# Type most likely to support anarchy/be an Anarchist?



## TheGirlWithTheCurls

The title says it all.


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls

There's meant to be an 'is' in the poll title by the way, sorry for the typo..


----------



## Praying Mantis

By default; all of the SJs would not have a single vote.


----------



## DiamondDays

INTPs, followed by ENTPs. 

All SPs too, but they are far less likely to actually be into the social theory behind anarchism.

Maybe NFPs too.

Basically i think Ps are more inclined towards anarchy, generally.


----------



## jdstankosky

[email protected]!!!!!~~!!!!11!!!!


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro

Xnfp


----------



## Chaerephon

I think, INTP or ENTP. Maybe even INTJ.


----------



## tangosthenes

types low on Je and feeling, I think. Fi might want anarchy, but there's less concentrated force behind statements, so people's crappier tendencies will be more likely to come out.


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls

jdstankosky said:


> [email protected]!!!!!~~!!!!11!!!!


Be quiet


----------



## skycloud86

On revleft most of the members tend to be INTx, although that's also counting other revolutionary leftists.


----------



## Herp

I voted for my type because fuck rules and expectations.

Where's the flag for burning?


----------



## tangosthenes

Herp said:


> I voted for my type because fuck rules and expectations.
> 
> Where's the flag for burning?


: (

you have a separate flag for burning? you're supposed to burn the ones they care about.


----------



## DemonAbyss10

Anarchy would be an Ideal, but human nature will always get in the way of it working right. That and I cannot trust ignorant people, and there is just way too much of it in the world. IE: Stupidity mucks up everything, same for group-think.

I definitely gravitate towards Anarcho-syndicalism though.


----------



## enmity

This thread does not belong here.


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls

enmity said:


> This thread does not belong here.


Thank you for your opinion, now that you've pointed this out I can get in my time machine and go back to last week and post my thread in the right section, seeing as this is obviously causing great disturbance to the PerC community.


----------



## The Wanderering ______

I love how the majority vote was ENTP and I recently got interested in Anarchy.


----------



## SystemEater

Hmmm....I thought ESTP would beat out INTP... but I forget that there is a pretty serious theoretical component to consider. Anarchy is indeed, in the end, just another set of political principles. Perhaps ESTPs would be more inclined towards chaos rather than Anarchy.


----------



## Thalassa

I'd say anyone who either isn't old enough, mature enough, or smart enough to think it through.

I'm not talking about anarchy in the sense of Leftist Libertarianism, either (small local government, but with a network of community to take care of all members of the community) ...I'm talking about real anarchy.

Real anarchy is basically a case of brain haz teh dumb, because it will essentially lead to an animalistic backlash, in which your new "leaders" are likely to be the most brutish, like gangs, mafias, or dictators.

There's a reason why people kept leaving Russia after the fall of the USSR, and it wasn't necessarily the fear of communism. Anarchy is bad, hmmkay.


----------



## Thalassa

DemonAbyss10 said:


> Anarchy would be an Ideal, but human nature will always get in the way of it working right. That and I cannot trust ignorant people, and there is just way too much of it in the world. IE: Stupidity mucks up everything, same for group-think.
> 
> I definitely gravitate towards Anarcho-syndicalism though.


No, it's not that people are stupid, it is that they are prone by their very nature to form governing hierarchies. Some of the more elementary (and popular) forms of libertarianism nearly make me want to gasp with laughter, because they believe that all evil begins with government.

They don't reflect deeply enough or apparently go back far enough and broadly enough into history to see that if the "government" doesn't govern you...welp, the church, the mafia, or, more recently, Nestle Foods and Bank of America will.

An INFP said something very wise recently, and that is we're always going to have leaders, you might as well have the presence of mind to pick ones you can tolerate or mostly agree with.

Anything else is pretty much non-sense.

I do understand people wanting to get away from all of the invasions of privacy and the continuing "smallness" of the world, but they have to understand that even without One World Government (which I also do not approve of)...private businesses still invade your privacy too, ever heard of facebook? Ever been in an office building or Wal-Mart where there's security cameras in nearly every hallway or aisle?

I do understand a want and need for a return to greater privacy, but fearing the government is a really elementary and childish and paranoid way to go about it. 

A lot of people really need to look at the bigger picture.


----------



## DemonAbyss10

fourtines said:


> No, it's not that people are stupid, it is that they are prone by their very nature to form governing hierarchies. Some of the more elementary (and popular) forms of libertarianism nearly make me want to gasp with laughter, because they believe that all evil begins with government.
> 
> They don't reflect deeply enough or apparently go back far enough and broadly enough into history to see that if the "government" doesn't govern you...welp, the church, the mafia, or, more recently, Nestle Foods and Bank of America will.
> 
> An INFP said something very wise recently, and that is we're always going to have leaders, you might as well have the presence of mind to pick ones you can tolerate or mostly agree with.
> 
> Anything else is pretty much non-sense.
> 
> I do understand people wanting to get away from all of the invasions of privacy and the continuing "smallness" of the world, but they have to understand that even without One World Government (which I also do not approve of)...private businesses still invade your privacy too, ever heard of facebook? Ever been in an office building or Wal-Mart where there's security cameras in nearly every hallway or aisle?
> 
> I do understand a want and need for a return to greater privacy, but fearing the government is a really elementary and childish and paranoid way to go about it.
> 
> A lot of people really need to look at the bigger picture.


I can completely agree with ya on this, and that is pretty much what I meant by stupidity. IE: Human nature at its "finest". Humanity can only truly progress if humanity can overcome and get rid of the more negative aspects of its own nature. Yeah the negative aspects of human nature really are a pet peeve of mine, especially when the collective cannot overcome the negatives (usually because of general apathy and an unwillingness to actually try to overcome what the majority are comfortable with.)

Government is a double-edged sword to say the least. And hence why I more support anarcho syndicalism (mostly due to how the system intends to handle "property/The means of production".)


----------



## Thalassa

While I'm on a roll, I'd like to give some examples of distinctively American "small governments" that didn't really pan out well:

Jonestown

The Manson Family

The Branch Davidians

forms of Mormonism in Utah where young girls are forced to marry middle aged men, often in polygamous arrangments

all those nice white people in small towns down South who hung young black men from trees

Need I go on?

Oh yeah. Yay libertarianism, yay anarchy.

No. Just no.


----------



## Thalassa

DemonAbyss10 said:


> I can completely agree with ya on this, and that is pretty much what I meant by stupidity. IE: Human nature at its "finest". Humanity can only truly progress if humanity can overcome and get rid of the more negative aspects of its own nature. Yeah the negative aspects of human nature really are a pet peeve of mine, especially when the collective cannot overcome the negatives (usually because of general apathy and an unwillingness to actually try to overcome what the majority are comfortable with.)
> 
> Government is a double-edged sword to say the least. And hence why I more support anarcho syndicalism (mostly due to how the system intends to handle "property/The means of production".)


The way I see it, it's neither good nor bad, it just is.

I think the way you handle it is what makes it good or bad. A certain amount of governing is actually necessary to assure the maximum freedom for the majority.

I mean, while everyone is sitting around worrying that the government is going to take over the world, McDonald's and Nestle already has.

Nestle be owning all of your soul.


----------



## DemonAbyss10

fourtines said:


> While I'm on a roll, I'd like to give some examples of distinctively American "small governments" that didn't really pan out well:
> 
> Jonestown
> 
> The Manson Family
> 
> The Branch Davidians
> 
> forms of Mormonism in Utah where young girls are forced to marry middle aged men, often in polygamous arrangments
> 
> all those nice white people in small towns down South who hung young black men from trees
> 
> Need I go on?
> 
> Oh yeah. Yay libertarianism, yay anarchy.
> 
> No. Just no.


That is the thing, there is a balance point in it all. Too little freedom from government and you would have abuses of power. Too much freedom and the same thing happens.

(EDIT) Not to mention the misguided belief that the majority is always right. It is not, plain and simple. Combine that with the various agendas and propaganda the media spews out and you have a veritable shitstorm brewing. The scary part is the fact that misguided fools are going to go all krakatoa on everyone. 

Also, proud enough to state that I don't "feast" at McDs or consume nestle products. Rather not support either business.


----------



## Thalassa

DemonAbyss10 said:


> That is the thing, there is a balance point in it all. Too little freedom from government and you would have abuses of power. Too much freedom and the same thing happens.


I agree with this. There's a heady sense of fear when groups are either too insular or too large. If too insular, there's too much risk of no workable dissenting opinion without all hell breaking loose, if too large then the governing body (or business, or church) holds so much power that individuals disintegrate into numbers and essentially non-persons to be used.



> (EDIT) Not to mention the misguided belief that the majority is always right. It is not, plain and simple. Combine that with the various agendas and propaganda the media spews out and you have a veritable shitstorm brewing. The scary part is the fact that misguided fools are going to go all krakatoa on everyone.
> 
> Also, proud enough to state that I don't "feast" at McDs or consume nestle products. Rather not support either business.


Nestle legitimately frightens me. There are corporations that I have hated and long boycotted - like Wal-Mart, to be very specific - and businesses I have avoided for the most part - like McDonald's and Nike - but this is the first time I've ever had the horrifying realization that a global corporation not only owns most of the bottled water out there, but the CEO is saying things like access to drinking water should not be a public right...meanwhile, they also own tons of candies and cereals (most people know this and can avoid)...but do they know how many frozen food companies they also own? The "standard" on many shelves for products such as canned milk are Carnation products, which is owned by Nestle. So is Stouffer's, Lean Cuisine, and just about every large ice cream company in existence.

So...buying fresher foods isn't just good for your health, it's also a good way to avoid Nestle. Shopping local is the other component.

Then there's that whole other scary Nestle baby-formula issue, but I've long been an advocate of breast feeding unless there's some legitimate health reason not to do so; it's an unnecessary expense, and there are protections in natural breast milk that there will never be in formula.

None of my sisters nor I have allergies of any kind, unless we are exposed to certain plants that aren't from the region we grew up in. We were all breast fed for nearly the first year or more of our lives. Most kids today seem to be allergic to all kinds of fucking shit, mostly food allergies, and I wonder how much that has to do with the standardization of using formula for babies in the past 30 years.


----------



## DemonAbyss10

fourtines said:


> I agree with this. There's a heady sense of fear when groups are either too insular or too large. If too insular, there's too much risk of no workable dissenting opinion without all hell breaking loose, if too large then the governing body (or business, or church) holds so much power that individuals disintegrate into numbers and essentially non-persons to be used.
> 
> 
> 
> Nestle legitimately frightens me. There are corporations that I have hated and long boycotted - like Wal-Mart, to be very specific - and businesses I have avoided for the most part - like McDonald's and Nike - but this is the first time I've ever had the horrifying realization that a global corporation not only owns most of the bottled water out there, but the CEO is saying things like access to drinking water should not be a public right...meanwhile, they also own tons of candies and cereals (most people know this and can avoid)...but do they know how many frozen food companies they also own? The "standard" on many shelves for products such as canned milk are Carnation products, which is owned by Nestle. So is Stouffer's, Lean Cuisine, and just about every large ice cream company in existence.
> 
> So...buying fresher foods isn't just good for your health, it's also a good way to avoid Nestle. Shopping local is the other component.
> 
> Then there's that whole other scary Nestle baby-formula issue, but I've long been an advocate of breast feeding unless there's some legitimate health reason not to do so; it's an unnecessary expense, and there are protections in natural breast milk that there will never be in formula.
> 
> None of my sisters nor I have allergies of any kind, unless we are exposed to certain plants that aren't from the region we grew up in. We were all breast fed for nearly the first year or more of our lives. Most kids today seem to be allergic to all kinds of fucking shit, mostly food allergies, and I wonder how much that has to do with the standardization of using formula for babies in the past 30 years.


Couldn't even have that when I was a baby. Nor most of the formulas that were out there at the time. I already watch food though, especially due to issues with Casein and Gluten. And I can forget about having Dairy, ever.

I do shop at the local farmers market when possible. Same for local butchers/farmers directly. I swear though if water does get privatized like that though, CEOs and corporate managers WILL eat lead. Protesting doesn't work against those monsters.

Basically really fed up with both government, but even more fed up by the influence of big business on everything. Between that and the fact that the general populace still remains ignorant of what is actually happening. And if they arent, then it is the apathy.


----------



## Thalassa

DemonAbyss10 said:


> Couldn't even have that when I was a baby. Nor most of the formulas that were out there at the time. I already watch food though, especially due to issues with Casein and Gluten. And I can forget about having Dairy, ever.
> 
> I do shop at the local farmers market when possible. Same for local butchers/farmers directly. I swear though if water does get privatized like that though, CEOs and corporate managers WILL eat lead. Protesting doesn't work against those monsters.


Well McDonald's has seen a decrease in their sales recently, and I feel pretty strongly about informing people about Nestle. I think some kind of anti-Nestle world food campaign should be started, I have never felt such a sickening feeling of being tricked and ignorant reading the list of all of the major food companies and water companies that Nestle owns (not to mention the cosmestics companies they're also affiliated with, I swear to god). 

Working class and some middle class people are basically dependent by conditioning upon Nestle for many of their daily food or beverage choices. It's not like choosing to pass up the snack at McDonald's or shopping at Target or a local grocery store instead of Wal-Mart.

This is serious shit.

I'm truly horrified that this information isn't being broadcast absolutely everywhere. No one company should have that kind of world power over something as essential as food. NO ONE.

Also, agree with you about eating lead. I think people who keep obsessing over the government taking their rights are ignoring what's really probably going to happen, and that is going to war with major corporations. They are the encroaching one world order.



> Basically really fed up with both government, but even more fed up by the influence of big business on everything. Between that and the fact that the general populace still remains ignorant of what is actually happening. And if they arent, then it is the apathy.


Agreed.


----------



## Hal Jordan Prime

Did you post this in the wrong forum as a form of discreet support for anarchy, OP?


----------



## Vaka

fourtines said:


> I'd say anyone who either isn't old enough, mature enough, or smart enough to think it through.
> 
> I'm not talking about anarchy in the sense of Leftist Libertarianism, either (small local government, but with a network of community to take care of all members of the community) ...I'm talking about real anarchy.
> 
> Real anarchy is basically a case of brain haz teh dumb, because it will essentially lead to an animalistic backlash, in which your new "leaders" are likely to be the most brutish, like gangs, mafias, or dictators.
> 
> There's a reason why people kept leaving Russia after the fall of the USSR, and it wasn't necessarily the fear of communism. Anarchy is bad, hmmkay.


As an American, at this point, what we have is much more chaotic than what we'd have if the government was just eradicated. When you have something huge ruling over an entire country, it becomes too inconsistent and chaotic and ineffective. One example...the government trying to keep every citizen satisfied, but by satisfying one of the many people, they will dissatisfy another. And when there is a huge overruling power, it's very easy for it to become lost in its original cause. For example, true freedom is not possible anymore and the government often acts in ways that don't indicate any care for the happiness of its people, but for other agendas. It would be different in a community with power coming more purely from the people.
I think for most people, keeping things as they are just feels safe and comfortable as opposed to changing them drastically


----------



## enmity

TheGirlWithTheCurls said:


> Thank you for your opinion, now that you've pointed this out I can get in my time machine and go back to last week and post my thread in the right section, seeing as this is obviously causing great disturbance to the PerC community.


Seriously? That wasn't even an opinion. Threads like these belong to the Member Polls section. Also, you don't have to create a new thread. You just have to ask for this thread to be moved but I understand that you don't want to do that because you want to rebel and keep up your standoffish behaviour instead.


----------



## Moss Icon

**TPs.

I kinda feel that Feelers are too concerned with social harmony and the human factor to advocate anarchy. At least Feelers who know anything about anarchy and aren't just attracted to the anti-authoritarian image of it all. 

It seems to go against the general principle of Judgers too, though I could see *NTJs going in for it if they bought the rationale. 

I voted ISTP. They've always struck me as the most anti-social! :wink:


----------



## Planisphere

I'm legitimately surprised by the results. I don't consider myself a strong supporter or opponent of external government. The way I see it, you're f*cked if you do, f*cked if you don't. I honestly wouldn't be so apathetic if I didn't know that human nature is perhaps the main issue. Too bad human nature can't be permanently changed, or I would have more hope that we could stop repeating history.

Also, Lawful > Chaotic - not an opinion, but a fact. Consider how many rebellions actually succeed in overthrowing an organized leadership, then consider how many devolved into a form of organized control already experienced by someone, somewhere in history. Chaotic victories are temporary, eventually superseded by Lawful victories. Although the Lawful eventually fall as well, they tend to last longer than any periods of serious anarchy. This doesn't make them better, just more successful in the long run. Even where the state and people are equal, the state has always become the strongest.


----------



## nujabes

I voted:

ENTP
INTP
INFP

the top 3 are:

ENTP
INTP
INFP

I'z smart :kitteh:

also anarchy = lack of rulers, not lack of rules. anarchy =/= chaos, @NovaStar, so your remarks regarding lawful vs chaotic alignment seem out of place.


----------



## StElmosDream

I'm all in favour of anarchy; destabilise the banks, turn towards zeitgeistism and more towards equality, more so when the world theoretically already has the technology for centralised resource management systems akin to the Venus Project of the '70's.

Let capitalism burn in favour of egalitarian systems


----------



## Planisphere

gingertonic said:


> also anarchy = lack of rulers, not lack of rules. anarchy =/= chaos, @_NovaStar_, so your remarks regarding lawful vs chaotic alignment seem out of place.


One of the definitions given by the Merriam Webster dictionary is, "A state of *lawlessness* or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority." (source) Lawlessness is the opposite of lawful. Lawful types (as per alignment) have rules, although some do define 'lawful' as including those who make their own rules. However, if that is the case, most, if not all, characters would be 'lawful', and the 'chaotic' part of the dichotomy would be almost non-existent. The most commonly cited definition of 'Chaotic', however, dictates that an individual obey murky personal laws that can be changed at any moment. 'Neutral' types more often include individuals that have their own unbending moral codes.

Besides, basic human nature isn't exactly orderly. Then again, some might argue otherwise. Still, I tend to believe the limitations of said nature prevent any sort of utopian ideal, lawless or not. In anarchy, you'll have plenty of 'Chaotic' types, and maybe a few 'Neutral' types. But in the end, as history has shown, people will band together and form another institution that will most likely devolve into a tyranny again.

Although, in all fairness, I think I'd prefer anarchy to tyranny.


----------



## LibertyPrime

NovaStar said:


> One of the definitions given by the Merriam Webster dictionary is, "A state of *lawlessness* or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority." (source) Lawlessness is the opposite of lawful. Lawful types (as per alignment) have rules, although some do define 'lawful' as including those who make their own rules. However, if that is the case, most, if not all, characters would be 'lawful', and the 'chaotic' part of the dichotomy would be almost non-existent. The most commonly cited definition of 'Chaotic', however, dictates that an individual obey murky personal laws that can be changed at any moment. 'Neutral' types more often include individuals that have their own unbending moral codes.
> 
> Besides, basic human nature isn't exactly orderly. Then again, some might argue otherwise. Still, I tend to believe the limitations of said nature prevent any sort of utopian ideal, lawless or not. In anarchy, you'll have plenty of 'Chaotic' types, and maybe a few 'Neutral' types. But in the end, as history has shown, people will band together and form another institution that will most likely devolve into a tyranny again.
> 
> Although, in all fairness, I think I'd prefer anarchy to tyranny.


o.o spoken like a true neutral lolol.

I don't really care if its anarchy or law. The final verdict is as always: power corrupts whoever wields it. This is why I chose freedom for myself and don't give a damn unless some outside force tries to take it away, in which case I rebel (in an intelligent way...my freedom is not enjoyable if I get killed now is it?). With that said I don't like being led or leading others so this works out for me.

I prefer if the cops keep the troublemakers at bay, but I also want my own freedom. I also prefer a corrupt democracy to a lawful evil totalitarian regime or if we can have a chaotic utopia  that would be sweet. Whatever it is, I'll still be myself, I'll still follow my murky rules intelligently and I still won't care as long as I have my freedom and people respect me as i respect them. I prefer to be a friendly/nice fellow.

>D there sure is a certain kind of fun in fighting lawful evil systems thou. Most recently the whole x-box crap from Microsoft lol....the bloody kind of fighting is unappetizing thou. That would really need to be worth my while :S thou i might risk it because I don't like "Lawful Evil".


...whoa that sounded chaotic neutral. <.< yeah I'm the kind of oddball who considers God a tyrant for imposing it's will upon us when it gave us free will. WTF man!?

Anyway government is the servant of the people. Governments should be afraid of their people. I'm all down for anarchy and a spot of revolution (especially if I can raid the stores in the chaos and get rich in the process without getting caught).


----------



## Planisphere

FreeBeer said:


> o.o spoken like a true neutral lolol.


You're pretty observant! I actually have typed consistently as 'true neutral' in alignment tests, though this has changed on occasion. For example, if I'm surrounded by Lawful Good/Neutral types (a church, for example), I tend to be the Chaotic Neutral 'scrutinizer'. Put me in a room full of Chaotic Neutrals (all of my high school friends), and I'll be the Lawful Good trying to keep them in line.

But as long as I'm left alone, I'm a happy True Neutral.

As per the thread topic, I voted ISTP, INTP, and INFP. Probably no correlation, but I do tend to see a lot of anti-authority kinds among these types. I've supported the underdogs in the past, so I'm on friendlier terms with what few anarchists I do know than I am with neo-conservatives. Cheers!


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby

I voted ISTP and INTP. But I think ISTP even more than INTP.


----------



## LibertyPrime

NovaStar said:


> You're pretty observant! I actually have typed consistently as 'true neutral' in alignment tests, though this has changed on occasion. For example, if I'm surrounded by Lawful Good/Neutral types (a church, for example), I tend to be the Chaotic Neutral 'scrutinizer'. Put me in a room full of Chaotic Neutrals (all of my high school friends), and I'll be the Lawful Good trying to keep them in line.
> 
> But as long as I'm left alone, I'm a happy True Neutral.
> 
> As per the thread topic, I voted ISTP, INTP, and INFP. Probably no correlation, but I do tend to see a lot of anti-authority kinds among these types. I've supported the underdogs in the past, so I'm on friendlier terms with what few anarchists I do know than I am with neo-conservatives. Cheers!


Imo xxxPs are more likely to be neutral or chaotic enough to support a society based in anarchy, mainly because they lack strong Te or Fe preference . SJs are the least likely, especially any STJ.

The way I see it is that there is a problem with people. One can be robbed or murdered by an individual a mob of individuals, a crime syndicate or a government. People are like that regardless of law or chaos. Government can get away with it for longer then a single individual.

People will defend themselves thou, in anarchy one can still hire a bounty hunter and have a fair trial (or a rigged one) etc..

Everything has its good a bad sides, government as well as anarchy. True neutral is a good place to be lol....I'm just a bit more chaotic and generally :\ I'll help out the side that is morally more correct, so its Chaotic Good-ish leaning towards neutral (more likely to save my own skin and that of my friends/family, then to save the day or do something martyr-y lol). - I'm not stupid.


----------



## Morrissey

ENTP or INTP


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls

enmity said:


> Seriously? That wasn't even an opinion. Threads like these belong to the Member Polls section. Also, you don't have to create a new thread. You just have to ask for this thread to be moved but I understand that you don't want to do that because you want to rebel and keep up your standoffish behaviour instead.


Actually I'm not really the type to rebel for no good reason, I just don't see a good reason to move it. Out of all the important things in the world, this thread being in the wrong section is really not something that needs to be addressed after it's already happened. It's just one of those things that doesn't matter.


----------



## enmity

TheGirlWithTheCurls said:


> Actually I'm not really the type to rebel for no good reason, I just don't see a good reason to move it. Out of all the important things in the world, this thread being in the wrong section is really not something that needs to be addressed after it's already happened. It's just one of those things that doesn't matter.


It's already been moved. You thinking that it doesn't matter is your opinion. Posting things in the wrong places is an inconvenience believe it or not. It wouldn't have been that much work to just ask a moderator to move the thread.

Do not respond to this.


----------



## kitsu

Percievers mostly... Among the J's I'd only see INXJ's as possible anarchists.

Edit: Whoever voted SJ's as likely, could you please argue your point?


----------



## Vianna

Well I am an ENFP, I am not an anarchist, but I like the idea of entire personal freedom and no rules. Most of the people think it would lead us to crimes and murders. It's not the the lack of rules what would bring the troubles, it's the way we are used to think and behave...We are led by someone our entire lives, so give a man who's been on a diet for all of his life a chance to eat whatever he wants...I think I know how the man would end. But if we would have a chance to develope to the level when we won't need rules to know what to do, but we would be capable to create our own rules and live by them, then the world could be a peacefull place without governments, or reasons to fight.


----------



## sly

I read in an article that highly intelligent people tend to favor a society that doesn't have a need in which every fucking bureacuratic detail is structured. People with a lower intelligence tend to cling to external structures, guiding them in their life and aiding them in being happy and content.

Now imagine the correlation between MBTI and IQ.


Hypothesis:
MBTI-types who have a higher average IQ tend to lean towards anarchism.


The intellectual and psychosocial nature of extreme giftedness


----------



## CaptSwan

To me, either ENTP or ESTP; seem the most likely candidates to enjoy anarchy; although for different reasons.


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls

enmity said:


> It's already been moved. You thinking that it doesn't matter is your opinion. Posting things in the wrong places is an inconvenience believe it or not. It wouldn't have been that much work to just ask a moderator to move the thread.
> 
> Do not respond to this.


Well you shouldn't let little things like something being in the wrong spot bother you so much then.


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls

Hurricane said:


> Percievers mostly... Among the J's I'd only see INXJ's as possible anarchists.
> 
> Edit: Whoever voted SJ's as likely, could you please argue your point?


I'm actually really interested in this too, especially the ones saying ESTJ and ISTJ.


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls

endlessnameless said:


> Well I am an ENFP, I am not an anarchist, but I like the idea of entire personal freedom and no rules. Most of the people think it would lead us to crimes and murders. It's not the the lack of rules what would bring the troubles, it's the way we are used to think and behave...We are led by someone our entire lives, so give a man who's been on a diet for all of his life a chance to eat whatever he wants...I think I know how the man would end. But if we would have a chance to develope to the level when we won't need rules to know what to do, but we would be capable to create our own rules and live by them, then the world could be a peacefull place without governments, or reasons to fight.


Holy crap I think I love you, that was written so beautifully written I completely agree


----------



## SeaBassTheCat

INTP
Because im into it.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima

*humbly votes for ENTP*
*sees INTP is the highest voted*
Well, well...


----------



## nichya

INFPs are of course pretty much rebels. We have hell of a Fi and we are burning with idealism, mind you. 

Interesting though I have never thought about INTPs and ENTPs rebel side, that might be exactly the thing I like about you guys.

I heard ISTPs are in rebellion too. Oh and ESTPs.


----------



## uncertain

I vote INFP and ISFP, mostly because of the Fi, with INFPs being more likely, imo.


----------



## Oec2600

Is Anarchism an iNtuitive thing ? I can see something like Anarchist FAQ and the Libertarian Socialist Rants videos on YouTube relating toward NPs . INTJs seem to be interested in Anarcho-Capitalism . As for Post-Left , TSPs ? I don't know if sensors would be interested in something like this.


----------



## Miss Nightingale

ISTPs


----------



## Oec2600

I can certainly see Anarchist theory being developed by NP types mostly. NFP types support the meaning of the morality of it all and NTP types know the facts , logic , and how it’s possible. NFJ types maybe I don’t know. NTJ types could favor Anarcho Capitalism or at least a free society but reject libertarian socialism and before interested in the post-left anarchism. Though I strongly feel that NPs would be the most dedicated supporters of the idea maybe. Like I mentioned for those who take a look at say the Anarchist FAQ and or the Libertarian Socialist Rants youtube videos , does that speak to NP types most of all. I see a pattern here.  Especially Anarcho Transhumanism , that’s totally NP. 
STP types ( I’m still studying so please correct me if I’m wrong ) but seem to me to be more patriotic and nationalistic . However if any would be interested in Anarchism , definitely post-left individualist Anarchism .
Related , what about Antifa ? ENFP and ESFP ? I admire their morals however I’m a peacemaker anti-war person so I’m against conflict. In my opinion , I think a peaceful approach , creative approach and even an educational approach to direct action would seem more effective and better to their activism. Then again Antifa people said they hate violence and the only reason they do it is because it’s the only language their enemy can understand.
So here’s a bonus question. Who are the rivals of Antifa ? ESTPs and ESTJs ? 
All in all , it’s very similar to the radicals and hippies of the 1960s. There were the peaceful activists , then you have the Yippies and the Black Panthers , etc
Currently I’ve been studying all this quite a bit on how personality clash relates to politics. It’s interesting to think about.
Still not every person of the type is going to be an Anarchist or Antifa. However I do think it might be related to the differing of a types enneagram , numerology , zodiac etc . Perhaps it's something I should just dismiss but I'm just so fascinated with personality type science and want to investigate everything. lol I hear from time to time things like INFP republican and ok so it's possible but is it because their enneagram , numerology , zodiac is different from mine ? I'm so curious about everything. I just love learning.
It's all so very fascinating to me.


----------



## Lakigigar

First of all, define anarchy.

INFP's tend to be libertarian socialist, maybe leaning towards anarchy, but i don't think they're politically active.
INTP's sounds like possible anarchists as well.
J's are more authoritarian. Some famous INFJ's are left-wing revolutionaries. INTJ's are mostly political thinkers, but i think they're more on the conservative / right-wing side.

S's votes more for traditional political parties. SF's maybe more left-wing or/and far-right/anti-immigration, ST's maybe tend to vote more centre-right / right-wing.

I think anarchy is more of a theory, and not something viable. I see libertarian socialism as a more practical alternative than anarchy. I'm also not really an anarchist, since i'm in favour of a strong state, though maybe decentralized and much of the power left to the communes / communities (what could be municipalism or communalism). Some of the stuff should stay centralized however, like environmental regulations / state housing / state schooling / state healthcare and so on. I'm also in favour of high taxes, since taxation does distribute wealth and might fund state projects. High taxation levels in general does increase welfare and general wellbeing of all persons. If you get sick, you'll be glad you had to pay your taxes, since the state will finance most of it. Through taxes, you'll pay for the people who need assistance and help (because they got sick, or are disabled, and for a number of services you can use anytime you want). It's like a life insurance.


----------



## Oec2600

Lakigigar said:


> First of all, define anarchy.
> 
> INFP's tend to be libertarian socialist, maybe leaning towards anarchy, but i don't think they're politically active.
> INTP's sounds like possible anarchists as well.
> J's are more authoritarian. Some famous INFJ's are left-wing revolutionaries. INTJ's are mostly political thinkers, but i think they're more on the conservative / right-wing side.
> 
> S's votes more for traditional political parties. SF's maybe more left-wing or/and far-right/anti-immigration, ST's maybe tend to vote more centre-right / right-wing.
> 
> I think anarchy is more of a theory, and not something viable. I see libertarian socialism as a more practical alternative than anarchy. I'm also not really an anarchist, since i'm in favour of a strong state, though maybe decentralized and much of the power left to the communes / communities (what could be municipalism or communalism). Some of the stuff should stay centralized however, like environmental regulations / state housing / state schooling / state healthcare and so on. I'm also in favour of high taxes, since taxation does distribute wealth and might fund state projects. High taxation levels in general does increase welfare and general wellbeing of all persons. If you get sick, you'll be glad you had to pay your taxes, since the state will finance most of it. Through taxes, you'll pay for the people who need assistance and help (because they got sick, or are disabled, and for a number of services you can use anytime you want). It's like a life insurance.


Anarchy from what I know doesn't mean the stereotype of "let's live like wild chaotic animals and be destructive" . I used to think that's what it meant until I did research on it. What Anarchy means is related to the slogan " No Gods / No Masters " . In other words , only the individual knows what's right for them and how their life should be. So it's many things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_anarchism
It's like living in philosophy rather than being co-dependent on hierarchy to control the lives of others politically and capitalism.
Anarchists aren't against rules , they are against rulers. They won't be against help from other people or advice from other people say like doctors or teachers. Anarchists are just against hierarchy of any kind. I happen to be into New Thought / New Age Spirituality myself which I don't find to be hierarchical at all. There's Christian Anarchists and other religious anarchists.
Anarchist Societies have proven to work like The Spanish Revolution of 1936.

All this stuff I've learned from the Anarchist FAQ
An Anarchist FAQ | Anarchist Writers
and
Libertarian Socialist Rants
https://www.youtube.com/user/ElectricUnicycleCrew/videos
( What's this guy's type ? I'm just curious . ENTP ? )

I for one don't like pushing my beliefs onto other people , all I can say is , it resonates with me personally. Though I'm more on the peaceful philosophical side , not so much so on the conflict side of it.






I came across this clip awhile back. It cracks me up. I'm not sure how much it relates to communism , I still don't know exactly what it is but I know there's Anarcho-Communism which is said to be different and Anarchists say there's some inspiration from the philosophies but also disagreement but not like the authoritative ones. All I know is there's a lot of dislike so I'm still doing research on the history of everything. From from what I know , Anarchism is a political philosophy and is legal as long as no one violates the law. So again I'm just on the philosophical peaceful part of it. I'm still studying it so.


----------



## Oec2600

Just for the heck of it , anyone want to guess the type of that kid in the video. lol


----------



## SilentScream

> STP types ( I’m still studying so please correct me if I’m wrong ) but seem to me to be more patriotic and nationalistic . However if any would be interested in Anarchism , definitely post-left individualist Anarchism .


I am very much an STP. And here's my take. 

My political views tend to shift as much as most of my other interests in life. But one thing I've been VERY consistent about for almost 22 years is just how much I absolutely LOATHE authoritarianism and fascism in ALL its forms - and that includes a big state. Statists are just meh. Bleh. Ugh. I was pro-self-governance as early as 2001 I think and since then my views have shifted from left to right, to centrism to all kinds of different areas, but anti-authoritarianism and self-governance are something that I've stuck with and I won't be changing my mind on that because all forms of collectivism consistently have resulted in failure or in the rise of fascism - even within smaller collectives. There is ALWAYS going to be a power structure and whereever there is any form of hierarchy, there is room for corruption. There is no natural process (other than laissez faire capitalism imo) that controls the individual's need to usurp power and create systems that disadvantage others for personal gain. 

I have come to respect anarcho-capitalism recently, BUT it's mainly because of lack of exposure to other anarchist schools. You introduced me to some more today so tomorrow I'm going to study those and find my own core political identity. 

In the meantime, I will say that as an ESTP, I would NEVER fucking in a million years vote for any government that is built upon any authoritarian ideology whatsoever. For a while I thought that Trump might actually live up to his "promise" of deregulation and shrink the growing American State, but I was grossly wrong and completely mistaken. His form of government is essentially drawing on the age old Republican misdirection of "authoritarianism for me, but not for thee" and it's sad to watch another authoritarian state emerge out of his lies.


----------



## Oec2600




----------

