n=40 isn’t actually bad for generalized conclusions, given a reasonable spread in the results. Your second point is a much stronger argument. The sample is entirely non-representative.

That’s very concrete language you’re using there. Are you perchance an introvert? We could make it n = 41 and add a dash more selection bias to boot!

Shitty sample sizes are the majority of “research” nowadays. It’s sad how hard it is to find any even in the triple digits.

anything with personality types i already assume is junk. might as well use their zodiac sign.