INTPs and Authority

[Double-Think]

So this will probably be the first out of two threads, the other is on a completely different topic. So i told myself i wouldn't post this but eh, it happened. I should be specific in my question here, as not to get harassed by the statements "have you searched" and "there has been a thread on this already" , so if i wasn't clear enough in the video, my question is this 1. how do you, as an individual, as well as an INTP relate to authority 2. Do you think an authority figure is needed?, if so why?, and 3. would you say that human beings are naturally autonomous? or does it come about through maturity?

INTPs and Authority



So are we naturally anti-authoritarian?

 

[Fallenman]

So I guess you decided to post the video after all . Well here is my opinion, first of all I know this wasn't in asked, but I think that a bureaucracy is necessary, and that you may be a little too idealistic =P. Unfortunately not everyone is an INT, or NT for that matter, and there are people who do need to be directed. I mean thats just the simple fact of the matter, we're a small portion of the population and how we view and interact with the world is very different than most.

1) I tend to give authority the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Personally, I know I'm no expert on a multitude of subjects, systems and organizations, so I'll allow for an authority figure to direct me until I've gotten the hang of it. But as soon as the authority figure does something stupid, or presents themselves as my equal then they lose a lot of their weight. I suppose the reason that I will respect authority is because to me I see it as they've got a system or thing that is their job to run, and if I disregard their authority I disrespect them as an individual. Its when I feel they don't deserve my respect that things change.

2) God.. I don't know what country you live in, but democracies are horrendous for getting things done. Dissenting voices are constantly getting in the way of progress. I mean if Republicans weren't so incredibly... no offense I know some brilliant republicans but honestly who ever argues that universal health care equates to the end of the world is retarded.. If Obama was given full reign to do what he needed and not have to cater to both sides we'd be in a completely different place, but of course that comes with its follies as well, and which leads to all the pros of Democracies. But I digress... Authority figures are needed, and they're needed because they give direction to those who don't know what to do. They're the enforcers for those who would seek to undermine the operations, or just flat out do nothing. They're also the synthesizers of all the various components of a system, into one. They make sure that the raw materials are getting to the production line in an adequate amount of time etc etc. They're the conductors, and essential.

3) If humans were naturally autonomous then there would be no need for parents, and being a child or teenager would be no different than being an adult. I 100% believe that autonomy comes with maturity, and I don't believe that everyone becomes completely autonomous. To the point that they can eat, sleep, and crap sure, (although thats a point for speculation), but to be completely independent of people? I don't think everyone has what it takes. I think some people are just too people oriented.

 

[VwllssWndr]

I don't know that I have contempt for "authority" per se, but I definitely subscribe to the belief that respect is something which must be earned, so I don't immediately respect someone due to their status or position. I cooperate with law enforcement, so maybe that's the exception.

Lots of people want to be "The Boss," but in my experience, very few of them know how to lead or manage effectively. I'll gladly support authority I respect, but I really have no use for people who just want to tell others what to do.

 

[walfin]

I used to subscribe to the respect must be earned school of thought.

Now, I don't know what to make of it. I don't know if you hold any position of authority but I think it would be a bear for INTPs to have subordinates tell them "earn my respect first and then I'll listen to you"- firstly because I think certain types are better at "earning respect" than others, and secondly, because the respect earning process can be a waste of time.

 

[Philosophyking87]

1) I tend to give authority the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Personally, I know I'm no expert on a multitude of subjects, systems and organizations, so I'll allow for an authority figure to direct me until I've gotten the hang of it. But as soon as the authority figure does something stupid, or presents themselves as my equal then they lose a lot of their weight. I suppose the reason that I will respect authority is because to me I see it as they've got a system or thing that is their job to run, and if I disregard their authority I disrespect them as an individual. Its when I feel they don't deserve my respect that things change.

Yeah, I don't really work well with or within systems, myself, and I'm usually very rebellious and sensitive to any authoritative abuse of power. I love to rally against a tyrannical administrator. But, at the same time, I do give authority the benefit of the doubt, beforehand. And I'm the type of person who understands the need for authority; I just wish it was done right! And it's true that an authority figure has my respect and loyalty until they do something stupid or unethical that I begin to advocate against them, and want to improve the system, usually by removing them.

2) God.. I don't know what country you live in, but democracies are horrendous for getting things done. Dissenting voices are constantly getting in the way of progress. I mean if Republicans weren't so incredibly... no offense I know some brilliant republicans but honestly who ever argues that universal health care equates to the end of the world is retarded.. If Obama was given full reign to do what he needed and not have to cater to both sides we'd be in a completely different place, but of course that comes with its follies as well, and which leads to all the pros of Democracies. But I digress... Authority figures are needed, and they're needed because they give direction to those who don't know what to do. They're the enforcers for those who would seek to undermine the operations, or just flat out do nothing. They're also the synthesizers of all the various components of a system, into one. They make sure that the raw materials are getting to the production line in an adequate amount of time etc etc. They're the conductors, and essential.

Agreed. Democracies have many problems, even if they offer possibly the most legitimate governmental systems there are. In a usual democracy, things break down into majoritarian rule (which I loathe). "Mob rule." Social classes join factions and rally against one another, and it's so primitive. When this happens on a large enough scale for a long enough time, it results in our Congress! A partisan piece of junk that gets nothing done. And I do feel that the President should have more domestic powers, rather than being limited to the power of persuasion. A lot more change would occur if this were the case, especially with the Obama Administration.

And I agree: authority is needed, no matter how much we may dislike it.
All we have to do is guide them in the proper course of action.

3) If humans were naturally autonomous then there would be no need for parents, and being a child or teenager would be no different than being an adult. I 100% believe that autonomy comes with maturity, and I don't believe that everyone becomes completely autonomous. To the point that they can eat, sleep, and crap sure, (although thats a point for speculation), but to be completely independent of people? I don't think everyone has what it takes. I think some people are just too people oriented.

Agreed. Humans are not naturally autonomous. They are generally irrational, unwise, and in need of guidance, in my opinion. On a large scale, you need some sort of authority to guide, regulate, control, and organize the large masses into systematic patterns which allow for an overall efficient social interconnection. This same reasoning is why we have driving rules. And it's pretty much Thomas Hobbe's Social Contract reasoning, which I agree with.

Good post.

 

[Fallenman]

I agree I think with walfin in the sense that I don't think that an authority figure is entitled to have to earn your respect before you are willing to follow them. If a leader had to go and gain each and every single persons respect then the process would be cumbersome and inefficient. A tiresome approach.
@Philosophyking: Thanks , I appreciate the sentiments, and PoV.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Indeed. Authority figures shouldn't be blindly trusted; but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have an open-minded audience willing to give them a chance. Take authority with a grain of sand—and only when they show weaknesses and signs of fault do you rebel against them and show your disrespect. In my opinion, it's not respect that has to be earned so much as it's disrespect which must be warranted. Give people the benefit of the doubt, from a rational perspective. It's the only wise policy.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Let's just put it like this:
At the end of the day, I respect everyone until they give me a reason not to.

 

[onthewindowstand]

Let's just put it like this:
At the end of the day, I respect everyone until they give me a reason not to.

You said yourself that most people are irrational and in need of guidance. I think the exact same, but I think that people shouldn't be trusted until it is earned. Afterall you will probably find that the majority is unworthy of intellectual respect. It seems more reasonable to assume the most probable outcome until a good decision can be made about the person.

 

[Philosophyking87]

You said yourself that most people are irrational and in need of guidance. I think the exact same, but I think that people shouldn't be trusted until it is earned. Afterall you will probably find that the majority is unworthy of intellectual respect. It seems more reasonable to assume the most probable outcome until a good decision can be made about the person.

True. If most people are irrational, then our leaders can be irrational. And often times, they are. But authority should be given the benefit of the doubt, regardless. And when we realize someone isn't worthy of our trust or respect, I think we should have a simple process to easily can them. lol

I guess when it comes to politics, I'm more lenient with authority. I just bark very loudly when that authority becomes corrupt. My attitude is "Do your job and try your best to do what's in our best interests, but when you screw up, you're going to suffer a fine penalty!"

 

[onthewindowstand]

True. If most people are irrational, then our leaders can be irrational. And often times, they are. But authority should be given the benefit of the doubt, regardless. And when we realize someone isn't worthy of our trust or respect, I think we should have a simple process to easily can them. lol

I guess when it comes to politics, I'm more lenient with authority. I just bark very loudly when that authority becomes corrupt. My attitude is "Do your job and try your best to do what's in our best interests, but when you screw up, you're going to suffer a fine penalty!"

Why should they be given the benefit of the doubt?

Think of the bell curve and voting power in america. Retards literally have as voting much power as genuises, and the difference between a genuis and an average bob, is the same difference between that average guy and a retard. When there are disparities this great within man and all people, then I will always be prone to distrust the masses. They are simply not driven by any will to be objective in any sense. So my thinking is that they will elect people to do likewise.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I just don't see a reason to give authority a hard time without due cause.
I won't want to stand in the way of authority unless the moment calls for it.
Until then, I'll be mildly compliant.

When things are fine, I'll go about the process and follow our leaders.
When things aren't fine, I'll become highly critical and demand justice and change.

So, I place more emphasis on bad administrations and bad authority.
I don't really see a reason to hold a completely negative, or cynically cautious, opinion of them if they aren't actually corrupt. I'll be fair until I'm given a reason not to be fair. In fact, aren't INTPs supposedly fair-minded?

I suppose realism is creeping in and telling you guys, "BUT THEY'RE GONNA MESS UP! BEWARE!" Ha.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Why should they be given the benefit of the doubt?

Think of the bell curve and voting power in america. Retards literally have as voting much power as genuises, and the difference between a genuis and an average bob, is the same difference between that average guy and a retard. When there are disparities this great within man and all people, then I will always be prone to distrust the masses. They are simply not driven by any will to be objective in any sense. So my thinking is that they will elect people to do likewise.

Ah, I see your reasoning. But even if the masses generally tend to elect morons into office (George W. Bush Jr., for example), I still think it more wise to remain fair with these morons until they actually start crapping all over everything, at which time we should grow increasingly unpleased with them.

I just don't like seemingly judging them before they've actually given me some reason to highly respect/disrespect them. I prefer to remain neutral and compliant until they start violating my sense of principle. I guess I'm just a fair guy. lol

 

[onthewindowstand]

I just don't see a reason to give authority a hard time without due cause.
I won't want to stand in the way of authority unless the moment calls for it.
Until then, I'll be mildly compliant.

When things are fine, I'll go about the process and follow our leaders.
When things aren't fine, I'll become highly critical and demand justice and change.

So, I place more emphasis on bad administrations and bad authority.
I don't really see a reason to hold a completely negative, or cynically cautious, opinion of them if they aren't actually corrupt. I'll be fair until I'm given a reason not to be fair. In fact, aren't INTPs supposedly fair-minded?

I suppose realism is creeping in and telling you guys, "BUT THEY'RE GONNA MESS UP! BEWARE!" Ha.

That is exactly why I am suspicious.

And there are ways to evaluate what a leader will be like before actually knowing what he has done. Of course what he has done will always have more weight than what you inferred in the first place.

My thinking is that if the majority of people are sheep (and they are) Am I really going to trust who a bunch of sheep elect? Someone who has gotten elected by sheep could have very easily been dishonest and still gotten elected by the sheep masses. Just seeing how these sheep live day to day life makes me question anything that is done because of them. And that is very much like an INTP. If someone or a group has been deemed incompetent with good reason, than an INTP will be consistent in that view.

 

[Philosophyking87]

At any rate, I have many ideas going off in my mind concerning the reformation of politics, especially the democratic system. So I definitely am aware of the possible level of corruption in our system. I just think the very structure of it matters moreso than the individuals who become elected. Hence, instead of trying to resist authority, I'll mostly focus on trying to find new ways of improving the political process and structure of the very government.

 

[onthewindowstand]

Speaking of restructuring the system. The first thing we need to do in my opinion is abolish congressional districts and to put in place a literacy and logic test. This would destroy the obsession with the false dichotomy between choosing republican or democrat. Without congressional districts third parties would have a chance and more ideas would get the stage. With literacy/logic test I think this would improve the validity of elections and ensure that no one is being flippant about who they vote for.

 

[Philosophyking87]

That is exactly why I am suspicious.

And there are ways to evaluate what a leader will be like before actually knowing what he has done. Of course what he has done will always have more weight than what you inferred in the first place.

My thinking is that if the majority of people are sheep (and they are) Am I really going to trust who a bunch of sheep elect? Someone who has gotten elected by sheep could have very easily been dishonest and still gotten elected by the sheep masses. Just seeing how these sheep live day to day life makes me question anything that is done because of them. And that is very much like an INTP. If someone or a group has been deemed incompetent with good reason, than an INTP will be consistent in that view.

Indeed. Authority shouldn't be trusted or resisted until there is reason for either. But I'm still somewhere between utter suspicion and neutral fairness. Humans are generally non-intelligent and in need of authority; hence, the people they choose to lead them will be shady. And you can indeed infer someone's use of authority before they actually have power. No doubt.

I suppose I won't really trust an authoritative figure before they've done something worthy of my trust, but at the same time, I won't really hold a negative opinion toward them until they've deserved it.

So, not trust but neutral fairness.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Speaking of restructuring the system. The first thing we need to do in my opinion is abolish congressional districts and to put in place a literacy and logic test. This would destroy the obsession with the false dichotomy between choosing republican or democrat. Without congressional districts third parties would have a chance and more ideas would get the stage. With literacy/logic test I think this would improve the validity of elections and ensure that no one is being flippant about who they vote for.

Very interesting ideas. Whether or not they are any good is still questionable, but it definitely would be great to get rid of the partisan nonsense going on in government, for sure.

But I'll get more into my reform ideas later on.

 

[onthewindowstand]

Indeed. Authority shouldn't be trusted or resisted until there is reason for either. But I'm still somewhere between utter suspicion and neutral fairness. Humans are generally non-intelligent and in need of authority; hence, the people they choose to lead them will be shady. And you can indeed infer someone's use of authority before they actually have power. No doubt.

I suppose I won't really trust an authoritative figure before they've done something worthy of my trust, but at the same time, I won't really hold a negative opinion toward them until they've deserved it.

So, not trust but neutral fairness.

I support neutral fairness for leaders, who I distrust are the people voting.

 

[onthewindowstand]

Very interesting ideas. Whether or not they are any good is still questionable, but it definitely would be great to get rid of the partisan nonsense going on in government, for sure.

But I'll get more into my reform ideas later on.

To explain what a system without congressional districts would like I will make this post and you can then say if you agree.

In the state of colorado (where I live) There are currently 9 representatives that are elected. With congressional districts every district sends one dude (Always a dem or repub) Without districts every person in the state would vote for their top 9 picks with priority votes. What this allows for is third party members in the entire state to vote for one guy in their top spot. While dems and repubs are splitting them. What would probably happen is 8 dems/ repubs (something along those lines) With one third party member going as well. As time wore on people would feel less restrained by their former ways of only voting dem or repub.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I support neutral fairness for leaders, who I distrust are the people voting.

Agreed, entirely. I am entirely suspicious of voting.
I am only mildly suspicious of the average leader.
But some leaders obviously warrant more suspicion than others!

[By the way, we should discuss reform ideas some time. It's one of my main passions of philosophy!]

 

[Philosophyking87]

To explain what a system without congressional districts I will make another post and you can then say if you agree. In the state of colorado (where I live) There are currently 9 representatives that are elected. With congressional districts every district sends one dude (Always a dem or repub) Without districts every person in the state would vote for their top 9 picks with priority votes. What this allows for is third party members in the entire state to vote for one guy in their top spot. While dems and repubs are splitting them. What would probably happen is 8 dems/ repubs (something along those lines) With one third party member going as well. As time wore on people would feel less restrained by their former ways of only voting dem or repub.

That sounds good. I'll be on the lookout. And perhaps we can discuss various aspects of politics (like federalism, unitary systems, confederations, majoritarianism, pluralism, communitarianism, liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, ect). But I'm gonna log out for now. Cya.

 

[EditorOne]

1. There's an issue of scale here that needs to be addressed. A workplace and a nation are so different you have to ask what is going to work in each one. And some workplaces are so vast that without someone to handle the job of coordinating processes, you won't get the bumpers delivered to Detroit when they need to go on the cars, etc.

2. Nor have you considered the existence of "agendas." It is well and good to say a workplace can function if everyone simply does what they are supposed to do. When there is care taken in hiring, when the nature of the tasks is understood and their relationship to each other is clear, when everyone agrees the job is important, I couldn't agree more. It's how I tried to operate for many years, even in the face of higher management insisting on obsessive management of details and "reminding them who's boss." Bleh. But anyway, "on the other hand," what if someone decides they want to use the time on the job preparing a resume to get work somewhere else? Or use his time interviewing clients to steer them to the private business he owns that actually competes with his employer? (both real examples). How does that person get the equivalent of a boot up the backside while going out the door at 200 mph? Will his peers handle that? Don't count on it. And we haven't even touched on those who are innately lazy and spend their day trying to do as little as possible (another real-world example).

3. A possibly useful premise: The amount of distrust appropriate for an authority figure or agency should be in direct proportion to the amount of power it has to ruin your life. When I had authority and needed to delegate it on the job I'd tell whoever was getting the power that they had "situational authority" -- enough authority to get the job done right, no more.

4. And that leads right into my last thought, which is that when those who have power abuse it, when they exceed "situational authority" and start to enforce whimsical requirements or agendas not in keeping with what is required to get a job done, that's when you see the value of mechanisms to keep authority under control. Perfect example is starting a war with Iraq in order to ensure reelection (Americans have never turned out a sitting president while our armies were fighting) rather than to protect national interests. That is abuse of power on a horrifying scale, one involving loss of life, but it could be as small and annoying as a warehouse supervisor who insists his forklift operators have to buy steel-toed shoes from his brother-in-law.

I'm glad you went ahead and posted your video. :-)

 

[oldspice]

Yes, at least I am anti-authoritarian. I have a hard time with authority. I do not like to be told what to do and like to keep my free spiritedness. I believe that individuals should be able to do as they please, as long as there is no aggression committed. If there are no voluntary contracts or aggression I do not see a legitimate role for an authority figure.

I see authority in government different from in a workplace. You choose where you work. You can even choose to be your own boss if you want to. Therefore, it is legitimate for an authority figure to be present, but not always necessary, in the workplace. In society we are forced to follow rules that we have no real say in that are imposed by authority figures. Sure you can write your congressman or vote, but how much of an effect do those things really have in our giant system we have created?

Edit: I dont have true experience in the workforce since I am in college. But, I have held a few jobs. I still consider this applicable.

 

[Fghw]

1)My relationship with authority depends highly on the authority figure.
2)Authority is as necessary as disease. Think about it.
3)Authority removes the necessity of thought and creativity, so most of the population needs it.

 

[joal0503]

i dont enjoy dishing out authority, nor do i particularly respect it.

i respect logic and merit based off of what I have experienced.

guidance and wisdom do not require 'authority'