Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am trying to find out more about the dark side of SJ (see my thread in the INTP forum). Something in particular that interests me, however, is the way bad SJs wage crusades against people they perceive to be enemies.

For reasons that Keirsey articulates, the SJ and the NT often misunderstand one another. NTs think the SJ gums up the system with inefficient rules; SJ's think the NT takes obscene pleasure in breaking their rules...such as not putting the stapler back in the wrong place for the fifth time even though I had already asked them twice!

Sometimes, these conflicts go a little too far...a jerk NT might, for instance, humiliate the SJ by pointing out the flaws in their logic--publicly--and in such strong terms as to leave little room for doubt.
On the other hand, a bad SJs (especially bad STJs) might try to get someone they don't like fired. They might especially pick on NTs because of this friction inherent between the temperaments.

Have any of you been on the receiving end of this particularly evil side of the SJ temperament? What did they do? It is fascinating for me to imagine how someone as cooperative and obedient as an SJ would be able to do something so awful to another person. Obviously, they can't break the rules to do it. They can't hide in a dark corner with a knife, or commit a crime for which they implicate the "enemy." Right? They play by the book, so how does someone--legitimately--get someone else fired who doesn't deserve to be fired?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
For the record, most NT/SJ relationships are perfectly functional, positive, mutually satisfying. I don't want to give the wrong impression, and engender in NTs an active dislike of all SJs.

Walt Disney (ENTP) and his brother Roy (ISTJ) worked wonderfully together, a functional and complimentary team, building one of the largest entertainment empires ever. My NT husband works well with his SJ boss--he knows how to gently help her through her inefficiencies--and she knows and appreciates his strategic insight. Meanwhile, she's great at what she does, running the company, keeping it stable, and he knows and appreciates this too.

I am a writer, however, and am interested in that fractional minority of bad apples. Any insight would be much appreciated!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
Chances that one person was behind a person getting fired is slim to none. More than likely he has been totally unaware that he has been walking on thin ice and the perceived enemy was the catalyst for the whole company to finally say "THANK GOD WE CAN GET RID OF HIM!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiNeSi

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
I have seen/heard evidence to the contrary. Ooh the stories! I wish I could remember them better!
The way I see it, even though it is unfortunate a person lost their job ... he is much better to be rid of the toxic environment and move on to better venues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
The way I see it, even though it is unfortunate a person lost their job ... he is much better to be rid of the toxic environment and move on to better venues.
Probably true... pretty sucky all the same. But WHY did he lose his job? If he was capable, hard-working, diligent, saving the company money--did NOT deserve to be fired--then by what art was his boss imposed upon? How could someone who never breaks the rules possibly persuade the boss to fire someone who ought not be fired?

I am asking because I am curious as to the modus operandi of evil SJs--knowing full well that most of them are not evil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
Probably true... pretty sucky all the same. But WHY did he lose his job? If he was capable, hard-working, diligent, saving the company money--did NOT deserve to be fired--then by what art was his boss imposed upon? How could someone who never breaks the rules possibly persuade the boss to fire someone who ought not be fired?

I am asking because I am curious as to the modus operandi of evil SJs--knowing full well that most of them are not evil.
Do you think by chance this person has convinced themselves that their own version of the story is true, even though it is not? It's like dreaming of problems that aren't even there, but in doing so a problem is created.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,064 Posts
I get along with STJs pretty well. We can have a lot of great conversations and enjoy each others company. However, there is still some miscommunication.

My favorite example is with my mothers boyfriend that lives with us, who is an ISTJ. We have a lot of great discussions, especially about politics (those are pretty fun since he's more conservative and I'm more liberal). However, is a complete neat freak. Don't get me wrong, I like things to be in their place, but I literally cannot keep up to his standards. Once I accidentally left a half package of turkey bacon on the counter before I left for school, and he threw it away because "it wasn't good anymore" and he wanted to teach me a lesson. Then he complained to my mother about the price of the turkey bacon and how we wasted it.

Often if I don't put my things away, they'll end up on the top bunk where I sleep. Once I was behind on laundry and had to leave my clothes in the dryer when I left to spend the weekend at my dads house. However, I promised my mother that I'd come over Saturday morning to fold them and put the away. Come Saturday morning, my clothes are gone and I can't find them. Sure enough, they were on my bunk.

I'm pretty certain that he thinks doing this will lead to me having some sort of revelation about cleaning and suddenly change. Unfortunately for him, I realized that if I actually lose something of mine in the house, all I have to do is wait a few days and it'll end up on my bed! It's pretty useful.

SFJs are a complete mystery to me. It's fun to get excited with them, but when they fall off the deep end I swear to god they try to take me with them.

My ESFJ aunt (who is also an unmedicated bipolar) alternates between loving and hating me. Last Sunday she came out of her room complaining about how dirty the house was and told me to clean up. I said no, I cleaned up earlier and was working on my Physics homework and actually understanding it (these moments can be few and far between, I cherish them). We fought, and then she took away to the keys to the car that she let me have so I can drive 6 hours a week.

Needless to say, I have a very dynamic relationship with SJs. I just wish we could sit and philosophize together, then maybe we'd bond more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Do you think by chance this person has convinced themselves that their own version of the story is true, even though it is not? It's like dreaming of problems that aren't even there, but in doing so a problem is created.
I think that's a plausible explanation for some of these occurrences perhaps, but not likely if the alleged victim is an NT. NTs are too anti-emotional to make up realities the way we NF's sometimes do... Anyway, I'm really just interested in learning more about the dark side of the SJs because I am writing a book which involves a SJ protagonist/antagonist. I want to flush out my character's depth in a realistic way--and I am getting stuck at their dark side because they seem so cooperative and nice.

It's much easier to write about the dark side of an SP artisan--guns and drugs and explosions and what not. I don't want to do the easy thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
I am trying to find out more about the dark side of SJ (see my thread in the INTP forum). Something in particular that interests me, however, is the way bad SJs wage crusades against people they perceive to be enemies. SJs are the temperament group the most attacked with no reason on the forums. It should be quite easy to find the type of scenarios you're looking for in one of the numerous SJ bashing thread.

For reasons that Keirsey articulates, the SJ and the NT often misunderstand one another. I'm not a huge Kersey fan, but for what it's worth I rarely experience tensions and misunderstandings with SJs, much less so than with NFs for instance. NTs think the SJ gums up the system with inefficient rules; SJ's think the NT takes obscene pleasure in breaking their rules...such as not putting the stapler back in the wrong place for the fifth time even though I had already asked them twice! That doesn't strike me as typically NT.

Sometimes, these conflicts go a little too far...a jerk NT might, for instance, humiliate the SJ by pointing out the flaws in their logic--publicly--and in such strong terms as to leave little room for doubt.
On the other hand, a bad SJs (especially bad STJs) might try to get someone they don't like fired. That dosent strike me as typically STJ either, even STJ gone bad. STJ usually value justice and don't scheme based on "likes". They might especially pick on NTs because of this friction inherent between the temperaments.

Have any of you been on the receiving end of this particularly evil side of the SJ temperament? What did they do? It is fascinating for me to imagine how someone as cooperative and obedient as an SJ would be able to do something so awful to another person. Obviously, they can't break the rules to do it. They can't hide in a dark corner with a knife, or commit a crime for which they implicate the "enemy." Right? Any type can commit a crime. They play by the book, so how does someone--legitimately--get someone else fired who doesn't deserve to be fired?
Answers in the quote, after the bolded parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Answers in the quote, after the bolded parts.
I find SPs get bashed a lot too. I'm not into type bashing, and that's not what this thread is about.

I don't think NT's misplace the stapler on purpose. But I tend to agree with Keirsey that logistics--keeping track of the little objects, like toothpaste and birthday cards--aren't NT's strong suit. They can learn it--and well--when it is a matter of strategy (paying bills on time, etc.), but otherwise, they can de-prioritize it out of their heads. For instance, I've tried to make my NT husband lunch, but, often, he forgets to unpack it from his briefcase for days until mushy with decay. And then he will forget to bring the container home for several more days.

For SJs, whose logistical intelligence is the highest of any temperament--who spend a lot more time than I do getting the mayonnaise-to-ham ratio just right--this sort of benign negligence can come off as hurtful or even disrespectful to the work they've put into it.

Moreover, I think NTs are more likely than any other type to say to themselves, "It doesn't make sense putting the stapler way over there (where the SJ colleague prefers). It should stay next to the printer, where people most often require use of it."

Getting someone fired also strikes me as out-of-character for SJs. But my assumptions have been contradicted by enough evidence that I suspect there is a side of SJs which I don't fully grasp. That's why I started this thread. My best theory so far to explain this phenomena would be that the bad SJ (most SJs are not bad) rationalizes it in their head why this person ought to be fired--"They are bad for worker morale; they are breaking rules X,Y, and Z". Like all bad folks of any temperament, at some level they know that they are ultimately wrong, but their rationalization makes it possible for them to overcome their conscience in the matter.

I see SJs and NFs as the types most capable of demonizing their enemies--which is why, despite our normally good and cooperative nature, at our worst, we can commit tremendous evil (i.e. NF Hitler). SJs and NTs, in my observation, tend to be more grimly realistic in their understanding of their foes. At their worst, they become cynical and apathetic to evil, even exploiting it for their own purposes (i.e. NT Stalin).

Finally, I've noticed a lot of people here aren't "huge Keirsey fans." Have you read the book? Most people who dislike him do so out of disagreeing with a statement attributed to him, but which is out of context and inadequately understood. His theory is the only one I've seen in this "personality typing" business which is researched and supported with empirical evidence. It also tends to be the least confusing of the theory--lacking those ridiculous "exceptions" to normal type behavior--an E inexplicably acting like an I, an S who thinks and talks like an N, etc.

Personally, I think there are a lot of bad theories out there--that most people on this forum have an inadequate/muddled understanding of the types as a result--and that you should be careful who you listen to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
"It doesn't make sense putting the stapler way over there (where the SJ colleague prefers). It should stay next to the printer, where people most often require use of it." is typically the kind of think my ENFP friend would argue. I just don't see misplacing stuff when asked not to as typical of NTs, whether done on purpose or not. Not that NTs don't do it, but not more so than others. That is actualy a good illustration of why I'm not a huge Kersey fan. It is because I'm not that convinced by the groupings in the first place. I'll admit I haven't read the book though, but I would be curious to.
Re the getting people that they don't ike fired, you specified STJ in particular. It's been my experience that fairness and justice is a value of STJs and I don't think that a "bad" STJ woud be more likely to do this than a "bad" SFJ, quite the opposite actually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
"It doesn't make sense putting the stapler way over there (where the SJ colleague prefers). It should stay next to the printer, where people most often require use of it." is typically the kind of think my ENFP friend would argue. I just don't see misplacing stuff when asked not to as typical of NTs, whether done on purpose or not. Not that NTs don't do it, but not more so than others. That is actualy a good illustration of why I'm not a huge Kersey fan. It is because I'm not that convinced by the groupings in the first place. I'll admit I haven't read the book though, but I would be curious to.
Re the getting people that they don't ike fired, you specified STJ in particular. It's been my experience that fairness and justice is a value of STJs and I don't think that a "bad" STJ woud be more likely to do this than a "bad" SFJ, quite the opposite actually.
I might think, "It makes more sense to leave the stapler by the printer," but I wouldn't go through with disobeying a co-worker on that level. I would be extra careful to put it back correctly if I knew that one of my colleagues was hypersensitive about it. I--like NFs in general--prefer not to be confrontational. The only exception--and it's a big one--is if one of our moral principles are violated. Then, we are fiercely confrontational. But not over a stapler.

On the other hand, I find that NT's hate doing anything that doesn't make sense to them. They'd see all the wasted time and effort of storing the stapler so far from the printer. Subconsciously or not, I've noticed that my NT husband tends to "forget" more often when the rules don't make sense to him. Especially when the rule makes no sense at all. Does this grudging accordance with certain rules not sound familiar to you?

It is certainly possible that an SFJ might be more able to rationalize away the guilt of getting someone fired than an STJ. I don't know. I think that the "justice and fairness" values of an STJ might have the opposite effect. For instance, if an STJ guardian perceived that someone violated their standard of "justice and fairness" they might feel it to be their duty to get that person fired. An F might feel more obliged to pity the guy's wife and kids but a T would leave the emotion out of it--this person crossed the line and must pay.

Normally, that would be good behavior--moral, upright, Judge Dredd type character, right? But what if the person's definition of "justice and fairness" got skewed somehow--some childhood trauma, for instance? Then, it is very easy to imagine that they would be prosecuting crimes which aren't really crimes at all. Nurse Ratched of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next believed that the patients under her care were non-conformist, irreversibly flawed humans, and, as such, and deserving of permanent incarceration. She didn't want them to get better--she didn't see her job to be involved in "helping them get better"--she wanted to punish them out of a skewed understanding of "justice and fairness". She is an extreme example.

It's fine to be skeptical of the Keirsey theory--but you should read the book before you dismiss it entirely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
I agree that I should read the book! And I wouldn't dismiss the whole theory as I don't have a good grasp of it. The grouping by temparements has just always seemed a bit off to me.
With the stapler example, the friend I was thinking about wouldn't go on a war about that of course! She would just assume that since the rule makes no sense to her, the person who had decided on the rule had not thought it through, so she would do as she pleased and when confronted about that she would explain, nicely, why her choice was better and would try to convince her coworker. My thought process would be: so and so wants the stappler there, they probably have a good reason for it (maybe they use it more than the rest of the staff and the printer is far away from their desk?). In any case, I dont care much, so I'll just put it back where they asked me to. Said friend is also much more confrontational than I am. I put it down to I/E differences rather than to a temperament thing. Of course, that is purely anecdotal, but I find all my extroverted friends more confrontational.
I see your point about a skewed sense of justice, but to me, that is not the same as acting based on if you "don't like" someone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,452 Posts
I think the friction that can take place between XNTJ and XSTJ comes down to the latter's tendency for argumentum ad antiquitatem compared to the former's preference for argumentum ad novitatem.

I've found in that in my interaction with XSXJ, it comes down to "this is how we've always done it" vs "Yes, but this is a better way of doing it."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
I see your point about a skewed sense of justice, but to me, that is not the same as acting based on if you "don't like" someone.
Nonetheless, bad people of all temperament types can rationalizing dislike into something more justifiable. We can look at our least favorite person and count on our fingers all the ways he or she is incompetent/wrong/malicious/stupid/naive, etc. Even worse, we believe our rationalizations--start to believe that there is something seriously wrong with this person, that their "badness" ought to be contained. As I currently understand it, bad SJs might rationalize their dislike of someone in terms of SJ's moral uprightness/work ethic/conformity: "They broke the rules, they refuse to assimilate, they are good-for-nothing, etc."

You're right--this is different than having a skewed sense of justice. Progress! Two solid theories on how the upright SJ goes bad!

You seem to be picking up on a lot of subtleties of temperament behavior that I am having trouble adequately flushing out. A lot of the questions/concerns are addressed in the fundamentals of his theory, which Keirsey's PUMII book articulates more clearly than I can.

You're right that E's seem more confrontational than I's--in the sense that they are more outspoken, assertive, etc. But INF's can be just as confrontational in their vehemence--their objection to what they perceive as a violation of their moral principles. Maybe not so direct but certainly just as contradicting. My INFP sister--when she objects to something I say--becomes an absolute nightmare of passive aggression, picking apart my argument, my character, my intelligence. Drives me batty. "Why can't you just slap me and be done with it?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
I deal with a bad ISTJ at work. They sometimes get hostile when you break the rules or tell them why the rules are broken/flawed because they were written by people under specific assumprions and scoping. Then there is the pie theory where if you get credit for something, then that means that less of the recognition pie is left for them and everybody else. They don't realize that NTs bring their own pie.

the technique to getting somebody fired is easy: give them enough rope to hang themselves with and when they violate the rukes and something bad happens, take it to management.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I deal with a bad ISTJ at work. They sometimes get hostile when you break the rules or tell them why the rules are broken/flawed because they were written by people under specific assumprions and scoping. Then there is the pie theory where if you get credit for something, then that means that less of the recognition pie is left for them and everybody else. They don't realize that NTs bring their own pie.
That's a clever way of putting it--the recognition pie. So true!

I can see where they are coming from though--most SJs work hard, are dedicated to their duties, and probably aren't thanked enough for this. I am firmly convinced that if all the SJs were to disappear, society would break down like a printer just when you need it. SJ Guardians are the people who change the toner cartridges of society when everyone else is caught up in their distracted creative brilliance.

the technique to getting somebody fired is easy: give them enough rope to hang themselves with and when they violate the rukes and something bad happens, take it to management.
Can you be more specific? What do you mean by "enough rope to hang themselves with"?
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top