Type Rarity?

["?"]

Does anyone remain convinced that there are rare types, or is it pretty much understood that all cognitive processes are used equally across the board? Jung says in his introduction of Personality Type:

Naturally, at first, one is inclined to regard such differences as mere individual idiosyncrasies. But anyone with the opportunity of gaining a fundamental knowledge of many men will soon discover that such a far-reaching contrast does not merely concern the individual case, but is a question of typical attitudes, with a universality far greater than a limited psychological experience would at first assume. In reality, as the preceding chapters will have shown, it is a question of a fundamental opposition; at times clear and at times obscure, but always emerging whenever we are dealing with individuals whose personality is in any way pronounced. Such men are found not only among the educated classes, but in every rank of society; with equal distinctness, therefore, our types can be demonstrated among labourers and peasants as among the most differentiated members of a nation. Furthermore, these types over-ride the distinctions of sex, since one finds the same contrasts amongst women of all classes. Such a universal distribution could hardly arise at the instigation of consciousness, ie. as the result of a conscious and deliberate choice of attitude. If this were the case, a definite level of society, linked together by a similar education and environment and, therefore, correspondingly localized, would surely have a majority representation of such an attitude. But the actual facts are just the reverse, for the types have, apparently, quite a random distribution. [p. 414]

[The_Liquid_Laser]

The part that is highlighted does not speak to rarity but to distribution. The two are unrelated. It's saying that MBTI type does not predispose someone toward a certain social class nor is it a direct result of the choices that a person makes. However this has nothing to do with the rarity of a type. A type which appears with a 1% frequency will do so in all social classes. In particular if people which use intuition as their primary or secondary function appear in 20% of the population then they will appear with 20% frequency in every significantly large social grouping regardless of economic background or education.

["?"]

Yet what he does not say anywhere in his work that those preferring inuition are rare or more rare than those preferring sensing. In fact when he discribes Ne Jung says that they are so similar that, those who proposed to prefer Ne were actually describing Se traits.

Also as stated in another thread, Myers-Briggs raises questions as to whether many are born with a clean slate thus not predispositioned to a certain type. As a result she questions whether the western culture may be the basis of so many preferring ESJ.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Originally Posted by "?"

Also as stated in another thread, Myers-Briggs raises questions as to whether many are born with a clean slate thus not predispositioned to a certain type. As a result she questions whether the western culture may be the basis of so many preferring ESJ.

If this is true, then Intuition actually is "rare". At least it is rare in western culture.

[Magic Poriferan]

I am generally convinced that INs are rarer than ENs, ISs, and ESs.

["?"]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

If this is true, then Intuition actually is "rare". At least it is rare in western culture.

Yet it's based on cultural expectations, ergo ESJs who may actually be intuitives are merely being influenced by culture. We see it all of the time in people's confusion of their best fit type due to outside influences.

["?"]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

I am generally convinced that INs are rarer than ENs, ISs, and ESs.

So is Myers-Briggs and Keirsey, but Jung scoffs at the idea.

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by "?"

So is Myers-Briggs and Keirsey, but Jung scoffs at the idea.

I just don't think it's very probable that there is even dispersion of all types. That sort of symmetry really isn't common among human beings. I also generally suspect that society would be rather different if there were more INs.

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

I just don't think it's very probable that there is even dispersion of all types. That sort of symmetry really isn't common among human beings. I also generally suspect that society would be rather different if there were more INs.

I don't really know if it'd be INs in particular that would be rare -- just N dominants, at least through my observation. INPs and ENJs seem to be all over in real life, it's just that the INPs are reclusive enough to not notice each other.

The idea being that, if type is at least partially by nurture, INJ would be anathema to the 'learned' ESJ attitude, and ENP anathema to the 'learned' ESP attitude.

I wonder now how many ISPs there are compared to ESPs, and how many ISJs there are compared to ESJs.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Originally Posted by ?

Yet it's based on cultural expectations, ergo ESJs who may actually be intuitives are merely being influenced by culture. We see it all of the time in people's confusion of their best fit type due to outside influences.

I was responding to something you said about people starting with a clean slate. Now you are saying they may actually be intuitives. Which is it? It they are really intuitives, then they are not starting with a clean slate.

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

I am generally convinced that INs are rarer than ENs, ISs, and ESs.

I think this depends mostly where you draw the line between introversion and extraversion on the continuum. Some studies say introverts are about 25% of the US population, while others put introverts at over 50%. If the latter is true then IN's are certainly not less common than EN's. Also "?" may very well be correct. There may not be be any rarity among type even with respect to S and N. However he hasn't given any good reasons in this thread yet to back up that assertion.

Anecdotally I have encountered a lot more IN's in my life than EN's. This is mostly because IN's group together, so you can find them if you know where to look. On the other hand EN's might turn up in just about any circle, but when you find them there is either an even mix of types or other types dominate the group.