MMORPG's (WoW, Guild Wars, etc.) and MBTI types

[Dark Razor]

I never played Wow, though I still occasionally play Guild Wars, there my main character was a Necromancer, who stands in the back row and basically wtfpwns anything, if played right, and my other characters are a sneaky assassin and a warrior. I also have a monk and a mesmer but I dont enjoy plaing them very much.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Maverick

And you can thank me for one of our ealier conversations on intpc for the argument about the J/C correlation So my own argument is biting me in the butt. Well, yes, it's true. My point precisely is that it is a tendency.

AG, is that you? I'm not really too stuck on the "not strongly correlated" bit, I'm stuck on the redefining of what is measured.

Hence, if anything, there are reasons to believe that J's will be slightly biased towards being moral compared to P's.

If anything, J's will be biased towards being fixed on their own view of morality. Ps are called deviant because they deviate, so sure... Js will be biased towards being more "moral" than P's. The problem are the "'s around moral.

Depending on the underlying philosophy, the part that Te plays may be more or less important. Kant's view on ethics functions on principles and is a very good example of Te ethics. That is, acting morally not because of any feeling for your neighbor, but for a higher standpoint of "justice".

Ultimately, laws depend on a conception of morality.

Depends on the definition of law. Law can also be define from force, a sociological point of view... maybe even as a noun to refer to authoritive power. In that sense, it really is about order and control.

Well, my point is precisely that Extraverted Thinking is this magic that makes them fair. Of course, unhealthy Dominant Te's may have twisted laws, principles and be in contradiction with themselves. However, healthy Dominant Te's will be by far (and I would like to really insist on this point) the most ethical, fair and just of people.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. The only thing that comes from this is that they are consistent, which they certainly are.

I completely disagree with you. They are certainly not amoral. That is best left for INTPs. They are the ones who tend to be amoral. If anything, ENTJ's will be either moral or immoral. I would contend that this depends on their level of health.

No, it depends on what they believe is moral, nothing else. I can depend on them to act within their nature. The only case for them being inherently moral is if that nature that makes them moral, rather than their beliefs that guide their actions.

R&H have correlated Type 1 with Extraverted Thinking. Here's what they say about the healthy levels:

I won't even check this... but is that the enneagram?!

Hey, I didn't realize I was *so* influential with INTP's to the point where they copy my style

Actually, I was pointing out the methodology involved in each process... You automatically see me as someone as being wounded when they don't agree with you. My response was to point out that this is an example of Te in action; your way is the right way and something is wrong with everyone else. This makes it inherently unstable.

In short, you like being aggressive, you like forcing your view and you like conflict. It doesn't matter if you are correct; that's the subjective component. Your very nature makes you act a certain way, think and believe a certain way... but that doesn't make you right, no more than it makes you moral.

Who on earth wants to be friends with "amoral" people? And how would the ENTJ's you described be "friends"? Friendship is about trust and an important part of that is knowing that your friends have ethics!

That's silly. I'm friends with people who make good friends. The character traits have no moral basis. I prefer Js in my life because they balance my P, but at the same time, most of my long term friends are Ps because they remain flexible. End point is that I'd rather be friends with a good ESFJ than a bad INTP (and recent life has certainly told me why!). I don't value consistency *that* much that I'd want to be with an ENTJ. They'd end up being domineering at the wrong time and I'd blow up... extreme I leaves me a bit... uhhh... sensitive to personal space.

I'm not saying ENTJs are bad or good, I'm saying they are just people. There is nothing so different about them that makes more than that.

---

Anyway, back on the OT -

I probably won't rethink the preferences you list until someone does a study on it. I wouldn't be surprised that is a slight bias towards playing styles, but I am highly doubtful of class representation (ie: Paladins = background characters <> ENTJs...)

[ptgatsby]

Oh yah! Guildwars;

Me: Ranger/Ele (... so I was new). Later, Ele/Me.
GF (INTJ): Monk/Me, Necro/ranger

Eventually we played most of the classes a bit, but we didn't get the expansions.

[Zergling]

Guild wars was the main thing I played for most of the last couple of years. (Recently I stopped completely, I think out of either boredom or a desire to do something different.) I mostly do world of warcraft now.


I always start something of all the classes and play them a little bit. In general, I prefer classes that can either do a lot of different things, or do things in unusual ways.

In guild wars, I tended to play my warrior, mesmer, and monk less than the other classes (mesmer because she wasn't very powerful, monk and warrior were more boring). I started several dervishes, rangers, paragons, and necromancers to cover all those classes spells (Elementalist just shifted armor to cover the different spell types).

In world of warcraft, I currently am playing 6 classes. I like my Druid, Shaman, and Paladin for their ability to do several different things (The healing helps in groups also), my warlock and hunter are fun since the pets add extra things to control and watch out for, making them more fun. My Rogue was started as a money making character that played differently than the other classes I was playing.

[sdalek]

Never played WoW but I used to play D&D and AD&D v1 rules. I used to alternate between Fighters, Rangers, Thieves, Magic-Users and Monks. It always seemed to me that the Fighters and Rangers had the coolest toys, Thieves and Monks were good at sneaking around, and Magic-Users could be the most creative with their spells.

[Maverick]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

AG, is that you? I'm not really too stuck on the "not strongly correlated" bit, I'm stuck on the redefining of what is measured.

OK.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. The only thing that comes from this is that they are consistent, which they certainly are.

I disagree and it seems to me that you ado not want to take into consideration the definition of Extraverted Thinking.

Actually, I was pointing out the methodology involved in each process... You automatically see me as someone as being wounded when they don't agree with you. My response was to point out that this is an example of Te in action; your way is the right way and something is wrong with everyone else. This makes it inherently unstable.

I don't understand your point and do not automatically see you as a person that is wounded. I am asking you an open question because I want to understand why your conceptions of ENTJs are so different than mine. As to your remark about Te, I find it unfair since it is one that can be easily made about any Thinking function. I have the impression that you are not objective in your assessment of Te and are viewing it in an overly negative light. I would like to understand why this is the case and what reasons are bringing you to your opinion.

In short, you like being aggressive, you like forcing your view and you like conflict. It doesn't matter if you are correct; that's the subjective component. Your very nature makes you act a certain way, think and believe a certain way... but that doesn't make you right, no more than it makes you moral.

I'm puzzled by this comment. On one hand, you state that you have not been wounded, on the other you use overly negative adjectives to describe an entire personality type. I don't enjoy being aggressive, forcing my views and conflict. That is wrong. I enjoy being assertive, stating my views and standing up for my rights. I think your descriptors paint an unnecessarily bad picture of ENTJ's. I also believe that it is unfortunate, as it seems to defeat the purpose of type to hold such views. Indeed, one of the goals of the MBTI seems to be to accept other people's differences and communicate more easily with them. I think you are holding negative stereotypes, i.e. prejudices, against ENTJ's. Again, I inquire: why is this so? I think that your assessments are not objective and hypothesize that one plausible and likely explanation for this is that they may be coming more from your own feelings about ENTJ's in relation to you.

I'm friends with people who make good friends.

The point is precisely that good friends are moral. I think being a reliable, dependable and honest person are traits of a good friend and are a demonstration of personal morality. I also disagree about your statement that character traits have no moral basis. For example, psychopathy, characterized by low morality among others, is related to Extraversion, Low Openness, Low Conscientiousness and High Neuroticism.

I probably won't rethink the preferences you list until someone does a study on it. I wouldn't be surprised that is a slight bias towards playing styles, but I am highly doubtful of class representation (ie: Paladins = background characters <> ENTJs...)

Well, I believe that people's personality will make them attracted more towards certain classes than others. I make the hypothesis that there will be a significant difference between the expected percent of ENTJ's randomly distributed throughout all classes and the observed percent of ENTJ's playing the Paladin class. Considering 9 classes, the expected percent is slightly more than 11%. That is, if there is absolutely no relationship between type and class, we would expect 11% of ENTJ's to choose the Paladin class. I predict that more than 25% of ENTJ's playing WoW will choose the Paladin class.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Maverick

I disagree and it seems to me that you ado not want to take into consideration the definition of Extraverted Thinking.

Well, find me a version of Te that says that everything they do is "moral", and then we can talk about that. Ordering the world according to what they think is right, which is what Te is, does not make it "moral".

I don't understand your point and do not automatically see you as a person that is wounded. I am asking you an open question because I want to understand why your conceptions of ENTJs are so different than mine. As to your remark about Te, I find it unfair since it is one that can be easily made about any Thinking function. I have the impression that you are not objective in your assessment of Te and are viewing it in an overly negative light. I would like to understand why this is the case and what reasons are bringing you to your opinion.

No, I am being objective. Te wants to order the world around them. They want to control it, make sense of it, organise it. Those are non-value judgments. The value judgment, the subjective component, is calling it moral.

I'm puzzled by this comment. On one hand, you state that you have not been wounded, on the other you use overly negative adjectives to describe an entire personality type.

I'm struggling for words.

I don't enjoy being aggressive, forcing my views and conflict. That is wrong. I enjoy being assertive, stating my views and standing up for my rights.

Perhaps from your perspective that is all you believe you are doing. However, you engage in conflict willingly, you seek it rather than let it come to you. Even in cases like this, online, you do so. You post judgments and enjoy the dispute. One thing I have seen with ENTJs is that they will rarely seek closure in an argument until they are satisfied with the argument itself.

I don't get that among friends, unless it's a friendly dispute... and I don't get it at work when a project is underway... but they do it as entertainment all the time.

I think your descriptors paint an unnecessarily bad picture of ENTJ's. I also believe that it is unfortunate, as it seems to defeat the purpose of type to hold such views.

Yet you'll attach moral views onto type? (In effect, you are saying that ExTJs are the most moral, down the chain, where IxFPs are the least moral. later on you'll say that ESTPs (N+) are also immoral).

Type is value free, in theory. ENTJs do have the traits that I have mentioned - there main threats to their health is to control and dominate others away from them, leaving them alone. Healthy ENTJs become less Te. Otherwise the most moral of all would be unbalanced Te, where they invade ever part of life to force you to be moral (again, assuming that morality = telling others what is moral, creating moral systems, regardless of their content).

Indeed, one of the goals of the MBTI seems to be to accept other people's differences and communicate more easily with them. I think you are holding negative stereotypes, i.e. prejudices, against ENTJ's. Again, I inquire: why is this so? I think that your assessments are not objective and hypothesize that one plausible and likely explanation for this is that they may be coming more from your own feelings about ENTJ's in relation to you.

Since I have positive feeligns towards ENTJs, this would be false. You are merely seeing one side because of this dispute. I would do so equally with any type, including my own.

The point is precisely that good friends are moral.

Good friends are made up of all sorts of traits. My ISFP friend is good because he is there when I need him and he's fun to be around. Even if he isn't always dependable. My INTJ friend and GF are great because they respect my space more, but are always there when I need them... even if I struggle with visionary problems. And ENTJs can be great friends, even when they irritate me with their dominant views.

Good friends are good friends. Health level dominates all other character traits. What makes them so is personal. It depends what I need in my own life. I do not need ExTJs for the moral component; I already have my compass. And when it comes to talking moral philsophy or ethics, they lag significantly behind NPs.

I think being a reliable, dependable and honest person are traits of a good friend and are a demonstration of personal morality.

That is your opinion. My judgments on my friends are a bit more open ended. I seek people for who they are.

I also disagree about your statement that character traits have no moral basis. For example, psychopathy, characterized by low morality among others, is related to Extraversion, Low Openness, Low Conscientiousness and High Neuroticism.

Traits do correlate to behaviour. If we were arguing over what behaviours ENTJs have, this wouldn't be so involved. The moral judgment is your own and does not belong in type theory.

Well, I believe that people's personality will make them attracted more towards certain classes than others. I make the hypothesis that there will be a significant difference between the expected percent of ENTJ's randomly distributed throughout all classes and the observed percent of ENTJ's playing the Paladin class. Considering 9 classes, the expected percent is slightly more than 11%. That is, if there is absolutely no relationship between type and class, we would expect 11% of ENTJ's to choose the Paladin class. I predict that more than 25% of ENTJ's playing WoW will choose the Paladin class.

I'd be interested in seeing these stats. Even if this were so, I'd be more interested in an experiment that change the playing style of paladins (ie: making them mages) and seeing if ENTJs chose them based upon style or backstory.

[Jennifer]

You realize this informal experiment really only has teeth if you're allowed to have only one WoW character and so have to prioritize which one you choose?

The possibility of having alts really does make it difficult to determine what one type "favors" -- especially if they're P's, who I would guess to be even more altaholic than J's.

[Maverick]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Well, find me a version of Te that says that everything they do is "moral", and then we can talk about that. Ordering the world according to what they think is right, which is what Te is, does not make it "moral".

I don't think that everything they do would be moral according to universal standards. I think that they try to be moral and that they live their lives according to strong principles. In my view, they will only be moral if in a healthy state.

Here is an excerpt of Jung's original demonstration of Extraverted Thinking:

This type of man elevates objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, into the ruling principle not only for himself but for his whole environment. By this formula good and evil are measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. Everything that agrees with this formula is right, everything that contradicts it is wrong.... Because this formula seems to embody the entire meaning of life, it is made into a universal law which must be put into effect everywhere all the time, both individually and collectively. Just as the extroverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for their own good, everybody round him must obey it too, for whoever refuses to obey it is wrong—he is resisting the universal law, and is therefore unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must under all circumstances be realized.... This is not from any great love of his neighbor, but from the higher standpoint of justice and truth.... 'Oughts' and 'musts' bulk large in this programme. If the formula is broad enough, this type may play a very useful role in social life as a reformer or public prosecutor or purifier of conscience....

No, I am being objective. Te wants to order the world around them. They want to control it, make sense of it, organise it. Those are non-value judgments. The value judgment, the subjective component, is calling it moral.

I don't think it is a value judgment to call them moral. Indeed, there are several types of morality. In no way am I saying their morality is necessarily "good". The point is that they will have one. Wether or not other people agree that it is moral is a philosophical debate.

I'm struggling for words.

I do not know what to answer to this comment. I have the impression you dodged my point.

Perhaps from your perspective that is all you believe you are doing. However, you engage in conflict willingly, you seek it rather than let it come to you. Even in cases like this, online, you do so. You post judgments and enjoy the dispute. One thing I have seen with ENTJs is that they will rarely seek closure in an argument until they are satisfied with the argument itself.

This is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. Personally, I don't think ENTJ's seek conflict. I think I could argue also that from your perspective, that is what ENTJ's are doing. This is something related to your own personality and perception of things. However, being an ENTJ myself and knowing several ENTJ's personally, I can assure you that conflict is not seeked for itself in most cases. I would agree that unhealthy ENTJ's seek conflict but I don't think that healthy ones do. It is not the dispute I am enjoying. It is an intellectual exchange. We could have had opinions that were similar, and had no conflict, and I would have enjoyed the exchange just as much. Your last point is true, precisely because until there is nothing more to learn, the discussion is worth it. I don't want to seek closure because there is still more to learn.

I don't get that among friends, unless it's a friendly dispute... and I don't get it at work when a project is underway... but they do it as entertainment all the time.

Well, I can understand simply because I think that intellectual exchanges such as this one may be relaxing and enjoyable but may not be entirely practical.

Yet you'll attach moral views onto type? (In effect, you are saying that ExTJs are the most moral, down the chain, where IxFPs are the least moral. later on you'll say that ESTPs (N+) are also immoral).

I am stating that ExTJ's are attracted to a specific type of morality such as the one explained by Jung. That is, acting good not out of good feelings for people, but according to principles. To bring this back to WoW, this is very similar to what a Paladin does.

Type is value free, in theory. ENTJs do have the traits that I have mentioned - there main threats to their health is to control and dominate others away from them, leaving them alone. Healthy ENTJs become less Te. Otherwise the most moral of all would be unbalanced Te, where they invade ever part of life to force you to be moral (again, assuming that morality = telling others what is moral, creating moral systems, regardless of their content).

I don't think healthy ENTJ's become less Te. Again, why would being more Te be a problem? It seems to me you are attaching a value judgment to Te, implying that less Te is healthy and more Te is less healthy. I don't agree that the most moral of all would be unhealthy Te. The most dogmatic of all would be. But the healthy one would use Te in constructive ways that genuinely benefit others - not to impose things against their will.

Since I have positive feeligns towards ENTJs, this would be false. You are merely seeing one side because of this dispute. I would do so equally with any type, including my own.

I have no other choice but to believe you, since it would be difficult for me to prove that you think one thing and not the other.

Good friends are made up of all sorts of traits. My ISFP friend is good because he is there when I need him and he's fun to be around. Even if he isn't always dependable. My INTJ friend and GF are great because they respect my space more, but are always there when I need them... even if I struggle with visionary problems. And ENTJs can be great friends, even when they irritate me with their dominant views.

I would like to phrase my point differently. Would you want to be friends with someone that lied, betrayed you, used you or did harmful things to you? Well such a person is someone that I would not describe as moral. I think that few people would like to have as a friend someone who is truly not moral.

Good friends are good friends. Health level dominates all other character traits. What makes them so is personal. It depends what I need in my own life. I do not need ExTJs for the moral component; I already have my compass. And when it comes to talking moral philsophy or ethics, they lag significantly behind NPs.

Your statement is surprising. What makes you think that it is the case? What evidence is there of this? I would postulate that NTJ's are especially good at talking about moral philosophy, seeing that both ENTJ's and INTJ's have Extraverted Thinking and this function is essentially good at making universal principles that apply to everyone to structure society. Indeed, law faculties seem to have an over-representation of NTJ types compared to a random sample of the general population. Philosophy of ethics is a necessart first step to making laws. It is an important component and any law faculties actually do philosophy of laws when they study and discuss laws. Many of the professors there are NTJ's and attracted to this.

That is your opinion. My judgments on my friends are a bit more open ended. I seek people for who they are.

And what makes you think that morality would not be a part of who they are? When I seek people because they are "moral" or "good" I think I'm also seeking them for who they are.

Traits do correlate to behaviour. If we were arguing over what behaviours ENTJs have, this wouldn't be so involved. The moral judgment is your own and does not belong in type theory.

I disagree and think that, yes, it does considering the theory behind Extraverted Thinking as I have previously mentionned in this post.

[Maverick]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

You realize this informal experiment really only has teeth if you're allowed to have only one WoW character and so have to prioritize which one you choose?

The possibility of having alts really does make it difficult to determine what one type "favors" -- especially if they're P's, who I would guess to be even more altaholic than J's.

I agree. One way to circumvent this problem would be pick the character people have taken the most time playing with. Another would be to take only the first character. The results of these analyses may prove different and equally interesting.