Keirsey Research 2012 Election Tracking Poll: The Temperament Gap Holds Steady

The Keirsey Research 2012 Presidential election tracking poll continues to show a consistent gap when comparing the preferences of the 4 Temperaments.  In a nutshell, if only Guardian men were allowed to vote, Mitt Romney would easily be elected as the next president of the United States.  Unfortunately for him, no such restriction exists, and the overwhelming preference of Idealists and Rationals, as well as marked preference of all Artisans and of Guardian women, is Barack Obama.  We have sliced and diced the data in many directions this month, with graphs and charts to help explain what is going on, and why Romney faces such an uphill battle to November.

First, a short word about our poll and validity.  Since we analyze and present our data with a Temperament stratification, we have received a number of emails from readers questioning our results.  These emails usually take the form of, “Your data shows that [ex] Idealist women strongly favor Obama.  I’m an Idealist woman, and I am voting for Ron Paul.  Your data is wrong!”

To start, this is a poll.  It shows that just as there are Guardian men who are planning to vote for Obama, there are Idealist women who are planning to vote for Romney (or Ron Paul).  Those are the smaller bars on the charts.  The data indicates the preferences of the majority of voters, not that all people of a particular group will vote identically.  Our poll is statistically valid to within 1-2% at it’s highest level, ie the entire sample of 1000 US registered voters who are planning on voting in the upcoming election.  At the individual temperament / gender level, it is accurate to +/- 5%, as each of these groups is a smaller subset of the 1000.  However, since we are running a tracking poll, and the results have been consistent now for 3 months, our confidence level is very high.  But back to the individual noting that they are an outlier of the majority of their Temperament group, I will give a specific example – Dave Keirsey and I are both Rational males.  We don’t plan on voting for the same candidate.  Each of us, in our heart, thinks of the other as an outlier.  So it goes.  (The fact that everyone in our poll has enough of an interest in self-awareness to spend 10-15 minutes taking the KTS-II may introduce some bias into the poll, but as you will see our representation by political party mirrors the US general population, so we have satisfied ourselves that interest in self awareness is not limited by political belief).

On to the results.  The poll was conducted during the first week of July 2012.  The sampled participants are representative of the 2010 US Census data by sex, age, and geographical region.

Question 1: If the election were to be held tomorrow, for whom would you vote?

2012 Presidential Election Tracking Poll Graph
Click for full size image

  Both Obama and Romney picked up a point this month, which is within the margin of poll variance.  The overall gap between them is holding steady at 15%.  If the election was to be held tomorrow, the popular vote would be a landslide for Obama. ( It is the Electoral College system of voting that is keeping this election result in question.)  As noted above, the Temperament Gap is quite large.  At one end, Guardian (SJ) men favor Romney by 13 points – 49% to 36%.  Of the 8 combinations of Temperament and sex, Guardian males make up 20-25% of the electorate, so this a sizable advantage for Romney.  However, the other seven groups more than counter balance the  SL males (click on the thumbnail chart to see in detail).  Many news stories point out the “Gender Gap” in the polls.

Keirsey 2012 Election Poll - Candidate Vote % By Temperament
click for full-size image

The Gender Gap is actually very specific – it exists primarily with the Guardian Temperament.   From month to month, our poll shows that Idealist (NF) males are the most enthusiastic Obama supporters (Idealist females are similar).   Because the main supporters of Romney are SJ males, we’ve done a bit more digging within this group and found some interesting information that we’ll present further down the page.  If the data above seems discouraging for Romney, a deeper dig makes it look worse.

Question 2: Do you personally like President Obama?

Keirsey Tracking Poll Obama Likability Chart
click for full size image

 President Obama remains personally popular with all groups.  Even Guardian men like him almost as much as they dislike him at 38% to 40%.  Overall, he’s holding steady at just under 50% likability, and 22% dis-likability.   Not approaching the level of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, but they were Artisan Performers.  We really can’t expect a Rational like Obama to compare with the most charismatic of all the types.

Question 3: Do you personally like Governor Romney?  

Keirsey 2012 Tracking Poll - Romney Likability Chart
click for full size image

The good news for Governor Romney is that his likable numbers have been inching up.  The bad news is that they started at 13% in May, and are now up to 16%, while his dislike numbers have fallen from 40% to 37%.  If he only keeps this trend going steady for another 10 months, his “like” factor will surpass his “dislike” factor.  As we noted in a previous article, we believe Romney, like Obama, is a Rational (NT).  However, unlike Obama, he projects the “cold and distant” Rational traits, contributing greatly to his low likability.  (disclaimer: I am an ENTJ, and have been accused of being “cold and distant” on occasion.  It doesn’t mean we Rationals are cold and distant – we just appear that way to the more cooperative types.  As all Trekies know, there was some compassion lurking deep in Mr. Spock’s heart…)

Question 4: Do you approve of President Obama’s job performance at this time?  

Keirsey 2012 Election Tracking Poll - Obama Job Approval Chart
click here for full-size image

These numbers are holding steady at 41% approval and 44% disapproval.  This would normally be bad news for a sitting president in an election year, but there are two factors which mitigate this.  One is that polls (including previous Keirsey Research polls) show that a component of the high disapproval number is liberal voters who believe Obama has let them down.  These voters are highly unlikely to vote for Romney.  The second factor will be discussed in a few paragraphs.

Question 5: What is your political party affiliation?  

Keirsey 2012 Election Tracking Poll - Party Affiliation Chart
Click here for full-size image

This is really meant to ensure our results are not skewing due to a political bias introduced by our methodology.  The results, happily, continue to show that people of all political persuasions are interested in learning more about themselves. (We already knew this, considering the wide diversity of political opinions at Keirsey, where we all are devotees of “Please Understand Me”).

Question 6: The US Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “ObamaCare”.  How do you feel about this decision?  

Keirsey Poll 2012 SCOTUS ACA Decision Approval Chart
click for full-size image

Since this decision had just been announced, and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives made a repeal vote a forefront issue, we wanted to know if this could be a wedge issue for Romney to exploit.  Based on the results in the chart to the left, we don’t think so.

 

 

Looking deeper – the bad news for Romney.  Keirsey Poll 2012 Election - Guardian Men Candidate  Like / Dislike ChartThis election offers a unique circumstance.  It is the first time, at least in several generations, where both major party candidates are Rationals.  Neither has the intense personal magnetism of a Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton (Artisan Performers), or even the Artisan Promoter charisma of JFK or George W. Bush.  Most presidential elections are decided by the swing voters, which our surveys over the years have shown are largely Artisans.  Candidate likability is a very significant factor in how this group votes.  Barack Obama, so far, has proven a much greater ability than Mitt Romney to shed his Rational skin in how he relates to the electorate.  At the right is a chart that graphically illustrates Romney’s greatest challenge in the next 100 days or so.  It examines the two candidates’ likability factor with Guardian males, Romney’s support base.  While Guardian men dislike Obama at 40% (to 38% like), this does not translate to strong likability of Romney, even in this group.  Romney’s dislike-to-like gap is even greater than Obama’s, at 35% dislike to 23% like – even among his strongest supporters.  If Romney can’t get the SJ male population to like him, he has no chance with the Artisan swing voters in November.

40 thoughts on “Keirsey Research 2012 Election Tracking Poll: The Temperament Gap Holds Steady”

  1. How do you get temperment on a poll without asking them to fill out forms? By definition that would skew the poll toward people who were interested enough to fill out the form.

    1. Once you get to really understand a category, you can see it in people. I’m an ENTP, and it has been clear to me since Obama declared that he was an NT. I haven’t followed Romney as closely, but I buy the NT diagnosis on him, too. I am also sometimes seen as “cold,” even though I’m not at all. (I always thought Spock was a superhero — the ideal combination of good sense and personal relationship values!)

  2. Was your poll comprised of likely voters, registered voters, or just the general public? The general public, who aren’t as likely to be well-informed as registered voters, still favor Obama 3 to 1 in the polls accumulated on Real Clear Politics. But when you poll registered voters, they are in a dead heat. And when you poll likely voters, Romney has the advantage.

  3. Obviously, the database of this poll was people who have already completed the temperament forms, and are in the records of this company. They simply contacted a representative sample of people who have completed the temperament forms and who were willing to answer a few questions.

    1. Actually, we randomly select people as they complete the KTS-II and ask them to complete the survey. As noted in the article, we limit selection based on sex, geography, and age – this creates 48 demographic “buckets” 2 [sex] x 4 [geographies] x 6 [age groups]. When a particular “bucket” is full we stop selecting for that criteria. Many more than 1000 persons complete the survey, as we discard any that are not US registered voters or who do not state that they plan on voting in the upcoming election.

  4. I too, suspect the poll results are skewed due to the very nature of self-selection. Very interesting, all the same. As an INTJ, I sincerely hope these results are incorrect. We’ve endured a sufficient dose of Mr. Obama’s “remedy” for this country.

  5. The comments on your article are filtered by you Kip to reflect your opinion, very crafty but not wise as you think you are! I have followed articles like this and as you have seen from the ones you have removed from here that they are ten to one against Obama. But I am sure Obama will win the election. Not for your fantasy reasons but because people are like sheep and are under a strong delusion as you prove to be also.

    1 Corinthians 3 KJV
    18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

    19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

    1. I removed all the ad hominum attacks on both the candidates. This is a blog about temperament, not a political blog that should devolve to name calling and anonymous attacks. There are plenty of sites on the net where people can relieve their frustrations by posting nasty remarks, this is not one of them.

      1. I only saw one name calling by Brian S. and he was admonished for it. All the others were comments about that they wish that your results are not correct as they do not wish another 4 years under Obama. Most all were legitimate responses to the topic and were from your group of interested followers.

        One or two may have had tones of appealing to their feelings or prejudices rather than their intellect but the rest that I read were of dismay and frustration. If anything inappropriate is posted I am sure that your intelligent readers will set them strait. And then you will have a legitimate blog that will get more then a few comments.

        My opinion reflects a sorrow that so many people that do not take the time to research will vote for anyone the media tells them to. (Obama wins!) Most of them are not online or only use Facebook or play games. So the people that have used your temperament test are researchers not air heads and should be respected for their opinions.

      2. Hooray! How refreshing. Good dialogue is so important and so rare! The illuminating parts of any conversation are those in which we seek to understand and learn from our differences. Thank you for providing a venue that shines light on our candidates in a safe and intelligent discussion environment.

  6. I honestly see no way in which Romney can win this election. The lation population is applauding him for the Dream Act and he he has their vote 2 to 1. The majority of the African American population has been with him the entire time. Caucasians who would identify as democrats are also voting for him. Those along with his tax returns and foreign bank accounts promise to kill him in the upcoming election. Just some observations from an INTP.

  7. You do not take in consideration that Obama is a Narcissist…and NOT situational either, but deeply personality disordered. Truly, educate yourself concerning pathology and you will have more wisdom. BTW..I am no party

    1. And what do you base your diagnosis on Professor Loring? Truly, state your credentials when you make such claims. Otherwise you come across as a fool.

  8. Fascinating!
    I would like to make a note that Romney may be in violation of Federal Law by falsifying either his SEC filings or his Presidential forms. In the event the GOP opts to NOT nominate him, the person with the 2nd most delegates is Ron Paul.
    If you ask these same questions with Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama, I wonder how differently the data might be skewed.
    If you avoid questions of likability and ask people “Who’s ideology do you feel safer with: Ron Paul or Barack Obama?” I would guess that the results would skew more towards Obama.
    If you ask people “Who do you think will create ‘Change you can believe in’: Barack Obama or Ron Paul?” I would guess that the results would skew more towards Paul.
    Democrats tend care less about “safety” and more about “believable change.” Republicans tend to “fall in line.”
    The middle ground tends to respond to the organization with the most enthusiasm. This would suggest that Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama might actually lean towards Paul.
    I’m NO Paul booster but taking into account these considerations, Mitt Romney WILL fail against Barack Obama. That seems almost entirely inevitable.
    Paul MIGHT win against Obama. If you were the GOP and you saw the writing on the wall, wouldn’t you rather go with the long shot than the guaranteed loser?
    Could this be why we’re seeing the Republicans demanding Romney’s tax returns? They know that it will bury him and they can go for Paul?
    What do you think?

  9. Regardless of type, gender, or party affiliation, any voter interested in accurate information has the deck stacked against them. Weeding through all the data, finding sources that don’t add spin or have an agenda, it’s ridiculous. So, most folks are bombarded with the rhetoric and have to make up their minds based on the inaccurate data (presented as FACT of course) and their own life experiences.

    Hence, no surprises in your polls.

    Hard-line male SJs, more likely to behave as STJ than SFJ, pick Romney.
    Female SJs, more likely to behave as SFJ, pick Obama.

    SPs – same T/F bias but less important than likeability and charisma to this crowd – Obama.

    NFs – Obama – how could they not vote for universal healthcare? That’s got NF Idealist written all over it!

    NTs – The typical enigma but assuming each candidate is an NT as we suspect, the decision likely comes down to a combination of likeability and J or P preference. Despite it’s supposed lack of bias, Thinking is subject to influence, particularly by life experience. Given 2 sets of data to chose, both presented as accurate, you will most often choose the set that fits your world-view. So even if you are not a “Republican”, if that’s the view your were surrounded by growing up, you’ll likely favor that data set. Same goes for iNtuition, though of course this case is less of a logical process and more of a “I just KNOW” thing. SO the J-types would be split based on their past and the N-types would “just know” one is the better candidate – probably favoring Obama here due to the aforementioned “likeability”.

    I suspect that MANY of the NT’s would pick Romney over a different (non-NT) opponent, just as they undoubtedly picked Obama over McCain.

    At least, that’s this INTP’s take on it.

    1. As an INFP, as you put in your brilliant comment, I love the idea of universal healthcare, and this is one of my reasons for supporting Obama. However, I think there are flaws in the law (aren’t there in every law?) and I do not enjoy being labeled. I despise being labeled. I’d much rather have people see other people’s opnions rather than just say, “Oh, look, an Idealist. They’re definately pro- Obama and Obamacare.” This is plain and simple stereotyping. While I agree with you, the vast majority of NF’s probably are for Universal Healthcare, this does not change the fact that there are still some Idealists who are not pro- universal healthcare. So please, while I enjoyed your interesting (and usually correct) insight, please lay off the labeling.

  10. I am a rational (INTJ) and even though Both candidates are supposedly rational, it is irrational to vote for Obama. Obama has spent more money in four years than all previous administrations combined, including George W. Bush! He is a marxist surrounded by a cabile of socialists, feminists, secular social liberals, homosexeuals, etc. The Democratic Party has been taken over by the extreme left. In reaction to this libertarians and neo-liberals (new classical liberals) have taken over the Rebulican party. The politics of the United States is now extremely polarized. The country has over 54 trilliion dollars of unfunded debt. Economic laws are real. This debt will be paid back either through spending cuts and tax increases or in economic collapse! If Obama is re-elected, the United States will economically collapse causing the collapse of the world economy. Iran which is pursuing a compartmentalized nuclear weopons program will be producing nuclear weopons in 24 months! With the world in economic ruins, Iran will launch its nuclear war!

    1. Agree with you John. As an INTJ myself, I could not have stated it any clearer. Interesting thought – both Romney and Obama are rationals, however, they are markedly different in their “values”. I, as a rational, differ in the extreme with Obama on stated objectives. Whereas we might employ similar tactics to reach our goal, it is our goals which are radically different! It would be interesting to apply a study of values, interests, and other environmentally produced components to the Myers/Briggs analysis to produce a more complete picture of a functioning human being. I’ve been studying this for 30 years, and am still fascinated by it.

    2. I respect John’s views, however, fail to understand why it was necessary to include feminists and homosexuals as negative groups associated with Obama….or anyone for that matter. Feminists fight for the rights of women’s equality. Homosexuals come in all political, religious, and socioeconomic shapes and sizes. I personally know a gay man who is fired up to vote for Romney. I love a good, informed debate, but fail to see attacks on women and gays as such. (P.S. I am a rational)

      1. I fully agree with you Toni. I would also like to point out to John that Obama has been ridiculously republican-like in the way he has handled the economy. Not only did he not jail the bankers, but he gave them money! I have troble seeing that as a very liberal move.

      2. Dear Toni and Cameron, marxists, socialists, feminists, and homosexual activists (LGBT) are all radicals that are interested in re-engineering society along radical egalitarian and liberal principles. They are all statists in the pursuit of this radical change and are a fundamental internal threat to the survival of western civilization. Islam is an ancient and external threat to the survival of western civilization that is bent on world domination as much as revolutionary marxism. Both the secular leftist and Islamic forces are totalitarian in nature seeking to create a utopian society and the destruction of Judeo-Christian western civilization. If either of these forces succeed it means the end of representative democracy and fundamental freedom and liberty for people. These people are trying to control what human beings think and say! They are more than willing to use abuse, intimidation, and violense in the pursuit of there goals!

  11. I am a Champian Idealist, as far as my test results are. However I am a STRONG republican and have possessed an interest in politics as early as six years of age in the 2000 election. I know that sounds insane, but it is true. I knew I was a republican even then. And now that I am 18 I want Obama to lose his job! LOL!

    1. I enjoy how you feel the need to put an LOL at the end of your political post. I found nothing funny about it. And I believe you were interested in pollitics at a young age, because I was too. However, I find it hard to belive that you had a strong feeing for the republican party. I’d bet it was somthing more along the lines of your parents told you that you had a strong belife inthe republican party. LOL!

  12. This is a fascinating discussion.
    There is little talk of the relationships between temperament and voting and much talk about how to belittle the anyone with disagreements to your viewpoint.
    I was actually a bit taken aback that this article has to clarify that MOST people of a certain temperament does NOT mean ALL people of a certain temperament.
    Congress is also THE most polarized it has ever been. I also think it’s the most representative it’s ever been of the vocal groups which participate in politics. This leads to intractability.
    Ironically, the guy who most seeks unification and focus of the discussion is disliked by both parties who seem to want to win more than compromise. It’s like “THE FUTURE OF THE CIVILIZATION” depends upon “My Group” getting its way.
    That general fallacy I see reflected in this conversation. So here’s the truth despite the facts … Socialism, Judeo-Christian society, Conservatism, Liberalism, Capitalism … NONE of those things apply to our modern day politics. Politics is a complex and often confusing multitude of interrelated issues. Some of those issues require increases in taxes and more government oversight. Some of those issues require encouraging free markets and removal of whole sections of law. The vast majority require both. This is NOT capitalism vs. socialism. This is finding the best solution to a given problem.
    Unfortunately, a scientific and mathematical process of arriving at solutions is not applied. The parties and the people start out with their conclusion and a limited set of reasoning skills. New data is not processed meaningfully, only discarded as conspiracy if it fails to meet a preconceived notion or lauded as gospel if it bolsters someone’s pre-existing narrative.
    Fortunately, our system was designed to be representative democracy. In other words, the adults in the room were supposed to come together, reason together and draw up conclusions which were in the best interest of their people, despite the immaturity and miseducation of their people.
    What happens when Congress devolves to the level of the rabble? Ironically, they get very low approval ratings.
    Is Obama’s record and Presidential outlook better or worse than Romney’s? How would you know? Do you even know where to find their records? Do you care to?
    Are you more interested in rhetoric from MSNBC or FOX than the facts? MSNBC spins facts and FOX outright lies. CNN is just bland and unenlightening. Most people get their news from the internet for that reason. However, they also get news which feeds their pre-existing narrative.
    The question is: Will you continue to espouse your own narrative by beginning with an Us v Them mindset … or Do you have the ability to step back and start arriving at conclusions which are in everyone’s best interest?
    And if you don’t have that ability, will you at least have the sense to exclude yourself from the discussion until you do?

    1. Lord Anthony,
      This is beautifully written! I want to thank you for restoring some hope in me that there are rational, level headed humans on this planet. I am consistently disappointed by adults who cannot seem to sit in a room and have an open discussion. I fear for our society as facts and truth have been replaced by emotion and sensationalism. I, too, am disillusioned with major news networks. I now joke that I get my news from the Daily Show (and politifact.com). I continue to hope that there is soon a breaking point which forces us all to step back and reevaluate our communication with each other. However, much like a loved one’s drug addiction, I hope the breaking point comes before catastrophe.

      1. I second Toni’s applauding of Lord Anthony’s very well written, and very wise, response to a discussion that seemed not to be illuminating our knowledge regarding the impact of types on politics. I was thinking of responding last night, but was so frustrated I couldn’t find the words, so thank you Lord Anthony. As a Rational, I want us to consider all the factors and do the right thing, whatever it is, and to engage in civil discourse to figure out what is the best solution.

        By the way, I love CNN. In fact, I’ve become a CNN addict of late, because that is a place I can find a balanced approach — even if I don’t like some things, I don’t feel like they are always editing out the parts that might contradict a pre-set agenda. I wonder if there is a correlaction between types and attraction to certain news outlets?????

      2. Well goodness. My comment created a bit of a stir.
        To Toni: Mature people can sit in a room and have a conversation. All adults re not mature. I could speculate as to why this is but it wouldn’t help solve the problem in the immediate. It seems that, as you say, addiction turns people into children … or a more appropriate analogy might be animals. I wouldn’t want to belittle the children. People do seem to regress to a baser state of fear and attack, a perception of scarcity and threat seems overwhelming in a world which has tremendous abundance and freedom.
        When that drug itself is threatened, they react with even greater vehemence. I think your words of describing the FIGHT AGAINST THE ENEMY as a drug eloquently add to my repertoire as you have so graciously said mine add to yours.

        To Roberta: I honestly don’t watch much CNN. They’ve always struck me as bland. I’m more of a Daily Show person like Toni! I could be entirely misguided about CNN’s approach. I will gladly defer to your experience with their programming. The vast majority of my information I get from online news reporting and direct government, corporate and other organizational releases.
        I also think that you’re bringing the topic back to where it should be when you mention news outlets and personality types. I think GenXcynic also hit on some good points by accurately stating that there’s WAY too much information to consume, so having an organization digest it and give it to you is simply more efficient. It also means that the viewer takes a certain degree of trust in that outlet.
        Another interesting question to ask is “Which news outlets do you DISTRUST?” That could be just as telling as which news outlets you watch or don’t watch.
        I don’t think anyone will say they TRUST a news outlet. But most people will say that they definitely DISTRUST or do not distrust certain news outlets. Is there a correlation between viewership, trust and personality type? VERY interesting point.

        John Roesch: I think we have a fundamental difference in how we view governance. I think ideology is the bane of governance. Technocracy (or something close to it) being the proper method. The extent to which the government is technocratic is the degree to which I agree with it. The degree to which it is ideological is the degree to which I disagree with it.
        I also do not think that technocracy is derived from ideology. You see technocracy as a subset of ideology. I see them as separate circles of a Vinn Diagram which intersect. I think it’s best when we stay away from the intersection and remain purely in the technocratic side.
        This distinction in our outlooks would probably govern our politics and speech. You seem to see things in terms of socialism, capitalsim, Judeo-Christian philosophy and other -isms. I tend to see interest groups throwing money and resources at politicians to further their selfish ends. Politicians are only concerned about the greater good to the extent that they are not bought.
        I see ideology as a symptom of the problem of “money in politics” … which is a rough and dirty description of the problem but definitely conjures the proper image.
        Technocratically, if we ended the fed, printed our own money based upon economic needs and eliminated interest based debt (compound, not simple), the problems of crony capitalism which stem from the Fed would be removed. This would also eliminate the need for any taxation whatsoever. Then we would have to enact other simple laws such as publicly financed elections and strict rules about hiring politicians after their service in government or other types of “graft.”
        These 2 measures would systematically eliminate the problem of ideology being injected into politics via graft and technocracy would reign.
        However, I would imagine that this notion scares the living hell out of you. You couldn’t complain about “those evil leftists!” any longer. Catastrophe couldn’t be blamed on interest groups but rather on ACTUAL government incompetence.
        Fear not though! I’m sure you can find something to complain about. If you truly are a rational, then you have an excellent ability to take bits of data and find whatever connection you want between them. Whether that’s to justify your own pre-existing narrative of doom and gloom or to accurately determine trajectories without bias … that choice I leave to you. Just remember, the ability to rationalize does not make one rational, no matter their personality type.

    2. Lord Anthony, how can you claim that “Socialism, Judeo-Christian society, Conservatism, Liberalism, Capitalism … NONE of those things apply to our modern day politics” when political ideology on how to govern society is a necessity in making decisions on a “confusing multitude of interrelated issues. Some of those issues require increases in taxes and more government oversight. Some of those issues require encouraging free markets and removal of whole sections of law. The vast majority require both “? Technocracy by itself is useless in deciding how to govern. The purpose of the state is to rule for the common good. What defines the common good and how to achieve it is determined by ideology. Technocracy only has utility within an over all ideology. Also your comment “It’s like “THE FUTURE OF THE CIVILIZATION” depends upon “My Group” getting its way.” Is the mentality of radical revolutionaries and Islam! As a Rational, I find it funny how irrational some “progressive” Rationals are in dealing with reality. The reality of the situation is that the world is heading towards a catastrophe while people think everything is ok. The news media and the occupation of journalism is dominated by a secular, leftwing liberal world view, which is very shallow in its understanding of the world. They like to use the phrase “its complex” when confronted with information that doesn’t conform to there secular social liberalism.

      1. Dear Lord Anthony, you can bamboozle others with you B.S. but you don’t fool me! Your technocracy is an ideology, a highly amoral ideology. For logic and technique can be used for any purpose both good and evil. Guys like you don’t even ask or answer basic questions like:
        What is the common good? What is the nature of good and evil?
        Is there an objective moral order to human exist in the form a natural law?
        Is there a transedental God who loves us? Is there a devil who hates us? What is truth? No people like you avoid these questions focusing of technique to hide their amorality. You are absolutely right, there is a very fundamental difference between your mental schema and mine!

        1. Let me ANSWER your questions, since I have thought about them a great deal.
          Common Good is objective, not subjective. Therefore it is subject to definition. It is the dissecting of each individual human need against all available resources. This makes it a simple equation of Need/Resources. The mechanism of delivery which seems to work the best is NOT socialism (giving each person their portion) but rather opportunity. Opportunity becomes problematic when opportunity is not evenly distributed. In regards to opportunity, I would be a socialist. In terms of resources distribution, I would be a capitalist.
          The “Nature” of good and evil? I would be prone to believe that Good is helpful and Evil is hurtful. I also have observed and concluded that NURTURE, not NATURE is the issue. So I do not see a “Nature” of good and evil but a NURTURING of helpfulness and harmfulness. Of course, there are outliers, those who will always seek to help and those who will always seek to hurt. In terms of general population it’s more about our environment and the opportunities we are given … again, opportunity!
          In there objective moral order? No. These concepts are mutually exclusive. You have have objective ethical order. You can have subjective moral authority. But morality is the off-spring of authority. Authority is interested in maintaining itself. It is NOT interested in helping others or harming for that matter. Authority is therefore a tool and morality a method of maintaining the existence of that tool.
          Is there a God? No. There’s no evidence of this. God is simply the ego-centric expression of Authority. A priest/leader derives his authority from the final authority, God. God doesn’t love you, He protects you from hell (or being reincarnated as a cockroach depending on your belief). He can choose to lift His protective hand if you don’t do what he says. For instance, Gay legislation is the true cause of the Dust Bowl in the midwest. It’s NOT oil companies … it’s the gays.
          Since I am the High Priest of God, I can keep God’s hand protecting you from hardship in this life or the next. You believe in my divinity and hence my moral authority. I then give opportunity to those I want to and away from those I dislike. Welcome to religion.
          Is there a Devil? No. There is no evidence of this. The Devil is simply the ego-centric expression of fighting against authority. If you are not “good” in the authoritarian sense (you obey) then you must be evil (you disobey). The devil does not seek to help or to harm but rather to upset the authority of God in hopes of taking His place as Final Authority. Anyone who protests against authority must be trying, therefore, to seize authority and must be punished. Crime = Seizing Authority and/or Failing to comply with Authority. Punishment = the reward for Crime.
          What is Truth? Truth is a word which ignorant people use because they do NOT understand theory. The ignorant see theory as conjecture because they do not understand the profound distinction between the 2 words. Truth is often used to place an internal or gut feeling above theory. “It feels right so it must be truth.” is what truth-seekers say. Some rational minds go too far with this idea and remove our perceptions and observations from a scientific equation. That is incorrect. Removing data from a theory is just as improper as adding false data. Therefore people who see ghosts, for instance, shouldn’t be shunned. They simply have perception which we cannot objectively account for BUT which shouldn’t be dismissed outright. This is important because there is NO evidence objective or subjective for God, the Devil, Heaven, Hell or an eternal soul. Any evidence towards these has been undermined by scientific evidence which can account for people’s experiences because those experiences CAN be recreated. The Light at the End of the Tunnel (for instance) is simply a flush of endorphins into the brain at near-death which can be reproduced by taking the right combination of drugs. Therefore, these notions are mere conjecture and not working theories.
          Theories must work in real life and account for all data … or they are reduced to conjecture.
          What is amorality? Well, I’m glad you used that word. I would NOT call myself IM-moral. But I certainly am A-moral. I do NOT concern myself with issues of “right” or “wrong.” Why? Well, I’m not a 4 year old any longer. I can see the world in its complexity and I don’t feel the need to reduce it to the most simplistic of terms for ease of understanding. Instead I raise my intellect and struggle to grasp what I can of the world, fully accepting the limitation of my own perceptions but never failing to acknowledge and honor that which I have perceived. I am NOT unethical though. I understand the ramifications of my actions. I have effectively replaced the child-like view of Good and Bad (please Mom, Dad, God and Santa) and replaced it with the adult view of Cause and Effect. If we only tolerate Authority which uses our collective resources to provide equal opportunity for all and does so with the greatest degree of technical efficiency, then we will have both helped and avoided harming the greatest number of people. If we seek only to comply fearfully to an Authority who puts us under constant threat of punishment, we will only get the distribution of our treasure which that authority decides.
          Hopefully, you see that I have NOT avoided any of your questions. I highly doubt I provided answers which you’re comfortable with but then again, I wouldn’t be me if I did. You cannot say I avoided anything though or have given these ideas “no thought.”
          Also, I would think you should redo your test. You don’t arrange your sentences or thoughts like NTs. You’re quick to judge and categorize. You like authority and seem ever-vigilant in your defense. I would estimate you an SJ. Whether you’re E/I, T/F … that I cannot determine. But your language isn’t abstract (in fact, you’ve mentioned that you dislike the complex several times, seeing it as a facade). Your language certain isn’t probing but decisive (J over P). You seem very passionate in your words but they lack data, so I would image you to be an -SFJ but online script can be deceptive in that regard. Alternately, you seem to be more interested in judgement than compassion, so that could have been the part of the test which indicates you’re more T than F. I am unsure.
          In any case, I see you more as an SJ in your language and demeanor. This might be why you’re more conservative in your views and seemingly mystified by rationals who are more “leftist” than yourself.
          If you can get the book “Please Understand Me II” and take their test, it might help you see that you score 11 iNtuitive and 9 Sensing (out of 20 possible points). If you’re very close between 2 types, say “INTJ” and “ISTJ,” then you can read the descriptions of both The Architect and The Inspector, and see which one more closely matches your personality. The test isn’t always perfect so the book might serve as a better guide.

          Note to the fine folks at Keirsey:
          This might also be what’s throwing off the online test scores. If you took a group of people and had them take the book test and THEN had them read the personalities which could be CLOSE to theirs (like an EXTJ would have to decide if they’re an ENTJ or an ESTJ) to see which personalities they found closest to themselves and THEN had the people group themselves … you might find a higher degree of consistency in political views! People can be too careless in their test taking … and the test itself isn’t perfect in how it asks questions in order to yield the definitive results in personality typing which you might find more useful.

      2. Lord Anthony — I must comment on your dismissal of the Near Death Experience. While it is true that certain features of the NDE can be replicated, there are features that are not that simple, such as the ability of some people who are clinically dead to accurately report conversations of relatives occurring in different rooms or different buildings. In a few cases, an NDEr reports having a conversation during the NDE with someone who is in fact deceased but the NDEr didn’t yet know that person was deceased.
        Jan Holden (a psychotherapist and NDE researcher) has a great book summarizing the history of NDE studies. While the NDE phenomenon is not one that can be created for purposes of controlled experiments, it has been studied by a number of dedicated researchers with top educational credentials. A study of the information about it will demonstrate that it is not so easily dismissed as your comment would indicate.
        How is this relevant to types and politics? Well, I’m not sure, but I thought the comment deserved a response. I know several people who have had NDEs, and have been unable to dismiss their reports, so as a Rational I have incorporated it into my world view. That same world view leads me to analyze political issues, and has made me an ENTP who very much supports President Obama.

        1. Hey there Roberta,
          I had to re-read what I said. I didn’t mean to dismiss the experience of those who have had NDEs. I was saying that the “Light at the End of the Tunnel” experience can be recreated. Science allows us that recreation. I was being dismissive of dismissive scientists and dismissive anti-scientists, both of whom reject certain forms of evidence.
          Further, I personally do NOT dismiss NDEs whatsoever. I have absolutely no idea the capacities of the human brain, especially when uninterrupted by social filters and physical demands … specifically the conditions which near-death would bring.
          Can people imprint their energy in such a way where we can converse with their consciousness long after the brain itself has turned to dust? That’s a question as old as death itself!
          I see our universe as a place so large, amazing and mystical that we do not need false religion or scientific narrow-mindedness limiting it because they are terrified of social ramifications placed on them by their narrow-minded peers. I am unafraid of, grateful to and hold reverential awe for our reality just the way it is … even the realities of death and near-death.
          I don’t always find it agreeable of course … but what the hell are you gonna do?

  13. I am an Idealist “Healer”, or INFP.I largely agree with hese polls, fro what I’ve observed from other people and the fact that I am a large Obama supporter. I have a lot of respect for Romney- however, I just agree with Obama’s political philosophies far more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *