Journal Chacham's Journal: Thought: (Mostly) Ts are Republicans, Fs are Democrats 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.
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.
Not to troll... (Score:1)
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 swit
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
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,
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
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
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
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,
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
I'll take that back. Because it depends on what type of verbal skills.
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
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
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
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
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
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
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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 d
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
As I stated before, I really only know one person who I know for sure is an S, and she is an ISFJ. I thi
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
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
Re:Not to troll... (Score:1)
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 h
Re:Not to troll... (Score:2)
The idea is that they can understand logic, not necessarily apply it.
istj (Score:1)
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. (Score:2)
I think that people can use logic to draw whatever conclusion they like, and wind up supporting either (or neither) party.
liberals and conservatives... (Score:1)
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 lik
Besides... (Score:1)
Re:Besides... (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:the other way around (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:the other way around (Score:2)
maybe it's rights -- not type. (Score:1)
Re:maybe it's rights -- not type. (Score:2)
Women tend to be Democrats.
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 beli
Re:maybe it's rights -- not type. (Score:1)
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
Re:maybe it's rights -- not type. (Score:2)
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 betwee