Type most likely to be racist

[Jaguar]

They (tens of thousands) stated their types, and I looked at how they answered certain questions.

A few of the questions:

- Would you consider dating someone who has vocalized a strong negative bias toward a certain race of people?
- Is interracial marriage a bad idea?
- Do you believe that there exists a statistical correlation between race and intelligence?
- Are you racist?
- If you were going to have a child, would you want the other parent to be of the same ethnicity as you?
- Do you have a problem with racist jokes?
- Would you strongly prefer to go out with someone of your own skin color / racial background?
- Should people of a particular race be allowed to adopt children of another race?
- Do you use racial slurs when you are around friends or family whom you trust?
- Is it acceptable for an older person to make a racial slur because the term was used commonly when they were young?

A bad idea.
Is it acceptable.
Should people.

A bad idea for whom? Acceptable for whom? (Define "older.") Should people? I'm not a moralizer. Those questions are geared toward a particular type of person and I'm not one of them.

 

[Totenkindly]

ONCE AGAIN WITHOUT EMOTION.

this unit offers condolences. *bbzttlllbz* this unit pintpoints the malfunction on an errant power surge.

 

[Jet Stream]

Hey, you do tend to hear a lot of bullshit from "NTs" on the internet claiming that "their SJ oppressors are too closed-minded" and "humanity's outdated laws and customs are the fault of Feelers and NTs are gonna save us all with our forward-thinking mindsets" yada-yada-yada. From what I've seen, the trend seems to be that Ti-Creatives tend to harbor more "prejudiced" mindsets that are often attributed to Feelers. Remember, Ti can prune theories to be more consistent with themselves, but it also puts a user at risk of forms of Inductive reasoning that rationalize the entire world according to its own internal principles, internal principles that can't be disproven because they're about the way things are alledgedly supposed to be, not how they are according to empirical facts in the environment. If a theory isn't intrinsically impossible and you believe it, you can rationalize everything in one's environment to be explained by it.

So I could easily see some NT types with this mindset, especially with all these butthurt INTs who come on here claiming to be morally superior and brag about their Elliot Rodger-esque plans to put Feeling types into death camps.


On the other hand, ITJs, being Pi-dominant and Irrational, tend to be less grounded in their own inner systems of logic and more in their internal perceptions of reality -- a true INTJ wouldn't care much about the state of the world around him insomuch as an ITP.

DJA was a pretty good example of a Ti-Creative who was very susceptible to arbitrary biases with no apparent logical base, contrary to how many Ti-users claim to behave.





LE MEME XXXXDDDDDD!!!!

I've been noticing the same thing more or less. It's also kinda funny how Elliot Rodger was majorly ISFP yet all these "thinking" types sometimes unwittingly emulate his mannerisms as you said-- a clear example of your point about how the wannabes use so much of what you indirectly described as Fi to be Ti or T in general.

 

[Cygnus]

I've been noticing the same thing more or less. It's also kinda funny how Elliot Rodger was majorly ISFP yet all these "thinking" types sometimes unwittingly emulate his mannerisms as you said-- a clear example of your point about how the wannabes use so much of what you indirectly described as Fi to be Ti or T in general.

Not Fi. Incorrect use of Ti. Even Ti is not perfect.



A heavy basis behind Ti is the idea of A Priori. If something is, it is what it is what it is, period. In healthy instances, Ti can be used to seek purity in a theory by weeding out possible points where a theory does or even just potentially could contradict itself. The risk is that the Ti user will believe things that are intrinsically logical and have no self-contradictions within themselves, but also have no concrete, empirical proof backing them up in their physical environment.
As a statement, it's correct, but if it has no factual substance then it doesn't technically mean anything -- it's an empty skeleton with no muscles.



Ti relates more to how objects should behave, while Fi relates more to how you should move objects, to summarize. Te/Fi is probably the inspiration for "Lawful Evil" -- a Te/Fi user will make his actions consistent with the logical parameters of his environment, but the endgame goal is to manipulate his environs, according to the environment's sets of logical rules, in order to accomplish his Fi desires.



This puts Te-users at risk of believing whatever they are told in their environments as according to tangible evidence, while giving no concern for the overall purpose or principles behind these systems outside of how it benefits them. Fi's intentions may be "selfish" and "wrong," but Te's interaction with its environment are appropriate, regardless of the illogical motivations behind them.*




Think of it this way: Te/Fi is "wrong" but its environment sees it as "right;" Ti/Fe is "right" but its environment sees it as "wrong."
If a Ti-system is based upon what is observed in one's environment, the product it yields will tend to be more consistent. If a Ti-system is based only upon itself, it will yield only the same empty, self-justifying statements over and over and over again: "A == A because A == A because A == A because A == A"...forever and ever and ever.





*Interestingly enough, it should be noted that a large portion of people who tested to be more Extrinsically motivated in academia than Intrinsically motivated tested as ESTJ on MBTI tests (though MBTI tests are and always will be subject to countless flaws and can never be trusted to conclusively confirm one's type.)

 

[Jet Stream]

Not Fi. Incorrect use of Ti. Even Ti is not perfect.



A heavy basis behind Ti is the idea of A Priori. If something is, it is what it is what it is, period. In healthy instances, Ti can be used to seek purity in a theory by weeding out possible points where a theory does or even just potentially could contradict itself. The risk is that the Ti user will believe things that are intrinsically logical and have no self-contradictions within themselves, but also have no concrete, empirical proof backing them up in their physical environment.
As a statement, it's correct, but if it has no factual substance then it doesn't technically mean anything -- it's an empty skeleton with no muscles.



Ti relates more to how objects should behave, while Fi relates more to how you should move objects, to summarize. Te/Fi is probably the inspiration for "Lawful Evil" -- a Te/Fi user will make his actions consistent with the logical parameters of his environment, but the endgame goal is to manipulate his environs, according to the environment's sets of logical rules, in order to accomplish his Fi desires.



This puts Te-users at risk of believing whatever they are told in their environments as according to tangible evidence, while giving no concern for the overall purpose or principles behind these systems outside of how it benefits them. Fi's intentions may be "selfish" and "wrong," but Te's interaction with its environment are appropriate, regardless of the illogical motivations behind them.*




Think of it this way: Te/Fi is "wrong" but its environment sees it as "right;" Ti/Fe is "right" but its environment sees it as "wrong."
If a Ti-system is based upon what is observed in one's environment, the product it yields will tend to be more consistent. If a Ti-system is based only upon itself, it will yield only the same empty, self-justifying statements over and over and over again: "A == A because A == A because A == A because A == A"...forever and ever and ever.





*Interestingly enough, it should be noted that a large portion of people who tested to be more Extrinsically motivated in academia than Intrinsically motivated tested as ESTJ on MBTI tests (though MBTI tests are and always will be subject to countless flaws and can never be trusted to conclusively confirm one's type.)

Ok so Ti/Fi users are opportunistic slimeballs gotcha

 

[Dopa]

S types? You mean SJs? SPs seem like the anti tradition, too cool for school crowd. Of course I'm speaking in terms of horribly shallow steryotypes here, a language you seem to be most comfortable with.

MBTI is about generalizations. If you can't deal with those without getting emotional, it might not really be for you. We all know there are many exceptions, things only apply in the aggregate, and we shouldn't have to say it in every single comment. In my experience, and overall it seems, SPs are not as traditional as SJs but still are way to the right on the spectrum of Ns. NJs come next, then NPs. One other interesting marker I'd be interested in seeing would be organized religion. I would expect the same distribution there: SJs being the most affiliated, then SPs, then NJs, then NPs. Anyone got data on that? I could be wrong, of course.

 

[Jet Stream]

MBTI is about generalizations. If you can't deal with those without getting emotional, it might not really be for you. We all know there are many exceptions, things only apply in the aggregate, and we shouldn't have to say it in every single comment. In my experience, and overall it seems, SPs are not as traditional as SJs but still are way to the right on the spectrum of Ns. NJs come next, then NPs. One other interesting marker I'd be interested in seeing would be organized religion. I would expect the same distribution there: SJs being the most affiliated, then SPs, then NJs, then NPs. Anyone got data on that? I could be wrong, of course.

Nah it is not all about generalizations...so many subtle components go into it, so much debate and intrigue...it's actually very much about specifics the more one studies it. & way to dismiss a reasonable disagreement with hints of passion as "getting emotional". ..crumbly facade.

 

[Dopa]

Nah it is not all about generalizations...so many subtle components go into it, so much debate and intrigue...it's actually very much about specifics the more one studies it. & way to dismiss a reasonable disagreement with hints of passion as "getting emotional". ..crumbly facade.

How was telling me I seem comfortable with horribly shallow stereotypes a reasonable disagreement? Don't insult my intelligence and tell me you were being unemotional, please. And aren't you the one who willingly dubbed NTs the most racist because of "their Darwinian leanings and whatnot"?

I'm gonna hang up the phone, okay? Maybe we'll be able to re-connect at a later date.

 

[Jet Stream]

How was telling me I seem comfortable with horribly shallow stereotypes a reasonable disagreement? Don't insult my intelligence and tell me you were being unemotional, please. And aren't you the one who willingly dubbed NTs the most racist because of "their Darwinian leanings and whatnot"?

I'm gonna hang up the phone, okay? Maybe we'll be able to re-connect at a later date.

Ooohh hang up the phone wow you really put me in my place lmao. Your deflection tactics and childish "hang up" are clearly proving your own emotional approach to this. And to go off topic, I rapidly followed up that quoted statement u referenced with a post explaining how I do not take the intended subject matter of this thread seriously and was playing along. I even touched on how regretful I was for not clarifying that to begin with.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm gonna hang up the phone, okay? Maybe we'll be able to re-connect at a later date.

So, doorslamming is INFJ behavior and phoneslamming is INTP behavior. "MBTI is about generalizations." Okay, I just made one.

 

[Totenkindly]

Phone? I never answer it, I always leave it go to voice.

(I guess you could call that a preemptory phoneslam!)

 

[reckful]

The spread on both, for men or women, is only 8%, and the huge majority of people of any type (80% or more of every type!) are not considered racist according to the questions that were asked.
...
If we're looking at a particular type that was 25-30% or more racist than the next type, maybe that would seem more significant, but this? No, not really.

I think the way most people would describe the differences shown in the OP is that T's were 34% more likely to be racist than F's, and S's were 29% more likely to be racist than N's; and I'd say those are pretty significant differences.

 

[Southern Kross]

All right INFPs! Why am I not surprised we're at the bottom?

Can't argue with that, can you?!

:ignores inconvenient flaws in the analysis:

 

[SpankyMcFly]

The same 5 types are most likely to be racist (in a different order based on sex):

ESTJ
ISTJ
ESTP
ISTP
ESFJ

Seems like an ST thing? All four ST types are represented.

The 4 least likely to be racist (in a different order depending on sex) are all the same temperament: NF's

 

[tony_goth]

ST types are more likely to be racist because these people are those who are more likely to think like "this specific individual thing belongs this specific category".

I'm from Calabrian descent (somewhere in Southern Italy), and many Italians (at least southerners) use the word "razza" (which literally means "race") while meaning "category", not only for people, but for other living or unanimated things, even for frying pans. This is one of the word "race"'s ethymological meanings.

Categorizing things doesn't mean being hateful towards categories. Some people say categorizing things is retarded, but it's actually a means to compress information losefully. Unfortunally, as it's a lossful compression, people will "uncompress" it unaccurately, because it's basically impossible to be perfectly accurate with categories. When you say "this person is Black", not anyone will have the same ideas of a Black person or that specific Black person.

You compress lossfully an image or a song in a reasonable compression rate, you won't notice much difference. You compress it with an extreme rate, you'll lose major details.

This is not a digression, but an analogy.

Sensing types "sense" in order to categorize, while Intuitive types do the reciprocal operation.

Thinking types use categorization procedures which appear more "certain", while Feeling types will accept to categorize with less "probability of inclusion" (i.e. belonging to a specific category).

ST types are more likely to be racist for this reason.

A racist ST type will think : "50 Cent" -> "Black" -> "undesirable", with each "->" relation meaning "belongs to that category with very high probability". An SF type may be racist, but probably more likely to make exceptions because the inclusion probability would be lower.