Which types are more susceptible to join/lead a cult?

[Pud]

Hi! I lurk. Usually. And now I am not. HOWEVER, due to my newness, I'm not sure if this is the right place to be asking this. Correct me?

We're going over social psychology in my General Psych class, and cults were a topic that got discussed today. That made me wonder if cult leaders like Charles Manson (I can't be the only one who confuse his and Marilyn Manson's identities together) or Jim Jones were typed. If you were to take a stab in the dark, which MBTI would you guess is most likely to lead a cult? Also, join one? According to my instructor, people who join cults are/can be: "Under a lot of stress, dissatisfied with their lives, unassertive, gullible, dependent, desire to belong and be accepted, [and have] unrealistic ideas about the world." I, being an INFJ, feel like I fit a few of those. Would an INFJ have a high chance of being associated with a cult then?

 

[CindyLou]

Your instructor should have put more emphasis on the "can be". Interesting she/he would use that term. I would call that "blaming the victim"

Anyone can be manipulated. Anyone.

 

[GracieRuth]

Actually, if you just prod your instructor the right way, he will delight in documenting for you how almost everyone of almost every type will simply obey someone merely because they are wearing a labcoat even if they ask you to do something blatantly immoral. The same independence that develops a cult leader will develop a person to stand up against a cult leader; everyone else is a follower.

Apart from the leader/follower personalities, one must ask whether the leader is leading the followers in a way that is morally sound or not, and that really has nothing to do with personality.

I do disagree with Cindy Lou. In the midst of Nazi Germany, there were righteous gentiles that put their own lives at risk to hide Jews.

My guess is that every last one of us has been faced with situations where we've been given the ethical choice of integrity verses expedience. Which did we choose? Did we sacrifice our career? Did we give up that promotion? Did we endure the ridicule? Or did we tell ourselves that this was too small to matter? Or that our families came first? These small tests of character show what our true colors would be should a nazi put a gun to our heads and ask "Where are the Jews?"

 

[this is only temporary]

I can't be the only one who confuse his and Marilyn Manson's identities together

No, I have that problem too.

Regarding cults, the two people I have experience with who are what I would describe as "most likely to join a cult" (and in fact, sort of have joined cults, though not to the extreme degree of whats-his-name) are MBTI types ENTP/J (yes, really!) and INFP.

I'm not sure the MBTI is the most important thing here, though. The traits they shared at the time they were most succeptible to the cult-like activity are:

-They were both very young (teens and early 20s)
-They were both female
-Neither had a strong sense of self-worth (they seemed almost desperate for partnership/boyfriends/approval, and would take on many of the qualities of their current partners, whoever they may be. Their beliefs depended on who they were with.)
-They both came from abusive backgrounds where they were sexually abused.
-They were both at a point where they were alone in the world -- and their parents were basically useless scum (sorry. They were.), so they neither had much social/family support.

Their personalities seemed very different on the outside, though. This is an interesting topic!

P.S. I am an INFJ and I don't think I'd be particularly likely to join a cult. For one thing, it requires actually hanging out with large groups of people, which I usually avoid.

 

[the]

I think that it is all in the delivery of the cult leader as to which type he attracts.

 

[InvisibleJim]

xNTPs and xNFJs, devoted cultists.

 

[Leticia Mejor]

I think a wide of variety of types are equally likely to join. As for leaders, I think INFJ's/ENFJ's make amazing (wrong word choice possibly?) cult leaders. Over the past few days I've been reading about Charles Mason, watching some of his interviews, he seems very INFJ to me.

 

[Pud]

Your instructor should have put more emphasis on the "can be". Interesting she/he would use that term.

Probably. I think it was a thing she just assumed would be guessed the significance of. You know, like you can be a serial killer, or you can be likely to enjoy Mexican food.

-They were both very young (teens and early 20s)

Yes! That's another factor my instructor mentioned but I couldn't for the life of me remember. The young are more susceptible and excitable, and cults give them a rebelling outlet.

I think a wide of variety of types are equally likely to join. As for leaders, I think INFJ's/ENFJ's make amazing (wrong word choice possibly?) cult leaders. Over the past few days I've been reading about Charles Mason, watching some of his interviews, he seems very INFJ to me.

According to a Google search, Manson is a ENFP (but hey, it's Google. You can't put a lot of stock into that). I feel like E and N are the best dictator attributes to have. It's depending from person to person, but I think extraverts would have an easier time in gathering minions and falling into the lead social role.

 

[knight in battle]

There are cults. But there are also lesser degrees of cultism where one isn't necessarily believing something against one's conscience as such but one is led to "perform" and "attend" or "belong" more than one is willing to do - again, nothing that is particularly immoral and yet cultish.

Susceptible to join: The emotionally vulnerable. The need to belong. A weak sense of personal identity.

Susceptible to lead: Same. Overcompensation for one's lack of belonging or social acceptance.

 

[barbad0s]

I think the difference between being "susceptible" (wanting or being driven) to leading a cult, and having great ability to lead a cult, should be acknowledged.

 

[muir]

What are we defining as a cult? Where does cult end and religion begin?

Where does organised crime end and corporate business begin?

Where do the corporations end and politics begin?

I think in reality these things are all interlinked and overlapped, but some people just don't like to view it that way

Perhaps the constant with each of these is a lack of compassion rather than a particular personality type?

That said extroverts are generally more likely to be risk takers. The BBC made a program (which i've posted here before) explaining how corporate risk takers were more likely to be extroverts.

The guardian newspaper had an article recently (see link below) which said that society had created an 'extrovert ideal' which people were conditioned to see as a norm. If people don't conform to that ideal then they are often seen in a poor light as weird, eccentric, shy, aloof etc.

Cults are the product of a society and we are living in a society that is holding up extrovertism as an ideal, which i think is damaging to society. There should be a recognition of the importance of introverts. Society needs extroverts and introverts and the merits of both should be respected and seen as a compliment to each other not as something to be put into competition with each other.

I can't find the article it has been removed because copyright has expired! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/13/why-the-world-needs-introverts)

However i did find some other articles by the same author that put the point across less well (see below for one of them). She said in the original article:

''We live with a value system that I call the Extrovert Ideal – the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha and comfortable in the spotlight. The archetypal extrovert prefers action to contemplation, risk-taking to heed-taking, certainty to doubt. He or she favours quick decisions, even at the risk of being wrong; works well in teams and socialises in groups. We like to think that we value individuality, but all too often we admire one type of individual – the kind who is comfortable “putting himself out there”.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/01/susan-cain-extrovert-introvert-interview

 

[CindyLou]

Actually, if you just prod your instructor the right way, he will delight in documenting for you how almost everyone of almost every type will simply obey someone merely because they are wearing a labcoat even if they ask you to do something blatantly immoral. The same independence that develops a cult leader will develop a person to stand up against a cult leader; everyone else is a follower.

Apart from the leader/follower personalities, one must ask whether the leader is leading the followers in a way that is morally sound or not, and that really has nothing to do with personality.

I do disagree with Cindy Lou. In the midst of Nazi Germany, there were righteous gentiles that put their own lives at risk to hide Jews.

My guess is that every last one of us has been faced with situations where we've been given the ethical choice of integrity verses expedience. Which did we choose? Did we sacrifice our career? Did we give up that promotion? Did we endure the ridicule? Or did we tell ourselves that this was too small to matter? Or that our families came first? These small tests of character show what our true colors would be should a nazi put a gun to our heads and ask "Where are the Jews?"

Why do you disagree? I said anyone could be manipulated. I didn't mean everyone could be manipulated.

 

[sassafras]

I agree with Cindy. I think anyone could be manipulated, but by the same stretch, not everyone can be manipulated in the same way. Manipulation in part means kicking meta-cognition from under itself. If you're naturally a wary person, you're more likely to ask yourself questions that override the typical 'techniques' that would draw in other, more 'naive' people. However, everyone's got hot buttons and if someone knows which one of yours to push and is able to push them in a way that aligns with your reasoning and your idea of self, you can be just as susceptible as the typically 'gullible,' emotional folks... if not even more so, seeing as you're so confident that you've got the 'logical backing' to defend yourself from any psychological intrusion of the kind.

I think when it comes to cults, though their psychological framework is chiefly the same, they're rather unique in the 'type' of member they attract. I think it would be really interesting to read a psychological profile on the typical member of OTS or Scientology or any other cult. Maybe you can ask about that in class, Pud.

 

[Quiet]

I think it would really depend on the cult. Different people would be attracted to different types of cults. And what is a cult- how would you best define it? Consider churches, political groups, collectors groups, sports groups, artist groups, motorcycle groups, cars groups, gaming groups, business groups, criminal groups, gangs?- on what level do these groups become cults? Has anyone here been to an amway meeting? WTF- those people sweat kool aid.

Personally I think it would be near impossible for me to become involved in a cult. I cant help but observe groups and always remain somewhat detached as I become hyperaware of the dynamics. I also can not stop analysing things and constantly seeing things from mutliple perspectives. I think Id be a crap addition to any cult- I find it hard to stay loyal to a group if I feel I have outgrown it or I dont agree with everything they think or do. But I suppose if I had a traumatic experience or felt compelled for reasons of fear and security it could happen. But I highly doubt it.

Ive been to atleast 5 Amway meetings, and have met Amway people on many different ocassions through one of my friends. Lots of ESFPs, ESFJs, ENFJs, ESTPs, and a handful of ENFPs, ISFJs and ENTJs. All these types respond differently to the cult environement- for example- ESTPs can get all excited but their not really buying it and are just playing along for their own reasons. ESFPs, ESFJs and ENFJs seem to have a huge desire to maintain harmony and group cohesiveness. They seem to get off on it the most. And I thinks its mainly the ESFJs, ENFJs and ENTJs that become hardliners with other cult members, coercing them through social pressure and guilt to stay in line and not stray from the group. So I think Fe is an important function here- self explanatory- group cohesion. Ni- especaily secondary Ni- ENFJ and ENTJ, as well as inferior Ni- ESFP, ESTP. Not many Si dominants- I think that makes sense as a part of Si is examing experiences with past stored infromation to check vaildity.

Religious groups- ENFJ, ESFJ, ENTJ, ESTJ, ISFJ, ISTJ, ESFP, INFP, ENFP, ENTP (and from what Ive gathered from this forum)- INTJ and INFJ.

NP types seem to be more open to experiecne and drawn to novelty, which could attract them to a cult. Long term though, I think that Ne keeps opening up new possibilities and NP types could potentialy drift when they hear a more compelling arguement, rather than clinging to the group for the sake of it.

On a different field- motorcycle or biker groups seem to have many ISTPs. I think this has a lot to do with inferior Fe and the unconsious drive to belong to a group, but not a typical group within the status quo. Ive seen this inferior Fe with INTPs as well, with their committment to certain groups that for some reason may sometimes appear irrational or contary to their normal logical behaviour.

The criminal groups Ive been familiar with seem to have the most diversity in types.

Sorry this is all so scattered. I think the least likely type to join a cult is probably ISFP and ISTJ. And I would have thought INFJ as well but I can see how many INFJs in the past have led some cults - Jesus, Hilter, Osama Bin Laden.

And what type is Oprah? Is it ENFJ? Im not sure but it seems possible. She is one of the best cult leaders ever.

 

[Trifoilum]

I do disagree with Cindy Lou. In the midst of Nazi Germany, there were righteous gentiles that put their own lives at risk to hide Jews.

My guess is that every last one of us has been faced with situations where we've been given the ethical choice of integrity verses expedience. Which did we choose? Did we sacrifice our career? Did we give up that promotion? Did we endure the ridicule? Or did we tell ourselves that this was too small to matter? Or that our families came first? These small tests of character show what our true colors would be should a nazi put a gun to our heads and ask "Where are the Jews?"

I do agreed, however the metaphor you used..I think that would be quite a complex issue.
Looking at it subjectively; time was different back then. So is what were considered right and wrong. I'm sure a lot of decent, good person are following the Nazi because they believed what they were hearing was right. Faith, righteousness, and morality does not always overlap. Sadly.
One thing is the same; not everyone follows the rules. Not everyone follows the previously moral choice. In this day and age, they were the heroes. It wouldn't always be so.

And as usual, Kudos to @TheDaringHatTrick for nailing it in the head;

I agree with Cindy. I think anyone could be manipulated, but by the same stretch, not everyone can be manipulated in the same way. Manipulation in part means kicking meta-cognition from under itself. If you're naturally a wary person, you're more likely to ask yourself questions that override the typical 'techniques' that would draw in other, more 'naive' people. However, everyone's got hot buttons and if someone knows which one of yours to push and is able to push them in a way that aligns with your reasoning and your idea of self, you can be just as susceptible as the typically 'gullible,' emotional folks... if not even more so, seeing as you're so confident that you've got the 'logical backing' to defend yourself from any psychological intrusion of the kind.

I think when it comes to cults, though their psychological framework is chiefly the same, they're rather unique in the 'type' of member they attract. I think it would be really interesting to read a psychological profile on the typical member of OTS or Scientology or any other cult. Maybe you can ask about that in class, Pud.
​

Now, on topic....
What sort of cult are we talking here?
Charles Manson? Scientology? Oprah? the Mass Effect 3 Ending criticizer? Playstation 3 fans? Baseball fans?

One thing to remember is there are two sort of leaders. Competent leaders, and charismatic leaders.
Another thing to remember is the components. Aside from the leader and the member, we have
a) The ideals / values. Structures, beliefs, politics.
b) The core of the group. Activities, actions, external symbols. (For example; Playstation 3 for its fans.)
using @Asarya 's example. I'd say criminal group will be quite different from motorcycle groups in activity and values, or criminal motorcycle groups.
The components would be varied. One value might be more Fe than others; as one object might be more Ti than others.
The members would be varied, thus; it's related to whom would be attracted to the activity / object in question for the first time. We thus expand to another set of demographics. For instance, the demographic (in age, gender, psychological condition, MBTI, anything) between gamers and sports fans would be different in the first place; cult or no cult.
Not to mention, the importance / the extent in which the cult is taking within someone's life. Scientology; which can be considered a religion, would generally take more importance in one's life perspective compared to say, Facebook enthusiasts. (I'm speaking in general terms here). That would mean different set of people within a group may join different set of cult altogether.

Now, with that in point... I'm guessing and generalizing.

For Life matters (lifestyle, religion), I think NFJs are in the biggest position to lead, followed by NFPs. For followers, I have to guess it's SJs. SJs more than NJs, but NJs will win in intensity because a lot of the blanks will be filled by themselves. Oprah, Scientology, Charles Manson, conspiracy theories.. Even, in one or another way; religions.
Fanfics. K-Pop. Team Jacob/Edward/Peeta/Gale. Count on INXPs to be the strongest groups; followed by IXFXs. For leader, though; I have to guess it's Ne doms, who are more capable to reach huge numbers of people than others, not to mention lots of ideas.
PS3. Linux. Windows. Bioware. World of Warcraft. Apple. ...since quite a huge numbers of people who did this are IXTPs.... yeah. Add that inferior Fe , as @Asarya said;

inferior Fe and the unconsious drive to belong to a group, but not a typical group within the status quo. Ive seen this inferior Fe with INTPs as well, with their committment to certain groups that for some reason may sometimes appear irrational or contary to their normal logical behaviour.

this, and they seems to be easier to be swayed by group mentality (with some caveats), and.. yeh. The leaders would be other Ti doms / aux. EXTPs, if not other IxTPs.
Economics. Politics. Military. NJs for leaders. NTJs would be more competent, but NFJs would be more charismatic and able to convince people. But if we're talking about respect, I think NTJs will be able to gain it more.

 

[Annabreher]

Anyone is capable of joining/leading a cult. The reason I think this is:
Everyone has different life experiences, different struggles. If a person was traumatized or "wronged" to such a degree I think they can and will have a distorted view on right and wrong. Is this more prevalent in a certain type? I don't know, I really don't. Since people who have mental disorders are almost impossible to type [how does one even begin!?] its hard to gauge if there is a higher percentage of feelers or thinkers.

-Anna