Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I miss Eric, too. :-(

I think he must have a slow dial-up connection or something.

The upgrade was a problem for me too in that I have to use IE now every time I visit the T4T forum. If I use Netscape, I get kicked off constantly and have to log back in several times during the day.

I think that's it. He thinks he needs a more powerful computer and I think he just needs to upgrade or change his browser. He is working on it (supposedly).

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I miss Eric, too. :-(

I think he must have a slow dial-up connection or something.

The upgrade was a problem for me too in that I have to use IE now every time I visit the T4T forum. If I use Netscape, I get kicked off constantly and have to log back in several times during the day.

I think that's it. He thinks he needs a more powerful computer and I think he just needs to upgrade or change his browser. He is working on it (supposedly).

I hope he is. I miss Eric's posts, and recall he was having terrible problems with his browser.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I miss Eric, too. :-(

I think he must have a slow dial-up connection or something.

The upgrade was a problem for me too in that I have to use IE now every time I visit the T4T forum. If I use Netscape, I get kicked off constantly and have to log back in several times during the day.

I think that's it. He thinks he needs a more powerful computer and I think he just needs to upgrade or change his browser. He is working on it (supposedly).

I hope he is. I miss Eric's posts, and recall he was having terrible problems with his browser.

he provided a very interesting perspective to the discussion and i'd really like to see him back myself - maybe the Webmaster will comment?

Hey guys! I am insanely busy right now, but Stonewall politely requested that I check out the philosophy tests for his analysis. I have only had time to try the third one, so far. Here are my results:

INFJ

Mill
de Beauvoir
St. Augustine/Aquinas
Kant
Kierkegaard
not a philosopher!
Sartre
Tze
Schopenhauer
Nietzsche

Interpret away!

OK, now I'm hooked. On the one with the percentages (which I didn't bother to write down), I get:

INFJ 5w4

Mill
Aquinas
Spinoza
Kant
Aristotle
Bentham
Sartre
Epicureans
Prescriptivism
Ockham
Augustine
Rand
Stoics
Plato
Nietzsche
Hume
Noddings
Hobbes
Cynics

Here's the third one. This time I did the ol' cut and paste:


#1 Aristotelian
Click for more information

#2 Ockamian
Click for more information

#3 Stoic/Aurelian
Click for more information

#4 Thomist
Click for more information

#5 Epicurean
Click for more information

#6 Humean
Click for more information

#7 Platonic/Socratic
Click for more information

#8 Augustinian
Click for more information

#9 Baconian
Click for more information

#10 Newtonian
Click for more information

#11 Kantian
Click for more information

#12 Lockean
Click for more information

#13 Randian
Click for more information

Neisha:

I think that your results are fairly unique as compared to what we have seen so far. On that first test, you show a more highly elevated de Beauvoir than we have seen...yet you tend to reject those who are decidedly more Existentialist. It is hard to read a whole lot into the results of the first test since it is so weighted toward Existentialists but it would appear that you are in the NT/NF border area: Mill, Augustine, Aquinas, and Kant being NT and de Beauvoir and Kierkegaard being NF. If anything, de Beauvoir and Kierkegaard are the INFJs represented from the NF side so you may be just that. Certainly Mill seems INTP and both Eric and I suspect that INTP borders INFJ in terms of philosophy. I think that you are close to the NFJ/NTP line.

In the second test, you seem to favor the upper left quadrant, as Eric would say, and you are more or less repelled by the lower right. It would help if all quadrants were represented by an equal number or at least if there were a greater spread than is shown. But I think, in general, you are shown somewhere near the NTP/NFJ border.

I do not attach too much weight to the third test but it paints you as mildly upper left. Then again, is the upper right even represented?

It will be interesting to see how you come out on that 40-question test. As it stands, I see you near the NTP/NFJ border which is the line between upper left and upper right (per Eric). That 40-question test may establish on which side of that line you fall.

I took the 40 question test, but my results were so weird that I may take it again.

I got:

Idealism 7
Realism 9
Pragmatism 0
Existentialism 4

So, I am both an idealist and a realist, but not at all a pragmatist? Make of that what you will!

This time I got:

Idealism 6
Realism 10
Pragmatism 3
Existentialism 4

Well, thanks to Stonewall, I'm finally plunging into this site, and adding another INTJ to the mix.

Re the philosophy test (IRPX) I came out I6/R6/P5/X7, but for me the test was fundamentally flawed, and I'm going to take the time to explain why. This will be lengthy; feel free to scroll.

1. Learning is a PROCESS OF INTERACTING with people and things around us. It leads to new understandings which can then be used to solve social problems.

Note the form of that question: "Learning is," not "learning is always" or "all learning is." Thus, if the described process fits any meaning of the word "learning," a logical person must agree with the statement (even if one holds other forms of learning to be more important).

2. The human person is PRIMARILY A NERVOUS SYSTEM which is influenced by interaction with the physical environment along lines recognized by science.

I agreed with this statement. I also agreed with #6. The creator of the test apparently supposed them to be oppositional; in my view, they aren't.

3. Education should lead a person to SPIRITUAL understanding.

Same comment as for #1. I agreed with this statement, while not necessarily believing spiritual understanding should be the MAIN goal of education.

4. Knowledge involves successful ADAPTATION to our surroundings.

Same comment as for #1. I had an awful lot of As for these early questions.

5. Knowledge is accurate if it REFLECTS PHYSICAL, MATERIAL reality.

Same comment as for #1. Turn the statement to the contrapositive (knowledge is inaccurate if it does not reflect, etc.) and I would disagree. As stated, I agree: all knowledge which reflects physical, material reality is accurate.

6. The human person is basically a SPIRITUAL BEING.

See #2.

7. The human person DISCOVERS KNOWLEDGE FROM THE PHYSICAL, MATERIAL WORLD.

See #5.

8. Knowledge is meant to be USED. It is ultimately a means to survival.

See #5.

9. Education is basically a process of SPIRITUAL GROWTH.

See #3.

10. Good is anything that results in ACHIEVING A GOAL AGREED UPON BY
SOCIETY.

No problem with this one; I disagreed.

11. Knowledge is found by CONSIDERING THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS of ideas.

See #5.

12. The human mind is simply THE BRAIN at work.

I had to agree with this one, even though I knew the test's creator was deriving implications from the statement with which I would disagree. Eric Meese and I have been round and round on this one; he agrees apparently with the test creator's categories and would answer the question no.

13. Learning is a process of CHOOSING OUR IDENTITY.

See #1.

14. The mind is a SPIRITUAL entity which determines what reality is
(rather than reality determining what the mind is).

I agreed with this one, too.

15. All true knowledge engages the FEELINGS of the knower.

And with this.

16. The most important thing in reality is the ability to CHOOSE OR
DECIDE.

And with this.

17. Intelligence is the ABILITY TO KNOW.

See #1.

18. A person is nobody until he/she TAKES ACTION. It is in acting
(choosing) that a person determines who he/she is.

I agreed, but with the proviso that not taking action is an impossibility and thus this statement has no real meaning.

19. Intelligence is the ability to formulate and TEST OUT NEW SOLUTIONS
to problems.

See #1. Although I actually wrote D for this -- a mistake.

20. Reality results from GOD HOLDING THE UNIVERSE IN EXISTENCE by the power of God's thought.

I had to disagree with this as a literal statement, but that has to do with the word "thought." Again, I suspect the test maker draws an implication which in my case is unwarranted.

21. The test of any theory or belief must be its effect on us, that is,
its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES.

Disagree; there are theories and beliefs which have no practical consequences.

22. Knowledge is OBJECTIVE (rather than subjective), that is, it is in
accord with the teachings of physical science concerning the nature of
material reality.

Disagreed -- I was able to do this because the author included a negative implication (that knowledge is NOT subjective).

23. A person is really THE SUM OF THAT PERSON'S CHOICES up to the current point in that person's life.

Disagreed in that one begins with constraints on possible choices which themselves are not choice-determined.

24. God is THE SPIRITUAL SUMMIT of reality.

I shrugged and agreed with this vague, multi-meaning bit of intellectual fluff.

25. Reality basically consists of dealing with questions of LOVE, CHOICE,
FREEDOM, PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, AND DEATH.

Disagreed.

26. Education is a process of stimulating students to SEARCH THEMSELVES
FOR THEIR IDENTITY.

See #3.

27. True ideas are those which we can validate or verify through THE USE OF OUR SENSES (that is, through scientific observation).

I took this as a restrictive statement and disagreed.

28. Knowledge ultimately comes from a SUPERNATURAL (that is, a divine)source.

Disagreed, again probably without the implications the author would derive.

29. Since a person acts freely, he/she is RESPONSIBLE for his/her actions.

Simple enough. Agreed.

30. A person must reach beyond this material world to fulfill his/her
SPIRITUAL destiny.

See #28.

31. The physical world as experienced by our senses is basically FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Disagreed, for a whole complex of reasons. What we call objective reality is a construct derived from cross-referencing many sense experiences. Sense experience alone isn't a reliable guide.

32. Knowledge is THAT WHICH IS USEFUL IN ACHIEVING A SOLUTION TO SOME PROBLEM.

See #27.

33. Reality has its basis and origin in THE MATERIAL, PHYSICAL WORLD.

See #28.

34. Obtaining knowledge is basically a process of SEARCHING THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE FOR OBJECTIVE FACTS.

See #27.

35. People receive knowledge by REVELATION FROM GOD.

I smiled as I wrote "A" for this one. I rather strongly suspect that my notion of "revelation" and "God" differs sharply from that of the author.

36. People can RECONSTRUCT (REMAKE) SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS and this results in new knowledge.

[Shrug.] Agreed.

37. Reality occurs when a person CHOOSES TO FACE A SITUATION AND MAKE A COMMITMENT.

Agreed, although it also occurs in many instances where that doesn't happen. Certainly, though, "reality occurs" is a prerequsite for said choice and commitment.

38. The mind is BIOLOGICAL in origin and can be explained in physical, material terms.

See #12.

39. The laws by which human conduct is judged are DETERMINED BY GOD.

Disagreed.

40. Reality ultimately exists in the INDIVIDUAL person.

Disagreed because of the word "ultimately." The individual person is an illusion, a standing wave; ultimate reality is beyond the individual.

While some of these questions were meaningful, many were useless or misleading for purposes of categorizing my personal philosophies and beliefs. I suspect similar problems may arise with other people.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

-snip a lot-

I suspect similar problems may arise with other people.

Hell yeah. I'm just not so much into writing appellate briefs :wink:

Welcome, Brian. You might try some of those Selectsmart tests. And if Eric ever manages to log back on this site, he may share his own 33 question test. But if you have a sense of how philosophy correlates with temperament (if at all) please share your ideas.

I had a lot of the same problems that Brian did with that 40 question test. I would answer a question one way, and then respond to another in a way that might seem contradictory to my earlier answers. And that's probably why my scores were pretty high in three areas.

I wish I had the time to deconstruct some of those SelectSmart tests. I remember having some problems with how the questions were phrased in the Political Philosophy test.

Okay, I took that third, more existential philosophy test. Some of these questions were a little weird (what is the significance of sock suspenders anyway? :-?)

#1 Immanuel Kant
#2 St. Augustine/ Aquinas
#3 Simone de Beauvoir
#4 Jean-Paul Sartre
#5 Soren Kierkegaard
#6 John Stuart Mill
#7 Arthur Schopenhauer
#8 You're not a philosopher!
#9 W.F. Nietzsche
#10 Lao Tze

I do have some ideas about how philosophy correlates with temperament.

I should first explain that I had never approached this thread because the terminology referred to something I thought I was unfamiliar with. I had studied the Jungian concepts of polarities (extravert/introvert, thinking/feeling, sensation/intuition) and kind of gathered there was some connection, but the terms "MBTI" and "Myers-Briggs" were a foreign language. A little research unveiled that the only unfamiliar concept was the additional judgment/perception polarity. No problemo, then.

Anyway -- it seems to me that we first need to clarify what we mean by "philosophy." Extraverts, feeling types, and sensates are in one way less inclined to even bother with philosophy than introverts, thinkers, and intuitives. That is, they are less inclined to spend time verbalizing, debating, and constructing philosophies. I imagine it would be difficult to find a prominent ESFx philosopher in academic/literary history. In another way, everyone has a "philosophy" because everyone holds an opinion on such issues, at least operationally and in terms of behavior choice.

Extraverts and sensates would tend to be impatient with philosophical thought, considering a lot of it a waste of time, or dickering about the obvious. Operationally, I'd expect little consistency in their behavior-indicated beliefs, since these would derive from the teachings of their childhood, modified to some degree by practical life experience, without a lot of formal questioning or exploration, and without any internal need to form an intellectual synthesis.

Feeling types would have a different sort of impatience with many aspects of philosophy, which often exalts thinking over feeling and deliberately pursues contention.

So in the main, philosophers who get serious about it will tend to be INTx. Either P or J is equally possible here, but INTJ folks like me will naturally tend to view matters in terms of how it affects what we should do, while INTP types would be more involved in questions of what is, in itself.

Which is not to say that either type couldn't stray across into the other's territory. In fact, that's inevitable, because what is, in itself has an unavoidable impact on what should be done. (By "should be done," I don't mean just moral questions.)

Does that make any sense, and do available data have anything to say about it?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I should first explain that I had never approached this thread because the terminology referred to something I thought I was unfamiliar with. I had studied the Jungian concepts of polarities (extravert/introvert, thinking/feeling, sensation/intuition) and kind of gathered there was some connection, but the terms "MBTI" and "Myers-Briggs" were a foreign language. A little research unveiled that the only unfamiliar concept was the additional judgment/perception polarity. No problemo, then.

So long as you initially understand what Jung argued, then you have a proper understanding of this. The trouble is that so many people running MBTI sites either do not know or have lost touch with what Jung argued and, as a result, erroneous interpretations and applications abound. If I am not mistaken, www.socionics.com is one such site which has been linked from here. If this is the site I have in mind, then you will find that the author completely reverses Jung's implied J and P types (i.e., he calls an INTP an INTJ and vice versa based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of Jung's "Introverted Thinking with Intuition" and "Introverted Intuition with Thinking"). This is all too common.

Anyway -- it seems to me that we first need to clarify what we mean by "philosophy." Extraverts, feeling types, and sensates are in one way less inclined to even bother with philosophy than introverts, thinkers, and intuitives. That is, they are less inclined to spend time verbalizing, debating, and constructing philosophies. I imagine it would be difficult to find a prominent ESFx philosopher in academic/literary history. In another way, everyone has a "philosophy" because everyone holds an opinion on such issues, at least operationally and in terms of behavior choice.

Extraverts, I wonder about as well, but certain S's I can see. Look at Pragmatism. Surely that is an S philosophy. Additionally, I suspect that many (perhaps more actively artistic) SFPs might latch onto Existentialism. Similarly, many number-crunching STJs might latch onto Rationalism. Perhaps it is a good bet that ES types are least likely to have any interest in this sort of thing while EN types may.

Feeling types would have a different sort of impatience with many aspects of philosophy, which often exalts thinking over feeling and deliberately pursues contention.

Interesting point. But what of the INFJ which is the stereotypical Idealist in modern parlance? I could swear that Eric Meece is an INFJ although he will steadfastly insist that he is INTP. Then again, he should know better than anybody what type he is and there are generational differences among these types as well.

Does that make any sense, and do available data have anything to say about it?

I believe there is a little bit of discussion at this site:

http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching...leadership.htm

He attempts to sythesize MBTI and a few other things and ultimately addresses leadership. But you can cut to his philosophy section from his Table of Contents. Some statistical correlations are presented, yet a statement is made that there is little correlation with temperament. But surely there is some sort of correlation particularly among N types. After all, it is a fairly safe bet that an INFP is going to be an Existentialist (Jon Carson being an exception). And we really would not expect an INFJ to be a Rationalist. From what I have read, INTJs are more likely to be strong Platonists while INTPs may favor Kant or Aristotle. EN types, in general, may be more moderate versions of their IN counterparts...OR ENTJ may line up with INTP and ENTP with INTJ for reasons which I can explain.

Logically, each of the judging functions should have a natural affinity for a specific type of philosophy. For example, Fi really does seem to be strongly linked to Existentialism. And I dare say that Fe may be linked to Idealism in the modern sense of the word. But what of Ti and Te? Ti may be somewhere between Idealism and Realism while Te may be somewhere between Rationalism and Realism (or maybe not). But can we arrive at precise terms for their associated philosophies?

If we take an INTJ like Brian, we see the following order of functions:

Ni
Te
Fi
Se

The presence of tertiary Fi suggests to me that the typical INTJ may well have a secondary affinity for Existentialism. Indeed Brian's Existentialism was not weak in comparison to the others, regardless of how imprecise the test is. But is there one term which effectively conveys what Te represents philosophically? I think it lies somewhere between Rationalism and Realism.

If we do the same for INTP, we get the following order of functions:

Ti
Ne
Si
Fe

That inferior Fe may represent the affinity for Idealism. But how would we classify dominant Ti's search for truth? I think it is somewhere between Idealism and Realism. Of course the presence of N gives Idealism a boost anyway. But it does not seem quite accurate to simply consider Ti Realist.

Stonewall:

Look at Pragmatism. Surely that is an S philosophy.

No, I don't think so. We shouldn't confuse sensation with utility. Another way to think of a sensation-type (for us, anyway ) is a non-intuitive, someone more concerned with immediate, down-to-earth, here-and-now reality, and not so focused on overarching theories, principles, or holistic perceptions. Pragmatism is an overarching principle that makes truth or virtue a subfunction of utility. But a sensation type (as such) would not be especially concerned with this question. He or she might be a "pragmatist" in the more everyday sense, but not philosophically.

Look at any philosophical pragmatist in history who has written on the subject and I'd be very surprised to find other than an IN-something. Or (less likely) an EN-something. And probably a T in there, too. In fact, the most likely type would be INTJ, since pragmatism is an ethical philosophy.

But what of the INFJ which is the stereotypical Idealist in modern parlance?

I'm not sure I agree with that. In fact, I'm pretty sure I don't. Consider the degree to which the Prophet archetype pursues conflict and contention. That's not typical of a feeling type. I also think Eric is probably right about his type, at least as far as the T/F polarity. A feeling type wouldn't piss people off as much as he does. Or get so worked up about ideas that human interaction suffers. (I would bet that his P rating is pretty low, though, and that he's almost a J.)

Let me see if I can relate the archetypes to the MBTI types, recognizing that there are more than four of the latter. (Of course, this runs into the problem that any of us who identify with our archetype and don't fit the personality profile will have a "wait a minute" reaction. All descriptions below are archetypical and do not necessarily fit any given individual.)

Prophet: xNTJ
Nomad: ESxP
Hero: ExTJ
Artist: ISFx

I put an "x" in there for one of the positions in each one because I think you can make a case for two different best-fits for each archetype.

The Prophet is intuitive, thinking, and judgmental, but may be either an extraverted activist or an introverted mystic.

The Nomad is extraverted, sensate, and perceptive, but may be either a clever chaos-surfer or a tough-love protector.

The Hero is extraverted, thinking, and judgmental, but may be either a courageous soldier or a visionary scientist or statesman.

The Artist is introverted, sensate, and feeling-oriented, but may be either a pursuer of free pleasure or an activist for social justice.

Probably could be improved on, but that's my first impression.

Can someone please explain how we are using the term "Idealism"? When I think of Idealism I think of Bishop Berkeley, brains in vats and nepharious neurosurgeons; also Samuel Johnson kicking a stone and proclaiming, thus I refute Berkeley. Anyway, I'm thinking of my old philosophy 101 class, that I am straining to remember from 1987, in which we learned about Berkeley and the Idealists who thought that the material world was mere brain blips. You know, like in the Matrix! We are all brains in vats being stimulated by nepharious neurosurgeons or evil geniuses or whatever. Or am I getting this all wrong? Virgil?

Just curious, cuz being an INFJ, apparently I am supposed to be an Idealist.

Neisha:

The problem here is that Strauss and Howe used the term "idealist" in a non-technical, non-academic-philosophical sense to refer to the generation born after a Crisis, and we're also using it in the technical, academic-philosophical sense to mean someone like Berkeley or Plato. Those aren't the same meaning.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate reality of the universe. Idealism is a school of metaphysics that believes subjective reality to be primary and objective or physical reality to be dependent on subjective experience. I guess one way to say that is to say that the whole world consists of brain blips, except that usually idealists also consider the brain to be a mind blip. Classic philosophical idealism holds the physical world in its entirety to be illusory.

So, it's exactly like the Matrix.

But, there is also a third definition that's floating around this thread which is confusing the matter. Keirsey, one of the popular MBTI theorists, refers to people of the NF type as Idealists. His use of the term has nothing to do with whether what we experience through our five senses is or is not reality.

I think that's why people think that NFs would tend to be attracted to Idealism. It's the loose usage of the term by Keirsey.

Maybe we need to be more precise on this thread when we use terms like "idealist," "realist," "materialist," etc., because of their multiple usages.

Here is what I get from dictionary.com with a search for "idealist":

1. One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations.
2. One who is unrealistic and impractical; a visionary.
3. An artist or writer whose work is imbued with idealism.
4. An adherent of any system of philosophical idealism.

Meanings 1-3 go into Strauss and Howe's use of the term to describe Boom-like generations in Generations. Meaning 4 is the one in use in the present conversation regarding philosophical positions.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Stonewall:

Look at Pragmatism. Surely that is an S philosophy.

No, I don't think so. We shouldn't confuse sensation with utility.

This is true. I had modern "proper" Pragmatists like Dewey in mind. And I really do not see modern Pragmatists in the same class as Utilitarians.

But let's take Utilitarians. I always felt that Mill was INTP and I have seen this asserted elsewhere online. But what about Bentham? The whole effort to quantify happiness seems...I don't know...could be J or could be S. I seriously doubt that Bentham was INTP. But I cannot seem to recall a particularly determinant statement or idea of his.

I also think Eric is probably right about his type, at least as far as the T/F polarity. A feeling type wouldn't piss people off as much as he does.

:lol: :lol:

Hey, Robert! If you are reading this, tell Eric to hurry up and upgrade his browser so that he can get on here and defend himself!

I see INFJ with Eric for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that he wishes to diminish the power of corporations because they do "bad things" to people or "hurt" people. Well, that's all well and good but you cannot start going after people simply because you do not like their hair color. Eric is led by his emotions here. Yes, there is something wrong with today's corporatism but what specifically is it and what specific measures can be taken to remedy the situation, measures determined ahead of time so as not to be applied arbitrarily? This is the T side of the equation and Eric does not seem the least bit interested in it.

Let me see if I can relate the archetypes to the MBTI types, recognizing that there are more than four of the latter. (Of course, this runs into the problem that any of us who identify with our archetype and don't fit the personality profile will have a "wait a minute" reaction. All descriptions below are archetypical and do not necessarily fit any given individual.)

Prophet: xNTJ

Now that is interesting. I actually see the neo-cons as INTJs generally (and I may be wrong). But the "Progressive" side? If you take the recent Awakening, and even earlier ones of a more Christian nature, I think you will find a strong INFJ presence. Perhaps the Boomer War is generally NFJ vs. NTJ? However I have always thought of it as NFJ vs. STJ.

Nomad: ESxP
Hero: ExTJ
Artist: ISFx

The three above are similar to what most people have asserted. I have always thought of the generational archetypes in terms of judging functions:

Prophet: Fe
Nomad: Ti
Hero: Te
Artist: Fi

Possibly putting aside the classical definition of Idealism, we might associate these functions with the following types of philosophy:

Fe = Idealism
Ti = Pragmatism
Te = Realism
Fi = Existentialism

If we were more certain of primary and secondary philosophical preferences for each type, we might even assign types to each wave of each generation. For example, if an INFJ should typically be Idealist first and Existentialist second, that might suggest first wave Prophet coming off the Artist generation. If another type were Idealist first and Pragmatist second, that might suggest second wave Prophet leading into the Nomad generation. First wave Nomad should be Pragmatist first and Idealist second. Second wave Nomad should be Pragmatist first and Realist second, etc. It might be worth a look.

The Prophet is intuitive, thinking, and judgmental, but may be either an extraverted activist or an introverted mystic.

So you see mystics as typically INTJs?

The Artist is introverted, sensate, and feeling-oriented, but may be either a pursuer of free pleasure or an activist for social justice.

I believe your typical Radical (as in the Artist variety) is INFP. INFPs are generaly regarded as the revolutionaries who "break things." But it all fits with the Fi judging function applying to the Artist generation.

Probably could be improved on, but that's my first impression.

Pretty good first impression. But that is the first time I have seen INTJ attached to Prophets. I would attach it to the Hero archetype based upon judging function. Or perhaps some wave of another generation based upon primary and secondary philosophical preferences, whatever they may be.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

So, it's exactly like the Matrix.

But, there is also a third definition that's floating around this thread which is confusing the matter. Keirsey, one of the popular MBTI theorists, refers to people of the NF type as Idealists. His use of the term has nothing to do with whether what we experience through our five senses is or is not reality.

I think that's why people think that NFs would tend to be attracted to Idealism. It's the loose usage of the term by Keirsey.

Eric Meece uses it the same way. But if INFJs are not Idealist in a philosophical sense, what are they?

Stonewall:

I see INFJ with Eric for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that he wishes to diminish the power of corporations because they do "bad things" to people or "hurt" people. Well, that's all well and good but you cannot start going after people simply because you do not like their hair color. Eric is led by his emotions here.

Uh, well, yes. And he drives me nuts for that reason. But I have never understood "thinking type" to be the equivalent of "rational." To be led by the emotions is quite consistent with being a thinking type, and in some ways inconsistent with being a feeling type. The feeling type distrusts strong emotions because they lead to social friction. The thinking type may distrust strong emotions because they confuse reason, but then again may allow full play to feelings in service to beliefs and ideals, particularly if also an Intuitive.

Eric is more concerned with what he believes and what others believe, and in fighting over same, than he is with social graces and getting along. That's why I believe he's right to call himself a thinking type.

Though I also agree with you, that he should often do a better job of thinking things through. Oh, well.

(Obviously, I'm not a feeling type, either.)

So you see mystics as typically INTJs

Or INTPs. But the J fits the Prophet archetype better.

If you take the recent Awakening, and even earlier ones of a more Christian nature, I think you will find a strong INFJ presence.

Again, feeling function doesn't mean "driven by emotion." Often, it means the exact opposite: keeping emotions under control for the sake of social amity. Unless my recollections are totally drug-fused , that did not really characterize the Awakening too well.

The Awakening was about ideas, values, judgments. It was very much an NTP thing, IMO. But not altogether I; many of its leading figures were quite extraverted.

ISTJ

Aquinas (100%)
Mill (100%)
Epicureans (78%)
Bentham (75%)
Spinoza (75%)
Augustine (72%)
Aristotle (71%)
Plato (65%)
Kant (60%)
Rand (41%)
Sartre (39%)
Ockham (39%)
Prescriptivism (34%)
Stoics (30%)
Cynics (26%)
Noddings (26%)
Hobbes (17%)
Hume (13%)
Nietzsch (7%)