How Rare is Each Type?

Opening Statement

Well, we all knew this discussion was coming eventually...
I didn't want to do this, but I thought it was an important discussion, and I bribed myself with actual spending money if I covered this topic, so here we are. 

Well, Alpha Quadra. There is your ammunition. The ESI (ISFP) "gold-digger" allegations are never going away now.

Discussions about rarity have always been dominant in typology discussions, because I think everyone has an innate need to distinguish themselves from others. I mean, you are aware of all of your inner complexities, contradictions, thoughts, struggles, aspirations, etc. Therefore, your type must be rare. Right? Well, that is not always the case.

You have to remember that typology, by its very nature, strives to categorize people into boxes. But it says nothing about how people can develop very differently within those categories. That is why two people, of the same type, can be extraordinarily different from one another. When it comes to socionics, I belong to the sphere of thought that believes that socionics types (or sociotypes) fall more into nature, rather than nurture. You are born with your sociotype, but then you develop from there into a completely genuine (or outright piece-of-shit) human being, and that is all you. 

For example, look at these examples. Think about what they have in common. Scroll your computer/phone just far enough to get past the pictures, then STOP. 

    

Short Answer: All these characters are SEI (ISFJ). 

If you observed these people on the street, you would likely not realize it. 

Despite all these characters being a part of the same sociotype, their unique experiences and trials have all shaped them to be unique human beings, with their own strengths and weaknesses. So whether your type is "rare" or not, does not really have much of an impact on you as a person. All socionics does is describe your "base stats" if that makes sense. What you do with those "stats" and how they develop as you move through life, that is all up to you. 

I like to start any discussion that revolves around rarity with this, because ultimately, it does not matter all that much. Every person thinks they are special and distinct, and they ultimately are. But it has nothing to do with their sociotype, and all to do with their unique experiences, circumstances, etc. 

So when we talk about rarity, it should purely to ask "how likely I am to meet with people of this type?" Or just out of simple curiosity, this should not be used to find your type. We are all special snowflakes, you don't need a graph to confirm it. 

So how do we figure out how well represented each type is?

This is the difficult part. Just as people have an unfortunate habit of mistyping themselves (myself included), I would argue they are even worse at typing people around them. In my experience, people have a perception of themselves being a certain type, and then they type people around them to solely confirm their bias. For example, a person who believes themselves to be SLE (but ultimately isn't), might type their significant other as IEI because, you know, they are happily in a relationship, so of course, they have to be duals. Of course, both of these people might just be mistyped. 

In short, it can be very difficult to get an accurate representation of what types are out there. 
The closest thing we have comes from Aushra Augusta, the founder of Socionics, in her document The Dual Nature of Man. She studied 200 hundred people and assessed their types. Although the study was confined to the Socialist Soviet Republic of Lithuania, if we say that sociotypes are created from nature rather than nurture, it might not be too far off the mark to suggest that these types might be equally represented around the world.

If we take that, and observe her findings, I think the results may surprise you. I took the liberty of reading The Dual Nature of Man, recording her type demographics, doing some math, and organizing these types on a list. Then I went further, and created a list of types based on sex (male and female). So if a specific type is overall rarer, if we split up the number by men and women, you might find one side might have a disproportionately higher representation. 

If you look at these findings, and combine it with your intertype relationships, you can then gauge how doomed you are in finding the love of your life. So, uhh, make sure you have a bottle of alcohol ready. As a male ESI, my odds aren't looking so good on my end. 

Complete Demographic Breakdown (By Total Population)

SEI (ISFJ) = 11% of the Population
32% of SEIs are male (7% of all men)
68% of SEIs are female (15% of all women)

SLI (ISTJ) = 10% of the Population
60% of SLIs are male (12% of all men)
40% of SLIs are female (8% of all women)

IEE (ENFP) = 8% of the Population
62.5% of IEEs are male (10% of all men)
37.5% of IEEs are female (6% of all women)

ILE (ENTP) = 7.5% of the Population
73.3% of ILEs are male (11% of all men)
26.7% of ILEs are female (4% of all women)

EIE (ENFJ) = 7% of the Population
35.7% of EIEs are male (5% of all men)
64.3% of EIEs are female (9% of all women)

ESE (ESFJ) = 6.5% of the Population
23% of ESEs are male (3% of all men)
77% of ESEs are female (10% of all women)

EII (INFP) = 6.5% of the Population
23% of EIIs are male (3% of all men)
77% of EIIs are female (10% of all women)

SEE (ESFP) = 6.5% of the Population

31% of SEEs are male (4% of all men)
69% of SEEs are female (9% of all women)

IEI (INFJ) = 6% of the Population
33.3% of IEIs are male (4% of all men)
66.6% of IEIs are female (8% of all women)

SLE (ESTP) = 6% of the Population
75% of SLEs are male (9% of all men)
25% of SLEs are female (3% of all women)

LII (INTP) = 5.5% of the Population

54.5% of LIIs are male (6% of all men)
45.6% of LIIs are female (5% of all women)

ILI (INTJ) = 5% of the Population

80% of ILIs are male (8% of all men)
20% of ILIs are female (2% of all women)

LSI (ISTP) = 4.5% of the Population

66.7% of LSIs are male (6% of all men)
33.3% of LSIs are female (3% of all women)

ESI (ISFP) = 3.5% of the Population
42.9% of ESIs are male (3% of all men)
57.1% of ESIs are female (4% of all women)

LSE (ESTJ) = 3.5% of the Population
71.4% of LSEs are male (5% of all men)
28.6% of LSEs are female (2% of all women)

LIE (ENTJ) = 3% of the Population
66.7% of LIEs are male (4% of all men)
33.3% of LIEs are female (2% of all women)

By Quadra:
Alpha Quadra (ILE, LII, ESE, SEI) - 30.5% of Population

Beta Quadra (SLE, LSI, EIE, IEI) - 23.5% of Population

Delta Quadra (LSE, SLI, IEE, EII) - 28% of Population

Gamma Quadra (SEE, ESI, ILI, LIE) - 18% of Population

Base (Dominant) Function:

Introverted Sensing (Si) - 21% of the Population
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) - 13.5% of the Population

Extroverted Intuition (Ne) - 15.5% of the Population
Extroverted Sensing (Se) - 12% of the Population

Introverted Thinking (Ti) - 12% of the Population

Introverted Intuition (Ni) - 11% of the Population

Introverted Feeling (Fi)- 10% of the Population

Extroverted Thinking (Te) - 6.5% of the Population