• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What are the most and least common MBTI types?

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
So time doesn't exist? That's all I mean by forward. One event preceding the next. Ok, so you think time doesn't exist, that's nice.

I never said time doesn't exist. So you were saying nature leaps forward through time? What is that even supposed to mean and how is it relevant?

The chances of just an amino acid forming, never mind a cell, is impossible, forming a cell and that cell forming more ordered cells out of disorder is impossible.

How do you know? and how can you rule out the possibility?

From what we've learned about the cell in recent history we know it's unbelievably complex. The cell to us, is like the Saturn 5 rocket to Darwin. All the working parts put together unbelievably well, is not just improbable, it's impossible. It's science fiction, not science! You can believe that hypothesis if you want, but it's totally unprovable and there lies no evidence for that initial occurence in history actually happening with no set of plausible scientific explanations to explain how it could actually happen. I've heard a lot of science fiction like it forming on the backs of crystals, but there's no proof for anything, it's just conjecture. You take it as fact, and logical people take it as the weak foundation of an entire theory.

Make you wonder why new forms of life don't pop into existence with such a theory.

So the cell is too complex to form on it's own? so you fill that hole in the theory with something infinitely more complex (god). That makes no sense whatsoever.

I actually don't think it (the cell) is all that improbable, all it takes is for conditions to be right somewhere in one of the 60ish sextillion stars in our universe (or in one of the billions of other universes), with immense numbers like that the chances of it not being formed somewhere start looking very small.

All it takes is one cell with the ability to multiply and vary between generations to ignite the flame of life and evolution. Which is more probable, a little cell or an immensly powerful and complex being?
 

Eagle

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
733
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Why some types are more common and some are rarer? Well, I'd say the predestination of God. It's God's way of administering his sovereignty and perfection. A sovereign imprint onto our social order. Do you have an evolutionary reason? Just cuz? Is there a way of tampering with the genome to get the proper balance of personality types necessary for a functioning society? Predestination and the sovereignty of God is the best answer in my mind.

I sorta like that pargraph.

I personally like how ISTJs are common, seeing as how you are one of my ideal matchups. ;)

lol

I think part of it is some people unknowingly fake being extroverted just to be comfortable in a particular setting. They are introverts at heart, they can just fake it better than others. Also, what Quinlan said, that in general, extroverts are more noticeable than introverts. I hear that in England, there are a lot more introverts proportionally than in the U.S.

Indeed. I have been asked twice if I'm schizophrenic or not when I teach classes. I talked about the MBTI with a group of cadets at my CAP squadron and a lot of them, one who is even one of closest friends (supposedly one of my closest friends) thought I was an extrovert. We can appear energized, it's a question of what's energizing us. That it the source of being an introvert. Being energized by thoughts and ideas, not people and things.. most of the time.

I find it hard to believe that there are that many introverts versus extroverts. But I suppose Quinlan is right.

The typically theory as I hear it is that approximately 51% of the entire population is introverted and 49% is extroverted.


I knew someone was getting dizzy. :yes:
 

Paisley

Strolling Through The Shire
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
498
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
God is not complex, where do you get that from? As a concept, God is very simple but his nature to us, may be very complex. As an entity, very simple.

All of what you're saying, doesn't explain where the universe came from in the first place. The best you can do is that out of nothing, the universe came to exist, or you don't know. God explains why the universe exists and why life should exist.

Given you can't explain why the universe should exist but it does, and given all the right life producing agencies are on earth, how do you explain the chances that out of a pool of random inorganic elements, that an amino acid would and should form. Science should explain the process of that formation, and it doesn't. It's a great big guess. Once you look into the fine tuning of macroevolution, it looks like some agency was tampering with elements and not the product of blind random coincidence. Given the right properties for life, a pool of random elements, I don't care how long, will never produce life. Science fiction and a mathematical improbability.

It's that there is intelligence behind it, that we can understand the universe, in the first place.
 
L

Lasting_Pain

Guest
I think INFP is the most uncommon type and some ST or SF is the most common type in the world.
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
God is not complex, where do you get that from? As a concept, God is very simple but his nature to us, may be very complex. As an entity, very simple.

Well how can such a simple thing create and manage such complexity, without being complex itself? If god is so simple, then something equally simple, like the laws of physics, could also drive the creation of complexity, god is unnessesary then.

All of what you're saying, doesn't explain where the universe came from in the first place. The best you can do is that out of nothing, the universe came to exist, or you don't know. God explains why the universe exists and why life should exist.

Explaining where the universe comes from is irrelevant, I can explain how and why a mug works without having to explain where and how the mug was made. God is one explanation for why life and the universe exist, so is the flying spaghetti monster, whether those explanations are accurate or relevant are for you to decide. Why should you expect an explanation for everything? We are only just beginning to explore this stuff.

Given you can't explain why the universe should exist but it does, and given all the right life producing agencies are on earth, how do you explain the chances that out of a pool of random inorganic elements, that an amino acid would and should form. Science should explain the process of that formation, and it doesn't. It's a great big guess. Once you look into the fine tuning of macroevolution, it looks like some agency was tampering with elements and not the product of blind random coincidence. Given the right properties for life, a pool of random elements, I don't care how long, will never produce life. Science fiction and a mathematical improbability. It's that there is intelligence behind it, that we can understand the universe, in the first place.

As big a guess as "magic man in the sky did it"?

will never produce life.

How can you rule this out and how could you measure it?
 

Paisley

Strolling Through The Shire
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
498
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
Exactly, as big of a guess as a magic man in the sky did it; exactly! (note: God is outside of time and space and created space time, so he doesn't count in such a statement as well, to answer your question God is a simple concept with infinte complexity, but you do prove the point, macroevolution is exactly like magic!)

The burden of proof isn't on me to measure it, the burden of proof is on the one in whom can actually justify thinking it is real and believes it as fact without any evidence to back it up. I say God did it as a matter of faith, not fact. Whether you say taken on faith or theory, you're talking about the same thing; an entire field of inquiry attempting to justify a foundation where there is no justification. It's akin to saying something came from nothing. It's irrational. I can at least say, God created the universe out of his own ability to do so.

Macroevolution at it's best is science fiction, not science, and is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. Science would be better off saying they don't know, then proposing the preposterous.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Exactly, as big of a guess as a magic man in the sky did it; exactly! (note: God is outside of time and space and created space time, so he doesn't count in such a statement as well, to answer your question God is a simple concept with infinte complexity, but you do prove the point, macroevolution is exactly like magic!)

The burden of proof isn't on me to measure it, the burden of proof is on the one in whom can actually justify thinking it is real and believes it as fact without any evidence to back it up. I say God did it as a matter of faith, not fact. Whether you say taken on faith or theory, you're talking about the same thing; an entire field of inquiry attempting to justify a foundation where there is no justification. It's akin to saying something came from nothing. It's irrational. I can at least say, God created the universe out of his own ability to do so.

Macroevolution at it's best is science fiction, not science, and is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. Science would be better off saying they don't know, then proposing the preposterous.

Your entire post is ironic. The same could be said of your views. One could switch words in your final paragraph and say: Creation/God is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. We would be better off saying we just don't know, than proposing the preposterous.
 

Paisley

Strolling Through The Shire
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
498
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
That's why I prefaced it by saying I BELIEVE as taken on faith, whereas the science community would have us think as FACT that macroevolution actually IS the way it all started. There's a huge difference. One is a personal statement, the other is a forced unproven truth claim.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Actually to my knowledge evolution is and always has been a theory posed by the scientific community. But theory within the scientific community tends to have a lot of evidence to back it up. It is continuously being tested and refined, though, and is open to being disproved.
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
The burden of proof isn't on me to measure it, the burden of proof is on the one in whom can actually justify thinking it is real and believes it as fact without any evidence to back it up.

We may not understand how it happened, yet we do have evidence that indicates a pattern, from which we can assume it did happen. Surely as an INFJ you can recognise patterns of development throughout nature and in fossils? It's one thing to draw connections between the dots of evidence, but it's something else entirely to start drawing your own picture on a different piece of paper (which is what religion does with god).


I say God did it as a matter of faith, not fact. Whether you say taken on faith or theory, you're talking about the same thing; an entire field of inquiry attempting to justify a foundation where there is no justification. It's akin to saying something came from nothing. It's irrational. I can at least say, God created the universe out of his own ability to do so.

Well then where did god come from?

Macroevolution at it's best is science fiction, not science, and is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. Science would be better off saying they don't know, then proposing the preposterous.

Science DOES say that it doesn't know, science is completely open to being wrong, our scientific understanding of the world is our best guess at that point in time, science is open to and accepts new theories and evidence. "Science" will never claim to have all the answers even when it has evidence on it's side, unlike religion which claims to have all the answers with no evidence. There may be holes in scientific evidence, yet they're small compared to the gaping voids of evidence in support of god.
 

Paisley

Strolling Through The Shire
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
498
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
Well, still by your own admission you've said macroevolution is akin to a magic man in the sky, which is good enough for me to show your doubt.....most in the scientific community are not so open minded.
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
Well, still by your own admission you've said macroevolution is akin to a magic man in the sky, which is good enough for me to show your doubt.....most in the scientific community are not so open minded.

I never stated that, I asked you the question, whether evolution is more improbable than a magic man in the sky. I think it's obvious which is more probable but that's just a personal belief I suppose.
 

Paisley

Strolling Through The Shire
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
498
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
I don't know about more, but it's the same as magic. Somehow a pool of inorganic material magically turns into amino acids and magically turns into a cell and magically turns into more cells and magically turns into a simple being or simple plant and magically creates more plant and animal life that helps to support each other and work together for mutual benefit. It came into existence without an explanation and the ordered process started without an explanation by a given randomness and chaos which should lead to more chaos, but actually turns into order and organization, by magic. There's no explanation for it and its taken completely on faith that it happened that way, and everyone seems to take it as absolute, when there's nothing holding anyone to it as being scientific or truthful.

Again, it doesn't give any real answer for why, it just states that it is because it is, and we don't need to think about it because we don't have to think about it. It's so redundant and unintelligent. Altogether grasping at straws while attempting to prop up a failed theory.

I don't know why you ask the old school boy question of who created the creator but God is uncaused and exists infinite, beyond our comprehension of space and time, and created the known universe. God by his very nature is without beginning or end, your concept is some sort of person in the sky idea, which is still within space and time as though God is trapped within space and time and only capable of being within what he created, which is not the concept of God. God is infinite and exists outside of space and time, and in Christianity is made of three personhoods; a Father, Son, and Spirit. That's the common ancient answer of a monotheistic triune God. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with that.
 

The Outsider

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,418
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Altogether grasping at straws while attempting to prop up a failed theory.

That's what creationism is about. Evolution is a scientific theory that will be debunked when something more plausible comes up.

Creationists have a conclusion ready, which they try to prove with "evidence"
Science gathers evidence and makes conclusions based on it.
 

Speed Gavroche

Whisky Old & Women Young
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
5,152
MBTI Type
EsTP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
US adult population stats (the UKs are similars): ISFJ: 13.8% ESFJ: 12.3% ISTJ: 11.6% ISFP: 8.8% ESTJ: 8.7% ESFP: 8.5% ENFP: 8.1% ISTP: 5.4% ESTP: 4.3% INFP: 4.3% INTP: 3.3% ENTP: 3.2% ENFJ: 2.4% INTJ: 2.1% ENTJ: 1.8% INFJ: 1.5%

French adult population stats: ENFP: 16.2% ISFJ: 9.2% INFP: 8.6% ESFJ: 8.2% ISTJ: 7.7% INTP: 6.6% ENTP: 6.4% ISFP: 5.9% ESTJ: 5.8% ESFP: 5.7%ENFJ: 4.8% INTJ: 4,2% ENTJ: 3.6% ISTP: 3.6% INFJ: 3% ESTP: 2.9%

Take in count that T types are more frequents with males and F types are more frequents with females.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
where'd u get ur stats from speed?
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
I think it's really interesting how different cultures have different frequencies of MBTI types.
 
L

Lasting_Pain

Guest
US adult population stats (the UKs are similars): ISFJ: 13.8% ESFJ: 12.3% ISTJ: 11.6% ISFP: 8.8% ESTJ: 8.7% ESFP: 8.5% ENFP: 8.1% ISTP: 5.4% ESTP: 4.3% INFP: 4.3% INTP: 3.3% ENTP: 3.2% ENFJ: 2.4% INTJ: 2.1% ENTJ: 1.8% INFJ: 1.5%

French adult population stats: ENFP: 16.2% ISFJ: 9.2% INFP: 8.6% ESFJ: 8.2% ISTJ: 7.7% INTP: 6.6% ENTP: 6.4% ISFP: 5.9% ESTJ: 5.8% ESFP: 5.7%ENFJ: 4.8% INTJ: 4,2% ENTJ: 3.6% ISTP: 3.6% INFJ: 3% ESTP: 2.9%

Take in count that T types are more frequents with males and F types are more frequents with females.

Yeah where did you get those statistics from?
 

The Outsider

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,418
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Kind of makes sense in my mind that in France there would be more INFPs.
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
Again, it doesn't give any real answer for why, it just states that it is because it is, and we don't need to think about it because we don't have to think about it. It's so redundant and unintelligent. Altogether grasping at straws while attempting to prop up a failed theory.

"Why's" are usually outside of the realm of science, "why's" are for philosophers and INFJs to deal with. I feel that you are looking for meaning where there doesn't need to be any, it's just something that happened.
 
Top