Approximate percentages of MBTI per population

[TheGoodOlDrama]

Guys, my universal translator appears to be broken. I keep getting this nasty bug: "Error: Coherence not found." Can anyone explain to me what the man above me just tried to say?

i meant to say that i prefer to simplify my life by not trying to understand things, instead of simplifying it by having a set of "papers" that arrange everything in a category or another, and i'm not speaking strictly about mbti here.
this is what what some call "society of knowledge" is doing, basically they are selling truths and we are buying like crazy because they come with a stamp on it.
i truly believe media is brainwashing people by making them think they are smart enough to understand a shit.

 

[Lady Jolanda]

Thank you for clarifying. :thumbsup:

 

[Yamahonkawazuki]

testing twice as an infj really ( as a male) took alot of weight off of my shoulders. living in a sea of fear , anger , love and whatever else, in this complex, i try to do what i can for them, however it is a drain sometimes. need to recharge lol.
Aaron

 

[LittleLetterLabels]

This isn't precisely relevant to the conversation you guys are having...but it's just a thought.

I came up with the opinion (pretty much based on nothing but guesswork), that the "rarer" MBTI times are actually more unusual because they're disadvantageous to have. If you think about it, extroverts are better equipped to achieve success in modern society, and they're mostly at the top of the list. I'm a female INTP, and I've been taking typology counseling and studying typology from Objective Personality, which is a source that offers objective typing that is shockingly accurate in a double-blind study, and consists of 512 traits...or something, I've only just started.

However, I've come to appreciate that my "thinking", is something of an addiction of mine. That I don't really give a damn what people think, and that while I objectively respect emotion and feel that it is important and valuable, I don't really value it in myself, or in the context of philosophical or scientific discussions. I used to take pride in those things. I'm realizing more and more that they've been my Achilles heel. They've really prevented me from integrating effectively into society, and realizing my own potential. Also, they've caused other people pain.

My mother is an INTJ, and my father is an ENTJ. We all have our own, personal, special brand of stupid. Perhaps being a "rare type" is not necessarily a good thing. Maybe it's a bit of a fluke, or a glitch, and it means you have more work to do on yourself if you're become a more competent, adaptable human.

Maybe this isn't a popular perspective, and maybe it's just me.
Your thoughts?

 

[barbad0s]

Even people who appear competent on the surface need to do work, otherwise getting used to how things are will eventually do them in. You seem a bit quirkily talkative lol but still like a nice and competent person @LittleLetterLabels . There’s no need to ever self-flagellate like that, especially for someone like you I think.

Also, INFJs are 0.00000000000000000001% of the population. I’ve never met a single one in my life either on or offline and I never will. INFJs are like one of Plato’s forms. They only exist in the mind. If anybody claims to be one of them, it’s a lie. Don’t walk, run.

 

[LittleLetterLabels]

Even people who appear competent on the surface need to do work, otherwise getting used to how things are will eventually do them in. You seem a bit quirkily talkative lol but still like a nice and competent person @LittleLetterLabels . There’s no need to ever self-flagellate like that, especially for someone like you I think.

Thanks! That's nice of you to say. I think though that my personality definitely has several defects that could be compensated for, and I think my personality isn't well-suited to success in modern society. It never really has been. I've always been a bit of an alien! But the thing to remember, in my mind, is that personality is not who are "are", it's how we do things, what we value. Those things can change if we understand the shortcomings and allow our values to evolve in the direction of achieving what we wish we could be as people. I think I'm more bothered by feelings of alienation, confusion, and self-doubt, than I am by feeling that my personality type makes me inferior or something. There's a lot of things I'm particularly good at, but it's like being a savant. The plus side is that I can work on the things I'm inept at, and I like working on myself.

My point, though, was just that I feel like people often think that "rare" types are "special", and therefore "better". It's true that they're "special" in that they're unique - but unique does not always mean better. I think, often times, unique actually means worse. Most people are designed to be effective in their environment. People who are ineffective in certain ways may be more unique, but not necessarily better off. I think it's great to take a little bit of pride in being particularly good in a certain aspect. However, common personality types should maybe take a bit more pride in being highly adaptable and well-equipped to get along in the world we live in.

If you think personality type is genetic (ie: nature), then it makes sense that the most common personalities would be the product of natural selection. If you think that personality type is nurture, then it makes sense that parents would try to raise and groom their children to be the most effective in society. So it ends up being the same either way. It's likely that the most common people are common because they are best-equipped for their environment.

Also, INFJs are 0.00000000000000000001% of the population. I’ve never met a single one in my life either on or offline and I never will. INFJs are like one of Plato’s forms. They only exist in the mind. If anybody claims to be one of them, it’s a lie. Don’t walk, run.

Hmm, well, I know someone who is an INFJ and seems to fit that description to the tee. I also know someone who is apparently an INFJ, and is a fairly credible source, but doesn't really seem very INFJ-like. Of course, I don't know her that well. The first person I know extremely well - we are like sisters.

I think it could be that maybe INFJs are more common than that, but, like INTPs, they have a confusing, fluctuating, alienated sort of personality that leads them to not understand themselves well and sometimes demonstrate erratic, and inconsistent behaviors. On the Big 5, INFJs may score high in neuroticism. I did, and I think that might be common with INTPs, as well...

The MBTI is kind of like the child's toy version of personality theory though. It's an abstract representation of a much deeper study. I've been taking classes with Objective Personality and they seem to have a much more scientific understanding of the personality types. They also break down each type into many other types. I think there's 512 possibilities, and they can pretty much consistently identify someone in a double-blind study. So one person will type the person, and then the other person types them independently, and both people get the same answer. That is pretty compelling. They're still working on expanding their theory and doing more testing. It's a massive subject. However, according to these people, INFJs do exist, and the types we think are rare might not be as rare as we think they are.

One last point on this - I would suggest that maybe you don't meet a lot of INFJs because they're introverted? I think they're a little more sociable than other introverted types, but, just as an example, I struggled a lot when I was younger to find my "nerds of a feather", until eventually, I just decided they didn't exist and I was a lone alien who would never find my people! Which I'm cool with, but it can bother me occasionally. After I discovered MBTI, I sought out other INTPs and I felt like I finally found my "people". Then, I realized that my people can be sort of obnoxious and my INFJ friend is way cooler, so I went in search of your people. Lol. (Well, not you in particular, but since you're here and since you have Poop for personality, I just lumped you in with the rest! Talk about a generalization!)

 

[barbad0s]

Hahaha @LittleLetterLabels I was of course being sarcastic about the second part of my post. I said it precisely because of the special snowflake concept you described.

You write fast!

 

[LittleLetterLabels]

Hahaha @LittleLetterLabels I was of course being sarcastic about the second part of my post. I said it precisely because of the special snowflake concept you described.

You write fast!

Haha! That is actually hilarious to me, because in my head I was like...this person can't be serious about that statistic ...Just don't mention it Lil. Move along. Nothing to see there!

I can be really dense when it comes to sarcasm! XD

 

[barbad0s]

"nerds of a feather"

This is awesome. Just quoting for posterity.

 

[Wyote]

Also, INFJs are 0.00000000000000000001% of the population. I’ve never met a single one in my life either on or offline and I never will. INFJs are like one of Plato’s forms. They only exist in the mind. If anybody claims to be one of them, it’s a lie. Don’t walk, run.

Very true

Even people who appear competent on the surface need to do work, otherwise getting used to how things are will eventually do them in.

Not INFJs tho, they're perfect

Hahaha I was of course being sarcastic

Clever, so clever

 

[Vendrah]

Im just coming here to say that people here are appearing with theories that goes against ethic code of MBTI (the Gifts Differing philosophy that all types are equal in strengths, weakness, intelligence, goodness... which is a very half-true). But, perhaps, I prefer to jump out with facts that comes out of my own knowledge that goes against that philosophy, so in order to maintain the poor MBTI ethic code, Im going to describe only patterns and wont mention where the pattern comes from, or being too much specific, I will just stating that they do exist. So, here are my two points:

- First, I do have a more complete info on this topic. I have been waiting MBTI official folks to update and include other countries which are in "soon" state so I could post a more complete picture of MBTI types and world, so I am going to post here a table with more or less 20 countries with MBTI distribution soon (in some weeks). I already had posted in another forum (and that needs update as well) of 12 different countries (that needs to update to include more countries):

- The darwinist theory of types is presented here in a quite inaccurate reading of Darwin and also of types. But just let, for the sake of theory, admit that it is real, that the most common types are the most adapted ones and the rarer types are the less adapted ones. Then, if it is real:
a) In capitalistic ways, admitting the fallacy and lie that we all live in a meritocracy (at least for US), then the most adapted and most common types should be the ones with the highest income, whereas the rarest ones should be the ones with lowest incomes. Well, that doesn't happen. There are at least 3 different sources of type and income over the internet, and most of them points that ENTJ does well financially, ranking in 1st or 2nd, while it is a uncommon type (and the most rare in US where these income surveys comes from, meaning that the most rare type in the US is the 1st or 2nd most rich in average).
b) If we put capitalistic stuff apart, and use IQ instead, ignoring the intelligence out of IQ for the sake of not going into human intelligence topic in depth, the INFJ type, although in rarity, it is relatively favoured in terms of IQ when compared to types in average. The pattern of -> The most common, more IQ, doesnt happen.
c) If we put the IQ and income stuff apart, considering rather "country development", then we might suppose that, since the most common types are the most evolved ones, then we might expect that common types explode in develop countries, and expect that rare types does appear more in underdeveloped countries. Well, that doesnt happen either.
d) One Darwinist aspect ignored here is that new species dont pops out of nowhere and fast, its a long and slow process that takes centuries or thousands of years, rather than decades. I have been speculating the past distribution of personality types, and, through some projections, it is quite likely that INFJ is one of the most recent types, and that there was no INFJ in tribal stage and they should be nearly non-existent in old ages. Still on Darwin line of types that is quite unlikely to be accurate, a rare specie could be either a new one OR one in danger or perhaps some combo of that that is possible as well.
e) People love speculating or sometimes affirming this with conviction: "Types are genetics". Well, none of them so far show studies (excepts perhaps for E/I) stating that type is indeed genetic. And some people over the internet has showing up with statements (Im one of them): "My parents type and preferences are very different than mine".
f) Just to do a reinforcement: Preferences doesn't equal skills.

So, yeah, please dont buy this idea that INFJ is a rare type because they are sub-developed and non-adaptive in comparison with others, that is super inaccurate. I am with the opinion that this rarity is more like a double-side coin: In one side, there is indeed the "special snowflake" feeling, and, with that special snowflake feeling, comes the correct impression that it is harder to connect with others when you are so different. I do like INFJ types, although I never met anyone in real life either.

 

[ReasonEnduring]

Im just coming here to say that people here are appearing with theories that goes against ethic code of MBTI (the Gifts Differing philosophy that all types are equal in strengths, weakness, intelligence, goodness... which is a very half-true). But, perhaps, I prefer to jump out with facts that comes out of my own knowledge that goes against that philosophy, so in order to maintain the poor MBTI ethic code, Im going to describe only patterns and wont mention where the pattern comes from, or being too much specific, I will just stating that they do exist. So, here are my two points:

- First, I do have a more complete info on this topic. I have been waiting MBTI official folks to update and include other countries which are in "soon" state so I could post a more complete picture of MBTI types and world, so I am going to post here a table with more or less 20 countries with MBTI distribution soon (in some weeks). I already had posted in another forum (and that needs update as well) of 12 different countries (that needs to update to include more countries):

- The darwinist theory of types is presented here in a quite inaccurate reading of Darwin and also of types. But just let, for the sake of theory, admit that it is real, that the most common types are the most adapted ones and the rarer types are the less adapted ones. Then, if it is real:
a) In capitalistic ways, admitting the fallacy and lie that we all live in a meritocracy (at least for US), then the most adapted and most common types should be the ones with the highest income, whereas the rarest ones should be the ones with lowest incomes. Well, that doesn't happen. There are at least 3 different sources of type and income over the internet, and most of them points that ENTJ does well financially, ranking in 1st or 2nd, while it is a uncommon type (and the most rare in US where these income surveys comes from, meaning that the most rare type in the US is the 1st or 2nd most rich in average).
b) If we put capitalistic stuff apart, and use IQ instead, ignoring the intelligence out of IQ for the sake of not going into human intelligence topic in depth, the INFJ type, although in rarity, it is relatively favoured in terms of IQ when compared to types in average. The pattern of -> The most common, more IQ, doesnt happen.
c) If we put the IQ and income stuff apart, considering rather "country development", then we might suppose that, since the most common types are the most evolved ones, then we might expect that common types explode in develop countries, and expect that rare types does appear more in underdeveloped countries. Well, that doesnt happen either.
d) One Darwinist aspect ignored here is that new species dont pops out of nowhere and fast, its a long and slow process that takes centuries or thousands of years, rather than decades. I have been speculating the past distribution of personality types, and, through some projections, it is quite likely that INFJ is one of the most recent types, and that there was no INFJ in tribal stage and they should be nearly non-existent in old ages. Still on Darwin line of types that is quite unlikely to be accurate, a rare specie could be either a new one OR one in danger or perhaps some combo of that that is possible as well.
e) People love speculating or sometimes affirming this with conviction: "Types are genetics". Well, none of them so far show studies (excepts perhaps for E/I) stating that type is indeed genetic. And some people over the internet has showing up with statements (Im one of them): "My parents type and preferences are very different than mine".
f) Just to do a reinforcement: Preferences doesn't equal skills.

So, yeah, please dont buy this idea that INFJ is a rare type because they are sub-developed and non-adaptive in comparison with others, that is super inaccurate. I am with the opinion that this rarity is more like a double-side coin: In one side, there is indeed the "special snowflake" feeling, and, with that special snowflake feeling, comes the correct impression that it is harder to connect with others when you are so different. I do like INFJ types, although I never met anyone in real life either.

Interesting post.

I disagree that INFJ doesn't appear in a tribal stage - I would think perhaps some Shamans, Druids would easily find a place in a tribal culture as INFJs. The ancient Druids of Celtic Britain were often mediators to inter-tribal conflicts and so I can see that part of an INFJ mindset.

I think its more personalities require a specific set of circumstances in childhood development. Personalities are both nature and nurture. So all these groups exist, and have always existed, but its just the circumstances to bring them out change over time.

Without data from several hundred years ago we can't tell if these distributions are fairly static, or whether they fluctate over time (as I suppose).

We need to come back in 100 years and see how the numbers have changed.

 

[Yollie]

I notice that these statistics are quite different from the MBTI Manual's statistics.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I notice that these statistics are quite different from the MBTI Manual's statistics.

This is my thread:
https://www.infjs.com/threads/official-mbti-statistics.35965/

The stats are from Official MBTI's website at the time of posting.

Maybe it will make more sense, maybe it won't, idk.

 

[Horatio]

There's no way of knowing because every person would have to take the MBTI test and be 100% sure of their results, which would never happen, and it doesn't matter anyways cause MBTI is made up and trivial.

Besides these statistics being seemingly made up, I think we could draw similar conclusions based on introversion-extraversion; you're gonna see a majority of people in the "E" category because extraverts are going to be more out and active in society.