• 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.

Rarity of type?

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I will admit that I havn't researched this topic in full, but I often read websites and books alluding to, or even downright stating, that there is a set percentage of certain types in a country or even the world.

Basically the idea that some types are more rare than others, I suppose this could easily be true and there is a little bit of empirical evidence for it but frankly; im a little skeptical.

Or rather im skeptical of the numbers used. Ive read bits of information that claim INFJ's are less than 1% of a population, others that it is 2.1% or something. Then ive read that Se doms like ESTP's are more than 13-14% of a countries population.

The problem is that firstly, how could this possibly be representational in terms of the information and source used? And secondly that it ignores the variables of being human.

More annoyingly some people will take pride in something as superficial as how rare their type is. I personally find it irritating, it distracts from the importance of the theory, although I know some will mention that it helps understand the difficulties of certain types, but at the same time even that has this problem of excusing some people of facing up to their own faults, 'oh it wasn't your fault, you're rare, that's why you struggled'.

In any case to me rarity has nothing to do with being unique or special, if you are interested in that type of catagorisation, it has more to do with how you are as an individual within your type. That's the important part.

What do you all think?
 

Eckhart

New member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
1,090
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
???
I guess it is likely that some types are more rare than others, however as you I don't trust the numbers being used, because they vary greatly from site to site. When a type on one site has 1-2% and on another 5% or even more, then this is a massive difference. At best you can assume some tendencies from those numbers.
 

21%

You have a choice!
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
3,224
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I think the majority of people mistyped themselves
 
R

Riva

Guest
It is possible for some types to be rarer than other types. One obviously notices this in his/her own life experience.

Anyway the rarity could be due to the fact that the type isn't genetically coded (as much as I know). It's how we as kids adapt to our environment? It's our personality. This is why personalities could change over time.

Certain types would find it easier to adapt to certain environments Or close up. etc.

One could adapt by adapting or closing up.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I think the majority of people mistyped themselves

Most likely. I remember having a discussion about tests designed to measure personality using this theory and a friend I was discussing it with pointed out that half the time people answer such questions based upon a persona of how they see themselves, this is true. But I also took it further and thought about that perspective from all angles. So some people will under or over estimate themselves and others will be paralysed by choice and unable to choose one or the other.

Then of course there is self actualisation, of course even then you can wrong, of course you can. But to me the importance is how or what you use the theory for, if it helps you and others then so be it.
 
G

garbage

Guest
The stats are based on the tests. The tests are pretty much the only accessible objective measure of 'absolute type' that we have--and so they're easy to collect a bunch of data on--but they're very, very imperfect.
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think one of the big problems is that the tests fail to take into account social perception of certain descriptions, words, or personality traits. For example if you ask "are you weak or are you strong?" Most people would probably pick strong. I especially think the issue becomes convoluted around gender roles with men picking T responses and women F responses because they believe that is the "correct" answer or how they wish to be socially perceived. I think making choices between two positive values would probably make it come out more evenly.
 
Top