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).
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.
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.