Maybe but don't you think it's interesting most people here are likely introverts? (I imagine...) I'd say we also have more victims here rather than bullies. Are introverts more likely to be victims? I think they're less likely to stand up for themselves certainly.
Also, what makes you think psychologists are an authority? Does anyone even know what consciousness is yet? Can they diagnose mental illness even with absolute confidence? All seems a bit wishy washy to me as well! Ok- MBTI may seem more like a magazine quiz. But still- depression is often diagnosed following a questionnaire! Worse- we get prescribed mind altering drugs after filling that one out! I wish I did have more faith in psychology/psychiatry.
Um, we are on an online forum. Introverts tenerally tend to hangout in online spaces more in comparison to extroverts. Also, this is a suicide forum. Of course you are going to have more victims than bullies, though it is important to note that people are likely to aware of and share the times they have been wronged than they are to be aware of and share the times they have hurt others. Also, this observation applies to most parts of the internet. If you go under most youtube comment sections you are more likely to find people claiming to be victims in comparison to admitting to be bullies. There isn't anything interesting about that observation.
Being introverted also has nothing to do with your likelihood of standing up for yourself. That likely has more to do with factors, such as home life and the school environment. Children who come from homes where they feel safe and are able to tell their parents about whats happening to them and who go to schools with strict anti-bullying policies are probably going to be more likely to stand up for themsleves on average since they have the resources and support needed to do so. A disproportionate amount of people on this forum come from dysfunctional and abusive households and likely went to schools that created an environment for bullying to blossom, so of course there are going to be a lot of people on here who've never stood up for themselves.
Psychologists are the "authority" in this case because we are talking about a personality test that has been studied and is considered to be unreliable. Who do you think are people who research this kind of stuff? Who do you think are the ones responsible for trying to create accurate ways to measure personality? Depression being diagnosed using a questionairre also doesn't mean anything. That doesn't prove that the MBTI is reliable all of a sudden. Research on the test shows that it isn't a good means to test for personality traits, especially in comparison to some of the other personality tests that exist today, such as the MMPI, SWAP-II, or Big-5.
Also, psychologists aren't the ones who prescribe drugs. It's psychiatrists who prescribe drugs. It should also be noted that the psychologists who are doing research on these personality tests are researcher psychologists, not clinical psychologists. Unlike clincal psychologists, researcher psychologists, at the very least, actually have an understanding of the scientific method when it comes to research. They are also the ones to sometimes call out clinical psychologists on their bs. While they aren't great, they are generally a bit more honest and trustworthy in comparison to clinical psychologists and psychiatrists.
