INFJ Political Pattern
- Thread starter IndigoSensor
- Start date
I don't really care to put myself on the political spectrum. I know too much about how governments work to let myself think that one of them actually does.
Good point.
I agree with this for myself, as well. I'm way too outlandish idealistic to fit in, anywhere. If I had my way, we'd be able to reconcile nomadic tribalism with technological innovation and do away with a civilization of maximum harm.. and the revolution would be slow and quiet and completely non-violent. Haha!
Last edited:
Y'know, I've always wanted to revert back to smaller communes -- I truly think that was the most efficient start for government. I honestly think that governing became a much larger issue after large populations; if there were less people and more intimate governing, needs would be easier to meet.
I don't care to put myself on the Liberal political spectrum, since I'm not a Liberal. Still, I think it's a mistake to go the route of being apolitical simply because off the faults of governments. This is more of an emotional response than anything- "The government, by nature, is separate from the people and will come into contradiction with them. Since this creates problems, I just won't give my support to governments."
The Chinese government officials told the Black Panthers, much to the Panthers' surprise, that they were working to make their positions eventually be unnecessary, ie the government was working to abolish the government. The Chinese and people who have had similar beliefs have had the right idea, and they have accomplished the most good. The government is still, even in the best of situations, an innately coercive and oppressive apparatus, and will certainly come into contradiction with the people, but such contradictions must be met and struggled with.
Last edited:
I don't put myself on the political spectrum -- but I do pay attention to politics. Most of what I do is tell other people why their idealism won't work and spread general pessimism 
Or, in other words, my political stand is realism. I wouldn't mind involving myself in politics, but I still wouldn't choose to take any particular stand; I prefer keeping myself open, since I tend to like different things on different sides, and like working more on a case-by-case basis
Or, in other words, my political stand is realism. I wouldn't mind involving myself in politics, but I still wouldn't choose to take any particular stand; I prefer keeping myself open, since I tend to like different things on different sides, and like working more on a case-by-case basis
economic Darwinism would take care of this "threat." If a company can't take care of is employees, it won't have any, thus won't produce, and will shrivel up and die.
I don't put myself on the political spectrum -- but I do pay attention to politics. Most of what I do is tell other people why their idealism won't work and spread general pessimism
I promise you that you can pigeonholed as much as the next person. Maybe you lack enough awareness of yourself, or maybe you aren't aware enough of other ideologies to have enough perspective, but it can be done. Your "openness" is really trying to conform things to a particular way of thinking, maybe a way of thinking that is not mainstream to some degree. No one is so clear sighted and intelligent that they can rise above systematic thought to see straight at the truth, despite what many people tell themselves.
As for "realism," I consider myself a materialist. I think that there is a material world and that it develops independently of any one of us, and so I call myself that. But I cannot say "I'm a materialist" and call that the end of it. There's different kinds of materialism, and I subscribe to one of them. The other ones work differently, since they serve the interests of different strata, and I am concerned with the majority of the world's interests.
I would say, though, that confining oneself to criticism of the status quo amounts to idealism (the opposite of materialism) if there is no route forward. You see something wrong and don't like it because it doesn't bode well with you, and so you challenge it, but that's it. At most this leads to trying to apply various principals/ideals.
At worst this leads to manipulation via various kinds of conditioning, through education, the media, etc that the status quo can throw at you, and you end up on the wrong side of the fight without knowing it, against the majority of the world.
I would say the "Free Tibet" campaign is a good example of this. Actually, I would be very glad for Tibet to achieve independence in a progressive context, but the movement is already rather reliant on foreign powers, and I imagine Tibet would be completely reliant on western powers if it achieved "independence." Tibet would have to trade material support for a loss of its independence, and its loss of whatever short lived "independence" it could have would then be used to undermine China. I would say that many of these "Free Tibet" types are not completely mainstream in their political thought, and would consider themselves critical of the mainstream to a large extent, but they are still able to be brought on board in promoting the state interests.
Still, sometimes certain kinds of idealism will be more progressive than certain kinds of materialism. I would rather you adopt a general pessimistic attitude than get on board with the Republicans and Democrats. Even a Free Tibeter often will have her heart in the right place, even if what that means practically is very limited. In many ways, I'm rather pessimistic myself, but I do think there's a way forward. If you don't see one yet, keep looking, and remember to approach the world as it works
Of course I say all this without being very familiar with your way of thinking, so I'm speaking in generalities. If I were intimately familiar with how you think, I could be sure to say something more relevant to you in particular, but maybe this will be useful to someone still.
I wouldn't say that my political standpoint stems from a lack of awareness -- I think it stems more from an understanding that I haven't found an ideology worth backing. I'm familiar with many aspects of government; I've had many talks with peers; I've been taught how governmental ideals formed from the beginning of civilization, and how they morphed with changing standards and conditions. And quite honestly, I can't really pin a single government that I feel "works" better than any other. I'm not trying to sound "holier-than-thou" or anything, but I am cynical.
I guess to put how I view politics into prospective: there are many different forms of government, and most of them could work. However, they work in different situations, with different people, with different mindsets and ideologies, and in different places. In other words, there is no one BEST government. I don't choose to align myself to any particular form of government because I'm aware that there are pros and cons to each form, and that in order to decide which is best you must first understand the conditions to which you are placing a government.
Looking on current trends, it seems as if the world is leaning more towards socialism. The United States is nowhere near ideal, although the system has worked for a surprisingly long time, considering how it was founded -- however, most of the founding fathers felt that the system would need to be regularly reformed due to its nature, and I stand by that. However, looking at the state of things now, I'm not sure how I would reform the government to fit with social, political, and technological advancements -- I don't believe socialism would work that well on such a large scale and with such polarized demands between capitalism and social wellness, but on the other hand I'm not sure what would work much better. Honestly, for the US now, I'm more in favor for a stronger, smaller central government, and outside groups working for social betterment -- the government has too much to worry about, given the economic and political demands of a state such as one as large and powerful as the US. I think that people should be more in charge of their own personal affairs, and that the government should allow for that but not widely interfere. I am not, though, STRONGLY in favor of this. In fact, that's just a slight preference -- I think it may work better for a short while, but I don't think it'd be ideal for a long period of time.
HOWEVER, I still don't choose to announce a single political alignment, since I view that as somewhat short sighted -- I have no loyalty to one type of government over the other. I understand that things might change, and I am willing to change with it. I feel as if labeling myself might inadvertently cause me to close my mind, and I think that's one of the biggest problems facing American politics today.
Yeah, I think there's a way forward. But I don't think that it will come smoothly, considering modern progression and what history has taught us about political change. I'm keeping my options open, but I am aware
I guess to put how I view politics into prospective: there are many different forms of government, and most of them could work. However, they work in different situations, with different people, with different mindsets and ideologies, and in different places. In other words, there is no one BEST government. I don't choose to align myself to any particular form of government because I'm aware that there are pros and cons to each form, and that in order to decide which is best you must first understand the conditions to which you are placing a government.
Looking on current trends, it seems as if the world is leaning more towards socialism. The United States is nowhere near ideal, although the system has worked for a surprisingly long time, considering how it was founded -- however, most of the founding fathers felt that the system would need to be regularly reformed due to its nature, and I stand by that. However, looking at the state of things now, I'm not sure how I would reform the government to fit with social, political, and technological advancements -- I don't believe socialism would work that well on such a large scale and with such polarized demands between capitalism and social wellness, but on the other hand I'm not sure what would work much better. Honestly, for the US now, I'm more in favor for a stronger, smaller central government, and outside groups working for social betterment -- the government has too much to worry about, given the economic and political demands of a state such as one as large and powerful as the US. I think that people should be more in charge of their own personal affairs, and that the government should allow for that but not widely interfere. I am not, though, STRONGLY in favor of this. In fact, that's just a slight preference -- I think it may work better for a short while, but I don't think it'd be ideal for a long period of time.
HOWEVER, I still don't choose to announce a single political alignment, since I view that as somewhat short sighted -- I have no loyalty to one type of government over the other. I understand that things might change, and I am willing to change with it. I feel as if labeling myself might inadvertently cause me to close my mind, and I think that's one of the biggest problems facing American politics today.
Yeah, I think there's a way forward. But I don't think that it will come smoothly, considering modern progression and what history has taught us about political change. I'm keeping my options open, but I am aware
I support socialism, but I do not only support socialists. I upset and confuse a lot of people by defending Iran's current government, for instance. I think it's doing a lot for their people and the world's people compared to many other governments and so even though I'm very critical of religious thinking, I defend it for the role it's playing. This isn't open mindedness on my part, it's actually just me carrying my ideology through.
Ideology still allows for personal thought. I have disagreements with people who have the same ideology as me. Sometimes the disagreements wouldn't even make sense to people on the outside, but they're there, and I try to talk about them, and the disagreements help people move forward.
So keeping this in mind, ideology is really just a way of connecting the dots, a way of looking at and understanding the world. If you try to do this, you have to use ideology. You can try to use different ideologies, and thus come to different conclusions about what's really going on, but you still have to use them, or else you'd just be in a haze, never seeing connections between everything.
If you have not made any special effort to otherwise, you probably use Liberalism most of the time. This is the one that is taught to people in the west and enforced by culture. If you talk to someone about their political beliefs, you're probably talking to another Liberal, although they may be more conservative like the republicans or less conservative like the democrats, or even less conservative like the democratic socialists, the green party, ralph nader, etc. But all of these are within the framework of Liberalism, and they're going to challenge each other in a very particular way. On the other hand, since I try not to use this thinking, I would challenge all of them in a different way than they would challenge each other.
Personally, I am not in favor of the US in any way, so there is no government I want it to have. It was formed by killing and deporting the people already living here, enslaving some others, and then getting down to business to exploit the world whenever possible. It has various national groups within its borders which face a comparatively more difficult life than the mainstream people, in addition to taking advantage of countries outside its borders, so it can correctly be called an empire. I do not support empire.
So it's not a matter of committing to one government, one group, or one person. I'm a counter example to this by some of the things I've mentioned here. I do have a consistent way of thinking, but I don't always and only support the same kind of government, group, or people. Rather, ideology is a matter of committing to one way of thinking that has proven itself to you in some way. In the mean time I can accept that none has done this yet, but that doesn't mean you can stop using the various ways of thinking (ideologies) until you do.
That is impossible. In fact, your ideas about what "works," "forward," "pros and cons" etc even means are a matter of ideology. If you talked to a fascist, for instance, and tried to lay out what these things mean, you would have different answers from the fascist. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that you have different definitions due to being more openminded than the fascist, but it does make sense to say you have a different ideology than the fascist... meaning you must be using something!
Ideology still allows for personal thought. I have disagreements with people who have the same ideology as me. Sometimes the disagreements wouldn't even make sense to people on the outside, but they're there, and I try to talk about them, and the disagreements help people move forward.
So keeping this in mind, ideology is really just a way of connecting the dots, a way of looking at and understanding the world. If you try to do this, you have to use ideology. You can try to use different ideologies, and thus come to different conclusions about what's really going on, but you still have to use them, or else you'd just be in a haze, never seeing connections between everything.
If you have not made any special effort to otherwise, you probably use Liberalism most of the time. This is the one that is taught to people in the west and enforced by culture. If you talk to someone about their political beliefs, you're probably talking to another Liberal, although they may be more conservative like the republicans or less conservative like the democrats, or even less conservative like the democratic socialists, the green party, ralph nader, etc. But all of these are within the framework of Liberalism, and they're going to challenge each other in a very particular way. On the other hand, since I try not to use this thinking, I would challenge all of them in a different way than they would challenge each other.
Personally, I am not in favor of the US in any way, so there is no government I want it to have. It was formed by killing and deporting the people already living here, enslaving some others, and then getting down to business to exploit the world whenever possible. It has various national groups within its borders which face a comparatively more difficult life than the mainstream people, in addition to taking advantage of countries outside its borders, so it can correctly be called an empire. I do not support empire.
So it's not a matter of committing to one government, one group, or one person. I'm a counter example to this by some of the things I've mentioned here. I do have a consistent way of thinking, but I don't always and only support the same kind of government, group, or people. Rather, ideology is a matter of committing to one way of thinking that has proven itself to you in some way. In the mean time I can accept that none has done this yet, but that doesn't mean you can stop using the various ways of thinking (ideologies) until you do.
That is impossible. In fact, your ideas about what "works," "forward," "pros and cons" etc even means are a matter of ideology. If you talked to a fascist, for instance, and tried to lay out what these things mean, you would have different answers from the fascist. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that you have different definitions due to being more openminded than the fascist, but it does make sense to say you have a different ideology than the fascist... meaning you must be using something!
Last edited:
I lean in the direction of the left, but am flexible on most issues. I see politics as having so many levels and perspectives that it is nearly impossible to know anything for absolute certain. My positions on most political topics shift based on new information. I often am frustrated by politics because I know there is a significant amount of propaganda on most topics and from most news sources now. It is so filled with manipulation that is easy to spot. It leaves me primarily uncertain. I can see some advantage of having whoever is in power to be subject to an election rather than being a tycoon who cannot be taken out of power.
I'll freely admit that I'm a social darwinist, but I really can't accurately define what my political leanings are, or which idealogy I would actively like seeing put into practise. Because at the core, I'm rather cynical towards all forms of government. We live in a materialistic society and the little good that a governing body does is either by accident, or baby kissing for the public's benefit. Coming from a communist country, my brother and my parents had first hand experience with the failure of an ideal in practise, so I don't have any pipe dream delusions about the so-called promises of socialism.
We're slaves to the economy. If we're stable, we can do a lot more public good with that money--whether for show or for genuine, humanitarian effort, however, is another story all together.
We're slaves to the economy. If we're stable, we can do a lot more public good with that money--whether for show or for genuine, humanitarian effort, however, is another story all together.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Every single person can be placed on a political graph, and be pegged into sub groups. People just hate being placed in a box. I am a political junkie (it is sort of my not-reality-tv guilty pleasure) and I pay attention to politics and political ideologies alot. I have several friends who said they can't be placed politically, and because of that, I took time to peg them. They actually got mad at me for doing that. However, I can understand that, no one likes getting told how and who they are. The truth is though, everyone can be placed into some kind of box (or at least a good chunk of them can be), and not just with politics. The thing is people have such a strong adversion to being catagorized.
That's assuming quite a bit. I don't care if I'm put in a box. After all, I, just like everyone else here, let myself become compartmentalized according to Jungian theory, and then joined a community of like-minded constituents, haven't I? There's no aversion to being classified politically; I just don't know (read: don't care) enough to figure out which coordinates on the political graph, as you put it, I can call my own.
But hey, if you think you can figure me out, by all means, I'd like to hear your insight. Maybe then I'll have a fancy word for what I am with which to dazzle people with.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Your enough into the liberal spectrum socially and economically to be concidered a moderate liberal. But that is just by reading your short blurb on what you said above.
Yeah, I think you might be right, but I do know that some of my beliefs are also from the conservatist's grab-bag. That's where I get confused. What's the tipping point between the right and left? Do certain ideals weigh more heavily then others, or is it a matter of adding up the points from either side and spitting out a conclusive label?
I think you're closer. It's often a lack of awareness that leads people to believing that they don't fit anywhere, and so are just above ideologies.
Generally, people who haven't developed an ideology in their thinking are more wishy washy and will have influences from various ideologies, but they usually still have one that's dominant to a vary large degree. There will also be contradictions in their own thinking at this point (because of the various influences as well as not having the details worked out), so there will be many things they can't understand within any framework.
IMO trying to separate social issues and economic issues is inherently Liberal. The various graphs that try to do this have a strong Liberal bias and are only really accurate for understanding various kinds of Liberals, although I can see how they might still be useful for some things regardless.
I don't know of an ideologically neutral graphing/axis system.
Last edited:
See, not using terminology accurately bothers me. I betcha by this time tomorrow I'll have consumed enough wikipedia articles to think I know what I'm talking about next time we have an encounter, Koba.
Words aren't really as important as the ideas behind them. If they're the problem I could try to find other ones that you could relate to better.