General Attitudes and Political Views

Auburn: Interesting! Let's see if we can build off of this a little.

Assuming that Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness are related to S/N and P/J (or, to be more precise, Pe and Je), it might be helpful to speculate why this may lead to shifts in political belief (I'm not sure how strong the correlation is, though, as I'm a Je-lead and am only middling in Conscientiousness, though I am undoubtedly high in Openness). Since the political realm is, ultimately, about the control and distribution of resources, that would imply that each group has differing control needs being served by either loosening or tightening "borders" (which can mean literal, physical categories, or more abstract ones). I would suspect that, if high Je types are indeed drawn to political conservatism (however one defines this: I think Peterson's definition of an orientation toward maintaining or tightening borders in some area is a good working definition and avoids ideological vagueness), this will be because rigid, fixed concepts are easier to manipulate and lend themselves well to the refinement of technique and of engineering one's personal or social environment, while a lack of conceptual boundaries would be murkier and more difficult to steer. If high Pe types, by contrast, are more driven toward liberalism (here defined as an orientation toward dismantling borders and blending concepts together), this may have something to do with the fact that they lack the need to control their environments to the same degree, and are more interested in collecting novel experiences and moving on. If true, this would imply that high extraversion would magnify this effect, as the desires for coordination and experience would likely be stronger in Je and Pe leads. I'm not sure if existing research supports or undermines this connection, but I'm sure the information is out there.

If the Openness scale correlates to S/N, this correlation is a bit more straightforward, and has already been outlined by Peterson. However, things get a bit more interesting once we blend the two, and ask ourselves how this might interact in an NJ or an SP. For NJs, it would imply that the person isn't all that concerned with borders for borders' sake, and will likely attempt to play with existing information in ways which undermine their conceptual stability. For instance, is the Garden of Eden story actually a tale of a sinful humanity being cursed for disobeying a righteous God by the wiles of a malevolent serpent, or is it a tale outlining the beginning of human liberation from the tyranny of superstition and subjection to nature? If it is the latter, is this an unequivocal good? Does the emancipation of reason from the confines of religion and instinct actually make humans free, happy, and whole, or does it simply lead to hubris, overreach, and collapse (I would personally argue that this quest is futile, though there are better and worse ways to go about it)? In other words, the narrative is being constantly toyed with and upended in ways that a low Openness individual may simply not be inclined to pursue. Yet, without stable guidelines of any kind, the NJ would find themselves adrift and directionless, their executive function basically purposeless, and so, some kind of conceptual closure would be necessary. It is there that we might start to see a kind of conservatism emerge, but it could just as easily lead to a kind of manifest political liberalism, where specific boundaries are less important to preserve than underlying, immutable principles. Whether the principles revolve around order, power, freedom, equality, justice, compassion, or some other concept, will influence where on a contemporary spectrum the NJ would end up. This person would likely take a less hardline stance on particular arrangements, and would be more interested in ensuring that specific social functions were taken care of (as we can see with Peterson himself, if you've been exposed to his sociopolitical thought).

In the case of SPs, we would likely see someone with less of a need for closure, but also less of a need or desire for conceptual experimentation. This person would probably be inclined to support ideas which allow for a good deal of personal freedom to experience the world around them, but be less inclined to look for ideas that challenge or upend certain defined beliefs about the nature of the world, seeing them as largely irrelevant or possibly even threatening. This can lead to many kinds of political ideologies, and in the modern Western context, it's difficult to say which would appeal to a given person more, as the activities they are inclined to engage in, their personal experiences, and their assessments of their prospects within one type of regime or another will all have an effect. And of course, reason always plays a role, though I would suspect a smaller role than most of us would like to admit.

Among NPs, we would have our classical experimental thinker, who, if political, would likely aim to challenge convention for the sake of introducing new ways of thinking (not necessarily of doing, though). They may not be shock jocks in the sense we're used to thinking of it, but would likely not only be attracted to unconventional ideas, but would be interested in taking old ideas and turning them on their heads for the sake of it. This person would likely be more inclined than most to ask why one can't be a pansexual, genderfluid otherkin, or why nations should be concerned with preserving old cultural forms in the face of change, and would therefore be inclined to be at the forefront of, or at least, heavily involved in, movements which advocate for these types of causes. However, it is just as likely that, given their experimental nature, they will resist the tendency among political movements to want to place people within intellectual straitjackets, and so, may actually also be well represented among the opposition, simply resisting boundary itself. If Peterson is correct (and I think he is), we may see a large number of NPs among cultural libertarians, who in this case would be largely tolerant with respect to the behavior of others, but opposed to attempts to control their own. I suspect that NPs would actually be more prone to a kind of intellectual laissez-faire where everyone is encouraged to experiment, on the condition that no one interferes with others' right or ability to do so. This means liberalism in the sense of tolerance for open conceptual borders, but not necessarily in the sense of strongly left-wing ideological commitments.

SJs, then, would be left as the types most prone to conservatism in the sense we're used to thinking of it: interested in preserving existing, present cultural traditions and attitudes, and in the Petersonian sense, maintaining the boundaries and delineations which characterize society as known. This being the Internet, I expect little sympathy for this view, so I will attempt to present a bit of a defense for it (I'm also a bit biased, since I'd typed as an SJ for some time and am personally sympathetic to the view that this perspective remains underserved). This orientation toward preserving lived cultural experiences is actually necessary in order to have civilization at all. A pragmatic, principles-based approach runs the risk of abstracting too far from the day to day experiences of people within a society, and at its worst, can lead to totalitarian rule and societal collapse. Nazi Germany is an excellent example of this, although I would probably point to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia as a more drastic example of runaway political rationalism. The Nazis did at least attempt to preserve the structure and culture of their society. The Cambodians attempted to burn everything to the ground, and very nearly succeeded. There is a danger of utopian thinking that can lead to permanent chaos if taken too far, and a disdain for the here and now that can provide license for inflicting the most savage depredations on innocent people for the sake of a faraway political ideal. The SP approach is in many ways too embedded in its own context and perspective, and runs the risk of ignoring the wider costs of allowing personally pleasurable behaviors to continue en masse. If you're a decadent aristocrat who enjoys living in a world of Sadean pleasure, but will not notice the brewing forces of revolution on the horizon, then you actively fighting to preserve your way of life is not only harmful to your society as a whole, but will be personally counterproductive when the Jacobins come. On the same token, pushing for a change simply because one wishes to take personal advantage of it is not, in itself, a good reason to pass or repeal laws, and can cause a number of problems for society down the line. This attitude, en masse, would lead to a series of laws largely designed to benefit the most powerful members of society, and a class of people pushing for changes that, in reality, are no better than their alternative (although, to be fair, that doesn't sound all too different from the way things work now...). And, while experimentation for experimentation's sake can lead to great breakthroughs, a society without stable institutions to anchor itself to will dissolve, factionalize, and plunge into chaos. Revision and novelty for its own sake is also a very poor way to gain true skill: in order to become good at anything at all, one must build a habit which allows for the constant refinement of technique. Changing the rules means that skill adapted to a previous mode is lost, and must be regained. Continuous change undermines skill by constantly undermining specialized adaptation to a particular form. Therefore, continuous revisionism impedes the ability to create any kind of refined technique, and if this were scaled up enough, this would make many basic functions (good government, national defense, spirituality, education, economic productivity) difficult to sustain well in the long run. So, people who take the ideas, the techniques, the traditions, and the day-to-day experiences of the average person within a society, hold to, and constantly refine them, ensure not just that civilization stays together, but that it is actually able to improve its vital functions in a stable, manageable, sustainable fashion. To be entirely fair, SJs may not actually be political conservatives in the way we're used to thinking of them, but will likely be people who will want to take a stand against changes that may upset the apple cart and cause severe, negative repercussions. Whether they are correct or not, they provide an important stop-gap and a bulwark against possibly devastating change, though of course, this can take a dark turn (as the history of far-right terrorism across the world can attest to).

The above would also imply a kind of ideological affinity between the Alpha and Delta quadras, as well as the Beta and Gamma quadras, as each would contain members whose approach to the political sphere most closely matched their own. They wouldn't necessarily hold the same positions, but we would expect to see a similarity in their approach to questions in society, with NJs sharing a pragmatic approach to realizing underlying principles in the political realm, SPs sharing the commitment to ensuring a society with open opportunities for positive experience, SJs sharing a similar commitment to maintaining and improving on stable, orderly societies in their present forms, and NPs sharing an interest in creatively experimenting with present forms in order to create something entirely new (are modern artists mainly NPs? I wonder...).

If the above holds true, then there are probably interesting inter-quadra dynamics to tease apart... for instance, the differing J functions might cause different attitudes to spring up (I've personally noticed an orientation toward the social and cultural among Fe/Ti users and an orientation to the economic and numerical among Te/Fi users, but this is anecdotal, and may be conditioned by previous expectations), and the different temperaments may interact in special ways within their own quadras. Of course, this is all conjecture, but feel free to take it in a new direction!

To flesh out my previous post here...

Everyone probably sees a better way for the world to be. Because the landscape is never perfect. The differences, I would say, are that Se and Si, are more about 'incremental' changes --- which are somewhere in the line of sight. Whereas Ne and Ni advocate more radical rearrangements of the landscape.

But Se would still desire freedoms to expand, as a Pe, function. Just not an entire global change. It's also not likely to concern itself with the panoramic scope (Ni), since it's focused on its own immediate experience. Se is not a political process. If matters of bureaucracy (which Se dislikes) can get less in the way of them having a more rich experience of life, then it becomes relevant.

So Se might be for progressiveness in the form of cannabis legalization, state funding towards artists, programs that increase public resources, decriminalization of certain activities in general, etc. But it won't idealistically advocate abstractions (as Ne does) that span far beyond the relevant.


And the attitude of Ni would be:
NiJe = overhaul of the current system (N) for a different vision of how the world may be organized (Je)
I was joking with a friend about Yagami Light's Ni and how he essentially wanted to establish a new world order.

Assuming this is right... that would cover NP, SJ, NJ, SP ...and Te/Fi and Fe/Ti?
A rough sketch for all the types?

I'm eager to keep testing these ideas against samples to compare results.

Very interesting discussion!

I have some thoughts stemming from a few of the topics here: the Si (/SJ) approach to conservatism that mystery wrote about, and a speculation about the relationship between political ideology and cognitive type. I realize this ended up being rather long, hopefully not too too worldview-rambly. : )

“SJ-style” conservatism vs. the realities of the world

Mystery wrote:

I’m sympathetic to this view, and as an Si lead in CT, albeit an idiosyncratic one (I’m high in Openness to Experience) I’m inclined to prefer sustainable, incremental change over large-scale social experiments or revolution—both of which are dangerous and often result in catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Yet over time, I’ve come to feel that slow, incremental change isn’t responsive enough to the factual realities of the modern world. For this reason, I’d say that this SJ-style conservatism/incrementalism is running the risk of becoming its own form of utopian fantasy.

One paradox for an Si type is that there’s very little that’s truly stable or static about the modern world. The world has been in a state of rapid change at least since the industrial revolution, and nowadays globalized neoliberalism is dismantling entire nations and cultures. If an Si advocates for stasis or gradualism so that their own culture can remain stable, they’re allowing other people to be sacrificed so that they can continue living as they’re accustomed to. Someone’s apple cart is going to be upset no matter what: whose should we be most concerned with?

Of course, I’m not advocating haphazardly smashing the system—change must be approached urgently, but also wisely and deliberately. The kind of preserve-the-system arguments I’m unsympathetic to are things like “Royal Dutch Shell’s international affairs are its own business. All I know is that we depend on cheap oil for the way of life we all take for granted.” Well, what if Shell’s international affairs include things like turning the Niger River delta into a massive oil slick and then calling in the Nigerian military to murder local Ogonis who dared to protest this atrocity? Someone has already suffered “severe, negative repercussions,” so invoking the desire for stability in this case would be purely self-serving.

Along the same lines, there’s the ecological context. While politics itself involves mainly human systems, the economy is created by the way that humans interact with their surrounding environments and exploit natural resources. Empirical science says that our biosphere is going to change dramatically during the next 50 years or so, and that a futile attempt at continuing “business as usual” would have catastrophic consequences. The idea of denying these realities to preserve a façade of stability may be more appealing to SJ types than to others, especially NPs. Yet resistance to change is precisely what elite sociopaths know how to exploit via disinformation campaigns, tribalizing politics, culture wars, scapegoating of vulnerable groups, etc. Si-heavy types are prone to nostalgia, and effective communicators like Trump use the combination of nostalgia and racism to spin conservative “utopian” tales about returning to a more “pure” or “innocent” past. While the public is distracted, or fighting amongst themselves, the elites pillage with impunity.

Since it’s an empirical reality that tumultuous change is visiting our world (at the very least, via the ecological crisis), a key question becomes how to communicate this effectively to those who would rather believe the comforting disinformation. The rampant tribalism and dogmatism of the contemporary US make this task much more difficult. Unfortunately, as cognitive linguist George Lakoff has pointed out, the political left tends to be notoriously ineffective at leveraging the psychology of communication. (See the curmudgeonly Noam Chomsky quote in the TiNe section of the CT book for an example of this--p. 208). Nor are political conservatives the only ones resistant to change. Many liberals are unwilling to consider major alterations to the “tried and true” capitalist system. This lack of bold vision is one of the main reasons Trump was elected. Also like the right, many on the left are guilty of tribalism and contempt. If SJ’s are more guilty of denying the reality, perhaps left-leaning NPs are more guilty of dismissively scoffing at conservatives rather than trying to understand their viewpoints. I find the way in which some liberals sneer at the entire culture of Middle America to be very irksome, not to mention counterproductive.

If there’s a genuine societal acceptance of and engagement with the inevitability of large-scale change, it will be more possible to meaningfully talk about conserving traditions, cultures and ways of life. At that point the question becomes which features of one’s own culture should be preserved and which can or should be done away with. In this regard, I’m much more sympathetic to the conservative, more typically Si perspective, as long as it doesn’t involve disrespecting other people or trouncing on their rights. I agree that continuity and tradition are important parts of society, and actually, in many cases these are being smashed by the effects of capitalism itself. I’ve seen some positive examples from Indigenous communities who are actively trying to strike a balance between preserving tradition and actively navigating change. Many are selectively revitalizing traditions—language, spirituality, fishing & hunting practices—reinterpreting them as needed. Cultural renaissance seems to happen when there’s a dynamic mixture of the old & the new.

An idea on approaching political ideology and CT

Fe disclaimer: I'm still very new at CT stuff, so my comments on the theory itself are all pretty tentative. However, I'm confident as far as my own experience, which I discuss a bit below. So if nothing else I'm hoping this might provide an alternative perspective on the political proclivities of some Si leads and alpha types.


I think I could definitely see how different CT’s generate different philosophies. I would guess that correlations of outward political ideology to CT would be weaker than correlations of behavior-based approaches such as the Big Five (or even the MBTI)?? It seems like peoples’ attitudes toward particular political issues depend a lot on cultural contexts and environmental factors, both of which are reflected in the Big Five but not in CT. (Apart from the correlation between cultural features and CT distributions among different populations).

Applied ideology vs. core ideology

At a finer scale, I bet there are certain qualities about how people approach or interpret political ideology that correlate quite closely with CT. I suppose this is essentially similar to Erifrail’s idea above. Based on my experience, I’ve thought maybe people have something like a “core ideology”—whether conscious or unconscious—that lurks beneath the surface of their actual political views and guides their approach to politics. However, core ideology doesn’t necessarily have a clear-cut or obvious correlation with outward political views, which I'll call "applied ideology." From my experience, I suspect peoples’ core ideologies are strongly correlated with their CT—i.e., more influenced by their “nature” than by happenstance worldview construction. If applied ideology is something the individual creates, core ideology is more something they discover. To the extent the core ideology is conscious, there’s some creative process and environmental influence involved: how do you express or structure such-and-such an idea or value? But for the most part, the core ideology is something that you might figure out about yourself during the course of your lifetime, assuming you have adequate freedom and space for self-exploration. As it becomes more conscious and clear (if it does), you begin to feel that in one form or another, it was part of your nature all along. While you can easily change your views toward some particular issues, you really can’t change the essence of how you tend to react to them. But eventually you come to realize that core ideology, by itself, is not a realistic guide for forming concrete political opinions. So I’d speculate that it follows a similar process to the Stages of Type Development.

For me, core ideology resembles a utopian ideal about human nature, although perhaps for some people, pragmatism is so fundamental to how they approach socio-political issues that their core ideologies are more realistic. Maybe a classic SJ conservative would have a core ideology representing an idealized past “Golden Age.” Similar to what mystery expressed of SJ types, I’m deeply skeptical of concrete utopian projects. But the core ideal is more of a guiding light or an abstract inspiration. I don’t feel like it’s harmful if it’s tempered with an appropriate dose of pragmatism and an acceptance of humanity for whatever it actually is.

My experience with core ideology

I’m using myself as an example here because I naturally understand my own experience better than I can understand other people’s experiences. However, I also recognize the limitations of this approach, and it’s really just meant as an example of one perspective. I suppose I could describe my applied political ideology as some variety of green socialism. Yet if I’m really being honest about my core ideology, it’s much closer to nonviolent anarchism than anything else. That doesn’t mean I’m an applied anarchist who believes that government should be abolished within the foreseeable future—that would be utopian. The core ideology describes more basic, natural beliefs along the lines of:

--It’s a travesty that some humans hold hard power over other humans.
--There are few things more horrifying than systematic violence, especially if it’s carried out at the behest of impersonal actors like states, corporations or machines.
--Benevolence and wisdom by people is more important to the health of society than laws or policies are.
–On important ethical issues, it’s unethical to defer your own views to group consensus, unless you’ve internalized the group consensus, have processed it and independently decided that you agree with it. (It’s not always unethical to defer your actions to group consensus, however).
–The law has no ethical authority in and of itself, and while I owe loyalty and allegiance to people, I don’t owe it to any nation-state or other government… etc., etc.

As a Worldview type, it might be tough for me to show that these “worldview ideas” didn’t arise as a response to early childhood/life experiences. Yet I can’t think of any compelling reason why I would have arrived at these particular viewpoints, and more importantly, they seem to parallel certain personality traits I’ve had all along: a reflexive resistance toward being told what to do, individualist/subjectivist inclinations, desire for freedom, attraction to self-sufficiency myths, lack of genuine interest in any sort of leadership, a somewhat naïve view of human nature and people’s intentions.

Here’s how I’d interpret the emergence of this “core ideology” using the framework from the Stages of Type Development:
--Standard development: Through childhood and adolescence this core ideology was largely suppressed by my worldview. As a little kid, I wanted to have positive relationships with authority figures (people) so I took rules seriously. Core ideology would sometimes express itself through visceral reactions to certain information—e.g. first learning about the death penalty, or idealizing the freedom of adulthood. As I got a bit older, I felt more alienated from rules and developed particular distaste for patriotism. However, during adolescence I strongly aligned myself with my childhood religion, a mixture of rigid dogmatism, some rationalist ideas, some liberal tendencies and some mildly authoritarian ones. The authoritarian tendencies persistently bothered me and I spent a lot of time trying to suppress my conscience.
--Contrasted development: During young adulthood, I gradually lost my religious beliefs. This made me feel free to generally question dogmas and authorities—including cultural and political ones. Most significantly, this made me feel a freedom to truly follow and develop my own ethical inclinations. I naturally began to gravitate toward anarchistic views, which eventually broke through into conscious focus. For a little while, I held a completely “bottom-up” theory of political change: true power came from purity of intentions and actions by individuals, and it was futile to preach or advocae for any sort of change if your actions didn’t show you were living in accordance with your beliefs. I frequently broke the law and had quite a nonchalant attitude about it, as long as it didn’t harm other people or otherwise conflict with personal ethical beliefs.
--Integrated development: I soon realized that these “contrasted” views were too extreme given how the world actually works. Hoping to create social change solely by example was not realistic at all, and wouldn’t solve urgent global issues. Breaking the law only makes sense if there’s a rational or unselfish reason to do so (or if the law is really stupid). I also began to recognize that there had to be a balance between acting according to beliefs and actively participating in society.

I’m not suggesting that nurture had no influence on this set of beliefs and values. I had a relatively privileged and economically stable childhood, so it’s easy for someone like me to fixate on the idea of freedom more than that of stability. However, I see freedom and stability as closely interrelated, which is partly why my outward views skew socialist.

How this might correlate to CT

I don’t have any idea about what kind of range there would be among different core ideologies, or which CT types would tend toward which sort of core ideologies. Although I strongly suspect that my core ideology is closely related to my CT (SiFe-Ti), I also don’t a very fleshed-out idea about how or why they correlate. Erifrail’s description of the Fe/Ti + SJ doesn’t really capture most of the inclinations I’ve described:

To some extent, I would associate nonviolent anarchist ideology with the “kind of optimistic belief in social good and samaritanism” that Erifrail described of Fe types, above. On the other hand, I bet the inherent individualism is strongly associated with having “reviser” energy rather than Fe “conductor” energy. So perhaps this sort of “core ideology” could be associated with people who have native F>T temperament but lack directive Je functions. These traits probably also relate to introversion and maybe either P-lead or strong Ji? I can’t think of any obvious reason to associate it with Si, although the fact that my core ideology has such an individualist bent may be a worldview reflection the individualist culture I come from.

Top-down vs. bottom-up ideologies

I could imagine a continuum between people who have more top-down core ideologies and those who have bottom-up ones. Obviously I’m not the first person to use this idea, but I’d suggest top-down ideologies correlate with having a strong directive Je energy, while bottom-up ones correlate with having strong Ji reviser energy. Top-down folks are probably more likely to view humanity as an integrated whole that can be managed, sorted and organized. A top-down view would emphasize the importance of leaders, policy and institutions in shaping social realities—“good government,” however defined. It’s probably generally more sympathetic to borders in the sense mystery mentioned, although I don’t think this is a clear-cut correlation. The description of the Alpha quadra in the CT book captures a very top-down perspective: “In their best form, the alpha quadrant’s ideas will be constructed from axiomatic logic as it pertains to human nature; specifically coordinated at improved societal architecture.”

Bottom-up core ideologies tend to be based on a more subjective view of humanity, as a loose network of individual agents. I tend to think they’re associated with beliefs in free will or individual responsibility. Bottom-up approaches tend to emphasize the power of people to organize themselves and/or the power of individuals. Sort of the David-and-Goliath story.

How top-down and bottom-up core ideologies might correlate with actual political views

I don’t see a strong correlation between top-down vs. bottom-up approaches and left vs. right politics in the US. In the “top-down” arena of national politics, the right tends to define itself using bottom-up rhetoric about devolving power to the states, while the left tends to use more top-down rhetoric about national consciousness. (Maybe the rhetoric will change under Trump?) But in practice, of course, these are not principles: both sides tend to support a broad mix of top-down and bottom-up positions. For instance, few on the right applied their anti-government rhetoric to the Standing Rock Sioux (whose ancestral lands were stolen by the government to begin with), or to victims of eminent domain seizures, fracking, etc. A lot of this has to do with cliquishness, I’m sure, of which both sides are guilty. (For example, Democrats howled at George W. Bush’s abuses of executive power, but were silent after Obama unilaterally killed US citizen Anwar al-Alwaki and his 16-year-old son by drone-strikes).

Yet I also think that even given very similar applied ideologies, there would be some significant differences in approach between a top-down person and a bottom-up person. For instance, two people who are both inclined toward socialist approaches to political issues. One has a very top-down core ideology (e.g. federalism) and the other has a very bottom-up core ideology (e.g. anarchism). Issue by issue, they may be almost in complete agreement. Yet each of them will probably have a somewhat different analysis of certain issues, and may draw different conclusions from different current events. The issues to which they devote most of their attention, and how they approach them, may also differ considerably. For instance, the top-down socialist may be a passionate advocate for something like economic policy, and approach the issue through advocacy or lobbying. The bottom-up socialist may be involved in more edgy, grassroots work, such as the Black Lives Matter movement. The top-down one might be sympathetic to authoritarian socialist leaders like Fidel Castro whereas the bottom up one may be drawn to rebellious figures like Edward Snowden.

Similarly, two people with similar top-down or bottom-up inclinations may find common ground across the political spectrum. For instance, although I support the Affordable Care Act for pragmatic reasons (saving lives), a part of me is quite troubled by the paternalism of the government telling people they will be penalized if they don’t buy insurance from a private corporations. Unfortunately, tribalism and ideological rigidity can obscure any such common ground between left & right.

Interesting!

I definitely think the idea of anarchism is idealistic in a Ji way. But the more i think about it, I suspect that the broader set of ideals it's connected with very much involve Pi, and probably work against the reductionist intent of Ti.

The broader idea is that people apply all kinds of structures, borders, barriers, categories, etc. to objects (whether physical or mental) because they make it possible to understand, control, manipulate, etc. The structure of a nation-state makes it possible to organize and control the land and people. The structure of a language makes it possible to create symbolic representations of things in the world, leading to more conscious understanding. The problem is that when these arbitrary structures become so deeply entrenched in consciousness (both individual and collective) they become sort of totalitarian and suffocating. Nation-states are a good example of this: they are just one sort of political entity among many, yet they demand an exclusive kind of hegemonic sovereignty. They indoctrinate their citizens with cultish mythologies that cover up their genocidal histories.

Anarchism, in an applied sense, can actually take a constructive approach as much as a deconstructive one. Putting an end to a nation-state strikes me as a futile goal, especially if there's nothing to fill the services it provided. A more constructive approach is to raise the importance of other kinds of social and political organizations: communities, families, cultural groups, religious groups, economic cooperatives, bioregions. Recognizing Indigenous nations as sovereign, even if it's just symbolic, is a start, because it changes the way people think about them. It helps to support the process of decolonization--removing the barriers that occupying settlers have imposed them. Eventually, the idea is that a nation-state just becomes one more category of social/political organization among many. With no one single dominant way of structuring the political map, people might start seeing the world in more natural contours and gradients rather than as carved up into colored boxes on a map. Peoples' political identities may become more fluid and less tied to things like nationality.

So, as far as Ji and Pi, I think anarchism and decolonization can also be cognitive metaphors. (As an aside, I wish I had some other words that weren't so loaded, especially since there's been some criticism of how the idea of decolonization has been diluted into a metaphor). My understanding is that Ji looks for reductionist solutions to problems. It wants to sort, categorize, label and simplify things down into one definitive answer. Yet the ideals I'm discussing--even if they themselves are formed by Ji--seem to work in the opposite direction. Their purpose is to allow for a more naturalistic or "3-dimensional" understanding of something. In other words, you would never want to get too attached to any particular philosophy or ideology--they are all just sets of symbols that are supposed to help you understand reality, but if you let one of them become too deeply entrenched, it will colonize your mind and prevent you from being able to see the natural contours of things.

I'm probably not doing the best job of explaining this right now.

Whoah, this David Abram video is pretty cool, and this trajectory of thought seems quite familiar to me. Of course this seems similar to the philosophical approaches that a lot of cultural anthropologists are inclined toward—I quite like Tim Ingold’s work (e.g. The Perception of the Environment). I also have some thoughts on your thread about TiSi vs. SiTi that I'll try to write eventually.

As far as Ji vs. Pi, I guess there are some things I tend to explicate and define, and some things I tend to leave open. There’s probably a pattern to it, but I’m not quite sure what the pattern is. I recognize that there’s kind of a paradox in an articulated ideal of holism, so it’s certainly possible I could be a J-lead, although I identify much more with the P-description you provided (Holistic, Gradated, Intermingled, Interwoven, Broad/endless), and I generally tend to function in a very non-methodical way. The problem with this sort of self-opinion, though, is that it’s difficult for me to make broad generalizations about myself that are always true. I have a particular subjectivity and feel a particular way at this particular time, but my subjectivity migrates, so I’m never exactly the same person from one day to the next. That’s one of the main reasons I’m interested in theories like CT that can provide better self-understanding. But to be honest, even here I’m really after more of a happy medium: if I had too explicit of an objectified understanding of myself, I would find it suppressive to my subjective sense about who I am. So I think there has to be a balance between the two.

Actually, if I think too deeply about the P-J topic it is a bit confusing, because even the way I tend to come to specific positions (“J”) doesn’t always seem like a completely verbal or articulated process. I might say something like “my political ideology is _____,” and I might try to explicate a long laundry list of principles on what I mean by _______, but in an actual, contextual situation I tend to think my internal, organic experience can often tell me the best decision more definitively than the principles I’ve ticked off can. (For one thing, when I try to apply general principles to particular situations, I can get hung up on the particulars and have trouble coming to a definite conclusion). Explicit, symbolic reasoning would certainly play a role, but actually knowing I’ve arrived at a satisfactory decision often seems more like a certain shade of feeling or sense.

I guess another way of explaining this is that a political ideology is more like a process than like a static set of concepts and principles. For this reason, I actually find thought experiments and lived experience more useful than general philosophizing (although obviously I have inclination to philosophize as well). You know, scenarios like, if this bad situation happened, and the choice was between response A (very bad) and response B (also very bad), which one would you choose and why? The choices might be so awful that you can’t bring yourself to decide, but even just engaging the question helps to condition you for making actual judgments in actual situations. Philosophizing is useful for developing general principles, but experience (lived or simulated) and reflection on it seems to give me more in the way of living knowledge.