a strangely high number

How in the earth is that a particularly high number? If we say 3 in every 200 female and 1 in every 200 male are Infj's, then that gives us 2 out of 200.

And you say there are 4 at your school, which is only 2 more than what it should have been looking at population average. But it's not not like infj's are evenly distributed thus making this thread rather meaningless.

In my old class there were 2 infj's out of 20, which would be 20/200, and not even that is in any way strangely high.

 

That's really not at all surprising. Remember, the statistics for MBTI are just that -- projected statistics. They should not be mistaken for a concrete, end-all result that should fit any model. Besides that, you have to also question how the number was predicted; it's very possible that it is off.

I'd say 4 out of 200 or so would be very normal. I know at my school of around 300, there are over 12 INFJs, if I am not mistaken. I know that my school, though, attracts more N types because it is an accelerated high school and, therefore, more aimed towards theory (and a bit lacking on the sport side), thus a higher number of N types would be interested in it.

 

The collegeboard took a test like the MBTI to te students who decided to take it..2% were INFJ's..Again statistics don't really mean anything, and type might be common among sonme cultures than others.

 

I was in an MBTI session once and came up INFJ per usual. The person in charge looked up from his papers at me as if I was from another planet (a idea that I actually will not deny). Apparently there were not any INFJs in the building that day.

 

Even scientifically, that would an acceptable result. Theory and actual distribution are two very different things, especially considering the INFJ's attraction to higher education. Just because the population distribution is .5% doesn't mean it's going to stay at that level everywhere you go.

And part of the reason that the statistics are uniform across several sites may be because they all came from the same source It's very possible that they just took the statistic from each other, too.

 

ready for some statistics?

I used the 1.5% statistic, because this is the one I'm confident is accurate for the general pop (I've heard it several other times from fairly reliable sources [tried find study, couldn't find a relevant one])

I ran a 1 prop z-score test on my calc

z=.5817
p=.2804

your findings are therefore statistically insignificant. There is a 28% chance that what happened is purely chance, and that there's nothing causing the divergence from the norm.

 

WARNING: math below

ok, so, it's all based on a normal distribution curve


to fit normal numbers to this curve, the number is associated with a z-score (=> "z"). z=(v-x)/SD (v=> the individual value, x=> the mean, SD=> standard deviation, which is convention of how much a set of values deviates) what this means is that the z-score is how far the ind. value deviates from the center (How many SD's it is away from the mean). By definition, a certain z-score will have a certain percentage of the set below it (this is how people find percentiles). Well, this percentage also indicates how likely a certain value is to show up in that set, so it can be used in a test to determine if a certain result is significant. The definition is if this probability is less than a certain test value (I like 5%), then the result is special, and something most likely caused it to happen.

 

[QUOTE=N