My current hyphothesis, and I'm still testing it.. It's that whilst the other four types respond to hormones and impulses within us, and these four respond to how we process our environment and envision it internally, so this relates more to the cognitive interpretation of the environment, our belief frame and worldview. So, builders, explorers, directors and negotiators are what emerge when we work with our body and environment, when it's more about what we do than how we do it, and humanism, liberalism, libertarianism and conservatism are responses to interpreting how we feel and process our environment cognitively, more about how we do it than what we do. So you could consider these four types political sociology, and the other just plain sociology. :)
Christian likes this post.
Published: 03-29-2014 02:01 pm
Do you predict that certain types will believe in certain political ideologies?
Published: 04-03-2014 04:52 am
Yes, so far it holds up. There appears to be a different base ideology/way of reasoning that kind of could be explained like this:
INTP's, INFJ's and ENTJ's and INTP's have a subjective moral ideology (humanists) , and a tendency towards idealism, where INFPs, ENFJs, INTJs and ENTPs (socialliberal) have an objective moral ideology, an idea of common good, that makes them attract and relate to one anothers way of seeing the world. We both however share a tendency towards abstract/subjective system thinking. Sensors on the other hand, have an objective/empirical form of system thinking. They will generally defend current systems and promote them in their current form. For example liberal socialists would still be reformist, whilst humanists that are into socialist would generally be sceptical of reformism and pragmatism, and there's a noticeable fight there. The same goes for conservatives and libertarians, whilst on the outside they may appear united, internally there's a clash between reformism (conservatives) and idealism (libertarianism). The political systems generally squeeze into two parties or alternatives, and the other two are largely forgotten, and the political system is kind of built for pragmatism and reformism, so if any idealists want to venture into politics they're eventually going to have to compromise.
This means the ideologies are based on how we relate to the systems /modules we participate in, how we live with and relate to our hand of cards we've been dealed (do we adapt to the system we live in? (s) or do we adapt the system to us? (n)) and to how we relate to the morals and rules that are in play around us. (do we hold on to an objective moral compass? (ENTP-INTJ-ENFJ-INFP) or do we shape and make our own moral rules subjectively? (INFJ, ENFP, ENTJ, INTP)
Published: 04-14-2014 10:17 am
I got Director on the Helen Fischer test, was it expected?
Published: 04-15-2014 11:51 pm
I got Negotiator.
Published: 04-16-2014 05:14 am
Christians results are expected, dunno who Neo is, so can't say. SFPs and NTJs should generally correlate to being directors. Her test is a self-assessment test, so take it at it's face value, but I think her dividers are atleast somewhat on the point, she just mixes up some character traits that aren't related, and she makes builders appear more conservative than they need to be. If I'd measure social riffs nowadays, I'd do it through her four types somewhat like this:
Still, despite this, I'd still class INFJs and ENFJs as Explorer-types. However, most INFJs and ENFJs in the personality descriptors are always highly conscientous. It's a reason why alot of ENFPs self-assess as INFJs, because the ENFP and INFP descriptors bias them towards low conscientousness. Most NFPs are actually generally builder-correlates. The reason I give Helen Fisher so much credit over the other two is because hers is the most sociological/antropological, where the Big5 and the MBTI are somewhat more vague/impractical. It's not because I feel like her instrument is all that accurate, it's just one of the more accurate I can find, and it's only four types so it's somewhat more manageable.
Christian likes this post.
Published: 04-18-2014 03:08 am
I think the Agreeableness factor should be anti-correlated with DE in Neojungian Typology.
Like the more analytical a person becomes during talking / writing the less it will take emotional and social values into account during the talking. The self-relection process that people use during talking with DE is analytical - like does what I am saying / writing make any semantic or analytical sense.
So I high use of DE would probably direct anti-correlate with the rate of Agreeableness in the Five Factor model.
In the same way, the more OE a person uses the more Agreeable it will be during talking / writing. Emotional and social-values will be taken into account during self-reflecting on the self talking / writing making a more social communication-style. On the other hand having a strong direction, like being a Executor in Neojungian Typology, would mean your less flexible and understanding of information that doesn't fit your agenda.
So to summarize:
* Organic Execution (OE) increase Agreeableness.
* Deterministic Execution (DE) decreases Agreeableness
* Executors (E) have less Agreeableness.
* Processors (P) have higher Agreeableness.
Published: 04-18-2014 04:33 am
Updated: 04-18-2014 04:34 am
Yes, sociologically, I observe this aswell. There are INFJs, in particular directors, that score low on agreeableness. (For example Thomas Chenault) and this happens as a result of having a director riff. Director riffs for INFJs present through low OE and strong DP. Cognitively and sociologically, those seem harmonious. For ENFJs, low OE is not really possible, and I've found riffs of ENFJs that score low on agreeableness, as a result of having strong director riffs, once again, and strong autonomy. However, they still show strong agreeableness with people within their group who work together with them. It's just everyone else they struggle to cooperate with.
I would therefore say that negotiators (NTP-SFJ, but they still have OE) coincide more with scoring high on agreeableness. Explorers (NFJ-STPs) score lower on trust and straightforwardness, and generally low on modesty, compliance and most of the sub-factors in agreeableness, even if high OE makes us come across as warm and genuinly well-meaning. It's a reason alot of INFJs want to self-assess as INTJ. They don't tend to score high on compliance or modesty, it's a common thing for NFJs to leave groups and projects because they can't compromise with the group (autonomy). A factor that may make NFJs relate to agreeableness is altruism (in general wanting to do something to embetter society) but most NFJs would score high on offbeatness and wanting to strike themselves out of the group. It's a big explorer (NFJ-STP) quirk.
You can't group all OE's together. COE and AOE leads to completely different flavours. So you could say COE scores high on agreeableness, but that there is no correlation (either pro or against) for AOE. Or you could try to find a definition that fits both, but the Big5 current doesn't.