are some types more common than others?

[d1ffe7]

probably rather hard to prove either way, but do you believe that certain types are more common and certain types are rare, or that any of the types makes up about 1/16 of the population?

might have been discussed before, but I didn't know how to search for it.

[rat1]

E, S, J types are mort common in MBTI. INxJ types are the rarest in MBTI

[silverchris9]

the Moon is an uncommon Type.

Honestly, that's an interesting question. What if you're the type whose dual is uncommon? Sucks for you.

Maritsa would say some types are uncommon. Ones that aren't her dual primarily. Or SEE. She had a thing for SEEs.

[Jarno]

probably rather hard to prove either way, but do you believe that certain types are more common and certain types are rare, or that any of the types makes up about 1/16 of the population?

might have been discussed before, but I didn't know how to search for it.

MBTI and Keirsey, have done several surveys.

ESFJ was the most common female type.
ISTJ was the most common male type.

From my own experience:
I would say that I've met very few SLE, LII, ILE, SLI and ILI women.
I've also met very few EIE and ESI males.
The most common women type in my country is IEE. No ideas about male type.

[yellow82]

I think I once saw a study that came out saying that around 75% of women were F's and that 75% of all men were T's. . . it could explain why we have the whole mindset of men and women being so different in their feeling attributes in our society, men being seen as colder, women being seen as more gushy-feely. . . just a thought.

[ashlesha]

not that this is proof of anything, but i think it was funny how when my psych 101 class took the mbti test roughly half the group scored ESFJ. two of us got INFJ, we ended up becoming friends..she was an extremely obvious IEI. i remember only one girl scored INFP. anyway, probably meaningless anecdote.

it would suck if some types were really rare. aren't there russian studies on this or something?

[DirectorAbbie]

They types who are more common in real life are often more common online.

[d1ffe7]

yeah, it definitely seems like most women are ethical/men logical. it doesn't seem to me like there should be more sensors than intuitives. maybe I just know a lot of N types, or don't notices S types as much. that's kind of why I asked I suppose, just because there have to be several people of each type that I interact with daily without realizing it.

silverchris, the Moon?

They types who are more common in real life are often more common online.

what do you mean?

[golden]

I really don't think that any particular type is more or less common in general. Regarding men and women being mostly logical and ethical respectively, I have not noted this.

What I have seen is a tendency to mistype men as logical when they are ethical, and women as ethical when they are logical.

Just because someone has emotion doesn't mean they are automatically an ethical type. For example, the five or six Beta ST men and women I know very well probably all think of themselves as emotional (and they certainly can be), but they still have Se and Ti in the ego block, not Fe or Fi.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but oh, well.

[Pa3s]

Yes, in my opinion, the types are differently distrubuted. I've read it before somewhere, I but think these tendencies make sense:

E vs. I - more or less equally, there could be a few more extroverts
S vs. N - considerably more sensors
F vs. N - the only dichotomy with actual differences between the genders: about 2/3 males are thinkers, and 2/3 females are feelers
j vs. p - equally afaik

...that means NF types are pretty scarce for males, like NT types for women.

[DirectorAbbie]

what do you mean?

Whenever I type someone, I write it down. I have the most ESEs, SEEs, and IEEs. But on this forum, ESEs and SEEs are very rare.

[Ezra]

My girlfriend and I were discussing where the hell ILIs are. They seem to be few and far between. I suggested they're hibernating indoors. It's just a fact of their character that they're not interested in going out and socialising. Either that, or they're at work. And then you go to a party, and it seems to be populated solely by Alphas and Betas.

But I think if you look close enough, and take your environment (and potentially even age e.g. is a teenaged SLI going to be clubbing hard?) into consideration, then it's clear that the types are equally balanced.

[Jarno]

Whenever I type someone, I write it down.

LSE - 'The administrator' :-)

[Slacker]

I really don't think that any particular type is more or less common in general. Regarding men and women being mostly logical and ethical respectively, I have not noted this.

What I have seen is a tendency to mistype men as logical when they are ethical, and women as ethical when they are logical.

Just because someone has emotion doesn't mean they are automatically an ethical type. For example, the five or six Beta ST men and women I know very well probably all think of themselves as emotional (and they certainly can be), but they still have Se and Ti in the ego block, not Fe or Fi.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but oh, well.

I agree 100%. I think people are mistyped in predictable ways more than that types are uncommon or usually one gender.

[glam]

I really don't think that any particular type is more or less common in general. . . .

What I have seen is a tendency to mistype men as logical when they are ethical, and women as ethical when they are logical.

agree, and not just that, i think bad stereotypes and misunderstandings perpetuate mistypings in a way that will skew the distribution.

for instance, even if it's arrogant to say so - no offense to the people of this forum, but i can't and don't believe at least half of you when you claim your mom is ESE.

[Slacker]

agree, and not just that, i think bad stereotypes and misunderstandings perpetuate mistypings in a way that will skew the distribution.

for instance, even if it's arrogant to say so - no offense to the people of this forum, but i can't and don't believe at least half of you when you claim your mom is ESE.

OMG another thing I agree with 100%!

[Lotus]

lol glam

[Ezra]

for instance, even if it's arrogant to say so - no offense to the people of this forum, but i can't and don't believe at least half of you when you claim your mom is ESE.

lol +2

I used to be genuinely unsure of whether my mum was ESE or IEE, until I realised all the reasons I thought she was ESE were actually because she was being a mum. When you get to her core, she's clearly an IEE.

[Pa3s]

for instance, even if it's arrogant to say so - no offense to the people of this forum, but i can't and don't believe at least half of you when you claim your mom is ESE.

Yes, this is true. I also think ISTj is a good "dad type" in general. But still, even if there are slightly different distributions, I think it would be weird if every type had about 6,25% statistically.

[Slacker]

I don't think they're necessarily exactly or even almost the same percentages, but I bet it's more random than people think and close to the same percentages. I bet there are as many male ESEs as female even here, and they're all typed as ILE or SLE or EIE or something because they don't think they can possibly be ESEs being virile young men or whatever. Except cracka who refuses to accept that stereotype and yay to cracka for that. And boo to autocorrect for changing cracka to cracks.

[Lotus]

I bet there are as many male ESEs as female even here, and they're all typed as ILE or SLE or EIE or something because they don't think they can possibly be ESEs being virile young men or whatever. Except cracka who refuses to accept that stereotype and yay to cracka for that. And boo to autocorrect for changing cracka to cracks.

yeaaaaa

[1981slater]

In Spain, the most common type among females is SEE, whereas most guys are SLE.

[Ezra]

I don't think they're necessarily exactly or even almost the same percentages, but I bet it's more random than people think and close to the same percentages. I bet there are as many male ESEs as female even here, and they're all typed as ILE or SLE or EIE or something because they don't think they can possibly be ESEs being virile young men or whatever. Except cracka who refuses to accept that stereotype and yay to cracka for that.

I remember B&D saying to me "you're not a real man like cracka".

And boo to autocorrect for changing cracka to cracks.

lol wut You have autocorrect on your computer?

[Slacker]

I got an iPad. It also autocorrects iPad, and autocorrect. Lol.

[Krig the Viking]

Whenever I type someone, I write it down. I have the most ESEs, SEEs, and IEEs. But on this forum, ESEs and SEEs are very rare.

Types like ESE, SEE, and IEE probably seem more common due to the fact that they're much more socially active than most types. ExFx types know more people, so more people are likely to know an ExFx.

Overall, though, I think more study needs to be done on this subject before anyone can say for sure. Most studies in this field are based on MBTI, and probably don't correlate directly with Socionics. My own general impression is that the types are fairly evenly distributed, but individual locales may have uneven populations due to cultural reasons (not many Betas are going to want to live in a town with a strong Delta culture, for example). The same goes for social circles, etc.

[Ezra]

I got an iPad. It also autocorrects iPad, and autocorrect. Lol.

uberlol. iPads are a "nice toy" agreed?

[Slacker]

uberlol. iPads are a "nice toy" agreed?

Yes, it's awesome.

[Pookie]

i agree with most of the analysis on this thread.

I think certain types are easier to spot, specifically because of the relativity of that type to your own.
For instance - Esfp's and Entp's are very easy for me to spot. They're on my wavelength and do shit that makes me comfortable in one way or another.

But i couldnt name one Entj/Estj that's in any of my circles of friends. Not one. I think they're there, i just couldn't identify them for the life of me.


Sidenote - An infp friend of mine made a poll on her facebook with a socionics test(Sociotype.com/tests) and the individual socionics results. The results were astounding - easily 90% of about 200 people tested as either Infp or Intj. Not one tested as either Estp or Estj. I don't know if it has to do more with younger people not knowing themselves well or what, but the results amazed me.

[Galen]

The world is 30% Alpha, 30% Beta, 30% Delta, and 10% Gamma because I never see any gammas anywhere.


But seriously, I'd imagine that type is probably more evenly distributed than not.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Anyone feel like some dedicated counting?

http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo_xl_last99.html

And even then, the results from a brief test probably won't be reliable enough for us to say, and I'd imagine certain types would be more drawn towards the internet, and towards Socionics.

[silke]

In MBTI what corresponds to Ni-egos are most rare of all types (EIE, LIE, ILI, IEI, roughly 1-2% of population each) and the Si-egos are most prevalent (SLI, SEI, ESE, LSE - roughly 8-12% of population each). The rarest are said to be female ILIs and male IEIs. Roughly 70% of population are sensing types, 60% ethical/feeling types, 60% dynamic/judging types and extraversion-introversion scale is close to 50:50. On MBTI forums that trend seems to be reversed with most prevalent types being INxx ones.

In my personal experience female ILIs and LIIs are exceedingly rare and I've met only one female LIE so far. I've had luck meeting several male EIEs who are supposed to be quite rare too.

[rat1]

I dont know why we have people assuming the types are evenly distributed when MBTI evidence suggests otherwise.

[munenori2]

I wouldn't say the types are evenly distributed, because I can't really think of any particular mechanism that would drive and maintain that kind of equity. That said, I don't think it's as bad as MBTI presents type distribution. There's definitely some diagnostic issues as far as typing people. For example, I haven't noticed the predominantly T-male/F-female observation. Granted, I don't tend to type people I meet unless I get to know them pretty well or a type jumps out at me, but of the types I wind up feeling fairly sure about the T:F ratio is pretty even between the sexes.

[717495]

I imagine the distribution of type is equitable.

I agree, there seems to be enough evidence to show this.

I dont know why we have people assuming the types are evenly distributed when MBTI evidence suggests otherwise.

Even here we have once Ns that retype as S in Socionics, then go to retype S in MBTI. (iow MBTI Ns on a personality forum who aren't N in Socionics. Having different dichotomies is very common since they don't mean the same things in MBTI.) That's no evidence, just some dichotomy tests from a different system that confuse the type issue here.

[woofwoofl]

I expect:

- the S to N ratio to be at about 2 to 1 currently, which would be a narrower gap than in the 50s, but wider than it will become

- the online world to be more concentrated with Is and Ns in general (especially the forum-y, depth-y places, and not so much the web 2.0 loaded places) than in the whole world

- the S to N ratio in the online world to, over time, continue weighing further and further in favor of Ss in the future due to the changing atmosphere of the online world

- my urge to make a chart/graph of this all to overpower me sooner or later and to add to my insomnia, I was gonna post something word style with the E and the I but the line graphs are calling me aarrgg

[aestrivex]

I agree, there seems to be enough evidence to show this.

what evidence? do you even understand what the word evidence means? every word in this thread is utter conjecture. except for the roughly three people who referenced statistics of questionable relevance that they vaguely remembered seeing at one time.

[consentingadult]

I haven't counted, but just taking a bike ride through my hometown of Amsterdam, makes you bump into all types. I wouldn't be surprised if types are pretty much evenly distributed.

One important observation though: In a city like Amsterdam some neighborhoods seem to show concentrations of certain quadras in their inhabitants. You can even see it in parks on sunny days: where one park is 'dominated' by Gammas and Betas, another one might be more dominated by Alphas and Deltas. Of course, also has to do with social stratification and related phenomenon.

[717495]

I haven't counted, but just taking a bike ride through my hometown of Amsterdam, makes you bump into all types. I wouldn't be surprised if types are pretty much evenly distributed.

Yes, exactly. It's not indefinite proof, but its more evidence than MBTI studies.

Heh, bike ride in Amsterdam. I didn't know you lived there, very cool. Is it true that people don't watch out for tourists and just run them over?

[Ezra]

10% Gamma because I never see any gammas anywhere.

That's because Gammas are out in the real world working (not being antagonistic! )

[yellow82]

I'm curious, I think we should all mention who we've typed, and what types they are, then do a poll on that. (It would make for a cool study anyways. )

I know:

6 LII-H's
2 LII-C's
1 LII-D
1 LII-N
2 LII's (unsure of their subtype)
3 ESE-C's
2 ESE-N's
3 SEI-H's
1 SEI-C
2 SEE-C's
1 SEE-N
3 ISFj's. . . (I think one is an H the other two C's. . . not sure though.)
2 ENTp-C's
2 EII-H's
2 ESTj-C's
1 ESTj-N
1 INTp-H
1 INTp-C
1 EIE-H
2 EIE-C's
2 ISTjs (unsure of their subtypes)
1 INFp-N
1 INFp-H
1 ENFp-N
1 ENFp-C
1 ENFp-H
1 ISTp-C

Other then that, I am unsure of everyone elses type. . . I'm working on nailing everyone's I know, but that's going to take me a while.