Why SJ types are not as common as many think

[Giggly]

[MENTION=10780]Patches[/MENTION] is totally cray cray. I don't know what she's talking about.

 

[Eric B]

I'm kind of new to this, but I look at SJ differently than it seems you all are. The way I have seen it play out it in several close people is less of a general "steady and responsible" tone, but more a religous adherance to "the right way." I find it exasperating.

"The right way", rule based living, if you will, is dependent upon upbringing. Those kids at Walmart who are acting just like their parents may very well be SJ. Why? Because they are acting the way they have been shown to act. The rule is when you are at the store with your friends, you buy a coke and sit on the bench in the front throwing rocks at tires. It's just what you do.

It isn't like SJ's suddenly have a higher moral calling. The few I know have a hard time deviating from what they know to be true. Whether or not it actually IS true is irrelevant.

I'm a bit confused. Not all SJ's are going to agree with their parents or even the rest of society. It sounds like you are talking down to SJ's.

That's actually a very good point he makes. It was not a blanket statement that "all SJ's are going to agree with their parents". But it's true that they do tend to follow what they learn more. They are also known as the "Guardians". The Si perspective takes in tangible experience and stores it as its blueprint to measure things by.

Then, when they get older, they will manifest independence a bit more and adjust the values more, and sort out what they want to hold on to.
I had noted that a lot of ISTJ kids (the "Melancholies") looked a lot like Sanguines (ESF, EP, etc), but then mellowed out when they grew up. Some of course were quiet bookish and even orderly types all along.

So it will be hard to tell by looking at kids. It's when they grow up and enter the workplace that you really see what people are, better.
It is still true that we could be looking at where the type naturally gravitates to. Like every society will need governing institutions (both public and private enterprises), and organization may draw SJ's.
Still, if it's US culture we're talking about, the mindset overall does seem very STJ (we are so into big corporations), while pop culture (which we are also so much into) seems very SP. So it will seem like the SJ's rule, because they are more about "business", while SP is more about "pleasure".

 

[jixmixfix]

* fat
* loud
* spontaneous
* argumentative
* don't give too much of a crap about school or following the rules
* wear in-your-face t-shirts that reflect their favorite popular culture icons
* don't seem to notice how disheveled and goofy they look
* can't follow rules that well
* hate reflecting or writing about much of anything
* see global truths, but not any introverted or detailed depth
* daydream and spazz out constantly
* don't notice much of anything about their environment
* have an indifferent or hostile attitude toward tradition
* can't sit still to save their lives

I mean, seriously? Are we so wrapped up in our imaginative heads that we don't notice these things when we should? Now that I have stopped trying to daydream as much as possible wherever I go, reality has finally reached me. SJs are NOT everywhere. Common sense is NOT common - Voltaire was right. Most kids are NOT proficient in Si. Most kids do NOT respect authority very much, and neither do adults, though maturity helps this to an extent (types balance more as they get older).

I think ENTP and ESFP are the most common types in our nation right now. We want our freedom, we want our fun, we want our excitement, we want our instant gratification, and we want escape from reality - few people NATURALLY want to maintain boring tradition, become accountants, clean their homes, or follow and plod over every detail in school (or even at work!) unless FORCED by their job requirements.

Thoughts?

These are just kids in general independent of type, you're using typology to stereotype an average kids personality.....seriously? Also overweight kids are the minority from where I'm from I don't know about you...

 

[mrcockburn]

I think the new tradition is to "shun" tradition. The new rule is to "break" the rules.

SJ on, comrades.

 

[cascadeco]

I think the new tradition is to "shun" tradition. The new rule is to "break" the rules.

SJ on, comrades.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. An SJ born in the 40's or 50's is going to have very different views/'norms' from an SJ born in the 90's. The cultural ambience is very different between then and now. What's appropriate, 'cool', expected, life-path view, etc, has shifted.

 

[Eric B]

It also goes along with my theory that the SJ corresponds to FIRO's Control area behavior group "the Rebel" (low expressed and wanted Control. APS describes the Melancholy in Control as being rebellious as well).
They don't really start out rebellious, but are usually quite the opposite, but it's when things are really going wrong; especially when their need for familiarity is not being met (like when someone pushes them into the unknown, which is their biggest fear), that they will rebel. (This from the "low wanted" behavior). A person must meet a strict criteria for them to accept your control, and it's usually the "concrete structures" of an established institution they submit to. But if even these are completely threatening to the ego, they may rebel.

 

[skylights]

Just based on people I know, I don't think SJs are as common as many think. I consider myself fairly average and I know huge amounts of NPs and SPs. I probably know less NTs - to me, they seem more like a statistical anomaly.

The most significant thing about SJs that seems too stereotyped for me is the idea of rigidity. Yes, I do think they have a certain strong rigidity, but so do NJs; that's the nature of J itself. But because NJ is more conceptual, they tend to create conceptual barriers, and you can see that in the "one-track" thinking that many NJs exhibit (no offense NJs, that's how you achieve your visions so well). Whereas SJ is more concrete, so SJs tend to create more concrete barriers, ones that we can see in the real world. So SJ is given the "rigid" stereotype, but the truth is that they are just as open to information as anyone else, and you can see this when you present solid concrete evidence to an SJ and they say, hey, that's a much better idea!, and let you take over. In some ways SJs are more open than NJs, because you can present an SJ with tangible evidence, whereas it's much harder to present an NJ with conceptual information, especially given that their own vision is more mired in the subconscious to begin with.

So to bounce off of that, there's this conception that SJ automatically means rule-following, but what I see that manifest more as is a willingness to defer to people who possess a greater quantity and/or quality of concrete information. The SJs I know are likely to defer to doctors/police/experts/etc, as far as I understand, because they believe these people to be more knowledgeable about their area of expertise than they themselves are, and therefore there is a general assumption that the people making the rules are more knowledgeable about the situation the rules apply to and why they are necessary or at least advisable. As a habitual rule-breaking NP, I can say that there have been quite a few times when I have been caught feeling rather stupid for breaking a rule I felt confining (eg, wearing non-slip shoes to work, since they are usually ugly and uncomfortable) and subsequently discovering firsthand why I probably should have just sucked it up and adhered (eg, slipping 3 feet across the floor and falling hard on my ass in an olive oil spill). Anyway, what that also entails is that when an SJ breaks the rules, they know good and well what exactly the rule is and why exactly they are breaking it and what the potential consequences are and why they are risking that.

Furthermore, I think the SJ emphasis on the past and on the cultural milieu is another aspect of that concrete-evidence usage. The past is a good touchstone because it's a wealth of information just sitting there, ripe to be used. We already can see in the past what worked and what didn't and why. It's not a guessing game, so why would we spend more time analyzing patterns that may or may not lead us to a beneficial conclusion? (My favorite NJ example, Hitler - that man sure knew how to get results, but, in retrospect, what a fucking awful mess he made.) The cultural milieu is also a good touchstone because it presents us with paths that we can see will currently work. Maybe they're not better than what could theoretically be done, but they're more likely to work. Hence NJs are very hit-and-miss, whereas SJs are more consistent. They're less likely to totally blow things out of the water but they're more likely to get steady positive results. And whether or not that's better really depends on your line of work - given a surgical procedure, I'll err to the consistency of the SJ every time (not saying an SJ surgeon is better, STPs might actually have the upper hand there, or more likely simply whoever has the steadier hand, but can you see what I mean?).

I'm not saying this can't manifest in an unhealthy way of being too willing to conform and assuming that others have more or better-quality knowledge when they actually don't, or being stubbornly attached to old ways of doing things, but I think the SJ stereotype is, as stereotypes typically are, overblown and misunderstood.

Obviously if SJs disagree with any of this analysis then please correct me.

 

[FireShield98]

I agree with the OP.

 

[Salomé]

TLDR; Biased sample. Your argument is invalid.

Yes.

True, but that can easily be turned right around onto the MBTI statistics that claim they are a majority.

No.

I think ENTP and ESFP are the most common types in our nation right now. We want our freedom, we want our fun, we want our excitement, we want our instant gratification, and we want escape from reality - few people NATURALLY want to maintain boring tradition,

So how come Romney is riding so high in the polls?

 

[EJCC]

Of course...you have taken a big risk here since you dont state any statistical evidence for such a claim. Most wont look beyond that.

^ This. It's a shame, but it seems to be true, so far.

just how you can tell a stupid Intuitive from a stupid Sensor?

+1

A very important question.

 

[/DG/]

That's actually a very good point he makes. It was not a blanket statement that "all SJ's are going to agree with their parents". But it's true that they do tend to follow what they learn more. They are also known as the "Guardians". The Si perspective takes in tangible experience and stores it as its blueprint to measure things by.

Then, when they get older, they will manifest independence a bit more and adjust the values more, and sort out what they want to hold on to.
I had noted that a lot of ISTJ kids (the "Melancholies") looked a lot like Sanguines (ESF, EP, etc), but then mellowed out when they grew up. Some of course were quiet bookish and even orderly types all along.

But isn't this true for mostly everyone? We grow up and we simply take what adults tell us as the truth. However, at some point in time, we all learn to think for ourselves. (This period of time is different for everyone though.)

I think the new tradition is to "shun" tradition. The new rule is to "break" the rules.


SJ on, comrades.

Yup. Good point. I'm inclined to agree with this one.

 

[skylights]

In some ways Romney is the ideal candidate for excitement and instant gratification. He puts immediate economic growth in front of extending civil rights, preserving the environment, and other "boring" constructive tasks. And would prefer a "free market" subject to ups and downs over a government-controlled economy. Less government seems fairly ExxP to me.

 

[Orangey]

I'm consistently surprised at what a superficial understanding of personality is displayed on this forum.

 

[Salomé]

In some ways Romney is the ideal candidate for excitement and instant gratification. He puts immediate economic growth in front of extending civil rights, preserving the environment, and other "boring" constructive tasks. And would prefer a "free market" subject to ups and downs over a government-controlled economy. Less government seems fairly ExxP to me.

I guess we have very different ideas of "exciting" but I can see what you are saying. My comment was pretty tongue-in-cheek. However, there is statistical evidence which suggests that SJs tend to favour Republicans and ExxPs favour Independents/Democrats.

The Republicans/conservatives tend to focus on fostering anxiety (about "the other guy"), rather than on a more constructive message, which plays into the SJ primary focus on security.

 

[skylights]

I guess we have very different ideas of "exciting" but I can see what you are saying. My comment was pretty tongue-in-cheek. However, there is statistical evidence which suggests that SJs tend to favour Republicans and ExxPs favour Independents/Democrats.

The Republicans/conservatives tend to focus on fostering anxiety (about "the other guy"), rather than on a more constructive message, which plays into the SJ primary focus on security.

Yeah I totally believe that. Actually your comment was just really interesting because I guess being e6 I naturally jump to play devil's advocate, and this one really made me think: how could Romney be a good candidate for "fun"? Honestly, I hate the shit out of Romney, so that was an interesting challenge. And I do believe that many SJs would lean towards the more conservative party, which traditionally in the USA of course is the Republican party. But I think it's interesting how the nature of the "conservative" party is sometimes less about "conservative" in the sense of "not changing what's working" as opposed to "conservative" in the sense of "not much government", and in that way "conservative" could mean "less boundaries". The latter definition seems much less SJ than the former - I would think that SJs would tend to gravitate towards more governance and more structure. And that's interesting about Democrats too, that ExxPs gravitate towards the Democratic party but it's actually often for more constraint. I do think there is a much more substantial Fi streak in the Democratic party. And because of the tendency to embrace change, it's probably often appealing for Ns as well, especially NPs. I would imagine TJs are more likely to lean Republican, as a general rule.

 

[skylights]

I guess we have very different ideas of "exciting" but I can see what you are saying. My comment was pretty tongue-in-cheek. However, there is statistical evidence which suggests that SJs tend to favour Republicans and ExxPs favour Independents/Democrats.

The Republicans/conservatives tend to focus on fostering anxiety (about "the other guy"), rather than on a more constructive message, which plays into the SJ primary focus on security.

Yeah I totally believe that. Actually your comment was just really interesting because I guess being e6 I naturally jump to play devil's advocate, and this one really made me think: how could Romney be a good candidate for "fun"? Honestly, I hate the shit out of Romney, so that was an interesting challenge. And I do believe that many SJs would lean towards the more conservative party, which traditionally in the USA of course is the Republican party. But I think it's interesting how the nature of the "conservative" party is sometimes less about "conservative" in the sense of "not changing what's working" as opposed to "conservative" in the sense of "not much government", and in that way "conservative" could mean "less boundaries". The latter definition seems much less SJ than the former - I would think that SJs would tend to gravitate towards more governance and more structure. And that's interesting about Democrats too, that ExxPs gravitate towards the Democratic party but it's actually often for more constraint. I do think there is a much more substantial Fi streak in the Democratic party. And because of the tendency to embrace change, it's probably often appealing for Ns as well, especially NPs. I would imagine TJs are more likely to lean Republican, as a general rule.

Edit - checked chart. Interesting! And confirmed, TJs do significantly lean Republican, at least in this study.

 

[Cellmold]

No.

Why not?

 

[ScottJames]

So how come Romney is riding so high in the polls?

Well for one, there are plenty of SP republicans (ex Donald Trump, Steve Wynn). They don't usually appear rigid and stereotypically conservative but it's not uncommon at all for them to have conservative beliefs/values. SJs are more likely to adopt the political affiliation of their families, whether that's democrat or republican.

In my family, my Dad's whole side are all SJ democrats. By contrast, my Mom's sister's immediate family consist of an ISFJ, two ESFPs and an INFP and they're all republicans. They're all in rural Georgia. In areas with especially high concentrations of republicans, even intuitives and sensor perceivers are often republicans. In areas with a high concentration of democrats, there are going to be plenty of SJ democrats.

 

[SD45T-2]

Yeah I totally believe that. Actually your comment was just really interesting because I guess being e6 I naturally jump to play devil's advocate, and this one really made me think: how could Romney be a good candidate for "fun"? Honestly, I hate the shit out of Romney, so that was an interesting challenge. And I do believe that many SJs would lean towards the more conservative party, which traditionally in the USA of course is the Republican party. But I think it's interesting how the nature of the "conservative" party is sometimes less about "conservative" in the sense of "not changing what's working" as opposed to "conservative" in the sense of "not much government", and in that way "conservative" could mean "less boundaries". The latter definition seems much less SJ than the former - I would think that SJs would tend to gravitate towards more governance and more structure. And that's interesting about Democrats too, that ExxPs gravitate towards the Democratic party but it's actually often for more constraint. I do think there is a much more substantial Fi streak in the Democratic party. And because of the tendency to embrace change, it's probably often appealing for Ns as well, especially NPs. I would imagine TJs are more likely to lean Republican, as a general rule.

I suggest you read this: http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056

 

[Eric B]

But isn't this true for mostly everyone? We grow up and we simply take what adults tell us as the truth. However, at some point in time, we all learn to think for ourselves. (This period of time is different for everyone though.)

Well, yeah, and I was simply granting the the SJ will think for themselves too, but the point was, they are still likely to go with what was familiar. They will, as I said "sort out what they want to hold on to".