×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Thought: (Mostly) Ts are Republicans, Fs are Democrats

Chacham (981) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 29

Using the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. I find Fs to be Democrats, and Ts to be Republicans. Mostly that is.

Considering Ts use Logic-Judgements even at the cost of values, and considering Republicans are more logical, it makes sense. Also, considering Fs use Value-Judgements even at the cost of logic, and considering Democrats are more value-centric than logical, it falls into place.

Using the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. I find Fs to be Democrats, and Ts to be Republicans. Mostly that is.

Considering Ts use Logic-Judgements even at the cost of values, and considering Republicans are more logical, it makes sense. Also, considering Fs use Value-Judgements even at the cost of logic, and considering Democrats are more value-centric than logical, it falls into place.

A friend, and INTP who espouses Democratic ideals, answered me when I question him about how such a logical person could be a Democrat. He told me that he just "feels" their way more. And that it wasn't logical. Well put. And he's about the only Democrat who I think can back up what he believes, because he actually understands why he believes it.

Funny thing is all these F Republican presidents. George "W" Bush being an ESFJ, Ronald Reagen being an ESFP. Maybe its the age of TV, being the news is mostly Democrats, even Republicans have to be F to get into high office.

Anyway, its just a thought. Well, here's another. Women who have low necklines (clotheswise) are Democrats. I used to watch C-SPAN a lot, and, IIRC, with the exception of one Democrat, all Republican woman had high necklines, and all Democrats low lines. That's in the House. The Senate can be strange though. Also, Republican men can't answer attacks very well, where Democratic men come off smothly, and make much better speakers.

I still think it all boils down to T versus F. Since it is judgement, it affects the way we dress and opine, amongst many other things.

29 comments

Not to troll... (1)

On Lawn (1073) | more than 10 years ago | (#5854740)


But the Jungian acheatypes are probably the best out there but they still make poor labels.

If you get down to it, I'm more sure that N's make Democrats and P's make Republicans.

But honestly, ENTP's are probably encompass all of our politicians anyway. But I digress, I've known enough INTP's and ESTJ's to know that you really can't judge a person's capabilities and even resultant personalities by these labels.

For instance me, I'm [I/E]N[F/T]P. On every test I've taken, I'm either right on the edge or switch daily between E/I and F/T. With some training I'll be able to switch between N/S and P/J.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5855219)

But the Jungian acheatypes are probably the best out there but they still make poor labels.

Why? I think once they were codeified by Meyers, thery make excellent lables.

If you get down to it, I'm more sure that N's make Democrats and P's make Republicans.

Nah. Most of the Ns I know are Democrats. (Though they may vote Republican becuse of religous issues.) P as well, I see no such thing amongst the people I know. Though, this is still an ongoing search, so I'll have to keep my eyes open.

But honestly, ENTP's are probably encompass all of our politicians anyway.

Are you crazy? :-)

Why do you say that? Overall, most politicians, reflect society, and are clearly S.

But I digress, I've known enough INTP's and ESTJ's to know that you really can't judge a person's capabilities and even resultant personalities by these labels.

I can make the *exact* opposite statement.

For instance me, I'm [I/E]N[F/T]P. On every test I've taken, I'm either right on the edge or switch daily between E/I and F/T. With some training I'll be able to switch between N/S and P/J.

Doubtful. You're probably an FP, and just like Com2Kid, and other FPs, have a very hard time accepting succint definitive statements. You are probably ENFP. To think you can go both ways on N/S is ridiculous. You percieve one way or the other. You can perceive both ways, but not at the same time. Eventually one dominates your preference, and you get better at it. If you try to be both N and S, you will stay immature in both.

I say you're an F, because you focus more on Values than on Logic. Which is in tune with most of the world. Small tests have shown about 70 percent of females, about 40 percent of males to be F.

You are probably an Extravert, because you focus more on teaching people, and thus focus your dominant process on the world of people and things (E), as opposed to the inner world of ideas (I). Again, that is in tune with about 2/3 (according to Meyers tests) to 3/4 (according to Keirsey's guesses) of the US population.

Both Keirsey and Meyers point out how awful it is when people are split on any of the preferences. (With the exception of Kiersey's view of I/E, which diverts seriously from the Briggs version.) They end up immature in both, and good at none.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Liora (565268) | more than 10 years ago | (#5855927)

You know...

I agree with most of what you have just said... but let me clarify for a moment.

I don't know the fellow you were responding to, but if what you say is true, that he focuses more on teaching people, then he is most certainly an introvert. The only time introverts speak up in social situations beyond those including the very familiar is to convey ideas from that inner world, not because they are focusing on people and things. That "conveying ideas," is what we would commonly call teaching. He may find that he has a verbal gift in conveying ideas, and that may actually lead to the split that he finds when he is taking the test. The tests usually include some experiential questions, and he may answer according to recent communicative experiences that do such, thus skewing his overall results.

The other thing that I have to say is that it's kind of interesting that you think that most politicians are S's. Outside of cyberspace, I only know one S. I am surrounded by N's. I was actually very surprised to see that some of my friends here are S's. I find it very odd. I know the statistics say that my acquaintances are the exception, that S's dominate, but I still find it very strange that my experience has led me to expect otherwise.

I don't really think that Meyers says much about there being a problem with being a T/F split. Indeed, I can't see how one could end up "mature" in feeling, so I think that being a T/F split is likely a very good thing for two reasons. You are able to understand and respect the point of view of either T's or F's. Also, if you are originally an F, but have moved "T-ward," that means that you have an enhanced ability to make decisions based upon thinking in situations where feeling is not really appropriate (like whether or not to have surgery), and you are able to make decisions on feeling (like breaking up with someone) where thinking could tend toward the callous.

Come to think of it... I can see how being a T/F split would be really handy for a J, but I can also see how it might be a little inconvenient for a P. They're not terribly comfortable making decisions anyway, and deciding when it is best to use one or the other for a decision-making process would be a difficult decision in itself for them. I am going to take a big leap here. I think that emotionally and mentally healthy J's should be T/F splits. If they're not, they are making their common snap decisions based upon their T/F favor all the time, which is no good, because it is clear that there are situations for which the use of a particular preference is appropriate.

Finally, although I see your point a bit, the ability to defend an attack well is an ENJ trait. You get a gut feeling about the proper response argument, you decide to go for it, and your verbal skills take you along the way. It is likely that debate skill comes more from strong ENJ traits than from T or F preference.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5856761)

Thanx for responding. :-) Now, on with the show....

focuses more on teaching people, then he is most certainly an introvert.

Not true. Most teachers are extraverts. I believe that is in the books, but I don't remember. As well as usually SJ or NF.

I know the statistics say that my acquaintances are the exception, that S's dominate,

It matters on what basis one makes friends. I have different levels of friends. The closest friends (not confidants, just the ones I care for the most) are Ss. Acquaintences, those to whom I prefer to talk to, are generally Ns. (Or very N-like Ss, such as ISTPs).

I don't really think that Meyers says much about there being a problem with being a T/F split.

Meyers says to build one up, and then mature the other.

Indeed, I can't see how one could end up "mature" in feeling,

One matures in feelings, by fully understanding their own values, and where they stand in relation to other values. It is more difficult than maturing in logic, which is relatively easy.

You are able to understand and respect the point of view of either T's or F's.

All Fs can understand logic. They just find it repulsive since it puts people out of the equation. The opposite is not true. Ts understand logic, but while not versed in Value-Judgements, they see Fs as erratic and inconsistant. Indeed, when they attempt these difficult judgements themselves, they find their *own* judgements as erratic, so they are scared of value-judgements, and hardly understand them.

So, an F "understands" both (even if the F cannot make a good T judgement, the F can *understand* it) while Ts cannot understand F value-judgements without a lot of work.

Ideally, one should mature in one, then work on the other, and allow it to dominate where necessary.

it might be a little inconvenient for a P. They're not terribly comfortable making decisions anyway,

You don't know many ESTPs do you? :-)

They make judgements *all* the time, and are of the most comfortable at it. Probably second to ESTJs. Ps, just don't like to cut off their options.

I am going to take a big leap here. I think that emotionally and mentally healthy J's should be T/F splits.

That's fine. But *after* they mature in one. And that, at least currently, takes many years.

because it is clear that there are situations for which the use of a particular preference is appropriate.

There are seven cases.

A) T doesn't apply.
B) T applies insignificantly.
C) T applies significantly, but less than F.
D) T and F apply equally.
E) F applies significantly but less than T.
F) F applies insignificantly.
G) F doesn't apply.

In A and G, the choice is clear. In B and F, any mature person will do the correct thing. In D, it depends on one's preference. Thus the only real argument would be what to do in C and E. And in thoise cases it is *not* clear, until in one fully matures in one preference. Otherwise, they don't even know what its boundaries are.

Am I making sense? :-)

the ability to defend an attack well is an ENJ trait.

No, its TJ. I/E has nothing to do with attacking or defending. P/J each have their own methods. TJs attack best, because they know how to use logic well, and they can defend best too.

However, being the argument is between Fs and Ts, there is no real argument. It's all about how it plays out to the people that are watching it. And being Fs are generally more comfortable with their bodies, and more malliable on their ideas, they probably act better when in a fight.

verbal skills take you along the way.

I believe Meyers mentions that Verbal skills are an inrovert trait, and usually S. Except when its poetry, which is an N trait.

It is likely that debate skill comes more from strong ENJ traits than from T or F preference.

Debating is very much a TJ trait, if the purpose of debate is logical analysis.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5856877)

I believe Meyers mentions that Verbal skills are an inrovert trait, and usually S. Except when its poetry, which is an N trait.

I'll take that back. Because it depends on what type of verbal skills.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Liora (565268) | more than 10 years ago | (#5857324)

Not true. Most teachers are extraverts. I believe that is in the books, but I don't remember. As well as usually SJ or NF.

No. Most people with teaching as a profession are E and SJ or NF. Most people with teaching as almost their only means of interacting are I's.

Ideally, one should mature in one, then work on the other, and allow it to dominate where necessary.

Yes, exactly. Now the thing is though, if you do just that, and take a test, you end up looking like a T/F. And, as I was saying, most well-adjusted adults do indeed look just like that, because hopefully, by the time they're adults, they've figured that out. If we gave these tests to children, and they came up as splits, sure, that could be a problem, but in adults, this particular split is healthy.

Just a quick note: Values != Feelings. I know that Meyer sometimes starts to equate the two, but in the real world that just doesn't make a lot of sense. So again, how exactly does one mature feelings?

They make judgements *all* the time, and are of the most comfortable at it.

You mean they're comfortable being wishy-washy, not making decisions. Changing your mind constantly is the opposite of being good at making decisions.

No, its TJ. I/E has nothing to do with attacking or defending. P/J each have their own methods. TJs attack best, because they know how to use logic well, and they can defend best too.

No. I/E has to do with your ability to respond quickly. If you wait too long (processing internally) in a debate, no matter the reason, you look bad. Yes, P/J have their own methods, but the P won't be able to decide quickly where to go with it. TJs, yes, are probably the best at attacking, but only because you get to choose when you attack, and can brood as long as you like beforehand. As for defense, a TJ is going to fail miserably against any kind but a T attack.

And being Fs are generally more comfortable with their bodies

I'm not sure where you got that one, but that's absolutely not true.

Debating is very much a TJ trait, if the purpose of debate is logical analysis

The purpose to debate is not really logical analysis. That's only a part of debate. Getting to the heart of what your opponent is saying and quickly responding with something logical in defense and perhaps even with an attack all the while maintaining your poise is the point. Thus, ENJ. The nature of the argument dicates whether a T or an F would better be able to handle it. Most topics of debate, yes, are the forte of T's, but there are some that F's would dominate as well.

You do realize that TJ's are not excluded in the ENJ category, right? You merely indicate that you think that all debates are those of logical nature, which they are not. Truthfully, given any context and topic, any TJ is likely to be the best at an initial attack, but an ENFJ is the most likely to respond with an immediate and adequate defense and counterattack, and an ENTJ is next most likely after that, followed by ESFJ and ESTJ. I was merely describing the mechanism by which those Democrats that you see reacting to pressure well are doing so. They are likely ENJ's, given their poise, and are likely F's, given your earlier assessment (which I agree with) about the generalized F=Democrat trend.

Now, there are a few introverts out there that think so fast that they can beat this E-winning trend, and there are a few P's out there that can at least rhetorically spit out a coherent reply in as little time. But the overall trend still exists.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5858815)

No. Most people with teaching as a profession are E and SJ or NF. Most people with teaching as almost their only means of interacting are I's.

Interesting distinction. On what do you base that?

if you do just that, and take a test, you end up looking like a T/F.

Not true. Since the test looks for what your urges are (I believes Keirseys spells that out specifically) the person will *always* be the same type, mature or not.

Values != Feelings. I know that Meyer sometimes starts to equate the two,

Meyers explains F as Value judgements. To not equate the two, would be to variate from the MBTI, akin to Keirsey's methodology of using the MBTI to indicate the four types.

but in the real world that just doesn't make a lot of sense.

No, it makes *perfect* sense. Once I read that definition, there is so much about people's behavior that became clear.

You mean they're comfortable being wishy-washy, not making decisions.

So, I guess, you don't know any ESTPs. They are not wishy-washy, they are very consistent, are very comfortable making decisions, but hold nothing sacred. They are the ultimate negotiators, and crucial in any field where quick decisions are required. I've hads the pleasure of working with some, and they are *very* conmsistent. Also, I have a good friend for about 25 years now who is an ESTP, and he is consistent.

Changing your mind constantly is the opposite of being good at making decisions.

That would be an ESTJ who doesn't appreciate others. Met those too. The "pointy-haired boss" is the epitome of ESTJ.

I/E has to do with your ability to respond quickly. If you wait too long (processing internally) in a debate,

I/E has nothing to do with processing internally. I/E is where the dominant process is focused. I don't see how this effects response time. In fact,in the many debates I've had with many people, only Ps take longer to respond, since they are trying to understand the other person's point of view.

TJs, yes, are probably the best at attacking, but only because you get to choose when you attack,

No. They are best at attaking since they commonly take things to the extreme to get the point accross. They then harp on specific points, which can be crucial.

As for defense, a TJ is going to fail miserably against any kind but a T attack.

Huh?

Go listen to Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity. Excellent examples of an ENTJ. They defend fantastically against all types of attacks, T or F.

>And being Fs are generally more comfortable with their bodies

I'm not sure where you got that one, but that's absolutely not true.


I believe Keirsey points that out. And, I've notticed some corrobating evidence from my watching, but it isn't as clear, so I won't argue this point.

The purpose to debate is not really logical analysis. That's only a part of debate. Getting to the heart of what your opponent is saying and quickly responding with something logical in defense and perhaps even with an attack all the while maintaining your poise is the point.

That depends on the type of debate.

Thus, ENJ. The nature of the argument dicates whether a T or an F would better be able to handle it. Most topics of debate, yes, are the forte of T's, but there are some that F's would dominate as well.

In politics, I may agree with you, but not elsewhere.

You do realize that TJ's are not excluded in the ENJ category, right?

I was pointing out the letters that matter.

You merely indicate that you think that all debates are those of logical nature,

I said "if". ", if the purpose of debate is logical analysis".

ENFJ is the most likely to respond with an immediate and adequate defense and counterattack, and an ENTJ is next most likely after that, followed by ESFJ and ESTJ.

On what do you base this? My personal findings would show otherwise.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Liora (565268) | more than 10 years ago | (#5861892)

I don't have a great amount of time to devote to this this morning, but I do wish to make a few statements...

There are clearly two kinds of debates. One kind involves defense based on logical analysis, the other kind involves justifying value judgements. TJ's clearly dominate the first category, FJ's can dominate both categories (please note that it is a lot harder for a TJ to understand the latter than it is for the FJ to understand the former, but it is not impossible). This is not just based upon my acquaintances; you yourself alluded to this.

My experience of TP's is that they are very comfortable making quick decisions, but then the next day they feel like they may have closed off another logical option, and thus change their minds. This is especially troublesome if you are trying to work with them. That is what I meant by wishy-washy. To me, the TP quick decision is no good (unless you are a paramedic or something), if you are not sure you like that decision and thus back out the next day. This is what I find most annoying about TPs.

In politics, which is what we were discussing (although you may have forgotten that was the broad heading of your journal entry), it is possible that the good responses you are seeing are coming from ENP traits. This would also be consistent with the political favorings of those that you were observing. I think that perhaps in this place though, it excludes the FPs because they sometimes have a difficult time deciding the best defensive maneuver.

Anyway, perhaps it behooves you to remember that we were talking about a Democrat's defense. It is going to involve F-based arguments more than T. When you disect posts line by line, sometimes I think you may miss their overlying theme. Are you a TJ? That is a trait of a TJ, being concerned that every single sentence they or anyone else, make, be actually true independently, when disected from their context.

About the I/E distinction, you said "I/E is where the dominant process is focused," and my response is yes, exactly. Think about it. If you are concerned with inner things, your thoughts occur in your head, and you only speak about them later. Es process externally, that is, they often talk as they think. If their minds are capable of intuitively putting forth a coherent statement of thought from the getgo, then they will be the quickest on the uptake of a defense.

Do you always know how you're going to finish a sentence before you start it? Most ENs don't. Their minds just go, and that particular mental ability is very well formed, so they look very very good under pressure. These are the sorts who can compose songs while performing them for the first time, complete with rhyming lyrics and perhaps with chords or noodling underneath on an instrument as well. What they do just comes out of them, and they do so well. Of course, this is just all of the ENs that I know.

If quick response is what you are after (coherent or no) EN's are where to go to get it. I think for coherence though, you need to look for an F with a well-formed T side on top of it, or a T (if it is a logical argument... I would say a T with a well-formed F side would be as good but I'm not sure many of those exist...), and if you want consistency, that is, responses that will be the same time after time, you go for a J.

About the actual slide of testing... it really does happen as your "recessive" thought patterns develop. Almost all of the children in the neighborhood I grew up in started out with a strong T or F, but then both (F's more quickly than T's) slid down the spectrum. Why? Because the T adults were constantly challenging the F children to form cohesive arguments, and the F adults were constantly challenging the T children to see things from their point of view.

WRT teachers, my dad, for instance, is an I through and through, but his disposition changes almost completely when he is faced with an opportunity to teach someone something... and no, he's not a teacher. He's a scientist. Sure, sometimes this doesn't happen because he is too busy to look up from research, but when it does, he is amazing. He can teach just about anything to just about anyone, especially if it is on a subject he has been working with. He's really good at it. But like most of the other people in this world who are good at one thing, he is good at another thing too, and that is where he is most comfortable... Interestingly... I am not sure many of the people out there who are actually teachers are truly any good at teaching...

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5865550)

You don't have time? :-) I hate to see how much you'd write if you *did* have time.

Ah, the last comment tired me out. It takes too long to write a good reply. I'll read respond later. Just wanted you to know that I intend to reply.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5872479)

There are clearly two kinds of debates. One kind involves defense based on logical analysis, the other kind involves justifying value judgements.

Hmm.. I agree on the logic versus values, but not "defense" and "justifying".

Many times debates start because one person makes a statement that the other person perceives as being incorrect. For example, if one person says, "women are as good as men in everything" my intuition flares up and says "no!". I don't necessarily "know" why my intuition said that, but do trust my intuition, and realize that it can use backup from logic to understand why I feel that.

After some logical discorse with myself I realize that I have an internal belief that everyone is different, and that any one person generally has something that noone else has. And the same can be said for groups, that any given group generally has something that another group does not have, with relation to how the group was grouped.

Thus, debate isn't neccesarily a defense, it starts off with a statement, the other person voices disagreement--for whatever the reason--and then each dicuss thier side and possible listens to the other side as well, to see if there is a way to bring great merit to one side by "proving" it, or to show that the "weaker" (to the person that considers it weaker) side still has merit.

In the political sense, the debate is on how the people watching the debate perceive it. Some people will agree with one side, no matter what, and verse-visa. But the ones in the middle are swayed by the dynmamics. But it can't be T or F, since the arguement (according to my expressed observation) is generally between T and F, and as such, the viewer must enjoy something other than the T/F itself.

TJ's clearly dominate the first category

I have noticed TPs do a fine job of that to. So, I think it is just T, not TJ.

FJ's can dominate both categories

I don't really know too many FJs like that. The SFJs I know dominate neither. Even my sister, a well-spoken ISFJ, does not dominate any arguements, and she can be quite logical. Unfortunately, I dont know any NFJs too well, so I cannot speak on that point.

I do, however, know some FPs, and specifically the NFPs can dominate both. So, I guess, I severely disagree with your FJ analysis.

I think it best to leave it as is, its just plain T/F. Ts are better at logic, but can be *very* hard-pressed to understand values. Fs are better at values, but can generally also understand logic.

Meyer's explanation of that is that value-judgements are more complex, so logic is relatively easy.

My experience of TP's is that they are very comfortable making quick decisions, but then the next day they feel like they may have closed off another logical option, and thus change their minds.

I'll disagree with you. Not on your observation, though. I appreciate those. I will just say that I have worked for ESTPs, and I find there judgements consistent. I find ESTJs, however, to be inconsistent, unless there is some set of rules that they base their judgements on.

I know quite a few INTPs as well, and they tend to make judgements a lot less (they'd rather things just fell into place) but they are consistent.

In politics, which is what we were discussing (although you may have forgotten that was the broad heading of your journal entry),

I'm an NT, I never forget the topic at hand. :-) Keirsey pointed that out.

it is possible that the good responses you are seeing are coming from ENP traits.

Nah. Watch C-SPAN. Most of them are Ss, not Ns. Best responses come from Ss, too. Seriously, watch C-SPAN and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, perhaps it behooves you to remember that we were talking about a Democrat's defense. It is going to involve F-based arguments more than T. When you disect posts line by line, sometimes I think you may miss their overlying theme. Are you a TJ? That is a trait of a TJ, being concerned that every single sentence they or anyone else, make, be actually true independently, when disected from their context.

Yes, I am a TJ. Specifically, INTJ, however, it is a J trait, not a TJ trait.

Js like defintions to be in one area. Simply, here's where the definition is, and here are the words to explain them. The P is much more concerned with giving over the actual thing, which can sometimes only be understood by looking at it from the many vantage points. Thus, Ps tend to explain things in many areas. For example, it won't be fully explained in chapter 3 where it is discussed, you also need to read chapters 4,5, and 6, to get other vantage points to truly understand it. Keirsey's book is an excellent example of that form of writing.

This is different than the T/F difference in definitions. Ts like clear succint definitions. Given the cold nature of set-in-stone lines, Fs tend to be abhorred by definitions that have set lines. They like it to be much fuzzier, and allow values or people to make the final decisions.

Therefore, picking at lines is a J trait, not a T trait.

Nonetheless, that isn't even why I pick at each line. I pick at lines for two reasons.

1) It sets context.

2) If the statemnt is not brought up for discussion, it may be passively accepted as correct, causing later statements built upon it to be accepted as true.

Number 2 may seem strange, but I find it to be of paramount importance, since I perceive that people assume agreement when I don't argue, and that to be the basis of much confusion.

If you are concerned with inner things, your thoughts occur in your head, and you only speak about them later. Es process externally, that is, they often talk as they think.

Certainly true with ESTPs that also need to discuss things with other people. But, not for your reason. They just don't like thinking about what isn't exciting, and going through it in their head, and then discussing it with others, make the latter boring. Trust me on that one. I was thrown out of mettings for complaining about my boss, an ESTP, who thought as he spoke, and got very frustrated when I burst his bubble. After more reading, and analysis of him, I found that he just wanted to think only when it weas exciting. But, when the subject was inherently exciting (e.g. how to make money) he had absolutely no problem thinking it through first and then talking it again with me.

Overall, I think everyone thinks in their head. I've argued with too many people to think otherwise. One ENTJ (who thinks he's an INTJ :-P, he only read Keisery's book, and completely misundertstood E/I the way Kiersey does) is someone I used to argue with a lot. He definitely thought in his head. My friend for many years, and ESTP, thinks before he answers me. Another acquaintince, an ESTJ, thinks before saying. In fact, me, an introvert, am typing this while thinking, exactly the opposite of what you stated. (I mean this past thought.)

I'd therefore hypothisize, the reason for talking when thinking, is excitement. Only when the discussion is inherently exciting will the person be willing to think and then talk, whether E or I.

Do you always know how you're going to finish a sentence before you start it?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Good question, now I'll have to think about that. :-)

WRT teachers, my dad, for instance, is an I through and through, but his disposition changes almost completely when he is faced with an opportunity to teach someone something

Interesting. Good point. I see where you got the original statement from. Althought my intuition tells me that isn't "teaching" as much as separation from people to involvement in thought. I'll have to think about that one. Thanx for the insight.

Re:Not to troll... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5881861)

you are a dumb fucking nigger. you will never have sex with a woman. way to be a fucking faggot! douchebag.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Liora (565268) | more than 10 years ago | (#5882323)

I think that nit-pickiness about every little sentence really is a TJ thing, perhaps even an INTJ thing, because most people I know aren't like that; indeed, only the INTJ's are. I wrote it off as a TJ thing, but it really could be that it is even more differentiated as that. I know a LOT of INTJ's. Indeed, I seem to be surrounded by them. And a lot of INTP's. It's like I have some INT pheremone...

As I stated before, I really only know one person who I know for sure is an S, and she is an ISFJ. I think my mom might be an ESFJ. And I had a boyfriend who I suspect was an ISTP. But that's it. In my whole lifetime experience, I've been surrounded by N's, so WRT your sister, if she responds like my friend K, the ISFJ, then yeah, she wouldn't do so well with media questions and referendum defenses. But all of the N's I know would do marvelously, with the exception of some INTP's, who, as you noted, would rather let things fall into place than really have to reflect on their topics [again] and answer questions.

One thing I HAVE noticed is that the people I know that are MY AGE, that are I's tend to be a LOT slower at responding to questions and to forming sentences that encompass their thoughts on a topic. They definitely have to have some time to complete their sentences in their heads. This is notsomuch the case for people around 15-20 years older than me, but this is perhaps because they've had more practice. The E's I know now are much faster. Please note: that doesn't mean that the E's responses are any better... they are just faster. But, since it was politics we were talking about, time-lag is an issue of import.

How can you disagree that in one type of debate defense involves justification of value judgements? You were noting that some Democrats seem to be very good at responding. Were they only fielding questions regarding the few logic-based topics on their agendas? Or were they justifying programs or actions whose sole defense stems from their feeler appeal? If so, they were justifying the value judgements of their party.

Maybe it's just the basic anti-postmodern in me, and maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with personality types, but when someone says "Women are as good as men in everything," I automatically think that they're talking about generalities, and that they're obviously not talking about the things that are such givens they are not worth discussing. Why would they bother even voicing those topics that are simply not worthy of debate. Example of such a point within this topic: Men are hundreds of times better than women at urinating while standing. It's a given. It's so mundane that it does NOT make that sentence above untrue. But everyone already KNOWS that. The person who was making that statement wasn't talking about urinating while standing. They were clearly talking about something else, anything else. And it is true that aside from those hundreds of little givens (indeed, "properties" of the set "men" vs. the set "women"), that women are as good as men in everything. See, you're wasting breath if you have to bother prefacing these words with "most" to state "most women are as good as most men in most everything."

It just seems to me that there are a lot of little things that everyone knows, and everyone knows them so well, they are not even worthy of discourse, or even elaborative discourse intended to ensure exclusion of such items from present conversation. It just seems to me that people ought to have some intuitive filter that declares such to them so they don't have to be nitpicky about every word in every sentence. I do NOT sympathize with Cryptonomicon's Lawrence Pritchard Waterhouse in this respect. It seems like being so deliberate involves exterting altogether too much effort. And the people around me seem to support such an assertion.

And that is where older people drive me nuts. Many of them tell me something and I can tell because of all of those little things that older generations have to insert before this or that what they is saying before they are halfway through the sentence, and I just wish they'd stop midsentence and get to the next one, because I already understand the point. Obviously those people know how they're going to finish their sentences before they start, because they have to think of every single possible implication or interpretation of the sentence and then insert a word to clarify at the appropriate junctures.

Just some thoughts...

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5883301)

How can you disagree that in one type of debate defense involves justification of value judgements?

Because although it starts off because of it, the actual debate is to "prove", or to bring merit to the "weaker" side.

Were they only fielding questions regarding the few logic-based topics on their agendas? Or were they justifying programs or actions whose sole defense stems from their feeler appeal? If so, they were justifying the value judgements of their party.

I believe it was more like:

R: Your idea will cost too much money and cause dependency on the system.
D: Your defense of the idea is to pad your wallet. How can you deny helping these people. Something America is about.
R: We can help them by not causing dependency. It will be hard at first, but they will eventually make it on their own.
D: We can stat another program to help them move off onto their own.

It was years ago, so I can't remember the specifics, but, IIRC, there was little defense, and much more promotion.

It just seems to me that there are a lot of little things that everyone knows, and everyone knows them so well, they are not even worthy of discourse

Such as that people used to believe the world was flat? :-)

It just seems to me that people ought to have some intuitive filter that declares such to them so they don't have to be nitpicky about every word in every sentence.

Unless those sentences arer steps top an ultimate point.

IIRC, in The Republic after Socrates goes through one arguement step by step, Adeimantus says that while he could not argue on any individual step, he *knew* that the result was incorrect. At which point Socrates said it was a good point, and proceeded to go through it step by step, in order to find the one step that was incorrect (or that took the result beyond belief).

Although I found most of The Republic to be silly (I think I got up to Book Six), I've always enjoyed that vignette.

and I just wish they'd stop midsentence and get to the next one, because I already understand the point.

Ditto! :-)

Though most people seem to hate it when I cut them off midsentence.

Obviously those people know how they're going to finish their sentences before they start, because they have to think of every single possible implication or interpretation of the sentence and then insert a word to clarify at the appropriate junctures.

Hmm.....

Not going to say either way on that one. But it sounds interesting and worthy of further thought.

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 10 years ago | (#5862124)

  • All Fs can understand logic.


I disagree. I have found many people who cannot understand logic at all, thus classified as neither Fs or Ts.

The "ditzy blonde" stereotype comes to mind (yes, there are actually people who fit it).

I have also had the pleasure of attending an Intro to Logic class (as a for fun elective, heh) which is mostly taken by the liberal artsy students who cannot or do not want to pass the prerequisite math class. (notice, singular there).

Fairly entertaining watching them struggle horribly with the week long take home final. I got mine done in a little over 2 hour.

So all in all I would have to disagree, many people SUCK at logic. It is not just an unwillingness (nice little dream though, "oh it isn't that the majority doesn't understand me, it is just that they are advanced past me! Well if it gives ya something to live up to I guess. . . .)

Re:Not to troll... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5865328)

Well, maybe if they tried. :-)

The idea is that they can understand logic, not necessarily apply it.

istj (1)

eglamkowski (631706) | more than 10 years ago | (#5854980)

I'm an ISTJ. While I despise democrats, I'm not really enamored with republicans either. I just dislike republicans less.

One of the reasons I view republicans as the lesser of two evils is because I always feel like I know exactly where they stand on the issues. Their platform is plainly clear for the whole world to see, and even if you don't like it, at least you know what it is. Democrats change daily with the opinion polls, and that's no way to run a country!

ISTJ: Liberal and proud of it. (1)

Some Woman (250267) | more than 10 years ago | (#5855248)

I am as well an ISTJ, but I find many Republican ideals to be morally and logically reprehensible (they seem to use their logic very short-sightedly in my opinion). If you had to label me as either Republican or Democrat, my views are much closer to those of the Democratic Party when it had views (of late they seem to be simultaneously moving right and becoming more wishy-washy).

I think that people can use logic to draw whatever conclusion they like, and wind up supporting either (or neither) party.

liberals and conservatives... (1)

eglamkowski (631706) | more than 10 years ago | (#5855602)

Of course, most conservatives today are really liberals in the classic sense of the word, while most liberals today are really marxists or socialists. The whole spectrum has shifted left dramatically. There's not really many classic conservatives in america today (or anywhere else, for that matter).

By classical liberalism, I mean John Locke, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Anthony de Jasay, et. al.

Where modern liberalism means Hobbes, Rousseau, Proudhon, Marx and the like.

Classical Conservativism starts with Edmund Burke and can be seen in Joseph de Maistre or Henri Corbin or G. K. Chesterton.

Neoconservatives are closer to being true conservatives then modern liberals are to being classical liberals :-p

Besides... (1)

eglamkowski (631706) | more than 10 years ago | (#5855673)

I didn't say I really liked republican ideals, just that I could better identify what their ideals were. That alone makes me yield them at least a smidgen of respect. I have no idea what democrats want to do on any given day, except maybe protect the right to an abortion (about the only constant I can identify in democrats, but even then I know a lot of catholics who are democrats and they obviously don't support abortion, so who the hell knows! I that's what I'm talking about!).

Re:Besides... (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5855831)

Exactly. Logic has a general consistency. Values change by what is popular. And that is because, Logic finds truth impersonally, and Values, personally. So, Value-judgements care about other people's values, and as such, follows the public sways.

I think both should be used though. Logic to define the laws, and to judge them. Then Values, making sure we don't take logic too far, and to make sure that people get the help they need.

the other way around (1)

turg (19864) | more than 10 years ago | (#5860867)

It seems to me that your observation is actually that Rebublicans tend to be T's and Democrats tend to be F's. I don't know if it follows that T's tend to be Republicans and F's tend to be Democrats.

Re:the other way around (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5861744)

No, actually, my observation is the latter.

I came to it because when I started reading about the types (years after I had watched C-SPAN (C-SPAN was like 94-95, I read the book 02 maybe)). I just started typing people and trying to guess things about them. One thing I perceived/imagined that I was more consistant on was Republican/Democrat.

Anyway, I am saying it here so people will argue with me and show me where I am incorrect. Or at least for some entertaining dialog on the subject. :-)

Re:the other way around (1)

turg (19864) | more than 10 years ago | (#5862288)

Okay, I'm not an American so maybe I'm just out of touch here. Do over 50% of Americans have a registered party affiliation? I guess part of my reason was that I expected that most people (T's or F's) tend to be neither.

Re:the other way around (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5865355)

Probably not. Only some states have registration. Also, the US is mostly a two-party system. There are other parties, but mostly without significant representation. That leads people to vote for one of the major two parties, even when they don't necesserily agree with them, because they don't want to "waste" their vote.

maybe it's rights -- not type. (1)

memfree (227515) | more than 10 years ago | (#5864241)

I don't see a strong correlation between Thinking/Feeling and Rep/Dem. I've known more than a few Republicans of both genders who were _very_ much in the 'Feeling' camp. _IF_ women tend to be Democrats, then, I'd expect that it has more to do with which party will favor women's rights. Personally, I favor keeping abortions legal so we don't return to the days of illegal clinics where the clients die. I find the idea of _getting_ an abortion morally reprehensible, but the alternatives don't sound isn't any better (to me, anyway).

You know how the 14th Amendment supposedly made all races equal under the law? I'm still waiting for women to get that (text of ERA [now.org] <-- watch out: loaded, mega-pro-feminist site). Luckily for me, the women's movements of the 60's/70's [infoplease.com] : helped legalize contraceptives, helped make it illegal to pay me less than a male gets paid doing the same job, and then (with the help of the Supreme Court) barred advertising jobs as only open to male candidates.

If you, personally, belonged to a group that did not have the right to get jobs they/you were qualified to do, don't you think you'd vote for those supporting your right to work? To be treated equally?

I've got no problem voting Republican, but I know more than one woman who will not vote for any pro-life candidates (more of who are Republican) because those who've historically been against abortion were also those who've wanted to keep women in marginalized roles.

Re:maybe it's rights -- not type. (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5865542)

_IF_ women tend to be Democrats,

Women tend to be Democrats. :-) Certainly more so than men. Given women the right to vote help the Democratic party significantly. Being more women are F than men (small studies show %70 of Women to be F as opposed to only %40 of men) I wonder if there is a correlation.

I'd expect that it has more to do with which party will favor women's rights.

That depends on what you consider "rights". Then again, I think the whole concept of "rights" is ridiculous.

The Democrats believe in defining a group and helping them, where the Republicans want to treat everyone equally.

Personally, I favor keeping abortions legal so we don't return to the days of illegal clinics where the clients die.

So, maybe we should legalize robbery so robbers don't need guns. Certainly, that would lower the death rate.

but the alternatives don't sound isn't any better (to me, anyway).

Well, "the end justifies the means". I do not believe in that mode of thought. I think, you do what is correct. And if some murderous women want to kill their babies in an illegal murder laboratory, they deserve whatever befalls them.

You know how the 14th Amendment supposedly made all races equal under the law?

In a sense. More importantly (from my point of view) it removed segregation. The point is the constitution and the amendments, do not take action, they bar action by others. I think that is an extremely important distinction.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I'm still waiting for women to get that

Well, as Rush Liumbaugh points out, groups have a hard time being accepted when they are a "group". By having special "rights" for women, it may be a short-time win, but, overall, it stigmatizes, and the people, that is in this case the men, will never accept them fully.

helped legalize contraceptives,

And that is a terrible thing. For, in most cases, the dominant religions consider that a form of murder. Not murder itself, just a lighter form of it.

helped make it illegal to pay me less than a male gets paid doing the same job,

Which is a good thought, but a terrible thing. This will probably never happen, but it is a thought. If I ever open up a company, and I decide to have employees, I will probably not advertise for them. And, I will keep all employees male, and similar. For that is the only way not to be sued when someone doesn't get a raise. This is not to get back at the legislation. It's just to save myself from lawsuits by the disgruntled, who don't asgree with my decisions.

and then (with the help of the Supreme Court) barred advertising jobs as only open to male candidates.

That's where word of mouth comes in. :-)

If you, personally, belonged to a group that did not have the right to get jobs they/you were qualified to do, don't you think you'd vote for those supporting your right to work? To be treated equally?

Not really. If any company barred Jews from working there, I probably would not want to go there. I don't want to force myself on them, I don't want to give them reason to hate me more, I'd rather laugh at them when I do better than them, and, most importantly, I want to feel that I got there because of me, and not because of someone else's sympathy.

(On a side note, what got me a bit peturbed was when the workers of the Detroit News went on strike. It suprised me that that with so many talented people, that they didn't just start their own paper, in an employee owned company.)

because those who've historically been against abortion were also those who've wanted to keep women in marginalized roles.

I just think they should go back to only allowing land-owners to vote. And, IIRC, that was not limited to men.

Re:maybe it's rights -- not type. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5882076)

you are a dumb fucking nigger. you will never have sex with a woman. way to be a fucking faggot! douchebag - FUCK YOU!!!!

Re:maybe it's rights -- not type. (1)

memfree (227515) | more than 10 years ago | (#5884250)

The Democrats believe in defining a group and helping them, where the Republicans want to treat everyone equally.
Ya know, my biggest problem with replying to people avidly in one camp or another is having to defend sides I don't like. And here I am doing it again...

Both parties say they want equality. Republicans see no need to add even more laws to the ever growing pile. More laws limits freedom and makes government even more unwieldy. Democrats, while overly fond of spelling things out in law, have something point on this particular issue because there still _are_ laws that use sex-specific language for things where sex should not have import. Women's Rights groups want such laws to be overridden.

My solution: repeal all amendments that refer to any sort of genetic differences and replace them with something like (uhg, this needs rephrasing):
  1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of any genetic trait.
  2. Clause #1 cannot be used to forbid laws categorizing individuals based on specific abilities or inabilities that might stem from a genetic trait as long as the ability or inability is the central issue*.

*With 2, I'm trying to say: States can pass laws saying, "If you're blind, we can't deny you the right to vote, but we CAN deny you a driver's license as long as vision is central to driving (but not if some future-car 'sees' for drivers)." Or even, "State Hospital X will provide free aid to mentally handicapped, but it cannot refuse people damaged by head injuries"

I can imagine a ridiculous problem with the above for trying to prevent a beach from going topless while allowing men to do so. But I don't even know how current rules on that can stop a transgendered person from baring silicone breasts as long as the nether parts remained male (not that the person wouldn't get beaten bloody simply for being a freak).

I'm going WAY too long here, but the short story is: I don't think women want special rights. I think they want existing laws that deny equality to be automatically ruled illegal and struck down.

So, maybe we should legalize robbery so robbers don't need guns.
No slippery slopes for me, thanks. Robbery is theft of another's possessions. The only time that applies to pregnancy is when a male rapes a female and thereby deprives her possession of a choice in whether to risk pregnancy. In that case, making abortion illegal is punishing the victim -- not the robber. In all other cases of pregnancy, there is no theft. Or are you suggesting that pregnancy itself is a crime?

groups have a hard time being accepted when they are a "group"
True, but the goal is to remove laws that include grouping. Pick a better wway to ban such laws, and I'll be on board.

[legalized contraceptives is a terrible thing] <-- paraphrased

Religion is wonderful, and I'd never give it up, but I'd also never call logical.

There have been studies showing that females of reproductive age and who are not attempting to avoid pregnancy will their fertilized eggs spontaneously abort anywhere from 20%-75% of the time. Different studies account from the wildly varying percentages. All studies agree that there is a very frequent incidence of fertilized egg death. All show that most such spontaneous, natural abortions before a 2nd menstrual cycle would have occurred.

It is hard for me to categorize contraceptives as murder when God plans for so many of them. I mean: if it is God's plan that at least a 5th of all humans never get past, say, undifferentiated cells or a nervous system, then I can't expect God calls those cell groups He's killing off as 'human'. But all that is part of a different argument, and I've no time to deal with it now.

Contraceptives are WONDERFUL for both sexes. Teen hormones aren't going to change (and you can thank or curse God for that as you see fit), so the most reliable way to keep kids from birthing kids of their own is going to be contraceptives.

If any company barred Jews from working there, I probably would not want to go there.

Which would be fine IF you could get hired elsewhere. But what would you do if every location you have the means to reach refuses to hire you because you are Jewish? Or if it was still Law that you could not work the land or engage in the Crafts, and could only work in certain 'lesser' fields such as money changing? Would you find that just and equitable? And if your Jewish status was still enough reason to discount your court-sworn testimony in favor of even the least reputable of Christian Anglo-Saxons? If such laws resurfaced, *I'd* want them struck down even though you _could_ choose to escape anti-Semitic restrictions by becoming Christian.

Some of you're other remarks were amusing, but I've no need to argue them line by line. I just want 2 things:
1) acknowledgement that it is not irrational to vote for whatever party cseems more likely to support the legislation you want.
2) a way to remove laws that segregate based on genetics.

Re:maybe it's rights -- not type. (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5885297)

replying to people avidly in one camp or another is having to defend sides I don't like.

I know the feeling.

First, I consider myself somewhat Liberitarian. However, whenever I express that I need to explain that I don't mean the Liberitarian Party, which is just bunch of kooks. Also, I generally agree with the Republican way of doing things. Not because I think it is best, but rather, it is best for the times. Ultimately, however, I would promote a more Liberitarian approach. (Probably somewhere in between Liberitarians and Republicans.)

Republicans see no need to add even more laws to the ever growing pile.

Also, many Republicans believe in a slower process. The belief is, that it takes longer, but would bear true equality in the end.

On your gender-specific language. Some is specific to the gender. Others merely use the usual language references, that use female for inanimate, and male for animate (unless the animate (individual or group) is known to be (completely) female).

Equality of Rights

That is the first mistake. There is no such thing as "rights". The only thing the Constitution does is *limit* the government. Thus, the law, as you may put it, should be that the government not be able to discrimite, by law or otherwise, against anyone or any group, unless the point discriminated upon is a main point. Such as your example of blind people driving.

However, as an aside, I disagree with that to some extent. But we can discuss that in another JE. :-)

trying to prevent a beach from going topless while allowing men to do so.

Very true. And beaches should either be topless/bottomless for both genders, or have the clothing requirements on both. I find topless men as equally abhorrent as topless women.

but the short story is: I don't think women want special rights. I think they want existing laws that deny equality to be automatically ruled illegal and struck down.

Which is fine. However, some *also* want the equality process fast-forwarded, and that is where many fiercly disagree.

Robbery... pregnancy... deprives her possession of a choice...

I did not mean to compare the two. I merely meant to show that we do not make things better by allowing an illegal activity.

making abortion illegal is punishing the victim...Or are you suggesting that pregnancy itself is a crime?

Unfortunately, fetal-murder has been so skewed, that people forgot was the opposition was about. Allowing some misguided indivduals to bar it except in cases of rape. That is ridiculous, and those people are doing nothing but forcing their will on others.

The issue with fetal-murder is murder. If it is murder, in no case can it ever be allowed, unless the mother will die during childbirth. If it is not murder, women should be able to do that which they want, regardless of what anyone else thinks (unless the husband wants it, becuase it may be considered joint-property).

The issue *is* black and white. It either is murder or it isn't. This whole notion of "rights" and what it does to the mother and the like, is irrelevant.

True, but the goal is to remove laws that include grouping.

I am not as confident as you are of that.

Pick a better way to ban such laws, and I'll be on board.

Promote classes that teach people how to do it, and encourage companies to advertise their practices. With the knowledge to do it, and the people being able to make their own choices, what could be better?

Religion is wonderful, and I'd never give it up, but I'd also never call logical.

So much worse for logic. :-)

calls those cell groups He's killing off as 'human'.

But that is the result of inaction. Using something is action. That is the difference. A lot more is allowed when no action is taken.

As an example. (Person) A chains himself so he cannot move and attaches himself to a control with a button. The first press of the button puts him in the water the second press takes him out. B comes along and presses the button (to drown him), C just stands by, holding his finger over the button, but does nothing. A dies. Did B commit murder? Did C commit murder? Notice how (in)action makes a *big* difference.

Teen hormones aren't going to change

But they can easily be controlled if society wouldn't address them all the time.

so the most reliable way to keep kids from birthing kids of their own is going to be contraceptives.

Abstenence works every time its tried. No other method can claim that.

But what would you do if every location you have the means to reach refuses to hire you because you are Jewish?

I'd start my own business. As the Jews did after the Papal convention in Constantinople that forbade Jews from most jobs.

Would you find that just and equitable?

That's more of a religious question. Personally, I might leave town. However, if they forbade that (as many did), I feel reason to complain.

Some of you're other remarks were amusing

Thank you. :-)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...