# Are INFPs really rare ?!



## Na2Cr2O7 (Dec 23, 2015)

INFPs are actually the second most common type of intuitive types, only after ENFPs, according to most statistics I found. The numbers vary, but there's one thing in common; being the second least rarest among the intuitive types.

I have at least six INFP friends in real life though.


----------



## Booksnob (Jan 18, 2016)

re-written below


----------



## Booksnob (Jan 18, 2016)

bigstupidgrin said:


> I use cognitive functions to type people I know (who otherwise aren't willing to just take the test). It's a little bit of guesswork, sure, but you just have to take it with a grain of salt. Heck, people who even take the test can mis-type, or score somewhere close to two different types, so very little of this is 100% accurate.


I keep messing up my replies-still new at this-so I'm replying a second time and this time with quote. I do attempt to figure out the types of the people very close to me, but those can be counted on one hand which is perhaps not so strange for an introvert.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Don't forget i'm a male INFP.

Male INFP's are definitely not that common. ...


----------



## rosie1 (Jan 17, 2016)

Lakigigar said:


> If INFP's were so common, i think i wouldn't felt so alone all the time. From all the people i've met in my life, i know maybe one couple female INFP / male INFx All the rest i've ever met is surely no INFx. I wouldn't be completely understood all the time. 5 procent is way to high. I would know one INFP-person in each class each year.


 thats what i have felt all my life and i thought this will change in uni but untill now > no changes but when i started to discover people personalities online i notice they are a bit common here i think thats part of introverts personality to be more open on the internet than real life ..

and how do u know someone's personality type unless you really really know them, or you have asked them to take the tests ?


----------



## rosie1 (Jan 17, 2016)

Pinina said:


> The most common types are the ISFJs in most cases of statistics.
> 
> However, the statistics we have comes from the US to start with, I haven't seen any source that takes in statistics from any other country, or that shows that it's the same over the world.
> 
> Also, those statistics are made, from what I've understood it, from letter-based typing and Keirsey. I do, and think they should be seen and accepted carefully.


 i agree that they should be accepted carefully since they represent only the population of the united states but i think we they some rightness if you are not very interested in the exact percent of every type


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

rosie1 said:


> i agree that they should be accepted carefully since they represent only the population of the united states but i think we they some rightness if you are not very interested in the exact percent of every type


Agree, it's probably somewhat true. As long as you are aware of the fact that it's true in the US, and don't take it as universal. 

Either, Sweden seems to have a higher population of intuitives, or the younger generation consists of more intuitives. Or there are a lot of intuitives around me in particular.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

Na2Cr2O7 said:


> INFPs are actually the second most common type of intuitive types, only after ENFPs, according to most statistics I found. The numbers vary, but there's one thing in common; being the second least rarest among the intuitive types.
> 
> I have at least six INFP friends in real life though.


Well the percentage are close between intuitives, with 1 or 2 percent of difference between them. So it's not very representative, and nobody is very rare.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

I suck at math, so seeing that, even at 1.5% of the population of my country, there's still 2 million of me, made me feel good!

EDIT: And slightly terrified for humanity, but anywho


----------



## rosie1 (Jan 17, 2016)

Booksnob said:


> Second thought of the day: I keep seeing comments about knowing people of various other types but unless everyone has been accurately typed and had it tattooed on their foreheads, do we really know what types we are meeting and interacting with? Surely we can only be guessing and might be more prone to a thought pattern that thinks everyone is like us or nobody is like us.


thats what i was saying because unless you knew the person very well (which won't make u sure also but u can guess) or u have made them take the test >> how do they know their personality


----------



## rosie1 (Jan 17, 2016)

angelfish said:


> One percent of 7 billion is 70 million.
> 
> Even if a type were only one _thousandth_ of the population, there would still be about _seven million_ people of that type!
> 
> Let's face it: none of the types are really RARE. :tongue:


will , seventy million in seven billion is rare from every 100 there is only one thats rare but saying a type is rare makes one feel special but lonely


----------



## OkayKay (May 12, 2012)

Lakigigar said:


> Don't forget i'm a male INFP.
> 
> Male INFP's are definitely not that common. ...


Totally agree. I've seen more INFP females than males. And the only reason why I know INFP males is because we click relatively well we kinda congregate together. Out of this circle I hardly see any.


----------



## rosie1 (Jan 17, 2016)

Pinina said:


> Agree, it's probably somewhat true. As long as you are aware of the fact that it's true in the US, and don't take it as universal.
> 
> Either, Sweden seems to have a higher population of intuitives, or the younger generation consists of more intuitives. Or there are a lot of intuitives around me in particular.


yes even where i live its quite the opposite the extroverts are more common .. Egyptians in general ( at least the people around me ) dont accept introverts easily they understand if you are a bastard , a fool ,, anything but if yuo are quite and polite they just dont get that lol


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

rosie1 said:


> thats what i have felt all my life and i thought this will change in uni but untill now > no changes but when i started to discover people personalities online i notice they are a bit common here i think thats part of introverts personality to be more open on the internet than real life ..
> 
> and how do u know someone's personality type unless you really really know them, or you have asked them to take the tests ?


It isn't that difficult. You can make mistakes, but you know in many cases if someone 

is intraverted or extravert.
sensing / intuition is a bit more difficult, but most people are S (most people who don't understand me are S, some people who don't look into the future, ...
Thinking or feeling (is relatively easy, however there are some where you aren't sure of. But in most times you see if it is an F or T.
Perception or judging (not that easy, but i can guess.. )


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

rosie1 said:


> i always read that infjs are rare so are infps . i also read that the infps are mostly males . iam wondering if those facts are true since i have seen a lot of them on internet - i dont know anyone's personality in real world - and all the infps i have seen were females lol what do u guys think of that ?
> is there any study oer something like that says this is true ?
> just wonderin :happy:


Not in this forum.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Applying statistics to an unproven theory based on the heuristic observations of one Swiss psychoanalyst is always going to be difficult.

Emphasis on 'unproven'. It basically relies upon our willingness to perceive the differences in others as inherent and find nature and nuture as wanting when it comes to a satisfactory explanation.

Not to discredit Jung, his work is very interesting, but it relies upon the observer to synchronise his or her perception in relation to that body of work, rather than any external measurement that can be demonstrated.

I still think he had a point, but there is a limit to how far that point can be stretched. And for what we currently know; statistics is a long way off.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

They're relatively rare, but not like Rare Candy in the Pokémon games. In my experience they seem pretty equal in men/women ratio too.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

rosie1 said:


> will , seventy million in seven billion is rare from every 100 there is only one thats rare but saying a type is rare makes one feel special but lonely


Personally, I think a lot of it is about perception. If you're looking through a lens of "people like me are rare" already, you'll find evidence to back that up. I don't know a _lot_ of INFPs, true. But if you start with the premise that many people are like you, you will find evidence for that, too. I do know a handful of INFPs. ISFPs are our dominant function siblings. INFJs our more decisive reflections. INTPs our more logical cousins. ENFPs our adventurous twins. 

I think most people essentially choose (or at least unintentionally predetermine) what they want to believe about the rarity of their type. If they already feel isolated, and they read their type is rare, they'll probably believe that and look at it that way. It does make one feel special, if lonesome. But personally, I don't feel much lack of connection, and so rarity seems like a more disposable and less meaningful term to me. It probably has a great deal to do with our people-environments and lifestyle.


----------



## rosie1 (Jan 17, 2016)

angelfish said:


> Personally, I think a lot of it is about perception.
> 
> . ISFPs are our dominant function siblings. INFJs our more decisive reflections. INTPs our more logical cousins. ENFPs our adventurous twins.
> 
> I think most people essentially choose (or at least unintentionally predetermine) what they want to believe about the rarity of their type. If they already feel isolated, and they read their type is rare, they'll probably believe that and look at it that way. It does make one feel special, if lonesome. But personally, I don't feel much lack of connection, and so rarity seems like a more disposable and less meaningful term to me. It probably has a great deal to do with our people-environments and lifestyle.


I Totally agree i always try to find similarities with the the people i meet i think this is a natural thing we try to see our selfs in the people we meet .. but in general talking i am always misunderstood specially if iam trying to explain something or interpret ..
and i totally agree that we believe what we want to believe 
PS : i like how will written is ur post :]


----------



## rosie1 (Jan 17, 2016)

Lakigigar said:


> It isn't that difficult. You can make mistakes, but you know in many cases if someone
> 
> is intraverted or extravert.
> sensing / intuition is a bit more difficult, but most people are S (most people who don't understand me are S, some people who don't look into the future, ...
> ...


 it still wont be very accurate but .. maybe 

i keep thinking of you as a girl because of the picture :laughing:


----------



## Im FiNe (Oct 17, 2013)

Im FiNe said:


> The statistics I have come across (seem all to be from USA sources/sampling) seem to indicate slightly more female INFPs to male INFPs. The spread is much closer than data I have seen for INFJs, which seems heavily to be evident in females.
> * *
> 
> 
> ...


 A couple of further thoughts on my last post:

* *






Re: mistyping, there will always be inherent problems with the manner in which type is determined. All of the instruments that I have seen and tried--from the official MBTI on paper (with the aid of someone trained to help me understand typology and the results) to the online knock offs--all share the same method of asking a question for consideration and forcing an answer from set responses. Some are binary, this or that. Others are scaled selection with an even number of choices (forcing difficult choices one way or the other of center). Others are scaled selection with an odd number of choices (allowing one to sit on the fence, not forcing a direction to one side or the other if one is not apparent. All have the same problems of:
Requiring the person taking the instrument to understand the questions.
Being set within the assumed broad cultural context of native-English-speaking USA
That the abstract and hypothetical internal models one compares oneself against are appropriate comparisons for the questions being asked
That one knows oneself well enough to respond truthfully and factually to one's own nature vs. whatever societal constraints, mandates, or expectations one may have (by _societal_ here I am considering both the at-large society as well as the subsets of micro-societies one may find oneself within such as families, peer groups, coworkers, schools, teams, _etc_.)
That one is not currently being modified in cognitive behaviors such as during adolescence or emotional crisis.

Still re: mistyping: Best fit type currently is supposed to include taking the instrument, understanding what the dichotomies represent and what they don't represent, offering a guess at what one prefers on each point of the dichotomies as well as reasons supporting that guess, reviewing the results of the instrument (the type suggested by how one has answered the questions), reviewing any discrepancies that exist between the guess and the instrument results, and then considering what one's best-fit type is. What the person decides at that point is considered the best-fit type.
Still re: mistyping: Until such time that actual and reliable measurements can be taken (EEG, fMRI, _etc_.) there will be possibility for mistyping, _i.e._, if mistyping is an actual thing apart from what the individual determines to be best-fit.
Cognitive functions are a model to describe what we experience in ourselves and what we suppose may be happening in others, but I have yet to see a real standard to gauge against. Right now we compare against what some person or people have said about each function. We don't know if any is accurate or correct.





* *




As of 2013 in the US there were 50 states plus the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.). So if there were 15,067,021 total INFPs in the US and we were to suppose an even distribution[SUP]1[/SUP], then each state would have...wait a moment. Some states are much less dense in population. [After visiting some sites...] The state with the smallest percentage of the population is Wyoming, with .17%, or 25,614 INFPs. The state with the highest percentage of the population is California, with 12.11%, or 1,824,616 INFPs.[SUP]2[/SUP] Now go online and figure out how many counties are in your state if you want to bring things closer to home. I live in WI. There are 72 counties. If the INFPs were spread evenly, then there would be 286,273 ÷ 72 = 3976 INFPs in my county. My county is 644 mi[SUP]2[/SUP], so there are possibly 6 INFPs/mi[SUP]2[/SUP]. [_Interestingly--to me at any rate--Wisconsin is roughly the equivalent population size of Denmark._]


 [HR][/HR][SUP]1[/SUP] There's no reason to expect there to necessarily be an even distribution, but I assume the data includes all people, including children who don't have a choice where they live and adults who have little choice over where they live to offset adults who may be drawn to certain shared features of areas attractive to INFPs. So think of it as a fun little _gedankenexperiment_. 
[SUP]2[/SUP] For a full breakdown of estimated number of INFPs for each state, check out this 
* *





WY
25,614 
DC
30,134 
AK
33,147 
ND
33,147 
VT
33,147 
SD
40,681 
DE
42,188 
MT
48,214 
RI
55,748 
HI
64,788 
NH
66,295 
ME
67,802 
ID
69,308 
NE
90,402 
WV
94,922 
NM
96,429 
NV
111,496 
UT
120,536 
AR
143,137 
KS
143,137 
MS
150,670 
IA
159,710 
CT
180,804 
OK
182,311 
OR
183,818 
KY
215,458 
SC
215,458 
CO
233,539 
AL
236,552 
LA
236,552 
MN
263,673 
AZ
280,247 
MD
284,767 
WI
286,273 
MO
298,327 
TN
304,354 
WA
316,407 
IN
323,941 
MA
337,501 
VA
379,689 
NC
432,424 
GA
442,970 
NJ
448,997 
MI
528,852 
OH
601,174 
PA
649,389 
IL
659,936 
FL
867,860 
NY
1,006,477 
TX
1,128,520 
CA
1,824,616


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I don't think that any personality type is rare.
It only feels rare if you don't know anyone who shares your personality type.
Then it feels rare and isolating.
That would be discouraging.
I don't know too many ESFPs online.
In person, I think that a few of my friends are ESFPs.
It is very delightful to bond with others of your personality type.
If you're an INFP, you'll probably recognize others right away.
If you're mistyped, well, it might be more challenging.
And a lot of us are mistyped.



angelfish said:


> One percent of 7 billion is 70 million.
> 
> Even if a type were only one _thousandth_ of the population, there would still be about _seven million_ people of that type!
> 
> Let's face it: none of the types are really RARE. :tongue:


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

rosie1 said:


> I Totally agree i always try to find similarities with the the people i meet i think this is a natural thing we try to see our selfs in the people we meet .. but in general talking i am always misunderstood specially if iam trying to explain something or interpret ..
> and i totally agree that we believe what we want to believe
> PS : i like how will written is ur post :]


Thanks for the compliment  

I understand about being misunderstood. I feel like that happens to me on the forum a lot!


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

walking tourist said:


> I don't think that any personality type is rare.
> It only feels rare if you don't know anyone who shares your personality type.
> Then it feels rare and isolating.
> That would be discouraging.
> ...


I don't think what you're stating here is true. You are insinuating that I mistyped myself. Belgium is an IS-paradise by the way. Girls are mostly ESF / ISF. Men mostly EST / IST. The N's are really uncommon here. P is also more uncommon then J (esp. with older people - The stereotypical Belgian is the one sitting in the train, reading a newspaper, and just go to job and go home, eat, sleep and work again. And mostly always complaining about delays... 

If I missed the train, well i miss the train (however, i don't want to be stuck in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night), but i'm flexible and adaptable.  I sometimes need to take more action (i'm too P-ish). Males are - per definition - more T's then F's (however i think a lot of male INFP's are mistyped as INTP). N's are uncommon in general (and i don't think it's different here in Europa - au contraire, i think it's even more uncommon then in other countries). The I/E is in balance. But Belgium is maybe more I then par example the Netherlands. Older people mostly E's. Youth & middle-aged people more I's.

I read this again, made a painful wordplay without knowing it... (3th sentence)


----------



## Unfey (Apr 8, 2013)

We are not rare! We are very quiet, however. In the real world, at least. On the internet we are all over the goddamn place.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Don't believe it that INFP's make 4 procent of the population. Isn't possible. At least here in Belgium...

And yes on the internet, we are very common (on PerC.), think internet is heaven for INTP (and basically all IN-types.)


----------



## 318138 (Oct 1, 2015)

rosie1 said:


> i was just reading a post and it says that intps are only 3% of the population .. i want to know what are the most common types then??


Most common type in the US is ESFJ. I'm not sure what the most popular type in the whole world is, but I'm guessing ESFX.


----------



## Raygun (Jan 30, 2016)

I don't know about the 'normal' world, but in the arts fields I've run into quite a few. Two are wonderful people I love to bits. Regardless of rarity, you INFPs are still very mysterious folk.


----------



## Xyte (Aug 4, 2015)

They don't seem to be hard to find on the internet...


----------



## RaisinKG (Jan 2, 2016)

The internet is figuratively and metaphorically a magnet for all 4 IN types, heck, it is said the most common type by numerous polls is INFP, and some types are simply rarer than others (It is said the human race actually needs more S' than N's, but thats just my two cents)

It's very difficult to say if someone is mistyped or not since type does not equal personality.

N's however, are not exactly THAT unnumerous, their simply rare in PROPORTION to the rest of the population. Since N's are typically represented as 25% as opposed to the S' 75%, I ran a calculation and discovered that there should be around 1,750,000,000	
Ns. That is a lot.


----------



## neuromaencer (Feb 11, 2016)

Plenty of INFP's, when you're not over representing the INFJs


----------

