# Thread: Percentage of each typegroup in population - theory

1. ## Percentage of each typegroup in population - theory

There are different opinions on how high the percentage of each typegroup (SJ, SP, NT, NF...don't know how you call it) is, but every website tells something different. Well there's a way to calculate it without having statistical data or having done surveys . It's commonly accepted that there are 25-33% Ns in the population, same for Fs (male) and Ts (females). For I/E and J/P there's an allocation of 50% for each preference.I've read that on wikipedia someday.
If you assume that this data is correct use some math now. Multiply the lowest possible percentages with each other, same with the highest.

SJ = 66 • (50/100) = 33% and 75 • (50/100) = 37,5%
That means 33% to 37,5% are SJs. If you think there are more than this, then there has to be a higher percentage of Sensors or Judgers in the population than wikipedia says.
Let's go on!

SP = 33% to 37,5%
NT = 16,5% to 24,75% (male),
6,25% to 11,11% (female)
NF = 16,5% to 24,75% (female), 6,25% to 11,11% (male)

ES/IS = 33% to 37,5%
EN/IN = 12,5% to 16,5%
ET/IT = 33% to 37,5% (male)
12,5% to 16,5% (female)
EF/IF = 33% to 37,5% (female) 12,5% to 16,5% (male)
EP/IP = 25%
ST = 43,5% to 56,25% (male)
16,5% to 24,75% (female)
SF = 43,5% to 56,25% (female)
16,5% to 24,75% (male)
NJ/NP = 12,5% to 16,5%
TJ/TP= 33% to 37,5% (male) 12,5% to 16,5% (female)
FJ/FP = 33% to 37,5% (female) 12,5% to 16,5% (male)

Is this crazy enough to be correct??

Edit: According to this data male ENFP is 1,6% to 2,7%, a lot lower like most sites say.

2. I = 30%
N = 25%
T = 45%
P = 40%

3. Here's a table (from the official MBTI folks) of Estimated Frequencies of the Types in the U.S. that includes separate male and female frequencies.

And here's a second table (with some supplemental breakdowns).

According to the second page, these statistics are based on "a variety of MBTI results from 1972 through 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP, Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI)."

4. I think you will run into the same problems as anyone trying to make sense of the (mis)information surrounding statistics of type. Firstly the only ones even worth approaching are those with decent sources routed in actual group testing, such as the ones used by Isabel Briggs Myers in Gifts Differing.

But then one has to wonder on the rather immaterial nature of type in the first place and how you can actually know someone is testing to an accurate representation of how their cognition works. People generally hold an image of themselves of varying degrees of a positive or negative nature, (or usually a mixture of the two), and tend to idealise or view certain traits as being possessed of by themselves.

It's easily observed that a person could take a broad view of the world and those around her/him and come to the conclusion that a large portion of that world lives in a shortsighted world of concrete systems and adhere to traditional structures because they do not have the insight and well....intelligence to consider change or other options. But of course this is just a stereotype of an SJ, however that dichotomy is the one usually relegated to the position of the majority.

This of course ignores other information that would offer more options to the contrary. Then again what system are we using? Do we factor in cognitive functions here? Perhaps a bit of keirsey? Maybe some newer interpretation that goes by visual tics and signs, helpfully ignoring environmental factors that usually contribute to such habitual behaviours.

And so on.

Honestly if someone hands me a statistic on type, I want to check where it came from and how it was sourced....and then laugh at it....well sometimes. Other times it has some interesting information.

As long as we can move away from an interpretation which relies upon identifying groups based upon arbitrary understandings of intelligence.

5. ^^ Yeah... I just... one, it took me years to eventually study and then type myself well enough so that I felt it was definitely the best fit out of 16. Is it realistic to think that the average person taking the MBTI is going to obtain a best-fit result to an extent that it's reasonable to assume that they have? I am an ENFP; tested INFP. My mom is an ESFJ; tested ESTJ. How many others out there have gotten results they later realized were not a good fit? I imagine many.

To continue to the statistics themselves, at least personally, I suspect that SJ numbers are far overrepresented and NP numbers far underrepresented, to start out with.

I do applaud the effort put into application and calculation in the OP.

6. Originally Posted by skylights
How many others out there have gotten results they later realized were not a good fit? I imagine many.
I agree, in fact I would say it is the majority. The most prolific result I received early on was INTJ and as far as I can tell I most definitely did not answer in a manner pertaining to thinking, or introverted intuition. After reading various descriptions of the type I ruled it out completely.

Some of the descriptions were flattering, but that in itself was a warning bell to me and I couldn't bring myself to to buy into a self-delusion, (even though I am sure I lie and delude myself all the time in other areas), of that nature.

7. I think it's much more common for sensors to think they're intuitive than the other way around. N-types are a pretty obvious minority based on observation.

8. Originally Posted by Stansmith
I think it's much more common for sensors to think they're intuitive than the other way around. N-types are a pretty obvious minority based on observation.
Of course. People into this theory aren't usually given a decent incentive for identifying as a sensing type.

9. Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety
Of course. People into this theory aren't usually given a decent incentive for identifying as a sensing type.
It's unfortunate that people's egos get in the way of true self-discovery.

10. Originally Posted by Infinite Bubble
It's unfortunate that people's egos get in the way of true self-discovery.
I agree, even while I acknowledge my own hypocrisy and guilt of that same crime.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•