Statistics of sociotypes among general population?

[banmeplssssssss]

Socionics is not a well-known phenomenon among the general public like MBTI is (often it is literally handed out by major employers and is even used as a hiring tool, at least here where I live in the USA), so gathering precise data about it is really hard, but I think we can make good assumptions about it, based on observations of people we see in our lives.

I can assume that ethics tends to be much more common in women than men. Logic seems to be more common in men than women, but I have noticed many ethical men. In my experience, ethical men are surprisingly more common and appraised among men (and women) than logical female types. Logical female types tend to be far more alienated from both males and females than ethical men are. Intuition seems to be a mostly useless tactic to survival, but is incredibly vital for a small amount of people to have, due to the fact that our intuition is what distinguishes us from other species, like the ability to create technology and vast interconnected road systems and massive cities, unlike literally any other species ever (but cannot be given to everyone, as sensing types need to practically maintain reality and realistically implement/maintain the intuitive concepts that are coming up, like cars or smartphones or computers for example), so I would say that sensing is far more common than intuition among the general population, and I have noticed this as well, out in public with people I interact with.

From what I can see, growing up, an overwhelming amount of females I have met or seen in my life are SF types. Most guys are ST types, but I have seen a decent amount of SF males running around. I haven't really met with many NF types in real life, I think I can literally count the amount of NFs I have met in person on my fingers; I'm surprised at the lack of NFs I have met. I have met a good amount of fellow NTs in real life, we were good friend, and there were a surprising amount of them, much more than NFs. With regards to rationality vs irrationality, I think that there is a perfect healthy balance between rationals and irrationals in the population, at least from what I've seen. I don't think one is more dominant than the other at all.

My idea
Male: ST > SF > NT > NF
Female: SF > NF = ST > NT

As for the quadras, this is what I'm curious about. What do you think the quadra distribution among the general population would be? I feel that it's pretty equal, with a good balance of Alpha/Gamma SF men and women, and a good balance of Beta/Delta ST men, but I'd still be curious to hear what you've seen in your real life with regards to quadras and temperaments among males and females in the general population!

[AWellArmedCat]

Our own individual guesses are going to be heavily biased by where we live/have lived, what circles we run in, and our typing methodology. I certainly don't type every single person I meet on a day to day basis, and even those who I do type I am constantly questioning whether or not my typing of them is sound. It's a given that the frequency of types in forums like this is heavily biased just because certain types are going to be more drawn to personality stuff than others, but you've also got to remember that even what part of the world/country/city/neighborhood you live in is going to heavily bias you in all likelihood. Some types will just not tend to gravitate to the same places you end up in representative numbers. Everyone on this forum has an internet connection and speaks English, and that's going to muddy things even further. If you find any reliable stats though, then please share them! I am also very curious about type distribution. I just don't know how to determine that with any real confidence.

What I can speak to though is the distribution in my family, which is somewhat large. We're absolutely not a representative sample, but it may be interesting to you in any case. I have ordered us by age

Dad: SEI-Fe
Mom: ESE-Fe
Aunt (lives with us): SLI-Si
Me: IEI-Fe
Younger sister (technically older twin): EII-Fi
Younger sister (technically younger twin): LSE-Si
Younger brother: ILE-Ne
Youngest sister: LIE-Ni

Alpha: 3 ; Beta: 1 ; Gamma: 1 ; Delta: 3

In general most of my life I feel like I have been constantly around Alphas and Deltas, but now that I live next to a military base I know a ton of Betas too. I have the least experience interacting with Gammas

[banmeplssssssss]

Our own individual guesses are going to be heavily biased by where we live/have lived, what circles we run in, and our typing methodology. I certainly don't type every single person I meet on a day to day basis, and even those who I do type I am constantly questioning whether or not my typing of them is sound. It's a given that the frequency of types in forums like this is heavily biased just because certain types are going to be more drawn to personality stuff than others, but you've also got to remember that even what part of the world/country/city/neighborhood you live in is going to heavily bias you in all likelihood. Some types will just not tend to gravitate to the same places you end up in representative numbers. Everyone on this forum has an internet connection and speaks English, and that's going to muddy things even further. If you find any reliable stats though, then please share them! I am also very curious about type distribution. I just don't know how to determine that with any real confidence.

That's a good point, sometimes I forget to account other cultures and places in the data (typical american ignorance lol ), so I can see how the type distribution might be a bit different in other places. Especially here in the states, different areas (rural, city, suburban) can also have different types. From my observations I've noticed that SF/NT types are mostly attracted to bigger cities like LA and NYC (Democratic dichotomy) while I've noticed a lot of ST/NF types over here are really attracted to more rural areas (Aristocratic dichotomy). Most of the ST types I know in person don't actually live in the metro area of where I live, they usually live in a rural area that is super close to the city, and is on city limits, but is on the outskirts of the city. My ST dad lives in a rural area and everytime I go to visit him, I usually just meet other STs. I've met a few SFs there, and I feel like I've met some sort of NFs there, but I have never ever met any NTs over there at all. I think that NTs for the most part do not live in rural areas, or at the least do not enjoy it very much.

What I can speak to though is the distribution in my family, which is somewhat large. We're absolutely not a representative sample, but it may be interesting to you in any case. I have ordered us by age

Dad: SEI-Fe
Mom: ESE-Fe
Aunt (lives with us): SLI-Si
Me: IEI-Fe
Younger sister (technically older twin): EII-Fi
Younger sister (technically younger twin): LSE-Si
Younger brother: ILE-Ne
Youngest sister: LIE-Ni

Alpha: 3 ; Beta: 1 ; Gamma: 1 ; Delta: 3

In general most of my life I feel like I have been constantly around Alphas and Deltas, but now that I live next to a military base I know a ton of Betas too. I have the least experience interacting with Gammas

My family:
Dad: SLE??-Ti?? or LSE??
Mom: ESI-Fi
Stepdad: xLI-Te
Sister: SEE??-Fi?? or maybe ESE-Fe?? (she gets along way too well with my ESI mom for her to be an ESE imo, but i'm still unsure)
Aunt: ESE-Fe maybe? (I know she's xSFj/ESx though, and the way my ESI mom talks about her strikes me as an ESFj)

It seems like we're both kind of the black sheep of our families haha. With the exception of my aunt, I haven't had any other fellow Alpha relatives. Most of the people in my life exhibit a ton of Ni and Se, it gets super annoying because my mom and dad do not keep this kind of super aesthetic comfort level that Ne/Si people have, and on top of that, I'll always try and jump in and do some fun Ne thing without thinking about the consequences (on purpose, of course) for the sake of discovery, and they will just go on a tirade about how I need to apply more foresight to whatever I'm doing, which, personally, kind of defeats the purpose of what I was doing, since I'm usually just experimenting with stuff. I've had a good amount of interactions with Betas/Gammas/Deltas, but really haven't been around Alphas a whole lot. The only people who are Alphas have been only a few of my friends and possibly my aunt but that's about it

[AWellArmedCat]

@Ravash7 Oh wow, I've always felt so starved of Ni/Se interaction. Betas and Gammas have been really rare for me. Even among my cousins it's mostly all Alpha and Delta (I think slightly more Alpha, but since I haven't typed all my cousins, aunts, and uncles (two more families with five kids each, one with three, and another on my mom's side with seven 0.o) I'm not 100% sure. Might be roughly even between Alpha and Delta. Lol even in my friend group I know two people with the same name who are the same age and who are both ILEs (and as I listed earlier my brother is also ILE). One is from Vancouver, Washington, and the other is from Vancouver, British Columbia! I'm surrounded by Alphas

[Ave]

Timur Protskiy has statistics on types in the general population, based on his own typings done through his service, but I don't think he has made them avialable in English, if they are even made public at all.

[Tallmo]

surprisingly more common and appraised among men (and women) than logical female types. Logical female types tend to be far more alienated from both males and females than ethical men are. Intuition seems to be a mostly useless tactic to survival, but is incredibly vital for a small amount of people to have, due to the fact that our intuition is what distinguishes us from other species, like the ability to create technology and vast interconnected road systems and massive cities, unlike literally any other species ever (but cannot be given to everyone, as sensing types need to practically maintain reality and realistically implement/maintain the intuitive concepts that are coming up, like cars or smartphones or computers for example), so I would say that sensing is far more common than intuition among the general population, and I have noticed this as well, out in public with people I interact with.

Intuition basically looks beyond the present. It's easy to see applications for intuition in hunting, finding shelter etc. Or as a method for communicating with the spiritual world, this has always been vital for the tribe although we have forgotten about this in our godless age.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Intuition basically looks beyond the present. It's easy to see applications for intuition in hunting, finding shelter etc. Or as a method for communicating with the spiritual world, this has always been vital for the tribe although we have forgotten about this in our godless age.

Yeah, Ne especially is not at all useless for survival.

Re. spirituality, I think what are called "shamans" in tribal societies are mainly N types. Paul Radin was an anthropologist who wrote a work I found really interesting, called Primitive Man as Philosopher. He was responding to claims that primitive societies didn't really have what might be called "philosophical" thought, and he argued that A) shamans served as their societies' "thinkers," (seemingly more in the sense of what Socionics would call intuition, not thinking), B) they developed highly abstract and insightful thought, and C) (this was more of a supposition than an argument) the reason that the average capacity for abstraction appears higher in modern societies was mostly an illusion; that the advantage of modern societies was that technologies like writing and educational institutions were able to impress certain attitudes and beliefs developed by a minority of insightful people on the majority of the population, but that the proportion of this minority was roughly the same as in tribal societies.

Anyway, where I'm going with this was that while the typical tribesman was satisfied that magic existed and the myths of their societies were more or less true, shamans themselves typically had a more nuanced view, on one hand admitting among themselves that the powers they claimed and the stories they told were false in a literal sense, yet believing that they served what we would call a psychological purpose.

_____

I can believe that N types make up less of the population, but I think there are probably other reasons for that than N types (again, especially Ne types) being badly suited to survival.

[Sol]

"sociotypes" is same as Jung types or types identified by MBTI test. Socionics has same traits as used in MBTI, besides additional theory. The difference on practice for concrete people types is from not ideal accuracy of methods and some theoretical mistakes possible in all of these approaches.

There are Viktor Talanov's tests with stats for many typed people. Those tests could be used on "general group" of people too. You may ask them about such stats. Though, it's doubtful that accuracy of today tests is good for such stats as % quantity of concrete types.

Most possibly all 16 types are equal in quantity. There is no theory or practice to be sure in other.

> Male: ST > SF > NT > NF
> Female: SF > NF = ST > NT

For 2 sexes it's easier to say as needs lesser number of people.
Somewhere it was got that men T > F and women F > T (~ 2/3 for both). But it's hard to say is it real types or external factors' influence in answers which reduced test's accuracy, as the culture supports higher emotionality for women than for men. No other significant differences in type's traits were goten. Talanov seems had such results too.

[adage]

Yeah, Ne especially is not at all useless for survival.

Re. spirituality, I think what are called "shamans" in tribal societies are mainly N types. Paul Radin was an anthropologist who wrote a work I found really interesting, called Primitive Man as Philosopher. He was responding to claims that primitive societies didn't really have what might be called "philosophical" thought, and he argued that A) shamans served as their societies' "thinkers," (seemingly more in the sense of what Socionics would call intuition, not thinking), B) they developed highly abstract and insightful thought, and C) (this was more of a supposition than an argument) the reason that the average capacity for abstraction appears higher in modern societies was mostly an illusion; that the advantage of modern societies was that technologies like writing and educational institutions were able to impress certain attitudes and beliefs developed by a minority of insightful people on the majority of the population, but that the proportion of this minority was roughly the same as in tribal societies.

Anyway, where I'm going with this was that while the typical tribesman was satisfied that magic existed and the myths of their societies were more or less true, shamans themselves typically had a more nuanced view, on one hand admitting among themselves that the powers they claimed and the stories they told were false in a literal sense, yet believing that they served what we would call a psychological purpose.

_____

I can believe that N types make up less of the population, but I think there are probably other reasons for that than N types (again, especially Ne types) being badly suited to survival.

One thing I hate about society is how slow it is to catch up and change, another is that often, the change becomes a far cry from what was brewing up years ago. The hope rotted away before it could reach.
It seems to me people get stuck in a form of thinking like "if it was good yesterday, it must be good today" which delays change and have many people rejoice in rotten ideas.

The best way to get a new idea across is by making a big show, impressing the minds so they cannot ignore it. Problem is, once impressed, the minds tend to stick to it and therefore needs another impressive feat to change again.
I must say, seeing how things change on the surface yet the essence behind it stays the same makes me rather down, and there are very few I can talk to without being misjudged, sounding pretentious, or just scaring the people who want things not to change into turning their ire on me.

Jung described Ni as a function that makes for a rough beginning of life, and it is true.
To make it in society with Ni as lead, you need years to grow wisdom, to accept how powerless you are to change anything and that changes that happen will rot until the next boom, you need to figure ways to deal with people without bothering them because they are more numerous and also take care of yourself and express enough so that you don't go nuts and jump off a bridge. You also see people claiming they saw things coming after they happen or are ignoring what's right in front of their face in preference for their own prejudice and being acclaimed for it.
You see people turning idea of growth into stagnating hatred.

There's a saying in bouddhism that says something akin to what I wrote above, things go round and will go round whether or not you participate so better step out and work on enlightenment. It's not the exact phrasing but that's the gist of the idea. It's an old idea, I'm not saying anything new.
Never in my life have I said something new.

Most people can't believe in what they do not see with their eyes.
Their physical eyes, that is. Perhaps why seeing beyond the physical tend to be called "sixth sense" or "third eye" as they are explaining abstract ideas with concrete ones.
Some even can't believe even when they see with their own two eyes if it goes too far beyond their beliefs.


And I don't know about type repartition, some thinks it's about equal, some think it's disproportionated, mistypes happen often, not everyone opperates on the same typing methodes, people might portrait a type they are not truly... there's many variables.
But I hope Ni's are really rare, it ain't fun being stuck with it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If a Socionics test was properly calibrated as a personality with the worldwide population in mind, then the types would be probably be evenly distributed, with all scores for each variable conforming to a normal distribution. The reality is there isn't any good evidence that the vast majority of people can be meaningfully described as having one of the sixteen personality types.

[Tallmo]

Anyway, where I'm going with this was that while the typical tribesman was satisfied that magic existed and the myths of their societies were more or less true, shamans themselves typically had a more nuanced view, on one hand admitting among themselves that the powers they claimed and the stories they told were false in a literal sense, yet believing that they served what we would call a psychological purpose.

I'm not sure about that though. I think the distinction symbolic truth / literal truth is too modern. In tribal societies myths are the basis for existence, just like the physical environment. I assume the shamans would think so too. The whole problem doesn't exist like it exists for us. Myths are never seen as myths, because in that moment they are not genuine myths anymore. One can only say so in retrospect. Even today for many modern people things like democracy, the nation, freedom, peace on earth etc. are not seen as myths, even though they are. It gives a hint of how rock solid mythological truths have always been.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I'm not sure about that though. I think the the distinction symbolic truth / literal truth is too modern. In tribal societies myths are the basis for existence, just like the physical environment. I assume the shamans would think so too. The whole problem doesn't exist like it exists for us. Myths are never seen as myths, because in that moment they are not genuine myths anymore. One can only say so in retrospect. Even today for many modern people things like democracy, the nation, freedom, peace on earth etc. are not seen as myths, even though they are. It gives a hint of how rock solid mythological truths have always been felt.

I think I misrepresented Radin's work by indicating slightly more of a split than was truly there for the shamans, but I think the situation is analogous to modern politicians' use of those kinds of myths you mention -- a part of them often believes in them, and this probably makes more effective at using them, but at the same time a part of them has to remain cynical -- much more cynical than the average person they address -- if they're to employ them at all. Similarly if your "job description" is to both tell and interpret myths, it won't do to treat them "literally"/at face value. You have to go beyond the apparent meaning and to have some idea either of the unconscious forces which bring them about or those which you'll be able to speak to. For such people I doubt myths can be felt as "rock solid," even if they are for the rest of their tribe.

[Disturbed]

I don't know the statistics exactly, but there are about 1.5-2x as many EIE males as EIE females and about 1.5x as many LSI females as LSI males. There are also at least 1.5x as many ILE-Ti females as ILE-Ti males, if not 2 or 3x. IEE are even.

If EIE were mostly female, then there would've been no feminist movement because females already would've been in power. No, even though many people think of EIE as feminine, actual EIE are disproportionately male. I think EIE are kind of masculine (especially the intuitive subtype) moreso than their LSI-Se duals.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

well I think NT females are highly terriorial probably- if you mean in a very general way maybe less likely to run in them in generic-y everyday places but in their 'domain' there will be quite a lot of them. I think ur ratio of males is pretty spot on though. lolol I'm such a snowflake for being a NF male. /emo wrist.