TrueHeart
New member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 85
- MBTI Type
- INFP
How can that sort of claim be verified without... well... you know... testing?There are more ESFPs than ISTJs, at least. It's the whole test bias thing.
How can that sort of claim be verified without... well... you know... testing?There are more ESFPs than ISTJs, at least. It's the whole test bias thing.
Hey! You should make him one of those posters!entropie: Master of Qualifiers.
Apparently, the results will always be found in-credible by someone.Is there any credible study pertaining to how much of the world's population is a certain type? The most common and less common type? That kind of thing.
Apparently, the results will always be found in-credible by someone.
Why do you want to know?
Jack Flak said:There are more ESFPs than ISTJs, at least. It's the whole test bias thing.
Did you notice the link ptgatsby posted?Just curious as to what is the most common type, less common type etc...
Did you notice the link ptgatsby posted?
Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org
Barron and Tieger only address the American population:
@ 75% are Extraverted
@75% are Sensors
50-50 split on T-F however
..........@ 2/3 men prefer T
..........@ 2/3 women prefer F
50-50 split on J-P with no difference between the sexes
Until we can randomly select a few thousand people in the world (or in a country, if you're just interested in that), and then somehow get all of them to take the test, we're not going to know.
Percentages of Type according to Barron-Tieger, Do What You Are
ENFJ ....5
INFJ .....1
ENFP ...5
INFP ....1
ENTJ ....5
INTJ .....1
ENTP... 5
INTP .....1
ESTJ ....13
ISTJ ......6
ESFJ ....13
ISFJ ......6
ESTP ....13
ISTP ......6
ESFP ....13
ISFP ......6
Where all of these ESFP's?
I see SJ's everywhere I go!!!
I don't know if you are in college or not but a lot of the people who try to act all "SP-ish" are simply SJs trying to fit in.
For instance.. last year, I had a roommate who is very outgoing and enjoys the partying scene.
From a superficial perspective, he may seem like an ESTP.
However, he is very organized, structured, and hardworking on the weekdays- he hates messes and often was annoyed at me for not cleaning my side of the room. Everything else says that he is actually an ESTJ, not an ESTP. If Rationals and/or Idealists were running things, you would see a lot of Guardians trying to act like them too... The college partying scene demands Se- living for the moment.
On a side note, I thought Ne would work just as well for the scene- it doesn't.
Observation of the real world.Where are you drawing info to say that, then?
Oh really? That's interesting that there should be such a wide discrepancy.I believe different sources have different definitions for introversion/extraverstion, or at least they have different criteria for where they draw the line between the two. That is why in some studies E/I is roughly 50/50 and in some it is 75/25.
And?Uh.... take a look at those numbers for a sec...
I've posted it elsewhere on the board. In short, because people who take the Official MBTI are more likely to be taking the test for someone else than themselves. Such as an employer. When I B.S. my way through an interview, it's generally through my acting SJ.
There are more ESFPs than ISTJs, at least. It's the whole test bias thing.
Oh really? That's interesting that there should be such a wide discrepancy.
Until we can randomly select a few thousand people in the world (or in a country, if you're just interested in that), and then somehow get all of them to take the test, we're not going to know.
I guess I'm confused as to how this would be done. I know of some different methods through which you could randomly select people, but how do you get all of them to take the test? If you just grab some guy off the street, and ask him to take the test, there's a good chance he won't. (Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here.)Although I mentioned this before, this has been done. The tests were validated using random sampling.
And?
I don't know why you added the numbers together. They were already split into 16 types. I don't see what the problem is.This is what your numbers actually say:
IN - 4
EN - 20
IS - 24
ES - 52
To split those numbers into 16 types is completely misleading, unless you actually want to make the argument that by chance all INs, ENs, ISs, and ESs have the exact same distribution in our population, which is negligibly likely.