But, but, what if the small one is a grasshopper instead of an ant (in Keirsey’s preference terms, a Perceiver instead of a Judger?)  What if glorious chaos, toys covering every inch of the floor, yesterday’s clothes still in a pile near the closet, storybooks conveniently open on the floor, on the bed, on the dining table?  Then what?  You may start with the same gentle reminders and explanations, but curiously, nothing changes.  Months go by, maybe years, and you become increasingly stern and angry.  You vary between thinking that this girl behaves like this just to irritate you, and wondering if the family got the wrong child at the hospital.  Temperament matters.  It can make parent/child relationships remarkably easy or extremely diffiicult.  Understanding the real dynamics will not work miracles if you two are very different, but it can certainly help you to find a better strategy and a better pathway.

Let me give you a simple example from my own child rearing days.  When Mike, our oldest was between 4 and 5 he developed a fascination with turning on the hose in the back yard.  (Not on and off–just on.) Unfortunately, we had the hose, but no grass as yet—just a fence and lots and lots of dirt to make lots and lots of mud.  On one particular day I had had it and brought him in for a lengthy time-out in his room.  A long time went by with no tears or complaints.  After half an hour of this I went in to check the scene and found him playing totally happily by himself, with various odds and ends of toys that he had strung together.  I don’t doubt that this could have gone on for another hour.

Was a time-out, especially in a toy-available area, the right discipline for Mike?  Not at all.  It might have worked for a very extraverted child who would immediately been bored all alone, but Mike was a pretty happy little introvert.  It might have worked as an expression of parental displeasure for a child whose happiness depended on parental approval, but Mike’s happiness depended hugely on trying new things, and watching things happen. (We would say that he was more Feeler than Thinker, to use the terminology).  And it might have worked for a child who really focused on one thing at a time and would be very frustrated at being taken away from the garden hose (a bit more Judger) , but Mike was highly adaptable.  He was what we would now call an INTP—an Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiver.

Introverted?  All sorts of things were going on inside his little head, and he could be happy as a clam playing by himself.  Intuitive?  He was curious about everything, and especially about what made things work.  He wasn’t playing with the hose just to drive me crazy; he really wanted to see all the wonderful effects of running water.  Thinking?  Even at age five, reason and logic were more appealing than feelings.  Perceiver?  He was a little grasshopper, happy to go from one scene to another, to engage and disengage with whatever was in front of him.

What about Mike’s mom?  At least to a degree, I played the ant to his grasshopper. I wanted things to be orderly and under control as much as possible.  I did share some of his intuitive curiosity, but not about mud and hoses.  Certainly, if I understood him better I would have realized that happy time-outs were not an answer for either of us.  Quite possibly a locking mechanism on the  hose would have helped more, and finding more ways to let him experiment without destroying house and home would have been a positive step.   Short of that, time-outs in a barren and boring area would have been an improvement.

Of course, many parent-child conflicts are much more serious and frustrating than this.  Parents who dearly love to hug and cuddle their children, and find they have given birth to a happy but uncuddly little Thinker may feel that they are totally failing, when in fact the small person is just fine and the parent needs to do a lot of adjusting and accepting. On the opposite side, a cuddly child with a cool Thinker parent may feel very unloved unless the parent understands and stretches his or her own temperament preferences to meet the child’s needs.   Without realizing it, it is very possible to try to parent the child that you wanted, rather than the child you really have, and to be the parent that is comfortable rather than the one your child really needs.

Testing for temperament is an up to date way to begin a journey of understanding for yourself and your child.  If you two are very different sorts of people, it will be a long journey, with understanding struggling against all sorts of contrary feelings–annoyance, impatience, and disbelief.

The expression “as normal as breathing” is a good image for how much our basic temperament feels like the right temperament.  It takes time, lots of observation, and lots of reflection to begin to accept that our children have their own view of the world.   That doesn’t mean that everything should work to fit their view, but it does mean that there have to be compromises and there have to be strategies to make those compromises work.

Our “ant” mom with the grasshopper daughter, will be well advised to do several things.  First she needs to recognize that her automatic discomfort at untidy surroundings is simply not shared by her daughter, and is not a motivator at all.  Second, with this in mind, she needs to set much more limited standards for neatness and promptness than she would ever be comfortable with, but find ways to see that those minimal standards are met, for her own sake.  That is the compromise.  Third, once she accepts the fact that a need for tidiness is never going to be an inherent motivator, she needs to build in some external ones.  In our family it was what we called the “fink” basket.  All possessions had to be collected at the end of the day and put away.  Anything left out was confiscated and had to be bought back out of allowances or extra chores.  It worked–even for the worst of the grasshoppers.  That is just one of many possible strategies, but compromise and strategies are the name of the game here.

Understanding temperament just takes some of the anger out of this process, and hastens the move to compromise.  If this is an interesting idea for you  we invite you to go to www.parentingbytemperament.com for temperament tests that are designed for families, and free of charge.  Just look on the website menu for “About our Sorters”.

There are two somewhat separable ideas here.  The first is the enormous parent temptation to (not so much remake as make) our children in our own image, or into a glorified model of our own ideal image.  When David Keirsey originally wrote “Please Understand Me” his introductory pages were directed mainly at the adult, but they reverberate intensely in how we think about our children.  He said “People are different in fundamental ways.  They want different things;  they have different motives, purposes aims, values, needs drives, impulses, urges.  Nothing is more fundamental than that.  They believe differently; they think…perceive, understand and comprehend differently….Differences abound and are not at all difficult to see, if one looks.  And it is precisely these variations in behavior and attitude that trigger in each of us a common response:  Seeing others around us differing from us, we conclude that these differences in individual behavior are but temporary manifestations of madness, badness, stupidity or sickness…we rather naturally account for variations in the behavior of others in terms of flaw and affliction.  Our job…to correct these flaws.”

If it is common to see the differences in others as flaws–and it is–how much more true is this when we look at our children?  First of all, by definition your job as a parent is to bring up happy and successful children.   I remember my teenagers arguing one day about whether I pushed them down specific roads.  The oldest (with an ironic grin) said in effect “Oh no, mom, as long as we are all happy, have good friends, have lots of good goals and ambitions, you really don’t care what we do.”  That was all too true.  There was a fair amount of wiggle room in there, but still!

Adding to this, of course, is the fact that children are children.  They don’t yet think just the way we do, or have the same emotional ready buttons, or the same exact needs, so it is easy to read almost anything into their natures and future possibilities.

But third, is just the point that Keirsey was trying to make.  No matter what problems we may have in running our own lives, our own preferences and temperaments really dominate our sense of what is good and wise and healthy and what is not.  The Extravert may sympathize but can never really see the stay at home Introvert as mentally robust and healthy, while the Introver may see the Extravert’s charm, but secretly feel he/she is superficial.  Both think the other is  missing much in life.  The Judger cannot imagine  why the Perceiver wants such a messed-up, perpetually out of whack life, and the Perceiver cannot imagine why anyone would tie themselves up in knots trying to keep perfect order in what could be a happily chaotic world.  Thinkers have to see Feelers as not only illogical, but sort of weak and mushy when it comes down to it.  And Feelers will always be turned away by the Thinker’s hard edge.

Lastly, then, is the fact that underneath the baby fat and the infant burbles and coos and screams, a small unique person is developing all the same.  Some babies are good natured and calm and some clearly are not.  Some are very active from the start, others more inclined to watch the world unfold.  Like it or not, temperament is happening.

So we begin with a mission to parent well, with the truth that infants and young children look very new and malleable, with our own deep-seated feelings about what is a good way to feel and think and what is not, and with the fact that temperament is there in our child, just lurking below the surface.  And the great problem that lies ahead?  We will do our best not just to get our children to behave well, but to get them to “feel” properly, to like what we like, enjoy  what we enjoy.  Adults who have emerged from families that were, for them, unhappy places, will remember a varying mix of guilt, shame, rejection, rebellion and anger   over expectations they could not meet, or had no desire to meet.

One simple example might be the strong Thinking child with a gentle, Feeling mother.  Lets make it complete by making mom an Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling person and this child an Extraverted, Sensing, Thinker.  There is almost nowhere that they will instinctively understand each other.  Mom will have looked forward to her first child with a wealth of tenderness and joy, but as soon as this child (let’s make her a girl) is able to walk she tends to quickly wiggle off of laps and set out to do things.  This is going to be a profound disappointment, and more so since the expectations for a girl are typically more in the cuddly direction than is true for boys.  As an Introverted person, the mother would naturally turn far more to family for closeness than to a large network of friends, thus enhancing the problem.  The Sensing/Intuition difference would probably be less troublesome, but it does mean that a mother and child who already do not understand each other will also not reverberate to the same early stories and poems and ideas about the world.  What will happen here?  If the mother is very secure in herself and secure in her relationship to husband/family, we can assume she will be lastingly regretful, but will come to accept her child as she is, and love her for herself.  If not, you can imagine that this child will forever feel that she has disappointed, in her first and closest relationship, and feel guilty and perhaps ashamed, without reason or explanation.  In addition, she will probably pull away from this mother/child relationship far more than she would have if her natural feelings had been acceptable.  Would understanding temperament differences cure all this.?  Clearly, no, the problems are real; but it could lead this mother much closer to the first outcome here–understanding and acceptance of her child as she is.  And that would be so much better.

It is my belief that a strong Feeling/Thinking conflict may be the most serious within a family, simply because it can stir so much deep emotion and can have lasting effects on future relationships, but you can easily imagine many other cross-temperament problems.  Give a father the EST preferences we gave the child above, and perhaps add Judging, and then let his son be an INFP, and dad will have a fierce time trying to keep contempt out of his feelings for his son on many, many occasions.  This boy, in turn, may have a lifelong  struggle with self-respect and with finding his way in the world.  Again, would a knowledge of temperament be the cure?  No, but it surely could help.

The heart of the problem is that given the certainty we all have about what is and isn’t good and valuable in the world, we don’t just try to shape behavior and action, we try to shape the innermost thoughts, feelings and desires of our children–their very selves. That is where the damage is really done.  We all have to learn to make our way in the world, to acquire some skills, to compromise, to stretch to do necessary things.  To some degree, teaching this is the proper role of parents.  Teaching a child to have your thoughts and feelings instead of their own is something quite different–and quite destructive.

This is the first of several blogs on the role of temperament in parenting.  Next week will look at child temperament and discipline.

Reference

Keirsey, David & Bates, Marilyn (1978).  Please Understand Me.  Prometheus Nemesis:  Del Mar CA

Do the various temperaments stand on their own?  is it possible that there is a still higher regulator?  In 1985, Mary Rothbart, a highly respected developmental psychologist, suggested that there was such a factor and named it “Effortful Control”.*  Effortful control is composed of a number of related abilities that aid us in regulating our reactions, focusing attention, intentionally approaching (or not) situations and people,  inhibiting our own impulses where this seems wise, and even calming or distracting ourselves where this seems wise.  It adds up to a complex system of self-regulation.  Rothbart comments “Effortful control as a temperamental dimension in itself…refers to superordinate self-regulatory systems that can assert control over the reactive and self-regulatory processes of other temperament systems, so that an analogy to “effort” or “will” is appropriate….Operationally, Effortful Control is reflected in individual differences in the ability to voluntarily sustain focus on a task, to voluntarily shift attention from one task to another, to voluntarily initiate action, and to voluntarily inhibit action”.

Effortful control emerged as one of three factors in a study that was done on the Children’s Behavioral Questionnaire in 2001.  What they found was a very general factor (effortful control) and two more specific factors with multiple subfactors.  Of these two, one was labeled Extraversion/Surgency and included such subfactors as high activity, smilling and laughing, impulsivity, and positive anticipation.  The other was labeled Negative Affectivity and included fear, anger, sadness, discomfort and a lack of soothability.  These two factors relate to and resemble three of the Big Five factors–Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.  (Openness was not really measured in this study, and Agreeableness had some complex relationships).**  The new and important conclusion from this study was that effortful control was not simply another factor, but a superordinate one.  That is, it helped to regulate the outcomes of the other factors.  Rothbart et al. had this important comment about this :  “What does effortful control mean for temperament and development?  It means that unlike early theoretical models of temperament that emphasized how people are moved by the positive and negative emotions or level of arousal, people are not always as the mercy of affect.  Using effortful control, people can more flexibly approach situations they fear, and inhibit actions they desire.   The efficiency of control, however, will depend on the strength of the emotional processes against which effort is exerted.”**

For effortful control, the marshmallow study that we looked at some weeks ago is a nice example of this system in action.  Here the desire to eat one marshmallow was inhibited (by the toughest little four year olds) in favor of waiting 15 minutes and gaining two marshmallows.  Very technically, this is described as “the ability to inhibit a dominant response to perform a subdominant response.”  In the marshmallow scenario, the dominant response is “eat it now” and the subdominant is “wait for two”.  This same ability, however, can be seen in tasks that are less obviously motivated by immediate needs and wishes.  A good laboratory example is the Stroop Test.  Here, a subject is presented with color words (red, green, blue) that in some conditions are presented in the color that the word stands for, and in others are printed in a conflicting color (red printed in blue for example).  Subjects are asked to read the words rapidly or name the colors rapidly.  Where word and color conflict, effort is visible in the  longer time required to give the right response when word and color conflict.  Thus, as an observable concept, effortful control is visible to both everyday experience and laboratory measurement.

In developing this concept, Rothbart and her colleagues have approached the issue from many sides.  Focusing on children, they have demonstrated that effortful control is an ability that we all have in varying degrees, but develop very gradually.  The various components, such as ability to focus attention and/or inhibit voluntarily inhibit a behavior, are basically just not there in the infant.  Directed attention begins to show up between 9 months and a year or more (varying with the child), and inhibiting voluntary behavior on command (not touching that glass vase when mama says “no”) begins somewhere around here also.  That this inhibition has little to do as yet with “self” control is obvious from the fact that it disappears the moment mom looks away!  When the child can decide on her own that the right answer is “no” there has been an enormous amount of development in both brain and organized mind.  At three to four you will begin to see it, but even here it may be accompanied by a speech reminder as the child tells herself “mama says no about that”.

Around two and a half, children begin to show this ability in simple laboratory tasks. such as waiting (briefly) for candy beneath a transparent cup, or on request, drawing a line more slowly.  As these abilities emerge, the individual child is quite consistent  in ability accross the tasks( whether good or bad), and in future improvements in this, but children differ considerably from one another.  At about 3 1/2 to 4 years children develop the ability to play an interesting variant of “Simon Says”.  They first learn to do whatever Simon says (and Simon may be a stuffed bear or elephant) and then must learn to do what Simon as the bear says and not do what Simon as the elephant says.  For a three year old this is absolutely hopeless.  As they come to about 3 1/2 this may become possible some of the time, but, for example, when the command is something like “clap your hands” you may find a child trying to sit on a hand to keep it from clapping!  At four the problem is simply gone!  So–effortful control has a clear developmental pattern.

Another approach has been measuring brain activity while various conflict tasks are being done.  This has been measured both for children of various ages, and adults.  It is very clear that the same general brain areas, as a system, are activated by these tasks in both children and adults.  The main difference is that much wider areas are activated in children, and these narrow down to a much more efficient pattern in adults.  These areas form a pattern that is specific to this type of task, and overlies what are more broadly called the executive regions of the briain–those involved not  only in self-control, but in such related functions as long-range planning.  Effortful control involves the frontal cortex and an area known as the anterior cingulate gyrus, and so do the larger executive functions.  So–effortful control has a specific pattern of brain activation that is related to our most complex brain functions.

Finally, there are also genetic findings that further support the concept of a system for effortful control.  In 2001 a study of effortful control in twins found high heritability (.89) for performance on effortful control tasks.  Researchers then went on to look for specific genes that twin pairs high in effortful control (or low in effortful control) had in common.  Two such genes were found.  One was particularly interesting because in certain forms it was associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and sensation seeking (clearly the opposite of high effortful control).  This was a gene involved in the dopamine transmitter system in the brain, which has several differing forms (alleles).  Better performance on the effortful control tasks proved to be related to a form of the gene that is not involved in hyperactivity, and poorer performance was related to this gene.  So there is meaningful genetic support for effortful control.

Do all those findings make effortful control an uber temperament factor? Well, it is a very interesting idea, and it would help explain MBTI users who find that some of their preferences are perpetually on the borderline, or perpetually just shifting sides.  Lets just play with Judging/Perceiving for the moment.  A perceiver who experiences many problems as a result of appointments missed, tasks undone etc. but who is strong in effortful control, might slowly develop early warning of trouble, and habits of control that will smooth this out.  He/she would not have lost the perceiver preference, but in action might be more Judger like.  In answering a temperament question, then, answers might be different depending on whether the focus was on preference or actual behavior.  At least, it is an interesting idea to play with!

References

*Ahadi, S. A. et al. (1994)  Temperament, Development, and the Big Five.  In C. F. Halverson Jr. et al. (Eds.)  The developing Structure of Temperament and Personality from Infancy to Adulthood.  Hillsdale NJ:  Erlbaum.

**Rothbart, M. K. et al. (2000).  Stability of temperament in childhood:  Laboratory infant assessment to parent report at seven years.  In V. J. Molfese & D. L. Molfee (Eds), Temperament and personality development across the lifespan.  Hillsdae NJ:  Erlbaum

***Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K. et al. (2005).  Training, maturation and genetic influences on the development of executive attention.  PNAS 102 (41) 14931-14936.

We are offering free copies of our book Parenting by Temperament in return for joining our Forum.  This forum, (GO HERE) of course is also free of charge.  It is a place where people interested  in temperament in children and their parents can ask questions of the authors and ask questions of one another.  To get the book you have to go to the Forum and register (and wait patiently for us to be sure that you are a real person and not a spam factory).  After that you can post a request for the book and we will ship it to you, and look forward to your questions.  The below link will give you more detailed information.

ABOUT OUR FORUM  (detailed information on the Forum and on registration.)

Tiger Moms, in Professor Chua’s model are strict and demanding beyond the wildest American dreams. Among the things that her daughters were “never allowed to do” were “attend a sleepover, be in a school play, complain (about it) watch TV or play computer games, get any grade less than an A…. ” She says “If a Chinese child gets a B–which would never happen–there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and then work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.”

The prime example in all of this is the story of her younger daughter, Lulu and a piano piece called “The Little White Donkey” It requires that the two hands simultaneously play radically different rhythms, and is apparently really challenging. Chua says of this “Lulu couldn’t do it. We worked on it nonstop for a week, drilling each of her hands separately, over and over. But whenever we tried putting the hands together, one always morphed into the other, and everything fell apart.” Lulu threw an all-American style tantrum but her mother refused to back off. She says “I rolled up my sleeves and went back to Lulu. I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn’t let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling….Then out of the blue, Lulu did it. Her hands suddenly came together–her right and left hands each doing their own imperturbable thing–just like that.” The end of this tale is that Lulu was ecstatic and played the piece over and over in total delight.

The Little White Donkey episode is clearly over the top, but it illustrates, by sheer exaggeration, some remarkable differences in European and American parenting views and traditional Chinese views. The best known style set for American parenting was studied in great detail by developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind. She conceptualized the commonest approaches to parenting as falling on two axes, one with either high or low love and nurturance (responsiveness) and the other with high or low rules, regulations and behavioral expectations (demandingness). Combinations of these produced the four categories of authoritative, authoritarian, permissive and unengaged parenting Briefly these looked like the following:

Authoritative: High responsiveness and high demandingness. Their high responsiveness leads to strong demandingness that also makes room for the child’s feelings and nature, and some willingness to discuss reasons for rules etc. Children receive strong levels of caring and respect along with firm discipline.

Authoritarian Low responsiveness and high demandingness. Here demandingness is heightened by the lack of strong love and nurture. Obedience is the one and only real lesson to be taught, and discussion of parenting rules is generally not tolerated. Parents may see their main job as breaking the willfulness of the child.

Permissive: High responsiveness and low demandingness. Here the parent role is to love and accept the child in all circumstances, The parent believes that the inherent goodness of the child will carry the day with little or no disciplinary measures, as long as this child feels good about the child/parent relationship and is high in self regard and self esteem.

Unengaged: Low responsiveness and low demandingness. Very little to say here. This is the uninvolved parent who simply does not care.

Of the four styles, the Authoritative has been seen, in most studies, to produce the best outcomes for children.  They have been found to be more independent and friendly, more self-assertive, cooperative, and more strongly motivated and more academically successful.  By comparison,  girls raised in the Authoritarian style were found to be more dependent on their parents and likely to withdraw if frustrated, while as the authoritarian style increased, boys  were especially likely to become hostile and sometimes aggressive.  Academically they were competent on average, but less so than the authoritatively raised children. ***

The outcome of the Permissive style, somewhat surprisingly, was a little like the authoritarian style.  Children in this group are often found to be dependent, more moody and lacking in self-control and self-regulation. Finally the Unengaged style is really no style at all and there is little to say about it that is good.

When families from other cultures were studied, however findings were not so simple.  Asian parents, in particular were found to be highly authoritarian in the demands they made on their children, very much in the style of the Tiger Mom, while child outcomes included high academic achievement, little obvious rebellion, and development into successful and well mannered adults.

Looking deeper into this, a 1994 study found that the typical Chinese mother was every bit as controlling as the American authoritarian, and often much more so, as Amy Chua’s description suggests.**** However, the controls were focused around the idea that the mother is the child’s essential trainer in life.  While controlling, she is constantly teaching, modeling, and molding the child for the ability to persist in difficult tasks, to learn as much as can be crammed into each day, and to develop the respectful social behaviors that the culture requires.

All this sounds like something a Marine drill instructor might do, but after you absorb that you find that this is coupled with an an extraordinary amount of caring,  involvement and closeness.  The authors note that “In the child’s early years, the mother provides an extremely nurturing environment for the child by being physically available and by promptly attending to the child’s every need.  When children reach school age, the mother provides the support and drive for them to achieve in school and to ultimately meet the societal and familial expectations for success.  This training, then, takes place in the context of a supportive, highly involved, and physically close mother-child relationship.”  (Note that it is common for the child to sleep with the mother throughout early childhood.)

This simply does not fit any of the four Baumrind temperament categories.  It is as though you combined a very high level of authoritative demandingness, added much more constant effort at training than any American mother would want to do,  subtracted the idea of democratic discussion of rules and expectations (like the authoritarian parent, there is a flavor of “because I said so” in the parent attitude), and then dialed responsiveness up to a level that would make a Permissive parent proud.

It is important to realize that this approach appears to be very effective in producing highly motivated and academically remarkable children and adults.  Unlike the child of Permissive parents, these are not reported as moody, or lacking in self control.  Unlike the child of the authoritarian parent (especially boys), there are no findings of enhanced hostility.  And academically Asian-American children swamp the University of California system, and many fine universities across the world.

So what is the bottom line?  Should the whole world adopt this fascinating parenting style?  Imagining this style applied to the typical American child is likely to bring on a serious giggling fit, so my guess is “no”.  By reputation, Asian children (and adults) are quiet, respectful, sensitive about hurting or offending others, and probably massively introverted, though this is more observational than the result of extensive testing.

The usual argument would be that both the parenting styles and the socio-cultural behaviors would be culturally learned and culturally enforced.  If so, perhaps it would be a better world if we all followed Amy Chua.  However, a little remembered study, dating back to 1969, suggests that there may be other forces at play.*****

It is entitled “Behavioral Differences between Chinese-American and European-American newborns“. **** The newborns were exactly that–studied while still in the hospital nursery.  There were 24  babies in each of the two groups matched closely in mean age since birth, birthweight, hours of labor, Apgar scale (a measure of health at birth) and other relevant measures.  An infant behavior scale called the Brazelton was given along with other behavioral tests.  Overall statistical analysis indicated that “on the basis of total performance the two groups were decidedly different, and that the principal differences came from “the group of items measuring excitability/imperturbability”.  For example, although the total amount of crying was about the same, they note that “The Chinese infants were, however, often dramatically immediate in their cessation of crying when picked up and spoken to.”  They also stopped crying sooner even on their own and were thus considered higher in self-soothing.

The most interesting pair of measures in this group, however, were the following:

a.  the tester placed a loosely woven piece of cloth firmly on the baby’s face with the following result–  “While the typical European-American infant immediately struggled to remove the cloth by swiping with his hands and turning his face, the typical Chinese-American infant lay impassively, exhibiting few overt motor responses.

b.  When placed face and body down (prone)  “the Chinese infants frequently lay as placed, with the face flat against the bedding, whereas the Causcasian infants either turned the face to one side or lifted  the head.”  The authors comment “Inasmuch as there was no difference between the groups in the ability to hold the head steady, this maintenance of the face in the bedding is taken as a further example of relative imperturbability or ready accommodation to external changes.”

These infant test findings present fascinating images when coupled with  the differences described here for the best Chinese versus best American parenting styles.  There is no reasonable doubt that the prevailing cultural styles in any society tend to shape the behavior of their members.  But it is an interesting question (and seldom asked) as to how any cultural style came into existence.  My bet is that temperament comes first and culture develops as the choice of the prevailing or most dominant temperaments of that society.

References

*Chua, Amy (2011).  Why Chinese Mothers are Superior.  WSJ.com

**Paul, Annie M. (2011).  Tiger Moms:  Is Tough Parenting Really the Answer?  www.time.com

***Feldman, Robert S. (2001).  Child Development.  Prentice Hall:  New Jersey

****Chao, Ruth (1994). Beyond Parental Control and Authoritarian Parenting Style:  Understanding Chinese Parenting through the Cultural Notion of Training.  Child Development 65, 1111-1119.

*****Freedman, D. G. & Freedman, N. C. (1969).  Behavioral Differences between Chinese-American and European-American Newborns.  Nature, 224, 1227

 A species in which everyone was General Patton would not succeed, any more than would a race in which everyone was Vincent Van Gogh.  I prefer to think that the planet needs athletes, philosophers, sex symbols, painters, scientists;  it needs the warmhearted, the hardhearted, the coldhearted and the weakhearted.  It needs those who can devote their lives to studying how many droplets of water are secreted by the salivary glands of dogs under which circumstances, and it needs those who can capture the passing impression of cherry blossoms in a fourteen-syllable poem or devote twenty-five pages to the dissection of a small boy’s feelings as he lies in bed in the dark waiting for his mother to kiss him goodnight. . . .Indeed the presence of outstanding strengths presupposes that energy needed in other areas has been channeled away from them.

                                                                                             Allen Shawn

In describing my “pure” SPs, SJs, NFs, and NTs I have tried to invent creatures that were designed and motivated only by their two intense temperament preferences.  In doing that I have certainly created largely hypothetical people that neither existed in the past nor exist in the present.  I qualify this with the word “largely” however, as it is my feeling that we all will, in the course of a lifetime, encounter a few people who come startlingly  close to being one or another of these four pure temperament types.

As I began thinking about this, I was certainly interested in what sort of world they would want and what sort of world they would create, but my larger intention was to try to imagine what kind of world they would need, given our real planet, as it is, full of all sorts of temperaments and types.

Pure SPs as I have described them, would create many useful things, but would not devote themselves to the lengthy study of the sciences, and would not have a technologically complex world, however much they might love high technology if others designed it.  They would not delve deeply into philosophy, psychology or sociology, however much they might delight in their social relationships with each other.  Most seriously, if their sunny, grasshopper natures encountered harsh challenges of climate, terrain, food scarcity, it is valid to question whether they would have been long range survivors.  Short of that catastrophy we can be fairly sure that their lives would be shorter, lacking the medicines, techniques and life-styles that promote health.

But–they would have exemplified the kind of life that can be experienced when you take each day at a time,  enjoy all the pleasures, refuse to stress or worry about the future, and refuse to stress over the past as something you should have controlled and must now feel guilty or shamed about.  At the risk of groans from the SPs of this world, I suggest they would have all the  charms, blessings and shortcomings of happy children.

Pure SJs, as we saw oppose these SP qualities in many many ways.  They would be far more capable of establishing a well-ordered society, and I would rate them highly on their odds of long term survival.  They would certainly worry more than enough about the future and its possible catastrophes, and agonize over past problems that they should have prevented.  Worry–guilt–stress–they might be in desperate need of the nurturing NF, but by themselves–hmm.  SJs in the real world, with smatterings of all the other preferences, and surrounded by the contributions of other temperaments, certainly do find pleasures in life, but all alone–it sounds a bit grim.

Pure NFs.  Here again, I doubted if lack of the qualities needed to survive in a sometimes hostile world would allow them to endure in the long run. Without the toughness of all the other temperaments, dealing with hostile animals, whether for food or for self-defense, would be very problematic.   Without NT high technology and SJ willingness to work hard and organize, it would not be possible to manage daily life without constant repetitive work–gathering and storing food, making and mending clothing and shelter, etc. Thus, life would not offer much opportunity to nurture others or to reflect, introspect and search for meaning in existence.  Whether the NF would eventually die off or merely live a drab and meaningless (for them) existence, is hard to guess.

Pure NTs  To my own more moderate NT mind, the Pure NT strikes me as the temperament most likely to be able to survive fairly well in isolation.  There would be great frustration in having an endless stream of new ideas that could only come to fruition if they stopped thinking about more new ideas and spent most of the time physically constructing the tools and gadgets that had already come to mind.  This wouldn’t make them happy campers, but it probably would make them survivors.  Their technological progress would be infinitely slow, compared to the possibilities in a four temperament world, and I think they would experience great frustration at times.  The rich emotions of love and friendship that mean so much to most of us would be missing, but perhaps not missed by them.  All in all, I feel that they would not experience what life offers the NT in our real world, but perhaps would not be totally miserable on their own.  My purpose in creating these extreme temperament worlds has been this–to create a vivid a picture of the temperament extremes and the possible worlds they might create.

None of these pure two-preference temperaments would give us the wild and wooly but vibrant world we have now.  No doubt there are good Darwinian reasons for this array of human differences.  What is very important, however, is to see that while the different preferences each bring strengths to our world to share,  they also bring problems that would not exist in the one-temperament world.

One good thing about each of the hypothetical temperament worlds that were created here is this:  In all cases, members would have no problem understanding one another.  Their values would be widely shared, and their ideas about how the world should go, how society should be structured, how people should work, or play, or raise their children, would be held in common.  Similarly, whether it was an intense NF relationship world, or a cool, Spockian NT world, there is no reason to assume that sharp dislikes would occur because of strong personal differences.

That all changes when we come back to our real multi-temperament, multi-type world.  Keirsey expressed the reality of this very well in his introduction to his first edition of Please Understand Me.  He noted that:

People are different in fundamental ways.  They want different things;  they have different motives, purposes, aims, values, needs, drives, impulses, urges.  Nothing is more fundamental than that.  They believe differently; they think, cognize, conceptualize, perceive, understand, comprehend, and cogitate differently….

And it is precisely these variations in behavior and attitude that trigger in each of us a common response:  Seeing others around us differing from us, we conclude that those differences in individual behavior are but temporary manifestations of madness, badness, stupidity or sickness.  In other words, we rather naturally account for variations in the behavior of others in terms of flaw and affliction.  Our job, at least for those near us, would seem to be to correct those flaws.  Our Pygmalion project, then, is to make all those near us just like us.

Exposing the problems inherent in this view of human beings,  has been the core achievement of Keirsey’s work, of Isabel Myer’s work with the MBTI, and for that matter, of Carl Jung’s struggle to bring this idea of individual differences to a world that was intoxicated with the idea that all humans were essentially alike–all sharing one grand purpose or drive, from Freudian Eros to Adler’s  Will to Power, to Sullivan’s need for social solidarity.

But, when Keirsey says that “Our Pygmalion project, then, is to make all those near us just like us” he oversimplifies.  As disappointed as we would be if it happened, in some important ways our project is to make everyone be more like us.  We actually have some flexibility in choosing those who are near to us;  we can pick our mates (though not our children), and can, to some degree, choose our friends, employers and colleagues.  Obviously that shrinks as we settle into our choices.  As life goes on we do spend much of our time trying to improve those those around us, i.e. make them much more tender hearted or tough minded, organized or carefree, and so forth.

What is little discussed is the role of our temperaments, types, and preferences in the larger world of politics and government.  SPs passionately want to be free to live as they please;  SJs want everything to be neat, tidy and extremely well controlled, including SPs themselves.  NTs want to establish social systems that are effective and efficient, and would largely subscribe to the maxim of “the greatest good for the greatest number”.  If that does not work equally well for everyone, that is unfortunate, but can’t be helped.  NFs want equality for everyone, not only in money, possessions, and civil rights, but also in social status, social regard and personal self-esteem.  If no system of government has, or will be able to produce that, then we just have to keep trying.  They cling passionately to the belief that what should be, will be. They believe that the quality of government is judged by its care for the least of us, disregarding whether this also provides for the well being of most of us.

In important ways, I believe that political beliefs and actions are driven by the need to create a world that is a good fit for who we are, what we want, and what we value.  In the best of all possible worlds, NFs and NTs would respect one another’s views, but, in fact, political NTs see political NFs as emotional, childlike and illogical, while NFs see NTs as coldhearted, selfish and indifferent.  SPs see SJs as meddlesome, prissy, and joyless, while SJs see SPs as wastrels and layabouts.  (Extraversion/Introversion is more difficult to think about in terms of political conflicts. Such conflicts can cause great stress and disagreement between spouses and close friends, and in some social situations, but on their own, it is hard to politicize them.  More likely it is their role within types that affects political beliefs and actions.  For an example, an introverted NF would seem to be more profoundly moved by the plight of those who are poor, helpless or discriminated against, than would an extraverted NF.)

And the point of all this?  We use politics as temperament’s battleground, to try to create a world closer to our hearts’ desires, and we never admit it.  We believe that we are fighting for what is right, against (depending on your views) the forces of evil, of corruption, or of stupidity.  If we were serious in believing that temperament is a biological given,  then logically we should be trying to create a world that is comfortable for each and all.  We don’t do that, not only because that is a strange and foreign idea,but also because there is no clear path to that end.  We do, of course, compromise, with for example, capitalism and the welfare state trying to exist side by side, but it is just war by other means, with both sides striving endlessly to gain a better footing and push the compromise line further in their favored direction.  The fury that exists in America today between strong Democrats and strong republicans is a profound example.  In some ways I think it is deeper than similar divisions in the past, because there is little sense that people on opposite sides of the divide can still respect and care for one another–or even socialize!  And little sense that the conflicts will recede except through a decisive and long lasting triumph of one view or the other.

For myself, I have sort of small-state, quasi-libertarian view.  I think that the major functions of government that affect our daily lives should be in units small enough, and numerous enough so that people can gather in governmental areas that are compatible with their own views.  Imagine, for example that the national US government returned to only its earliest functions–national defense, the postal service (or maybe not–Fed-Ex?) etc., and states could exist side by side with a capitalist Maryland, a socialist Vermont, legal abortion in California, but not in Wisconsin, public schools in Florida and privatized systems in Utah.  I am calling it quasi-libertarian because obviously some of these states would have many strict rules, while others would not, but at the state level they would be free to make these choices.

I am not sure any of the temperaments would support me here.  NTs would see it as inefficient (no doubt about that), NFs would be horrified at the tolerance of states who rejected their deepest values, SJs would find it very disorderly and unpredictable, and–maybe, maybe–SPs would like it?

The one thing I do feel sure of is that greater and greater political globalization,  more and more enforced homogeneity of thought and action, on an ever wider scale, is the royal road to a world in which innate human differences will have no place.  And that, in the end will not be a world of peace as some planners dream.  As Keirsey said of those who want to remake “all those near to us”–”this project is impossible…remove the fangs of a lion and behold a toothless lion, not a domestic cat.  Our attempts to change…others, can result in change, but the result is a scar and not a transformation.”

Here is to still believing that small is beautiful, and to a Happy Easter/Peaceful Passover.

References

Cain, Susan (2012).  Quiet:  The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking. Crown Publishers:  New York.

Keirsey, David & Bates, Marilyn (1978).  Please Understand Me.  Prometheus Nemesis:  Del Mar, CA.

]]> http://temperamentmatters.com/2012/04/06/the-four-temperaments-and-politics-strength-strife-and-what-to-do-about-it/feed/ 4 http://temperamentmatters.com/2012/03/24/temperament-why-we-need-all-the-temperaments-to-make-the-world-work/ http://temperamentmatters.com/2012/03/24/temperament-why-we-need-all-the-temperaments-to-make-the-world-work/#comments Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:58:28 +0000 INTJ http://temperamentmatters.com/?p=604 Continue reading →]]> Do we really need all four temperaments to make the world work?  We can answer this in two very different ways.  First, if–as in the recent mind experiment blogs here–the whole world consisted of only one temperament, then perhaps not.

Let’s think about the Artisan SP world first.  Assuming that Artesans had little or no interest in complex learning in the academic STEM areas (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), it would be a technologically simple world.I suspect SP people would be just as happy without computers, iphones and ipads, and just as content to ride horseback as to fly about in 747s.  Music and art might not reach the complexity that is possible after many years of study, but again, there is no reason to think that it would be any less enjoyable.  On the whole I would think that SPs would enjoy life, with less angst, depression or stress than any other temperament–especially with no Guardians warning about future calamities, no Idealists trying to analyze their happy-go-lucky behavior, and no NTs trying to make them buckle down and accomplish serious things..

But–there is a sort of grasshopper side to the SP that might lead to disaster, depending on circumstances.  If the SP world was perpetually middling-warm, with gentle rains that filled the lakes but never overflowed them, with endless amounts of similarly endowed space to expand in, and no fierce predator animals to overwhelm them, and no virulent diseases to wipe them out, the SP world might be a kind of perpetual Eden.

On the other hand, if there were serious and continuing hazards, the life of the pure SP might not be so desirable.  Assume a real world distributed much like the one we know.  Even if our SPs had developed in a warm and pleasant part of the world, chances are they would outgrow it.  The lack of scientific study would make it unlikely that modern methods of contraception would have developed, and the SP temperament would make it unlikely that any sort of simpler “rhythm” method would be observed very strictly.  So, they would probably outgrow paradise and have to move on to less and less hospitable areas.  If the stock of local animals was slowly depleted, and/or moved further and further from the human predators, hunting would become more arduous.  Complicate this with snow and punishing temperatures in the winter and it would become necessary to set aside summer bounty for winter survival.  These are ant skills and, as noted, there is a strong grasshopper side to the SP.  Definitely not an advantage in hard times.

Similarly, assuming that even the original Eden area had its share of toxic viruses, fungi, poisonous insects etc., the SPs would presumably not develop anything resembling modern medicine, and for these and other reasons would probably have shorter and less physically healthy lives.

If you are not thinking in temperament terms, then it seems logical that illness, cold winters, lack of food and so forth would teach these little loafers (or at least their children) a lesson, and behavior would change.  But if you do assume that temperament is real and very persistent, you have to assume that the hard lessons of  winter would not seem very persuasive when summer was warm and spirits were high.  So, in a sense, the pure SP seems equipped to be the happiest of temperaments, but only in a very kind and benign world.

So how about the Artisan cousin-the SJ Guardian?  I don’t know quite what the Guardian would do in the original Eden conditions that were suggested above.  It is hard to worry and warn about cold and snow and poor hunting conditions when none of these things have ever happened to you.  I suspect that they might fuss about children not being brought up well enough, and certainly worry about the profusion of them and what that might mean for the future.  And, even with nothing else to worry about, no doubt they would keep busy making and enforcing rules and arguing about which rules were the better and more appropriate ones.  The possibility that others were not working hard enough, even if there was nothing much to work at, would be a cause of concern, and rules for the sharing/not sharing of resources, space, and sexual partners would also occupy the Guardian mind.

Would there be a lot of singing and dancing and joke telling in the Eden phase?  It is hard to say.  Guardians in our world certainly do participate in these pleasures, but would they invent them on their own?

When problems did develop, however, when migration was necessary, when food and meat became scarce and tended to disappear. the SJ Guardian would truly come into his/her own.  Plans would be made for the best locations to migrate to.  Methods for long distance hunting trips and ways to bring back the meats, hides, horns etc. would be developed. (Recall that logistical thinking is their forte’).  No doubt ways of curing meats, of freezing them where possible, and of cultivating seeds and growing plants in summer to be stored where possible for winter, would all develop.  Strict rules for work and for sharing of all food and shelter would certainly be developed.  No doubt worry for the unseen future would always be a part of daily life, but the SJ would be doing what an SJ was born to do.

What would be lacking?  For the pure SJ perhaps the answer is “nothing”–this world as it is might be fine.  However, we have hypothesized from the beginning that for each temperament the remaining preferences (for the SJ the Thinking/Feeling and Extraversion/Introversion preferences) would be essentially neutral, having no real influence.  Assuming that, it is unlikely that SJs would go beyond immediate needs to create complex scientific knowledge, so it seems logical that most modern technology, from movies to space travel, would not exist, (and would not be missed by the SJ).  Deep philosophical theories seem equally unlikely, and the lack of Feeling would seem to make religious devotions unlikely too.  This is not true of SJs in a world where religions have developed around them and become part of their life traditions, but it does seem likely for these pure and isolated SJs.  Finally, without the carefree merriment of the SPs, it would seem to be a far more serious, far less fun-loving world.

Now, lets look at the Idealist NF world.  Intuition (N) would suggest that they would be more inventive and creative than the SP or SJ temperaments, and we can imagine that children would be well educated up to the limit of their abilities and interests.  Many adults would go on to college/university studies, but here again the STEM studies would presumably not draw interest (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), so once again, advanced technology and technological inventions would probably be lacking.  History, philosophy, sociology, psychology and who know what other fascinations of the NF mind would surely dominate.  You can imagine psychotherapy and self-learning being everywhere.  Would they miss technological products they had never seen?  Seems unlikely.

Would they, like the SPs, fail to cope with difficult conditions requiring both long range planning and substantial advance effort?  Probably yes, to some degree.  They would be even more likely than the SJ Guardian to imagine future problems and see a need to prepare for problems.  But–this preparation would not be a welcome task.  You can imagine the Guardian rising to the height of SJ power and feeling a kind of excitement and fulfillment about worrying, assigning tasks, and seeing that all was in order for any coming crisis.  And–you can imagine the NFs thinking that they really need to do that, but finding it really boring, and procrastinating.  Conflict over who had what task, and who was/was not doing it well, would probably be common, along with all sorts of excuses about friends who needed comforting, parents undergoing depression, children with self-esteem drizzling downward and so forth.  To summarize that, the human spirit would be carefully tended but technology and resource management would always be secondary concerns.

And if the situation required violent action?  Well, this may be a little hard to imagine in the setting that has been outlined here.  If they were attacked by a roving band of hungry SPs or SJs I suspect all their efforts to  negotiate, conciliate and stand for Peace above all, would mean they would be purely wiped out.  But–since we have already specified that all humans were pure NFs, that presumably could not happen.  Predatory animals?  Now that is interesting.  It seems unlikely that any humans would  have survived initially without being meat eaters–a problem for the peaceable NF.  Fish might be an alternative solution in some locales, but even that involves a little cruelty and violence.  They can’t run down to Whole Foods for tofu.  What to do?  One solution might be to wait patiently (prayerfully?) until a given predator died of natural causes, but you would get pretty hungry from one such event to another.  And storing up meats for a snowy winter sounds like it would be impossible in terms of quantity.  Hmm, hmm.  A pure diet of nuts, fruits, and naturally grown vegetables would require a great deal of time spent hunting and gathering, especially if we add in the possibility of cold and snowy winters. This certainly would not fit with natural NF interests.  It would seem that the pure NFs would  survive only in the Eden like situation we described at the beginning–pleasant temperate climate, and for them lakes full of fish, animals who frequently died near by, and/or bountiful and easily available fruits, vegetables and nuts.

Then there is the issue of predators themselves.  If roaming bands of large meat-eaters found that NFs were both tasty and easy to catch, there would be a whole other problem.  This possibility is not inconsistent with our assumption that NFs were the only humans.  It is perfectly possible that many non-human species had no Idealist traits at all, and would be totally uninterested in peaceful reconciliation.  The logical NF response to this, presuming that taming was not successful, would be to build strong defensive barricades and maintain them well.  This could be done, but again would again take the NFs away from all their natural interests and constantly confront them with the cruel aspects of life.

And finally, how about the NTs?  NTs are the natural scientists, technologists, engineer-designers and mathematicians (STEMs) of the world.  And if we include Keirsey’s descriptions they are the natural CEOs of the world.  A brief collection of his description of the major roles of NT types will lead both to what they contribute and to what is missing.  He calls the ENTJ the Fieldmarshal and suggests that they arrange a well-ordered hierarchy that makes possible the chain of command and the mobilizing of forces.”  The INTJ is called the Mastermind and is said to ‘arrange things in coherent and comprehensive sequential order, that is, they coordinate operations by making efficient schedules. with each item entailing the next, as a necessary precursor or consequence.”  The INTP is called the Inventor and “they develop their skill in devising prototypes…and must make sure their prototypes don’t just make sense on paper, but work in the real world.”  Finally, the INTP is the Architect who “makes structural plans, models, blueprints…” What matters for them is “The coherence of their designs is what counts, the elegance of their configurations, be they plans for a building, an experiment, a curriculum or a weapon of war.” It is assumed that “every NT plays all four of these roles well, but not equally well.

Returning to the pure NT in our theoretical story you have to go back to the assumption that Extraversion/Introversion preferences, and Judging/Perceiving preferences are neutral–having no special effects, and that all their N and T responses are 100% in that direction so that Sensing and Feeling have little or no influence. As a group then, they are superbly equipped to  design, plan, structure, and coordinate–perfectly equipped to run massive corporations and institutions of all sorts, and to bring, often brilliant, new ideas from a first fuzzy moment to a magnificent final product.

What they do not do well is the more everyday, but critical work of the world.  After a Mastermind’s master plan for a sea-going ship has been born, others must see to it that it works at the level of the smaller everyday units.  Someone must see to it that these units are staffed, and their workers are well placed and are disciplined as needed.  (We need many, many SJs in secondary administrative places).  Someone must cut, sand, plane and build the lovely boat they have designed to venture out into the awesome ocean .  (We need SPs with great skills and pleasure in using their skills to do this.)  We need other SPs with both skill and daring to captain the boat and many future boats.  We need  still others with emotional sensitivity to motivate new workers, to settle grievances and help workers with emotional problems.  (In short, we need NFs).

As Keirsey tells us repeatedly NTs are clever and resourceful people.  No doubt they would find some middlingly, satisfactory answer to this–taking turns at the jobs they cared less for, and learning whatever skills might be needed.  They would survive, they would find ways to migrate if necessary, to store food, if necessary, to hunt over great distances if necessary, and to gradually build the technology that would make all these tasks much easier.  But–the process would be slowed, less exciting, and less joyful (if pure NTs can be described as joyful).

And finally, what about emotion, what about wondering about the meaning of life, what about nurture and tenderness?  I think we have to say that there is a sense in which all NTs have important emotions.  It is just a bit Spockian and unfamiliar to most of us when it is extreme.  Keirsey has a fine quote about this by what appears to be an NT computer whiz.  In a rare moment of excitement the whiz says “You want to be the first to do something.  You want to create something.  You want to innovate something….I often think of Edison inventing the light bulb.  That’s what I want to do.  I want to drive over the bridge coming out of New York there and look down on that sea of lights that is New Jersey and say “Hey, I did that!” This is not Feeling as we usually think of it, not love for another, not pride of place, compassion for the less fortunate, but certainly emotion.  And wondering about the meaning of life?  Well, no amount of wondering has ever produced an answer that we can agree upon, let alone do something about, and realistically if you are an NT who wakes every day full of purpose and dying to get through breakfast and on to your current project your life has all the meaning you can deal with.

And so, the initial question was–can the world really work if only one temperament exists?  In terms of self-satisfaction I truly think the answer is yes.  SPs would not miss the technology they might never invent, and thus never have seen, nor would SJs or NFs.  The SP world would be careless and poorly supervised but there is no reason to think that this would trouble them, at least unless or until this became life-threatening.  SJs would be in their own heaven, keeping rules tight and everything organized.  NFs would have a world in which everyone valued the search for meaning and self-identify above all, and they would relish that, and NTs would have a world forever stretched out in front of them to conquer and change.  Each temperament would find that their fellow humans were easy to understand, and the social structure seemed to suit them.

The most serious problems that might occur  seem to relate to long term survival.  If SPs had to make long-term plans in order to survive cold winters, summer droughts and declines in the abundance of animals and plant foods, would they change enough to do this? If those plans meant that they had to work hard at dull tasks during the pleasantest of summers in order to survive the winters, would they do that?  Somewhat similarly, if NFs had to give up much of their hours of thinking, dreaming and philosophizing to gather and store food, would they do this?  If they had to kill animals on a regular basis to have enough to eat, would they do this?  And finally, if they had to attack and kill predatory animals on a regular basis, in order to live, would they do that?  I am not entirely certain that without the SJs and NTs, that the SPs and NFs would survive over the long, long run.  Playful and thoughtful, respectively, they are a vital part of the fabric of human life, but left to themselves?  Hmm.

I can’t seem to see much of a downside to a world full of SJs (for the SJ).  They would be fully occupied, doing what they do best and keeping everything in working order.  Short of a total planetary catastrophy (a gynormous asteroid wipes out their entire living space) I think they are very well equipped to survive and modestly prosper.  For SPs, NFs and NTs, the SJ world would have plenty of downsides–boring, restrictive, unimaginative etc., but in our scheme there aren’t any SPs, NFs or NTs there so that is a non-existent problem!

Lastly, the NT would also be a very likely survivor, and probably a prosperous one.  They would be frustrated by the lack of SPs and their technical skills, the lack of SJs to maintain good order, and the lack of NFs to teach children, handle personnel problems and so forth, but as creative, energetic planners, they would probably find solutions to handle the worst of this.  Beyond this, you don’t miss what you have never seen or experienced, so the lack of tenderness, and deep interpersonal affection should not bother them in the least.

NOTE 2:  I have surprised myself in concluding that SJs and NTs are the most probable survivors and SPs and NFs are not.  That is the fascinating thing about starting a blog.  You are never quite sure where it is going to take you.

NOTE 2:  This blog ran on for a surprisingly long time, so next week’s blog will examine what all this might mean for the world we really do live in.

REFERENCE:  Keirsey, David (1998).  Please Understand me II.  Prometheus Nemesis:  Del Mar CA.

**********************************

IN SUMMARY:   Rationals are classed as Abstract Utilitarians.   Like NFs they think and talk about ideas and possibilities, rather than daily events.  Unlike NFs they do this in very precise and unemotional ways, always careful to qualify ideas with maybe, possibly, etc.  Where we summed Idealists as “passionate communitarians”, a good term for Rationals would the “passionate achievers“.  Making things better and more efficient seems to be a deep innate drive that dominates over social support and social approval.  In any conflict between what logical analysis suggests and what emotional feeling suggests, logic is the probable winner.  They strongly attempt to control emotion in both language and action, in keeping with the preference for logical solutions.

The greatest intellectual strength is in Strategy–long range planning within systems.  Second to this is Diplomacy–which for them is probably the route to getting others to accept your plans!

In education, career choice and outside activities, scientific and technological interests dominate.  Even where career interests focus on human behavior the interest is in understanding systems that govern it and ways that these might be improved.

In Orientation, they are pragmatic in relating to the present, skeptical (but not long-range pessimistic) in relating to the future, and relativistic (perhaps) about the past.  Their place is always where two or more things intersect, opening up new ideas and possibilities, and their time is the Interval or segment of time of any event.

They value being calm, trust reason, long for achievement, seek knowledge, prize deference and aspire to be true wizards.

*******************************

Question one:  Assuming human life began in parts of Africa, and gradually migrated northward, would NTs be likely to migrate to far northern and less hospitable climates?   One of the early questions that I asked about a world full of only SPs was whether northern Europe, Russia, northern Asia be populated as they are today.  I concluded that SPs would be more likely to stay where the living was easy and the climate was pleasant, so wouldn’t go toward less comfortable parts of the world unless population pressures forced it.   When discussing SJs and NFs I assumed that they might go to more difficult living areas if population pressures pushed them there, but would not have temperament-related urges to do so.  (Both SPs and NFs might have curiosity about new places, but I can’t see SPs moving permanently to locations where food or shelter were a serious problem.  NFs might have a lot of intellectual curiosity, but with a pure NF population I think their answer to proposing a  permanent migration might be a little like proposing to go to Mars in our world (all very interesting, but resources can be so much better spent on our children, our ailing and elderly).  But NTs?  Their curiosity and desire to explore would not be blocked by emotional arguments.  On the contrary they might argue that new forms of food might be found, new medicines found etc. and more generally, it is always better to know more about the unknown–and, besides all that, it would be very interesting.

Question two:  What would education be like?.  Highly developed, absolutely required, and very efficient.    This would not be the populace that would have an educational fad of the month.  Methods would be rigorously tested and then rigorously applied.  Where NFs might be very gentle about competition and individual differences in abilities,  NTs would not.  I think they would take individual differences in ability for granted and expect each child to work to his or her ability, would strongly praise accomplishment and would not be concerned about the self-esteem of lower performing children.

College level courses would be rigorous, and again, you would continue your education at that level only if you had intellectual gifts.  If not, thorough programs would be provided in more practical and applied areas.  Because a passion for  science is uniquely NT you would expect to see that as a very large part of the curriculum.  Business courses should also flourish, but largely at a theoretical systems level.  NTs are said to be curious about everything, so the humanities–history, social sciences, philosophy, and the arts would all have their place, but not with the emphasis seen in a NF Idealist curriculum.

Commerce:  You would expect businesses to be efficient, effective and highly competitive.  Where Keirsey calls NTs Rationals, based on their strong use of logic, we have called them Passionate Achievers in our books, based on the very strong drive to accomplish new things. (See book cover on this page).  This desire to achieve should be seen in all aspects of NT life, and should be both a source of both towering progress, and of very considerable social friction.  And then there is another shortcoming in the NT society.  The big problem in running businesses, private organizations, and governmental institutions, would be the lack of the good old SJ Guardian, who is never happier than when keeping systems running smoothly.  When an NT has established a system that works well, that accomplishment is complete.  They may soon want to change it, improve it and so forth, but keeping it running as is, on a day to day, year to year basis is not an accomplishment at all.  To an NT, that would feel more like a ticket to Siberia.  I am guessing that the practical answer to that problem would be to try to train the less gifted NTs in the jobs required to keep things running.  If there were no “less gifted” NTs, if everyone were just all equally brilliant, either this passionately achieving society would fall far below its potential, or it would have to find a novel solution (see the next section).

Physical Inventions:  This should be a crowning achievement for the NT.  Science is their forte and a passion to make things work, and work efficiently, should produce a remarkably accomplished technological society.  If there is an ideal answer to keeping things running in a society without Guardians, it should lie in the creation of automated systems of all kinds that can do this with very little human intervention.

Other than this pressing need for Guardians or automated Guardian equivalents, there really should be no limit to Rational NT inventions.  From fire to the microwave, from the wheel to the self-guided automobile, the glider to the interplanetary vehicle, and from Morse Code to WiFi and beyond, it all seems possible.

For anyone with even a smidgen of Idealist, however, the rather terrifying possibility is that these pure NTs might be so technologically competent, and so emotionally challenged, that they might ultimately replicate the human brain at a level that makes ordinary humans redundant!  Possible?  I don’t know.  Would it matter?  NFs would face that possibility with utter horror.  Pure NTs might just shrug.

What would the social culture look like?  One comment that I have received is that “it would be a very free world with not many restrictive laws….”.  I have some trouble with that idea.  If creating systems that are both effective and efficient is a deep major NT drive,  an NT government should rationally permit behaviors that don’t conflict with that, but interfere strongly with behaviors that are inefficient, illlogical, and costly to society.  For example, so long as the society is expanding and children are a precious resource, you might expect that abortion of a normal, healthy fetus  would be forbidden unless there are extenuating circumstances (mom is a critical designer for an upcoming space vehicle).  On the other hand, abortion might be a requirement for any fetus that would not be physically and emotionally competent.  Euthanasia of the demented elderly might be expected.  Euthanasia of younger patients with incurable diseases in late stages might also be required.  All of that can be seen as perfectly logical.

With respect to sexual behavior, it would not seem that an NT government would have any concern, unless pregnancy was involved. Marriage laws, if any, would seem to depend on what the prevailing views were on the nurturing of children.  If the majority of research indicated that children did significantly better in two parent, heterosexual families it would seem likely that there would be laws to that effect, and such laws would require a commitment to the relationship until the child or children came of age.  In that case, marriage (or whatever it might be called) might conceivably be restricted by the government to persons who qualified as mentally and physically fit for parenting.  If parent heterosexuality made no difference to child outcome it would logically make no difference to NT laws.  You can speculate forever here, but I think that the bottom line is that NTs would be tolerant or lenient in these matters depending on whatever research indicated in terms of effective and efficient upbringing of children.

In terms of culture, there is nothing incompatible with enjoyment of music, arts and social gatherings and the Rational NT temperament.  What would probably be different would be style.  I would expect a greater aura of competitiveness in all games, from poker to golf, and with that a greater interest in self-improvement.  In literature and drama, I would think that the mystery, the car chase, the legal drama, would all triumph over stories of emotional sadness and psychodrama.

What would government structure be like:  This is a tough one. If you start with the NT premise that the best system is the one that is the most effective and efficient, there doesn’t seem to be a simple answer.  You can rule out isolated tribal systems on both grounds.  Monarchies and dictatorships are largely dependent on the wisdom and good will of one or a very few individuals.  That makes them both untrustworthty and unlikely to meet the efficiency/effectivness criteria, for lack of skilled information and willingness to share it.  That largely leaves us democracy.  This has the very real virtue of responding to what the people themselves want–or at least what some majority of the people want. As a very impure NT, I think that is of great importance.  And, so far, at least within some of the western democracies, it has proven to be somewhat more effective than other forms of government?  But is it efficient?  It would be hard to come up with a good proof of that as we watch the Republican primaries play out in the United States.

So, I think our hypothetical, pure NT would be saying, “no, no, no–there has to be a better way.”  And perhaps, in a world where feelings did not play a part–or much of a part–there would be a better way.

And lastly–would NTs be warlike?  I think the answers would go something like this:

Yes, if some other group was threatening to harm them.  I don’t think NTs would have any scruples against a preemptive strike.

Yes, maybe, if they were very resource poor and a neighbor was very resource rich.

No, if there was little or nothing tangible to gain by war.

No, if it was simply because the neighbors religion, beliefs, personal practices annoyed you.  That would not be effective or efficient in solving any problem that the NT has.

And if pure NTs somehow became in charge of a world already full of SPs,  SJs, and  NFs with all the complexity that would already be there?  What then?  Well, in localized pockets (big corporations, scientific research, isolated sectors in politics) I am sure that they already are there.  In terms of running any entire democratic government, however, I would say that this cannot be done without substantial understanding and respect for the needs, wishes and feelings of others. I would expect them to lose the next election!

Note to all NTs:  Please feel free to disagree with any or all of this. I consider that to be fun.   Bear in mind though, that I have tried to create a hypothetical NT with just no Feeling input.  It isn’t you, it isn’t me and hopefully it isn’t any real person.

Coming up next week:  Why we need all the Temperaments to make the world work.  And, I set up a hypothetical committee meeting of our four pure SPs, SJs, NFs, and NTs!

Rationals–Abstract Utilitarians.  Rationals share abstract language with the Idealists, but tend to use it very differently.  Keirsey notes that “Like the NFs, the NTs choose the imaginative, conceptual or inferential things to speak of over the the observational, perceptual or experiential.”  More simply they are fascinated with ideas and theories, far more than with ongoing, everyday events, and that is what they mainly talk about.  The two temperaments diverge greatly, however in the ways that they do this.  As we noted in describing the NFs, Keirsey sees them as moving quickly from a few facts or particulars to “sweeping generalizations”.  NTs, on the other hand are very careful in drawing conclusions.  They are “unusually exacting about definitions” and are much more likely to say that something is possible, likely, or even probable, than to just leap to the conclusion that it is absolutely true, as NFs might.   Similarly, their descriptions are much less colorful.  Where the NF might describe something as glorious, or devastating, the NT might say that the same conclusion is  encouraging, or unfortunate in outcome.

With the SP, the NT shares the Utilitarian approach to life, in being much more interested in what works than in how their actions might be seen by others.  As Keirsey puts it “Not that rationals prefer to be immoral, illegal or illegitimate…they do not refuse to cooperate with their social groups, but… they see pleasing others and obeying rules as secondary considerations…”

Are they unemotional?  In measuring preferences, the T or thinking preference does, of course, oppose the F or Feeling preference.  It certainly seems to be true that strong NTs are unemotional in their general behavior, and with that are nearly always going to choose the logical solution over the emotional solution.  Keirsey says about this that “when the Rationals are concentrating on some complex problems they do detach themselves from their social context and remain distant until they solve the problem.  At that moment they are not interested in others, but that does not mean that they do not care about others.  They are just as caring as any other type when they are focused on those they care about.”  I guess that leaves the question open, as it doesn’t define how much of the time they are “focused on those they care about.”  Rationals clearly do prefer to maintain  emotional control in thought and action.  Whether that masks deep inner emotion might or might not be the case, or this might vary from NT to NT.  I simply do not know of any clear evidence on this.

If there is an overarching NT drive, it is to solve problems as they are encountered and to do so in the most efficient possible way.  In doing this, they are neither bound to tradition or to any higher authority, nor are they the least unwilling to listen to and learn from anyone who has something to contribute.  On the flip side of this, however, they pay absolutely no respect to advice that seems meaningless, no matter how high the status of the advisor.

The number one Rational intellectual strength is Strategy.  A strategy is a plan or system for achieving a goal, and for the Rational NT, this goal, in a general way is to make some system run better, where better means both effectively and more efficiently.  Though the greatest number of NTs seem to be involved in what we usually think of as the “hard” sciences, from biology and chemistry to technology of all sorts, NTs may also be found trying to work with social systems, from families to companies and governments.  The key point, in that case, is that it is a system that they want to improve, not an individual.  You might think that Tactical intelligence or even Logistical intelligence might serve similar goals, but these are definitely lower in interest for the NT.  Presumably that has to do with the fact that Rationals are not interested in solving short-term problems.  He or she wishes to lastingly change some part of the world for the better.  Surprisingly Keirsey sees  their second greatest strength here as Diplomacy. It seems likely that anyone who wants to change or improve major systems would need to practice the diplomatic skills that allow you to recognize the reasons for the opposition of others, and think smartly of ways to counter this–hence diplomacy.

Interests of Rationals most commonly include education in the sciences, a special “preoccupation” or lifelong delight with technology, and careers in some area that will allow them to study underlying systems and search for better organization and better understanding. Over a lifetime this often means that they take a great interest in and acquire a lot of knowledge about many fields, some closely related, some not.

Orientation.  As we have seen before, by “orientation” Keirsey refers to the way in which we relate to the present, future, and past, and to place and time.  He sees Rationals as relating to the present “pragmatically.  He says that “one of the most important things to know about the Rationals is that they are pragmatic to the core, and so must….anticipate the practical consequences of their intended actions, before they act.”  Even this seems to leave something out though.  We could say that Artisans are pragmatic about their tactics to produce pleasure, and Idealists about their diplomatic approaches to harmonious group actions and Guardians in their efforts to preserve order. To distinguish Rationals from all others I think you have to recognize that their goal is not a particular change that will bring them some unique good thing, but the goal of having things of all different kinds work better.  Indeed, if you are not an NT, you might well ask of this–Really?  Why bother?  And the only answer, really, is that that is what NTs do.

About the future, Keirsey sees the Rational as skeptical.  This is not at all the pessimism of the Guardian who expects large quantities of failure in life, expects in some stoical way to be tripped up by life, just because that is the way it is.  Rather, it is the view that whenever you try to do something, you will make mistakes, you will travel up the wrong alley and believe in things that turn out not to be true–but that doesn’t mean that there is no eventual way to your goal.  It simply means that you have to be constantly wary of simple solutions and false leads–that you have to question everything, both new and old, both seemingly true and seemingly false, and finally–that in such work there really is no free lunch.

About the past, Keirsey says that the NT is relativistic.  He comments “To Rationals, events of themselves are not good or bad, favorable or unfavorable.  It is all in how one looks at things, they say–all is relative to one’s frame of reference….we make up our world and only then find it outside of ourselves.”  Of all of Keirsey’s descriptions I confess to finding this one the least clear to me.  Many philosophers have seen the world in this way, and perhaps many of them may have been NTs, but I fail to see the logical connection between this and all other NT qualities.

The Place for the Rational is anywhere that two or more concepts intersect one another to produce something meaningful.  As a very simple example, width and length produce a two dimensional concept of an object, and length, width and depth produce a different sort of concept.  The Rational’s place is where things intersect to produce something else, and thus, some unique concept..

And finally, for the Rational NT, their time is the Interval, and the Interval, in turn, is the segment of time that an event encompasses.   Keirsey says “For them, time exists not as a continuous line, but a an interval, a segment confined to and defined as an event.  Only events possess time, all else is timeless.”

Self-image.  Here, we leave the NT world of Einsteinian definitions of time and place, etc.!  Rationals find their self-esteem in seeing and being seen as ingenious.  Keirsey quotes one as saying “You want to be the first to do something.  You want to create something.  You want to innovate something.”  This passionate desire carries over from work to sports, card games, puzzles, etc.–to be better than you were before, even if you will never the the best.  Related to this, Rationals find their self-respect in their sense of autonomy.  In a very strong statement, Keirsey says “As much as possible, at times even regardless of the consequences, Rationals desire to live according to their own laws, to see the world by their own lights, and they respect themselves in the degree that they act independently, free of all coercion.  And lastly, Rationals find their self-confidence in their “strength of will or unwavering resolution.“  This is so important, Keirsey says, that “Once Rationals resolve to do something, they have in a sense made a contract with themselves, a contract they dare not go back on.”  He feels that they dare not go back because there is always the fear that strength of will will fail, and with it, their self-confidence, and perhaps the meaning and purpose of  life.

Rationalist values follow very logically from all that has been described.  Their preferred mood or state is that of being calm.  They trust above all, reason.  They yearn for achievement, and seek knowledge.  And ultimately the knowledge they seek is not the universal ‘why’ of the NF that seeks to know the very meaning of existence.  Rather it is knowledge about  what things are like, how they function, and therefore, how to make them function better.  Keirsey notes that they prize deference.  This is not so much praise for themselves as clever people, but praise for their creations, and interest in those creations.  In this they may be often disappointed, not because others are not impressed by the end result, but because few can understand and appreciate the complex technology that is behind that end result.  With all of these other values it can be seen that beneath that calm exterior they aspire to be seen as a Wizard.

IN SUMMARY:   Rationals are classed as Abstract Utilitarians.   Like NFs they think and talk about ideas and possibilities, rather than daily events.  Unlike NFs they do this in very precise and unemotional ways, always careful to qualify ideas with maybe, possibly, etc.  Where we summed Idealists as “passionate communitarians”, a good term for Rationals would the “passionate achievers“.  Making things better and more efficient seems to be a deep innate drive that dominates over social support and social approval.  In any conflict between what logical analysis suggests and what emotional feeling suggests, logic is the probable winner.  They strongly attempt to control emotion in both language and action, in keeping with the preference for logical solutions.

The greatest intellectual strength is in Strategy–long range planning within systems.  Second to this is Diplomacy–which for them is probably the route to getting others to accept your plans!

In education, career choice and outside activities, scientific and technological interests dominate.  Even where career interests focus on human behavior the interest is in understanding systems that govern it and ways that these might be improved.

In Orientation, they are pragmatic in relating to the present, skeptical (but not long-range pessimistic) in relating to the future, and relativistic (perhaps) about the past.  Their place is always where two or more things intersect, opening up new ideas and possibilities, and their time is the Interval or segment of time of any event.

They value being calm, trust reason, long for achievement, seek knowledge, prize deference and aspire to be true wizards.

REFERENCE:  Keirsey, David (1998).  Please Understand me II. Prometheus Nemesis:  Del Mar CA

COMING UP:  If NTs ruled the world–then what?  This is a pure thought experiment and readers are welcome to send in their ideas in advance, or as comments later.

 IN SUMMARY:  The NF Idealist and Abstract Cooperator is abstract in word, in        language, and in a passion for the future.  If a person could be said to be abstract in deed, also, this would be the model.  They are passionate communitarians, caring more for the needs and feelings of every individual than for any hard fought group decision.h.  Whether it is the best decision is less important than whether it is the decision that promotes consensus and minimizes disharmony.  Anger and conflict are deeply painful and avoided at almost all costs.  According to Keirsey, their greatest intellectual strength is Diplomacy with Strategy as a close second.

NF interests focus on people with positions in teaching, counseling and mentoring very common.  Related to this they are often excellent in personnel positions, in hiring, training, and skills development.  Others find their finest roles as activists in human rights and related political social areas.  Careers in commerce or science are relatively infrequent. College majors are generally in the humanities and social sciences, though art also is of interest.

Their self-image is built on genuinely being a caring and benevolent person.  It is nurtured both by the bonds they feel with others and the kindesses they extend to others and by the relfection of this in how they are treated by others

In the present they are oriented toward ways to improve life for self and others, and the future is where they see these coming to fruition, believing always that better things are coming.  Their special place is on the pathway to wisdom, understanding and a better future.  With this, their time is always tomorrow.

They value enthusiasm as a daily way of being, trust their own intuition, especially about other people, yearn for romance as “idealized love”, and passionately seek identity as an understanding of the self–generally a life-time quest.  Very similar to this is their search for the ultimate meaning of life.  They most prize  being really seen (recognized) by another as the unique individual that they see in themselves, and aspire to be a true sage, ever questing after knowledge and understanding.

In the first scenario, here, I am assuming that all human beings on planet earth are NFs as they have been described above, and that this has been true from the beginning of human life.  I will follow the same set of questions used for SPs and SJs.

What would education and commerce be like.  That is really two questions–one easy and one hard.  I would think that the equivalent of our K-12 schooling would be very loose and free, with much emphasis on learning at your own pace, and exploring the things that interest you.  I would expect a great deal of emphasis on creativity, and learning about ideas of all sorts. What I am suggesting was perhaps best described by A. S. Neill, the founder of Summerhill, who “believed that the happiness of the child should be the paramount consideration in decisions about the child’s upbringing, and that this happiness grew from a sense of personal freedom. He felt that deprivation of this sense of freedom during childhood, and the consequent unhappiness experienced by the repressed child, was responsible for many of the psychological disorders of adulthood”.*

Later education would probably be heavily weighted toward the humanities.  Whatever the areas might be called they would surely focus on sociology, psychology, philosophy, history, religion or religious history and theory, and related areas.  Perhaps to a lesser degree there would be thriving studies in music, dance and artistic endeavors of all sorts. Even at this level, it would be likely that group discussion would dominate over lecture, and much learning would be self-paced.

Presumably physics, engineering, chemistry and other hard sciences would be relatively minor areas of interest, although one question arises there about biology and medicine. Warmheartedness and interpersonal caring should drive even NFs (at least some of them) toward studying the nature of illness and the potential cures.   But would this lead to a rigorous study of biology, anatomy and human chemistry?  It is a little hard to imagine.  Alternatively it might lead more to what we think of as alternative medicine–noninvasive ways to reduce pain and tension, and  Yoga-like, meditation-like methods to reduce stress and promote healing.  My own guess is that the alternative approach would dominate and courses would be offered in these areas..

Commerce:  Logic leads me to think that NFs would not develop a capitalist economy.  I can imagine people being asked to contribute fairly to community needs, from growing food to building homes, but doing so in their areas of greater interest or talent, and certainly not for personal profit.  (This might be one source of unavoidable conflict though.  No doubt most Idealist members would prefer teaching, lifelong scholarship, mentoring and counseling, but in an all NF world, somebody has to pick the fruit.)

Work groups, similar to our pre-industrial guilds, might be one offshoot, but without a sense of competition between members or member guilds.  For more remote groups trade and barter would be probable mechanisms, but you would expect this to remain fair and communal for these purest of NF Idealists.

Physical inventions/Mental inventions.  Intuition gives the Idealist a large push in toward creativity in any direction, but given the lack of interest in science and engineering you would expect the focus to be far more intellectual and spiritual than physical.  Physical inventions that provide comfort, food, entertainment, as for example musical intstruments, should certainly be developed, but all those things that require a prolonged interest in logical and analytical study of the sciences do not seem likely.  As was true for SPs, this has nothing to do with innate intelligence, but everything to do with  what is and is not interesting to the NF.  Idealists in today’s world use, and no doubt love, all the techy gadgets from e-readers to Smart Phones–items that allow them to delight in communication with others and give access to all sorts of information.  But–alone in an NF world–would they have developed the long line of technology that made these instruments possible?  Some form of the printing press I feel confident they would have developed, because that technology did not build on a long tedious line of scientific discoveries.  But the iPad?  All you NFs out there may want to flood me with angry comments, but I am not even certain that the electric light would have appeared in a people who did not delight in science.

Mental inventions?  Absolutely!.  By this I mean really complex philosophical theories about life and its meaning,  perhaps forms of psychotherapy we cannot even imagine, forms of personal intercommunication we can’t imagine, and ways of enhancing memory that we have not thought of at all.

What would the social culture be like? I recall a saying (approximately) that faculty members argue and fight so much precisely because there is so little to fight about.  I don’t think these ideal Idealists would literally “argue and fight”, but I do think that relatively small issues would lead to interminable meetings, searching for the consensus that would make new projects possible, and would also heal the endless small wounds that sensitive NFs encounter.

Keirsey tells us that his Idealist NFs are just incurable romantics.  He comments that “Romance, in the sense of idealized love, is not something which NFs  can take or leave; it is vital to their growth and happiness, a nourishment they cannot live without, just as its opposite, the uninspiring, commonplace relationship, is flat and stale and lifeless.”  Accepting this as part of the package, I assume you would have a sexual scene in which there are many partners over time, but more as a pattern of serial monogamy than as happy one-night stands.  If that is a sound interpretation, then I would suppose that there are many, many rejected and distraught partners along the way, and still more reasons for many hours of group and personal therapy.  (Or perhaps they would have invented a way around this problem that I cannot imagine).

Child care and development would be a very strong area of focus, with the mental and psychological health of the child being of central concern.  Similar to what I suggested about early education, I think the philosophy would be purposefully permissive, as equalitarian as possible at each given age, and with great concern for the child’s own self-regard.

You would expect that violent crime would  just be non-existent for these Idealists.  Most problems could be expected to be what we would consider less than criminal–failing to do your full day’s work,  trysting with someone else’s romantic partner, or speaking ill of someone else in a hurtful way.  Is that really possible? Well, This is a hypothetical model, so I suppose if there could be such a thing as a 100% Idealist there could be such a world.

Yet another puzzling social issue concerns what would become of Idealist self-image and values.  Keirsey tells us that it is very important that one part of their self-image comes from seeing that they are authentically caring and empathic toward others, and that this is reflected back to them from others.  In terms of  important NF values, finding their own unique self is a major lifelong quest, and what they prize most in relation to this is recognition by another or others, of this unique self.  In a world, absolutely full of wonderful NFs wouldn’t it be really hard to find your unique self, and even harder to find someone else who sees your uniqueness compared to all other NFs?

What would government be like?  My hunch is that it would be structured as a democracy in some form–possibly as a true democracy rather than a republic or representative structure.  However, this would present serious philosophical problems for Idealists since all forms of democracy have winners and losers.  Based on that thought the only form I can imagine is a theoretical democracy with a sort of endless consensus process.  The governing body meets, discusses, finds disagreements and refers the issue to committee.  The committee meets, discusses, finds disagreements and divides various aspects of the issue into sub-issues and refers these to different subcommittees.  This continues until there is no one else to refer the problem or its parts to, so the bottom-feeding committees meet and discuss until, like a nearly hung jury, anything that will resolve the issue or sub-issue begins to look good. At this point they send a ‘consensus’ decision back up to the next level and the process repeats until there is consensus at the top.  With long experience with this, many lesser issues probably get resolved at the top simply out of a sense of “whatever”.

Would they be warlike?  The short and simple answer here is absolutely not.  In a totally NF world it is hard to imagine any reason for a war, let alone a willingness to plunge into that kind of violence.  If, of course there are other planets with warlike creatures and scientific bents, of course, then there would be a whole new problem.  Even then, however, I think the NF answer would be surrender.

And if NFs became in charge of a world already full of SPs, NTs and SJs, well, I am not sure it would be very different from some of the more advanced social democracies in Europe right now, except that if they remained 100% pure Idealists, I doubt that they could hold on to the reins of power for long.

ADDENDUM TO KEIRSEY’S MODEL:  Unlike Keirsey’s model for the other temperaments, where there are at least a few shortcomings showing, I personally feel that  he has described the NFs as too self-less.  I would agree that NFs long for harmony, avoid  conflict like the plague, and value relationships with others almost above all else.  However, I see no reason to think that NFs in our real world want what they want any less than any other temperament. No doubt many are truly kind, considerate and caring, but I suspect that many other NFs simply fight for what they want in less overt ways, using anything from persuasion and gifts of friendship to outright manipulation.  In the government by consensus model, described earlier,  I suspect the less good-hearted NFs are very busy before committee meetings getting their votes in line!

Coming up next week: Describing Keirsey’s Rationals (NTs)

References

Keirsey, David (1998).  Please Understand Me II.  Prometheus Nemesis:  Del Mar CA

*A. S. Neill’s ideas can be found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.S.Neill