Rarest MBTI Type: Which Personality Is Most Uncommon?

The Myers-Briggs Company’s U.S. English technical supplement describes 3,578 people recruited through a market research firm with demographic targets based on U.S. Census data. Table3 reports Global Step I types. Best-fit type information was collected but is not reported in this supplement, so these are not best-fit type frequencies. This is neither a survey of MBTI USA visitors nor a census of everyone in the United States.

The document carries a 2018 label. Its fieldwork dates are not disclosed. The label and this article’s review date cannot tell you the current population distribution.

Every row comes from Table 3 of the same publisher report and uses the same U.S. English reference sample, N=3,578. Read the original English PDF linked below to check the values. Counts sum to 3,578; the report’s rounded one-decimal percentages sum to 100.1%. We retain the reported percentages rather than normalizing them.

Here ENTJ is 63/1.8%, ENFJ is 82/2.3%, and INFJ is 105/2.9%. Those statements all refer to this one table. An INFJ rarity claim elsewhere may use a different sample, assessment version or reporting method. Without its original source and population, we cannot adjudicate that claim or treat it as the same statistic.

Do not average percentages from unrelated online tests or use a women-only table to answer a total-population question. The separate women’s guide describes its own UK English female reference sample; it is not a subgroup extracted from this U.S. table.

If any of these are missing, report the missing detail rather than filling it with a current worldwide ranking.

Frequency is not intelligence, skill, career fit or relationship quality. This table cannot show that a type is rare because its functions are difficult, superior or acquired at a particular age. Foundation preference descriptions do not rank one preference above another; a count of reported types cannot establish an individual’s abilities.

Population percentages also cannot verify your personal type. Choose observations and context when reflecting on your preferences; do not choose a label because it is uncommon.

Read the U.S. English percentage explanation for context on this same report, and the women’s guide for a separately scoped UK female sample. Neither provides an independent current global ranking. Original sources are in English.