What is the most common type?

[mimisor]

We know what are the official statistics on this topic. Let's make our own statistics, this time not based on results of the tests, as claimed, but on your day to day experience. And we know how tests only can be misleading.

Answer the question as follows:

"What type do YOU find as most common in your everyday experience?"

imo, types tend to be equally distributed, but then some types seem to outnumber the others, not by far, but they certainly do. And i'd like to find out which ones. Answer the question and then we'll make a ranking.




note* I used the type ordering as showed on the 16types.info site

[Rocky]

ESFj. Anyone that can't see this is blind.

[jessica129]

and it's a shame, too

[mimisor]

I voted for ESTj. Somehow I can find more ESTjs than any other type. But i want to see more opinions.


I'll post here the official statistics, though it's MBTI. I see the link has been removed, but i saved that page, luckily.

MBTI™ Statistics '98
The figures below are from a random sampling of 3009 people culled from a total pool of 16,000 using the 1998 MBTI™ Form M. The individuals whose form results were used in this random sampling were not provided with the data to verify or question their accuracy. But these numbers do provide a working base on which to build further understanding and development of the model as extraplated to larger populations.

At Toronto's 1998 Ontario Association for the Application of Personality Type Conference, "Growing with Type," Danielle Poirier gave an excellent presentation on the then-new MBTI™ Form M and manual, for those who may be interested in researching more background information for these figures. These MBTI™ statistics are from the psych-type list, circa 1998.

M - Males, F - Females, T - Totals

Breakdown by Type

ISTJ
M - 16.4%
F - 6.9%
T - 11.6%

ISFJ
M - 8.1%
F - 19.4%
T - 13.8%

INFJ
M - 1.3%
F - 1.6%
T - 1.46%

INTJ
M - 3.3%
F - 0.8%
T - 2.1%

ISTP
M - 8.5%
F - 2.4%
T - 5.4%

ISFP
M - 7.6%
F - 9.9%
T - 8.8%

INFP
M - 4.1%
F - 4.6
T - 4.4%

INTP
M - 4.8%
F - 1.8%
T - 3.3%

ESTP
M - 5.6%
F - 3.0%
T - 4.3%

ESFP
M - 6.9%
F - 10.1%
T - 8.5%

ENFP
M - 6.4%
F - 9.7%
T - 8.1%

ENTP
M - 4.0%
F - 2.4%
T - 3.2%

ESTJ
M - 11.2%
F - 6.3%
T - 8.7%

ESFJ
M - 7.5%
F - 16.9%
T - 12.3%

ENFJ
M - 1.6%
F - 3.3%
T - 2.5%

ENTJ
M - 2.7%
F - 0.9%
T - 1.8%

The modal type (the largest group) for males in this sampling is ISTJ. For females, the modal type is ISFJ. ISFJ is the largest type group overall, in this sampling. Male INFJs and female INTJs are the smallest groups by gender within this population, with INFJ the rarest overall type.

Breakdown by preferences:

Preference
Males
Females
Total

E
45.9%
52.5%
49.3%

I
54.1%
47.5%
50.7%

S
71.7%
74.9%
73.3%

N
28.3%
25.1%
26.7%

T
56.5%
24.5%
40.2%

F
43.5%
75.5%
59.8%

J
52.0%
56.2%
54.1%

P
48.0%
43.8%
45.9%


This would indicate that the E-I split is close to 50-50.
The S-N is close to 75-25.
The T-F is close to 40-60.
The J-P is close to 55-45.

There is some speculation that the general male T preference (just over 50% of all males) and female F preference (75%),
reflects skewing due to societal pressures to conform to established gender roles.

Breakdown by Temperament

Temperament
Males
Females
Total

SJ
43.1%
49.5%
46.4%

SP
28.6%
25.3%
27.0%

NF
19.4%
18.5%
16.4%

NT
8.9%
6.7%
10.3%



Breakdown by Function Pairs

Function pair
Males
Females
Total

ST
41.7%
18.5%
29.9%

SF
30.0%
56.3%
43.4%

NF
19.4%
18.5%
16.4%

NT
8.9%
6.7%
10.3%



That INFJ turns out as the rarest type is unsurprising.
But it is surprising that among women and men combined, there is an overall preference for F, not T.


--------

I tend not to believe INFj as least common type.

[mimisor]

blahh, mbti statistics are bullshit.

I know that. They serve as a base for discussion, though.

[Raver]

Interesting, I made my own topic in the past that forum members participated and produced their own samples of their types. It turned out to have less biased results than MBTI and I was pleased with the results. Intuitive and sensory people were balanced unlike the MBTI statistics that were provided. Perhaps, more can participate in order to produce more accurate results or not.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3300

[Rocky]

blahh, mbti statistics are bullshit.

I know that. They serve as a base for discussion, though.

No they don't, except to point out how stupid and useless they are.

At least I can agree with that.

I wouldn't be surprised if these statistics were severly skewed (I mean, fuck, how could half of the population be Introverts?).

Even MBTI people calim that these tests are %50-70 wrong, so there can be some huge problems with their statistics.

[Rocky]

It's more like 80:20, in favor of S. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, it's just the way it is.

I don't think it's that large of a difference.

[Raver]

It's more like 80:20, in favor of S. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, it's just the way it is.

I don't think it's that large of a difference.

Yeah, I think there are more sensors, but it isn't really substantial. Probably like 65:35 if I had to guess and I'm sure there are more extraverts as well.

[Rocky]

It's more like 80:20, in favor of S. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, it's just the way it is.

I don't think it's that large of a difference.

Yeah, I think there are more sensors, but it isn't really substantial. Probably like 65:35 if I had to guess and I think it applies to introverts as well.

Those numbers are more believable.


But, the whole concept of this is laughable to begin with. To claim to know the workings of everyone's cognition on the level of billions, without there being a reliable method for testing, nor an acceptance on between people on what is actually what, and so many different interpretaions of observable behavior, it's unbelievable... and probably even immature.

Besides, who gives a fuck?

[discojoe]

Too bad no one knows what the most common type is.

[Raver]

It's more like 80:20, in favor of S. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, it's just the way it is.

I don't think it's that large of a difference.

Yeah, I think there are more sensors, but it isn't really substantial. Probably like 65:35 if I had to guess and I think it applies to introverts as well.

Those numbers are more believable.


But, the whole concept of this is laughable to begin with. To claim to know the workings of everyone's cognition on the level of billions, without there being a reliable method for testing, nor an acceptance on between people on what is actually what, and so many different interpretaions of observable behavior, it's unbelievable... and probably even immature.

Besides, who gives a fuck?

I agree, I was actually thinking about that as well. I wonder what they method they used to guess those people's types in the first place. It's hard enough for people that are knowledgable about socionics to type themselves. In the future, the only reliable method would be to type with brain scans.

[discojoe]

Besides, who gives a fuck?

It's interesting to think about. And useful for anticipating what kind of interaction levels to expect with people.

Only if your day-to-day samples are any indication of how the types are distributed.

[Expat]

Only if your day-to-day samples are any indication of how the types are distributed.

Of course, but this is the best sampling we can make.

Apart from that -- it seems obvious to me that we live in a sensor-focused world.

[FDG]

Here, ISFj probably.

[mimisor]

Interesting, I made my own topic in the past that forum members participated and produced their own samples of their types. It turned out to have less biased results than MBTI and I was pleased with the results. Intuitive and sensory people were balanced unlike the MBTI statistics that were provided. Perhaps, more can participate in order to produce more accurate results or not.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3300

Interesting your experiment, Traveler. Though it would have been more interesting if you got more people to participate.

I had the same idea in mind with this thread. So it is preferable that more people to vote. The more the votes, the more accurate the result can turn

[Joy]

It's tempting to vote for ESTp... but I'm pretty sure that the only reason there seems to be more of them than any other type is because it's soooooo obvious that they're ESTp. There are prolly as many ESFjs or ENFps, they just don't stand out as much (to me at least)

[Raver]

Interesting, I made my own topic in the past that forum members participated and produced their own samples of their types. It turned out to have less biased results than MBTI and I was pleased with the results. Intuitive and sensory people were balanced unlike the MBTI statistics that were provided. Perhaps, more can participate in order to produce more accurate results or not.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3300

Interesting your experiment, Traveler. Though it would have been more interesting if you got more people to participate.

I had the same idea in mind with this thread. So it is preferable that more people to vote. The more the votes, the more accurate the result can turn

Thanks, I agree that the more the statistics increase, the more likely unbiased and accurate results will arise.

[discojoe]

Only if your day-to-day samples are any indication of how the types are distributed.

Of course, but this is the best sampling we can make.

Apart from that -- it seems obvious to me that we live in a sensor-focused world.

If you know your best sampling is crap, why make it?

[Joy]

for some reason, even when they're acting professional, they just stand out to me

[oyburger]

for some reason, even when they're acting professional, they just stand out to me

Yep, I can spot them a mile away it seems.

[mimisor]

It's tempting to vote for ESTp... but I'm pretty sure that the only reason there seems to be more of them than any other type is because it's soooooo obvious that they're ESTp. There are prolly as many ESFjs or ENFps, they just don't stand out as much (to me at least)

Yeah, you're right. It happens the same with me. I encounter no difficulty whatsoever when identifyng ESTps. It's a very recognizable type to anyone. But so are ENFjs, at least to me, though i hardly ever met one in reality (only one, or maybe two, if i think about it).

[Joy]

I think Beta is easiest to type... ESTps, then ENFjs, then INFps, then ISTjs.

then INTjs, then the alpha SFs

[Mastermind]

blahh, mbti statistics are bullshit.

I agree.