INFJ, Not as Rare as Predicted?

[88chaz88]

There has actually been people taking this test on Facebook.

A large majority were extroverts.

If you look at the ''mypersonality'' APP

Those weren't gathered statistics, just the usual predicted bullshit.

 

[Raccoon Love]

Those weren't gathered statistics, just the usual predicted bullshit.

Actually, they were. It stated that based on the profiles of all facebook users that have taken the test. Unless of course facebook is lying to us, regardless..the amount is insignificant because one can argue that there's a certain type of person who goes to facebook. Like Indy said, we would have to test half of the globe.

 

[88chaz88]

Actually, they were. It stated that based on the profiles of all facebook users that have taken the test.

No it didn't.

Edit: Actually found the page you're thinking of. It states:

Frequency of Personality Types

Below are the estimated frequencies of each of the Jungian-based personality types (and of each temperament) by total population and by gender.

 

[Reon]

Very true, thing is we can never know for sure. All we have done is follow assumptions. INFJ's here s far, go by the fact that they feel different and don't feel like they fit, I wonder if other types might get this strong feelings as well.

INTJs and INFPs don't feel like they 'fit' in. They don't really care about fitting in completely, it's not the primary concern. First we focus on being efficient and truthful to ourselves and, as such, we can find people who are somewhat like us (hence the analogy that Fe will adapt to a group and Fi will find a group that will adapt to it/it will find a group that supports a interest)

Also, I've met more (tested) Nfs than NTs. I kno three INFJs (Two are a set of twins) two INFPs, one INTJ (outside of myself) one ENTJ, two ENFPs, and one INTP

 

[JohnDoe]

Okay, just to clarify, I'm not arguing that INFJ isn't a rare type, just not as rare as 1%.

Do you really think that out of 100 people you know only 1 will come up as INFJ? It's an abnormally small statistic.

Funny I was about ready to come in here and say that 1/100 is still a metric ton of people over large enough samples. I think people underestimate the number of INFJ's they run into, simply because people don't realize how many people they meet in the course of a day. However I think the 1/100 statistic is probably close to right. People usually just suck at applying statistics to their own experiences.

 

[Raccoon Love]

No it didn't.

Edit: Actually found the page you're thinking of. It states:

That's not the one I was referring too.

http://apps.facebook.com/mypersonality

'''In order to produce the maps, the average trait scores for each state were calculated based on myPersonality data collected from over 225,000 Facebook users who have kindly given permission for this information to be stored. The states were then ranked on each trait from the highest score to the lowest score. Finally, a colour was calculated based on the ranking of the trait.''

http://mypersonality.org/research/2008/12/09/the-relationship-between-us-state-and-personality/

 

[JohnDoe]

Or at least not on OkCupid.

I found this interesting snippet of data that's gathered from their site:

As the vertical line equals the average this means more people got I, N, F, and J. As you know, this goes against every stat that the official MBTI tests predict.

Very interesting imo.

Also just want to point out that you are applying probabilities wrong. You need to use joint probabilities. If 60% of people are N and 60% of people are J that does not mean that 60% of people are NJ.

On Edit: Also want to point out that the way you are doing it the distributions matter, and so you can't draw any conclusions from the charts you have.

 

[88chaz88]

That's not the one I was referring too.

http://apps.facebook.com/mypersonality

Which is the one I quoted. Yes, I know that VH posted those statistics somewhere and said they were gathered from facebook, but in the same thread I proved him wrong. They aren't gathered, they're estimates.

Also just want to point out that you are applying probabilities wrong. You need to use joint probabilities. If 60% of people are N and 60% of people are J that does not mean that 60% of people are NJ.

Cor blimey, another person who feels they need to point out this blindingly obvious fact. I thought that the way I seperated the I, N, F, and J by using commas (oh look I did it again) made it clear that I wasn't talking about them in conjunction with each other.

I also believed that the question mark in the title would indicate that it couldn't possibly be a conclusion just an observation that I felt could be discussed.

I imagine I assumed a lot here, especially the part where I assumed I was on a forum of people with at least a basic level of reading comprehension and didn't need to cater for braindead chimps with the attention span of a goldfish with ADHD.

For anyone who feels that I'm taking away their INFJ specialness and needs to point it out by saying the statistics don't work in conjuction and I'm a retard or whatever, you are still very special, just not in the way you're thinking.

 

[deadred]

Sorry Chaz, I knew better than that, and apologies to Melkor also. Damn dyslexia...To me, the vertical line describes median not average. Median describes exactly in the middle, whereas average indicates a range within an arbitrary degree either side of the middle. For each variable, there would be a 50-50 chance of falling on one side of the vertical line or the other. I almost cringe when I head people say 50-50 because it means either it is or it isn't. Holy Cow, a cretin could make that prediction. It's a fancy way of someone saying they don't know. Are we ever anything always at any particular time? I think not. I am quite extroverted around good friends, and I get along well Socially, but am naturally an introvert otherwise. These things depend on how precisely well the test is put together. I particularly like the tests with 5 choices, and think even more options would produce better results, but that's just my opinion. I don't care if I am rare or not...I am what I am!

 

[VH]

Or at least not on OkCupid.

I found this interesting snippet of data that's gathered from their site:

As the vertical line equals the average this means more people got I, N, F, and J. As you know, this goes against every stat that the official MBTI tests predict.

Very interesting imo.

Discuss.

First, remember the part where it asks you your age and gender? Well, that's the only data your seeing... stats on your gender and age group. It is by no means a full sample of everyone who's taken the test at OKCupid.

Secondly, you're misinterpreting the data. I colorized the 50% point on all the graphics. Notice how the I, N, F, and even J scores are below the 50% line. This means less than half of all people who took this test in your age group and gender are Introverts (ISTJ, ISFJ, ISTP, ISFP, INTJ, INFJ, INTP, INFP) combined... less than half of all people who took this test in your age group and gender are iNtuitives (INTJ, INTP, INFJ, INFP, ENTJ, ENTP, ENFJ, ENFP) combined. Notice already that these two groups do not completely overlap. The same is true of the remaining boxes.

View attachment 3215

In other words, while INFJs clearly appear in the smaller of each of these four groups for your age group and gender, INFJs share each axis with 7 other types in each box. INFJs could literally be 0.0000000000001% of the population, or nearly 40% of the population based on this data. There is no way to tell.

Finally... the current world population is estimated at 6,856,615,728, which means that if only 1% of the population are INFJs, then there are 68,566,157.28 INFJs on the planet right now. That's not an especially small number in anyone's book. The fact that a few hundred of them have found these forums on the internet is no small surprise considering that we do tend to be a personality type that favors the internet, as well as personality typing systems such as MBTI.

INFJs are 'rare', but there are certainly a lot of us in the world. Go to any office building with 1,000 employees in it, and on average at least ten of the people in the building are INFJs. This number will likely increase sharply if the office is for a profession that INFJs gravitate toward such as psychology, teaching, counseling, academics, art, etc. and it will likely decrease in similar proportion in professions that tend to repel INFJs like accounting, business administration, sales, Club DJs, etc.

 

[Trifoilum]

Cor blimey, another person who feels they need to point out this blindingly obvious fact. I thought that the way I seperated the I, N, F, and J by using commas (oh look I did it again) made it clear that I wasn't talking about them in conjunction with each other.

For anyone who feels that I'm taking away their INFJ specialness and needs to point it out by saying the statistics don't work in conjuction and I'm a retard or whatever, you are still very special, just not in the way you're thinking.

Hooooooooooooooooo.

My apologies for pointing that out. I don't know if I'm actually implying or establishing my specialness by doing that, tho.....for when I think about it, it's a very big possibility...And a very good one; as even if we're that rare, then wouldn't it better to have more INFJs?

I don't think someone's specialness depends on its rarity.

There has actually been people taking this test on Facebook.

A large majority were extroverts.

If you look at the ''mypersonality'' APP

Sometimes I wondered if most people taking those test in Facebook were doing that because of curiosity, or just following others that were referring them.

But that's kinda assuming, am I not?

 

[the]

That is part of the problem with this rare type issue, people are equating rareness with specialness; because something is rare does not mean it is more special than something more common and the world would probably fall apart if there were too many IN types in it. Statistically, there is bound to be a rarest type, the most current formal statistics says that is INFJ, even if the figures are correct, that does not mean that that type is better or more special than any other type. In my opinion, that has presented more disadvantages than advantages and I cannot say that I feel more special than anyone else...usually.

You are right. I hope AIDS becomes rare, and when it does it will still not be a good thing to have!

 

[88chaz88]

You are right. I hope AIDS becomes rare, and when it does it will still not be a good thing to have!

But having aides is rare and are wonderful things to have...

 

[Nighthawk]

I believe that introverts and N's are more heavily represented online than they are in real life. Extraverted sensors are too busy in the outside world to mess very much with the internet ... as it exists partially inside people's heads and doesn't provide the stimulation that direct conversation does for them. I think that many online surveys and data collections are skewed towards introverted intuitives.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Alright, this is all fine and dandy, but why are we sooooooo opposed to even considering that INFJ's aren't 1%? I haven't seen one argument that doesn't state that because someone else says its not, through stats, that it just can't be.
There are 16 types, and if everything was even everyone would be at 6.25%. So why are some types sitting at 13% and others at 1%? Isn't it just even remotely possible that our species genetic type bent isn't as skewed as this? Why won't anyone just entertain this notion?

 

[Raccoon Love]

Alright, this is all fine and dandy, but why are we sooooooo opposed to even considering that INFJ's aren't 1%? I haven't seen one argument that doesn't state that because someone else says its not, through stats, that it just can't be.
There are 16 types, and if everything was even everyone would be at 6.25%. So why are some types sitting at 13% and others at 1%? Isn't it just even remotely possible that our species genetic type bent isn't as skewed as this? Why won't anyone just entertain this notion?

I believe its because of the huge social stigma that they have been placed among many of this types, for example in western society introversion is usually frowned upon. I believe that many of us have experienced how society expects us to be a certain way and if we are not we feel different then everyone else, therefore we tend to think that we might be rarer.

In some ways it gives us identity, some people can be highly individualistic. Of course this is mistaken as regardless of type we are all special in our own way. It's just that many might feel so looked down upon that this sense of individuality gives them a sense of being great.

 

[AUM]

Just looking at the first function of the INFJ's would explain why we're considered a rare type among with our INTJ cousins. Tell me guys, do you really think that Ni is really the best reliable function to use, being that it requires lots of leaps in logic?

Intuition in itself is rather a very vague way to gather information. It doesn't follow a reasonable sequence like our sensing counter-types. We skip from A to Z before going through B,C etc.

Especially in really developed nations, telling people that X was a result of Y because of a mixture of Z isn't going to cut it. We need sensing functions in order for people to understand the way everything follows.

So my reasoning here is that INFJ's are not rare, rather, Ni is the black sheep among other functions as a way to achieve reason.

 

[arbygil]

In the end, though, it really doesn't matter if you're rare or not: You're you.

Now me, the only INFJs I've met were on this forum, and I think there is one other one in my office. We're an office of 20, but I expect more INFJs where I work because my office is an academic counseling office. Most of the people I work with are IxFx folk, and the Exxx folk stand out like sore thumbs. The extroverts are also less happy than the introverts.

All that to say this: You'll have preferences where you work, play, congregate, etc. You'll be around folks who share similar interests to you, and you'll gravitate towards people you enjoy being with. You'll be in groups of the same people and attend events where more of those same types will be. Unless you go outside your comfort zone, you'll think there are a predominant mix of certain types, because that's where those people prefer to be.

I see fewer Extroverts chilling in coffee shops or libraries than I do extroverts. But that doesn't mean there are more introverts than extroverts; it just means I'm in a place more introverts prefer being.

I see more extroverts at a gym...does that mean the majority are extroverts? No...it just means there are more extroverts who go to that particular gym.

Anyway. You can't really determine who is rarest based on who you meet, or who takes certain tests. Really, the only way you can judge of the rarity of an MBTI type is to measure those who take the official MBTI test. Any other data will be skewed, because there is no control.

 

[Lerxst]

I don't think we will ever completely know which type is more rare or more common. We can get a general idea, but that's about it. The most accurate way to do it would to have random people take it. Not so much by choice either. My personal experience with people backs this up; INxx types will seek out these tests the most, and ESxx will actually avoid it to some extent. This isn't fullproof, but it is accurate to some degree. I have have asked close to, sheesh, like 50+ people to take myers briggs tests. Across the board ESxx types often will either dislike taking the test, won't have interest, or just won't care in general. Where as INxx types will often respond "ooh, tell me more". The nature of personality itself, will skew the results one way or another (as far as satistical massing) if you allow people to go out of their way to find the test. This goes for any kind of social satistics. You have to be completely random, and can't allow people to find it, then choose to do it, that imparts a huge bais in this.

Yes, this.

I asked people at work to take a test like this for fun and sure enough, an ESxx types started to complain about the questions, validity of them, mood she was in, blah blah blah blah.

Also, on these sites, people are intentionally trying to be "sensative" and answer questions the way they think they want other people to see them.

 

[JohnDoe]

Also, on these sites, people are intentionally trying to be "sensative" and answer questions the way they think they want other people to see them.

Yeah I thought it was well known that everyone cheated on the okcupid tests.