# Is INFJ as rare as it's made out to be?



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

I need to get this off my chest, but I really don't believe that only <1-3% of the population can be classified as an INFJ. 

One major flaw with INFJ automatically being considered the rarest type is that this assumes that everyone has taken the test, which isn't even a proper indicator when it comes to typing. (Well most aren't, for example the Humanmetrics test - which is also one of the most popular) A purely cognitive functions test is more accurate, but even so a large portion of the population, on this earth, probably hasn't taken these test. With that in mind, where are these results coming from? People who just take it, out of boredom, and carelessly fill in the answers that get recorded online? What about the people that haven't taken this test? Also, there are shit tons of infjs everywhere, I'm aware that <1, 1, <2, 2, <3, or 3% of the population is a lot, but for God's sake. If these percentages came from test sites, then AT MOST there are only 203,257,072 INFJs in the world. 

Now, you see, this seems highly implausible. Since there may be many more INFJs that have been mistyped or that have not taken nor discovered the test. Why is it so often claimed that INFJ is THE rarest type, as if it were a fact? I don't see where this information could be coming from other than one's hypothesis or internet tests. Even so, the fact that certain websites say that Infjs are less than 1% of the pop, or only 1%, and some even say 3%, I've seen between 3% and 4% a couple of times too, show that this information is outdated, inaccurate, or both.

Also if the same sites say that E/S/F/J are the most common traits, then if F & J are among the most common preferences, how is INFJ the rarest type? I understand that a mix between functions could contribute, but the ESFJ functions are Fe, Si, Ne, Ti. INFJs use two of those functions (Fe & Ti) 

- Although, that even brings me back from my previous point... How do they know that E, S, F, and J are the most common preferences? I mean sure, it may not seem that way to me because many of my friends are NT types, or IN types, or just I types, and there are a lot of random people that I don't care about who are probably ESxx types, but I don't know that. They could not be an ESxx type, so mere assumption nor unreliable data from the internet should state that one type is rarer than the other. If it's just a hypothesis then that's fine, but there are many people who try to test as IN (especially INxJ) because it's rare - and the worst part is that this desire is subconscious.

I could also get into how many people want to be N or T because they feel that an intuitor is somehow greater than a sensor _(even though some of those people care nothing for patterns or the abstract, and are so focused on what's happening in the present moment or what's real)_ ,or they get put off by the negative connotation on the word "feeler" so they want to be a T. Also, there are people who want to be introverts because that somehow makes them special... It's irritating how people want to be the rarest, smartest, or a certain type just so they can believe their different, when in reality they're just lying to themselves.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

"The estimated frequency table was compiled from a variety of MBTI® results from 1972 through 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP, Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI)."
The Myers & Briggs Foundation - How Frequent Is My Type

I believe most of the more prominent type proportion estimates are derived similarly - from giving people the test and/or going through the self-determination process and things like that. I highly doubt that most of the more commonly stated frequency information is derived from online tests.

As always, it's a case of rather wide extrapolation to take the data obtained and say it applies to the general population, but it's at least a rough guide. Such tests as are applied, to my knowledge, don't incorporate cognitive functions (I'm positive they're not directly addressed in the test, but they may or may not inform the type descriptions used in self-determination; I'm not sure). As such, one explanation for ESFJ being most common (the link above goes with ISFJ, but it's a fairly close call) would simply be that F and J preferences in some way correlate to E and S preferences, making it unlikely for any given FJ to also be IN.

So it's neither simply a hypothesis about type proportion, nor simply a collation of internet testing data - the link I provided doesn't give much information on the studies they used, but it appears there are many incorporated, and they would most likely have administered the official MBTI instrument. That can still be questioned and criticised from numerous angles, obviously, but it's not as though the figures were arbitrarily arrived at.

As for mistyping through subconscious desires, I doubt there are many whose specific unconscious desire is for a type that's simply rarer - more often, I suspect, such subconscious desires are to evaluate oneself as how you'd desire to be rather than how you are (which is to say nothing of otherwise incorrect evaluations of self...). In that way, people might be attracted to T answers on tests because they desire to be logical, or E answers because they desire to be social, J because they want to be organised, that sort of thing - but of course, they could just as easily go the opposite way, and people's desires will conflict... bottom line there, mistyping can occur for many a reason, and self-deceit in pursuit of rareness is but one of those.


----------



## OffTheBooks (Jan 5, 2012)

I think a lot of INFJ self-typed folks are actually just emo types that are mixing up loneliness and depression with independence and emotional depth.
At least that's what I've gathered in my short time here.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

There might be a possibility that there are more INFJs than are detected and inserted into a statistical analysis chart.

What if there is an INFJ subtype that hates being labeled or who are master chameleons and can appear to be another types?

I think the best way to find out if people are INFJ these days are actual MRI brain scans. This is becoming more possible and it goes back to the original Jungian theory of 8 types of brains and according to this one study there are 4 different ways to process information. Ni-dom can be detected in a brain scan as different from an Se-dom brain.

That I think is amazing... and possibly the future of typology.


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

I've spent some time reading through INFJ threads, and I can't help but notice how many post reek of Fi. I wonder how many are mistypes.


----------



## TimeGirl (Jul 23, 2014)

If a certain type is considered "rare", it only means that having its dominant function as a dominant function is rare, as well as having its auxiliary function as an auxiliary function is rare (the rest build themselves according to the first two). That's it. It doesn't mean that any function it has is rare, it only means that using this particular pack of functions in this particular order is rare.


----------



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

TimeGirl said:


> If a certain type is considered "rare", it only means that having its dominant function as a dominant function is rare, as well as having its auxiliary function as an auxiliary function is rare (the rest build themselves according to the first two). That's it. It doesn't mean that any function it has is rare, it only means that using this particular pack of functions in this particular order is rare.


I understand that, but cognitive functions tests (and even personal experience) tell me that my dominant function is NI, but my other two are Ti and Ne; therefore, my results are shown as INTP. (Which I fully agree with, I thought I was an INFJ or INTJ for a while, but that was certainly not the case. Anyway, I doubt that <1 - 3 (or maybe 4) percent of the entire population use Ni as a dominant function. Perhaps, this is the case for those who have taken the test in the US, but even so those numbers for a country's population seem unlikely, as well.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

You don't need the whole population to take a test to make good use of inferential statistics if a sample is sufficiently large, and for what it's worth, a sample doesn't even have to be that big for it to be deemed sufficiently large!


----------



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

Lestany said:


> I've spent some time reading through INFJ threads, and I can't help but notice how many post reek of Fi. I wonder how many are mistypes.


Well this post was not only about mistypes, but also the claim that INFJ is so incredibly rare. I do not feel that such is the case, perhaps it could be in the US, but that's not a very good assumption to assume that it's the rarest type. Also, saying that it's the rarest type in the US, implies that everyone in the U.S. has taken the test. There are many mistypes throughout the MBTI world, it's not just for INFJs, although I do agree that there are many "INFJs" that seem rather fi.


----------



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> You don't need the whole population to take a test to make good use of inferential statistics if a sample is sufficiently large, and for what it's worth, a sample doesn't even have to be that big for it to be deemed sufficiently large!


I suppose that you don't, but when the percentages range from less than 1% to 4% then it can be concluded that the data is inaccurate, or perhaps that such a claim should not be made at all. We do not know whether or not INFJ is truly the rarest type, perhaps it is.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Eudaimonia said:


> There might be a possibility that there are more INFJs than are detected and inserted into a statistical analysis chart.
> 
> What if there is an INFJ subtype that hates being labeled or who are master chameleons and can appear to be another types?
> 
> ...


Exactly. I said that if you look at the INFJ type from a Ni-Fe perspective it doesn't exist. Because it is deep into other people. It is all types, from Jung's perspective. It is like a default type. One could predict this type would be controversial without even joining this forum. It is a counselor type. Which is what Jung was. He was other people. Which is what an INFJ is too. So, if you don't know your type, Jung slides you into INFJ. Or the unbiased perspective, in his mind. The chameleon type, that can be all things.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

Eudaimonia said:


> There might be a possibility that there are more INFJs than are detected and inserted into a statistical analysis chart.
> 
> What if there is an INFJ subtype that hates being labeled or who are master chameleons and can appear to be another types?
> 
> ...


Maybe some individuals won't fit into the MBTI shoebox. How would such individuals be labeled & treated by society?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sinister Magick said:


> I suppose that you don't, but when the percentages range from less than 1% to 4% then it can be concluded that the data is inaccurate, or perhaps that such a claim should not be made at all. We do not know whether or not INFJ is truly the rarest type, perhaps it is.


You're understanding the sampling incorrectly; the sample size being sufficiently large is not about the percentage who are INFJ, but about the sample size as a whole. MBTI is categorical data, for what it's worth. The MBTI data has been collected since something like the 1970s with hundreds of people per year. In this situation your sample size, N, is sufficiently large to make conclusions about one of the categories within your data set provided you set up your hypotheses appropriately.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

stargazing grasshopper said:


> Maybe some individuals won't fit into the MBTI shoebox. How would such individuals be labeled & treated by society?


So far the studies aren't trying to put people in a box as much as they are learning what ways people (mostly children) process information and they have found through EEG that there are 4 major groups of types of processing information in human brains and 8 basic brain types found in MRI research which so happened to correlate to Jung's original theory... interestingly enough.

It really is fascinating if you would like to see it.

I've already shared this twice because I love it so much and it has explained a lot personally on how I learned while going to school. One thing to note is that there was more brain activity when children were staring out the window which means those who were staring out the window were probably taking in the information and making the connections more so than the ones "acting" like they were paying attention to the teacher.






It seems I'm becoming an evangelist for Dr Jane Kise research because people don't seem to believe me that people are using technology to confirm different types of brains exist.


----------



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> You're understanding the sampling incorrectly; the sample size being sufficiently large is not about the percentage who are INFJ, but about the sample size as a whole. MBTI is categorical data, for what it's worth. The MBTI data has been collected since something like the 1970s with hundreds of people per year. In this situation your sample size, N, is sufficiently large to make conclusions about one of the categories within your data set provided you set up your hypotheses appropriately.


I understand that, but that evidence is still not enough, let alone unreliable.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

since INFJs are such social 'chameleons', accomplished illusionists, palm readers, con artists, liars... or however you want to look at it... why would they choose to identify as INFJ when they have another identity they need to fill? Statistics based on a mythical system don't amount to much.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Sinister Magick said:


> I understand that, but that evidence is still not enough, let alone unreliable.


With the art/science of statistics, the sample size provided by the MBTI is large enough and there for reliable enough to make inferences based upon it...


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

TBH, the only complaint I really have about MBTI statistics is that it's not a random sample.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Well, first off, when you learn statistics, you learn that it is actually a "worse" indicator to try and sample as many people as possible than it is to pull from sample pools. 

Second, the problems go both ways. Yes, many INFJs probably mistype as other types--as in INFP, since "reeking of Fi" might not really be Fi at all, just a combination of Ni-Ti and lack of Fi (ironically). However, there are many who mistype AS INFJ, which helps balance out the problem.

Same goes for all the other types. To really take your personal view on this to the max, you'd have to come to conclusion that every single percentage distribution for every single type is all wildly incorrect and has to be thrown out. In which case, you shouldn't be arguing if there are more INFJs; you should be saying the theory itself is wrong.


----------



## Lestany (Sep 2, 2014)

The point I was making about mistypes is that percentages are unreliable. If many mistype as INFJ and INFJs mistype as others, then percentages won't give us any indication of how rare they actually are.


----------



## Greyhart (Oct 13, 2014)

owlboy said:


> I thought I was an INTJ for maybe... a year? Before I understood what ''extroverted'' actually meant and really grasped the difference between Te and Ti.
> 
> A LOT of TPs mistype themselves as TJs, I think.


Lol, same. Ni is impossible wonky function to understand. I miss-typed myself for longer than a year, since I didn't get into functions for a while AND I am phobic and have anxiety. So I went something like INTJ, ISTJ (??? I wish lol), ENTJ and then tie between INTP and ENTP. Later won by a large because of Fe-Si vs. Si-Fe.

And years before INTJ, probably since mid-teens, I've been doing those "simple" Y/N online tests and getting stuff like ENFP, INFJ and INFP. :dry: To be honest that was me trying to live up (in online tests at least!) to my ENFJ mother's example. Not happening.


----------



## CitricBoxer (Jan 3, 2015)

koalaroo said:


> TBH, the only complaint I really have about MBTI statistics is that it's not a random sample.


And to be fair, that is a _pretty_ damn big complaint when it comes to statistics.

Still, most of the questions raised by the OP are answered by a basic course in statistics.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Greyhart said:


> Lol, same. Ni is impossible wonky function to understand. I miss-typed myself for longer than a year, since I didn't get into functions for a while AND I am phobic and have anxiety. So I went something like INTJ, ISTJ (??? I wish lol), ENTJ and then tie between INTP and ENTP. Later won by a large because of Fe-Si vs. Si-Fe.
> 
> And years before INTJ, probably since mid-teens, I've been doing those "simple" Y/N online tests and getting stuff like ENFP, INFJ and INFP. :dry: To be honest that was me trying to live up (in online tests at least!) to my ENFJ mother's example. Not happening.


INFP was the first answer I got on those tests!! But it never really seemed right to me and I never really identified with it. And I was pretty crackers at the time from trying to emulate Feelers as well. [I was involved with this WHACKJOB enfp for a long time, his obsession with ~*values*~ went beyond normal Fi levels and into mental illness territory I think].


----------



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> I feel as if all of the misconceptions and mistypes of INFJs stems from the fact that Carl Jung was one himself.


It is not a fact that Carl Jung was an INFJ. I've looked it up, and I found nothing that claimed it was a fact that he was an INFJ. Although, I did find this video. 




Jung says that he's a thinker, and that he has a difficult time feeling. Also, Jung says that his relation to relation was not practical. He sounds quite INTP, but he may be an INTJ.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Queen of Mars said:


> I feel as if all of the misconceptions and mistypes of INFJs stems from the fact that Carl Jung was one himself.





Sinister Magick said:


> It is not a fact that Carl Jung was an INFJ. I've looked it up, and I found nothing that claimed it was a fact that he was an INFJ. Although, I did find this video. ...
> 
> Jung says that he's a thinker, and that he has a difficult time feeling. Also, Jung says that his relation to relation was not practical. He sounds quite INTP, but he may be an INTJ.


I lean INTJ for Jung, with INFJ as my second choice — and INTP also in the running — for the reasons described in this post — which includes a transcript of the relevant portion of that video.

As further explained in the linked post, it appears that Jung, in typing himself, may have been somewhat "painfully" torn between INTJ and INTP.

And nooooooo, Jung did _not_ think INTJs were Ni-Te-Fi-Se and INTPs were Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. (That issue is briefly discussed in the first linked post, but there's a more comprehensive discussion in this post.)


----------



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

reckful said:


> I lean INTJ for Jung, with INFJ as my second choice — and INTP also in the running
> 
> As further explained in the linked post, it appears that Jung, in typing himself, may have been somewhat "painfully" torn between INTJ and INTP.


If Jung says that he was an INT, then why the hell is INFJ in the running? I thought that I was an INFJ at a point, and I realize that I could not have been more wrong. Carl Jung doesn't seem like an FE aux, and I know that's not how he thought of types, but even so. Jung does not seem like an INFJ.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Sinister Magick said:


> If Jung says that he was an INT, then why the hell is INFJ in the running? I thought that I was an INFJ at a point, and I realize that I could not have been more wrong. Carl Jung doesn't seem like an FE aux, and I know that's not how he thought of types, but even so. Jung does not seem like an INFJ.


That question is answered in my first linked post.

Again, I lean T, but a lot of respectable sources think he may have been a (mistyped) F, and I think there's a case to be made for that.


----------



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

reckful said:


> That question is answered in my first linked post.
> 
> Again, I lean T, but a lot of respectable sources think he may have been a (mistyped) F, and I think there's a case to be made for that.


No I know I saw that INFJ was (Ni FI). I just don't think that it's plausible that Jung would have mistyped himself, ironic yes, but I feel that Jung would know whether or not he was an F.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Sinister Magick said:


> No I know I saw that INFJ was (Ni FI). I just don't think that it's plausible that Jung would have mistyped himself, ironic yes, but I feel that Jung would know whether or not he was an F.


The issue isn't the function stack so much as this (from the linked post):



reckful said:


> I think T/F's the messiest of the four MBTI dimensions, and arguably the one that's the most poorly captured in modern MBTI sources — and I think there's a strong case to be made that Jung didn't have all that good a grasp on how an F preference would tend to manifest itself in, say, a male (in particular) INFJ.


As further discussed in this post, I'd say there's been a significant evolution (since Jung) in the concept of what an MBTI F preference is essentially about, and when I say he _may_ have been an F — and again, I lean T — I'm talking about an F in accordance with more modern MBTI theory, rather than Jung's original concept.


----------



## Croaker (Nov 5, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> INFJs probably are not as rare as they are made out to be, but keep in mind, do you often meet a lot of people who present INFJ characteristics? If so, please elaborate. I've been wondering the same myself, as I have only met one other INFJ in person.


I type people rather rapidly and I've thought about everyone in my family, friend circle and places of work. I was guilty of seeing the world through MBTI coloured glasses at one point. I had some folk from a MBTI seminar service come in for a place I once worked and I guessed the instructors types accurately before the end of the session (I spoke to them privately while we we're doing group work).

Point being: I type everyone I can that I come into contact with so I have a pretty decent anecdotal database in my head.

In MY wanders through life I have found that INFJ's are rare but I know quite a few. I've dated two, my roommate was one, my mother is one and I have another friend who is one. Because of the closeness of some of the INFJ's to me, personally, I've had their likeness burned into my mind so I see them out and about. I had an English prof who was one. Sometimes you see them in passing.

But compared to the more common ISFP, maaan, ISFPs are _everydamnwhere._ I don't take special note because it's less of a novelty.

As an aside, I had a lot of trouble typing ENTJ's until recently because of my limited personal experience with them. I live with one right now and it's done wonders for my ability to spot them.

And I imagine some people are going to call bullshit on typing people in passing but let me assure you it did not start that way or jump to that level suddenly. I started getting all of my friends to take the test when I was in highschool. My brother told me about the MBTI and I was significantly more interested than he was. I'm also one of those crazy fucks who thinks you can type someone by their face alone. Sue me.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Sinister Magick said:


> Was Jung an INFJ? From all of the sources that I've read, they claimed that he was an INTP. Jung being an INTP would seem far more plausible to me, but I could be wrong. What makes you think that he was an INFJ?


Sorry this is a bit late, I haven't had any free time. 
As far as I know the websites that I've looked up state that he was an INFJ. INFJ's are often interested in psychology, so I really doubt that it's improbable for him to be one.


----------



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> Sorry this is a bit late, I haven't had any free time.
> As far as I know the websites that I've looked up state that he was an INFJ. INFJ's are often interested in psychology, so I really doubt that it's improbable for him to be one.


Actually any type could be interested in psychology, I'm very interested in psychology and I'm not an INFJ. Although, I've noticed that IN types in general are interested in psychology, philosophy, and etc. Jung even said that he's not a feeling person.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Greyhart said:


> The reason I propagate for people to try and be more objective with type assignment is of how shitty some of stereotypes are. Like you can't be "deep" and creative a sensor, smart and scientific as a "feeler", can't be extroverted if you don't like parties or you can't like parties as an introvert. So a lot of people go like "I'm deep and interesting person so I have to N!" or "I like people too much to be T!", or even "Ugh, I'm not some wuss F, I'm logical I have to be T!".


I very much agree, and I see this a lot with people on these forums and just people I've introduced to MBTI in general. It's really irritating, actually. I've even succumbed to that narrow outlook at times due to my sudden, significant increase in wanting to learn _just_ for the sake of learning. Apparently, these aren't S qualities or F qualities, but more inherently N and T qualities. Yeah, okay. When people start to think like that, it discredits all of the studies over functions and what are first and foremost functions, not set in stone _rules_ on how to act or portray yourself according to type. 

With that said, I'm also young and could very well be mistyped, but for now, I really resonate with the descriptions of Sensors and Feelers, despite wanting to break the mold and work against some of the things that come naturally with those preferences. 

I don't know, with MBTI, people tend to forget that even though it's got a lot of merit and is credible, they also take it for face value and the first google result they get on functions, they read it and that's it. No more learning, I've got all I need with this one, very broad description of what functions mean. (all) Feelers are emotional catastrophes and (all) Thinkers are ingenious robots. Got it.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

On Jung, from _*Mastery*_;

In 1906 Carl Jung was a promising thirty-one-year-old psychiatrist, renowned for his work in experimental psychology and holding an important position at the famous Burgholzli Psychiatric Hospital in Zurich. But despite the apparent success success in his life, he felt insecure. He believed that his interest in the occult and strange psychic phenomena was a weakness he needed to work through. He was frustrated that his treatment of patients was often not effective. He worried that his work had no legitimacy and that he lacked a certain rigor.


----------



## cotti (Aug 24, 2014)

INFJs seem to be the rarest type but not increbdibly; INTJ and the other two introverted and intuitive types are very rare too. I think Ni dom is what makes this type particularly rare, anyway rarest doesn't mean best.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Sinister Magick said:


> Actually any type could be interested in psychology, I'm very interested in psychology and I'm not an INFJ. Although, I've noticed that IN types in general are interested in psychology, philosophy, and etc. Jung even said that he's not a feeling person.


Fair enough, but the thing is that I've done research that has stated that Carl Jung is an INFJ. Could you post me a link to somewhere that says he is an INTP?


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

cotti said:


> INFJs seem to be the rarest type but not increbdibly; INTJ and the other two introverted and intuitive types are very rare too. I think Ni dom is what makes this type particularly rare, anyway rarest doesn't mean best.


Agreed. Ni dom is just not a common personality trait. No personality type is better than the others, they're just different.


----------



## starscream430 (Jan 14, 2014)

Maybe they are living in a kingdom of isolation :happy:.










The joke is that Elsa from Frozen is considered an INFJ :kitteh:.


----------



## Massiv0r (Oct 25, 2014)

Sinister Magick said:


> It is not a fact that Carl Jung was an INFJ. I've looked it up, and I found nothing that claimed it was a fact that he was an INFJ. Although, I did find this video.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


INTJs and INFJs appear to have similar *physical traits* he kinda looks like an *underwearwolf.*
(thats why he said he identifies with ISTPs)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

starscream430 said:


> Maybe they are living in a kingdom of isolation :happy:.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She's an ISTJ.


----------



## starscream430 (Jan 14, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> She's an ISTJ.


Oh?! :shocked:. I guess the joke got frozen in its tracks :tongue:. I hope I don't get any chilly responses from the members of this thread over my mistake :tongue:.

My apologies for that mistake...even though Elsa is listed as an INTJ in a Disney blog :shocked:.

What Is Your Disney Personality Type? | Whoa | Oh My Disney


----------

