A Difference Between XNTJ types and XNTP types

[Mondo]

I was discussing irrational Bush haters with my INTJ friend.

We are both liberal politically and can agree that Bush's policies have done more harm than good for the country.

However, we differ on what we think of those who choose to hate Bush because the media encourages it or that it is cool to do so- people that make their decision to do so without finding out why they should dislike Bush.

While my INTJ friend acknowledges that many people don't think about why they hate Bush, he is content with the idea that they believe in what he considers to be the right conclusion. He would condemn and dislike a rational conservative before he would do so to an irrational liberal.

I think the reverse that it doesn't matter that the guy who talks about how much he hates Bush has the same 'political beliefs' of me- if he doesn't know why he does so, then I'd encourage that person to actually study the issues and come to his own conclusion- if that person is capable of doing so of course.

I guess it goes back to that question on many MBTI tests to distinguish between J and P:

What's more important?
The results themselves
The process used to achieve the results

I think another difference in terms of politics, is that J types are more likely to stick with a certain ideology and be rigid about it, while a P type would seem more 'moderate' because he or she would be aware that the same policy doesn't work for every circumstance.

[Geoff]

Perhaps.. it's certainly true an INTJ may use their externalised thinking to project their inner ideas on a situation. Whether that would lead to a blanket desire for results above reason for them seems a little harsh.

Of course, US politics seems to polarise so strongly that this is probably a bad kind of generalisation to base on type.

[Orangey]

Originally Posted by Mondo

I was discussing irrational Bush haters with my INTJ friend.

However, we differ on what we think of those who choose to hate Bush because the media encourages it or that it is cool to do so- people that make their decision to do so without finding out why they should dislike Bush.

People that do this contribute to giving their respective parties bad names, whatever their type, and I think that the parties as a whole are probably better off without the likes and/or support of such individuals. An equivalent individual on the Right would probably be some ideologically fundamentalist Christian person who dismisses the entire liberal/democratic party as "liberal atheist scum" (an exaggeration, I know). If, as a liberal (not that I am) I can't tolerate that kind of person on the Right, then I shouldn't tolerate the same type of (ideologically rigid, unreasonable) person on the Left. Sorry, this probably doesn't address your main question...

For the record I think that your hypothesis about J's being more inclined to comfortably allow this type of behavior than P's is consistent with the type descriptions, if nothing else.

[Uytuun]

He would condemn and dislike a rational conservative before he would do so to an irrational liberal.

Is this something he actually said or something you've concluded yourself? I had other stuff typed, but I'll work on that tomorrow. :p

[Haphazard]

XNTJs can usually see subtleties in ideologies but are much more likely to go along with extremes because the 'ends justify the means'.

That's why NTJs are often villains.

[Tallulah]

re: the OP, I don't know if it's a J/P thing, so much as the political climate and intellectual laziness, combined with a desire to be both "cool" and aware, when one is neither.

I can't stand people like that. I don't care whether I agree with them politically or not, spouting a soundbite or towing the party line without being able to back it up with any sort of evidence just makes me have contempt for them. It's also why politics in general makes me crazy. I'm generally content to just figure things out for myself and then stay out of the fray.

I've also noticed that the ones who know the least are the most vocal. Why is that?

[Mondo]

Originally Posted by Haphazard

XNTJs can usually see subtleties in ideologies but are much more likely to go along with extremes because the 'ends justify the means'.

That's why NTJs are often villains.

Haha! That is a good point.
This was pretty much his view on why he was fine with people disliking conservatives without knowing WHY they disliked them: the ends justify the means: the more people that support liberalism, the better. Since his view is that the general public isn't capable of forming their own opinion anyway..

Uytuun: He has never openly said that, since he doesn't exactly view anyone who is conservative as being 'rational'- if they are intelligent- they are definitely 'misguided'.

[Mondo]

Originally Posted by Tallulah

I've also noticed that the ones who know the least are the most vocal. Why is that?

I'm not sure why. It may be because the most vocal people know so little that they actually do see the world as 'black' and 'white' and are not even aware of the shades of gray rather than just ignoring them to suit their purposes.

I agree that intellectual laziness is not a J/P difference. Some like my INTJ friend are fairly well-informed on policy issues and I respect him because he knows why he is a far-to-the-left liberal. Only thing (which I guess could be J-ish too) is that he's a one-issue sort of guy, anything that harms the environment=bad and anything that helps the environment=good.

[LucrativeSid]

If we are talking about NTs, logic is surely a defining factor here, regardless of whether they are P or J. And logic is obviously interpreted differently by different people. I don't really see any difference in the methods or approaches - it's just following different purposes.

If your J friend was adhering to a different ideal - his viewpoint may have been entirely different. His ideal is for a healthier environment regardless of how uneducated the people who benefit from it are? What if his logic said that education is the key to environmental problems because once a person studies, not only will they make the right decision when voting, but they will actually stand up and do more than that? Both ways place a high concern on environmental issues, but have different logical stances.

I think a person's end always justifies their means. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Even when they do nothing it still works.

Plus, a J won't have any problem avoiding the extreme if they think it makes less sense when it comes to helping the cause they feel is worthy. A P could be extreme if he thought it made enough sense.

[Martoon]

Originally Posted by Mondo

I guess it goes back to that question on many MBTI tests to distinguish between J and P:

What's more important?
The results themselves
The process used to achieve the results

I guess this is one of the things that makes me a pretty extreme P. The results achieved depend on the process, so the process is more important. Well, assuming you want good results, and not just any results.

Originally Posted by Tallulah

re: the OP, I don't know if it's a J/P thing, so much as the political climate and intellectual laziness, combined with a desire to be both "cool" and aware, when one is neither.

I can't stand people like that. I don't care whether I agree with them politically or not, spouting a soundbite or towing the party line without being able to back it up with any sort of evidence just makes me have contempt for them. It's also why politics in general makes me crazy. I'm generally content to just figure things out for myself and then stay out of the fray.

What she said.

I've also noticed that the ones who know the least are the most vocal. Why is that?

Because you can't listen and talk at the same time? And not just in the simplistic, literal sense.