Are MBTI types generational?

[Haphazard]

I don't think they were as much bastions of SJness as you're making out, what's more likely is that cultural changes have allowed the NFs, NTs and SPs to drift away from those institutions (and the more they do that the more "traditional" it becomes to move away from them, the more SJs will move on as well).

Cultural influence has little to do with numerical numbers anyway, so SJ dominance can decrease while still maintaining the same population proportions.

Yes. That.

"Conservatives are those who like radicals long after they're dead," and all that.

 

[Ruthie]

Proximo -

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm being sincere. Do you believe that there is a lasting Establishment that is essentially unchanged from generation to generation, and that the only thing that changes is the reaction to it?

If it were a standard generation gap - one generation rebelling against the previous generation - why didn't the children of Boomers return to the duty-fulfillment values of their grandparents?

How would you describe the basic values of the Establishment (or, culture, if you prefer)?

 

[Ruthie]

I don't think they were as much bastions of SJness as you're making out, what's more likely is that cultural changes have allowed the NFs, NTs and SPs to drift away from those institutions (and the more they do that the more "traditional" it becomes to move away from them, the more SJs will move on as well).

Cultural influence has little to do with numerical numbers anyway, so SJ dominance can decrease while still maintaining the same population proportions.

Well...then how did SJ "culture" lose steam after dominating for at least a generation in the mid-20th century? What made the culture change?

Second question - (this one related to your claim that as it becomes "traditional" to move away from basic institutions, SJs will move away). If SJs are most comfortable fitting in with the reigning social ethic, and NTs are most likely to feel a need to pull away from the reigning social ethic, would the following be true?

Premise: The prevailing ethic in modern society encourages individual expression ahead of societal duty.

SJs: Wanting to carry out the contemporary social norms, SJs would support that prevailing ethic, even though it would seemingly counter their sense of duty.

NTs: The desire to "think outside the box" leads the NT to question the prevailing ethic and argue that duty is of greater importance than individual expression. A rebellion against rebellion.

 

[Quinlan]

Well...then how did SJ "culture" lose steam after dominating for at least a generation in the mid-20th century? What made the culture change?

I'm not sure, but I don't thing it would require any change in actual numbers, perhaps all it would take is a few radical thinkers to "snap" (conciousness raising) the non-SJs out of what they had grown to accept, just a thought.

Second question - (this one related to your claim that as it becomes "traditional" to move away from basic institutions, SJs will move away). If SJs are most comfortable fitting in with the reigning social ethic, and NTs are most likely to feel a need to pull away from the reigning social ethic, would the following be true?

I don't think NTs are naturally contrary for the sake of it, I think they are more concerned with truth, so they might be most comfortable with social ethics that best fit with what the see as truth.

 

[Ruthie]

I'm not sure, but I don't thing it would require any change in actual numbers, perhaps all it would take is a few radical thinkers to "snap" (conciousness raising) the non-SJs out of what they had grown to accept, just a thought.

I don't know - seems like there's an undertone here that SJs are "wrong" and once they are shown another way, they can move along. I don't really see how this is a plausible theory unless you assume that Si is inferior to other functions.

I don't think NTs are naturally contrary for the sake of it, I think they are more concerned with truth, so they might be most comfortable with social ethics that best fit with what the see as truth.

I wouldn't say naturally contrary, I would just say skeptical of prevailing social theory. I think they automatically challenge what they are told (internalizing the "question everything" mantra).

 

[nolla]

I don't know - seems like there's an undertone here that SJs are "wrong" and once they are shown another way, they can move along.

No, the idea is that SJs are the slowest to adapt new norm. What is confusing everyone is the descriptions of SJs, that they are hard working puritanist, this is true only in a hard-working puritanist society. SJs will take the norm (probably when growing up) and live by those rules, unless they see that the norm has essentially changed. Sometimes the other types can change the norm and when they have enough people, or rather when it seems they have enough people living by the new norm, the SJs will follow. Other times they don't get enough people to convince the SJs.

Now I am of course talking about the mainstream. There are obviously many SJs who are part of subcultures that they have adapted as norm. The main point is that SJs are the ones to take and adapt to values and hold them the longest.

 

[Ruthie]

No, the idea is that SJs are the slowest to adapt new norm. What is confusing everyone is the descriptions of SJs, that they are hard working puritanist, this is true only in a hard-working puritanist society. SJs will take the norm (probably when growing up) and live by those rules, unless they see that the norm has essentially changed. Sometimes the other types can change the norm and when they have enough people, or rather when it seems they have enough people living by the new norm, the SJs will follow. Other times they don't get enough people to convince the SJs.

Now I am of course talking about the mainstream. There are obviously many SJs who are part of subcultures that they have adapted as norm. The main point is that SJs are the ones to take and adapt to values and hold them the longest.

Don't know about that. I would imagine that if chaos were the norm, SJs would be the temperament most likely to try to build structure (society) out of that chaos. I suppose the other view would be that SJs would embrace the chaos, as it would be the existing norm. Seems like a case can be made for either, but I think the SJ drive to create stable situations would be greater than their desire to preserve unstable situations. The other argument seems to be that SJs are really nothing more than followers, and have no drive to shape or build anything.

The answer to that question would seem to have a lot to do with whether the percentages of types are a) static; b) evolutionary; or c) cyclical. If SJs will always follow whatever the current norm, than yeah - it's easy to argue that types are static and only the "norm" changes. If SJs prefer structure regardless of existing standards and the norm drifts away from structured institutions, than it seems reasonable to assume that SJs comprise a smaller percentage in society today than they did 70 years ago.

The same kind of argument can be made for any of the temperaments, but SJ is as good an example as any...