# Frequency, Rarity of Enneagram type~



## wanderingscribe

I like to think I have a good or at least decent understanding of MBTI personality frequency and rarites. But for the Enneagram it has been harder to find. So I was wondering if anyone could shed the light on the subject. If not, to point or link me in the right direction~

Thanks!


----------



## Inky

You can try:

Enneagram Test Stats
Enneagram Profile & Pie Chart Generator Information

You may also find these interesting:

http://www.9types.com/writeup/enneagram_marriages.html
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j2microcosm.html

I don't know if they're up-to-date though...


----------



## Grey

The links provided are good, but out-of-date and out-of-context, unfortunately.

Basically, there's only been preliminary research done on this subject. The internet houses a majority of 4s, 5s, and 9s, with 3s and 1s the minority. In the real world, (specifically, USA), supposedly 6s are the most common, and I've seen a few snippets that would suggest that 3s and 9s are also very common. Essentially, I believe the rarest type overall is 4, with 5w4 being the rarest wing type, and depending on where you are in the world, it seems the Triad (3-6-9) always has a reigning type of one of those numbers. Hopefully more information will be provided in the future.


----------



## Functianalyst

Grey said:


> Basically, there's only been preliminary research done on this subject. The internet houses a majority of 4s, 5s, and 9s, with 3s and 1s the minority. In the real world, (specifically, USA), supposedly 6s are the most common, and I've seen a few snippets that would suggest that 3s and 9s are also very common. Essentially, I believe the rarest type overall is 4, with 5w4 being the rarest wing type, and depending on where you are in the world, it seems the Triad (3-6-9) always has a reigning type of one of those numbers. Hopefully more information will be provided in the future.


I have to agree Grey that there is little research but to the contrary, I think that the stats for MBTI are equally misleading based on a number of factors. I will not go into my argument on determining stats by dichotomy and not cognitive functions or the number of people surveyed by Myers Briggs and Keirsey. But your comment about E6 made me wonder whether people testing are focused on desirable traits when responding to tests. E6 and SJ embody the type of people most corporations and western culture desire. I think you and I agree that taking these type tests while at work or thinking how you are at work can result in SJ/E6 type tendencies. As for 5w4 or 4w5 I have not read where the enneagram has delved into type rarity, but if those types are being considered merely because they correlate with INTs and INFs, then it's fruit of the poisonous tree so to speak.


----------



## Grey

I'm afraid most of my knowledge relies on wayward links and Google searches (although the Enneagram Institute has a forum that has several topics devoted to this sort of thing), but yes, I do agree that such research is likely flawed to begin with. If they were simply to ask random people (over internet, for example) their Enneagram type in a survey, there would likely be a lot of mistyping of misconstrued numbers. If it were at a seminar or workshop, however, the same would still be likely, due to the reasons listed (responding as would be desired, causing more flaws). Even so, if extensive research were to validate these findings, as has happened with the USA's MBTI, at least, there has to be some truth to it.


----------



## Functianalyst

Grey said:


> I'm afraid most of my knowledge relies on wayward links and Google searches (although the Enneagram Institute has a forum that has several topics devoted to this sort of thing), but yes, I do agree that such research is likely flawed to begin with. If they were simply to ask random people (over internet, for example) their Enneagram type in a survey, there would likely be a lot of mistyping of misconstrued numbers. If it were at a seminar or workshop, however, the same would still be likely, due to the reasons listed (responding as would be desired, causing more flaws). Even so, if extensive research were to validate these findings, as has happened with the USA's MBTI, at least, there has to be some truth to it.


Sorry Grey but if you have the book “Gifts Differing”, read the 16th bullet in the Endnotes section which says, “An early, *unpublished study by Isabel Briggs Myers* is the basis of statements about the frequencies of types in the general population. *The type indicator was given to male students from the eleventh and twelfth grades of a high school serving the whole city of Stamford, Connecticut*. *Among the 217 students in the 11th graders*, 28.1% were introverts and 26.7% were intuitives; *among the 182 12th graders*, 25.8% were introverts and 33% were intuitives. The percent of intuitives may have increased because of sensing types leaving school after their attendance was no longer compulsory.”

Jung said that there are more men who prefer Se and more females prefer Ne. Other than Fe and Fi, he does not make the claims with the remaining cognitive functions. More importantly, 399 students and they were all male? Really? 

Other than making the claim when discussing his types, Keirsey never references to where he came up with the stats. Clearly Myers-Briggs admits that Isabel Briggs Myers never published her results, but I would challenge anyone to locate information that shows type rarity from these folks and how they came up with the stats. It’s become an urban legend that no one challenges.


----------



## Grey

I'm afraid I do not have this book, but these are not the only statistics - although they are the original basis, other studies have been able to back up or dispute what is offered.


----------



## Functianalyst

Grey said:


> I'm afraid I do not have this book, but these are not the only statistics - although they are the original basis, other studies have been able to back up or dispute what is offered.


Umm.... do they dispute it or are they perpetuating the existing myth? Again I would challenge anyone to provide a reference to statistics on MBTI type with information to back their findings. To my knowledge there are no independent studies. 

These are the statistics from Personalitypage.com, based on 22,000 surveyed:


ISFJ (11.9%) 
INFP (11.4%) 
ENFP (11.3%) 
ISTJ (8.8%) 
ESFJ (8.6%) 
ESTJ (7.1%) 
ISFP (5.9%) 
INFJ (5.9%) 
ESFP (5.4%) 
ENFJ (4.3%) 
INTP (4.0%) 
ENTP (3.6%) 
ISTP (3.1%) 
INTJ (2.9%) 
ESTP (2.8%) 
ENTJ (2.2%)


----------



## Grey

Well, those statistics in particular refer to the test they offer, which you have to pay for, and is only available over the internet (which, again, is not a valid way to perpetuate results for a large group).

Although these are not all providing the resources they have, here are some links, for example:
Meyers-Briggs Statistics
MBTI Proximity Chart at MROB
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&ved=0CCoQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwed.siu.edu%2Ffaculty%2FBPutnam%2F566%2F%2F%2FMBTI%2520Demographics.ppt&rct=j&q=mbti+statistics&ei=5PYmS_2PI8L_tgfW84nAAw&usg=AFQjCNFuIttt9xw4uzkWfDX9VBEs_UIgzQ (You'll need a Powerpoint Viewer for this)

Either way, this may not be best to debate over such a topic - it's about Enneagram, not MBTI.


----------



## Functianalyst

Grey said:


> Well, those statistics in particular refer to the test they offer, which you have to pay for, and is only available over the internet (which, again, is not a valid way to perpetuate results for a large group).
> 
> Although these are not all providing the resources they have, here are some links, for example:
> Meyers-Briggs Statistics
> MBTI Proximity Chart at MROB
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&ved=0CCoQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwed.siu.edu%2Ffaculty%2FBPutnam%2F566%2F%2F%2FMBTI%2520Demographics.ppt&rct=j&q=mbti+statistics&ei=5PYmS_2PI8L_tgfW84nAAw&usg=AFQjCNFuIttt9xw4uzkWfDX9VBEs_UIgzQ (You'll need a Powerpoint Viewer for this)
> 
> Either way, this may not be best to debate over such a topic - it's about Enneagram, not MBTI.


I agree that the stats at personalitypage are questionable. I have seen those sites that you allude to, but it proves my point that people perpetuate what Myers-Briggs said and have allowed the myth to become fact. Keirsey it has been said, admitted that he up his stats. He alludes to the stats in his book, but give no footnotes and references. You're right this is not the venue, but am I the only one person with an interest in type that feels such hype is an insult to my intelligence? 

I think it's why I do appreciate the enneagram, because they keep clear of stereotypes and innuendos that cannot be proven. As for E6s, it can be argued that since you are actually referring to two types (phobic or counter-phobic), then it muplies the possibilities when adding wing and/or variant stacking. As such you will have more variants of that type. I can't see where 4w5w4 can be shown as rare however.


----------



## gonecrazytoo

I am thinking that if you want some serious numbers that mean something, the military has them. They really like the MBTI and are completely skeptical of the enneagram.

I will go out on a limb here and say... avoid the internet. Go straight to pure research for your numbers. Find out what the government and private institutions have on tap.


----------



## Highlander

Anybody come up with any better stats on percentage of Enneagram types in the overall population? I'm investigating this stuff right now.


----------



## Tater Tot

I always thought 6 was the most common and 5 was the least common... 0.0


----------



## mushr00m

I doubt if there is any way of measuring the true frequencies of types tbh. Considering a large section of the wider population doesn't even know about the enneagram, it would be pretty impossible to know true figures.


----------



## Arrow

Supposedly 3, 6 and 9 are the more common E types, with 4, 5 and 8 being the rarest type with the other three types being in the middle from common to rare.


----------



## Highlander

I'm really looking for specific percentages for each enneagram type. There are some links above but they are not the best. You would think someone would have to have done this somewhere.


----------



## Flatlander

Hello name-cousin.

I am in league with the opinion that we don't have good statistics on this. Some approximate 6s as the highest percentage in the population, but I'm dubious that any quasi-scientific precautions have been taken: random sampling, proper or unbiased testing or typing...


----------



## zallla

Arrow said:


> Supposedly 3, 6 and 9 are the more common E types, with 4, 5 and 8 being the rarest type with the other three types being in the middle from common to rare.


Supposedly? Has anyone ever thought that if assumptions like those are _not_ true at all but just assumptions without no reliable evidence, people who keep repeating them will just spread false beliefs. I'd suggest that if someone actually knows something, please inform others and preferably tell the source so we can make our own judgments.

I think that very rarely am I in a place where it is possible to get a representative sample of people. People telling how many type X they know and how that type must be "so common" annoys me because what kind of sample is that? And who has decided "the typing"? It is biased and completely _useless_ if not investigated properly.


----------



## Arrow

zallla said:


> Supposedly? Has anyone ever thought that if assumptions like those are _not_ true at all but just assumptions without no reliable evidence, people who keep repeating them will just spread false beliefs.


I'm not sure what the heck this was, but I don't really appreciate the anger, tone, mockery, or skepticism that comes with your issues on this topic. The original poster asked a question and I answered it based on information that I have been provided with. I'm sorry if the answer upsets you, but regardless there have been posts made on this very forum that express what I have written above. 

http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...-enneagram-typing-tri-theory-stereotypes.html
http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...um/55796-common-reasons-behind-mistyping.html

These two threads indicate what I have said that 3-6-9 are the most primary Enneangram types. If you are thirsting for more sources and if this is deeply important to you, it is up to you to find information that contradicts what is already said or precedented for arguments sake.


----------



## zallla

Arrow said:


> I'm not sure what the heck this was, but I don't really appreciate the anger, tone, mockery, or skepticism that comes with your issues on this topic. The original poster asked a question and I answered it based on information that I have been provided with. I'm sorry if the answer upsets you, but regardless there have been posts made on this very forum that express what I have written above.


Oh, there was no mockery, just a request to stick with the facts. I'm sorry if you felt "attacked", it was nothing personal, many people say and think what you just said, it was not the first time I read it. It just came into my mind that does anyone _actually_ know or are we just repeating what someone once said without no proper evidence. In my opinion repeating assumptions does not make anyone really wiser. That's why I prefer to say something only when I actually know and question when others seem to only assume.


----------



## mushr00m

Arrow said:


> I'm not sure what the heck this was, but I don't really appreciate the anger, tone, mockery, or skepticism that comes with your issues on this topic. The original poster asked a question and I answered it based on information that I have been provided with. I'm sorry if the answer upsets you, but regardless there have been posts made on this very forum that express what I have written above.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...-enneagram-typing-tri-theory-stereotypes.html
> http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...um/55796-common-reasons-behind-mistyping.html
> 
> These two threads indicate what I have said that 3-6-9 are the most primary Enneangram types. If you are thirsting for more sources and if this is deeply important to you, it is up to you to find information that contradicts what is already said or precedented for arguments sake.


This isn't an attack but merely a disagreement on the amount of weight put into finding out the true populations of each type based on current methods etc. However if you have any further suggestions for calculating those, id be happy to hear but at the present time, its simply not possible to know for sure.


----------



## Arrow

Again if you disagree with the sources it is up to you to find something that contradicts the established statement. That's how debating works. Unless there is another study which discounts this precedent then this is the information we have to go off of.


----------



## NingenExp

I want to believe we live in a fair world. If these systems do classify all humanity, it must be equally distributed. I know it's not true. It's just an off comment.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

I think core 5s tend to be among the rarest IRL for me, with core 1s in 2nd place, and core 8s in 3rd place in terms of rarity.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think core 5s tend to be among the rarest IRL for me, with core 1s in 2nd place, and core 8s in 3rd place in terms of rarity.


Agreed. I haven`t met a core 5 that isn`t an NT of some sort, although it`s possible i know a SJ that is core 5. I`ve gone through hundreds of people i`ve been associated with over the yeasr when coming to this conclusion. It`s when i see ENFP type as core 5 that makes me laugh. Then again i`m going by CJF with types, and according to my functions type 5 totally contradicts what it means to us Ne-Fi-Te-Si. This isn`t to say that ENFP don`t appreciate knowledge or logic, because we absolutely do, it just isn`t natural to our psyche to put logic before all else. Just my personal perspective since i`m entitled to one


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Agreed. I haven`t met a core 5 that isn`t an NT of some sort, although it`s possible i know a SJ that is core 5. I`ve gone through hundreds of people i`ve been associated with over the yeasr when coming to this conclusion. It`s when i see ENFP type as core 5 that makes me laugh. Then again i`m going by CJF with types, and according to my functions type 5 totally contradicts what it means to us Ne-Fi-Te-Si. This isn`t to say that ENFP don`t appreciate knowledge or logic, because we absolutely do, it just isn`t natural to our psyche to put logic before all else. Just my personal perspective since i`m entitled to one


I've met INFJ and INFP core 5s, as well as an ISFJ core 5, a few INTP/INTJ core 5s, an ISFP core 5 - in general, it seems like most of the core 5s I know are at least introverts for some reason in my life. I know a lot of ENFPs who are head types (7s, 6s), but not 5s...yet.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I've met INFJ and INFP core 5s, as well as an ISFJ core 5, a few INTP/INTJ core 5s, an ISFP core 5 - in general, it seems like most of the core 5s I know are at least introverts for some reason in my life. I know a lot of ENFPs who are head types (7s, 6s), but not 5s...yet.


Yes it's interesting how the only 5's i know are also all introverts, and now that i think about it i could add an ISTP on that list too . Nice, it would be interesting to meet 5's of all those types listed


----------



## Entropic

I am somewhat interested in doing this kind of research but time and money is a big problem unfortunately.


----------



## julialikesfrogs

I found this table at the bottom of the page on your 9types link interesting:
*Overall distribution of types:*
If types were distributed by chance, one would expect each type to be about 1/9 = 11% of the population. This is clearly not the case, as we see in the table below. 9s are somewhat more than 11% of the population, while 3s are less, particularly among women. These gender differences are very consistent with what has been reported previously by Dora and Ted Levinson (Enneagram Monthly, Sept. 1998). 


Type:
Females
Males
1
15%
13%
2
20%
4%
3
5%
6%
4
12%
6%
5
4%
15%
6
16%
13%
7
8%
8%
8
7%
17%
9
14%
19%


----------



## SharkT00th

I don't see how to accurately calculate those stats, the stats seem to be based more on interest and less of what the general population represents. The chart above represents interest by type.


----------



## MelBel

Functianalyst said:


> Umm.... do they dispute it or are they perpetuating the existing myth? Again I would challenge anyone to provide a reference to statistics on MBTI type with information to back their findings. To my knowledge there are no independent studies.
> 
> These are the statistics from Personalitypage.com, based on 22,000 surveyed:
> 
> 
> ISFJ (11.9%)
> INFP (11.4%)
> ENFP (11.3%)
> ISTJ (8.8%)
> ESFJ (8.6%)
> ESTJ (7.1%)
> ISFP (5.9%)
> INFJ (5.9%)
> ESFP (5.4%)
> ENFJ (4.3%)
> INTP (4.0%)
> ENTP (3.6%)
> ISTP (3.1%)
> INTJ (2.9%)
> ESTP (2.8%)
> ENTJ (2.2%)




This is a poll I found about rarity/ commonness of personality types, similar to the one above. Don't know which one would be more accurate, but its all worth considering.

Sorry people, I know, this thread is suppose to be bout Enneagram types, But, found discussion about personality type rareness on this thread fascinating also!

ISFJ 13.8%
ESFJ 12.3%
ISTJ 116%
ISFP 8.8%
ESTJ 8.7%
ESFP 8.5%
ENFP 8.1%
ISTP 5.4%
INFP 4.4%
ESTP 4.3%
INTP 3.3%
ENTP 3.2% 
ENFJ 2.5%
INTJ 2.1%
ENTJ 1.8%
INFJ 1.5%


----------



## Lakigigar

Probably

Most common: 1, 6,9
Common: 8 (uncommon women),2 (uncommon with men), 3
Uncommon: 4 (esp. man) ,5 (esp. women), 7


----------



## newbie const

Lakigigar said:


> Probably
> 
> Most common: 1, 6,9
> Common: 8 (uncommon women),2 (uncommon with men), 3
> Uncommon: 4 (esp. man) ,5 (esp. women), 7


1 is not as common as it seems.Many Sp 3,So 6 and some So 8 get mistyped as 1.I think 1s are common though,but not enough to be very common(Sx 1s are rare,and unfortunately sometimes they get mistyped as 7 or 8).
But I appreciate your notion on type 8.8s are not super uncommon bullies,actually they are more common.8 fixers are even more common.


----------



## Lakigigar

Being 8 is not something bad. But u can use for bad things, however there are very few who use it for bad goods. It is always the person after the number that is important. Yes there are some negative traits, but let's be honest. Every numbers has its negative traits.

And persons behind the numbers are more complicated most times.


----------



## newbie const

Lakigigar said:


> Being 8 is not something bad. But u can use for bad things, however there are very few who use it for bad goods. It is always the person after the number that is important. Yes there are some negative traits, but let's be honest. Every numbers has its negative traits.
> 
> And persons behind the numbers are more complicated most times.


I agree with you.Actually I havent associated 8s with bullies,rather healthy 8s are among the persons I admire most.They have a lot to teach.


----------



## inahill

does anyone know of newer numbers on distribution of type?


----------



## Nakstiigala

gonecrazytoo said:


> I am thinking that if you want some serious numbers that mean something, the military has them. They really like the MBTI and are completely skeptical of the enneagram.
> 
> I will go out on a limb here and say... avoid the internet. Go straight to pure research for your numbers. Find out what the government and private institutions have on tap.


How?


----------



## Daeva

Nakstiigala said:


> How?


By hacking into Google. Google is our overlord and master, and as such they have ALL THE DATA.

And besides, hacking G00gle is what all the kool kids are doing nowadays anyway.


----------

