# Are INFJ really the rarest and why not ENTP or ENTJ?



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

evaunit02 said:


> The generalizations are put forth because I don't see much more else to go from that they are in fact the rarest so why not start somewhere rather than nowhere at all? Which is why like I said before, I made this thread to gather others insights.
> May I see where you got your info that shows that INFJ preferences are certainly less common? Fe as an auxiliary function, does that really strike you as uncommon? Really?


Are you suggesting that because Fe is common that types who use Fe should therefore be common? 

INFJ preferences = INFJ type = a whole. The whole or that combination of parts is what is uncommon. I, N, F, J, or even Ni, and Fe, are more common looking at them individually than the INFJ type as a whole.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

Has it ever occurred to you that there are more INTJs and INFJs ONLINE but not in REAL LIFE... It's because they're so socially awkward, they can really find a place where they belong online. That's why there's so many INFPs and INTPs as well.

I don't know what you're thinking, saying that ENTPs and ENTJs are rare online, because we're not. There's actually a huge amount of ENTPs on personalitycafe alone. Get your crap together, OP.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> In regards to E, T and P being less common than I, F and J, yet INFJ purportedly being the rarest, could that not simply be explained by the possibility of IxFJ types being more likely to have a sensing preference than ExTP types? I _have_ heard that there's - statistically, rather than theoretically - some link between scoring as an S and scoring as a J, so given that, such an answer certainly doesn't seem implausible. Same thing with Kiersey - no reason why, presuming the "rationals are rarest" claim is accurate, the four "rational" types might be more evenly distributed than the "idealist" types. I don't know if statistics on the relative commonness of functions exist, but again, even if it isn't true that Ni, Fe, Ti and Se are rarer than Ne, Fi, Te and Si respectively, that doesn't invalidate the possibility that the specific combination Ni-Fe-Ti-Se is rarer than the other fifteen XYXY combinations. I don't think the point about what ENTJ types and INFJ types would more typically be like really has merit - there's going to be great variance between individuals within each type, so such assumptions and generalisations don't really carry much meaningful weight.
> 
> It's not really true to say it isn't questioned that INFJs are considered the rarest type - I've seen the question raised a few times before, for instance - but is there any compelling reason to believe the statistics on the matter are flawed, or that the conclusions about type proportion they reach are incorrect? The main argument for that I can see is disagreement with the model applied, as you've alluded to by suggesting that there's something shallow about the more dichotomy-centred focus of the MBTI. But I certainly don't see any discrepancy evident in claiming that INFJs are the rarest type.


This guy is the only one who has a clue.


----------



## Vigorous (Dec 6, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Are you suggesting that because Fe is common that types who use Fe should therefore be common?
> 
> INFJ preferences = INFJ type = a whole. The whole or that combination of parts is what is uncommon. I, N, F, J, or even Ni, and Fe, are more common looking at them individually than the INFJ type as a whole.


"I believe that the provider of MBTI statistics is right when he claims Fe are common!"
"But I also believe that the provider of MBTI statistics is absolutely wrong when he claims INFJs are rare!"


----------



## slothpop (Mar 19, 2014)

I believe it has something to do with Ni being the rarest dominant function. Ni is a function that, simply put, we don't need a lot of. My father is an INTJ, and I have recently been confirmed as an INFJ. It is remarkable how similar our childhood experiences were, and our dominant Ni both gave us a "spacey" quality that made us both think that we had ADD. I was a bit of a schizoid child (despite often looking like an extrovert today due to my well-developed Fe), and a lot of my experiences with Ni were eccentric and did little in the way of productivity and much in the way of "scaring" my family members.

Now let's think on a grander scale: what would happen if more people had this function than necessary? Well, simply put, a lot less would get done. My Ni sits in limbo until I recognize a *need* to go forth and do something. When I have a creative urge, I *must* do something about it -- there is no resisting it. Until then, there isn't much I am motivated to do at all. My ENTJ ex can't stop doing things. He has accomplished many things, and will probably be a big-time CEO one day. As much as I admire him and aspire to take a slice of that work ethic for myself, I know that I could never be like that. I am just not equipped for that in an academic playing field. I have to be thoroughly passionate about something in order to work on it so relentlessly.

Even my father has it a bit easier with his Te. He owns his own company now, and his Ni-Te combination has proved him a very prophetic and peaceful leader. He came to be this way by religiously reading books, gathering information, and meditating -- all things that help cultivate the Ni-dominant function. Inadvertently, he has been strengthening his personality since college. Yet he still has trouble with mundane things, conscientiousness, and staying focused. His main goal in life is to find the sense of focus that seems to come so naturally to other people.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, if you look strictly at the letters, INFJ shouldn't be as rare as ENTJ or ENTP. Yet, those well-versed in MBTI theory know that the letters mean nothing, and that the functions mean everything. The letters are simply a way to explain the functions to the average person. With the letters, CEOs and business leaders (along with the rest of the population) could use the MBTI without maintaining the time or interest to understand the mechanisms behind it. But if you look strictly at the functions, Te and Ne (the dominant functions of ENTJ and ENTP, respectively) are very helpful because they both directly impact the outside world. Te is the quintessential CEO function, and Ne is the quintessential creative builder and object innovator. With an ENTJ/ENTP team, great empires can be formed (think Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak). Bill Gates, a Ni-dom, has his ExTJ wife by his side in many of his pursuits. Even my Ni-dom father co-runs his company with an ExTJ, because that Te function gets stuff done and is no-nonsense. Though my father's Te-aux and perpetual thirst for information certainly helps him a ton.

For the INFJ, Fe-aux doesn't get stuff done the way that Te-aux does. It is, however, capable of healing those that fall to the wayside. We need less Ni-Fe users in our biological dance sequence, so there are less of them. I hope that this post made sense.

(Also, if your argument is that INFJ types are overrepresented on this forum, and therefore cannot be the rarest type...that is not a sound argument. INFJ and INFP types are the two types most drawn to Typology in general. In fact, I think that Typology appeals to INFJ types more than any other type, because it combines archetype (Ni) with personal identity that can be transferred on a grander scale (Fe). I know that I have been obsessed with typology theory as an abstract entity since I found it in high school, and I am currently in college. I certainly am not advocating that INFJ is the rarest type, I am simply outlining here why it makes sense to me that it is.)


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> To be clear, INFJ is the rarest type in the US. Those statistics are based on the US national sample.


I know part of the issue is the disparity between the Myers-Briggs dichotomies (which I'm not really a fan of tbh) and Jung's theories on cognitive types, but just how _accurate _are these statistics anyways? It seems Myers-Briggs (and Keirsey) were more interested in the empirical utility of personality/cognitive type (i.e., to "guide" people to various professions, hence their (IMO) dubious use in employment "advice." Keirsey, in particular, feels like a social engineering experiment that crams types into social roles, like so many gears in a machine.

I'm suspicious of the supposed "rarity" of a given type because a lot depends on how it is understood.

For instance, how often have a heard people talk about Ni-doms having "difficulty putting things into words." If anything, difficulty in articulating one's thoughts arises from several places other than cognitive type:



Age - Being able to form cohesive arguments is a skill that is practiced, not inherented (or so I generally believe, based on personal experience and the hope that people do improve.
Discourse group and language barriers - JCF, math, english, spanish, chemistry, drama, etc. all have a language. You know why so many people might type as Ni-dom? Because "Ni-doms have difficulty putting things into words"... Maybe it's because when you are first learning about cognitive types, there is a whole new language to learn—subjective/objective orientations, attitudes, function-attitudes, what actually are Thinking, Feeling, iNtuition and Sensation, irrational/rational, etc. And well, if I'm learning spanish or any new language, of course I'm going to have difficulty putting things into words.
Introversion in general mistaken for intuition - If anything, it is introverts who have difficulty putting things into words, particularly if they've suppressed the objective reality a lot, which will distort their ability to "bridge" their thoughts to the outer world.

*Another elephant in the room*:


Rarity sounds attractive, alluring and mysterious, hence there may be some confirmation bias in "settling" on a type.
"INFJs are misunderstood"---Again, I feel the social, cultural and generational influences are taken out of context... don't teenagers in general often feel misunderstood? Aren't most people here Generation Y/Z who are the "misunderstood young adult" generations? What about enneagram type 4s, 5s to some extent, 6s and possibly 9s? What about people who have simply had bad experiences in life?
Generation Y and Generation Z... this is the MeMeMe generation, so being rare, special, etc. is incredibly flattering (how INFJs are often defined... evidence = the existence of this thread) has often been drilled into us from a young age, so we naturally think we are special (which ironically makes us _*not *_so special). This is the age of "everyone gets a college education!" "Play Mozart for the unborn fetus!"

I think there is a lot of vanity attached to online typology that, at least on this site, pollutes the statistics. I know when I mistyped as INFJ, I often had a stupid grin on my face because of how cool the type sounded.

Jung pointed out in The Undiscovered Self that the objectively verifiable reality was not as important as the subjective attitude (and to be fair, does that not reveal Jung's own cognitive biases?). In other words, we must know ourselves rather than have the world out there tell us who we are. Jung is famous for saying
_*
"Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakens"*_

But is not Jung himself projecting his own cognitive biases? I doubt he could read minds, so how did he know who was awake or dreaming? That's sort of his point, I suppose, is that his perspective is the "outside" of someone elses cognition.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

I don't see the problem, if types are factual then their rarity won't be determined by reason, it'll be determined by natural occurences/natural facts, the same facts that bring out the existence of such types in the first place. In other words, no matter how you rationalize it, or try to reason through it, if the INFJ is truly the rarest statistic out of all the types then the reason behind it isn't how people rationalize it, but instead lies within the statistic itself, the facts that brought about the statistic in the first place. 

Also if you're using anecdotal information then youre inevitably going to be susceptible to flawed reason. For instance, where you are from may contain a higher than average amount of INFJs, while containing a lower amount ENTJs. Whereas a different location could produce different results, where your anecdotal information lacks consistency with. 

What you could argue is the validity behind the tests, the awareness the testees have of themselves, and how the statistics was calcultated or carried out. These could all lead to statistical flaws, problems that can inevitably give a false statistic. I honestly don't trust the statistics or the tests because of the high % of error that they both potentially contain due to the reasons I gave. 

The point though is, no matter what the rarest type happens to be it'll be because of a natural facts, it won't be because we rationalized it so, which it seems you have been attempting to do.

Since we're on the cognitive functions thread I think it is appropriate to mention that a type isn't determined by their generalizations or how others generalize them, in order to accurately type someone you will need to forgo generalizations and focus on functions.


----------



## Afterburner (Jan 8, 2013)

@evaunit02 Every statistic you can find. I'm not saying Fe itself is uncommon. But Ni-Fe-Ti-Se seems to be. These are the "INFJ preferences" I'm referring to, not each individual preference within the INFJ. I just don't see any compelling reason to think that INFJ isn't the rarest preference.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

slothpop said:


> I believe it has something to do with Ni being the rarest dominant function. Ni is a function that, simply put, we don't need a lot of.


How is intuition _*not *_something we need a lot of? iNtuition (counterbalanced by sensing) is described by Jung as where something is going and from whence it came (generally speaking, time, although more in a chronological sense than a measurable sense, I think). Sounds pretty damn important to me, even if it's superficial stuff like anticipating a car wreck or traffic jam.



> Jung: These four functional types correspond to the obvious means by which consciousness obtains its orientation to experience. Sensation (i.e. sense perception) tells us that something exists; thinking tells you what it is; feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and *intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going*.


Some describe Ni, subjective intuition, as a hunch... like anticipating future events (hence the "premonition" quality often attributed to Ni-doms in more extreme cases). Ni-doms "just know" because [mostly] unconscious Se is cherrypicking sensing data that intuition can then draw connections between. If sensing data is the notes, then perhaps intuition is the space between the notes:


----------



## slothpop (Mar 19, 2014)

hal0hal0 said:


> How is intuition _*not *_something we need a lot of? iNtuition (counterbalanced by sensing) is described by Jung as where something is going and from whence it came (generally speaking, time, although more in a chronological sense than a measurable sense, I think). Sounds pretty damn important to me, even if it's superficial stuff like anticipating a car wreck or traffic jam.


Intuition is something we need comparatively little of. We only need one person to envision the future prospects of a company, and then we need 500 more practical-minded people to implement this vision. An INFJ alone is wasting his or her valuable time as a leader if she is taking care of the practical details that sensors can so easily perform.

I was not implying that intuition is not necessary. It is probably the most important function we have -- on a grander scale. But in day-to-day life, we only need a few people to predict the endpoint. One person can do this. The rest must help make this vision a reality. Not everyone can see the future, but those who can could certainly help others understand where the future is going. If everyone could see the future, what would get done?

Think of a beehive. What would happen if we only had queen bees to direct the hive?


----------



## platorepublic (Dec 27, 2012)

evaunit02 said:


> I'm not butthurt, go away, little kid.


Trust me, you are butthurt.


----------



## evaunit02 (Nov 26, 2014)

lackofmops said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that there are more INTJs and INFJs ONLINE but not in REAL LIFE... It's because they're so socially awkward, they can really find a place where they belong online. That's why there's so many INFPs and INTPs as well.
> 
> I don't know what you're thinking, saying that ENTPs and ENTJs are rare online, because we're not. There's actually a huge amount of ENTPs on personalitycafe alone. Get your crap together, OP.


Has it ever occurred to you that being an introvert or extrovert has absolutely nothing to do with being socially awkward? Joining an online forum of discussion is more extroverted than anything and if you're going to tell me that introverts join simply because they're introverted, you're plain wrong. Don't tell me what to do, your ignorance is showing. This is only recreational, don't get your little ego in a twist. Honestly, you don't seem like an ENTJ being so instantly obtuse and all without anything to back up what you say, in fact, what you say and your own "analysis" if you might even call it that, is incredibly shallow, but that's neither here nor there and your own thing.



Vigorous said:


> "I believe that the provider of MBTI statistics is right when he claims Fe are common!"
> "But I also believe that the provider of MBTI statistics is absolutely wrong when he claims INFJs are rare!"


Please show me where I said Fe specifically was common as a result of a statistic, I haven't. Your ignorance is showing and so is your sarcasm so if you have nothing useful to contribute and only deconstructive criticism I suggest you leave and read elsewhere. Take a look at the contributing posts and try to act as such rather than trying to denounce anything that you might not agree with and if you do disagree please provide actual insight as that's what I made the thread for, not to be flamed or insulted. It seems a discrepancy and isn't at all inherently harmful to discuss, please leave with your negative attitude if that's all you wish to contribute.



platorepublic said:


> Trust me, you are butthurt.


And you have nothing useful to contribute and just want to raise your meaningless post count and weak ego.



Afterburner said:


> @evaunit02 Every statistic you can find. I'm not saying Fe itself is uncommon. But Ni-Fe-Ti-Se seems to be. These are the "INFJ preferences" I'm referring to, not each individual preference within the INFJ. I just don't see any compelling reason to think that INFJ isn't the rarest preference.


I understand, but I just don't see reason enough to believe that they are the rarest and would like one, I'm not saying they aren't, they might be. As it goes, functions and the placement of their functions, it just doesn't seem like that they would truly as a cohesive unit be the rarest. The idea is fun to play with, at least for me.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

slothpop said:


> An INFJ alone is wasting his or her *valuable time as a leader* if she is taking care of the practical details that sensors can so easily perform.


Ah, so INFJs are leaders and the rest of us our dumb sheep that contribute to the hivemind. Forgive me. I'm a idiot sensor that can't read between the lines and I'll go back to shoveling coal into the furnace because my personality type apparently dictates what sort of job I should take and what sort of skills I have (thanks Keirsey!). So... does that make me your worker bee, my queen?

I mistyped as INFJ for 2 years and made many of the same arguments you have just made (it's all there in my post history... I'm one of the top contributors of the "you know you're an INFJ when..." thread for instance). I considered myself intuitive because I learn by concepts and principles, not facts. Memorization does not come naturally to me and I get bored with meaningless details or repetitious tasks. I love the "big picture" but... what is the big picture?

Sensing and intuition do NOT exist in isolation. Sensing is the Yin to Intuition's Yang, so to speak. The concrete reality "as is" (Sensing) opens way to many possibilities (intuitions) some of which may transpire and others not. The less sensing data the intuitive incorporates, the more off-base their predictions. And without anything to tie sensing data together, then it becomes alphabet soup.

What if someone has both vision _*and *_practicality? You talk about them as if it's either/or. We can't have perfect well-rounded individuals! The universe would blow up. I've met people that have had vision, practicality, none or both. It's all over the place probably because of a little thing called life experience (or the lack thereof... that can be its own experience).

Can you read minds? If not, then how do you know what the normal masses are thinking or what their motives are? How do you know the worker bee isn't secretly the queen and the queen isn't just a worker in regalia?



> “What we call ‘normal’ is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience. It is radically estranged from the structure of being. The more one sees this, the more senseless it is to continue with generalized descriptions of supposedly specifically schizoid, schizophrenic, hysterical ‘mechanisms.’ There are forms of alienation that are relatively strange to statistically ‘normal’ forms of alienation. The ‘normally’ alienated person, by reason of the fact that he acts more or less like everyone else, is taken to be sane. Other forms of alienation that are out of step with the prevailing state of alienation are those that are labeled by the ‘formal’ majority as bad or mad.”
> 
> RD Laing, The Politics of Experience


^Ironically or not, I am doing that myself. Projection gets a bad rep, I think. If you think about it, "to project" simply means to voice one's concerns. Thus, is not any form of communication involve, to some degree, projection? Projections are like guesses. I'm doing it now by assuming others' motives and filling in the blanks (via intuition, no less).


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Socionic Type Distribution Statistics

The distribution is actually probably close to even.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

evaunit02 said:


> Your ignorance is showing and so is your sarcasm so if you have nothing useful to contribute and only deconstructive criticism I suggest you leave and read elsewhere. Take a look at the contributing posts and try to act as such rather than trying to denounce anything that you might not agree with and if you do disagree please provide actual insight as that's what I made the thread for, not to be flamed or insulted. It seems a discrepancy and isn't at all inherently harmful to discuss, please leave with your negative attitude if that's all you wish to contribute.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I just don't see reason enough to believe that they are the rarest and would like one, I'm not saying they aren't, they might be. As it goes, functions and the placement of their functions, it just doesn't seem like that they would truly as a cohesive unit be the rarest. The idea is fun to play with, at least for me.


One questions things through good arguments. People are "deconstructing" precisely because your arguments aren't good enough to support the conclusion you're arguing for: that is a useful criticism because it shows that the argument you're attempting to make doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 

Why wouldn't they? What is there inherent to the INFJ function stack that makes it seem unlikely that INFJs would be rarest? As both I and others have said, there are plenty of grounds from which you can dispute the statistics, especially if your take on MBTI theory is more function-oriented than the one involved in the collating of the statistics, but trying to reason out which type is most likely to be rarest - especially when applying broad, stereotypical understandings of the types concerned - doesn't really contribute anything meaningful to the discussion on rarest type either; it's a matter of how many actually are out there, not a matter of what seems to make sense based on an evaluation of personalities you've encountered (which is obviously going to be affected by location).


----------



## evaunit02 (Nov 26, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> One questions things through good arguments. People are "deconstructing" precisely because your arguments aren't good enough to support the conclusion you're arguing for: that is a useful criticism because it shows that the argument you're attempting to make doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Why wouldn't they? What is there inherent to the INFJ function stack that makes it seem unlikely that INFJs would be rarest? As both I and others have said, there are plenty of grounds from which you can dispute the statistics, especially if your take on MBTI theory is more function-oriented than the one involved in the collating of the statistics, but trying to reason out which type is most likely to be rarest - especially when applying broad, stereotypical understandings of the types concerned - doesn't really contribute anything meaningful to the discussion on rarest type either; it's a matter of how many actually are out there, not a matter of what seems to make sense based on an evaluation of personalities you've encountered (which is obviously going to be affected by location).


I already addressed all of these points you bring up yet again in my other posts well and concisely, go read them over again. Thanks. Your deconstructing arguments are in fact the ones that are not good enough to debunk it all, also take a look at the posts I've bothered to thank as they are actually contributing and try having more of a basis to demean all that I've said rather than your skepticism, thanks again.


----------



## slothpop (Mar 19, 2014)

hal0hal0 said:


> Ah, so INFJs are leaders and the rest of us our dumb sheep that contribute to the hivemind. Forgive me. I'm a idiot sensor that can't read between the lines and I'll go back to shoveling coal into the furnace because my personality type apparently dictates what sort of job I should take and what sort of skills I have (thanks Keirsey!). So... does that make me your worker bee, my queen?
> 
> I mistyped as INFJ for 2 years and made many of the same arguments you have just made (it's all there in my post history... I'm one of the top contributors of the "you know you're an INFJ when..." thread for instance). I considered myself intuitive because I learn by concepts and principles, not facts. Memorization does not come naturally to me and I get bored with meaningless details or repetitious tasks. I love the "big picture" but... what is the big picture?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry I offended you. That wasn't my intention. I used the beehive example because I was under the impression that the queen bee is the bee who has the best interest of the hive in mind, but practically, she does very little. I did a little bit of reading and now understand that she does a bit more than that.

Regardless, I think that the INFJ personality type has this idea tacked onto it. This idea of the wise old medicine man, the prophet, the seer...the person people turn to when they don't know where to turn. This is how I perceive the INFJ at its best. I am not implying that you couldn't be that very same person. You do seem to have a sharp head on your shoulders, and you seem invested in the big picture, which I'm sure makes you well equipped to take over such a role. In a similar sense, an INFJ could take over an ENTJ's role, and an ENTJ could take over an ISFP's role. My main point, however, is that cognitive functions permit that one type would more naturally fit a particular role over another. This is my motivation for studying MBTI, because I do think that we are meant to work on cultivating our dominant and auxiliary functions in tandem in order to create an optimal world.

I certainly don't want to imply that the sensors should bend and cater to the whims of a Ni-dom. I like to operate on this philosophy that humans, as a species, don't necessarily know what they want, and that it takes someone who can operate on a sense of static principles, holistic viewfinding, and a strong sense of morality to lead a group of people who are naturally self-invested. People must work together, but we must have a sense of holistic understanding in order to do so. Perhaps a better example would be Plato's Cave. Those within the cave were meant to build a life of extraordinary proportions, but cannot do that until they understand that they are currently living in a cave. There is so much more on the other side, and I would attribute the cognitive function responsible for discovering this to Ni. If this attribution were correct, then Ni would not be the leader in a pack of sensing-related functions, but rather the "a-ha" moment that allows humanity to work in harmony towards creating a better future. This is how I would perceive the usefulness of a dominant Ni in the grander scheme of things, and this is why I think that we need less of it, because the discovery needn't happen more than once.

I suppose you could argue that it needn't be a Ni-dom to make this discovery. Fair enough -- I just believe that it is the cognitive function most well equipped to do so, just as Te is most well-equipped to lead corporate businesses, and Fi is most well-equipped to understand the heart's true desire. My cards are on the table now, so I probably won't keep responding to this thread. Again, sorry to offend.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

evaunit02 said:


> I already addressed all of these points you bring up yet again in my other posts well and concisely, go read them over again. Thanks. Your deconstructing arguments are in fact the ones that are not good enough, also take a look at the posts I've bothered to thank as they are actually contributing and try having more of a basis to demean all that I've said rather than your subjective speak, thanks again.


No, you actually haven't - your entire line of rebuttal in relation to my pointing out that your point about ENTJs being more leaderlike and having greater presence dealt in stereotypes was to say that it still stood because stereotypes have some grain of truth to them, for instance, which conveniently ignores the part where the rest of the stereotype - i.e., all the parts that _aren't_ true - shouldn't be applied as though they are true. Your points about J being more common than P, I more than E, and F more than T have been addressed by both me and others, fairly clearly I should think, to which your entire rebuttal is about what "seems" to make sense to you, rather than what might actually make sense. 

I'm not trying to "demean all that [you've] said", nor am I speaking subjectively - surely the person who questions statistics because of what "seems" likely is the one who's talking subjectively here? You've raised arguments; I (along with others) have shown where your arguments are faulty or flawed, and have raised some examples of reasonable arguments that could be made about the theory employed in collecting the statistics, the reach of the statistics, &c. Your responses haven't adequately addressed those points: instead, you seem to prefer to deal in what makes more sense to you subjectively, even on a question as directly about objective reality as this.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

evaunit02 said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that being an introvert or extrovert has absolutely nothing to do with being socially awkward? Joining an online forum of discussion is more extroverted than anything and if you're going to tell me that introverts join simply because they're introverted, you're plain wrong. Don't tell me what to do, your ignorance is showing. This is only recreational, don't get your little ego in a twist. Honestly, you don't seem like an ENTJ being so instantly obtuse and all without anything to back up what you say, in fact, what you say and your own "analysis" if you might even call it that, is incredibly shallow, but that's neither here nor there and your own thing.


Ouch. That stings.
Pardon me for sharing my opinion. I'll just go curl up into a little ball and cry now.


----------



## 1yesman9 (Jul 10, 2014)

evaunit02 said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that being an introvert or extrovert has absolutely nothing to do with being socially awkward? Joining an online forum of discussion is more extroverted than anything and if you're going to tell me that introverts join simply because they're introverted, you're plain wrong. Don't tell me what to do, your ignorance is showing. This is only recreational, don't get your little ego in a twist. Honestly, you don't seem like an ENTJ being so instantly obtuse and all without anything to back up what you say, in fact, what you say and your own "analysis" if you might even call it that, is incredibly shallow, but that's neither here nor there and your own thing.


Who are you to make the claim that introversion has nothing to do with being socially awkward? You seem comfortable with pointing out other's obtuseness or lack of objectivity, yet every single one of your claims are made on that basis. If there's a problem with correlating introversion with social awkwardness, then point the problem out. Just making your own claim in response to one isn't actually arguing a claim.

The very nature of extraversion is to be subject to the object and the outside world. Consequently, your actions will be founded off the process of interacting with the outside world. Interaction with the outside world involves interaction with people and objects. For example: one of the ways people often differentiate the INTJ type from the ENTJ type, Te dominance from Ni dominance, is what means they use to bring their goals to fruition. You generally see the ENTJ taking direct action, forcibly making his ideas come to fruition with action and interaction. Invading ruthlessly and going in with his soldiers ( unless it's illogical to do so ) In contrast, you may see an INTJ prefer to develop a plan that can allow him to work from the background, and may be more content in not seeing the fruits of his labor presented so immediately. As consequence, the ENTJ will generally be more prepared and comfortable interacting with people, as a Te-dom, than an Ni-dom would. Is it not fair to then claim that the very nature of extraversion is contradictory to social awkwardness, unless the person has been in conditions or exposed to environmental factors that could facilitate the development of that awkwardness? From that can we not gather that introverts are more likely to be socially awkward than an extravert?

Going on a forum in the internet in itself is not an act of extraversion. All humans have an extraverted function somewhere on their stack, and consequently like sharing information or receiving it. Extraversion implies that their dominant function is extraverted. In that case, a demonstration of extraversion would be when one makes the choice to speak to someone in person or to people on the outside, rather than go to speak to people on an internet forum, being that an extravert will be more comfortable with his main extraverted function than an introvert would. If extraverts then, are generally more comfortable speaking with people directly, or more directly need interaction with real people to satisfy themselves, then extraverts are generally going to be less socially awkward than introverts, would they not?

All your claims are a product of inexperience with this system and a misrepresentation of it's claims, so it's best to not call anyone else's conclusions "shallow". You do understand that most of these conclusions made along with the world "generally", because these conclusions without the word "generally" or "usually" would only apply if the person had no environmental experiences. Obviously if things go a certain way for an extravert, then he will be socially awkward. The point is, extraverts are pre-dispositioned to be more comfortable with interaction than introverts, while introverts are pre-dispositioned to be more comfortable with themselves than extraverts. Add the environment and the personal experiences and, extraverts are "generally" less socially awkward than introverts.

You also avoid arguments that actually handle the problem with your claim, so i'll repeat it. You keep approaching wether or not INFJ is the rarest type from a conceptual point of view. You keep using inner logic to claim wether or not they "should" be the rarest type. The problem of wether or not INFJs are the rarest type isn't a conceptual problem, it's a statistical problem, so your arguments are by nature fallacious. In order to figure out wether or not the statistical measurement of INFJs being the rarest type is true or not, you'd have to analyze the research and find a problem within their measurements. Maybe they mistyped people, or maybe their statistic wasn't representative. That would be an argument that could actually debunk the claim of INFJs being the rarest type, not your chain of subjective experiences.


----------

