# My question about the SJ temperament



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Before I say anything I want to make it clear that I don't mean to insult any of you by saying any of this, I just want to further my understanding of the SJ temperament. 

I have a lot of friends who fall into this temperament, my two closest SJ friends are an ES*J and an ISFJ. As many of you can probably guess the ES*J is far more socially successful than the ISFJ and has a lot of friends. The ISFJ doesn't have that many friends, but that isn't really related to the topic at hand so I digress. 

Anyway, one thing that I have noticed about SJ types is the way that none of them question the environment that they were brought up in. Many SJ's that people that are familiar with Myers Briggs can easily identify as SJ''s happened to grow up in a pretty decent environment, usually with conservative parents(the usual Bill O'reilly's, George Bush's, Sarah Palin's, etc.) But what about the ones who grew up in bad areas(Suge Knight for example)? I find that the inability to question the environment can be especially bad when they are not raised around sensible people. A lot of people that I encounter from the hood fall into the temperament, and their immoral behavior is usually seen by them as "the way things have always been" so it is especially hard for them to leave their old ways(without religious intervention). I wouldn't be very surprised to find out that a lot of Islamic terrorists were in the SJ temperament and see their actions as the traditional way to behave. SJ's are probably less likely to turn into criminals, but I've noticed that the ones who already are, would be the least likely to stop. I would imagine that if an ESTJ went to prison at a young age, and witnessed a rape, or violent murder/beating he would probably engage in such behaviors, as he saw them as a traditional way to behave in prison. Though, I believe that the SJ type most suited for cruelty would have to be the ESFJ. They seem to be pretty moral at first, but the way they define their values externally can be horrible if they aren't raised in a good environment. My INTP friend calls this temperament "the cancer that plagues our world" which I don't necessarily think is true, but they do seem somewhat "drone-like" to me. There certainly seem to be far more SJ types in the general population than any other temperament(though, there are probably a lot of SP's as well), especially in America and other very religious societies.

My question is, how many of you have beliefs that are different from the ones in which you were raised. I can't imagine an SJ being raised with extremely religious or racist parents and deviating too far from that belief system. I could be wrong but I've just seen it in practice a lot, especially with all of the SJ's that I know. I only know one SJ who has extremely different beliefs from his parents and he is an ISFJ, who has most likely been influenced by myself(not to mention his parents are Jehovah's witnesses and he felt annoyed at how they discriminated against women). I would love to get some insight into this.

EDIT- Obviously there are unhealthy people of every type, but I guess that I think that people of the SJ temperament are the least likely to grow up in an unhealthy environment and turn out to be healthy.


----------



## Introvertigo (Dec 27, 2010)

Teddy, Trigun -- come to our rescue!


----------



## Tucken (Dec 13, 2009)

I like it that you want to understand these things and I respect you for it. However, I see a lot of assumptions in your post which I believe lead you astray. 



MartyMcFly1 said:


> ...but I guess that I think that people of the SJ temperament are the least likely to grow up in an unhealthy environment and turn out to be healthy.


Why would you think that? This isn't about temperament but whether you are raised in an unhealthy environment or not. The 'SJ's are shaped by their environment' argument is weak at best. Let's get a little bit into it anyways. 

I believe SJ's question their environment as much as anyone else. Why wouldn't we? It's, ironically, the normal 'traditional' thing to do - you grow up and question things along the way and as adults you set your own rules. Until then it could be that SJs are more prone than other temperaments to 'play by the rules' for a variety of reasons. 
Parents know best, aye? If you rebel you get into trouble, most things are truly not worth the 'rebellion' anyways - it's very hard to change someone else's opinion (say parents). Better save it for adulthood, then you may do as you please. 

Change isn't easy, even if you find something that you don't like chances are you will repeat your parents mistakes. Repeat is good and safe. It's not that the SJ isn't open to change but real wisdom is hard to come by- that which is 'the right thing to do'. For most SJ's it's quite important to do things the right way. Surely you can do the trial and error thing, but that's not effective. Most people are content anyways, so why would they change?


My 'beliefs' are quite different from those of my parents. I think that's normal and the problem lies more in 'what to do about it?' as mentioned. For every disease there are ten different treatments, for every excessive pound there are as many ways to lose them and there are as many ways to bring up children as there are children. 

Regarding the terrorists, which was a bald assessment, I'm quite sure they know their ways couldn't ever be regarded as 'traditional'. It isn't 'tradition' that lures them in. Terrorists are people who needed something to believe in, they were brainwashed with something that made them feel fulfilled as human beings. (But that's my assumption.)


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Tucken said:


> I like it that you want to understand these things and I respect you for it. However, I see a lot of assumptions in your post which I believe lead you astray.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe I am understanding the temperament wrong. I thought that they valued things like tradition and sought to maintain it above all else. So if it's a tradition to go to church every Sunday, then an SJ will do that because he sees it as the correct thing to do, it's what he has been raised to do. But if they grow up in a place where it is a tradition to tote guns and kill people (A perfect example of this would be the R.U.F child soldiers of Sierra Leone) then they will see their actions as maintaining order, right? 

Like I said before, I have only ever seen one SJ overcome their religious indoctrination and it took him to witness his mother and little sister being actively discriminated against in order for that change to occur. My assertion that SJ's are shaped by their environment was not an argument, it was more of a hypothesis. In most information I have read about the SJ temperament it seems that they want to ensure that things in their environment are what they consider to be normal. That's most likely why it is so common to see young ESTJ's making fun of people that they perceive to be different from themselves (or abnormal in their eyes). My step-father is an ESTJ, my mother is an ISFJ, and I have a ton of SJ friends and most times they don't even like it when I pose questions that could potentially call their religious beliefs into question.

I don't mean social beliefs. Most children develop a great deal of their personalities outside of the home, with their friends. But there are certain core beliefs that I couldn't imagine an SJ straying to far from. As far as their religious or political beliefs.

I actually thought that the terrorist assessment was a pretty good comparison. You're the type who thinks that religious terrorists are inherently evil people, aren't you? I don't really think that they are. I just think that the circumstances that they were provided lead them in that direction. I think its strange when I hear Christians talk about how Islamic extremists are crazy lunatics because if you think about it, they have also gone through the indoctrination process. They just happen to be lucky enough to have not gone through it in a place experiencing dark ages. From a logical standpoint, there is nothing more or less rational about believing that a cracker is the body of Christ than believing that you will be rewarded with 72 virgins for blowing yourself up along with "the infidels". Personally, I think that the Islamic terrorists are being extremely rational based on what their belief system is because they are not picking and choosing which parts of their religion to believe in as most people do in todays world. They are taught to believe that the Quran is the only way to salvation. So when the Qu'ran says that you should hate the infidels, they are taking it literally, which is the rational approach to undying faith in such a book.

Adhering to traditional values is the staple of this temperament is it not? And what is traditional is subjective based on where you are from. So, to one man adhering to traditional values is going to church every Sunday, to another man it could be stoning non-virgin women to death. Does that make sense? I think the casual comparison to such a perceived negative group of people such as Islamic Extremists may have rubbed many of you the wrong way but it was more of me trying to further my understanding than trying to insult anyone. I would love more comments on this topic.

EDIT- Upon a reread of my first post I can see how me casually throwing in the line about how my friend calls SJ's "the cancer that plagues the world" could also be taken really badly without an understanding of his opinion. The way he sees it, all those who adhere to tradition without any logical reason for sticking with said traditions is the opponent of progress. So in his mind those who are more likely to adhere to traditional values (SJ's) are the temperament most likely to hinder human progression. My comment about SJ's being "drone-like" came from a socionics description of ESTJ's. It said that they absorbed a lot of information at a young age, and then these beliefs were set in stone. I took that to mean that it was like their beliefs were programmed into them and now they are going about their lives in a machine-like fashion, with new models being released all the time, never stopping to even consider a new perspective. Growing up with SJ parent's "because I said so" in their minds was always a sufficient answer when a simple explanation would have most likely motivated me, but in their minds it was disrespectful for me to ask for an explanation because traditionally children should only speak when spoken to and should never talk back.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> EDIT- Upon a reread of my first post I can see how me casually throwing in the line about how my friend calls SJ's "the cancer that plagues the world" could also be taken really badly without an understanding of his opinion. The way he sees it, all those who adhere to tradition without any logical reason for sticking with said traditions is the opponent of progress. So in his mind those who are more likely to adhere to traditional values (SJ's) are the temperament most likely to hinder human progression. My comment about SJ's being "drone-like" came from a socionics description of ESTJ's. It said that they absorbed a lot of information at a young age, and then these beliefs were set in stone. I took that to mean that it was like their beliefs were programmed into them and now they are going about their lives in a machine-like fashion, with new models being released all the time, never stopping to even consider a new perspective. Growing up with SJ parent's "because I said so" in their minds was always a sufficient answer when a simple explanation would have most likely motivated me, but in their minds it was disrespectful for me to ask for an explanation because traditionally children should only speak when spoken to and should never talk back.


Well, I'm not an ESTJ so I can't speculate on how true that is for them. I can only talk about myself, obviously, but I am having a huge problem with this topic. I can intellectually understand what you are saying - and to an extent I agree. I grew up in an extremely progressive household where human rights, thinking for oneself, always questioning laws and authorities and not taking things at face value etc etc were actively encouraged. So, my 'tradition' is vastly different to both the church-going type and the stoning non-virgin women to death type. Both of those are very conservative values, and make the assumption that the SJ's environment is conservative. 

I'm a parent, an SJ parent, and I have never said 'because I said so' whereas my ENFP husband _has_ said that. I always explain to my kids what the rules are and why they are there (generally safety) and if it ever gets to 'just do it' they all know it's because those are the rules and they all know why those rules are in place. I even check with them that they understand why a rule is there when I'm enforcing it. For example, we have to stick together while crossing car parks. Why? Because cars zip out of parks unexpectedly and they are safer with me because I'm taller and can be more easily seen by the drivers. They all know this - and if they try and run away while in a car park, I say 'why do we stick together here?' and they can all tell me. 

And now actually I think I'm starting to put a finger on the issues I'm having here. First, your friend and the 'cancer' comment - again making the assumption that there is 'no logical reason' for the belief system. It may not be logical to you or him but to the person who holds those beliefs it will almost certainly be logical. The logic could be 'this is what worked for me before, so I see no need to change it' - certainly that is no less logical than 'this must be changed because all change is progress and therefore good.' I'm not religious at all, but I do have a belief system that may seem backward to you - those beliefs are related to how I parent my kids. My rules for my kids may be traditional, but they aren't illogical, and they are all based on my experience and what works for me. I don't have those rules, or my parenting philosophy, because 'someone told me to do it that way' or because my parents did it that way (in most cases they didn't) but because after much thought those are the things that work best for me and my family.

The other issue I have is that you are basically saying all SJs are so attached to conservative values that they cannot change away from it and thus they are drones and a burden on a progressive society. This is quite simply untrue. SJs who were, like me, brought up in environments where thought was encouraged and appreciated and where people were taught to question everything are not going to be 'drones' and nor are we likely to be conservative. It's not the relation back to the terrorists that bugs me, but the fact that both the church-goer choice and the terrorist choice are about people adhering to conservative values. Even the 'someone sees someone using a gun so they will of course think guns are okay' thing is quite conservative and it suggests an assumption that we are all 'monkey see, monkey do' which is not true. We are human and have the human ability to reason just like everyone else. That we prefer to operate based on what has worked for us in the past doesn't make us drones.

Anyway, back to the main point. In a way you're right - what we are used to does tend to be what we stick to, but we are not incapable of change. If that were the case I'd still be using a black and white TV, and refusing to have anything to do with computers because they weren't what I knew when I was a kid. That's just plain ridiculous. We are also not necessarily tied to old fashioned conservative values. Also, other people from other temperaments are churchgoers with religious values that they don't like to question. That's not just an SJ 'thing'

I think the reason why people have taken to this idea badly is the way it's been presented. 'You are all boring drones who can't change' isn't exactly going to endear you to the people you're talking to, nor is 'you are the cancer on society.' Yes, our environment does shape who we are and what we believe, but those beliefs aren't necessarily illogical and they are also not necessarily conservative and backward-thinking or incapable of changing in the face of evidence that change is needed or desirable.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

sts06 said:


> Well, I'm not an ESTJ so I can't speculate on how true that is for them. I can only talk about myself, obviously, but I am having a huge problem with this topic. I can intellectually understand what you are saying - and to an extent I agree. I grew up in an extremely progressive household where human rights, thinking for oneself, always questioning laws and authorities and not taking things at face value etc etc were actively encouraged. So, my 'tradition' is vastly different to both the church-going type and the stoning non-virgin women to death type. Both of those are very conservative values, and make the assumption that the SJ's environment is conservative.
> 
> I'm a parent, an SJ parent, and I have never said 'because I said so' whereas my ENFP husband _has_ said that. I always explain to my kids what the rules are and why they are there (generally safety) and if it ever gets to 'just do it' they all know it's because those are the rules and they all know why those rules are in place. I even check with them that they understand why a rule is there when I'm enforcing it. For example, we have to stick together while crossing car parks. Why? Because cars zip out of parks unexpectedly and they are safer with me because I'm taller and can be more easily seen by the drivers. They all know this - and if they try and run away while in a car park, I say 'why do we stick together here?' and they can all tell me.
> 
> ...


I didn't say that ALL SJ's grow up in a conservative environment, but that a lot of the ones I know happened to. There are obviously very liberal people in the SJ temperament. I didn't mean specifically conservative values but more like the values that they were raised with, regardless of which category they fall into. Like I know an ESFJ who's father sold drugs, so he currently sells drugs because he just sees it as 'the way he is supposed to make money'. I'm not saying that all conservative values are wrong or even really criticizing them, I'm just saying it seems like SJ's are not open to considering new perspectives so the ones I know who grew up in bad environments just can't and don't see a reason to change. I also wouldn't consider 'stoning virgins to death' a conservative value either, just crazy. The example I used about the R.U.F child soldiers may be better suited for this discussion. Let me give you an example that I have commonly seen in the news. You are familiar with the Tea Party movement, correct? All political issues aside, the doubting of things like global warming and evolution is certainly detrimental to American society and the fact that it has found such support in our nation is not a good thing. Things like that, and faith are not logically sound, no matter how valid they may be. I can't imagine any other temperament clinging to old ideas in light of new information.

I obviously don't believe the cancer on society thing and made sure to be clear about the fact that they were not my words, but because someone I know says it so frequently I figured I might as well include it with his opinion on it to see what you all thought about it. And you are correct, not all change is good just because it is change; I read very profound quote by Einstein that says "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.", Based on descriptions of the SJ temperament, and more specifically the Introverted Sensing function it seems like that is the only way many SJ's go about solving problems.

The part in your post where you assert that I am calling you guys 'boring drones who never change' is a problem to me. I don't think I used the word boring at any point in any of my posts so I don't know why you said it. And I talked about an ISFJ who changed his beliefs, I didn't say can't change, just less likely to. And I do know a lot of older SJ's who do prefer black and white television, and don't like using the internet. I don't think that religious beliefs are an SJ thing necessarily, but I do think not liking to question said beliefs is sort of an SJ thing. Anyway, I thank you for your insight, I definitely agree with a lot of what you said. I hope to have more SJ's comment, I also hope none of you think that what I am saying is just a bunch of ad hominem insults because if you really read into it and think critically, it couldn't be further from that.

EDIT- I haven't read this anywhere but based on the SJ's I know it seems like ISFJ's are probably the most open minded SJ for some reason, I'm not sure why but it is something I have taken note of.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> #I know an ESFJ who's father sold drugs, so he currently sells drugs because he just sees it as 'the way he is supposed to make money'.


Are you sure it's because he thinks it's right and the way life should be, though? There are any number of reasons why someone would fall into that life and 'he's an SJ' isn't high on my list of probable reasons for it. 



> I'm just saying it seems like SJ's are not open to considering new perspectives so the ones I know who grew up in bad environments just can't and don't see a reason to change.


And I said I disagree with you on that. Or at least I tried to say that :tongue: I may not have been clear. I don't think just being an SJ makes us stay confined in troublesome situations. At best it makes us less likely to leap into change, not that we are incapable of seeing the problems in a situation. To give an example from my own life that I've used a bit lately: I was in an intolerable situation at my job and I stuck with it far longer than was healthy for me, but I was very clear that it was a bad situation, I knew I could do better, but it took a lot to break out of the situation - in my case it was fear of the confrontation that quitting was going to be. However, I did it. It may have taken longer than it would have for other temperaments but it still happened. 



> I also wouldn't consider 'stoning virgins to death' a conservative value either, just crazy.


It's a very conservative value for the religion in which it's practised.



> You are familiar with the Tea Party movement, correct? All political issues aside, the doubting of things like global warming and evolution is certainly detrimental to American society and the fact that it has found such support in our nation is not a good thing. Things like that, and faith are not logically sound, no matter how valid they may be. *I can't imagine any other temperament clinging to old ideas in light of new information*.


And SJs also don't do that. If we are sure about the new information _we will change_ but you have to be convincing. Just saying 'this is happening' isn't going to change us when,_ in our experience_, what you are saying is wrong. You will need to provide evidence, nice solid, detailed evidence. 

I'm barely familiar with the tea party. I'm not American so all I know about them is that they are completely terrifyingly right wing, and that I'm glad we don't have much popular support for any similar movements in my country.



> I obviously don't believe the cancer on society thing and made sure to be clear about the fact that they were not my words, but because someone I know says it so frequently I figured I might as well include it with his opinion on it to see what you all thought about it.


I am truly interested to know what you thought it was going to gain you - apart from a lot of people being offended. My opinion is that it's narrow minded, stereotyping, and unhelpful in trying to understand and appreciate another temperament.



> Based on descriptions of the SJ temperament, and more specifically the Introverted Sensing function it seems like that is the only way many SJ's go about solving problems.


I disagree. I think you are blinded by your assumptions about Si. How do you think we get our storehouse of data if you think we don't open ourselves to new ideas and experiences? In order to have past experiences to call on to weigh up a new situation we need to also experience new situations. It's impossible to have one without the other.



> The part in your post where you assert that I am calling you guys 'boring drones who never change' is a problem to me. I don't think I used the word boring at any point in any of my posts so I don't know why you said it.


I guess it's the 'drone' = 'boring' in my mind coupled with your clear assumption that SJs can't or won't change. You don't see drones as boring? For me the mere idea of a drone is of a bunch of faceless people doing the same thing in the same way at the same time. Even the word 'drone' can have negative associations - like when someone is 'droning on and on.' Sorry if that's not what you meant, but you must have realised it has negative connotations, just like the 'cancer' thing does.



> I also hope none of you think that what I am saying is just a bunch of ad hominem insults because if you really read into it and think critically, it couldn't be further from that.


I don't think it's just a bunch of ad hominems no. I just think you have come here with a bias and I don't like that bias. I don't agree that we're less likely to change, just that it takes longer for that change to happen. On the other hand, for me if I am going to change it may take a while to build up but when it happens it's strong and decisive. I guess that's why I take the time to be sure that what I'm changing to is the right thing. 

I'm not trying to attack you, I just get quite forceful when defending myself :laughing:


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Thank you for your insight, I think maybe it's just the ones I tend to meet for some reason rather than it be by nature more SJ like to actively resist change in light of new information. Obviously new information is always to be considered by any type. Maybe what I am seeing with my parents is more of a result of them being old than anything to do with their personalities. And about the kid who sells drugs, I have tried seriously questioning him about his behaviors and not that I think there is anything inherently wrong with selling drugs, it does seem as if he intends to follow in his fathers footsteps, which may be related to SJ's but most likely just has to do with how boys regard their fathers more than anything else. Aside from that he's actually pretty enjoyable to be around.


----------



## Out0fAmmo (Nov 30, 2010)

I don't really have the time nor patience to read through everything that was posted, but I did read a fair bit of it. I just wanted to lay out a few things:

-We're not stupid. We don't "blindly" clinge to things just because we can. We can think just as critically as NT, or any other type for that matter. Don't assume that all SJs follow tradition for it's own sake.

-Frankly, I'm quite tired of the near-constant conservative/Christian bashing that goes on (for all intents and purposes, "religion"=Christianity, at least on the English-speaking part of the Internet). You don't believe what we do, fine. Just don't go around pretending to be "tolerant" and "open-minded" only to attack us for not following your ways. To each their own.

-Try to find less violatile analogies and examples in your posts. I understand that you want to help us see your reasoning behind things, but it's starting to look more and more like soap-boxing. I would suggest not drawing parallels between MBTI and the news, for the sake of having a calm, peaceful discussion. Remember, if you cite other people/sources on things that could be reasonably considered "offensive", don't act surprised when people take offense, even if you were attempting to avoid that.

I'm not trying to sound preachy, I'm just trying to help out. :mellow:


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

you pile assumption upon assumption, because there is no evidence to support any of what you said

do you have something against SJs? did an SJ scare you once?

and politicians aren't really traditionalists or SJ types, they are chronic liars, of any type

so stop assuming SJs are deranged like politicians


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

Out0fAmmo said:


> I don't really have the time nor patience to read through everything that was posted, but I did read a fair bit of it. I just wanted to lay out a few things:
> 
> -We're not stupid. We don't "blindly" clinge to things just because we can. We can think just as critically as NT, or any other type for that matter. Don't assume that all SJs follow tradition for it's own sake.
> 
> ...


So, you didn't read through everything, but still think that you have the proper knowledge on what was discussed to comment on it? I find that this sort of things happens a lot in this temperament forum but I wouldn't necessarily relate it to temperament. Though it has happened to me several times here. 

Firstly, I don't think I called anyone stupid, but if you interpreted it that way it may mean that you are insecure about something. I also gave an example of an SJ I know who went against tradition, I was just asking the question about how many of you guys' core beliefs differ greatly from your parents.

And secondly, I didn't really bash conservative Christians in any way. Faith by definition is not rational to begin with so me bringing up the tea party and saying how it is detrimental to doubt proven theories like evolution and global warming=me saying that Christianity is bad doesn't make sense. I consider what I said to be pretty tolerant. I was simply refuting the claim that something was inherently wrong with Islamic terrorists. It just seems that they happened to grow up in the wrong place rather than them being bad people. I was just saying that I don't think indoctrination of any kind is healthy, regardless of what particular faith one is being taught, rather than directly bashing any religion. It was more of a criticism of they way religions are taught, than anything else.



The Proof said:


> you pile assumption upon assumption, because there is no evidence to support any of what you said
> 
> do you have something against SJs? did an SJ scare you once?
> 
> ...


This post intrigues me.I am going to have to add another one of those 'assumptions' on and assume that you didn't really read most of what I said in this topic. What you said about assumptions and a lack of evidence is odd, because I wasn't really trying to prove a point. I was trying to understand something based on different things I have read. And I talk about the different things I have heard throughout most of my posts.

I'm also not sure how you can claim that I have something against SJ's because if you read my posts I plainly talk about how different interactions I have had with SJ's and why it would lead me to think certain things.

It also seems based on this post that you think the overall theme of this discussion is a comparison of SJ types to politicians, which I'm not sure I understand either. I did cite some politicians who I believe fall under this temperament, but I only mentioned them to reference people who were commonly typed this way, not really to say that all politicians are SJ's. 

I advice the rest of you to fully read what was written in this discussion before commenting on it, or else we will end up going in circles.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Thank you for your insight, I think maybe it's just the ones I tend to meet for some reason rather than it be by nature more SJ like to actively resist change in light of new information. Obviously new information is always to be considered by any type. Maybe what I am seeing with my parents is more of a result of them being old than anything to do with their personalities.


I've been thinking about this and I think it's possible you've got selection bias of some sort. If your criteria for someone being an SJ is 'doesn't like change' then of course all the SJs you meet won't like change. Unless you have put every single one of them through the test you can't possibly know their types so you may be mistyping some people based on the assumption that they are open minded, not clinging to their 'traditions' the way you expect an SJ to and therefore they can't be SJs. Alternatively, anyone who doesn't like change must be some sort of SJ. If you have actually put all these people through the test and aren't just typing based on your own observations then I apologise.

Also, the original point does seem to have got lost in the acrimony over how you said your piece. So I'll reiterate again that I agree to a minor extent that SJs are influenced by what has gone before and so what they grow up with does have an effect on what they see as 'normal' but I don't agree that it's as black and white as you think. Just because we see something as 'normal' doesn't mean we automatically think it's right. Like people of all temperaments some SJs will be unquestioning and uncritical but at the same time some will question their backgrounds and will work to break out. Let's go back to my parenting for a moment. There are things that my parents did when I was a kid that I said 'hell no I won't be going there' when I had my own kids. Thus, what I saw and grew up with and know as 'normal' isn't automatically what I have done when I grew up. Extrapolate out from that and you can apply it to all your situations. The SJ growing up in a druggie house may choose _not_ to do it because many SJs value the law and being good citizens, or he may choose to do it not because he's blindly doing it because it's all he's known, but more because he sees it as an easy path to money. You can't just isolate 'is doing the same stuff as the rest of the family so he's obviously SJ and obviously clinging to what he knows' because there are so many other variables than temperament.

I have also noticed you getting quite defensive about your question. Why is that? You asked (slightly offensively, what with the negative metaphors etc) a question and people have answered disagreeing with the hypothesis. I don't see why you need to be so defensive. You got answered, mostly politely. If you really are just trying to understand the temperament then that should be satisfactory, yes?


----------



## chaeriean (Jan 18, 2011)

i have grown up in an unhealthy environment and follow none of the values i was taught. however there are some behaviors i still exhibit today which were necessary for me to adapt in order to survive. i keep people at a distance, i have awkward eating habits, i carry a weapon when i go outside, etc. some of it is rational even for canada but a lot of it is stupid. (such as the idea that someone is going to take my food if i don't eat it or hide it, etc). but i'm not sure what the difference would be between learned behaviors and the sj-temperament. i can't imagine that someone of a different type would have an easier problem abandoning what they learned to survive. to me it is an innate part of the psychological process. when you grow up in an unhealthy environment you learn ways of coping with that and those ways stay with you until you begin to empirically understand they are not necessary anymore. for example i no longer think that when people ask me things or are nice to me they just want something from me. i have witnessed a lot of bad things but i never assumed they were the correct thing to do and i never adopted those behaviors. i would never kill or rape anybody just because it was "how i grew up". while i was in that environment i did some things that would be considered crimes here - stealing, the major one. i've stolen from a hospital in the past which is something i am not very proud of. but when i moved out of that environment i didn't automatically assume i had to continue behaving that way because it was "what i knew". that kind of logic is fucking moronic. i also can't picture an entire temperament of people behaving like that.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

sts06 said:


> I've been thinking about this and I think it's possible you've got selection bias of some sort. If your criteria for someone being an SJ is 'doesn't like change' then of course all the SJs you meet won't like change. Unless you have put every single one of them through the test you can't possibly know their types so you may be mistyping some people based on the assumption that they are open minded, not clinging to their 'traditions' the way you expect an SJ to and therefore they can't be SJs. Alternatively, anyone who doesn't like change must be some sort of SJ. If you have actually put all these people through the test and aren't just typing based on your own observations then I apologise.
> 
> Also, the original point does seem to have got lost in the acrimony over how you said your piece. So I'll reiterate again that I agree to a minor extent that SJs are influenced by what has gone before and so what they grow up with does have an effect on what they see as 'normal' but I don't agree that it's as black and white as you think. Just because we see something as 'normal' doesn't mean we automatically think it's right. Like people of all temperaments some SJs will be unquestioning and uncritical but at the same time some will question their backgrounds and will work to break out. Let's go back to my parenting for a moment. There are things that my parents did when I was a kid that I said 'hell no I won't be going there' when I had my own kids. Thus, what I saw and grew up with and know as 'normal' isn't automatically what I have done when I grew up. Extrapolate out from that and you can apply it to all your situations. The SJ growing up in a druggie house may choose _not_ to do it because many SJs value the law and being good citizens, or he may choose to do it not because he's blindly doing it because it's all he's known, but more because he sees it as an easy path to money. You can't just isolate 'is doing the same stuff as the rest of the family so he's obviously SJ and obviously clinging to what he knows' because there are so many other variables than temperament.
> 
> I have also noticed you getting quite defensive about your question. Why is that? You asked (slightly offensively, what with the negative metaphors etc) a question and people have answered disagreeing with the hypothesis. I don't see why you need to be so defensive. You got answered, mostly politely. If you really are just trying to understand the temperament then that should be satisfactory, yes?


I based much of what I wrote on descriptions of SJ types and the SJ temperament, I didn't just make up the parts about adhering to tradition. I obviously have not seen Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly or George W. Bush take a personality test, I've just commonly seen them typed this way.

The people that I have brought up have all taken the test. If I see someone adhering to traditional values they may seem SJ to me but I wouldn't type them that way until I've talked to them and gotten an understanding of them.

I'm not sure how it seems like I'm being defensive. I have tried my best on certain occasions to clarify certain points and misunderstandings, but if you are referring to my post to OutofAmmo and TheProof, well it simply annoys me when people admittedly have not read something I have written in it's entirety, and then comment on it as if they know what they are talking about. Like TheProof's brilliant assertion that I was calling all SJ's politicians. If you could show me and explain to me what I've said that sounds as if I am being defensive I would be open to reading it.


----------



## chaeriean (Jan 18, 2011)

i don't see how @MartyMcFly1 is being defensive or offensive. he's asking for input on the sj temperament. unfortunately what i do see is that he has already got a clearly established opinion of the answer to his question and he is now waiting to be logically proven wrong, which no one has seemed to be able to do. the only evidence i can offer in the contrary to your statements, is personal evidence that i am not like that - and i am a very strong sj.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> I based much of what I wrote on descriptions of SJ types and the SJ temperament, I didn't just make up the parts about adhering to tradition. I obviously have not seen Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly or George W. Bush take a personality test, I've just commonly seen them typed this way.
> 
> The people that I have brought up have all taken the test. If I see someone adhering to traditional values they may seem SJ to me but I wouldn't type them that way until I've talked to them and gotten an understanding of them.


Okay, fair enough. But you can't trust type descriptors. They are in general vague and by definition use stereotypes. I know you didn't make up the stuff about adhering to tradition, but it is a very broad brush-strokes stereotype that doesn't take into account the variations within each type. Also, unless you have got those people to take the test rather than just typing them yourself, and they agree with you that they are SJs you are still working off your own outside point of view and it is a biased one, given that you come from a self-described point of view of 'if it doesn't like change it must be an SJ.' Also, you're back to 'traditional values = probably SJ' when that's a flawed assumption. Plenty of people have traditional values who aren't SJs and going into the typing assuming that they will be SJ means you will look at them in a certain way. Also, plenty of people who don't have traditional values will be SJ.

The typing of these political 'celebrities' isn't something to base a judgement on either. Unless you know they have been given the test you only have other peoples' interpretations of their types and again those could be based on the assumption of narrow-minded = SJ. Note, I'm not American. I know very little about any of those people, don't know Bill O'Reilly at all so I am basing the 'narrow minded' assumption on what I have seen in my own media which I know has a bias and so they may not even be the way I think they are. I _can_ say that in my country I haven't seen enough of any of our politicians to be comfortable typing them any way, so I'm uncomfortable at the idea of using the 'typing' of those people as some sort of 'this is how SJs are' confirmation. 



> I'm not sure how it seems like I'm being defensive. I have tried my best on certain occasions to clarify certain points and misunderstandings, but if you are referring to my post to OutofAmmo and TheProof, well it simply annoys me when people admittedly have not read something I have written in it's entirety, and then comment on it as if they know what they are talking about. Like TheProof's brilliant assertion that I was calling all SJ's politicians. If you could show me and explain to me what I've said that sounds as if I am being defensive I would be open to reading it.


It's the tone of the responses you make. It may be me being too feelery at you, but the feel of your posts is of someone doggedly defending their argument. For example, almost every time someone says something that disagrees with you, you go 'yes, but ...' and try to explain it away in some way that still allows you to hold your original assumption. You get snagged on the small details, like the 'politicians' idea (which I didn't read as 'you said all SJs are politicians' by the way) and ignore the larger points in the posts. You made the assumption that person hadn't read through the whole thread because the previous poster hadn't, and you responded negatively and without real cause. I understand how frustrating it is when people don't read through it all, but if, say, they had read your first post and responded to it that's still valid even if they didn't read the rest of the thread because they are answering the proposition put forward initially. There was no reason to leap down their throats unless you were feeling defensive about something - and the only thing I can think of is that you're feeling a little put upon because people aren't agreeing with you.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

chaeriean said:


> i don't see how @MartyMcFly1 is being defensive or offensive. he's asking for input on the sj temperament. unfortunately what i do see is that he has already got a clearly established opinion of the answer to his question and he is now waiting to be logically proven wrong, which no one has seemed to be able to do. the only evidence i can offer in the contrary to your statements, is personal evidence that i am not like that - and i am a very strong sj.


I didn't say offensive, just defensive, and to me the way he's dogmatically insisting that his original hypothesis is correct no matter what people say suggests to me that he is defensive of his opinion. It seems to me that he doesn't want to be proven wrong, he wants to be proven right. So there is a lot of hand waving away of things that don't fit his idea. For example the 'I have noticed ISFJs are more open minded than other SJs' thing - that will allow for you and me to not fit the stereotype he has created while still allowing him to hold the stereotype. Whereas rather than saying that, it would be better to change the hypothesis. I know an ESTJ who has broken out of her background to become well educated and in a professional job whereas her entire family background for several generations has been in farming.

And, while I didn't say offensive, I have said that people have been offended (different things), and he must have known that telling people that their type is a 'cancer' and that they are all 'drones' wasn't going to generate a positive bias towards his hypothesis.


----------



## chaeriean (Jan 18, 2011)

to me it just seems like he has a previously defined opinion and is looking for logical evidence to the contrary. that's the issue with posing a question you think you already know the answer to: everybody else's answers won't be correct on an instinctive level unless they are irrefutably correct with a big wikipedia article about how sjs don't act like that. it's a fallacy that i find a lot of people fall into, but that doesn't mean he's doing it on purpose or that he's intending to sound defensive or that he's being intentionally rude.


----------



## Tucken (Dec 13, 2009)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Maybe I am understanding the temperament wrong. I thought that they valued things like tradition and sought to maintain it above all else.


This is a common misconception. SJ's are driven by many things ofc, but generally they want organization and order to get these things. They try to use the right thing at the right place (they want what works) > "tradition". But tradition for traditions sake is not something that goes for all SJ's, probably not that many. Also Si comes into play, Si is like a big sheet of paper with statistics and if there is change the Si user would have to erase everything and start all over from scratch. It's like telling an old fisherman he can't catch his fish the way he's done it for a long time. (But there isn't always a sheet like this, not without experience/thinking, so it's only bothersome when it comes to areas of expertise). 



> So if it's a tradition to go to church every Sunday, then an SJ will do that because he sees it as the correct thing to do, it's what he has been raised to do. But if they grow up in a place where it is a tradition to tote guns and kill people (A perfect example of this would be the R.U.F child soldiers of Sierra Leone) then they will see their actions as maintaining order, right?


 MBTI is about how we think, where we do our reasoning, not so much about why. We can't say they do it out of a sense of tradition, rightness or order, we'd have to ask them. Anyways it's not about tradition, survival perhaps. 



> Like I said before, I have only ever seen one SJ overcome their religious indoctrination and it took him to witness his mother and little sister being actively discriminated against in order for that change to occur. My assertion that SJ's are shaped by their environment was not an argument, it was more of a hypothesis. In most information I have read about the SJ temperament it seems that they want to ensure that things in their environment are what they consider to be normal.


We are most certainly shaped by our environment and I guess anyone would want some degree of normalcy? SJ's like it realistic. 


> That's most likely why it is so common to see young ESTJ's making fun of people that they perceive to be different from themselves (or abnormal in their eyes). My step-father is an ESTJ, my mother is an ISFJ, and I have a ton of SJ friends and most times they don't even like it when I pose questions that could potentially call their religious beliefs into question.


ESTJ's don't automatically make fun of people because they are ESTJ's. They are rationalists. No one likes it to have their faith, opinion questioned. 


> I don't mean social beliefs. Most children develop a great deal of their personalities outside of the home, with their friends. But there are certain core beliefs that I couldn't imagine an SJ straying to far from. As far as their religious or political beliefs.


 I have personally gone a different way than my parents, but they have undoubtly influenced me. 



> I actually thought that the terrorist assessment was a pretty good comparison. You're the type who thinks that religious terrorists are inherently evil people, aren't you?


 No. I very rarely use the word evil, I don't believe in evil. I'd be among the first to the defend the terrorists, really. I believe the truth is much more complicated than blaming the terrorists.


> I don't really think that they are. I just think that the circumstances that they were provided lead them in that direction. I think its strange when I hear Christians talk about how Islamic extremists are crazy lunatics because if you think about it, they have also gone through the indoctrination process. They just happen to be lucky enough to have not gone through it in a place experiencing dark ages. From a logical standpoint, there is nothing more or less rational about believing that a cracker is the body of Christ than believing that you will be rewarded with 72 virgins for blowing yourself up along with "the infidels". Personally, I think that the Islamic terrorists are being extremely rational based on what their belief system is because they are not picking and choosing which parts of their religion to believe in as most people do in todays world. They are taught to believe that the Quran is the only way to salvation. So when the Qu'ran says that you should hate the infidels, they are taking it literally, which is the rational approach to undying faith in such a book.


 I really don't think the Quran tells anyone to hate infidels...



> Adhering to traditional values is the staple of this temperament is it not? And what is traditional is subjective based on where you are from. So, to one man adhering to traditional values is going to church every Sunday, to another man it could be stoning non-virgin women to death. Does that make sense?


No, it doesn't. Even with the premise about traditional values there is a difference between going to church and stoning women, and that difference is better explained by something else, like a simple environmental factor than "tradition". I want to repeat that tradition isn't a value from the SJ's perspective, it just happens more often then with other temperaments that SJ's follow tradition because it works for them/they like it. 


> I think the casual comparison to such a perceived negative group of people such as Islamic Extremists may have rubbed many of you the wrong way but it was more of me trying to further my understanding than trying to insult anyone. I would love more comments on this topic.


 I encourage you to read a little bit more about SJ's if you are interested. SJ forum activity is low, compared to other temperaments, but I'm sure you know that already... Si is a key function, be wary of the traditions talk. The way I see it, when tradition comes into play, it has more to do with procedures or 'taking the same route to work every day' than it has to do with what you've been taught. 



> EDIT- Upon a reread of my first post I can see how me casually throwing in the line about how my friend calls SJ's "the cancer that plagues the world" could also be taken really badly without an understanding of his opinion. The way he sees it, all those who adhere to tradition without any logical reason for sticking with said traditions is the opponent of progress. So in his mind those who are more likely to adhere to traditional values (SJ's) are the temperament most likely to hinder human progression. My comment about SJ's being "drone-like" came from a socionics description of ESTJ's. It said that they absorbed a lot of information at a young age, and then these beliefs were set in stone. I took that to mean that it was like their beliefs were programmed into them and now they are going about their lives in a machine-like fashion, with new models being released all the time, never stopping to even consider a new perspective. Growing up with SJ parent's "because I said so" in their minds was always a sufficient answer when a simple explanation would have most likely motivated me, but in their minds it was disrespectful for me to ask for an explanation because traditionally children should only speak when spoken to and should never talk back.


----------



## Out0fAmmo (Nov 30, 2010)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> So, you didn't read through everything, but still think that you have the proper knowledge on what was discussed to comment on it? I find that this sort of things happens a lot in this temperament forum but I wouldn't necessarily relate it to temperament. Though it has happened to me several times here.


Alright, I should've clarified: I read your post in its entirety; I skimmed over the others' responses.



MartyMcFly1 said:


> Firstly, I don't think I called anyone stupid, but if you interpreted it that way it may mean that you are insecure about something. I also gave an example of an SJ I know who went against tradition, I was just asking the question about how many of you guys' core beliefs differ greatly from your parents.


So now I'm insecure? Please stop assuming you know what I'm thinking behind my posts. No, you didn't come out and say "SJs are stupid", but you did compare us to terrorists that don't question their enviroment with an objective, critical eye. So, once again, please be more considerate with your examples and analogies.



MartyMcFly1 said:


> And secondly, I didn't really bash conservative Christians in any way. Faith by definition is not rational to begin with so me bringing up the tea party and saying how it is detrimental to doubt proven theories like evolution and global warming=me saying that Christianity is bad doesn't make sense. I consider what I said to be pretty tolerant. I was simply refuting the claim that something was inherently wrong with Islamic terrorists. It just seems that they happened to grow up in the wrong place rather than them being bad people. I was just saying that I don't think indoctrination of any kind is healthy, regardless of what particular faith one is being taught, rather than directly bashing any religion. It was more of a criticism of they way religions are taught, than anything else.


I won't comment further on this because I don't want to widen the thread.


MartyMcFly1 said:


> I advice the rest of you to fully read what was written in this discussion before commenting on it, or else we will end up going in circles.


Do you realize that when you say things like this you come off as antagoistic and supremely arrogant? We ARE reading your posts; it doesn't mean we'll agree with everything you say.

Look, I'm not doubting your intentions, but if you want to understand us, please try a little more to see things from our perspective. Don't discount our posts/thoughts on the idea that we may not have read your whole post .


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Before I say anything I want to make it clear that I don't mean to insult any of you by saying any of this, I just want to further my understanding of the SJ temperament.
> 
> I have a lot of friends who fall into this temperament, my two closest SJ friends are an ES*J and an ISFJ. As many of you can probably guess the ES*J is far more socially successful than the ISFJ and has a lot of friends. The ISFJ doesn't have that many friends, but that isn't really related to the topic at hand so I digress.
> 
> ...


I know I'm a month late with this response, but I still feel like responding. 


I think the big issues here boils down to functions. Once again I'll bring out my trusty link:

ENFP Wiki

As an ENTP, what drives you is your Ne. You're always looking for new, improved possibilities. You hate for anything to remain the same, you're always looking for improvement.

SJ's all have Si in common, whether it's the dominant function (for ISJ's) or the auxiliary one (ESJ's). Si relies on pinning something down to create consistency...a routine, or a "tradition" as you like to call it.


Tucken kind of discussed this, but I think the problem is that you seem to be making an automatic connection between SJs' use of Si and their mental pattern being the same as what ideas they're raised with. As an N, I think you're focusing on beliefs rather than practical day to day routines. It's these daily patterns that are the bigger part for SJ's.


Is an SJ more likely than the other three temperaments to hold onto the beliefs and ideas of the environment in which they grew up in? Possibly. But you have to remember that this is only one factor in shaping people's beliefs. I think this is kind of the main point that others were bringing up....even if it's more common for an SJ to stick to some of these beliefs, their temperament alone isn't the thing that makes this true. 

Even if it wasn't your intention, your OP comes across as trying to categorize SJ's as being "sheep". You seem to be so driven to explain people who do the the same as their parents by just saying "Oh, they do that because they're SJ's." I know you said you're only hypothesizing, but I think your in depth descriptions make it seem like you're trying to force this connection. 

That's why I think a lot of the SJ's who responded were bothered by your post...because this is the SJ stereotype that's thrown around all of the time on PerC. We're painted as stubborn mules who don't think for themselves, mindless drones who do whatever we're told. So the responses may have been on the defensive side, but that's because we hear stuff like that all of the time, even though that wasn't your intention.


Anyway, the point is that for SJ's, we do get comfort out of the notion of forming a pattern in our lives and sticking with it. However, this pattern can come from a lot of different sources, not just the environment we're raised in. This is why we can still have very different beliefs than those of our parents or our childhood environment. However, once we form our beliefs, we usually have a way of sticking with them.

The other thing about SJ's is that we are willing to change, but we have to be clearly shown how the change is an improvement. We usually don't try something new just for the sake of trying it...we want to clearly see how it's better. That's very different than the Ne approach, which is going to try new ideas constantly.


So I think most of this stems from Ne vs. Si. I think I understand where your "hypothesis" comes from, I just think you're making too big of a jump to try to make too strong of a connection. There's probably some general truth to what you're saying in the OP, but the way you're presenting it is oversimplified to propose an idea that isn't true to the extent in which you describe it.


----------

