This is in response to the thread titled ‘Should Integralists Storm The Religous Battlefield’.
I’ve been involved in a thread at IIDB, an atheist discussion board. Its a thread about Acharya’s theories about astrotheology which is related to comparative mythology, and Acharya has posted in response some. She has received much criticism and nitpicking which is common on atheist forums. She hasn’t taken it well and probably won’t post anymore in the thread or maybe even in the forum. Recently, the same thing happened with Earl Doherty who is another biblical scholar. He posted on IIDB for a long time, but now has declared he will never post there again.
I find it a bit annoying and I don’t know if I could ever entirely get used to this kind of behavior. However, not everyone there is like this, and I do enjoy forums where there are many intelligent and knowledgeable people. I have a few thoughts about harsh criticalness.
(1) I do think some people there could use an integral perspective. Critically challenging new theories is important for scholarship, but being nice is important for human relations. Also, I feel this critical attitude is narrow and often misses the point the central issue or the bigger picture. Disproving a single claim or piece of evidence doesn’t disprove a theory or discredit the entire scholarly credentials of the theorist. There are many ways to think about a theory, and criticism by itself often lacks insight and can miss the larger context.
Anyways, if actual scholars start avoiding such a forum, that would severely hamper open discourse. In what way is this actually being helpful?
A forum like IIDB may be a more extreme example of this attitude, but its far from unusual. Scholars such as Acharya and Doherty have also received plenty of harsh criticism from mainstream scholarship as well. Peer review tends to reinforce conventional opinions and discourages innovation. Any new theory is seen as suspect. Only the alternative views of people like Robert M. Price get some respect because they came to those views after already being established in the mainstream. Even so, Price’s ideas have received harsh criticism from some of the amateur scholars on the board. There is this attitude amongst some there that if they disagree with a theory, then they automatically dismiss it. Something is either true or false, and uncertainty or mere probability is never to be admitted.
It makes me understand why Wilber has been so committed to getting his work into academia.
(2) My experience at IIDB reminds me of my experience on an INTP forum. INTP types (and NT types in general) can be very combative and nitpicky. An INTP has Introverted Thinking as a dominant function which means Extraverted Feeling is their inferior. A less developed or less balanced INTP can really suck at relating well to other people, and this is multiplied when you get a group of NTs together. What INTPs are good at is looking for logical consistency and honing in on any discrepant details. Introverted Thinking is largely hidden as its turned inward and so its difficult for other types to see the internal standard they’re using to judge. All that is seen directly is their secondary function Extraverted Intuition which allows them to see all of the possibilities. In the case of nitpicking, Extraverted Intuition is serving Introverted Thinking and thus they relentlessly seek out all potential errors.
This is what an INTP is good at. They honestly feel that they’re being helpful and they are to an extent. But if they haven’t developed other aspects of themselves, this talent can be problematic for relating well.
Atheist forums tend to attract many INTPs partly because of an NT interest in computers and debate, partly because Introverts spend more time doing solitary activities such as web browsing, and partly because NPs(Ne) love to discuss ideas endlessly. So, quite probably most of the critical people on IIDB are INTPs or some NT type, but also possibly some INFPs trying to conform to an NT environment. On top of their possible personality types, many of them have spent their whole lives studying ancient texts and biblical studies. Its what they know and its what they’re good at. They feel so certain because they’ve dedicated their lives to it and so they’re personally invested in the conclusions they’ve come to.
I have become more used to personality styles different than mine. I’m much better than I used to be at relating well with those I conflict with or disagree with. I have tried to stay evenhanded in the IIDB thread and have been mostly successful. I’ve tried to redirect the discussion back to the core issue and away from nitpicking, but that has been less successful. I’ve observed Acharya in videos and other places on the web, and I’d guess she is an NF type like me which would explain why she doesn’t have a thick skin towards criticalness, and why she gets critical in return when she is emotionally worked up.
I’m an INFP and Extraverted Thinking is my inferior, and as such my judgment of criticalness is very biased. Criticalness really gets to me after a while, and it takes great awareness on my part not to get emotionally pulled into it. I’d rather discuss possibilities rather than debate details. I’d rather find where I agree with someone rather than look for reasons that the other person is wrong. But this is a typical NF attitude and so I realize that others are different.
If I understand why someone acts the way they do, then its easier for me to accept their behavior. There is a person on the INTP forum who always annoyed me. I couldn’t understand why he was accepted there even to the point of being a moderator. An INTP finally explained it to me in a way that I could understand. This guy wasn’t a psychologically healthy person, but he was psychologically disturbed in a typical INTP way. They accepted him because they could understand him. As I wasn’t an INTP, it didn’t matter that I didn’t get along with him on an INTP forum.
I see IIDB in a similar light. Some people there are not perfectly balanced people, but neither am I. However, they’ve found their niche in the world. They can be respected for being critical on an atheist board. So, why should I let it bother me. They’re only doing what they know how to do, and I admit that they do it well. Maybe such people serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things.
20% are NFs
approximately equally divided between the four NF types
except less than 1% of ENFPs
12% are one of the 8 Sensation(S) types
So, why would an NT be so much more likely to belong to this kind of forum?
Are NT types more likely to be atheist?
Or are NT types more likely to want to debate about atheist views?
[QUOTE=ApostateAbe;5070973]I believe that the correlation between atheism and INTJ/INTP is not a trivial thing (I am an INTP).
The Christian forum poll is less clear, since it neglects the E/I. It does at least indicate that the N types predominate. But the members of ChristianForums.com are split between NF and NT. INTJ/INTP are 43% at a max at ChristianForums.com, but here it is a whopping 60%. The polls at the INTJ forum and INTP forum are even more striking. Majority of both are atheist or agnostic.[/QUOTE]
I was just thinking about how a higher percentage of Thinking types are male.
Accordingly, the majority of people on IIDB are probably male.
There is a reason this came to mind. I’ve suspected a higher percentage of people on Integral boards are NT. And I’ve heard it said several times that there are more males than females around this place which isn’t something I can personally verify. Also, there is way more heated debate here than on forums I belong to that have a majority of NF types.
So, what is the correlation between intellectuality, heated debate, atheism, NT personality types, and the male gender?
Why shouldn’t atheism and integralism appeal to SF females?
Males are 72% of the population there.
IIDB is the same kind of forum and so it would probably be similar.
I’m wondering how true this is for most people who are on the web.
I’m uncertain about what forums would attract more females… maybe spirituality/religious forums?
I did a search on Integral and came up with nothing. I did a search on Ken Wilber and only found a few comments in passing in the last several months. This is pretty significant when you consider that this is one of the more popular boards that attracts well-read intellectual types. This demonstrates how integral theory is still an extremely isolated field of study.
The other thing I noticed there seemed to cross the boundaries of thread topics. There is a heavy philosophical emphasis to the whole place with a distinct lack of much discussion of psychology. Spirituality gets talked about, but mostly just as philosophy. The philosophy emphasis creates a heavy focus on language. In every serious thread, the definitions or proper translation of words gets debated to a fine degree. Integral theorists love to argue about words, but the people on IIDB put integralists to shame in this area.
Chiron,
“After all, both sides fought on what they thought was the same battleground, but they were two totally different battlegrounds, on different levels.”
This is a good way to put it. I find this often happens in discussions. People not only are arguing for different perspectives, but they’re arguing from different perspectives. When you mix in all the factors that make up an individual(personality, moral and intellectual development, cultural background, etc) you can get a very mixed group of people in a discussion. I wish I knew how to bridge such differences, but I haven’t figured it out beyond trying to be more accepting.
the problem as i see there was exactly as you pegged in marmalade, people with different worldviews, diff levels, diff types. communication becomes difficult
an integral appproach would help (someone who can bridge the comm gap)
another problem is the nature of the concepts.
atheism is a reactionary confusion
and religion often is dogma
so two dogmatic and limited postions
limit the possible scope of discussion and possible agreement.
nature of the beastS
Permalink Reply by Bill on January 23, 2008 at 6:57pm
Well, something else to keep in mind, is that all human groups tend to have internal “policing” behaviors, and it’s common to see a kind of tribal ingrouping/outgrouping struggle happening with every group.
I can’t see I’ve ever seen a human group that didn’t practice this kind of internal policing, no matter how advanced or correct they claim to be..
So, the ‘criticalism’ you refer to isn’t just based in, for instance, personality types, or the nature of the ideas being discussed, or the educational backgrounds of the people discussing – it’s got a stronger, older base in ancient hominid group behaviors.
I’m fascinated by both horizontal and vertical models, but most integral discussions emphasize the vertical. What I’m curious about is how the whole picture becomes more complex when the two are combined.
As for types, see figure 3, which uses the enneagram as an example. What I have done here is take only one developmental module or stream (it can be anything–morals, cognition, defenses, etc.), and I have listed the eight or so levels or waves of development through which this particular stream will tend to unfold (using Spiral Dynamics as an example of the waves). At each level I have drawn the enneagram as an example of what might be called a horizontal typology, or a typology of the personality types that can exist at almost any vertical level of development. The point is that a person can be a particular type (using Jungian types, Myers-Briggs, the enneagram, etc.) at virtually any of the levels. Thus, if a person is, say, predominately enneagram type 5, then as they develop they would be purple 5, red 5, blue 5, and so on (again, not in a rigid linear fashion, but in a fluid and flowing mesh). [20]
Figure 3
And this can occur in any of the lines. For example, in the moral line, a person might be predominately enneagram type 7 at the green wave in the context of the workplace; under stress, the person might move to type 1 at the orange wave (or even blue wave); cognitively, the person might be type 4 at turquoise, and so on. Notice, however, that what the enneagram alone cannot spot is the shift in vertical levels; an orange 7 under stress might go to orange 1, but under real stress, the orange 7 will regress to blue, then purple. These are not just different types, but different levels of types. Again, by combining horizontal typologies with vertical typologies, we can make use of second-tier constructions for a more integral view.
For many radical feminists, male and female orientations also constitute a type. Based mostly on work by Carol Gilligan and Deborah Tannen, the idea is that the typical male orientation tends to be more agentic, autonomous, abstract, and independent, based on rights and justice; whereas the female orientation tends to be more permeable, relational, and feelingful, based on care and responsibility. Gilligan, recall, agrees that females proceed through three (or four) hierarchical stages of development, and these are essentially the same three (or four) hierarchical stages or waves through which males proceed (namely, preconventional, conventional, postconventional, and integrated).
The reason that many people, especially feminists, still incorrectly believe that Gilligan denied a female hierarchy of development is that Gilligan found that males tend to make judgments using ranking or hierarchical thinking, whereas women tend to make judgments using linking or relational thinking (what I summarize as agency and communion, respectively). But what many people overlooked is that Gilligan maintained that the female orientation itself proceeds through three (or four) hierarchical stages –from selfish to care to universal care to integrated. Thus, many feminists confused the idea that females tend not to think hierarchically with the idea that females do not develop hierarchically; the former is true, the latter is false, according to Gilligan herself. [21] (Why was Gilligan so widely misread and distorted in this area? Because the green meme eschews and marginalizes hierarchies in general, and thus it literally could not perceive her message accurately.)
As you will see in The Eye of Spirit , contained in this volume, I have summarized this research by saying that men and women both proceed through the same general waves of development, but men tend to do so with an emphasis on agency, women with an emphasis on communion.
This approach to gender development allows us to utilize the extensive contributions of developmental studies, but also supplement them with a keener understanding of how females evolve “in a different voice” through the great waves of existence. In the past, it was not uncommon to find orthodox psychological researchers defining females as “deficient males” (i.e., females ”lack” logic, rationality, a sense of justice; they are even defined by “penis envy,” or desiring that which they lack). Nowadays it is not uncommon to find, especially among feminists, the reverse prejudice: males are defined as “deficient females” (i.e., males “lack” sensitivity, care, relational capacity, embodiment, etc.).
Well, we might say, a plague on both houses. With this more integral approach, we can trace development through the great waves and streams of existence, but also recognize that males and females might navigate that great River of Life using a different style, type, or voice. This means that we can still recognize the major waves of existence–which, in fact, are gender-neutral–but we must fully honor the validity of both styles of navigating those waves. [22]
Finally, a person at virtually any stage of development, in virtually any line, of virtually any type, can have an altered state or peak experience , including those that are called spiritual experiences, and this can have a profound effect on their consciousness and its development. Thus, the idea that spiritual experiences can only occur at higher stages is incorrect. However, in order for altered states to become permanent traits (or structures), they need to enter the stream of enduring development. [23]
“I’m fascinated by both horizontal and vertical models, but most integral discussions emphasize the vertical. What I’m curious about is how the whole picture becomes more complex when the two are combined.”
I won’t address the rest of your post right now, but there is a very simple answer to this opening statement. The vertical occurs through horizontal or what Wilber calls translational interactions. Molecules emerge through translational interactions of atoms, cells through translational interactions of molecules, tissues through cell interactions and so on, including societies emerging from translational interactions of individuals. At every level, emergence of the next higher level begins with translational interactions of holons at that level.
I wasn’t thinking about it in that way. The term ‘translational interactions’ sounds intriguing. I’d like to go more into it. Do you have any nice quotes or links where this term is explained further?
Just do a search in Integral Spirituality or any other Wilber book, you will find lots of references to translation. Your post, which I take it is a quote from Wilber, treats types as properties of individuals, but of course they are social properties as well, in fact, first and foremost social properties. Any type by any classification one cares to mention is basically a description of the way an individual interacts with other individuals, and even more, with society. These are translational interactions, the glue so to speak which holds societies together.
Wilber uses the Enneagram as his example. As a side note, I’ve heard a theory that the personality aspect of this system may have been borrowed from Jung, but I don’t know if this is true. I have see other correlations between the two systems also. However, the Enneagram doesn’t have much research behind it. Most Enneagram theories focus on it as a model of defense mechanisms. Whereas, the MBTI is looking at deeper cognitive structures that are largely inborn. Wilber shows how a person may have different Enneagram types in different situations depending on such things as which level of which line… but, theoretically, someone’s MBTI type should remain the same. I’d like to see how development over a lifetime influences how people test on the MBTI.
Here is a research paper that compares MBTI with the AMSP. I’m not familiar with the AMSP, but it says that it focuses on the propensity of people to change with situations. So, it seems comparable to how Wilber is presenting the Enneagram here.
This paper doesn’t go into any developmental models, but the focus on changeability in the AMSP gives room for a developmental perspective. However, there are some theories in typology about development.
First off, a brief primer. There are 8 Jungian functions. According to some theorists(eg Beebe), all types use all functions, but simply use them in different ways. There is the matter of whether a type is used consciously or not and this relates to development, and there is a specific order that each type will likely develop each function. This is highly theoretical and I don’t know what research has been done on it. Another theory presents how each function itself develops which is equivalent to saying that each function represents a separate line of development. There is some correlation of MBTI with models of psychological development.
For instance, how the Judging functions(Thinking and Feeling) have much similarity with Gilligan’s work on gender differences and the hierarchy of development that either gender will tend to follow. Typology brings a slightly different slant to this. Statistics have shown that their is a slight preference of males for Thnking and females for Feeling. Also, Thinking males tend to have stronger Thinking preferences than Thinking females, and Feeling females tend to have stronger preference for Feeling than Feeling males.
However, this gender preference is only around 60-70%, and that leaves a good portion that doesn’t fit the social expectations. David Deidda recognizes that gender patterns are only general. He says that his advice for men doesn’t apply to less masculine men and does apply to more masculine women. As a Feeling guy, I don’t entirely resonate with his advice.
I’ve looked at Gilligan’s work before, but not lately. Going by the above quote of Wilber, it seems her description of gender also incorporates a Intuition function bias for males(ie abstraction). But research has shown that men are no more likely to be abstract than women. Its only been in recent time that our society has started to idealize the man who is capable of abstraction. So, I’m not sure about this part of this model.
I did a really silly thing. I just made a brief comment on a Christian’s Youtube video. I really didn’t want to discuss anything, but he responded and I responded. I knew from the get-go that I desired not such a “discussion” (if an exchange with an apologist could be called that).
I quickly disentangled myself from the pointless spiderweb of verbiage that apologists are so capable of tirelessly weaving. I’ve dealt with enough of them to instantly realize when its not going anywhere. I’m a person of curiosity and I find myself utterly bewildered by someone who has made up their mind before I even say anything. They just know they’re right.
Shouldn’t apologists have better things to do on Christmas than argue about Jesus? Shouldn’t they be spreading Christ’s Good message of Love or maybe ladling soup to the homeless while preaching to them about their sinful souls?
This particular apologist was one of the worst varieties. I’ve come across this exact type many times before, and they’re all very predictable. Its almost a personality type. This type of apologist doesn’t tend to rant unless you really get them riled up. They’re actually very intellectual with an aloof self-certainty. They’re mostly harmless in that they’re not that annoying except if you’re ever experienced banging your head against their brickwall. They have this intellectual inner certainty that reminds me of Introverted Intuition, but they have this outwardly congenial nature that doesn’t allow them to ruffle easily which makes me think of an INFJ Christian I know from another site… mostly a nice guy if a bit difficult to connect with.
If you’re feeling patient, you can sometimes have a good discussion with this type as they’ve tended to read a lot and they think very deeply. The problem is that their thinking is somewhat narrow and plodding, and they have strong beliefs which at least tend to be somewhat interesting in their uniqueness. They usually have some favorite obscure Christian philosopher, but it won’t bother them that you’ve never heard of the person. They’re used to not being understood even by other Christians.
They might secretly pride themselves on their idiosyncracies somewhat, but mostly they seem humble in a laid back way. Its hard to unsettle them or change their minds. If you try to have a debate with them, you’ll just go round and round. In certain ways, they’re very conventional in that they just don’t see or don’t care about what exists outside of their narrow focus (definitely no sign of Extraverted Intuition). You’re more likely to have an interesting conversation with them if you simply limit yourself to their interests.
They can keep up an argument if necessary, but they don’t really care to get worked up. Even though their beliefs are strong, they keep them mostly to themselves. They’ll often talk about more peripheral issues because that which truly matters to them is such a deep and profound experience for them.
They’re very scholarly with a typical pedantic attitude. Even though they like certain obscure writers, they put a fair amount of weight on tradition. They’re the type that would make a great Catholic theologian who knows the entire history of the Church. Their thinking is very abstract and they feel safest keeping theology away from practical affairs and thus keeping themselves away from getting mired in politics. They’re very understanding people and capable of relating well, but they’re also wary of the risks of complex social dynamics. They’re very good at reading others and also at hiding their own inner thoughts.
To be specific, this guy I was talking to on Youtube was quick to dismiss (dispute is the word he preferred) Robert M. Price. I briefly defended Price as he is as about as respectable as you can get, but its true that he doesn’t toe the party line of Biblical scholarship (ie conventional belief of mainstream Christianity). This guy definitely valued the theistic majority perspective of Biblical scholarship. People in Biblical scholarship tend to be Christians and so its no great surprise that belief in the historical Jesus is just assumed. One would have to be extremely naive to claim that this field was one of the more objective fields in academia.
Okay… so, I knew that if I tried to defend Price any further, this Christian would just nitpick and it would ultimately be just a battle of opinons. This kind of person can be very willful in having great intellectual stamina in going over and over the same little detail. I imagine that he would continually demand quotes and references all the while offering few of his own… or, anyways, that is a technique many apologists use… they just assume their position doesn’t need to be proved that its so obviously true.
In some ways, I prefer the ranting apologists more… the way an INFP apologist would act. lol There is an honesty about in-your-face prosyletizing. On the other hand, these more pedantic types lure you in with an appearance of being reasonable, but no amount of rationality will sway them. They just enjoy discussing ideas even though they’ve stated the exact same ideas a million times before. I’m fine with belief as long as someone is willing to admit that their views are beliefs. However, this type has this intricate facade of rationalization that you can’t even pierce through to the actual person behind it all.
*end rant*
I suspect this is a conflict that I experience when my Ne confronts the Ni of another. This might go back to my dad having auxiliary Ni. Anyways, its a challenge for me. The Ni is hiding away from the view of my Ne, but my Fi can sense it behind the social facade (especially in INFJs). I want to force to the surface which is exactly where Ni doesn’t want to be, where it can’t be in fact. My Ne gets bored with the narrow focus even though I can be momentarily impressed by the depth of insight that Ni sometimes proffers forth. I just don’t have the patience waiting around for that inisight that may or may not show itself. My Ne has thousand directions to go in and time is a’wasting. Curiosity beckons.
I think this is particularly magnified when Ni is the dominant for the other person as my Ne is auxiliary. I don’t identify with my thinking per se. Its simply how I try to relate to the world. My auxiliary Ne holds ideas very lightly. I too have an inner certainty but it just ain’t involving ideas for sure. Also, my inner certainty is less aloof as INFPs are more likely to get worked up than an INFJ. The burning passion of an idealistic core (Fi) manifests through the ungrounded infinitude of wonder and possibility (Ne). Simply put, Ne hates conventional thinking with a passion. It chafes against more plodding thought processes, and it mistrusts the aloof congenial nature (or facade as Fi judges it) of an INFJ.
I realize I was projecting to a great degree. I don’t really know that guy on Youtube beyond my very brief interaction. I just have this sore point when it comes to apologists… or really with anyone who has strong beliefs. The only thing I’m righteous about is in relation to the righteousness of others. I’m a millitant agnostic afterall.
This does go back to my dad and my recent interaction with him. I’ll be seeing him tomorrow. I hope it goes well. I’ll steer away from all serious discussion… oh, who am I kidding… I’ll have to not say anything at all if I try to avoid serious comments. Oh well, such is my fate.
There should be a rule against INFPs becoming intellectuals. We’re just too sensitive of souls. We should be kept ensconsed in walled gardens and distant mountain retreats far from the maddening crowd. Of course, we must be permitted a library but maybe only stock it with poetry and fiction… oh yeah, and be sure to give us plenty of art supplies.
Actually, there is a big difference between a Ni dominant person and a Ni auxiliary person like my dad. My dad really isn’t an aloof person at all, but he does have a bit of that quality in that he is so focused outward that he often hides his true opinions. He has this deep side that rarely shows, and when it does show its filtered through Te: principles, analysis, practical evaluation, etc. He is very capable of open-minded philosophizing fueled by a sense of wonder… amd he even lets others see this side of him when you catch him in a relaxed mood.
Its kind of funny how opinionated INFPs can be (or can appear to be), but you have to give us credit in that we change our opinions somewhat easily (except for our few cherished ideals). INFPs can have a way of stating things as if they were strong opinions (when feeling worked up or defensive), but it really has nothing to do with core values.
Dominant Fi can be hidden in the way its not easily verbilized. However, Fi is so blatantly obvious compared to Ni. Or even compare the Fi of an INFP with the Ti of an INTP. When an INFP gets there Fi panties in a bunch, they can be downright annoying… very messy emotions will be splattered all over the place.
Ni is very interesting. Ni talks around an idea, but does so in a very focused way. Its like knowing a blackhole exists by its gravity alone. Ni writing style can be very convoluted and meandering. Both Ni and Ne can lead to verbosity, but Ni comes off as more philosophical and abstract somehow… maybe because it exists solely in the inner world.
Ni, by definition, can never be directly expressed and so can only be known via an Extraverted function. OTOH Ne is just there trying to get your attention. Ne is also more playful in that it wants to interact, and if one is not careful Ne can lead to superficiality and flakiness (ie being a dilettante).
I sometimes have a bit of the dilettante in me jumping from one temporary interest to the next. I have a hard time committing myself fully to anything, but of course I idealize this tendency in order to put a positive spin on my Achilles’ Heel. People who actually have strong opinions and stick to them are just plain righteous idiots… whereas I am “flexible” and able to see multiple perspectives. rotfl
The interesting thing about the internet is that you get the opportunity to interact with more Introverts in a way you’d never do in everyday life. Online interactions encourage Introverts to show the side of themselves they normally hide. This is good and bad because its the side of them that is least socially adapted.
So, an Ni type might seem even more intellectual or detached. And an Fi type might become even more passionate… or, yes, righteous. An Fi type might go so far relying on their dominant that they feel they have people figured out… ahem… not that I’d ever fall into such low behavior.
There is another blog of mine that has very similar subject matter. Its about a specific archetypes that are related: Trickster, the Primal Man, the Titan/Giant, the Hero, and the Savior… also, the Divine Child and Shadow. These archetypes are especially central to the Monomyth.
That is funny! I put that last comment in the wrong blog apparently. It really doesn’t fit here.
Hello Nicole. Enjoy the holidays?
You might be able to tell from my plethora of blogging that I spent a lot of time at home. I had 3 days off in a row, but because of weather conditions haven’t yet visited with any family. Hopefully, I’ll see my parents tomorrow. We’re planning to visit one of my brothers in a nearby town.
The roads have been very icy this week. Strange weather. There was thunder and lightning last night and rain all today which was of course supposed to freeze.
Relaxing holidays always are good for me. So, what was relaxing about your holidays. Did you stay at home?
I was thinking about some other things when I mentioned strange weather. There has been some very warm weather in the Midwest. Along with that, there have been some tornoado watches (not in my area), but I don’t know if any tornadoes have been spotted.
I finally spent some time with my parents today. It was nice to see them, but they’ll be gone tomorrow and so is a short visit. It was all the family together today which isn’t my favorite way of experiencing family. It wasn’t stressful though because everyone seemed in a good mood.
I guess everything went fine with my dad. I don’t think my dad understood why I was annoyed at him and I didn’t feel like explaining. I really didn’t see any advantage to having a discussion about it. I more or less kept conversation light.
Yes, it was relaxing because of being at home, but especially because I didn’t answer the phone or spend time on the computer, and playing games like Munchkin and Carcassonne with my kids. Do you know of Munchkin? Seems like it would appeal to your sense of humour
It was wonderful to have my oldest daughter Julia home for a few days.
Munchkin? No, I don’t believe I’ve heard of it. Nor does Carcassonne sound familiar. My niece doesn’t seem too excited about games. She is more into imaginative play-acting. She probably doesn’t enjoy games because she dislikes losing. She was an only child the first 4 yrs of her life and she is used to getting her own way.
Is Munchkin a board game? I used to play a lot of games growing up. My friends and I would play almost any kind of game… board games, card games, video games. I don’t play games as much anymore. Occasionally I play a video game with my friend. Until recent years, I used to love playing Rummy but I finally became annoyed with the luck factor which is the largest part of the game.
Its interesting, though, that many kids games have large luck factors. I wonder what that teaches kids. Historically-speaking, the luck factor of games relates to divinization. The connection is lost to most of us moderns, but games have a strong connection to religion. They’re a ritual of sorts. The ritual itself is more important than the outcome of the game.
I’ll have to blog about that sometime. I’ve come across some fascinating info when studying the symbolism of numbers as it relates to games.
I used to play a lot of board games with my friends growing up, but we didn’t have many video games back them
Munchkin is a types of special card game – the other is a sort of card/board game… Munchkin is unfortunately very luck oriented (you’re right, that can get very annoying!) but Carcassonne is strategic.
That’s an interesting philosophical point about the large luck factors. You’re right this all could make a cool blog
Republican presidential nominee John McCain has spent months positioning himself as the heir to Ronald Reagan’s conservative movement. Recent poll data, however, show that his Democratic opponent perhaps better embodies some of Reagan’s key personality traits.
The personality profile yielded by the MIDC was analyzed on the basis of interpretive guidelines provided in the MIDC and Millon Index of Personality Styles manuals. Sen. Obama’s primary personality patterns were found to be Ambitious/confident and Accommodating/cooperative, with secondary features of the Outgoing/congenial pattern.
The combination of Ambitious, Accommodating, and Outgoing patterns in Obama’s profile suggests a confident conciliator personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype, though self-assured and ambitious, are characteristically gracious, considerate, and benevolent. They are energetic, charming, and agreeable, with a special knack for settling differences, favoring mediation and compromise over force or coercion as a strategy for resolving conflict. They are driven primarily by a need for achievement and also have strong affiliation needs, but a low need for power.
The major implication of the study is that it offers an empirically based personological framework for anticipating Obama’s likely leadership style as chief executive, thereby providing a basis for inferring the character and tenor of a prospective Obama presidency.
Transformational
Using a standard assessment procedure developed at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University, we generated a personality profile for Sen. Obama. The profile reveals that Obama’s most prominent personal attributes are confidence, assertiveness, and congeniality.
In office, the behavior of confident, ambitious leaders like Obama is characteristically shaped by four core qualities: power, pragmatism, ideology, and self-validation. As persons with a strong belief in their talents and leadership ability, power is an important driver for their leadership behavior and they favor pragmatism as a way of ensuring their own success. Because of extraordinary confidence in their own ideas and potential for success, they are strongly motivated by ideology and a desire to transform society. Finally, their high-self-esteem stimulates a corresponding need for affirmation, resulting in a quest for personal validation.
Ambitious, goal directed
Ambitious, confident leaders like Obama are more goal- than process oriented. This implies that their own advancement and success is more important to them than compromise or maintaining good relations with colleagues.
By the same token, they also are more likely to act as advocates for their own policy vision than as consensus builders or arbitrators. However, because of their pragmatic nature, they will act in a cooperative or harmonious manner when they see it as furthering their self-interest.
Charismatic
Obama’s combination of confidence, assertiveness, and congeniality fits the profile of a charismatic leader; he is ambitious, dominant, and outgoing, which enables him to advance a personal vision, inspire followers, and connect with people.
The outgoing pattern in Obama’s personality profile, a quality he shares with presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Sen. John McCain – yet notably absent in Sen. Clinton – may be key to his meteoric rise to prominence and electoral success thus far in the 2008 election cycle. Ironically, in view of President Clinton’s “roll the dice” comment noted above, Obama shares more of Bill Clinton’s charismatic personality traits than any of the top-tier candidates in either party.
He will be a tough candidate to beat. In fact, Obama’s greatest obstacle may not be whether he has the right personal qualities or the requisite experience to lead, but the readiness of America to elect an African-American to the highest office in the nation.
The personality profile yielded by the MIDC was analyzed on the basis of interpretive guidelines provided in the MIDC and Millon Index of Personality Styles manuals. Sen. McCain’s primary personality pattern was found to be Dauntless/dissenting, with secondary features of the Outgoing/gregarious and Dominant/controlling patterns.
The combination of Dauntless and Outgoing patterns in McCain’s profile suggests a risk-taking adventurer personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype are characteristically bold, fearless, sensation seeking, and driven by a need to prove their mettle.
McCain’s major personality strengths in a leadership role are the important personality-based political skills of independence, persuasiveness, and courage, coupled with a socially responsive, outgoing tendency that can be instrumental in connecting with critical constituencies for mobilizing support and implementing policy initiatives. His major personality-based limitation is a predisposition to impulsiveness, one manifestation of which is a deficit of emotional restraint.
First and foremost it must be pointed out that, as with all personality patterns, the outgoing pattern occurs on a continuum ranging from normal to maladaptive. At the well-adjusted pole are warm, congenial personalities. Slightly exaggerated outgoing features occur in sociable, gregarious personalities such as Bill Clinton. And in its most deeply ingrained, inflexible form, extraversion manifests itself in impulsive, self-centered, overdramatizing, histrionic behavior patterns that may be consistent with a clinical diagnosis of histrionic personality disorder. In a nutshell, then, this is the essence of the outgoing personality pattern:
Characteristic behavior. Outgoing personalities are typically friendly and engaging. In more intense form these personalities are livewire, animated bon vivants. In its most extreme, often maladaptive form, histrionic personalities are flamboyant, self-dramatizing thrill-seekers with a penchant for momentary excitements, fleeting adventures, and shortsighted, hedonistic self-indulgence. As leaders they tend to lack “gravitas” and may be prone to scandal, predisposed to reckless, imprudent behaviors, with a penchant for spur-of-the-moment decisions without carefully considering alternatives.
Personal relations. Outgoing personalities are demonstrative, amiable, and display their feelings openly-anger included. In more extreme form, gregarious individuals may be shallow, superficial attention-seekers highly attentive to popular appeal. Finally, the full-blown histrionic is likely to be flirtatious and seductively exhibitionistic, actively manipulating others to solicit praise, approval, or attention. In a political leadership role, these traits translate into a strong need for validation, one manifestation of which may be an overreliance on polls as an instrument of policy formulation.
Mindset. Outgoing personalities are not paragons of deep thinking or self-reflection; they typically avoid introspective thought, focusing, instead, on external matters. In its more crystallized form, this personality style is exemplified by a superficial, often “thoughtless” mode. Finally, in their most distilled form, histrionic personalities are poor integrators of experience; they are slow to learn from their mistakes. Politically speaking, this tendency may result in scattered learning, poor judgment, and flawed decision-making.
Temperament Temperament refers primarily to activity level and the character and intensity of emotional experience. Outgoing personalities are emotionally expressive, responsive, spirited, and lively. People with more exaggerated variants of the outgoing pattern may be overexcitable and moody, with frequent-though short-lived-emotional displays. In its most maladaptive form, the histrionic personality is impetuous, mercurial, and capricious, being easily enthused and as readily angered or bored. Leaders with this personality pattern are skilled at staying in touch with the mood of the people but also prone-as at least one observer in the Clinton White House has put it-to periodic “purple rages.”
Self-image Outgoing personalities are confident in their social abilities, typically viewing themselves as affable and well liked. In stronger doses, extraversion translates into a charming sense of self. In its most distilled form, the histrionic’s self-perception has a hedonistic character, epitomized by a self-indulgent image of attracting acquaintances through pursuit of a busy, pleasure-oriented lifestyle. In politics, outgoing personalities, more than any other character types, are political animals strongly attracted to the lure of campaigning; they thrive on the validation of self offered by adulating crowds and the frenetic, connect-with-people activity on the rope line.
Self-regulation. The preferred stress-management strategy of outgoing personalities is to engage in self-distracting, mindless activities, often in the form of games or physical diversions. In maladaptive form, histrionic personalities employ the defense mechanism of dissociation (or so-called “compartmentalization”) to cope with conflict and anxiety. The political implications of dissociation include a leader’s failure to face up to unpleasant, dissonant thoughts, feelings, and actions and facile, complemented by cosmetic image-making as revealed in a succession of socially attractive but changing facades.
I conclude this analysis with the caveat that my initial assessment of John McCain’s personality, based on his autobiography and other materials in the public domain, departs from the analysis of McCain’s naval examiners. In my opinion, the outgoing pattern is of secondary significance in McCain’s overall character structure. Of greater primacy is a dauntless, dissenting personality pattern, which McCain shares with Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura and, to a lesser extent, George W. Bush.
As a parting thought-lest we come too quickly to conclusions concerning John McCain’s character-consider this: With the exception of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, outgoing candidates have prevailed in every presidential contest since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
http://convention3.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/4/5/2/p204527_index.html
McCain’s primary personality pattern was found to be Dauntless/dissenting, with secondary features of the Outgoing/gregarious and Dominant/controlling patterns. Giuliani’s primary personality pattern was found to be Dominant/aggressive, with secondary features of the Conscientious/dutiful and Ambitious/confident patterns. The combination of Dauntless and Outgoing patterns in McCain’s profile suggests a risk-taking adventurer personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype are characteristically bold, fearless, sensation seeking, and driven by a need to prove their mettle. The combination of Dominant and Conscientious patterns in Giuliani’s profile suggests an aggressive enforcer personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype are tough, uncompromising, and believe they have a moral duty to punish and control those who deviate from socially sanctioned norms. McCain’s major personality strengths in a leadership role are the important personality-based political skills of independence, persuasiveness, and courage, coupled with a socially responsive, outgoing tendency that can be instrumental in connecting with critical constituencies for mobilizing support and implementing policy initiatives. His major personality-based limitation is a predisposition to impulsiveness, one manifestation of which is a deficit of emotional restraint.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/president.html
Twenty-seven percent of American voters claim they choose presidential candidates primarily on the basis of the nominee’s character and moral values, according to a poll conducted after the 2000 elections. However, candidates with a solid character–straightforward, dutiful and disciplined–often run into trouble being an effective president, says Steven J. Rubenzer, PhD, a Houston-based clinical psychologist and co-founder of the Foundation for the Study of Personality in History. In fact, a tendency to tell the truth can actually harm a president’s shot at being considered historically “great,” he says.
—
Those presidents who received high marks from historians tended to be smart, have ambitious goals and be willing to bend the truth, according to results published in Rubenzer’s new book–co-authored with retired clinical psychologist Tom Faschingbauer, PhD–”Personality, Character & Leadership in the White House: Psychologists Assess the Presidents” (Brassey’s, 2004). And these findings converge with previous research by political psychologists such as Dean Simonton, PhD, at the University of California, Davis, who finds that intelligence, as measured by a combination of personal achievements, analysis of a president’s interests and scores on the personality measure openness to experience, predicts presidential success above all other individual factors.
—
“Openness overlaps with intelligence because to some degree you have to be intelligent to appreciate new experiences,” explains Simonton. “People who are low in intelligence, their systems are overwhelmed by the very rich environments that are attractive to people who are open to new experiences.”
—
However, the personality factors that increase candidates’ chances for success in office are not necessarily the same as those that help them get elected, psychologists say. For example, intellectual brilliance seems negatively related to a president’s margin of victory, finds Simonton.
“The ones who are the most intellectually brilliant are often barely elected,” he says. “They have trouble speaking in sound bites and communicating with the public.”
—
While intelligence can make for a good president but a bad candidate, achievement-striving–or the tendency to work toward lofty goals–may benefit presidents both on the campaign trail and while in office.
“Achievement-striving means people have high goals, but more importantly, they work hard to achieve them,” says Rubenzer. “They stay focused; they are kind of workaholics.”
—
In contrast, research by psychologist David Winter, PhD, at the University of Michigan, finds that achievement motivation, defined as a drive to do things well, may be a hindrance for presidents in office.
—
“People high in achievement motivation do best when they have large amounts of personal control,” says Winter. “They become frustrated by the bureaucracy of politics.”
Indeed, in Rubenzer’s personality analysis Carter, who historians note as stymied by the checks and balances of the presidency, scored very high on achievement-striving–in the top 1 percent of all former presidents. However, Carter had two fatal personality flaws: a lack of assertiveness and a tendency to be straightforward, notes the psychologist.
“A president has to influence, either by deceit or forcefulness,” says Rubenzer. “When you see those two scores on someone who is otherwise so qualified you think, well, maybe that is the reason.”
Results of the research indicate that great presidents, besides being stubborn and disagreeable, are more extraverted, open to experience, assertive, achievement striving, excitement seeking and more open to fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas and values. Historically great presidents were low on straightforwardness, vulnerability and order.
—
It may come as no surprise that the research shows that most modern presidents are clearly extraverts. However, the data indicates that the early presidents scored below average on this factor. Does that mean that presidents are becoming more extraverted, or that the entire population has become more extraverted? The researchers say their data can’t answer that question, but “given the increasing role of the media in presidential elections, the more plausible explanation is that the change is limited to the presidents and not the general population.” http://www.personalitiesinhistory.com/Presidency_Project.asp
The ability to lie and deceive is an important quality for success in the White House, and presidents who are less straightforward typically make better presidents.
Despite his recent popularity and reputation for integrity, John Adams’s personality closely resembled Richard Nixon’s.
Presidents are much more Extraverted today than in the past and less intellectually curious than in the past. They may also be lower in character.
Jimmy Carter is the only modern president that much resembles Founding Fathers Jefferson and Madison and the greatest president of the 19th century, Abe Lincoln. Eisenhower is the only modern president much like Washington.
Franklin Roosevelt seems to be the template for modern presidents, with recent presidents showing high (Kennedy, Clinton) or moderate (LBJ) similarity to him. Reagan resembled his as well.
Modern Democratic presidents tend to be very Extraverted, achievement-oriented, ebullient, and sympathetic to the poor, but are willing to deceive and relatively unprincipled.
Modern Republican presidents tend to be less sympathetic to the less fortunate and much more inclined to rely on traditional sources of moral authority than average Americans.
George W. Bush appears to have fewer traits related to presidential success than most presidents. He most resembles Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan.
DominatorsThe Dominators include LBJ, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, and Chester Arthur (in order of inclusion).
They are prone to bully others and to disregard the feelings and rights of those not on their side. They are bossy, demanding, and domineering; they flatter or manipulate people to get their way. They bend or break rules, and as presidents, stretch the constraints of constitutional government. They are not religious or spiritual, and tend to be prejudiced.
IntrovertsJohn Adams, John Quincy Adams, Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, James Buchanan, Woodrow Wilson, and Benjamin Harrison.
Introverted presidents are psychologically minded, complex, deep men. They are not regarded as warm and friendly, and have difficulty controlling social situations. They prefer to work alone and avoid close relationships. Often jittery or tense, they are not happy and high-spirited; they tend to feel irritable, overwhelmed by stress, and to overreact.
Good GuysHayes, Taylor, Eisenhower, Tyler, Fillmore, Cleveland, Ford, and Washington.
Good Guys almost never feel themselves to be worthless, are rarely jittery or tense, and don’t feel overwhelmed by stress. They make good decisions even under adversity. They have a hard time lying, aren’t crafty or sly, and don’t trick, bully or flatter people to get their way. They don’t spend much time fantasizing and daydreaming but don’t deny problems.
InnocentsTaft, Harding, and Grant
Innocents are submissive and accept domination easily, and are “gullible, naive, suggestible.” Not autonomous, independent or individualistic, they sometimes don’t assert themselves when they should. Compared to other presidents (who are an industrious lot), they have trouble getting motivated and down to work, and are lethargic, sluggish, lazy, and slothful.
The ActorsThe Actors group includes Ronald Reagan, Warren Harding, William Henry Harrison, Bill Clinton, and Franklin Pierce
Compared to other presidents, Actors are gullible, naive, and suggestible, warm and self-disclosing; they allow their feelings to show on their faces and in their posture. They are not meticulous, perfectionistic, or precise; they tend to waste time before getting to work, and tolerate unethical behavior in colleagues. Actors are enthusiastic, spirited, vivacious, zestful, charismatic, and charming.
Maintainers This group contains William McKinley, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, and Harry Truman
Maintainers stay focused on the job, work slowly but steadily, and are “industrious, persistent, tenacious, thorough.” They are “uncreative, unimaginative,” and do not indulge in elaborate daydreams and fantasies. They are conforming and conventional, not rebellious.
PhilosophesJames Garfield, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Jimmy Carter, and Rutherford Hayes.
Compared to other presidents, Philosophes are curious and inquisitive, interested in science, and fascinated by patterns in nature and art. They are concerned with philosophical issues (e.g., religion, the meaning of life), have many interests, and enjoy solving brain-twister puzzles. They see themselves as broad-minded and believe that students should be exposed to new ideas and controversial speakers.
Despite being analytical, logical, and good at math, they value art and beauty and are attentive to the moods of different settings. They are also “nice” people: They believe that everyone is deserving of respect and prefer complimenting others to being praised themselves.
ExtravertsFDR and Kennedy form the kernel of this cluster, and are followed by Bill Clinton, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, William Harrison, Warren Harding, Andrew Jackson, and LBJ.
Extraverted presidents are enthusiastic, spirited, vivacious, and zestful; they call attention to themselves. They are “impetuous, uninhibited, unrestrained,” are not consistent, predictable, or steady. They indulge their impulses and show their feelings through their faces and body language. They have a flair for the dramatic but are not dependable and responsible. They don’t take pride in being rational or objective.
Rated Intelligence – Intelligence is related to success in almost any complicated job, from CEO to NFL quarterback. Although we did not have intelligence test scores, we did ask our raters how intelligent, inventive, insightful, complex, and wise they perceived the various presidents to be. Those that received high ratings, like Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Wilson, performed better than those who are rated as less gifted, like Harding.
Assertiveness, or dominance, is the capacity to influence through one’s presence and ideas. It is the single most important trait to presidential success. Presidents are an assertive group, and on the average score higher than eight of ten typical Americans. Better presidents like the Roosevelts, Wilson, and Jackson score higher than average chief executives. Truman was the only successful president who was less assertive than his peers. Low scorers include Harding, Taft, and Coolidge.
Positive Emotions – A president’s optimism and enthusiasm are important for performance on the job, but also for getting elected. Enthusiastic and high spirited presidents like the Roosevelts, Clinton, and Kennedy are typically more successful; low scorers are reserved and serious, like J. Q. Adams, Hoover, and Nixon. Washington was the only truly successful low scorer on this scale.
Activity Level – Highly energetic chief executives like TR, LBJ, and Carter tend to be rated higher on this scale by historians than more placid characters like Grant, Taft, and Coolidge.
Achievement striving (having high goals and working towards them in a systematic and focused manner) is an obvious asset and is related to success in most all walks of life apart from the arts. Two of the lowest scorers, Grant and Harding, are widely regarded as presidential failures. High scorers include a number of undisputed “greats” like Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and Washington, but also more ambiguous performers such as Carter, Nixon, and LBJ.
Low Straightforwardness – Historians tell us that a president’s credibility is essential to the ability to lead. Yet, the tendency and ability to deceive is correlated with historians’ ratings of presidential success. Great presidents, such as Lincoln and FDR, have tended to bend the truth more than a little. Both managed to be both a moral leader and an artful politician. Grant and Fillmore were more honest, but also less effective.
Tender-Mindedness (concern for the less fortunate) predicts both presidential success and ethical behavior on the job. FDR and Lincoln scored high on this quality, while Buchanan and Nixon scored low.
Competence – High scorers on this scale seek appropriate information when faced with a decision, have good judgment, and are broadly capable – like Washington and Eisenhower. Low scores include the lowest ranked presidents Harding and Grant, but also the impetuous and successful Andrew Jackson.
Low Vulnerability – Presidents who feel unnerved by stress and unable to cope with problems on their own (score high on Vulnerability) are likely to be given low marks by historians. Emotionally hardy presidents, like Washington and Teddy Roosevelt, tend to do better than more Vulnerable chief executives, like Harding and the Adams’s.
These are the only traits that have been empirically shown to have a distinct and unique relation to presidential success. “Character” was unrelated to historians’ rating of presidential greatness. http://www.andycrown.net/presidential_personality.htm
Presidential Personality
Dimensions of personality according to James David Barber in The Pulse of Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 1980).
1) Activity or Passivity
How much energy does a president invest in his presidency?
2) Positiveness or Negativeness toward the job of president
Does the president enjoy his job? Does he enjoy exercising power? Does the job make him sad or discouraged?
*These dimensions are closely related to dimensions of dominance/submissiveness, extroversion/introversion, and optimism/pessimism. Types of Personality
1. Active positive
A president who spends a lot of energy and enjoys his job. This type of president tends to have high self-esteem. He tends to be productive in pushing programs through. He is flexible enough to try something else when his plans are stymied. He wants results.
FDR, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, George Bush (The first Bush presidency)
2. Active negative
A president who spends a lot of energy but does not enjoy his job. This type tends to have low self-esteem. Expands his energy compulsively to compensate for some shortcoming or to prove to others that he is a person to be reckoned with, Seeks and tries to retain power. Is rigid when stymied. He wants to get and keep power.
Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson
3. Passive positive
A president who does not spend much energy but nevertheless likes the job. Tends to have low self-esteem and compensates for this by seeking affection instead of power. He does this by being agreeable and cooperative rather than assertive. He wants affection.
William Howard Taft, Warren Harding, Ronald Reagan
4. Passive negative
A president who does not spend much energy and does not like the job. He becomes president because he thinks he should, out of a sense of service to the country. He wants the grim satisfaction of doing his duty.
Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon
http://www.politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56/
NTPs tend towards independent more than towards either party but tend towards Republican slightly more than Democrat.
STJs tend towards Republican more than Democrat but tend towards Democrat more than independent.
ENFs tend to be equally distributed between Republican and Democrat.
Republicans preferred INTJ, ENTJ, ESTJ, and ISTJ (the executive types). The ESTJs are more than twice as likely as the INFPs and INFJs to be Republicans.
Democrats were typically NF or INFJ. In fact, those people with a preference for Feeling are more likely than other types to identify themselves as Democrats.
Artisans are about 10% more likely to be registered as Democrats than as Republicans or Independents. They are the least likely to actually vote in an election.
Guardians are about 10% more likely to identify themselves as Republicans than as Democrats, and are the least likely of the temperaments to be Independents or apolitical. They are also the most likely to vote.
Idealists are 17% more likely to be Democrats than Independents, and 34% more likely Democrats than Republicans.
Rationals are the most likely to identify themselves as Independents or apolitical. For those that are party members, they are 45% more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.
“SJs were overrepresented in persons reporting very conservative political views, and Ns were overrepresented in persons reporting very liberal political views (ENTJs excepted).”
FFM Openness to experience factor correlates to Intuition.
Type is correlated with party affiliation but not party registration.
STJ – Conservative
NFP – Liberal Inuitives show more interest in politics.
Introversion (and Sensation) correlated to a sense of political alienation.
Thinking correlated with being for the death penalty.
Perceiving correlated with being pro-choice about abortion. http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/famous-people/
John McCain is the Republican Party’s secret weapon in this election, should they decide to nominate the most electable (of the 4 I’ve looked at so far, that is) of their candidates. Why is McCain the most electable, even though he is languishing well behind the front-runners in most primary polls?
Simple. McCain is the only Artisan in the bunch. Of the major Republican candidates, McCain has been the most straight forward to figure. You get what you see – he really doesn’t seem to have any hidden agenda. Like most STP Artisans (think Donald Trump or General George Patton), he is a man “in the moment”, not prone to introspection or giving careful thought before reacting to circumstances.
—
While McCain’s Artisan traits have not endeared him to the largely Guardian Republican base who decide the the primaries, they make him a winner with the independents who actually decide the November election. Remember, these voters are not strongly focused on issues, but on how much they “like” the candidate. In fact, in both personalityZone’s surveys and CNN’s head-to-head polls, McCain is consistently the strongest of the Republican candidates against each of the Democratic front runners. More than 100 years of consistent voter behavior in choosing Artisans in the November elections is still true today.
Like Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, Obama is a Rational, most likely an INTJ Mastermind. This comes through in his communication style – he has an exceptional ability to paint a vision, to communicate abstract pictures of the future that make sense to people, and his utilitarian approach to action - looking for what “works” rather than “what’s been done before” or “what is ‘right’”.
—
While he is not an Artisan, his ability to connect with people is almost as strong, giving him the best ability outside the true Artisan candidates for garnering the uncommitted voters needed to win in November.
Obama’s mistake is that he confuses being phlegmatic with being presidential. Hippocrates, the father of medical science, devised a system of grading personalities in the fifth-century B.C. that has never been more relevant. He described those with phlegmatic temperaments as harmonious, calm, easygoing, and diplomatic – precisely the traits that the current campaign coverage suggests we should want in any occupant of the Oval Office.
McCain, by contrast, is what Hippocrates would call choleric. Cholerics are passionate, decisive, opinionated, stubborn, and driven. To paraphrase one notable choleric, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (largely regarded as a great president), there is nothing cholerics love so much as a good fight. McCain’s temperament is, in part, what enabled him to survive imprisonment and torture at the hands of the Viet Cong.
Liberals will fret that the impulsive, passionate McCain has a temperament ill-suited for a president, yet it is those defining characteristics of the choleric – zeal, decisiveness, perseverance, a certainty of opinion on fundamental matters of right and wrong and on our core national values – that make McCain the better choice for the office. Not to lose one’s temper in the face of evil is actually dysfunctional and in certain cases downright dangerous. The real question is, then, not whether McCain has a temper (he most certainly does), but why Obama doesn’t and whether that matters.
Well, it does matter. The affable Obama is less-suited for the office because of his tendency to equanimity. The inclination to avoid confrontation and seek consensus, though admirable, are not the principal traits we should want in the person on whose desk the buck stops. The desire for everyone to get along too often leads to acquiescence and compromise, and a failure to do what is necessary in time of crisis (think of the indecisive Jimmy Carter and his mishandling of the Iran hostage crisis). That is not to say that dispassion and diplomacy have no place. They do, but you probably want them in a secretary of State, not the denizen of the Oval Office.
By the way, I should mention that besides a few summarizing notes the writing in this blog comes from the links. I merely pulled out the relevant excerpts and put them in order to create a more complex picture of different ways personality can be used to view politics. Gathering all of this together took me about a week or so. That is all the motivation I had for this project. Given anothe week I could’ve summarized it in my own words, but that didn’t seem necessary.
I don’t have a whole lot of personal opinion about the matter. I decided to do this blog because it interests me and I thought it would be a good alternative viewpoint to all the mindless media diatribe. I’m not a big fan of politics, but I am very curious about how psychological and sociological dynamics play out on the largescale.
There is one fundamental distinction that I’d particularly like to point out. McCain has a preference for the Sensation function. Obama has a preference for the Intuition function. Those two functions represent the clearest division between Republicans and Democrats.
On the other hand, the Republicans and Democrats have respectively been called the Daddy and Mommy parties. This is reminiscent of gender differences in the Judging functions (Thinking and Feeling)… and also the gender differences in Hartmann’s boundary types. I’ve heard that traditionally Westerners have based their ethics on the Judging functions. The fact that the Perceiving functions have become a greater focus might represent a shift in our culture.
On a personal note, I’m an INFP and my parents are both TJs. NFPs are some of the most liberal of the types and TJs tend toward the conservative. True to our personalities, my parents and I follow the pattern. It makes me wonder about the real reasons for why we believe what we do.
An interesting complexity is the fact that personality correlates to party affiliation but not to party registration. So, its possible that conformity to social standards of family and community may play a stronger role than does personality.
McCain is an interesting case. After his POW experience, he was involved with psychological testing. I read that he might be one of the most well-researched politicians because of this. Most politicians try to hide that kind of information.
I think all presidents should be given psychological (and intelligence) testing. And I think that such testing should be made a public part of the campaign process. Ultimately, we are electing a person and I think its only fair we actually know who we are electing. Psychological testing is predictive of behavior and so it would be helpful in determining what politicians will do versus what they say they’ll do.
Wow. Everything we never knew we wanted to know !!!!!
This definitely goes beyond media prattle, and thank you for that !!!!
I think any one perspective oversimplifies, as per the choleric vs phlegmatic argument for McCain over Obama. As if values and perspectives and past actions weren’t important.
I guess I am a one-issue voter: Who will do the least damage to my freedom and the freedom of others? !!! For that, I rely less on personality and character than past record and stated values and proposed actions.
In the present case, it’s clear to me who is the lesser of the two weevils (Obama, but not by a whole lot lot.) That’s about the best the current society has to offer. At least so it appears on the surface. Perhaps there is actually more choice than that between the two, in favor of Obama. We shall see.
I don’t think politics is the level on which a society changes, so like you (but perhaps for different reasons) I have a very limited span of interest in political matters. Borrrrrrrring.
I don’t know if that was everything we never knew we wanted to know, but I’m glad you enjoyed it. I didn’t intend to blog about this exactly. I just was thinking about personality types in the context the ongoing campaign. After I’d come across a bunch of info I figured I might as well share. I was already somewhat familiar with some of this personality info. Lots of interesting info.
Yes, politics can get quite boring when overexposed to the media talking heads and idiotic campaign ads. More enjoyable are some of the political satire. Have you watched any of the Saturday Night Live debate parodies? The Onion also has some hilarious parodies about the campaigning. Maybe that’d would make a better blog than any of this.
I’m pissed off! I just wrote this page long response and my computer turned off right when I was about finished. Why does a computer always mess up only after you’ve almost completed whatever you’re doing?
Basically, what I was writing about is what orignally motivated me to write this blog. Obama appears young and vibrant, charismatic and confident. McCain appears the complete opposite. He seems like a griping old man. This campaign hasn’t brought out the best in McCain and Palin hasn’t lived up to the hopes people had in her improving McCain’s image.
Some months ago, I came up with a hypothesis. Whichever candidate has the best presence is the one who will be elected. Issues are important but they aren’t what gets a candiate eected, but certainly the economy is helping Obama. Obama has both personality and the issues working in his favor. This is why McCain has gone on the attack which is just making his poll numbers go down, but McCain has no other choice (besides simply giving up).
If personality wasn’t an issue, then it would be a fair fight between Obama and McCain. I don’t know to what degree I would like an Obama presidency, but it would be nice to have a president who actually acts presidential. McCain, on the other hand, is essentially no different than Bush except he has doesn’t have the easygoing friendliness and joking nature… which is the only good thing Bush has going for him.
By the way, I’m not necessarily for Obama. But I’m definitely not for McCain. My assessment of these two candidates isn’t as a voter. I’m probably more likely to vote for a third party if I vote at all. I strongly dislike the two party system. My assessment is simply a matter of personality. It isn’t about the best man winning but rather about the man with the best image.
This blog is for Nicole. This is a summary of a story I told to someone on the Globalchatter forum in trying to explain INFP in a different way. The thread was titled Ne’s public face.
You could think of an INFP’s Ne as a loyal servant who walks the perimiter of the grounds carrying a lantern before it and with a guard dog by its side. Maybe the guard dog is Te. The Ne is the face that greets visitors at the door like a butler. Ne checks the gates and doors, and secures the windows. It ensures that its master isn’t disturbed in doing his important work in the study, and it dutifully brings the dominant what it needs whenever called.
Ne the servant sometimes takes his job so seriously that he wanders off the grounds following the tracks of an animal that might be dangerous and picks up scat to bring back to the master, but Ne gets easily distracted and follows another track that crossed the original track. This tracking goes on and on, and the servants backpack gets overloaded with specimens…but miraculously in what seems like aimless wandering it ends up back at its master house. Tired, Ne goes back inside satisfied at having done a good job, gives the specimens to the master and goes to the Ne’s sleeping quarters.
Si is the master’s personal secretary who never leaves the house, and with Ne tired out Si takes over some of the servant’s duties. When someone knocks at the door, Si responds in fear and uncertainty double-bolting the door. Si runs up to tell the master that their is a horrible monster lurking outside, and they try to decide whether to sic the Te dog on the potential intruder. They both cower huddled together in the study frozen in inaction.
Ne wakes up, goes downstairs and answers the door. It turns out it was just a girl scout selling cookies. Ne politely buys some cookies and brings them up to the master’s study with two glasses of milk. The Fi master says he wasn’t afraid and that he was just about to take care of the problem himself.
And here is from a discussion I had with some INFJs:
Fi wants to simply clear a path through the woods, but wants the woods to remain as is. Fi wants the woods b/c the trees enclose the path. Fe sees the woods as material to build a structure w/ in which people can live. Fi wants to build also, but wants it to be unobtrusive. Also, Fi is mostly considering the individual and so it is just making its own way through the brush. Others may follow, but that is secondary. Also, I’d say Fi is making a path into the woods rather than out of the woods. Fe enjoys the woods too, but wants it as a nature preserve that can be used for human needs. Both find value in the woods.
Fe is the missionary that comes to the stone-age tribe of Fis hidden deep w/in the ancient trees. Fe invites Fi out into the open. Fi has never seen the horizon before and runs screaming back into his protective home. The Fi tells this tale of adventure to the excited tribe who listens in awe to his great feats and becomes a hero in the telling. Meanwhile, the Fe is thinking what a strange fellow.
delightful… it makes me think of daimons, of “the novel Aristoi by Walter Jon Williams, where daimones are computerized sub-personalities developed through a combination of mental exercise and embedded computers.” and of his dark materials which has actually inspired biometric-daemons
thanks dear Ben! the more i understand my friend the more i think of him as… just a friend. we had another non-conversation today while he was busy doing anything else. when i lightly mentioned it was difficult having a conversation with him, he didn’t even respond.
but i’m ok with it!
moving on, moving forward, beginning again to begin… again – but hopefully not so soon this time. you think i can give myself the rest of the summer off? maybe even the fall? God knows I have too much on my plate until the Japan December conference is over.
Well, she’s going to spend this weekend with yet another INFP ~ (moi). I’ll try to rehearse light topics of conversation for the L O N G drive to LAX…. ) !!
Well, Julie, I seem to be surrounded by delightful INFPs, and have no fears about the weekend with you :) we will have so much fun. Ben’s another of my favourite INFPs, and there are at least a couple more Gaians who are too…
Ben, I think you would enjoy Aristoi. I gobbled it up, would love to read more about that universe… and yeah, I never know what each new day will bring so – help! or yay! or something lol
I’ve looked around for information about types within integral theory, but I couldn’t find much of anything beyond some brief mentions. I wonder why that is. This came up in a discussion I was having recently with Balder. I have an interest in integral and I have an interest in types. How do they relate? Is it possible to create an integral theory of types?I have my own thoughts on this matter, but let me hear what others have to say first.
Marmalade,
Thanks for starting the thread.The other day I referenced Stanley Fish and sparked a little debate. So I do so again in regard to a phrase he used that bears on typology: “the furniture of the mind.” He spoke briefly of its arrangements, perhaps its styles in the context of his disagreement with the liberal humanistic ideal that given the right arguments about the right facts, or the right inspiration, the right chemicals in the water, the right charismatic leadership, the perspectives of all the population in a culture or across cultures could be managed into greater and great integrated unity. He evidently thinks that far easier dreamed of than done because the furniture of our minds is fundamentally arranged in too many different patterns and styles. I have to agree. And I have to think this is more because of typological differences rather than transcendable and developmental lines and levels.It is no surprise to me that typology does not get much air time in Integral. I think there are several reasons: 1. The other day I came across a rare Integral forum discussion about types and it turned out that most of the participants were Introverted (I) and Intuitive (N). There was a tendency toward Feeling (F) and Perceiving (P) with a sprinkling of Thinking (T) and Judging (J). No surprise; the first time I stumbled into Integral Naked three years ago, I had to say, almost out loud, “These guys are all I-Ns.” (It was sort of easy to spot. I used to hang with the radical Transpersonal Psych. crowd in Santa Fe, NM, and they were all I-Ns. Intuitive people are sharp to spot possibilities and their temporal preference is the Future. Developmental lines and levels come easily for them. Hold this thought…
2. The first time I stumbled into Integral Naked I had to say, almost out loud, “This is a just barely noticeable difference, a tiny tweak, on 160-year-old, standard, middle class, Euro-American liberal humanism.” (It was sort of easy to spot, I had published cultural critiques on that phenomenon as far back as 1969.) These are the believers who idealize the potential unification of perspectives that Fish and I find questionable. Hold this thought.
3. Jungian personality typologies of the kind that Myers-Briggs, Dr. Keirsey, and Lenore Thomson deal with, tend toward horizontal analysis and throw a lot of confounding factors into a more vertical, developmental matrix like the W-C Lattice. For example, from a typological perspective, it is a real possibility that a moderately conscious I-N could be describing the spiritual wonders of such manifest givens as the Causal, the Subtle and the Non-Dual to a highly conscious E-S (Extroverted-Sensory) and get a response like “Been there, done that, wanna shoot some snooker?” And of course the I-N will think at that point that the E-S is unconscious, uncaring and totally ignorant of the states the I-N perceives and relates to in the same manner as the E-S perceives and relates to her custom made cue stick. So from a developmental perspective, the I-N will never believe that the E-S has actually truely experienced those states, or really knows their literature, but finds it of trivial value when compared to a round of snooker– the best three out of five.
Now you connect the dots.
I think that it is interesting that beginning in the mid-70s, the Myers-Briggs Test and Dr. David Keirsey’s “personality sorter” became the Latest Big Thing in the personnel management consulting racket. And there are a lot of consultants still working with them. But you won’t find those consulting firms that have offices in the Integral Mall, central Integral Province, using these measurements. The consultants that bring us The Integral Review and The Integral Leadership Review and Integral Praxis, don’t do typologies. They do developmental theory and their sites are spilling over with what Richard Rorty called ‘universalist grandeur,” and progressive stepping stones to redemption, humane relationships and more favorable cost-benefit ratios.
Another thought: Intuitive types, particularly introverted ones, have trouble with detail and discreet facts because they are the distracting trees that get in the way of perceiving the direction the forest is taking. For example, it is probably clear to many versed in typology that Hegel was an Intuitive thinker. And as Schiller pointed out once, Hegel never dealt with a solid fact in his entire career. And though they might not be quite so hard on the man, I understand there are critics who say Wilber’s view from 50,000 ft. doesn’t serve them any better and will never lead to any better specific results than Hegels’s. (That does not mean one should lose faith in the nuts and bolts achievements of Integral’s parent stock, liberal humanism.)
You asked about the possibilities for the development of an Integral theory of types. I doubt such a possibility could exist. I think its more probable to put forward a typological theory of Integral, the systems would be more compatible for moving in that direction.
Nickeson,“furniture of the mind” – Thats an awesome phrase.I can see the challenge this creates, and part of me agrees with you. It does seem there is no way of getting around the endless variances that make individuals unique. That was why I was wondering about an integral theory of typology. If we could find overarching patterns amidst all the differences, then the furniture could be arranged in an orderly fashion. lol A “typological theory of Integral” sounds good to me. What would that be? Would this be related to the differences between a Theory of Everything(TOE) vs a Theory for Anything(TFA)?
1. This is part of my interest in types. The predominant type of a group of people says a lot. BTW how about linking to that “ rare Integral forum discussion about types”.
2. I’d like to hear more about your views on the “160-year-old, standard, middle class, Euro-American liberal humanism.”
3. I completely get what you mean by the confounding factors issue. I’d really like to understand this further in terms of the integral community.
I have some things I want to add, but I’m about to go somewhere.
1. The other day I came across a rare Integral forum discussion about types and it turned out that most of the participants were Introverted (I) and Intuitive (N). There was a tendency toward Feeling (F) and Perceiving (P) with a sprinkling of Thinking (T) and Judging (J). No surprise; the first time I stumbled into Integral Naked three years ago, I had to say, almost out loud, “These guys are all I-Ns.”I don’t know if you remember, but I test as an INFP. I’ve spoken before about the major difficulties NFs and NTs can have in communicating especially when it comes to intellectual discussions. This is important to consider as I’ve had a strong suspicion for some time that most integralsts are NTs. As fo Introversion and iNtuition, I’d say you find high percentages of those all over the web, but maybe its especially emphasized in an integral forum.On a different note, I’m not sure why Wilber speaks about the Ennagram the most. Actually, I do understand. The Ennagram has its roots in a spiritual tradition and so fits in with the spiritual vision of integral theory. The problem with this is that the Ennagram isn’t a scientifically accepted theory. MBTI has had lots of research to back it up, and it has strong correlations with the academic research into personality traits(FFM, Big 5, etc). As the MBTI and FFM are based on scientific research, I think they would be better systems for integralists to focus on.
In saying this, I’m not dismissing the Ennagram. I’m just saying its a totally different type of system. We need to differentiate between different typology theories.
One other thing is that integralists might not be aware that many typology systems include development. So, it shouldn’t be so difficult to integrate to some extent. For instance, the definitions of Jungian Thinking and Feeling fit closely with the gender studies that integralists are already familiar with.
Hi, Marmalade,Just a quick note for the moment – Wilber doesn’t talk about the Enneagram the most. I mentioned on your blog that I have used it more than other typologies, since it is the one I am most familiar with (I do Diamond Approach work and DA uses the Enneagram), but it is not something that I’ve heard Wilber mention very often. Usually, he talks about types only in a rather general way, mostly referring to masculine and feminine types by way of illustration. I’m glad you started this thread and look forward to participating – as well as to learning more about other typological systems from you or others. Best wishes,
Balder,I wasn’t directly referring to any of your comments. When I said that Wilber talks about the Ennagram the most, I was referring to the only example that I’m aware of where Wilber went into some detail about types and he used the Ennagram to illustrate his point. You are correct that gender is the type that Wilber refers to the most. But gender isn’t the exactly the same kind of types sytem as Myers-Briggs or Ennagram. I should’ve been more clear as I was thinking of types in a more narrow sense when I made that statement. Blessings,
Marmalade
I’ve been reading the book The Trickster and the Paranormal by George P. Hansen. He goes into some detail about the ideas of the psychiatrist Ernest Hartmann who wrote the book Boundaries in the Mind.pp 48-49
“Thick-boundary people strike one as solid, well organized, well defended, and even rigid and armored. Thin-boundary types tend to be open, unguarded, and undefended in several psychological senses. Women tend to have thinner boundaries than men, and children thinner than adults. People with thin boundaries tend to have higher hypnotic ability, greater dream recall, and are more lkely to have lucid dreams. People with thick boundaries stay with one thought until its completion; whereas those with thin boundaries show greater fluidity, and their thoughts branch from one to another. People with very thin boundaries report more symptoms of illness; however, compared with thick-boundary types, they are able to exert more control over the autonomic nervous system and can produe greater changes in skin temperature when thinking of hot or cold situations. Thin-boundary persons are more prone to synesthesia, blending of the senses (e.g., seeing colors when certain sounds are heard). Differences are found in occupations as well. Middle managers in large corporations tend to have thick boundaries, and artists, writers and musicians tend to have thinner ones. People with thick boundaries tend to be in stable , long-term marriages; whereas thin types are more likely to be, or have been, divorced or separated.”The author goes on to say that thin-boundary types tend to report more unusual experiences including psychic experiences. He then lists the correlations between thin-boundary types and the traits of the Trickster archetype (as described in Jean Shinoda Bolen’s book Gods in Everyman). Archetypes in general fit in with this discussion of types.
I was thinking of this particular passage because of discussions elsewhere. Obviously, many new agers are thin-boundary types. The beliefs of the new ager make no sense to the more skeptically-minded because skeptics are probably most often thick-boundary types. Skeptics don’t realize that its not just an issue of belief but an issue of experience. Both the skeptic and the new ager trust their experience, but they simply have different kinds of experience.
Marmalade,I don’t have a lot of time, thus, briefly:1) I’ve lost sight of the link to the “rare integral based site/forum” but I think it was one of the Gaia conglomerate. 2) The 160-year-old tradition of E-A liberal humanism traces back to the American Transcendentalists and now resides in what is called the Cultural Creatives, a term coined by a management consultant (of all people) who seems to think that only now have those in this tradition become a large enough bloc to having an effect, but if he had just spent a day or two with a comprehensive American History book he would have found out that people of this persuasion were largely responsible for: the end of the American era of slavery, Prohibition, the introduction of sanitation and public health into local and state governments, pure food and drug laws, and the implementation of public based social service programs. The fact that the Native American population was not entirely eradicated in the 19th Century is largely due to this tradition.
3) Not only does typology throw a lot of confusion into a system like developmental studies, it tends to confound itself except when broadly applied. There are just too many variables to make individual applications anything stronger than tendencies that might be a little more concrete if they were subjected to longitudinal studies not geared to taking tests but making discreet, everyday choices. Of course the same can be said of developmental theories.
4) I think Bolen’s two books on Everyman, and Everywoman are good resources, particularly for clinical work, but the best literature on Jungian types is still Jung’s Psychological Types.
I’d like to note one common theme here. Gender is a very important type. It broadly relates to many different theories. Just in this thread I’ve noted how both Myers-Briggs personality types and Hartman’s boundary types have a gender component. I’d be curious to know if there is any gender preference in the Enneagram.
This is in response to the thread titled ‘Should Integralists Storm The Religous Battlefield’.I’ve been involved in a thread at IIDB, an atheist discussion board. Its a thread about Acharya’s theories about astrotheology which is related to comparative mythology, and Acharya has posted in response some. She has received much criticism and nitpicking which is common on atheist forums. She hasn’t taken it well and probably won’t post anymore in the thread or maybe even in the forum. Recently, the same thing happened with Earl Doherty who is another biblical scholar. He posted on IIDB for a long time, but now has declared he will never post there again.I find it a bit annoying and I don’t know if I could ever entirely get used to this kind of behavior. However, not everyone there is like this, and I do enjoy forums where there are many intelligent and knowledgeable people. I have a few thoughts about harsh criticalness. (1) I do think some people there could use an integral perspective. Critically challenging new theories is important for scholarship, but being nice is important for human relations. Also, I feel this critical attitude is narrow and often misses the point the central issue or the bigger picture. Disproving a single claim or piece of evidence doesn’t disprove a theory or discredit the entire scholarly credentials of the theorist. There are many ways to think about a theory, and criticism by itself often lacks insight and can miss the larger context.
Anyways, if actual scholars start avoiding such a forum, that would severely hamper open discourse. In what way is this actually being helpful?
A forum like IIDB may be a more extreme example of this attitude, but its far from unusual. Scholars such as Acharya and Doherty have also received plenty of harsh criticism from mainstream scholarship as well. Peer review tends to reinforce conventional opinions and discourages innovation. Any new theory is seen as suspect. Only the alternative views of people like Robert M. Price get some respect because they came to those views after already being established in the mainstream. Even so, Price’s ideas have received harsh criticism from some of the amateur scholars on the board. There is this attitude amongst some there that if they disagree with a theory, then they automatically dismiss it. Something is either true or false, and uncertainty or mere probability is never to be admitted.
It makes me understand why Wilber has been so committed to getting his work into academia.
(2) My experience at IIDB reminds me of my experience on an INTP forum. INTP types(and NT types in general) can be very combattive and nitpicky. An INTP has Introverted Thinking as a dominant function which means Extraverted Feeling is their inferior. A less developed or less balanced INTP can really suck at relating well to other people, and this is multiplied when you get a group of NTs together. What INTPs are good at is looking for logical consistency and honing in on any discrepant details. Introverted Thinking is largely hidden as its turned inward and so its difficult for other types to see the internal standard they’re using to judge. All that is seen directly is their secondary function Extraverted Intuition which allows them to see all of the possibilities. In the case of nitpicking, Extraverted Intuition is serving Introverted Thinking and thus they relentlessly seek out all potential errors.
This is what an INTP is good at. They honestly feel that they’re being helpful and they are to an extent. But if they haven’t developed other aspects of themselves, this talent can be problematic for relating well.
Atheist forums tend to attract many INTPs partly because of an NT interest in computers and debate, partly because Introverts spend more time doing solitary activities such as web browsing, and partly because NPs(Ne) love to discuss ideas endlessly. So, quite probably most of the critical people on IIDB are INTPs or some NT type, but also possibly some INFPs trying to conform to an NT environment. On top of their possible personality types, many of them have spent their whole lives studying ancient texts and biblical studies. Its what they know and its what they’re good at. They feel so certain because they’ve dedicated their lives to it and so they’re personally invested in the conclusions they’ve come to.
I have become more used to personality styles different than mine. I’m much better than I used to be at relating well with those I conflict with or disagree with. I have tried to stay evenhanded in the IIDB thread and have been mostly successful. I’ve tried to redirect the discussion back to the core issue and away from nitpicking, but that has been less successful. I’ve observed Acharya in videos and other places on the web, and I’d guess she is an NF type like me which would explain why she doesn’t have a thick skin towards criticalness, and why she gets critical in return when she is emotionally worked up.
I’m an INFP and Extraverted Thinking is my inferior, and as such my judgment of criticalness is very biased. Criticalness really gets to me after a while, and it takes great awareness on my part not to get emotionally pulled into it. I’d rather discuss possibilities rather than debate details. I’d rather find where I agree with someone rather than look for reasons that the other person is wrong. But this is a typical NF attitude and so I realize that others are different.
If I understand why someone acts the way they do, then its easier for me to accept their behavior. There is a person on the INTP forum who always annoyed me. I couldn’t understand why he was accepted there even to the point of being a moderator. An INTP finally explained it to me in a way that I could understand. This guy wasn’t a psychologically healthy person, but he was psychologically disturbed in a typical INTP way. They accepted him because they could understand him. As I wasn’t an INTP, it didn’t matter that I didn’t get along with him on an INTP forum.
I see IIDB in a similar light. Some people there are not perfectly balanced people, but neither am I. However, they’ve found their niche in the world. They can be respected for being critical on an atheist board. So, why should I let it bother me. They’re only doing what they know how to do, and I admit that they do it well. Maybe such people serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things.
20% are NFs
approximately equally divided between the four NF types
except less than 1% of ENFPs
12% are one of the 8 Sensation(S) types
So, why would an NT be so much more likely to belong to this kind of forum?
Are NT types more likely to be atheist?
Or are NT types more likely to want to debate about atheist views?
[QUOTE=ApostateAbe;5070973]I believe that the correlation between atheism and INTJ/INTP is not a trivial thing (I am an INTP).
The Christian forum poll is less clear, since it neglects the E/I. It does at least indicate that the N types predominate. But the members of ChristianForums.com are split between NF and NT. INTJ/INTP are 43% at a max at ChristianForums.com, but here it is a whopping 60%. The polls at the INTJ forum and INTP forum are even more striking. Majority of both are atheist or agnostic.[/QUOTE]
I was just thinking about how a higher percentage of Thinking types are male.
Accordingly, the majority of people on IIDB are probably male.
There is a reason this came to mind. I’ve suspected a higher percentage of people on Integral boards are NT. And I’ve heard it said several times that there are more males than females around this place which isn’t something I can personally verify. Also, there is way more heated debate here than on forums I belong to that have a majority of NF types.
So, what is the correlation between intellectuality, heated debate, atheism, NT personality types, and the male gender?
Why shouldn’t atheism and integralism appeal to SF females?
Males are 72% of the population there.
IIDB is the same kind of forum and so it would probably be similar.
I’m wondering how true this is for most people who are on the web.
I’m uncertain about what forums would attract more females… maybe spirituality/religious forums?
Type and DevelopmentI’m fascinated by both horizontal and vertical models, but most integral discussions emphasize the vertical. What I’m curious about is how the whole picture becomes more complex when the two are combined. Introduction to Volume 7 of the Collected Works http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/cowokev7_intro.cfm/
As for types, see figure 3, which uses the enneagram as an example. What I have done here is take only one developmental module or stream (it can be anything–morals, cognition, defenses, etc.), and I have listed the eight or so levels or waves of development through which this particular stream will tend to unfold (using Spiral Dynamics as an example of the waves). At each level I have drawn the enneagram as an example of what might be called a horizontal typology, or a typology of the personality types that can exist at almost any vertical level of development. The point is that a person can be a particular type (using Jungian types, Myers-Briggs, the enneagram, etc.) at virtually any of the levels. Thus, if a person is, say, predominately enneagram type 5, then as they develop they would be purple 5, red 5, blue 5, and so on (again, not in a rigid linear fashion, but in a fluid and flowing mesh). [20]
Figure 3
And this can occur in any of the lines. For example, in the moral line, a person might be predominately enneagram type 7 at the green wave in the context of the workplace; under stress, the person might move to type 1 at the orange wave (or even blue wave); cognitively, the person might be type 4 at turquoise, and so on. Notice, however, that what the enneagram alone cannot spot is the shift in vertical levels; an orange 7 under stress might go to orange 1, but under real stress, the orange 7 will regress to blue, then purple. These are not just different types, but different levels of types. Again, by combining horizontal typologies with vertical typologies, we can make use of second-tier constructions for a more integral view.
For many radical feminists, male and female orientations also constitute a type. Based mostly on work by Carol Gilligan and Deborah Tannen, the idea is that the typical male orientation tends to be more agentic, autonomous, abstract, and independent, based on rights and justice; whereas the female orientation tends to be more permeable, relational, and feelingful, based on care and responsibility. Gilligan, recall, agrees that females proceed through three (or four) hierarchical stages of development, and these are essentially the same three (or four) hierarchical stages or waves through which males proceed (namely, preconventional, conventional, postconventional, and integrated).
The reason that many people, especially feminists, still incorrectly believe that Gilligan denied a female hierarchy of development is that Gilligan found that males tend to make judgments using ranking or hierarchical thinking, whereas women tend to make judgments using linking or relational thinking (what I summarize as agency and communion, respectively). But what many people overlooked is that Gilligan maintained that the female orientation itself proceeds through three (or four) hierarchical stages –from selfish to care to universal care to integrated. Thus, many feminists confused the idea that females tend not to think hierarchically with the idea that females do not develop hierarchically; the former is true, the latter is false, according to Gilligan herself. [21] (Why was Gilligan so widely misread and distorted in this area? Because the green meme eschews and marginalizes hierarchies in general, and thus it literally could not perceive her message accurately.)
As you will see in The Eye of Spirit , contained in this volume, I have summarized this research by saying that men and women both proceed through the same general waves of development, but men tend to do so with an emphasis on agency, women with an emphasis on communion.
This approach to gender development allows us to utilize the extensive contributions of developmental studies, but also supplement them with a keener understanding of how females evolve “in a different voice” through the great waves of existence. In the past, it was not uncommon to find orthodox psychological researchers defining females as “deficient males” (i.e., females “lack” logic, rationality, a sense of justice; they are even defined by “penis envy,” or desiring that which they lack). Nowadays it is not uncommon to find, especially among feminists, the reverse prejudice: males are defined as “deficient females” (i.e., males “lack” sensitivity, care, relational capacity, embodiment, etc.).
Well, we might say, a plague on both houses. With this more integral approach, we can trace development through the great waves and streams of existence, but also recognize that males and females might navigate that great River of Life using a different style, type, or voice. This means that we can still recognize the major waves of existence–which, in fact, are gender-neutral–but we must fully honor the validity of both styles of navigating those waves. [22]
Finally, a person at virtually any stage of development, in virtually any line, of virtually any type, can have an altered state or peak experience , including those that are called spiritual experiences, and this can have a profound effect on their consciousness and its development. Thus, the idea that spiritual experiences can only occur at higher stages is incorrect. However, in order for altered states to become permanent traits (or structures), they need to enter the stream of enduring development. [23]
Wilber uses the Enneagram as his example. As a side note, I’ve heard a theory that the personality aspect of this system may have been borrowed from Jung, but I don’t know if this is true. I have see other correlations between the two systems also. However, the Enneagram doesn’t have much research behind it. Most Enneagram theories focus on it as a model of defense mechanisms. Whereas, the MBTI is looking at deeper cognitive structures that are largely inborn. Wilber shows how a person may have different Enneagram types in different situations depending on such things as which level of which line… but, theoretically, someone’s MBTI type should remain the same. I’d like to see how development over a lifetime influences how people test on the MBTI.
Here is a research paper that compares MBTI with the AMSP. I’m not familiar with the AMSP, but it says that it focuses on the propensity of people to change with situations. So, it seems comparable to how Wilber is presenting the Enneagram here.
This paper doesn’t go into any developmental models, but the focus on changeability in the AMSP gives room for a developmental perspective. However, there are some theories in typology about development.
First off, a brief primer. There are 8 Jungian functions. According to some theorists(eg Beebe), all types use all functions, but simply use them in different ways. There is the matter of whether a type is used consciously or not and this relates to development, and there is a specific order that each type will likely develop each function. This is highly theoretical and I don’t know what research has been done on it. Another theory presents how each function itself develops which is equivalent to saying that each function represents a separate line of development. There is some correlation of MBTI with models of psychological development.
For instance, how the Judging functions(Thinking and Feeling) have much similarity with Gilligan’s work on gender differences and the hierarchy of development that either gender will tend to follow. Typology brings a slightly different slant to this. Statistics have shown that their is a slight preference of males for Thnking and females for Feeling. Also, Thinking males tend to have stronger Thinking preferences than Thinking females, and Feeling females tend to have stronger preference for Feeling than Feeling males.
However, this gender preference is only around 60-70%, and that leaves a good portion that doesn’t fit the social expectations. David Deidda recognizes that gender patterns are only general. He says that his advice for men doesn’t apply to less masculine men and does apply to more masculine women. As a Feeling guy, I don’t entirely resonate with his advice.
I’ve looked at Gilligan’s work before, but not lately. Going by the above quote of Wilber, it seems her description of gender also incorporates a Intuition function bias for males(ie abstraction). But research has shown that men are no more likely to be abstract than women. Its only been in recent time that our society has started to idealize the man who is capable of abstraction. So, I’m not sure about this part of this model.
I had a hard time getting into the thread Translation versus Transformation. But I’m reminded of this topic because translation came up in my thread Type and Development. Reply by Andy Smith
“I’m fascinated by both horizontal and vertical models, but most integral discussions emphasize the vertical. What I’m curious about is how the whole picture becomes more complex when the two are combined.”I won’t address the rest of your post right now, but there is a very simple answer to this opening statement. The vertical occurs through horizontal or what Wilber calls translational interactions. Molecules emerge through translational interactions of atoms, cells through translational interactions of molecules, tissues through cell interactions and so on, including societies emerging from translational interactions of individuals. At every level, emergence of the next higher level begins with translational interactions of holons at that level. Your post, which I take it is a quote from Wilber, treats types as properties of individuals, but of course they are social properties as well, in fact, first and foremost social properties. Any type by any classification one cares to mention is basically a description of the way an individual interacts with other individuals, and even more, with society. These are translational interactions, the glue so to speak which holds societies together.
From my comments in my recent blog Integral, the Paleolithic, and the LIminal.BTW there is a particular theorist within the typology field who interests me the most. Her name is Lenore Thomson. She wrote the book Personality Type: An Owner’s Manual, and there is a wiki about her work. Her view of typology touches upon my own thoughts about a TFA. Basically, a TFA to me is a perspective of perspectives. Some relevant pages from the wiki: Rhetorical Stances
There is a thread I started on a type forum. I was speculating about the differences between NT types and NF types in terms of how they’d relate to theorizing. Here are some tentative conclusions I came to:What is communicated?
The dominant is what is literally communicated especially for an Extravert, but for an Introvert the way of communicating(ie auxiliary) is part of what is communicated. The tertiary assists what is being communicated. Possibly, the inferior helps to clarify the message of the dominant even if only by simple contrast. Why is it communicated?
I’d partly say that once again the dominant, but as communication is an external event so maybe the motivation might be dealt w/ using the Extraverted function. The functional pairings of the first two preferences would create the essence of the motivation.
A theory is ultimately a conclusion and so would primarily use the Judging function. Those w/ Extraverted Judging functions would be the most interested in a clear theory. Those w/ Introverted Judging may or may not be as interested in an external conclusion, but probably have an internal one. Even if they felt certain inside, they may feel uncertain of what they express or what others express. Ne as auxiliary would particularly tends towards endless speculating w/o ever coming to a final theory.
Let me break this down(partly based on Lenore Thomson’s ideas):
NP: creative, non-linear, expanding possibilities
NJ: similar to NP but more focused and grounded, and more clear ideas
F: lateral thinking, theories about subjects, collaborative discussion
T: categorical thinking, theories about objects, competitive discussion
IP: direct experience, underlying patterns
IJ: predictable reference points in world, represented experience
EP: direct experience, improvising
EJ: rational predictability, take in more info only when necessary
Marmalade,So, you’ve been busy. From what I have read from Andy Smith, a critic of Wilber, and Wilber, a critic of Smith, I conclude they both tend to be structuralists. Both seem to discount types and subordinate them to their own favorite transcendents. Do you think that Ns are particularly structuralist or transcendentalist? Do you think there is anything social, or spiritual that transcends your own being?
Your statistics are fascinating, but not surprising. This is why on these boards 99.63% of all topics involve “I think” or “she/he thinks” or “they think,” and only 0.39% involve “I etc. did/do.”
Here are some things “doing” and “did” that might have a bearing on types:
1) In that part of my developmental process (mid-teens) when I started doing important things that would define me as an adult, among them were: driving fast cars over long distances, hitchhiking to unknown destinations (when without a car), striking lefty leaning revolutionary postures, attracting interesting and beautiful women, avoiding educational institutions, studying the aesthetics of the well turned phrase, and having mind-bending, ecstatic mystical experiences (unbidden, drug free).
2) In that part of my development process (mid-childhood, 11-ish) when spirituality and religion became real enough to be seriously considered for “truth,” I seriously considered them long enough (a few hours) for me to conclude they were no longer worthy of serious consideration. The whole subject was just beside all the valuable points of my life. So when the mystical revelations of Cosmic Wholeness began to show up a few years later I did enough research to find out that some people thought these states had something to do with Spirit (a.k.a. God). I did not. My hubris told me that Spiritual and Godly considerations were for less-advantaged folks than me. (There have been times when I might have momentarily consider myself either an atheist, or an agnositic or maybe even a believer. But that eventually matured into a position of being reconciled to not knowing and not caring enough to figure it out. An example is that until you mentioned it I had never heard of IIDB, so I googled and dropped by and thought, “this is really dull…”)
3.) In my late 20s and early 30s, the mystical experiences of cosmic integrated unity, the apprehensions of the “divine” omniscient state, became more and more profound and began to color all my other perceptions. By this time I was one of the leading (investigative) journalistic experts on Native American legal and political issues in the USA, and beginning a career as a private legal investigator. Under fairly heavy psychological pressure as a result of these visions I made the decision to investigate for evidence that an overarching “really real,” integral and unifying principle existed. From my experience I had learned that theory was little more than insubstantial words, blue smoke and mirrors. Law, for example is the theory that attempts (poorly) to regulate the present and future by regulating (poorly) perceptions and interpretations of past facts. Facts are created by what people do. The rule of thumb for lawyers is that one never argues the law unless a really bad circumstantial case prohibits them from arguing the facts. So I went out to find the facts of this matter–are there facts here on the ground that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is an overarching, really real, unifying principle. I spent about five years at it. I took it seriously, I had to if I was going to maintain my reputation as a highly skilled investigator, and hope for any credibility in writing the obviously best-selling, revelatory book that would follow a positive conclusion.
4. Along the way, quite by accident, I stumbled across the writings of Carl Jung that sparked: a) my first more than passing interest in psychology; b) an interest in psychological types; c) an 18-month period in which I began dreaming three or four “big” dreams a week. Also quite by accident, I began study of Taoism and the benefits of contemplative practices particularly those that developed and enhanced phenomenological awareness, internally and externally. (Both of these contributed to my investigation and resulted in a continuing 31-year-old dream journal and meditation habit.)
5. At the end of the five years I had not found one single mote of irrefutable evidence for the really real unifying principle that I, as a reputable, self-respecting investigator, would even consider taking to my client/attorney with the expectation that they would put it to a jury. There went the dream of fame, fortune and beautiful lovers that would accrue from writing that book. The best thing I could come up with was a theory lifted out of Jung: the visions of the divine unification-through-omniscience Hoo-Ha were a self-reflecting glance at, and projection of, the perceptual organizing functions of my mind, a satisfying conclusion in that it tended to confirm rather than diminish hubris. (One of the reasons why I tend not to take Wilber all that seriously is that I have found no evidence in his writing to show that he ever seriously considered or researched the possibility that AQAL might be a manual and map for the form and functions of his psyche and nothing more.)
6. Early in 2005, while waiting a week or so for a client couple to finalize design and budget approval for a proposed sculpture, I googled “enlightenment” and got some Andrew Cohen hits that lead me to Wilber-land. I studied up on his latest (I hadn’t read any of Wilber since about 1989) and wrote my first lengthy Integral Naked post that proposed–based on the findings of my own search as a bad example–and the fact that Wilber had managed it (good example) that most anyone with a few years in a liberal arts school and a facility for words, blue smoke and mirrors could undertake the development of a Unified Field Theory for the Human Condition if not Everything itself. And I urged folks to not worry in the least about their theory being right or wrong because that’s not the point. The point is to publish an interesting book, make a little money and attract beautiful lovers. I should have pointed out then, and do so now, that the chances for one’s success will be enhanced if they are iNtuitive, preferably Introverted iNtuitive. Part of the reason my effort failed was that I went about my grand search in the way I tested out on the typology scales: ESFP. So I make my money these days doing art. And as for beautiful lovers? I’ve got mine, Jack.
Nickeson: I see you’re a blacksmith-artist. One of my New Mexico dancing associates, Ward Brinegar, is also into this type of art. See his site at this link.
Thanks for providing that link, Nickeson. I loved having a chance to see your work – and to see you at work. The railings you’ve wrought strike me as similar to you in spirit: strong and unruly, with a graceful flair.
Edward,
Ward is a friend of mine, though I haven’t seen him for years. Last time I heard he was living broken-hearted in Albuquerque. I learned the art in Santa Fe, spent eight years doing it there. I can see by his web site that he is doing good work and doing well. This is really good to know.Balder, thanks for the kind words. S.
p.s. I just remembered that I wrote a piece here on my other blog that goes directly to this typological difference thing. (Part of it has been excerpted to the Kabiri site.)
Ward has been in SF for many years, living and working. I know he got a divorce years ago but he’s gone through a number of girlfriends since then. Not sure of his current love life status. I see him once a year at the Albuquerque Dance Fiesta, the next of which is at the end of September. I’ll try to remember to say hello for you. Or you could do so yourself at his website and tell him I referred you.
Nickeson,Nice iron work. I had a great interest in art growing up, but as an NP I was more interested in the creative possibilities than the finished product. Do you think that Ns are particularly structuralist or transcendentalist?
I wouldn’t think Ns would particularly be structuralist as I’d think that might have more to do with whether the person was Judging… to put it simply, whether they seek out conclusion. I would think, though, that Ns are particularly transcendentalist as N is about abstraction, imagination, and possibilities. Ns look past the obvious data of physical experience, but also Ns are less satisfied with the world as it is because they’re so capable of seeing how the world could be otherwise.
Do you think there is anything social, or spiritual that transcends your own being?
Going by the gist of your question, I’d answer in the affirmative. But I don’t think of it exactly as transcending. That reality isn’t based on isolated individuals feels like a basic immanent experiential truth to me. However, as an INFP, N (Extraverted Intuition) is my secondary function. My direct sense of reality has to do with Fi (Introverted Feeling).
Your statistics are fascinating, but not surprising.
They didn’t surprise me either. Based on type theory and on personal experience, it was what I was more or less what I was expecting to find. One interesting discovery I made was that INTJs are more prevalent on atheist boards than they are on type boards. Typology is probably a bit too woo woo for many INTJs. The INTPs, altough Thinking types, are one of the most active groups in the online typology community. INTPs are a bit more open to the soft sciences because they enjoy endless speculation, enjoy considering possibilities without a need to come to an absolute conclusion.
This is why on these boards 99.63% of all topics involve “I think” or “she/he thinks” or “they think,” and only 0.39% involve “I etc. did/do.”
I agree.
Interestingly, though, my ISTJ mom would take a different perspective from both you and most integralists. To her, life isn’t about enjoyment, but is instead about responsibility and routine. Your ideal of making some money and attracting beautiful partners would be utterly alien to her worldview.
Another interesting example is my ENTJ dad. He does like to think and speculate, but first and foremost he is an Extraverted Thinking type. He wants to do things and accomplish things. He wants to help, inspire, and organize people. He might find Integralism mildly interesting, but he wants to know the hard facts and the practical application. He can think outside of the box, but in many ways he is contented with conventional thinking (he is very status conscious as TJ appreciates hierarchy and authority).
Both of my parents are very action-oriented, but in very different ways. The only commonality they have is that they’re both Judging types, and they both have Te as their preferred Judging function. But neither is action-oriented like you although my dad comes closest to you in wanting to enjoy the good life… I suspect for totally different reasons though.
I find it curious that so far the only significant response I’ve had to this thread is from Nickeson and he is critical of integral theory. I have great interest in types and I have likewise used it as a critical perspective of integralism.There is obviously a lack of integration of type into integral theory, but is there also a lack of interest? Do integralists perceive types as less important than lines of development or the quadrants? Why have integralists focused so little upon something that has more scientific backing than other elements of integral that have less scientific backing? Do integralists simply not know how to integrate types? Or is it merely a paradigm bias of integralists idealizing transcendence? Is personality not all that significant if your goal is transpersonal? Could it be that most integralists simply don’t know much about types and they just don’t know what to make of them? Or are many integralists actively critical of thinking too much in terms of types? If so, what is the criticism of types from an integral perspective? I don’t see types and integralism as being in conflict. If anything, I think this might be one of the most fruitful avenues that integralism hasn’t yet explored.
I’ve focused on Myers-Briggs in this thread because that is what I know best, but of course there are probably thousands of different kinds of type theories. If Myers-Briggs doesn’t interest you, what type system does? Beyond the brief summary of Wilber, how might the Enneagram be more fully integrated into integral theory?
If you don’t like type theories whatsoever, then what do you think of trait theories which is a slightly different take on personality (and academically more respectable)? Does Wilber or any other integralist speak much about personality traits?
Marmalade, unfortunately, most members of this pod are actually critical of Integral theory! I am probably more strongly supportive of it than most of the other active members here.I am interested in this topic, and believe it actually is a very fruitful area to explore – particularly since I think greater sensitivity to types may help lessen the current tendency to almost impulsively evaluate everything in terms of “rank” or “level.” I think the level-distinctions are valid, but as you and others point out, factoring “types” in may complicate those evaluations in significant ways. As I mentioned in a previous post, I’m trying to write a blog entry in between my work and school duties, and I’m almost done with that. That is what has kept me away from active participation here. But I will be back!
Balder,Yeah. From comments you’d made, I was assuming you were probably busy. But there are other active members in this pod. I was just wondering what people thought even if it was merely to say they’re not interested. Even though many here are critical of integral or at least Wilber’s integral, they obviously have enough interest in integral to post here.
As I said, the only significant response I’ve had has been from Nickeson. And he doesn’t see much merit in integral as its presently forumlated. But I do get the sense that he isn’t dismissing integral theory entirely. Nevertheless, he certainly doesn’t seem hopeful about integrating types into integral, and maybe he is right.
I like integral theory for the most part, and I like type theory for the most part. Both systems have their flaws, but they’re good enough for basic understandings. I’d like to think that the two can somehow inform eachother… and maybe even be included within a single theory.
I don’t know. I’d like to explore this some more. At the moment, I was purposely focusing on only one aspect of types. There are two other aspects that are more directly related to integralism, but I wanted to feel out the waters first. One of those aspects is types not as types per se but as perspectives (eg Lenore Thomson). The other aspect is the developmental. Many type theories (eg Myers-Briggs and Enneagram) explicitly theorize how development commonly occurs.
I guess I’ll just sit on it for the time being.
I appreciate what you’re trying to do here with this pod. I realize its difficult. I hope that discussion can get past criticisms (even if insightful) and point towards new possibilities. That was my hope for this thread anyways. How might types allow new innovation within integral theory?
Re: Integral and Types
Jim [no longer around] said Jul 8, 2008, 6:55 PM:
Hi Marmalade. You wrote to Balder: “I was just wondering what people thought even if it was merely to say they’re not interested.”
I’m well familiar with Jung’s typology (I had to study Jung in depth and was tested by teachers who’d trained at the C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich as part of my training in Arnold Mindell’s Process Work). I took the Myers-Briggs type test in the eighties. I read Almaas’s book, Facets of Unity: The Enneagram of Holy Ideas, and I’ve had people who are into the Enneagram as Helen Palmer teaches it talk to me about my Enneagram type.
But I’m not interested in reading about, studying, or discussing type theory any more than I already have, and that’s why I haven’t commented on your posts where you discuss typology.
Hey Jim,Your post makes me curious all the while making me a bit sad. You know about types and seemingly have an opinion on the matter, but for whatever reason don’t wish to share.. or maybe you just don’t have any clear thoughts on the matter. My sense is that you see no value in types for the time being or maybe entirely.
Oh well… if you don’t feel like participating, then you don’t. But if you ever do feel like sharing, I’d love to hear about your doubts or criticisms… or about your lack of interest for whatever reason. I’ve enjoyed your views in other integral discussions.
I wonder if there are many integralists like you… people who know a fair amount about typology but it simply doesn’t relate to their interest in integral theory. Its good to keep in mind that a lack of dicussion about types in the integral community doesn’t necessarily imply a lack of knowledge. If that is the case, then what is the disconnect between the two?
Anyways, thanks for the reply. Even though you didn’t say much, it still gives me some feedback.
Blessings,
Marmalade
Re: Integral and Types
Jim [no longer around] said Jul 9, 2008, 11:41 AM:
Hi Ben (if I may call you Ben),
Your post makes me curious all the while making me a bit sad.I’m sorry to hear that my post makes you a bit sad.
You know about types and seemingly have an opinion on the matter, but for whatever reason don’t wish to share.. or maybe you just don’t have any clear thoughts on the matter. My sense is that you see no value in types for the time being or maybe entirely.
It’s not that I don’t wish to share, it’s that I’m not interested in getting into a discussion on types and typology. I’m happy to share my opinion that a working understanding of Jung’s typology is important for anyone who wants to work in a helping capacity within a transpersonal – or integral if one prefers – context.
I had a private therapy practice working with individuals, couples, and small groups. My approach, largely based on my training in Process Work (which as I think you know was created by Jungian analyst Arny Mindell – his initial research into what he calls PW or Process Oriented Psychology was funded by the Jung Institute in Zurich where he trained budding Jungians to be Jungian analysts), was hands-on, experiential, and non-interpretive. Talking about types, thinking about types, and typing clients and participants in group work simply played no role in the work I did, just as my beautiful, expensive watercolor brushes played no role in the electrical and plumbing work I did no my house last week.
Oh well… if you don’t feel like participating, then you don’t. But if you ever do feel like sharing, I’d love to hear about your doubts or criticisms… or about your lack of interest for whatever reason.
In addition to a lack of interest in the topic, my focus of late has been on neuroscience (among a few other things), the learning curve is steep, and I only have so much time. I don’t have doubts about typology (beyond my general doubts about “folk psychology”), and my lack of interest is no different to me than my lack of interest in spectator sports. I’m not against spectator sports any more than I’m against typology, but I’m not interested. I don’t know the names of sport teams or players, I don’t know what sport season it is, I don’t watch spectator sports on TV and I don’t attend live spectacles (I always fell asleep at Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium whenever I was taken there when I was growing up in NY), and to me Superbowl Sunday is just another Sunday and a good day to go grocery shopping because the markets are usually empty during the game.
I wonder if there are many integralists like you… people who know a fair amount about typology but it simply doesn’t relate to their interest in integral theory.
I don’t consider myself an “integralist,” and I’m definitely not a Wilberian (and I find it difficult to hear the word “integral” without thinking of Wilber; IMO he has appropriated the word). I think that Wilber gets a lot of things right (and some things incredibly wrong), I participated in a series of Integral Institute meetings at his home in late 2000 and I corresponded a bit with him before that, but being into Ken Wilber’s integral theory of everything is just not a part of my path.
(I parenthetically mentioned having doubts about “folk psychology.” Some cognitive scientists and philosophers maintain that our “commonsense” or “folk” understanding of mental states constitute a theory that enables us to predict and explain the behavior of ourselves and others. Ken Wilber borrows the term “myth of the given” from Wilfrid Sellars. It so happens that Sellars’ ideas on the myth of the given are a source of the idea that folk psychology is a theory and is therefore subject to revision or even replacement.)
I hope that makes where I’m coming from at least a bit clearer.
Jim,Sure… call me Ben if you’d like. Call me almost anything you want as far as I care.
Neuroscience, eh? I’ve come across research on neuroscience and personality. Traits research goes into this quite a bit. What kind of neuroscience are you interested in?
I would agree “that folk psychology is a theory and is therefore subject to revision or even replacement.” That is why I like to study and research the subject. Also, its the reason I prefer Myers-Briggs over the Enneagram. I haven’t found any academic research about the Enneagram, and so I have no way of making sense out of all the differing opinions. Myers-Briggs is closer to traits theory than to the Enneagram, and traits theory has been researched to a great extent and across cultures.
So, to the extent that Myers-Briggs correlates with this academic research, it isn’t folk psychology. However, there is still much research that needs to be done on Myers-Briggs theory. For example, there is good reason to question the orthogonal view of the functions which traits theory disagrees with.
If you ever feel so inclined, it would be nice to see a thread about what you’ve learned from your neuroscience studies.
Blessings,
Marmalade
Re: Integral and Types
Jim [no longer around] said Jul 9, 2008, 5:10 PM:
Ben, I’ve been working, as time allows, on a response to Balder’s request (to any members of this pod) for “a positive formulation of your own spiritual vision,” and I may touch on neuroscience in that. Blessings to you too, Jim
1) “…my ISTJ mom would take a different perspective from both you and most integralists. To her, life isn’t about enjoyment, but is instead about responsibility and routine. Your ideal of making some money and attracting beautiful partners would be utterly alien to her worldview.”
Your mom is not just an S, she’s an SJ! Keirsey says this is the “Guardian temperament.”
Guardians pride themselves on being dependable, helpful, and hard-working.
Guardians make loyal mates, responsible parents, and stabilizing leaders.
Guardians tend to be dutiful, cautious, humble, and focused on credentials and traditions.
Guardians are concerned citizens who trust authority, join groups, seek security, prize gratitude, and dream of meting out justice.
And then there are the NFs, the “most integralists”–
Idealists are enthusiastic, they trust their intuition, yearn for romance, seek their true self, prize meaningful relationships, and dream of attaining wisdom.
Idealists pride themselves on being loving, kindhearted, and authentic.
Idealists tend to be giving, trusting, spiritual, and they are focused on personal journeys and human potentials.
Idealists make intense mates, nurturing parents, and inspirational leaders.
On almost every site here in the on-line Integral Province one finds evidence that the ideal person is an Idealist, every site is preaching to this choir, seeking their approval love. Novelist James Mitchner, speaking of everybody, once said to the effect of “It is not that everybody wants to be a writer, everybody wants to have been a writer.” Here one could say similarly “Its not that every Integralite wants to be Ramana Maharshi, every Integralite wants to have been Ramana Maharshi.” On these overviews (I left one out) the word “spiritual” only shows up as an Idealist quality. And descriptions of the ideal citizen of Yellow or Ultramarine, Burnt Sienna or whatever the popular, upper-berth color here in the Province is this season boils down to the ideal Idealist; run-of-the-mill Idealists are still stuck in Green. Maybe in a Type Theory of Integral the first thing to do is factor out the cultural confounders and run a horizontal analysis of the colors. How different would that look from the Jungian types, or as someone pointed out on the Integral Praxis Sosh Ntwrk site, how different would that look from the primary and recombinant qualities of the Zodiac?
I guess all of the long posts I have made on this thread have just been wordy ways of backing into the same question…one that has been implied in each, and since failing to get an answer I will ask it directly: Do the precursory qualities for transformation and enlightenment favor NFs? From a blending of what we see of types and the Integral givens it would appear that would be the the logical working hypothesis. Does this mean that Bio-spiritual and cultural evolution as defined by what is generally considered core Integral Theory promote NF, or at least the top cut of the catagory, as more evolved than any other type?
There are times when I, as an SP in the land of NFs, feel like an itinerant anthropologist, or wandering writer a la Paul Theroux or Peter Matthiesson, sending dispatches back to a home far, far away. As you know I have been writing from the virtual sovereignty I call Integral Province. If the answer to my question can any way be construed toward the positive then I might have to rethink this name, perhaps drop “Province” and adopt “Ghetto.”
Nickeson,Yep, my mom is an SJ. I brought it up as a counterexample to your SP slant on the differences between S and N. I’m willing to bet that a SJ would feel like even more of an outsider in the integral community than an SP would.
How I see all of this is that Wilber is more likely an NT than not and so there is a NT bias at the heart of integral theory… whether or not NFs are also attracted to integral idealism. Of the NFs, INFJs have the most interest in systematic theorizing. But even INFJs don’t come close to most NTs when it comes to systematic theorizing. I know INFPs particularly well and few would be interested in integral, but maybe the ideal Idealist… I don’t know. So, its true that integralism is idealistic and NFs are known as the Idealists, but Thinking has its version of idealism in its focus on principles. And the hierarchical structure of integral theory is more in line with the Thinking function as I understand it.
Here is the breakdown in terms of religion. Most theology professors are probably NTs. Most ministers are probably NFs. Most of the congregation is probably SJs. I don’t know where the SPs might be… probably doing missionary work in a third-world country.
So, Wilber and other integral theorists are probably NTs. However, many of the advocates of integralism in a forum may be NFs. In a pod like this maybe its pretty even between NTs and NFs, but I’d say that there is still an NT bias to integral theory overall.
MBTI was created by an INFP. Even though it took a lot of intellectual thought (ie statistical analysis), its a very NF model. Its not hierarchical for one thing. Instead, its about seeing the good in everyone exactly as they are. It has its developmental aspect, but the equality aspect is emphasized more.
Integral as the ideal from the top cut of Idealists? It could be. I do have the suspicion that many spiritual visionaries are NFs. But how many of them would turn their spiritual vision into an all-encompassing hierarchical abstract theory?
Your viewpoint is intriguing. Even though integral theory came from the mind of a probable NT, maybe its slowly being hijacked by NFs. But of course the NTs see it as corruption from the green meme.
So, how would you create an integral theory from an SP perspective? Or is your SP perspective that such theorizing is pointless? If you could somehow organize your SP brethren, how would you attempt to hijack the integral movement?
Maramalade,I’m just going to jump around here a little:
And the hierarchical structure of integral theory is more in line with the Thinking function as I understand it.
This might be debated. I think it might have more to do with N aligned with J. Jung was a Thinking type (INTP, I believe) and he wasn’t big on hierarchies except cultural and moral ones.
Most ministers are probably NFs. Most of the congregation is probably SJs. I don’t know where the SPs might be…
Have you ever read Sinclair Lewis’s novel Elmer Gantry? It mostly concerns the relationship between an SP evangelist and an NF faith healer.
I do have the suspicion that many spiritual visionaries are NFs. But how many of them would turn their spiritual vision into an all-encompassing hierarchical abstract theory?
Excellent point!
Even though integral theory came from the mind of a probable NT, maybe its slowly being hijacked by NFs. But of course the NTs see it as corruption from the green meme.
This is one of the reasons I sometimes wonder about the depth of Wilber’s here and now consciousness. In one aspect of the theory he gives the NFs what they need because they are NFs and they will support him. But in another aspect he bites the hands that feed him because they aren’t intuitively rational enough, and they in turn will forgive him because they are who they are. Co-dependence, no?
If you could somehow organize your SP brethren, how would you attempt to hijack the integral movement?
I don’t think most would consider it worth hijacking. It isn’t effective enough, it doesn’t do anything, its too academic. That is why politicians might give it a nod and then move on. It is void of solutions for the here and now. But it is a good place to stock-pile NFs until they are needed to march in the streets.
So, how would you create an integral theory from an SP perspective?
I’ll have to give that more thought. I have been thinking of whipping up a little something vis a vis Balder’s call for papers on a ”positive formulation of your own spiritual vision.” Maybe I can organize it about this question…we’ll see.
And the hierarchical structure of integral theory is more in line with the Thinking function as I understand it.This might be debated. I think it might have more to do with N aligned with J. Jung was a Thinking type (INTP, I believe) and he wasn’t big on hierarchies except cultural and moral ones.
I understand why you’d say J and I would add the Judging functions of Thinking and Feeling. I’m surprised by your thinking it would be N aligned with J (ie Ni). From my understanding of Lenore Thomson, Ni wants to free an idea from larger contexts especially external contexts… because Ni wants to focus more narrowly. However, within their own personal understanding, their thoughts can be more structured (depending on how well their Judging function is developed). My ENTJ dad can be more structured and hierarchical in thinking, but I always interpreted that as a result of his being Te dominant (ie EXTJ).
I was basing my statement largely on personal observation of an INFP forum and some NT forums (in particular an INTP forum). Its somewhat of an issue of debating style. NFs (especially Feeling dominants) can have a hierarchical side, but its a hierarchy of values. NFs don’t seem overly hierarchical with ideas and abstract theories. However, to the extent that an idea stands in for an Idealist value, an NF could become attached to a hierarchical theory.
I’m not sure what type Jung was. I’ve heard of him being an INTP, but Beebe thinks he was an INTJ. I know that he didn’t like social hierarchies, and that may have more to do with his Introversion than with anything else (although my ISTJ mom likes social hierarchies). I think Beebe’s assessment makes sense. An INTP’s dominant Ti gives them a strong internal sense of structure and also a tendency towards methodical analysis. Jung seems more Ni dominant to me. He was a deep thinker, but there is somewhat of a looseness to all of his thinking. Jung never had an overarching systematic theory as Wilber does and I see Wilber as being more of an INTP.
Have you ever read Sinclair Lewis’s novel Elmer Gantry? It mostly concerns the relationship between an SP evangelist and an NF faith healer.
No, never read it. Sounds interesting. What did you think of it?
In one aspect of the theory he gives the NFs what they need because they are NFs and they will support him. But in another aspect he bites the hands that feed him because they aren’t intuitively rational enough, and they in turn will forgive him because they are who they are. Co-dependence, no?
The social dynamics of the situation is very intriguing. I could imagine that Wilber’s most loyal followers might be NFs, and maybe he has encouraged this to an extent. An NF could be very forgiving about Wilber and his ideas if they projected their idealistic values onto the ideal of integralism. Most NFs don’t care about a theory being perfect and they might be willing to ignore any gaps that aren’t too obvious.
BTW INFPs are very individualistic, but they also are considered the most idealistic of the Idealists. If a theory captures their sense of idealism, they very well might throw themselves into it without reservation. INFPs more than any type want something overarching to believe in.
But it is a good place to stock-pile NFs until they are needed to march in the streets.
Very good point. NFs can be pacifists and passivists, but once their idealism is challenged its a different story. I’ve had an interesting discussion on why INFPs would make good terrorists and guerilla fighters. The discussion started because bin Laden seems like a possible INFP. He combines cultural analysis with fiery righteousness, and a patient indirect way of challenging authority. INFPs, when the situation is right, can make good leaders of small groups. They inspire the loyal SJs to put the NF’s ideals into action.
So, how would you create an integral theory from an SP perspective?
I’ll have to give that more thought. I have been thinking of whipping up a little something vis a vis Balder’s call for papers on a ”positive formulation of your own spiritual vision.” Maybe I can organize it about this question…we’ll see.
Maramalade,Not long ago you asked these questions of me:
So, how would you create an integral theory from an SP perspective? Or is your SP perspective that such theorizing is pointless?
And I answered that I would address that question in a post re: Balder’s request for papers on a positive Spiritual vision. But I’m not going to do that now, times have changed. However there still might be an indirect answer to those questions in various excerpts from the following blog posts. Most people around here might have read them by now, but since you asked–
First, the last five or six paragraphs of ”Integral Dissipation” are pretty explicit on the matter.
Second, the whole of ”To One in the Dark V” looks at the same thing from a slightly different perspective
M has been reading Bhagavan Das and thinking back. The two of us are easing toward sleep, her head, my shoulder conjoined. She wonders why he or anyone else wants things to have meaning when meanings just enforce limits.
From M—Wholeness: no limits, no meaning. Make a note of it.
I don’t want this discussion about types to be limited to typology.For instance, what does anyone think of archetypes as horizontal types? I realize that archetypes also can be seen vertically and the pre/trans fallacy can be invoked. But for the moment what do you think of archetypes as general categories of human cognition and experience? And can archetypes be a part of Integral theory?
Marmalade,I understand why you’d say J and I would add the Judging functions of Thinking and Feeling. I’m surprised by your thinking it would be N aligned with J (ie Ni). From my understanding of Lenore Thomson, Ni wants to free….
You are no doubt correct and also way ahead of me here. I am not familiar with the details of Thomson’s work and I’ve never heard of Beebe before your mention of him. I believe the last theory I read with anything more than passing curiosity was Bolon’s and that was long ago. I can see why there is equivocation on Jung’s J or P as those two seem to be the most mercurial and culturally mutable aspects. My statement on the matter was remembering what one or another of his student/colleagues, like von Franz, et al, wrote of him. Speaking of archetypes and hierarchies in this light, Jung’s intellectual position on the basic quaternary of personal archetypes (Hero, Wise Old Man, King, Puer, etc) was fairly horizontal but as a conscientious Swiss by culture he elevated the Wise Old Man and the King (to a lesser extent) and was disparaging of the Puer. This is where theory and training diverge after a time from experience and folk psychology. I am with Jim who said a working knowledge of the types is a good thing for liberal humanist style therapists. I suspect that in five years or so following training most of these clinicians are practicing folk psychology to some extent. (To me folk psychology is of a difference order than pop psychology which is just out there for its entertainment value.) Whether it is positively effective or damaging to the client is a function of the therapists’ abilities and not the source of the style/theory. Of course it is not going to play well for the theorists or those in the labs, but the same can be said of anthing that arises outside of their immediate venues.
Elmer Gantry is probably as entertaining, instructive and thought provoking as any professionally written 82-year-old novel is these days. I read it when it was only 33-years-old so it had different things to say at that time.
And can archetypes be a part of Integral theory?
I think anything that can be said of types can and should be said about archtypes. And by definition anything and everything can be a part of Integral Theory and that drops the hint that Integral might not qualify as a theory at all.
This book is about a lesbian who dressed up as a man. Its not my normal kind of reading material. The premise of it sounds like superficial amusement, a catchy idea in a world glutted with such books. I was very surprised by how insightful she was, and not a bad writer either.
The subject of this book is sorta in my realm of interests. Gender roles is a fascinating lense through which to see the world.
I’ve read many of the popular books in this field. There is the clasic Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. John Gray’s ideas are mostly stereotypes with some decent observations. In the integral field, David Deida and Carol Gilligan are often talked about. Deida’s advice may be good for manly men, but from reading him I came to realize that I must not be a manly man. He does admit that his advice is for the masculine… which equally applies for women as for men. Anyways, his ideas didn’t fit my self-understanding. Carol Gilligan is more interesting to me, but I haven’t studied her too closely.
I wonder to what extent these gender theories are about actual biological differences. I’m sure genetics play a big part, but so do culturally-learned roles. Even on the genetic level, there is great variety. I think about this primarily from a Myers-Briggs perspective. The gender theories I’ve come across seem to be speaking about the same division as Jung’s Thinking and Feeling. A majority of men have a Thinking function preference. and a majority of women have a Feeling function preference. But its not a large majority in either case… approximately around 60-70%. So, that leaves 30-40% of people who don’t fit the expectation. That ain’t small potatoes.
To get back to Vincent, she said she was a tomboy growing up and people perceived her as a masculine woman. And she was surprised that, as a man, she was perceived as effeminate. This also fits in with function preferences. Women who prefer Thinking still don’t come out as strong on that preference as most Thinking preference men, and ditto for men who prefer Feeling.
In case you’re wondering, I’m one of those Feeling type of guys which would probably explain why Deida didn’t do much for me.
Vincent did come to the conclusion that there are distinct differences between men and women, but she also observed how much gender roles are taught… sometimes to a harsh degree. She was playing a role and she found dressing the part was important. Especially for men, clothing such as a suit can act as a uniform and people will treat you accordingly… even when they claim and seem to consciously believe they’re treating you gender-neutrally.
From her experiment, Vincent learned something maybe even more important. She got into the mindset of her character to the point that she considered it self-hypnosis. Later on, she became a bit lazy and partially let her disguise down, but people still treated her like a man. She found that people to an extent believed what she believed. Even she, after the experiment was over, had difficulty getting back into her normal mindset. Even though it didn’t feel natural to her, she became used to acting that way, the role became an ingrained habit. She had only tried this for a year or so, but just imagine about the identity role one pretends to be for years and which is constantly reinforced by everyone around you.
Posted on February 11, 2010 by Benjamin David Steele
Internet discussions more often than not drive me bonkers. I’ll mention some data and immediately someone will question and criticize the data. If they’re a more worthy opponent, they’ll ask for specific sources. I usually comply and then add even more data just to further support my argument. The other person may offer data too, but they rarely cite the data and it’s even more rare for them to offer multiple sources. Most “debates” never get past mere opinionated nitpicking.
I mentioned one example in a previous post. I gave specific data and quotes from specific sources and framed it within the larger context of scientific consensus… and the other person acted like it meant nothing at all. As a person who respects facts, I find it odd that many adults (who are potential voters) have such a dubious relationship to facts. If someone shares facts with me that prove I’m wrong, I accept my being wrong and I do further research to better inform myself. This attitude of intellectual humility and curiosity seems not to be shared by many people… or at least not many people I meet online which may or may not be a representative example of the American public (but if I had to guess, I’d think that the average internet user is more intelligent and better informed than the average non-internet user).
I just experienced another example. This one was on Youtube and it was also about the scientific consensus of climatology experts. Youtube has very limited word count for comments which makes intelligent debate a bit constrained, but I was up for the challenge. I first mentioned some facts withou citing them, partly because Youtube doesn’t allow comments with url addresses in them. Some person questioned the validity of my data and offered some other data which they didn’t cite either. I felt lazy and didn’t want to try to figure out where he was getting his data, and I wasn’t in a mood for debating to any great extent. So, I just offered the url addresses (by replacing the “.” with “DOT” which Youtube allows) of several scientific articles and Wikipedia articles (and the Wikipedia articles cited many scientific articles).
My “debate” partner responded by saying that what I was referring to wasn’t peer reviewed and I assumed he must be talking about the first set of data I mentioned. I had been looking at this data recently and I knew it came from the University of Illinois, but I didn’t know if it was or wasn’t peer reviewed. I did a quick websearch and found it had been peer reviewed. This is so typical. If you look at people’s nitpicking, it is often unfounded. I suppose people like this just hope you won’t actually check it out for yourself. Why would this person lie to me just to try to win a debate? It only took me maybe a minute or so to disprove his claim. Does this person normally get away with such lies? Are most people unwilling to check the facts for themselves? Do most people not know how to use a search engine to find information quickly?
The ironic part was this person said the media is always lying. So, I pointed out to him that, whether or not the media was lying, it appeared that he was lying or else uninformed. He never responded back to further challenge me nor to admit to being wrong. His only objective was to “win” the debate at all costs. When it became apparent he wasn’t going to “win”, he simply abandoned ship.
I have an online “debate” like this probably on average of once a week (sometimes less when I’m not in a commenting mood). I don’t go looking for idiots. It’s just that the idiots are often the ones most willing to brazenly challenge any opinion (no matter how factual) that disagrees with their opinion. To be fair, there are also many reasonable people online. My experience, though, that the line between idiotic and reasonable often becomes rather thin when it comes to political and religious ideology. Even when faced with the facts, few people are willing (or able?) to change their mind.
Why is this? I’ve studied psychology enough to realize that humans are mostly irrational creatures, but I’m constantly amazed by how irrational certain people can be. I seem unwilling and unable to accept the fact that most people aren’t capable of intelligent debate. Part of me thinks that if I present the facts in a fair manner and make a reasonable argument that I can expect the same in return. Apparently, I’m the irrational one for feeling frustrated by the inevitable irrationality of human nature.
But I do have reason for my irrational hope for rationality. I occasionally have very intelligent debates with people online and these people even sometimes change their minds when offered new information… I even change my mind sometimes when presented with new information by an intelligent person. Most often these people seem to be more liberal, libertarian or independent-minded.
I’ve found that the only subjects that regularly attract intelligent conservatives are economics and sometimes philosophy/theology, but these are subjects that aren’t as easily determined factually according to scientific research (including psychological research). Conservatives tend to argue more from a perspective of principles that they support with historical examples. To conservatives, the past is where they look to verify a theory or claim. I guess that is fine as far as it goes, but it makes for difficult debating because the attempt to understand principles and history is easily swayed by subjective biases.
For example, many libertarians and fiscal conservatives like to talk about free markets. The problem is that it’s almost impossible to ascertain what this means. The idea of a “free market” is highly theoretical if not outright idealistic. No free market has ever existed. Furthermore, no free market could ever exist because it’s merely a relative label of a market being more free than some other market. There is no ultimate freedom of markets. So, these debates lead off in all kinds of directions such as referencing “experts”. The issue I have with experts in fields such as economics is that expertise is much more subjective in that there is less hard data. Many of the economic models that have been relied upon have been proven wrong. It’s almost impossible to scientifically study markets in that confounding factors can’t be easily controlled.
But even intelligent libertarians sometimes are wary of actual scientific data. Libertarians don’t trust government. Since scientists sometimes get government grants, scientists can’t be entirely trusted either. For some reason, libertarians think corporate sponsored scientists would be more trustworthy.
Conservatives in general are more mistrusting of objectivity. I’m not quite sure what is the reasoning behind this. Some intelligent conservatives I’ve met actually agree with me about humans being irrational and that seems to be their reason for mistrusting objectivity, but this is a more intelligent argument and probably doesn’t represent the opinion of average conservatives.
To be fair, the smartest people of all probably are independents. From the data I’ve seen, independents (and the American public in general) are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The question is which is the cause? Do smart people tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? OR do social liberals and fiscal conservatives tend to be smart? Or is there a third causal factor? MBTI iNtuition and FFM “openness to experience” correlate with testing high on intelligence and correlate with high representation in college. Also, these psychological functions/traits correlate to liberal attitudes, but I’m not sure how they may or may not correlate to fiscal conservatism. (There is a nice site about politics and psychological types: http://www.politicaltypes.com.)
Some of the most intelligent debaters will be the MBTI NT types (iNtuition Thinking). I know that INTPs tend to be self-identify as politically independent and I suspect the same would be true for INTJs. NTs probably either vote with Democrats for reasons of social liberalism or with libertarians for reasons of it being a third party, but I some NTs might vote Republican for reasons of fiscal conservatism or else for reasons of principles. I’m not sure how many NTs vote Republican, but polls I’ve seen show that ENTJs are more conservative (probably because TJ – Extraverted Thinking – is their primary function).
So, I can presume that most often, when I’m enjoying an intelligent discussion, I’m probably interacting with a socially liberal iNtuition type. I don’t know what good this knowledge does for me. Maybe it helps me to be more forgivng (this person sure is stupid… it’s too bad they were born that way).
To be more optimistic, psychological research doesn’t show that most people fit in absolute categories. Most people can learn non-preferred thinking styles and learn to develop weak traits. Education should teach people how to use all parts of their mind. The fact that so many people lack critical thinking skills is a failure of our education system and shouldn’t be blamed on individuals. College favors iNtuition types. Most professors and college-level teachers are iNtuition types and most of the coursework is more appealing to iNtuitive types. It’s hard for a strong Sensation type to do well in traditional schooling. Who can blame them that they don’t go to college or have bad experiences at college? Who can blame them for falling prey to the notion that college is controlled by liberal elites?
Considering that the MBTI shows Sensation types represent the largest portion of the population, it is quite sad that our education system has the hardest time reaching this category of person. Sensation types don’t have as much natural talent for abstract thinking and critical thinking. Sensation types are better with concrete information and concrete learning. Too much of higher education deals with abstractions and theories. Dumbing down higher education isn’t the answer. I think we should have more alternative routes of education.
When I was in highschool, my best friend was very much a Sensation type who took many alternative classes involving technology. He was good working with machines and with computers, but he wasn’t extremely smart in terms of intellectuality. Alternative classes served him well in terms of preparing him for a job in the real world. The potential criticism, though, is whether he was prepared for being a well-rounded and well-informed citizen. I suspect not. The highschool I went to didn’t require students take classes in logic and critical thinking. The classes in general seemed rather dumbed down. Unless you were taking college prep classes, you wouldn’t be intellectually challenged.
I feel frustrated. I don’t want to blame the average person for not being well educated, but I do feel pissed off that our education system has failed these people and so created an intellectually inferior society. Even news reporting seems dumbed down for the masses. Shouldn’t the education system and the media, instead, serve the ideal of uplifting the masses by informing them?
Even with intelligent people, I think the education system has often failed. College is less focused on providing a liberal education and created well informed citizens. College has merely become a career path. Many have talked about the problem of specialization of knowledge. People go to college only to become isolated in some particular field and outside that field they may be largely ignorant.
People, whether well educated or not, seem less capable of understanding the larger context. Maybe it’s always been that way. If so, I hope it’s changing. I probably shouldn’t expect the education system to do anything more than create good workers… as that seems to be its primary purpose. My hope is more in the realm of media technology. The traditional media has been failing for a long time, but the new media has been very successful. The most well informed people are those who use the new media to inform themselves. And, because of the new media, the uninformed (be they the average public or the average politician) can no longer spout misinformation without being challenged.
So, to return to the original topic of online debates, maybe a purpose is served by all of the ideological conflict found in the forums and comments sections around the web. The people who weren’t educated well in school get confronted, whether they like it or not, with new information and with actual critical thinking skills. Some people might just become even more ideological in response, but many others will learn to be more intelligent debaters. Even debates where people deny expert opinions may serve a purpose in that a discussion then ensues about the definition of ‘expert’. The question about the new media is whether the positives will outweigh the negatives. The uninformed have the opportunity to become even more polarized and entrenched in their views by isolating themselves in forums of the likeminded, but those who want to be informed have more opportunity than ever to do so… and there are many in the middle who are neither extremely ideological nor extremely motivated to learn.
My hope is that the internet remains an open resource and open platform for public debate. My other hope is that the internet my force the education system to improve by offering both teachers and students to become more well informed. Students now no longer have to solely rely on the information given by teachers, and teachers no longer have to solely rely on the information that was given to them when they were students.
The problem I see with political identifications is conflation of factors.
A major confusion is that few people seem interested in the connection between political views and personality traits. There has been a lot of psychological research. There are three models that have been used for political research: MBTI, FFM, and Hartmann’s Boundary Types. All of those models have been correlated to varying degrees.
When I read many political descriptions, I immediately notice that personality traits and types are being described. Let me use some examples.
MBTI Intuition is correlated with Openness to Experience and Hartmann’s Thin Boundary Type. This psychological characteristic correlates to many liberal tendencies: more open and less fearful of the new experience, more hopeful/optimistic about future possibilities, more willingness to experiment, more accepting of those who are different. Et Cetera.
Boundary types are particularly helpful. Thick Boundary types prefer clear rules and principles, strong hierarchies and established lines of authority. Thick boundary types separate imagination from reality, subjectivity from objectivity. Thick Boundary types want to keep things the same, want to maintain the familiar and known.
The main issue is separating out the psychological elements from the ideological elements… if it is possible. I wonder what would be left of a political chart if the psychological elements were entirely removed.
Nice analysis. I’m mostly interested, at the moment, in how the US two party system evolved. There is one point I would clarify. You said:
“In America, liberals were cut from their decentralized, agrarian roots and put in search of a new philosophy.”
I wouldn’t agree that the liberals were cut off. It was more that politics and agriculture were becoming increasingly influenced by industrialization. The main influence of industrialization was centralization of power and wealth. It became possible for farmers to work larger fields and so the small family farmer became a less successful model. In early US, farmers were the common working man, but this changed with industrialization. The new common working man was the factory worker, and this is the demographic the liberals became identified with in the decades after the Civil War.
Many liberals still wanted power that was decentralized from an elite and instead controlled democratically. However, centralization of power had gone so far that the only way to counter it was with a different centralization of power. Worker Unions formed and they fought for laws to legislate the abuse of over-centralized capitalist power. Decentralization is simply impossible in an industrialized world without dismantling industrialization. Either power gets centralized in a capitalist elite or a political elite. From the view of the common working man, the Federal government is a safer bet than the Robber Barons. At least, Federal government offers the hope for democracy.
During and after WWI, the conservatives retold the narrative of the working class. Using war patriotism, they were able to undermine the worker’s unions and align worker’s with capitalist interests (redefined as America’s interests). A major force in causing this redefintion was the KKK and the film The Birth of a Nation. The KKK encapsulated the new conservative ideology: patriotic nationalism, traditional family values, white culture, anti-immigrant sentiments, and fundamentalist Christianity. They appealed to the anger and values of many working class people, but the KKK membership was mostly middle and upper class citizens. The KKK was a gentlemen’s club filled with politicians, judges, police chiefs, and business owners.
This is how the pro-capitalist conservatives captured the working man vote. They attacked the blacks and the immigrants. The conservatives told the working class that there is pride in being a good white person working hard for your family and your country. This is your country. You are the true Americans, not the blacks, Chinese, or Mexicans, not the “hyphenated Americans”.
Posted on December 27, 2009 by Benjamin David Steele
I’ve been thinking out some complex issues and data. In particular, my mind has been stuck on the issue of liberal and conservative.
This relates to personality types and traits, but furthermore it relates to genetics. Scientists have discovered specific genes that correlate with specific tendencies of political attitudes. That isn’t exactly surprising as trait research has already determined many psychological differences are passed on from parent to child. But this is particularly paradigm-shifting on the level of politics.
I plan to write more about this, but I just wanted to outline my thinking for the moment. There are multiple facets that interrelate in ways I’m trying to determine.
There does seem to be an evolutionary angle that would be very important. Different genetics enhanced species survival as humans developed ever more complex societies. One theory I came across proposed that liberal genetics are a more recent evolutionary adaptation. As humans spread out from Africa, specific traits became more desirable: curiosity, openness to new experience, adaptability, empathy, diplomacy, ability to imagine new possibilities and consider multiple perspectives, etc. These are all traits that research has proven are correlated with each other, and they together seem to create the framework for the liberal attitude. Still, the older genetics remained useful because any given society would still need the majority of its population to be fairly conservative in order to create social stability and cohesion.
This development happened when humans were still hunter-gatherers, and so at that time the genetic differences wouldn’t have been as magnified. With the rise of settled agrarian cultures, an entirely new way of social organization became possible. This was a traumatic time in the devlopment of the human species. It’s been a while since I’ve read Paul Shepard, but as I recall he saw this era as being pivotal where something irreversibly switched in the human brain. This was the beginning of civilization.
I was just tonight reading again some of Derrick Jensen’s The Culture of Make Believe. I consider him to be one of the most important writers of the twentieth century. I’d forgotten much of the specific ideas in this book, but one particular thing stood out. He goes into great detail about how civilization rests on the back of slavery. Every civilization was built with slave labor (including the early democracies). Even the modern industrialized nations with their supposed democracies and free markets are dependent on slave labor and sweatshops in the third world countries. Many of the earliest immigrants to the Americas were indentured servants and slaves. Civilization as we know it would collapse if there wasn’t some class of people enslaved or in oppressed servitude.
(I also wonder how this fits in with prostitution as the oldest profession and temple prostitutes who lived in servitude. In early civilization, prostitution represented the civilizing of primitive desire as the temple prostitutes served the highest ideal of their societies and the temples they worked in were at the center of those cultures. The example that comes to mind is “The Epic of Gilgamesh” where the wild man is civilized by a prostitute.)
Jensen’s explanation of all of this is just brilliant. Combined with Shepard’s work, this explains a lot about how we became this way. The earliest records of humans are about the laws upholding civilization and these laws speak about slavery (e.g., Code of Hammurabi). The Old Testament in various stories and the 10 commandments promotes slavery. The Christian Gospels even promote slavery. The Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans all were dependent on slavery. Until modern times, few people even thought too much about slavery being a bad thing.
However, some people back then began to question such issues. During the Axial Age, the origins of modern Enlightenment ideals began to take root. Those early ideals were in complete conflict with the very structure of civilization and that conflict persists to this very day. So, where did this conflict come from?
Earlier in social development, humans perceived the world animistically. According to Julian Jaynes, the very understanding of the individual as clearly separate from the world didn’t even fully exist throughout much of early civilization. It was a slow shift while individuality formed. As division of labor in society became more important, so division of labor within the human mind became more important. The world and the gods stopped being experienced as immediately alive realities. The world became objectified and so did humans. Individuality and objectivity go hand in hand, and this is what allows for the objectivication of humans in the form of slavery.
This growing sense of individuality came to a crisis point during the Axial Age. The brutality of slavery had become very apparent, and people began hoping for something more. People were less satisfied to simply be in servitude whether to other people or to the gods. The divine had become distant within hierarchical society, and in response the desire for divine closeness became extremely strong. Humans started to perceive the divine as being among humans which is reminiscent of the animistic past, but this divine closeness was now built on a relationship of individuals as equals. The first communes formed which was out of which Christianity took root. However, Christianity and all of the Axial Age religions were brought back in line with hierarchical slave society, and the brief glimmer of the Axial Age prophets was almost entirely forgotten for the next thousand years.
However, it was never entirely forgotten. The Axial Age ideals were the liberalism of their day. I wonder if that liberal urge that kept popping up relates back to the genetics that first formed when humans left Africa?
It seems like there has always been this push and pull within human society that is shown in the the earliest historical records. Since civilization began, this concept of progress formed. Civilization is dependent on endless progress and this seems to relate to its dependence on slavery. In order to maintain a slave population, the early civilizations (as well as later civilizations) were forced to be constantly at war by attempting to conquer other people. Enslave or become a slave. Endless progress, endless growth, endless conquering, endless usurpation… which continues to modern civilization as well (even if endless wars now have a larger global context).
This is where I’m feeling a bit murky. Civilization is simultaneously built on this ruthless progress, but civilization wouldn’t have been possible without those early liberal traits of diplomacy and whatnot. This seems to be a part of that internal conflict that is the very fabric of civilization. As society became more hierarchical and more divisioned, the liberal traits of curiosity and experimentation were focused towards technological innovation. Even fairly early in Greek society, a well-educated leisure class had already taken hold (with Socrates being the ultimate representative). The liberal instinct in some ways became even more important as empathy and diplomacy would’ve been absolutely vital during this time of cultural clash.
There was a shift that happened after the Axial Age. The liberal instinct had a temporary burgeoning in society, but the liberal instinct was looked upon with ever greater suspicion as Empire building became the central impulse. The Roman Empire as it was inherited by Christianity was quite oppressive, and it didn’t take long for the heresiologists to oppress the liberal impulse within Christianity itself. This is where many see the proper beginning of Western civilization.
Ever since that time, the conflict between the liberal and conservative impulses has led to much violence. But, with the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance, the liberal impulse began to have greater influence than it had in a long time. Also, progress began to happen more quickly. The liberal impulse is the gas pedal of civilization, but this is balanced with the brake of the conservative impulse. The fight between the two hasn’t been pretty.
The main issue isn’t specific beliefs or values. Liberalism and conservatism are relative tendencies. What was liberal during the Axial Age has become the norm for modern Western civilization. Generally speaking, even modern monotheists have forsaken their own texts in denying slavery. The conservative impulse wants to hold on to what has become the norm which is perceived as being traditional. It’s not important, however, that the perceived traditional values actually correspond to the actual historical tradition. For example, family values have been centrally important for all of Christian history, but what Christians today consider as family values isn’t what the early Christians considered family values (and Jesus himself didn’t value family at all). So, liberal and conservative are dependent on the historical context which is always changing with the endless progress that we call civilization.
This has served us moderately well up to this point. Even so, we find ourselves at a new crisis point and so some people conjecture that we’re experiencing a new Axial Age. It does seem that the level of cultural mixing in modern society hasn’t been seen in Western civilization since the earlier Axial Age. The religious sensibility forming now is to Christianity as Christianity was to Judaism, and I think this would explain why fundamentalists have essentially created a new religion that has little to do with early Christianity (which fits into the ideas of Karen Armstrong).
Much of what I’ve talked about can be explained using the model of Spiral Dynamics which would add a lot of much-needed detail. The history following the Axial Age I somewhat explained in my post Just Some Related Ideas and Writers which basically follows a Jungian view of Western development. But there is a further aspect that is more central to my thinking at the moment. Along with Jensen’s The Culture of Make Believe, I’ve also been re-reading Compass of the Soul by John L. Giannini. The two books make for good companions as they both analyze Western society from different perspectives.
Giannini’s book is helpful because he is coming from the Jungian tradition, and more importantly he combines his roles as Jungian analyst and MBTI practitioner. He carefully considers Jung’s view on personality as it fits in with Western sociohistorical development. He sees a split in our society between tendencies towards the personality types of ESTJ and INFP with the former dominating the Western psyche since sometime shortly after the inception of Christianity. Essentially, ESTJ and INFP are just a more complex way of saying conservative and liberal.
However, this more complex language is helpful because it’s grounded in decades of psychological research. Also, it brings me back to where I began this post.
(I want to note one other book: The Trickster and the Paranormal by George P. Hansen. The author discusses two issues relevant to this post. He discusses Max Weber’s theory about how rationalization and bureaucratization increases as society becomes more complex and hierarchical. He also discusses Ernest Harmann’s boundary types. He mentions research that shows thick boundary types with their conservative attitudes tend to promoted to upper management in hierarchical organizations. Any major organization is hierarchical and so our society in general is ruled by thick boundary types which is just another way of stating the theory Giannini puts forth. These highly promoted people tend to have thicker boundaries than even the average person and so the people at top perceive and behave differently than the lower classes. A seeming implication of this is that even Washington Democrats will be more conservative than the average liberal.)
The reason I’m so interested in all of this is two-fold.
The most obvious reason is that the conflict between liberals and conservatives is the most intense that I’ve seen in my lifetime. And it’s a rather personal issue as I’m liberal and my parents are conservative.
Secondly, I suffer from obsessive curiosity syndrome. I feel compelled to try to understand the society I was born into. There seems to be a narrative to our culture and I suspect that it’s our collective unawareness of this narrative that keeps us stuck in it. We play these roles we are given and we come to identify with them. Some of this is genetics and so can’t be changed, but genetics are just predispositions. I want to believe that the liberal and conservative impulses don’t have to be eternally at odds. Maybe I’m just a dreamy-eyed liberal with my head in the clouds.
- – -
Let me give this some more contemporary context.
I’ve been doing some web research on personality types/traits, political attitudes, and career predispositions. Here are some of the ideas I’m tossing about at present:
The problem with liberal and conservative as labels is that they’re highly relative.
The vast majority of scientists and journalists identify as liberal (or at least they do in the US), but it just means that these groups of people identify as more liberal than how they perceive the general population of their particular society. In the most general usage, conservative means what is traditional or conventional and liberal means what is not limited to the traditional or conventional. As such, liberal journalists are only moderately liberal. They’re liberal because they aren’t perfectly aligned with the average person (or rather they don’t perceive themselves as such), but they’re clearly moderate in their being closer to the mainstream than they are to radicals on the fringe.
However, different societies will vary greatly in their political spectrum. It’s probably true, though, that scientists and journalists in any society will be comparatively more liberal because those professions seem to demand a liberal mindset (at least liberal in terms of personality traits).
The further issue is how close is the correlation between liberal as political self-identification and liberal as personality trait. Research on personality traits show that they can’t be categorized as either/or, black/white. Some people are on the extreme ends, but most people are near the middle.
There is no one way to define these terms. Liberal and conservative can apply to many issues, and so a person can be simultaneously liberal on some issues and conservative on others. And any given issue can only be labelled as liberal or conservative relative to the context of the societal norms and the historical era. Many political positions that seem conservative in a modern industrialized society would be deemed liberal (even radically liberal) in pre-modern and non-industrialized societies. Liberal and conservative are labels that are inseparable from confounding factors of individual and collective development.
With development, other issues such as intelligent and morality have to be considered as both of those relate to intelligence. There is a correlation between liberalism and IQ (i.e., traditional methods of testing intelligence), and so that probably explains much of the reason for scientists and journalists identifying as liberals. As a personality trait, liberalism signifies openness towards new experiences and curiosity towards new information. Higher education is largely defined by new experiences and new information.
Nonetheless, plenty of people with more conservative personalities go to college as most of the population is fairly conservative personality wise (or rather according to MBTI statistics the conservative SJ temperament represents the largest portion of the population; the question then is how well does the SJ temperament represent the normal definition of political conservatism). These college educated conservative types tend to be drawn to careers in law, politics, and business. Most interestingly is the fact that policymakers tend to identify as conservative. But, even in liberal fields, the top administrators in hierarchical organizations (which includes every major private and public organization) will be more conservative than what is the norm even for the general population. Scientists may be liberal, but the administration of scientific labs and the corporate funding for science likely is controlled by conservatives. Journalists may be liberal, but the editors, owners and CEOs of media companies are generally more conservative.
(The so-called liberal media bias is false. It may have once been true when newsrooms were independent and reporters were more free to do their own thing. But in recent decades (because of pressures to increase profits) reporters have been increasingly told what to do by upper management (this is based on a lot of research I’ve done and isn’t an just an ideological claim). However, this isn’t to say that media is precisely conservative biased in any simple sense. Let us just say there is conflict of biases where the conservative bias at the moment has gained the upperhand.)
Social liberals are going to be more interested in intellectual inquiry and social conservatives will be more interested in ideological norms. Because of this, most social scientists and those interested in social science will be moral liberals (research supports this conclusion). As for moral conservatives, they’re either less interested in or else actively mistrust social science research and theory. For example, the evidence that certain psychological traits and types (personality, moral inclinations, political ideology, behavior, etc.) are largely inheritable undermines the idea that everyone is completely responsible for themselves as individuals (which is a major aspect of moral conservatism). The tendency to see human nature as complex is more attractive to the social liberal, and so the liberal attitude is more open to the possibility of nature being equal to or greater than nurture (which could explain why they have a more open view of family values). The reason why evolution vs creationism seems so central to the culture wars may be because it reflects on the large-scale the same issues of nature vs nurture (I’m a bit unclear on this point).
I’ve come across the theory that conservatives tend to look at media and art in terms of how it serves or undermines their ideology (i.e., the perceived ‘norm’). This would be supported by the Christian cultural critic who I heard speak a few years ago. She discussed the need of morally conservative Christians to use film and pop culture to promote their views. Immediately after this talk, I went over and looked at a William Blake exhibit which presented his vision of the relationship between religion and art.
There couldn’t have been a better contrast between the conservative and liberal views. Blake’s art was inspiring because it didn’t represent ideology in any simple way (i.e., no overt political messages, no promotion of group norms). Instead, Blake’s art pointed towards truths that transcended mere politics. I sensed that Blake wasn’t limiting himself to his own preferred bias.
Is the conservative view of art as ideology comparable to the conservative view of news as ideology? I’ve noticed that many conservatives don’t see a difference of the bias of Fox News from the bias in more liberal news, but to many liberals this is an insult. I’ve noticed that quite a few liberals seem to idealize intellectual objectivity as a moral value, and they’re not content with the cynical view of extreme conservatives. The social conservative tends to see humanity as fallen and traditionally this fallen nature included the failure of human reason. Social conservatives are more mistrusting of reason which explains why they mistrust science (be it Darwinian evolution or climate change).
By the way, this also relates to the tendency of most comedians to be liberal. Humor is very much related to curiosity and openness to experience.
Anyways, it’s all very interesting. Journalists, Scientists, and comedians all are dominated by self-identified liberals and Democrats. I remember offhand that only 6% of scientists (including in the hard sciences) identify as Republican. That does seem to be saying either something about human nature (psychology, genetics, etc) or something about modern culture… or, as I suspect, a bit of both.
- – -
I’m, of course, speaking of liberal and conservative in their most extreme manifestations (i.e., exaggerated stereotypes). It’s important to keep in mind that as personality traits the population distribution is found mostly in the middle rather than on the polar opposite ends.
Also, liberal and conservative don’t always equate with Democrat and Republican. For example, earlier last century Republicans were the liberal party especially in the South. So, when I speak of liberal I’m talking about an attitude based on personality traits and not party affiliations which represent shifting labels of shifting demographics. I was looking at data from the Pew Research Center. Their definition of liberal corresponds with Democrat only slightly more than it corresponds with independent. I’m willing to bet, though, that if Democrats dominated for a couple of decades the number of liberals identifying with independent would increase just as how recently many have left the Republican party.
As for psychological attitudes, I do wonder if the way society is structured is causing these genetic traits to become increasingly magnified. I was thinking that this possibility could be a contributing factor to the present intense political conflict.
Here is a theory I’ve been thinking about the last couple of years.
I’ve looked at mappings of demographic data. Liberals are concentrated in urban areas in and around cities. Conservatives are spread out in rural areas. However, a confounding factor is that ever since the Industrial Age began people have been slowly migrating to cities. This is how liberals became concentrated in cities in the first place, but the population in general has now become concentrated in cities. For this reason, cities are more ideologically diverse and so liberals have been forced to adapt to diversity which happens to be one of their talents anyhow.
The other result is that rural areas have become less diverse and more extremely conservative. This makes me wonder if conservative politics has become more radicalized partly because of this concentration. Even the moderate conservatives would tend to move to the cities leaving behind the most extreme conservatives (those who are so resistant to change that they’d rather remain even in poverty-stricken areas).
Ignoring the possible genetic component, our political system by itself would magnify the concentration of extreme conservatives in the rural areas. American democracy is representative. In an attempt at fairness, sparsely populated rural areas get more representation per capita. What this means is that extreme conservatives get more representation per capita. The result of this is that public debate gets pushed to the right.
This is important as sometimes presidents get elected even though the majority of the population voted against them. How does a president lead a country when he doesn’t represent a majority of the population?
Also, the media focuses on the extremes. The rural areas represent the far right-wing. The Republican politicians tend to be moderate conservatives, but the more radical conservatives of rural areas hold great sway.
- – -
I don’t know what to make of this, but it’s very interesting. It seems our entire political system is rather messed up. I’m hoping by placing US politics in a larger context that I’ll be able to see beyond the polarizing tendency of public debate as it gets shown in the media.
Anyways, it goes without saying that all of this is largely speculation and hence tentative. I am basing my speculations on actual data, but it is very complex. Trying to disentangle the threads is difficult if not impossible. The challenge of making sense of it is only slighly lessened by the fact that some great minds before me have written some insightful books.
Permalink Reply by marmalade on January 19, 2008 at 7:39am 
Permalink Reply by MetroPunk on January 21, 2008 at 1:40pm 
Permalink Reply by Bill on January 23, 2008 at 6:57pm 
Access: Public 
.jpg)
John McCain is the Republican Party’s secret weapon in this election, should they decide to nominate the most electable (of the 4 I’ve looked at so far, that is) of their candidates. Why is McCain the most electable, even though he is languishing well behind the front-runners in most primary polls?.JPG)
Like Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, Obama is a Rational, most likely an INTJ Mastermind. This comes through in his communication style – he has an exceptional ability to paint a vision, to communicate abstract pictures of the future that make sense to people, and his utilitarian approach to action - looking for what “works” rather than “what’s been done before” or “what is ‘right’”. 
Marmalade said
I realize I was projecting to a great degree. I don’t really know that guy on Youtube beyond my very brief interaction. I just have this sore point when it comes to apologists… or really with anyone who has strong beliefs. The only thing I’m righteous about is in relation to the righteousness of others. I’m a millitant agnostic afterall.
This does go back to my dad and my recent interaction with him. I’ll be seeing him tomorrow. I hope it goes well. I’ll steer away from all serious discussion… oh, who am I kidding… I’ll have to not say anything at all if I try to avoid serious comments. Oh well, such is my fate.
There should be a rule against INFPs becoming intellectuals. We’re just too sensitive of souls. We should be kept ensconsed in walled gardens and distant mountain retreats far from the maddening crowd. Of course, we must be permitted a library but maybe only stock it with poetry and fiction… oh yeah, and be sure to give us plenty of art supplies.
Marmalade said
Actually, there is a big difference between a Ni dominant person and a Ni auxiliary person like my dad. My dad really isn’t an aloof person at all, but he does have a bit of that quality in that he is so focused outward that he often hides his true opinions. He has this deep side that rarely shows, and when it does show its filtered through Te: principles, analysis, practical evaluation, etc. He is very capable of open-minded philosophizing fueled by a sense of wonder… amd he even lets others see this side of him when you catch him in a relaxed mood.
Its kind of funny how opinionated INFPs can be (or can appear to be), but you have to give us credit in that we change our opinions somewhat easily (except for our few cherished ideals). INFPs can have a way of stating things as if they were strong opinions (when feeling worked up or defensive), but it really has nothing to do with core values.
Dominant Fi can be hidden in the way its not easily verbilized. However, Fi is so blatantly obvious compared to Ni. Or even compare the Fi of an INFP with the Ti of an INTP. When an INFP gets there Fi panties in a bunch, they can be downright annoying… very messy emotions will be splattered all over the place.
Ni is very interesting. Ni talks around an idea, but does so in a very focused way. Its like knowing a blackhole exists by its gravity alone. Ni writing style can be very convoluted and meandering. Both Ni and Ne can lead to verbosity, but Ni comes off as more philosophical and abstract somehow… maybe because it exists solely in the inner world.
Ni, by definition, can never be directly expressed and so can only be known via an Extraverted function. OTOH Ne is just there trying to get your attention. Ne is also more playful in that it wants to interact, and if one is not careful Ne can lead to superficiality and flakiness (ie being a dilettante).
I sometimes have a bit of the dilettante in me jumping from one temporary interest to the next. I have a hard time committing myself fully to anything, but of course I idealize this tendency in order to put a positive spin on my Achilles’ Heel. People who actually have strong opinions and stick to them are just plain righteous idiots… whereas I am “flexible” and able to see multiple perspectives. rotfl
Marmalade said
The interesting thing about the internet is that you get the opportunity to interact with more Introverts in a way you’d never do in everyday life. Online interactions encourage Introverts to show the side of themselves they normally hide. This is good and bad because its the side of them that is least socially adapted.
So, an Ni type might seem even more intellectual or detached. And an Fi type might become even more passionate… or, yes, righteous. An Fi type might go so far relying on their dominant that they feel they have people figured out… ahem… not that I’d ever fall into such low behavior.
Marmalade said
There is another blog of mine that has very similar subject matter. Its about a specific archetypes that are related: Trickster, the Primal Man, the Titan/Giant, the Hero, and the Savior… also, the Divine Child and Shadow. These archetypes are especially central to the Monomyth.
Myth, Religion, and Social Development
Nicole said
How did it go with your Dad? I’ve been thinking about this for a while but haven’t discussed it yet with you, sorry.
Marmalade said
That is funny! I put that last comment in the wrong blog apparently. It really doesn’t fit here.
Hello Nicole. Enjoy the holidays?
You might be able to tell from my plethora of blogging that I spent a lot of time at home. I had 3 days off in a row, but because of weather conditions haven’t yet visited with any family. Hopefully, I’ll see my parents tomorrow. We’re planning to visit one of my brothers in a nearby town.
The roads have been very icy this week. Strange weather. There was thunder and lightning last night and rain all today which was of course supposed to freeze.
Nicole said
thanks, I have been having a very relaxing holiday, just what I wanted!
we just had some very high winds but everything seems normal this time of year – snow, freezing rain, rain, sunny weather – we get a little of it all…
Marmalade said
Relaxing holidays always are good for me. So, what was relaxing about your holidays. Did you stay at home?
I was thinking about some other things when I mentioned strange weather. There has been some very warm weather in the Midwest. Along with that, there have been some tornoado watches (not in my area), but I don’t know if any tornadoes have been spotted.
I finally spent some time with my parents today. It was nice to see them, but they’ll be gone tomorrow and so is a short visit. It was all the family together today which isn’t my favorite way of experiencing family. It wasn’t stressful though because everyone seemed in a good mood.
I guess everything went fine with my dad. I don’t think my dad understood why I was annoyed at him and I didn’t feel like explaining. I really didn’t see any advantage to having a discussion about it. I more or less kept conversation light.
Nicole said
I’m glad things went well with your dad.
Yes, it was relaxing because of being at home, but especially because I didn’t answer the phone or spend time on the computer, and playing games like Munchkin and Carcassonne with my kids. Do you know of Munchkin? Seems like it would appeal to your sense of humour
It was wonderful to have my oldest daughter Julia home for a few days.
Marmalade said
Munchkin? No, I don’t believe I’ve heard of it. Nor does Carcassonne sound familiar. My niece doesn’t seem too excited about games. She is more into imaginative play-acting. She probably doesn’t enjoy games because she dislikes losing. She was an only child the first 4 yrs of her life and she is used to getting her own way.
Is Munchkin a board game? I used to play a lot of games growing up. My friends and I would play almost any kind of game… board games, card games, video games. I don’t play games as much anymore. Occasionally I play a video game with my friend. Until recent years, I used to love playing Rummy but I finally became annoyed with the luck factor which is the largest part of the game.
Its interesting, though, that many kids games have large luck factors. I wonder what that teaches kids. Historically-speaking, the luck factor of games relates to divinization. The connection is lost to most of us moderns, but games have a strong connection to religion. They’re a ritual of sorts. The ritual itself is more important than the outcome of the game.
I’ll have to blog about that sometime. I’ve come across some fascinating info when studying the symbolism of numbers as it relates to games.
Nicole said
I used to play a lot of board games with my friends growing up, but we didn’t have many video games back them
Munchkin is a types of special card game – the other is a sort of card/board game… Munchkin is unfortunately very luck oriented (you’re right, that can get very annoying!) but Carcassonne is strategic.
That’s an interesting philosophical point about the large luck factors. You’re right this all could make a cool blog