What will become of the Idealists?

[Pointedstick]

I've been thinking a lot about Meyers-Briggs personality types and their roles in society lately. Here are the four broad, overarching personality types, as described by David Keirsey, who continued the work of Meyers and Briggs:

Guardians
Love procedures, rules, traditions, order, and stability, dislike change. Incredibly hard workers. Pillars of society, high levels of social cohesiveness. They are necessary for society to be a society, and they often do the dirty, un-glamorous jobs.

Artisans
Like spontaneity, free expression, and strong sensations. Highly creative thinkers, frequently artistic. Bold explorers, novelty-seekers. "Extreme" in everything they do. They give society color, excitement, and entertainment.

Idealists
Compassionate, warm, nurturing, spiritual. Strong sense of right and wrong. Optimistic to the point of being idealistic. Dislike conflict and violence. They help people around them grow and care for those in society who need a helping hand.

Rationals
Problem solvers. See hidden connections, enjoy creating, understanding, and manipulating systems of all sorts. Love efficiency, dislike waste and stagnation. They push society forward technologically. Most people here are Rationals by a pretty overwhelming margin, BTW.



I think in today's society, the Artisans and the Rationals are doing great, the Guardians are treading water, and the Idealists are slowly drowning.

Artisans benefit from a culture that is highly materialistic and loves stimulation and novelty. Artisans are satisfied providing it or indulging in it, and today there are more opportunities than ever to consume other people's creative output or produce some of your own. Cheap international travel and personal vehicles, the internet, blogs, eBooks, and digital music are all highly beneficial to Artisans.

Rationals benefit from a culture that is highly complicated and esoteric, as they can dissect the systems in their minds, understand them, and then ruthlessly exploit them (see the recent thread on Roth IRA conversions for an example). Rationals love the plentiful assortment of rule-based games, and are drawn to computers, technology, science, software, and engineering, which are highly lucrative and engaging fields for them. Our modern society provides no end to the kinds of intellectual puzzles that Rationals love figuring out.

Guardians are having a tougher time because the pace of change is exhausting them. What's old, traditional, and time-tested is being repeatedly thrown out and reinvented by the Artisans or optimized beyond recognition by the Rationals. What their granddad counseled them to do doesn't seem to be working anymore, and the consequences of discovering this are becoming more expensive and damaging all the time. On the plus side, Guardians' penchant for hard work means they're usually able to do well for a long period of time once they find something they can actually hold onto.

But the Idealists, I think they're fairing worst. In the past, Idealists used to be able to go into academia and journalism to live a prosperous life, but technology has killed journalism, and academia is already stuffed to the gills with the last generation's Idealists. Those options are now closed off. By their nature, most kinds of work that idealists are drawn to--teacher, spiritual leader, counselor, social worker, journalist--are not very well-paying and not "productive" of much value in terms of voluntary exchange in a capitalist system. Social workers and teachers, for example, are rarely hired by their clients; usually the money comes from a parent, or the state. This makes Idealists' work very vulnerable to being co-opted and destroyed by the government and rendered obsolete by technology.

It's ironic that in a society with some of the biggest social safety nets and the most religiosity, most of the individual providers of safety-net and religious service are likely to be extremely poor themselves. The government and the church generally pays these people peanuts and "budget cuts" are a constant worry. They are likely to be recipients of many of the same kinds of services and subsidies they help provide to others. Idealists increasingly feel like they don't fit into a fast-paced world of money and commerce, and are likely to feel frustrated that more and more people are being left behind, yet they lack the money or power to do anything about it.

Nearly everyone in my family and circle of friends who is an Idealist is doing terribly, except for the one who managed to land a job in Academia 30 years ago. Except for that one, they're all poor and frustrated. They feel that society has left them behind. They have great difficulty adapting, and find the world around them to be cold, uncaring, hostile to the weak, the poor, and those without in-demand skills. They are not very productive of creative works, not very good at mastering systems, not very entrepreneurial, and most of the "safe" fallback jobs have disappeared.

I worry about the Idealists.

[Benko]

PS,

I have some problems with your premises which I would argue lead to invalid conclusions.


1. I'm familiar with Myers brigg which I feel has some validity, though at first glance, I am very suspicious of what Keirsey has done with it. For starters, he has lumped things together and created fewer categories. 

"Compassionate, warm, nurturing, spiritual"  This describes what I think of as nurturers and I've met many in nursing.  Social worker and counselor I can understand, but journalist?  I believe journalists belong in a different list. 

2. "academia is already stuffed to the gills with the last generation's Idealists."
Nurturers are intent on helping people individually, you're talking about political idealists which is a very different thing and may not exist any more (Obama is no Bob Woodward).  While there may be some "nurturers" in academia,  Academia is stuffed with intellectuals i.e. people who use their mind to reason things out and trust their mind and ideas over factual evidence.  Perhaps we have discussed this.

3. "Idealists increasingly feel like they don't fit into a fast-paced world of money and commerce, and are likely to feel frustrated that more and more people are being left behind, yet they lack the money or power to do anything about it."

"Idealists increasingly feel like they don't fit into a fast-paced world of money and commerce"
I've met many nurturers in nursing, massage therapists, etc and they would not say anything like this or relate to this.  The values of society don't value nurturing (for the most part).

"are likely to feel frustrated that more and more people are being left behind"
Again, this is not a statement that a nurturer would make.  People would who say/feel things like this are either people who are really concerned i.e. "60s liberals", or progressives, who don't really care about anything except imposing their views on other people.  This is the difference between Woodward and Obama. 

[Libertarian666]

I don't agree with your sunny view of the prospects for Rationals. Yes, they are the inventors who improve the world. However, they are exploited by government more than the other types, precisely because they add the most value.

See Atlas Shrugged for details.

[Pointedstick]

I don't agree with your sunny view of the prospects for Rationals. Yes, they are the inventors who improve the world. However, they are exploited by government more than the other types, precisely because they add the most value.

See Atlas Shrugged for details.

On the other hand, they are also the ones with the most anti-authoritarian sentiment, running the gamut from libertarianism to full-blown anarchism. The more powerful they become, and the more they are oppressed, the more their views will actually be translated into policy and even new societies.

My reading of history is that the reason why there are no private societies is because we're coming off a civilizational cycle that benefited Guardians and Idealists in the form of a stable social order and a powerful church, which together benevolently crushed all the looser, less hierarchical and less authoritarian societies. But it oppressed Rationals--who were marginalized and often explicitly persecuted--and offered little stimulation or opportunity for Artisans.

This cycle was ended by the industrial revolution when Rationals finally made enough breakthroughs to drag the crusty old society kicking and screaming into modernity and progress, which also energized the Artisans, who found themselves with more leisure time and ever-improving means of self-expression. But the highly centralized power structures created by the prior order endured, and unleashed terrible devastation when paired with the advanced weaponry created by the Rationals, giving us the world wars and mass extermination campaigns.

However, I believe the old power structures are beginning to crumble. The state is experiencing unprecedented strain, and the Rationals and many Artisans chafe at its inflexible, out-of-touch authority. The wealthier and more advanced the non-government parts of society become, the less need they see for government, and the less they will blindly accept its mandates and violence.

[moda0306]

I don't agree with your sunny view of the prospects for Rationals. Yes, they are the inventors who improve the world. However, they are exploited by government more than the other types, precisely because they add the most value.

See Atlas Shrugged for details.

I don't read comic books. 

Maybe they don't act like they're exploited because they're not.  I've met many business owners, and the last thing they are is stupid or uncalculating.  They add value because they're smart and energetic, but mostly because they like the net after-tax benefits they estimate they can enjoy, otherwise they wouldn't do it.  They don't start businesses expecting taxes to go down to 12%, especially when they are at relative lows if we look back through the last century.  They start businesses understanding what their net income will look like after taxes, and seem to like that risk/reward scenario.

Further, limited liability shells, public infrastructure, and property protection are subsidies that government's give business.  Some private sector entity might do the latter two better (different argument), but business owners value these things, and seem to gather where these things are more prevalent, not less.

[Pointedstick]

Some private sector entity might do the latter two better (different argument), but business owners value these things, and seem to gather where these things are more prevalent, not less.

Business owners mostly gather where there are other business owners and an abundant supply of qualified, educated workers. Silicon Valley isn't a tech mecca because Rationals like government infrastructure but because that's where all the engineers live. And the engineers live there because that's where the high-paying jobs are. It's a virtuous cycle in which neither participant is the government. And don't say that the government educated most of these engineers, because most of them moved to the area from elsewhere.

Most of the business owners and entrepreneurs I know are gun-owning Libertarians (and some Republicans) who hate that the government is so massive in the area in which they've set up shop. And notably, they're increasingly leaving.

[moda0306]

Some private sector entity might do the latter two better (different argument), but business owners value these things, and seem to gather where these things are more prevalent, not less.

Business owners mostly gather where there are other business owners and an abundant supply of qualified, educated workers. Silicon Valley isn't a tech mecca because Rationals like government infrastructure but because that's where all the engineers live. And the engineers live there because that's where the high-paying jobs are. It's a virtuous cycle in which neither participant is the government. And don't say that the government educated most of these engineers, because most of them moved to the area from elsewhere.

Most of the business owners and entrepreneurs I know are gun-owning Libertarians (and some Republicans) who hate that the government is so massive in the area in which they've set up shop. And notably, they're increasingly leaving.

1) The government is part of the virtuous cycle (and probably did educate most of the engineers, or aided in it).  We've discussed this before... if there was demand and functional support of a "free society," and it was robust enough to justify its own existence, it would exist somewhere.  It doesn't.  Government is part of the game of wealth creation machine.  If it's not, let's fire all the worthless city workers in Manhattan and see what the city looks like in three days.

2) Most business owners, while incredibly talented in their field, have some combination of ego issues and absolutely no perspective in analyzing macro-economics... they simultaneously can say that finding customers is their #1 issue, and then claim that if they were only taxed/regulated less their business would boom.  Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

So business owners add value and are extremely calculating and effective at retaining/growing wealth, but their macro analysis is often utterly laughable... sorry to say.  But that's generally good.  They add value in the economy where they should instead of running for President of a closed economic system (like, you know, Herbert Hoover).

But regardless of who's macro-analysis is correct, business owners make decisions with the assumption of similar-if-not-higher future tax rates on their net income.  They'd only be "taken advantage of" if the game was changed half way through, which does happen, but each year's tax bill isn't a fresh assault on their rights... it was actually calculated into their decision to do the hard work, as was all the benefits they get from a stable social framework that's facilitated by government.

[Pointedstick]

1) The government is part of the virtuous cycle (and probably did educate most of the engineers, or aided in it).  We've discussed this before... if there was demand and functional support of a "free society," and it was robust enough to justify its own existence, it would exist somewhere.  It doesn't.

The point I'm trying to push is that it wasn't possible in the past because Guardians and Idealists were running the show. Guardians hate and fear "chaos" and Idealists can easily fit into this paradigm by wanting to benevolently "uplift" the "underdeveloped" and "primitive" non-centralized societies. This is basically what the church and monarchs did for more than 1000 years under the rule of the Guardians and Idealists.

But I think times are changing. Artisans and Rationals aren't such control freaks. They aren't as interested in submitting everything to a central authority. They're more tolerant of what others see as "chaos"--Artisans because they actually like it, and Rationals because they understand the concept of spontaneous order.

In the past, the deck was stacked against those who might want a private society. Increasingly, I think that's going to be less and less true.

[Libertarian666]

It's pretty easy to tell who isn't a Rational. 

[Pointedstick]

Out of curiosity, Moda, do you know your MBTI type?

INTJ here

[Libertarian666]

And to get back to the original point, I think the Idealists will be fine in a free society that is wealthy enough to support idealism.

It's the Guardians who will lose the most relative status in a free society, but even they will actually be better off overall. There will always be a need for night watchmen, but they need to be in their proper place, not in a position where they can oppress everyone else.

[moda0306]

It's pretty easy to tell who isn't a Rational. 

Is it the one who sees himself as enslaved to the government and not in owership of his property, or the one that enjoys the freedom he does have and doesn't worry about things he can't control? 

JK, man... I think we both attempt to be rational, at least.

PS,

I remember doing that a long time ago, but haven't since.

Regarding these other types, though, I don't know if I buy into the "idealist" as just being a hippie that wants to control the world around him.  I see a lot of libertarian idealism on this board, with a lot of moral philosophizing backing up their thought.

I mean HB specifically called out other libertarians who let their political opinions get to them (and any other political movement).  Regarding the general definition of the word, I'd say many libertarians are idealists.  Their ideal is individual liberty, while other "idealists" might have a different ideal (elimination of poverty, perfect economic fairness, no racism in society, etc).

The libertarian is only as "rational" as is his ability to actually act rationally, and not just get angry at every instance where the government doesn't (in his "ideal" world).  Many libertartians master this balance.  Some just can't get beyond the stress of feeling like the government is constantly holding a gun to their head.

[Pointedstick]

Regarding these other types, though, I don't know if I buy into the "idealist" as just being a hippie that wants to control the world around him.  I see a lot of libertarian idealism on this board, with a lot of moral philosophizing backing up their thought.

Not quite. I think you're misunderstanding the terms I'm using. Read the descriptions in the link in my first post. (here it is again: http://keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp) "Idealist" is just a label used to describe those who basically sympathize and often identify with with the less-well-off more than others and want to help them. They can be ministers, teachers, social workers, journalists ("speak truth to power!") etc., basically people who are extremely concerned with the well-being and personal growth of others.

It has nothing to do with hippyism. Hippies are often more selfish since they were concerned with their own personal spiritual development. It was much more inward-focused. And people of the Idealist type can be plenty rational. But the thing that makes a Rational a Rational is the desire to understand systems. You may think Kshartle is an idealistic zealot, but everything he says is a carefully chosen expression of a detailed system he's constructed in his mind that he believes accurately models the world. An Idealist doesn't do that; to them, systems are just a means to an end, and most of them find systems to be too cold and removed from human affairs to enjoy dealing with. They prefer stories and anecdotes to declarative assertions or rational principles. Does that sound like Kshartle?

As for the desire to control others, I don't think it's a fundamental part of being an Idealist, but it's compatible. If you want to help others, but they don't want to be helped, sometimes you have to help them for their own good, right? As a parent, I totally get this, as does every parent. But on a macro level, this attitude was basically the impetus behind most of the European colonization efforts and the "benevolent racism" that often followed them. They were just tying to bring a little bit of civilization to the savages! What's wrong with trying to uplift a barbarous people so they can experience the joys and splendors of modern western society?

Of course it usually wasn't the Idealists wielding the swords. The Guardians did that.

[Libertarian666]

In case anyone doesn't know what type he is, here's a guide:
http://www.xeromag.com/fun/personality.html 

[moda0306]

Regarding these other types, though, I don't know if I buy into the "idealist" as just being a hippie that wants to control the world around him.  I see a lot of libertarian idealism on this board, with a lot of moral philosophizing backing up their thought.

Not quite. I think you're misunderstanding the terms I'm using. Read the descriptions in the link in my first post. (here it is again: http://keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp) "Idealist" is just a label used to describe those who basically sympathize and often identify with with the less-well-off more than others. They can be ministers, teachers, social workers, journalists ("speak truth tho power!") etc., basically people who are extremely concerned with the well-being and personal growth of others.

It has nothing to do with hippyism. Hippies are often more selfish since they were concerned with their own personal spiritual development. It was much more inward-focused. And people of the Idealist type can be plenty rational. But the thing that makes a Rational a Rational is the desire to understand systems. You may think Kshartle is an idealistic zealot, but everything he says is a carefully chosen expression of a detailed system he's constructed in his mind that he believes accurately models the world. An Idealist doesn't do that; to them, systems are just a means to an end, and most of them find systems to be too cold and removed from human affairs. They prefer stories and anecdotes to rational assertions. Does that sound like Kshartle?

As for the desire to control others, I don't think it's a fundamental part of being an Idealist, but it's compatible. If you want to help others, but they don't want to be helped, sometimes you have to help them for their own good, right? That was basically the impetus behind most of the European colonization efforts and the "benevolent racism" that often followed them. They were just tying to bring a little bit of civilization to the savages! What's wrong with trying to uplift a barbarous people so they can experience the joys and splendors of modern western society?

Of course it usually wasn't the Idealists wielding the swords. The Guardians did that.

I guess I was interpreting idealism as either of its more common definitions:


1. One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations. (libertarians can fall here)

2. One who is unrealistic and impractical; a visionary. (and here)



I haven't seen his, before, or more-likely simply don't remember it.

And I'd say that most libertarians build their political beliefs first on "what is right," rather than "what works."  I mean, if Austrianism has any flaw, it's that it can't pull it's moral positions out of its economic analysis.  Now a lot of liberals do this, too, but liberals are proud of their "feelings" towards other people.  Austrians/libertarians pride themselves as masters of rational thought, but often are working with a lot of moral, not logical, assertions ("I own myself," "you shouldn't force me," "I own what I've created," etc), and then building deductive logical connectors to those initial moral claims.

I know you weren't trying to make this into a big political debate, so I'm sorry for going there, but this does tread awfully close to other subjets we've tried to tackle about the nature of our decisions and our political bodies, as well as the morality of those actions/bodies.

Also, what happens when our personal decisions about how to live our lives conflict with our opinions on the role of government?

I'd consider anyone, from Commie to anarcho-capitalist, that follows HB's HIFFIAUW framework to their own personal decisions to be a "rational" from a personal standpoint.

Likewise, anyone who's stuck in "traps," even if they have great rationality towards the role of government, I'd say has Idealist tendencies. 

Maybe I'm overthinking all this... I just think there's something oddly similar between the bleeding-heart socialist that just hates waking up and looking at how society is, and the libertarian who does the same... regardless of who is actually right, and is petitioning for a "rational" form of government.

[Pointedstick]

It's just a label. If you're hung up on the idea that idealism is something everyone has, just mentally substitute the term "Optimists" or "Compassionates" or something. We're getting off track here. You have to acknowledge the Keirsey personality categorizations for this topic to make any sense. MBTI/Keirsey categorizations are much more about trying to define immutable personalities; it doesn't purport to describe behaviors. A Guardian who reads and strictly follows HIFFIAUW doesn't become a Rational. Maybe you should read up on this stuff a bit or try to put aside your rhetorical hangups.

[moda0306]

PS,

I guess I turned this into another Statist v. Anarcho-Libertarian debate...

My Bad. 

[Libertarian666]

And to get back to the original point, I think the Idealists will be fine in a free society that is wealthy enough to support idealism.

Nah.  Why would Rationals support Idealists?  It would be irrational to do so.  They'll will find a way to get rid of them.

I don't agree. Idealists make excellent support people.

[Pointedstick]

And to get back to the original point, I think the Idealists will be fine in a free society that is wealthy enough to support idealism.

Nah.  Why would Rationals support Idealists?  It would be irrational to do so.  They'll will find a way to get rid of them.

I don't agree. Idealists make excellent support people.

I concur. The problem, in my mind, is that since their activities don't tend to generate a lot of money, they need to be supported themselves. In the past, that was the church, and right now that's the government, but the government does a really terrible job at this, and it's not clear how much the private sector is actually willing to pay for their services.

[Libertarian666]

Nah.  Why would Rationals support Idealists?  It would be irrational to do so.  They'll will find a way to get rid of them.

I don't agree. Idealists make excellent support people.

I concur. The problem, in my mind, is that since their activities don't tend to generate a lot of money, they need to be supported themselves. In the past, that was the church, and right now that's the government, but the government does a really terrible job at this, and it's not clear how much the private sector is actually willing to pay for their services.

Everything would be much cheaper without the government sucking the blood out of the economy, so one wouldn't need as high a level of productivity for the same standard of living.

Excluding parasites, of course.

[Pointedstick]

Everything would be much cheaper without the government sucking the blood out of the economy, so one wouldn't need as high a level of productivity for the same standard of living.

Excluding parasites, of course.

Are the mentally ill parasites? What about elderly people who have little savings? Those who are poor because they have few skills or just aren't that smart? The hungry children of the aforementioned people? These are the kinds of things that Idealists wonder about. In a society where everyone's expected to survive without a handout, they see more need than ever for their own services, and they're more than willing to provide them, but in such a society, fewer people seem willing to support them so they can do it.

[Libertarian666]

Everything would be much cheaper without the government sucking the blood out of the economy, so one wouldn't need as high a level of productivity for the same standard of living.

Excluding parasites, of course.

Are the mentally ill parasites? What about elderly people who have little savings? Those who are poor because they have few skills or just aren't that smart? The hungry children of the aforementioned people? These are the kinds of things that Idealists wonder about. In a society where everyone's expected to survive without a handout, they see more need than ever for their own services, and they're more than willing to provide them, but in such a society, fewer people seem willing to support them so they can do it.

When I refer to parasites, I mean people who use violence to take value from others. I guess I should say "criminals" instead.

I have nothing against voluntary assistance to those in need through no fault of their own, and in fact I provide that myself when appropriate.

But my point was that a voluntarist society would be richer than this one, and thus its members would be more able to support those who could not support themselves.

[Kshartle]

In a society where everyone's expected to survive without a handout, they see more need than ever for their own services, and they're more than willing to provide them, but in such a society, fewer people seem willing to support them so they can do it.

More people will be willing to support them with handouts. People will be wealthier and there are actually very few voluntary poor. Look at our poor. Many are there by choice, many others are they because government denied them a job or created the incentive for their poverty. Very few would still be there if they hadn't been lobotmized in a government school and denied opportunites because they had no skill. The girls would not have turned their bodies into baby making welfare machines if that option wasn't there. The examples go on and on.

If you have skills that are too low to merit min wage you don't get a job. If you never get the first job you never get the promotion. You never get skills. If you go to school because the government handed you a big loan you have a disencentive to work because then you have to pay the loan back...on top of all the taxes.

Less wealth is created because of taxes...omg it goes on and on. Libertarians have been making the case for how the poor would be much much better off without the state for decades. It is obvious when you start to think about it. It's also a losing argument. It hasn't worked to shrink the state. It's hasn't even slowed the growth. When libertarians make the case for the poor being better off without the state they are cast as villians.

If all libertarians stopped making the economic case we would be much better off. Giant social change is never going to happen because we educate people about economics. The population will never understand this stuff....ever. Look on this forum. Lot's of smart guys here don't get it, even after listening to the arguments....for years. It's useless.

Social change happens because the morality changes. If we want the poor to be cared for and the wars to end and the evils of the state we have to make the moral argument. It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to use violence to get what you want. The ends don't justify the means. Don't hit your kids and instead teach them to grow up not speaking the language of violence. Hitting and stealing don't solve problems. That's all this welfare/warfare garbage is, hitting and stealing. How can all the hitting and stealing make people's lives better?

[Kshartle]

But my point was that a voluntarist society would be richer than this one, and thus its members would be more able to support those who could not support themselves.

The problem is this argument is a big loser. It always has been. People will never understand it or buy it. You've got to make the case that it's morally wrong to hit and steal. You've got to teach it to the kids because the adults don't even realize they're doing it. They refuse to see it because to see it would shatter their belief system. It would teach them they've believed a big lie taught to them by people they've trusted (parents, teachers, clergy, TV, movie stars, everyone).

[Libertarian666]

In a society where everyone's expected to survive without a handout, they see more need than ever for their own services, and they're more than willing to provide them, but in such a society, fewer people seem willing to support them so they can do it.

...
If all libertarians stopped making the economic case we would be much better off. Giant social change is never going to happen because we educate people about economics. The population will never understand this stuff....ever. Look on this forum. Lot's of smart guys here don't get it, even after listening to the arguments....for years. It's useless.

Social change happens because the morality changes. If we want the poor to be cared for and the wars to end and the evils of the state we have to make the moral argument. It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to use violence to get what you want. The ends don't justify the means. Don't hit your kids and instead teach them to grow up not speaking the language of violence. Hitting and stealing don't solve problems. That's all this welfare/warfare garbage is, hitting and stealing. How can all the hitting and stealing make people's lives better?

It makes people's lives better as long as it's the right people doing the hitting and stealing. You know, the ones with uniforms.