Personality Cafe banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Most websites got their information about the frequency from this source: https://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/estimated-frequencies.htm?bhcp=1
But i have no idea how thrustworthy this source really is.
According to the statistics of the test results of 16personalities the frequency of each type in the US-population should be like this:

ESFJ 14.8%
ISFJ 11.31%
ENFP 8.92%
INFP 8.33%
ISFP 7.77%
ESFP 7.75%
ESTJ 6.37%
ISTJ 5.83%
INFJ 4.47%
ENFJ 4.25%
ESTP 3.89%
INTP 3.76%
ISTP 3.74%
ENTP 3.56%
INTJ 2.18%
ENTJ 1.8%

Here is the link:https://www.16personalities.com/country-profiles/global/world

What do you think of this? May those statistics have more truth to it than the other? Has it any value at all?
Which estimations make sense and which do not? Do you have your own estimations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
I wouldn't consider xNFPs to be more common, more in the middle to be honest. I also think there's way more xSTJ out there than this source provides.

Plus only 3.74% are ISTP? That's bullshit, it should be among one of the most common personalities
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
Not an MBTI test.
Use the official statistics from the MBTI website.

Any numbers from any free test are going to be horseshit.
The amount of people who retake tests - that one specifically - is ridiculous.

Check any Facebook mbti group.. people harp on about how they've taken that one like 50 times in the last year and get different results each time etc etc or they use the 200 times they took it last week as definitive proof of their type.


Surely this shit skews the figures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,312 Posts
I'm pretty sure there are giant problems with those statistics, yes. The measuring instruments are problematic, as they give a self-coloured view of your own perception. The descriptions are often one-sided, such as painting ISFJ's as mindless worker-drones without any intuition at all.
There's also the stereotypes that are too often used to type people and for people to check if their type is that particular type.

All in all, I really distrust any statistic that uses introspection as a measure for anything. I think there's loads of mistyped people out there that read the description for their actual type and thought: "Nah, I don't behave like that".
So, while it would not surprise me to find that intuitives are a lot less common in the population than sensors, it might not be that skewed in practice. The labels also don't help. "The Mechanic" doesn't seem like a good fit for an ISTP who plays video games all day and doesn't have the slightest interest in how all that works behind the scenes.

So in short: I think the percentages can't be trusted. On the other hand: it's something that is inherently difficult to measure, so it might be the best we're going to get until (maybe) MBTI becomes commonly accepted in psychology, although I'm not holding my breath for that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Probably not accurate. A lot of people mistype themselves most likely because the free online tests are really stupid. They tend to ask super generic questions like e.g.Do you like parties and hanging out with people? Obviously, this question is to determine if you are an extrovert or introvert but parties and hanging out with people don't necessarily determine the E or I.
 

·
Spam-I-am
Joined
·
13,761 Posts
Most websites got their information about the frequency from this source: https://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/estimated-frequencies.htm?bhcp=1
But i have no idea how thrustworthy this source really is.
According to the statistics of the test results of 16personalities the frequency of each type in the US-population should be like this:

ESFJ 14.8%
ISFJ 11.31%
ENFP 8.92%
INFP 8.33%
ISFP 7.77%
ESFP 7.75%
ESTJ 6.37%
ISTJ 5.83%
INFJ 4.47%
ENFJ 4.25%
ESTP 3.89%
INTP 3.76%
ISTP 3.74%
ENTP 3.56%
INTJ 2.18%
ENTJ 1.8%

Here is the link:https://www.16personalities.com/country-profiles/global/world

What do you think of this? May those statistics have more truth to it than the other? Has it any value at all?
Which estimations make sense and which do not? Do you have your own estimations?
according to this, at a quick glance
sensors make up 60% of the population
intuitives 40%
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,511 Posts
I've seen statistics that had ISTJ as the most common type, another that had ISFJ and yet another that had ESFJs. So right off the bat you know it's a little bit unreliable. I mean, for one thing, how do they even calculate this? I don't remember a worldwide census asking for everyone's MBTI type. (Even if they did it wouldn't work with so many people mistyping themselves).

That being said, I do firmly believe in some statistical truths.

1) SJ types are a clear cut majority, easily somewhere between 40 to 50% of the general population (If not 60). They are indeed everywhere if you just look around.

2) Intuitives are a really small minority. I often see 60/40, but NO I refuse to believe that, I tuink it's closer to 80/20, I can accept 75/25 but no more than that.

3) NJs probably make up less than 10% of the population, probably even closer to 5%. They are also by far the types that most people mistype themselves as, thus why people think they are way more prominent.
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,511 Posts
Most websites got their information about the frequency from this source:

ESFJ 14.8%
ISFJ 11.31%
ENFP 8.92%
INFP 8.33%
ISFP 7.77%
ESFP 7.75%
ESTJ 6.37%
ISTJ 5.83%
INFJ 4.47%
ENFJ 4.25%
ESTP 3.89%
INTP 3.76%
ISTP 3.74%
ENTP 3.56%
INTJ 2.18%
ENTJ 1.8%
Sorry, I saw this after my post and LOL......NO!

I agree that NFPs are the most common intuitives, but top 5? Nope.

ISTPs seem to be way more frequent than this. Probably because people go off the stereotypes of them being badass survivalists, but they look nothing like that in real life and there's way more than you think.

And finally, we've been told time and time again that INxJs are the rarest type so not sure what INFJs are doing in the middle of that list. I blame mistypes as INFJ is indeed the most common mistype. But if they ARE that frequent, then so much for them being so unique and all....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
Sorry, I saw this after my post and LOL......NO!

I agree that NFPs are the most common intuitives, but top 5? Nope.

ISTPs seem to be way more frequent than this. Probably because people go off the stereotypes of them being badass survivalists, but they look nothing like that in real life and there's way more than you think.

And finally, we've been told time and time again that INxJs are the rarest type so not sure what INFJs are doing in the middle of that list. I blame mistypes as INFJ is indeed the most common mistype. But if they ARE that frequent, then so much for them being so unique and all....
*watches a bunch of "INFJs" make threads about how they think they might be an ENTJ and that is was Te all along not Fe and it's more dominant than their Ni*
 

·
Registered
My vehicle is INFP, 9w8. Vroom vroom!!
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
Which type of person is more likely to seek out their personality type? That alone skews the samples.

Which type is most uncertain of how they fit into the world?

Which type is most likely to trust a free and stereotypical test?

Which type is most likely to waste their time with a dumb test?

And what of people who cannot afford a computer or internet? Their voice isn't heard at all, while we hear other people's voices multiple times.

This is not a scientifically sound statistic they provide. If they pass it off as one, then you know the true nature of their site, absolutely. I hope no one pays for the premium profile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
Which type of person is more likely to seek out their personality type? That alone skews the samples.

Which type is most uncertain of how they fit into the world?

Which type is most likely to trust a free and stereotypical test?

Which type is most likely to waste their time with a dumb test?

And what of people who cannot afford a computer or internet? Their voice isn't heard at all, while we hear other people's voices multiple times.

This is not a scientifically sound statistic they provide. If they pass it off as one, then you know the true nature of their site, absolutely. I hope no one pays for the premium profile.
lol!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
10,000 people reads libra definition. 9,500 of them says bullshit. 500 says, holy shit, this is right on, omfg.

then that 500 people go start talking about libra in a forum.

also i like muffins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,957 Posts
It would be wise to consider the fact that an online test is 1) inaccurate and 2) going to attract some types more so than others. I'm not sure how the other numbers are gathered, but I feel like they have a more effective means of calculating those statistics.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top