Ren
Seeker at heart
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 146
Are INFJ's really that rare?
- Thread starter AUM
- Start date
Ginny
Shrrg
- MBTI
- INFJ IEI
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/sp
Just to check: you know I meant the statement as a whole, not specifics mentioned within?Exactly!
.... But like, not really
It's just, I agree with a lot of things that have been mentioned in the thread, like that frequency of a type cannot be quantified. Therefore, the assertion that INFJs are the most rare of types is actually merely an assumption.
- MBTI
- xNTP
- Enneagram
- 6w5 649
Walking conundrum? More like sitting ducks.INFJs are rare because they're a walking conundrum. We're Js but not really, sensitive but not really, rational but not really, introverted but not really... let's face it, natural selection was never going to favor such a flabbergasting bundle of paradoxes.
Most importantly, INFJs are rare because most of them are INFPs
Ginny
Shrrg
- MBTI
- INFJ IEI
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/sp
Do not mention ducks unless you want me to dissolve in laughter.Walking conundrum? More like sitting ducks.
- MBTI
- xNTP
- Enneagram
- 6w5 649
Mission accomplished! :thumbsup:
Ginny
Shrrg
- MBTI
- INFJ IEI
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/sp
No. I need a dash of forgot-the-name-Herondale-duck-phobia. Then it'll be funny.
My personal opinion is that INFJs are not as rare as they are proclaimed to be. The ones I know try hard to fit in, and unless you know them well, you won't know how weird they really are inside. It has been said that the biggest difference between my sister (INFP), and myself (INFJ), is that I am always trying to convince everyone that I am normal, while she is always trying to convince them that something is wrong with her.I was thinking about this issue while reading Vicky Jo's article describing INFJ's and INFP's and there it came an issue that surged inside of me...Are we really that rare? Who determined that and how accurate is that proximation? This is what she{Vicky Jo} said in respect to this issue:
"If one more person repeats that old saw about INFJs being the "rarest" of all the types, I'm going to throw myself on the floor and enjoy a good old-fashioned temper tantrum.
Agh!
What is this famous old wives' tale based on?
Is it based on David Keirsey's estimation of the type distribution?
Okay, fine. So how scientific are those figures? Where is the research it's based on? (Because there isn't any. We know that for a fact. David made the percentages up.)
Okay, so maybe INFJ rarity is based on the statistics which are printed in the MBTI manual. That's reasonable. So where did they come from?
First, are we talking about the numbers Isabel Briggs-Myers estimated in 1957 based on the population of the school district where she conducted her studies?
Alright, so perhaps INFJ was the rarest type in that school. That doesn't mean by extension it's universally true everywhere.
So... perhaps rarity was determined after summarizing the figures according to that type survey they took. You know, the one in 1998 where telephone solicitors called various households throughout the country. They contacted 16,000 people and used the results of 3,009. (People were not given the opportunity to confirm their own best-fit preferences.)
Perhaps INFJs were the rarest of all the types for participating in such a survey? (I know I never participate in phone surveys.) So that's all that number reflects.
So if that study doesn't hold water... maybe we can rely on the statistics stored in CPP's computer that records all the MBTI scores. Hey, that's pretty solid evidence...
...until you concede that the instrument is only about 70% accurate, and the results which are stored have never been updated per anyone's validated type. (Thus, my INFJ girlfriend who tested on the MBTI as INTJ will forever be listed in CPP's databanks as having INTJ preferences, despite the inaccuracy.)
So it's possible the MBTI has the most trouble identifying INFJs accurately. But that doesn't tell us how many INFJs there actually are.
Then... aren't there any valid studies out there?
Well, there are at least two sources (I have two right in front of me) that reflect different types as the smallest percentages of the population.
One comes from Portraits of Type: An MBTI Research Compendium,by Avril Thorne and Harrison Gough. It claims I_FPs have the smallest representation.
The other was printed in the Journal of Psychological Type, Vol. 37, 1996. The authors are Allen Hammer and Wayne Mitchell and their figures are based on a study that was concluded in 1992. In that study, ENFJs have the smallest representation.
So it seems not every study results in INFJ being the rarest type.
Of course you never hear about those studies -- you only hear that "INFJ is the rarest of all the types" (spoken in a prideful or dreamy tone).
And this story has been perpetuated to death!
The bottom line is, we don't have accurate statistics about type breakdowns for the earth's population (or even the U.S. population). Any statistics you might trot out have serious drawbacks associated with them, and are at best estimates -- sometimes guesses -- of what people think.
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.
Why am I in a frothing tizzy over this? It's because this is frequently the ONLY thing people remember about the INFJ personality type! So it attracts people who are desperate to be RARE -- to be special -- to be unique-est of all. Then people crow about this "rare" label and don't want to give it up, whether or not the INFJ preferences really fit them. (Apparently it's a higher priority to be unique than it is to discover one's best-fit type pattern. Feeling special takes precedence over accurately matching the model.)
Agh! Agh! Agh!
Nobody knows how rare any type is, including the INFJ type.
If you rely on this particular statistic to ratchet yourself into believing you are unique and "special," I regret to say it's worthless. And frankly -- you don't need it anyway. You're unique and special regardless. All you require is giving yourself permission to believe it. And that, my friend, has nothing to do with statistics."
So what do you guys think on this? Does she have a valid argument or do you think there enough evidence in portraying INFJ's as the rarest type.
References: infjorinfp.com
hush
Retired Staff
- MBTI
- pocketoli
- Enneagram
- ☻
Exactly. So annoying when someone mentions how "astronomically low" their chances are of ever meeting another INFJ. They need to do some math!
INFJ is as rare as it is proclaimed, according to percentage. What other source of information has you convinced otherwise?
I have no reason to believe that the reported test result statistics are inaccurate. But test / retest reliability is poor. And 1% of the population (IF true) is still far from "incredibly rare".
Very few dig deep enough to look at underlying cognitive patterns. But how do you define "INFJ"? Is it getting a particular test result? What if I retake the test when I am feeling particularly unemotional and I get a completely different result? How do you sort it out? If I get a different result next time, is the test even meaningful? If you type using cognitive functions, you actually have a blueprint for personal growth.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
The test only attempts to discern a preference. It's not a "set in stone" type of deal, though the preference possibly is, at least to some degree. Proclaiming a type is only proclaiming your preference to use those cognitive functions. To some extent the preferences are simply an unchangeable part of an individual's personality, but personality itself is somewhat fluid so you will in essence "become" other types at different points or in different circumstances, but your natural preferences will in all likelihood stay the same, and personality on a whole tends to stay the same, barring some hugely traumatic event.
That is pretty much the whole point.
I have the unproven opinion that INFJs are more common than test stats would indicate, because we are chameleons who make a effort to fit in. We understand other people and what they need for us to be, more than we understand our own feelings and motivations. For example, after being married for many years to an ENTJ, I display stronger Te characteristics than I used to, and far stronger than I would be naturally inclined to do. I would never mistake myself for a Te dominant, but without understanding orientation of functions, I might answer test questions in a more "thinker" way than I would have before being with him.
Also, the judger / perceiver dichotomy can be obfuscating. There are many problems with this, and I prefer the socionics method of using the dominant function, rather than the first extroverted function, to designate type. MBTI INFJs are actually dominant perceivers, while INFPs are dominant judgers. I think that some INFPs mistype as INFJ for this reason, but I suspect that a significant number of INFJs mistype as INFP or INTP, or have difficulty figuring out their type. (My internal mind is strongly perceiving. Other people might tell me that I am organized and efficient, but they are probably just being nice...)
I definitely believe that the sensing preference is statistically more common than the intuitive preference of any kind. I believe intuitives been estimated at about 30% of the population. There are 8 intuitive types, so that would be an average of 3.75% for each intuitive type in the population. INFJs have been estimated at 1% to 3%.
So how do you define rare? Even if 1% is accurate, that is still 18 people in my town of 18,000 who statistically should identify as INFJ. Chances are good that I am going to meet a few of them. But unless the moment is right, and we self reveal, we might not even recognize it.
Also, the judger / perceiver dichotomy can be obfuscating. There are many problems with this, and I prefer the socionics method of using the dominant function, rather than the first extroverted function, to designate type. MBTI INFJs are actually dominant perceivers, while INFPs are dominant judgers. I think that some INFPs mistype as INFJ for this reason, but I suspect that a significant number of INFJs mistype as INFP or INTP, or have difficulty figuring out their type. (My internal mind is strongly perceiving. Other people might tell me that I am organized and efficient, but they are probably just being nice...)
I definitely believe that the sensing preference is statistically more common than the intuitive preference of any kind. I believe intuitives been estimated at about 30% of the population. There are 8 intuitive types, so that would be an average of 3.75% for each intuitive type in the population. INFJs have been estimated at 1% to 3%.
So how do you define rare? Even if 1% is accurate, that is still 18 people in my town of 18,000 who statistically should identify as INFJ. Chances are good that I am going to meet a few of them. But unless the moment is right, and we self reveal, we might not even recognize it.
Oops I meant to type 180 people, not 18.
I completely agree. But how many people are typed based on cognitive functions vs taking a test of questionable accuracy? Test results may change based on answering just a few questions differently based on mood or slightly different understanding of the test questions from one time to the next, especially if any of the dichotomy results are borderline. Which is what I am referring to in suggesting that type may change. I agree that actual personality type is unlikely to change much.
There is no perfect test, and there are problems with differences in interpretation of functions, as well as interpretation of which attributes are a core part of a type.
A common question in many tests goes something like this...
B. Do you prefer to have things settled and decided?
B. Leave your options open?
I know the question is intended to determine judging vs perceiving. But neither answer is a good choice for me. I can seem indecisive for a while, because I like to consider all of my options every which way from every perspective several times over, and I don't like to be rushed. But once I settle on a plan of action, I am a woman on a mission, and I will make it happen. I am very unlikely to change my mind or allow anything to interfere with my goals AFTER I have had enough time to think through the options and the future ramifications. I love having goals and plans to work towards.
However, when reading the above question, I may think that option B. means being quick to make decisions without taking time to consider options. I am reminded of how the ENTJ husband will quickly consider one aspect of a decision, such as the financial impact, without considering other factors, such as emotional impact. And I know I do not want that.
So the real answer is that I like to have my options open until I have time to look at the problem from EVERY angle. Then I will feel much better when the decision is made.
Therefore, depending on how irritated I am with the sometimes pushy ENTJ, I may answer the above question either way.
Yes, I overthink things sometimes
.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
I don't see how this is related to me agreeing that the point is to undergo a process of growth through function integration.
But yea, tests are flawed.
Sorry to be so tangential. To be concise, I believe that more people would benefit from personal growth if they understood the functions instead of relying on test results to determine type.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
:wyotethumb:
