lincostinko
Four
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5, 6, 9
Here is the percentage of INFJs in the population:
INFJ Population
Total: 1%
Male: 0.5%
Female: 1.5%
Source: http://forums.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=13957
It's generally well-known amongst INFJ's that we are the rarest of all MBTI types. Most of us consider this a point of pride and lament that there's not enough INFJs. This may be true, but did anyone wonder why this came to be?
According to evolution, it may be because INFJs suck at reproducing. Or to be more specific, our INFJ male descendants were less successful than other types at impregnating large amounts of women. This is the conclusion I came to after reading this talk from the American Psychological Association.
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
(It's important to read this talk to get a full understanding of this issue.)
In contrast, ESTJs are the most prevalent type in the population:
ESTJ Population
Total: 13%
Male: 16%
Female: 10%
ESTJs are natural leaders, and their presence is overwhelming in corporate and executive leadership positions when compared to other personality types. In the ancient world, ESTJs may have been leaders of a tribal clan, an exploration expedition, a commander of a warband...all which would have led to more reproductive opportunities for a male.
Assuming there is a relevant genetic component to personality type, does this theory make sense at all? And I'm not even considering other unquantifiable factors that would lead to decreased INFJ reproductive success, like our general tendencies towards altruism and martyrism, our obsession with finding our one "soulmate" (as opposed to multiple sexual relations), etc.
And if genetics and "survival of the fittest" isn't valid, what other possibilities could cause this population skew? If all things were equal, each personality would be divided evenly, right?
INFJ Population
Total: 1%
Male: 0.5%
Female: 1.5%
Source: http://forums.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=13957
It's generally well-known amongst INFJ's that we are the rarest of all MBTI types. Most of us consider this a point of pride and lament that there's not enough INFJs. This may be true, but did anyone wonder why this came to be?
According to evolution, it may be because INFJs suck at reproducing. Or to be more specific, our INFJ male descendants were less successful than other types at impregnating large amounts of women. This is the conclusion I came to after reading this talk from the American Psychological Association.
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
(It's important to read this talk to get a full understanding of this issue.)
In contrast, ESTJs are the most prevalent type in the population:
ESTJ Population
Total: 13%
Male: 16%
Female: 10%
ESTJs are natural leaders, and their presence is overwhelming in corporate and executive leadership positions when compared to other personality types. In the ancient world, ESTJs may have been leaders of a tribal clan, an exploration expedition, a commander of a warband...all which would have led to more reproductive opportunities for a male.
Assuming there is a relevant genetic component to personality type, does this theory make sense at all? And I'm not even considering other unquantifiable factors that would lead to decreased INFJ reproductive success, like our general tendencies towards altruism and martyrism, our obsession with finding our one "soulmate" (as opposed to multiple sexual relations), etc.
And if genetics and "survival of the fittest" isn't valid, what other possibilities could cause this population skew? If all things were equal, each personality would be divided evenly, right?
Last edited:
SENSORS!!!!!
