[SJ] Are many SJ's ever on the left?

[Yama]

Si types tend to "think inside the box" and have difficulties thinking "outside of the box", so most of their understanding depends on what was put in that box to begin with. As Si types mature, Ne starts coming into play more and more, and they get comfortable with thinking outside the box, but tend to rely on that core Si box. Changing what's inside that Si box is very difficult for them to do (but it IS doable, it's just very difficult and painful to process).

I disagree with this; I think that's where a lot of Si stereotypes come from (or S is Stupid in general). Si is just as capable of thinking outside the box as Ni but sensing takes a lot longer to process. However once it does it had an incredibly accurate understanding or mental picture of what that box contains and if nothing about what's in the box upsets or offends them then they'll settle for that because "the known is always preferable to the unknown."
In other words, Si and Ni can both think outside the box but Si being sensing prefers to work with the tangible and thus might be more likely to work with what is already there, but that doesn't mean they can't see outside of it.

Both of my parents were very conservative and if anything I have influenced THEM with my opinions.

 

[/DG/]

I disagree with this; I think that's where a lot of Si stereotypes come from (or S is Stupid in general). Si is just as capable of thinking outside the box as Ni but sensing takes a lot longer to process. However once it does it had an incredibly accurate understanding or mental picture of what that box contains and if nothing about what's in the box upsets or offends them then they'll settle for that because "the known is always preferable to the unknown."
In other words, Si and Ni can both think outside the box but Si being sensing prefers to work with the tangible and thus might be more likely to work with what is already there, but that doesn't mean they can't see outside of it.

Both of my parents were very conservative and if anything I have influenced THEM with my opinions.

Mostly it's that we realize that what's outside the box tends to not be proven to work. I do not appreciate unrealistic ideas.

 

[Yama]

Mostly it's that we realize that what's outside the box tends to not be proven to work. I do not appreciate unrealistic ideas.

Same. Si sees outside that box and thinks "eh maybe not." Ni looks at what's outside that box and decides to play with it. We can both see outside that box though.

 

[uumlau]

Mostly it's that we realize that what's outside the box tends to not be proven to work. I do not appreciate unrealistic ideas.

Exactly. That's why it's so hard to budge.

I disagree with this; I think that's where a lot of Si stereotypes come from (or S is Stupid in general). Si is just as capable of thinking outside the box as Ni but sensing takes a lot longer to process. However once it does it had an incredibly accurate understanding or mental picture of what that box contains and if nothing about what's in the box upsets or offends them then they'll settle for that because "the known is always preferable to the unknown."
In other words, Si and Ni can both think outside the box but Si being sensing prefers to work with the tangible and thus might be more likely to work with what is already there, but that doesn't mean they can't see outside of it.

Both of my parents were very conservative and if anything I have influenced THEM with my opinions.

You are familiar with my posts. I do not blithely post "S is stupid" sentiments.

Everyone has limitations, what differs is how those limitations apply.

S types that I know are definitely not stupid, but they can be very very literal. As long as I stay with in very literal constraints, I can talk about very complicated things with Si types. Once I start going into my more native Ni-style hand-wavy explanations, communication falters. It's how I can tell who is what type, based on what particular communication style I need to adopt to communicate clearly.

Si types can have a "very very big box", if you will, and be experts and even masters of their particular intellectual domain. But due to being concrete, that domain is static, and it's difficult to introduce new ideas that don't fit into that domain.

There is NOTHING wrong with that. It has strengths and weaknesses, but there is nothing wrong, and these kinds of experts are essential to our society. They're also mostly invisible: the kind of people who understand how engines work, or sewers work, and keep track of all the details that keep us from dying due to engines exploding or water being contaminated.

Ni types tend to be experts in more abstract domains (like math and physics), instead of concrete domains. General principles that work universally, not concrete things like engines and sewers that have lots of specific details that, if ignored, result in very bad things happening. Each has their strengths and weaknesses.

When I offer vague generalities such as "inside the box" and "outside the box", I'm not positing "stupid" vs "smart" but one set of strengths/weaknesses vs another.

 

[Yama]

You are familiar with my posts. I do not blithely post "S is stupid" sentiments.

Everyone has limitations, what differs is how those limitations apply.

S types that I know are definitely not stupid, but they can be very very literal. As long as I stay with in very literal constraints, I can talk about very complicated things with Si types. Once I start going into my more native Ni-style hand-wavy explanations, communication falters. It's how I can tell who is what type, based on what particular communication style I need to adopt to communicate clearly.

Si types can have a "very very big box", if you will, and be experts and even masters of their particular intellectual domain. But due to being concrete, that domain is static, and it's difficult to introduce new ideas that don't fit into that domain.

There is NOTHING wrong with that. It has strengths and weaknesses, but there is nothing wrong, and these kinds of experts are essential to our society. They're also mostly invisible: the kind of people who understand how engines work, or sewers work, and keep track of all the details that keep us from dying due to engines exploding or water being contaminated.

Ni types tend to be experts in more abstract domains (like math and physics), instead of concrete domains. General principles that work universally, not concrete things like engines and sewers that have lots of specific details that, if ignored, result in very bad things happening. Each has their strengths and weaknesses.

When I offer vague generalities such as "inside the box" and "outside the box", I'm not positing "stupid" vs "smart" but one set of strengths/weaknesses vs another.

Oh I know, I wasn't saying that you were subscribing to the S is Stupid mentality. Just that the belief that Si cannot see outside the box is a misconception that can lead to it because I tend to consider most other people as dummies. Even if it's a very big box.

I agree with much of what you are saying. Just that there is a lot more similarities to Si and Ni than are usually visible. In my experience Si does have a harder time accurately seeing what's outside that box, but it still makes that attempt to see it. It usually is thrown out in favor of the tangible "this is what we know for sure" and doesn't have the same accuracy as assessing what's already inside though. And as I understand it, Ni's not stuck outside the box either. It can peer both in and out. Si can too, it just isn't nearly as good at assessing the "outside."

 

[/DG/]

This brief convo has made me realize I am not good at stereotypically N things or stereotypically S things...

 

[Yama]

This brief convo has made me realize I am not good at stereotypically N things or stereotypically S things...

Just be like me and say that you suck at everything. Then no one can blame you when you suck. They can only congratulate you when you don't suck.

 

[EJCC]

I think a lot of the problem here is that the phrase "thinking outside the box" is so loaded -- there's no way to use that phrase without implying that "inside the box" thinking is inferior to "outside the box" thinking. When in fact they both have problems and benefits, described well by both lux and uumlau (above).

 

[Forever]

Just be like me and say that you suck at everything. Then no one can blame you when you suck. They can only congratulate you when you don't suck.

Yesterday at Starbucks the lady saw me sad and said yay you finally got something different for once and she walked away.

!! Amen to that lux.

 

[Forever]

This brief convo has made me realize I am not good at stereotypically N things or stereotypically S things...

Would it be offensive to tell someone they stereotypically suck? lol

Because I'd be like this due to my ignorance:

 

[Virtual ghost]

SJs are "guardians" of how they were raised. SJs with hippy parents tend to be hippies, too. SJs with conservative parents tend to also be conservative. More or less. The main thing is "how they grew up and how they were taught".

This is what I was saying for years.


Anyway ...
I am from ex-Communism country and I am willing to bet that the the fabric of the Communist party was made of SJ people.


Also I would dare to say that there is the difference between general Si and American Si. America is country that doesn't have history of revolutions and radical cuts/changes, what then allows Si to be even more static in their principles. For example the territory on which I am living in the last 100 years was: Empire, Constitutinal monarchy that had many inner changes and the king eventually got assasinated, fascist colabortionist state, communist federation that was in odds with USSR, independant multy-party democracy ... and now it is moving into state of EU federalism. Plus there were 3 devastating wars on our soil and at least 7 currency changes.


Therefore for many unamerican SJ it can be hard to define their types as SJ because they can't experience the static nature of American Si.

 

[Blackout]

This is what I was saying for years.


Anyway ...
I am from ex-Communism country and I am willing to bet that the the fabric of the Communist party was made of SJ people.


Also I would dare to say that there is the difference between general Si and American Si. America is country that doesn't have history of revolutions and radical cuts/changes, what then allows Si to be even more static in their principles. For example the territory on which I am living in the last 100 years was: Empire, Constitutinal monarchy that had many inner changes and the king eventually got assasinated, fascist colabortionist state, communist federation that was in odds with USSR, independant multy-party democracy ... and now it is moving into state of EU federalism. Plus there were 3 devastating wars on our soil and at least 7 currency changes.


Therefore for many unamerican SJ it can be hard to define their types as SJ because they can't experience the static nature of American Si.

IN MY COUNTRY!!

 

[Virtual ghost]

Nope. I stand behind everything I've said.

 

[Blackout]

I have this problem with my Mother though, it's caused serious problems with our relationship and even her life a bit I think. She just utterly refuses to change at all and will utterly reprimand me or anyone else (and again, why we don't really have a relationship) simply because of her values she was raised with (which, are very old fashioned to be honest) even if they don't hold ground anymore, or are sort of besides the point. It's just always "the rules"

 

[ZNP-TBA]

This is what I was saying for years.


Anyway ...
I am from ex-Communism country and I am willing to bet that the the fabric of the Communist party was made of SJ people.

Maybe but I'd consider Tito the central thread in Yugoslavia's Communist party during most of the Cold War and I'll bet he wasn't even remotely close to being an SJ. In fact I'd probably consider him an ESxP.

America is country that doesn't have history of revolutions and radical cuts/changes, what then allows Si to be even more static in their principles. For example the territory on which I am living in the last 100 years was: Empire, Constitutinal monarchy that had many inner changes and the king eventually got assasinated, fascist colabortionist state, communist federation that was in odds with USSR, independant multy-party democracy ... and now it is moving into state of EU federalism. Plus there were 3 devastating wars on our soil and at least 7 currency changes.

I see what you're saying by the constant change in government and borders over there but America was not as 'static' as you think. What non-Americans (and a lot of Americans for that matter) should realize is that the U.S. and it's history was not one big grey mass or a singular entity. Throughout history the U.S. has been far more dynamic and heterogeneous with its affairs than most countries in the world.

However, the U.S. does have a deeply ingrained tradition of republicanism that can be indirectly associated with Si.

The common understanding for the reasons of the 1776 revolution is that the Americans wanted something 'new' and 'radical' and were sick of being subjects to the British crown. Far too many times the 'reasons' for the American revolution are conflated with the reasons for the French revolution, at least this is the way Europeans understand it. Actually most Americans wanted to maintain the status quo of British common law and the over century old policy of semi-autonomy in the colonies. Basically Americans would export certain goods (especially furs and tobacco), protect British interests in the New World, and pay some modest taxes to the crown and in exchange would be granted self-governance. Most colonists left Europe because of all the 'progressive' changes going in Europe at the time which threatened English common/traditional values. Americans only started revolting when the Crown was imposing 'innovative' changes on the colonies like new taxes and tariffs just to pay for the Crown's wars thousands of miles away. In fact 'innovation' was looked at negatively by the colonials. Btw, not all the colonies were lock-step in opposing Britain. There were tons of British loyalists including being the majority in the largest most influential American cities, New York and Philadelphia.

Sorry for the tangent but this could help explain Si in America and why it might be perceived as 'static.' I don't look at Si being more inclined towards conservatism or liberalism (though it sort of defaults to conservatism in individuals more I think) but as being cautious and contentious about moving forward with something different. It took a long time to rally the people for Revolution, it was like pulling teeth to get most of the States to ratify the Constitution, 100 more fucking years to abolish slavery, and another freaking hundred to get everyone the same civil rights regardless of gender or race. The reason it takes America so long to adopt some new ideas isn't because they suddenly wake up radically changed but it's that general sense of caution and preparedness before changing something significant in society. There is precedent for this though. You look at the radical more idealistic changes that happened in Europe like the French Revolution and the Bolshevik revolution. You look at the hellish circumstances that resulted and the mountains of smoldering bodies. It was a madhouse. Americans were always weary of devolving into that.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Maybe but I'd consider Tito the central thread in Yugoslavia's Communist party during most of the Cold War and I'll bet he wasn't even remotely close to being an SJ. In fact I'd probably consider him an ESxP.



I see what you're saying by the constant change in government and borders over there but America was not as 'static' as you think. What non-Americans (and a lot of Americans for that matter) should realize is that the U.S. and it's history was not one big grey mass or a singular entity. Throughout history the U.S. has been far more dynamic and heterogeneous with its affairs than most countries in the world.

However, the U.S. does have a deeply ingrained tradition of republicanism that can be indirectly associated with Si.

The common understanding for the reasons of the 1776 revolution is that the Americans wanted something 'new' and 'radical' and were sick of being subjects to the British crown. Far too many times the 'reasons' for the American revolution are conflated with the reasons for the French revolution, at least this is the way Europeans understand it. Actually most Americans wanted to maintain the status quo of British common law and the over century old policy of semi-autonomy in the colonies. Basically Americans would export certain goods (especially furs and tobacco), protect British interests in the New World, and pay some modest taxes to the crown and in exchange would be granted self-governance. Most colonists left Europe because of all the 'progressive' changes going in Europe at the time which threatened English common/traditional values. Americans only started revolting when the Crown was imposing 'innovative' changes on the colonies like new taxes and tariffs just to pay for the Crown's wars thousands of miles away. In fact 'innovation' was looked at negatively by the colonials. Btw, not all the colonies were lock-step in opposing Britain. There were tons of British loyalists including being the majority in the largest most influential American cities, New York and Philadelphia.

Sorry for the tangent but this could help explain Si in America and why it might be perceived as 'static.' I don't look at Si being more inclined towards conservatism or liberalism (though it sort of defaults to conservatism in individuals more I think) but as being cautious and contentious about moving forward with something different. It took a long time to rally the people for Revolution, it was like pulling teeth to get most of the States to ratify the Constitution, 100 more fucking years to abolish slavery, and another freaking hundred to get everyone the same civil rights regardless of gender or race. The reason it takes America so long to adopt some new ideas isn't because they suddenly wake up radically changed but it's that general sense of caution and preparedness before changing something significant in society. There is precedent for this though. You look at the radical more idealistic changes that happened in Europe like the French Revolution and the Bolshevik revolution. You look at the hellish circumstances that resulted and the mountains of smoldering bodies as a result. It was a madhouse. Americans were always weary of devolving into that.

I never claimed that Tito was SJ but the hierarchy of the party was clearly made of many SJs. What answers the question from the first post/OP, SJ can be left and even Communists.
What I am saying that American and none American SJ can have quite a different use of that function since their environments function differently.



Also the very fact that America has constitution from 18th century shows socal linearity that doesn't exist in many parts of the world. You always act as if I am talking about my country but I am not since most countries are far from having constitution that is even 100 years old. However since the American basics of the society are so static Si has even smaller need to question the very basics since system works more or less ... and this can be felt easily if you aren't rised in such environment where many things are static. I know that USA was changing with time and that it had "problems" with Mexico and that because of WW2 and Cold war there had to be some changes. However American social landscape is still pretty static when compared to the most of the world, what is perhaps the main reason why the country turned into super power.

On the other hand look Balkans, each generation has: new state/government, new currency, new paradigms, new borders and perhaps even new language.


I know that you are Sx ENTP but in my book "static" isn't a dirty word or insult.

 

[Yama]

Taking a look at my group of friends...

ISTJ #1: liberal with moderate parents
ISTJ #2: liberal with conservative parents
ISTJ #3: liberal with very conservative parents
ISTJ #4: liberal with very conservative parents
ISFJ #1: moderate with very conservative parents
ISFJ #2: liberal with moderate parents
Myself: liberal with moderarate/conservative parents

And looking at older family members who are SJs that I know well enough to type...

ISTJ #1: conservative with very conservative parents
ISFJ #1: very conservative with very conservative parents
ISFJ #2: conservative with very conservative parents

Political affiliation is likely more generational than "how one was raised." All of my younger SJ friends are more left-leaning and all of the older SJs I know are more right-leaning.

My guess is that SJs tend to reflect the time period of which they grew up in more than simply "what their parents are."

I think every type and not just SJs, to an extent, tend to take on some of what their parents are. Political views, religion, etc. That's part of being a kid and being impressionable because you are a kid.

I could see one making the argument that SJs are more likely to do this than other types, although in my particular case, which may or may not be true for anyone else, the correlation is false.

The problem here is that when people try to assess SJs and their political affiliations, they're assessing older SJs. "My mom." "My grandfather." "My aunt." All of which are older and thus more likely to reflect to political views of their time period, which was more conservative than it is now.

Thus this correlation has been made that SJs are "conservative" and it leads to a fuck ton of mistyping in younger SJs, many of which are actually left-leaning, because this word "conservative" which has heavy political implications has been thrust upon the SJ label so if an SJ isn't conservative they think "Oh, then I must not be an SJ" and type as an NF or some shit instead. That's why I started my thread debunking the whole "conservative" thing. "Preserving" is a much better word but still, while correlations can be made between type and political leanings, I don't really think SJs are more or less likely to lean any which way than any other type, to be completely honest.

tl;dr it's a generational thing, not a type thing.

Fun fact: I actually know more ENTPs that are right-leaning than SJs in general. That's just an interesting observation, not a blanket statement that any x type is more likely to lean that way.

 

[Tellenbach]

My guess is that SJs tend to reflect the time period of which they grew up in more than simply "what their parents are."

Do you see a pattern in the people you cited? I assume your friends are youngish and probably college educated/indoctrinated?

Perhaps it takes a decade or two for the SJs to figure out that the lessons learned in college are untrue and it takes many years of life experience for them to realize it? I'm sure many young people don't have a negative view of taxes but if they start paying some taxes, they may feel differently.

 

[Yama]

Do you see a pattern in the people you cited? I assume your friends are youngish and probably college educated/indoctrinated?

Perhaps it takes a decade or two for the SJs to figure out that the lessons learned in college are untrue and it takes many years of life experience for them to realize it? I'm sure many young people don't have a negative view of taxes but if they start paying some taxes, they may feel differently.

Yes, they're all young college graduates, and they already held many of their views before they went through the college education system.

If there's any trend at all, it's that almost all of them are LGBT. I don't see them changing their opinions any time soon, especially so drastic as to become right-leaning.

Young people in general nowadays tend to be left-leaning, which is why I attribute it as a generational thing rather than type.

 

[Tellenbach]

Young people in general nowadays tend to be left-leaning, which is why I attribute it as a generational thing rather than type.

It could be both. We'd need to see statistics to really know if trends exist. I think they do.

Also, American youth may be very different from youths in other cultures.