# What types are the rarest ?



## faizafaiz (Jun 4, 2012)

Going by personal experience, I would say that type 5 is the rarest type to find. Next would be 4, then 9. 

I'm 28 and I've known the enneagram for 10 years. I'm a 4w5 and I have never met someone who I am sure is a type 5. I know three people who might be 5s though. I know perhaps five type 4s, but they are all 4w3 or 4 with balanced wings. 

I assume this is also related to your occupation and your family. It wouldn't be unlikely for some occupations and even some families to have more people of a certain type. All the three people I know who might be type 5 are academics - two philosophers and one philologist. I met them all at one university or another. Of the five type 4s I know, 4 are artists of some kind - filmmaker, photographer, writers.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Type 10 maybe? That's pretty rare!


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

9s are actually pretty common! I guess they can be pretty hard to spot so sometimes you might know a 9 but not know they're a 9.

I think 4, 5 and 8 are rarest though we seem to have an abundance of 4s and 5s here on PerC. Kind of like how we seem to have an over representation of INFPs, too, I guess!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Out of personal experience, 5s do seem to be genuinely rare. 4s seem to be at medium rarity based on what I've observed, 8s I would probably put on the medium to slightly common end. 

A lot of people who type as 5s here also honestly don't seem to be 5s but I think this is because they have yet to reach such an introspective depth where they can see this or because they simply trusted a simple test result.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Something I posted a while back:



kaleidoscope said:


> I don't think there are rare/common types. I think that 'theory' developed because it's so easy to mistype as a 4/5/8 if you misunderstand what they're about. Loners who have feelings will think they're 4s, loners with thoughts will think they're 5s, and aggressive people will think they're 8s. Because of these misconceptions and how often people (or typers) try to correct these misunderstandings, the idea somehow developed that 'if you think you're a 4/5/8, think again, cause you're most likely mistyped'. Which isn't wrong per se, except that it's delivered in a way that implies : 4/5/8 is rare and special.
> 
> These types are also excessively romanticized in the Enneagram literature, so much that other types seem kinda meh to someone still new to the Enneagram. I quickly learned that superego types are SERIOUSLY underestimated and overlooked in most online descriptions.
> 
> To answer your question, I'd say all of the above to someone worried about this rare/common myth. ^^


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

I'd say it depends on the country. I think certain cultures favor certain types more, so you naturally have an imbalance of some types over others depending on where you go. That's where things like "America's a three culture" comes from.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

bombsaway said:


> 9s are actually pretty common! I guess they can be pretty hard to spot so sometimes you might know a 9 but not know they're a 9.
> 
> I think 4, 5 and 8 are rarest though we seem to have an abundance of 4s and 5s here on PerC. Kind of like how we seem to have an over representation of INFPs, too, I guess!


Yeah, I would say that 9s are pretty common. We hide a bit, so you don't really notice us, but we're common; especially, it seems, among men (even though the motivations of 9 are a bit more "feminine"). I'd definitely say that 5 is probably rarer, as is maybe type 8? With the most common types, especially in the US, being 3, 6, 7, and 9, I'm guessing (by the way, the American news media is pretty phobic 6-ish).


----------



## faizafaiz (Jun 4, 2012)

(deleted)


----------



## faizafaiz (Jun 4, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> Something I posted a while back:
> 
> _I don't think there are rare/common types. I think that 'theory' developed because it's so easy to mistype as a 4/5/8 if you misunderstand what they're about. Loners who have feelings will think they're 4s, loners with thoughts will think they're 5s, and aggressive people will think they're 8s. Because of these misconceptions and how often people (or typers) try to correct these misunderstandings, the idea somehow developed that 'if you think you're a 4/5/8, think again, cause you're most likely mistyped'. Which isn't wrong per se, except that it's delivered in a way that implies : 4/5/8 is rare and special. _
> 
> ...


if types 4, 5 (not sure about 8 and 9) are not rare, we should know as many people of these types as types 2, 3, 7, and 6 - right? from my experience and apparently, the experience of others who posted on this thread, and of others i know, that is not the case. most people seem to know very few type 5s and 4s in their lives, except on forums such as these. 

or do you think most people know as many 5s as they know 2s and 3s? i would be highly surprised if that were true. 

i agree that type 4 is portrayed quite romantically in the enneagram literature. not sure about 5 and 8. but i think the romanticised portrayal is not a false one. 4s are in fact romantic, if not in their overt lives, in their inner lives - more than other types. by romantic i mean very idealistic, tragic, sensitive, etc. of course this doesn't make them superior to other types.


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

There is no credible source, study, or data to make this determination. Types are more common in certain areas and less common in others and as such there is a fluctuating difference as well. Overall, I'd wager that the overall distribution of types is going to be quiet equal across the entire population in the world.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@faizafaiz

Certainly feeds my fixation to believe that 4s are among the rarest, and so far I've only met one 4 IRL, so I'm very tempted to agree with you. I still think though, that you really need to get to know someone deeply to pinpoint their type. I come across like a 7w6 most of the time, and anyone who'd meet me wouldn't at first glance think I'm a 4 (unless they were unusually perceptive). I hide that side of me well.


----------



## Feathers Falling (Sep 5, 2012)

Mostly depends on what environments you're exposed to. These are the people I've met that I've typed for sure:

1- 1
2- 2
3- 1 (these are really hard for me to spot for some reason! not enough exposure I guess)
4- 3
5- 10+ (from work)
6- 5+
7- 6+
8- 6+
9- 6+


----------



## faizafaiz (Jun 4, 2012)

cata.lyst.rawr said:


> Mostly depends on what environments you're exposed to. These are the people I've met that I've typed for sure:
> 
> 1- 1
> 2- 2
> ...


what work do you do? i want to get there


----------



## Feathers Falling (Sep 5, 2012)

faizafaiz said:


> what work do you do? i want to get there


Haha I'm in the military, I work in an office though. A lot of 5s, 8s, and 7s. I think I just typed my supervisor as 3... I gotta meet some 3s... Oh there's a 2. I think there are some 6s in the other section... A few 9s.

My friend and I just typed an INTP 4 at work lol. ^_^


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cata.lyst.rawr said:


> Haha I'm in the military. A lot of 5s, 8s, and 7s. I think I just typed my supervisor as 3... I gotta meet some 3s... Oh there's a 2. No 4s. I think there are some 6s in the other section... A few 9s.


How does it make sense that a 5 would be in the military? Not because I'm saying a 5 cannot be in the military, but the military structure doesn't seem to lend itself to be overly 5-friendly.


----------



## Feathers Falling (Sep 5, 2012)

Kamishi said:


> How does it make sense that a 5 would be in the military? Not because I'm saying a 5 cannot be in the military, but the military structure doesn't seem to lend itself to be overly 5-friendly.


I work in an office.


----------



## faizafaiz (Jun 4, 2012)

SharkT00th said:


> There is no credible source, study, or data to make this determination. Types are more common in certain areas and less common in others and as such there is a fluctuating difference as well. Overall, I'd wager that the overall distribution of types is going to be quiet equal across the entire population in the world.


Shark, I'd say the same to this as I did to Kaleidoscope. If they were equally distributed across the population, we would know an equal number of each type, roughly speaking. 

As for areas - if you mean professions, interest groups, and such - I have been in academia for a while and even there the number of probable 5s I found was less than other types, although more in proportion to other places I have been in - such as the sports club, or the meditation school, or my family, or my high school. 

If you mean countries and regions, my impression is that the variety of human beings is similar everywhere, although cultures may be tinged by a particular type. For example, people consider India a 9ish culture - and some consider it a 5ish culture, especially ancient India. I would agree that Indians can have the friendliness, relaxedness of type 9 but that is a kind of cultural attitude which doesn't affect the fact that the distribution of types in India is any different from the distribution of types in say, Canada. Perhaps the Indian type 3 might be more 9ish than the Canadian. The 'cultural type' may probably be imagined as a layer of the personality distinct from the 'individual type'. My question is about individual types. 

Also, there is some substantial research on MBTI types. There isn't a strict correlation between enneagram and MBTI types, but the loose correlation that there is indicates that 4s and 5s are usually INFPs, INTPs, and probably INFJs. These are the rarest types on the MBTI, so it substantiates my point about 5s and 4s being the rarest. This isn't definite proof, of course.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

faizafaiz said:


> Shark, I'd say the same to this as I did to Kaleidoscope. If they were equally distributed across the population, we would know an equal number of each type, roughly speaking.
> 
> As for areas - if you mean professions, interest groups, and such - I have been in academia for a while and even there the number of probable 5s I found was less than other types, although more in proportion to other places I have been in - such as the sports club, or the meditation school, or my family, or my high school.
> 
> ...


There are also ISFP, ISFJ, ESFP, ESFJ, ENFP Fours. The chance of these MBTI types being typed Four may be smaller compared to INFP (4/10), but it is still a significant amount, since these groups are much bigger than the ones you name. The same can be said about Five and INTP/INTJ. These types are overrepresented on this forum, so I wouldn't pay too much value to what you see in your environment. I've been in environments where Four seemed prevalent, like Art School. 

To make a calculation I used two statistics. MBTI and MBTI/Enneagram (6th table) and combined them to one table. Now, you can debate the validity of these statistics, or whether people are correctly typed, just like you can debate the validity of typology in the first place, so this is just to get an impression. 










Average would be 11.1 
I think the differences are smaller than most would expect. Actually, try and think of differentiating people in 9 different types, that would distribute as evenly as this... (compared to for instance the 16 types of MBTI ranging from 1.45 to 13.8 with 6.35 average, although I/E distribution seems to be pretty much 50/50).


----------



## faizafaiz (Jun 4, 2012)

mimesis said:


> There are also ISFP, ISFJ, ESFP, ESFJ, ENFP Fours. The chance of these MBTI types being typed Four may be smaller compared to INFP (4/10), but it is still a significant amount, since these groups are much bigger than the ones you name. The same can be said about Five and INTP/INTJ. These types are overrespresented on this forum, so I wouldn't pay too much value to what you see in your environment. I've been in environments where Four seemed prevalent, like Art School.
> 
> To make a calculation I used two statistics. MBTI and MBTI/Enneagram (6th table) and combined them to one table. Now, you can debate the validity of these statistics, or whether people are correctly typed, just like you can debate the validity of typology in the first place, so this is just to get an impression.
> 
> ...



I certainly put my impressionistic understanding above the statistics here. To say that type 5 is more common than type 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 seems really odd.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

faizafaiz said:


> Going by personal experience, I would say that type 5 is the rarest type to find. Next would be 4, then 9.
> I'm 28 and I've known the enneagram for 10 years. I'm a 4w5 and I have never met someone who I am sure is a type 5. I know three people who might be 5s though. I know perhaps five type 4s, but they are all 4w3 or 4 with balanced wings.
> I assume this is also related to your occupation and your family. It wouldn't be unlikely for some occupations and even some families to have more people of a certain type. All the three people I know who might be type 5 are academics - two philosophers and one philologist. I met them all at one university or another. Of the five type 4s I know, 4 are artists of some kind - filmmaker, photographer, writers.


9s are extremely common

I would say 
5>4>8>7>2>1>3>9>6


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

faizafaiz said:


> I certainly put my impressionistic understanding above the statistics here. To say that type 5 is more common than type 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 seems really odd.


And why would that be odd? Five is arguably the most withdrawn type (and almost all are introvert, according to those statistics), which may be why you don't see them so often?  

How would you recognize a Five? What sticks out to you?


----------



## faizafaiz (Jun 4, 2012)

mimesis said:


> And why would that be odd? Five is arguably the most withdrawn type (and almost all are introvert, according to those statistics), which may be why you don't see them so often?
> 
> How would you recognize a Five? What sticks out to you?


it is odd because it contrasts with my experience  

i don't think 5s or any other type are so introverted that while they are actually the 3rd most common type (acc. to the stats you quoted), they are not to be found at all, or rarely. plus, a large proportion of the people i know are introverts, because i am one myself. so to some extent, it is true that an extrovert may end up in situations where he meets a smaller proportion of introverts than there are in the general population, i don't think that is true for all of us. 

how would i recognise a five? well, i don't think it is easy to type people just be seeing them or talking to them once. only after knowing them deeply can you be sure of their type. but the qualities that would indicate a strong five hue in the personality would be detachment, perceptiveness, clarity of thought, calmness, an analytic attitude, sensitivity to feelings - which would be different from a warm, sentimental expression of them.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

faizafaiz said:


> it is odd because it contrasts with my experience
> 
> i don't think 5s or any other type are so introverted that while they are actually the 3rd most common type (acc. to the stats you quoted), they are not to be found at all, or rarely. plus, a large proportion of the people i know are introverts, because i am one myself. so to some extent, it is true that an extrovert may end up in situations where he meets a smaller proportion of introverts than there are in the general population, i don't think that is true for all of us.
> 
> how would i recognise a five? well, i don't think it is easy to type people just be seeing them or talking to them once. only after knowing them deeply can you be sure of their type. but the qualities that would indicate a strong five hue in the personality would be detachment, perceptiveness, clarity of thought, calmness, an analytic attitude, sensitivity to feelings - which would be different from a warm, sentimental expression of them.


Doesn't occur to me as 'knowing very deep' what you describe. But nevertheless, you find 3 of those persons, boy or girl, with clarity of thought, analytical attitude, perceptiveness, calmness, etc in a class/group of 27 too much? Even in the academic world?

Anyway, follow your perceptions, I don't mind. If you 'never heard' of it, it cannot be, I guess. Introverted Sensing by any chance?


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

kaleidoscope said:


> @faizafaiz
> 
> Certainly feeds my fixation to believe that 4s are among the rarest, and so far I've only met one 4 IRL, so I'm very tempted to agree with you. *I still think though, that you really need to get to know someone deeply to pinpoint their type.* I come across like a 7w6 most of the time, and anyone who'd meet me wouldn't at first glance think I'm a 4 (unless they were unusually perceptive). I hide that side of me well.


I couldn't agree with you more. Some over-eager typers would do well to take your advice!


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

NichirenWarrior said:


> I couldn't agree with you more. Some over-eager typers would do well to take your advice!


There is a depth of perspective you attain with prolonged consideration of the Enneagram, its concepts, your type, others' types, that allows you to make more refined predictions as to what a person's type or Enneagram fixations might be. Some "over-eager typers" may actually be pointing out ideas that you should take into consideration.

As to the OP, I rarely seem to encounter people I would type as 4, 5, or id types in general, but I can't make a reliable generalization about what types are rare overall. I don't usually consider the Enneagram in such terms.


----------



## Heartwork (Jun 20, 2012)

Given the fact that Sevens are so easily spotted, I'd say (in my experience) they're the rarest to find around.

But yeah, I can see why one might think it's hard to find Fives. Being lithe and going unnoticed is kinda what they gun for.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> There is a depth of perspective you attain with prolonged consideration of the Enneagram, its concepts, your type, others' types, that allows you to make more refined predictions as to what a person's type or Enneagram fixations might be. *Some "over-eager typers" may actually be pointing out ideas that you should take into consideration.*
> As to the OP, I rarely seem to encounter people I would type as 4, 5, or id types in general, but I can't make a reliable generalization about what types are rare overall. I don't usually consider the Enneagram in such terms.


That would depend on the _methodology_ they used to arrive at those ideas. While it is ultimately left up to the individual to really know whether or not a specific E type rings true for them or not; I do agree that other people can sometimes offer valuable insights that I may have failed to take into account. After all, sometimes even certified E experts have gotten it wrong; so who knows?

What I mean about when I refer to "methodology" is that I am highly amenable to (non-emo contaminated) objective logic and (rationally based) ego-free reasoning; thus I was _not_ referring to you at all in my post. While I am not certain that I agree with your conclusions about my type; I do understand and respect your reasoning about it; which is why I am open to considering your viewpoint.


That said, I do think that @kaleidoscope is ultimately right. It is not possible to _definitively_ determine someone's type based on a few posts or even numerous posts. RL always trumps the internet in terms of accuracy. That's why I knew that although I may have a lot of 9 traits for example, no one who has ever spent any considerable or meaningful time with me irl would ever mistype me as a 9. I do however consider such mistyping as a compliment, since ever since I was a child, other people have been doing their utmost to nag me _ad nauseaum_ to get me act more like a 9 and/or 3.


Just a quick comment on the OP: I also agree with this:



kaleidoscope said:


> Something I posted a while back:
> kaleidoscope
> Something I posted a while back:
> 
> ...


I have encountered all E types at one time or another.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

I'd like to buy a vowel please. 


(Personally, who the hell in their right mind would want to be a rare personality type?! Maybe 4, that's who. And if not, a crazy person. That's who! Because its very alone in a crowded room feeling. God is evil with a twisted sense of humor -_- that's that I think. That and people are crazy. )


that is all. The end.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> I'd like to buy a vowel please.


There is one E.

That will be two points from your type.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Your hardly gonna find a 5 saturated environment at a massive rave, I don't know actually, you never know. I think this topic of common and rare types is actually a lot more complex than what it is made out here, so much so that it almost seems futile to try and guess which are the common/rare's.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

mushr00m said:


> Your hardly gonna find a 5 saturated environment at a massive rave, I don't know actually, you never know. I think this topic of common and rare types is actually a lot more complex than what it is made out here, so much so that it almost seems futile to try and guess which are the common/rare's.


You might find saturated 5s. :tongue:


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

SharkT00th said:


> There is no credible source, study, or data to make this determination. Types are more common in certain areas and less common in others and as such there is a fluctuating difference as well. Overall, I'd wager that the overall distribution of types is going to be quiet equal across the entire population in the world.


Well not for the world but in the US multiple population samples have been done by enneagram theorists. Unfortunately I don't have them on hand or remember where I saw them. But read some enneagram literature not via internet and it's pretty common knowledge some types are more common... supposing one believes in enneagram literally in the first place. Types could theoretically vary according to the conditions of the society/country/area they are in.

If I remember right, 3-6-9 types are more common than the 1-7-5-8-2-4 types.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> If I remember right, 3-6-9 types are more common than the 1-7-5-8-2-4 types.


That's old news now. :tongue: I hear it a lot with not a lot to back it up, it's just assumed.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> That's old news now.


LOL ok.




> I hear it a lot with not a lot to back it up, it's just assumed.



Demographics

scroll down, they have a type distribution study. that's all i dug up via google.

As I mentioned, I think I remember some enneagram theorists saying that some types were more common than others, but I can't prove it.

I was wrong though, guess it isn't the type 3-6-9 that is most common, threes appear relatively uncommon, even in the US, (at least from this study). 

oh yeah
:tongue:


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> LOL ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have seen this article before :happy:.
This doesn't go into great detail about how those findings were discovered and this article was written apparently in 1998. It even goes into gender statistics which i'm not about to believe off the bat. And who are _these people_? They seemed to gather their evidence based on the workshops they held? But again, if we are talking about statistics at large, it's underestimated how complex it is to gather accurate statistics based of everyone's type as a whole. My new news isn't my new news, it's generally accepted by a section of people who are skeptical of enneagram type statistics based on the complexity and other nuances that makes it difficult to accurately record percentages of types so i'm speaking from more others terms aswell as purely subjective terms.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@adverseaffects @mushr00m

How would they go about testing these people? Most enneagram tests are shit because it goes beyond behavioral traits or observable things, and relies on motivations, which can't be broken down into 20 questions. That, and how do you know if the sample was representative or not?


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

adverseaffects said:


> Demographics
> 
> scroll down, they have a type distribution study. that's all i dug up via google.
> 
> ...


The distribution sheet that you provided doesn't support your initial statement about 3, 6, 9 being the most common types.

Edit: My point is, in such small samples it isn't going to be reliable data.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

kaleidoscope said:


> @_adverseaffects_ @_mushr00m_
> 
> How would they go about testing these people? Most enneagram tests are shit because it goes beyond behavioral traits or observable things, and relies on motivations, which can't be broken down into 20 questions. That, and how do you know if the sample was representative or not?


I have no idea and that's what's fishy about it. If we at least knew how they came to their findings, it would be a little more believable maybe. I just took a really crap test on the personality sources thread, the questions were pretty bad, superficial and it typed me as a 5w4, lol! They confused instincts for E types as there were some SP related questions and other things that could be related to everyone and not just occasionally. Yup, a very generic type questionnaire. The test you put up recently has probably got to be one of the better one's, for sure.


----------



## frenchie (Jul 7, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> Your hardly gonna find a 5 saturated environment at a massive rave, I don't know actually, you never know. I think this topic of common and rare types is actually a lot more complex than what it is made out here, so much so that it almost seems futile to try and guess which are the common/rare's.


I find that if you go to an area with large research institutions like Cambridge MA (Harvard and MIT) you get an interesting mixture of 5w6 culture intertwined with Americana. Mostly just look for places with lots of researchers and smart people going for advanced degrees.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

frenchie said:


> I find that if you go to an area with large research institutions like Cambridge MA (Harvard and MIT) you get an interesting mixture of 5w6 culture intertwined with Americana. Mostly just look for places with lots of researchers and smart people going for advanced degrees.


But how do you know these smart's are all 5w6's?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> I have seen this article before :happy:.
> This doesn't go into great detail about how those findings were discovered and this article was written apparently in 1998. It even goes into gender statistics which i'm not about to believe off the bat. And who are _these people_? They seemed to gather their evidence based on the workshops they held? But again, if we are talking about statistics at large, it's underestimated how complex it is to gather accurate statistics based of everyone's type as a whole. My new news isn't my new news, it's generally accepted by a section of people who are skeptical of enneagram type statistics based on the complexity and other nuances that makes it difficult to accurately record percentages of types so i'm speaking from more others terms aswell as purely subjective terms.



When you say "generally accepted by the people who are skeptical of enneagram type statistics", you realize you are saying "generally accepted by the people who generally accept this opinion", right?

I wasn't trying to get into a tit over who's right, I was just irritated by your phrasing, which sounded snide. "Old news" makes it sound like there's some generally accepted enneagram authority on who is right and who is not propping your opinion, and anyone who isn't 'with it' might as well shut up. I'm sure many people agree with you, or already have discussed the issue we were talking about, but not everyone... and even if everyone on this forum had already discussed it or come to your opinion, I didn't and hadn't in this situation, and I am also a person on this forum.

Despite my irritation, you've made me reflect and look upon my initial post, which I posted casually but probably too arrogantly, so maybe I deserved that phrasing mirrored back. I meant that post to be off-handed & casual, as I don't have enough information to be really invested in that opinion, but it did sound arrogant when I said "common knowledge", which you have reminded me, it is not.

onto the topic:

I don't have enough information to argue about this either way. It's very possible we can't know which and if types are more common, and it's also possible that the studies and theorists out there do in fact know what they are talking about. I obviously don't know.

It's smart to be skeptical of studies since they a have margin of error and can be used to over-generalize, but that's true for every scientific study. You're right in that the study I provided doesn't detail where their sample came from, and @kaleidoscope brings up how would these people be tested accurately; on the other hand, all population studies have a margin of error. If these people are scientists/sociologists, they should know how to a population study/science correctly & take a random sample that is representative of the population. Even if there is room for margin of error (as there is in many/all experiments), it can still show a trend. All science is to be questioned until proven, but that doesn't entirely dismiss the results found either. It's possible that their findings were just anomalies or were contaminated by poor science, but why would I assume that? I'm not going to take it on complete faith either though.

For example, it's generally held (... or is that old news, now, too?) (sorry, can't help myself) that mbti types have unequal distribution, and since mbti types and certain enneagram types are correlated, there's good reason to believe ennea-types would have unequal distribution as well. 

There also seems to be no compelling reason why the types would have equal distribution, as well as no study or expert opinion to reflect that (that I am aware of). In nature things aren't always parceled into equal, neat categories, so I wouldn't assume that about e-type. It seems even less likely for all nine types to be equally distributed than un-equally.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Inguz said:


> The distribution sheet that you provided doesn't support your initial statement about 3, 6, 9 being the most common types.
> 
> Edit: My point is, in such small samples it isn't going to be reliable data.


I literally noticed that in the post that you quoted.
Also my initial post wasn't a 'statement', I said, 'if I remember right'. I was guessing off my memory which types were more common. It wasn't meant to be taken so seriously, it was a casual comment.


to your point, not if you understand sampling. The study I referenced didn't list how many participants total, but it did list the number of couples counted in the "most common type pairings", so we can assume there are more than this pairing. If you add up all the couples in these 6 most common couple pairings, there are almost 200 participants. Since there are another 75 possible parings remaining the study took into account with an unknown amount of couples participating, there is probably anywhere from 300-500 or more participants.

If we look at the amount of people needed to be a sound population study, while 300-500 is not ideal in that there is a margin of error, it's not bad, anywhere from 6-4.5 margin of error.

Even though we are measuring this against the world population, it doesn't matter because it isn't the percentage of the population that matters in sampling accuracy, but merely having enough of a sample to ensure that randomization ensues. 

to put it better:

"There is no set percentage that is accurate for every population. What matters is the 
actual number or size of the sample, not the percentage of the population. Consider a coin 
toss: the first few times you flip the coin, the average result may be skewed wildly in one 
direction (say you got 5 tails in a row), but the more times you flip the coin, the more likely 
that the average result will be an even split between heads and tails. 
AVOID 
So, if you surveyed 20% of a group of 300 program participants to produce a sample of 60 
people, you would under represent the population, since there is a fairly large chance in 
a small group that the respondents you choose will vary from the whole population. On the 
other hand, 20% of 30,000 county residents (a sample of 6,000) would be a wastefully 
large sample, and not significantly more accurate than a sample of 400. "

^from somewhere science-y

So all that really matters in this study is if the subjects were properly randomized/picked randomly. We don't really know that, so we can't speak to it. But the sample size is just fine.


----------



## Krelian91 (May 2, 2012)

I don't think that there are some particular type that are more common than others, I believe though that in certain cultures some types tend to pop up a lot more. For example, I'm mostly surrounded by Id-driven types.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Krelian91 said:


> I don't think that there are some particular type that are more common than others, I believe though that in certain cultures some types tend to pop up a lot more. For example, I'm mostly surrounded by Id-driven types.


That would make sense given that many people believe certain conditions in childhood bring out difference defense mechanisms that turn into e-types. Different environments will create different people. some people believe that e-type is just biological though.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

@adverseaffects

I'll get back to your post as soon as I can :happy:.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

@adverseaffects And add to that cultural differences, such as 2 being overrepresented for women and 8 being overrepresented for men in the sample. It's not that I believe that cultures produces different enneagram type spreads, but rather changes what types that will be seen as more desirable due to cultural standards. My hypothesis is rather that 3, 6, 9 are seen as the most common as these three types are the most "human"; in the sense of being in the middle of each center, making them easier to relate to. We can take type 5 as an example here. In terms of motivation and approach to reality it's a type that is easily distinguished from other types, making the one-in-nine ratio more apparent for this type, giving the impression of this type being particularly "rare" while in reality it shares the one-in-nine ratio with every other enneagram type.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Inguz said:


> @adverseaffects And add to that cultural differences, such as 2 being overrepresented for women and 8 being overrepresented for men in the sample. It's not that I believe that cultures produces different enneagram type spreads, but rather changes what types that will be seen as more desirable due to cultural standards. My hypothesis is rather that 3, 6, 9 are seen as the most common as these three types are the most "human"; in the sense of being in the middle of each center, making them easier to relate to. We can take type 5 as an example here. In terms of motivation and approach to reality it's a type that is easily distinguished from other types, making the one-in-nine ratio more apparent for this type, giving the impression of this type being particularly "rare" while in reality it shares the one-in-nine ratio with every other enneagram type.


Well, that's an interesting hypothesis, but you can't prove it, or at least, not yet.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

adverseaffects said:


> Well, that's an interesting hypothesis, but you can't prove it, or at least, not yet.


Can you prove yours with a large enough random sample group that isn't types based on tests? 

The estimations that I have seen are based upon authors subjective experiences, which I think is heavily flavoured by the thinking "common people are common", meaning the types 3, 6, 9 are seen as just that, "common people", where as type 5 as I gave an example of earlier more often is seen as diverging from "common".


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Inguz said:


> Can you prove yours with a large enough random sample group that isn't types based on tests?


Obviously not, or at least, not yet


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

adverseaffects said:


> Obviously not, or at least, not yet


Years into the future when you have completed the study, send me a PM.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

This is my rough opinion -- totally subjective and not something i even believe very strongly apart from the first two types, from most to least common:

9s > 3 > 1 ~= 7 ~= 9f, 2 ~= 5 ~= 6, 4 ~= 8


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

aestrivex said:


> This is my rough opinion -- totally subjective and not something i even believe very strongly apart from the first two types, from most to least common:
> 
> 9s > 3 > 1 ~= 7 ~= 9f, 2 ~= 5 ~= 6, 4 ~= 8


What's the f mean?
Wait, what's the ~ mean too?


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> When you say "generally accepted by the people who are skeptical of enneagram type statistics", you realize you are saying "generally accepted by the people who generally accept this opinion", right?


That's a/the reason as to why they are skeptical. Yes. My point being is that the article you provided wasn't ample evidence to suggest accuracy at least in the present and perhaps then based on it's lack of credibility, time it was produced, it very well made accurate findings of that group but whom we don't know for sure were correctly typed and only a sample of the general population and so was too shakey to draw any real firm conclusions on. It didn't confirm as @_Inguz_ pointed out, your 3, 6, 9 theory. 



> I wasn't trying to get into a tit over who's right, I was just irritated by your phrasing, which sounded snide. "Old news" makes it sound like there's some generally accepted enneagram authority on who is right and who is not propping your opinion, and anyone who isn't 'with it' might as well shut up. I'm sure many people agree with you, or already have discussed the issue we were talking about, but not everyone... and even if everyone on this forum had already discussed it or come to your opinion, I didn't and hadn't in this situation, and I am also a person on this forum.


I wasn't either :happy:. This is something that I encounter a lot on the forum that has been covered many a time and so it's nothing personal against you so there's really no need to make this personal and judgemental. Why, why, why? Like I said, it's been spoken about a lot but it's a grey area due to that gathering empirical data on common/rare types seems to be overlooked as something that can be easily carried out. I'm not saying, don't talk about it but I think it was that you stated your perspective in a factual way and upon taking a closer look, literally, for the points I stated above and based on others opinions on the matter, these things are enough to doubt the validity of the survey and if there any others, id love to read them. 



> Despite my irritation, you've made me reflect and look upon my initial post, which I posted casually but probably too arrogantly, so maybe I deserved that phrasing mirrored back. I meant that post to be off-handed & casual, as I don't have enough information to be really invested in that opinion, but it did sound arrogant when I said "common knowledge", which you have reminded me, it is not.


:happy:. Ok. Don't worry about it. 



> I don't have enough information to argue about this either way. It's very possible we can't know which and if types are more common, and it's also possible that the studies and theorists out there do in fact know what they are talking about. I obviously don't know.


What is concerning the most is just how they gather their data and how much of the general population studies enneagram or has discovered their enneagram type and maybe had it confirmed by a statistician. Enneagram statistical research still seems in its early days yet.



> It's smart to be skeptical of studies since they a have margin of error and can be used to over-generalize, but that's true for every scientific study. You're right in that the study I provided doesn't detail where their sample came from, and @_kaleidoscope__ brings up how would these people be tested accurately; on the other hand, all population studies have a margin of error. If these people are scientists/sociologists, they should know how to a population study/science correctly & take a random sample that is representative of the population. Even if there is room for margin of error (as there is in many/all experiments), it can still show a trend. All science is to be questioned until proven, but that doesn't entirely dismiss the results found either. It's possible that their findings were just anomalies or were contaminated by poor science, but why would I assume that? I'm not going to take it on complete faith either though.
> _


As I say, i'm in the middle. Meaning there's not enough evidence to suggest either way at this point. Trends are helpful, it would be telling to know how many people worldwide had heard of enneagram and there on if they knew their type. 



> For example, it's generally held (... or is that old news, now, too?) (sorry, can't help myself) that mbti types have unequal distribution, and since mbti types and certain enneagram types are correlated, there's good reason to believe ennea-types would have unequal distribution as well.


I just want to check with you on this one, in that your saying that E types and MBTI types are correlated, i'm not saying they arn't but I sort of think that certain MBTI types and certain E types are not common such as INFP/8 rather than most INFP's are 4's. That's subjective though, you never know, there might be a few INFP/8's lurking in the woods, lol. So, yeah, i'm inclined to make correlations in a deductive way like that.



> There also seems to be no compelling reason why the types would have equal distribution, as well as no study or expert opinion to reflect that (that I am aware of). In nature things aren't always parceled into equal, neat categories, so I wouldn't assume that about e-type. It seems even less likely for all nine types to be equally distributed than un-equally.


I never said they did. Just because I disagreed with the researchers findings, doesn't mean I automatically believe that there is equal distribution either. And agreed, things can be random, inconsistent.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

adverseaffects said:


> What's the f mean?
> Wait, what's the ~ mean too?


The ~ I can answer, it's 'about' as in 'about equal to'.

9f I'm not sure, it's proposed in opposition to 9s, so what are 9s and 9f?


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> That's a/the reason as to why they are skeptical. Yes. My point being is that the article you provided wasn't ample evidence to suggest accuracy at least in the present and perhaps then based on it's lack of credibility, time it was produced, it very well made accurate findings of that group but whom we don't know for sure were correctly typed and only a sample of the general population and so was too shakey to draw any real firm conclusions on. It didn't confirm as @_Inguz_ pointed out, your 3, 6, 9 theory.


Well I didn't provide a "theory"... in regards to the 3-6-9 and I never really cared about that, I just threw it out there. I even said "If I remember right I think it was". Super vague and just like, 'maybe it was this'. I even said I didn't have the sources with me. And then when I posted that source later, I added that it wasn't the same as the 3-6-9 idea and everyone seems to have missed that. I'm the only one not taking my own idea seriously, basically. Everyone seems really eager to disprove an idea I wasn't even trying to prove. Like, Inguz quoted me saying "so this isn't the 3-6-9" and a space below is trying to call me out on that very fact.... kinda funny actually...

Oh and as for taking it personally, sorry, you can't help what I take personally. though I don't know if taking it personally applies, I didn't think it was applied to my person specifically, I just thought it was a nasty tone & it irritated me/sent a bad message, which I explained.




> I just want to check with you on this one, in that your saying that E types and MBTI types are correlated, i'm not saying they arn't but I sort of think that certain MBTI types and certain E types are not common such as INFP/8 rather than most INFP's are 4's. That's subjective though, you never know, there might be a few INFP/8's lurking in the woods, lol. So, yeah, i'm inclined to make correlations in a deductive way like that.


To me that sounds like another way of saying the same thing. So some e-types are progressively "less common" so some are going to be 'more common'. Same difference.




> everything else


so all this to say we don't have the ability to know either way huh.


----------



## rawrmosher (Apr 22, 2013)

From personal experience, I'd say 7's are pretty rare here in Scotland, whereas I've run into a lot of 8's, 6's and 1's. 9's are bound to be everywhere too, but they're masters at staying unnoticed.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> What's the f mean?
> Wait, what's the ~ mean too?


f means fast. ~ means approximately.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Flatlander said:


> The ~ I can answer, it's 'about' as in 'about equal to'.
> 
> 9f I'm not sure, it's proposed in opposition to 9s, so what are 9s and 9f?


slow and fast 9, putatively different types.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> Well I didn't provide a "theory"... in regards to the 3-6-9 and I never really cared about that, I just threw it out there. I even said "If I remember right I think it was". Super vague and just like, 'maybe it was this'. I even said I didn't have the sources with me. And then when I posted that source later, I added that it wasn't the same as the 3-6-9 idea and everyone seems to have missed that. I'm the only one not taking my own idea seriously, basically. Everyone seems really eager to disprove an idea I wasn't even trying to prove. Like, Inguz quoted me saying "so this isn't the 3-6-9" and a space below is trying to call me out on that very fact.... kinda funny actually...
> 
> Oh and as for taking it personally, sorry, you can't help what I take personally. though I don't know if taking it personally applies, I didn't think it was applied to my person specifically, I just thought it was a nasty tone & it irritated me/sent a bad message, which I explained.
> 
> ...


Who cares, theory, whatever, okay, lets say a belief being asserted, you believe positive and I believe neutral. Not negative! 

And fair enough, crossed wires. No biggie. You threw the info out there lightheartedly and I thought you took and sought to state it as fact. Sometimes when people do that, I tend to assume they put stock into it, how much is another matter.
All i've really criticized though is the source you provided and given problem areas that might arise during collecting accurate statistics in as least biased way as possible. 

I'm sorry you took my tone to heart, although considering the personal judgements you handed me and lack of apology yourself. I've done my best to modulate my tone specifically to you and in a way that still gets my disagreement about this across. I will be more careful as and where possible with you in future. Please don't call me snide though, seriously, that's just off. I've been straightforward with you and you throw that one in my face. I don't care who agrees with me for backup's sake apart from the only thing that adds weight is that when a number of people agree with something, it may give it more credit, not necessarily but something still worth taking into account. 



> To me that sounds like another way of saying the same thing. So some e-types are progressively "less common" so some are going to be 'more common'. Same difference.


No. Saying that INFP 8 is rare is not the same method as INFP 4 is common. Go figure.



> so all this to say we don't have the ability to know either way huh.


Yup, I believe so. 
Thank god for that.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

mushr00m said:


> Who cares, theory, whatever, okay, lets say a belief being asserted, you believe positive and I believe neutral. Not negative!
> 
> And fair enough, crossed wires. No biggie. You threw the info out there lightheartedly and I thought you took and sought to state it as fact. Sometimes when people do that, I tend to assume they put stock into it, how much is another matter.
> All i've really criticized though is the source you provided and given problem areas that might arise during collecting accurate statistics in as least biased way as possible.
> ...


Eh, this isn't going very well. I'm not intending for this negative energy to be around, but I feel frustrated and confused by this conversation. I'm not trying to personally insult you btw, I said your initial post was snide, not you as a person. I kind of felt like I was under accuracy police, like you're holding me accountable for this 'theory' that I supposedly threw out there when I said from the get go I don't have any proof for it and it was just a guess. I'm in this weird position of backing something I don't even really care about/necessarily think? I mean we spent the entire time establishing, "well this source could be accurate but there are also doubts, this idea could exist but possibly not" which I feel could be assumed from the get go... & I apologize for I'm sure you've found this conversation & my tone difficult and combative as well as I have. 

Don't be careful with me please. I don't really mind this.




> No. Saying that INFP 8 is rare is not the same method as INFP 4 is common. Go figure.


I don't know what you're saying. Is there a method required for this? Not just one method, but two? Besides counting?


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> Eh, this isn't going very well.


That's because of a seemingly misunderstanding of each other. It seems.



> I'm not intending for this negative energy to be around, but I feel frustrated and confused by this conversation.


Me too hun, me too. 



> I'm not trying to personally insult you btw, I said your initial post was snide, not you as a person.


Well i'm going to have to disagree about the snideness of my initial post, there was nothing underhanded about it. I said what I meant and meant what I said. Perhaps you took it for more than it was worth.



> I kind of felt like I was under accuracy police, like you're holding me accountable for this 'theory' that I supposedly threw out there when I said from the get go I don't have any proof for it and it was just a guess. I'm in this weird position of backing something I don't even really care about/necessarily think? I mean we spent the entire time establishing, "well this source could be accurate but there are also doubts, this idea could exist but possibly not" which I feel could be assumed from the get go... & I apologize for I'm sure you've found this conversation & my tone difficult and combative as well as I have.


Sure. The problem is in the source, not yourself and those sources should be criticized where they hold error or bias. That's it. There's a lot of theory jargon being thrown around here, it gets tiring. And don't worry about anything else, honestly. Yup, we spent most of the time deciphering how biased this source was. With a few judgements thrown around which prolonged and complicated the discussion hence why we are still talking about it now. So is this settled now then? I'm sure you would appreciate this being put to sleep so the same points don't need to be reiterated as i'm sure that's tiring for you too. Forgive and forget?



> Don't be careful with me please. I don't really mind this.


Okay. I will bear that in mind. 



> I don't know what you're saying. Is there a method required for this? Not just one method, but two? Besides counting?


I don't think it even matters anymore now. I can't be bothered to explain again and because I just wish to end this whole conversation as it would be for the best. Again, im sure you understand, if not, okay.

Anyways, sorry this happened. Have no idea what else to say and just hope any future interactions will perhaps be more positive.


----------



## MelBel (May 25, 2013)

faizafaiz said:


> Going by personal experience, I would say that type 5 is the rarest type to find. Next would be 4, then 9.
> 
> I'm 28 and I've known the enneagram for 10 years. I'm a 4w5 and I have never met someone who I am sure is a type 5. I know three people who might be 5s though. I know perhaps five type 4s, but they are all 4w3 or 4 with balanced wings.
> 
> I assume this is also related to your occupation and your family. It wouldn't be unlikely for some occupations and even some families to have more people of a certain type. All the three people I know who might be type 5 are academics - two philosophers and one philologist. I met them all at one university or another. Of the five type 4s I know, 4 are artists of some kind - filmmaker, photographer, writers.


I'm a 4w5 too


----------



## honeybadger9 (May 8, 2014)

esfj online is the rarest


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

4 or 8 I'd think but they're still common. None are rare. Come to think of it Idk why 5s are considered rare. ISTPs and INTPs together make up about 10% of the population. The vast majority of both are 5s. INTJs are mostly 5s though a less common type. ISTJs are one of the most common types and a good chunk of them are 5s. Then you have a few 5s that are other types. So that's over 10% of the population.


----------



## JpKoff (Oct 30, 2017)

I don't think the question "What types are the rarest?" is relevant in a vacuum.

I believe there is some pseudo-Darwinistic selection process depending on the physical and sociocultural environment the individual finds himself into.

For instance, in a physically demanding environment where natural resources are scarce and survival is not a given, gut types will dominate (8-9-1). 
To quote "A Game of thrones", "when winter comes, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives". So relating types will be well represented too (3-6-9). 
I suppose id and ego are not optimally adapted to human survival, so super-ego types would also be numerous (1-2-6).
To sum up, what I have in mind is: hostile environment = lots of 1s, lots of 6s, lots of 9s, quite a few 2s,3s and 8s... So the rarest types would be 4,5 and 7.

Switch the environment to some urban society of overabundance and technological helpings of all sorts, you'll get many more tragic individualists (4s), thinking hermits (5s) and hedonists (7s).
So, context.

It occurred to me that one could object "aren't instinctual variants supposed to take care of that instead of psychological types?". I don't think it's incompatible though.

Some social circles I've navigated and their Enneatype flavors (in the admittedly limited point of view of a French citizen):
- Academic: 5,6. 7s are quite rare
- Athletic: 3,7 (individual sports) 7,8 (team sports). 4s and 5s are quite rare
- Industrial production support: 1,6. 4s are VERY rare
- Traditional, countrified family: 2 (women) 1,3,8 (men) 6,9 (all). 4s and 5s are quite rare
- LGBT: 4,7. 8s are quite rare, especially amongst men
- Internet forums: 4,5. every other is quite rare

Overall, the observation bias is so pregnant that making a relevant assessment of Enneatype representation seems virtually impossible...
Moreover, personality type is quite a diffuse characteristic to evaluate, contrary to height, income, penis size etc...


----------



## Mooncutter (Jul 28, 2011)

JpKoff said:


> I don't think the question "What types are the rarest?" is relevant in a vacuum.
> 
> I believe there is some pseudo-Darwinistic selection process depending on the physical and sociocultural environment the individual finds himself into.
> 
> ...


Very informative post! =)


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

In general population?

Least common: 4, 5. 8w9. 4s seem to congregate together though. So you can go a long while without seeing one, and then suddenly you step into a room and get six 4 contenders at once.
Most common: 6, 9, 2.

As someone above me mentioned, this can all change depending on where you are, who you're with, and what you're doing. But I see probable 6s all the time, even in places I wouldn't expect.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

JpKoff said:


> - Internet forums: 4,5. every other is quite rare


Lol no. Several other introverted types are common in internet forums, especially 9s and 6s.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 4 or 8 I'd think but they're still common. None are rare. Come to think of it Idk why 5s are considered rare. ISTPs and INTPs together make up about 10% of the population. The vast majority of both are 5s. INTJs are mostly 5s though a less common type. ISTJs are one of the most common types and a good chunk of them are 5s. Then you have a few 5s that are other types. So that's over 10% of the population.


Using these figures on type statistics and these stats on the correlation of MBTI and Enneagram (with the caveat granted that some of these types have terrible sample sizes), about 7.5% of the population is IxTx 5. I suspect there is an "apparence" factor here where the strongly introverted nature of the 5 makes us less likely to be noticed. Based on the same datasets 3s are much less common, but they are extroverted types whose inclinations are encouraged in society, so they tend to be more obvious.


----------



## bundleofraindrops (Feb 25, 2018)

Rarest:
8w9, 4w3, 5w4.



> Using these figures on type statistics and these stats on the correlation of MBTI and Enneagram (with the caveat granted that some of these types have terrible sample sizes), about 7.5% of the population is IxTx 5. I suspect there is an "apparence" factor here where the strongly introverted nature of the 5 makes us less likely to be noticed. Based on the same datasets 3s are much less common, but they are extroverted types whose inclinations are encouraged in society, so they tend to be more obvious.


Statistics from that silly site mean nothing. A lot of people find 4, 5 or 8 more appealing than 3, 6 or 9.


----------



## bundleofraindrops (Feb 25, 2018)

The issue is that most of you are trying to guess the rarest core which is pointless. 

Common:
6w7, 6w5, 9w1.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

bundleofraindrops said:


> Rarest:
> 8w9, 4w3, 5w4.
> 
> 
> ...


If your complaint is that the statistics are biased, then hopefully you have better statistics to proffer. Else, Hitchens's Razor applies and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

JpKoff said:


> For instance, in a physically demanding environment where natural resources are scarce and survival is not a given, gut types will dominate (8-9-1).
> To quote "A Game of thrones", "when winter comes, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives". So relating types will be well represented too (3-6-9).


I'm an INTJ type 8 and I do resonate with the idea of "wolf pack". I really liked that quote from Game of Thrones. I think that what would give us an edge is our inclination to instinctive action. I, for example, don't think in general, I sense and I do what my instinct tells me. It's natural to me. So it's not a slow deliberative process. I'm always taken aback when I meet people who want to just think and analyse. Once the solution is in my head, I must just do it.

I do disagree with your judgement about internet fora. I think you would also find all the other types: 6s (who might want to feel a part of a group), 8s (I'm here, am I not?) or 1s (proselytising their views maybe).


----------



## JpKoff (Oct 30, 2017)

1nquisitor said:


> I do disagree with your judgement about internet fora. I think you would also find all the other types: 6s (who might want to feel a part of a group), 8s (I'm here, am I not?) or 1s (proselytising their views maybe).


You're the second one to tell me that, so I might reconsider 

My guess was that you'll still find many 6s on Internet congregations (the introverted ones for sure, as the other message pointed out), but in somewhat lesser proportion than in real life.

I agree that you'll find all other types. 1s, 2s and 8s are easily spotted as moderators, their styles are really distinctive ^^

But I still think 4s and 5s are a lot more common on Internet than in real life. 9s are pretty common anywhere, and they're mostly introverts so I should have included them in that group. And 3,7,8 rarer.

I even encountered a social 4 who was in the foot army, so anything can happen really ^^


----------



## bundleofraindrops (Feb 25, 2018)

PiT said:


> If your complaint is that the statistics are biased, then hopefully you have better statistics to proffer.


Thoughtcatalog's statistics are based on about 20 people of that type anyway. It's BS.



> Else, Hitchens's Razor applies and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


Typical 5w6.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

bundleofraindrops said:


> Thoughtcatalog's statistics are based on about 20 people of that type anyway. It's BS.


Sure the ES-types have poor sample sizes, but the INTJ sample for example has 358 individuals. That's more than "about 20".



> Typical 5w6.


Doesn't refute my point.


----------



## bundleofraindrops (Feb 25, 2018)

PiT said:


> Sure the ES-types have poor sample sizes, but the INTJ sample for example has 358 individuals. That's more than "about 20".


The Thoughtcatalog one was about 358 INTJs?


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

bundleofraindrops said:


> The Thoughtcatalog one was about 358 INTJs?


Yes, the pages all list the sample size for that type. Largest sample is ENFP, at 491. The worst Intuitive-type sample is ENTJ with only 74; all others are over 100.

To be fair and criticize these numbers, it is pretty evident from the skewed MBTI spread that the sample was sourced from the internet. Mistyping is an unknowable factor, but typology sites have long observed attracting many IN-types and few ES-types. I would love to see something like the large-scale MBTI studies that give us the generally-accepted type statistics done incorporating Enneagram as well so we could get more solid numbers on Enneatype frequency as well as Enneagram-MBTI correlation, but I am not in a position to design anything of the sort.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

PiT said:


> Yes, the pages all list the sample size for that type. Largest sample is ENFP, at 491. The worst Intuitive-type sample is ENTJ with only 74; all others are over 100.
> 
> To be fair and criticize these numbers, it is pretty evident from the skewed MBTI spread that the sample was sourced from the internet. Mistyping is an unknowable factor, but typology sites have long observed attracting many IN-types and few ES-types. I would love to see something like the large-scale MBTI studies that give us the generally-accepted type statistics done incorporating Enneagram as well so we could get more solid numbers on Enneatype frequency as well as Enneagram-MBTI correlation, but I am not in a position to design anything of the sort.


If you haven’t already seen it, you might find this interesting. It’s another internet-sourced sample, but they adjusted for that and calculated the Enneagram type frequencies in the general population. It would be better to start with a more representative sample, of course, but I’m not aware of any better sources of data on Enneagram type distribution than that.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Octavarium said:


> If you haven’t already seen it, you might find this interesting. It’s another internet-sourced sample, but they adjusted for that and calculated the Enneagram type frequencies in the general population. It would be better to start with a more representative sample, of course, but I’m not aware of any better sources of data on Enneagram type distribution than that.


Thanks for the link. It is great information, and it still illustrates a big problem with this net-based approach. 

Comparing TypologyCentral and PerC, a couple of the Enneatypes have large discrepancies; i.e. 6 and 8. When you look at the types that tend to correlate most strongly with these from the sample (e.g. ISFJ and ISTJ for 6, ESTJ, ENTJ, and ESTP for 8), these are also the types that have small sample sizes. Even the ones that align closely are probably largely due to happenstance. Difference for 1's between the two sources is about 10% of the proportion, but if you look at the computed breakdown about 90% of 1's are expected to be S-types.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

PiT said:


> Thanks for the link. It is great information, and it still illustrates a big problem with this net-based approach.
> 
> Comparing TypologyCentral and PerC, a couple of the Enneatypes have large discrepancies; i.e. 6 and 8. When you look at the types that tend to correlate most strongly with these from the sample (e.g. ISFJ and ISTJ for 6, ESTJ, ENTJ, and ESTP for 8), these are also the types that have small sample sizes. Even the ones that align closely are probably largely due to happenstance. Difference for 1's between the two sources is about 10% of the proportion, but if you look at the computed breakdown about 90% of 1's are expected to be S-types.


I agree we might not be able to generalise as much from the types with smaller sample sizes, and it’s unfortunate that, at least as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a better source of data, though I’d be happy to be proven wrong about that. 

It’s an interesting question why there is the discrepancy in the numbers of 6s and 8s between PerC and typology Central. It might just be due to the small sample sizes of the correlating MBTI types as you suggest, but I think there might be another explanation. When I first joined PerC, a lot of people were saying that CP 6s tend to mistype as 8s. 8 typings were sometimes discouraged, and people were steered towards 6. I haven’t spent as much time on TC as on here, but I haven’t seen as much discussion over there about CP 6s mistyping as 8s, so it might be that people who could plausibly type as either CP 6s or 8s tend to type at 6 if they are primarily PerC users, and 8 if they primarily use TC.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Octavarium said:


> I agree we might not be able to generalise as much from the types with smaller sample sizes, and it’s unfortunate that, at least as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a better source of data, though I’d be happy to be proven wrong about that.
> 
> It’s an interesting question why there is the discrepancy in the numbers of 6s and 8s between PerC and typology Central. It might just be due to the small sample sizes of the correlating MBTI types as you suggest, but I think there might be another explanation. When I first joined PerC, a lot of people were saying that CP 6s tend to mistype as 8s. 8 typings were sometimes discouraged, and people were steered towards 6. I haven’t spent as much time on TC as on here, but I haven’t seen as much discussion over there about CP 6s mistyping as 8s, so it might be that people who could plausibly type as either CP 6s or 8s tend to type at 6 if they are primarily PerC users, and 8 if they primarily use TC.


I have found that INTJ typing is also discouraged and one is liable to be questioned if you behave in a fashion that is judged un-INTJ-like. The thing is, at least in the MBTI case there are good statistics indicating that INTJ is one of the rarest types, so its relative frequency on the internet is notable and potentially suspicious. 

In Enneagram terms, the conventional wisdom on what types are common and not appear to just be random guesses. Based on the best statistics we have available, 4 and 5 are each about 12% of the population, which is close to the average frequency of an Enneatype. These statistics could be wrong, but we have no good evidence that these types are notably rare and I have seen claims that 4 and 5 typings are discouraged in some circles, as you describe 8 typings be discouraged.


----------



## Octavarium (Nov 27, 2012)

PiT said:


> I have found that INTJ typing is also discouraged and one is liable to be questioned if you behave in a fashion that is judged un-INTJ-like. The thing is, at least in the MBTI case there are good statistics indicating that INTJ is one of the rarest types, so its relative frequency on the internet is notable and potentially suspicious.
> 
> In Enneagram terms, the conventional wisdom on what types are common and not appear to just be random guesses. Based on the best statistics we have available, 4 and 5 are each about 12% of the population, which is close to the average frequency of an Enneatype. These statistics could be wrong, but we have no good evidence that these types are notably rare and I have seen claims that 4 and 5 typings are discouraged in some circles, as you describe 8 typings be discouraged.


I don’t find the relative frequency of IN types on typology forums suspicious. In fact, I’d find it odd if there were no overrepresented types. If these theories are getting at real differences between people, then we should expect them to have implications in the real world, such as somebody’s type influencing the probability that they’ll be interested in psychology and drawn to internet communities discussing it. If you weren’t saying otherwise, and you just meant that at least the “INTJs are rare” claims are backed up by stats but similar claims about the Enneagram aren’t, then I agree. However, those stats might have overestimated the number of 4s and 5s because, for example, the ISFs who frequent typology forums might be more likely than the average ISF to identify with type 4, perhaps because they tend to have a relatively mild S preference. Or maybe the frequencies they gave for the types are about right, and 4s and 5s combined are more numerous than INs. Without stats from a more representative sample, there’s no way to tell.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Octavarium said:


> I don’t find the relative frequency of IN types on typology forums suspicious. In fact, I’d find it odd if there were no overrepresented types. If these theories are getting at real differences between people, then we should expect them to have implications in the real world, such as somebody’s type influencing the probability that they’ll be interested in psychology and drawn to internet communities discussing it. *If you weren’t saying otherwise, and you just meant that at least the “INTJs are rare” claims are backed up by stats but similar claims about the Enneagram aren’t, then I agree.* However, those stats might have overestimated the number of 4s and 5s because, for example, the ISFs who frequent typology forums might be more likely than the average ISF to identify with type 4, perhaps because they tend to have a relatively mild S preference. Or maybe the frequencies they gave for the types are about right, and 4s and 5s combined are more numerous than INs. Without stats from a more representative sample, there’s no way to tell.


That is basically what I meant. I don't see much merit to the "type-policing" that goes on in INTJ circles, but it at least makes more sense than it does in the context of Enneagram.

Going off of what you are talking about, I can see how certain Enneatypes would likely be underrepresented. I certainly don't see your average Type 8 wanting to spend lots of time on internet forums, for example. That is all just speculation, though. The dataset gathered from the typology sites is a step in the right direction by trying to normalize based on a known quantity (MBTI type), but it is hard to tell whether certain Enneatypes are over- or under-represented here.


----------



## jimzartman (Jun 28, 2018)

So 6s and 9s are the most common in the US. I know so many 4s but that could just be running in artistic circles. I know whenever we try to find people to be on Enneagram panels we have a hard time finding 7s- probably because they aren't that self aware, 5's because they don't like the idea of the Enneagram until they read about it, and 3s- cause they are out trying to be successful and don't want to pause and look at their hidden motivations.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Sevens. Sevens, and more sevens. Jesus its so hard to find some, whereas you can find 3, 4, 1, 6 and 9 just about everywhere. Hello fellow brothers where the fuck are you allllllll


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

mimesis said:


> There are also ISFP, ISFJ, ESFP, ESFJ, ENFP Fours. The chance of these MBTI types being typed Four may be smaller compared to INFP (4/10), but it is still a significant amount, since these groups are much bigger than the ones you name. The same can be said about Five and INTP/INTJ. These types are overrepresented on this forum, so I wouldn't pay too much value to what you see in your environment. I've been in environments where Four seemed prevalent, like Art School.
> 
> To make a calculation I used two statistics. MBTI and MBTI/Enneagram (6th table) and combined them to one table. Now, you can debate the validity of these statistics, or whether people are correctly typed, just like you can debate the validity of typology in the first place, so this is just to get an impression.
> 
> ...


Over half are 4 INxx.
Almost half are the type 4 and 5.

Can't beat introverts in internet, I guess. LoL.

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## bundleofraindrops (Feb 25, 2018)

jimzartman said:


> So 6s and 9s are the most common in the US.


6s+9s are the most common types all over the world. Most ESTJs are status quo-seeking 6w7s not rebellious 8w7s as these statistics constantly claim.


----------



## richard nixon (Sep 14, 2017)

bundleofraindrops said:


> 6s+9s are the most common types all over the world. Most ESTJs are status quo-seeking 6w7s not rebellious 8w7s as these statistics constantly claim.


Most ESTJs are actually 1w2, they certainly aren't 6w7 "the buddy". Most ESTPs and ENTPs are 8w7 though.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

This thread makes me facepalm.. There's no way any statistics can be highly reliable because of the amount of mistypes out there. The 4/5 INxxs are a prime example: it's absurd to assume INxx consists their majority or the like (there's no real reason besides ego to eliminate ISxxs). There's a lot of mistyped 4s that are 2, 3, 6, 9 - even 7. There's a lot of 5s who are 1, 3, 6, 9 - and again even 7. 
https://www.personalitycafe.com/enn...perc-type-distribution-june-2017-edition.html

The (recent?) assumption that 6 and 9 are common, without including 3 at all, weirds me out, too. Y'all are probably missing a lot of 3s around you...

Anyway I tend to think each E-type is fairly equal in frequency, although I wouldn't take it amiss to make it a range between 9-13% each.


----------



## bundleofraindrops (Feb 25, 2018)

richard nixon said:


> Most ESTJs are actually 1w2, .


No. I'll buy that most are 3w2 since they also seek the status quo but they certainly aren't mostly an idealistic reforming type. 




> they certainly aren't 6w7 "the buddy".


Well, I don't agree with the concept of 6w7s being the buddy. They are too common of a type to be stereotyped and my ex was a 6w7 ESTJ who defo wasn't very buddy-ish. 




> Most ESTPs and ENTPs are 8w7 though


They are mostly 7w8s.


----------



## bundleofraindrops (Feb 25, 2018)

Paradigm said:


> The (recent?) assumption that 6 and 9 are common, without including 3 at all, weirds me out, too. Y'all are probably missing a lot of 3s around you...


I think it's cause 3 men often want to be 8s especially the sx first ones.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> There is a depth of perspective you attain with prolonged consideration of the Enneagram, its concepts, your type, others' types, that allows you to make more refined predictions as to what a person's type or Enneagram fixations might be. Some "over-eager typers" may actually be pointing out ideas that you should take into consideration.
> 
> As to the OP, I rarely seem to encounter people I would type as 4, 5, or id types in general, but I can't make a reliable generalization about what types are rare overall. I don't usually consider the Enneagram in such terms.


Aren't 4 and 5 ego types, and 3 7 8 are the id types? (going based on https://www.personalitycafe.com/articles/47315-freudian-theory-enneagram.html )


----------



## JpKoff (Oct 30, 2017)

Paradigm said:


> The (recent?) assumption that 6 and 9 are common, without including 3 at all, weirds me out, too. Y'all are probably missing a lot of 3s around you...


Once again, the environment influences superego values and ego's reactions to typing.

I believe I know a 3 when I see one, but when I explain the Enneagram around me and type someone at 3, his/her reaction is almost invariably skeptical.
Why that? I'm French. In France, 3's values are frowned upon. Achieving in and of itself is a bit frowned upon, but not as much as _striving to achieve_. It's considered selfish, vain and generally inhuman (a bit of a caricature but you get the point).
So I think my description of the 3 is unconsciously tainted by that, and people consciously AND unconsciously want to avoid being labelled this way.
Interestingly, those people who refuse the 3 typing I "inflict" on them can't seem to find another type which would suit them better... Which is not the case with other types, those would propose another more fitting one. 

Generally, of all people I've typed, they're satisfied about being 2,4,5,7,8,9. They find 1 boring, 6 useless and 3 repulsive. How much of it is due to my explanations and how much due to the phenomenon I've just described... That's debatable.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

bundleofraindrops said:


> I think it's cause 3 men often want to be 8s especially the sx first ones.


That's truer than not, yeah. I know a probable SOC 3 that would self-type at 8 most likely... Tbh even I'm considering it, because he's fairly... reactive in a sense, but (for one reason) not much about him screams "body type." Hell, he'd likely go to 5 long before considering 3.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

JpKoff said:


> Once again, the environment influences superego values and ego's reactions to typing.


Yup, that's part of what I was getting at. The ego (self-esteem) protects itself in countless ways, and the person themselves are often unaware - that's why I mentioned ISxx can near as easily be 4/5 as INxx. I even have an ESFP 4 in my family, and I could easily "pass myself off" as 5 because of being an INTJ. Those kinds of things make it hard to discuss this topic, because the community - humanity, really - is often hard to take at immediate face-value, as "honest."
(Oh, I fully believe they think and _are _being honest, don't get me wrong. I'm not at all thinking more than a small fraction is being intentionally "dishonest." But I do think such biases are abundant.)



> I believe I know a 3 when I see one, but when I explain the Enneagram around me and type someone at 3, his/her reaction is almost invariably skeptical.
> Why that? I'm French. In France, 3's values are frowned upon. Achieving in and of itself is a bit frowned upon, but not as much as _striving to achieve_. It's considered selfish, vain and generally inhuman (a bit of a caricature but you get the point).
> So I think my description of the 3 is unconsciously tainted by that, and people consciously AND unconsciously want to avoid being labelled this way.


Yeah, there's a lot of false impressions surrounding type 3. In the US (and maybe the UK, though that's more of a guess), at least, I find it's usually either the belief that 3s are always successful or that 3s are always "fake" to be the biggest ones. You described it well by saying 3s are usually "striving" than "achieving." There's a lot of, um, working class 3s that go unnoticed / 'mistyped' simply because they're not especially "successful" by societal standards. Not to mention that the concept that success is almost always defined only by wealth/prosperity and renown, rather than realistic desires like being a good parent or being a good scientist or a good plumber or... Well, any sorts of "mundane" things. 



> Interestingly, those people who refuse the 3 typing I "inflict" on them can't seem to find another type which would suit them better... Which is not the case with other types, those would propose another more fitting one.


Admittedly, I don't have any experience in discussing types IRL or even with friends, because everyone I know would find it either boring as shit or dismiss it as being akin to astrology (I mean, it kinda is, but still). But around PerC, there's often a denial of finding their true type and a desire to cling to their self-perceptions or false interpretation of types, usually in favor of types 4/5. (I'm not really trying to start that particular debate, it's just that, as shown in that link I provided, those are the dominants here.) I try not to bother people with it too much nowadays unless asked, but the mistypes I mentioned before are _really _numerous, from my POV; if I tried to find them, I could point to several non-4/5s and suggest more likely types. In years past, I saw several "4/4-fixers" who were really, really 3ish, and several "5/5-fixers" who were really 1ish or 6(w5)ish, then sometimes 3ish. A lot of the INTP "5s" are 9s, too, though I couldn't guess what percentage.



> Generally, of all people I've typed, they're satisfied about being 2,4,5,7,8,9. They find 1 boring, 6 useless and 3 repulsive. How much of it is due to my explanations and how much due to the phenomenon I've just described... That's debatable.


I'm surprised you find people "don't mind" being 9 - it seems like many around here think it's boring, more boring than 1 (not that they have a good idea of 1, either).


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

contradictionary said:


> Over half are 4 INxx.
> Almost half are the type 4 and 5.
> 
> Can't beat introverts in internet, I guess. LoL.
> ...


I wouldn't be surprised though if type 3, and in general extroverts are overrepresented on Facebook, and type 4 or 5 are underrepresented.


----------



## JpKoff (Oct 30, 2017)

Paradigm said:


> There's a lot of, um, working class 3s that go unnoticed / 'mistyped' simply because they're not especially "successful" by societal standards. Not to mention that the concept that success is almost always defined only by wealth/prosperity and renown, rather than realistic desires like being a good parent or being a good scientist or a good plumber or... Well, any sorts of "mundane" things.


Absolutely. And those would not appreciate an “achiever” label exactly for this reason. “Me, an achiever? I don’t care about success! It’s just I can’t stand failing at what I do…”


> Admittedly, I don't have any experience in discussing types IRL or even with friends, because everyone I know would find it either boring as shit or dismiss it as being akin to astrology (I mean, it kinda is, but still). But around PerC, there's often a denial of finding their true type and a desire to cling to their self-perceptions or false interpretation of types, usually in favor of types 4/5. (I'm not really trying to start that particular debate, it's just that, as shown in that link I provided, those are the dominants here.) I try not to bother people with it too much nowadays unless asked, but the mistypes I mentioned before are _really _numerous, from my POV; if I tried to find them, I could point to several non-4/5s and suggest more likely types. In years past, I saw several "4/4-fixers" who were really, really 3ish, and several "5/5-fixers" who were really 1ish or 6(w5)ish, then sometimes 3ish. A lot of the INTP "5s" are 9s, too, though I couldn't guess what percentage.
> I'm surprised you find people "don't mind" being 9 - it seems like many around here think it's boring, more boring than 1 (not that they have a good idea of 1, either)


Well, I sort of found a way to introduce the Enneagram lightly in group settings, using my own typing cards so that it is more of a game than something to rack your brain over. Of course results are hit-and-miss but there’s always the curious one who wants more in-depth analysis. As you say, some find it boring, some find it stupid but the usual reaction is light amusement, for just long enough to flash-type every(willing)body in the room. 
9s like being associated with concepts of harmony and peace, and most of all they like it when their loved ones say “oh yeah this is so him/her, easy-going, peaceful… AND HE NEVER SAYS WHAT HE WANTS, THAT’S ALWAYS ‘whatever you like’”  
The accuracy of the process is not optimal of course but usually, getting people to choose between assertive/withdrawn/compliant, between reactive/optimistic/competent, and getting their close friends to chime in about their choices, you get good success rates for a minimal time investment. My goal with this is just self-training at typing based on quantitative samples from various environments.
Usually people don’t like to choose “compliant” unless by default. Once again, it could be because I badly designed this typing card, as I’m definitely not a compliance aficionado ^^


----------



## PlasticRenaissance (Jun 28, 2017)

_In my opinion the rare ,or common type's theory could be just a *Myth*.


1) someone told me that T4 could be the rarest 
,however, I feel like somehow T4 could die in very young age 
(don't take it too personal ,because I am also T4)
(for example : 
the sense of lacking of T4 could drive them to do something that could harm themselves 
such as suicide ,substance abuse)

another reason (this might seem a bit wild) is__when someone told T4 that "you are the rarest" 
,sometimes it could make T4 "feel (too) good"
,so it could be just a strategic rumor to keep T4 'alive and active' in enneagram (haha)


2) for the best of my knowledge ,we don't really know the enneatype of the whole population of the entire universe!!
(I am thinking about 'tribal people' and more... )
,so we just make this hypothesis about the most common ,or rarest type based on our language our skin ,and our eyes!!!_

*"maybe 'our creator' could be more OCD-ish than we could expect (haha)"*


----------



## StarLady (Jul 11, 2018)

While there are a lot of 4s and 5s on sites like this I believe they aren't nearly as well represented in the general population.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

The socially comfortable INTP, assuming such a thing exists. I highly doubt it does tho


----------



## Just Peachy (Jan 2, 2018)

5s and 8s in my personal experience. Maybe it's where my career and education are in music, the arts, but I encounter more 4s than those two types.


----------



## Lem (Dec 21, 2018)

Temizzle said:


> I guess I’m a snowflake then


Sorry, but that role has already been taken.


----------



## Temizzle (May 14, 2017)

Lem said:


> Sorry, but that role has already been taken.


Of course the 4 would be competing for the snowflake role. How snowflake of you.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

Ellis Bell said:


> Yeah, I would say that 9s are pretty common. We hide a bit, so you don't really notice us, but we're common; especially, it seems, among men (even though the motivations of 9 are a bit more "feminine"). I'd definitely say that 5 is probably rarer, as is maybe type 8? With the most common types, especially in the US, being 3, 6, 7, and 9, I'm guessing (by the way, the American news media is pretty phobic 6-ish).


is it just me or is 9w8 a bit rarer though? it seems like most 9s are 9w1?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Strelok said:


> Aren't 4 and 5 ego types, and 3 7 8 are the id types? (going based on https://www.personalitycafe.com/articles/47315-freudian-theory-enneagram.html )


I know this is old, but in the quoted post I actually meant to point out 4, 5, and {3, 7, 8}.


----------

