# SJ's opinions on rules and traditions



## intraconsensious (Feb 16, 2014)

SJs are known for being "by the book" and being traditionalists in general. They usually come off to other temperaments as either bossy or stuck up.

Seeing other temperaments bashing SJs is not an uncommon sight. However, I don't think I've noticed people asking _why_ do SJs like to stick to the rules and traditions?

Do you stick to the rules and traditions because: 

They uphold order to you?

So that you can avoid getting into trouble?

They are considered 'right' and you agree with the general consensus?

Or is it because you don't like/want to deal with unknown/change/grey areas?

Or is it some other reason?

Not sure if there is such a thread, did a quick search and nothing came up; assumed was safe. Apologise in advance if thread topic is offensive in any way. Maybe this thread can help erase stereotypical thoughts regarding SJs if we see the reasoning behind them.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

At least speaking for myself, "by the book" is not a bad starting point, but I have no problem implementing changes AS LONG AS THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY VETTED: 


Is there really a problem? 
Does this change actually fix that problem? 
What will it break that hasn't been considered yet? 
How might we implement the change without screwing everything else up? 
 Way too often people want to change things with only a narrow, microscopic and subjective view of the universe... looking only at how their big new change will improve their little slice of that universe. Somebody has to be the one to review the effects of a change from a more objective, more global and macroscopic viewpoint, and SJs are particularly good at performing this objective review and understanding the full ramifications of a change. Just because we are the ones able to point out what those problems might be, we get the bad rep when the plan was only half-baked in the first place. 

It's actually a really a crappy position to be put in all the time... one that is not always particularly enjoyable. However, when nobody else seems willing/capable of thinking their ideas/changes all the way through, we have to. If we don't, people end up losing money, losing jobs or worse, getting hurt. There's a reason we are labeled as Guardians.

Having said all of that, I know that some SJs are not particularly good at being diplomatic when they are obligated to point out the deficiencies in a plan. I'm not saying that I'm always perfect, but rather than throwing something back in someone's face, I typically will start my review with "Good idea, but have you considered what will happen to XYZ? Can I suggest a change that will address both issues?"

In the end, it's really not so much that SJs are fixated on the past and the rules and traditions that come with it... we are more looking to protect the future from UNSAFE changes. There is no doubt that we need both the dreamers and the guardian types as a form of checks and balances... the dreamers keep us moving forward while the guardians make sure we're not about to step off a cliff because the dreamer only sees the stars in the sky while ignoring the ground below that is supporting us.


----------



## intraconsensious (Feb 16, 2014)

Personally I don't find "by the book" a bad starting point either; I think it's good in terms of a reference and as foundation. The only problem is when it is regarded as an absolute and the authorities are unwilling to hear and review suggestions.

I guess people think of changing something when:

- There is a problem which needs fixing
- It is obsolete/people think they found a more efficient way

It's easier to convince people that change is needed if it's the first point. The second point is where things get more complex, where the problems are as you mentioned above.

Not considering the small details of a change that may lead to undesirable and unexpected results is a weak point for most Rationals and Idealists/dreamers. I acknowledge that.

I think all temperaments involved have to keep an open mindset - For SJs instead of dismissing the idea immediately, consider it and point out the flaws. Then, suggest possible solutions to resolve them if they exist. For NTs and NFs, take note of the flaws and re-review the ideas, then make the necessary corrections. Send the ideas back to the SJs for checking again. This process could be an example for the "checks and balances".

Also, I think every temperament should be appreciative of other temperaments outside their own(which I believe you and most users in this forum are); just as it is not always fun to nitpick every flaw, it is not easy to think up of good ideas that actually matter.

All things considered, I agreed with all the points. This post is just an add-on to what you've said.

P.S: Didn't add the SPs because I'm not sure how they factor in, though I'm sure they have a role in some form.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

intraconsensious said:


> SJs are known for being "by the book" and being traditionalists in general. They usually come off to other temperaments as either bossy or stuck up.
> 
> Seeing other temperaments bashing SJs is not an uncommon sight. However, I don't think I've noticed people asking _why_ do SJs like to stick to the rules and traditions?
> 
> ...



id say its because rules literally do protect us, chaos is much too dangerous an idea. Humanity is good in general, but there are humans that would do harm to others because of their own selfishness and greed so we have rules in order to protect ourselves and encourage positive behavior. For example if a child is punished (vs not being punished) for doing something dangerous or hurtful, they are less likely to do it again knowing that there are consequences to their actions. 

Traditions are just fun, its nice to have things to look foward to and remind us of our ancestors. Also typically traditions have been planned out and thought out so that they are learned practices. Our ancestors have lived entire lives and have knowledge to pass down. 

Wreckless people are dangerous, they are also quite scary because they not only dont concern themselves with the well-being or safety of others but they dont even concern themselves with their own! I guess i just feel "why risk it?" why risk dying or horrible consequences (injury, disease, losing friends or family) for just a moment of exhilaration ?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

As @jcal said, changes aren't an issue once they've been properly vetted, but that consideration is important. And, as @Mendi the ISFJ said, chaos is a dangerous idea, and order and structure within society are a guard against that. Following along with what has gone before, in that sense, is a combination of both of these ideas; ill-considered change can threaten the social rules and structures that protect against chaos. 

It's not, necessarily, that SJs believe the general consensus is "right" - indeed, far from it, and you'll find many SJs who disagree with society's views in general, rules that are in place, &c. But the need for structure brings about the need to adhere to an agreed structure, for the most part, until the disagreeable elements of that system can be removed without impairing the role of social order in holding back chaos.

This seems, to me, a ridiculously simplified version of what I'm trying to get at on my part, but I think it illustrates the point well enough.


----------



## intraconsensious (Feb 16, 2014)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> id say its because rules literally do protect us, chaos is much too dangerous an idea. Humanity is good in general, but there are humans that would do harm to others because of their own selfishness and greed so we have rules in order to protect ourselves and encourage positive behavior. For example if a child is punished (vs not being punished) for doing something dangerous or hurtful, they are less likely to do it again knowing that there are consequences to their actions.
> 
> Traditions are just fun, its nice to have things to look foward to and remind us of our ancestors. Also typically traditions have been planned out and thought out so that they are learned practices. Our ancestors have lived entire lives and have knowledge to pass down.
> 
> Wreckless people are dangerous, they are also quite scary because they not only dont concern themselves with the well-being or safety of others but they dont even concern themselves with their own! I guess i just feel "why risk it?" why risk dying or horrible consequences (injury, disease, losing friends or family) for just a moment of exhilaration ?


Agreed with "rules protecting us". There is a need for rules because rules prevent people from abusing rights/peace. Without it, things can go chaotic, as you said. The thing however is when there are unnecessary rules. One example could be "gay marriage". Some countries allow it, others don't. People want gay marriage because they believe gays have a right to be happy. So, would allowing gay marriage cause chaos? I think it would be the other way round; not allowing it may lead to protests and potential violence if people are persistent enough.

But that is just an example. Regarding gay marriage I currently stand on neutral ground for the moment, and that debate is another story.

Traditions can be fun and meaningful, especially when celebrated with the right people and the right purpose. Otherwise it can be meaningless. Traditions definitely aren't a bad thing though. 

Not sure about the 'knowledge" part though, what knowledge does traditions provide? Where I live, traditions were just a way of life in the past, celebrated today still as a means of instilling moral values.

Hm..."wreckless people". As for them, I have to agree with you. Their minds have lost the ability to think properly due to internal emotions. (rage,resentment,grief...) Have to control them to not just to protect us, but protect them from themselves, too.


----------



## intraconsensious (Feb 16, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> As @jcal said, changes aren't an issue once they've been properly vetted, but that consideration is important. And, as @Mendi the ISFJ said, chaos is a dangerous idea, and order and structure within society are a guard against that. Following along with what has gone before, in that sense, is a combination of both of these ideas; ill-considered change can threaten the social rules and structures that protect against chaos.
> 
> It's not, necessarily, that SJs believe the general consensus is "right" - indeed, far from it, and you'll find many SJs who disagree with society's views in general, rules that are in place, &c. But the need for structure brings about the need to adhere to an agreed structure, for the most part, until the disagreeable elements of that system can be removed without impairing the role of social order in holding back chaos.
> 
> This seems, to me, a ridiculously simplified version of what I'm trying to get at on my part, but I think it illustrates the point well enough.


You did, I think I get it. For me, as long as structures are reasonable, I'm fine. I'll adhere. I wonder what part of society's views they disagree though.

Even though your post is similar to jcal's and Mendi the ISFJ's, the input was appreciated nonetheless. Simplicity is not a bad thing. The point here is to have an opinion.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

intraconsensious said:


> Traditions definitely aren't a bad thing though.
> Not sure about the 'knowledge" part though, what knowledge does traditions provide? Where I live, traditions were just a way of life in the past, celebrated today still as a means of instilling moral values.


well for example how to cook a turkey dinner on Thanskgiving... how many people would have attempted cooking a whole turkey if not for that, you learn grandma's recipes and techniques for cooking, cleaning, and preparing things for holidays. Traditional festivals and events can teach of history such as early settlement rendevous' and pow wows. Learning how to live off the land or can food can come in handy in the future despite having less of a need for it now, one never knows.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

intraconsensious said:


> You did, I think I get it. For me, as long as structures are reasonable, I'm fine. I'll adhere. I wonder what part of society's views they disagree though.


thats extremely subjective, we are all individuals and have different ideas. I may take one stance on a political or local controversy and another ISFJ or ISTJ take a different one altogther. You may also find that we arent saints either, you can find us speeding or stealing supplies from our jobs but the difference, i think, is how we react when having to fess up to authority. My guess is that we would take responsibility for our actions without fighting about it. Wed accept that whether or not we agree with the rule/law and whether or not its stupid, it IS a rule/law that we broke knowing that.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> thats extremely subjective, we are all individuals and have different ideas. I may take one stance on a political or local controversy and another ISFJ or ISTJ take a different one altogther. You may also find that we arent saints either, you can find us speeding or stealing supplies from our jobs but the difference, i think, is how we react when having to fess up to authority. My guess is that we would take responsibility for our actions without fighting about it. Wed accept that whether or not we agree with the rule/law and whether or not its stupid, it IS a rule/law that we broke knowing that.


I agree... in addition, I think you might find that an SJ will have carefully considered those possibilities and consequences before breaking a rule and will have made a choice on a risk/reward basis. It's probably why we are more accepting of the consequences... we KNEW this might happen. I don't know this for certain, but I get the impression that other types might just do things without considering the consequences beforehand and are actually surprised by the results.

Some may see this as the SJ being more devious... maybe so. I do know that I have always thought it necessary to know the rules and how they are applied before you can choose which ones to break.


----------



## intraconsensious (Feb 16, 2014)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> thats extremely subjective, we are all individuals and have different ideas. I may take one stance on a political or local controversy and another ISFJ or ISTJ take a different one altogther. You may also find that we arent saints either, you can find us speeding or stealing supplies from our jobs but the difference, i think, is how we react when having to fess up to authority. My guess is that we would take responsibility for our actions without fighting about it. Wed accept that whether or not we agree with the rule/law and whether or not its stupid, it IS a rule/law that we broke knowing that.


...when I said "I wonder which part of society's rules they disagree", I did not mean "I believe all SJ's will disagree with the same part of society's rules". I created this thread specifically because I didn't believe all SJs would choose to adhere to the rules for the same reasons I stated at the start of this thread. Offence was not intended.(if you were offended)


----------



## intraconsensious (Feb 16, 2014)

jcal said:


> I agree... in addition, I think you might find that an SJ will have carefully considered those possibilities and consequences before breaking a rule and will have made a choice on a risk/reward basis. It's probably why we are more accepting of the consequences... we KNEW this might happen. I don't know this for certain, but I get the impression that other types might just do things without considering the consequences beforehand and are actually surprised by the results.
> 
> Some may see this as the SJ being more devious... maybe so. I do know that I have always thought it necessary to know the rules and how they are applied before you can choose which ones to break.


I believe most NTs decide on breaking a rule on a risk/reward basis too. The difference could be that we are only aware of a rough idea what breaking a rule would result, and didn't think thoroughly of the smaller details.

So to avoid this we discuss them with others to help ourselves see other viewpoints and details we might have missed. That I think is one of the reasons why we like (mostly big picture)discussions. At least for this INTP.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Agree with the above responses to OP.
I'm not much into traditions, they are just interesting to know.
Rules and laws are there to make life easier, efficient, protect us from chaos. At least they are meant to be.
I don't respect or follow rules for their own sake, and hate when unreasonable ones are forced upon me. Since I remember myself I always had strong feeling of just/unjust, right/wrong, and when given some rule in the first place I decide whether it fits into my system of the above-mentioned categories, whether it'll be useful or has a valid basis.
I'd also assume, as far as ISTJs pay close attention to rules, they will be the first ones to notice and/or rebel against when they see that a rule is faulty or corrupted.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

intraconsensious said:


> ...when I said "I wonder which part of society's rules they disagree", I did not mean "I believe all SJ's will disagree with the same part of society's rules". I created this thread specifically because I didn't believe all SJs would choose to adhere to the rules for the same reasons I stated at the start of this thread. Offence was not intended.(if you were offended)


i wasnt offended. maybe if you were more specific, such as if you asked about a few societal rules you think we may disagree with and then you could poll


----------



## intraconsensious (Feb 16, 2014)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> i wasnt offended. maybe if you were more specific, such as if you asked about a few societal rules you think we may disagree with and then you could poll


Good idea. I'll think about it.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

intraconsensious said:


> SJs are known for being "by the book" and being traditionalists in general. They usually come off to other temperaments as either bossy or stuck up.
> 
> Seeing other temperaments bashing SJs is not an uncommon sight. However, I don't think I've noticed people asking _why_ do SJs like to stick to the rules and traditions?
> 
> ...



It's kind of a mix of all of those. It's definitely Si related, though it will be kind of different depending on what type of SJ we're talking about.


As others have said, it's not like SJs like all traditions and rules and will accept anything blindly. It's not like all SJs believe the "you do it this way just because that's the way it's always been done" mantra. SJs can still find some rules to be stupid and rebel against them.


But I think the thing is that SJs prefer their to be good rules in place. They prefer consistency. They want future experiences to line up with their past experiences. They want to know what to expect so they can plan for it. This is stronger in ISJs than ESJs, but I think it's generally true.



Here's a post that I made concerning how dom Si works for me:



teddy564339 said:


> Si doms (and Si aux's) are very open to change under the right conditions for them. This is because Si is based on actual concrete experiences. It is true that the default mode for an Si dom is to keep things the same. This is because they already have that particular sensory experience and they know that it already works...or that it works well enough for them to be happy with it.
> 
> However, this is just the default setting. This doesn't mean that Si doms want to keep it the same forever. However, they need to see what they believe to be solid evidence as to why the change will make the current situation better.
> 
> ...


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> As others have said, it's not like SJs like all traditions and rules and will accept anything blindly. It's not like all SJs believe the "you do it this way just because that's the way it's always been done" mantra. SJs can still find some rules to be stupid and rebel against them.
> 
> But I think the thing is that SJs prefer their to be good rules in place. They prefer consistency. They want future experiences to line up with their past experiences. They want to know what to expect so they can plan for it. This is stronger in ISJs than ESJs, but I think it's generally true.
> 
> ...


Nice post. I was particularly interested in your points about us appearing "slow". It bothers me tremendously. when some Ns assert/imply that we are "slow", "ignorant", "just can't see what's in front of us", etc. I often have the exact same initial thoughts/impressions/insights that they do... it's just that I don't ever trust them without logical and objective proof. If I don't trust my own "intuition", how do they expect me to blindly trust theirs?

To me, these intuitions, whether my own or from someone else, are great and often are terrific sparks for further investigation... but I cannot ever blindly trust these insights without hard proof. It just seems reckless and lazy to rely solely on a flash of insight without "doing the math" to verify. I think this may be even more true for ISTJs... we do not like to even comment/speculate on something until we are 100% sure of something. 80% sure is not typically good enough... it's the same as "not sure" to us and we won't trust something based on that level of certainty. That last 20% is where those "Oh, I didn't think about that!" details live that end up screwing up the best of intentions.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

jcal said:


> Nice post. I was particularly interested in your points about us appearing "slow". It bothers me tremendously. when some Ns assert/imply that we are "slow", "ignorant", "just can't see what's in front of us", etc. I often have the exact same initial thoughts/impressions/insights that they do... it's just that I don't ever trust them without logical and objective proof. If I don't trust my own "intuition", how do they expect me to blindly trust theirs?
> 
> To me, these intuitions, whether my own or from someone else, are great and often are terrific sparks for further investigation... but I cannot ever blindly trust these insights without hard proof. It just seems reckless and lazy to rely solely on a flash of insight without "doing the math" to verify. I think this may be even more true for ISTJs... we do not like to even comment/speculate on something until we are 100% sure of something. 80% sure is not typically good enough... it's the same as "not sure" to us and we won't trust something based on that level of certainty. That last 20% is where those "Oh, I didn't think about that!" details live that end up screwing up the best of intentions.




I think the whole thing is about balance. I think it's fine for ISJs to be more cautious and risk-averse. I think it's fine for us to be more wary without more concrete proof. I think it's good for other types to make some extra efforts to try to come up with that proof.


But at the same time, I think we as ISJs should also be willing to look at things from other angles as well. Other types do have better intuition than we do, and they can still make decisions as well as we can without the 100% detailed proof that we need.

The other thing is they're much more adaptable than we are. I think we tend to want things to be perfect because we tend to choose one direction and commit to it. Other types are much more comfortable changing directions as they go along...they don't mind making mistakes as much and they can recover from mistakes better and more quickly.


So I think it's about all of us recognizing the differences in others and trying to work with others based on those differences.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

jcal said:


> SJs are particularly good at performing this objective review and understanding the full ramifications of a change. Just because we are the ones able to point out what those problems might be, we get the bad rep when the plan was only half-baked in the first place.


This. 

I'm great at troubleshooting, but I often deliver my perspective in a way that dampens peoples' enthusiasm. 



To the OP, I don't mind new ideas, but I'm not going to go out of my way and be inefficient for the sake of ingenuity.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

intraconsensious said:


> I believe most NTs decide on breaking a rule on a risk/reward basis too. The difference could be that we are only aware of a rough idea what breaking a rule would result, and didn't think thoroughly of the smaller details.
> 
> So to avoid this we discuss them with others to help ourselves see other viewpoints and details we might have missed. That I think is one of the reasons why we like (mostly big picture)discussions. At least for this INTP.


On a related note, I worked with an ENTP who was quite the visionary. He had some really, truly brilliant ideas. 

The problem was he was so busy riding the emotional high of his vision that he couldn't be bothered to pay attention to the steps needed to achieve it. 

As a result, he wasted at MINIMUM a couple million dollars in addition to thousands upon thousands of hours of human effort for his half-baked plan. 

His vision turned out to be a bloated shell of itself that collapsed because not enough people underneath him had bothered to pay attention to the logistical details. It didn't help that he was quick to cut down logistically-minded people as being "too negative" or "naysayers" whenever they pointed out an issue. 


I think it takes a mature mind (of any type) to be willing to discuss other viewpoints, especially when a personal vision is involved.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Marlowe said:


> On a related note, I worked with an ENTP who was quite the visionary. He had some really, truly brilliant ideas.
> 
> The problem was he was so busy riding the emotional high of his vision that he couldn't be bothered to pay attention to the steps needed to achieve it.
> 
> ...


A couple of times in my career I have ended up being the "trusted number 2" to intuitives that had the vision but were not afraid to allow it to be scrutinized before it was presented/implemented. They welcomed it because they were aware of their deficiencies in seeing and understanding the details. One of them would often throw something on my desk and tell me, "Here, see what you can pick apart with this."

I, on the other hand, do my best to avoid being dismissive and am willing to flesh out the the details and logistics necessary to successfully adapt and implement their visions. Believe me, this is NOT always easy to do, as my natural first tendency is to look for reasons why something will not work (no matter how hard I try, that is ALWAYS what I uncover first)... but I've learned to sit on those until I absorb the whole picture and then look for ways to overcome the problems. I was very lucky that my first and longest such relationship (18 years, starting just out of college) was with someone who always emphasized that it's never good enough to just point out problems... you always need to offer a solution as well.

These were (and are... I am currently in such a position) very beneficial relationships for both of us. Definitely makes for a good team, but it takes maturity/flexibility/respect on both sides to make it work.


----------

