# Which type do you think is most likely to be a Republican



## Buoyant (Oct 7, 2010)

INFJ Centrist

If the SJW thread in the INFJ forum is any indication, the idea of liberalism is vastly different than it was in 1998. The type previously 49% Dem is now predominantly moderates. I don't think INFJs left the Dem party, the party bailed on them. 

Virtually all of the Ns I know are moderates, while the most extreme on either end of the aisle are S types. Most of the conservatives I know keep a low profile, while many liberals like to call themselves independents despite having no conservative values or ideals. Strange times.


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

I find it a little hard to believe that sensors are more likely to be conservative and intuitives tend to be more left. Just head on over to the debate and current events forums and they are chalk full of intuitives who are right wing conservatives.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

This thread is the final proof that all your mbti nonsense if americentric to the core, lmao

Even if I were american I would have to be particularly thick in the head to vote against all my material and political interests.


----------



## MakeItRain (Feb 8, 2017)

braided pain said:


> Type and U.S. Political Party Affiliations
> 
> The best info they had was a survey done in 1998.
> 
> ...


What I got from this is

Democrats = F
Republicans = T


----------



## Taileile (Jul 2, 2016)

I'm pretty sure it can go either way. I've never noticed much of a correlation between MBTI and personal beliefs; just different ways of thinking.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

MakeItRain said:


> What I got from this is
> 
> Democrats = F
> Republicans = T


All 8 T/F counterparts ended up with more Democrats on the F side (ex: ENFP had more Democrats ENTP). ENTP actually had less Republicans than ENFP but overall ENFPs favored Democrats over Republicans and ENTPs favored Republicans over Democrats.

All 8 P/J counterparts ended up with more Independents on the P side (ex: ENFP vs ENFJ).

I was actually expecting N's to be more independent than S's in almost all cases, but it wasn't. ISFP (41%) > INFP (40%), ISFJ (30%) > INFJ (29%), ESFJ (30%) = ENFJ (30%). Obviously not large differences but this can mainly be explained by these NF types being strongly liberal-oriented to the point where they are driven to take sides. INFJs love Democrats in particular.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

MakeItRain said:


> What I got from this is
> 
> Democrats = F
> Republicans = T


You've made the same mistake lots of people make when they look at that chart and don't read the whole article that it comes from.

See this post (from page 1 of this thread).


----------



## The Conundrum (Aug 23, 2017)

I have a few conclusions about this topic. I believe the most rational types tend to go right wing. Mostly because the right wing represents individuality, while the left represents communion. The political compass is divided in 4 wings: upper (authoritarian), bottom (liberal), left (economical interventionism) and right (freedom of market). 

Feelers like to think about the ideal world, where everyone has food, clothes, a home, etc; that is why they go to the left, to embrace policies of welfare and to an extreme, mass immigration. (I personally think this makes them more manipulable by populist speeches.)

Thinkers tend to be individualistic, we want to buy and sell, study, work, improve ourselves, provide our future by pure meritocracy. 

Top and bottom are the biggest wild cards here, I can't seem to figure out how to relate them to MBTI.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

The Conundrum said:


> I believe the most rational types tend to go right wing.


Here's an article that notes that "a Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest 'don't know' their affiliation."

That there is a _nine-to-one_ Democrat-to-Republican ratio among US scientists.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

The Conundrum said:


> I believe the most rational types tend to go right wing.


Core word here being _belief_. Do you mean "rational" in Jungian terms? i.e. Judging.



The Conundrum said:


> Mostly because the right wing represents individuality, while the left represents communion.


Nah. The authoritarian/libertarian axis correlates to collectivism/individualism.


----------



## The Conundrum (Aug 23, 2017)

Bastard said:


> Nah. The authoritarian/libertarian axis correlates to collectivism/individualism.


No, it doesn't. Being an authoritarian means you favor SOCIAL restrictions on the society; mostly related to moral qualms, an authoritarian may want to prohibit abortion, drug usage and the recognition of homosexuality. Stalin's Soviet Union was an extremely leftist/authoritarian set of nations, they prohibited many things that you will also find as restrictions in the right wing/conservative side. Authoritarians, doesn't matter if they are leftists or right wingers, will have a common ground in social restrictions, but will be polar opposites about the economic matter. 

The bottom (libertarian), means you believe the state shouldn't intervene in social matters. On the left, you have the liberal leftists and anarchists, people who try to "deconstruct social norms and ranks" but still believe in state welfare. And on the extreme right/liberal wing, you have the anarcho-capitalists, who just want to make money and believe the government should be 100% inexistent; they believe in absolute freedom of speech, market and social matters. Leftists and right wingers at the liberal side of the political spectrum will share the sentiment that people should be free to do whatever they want, but again, will disagree about economics.

Paying more taxes to sustain the system = Collectivism 
Paying less taxes and don't give a shit to the system = Individualism


----------



## The Conundrum (Aug 23, 2017)

reckful said:


> Here's an article that notes that "a Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest 'don't know' their affiliation."
> 
> That there is a _nine-to-one_ Democrat-to-Republican ratio among US scientists.


Interesting. In my country it's a 50/50 relation, me and most of my colleagues in the scientific area are upper right wingers. I believe we have so many leftists because people who graduate at public universities are indoctrinated by marxist teachers. The left has infiltrated in EVERYWHERE here; the academic places, religious places and the entertainment media, that's how they manage to balance things out. My folk and culture are consistently conservative, the left finds some resistance here. From all the romantic countries, France is the only one with natural liberal tendencies, which isn't a mystery, since France held half a dozen cultural revolutions across the centuries, lol.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

ISTJ here... I've been voting for 44 years and have never registered a party affiliation. I can't fathom associating myself with either group of slimey bastards. My voting history has never followed party lines... votes are typically cast to the lesser of evils (yes... a cynic... and proud of it).

As far as my general views...









...I believe it's generally none of my or the government's business what the hell you do... just don't ask me to pay for it.


----------



## merkuria (Jan 8, 2018)

I'm an INFJ and anarchist (libertarian socialist).

My mom is an ESTJ: conservative
My grandma is an ESFJ: conservative-centrist
My grandpa is an ISFJ: conservative
My aunt is an ISFJ: centrist
My uncle is an ESTP: conservative

And this is my political compass:


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

I would guess XSTJ's. Decieded to do a quick search on the topic, and here are a few articles that popped up:


* *





The U.S. Political Personality (I): Parties | 16Personalities



> Responding “Republican” to “Which party or political movement do you support most?”
> Extraverted vs.IntrovertedIntuitive vs. ObservantThinking vs. FeelingJudging vs.ProspectingAssertive vs. Turbulent
> 
> 
> ...


Personality Type and Political Affiliation



> *Personality Type and Political Affiliation*
> 
> People who take the Personality Questionnaire have the option to provide some key demographic information about themselves, all gathered and stored entirely anonymously, that includes political affiliation (among other things). Occasionally we try to do something interesting with that data, such as you see here.
> These statistics were generated from a set of 1222 people. The average age of participants was 25 years old.
> ...


MBTI In Politics | Slayerment

The Personality of Policy Preferences: Analyzing the Relationship between Myers-Briggs Personality Types and Political Views




> DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Respondents’ Demographics In this study, 88 students were surveyed. The mean Liberal-Conservative Index score was approximately 3.5. Again, being that 1.0 signified a “perfect liberal” and 7.0 a “perfect 34 Coe 1992. 35 Ibid. RES PUBLICA 110 conservative,” the respondents in this study leaned slightly liberal. In comparison with selfidentified political ideology, 29.5% of participants said they were conservative, 44.3% labeled themselves as liberal, 21.6% identified themselves as moderate, and 4.5% chose the “Other” option, which included written-in responses such as “libertarian,” “apathetic,” and “communist.” 44.3% of respondents were male, and 55.7% were female. When compared to reported values for this university, the distribution was similar. At Illinois Wesleyan University, 42% of the student body is male, and 58% is female.36 In this regard, these participants are representative of the institution as a whole. H1: “Thinkers” will have more conservative policy preferences while “Feelers” will have more liberal ones. Prior to generating results, I hypothesized that Thinking and Feeling would correlate with distinctly different political preferences. An interest in particular, personal concerns versus an objective desire for equal treatment was the decisive factor that influenced this hypothesis. However, after testing this via a bivariate correlation, there is no statistically significant relationship. Hypothesis 1 was not confirmed. A possible explanation for this is that since the MBTI is not assessing personal values, Feeling and Thinking condenses to simple decision-making without regard for the motivations behind that process. Indeed, a conservative could have the same rationales as a liberal, but express them differently when it comes to political opinions. A Feeling conservative could be deeply interested in humanitarian and charitable causes but not be concerned with the same ones a Feeling liberal might. Moreover, a Thinking liberal could believe his or her ideas are good for the whole, but a Thinking conservative may have a different concept of what “good” means. Because there is no significant relationship, it is clear that this part of decision-making is not affecting policy preferences. H2: Sensing/Intuition will interact with Thinking/Feeling and influence policy preferences. SensingThinkers and Sensing-Feelers will have more conservative policy preferences, while Intuitive-Thinkers and Intuitive-Feelers will have more liberal beliefs. 36 Illinois Wesleyan University 2011. 111 RES PUBLICA To test this theory, the Sensing/Intuition variable was multiplied by the Thinking/Feeling one to analyze whether the resulting interaction significantly affected the Liberal-Conservative Index. It was expected that Sensing-Thinkers would be more strongly conservative than Intuitive-Thinkers, and that Intuitive-Feelers would be more strongly liberal than Sensing-Feelers. However, the bivariate correlation shows there is no significant relationship. For the interaction variable of Sensing and the Feeling/Thinking component, a pvalue of 0.118 resulted in its test against the Liberal-Conservative Index, ruling out a possible connection. The Intuitive Feeling/Thinking variable also does not yield a significant relationship, with a p-value of .611 recorded. This leads to the conclusion that when the way one takes in information and the way one processes that information are brought together, there is not a straight-forward way it connects to specific political opinions. Hypothesis 2 was not confirmed. H3: Judgers will be more conservative while Perceivers will be more liberal. Judging and Perceiving revolve around the concepts of change and sensitivity to time. While Judging is stricter in these regards, Perceiving is much more open, possibly reflecting similar patterns in liberalism and conservatism. To assess this in relation with policy preferences, a bivariate correlation was computed. The relationship between the Liberal-Conservative Index and the Judging/Perceiving variable is significant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.027), illustrating that there is a connection between one’s preference for Judging or Perceiving and his or her political ideologies. The Pearson correlation (0.236) shows that as one’s inclination toward Judging increases, partiality for conservatism also increases. Hypothesis 3 is confirmed. H4: Extraversion and Introversion will have little effect on policy opinions. Because Extraversion and Introversion capture a surface-level assessment of a situation, this hypothesis holds that it will not elicit much of an impact on political beliefs. Since this simply focuses on absorbing and analyzing circumstances at a first glance, this phase of the decision-making process involves little critical thinking and therefore is not likely to be influential in forming policy opinions. However, the bivariate correlation suggests a different theory. RES PUBLICA 112 The relationship here is significant at the 0.1 level (p = .079), showing that there is a correlation occurring between these two variables. The Pearson correlation of .188 illustrates that as one exhibits a stronger preference for Extraversion, he or she also shows a partiality for conservative beliefs. If any relationship were to exist here, one would think it would be in the opposite direction because Extraversion is characteristic of being open to new occurrences. With that, it is not surprising that the relationship, even if significant, is weak. However, given that I hypothesized that this variable would have no significant influence, Hypothesis 4 was not confirmed. 113 RES PUBLICA H5: Personality type will influence policy preferences more strongly than any control variable (intolerance of ambiguity, sociodemographic variables, religiosity). Table 1: The MBTI Personality Types and all control variables Dependent Variable: Liberal-Conservative Index Independent Variable LiberalConservative Index Constant 9.428 (1.076) ExtraversionIntroversion .005* (.002) .164 Sensing-Intuition .002 (.003) .050 Feeling-Thinking 2.513E-5 (.003) .001 Judging-Perceiving .001 (.003) .031 Intolerance of Ambiguity -.075*** (.014) -.482 Parents’ Education Level .024 (.082) .025 Family Income -.024 (.086) -.024 Religiosity -.744*** (.159) -.383 N Adj. R-square Model Significance F-test 88 .457 .000 10.061 Note: Standard error in parentheses and beta weights italicized; *p≤.1, **p≤.05, ***p≤.001 This model explains 45.7% of the variance in the dependent variable. With all control variables taken into account, the only significant MBTI personality variable is the Extraversion/Introversion factor. As one exhibits an inclination toward Extraversion, he or she is more likely to hold conservative beliefs. As previous research concluded, as one’s tolerance of ambiguity increases, he or she is more likely to support liberal ideologies.37 To further examine 37 Jost 2003. RES PUBLICA 114 this, I chose to assess whether or not Intolerance of Ambiguity relates directly with specific areas of an individual’s personality. Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations between MBTI personality variables and Intolerance of Ambiguity scores. Table 2: All personality variables and Intolerance of Ambiguity Extraversion and Introversion Sensing and Intuition Thinking and Feeling Judging and Perceiving Pearson Correlation .005 -.271 .134 -.335 Significance (2-tailed) .966 .011 .214 .001 N 88 88 88 88 Budner’s Intolerance of Ambiguity scale shares a significant relationship with the MBTI dichotomies of Sensing/Intuition and Judging/Perceiving. This raises the possibility that personality is directing Intolerance of Ambiguity which, in turn, affects policy preferences, measured by the Liberal-Conservative Index. For the purposes of assessing this, an interaction variable was coded, multiplying Sensing/Intuition values by individual Intolerance of Ambiguity scores and doing the same with Judging/Perceiving. A bivariate correlation was then computed for each separate interaction variable and compared with the LiberalConservative Index. For the first bivariate correlation, the Sensing/Intuition variable interacting with Intolerance of Ambiguity shows a significant relationship with the Liberal-Conservative Index. With a p-value of .063, it is statistically significant at the 0.10 level. When added into the regression model with all control variables, it remains significant (.10 level) with a p-value of .057. It is therefore possible that personality, in this area, is affecting Intolerance of Ambiguity values, which is leading to penchants for certain political views over others. In the second correlation, the Judging/Perceiving interaction variable did not have a significant relationship with political opinions. In this case, the p-value was recorded at .123. It is clear, then, that the Judging/Perceiving aspect is not swaying tolerance of ambiguity scores. 115 RES PUBLICA Religiosity is significant at the 0.001 level, influencing the Liberal-Conservative Index (beta weight = -.383). The B-value of -.744 illustrates that those committed to a particular religion are more likely to hold conservative viewpoints. This is consistent with Layman’s own conclusions about religiosity.38 The sociodemographic characteristics of parents’ education level and family income were both insignificant in determining political views. This goes against previous research that suggested these factors may be influential, but is consistent with my expectations.39 Through multiple regression, it is illustrated that Budner’s Intolerance of Ambiguity scale and religiosity are having more of an overall effect on policy opinions than is personality. While Extraversion/Introversion still holds some influence, the recorded beta weights suggest it is not as impactful as these control variables. Additionally, the previously significant correlation between Judging/Perceiving and policy preferences is not significant in the regression model. There is a significant interaction between Intolerance of Ambiguity and Sensing/Intuition, which holds a significant relationship with policy preferences. This suggests that the way one analyzes information affects how he or she assesses ambiguous situations. Consequently, this affects policy preferences. But the initial belief that personality would be the most dominant factor in one’s political opinions does not hold true, and Hypothesis 5 can be rejected.


----------



## The Conundrum (Aug 23, 2017)

jcal said:


> ISTJ here... I've been voting for 44 years and have never registered a party affiliation. I can't fathom associating myself with either group of slimey bastards. My voting history has never followed party lines... votes are typically cast to the lesser of evils (yes... a cynic... and proud of it).
> 
> As far as my general views...
> 
> ...


Just what I said. This is a right wing liberal. "Do whatever you want, just don't mess with me or my pocket."


----------



## Crowbo (Jul 9, 2017)

Stereotypically XSTJs but could be anyone else for any reason.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

merkuria said:


> I'm an INFJ and anarchist (libertarian socialist).
> 
> My mom is an ESTJ: conservative
> My grandma is an ESFJ: conservative-centrist
> ...


Sooo... You must be my mortal enemy. Nice to meet you! 

I'm more on the "center-right authoritarian" side on that test. State power!


----------



## The Conundrum (Aug 23, 2017)

1nquisitor said:


> Sooo... You must be my mortal enemy. Nice to meet you!


Lol, I thought the EXACT same thing.


----------



## MakeItRain (Feb 8, 2017)




----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

Crowbo said:


> Cause when you're a star they let you do it. h:


*grins* You are sweet! However, odds triple when you have this star -> :th_o: ; )


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Senah said:


> Wow. Way to stereotype an entire 37% of the US population and also simultaneously cross-stereotype NTs. [Slow-clap for a truly indolent effort in the area of mental calisthenics; perhaps a smidge of credit due for that dash of moral imperialism you mustered up.]


This from the gal who just explained that "Dems/Libs" favor "policies and solutions" that are "based on emotional responses rather than logical theories or frameworks."


----------



## BranchMonkey (Feb 23, 2017)

kjdaniels said:


> I feel like this has more to do with your environment and upbringing than type. There’s been a few posters about SJ types being the most likely to be conservative. Personally as an ISFJ, I grew up in a liberal family so I have taken on most of those values. However, I’m not a strong liberal because there are things that I don’t agree with the Democratic Party on. I also saw posters about ISTJs being the most likely to be conservative. Funny thing is I have an ISTJ Dad and he is very liberal.
> 
> But I can definitely see SJs who grew up in a more conservative environment being Republican cause we tend to be shaped by our environment.
> 
> ...


I grew up in a totally conservative environment, i.e. homes, neighborhood... yet with such a large family, we got a mix. More conservative than liberal regardless of type, but still, I have ISFP Republican relatives, my ISTJ Dad rocked it Dem when the Union was strong (he was a dock worker) than rocked it--and still does--Republican when the Union grew weaker.

Got ESFP sisters: All Dems, same as my husband who is an ENFP--and not one of them chose Dem because "they like change." 

They voted their conscience just as most people do--regardless of how we clash on just what "right" or "best" or "logical" and what-not means.

Most ISFJs I know are conservative, but this country I am in has over 300 million people in it, so what % are ISFJs; what % vote conservative, and how could anyone really do a study that accurately reflected the % for them or any MBT-type. 

Rhetorical: Can't be done.

Like giving contributions, helping out in the community, some of us don't take part in polls or studies or do anything else that would typical make our numbers crunchable, i.e. we don't toot the horn, wave the flag, go for attention or in any other observable way "get counted" for our _good_ works.

I've had volunteer positions throughout my life, starting around 19. 

I've given, regularly to charities and never asked for nor received receipts. 

I give to local thrift stores--same thing, no receipts. 

Took in a neighbor--no one could "crunch those numbers," e.g. all that I gave and she needed? 

No record of it, just a mention here.

My husband and I used to feed the homeless in downtown San Diego, every month, and he got donations of either goods or $ for us to buy the goods, from co-workers (no one got a tax write-off). 

I knitted over 125 hats for women and we gave them out at Rachel's House in San Diego--again, no band wagon, drum roll, receipts. (A co-worker and his two daughters, age three and five helped us.)

I know a lot of us who do this. 

We just do it, don't want paperwork or any kind of accolades or write-offs, and our types, how we vote: 

Varies from Republican to Dem to Independent. 

Wouldn't it be orderly to some minds and therefore satisfying if we could separate the generous from the stingy, so easily. Some would like that. 

I like it the way it really is: 

Not able to be accurately, definitively categorized. 

No demons, no saints: Just some giving, sharing, quietly and continuous or as we can.

In Hebrew, "strength" as in "Love God with all your heart, mind and strength"? 

It means "capacity." 

And each of us has a different capacity which changes with circumstances, tragedies (our own and others'), and so much more that can be debated in the Midrash sense but not accurately or meaningful in what passes for personality theory "debate." 

That kind seems to often to boil down to "us vs them" and most want to be "us" for the good stuff... throwing stones at "them" for the bad.

*This isn't aimed at you.*

I do what is called "boot-strap" my posts when someone triggers thought, so thanks for doing that. I'm too tired to do what I call "come up with a post from scratch" tonight.

May we all give to our personal strength, i.e. "capacity," regardless of the MBT-type we most associate with being charitable on or off line.


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

reckful said:


> This from the gal who just explained that "Dems/Libs" favor "policies and solutions" that are "based on emotional responses rather than logical theories or frameworks."


That is very accurate. If you look at the time indices of when the gun legislation came up for debate and to be passed, both times in the past two terms it was right after a mass shooting. Yet, by the numbers, those who are dying from gun violence are not white schoolchildren but adult minorities. The legislation proposed also doesn't respond to the research being done.

The same thing is happening with import/export regulations that are coming up for debate which happened after Cecil the lion and what happened there. They were not in response to game regulations in Africa, historic hunting numbers for game mgmt, the influx of money and its direction to conservation of animals like the black rhino. There was pressure by Dem/lib legislators to ban trophy imports and hunting immediately after this news cycle. Another emotional response that actually went against not only the research and current conservation policies, but also ended up damaging conservation of other species (and lions) in sub-Saharan Africa.

The ACA was a similar response - "poor people need healthcare" - but the VA still was in shambles and underfunded and the ACA didn't end up getting people healthcare. I was at the original APHA meetings with the surgeon general about funding for the ACA and planning for STI prevention integration and things like that, and they weren't planned out at all and the program went forward anyway because people felt emotional about it and wanted something passed to "make a statement". 

Certainly, I also think that the war after 9/11 was an example of an emotional reaction not based on a logical theory of framework from the right, but I think that you most often see that from the left, and I stand by that statement. Note however that I am not saying that an MBTI group or group of people are bad, but rather that I view this manner of creating and implementing policies and programs very ineffectual and ephemeral, and that it has the potential to do great damage to the people they intend to help.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

ENIGMA15 said:


> Sometimes, I would like to duct tape your hands to a chair so, you can not type : )


???


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

I'm ISTP and my results more closely resemble what people assume of an NF. You really can't determine political party by type. Politics is about content of thought, not how you think.


----------

