User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Rarity of type?

  1. #1
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default Rarity of type?

    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?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Eckhart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    ???
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    1,097

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    You have a choice! 21%'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    I think the majority of people mistyped themselves
    4w5 sp/sx EII

  4. #4
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 21% View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Effects of Type Consciousness
    By s0532 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-28-2011, 03:46 PM
  2. Reviews of Type Books: Read First Post
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-15-2007, 09:46 AM
  3. The natural order of "Types"
    By Veneti in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-18-2007, 01:06 PM
  4. Positive and Practical Uses of Type
    By ygolo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 03:25 AM
  5. Limitations of Type
    By Oberon in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-01-2007, 05:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO