What's your political philosophy?

[Cato the Younger]

I tried to include all the ones I could think of that have some sort of major following. I included the Green Party even though they are really a mixture of several philosophies, but some people do associate themselves with them. I'm hoping to also possibly get a nice view of what political philosophies INTJs tend to gravitate towards. I personally am a libertarian but I move more towards conservatives on some things than most of my brethren.

If I didn't have list your philosophy then vote other and post what it may be. I'm very interested to hear about everyone's beliefs.

[Tarrick]

I'm Conservative in some ways, Libertarian in others. I just think that people should be more responsible for their actions. If you disagree...tough.

[tundra]

I'd say I'm more on the moderate side.

Although to be honest, I believe that political philosophies are relatively on the ideological side and used for personal ambitions for politicians.

Forgot who did this interesting study on political science, but that someone (urgh, my memory) managed to document both the White House and Kremlin made an interesting note that both were extremely similar, minus the language and cultural difference.

[Firebert]

Libertarian verging on Anarchist here. How can any man elected through lies, careful presentation, and advertisement to the general (read ignorant) masses actually vote for what is best for his or her contingency. When you can't stick your neck out to get something helpful done, democracy falls into a state of stagnation.

I accept that a government is necessary. But I believe at least a few people more intelligent than myself have seen government as a social contract with the people. I'll respect the government as soon as I feel that they are holding up their end of the bargain and not reading through my personal e-mails, listening to my telephone calls, etc.

It's been a while since we've had a good revolution.

[Rei]

I don't think I can side with any of them throughly. I fight with myself b/w the Conservative and the Liberal and... pretty much everything else constantly. Plus I'm personally too dissapointed in any of the parties right now to be much of a supporter of anything except the Green Party (not that any of the parties TRUELY stand for what they call themselves anymore)... because at least they have the right jist of it.... "save the damned world from screw-ups"

[Cato the Younger]

That's why I was asking for philosophy and not party. I base my placement on the tenets that are official for the philosophy. Parties don't necessarily follow the ideas of their respective philosophies.

[Rei]

My bad.
It's still too hard to find one that stands for all my values. It is either too extreme, or not extreme enough. Each has a great way of doing one thing or another, most times you have to consider the culture of the people before you can consider whether something works well anyway. :-/

As I never have good things to say about politics, I shall pull out from the discussion now. :-X

[Celldweller]

I believe in a small government that cares for the education, health, protection, and creating an environment for economic growth for the people it governs. Other than that I don't think the government should have much if any say in other matters.
I realize that isn't exactly a well developed idea, I guess I haven't thought about it enough.

[StJimmy]

Libertarian, if I had to pick just one ;D

[Cato the Younger]

Sounds like there are quite a few Libertarians here. I started thinking after I discovered my personality type that Libertarians tended to be INTJs. Ayn Rand was an INTJ and she started Objectivism. The precursor to Libertarianism.

[Tarrick]

This is true. I marked myself as Conservative, but I'm really in between Conservative and Libertarian.

[Jack]

Libertarian, BTW are these in an order of best to worst? If so, in what order? Or are they just random?..Just curious if the poster had a motive behind that order!! ;)

[Tarrick]

If anything it's Right to Left.

[Firebert]

Um...pretty sure anarchism isn't conservative. Neither is Libertarianism.

[Tarrick]

It's not, but it more to the right then them. And again, I didn't make it so I'm just making a suggestion.

[anul]

I'm a Libertarian, because it's the most logical political affiliation there is. I believe that government should stay out of my business and leave me alone. What I do is my business and no one else's unless it is effecting you in a negative manner. Taxes are necessary help run the government, but the government should not be there to hold your hand. People should be responsible for their own actions and they should make their own educated decisions.

Also the list is going from right to left. Since anarchism is the total lack of government. Then it goes to Libertarian which is very minimal government. Then the list continues to move in that fashion where each choice down the list has the government in more control. So anarchism is conservative in the classical sense of conservative when Barry Goldwater started the conservative movement that believed in less government.

[Firebert]

I'm sorry, I guess that I should have explained a little more. When I look at political affiliation, I see it as a 4 way thing. There are economic views and social views. left economically is communism, right is facism, but then up and down on the social axis you have totalitarianism and anarchism.

I just like to think of it that way because too much gets simplified into left and right. Libertarians tend to have liberal views socially (more personal freedom) and very conservative views economically.

[wolf]

Like most INTJs (and many INTPs), I'm a libertarian.

[wolf]

If anything it's Right to Left.
It's left to right.

[wise]

If anything it's Right to Left.
It's left to right.

Looks right to left to me.

[Cato the Younger]

I view the political spectrum in a line form. I define the Right side as having an overarching goal of Freedom while the Left has an overarching goal of Equality. I find that Equality and Freedom are mutually exclusive. You can not have the pure form of both in a society at the same time. As you increase one you decrease the other. Therefore, I put Anarchy first because it wants to achieve the purest form of freedom and then they decrease in their levels as they go down. Communism has the least freedom and most equality, so I put it as the far left. That's just how I define things.

[Tarrick]

I view the political spectrum in a line form. I define the Right side as having an overarching goal of Freedom while the Left has an overarching goal of Equality. I find that Equality and Freedom are mutually exclusive. You can not have the pure form of both in a society at the same time. As you increase one you decrease the other. Therefore, I put Anarchy first because it wants to achieve the purest form of freedom and then they decrease in their levels as they go down. Communism has the least freedom and most equality, so I put it as the far left. That's just how I define things.

Forced Equality, you mean Evalis? Just to clarify.

[Capwolf]

I view the political spectrum in a line form. *I define the Right side as having an overarching goal of Freedom while the Left has an overarching goal of Equality. *I find that Equality and Freedom are mutually exclusive. *You can not have the pure form of both in a society at the same time. *As you increase one you decrease the other. *Therefore, I put Anarchy first because it wants to achieve the purest form of freedom and then they decrease in their levels as they go down. *Communism has the least freedom and most equality, so I put it as the far left. *That's just how I define things.
Also, just to be clear - you mean forced Freedom?

[Tarrick]

Also, just to be clear - you mean forced Freedom?

If Absolute Freedom to do whatever you want is the natural state for people, then to do anything to take it away is unnatural isn't it? However, it is also natural for people to live in groups, and our society has grow to the point where we allow certain amounts of Freedom to be removed in order that we can live together on more equitable grounds. Again, however taking away too much freedom can have a backlashing effect on people, both by undermining their Will to the point where they can't choose for themselves what they want and forcing them to act in a manner which they would never choose freely.

[Capwolf]

Also, just to be clear - you mean forced Freedom?

If Absolute Freedom to do whatever you want is the natural state for people, then to do anything to take it away is unnatural isn't it? However, it is also natural for people to live in groups, and our society has grow to the point where we allow certain amounts of Freedom to be removed in order that we can live together on more equitable grounds. Again, however taking away too much freedom can have a backlashing effect on people, both by undermining their Will to the point where they can't choose for themselves what they want and forcing them to act in a manner which they would never choose freely.

Sorry, I can't quite get your point. Are you agreeing with Cato the Younger that equality and freedom are extremes on a scale, and mutually exclusive? I think that each is necessary for the other to mean anything, and that neither is more natural and neither easier to achieve. A dude on his own is just as equal as he is free (i.e. totally, but irrelevantly). Forcing equality does diminish freedom, but without some measure of equality (which, sadly, we might have to legislate), there can be no freedom. And vice versa.

I was being a smartass, but only because I disagree with what I read as the implication behind your comment - that freedom at the expense of equality is of course better than the reverse. Unless you think that there will be no backlash if "total freedom" is implemented at the cost of equality? There will eventually be friction in any group with more than one person. Under communism, some will be more equal than others; under anarchy, some more free. And in either case, the group being stepped on - neither equal nor free - is going to be unhappy with the status quo.

[Tarrick]

Oh I understand what you are saying. My Total Freedom, I meant that anyone can do anything with restriction. But yes, without some form of governance, people can't properly work together without being under a tyrant. Either they have to have a social contract, or be under the authority of something that forces certain rules about interaction.

So, it's only by going away from "Total Freedom" that we can receive "True Freedom." And is when we can live our lives without undue restrictions or interference from others. Undue, being the key word.

[Capwolf]

Being under or becoming a tyrant. No, I agree. I lean strongly towards freedom when it's workable (and when it's put in opposition to values other than equality). But given the societies in the world now, I consider it extremely disingenuous to advocate freedom without working towards equality at the same time. In practice, that leads to monopolies, wage gaps & glass ceilings, de facto segregation, acceptance of homophobia, &c. So even ignoring the bogus affiliation of Republican with conservative & Democrat with liberal & Communist with communist, as the poll also does, I can't agree with the idea that the listed groups are on a scale from freedom to equality.

[Tarrick]

I agree and disagree.

First of all, working towards equality is nothing like forcing down someones throat. However, this is in all cases, not just "bad" ones. If I, for one particular reason, arbitrarily disliked left-handed, red haired and people who's names started with "G", then that's my right. I can dislike then all I want and quite frankly, its no ones business. I have no right, however, to interfere with any of these people's lives.

Equality where rights are respected is the only equality I go for. If Microsoft ever manages to make a product that everyone in the world wants, then good for them. It's a monopoly, but it's a fairly won one. If they "force" their competition out, then that's wrong, because they are intruding on their right to freely compete.

And as for parties: Parties are just organizations. Anyone of any mind can just. It just so happens that Conservatives dominate the Republicans and Liberals dominate the Democrats. Aligning with a party is more a matter of convenience then an idealogical decision, whereas aligning with an ideology and then joining others of the same mindset in a party is a idealogically-driven decision. Why do people do that? Because it's human nature to group together.

[Capwolf]

Equality has nothing to do with individual people (or even clubs based around) liking or disliking groups. The most equality-based view wouldn't force people to get along or to respect one another as long as they could work together and no one was holding someone else down. Pervasive disrespect of a group can be tangibly harmful, though, especially considering that a lot of us live in countries where large enough groups of people can change policy, or where it's much easier for certain types of people to gain access to power. That's the sort of thing that needs to be guarded against.

Re: Monopolies, by nature they squash competition. Because they can manufacture on a much larger scale, they can offer products for less money, and they'll probably be the "brand name" as well. Sometimes, they can (for example) deny a start-up access to the materials necessary to create the product, by telling their suppliers or stores that carry their goods that it's them or the competition. They can make deals with governments and other companies that the competition can't hope to replicate. Their power, and the fact that no corporation is motivated mainly by the desire to make quality goods for the consumer, is what's harmful about them.

The important part of my party comment being "ignoring parties" - apologies if that wasn't clear enough. My point was that people who consider themselves conservative or liberal don't necessarily believe in freedom or equality (respectively). And I strongly disagree that aligning with a party is a matter of convenience rather than an ideological decision. For a good portion of the population, what leads to party affiliation is not convenience or ideological clarity, but: what a party says it stands for, its reputation in the past, how likable the candidates are or how certain/confident, and what party one's family has belonged to.

[Tarrick]

It's sad to say, but in today's age a lot of people are too concerned about what people think. "Hate" crimes are one example.

As for corporations: Of course not. They are in business to make money. As they should be. Corporations are in business to do business. It's however, not good when they unduly influence what is happening to other companies.

[Capwolf]

As for corporations: Of course not. They are in business to make money. As they should be. Corporations are in business to do business. It's however, not good when they unduly influence what is happening to other companies.
And in order for that undue influence not to come about, governments regulate business and outlaw monopoly. It's one of those things the government must do to keep the market running as smoothly as possible without major intervention after things have already gone south.

Could you clarify what you mean by your first comment? I can't tell whether you mean "Sadly, we are now trying to legislate thought, as evidenced by the concept of hate crimes" or "Sadly, bigots who are too concerned with what other people think cause (among other things) hate crimes." [Edit: Or something else entirely!]

[Tarrick]

Legislate thought. I guess I'm just too subtle.

[Capwolf]

Legislate thought. I guess I'm just too subtle.
Either too subtle or too ambiguous. Maybe it's a type conflict.

[Jon]

Legislate thought. I guess I'm just too subtle.

I'd say it was really ambiguous. I thought you meant that people commit hate crimes because they are too concerned about what other people think.

Besides, convicting people of hate crimes isn't legislating thought, it's reinforcing the status quo. The government only does as little as it can for the victimized group to get the standing back to where it was before the crime. The government doesn't actively go out and say people can't say or think x or y, just that they can't murder of commit battery against unsuspecting people who are victimized for being whatever they are. Hate crime is just a special word for terrorism, but it's treated way more lightly because the groups of people it targets aren't the people in power.

[Apococlock]

I suppose I'm primarily a moderate.

On the upcoming elections I can't see myself voting for any of the "real winners" the democratic and republican parties puked up, so I'll probably vote for one of the third parties... who probably should be running the US these days.

I hate to label myself as one who takes a side, personally I feel that whoever the better candidate is in terms of elections is the one who deserves my vote.

Obviously this applies in other areas as well, I can't say I'm for or against many things that would label me as one thing or the other since I believe in situational variables which very well might throw my opinion into a different direction.

Ah politics, how I love thee.



Edited for Spellings. It's "Thee" not "The"

[ciphersort]

At my core I am an Anarchist, however I am a registered Libertarian. I wish the Libertarian party direct their make efforts to elect positions that are easy to get - and stop wasting all the donations on fielding a presidential candidate.

[generalowk]

I clicked on Progressive/Liberal, but I'm fairly moderate in general. I generally dislike the party politics in the US.

[Evalind]

Reading this thread my thought was "If the world was full of INTJs, Libertarianism would be a great form of government." However, we're not such a huge chunk of the population. I'm generally somewhere between moderate and liberal, simply because I don't trust that the average person is "basically good", especially when it comes to topics involving money.

Edit: My sister-in-law claimed yesterday to have heard that the current American Dream is to win the lottery. A Libertarian government would, I imagine, force people to reevaluate that dream, but they would do so while screaming and crying and I feel overall it'd bring out the worst in people.

[anul]

Edit: My sister-in-law claimed yesterday to have heard that the current American Dream is to win the lottery. A Libertarian government would, I imagine, force people to reevaluate that dream, but they would do so while screaming and crying and I feel overall it'd bring out the worst in people.

The American Dream is whatever you want to make it. If you want to make it winning the Lottery that's fine. It's just that I would hope that people would choose their American Dream to be something they would earn not win by chance. I suppose it would be an ideal for people who are lazy, dense, and feel that they deserve money for nothing. I might suggest that they should change their dream to owning pants that aren't sweatpants.

[Epicurus]

Libertarian for sure, but I think it might be a hard thing to acchieve in sertain aspects so it will never reach its full potentiall because of peoples retardness and actions towards others.

[Evalind]

I suppose it would be an ideal for people who are lazy, dense, and feel that they deserve money for nothing.
Wanting something for nothing is not the same thing as feeling entitled to it. That dream (not goal, dream) does not require that someone is so lazy or so dense that they don't work toward things. Many people, possibly even most people, simply cannot achieve that amount of wealth through their work, and thus they dream.

Anyway, I should have clarified that she heard winning the lottery is the most popular American Dream, it's certainly not the only one.

[thegnat]

Liberal.
I have pretty liberal views, however, I'm open to other opinions. I'll at least listen if I don't change my views, which honestly I have a pretty strong will and will stick by my values but I won't discount someone solely based on their opinions. It's when people get confrontational about things that I get annoyed. Or they start insulting each other or what not.

I do like libertarian views in some ways, though I may disagree on a few points - and generally on those points I fall to the left of libertarians. (right if you're from Australia? where conservatives are to the left and liberals are to the right?)

[GOD]

I'm ultra right; everyone is responsible for their actions.

Strangely though, I have had the comment that I'm communist with some of my policies I'd implement given the chance. (Capitalism isn't any better (ethically) than Communism, only that Capitalism has the ability to produce additional benefits in the selfish pursuit of individual greed).

God, if I got into politics I'd need a whole army of bodyguards as the home truths I'd be saying would be very unpalatable for the vast majority of society.... :D

[bikerscars]

i have the most connection with the platform of the green party

i (seemingly paradoxically) accept many libertarian viewpoints; however the state of critical thinking and education in the u.s. first needs to be vastly improved before libertarianism could work

on average americans are basically good and basically ignorant (sheeple is an apt term)

education(critical thinking) of the masses need to become a priority of all political parties

in the meantime i think the green party would bring about the most good for the most people for the longest time period

income disparities can proceed only so far before conflict(armed) becomes a rational alternative to the status quo

i think we all agree the freedom/equality balance is boiled down to 'you are free to do what you like so long as you do not infringe on my freedoms'...

be that clean air/water, health, marriage, business, etc...

more to come...gotta run

[More Tea]

Moderate by Canadian standards, where I lived for many years. Which means I am a screaming Liberal by U.S. standards.... ;D

No, but seriously, I tend to vote liberal, but am U.S.-style conservative on a few issues like gun control ("use both hands") and the death penalty. I'd be Libertarian except for one big problem: I trust corporations even less than the government. It seems to me that we've already tried a "free market" quite extensively, and that it failed, as per the Dicksonian 19th century, the Great Depression and the securities crisis, and such worker-exploitation nightmares as Gauley Bridge, West Virginia.

[vulcan]

Anarchism is awesome, but only in idea. I'm registered Libertarian, but will probably vote Republican in '08.

[Quincunx]

This is true. I marked myself as Conservative, but I'm really in between Conservative and Libertarian.

Mhm. Same here. [smiley=!blank.gif]

[ShaiGar]

Imperialist

[Ian]

Atheistic and Apolitical. I find it difficult (actually, impossible) to differentiate between religion and poilitics - they are both concerned with controlling the thoughts and actions of the general population.

Living in the UK, I am convinced that MP is a truncation of the word 'muppet'

The only thing that drives our 'political leadership' is their own greed, vanity and lust for power. I have no time for any of them.

[snoogit]

I tend to support candidates that appear logical and reasonable. Someone who won't act on "gut instinct" A candidate's stance on the issues helps clarify this for me. If they tend to take a Black and White view of the world, they will never get my vote. However it also helps if they agree with me on issues I care about.

My stance on issues comes more from "Does abolishing problem A create a new problem (B)? If so are the consequences of Problem B more harsh the consequences of Problem A?" or "Does solving problem A create a problem B with which I would be opposed to problem B?"

I tend to the Democratic (Liberal) party now because there appears to be some reasonable people in that party. When I look at history, I could see myself voting for certain Republicans as well. I appreciate the politician who "fell on the sword" and did the right thing, even though it was unpopular much more then I appreciate the politician who takes the country on useless endeavors.

[thecraig]

I vote both fiscally and socially conservative. This has it's exceptions of course. It usually (almost always) leads to me voting republican. However, I find the logic behind libertarianism hard to refute.

To quote from wikipedia:
"Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty. Libertarians maintain that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty."

As long as my freedom doesn't infringe upon your rights government should stay out of our business (fiscal and social).

Over all I find that I end up voting Republican, if for no other reason, then because that keeps a democrat out of office which weekends their party as a whole and helps out the over all agenda of the G.O.P.

[Bossy Mom]

I am a free market conservative, but I am pro-choice on abortion - I think you could call me a "classical liberal" - the opposite of a "modern day liberal" - which is really just a socialist. People ask why I don't vote as a liberal due to my stand on abortion; I tell them I am not a one-issue person. I vote low taxes and personal freedom over abortion. I hate the idea of socialized medicine. I loathe the idea of making a group slaves (health care workers), and the quality of care going into the gutter. I'd be libertarian, but I fear the breakdown of society with many of their ideas.

The government's job is to protect the physical security of its citizens and see that contracts are kept.

[childofforest]

Anarchism fits me well.

If born in a fictional world, I'd like to be the dictator of a totalitarian world.

I'll make a real UTOPIA, if my ideas are well received. But if they are not, I'll rule them anyway and become a real tyrant.

[GOD]

I think hanging should be brought back, that would teach em...

In fact we could get all "user pays" and charge tourists to see the spectacle... Hmm... Throwing people to the Lions might be more lucrative... imagine the TV rights..

I digress... :P

[ShaiGar]

Pay Per View Executions and Suicides.

[GOD]

Pay Per View Executions and Suicides.

Had to laugh, I read yesterday that the "Tower of London" used to have lions back in the 1800's. The public could view them on payment of an entrance fee....

Or they could get in for free if they brought a cat or a dog for the lions to eat... ;D

Run tigga run.... meow... munch.. munch...

[bikerscars]

Pay Per View Executions and Suicides.

Had to laugh, I read yesterday that the "Tower of London" used to have lions back in the 1800's. The public could view them on payment of an entrance fee....

Or they could get in for free if they brought a cat or a dog for the lions to eat... ;D

Run tigga run.... meow... munch.. munch...



ahh...

finally a use for domestic cats

[Santana28]

So i take it the majority of us are voting Ron Paul? ;)

[Bossy Mom]

So i take it the majority of us are voting Ron Paul? ;) *
I hope to vote for Rudy Guiliani. Duncan Hunter is my first choice, but he will never get the nomination. Anyone but Hillary. There is a woman who can make a criminal out of anyone.

[snoogit]

So i take it the majority of us are voting Ron Paul? ;)

Nah, he trusts people to handle the economy too much. I'm leaning to Obama, but only because he seems the most "Keynesian"

[Figmentum]

I'm a communist. Not the Fidel crap, I support Pure Communism.

My dream is to be a world dictator, and raise people so smart, that one of the people I raised, would overthrow me. I would feel accomplished. Just a dream. Polotically, Naziism was wrong, philisophically (in the sense of making a pure world), it was genius.

[maai]

Majority of the "people" = Moooo (as in herd of cows)

[The Many]

I'm a communist. Not the Fidel crap, I support Pure Communism.

My dream is to be a world dictator, and raise people so smart, that one of the people I raised, would overthrow me. I would feel accomplished. Just a dream. Polotically, Naziism was wrong, philisophically (in the sense of making a pure world), it was genius.

Ehrmm... what? :-? Making a pure, Aryan world is genius?

As to me though, above all I'm a pragmatist, but on a political scale I am quite social liberal.

[Figmentum]

I'm a communist. Not the Fidel crap, I support Pure Communism.

My dream is to be a world dictator, and raise people so smart, that one of the people I raised, would overthrow me. I would feel accomplished. Just a dream. Polotically, Naziism was wrong, philisophically (in the sense of making a pure world), it was genius.

Ehrmm... what? :-? Making a pure, Aryan world is genius?

As to me though, above all I'm a pragmatist, but on a political scale I am quite social liberal.

Lol, no. The idea of making a pure race. I'm not saying specific to one.

[Kfbr]

Socially progressive, fiscally conservative. Pretty much a libertarian. I'm a big fan of the whole "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" philosophy. I don't care what consenting adults do behind close doors and I'd expect the same courtesy from the government.

I don't like to spend money just because I have it. I think the government should be doing the same. I tend to vote Democrat mainly because the whole notion that Republicans are for 'small government' is totally bullshit these days.

[The Many]

I'm a communist. Not the Fidel crap, I support Pure Communism.

My dream is to be a world dictator, and raise people so smart, that one of the people I raised, would overthrow me. I would feel accomplished. Just a dream. Polotically, Naziism was wrong, philisophically (in the sense of making a pure world), it was genius.

Ehrmm... what? :-? Making a pure, Aryan world is genius?

As to me though, above all I'm a pragmatist, but on a political scale I am quite social liberal.

Lol, no. The idea of making a pure race. I'm not saying specific to one.


What's genius about that?

[Nomad]

I voted (haha!) libertarian. I'm really a self willed moral anarchist, but saving the world has gone out of fashion.

-Nomad

[Vintage1970]

Traditional (European) conservative - pragmatism, social duty, solidarity, subsidiarity, organic society - with liberal tendencies.

That libertarianism is popular among intjs doesn't surprise me, but something intelligent people need to appreciate is that man is a fallible and thus necessarily social animal, so needs the support mechanisms of a decent society around him.

[INTJohn]

Politically, I'm probably best described as a libertarian; although I tend to think that political affiliations are only one step above those of a religious orientation - neither is based on much objective rationality, reason or sensible thinking; if at all - but at this stage of our evolution as a specie, "politics" is the best we have, so I deal with it........

INTJohn

[Aestheticbend]

I am a libertarian anarchist (market anarchist) who is very influenced by Austrolibertarianism and Classical Liberalism. Although, I would make the point that I am an anarchist without objectives first and a libertarian second. If people want to form communes or buy a piece of land and collectivize it, that is perfectly fine as long as they do not infringe on other's rights.

[Kfbr]

Looks like we need to change our type to INTJL(ibertarian)

[Figmentum]

What's genius about that?

My own thoughts, entirely too long to explain. Maybe I'll write a peice one day and put it on here. I just find the idea interesting, and yes to a certain extent, "genius." The word genius, is used too loosely today to accurately define my thought.

[The Many]

My own thoughts, entirely too long to explain. Maybe I'll write a peice one day and put it on here. I just find the idea interesting, and yes to a certain extent, "genius." The word genius, is used too loosely today to accurately define my thought.

The wonders of INTJ youth...

[Figmentum]

That is a very interesting thought. I'll be giving credit to you for that. (I'm currently writing it) All the accomplishments to be made. A pure race in terms of psychology. My friend, you spark an amazing world in my mind.

[Tarrick]

Figmentum, wouldn't having a "pure race in terms of psychology" mean an end of differing temperaments?

[Figmentum]

The end of idiots. I like to look at it that way. Ha! Like the spartan society... toss the children who aren't INTJ. Wow, I'm sick...

[The Many]

That is a very interesting thought. I'll be giving credit to you for that. (I'm currently writing it) All the accomplishments to be made. A pure race in terms of psychology. My friend, you spark an amazing world in my mind.

:lol: I am sorry for laughing, but you don't seem to notice sarcasm very well. But you still make me interested... what is a pure race? Exactly how do you (a 17-year-old nu metal fan - please do not take this personally, I may be wrong by merely observing the surface, but that does not particularly look like someone who has studied the world particularly deeply) determine it? And more importantly, how can a self-admitted LaVeyan individualist want to purify the world?

[Figmentum]

:lol: I am sorry for laughing, but you don't seem to notice sarcasm very well. But you still make me interested... what is a pure race? Exactly how do you (a 17-year-old nu metal fan - please do not take this personally, I may be wrong by merely observing the surface, but that does not particularly look like someone who has studied the world particularly deeply) determine it? And more importantly, how can a self-admitted LaVeyan individualist want to purify the world?

Perfect. Not Purify. The only thing relevent to my age and lack of understanding, is experience. My knowledge is not at all determined by my age. I actually do take things personally. I, by no means, said it would happen. I simply stated that it would be a good idea. What has my preference in music have to do with it? In merely observing the surface, yes, you are wrong. Quite honestly, I very much enjoy studying the world, and cultures thereof, that hypothetically could have a profound effect on society, antagonistically or protagonistically (depending on the mindset of the creator of a theory). Please, state any flaw in having a pure "MINDED" people. I mentioned a pure race, then specified it to being a pure people in terms of psychology.

[stasis]

I don't really associate myself with a political philosophy. Objectivism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is amusing in some respects, but I doubt I have the resolve to commit to it. And then, seemingly opposite to the former, I'm also partial to Technocracy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) as well. On average I tend to the "fiscally conservative" and the "socially liberal" (in the American use of these terms), probably because that's what my mother (ISTJ) instilled in me over the years. I would call that tendency a function of habit more than anything else. I'm always open to argument.

So... whatev.

[The Many]

Perfect. Not Purify. The only thing relevent to my age and lack of understanding, is experience. My knowledge is not at all determined by my age. I actually do take things personally. I, by no means, said it would happen. I simply stated that it would be a good idea. What has my preference in music have to do with it? In merely observing the surface, yes, you are wrong. Quite honestly, I very much enjoy studying the world, and cultures thereof, that hypothetically could have a profound effect on society, antagonistically or protagonistically (depending on the mindset of the creator of a theory). Please, state any flaw in having a pure "MINDED" people. I mentioned a pure race, then specified it to being a pure people in terms of psychology.

So to create a "pure "MINDED" people" is not to purify, but to perfect? Nevermind anyway, it is only semantics. I don't see what is particularly LaVeyan about it though. As to what is a "pure" mind, could you please define that too?

And no, knowledge is not determined by age, I never said it was... but you are actually contradicting yourself here again, since all knowledge ultimately does arise from experience, as Kant had it. Speaking of Immanuel Kant, what is your opinion on his schemata and categories, as discussed in the Critique of Pure Reason? I mean, since you so "much enjoy studying the world", I assume you have an opinion on the more complicated issues discussed by this extremely influential philosopher in his most influential work.

[Figmentum]

So to create a "pure "MINDED" people" is not to purify, but to perfect? Nevermind anyway, it is only semantics. I don't see what is particularly LaVeyan about it though. As to what is a "pure" mind, could you please define that too?

And no, knowledge is not determined by age, I never said it was... but you are actually contradicting yourself here again, since all knowledge ultimately does arise from experience, as Kant had it. Speaking of Immanuel Kant, what is your opinion on his schemata and categories, as discussed in the Critique of Pure Reason? I mean, since you so "much enjoy studying the world", I assume you have an opinion on the more complicated issues discussed by this extremely influential philosopher in his most influential work.

Increasingly, you seem as though you take me seriously. It is merely thought. The number one sin in LaVeyan Satanism, "Stupidity." A pure minded person would not be subject to stupidity, so that is where I draw the idea from. Thus, I am NOT contradicting myself.

Knowledge is what you know, exprience is how you use it. No, knowledge is not determined by age. Knowledge arises from experience when dealing in small terms and light use. I can have no history in cooking, read a book about cooking, and then cook. Even if a meal does not turn ut perfect, I will have cooked something that resembles what it was intended to be. I'm not one to study the world after reading the thoughts of it from a philosopher, I will observe it myself, create my own ideas, then compare then to others thoughts. Out of time, we will continue.

[Lucid]

I didn't realize that most INTJs were Libertarians. That makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. :lovestruck:
I am also a Libertarian, but with somewhat liberal leanings (say that 5 times fast) because I believe in a certain amount of social welfare programs.
I think anyone who has lived for the last 4 years on $100 a week and no health or dental insurance because they are in college would also be in favor of social welfare programs. To that end, I think everyone should have to try it.



Increasingly, you seem as though you take me seriously. It is merely thought. The number one sin in LaVeyan Satanism, "Stupidity." A pure minded person would not be subject to stupidity, so that is where I draw the idea from. Thus, I am NOT contradicting myself.

Knowledge is what you know, exprience is how you use it. No, knowledge is not determined by age. Knowledge arises from experience when dealing in small terms and light use. I can have no history in cooking, read a book about cooking, and then cook. Even if a meal does not turn ut perfect, I will have cooked something that resembles what it was intended to be. I'm not one to study the world after reading the thoughts of it from a philosopher, I will observe it myself, create my own ideas, then compare then to others thoughts. Out of time, we will continue.

You know... when I was your age (and I know and apologize for how that sounds) I used to do exactly the same thing you're doing. So reading your posts makes me feel like the cycle of life is continuing :)
First of all, you do philosophy a disservice. You really should read some Kant and some Locke and some Hume and all the rest. But especially Kant (whom I happen to like quite a bit) and his Categorical Imperative. If more people read and understood this work I think the world would be a better place.

I spent several years as a LeVayan myself (quite frankly, I outgrew it in my early 20's) so I'm interested in why you think there's anyone who's not subject to stupidity. It seems to me to be a very human trait. :undecided:

[Figmentum]

Lack of experience/understanding, is not stupidity. Knowing something, and disregarding that knowledge, is stupidity. A pure minded people. Simply a thought among many; one scenario of the many possible ideas. I'm not completely focused on the thought, and I can think of more wonderful ideas(my own opinion of wonderful). It is simply that... an idea. So I ask, "Why?". Why am I attacked for bringing about my own idea, an idea where there isn't a chance in Hell of it becoming reality. Stupidity is no human trait, circumstantial action may seem stupid, but it is not. Though I am a LeVeyan, I do not bind myself to every notion and every law. I'm not one to fall in line. I'm one to learn, and discover a new way, whilst utilizing what is given me in the process. May I ask, how I do philosophy a disservice? Is not philosophy multisided? What may seem as a disservice to you, is only a boundry you set. I don't believe in bounderies on such great a subject.

By the way, you were alot less offensive than, "The Many." Thank you for that, though I disagree with you, you are alot more reasonable.

[ShaiGar]

ahh...

finally a use for domestic cats
Yeah, in my Empire that's a view that'll get a person drawn and quartered.

[Agogo]

I'm hugely Liberal. I'm not sure maybe I just don't like being told what to do.:yuck:

[Lucid]

Lack of experience/understanding, is not stupidity. Knowing something, and disregarding that knowledge, is stupidity. A pure minded people. Simply a thought among many; one scenario of the many possible ideas. I'm not completely focused on the thought, and I can think of more wonderful ideas(my own opinion of wonderful). It is simply that... an idea. So I ask, "Why?". Why am I attacked for bringing about my own idea, an idea where there isn't a chance in Hell of it becoming reality. Stupidity is no human trait, circumstantial action may seem stupid, but it is not. Though I am a LeVeyan, I do not bind myself to every notion and every law. I'm not one to fall in line. I'm one to learn, and discover a new way, whilst utilizing what is given me in the process. May I ask, how I do philosophy a disservice? Is not philosophy multisided? What may seem as a disservice to you, is only a boundry you set. I don't believe in bounderies on such great a subject.

By the way, you were alot less offensive than, "The Many." Thank you for that, though I disagree with you, you are alot more reasonable.

I think you'll find, as you get older (again, no offense meant), that stupidity is a lot more ingrained in our species than you think. Even in yourself. (and myself for that matter)
It doesn't matter if your idea will ever see fruition or not. It seems as though you're talking about killing a lot of people that you consider to be inferior. Nobody on this forum thinks that a 17 year old Levayan will pull that off. But the idea itself is offensive. You stand on a very slippery slope. And any time you start talking about racial (or any kind of) purification you should expect that people will react with hostility.

[rocksteady]

I'm hugely Liberal. I'm not sure maybe I just don't like being told what to do.:yuck:

I would say thats more of a libertarian stance, are you liberal in a social sense?



I think you'll find, as you get older (again, no offense meant), that stupidity is a lot more ingrained in our species than you think. Even in yourself. (and myself for that matter)
It doesn't matter if your idea will ever see fruition or not. It seems as though you're talking about killing a lot of people that you consider to be inferior. Nobody on this forum thinks that a 17 year old Levayan will pull that off. But the idea itself is offensive. You stand on a very slippery slope. And any time you start talking about racial (or any kind of) purification you should expect that people will react with hostility.

aye, sometimes inexperience is worse than stupidity

[The Many]

I think you'll find, as you get older (again, no offense meant), that stupidity is a lot more ingrained in our species than you think. Even in yourself. (and myself for that matter)
It doesn't matter if your idea will ever see fruition or not. It seems as though you're talking about killing a lot of people that you consider to be inferior. Nobody on this forum thinks that a 17 year old Levayan will pull that off. But the idea itself is offensive. You stand on a very slippery slope. And any time you start talking about racial (or any kind of) purification you should expect that people will react with hostility.


Well written. I also have a couple of points to add, especially in that utilizing said cookbook is essentially to utilize someone else's experience. Reading Kant is to utilize his experience, and so on - of course you will later construct your own ideas out of this experience of the experience of others.

As for the quite hostile (and quite, if not fully, Socratic, ironically enough) way I replied, it was essentially through that kind of interaction that I rose to actually start reading philosophy seriously and trying to actually understand the world (and I used to claim dictatorships were better than democracy and that kind of things, not too far from your ideas actually). I figured you would rise to the challenge.

[rocksteady]

I am a free market conservative, but I am pro-choice on abortion - I think you could call me a "classical liberal" - the opposite of a "modern day liberal" - which is really just a socialist. People ask why I don't vote as a liberal due to my stand on abortion; I tell them I am not a one-issue person. I vote low taxes and personal freedom over abortion. I hate the idea of socialized medicine. I loathe the idea of making a group slaves (health care workers), and the quality of care going into the gutter. I'd be libertarian, but I fear the breakdown of society with many of their ideas.

I hope to vote for Rudy Guiliani.

does this make sense to anyone?I find this almost as appalling as the discussion on eugenics we just had. How exactly is Rudy better than Ron Paul if this is your philosophy?

[Figmentum]

The Many, I apologize for lashing at you. In my town and especially in my school, I'm constantly dealing with idiots. When I deal with idiots, I like to let them know they are one. I'm not used to conversing with likeminded people. Again, I apologize even though I still disagree. Yes, actually you did strike a spark in studying more philosophers. Kant is a rather interesting man. I've studied many, and had heard of Kant, but had not gotten around to reading his work. Mainly I've been caught up in observing and critiquing the work of Anton (founder of Atheistic Satanism). Thank you for your input, and thank you for being a good debate partner, that is rare for me.

[Lucid]

The Many, I apologize for lashing at you. In my town and especially in my school, I'm constantly dealing with idiots. When I deal with idiots, I like to let them know they are one. I'm not used to conversing with likeminded people. Again, I apologize even though I still disagree. Yes, actually you did strike a spark in studying more philosophers. Kant is a rather interesting man. I've studied many, and had heard of Kant, but had not gotten around to reading his work. Mainly I've been caught up in observing and critiquing the work of Anton (founder of Atheistic Satanism). Thank you for your input, and thank you for being a good debate partner, that is rare for me.

You know, LeVay had some good things to say that I still live by, such as taking responsibility for your actions and for your life. Becoming educated, being polite to people, all that.
But as I got older a lot of the rest of it started seeming really cheesy to me (no offense). Also, I started looking around at a lot of other LeVayans and saying to myself, "Do I really want to be associated with these people? Most of them are really stupid. One of the most active people involved has named himself after an Anne Rice character and a vampire role playing game thing." I think the main attraction of it, for me, was that I liked having this banner to stand under. As I got older that seemed less important to me. Also, the Levayan community is really elitist, but in a bad way. Not elitist about intelligence or whether someone is a decent human being or not, but elitist about how you greet another Levayan, or what shoes you're wearing. All that started to seem really stupid to me.

Anyway, those were my experiences.

[The Many]

The Many, I apologize for lashing at you. In my town and especially in my school, I'm constantly dealing with idiots. When I deal with idiots, I like to let them know they are one. I'm not used to conversing with likeminded people. Again, I apologize even though I still disagree. Yes, actually you did strike a spark in studying more philosophers. Kant is a rather interesting man. I've studied many, and had heard of Kant, but had not gotten around to reading his work. Mainly I've been caught up in observing and critiquing the work of Anton (founder of Atheistic Satanism). Thank you for your input, and thank you for being a good debate partner, that is rare for me.

Heh. No worries, I'm not offended at all by what I probably would have done and said myself at your age, I was even consciously being sarcastic here (and I'm only two years older than you... well, I did grow about 15 years older last year, but that's another story). I read LaVey's bible at 14, or possibly 15, and I disagreed with it back then, which I obviously do now too after having read a lot more. With that said I don't exactly agree with the Categorical Imperative either, but that is another issue that doesn't belong to this debate.

I still wonder what makes something pure though, and how a subject can make plausible attempts at determining what really makes a mind "pure" when it really is nothing more than just another way of observing the world. That, and why anyone whose mind is even remotely free and critical would care for LaVeyanism... he even admits himself that he is only ritualizing atheism and darwinism, and why really care for rituals? Not to mention all that black magic nonsense...

[Figmentum]

Lucid,That's exactly what I think. I wish to let the prejudice know they're idiots for setting such idiotic foundations. If Anton himself were still alive, he'd be rather rude to them. The satanists that I've met thusfar are split, some "elitist", and others what it was meant to be. The ones who see reality for what it is; I am part of the realistic ones. In a sence, I guess I want to "save" it. I don't feel obligated to, in everything I do, it seems people take what I cling to. I intend to fight back. I don't lay down and take it. As for the magic, I don't, nor have I ever believed it. Neither do I care for the rituals. I gues I'm a half-assed Satanist. Just the thought of a 17 year old atheist.

[Lucid]

. That, and why anyone whose mind is even remotely free and critical would care for LaVeyanism... he even admits himself that he is only ritualizing atheism and darwinism, and why really care for rituals? Not to mention all that black magic nonsense...

Word to that.

[prometheus]

Anarchist as in Self-rule and follow the NAP. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Here is where I first saw the four point system in lieu of the whole Cons/Lib. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ShaiGar]

I'm Founder and Leader of the "Shai Gar Conservatives", an International Political Party that is geared towards humanistic equality, the order of shaigar as national religion, growth of eductation, and installing me as emperor all around the world, with INTPs and INTJs as non hereditary aristocracy.

[Lights]

None of the above. The concept of following a political philosophy sickens me. Whenever anyone decides to follow any set of beliefs with complete conviction and without objectively considering the circumstances of each situation; they are practicing a religion. Government needs to evolve with the times and will do so regardless of any individual's personal philosophy.

[Aestheticbend]

None of the above. The concept of following a political philosophy sickens me. Whenever anyone decides to follow any set of beliefs with complete conviction and without objectively considering the circumstances of each situation; they are practicing a religion. Government needs to evolve with the times and will do so regardless of any individual's personal philosophy.

Your post is self refuting for a few reasons.

So you attempt to compare a political philosophy to a religion in the sense that both are dogmatic. But yet, you call for us to objectively consider the ramifications of particular situations. So what you are asking us to do, is to use our practical reason to assess what is the best result. So, by your own admission you are an ethical consequentialist of sorts. This is a philosophy as much as any of the ones above. You deny attachment to principles but yet you seem to view objectivity, reason and results as the measure by which we should act. So, you seem to be dogmatically attached to the values that were implied in your post. So you have a political philosophy, and you are suggesting that there is some sort of moral imperative to follow it.

The fact your views do not adhere to some idea like natural rights, or equality does not mean you do not adhere to a philosophy. Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill had very similar sentiments to you, but they are philosophers.

[prometheus]

yet you seem to view objectivity, reason and results as the measure by which we should act.

But certainly not Objectivism :P

Originally Posted by prometheus
Charity must be voluntary. Forced redistribution will result in the curtailment of effort of the productive and a decrease in the amount of real wealth ...
AYN RAND

Ayn Rand sucks! -LIGHTS

;D

[Lights]

Your post is self refuting for a few reasons.

So you attempt to compare a political philosophy to a religion in the sense that both are dogmatic. But yet, you call for us to objectively consider the ramifications of particular situations. So what you are asking us to do, is to use our practical reason to assess what is the best result. So, by your own admission you are an ethical consequentialist of sorts. This is a philosophy as much as any of the ones above. You deny attachment to principles but yet you seem to view objectivity, reason and results as the measure by which we should act. So, you seem to be dogmatically attached to the values that were implied in your post. So you have a political philosophy, and you are suggesting that there is some sort of moral imperative to follow it.

The fact your views do not adhere to some idea like natural rights, or equality does not mean you do not adhere to a philosophy. Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill had very similar sentiments to you, but they are philosophers.

Well I've never heard that refusing to have a political philosophy is a political philosophy, but if you say so. I actually understand what you are getting at, but ethics alone doesn't make a political philosophy. :p It makes a philosophy for sure, but it lacks the political ideology.

But certainly not Objectivism

Oh come now. You know I was kidding. Objectivism has its benefits just as it has its faults. All philosophies do and I made that exact comment in that thread.

[Aestheticbend]

Well I've never heard that refusing to have a political philosophy is a political philosophy, but if you say so. I actually understand what you are getting at, but ethics alone doesn't make a political philosophy. :p It makes a philosophy for sure, but it lacks the political ideology.



Oh come now. You know I was kidding. Objectivism has its benefits just as it has its faults. All philosophies do and I made that exact comment in that thread.

I would contend that ethics alone do make up a political philosophy. For example, I am an anarchist. And the reason for this is not because of some sort of rebellious image of the anarchist, but because of the non-agression principle. Which is the view that it is always ethically wrong to initiate force on a person or a product of their labour, force can only be used in self defense. Hence, our political philosophies are at base a mere reflection of our ethical philosophies. If we can discover principles of moral behaviour between two agents, then we logically will use that basis when envisioning the best possible society.

[prometheus]

I would contend that ethics alone do make up a political philosophy. For example, I am an anarchist. And the reason for this is not because of some sort of rebellious image of the anarchist, but because of the non-agression principle. Which is the view that it is always ethically wrong to initiate force on a person or a product of their labour, force can only be used in self defense. Hence, our political philosophies are at base a mere reflection of our ethical philosophies. If we can discover principles of moral behaviour between two agents, then we logically will use that basis when envisioning the best possible society.

[beer toast] :thumbsup:

[Lights]

I would contend that ethics alone do make up a political philosophy. For example, I am an anarchist. And the reason for this is not because of some sort of rebellious image of the anarchist, but because of the non-agression principle. Which is the view that it is always ethically wrong to initiate force on a person or a product of their labour, force can only be used in self defense. Hence, our political philosophies are at base a mere reflection of our ethical philosophies. If we can discover principles of moral behaviour between two agents, then we logically will use that basis when envisioning the best possible society.

So you make the argument that anyone who believes in any ethical idea whatsoever is practicing a political philosophy because they could use that idea for envisioning the ideal society? Very well, by that definition, my political philosophy is that all political philosophy's are equal, all with their own inherent problems and benefits, and that none can come to true fruition in reality. My vision for the best possible society is there is none, as times and people change and society evolves, so the best anyone can do is compromise and collaborate to find the best possible solution at any particular moment in time. I hereby deem it Lightism and decree it is no better or worse than any other political philosophy because it's based on just as subjective principles as any other other political philosophy. Will that work?

[Drayakir]

While I am a Technocrat, and a card-carrying member of the Technocratic Party, I understand that there's no chance in hell we'll ever win even a local election (not yet anyway. I'm already running an information campaign here in NYC).

But I happen to be a centrist, which I find fits me pretty well- I can vote without party or view bias- just on the candidates themselves.

[rocksteady]

While I am a Technocrat, and a card-carrying member of the Technocratic Party

do you have any links with info about this party?

[Drayakir]

Sure. It's To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Delwin]

I think you're missing one off the list - Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative.

I know a lot of colleagues who fall into this category - almost what the Republicans were 30 years ago.

[prometheus]

I think you're missing one off the list - Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative.

I know a lot of colleagues who fall into this category - almost what the Republicans were 30 years ago.

You mean libertarian? :P

[Solnath]

Anarcho-nihilist, if I can get away with it and it benefits me, I'm doing it.

[Ederico]

I'm a democratic nationalist according to the Maltese tradition. Catholic and communitarian, favouring liberal constitutionalism. Assertor of Malta's Latin heritage, predominantly Siculo-Italian.

P.S. In the poll I voted Conservative, though I see the latter as an inadeguate label for myself.

[MattG]

I'm a little bit of an anarchist. I believe that all the states should sucede from the US because the federal government is too inefficient now that this country has become so large. Also, I think congress is no longer really viable as a legislative body and our "democratic process" is severely flawed.

[Hdier]

Other: there needs to be a completely new way of government. I'm not sure what it is, but we need it.

[Quite Robert]

I find it kind of strange that in a group that is so geared toward logical discussion and compromise their are only 5 moderates.

[prometheus]

I find it kind of strange that in a group that is so geared toward logical discussion and compromise their are only 5 moderates.


Logical discussion yes, but, I don't think any compromisers have been involved in any of my political threads. Unless you are referring to the opposition screaming for compromise over and over but not shifting their stance at all.

I have posted before that my rights are not up for grabs, and on those I will not at all compromise.

[Lucid]

I find it kind of strange that in a group that is so geared toward logical discussion and compromise their are only 5 moderates.

I'm not sure what made you think that INTJs were geared toward compromise. My experiences with other INTJs leads me to believe that we can be extremely stubborn in many cases.

[Hdier]

I've often been accused of being stubborn...some say it's good, some say it's bad. I say that it depends on the situation (the diplomatic, yet true, answer).

[Lucid]

I've often been accused of being stubborn...some say it's good, some say it's bad. I say that it depends on the situation (the diplomatic, yet true, answer).

I agree that stubbornness can be either a strength or a weakness depending on the situation.

[steph with a capital T]

Well, I'm not a straight-up liberal, hell no am I conservative, but my opinions always veered toward science and technology and the progression of civilization and society as a whole, so I voted liberal/progressive, if that's what you meant by it.

[Dreamer]

I voted "Libertarian" as I agree with most of their domestic policies but I am far too much of an interventionist to be considered as one of them.


I find it kind of strange that in a group that is so geared toward logical discussion and compromise their are only 5 moderates.
Political moderation is subjective.

No such thing as moderation,only different positions.

[jakt]

I am nearly an anarchist, but I went libertarian for the poll.

[Antares]

I'm a moderate, or as I like to call myself, a Centrist. I don't think there's too much difference. I like to use simply whatever works. I think that sticking to one area of the spectrum is too extreme. After all, they all have their pros and cons.





Camelopardalis added to this post, 1 minutes and 41 seconds later...

I'm not sure what made you think that INTJs were geared toward compromise. My experiences with other INTJs leads me to believe that we can be extremely stubborn in many cases.

I think we are extremely stubborn sometimes. My parents like to tell me that.