# Rank the MBTI types from most left-wing to most right-wing



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

*Do understand that everyone is different and that every type will have people from every political directions, just like you'll have tons of black people voting Republican, despite them overwhelmingly voting Democrat as well. We're talking about how the groups are leaning towards certain political ideologies.*

1. ENFP
2. INFP
3. ENFJ
4. INFJ
5. ISFP
6. ESFP (least politically active)
7. ESTP
8. ISTP
9. ISFJ
10. ESFJ
11. ENTP
12. INTP
13. INTJ (most attracted towards unconvential ideologies)
14. ENTJ
15. ESTJ
16. ISTJ

Might be overestimating ENTP/INTP and INTJ/ENTJ, but this forum and the internet in general has convinced me that they're in general leaning towards the right-wing and conservatism, but i might be wrong in that. I know there are a lot of left-wing INTJ's as well. I just think they're attracted towards unconvential and extreme ideologies a lot -> no offense. You need people in society to change / question the status quo). I'm least certain about ENTP's / INTP's though. They're definitely more left-wing in general than ENTJ/INTJ. And stand-up comedians tend to be left-wing as well, but on the internet they tend to be leaning to the right (and than again, every famous celebrity and journalist is basically left-wing)

ESFJ / ISFJ might be surprisingly leaning towards conservatism slightly, but I do believe they're much more conservative in the USA than in Europe, and might be typical swing voters often. ISFJ is more liberal than ESFJ i think (maybe i need to lower down ESFJ, but i have always linked the types to their extrovert or introvert cousin to make my life a bit easier).

ESTP / ISTP might be surprisingly leaning (slightly) towards the left, although i do believe ESTP's can be find in all political ideologies, be inactive / apathetic or just extremely vocal (like Donald Trump), but in general i think they do lean towards the left, and are definitely more liberal than their SJ counterparts and possibly the ESFJ as well.


----------



## kiribek (Aug 5, 2018)

So tl;dr
The irrational ones are left-wing and the rational ones are right-wing.
Can't say I discovered anything new, since that's how it seems to be in the world at large, not just on this forum.


----------



## Crowbo (Jul 9, 2017)

Interesting but I don't think mbti completely dictates your political views


----------



## kiribek (Aug 5, 2018)

Crowbo said:


> Interesting but I don't think mbti completely dictates your political views


It wouldn't completely, especially considering that politics itself isn't a system that's set in stone, but rather a clusterfuck of contradictions and changing sentiments.

But left-wing and right-wing can ultimately be identified as "unity, inclusiveness, comfort seeking at the expense of utility and cold reason" people versus "utility, cold reason seeking at the expensive of unity, inclusiveness, comfort" people. Which falls in line with what F people tend to be versus T people.

Politics is ultimately driven by human psychology, or by psychology of human groups, be those groups parties, citizens, nations, or groups of nations. These groups act and make decisions based on what matters to them the most in life. And what matters to them the most in life is ultimately determined by psychology. Be they seek emotional comfort, or career growth, or physical excitement, or intellectual stimuli - these things will ultimately determine what institutions people will build, how many, what kind of investments will be put into them, how these people will react to events across the border, how will they choose to intervene or avoid intervening, what goals they would pursue by doing so, etc.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

I believe that it's very possible that all N type are more on the left side than all S types. I think a lot of Internet right-wing edgelords love to see other people suffer because they have miserable lives, so they are not exactly great examples of what we can expect to see in humanity as a whole.

NFP - NFJ - NTP - NTJ - SFP - SFJ - STP - STJ roughly from left to right. However the one dimensional model isn't really all that great at describing political ideology. For instance NTPs are more drawn toward classical liberalism while NFJs are drawn more toward socialism. You could stick both on the "left" I guess but there's tons of people who are sympathetic to one but not another.


----------



## morgandollar (Feb 21, 2018)

I think intuitives and feelers (especially Fi using feelers) are more likely to be left wing, while thinkers and sensors are more likely to be conservatives. NTs often lean towards independent or libertarian stances.

I'm a left wing INTP, which is apparently somewhat uncommon.


----------



## Wohpe (Aug 25, 2018)

I've read a number of articles on this subject. It's interesting, even if not exact. On average your NFs are the most liberal and most likely to question the status quo. SPs can be apathetic, libertarian or liberal depending. SJs would more likely be conservative, even if just conservative within their left-leaning party. NTs probably do vary the most. I've encountered some that are quite progressive and others that are quite conservative. NTs generally like to make up their own minds and might not fit squarely into a mainstream party view, so that's undoubtedly the reason. xSTPs can be like that also, because of Ti.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

I am very conservative and 100% INFP, so this is wrong. Don't assume people's political views based on their MBTI, or you're gonna have a bad day.


----------



## Wohpe (Aug 25, 2018)

Horsey said:


> I am very conservative and 100% INFP, so this is wrong. Don't assume people's political views based on their MBTI, or you're gonna have a bad day.


I tried to use words and phrases like on average and more likely, because you're right that it's not cut and dry, despite their being noticeable trends among the types. I'd also note that you're an INFP 6, which isn't an uncommon combination, but not as common as 4s and 9s, so that might make a difference. Anyway, we're just throwing around ideas.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Wohpe said:


> I tried to use words and phrases like on average and more likely, because you're right that it's not cut and dry, despite their being noticeable trends among the types. I'd also note that you're an INFP 6, which isn't an uncommon combination, but not as common as 4s and 9s, so that might make a difference. Anyway, we're just throwing around ideas.


I get what you mean. I'm actually type 6, type 5 and type 2 primarily

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## DeadOutside (Mar 2, 2018)

INTP more right than xSTP is absolutely ridiculous


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Horsey said:


> I am very conservative and 100% INFP, so this is wrong. Don't assume people's political views based on their MBTI, or you're gonna have a bad day.


LOL. Don't assume people's political views based on how one person thinks... There will be tons of INFP's conservatives. The point of it is that they're less common, and that infp's are inclined towards socialist and libertarian ideologies.



DeadOutside said:


> INTP more right than xSTP is absolutely ridiculous


Hmm, you might be right that i had the xSTP's too high in the list.
INTP's are however very libertarian and i've the feeling that lots of them are actively engaged with the alt-right so i still think they're quite a right-wing type. Mostly right-wing libertarianism, but there will be INTP socialists just like with any type.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Horsey said:


> I get what you mean. I'm actually type 6, type 5 and type 2 primarily
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


Also, i've did the same thing with enneagram, and i've linked enneagram 6 most with right-wing populism and activism and also conservatism. 2's are also conservative in large numbers, especially in the USA. And 5's seem to vary a lot, but mostly libertarians

1. Enneagram 9 (linked with socialism and liberalism)
2. Enneagram 1 (linked with socialism and liberalism)
3. Enneagram 4 (linked with libertarianism)
4. Enneagram 7
5. Enneagram 2 (linked with conservatism)
6. Enneagram 5 (linked with libertarianism)
7. Enneagram 3
8. Enneagram 8 (linked with conservatism)
9. Enneagram 6

Most left-wing types: 9w1, 1w2, 1w9
Most right-wing types: 6w5, 5w6, 8w7

so variant stackings most politically active

-> Enn 7 least politically active. Enn 1 and 6 (and also 8) most politically active.
9 most associated with left-wing politics. 8 most associated with traditional conservatism. 6 most associated with right-wing politics (as fear is their central motivation), but a decent amount of Six'ers could also be left-wing. In fact, the USSR was probably dominated by a lot of enn 6 people as well.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Nah, most ENTJs are libertarians, independents or moderate leftists.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> Also, i've did the same thing with enneagram, and i've linked enneagram 6 most with right-wing populism and activism and also conservatism. 2's are also conservative in large numbers, especially in the USA. And 5's seem to vary a lot, but mostly libertarians
> 
> 1. Enneagram 9 (linked with socialism and liberalism)
> 2. Enneagram 1 (linked with socialism and liberalism)
> ...


Like, INFPs may be idealists, but anyone who believes in socialism and communism hasn't looked at history too well.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

I once took a political test online to figure out what I was. After having read it I though it was very strange and so I took it again while typing in completely different answers. I think I had other people take it too. It turned out that the test was fake and ment to make you believe you where something you where not.  I am a social democrat, so; left'ish, INFP and type 4.
If you didn't know me you might assume I am type 6 I guess, as I have PTSD.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Hmmm I would change that list. I think the furthest left probably are ENFP and INFP, but then ISFP and ESFP would come next. ESFP may be less politically active, but they would be liberal/left-wing in that sort of laissez-faire sort of way...while there are PLENTY of xNFJs who are unapologetic centrists. xNFJ centrists in college were the bane of my very existence. If you don't understand what I mean by that, xNFJs tend to be the "upholders" of the very mainstream, politically correct, ho-hum "left."


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

Don't let my funky self tarnish your views of INTJs in general.
:smug:


Wohpe said:


> On average your NFs are the most liberal and most likely to question the status quo.


What if liberalism _*is*_ the status quo? Then who's doing the questioning?



> NTs probably do vary the most.


Fact.



> I've encountered some that are quite progressive


What was once considered "progressive" has revealed itself to be "regressive."



> NTs generally like to make up their own minds and might not fit squarely into a mainstream party view, so that's undoubtedly the reason.


Fact.



Horsey said:


> I am very conservative and 100% INFP, so this is wrong. Don't assume people's political views based on their MBTI, or you're gonna have a bad day.


A conservative INFP who references Undertale? You're meeting all my standards!
roud:
*Note:* Now you'll need to reference Deltarune just to keep up with the times.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Horsey said:


> Like, INFPs may be idealists, but anyone who believes in socialism and communism hasn't looked at history too well.


Or maybe people know how to separate an idea from poor implementations of an idea. I see people every day getting all agitated about supposed "socialism" as if you can take historical examples of certain failures and use them to sort of demonize the entire public sector. For instance, universal healthcare? It gets tagged as "socialized medicine" probably because that sounds scary and the lead mind controllers know how to get people in line, but these same people generally are fine with and even advocate for more spending on killing machines.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Judson Joist said:


> Don't let my funky self tarnish your views of INTJs in general.
> :smug:
> 
> What if liberalism _*is*_ the status quo? Then who's doing the questioning?
> ...


I know nothing about undertale...


Ocean Helm said:


> Or maybe people know how to separate an idea from poor implementations of an idea. I see people every day getting all agitated about supposed "socialism" as if you can take historical examples of certain failures and use them to sort of demonize the entire public sector. For instance, universal healthcare? It gets tagged as "socialized medicine" probably because that sounds scary and the lead mind controllers know how to get people in line, but these same people generally are fine with and even advocate for more spending on killing machines.


One look at the VA system should tell you why you don't want the government involved in your healthcare...

Hint: you won't have healthcare.

It's never worked. It's a good idea in theory (so is communism) but in practice, humans are too greedy.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Horsey said:


> Like, INFPs may be idealists, but anyone who believes in socialism and communism hasn't looked at history too well.


Dude... that was the fault of dictators, and 21st century communism is vastly different from other communism. And remember that it was tried... in Russia - not exactly a country with a democratic tradition, but well, it seems like the democracy with Putin does work and was better lol.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> Dude... that was the fault of dictators, and 21st century communism is vastly different from other communism. And remember that it was tried... in Russia - not exactly a country with a democratic tradition, but well, it seems like the democracy with Putin does work and was better lol.


Nothing will ever convince me communism isn't a pipe dream until you show me somewhere that is run happily with full on communism.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

lol with each passing day i'm more certain left is far left and right is now left.
methinks it best to gauge individuals politics on an individual basis, cause it's largely tied to what one believes is true so by proxy it's tied to what one believes is real, and there's plenty that people don't know is real tbh.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Horsey said:


> Nothing will ever convince me communism isn't a pipe dream until you show me somewhere that is run happily with full on communism.


Well, when it is done in a western-european country, you'll see that i'm right and people fare really well in western europe in socialist societies, so i don't see what the problem is. America could use a left-wing movement, if you want to make the countries more like the EU.

In the USA, i support BETO or BERNIE. And i even support Ojeda who's a Democrat from West-Virginia who's running for president... And Trump isn't the worst either!!!


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

aiyanah said:


> lol with each passing day i'm more certain left is far left and right is now left.
> methinks it best to gauge individuals politics on an individual basis, cause it's largely tied to what one believes is true so by proxy it's tied to what one believes is real, and there's plenty that people don't know is real tbh.


Well i don't vote for the left cause i don't think they're left enough... What's even more left than far-left???

Although on econimical issues i'm far-left. On social issues, it depends: i have some center-right views and some center-left views.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

Horsey said:


> I know nothing about Undertale.


Oh. Well, that means you said "you're gonna have a bad time" after the year 2015 and didn't mean it as an Undertale reference! That's rare, yo!



> One look at the VA system should tell you why you don't want the government involved in your healthcare.


Fact. The People do everything better than "the state."



> Hint: you won't have healthcare.


Of if you do, you're probably among the "elite" or whatever "in-group" is approved by "the state." Even the Nazis had their own welfare state.



> It's a good idea in theory (so is communism)


False. Communism is a bad idea in both theory and practice, even so called "stateless" communism (aka "theoretical communism"), under which "the state" becomes redundant because society, itself, functions as the state, oppressing the individual though socially enforced conformity and collectivism.



> humans are too greedy.


Greed is more forgivable than pathological altruism.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

@Lakigigar I'm confused by your sig. You say "ban assault weapons" but then you say "FOR THE PEOPLE." The People must remain forever armed if we're to instigate and sustain a successful Revolution, and those arms must be the most modern variety if we're to compete with the "Opposing Force."


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

aiyanah said:


> lol with each passing day i'm more certain left is far left and right is now left.
> methinks it best to gauge individuals politics on an individual basis, cause it's largely tied to what one believes is true so by proxy it's tied to what one believes is real, and there's plenty that people don't know is real tbh.





Lakigigar said:


> Well, when it is done in a western-european country, you'll see that i'm right and people fare really well in western europe in socialist societies, so i don't see what the problem is. America could use a left-wing movement, if you want to make the countries more like the EU.
> 
> In the USA, i support BETO or BERNIE. And i even support Ojeda who's a Democrat from West-Virginia who's running for president... And Trump isn't the worst either!!!


Are your European societies fully socialist? As in n


Lakigigar said:


> Well i don't vote for the left cause i don't think they're left enough... What's even more left than far-left???
> 
> Although on econimical issues i'm far-left. On social issues, it depends: i have some center-right views and some center-left views.


The left in America is trying to take away the right to offend people, and I'm not okay with that. I have the right to offend people, they don't have the right to not be offended. I don't care enough to police every single thing I say to make sure it's "politically correct". I voted for Bernie when I turned 18 in college, because all of my classmates essentially brainwashed me into thinking "Oh free college free healthcare!" Well, we're still paying for it, but when I do, I'm also paying for the bum sitting at home with no drive to go out and get a job. I'm not interested in that.


Judson Joist said:


> Oh. Well, that means you said "you're gonna have a bad time" after the year 2015 and didn't mean it as an Undertale reference! That's rare, yo!
> 
> 
> Fact. The People do everything better than "the state."
> ...


Throw the communists out of helicopters. That's my motto.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Judson Joist said:


> @Lakigigar I'm confused by your sig. You say "ban assault weapons" but then you say "FOR THE PEOPLE." The People must remain forever armed if we're to instigate and sustain a successful Revolution, and those arms must be the most modern variety if we're to compete with the "Opposing Force."


By people, they must mean the proletariat.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Horsey said:


> Throw the communists out of helicopters. That's my motto.
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


Erh, not to be rude but you kinda scare me now


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Electrona said:


> Erh, not to be rude but you kinda scare me now


I'm not actually going to kill people. It's just my way of showing how irrationally angry rich, yuppy college kids telling men and women who lived through the horrors of the Soviet regime that "Communism is great! You guys just didn't do it right" makes me. That's like telling me, a Jew, that Hitler wasn't that bad, he just did it wrong.

EDIT: There's a famous dictator who is known for throwing communists out of helicopters. I can't remember who 

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

Horsey said:


> By people, they must mean the proletariat.


Same principle applies. Marx believed that the proletariat should remain forever armed. We who define ourselves as civic nationalists advocate reconciliation between so-called "races" ("breeds" would be a better term since we're all one race) and so-called "classes" (an idiotic stratification for any society). The way we see it, the internationalist-socialists and the globalist-corporatists are equally wrong. Assume that fascism isn't even an option since it's basically "socialism on crack" (as I've seen it described).


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> Well i don't vote for the left cause i don't think they're left enough... What's even more left than far-left???
> 
> Although on econimical issues i'm far-left. On social issues, it depends: i have some center-right views and some center-left views.


i don't know what's more left than far left, historical accounts tend to be postmortems.
basically, politics right now feels off base
this is what it should be

*[-----------------------------|-----------------------------]*

this is what it is

*[---------------------|-------------------------------------]*

so what is right wing these days? i ask cause from my general observations it tends to be anything that is right of off center left, this is for the current second half of this decade at least.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

aiyanah said:


> i don't know what's more left than far left, historical accounts tend to be postmortems.
> basically, politics right now feels off base
> this is what it should be
> 
> ...


I just absolutely hate political correctness (taking away my right to say what I want), trying to take away my right to bear arms and protect myself, the lefts use of demonizing and accusing everyone they disagree with, the corruption of the next generation by exposing them to stuff they shouldn't be exposed to this young. I'm traditional. 

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Horsey said:


> I'm not actually going to kill people.
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


Well that is nice.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Electrona said:


> Well that is nice.


People going against my moral values makes me angrier than you could believe.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Horsey said:


> People going against my moral values makes me angrier than you could believe.
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


I sometimes feel the same way when people go against my own moral values.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Horsey said:


> I know nothing about undertale...One look at the VA system should tell you why you don't want the government involved in your healthcare...
> 
> Hint: you won't have healthcare.
> 
> ...


Most of the civilized world has healthcare just fine...


Horsey said:


> I just absolutely hate political correctness (taking away my right to say what I want), trying to take away my right to bear arms and protect myself, the lefts use of demonizing and accusing everyone they disagree with, the corruption of the next generation by exposing them to stuff they shouldn't be exposed to this young. I'm traditional.
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


Protecting the right to say what you want has been a historically "liberal" position. Left-right is kind of a silly model.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> Most of the civilized world has healthcare just fine...
> 
> Protecting the right to say what you want has been a historically "liberal" position. Left-right is kind of a silly model.





Electrona said:


> I sometimes feel the same way when people go against my own moral values.


I'm a pacifist. Hate fighting, hate conflict.

But God forbid you say something that strongly goes against my morals, because them are fighting words.

And God help the person who hurts someone I love while I'm present. Because they'll be meeting God real soon.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Electrona said:


> Erh, not to be rude but you kinda scare me now


yes like they've done in Chile... Pinochet threw people like us from a helicopter... That was a dictatorship too!!! INFP's don't approve


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Lakigigar I feel this could get off track really quickly but I see your profile and what you've expressed so far and while I agree with most of it or generally take your side on these issues:
> 
> A) How do you reconcile the preference of Trump over Clinton when he is generally way on the other side of the issues that you list? Not to mention his personality issues which in themselves can pose a world peace threat.
> 
> B) You said that you support a right to bear arms but you have "ban assault weapons" in your signature. Assuming you're referring to certain semi-automatic high-capacity weapons like AR-15s, why do they get the banhammer when they statistically don't pose the greatest threat (rifles are responsible for roughly 4% of homicides)? Handguns make for by far the best murder weapons just when considering the logistics, but they also are used for the vast majority of homicides. If it's not because they are big and scary and often are politicized due to these traits, what is it?


A) The Democratic Party has become too elitist, mainly focusing on progress on social issues or status quo politics, and only takes care of the very few people who're doing very well, while forgetting about the main population (whom a lot of them are rural and social conservative and that's okay, everyone has different values and we need to accept that). Trump was more folksy and thus i preferred him, but it might have been a mistake. I just still believe Trump was the lesser evil of the two evils. Some issues of him resonated to me, and i wanted to give them a chance. I mean he wasn't a politician, it could turn out that he'd became a good president. You never know?

I'm an isolationist -> Trump was an isolationist during his campaign, while Clinton was a war hawk and in favour of toughness against Russia and more military invasions.
I'm in favour of direct democracy, and Trump was a result of direct democracy, opposed to the Democratic's primaries with superdelegates which were rigged from the start.
I'm anti-globalist -> Trump is anti-globalist too.
I want change -> Trump stood for change
I have a tendency to always naturraly side with the underdog for some reason (not only in politics, but also in sports, ... everytime over and over again).
I'm very much against traditionalist politics / status quo politics / monarchism / political dynasties
I'm Opposed to traditional republicans but he wasn't very religious.
He wasn't a politician -> which was a good thing
He speakes against common people like us, not in an elitist or arrogant tone like usual politicians do.
He had charisma. Whenever he talks, you just listen.
Communists are in favour of protectionism (when he talks about TTIP, he was just right, while Democrats are in favour of free trade). Trump was the better option here, even though it was more about economic nationalism, but that's a good thing IMO.
Improving infrastructure and steering away from austerity politics is something the left supports too
He was going to drain the swamp
He was going to create jobs
And he was going to make the country great again, and bring back jobs to American politics, to stop funding pointless things like NATO or renegotiating NAFTA.

And i've read too much articles like the one below, in which i thought that republicans were transitioning into a worker's party or a centrist worker's class party while the Democratic Party became more & more like a modern liberal party for the elite and the higher classes.

A Republican Workers’ Party?



> Democratic incompetence has made the previously unthinkable possible: Republicans are reimagining themselves as a labor party


And ironically if Trump changed just a few things / a few tones from his presidency or wasn't even a candidate for the Republican Party, he could have been classified as a socialist.

And it's maybe a good thing if we had a tougher approach on immigration. Things have gone way too far in today's society. It's not normal anymore with all that PC bullshit. I'm almost afraid what i can still say.

I don't care about his personality issues, honestly.

B) people have less rifles at home, that's why they seem less dangerous, but they should be banned. No sane person needs an assault rifle, SMG or LMG or that kind of weapon. I'm undecided whether guns should be banned though. I wouldn't include it in my campaign if i did hypothetically campaign for president in the USA, cause i would try to make "inroads" in rural areas and conservative areas and appeal with my message, and because youngsters aren't a reliable voting demographic.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Lakigigar said:


> A) The Democratic Party has become too elitist, mainly focusing on progress on social issues or status quo politics, and only takes care of the very few people who're doing very well, while forgetting about the main population (whom a lot of them are rural and social conservative and that's okay, everyone has different values and we need to accept that).


It seems like you have things a little backwards here. It's the Republican Party that has been bankrupting the country and then saying that they need to cut spending on things that help people of the main population, and the Democratic Party is really the only thing standing in the way of the Republican agenda.


> Trump was more folksy and thus i preferred him, but it might have been a mistake. I just still believe Trump was the lesser evil of the two evils. Some issues of him resonated to me, and i wanted to give them a chance. I mean he wasn't a politician, it could turn out that he'd became a good president. You never know?


He's a self-serving narcissist that only cares about himself, and that much was clear if you looked at his history of constantly screwing people over. Isn't that like the main reason why people don't like so-called "politicians"?


> I'm an isolationist -> Trump was an isolationist during his campaign, while Clinton was a war hawk and in favour of toughness against Russia and more military invasions.


He talked out of both sides of his mouth on that, just like always. He's the most dishonest major candidate I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.


> I'm in favour of direct democracy, and Trump was a result of direct democracy, opposed to the Democratic's primaries with superdelegates which were rigged from the start.


I can understand the idea of voting against a party as a whole as a protest vote. However, I think the dangers are too high with someone unstable like Trump, but I do follow your logic.


> I'm anti-globalist -> Trump is anti-globalist too.


Trump demonstrated his worldview to be very naive and ill-informed and regardless of this "nationalist-globalist" paradigm I'd rather not have an idiot in charge.


> I want change -> Trump stood for change


Change in itself is not a positive thing. Improvements are. Trump to me stood for negative change, which is inferior to the status quo.


> I have a tendency to always naturraly side with the underdog for some reason (not only in politics, but also in sports, ... everytime over and over again).
> I'm very much against traditionalist politics / status quo politics / *monarchism* / political dynasties


Fair enough, but Trump seems to have a relatively extremely monarchist view of what a POTUS should be.


> I'm Opposed to traditional republicans but he wasn't very religious.


Well that's true.


> He wasn't a politician -> which was a good thing


Again, I'd argue that he takes the bad politician traits and amps them up with even more lies and self-centeredness.


> He speakes against common people like us, not in an elitist or arrogant tone like usual politicians do.


He's one of the most elitist and arrogant people I've ever seen and yes he speaks against common people all the time.


> He had charisma. Whenever he talks, you just listen.


Isn't this a dangerous trait which can lead us on the road to monarchism?


> Communists are in favour of protectionism (when he talks about TTIP, he was just right, while Democrats are in favour of free trade). Trump was the better option here, even though it was more about economic nationalism, but that's a good thing IMO.


Well that's an opinion.


> Improving infrastructure and steering away from austerity politics is something the left supports too


And Trump may give lip service to it but when you bankrupt the country with increased military spending and tax cuts for the rich, austerity is the result and that seems to be the Republican agenda, which Trump was on board with. During the campaign, he ran on one of the biggest pro-debt platforms ever, estimated to add trillions to the debt. What's the long-term result of that especially with Republicans in charge? Austerity.


> He was going to drain the swamp


A campaign slogan, yet he did nothing to demonstrate that he was serious about that, and not surprisingly he filled up his cabinet with swamp critters.


> He was going to create jobs


Through "growing the economy" from the tax scam.


> And he was going to make the country great again, and bring back jobs to American politics,


It was pretty easy to see through these empty promises.


> to stop funding pointless things like NATO or renegotiating NAFTA.


The amount put into NATO is relatively small and can be seen as a more cost-effective defense investment than the ramping up of military spending that he proposed.



> And i've read too much articles like the one below, in which i thought that republicans were transitioning into a worker's party or a centrist worker's class party while the Democratic Party became more & more like a modern liberal party for the elite and the higher classes.
> 
> A Republican Workers’ Party?
> And ironically if Trump changed just a few things / a few tones from his presidency or wasn't even a candidate for the Republican Party, he could have been classified as a socialist.


You mean like actually try to help working people rather than con them? Trump represents the latter.


> And it's maybe a good thing if we had a tougher approach on immigration. Things have gone way too far in today's society. It's not normal anymore with all that PC bullshit. I'm almost afraid what i can still say.


Fair enough.


> I don't care about his personality issues, honestly.


Considering the unilateral control he has over so much powerful stuff, I don't know why you wouldn't.


> B) people have less rifles at home, that's why they seem less dangerous, but they should be banned. No sane person needs an assault rifle, SMG or LMG or that kind of weapon. I'm undecided whether guns should be banned though. I wouldn't include it in my campaign if i did hypothetically campaign for president in the USA, cause i would try to make "inroads" in rural areas and conservative areas and appeal with my message, and because youngsters aren't a reliable voting demographic.


Not by nearly as big of a gap as the murder gap.










Lakigigar said:


> there is a big difference between a glock pistol and an ak-47, that's what i'm referring to. If people want to shoot with guns at shooting ranges, or defend themselves against robbers, it's fine to have a gun at home.


Yes, one makes for a more effective murder weapon, and it isn't the AK.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> A) The Democratic Party has become too elitist, mainly focusing on progress on social issues or status quo politics, and only takes care of the very few people who're doing very well, while forgetting about the main population (whom a lot of them are rural and social conservative and that's okay, everyone has different values and we need to accept that). Trump was more folksy and thus i preferred him, but it might have been a mistake. I just still believe Trump was the lesser evil of the two evils. Some issues of him resonated to me, and i wanted to give them a chance. I mean he wasn't a politician, it could turn out that he'd became a good president. You never know?
> 
> I'm an isolationist -> Trump was an isolationist during his campaign, while Clinton was a war hawk and in favour of toughness against Russia and more military invasions.
> I'm in favour of direct democracy, and Trump was a result of direct democracy, opposed to the Democratic's primaries with superdelegates which were rigged from the start.
> ...


It is incredibly difficult to get an automatic weapon (an SMG, so called "assault rifle" or LMG.) You need an extreme amount of background checks by the ATF. Then good luck buying one, they cost $20,000+ for an automatic weapon, and you have to find someone willing to sell there's first.

So, that point makes AR-15s just semi-automatic rifles. Same as any pistol, just bigger. What you're saying is that no person should need to hunt animals with a semi-automatic weapon. That's why we need "assault weapons", and I use that term in a mocking, condescending way because it's ridiculous. Why should people who rely on hunting to survive be limited on what they kill their prey with, as long as it's humane? Are semi-automatic weapons less humane than a compound bow or crossbow? Why should they be limited to single shot, or bolt action rifles? Or SA pistols?

Trying to ban semi-automatic rifles is ridiculous. The left wants us to compromise on giving up our weapons, but we give an inch, and they take a mile. I, personally, am done compromising. Good luck getting cops to go forcefully take guns from law abiding citizens. It won't go well.

Do you really want this hill to be the one you die on?
Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Horsey said:


> It is incredibly difficult to get an automatic weapon (an SMG, so called "assault rifle" or LMG.) You need an extreme amount of background checks by the ATF. Then good luck buying one, they cost $20,000+ for an automatic weapon, and you have to find someone willing to sell there's first.
> 
> So, that point makes AR-15s just semi-automatic rifles. Same as any pistol, just bigger. What you're saying is that no person should need to hunt animals with a semi-automatic weapon. That's why we need "assault weapons", and I use that term in a mocking, condescending way because it's ridiculous. Why should people who rely on hunting to survive be limited on what they kill their prey with, as long as it's humane? Are semi-automatic weapons less humane than a compound bow or crossbow? Why should they be limited to single shot, or bolt action rifles? Or SA pistols?
> 
> ...


People have the right to hunt. Even in Europe, you can get a hunting license, and in that regard, people should be allowed to buy a semi-automatic rifle if they pass the background checks, but i think we all disapprove gun violence?


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> People have the right to hunt. Even in Europe, you can get a hunting license, and in that regard, people should be allowed to buy a semi-automatic rifle if they pass the background checks, but i think we all disapprove gun violence?


We do have background checks for every gun purchase from a dealer. To not do a background check is a federal felony. So I don't see why you're mentioning assault weapons. What point are you trying to make. 

Stop trying to appeal to emotion. Of course I hate gun violence. It doesn't strengthen or validate your point

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Horsey said:


> We do have background checks for every gun purchase from a dealer. To not do a background check is a federal felony. So I don't see why you're mentioning assault weapons. What point are you trying to make.
> 
> Stop trying to appeal to emotion. Of course I hate gun violence. It doesn't strengthen or validate your point
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


stop being so offensive against me... I'm not offending you. Well i didn't know you had to do background checks.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> stop being so offensive against me... I'm not offending you. Well i didn't know you had to do background checks.


You are offending me. You support taking away the right for me to own whatever gun I want. The last time someone did that to my people, it was in Nazi Germany. So I won't let it happen again. Don't argue about things you don't know anything about.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

You live in Europe. The rights of American citizen are not something you should be worried about. Worry about the EU, not us. We can take care of ourselves. I might be INFP, but I am ruthless in arguments and I don't hold my punches.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

And yes, I absolutely will die on this hill.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Horsey said:


> And yes, I absolutely will die on this hill.
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


I have not even said that they should ban guns from you. Literally. The only reason why people propose banning guns in America, is because America is literally the only place in Earth where every week 20 people die because of shootings. I'm sure you can handle a gun, but there are so many people with bad intentions on the Earth that i'm skeptical about it. Most Europeans are more fiercely against it. I've left the door open, and said that it's an American tradition and that i support that American tradition, and even than you took it as offensive.

Show some respect towards other people, when you're on the internet. You're literally treating me like shit. And that's - my friend - not an INFP-value. INFP's can be conservative, but they'll always show some respect for other's people's opinions and personality and are very tolerant. That's why - unlike some other Democratic elites - i'm not calling half of America deplorables, because i genuinely believe that most people have the heart at the right place, despite political preferences.

I prefer the *diplomatic way* to handle things, instead of *ruthless approaches* in which you condemn multiple people to a cruel death just because of ideology (like you've done with that helicopters comment).


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I'm willing to try to think in the perspective of other-minded people and people who follow a different culture than i do, because i'm a curious person and because i want to make a connection with all people, regardless of personality, political ideology, religion, race, gender and whatever. But such attempts need to come from two sides, and i'm not feeling that you're showing any kind of respect towards me. If you're not willing to meet new cultures and to learn to know people, well than stay off the internet and engage with people in local communities, with patriottic and religious American citizens. Thank you.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> I have not even said that they should ban guns from you. Literally. The only reason why people propose banning guns in America, is because America is literally the only place in Earth where every week 20 people die because of shootings. I'm sure you can handle a gun, but there are so many people with bad intentions on the Earth that i'm skeptical about it. Most Europeans are more fiercely against it. I've left the door open, and said that it's an American tradition and that i support that American tradition, and even than you took it as offensive.
> 
> Show some respect towards other people, when you're on the internet. You're literally treating me like shit. And that's - my friend - not an INFP-value. INFP's can be conservative, but they'll always show some respect for other's people's opinions and personality and are very tolerant. That's why - unlike some other Democratic elites - i'm not calling half of America deplorables, because i genuinely believe that most people have the heart at the right place, despite political preferences.
> 
> I prefer the *diplomatic way* to handle things, instead of *ruthless approaches* in which you condemn multiple people to a cruel death just because of ideology (like you've done with that helicopters comment).


Bullshit, 20 people do not die every week. Keep quoting bullshit statistics, and I'll keep treating you like an ignorant fool on the subject. That's all I need to say on the subject. You should learn that it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than speak out and remove all doubt.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

I have no tolerance for fools who speak like they know what they're talking about, but don't.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Horsey said:


> Bullshit, 20 people do not die every week. Keep quoting bullshit statistics, and I'll keep treating you like an ignorant fool on the subject. That's all I need to say on the subject. You should learn that it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than speak out and remove all doubt.
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


Thousand Oaks makes 307 mass shootings in 311 days



















Pure facts, talking about ignorancy.

In 2013 there were *33,636 deaths* due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 persons). That's actually almost 100 a day. In Europe that's not even 1 a day. And we're both western countries.

The statistics are speaking against you, but just like so many other Trump voters you'll ignore statistics and facts once again.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Lakigigar 307 deaths in 311 days is not "20 per week". It's under 7.

And your own statistics show just how much of a drop in a bucket mass shootings are compared to gun-related deaths in general, and even a smaller drop compared to something you can consider "senseless deaths" which would include those killed due to drunk drivers which is a vastly larger amount. And taking multiple semi-automatic Glocks really does the same thing as AR-15s or AK-47s, except for perhaps the Vegas shooter in which case he was able to rain down death from above. But even so you can make the case that explosives such as car bombs are equally if not more efficient ways to kill large groups of people in most cases if that's what you're after.

The idea of a ban on so-called "assault rifles" seems to stem purely from the emotional appeal of "big and scary, and they're coming for your kids". People want something done, so politicians take advantage of the crisis and pretend like they are offering the solutions and those from the opposing party aren't. But take a step back and resist your mind being controlled by the emotional appeal, and it should become fairly clear that this kind of a ban is a fake solution to an inflated problem which can't really be solved outside of "de-meming" mass shootings and also by looking at what it is in society that is helping to create these people.


----------



## attic (May 20, 2012)

The last pages of this thread makes me a bit sick,
Politicides on leftist(partly by hellicopter): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)#Human_rights_violations 


Back on topic:

The statistics I have seen(just for my country) show that women lean more left as a group, so does people with lower wages and less debt and people with higher education lean more left than those without, as do younger people. My experience, which could very well be wrong, is that people in creative outlet-education such as art and music tend to be leftleaning too.

So if just for fun trying to (predudiceically) translate this... Infps are the poorest(in moneyterms) if I remember right, followed by ... isfp? Women are more often F, ENTJs make the most money, follwed by... estj? Art and music seem to be the realm of SF first and formost? 

I think this all depends on if the country has a tradition of being more left or right as well, as those who want to join the masses and those who don't mind going their own way might end up differently in those cases.
It would also matter what you count as "left".

But trying to summarise, despite all the unknowns, I am guessing left->right:
infp
isfp
enfp
infj
esfp
enfj
intp
entp
esfj
isfj
estp
istp
entj
intj
istj
estj

There might seem like there is no proper system to my guesses, and there isn't really, because some of these things go against each other, like education and high wages.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

attic said:


> The last pages of this thread makes me a bit sick,
> Politicides on leftist(partly by hellicopter): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)#Human_rights_violations
> 
> 
> ...


When I went to artschool, I can't remember _anyone _who didn't wote left.
(We talked openly about it then.)
And yeah we where mostly teenage girls.
We had polititions coming over to speak at our school before this happend, and we talked afterwards.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

ESTP

Apathetic about political parties

Social Politics: Left—————X-Middle-X—————— :Economics


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

aiyanah said:


> lol with each passing day i'm more certain left is far left and right is now left.
> methinks it best to gauge individuals politics on an individual basis, cause it's largely tied to what one believes is true so by proxy it's tied to what one believes is real, and there's plenty that people don't know is real tbh.


This ^


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

I mean, the blue and red areas in the U.S. have remained nearly untouched since the country's inception. So by some of y'all's logic, all the NFs live in coastal areas and all the SJs live in Mississoransxas? 

It's living proof that culture and environment is *by far* the main indicator of political allegiance. 

Adding Trump to the mix just messes up these stereotypes even more. I mean I'm sure there's a significant amount of people who voted for him because they've been Republican all their lives and showing video proof of him sacrificing toddlers during a Satanic ritual won't be enough to change their minds. But it's equally plausible to imagine any remotely educated SJ type wanting nothing to do with him because he is the epitome of anti-Si cautiousness and rationality. 

Likewise, they are probably some hardcore patriotic NFs who see the dude as the revolutionary politician they've always been waiting for.


----------



## Xool Xecutioner (Jul 8, 2018)

I wouldn't think in the terms of the political spectrum to base the general political tendencies of types. It's clear on this thread that general political tendencies are multi-faceted and specific. For this, I recommend the political compass rather than the political spectrum as the political compass is designed to measure various political areas simultaneously versus the unidimesional-ness of the political specturm (as one stated on this thread). To use myself as an example, politically, I am not an authoritarian nor do I prefer it as my general position, but socially speaking, there are some things I disagree. I am a libertarian right, for I believe in a voluntary hierarchy.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Xool Xecutioner I'm pretty sure that at the very least on that political compass:
Up ("Authoritarian") = S (strong) + J (weak)
Down ("Libertarian") = N (strong) + P (weak)
Left ("Economic-Left") = F
Right ("Economic-Right") = T

Thus I am more likely to look at the political quadrants as SF, ST, NF, NT.

"Liberalism" (which is more in the lines of classical liberalism, which corresponds more to the "libertarian" in the Nolan Chart) after all is sometimes included as a component of Big 5's Openness due to the high correlations. Openness is correlated strongly with Intuition and weakly with Perceiving.


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

From personal experience:
ESTJ: Right wing. A very large contingent of centrists and center-left
ISTJ: Right wing. A lot of traditionalists.
ISFJ: Centrist
ESFJ: Pretty variable. A lot of the younger ones seem to skew right, but drift left as they age.

ESTP: Extremely Variable
ESFP: Extremely Variable.
ISTP: Overwhelmingly right wing. Seem to make up a lot of the alt-right/red piller stuff, but like ESFJ, a lot of them seem to drift leftward as they get older
ISFPs: Left wing

ENTP: Left, although there are a lot of right-libertarians.
ENFP: Far left
INFP: Never anything normal. The classic "social justice warrior" stereotype on the far left, literal reactionary monarchists on the far right. Some centrists, but they seem more politics-averse than actually centrist
INTP: Extremely Variable. Like INFPs, often something kind of weird. Also a lot of politics-averse people.

INFJ: Women have mostly been centrist or left, the guys have been extremely fringey right. Fringes aside, probably have been one of the most politically averse type. Not sure where the crusader stereotype comes from with them.
INTJ: Either left-wing or right-libertarian. Often have at least one really fringe belief. I think a lot of the alt-righty ones are probably mistypes, but I can pretty easily see them getting into that whole neo-reactionary/dark enlightenment thing.
ENFJ: Extremely variable
ENTJ: Centrist/center-left or right-libertarian.

I think sensors often skew either rightwards or towards the center, and N types often skew leftwards, if only because, aside from some ISFPs, I don't think I've ever seen a far left sensor before. Aside from ENFPs, extroverts seem to hug the center, and introverts are more comfortable with the fringes. IPs seem to really like angsty, anti-establishment politics. Those are the main trends I can think of.


----------



## Xool Xecutioner (Jul 8, 2018)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Xool Xecutioner I'm pretty sure that at the very least on that political compass:
> Up ("Authoritarian") = S (strong) + J (weak)
> Down ("Libertarian") = N (strong) + P (weak)
> Left ("Economic-Left") = F
> ...


I doubt Te is more open to experiences than Se, and Se isn't more institutional or by hierarchical of institutions than Te (which is consistent with authoritarian right) 

Sure, sensing _is correlated more_ to conscientiousness than intuition, but judging is more than sensing on that regard (the correlation of conscientiousness). In fact, judging is conscientious for safety and stability, whereas sensing is conscientious for not going to inconcrete things because of potential incomprehensible results (which is amplified under judging, but nothing significant after that). A SP isn't more strict (a necessary component of authoritarianism) than a NJ just because of sensing, and while Se is power based and hierarchical on the former, it isn't really like that in the long term AND without the meretricious organization of a Je function (especially Te). 

In terms of correlations with conscientiousness (most to least): 
J > S > T (thinking is systematic, so it would need some organizations to maintain clarity and objectiveness).


----------



## destroyer of kiribek (10 mo ago)

kiribek said:


> So tl;dr
> The irrational ones are left-wing and the rational ones are right-wing.
> Can't say I discovered anything new, since that's how it seems to be in the world at large, not just on this forum.


Funny how "the irrational ones" have the facts and data from scientist. You right-wingers always think you're so rational with your shapiro-like "facts don't care about your feelings", but your entire ideology stems from the irrational fear of new and angry emotions. The scientist are on our side and they have the facts.


----------



## Charus (May 31, 2017)

I dont subscribe to any ideology, because I see it as a complete waste of time, and what those stupid ideologies exist for other than dividing and separationg people into pointless confrontations, conflicts and useless "Points of view". "But transgender people deserve rights! Also women are oppressed blahblahblah pointless moral ethique" and then the "Facts dont care about your feelings, facts facts facts _Puts on a smug smile_" Both of those is just annoying as fuck, just shut the fuck up both of you.

Seriously, I dont give a shit what ideology you are on, just respect your peers as human beings, without using your stupid ass ideology to judge and demonize others who do not conform to your idiotic beliefs.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Let me see, I've told this story before, but what the hell.

When I first came of age to vote, I happened to also be in the military. I was told I could vote for anyone I wanted, but the conservatives tend to give the military better raises, so I joined the GOP and voted Republican. When I left the military and went to college to become a teacher, I was told I could vote for anyone I wanted, but the liberals tended to fund education more, so I joined the Dems and voted Democrat. Then when 9/11 happened, both parties rolled over and supported the PATRIOT Act, making it possible to suspend one's constitutional rights simply by labeling them a "terrorist." I couldn't in good conscience be a member of either party after that, so I became a Libertarian. Well, I was a libertarian for a number of years, but I noticed there's a lot of nuts who call themselves "Libertarian" and they really don't care about the actual party platform, and as a 3rd party, they only seem to wind up the "spoiler" party. So I've been an unaffiliated independent voter ever since. Now I do my best to research the candidates and make the best choice possible for the _country_, not the party.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

Most definitely left wing here so the chart works well for me , however I’ve encountered many moderate /right wings enfps throughout my time on here . 
My istp partner also lean left wing , he’s from a hardcore conservative family 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

I prefer neither wing/box. They both suck in their own way.


----------



## fluffyfawn (10 mo ago)

kiribek said:


> So tl;dr
> The irrational ones are left-wing and the rational ones are right-wing.
> Can't say I discovered anything new, since that's how it seems to be in the world at large, not just on this forum.


 are you a dumb fuck? the 2 most rational types are the most left wing and you said that? not even surprised conservatives cant read


----------



## ragnarkar (Mar 25, 2018)

As an INTP, I find myself drawn to the political views of folks like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. These people have traditionally been associated with the left although more recently, they've been accused of being right wingers. Although their beliefs overlap a bit with the Republicans in the US, they're far bigger on personal freedoms as opposed to traditional social values. On political tests, I often get "left libertarian" as my ideology. Like most INTPs, I also tend to believe that logic and rationality trump feelings and that's probably the only aspect of my personality that's fundamentally "conservative" but other than that, I find it hard to find common ground with conservatives, at least in the US, especially when it comes to traditional values.


----------

