# If we live in an SJ world, why is this the case?



## teddy564339

(I'm posting this in all four temperament forums to hear the different opinions from each group).


So first off, I know it's a huge assumption to say that we live in an SJ world. This has been discussed in other threads, and some have said that Ns really run the world, but since there are so few of them (and there only need to be a few of them) that they have a lot of SJs to be "mini-managers" that are out there holding most of the authority positions.


But, I've noticed that on PerC, people of the other three temperaments seem to have the most frustrations with SJs. Part of this seems to stem from the fact that SJs are often in positions of authority over them (parent, boss, teacher), and part of it seems to be just that SJs are the biggest group of the four temperaments.


Now, I also know that it's an assumption that SJs are the largest of the temperaments. There's no true way to measure these stats. However, there seems to be no strong reason to think that Ss don't greatly outnumber Ns, and most people's experiences tend to point to there being more SJs than SPs.


Simply put, most people on PerC tend to think that we live in an SJ world.


While it's possible that this is just due to mis-typing people as SJs, it seems to be a pretty consistent theme on PerC. One could argue that PerC isn't a good sample group since the average PerC user isn't the same as the average person (there are more Ns if nothing else), but it's the only group I can discuss this with anyway.



So I guess what I'm wondering is this: If we live in an SJ world, what causes it to be that way?


The first answer that tends to pop up is: "SJs are the biggest group. So, because there are so many of them, they get to establish the norms and the rules, and the other temperaments just have to deal with it, even if they're really frustrated."


But then I'm left wondering, "Well, why are SJs the biggest group?" Is this true across cultures, or is this just a Western culture trend? Has it been true across history? Is there an evolutionary reason why SJs are the biggest group?



For me, what it boils down to is this: Is it necessary for a society to function without SJs being the biggest group? Are SJs the biggest group because that's the easiest way for a society to run? Kind of like an ant colony or bee hive....do there need to be more "worker" types than there other types? 

If not, what other societies have there been throughout history, and why have they not lasted? Are there more balanced cultures in the world today, and if so, what are they like?



What makes me think of all of this is that Ns in particular seem to be very frustrated with the SJ state of the world, but it seems like this has been going on for centuries, at least in the Western world. Maybe our species is set up because it only needs a few Ns coming up with new ideas, and it needs more SJs to carry them out. I just don't think it's a random occurrence that there are so many SJs. 


So I'm curious to hear more thoughts on this.


----------



## TAHTGUY

It's because evolutionary SJs we're the ones who survived, it's hard to survive in the wild if you're living in your head iNtuitive or laid back Perciever.

Look at wild animals, they react to slightest movement, sound, it's pure Se. They also need to know about their territory, know where they laid eggs'n'stuff , that's Si.

Wild is for Js too, animals almost don't tolerate other species, they don't procastriate, they need to survive, take action'n'stuff.

iNtuitives are alot less aware of environment.

It may sound like typism, but I gotta say it, I think that SJs are alot closer to animal world that iNtuitive percievers. Don't be offended, please. 

Also I think since our society is constantly progressing, after like 2000 years there will be alot less SJs and more iNtuitives, oh that will be an utopia, sadly I won't live that long.


----------



## teddy564339

TAHTGUY said:


> Also I think since our society is constantly progressing, after like 2000 years there will be alot less SJs and more iNtuitives, oh that will be an utopia, sadly I won't live that long.


I think it's interesting that you chose 2000 years. Do you think that there were fewer Ns 2000 years ago (basically the height of the Roman empire in Europe, if my history is right)? 

The evolutionary argument is always an interesting one. I know that it takes millions of years for species to evolve in different ways, but I still think it's interesting that after about 200,000 years (or maybe 50,000, depending on how one looks at it), SJs are still the biggest group.

Of course, this begs the question of whether or not these percentages have stayed constant throughout history or if they've changed.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

Because we live in an economic state and a psychological tool in acquiring capital is the SJ's sense of duty and responsibility. It also holds the family dynamic together. SJs would be "Guardians" of a non-financial state, in positions of authority and enforcement to uphold moral fabric. When this is applied to a nation that thrives on capital and labour, jobs fill up very quickly with duty fulfillers. 

SJs thrive on stability, and in an economic climate of any sorts, capital is stability.


----------



## L

I don't havce a satisfactory answer for most of what you asked however I believe it to be a common theme that people on here get upset mostly with SJ's is because they have a need for responsibility. This basic need of theirs is what puts them in positions of power over others, while the other types tend to do other things.

However if looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, I agree with @TAHTGUY in that Sensors would have a better chance for survival way back in the old days. What's more is that @Sleeve Of Wizard said something in a thread a while back (really wish I could find) about this very thing in that N's tend to be more shy around people and therefore have less opportunities to reproduce.


----------



## track02

teddy564339 said:


> Of course, this begs the question of whether or not these percentages have stayed constant throughout history or if they've changed.


I imagine the percentages have stayed fairly constant, however earlier civilisations simply may have been unable to support a large number of the other types.


----------



## MCRTS

First, I would like to share my thoughts on the reason why a lot of other types don't seem to like us very much. We SJs are also known as the Guardians, according to Kiersey. There are many different kinds of guardians: guardians (parents or teachers), guardian angel, and the police are sometimes called guardians of the law. A guardian has a duty to protect, lead, guide-and discipline. Not a very pleasant thing to dole out, but many SJs feel it's for the good of their charges. Those who complain about SJs usually view us as being rigid, overbearing and strict (just to name a few). I think to us SJs, it's because we value stability and dislike rocking the boat. We do know when to let loose, but when it comes to work and following the rules, SJs can be very serious. 

About the population, I have read some stats which say that SPs are more or equal to SJs, but of course, no-one can really prove that. According to this link: Keirsey.com's PersonalityZone - Temperament and Your Career, jobs suited for SJs are a wide variety, ranging from civil service, finance, business, paralegal, education, medical, technical, and social services. That's why everywhere other types turn, there's an SJ in sight. It does make sense to have more people in this fields, than, say, a CEO or other executive role. Some of the jobs SJs might take up may be thankless or behind the scenes, but without them, the wheels of society may stop turning. I believe that's what most SJs do-we make sure everything is in its proper place and running smoothly and efficiently.


----------



## teddy564339

L_Lawliet said:


> What's more is that @Sleeve Of Wizard said something in a thread a while back (really wish I could find) about this very thing in that N's tend to be more shy around people and therefore have less opportunities to reproduce.


I'll admit that I don't know anything about genetics, but wouldn't this assume that Ns are more likely to have N children and Ss are more likely to have S children? 

Now, maybe this was true back at the beginning of human civilization...maybe originally there were N type humans that evolved and S type ones. I have no idea.

But today, this certainly isn't true. Two S parents have N children quite often, at least based on what I've read on PerC. And I don't know if an S and N would be any more likely to have N children than 2 S parents would.


The other thing is...I don't know if there's a strong correlation to Ns not being as apt to reproduce. In terms of shyness I wouldn't say an ENFP or ENTP would be more shy than an ISTJ or ISFJ. 

Now, one could argue that an N (or even SP) might be less likely to want to have children than an SJ. There might be something to that point. But there seem to be plenty of Ns on PerC who like the idea of having children, so it's hard to say how much weight there is to that notion.



An SJ made an interesting point in the this thread in the SJ section, though. She said that due to their nature, SJs are more likely to take on roles of authority (Parent, manager, police officer, etc.) because it's in their nature to want to be a "guardian" who upholds the law. Certainly some other types, particularly ENTJs, like the notion of assuming authority, but perhaps there are so many SJs in authority because that's what they're naturally driven to do. I would imagine that P types might be more averse to having to keep control of and keep straight a lot of details of other people they're responsible for. Even ISFJs, who are horrible leaders, like to assume roles of caregivers, such as nurses or social workers, where they can help take care of people.


----------



## Sleeve Of Wizard

L_Lawliet said:


> However if looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, I agree with @TAHTGUY in that Sensors would have a better chance for survival way back in the old days. What's more is that @Sleeve Of Wizard said something in a thread a while back (really wish I could find) about this very thing in that N's tend to be more shy around people and therefore have less opportunities to reproduce.


Hmmm, gonna need a quote on that because I don't remember saying it. I don't really agree with it too, as Teddy said, ENFPs aren't exactly shy.


----------



## teddy564339

Extraverted Delusion said:


> Because we live in an economic state and a psychological tool in acquiring capital is the SJ's sense of duty and responsibility. It also holds the family dynamic together. SJs would be "Guardians" of a non-financial state, in positions of authority and enforcement to uphold moral fabric. When this is applied to a nation that thrives on capital and labour, jobs fill up very quickly with duty fulfillers.
> 
> SJs thrive on stability, and in an economic climate of any sorts, capital is stability.





MCRTS said:


> First, I would like to share my thoughts on the reason why a lot of other types don't seem to like us very much. We SJs are also known as the Guardians, according to Kiersey. There are many different kinds of guardians: guardians (parents or teachers), guardian angel, and the police are sometimes called guardians of the law. A guardian has a duty to protect, lead, guide-and discipline. Not a very pleasant thing to dole out, but many SJs feel it's for the good of their charges. Those who complain about SJs usually view us as being rigid, overbearing and strict (just to name a few). I think to us SJs, it's because we value stability and dislike rocking the boat. We do know when to let loose, but when it comes to work and following the rules, SJs can be very serious.


So what I gather from this is that SJs prefer to be in some kinds of positions of stability and/or authority, probably moreso than most of the other types. So if this is true, that at least part of the reason why SJs are in authority is that they want to be.


So this begs an interesting question, maybe the one at the heart of the matter: Are SJs better at other types at holding these positions of authority?

The way I see it is that there are two main different arguments about this.

One argument is saying yes, SJs are better at running a society on the large scale that needs a lot of stability and attention to detail to function. This idea would suggest that there need to be a lot of SJs in society to carry out the work. There only need to be a few Ns to come up with the ideas. It's almost like saying a hive needs only one queen bee, but lots of worker bees. Or that a tribe needs one chief, but a lot of Indians.


The other argument says that no, you don't need a lot of SJs for a society to function. This argument is that there are only so many SJs because at the beginning of human evolution, in those primitive societies, more SJs were needed in order for the tribes to survive. It suggests that in this day and age, SJs' skills aren't needed as much to run a society....it's just that the number of SJs is still so large that SJs still control society enough to suit their own needs. This idea also suggests that if Ns were in the majority, then society would still be able to function, and that it may function even better than it does today.


To me, this is the heart of the disagreement on this topic, and it's so coincidence that SJs tend to believe the first is true while Ns tend to believe the second. Of course, this is partly because SJs tend to believe something that is true based on the past and present, while Ns always try to imagine how things could be better.





MCTRS said:


> About the population, I have read some stats which say that SPs are more or equal to SJs, but of course, no-one can really prove that. According to this link: Keirsey.com's PersonalityZone - Temperament and Your Career, jobs suited for SJs are a wide variety, ranging from civil service, finance, business, paralegal, education, medical, technical, and social services. That's why everywhere other types turn, there's an SJ in sight. It does make sense to have more people in this fields, than, say, a CEO or other executive role. Some of the jobs SJs might take up may be thankless or behind the scenes, but without them, the wheels of society may stop turning. I believe that's what most SJs do-we make sure everything is in its proper place and running smoothly and efficiently.


I've heard different takes on this. Keirsey seemed to believe that SPs and SJs were equal in number, whereas other type studies pointed towards there being more SJs than SPs. It's one of those things that's hard to say.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

Precisely, SJs utilize Introverted Sensing which is adept to recall memory and repetitive cycles of maintenance. They naturally fulfill the role of the "mechanics" of society, those mechanics now being institutions and systems. Work was never "work" to an SJ prior to introducing currency, it was quite possibly that they were "destined" to reach a certain goal and to maintain themselves within it. Or maybe we can't say for sure because humans may not have evoled to have such complex personalities as studied in the 1900's and up. It seems as if we getting a little more complex by the day and Jungian theory may be disregarded at a point.


----------



## TAHTGUY

Well I didn't really think that 2000 years thru, just wanted to say some big number there , but I think I'll agree with you 200,000 years sounds like more reasonable number.

Also I have read that there has been found neurulogical basis on MBTI and Jungian theory, each type has a certain brain region that is working ~100times more than his other brain parts. It's interesting.


----------



## L

Sleeve Of Wizard said:


> Hmmm, gonna need a quote on that because I don't remember saying it. I don't really agree with it too, as Teddy said, ENFPs aren't exactly shy.


I'll try to find it but I'm 90% sure you said something to that effect. Could have been someone else though.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

Sleeve Of Wizard said:


> Hmmm, gonna need a quote on that because I don't remember saying it. I don't really agree with it too, as Teddy said, ENFPs aren't exactly shy.


I agree ENFP aren't exactly shy, although we're not always as out going as people would assume. We can work a crowd and help get everyone on the same page, although we can also remain in the background/go unnoticed and successfully still accomplish the same outcome. Hard to explain really.


----------



## Aelthwyn

This is a fascinating topic, one I've wondered about myself. I'd love to know more about other cultures specifically enough to be able to tell which ones may be more dominated by other personality types. 

There is one thought that strikes me though on how SJs could be more responcible for society without actually being a larger number. An example of the idea is how I tend to not choose to put music on. Often I don't really care or notice what I'm hearing untill it's something actually unpleasant. Because I'm not 'pro-active' to choose music myself and put it on, a lot of times I end up being stuck with whatever music someone else chooses to put on which isn't really to my personal taste. However, once the 'music regime' is put in place, I don't feel up to making the confrontation to bring about change, so I just bear with it. 

Essentially, I think this could be what's going on with culture/society. If the SJs are the most concerned with setting up the organization and keeping it running, while the other types aren't 'on the ball' with initiating their own regime first, it makes sense that the rest of us just fall under SJ organization by default and then have to deal with it. Compounding the 'problem' is that once the SJ regime is in place, it would probably require some out-of-character SJ-like organization just to confront the situation and bring about change. It can seem like too great a task in several different ways, so instead we find ourselves just putting up with the situation. 

To be extreemly stereotypical, the NFs are distracted daydreaming, SPs are busy having fun, NTs are absorbed in thought, and while none of us is paying attention the SJs come in and set up their systems of organization and then start expecting everyone to comply. Now I think that SJs organization and industriousness is important for certain things in life and in some ways we'd certainly be lost without them. Yet it feels like they are the most inclined to impose their ways on others because that's sort of the nature of their natural tallent. You can't organize and run things without _things_ (or people) to organize and run. It seems to me that the other three types are a little more likely to clump together within themselves and just ignore the other groups, whereas it strikes me that SJs actually want everyone to be united under the same system. Again, that's just general impressions from my perspecitve. Feel free to contradict if I'm wrong.


----------



## Hastings

Intuitives' problem with SJs I think can be easily summarized as such: SJs tend to assume their way to be correct and mainstream and judge others for not sticking to it. I.e., intuitives have to understand and adapt to the way that SJs function, while the reverse is not true. 

I saw a Youtube video recently featuring an ENTP and an INFJ, who spoke of this as "intuition abuse". Both being N-doms, they grew up being constantly corrected and/or misunderstood. Getting called "weird" gets very old very fast. Of course, such frustrations gets magnified many times when people realize they have all gone through the same thing.

As to WHY SJ's are the norm (and they certainly are)... Well, I don't know. I don't know why there are more or less of any given type or why there would be a reasonable explanation to it. The SJ way of living seems very reasonable to me, given how practical and organizaed SJs typically are. Seems like fitting characteristics to build a civilzation on, I suppose.


----------



## Hastings

TAHTGUY said:


> It may sound like typism, but I gotta say it, I think that SJs are alot closer to animal world that iNtuitive percievers. Don't be offended, please.


Well, you are basically saying sensors are less evolved human beings than intuitives.


----------



## Manofadventure

The subject of evolution is psycology is something really intersting. It basical boils down to two evolutionary forces the first being survival selection ( lets face it if your species cant survive in the environment its le fucked) and the often overlooked sexual selection ( if your speicies cant attact mates then its also fucked) why am i telling you this? because there is a mantra in evolutionary psychology and it goes "if something dosen't make sense in a survival context, look to sex" 

where was i going with this?

oh right, human beings are(i think) are the only animal that has devloped intuition. we also know that it when condsidered in an evolutionary context hurts our survival chances so the only other reason it could have evolved is for sex.

anyway thats my take on it. i know l've left out some details, but enjoy


----------



## TAHTGUY

> Well, you are basically saying sensors are less evolved human beings than intuitives.



Well if you interpret it that way then yes. But I'm saying that Sensors are more adapted to this world than iNtuitives.


----------



## WamphyriThrall

teddy564339 said:


> Are SJs the biggest group because that's the easiest way for a society to run? Kind of like an ant colony or bee hive....do there need to be more "worker" types than there other types?





teddy564339 said:


> Maybe our species is set up because it only needs a few Ns coming up with new ideas, and it needs more SJs to carry them out. I just don't think it's a random occurrence that there are so many SJs.


I think this is probably the simplest explanation. Sounds like you have a general idea, one that's accurate more or less to why things are the way they are. Realistic or not, I always imagined the sensors like the animals who do what they're "supposed" to do, living normal lives to ensure the species does whats necessary for survival and continuation, while intuitives are more comparable to that first canine that began trusting humans, or the first amphibian to crawl on land. Of course, not all sensors will follow conventional norms and not all intuitives will push mankind into a new direction, but it paints a picture to my understanding of it all. 

I guess the question we can ask ourselves is: What's more important? Development or preservation? Judging by the numbers, I'd have to say the latter. It might take much more of an effort to maintain what we already have than to obtain it in the first place. So we turn to the old SJ motto: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's much more risky to abandon something altogether in favor of the new and untested than to suffer what little problems that thing which has worked for so long might be giving. 

We need government, military, laws, etc. for a civilization to thrive. With so many spots to fill, someone has to pick up the slack. Indeed, many someones. Luckily, they make up the majority. Love 'em or hate 'em they're here and here to stay, for better, I'm convinced at this point. What pros certainly do outweigh the cons, or else evolution would have corrected that error long ago. People don't usually realize how big a contribution sensors, specifically SJs make in society, and take them for granted, usually focusing on the negatives. Well I for one am thankful, albeit ranting here and there at times due to misunderstandings.


----------



## MCRTS

I'm going to the other sub forums to see the responses. Looks like the SPs haven't really answered your question, only two NFs answered, but there's been an overwhelming response at the NT forum. Not too surprising, actually. :tongue:


----------



## MegaTuxRacer

Sensors deal with what is concretely apparent. The human race would not survive if most of us regularly forgot to eat. That's seriously a learned skill for me. I have to remember to eat.


----------



## Adesi

TAHTGUY said:


> Well if you interpret it that way then yes. But I'm saying that Sensors are more adapted to this world than iNtuitives.


No, I know what you're saying. I've previously thought the same thing. I mean, if you think of N's as being more likely to take risks too, that means their survivability is likely to be lower too, right? They take a chance of either improving society or putting people at risk, while SJs are more likely to try to keep status quo.

I've also wondered about the genetics of cognitive functions. I'm expecting that most the cases that we have of Ns with two S parents are anecdotal, so sort of limited documentation to draw any sort of conclusion. Perhaps N functions are more recessive. Of course, I am oversimplifying this incredibly. With 8 functions, the formula is going to be more complicated than comparing brown eyes with blue eyes. I guess I'm just saying that the genetics would be more complicated than looking at 4 letters of each parent (or even than looking at the primary, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior).


----------



## Adesi

MCRTS said:


> I'm going to the other sub forums to see the responses. Looks like the SPs haven't really answered your question, only two NFs answered, but there's been an overwhelming response at the NT forum. Not too surprising, actually. :tongue:


 I answered in the NT forum


----------



## teddy564339

cactus_waltz said:


> Intuitives' problem with SJs I think can be easily summarized as such: SJs tend to assume their way to be correct and mainstream and judge others for not sticking to it. I.e., intuitives have to understand and adapt to the way that SJs function, while the reverse is not true.
> 
> I saw a Youtube video recently featuring an ENTP and an INFJ, who spoke of this as "intuition abuse". Both being N-doms, they grew up being constantly corrected and/or misunderstood. Getting called "weird" gets very old very fast. Of course, such frustrations gets magnified many times when people realize they have all gone through the same thing.
> 
> As to WHY SJ's are the norm (and they certainly are)... Well, I don't know. I don't know why there are more or less of any given type or why there would be a reasonable explanation to it. The SJ way of living seems very reasonable to me, given how practical and organizaed SJs typically are. Seems like fitting characteristics to build a civilzation on, I suppose.





WamphyriThrall said:


> I think this is probably the simplest explanation. Sounds like you have a general idea, one that's accurate more or less to why things are the way they are. Realistic or not, I always imagined the sensors like the animals who do what they're "supposed" to do, living normal lives to ensure the species does whats necessary for survival and continuation, while intuitives are more comparable to that first canine that began trusting humans, or the first amphibian to crawl on land. Of course, not all sensors will follow conventional norms and not all intuitives will push mankind into a new direction, but it paints a picture to my understanding of it all.
> 
> I guess the question we can ask ourselves is: What's more important? Development or preservation? Judging by the numbers, I'd have to say the latter. It might take much more of an effort to maintain what we already have than to obtain it in the first place. So we turn to the old SJ motto: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's much more risky to abandon something altogether in favor of the new and untested than to suffer what little problems that thing which has worked for so long might be giving.
> 
> We need government, military, laws, etc. for a civilization to thrive. With so many spots to fill, someone has to pick up the slack. Indeed, many someones. Luckily, they make up the majority. Love 'em or hate 'em they're here and here to stay, for better, I'm convinced at this point. What pros certainly do outweigh the cons, or else evolution would have corrected that error long ago. People don't usually realize how big a contribution sensors, specifically SJs make in society, and take them for granted, usually focusing on the negatives. Well I for one am thankful, albeit ranting here and there at times due to misunderstandings.




I think these two posts kind of sum up my opinion about the topic.

I've always felt that society is meant to have a large number of SJs just because there are so many organizational details that need to be taken care of in order for such a large population to be able to co-exist. While it's not always pleasant (even to SJs themselves, who don't necessarily "enjoy" taking care of these details), it's also necessary in many ways.

The thoughts of Ns are also very necessary in society, but maybe just in smaller numbers. That probably helps to explain why there are so many famous historical N figures...there only need to be a few prominent, standout people to initiate the change.

SPs also carry out a lot of the "work" that SJs do, but in a more risky, trial and error way. Being any kind of artist or performer takes a lot of risk, as does tinkering with things to figure out how they work.


So I could be wrong, but I've always felt that a very large society with a large number of Ns just wouldn't quite work. 

To me, it goes back to the idea of "conservative" and "progressive" mentalities. Both have their merits; some things in society should remain stable, others need to be improved. Sometimes these positions may be at odds with one another, but in some form or fashion both are needed. 


However, this doesn't change or invalidate the frustration that Ns feel (and probably have felt for thousands of years) about the SJ structure....particularly since they are so dominated by it.

So once again I've always felt this is why learning about type is so helpful and important. SJs can (and should) realize that even though the structure they seek and provide is important, they shouldn't be bound by it or always push it on others. They need to be open to listening to and trying new ideas, and they need to understand that others thrive without as much structure. 

This can be hard to recognize without something like the MBTI, though...I know I wouldn't have before learning about it. A lot of things I had assumed were universal or "normal" I've now learned vary greatly upon type.


I can't speak from an N perspective, but I've also felt that it's helpful for Ns to recognize that as frustrated as they may be with SJs and their ways, that these ways do have value. Yes, it's very over-saturated to an N, especially in their daily lives, and I can see why PerC is an important place to release these frustrations and relate to others. But as a few Ns here have pointed out, this doesn't mean that this structure isn't important to society as a whole.





Aelthwyn said:


> This is a fascinating topic, one I've wondered about myself. I'd love to know more about other cultures specifically enough to be able to tell which ones may be more dominated by other personality types.
> 
> There is one thought that strikes me though on how SJs could be more responcible for society without actually being a larger number. An example of the idea is how I tend to not choose to put music on. Often I don't really care or notice what I'm hearing untill it's something actually unpleasant. Because I'm not 'pro-active' to choose music myself and put it on, a lot of times I end up being stuck with whatever music someone else chooses to put on which isn't really to my personal taste. However, once the 'music regime' is put in place, I don't feel up to making the confrontation to bring about change, so I just bear with it.
> 
> Essentially, I think this could be what's going on with culture/society. If the SJs are the most concerned with setting up the organization and keeping it running, while the other types aren't 'on the ball' with initiating their own regime first, it makes sense that the rest of us just fall under SJ organization by default and then have to deal with it. Compounding the 'problem' is that once the SJ regime is in place, it would probably require some out-of-character SJ-like organization just to confront the situation and bring about change. It can seem like too great a task in several different ways, so instead we find ourselves just putting up with the situation.
> 
> To be extreemly stereotypical, the NFs are distracted daydreaming, SPs are busy having fun, NTs are absorbed in thought, and while none of us is paying attention the SJs come in and set up their systems of organization and then start expecting everyone to comply. Now I think that SJs organization and industriousness is important for certain things in life and in some ways we'd certainly be lost without them. Yet it feels like they are the most inclined to impose their ways on others because that's sort of the nature of their natural tallent. You can't organize and run things without _things_ (or people) to organize and run. It seems to me that the other three types are a little more likely to clump together within themselves and just ignore the other groups, whereas it strikes me that SJs actually want everyone to be united under the same system. Again, that's just general impressions from my perspecitve. Feel free to contradict if I'm wrong.


----------



## Thinkist

What always disturbed me about SJs was their overly authoritarian/hierarchial outlook. I prefer for my parent/teacher/boss to appear on the same level as the child/student/worker even though they're in charge.


----------



## WamphyriThrall

I couldn't picture sensors disappearing overnight and society continuing to run its course the way it has up until now, as it took all four temperaments to get here. Now, numbers shifting, I could see, and things would change in significant ways no doubt. A world with an intuitive majority would be strange, considering the current demographics. I imagine there would be a lot more inventions, innovations, contributions to the arts, sciences, and other fields. Less might get done. There would be far less stability and grounded mindset overall, more chaotic I presume. This would be torturous for someone who values traditions and the past such as myself, despite being an NT (yes, traditional intuitive types exist). 

Personally, I'd rather have 25% equal more or less of every temperament, so we're all equally miserable and no one mindset dominates and makes the others feel misunderstood and alienated for being different. In theory it sounds nice, but there's no way to know how it would play out unless it happens, which I doubt. This wouldn't be a problem if others tried to understand their fellow human beings, of course. That's a much more realistic proposal.

I myself have little problem with the SJ majority overall. Sure, some areas can be improved, some things should be torn down altogether, others to be kept. My problem is when SJs feel the need to lecture, correct, or undermine intuitive efforts simply because they go against the status quo and aren't so understood. 






Yeah, that. Poor Chrissy (SP) didn't even get a word in. This is probably why ESJ types grind most people's gears, heh. 

I think a lot of people assume others are just like them, naively. You see it between sexes, age groups, races, and personality types, to name a few. When I tested out as ISTJ, I assumed my views and thinking processes were mainstream SJ, when they weren't mainstream to anyone but myself. It wasn't until hearing how little they could relate to my descriptions and being better understood by intuitives that the light went on, finally. It also revealed how different I was from my ISJ parents as well. Though, I do admire their ability to get what needs to get done with little complaint.

I'm sure SJs don't dislike NTs and NFs for being imaginative, doing things in a unique way, or wanting to change things, so much as when they belittle sensors, in the case of NTs, or act like they know exactly what someone is going through and want to fix it, NFs. Same as when certain intuitive individuals bash sensors, calling them boring, goody two shoes, and working drones. In short, it's not the innate way their brain works that gets on my nerves and others, but the efforts they choose to make in how to approach dealing with other types. This can change, brain structure, not so much.


----------



## SuperDevastation

From information I've gathered about ISTPs, some of them make good detectives or police officers. And there's no reason to assume we would die without having many SJs around and lived in a town or city with a majority of intuitives and/or perceivers. Also, as far as I'm concerned society wouldn't do well if any 1 group of types suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth.


----------



## Apollo Celestio

They're the easiest to mentally program in the ways of the world. They're usually in the box and unselfish, so they stay with the way the were always taught, and enforce that way. Why do you think that old SJ's whine so much about the old days? Things change over time.. and they lost their mental adaptability after childhood. 

I don't like evolutionary psychology.. so I'm not going to factor it in.


----------



## Thalassa

I think SJs are the biggest group for evolutionary reasons. I'm being totally serious. I think the balance of humans is just as it should be. We need more stable, tradition-keeping, authority types to keep society moving, we just do. SJs are the guardians of society. I would feel quite frightened in a world without SJs, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. 

On the other hand, some statistics suggest that SPs are almost as plentiful as SJs (but not quite) which also makes sense since SPs live here, now, and tend to take risks that need to be taken in the real world, also for the good of all people. While SPs may not create the stability that SJs do, Se plays a crucial role in basic human survival. 

To put it quite simply, common sense, observation skills, and practicality are needed in higher numbers than ingenuity.

But ideas and inventions are important, too, obviously. We could not have the quality of life that we do without the distracted mad scientists and inventors and such, and NFs tend to have diplomacy skills that some other types lack (I'm sorry but it's true, and it's one of the things that made me think when I had self-typed as NF...waaaait a second....I am just not this diplomatic and no one needs to place me in a job in human resources...teh horrorz...). 

However, some people may argue that by function theory the types are actually more equally dispersed.

Currently, I think our society, at least here in the U.S. benefits TJs specifically, rather than SJs, though SJs easily adapt in childhood to their particular culture I think with their Si being so individualized, they learn the norms of the current society that specifically surrounds them. 

But the U.S. is very Te. It's like a human wheel. And the more the corporations and schools try to make us into a wheel, I think the less efficient it becomes. I was just thinking that walking down the street today. We're pushed in this very Te way in American society to function kind of like machines, but people aren't machines, and the more you try to force society in that direction, the more ridiculousness there's going to be. An incident with an incompetent employee prompted this thought...but then I thought, it's not her fault, it's that so much gets lost in translation when people are telephone operators or sales people for large corporations, that the mistakes that are being made higher up, or somewhere in the ridiculous wheel, trickle down, and often times the low paid corporate servant can't even do anything to help you, because it was a computer error, or they'll have to file papers to a different department. Ugh.


----------



## Thalassa

mkeath said:


> Sensors deal with what is concretely apparent. The human race would not survive if most of us regularly forgot to eat. That's seriously a learned skill for me.  I have to remember to eat.


I'm always at an utter loss when people say things like this. 

Like, how do people forget their bodies? How do people forget to eat? To drink water? To use the bathroom? To sleep? To stay up for three days and die playing video games in a puddle of their own urine?

The mind boggles. It's very real for some individuals though.


----------



## Thalassa

TAHTGUY said:


> It's because evolutionary SJs we're the ones who survived, it's hard to survive in the wild if you're living in your head iNtuitive or laid back Perciever.
> 
> Look at wild animals, they react to slightest movement, sound, it's pure Se. They also need to know about their territory, know where they laid eggs'n'stuff , that's Si.
> 
> Wild is for Js too, animals almost don't tolerate other species, they don't procastriate, they need to survive, take action'n'stuff.
> 
> iNtuitives are alot less aware of environment.
> 
> It may sound like typism, but I gotta say it, I think that SJs are alot closer to animal world that iNtuitive percievers. Don't be offended, please.
> 
> Also I think since our society is constantly progressing, after like 2000 years there will be alot less SJs and more iNtuitives, oh that will be an utopia, sadly I won't live that long.


o_0

I'm quite proud of having my senses about me, about remembering to pee, about enjoying food, and knowing how to survive, thanks. I enjoy being alive, and I love animals so much I don't mind being close to them. You could learn a lot from a cat. Read _The Tao of Meow _sometime. We do come from nature (you too!) and we cannot live without nature, as is slowly but surely being proven by the havoc people are wreaking on environment, and all numbers of modern stress-related illnesses, and illnesses related to chemicals and processed food. Hell no I'm not offended. If I'm closer to the animal kingdom, I'm glad.

You're wrong if you think Ns have higher IQs than Ss, though. SJs actually tend to do quite well in school, and there are plentiful SJ doctors, lawyers, and professors...so any implication that you're trying to make about SJs being closer to the animal world as some kind of insult just makes you look...well...ignorant.

Less SJs and more iNtuitives would be paradise? Why, exactly? You don't fear death from starvation, having shat your pants playing _The Zombies Are Coming 16_? How about death by distraction? How about death by trying to apply absurd philosophies to human survival (like Ayn Rand, for example)? 

Awesome. Sounds like a true paradise to me. Hey, why don't you guys go to another planet, and I'll stay here on earth with the animals and the trees? Problem solved.


----------



## Thalassa

Extraverted Delusion said:


> Precisely, SJs utilize Introverted Sensing which is adept to recall memory and repetitive cycles of maintenance. They naturally fulfill the role of the "mechanics" of society, those mechanics now being institutions and systems. Work was never "work" to an SJ prior to introducing currency, it was quite possibly that they were "destined" to reach a certain goal and to maintain themselves within it. Or maybe we can't say for sure because *humans may not have evoled to have such complex personalities as studied in the 1900's and up. It seems as if we getting a little more complex by the day and Jungian theory may be disregarded at a point.*


Wow, delusion is a really good word for you. Do you know ANYTHING about how evolution happens? I...just...I don't even....it doesn't happen that quickly, first of all, and if you read some literature from earlier centuries you might actually ask yourself if people were SMARTER THEN than now!

All you have now is people who are more literate and better educated, en masse, thanks to socialism - that's right, good old fashioned public education. 

Then you have technology.

People weren't less evolved before 1900. Go read a book, N.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer

fourtines said:


> I'm always at an utter loss when people say things like this.
> 
> Like, how do people forget their bodies? How do people forget to eat? To drink water? To use the bathroom? To sleep? To stay up for three days and die playing video games in a puddle of their own urine?
> 
> The mind boggles. It's very real for some individuals though.


It's because I don't get my drive from things. I get it from ideas. That's not to say that sensors are materialistic and that intuitives are not. The best way to explain this is throught an example. I don't really know if this applies to other intuitive types or even ENTPs, but let's take the example of a tree. Where someone else sees a tree as a natural resource, a source of shade or simply a thing of beauty, I notice seemingly chaotic nature of its growth patterns. Then I see the leaves sprawled on the ground and begin to wonder about the contrast between the straight lines and ordered nature of man made objects while at the same time I marvel that starting with a single point with the big bang, over billions of years of chaos through the universe I arrive here in my back yard typing this reply on a phone to someone who could be my next door neighbor or someone on the other side of the world. 

Something that just is and is apparent doesn't interest me. There is always something further, and that is what is interesting.


----------



## FreeSpirit

@fourtines

you made me laugh!

As for the thread:

To me: SJ = realistic, responsible, respectful.

SP = get up off me, bitch.
NF = oh the injustice!
NT = wait, let me mess with that some more...

If it is true that SJs are 'running the world'-
this is why, and not unjustly.

Of course, this is just my two cents.
Hopefully no one is offended. I'm not totally serious
about ALL OF THIS POST.


----------



## Thalassa

Thinkist said:


> What always disturbed me about SJs was their overly authoritarian/hierarchial outlook. I prefer for my parent/teacher/boss to appear on the same level as the child/student/worker even though they're in charge.


You've never had an INTJ talk down to you? Never been afraid of an ENTJ authority figure? Never had a condescending ENTP college professor? 

It's not always SJs, guys.

Not only that, but adults do have to be authority figures over children. I disagree with you on that one point, because to a degree children need discipline and they need to be taught to be human (yes, they do, feral children do not fare well with learning to walk and talk later in life and may seem intellectually slow) and ...yeah. I don't like it when people are overly authoritarian toward children, I agree with that, but they do need a certain amount of guidance that is inevitable and necessary.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

fourtines said:


> Wow, delusion is a really good word for you. Do you know ANYTHING about how evolution happens? I...just...I don't even....it doesn't happen that quickly, first of all, and if you read some literature from earlier centuries you might actually ask yourself if people were SMARTER THEN than now!
> 
> All you have now is people who are more literate and better educated, en masse, thanks to socialism - that's right, good old fashioned public education.
> 
> Then you have technology.
> 
> People weren't less evolved before 1900. Go read a book, N.


Thanks to "socialism", technology and a culture of entitlement, your average "nose in the air" person in 2011 probably has a deeper understanding of concepts which were foreign to most people in centuries prior. The application of such availability of information, equality, and general convenience in living is a mass evolution in thought process altogether. Smarter people before now? Pioneers in the industry of innovation do not account for a mass awakening, the adoption of such breakthrough principles by the masses does, however. Each individual who has pioneered one thing in the past has made it impossible for someone in the future to do so -- but we expand on everything.

Are you trying to say that the *product* of thought by certain members of primitive civilizations is "smarter" than the *adoption *of these principles and *expansion *by new-age intellectuals? Why is a philosopher from 2000 years ago necessarily "smarter" than Mark Zuckerberg? Does the profoundness in how brand spanking new, elaborate and shiny an ideology which is OLDER equate to a more intellectual general aura of societay from previous centuries? 

Humans nowadays lead very complex lives. Almost unnecessarily complex, but we compensate and innovate further to fill in any gaps. Human maintenance seems to be reaching its peak, which would imply that we understand things about ourselves and the potential in our decisions with greater depth than before. There is no need for a mass reconstruction of philosophical thinking at this point, because we can then begin to wonder if humans have reached their potential limitations as organic creatures. Evolution seems fitting in these situations -- where do we go from here? 

Instead of expanding one way we've come to expand in all directions, and great minds have dictated expansion to the point of exhaustion (or at least it seems that way)... the only way to evolve is to expand our understanding of the fundamental questions we have posed on ourselves from the beginning. Technology may as well be our latest tool in unmasking our true potential.

So if "helplessness" and the lack of skills in practical, primitive living in today's society is what you're reflecting on, your logic is flawed. We don't live like the animals we were before. 

I believe the correct term would be e-books, and thanks, I've looked into that field from time to time .


----------



## Thalassa

mkeath said:


> It's because I don't get my drive from things. I get it from ideas. That's not to say that sensors are materialistic and that intuitives are not. The best way to explain this is throught an example. I don't really know if this applies to other intuitive types or even ENTPs, but let's take the example of a tree. Where someone else sees a tree as a natural resource, a source of shade or simply a thing of beauty, I notice seemingly chaotic nature of its growth patterns. Then I see the leaves sprawled on the ground and begin to wonder about the contrast between the straight lines and ordered nature of man made objects while at the same time I marvel that starting with a single point with the big bang, over billions of years of chaos through the universe I arrive here in my back yard typing this reply on a phone to someone who could be my next door neighbor or someone on the other side of the world.
> 
> Something that just is and is apparent doesn't interest me. There is always something further, and that is what is interesting.




It's very foreign to me.

I think there should be more questions like this on personality tests. I would have much more quickly typed as xSFP.

I really didn't know what they meant by "abstract" exactly, and there was no mention of "do you sometimes forego several meals so you can contemplate the straight lines in the patterns of trees in your front yard?" Ye gods I always cringe when people say they're gonna work through lunch, unless their work is something really awesome and fun. 

Maybe they should even add an irritable bowel syndrome question. "Do you forget to go number 2 so much that now you have intestinal issues?" 

*goes to make more accurate personality test*


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

fourtines said:


> It's very foreign to me.
> 
> I think there should be more questions like this on personality tests. I would have much more quickly typed as xSFP.
> 
> I really didn't know what they meant by "abstract" exactly, and there was no mention of "do you sometimes forego several meals so you can contemplate the straight lines in the patterns of trees in your front yard?" Ye gods I always cringe when people say they're gonna work through lunch, unless their work is something really awesome and fun.
> 
> Maybe they should even add an irritable bowel syndrome question. "Do you forget to go number 2 so much that now you have intestinal issues?"
> 
> *goes to make more accurate personality test*


Heh, its like listening to an INTJ rant in an elaborate fashion while they poorly maintain mouth control. Great minds tend to have physical debilitations and a lack of practical functioning --- that's by anecdotal evidence only.


----------



## Thalassa

Extraverted Delusion said:


> Thanks to "socialism", technology and a culture of entitlement, your average "nose in the air" person in 2011 probably has a deeper understanding of concepts which were foreign to most people in centuries prior. The application of such availability of information, equality, and general convenience in living is a mass evolution in thought process altogether. Smarter people before now? Pioneers in the industry of innovation do not account for a mass awakening, the adoption of such breakthrough principles by the masses does, however. Each individual who has pioneered one thing in the past has made it impossible for someone in the future to do so -- but we expand on everything.
> 
> Are you trying to say that the *product* of thought by certain members of primitive civilizations is "smarter" than the *adoption *of these principles and *expansion *by new-age intellectuals? Why is a philosopher from 2000 years ago necessarily "smarter" than Mark Zuckerberg? Does the profoundness in how brand spanking new, elaborate and shiny an ideology which is OLDER equate to a more intellectual general aura of societay from previous centuries?
> 
> Humans nowadays lead very complex lives. Almost unnecessarily complex, but we compensate and innovate further to fill in any gaps. Human maintenance seems to be reaching its peak, which would imply that we understand things about ourselves and the potential in our decisions with greater depth than before. There is no need for a mass reconstruction of philosophical thinking at this point, because we can then begin to wonder if humans have reached their potential limitations as organic creatures. Evolution seems fitting in these situations -- where do we go from here?
> 
> Instead of expanding one way we've come to expand in all directions, and great minds have dictated expansion to the point of exhaustion (or at least it seems that way)... the only way to evolve is to expand our understanding of the fundamental questions we have posed on ourselves from the beginning. Technology may as well be our latest tool in unmasking our true potential.
> 
> So if "helplessness" and the lack of skills in practical, primitive living in today's society is what you're reflecting on, your logic is flawed. We don't live like the animals we were before.
> 
> I believe the correct term would be e-books, and thanks, I've looked into that field from time to time .


I don't think my logic is flawed. You people gonna die out there in the desert, you gonna die. 

I think you guys imagine there's really going to be a world where computers do EVERYTHING for you. That's a nice fantasy to have, but meanwhile, I'm sure you still like to eat (though apparently not very often, since all these Ns forget to eat) ...and that food has to be farmed, smart guy.

Do you leave the house each day? Do you know how houses are built? How dinner is cooked? How the sidewalk is poured?

The pollution isn't going to magically come out of the ocean either, just cuz you want it to. Someone has to go out there and pick the trash up off of the beach.

Primitive!

You're a riot.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

fourtines said:


> I don't think my logic is flawed. You people gonna die out there in the desert, you gonna die.
> 
> I think you guys imagine there's really going to be a world where computers do EVERYTHING for you. That's a nice fantasy to have, but meanwhile, I'm sure you still like to eat (though apparently not very often, since all these Ns forget to eat) ...and that food has to be farmed, smart guy.
> 
> Do you leave the house each day? Do you know how houses are built? How dinner is cooked? How the sidewalk is poured?
> 
> The pollution isn't going to magically come out of the ocean either, just cuz you want it to. Someone has to go out there and pick the trash up off of the beach.
> 
> Primitive!
> 
> You're a riot.


Gosh, I'm flattered that somebody is devoted to cleaning up my apparent "mess". 

I understand what you're saying though. Your point comes from the fact that "logical thought" is more potentially debilitating since mass expansion may not have been built into our genes. Human existence in itself is rather irrational, but seems to come from a logical sequence of accidents known as evolution. Perhaps evolution itself has evolved, and is more ideological and expansive than prior thought. If we are to destroy ourselves, I'm certain somebody will innovate a form of transhumanism which will offset any inconsistencies with living in a metallic, polluted state as you claim.

Some people prefer to let nature be, while N types really try to figure out why. This sounds like a potential setup for creationism, and thats beautiful.


----------



## Thalassa

Extraverted Delusion said:


> Gosh, I'm flattered that somebody is devoted to cleaning up my apparent "mess".
> 
> I understand what you're saying though. Your point comes from the fact that "logical thought" is more potentially debilitating since mass expansion may not have been built into our genes. Human existence in itself is rather irrational, but seems to come from a logical sequence of accidents known as evolution. Perhaps evolution itself has evolved, and is more ideological and expansive than prior thought. If we are to destroy ourselves, I'm certain somebody will innovate a form of transhumanism which will offset any inconsistencies with living in a metallic, polluted state as you claim.
> 
> Some people prefer to let nature be, while N types really try to figure out why. This sounds like a potential setup for creationism, and thats beautiful.


You should change your type to ENTP when you're done making snarky comments that make you sound very ignorant and biased about type.

I think we should hurry up and get some Ss to the beach, because your belief that *someone* will create "post-humans" might wipe out half of the human race in the meantime, and then we really need our "primitive" skills to help you guys get the toilet.


----------



## teddy564339

Aelthwyn said:


> This is a fascinating topic, one I've wondered about myself. I'd love to know more about other cultures specifically enough to be able to tell which ones may be more dominated by other personality types.
> 
> There is one thought that strikes me though on how SJs could be more responcible for society without actually being a larger number. An example of the idea is how I tend to not choose to put music on. Often I don't really care or notice what I'm hearing untill it's something actually unpleasant. Because I'm not 'pro-active' to choose music myself and put it on, a lot of times I end up being stuck with whatever music someone else chooses to put on which isn't really to my personal taste. However, once the 'music regime' is put in place, I don't feel up to making the confrontation to bring about change, so I just bear with it.
> 
> Essentially, I think this could be what's going on with culture/society. If the SJs are the most concerned with setting up the organization and keeping it running, while the other types aren't 'on the ball' with initiating their own regime first, it makes sense that the rest of us just fall under SJ organization by default and then have to deal with it. Compounding the 'problem' is that once the SJ regime is in place, it would probably require some out-of-character SJ-like organization just to confront the situation and bring about change. It can seem like too great a task in several different ways, so instead we find ourselves just putting up with the situation.
> 
> To be extreemly stereotypical, the NFs are distracted daydreaming, SPs are busy having fun, NTs are absorbed in thought, and while none of us is paying attention the SJs come in and set up their systems of organization and then start expecting everyone to comply. Now I think that SJs organization and industriousness is important for certain things in life and in some ways we'd certainly be lost without them. Yet it feels like they are the most inclined to impose their ways on others because that's sort of the nature of their natural tallent. You can't organize and run things without _things_ (or people) to organize and run. It seems to me that the other three types are a little more likely to clump together within themselves and just ignore the other groups, whereas it strikes me that SJs actually want everyone to be united under the same system. Again, that's just general impressions from my perspecitve. Feel free to contradict if I'm wrong.



I meant to respond to this in my last post, but I forgot to and now it's too late to edit my other post.

There's probably at least some truth to this. It seems like SJs have such a strong desire for stability that they look to initiate it if they have the opportunity. It's just interesting to me that the other three temperaments may not have as strong of a desire to do so. 

This is probably stronger in ESJs, though. From my experience, ISJs aren't quite as imposing unless they feel they have to be. ISJs are more likely to want to control everything that's in their own world, but don't push it on others quite as much (unless they're in a situation where they feel responsible, such as being a parent).

But it's interesting hear you describe this "settling" of Ns doing. I say this because this often feels like what ISFJs do as well. We often don't challenge the way things are unless we feel really really strongly about it...we're more likely to accept things the way they are and just deal with it.

So I don't know if ISFJs really fight all that strongly to keep things the same (unless it's really important to us). It's just that we also don't push to initiate change either. 





WamphyriThrall said:


> I couldn't picture sensors disappearing overnight and society continuing to run its course the way it has up until now, as it took all four temperaments to get here. Now, numbers shifting, I could see, and things would change in significant ways no doubt. A world with an intuitive majority would be strange, considering the current demographics. I imagine there would be a lot more inventions, innovations, contributions to the arts, sciences, and other fields. Less might get done. There would be far less stability and grounded mindset overall, more chaotic I presume. This would be torturous for someone who values traditions and the past such as myself, despite being an NT (yes, traditional intuitive types exist).
> 
> Personally, I'd rather have 25% equal more or less of every temperament, so we're all equally miserable and no one mindset dominates and makes the others feel misunderstood and alienated for being different. In theory it sounds nice, but there's no way to know how it would play out unless it happens, which I doubt. This wouldn't be a problem if others tried to understand their fellow human beings, of course. That's a much more realistic proposal.


Yeah, it really is hard to say what a world would look like if the temperaments were different. It's hard to say if it would function better, worse, or the same. As an ISJ, it's hard for me to picture a different world, and also it makes me more cautious. ISJs tend to be pretty risk averse, preferring what we know is true rather than risking it for something better. In my case, I tend to feel that as bad as the world is, at least there's a lot of good in it as well. While that doesn't mean I don't support the idea of fixing problems and improving it, it also means that I'm in favor of doing so in a way that is very likely to work. 

So the idea of the temperaments being in different proportions is something that is tough for me to imagine. While I think most Ns love the idea of it because they would feel more comfortable, it's hard to say whether or not it would be an improvement of society on the whole....it can't be assumed either way. 



WamphyriThrall said:


> I myself have little problem with the SJ majority overall. Sure, some areas can be improved, some things should be torn down altogether, others to be kept. My problem is when SJs feel the need to lecture, correct, or undermine intuitive efforts simply because they go against the status quo and aren't so understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that. Poor Chrissy (SP) didn't even get a word in. This is probably why ESJ types grind most people's gears, heh.
> 
> I think a lot of people assume others are just like them, naively. You see it between sexes, age groups, races, and personality types, to name a few. When I tested out as ISTJ, I assumed my views and thinking processes were mainstream SJ, when they weren't mainstream to anyone but myself. It wasn't until hearing how little they could relate to my descriptions and being better understood by intuitives that the light went on, finally. It also revealed how different I was from my ISJ parents as well. Though, I do admire their ability to get what needs to get done with little complaint.
> 
> I'm sure SJs don't dislike NTs and NFs for being imaginative, doing things in a unique way, or wanting to change things, so much as when they belittle sensors, in the case of NTs, or act like they know exactly what someone is going through and want to fix it, NFs. Same as when certain intuitive individuals bash sensors, calling them boring, goody two shoes, and working drones. In short, it's not the innate way their brain works that gets on my nerves and others, but the efforts they choose to make in how to approach dealing with other types. This can change, brain structure, not so much.



In a lot of ways I think the SJ mentality is very similar to anyone else in the majority group....white people (in the US at least), men, heterosexuals, Christians, etc. They don't know what it's like to be in the minority, so they start assuming that what they feel is the norm. It's hard to imagine the difficulties that a minority faces. 

I think that's why some white people think that society favors racial minorities....because they don't see the challenges that minorities face. They see the minorities and whites being on the same level to start with, and they view minorities as being given special treatment.

It's kind of the same thing with many SJs who don't know about the MBTI. They don't see the difficulties that Ns face being in the minority and don't relate to it.

Of course, it's not as though SJs don't face problems of their own. But they also probably take for granted a lot of the advantages that they have....it's hard not to.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

fourtines said:


> *You should change your type to ENTP when you're done making snarky comments that make you sound very ignorant and biased about type.*
> 
> *I think we should hurry up and get some Ss to the beach*, because your belief that *someone* will create "post-humans" might wipe out half of the human race in the meantime, and then we really need our "primitive" skills to help you guys get the toilet.


Come again?


----------



## Thalassa

Extraverted Delusion said:


> Come again?


Oh since you were stereotyping all Ss as primitive I decided to stereotype you as ENTP based on your posting style.

And I meant that pollution might destroy half the human race by the time your imaginary "someone" creates post-humans, and so then we'll actually fall behind technologically, and then dammit to hell, us primitive Ss are going to be stuck helping you bodily-function-ignoring Ns to the old outhouse, because we may even be without indoor plumbing in the face of such a natural disaster.

The earth will always be fine. It's the people (and animals) I'm concerned about.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

fourtines said:


> Oh since you were stereotyping all Ss as primitive I decided to stereotype you as ENTP based on your posting style.
> 
> And I meant that pollution might destroy half the human race by the time your imaginary "someone" creates post-humans, and so then we'll actually fall behind technologically, and then dammit to hell, us primitive Ss are going to be stuck helping you bodily-function-ignoring Ns to the old outhouse, because we may even be without indoor plumbing in the face of such a natural disaster.
> 
> The earth will always be fine. It's the people (and animals) I'm concerned about.


Definitely an ENTP poster, since his last post completely flew over the head of the beach bum, XD.


----------



## Thalassa

Extraverted Delusion said:


> Definitely an ENTP poster, since his last post completely flew over the head of the beach bum, XD.


Yeah NTPs on forums are frequently congratulating themselves on how stupid they think I am.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

fourtines said:


> Yeah NTPs on forums are frequently congratulating themselves on how stupid they think I am.


Yeah but you're a cat lady... 

And I love cats.


----------



## Thalassa

Extraverted Delusion said:


> Yeah but you're a cat lady...
> 
> And I love cats.


Kittehs are <3.

Anyway, off to the beach now (srsly). Ta ta.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

fourtines said:


> Kittehs are <3.
> 
> Anyway, off to the beach now (srsly). Ta ta.


Enjoy! We'll meet again.


----------



## MCRTS

Is there any data about the MBTI ratio in other countries? Because we know that SJs are in the majority in US, but it may not be true in another country, like Japan or Africa. It may be very different in another part of the world.


----------



## Thalassa

MCRTS said:


> Is there any data about the MBTI ratio in other countries? Because we know that SJs are in the majority in US, but it may not be true in another country, like Japan or Africa. It may be very different in another part of the world.



Well, you see ...there are cultures which are more ESFP or ENFP (like modern Russia and France, respectively) ...and gosh the Swedes are so humble with their Lagom (and frankly successful in their culture, I think they're doing better than we are, as is Norway) that we may say that other cultures are collectively different "types."

But honestly, I think SJs are the predominant type everywhere, which is why we see tradition passed down through food and costume and culture and religion, and I really do believe it's evolutionary, that they hold successful civilizations together. While some Ns may disagree with this, I have yet to see a LOGICAL, PRACTICAL reason why this is untrue. Usually it's some whining about transhumanism or some other nonsense, with no attention to the fact that people have to eat food and be safe and go to war AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE, and that there always have to be "little people" to be the police and the market folks and the public servants. I think Ns who think any culture is dominated by non-SJs is frankly delusional, honestly. People need certain factual, scientific conditions to survive for generations, no matter how some people would attempt to imagine it differently, rocks are hard, and water is wet.


----------



## TAHTGUY

fourtines said:


> o_0
> 
> I'm quite proud of having my senses about me, about remembering to pee, about enjoying food, and knowing how to survive, thanks. I enjoy being alive, and I love animals so much I don't mind being close to them. You could learn a lot from a cat. Read _The Tao of Meow _sometime. We do come from nature (you too!) and we cannot live without nature, as is slowly but surely being proven by the havoc people are wreaking on environment, and all numbers of modern stress-related illnesses, and illnesses related to chemicals and processed food. Hell no I'm not offended. If I'm closer to the animal kingdom, I'm glad.
> 
> You're wrong if you think Ns have higher IQs than Ss, though. SJs actually tend to do quite well in school, and there are plentiful SJ doctors, lawyers, and professors...so any implication that you're trying to make about SJs being closer to the animal world as some kind of insult just makes you look...well...ignorant.
> 
> Less SJs and more iNtuitives would be paradise? Why, exactly? You don't fear death from starvation, having shat your pants playing _The Zombies Are Coming 16_? How about death by distraction? How about death by trying to apply absurd philosophies to human survival (like Ayn Rand, for example)?
> 
> Awesome. Sounds like a true paradise to me. Hey, why don't you guys go to another planet, and I'll stay here on earth with the animals and the trees? Problem solved.



Well it would be personal paradise, I just live in town where I know like 5 Ns, SERIOUSLY, I'm having hard time living in S environment here. If you'd live with Ns all around you, you probably would know what it's like, when almost nobody understands you.

There are really no studies about IQ differences between SJs and Ns.


----------



## Thinkist

fourtines said:


> You've never had an INTJ talk down to you? Never been afraid of an ENTJ authority figure? Never had a condescending ENTP college professor?
> 
> It's not always SJs, guys.
> 
> Not only that, but adults do have to be authority figures over children. I disagree with you on that one point, because to a degree children need discipline and they need to be taught to be human (yes, they do, feral children do not fare well with learning to walk and talk later in life and may seem intellectually slow) and ...yeah. I don't like it when people are overly authoritarian toward children, I agree with that, but they do need a certain amount of guidance that is inevitable and necessary.


AFAIK, I haven't been sorely confronted with an NJ who would talk down to me in such a way to make me feel so low. It could be that NJs and SPs like me share the same ways of perceiving the world (Se and Ni), although I wouldn't be too surprised if an NJ (most likely an ENJ) tried to talk down to me (or anyone for that matter, regardless of type). It's mostly the SJs, especially the confrontational and controlling ESJs, who grate on my nerves in this manner the most.

Also, with the authority thing I mentioned, I'll just conclude that there's a balance that should not be disrupted (even though there is already some disruption one way or another). I didn't say I was against authority or authoritarian values.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ

you are assuming that N's have all the good ideas and S's are just their minions. Where does this come from exactly?


----------



## GoodOldDreamer

Personally, I tend to get along with SJs just fine. Well, if they have an F in there somewhere, anyway. P The only S type I can never find common ground with though are ESTJs. Doesn't matter who they are, if they have any authority over me or not. It's like we're from two different worlds. I dunno what it is, exactly. They come off as emotionless, self centered people on power trips. Their way or the highway, come hell or high water. Emotions are for the weak! Etc, etc.

One of my dear friends though is an ISFP, and another is an ESFJ. And it's not a bias I have against Ts in general. By far, most of my friends are Ts. Just not STs. Most Ts are reasonable, and down to earth. STs in my experience though are just blunt with whatever they do. Insensitive and cold. And I know I'm generalizing, but damn if I have ever met one that wasn't coming off that way.

Anyways, that's my take. I take notice more of the T vs. F in personalities though, especially in conflicts. In terms of SJ types, it's the Ts I ever have issues with. I get along fine with the Fs, even if we don't see eye to eye on issues. We can still get along fine. It's not a one-way street relationship.


----------



## counterintuitive

fourtines said:


> But honestly, I think SJs are the predominant type everywhere, which is why we see tradition passed down through food and costume and culture and religion, and I really do believe it's evolutionary, that they hold successful civilizations together. While some Ns may disagree with this, I have yet to see a LOGICAL, PRACTICAL reason why this is untrue. Usually it's some whining about transhumanism or some other nonsense, with no attention to the fact that people have to eat food and be safe and go to war AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE, and that there always have to be "little people" to be the police and the market folks and the public servants. I think Ns who think any culture is dominated by non-SJs is frankly delusional, honestly. People need certain factual, scientific conditions to survive for generations, no matter how some people would attempt to imagine it differently, rocks are hard, and water is wet.


I think there is some truth to this; a critical mass of tradition-preservers might well be necessary to maintain a functional society.

I read a theory somewhere that NPs envision a new thing/idea/way of doing things, NJs make an implementable plan for the vision, SPs try the new thing first, as they're generally enthusiastic about trying/experiencing new things, and once the number of people trying the new thing reaches a critical mass, SJs adjust their institutions to accomodate it.

This is not to say that everyone can only do one thing; we all have all the function attitudes. We just might do one thing more often than another, prefer one thing more, etc.

The point is mostly that it takes a while for a new idea to infiltrate institutions. Until it does, old ideas are enforced.

As much as I wish a rapidly-improving world with a higher ratio of Ns and Ps could work... it might not. We might need Si. Everyone's idea of change is different, but what is the same (the status quo) _is the same_. If everyone tries to change the world at the same time, we'll all go in different directions, and existing institutions will fall apart because no one will want to maintain the status quo. Who will maintain (for e.g.) roads? 10 different NPs may have a 1000 different ideas for improving the roads, but if they all tried to improve them at the same time, chaos would result due to each having a different idea of improvement. If the world consisted of more people wanting to improve the roads than people wanting to maintain the roads, there would be chaos and the roads would be unusable.

So I think we do need Si to maintain existing institutions. Maintenance also means that things can't get _worse_.

The flipside to this is that if someone _does_ have a good idea for improving existing systems, it won't get implemented for YEARS (depending on how entrenched the current way of doing things is). This makes progress extremely slow, because the idea has to be accepted by a critical mass before institutions change.

I think in that sense we do live in an SJ world. Maintenance of the status quo (motivated by stability-seeking Si) requires enforcement (Je) of the status quo and discouragement of change. It makes sense that to enforce stability one would want to be in positions of power.

By contrast I don't think Ps want to _enforce_ change. We generally don't enforce much of anything  -- weak Je. So I think the world appears quite SJ (regardless of actual type distributions in the population) because NJs are very uncommon and Ps tend not to enforce their views through institutions.

Sorry for that long post lol...


----------



## niki

@Wilson : just want to express that I really appreciate your comment very much. 
what you said above does really makes a whole lots of sense, and logical (coming from an ENTP, no wonder, he2), at least to me!
thanks for sharing!


----------



## iinnffpp

if we do indeed live in an SJ world, why the hell is it so unstable and topsy turvy? i mean, really. right now society is anything but stable, so please enlighten me. personally i think the true rulers of the world (bankers) simply use SJ types (which are the majority of people, i would assume) to do their dirty work. but the structure of the world right now is anything but SJ.


----------



## Suzanne Miller

mkeath said:


> Sensors deal with what is concretely apparent. The human race would not survive if most of us regularly forgot to eat. That's seriously a learned skill for me. I have to remember to eat.


Me too! :laughing: I get so wrapped up in whatever I'm doing sometimes that I'm not aware that I'm hungry for hours. Like today.. I haven't eaten all day and now it's apparent that I need to eat. LOL. Gotta laugh at ourselves sometimes.


----------



## ParetoCaretheStare

I'm talking to the readers of personality cafe. Although, you are free to answer that question, which I'm assuming is why you initially put your own say into the idea. 

But surely.


----------



## gaudy316

Does the Islamic Middle East look like an SJ world? 

Extremely religious. Huge dichotomy split between Shiites and Sunnis (see differences here: History News Network). Zero tolerance policies abound with LOTS of laws (if a woman drivers by herself, she'll be executed). Intolerant of other cultures. Gender specific roles are pretty clear. Conservative to the point that they are 'stuck in time'. 

This is your SJ world in a nutshell.


----------



## teddy564339

gaudy316 said:


> Does the Islamic Middle East look like an SJ world?
> 
> Extremely religious. Huge dichotomy split between Shiites and Sunnis (see differences here: History News Network). Zero tolerance policies abound with LOTS of laws (if a woman drivers by herself, she'll be executed). Intolerant of other cultures. Gender specific roles are pretty clear. Conservative to the point that they are 'stuck in time'.
> 
> This is your SJ world in a nutshell.


Once again, you're generalizing way too much based on type. Yes, there are some SJs who have beliefs mentioned here...but that doesn't mean that those beliefs are equated to being an SJ. 

There are plenty of SJs who disagree just as strongly as you do with the things you're describing. There are people of other types who agree with them. 




Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're simply taking certain mentalities that you have a problem with and thinking "Oh, those mentalities are SJ mentalities, and that explains it"....just because you've seen similar ones in the SJs that you know in your life. If so, this is a drastic oversimplification of type. 

It's fine to not agree with intolerance, conservatism, gender roles, and zero tolerance policies. But don't think that these things are in place in society just because SJs want them to be. There is a whole lot more than type that plays into these topics.


----------



## gaudy316

teddy564339 said:


> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're simply taking certain mentalities that you have a problem with and thinking "Oh, those mentalities are SJ mentalities, and that explains it"....just because you've seen similar ones in the SJs that you know in your life. If so, this is a drastic oversimplification of type.


Yup, I got an infraction for my last post.


----------



## n.yumikim

ParetoCaretheStare said:


> I'm talking to the readers of personality cafe. Although, you are free to answer that question, which I'm assuming is why you initially put your own say into the idea.
> 
> But surely.


I see the lifestyles of individuals such as ENTP's as a bit of a gamble. It's much more safe to breed a bunch of ISTJ's than a bunch of ENTP's; nonetheless, you do need an ENTP or two to progress in any way. The same with mutations. 

Of course I'm not speaking literally: not all ISTJ's are more stable than ENTPs and vice versa. But you know, hopefully you get the big picture I'm trying to communicate (I'm really bad at this, spare me ~.~).


----------



## Ghostwheel

gaudy316 said:


> How would you like it if the US government forgave all debt, extended free healthcare to all citizens, brought home ALL the troops around the world and placed them onto our borders (to prevent drugs from coming in), stripped the reputation from each university, and completely revamped the education system to fit every child's personality? *Would you be offended?*


No.



gaudy316 said:


> Call me crazy, but I see a huge differences between an NJ and an SJ.


There are. That's because our psyches are not our _letters,_ but our _functions._

ISTJ vs INTJ is the difference of one letter. But when you look at the functions, they're hugely different:


ISTJ: 1-Si, 2-Te, 3-Fi, 4-Ie


INTJ: 1-Ni, 2-Te, 3-Fi, 4-Se

ISTJ leads with Introverted Sensing and has repressed Extraverted Intuition.

INTJ leads with Introverted Intuition and has repressed Extraverted Sensing.

Huge difference between these two types.

Sensing vs Intuition seems the biggest difference in function between the types.




gaudy316 said:


> Does the Islamic Middle East look like an SJ world?
> 
> Extremely religious. Huge dichotomy split between Shiites and Sunnis (see differences here: History News Network). Zero tolerance policies abound with LOTS of laws (if a woman drivers by herself, she'll be executed). Intolerant of other cultures. Gender specific roles are pretty clear. Conservative to the point that they are 'stuck in time'.
> 
> This is your SJ world in a nutshell.


Proving Plato's point that most people "imbibe" their values unexamined from their nurturing culture.

If society was based upon the values of say, Star Trek TNG, we'd have our SJs conserving that culture and its institutions, which would be just fine.


----------



## Owfin

With my earlier point about an INFP society, what I mean is that a society run solely by any one type isn't ideal. I think most societies are run by a multitude of types, especially as I disagree with a lot of the statistics (tests are after all very often inaccurate).

And there is the point that your type only detirmines your cognitive thinking programming code of choice; you can do whatever else you want with that. You can write a vast amount of different programs with C++, just as there can be a vast amount of different kinds of people in any MBTI type.


----------



## aus2020

Where the priorities of a particular group predominates, everyone is disadvantaged, not just the minority groups. 

When you look at the ESTJ/SJ United States, some obvious stats stand out:

Americans spend nearly twice as much as the Canadians on healthcare, yet receive half as much as their Canadian counterparts in return:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

American expenditure on it’s military is nearly 6X that of the next nearest country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

The US also apparently has 90% of the world’s lawyers.

I could go on with more stats, but needless to say, when you have a society that out of balance, all of this is unsustainable in the long run. When SJ/sensing priorities heavily predominate, it reduces the society’s ability to maintain their preferred, comfortable sensing lifestyles. What’s needed is a compromise between competing interests and that’s just not happening. 

Going in the complete opposite direction is not the answer either. During the 70’s, the socialist Swedish government thought that the wealthy would be quite happy to pay income tax at the rate of 90 cents in the dollar. For obvious reasons, that didn’t work out, so subsequently Sweden had to reduce the tax rate for the wealthy.


----------



## Quarosetz

Lol, the most rebellious person I knew was an ESTJ. Seriously. Other people's rules were useless, time-wasting, etc. Instead, she followed her own set of rules and expected people to follow them.  She was angry all the time because she thought the world was not productive and fair enough. NFs aren't the only ones who lament about what the world could be.


----------



## n.yumikim

Quarosetz said:


> Lol, the most rebellious person I knew was an ESTJ. Seriously. Other people's rules were useless, time-wasting, etc. Instead, she followed her own set of rules and expected people to follow them.  She was angry all the time because she thought the world was not productive and fair enough. NFs aren't the only ones who lament about what the world could be.


Totally agree with the ESTJ comment. If there was one type I found myself to bump heads with the most, it's the ESTJ's - and it's not because I'm ENTP or XXXX... They're just generally belligerent, even when there's absolutely no call to behave so.

If you're an ESTJ Type 9, props to you. I like you. Breed more and more often.


----------



## Quarosetz

n.yumikim said:


> Totally agree with the ESTJ comment. If there was one type I found myself to bump heads with the most, it's the ESTJ's - and it's not because I'm ENTP or XXXX... They're just generally belligerent, even when there's absolutely no call to behave so.
> 
> If you're an ESTJ Type 9, props to you. I like you. Breed more and more often.


I'm only an INFJ. :crying: Lol. I only butt heads with her when she was not quite in tune with her empathy (EX: "So your ex is dating someone else now." Me: "WHAT"). And I think she would get annoyed at my laziness, heh. She was always achieving something...


----------



## aus2020

I used to believe in the E3 american dream that anything was possible. I would dilligently apply for the green card lottery time and time again, but with no positive results. However, when I travelled to the US, it wasn't what I imagined it to be, or not what was presented in the media. I've travelled to the US four times. 

When I actually travelled to the US, I was disappointed with the high level of bureaucracy, the poverty as examplified by the homeless, the low minimum wages, the high crime levels, the healthcare, the modernisation and infrastructure of many cities. All of which adds more stress to people, particularly in the larger cities. It just seemed to me that there was one world for the wealthy, and another world for everyone else.

According to the Economist magazine, Australia has 4 cities in the top 10 global liveability survey:

Best and worst cities to live

I found what was best for me, is right here at home. 

Australia is considered to be ESFP 7, Canada ESFJ 9 and the US ESTJ 3.

This is not to say that Australia is a perfect place or a model country, but it seems that countries such as Australia and Canada have found a good balance between competing interests.


----------



## 2ch

This is a classical question, but I believe it has been an SJ world where activities and responsibilities are rigorously defined. Otherwise any form of instability would create or instill fear in those that seek the system that we already have now. It might change in the future.


----------



## niki

this is a very interesting thread that somehow, can make me to be able to appreciate SJ type even more, 
even though we're like totally from different world most of the time lol.
I thank the OP @teddy564339 for creating this quite insightful thread


----------



## See Above

@teddy564339

I'm sure you very likely know more about this than I do, -- do types make society, or does society/environment make types? Might you know if there have been studies done establishing links between genetics and types? How do they test infants? Toddlers? 

Also, as far as any chafing goes with SJs, I'm not sure this site is an ideal sample of society at large, as there is a preponderance of certain age groups. Some age ranges may, perhaps, have more difficulty recognizing the virtues of the SJs than others.

Just my random 2 cents.


----------



## niki

Upped.

Because of the importance for this interesting topic's discussion~

Please continue discussing~


----------



## magi83

I have to confess that I haven't read the whole thread but in relation to the 'SJs fare better in law of the jungle' I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. I have read that the dominant male in groups of common Chimpanzees is not necessarily the strongest but is often the one who is best at manipulating other Chimpanzees and securing 'political support'. If our closest pre-**** relatives have political social structures then it isn't a stretch to hypothesize that homos have always had political social structures. I would think that SJ traits would be good for gathering resources (one potential source of political power) but I don't think they are strong manipulators as they struggle to see life from the perspective of others.


----------



## Yardiff Bey

SJs build systems and stuff well. My thinking is like this:

Thought
|
Prototype
|
Better Prototype
|
Efficient Design
|
Mass Produce
|
Distribute

Or something vaguely like that. With the last three steps most likely being done by SJs, thus helping towards the building of the world we live in.

It would be far better than everyone trying to produce their own "better prototype" of whatever they need to have in their home. Even though that can be done with a great deal of personal satisfaction, there are times when its just not feasible.


----------



## niss

magi83 said:


> I have to confess that I haven't read the whole thread but in relation to the 'SJs fare better in law of the jungle' I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. I have read that the dominant male in groups of common Chimpanzees is not necessarily the strongest but is often the one who is best at manipulating other Chimpanzees and securing 'political support'. If our closest pre-**** relatives have political social structures then it isn't a stretch to hypothesize that homos have always had political social structures. I would think that SJ traits would be good for gathering resources (one potential source of political power) but I don't think they are strong manipulators as they struggle to see life from the perspective of others.


While I agree with you that this is not necessarily true, and I also agree that we are not the best manipulators, we will go to work to build a political consensus in order to achieve a goal, using people as another resource. Also, we are quite able to see life from the perspective of others - some SJs are quite good at this, in fact.


----------



## uncertain

teddy564339 said:


> (I'm posting this in all four temperament forums to hear the different opinions from each group).
> 
> 
> So first off, I know it's a huge assumption to say that we live in an SJ world. This has been discussed in other threads, and some have said that Ns really run the world, but since there are so few of them (and there only need to be a few of them) that they have a lot of SJs to be "mini-managers" that are out there holding most of the authority positions.
> 
> 
> But, I've noticed that on PerC, people of the other three temperaments seem to have the most frustrations with SJs. Part of this seems to stem from the fact that SJs are often in positions of authority over them (parent, boss, teacher), and part of it seems to be just that SJs are the biggest group of the four temperaments.
> 
> 
> Now, I also know that it's an assumption that SJs are the largest of the temperaments. There's no true way to measure these stats. However, there seems to be no strong reason to think that Ss don't greatly outnumber Ns, and most people's experiences tend to point to there being more SJs than SPs.
> 
> 
> Simply put, most people on PerC tend to think that we live in an SJ world.
> 
> 
> While it's possible that this is just due to mis-typing people as SJs, it seems to be a pretty consistent theme on PerC. One could argue that PerC isn't a good sample group since the average PerC user isn't the same as the average person (there are more Ns if nothing else), but it's the only group I can discuss this with anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess what I'm wondering is this: If we live in an SJ world, what causes it to be that way?
> 
> 
> The first answer that tends to pop up is: "SJs are the biggest group. So, because there are so many of them, they get to establish the norms and the rules, and the other temperaments just have to deal with it, even if they're really frustrated."
> 
> 
> But then I'm left wondering, "Well, why are SJs the biggest group?" Is this true across cultures, or is this just a Western culture trend? Has it been true across history? Is there an evolutionary reason why SJs are the biggest group?
> 
> 
> 
> For me, what it boils down to is this: Is it necessary for a society to function without SJs being the biggest group? Are SJs the biggest group because that's the easiest way for a society to run? Kind of like an ant colony or bee hive....do there need to be more "worker" types than there other types?
> 
> If not, what other societies have there been throughout history, and why have they not lasted? Are there more balanced cultures in the world today, and if so, what are they like?
> 
> 
> 
> What makes me think of all of this is that Ns in particular seem to be very frustrated with the SJ state of the world, but it seems like this has been going on for centuries, at least in the Western world. Maybe our species is set up because it only needs a few Ns coming up with new ideas, and it needs more SJs to carry them out. I just don't think it's a random occurrence that there are so many SJs.
> 
> 
> So I'm curious to hear more thoughts on this.


First of all I really like your thought process and your way of thinking. It's really step by step, clear, and solid.

*For me, what it boils down to is this: Is it necessary for a society to function without SJs being the biggest group? Are SJs the biggest group because that's the easiest way for a society to run? Kind of like an ant colony or bee hive....do there need to be more "worker" types than there other types?

*Yes. It boils down to this: Every society wants to continue to exist.

Continual existence is done by society being as stable as possible, but it consists of infinite number of things, people, thoughts and possibility. It wants to eliminate as much unstable factors as possible. Society encourages structure and stability, which is why we have government, Law, and all different institutions, and SJs. SJ is the biggest group because the society wants and needs them, and create SJ people in many different ways, such as education. All the institution in our society exist for the sake of stability so people find it easiest to be part of it, obeying its rule.

There were pre-society and "pre-civilization" some 10,000 years ago. The increase of population is the very reason why society with structure and classes and law emerged.


----------



## Doom

I completely disagree with the idea that Ns were useless during the Hunter/Gather period, maybe in a society where everything IS the same 24/7/365 but what about up further north with the cold winters? Which ones had the foresight to prepare for the long cold winters? The N's weren't out getting food as much as they were looking for ways to protect their family, preparing themselves for when things might happen. We have always had our place, we just don't need 20 Ns planning out the future with nobody to do anything.

Anyway this topic also assumes that people go through their whole lives using only their first two functions, I think some of the frustration comes down to the fact that Ns have to change and mentality to fit in where as SJ types in particular can go their whole lives without using their other functions. I developed my Ti more mostly because it made it easier to be a male. As somebody said being called "weird" gets old quickly, SJs expect me to be a certain which simply isn't me or how my brain works. 

What it comes down to with me is I only do things that I need to or it makes a big difference if I do it. If I want to cut my hair I'll cut it because it is a hassle to deal with not because long hair is unacceptable in this society. Some SJs act as if I am incapable of remembering when to eat and drink, I'll drink you under the table. I just don't feel the need to put a routine to them, I eat when I god damn feel like it. There are so many stupid laws and boundaries put in place that are only there to keep SJs comfortable. 

A society would be just as healthy if it was more Intuitive minded, humans are adaptive regardless of their personalities. The priorities and way things would be different perhaps. A lot of NFs in particular have this idea in our heads that we are worthless but they're not, a lot of SJs seem to think the world would somehow stop running if they weren't there as well which is also simply wrong. 

Sorry if this comes off as condescending.


----------



## teddy564339

Doom said:


> I completely disagree with the idea that Ns were useless during the Hunter/Gather period, maybe in a society where everything IS the same 24/7/365 but what about up further north with the cold winters? Which ones had the foresight to prepare for the long cold winters? The N's weren't out getting food as much as they were looking for ways to protect their family, preparing themselves for when things might happen. We have always had our place, we just don't need 20 Ns planning out the future with nobody to do anything.
> 
> Anyway this topic also assumes that people go through their whole lives using only their first two functions, I think some of the frustration comes down to the fact that Ns have to change and mentality to fit in where as SJ types in particular can go their whole lives without using their other functions. I developed my Ti more mostly because it made it easier to be a male. As somebody said being called "weird" gets old quickly, SJs expect me to be a certain which simply isn't me or how my brain works.
> 
> What it comes down to with me is I only do things that I need to or it makes a big difference if I do it. If I want to cut my hair I'll cut it because it is a hassle to deal with not because long hair is unacceptable in this society. Some SJs act as if I am incapable of remembering when to eat and drink, I'll drink you under the table. I just don't feel the need to put a routine to them, I eat when I god damn feel like it. There are so many stupid laws and boundaries put in place that are only there to keep SJs comfortable.
> 
> A society would be just as healthy if it was more Intuitive minded, humans are adaptive regardless of their personalities. The priorities and way things would be different perhaps. A lot of NFs in particular have this idea in our heads that we are worthless but they're not, a lot of SJs seem to think the world would somehow stop running if they weren't there as well which is also simply wrong.
> 
> Sorry if this comes off as condescending.



But my question is still why society is an "SJ society" in the first place then? If what you're saying is true, why? Why are SJs the ones in the majority? Why is it that Ns are the only ones forced to adapt? Why are there laws in place for SJs but not for other types? 


That was kind of my motivation for this thread...if all of these things that so many people on PerC claim is true, why is it the case? What is it that gives SJs all of the control, and if so many people of other temperaments have always had so many problems with it, why hasn't it changed up to this point?


----------



## Doom

Assuming it's genetic there are many possible reasons, perhaps regardless of your parents type there is only a 1/4 chance to become an intuitive. As I said there isn't much need to be an intuitive at least during those periods so perhaps it is something didn't show up as often, at least strongly due to the nature of man during that period. SJs still have intuitive functions they're just not as prominent, maybe people were originally more balanced with their functions but their Si/Se was used more so it became more dominant. Perhaps N's were more prone to out doing stuff that meant they were too busy to have children, perhaps they were more persecuted and lived out on their own because of their ideals.

Maybe its not, maybe we're taught subconsciously as a child and develop as we become older. I think that as a kid I was naturally introverted but its possibly that my other functions were completely open to choice and developed based on my upbringing. My oldest brother started off as an Extroverted child but now he's very introverted. My mother really encouraged me to read when I was a kid and perhaps the way she treated me helped me develop my Ni more where as I can see most parents desiring a Si dom child. Though this is just a theory, I'm fairly sure I was a natural INxJ child and my Fe came out in my teen years.

As for your last statement I do feel it is slowly starting to change especially since the 1960s, I feel that the whole era was largely a result of so many NFs in addition as technology has become more advance NTs have become more appreciated. We're moving more to a society where people want to come off as Intuitive now, just look at the whole Hipster movement which reeks of NF. That being said I don't really want a world without SJs and SPs.


----------



## aus2020

gaudy316 said:


> Does the Islamic Middle East look like an SJ world?
> 
> Extremely religious. Huge dichotomy split between Shiites and Sunnis (see differences here: History News Network). Zero tolerance policies abound with LOTS of laws (if a woman drivers by herself, she'll be executed). Intolerant of other cultures. Gender specific roles are pretty clear. Conservative to the point that they are 'stuck in time'.
> 
> This is your SJ world in a nutshell.













You're not railing against an SJ culture, you're just anti-conservative. People tend to be more conservative in harsh environments like the middle east and people also tend to be more liberal minded in countries with moderate climates. At the end of the day, one man's meat is another man's poison. It's neither practical nor necessary to change other cultures to suit one's individual sense of right and wrong. Rules are also not static, they can change over time at a rate with which that particular culture is comfortable with.


----------



## Sixty Nein

I'm going to take this quote from this forum post that is entirely relevant to this conversation.

ISFJ or INFJ?

"I feel like they clarify without being biased. Don't worry about the SJ = rigid uniformist crap. IMO, SJ is more about experiential learning, concrete detail awareness, stability orientation, and practicality. Several SFJs I know are voracious researchers."

Also didn't Carl Jung say that Introverted Sensors would be pretty awesome at being an artist? I mean he portrayed all Pi dominants as primarily artists if nothing else. Si isn't about being stuck in the past or "following someone else's rules" as that pseudo-intellectual twat DaveSuperPowers says it is. It's about impressionistic sensory detail that has a special meaning to that person itself. Conservatism is more of a result of Extroverted Feeling/Extroverted Thinking not being able to change as necessary than anything else.


----------



## MadCatter

Who's to say there there has to be a reason? Sometimes characteristics/traits within a species develop alongside something else, by pure accident. We wont know the answer, obviously. 

Maybe there used to be more Ns, and then early civilzation hit, and people who tossed out ideas that weren't part of the 'norm' were executed for seemingly defying those in power.

DISCLAIMER: I'm only responding in dramatically oversimplified stereotypes because that's how I feel any of the comments regarding Ns being useless to a 'survival' type scenario or in early human development come across.

As far as the idea that Ns wouldn't be as suitable to survive "back in the day", I laughed and then had to go grab my laptop to pull this up so I could type a response, rather than fight with my phone. If we're going purely off of stereotypes here, I look over at my ISFJ SO right now, and I'm nearly filled with pity as his inability to survive the "wild" as it were. I'm not saying all SJs are like him, who admitted that he has difficulty planning for the future, he's just my most immediate and relevant example I have to go off of. He's considerably better at making friendships/alliances with people.. but that has to do with my Te, and not my Ni. Explain to me (saying this in general to anyone who feels S would be better to survive early human evolution), who as an SJ is thinking of the big picture and devising appropriate trapping/hunting or even crop farming/growing strategies? I don't mean this to be condescending, but rather I believe all types have their place in society or it's growth and survival, and no type is inherently more suited for life as a human in all aspects. 



TAHTGUY said:


> It's because evolutionary SJs we're the ones who survived, it's hard to survive in the wild if you're living in your head iNtuitive or laid back Perciever.


So while I, as an Ni, am sleeping in my hut, or in a tree, or some other form of protection, because I thought about how animals might eat me as I'm helpless at night, an S who notices some beast is nomming on their arm in the middle of the night, is more likely to survive?


"But my question is still why society is an "SJ society" in the first place then?" 

Because structure is necessary. Societal expectations are necessary. Maybe Ns help us survive as a species by aiding in adapting and preparing for change. Maybe Ss help us survive as a species by responding to the here and now, and helping to maintain the systems we live in. Why there are more of one than the other, I don't know. Freak chance? The ratio has worked out for us for the most part.


----------



## teddy564339

Doom said:


> Assuming it's genetic there are many possible reasons, perhaps regardless of your parents type there is only a 1/4 chance to become an intuitive. As I said there isn't much need to be an intuitive at least during those periods so perhaps it is something didn't show up as often, at least strongly due to the nature of man during that period. SJs still have intuitive functions they're just not as prominent, maybe people were originally more balanced with their functions but their Si/Se was used more so it became more dominant. Perhaps N's were more prone to out doing stuff that meant they were too busy to have children, perhaps they were more persecuted and lived out on their own because of their ideals.


While all of those things might be possible, I don't think the idea that Ss having more children leading to there being more Ss really makes much sense. Not only do I see no correlation between Ns "doing more stuff" than Ss or someone doing more stuff making it less likely for them to have children, but it also assumes that an S is more likely to have an S child and an N more likely to have an N child. 

As far as Ns being more persecuted...again, this will only be the case if they're already in the minority...and that's what we're trying to establish in the first place, why they're in the minority to start with. So I don't think that can be an explanation for how they became the minority. 


It is possible that in early society there wasn't as much of a disparity in people's functions, but again...this still doesn't answer the question as to why it has changed. 




Doom said:


> Maybe its not, maybe we're taught subconsciously as a child and develop as we become older. I think that as a kid I was naturally introverted but its possibly that my other functions were completely open to choice and developed based on my upbringing. My oldest brother started off as an Extroverted child but now he's very introverted. My mother really encouraged me to read when I was a kid and perhaps the way she treated me helped me develop my Ni more where as I can see most parents desiring a Si dom child. Though this is just a theory, I'm fairly sure I was a natural INxJ child and my Fe came out in my teen years.


Why do you think more parents would desire an Si child? I also don't think that reading is necessarily connected to N or Ni. I do think that parental actions can affect how a child suppresses or releases parts of their personalities, though.



Doom said:


> As for your last statement I do feel it is slowly starting to change especially since the 1960s, I feel that the whole era was largely a result of so many NFs in addition as technology has become more advance NTs have become more appreciated. We're moving more to a society where people want to come off as Intuitive now, just look at the whole Hipster movement which reeks of NF. That being said I don't really want a world without SJs and SPs.


Maybe so, but I don't think it's that strong. As another post mentioned, I think this is more about people's attitudes toward more liberal and more conservative ideas in general, and I think that's more of a pendulum swinging back and forth for balance (and also more of a J vs. P one rather than S vs. N). The 60s were more liberal, the 80s more conservative. It's not like things stayed the way they were in the 60s. There were other times throughout history that were also more revolutionary...the Renaissance, the industrial revolution, the American revolution, the abolition of slavery, etc. 

So I don't know how true it is that society is becoming more "N leaning" than it has been in the past, at least not long term. I do think that people are becoming more aware of others globally, however, due to communication technology.




MadCatter said:


> Who's to say there there has to be a reason? Sometimes characteristics/traits within a species develop alongside something else, by pure accident. We wont know the answer, obviously.


I suppose it's possible that it was all by an accident, but it seems to me that those types of situations are more the exception than the norm. 



MadCatter said:


> Maybe there used to be more Ns, and then early civilzation hit, and people who tossed out ideas that weren't part of the 'norm' were executed for seemingly defying those in power.


If there were more Ns, then why wouldn't Ns be just as much the "norm" as Ss? Why would Ss be the ones in power if there were more Ns then too? 

And even if this was the case, wouldn't the genetics of the situation re-balance it out after a generation anyway? If originally we were biologically apt to produce an equal number of Ns vs. Ss, then even if one generation greatly reduced the number of Ns, that wouldn't be enough to change the biological percentages. Again, an N isn't any more likely to have an N child than an S is.



MadCatter said:


> DISCLAIMER: I'm only responding in dramatically oversimplified stereotypes because that's how I feel any of the comments regarding Ns being useless to a 'survival' type scenario or in early human development come across.
> 
> As far as the idea that Ns wouldn't be as suitable to survive "back in the day", I laughed and then had to go grab my laptop to pull this up so I could type a response, rather than fight with my phone. If we're going purely off of stereotypes here, I look over at my ISFJ SO right now, and I'm nearly filled with pity as his inability to survive the "wild" as it were. I'm not saying all SJs are like him, who admitted that he has difficulty planning for the future, he's just my most immediate and relevant example I have to go off of. He's considerably better at making friendships/alliances with people.. but that has to do with my Te, and not my Ni. Explain to me (saying this in general to anyone who feels S would be better to survive early human evolution), who as an SJ is thinking of the big picture and devising appropriate trapping/hunting or even crop farming/growing strategies? I don't mean this to be condescending, but rather I believe all types have their place in society or it's growth and survival, and no type is inherently more suited for life as a human in all aspects.
> 
> 
> 
> So while I, as an Ni, am sleeping in my hut, or in a tree, or some other form of protection, because I thought about how animals might eat me as I'm helpless at night, an S who notices some beast is nomming on their arm in the middle of the night, is more likely to survive?



I agree with you that stereotypical "N traits" and "S traits" are needed for survival and I do think it's silly for anyone to think Ns were ever more useless in society...if so, then they wouldn't be there in the first place. 

I do know that your response here is aimed at that thought. However, I think you're probably also aware that many of the things your'e describing aren't really strictly N vs. S differences. Ss certainly plan for the future as well...I think the whole adaptability on the spot vs. planning for the future is more P vs. J than S vs. N. 

As for SJs present SJs not being adaptive in the wild....this is more down to the fact that Si uses previous experiences to survive in the moment. Present day SJs aren't as apt to have that know-how because of lack of experience. A SJ growing up in that environment would have much more natural experience (as would any type), so it's not really a helpful comparison.


Of course, that's all just splitting hairs, because I do agree with your overall point that all types have always had usefulness in society.




But I think the main idea to think about, however, is the number disparity. While I think it's very apparent that every type has needed attributes, I think it's also possible that naturally there may be a need for more Ss (and maybe SJs) in society than Ns. It's funny how both an N or an S might claim this makes their type "more important" where to me, it suggests neither. 

Which brings me to my main point, which I may have mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread...



MadCatter said:


> "But my question is still why society is an "SJ society" in the first place then?"
> 
> Because structure is necessary. Societal expectations are necessary. Maybe Ns help us survive as a species by aiding in adapting and preparing for change. Maybe Ss help us survive as a species by responding to the here and now, and helping to maintain the systems we live in. Why there are more of one than the other, I don't know. Freak chance? The ratio has worked out for us for the most part.



I think it's possible that this ratio does exist for a reason. That reason is the idea that when there is a large group of people, typically there is a need for a few of them to come up with new ideas, and a lot of them to carry those ideas out. 

To me it goes back to the old adage "We can't have too many chiefs and not enough indians". 

In my mind, if everyone in a group has different ideas and they're not unified, they will spend so much time disagreeing that they won't ever put any of those ideas into action. It seems that on a large scale, society functions better as you said...with a few revolutionary ideas, and a lot of people then being used to carry them out, take care of the details, and sustaining what is built.


It's of course not as simple as saying Ns are always the ones creating the ideas and Ss are the ones carrying it out. But I think many people on PerC believe that this is the way it ends up working out.



Again, I think this leads to Ns vs. Ss potentially having false ideas that their type is more important. An N may be believe that each individual N is more needed in society because Ss are so prevalent...losing one S doesn't hurt hte group as much as losing one N, since there are fewer people who can do what the N does. An S may believe that because there are more Ss, then they're more important, simply because they're in the majority. 

To me, both of these mentalities are flawed, since it misses the idea that both traits are just as needed as the other and that they work together, as well as the idea that everyone has a mix of N vs. S traits.



However, what I continually see on PerC is frustration that Ns feel from being in the minority. While I think their frustrations are justified, I think sometimes they let these personal frustrations lead them to think "If only we had more Ns in society, everything would be so much better". I think a lot of times these are more out of a desire for personal benefit than they are for a true positive change in society. 


Now, there's no way to tell for sure. Interestingly enough, the situation itself is an example of the actual topic being discussed. Ns prefer to try out new ideas and take the risk of it being worse if it can be better. SJs prefer to sustain what's already there rather than risk losing it for something better. So it makes sense that an N would want to try out the idea of more Ns in society because it *could* be better, while an SJ would want to keep what's there because it already works, even if it's not perfect.



Overall, I think that as long as everyone keeps in mind that we don't know for sure, it's fine. Maybe more Ns in society would be better, maybe ti would be the same, or maybe it would worse. 

I think it's akin to a two-question true false test where you know one answer is false and one is true, but you don't know which is which. A more conservative person would put true for both and know that they definitely have one right but also definitely won't get both right. A more adventurous person might put down two differnet things for both, potentially getting both right or both wrong. The expected value for both situations is the same.


As long as we're all honest in that, I think it's ok. I just sometimes feel like people miss out on the positives of the other side. SJs sometimes don't value hte idea of hte risk and how things could be better, but Ns sometimes don't value the positives of what's already there.


----------



## MadCatter

Teddy, I'm sorry if this is too forward, but I think I love you tongue... You have a way of explaining things that makes sense, and is not offensive, and I appreciate it greatly. I think most of my post was reacting negatively to the first few comments singling out one type as being better or worse at survival as a whole, or more beneficial to society/the species.


----------



## teddy564339

MadCatter said:


> Teddy, I'm sorry if this is too forward, but I think I love you tongue... You have a way of explaining things that makes sense, and is not offensive, and I appreciate it greatly. I think most of my post was reacting negatively to the first few comments singling out one type as being better or worse at survival as a whole, or more beneficial to society/the species.


Ha ha...well, you do have an ISFJ SO. :tongue:

Honestly, though, I do get that your last post was in response to the idea that Ns were less useful in primitive societies.


Maybe it's just me, but I've always felt like the "absent-minded" stereotype for Ns is completely stupid and inaccurate. I know a lot of comments were made in jest, but the idea of an N dying in the wild because they weren't paying attention is simply ridiculous. Out of all of the Ns I've known, not a single one has been absent-minded or unaware of their surroundings or anything that dealt with physical surroundings. My ENTJ dad has been known to forget little daily things, but not any more than I do...my mom always believed that I actually picked up that trait from my dad, which means it doesn't have to deal with the MBTI.


----------



## niss

teddy564339 said:


> So first off, I know it's a huge assumption to say that we live in an SJ world.


It is. And that's where it stops.

Too many equate doing all of the stuff that makes up eighty percent of life as being an SJ world, and it is simply a false assertion.

You teach math, if I remember correctly. Math is everywhere and is in everything that we do. You can't have music, dance, sculpture, painting, photography - anything - without math. Yet, math with it's necessary scaffolding from the basic concepts and rote memorization to it's most common level of achievement by the general populace, would be considered an SJ function by many. But if the "intuitive" would be set free, it is only through the door of the "SJ world" that it can happen.

So we rage against the machine, and that machine is embodied by people that tell us what we must do - people invested in having a productive society. People mature enough to understand that the rules we make are simply guides to minimize the mayhem we would do to ourselves and others were they not in place.

Why are there not more intuitives? Who knows? Nature? Nurture? Something else? But to call it an SJ world is incorrect. It is a people world. All of us contributing in our own way.


----------

