The Political Types Explained
I will be unequivocal: understanding these types is your task as a human being. Successful individuation requires acknowledging that each of these types of people has a definite, positive, and useful role to play in society. The alternative is tantamount to adopting a hateful and intolerant attitude which will lead inevitably to failure, isolation, and perhaps even infamy.
Do you have examples for these eight groups? Your writings are so abstract that it's often difficult to understand how they correlate with real life, to the point that I often feel a sneaking (if unproven) suspicion that they don't.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Quaero Veritas.
Are you serious? 0.o
Well how about this: which group do you fall into?
Can't you use your ahem... Ne to make the writing more understandable to Ne egos?
Er, yes, I'm serious. For example:
"They are innovators, capable to deducing ingenious (some would say genius) means of variously releasing energy through technological development..."
What "energy" are you referring to? Literal energy? Mental energy? Metaphorical energy?
"The conservative reformer believes it their prerogative to open and close flows of energy as is required to prevent deterioration. They are protective and would prefer to prevent deterioration from starting by permitting such energy to flow as would prevent it."
Again, what energy are you talking about? And how is this "opening and closing" accomplished? Without specific examples, I have no idea what sort of thing you're talking about. It may make sense in your head, but I can't read your mind.
Because the categories are so vague, I have no way of determining which one I might fit into. Where good exists, I want to preserve it. Where it does not exist, I want to create it. I am for change if it leads to good, and against it if it leads to evil. I prefer to preserve traditions where they do no harm, and destroy them where they do cause harm. I prefer a stable society if it is a good society, but I prefer chaos and change if it is a bad society.
Basically, most of the things that motivate my political beliefs are not even mentioned in your categories, and what you do mention is described in terms too general to decipher. Like I said, specific examples of people who hold these views would help immensely -- I could then at least try to figure out where you're coming from and attempt to reverse-engineer your thought process.
Quaero Veritas.
Energy is energy. e.g. the ability to do work.
Yes you say you are all these things... but do you practice what you preach? Are you really fair, or do assumptions and prejudices get in the way?
Political type is reflected in the choices a person makes in ambiguous situations. When data is sparse and evidence is uncertain, innate preferences to believe hold sway.
You have already betrayed one tendency of yours: a tendency to doubt categorical theories of behavioral persistence except in light of specific evidence.
Okay. So how exactly do Conservative Reformers open and close flows of the ability to do work? What does that mean? I really do want to understand what you're talking about, if only so I can figure out whether I agree or disagree with it.
My political activity is limited to voting and occasionally having political conversations with people in real life and on the Internet. In so far as I can be said to "practice" anything, politically, yes, I do practice what I preach. As for assumptions and prejudices, I seek truth in all things, so I am constantly examining and re-examining what I believe, in an effort to eliminate assumptions and pre-judgements. No-one is omniscient, however, so everyone makes assumptions in some areas. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with these questions.
Close: I tend to try to clarify vague categories, in an attempt to understand them more distinctly. That's what I'm doing here. I can't even begin to doubt or accept a category that I haven't yet defined in my mind.
Quaero Veritas.
I wonder what it says about me that I understood what the hell he was talking about.
I'd say I'm a conservative reformer -- a pragmatic, cold, hard realist who believes each situation requires its own unique policy tools and one-size-fits-all solutions don't work.
What do these signs mean—,
, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Alright then, I'll help.
Rick DeLong is an excellent example a person who intentionally crossed barriers in hopes of "uncorking" the potential of a dormant science. He hoped that by introducing socionics in the west, he could find an audience more receptive to his hope of seeing the 16 types empirically substantiated. He has been criticized for being overly protective of socionics' integrity, hoping to expand the reach of socionics while precluding its deterioration into a fringe science. (he has given considerable attention to the "fringe schools" movement that occurred in the East, and determinedly opposed McNew's bid to craft his own school by the same method). For all these reasons I consider him a conservative reformer.
Bill Gates is another example of the type. He has made a living by emulating others' technology and aggressively promoting it. However I consider his character flawed in that he failed to see to the safety and security of many of the people who created the means to his wealth. This because he doesn't really have respect for them: he is in essence a glorified thief, a sort of Robin Hood who steals from the newly rich to give to the poor.
Hillary Clinton is what I would call a liberal reformer. She aggressively pushed for health care reform regardless of the political consequences. Access to care is something near to liberal reformer hearts: it is a means by which to arrest physiological decline. Also notice that the liberal reformers did not push for "free" health care -- they mean only to enable individuals to arrest decline once it begins, not to facilitate their own ability to maintain their health. Contrast that with Bill Gate's strategy of mass inoculations to prevent disease in Africa.
Al Gore is the picture of a traditionalist liberal. In fact, I mostly had him in mind when I wrote the description. But look to all of the "sterotypical" liberals who have echoed his call to save the environment as proof that the traditionalist liberal tendency is not unique to him. Obama is another example: the decline of our economy suits his temperament quite well... he probably realized the signs of decline and saw in them an opportunity to run. (hence his comment in 2008 that the American dream was "slipping away")
I exemplify the reformer liberal temperament. It is the reason I have developed understanding of personality, to calm the chaos in my relationships and "know" people. Jung himself is another example, as is greenantler and probably April, too.
George W. Bush is the iconic reformer conservative. Compassionate conservatism will always be the creed of the same. Bush succeeded in persuading American reformers that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He also failed to appreciate the direness of the situation in Iraq until after the 2006 elections. His administration repeatedly sought to emphasize the "good" things brought about by the removal of Hussein and to downplay the bad.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 08-28-2010 at 05:29 AM.
I pretend to be all of these to get what I want. I guess that makes me an opportunist.
Thank goodness you didn't say conservative reformer. I'd have been obligated to shoot you for making me share a type with... that.
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Perhaps. My uncle and Mitt Romney both share in your unpredictability. (I don't think you're an opportunist, just a person who has unusual ideological flexibility).
Romney is a reformer conservative, FTR. My uncle is a liberal (not sure what variant) and you... you seem like a traditionalist liberal. He's probably a traditionalist liberal as well.
Karl Rove is the archetypal traditionalist conservative. I swear the guy must have been pulled from A Christmas Story. He never escaped the memory of 1950s America.
Me and traditionalist conservatives don't get along that well.
Interesting point: the embarrassment of the reformer conservatives over Iraq has imbalanced the influence of traditionalist conservatives. Or so it seems. The tendency is for U.S. traditionalist conservatives to appeal for the public to "stop" the liberal reformer/traditionalist liberal reform machine by replacing liberals with conservatives in Congress. In the 1990s the conservatives arrested reform in the country by stonewalling Clinton's agenda. However, when the reformer conservatives came to power, they were more interested in working WITH the reformers. In America conservative reformers tend to cast the deciding votes as a factor of their willingness to "remove" people on basis of energetic facilitation: they determine who needs to be removed regardless of party, and remove them. Now Sarah Palin is interesting: she's a sociopathic conservative reformer who dons the persona of a reformer conservative, thus appealing to both sensibilities and radicalizing the middle. Sociopaths in general are interesting because they feel the need to resort to their secondary political type, which has an extremist, adversarial temperament, to advance their agenda. (this assuming their primary type is not already extreme, in which case you end up with a self-styled messiah who puts a nice face on blatant evil).
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 08-28-2010 at 07:17 AM.
What American politician(s) would you classify as conservative reformers?
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Excellent. Now I can start to understand what you're getting at. The more examples, the better. It helps define the boundaries of what exactly we're talking about.
To see if I'm catching on at all, let's take an example: Rush Limbaugh. If I understand your theory correctly, I would say he is Life-Focused; he certainly takes neither survival nor success for granted, and believes that constant activity and vigilance is necessary to ensure either. Conservative Traditionalist, maybe?
Would Jimmy Carter be a Liberal Traditionalist? His pessimistic "malaise" speech, his "workhorse" involvement with Habitat for Humanity, etc., seem like they match up with the description.
[Edit: Woud Reagan be a Conservative Reformer? Or would he also be a Conservative Traditionalist?]
Quaero Veritas.
Yeah you actually pegged him better than I did. I had him down as a traditionalist conservative, but I think I had neglected the antisocial element.
I think Glenn Beck probably belongs in that category as well. It fits his rivalry with Palin.
No, I think he fits in with Obama and Gore. Traditionalist liberal is it.Would Jimmy Carter be a Liberal Traditionalist? His pessimistic "malaise" speech, his "workhorse" involvement with Habitat for Humanity, etc., seem like they match up with the description.
As a general rule, all the hardcore environmentalists are traditionalist liberals.
Conservative traditionalist. He had a decidely aristocratic air that pervaded his presidency. George H. and Barbara Bush are both conservative traditionalists as well.[Edit: Woud Reagan be a Conservative Reformer? Or would he also be a Conservative Traditionalist?]
Now as for a liberal traditionalist, you need look no farther than right here:
Oh, and...
Communism, as originally advocated by Karl Marx, is a liberal traditionalist ideology. "From history immemorial the worker has been exploited by his conservative traditionalist overlord. The only way to break free of the shackles of oppression is to rebel against the hated bourgeoisie which inhibits the advancement of the proud labor force." It's like my father always said, "there are two classes, the haves and the have-nots." "That's right Randy, that's exactly right." East KY, where I hail from, is a stronghold of liberal traditionalism.
Now here's a conservative traditionalist:
Notice the splendor Napoleon associated himself with: not a single detail of his person, following his coronation, was anything less than exquisite. Recall that he famously undermined himself by scorning his men as they froze to death in the Russian snow.
Napoleon is an example of what happens when you take your political type too far.
Napoleon was a courageous individual and was able to reinforce the stability of his position by invading other countries under the pretense of reforming them. However in essence he just refitted their native cultures with the cultural norms he selected from the chaos of the French Revolution.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 08-28-2010 at 09:41 AM.
I read all 8 but I don't know which I'm closest to. Tcaud, which political type do you think Ron Paul is? I'm probably that one
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Let's see what Dmitri Lytov thinks about "energy":
Your theory doesn't make sense to me. You only distinguish between:
- Liberal and Conservative.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative but communist.
- Reformer and Traditionalist.
I'm neither reformer nor traditionalist but revolutionary.
So what about the "Revolutionary Communists", "Revolutionary Fascists" etc.?
Last edited by JohnDo; 08-28-2010 at 10:29 AM.
Very few. Palin for one, John McCain for another. The Tea Party appears to be spearheaded by conservative reformers and conservative traditionalists, both of which have been alienated from the GOP by Bush and the Jack Abramoff scandal. Reformer conservative expansion of government has made conservative traditionalists very upset, and McCain captured well in his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination how deeply.
Conservative reformers do better in Britain. Tony Blair is one: he made it a point to remove the last vestiges of conservative traditionalist aristocracy during his tenure as PM, and fully supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. In general, Bush governed the United States by leading conservative reformers, which the traditionalist conservatives disliked but felt they had to go along with because Bush "had the authority". But there are very few... there is a certain association between conservative reformers and the psychologically disordered... they tend to keep company around them that the other political types won't, associating with unsavory types and such, such as sociopaths. This gives them a flexibility and perspective -- even sympathy -- that the other political types lack, but which leaves them distrusted with power and authority.
Ah I just thought of one: Olympia Snowe. Now THERE's a conservative reformer.
Ron Paui is a conservative traditionalist who takes his type too seriously.I read all 8 but I don't know which I'm closest to. Tcaud, which political type do you think Ron Paul is? I'm probably that oneYou'll notice this if you pay close attention to the implications of his ideas.
Revolutionaries and communists do fit the theory, but they tend to have difficulty accepting the legitimacy of their opposites' function.
Revolutionaries are opposite Napoleon, the imperialist, and are reformers. But I want to caution that extreme traits aren't very distinguishable at the level of just 8 types. To observe the differences which characterize their outlook, you must descend further, to the topic of whether a person focuses primarily on individuals or groups. Revolution is violent initiative to reform and could be just about anybody, depending on the context in which the revolution takes place and the forward/backward direction of the same. For every revolution, observe, there is a counter revolution aimed at defeating the purpose of the revolution and nullifying its effect. But revolutions always mean change, and so require the use of the change processor.
And I don't care what Lytov says to the point that he isn't being reasonable.
I'm not really sure which one I am, and this thread mostly reminds me how little I know of US politics.
I'd tentatively say reformer conservative. "Reformer" in general is closest to how I'd describe myself, but "ignoring negative" part is far from true, considering that reforms are meant exactly to fix it to begin with, ignoring them is lack of reform (or worse - "reforms" making it, in fact, worse) and it's something I'm most often disappointed to see, lack of actual solutions. I also think it's better to modernize than wait until it's broke. But this unfailing optimism and looking at slight benefit despite overall negative balance is something I can't see myself doing, considering that I tend to criticize first. Additionally, I'm very far from "conservative" in conventional meaning of the world, though I'm not sure if it's meant to reflect actual views here.
I don't relate to any of the life focused types.
I'm going to try to go a level deeper (from 8 types to 16)... we'll see if that helps. 8 types aren't normally very useful.
But I don't think I have the energy to write those descriptions at the moment. So let's discuss the 8 type system a bit more.
I think you are a life focused type. Consider, why is it important to fix what's broken? Consider it this way: jobs vs the economy. Life focused types are more likely to focus on the economy, while consciousness focused types put more emphasis on jobs.
If you pay attention, you can see political biases mostly everywhere. Fox News, for example, has a bias towards conservatives. CNN has a bias towards reformers, CNBC has a bias towards traditionalists, and MSNBC has a bias towards liberals.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 08-28-2010 at 09:25 PM.
I think I'm a "traditionalist liberal".
What happened to the old political types? Is this just a development?
The end is nigh
These are the same, but using a different categorization scheme. Remember that a political type has three components, and the ego and shadow both have distinct political types that are in direct conflict. This scheme uses the direction and phase components, leaves out the perspective component, and apprises both the ego and shadow types as one unit (producing eight types).
Why was this thread moved?
I see problems with job market as a symptom of economic issues, so yes, it would be "the economy", though the term is used so broadly and meaninglessly by politicians as to count as "grass-speak" (not sure of the English term, if there's any) in my book.
I've never watched any of these channels except CNN, and that only rarely.
Looking at life focused types:
Liberal Reformer - I agree with focus on reversing the tendency to deterioration, that's when modernization is necessary. I'd say my ideas usually join what you describe as accepting and producing mode here, except I realize myself they're largely unrealistic and rarely if ever share them with anyone. In practice - which you've earlier stated is what counts - I'm limited to supporting promising reforms. In theory, I suppose I could fit here.
Conservative Reformer - I'm suspicious of the "set of tools" concept, being often frustrated at people using known tools in no longer matching reality. Though looking at it from the other side, I agree with necessity of using the right tool in each situation. Then there's difference in preventing rather than reversing deterioration - I can't really think of the situation illustrating this at the moment. I suppose I could fit here, considering the same issue as with Liberal Reformer - I'm not really doing much, not being in politics.
Liberal Traditionalist - to have someone else work hard, perhaps. I don't really see how I could be one, but this type is scarcely described so I'd like to learn more if you think I go there.
Conservative Traditionalist - I honestly don't think I could be this type.
I'd also say I'm an optimist where ideas are concerned and pessimist when it comes to implementing them.
Can't decide between reformer and traditionalist liberal. The more things progress I see more of the reformer liberals description of chaos but it could be due to the failings to change.
The line blurs somewhat when you move into adulthood.
Jughead: traditionalist liberals tend to have an impulse for radical reform -- they feel most at home working towards some type of reformation external to existing institutions, with the ultimate intent of replacing them entirely. This due to their conservative reformer ids. And, they may be less likely to judge other people's natures than reformer liberals. The impulse is to believe that something can be done about the desperate condition suggested by the situation, no matter how tough the odds.
Reformer liberals ultimately take the road of internal reformation, choosing to cleave to, penetrate, and reform established institutions as per their conservative traditionalist ids. "Engagement, not confrontation" is their motto. They think it very important to understand what cannot be changed, so as to avoid wasting time and opportunities unnecessarily. This in contrast to their childhood in which they tried in vain to bridge gaps that were impossible, in practical terms, to bridge.
The main idea with respect to x-liberal attitudes towards their respective ids is summed up thus: "as a child I failed to make a difference. As an adult, I certainly will not regress to that earlier state, nor will I fail." Traditionalist liberals tend to believe in others' abilities and doubt their own... reformer liberals tend to believe in their own abilities and doubts others' (after adulthood). However these tendencies tend to be very carefully weighed so as to use either as the (although there is a slight personal bias), except when the individual in question is consequentialist, in which one takes a hard line toward the entire other half of the group, giving you "pro-establishment" and "anti-establishment" liberals. (consider the homeopathic vs prescription medicine struggle between some doctors).
I revised the conservative reformer description.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
