What are the most and least common MBTI types?

[OrangeAppled]

There's a lot of contradicting statistics out there, and you have to wonder how they gather the data. I think there's a lot of mis-typing going on too. People mis-type themselves and others a lot.
I thought for a long time I was an INTP, and now the idea seems ridiculous.

Anyway, I can believe that INFJs are rare. I have a hard time believing that ISTJ is the most common, even if very common. I think extroverts out number introverts; I don't buy the almost 50-50 thing. I can say that whatever type is the most common must be the kind I don't click with .

As an INFP, I certainly have gone through life feeling like an alien. It is sooo rare to meet people who "get" me. I realize that INs probably all experience this, just because of our passive & abstract communication styles, and the way it may actually keep us from engaging in conversation with similar people.

 

[Quinlan]

I think extroverts out number introverts; I don't buy the almost 50-50 thing. I can say that whatever type is the most common must be the kind I don't click with .

Although when you think about it, extraverts by their very nature should be far more noticeable than introverts. It probably seems like there are more because their "energy" is always coming at you.

 

[NewEra]

There's a lot of contradicting statistics out there, and you have to wonder how they gather the data. I think there's a lot of mis-typing going on too. People mis-type themselves and others a lot.
I thought for a long time I was an INTP, and now the idea seems ridiculous.

Anyway, I can believe that INFJs are rare. I have a hard time believing that ISTJ is the most common, even if very common. I think extroverts out number introverts; I don't buy the almost 50-50 thing. I can say that whatever type is the most common must be the kind I don't click with .

As an INFP, I certainly have gone through life feeling like an alien. It is sooo rare to meet people who "get" me. I realize that INs probably all experience this, just because of our passive & abstract communication styles, and the way it may actually keep us from engaging in conversation with similar people.

I think part of it is some people unknowingly fake being extroverted just to be comfortable in a particular setting. They are introverts at heart, they can just fake it better than others. Also, what Quinlan said, that in general, extroverts are more noticeable than introverts. I hear that in England, there are a lot more introverts proportionally than in the U.S.

 

[garbage]

Trying these two ideas together..

I think part of it is some people unknowingly fake being extroverted just to be comfortable in a particular setting. They are introverts at heart, they can just fake it better than others. Also, what Quinlan said, that in general, extroverts are more noticeable than introverts.

I hear that in England, there are a lot more introverts proportionally than in the U.S.

.. perhaps England has let go of the fact that extroversion is to be greatly valued over introversion and those in the U.S. are still forced to "fake" it.

But then I guess I'd expect ESTJ to be the most common type since those seem to be the most valued traits, but that doesn't appear to be the case..

 

[juggernaut]

Judging by the responses so far, it does appear that female ENTJs are somewhat less common than many other types. I'm sort of a wimpy E, with very strong Te and Ti functions followed by a fairly strong Ne. The middle of the road N in my signature seems to be the result of a non-existent Ni rather than a leaning in the S direction. This is, apparently, an unusual female profile. I don't like confrontation, but I have no problem letting someone know when I find his/her reasoning inconsistent. This approach has led to the general impression that I'm something of a ball buster. I don't actually feel any need to bust balls or lead in any way (supposedly common ENTJ traits), but I have very little patience with flawed logic or sloppy justification. Again this is, according to Kiersey and others, not a personality type seen very frequently in females.

My eight function test came out as follows:
-**************** Te
-**************** Ti
-************ Ne
-********* Si
-******** Fi
-*** Se
-* Fe
- Ni

 

[OrangeAppled]

Although when you think about it, extraverts by their very nature should be far more noticeable than introverts. It probably seems like there are more because their "energy" is always coming at you.

I guess that is true. They are more noticeable.

 

[/DG/]

ISTJ - 11.6% |ISFJ - 13.8% |INFJ - 1.5% |INTJ - 2.1%
ISTP - 5.4% |ISFP - 8.8% |INFP - 4.3% |INTP - 3.3%
ESTP - 4.3% |ESFP - 8.5% |ENFP - 8.1% |ENTP - 3.2%
ESTJ - 8.7% |ESFJ - 12.3% |ENFJ - 2.4% |ENTJ - 1.8%

I find it hard to believe that there are that many introverts versus extroverts. But I suppose Quinlan is right.

 

[the state i am in]

so if i'm a male infj and i start dating a female intj, does that mean i win?

 

[juggernaut]

Not sure anyone ever truly "wins" with an xNTJ female...mwuhahaha!

 

[Paisley]

It doesn't work because it exists, it exists because it works.

If that mix of "types" worked better for one genetic group of people than another group with a different mix, then the first's groups chance of survival would be higher, and then that pattern of types would be refined and amplified after each successful generation of the first group.

If you see order in nature it exists because order provided some sort of advantage over chaos. If that mix of types didn't work or remained chaotic, it would have proved unfit long ago and it wouldn't be evident for us to talk about it now.

I suppose.

It exists because it works, assumes we have a say? What say do you have on being one MBTI type over another really? You're definitely going to lean one way over another.

Your answer presupposes an untruth and really doesn't answer "why". All you've said, is, "It is because it is", essentially. Your answer presupposes that it wasn't always so. There's no scientific evidence for completely contrary frequencies ever existing.

As well it doesn't answer why it should be so, over those other possibilities. Those others wouldn't on account of what? That we just don't know? We are always in the best possible state? That's definitely not necessarily so. You'd have to presuppose chaos, and what evidence is there of that? My point is that the evolutionist is starting with chaos, and then somehow, magically, it turns into order. ?? What is the scientific mechanism that introduces the occurrences to decide the best fit and what is the scientific mechanism that allows the best fit to be chosen? If the starting block is chaos, than oblivion is what should exist, not order. From nothing something came? Given the mathematical improbability and the lack of a fossil record actually showing all the failed attempts, you'd have to assume that evolution got it right almost at the first go around. That out of nothing, things work out, to me is a bigger leap than God.

I suppose.

 

[Quinlan]

It exists because it works, assumes we have a say?

No, nature has a say and it will select whatever psychological mix that provided the best survival rates.

What say do you have on being one MBTI type over another really? You're definitely going to lean one way over another.

I think we all have an innate type.

Your answer presupposes an untruth and really doesn't answer "why". All you've said, is, "It is because it is", essentially. Your answer presupposes that it wasn't always so. There's no scientific evidence for completely contrary frequencies ever existing.

I assume that our ancestors were not as psychologically refined as we are now, I'm not saying it came out of nowhere just that along our development (over very long periods of time) there has been a natural trial and error going on and that the most optimal mix survives better than the rest and therefore overtakes and dominates the species.

As well it doesn't answer why it should be so, over those other possibilities.

Perhaps it provides just the right mix of stablility (SJ), focus (SP), change (NF) and planning (NT) that led to communities where population growth and sustainability could be nutured, these communities would be the most successful, would dominate the others mixes and make the rest obsolete.

Those others wouldn't on account of what? That we just don't know? We are always in the best possible state?

It's just irrelevent, if another mix had been more successful perhaps Myers & Briggs would have wrote up one that one.

That's definitely not necessarily so. You'd have to presuppose chaos, and what evidence is there of that? My point is that the evolutionist is starting with chaos, and then somehow, magically, it turns into order. ?? What is the scientific mechanism that introduces the occurrences to decide the best fit and what is the scientific mechanism that allows the best fit to be chosen? If the starting block is chaos, than oblivion is what should exist, not order.

The universe is not chaotic, it has laws. All you need to suppose is that:

• Things that increase survival will last
• Things that hinder survival won't last (obsolescence/extinction)
• That mix increased survival

From nothing something came?

It didn't come from nothing, it came from huge amounts of time + near constant change + survival of the fittest. All those things make up a refining process that creates the complex living world around us.

Given the mathematical improbability and the lack of a fossil record actually showing all the failed attempts, you'd have to assume that evolution got it right almost at the first go around.

No you don't, it probably took millions of years of refinement.

That out of nothing, things work out, to me is a bigger leap than God.

I suppose.

If things hadn't worked out you and I wouldn't be sitting here typing away right now, just think of it, near infinite possibilities + truly massive amounts of time = anything can happen.

 

[Paisley]

Then how does nature have a say? That's the why I'm getting at. If it came from huge amounts of time and near constant change, why do we not see evidence for this in the fossil record over millions of years? The evidence, statistically speaking if we were to survive, should be absolutely overwhelming in the fossil record, with a near limitless amount of transitory species that didn't work out. Even punctuated equilibrium presupposes a whole step, rather than a slight step. Yet my science question remains, why does it start from imperfection in the first place, and what scientifically causes it to change for the better. We're talking about near perfection out of an anything can happen. Doesn't answer why it began happening or why it changes for the better in the first place instead of oblivion. Just as you are not surprised that you exist under such a worldview, does not negate that I am surprised that I do exist under such a worldview. I am of the inclination that under an evolutionary worldview that some agency was tampering with nature, not nature following it's own role, as it seems like a stacked deck. The anything can happen, is just too highly highly improbable mathematically as well as historically, to be truthful. As well, it doesn't explain the why it should exist in the first place. Why nature somehow chooses to leap forward, rather than digress into oblivion. Like I said, highly improbable.

 

[Quinlan]

Then how does nature have a say? That's the why I'm getting at. If it came from huge amounts of time and near constant change, why do we not see evidence for this in the fossil record over millions of years?

Well how many fossils do you want? A full record of every species and every genetic variation on that species? Fossils don't come about all that often, conditions have to be right for preservation. We are lucky we have any record at all, we can only assume for the fossils we do have and fill the gaps with common sense, I can see the similarities between Lemur and Monkey and Ape and Man, I can see how that might be part of a larger chain of development from simple to advanced.

The evidence, statistically speaking if we were to survive, should be absolutely overwhelming in the fossil record, with a near limitless amount of transitory species that didn't work out.

Well if the species didn't work out, they're hardly going to be numerous, the fittest species will be more successful and will leave much more fossils.

Even punctuated equilibrium presupposes a whole step, rather than a slight step. Yet my science question remains, why does it start from imperfection in the first place, and what scientifically causes it to change for the better.

The cause is the laws of the universe. Don't you agree with these?

# Things that increase survival will last
# Things that hinder survival won't last (obsolescence/extinction)

Things that are successful will multiply and be evident, things that are unsuccessful will die out and not be evident.

We're talking about near perfection out of an anything can happen.

How do you define perfection? There is always room for improvement and what might be perfect for today's conditions may be useless for tomorrows'.

Doesn't answer why it began happening or why it changes for the better in the first place instead of oblivion.

The universe has laws, it is not chaotic, nature adheres to those laws and from that base comes structure and complexity. Whether or not god made those laws is irrelevant, he is not necessary to explain our psychology.

I am of the inclination that under an evolutionary worldview that some agency was tampering with nature, not nature following it's own role, as it seems like a stacked deck.

Stacked deck?

The anything can happen, is just too highly highly improbable mathematically as well as historically, to be truthful.

Well then I think you're underestimating the amount of time and the amount of variation between generations that has occurred. The closer you get to infinity the more probable that anything could occur is, I suppose if you think the universe was created 4000 years ago then all this would be very improbable. I happen to think the universe has been around an incomprehensibly long time.

As well, it doesn't explain the why it should exist in the first place. Why nature somehow chooses to leap forward, rather than digress into oblivion. Like I said, highly improbable.

"Forward" doesn't exist for nature, it is a concept that man applies to what he sees. If you want something to be evident in nature what matters most is that it works (survives), complex life obviously works pretty well. Somewhere in the mists of time a cell was formed, that cell multiplied, from there whatever was successful was passed on, what wasn't was not.

 

[The Outsider]

The anything can happen, is just too highly highly improbable mathematically as well as historically, to be truthful. As well, it doesn't explain the why it should exist in the first place. Why nature somehow chooses to leap forward, rather than digress into oblivion. Like I said, highly improbable.

The low probability argument is meaningless. That's just how the universe works.

Take a shuffled deck of cards, deal them out into 5 stacks and remember the exact order in each deck. You can spend the rest of your life dealing the cards out and you'll never get the same order in all the decks.
Nevertheless, the first time around, you did.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

Most uncommon FNJ/NTJ, most common esxj.

Guardian types are the most common, upholding the traditions and construct of nations, while sps are less common forms of sensors, usually found in the form of being the lazy ass bums in the family or the drunken uncles, or the cool ass uncle who is a adrenaline junkie flying choppers, owning a cool car and what not.

ENFP/ENTP's seem to be the most common amongst the inuitives types, based on what ive observed.

 

[simulatedworld]

There's a lot of contradicting statistics out there, and you have to wonder how they gather the data. I think there's a lot of mis-typing going on too. People mis-type themselves and others a lot.
I thought for a long time I was an INTP, and now the idea seems ridiculous.

Anyway, I can believe that INFJs are rare. I have a hard time believing that ISTJ is the most common, even if very common. I think extroverts out number introverts; I don't buy the almost 50-50 thing. I can say that whatever type is the most common must be the kind I don't click with .

As an INFP, I certainly have gone through life feeling like an alien. It is sooo rare to meet people who "get" me. I realize that INs probably all experience this, just because of our passive & abstract communication styles, and the way it may actually keep us from engaging in conversation with similar people.

It's even rarer to meet an INFP who understands that s/he doesn't "get" everyone else, either.

Not sure anyone ever truly "wins" with an xNTJ female...mwuhahaha!

Don't they know who the fuck you are??

 

[527468]

Sensing types, common!? Wow, you guys will believe anything you hear on the internet.

 

[Eagle]

You guys are going to make Disney's head spin...

 

[/DG/]

You guys are going to make Disney's head spin...

 

[Paisley]

"Forward" doesn't exist for nature, it is a concept that man applies to what he sees. If you want something to be evident in nature what matters most is that it works (survives), complex life obviously works pretty well. Somewhere in the mists of time a cell was formed, that cell multiplied, from there whatever was successful was passed on, what wasn't was not.

So time doesn't exist? That's all I mean by forward. One event preceding the next. Ok, so you think time doesn't exist, that's nice.

The chances of just an amino acid forming, never mind a cell, is impossible, forming a cell and that cell forming more ordered cells out of disorder is impossible. From what we've learned about the cell in recent history we know it's unbelievably complex. The cell to us, is like the Saturn 5 rocket to Darwin. All the working parts put together unbelievably well, is not just improbable, it's impossible. It's science fiction, not science! You can believe that hypothesis if you want, but it's totally unprovable and there lies no evidence for that initial occurence in history actually happening with no set of plausible scientific explanations to explain how it could actually happen. I've heard a lot of science fiction like it forming on the backs of crystals, but there's no proof for anything, it's just conjecture. You take it as fact, and logical people take it as the weak foundation of an entire theory.

Make you wonder why new forms of life don't pop into existence with such a theory.