Who are we from a political perspective?

[Jordan~]

Political compass:

 

[jameslikespie]

Obviously were not all the exact same just because were INTP's but if your talking about in general, most of us our liberal/socialist i'm guessing.

 

[Sosekopp]

I don't know where this puts me. Some sort of radical centrist, perhaps.

 

[dialectical_stew]

Modern Neo-liberals seem to appeal to pity and emotions way too much for any INTP to ever consider it as a political affiliation. As do Neoconservatives. Politics has no room for emotion as far as I'm concerned.

One can see the nice large debt that emotional thinking has built so far in terms of national debts, welfare, etc. I'm sorry that you can't afford you're 8 children, but if you can't understand the basics of birth control, then perhaps you shouldn't be reproducing and expecting others to pay for your idiocy?

EDIT: I believe that political maps require 3 perhaps 4 dimensions as opposed to 2. One of my political science professors discussed this is more detail, but I can't remember specifics.

 

[Jordan~]

"I'm sorry that you made a bad decision, but not really because I'm just going to laugh while your eight children die begging at my feet. Because all of my decisions are good and I deserve life."

 

[Solitaire U.]

You're asking? Anarchist...any flavor will do.

 

[dialectical_stew]

"I'm sorry that you made a bad decision, but not really because I'm just going to laugh while your eight children die begging at my feet. Because all of my decisions are good and I deserve life."

[MP3][/MP3]


Anecdote says hello? Assumptions are bad.

But if you're insisting that we almighty humans, masters of the universe, can overcome the very laws of nature, then by all means let's do it. It'll go swimmingly I'm sure.

Edit: I'm fine with social welfare programs (Means-tested of course), but not with those that abuse them. That's what I'm trying to say. Of course I'm going to help. But I suppose we'll see who's right whenever the population hits 20 billion?

 

[Jordan~]

Well, good. If people abuse anything it's bad - abuse is precisely that kind of use which is bad, it would be absurd to say, "I think it's a good thing that people abuse welfare programs." If you thought it was good it wouldn't be abuse - it goes without saying.

I do think we can overcome the laws of nature, because I refuse to live in a world where we can't. It's a worthy aim and so one worth striving for, and I won't let myself be browbeaten into bovine compliance by the harshness of reality.

 

[dialectical_stew]

Well, good. If people abuse anything it's bad - abuse is precisely that kind of use which is bad, it would be absurd to say, "I think it's a good thing that people abuse welfare programs." If you thought it was good it wouldn't be abuse - it goes without saying.

I do think we can overcome the laws of nature, because I refuse to live in a world where we can't. It's a worthy aim and so one worth striving for, and I won't let myself be browbeaten into bovine compliance by the harshness of reality.

I admire that.

I'm mostly being facetious, as I aspire to work for the ACLU after law school. I obviously care about the welfare of humanity. That was perhaps a horrible example. I'm thinking more of those that implement policy and abuse the system (Medicare fraud, Fannie Mae, etc).

I love babies. Of course I'd help save 8 starving babes. :3

 

[Jordan~]

I'm not from the US, so I had to look up the ACLU. That's pretty cool.

I think politics does have room for emotion, and needs emotion, as demonstrated by what you just said - you'd help save 8 starving babies because you love babies. Pure reason has no motives (and is impossible, besides, since the frontal lobe never operates in a vacuum - all our mental processes are mingled, so reason will always be mixed with emotion and vice versa) without emotion to inform it of what's subjectively worthwhile, since objectively nothing is worthwhile. Purely rational politics would be devoid of any subjective notion of desirability. I can't imagine what a purely rational policy would be - "Nothing means anything or is worth pursuing, so just sit still until you die."
While reason is necessary to effectively formulate policy, any guiding principle in politics will necessarily be emotional in nature. The thing that's terrible about neoconservatism isn't that it appeals to people's emotions, it's that a cornerstone of neocon policy is knowingly deceiving the populace (the noble lie). They don't just appeal to people's better nature and desire to see a more pleasant world for everyone, they exploit their emotions and twist them towards their own ends.

 

[smithcommajohn]

I can't imagine what a purely rational policy would be - "Nothing means anything or is worth pursuing, so just sit still until you die."

Lol! Sounds better than the tripe most politicians spew out.

 

[Zionoxis]

I am going to stand out and say I am a conservative republican. Though I value others, I also value hard work and equal ability to succeed. In addition, I believe that people should only get what they work for. That being said, though I am not a hardcore conservative, I believe I fit the category the best of my current choices.

At the same time, I guess you could say I am almost 'anti-government' in a way as I would prefer if the government stayed out of many issues and simply let business run itself (this includes foreign policy and aid).

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

you'd help save 8 starving babies because you love babies.

More or less, I don't like babies at all, but I would help save them because to let 8 babies, or anything, die is messed up.

They don't just appeal to people's better nature and desire to see a more pleasant world for everyone, they exploit their emotions and twist them towards their own ends.

That's politics, bro.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Fellow INTP are we all liberals? Have you taken political compass or any other test to determine what's your alignment? Maybe did a self test on your self? I am social democrat what about you?

When I took that political compass test, it gave me:

Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59

Out of 10. Just a teensy bit economic right, and little way libertarian from the center. I hope nobody calls me a moderate based on that. I think of myself as having a chaotic array of extreme positions.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I got about -4 for both

 

[Jordan~]

More or less, I don't like babies at all, but I would help save them because to let 8 babies, or anything, die is messed up.

From where do you derive the belief that it's wrong to let something die?

That's politics, bro.

It's not all politics. It's most modern politics, definitely.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

From where do you derive the belief that it's wrong to let something die?

I'm not really sure, but death to me is just fucked up. I think it actually comes most from killing little things. Like whenever I kill a spider I get shivers going up my spine because it hits me that there was once a living thing there and now it's dead.... like who am I to decide that the spider should have died.... I don't know, it's a complicated feeling and it's kind of hard to explain but I hope that I managed to convey it properly....

 

[Jordan~]

Then it would be... emotional?

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Yeah, something like that, but it's still mixed up with my Thinking because I really sit there and contemplate the fact that I just erased something from existence....

 

[Jordan~]

So, yeah, the point stands about the importance of emotional involvement in politics.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Of course you need emotion, because Government is founded on Morals and Morals are founded on an individuals emotion.

 

[BigApplePi]

I am a hard core fanatical radical moderate. BTW, what is a moderate?

Where we are, where we are going and where we want to go are different things. All three are to be taken into consideration.

Where we are = conservative
Where we are going --> watch out
Where we want to go --> improve things, especially if broken

 

[snafupants]

Someone who's tired of watching the United States seesaw from one party to another for too many generations without any substantial change.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Fellow INTP are we all liberals? Have you taken political compass or any other test to determine what's your alignment? Maybe did a self test on your self? I am social democrat what about you?

Same here.

I'm somewhere between social liberalism, social democracy, and philosophical communitarianism (perhaps with elements of each) - though, I'm probably more leaning towards social democracy. The common theme in each of these viewpoints seems to be the idea that the good of the community is harmonious or compatible with the freedom of the individual, or at least that there is some pertinent connection between the two (or... that I care to see things from a collectivist perspective, rather than just an individualistic one). So I'm clearly opposed to any ideological viewpoint which places excessive importance on either a) individual liberty or b) the good of the community (such that I see the need for both "Individualism" and "Collectivism").

First, no one person is raised in a vacuum, such that they are absolutely responsible for all their own attributes, social advantages, or even attitudes. People are raised in social communities, so that they inherently benefit from the collective efforts of many other people working in tandem to provide a plethora of social benefits (given people follow social rules that allow for an economy, government institutions, and cultural goods, among other things). Without these very social benefits, and without the hard work of many individuals within a community, there would be nothing to buy, no economic framework, no jobs, a lack of physical security, and pure competition for scarce resources. Thus, despite the notion that every individual should be seen as bearing rights that should not be infringed upon, it simply does not follow from these facts that each person inherently owns all the fruits they bear in any community, for all that they bear was first made possible by the collective efforts of others, such that they always owe something back in return. So I'm clearly opposed to libertarianism, classical liberalism, and absolute private property (as I do think an excessive amount of property can potentially have adverse effects on a community). I see anarchism as making no sense, and I also tend to favor progressive taxation for the reasons just mentioned.

Second, there'd be no point to social gatherings if people are not to be treated with respect. Without Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative (i.e., "negative rights"), people would not wish to remain part of any society (and of course, a series of revolutions a few centuries past shows this to be true). People must be treated with respect as rational, autonomous agents -- as ends and never as "merely" a means. Thus, the right to not have one's choices tampered with without warrant is paramount, such that despite the fact that people are raised in communities (and perhaps do not exist in isolated spheres so small that they should see themselves as having "personally earned" everything they acquire), it always remains the case that people's individual interests should not be easily sacrificed for the good of the community.

I suppose I could be considered an anarchist.

Some may not agree, but I really think Thomas Hobbes hit the nail on the head with his social contract theory. It's realistic, it's logical, it's objective (with "realistic" being the operative word there). Essentially, living in society is not at all like a game wherein one has chosen to join and must now either play by the rules or be considered a nuisance. One does not "just happen" to enter society; one is ultimately born and raised within a society, such that one cannot simply no longer refuse to play along or be kicked out. Why? First, being a survivalist out in nature is a tough burden. Second, if enough people became survivalists to escape social living, there'd even less resources available to them. The simple fact is that without the benefits of collective social effort, one will definitely lose out in competition for scarce resources, such that living would be both tedious and mediocre. Thus, it's in one's rational interests to play along with society's rules, for mutual benefit (at least to some extent). Not joining, then, is irrational -- especially given the nature of the world right now (with societies existing in more and more territory). An unrealistic, naive way of looking at the world, then, is to think we can all simply "get along" out in the jungles without social organization. The simple facts which Hobbes describes about human nature make this all the more sobering. First, all humans have about the same needs (food/water, sex, procreation, shelter, etc., etc.). Second, there exists a scarcity of resources so that not everyone can get what they want. Third, no one person is incredibly more powerful than anyone else, and tough people can be taken down by teamwork. Fourth, people tend to naturally display a limited amount of altruism (given even if people are not wholly selfish, they tend to care most about themselves).

If you add this up, you get an ugly picture of what life is like without the benefits of social living: no laws, no police, no courts, no economy, no industry, no culture, no navigation, no large buildings, no machinery or equipment, limited knowledge of the world, and continual fear and danger of violent death (as given there exists a lack of enforceable social rules, people would be free to do what they like -- even if that means killing, raping, robbing to get what they need). This is, of course, known as the "state of nature," and I would posit that without social arrangements and rules, life would likely look this way on a grand scale (even if people have shown an ounce of ability to live without clear social rules, but those were incredibly small-scale incidents which didn't last very long).

Given this, I really can't take anyone serious who considers themselves an anarchist in any fashion, no matter how slight. Being an INTP, I can clearly understand the sentiment and the logical reasoning of believing people can simply work together without rules forced upon them (or maybe that people "shouldn't" have rules forced upon them). But if you really take a look at the world out there, it just seems as though we should all be glad that people have some rules forced upon them some of the time. Hell, many people are only slightly controlled with laws (i.e., criminals), and without laws, many would terrorize others to gain what they please, as some people are blood-thirsty animals.

Socially I'm a liberal/libertarian. I think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe the same freedoms of others. I'm all for complete sexual freedom, legalization of drugs, anti-censorship, and whatever alternative or eccentric lifestyles people can dream up.

While I overall agree with social freedom and personal rights, I think there are a number of situations where limited social regulation/control actually benefits everyone.

Economically I think there should be a buffer between consumers and businesses. Ideologically I would lean toward libertarianism on a number of issues, but in a practical sense I don't think the free market can hold the private sector sufficiently accountable. That doesn't necessarily mean I think the government should have this job by default, but I think there needs to be organized means of making sure businesses and corporations are held accountable outside just market demands.

At least you realize the impracticality of full market freedom/libertarianism.
Most people don't.

 

[Sosekopp]

I used to lean towards libertarianism, but now I consider myself a Rawlsian liberal. I'm probably a social democrat, but I don't use that term because I don't want to be associated with the Norwegian Labour Party and their (relatively minor) populist and authoritarian tendencies.

 

[Amagi82]

All current political systems are outdated, primitive, ineffectual, corrupt, destructive, and wasteful. It's hard for me to even believe that we are still arguing over basic human rights, even in our "most free" cultures, after thousands of years of human civilization. What amazes me even more is that people actually accept and tolerate this crap en masse.

The only way we're going to transition beyond warfare, pollution, poverty, social problems, crime, etc is by eliminating the money system and adopting a resource-based economy, where everyone has free access to healthy food, clean water, quality housing, proper healthcare, education, transportation, communication, and the other essentials to thrive in this world. We can automate most jobs, so people only have to work maybe 10 hours each week to keep the society working. This frees people to pursue what interests and excites them in life, and allows them to live a balanced life with home and family. This is very possible today, and becomes easier with the technical advances each year.

You wouldn't even need anything resembling a government in this sort of society. Almost all crime would evaporate virtually overnight, as there's no point in most crime when you have a society without money, where everyone has free access to whatever they want, within reason. Decisions can be made by experts in each field, and they can be approved by experts in other relevant fields before being implemented.

We can completely eliminate automobiles and all the production costs, resources, accidents, repair, and regulations that go with them, if we build super-efficient cities connected by vacuum tube maglev trains.

The Star Trek moneyless technological "utopia" isn't beyond our reach, and it's the only way I can think of that tackles the social problems we face today, elegantly and completely.

 

[Lydia]

Libertarian.

 

[masterpeez]

Fuck politics.

 

[snafupants]

What's the expression? If you're young and not liberal you have no heart and if you're old and not conservative you have no brain?

 

[Question Authority]

Pretty Strong Liberal, though I'm not really surprised at the liberalness I see across most of the INTPers, since I did a research paper on this topic (though with the big 5, not MBTI), and found this:

O: Very strongly correlates with Liberal Social and Economic policies (Closest to N)
A: Somewhat weakly correlates with Liberal Economic and conservative Social policies (Closest to F; thus T would be Liberal Social, and conservative economic policies)
C: Correlates with Conservative economic and social policies (Closest to J; thus P would be Liberal social and economic policies)
N and E showed little impact, except in dogmatism, where it showed somewhat conflicting results.

Thus, I'd have to guess most of the Libertarians on this board are high Ts, with relatively low N or Ps. However those like myself, who have relatively weaker Ts, and Massive Ns and Ps are bound to be the staunch Liberals and Social democrats, and the like.

Also, one thing I found along with the data, is that A and C correlate to conventionalism in terms of following political parties; Essentially high Js and Fs are more likely to associate themselves with a political party, (and thus T and P do not cling so hard to their parties, but more an abstract ideology) so all of you that say parties are bogus, or politics suck, and the like, are at very much at home with INTPs

 

[Vecho]

Well, it's been a year or two but I guess I should reply to my own thread.

This thread is bullshit, I don't know what I was thinking but university helped me out in this respect. The interpretation of specific political positions has nothing to do with your type.
It merely states that there might be a tendency to scrutinize information but apart that no connection what soever.

 

[The Void]

I am politically apathetic.

 

[yaleha]

I prime example of this would be the IPCC specifically defining climate change as being caused by humans. We all know for a fact that the climate changes and it could be due to a variety of reasons such as solar cycles or a change in the earth's orbit etc. Their of their definition of 'climate change' has merely been implemented to inhibit the opposition's ability to articulate itself.

That's politics at its finest. Learn to play the game, complaining about it is a waste of time.
I consider myself a realist more than anything and that puts me more on the right side. I think that all liberals are too idealistic. The strong will always dominate the weak, that's how nature works.