[Traditional Enneagram] Forum Statistics - % of Enneagram Types

[highlander]

Here are a couple more. Sample sizes are very small.

 

[highlander]

A couple more

 

[highlander]

 

[acronach]

I've always thought the percentage of 3s would be far greater within the population. Quite surprising they appear the lowest.

no, they just post the most because they're 3s

United States
Types Three, Six, and Seven

SO MUCH TRUTH TO THISSSSSSSSSS

also, wouldn't it be funny if all the "everyone in the new generation has ADD" people were just noticing all the 7s and not knowing what to think of it?

 

[Oaky]

no, they just post the most because they're 3s

I was referring to the population. Not the forums.

 

[Oaky]

And by observation, threes do not post the most within the forums.

 

[highlander]

I made some adjustments to the chart in the OP, improving the way I was pulling the numbers to make them more accurate. It's consistent with they way I've been pulling all those detailed charts for each MBTI type. There were some slight changes in the overall results.

- The difference between 2s in the overall population and those in the forum is even more dramatic - there are 5x the number of 2s in the overall population as compared to the forum
- Now, there are slightly more 7s and 9s than 6s
- Number of 6s on the forum has almost doubled - growing from from 6% 10%
- The number of 1s and 8s on the forum are far less than those in the overall population at large; we are as much underrepresented with these two types as we are for the 9s.

 

[SilkRoad]

As everyone knows by now, I think a lot of people are 6s who are mistyping as someone else. I am pretty sure that not all the 4s and 5s on this forum are 4s and 5s (not saying they are all 6s!).

6 received extremely negative "publicity" here at least, for quite some time. Lots of comments like "all 6s are terrified and haunted", and "you can't be an INFJ if you are a 6." There are "fashions" on this forum like there are anywhere. It was very unfashionable for some time to be typed as a 6. People seem to be moving on from that but I think 6s are still under-represented, especially as they're apparently the most common type in the world.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

On the contrary. It seems like the forum is as 6-obsessed now as it used to be INFJ-obsessed...

 

[SilkRoad]

On the contrary. It seems like the forum is as 6-obsessed now as it used to be INFJ-obsessed...

That certainly was not the case before, and you've definitely been here long enough to remember all the anti-6.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I didn't pay much attention to enneagram stuff before.

 

[highlander]

As everyone knows by now, I think a lot of people are 6s who are mistyping as someone else. I am pretty sure that not all the 4s and 5s on this forum are 4s and 5s (not saying they are all 6s!).

6 received extremely negative "publicity" here at least, for quite some time. Lots of comments like "all 6s are terrified and haunted", and "you can't be an INFJ if you are a 6." There are "fashions" on this forum like there are anywhere. It was very unfashionable for some time to be typed as a 6. People seem to be moving on from that but I think 6s are still under-represented, especially as they're apparently the most common type in the world.

Re bolded - I recall hearing that somewhere, but the RHETI statistics do not match that. They show 9>4>2>7>5>6. There are twice as many 9s as there are 6s.

I was one of those mis-typed people for a while. Tests kept coming up as 8, which was wrong. I wasn't biased towards any type of Enneagram because I knew almost nothing about Enneagram at the beginning.

 

[highlander]

On the contrary. It seems like the forum is as 6-obsessed now as it used to be INFJ-obsessed...

I don't know where you are getting this from.

 

[SilkRoad]

Re bolded - I recall hearing that somewhere, but the RHETI statistics do not match that. They 9>4>2>7>5>6. There are twice as many 9s as there are 6s.

I was one of those mis-typed people for a while. Tests kept coming up as 8, which was wrong. I wasn't biased towards any type of Enneagram because I knew almost nothing about Enneagram at the beginning.

TBH I feel like everything about enneagram is too vague (maybe that should extend to typology in general!). I've seen it indicated in many places that 6 is the most common type as it can readily apply to any MBTI type. But then, I haven't seen the RHETI statistics you refer to.

I knew almost nothing about MBTI before I tested as INFJ and almost nothing about enneagram before I figured out I was probably 6. Which in a way is a good way to approach it because you don't have anything invested in certain outcomes. I was confused with the 6 result at first as I thought as an INFJ I was "supposed" to be 4 and I could figure out quickly I wasn't. And I did think the 6 descriptions were rather negative but it made too much sense for me.

It just doesn't help a lot when people are throwing around comments like "6 is the worst type" or "why would anyone want to be a 6" or whatever. And there used to be a lot of that. I think the relative interest in 6 at the moment has a lot to do with the percentages going up. The fashion will probably turn in some other direction again.

 

[Randomnity]

Re bolded - I recall hearing that somewhere, but the RHETI statistics do not match that. They 9>4>2>7>5>6. There are twice as many 9s as there are 6s.

It should be pointed out that the Rheti stats come from people taking the test at their website in 1998 rather than a representative sampling of the population in 2012 ("Note that the type distribution shown reflects the personality type of people on the Net as well as that of people who find the test interesting enough to take it.").

It may show the same trend, of course, but shouldn't be automatically assumed to be the same as global population trends. I don't know of a better source for the latter either, though.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I don't know where you are getting this from.

Okay.

 

[highlander]

It should be pointed out that the Rheti stats come from people taking the test at their website in 1998 rather than a representative sampling of the population in 2012 ("Note that the type distribution shown reflects the personality type of people on the Net as well as that of people who find the test interesting enough to take it.").

It may show the same trend, of course, but shouldn't be automatically assumed to be the same as global population trends. I don't know of a better source for the latter either, though.

The only other thing I found was this:

http://www.9types.com/writeup/enneagram_marriages.html

There is a table at the bottom of the page that has some statistics for males vs. females for each type. If we make a leap in logic that there are the same number of males as females, you do get that there are more 6s than the other types (except 9s).

Type: Females Males Total
1 15% 13% 14%
2 20% 4% 12%
3 5% 6% 6%
4 12% 6% 9%
5 4% 15% 10%
6 16% 13% 15%
7 8% 8% 8%
8 7% 17% 12%
9 14% 19% 17%

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I think the difference between general population stats and those on the Rheti page would be interesting in itself. (And I too remember hearing that e6 is the most common but I can’t remember where.)

I thought I’d seen estimates for general population somewhere, but can’t find any just now. Even the page highlander linked has a disclaimer on how it based on the self reporting of couples who sought therapy (?, that’s what I gather). I skimmed through both Riso books and the Helen Palmer book and there’s no mention (that’s easy to find, anyway) of stats. If I come across something, I’ll come back and post it.

Nice stats and presentations highlander

Very interesting!

Yeah, nice thread idea [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION].

 

[highlander]

I think the difference between general population stats and those on the Rheti page would be interesting in itself. (And I too remember hearing that e6 is the most common but I can’t remember where.)

I thought I’d seen estimates for general population somewhere, but can’t find any just now. Even the page highlander linked has a disclaimer on how it based on the self reporting of couples who sought therapy (?, that’s what I gather). I skimmed through both Riso books and the Helen Palmer book and there’s no mention (that’s easy to find, anyway) of stats. If I come across something, I’ll come back and post it.
[/MENTION].

I tried using those numbers from Enneagram Monthly and here is how it comes out. I wonder if couples seeking therapy would be a different distribution than the overall population at large. Maybe. I think an ESTJ for example would be more unlikely to go for such a thing than other types.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Actually, the mean average (for men and women) according to that link (where it seems to be based on self reporting from couples seeking counseling) is exactly the same as the chart you just made. [eta: ...which seems odd to me because that means an accurate representation from all types went to seek counseling? I'm probably misunderstanding something here. But anyway, the numbers from Enneagram Monthly are apparently the same.]