Letter and Function %s in the Population

[OrangeAppled]

Discuss:
How you feel less alone/more alone now.
Why nature/natural selection/evolution would disperse the types like this.
The validity of the statistics.

I know a "disproportionate" amount of NJs (except ENTJs). If I didn't know population percents & commonly held ideas about who is "rare", then my own experience would tell me that NJs aren't especially rare (although certainly not as abundant as SJs or SPs). It's particularly amusing that NFJ men pop up in my life rather frequently, and being male, they're supposed to be "extra" rare. Meanwhile, I can count all the male NFPs I've ever met on one hand.

I too would expect INFPs to be more visible if we're at 5% (and surprised we're about as numerous as ISTPs & ESTPs, who seem very visible to me), but then, I know I am a rather reclusive homebody, and that may account for the fact we're hard to find; we're in hiding . Although, when I go in public, I am not very hard to miss; I read an INFP description lately that gave tips on how to spot an INFP, and one tip was that we often cultivate a funky, offbeat style of dress. True enough for me.... But no, I don't feel "less alone" knowing numbers, as stats don't affect my real life situation .

Regarding the other FPs, I think ESFPs are pretty common in the wild, especially for women, and I suspect that many ESFPs test N (for example, my ESFP sister sometimes tests N, and some of her interests might tempt someone to type her N), because MBTI tests can have bias for Si in defining Sensing. Although I find it very comforting to know ENFPs are the most common N. This is a good thing people . On a side note, I notice the ENFP provides the archetype for the "bohemian woman" in pop culture & literature; probably because they are the most visible of the NF women. It echoes the fact that in real life, despite supposed numbers, they are certainly not viewed as "typical", but distinctly offbeat.

ISFPs may not be particularly unusual in number, but they tend to still be rather unusual in character. I suppose this is partly why their attitude is not a dominant one in society. For example, people are constantly remarking that my ISFP step-dad is "different" and that he "lives in his own world". An ISFP friend of mine gets similar comments made about him; he is often called "weird" by his friends. You'd think the higher number of a type would lead their behavioral patterns to be seen more as "normal", but it's not the case for the ISFP.

I am rather surprised that Fe-doms are about equal with Fi-doms also. I realize Fe-doms are more visible, and with ESFJs being one of the most common types for women, it certainly feels like a "Fe world" to me.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Well... there don't need to be many ENTJ's, so the statistics don't really surprise me.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Well... there don't need to be many ENTJ's, so the statistics don't really surprise me.

True, true...you can only have so many dictators in the world. Genocide would be an even bigger problem otherwise. (I kid! ).

--------

I just had another semi-related thought. I have noticed that counter-cultures do have a distinct "Fi flavor". Often people associate tags like "emo", "goth", and even "hipster" and "hippy" with FPs (which seems to make NFPs gag ). While I think that the mainstream adoption of the labels usually leads to them being made up of many types (including SJs), and it leads to their becoming styles over philosophies, I think some of their core concepts and beginnings are likely rooted in Fi ideals. The core concepts are often unique identity, personal expression, bonding over a shared feeling of alienation, promoting the individual over the group, preferring novelty to stability, etc.

I suppose this would affect the visibility of the FPs, as there's a tendency to reside below the mainstream, to carve out their own niche, and to do so in a quiet manner that doesn't force their ideals on the majority, but still pursues them regardless of the majority feeling. Once a label has been established though, you'll find many FPs balking at it. Because now there's a set of rules & expectations, often which demand you to conform to them, and this is exactly what they were trying to avoid to begin with. Although, I see this the least with ESFPs, as they kind of enjoy being in touch with what is "current", as opposed to being ahead of the crowd in a way that can set you apart negatively.

 

[Southern Kross]

I too would expect INFPs to be more visible if we're at 5% (and surprised we're about as numerous as ISTPs & ESTPs, who seem very visible to me), but then, I know I am a rather reclusive homebody, and that may account for the fact we're hard to find; we're in hiding . Although, when I go in public, I am not very hard to miss; I read an INFP description lately that gave tips on how to spot an INFP, and one tip was that we often cultivate a funky, offbeat style of dress. True enough for me.... But no, I don't feel "less alone" knowing numbers, as stats don't affect my real life situation .

I don't think its that we hide. Even when I've been in situations where there has been a fairly representative spread of types I didn't come across other INFPs. In my high school there were around 150 students in my year and I knew them all to some degree. I don't think there was another INFP. Not one. When I worked as a volunteer on a kibbutz in Israel, which is a situation that would attract more NFs (and SPs for that matter), there was only 2 other people who I could conceivable believe were INFPs (even then I'm pretty certain they're both INFJs). And this is out of perhaps 130 people that passed through when I was there.

Where are all these INFPs that are meant to be out there?

Regarding the other FPs, I think ESFPs are pretty common in the wild, especially for women, and I suspect that many ESFPs test N (for example, my ESFP sister sometimes tests N, and some of her interests might tempt someone to type her N), because MBTI tests can have bias for Si in defining Sensing. Although I find it very comforting to know ENFPs are the most common N. This is a good thing people . On a side note, I notice the ENFP provides the archetype for the "bohemian woman" in pop culture & literature; probably because they are the most visible of the NF women. It echoes the fact that in real life, despite supposed numbers, they are certainly not viewed as "typical", but distinctly offbeat.

If I meet someone that is clearly EXFP (and it is very apparent when they are) I assume they are ESFP until proven otherwise - ie. until I get the quirky, off-beat ENFP vibe. I tend to think of ESFPs as being slightly more common than ENFPs but I can't say whether this is true or not.

ISFPs may not be particularly unusual in number, but they tend to still be rather unusual in character.

I don't think of ISFPs as distinctly weird. They do have a sort of quiet, eager, shiny-eyed earnestness that people can find a little odd until they get used to it. But then this might just be my experience.

I am rather surprised that Fe-doms are about equal with Fi-doms also. I realize Fe-doms are more visible, and with ESFJs being one of the most common types for women, it certainly feels like a "Fe world" to me.

Indeed. And if the balance is really that even, it makes me wonder why Fe gives the impression of dominance. Surely it can't be as simple as all the Fe-users gang up together and the Fi-users don't.

I just had another semi-related thought. I have noticed that counter-cultures do have a distinct "Fi flavor". Often people associate tags like "emo", "goth", and even "hipster" and "hippy" with FPs (which seems to make NFPs gag ). While I think that the mainstream adoption of the labels usually leads to them being made up of many types (including SJs), and it leads to their becoming styles over philosophies, I think some of their core concepts and beginnings are likely rooted in Fi ideals. The core concepts are often unique identity, personal expression, bonding over a shared feeling of alienation, promoting the individual over the group, preferring novelty to stability, etc.

I suppose this would affect the visibility of the FPs, as there's a tendency to reside below the mainstream, to carve out their own niche, and to do so in a quiet manner that doesn't force their ideals on the majority, but still pursues them regardless of the majority feeling. Once a label has been established though, you'll find many FPs balking at it. Because now there's a set of rules & expectations, often which demand you to conform to them, and this is exactly what they were trying to avoid to begin with. Although, I see this the least with ESFPs, as they kind of enjoy being in touch with what is "current", as opposed to being ahead of the crowd in a way that can set you apart negatively.

That's a great observation.

I think Fi+Ne related ideas/approaches/styles are cyclically fashionable; right now they're rather en vogue. You only have to think of the popularity of self-help guides and, as you say, counter-culture in general to see this. Consequently, an element of wishful-thinking and the desire to emphasize certain aspects of oneself, should be considered in viewing the results of type surveys. I also agree that the reason this populist Fi approach is typically rejected by NFPs is that it is essentially form over content - people going through the motions and forgetting what it actually means. Besides, I am rather irritated by the hypocrisy (and idiotic irony) of people conforming to a form of non-conformism

Sorry for the long post

 

[Random Ness]

I wonder if the lack of Ni has to do with Ni being the devilish role in Si doms?

I'm stumped on Ti, though.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

Is it just me or does it seem like a lot of people on these forums say they know a "disproportionate" amount of ENFPs?

i do!! i know more ENFP's and ISFP's than any other type. with ESFJ's and ISFJ's right behind it.

Have you heard the phenomenon that people overestimate the number of extroverts in their environment? The extroverts are the ones you hear, so you automatically think there are a lot of them.

i agree with that, as well as the fact that we're in an extroverted valued society. so many introverts adjust... will be more social, or friendly, etc. but they still think before they speak or perhaps spend the majority of their time on their own. i'm positive i come off extroverted to many, though i'm very very introverted.

^ Wow thanks! That's fascinating.

It makes me wonder why evolution doesn't love Ni or Ti. You can understand why Si is so central because its based on past experience and known information; knowing what works and what doesn't, is clearly valuable for the social and technical development of mankind - both on primitive and complex levels. But why are Ni and Ti considered less useful and therefore less prevalent? I'm actually surprised there is such a spread between the most common to least common functions - you'd think evolution would find relative value in all of functions. I mean, look at Fi - its so high on the list and its not exactly the most practical function out there.

i don't think it's that Ni and Ti it's because they are less useful in evolution, but rather limit their own mating? i imagine many Ti types put less emphasis in their lives for having multiple children or large families, and therefore have less offspring... continuing to limit the amount of new Ti's being born or raised into the world.