I want to go on the record saying that I think MBTIs are pseudoscientific BS of the highest order, BUT, that said, I feel like, IF it is true, the fact that females tend not to be INTJs has more to do with the way our culture tries to shape what are acceptable personality traits by gender than any kind of intrinsic tendencies based in neural architecture.

I've had to take the test a few times and I'm mostly INTP (which is apparently the rarest type, for what it's worth).

Blessings
~ND

MBTI can be a great tool to understand the various ways we learn and communicate, provided you are typed correctly that is. Its usefulness is dependent on the skill of the user and his ability to analyze the people he or she may come into contact with. If you have the emotional intelligence of a bag of rocks then you will most likely not be able to read someone and need to work on that area before you can continue. On a case by case bases mbti falls short because of this. The idea that there are just 16 personality types is absurd, but when applied to larger populations patterns start to emerge. Such as people that prefer introversion and extroversion! It's by no means perfect but what science is perfect? Eventually it will get torn down and something better will be put in place.

In conclusion if you are reading this and wondering just how useful mbti is? YMMV

Yes, this is how I too feel personally about the subject.
I probably should have been more careful in my choice of words when I started this topic, I definitely don't think it is a scientifically accurate model that can describe every person that fall into one type down to the colour of socks they like to wear.
That being said though, I welcome all debate and opinions.
Thank you all for contributing and have a great day

Peace

I have to disagree. The autistic spectrum is known to be much more heavily populated by males where INTJ and it’s related MTBI types are heavily over-represented.

Then again I also do not subscribe to patriarchy and other associated feminist beliefs.

ENTP and ENTJ here.


How rare Is Your Personality Type?
Personality Type Distribution in the General Population
Type Frequency in Population
ISFJ 13.8%
ESFJ 12.3%
ISTJ 11.6%
ISFP 8.8%
ESTJ 8.7%
ESFP 8.5%
ENFP 8.1%
ISTP 5.4%
INFP 4.4%
ESTP 4.3%
INTP 3.3%
ENTP 3.2%
ENFJ 2.5%
INTJ 2.1%
ENTJ 1.8%
INFJ 1.5%
If your Type is rare, there are two ways to look at this:
1) Your Type is relatively rare and therefore your natural talents should be in great demand.
2) There are not many of you out there, so it may be hard to find people you can truly relate to.

If your Type is not so rare there are a more people like you out there in the world. It should be easier to find people who think and behave the way you do.

While I inherently doubt the value of this test I scored INFJ, and the description and career suggestions absolutely nailed it. I now have a pain between my ears.

Anyone here ever take the MMPI? It's hilarious.

INTJ every time, seems to describe me quite accurately

Seems I'm now the second INTJ to come forward...considering the rarity of this personality type, I would suggest INTJ's have a greater affinity for psychedelics...

I fail to see a connection

I take it Anne doesn't trust the results of a test based on self assessment.

Nevertheless, the Dunning-Kruger effect is not a bias that would effect someone's perceived personality type?..

Honestly I feel psychedelics attract a certain type of intellect. There are some very bright people who have found fascination in these things...

...while it seems the more "dull witted" types can't seem to figure out what "the big deal is"

I suppose if you can't grasp the implications of your experiance, it wouldn't make much sense to have it.

These are "mind drugs", and they attract thinking people.

I'm not saying you have to have a high IQ (though a good deal of psychedelicos do), it's more of a passion for thinking, coupled with an imagination and a will to explore and learn.


I'm sure everything I just said made me sound like a total jerk, I'm not trying to sound elitist, and I'm not saying that people who don't like psychedelics are "dull witted"

But I have noticed people with sharp imaginations and intellects, with affinity for grasping complex, abstract and deep concepts, and an ability to grasp and understand philosophical concepts of many types, also have an affinity for psychedelics.

And that people who don't seem to think much about anything will generally not use or understand why others use psychedelics...

In tribal cultures the shaman would choose those who had shamanic personality traits to become apprentices...

Maybe there is a personality type, or a few personality types, that actually do have higher affinity for the psychedelic experiance...

-eg

This is cute:
https://www.16personalities.com/personality-types
The different types summed-up

I think this is true, especially DMT which tends not to attract that much of the 'omg let's get fucked up and trip balls' crowd. I don;t think I can say any of my DMT experiences have been 'fun' or playful - harrowing is more like it.

I do think many people get fixated on visuals with psychedelics though, yes they are the most obvious effect but at least for me they are the least important or profound part of the experience.



Thanks, this is the most in depth and readable descriptions I have come across.

Also, the INTJ title of 'The Architect' is exactly how my last boss described how I worked!

I agree. At the very least, I think there is a general sort of humble open-mindedness and receptiveness towards unconventional and new ideas that is common among people who develop an interest in these substances.

And to clarify I don't mean the "omg let's get fucked up and trip balls" crowd that zknarc referred to, but an interest that goes beyond that.

@zknarc it is indeed easy to get fixated on the visuals, but while they may not be the most important part of the experience, they still are an essential one in my opinion. This got me thinking what a psychedelic experience would be like if you took away the visuals. To me they seem to in a way guide me trough the experience. On the other hand a trip without any visual elements could be very serene and perhaps even more emotionally inclined.
It is the emotional aspect that I cherish the most with mushrooms no doubt.

not bias with effect.
its OVERIDING principle at play tinting it all.

MEDIATOR (INFP-A)

wonder what the A is for?

ENFP-T (Campaigner).

I am really digging this discussion. I bet there are a lot of diplomats and explorers on this forum...just a feeling.

I very rarely say this, but I agree with Anne on this one. I think that the DK effect is a really illuminating lens through which to look at the MBTI. For those who don't want to click the link, the DK effect is the illusion of competency you see in people who cannot accurately gauge their own abilities. It seems like most people are guilty of this cognitive bias. We all think we know more, and are more talented than we actually are.

Psychedelic people seem particularly prone to this one actually, especially in the field of self knowledge. How many white dudes with dreads have you met who pontificate endlessly about how enlightened they are, and how small their egos are?



You don't have to 'subscribe' to feminist beliefs to be skeptical of the fluffy world of psychology. It's an irrefutable fact that culture effects how science is interpreted and when you're dealing with something as vague as psychology, it's not a hard pill to swallow that preconceived notions, which are culturally based, rather than based in scientific facts, might color interpretations of the data.

Gender, the sex binary, all of these are things that begin to fall apart when you shed your assumptions.

For the record, I'm a working neuroscientist, I'm not some Tumblerina.

You're making an assumption that INTJ means anything worth discussing, and the science just doesn't back that up.

Blessings
~ND

You are on to something here brother. I think NT's are more suited to handle entheogenic substances well.

You know throughout my life there's been so many people who have asked me questions and it's funny because by using logic a lot of the time they could actually of just answered their own questions if they only took the time to think about it...

If anyone can find me a factor analysis which found that 1) there are only four factors which describe all variation, and 2) that each axis is orthogonal, THEN we can begin considering the validity of the MBTI, but as it stands, the construct validity of the entire thing is deeply suspect.

Here is a study that found six factors, rather than four, and there's evidence to suggest that the J-P and S-N scales actually correlate with each other. If you have even a basic grounding in statistics, you should understand why these alone are pretty damning. It would fail both criteria I outlined above, which are pretty necessary for the test to actually do what it reports to do.

Furthermore, despite the claims that MBTI describes some kind of cemented personality type with carry from cradle to grave, there's pretty strong evidence that your type changes depending on your mood. Researchers found that, when taken 5 weeks apart, 1/2 of subjects will get a whole new type. You may be an INTJ today (and that's what you may want to be), but that doesn't mean that's what you'd get if you took it tomorrow. That link takes you to a pretty good breakdown of all the criticisms of the MBTI, and they're all very well thought out.

And given how easy it is to 'guess' what the 'correct' response is to get the type you want, why should we believe it's objective at all? Even if you're not consciously cheating, unconscious bias is still a real thing.

Let's also remember that Jungian analysis (like all psychoanalysis) is fundamentally flawed. As much as people seem to love the *idea* of psychoanalysis (God only knows why...), it's not based in any kind of science. It's not readily testable, it's not easily falsifiable, and it's based in the philosophical ramblings of a lot of old dead white men. Although I know how much we love philosophical, old, dead, white men, so I'm not all that surprised. Let's remember that Jung and Freud never TESTED any of this - there's no predictive power here. They just said "hmm, this makes sense, given my preconceived notions and biases, let's call this truth."

If you're interesting in quantifying personalities, the Big Five is a lot better than the MBTI (although it's still got a lot of conceptual problems).

Anecdotally, I feel like a lot of fans of the MBTI are less interesting in having a useful and consistent model with which to explore human behavior and cognition, and lot more interested in the auto-erotiscism inherent in comparing their types and talking about themselves.

Blessings
~ND