Type Rarity?

["?"]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

I was responding to something you said about people starting with a clean slate. Now you are saying they may actually be intuitives. Which is it? It they are really intuitives, then they are not starting with a clean slate.

Point taken and you're right if they start with a clean slate there is no predisposition. The problem is that Myers-Briggs did focus on the western culture, in fact I would narrow that down only to the USA. The numbers are misleading if she proclaims that some types are developed by cultural expectations since she is using a very small portion of the world. What about the eastern culture who leads the world in technology (NT), has a higher number of people whose spiritual followings are more inclined to be NF and has a greater population than the western part of the world.

Even if we take the clean slate theory into account there will probably more intuitives worldwide than sensors. Even if we do not take a clean slate into account, I would imagine that there are more Japaneese that would fall under NT and more Chineese and/or Indians that would most likely fall under NF.

Finally as I inquired here when first coming to the forum, how can you determine there are more or less E/I by simple dichotomy usage when Jung uses cognitive functions? Grouping all I's or E's together at best would be an averaging out process since you are grouping Ni, Si, Ti and Fi, and Ne, Se, Te, Fe to obtain those numbers.

["?"]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

I just don't think it's very probable that there is even dispersion of all types. That sort of symmetry really isn't common among human beings. I also generally suspect that society would be rather different if there were more INs.

And remain skeptical that you can determine any sort of dispersion with simple dichotomies since you have to look at each cognitive function, i.e. I-Ni,Si,Fi,Ti, E-Ne,Se,Te,Fe.

[Nocapszy]

I have a better question:

Why does it matter which type is rarest?

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

I have a better question:

Why does it matter which type is rarest?

It doesn't.

The only reason I'd have a problem is if there were certain types more likely to be prosecuted for something that's not really a matter of crime but a matter of understanding that perspective.

Thankfully, though, they've mostly phased out witch-burnings. So I think we're good.

["?"]

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

I have a better question:

Why does it matter which type is rarest?

First, because it's untrue and there are no facts to back it up, but find where intuitive types have not raised the point on any particular forum. Not only is it false, but it perpetuates an illusive superiority in intuitive types and for no other reason it’s a sacred cow that is completely full of crap. The best statistical survey ever completed on type population was done in 1998 by a group out of Ontario and they only received an 8% response from a telephone survey. Myers-Briggs and Keirsey simply did not have to create such a chaos in particularly since Jung only alludes to type rarity being someone who is an extreme type.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Originally Posted by "?"

Point taken and you're right if they start with a clean slate there is no predisposition. The problem is that Myers-Briggs did focus on the western culture, in fact I would narrow that down only to the USA. The numbers are misleading if she proclaims that some types are developed by cultural expectations since she is using a very small portion of the world. What about the eastern culture who leads the world in technology (NT), has a higher number of people whose spiritual followings are more inclined to be NF and has a greater population than the western part of the world.

Even if we take the clean slate theory into account there will probably more intuitives worldwide than sensors. Even if we do not take a clean slate into account, I would imagine that there are more Japaneese that would fall under NT and more Chineese and/or Indians that would most likely fall under NF.

Finally as I inquired here when first coming to the forum, how can you determine there are more or less E/I by simple dichotomy usage when Jung uses cognitive functions? Grouping all I's or E's together at best would be an averaging out process since you are grouping Ni, Si, Ti and Fi, and Ne, Se, Te, Fe to obtain those numbers.

These are good points and really get at the more interesting question. I don't really care if some types are more rare as much as why they are more rare. Is type purely biological, learned or some combination? That is the more interesting question IMO.

[Little Linguist]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

These are good points and really get at the more interesting question. I don't really care if some types are more rare as much as why they are more rare. Is type purely biological, learned or some combination? That is the more interesting question IMO.

I agree, which is why I posted the question about population recently. I would love to know which factors are primarily responsible for the development of personality.

[Victor]

Any qualified psychometrician will tell you there is no connection between MBTI and personality types.

And in exactly the same way, any qualified astronomer will tell you there is no connection between astrology and your personality.

[Little Linguist]

Originally Posted by Victor

Any qualified psychometrician will tell you there is no connection between MBTI and personality types.

And in exactly the same way, any qualified astronomer will tell you there is no connection between astrology and your personality.

Hmmm...could be...

I'm not entirely sure yet. However, that is why I am here: to learn more.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Carolyn Beine

Hmmm...could be...

I'm not entirely sure yet. However, that is why I am here: to learn more.

You could ring the Psychology Department of your local University and ask to speak to a Psychometrician and ask them.

And you could ring the Astronomy Department of your University and ask to speak to an Astronomer and ask them.

Then you'd know.