# MBTI Type Rarity



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Every so often new people come to the forums inquiring about whether their respective type is rare. I have responded to these inquiries with my two-cents asking how frequency can be determined based on dichotomies. Recently while visiting another forum, the topic was raised again. This time, the group thought that since the MBTI Foundation stated the frequency of type here over a 10-20 year period, the results must be accurate. The table is located *here*. 

Typical of being Ti, I had to consider the underlying principles and dissect the information to indicate any inconsistencies. Based on the proposed accuracy of the Foundations stats, I have several questions. How many on this forum have actually had the MBTI professionally administered? I have, and even with a professional present to administer it, I missed my type by one dichotomy. There remains an accuracy problem in self-reporting, namely because the user is colored by subjective perceptions and years of environmental influence. 

Secondly but more important, most do not undergo the professionally administered assessment because well we simply do not want to pay the money since there are ample assessments for free on the internet. But we have taken enough test to know if we answer a certain way, we will get a certain result. But back to those who have taken the test professionally, who paid for the assessment? Let me guess, the employer or potential employer?

Then I ask, if it was the employer, was it business related where a bottom line was considered and the company was there to make money? Thus if I am being administered an assessment laced with questions, would it be hard to indicate which questions would produce the answer being sought by the company? Consider this scenario. The employer has the MBTI professionally administered to me. As much as I want to answer the questions correctly and truthfully, I know subconsciously a job is on the line. Does it take much even new to type, to discern what an employer may be seeking? So how does my answers to each question not be influenced by whether I land the job? When I answer these questions, am I going to admit that I generally walk around with my head in the clouds or prefer to read between the lines to a potential employer that is only concerned about their bottom line? Or am I going to characterize myself as someone who is down-to-earth and practical, detailed oriented and time conscious? As we know these are questions to whether one prefers sensing to intuiting.

I keep answering the questions. What are my chances of getting the job if I admit to preferring to to work when ever it suits me or keep my own schedule to being on time, scheduled and working until the job is done? If I answer truthfully, I know I most likely may not be considered for the position. Am I influenced in any way to believe the employer may be looking someone who prefers J to P? 

So my results indicate I am someone preferring the S and J dichotomies. We know that when it comes to working in businesses and Corporate America, dress and appearance counts. We dress for success, we blend in and we are productive. Claiming one prefers little contact and somewhat rebellious about structure and the corporate way of life may be a job killer. Most of us are also familiar enough with the type system by now to realize there are hidden meanings behind those codes. When claiming SJ type, we are admitting that Si is prevalent and a common denominator based on principles of Jung’s work. Ergo, the why would the assessments of a particular industry conclude any other type? 

But if SJ shows as the most frequent types, would that not mean the NP types are the least frequent by default? In this case Ne would be the common denominator. Instead MBTI Foundation says Ni users is the least frequent type. How did that happen? 

I have no intentions of proposing that the numbers have been tampered with in the MBTI Foundation statistics, but I will refer to my theory shown *here* that the opposite of Si is not Ne since they can and do compensate one another. The true opposite of Si is Ni since you cannot introvert two functions simultaneously and Jung proposes that two functions of the same type (judging/perceiving) cannot work along one another. 

Although this is merely a hypothesis, we do know some facts to be true. The MBTI is professionally administered to the business industry more than any other industry such as churches, government agencies, etc. If I were to administer the assessment to personnel of organizations such as the NFL, NBA or MLB, would I get a completely different sample? What if I administered the test to all colleges and universities, or only IT companies, political and non-profit agencies? Would it still indicate SJ types as the most frequent? Do you truly believe external motivations have no influence on people taking such a test? It's called being part of the Collective Unconscious where Individuation was taboo. Thoughts?


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

Good thoughts, I often have wondered where they got their numbers from.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> But if SJ shows as the most frequent types, would that not mean the NP types are the least frequent by default? Instead MBTI Foundation says Ni users is the least frequent type. How did that happen?


No. For example, assume

ISTJ: 12%
ESTJ: 10%
ISFJ: 12%
ESFJ: 11% ___ ~45% (largest)
__SP: ~27%
__NP: ~15%
__NJ ~13% 


The first part of your logic is the flawed part. It is true in theory that SJ types are the most frequent, but the typology system you mention entails four general categories (SJ, SP, NJ, NP - not, of course, MBTI traditional) not two so these _four_ pieces are complementary to 100%, not _two_ that you mentioned (SJ and NP). 

I will also likely disagree with your theory of cognitive functions possessing "opposites," though I will need time to pin out why, precisely - at the moment, it is instinct that tells me so. I do, however, agree with you that biases within the testing procedures of corporations could skew results dramatically. And that the results, even if themselves correct with respect to the individual, can be gravely misused by management because they do not truly understand the meaning of having a "type."


----------



## Seymour (Oct 19, 2009)

The MBTI type statistics generally come from the 1998 revision of the National Sample. This was a sample of responses from 3,000 individuals, 18 years old and older, obtained via random phone surveys. The results from the National Sample were adjusted to be more representative of U.S. census dated. For example, Caucasian females were overrepresented, and African American males were underrepresented. The adjusted results are called the "National Representative Sample" (NRS).

Since a phone survey was used, it is entirely possible that types less likely to respond to phone surveys (for whatever reason) were under-represented.

As far as the rarity of Ni, it seems that (at least among the respondents) an intuition preference correlates to a perceiving preference. This is reflected in the NRS there being almost double the number of NPs (19.4%) compared to NJs (8.9%)... similarly, SJs (43.1%) were more common than SPs (28.6%).

See the MBTI Manual, 3rd edition, pages 156-158, and page 338 for details.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I definitely think there are problems with the statistics, whichever way you want to cut it.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

I am reading "Jung's Typology" by Marie Louise von Franz and James Hillman. In descriptions of the four rational types, someone asks the question are the attitudinal and function types equally distributed. Dr. von Franz' response was:

*"We don't know for the whole of mankind; we have no studies of Chinese villages and such places. In general, we often speak of different nations as types; we say for example, that the Swiss are, on the whole introverted sensing types. This would imply that in certain groups one type sometimes prevails. Although there are many Swiss who are another type, there is a statistically dominant prevalence of the Si type. So in different countries and nations you could say that one type is dominant and creates a prevalent attitude in groups. But when you sum it all up - whether there are as many of each type - I do not know. I would need to investigation."* 

I think this also sums up what we know based on facts (or lack there of) is that to claim there is a prevalence of any type is misleading since the ideology of the country and nation creates an atmosphere where most would be subjected to the collective unconscious of the whole.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

I am skeptical of the validity of the MBTI test. because of Myers' and Brigg's misunderstanding of Jung's ideas, though Jung seems to have implied in many places that N dominants are quite rare.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> I will also likely disagree with your theory of cognitive functions possessing "opposites," though I will need time to pin out why, precisely - at the moment, it is instinct that tells me so.


Why?


(10 char)


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

I have come to the conclusion that MBTI and JCF are just two completely separate realms of existence, one focused on workplace application, the other on perception and judging.

I just got my officially administered MBTI results back: ENTJ with "slight E" and "slight J". Sure, the dichotomies fit, but I am not a Te dominant.

MBTI statistics are based off MBTI, a measuring instrument of 4 dichotomies. I haven't seen any statistics done on Cognitive Function prevalence and there is no standardized test for such, as far as I know.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

TaylorS said:


> I am skeptical of the validity of the MBTI test. because of Myers' and Brigg's misunderstanding of Jung's ideas, though Jung seems to have implied in many places that N dominants are quite rare.


Taylor S can you point us to similar comments. The only time I have seen Jung use the word rare is to say that pure types are rare. MBTI bases its descriptions on balanced use of dominant and auxiliary functions. That is also uncommon since from my understanding the third function can be just as developed as the auxiliary.


Spades said:


> I have come to the conclusion that MBTI and JCF are just two completely separate realms of existence, one focused on workplace application, the other on perception and judging.
> 
> I just got my officially administered MBTI results back: ENTJ with "slight E" and "slight J". Sure, the dichotomies fit, but I am not a Te dominant.
> 
> MBTI statistics are based off MBTI, a measuring instrument of 4 dichotomies. I haven't seen any statistics done on Cognitive Function prevalence and there is no standardized test for such, as far as I know.


Exactly and this is what I have been attempting to convey for quite some time. They are different systems applied in different ways. For the most part it’s almost impossible to explain the phenomenon of using MBTI without resorting to Xs or saying your type changed. Jung’s work is fluid and dynamic.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Taylor S can you point us to similar comments. The only time I have seen Jung use the word rare is to say that pure types are rare. MBTI bases its descriptions on balanced use of dominant and auxiliary functions. That is also uncommon since from my understanding the third function can be just as developed as the auxiliary. Exactly and this is what I have been attempting to convey for quite some time. They are different systems applied in different ways. For the most part it’s almost impossible to explain the phenomenon of using MBTI without resorting to Xs or saying your type changed. Jung’s work is fluid and dynamic.


I believe I remember reading it in his 1925 Tavistock (sp?) lectures, in one of the 2 lectures near the end where he discusses the functions, but I could have misread.


----------

