User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 71

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    129

    Default

    hi jimmy
    #1..well there would be no wars, so that would be a good thing, and we would all be falling over ourselves to do things for our other selves and agree with everything that our other selves said(hence no wars!)
    #2...we would all be uselessly brilliant....no one would know who they were but that wouldnt matter because our other selves would say were absolutley great regardless
    #3.....no one would know what anyone was going to or wanted to do at any given moment,
    and so we would all have 'spontaneous swap shop buttons'
    #4.....our children would be independant and be able to dress themselves at birth in order to join in all the fun and adventures
    #5.....the word depression would be unknown because critisim would not exsist

    #6....we would invite all the other life forms to earth for a gullible WOW moment but probably get eaten in the process or used as slaves

    so basically we would be totally amazing, but either be extinct or have our spirits robbed as a result!

  2. #12
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhu View Post
    I disagree with this idea. Societies emerge and grow from the need for group survival. Individuals serve mostly to catalyze change.

    The dynamics necessary for group survival seem fairly type-independent.
    And so the dynamics between, say, communism and capitalism, democracy and feudal are the same...? Society is the unique characteristics between each of these systems. It is the method of survival that defines society - by your definition, there is only one society, regardless of location... and perhaps by species?

    A bias toward authority or anti-religion would certainly change widespread dynamics in any society. It would be impossible to have a society of ISTPs vs ExFJs (least and most likely to belong to a strongly identified religious background) end up the same in terms of social or economic views.

  3. #13
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    I've noticed that same-type relationships often lead to polarization over time. An ENFP/ENFP pairing has increasingly turned into an ENFP/ISTJ pairing with some friends of mine, for instance. He was a more extreme ENFP, she was less extreme, and now she identifies herself (falsely, imo) as an ISTJ. You may wonder if she had merely mistyped herself when she first took the tests, but she was clearly an ENFP from what I knew of her, and I knew her reasonably well.

  4. #14
    Senior Member xNFJiminy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    xNFJ
    Posts
    108

    Default

    ENFP Planet sounds fun. Even the being eaten part. I assume you welcome unexpected guests?

    ...'Cos we'd really rather people call first.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    It would be bloody awesome. Everyone would be polite, friendly, say what they think, competent, trustworthy and with a big heart underneath. They'd be competitive but without dirty tricks. Everything would move fast. They'd be calm under stress, direct and assertive. People wouldn't be so defensive, sensitive and complicated. Everything would be straightforward. Everyone would have high self-confidence. There wouldn't be any wars - No one would want to be a solider. Everyone should be ENTJ.

  6. #16
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    Everyone should be ENTJ.
    Yeah, I'm still waiting for the massive genocide, lead by an ENTJ overlord who wants to make that a reality.

  7. #17
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    It would be bloody awesome. Everyone would be polite, friendly, say what they think, competent, trustworthy and with a big heart underneath. They'd be competitive but without dirty tricks. Everything would move fast. They'd be calm under stress, direct and assertive. People wouldn't be so defensive, sensitive and complicated. Everything would be straightforward. Everyone would have high self-confidence. There wouldn't be any wars - No one would want to be a solider. Everyone should be ENTJ.
    Pff. 5 billion wannabe-commandants? 3 months tops before the planet would be a glowing chunk of nuclear winter. But what a spectacularly interesting 3 months that would be...

  8. #18
    Morlock Rhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Pfft
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    And so the dynamics between, say, communism and capitalism, democracy and feudal are the same...?
    I would not assign ownership to each societal structure and ideology based on the ordering of cognitive preference.

    It is the method of survival that defines society - by your definition, there is only one society, regardless of location... and perhaps by species?
    Not at all. I defined society as the vehicle of group survival. The needs of any group will change based upon environment and competition with neighboring groups. Regardless of short term or individual goals, any society is going to be geared towards providing the means to grow bigger and stronger, ideally allowing every capable citizen to create as many new citizens as quickly as possible.

    A bias toward authority or anti-religion would certainly change widespread dynamics in any society.
    Innate abilities to lead and appeal towards those unqualified or disinterested in the task of leadership are pretty much ready-made at birth in this scenario. The mechanisms by which these appeals are made are not fixed and will change as the society's characteristics change.

    It would be impossible to have a society of ISTPs vs ExFJs (least and most likely to belong to a strongly identified religious background) end up the same in terms of social or economic views.
    I disagree. Any governing methodology will change over time to better serve the needs of itself and its citizens. An ESFJ-created-and-maintained religion would probably be far less mysterious and complex and more accomidating than anything in play in the world we know.

  9. #19
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    It would be bloody awesome. Everyone would be polite, friendly, say what they think, competent, trustworthy and with a big heart underneath. They'd be competitive but without dirty tricks. Everything would move fast. They'd be calm under stress, direct and assertive. People wouldn't be so defensive, sensitive and complicated. Everything would be straightforward. Everyone would have high self-confidence. There wouldn't be any wars - No one would want to be a solider. Everyone should be ENTJ.
    Yeah I agree with this completely. And everybody would see how fighting would just be an inefficient way to deal with conflict so we'd prefer to play some videogame to settle who's the king.

  10. #20
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhu View Post
    I would not assign ownership to each societal structure and ideology based on the ordering of cognitive preference.
    I would base the range of social dynamics upon the nature of the actors. If you shift the actors to one particular set of tendencies, the society that emerges from that group will be different than the original mix.

    Not at all. I defined society as the vehicle of group survival. The needs of any group will change based upon environment and competition with neighboring groups. Regardless of short term or individual goals, any society is going to be geared towards providing the means to grow bigger and stronger, ideally allowing every capable citizen to create as many new citizens as quickly as possible.
    Yet the definition of society is "an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization". The original question is if everyone became one type, what would the world be like - to which you say, no different. I could assert the same thing by saying "no different - physics wouldn't change." Yes, the world would be different. Yes group dynamics would be different, and yes, society as defined in English, would be different. The customs created by ISTPs vs ESFJs would be dramatically different, just as sticking a group of ISTPs in a room vs ESFJs in a room creates different group dynamics.

    Innate abilities to lead and appeal towards those unqualified or disinterested in the task of leadership are pretty much ready-made at birth in this scenario. The mechanisms by which these appeals are made are not fixed and will change as the society's characteristics change.
    I don't understand. You are saying that having one type would be vastly different (ie: unable to lead) and yet expect the society to end up in a similar path?

    Yes, at some point, someone will lead. Someone with a different cognitive makeup forced by social needs. His decisions and leadership style will differ. So will his followers. The traditions will differ. The only thing that will remain are external impacts - the nature of the universe, and it's pressures (everything from needing food to other economic and social structure needs).


    I disagree. Any governing methodology will change over time to better serve the needs of itself and its citizens. An ESFJ-created-and-maintained religion would probably be far less mysterious and complex and more accomidating than anything in play in the world we know.
    Yes. It probably would be different from what exists in the world. Isn't that the point?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 10:56 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-19-2009, 11:04 AM
  3. Replies: 85
    Last Post: 03-02-2009, 01:02 PM
  4. If you rediscovered your type
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 04:02 PM
  5. So, are you really your type, or do you wish you were your type???
    By SillySapienne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-01-2008, 10:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO