I disagree and it seems to me that you ado not want to take into consideration the definition of Extraverted Thinking.
Well, find me a version of Te that says that everything they do is "moral", and then we can talk about that. Ordering the world according to what they think is right, which is what Te is, does not make it "moral".
I don't understand your point and do not automatically see you as a person that is wounded. I am asking you an open question because I want to understand why your conceptions of ENTJs are so different than mine. As to your remark about Te, I find it unfair since it is one that can be easily made about any Thinking function. I have the impression that you are not objective in your assessment of Te and are viewing it in an overly negative light. I would like to understand why this is the case and what reasons are bringing you to your opinion.
No, I am being objective. Te wants to order the world around them. They want to control it, make sense of it, organise it. Those are
non-value judgments. The value judgment, the subjective component, is calling it moral.
I'm puzzled by this comment. On one hand, you state that you have not been wounded, on the other you use overly negative adjectives to describe an entire personality type.
I'm struggling for words.
I don't enjoy being aggressive, forcing my views and conflict. That is wrong. I enjoy being assertive, stating my views and standing up for my rights.
Perhaps from your perspective that is all you believe you are doing. However, you engage in conflict willingly, you seek it rather than let it come to you. Even in cases like this, online, you do so. You post judgments and enjoy the dispute. One thing I have seen with ENTJs is that they will rarely seek closure in an argument until they are satisfied with the argument itself.
I don't get that among friends, unless it's a friendly dispute... and I don't get it at work when a project is underway... but they do it as entertainment all the time.
I think your descriptors paint an unnecessarily bad picture of ENTJ's. I also believe that it is unfortunate, as it seems to defeat the purpose of type to hold such views.
Yet you'll attach moral views onto type? (In effect, you are saying that ExTJs are the most moral, down the chain, where IxFPs are the least moral. later on you'll say that ESTPs (N+) are also immoral).
Type is value free, in theory. ENTJs do have the traits that I have mentioned - there main threats to their health is to control and dominate others away from them, leaving them alone. Healthy ENTJs become less Te. Otherwise the most moral of all would be unbalanced Te, where they invade ever part of life to force you to be moral (again, assuming that morality = telling others what is moral, creating moral systems, regardless of their content).
Indeed, one of the goals of the MBTI seems to be to accept other people's differences and communicate more easily with them. I think you are holding negative stereotypes, i.e. prejudices, against ENTJ's. Again, I inquire: why is this so? I think that your assessments are not objective and hypothesize that one plausible and likely explanation for this is that they may be coming more from your own feelings about ENTJ's in relation to you.
Since I have positive feeligns towards ENTJs, this would be false. You are merely seeing one side because of this dispute. I would do so equally with any type, including my own.
The point is precisely that good friends are moral.
Good friends are made up of all sorts of traits. My ISFP friend is good because he is there when I need him and he's fun to be around. Even if he isn't always dependable. My INTJ friend and GF are great because they respect my space more, but are always there when I need them... even if I struggle with visionary problems. And ENTJs can be great friends, even when they irritate me with their dominant views.
Good friends are good friends. Health level dominates all other character traits. What makes them so is personal. It depends what I need in my own life. I do not need ExTJs for the moral component; I already have my compass. And when it comes to talking moral philsophy or ethics, they lag significantly behind NPs.
I think being a reliable, dependable and honest person are traits of a good friend and are a demonstration of personal morality.
That is your opinion. My judgments on my friends are a bit more open ended. I seek people for who they are.
I also disagree about your statement that character traits have no moral basis. For example, psychopathy, characterized by low morality among others, is related to Extraversion, Low Openness, Low Conscientiousness and High Neuroticism.
Traits do correlate to behaviour. If we were arguing over what behaviours ENTJs have, this wouldn't be so involved. The moral judgment is your own and does not belong in type theory.
Well, I believe that people's personality will make them attracted more towards certain classes than others. I make the hypothesis that there will be a significant difference between the expected percent of ENTJ's randomly distributed throughout all classes and the observed percent of ENTJ's playing the Paladin class. Considering 9 classes, the expected percent is slightly more than 11%. That is, if there is absolutely no relationship between type and class, we would expect 11% of ENTJ's to choose the Paladin class. I predict that more than 25% of ENTJ's playing WoW will choose the Paladin class.
I'd be interested in seeing these stats. Even if this were so, I'd be more interested in an experiment that change the playing style of paladins (ie: making them mages) and seeing if ENTJs chose them based upon style or backstory.