[SJ] Question for SJs about trusting authority

[Eagle]

...if he sees someone as competent than he can show a great deal of loyalty.

Oh, indeed.

Though he is more likely to follow the system and give respect to it... ...until he decides that he doesn't like it.

True as well.

We both kinda operate under innocent until proven guilty philosophies, just that for him it's innocent of being incompetent until proven otherwise...

I love that last part of the quote.

 

[ajblaise]

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."

Yeah, all types do it. But we can't just call it a wash and say they all do it at the same rate.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. Without SJs giving unfettered support to all the good causes throughout history, we wouldn't be were we are.
It's only bad when they choose the wrong authority to obey.

 

[Eagle]

Yeah, all types do it. But we can't just call it a wash and say they all do it at the same rate.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. Without SJs giving unfettered support to all the good causes throughout history, we wouldn't be were we are.
It's only bad when they choose the wrong authority to obey.

I'm not saying just wash it away. We really don't have any proof of your statement is all. Most of the SJ's I know, do resolve things within their own head. More common is that SJ's select a system that the believe is true and then follow the reasoning within that system. It does resolve a "mess" persay within their own heads, but I don't see SJ's as doing it more as any other type. Well, more as in a higher percentage.

I would agree that it's bad when SJs choose the wrong authority to obey. The definition of "good" and "bad" though varies from person to person. The same can be said though for any type.

 

[ajblaise]

I'm not saying just wash it away. We really don't have any proof of your statement is all. Most of the SJ's I know, do resolve things within their own head. More common is that SJ's select a system that the believe is true and then follow the reasoning within that system. It does resolve a "mess" persay within their own heads, but I don't see SJ's as doing it more as any other type. Well, more as in a higher percentage.

I would agree that it's bad when SJs choose the wrong authority to obey. The definition of "good" and "bad" though varies from person to person. The same can be said though for any type.

The proof would be in the MBTI test itself, with questions like:

Do you often contemplate about the complexity of life?
Would you rather experiment or follow familiar approaches?

 

[Eagle]

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.

That's not proof. Those are tell tale signs that we believe or think can determine type. Where as they are only part of the picture. I don't see though, how that is proof for your statement about SJs more so than any other type "outsourcing" their beliefs to an outside authority. That was what you and I were discussing was it not?

 

[ajblaise]

That's not proof. Those are tell tale signs that we believe or think can determine type. Where as they are only part of the picture. I don't see though, how that is proof for your statement about SJs more so than any other type "outsourcing" their beliefs to an outside authority. That was what you and I were discussing was it not?

"Outsourcing their beliefs" makes it sound very negative, I could have used more neutral phrasing. But people that don't like to experiment and make up their own rules rather than follow them, and people who don't contemplate all these vague ideas in the first place, are more likely to accept and defer to a higher authority, or a "familiar approach".

 

[Eagle]

Alrighty, I'll call it a truce then

All in all, yes I would say that yes, in some ways they do.

I still slightly disagree, but not enough that it makes any difference at this point. Heck, I'm not even sure if I could explain how exactly I disagree. lol.

 

[ajblaise]

That's good enough for me. I know I'm not a higher authority or anything, so I can't expect you to agree.

 

[Shaula]

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.

Considering the fact that the OP did not define leadership or what a leader is nor did the OP define authority, you have just admitted to influencing the conversation toward your personal definition of what a leader or, as you put it, Leader is. There by this logic you have just appointed yourself leader of this thread.

Now according to my big ass dictionary that weights like ten pounds, here are some definitions:

Authority: 1. the power to determine, ajudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, comand, or determine. 2. a power or right delegated or given; authorisation.

Lead: to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort. 2. to conduct a holding or guiding. 3. to influence or induce; cause.

Leader: a person or thing that leads.

Leadership: 1. the position or function of a leader. 2. ability to lead. 3. an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction.

Who gets to be a trusted authority?

Now my intentions with my earlier posts in this thread was to expand on this idea of authority in connection with leadership, as the two commonly go together. And I had some questions, that I'll repeat, "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?"

So although this is, in part, part of the conversation lets try to tie it back to the main point so everything flows.

But apparently I am not allowed to expand on the idea. As the 'local SJ authority' has asserted themselves against me. But this will prove to be a detriment to the SJ community as this thread will soon reach stagnation since the OP has been already been adequately answered by TakeFive's post. As a result the thread will die. There will be one less topic for the SJs to discuss which will cause a domino effect in the rest of the forum. Consequently, Eagle will cause the end of MBTIc!!

Now tell me my logic is flawed. Tell me I'm confused or incompetent. Go gather your other SJ friends (or are they your minions?), sick them on me! Back me into a corner and make me submit to your will. You'll be sorry!


(By the way this post is totally a joke. I'm laughing and you should too. )

 

[Eagle]

I wasn't laughing till the end.

SJ Minions. LOL. I'm an introvert. I have no friends.

When you whipped out your dictionary I almost fell in love.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Personally I view SJs desire to stick with familiar rules as more to do with a combination of Si and Ne. I wouldn't be surprised if SJs in general prefer their comfort zone much more than others, unless of course one of their values was to constantly expand their comfort zone creating a paradox. The reason I don't create rules is because it's difficult for me to generate random ideas, therefore it's much easier for me to modify existing rules until they are perfect. SJs are often known for being critical of system, nitpicking and all that, despite also being known being loyal followers. Okay I made that last part up, but it might be true. xD

Trusted authority for me is less to do with how efficient they are, but rather more on whether their intentions are good. I won't explain how I determine that since it's much more difficult to explain, however I do realise "The road to hell is paved with best intentions" so to an extent they should be reliable, trustworthy and competent. Just less so than my ISTJ counterparts, perhaps?

Some of my values are really extreme. I recall a time discussing with my INFP friend about taboo relationships only to be shut down with "It's wrong." - The authority I've attached myself to are things like logic and philosophies like "Free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others."
The biggest point is authority needn't be a person.

For the record I do operate on the people are innocent until shown to be guilty. Therefore it's much easier for me to quickly adopt a system unless there's something blatantly wrong with it.

I want simplicity in my life, a life of happiness. Experimenting doesn't come to me naturally so I'll leave others to that. However I'd disagree with the notion that SJs don't entertain the complexity of life. It's all about the comfort zone. Most people live based on comfort zones.

 

[deleyd]

Whoa, so much to read. I see I'm going to have to clarify my question, which will take me some time to make it succinct enough that it doesn't take hours to read. I'll start a new post if I ever succeed at that.

I'm basically trying to combine the ideas of Professor George Lakoff and Professor Bob Altemeyer with David Kerisey, and I'm noticing they don't fit. Lakoff's description of a Conservative, and Altemeyer's description of what he calls a Right Wing Authoritarian, both seem to fit Keirsey's description of the SJ Guardian. But all the evidence I've seen so far suggests there's no correlation between being an SJ Guardian and being a Conservative.

You know us INTP's are irked when things don't fit--when there's a contradiction. We'll pursue this to the end of time until we find out the reason why. There must be something I don't correctly understand, and I'm searching for that.

All 3 professors, Keirsey, Altemeyer, & Lakoff, have impressive lifetime records. I've no reason to belive any of them are wrong. And yet I can't fit the 3 together, because I'm ending up with "All SJ Guardians should be Conservatives" which just isn't so.

 

[Eagle]

Could have specified that from the beginning... Give us your entire goal next time. That way the ISTJ coalition can be so much more helpful and direct all of our energy towards that goal.

 

[simulatedworld]

I would be careful in making that assertion since many INTPs report to be Republican and Conservative, as well as INTJs. In fact years ago, a poll started at personalitypage.com and I think that INTPs ranked as high, if not higher than ISTJs. In fact here were the actual numbers for INTP, INTJ and ISTJ:

Zero Libertarians in a group of 40+ INTPs???

I suggest that the sample is highly atypical.

 

[Costrin]

Zero Libertarians in a group of 40+ INTPs???

I suggest that the sample is highly atypical.

Huh, didn't notice that.

Definitely atypical.

 

[simulatedworld]

Also, cute how so many more people identify with a party brand name (®epublican!) than with an actual political ideology.

I swear this fucking country treats political parties like sports teams.

"I dunno what this liberal/conservative shit means, but I'll be damned if I'm not a Republican like my daddy and his daddy before him...OH BTW GO LSU FOOTBALL WHOOOOOOOOOO"

 

[Eagle]

Hahahaha. I agree.

 

[simulatedworld]

Man, if there's one thing I can really relate to ISTJs on, it's unbridled cynicism.

 

[pure_mercury]

I am a libertarian and I am pretty skeptical of all authority, unless they have proven their worthiness (my mom, for instance, is very wise; many professors I've had have been experts in their fields, etc.).

 

[simulatedworld]

omg libertarian ESFJ

awesome