Official MBTI Statistics

Thank you @Deleted member 16771 for collecting these. I made them into charts for those of us who are more visual, perhaps it will provide another perspective. Also find them rather curious myself.

Deleted member 16771 said:

1) Male INFJs (1.7% of men)

Click to expand...

Yessss so we remain ze special unicorns

One of the main takeaways from these statistics: ISFP is a far rarer type than I thought, one of the very rarest, it seems.

Thank you Hos for giving us this cool insight into the official stats.

Deleted member 16771 said:

I'm other words, what evolutionary 'job', if any, the INFJ type fulfils, then the village only needs one of them *cough* shaman *cough* (and maybe one apprentice).

Click to expand...

I would so go for the shaman apprentice job

Jokes aside, it is indeed a thought-provoking observation. If statistically we never got out of the type/roles required for a village to survive (according to the MBTI) from an evolutionary standpoint, what implications does it have for the assumption that types are to some point heredetary?

(to @Deleted member 16771 post)

These are all good questions to be pondering. I have wondered about it myself but instead of feeling there is a likely answer nowadays it seems there are a few possible answers without a clear path to validating any of them. But I always find suggestions relating to this interesting.

So in the scenarios featuring "evolution" (loosely) as a driving force we end up with some types under-represented while others are over-represented and at first glance this does suggest there must be some "reason" for this kind of overall balance - perhaps the one given above, namely that these types manage to affect (inspire?) many others so not as many are needed in the overall population. Or that they are under-represented for some purely evolutionary reason unrelated to social order.

Another possibility is that the types again relate to evolutionary pressure but instead their distributions reflect the overall likelihood of the wiring consistent with a given type manifesting in a personality. (Out of a possible number of starting factors and combinations only X percent will end up resulting in this or that type.) - with or without some "external" factor dictating the probability distribution. The major difference here is simply that some types are less likely to occur and this difficulty with producing them in greater numbers might not lie within the domain of evolution.

Going out on a limb then we have at least one "meaningful" scenario where there is a known reason for the type distribution as well as one where there might be a reason for it but it's not meaningful to us in a way which is relatable or satisfactory even if it were known. The latter possibility is added mainly as a way of showing why I'm so uncertain about this nowadays, but again I'm interested in the various view points on it.

(With similar interaction dynamics at the end of the day regardless of which combination of the above happens to be the 'correct' one as far as I can tell.)

Deleted member 16771 said:

Or maybe... a generation of FP snowflakes (@Pin).

Click to expand...

Hey now! An FP?

Thanks, Deleted member 16771, for finding all the research and posting it.

Look at how the prevalence of ISTJ and ESTJ keeps rising with age.

The world pushes people to be dutiful and hardworking, but it also strips them of their feelings and gentleness by the ends of their lives. Ouch.

Very interesting. Hope they keep tracking for a few more decades to find if the current crop of 14 to 17 year-olds will turn into STJs.

My guess is they will.

Deleted member 16771 said:

The 16 Types by Highest Educational Level Attained
I made these using data from 25/02/2019, and I've included the rarity of each type in the population for reference. The educational charts record the percentages above and below statistical expectation for each type to hold that level of education. For example, INTJs comprise 3.3% of the population, and so we would expect 3.3% of all doctorate-holders to be INTJs, however in actuality 10.7% of all doctorate-holders are INTJs, which is a 224% overrepresentation above what we would expect statistically.
View attachment 48171
View attachment 48172
View attachment 48173
View attachment 48174
View attachment 48175
View attachment 48176
View attachment 48177
View attachment 48178
View attachment 48179
View attachment 48180

Click to expand...

So, where is all this data coming from?
Just curious as to what biases were there/eliminated when collecting the data.
I feel like these graphs may only scratch the surface in a way that is unconsciously designed to make NTs stand out as superior.