Economics, personality and Kiersey's co-operative/utilitarian dichotomy

[Serotonin]

Kiersey divides his 4 temperaments into a co-operative/utilitarian dichotomy: SJs and NFs have greater tendencies for co-operativism, and SPs and NTs are more utilitarian and individualistic.

This may be reaching, but I think this is only half the story.

From personal experience, I also think that people whose preferences are in the Te-Fi axis are more utilitarian, and Fe-Ti axes are more co-operative.
Te is about business sense, and is in essence competitiveness. Te-strong people are in their element in an attritive environment where they are, for example, competing in sport or trying to outdo their competitors in business. I have never met a CEO or manager of a small company who isn't a xxTJ, for example. People with strong Fi I've found, also have personal desires that sometimes override the tendency for equal treatment for all. I've found they subtly try to subvert the status quo of "equality" so they can get the best outcome for themselves. My ESFP ex-housemate, for example, used to avoid communal housework by suddenly being busy when there was work to be done, and through underhand social means ended up doing a lot less dishwashing than me and my other housemate.

People with strong Fe, on the other hand, unsurprisingly, have a tendency to be selfless and to share. They will always be generous with rounds of drinks, and would rather end up having contributed their share to communal work rather than getting the most out of the rewards. I've seen FJs work tirelessly and quietly without expecting reward or favour in return. My ISFJ father was strict, but always fair, and made a point of doing as much housework, cooking, and maintenance on top of his full-time job. He was, and is still, always busy, and during my childhood constantly looked out for my well-being and happiness. Ti I think is a little more difficult to correlate with co-operativism.... maybe the example in A Beautiful Mind where INTP John Nash works out a selfless dating strategy, that he shares with all his friends, so all of them can have a girl with them at the end of the night. Even though the maths seems a little dodgy, I think people with strong Ti are generally disinclined to be greedy and wanton, and are happy with a co-operativist system, because in their minds it may "make sense" or result in an "equilibrium".

Anyway if we add this extra dimension of T-F axis to Kiersey's existing SJ-NF/SP-NT dichotomy, we get:


Most capitalist/utilitarian:

xNTJs
xSFPs


Able to be sympathetic to both sides (i.e. have both utilitarian and co-operativist tendencies):

xSTJs
xSTPs
xNTPs
xNFPs


Most communist/co-operative:

xSFJs
xNFJs

In this sense, in a highly individualistic, utilitarian world, my intuition tells me that NTJs and SFPs would feel the most comfortable. And that's exactly what I see in people whose type I know. To give examples, my university supervisors (both INTJs) are very happy and seem to enjoy life. My ESFP ex-housemate is happy and loves his job, going out, partying and making the most of what society has to offer. He also votes conservative and supports the economic policies of the current neo-con government.

In contrast, the xSFJs and xNFJs I know are seem to feel deeply uncomfortable about negotiating this decentralised, self-serving world. The FJish people I know are part of left-wing student activist groups, social workers and health workers who feel that their government funded positions are not getting enough money. Many are religious and feel uncomfortable about the current TJish government's hard line on immigrants, and de-prioritising of health and education.

Idealistically, a socialist nation would be good, or so I thought in my late teens. I abandoned my Marxist tendencies at 19 when I read Camus' "The Rebel" (abridged message: Marxism and Christianity are both flawed because they anticipate the non-existant Eternal City;the best way for man to express is displeasure at the state of affairs is not through violent revolution but through art). I guess as an INTP I can see the merits of both methods, but have to come out on the side of capitalism, since socialism is more easily subverted and corrupted by pure utilitarians (i.e. NTJs and especially SFPs). The chagrin of the xxFJs is a burden we have to shoulder, through government generosity to education and health, IMO.

This theory could be total bullshit, but tell me what you think.

[Serotonin]

An additional observation: From that list it seems theoretically, people with strong Ni (that is the NTJs and the NFJs) are highly polarised according to economic philosophy. Maybe this explains why Ni is the rarest perceiving function in the U.S. population (about 7% - I forget where the link is). Ne is much more common (about 18%.... Se is 29%.... Si of course is way out in front at 46%), maybe because it provides a more adaptive, "middle-of-the-road" philosophy as according to my theory.

[Nemesis]

I am not a communist.

[Zephyrus055]

Makes sense so far. I know several INTJs who are capitalistic extremists, and I know an ENFJ who is a commie.

[Nemesis]

Makes sense so far. I know several INTJs who are capitalistic extremists, and I know an ENFJ who is a commie.
:whyi:

[Snowflake]

:rofl:

Hahaha, commie! It's all good, because I sympathize with you. I'm a libertarian.

[Edmond Zedo]

Sure, why not.

I don't think Keirsey ever wrote a word about functions. Did he?

[Conan]

I dont sympathize with communism. On the other hand that sounds like something I could take advantage of.

[Pooja]

I'm a libertarian. I was under the assumption that the majority of INTPs were also libertarians, but then again, I could be wrong. Anyway, aren't commies the polar opposites of libertarians?

[Conan]

I'm a libertarian. I was under the assumption that the majority of INTPs were also libertarians, but then again, I could be wrong. Anyway, aren't commies the polar opposites of libertarians?

Yes, though Madrigal will disagree because "true" communism otherwise known as magic happy land is actually the exact opposite of "real" communism, otherwise known as statism.

[Serotonin]

I'm a libertarian. I was under the assumption that the majority of INTPs were also libertarians, but then again, I could be wrong. Anyway, aren't commies the polar opposites of libertarians?

Practically and economically speaking, yes. People try to paint socially liberal types as communist, but when you look at the personal freedoms of the Chinese, North Koreans and the Cubans.... :dont:

[nomir_dva]

Yes, though Madrigal will disagree because "true" communism otherwise known as magic happy land is actually the exact opposite of "real" communism, otherwise known as statism.

I'm a left-leaning libertarian. The Soviet Union, by the way, referred to itself as a socialist country. Communism was the magic happy land that was supposed to come into being after the dictators lost interest in their boring occupations.

[Biff_Loman]

I'm a libertarian. I was under the assumption that the majority of INTPs were also libertarians, but then again, I could be wrong.

My main problem with libertarianism is the problem of the tragedy of the commons. A strong (read: interventionist) state is necessary to prevent people from impinging upon common resources, such as air, water, fish stocks, whatever. Any rational individual can degrade these resources at a profit to him or herself, while dividing the cost between everyone who benefits from said resource.

There's also the whole problem of sustainability in general. Humans generally don't possess enough foresight to preserve, for example, the earth for future use by other generations. Which is fine; if a person wants to fuck over his children so he can have an easier ride in his lifetime, that's his choice - but it sure isn't mine.

[Lee]

My main problem with libertarianism is the problem of the tragedy of the commons. A strong (read: interventionist) state is necessary to prevent people from impinging upon common resources, such as air, water, fish stocks, whatever. Any rational individual can degrade these resources at a profit to him or herself, while dividing the cost between everyone who benefits from said resource.That isn't a problem with libertarianism, simply because libertarianism is about limiting government, not abolishing it completely. Law enforcement, armed forces and regulations where there is a public goods problem/tragedy of the commons is perfectly acceptable while still being libertarian.

Ultimately, the cure for the public goods problem/tragedy of the commons lies not in the hands of the government, but in technological development which will ultimately allow for such commodities to be absorbed into the market. Government intervention need only be precise, such regulations should be upheld the same as any law. Ultimately, these regulations are only temporary until technology can make such common goods practical prospects for privatizd ownership, thus curing the problem; until then, government intervention is nothing but a band aid.

That being said, I think there is an important dissociation between classical liberalism and mordern liberalism that is often unrecognised. Though you seem to be portraying liberalism as a form of anarcho-capitalism, which it is not.

[Lee]

This theory could be total bullshit, but tell me what you think.Oh, it's complete and utter unmitigated bullshit.

Okay, I am joking, because I am very interested in the psychology which lies behind political ideologies. There is a peculiar and persistent discrepancy in politics and economics that exists between what people think should work, and what actually works, the two exist in an almost continual friction. A kind of societal darwinian selection keeps pushing society towards what actually works, yet peoples moral intuitions keep pulling it apart.

The source of these intuitions (not iNtuition, in a typological sense) is of great interest to me, I have a bunch of ideas and stuff i'd like to write down, though perhaps later. It would be interesting to try and apply type theory to these patterns, though I question how applicable or helpful that would be.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

I read a theory somewhere that explained the differences between left and right polical affiliations as manifestations of two different groups of ancestors. So there were on one side collectivist, artistic, left-handed, matriarchal hominids with loose sexual morals one side and individualistic, materialistic, right-handed, patriarchal hominids with strong territorial instincts on the other side. At a given point these two groups mixed (peacefully and/or forcefully) and the result of the conflicting social instincts hasn't been stabilized yet. Hence, politics.

In MBTI terms the first group would be ENFP, the second ISTJ (as I understood it).

[Biff_Loman]

Ultimately, the cure for the public goods problem/tragedy of the commons lies not in the hands of the government, but in technological development which will ultimately allow for such commodities to be absorbed into the market.

That's a little pie-in-the-sky. This technology might not arrive soon enough to prevent those resources from being degraded.


That being said, I think there is an important dissociation between classical liberalism and mordern liberalism that is often unrecognised. Though you seem to be portraying liberalism as a form of anarcho-capitalism, which it is not.

I haven't done any serious reading on the subject, and that is indeed what I thought it was.

[Johan]

Individualistic and ISTJs? :D

[Lee]

That's a little pie-in-the-sky. This technology might not arrive soon enough to prevent those resources from being degraded.Which is exactly why there should be regulations. However, deciding what is and is not worthy of regulation is not always so simple.


I haven't done any serious reading on the subject, and that is indeed what I thought it was.Anarcho-capitalism is the desire for the complete abolishment of government, all roles currently being fulfilled by the government would be turned over to an open market. There is no school of libeterian thought that advocates such extremes.

Personally, I believe anarcho-capitalism would inevitably lead to feudalism, because the over-arching legal system that can only be provided by a publically funded government is necessary to render cheating an inneffective and risky strategy. In other words, laws make destructive competition a far less viable means of achieving individual prosperity, which pushes people into a system of mutually beneficial trade and constructive competition as the only reliable means of achieving that individual prosperity. This is how the counter-intuitive scenario of everyone acting in their own self-interest leads to prosperity for everyone. Why that should be counter-intuitive is one of the questions which the topic of this thread poses, do functional attitudes lead some towards very different conclusions?

Without laws, there is no reliable means of preventing cheaters from continually breaking contracts, which forces both sides into cycles of revenge and the emergence of an honour culture. Just look at what occurs in the areas of the market that work outside of the law, such as the weapons black market, drugs and prostitution, they develop honour cultures, where respect, cycles of retribution and paranoia reign.

[Biff_Loman]

Which is exactly why there should be regulations. However, deciding what is and is not worthy of regulation is not always so simple.

It's tricky as hell, I agree.


Anarcho-capitalism is the desire for the complete abolishment of government, all roles currently being fulfilled by the government would be turned over to an open market. There is no school of libeterian thought that advocates such extremes.

Although I refused to read most of Robespierre's posts, this was the impression I got from him. I thought it was bullshit.



Without laws, there is no reliable means of preventing cheaters from continually breaking contracts, which forces both sides into cycles of revenge and the emergence of an honour culture. Just look at what occurs in the areas of the market that work outside of the law, such as the weapons black market, drugs and prostitution, they develop honour cultures, where respect, cycles of retibution and paranoia reign.

Exactly; I could not agree with you more. I've misunderstood the libertarian position because I haven't investigated it. The above scenario is precisely what I envisioned, and that obviously doesn't bode well for a society.

/me starts reading

[Biff_Loman]

Btw, the day I stopped reading Robespierre's contribution to the board was when he linked to an article that brushed aside concerns about peak oil, claiming that gasoline will inevitably be replaced by a higher quality product at some point - i.e., something with greater economic value, possibly with higher energy density. Essentially, the article argued that we'd never really run out of oil because the market needs it, and the only reason we'd ever stop using it is because we'd come up with something even better.

The physical world has no responsibility to conform to our fantasies. I suppose Robespierre tainted my view of a libertarian thought, as I was unfamiliar with the concept before coming to this forum.

[Lee]

Btw, the day I stopped reading Robespierre's contribution to the board was when he linked to an article that brushed aside concerns about peak oil, claiming that gasoline will inevitably be replaced by a higher quality product at some point - i.e., something with greater economic value, possibly with higher energy density. Essentially, the article argued that we'd never really run out of oil because the market needs it, and the only reason we'd ever stop using it is because we'd come up with something even better.

The physical world has no responsibility to conform to our fantasies. I suppose Robespierre tainted my view of a libertarian thought, as I was unfamiliar with the concept before coming to this forum.This is a big departure from the thread topic, but nevertheless.

The impending natural resource crisis has been on the cards from so called experts for years, but far from the inevitable rising prices as a result of shortages and an economic catastrophe, we have seen lower prices, more resources and economic prosperity. If consistency is any measure of reliability, then excuse me for being suspicious of anyone predicting another impending economic disaster, especially when such views are often accompanied by books that sell very well to the public, who are ever paranoid of science-fiction visions of a cataclysmic future.

The price of oil is not necessarily indicative of how much oil exists, this is because the price is regulated by known reserves, while the actual amount of oil under the earth's surface may yet be much greater.

The price of oil fluctuates due to ordinary market forces such as supply, demand and competition, which push prices down and encourages suppliers to find ways of delivering oil to more customers and places and do so more efficiently. Searching for new reserves of oil is very costly, building drilling platforms, speculation about possible reserves and the risk that you will dig a dry hole. So it is best to carry on drilling current reserves for now, because such oil is easily accessible and plentiful. As current reserves diminish and prices go up the value of discovering new reserves increases, until it becomes profitable to start searching for new reserves. However, this reverses once new reserves are discovered, at which point it is economic to cease exploration for new resources.

This is essentially what has occured since the various doomsday predictions were made, new reserves are discovered once it becomes economically viable to do so. Projections using the resources held in currently known reserves have been unreliable because of this, they also tend to dismiss the increasing efficiency which technology allows us to put those resources to use.

Of course, there is not an infinite supply of natural resources, but the question is how much is there? I am no geologist, I do not know how much oil is likely to still be buried under the earth, so I cannot confidently predict whether we have or have not discovered it all already, though I suspect there will be plenty more yet.

I suspect this due to the way markets work, in the case of a real shortage, prices skyrocket and force people to ration resources. In other words, people will use far less oil once it really is close to running out, at which time the value of alternative energy sources and efficient use of the oil we have will be far greater, it will be pursued more vehemently. Ideally, we will have sufficient oil reserves to last 100 to 200 years, during which time technology will have made other energy sources more viable economically, including resources of oil that are currently impractical to tap.

All this hinges on how much undiscovered oil there actually is, but the idea itself is perfectly reasonable.

[Biff_Loman]

Eh, I don't like that reasoning at all. It shifts the responsibilty for creating a sustainable civilization onto the shoulders of future generations, instead of taking the initiative and using our creativity to create it now. I read that as a kind of advanced procrastination to which I do not suscribe.

[TaylorS]

This INTP is a left-libertarian (anti-big government and anti-capitalism).