# Thread: Population and MBTI

1. ## Population and MBTI

I don't know who the heck "Jimmy" is in this link, but he calculates percentages of the population based on MBTI. He says he uses Kiersey as a reference. If this is correct then for every one INxx there should be on average six ISxx.

INTP, INTJ, INFP, INFJ = 1&#37; each
ENTP, ENTJ, ENFP, ENFJ - 5% each
ISTP, ISTJ, ISFP, ISFJ = 7%, 6%, 5%, 6%
ESTP, ESTJ, ESFP, ESFJ = 13% each

If anyone has any other data or links concerning population percentages and MBTI, post them here. Also, if there is evidence to refute any of the info, be sure to include that as well.

MBTI Population Percentage Thing

2. Argh. :steam:

The problem is, I've seen so many places that claim to give population breakdowns, and none of them agree, nor can they provide a very convincing verification.

The most troubling question is I vs E.
Different places seem to hold completely different opinions on that one.
To me, it certainly seems like I's are less common, but I suppose it's possible that they are just harder to detect.

3. E's only seem more numerous because they get out of the house more and tend to travel in packs. Don't look an E directly in the eye, because they can sense fear.

4. Heh, this I or E being easier or harder to be recognized is funny and irrelevant. The method by which the numbers are chosen do not depend on observation, but a combination of definition and measurement.

If you make a theory that 50&#37; are I and 50% are E, then you'll just say that the upper half of population on the I-E spectrum are E, and other I. If you want another ratio, you just define it as you wish.

Then there's subgroups, like countries in Europe. You could define europeans as having 50% I/50% E on the whole, and then you could find significant results on some subgroups, perhaps based on country of living. Then you could say that 70% of finns are I, and the statement would actually hold some significance.

Psychometric measurements are just as good to find an I as they are to find an E. It's just a score and a placement on a scale. It's up to anyone to draw the line between borderline E and borderline I.

Also, one thing. Different researchers and publishers seem to have just decided to go for a certain ratio on the dichotomys, without revealing their logic. So then you have one set of statistics with a 25:75 S:N ratio, and another with 50:50 ratio. People seem to choose their own standards at will, without regard to comparability, verifiability or interoperability between the standards. No-one seems to care.

That's the downfall of this popular psychology topic of interest.

5. MBTI is a bit special though, because of function theory, you don’t need to draw an arbitrary line along an I-E continuum. An introvert is simply a person whose dominant function is introverted, while an extrovert is a person whose dominant function is extroverted.

6. Originally Posted by Splittet
MBTI is a bit special though, because of function theory, you don't need to draw an arbitrary line along an I-E continuum. An introvert is simply a person whose dominant function is introverted, while an extrovert is a person whose dominant function is extroverted.
As Splittet said, MBTI is special in this regard since it doesn't force any particular distribution.

However, at the same time, that means that the phrasing/etc can determine where the divide actually is... and of course, the thing to remember is that while it does polarise the answers (I-E), the actual answers tend to be very close to a normal distribution. The only one that isn't is the S/N divide.

#### 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