Re: Pete is xNTx

January 7, 2000

" pete watts " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11086

> Hi All

>

> no surprise on that Myers-Briggs thingy I come out mostly INTP but a

> fair bit of ENTJ too. I think that alot of us 12sf types are likely

to

> be NT because the NT combo links an ability to make intuitive leaps

> based on an analytical approach to the evidence. This works pretty

> well as a bullshit detector.

There are a lot of people who don't test neatly into any of the 16 M-B

types, but one of the four main types does end up predominating--I have

a

xSxJ friend who is one of the most incredibly complex people I know,

and I

probably will never quite be able to " figure him out " .

The heavily NT tendency of 12sf didn't surprise me at all. I had been

thinking about it a few months back. AA has a strictly delineated set

of rules as well as a core text (authority), and has been around for

50+

years (implying stability and tradition) that is fundamentally

appealing

to most SJs. The high regard the general public seems to have for AA,

and

its institutionalization, are also appealing for SJ's. (Matt, I know

you're

an ESFJ, but don't get mad at me for this! Not yet!)

The SP's tend to like slogans, catchphrases, buzzwords, what have you.

It isn't lack of intelligence by any means; my non-AA father and great-

uncle are both ESTPs, both intelligent men, and both have their own

stocks

of little phrases they use all the time. The person who gives you a

stock phrase-- " Take the cotton outta your ears and put it in your

mouth " --

is more than likely an SP. They really tend to believe in such phrases;

common- or " horse- " sense generally appeals to them. And, typical

of Sensors, they like steps, being concrete, practical thinkers. Any

DIY

or self-help book that has a lot of bulleted or numbered lists of steps

to take towards the desired result was no doubt written by a Sensor.

The Extraverted SP's no doubt do better than the Introverts--in fact,

Extraversion (or the ability to simulate it) is very much needed to

function " well " within AA. Speaking at meetings, reaching out to

newcomers, engaging in the social aspects of the fellowship, taking

on multiple sponsees--Extraversion (or at least the ability to fake it)

--is necessary. The insistence that one should not " isolate " ; that

you should " use the phone " and call up other members when faced with

difficulties--not to mention attend group meetings--skews AA in favor

of Extraverts.

The NF types might chafe under the strictness of the " rules " , but get so

absorbed in helping others, or performing minute psychic

self-examination,

or both, that they manage to " tune out " a lot of the parts of AA they

don't

like or don't want to deal with. The ones I knew in AA were most upset

by

issues such as power struggles within AA groups, or people who violated

the " spiritual principles " of the program and thus hurt others. They

were

the ones most likely to react strongly against abusive people in the

program. Of the four basic types, NFs seemed the most capable of

ignoring the

Christian emphasis of the program and substituting another path. The

Lord's Prayer and Serenity prayer were seen as troublesome by some NFs,

but most managed to reconcile them with their own beliefs, usually with

the rationale that " God is god, however we seek him/her/it. " NFs were

the

most likely to remain happily in AA by rejecting aspects of the

" spiritual

program " that did not fit their ideal, and substituting others. On the

other hand, they also seemed to have the toughest time with the

ruthless

self-examination demanded by the program; not because they did it

poorly,

but rather because they did it too well.

The Feeling types in general are likely to beat themselves up over their

percieved failings--NFs may see themselves as not compassionate enough,

or forgiving enough, and SFJs in particular have lists of " shoulds "

and " musts " that can lead them into real trouble. As essentially

nurturing

types, SFJs are wonderful at any area that requires caring for other

people

--teaching, nursing, etc.--but they also carry more than their share

of self-inflicted guilt. Usually among the people with the fewest

reasons

to beat themselves up, they are the most prone to it.

The NTs were the most likely to have trouble in AA, mainly as a result

of the NT desire for logical consistency. Pete said it right when

describing intuitive leaps made alongside analytical approaches to given

evidence. I'm an INTx, and though the program made no logical sense to

me, I was so beat down from the booze and drugs that I couldn't think

clearly. After I had been clean for awhile, and my mental faculties

cleared,I began to be disturbed by the inconsistencies I saw, and

eventually set to work to try and reconcile them--which was logically

impossible. If NTs beat themselves up in the program, it seems,

it is because they cannot reconcile program doctrine with what they see

as logical. Sometimes an NT decides that the program *must* make

sense, which often causes terrible misery--I've seen that.

All of this, or some of it, may sound like complete horseshit. But I've

been using Myers-Briggs for quite awhile, and find it fascinating when

applied to " real-life " situations. I'm a student, and as the quarter

goes on, I end up " typing " my fellow classmates. I'd be interested in

anyone's comments/questions/enlargements upon or additions to anything

I've written...

Cheers,

.

January 7, 2000