Equal distribution assumption

[misutii]

I find it's relatively difficult for me to make confident assumptions on type distribution for a couple of reasons:

1) Certain types stand out more than others increasing the likely hood of you noticing them i.e. extroverts and ethical types

2) Certain types are under-represented in almost any kind of social setting - i.e. Introverts

For these reasons the best I can do is try to remember high school. High school I think would be a solid place to look for type distributions because it's mandatory (at least in Ontario) so all types should be there in whatever distribution they are in society as a whole. However, even then, distribution would not be equal in all classes. In woodshop from what I remember there were mostly sensory types, perhaps sensory introverts being most represented.

I think sensory types as a whole outnumbered intuitive types. My high school was pretty small (900 students maybe, with five grades) and so in my grade there would be about 130ish people. I don't have my yearbook near me at the moment or else I could try to VI and remember lol.

I'll have to think about it, in the meantime though if any of you have a good memory what was the type distribution (by your own estimation) of your high school graduating class?

[Phaedrus]

I'm skeptical that anyone has enough reliable data to make any assumptions about the overall distribution of types.

You shouldn't be. We have an enormous amount of statistical data to draw conclusions from. It is an indisputable proven fact that the types are unequally distributed. We know that sensory types are in the majority. We know that men are more likely to be logical types than women. We know that some types are much more common than others. To be skeptical of these facts is utterly stupid behaviour.

[Joy]

Even putting the fact that those are MBTT statistics aside, there's no way to know how accurate the information used in those statistics is (in other words, no way to know if those people had been accurately typed).

Of course men are going to generally appear (and test) less "feelery" than not. That doesn't make them logical types.

As far as whether there are more sensory types than intuitive types, it's quite possible. I doubt it's a dramatic difference though (as in, I tend to doubt that more than 60% or possibly 65% of people are sensory types).

I think the comment about Gamma being under represented is interesting, too, because I've noticed the same... I've wondered though if it isn't just a matter of Gammas not standing out to me the way a lot of other types do. (It's usually differences in quadra values that I notice, so if someone has the same quadra values I may not even think about what type they could be.) The exception, of course, is SEE's. There are plenty of those around.

So anyways, based on what I've observed, the overall distribution of clubs is as follows: ST/SF > NF > NT.

Does it seem like there are more irrational types than rational types? There seem to be fewer EJ's and IJ's than EP's and IP's among the people I know. That could just be a perception based on my noting irrationality more than rationality though, similar to what I said about quadra values.

Bleh. Anyways, it doesn't really matter to me how common types are. There's no way to KNOW, and even if there was it wouldn't really make a difference. (If there was a way to KNOW, I would be more curious though.)

[tcaudilllg]

What reason is there to believe type a matter of dominant or recessive traits? It seems to me a 50/50 chance per dichotomy, and a 1:16 chance for personality dominance per IM element. Now I do believe having irregular function pairs is a recessive trait, because the sociopathic population segment is small in comparison to the non-sociopathic fragment (about 6% or so according to experts). I don't think any real principle can be presented now which argues for a non-even type distribution.

I should warn that if people operate on stereotypical definitions of types like we tended to have at this forum a few years ago, then there will be a lot of mistypings going on. ENTps are not all inventors, and not all INTjs are masterminds. (even though all ENTps seem to be capable of appreciating how something was made, and all INTjs can apprehend the reasoning behind a (preconceptualized) logical conclusion).

[Phaedrus]

Even putting the fact that those are MBTT statistics aside, there's no way to know how accurate the information used in those statistics is (in other words, no way to know if those people had been accurately typed).

That you are unable to understand simple statistics is a remarkable phenomenon. Hardly what one would expect from an ENTj. But if you can't comprehend statistical facts, you can't comprehend statistica facts.

Of course men are going to generally appear (and test) less "feelery" than not. That doesn't make them logical types.

Men not only appear less "feelery" than women, they are also measured to be less "feelery". We know that a typical man's brain is different from a typical woman's brain, and one tested and indisputably existing difference is the difference that is captured in the T/F dichotomy, which is the same in both Socionics, MBTT, and the Five Factor Theory. It is totally impossible that men are not more logical (T) in general than women. It is an empirical fact that you just have to accept.

As far as whether there are more sensory types than intuitive types, it's quite possible.

It is not only possible, it is a proven fact. This is not an issue that is open for debate. You just have to accept the facts.

So anyways, based on what I've observed, the overall distribution of clubs is as follows: ST/SF > NF > NT.

People's personal observations about the distribution of the types are totally irrelevant and totally unreliable. We should pay no attention at all to people's experiences here. The only relevant thing is observations on a larger scale, and to do those we need test results. And we already have such test results.

Does it seem like there are more irrational types than rational types? There seem to be fewer EJ's and IJ's than EP's and IP's among the people I know. That could just be a perception based on my noting irrationality more than rationality though, similar to what I said about quadra values.

That's nothing but a totally irrelevant personal observation that has no value. Whatever you happen to observe in your own surroundings can be the result of pure chance.

Bleh. Anyways, it doesn't really matter to me how common types are. There's no way to KNOW, and even if there was it wouldn't really make a difference. (If there was a way to KNOW, I would be more curious though.)

You incompetent fool. Knowledge in these matters is very easily obtained -- at least for some people.

[Joy]

You should strongly assert that you're correct some more. And that your concept of what is accurate (and what is not) is infallible. Make sure you use a lot of absolutes.

[Logos]

You should strongly assert that you're correct some more. And that your concept of what is accurate (and what is not) is infallible. Make sure you use a lot of absolutes.

[Joy]

If MBTI testing correlates with MBTI descriptions, and there is correlation when socionists and the general public compare sets of MBTI and socionics descriptions (as has been demonstrated on Lytov's site)

I'm rather skeptical about the accuracy of the typings, tbh.

It's interesting that you see a lot of LIE's. I have wondered if my identicals may stand out to me the least of all types. I can only think of a handful that I've known though.

[Joy]

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.famo.ru%2Flitovi.php& sl=ru&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl...GALsZzrMMN6gSA

[Joy]

I don't know about the distributions... my point was more related to the convergence between type lists of professional Socionists.

btw, Loytov's test showed that I was clearly ILE.

[Joy]

Okay... so the difference here is that I put more weight on quadra values and you put more weight on the E/I, S/N, T/F, P/J dichotomies...

[Phaedrus]

Okay... so the difference here is that I put more weight on quadra values and you put more weight on the E/I, S/N, T/F, P/J dichotomies...

Lytov's test, as well as most other socionic tests, tries to determine the four dichotomies, because that is the most reliable method to use if we want to find a person's correct type. Going by quadra is a much less reliable typing method, and that has also been confirmed by evaluations of various typing methods.

[Joy]

Lytov's test, as well as most other socionic tests, tries to determine the four dichotomies, because that is the most reliable method to use if we want to find a person's correct type. Going by quadra is a much less reliable typing method, and that has also been confirmed by evaluations of various typing methods.

So I'm ILE again? Sweet. Look out Alpha, here I come!