[Blse]

I beleive certain segments of society are more likely to accept rational introverts better than other - in some circles, I think, being an INT is actually a blessing whereas in other segments of society, it's a liability. Question is: which segments of society, sub-cultures, etc... have you found that actually reward rational introversion (INT) behavior, or, at the very least, accept it as well as EXX behavior?

Here's my controversial - controversial b/c it deals with social class and may sound snobbish to some* - little hypothesis: In American society, the upper middle and upper classes are more welcoming to INTs than the working and lower classes, with the U.S. government being particularly welcoming to INTs. Thus, the higher you rise, the less difficulty you will encounter as an INT.

Unlike my past thread that aimed at counter the view of America as anti-inellectual, I have no authoritative statistics to cite here. I just have personal experience and a bit of semi-scientific evidence.

Overall, my background is pretty much solidly upper middle class (graduate degree, high income, white collar) and being an INT has never been a problem for me - I've always felt accepted and respected. Growing up, I've always seen my rational inclination as a gift and my requests to be left alone with my thoughts have always been honored and respected. I used to tell members of my family that I was busy "thinking about myself" and they would simply accept that answer, seeing that as a natural thing to do by a teenager (I was 17-19 when I did that). I think working class families, for instance, might have less understanding for that kind of thing since they need their kids to work.

Aside from being a student, I work in a government office preparing reports that help upper management for my agency determine how resoruces are allocated - how many employees are needed, how long will it take them, what should they be working on first, etc... My managers are very impressed with my intense focus and diligence. They like the fact that I cut to the chase, don't mess around and deliver thorough, clear, well-thought out reports. Government work overall, like much work in all the "professions," also consists of low-context communication, something we INTs excel in.

My semi-scientific evidence comes from a 1988 book about kids at Beverly Hills high school. According to the sciologist Michael Leahy, unlike in many "mainstream" schools the priveleged students at BHHS were more concerned with academics, intelligence and planning their careers than athletics, etc... - they were in essence like little 40 years olds much of the time.

Thing is, however, that I've lifed in a bubble my whole life (and actually continue on doing so) in the sense that I don't have much contact with other segments of society. So you tell me, how accruate is this observation? Are there other segments of society as INT friendly as the white collar upper middle class?

Sorry for the long post - poor Rudy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


PS. Whoever can re-write the lyrics to Gangsta's Paradise Weid Al style to create Introvert's Paradise will get a suprise!

*No snobbery intended. This is just my observation and I want to test it against many other experiences and views.

[Vagrant]

I find that almost anything geeky or nerdy tends to be very accepting of NT's.

As is often mentioned on this forum, INTJ seems to be well-accepted in Jewish culture.

I have yet to have trouble in the longboarding realm. Most people appreciate my expertise and thoughts, and the fact that I'm relatively low profile compared to some of the hotheaded boarders. I also serve as an endless irritation to people who think that they somehow know better than the longboarders about the various laws regarding skateboarding.

[Xanthippe]

I think INT personalities are pretty well accepted in classical music and in academia (my two fields, fortunately). Theatre can be an uncomfortable place for an INTJ - I loved acting, but I gave it up because everyone else seemed to be EXFX (not that I don't love some EXFXs!). The huggles and perpetual dance parties grew tiresome.

I suspect that the middle class is the most accepting of INTJs, or possibly the self-made type of wealthy class. This is conjecture, though, as I have had little experience with people far outside the upper middle class.

[vash]

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I beleive certain segments of society are more likely to accept rational introverts better than other - in some circles, I think, being an INT is actually a blessing whereas in other segments of society, it's a liability. Question is: which segments of society, sub-cultures, etc... have you found that actually reward rational introversion (INT) behavior, or, at the very least, accept it as well as EXX behavior? Here's my controversial - controversial b/c it deals with social class and may sound snobbish to some* - little hypothesis: In American society, the upper middle and upper classes are more welcoming to INTs than the working and lower classes, with the U.S. government being particularly welcoming to INTs. Thus, the higher you rise, the less difficulty you will encounter as an INT. Unlike my past thread that aimed at counter the view of America as anti-inellectual, I have no authoritative statistics to cite here. I just have personal experience and a bit of semi-scientific evidence.

I somewhat agree with your statements, but what does your "little hypothesis" really mean? Of course the "upper middle class" is going to be more welcoming to people who live according to its values. How else would it sustain itself? Western society is based on a mind-body dualism, and the body is deemed less important than the mind. Anyone who lives accordingly (unless you are intellectual enough to question society's rules/values/mores) is going to be a part of the "in-group." (The truly upper class, by the way, do not care and they don't have to care: how many upper class people work, let alone work for government?)

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Overall, my background is pretty much solidly upper middle class (graduate degree, high income, white collar) and being an INT has never been a problem for me - I've always felt accepted and respected. Growing up, I've always seen my rational inclination as a gift and my requests to be left alone with my thoughts have always been honored and respected. I used to tell members of my family that I was busy "thinking about myself" and they would simply accept that answer, seeing that as a natural thing to do by a teenager (I was 17-19 when I did that).

In many respects, my background is similar to yours; in many others, it is quite different. However, apparently unlike you, as a teenager I questioned the sheltered cocoon in which I was raised; and I have arrived at a completely different set of answers than yours. During my teens, I first came into contact with people whose lives were very different from my own: those differences were primarily based on class. My undergraduate years as a sociology major were mostly concerned with trying to understand class differences: it was very good training, and there have been real world experiences and good fiction to supplement it.

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think working class families, for instance, might have less understanding for that kind of thing since they need their kids to work.

From what I have seen, your assessment of working class families is only partially correct. Many working class parents want their children to have a better life than they had, so they create environments that are similar to yours (and mine) for their children. America, after all, is the “land of opportunity”: climbing the social ladder is expected. Interestingly enough, although I am not good at reading people, I can very easily spot people who are first and second generation college graduates. Paul Fussell’s book, “Class: A Guide Through the American Status System” (1992) is a good source for spotting class differences: I think a lot of people might be surprised to see where they really are. There is even a “class status” for people like me: “Category X” – because we reject the whole notion of belonging to a class.

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Aside from being a student, I work in a government office preparing reports that help upper management for my agency determine how resoruces are allocated - how many employees are needed, how long will it take them, what should they be working on first, etc... My managers are very impressed with my intense focus and diligence. They like the fact that I cut to the chase, don't mess around and deliver thorough, clear, well-thought out reports. Government work overall, like much work in all the "professions," also consists of low-context communication, something we INTs excel in.

Q: How many people work for government?
A: About half of them

You seem to have a much more favorable opinion of government than many people have, as evidenced by the above joke. Your attachment to government has consistently been your “claim to fame” in this forum, and I questioned it in your earlier thread because a major part of my sociology training dealt with bureaucracy. Max Weber (1864-1920) is considered the leading authority on bureaucracy and he described “ideal” bureaucracy as the good that bureaucracies could potentially do, and “real” bureaucracy as closer to the harm that more often happens (groupthink, corruption, nepotism, “politics” – sound familiar?). I understand what you are trying to say but, for me, the larger issue is the extent to which bureaucracies actually serve society rather than creating employment opportunities for an expanding middle class that then further differentiates itself into an "upper" middle class. If INTs are overrepresented in these "upper" middle class bureaucracies, how much blame do they shoulder for the failure? (Aside: MBTI says ISTJs are the ideal bureaucratic type. I agree: INTJs are more likely to question all those rules and regulations that ISTJs love. George Orwell’s 1984 is the best book I know that addresses the dangers of bureaucracy).

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My semi-scientific evidence comes from a 1988 book about kids at Beverly Hills high school. According to the sciologist Michael Leahy, unlike in many "mainstream" schools the priveleged students at BHHS were more concerned with academics, intelligence and planning their careers than athletics, etc... - they were in essence like little 40 years olds much of the time.

Yep. Attended a gifted school most of my life. In fact, there were no athletics at my school. Might explain why I was such a tomboy as a young child and why I became a cheerleader as soon as I could (I have no interest in sports, but I do enjoy vigorous physical activity). I needed some balance: an eight year old is not supposed to act like a 40 year-old (do we need any more proof than Michael Jackson?). Again, Western culture celebrates mind-body dualism, which greatly explains why we have so many health problems in our society today. I personally find the competitive team nature of athletics distasteful, but we are corporeal beings, and we need to develop our bodies as well as our minds. Interestingly, Rhodes Scholarships (despite their sexist and racist origins) were created for students who excelled in academics and athletics.

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thing is, however, that I've lifed in a bubble my whole life (and actually continue on doing so) in the sense that I don't have much contact with other segments of society. So you tell me, how accruate is this observation? Are there other segments of society as INT friendly as the white collar upper middle class?

From your statements, it appears that this is one of the differences in our upbringing. Unlike you, I was raised with a sense of “noblesse oblige.” That, in and of itself, has put me in contact with different “segments” of society. Again, the question for me is not where we, as INTs, find our privileged enclaves that “spare” us from others, but how we attempt to understand our similarities to and differences from others. In other words, how do we find our humanity? When we live provincial lives (and it happens across many socially constructed lines), we are unable to fully contribute to humanity. This is the essence of why I love Star Trek so much: Gene Roddenberry “got it.” Anyone who thinks Star Trek is only about science has truly missed the point: the motto - “to seek out new life and new civilizations” – says it all. We’re talking human societies and cultures here; and there is at least one Star Trek episode that deals with each sociocultural concept humans face. For the issue you have raised here, I would suggest watching “The Cloud Minders” (TOS). There was a time when I was very much like the character “Droxine.” Gender issues aside, you remind me of her now. Class issues remain very difficult to overcome, perhaps because we do not have many people to fill the roles that Spock, Kirk, Droxine, and Vanna filled in that episode. It’s amazing how much one little tv show has offered us for so long. If only more people would watch and then think ...

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	PS. Whoever can re-write the lyrics to Gangsta's Paradise Weid Al style to create Introvert's Paradise will get a suprise!

I know this isn't what you wanted, but here goes (and keep the surprise):

Blse: Been livin' all my life, not a clue 'bout other people's strife
vash: Been livin' all my days, dreamin' 'bout a world with better ways.

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	*No snobbery intended. This is just my observation and I want to test it against many other experiences and views.

No snobbery assumed. In fact, thank you for starting this thread. Many "educated" people still have much to learn.

[The Drifter]

	Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I find that almost anything geeky or nerdy tends to be very accepting of NT's.

Not when you look like a jock. Most nerds don't like being nerds and will try to live vicariously through a nerd that they think can transform into a jock or d-bag. They pressure you to live out their dreams and have the nerve to act like you're an asshole when you tell them to live their own lives.

[Mycroft]

Law and academia strike me as two areas that have INT-favorable environments. Liberal areas will almost certainly be more favorable, as I believe there's a significant correlation between N/S and liberal/conservative.

All of the social situations being tossed around are contingent on the INT in question being smart. What do average-intelligence INTs do?

[antiant]

I have found through my own personal experience that INTJ's are either good in the area of academia or the complete opposite, such as some counterculture that is against the main social infrastructure or establishment, it's like this very fine line of opposite ends of the spectrum, but you will find both of them at these ends and nowhere really in the middle of it. If INTJ's are in the middle they are usually wolves in sheep clothing.

I kind of see it in an economic/class sense, for example you have typically what is rich>middle class>poor, I see INTJ's either up in the 'rich' area, the intellectual side of things, the sciences, the doctors, something that is very 'high brow' or on the poor end, the visionaries, the diy types, creating their own path, to refelct their feelings of trying to fit in socially. At some point in time, there is a meeting of the minds where both these spectrums converge and make progress. You have this conflict going on with INTJ's and where they fit in.

If you are the type that has been heralded because of your intellectual capacity and never really got much flack for it, most likely you will end up in the academic areas, if however you got a lot of flack for being intellectual, then you will be at the countercultre end of the spectrum and that is my belief, I've seen it too many times. Sometimes INTJ's tip toe on both these areas, teeter tottering from side to side, it's almost visualizing a tight rope act or a balancing act in reality. Sitting on the fence looking and checking out which side of the pasture is greener.

[Blse]

I agree with most of what has been said, so let me focus on a few interesting comments (note that it's 5:30AM and I went to bed at around 3, so let's see if this makes sense):

You seem to have a much more favorable opinion of government than many people have, as evidenced by the above joke. Your attachment to government has consistently been your “claim to fame” in this forum, and I questioned it in your earlier thread because a major part of my sociology training dealt with bureaucracy... Aside: MBTI says ISTJs are the ideal bureaucratic type. I agree: INTJs are more likely to question all those rules and regulations that ISTJs love

Well, part of it is my training in poli sci and economics. Despite its flaws government, on the whole, provides its citizens - at least in advanced economies - with very compentent services that cannot be provided by other institutions. Too often people take the services and goods provided by govt. (most of which the free market cannot provide owing to its inherent limitations) for granted.

That said, bureaucarcy, be it in the private or public sector (certainly the BofA would qualify as a bureaucracy as well as a govt. agency), is favorable to NTs as well. For one bureaucracies need "big picture" people with keen analytical skills to develop procedures, set priorities and direct resources effectively (my job is just that: I issue reports offering suggestions on how many people should be working on what, how long and in what order - my NT ability to - using my supervisor's words "cut right to it" has been highly valued). Furthermore, buraucracies are low-context cultures whose communicative mode is therefore inherently more favorable to NTs who are, let's face it, somewhat dense when something is not spelled out clearly (note the trouble many forum members have flirting for instance). Regulations, printed on black and white, requrie big picture thinking when they are devised and provide a setting ideal for low-context communicators.

I will say this though - simply b/c I love irony - my "pro-establishment," for the lack of a better word, attiude has made me quite iconoclast by the standards of the many Marxist and stronly Left-wing students and faculty at my uniersity.

	Law and academia strike me as two areas that have INT-favorable environments

Related to the above, NTs are good with rules - particularly, interpreting and manipulating them. Thus law, academia, govt. - all complex, well-regulated institutions are, I think, "NT-heavy."

I have found through my own personal experience that INTJ's are either good in the area of academia or the complete opposite, such as some counterculture that is against the main social infrastructure or establishment, it's like this very fine line of opposite ends of the spectrum, but you will find both of them at these ends and nowhere really in the middle of it. If INTJ's are in the middle they are usually wolves in sheep clothing.

Now that's an interesting observation. I can clearly see myself in the former arena. Makes sense to me though.

	Interestingly enough, although I am not good at reading people, I can very easily spot people who are first and second generation college graduates. Paul Fussell’s book, “Class: A Guide Through the American Status System” (1992) is a good source for spotting class differences: I think a lot of people might be surprised to see where they really are.

Well, I've studies social class in the U.S. quite a bit and read Fussel some time ago. I do need to caution though that while many of his obersvations are still applicable there is some difference between him and some of the more scientific class modes - my personal favorite being Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure (2004). I do agree, that social class can be clearly seen in many instances.

	society is based on a mind-body dualism, and the body is deemed less important than the mind.

True, and that actually relates to my "Anti-intellectualism is a myth" post: a society that values mind above body cannot follow through on any pretensions of anti-intellectualism. I am inclined to agree though, that a healthy mind and a healthy body go hand in hand and this dualism can be damaging.

	As is often mentioned on this forum, INTJ seems to be well-accepted in Jewish culture

Considering the high educational attainment and many prevelance of professional among Jews I am not suprised. Very interesting to note though.

[SultanOfSuede]

I think urban vs. rural has been left out.

I immediately left a very small town to go to the big city when I was 18. A large proportion of my friends my freshman year were Jewish (this was long before I discovered I might have possible ancestry in the kosher department). I had very little to do with other Christians since very few were practicing and most I met were extroverts. In addition, I generally enjoy the company of thoughtful INTJ atheists and agnostics more than I do people of my own "kind."

City life represents a life of possibility in intellectual and cultural matters even if I've a natural disinclination to have to deal with the mobs. I live a few blocks from some museums, a symphony hall, three or four cultural centers, etc. The vast majority of people living in cities are extroverts who really avail themselves of bars in the city, which is fine and good, but few go for eating out at unique restaurants, catching plays, etc.

I associate extroversion with suburbanites. Income doesn't figure into the equation.

[vash]

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, part of it is my training in poli sci and economics. Despite its flaws government, on the whole, provides its citizens - at least in advanced economies - with very compentent services that cannot be provided by other institutions. Too often people take the services and goods provided by govt. (most of which the free market cannot provide owing to its inherent limitations) for granted.

I will agree that government is supposed to provide services that other institutions cannot provide (that is their role); however, I question the quality and “competence” of those services.

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That said, bureaucarcy, be it in the private or public sector (certainly the BofA would qualify as a bureaucracy as well as a govt. agency), is favorable to NTs as well. For one bureaucracies need "big picture" people with keen analytical skills to develop procedures, set priorities and direct resources effectively (my job is just that: I issue reports offering suggestions on how many people should be working on what, how long and in what order - my NT ability to - using my supervisor's words "cut right to it" has been highly valued). Furthermore, buraucracies are low-context cultures whose communicative mode is therefore inherently more favorable to NTs who are, let's face it, somewhat dense when something is not spelled out clearly (note the trouble many forum members have flirting for instance). Regulations, printed on black and white, requrie big picture thinking when they are devised and provide a setting ideal for low-context communicators.

Bureaucracies might be favorable to NTs (in terms of hiring and providing employment), but are NTs doing as much as they can for bureaucracies? In other words, do bureaucracies adequately employ the talents that many NTs possess? In my experience, no. My first job out of my first grad school program was in a government bureaucracy, and I was dismayed by the inefficiencies and downright lack of real accomplishment. Other bureaucracies and corporate structures are not necessarily any better: look at the current state of our financial institutions; look at our housing industry; look at our automotive industry; look at our health care system. All of these institutions could benefit from NT thinking, and they do – to an extent. However, organizations are comprised of people with human frailties: despite a preference for low context communication; ego, competition, greed, etc, still exist. When I left government, I went to corporate America (after another degree) and did not stay long there either – for many of the same reasons I left government (although there were some improvements). The problem is, as organizations grow, they tend to focus more on their own perpetuation than on their original purpose. In such a scenario, maintaining the status quo becomes more important than innovation and progress.

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I will say this though - simply b/c I love irony - my "pro-establishment," for the lack of a better word, attiude has made me quite iconoclast by the standards of the many Marxist and stronly Left-wing students and faculty at my uniersity.

I do not, for a minute, question your passion and your belief in government: your sincerity seems quite real to me. What I do question is how you will respond when your idealism meets the reality of what exists beyond your current position/department. Will you become one of the many government employees who hangs onto his well-protected job – at his intellectual expense; or will you be like others – who leave it all behind for the opportunity to do something important and intellectual – without the bureaucratic baggage? I am not a Marxist or strongly Left-wing (or strongly Right-wing, for that matter) but, I do believe we can do much better as a society (isn’t that the hallmark of being an INTJ: we can improve it?). I hope you watch the Star Trek episode, and I hope you get a chance to read Matt Crawford’s new book Shop Class as Soulcraft (I mentioned it in your other thread).

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, I've studies social class in the U.S. quite a bit and read Fussel some time ago. I do need to caution though that while many of his obersvations are still applicable there is some difference between him and some of the more scientific class modes - my personal favorite being Dennis Gilbert, The American Class Structure (2004). I do agree, that social class can be clearly seen in many instances.

No need for caution. I referenced Fussell because I love his haughty, arrogant, non-scientific, funny approach to class. I especially love his inherent premise that, despite class differences, Americans are all basically a bunch of drunks (the only difference is choice of poison). If I wanted to reference something more academic, I would have gone to the granddaddy of them all – Marx (Fussell sure did).

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	True, and that actually relates to my "Anti-intellectualism is a myth" post: a society that values mind above body cannot follow through on any pretensions of anti-intellectualism. I am inclined to agree though, that a healthy mind and a healthy body go hand in hand and this dualism can be damaging.

Okay, let me try a different approach. INTs are what percentage of American society? Relatively small, correct? So, it cannot accurately be said that their (our) values are representative of the whole society, nor can it accurately be stated that all INTs are “smart” (or all ESFs “stupid”). Again, I cannot explain this to you any further: you will know the anti-intellectualism if/when you encounter it.

	Originally Posted by Mycroft To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Law and academia strike me as two areas that have INT-favorable environments. Liberal areas will almost certainly be more favorable, as I believe there's a significant correlation between N/S and liberal/conservative.

I believe both environments can be favorable to the extent that people are willing to conform to the rules (more below). I would somewhat agree with the N/S liberal/conservative dichotomy (I am not liberal or conservative), but liberals can be some of the most egotistical people around. They can cause foul-ups in the system as much as anyone else.

	Originally Posted by Mycroft To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	All of the social situations being tossed around are contingent on the INT in question being smart. What do average-intelligence INTs do?

My point exactly. The assumptions here do not correlate with the reality. Not all INTs are geniuses, and not all ESFs are dullards.

	Originally Posted by deinotes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	LOL, then some jewish intj's should do something about the Israeli/Palestinian problem where both party's are somewhat content with.

Again, exactly what I am saying. If INTJs are the “fix it” people, and we are “natural” leaders, why is this world in such a state? How can we celebrate achievement, when so much of what we see is ineffective?

Originally Posted by antiant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have found through my own personal experience that INTJ's are either good in the area of academia or the complete opposite, such as some counterculture that is against the main social infrastructure or establishment, it's like this very fine line of opposite ends of the spectrum, but you will find both of them at these ends and nowhere really in the middle of it. If INTJ's are in the middle they are usually wolves in sheep clothing. I kind of see it in an economic/class sense, for example you have typically what is rich>middle class>poor, I see INTJ's either up in the 'rich' area, the intellectual side of things, the sciences, the doctors, something that is very 'high brow' or on the poor end, the visionaries, the diy types, creating their own path, to refelct their feelings of trying to fit in socially. At some point in time, there is a meeting of the minds where both these spectrums converge and make progress. You have this conflict going on with INTJ's and where they fit in. If you are the type that has been heralded because of your intellectual capacity and never really got much flack for it, most likely you will end up in the academic areas, if however you got a lot of flack for being intellectual, then you will be at the countercultre end of the spectrum and that is my belief, I've seen it too many times. Sometimes INTJ's tip toe on both these areas, teeter tottering from side to side, it's almost visualizing a tight rope act or a balancing act in reality. Sitting on the fence looking and checking out which side of the pasture is greener.

I could not agree more. However, as I said in a different thread, I have never tried to “fit in”; rather, I have searched for the people like me. It seems like I am getting closer all the time. I worked in academia (my third job, third grad degree) for a while before I started my own business. I never sought a tenure track position – mainly because I knew I would never be able to live by all of the rules. My stint in academia exposed me to a major reason our society functions so poorly: learning centers that promote conformity rather than critical thinking; professors who dumb down their teaching so that they get higher student evaluations; and administrators who yield to “consumer” pressure when the consumers (students) want the least amount of education money can buy, are only a few of the problems. I received a lot of flack for being “intellectual” and I was told my standards were too high. I took the “counterculture” way out. Now, everything is coming together. Academia is now realizing that it does not possess the skills needed to impact health care reform (World Health Organization: Social Determinants of Health, 2008): Corporate Health organizations do not have it, either (Clayton Christensen’s The Innovator’s Prescription, 2009). People like me are very much in demand now; and I will begin collaborating with two separate academic institutions when the 2009-2010 academic year begins. I don't profess to have all of the answers but, hopefully, this will be the “meeting of the minds” you suggest. It certainly will be interesting.

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now that's an interesting observation. I can clearly see myself in the former arena. Makes sense to me though.

I can see you in the former arena, too. Again, what happens when you reach that crossroad? I have been there, and it is not easy. There were times when I was standing alone against “the system,” but I did not back down. I said what I believed needed to be said, and I moved on. I hear everything you are saying, and I believe you really want it all to work but, far too often, it doesn’t. Again, I refer you to Star Trek: it really has been helpful for me. And although ST:TNG is my favorite (probably because it is very NT); I also realize ST:TNG never could have occurred if ST:TOS had not occurred first. Interacting with others can be difficult and challenging, but I believe it can work – if enough people are willing to take those first steps.

Originally Posted by SultanOfSuede To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

City life represents a life of possibility in intellectual and cultural matters even if I've a natural disinclination to have to deal with the mobs. I live a few blocks from some museums, a symphony hall, three or four cultural centers, etc. The vast majority of people living in cities are extroverts who really avail themselves of bars in the city, which is fine and good, but few go for eating out at unique restaurants, catching plays, etc.

I so agree with you. I live right on the inner edge of a major city. I am sort of “far from the madding crowd,” but I am close to the intellectual and cultural life offered in the city. I would have difficulty thriving without it. I would describe my section of the city as very INT.

ps: Hey guys, I am loving this discussion, but I do have to work to support myself. Maybe we can limit the number of ideas we put in a post. That would make it a lot easier to reply.

[Blse]

	All of these institutions could benefit from NT thinking, and they do – to an extent. However, organizations are comprised of people with human frailties: despite a preference for low context communication; ego, competition, greed, etc, still exist.

Well, I have never doubted that. Perhaps, I simply expect less from my fellow citizens that you do. Be it acadmia, govt., or corporations, inefficiencies and opportunity costs are and will always be present. We can (and have) reduced them to a significant extent already, and all these institutions are functioning at a reasonably competent level, but they will never function perfectly. As Isaac Berlin said, you can't make something straight out of the crooked timber of humankind. And I expect no such thing.

	I do not, for a minute, question your passion and your belief in government: your sincerity seems quite real to me. What I do question is how you will respond when your idealism meets the reality of what exists beyond your current position/department.

I actually think you are (or were) more of an idealist than I am (few people who know me would describe me as an idealist actually - I am quite the pragmatic), which is why I am more satisfied with the state of our bureaucracies. Most of my family has been employed by the federal government for decades (my dad started in the mid 70s after getting his PhD). I have heard all the stories and at my unversity seen my fair share of incompetence and faculty politics (about as bad as anything in govt.). I have simply made my peace with the fact that there will always be significant flaws, some of which will never be fully remedied and others which will only be remedied slowly over the course of a long time. There are many reforms bureaucaries could and should undertake, like there are many things our society should do IMO: reverse the damage done by supply-side "economics," end that grand sysephean task entitled the "war on drugs," end "don't ask, don't tell," etc...

Yet, I also now that despite these flaws, and the sometimes glacial pace at which improvements are phased in, government, academic, corportate America do function reasonably well (for instance, our society is much better off than it owas 70 years ago b/c of these institutions, not to mention 170 years ago). I guess, I just don't expect the perfection you seem to once have expected of our bureaucracies (If I'm inferring correctly). I am sincere in my beleif in the powers of government, but do not have unreasonably high expectations.

	I can see you in the former arena, too. Again, what happens when you reach that crossroad? I have been there, and it is not easy. There were times when I was standing alone against “the system,” but I did not back down. I said what I believed needed to be said, and I moved on.

Well, I'm going to be blunt: I would back down. That's my pragmatic side (and NT hallmark afterall). Why put myself on the line for doubtful success? If there is more to be gained by conforming, I will conform (and have done so for that matter). Again, to me, it's accepting that I am not going to change the world. I may have a slight positive impact here or there (and I think I do), but I don't expect to accomplish everything I could to improve the world. That's just the way it is (now you can see why people who know me well would never describe me as an idealist). I am only a perfectionist so long as being one is worth it because I am always a pragmatic.

	How can we celebrate achievement, when so much of what we see is ineffective?

Because it could be, and used to be, so much worse.

	I associate extroversion with suburbanites.

I would actually say it's the other way around. I am a suburbanite and I love the privacy and anonimity. I prefer driving my own car over riding mass transit. I prefer having a spacious yard with thick hedges behind which I can relax and enjoy plenty of peace and quiet. I also like not having to do small talk when I got the mall, or resturant, or mega-store.

[lechugita]

In college, I had to make a big choice about what career path I wanted to embark on. All my life I'd been a bookworm, but I always envisioned myself as a screenwriter working in the movie business. I realized, in time, that even as a lowly screenwriter, my INT personality would have a hard time navigating Hollywood. I chose academia and feel much more at ease about it. I hate networking and even though one does have to network in academia, it is less than the kind of hardcore schmoozing I'd have to do in Hollywood. Research fields seem great for INTJs.

[Blse]

	I hate networking and even though one does have to network in academia, it is less than the kind of hardcore schmoozing I'd have to do in Hollywood. Research fields seem great for INTJs.

My point about the federal govt. as well. The hiring and promotion process is so strictly regulated and biased in favor of formal education it is quite ideal of INTs in that high-context communication and networking are kept at comparatively low levels.

[Name]

Originally Posted by antiant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you are the type that has been heralded because of your intellectual capacity and never really got much flack for it, most likely you will end up in the academic areas, if however you got a lot of flack for being intellectual, then you will be at the countercultre end of the spectrum and that is my belief, I've seen it too many times. Sometimes INTJ's tip toe on both these areas, teeter tottering from side to side, it's almost visualizing a tight rope act or a balancing act in reality. Sitting on the fence looking and checking out which side of the pasture is greener.

this is me

Edit: I think it is a Left and right brain dominace issue

[vash]

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Perhaps, I simply expect less from my fellow citizens that you do. Be it acadmia, govt., or corporations, inefficiencies and opportunity costs are and will always be present. We can (and have) reduced them to a significant extent already, and all these institutions are functioning at a reasonably competent level, but they will never function perfectly. As Isaac Berlin said, you can't make something straight out of the crooked timber of humankind. And I expect no such thing.

I do seem to have higher expectations than some people. There is no such thing as “perfection.” However, there is a such thing as “better.” If we lose our ability to strive for something better, we will stagnate ... Looks like you and I have different definitions of “reasonably competent.”

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I actually think you are (or were) more of an idealist than I am (few people who know me would describe me as an idealist actually - I am quite the pragmatic), which is why I am more satisfied with the state of our bureaucracies. Most of my family has been employed by the federal government for decades (my dad started in the mid 70s after getting his PhD). I have heard all the stories and at my unversity seen my fair share of incompetence and faculty politics (about as bad as anything in govt.). I have simply made my peace with the fact that there will always be significant flaws, some of which will never be fully remedied and others which will only be remedied slowly over the course of a long time. There are many reforms bureaucaries could and should undertake, like there are many things our society should do IMO: reverse the damage done by supply-side "economics," end that grand sysephean task entitled the "war on drugs," end "don't ask, don't tell," etc...

Based on what you have written in this post, I would agree that I am far more idealistic than you are. From your earlier posts (in this thread and your first one), you appeared to be a bit naive: it is good to have clarity on your actual position. You and I clearly have different perspectives on “significant flaws” and, while I agree that some will never be fully remedied, I believe many can be remedied in a relatively short period of time. Again, ego, insecurity, and power issues too often get in the way. As the owner of my own business, I am free to act on issues important to me – unencumbered by all of the negative stuff that gets in the way. And that means that I, and other small business owners, can accomplish things that bureaucracies cannot. I do not think I will ever “make my peace” with society's failure to make greater, faster progress, but I also recognize my limitations. There are so many things in need of repair that I can only hope to help address some - maybe only one - of them.

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yet, I also now that despite these flaws, and the sometimes glacial pace at which improvements are phased in, government, academic, corportate America do function reasonably well (for instance, our society is much better off than it owas 70 years ago b/c of these institutions, not to mention 170 years ago). I guess, I just don't expect the perfection you seem to once have expected of our bureaucracies (If I'm inferring correctly). I am sincere in my beleif in the powers of government, but do not have unreasonably high expectations.

I agree that our society is better than it was – because 170 years ago, someone said, “Things can be better,” and 70 years ago, someone else said “Things can be better.” Now, it is my turn to say it and, 70 years from now, it will be someone else’s turn to say it. It is called progress and if more people had higher expectations (and acted on them), we would move along a lot faster. Again, it is not a matter of “perfection”; it is a matter of “better” (the INTJ mantra: “there is always room for improvement.”) I talk about Star Trek a lot because I believe it is a great blueprint for the future. However, I also read biographies of successful people from the past because I enjoy learning about their rocky roads. I first read Marie Curie’s biography when I was 9 years old: I still remember how excited I felt. As an adult, I have read a more sophisticated Curie biography, and I understand how difficult her personal/professional life was. But she still serves as a guide for me – what I am willing to do; what I am not willing to do – and she keeps me from settling for what society tells me is all there is. Who knows? Maybe my work – or my belief than it can be better - will inspire someone in the future.

Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, I'm going to be blunt: I would back down. That's my pragmatic side (and NT hallmark afterall). Why put myself on the line for doubtful success? If there is more to be gained by conforming, I will conform (and have done so for that matter). Again, to me, it's accepting that I am not going to change the world. I may have a slight positive impact here or there (and I think I do), but I don't expect to accomplish everything I could to improve the world.

Why put yourself on the line? Because “doubtful” success is not the same as “no" success. I guess it depends on how much of a risk taker a person is, and I will always take a calculated risk – especially if I believe there is a chance it will make me happier. I had my biggest successes in all three of my jobs when someone handed me a larger than life project to handle. I believe I was given the projects because no one believed I (or anyone else) could handle them and they just wanted to shut me up. Each time, I exceeded expectations (which were low) and validated my belief that it could be done, but it caused further difficulty for me because people then accused me of showing off to make others look bad: this is the price we pay when mediocrity is accepted as the norm. After working at three separate jobs in which the same thing happened, I decided I could do better on my own – and I have. I learned from the inertia of others and my business has skyrocketed. There is no need for me to be competitive because the people who could possibly be my competitors have self-selected out of the running – by making peace and conforming - and have left me with a wide open market.

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's just the way it is (now you can see why people who know me well would never describe me as an idealist). I am only a perfectionist so long as being one is worth it because I am always a pragmatic.

I have had plenty of S types (in government) tell me, “That’s just the way it is.” I have always agreed, but I have always responded, “But that isn’t the way it has to be.”

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because it could be, and used to be, so much worse.

And it could be – and, hopefully, one day will be - so much better.

[SultanOfSuede]

	I have had plenty of S types (in government) tell me, "That’s just the way it is." I have always agreed, but I have always responded, “But that isn’t the way it has to be."

I've worked in four or five Fortune 500 companies as well as small busineses, including one that I co-owned.

I can see vash as being an INTJ who eventually has to go her own way, but for me, I've learned to love my enslavement. My job gives me a good quality of life and plenty of time in the evenings for other stuff. I finished a degree, I've studied guitar with an instructor, taken German and will begin formal voice lessons this week. I'm working on writing and editing a parish quarterly with my pastor, who has edited a national religious journal.

At work, I learned to stop seeking efficiency and so on after a real hard lesson at the hands of my-then employer, The World's Largest Media Company (TM). As an IT professional, I've seen several hundred million dollars wasted on failed projects and I've had years to analyze the problems from every angle. I used to get sick, stressed, etc. about the problems with my field, but at some point, you've to decide to give up feeling like you own your project. You don't. Your employer does. Feeling personally invested in the work you do is laudable -- but do it for yourself, in your own business. Identifying yourself with your work is dangerous and is a large part of the problem with America's Calvinist culture. (However, if you're an artist or writer, by all means, invest yourself away... you are your own master... )

Why? A lot of reasons, mostly boiling down to "corporate culture." I know, an icky catch-all term which can mean nothing or anything or something. But as the inventor of Gmail observed, when Google bought his product, he stayed on for a few months, pretending to work. He realized that at a certain size, managers stop hiring the kinds of employees that idealistic INTJs want to work with and he left for another start up. Middle managers are deeply insecure people; not able to put out like a developer and at the mercy of higher ups. This pressure leads to a lot of poor hiring choices.

Now, I've accepted that I can be a workaholic again and it doesn't appeal to me. I've done it, it was fun, but I've found that I can compromise for the sake of my real interests. The true liberal man is one who seeks these and understands that the Sabbath was made for him and not the other way around. Work is still enjoyable and things become balanced.