When I have time I'll add my own experience.
According to your experience, what types/quadras seem least common and most common
When I have time I'll add my own experience.
I cannot answer this, but I can answer in MY life, I run a lot into alphas and deltas, in different aspects of life. Much of those I intellectually associate with seem to be the former rather than the latter. I think I COULD associate with gammas more, but it happens pretty clearly that I share interests with alphas.
The least ran into would be betas, though I know some.
Depends a lot on where you are. Here on the internet you find mostly INxx types (especially INTx), but take a walk outside and you will find far more ESxx types. The exact setting matters a lot too. You will find a lot of alpha SFs working in health care and customer service positions, Beta STs in the military/police force, Delta NFs in activist groups and so on. You can get a pretty good of idea of what types your likely to run into given the situation, although total world population wise it might be nearly impossible to say for sure which types are the greatest in number.
They're all about even in the general population. It isn't like MBTI, which assesses people into creating minority groups.
This is pretty much the type of answer i was looking for. I don't expect anybody to be able to answer what types are most/least common overall. I just want to know which types do forum members find they see more of, and from their i can extrapolate ideas/theories. For example, I tend to feel like I run into a lot of Deltas and Beta, while gammas and alphas seem a little less common, especially the NTs. That is just MY experience of course, and it can be just as biased as anyone else. Although I am in the unique situation of being in college and having a pretty large pool of people to observe.Originally Posted by chemical
This is true. I think you actually see even more or maybe just as many Delta STs in the military and local servicemen (firefighters, policemen, etc.). Beta STs seems slightly more varied in their career choices.
See, i don't know how this can really be affirmed at all. I have never seen any *good* study on this. I know filatova (or maybe it was stratievskaya?) tried researching into the distribution of types across the population, but, if i remember correctly, the samples were pretty small and I doubt they were exactly varied or random. Given the lack of real evidence, I don't see why types would be evenly distributed. If types are genetic then I could just as easily see some IEs being more "fit" than others. If type is not genetic then there could also be constraints. For example, I think it's clear that there are more ethical females than logical females and there are more logical males than ethical males. Given that something, whether it is genes or environment (physiology, hormones, personal experience), served as a constraint to produce an uneven distribution across gender then I see no reason as to why there wouldn't be an uneven distribution across the population.
Even so, this post wasn't exactly meant to figure out whether types are evenly distributed or not. While that was something I was interested in. For this post i was more interested in people's perceptions of the types around them (e.g. does everyone say their own type or their own quadra is the least represented).
Last edited by Contra; 12-15-2015 at 03:35 AM.
The same as MBTI does it's. The developers determine the criterion that create the population distributions. Myers-Briggs used assessments that created divisions amongst the general population that caused her own to be rare. These aren't real, concrete things. They create these divisions. One representative of SSS stated that the criterion should be such that the population distributions are even, though I can't say if this is common amongst schools.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but what would be the point of this? There is just some assumption that types should be or are evenly distributed so we determine the criteria of typing that would make it so when tested? That seems completely asinine and actually extremely difficult.
So you can compare apples to apples. Comparing a severe minority to a majority only succeeds at showing that you have highlighted a minority.
Types aren't a real thing. They are a chosen categorization based upon subjective criteria.There is just some assumption that types should be or are evenly distributed
That's what typology is. If 10 people discuss Socionics, and type 20 people unanimously, then they are doing so by their own criterion that may or may not match up with those of any of the Socionics schools, who, themselves, have similarly agreed on criterion. The criterion creates the types. MBTI's criterion created many minorities. At least one Socionics school sees no reason for minorities to exist, when the criterion are based on subjective judgments.so we determine the criteria of typing that would make it so when tested?
More asinine than popularizing a system across an entire hemisphere that highlights your special personality traits?That seems completely asinine and actually extremely difficult.
Ok, sure. I get exactly what you are saying now. And, just to be clear, I don't disagree with the idea of typology as predetermined categories (in many cases abstract associations) attributed to people.
I do wonder though where objectivity and the actual descriptiveness of the typology falls into place? Surely, a typology can be wrong but consistent if it's goal is to describe something that is real (side question: do you see that as socionics' goal?). It seems to me that it's necessary for the typology, rather than to just be a construct of categories derived from abstraction, see: the enneagram, to be describing some sort of real or empirical phenomenon and therefore have certain empirical arguments integrated in the theory. This may just really contravene my "Te" way of thinking, but i fail to see how allowing the goals of the typologist to determine the criteria itself is better than pulling the criteria from the existing phenomena. How can i really describe a causal relation between the information processing of a type and its apparent behavior without looking at the behavior of individuals? In the case of the typologist determining the IM, I'd be altering the sample of people who exemplify a certain behavior rather than adjusting the information to meet the original sample. I'm not extremely well read when it comes to Jung, but this would seem in the opposite spirit of what he was determining. In accordance with him, the IMs would say something very important about the phenomenon itself, and the best way to determine that is in understanding the person first.
What I'm trying to say, (and not saying well), is that I believe that it is completely fine when the goals of the typologist take precedence in determining the criteria of the typology when you are first distinguishing the Elements of Information but once you are attributing the IEs to the behavior and interaction of people it would seem that you'd need to pull data from their behavior.
I'm fairly sleep deprived now and Im not 100% sure i'm making sense or confident in my abilities to make sense of anything.. so if it sounds like I'm repeating the same thing over and over that's why. If there is any relatively in depth reading material on this you could point me too (not in russian) I'd be grateful.
EDIT: So i guess to be more concise, I'm just skeptical about typology's ability to consistently describe reality given the general approach laid out. I've generally understood, typology and specifically socionics, to be a language, but I wonder about this language's ability to be used adequately in order for people to say something that is true about specific groups of people. It's more language than science, which just feels problematic.
Last edited by Contra; 12-15-2015 at 05:25 AM.
You can create categories based upon concrete and objective data, but the number of categories, the criterion to determine placement in the categories, and how much of the data set is present in a category is purely subjective.
As an example, take a 100-count assorted box of colors. Color is concrete and objective. Let's say that you want to split them into three groups. Because you know what "color" is, you could simply base them on a red/yellow/blue color scale, and would (as long as it was a generic box of colors, and not like "Tropical Seas Color Box" or something) most likely have 33 in each and toss the black one to the side.
What you have in terms of MBTI is saying that your 3 categories will be "warm" colors, "cool" colors, and "pinks." The distributions will be way out of balance, because your classifications have ignored the averages.
Although it is easy to say, "yeah, but Intuition is something real and people fall into such, so why in the world would you alter it?" The reality is that the creation of what classifies as "intuition" was entirely a subjective choice.
Back to the colors... Would everyone even consider the same set of colors to be in the "pinks" category? Definitely not. The only way you would even have a correctly sorted set of colors into the warms, cools, and pinks, is if someone or a group of people defined which ones were which, and then compared them against others' "incorrect" sorting.
So, if we go from the extremely abstract Jung usage to the classifications of Jung, who decided the line between Sensing and Intuition compared to reality? Myers-Briggs did. If I am more intuitive than 55% of the population, guess what? I am a sensor. Regardless of if it is based on a test, behaviors observed about me, or how I describe my thoughts, the reality is the same... It is compared to someone's standard for comparison. If I went into the test and replaced things such as "good with seeing the unseen possibilities and forseeing the future" with "good at alternative solutions and considering likely outcomes," how do you think the population distributions would be affected? Both intuition and sensing are valid ways of doing things, yet if you are 60% within Intuition in MBTI, then you are essentially more intuitive than 90% of individuals.
If you look at Socionics, there are those who use behavior, linguistics, and/or V.I. Are these all objective and concrete? Yes. However, the classifications and divisions are still entirely subjectively created. You could randomly choose these, type a population, see large differences in population distributions, repeat it over and over, and confirm that the population distributions are correct. But, what are you really confirming? Your own unconscious bias of people. Your type's group big and your worst enemy's small? Guess what? You think everyone is like you and no one is like your worst enemy. No matter what the groups look like, if the distributions are uneven, they are biased to be such.
No one created the color pink. It would exist with or without humanity. The choice of the word "pink," the specific hue/saturation/whatever of it, and which other similar colors are generally referred to as "pink," however, is entirely a subjective choice.
So, although we can all get together and define categories for classification of objective things, the categories themselves don't actually exist outside of our desire to have such categories.
Going through the various means, though...
Behavior: Behaviors are altered and mimicked every day by every individual to suit both the environment and the environment of others in question. I may be polite as heck around my social circle, but I can promise you that if I went to a high-end establishment during an event of wealthy people, I would most likely be the most crass person there. Had high ethics before, but now everyone there says I am PoLR ethics. For an example from my personal life, someone I am close to yet we are unaffiliated with others from each others lives, is considered to be a moral person amongst their circle, but this is someone whom I consider sociopathic. How does this person's Fi even fit into typology when their social circle considers them moral, and I consider them the antithesis of such?
Linguistics: Varies not only between languages, countries, region, states, cities, specific environment, and family, but also varies simply between one individual's interactions with one person compared to another's. Ten sailors that all appear similar will all end up the same type compared to ten school teachers. Why? Because linguistics is based upon environment. You can classify them as you wish, but it won't show anything other than their current speech patterns and what comparisons they are making between themselves and their environment. It's no different than the behaviors argument.
V.I.: Let's skip behaviors and mannerisms and go straight for physical looks... Well, people get typed... All these people get pictures taken... And... The people of the same type look the same... Doesn't matter if you think typing based upon straight looks is stupid or not. Why? Doesn't matter. It exists. Whether people want to admit such or not, Socionics is objectively based upon straight looks. The creator, an ILE, gave herself having the IE responsible for physical, material properties of objects as her strongest unconscious function. It may be stupid as ****, but Socionics is in reality a typology of what people look like.
Neurological: Everyone has different lives, so if it is based on content of the mind, then you would just be typing people into groups of similar life experiences. If you got strapped in a chair outside and spent your whole life staring at the same thing as someone else (unknowingly), guess what? Same information content. Same type. What about brain biology? Well, we're all human... So, the differences would be negligible. May as well just type people based upon DNA related to the nervous system at this point anyways...
So, going back to the original question: How many of each type and Quadra do people on here see? Same as everyone else: However many they want to think they see.
Last edited by Jeremy8419; 12-15-2015 at 09:55 AM.
i think beta is what i type people the most commonly (i also type my family beta so maybe that's related).
NTs would be the ones i find the least.
(i think this is accurate but i'm finding this difficult bcuz people with stronger personalities or who stood out to me more hold more weight in my head, ie i can only remember a couple people ive typed ESE but they stand out more than the couple people i've typed LSE so it feels like more-- and i'm not going to make a list of all of the people i've typed)
I doubt one'd be able to tell how many people of one quadra they're are most of in the entire world, but since you're asking me from only my life, where I live, and the people I run into, Alphas. Tons and tons of ESE females with the few exceptions of the others, though I can't say I've met a for-sure LII. Lots of male ILE as well.
Second most met are probably Beta, but it's mostly just Beta males, who are all SLE for some odd reason? I've only met, like, one female Beta who was also SLE.
Delta's are rare, but I am aware of an LSE male as well as a female IEE. I think their family may also be Delta, but I'm not so sure about the typings.
As for Gamma, I only know my sibling, who's unsure whether he's LIE or ILI and a classmate, who's most likely SEE.. But he may be SLE.
Basically, Alpha is pretty much 80%, Beta's 10%, Delta's 7% and Gamma's probably 3%, which sucks, just saying.
All personality types are repulsed from me. I am the universal conflictor.
Casually, I seem to run mostly into Alphas, but my father and 2 of my siblings are alpha so maybe I just recognize those types more easily. On that note, I also notice a lot of IEEs but my mom and stepmom are both IEEs so could be related to that.
In my more intimate personal life (people I know well) all quadras seem relatively the same in distribution, with the exception of STs of both quadras - I either don't know many, or can't recognize them as well.
Last edited by epheme; 02-29-2016 at 05:10 AM.
In my life, I encountered mostly Deltas(including my family members. They are all Deltas!).
And the second quadra is Alphas whom I hang around most with.
I have seen a few Gammas in my life, but I've never seen other Betas in my life(except me T.T).
Delta everywhere to be honest.
Most probably there is no difference.
But some types I noticed more than others, for example more beta ST than delta ST. But I type not everyone, and when it's general places without specificity to types - not many of such people were typed with confidence, not enough to say about objective statistics disproportions.
I suppose similarly is with experience of others. To understand the objective situation this needs more than just random personal experience.
Delta st and beta st
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
On the socionics forums, I feel like I'm outnumbered by gammas and betas. Maybe, it's just because gammas and betas assert themselves more strongly due to the valued Se, overpowering the alphas and deltas. The distribution by quadra is probably closer to even in reality.
On socionics forums the types are more closer to even distribution than on MBTI forums, where it's overwhelmingly N. In socionics, N isn't always so great and S has some pluses, whereas in MBTI the S/N descriptions seem more one sided and guess which one is more 'desireable?' More smarter, more creative, 'better' to be? I would say there are still more N types than S types on socionics forums but the spread is far more even. Least common on the forums seem to be ESE and LSE, both which seem to get a bad rap, even on socionics forums. Which is too bad considering ESE is my dual.
In real life, I seem to most frequently run across deltas, followed by alphas, then beta/gamma. It might just be chance, it might be the people I choose to hang out with. I'm much more at ease interacting with Si/Ne valuers considering Se is my PoLR after all. In real life, the socionics types seem fairly evenly distributed with perhaps beta NF and gamma NT being somewhat less common. I also don't seem to encounter all that many LIIs. I seem to run across into lots of SLI, SEI, LSE, ILE, and SEE.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
