A Loss in MBTI Interest or Self Preservation?

TomasM

Community Member
MBTI
INFJ
Google Search Trends for MBTI search
2004 - Nov. 2024
1732298116464.webp
2010s - Increase in personality interest due to online assessments

2016 - Publication of MBTI type frequencies
2016 - Study published that found MBTI had no correlation with leadership behaviors.

2020 - Article, “In Defense of the Myers-Briggs,” presents a counterargument. The author, a personality researcher, cites hundreds of published studies that support the MBTI’s validity and reliability. They argue that the test is on par with the well-respected Big Five personality traits and has a foundation in psychological theory and clinical practice.

During the increase in interest and awareness of personality in the early 2010's there was a corresponding interest in the Big 5 Personality, with it being considered, "more scientifically valid." There was also an increased interest in how the Big 5 model could be used in various fields like psychology, education, employment, and marketability. Simultaneously, MBTI was being challenged with respect to its validity scientifically.

This tells me that initially people wanted to understand who and how they were, which caught the interest of special interest groups that wanted to use it as a means to leverage people in a variety of ways.

Then when a defense of MBTI was published in 2020 there seemed to be a somewhat renewed confidence or interest in the model. Still, I can't help but wonder if the leveraging of personality in special interests has influenced people away from the disclosure of the MBTI types and corresponding dialogue. I have also had this feeling that there is a growth of paranoia with disclosure online out of distrust in the use of the information by Big Tech / Big Data [that may be using the information in a way that is potentially harmful to the individual]. This could even be intensifying with the onset of artificial intelligence.

At the same time, I feel certain that there is an overall distrust in general, with respect to Covid, politics, big business, geopolitical issues, and inflation, and has created a growing concern for self preservation and survival.

As an INFJ this does not make me less interested in speaking with others like me, in fact it is just the opposite. My feeling is that we have our finger on the pulse of society and offer something in the way of insight and action. Similarly, the group setting offers a sounding board that validates what we feel is happening and breeds confidence with feedback. The same could be said for all highly intuitive types.

Does any of this seem to resonate with any of you?
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see a graph on the rise and fall of individualism during this timeframe. (I looked, but couldn't find exactly what I wanted despite numerous available charts.) When individualism is on the rise, archetypes like MBTI decline in popularity.

Typing as INFJ became a huge trend in the late twenty-teens, partially because individualism reinforces the idea that we're all different, don't fit in, etc, and INFJ is often labeled "the rarest type" even though it isn't anymore, according to the official MBTI data. I think the frequency with which people test as the rarest type helped drive the decline in interest. (I've always thought the "I feel different" types of questions should be omitted because almost everyone feels like that sometimes.)

Individualism affects politics, human rights, and causes like the environment, too, because the more individual and disconnected from others people feel, the less likely they'll take responsibility for actions that need group participation.

Years ago, when I admitted to being into MBTI, numerous people replied, "I don't think a few letters define who I am." This tells me they don't understand what it is or how it works. (Plus, if you add Ennagram etc, it gets more specific.)

I don't mention my MBTI unless someone brings it up. A lot of people are so against it now that they'll rant, bully, or pick on anyone who mentions it. I saw a post about it yesterday and I noticed people ranting against it. Paragraphs of ranting.

Astrology is on the rise while MBTI is losing popularity, which is a bit strange, but if you do your entire star chart it gives the impression that it is unique to you, and being witchy is trendy, partially because women feel empowered by it.

The Big Four is now used in many workplaces, and that is the one that makes me feel like an alien. It was made for a specific type of work environment and group of people I don't fit into.
 
People are always looking for ways to make themselves feel special.
MBTI got popular in the first place because the way it's presented is simple, sexy and marketable in a way that capitalizes on that.

Once the narrative about it not being statistically significant spread around, everyone decided the whole thing was bunk.
Which is funny because Big 5, although more statistically significant, still really barely scratches the surface of psychological phenomena.

I think yeah, people have grown more guarded in protecting the specifics of their own psychology.
And people have also grown more wise to the very real level of complexity brains have.
People if anything have become more individuated.
Being a one of a kind individual is the norm, relating to categorical boxes with other people is unsexy.
 
There's almost certainly a number of layers to this - some speculations.

One issue is that I suspect that quite a few people who have a go at finding their type end up with the wrong one and mis-type themselves. That's because many of the web sites that type us are little better than the old Sunday newspaper supplement for-fun questionnaires about whether you are a good lover or not, etc. It seems to me that it takes quite a lot of time, study, introspection, and comparing yourself to others in social environments to be confident in finding our type - at least for many of us it does, and that is hard work that involves finding out a lot about ourselves, both light and dark.

Another issue is fashion. Psychological systems in their popularised forms hit the public spotlight for a few months or years, then fade. Those that are rooted in professional psychological theory and method will continue in the hands of the professionals, but the public lose interest. Transactional Analysis is a good example of this - it became very fashionable in the late 1970s but disappeared from view in the late 1980s. It's still very much part of therapy practice, though, along with gestalt therapy, etc.

MBTI in its everyday form hasn't got the same solid foundation as TA though. That's because it's a cutting taken from the tree of Jungian psychology and seems to have lost its roots over the decades, which is a great shame because Jung's psychology is ocean deep, mountain high. Jungian type is very much richer embedded in this context than it is as a free-standing psychological model.

Another thought - maybe a reason why MBTI is generating antipathy rather than indifference from some folks is the way it has been used to filter people in the academic world and in business. People resent having their destiny shaped in some way by others based on their type, as output by a system of this sort, and maybe have had bad experiences of it.
 
Living in an era of non-truth, where facts, to the degree they can be known and understood, are collectively immaterial, those who cling become rigid in defending what they see as the last reliability—science.

So the Big 5, because it has been clinically-verified and peer-reviewed, gets a pass, and further research can be based upon it.

All other personality metrics, MBTI included, may be dismissed, because they are nothing more than...any other form of telling tomfoolery, or so they say.

To some degree people have moved on because the engagement machine requires fresh meat, in the form of novelty that is glittering pablum which may hopefully be monetized.

At the risk of being condescending to people not here, getting something meaningful and substantive from MBTI and function theory requires a degree of self-awareness, insight, critical thinking, narrative skill, and cognition which exceeds the normative.

To this end, the popularity of MBTI will oscillate as it is collectively rediscovered and dismissed.

There is also quite a difference in reception and usage based on the combination of age and sociability. MBTI go-hards under 25 seem alien to me, having explored typing including MBTI for 40 years now.

I think it also worth considering that dividing lines today are becoming more rigid and binary. MBTI, even as a typer, suggests we all exist on a spectrum, and that although we differ, our temperament comes from a common root.

What @Asa said above about individualism is on point. The atomization of personality serves many masters, and perhaps the human ego in the context of social media requires some degree of it...because although the bell curve tells us most people are “mid,” everyone must, in their very specific way, lay claim to being a bell-end.

While reacting violently against true bell-ends, e.g., neurodivergence, disability, giftedness, rare and prized genetics, and on and on.

Cheers,
Ian
 
This is excellent observational reflection. There are a couple key points brought to the surface that caught my attention and it made me reflect on something else I have been reflecting on for quite some time.

We are talking about MBTI, and @Asa brought up individualism, but @John K also brought up Transactional Analysis. These both seem to be ways of looking at struggles that have to be address for different circumstances. This made me think of The Fourth Turning by William Strauss. Could it be that some of these methods are being built during an up or down cycle only to be used in an adjacent down or up cycle. It seems like MBTI would be more valued to Boomers and GenX for this reason.

1732314456334.webp

Individualism could very well be the reason for the drop in 2016. I've certainly thought about the ends of the bell-curve as @aeon has suggested, though his words did express the idea in a quite eloquent manner that made me cringe just a little. I see many of the intuitives as being bell-end but that doesn't mean there wasn't great pain in childhood in becoming that way only to be resented for it again now. Does this not seem to correlate just a smidge with neuro-divergent and neuro-typical interactions? I mean the only reason I picked up MBTI was because I was referred to it when I was in need while having no idea what it even meant. Now, someone else who picked it up on a fad wants to hate because they can't be some kind of statistical outlier?

Still, I can't help but think that there is great value in the commune for those that need it, and have moved away from online spaces out of self preservation. There may have been a bundle of people that rejected the value of MBTI for selfish reasons but there are also many that valued the self discovery and benefits.
 
Last edited:
I've certainly thought about the ends of the bell-curve as @aeon has suggested, though his words did express the idea in a quite eloquent manner that made me cringe just a little.
I hope it wasn’t due to my bloviating when unmedicated. 😂

A Lovely Friday To Ya’,
Ian
 
There's only room for one professional bloviater in this thread
 
I hope it wasn’t due to my bloviating when unmedicated. 😂

A Lovely Friday To Ya’,
Ian
No, the cringe was related to the development of being an outlier in childhood only to have it be resented later in life by those that wanted to be one later. They didn’t want to be an outlier when we were kids. I enjoyed your words, it was quite relatable. Forego the meds, bloviate on..
 
No, the cringe was related to the development of being an outlier in childhood only to have it be resented later in life by those that wanted to be one later. They didn’t want to be an outlier when we were kids. I enjoyed your words, it was quite relatable. Forego the meds, bloviate on..
I was resented by peers as a child, but in adulthood I suppose I became jaded enough to no longer care, but also, what people flex on in adulthood changes.

But also, other people goading and poking is over, so other people’s expectations and hopes can die a most timely death.

I’m just me and I have nothing to prove to anyone except myself. Not that I need to self-validate—I just want to be as good as I can be in certain, specific ways.

They said I would be this and that, and they ultimately learned I would just as soon destroy myself than bend to their aims.

Someone from long ago got in contact recently—I had not spoken to them for 40 years. They asked me what I had become, and were silent when I said “happy.”

Nobody Asked Me What I Fucking Wanted,
Ian
 
It’s actually healthy when people are repelled from being part of a collective in damaging ways. I guess that MBTI helps validate the individuality of those in the rare types up to a point, but does the opposite for people in the more common types.

This tangles up things that should be kept apart. Everyone is unique and MBTI covers only a small part of personality and behaviour. It does bring together people with similar ways of orienting to their inner lives and the world, but there’s big variation within each type - we only have to look at the range of Enneagram types consistent with each MBTI type to see that. And that’s before we look at what people do with their lives, what choices they make, how their family culture influences them, the contingencies of their lives. No - we are all outliers and unique whatever the commonality of our type.

Where it goes wrong is when we identify with a collective to the degree we put on its clothes and allow it to possess us. @Asa alluded to this. There’s a lot of it going on at the moment, and probably there always has been. MBTI has been caught up in the problem I think - people who start to identify themselves as an INFJ or an ESTP, etc, and try to take on the archetypal colours of their chosen type instead of using it as a stepping stone to be ever more emancipated from the collectives. It can easily become a closed shop from an outside perspective.

It doesn’t happen in black and white terms like I’ve just put it - the reality is messier and more nuanced than this, and maybe only with certain types who have found some unfamiliar social security in their particular type identification. Maybe we have that mythical beast, a collective bell end, on our hands?
 
Where it goes wrong is when we identify with a collective to the degree we put on its clothes and allow it to possess us. @Asa alluded to this. There’s a lot of it going on at the moment, and probably there always has been. MBTI has been caught up in the problem I think - people who start to identify themselves as an INFJ or an ESTP, etc, and try to take on the archetypal colours of their chosen type instead of using it as a stepping stone to be ever more emancipated from the collectives. It can easily become a closed shop from an outside perspective.
This is why I'm confused about claims of greater individuation at present. When I switch on the UK media I see and hear people who look and sound one of a limited number of ways, and adhere to beliefs drawn from a limited set of options and often from which all of their positions on different issues can be predicted from just one or two of them.

I get the sense that people are being encouraged to be individuals (and there may be advantages in this for certain political interests, as i think aeon alluded to) but that most are less naturally inclined towards it than they believe.

(very interesting thread)
 
Last edited:
I took a deeper dive into The Fourth Turning and how it relates to MBTI and the Five Factor Model (Big 5). MBTI was primarily developed by Jung and Myers Briggs who came from generations that appear to be in the Prophet and Nomad groupings (same as Boomer and GenX respectively). It's hard to tell about Jung's generation since he was in Europe and TFT is about the US but the authors have said that the cycles also exist in Europe only in different phases.

What I've found is that Jung and Myers-Briggs appear to have been dealing with the Unraveling and Crisis periods of the cycle and their struggles as high level intuitives likely gave rise for a need to understand the internal unconscious and intuitive mind. I believe this is why GenX, that spent a big chunk of their lives in the ebb of the unraveling and crisis stages of TFT, needed something to grab hold of during the 2010's decade (middle of the crisis stage).

The Big 5 however was developed by people that came from the Silent generation and their efforts were focused on more externally projected behavior rather than the internal like Jung and M-B. The model, from my perspective, is more about function and how to utilize people in society even if it does provides some insight to internal dynamics.

The good news is that Jung and M-B has helped stabilize the groups that suffered the most through the TFT downswing, and now the Big 5 is preparing everyone for the peak of the cycle (titled High) that we will soon enter. This new stage will be the end of war and include post-war growth - similar to the end of WW2 and growth all the way to the early 60's. Technically this "High" period should be quite prosperous for everyone that survives the war antics.

I think all of this is a big part of the reason their has been a rise and fall in the use of MBTI through the 2010's. I still believe that it is needed, only that those that hold onto the internal struggle are less likely to gain the benefits of the 20 year "High" period we are projected to start in 2025 (theoretically).

Still, I think many people that have enjoyed and benefited from conversing and engaging with other intuitives have left the building due a variety of reasons related to the Crisis period [that we're still in]. This period breeds fear, paranoia, and distrust for the institutions (as suggested by TFT).

I'm glad I've had Jung and M-B during this time because the struggle has been very REAL. I think they would smile knowing how much their work has helped people and I wish there was a way to reach back into the past and give them a grateful appreciation.
 
Last edited:
Here's a list of the stages and generational archetypes presented by The Fourth Turning:

@Asa @John K @Umai - One of the primary traits for GenX (Nomad) is individualistic.

The Fourth Turning theory, developed by William Strauss and Neil Howe, describes a recurring cycle of four generational archetypes and four corresponding societal stages or "turnings." Each archetype plays a unique role in shaping history and is influenced by the cultural mood during their formative years. Here’s an overview of the stages and generational archetypes:


The Four Turnings (Societal Stages):

  1. The High (First Turning):
    • Description: A period of strong institutions, collective optimism, and stability after a major crisis. Individualism is downplayed in favor of societal cohesion.
    • Historical Example: Post-World War II boom in the 1940s-1960s in the U.S.
    • Mood: Conformist, optimistic, and community-focused.
  2. The Awakening (Second Turning):
    • Description: A spiritual or cultural renewal where people challenge the established social order, emphasizing personal authenticity and values over material success.
    • Historical Example: The 1960s-1980s countercultural movements.
    • Mood: Passionate, individualistic, and reformist.
  3. The Unraveling (Third Turning):
    • Description: Institutions weaken, and society becomes more divided. Individualism is at its peak, and trust in authority wanes.
    • Historical Example: The late 1980s-2000s (e.g., culture wars, economic inequality).
    • Mood: Distrustful, fragmented, and cynical.
  4. The Crisis (Fourth Turning):
    • Description: A time of major upheaval, where society confronts an existential threat. Institutions are restructured or replaced, and a new social order emerges.
    • Historical Example: The Great Depression and World War II.
    • Mood: Urgent, decisive, and transformational.

The Four Generational Archetypes:

Each archetype cycles sequentially through history, shaped by their position within these societal stages.
  1. The Hero (Civic)
    • Born During: A High
    • Traits: Optimistic, resilient, and institution-focused. They are problem-solvers who work collectively to rebuild society during crises.
    • Examples: G.I. Generation (born ~1901-1924), Millennials (born ~1981-1996).
  2. The Artist (Adaptive)
    • Born During: A Crisis
    • Traits: Cautious, empathetic, and compromising. They prioritize harmony and often act as mediators.
    • Examples: Silent Generation (born ~1925-1942), Generation Z (born ~1997-2012).
  3. The Prophet (Idealist)
    • Born During: An Awakening
    • Traits: Visionary, values-driven, and moralistic. They focus on spiritual or ideological causes and often lead cultural revolutions.
    • Examples: Baby Boomers (born ~1943-1960), potentially Generation Alpha (~2013 onward).
  4. The Nomad (Reactive)
    • Born During: An Unraveling
    • Traits: Pragmatic, resourceful, and individualistic. They grow up during times of institutional decay and tend to distrust authority.
    • Examples: Generation X (born ~1961-1980), Generation Y/Z cuspers (~1980-1997 overlap).
    • Archetype Lifecycle in Turnings:
    Each archetype occupies a specific role during each Turning:
  • Heroes come of age during a Crisis, helping to lead society's rebuilding.
  • Artists are young children during a Crisis, shaped by its protective social order.
  • Prophets drive change during an Awakening with their vision.
  • Nomads rise to leadership in an Unraveling, navigating its complexities pragmatically.
 
Last edited:
I took a deeper dive into The Fourth Turning and how it relates to MBTI and the Five Factor Model (Big 5)

I like your take on things here
You say '25, I've been saying '27
 
I like your take on things here
You say '25, I've been saying '27
It's not me saying it; it's simply how TFT defines the stages, which are impossible to know when in the middle of a stage (a forest and trees kind of concept). The stages run in intervals that are approximately 20 years and that places the end of the current "Crisis" stage at around '25. The Crisis stage is usually capped by the end of a war(ing) conflict and at present we don't really know when this is going to happen. Since the US involvement is on foreign soil (Ukraine and Middle East), there are factors there that will influence the duration of the outcomes. If it were me stating what I believe will occur, it would likely be more aligned with a later timeframe like you suggest - I suppose I just don't feel that optimistic given the barrage of propaganda swirling and oozing from those that seek to control and those that continue to parrot it.

My intent in this thread was to identify the drop in MBTI communication as wanning interest or self preservation. Some of the input from others led me back towards TFT and after a deep look into it, some good information started to rise to the surface - so I shared it. For me to really know if the rise in interest about MBTI was primarily related to the Crisis stage I would need to know how much MBTI was used in the past. I suspect it has been used a good bit over time; however, it did seem to explode onto the scene during the '10s.

I'm also trying to look at social media and how much people are disengaging in certain ways. This is not an easy thing to measure; however, I have seen numbers and communications that suggest a drop in use as a whole (particularly by Millennials) and a decrease in it's use socially (contributing more personal information). The measurements are difficult to take as accurate because people use multiple accounts and the platforms can technically fib about actual daily and monthly usage (to prop up their stock values).

Overall, I believe intuitive people increase their value when they are communicating with like minded people in groups. This disengagement does not serve us well. If we can identify the source cause then adjustments can be made to better accommodate the need. Things like removing censorship, some autonomy over discourse, and the removal of personal information harvesting comes to mind.
 
Must admit, I haven't paid much attention to MBTI trends over the years but I notice, as with the Enneagram, that searches bring up more and more banal content that would insult the intelligence of most over-12s. I wonder if that's helping to turn people off it?
 
Back
Top