Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 42

Thread: Type Distribution

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Type Distribution

    Okay, what are your opininons on type distributions?

    Do you think that Sensory types are more prevalent then Intuitive types?

    More male Logical types then male Ethical types, more female Ethical types then female Logical types?

    (The rest of this post has been edited for gayness.)
    ENTp

  2. #2
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree. I think the practical consideration is that with no official type statistics, we must assume that they are equally distributed. Besides, there are so many people who are one type but act nothing like their fellow members of the same type.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  3. #3
    heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,722
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    we also have to consider that these statistics may never exist(due to the lack of popularity/practicality of the subject matter). Anyway, if they did, they would only further common gender/cultural stereotypes. So why bother?
    asd

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  5. #5
    heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,722
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what do you plan to gain besides convincing a bunch of people on the internet that you truly know the truth about other people? Come on, go pick an instrument or do something that gets you attention from the opposite sex.
    asd

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  7. #7
    heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,722
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i wasn't insulting you, or insinuating i was cooler, I was attempting to tell you about the useless nature of your search. I mean, i still respond to posts that ask about who i am, so i am only helping you.
    asd

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NiFe
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Type Distribution

    =)

  10. #10
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I express extreme cynicism and doubt towards the possibility of finding a data set that accurately represents society as a whole, as the means by which to type individuals are few and inefficient, and as such renders the process of achieving such data, so as long as the scarcity of efficient typing methods persist, useless.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  12. #12

    Default

    Mystic is really good at that. God, he always has to explain what I'm thinking to people.

  13. #13
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The typing methods used to type others are inefficient at best, and hence renders the possibility of determing the distribution of type across a populace useless.

    Any better?
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  14. #14
    Creepy-

    Default

    I heard that F vs. T was something like 40-60 for males and 60-40 for females.

    I'm not sure where that came from, or the accuracy of it, but I certainly like it better than "females are F/males are T".

    I don't know about S vs. N, but I think sensors tend to play with other sensors, and intuitives with other intuitives, so if you survey a group a sensor is playing with, chances are you'll get a majority of sensors (funnily enough). As an intuitive, I don't think I'm rare, just misunderstood (although being misunderstood probably comes more from being an introverted irrational than anything else, if it is at all type related).

    I don't know if there is a majority of extroverts, but they certainly make themselves more noticeable. I think any statistics here might be misleading because people have different opinions about what E/I actually is, so someone else's statistics about I/E might be completely irrelevant to socionists.

    From my own observations of people's movement, there would seem to be far more rationals than irrationals, i.e. there are far more many people who move mechanically compared to those who move fluidly. I keep a healthy skepticism about my observations.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The problem with socionics is that you have to force yourself to fit into a "box".

    That's why it's hard for people to determine their type.

    Why is it that two type descriptions of the same type are different?

    Socionics is far from perfecton.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  17. #17
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ishy
    I don't know if there is a majority of extroverts, but they certainly make themselves more noticeable. I think any statistics here might be misleading because people have different opinions about what E/I actually is, so someone else's statistics about I/E might be completely irrelevant to socionists.
    Very well said here. Perhaps because extroverts are more noticeable, we are inclined to believe they outnumber by far the introverts, a fact which might be untrue. I do think extroverts are predominant, but at the same type I don't believe the classical 75-25 ratio. That's just a safe way to address the question, because of the reasons mentioned, inexistence of an effective method. Anyway, just a speculation on my part.
    But again those numbers are suspiciously too rounded to believe they express exactly the reality. To give an example why not 29.33 % introverts and 70.67 % extroverts ? Isn't statistics a field which operates with mathematical exactity? Anyone who knows statistics can say and please do. Something I cannot understand why must we accept to be stuffed on the throat those numbers if they are not accurate at all. It's useless and doesn't do good to nobody.


    On the other hand, most people don't even know if they are I or E, and that's the bitter reality. If people did know at least that - to know themselves, nothing more - and were at least acquianted with the purpose of completing the questionnaires and whatever they are asked to do, I think it's obvious the methods would render a much much more accurate result (in terms of corresponding to reality).
    Perhaps not the current methods are flawed, perhaps people need to be better informed, that's what I'm saying. Also if people knew themselves, what they are. who they are, they would be more confident about the answers they are giving to those questionnaires.
    In such ample sociological investigations, it is strictly neccesary that the method used and people with good intentions to rally and thus to arrive at an accurate and , for sure, interesting result.

  18. #18
    Creepy-

    Default

    Even if people were aware of their introversion or extroversion, you couldn't always rely on what they say they are because of social-desirability bias. "Introversion" is generally considered a "bad" trait which needs to be "fixed" (except perhaps to those introverts who consider themselves "superior" due to their introversion).

    It's amazing the number of people who say "I used to be introverted"...

  19. #19
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Among 28 people I know well and whose types I listed here:

    http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...r=asc&start=75

    I counted

    21 sensors, 7 intuitives - so 25% intuitive, 75% sensors
    12 thinkers, 16 feelers - 43% thinkers, 57% feelers
    12 irrationals, 16 rationals - 43% irrationals, 57% rationals

    Among the 21 people at work about whose type I have a good idea (none of whom are in the sample above), I counted

    1 ENFj
    1 ENFp
    1 INFp
    1 INFj
    2 ENTj

    So among 21 people, 6 intuitives, that is 29%.

    From my experience so far I have little doubt that sensors outnumber intuitives by a very significant margin.

    Off the top of my head, the types I seem to know most examples of IRL are:

    ISTj, ISFj, ESFp, ESFj

    Types I seem to meet most seldom are

    ENFj, INTp, INTj, ENTj
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    250
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe it also depends on what your niche is. If you work in engineering, you will surely encounter types that would not be found in other areas, such as the fine arts.

  21. #21
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcanum
    Maybe it also depends on what your niche is. If you work in engineering, you will surely encounter types that would not be found in other areas, such as the fine arts.
    Well maybe, but in engineering I should supposedly meet the most INTjs, INTps and ENTjs, but I meet them very seldom.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    250
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    how about INFJs?...

  23. #23
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    INFjs seem to be in the middle; I don't identify them as often as ESFps, ESFjs, ISTjs and ISFjs, but neither as seldom as INTjs, INTps, ENTjs and ENFjs.

    The IT consultant where I work is INFj. I also know one PhD chemist, one chemical engineer, and one environmentalist. They're not too common but not as rare as INTps, for instance, in my experience.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    250
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What is an IT consultant? I could see myself being a chemist.

  25. #25
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcanum
    What is an IT consultant? I could see myself being a chemist.
    IT = Information Technology
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    250
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks. Just curious: was it something obvious?

  27. #27
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcanum
    Thanks. Just curious: was it something obvious?
    Why?

    When I didn't know what that meant, it wasn't obvious. Now that I know, yes Just like everything.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    250
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hahaha, no, its that there are times I ask some things that people tell me are obvious. Of course, it involves technical stuff.

  29. #29
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know that intuitives and introverts outnumber their counterparts significantly. Though, the numbers 25% are probably wrong, but just an estimated guess. The real number can be anywhere from 20-40%. I'm always found as strange and ackward by other people like I've never been seen before. This is how I feel like my personality type isn't that high in number, if it was then surely people would look at my behaviour and say, "I know around 5 people that exactly like you", but I rarely get that.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    250
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The only way to obtain an accurate type distribution would be by actually counting in my opinion. It would be an interesting thing to do, though it is something very difficult... ok, probably impossible.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Think Again

    The issue of type distribution is puzzling partly because it is quite difficult to get a statistically representative sample. People tend to segregate themselves according to their interests and capabilities into mini-enviroments where some types are often heavily overrepresented and may create an atmosphere that attracts some types and repels others. It is also quite possible that different countries could have noticeably differing frequencies of the sixteen types.

    Typically I would say that people tend to think that their types are quite rare, whereas the types that are different from them and poorly compatible with them are terribly common. Typing people of your own type can be quite particularly challenging since it is easy to see how others are different from you, but often difficult to realize that even people whom you can barely understand could, nevertheless, share your type. Thus the constant complaint: I am so unique, no one understands me. etc...

    In my humble opinion, based on my observations in Finland, intuitive types seem to be almost as common as sensing types, and introverts roughly as common as extroverts, although often a Finnish extrovert may appear more quiet and subdued than an American or Italian introvert; cultural norms etc. Many intuive people may also be rather hard to recognize since they seem to have hidden their intuition quite well.... I wrote about this issue over a year ago.

    oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?p=653#653
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  32. #32
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting CuriousSoul, MBTI does seem to be a load of trash. Though how do you guys know that socionics is not a load of trash? When it comes to personal experience, the types that I see the most are ESFP and ESTP. All the other types are pretty random, but I do think ENFPs are common.

    I have two cousins that I think are ENFPs, so that made me think that they aren't that unique. I am still different from them, I find myself arguing with my cousin on a matter we completely disagreed with on perception.. However, we do agree on issues that concern ethics.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  33. #33
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Think Again

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    The issue of type distribution is puzzling partly because it is quite difficult to get a statistically representative sample.
    Of course, but if enough people would do micro-samplings of people they know well, the accumulated evidence could point in the right direction, even whilst remaining imprecise.

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    People tend to segregate themselves according to their interests and capabilities into mini-enviroments where some types are often heavily overrepresented and may create an atmosphere that attracts some types and repels others.
    Could be. In my own case, I used people who are also family, family friends, etc, with whom I have little in common in terms of interests and capabilities. But I'm not sure how much of that is true anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    Typically I would say that people tend to think that their types are quite rare, whereas the types that are different from them and poorly compatible with them are terribly common. Typing people of your own type can be quite particularly challenging since it is easy to see how others are different from you, but often difficult to realize that even people whom you can barely understand could, nevertheless, share your type. Thus the constant complaint: I am so unique, no one understands me. etc...
    No, I disagree with that. I think that people whose types are very common have less incentive to get interested in socionics in the first place. That is the reason. Unless I know nothing about typing and profiles are meaningless, I can assure you that ENTjs, ENFjs, INTps and INTjs are very rare.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  34. #34
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused
    When it comes to personal experience, the types that I see the most are ESFP and ESTP. All the other types are pretty random, but I do think ENFPs are common.
    Actually, I don't really see all that many people of my type. A lot of people that are ISTj or ENTp seem to get mistaken for ESTps, simply because both of them can seem loud and with a lack of . I don't find any more ESFps and ESTps than any other type out there.
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  35. #35
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kraus
    Quote Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused
    When it comes to personal experience, the types that I see the most are ESFP and ESTP. All the other types are pretty random, but I do think ENFPs are common.
    Actually, I don't really see all that many people of my type. A lot of people that are ISTj or ENTp seem to get mistaken for ESTps, simply because both of them can seem loud and with a lack of . I don't find any more ESFps and ESTps than any other type out there.
    Yeah, your probably right. I think those with strong stand out more than other types giving the illusion that there are more of them. I wonder what is the most dominant type. There was a site that seemed to be giving percentages for each type and ESTp got 12% and INFP got like 1%. I think that site was probably giving imaginary percentages.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  36. #36
    Creepy-

    Default

    Going by my personal experience... from most common to least common:

    Delta
    Alpha, Gamma
    Beta

    I'm not saying Betas are rare... Alpha and Gamma are really only above Beta because of the ESFjs and ESFps. They're everywhere! (but not as everywhere as Delta)

    ESTj, ENFp
    ESFj, ESFp
    INFj, ISTp
    INTj, INTp
    ISFj
    ESTp, INFp, ENTj
    ENTp, ISTj
    ISFp
    ENFj

    What's with the Deltas???

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    I express extreme cynicism and doubt towards the possibility of finding a data set that accurately represents society as a whole, as the means by which to type individuals are few and inefficient, and as such renders the process of achieving such data, so as long as the scarcity of efficient typing methods persist, useless.
    Not to mention that, even within Socionics itself, people will often come out at odds as to the characteristics of any given type. An INTj to one Socionist, is INFj to another.

  38. #38
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ishysquishy
    Going by my personal experience... from most common to least common:

    ---

    ESTj, ENFp
    ESFj, ESFp
    INFj, ISTp
    I can agree with that, I also meet those types fairly often.


    Quote Originally Posted by ishysquishy

    ---
    INTj, INTp
    ISFj
    ESTp, INFp, ENTj
    ENTp, ISTj
    ISFp
    ENFj
    Interesting that we both rarely meet ENFjs.

    The biggest differences between your experience and mine is in meeting ISTjs and ISFps more seldom than INTjs and INTps -- or even than ENTjs; I almost never meet another ENTj IRL, but I meet ISTjs very often.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default My Take

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Of course, but if enough people would do micro-samplings of people they know well, the accumulated evidence could point in the right direction, even whilst remaining imprecise.

    Could be. In my own case, I used people who are also family, family friends, etc, with whom I have little in common in terms of interests and capabilities. But I'm not sure how much of that is true anyway.
    But the point is exactly that you do not choose your friends randomly - even when you are not aware of any conscious choices in the first place, and the same goes largely for family as well, choice of spouse is self-evident; but one cannot be careful enough in choosing one's parents... There was an article on www.socionics.org about a study that tried to look for correlations between parents' and children's types. The only clear correlation seemed to be that dual to mother and identical to father were statistically significantly more common than expected from chance. Of course as long as typing is not foolproof any such studies are basically just educated guesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    No, I disagree with that. I think that people whose types are very common have less incentive to get interested in socionics in the first place. That is the reason. Unless I know nothing about typing and profiles are meaningless, I can assure you that ENTjs, ENFjs, INTps and INTjs are very rare.
    I guess we shall have to agree to disagree. As I have recently served six months in the Finnish army and thus had an opportunity to type a fairly well randomized sample of young Finnish males, I can assure you that ENTJs, ENFJs, INTPs and INTJs are not particularly rare, though ESTPs, ISTPs and ESFps appear to be somewhat more common than the above mentioned types. In my opinion the profiles are relatively meaningless. Gradually one just starts to "feel" the types directly. It seems as if there are several "types within types", patterns of resemblance that can at times feel quite eeri.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  40. #40
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ishysquishy
    Going by my personal experience... from most common to least common:

    Delta
    Alpha, Gamma
    Beta

    I'm not saying Betas are rare... Alpha and Gamma are really only above Beta because of the ESFjs and ESFps. They're everywhere! (but not as everywhere as Delta)

    ESTj, ENFp
    ESFj, ESFp
    INFj, ISTp
    INTj, INTp
    ISFj
    ESTp, INFp, ENTj
    ENTp, ISTj
    ISFp
    ENFj

    What's with the Deltas???
    It's funny how confident people are when identifying people as types in the environment around them, but how confused they are about themselves or people in this forum. I wonder how many people we mistype when we meet them.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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