User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 54

  1. #11
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    I think Take Five summed it up nicely.

  2. #12
    Te > Fi > Ni Shaula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle View Post
    I would like to say that leadership and dictatorship are two different things and that we are talking not about leading, but authority. So although this is, in part, part of the conversation lets try to tie it back to the main point so everything flows. That way it is all the more clear for our INTP friend.
    I disagree. Leadership and dictatorship are one in the same only that leadership has positive/neutral connotations whereas a dictatorship has negative.

    A leader is a person who rules or guides or inspires others. A dictator does the same. They typically rule with an iron fist, guide the people by their personal and often selfish goals, and inspire the puplic through fear and false appearances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Habba View Post
    I emphasize the word given.

    I don't draw lines between leaders and dictators. I draw lines between competence and incompetence.

    If the leader leads by an example, then I'll follow. But I will not follow, if the leader raises him/herself above the others, and expects to be recognized as superior.
    But a person can be easily given power and in most senarios a leader cannot attain superiority without others to put them into power. It's not a question of competence or incompetence, it's marturity that must be measured for good leadership, in my opinion. An intelligent, well liked individual can be easily voted into power because all they need is the support of the majority. Most leaders are put into power because of their character. An upcoming leader can give the impression that he is the best canidate through fancy speeches, false promises, hiding blemishes on their record, and gaining the support of the elite. It becomes especially easy to obtain power if this person has developed a personality cult. I mean that's like getting a free season pass. But if this person does not have a required maturity for the job then they may not exercise their leadership for the benefit of their subordinates.

    Once in power, all this leader needs to do is retain power. This is more much more difficult. One way to do so is by division of labour. Another is to break realationships of the leader's subordinates. The weaker the ties between the subordinates the more autonomy the leader has. But most of all the malevolent leader must keep a certain amount of ambiguity about their naughty doings and find something to cover it up or blame for it. This makes a great opportunity to attack the lower levels of the ranks or an outside source.
    Is not to be held accuntable for peeling errors.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    LSI
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Yes, and no. They are both different, but one in the same. One difference can be that leaders show dictators tell. But, they do share many parts and one is considered negative and the other positive.
    - Caleb

    "I am what I need to be..."

    "Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity."

  4. #14
    Te > Fi > Ni Shaula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle View Post
    Yes, and no. They are both different, but one in the same. One difference can be that leaders show dictators tell. But, they do share many parts and one is considered negative and the other positive.
    I don't understand the bolded sentence.

    A dictatorship is a type of leadership. Just like a manager, coordinator, oligarchy, monarchy, or democracy are other types.

    Now in my earlier post I used the term 'dictator' loosely (to refer to malevolent leadership). What I meant to ask the SJs is what variables does one personally consider when evaulating the integrity of a leader? Also how important is the integrity of a leader to you versus their status? When do you start questioning authority? When do you consider a person to have too much power?
    Is not to be held accuntable for peeling errors.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deleyd View Post
    I'm an INTP trying to understand the SJ type. Keirsey says they "trust authority", and I'm not quite sure how to interpret that.
    • Who gets to be a trusted authority?
    • Why aren't all SJ people conservative? Conservatives supposedly trust authority and believe you should be obedient to them. The descriptions match up, but there's no evidence that SJ type are predominately conservative. I figure there must be something I'm not getting about the SJ type, so decided the best way to find out would be to ask some SJ people who aren't conservative.
    Well I am actually a Conservative (British, I don't know how my political views translate into US terms, although I know I'm not as far to the right as Republicans.) Interestingly in the UK the Conservatives are seen as the party for freedom (the Lib Dems are seen as such too, by people of a more left-wing slant), because they believe in individuals being responsible enough to lead their own lives. In contrast, Labour (equivalent of socialists really) are, like many socialist parties, keen on state control for most things. This is more likely to lead to authoritarian behaviour, and actually you could well say that's where we're headed now in the UK (currently: excessive need for information about the average person's everyday activities, demands for ID cards with biometric data, biggest DNA database in the world which was actually ruled illegal by the EU but still hasn't been destroyed, largest number of CCTV cameras anywhere in the world... and most importantly a PM who believes he is always right, doesn't want to listen to the public - he's not actually been elected either btw - and won't apologise for royally f***ing up our economy and actually insists on throwing more of our money about irrationally in vain attempts to stem the disaster.) Rant over.

    So I suppose I'm quite liberal in my stances. I really genuinely believe that when it comes to personal life no-one has the authority to tell people how to live or stick their noses into it. Unfortunately our socialist govt doesn't like 'traditional' people who want to get married and educate their children well... Other people can do what they like as long as it doesn't harm other people and they don't enforce it on me, because I personally don't want their lifestyle for myself.

    Here are some examples of when I respect authority: When an authority is chosen rather than having put themselves there; when an authority is proven to listen to widespread suggestions and complaints and changes their behaviour accordingly; when an authority leads by example; when an authority uses logical reasoning and evidence to guide their decisions rather than personal beliefs or passions; when an authority doesn't show favoritism to a group in their dealings with them based on their personal tendancies. Coincidentally, I rebelled quite a bit against my parents' authority as a teenager because I didn't consider them to be as logical as me in their reasoning of why I couldn't do certain things, or they weren't consistent in their behaviour when they punished me or my brothers for whatever (I still don't actually).


    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    I know that at least the ISTJ type is more conservative than liberal, and more Republican than Democrat in the US. I think "trust authority" is the wrong way to phrase it. "Value authority" would be more in line, at least for myself. I think the SJ peference for structure applies not only to objects but also to human relationships, interaction, and society. An anything-goes anarchic model, in any situation or matter, is seen as less efficient and foolish I think. Structure, and authority, creates order, which is vital.

    In addition, I think there is a difference between power and authority. A person with authority does not necessarily have any power; however, such a person is by definition qualified in some matter. For instance, the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn laws; however, it does not have the power to carry out its rulings.

    In general, SJs I think will recognize people or institutions as being authoritative after having some experience with them. Exactly what or whom is respected as having authority depends more on the individual. In general, parents, grandparents, churches, and professional superiors will be accepted as authorities; however, some circumstances require that figures and institutions lose recognition of authority.

    SJs value authority because it provides them with something that they think is trustworthy. It is impossible to have knowledge or opinions on all things, and SJs will look to authorities when the SJ does not believe himself qualified or capable of making decisions or forming beliefs completely independently.

    This does not mean that SJs will follow authority figures like robots, it means that they value standards of qualification and desire trust. It is foolish to let an insurance agent diagnose you with cancer, instead we look to doctors, who are qualified to make a diagnosis like that. This is why authority is important.
    That's a very good and succinct way of putting it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I disagree. Leadership and dictatorship are one in the same only that leadership has positive/neutral connotations whereas a dictatorship has negative.

    A leader is a person who rules or guides or inspires others. A dictator does the same. They typically rule with an iron fist, guide the people by their personal and often selfish goals, and inspire the puplic through fear and false appearances.
    That's not true. See my examples above for when a leader is a leader. A dictator is typically illogical and rules based on personal and selfish goals, like you say. However, a leader rules for the greater good, based on logic and listening to the suggestions of the people they lead. It is a selfless role because they cannot really think about what they would like, they have to somehow synthesise the varying opinions of everyone into a satisfactory set of laws and rules that don't offend everyone or certain groups more than others.

    There is a need for leaders in this world so that the world can be fair. Without leaders there would be anarchy. There would be no fairness because the most vocal and the most violent would always get their way and there would be no one balancing everyone's views or counteracting illogical yet outspoken views with evidence that what they want doesn't work and isn't good. Even in our world today the majority views, held by calm people who just want a job and the ability to look after their family well, are often overshadowed by those of an extreme minority who thinks everyone believes what they believe. A good leader will cut such people down to size to protect the general public.


    But a person can be easily given power and in most senarios a leader cannot attain superiority without others to put them into power. It's not a question of competence or incompetence, it's marturity that must be measured for good leadership, in my opinion. An intelligent, well liked individual can be easily voted into power because all they need is the support of the majority. Most leaders are put into power because of their character. An upcoming leader can give the impression that he is the best canidate through fancy speeches, false promises, hiding blemishes on their record, and gaining the support of the elite. It becomes especially easy to obtain power if this person has developed a personality cult. I mean that's like getting a free season pass. But if this person does not have a required maturity for the job then they may not exercise their leadership for the benefit of their subordinates.

    Once in power, all this leader needs to do is retain power. This is more much more difficult. One way to do so is by division of labour. Another is to break realationships of the leader's subordinates. The weaker the ties between the subordinates the more autonomy the leader has. But most of all the malevolent leader must keep a certain amount of ambiguity about their naughty doings and find something to cover it up or blame for it. This makes a great opportunity to attack the lower levels of the ranks or an outside source.

    Well I do somewhat agree with this. Like I mentioned with Gordon Brown, our unelected PM. He's ruling our country, very badly, because he smooth-talked a few people in his party. It's sick.

    The problem is when the malevolent leader manages to obtain dictatorship by manipulating the right people in the right way. Scarily easy. I mean look at Mugabe in Zimbabwe!! How on earth is he still in power? He has literally destroyed that poor country. He maintains his position through empty rhetoric and violence.

    Anyway, to answer the question, ISTJs will respect authority but only when it deserves that respect. Otherwise, there is no need to needlessly fear authority and this can create unecessary problems and conflict.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    LSI
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Leaders are an example (of a kind) while dictators tell, order, or "dictate." Leadership itself is a very broad topic. it can refer to anyone who influences (leads) anyone else among other things. Maybe I should state (No, I definitely should state) that I am narrowing it it down to those who typically just lead vs. manage, dictate, or instruct. If that makes any sense. We are on the same page. I'm just drawing slightly different lines.

    I've studied leadership for years and I've defined what I think a Leader is vs. what a leader is. I place the difference in capitalization to try and distinguish a difference. If that makes any sense. I do hope I'm not confusing you.
    - Caleb

    "I am what I need to be..."

    "Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity."

  7. #17
    Senior Member Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    LSI
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    That's not true. See my examples above for when a leader is a leader. A dictator is typically illogical and rules based on personal and selfish goals, like you say. However, a leader rules for the greater good, based on logic and listening to the suggestions of the people they lead. It is a selfless role because they cannot really think about what they would like, they have to somehow synthesise the varying opinions of everyone into a satisfactory set of laws and rules that don't offend everyone or certain groups more than others.

    Typically. Though you are defining logic by your own (in a way) definition. I would like to make a slightly similar point that I made in my other post. You are narrowing down the definition of leadership. Focusing specifically on "good" or "idealistic" leadership

    There is a need for leaders in this world so that the world can be fair. Without leaders there would be anarchy. There would be no fairness because the most vocal and the most violent would always get their way and there would be no one balancing everyone's views or counteracting illogical yet outspoken views with evidence that what they want doesn't work and isn't good. Even in our world today the majority views, held by calm people who just want a job and the ability to look after their family well, are often overshadowed by those of an extreme minority who thinks everyone believes what they believe. A good leader will cut such people down to size to protect the general public.

    Anyway, to answer the question, ISTJs will respect authority but only when it deserves that respect. Otherwise, there is no need to needlessly fear authority and this can create unnecessary problems and conflict.
    I sorta like that last paragraph that I have quoted. I would personally expand upon it though I feel that currently for the nature of this discussion it is good.
    - Caleb

    "I am what I need to be..."

    "Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity."

  8. #18
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Sometimes an SJ will outsource their beliefs to an outside authority, like the Church, political parties, or even Oprah.

    Instead of dealing with all that theoretical and conceptual mess in their heads on their own, deferring to an authority makes things much simpler.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    LSI
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Sometimes an SJ will outsource their beliefs to an outside authority, like the Church, political parties, or even Oprah.

    Instead of dealing with all that theoretical and conceptual mess in their heads on their own, deferring to an authority makes things much simpler.
    Don't all types have someone that does that. So logically speaking don't all types sometimes do that? I see your point and it is valid, but in many ways it doesn't change much.

    On the side, I may have certain beliefs, but the mess in my head is mine to figure out. That way those beliefs really are mine an not just that of the "authorities."
    - Caleb

    "I am what I need to be..."

    "Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity."

  10. #20
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    I know that at least the ISTJ type is more conservative than liberal, and more Republican than Democrat in the US. I think "trust authority" is the wrong way to phrase it. "Value authority" would be more in line, at least for myself. I think the SJ peference for structure applies not only to objects but also to human relationships, interaction, and society. An anything-goes anarchic model, in any situation or matter, is seen as less efficient and foolish I think. Structure, and authority, creates order, which is vital.
    Yup. For example my ISTJ friend is a cynical bastard (and so am I, so we get along great ) and really dislikes the way a lot of things are run, but if he sees someone as competent than he can show a great deal of loyalty. Though he is more likely to follow the system and give respect to it than I am at firest, until he decides that he doesn't like it. We both kinda operate under innocent until proven guilty philosophies, just that for him it's innocent of being incompetent until proven otherwise, and for me it's innocent of being competent (and also, innocent of being necessary) until proven otherwise.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] Questions for and about INFPs.
    By Cindyrella in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 233
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 11:56 PM
  2. [INFP] Questions for INFPs about INFPs
    By marm in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-02-2010, 01:48 AM
  3. [MBTItm] Question for SJs about views on INFPs
    By Augenblick in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-03-2009, 07:47 PM
  4. [INTJ] Hey Again Fellow INTJs ..... Another Question For You about Emotions!!!!!
    By WithoutaFace in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 02-14-2009, 06:13 AM
  5. A question for Extroverts about Solitude.
    By ajblaise in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 07:24 PM

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