• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

America's Shadow (en masse: ESTJ)

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
Sorry for the length…please throw in your 2 cents - any insight would be appreciated

What follows is a transcription of the first couple of pages of the last chapter (11) of the book “Compass of the Soul Archetypal Guides to a Fuller Life” by John Giannini.

(Aside: I've left a review for the book on Amazon…I think there are two in total which doesn't speak to the books quality but it’s length. Having said that…if you haven’t checked it out I would encourage you to do so. The book is epic in scope and way beyond that which I want to address here…if you’re a student of type I would encourage you to pick up a copy and settle down for a fascinating read…anyway I digress…)

As Giannini describes it – the American Shadow is said to be characterized by the (en masse) ESTJ Shadow – The Goal Orientated Extrovert Thinking Materialist – this is not the individual type…but the psyche of the country en mass
The subject has become especially important to me of late (now in my mid-forties and well along in my midlife crisis) as I've been most keenly aware of contending with such a ‘shadow’ especially in the realm of work/career. And if I were to be truthful, feel that I've always been ‘at odds’ with something at work…in every environment I've worked in.

I've attributed this felt ‘sense’ to many things along the way…including just a lack of appreciation (recognition?) I felt (rightly or wrongly) I deserved…wanting to belong…feeling like I’m on the ‘outside’. But I acknowledge now that it’s a way of thinking…of governance of (say) a corporation that I've been actually afraid (for reasons of not wanting to appear as a non-conformist) of admitting to myself.
And I was wondering if anyone else has had the same intuitions; a sense that you are contending with…a ‘way’ the world conducts (?) Itself…runs itself that you feel at odds with (in) accommodating. Now (obviously) we all can – especially in this forum – find common ground on such a broad subject. But I mean specifically in work life – career?

As an INTP…how do you negotiate with (if felt) the sense of contention of being at odds with the very institution that provides (by means of its stability?) for your financial well-being? I’m not a communist…and I believe in free market capitalism…but I've never been (or been able to relate) to Gordon Gecko mentality that seems to run most corporations. But here is the mystery…I've never worked in finance and so – would presume to never have to concern myself with such things. But I do seem to ‘encounter’…run into that attitude (?) wherever I’m employed - does this make sense? Maybe I want to know how to hide? Wow that’s depressing to admit…in that I’m not self-employed and seemed destined to have to contend with this ‘splinter’ in my mind for the foreseeable future…sigh…:confused:
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
The first couple of pages of the book “Compass of the Soul Archetypal Guides to a Fuller Life” by John Giannini.

A hidden agenda is at the heart of this book on typology and its soulful, archetypal way. Given Jung’s assumption that typology applies to culture as well as to the psyche and body of individuals, this agenda is about the state of our society, particularly in the United States. I am concerned overall with the generally despotic attitude toward those who have relatively limited or no power. The attitude touches a wide range of populations: women, children, and old people in our typical families; welfare recipients and the poor, especially among Black, Latino, and other ethnic minorities; and prisoners and ex-convicts. Today it also touches populations once immune to society’s contempt: health care providers, including doctors, and corporate workers in the middle and lower classes caught in downsizing practices of companies. The issues discussed with reference to one population spill over into others.

This mean-spirited attitude characterizes the ESTJ Warrior mentality, which, when uncontrolled and one-sided, functions as a tyrannical force in both individuals and in society. This is not a criticism of the ESTJ type as such, but of its excesses. We know in psychology and in life that one-sidedness and inertia in any mental or emotional position, including any Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) type, can result in personal and societal damage. Jung in chapter 3 of this book calls such one-sidedness “barbaric”. Our focus here is on the ESTJ makeup because, as we shall try to show in this chapter, it dominates the current cultural orientation. Even when healthy, it illustrates William James’ characterization of “tough-minded” persons in contrast to “tender minded” individuals. When it takes other types into account, it is healthy, but it is often pathologized in leaders and collective attitudes that demand absolute conformity. We can see its distortions in any leader’s need to hire underlings who totally agree with his/her aggressive, concretistic, logical, and linear thought processes, and compartmentalized, detailed strategies. Overall, this cultural bias illustrates ESTJ attitudes and values representing a patriarchal philosophy of power and dominance which has characterized human society for the last 5,000 years. This ESTJ cultural climate, whether healthy or pathological, is a collective overlay that characterizes our societal leaders, from politicians to popular TV and movie creators (figure 12.1). It both subtly and blatantly affects each one of us, no matter what our individual typology may be. The one-sidedness of this set of values ignores necessary and compensating values in the three other type quadrants.

The ESTJ power pathology is elitist, denies the value of the other type couplings and their congruent representatives, and tends to recognize persons who prefer it as fit to govern. For example, this attitude spawned the Iran-Contra conspiracy that acted covertly against the congressional laws and the American populace. Its contemptuous attitude toward others contributes to the low-level mentality of TV situation comedies, talk shows, and violent dramas, and the typical political campaign based on TV images, sound bites and negative slogans. This narrow approach to life, including a contempt for fellow creatures, is seen in popular radio and TV personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh saying, “If the spotted owl can’t adjust, then screw it.”

A consistently cold-hearted attitude toward the weakest members of our nation’s family characterizes this ideology, in spite of its political leaders’ loud protestation about supporting family values. The damage from this attitude is show by our high child mortality rate (as living in subhuman economic conditions, our poor child care facilities, our lack of health and life services for old folk, and our poor support for family life and schools. The plight of poor families and their children demands a radical shift from American individualism to the new popular African proverb, “it takes a village to raise a child.” Translated into the Compass of the Soul, it takes all the attributes of the whole mind brain to raise a child and create a just society.
The narrow sensing thinking viewpoint values quantity, as in measurable school facts, observable behaviors and the limited solutions that follow from a factual approach. Generally, there is an innately short-sighted tendency in the isolated ST Structural, given that the sensing part naturally likes concrete order and dislikes change and the thinking part values objective systems and devalues subjective relations. This tough mindedness of the ST Warrior becomes cold and cruel when it loses the SF Parent’s compassionate and practical sensitivity to others. By overvaluing ST characteristics, such an attitude tends to encourage the ST potential in each of us, an aspect which often dismisses the deeper relational powers, the creative energies, and the vital emotionality of the NF Lover. The most damaging aspect of the ST’s pathology is that it views its own inner NF Lover’s striving for harmony and compromise as inferior and weak.. As a result, this warrior mind perceives compassion as weakness toward both one’s self and others. When caught in this mentality, we often dream of ignoring or punishing children, feminine figures, or tender-minded males – images of the very aspects which our overly aggressive egos need.

A remarkable book, Philip K. Howard’s The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America, describes with both theoretical clarity and pointed examples how this national pathology has invaded our legislative processes. Legislation was once characterized by its brevity and simple guidelines, which allowed its executors to apply it with appropriate intelligence, common sense, personal responsibility, and creative execution. However, beginning in the 1960’s a new national climate slowly emerged that has changed the very structures of the law. It is a climate of distrust of ordinary people, as is typical of a ruling elite, which has produced, as Howard writes in his chapter 3, “A Nation of Enemies”. kA s a result, legislative packages have multiplied ten and twenty times, attempting to describe every detail of the law’s applications. The attitude opts for a “precision” that presumably will produce “scientific certainty”. Instead of stimulating idiosyncratic and creative action, it seeks “uniformity” in order to ensure fairness. However, writes Howard, “Fairness…is a far more subtle concept than making all the words on the page apply to everyone” This ST attitude attempts to “anticipate every future contingency.” This is the sign of a one-sided sensing function that , in its intuitive shadow, fears the future. Further, this mentality is ruled in the thinking function by a “philosophy of rationalism”, which assumes “that a natural order in government could be found similar to the order that Isaac Newton thought he had found in nature”. The upshot , as stated by sociologist Max Weber, is the development of bureaucracy that the more it is perfected, “the more it is dehumanized’.” In rationalism, writes Howard, we try to “make government operate like a Swiss watch…We have cast aside our good sense, and worship an icon of abstract logic and arbitrary words.” As an overall result, he points out, “Modern regulatory law resembles central planning.” He continues:

There are differences, of course. The Soviets tried to run their country like a puppeteer pulling millions of strings. In our country, the words of law are like millions of trip wires, preventing us from doing the sensible thing.

In a subtle if unconscious recognition of typological differences, Howard writes: “Human nature seems to lead people, or at least certain kinds of people, down this path”.
 

Analyzer

Hide thy life
Local time
Yesterday 11:05 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
1,241
-->
Location
West
SJs ESTJs in particular are keen in maintaining/protecting/securing systems. We intps like to be on the outside with either observations or ideas and often times when successful, are the people responsible for new ideas or systems developed in society. Sjs are basically like the glue of society and often times the glue is hard to remove.

That's where the NTJs come in handy.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
But what if you're identified as a 'glue remover'...it's neurotic but I can't help but feel that by becoming more in 'tune' with my type I also 'appear'...'come off' as being unsympathetic...'out of tune' with the (en masse) ESTJ Shadow's fear of the future...desire for security at all costs...ethnocentric/nationalistic 'agenda'.

I'm not trying to make myself out to be a victim of the 'system'...and I don't consider government or the corporation I work for responsible for my welfare (or establishing a 'welfare' state)...I feel destined to be the Messenger in Emperors New Clothes...where everyone else is saying "How Majestic...how Beautiful" I'm only thinking "That Dude is Naked...and with a body like that he shouldn't be"...I'm the guy who 'thinks' Bullshit and for some reason (again neurotically) feel 'it's heard in the minds of the assembly.

I don't believe in it...and I guess I feel it shows...but then again I can be neurotic (no-one gives a damn what I think)...is maybe the best way to 'think' about it.

Anyway I appreciate your input Analyzer...

Cheers
 

Analyzer

Hide thy life
Local time
Yesterday 11:05 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
1,241
-->
Location
West
Yeah I know what you mean, that's where nfs come in and try to bridge the gap so people accept new paradigms or get curious.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:05 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
typical of american intellectuals

treat a global problem as a specifically american phenomenon
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:05 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
typical of american intellectuals

treat a global problem as a specifically american phenomenon

Why is everything that American intellectuals say necessarily related to their being Americans, and not just intellectuals? The intellectuals at hand could have simply known only of the problem as it exists in the United States and not wanted to overstate their claim lest they be derided as--to use your words--treating an American problem as a global phenomenon. Nevertheless, I feel less alone in knowing that the ESTJ culture pervades other nations as well.

-Duxwing
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:05 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Why is everything that American intellectuals say necessarily related to their being Americans, and not just intellectuals? The intellectuals at hand could have simply known only of the problem as it exists in the United States and not wanted to overstate their claim lest they be derided as--to use your words--treating an American problem as a global phenomenon. Nevertheless, I feel less alone in knowing that the ESTJ culture pervades other nations as well.

-Duxwing

they ought to know the rest of the world roughly before concluding something about their nation as such. otherwise how would they go about measuring? even an intuitive measurement of scope, such as performed in political philosophy, needs a frame of reference.

of course our genomes and natural habitats are also valid frames of reference, but not when speaking of nations as such.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
Quite right Brontosaurie - let's call it the modern world's shadow ESTJ - good?

Still haven't heard anything from you relative to how you relate to said shadow? Do you agree/think it exists? If so - how do you relate?

Are you not one of the 'intellectuals' taking part in this conversation? Who are the intellectuals you are referring to?
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:05 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Quite right Brontosaurie - let's call it the modern world's shadow ESTJ - good?

Still haven't heard anything from you relative to how you relate to said shadow? Do you agree/think it exists? If so - how do you relate?

Are you not one of the 'intellectuals' taking part in this conversation? Who are the intellectuals you are referring to?

sure, good.

i think something like it might exist. on the other hand i'm not convinced that an overall tendency which doesn't vary dynamically with personality type is best explained in typological terms. rather i'd treat it as a clustre of trait asymmetries for whatever reason present in the population and power structures, relative to our normal benchmark. or search for some in-depth material that really lends itself to jungian analysis - such as a tendency for people to cater to their own respective shadow personalities.

i'm no intellectual, just some bloke. john giannini, obviously, is an example of what i mean. also david foster wallace, off the bat. i'm so intuitive i don't really know the shit i'm talking about, yo. but you're not denying that 'america is quite self-centered, especially when considering its youth. right?
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:05 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
they ought to know the rest of the world roughly before concluding something about their nation as such. otherwise how would they go about measuring? even an intuitive measurement of scope, such as performed in political philosophy, needs a frame of reference.

of course our genomes and natural habitats are also valid frames of reference, but not when speaking of nations as such.

Did they exclude other nations from so being? And the study would have taken 198 times longer if they had studied every nation on earth.

-Duxwing
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:05 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Did they exclude other nations from so being? And the study would have taken 198 times longer if they had studied every nation on earth.

-Duxwing

it takes no more than a glance at a newspaper and a modicum of continual interest to tell that the whole world suffers from the dominance, aggression, competition, pride and rigid power structures of typical masculinity. its desperate clench conceivably represents the most obvious discrepancy between natural and artificial habitats - that is, the markedly reduced utility of, as well as healthy outlet for, said traits.

ESTJ is the redundant primitive man. INTP is the cross-compatible cyber man.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,866
-->
Sorry for the length…please throw in your 2 cents - any insight would be appreciated
I appreciate that you're trying out an idea. There are points in it which have great merit. I'll endeavour to clarify which elements are accurate.

What follows is a transcription of the first couple of pages of the last chapter (11) of the book “Compass of the Soul Archetypal Guides to a Fuller Life” by John Giannini.

(Aside: I've left a review for the book on Amazon…I think there are two in total which doesn't speak to the books quality but it’s length. Having said that…if you haven’t checked it out I would encourage you to do so. The book is epic in scope and way beyond that which I want to address here…if you’re a student of type I would encourage you to pick up a copy and settle down for a fascinating read…anyway I digress…)

It was a bit of a revelation to me to understand that (by type) we feel most at odds with those who are attitudinally opposite of what we are dominantly but with the same function. So with INTP (Introverted Thinking)…we take most (organic?) offense around those who employ Extroverted Thinking dominantly.
WTF?

When it comes to INTJs, those who are attitudinally opposite of what they are dominantly but with the same function, are Ne-doms, ENTPs and ENFPs. INTJs routinely say they get on fantastically with ENTPs in a workplace setting or discussion. INTJ males also say they get on fantastically with female ENFPs in relationships, and is their #1 choice for a parter in a relationship. In the case of INTJs, they get on with their attitudinal opposite better than most other types, and maybe even better than any other type.

Epic fail.

While – as Giannini describes it – the American Shadow is said to be characterized by the (en masse) ESTJ Shadow – The Goal Orientated Extrovert Thinking Materialist – this is not the individual type…but the psyche of the country en mass
The subject has become especially important to me of late (now in my mid-forties and well along in my midlife crisis) as I've been most keenly aware of contending with such a ‘shadow’ especially in the realm of work/career. And if I were to be truthful, feel that I've always been ‘at odds’ with something at work…in every environment I've worked in.
It's extremely clear to me that both American INTPs and American INTJs routinely report that they are extremely uncomfortable in their experiences with life in America, whether it be in work, or socially. That much, I would say is accurate.

The following is a summary of things that I've seen in the workplace, in several industries, and was analysed very well, by a management science report on the modern workplace in different countries over the last 100 years. I've just applied it to MBTI here.

1) The American/Western Business Model, which is the dominant model in Westernised countries, has evolved over the last few centuries, into its present-day model. Basically, businesses thrived, thanks to the Industrial Revolution, and free commerce, i.e. what is often referred to as Free Market Capitalism. However, the drive for greater profits, meant that companies are always looking to increase profits, any way they can. Sometimes, one can expand one's market, or expand into new markets. But expansion into new markets is risky, and often doesn't come off, and when it comes to existing markets, one has to compete with companies that are often just as capable as yours, and that results in there only being a limited amount that one can reasonably expand. As a consequence, cost-cutting has become one of the most effective and efficient methods that Western companies have employed to increase profits.

One of the more successful methods of cost-cutting that Western companies employed, was to outsource the elements of their jobs that required specialised skills, to machines and computers, or to specialist companies, so that a wider number of people could also do the job, making current employees more expendable, as then one could drop wages, with the threat that if they refuse to accept the pay cuts, they could simply be replaced with someone else. Another sucessful method was reducing employees, by outsourcing as much of their work as possible, to either immigrants or workers in foreign countries who would work harder and for longer hours for the same or lower page, or to machines and computers.

Making people expendable, means that it doesn't matter who you're dealing with, because companies are then relying on a lot of employees, each with a low skill set. As they are all doing similar jobs that anyone in the company could do, the result is that you treat them as a group. So you interview them as a group. You train them as a group. You instruct them as a group. You supervise them as a group. That way, you need a lot less interviewers and a lot less interviews, and a lot less trainers and a lot less training, and a lot less supervisors and a lot less supervision.

Even if you're in research, the old adage "2 heads are better than one" applies. Science is now much more reliant on extroverted collaboration than it used to.

Thus, our workplaces have become very extroverted. You don't get your own office anymore, where you can work alone. You're in one of those open-plan offices, where everyone can see what you're doing.

2) The second issue, is that if your work depends on developing novel intuitive solutions that not everyone would think of, then you've got a specialised skill, and you become a problem. They can't fire you, because if they do, the whole project comes to a grinding halt. So you can keep demanding better and better pay, better and better perks, and, if you feel that it would help your situation by getting more employees on board, you can rouse the regular employees to strike for better pay, because being a smart intuitive, you can persuade the majority of the employees who just go along with whatever they've heard that makes most sense to them, when it's in their interest, and more money and better working conditions are in their interest.

So companies want to get rid of those bottlenecks and powderkegs for starting strikes. To do that, they have to automate your work, so it's as conventional as possible, so that anyone can be trained to do it, thus making you expendable. They want to get rid of intuitives in general.

Then they'll keep a few intuitives for solving problems where no conventional problems currently exist. But they want you under their thumb, so you can't ask for a lot of money. To do that, they have to ensure that most lines of work are made inaccessible/uncomfortable to you, leading intuitives to find they only have a very few jobs they can use their intuition in, and so there is a high supply of intuitives, but low demand for intuitives in the workplace, and again, companies can lower the rates they pay intuitives.

3) Once jobs are expendable, they can keep pushing you to do more and more, which works for Js who focus on getting things done, and pushes Perceivers out, which leaves lots of Perceivers all vying for the same few jobs that companies want someone to take their time on. Again, the laws of supply and demand dictate that with lots more perceivers than perceiving jobs, they can lower wages with percieving jobs yet again.

4) A T-mentality is preferable with real-life and theoretical jobs that lean towards manipulating the physical. An F-mentality is preferable with real-life and theoretical jobs that lean towards manipulating the emotional.

This economic culture doesn't really care what type you are. They just want to ensure that most workplaces are run to accommodate an ESxJ mentality, and if you're in a T-ish industry, an ESTJ mentality.

They still want INTPs around for research and development. But they want to ensure that there are more INTPs than INTP-ish jobs, so that they get you to compete, so they can get the best, and push those they employ in such roles, to take lower wages, and work longer and harder.

Your notions are thus very well founded. They just have very little to do with American culture, and a lot to do with the evolution of American corporate culture, which America has spread very successfully to the rest of the Western world. Now that America is bringing its values to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East, and China seems to be following suit as well, it probably won't be too long before you'll have nowhere to escape from it.

I've attributed this felt ‘sense’ to many things along the way…including just a lack of appreciation (recognition?) I felt (rightly or wrongly) I deserved…wanting to belong…feeling like I’m on the ‘outside’. But I acknowledge now that it’s a way of thinking…of governance of (say) a corporation that I've been actually afraid (for reasons of not wanting to appear as a non-conformist) of admitting to myself.
And I was wondering if anyone else has had the same intuitions; a sense that you are contending with…a ‘way’ the world conducts (?) Itself…runs itself that you feel at odds with (in) accommodating. Now (obviously) we all can – especially in this forum – find common ground on such a broad subject. But I mean specifically in work life – career?

As an INTP…how do you negotiate with (if felt) the sense of contention of being at odds with the very institution that provides (by means of its stability?) for your financial well-being? I’m not a communist…and I believe in free market capitalism…but I've never been (or been able to relate) to Gordon Gecko mentality that seems to run most corporations. But here is the mystery…I've never worked in finance and so – would presume to never have to concern myself with such things. But I do seem to ‘encounter’…run into that attitude (?) wherever I’m employed - does this make sense? Maybe I want to know how to hide? Wow that’s depressing to admit…in that I’m not self-employed and seemed destined to have to contend with this ‘splinter’ in my mind for the foreseeable future…sigh…:confused:
I got pushed and pushed in IT, until I had a nervous breakdown in 2001. I had thought that said something about me, until I read 3 separate news articles in successive years, about others here who were in IT, who were put under such pressure by their employers, that they committed suicide.

After that, I realised that I could not afford to put myself in another similar situation. So I now choose my jobs by who I am working for, and how they treat me, and how understanding they are of me, and how much they express they value my contributions.

=====================================================

Why is everything that American intellectuals say necessarily related to their being Americans, and not just intellectuals? The intellectuals at hand could have simply known only of the problem as it exists in the United States and not wanted to overstate their claim lest they be derided as--to use your words--treating an American problem as a global phenomenon.
Because your words show if you're doing that or not.

E.G. When a British intellectual criticises healthcare systems, but only knows about the healthcare systems in his country, then he criticises the NHS and/or BUPA, not "healthcare", and his arguments relate to those things that specifically apply to the NHS and/or BUPA, not arguments against healthcare systems in general. When an American intellectual criticises healthcare systems, but only knows about the healthcare systems in his country, then he criticises Obamacare and/or HMOs, not "healthcare", and his arguments relate to those things that specifically apply to Obamacare and/or HMOs, not arguments against healthcare systems in general.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
Thanks for the article scorpio...I was hoping someone would chime in with some kind of significant contribution otherwise my initial posts end up being a rant - and that wasn't the point (from my end).

As I think you can testify to - the discomfort (feeling at odds) with...what?...it's still hard to put into words...the mechanization of the workplace such that it reduces you to a widget...and that (more to the point) this form of homogenization of individuality is considered the ideal...I don't know?...I'm starting to rant again...but I relate completely to your description of feeling pushed (I'm in IT as well) - so thanks for that.

On the subject of the 'epic fail'...my statement about being at greatest odds with those who are attitudinally opposite our dominant function. I spent some time this morning trying to locate where I read that (Lenore Thomson?, Quenk?, a Beebe article?) and while I have this (typically INTP) sense of certainty that I'm not wrong and have (instead) sourced it from some place credible...i can't for the life of me locate it...so I humbly retract that point and admit that (given the summary gravity of the statement) I should be ready with quote, page/citation and author...I have none of them...so it's indeed an epic fail...please excuse. It strikes me now - again given how summary a comment it was - that it was probably a much more nuanced (contextual) observation if and when I did read it..so I'll see if I can edit the submission and take it out....


Anyway - thanks for making the effort...

Cheers
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:05 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
2) The second issue, is that if your work depends on developing novel intuitive solutions that not everyone would think of, then you've got a specialised skill, and you become a problem. They can't fire you, because if they do, the whole project comes to a grinding halt. So you can keep demanding better and better pay, better and better perks, and, if you feel that it would help your situation by getting more employees on board, you can rouse the regular employees to strike for better pay, because being a smart intuitive, you can persuade the majority of the employees who just go along with whatever they've heard that makes most sense to them, when it's in their interest, and more money and better working conditions are in their interest.

So companies want to get rid of those bottlenecks and powderkegs for starting strikes. To do that, they have to automate your work, so it's as conventional as possible, so that anyone can be trained to do it, thus making you expendable. They want to get rid of intuitives in general.

Not really, no. Not even close. My dad works at an investment firm, and every single morning, the developers of new finanial products at the company present him so many novel investment ideas that he feels like he's being shot with a hose in each eye; one would think that such activity would be at a minimum, not an eyeball blasting maximum, in a place where iNtuitives were deliberately made rare. Furthermore, the thousands of unmentioned tech start-ups around the country thrive on iNtuitives to feed them new ideas; where else could they get them?

Finally, companies' outsourcing specialist work to specialized sub-contractors ultimately does not unemploy or reduce the pay of specialists because unemployed specialists can work for sub-contractors and the developing countries from which cheap specialists emigrate will develop in time--sometimes because those very specialists returned home. For example of the latter, my dad's former co-worker--a Kenyan immigrant--is now a member of the Kenyan parliament after having lost his job at my dad's company in a round of post-crash downsizing.

Then they'll keep a few intuitives for solving problems where no conventional problems currently exist. But they want you under their thumb, so you can't ask for a lot of money. To do that, they have to ensure that most lines of work are made inaccessible/uncomfortable to you, leading intuitives to find they only have a very few jobs they can use their intuition in, and so there is a high supply of intuitives, but low demand for intuitives in the workplace, and again, companies can lower the rates they pay intuitives.

Now you're just veering off into dystopia. My dad's company's IT group doesn't pay enough to attract programmers who can speak coherent English, much less come up with decent ideas or even have a computer science degree; the talented, educated or English-speaking programmers therefore must voluntarily be working somewhere else because even a hint of the seller's market that you describe would have driven out the inarticulate, mediocre, under-educated ones currently employed therein.

3) Once jobs are expendable, they can keep pushing you to do more and more, which works for Js who focus on getting things done, and pushes Perceivers out, which leaves lots of Perceivers all vying for the same few jobs that companies want someone to take their time on. Again, the laws of supply and demand dictate that with lots more perceivers than perceiving jobs, they can lower wages with percieving jobs yet again.

Read Architect's thread: he's all but trying to be fired.

4) A T-mentality is preferable with real-life and theoretical jobs that lean towards manipulating the physical. An F-mentality is preferable with real-life and theoretical jobs that lean towards manipulating the emotional.

This economic culture doesn't really care what type you are. They just want to ensure that most workplaces are run to accommodate an ESxJ mentality, and if you're in a T-ish industry, an ESTJ mentality.

The economic culture of large companies doesn't really care about anything, really: within them, communication is so slow and so poor that hardly anyone knows what's going on or when--one would think that ESTJs could get their acts together better than that.

They still want INTPs around for research and development. But they want to ensure that there are more INTPs than INTP-ish jobs, so that they get you to compete, so they can get the best, and push those they employ in such roles, to take lower wages, and work longer and harder.

That's true for any type: all businesses want to do the most with the least to extract the greatest profits. ISTP craftsmen, for example, were largely phased out by the Industrial Revolution.

Your notions are thus very well founded. They just have very little to do with American culture, and a lot to do with the evolution of American corporate culture, which America has spread very successfully to the rest of the Western world. Now that America is bringing its values to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East, and China seems to be following suit as well, it probably won't be too long before you'll have nowhere to escape from it.

I got pushed and pushed in IT, until I had a nervous breakdown in 2001. I had thought that said something about me, until I read 3 separate news articles in successive years, about others here who were in IT, who were put under such pressure by their employers, that they committed suicide.

I think that you're projecting your experience onto the world; the one at my dad's company is nothing like what you describe. Everyone there survives, for example of difference.

After that, I realised that I could not afford to put myself in another similar situation. So I now choose my jobs by who I am working for, and how they treat me, and how understanding they are of me, and how much they express they value my contributions.

Which is exactly what rational employees do, and since you've found better work, I don't really see how an extreme ESTJ culture exists.

E.G. When a British intellectual criticises healthcare systems, but only knows about the healthcare systems in his country, then he criticises the NHS and/or BUPA, not "healthcare", and his arguments relate to those things that specifically apply to the NHS and/or BUPA, not arguments against healthcare systems in general. When an American intellectual criticises healthcare systems, but only knows about the healthcare systems in his country, then he criticises Obamacare and/or HMOs, not "healthcare", and his arguments relate to those things that specifically apply to Obamacare and/or HMOs, not arguments against healthcare systems in general.

Which is exactly what the American intellectuals in question did: they researched US corporate culture in the US and then reported on US corporate culture. Brontosaurie was complaining that they were ethnocentric because their report didn't mention how the problem existed elsewhere.

-Duxwing
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 6:05 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,263
-->
Location
69S 69E
Duxwing said:
Why is everything that American intellectuals say necessarily related to their being Americans, and not just intellectuals?

This is more said in general terms than specific ones...so bear with me.

As someone with an EU background living in Australia, it very much looks this way from the outside. Even on this forum full of oddballs, it's still distinctly American dominated...and it shows.

I don't know if I could explain it in anything less than an entire essay - it's as much to do with simple geography as anything else if you ask me, but I personally have a disconnect with a lot of the ideals and...single-mindedness of a lot of Americans. You can pretty much identify an American or a European the second they start posting, before you ever 'officially' find out what their origins are.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
sure, good.

i think something like it might exist. on the other hand i'm not convinced that an overall tendency which doesn't vary dynamically with personality type is best explained in typological terms.

I appreciate what Brontosaurie say's here...and it's (perhaps) the most immediate...blatant(?) criticism to be made. Couching the subject of a shadow en masse in typlogical terms wouldn't even get the time of day outside of say...a forum concerned with typology...which is why I bothered to include it in the first place.

Whether what is appropriate in describing the individual is appropriate in describing the masses is a point (apparently some) would like to debate first. I think it holds water...Giannini did...and he states Jung did as well. Which is good enough for me.

My point (conviction?) is that if it holds for the individual it isn't much of a stretch to say it holds for the general populace. If you can describe a trait in the individual...and that trait exists or describes the majority of people...is it 'wrong'...or even inaccurate to say that same trait describes the majority of people?

Of course no-one is saying it's the ONLY way of viewing/describing the subject of...what?...bias?...a bias of perspective in society? Hell the very subject of typology with most ES types is that it's bunk to begin with...so I'm not concerned about offending any of them...so....does this mean it doesn't have any merit? No...

And what's with the reference to 'Intellectuals'...who are you talking about? Is this the same 'elitist intellectuals' that is used (in a derogatory fashion) in certain political rallies?

Finally - this is perhaps the biggest scratch of the head for me - it's almost as if there is a concern of offending someone...with this 'ESTJ shadow talk'...this 'rhetoric'...which (frankly) I don't get at all. The ESTJ 'feelings' aren't going to get hurt. No EST is going to read this forum...and they think any resort 'inside' (...introversion) is a form of 'auto-erotica'.

My point is we seem to be veering into 'mean green' territory here. Pluralists starting to raise the 'war cry' on behalf of a 'wrongly accused' (lol) and likely...what?...disenfranchised?....ESTJ masses? Don't worry about their disenfranchisement...they own corporation...they don't care about the franchise.

Do I have that right? Don't dare single the ESTJ out because...why? What's going to happen if I do?

Then again I understand some here work for NSA...if you never hear from me again...well maybe we should have a signal?...something subtle...."cuckoo....cuckoooooo"...fuck me and I thought those red dots on my chest were 'pretty' fire flies

:rip:
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:05 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
This is more said in general terms than specific ones...so bear with me.

As someone with an EU background living in Australia, it very much looks this way from the outside. Even on this forum full of oddballs, it's still distinctly American dominated...and it shows.

:o You aussies are undetectable: I thought that you were an American.

I don't know if I could explain it in anything less than an entire essay - it's as much to do with simple geography as anything else if you ask me, but I personally have a disconnect with a lot of the ideals and...single-mindedness of a lot of Americans. You can pretty much identify an American or a European the second they start posting, before you ever 'officially' find out what their origins are.

What would those ideals be, and how does the single-mindedness manifest itself?

-Duxwing
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:05 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
My point (conviction?) is that if it holds for the individual it isn't much of a stretch to say it holds for the general populace. If you can describe a trait in the individual...and that trait exists or describes the majority of people...is it 'wrong'...or even inaccurate to say that same trait describes the majority of people?

MBTI isn't an empirical trait psychology. it explicitly concerns the inner structures and mechanisms of human minds. while the values encompassed by a personality type may be reflected disproportionately in society, it isn't practical or explanatory to diagnose society using typological terms.

the core issue is excess male hostility in an increasingly connected world.


about the intellectuals: i refer to american people engaging in public intellectual discourse. not sure what's difficult.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 6:05 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,263
-->
Location
69S 69E
Duxwing said:
:o You aussies are undetectable: I thought that you were an American.

Perhaps. Australia has become mini-America as it is and I have had the somewhat depressing realization that living on an island isolated by thousands of kilometres of ocean from most of the world has likely had more effect on me than I'd like to think...

What would those ideals be, and how does the single-mindedness manifest itself?

Like I said I don't think I can explain it in less than an entire essay, something I don't have the time or inclination to do. I'll try and summarize what I can and express with as much clarity and specificity as is possible, though you likely will still have more questions.

It's most prevalent (although not limited to) in threads to do with sexuality, legal issues and also human behaviour. It's a common trend I've noted that they all turn out typically, 'American'. The, 'bros before hos' mentality, along with assertions about certain reasons for female behaviours that are just so...wrong.

It's to the point that I think a lot of female users here just don't bother expressing disdain for the sorts of things that males say on the forum, because they know they're going to get intellectually (I use the term intellectually loosely) lynched by a swathe of sexually frustrated American males.

Beyond that, threads seem to eventually head that direction naturally - where it sort of reaches the point of, 'this is how it is', *insert Americanized view of something that might well be true about America...but certainly isn't true about the rest of the world*

To expand on what I mean by, 'simple geography' - I'm referring to exposure and acceptance of other cultures. If you live in Europe, you live bordered by many different languages and cultures. As part of your upbringing, you naturally come to understand these different cultures around you, and even learn to communicate with improvised diction.

Just to give an example, would you as an American be able to detect a difference between someone from northern Norway and someone from southern Norway? What about Norway and Sweden? Latvia and Lithuania? Russia and Georgia? Serbia and Croatia?

They all have quite distinct cultures, and while as stated they can communicate - the countries run differently, have different values, political systems, civil liberties, justice systems etc.

So on the forum I find it quite noticeable for example, that there are little pockets of lots of varied people - and a group of Americans. It sometimes feels as though valid opinions from other people are drowned out by 'American' ideals.

And while there is obviously a lot of variance between people from different parts of America - it's not as distinct or prevalent as the differences between one EU country and another (for example).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to bash Americans (cue 'intellectual' lynch-mob), just pointing out that there are certain underlying factors that tend to get glossed over because of this unified American front - which makes it look like there's lots of agreement or common advocacy towards certain ideas...when really there's lots of disagreement, although ineffectual because it comes from all different angles and there's no real unified standpoint from people of different cultures.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
Brontosaurie,

Jung states (in "Types" I believe) about his purpose in developing psychological types:

"To provide a critical psychology which will make a methodical investigation and presentation of the empirical material possible. First, and foremost, it is a critical tool for the research worker, who needs definite points of view and guidelines if he is to reduce the chaotic profusion of individual experiences to any kind of order. (1971/1921, p. 555)"

There is the whole 'dimension' of meaning in the modern world that gets lost as soon as one starts using the word 'empiricism'...thus enter psychology...and of (all?...most?) psychologies these days...one of those most concerned with meaning is Jungian Depth Psychology...

So yes I'm using MBTI terms to describe mass population (in the MBTI section of the INTP Forum)...but I'm intent on exploring the 'meaning' of that description...the meaningful implication of using that language...and your retort is..."you can't because it's not empirical"...well I don't care about empiricism...I care about the meaning

So - let's say we go with your (gender biased) description...Negative Patriarchal Sexist Energy (?)...what does it mean to you? How do you negotiate with the meaning behind the implication of that...existentially...how do you inwardly reconcile with that (mass) self-image and your own (different) idiosyncratic idealism?

I like this passage - it uses the word 'religion'...but read 'meaning' if that makes you uncomfortable...



(From) The Marriage of Sense and Soul - Ken Wilber

A NOTE TO THE READER

There is nothing that will cure the senses but the
soul, and nothing that will cure the soul but the
senses.
—OSCAR WILDE

It is hard to say exactly when modern science began. Many scholars would date it at roughly 1600,
when both Kepler and Galileo started using precision measurement to map the universe. But one thing is
certain: starting from whatever date we choose, modern science was, in many important ways and
right from the start, deeply antagonistic to established religion.


Most of the early scientists, of course, remained true believers, genuinely embracing the God of the
Church; many of them sincerely believed that they were simply discovering God's archetypal laws as
revealed in the book of nature. And yet, with the introduction of the scientific method, a universal acid was
released that would slowly, inevitably, painfully eat into and corrode the centuries-old steel of religion,
dissolving, often beyond recognition, virtually all of its central tenets and dogmas. Within the span of a
mere few centuries, intelligent men and women in all walks of life could deeply and profoundly do something
that would have utterly astonished previous epochs: deny the very existence of Spirit.

Despite the entreaties of the tenderhearted in both camps, the relation of science and religion in the
modern world— that is, in the last three or four centuries—has changed very little since their introduction
to each other in the trial of Galileo, where the scientist agreed to shut his mouth and the Church agreed
not to burn him. Many wonderful exceptions aside, the plain historical fact has been that orthodox science
and orthodox religion deeply distrust, and often despise, each other.

It has been a tense confrontation, a philosophical cold war of global reach. On the one hand, modern
empirical science has made stunning and colossal discoveries: the cure of diseases such as typhoid, smallpox,
and malaria, which racked the ancient world with untold anguish; the engineering of marvels from the airplane
to the Eiffel Tower to the space shuttle; discoveries in the biological sciences that verge on the secrets of life
itself; advances in computer sciences that are literally revolutionizing human existence; not to mention
plopping a person on the moon. Science can accomplish such feats, its proponents maintain, because it
utilizes a solid method for discovering truth, a method that is empirical and experimental and based on
evidence, not one that relies on myths and dogmas and unverifiable proclamations. Thus science, its
proponents believe, has made discoveries that have relieved more pain, saved more lives, and advanced
knowledge incomparably more than any religion and its pie-in-the-sky God. Humanity's only real salvation is a
reliance on scientific truth and its advance, not a projection of human potentials onto an illusory Great Other
before whom we grovel and beg in the most childish and undignified of fashions


There is a strange and curious thing about scientific truth. As its own proponents constantly explain, science
is basically value-free. It tells us what is, not what should be or ought to be. An electron isn't good or bad, it
just is; the cell's nucleus is not good or bad, it just is; a solar system isn't good or bad, it just is. Consequently
science, in elucidating or describing these basic facts about the universe, has virtually nothing to tell us about
good and bad, wise and unwise, desirable and undesirable. Science might offer us truth, but how to use that
truth wisely: on this science is, and always has been, utterly silent. And rightly so; that is not its job, that is not
what it was designed to do, and we certainly should not blame science for this silence. Truth, not wisdom or
value or worth, is the province of science.

In the midst of this silence, religion speaks. Humans seem condemned to meaning, condemned to find
value, depth, care, concern, worth, significance to their everyday existence. If science will not (and cannot)
provide it, most men and women will look elsewhere. For literally billions of people around the world, religion
provides the basic meaning of their lives, the glue of their existence, and offers them a set of guidelines about
what is good (e.g., love, care, compassion) and what is not (e.g., lying, cheating, stealing, killing). On the
deepest level, religion has even claimed to offer a means of contacting or communing with an ultimate Ground
of Being. But by any other name, religion offers what it believes is a genuine wisdom.

Fact and meaning, truth and wisdom, science and religion. It is a strange and grotesque coexistence, with
value-free science and value-laden religion, deeply distrustful of each other, aggressively attempting to
colonize the same small planet. It is a clash of Titans, to be sure, yet neither seems strong enough to prevail
decisively nor graceful enough to bow out altogether. The trial of Galileo is repeated countless times, moment
to moment, around the world, and it is tearing humanity, more or less, in half.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread; therefore, the integration of science and religion is the theme of
this book. If you are an orthodox religious believer, I would ask only that you relax into the argument and see
where it takes you; I do not think you will be dismayed. My primary prerequisite in this discussion is that both
science and religion must find the argument acceptable in their own terms. For this marriage to be genuine, it
must have the free consent of both spouses.

If you are an orthodox scientist, I would only suggest that, as you have a thousand times in the past when
you were working on a problem, let curiosity and wonder bubble up, but in this case don't focus it on a
specific solution. Simply let wonder fill your being until it takes you out of yourself and into the staggering
mystery that is the existence of the world, a mystery that facts alone can never begin to fill. If Spirit does
exist, it will lie in that direction, the direction of wonder, a direction that intersects the very heart of science
itself. And you will find, in this adventure, that the scientific method will never be left behind in the search for
an ultimate ground.

And we all know how to wonder, don't we? From the depths of a Kosmos too miraculous to believe, from
the heights of a universe too wondrous to worship, from the in-sides of an astonishment that has no
boundaries, an answer begins to suggest itself, and whispers to us lightly. If we listen very carefully, from within
this infinite wonder, perhaps we can hear the gentle promise that, in the very heart of the Kosmos itself, both
science and religion will be there together to welcome us home.
K.W.
BOULDER, COLORADO
SUMMER 1997
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:05 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
So yes I'm using MBTI terms to describe mass population (in the MBTI section of the INTP Forum)...but I'm intent on exploring the 'meaning' of that description...the meaningful implication of using that language...and your retort is..."you can't because it's not empirical"...well I don't care about empiricism...I care about the meaning?

So - let's say we go with your (gender biased) description...Negative Patriarchal Sexist Energy (?)...what does it mean to you? How do you negotiate with the meaning behind the implication of that...existentially...how do you inwardly reconcile with that (mass) self-image and your own (different) idiosyncratic idealism?

trait psychology is inherently empirical. of course it's not the only way to understand this problem, though.

when you apply typology to sociology, you're effectively reducing it to a descriptive, empirical trait psychology as the whole internal functional dynamic is lost in translation.

technological acceleration conflicting with evolutionary stagnation adequately explains the phenomenon at hand. you don't need to disguise it in typology, unless you prioritize esotericism.

i sincerely don't understand your question about reconciliation and self-image. i think i've stated a reasonable causal explanation and that this is a thing way superior to such scholastic exercise as that which you support. no more.

i'm not sure i can continue arguing with someone who thinks theoretical differentiation between biological sexes indicates a "gender bias". one word: testosterone. take it as a cop-out if you will. i have made my point.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
My bad - I summarized "the core issue is excess male hostility in an increasingly connected world." with the term "gender bias".

So kudos to you for mentioning testosterone - an empirical truth to be sure. Just to be clear we are still 'arguing' about semantics...language used and not the 'meaning' of the thread...

You said yourself "i think something like it might exist. on the other hand i'm not convinced that an overall tendency which doesn't vary dynamically with personality type is best explained in typological terms."...and I said "OK"...so (let's just say )something like it DOES exist...does it bother you? I was hoping to get an opinion(s) on that...not if or how 'it's' described...

But if you have no opinion...no problem...anyone have an opinion about 'it' - if 'it' DOES exist? :)
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:05 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
My bad - I summarized "the core issue is excess male hostility in an increasingly connected world." with the term "gender bias".

So kudos to you for mentioning testosterone - an empirical truth to be sure. Just to be clear we are still 'arguing' about semantics...language used and not the 'meaning' of the thread...

You said yourself "i think something like it might exist. on the other hand i'm not convinced that an overall tendency which doesn't vary dynamically with personality type is best explained in typological terms."...and I said "OK"...so (let's just say )something like it DOES exist...does it bother you? I was hoping to get an opinion(s) on that...not if or how 'it's' described...

ok i regret my cop-out. f*ck.

that's a very peculiar summary. "gender bias" was taken to mean that i have a biologically unfounded stereotyped understanding of masculinity.

everything is semantics. it makes a big difference how you choose to define stuff. it's at the heart of theory and science.

but yeah we agree that the ESTJ personality shares some traits with a current counterproductive state of politics. and we disagree that typology adequately explains the latter.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
We agree to disagree - fair enough.

Everything is semantics...yup can't argue with that.

(final) Re-direct - just because we've come down this road...can you elaborate (read describe) what your experience of "the core issue is excess male hostility" has been?

Thanks for making the effort Brontosaurie
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:05 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
(final) Re-direct - just because we've come down this road...can you elaborate (read describe) what your experience of "the core issue is excess male hostility" has been?

Thanks for making the effort Brontosaurie

not so much experience as speculation and theoretical concerns, i'm afraid. i strain to think of examples. the things i can think of in terms of episodic memories are occasions of rage and tantrum, outbursts of a force trapped in recursion and subject to unhealthy build-up because of its redundancy. but this observation depends on the hypothesis itself... urgh.

thanks to you too for the effort and for not cursing me even though i may deserve it.
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
Nope - not at all - I take it for granted I'm among some smart (like me :) ) company...so if I'm sincere (and I am) then I'll hold to my original intent (and self-interest)...

I'm looking for strategies...really...because (like you just described) sometimes I feel like Michael Douglas (I forgot the movie) stuck in traffic in the midsummer heat in LA.

I know enough to take a break...but like she say's in "Crash" (Crash is another great film depiction...again in LA?)..."I just seem angry all the time..." and so when you're at work...and you know you've got to come back tomorrow...or you have to get the job in the first place...and you know we are all just human...and the problem is yours...and you have to own it...well it helps to know other people...and maybe espeically people of your own type...be good to know how they manage the 'heat'...and if they have any ideas of where that frustration comes from...:evil:

Pretty simple premise really...but kinda hard (at least for me) to communicate...

Cheers Brontosaurie
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 8:05 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
haha you write like you're high

high at work? :D

how does any of this relate to me or our discussion?


cheers
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 2:05 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
-->
Perhaps. Australia has become mini-America as it is and I have had the somewhat depressing realization that living on an island isolated by thousands of kilometres of ocean from most of the world has likely had more effect on me than I'd like to think...

Yikes.

Like I said I don't think I can explain it in less than an entire essay, something I don't have the time or inclination to do. I'll try and summarize what I can and express with as much clarity and specificity as is possible, though you likely will still have more questions.

Thanks. :)

It's most prevalent (although not limited to) in threads to do with sexuality, legal issues and also human behaviour. It's a common trend I've noted that they all turn out typically, 'American'. The, 'bros before hos' mentality, along with assertions about certain reasons for female behaviours that are just so...wrong.

OK:
--Friendship before romance
--Constrained female sexuality

It's to the point that I think a lot of female users here just don't bother expressing disdain for the sorts of things that males say on the forum, because they know they're going to get intellectually (I use the term intellectually loosely) lynched by a swathe of sexually frustrated American males.

O.O I hope that I wouldn't be among that mob.

Beyond that, threads seem to eventually head that direction naturally - where it sort of reaches the point of, 'this is how it is', *insert Americanized view of something that might well be true about America...but certainly isn't true about the rest of the world*

So threads come to defeatist conclusions, but the defeat hasn't occurred in other places.

To expand on what I mean by, 'simple geography' - I'm referring to exposure and acceptance of other cultures. If you live in Europe, you live bordered by many different languages and cultures. As part of your upbringing, you naturally come to understand these different cultures around you, and even learn to communicate with improvised diction.

Just to give an example, would you as an American be able to detect a difference between someone from northern Norway and someone from southern Norway? What about Norway and Sweden? Latvia and Lithuania? Russia and Georgia? Serbia and Croatia?

They all have quite distinct cultures, and while as stated they can communicate - the countries run differently, have different values, political systems, civil liberties, justice systems etc.

Ah, OK. That blows the diversity of the US out of the water.

So on the forum I find it quite noticeable for example, that there are little pockets of lots of varied people - and a group of Americans. It sometimes feels as though valid opinions from other people are drowned out by 'American' ideals.

And while there is obviously a lot of variance between people from different parts of America - it's not as distinct or prevalent as the differences between one EU country and another (for example).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to bash Americans (cue 'intellectual' lynch-mob), just pointing out that there are certain underlying factors that tend to get glossed over because of this unified American front - which makes it look like there's lots of agreement or common advocacy towards certain ideas...when really there's lots of disagreement, although ineffectual because it comes from all different angles and there's no real unified standpoint from people of different cultures.

How do the Americans come to be so unified when the country has regions of distinctly different values? *recognizes ironic echo from class on American revolution*

-Duxwing
 

NaturalOrder

Redshirt
Local time
Today 7:05 AM
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
22
-->
Location
Minnesota
Scorpion - in response to my statement about being at greatest odds with those with the same dominant function but opposite attitudinal (E vs I) preference...I resubmit the claim - with the caveat that - as Brontosaurus observes - everything is a matter of semantics...so the caveat is I'm a fan of Beebe's 8 process model...

http://www.infj.com/BeebeOnINFJs.htm

"According to Dr. John Beebe, it is most difficult for people of the same primary function but opposite attitude to get along, and the greatest personal conflicts arise between persons of opposite genders who have the same dominant function but paired with opposite attitudes. Again for an INFJ: Ni Fe Ti Se, and now for NFPs: Ne Fi Te Si -- no matches anywhere! Also with STJs: Si Te Fi Ne -- the same mismatching. "

Here's another article comparing the idea of compatibility ideas of different (Jungian) type models...

http://www.typeinsights.com/FreeArticles/Relationships.pdf

Toward the end (under the section "Incompatibility")

"...This stance apparently overlooks
an assertion by Marie Louise von Franz
(Jung’s contemporary) that Jung claimed
the hardest thing to understand is the
same function type with the other attitude. In other words, there may be great
conflict between a pair where one favors
Introverted Sensing and the other prefers
Extraverted Sensing (see Figure 8). Particularly when these individuals are the
same gender, they tend to clash.
Bob McAlpine specifies two particular
kinds of opposites derived from Beebe’s
8-function model. The first opposite has
been named “Opposing Personality.” In
this version of opposites, an INFJ’s opposing personality would be the ENFP
pattern. Betwixt these two particular
patterns, all eight of the processes are entirely MISmatched, albeit not in precisely
opposite order (see Figure 10).
The hypothesis that mismatches in
the 8-level model would generate tension
was verified recently through live research
done by Ken Liberty. He took an intimate
look at what he calls “attitude-antagonistic couples.” This description fits couples
who have matching letters in their codes,
but their favorite processes are in opposing attitudes, as displayed above. Individuals with these particular combinations
reported more challenges within their
marriages than couples who were not attitude-antagonistic. Beebe characterized
an attitude-antagonistic relationship he
was in by saying, “there was a fight every
other minute.”
I do not mean to imply this sort of
relationship will never work – I am merely
reporting how certain combinations appear to be fraught with greater challenges than less-opposed combinations, and
often have more issues to overcome"

Finally there is the article by Drenth at Personality Junkie that's quite good (in speaking to the subtle 'marrying' [good and bad] of seemingly similar types):

http://personalityjunkie.com/10/infj-intp-relationships-compatibility-part-ii/

In the end (in terms of discussion) it's a matter of semantics...I've found great compatibility with ENFJ...thus Drenth's recommendation of INFJ doesn't sound too outlandish to me...and so it's 'my' opinion...and I've found theories to back up that position. But (for the record) it's not for reasons of wanting to 'win' an argument...it's honestly been my experience...

And most recently I've noticed that I'm 'sensitive' to other thinkers...but those of the opposite attitudinal orientation of me...(Extraverted Thinking)...not calling it wrong (after all we have them to thank for bureaucracies that exist in the world :) (bitter much? - No not at all....Given to making generalizations much? Yup...very much)

Anyway I wanted to redeem myself and communicate that I wasn't just making up my (former) statement...

Cheers,

Nat
 
Top Bottom