NationStates Jolt Archive

Glitziness and I have been working this up for some time: we'd like to see if there's any correlation between a poster's personality and their politics on this forum. ok, i sat on this for ages, but today i have a little spare time so here goes... The Big NS Personality Survey 2006! :)


here's how it works:

1. Go here (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp) and fill out the survey (no registration required, and free)

2. Go here (http://www.fp.farma.org.uk/Huw's%20stuff/NSpersonality/NS%20personality%20survey.htm) and fill out my form


that's it :) have a fluffle :fluffle: :D

i'll analyse results as soon as they're worth analysing (50 or more responses, i guess), and will post anything i find asap *nods*




The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality test designed to assist a person in identifying some significant personal preferences. Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers developed the Indicator during World War II, and its criteria follow from Carl Jung's theories in his work Psychological Types.[1]

The Indicator is frequently used in the areas of pedagogy, group dynamics, employee training, leadership training, marriage counseling, and personal development. However, scientific skeptics and academic psychologists have criticized the indicator in research literature, claiming that it "lacks convincing validity data" [2] and could be an example of the Forer effect.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTI

other stuff:
for descriptions of the personality types:
http://bsm.securesites.com/portraits.html
http://keirsey.com/matrix.html
http://typelogic.com/
http://similarminds.com/jung/enfp.html
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mb-types/mb-types.htm

for alternative tests:
http://similarminds.com/jung.html
http://www.advisorteam.com/temperament_sorter/register.asp?partid=1

a note on personality assessment (http://www.16types.com/Request.jsp?lView=ViewArticle&Article=OID%3A59622&Page=OID%3A59623)

Done. Do you have a set time to post the results, or are you looking for a certain number of responses first?

Edit: I'm INFJ.

Done. I am an INTJ, or "Mastermind", allegedly. Or, at least, I think I am according to the answers I gave.

*Strokes white cat whilst plotting world domination*

i'll analyse results as soon as they're worth analysing (50 or more responses, i guess), and will post anything i find asap *nods*

Hes says in the OP.

All done and answered, and I'm interested as to what the result will be.

Edit: I'm ISTJ

You are:
very expressed introvert
slightly expressed sensing personality
distinctively expressed thinking personality
slightly expressed judging personality

Hes says in the OP.

All done and answered, and I'm interested as to what the result will be.Yeah, for some reason that didn't register. I think I need to sleep.

Done. Do you have a set time to post the results, or are you looking for a certain number of responses first?
definitely the latter for statistical purposes. i'll wait for at the very least 30 responses, preferably 50, before doing anything. i think i really should be after 200 responses, but methinks i'm not gonna get that :p

timings-wise, expect a day or so at least. you can check on the repsonses so far here (http://www.fp.farma.org.uk/Huw%27s%20stuff/NSpersonality/NSpersonalityform.htm) btw :)

Done. I am an INTJ, or "Mastermind", allegedly. Or, at least, I think I am according to the answers I gave.

*Strokes white cat whilst plotting world domination*

lol, better than being the "healer" i guess (me)... though i guess i can clean up after you're done ;)


thanks for taking part! :D :fluffle:

I'm INTP, but not extremely so - i'm strongly IN, but borderline with the other two.

So i'm inbetween a "thinker" and a "protector".

Done... we had a seminar on this not too long ago. It's quite a helpful characterisation. I'm INTP, btw.

I didn't really care for this test. There were several questions where my correct response was neither yes or no, and a couple where I really didn't understand what they were getting at. I did a more thorough test of this nature in the past, with INTP as the result, which fits me much better than the ISTJ this test gave me.

I swear I get a different result everytime I take that test. This time I'm an ISFJ - Protector Guardian. o.O

Es finito!

I had a hard time picking from that list of political choices. I hate labels. I chose what I did only because that's the quadrant Political Compass put me in, and not necessarily because I think I belong there. :p

INTP on this one, but with weak T's and P's

I'm INTP, but not extremely so - i'm strongly IN, but borderline with the other two.

So i'm inbetween a "thinker" and a "protector".

I'm sort of similar.

Everytime I take one of these, it seems to pop out ba different result. Almost always IN, but the later two are all over the board.

Both instruments seem to have a "error" rate of at least 25%. When a feedback session is conducted and the client confirms their type, the instrument results do not match the confirmed and/or observed type about 25% of the time. Some practitioners would say it is higher.
http://www.16types.com/Request.jsp?lView=ViewArticle&Article=OID%3A59622&Page=OID%3A59623

I'm almost always in that 25%.

But, INTP and INTJ tend to be the top results. The INTJ descriptions seem to be closest, and that's what I put.

And looking over the results, I'm not at all surprised to see lots of INs. I expect that you'll see a bias in the data towards INs, due to the nature of the forum.

i'm an INFP. moderately expressed with the INF bit and very expressed with the P bit. forgot to check what that makes me. i think it's the same as last time i took this test though, maybe weighted slightly differently.

edit: oh, i'm an idealist. well there's a surprise :)(/irony)
edit2: except i'm far from a perfectionist and i have little drive.

Your Type is
INFJ
Introverted Intuitive Feeling Judging
Strength of the preferences %
78 50 50 22

The Portrait of the Counselor Idealist (iNFj)

Dunno what an ultra-conservatist would be based on your options (liberal in the sense I desire great changes, conservative in the sense the change would be back to others that people have moved away from)

Done... we had a seminar on this not too long ago. It's quite a helpful characterisation. I'm INTP, btw.
its really quite a good tool for understanding that all people are different in such fundamental ways. i first got interested in all this after a BBC Test The Nation program about personality, and it sorta opened my eyes in that not just were there vast differences in morals, politics, interests, shapes and sizes of people, but also fundamental differences in how people percieve the world and what their driving core motivators are. really facinating stuff :)

I didn't really care for this test. There were several questions where my correct response was neither yes or no, and a couple where I really didn't understand what they were getting at. I did a more thorough test of this nature in the past, with INTP as the result, which fits me much better than the ISTJ this test gave me.

true, all tests can be a pain in the ass, but i provided a couple of other tests at the end of my OP if you want to try some others and see if your score matches up *nods*



personally i 'used to be' an ISFP but retaking the test today i've changed a tiny bit to INFP, but i think that may be because of the way i answered the questions and also in the my situation is different from when i last did a test. these days i'm living at home and generally am with people i'm very comfortable with, and as such am more confident and sure in my intiutions, wheras before i was very uncomfortable where i was at uni and tended to only trust judgement and rationality in dealing with people. i still think i'm a mix between the two, largely because people's personalities are far more complex than just 16 types, and also because i fit the ISFP ("Artist") profile too well to not be it lol

true, all tests can be a pain in the ass, but i provided a couple of other tests at the end of my OP if you want to try some others and see if your score matches up *nods*


Yeah, I just did the test at similarminds.com, which was much better; it gave me the INTP rating I expected (though the N and P were both close to halfway).

I lie horribly on these things, there really is no point in having me do them.

Dunno what an ultra-conservatist would be based on your options (liberal in the sense I desire great changes, conservative in the sense the change would be back to others that people have moved away from)

one of the reasons for doing this survey is i have it in my head that conservatives are uncompassionate, obstensively rational and unfeeling. this is probably largely due to personal experiences and people i've known in my life, but my observations of people on this forum and others tends to fall into this pattern (or my schema, heh). i want to see if there's a modicum of truth to this or whether its me being cynical and bitter against conservatives.
i guess that's my hypothesis. i am quite expecting to be proven wrong, however ;)

Es finito!

I had a hard time picking from that list of political choices. I hate labels. I chose what I did only because that's the quadrant Political Compass put me in, and not necessarily because I think I belong there. :p

that's exactly why i chose those labels - the political compass is a good fallback point ;) :p

that's exactly why i chose those labels - the political compass is a good fallback point ;) :p

Bastard! :mad:

;)

PM, Dude! Wuzzup, yo! :)

This bees me:


The Giver

As an ENFJ, your primary mode of living is focused externally, where you deal with things according to how you feel about them, or how they fit into your personal value system. Your secondary mode is internal, where you take things in primarily via your intuition.

ENFJs are people-focused individuals. They live in the world of people possibilities. More so than any other type, they have excellent people skills. They understand and care about people, and have a special talent for bringing out the best in others. ENFJ's main interest in life is giving love, support, and a good time to other people. They are focused on understanding, supporting, and encouraging others. They make things happen for people, and get their best personal satisfaction from this.

Because ENFJ's people skills are so extraordinary, they have the ability to make people do exactly what they want them to do. They get under people's skins and get the reactions that they are seeking. ENFJ's motives are usually unselfish, but ENFJs who have developed less than ideally have been known to use their power over people to manipulate them.

ENFJ's are so externally focused that it's especially important for them to spend time alone. This can be difficult for some ENFJs, because they have the tendency to be hard on themselves and turn to dark thoughts when alone. Consequently, ENFJs might avoid being alone, and fill their lives with activities involving other people. ENFJs tend to define their life's direction and priorities according to other people's needs, and may not be aware of their own needs. It's natural to their personality type that they will tend to place other people's needs above their own, but they need to stay aware of their own needs so that they don't sacrifice themselves in their drive to help others.

ENFJ's tend to be more reserved about exposing themselves than other extraverted types. Although they may have strongly-felt beliefs, they're likely to refrain from expressing them if doing so would interfere with bringing out the best in others. Because their strongest interest lies in being a catalyst of change in other people, they're likely to interact with others on their own level, in a chameleon-like manner, rather than as individuals.

Which is not to say that the ENFJ does not have opinions. ENFJs have definite values and opinions which they're able to express clearly and succinctly. These beliefs will be expressed as long as they're not too personal. ENFJ is in many ways expressive and open, but is more focused on being responsive and supportive of others. When faced with a conflict between a strongly-held value and serving another person's need, they are highly likely to value the other person's needs.

The ENFJ may feel quite lonely even when surrounded by people. This feeling of aloneness may be exacerbated by the tendency to not reveal their true selves.

People love ENFJs. They are fun to be with, and truly understand and love people. They are typically very straight-forward and honest. Usually ENFJs exude a lot of self-confidence, and have a great amount of ability to do many different things. They are generally bright, full of potential, energetic and fast-paced. They are usually good at anything which captures their interest.

ENFJs like for things to be well-organized, and will work hard at maintaining structure and resolving ambiguity. They have a tendency to be fussy, especially with their home environments.

In the work place, ENFJs do well in positions where they deal with people. They are naturals for the social committee. Their uncanny ability to understand people and say just what needs to be said to make them happy makes them naturals for counseling. They enjoy being the center of attention, and do very well in situations where they can inspire and lead others, such as teaching.

ENFJs do not like dealing with impersonal reasoning. They don't understand or appreciate its merit, and will be unhappy in situations where they're forced to deal with logic and facts without any connection to a human element. Living in the world of people possibilities, they enjoy their plans more than their achievements. They get excited about possibilities for the future, but may become easily bored and restless with the present.

ENFJs have a special gift with people, and are basically happy people when they can use that gift to help others. They get their best satisfaction from serving others. Their genuine interest in Humankind and their exceptional intuitive awareness of people makes them able to draw out even the most reserved individuals.

ENFJs have a strong need for close, intimate relationships, and will put forth a lot of effort in creating and maintaining these relationships. They're very loyal and trustworthy once involved in a relationship.

An ENFJ who has not developed their Feeling side may have difficulty making good decisions, and may rely heavily on other people in decision-making processes. If they have not developed their Intuition, they may not be able to see possibilities, and will judge things too quickly based on established value systems or social rules, without really understanding the current situation. An ENFJ who has not found their place in the world is likely to be extremely sensitive to criticism, and to have the tendency to worry excessively and feel guilty. They are also likely to be very manipulative and controling with others.

In general, ENFJs are charming, warm, gracious, creative and diverse individuals with richly developed insights into what makes other people tick. This special ability to see growth potential in others combined with a genuine drive to help people makes the ENFJ a truly valued individual. As giving and caring as the ENFJ is, they need to remember to value their own needs as well as the needs of others.

-nevermind me, I'm an ENFP (http://www.personalitypage.com/ENFP.html)after all-

ENTP, but that's probably a lie, because I know how to manipulate the test to get the result I want, even if I'm doing it unconsciously.

INTJ or mastermind *insert evil laughter here*

ISTJ. I was particularly interested by part of the analysis of this position here (http://www.typelogic.com/istj.html), because this: "ISTJs often give the initial impression of being aloof and perhaps somewhat cold" is pretty much exactly what my girlfriend said she thought of me when she first met me.

I wouldn't say I'm quite so traditionalist as the apparent typical view of an ISTJ though.

And this is perfectly describing me: "this enables the ISTJ to resolutely accept that "we are all doomed.""

PM, Dude! Wuzzup, yo! :)


This bees me:

gnarly dude! :D

This bees me:

...

In general, ENFJs are charming, warm, gracious, creative and diverse individuals with richly developed insights into what makes other people tick. This special ability to see growth potential in others combined with a genuine drive to help people makes the ENFJ a truly valued individual. As giving and caring as the ENFJ is, they need to remember to value their own needs as well as the needs of others.

indeed :)

ps: i figured you'd be an "E" ;) :p

'Originally Posted by Lunatic Goofballs View Post
Es finito!

I had a hard time picking from that list of political choices. I hate labels. I chose what I did only because that's the quadrant Political Compass put me in, and not necessarily because I think I belong there.'


Hehe I love it when people say that. 'I hate labels', sooooo then we shouldn't call you by your name, nor your nick name, nor your NS name. Nor even talk to you at all, you shouldn't then use words any words at any time, nor should you think, nor have any sort of internal diagluge.

Come on, all Language is labels, you may as well say I hate understanding. Hehe:D

Your Type is
ESFJ
http://www.personalitypage.com/ESFJ.html (http://www.personalitypage.com/ESFJ.html)

ESFJs are people persons - they love people. They are warmly interested in others. They use their Sensing and Judging characteristics to gather specific, detailed information about others, and turn this information into supportive judgments. They want to like people, and have a special skill at bringing out the best in others. They are extremely good at reading others, and understanding their point of view. The ESFJ's strong desire to be liked and for everything to be pleasant makes them highly supportive of others. People like to be around ESFJs, because the ESFJ has a special gift of invariably making people feel good about themselves.

yep, sounds like me.

gnarly dude! :D

indeed :)

ps: i figured you'd be an "E" ;) :p

"Gnarly!" LMAO! :D

Most definitely "E." I love the company of other people ... even some of those on here! [ grin ]

'Originally Posted by Lunatic Goofballs View Post
Es finito!

I had a hard time picking from that list of political choices. I hate labels. I chose what I did only because that's the quadrant Political Compass put me in, and not necessarily because I think I belong there.'


Hehe I love it when people say that. 'I hate labels', sooooo then we shouldn't call you by your name, nor your nick name, nor your NS name. Nor even talk to you at all, you shouldn't then use words any words at any time, nor should you think, nor have any sort of internal diagluge.

Come on, all Language is labels, you may as well say I hate understanding. Hehe:D


I prefer to be called by what I'm doing at the time such as:

"That weird guy covered in mud trying to hug a nun" or "The clown humping my leg while making zany balloon animals". SOrt of a Native American approach to naming. :)

one of the reasons for doing this survey is i have it in my head that conservatives are uncompassionate, obstensively rational and unfeeling.

Which explains why you listed authoritarian as the opposite option of Liberal. OF course, I don't understand Left v. Right, too. :rolleyes: Including a political compass test would assist in completing your task.


Try reading C.S. Lewis, or J.R.R. Tolkien, both conservatives.

Bastard! :mad:

;)
:D

"Gnarly!" LMAO! :D

Most definitely "E." I love the company of other people ... even some of those on here! [ grin ]
:cool:

see, my dad is like that - he really gets off on being with other people and it energises him. me, being with (most) other people drains the shit outta me (not literally cos that would be disgusting, especially in public ;) :p)

Your Type is
ESFJ
Extroverted Sensing Feeling Judging
Strength of the preferences %
78 1 38 44

:eek: another E!

:eek: another E!
of course I am an "E" everyone loves me, I can't hide, everyone would be sad.

Which explains why you listed authoritarian as the opposite option of Liberal. OF course, I don't understand Left v. Right, too. :rolleyes: Including a political compass test would assist in completing your task.



most here have already done the political compass and know where they stand. i think authoritarian vs libertarian, 'big-vs-small government' is a fair qualifier to go alongside a scale of economic freedom, left-vs-right.
either way, it fits in with the PC, and seeing how that's the most accepted (or, at least, used) quantifiable way of scoring political orientation, then i had to fit in with that.

I'm an INTP. Politically, I'm closest to being a centrist. I'm a moderate mastermind - hmm - something wrong here.

bumpy bump bump bump :)

Entj

Im INFJ (Counselor Idealist). The descriptions given, as usual with personality tests, are worryingly spot-on. Though with 90% preference for introvert its a surprise i ever manage to leave the house:eek:

Intp

INTJ, and a right-libertarian.

hmmm intj

Introverted 33 Intuitive 38 Thinking 12 Judging 44

the thinking part seems low to me since i think all the time. i must have overthought some of the answers.

*edit*

i didnt like having to use the word "libertarian" in my political views (left libertarian). libertarian is a political party in the US that i would never associate myself with.

INTP. The internet also tells me I'm a likely candidate for schizoid personality "disorder." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder) I selected "left-wing libertarian" for the survey, although I'm not sure that's a good answer (I like the "right-wing libertarian" option even less).

Im INFJ (Counselor Idealist). The descriptions given, as usual with personality tests, are worryingly spot-on. Though with 90% preference for introvert its a surprise i ever manage to leave the house:eek:
I'm one of those too. It says there's only 2% of us.

I'm a slightly expressed introvert and slightly expressed judging, with moderately extressed intuition and moderately expressed feeling - so not too exrreme in any direction. The discription seemed to fit in most things.

INTP FTW.
(Insert mandatory lowercase text to allow all CAPS visible text here.)

ENTJ. I don't think that's extremely accurate. I like to plan and think about a situation, but I don't have to control everything around me...Whatever. I suppose I don't like feeling like everything is in chaos around me, but who does?

I remember taking a quiz like this before taking the ACTs...

ENTP (an inventor)

well it could be worse but still....

intp. i took a legit myers briggs evaluation at work many years ago, where i was on the fence between intp and intj, but i think i'm more p than j these days.

ISTJ Inspector

Strong introvert and thinker, slight sensing/judging

ESFP

you are:

* very expressed extrovert
* moderately expressed sensing personality
* moderately expressed feeling personality
* slightly expressed perceiving personality

It appears I'm an INTJ, right-wing libertarian

INFP. Go me.

After reading the descriptions, I get the impression that it could not be more correct.

Given that we're on an internet forum, I expect we'll see a disproportionate number of introverts.

INTP; right-wing libertarian

I'm a very strong T; apparently I don't have feelings.

Yay! :) I'm really interested in what the results might be, and want to encourage people to come and do the test!

And it's interesting to see how many people do find the results incredibly accurate - I know when I got mine they knew me better than I did :p Seriously... they helped me understand some of my behaviour and made things click in my head *nods*

Anyhoo, I'll take the test again later and then post my results :)

I'm thinking-If I had spare time to spend with Glitziness, this isnt the sort of pole we'd be focused on.

INFJ, here. Some of the minor details of the description aren't absolutely accurate, but overall it fits me pretty darn well.

Your Type is
ENTP
Extroverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
89 25 25 33

You are:
very expressed extrovert

moderately expressed intuitive personality

moderately expressed thinking personality

moderately expressed perceiving personality

So when do you post the results of the survey, PM?

INFP and left-wing libertarian.

* very expressed introvert
* moderately expressed intuitive personality
* distinctively expressed feeling personality
* very expressed perceiving personality

Slightly EN, moderately TP & I'm a lefty-libertarian.

ENFJ.

Left-liberal.

You are: very expressed extrovert, moderately expressed intuitive personality, moderately expressed feeling personality and slightly expressed judging personality

Ta-da!

http://typelogic.com/enfj.html
http://keirsey.com/personality/nfej.html

ESFJ.

And filled out your form.

:)

Yay for INTPs!

I'm thinking-If I had spare time to spend with Glitziness, this isnt the sort of pole we'd be focused on.
You have to take breaks some time.... :P



and
Glitziness's results are coming to a thread near you soon...!

Very expressed I and N, moderately expressed F, and I can't remember if I'm a J or P, but I was moderately one way or the other.

INTP.

Though I read both the INTP and the ENTP descriptions, and both fit me fairly well.

Yay for INTPs!

Yay!

:fluffle:

You have to take breaks some time.... :P



and
Glitziness's results are coming to a thread near you soon...!


I suppose so.

You know its hard for me to pass up a chance for rude inuendo. :D

ENTJ.

For some reason, I see I outnumbering E on here...

INFJ... usually INFP, and that suits me more, and I only got J by a few points so I'm gonna go with INFP cos I get that more consistently and I know it's accurate *nods*

All of it is pretty much spot on, but the bolded bits are especially true and part of what makes me me!

As an INFP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things according to how you feel about them, or how they fit into your personal value system. Your secondary mode is external, where you take things in primarily via your intuition.

INFPs, more than other iNtuitive Feeling types, are focused on making the world a better place for people. Their primary goal is to find out their meaning in life. What is their purpose? How can they best serve humanity in their lives? They are idealists and perfectionists, who drive themselves hard in their quest for achieving the goals they have identified for themselves

INFPs are highly intuitive about people. They rely heavily on their intuitions to guide them, and use their discoveries to constantly search for value in life. They are on a continuous mission to find the truth and meaning underlying things. Every encounter and every piece of knowledge gained gets sifted through the INFP's value system, and is evaluated to see if it has any potential to help the INFP define or refine their own path in life. The goal at the end of the path is always the same - the INFP is driven to help people and make the world a better place.

Generally thoughtful and considerate, INFPs are good listeners and put people at ease. Although they may be reserved in expressing emotion, they have a very deep well of caring and are genuinely interested in understanding people. This sincerity is sensed by others, making the INFP a valued friend and confidante. An INFP can be quite warm with people he or she knows well.

INFPs do not like conflict, and go to great lengths to avoid it. If they must face it, they will always approach it from the perspective of their feelings. In conflict situations, INFPs place little importance on who is right and who is wrong. They focus on the way that the conflict makes them feel, and indeed don't really care whether or not they're right. [This is the bit that really helped me figure out what the hell had been going on with some of my friendships, heh] They don't want to feel badly. This trait sometimes makes them appear irrational and illogical in conflict situations. On the other hand, INFPs make very good mediators, and are typically good at solving other people's conflicts, because they intuitively understand people's perspectives and feelings, and genuinely want to help them.

INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause. When an INFP has adopted a project or job which they're interested in, it usually becomes a "cause" for them. Although they are not detail-oriented individuals, they will cover every possible detail with determination and vigor when working for their "cause".

When it comes to the mundane details of life maintenance, INFPs are typically completely unaware of such things. They might go for long periods without noticing a stain on the carpet, but carefully and meticulously brush a speck of dust off of their project booklet. [Hehe, Huw will know about my total lack of observantness.... :p]

INFPs do not like to deal with hard facts and logic. Their focus on their feelings and the Human Condition makes it difficult for them to deal with impersonal judgment. They don't understand or believe in the validity of impersonal judgment, which makes them naturally rather ineffective at using it. Most INFPs will avoid impersonal analysis, although some have developed this ability and are able to be quite logical. Under stress, it's not uncommon for INFPs to mis-use hard logic in the heat of anger, throwing out fact after (often inaccurate) fact in an emotional outburst.

INFPs have very high standards and are perfectionists. Consequently, they are usually hard on themselves, and don't give themselves enough credit. INFPs may have problems working on a project in a group, because their standards are likely to be higher than other members' of the group. In group situations, they may have a "control" problem. The INFP needs to work on balancing their high ideals with the requirements of every day living. Without resolving this conflict, they will never be happy with themselves, and they may become confused and paralyzed about what to do with their lives.

INFPs are usually talented writers. They may be awkard and uncomfortable with expressing themselves verbally, but have a wonderful ability to define and express what they're feeling on paper. INFPs also appear frequently in social service professions, such as counselling or teaching. They are at their best in situations where they're working towards the public good, and in which they don't need to use hard logic.

INFPs who function in their well-developed sides can accomplish great and wonderful things, which they will rarely give themselves credit for. Some of the great, humanistic catalysts in the world have been INFPs.

INFPs present a calm, pleasant face to the world. They appear to be tranquil and peaceful to others, with simple desires. In fact, the INFP internally feels his or her life intensely. In the relationship arena, this causes them to have a very deep capacity for love and caring which is not frequently found with such intensity in the other types. The INFP does not devote their intense feelings towards just anyone, and are relatively reserved about expressing their inner-most feelings. They reserve their deepest love and caring for a select few who are closest to them. INFPs are generally laid-back, supportive and nurturing in their close relationships. With Introverted Feeling dominating their personality, they're very sensitive and in-tune with people's feelings, and feel genuine concern and caring for others. Slow to trust others and cautious in the beginning of a relationship, an INFP will be fiercely loyal once they are committed. With their strong inner core of values, they are intense individuals who value depth and authenticity in their relationships, and hold those who understand and accept the INFP's perspectives in especially high regard. INFPs are usually adaptable and congenial, unless one of their ruling principles has been violated, in which case they stop adapting and become staunch defenders of their values. They will be uncharacteristically harsh and rigid in such a situation.

Most INFPs will exhibit the following strengths with regards to relationship issues:
Warmly concerned and caring towards others
Sensitive and perceptive about what others are feeling
Loyal and committed - they want lifelong relationships
Deep capacity for love and caring
Driven to meet other's needs
Strive for "win-win" situations
Nurturing, supportive and encouraging
Likely to recognize and appreciate other's need for space
Able to express themselves well
Flexible and diverse

Most INFPs will exhibit the following weaknesses with regards to relationship issues:
May tend to be shy and reserved
Don't like to have their "space" invaded
Extreme dislike of conflict
Extreme dislike of criticism
Strong need to receive praise and positive affirmation
May react very emotionally to stressful situations
Have difficulty leaving a bad relationship
Have difficulty scolding or punishing others
Tend to be reserved about expressing their feelings
Perfectionistic tendancies may cause them to not give themselves enough credit
Tendency to blame themselves for problems, and hold everything on their own shoulders [Heh, yup :p]

INFPs feels tremendous loyalty and commitment to their relationships. With the Feeling preference dominating their personality, harmony and warm feelings are central to the INFP's being. They feel a need to be in a committed, loving relationship. If they are not involved in such a relationship, the INFP will be either actively searching for one, or creating one in their own minds.

INFPs tendency to be idealistic and romantically-minded may cause them to fantasize frequently about a "more perfect" relationship or situation. They may also romanticize their mates into having qualities which they do not actually possess. [Have done this in the past - now I have someone who truly is wonderful and fantastic for me :)] Most INFPs have a problem with reconciling their highly idealistic and romantic views of life with the reality of their own lives, and so they are constantly somewhat unsettled with themselves and with their close personal relationships. However, the INFP's deeply-felt, sincere love for their mates and their intense dislike of conflict keeps the INFP loyal to their relationships, in spite of their troubles achieving peace of mind.

Unlike other types who tend to hold their mates up on a pedastal, the INFP's tendency to do so does not really turn into a negative thing in the relationship. INFPs hold tightly to their ideals, and work hard at constantly seeing their mates up on that pedastal. The frequent INFP result is a strongly affirming, proud and affectionate attitude towards their mates which stands the test of time.

INFPs are not naturally interested in administrative matters such as bill-paying and house-cleaning, but they can be very good at performing these tasks when they must. They can be really good money managers when they apply themselves.

Sexually, the INFP is likely to be initially slow to open up to their mates. Once their trust has been earned, the INFP will view sexual intimacy as an opportunity for expressing their deep-seated love and affection [and a hell of a lot of fun ;)]. More than the actual sexual act, they will value giving and receiving love and sweet words. With their tendency to enjoy serving others, they may value their mates satisfaction above their own.

One real problem area for the INFP is their intensive dislike of conflict and criticism. The INFP is quick to find a personal angle in any critical comment, whether or not anything personal was intended. They will tend to take any sort of criticism as a personal attack on their character, and will usually become irrational and emotional in such situations. This can be a real problem for INFPs who are involved with persons who have Thinking and Judging preferences. "TJ"s relate to others with a objective, decisive attitude that frequently shows an opinion on the topic of conversation. If the opinion is negative, the TJ's attitude may be threatening to the INFP, who will tend to respond emotionally to the negativity and be vaguely but emphatically convinced that the negativity is somehow the INFP's fault.
[All this is a trait which I think I do have in my character, but have pretty under control due to it screwing me up before :p]

For INFPs with extremely dominant Feeling preferences who have not developed their Intuitive sides sufficiently to gather good data for their decision making processes, their dislike of conflict and criticism can foretell doom and gloom for intimate relationships. These INFPs will react with extreme emotional distress to conflict situations, and will not know what to do about it. Since they will have no basis for determining what action to take, they will do whatever they can to get rid of the conflict - which frequently means lashing out irrationally at others, or using guilt manipulation to get their mates to give them the positive support that they crave. This kind of behavior does not bode well for healthy, long-term relationships. Individuals who recognize this tendency in themselves should work on their ability to take criticism objectively rather than personally. They should also try to remember that conflict situations are not always their fault, and they're definitely not the end of the world. Conflict is a fact of life, and facing it and addressing it immediately avoids having to deal with it in the future, after it has become a much larger problem.

INFPs are very aware of their own space, and the space of others. They value their personal space, and the freedom to do their own thing. They will cherish the mate who sees the INFP for who they are, and respects their unique style and perspectives. The INFP is not likely to be overly jealous or possessive, and is likely to respect their mate's privacy and independence. In fact, the INFP is likely to not only respect their mate's perspectives and goals, but to support them with loyal firmness.

In general, INFPs are warmly affirming and loving partners who make the health of their relationships central in their lives. Although cautious in the beginning, they become firmly loyal to their committed relationships, which are likely to last a lifetime. They take their relationships very seriously, and will put forth a great deal of effort into making them work.

INFPs are warm and caring individuals who highly value authenticity and depth in their personal relationships. They are usually quite perceptive about other people's feelings and motives, and are consequently able to get along with all sorts of different people. However, the INFP will keep their true selves reserved from others except for a select few, with whom they will form close and lasting friendships. With their high ideals, they are likely to be drawn to other iNtuitive Feelers for their closer friendships.

With their strong need for harmony and dislike of conflict, INFPs may feel threatened by people with strong Judging and Thinking preferences. Although they're likely to be able to work well professionally with such individuals, they may have difficulty accepting or appreciating them on a personal level. They generally feel a kinship and affinity with other Feeling types.

INFPs will be valued by their confidantes as genuine, altruistic, deep, caring, original individuals.

I suppose so.

You know its hard for me to pass up a chance for rude inuendo. :D

Where would we be without you? :D

For some reason, I see I outnumbering E on here...
That's because "interweb" begins with I, and hence people are more introverted here, and prefer to be chatting here rather than in the real world, whereas "environment" (i.e. the outside world) begins with an "e" for extrovert, and not as many peoople on internet forums are particularly extroverted.

Or something.

Where would we be without you? :D

safe...

With different moods I switch between an INFP and an INFJ, sometimes the F will change. Today was apparently an INFP day. But I've never read a description of my personality that fits that well.

ISTJ

I put right libertarian, but I'm really center libertarian (center on economic issues, liberal on social ones).

ENTP

Right-Libertarian

Noone is my exact opposite... though Stalin, Smunkee, Ollieland and someone else whose name was long came pretty close *nods*

Though it it's interesting how, reading their descriptions, we still shared characteristics.... I think the mix of the different characteristics and how they work together is the vital thing *nods*

ENTJ "fieldmarshall"

INFJ... usually INFP, and that suits me more, and I only got J by a few points so I'm gonna go with INFP cos I get that more consistently and I know it's accurate *nods*

Yay, another INFP :)

ISTP and proud of it :D

INFJ

weaker on the F that the others though

Where is that political spectrum test? I remember taking it once, but I don't remember my score. It would be interesting to compare it (I guess that's what this thread is for though).

Oh, and:
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
89 50 75 56

INTJ

Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
89 88 88 33

You are:

* very expressed introvert
* very expressed intuitive personality
* very expressed thinking personality
* moderately expressed judging personality

All true.

According to this, I fit under Rationals, and specifically Mastermind. Yay.

And I am (painfully obvious it is) a right-libertarian.

Noone is my exact opposite... though Stalin, Smunkee, Ollieland and someone else whose name was long came pretty close *nods*
Does this mean I'm not PM's type? :( Damn. ;) :p

ISFP

slightly expressed introvert

slightly expressed sensing personality

moderately expressed feeling personality

distinctively expressed perceiving personality

Noone is my exact opposite... though Stalin, Smunkee, Ollieland and someone else whose name was long came pretty close *nods*
I think it's funny that we are so different but we get along so well, it speaks highly of you *nods*

INTP

Left Libertarian

According to this test I'm
ISTJ
Introverted Sensing with auxiliary extraverted Thinking

However, according to a version of the Myer-Briggs(sp) I took as part of a class a year or so ago I'm
INTJ
Introverted iNtuition with auxiliary extraverted Thinking

edit: I put the second one in the survey since I figure that is probablly more reliable being a real version instead of an online one. Of course at the time I didn't think that described me that well, still not sure it does, but since I feel the same about these new results I'll go with it.

edit2:I took the test again because I wasn't sure of how objective I was being about myself the last time and this time I got Your Type is
ISTP
Introverted Sensing Thinking Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
78 25 25 33
It looks like the only constants are the I and the T, the S and the J both appear in two results and the N and P in only one, so maybe the ISTJ is more accurate than the other.

Edit3:I took the first of the alternative tests, and this time got Your type is: INTP
Introverted (I) 76% Extroverted (E) 24%
Intuitive (N) 56.41% Sensing (S) 43.59%
Thinking (T) 52.78% Feeling (F) 47.22%
Perceiving (P) 61.76% Judging (J) 38.24%
so the IT seems to be staying constent, but I now have another of both N and P, hmm maybe I'll take the other alternate test and see what that comes up with.

Edit4: nevermind you have to register info for that test, so I'll look at what I have.

Edit5:Took the last test again this time I got Your type is: INFP
Introverted (I) 81.82% Extroverted (E) 18.18%
Intuitive (N) 58.33% Sensing (S) 41.67%
Feeling (F) 54.55% Thinking (T) 45.45%
Perceiving (P) 62.86% Judging (J) 37.14%
So, for the first time I lost the T, however I now have a set of five Is, four Ts, three Ns and Ps, and two Ss and Js. So the most reasonable conclusion seems to be INTP.

Apparently I've changed a bit since I last took this test - I was wrong.

INTJ

100 Introverted
38 Intuitive
100 Thinking
22 Judging

what do you want this for?

INFP. kindergarden teacher or future best selling author. or something.

I just took the test and it gave me INFJ - first time I've gotten that result. I'm pretty strongly INFP, occasionally I've scored as an INTP, and now an INFJ - weird. I'm an INFP, generally. they said INFJs tend to be psychic. that's kind of cool...haha

I N T J

ENTP

Interesting to see how many 'I's there are.. I guess thats the internet for you.

I have done this a few times before and always got ENTP so I guess thats me....

ISTJ is me

EIFP

The Champion Idealist. Meh.
Though that whole "silly switch" idea associated with that personality is one of the most accurate assessments of the way I act that I've ever heard.

Left Libertarian


What is your definition of "left libertarian?" I'm not used to see people who quote von Mises describe themselves as "left"-anything.

Yay for INTPs!

I'd celebrate with my fellow INTPs, but that would require social interaction, and well...

**closes blinds**







:D

INTJ for the win!

What is your definition of "left libertarian?" I'm not used to see people who quote von Mises describe themselves as "left"-anything.

I consider the free market, and specifically the means-ends relationship mentioned by the quote in my signature, to be the only true method for gaining some sort of egalitarian, natural society. Therefore I consider myself to be a progressive, both socially and economically.

I also consider the abdication (and general abhorrence) of the "leftist" position by Misean/Rothbardian libertarians to be the central failure of the philosophy.

I consider the free market, and specifically the means-ends relationship mentioned by the quote in my signature, to be the only true method for gaining some sort of egalitarian, natural society. Therefore I consider myself to be a progressive, both socially and economically.


I suppose it all depends on the definition of "free market" being invoked; my own continued distancing from the libertarian "right" is the result of the realization that most invoking the name of the "free market" haven't got your (or my) definition in mind.


I also consider the abdication (and general abhorrence) of the "leftist" position by Misean/Rothbardian libertarians to be the central failure of the philosophy.

The general "I'd rather have Republicans than higher taxes" sort of attitude infesting libertarian circles recently is especially sickening. I simply cannot fathom how war, disregard for general human rights and liberties, or the neoconservative "philosophy" can possibly qualify as the "lesser evil."

My attempts to ascertain the logic of the reasoning typically end up with some kind of accusation of my being one of those damn leftists. I am voting Green for two offices next week ("none of the above" for all the rest); maybe its true then.

I've gotten both INTJ and INTP on mock Meyers-Brigg tests, though INTJ seems more dominant. Apparently INTJ's are good for being dictators. :)

Here's a better test, as it has more in-depth questions than the topic link.

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=16567335035599898597

I got INTJ on both tests. I always get INTJ on these tests, and to be honest, they're quite accurate. As for the survey itself, I put myself down as a "Left-Wing Libertarian", because I didn't want anybody to get the idea that I'm bigger on free economic practices than I am on civil liberties.

I've gotten both INTJ and INTP on mock Meyers-Brigg tests, though INTJ seems more dominant. Apparently INTJ's are good for being dictators. :)

Dictate this! *points at the crotch of a 75 year old man*

Dictate this! *points at the crotch of a 75 year old man*

Silly little boy. *shakes head*

Your Type is
ESTP
Extroverted Sensing Thinking Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
44 1 38 44

ISTP

The Crafter Artisans are not only concrete in speech and utilitarian in getting things done, they are also directive and attentive in their social roles. Though directive like their Promoter counterparts, their directiveness is leavened by a good deal of attentiveness and seclusiveness. They do not approach strangers readily, but once in contact do not hesitate to tell them what to do. And they can be quite forceful in this, such that others tend to do their bidding.

Like the other Artisans, Crafters live a life of artful action, but their particular nature is most easily seen in their mastery of tools of any and all kinds, from microscopic drill to supersonic jet, from potter's wheel to grand piano, from a camera to a clarinet. Sometimes Crafters will use their body as a tool. A tool is any implement that extends or varies our human powers -- vehicles, musical instruments, cutting devices, and weapons are just four of the many categories of the tools that surround us. Most of us use tools in some capacity, of course, but Crafters (only ten per cent of the general population) are the true virtuosos of tool work, with a natural ability to command tools, to bend them to their wishes, and to become adept at all the crafts requiring tool skills. Even from an early age Crafters are drawn to tools as to a magnet; tools fall into their hands demanding use, and they must manipulate them. Indeed, if a given tool, whether scalpel or earthmover, is operated with a precision that defies belief, that operator is likely an Crafter.

ENTJ

very interested in whatever results you come up with.

istj

INTP

Left Libertarian
After seeing your explanation, I am curious as to why you used left-libertarian to describe your position -- you seem right-libertarian to me in the same way that I am. Progressive or not, that is the term that applies. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#Anti-corporate_left-libertarianism) is about the only idea of left-libertarianism I agree with. Anti-corporatism.

I just did it. INTP

ISTP

I put right-libertarian after a quick look in wiki, seems accurate enough *out of the choices offered* but I'm not trying to catch up on 4 years of advanced poli-sci to make sure of it...

Basically I'm economically right and socially center.

Enfj.

Enfj.

INTJ
Mastermind
Rational
Centrist (though I'm not certain I'm happy with the choices on that form; on further thought, I might have picked left-liberal, but that doesn't quite do it, either, as I'm fiscally conservative (read: cheap))

Anyhow, it seems there are quite a few Masterminds on this forum. It's starting to look like a Masterminds convention. I'm wondering if it's all that cool a thing to be. Or maybe these tests are crap.

I notice all these Masterminds can't seem to get together and organize The Takeover. Is that the key to saving civilization? Let all the Masterminds get into arguing with each other and never hear from any of them again?

INFJ

Very, very, very weak J. Everything else quite strong.

Your Type is ISTJ

You are:
very expressed introvert

slightly expressed sensing personality

moderately expressed thinking personality

moderately expressed judging personality

Your Type is
ENTP
Extroverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving

Strength of the preferences %
11 62 38 22

Qualitative analysis of your type formula

You are:

* slightly expressed extrovert
* distinctively expressed intuitive personality
* moderately expressed thinking personality
* slightly expressed perceiving personality

There you go. :)

I'm a ICBADTRN.
Maybe later.:)

I'm INTP, but not extremely so - i'm strongly IN, but borderline with the other two.

So i'm inbetween a "thinker" and a "protector".

Hooray for INTP. I'm also strongly IN and borderline with the other two.

ISTJ, as ever. I'm the inspector alright. The Female Body Inspector:D

Your Type is:

INTJ (Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging)

I find this interesting, because in the past I have repeatedly scored as an INTP, never getting anything else prior to now.

Apparently, I am an ENTJ - The Executive. o.0 Not what I was expecting!

preliminary results show that 76% of those responding so far are MBTI Introverted, and 24% are Extroverted.

INTJ is the most popular MBTI with 33% of responses all to itself. next is INTP followed by ISTJ.


i've got to go out now, but charts and the actual political crossanalysis to follow :)

After seeing your explanation, I am curious as to why you used left-libertarian to describe your position -- you seem right-libertarian to me in the same way that I am. Progressive or not, that is the term that applies. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism#Anti-corporate_left-libertarianism) is about the only idea of left-libertarianism I agree with. Anti-corporatism.

I particularly agree with Rothbard in the reconciliation of libertarian philosophy of the new left, particularly mutualists and syndicalists, as I see these types of economic and industrial associations (as well as a decentralization of the corporation) as necessary structures to bring about and maintain as free a market as possible.

I tend to think that, with the elimination of regulation, big business will be largely be destroyed, with a much equal distribution of wealth, more egalitarian political structures, and most importantly, more responsible and responsive money lenders.

Ironically, I consider myself to be very progressive (to the point that I am far more radically liberal than all but the most left anarchists), yet I am very supportive of the corporate model of ownership. It can be entirely natural (limited liability of torts, and the rights of personhood aside), and more importantly, can greatly open up avenues to ownership. There is no other form of ownership that is so accessible by those with little established credit, due to its contractual limited liability.

However, most are like you and would cast me into the "right libertarian" role, and I simply will not accept that, because I feel it is a mischaracterisation of my viewpoint, since I almost always disagree with rightist sentiment.

I particularly agree with Rothbard in the reconciliation of libertarian philosophy of the new left, particularly mutualists and syndicalists, as I see these types of economic and industrial associations (as well as a decentralization of the corporation) as necessary structures to bring about and maintain as free a market as possible.
I am not too sympathetic towards syndicalism (you replace one dictatorship with another, and furthermore, it acts as if firms were non-dynamic, which is wrong), but neither am I inimical to alternative business structures and such. Mutualism is interesting, albeit it relies on the LTV, which no longer is credible. I am wondering if it could rely equally succesfully on the STV.

I tend to think that, with the elimination of regulation, big business will be largely be destroyed, with a much equal distribution of wealth, more egalitarian political structures, and most importantly, more responsible and responsive money lenders.
I agree.

However, most are like you and would cast me into the "right libertarian" role, and I simply will not accept that, because I feel it is a mischaracterisation of my viewpoint, since I almost always disagree with rightist sentiment.
I find that odd - the market economics you support are undoubtedly right-wing economics, in that ownership of the means of production remains private and not collective. Now what typically passes for right-wing, and what is right-wing economics, are two different things. I personally have no problem with things such as inequality etc. -- rather, I have issue with current market structures that would cause ultraminimal or anarchist markets to fail (such as excessive monopolisation of markets). If greater equality follows from this, I will welcome it, but it is not my primary aim.

To put it another way, I am interested in the most self-sustainable forms of free-market available.

Mutualism is interesting, albeit it relies on the LTV, which no longer is credible. I am wondering if it could rely equally succesfully on the STV.


"Mutualists, like other classical anarchists, originally considered themselves libertarian socialists. That is, they believed in the labor theory of value, and they believed that the laborer was entitled to the full product of his labor.

Some mutualists have abandoned the labor theory of value, and prefer to avoid the term "socialist." But they still retain some cultural attitudes, for the most part, that set them off from the libertarian right. Most of them view mutualism as an alternative to capitalism, and believe that capitalism as it exists is a statist system with exploitative features."
-- http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html

I'm most fascinated by the framing of cooperative/collective/socialist modes of organization, but completely within the context of market economics. "LTV vs. STV" is, to me, arcane irrelevancy for economists to bicker about. What I like best about mutualism is its ability to grab the left-wing and right-wing each by an ear and scream: "YOU'RE BOTH FULL OF IT!" The peoples of Dissonant Cognition appreciate that sort of thing. :D

I've always felt this way myself, about the left and the right, but for years I really didn't know why; then this Proudhon guy handed me a red pill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Property%3F).

"Communism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is the
exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is the
exploitation of the strong by the weak. In property, inequality
of conditions is the result of force, under whatever name it be
disguised: physical and mental force; force of events, chance,
FORTUNE; force of accumulated property, &c. In communism,
inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a level with
excellence. This damaging equation is repellent to the
conscience, and causes merit to complain..."
-- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?
( http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext95/pprty10.txt )

Finally, someone who makes sense.

I'm most fascinated by the framing of cooperative/collective/socialist modes of organization, but completely within the context of market economics. "LTV vs. STV" is, to me, arcane irrelevancy for economists to bicker about. What I like best about mutualism is its ability to grab the left-wing and right-wing each by an ear and scream: "YOU'RE BOTH FULL OF IT!" :D

The peoples of Dissonant Cognition appreciate these sorts of things. :D
Well, I suppose you could consider me one of these:

Many groups today share mutualist ideas, without embracing the full libertarian socialist heritage of classical anarchism. We welcome cooperation with all of them, where we share common goals, to reduce exploitation and centralization and increase freedom.

Right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, while arguably not part of the genuine historical tradition of anarchism, sometimes share mutualist ideas. Many of the more intellectually honest members of the libertarian right acknowledge the largely exploitative nature of the present capitalist system, and share the mutualist belief that its exploitative nature is the result of state intervention on behalf of capital and other privileged groups. We welcome cooperation with them also, where we have areas of agreement.

I'll make a distinction though on one thing: I am not socially liberal -- I do, however, believe in the principle of non-interference. Therefore, if one wants to raise their children as Christians, I say fine, do so. Just do not interfere with the lives of others. If someone is homosexual, again fine (being one it'd be silly for me to say otherwise) -- just do not force it down others' throats.

I am not too sympathetic towards syndicalism (you replace one dictatorship with another, and furthermore, it acts as if firms were non-dynamic, which is wrong), but neither am I inimical to alternative business structures and such. Mutualism is interesting, albeit it relies on the LTV, which no longer is credible. I am wondering if it could rely equally succesfully on the STV.

I support syndicalism not so much as a system of government, but as a method for running the industrial complex. I largely feel that an uncoddled populace will resort to a mutualistic syndicalism in running the economy. I do believe that they will stick to personal property, but in order to do that, I think they will resort to a more "common" form of ownership. In a sense, it would be an economy of corporations and unions, with little separating the two.

The LTV is not really a problem with mutualism, in my opinion. While I don't agree with DC that it is irrelevant, after reading some of Carson's work (and George Reisman's critique), it seems that contribution of cost to price under the STV is sufficient to support a mutualistic economy. For nearly all goods, especially those that are necessary for a comfortable life, natural equilibrium will actually be in tune with the cost principle.

I find that odd - the market economics you support are undoubtedly right-wing economics, in that ownership of the means of production remains private and not collective. Now what typically passes for right-wing, and what is right-wing economics, are two different things.

I understand that they are conventionally referred to as "right-wing economics", I just refuse to accept the label. I am radically "left-wing" and intensely anti-conservative in all of my thought, so why should I think of myself as being right-wing?

I personally have no problem with things such as inequality etc. -- rather, I have issue with current market structures that would cause ultraminimal or anarchist markets to fail (such as excessive monopolisation of markets). If greater equality follows from this, I will welcome it, but it is not my primary aim.

To put it another way, I am interested in the most self-sustainable forms of free-market available.

I am obsessed with equality of process, but largely ambivelant to equality of results (although inequality of results is symptomatic of a faulty process, given the general equality in natural faculties in people). I take issue with current structures that prohibit the individual from achieving what they should naturally achieve, given their own wishes, faculties, and desires.

To put it another way, I am interested in the most self-sustainable forms of humans available.

preliminary results show that 76% of those responding so far are MBTI Introverted, and 24% are Extroverted.

INTJ is the most popular MBTI with 33% of responses all to itself. next is INTP followed by ISTJ.


i've got to go out now, but charts and the actual political crossanalysis to follow :)

I suspected as much. INTJs are ~3% of the general population, so the 33% represented here indicates that games like Nationstates attract this personality type, which makes sense, since we love to plan things.

If someone is homosexual, again fine (being one it'd be silly for me to say otherwise) -- just do not force it down others' throats.

Ugh.

I got ISFP (http://typelogic.com/isfp.html)
Introverted 67%
Sensing 1%
Feeling 12%
Perceiving 11%
Strength of the preferences %

Libertarian - Right .. and I filled out your form.

I use to get ISTJ (http://typelogic.com/istj.html) when I took similar questionnaires and I feel it still fits me better .. /shrug.
Been a long time since I took one.. but obviously some of my answers have changed, not sure which tho. Interesting.

Edit: after reading Potrait of an ISFP (http://www.personalitypage.com/ISFP.html) I have to say it fits me pretty good.

I support syndicalism not so much as a system of government, but as a method for running the industrial complex. I largely feel that an uncoddled populace will resort to a mutualistic syndicalism in running the economy. I do believe that they will stick to personal property, but in order to do that, I think they will resort to a more "common" form of ownership. In a sense, it would be an economy of corporations and unions, with little separating the two.
I wonder, what is your opinion on Agorism? It's a so-called "evolution" of anarcho-capitalism in that it does not see public property as wrong as a matter of principle, even though it is predominantly a private-property system.

By what I infer from what you have said, I think you're assuming a tabula rasa, that is a complete redistribution of property, and to proceed from there on. Rothbard specified that this would be necessary, for certain property to change hands. What aspects of Rothbard are you interested in? He had no problem with non-usage ownership of land.

My problem with syndicalism by the way is that it is a static form of corporate organization, whereas free-markets are inherently dynamic.

The LTV is not really a problem with mutualism, in my opinion. While I don't agree with DC that it is irrelevant, after reading some of Carson's work (and George Reisman's critique), it seems that contribution of cost to price under the STV is sufficient to support a mutualistic economy. For nearly all goods, especially those that are necessary for a comfortable life, natural equilibrium will actually be in tune with the cost principle.
Of course it isn't irrelevant -- after all, it determines what property will be. What about profits and non-labour derived income (e.g. rent)? Do you oppose these?

I understand that they are conventionally referred to as "right-wing economics", I just refuse to accept the label. I am radically "left-wing" and intensely anti-conservative in all of my thought, so why should I think of myself as being right-wing?
I've never considered the word right-wing to mean conservative really, not anymore anyway -- to me it merely denotes private ownership-based economies. Although according to wiki, Agorism is left-libertarian despite being strictly propertarian.

I am obsessed with equality of process, but largely ambivelant to equality of results (although inequality of results is symptomatic of a faulty process, given the general equality in natural faculties in people). I take issue with current structures that prohibit the individual from achieving what they should naturally achieve, given their own wishes, faculties, and desires.
I fail to see how most people are equal in their natural faculties -- if anything, this is where they differ most. Intelligent people, unhindered by obstacles, will still make the most of their natural endowments.

To put it another way, I am interested in the most self-sustainable forms of humans available.
Self-sustainable humans would be the corollary of a self-sustainable free-market.

Ugh.
It's simply an extension of the non-agression principle; I, as a free individual, do not want religious fanatics coercing me due to their beliefs -- I may even choose not to associate with them. Likewise, if they prefer disassociation with me or any homosexual, I consider it their right, to be fair. People may do as they please so long as they harm none.

I sent you a TG by the way.

ISTJ... Kinda :p

Introverted 100
Sensing 1
Thinking 1
Judging 78

I've probably not helped your survey. I got bored halfway thorugh and started spending abotu second to think about my answer to each question. I got INFP though. Very introverted though. But I can deal with people when I have, I just don't often care to.

I am definately not a planner though.

And I didn't like having to make a polar choice on many of those questions.

using Europa Maxima's sig to find a compass....
http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php


Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a theist, small-government, kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of borderline social liberal. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Liberalism area.
(apparently not a political compass test)


Thing is, it tested my Theistic view wrong; Religious should not influence political debate, but it should influence the individual's life.

using Europa Maxima's sig to find a compass....
http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php


Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a theist, small-government, kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of borderline social liberal. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Liberalism area.
(apparently not a political compass test)


Thing is, it tested my Theistic view wrong; Religious should not influence political debate, but it should influence the individual's life.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Istj

Yeah, liked that test too-

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a materialist, internationalist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite Marxist.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of Marxist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Communism area.

Big surprise.

thanks!

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36

Again, too much combination of church & state for my taste, but that might just be my peccadillo.

For the PF, I was moderate social (56), theist (29), small government (63), moderate national (52), moderate protection (50), moderate absolutionist (58), moderate control (47), Non-Marxist (62)

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a socially-orientated, materialist, small-government, internationalist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite Marxist.

If anyone cares, there you go.

Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
100 62 100 22

For comparison my political compass score is
Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

(Neo-Liberal/Libertarian)

Things that are true:
To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know.
INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.
This happens in part because many INTJs do not readily grasp the social rituals; for instance, they tend to have little patience and less understanding of such things as small talk and flirtation (which most types consider half the fun of a relationship). To complicate matters, INTJs are usually extremely private people, and can often be naturally impassive as well, which makes them easy to misread and misunderstand. Perhaps the most fundamental problem, however, is that INTJs really want people to make sense.
In their drive for efficient action, Masterminds are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. Masterminds are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the Masterminds. On the other hand, Masterminds can be quite ruthless in implementing effective ideas, seldom counting personal cost in terms of time and energy.

Things that are not quite true:
Typical INTJ career choices are in the sciences and engineering, but they can be found wherever a combination of intellect and incisiveness are required (e.g., law, some areas of academia). INTJs can rise to management positions when they are willing to invest time in marketing their abilities as well as enhancing them, and (whether for the sake of ambition or the desire for privacy) many also find it useful to learn to simulate some degree of surface conformism in order to mask their inherent unconventionality.
While they are capable of caring deeply for others (usually a select few), and are willing to spend a great deal of time and effort on a relationship,

Thing is, it tested my Theistic view wrong; Religious should not influence political debate, but it should influence the individual's life.

I understand what you mean, however, I would point out that since one of the goals of a (democratic) political system is to aggregate and articulate the individual's interests, ideas, and values, if an individual's life is informed by religious values, it is only inevitable that the collective "political debate" will be similarly informed.

While I don't agree with DC that it is irrelevant,

It is "irrevelant" to the extent that the average person probably isn't taking the "LTV vs. STV" into account when making economic decisions, and that debate certainly isn't the only issue to consider anyway (as stated earlier, many mutualists/socialists/etc reject the LTV). And besides that, I'm a student of political science not economics, so my own focus is more on the political/social ramifications of a particular social organization, more than the economic question about where exactly "value" is derived; I could care less as the political and social organizations aren't really dependent on an answer to that question anyway.

However, most are like you and would cast me into the "right libertarian" role, and I simply will not accept that, because I feel it is a mischaracterisation of my viewpoint, since I almost always disagree with rightist sentiment.

You are most definitely a left-wing libertarian. I tend to see both you and DC in that way.

Fundamentally it is a class issue, and there you seem basically to stand with us leftists, though we may differ in method and in the precise nature of an ideal society.

Although according to wiki, Agorism is left-libertarian despite being strictly propertarian.


It is considered to be of the "left" because it advocates market interactions and property not necessarily within a capitalist framework. There is a tendency for capitalists to try to make an exclusive claim to markets and property, thus necessarily making markets and property "right" in nature. This claim, however, is entirely absurd and ignores a whole slew of economic ideologies (agorism, of course, as well as mutualism).

Of course, "left" simply denotes standing against an establishment, while "right" denotes defense of the establishment. Today, capitalism (or at least something claiming to be "capitalist") is the establishment. Back in the day, however, capitalism was the stuff of leftist economics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics#Historical_origin_of_the_terms)

It is considered to be of the "left" because it advocates market interactions and property not necessarily within a capitalist framework. There is a tendency for capitalists to try to make an exclusive claim to markets and property, thus necessarily making markets and property "right" in nature. This claim, however, is entirely absurd and ignores a whole slew of economic ideologies (agorism, of course, as well as mutualism).
To be honest, I am right now considering Agorism. What currently exists as Capitalism neither lives up to the name nor is truly a free-market. If a form of market anarchism is to come into being, it must be sustainable.

You are most definitely a left-wing libertarian. I tend to see both you and DC in that way.

Fundamentally it is a class issue, and there you seem basically to stand with us leftists, though we may differ in method and in the precise nature of an ideal society.
Which market anarchist ideologies do you then consider to be left-libertarian?

Reading through this thread, I've noticed that people are putting in their Strength of Preference percentages along with their personality type, so I might as well follow suit.


Personality Type: INTJ

Introversion: 78%
Intuition: 100%
Thought: 88%
Judgement: 78%


...It also seems that others are putting in their PoliticsForum quiz results. I guess I'll do the same.


Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you an individually-orientated, materialist, small-government, internationalist, free-trade, non-absolutist, liberal-market kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist.

Individualist/Socialist: 8/100
Theist/Materialist: 100/100
Big/Small Government: 100/100
Nationalist/Internationalist: 100/100
Protectionist/Free Trader: 100/100
Absolutist/Non-Absolutist: 76/100
Controlled/Liberal Market: 72/100
Marxist/Non-Marxist: 80/100


That should cover everything.

Just took it again so I could get percentages:

INFP
Introverted - 78
Intuitive - 88
Feeling - 38
Perceiving - 89

[B]Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you an individually-orientated, materialist, small-government, internationalist, free-trade, non-absolutist, liberal-market kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist.

Is...that...you..Potarius? :eek:

Is...that...you..Potarius? :eek:

Yeah, it's definitely me. You could say that I've really opened my eyes in the past few months.

I'm an ISFP Artisan (Introverted Sensing Feeling Percieving). No surprise there. *goes back to learning Hybrid Moments*

Yeah, it's definitely me. You could say that I've really opened my eyes in the past few months.
Did I contribute to your fall-from-grace? :D

Did I contribute to your fall-from-grace? :D

:p

No, it happened long before I even acknowledged your existence.

:p

No, it happened long before I even acknowledged your existence.
But you were a leftist brat even after you acknowledged it. Or did I misinterpret you? :)

But you were a leftist brat even after you acknowledged it. Or did I misinterpret you? :)

I knew you existed, and I even argued with you a few times.

However, I refused to acknowledge the fact that you, or any others like you, existed. :p

Yeah, it's definitely me. You could say that I've really opened my eyes in the past few months.

Traitor.

:p

Traitor.

:p

:p

Well, I never said that I stopped supporting Anarcho-Communism. I still support it.

ISFJ here.

Traitor.

:p

http://badgas.co.uk/language/thats_hot.jpg

'Nuff said.

http://badgas.co.uk/language/thats_hot.jpg

'Nuff said.

She's too thin, her hair is horribly dyed, her sunglasses look awful, and her grammar is poor.

Not hot.

Not hot.
You weren't meant to use your brain. :(

You weren't meant to use your brain. :(

Oh, and her porn is really shoddy, too.

'Nuff said.

Yuck, you can keep it.

Yuck, you can keep it.
You're racist against dumb sluts. :(

She's too thin, her hair is horribly dyed, her sunglasses look awful, and her grammar is poor.

Not hot.

Nevertheless, I'd still probably hit it, barring any chance of getting AIDS.

Btw, welcome to the libertarian capitalist club.:D (well, I'm more so centrist economically, but probably more on the capitalist side)

Nevertheless, I'd still probably hit it, barring any chance of getting AIDS.

Btw, welcome to the libertarian capitalist club.:D (well, I'm more so centrist economically, but probably more on the capitalist side)
His corpses are belong to us.

I wonder, what is your opinion on Agorism? It's a so-called "evolution" of anarcho-capitalism in that it does not see public property as wrong as a matter of principle, even though it is predominantly a private-property system.

I started reading the New Libertarian Manifesto at work a couple weeks ago, but got distracted (damn work) and didn't get back to it.

I didn't get into much depth concerning Konkin's economic views because he seemed to tow the Rothbardian line, and I have seen that before. Mainly I concentrated on his ideas of counter-economics and the agorist, in where he explored non-political methods for bringing about free-market practice.

From my brief experience, though, I would say that if I am not an agorist, I am very similar.

By what I infer from what you have said, I think you're assuming a tabula rasa, that is a complete redistribution of property, and to proceed from there on. Rothbard specified that this would be necessary, for certain property to change hands. What aspects of Rothbard are you interested in? He had no problem with non-usage ownership of land.

This is an introduction to the phrase "tabula rasa" as an economic idea for me.

Give me a link to Rothbard on this topic.

As for my interest in Rothbard, it is rather general. I am going through For A New Liberty at present and largely agree with what he writes.

My problem with syndicalism by the way is that it is a static form of corporate organization, whereas free-markets are inherently dynamic.

I don't support syndicalism as an end all, I just imagine that it will be an important form of management under a true free-market. Efficiency is often directly linked to interest, and who has more interest in a business than the workers?

Of course it isn't irrelevant -- after all, it determines what property will be. What about profits and non-labour derived income (e.g. rent)? Do you oppose these?

I fully accept the STV, so I have no trouble accepting profits. That the utility one places in a good can be greater than another's opportunity cost or production is quite plain. That is the nature of specialization and civilization as a whole.

Rent is much more problematic for me, but I have trouble rationally disputing it either.

I've never considered the word right-wing to mean conservative really, not anymore anyway -- to me it merely denotes private ownership-based economies. Although according to wiki, Agorism is left-libertarian despite being strictly propertarian.

The term "right wing" originated from the positioning of traditionalists and conservatives in the Estates-General in France.

It has always been synonymous with traditionalism and conservatism.

I fail to see how most people are equal in their natural faculties -- if anything, this is where they differ most. Intelligent people, unhindered by obstacles, will still make the most of their natural endowments.

I agree completely, hence why I said "general" equality. Current disparities of wealth would tend to imply that we are dealing with a range of human capability from somewhere a couple steps above Goethe down to a common gibbon (minus the brachiating).

Self-sustainable humans would be the corollary of a self-sustainable free-market.

Agreed, but I am libertarian by principle and not expediency.

It's simply an extension of the non-agression principle; I, as a free individual, do not want religious fanatics coercing me due to their beliefs -- I may even choose not to associate with them. Likewise, if they prefer disassociation with me or any homosexual, I consider it their right, to be fair. People may do as they please so long as they harm none.

It is more the phrase I dislike, as it is usually uttered to imply more than just disassociation. Most who use that phrase think that any public display of gay pride or gay sexuality is "forcing it down their throats".

preliminary results show that 76% of those responding so far are MBTI Introverted, and 24% are Extroverted.

INTJ is the most popular MBTI with 33% of responses all to itself. next is INTP followed by ISTJ.


i've got to go out now, but charts and the actual political crossanalysis to follow :)

I suspected as much. INTJs are ~3% of the general population, so the 33% represented here indicates that games like Nationstates attract this personality type, which makes sense, since we love to plan things.

Much as I called it back in Post 14 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11885669&postcount=14). :cool:

Much as I called it back in Post 14 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11885669&postcount=14). :cool:

I suspected as much. INTJs are ~3% of the general population, so the 33% represented here indicates that games like Nationstates attract this personality type, which makes sense, since we love to plan things.

good points, both of you *nods*
interesting stuff already :)

It is more the phrase I dislike, as it is usually uttered to imply more than just disassociation. Most who use that phrase think that any public display of gay pride or gay sexuality is "forcing it down their throats".Lol. I assumed you thought he was making some kind of innuendo.

Istj

I understand what you mean, however, I would point out that since one of the goals of a (democratic) political system is to aggregate and articulate the individual's interests, ideas, and values, if an individual's life is informed by religious values, it is only inevitable that the collective "political debate" will be similarly informed.
I still don't see the correlation. To me, "political debate" that is influenced by the cultures religion involves teaching Creationism in schools, making the government take care of poor people for charity, and making Christmas a federal holiday.

Each one of those things should be the practice of the individual/family, not a requirement set down by the government. For a person's religion to influence their life, it would follow that policies such as abortion would be fought (except when the mother is in danger), that capital punishment would be outlawed (if you're Roman Catholic), and that the education system should teach political awareness and knowledge necessary to find/complete jobs.


It is the parent's job to teach children about religion, morals and everything else. The government is a fully secular body which should help the parents (not take the responsibility away) to teach secular things. The Church to which the parents belong (or churches) should help teach the children about their religion and how to live a moral life.

(the Roman Catholic Church is VERY bad about this, considering the information it has to teach)

I started reading the New Libertarian Manifesto at work a couple weeks ago, but got distracted (damn work) and didn't get back to it.

I didn't get into much depth concerning Konkin's economic views because he seemed to tow the Rothbardian line, and I have seen that before. Mainly I concentrated on his ideas of counter-economics and the agorist, in where he explored non-political methods for bringing about free-market practice.
Does Konkin essentially expand on Rothbard's ideas? From what I've read, he doesn't sound to differ too much.

From my brief experience, though, I would say that if I am not an agorist, I am very similar.

Where would you place yourself then? I am currently contemplating Agorism and anarcho-capitalism, or market anarchism more generally.

This is an introduction to the phrase "tabula rasa" as an economic idea for me.
It isn't really an economic idea -- it's just an appropriate term for this in my view.

Give me a link to Rothbard on this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Private_property

According to this, he suggests quite a few reforms may be necessary.

As for my interest in Rothbard, it is rather general. I am going through For A New Liberty at present and largely agree with what he writes.
Isn't Rothbard one of the right-libertarian champions though? I have a copy of For a New Liberty which I intend on reading, as soon as I get on top of all my coursework.

I don't support syndicalism as an end all, I just imagine that it will be an important form of management under a true free-market. Efficiency is often directly linked to interest, and who has more interest in a business than the workers?
If the firm were well managed, and some could be fired/hired (assuming they'd be paid out their share of the company), it would work quite well. It's in cases where a worker owns a share of the corporation and may not be removed that it becomes problematic.

Rent is much more problematic for me, but I have trouble rationally disputing it either.
And inheritance all the more difficult to rationally dispute, despite the unsavoury outcomes it might have.

I agree completely, hence why I said "general" equality. Current disparities of wealth would tend to imply that we are dealing with a range of human capability from somewhere a couple steps above Goethe down to a common gibbon (minus the brachiating).

Indeed, I don't think in a genuinely free-market we'd have such tremendous inequality.

It is more the phrase I dislike, as it is usually uttered to imply more than just disassociation. Most who use that phrase think that any public display of gay pride or gay sexuality is "forcing it down their throats".
Meh, I'm not a fan of gay pride myself, but I see what you mean - all I meant by it is pure disassociation though. :)

I am an INFJ, and happy to be one.

Just from skimming recent posts, it is difficult to guage what this conversation is really about, as it seems to mix all kinds of different topics...

Still, as you may be able to tell from my political compass results (As in my signature), I am centre-leftish. I think the market system is super most of the time, but government action is necessary to provide public goods like health care, education, defence (Well, in a rosy, perfect world we would all live in harmony, but until then...), environmental regulation and the like. As a pampered North American my experience with capitalism has been a pretty good one. I am graduating with a degree in international trade tomorrow, though, so obviously I am biased toward that view.

I am not sure how/if my economic stance relates to my views sexual orientation, but as a Christian I am a firm believer in preserving one's free will. Even though to my understanding acting on one's homosexuality is a sin, I accept that people must be free to do as they choose. For that reason, I am all for the separation of religious and state marriages (As I envision it, any set of unrelated consenting adults should be allowed to marry for tax and benefit purposes, but religious groups that perform marriage ceremonies [Which woud have absolutely no bearing on one's civil status] ought to be able to set whatever criteria they choose).

As for the rest of the topics floating about on this thread, I do not feel versed enough in the discussion to add anything meaningful.

Have a super day!

Does Konkin essentially expand on Rothbard's ideas? From what I've read, he doesn't sound to differ too much.

Very little at all (mainly the reason I didn't return to it).

However, the final chapter in the manifesto, Revolution: Our Strategy, outlines the actions an algorist should take to bring about the libertarian state. That is the only section I have really read, and I would recommend it.


Where would you place yourself then? I am currently contemplating Agorism and anarcho-capitalism, or market anarchism more generally.

I don't place myself, although market anarchism sounds like a good term.

It isn't really an economic idea -- it's just an appropriate term for this in my view.


That it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Private_property

According to this, he suggests quite a few reforms may be necessary.


I agree with his sentiments, but the impracticality of a massive redistribution, and the massive harm done to those that were no part of the wrong would be a greater wrong in my opinion.

Isn't Rothbard one of the right-libertarian champions though? I have a copy of For a New Liberty which I intend on reading, as soon as I get on top of all my coursework.

Yes, he is, but he also has a portion in For a New Liberty where he laments that the classic liberal movement gave up its "leftist" standing.

If the firm were well managed, and some could be fired/hired (assuming they'd be paid out their share of the company), it would work quite well. It's in cases where a worker owns a share of the corporation and may not be removed that it becomes problematic.

For one thing, it does nothing to rule out wage labor. For another, it is certainly viable principally and pragmatically, that an unwanted shareholder can simply be "bought out" of the company. Hiring and firing is not needed.

And inheritance all the more difficult to rationally dispute, despite the unsavoury outcomes it might have.

That couldn't be more true. I have long had problems with inheritance and legacies, as well as absentee landlordism, but both are perfectly justifiable through property rights.

Indeed, I don't think in a genuinely free-market we'd have such tremendous inequality.

I hope not, otherwise I might have to consider myself wrong.

Very little at all (mainly the reason I didn't return to it).

However, the final chapter in the manifesto, Revolution: Our Strategy, outlines the actions an algorist should take to bring about the libertarian state. That is the only section I have really read, and I would recommend it.
I'll give it a look. It's rather cheap now.

I don't place myself, although market anarchism sounds like a good term.
I am simply having trouble concluding what your overall politicoeconomic beliefs are. For instance, what makes you label yourself a left-libertarian as opposed to a right-libertarian, when many of your ideas seem consistent with those of pure anarcho-capitalists. They also seek to change quite a lot - namely to remove the State and achieve quite some property redistribution, yet they are classed as right-libertarians. Unless it is simply the label you are against...

I agree with his sentiments, but the impracticality of a massive redistribution, and the massive harm done to those that were no part of the wrong would be a greater wrong in my opinion.

True... it would be immensely difficult to achieve the total amount of redistribution he is after.

For one thing, it does nothing to rule out wage labor. For another, it is certainly viable principally and pragmatically, that an unwanted shareholder can simply be "bought out" of the company. Hiring and firing is not needed.
It's a milder way of putting it, if you will. :)

That couldn't be more true. I have long had problems with inheritance and legacies, as well as absentee landlordism, but both are perfectly justifiable through property rights.
They are the only objections I truly have to full-blown property rights, but there is no way around them really.

I'll give it a look. It's rather cheap now.

It's rather free in pdf form (http://agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf).

I am simply having trouble concluding what your overall politicoeconomic beliefs are.

Me too.

For instance, what makes you label yourself a left-libertarian as opposed to a right-libertarian, when many of your ideas seem consistent with those of pure anarcho-capitalists. They also seek to change quite a lot - namely to remove the State and achieve quite some property redistribution, yet they are classed as right-libertarians. Unless it is simply the label you are against...

One thing I will say, is that my views simply aren't very consistent, period. My opinions tend to change with prevailing breeze. This is mainly because I am both nihilistic and unsatisfied with any current political idealogy.

I accept the principles of capitalism, more specifically the free market as being rationally in tune with my core values, but I cannot help shake a nagging feeling of inequity when dealing with capitalism. It has been that way for a couple of years, but I haven't broken the stalemate.

In general, I adhere to anarcho-capitalism, but pragmatically and principally, I have some substantial doubts.

And yes, I simply will not accept the label, even if the current definition fits.

They are the only objections I truly have to full-blown property rights, but there is no way around them really.

My reservations exactly.

It's rather free in pdf form (http://agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf).
Thanks, but I'd have to print it out, and it'd end up costing me the same here -- my uni charges per page for printouts. :)

One thing I will say, is that my views simply aren't very consistent, period. My opinions tend to change with prevailing breeze. This is mainly because I am both nihilistic and unsatisfied with any current political idealogy.
I've managed so far to achieve consistency with regard to my views. The problem is I now am ambivalent as to which I will side with -- a minimal minarchist monarchy, or pure market anarchism.

I accept the principles of capitalism, more specifically the free market as being rationally in tune with my core values, but I cannot help shake a nagging feeling of inequity when dealing with capitalism. It has been that way for a couple of years, but I haven't broken the stalemate.
Likewise - it's in tune with my individualist tendencies, and the modicum of nihilism that constantly lurks within me. As well as the fact that in my view, a free-market is the only sustainable economic system with scarcity in mind. Current forms of "capitalism" have no resemblance to anything like a free-market, and is plagued by excessive inequality -- so I wonder if removing the State and going ahead with market anarchist ideals, if something better may come out of it.

In general, I adhere to anarcho-capitalism, but pragmatically and principally, I have some substantial doubts.
My main problems with it are mainly from a point of view of self-sustainability. If it simply imploded on itself, it'd hardly be a worthwhile political ideology. I think anarcho-capitalism proper is slightly too restrictive though, hence I might end up supporting agorism in its stead, or something in-between.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the Austrian School's methodology? You say you support many of its ideas, yet do you believe that a priori reasoning is the best way to study Economics? I am currently questioning this rather shaky basis of it. I like the Chicago School and Rand infinitely less than I do the AS, so I am hoping that I will have little reason to question its very bases.

Thanks, but I'd have to print it out, and it'd end up costing me the same here -- my uni charges per page for printouts. :)

I worked for the university I went to. They had two laser printers in the office where I worked. I would go onto Project Gutenberg and print off entire books at a time. My own little counter-economics.


I've managed so far to achieve consistency with regard to my views. The problem is I now am ambivalent as to which I will side with -- a minimal minarchist monarchy, or pure market anarchism.


I think my bases are pretty consistent, but my deduction is a little flaky.

My main problems with it are mainly from a point of view of self-sustainability. If it simply imploded on itself, it'd hardly be a worthwhile political ideology. I think anarcho-capitalism proper is slightly too restrictive though, hence I might end up supporting agorism in its stead, or something in-between.

The main problem with any system is that it requires a consistent resiliancy by the populace to complacence. Any system that provides the populace with a level of happiness will be plagued by complacency.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the Austrian School's methodology? You say you support many of its ideas, yet do you believe that a priori reasoning is the best way to study Economics? I am currently questioning this rather shaky basis of it. I like the Chicago School and Rand infinitely less than I do the AS, so I am hoping that I will have little reason to question its very bases.

I am not steeped in the justification of a priori economic study, but I know that nearly all of my arguments on economic theory come from an a priori view of economics.

I worked for the university I went to. They had two laser printers in the office where I worked. I would go onto Project Gutenberg and print off entire books at a time. My own little counter-economics.
Way to get the revolution started. :)

I think my bases are pretty consistent, but my deduction is a little flaky.
I think give it time -- the more you read, and the more you mature, you'll come closer to the right deduction.

The main problem with any system is that it requires a consistent resiliancy by the populace to complacence. Any system that provides the populace with a level of happiness will be plagued by complacency.
The worse thing though is to acquiesce to this, lest something like Brave New World's dystopia ends up sprouting about somewhere. If people have to work towards their happiness, I think complacence will not be an option.


I am not steeped in the justification of a priori economic study, but I know that nearly all of my arguments on economic theory come from an a priori view of economics.
Even if I end up refuting an a priori basis for the discipline (I'm currently taking a philosophy course to get better acquainted with epistemology), I still think many of the AS' conclusions, however they may be reached, are highly relevant and worth serious consideration. Deeper study into the matter will hopefully provide me with an answer.

I'm ENFP, however I did not do the online test since I already did a test in the normal world about this, more intensive and accurate :)

I'm also a left-wing libertarian :D

Heh, I came out as ENFP but I should point out that in Nation States I DON'T play by my impulses or instincts. I tend to pick the option that goes against my natural tendendcies and opinions. Basically I'm trying to play a B@$tard.

WTF?

I took it again just for kicks, and got really different results. This is even without thinking about my answers. I must be headed for a manic stage if it says I'm extroverted.


ESFP - The Performer
You scored 54% I to E, 52% N to S, 23% F to T, and 68% J to P!
Your type is called the performer, and you very much feel "all the world's a stage". Your type is part of a larger category called experiencers or artisans. You are playful and funloving, and wish to help all those around you lighten up. You radiate warmth and optimism. Your motto is "eat, drink, and be merry". You share your type with over 10% of the population. You don't like to be alone - ever, if possible. You are always up on what is new and hot.
As a romantic partner, you are fun and affectionate, leading an active life full of friends. You are naturually happy-go-lucky and supportive of your partner. You dislike confrontation, and will avoid conflict discussion at all costs. You tend to let things go, hoping they go away on their own. You feel most appreciated when your partner is affectionate and acknowledges the good deeds you do, but doesn't make a particularly big deal out of them.
Your group summary: Experiencers (sp)<
Your Type Summary: ESFP

It's the one on OKCupid. So weird.

Avrio Methavrio

That's because "interweb" begins with I, and hence people are more introverted here, and prefer to be chatting here rather than in the real world, whereas "environment" (i.e. the outside world) begins with an "e" for extrovert, and not as many peoople on internet forums are particularly extroverted.

Or something.Indeed; I does stand for Interweb. Atleast according to this article and version of the test (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Myers_Briggs).

Your Type is ISTJ
Strength of the preferences %
Introverted 56
Sensing 12
Thinking 50
Judging 1
Istj
Big Jim P and i are the same
http://forums.rebelalliance.ws/images/smiles/dancing_pickle.gif