# Most common types to least common types



## tigerman11 (Jun 28, 2010)

Curious to know this. My other question is an offshoot of the original. Why do we not have a roughly equal proportion of each type? If my math is correct, that would make each type at about 6-7% of the total population.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

You're asking why the world's population does not contain equal proportions of each type?

The only thing we'd really have to look at are online stats on different websites, but I wouldn't really trust those for accuracy...

Maybe I'm not thinking it through totally, but it seems like the 'nature vs. nurture' argument with MBTI would support the idea of MBTI being behavioral rather than mental. I think it's more psychological. 
I suppose it could be natural selection.


----------



## CrabHammer (Jun 18, 2010)

I was under the impression that the dichotomies are supposed to be split 50-50 (half the population E, half I for example). This would seem to suggest that the personality types should be evenly distributed, but that's not the entire story. I would guess that because certain letter combination (say xxTJ, total guess btw) are more likely, we get the uneven distribution we have.

Of course if my initial assumption is wrong, both practically and theoretically, then all my speculating is just BS. (As opposed to pseudo-enlightened BS)


----------



## Thrifty Walrus (Jul 8, 2010)

I think that the fact that it isn't an equal distribution goes to show that in life, nurture > nature.

Furthermore perhaps if it is gene related instead of how we are raised, perhaps the more common types are more fit to be successful in today's day and age. Through some sort of natural selection those types kept going on while the types that don't didn't. 

Elaborating even more, it could be through kind of faulty natural selection in that certain types want kids, so obviously there will be more of that type. 

I think it is a combination of all of that personally.


----------



## kittychris07 (Jun 15, 2010)

I'm sure I have no idea how to answer this question. While I do know that there are far fewer Ns than there are Ss (if we are willing to rely on Keirsey's estimates in Please Understand Me 2), it can be difficult to tell. Some types might make up 10% of the population, while others won't. I'm not sure how the experts could even come up with a way to tell what personality types are the most popular--they might be able to get an approximate sample to make a good guess. But then how accurate could their guesses be (certain types of people will be left out of every sample, and some people taking the test could end up getting a wrong result from the test, which complicates the matter).


----------



## CrabHammer (Jun 18, 2010)

Also, these are the distribution numbers via wikipedia. I'm sure there's a more respected/reliable source, but there's a start.

ISTJ - 11.6%
ISFJ - 13.8
INFJ - 1.5%
INTJ - 2.1%
ISTP - 5.4%
INFP - 4.3%
INTP - 3.3%
ESTP - 4.3%
ESFP - 8.5%
ENFP - 8.1%
ENTP - 3.2%
ESTJ - 8.7%
ESFJ - 12.3%
ENFJ - 2.4%
ENTJ - 1.8%
ISFP - 8.8%

EDIT: Thanks kittychris07, for pointing out that I missed ISFP.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

different sources give different numbers. But it seems clear that sensors outnumber intuitives 3-1 for whatever reason.


----------



## Eyes Open (Jun 8, 2010)

I find it hard to believe ISFJ is the most common MBTI type...but I can't really explain why?

EDIT: Maybe ISFJs are more common in countries outside the US...?


----------



## kittychris07 (Jun 15, 2010)

L4NkYb-- 

That list didn't even list ISFP?


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

When I think of the most common types in the US I try to think of what type would be reflected in our culture.

Somehow ESFJ/ISFJ being most common seems to make sense to me.


----------



## xrevolutionx (Apr 10, 2010)

From the book The Art of Speed Reading People, by Paul D. Tigier & Barbara Barron-Tieger:

ESTJ: 12 - 13%
ISTJ: 7 - 10%
ESFJ: 11 - 14%
ISFJ: 7 - 10%
ESTP: 6 - 8%
ISTP: 4 - 7%
ESFP: 8 - 10%
ISFP: 5 -7%
ENTJ: 3 - 5%
INTJ: 2 - 3%
ENTP: 4 - 6%
INTP: 3 - 4%
ENFJ: 3 - 5%
INFJ: 2 - 3%
ENFP: 6 - 7%
INFP: 3 - 4%

Approximately 65% sensors and 35% intuitives, 60% Judgers and 40% perceivers, 

More approximations:
SJ - 40%
SP - not stated but I assume it's the remaining 15%
NT - 15%
NF - 15%

Again, they are approximations so cross checking all these numbers obviously won't add up to 100% exactly.

The book states that these percentages where found from samples in the American population and developed by Dr. Charles K. Martin of the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT) in Gainesville, Florida.


----------



## retypepassword (Apr 11, 2010)

kittychris07 said:


> That list didn't even list ISFP?


That's because [w]e really must be the invisible type...



xrevolutionx said:


> The book states that these percentages where found from samples in the American population and developed by Dr. Charles K. Martin of the Center for Applications of Psychological Type (CAPT) in Gainesville, Florida.


CAPT's website actually has the percentages as well for anyone who wants more details: Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org


----------



## Eternal Session (Jul 14, 2010)

Is there a list somewhere that divides the frequencies into gender? I used to have one somewhere but it seems to have escaped... ;;

I'm pretty sure that INFJ males are much less common than females (like 0.8% vs 2% or so) so there is probably a difference in other types as well.


----------



## retypepassword (Apr 11, 2010)

Eternal Session said:


> Is there a list somewhere that divides the frequencies into gender? I used to have one somewhere but it seems to have escaped... ;;


See the link I posted. Dividing into genders is what I meant, but didn't say (heh), by "more detailed."


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I think more sensors in the world makes sense. Ns are about ideas, visions, innovation - and how many of those type of people do you need? You need more people to get things done, which takes a practical view & hands-on approach. Ss seem more of doers, and I mean that in a positive way.

It reminds me of a section in Dostoevsky's _The Idiot_ where he discusses the practical man vs. the original man (part 3 chapter 1). It reminds me of some S/N differences & why Ss would be more common, for the good of society. I can't find it online to copy + paste (seems to not be included in every version), and I'm too lazy to type it right now...


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

i think orangeappled has the right idea.

my theory (and i think i'm correct) is that genetics cause certain amounts of every type to be born. that's why the types are advantageously distributed, as SJs are needed in more quantity than say NFs.

ants do this with workers/soldiers/males/queens, (i know the queen can change the proportion but still the fact that it's possible seems to support the possibility of proportional births in humans).


----------



## simulatedworld (Jun 15, 2010)

L4NkYb said:


> I was under the impression that the dichotomies are supposed to be split 50-50 (half the population E, half I for example). This would seem to suggest that the personality types should be evenly distributed, but that's not the entire story. I would guess that because certain letter combination (say xxTJ, total guess btw) are more likely, we get the uneven distribution we have.
> 
> Of course if my initial assumption is wrong, both practically and theoretically, then all my speculating is just BS. (As opposed to pseudo-enlightened BS)



This is very inaccurate.

To the OP, it's because type is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, and most environments are more conducive to certain types of functional attitudes than others.

The order from most common to least common goes something like this:

1) ESFJ
2) ESTJ
3) ISFJ
4) ISTJ
5) ISFP
6) ESFP
7) ENFP
8) ISTP
9) ESTP
10) INFP
11) INTP
12) ENTP
13) ENFJ
14) ENTJ
15) INTJ
16) INFJ

I'm not certain if this is exactly right, but it's a decent general approximation.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

simulatedworld said:


> This is very inaccurate.
> 
> To the OP, it's because type is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, and most environments are more conducive to certain types of functional attitudes than others.
> 
> ...


Every list I've seen has a different distribution, but one thing they do have in common is they all list ENFP as the most common N-type, by far. Any idea of why this might be?


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I really don't think that there are that many ENFPs.
I have no idea how these percentages are gotten or estimated and the lsits do all vary, so I never really pay attention to them, but I think it's possible for ESFPs and ENFPs to be mixed up.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

simulatedworld said:


> This is very inaccurate.
> 
> To the OP, it's because type is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, and most environments are more conducive to certain types of functional attitudes than others.
> 
> ...


You put some introverts above their "equivalent" extroverts. Shouldn't introverts be less frequent? I'm not sure is this list is based in the average USA population (which is not my country), but I know several ENTJ's and INTJ's and only another possible INTP in real life. I have not enough data for proposing an alternative list, but the "introverts above extroverts" does not sound good to me... natural selection should favors extroverts.


----------

