Since each should have a realitively low number? Or would they each be equally not rare? And apologies for the Double Post.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

SJs and SPs are actually more frequent in society and I think that's where most estimations come from, along with tests, but to a lesser extent.

Various types have been seen as the stereotypical American such as:

ISTJ - Hardworking and stubborn husband/father who loves hunting and fixing cars.
ESFJ/ISFJ - Self-abnegating (and unfulfilled) wife
ESTP - Flappers, Hipsters, Beatniks, musician/rockstar, teenagers

So some types are expected to be more prevalent than others based on their social impact.

 

[Glordag]

Was thinking, there are 16 different general personality types, so each type should statistically be capable of 6.25% but this is not the case. From the charts I have seen INFJ is the rarest at 1.5%, but I think this may be skewed since my mother is an INFJ, and I have noticed she will NOT do a survey of any kind, will not part take in any form of statistical information. But me on the other hand, I will as an INTP do any survey, do any statistical thing, just because I know someone will be calculating something somewhere. Something like that. And the same chart gives INTP a 3.3%. I am wondering if these charts are really accurate. Or should the %'s be closer to 6.25 like the coin toss comes closer and closer to 50 the more you toss it. Like say if we did a mandatory personality test on every human alive, would it come close to the 6.25?

Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs Myers has a selection of tables where various groups were polled. It seems plausible in my eyes that from those tables that a few deductions or observations could be made:

A. There is a correlation between sex and the "judging" function. Males tend to be type "T" while females tend to be type "F".

B. There are generally more extroverts than introverts and more Sensing types than Intuitive types.

C. Success in academics and things like National Merit Scholars might exhibit a higher proportion of Intuitive to Sensing types than in "standard" groups. This seemed especially true amongst females.

I would guess that the polling methods used also eliminated a good amount of the variance due to "I don't wanna", as well. I could be wrong, of course.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the P/J preference was almost 50/50 in every single category, which I found interesting.

Edit 2: In terms of the complete types, it looks to me like INFJ is the rarest type for males, while INTJ or maybe INTP is for females. ES types are more common in general than IN types, it seems.

 

[Stoic Beverage]

I haven't looked at statistics, but as far as my experience goes, the vast majority of people are extroverted and feeling. But most people seem extroverted and feeling compared to me, so that may be skewed.

 

[Auburn]

(a short snippet of a convo I had at INFJforum)

Spoiler

Actually... We are. The Myers & Briggs website asserts that INFJ is the rarest type. I read somewhere that Female INFJ's are 2% and male INFJ's are 1% of the average population. Yay us!

To be fair, it can only be said that INFJ is the least common survey result.

1) The accuracy of MBTI's concepts themselves
2) The accuracy and perfectly even distribution of the survey results, and
3) The ability for every individual taking the survey to accurately self-asses

...all have to be assumed as true in order to base anything off those statistics. If any of the 3 requirements I listed are off by even 2% accuracy, then that will change the results dramatically.

When it comes down to 2-3% differences in types, it's silly to rely on statistics like these for validity. If one is going to say something like "INFJs males are rarer than INFJ females by 1%" one would have to assume that the system gauging these statistics is accurate down to the very percent.

I definitely don't think those figures are accurate. Nothing out there is atm and the reason for that is because we've yet to fully define what a type is.

Say for instance that we could define each type neurologically, each having a distinct fingerprint, a specific brain pattern, then we could get accurate figures on the population.

If we are basing type on lists of habits and characteristics (as those surveys are), then the figures we're gonna get will only reflect how many people identify with those habits/characteristics. nothing more. nothing less.

I know this forum has mixed opinions about Podlair, but they are one group working on overcoming this. Their reliance on facial/body manifestations for typing people, if it is indeed accurate, would be far more reliable than having people try to eyeball their own type based on generalizations.

Just from what I talked about with Adymus, he suspects that due to type being genetic/innate, the breakup in the population would not be even - but rather in support of whatever culture prevails in that time period.

So for instance, if the culture is very supporting of Si/Fe/Se and suppressive of Ni/Ti/Ne, those types will have the advantage in lots of areas ranging from job opportunities to potential partners - hence increasing the gene pool of that type.

Another factor is "clustering". In short, similar types might move/gravitate to a particular area that more adequately fits their lifestyle. What that would do is shift the gene pool of that area in favor of those types, and with prolonged breeding, it would make that city/place more heavy with certain types, and that might even extend to countries.