# Why are Intuitive Judgers so rare?



## The Nameless Composer (Sep 20, 2014)

Something just occurred to me. Why are intuitive judgers (INFJ, ENFJ, INTJ, ENTJ) so rare? Compared to the general population but also intuitive perceivers? Anyone got any ideas why?


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

This is all just pure speculation, but I think a lot of people aren't really that self-aware when they take the test. They probably conflate their work habits with their personality, generally live in situations that require them to suppress certain traits which causes them to mistype themselves, or don't think about how they tend to act over time and reflect only on how they feel in the moment. Also, S behavior could have a bit more survival value than N behavior does. A hunting-gatherer society would probably only need a few N (spiritual leaders and the like) compared to those who are skilled hunters, tool users, gatherers, fighters, etc. So genetic selection might reflect that.

Also, the test is likely flawed. Factor analysis finds a correlation between S/J and N/P that shouldn't be there if the test is accurate, so that likely skews the data a bit.


----------



## The Nameless Composer (Sep 20, 2014)

Another Lost Cause said:


> This is all just pure speculation, but I think a lot of people aren't really that self-aware when they take the test. They probably conflate their work habits with their personality, generally live in situations that require them to suppress certain traits which causes them to mistype themselves, or don't think about how they tend to act over time and reflect only on how they feel in the moment. Also, S behavior could have a bit more survival value than N behavior does. A hunting-gatherer society would probably only need a few N (spiritual leaders and the like) compared to those who are skilled hunters, tool users, gatherers, fighters, etc. So genetic selection might reflect that.
> 
> Also, the test is likely flawed. Factor analysis finds a correlation between S/J and N/P that shouldn't be there if the test is accurate, so that likely skews the data a bit.


I'm not talking sensors vs intuitives, but NJs in particular. They seem quite a bit rarer than NPs. in contrast, SJs are commoner than SPs. Maybe there's a correlation with sensing and judging and intuition and perception?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

The Nameless Composer said:


> Maybe there's a correlation with sensing and judging and intuition and perception?


Yes, indeed. There's a mild correlation between S and J and between N and P on the official MBTI.

And that may be because several of the test items are "dirty" in the sense of tapping into both dimensions. As one example, one of the official S/N items is "In reading for pleasure, do you (N) enjoy odd or original ways of saying things, or (S) like writers to say exactly what they mean?" If an NJ is mildly more likely to choose the N side of that one than an NP — and I don't know if that's true or not — that could contribute to a correlation between the S/N and J/P dimensions.

But if you assume that the MBTI dichotomies — like the four Big Five factors they strongly correlate with — are tapping into four _real_, relatively hardwired dimensions of human personality, it's worth keeping in mind that there's really no reason to assume that those underlying (substantially genetic) dimensions are completely _orthogonal_ (which is psychometric-speak for _don't correlate at all_). The Big Five data suggests that neuroticism (the Big Five factor that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension) has a mild correlation with introversion, and that doesn't necessarily mean there's a flaw in the Big Five tests.

The fact that the Big Five factors that more or less correspond to MBTI S/N and J/P appear to be substantially more orthogonal than S/N and J/P — well, assuming you look past quite a lot of Big Five cross-factor messiness at the _facet_ level — suggests to me that the S/N-J/P correlation is probably at least partly the result of dirty MBTI test items. If everyone was correctly typed, I suspect there would be more NJs — although I don't claim to have a strong feel for whether more of them are currently being mistyped as SJs (because of dirty S/N items) or as NPs (because of dirty J/P items).


----------



## The Nameless Composer (Sep 20, 2014)

reckful said:


> Yes, indeed. There's a mild correlation between S and J and between N and P on the official MBTI.
> 
> And that may be because several of the test items are "dirty" in the sense of tapping into both dimensions. As one example, one of the official S/N items is "In reading for pleasure, do you (N) enjoy odd or original ways of saying things, or (S) like writers to say exactly what they mean?" If an NJ is mildly more likely to choose the N side of that one than an NP — and I don't know if that's true or not — that could contribute to a correlation between the S/N and J/P dimensions.
> 
> ...


You're right, a lot of it comes down to how they test the items to begin with, including in the official test. Maybe there are better ways to test and isolate the functions, but maybe in real life the functions aren't used as clearly. I think like words, they're just words to describe something. And yeah, I think introversion does correlate with neuroticism, there are theories that suggest introversion as well as shyness are the result of being highly-sensitive, which makes sense to me, and I think applies personally.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Why are you so sure they ARE rare? I sure know a lot of them...


----------



## The Nameless Composer (Sep 20, 2014)

charlie.elliot said:


> Why are you so sure they ARE rare? I sure know a lot of them...


Well just going by statistics, they are by far the rarest.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

The Nameless Composer said:


> Well just going by statistics, they are by far the rarest.


Yeah but do you believe the statistics? This is a fringe science after all.


----------



## The Nameless Composer (Sep 20, 2014)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yeah but do you believe the statistics? This is a fringe science after all.


I know they're not foolproof, but that's the most accurate we've got so far. So the fact you personally know a lot of NJs online means more?

Let's say 12% of the United States is African American. Does the fact you grew up in East St. Louis and 80% of the people you know are black change that fact? Obviously, we're talking large-scale statistics here. 

If you think the statistics are off, I'd be interested to hear you out. It's possible, it might have to do with testing methods, but the studies that have done have shown that according to the tests INFJ/ENFJ and INTJ/ENTJ are the rarest/have the fewest people tested as them. It could mean there's a reason why so few test as them. MBTI itself is a constructed system, so on an innate level it might all be an approximation of generalised tendencies..


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@The Nameless Composer 
I don't mean online, I mean in real life. There are a lot of reasons for it, but it still makes me doubt that they're 1%.


----------



## Zosio (Mar 17, 2015)

@charlie.elliot 

Maybe it has to do with regional factors, but I do know from personal experience that NJs down in the southern U.S are pretty rare. It's overwhelmingly dominated by SFs. I have met 3 confirmed INTJs, 2 confirmed INFJs, 1 confirmed ENTJ, and 5 confirmed ENFJs. As far as I can tell, the frequency of these types appearing matches up with the statistics I've read (although, I am almost convinced that ENTJs are rarer than INFJs). But other parts of the country/world? Who knows? 

As far as INFJ frequency goes, I think that it's anybody's guess at this point. From my own experience, I would maintain that they're still relatively rare. The rarest? Perhaps not. It's interesting to me that the data from MBTIs concludes that INFJs are the rarest, and yet the INFJ camp is pretty well known for being full of mistypes. 

If someone created a test that wasn't based off of personal questions (I honestly think that it's the worst way to test people. Who really knows themselves that well?) and more off of decisions, emotional responses, subconscious feedback, etc., we could get more accurate answers. As of now, I'd say that most of the statistics are bust.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I echo that NJs seem a lot more common IRL than online. I hypothesize that NJs spend less time wasting time on internet forums than NPs. :]



zosio913 said:


> NJs down in the southern U.S are pretty rare. It's overwhelmingly dominated by SFs.


Yeah. Lots of SFs down here. A fair amount of STPs and STJs in my area (mid-southeast), as well. I would say SFJs, NFJs, and STJs are most common. NPs aren't uncommon, though, nor SFPs. A good amount of ENTPs, ESTPs! NTJs seem least prevalent.


----------



## Atarah Derek (Aug 10, 2015)

Because introverted iNtuition is rare as a top function. We discourage the development of Ni by forcing kids to show their work even when they don't know how they arrived at the correct conclusion, and by drugging kids into focusing rather than teaching them how to do so. Ours is also a culture that discourages thinking ahead, favoring a negative use of Se ("It's my life; I'm entitled to doing what I want and forcing you to pay for the consequences"), instead of teaching self-discipline, which is Ni's greatest strength. Back when this country was first founded, Ni was more common, as focus and self-discipline were highly valued and naturally cultivated.


----------



## aurly (Jun 15, 2014)

They're really bad at paying attention to the here and now, and with the busy traffic these days, well...


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

I'm honestly not sure how accurate the population statistics are. This may be anecdotal, but I sure know a lot of people who claim to have tested as NJ types. If there is indeed a real correlation between N/P and S/J, it may be because both N and P have "right-brained" characteristics (creative, open-minded, unconventional, etc.) and both S and J have "left-brained" characteristics (detail-oriented, routinized, conventional, etc.). So you could say N/P and S/J both get at different aspects of the same basic thing, so someone who scores N/J or S/P would have to have a particular mix of traits of both of those basic things and it may be more common that someone has all of both. If that makes sense.


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

zosio913 said:


> @charlie.elliot
> 
> Maybe it has to do with regional factors, but I do know from personal experience that NJs down in the southern U.S are pretty rare. It's overwhelmingly dominated by SFs.


Having been raised in the South, I somewhat disagree with this. I would say the South, being pretty conservative, values traditional gender roles, meaning that most men are (or at least behave like) ST types (particularly STJ) and most women are (or at least behave like) SF types (particularly SFJ). That's certainly what I got from my experience anyway. So yeah, while SFs are indeed very common in the South, I would say they only "overwhelmingly dominate" the female population while STs "overwhelmingly dominate" the male population. The gender distinction is important there.


----------



## Zosio (Mar 17, 2015)

ENTPness said:


> Having been raised in the South, I somewhat disagree with this. I would say the South, being pretty conservative, values traditional gender roles, meaning that most men are (or at least behave like) ST types (particularly STJ) and most women are (or at least behave like) SF types (particularly SFJ). That's certainly what I got from my experience anyway. So yeah, while SFs are indeed very common in the South, I would say they only "overwhelmingly dominate" the female population while STs "overwhelmingly dominate" the male population. The gender distinction is important there.


I can agree with that to extent, save that I meet more SF males as opposed to ST females. But I do agree that the "values" down here in the south push an ST culture, for the men at least. Women are still pushed into the SF box (the Si + Fe box in particular), but it could even be argued that the ST culture is popular for them too. I've met plenty of women who reject the Si + Fe way of doing things and get into a lot of Se + Ti or Si + Te pursuits (hunting is a big one where I live. If I had a dime for every chick I saw in camouflage Under Armor and one of those pink deer stickers on their trucks, I'd be a wealthy woman).


----------



## The Nameless Composer (Sep 20, 2014)

zosio913 said:


> @charlie.elliot
> 
> Maybe it has to do with regional factors, but I do know from personal experience that NJs down in the southern U.S are pretty rare. It's overwhelmingly dominated by SFs. I have met 3 confirmed INTJs, 2 confirmed INFJs, 1 confirmed ENTJ, and 5 confirmed ENFJs. As far as I can tell, the frequency of these types appearing matches up with the statistics I've read (although, I am almost convinced that ENTJs are rarer than INFJs). But other parts of the country/world? Who knows?
> 
> ...


Interesting, I think culture can certainly shape one's personality, but I do feel the basic skeleton or mould will still be there regardless.


----------



## The Nameless Composer (Sep 20, 2014)

angelfish said:


> I echo that NJs seem a lot more common IRL than online. I hypothesize that NJs spend less time wasting time on internet forums than NPs. :]
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Lots of SFs down here. A fair amount of STPs and STJs in my area (mid-southeast), as well. I would say SFJs, NFJs, and STJs are most common. NPs aren't uncommon, though, nor SFPs. A good amount of ENTPs, ESTPs! NTJs seem least prevalent.


What? It's the complete opposite. NJs are a lot more common in the MBTI community per capita than the general population. By far.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

The Nameless Composer said:


> Interesting, I think culture can certainly shape one's personality, but I do feel the basic skeleton or mould will still be there regardless.


(This is a little side tracked, sorry about that)

But on this topic of culture and it's influence. I was thinking about just how much one's surrounding culture may shape their _self-perception_ of their own personality (whether that perception is accurate or not). I agree with you that there seems something innate about personality: a skeleton for it at birth, or something along those lines. 

But our judgement, our test results, basically everything is shaped around how we view ourselves, of course. There are certainly cultures out there who are far more unison when it comes to personality expectations. Just as a basic example, I'd imagine a culture as a whole that places very strong emphasis on social gatherings, feasts, socialization etc. Now you imagine a person born into this, raised along these lines. And you have them take a personality test: looking at the extraverted and introverted questions, which might they be more likely to relate to? I mean, we tend to relate to the things we find most familiar. Our mind floods with life experiences and situations and we largely base off of that. If an individual was never really... exposed to this concept of "introversion" that much... how could they relate to it initially? It would sound... distant, I'd think. Even if it was accurate to their nature. That's just one basic example. I'm sure it could get more complicated than that. 

But rarely, I think, do we go into typing ourselves entirely based on our pure selves and nothing else. We've come from certain environments and living habits (sometimes not even initially implemented by us), they influence our self-perception, sure.


----------

