Are INFJ's really that rare?

Does it even matter how rare or not INFJs are? If someone finds out that INFJs are far more common than anyone previously thought it still won't mean any of us will fit in better. :wink:
 
Everyone likes to think they are unique. It's a great thing to feel special, as long as it doesn't go to your head.

While you might be the rarest of the types, you are still the animal known as human.
 
I think it's because of our NF personality that is always seeking for an identity that makes us specially vulnerable to try different masks to try on before actually sticking to one. In my case I wish I had a little of everything from each type and in some cases I feel like I do. When it comes to my own preferences though I stay with the INFJ because it seems comfortable the way the functions work. My Ni is very strong I can feel it, it is in me so that leaves me two options the INFJ and the INTJ. When I went to the INTJ forum I felt overwhelmed by all the logical information and how they were expressing themselves. I still liked it over there because they have a witty sense of humor and come up with nice topics but I don't feel at home when I'm there, I come in here and I feel I feel...like "me" LOL. Anyways, in my opinion is that INFJ's are really not that rare in regards to the MBTI tool but each and everyone of us are rare in our unique appeal, that's what makes our essence.
 
A far as I'm aware I've only met 2 INFJ's before. Only one of those was after I learned of MBTI and I spotted her almost immediately. I think if I'd met others I would have known, just like I did with her. So based on my experience I would definatley say that INFJ's are rare.

Some people have said that they are glad we are rare but I am certainly not. Many of the issues INFJ's have to put up with would simply dissapear if there were more of us
 
I don't know if we're rare, actually. MANY INFJs I know tested something different -- INTJ being one of the common ones (which they're still considered pretty uncommon, too, so I dunno how that works). Then again, I also know many people who are not INFJ that tested so.

And anyways, I never really thought the term "rare" was good anyways. I mean, 1% just means that out of a hundred people, only 1 is INFJ. Now, if you consider that, then if you know three hundred people, then, in theory, you'd know at least 3 INFJs. There may not be as many, but that doesn't mean we're something to write home about. "Rare" makes me think that you'd only meet like one in your lifetime...that's not really the case. Right now, I think I know or know of somewhere between 5-10 INFJs

I dunno about the figures. It's actually more probable that they'd be wrong than right. But hey -- I don't mind keeping the mysterious appearance around ;) I kind of like being the rare and exclusive INFJ :D
 
gloomy-optimist said:
And anyways, I never really thought the term "rare" was good anyways. I mean, 1% just means that out of a hundred people, only 1 is INFJ. Now, if you consider that, then if you know three hundred people, then, in theory, you'd know at least 3 INFJs.
Click to expand...

thats if everybody meets the perfect average of types of people. I'm sure there's people aout there who know dozens if not hundreds of INFJ's, but there will also be people who NEVER meet an INFJ in their lifetime.

I have tested as INTJ several times. I had the girl I mentioned earlier take the test and she came out ENFJ. after reading the decriptions though she said she was more like an INFJ. I gather this is the norm. I think the tests should just be banned and we should agree on a new way of deciding MBTI
 
Yeah, that is a theoretical scenario ;) But then, most people meet way more than three hundred people in their lives -- it's almost certain that everyone has met at least one INFJ, even if they didn't realize it.

And yes, the test is cracked. A better method would be good...
 
I like being rare so that other people will complain to me about their rareness and how hard things are for them expecting sympathy, so that I can instead laugh at them.

Hahaha.
 
IMO many Ns of average and below average intelligence get mistyped as Ss because of the "N = smart, S = dumb" prejudice. And David Kiersey's %s for the types were pulled out of his rear end..
 
I think rarity shouldn't matter and that nugget of information should be removed from all type descriptions. Statistical occurences, whether they are true or not, do nothing significantly productive in the type descriptions and understanding oneself based on the way one's mind works. It might help in some areas to alieve the feeling of being isolated by saying there are many people of a certain type--and that is true for all types.
 
Last edited:
From my point of view, INTJ's and INFJ's are the rarest, but tend to be more and more common the closer you get to a university.

My best friend is an ESFP, albeit the smartest ESFP i know.
And my girlfriend is an INFJ. Who happens to be my best friends ex.
I also just saw a girl I had a huge crush on for a good while last year, walk out of my best friends bedroom and to the bathroom. As we share an apartment together.

So, eh!...
My life got messy as soon as I saw value in friends and of being social.

I've had a lot of acquaintances throughout my life so far, and can only pin a handful of people as either INFJ or INTJ.
Type testing seems to be biased in respect to intelligence, that is, an intelligent person is more likely to score N, just because they are more intelligent and that affects behavior in a similar seeming way as type does. But an intelligent ISTJ that score INTJ and is identified and identifies with INTJ will more easily tell the difference if compared in person to a equally or more intelligent INTJ. So one could perhaps even argue that the S/N dichotomy is entirely artificial and superfluous and act only as an identifier for whether you are generally more intelligent then your peers.

My ESFP best-friend has an IQ of around 122, and I have a measured IQ of 135+. Don't know what the IQ of my INFJ girlfriend is, but would be surprised if it isn't around 130. My friend at least thinks that the both of us are the two most intelligent people he knows.

And he tested originally ENTP, then leaned on ENFP. And now identifies with and is comfortable with ESFP, but is perplexed about his peers. :-)

And then back to rarity, http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2004/03/iq-and-personality.html
Whether that is due to intelligent people testing more often as N, or if N people are just more intelligent on average, is a bit besides the point.
Because with IQ there is a statistical distribution and a bell curve, so if there is something to MBTI, it will also have such a distribution.
And INxJ having such strong representation there, is, if not anything else; a strong indication of rarity! But that of course has to be properly tested...
Would anyone be interested in funding some research in order to answer that question?

Oh, and I know a lot about IQ, because it is one of those things I explored to try and explain and understand my self; how and why i dysfunction! :-)
My numbers are from a neuropsychological examination that says I'm neither autistic, nor have behavioral disorders, but are in fact just 'gifted'.
I value creativity and insight much higher then IQ, as creativity is essential. Understanding *everything* fast and effortlessly is not.
IQ is helpful, but not a necessity. As nothing worthwhile comes effortlessly, that remains true no matter how smart you are. You just affect the level of complexity you are comfortable at. And as both in science and art, something that 'feels' true is never complex. The complexity is in arriving at that simplification or more succinctly, a rule, the more elegant thus stronger it is.

And incoming cliche: I study philosophy and is regarded in that, as someone that is a free thinker and philosophically gifted -- someone having that certain way of seeing.

But now I hear kissing noises from the next room, they're probably just fucking with my head, but one never knows.
Now I just miss my girlfriend, and have said what I wanted to.
 
Those are some good points about a few things -- the major problem with S/N is that it is based in the way people perceive things. And, more often than not, people who are very intelligent tend to perceive things in a different way. S/N doesn't determine intelligence, but it does help indicate what that intelligence is geared towards -- S is more practical, N is more theoretical. With a more intelligent person, the line between the two seems to diminish more...and that's where the complications arise
 
gloomy-optimist said:
Those are some good points about a few things -- the major problem with S/N is that it is based in the way people perceive things. And, more often than not, people who are very intelligent tend to perceive things in a different way. S/N doesn't determine intelligence, but it does help indicate what that intelligence is geared towards -- S is more practical, N is more theoretical. With a more intelligent person, the line between the two seems to diminish more...and that's where the complications arise
Click to expand...

Indeed!

But if you really want to reduce the S/N distinction to platitudes.
I think the personal/impersonal and either or tangible/intangible.

One can easily argue that INTJ's are impersonal (Ni) and apply it with concrete inferrences(Te), thus the "systems builder".
While INFJ are also impersonal(or objective if you will) with abstract applications. Which both could explain the "emotional void" experienced by INFJ's. Which is likely a phenomenon caused by Ti trying to get head above water, screaming. Whereas us poor INTJ's have more worth issues (often solved by value in some competency or ideal). And INFJ's void is more self-doubt related as perception of reality gets crippled and consumed by the latest triviality.

Tentatively, it does seem like freedom of facts, and freedom of expression.
But I digress, cause I may be talking a-loud and out reaching my self too much here.
 
So many problems with that big long list that I hardly have the time to expose it all. First of all it is obviously something someone who is jealous would do so I am a bit skeptical. The author makes many claims, but if you pay close attention, the are just claims with any real evidence to the contrary. He takes estimations by certain researchers and in his own words, turned them into made up numbers because he lacked any real research. He claims contrary evidence from one source and gives a link, but when you click on the link it is to Amazon showing the book for sale which tells you right off the person doesn't know anything about reliable or credible sources in research. "If "natural selection" were a valid theory, there should be 6.25% of each of the 16 types in the world -- an even distribution -- so that no one type is rarer than any other. But nobody knows for certain, since nobody has done an accurate personality type assessment of the entire population of the world, nor of a representative sample from all walks of life" Natural selection does not evenly distribute anything which is why is it called natural selection. Natural selection, in therory, distributes according to what is most suitable to a particular niche in nature. In human kind, in the modern area, that can be determined by what is most popular and even detrimental to the planet and human kind overall, which is exactly what we have right now. You are in a frothing tizzy because you are jealous, and not an INFJ, and just looking for anything you can make fit into your preconcieved biases. Get a life...hahaha!
 
From my personal experience, I can certainly tell INFJs are not the most rare, in fact are not even rare. ENTJs or ESTJs are very rare, even ENFJs I could say are pretty rare.

This missinformation was spread due to the fact that INFJs as a type is very various and versatile...and the "deep, mysterious and complex" typical INFJ known persona is true only for some INFJs, not all. Like ENFJs, INFJs are kind of like natural chamelons.

MBTI is very very superficial and in many ways deeply spreading missinformation. Socionics is better, actually much more better, but that system has its bugs too.
 
LucyJr said:
From my personal experience, I can certainly tell INFJs are not the most rare, in fact are not even rare. ENTJs or ESTJs are very rare, even ENFJs I could say are pretty rare.

This missinformation was spread due to the fact that INFJs as a type is very various and versatile...and the "deep, mysterious and complex" typical INFJ known persona is true only for some INFJs, not all. Like ENFJs, INFJs are kind of like natural chamelons.

MBTI is very very superficial and in many ways deeply spreading missinformation. Socionics is better, actually much more better, but that system has its bugs too.
Click to expand...

No its not that INFJ's are common and broad...it's just that some people mistype

You can't expand the INFJ type to absorb in other types...it is what it is
 
INFJs do tend to think of themselves as special snowflakes, even before they hear anything about MBTI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top