# What's your relationship to authority?



## goodbyemoonmen (Jul 30, 2017)

Hey everyone, I have a theory concerning the relation of (the acceptance of) authority and MBTI types (cognitive functions) and I just wanted to ask you all, how you see authorities:
Do you usually find yourself in a position somehow defending authorities and reasoning that by saying that since they are that certain authority, they must've done something in their life to get there, or do you normally question authorities and tend to (first) disregard them, because that status doesn't mean anything? (please tell me which scenario seems more likely + your type!)
For anyone who's interested, here's my theory (please be honest & answer first):
I think the Te-Fi/Fi-Te types (esp. as dom & inf functions) are more likely to just accept authorities, whereas Ti-Fe/Fe-Ti types question them. My explanation would be, that Te-Fi types thrive for a logically organized environment, in order to express their true-self (Fi-Te thrives to express their true self to gain a logically organized environment), and therefore they see an authority as something to keep everything organized, so it's something good. Furthermore, Te is known for accepting logical facts quite easily, without analyzing their logical consistency in depth. Fe-Ti however wants to create that same organized environment when it comes to values and feelings, in order to express that universal truth (Ti-Fe wants to express universal truth to create a value-organized environment). Ti wants to understand and analyze logical things in depth; they want to find out if that authority is really that good. A different example would be 1+1=2. Te would just accept that and move on, in order to have that as a logical 'basis', whereas Ti would want to analyze that and fit that into their internal logical framework. It's the same thing with the authority. What are your thoughts on that?


----------



## 03534 (Aug 1, 2017)

Hmmm... I've heard INTPs supposedly have an anti-authoritarian streak, but I'm not so sure about myself, I wouldn't say that I'm anti-authoritarian, I just have ambivalent feelings toward authority figures.

I think other people would say that yes, I "defend" authorities, I think the enforcement of laws/standards/rules is necessary in order for a society/organization/business to function. People in positions of authority often, in actually, do things to get to where they're at in my experience and I certainly don't think their status "doesn't mean anything"... but... I don't see authority figures as infallible, sometimes the things people do to get into positions of power are unethical... and I certainly don't always see the ongoing functioning of a business or organization as the most important thing.

I understand that people in positions of authority are just people and they're vulnerable to human error or biases, sometimes they mess up or sometimes they're jerks, sometimes they're stupid, sometimes the power they've been entrusted with corrupts them. So yes, I do question authority figures.

I personally just see authority figures as just another component of the system- the organization/business/society, they're there to ensure it works, but if the system that they're part of is failing to anticipate bad authority figures or abuse of power, then yes, I will question that as well.

So my answer is... Yes and no, always and never.

I think part of why that is for me is that some authority figures are more competent than others in their respective positions or maybe the consequence of incompetence being present in some authority figures provokes more disapproval or outrage than others do. It's a bit broad honestly.

So for me, it's a really, really, really mixed bag...

Man, that was just a big non-answer wasn't it?

EDIT:

Short Version: I question authority if something comes up that prompts me to do so, otherwise I'm wary of submitting to authority just because they're authority, but compliant.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

goodbyemoonmen said:


> Do you usually find yourself in a position somehow defending authorities and reasoning that by saying that since they are that certain authority, they must've done something in their life to get there, or do you normally question authorities and tend to (first) disregard them, because that status doesn't mean anything?


Normally? The latter, question authority -- their status means nothing. The exception is around knowledge/skill. If someone is an expert in X, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt re X but only until proven otherwise. Basically I have manners but I'm skeptical/remain open minded long after everyone else has closed theirs. I've seen plenty of examples in both the history books and in my experience where authority is wrong. 

I'm not reflexively anti-authority though. As a heavy Te user I do value order and can see the value of hierarchy, but truth is my god. I'm always open to truth. I understand it's typical for INTJs, said to be the most independent type (and typically 'true neutral' in alignment), to decide for themselves who their authority is. Once I decide someone is my authority, I'll stop actively looking for reasons not to respect them but if new information presents itself that undermines their authority I'll consider it.

As far as your Te-Fi likes authority theory: It's XSTJs who are known for accepting authority not XNTJs. The combination of Si + Te make them value the orderly structures already in place. Ni + Te has the orderly Te aspect but Ni (and lack of Si) makes us, generally speaking, very open minded. We are actually 'designed' to be agents of change, constantly looking for new/better ways of doing things. We tend to be our only authority. 



> Te-Fi types thrive for a logically organized environment, in order to express their true-self ...and therefore they see an authority as something to keep everything organized, so it's something good.


This is actually very true for me, _within my home_. Outside my home, with work etc, is a very different story. It's almost like I'll use that highly stable/regenerative/relaxing home based for strength to go and make changes in the world.



> Furthermore, Te is known for accepting logical facts quite easily, without analyzing their logical consistency in depth... A different example would be 1+1=2. Te would just accept that and move on, in order to have that as a logical 'basis', whereas Ti would want to analyze that and fit that into their internal logical framework. It's the same thing with the authority. What are your thoughts on that?


I see plenty deep, that's what Ni does (and by functions tests, many INTJs are surprisingly high in Ti in addition to Te. My top four were Te Ti Fi Ni). If I'm looking at 1+1, sure, let's call it two and be done with it, so we can move on and get other stuff done. If I see a man wearing (what is to my mind) a Halloween costume in August and he calls himself a police office, alright, let's go with that too. Not bc I see my authority, but bc it's the expedient thing to do. I'm not going to tell a police officer who has get-in-line thinking, a penchant for punishment, corruption tendencies and carries a gun that I don't recognize his authority and am only complying by duress. 

Not that I'm some anarchist -- I believe a lot of the laws we have are needed. I think part of it with cops is they just instinctively rub me the wrong way. I've always been bothered by the way police seem to have the same personality. Apparently twenty percent of them are ESTJs, fifty percent are STs. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=54833 My ISTJ father's 'a rule is a rule' mentality drives me nuts.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

I question authority and am generally critical of those in charge, but I also find myself defending authority figures against unfair derision since dogmatic aversion is quite fashionable in the circles that I move in. Hierarchy is a necessary evil, and something that you realistically have to live with; being excessively adversarial is unproductive.


----------



## IGLDN (Aug 7, 2017)

PiT said:


> I question authority and am generally critical of those in charge, but I also find myself defending authority figures against unfair derision since dogmatic aversion is quite fashionable in the circles that I move in. Hierarchy is a necessary evil, and something that you realistically have to live with; being excessively adversarial is unproductive.


This is basically exactly how I feel about authority. I question it and I don't want authority figures to impose anything on me, but I'll definitely defend them if unfairly criticized.

I'm most likely to judge them based on their competence and not the label - so if competent authority figures (or a competent decision on their part) is criticized I will argue in their favour. 

Tentative ENTP, by the way.


----------



## Marshy (Apr 10, 2016)

*I've had idiot teachers who like to talk big, so I taught them a lesson, and they never came back to class.*


----------



## casepag (Feb 28, 2017)

Lmao 


Marshy14 said:


> *I've had idiot teachers who like to talk big, so I taught them a lesson, and they never came back to class.*


----------



## Aquiline (Oct 19, 2016)

I am it.


----------



## lunagattina (Nov 7, 2014)

INTP and yes, I question authority.
I tend to respect those who demonstrate to me they deserve my respect, regardless their status or role.
For this reason I have had some trouble at work, but I have always solved them because it seems like people, even my superior, are kinda of intimidated by me. And I don't think to look intimidating at all. 
Probably it is because they understand that they have to gain my respect before I can give it to them.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

> I think the Te-Fi/Fi-Te types (esp. as dom & inf functions) are more likely to just accept authorities, whereas Ti-Fe/Fe-Ti types question them.


Indeed; most (Te)-types are known for this; while ENTP / INTP are bit on the lazier / skeptical side when it comes to [cooperation] in spite of having a (Fe). Granted, I am more than willing to "cooperate," [or follow the rules] - when necessary - as I haven't much reason not to. That does not imply there aren't reasons not to ever - [more often than not], you will not see me _standing 'within' line itself_, while it is possible I designed it. 

I see nothing wrong with "accepting," authority [so long as it is utilize in an efficient & (proper) manner] in a sense to _defending / protecting _agency - "authority," is best suited for (defending agencies) - rather than reducing or diminishing [agencies] respectively; which is why I despise 'authority' just to have 'authority,' (and am rather skeptical of "authoritative," figures in general in any place that is defending / protecting agencies - and more so interested in "controlling (X)-agencies) which demonstrably, contradicts the former) I will protect human-agency by all mean(s) necessary, sometimes, this requires appealing to _authority, (re: sacrifice _, *submission *and regulated 'local' order (this usually makes the XNTP's cringe) - which will factually increase global disorder, regardless; I may be biased; however due to career-path.

I prefer "_structure [with] objectives_ (A --> D)" to order - and am relatively accepting (e.g., comfortable) when there isn't any. But this does not necessarily entail "authoritative" or even _strong_-organization, for that matter - rather just something to go by. (Too much of the latter_ restricts_ or _constrains _(Ni)-domming - functions; sufficiently and seems contradictory via the [needs required via 'maintaining' healthy-cognitive perceptive inputs via "intuition") - strongly correlated with receptivity; (e.g., big-5 scaling) there is nothing to_ fun to play with_ in high-functioning orderliness; but their is surely plenty to _order around_. It is more problematic for a (Ni)-dom; than a (Ni aux); which is why the ENTJ are often found (organizing or instructing specimens) in a similar fashion as the ENFJ.


Granted, I am an entropist - and recognize "disorder," is inevitable, and of course, my preference before any _strenuous_ or misued 'order', rather than order in general. I reckon you are touching somewhat on the J/P distinctions, as well. When it comes to 'order / chaos' - my preference is "chaotic structured," environments - rather than order, 'authority,' for _tactical_ defense strategies for [eliminating] threats, not "control," static, or rigorous enforcement.

Getting me to submit to authority; rather than 'accept it' is differential - while I do not mind being apart of a (authoritative)-team (re: eliminating mass threats). "Authority," has it's place - and more often than not, it isn't among you and I; or struting through the market. There is but so many deck chairs to be _rearrange on the sinking titantic_ before all is doomed. It is more probable I would branch off elsewhere; with specimens following, than _go down with the ship_.






> My explanation would be, that Te-Fi types thrive for a logically organized environment, in order to express their true-self (Fi-Te thrives to express their true self to gain a logically organized environment), and therefore they see an authority as something to keep everything organized, so it's something good.


Not sure what is meant by "_logically organized environment in order to express their true-selves_," and mainly, "therefore they see authority as keep everything organized," but this statement only holds true, if I am '_calling the shots_,' or agree with the conditions, that it is only rational to abide - (re: feasibility / practicality / benefits / opportunism) et al, otherwise, the rest of the _meat-sacs _are on their own. :numbness:

I reckon; I am far more 'opportunistic' to cling to "rules," than the INTP or (Ti-Fe); or other types [which means, indeed, I am less likely to sit down for hours and decipher (X)-plan or going down the rule-book; until I am %100 certain "everything is in the correct order," (with 0 contradictions), in totality, not only is self-defeatist - but not required, as a (Ni-dom), I suppose, to take productive-actions forward nor _rational or reasonable judgments as I move_, which is perhaps, what you are seeing with (Te)-users. This however, does not entail my (Ti) _isn't functioning _as I go, ready to disengage when necessary, which is a common misconception among less-skilled (Ti + Fe) types.


----------



## zekzar (Jul 9, 2017)

_(Wrote this after I wrote everything below.) I'm an ENTP. So my functions are Ne, Ti, Fe, Si. I didn't go into the functions/authority theory at all (Sorry, I don't really know how functions work; I just know general MBTI core personality traits.), but you can grab whatever kind of information you want from my overly drawn-out explanation on my opinion of authority._

I question authority on a regular basis.
Authority figures are not always put into their position because they earned it. A lot, if not most of the time, they are put there by someone who wanted them there because they had a personal high respect for them. Just look at government. Most people who are part of the government aren't there because they earned a position, but because they were elected, born into it, or dragged into it.
That being said, I will defend authority based on their character. If they can convince me, in any way, that they deserve to be where they are, I'll have no problem doing my best to meet their expectations from me. Unless, of course, it is absolutely absurd.

Getting into parents, teachers, etc. is a bit different.
I'll fight any teacher or professor who I don't think is actually intelligent enough to teach. I've done it before, and I'm not scared to do it again.
Parents is a tricky one. (Keep in mind, I'm 16.) My mother is an ESFJ, which is, like, my arch enemy in the MBTI spectrum. My father is an ENTJ. I tend to listen and obey my father more than my mother. But I still will do my absolute best to not vocally question their authority even when I strongly believe that they are wrong. Or at least that was until recently. I won't get too far into it, but my father just recently fucked our entire family up and I'm currently living with my mom. Which, normally I would prefer to live with my dad, but he's an ass. After all that, I have been more open to defy them. Or at least my father. I try to be as nice as I can to my mom, but it doesn't usually work out.
Anyway. I got into personal shit there, so I'll dig myself out of that fuckhole.
Old people in general.
I always try and do my best to not give off a shitty impression to old people, even though I often don't respect them just because they're old. I respect them enough to know that old people are the wisest people living, as they have experienced more than anyone else. But that won't really stop me from questioning their logic. Maybe I'm just curious, but a lot of the time, I'll debate with an old person on a subject, whether I agree with them or not. You know how they say ENTPs are "The Debaters?" Yeah. Try debating a moral question with an old person. It's a hell of a debate, especially if they get into it.
That doesn't go without saying that I don't think I know all. I _want_ to know all. But, I know I don't and most likely never will.
Authority figures are things for me to think about more than respect or accept just because they're of a higher authority than I am.

Hopefully this was helpful. Please tell me if it wasn't though. I won't take it personally.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

I reject the notion that any worthless human scum is qualified to have "authority" over me.


----------



## casepag (Feb 28, 2017)

Acataleptic said:


> I am it.


me tho


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

goodbyemoonmen said:


> Do you usually find yourself in a position somehow defending authorities and reasoning that by saying that since they are that certain authority, *they must've done something in their life to get there*, or do you normally question authorities and tend to (first) disregard them, because that status doesn't mean anything? (please tell me which scenario seems more likely + your type!)


Neither.

If everything is running smoothly, fairly and efficiently, I don't even notice authority which does not translate to the bolded. If there are problems, that's when authority comes into my sights through analytics.


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

I have nothing against authorities. They are generally useful resources. The police are there to keep the peace. Teachers are there to help me learn. Managers are there so that I can focus on what I'm hired to do. I don't have to agree with everything they say, and I wouldn't cause a scene because of some disagreement.

Being a software engineer, I am an authority of the things I've built, so I know what it's like to be the person with "power". If power is used to service others, then authority is a good thing. If it's to enhance the self, then it's not so good. But by itself, power is neutral.


----------



## Elistra (Apr 6, 2013)

On the job, if they are intelligent, at least relatively trustworthy, have a decent work ethic, actually give a shit about something other than themselves, and are more competent at whatever it is than I am, I can follow without an issue. 

If they are not, things can get a bit... adversarial. lol.


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Depends on what kind of authority, what context, what age, etc.


Just FWIW if any of you guys are teenagers or transfer students to university, you'll likely need letters of recommendation so tread very carefully.


----------



## maust (Jul 14, 2014)

It probably depends on the individual person. Most people tend to accept authority by default until they have some reason to question it. However, those reasons for questioning it would likely be different. For example, an ENTJ would question authority if the authority tries to make them do something stupid, or they think the authority is taking the group somewhere bad. An introverted Fe user might be less likely to step in for fear of stepping on toes or the hope that someone else might do it. An extraverted Fe user might be more likely to hope the situation would be resolved without their having to step on any toes. It also depends on function strength, obviously, and this is all conjecture based on personal experience. 

Personally, I would say Si would likely be more associated with this trait, as it deals with picking up details of what is, which in my experience includes social structures. Fe might also be associated with it, as not wanting to rock the boat or upset the group would weigh out over what one person individually judges to be correct. That being said, I know ISFJs and ESFJs who are just as likely to stand up to a stupid/immoral authority as I am, so it really mostly depends on individual, but they are somewhat more likely to do it for moral reasons, whereas I would act with the same level of impetus on either an intellectual or social level (ie if I decide they're stupid or immoral, I'll act, but my xSFJ friends are less likely to act just because they decide someone is stupid). Personally, I am one of the most likely I know to rebel against authority, but I will only do so if I have a good reason, whether it be moral or intellectual. I don't need to be in charge, but if you're making me do stupid things, I'm sure not going to follow you unless I have a really good reason to (really good reason being grades, job, whatever). However, if you are doing something immoral, I don't particularly care about those sorts of material things as much. Thankfully, I have never been in the situation where a grade or job would depend on me following someone I deem immoral. 

*TLDR I don't think so, and I am a r3b3l.*


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

If they are not 
a) incompitent 
b) pushing people around 
c) chest thumping 
D) all, of the above-often the case, if any.

Then I have no problem.

Otherwise I'll dethrown their ass before they understand what happened.
...you know, in social situations.
In situations where I can do nothing about their position I'll just expose their incompitence and things will go from there.


----------



## Sir Kanra (Jun 27, 2017)

Contrary to all this "NTP's hate authority" thing, I'm a little different. 

If they aren't abusive or pushy for no good reason then I don't really care and I actually prefer a sense of structure in the world as I understand humanity needs it to function. But I can't stand authoritarian pretentiousness towards me, or aggressiveness. Then I tend to push back or more likely talk back incessantly and voice the ridiculousness. At that point I can't help but be like that if I disagree with the logic or fairness of it.

For example with cops I actually see both sides for and against instead of just outright hating them like most people do.

I dislike the concept of anarchy. Yet I like the concept of revolutions for the right reasons. I support whatever at the time seems fair over all.

That said if it gets unreasonable or too stiff you're damn right I'll start voicing it.


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

goodbyemoonmen said:


> Hey everyone, I have a theory concerning the relation of (the acceptance of) authority and MBTI types (cognitive functions) and I just wanted to ask you all, how you see authorities:
> Do you usually find yourself in a position somehow defending authorities and reasoning that by saying that since they are that certain authority, they must've done something in their life to get there, or do you normally question authorities and tend to (first) disregard them, because that status doesn't mean anything? (please tell me which scenario seems more likely + your type!)
> For anyone who's interested, here's my theory (please be honest & answer first):
> I think the Te-Fi/Fi-Te types (esp. as dom & inf functions) are more likely to just accept authorities, whereas Ti-Fe/Fe-Ti types question them. My explanation would be, that Te-Fi types thrive for a logically organized environment, in order to express their true-self (Fi-Te thrives to express their true self to gain a logically organized environment), and therefore they see an authority as something to keep everything organized, so it's something good. Furthermore, Te is known for accepting logical facts quite easily, without analyzing their logical consistency in depth. Fe-Ti however wants to create that same organized environment when it comes to values and feelings, in order to express that universal truth (Ti-Fe wants to express universal truth to create a value-organized environment). Ti wants to understand and analyze logical things in depth; they want to find out if that authority is really that good. A different example would be 1+1=2. Te would just accept that and move on, in order to have that as a logical 'basis', whereas Ti would want to analyze that and fit that into their internal logical framework. It's the same thing with the authority. What are your thoughts on that?


Hi, I consider myself INFP and I always feel ambivalent towards the authority. If they respect me enough, then sure I'll do what they say. But I am very ambivalent towards them in general. I am nice enough to please people - "everyone should deserve respect until proven guilty." so I am pretty much "okay with authority" while hiding my suspicions.

I don't understand where you're coming from with the whole Fe-Ti/Ti-Fe being more rebellious with authority figures. I thought the Fi-Te will be much more ambivalent/aggressive towards authority figures because most of the time authority is a symbol of infringement on their individuality. I think Ti doms will be more likely to "question" authority but they understand in order to be where you want to be, you have to 'fake it til you make it' so they are less likely to be aggressive about this. Of course Fi doms understand the whole "fake it til you make it" as well but it is the Fi doms (especially INFP?), when their personal values are not in sync with authority, that become really aggressive rebels. What do you think?


----------



## Kaioken (Mar 4, 2017)

Well I won't try to have an argument with my boss or my superior when I disagree with them because I wouldn't want to get fired, but I always had this questioning upon decisions and orders if the y wouldn't make sense to me. I'm usually easy to deal with, I'm not the usually boasty ENTP, I'm much more like an INTP and I'm Enneagram 5. Or maybe I'm just shy and reserved, too self-contained. So I usually do what I'm told, but it has to either be something quick to do so It's not too bothering, or it has do to at least some sense. It usually depend on how much I give a damn about it.

As a kid, I was a bit hated by my teachers because on how I would almost constantly put an opposition to their sayings, like a smart-ass. Good thing I wasn't mean, disrespectful or too stupid in my mistakes.

edit : what a mess of a post


----------

