Loading…
25
Changed my mind about that '3% of people are born wrong' stat from the viral personality test
I saw this thing floating around on Twitter last week that said only 3% of people have a certain personality type, and I was like, woah, that makes them sound super rare and special. Then I actually looked up where that number came from. Turns out the original study only tested like 200 college students in one psychology class. So that 3% is based on a tiny group, not the whole world. After I dug into it, I realized the stat is basically meaningless for real life. It got me thinking about all those viral numbers we just accept because they sound impressive. Has anyone else gone down a rabbit hole on a stat that fell apart once you checked the source?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
young.ryan2mo ago
I used to buy into that stat pretty hard. Saw a tweet about how the INFJ type is only 1% of the population and figured it must mean something profound about people who scored that way. Then I found out the original research was done in the 1960s on like 350 women at one university. The whole Myers-Briggs thing is basically a horoscope anyway, but the fake scarcity of those numbers made it feel way more real than it was. Your post actually made me go back and check a few other stats I'd just taken at face value. Wild how a small sample can turn into gospel online.
2
jordan_hill2mo ago
Clicked on that same rabbit hole last week. @young.ryan is spot on about the Myers-Briggs thing being horoscope level. The 3% stat came from one small sample of psych undergrads but the internet ran with it like it was a census finding. Always laugh when people flex their "rare" personality type now knowing it's basically meaningless.
2