[JasonM]

I believe it was Sartre that wrote on freedom, and how we restrict ourselves by taking on roles. For example, someone might take on the role of an intellectual. Taking on the role of an intellectual, they feel that they have to do intellectual things almost all the time. Doing something like watching a football game would not fit the role that they are trying to imitate. The problem is that they might enjoy football, perhaps more than certain intellectual pursuits that they've forced themselves to participate in. Therefore, they've limited their freedom and have cheated themselves out of something that they might enjoy. Do you think that some people here have decided to almost fully take on the role of an INTJ, possibly cheating themselves out of some (for example) sensate or feeling activities that they might otherwise enjoy? You might argue that it is the inclination of an any type to avoid activities that they aren't suited for, but few score as 100% I, N, T, and J.

[azelismia]

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

I believe it was Sartre that wrote on freedom, and how we restrict ourselves by taking on roles. For example, someone might take on the role of an intellectual. Taking on the role of an intellectual, they feel that they have to do intellectual things almost all the time. Doing something like watching a football game would not fit the role that they are trying to imitate. The problem is that they might enjoy football, perhaps more than certain intellectual pursuits that they've forced themselves to participate in. Therefore, they've limited their freedom and have cheated themselves out of something that they might enjoy. Do you think that some people here have decided to almost fully take on the role of an INTJ, possibly cheating themselves out of some (for example) sensate or feeling activities that they might otherwise enjoy? You might argue that it is the inclination of an any type to avoid activities that they aren't suited for, but few score as 100% I, N, T, and J. Jason

if a person takes on only roles that they think they should take on due to something like a personality type, odds are they are an S not an N, n'est-ce pas?

[JasonM]

	Originally Posted by azelismia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	if a person takes on only roles that they think they should take on due to something like a personality type, odds are they are an S not an N, n'est-ce pas?

I see it differently. I think that every type takes on roles, it's just that the roles that they take on will be different, depending on the type. I've seen it around here. There was one person who said that they were acting too much like a feeler around others, so they decided to spend more time alone. I have even done it. I remember desiring to be an "NT," so I avoided studying more liberal arts based subjects, such as English.

[Rowan]

Sartre’s Existentialism is incompatible with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; Sartre would see any such typing as an example of mauvaise foi (Bad Faith). He would probably accuse both Isabel Briggs Myers and Carl Jung of having a poor comprehension of ontology, which, to a certain extent, might be fair. Also true is that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is limited for all kinds of reasons; most importantly is that it is too simplistic. However, I think it is a useful tool and therefore must accept the onus of countering the Existentialist critique.

The problem with Existentialism is similar to the problem with a lot of Postmodernist thought, which is ironic when you understand that these philosophies are polar opposites. Postmodernism takes truths – the limitations that Foucaultian discourse, psychology, power relations, socially constructed signs and simulacrums place on our autonomy – and generalise them to the point of a untruth, which is to say that we are inescapably prisoners of these limitations.

Existentialism takes a different truth – our agentive selves – and generalises it to the point of a different untruth, which is to say that we are utterly free and that our freedom is more radical than we generally believe. Raymond Tallis, an excellent contemporary British philosopher, formed this critique. He goes on to charge Existentialism with placing a Cartesian conception of the unbound self on a ridiculously high pedestal.

Ultimately a more measured conception of freedom and self is required; this conception must, of course, encompass responsibility and freedom whilst at the same time taking into account the profound limitations imposed on such responsibility and freedom. One of these limitations could be said to be our psychological type.

	Originally Posted by JasonM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have even done it. I remember desiring to be an "NT," so I avoided studying more liberal arts based subjects, such as English.

If you desired to do it and then did it you were not necessarily acting on bad faith; you could have made an existential choice to be more NT.

[sriv]

This topic really peaks my interest. In the narrow confines of roles, people generally attempt to slide with soap into them.

This happens way too much. I know people that say they are Christian, and then apply everything to being a Christian unto themselves just so they can be considered orthodox or fundamentalist. It makes no sense at some point because they are forsaking themselves and well-roundedness for a predefined character or ideal (using that word loosely).

In relation to MBTI is even more interesting. I think that Rationals tend to go into science areas, Idyllics and Artisans into humanities areas, and Guardians into educational or federal areas. There will always be exceptions though. Interests are fundamentally subjective therefore different than MBTI type although MBTI type may slightly affect interests. An INTP may be far more interested in reading a book than writing a book which an INFP would be interested in.

The problem herein lies with actually defining and labelling people.
"Once you label me you negate me."
- Soren Kierkegaard

The reality is that people label themselves and attempt to fit the label correctly because they do not accept that either they cannot be labelled, they cannot make up their own label (no one would know what they were talking about), or that the label is not meant to be correctly fitted (MBTI's case).

[Motor Jax]

i have found that whenever there is a project that needs to be done, i find myself pushing up towards the front and taking charge

i don't mean to on purpose, but i find myself doing it regardless

so, i mean unconsciously, i just take on the leadership role

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by azelismia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	if a person takes on only roles that they think they should take on due to something like a personality type, odds are they are an S not an N, n'est-ce pas?

Au contraire. Or is this idea about taking on roles completely unrelated to the plethora of, "I'm an INTJ, so I suck at relationships, but people and small talk are beneath me anyways because and I rule at everything else" posts around here?

[zoophilia]

I think so. Basically, I think you should shift your environment a lot. Most people stop developing when they stay in one set of circumstances too long and fight against impossible odds until they lose hope, give up, and reconcile themselves to a fate they dread.

[Monte314]

Sarte, who believed that every choice was equally meaningless, yet validated the one forced to make it (hence, "Nausea").

I think that if JPS REALLY believed this, he wouldn't have spent his time writing books about stuff he said didn't matter to be read by people he said didn't matter. But of course, without the revenue from his meaningless musings, he wouldn't have funds for his morally profligate lifestyle (when Christians do things like this, we call them hypocrites and frauds).