o_19kdfsn0q18e31dfraas1esh19vta.pdf

most, and INTJs next. There is quite a bit of variance between samples, however. For instance, a
study of 2,188 engineering students found that INTJs were the most represented type, with fully
13.8% of the sample being INTJ—almost three times as many as expected. 252
INTJ 2.94 as many as expected
INFJ 2.49
ENTP 1.95
ENFJ 1.73
INTP 1.46
ISTJ 1.26
INFP 1.21
ISFJ 1.06
ENTP 0.92
ENFP 0.79
ESTJ 0.57
ESFJ 0.51
ISTP 0.44
ISFP 0.44
ESTP 0.40
ESFP 0.21
Other studies, however, do not find that INTJs are so well represented. For a pithy summary of the
literature, see the chart here. (Note that these are percentages, not representation rates. This means
that they do not take into account the relative amounts of each type in the general population, i.e. a
chart might show 10% ESTJs and 9% INTJs, and therefore one might assume that the occupation
attracts ESTJs more than INTJs. But in fact, there are fewer INTJs in the general population than
ESTJs, so 9% for INTJs is abnormally high while 10% is almost normal for ESTJs. Therefore it
can be seen that occupation actually attracts INTJs more than ESTJs.)
Interestingly, engineering faculty tend to be more intuitive than their students. They also tend to be
introverted, thinking, and judging. 253 So while INTJs may not necessarily predominate within the
field of engineering itself, they do tend to predominate in the academic environment. This probably
gives INTJ students an edge over other types.
252 Myers & Myers, 1980
253 Scott and Scott; Sloan and Jens in Williamson, 2003