Myers-Briggs and Objectivism

[Fran]

For clarity purposes, this post is aimed specifically at people who already have an understanding of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and I am assuming this knowledge in my post.

To aid my own learning and understanding on my proposed topic, I would particularly value receiving feedback from OL people who have an in-depth knowledge of both O'ism and MBTI.

I have been mulling over the attraction of O'ism for NTs and the almost complete lack of Sensing Types who are interested/involved in this philosophy, since talking with a friend about this at last year's TOC conference. He hypothesized that if we were to ask all the attendees to complete the MBTI personality questionnaire, nearly everybody would come out as an NT with a few NFs (me and a male friend) and no Sensing types.

I think his hypothesis is accurate and that there is a very good reason for this lack. My understanding is that NTs love abstract thought and pondering what is possible, whereas Sensing Types are not interested in abstract ideas, they like things which are concrete and practical. I think Sensing Types like a set of rules to follow - something which religion provides, and that this is one reason why religion is still so prevalent in the world today.

NTs make up approximately 12% of the general population (roughly the same as NFs). Sensing Types make up 75%. We therefore have a philosophy which is only appealing to potentially 12% of the population, and religions that are appealing to the other 75%. In a democracy this causes us a big problem with regards to change. If we can appeal to every single NT out there - we would still have way less than a majority.

I propose that because Sensing Types value things that are practical and concrete, until philosophy can provide these people with a set of rules to follow, this 75% of the population will continue to look for teachings that do - i.e. religions, or similar.

Therefore, if we are to move the general population away from the anti-life teachings of religion, would it be better to provide them with an 'objective' set of 'principles to live by', rather than trying to attract them with a philosophy that's probably unappealing to them? Yes, I know that people need to think about what they're doing in everyday life, but I would rather people follow these principles as a step TOWARDS more independent and objective thinking and hopefully higher self-esteem; rather than religious teachings which frown upon independent thought and are destructive to healthy self-esteem.

By a set of principles to live by, I'm thinking along the lines of do's and don't's with simple, straightforward, objective reasons as to why. If these do's and don't's are worded in a way that champions respect for others' rights; productivity; honesty; self-esteem; free-thinking individuals; taking full responsibility for one's actions and not blaming others or trying to get them to compensate for our actions; etc., then they would, hopefully, help prosper a society with more life-serving values.

Thank you for your time, it is appreciated, and I welcome hearing your thoughts on this.

Edit: on suggestion from a friend, changed 'commandments' to 'principles to live by' as this is more in line with what I was aiming for. Also given further clarification as to whom my post is primarily addressed.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Fran

[Judith]

Interesting thought, Fran.

Don't forget the SPs out there; the SJs are the ones that like rules to follow; the SPs tend to like action: the surgeons, the fighter pilots, the soldiers, etc. Both of them make up in about equal parts the 75% majority you're thinking about.

I think both types would be moved by basic common sense. Not abstract theories to begin with, but things that affect their everyday life. Concrete examples. No long, abstract arguments, but simple questions to simple answers that resonate on a gut level, with as many levels of abstraction to back them up as are required by the questioner.

I'm thinking in particular of the kinds of people I know who are generally conservative in outlook but not particularly religious, or religious more as a family tradition than out of true conviction. The kinds of people one might meet at an NRA meeting, perhaps. Good, decent people that want to make a decent living, bring up their kids well, have fun, get government out of their lives, etc. One wouldn't dig out Aristotle to talk to one's NRA buddies; one would talk about gun rights, and the Kelo decision, and taxes, and how it all fit together.

I'm kind of thinking as I write here; it's a beginning. What do you think?

Judith

[Judith]

Another thought: at the time of the American Revolution, most of the ideas that comprise Objectivism were held almost universally, by a kind of cultural osmosis. Ayn Rand once said that the majority of people are human ballast. A few people determine the course of the world, and the rest follow along.

Yet another thought: The SJ personality, especially, will very likely not accept anything unless you cite respectable authority for it, so that is also useful. CIting big and respectable names that believe the same things we do is very useful. "The argument from authority."

Judith

[Fran]

Yes! That's it - I do believe that a more commonsense approach towards philosophy could work. And I like the concept of cultural osmosis with respect to this - if the philosophy becomes viewed as commonsense, then it can quickly become integrated into everyday actions. Oooh, we get them through the back-door...

I think arguing from authority would certainly help get SJs on board too.

Thanks Judith, you've really aided my learning

Ditto for stuff on SPs.

One question: what does NRA stand for?

[Judith]

One question: what does NRA stand for?

National Rifle Association. Shooting enthusiasts. I went to the National Convention last year in Milwaukee and I'm going again this year in St. Louis. Major shopping opportunity. Vendors from every major firearms manufacturer and accessory manufacturer come to a vast hall that one can't thoroughly investigate even in the three days of the convention. Last year I picked out my sporting clays over-under shotgun, and this year I hope to pick out a rifle and a scope. You can't actually buy firearms there, but you can look them over and decide what you want, and you CAN buy accessories. I came home last year with shooting glasses, holsters, a gun case, little carved ducklings, clothes, books, and I forget what else. :hyper:

Judith

[Danneskjold]

You might have a problem with the commandment thing. Especially when the founder of Objectivism said:

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

-Ayn Rand

Why should we use an argument from authority to attempt to convert people to Objectivism? I would avoid it for the same reason I believe people should avoid using ad hominem as an argument to debunk it. Then again, I would avoid it even more so because Objectivists believe in rationality and logic, so at least when someone else uses a fallacy they aren't also being hypocrites. I have no problem with accepting and looking at new ideas, I do have a problem with compromising the integrity of the philosophy for the sake of more followers. Objectivism, as a philosophy, should, in fact, be entirely void of followers. People should lead themselves through Objectivism, sometimes they just need to be pointed (very emphatically at times) down the path. Notice the word choice "friends of Objectivism". Not "followers of Objectivism".

Edit: For clarification, I am not advocating starting out every attempted conversion to Objectivism by going through the metaphysics, then epistemology, then ethics, and so on down the line. I'm just saying we shouldn't resort to things that are explicitely against our philosophy in order to advocate it.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Your attitude is the correct one—meaning consistent with the principles of the philosophy. I also like it that you are starting to quote Rand to show where your conclusions come from.

Good job.

Michael

[Judith]

Why should we use an argument from authority to attempt to convert people to Objectivism? I would avoid it for the same reason I believe people should avoid using ad hominem as an argument to debunk it. Then again, I would avoid it even more so because Objectivists believe in rationality and logic, so at least when someone else uses a fallacy they aren't also being hypocrites. I have no problem with accepting and looking at new ideas, I do have a problem with compromising the integrity of the philosophy for the sake of more followers. Objectivism, as a philosophy, should, in fact, be entirely void of followers. People should lead themselves through Objectivism, sometimes they just need to be pointed (very emphatically at times) down the path. Notice the word choice "friends of Objectivism". Not "followers of Objectivism".

Edit: For clarification, I am not advocating starting out every attempted conversion to Objectivism by going through the metaphysics, then epistemology, then ethics, and so on down the line. I'm just saying we shouldn't resort to things that are explicitely against our philosophy in order to advocate it.

The argument from authority, unlike the ad hominem argument, isn't a fallacy. We use it all the time when we rely on the conclusions of experts in fields in which we aren't experts ourselves. It's something to be relied upon with caution, because it IS a shortcut, but it's something one can use to buttress other arguments.

Let's face reality here. As we established at the beginning of the discussion, the kinds of people Fran and I are talking about reaching aren't going to be professional philosophers. They aren't even going to be amateur philosophers. In fact, they aren't even going to enjoy casual philosophical discussion. I don't think it's practical to talk about "converting them to Objectivism". It IS, however, practical to talk about convincing them that our ideas are compatible with their lives and happiness, and it IS practical to talk about getting them on board to the extent that we can get the majority of people out there (which they comprise) to constitute an Objectivism-friendly world.

Some people are naturally constituted such that if people they consider authorities or experts think something is "bunk", they will never go along with it. We can rail against that all we want, but we won't change those kinds of people. They exist, and they will continue to exist as long as humans exist. They are good and decent and honest and hard-working people, not bad or dishonest or otherwise unworthy humans. Despite the fact that I often talk about how much I was tormented by them while I was growing up, some of these kinds of people are my friends and valued coworkers now, and while they can be irritating at times, they can be the salt of the earth as well. Getting them on our side is a worthwhile endeavor. The argument from authority is not a fallacy. If using it helps, I'm all for it.

Judith

[Danneskjold]

So if they ask then give it to them. Don't center your argument around it. It is a logical fallacy when used as a centerpoint in a debate. If someone asks for verification it is not, it's just complying with a request. When you said it would be a good idea to use arguments from authority, well that's a direct reference to the former.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

I think Judith was saying that there is context to communication. If you wish to convince someone of an idea, especially someone resistant to it, you have to know something about him in order to choose a correct rhetorical approach.

If you have no real wish to convince him, just a wish to keep your intellectual purity and voice it, then anything goes. You might choose the all-or-nothing approach if you want to go on record, or if you are more interested in appealing to other people who think like you do (or are much more receptive) around the person you are addressing.

Context is the hardest part of applying Objectivist principles. Instead of getting a hard and fast rule, you always have to think.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; That should be samplers, throw pillow and jackets. You always have to think.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael; That should be samplers, throw pillow and jackets. You always have to think.

Chris,

That always worked with me. Intel had cool little bunny suit toys. Look what that got me into :-).

Jim

[Fran]

One question: what does NRA stand for?

National Rifle Association. Shooting enthusiasts. I went to the National Convention last year in Milwaukee and I'm going again this year in St. Louis. Major shopping opportunity. Vendors from every major firearms manufacturer and accessory manufacturer come to a vast hall that one can't thoroughly investigate even in the three days of the convention. Last year I picked out my sporting clays over-under shotgun, and this year I hope to pick out a rifle and a scope. You can't actually buy firearms there, but you can look them over and decide what you want, and you CAN buy accessories. I came home last year with shooting glasses, holsters, a gun case, little carved ducklings, clothes, books, and I forget what else. :hyper:

Judith

Sounds like brilliant fun! I've never been clay-pigeon shooting but would love to try it - maybe we could have a chat about it at this year's summer conf? I did some range shooting when I was in the air cadets as a teenager - I really enjoyed it, although I remember the .22 rifles we were shooting being bloody heavy.

[Judith]

Sounds like brilliant fun! I've never been clay-pigeon shooting but would love to try it - maybe we could have a chat about it at this year's summer conf? I did some range shooting when I was in the air cadets as a teenager - I really enjoyed it, although I remember the .22 rifles we were shooting being bloody heavy.

You're on! At last summer's TOC conference, I went to the trouble of looking up two different clubs that rented shotguns so that I'd have the option of getting together a group of people on the free day to shoot sporting clays. There were two very nice clubs in the area with good courses. A lot of people expressed verbal interest, but when the day came, no one actually wanted to do it. So instead, I went with some other people to an indoor range to do handgun shooting -- which ended up being a great chance to try some different pistols, and I'm glad I went.

I ripped a rotator cuff shooting clays in November of '05 -- too many layers of clothes on in a snowstorm -- so now I look for the lightest guns I can find. My 12 gauge hunting shotgun is about 6 pounds, and my other 12 gauges are no more than 7 or 7.5 pounds. My single 20 gauge is a slim light 5.5 pound Benelli, and a great gun for starting people shooting. The rifles I'm looking at are made of carbon fiber and are between 4.5 and 5.5 pounds. I have no idea if I'll bring anything with me this year -- I'll probably be driving down, but I'll have to check out the laws; in New York, it's illegal to bring a firearm onto a college campus, and Maryland may have similar laws. But regardless of whether I bring my own guns or not, I'll try to look up some nearby clubs in case anyone wants to go shooting on the free day. Not many clubs rent firearms -- I don't know of any around my home -- but in major city suburbs it may be possible to find something.

Judith

[Ross Barlow]

Judith,

It is good to see a fellow firearms enthusiast here. We are getting off-thread here, but you would appreciate the following story.

As a longtime NRA-certified firearms instructor in the States, I have taught many people about shooting. For many years, I directed the rifle and shotgun programs at a Boy Scout summer camp in Pennsylvania. One of the kids trying for the Shotgun Shooting Merit Badge was a 16 year old who was born with only one arm. His left arm consisted only of a 5-inch stump. He had never shot a gun before. He raised the 12-gauge high, propped up by the stump, and as the clay pigeon released he let the shotgun slide down to shooting level, guided by his stump. By the end of the week, he was consistently shooting 21 out of 25 clays and he got the merit badge. This guy made everyone realize that excuses are worthless, as he does anything he sets his mind to.

I think I will start a new thread on firearms-related issues later. I think that Objectivists ought to learn more about firearms, both in their practice and theory. They might fall in love with the shooting sports as recreation, and the theory of an armed citizenry as safeguard for individual rights is an essential part of Classical Liberalism.

Safe shooting.

-Ross Barlow.

[Judith]

As a longtime NRA-certified firearms instructor in the States, I have taught many people about shooting. For many years, I directed the rifle and shotgun programs at a Boy Scout summer camp in Pennsylvania. One of the kids trying for the Shotgun Shooting Merit Badge was a 16 year old who was born with only one arm. His left arm consisted only of a 5-inch stump. He had never shot a gun before. He raised the 12-gauge high, propped up by the stump, and as the clay pigeon released he let the shotgun slide down to shooting level, guided by his stump. By the end of the week, he was consistently shooting 21 out of 25 clays and he got the merit badge. This guy made everyone realize that excuses are worthless, as he does anything he sets his mind to.

I think I will start a new thread on firearms-related issues later. I think that Objectivists ought to learn more about firearms, both in their practice and theory. They might fall in love with the shooting sports as recreation, and the theory of an armed citizenry as safeguard for individual rights is an essential part of Classical Liberalism.

Wow. *I* still don't consistently shoot that well in skeet, and I've been shooting for over a year and a half. I shoot like that on a good day in skeet (20 to 23 out of 25; I've yet to get a perfect 25, or even a 24), and in sporting clays, I shoot in the low- to mid-30s out of 50. (On a bad day, I hit in the low- to mid-20s out of 50 in clays.)

At the past two TOC conferences, I've come across quite a few firearms enthusiasts. In fact, what finally got me to attend one was the abstract for Madeleine Cosman's talk at the '05 conference entitled "Dagny Shoots and Flies". If you haven't heard it, you should order a CD of it. I'll never forget her standing at the front of the room, talking about shooting, saying, "My DARLINGS! It's ECSTATIC!"

Judith

[Charles R. Anderson]

Fran makes a good point here that the majority of people are not ever going to devote much effort to becoming abstract thinkers. As she points out, this has very important implications in democratic societies. If we want a society with rationally limited government, we must find ways to get these people to buy into sufficiently libertarian viewpoints that we can come to enjoy much less government interference with our individual lives.

To be Objectivists, we must be independent thinkers. Most people will not become independent thinkers and will not become Objectivists. We will always be a minority. This does not mean that we cannot hope to live in much more rational and free societies than we presently do.

But, the path to achieving a freer society will have to involve the kind of out-reach that Ed Hudgins makes with his op eds, that many hard-nosed Objectivists so dislike. People are different and clearly they are not all like us. Fran pointed this out, with further assistance from Judith, in an interesting way by correlating these differences with the Meyer-Briggs Type Indicator.

With 16 different types, it would seem that we can expect quite a range of responses to Objectivism and that to get the most favorable outcomes with respect to developing a healthier, more rational, and free society, we have to be prepared to educate and sell people on the many aspects of Objectivism in at least 16 different ways. It does not appear that most present Objectivists are committed to doing this, but Fran has given us all a valuable idea to think about.

[Judith]

With 16 different types, it would seem that we can expect quite a range of responses to Objectivism and that to get the most favorable outcomes with respect to developing a healthier, more rational, and free society, we have to be prepared to educate and sell people on the many aspects of Objectivism in at least 16 different ways. It does not appear that most present Objectivists are committed to doing this, but Fran has given us all a valuable idea to think about.

Exactly. If freedom is a good thing, and the kind of society Objectivism supports is good, and the ideas of Objectivism are objectively true, then they're in the rational self-interest of all good, honest people. It will simply take different approaches to get different types of people to see that. Coming up with those approaches is the challenge for us, because we're mostly NTs, with a few NFs and a sprinkling of the other types thrown in.

Judith

Edit: we need to remember that we're selling a genuinely good product, not trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Judith

[Charles R. Anderson]

There is a tendency for Objectivists to look down on those types very different than the NT range types. That we find other NTs generally more interesting to us and like us is fine. But, people at the other end of the spectrum of types did develop, very likely with evolutionary assistance, so the fact that they exist may confer some advantages to societies of men. Aside from the fact that in a democracy they get as many votes per person as we do, we may have a tendency to underestimate their value to societies. Perhaps a better understanding of what those advantages are that come with this wider range of individual natures would also provide us with more motivation to convince them of the advantage to a society organized upon Objectivist or at least nearly Objectivist principles.

[Kat]

Since most Objectivists fall into the NT (rationals) range, they are probably the most likely type to "get it." As an INTP, I know I am not a people person, so outreach has been very difficult for me. I simply could not get a meetup group off the ground. I am very reserved and prefer working backstage making things work rather than going out and talking to people. If I understand the type correctly, most NTs are not the type of people others flock to.

There is a theory out there about "Influentials" that one in ten people tell the other nine how to vote, what to buy, etc. It would be great to find those people within the Objectivism who also are NT personality types and can speak to the people on the outside with special attention to the low hanging fruit (other NTs).

Kat

[Charles R. Anderson]

As Kat notes, we can most easily convince NT personality types to join us and in reality we may have to first gain many more NT Objectivists before very many other personality types are likely to take us seriously and borrow many of our ideas. Many people really want to fit in, even many NT types. As a result, Objectivism has to acquire enough people that they form a community large enough that other types can feel that they are fitting in with a real group.

Many people assume that any small group is a cult, whether it is or is not. Unfortunately, there are real cults within the Objectivist movement, which makes this problem more severe. It really is important that at least a couple of percent of people become Objectivists, so the community has the rich offerings for social life that many people require. Note how difficult it is even for Objectivists to find a husband or a wife among the 0.1% of the people who are Objectivists or near Objectivists who may exist today in America.

[cjsmall]

The Myers-Briggs topic pops up occasionally on various Objectivist forums. There was a discussion on the ROR list back in 2005. Here is a link to my post at that time which is somewhat related to the current discussion. Some may find the entire thread interesting.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Judith]

There is a tendency for Objectivists to look down on those types very different than the NT range types.

I think there's a tendency for people of all types to look down on people of type other than their own. I know that I certainly looked down on non-NTs before I read up on personality theory.

Aside from the fact that in a democracy they get as many votes per person as we do, we may have a tendency to underestimate their value to societies. Perhaps a better understanding of what those advantages are that come with this wider range of individual natures would also provide us with more motivation to convince them of the advantage to a society organized upon Objectivist or at least nearly Objectivist principles.

Exactly. I think that one of Rand's major errors was her assumption, in "Atlas Shrugged", that her major characters could do anything. For example, Dagny says to the railmen who threaten to strike that they can't run a railroad but she can run an engine. Perhaps she can, but on a wider scale, can intellectuals always excel at mechanical tasks? Rand seems to assume that they can. In the valley, the genii (geniuses?) are doing mechanical jobs with seemingly little or no training. Is that realistic? I don't think so. I, for example, am seriously mechanically challenged. The first time someone presented me with a CD jewel case, I would have used a chisel to break it open if someone hadn't shown me how to open it. I have no mechanical instincts whatsoever. I'm an extreme case, I admit. But, as I believe Isabel Myers of the Myers-Briggs theory wrote in one of her books, we all have "Gifts Differing". The SJ types make excellent bankers and accountants and primary care physicians. The SP types make excellent fighter pilots and surgeons and plumbers. The NF types make excellent therapists and teachers and writers. All jobs that I might be able to do, but not with their level of excellence or passion, and they also do them differently, bringing a desirable level of diversity to the fields.

Judith

[Charles R. Anderson]

Judith,

These are all good points. I will add a couple of comments to them.

First, Dagny would have become bored very quickly with being a locomotive engineer. The task would have been too repetitive for her and she soon would have become very unhappy and grouchy.

While I am very good at solving problems in a lab, there are many things I would hate doing. One is being a plumber. It would drive me up the wall to have to contend with all those unreliable plumbing connections. Worse yet, I would hate to try to be a translator (little ability for learning languages), a filing clerk (I would fall asleep standing up from boredom), a stage actor (I could not memorize the lines), a credit card executive (I could not charge outrageous fees for a payment 1 day late when I knew I would also be charging a 30% rate of interest on that money anyway), or a parole officer (I would find it too depressing to work with criminals). A society of Charles Andersons would not work. On the other hand, a society without Charles Anderson would be missing a useful ingredient.

[Judith]

Dagny would have become bored very quickly with being a locomotive engineer. The task would have been too repetitive for her and she soon would have become very unhappy and grouchy.

I question whether she would have been not only unhappy but less than competent at the job. Or, perhaps she might have been competent but not excellent. It wasn't her niche.

Judith