o_19kdfsn0q18e31dfraas1esh19vta.pdf

It should be noted that the observers making these judgments had not actually observed INTJs in a
dangerous situation. Their labels are based on "gut feelings" rather than evidence. Still, it would be
interesting to know what precisely provoked said feelings. Even if incorrect—and I frankly believe
it is—a mislabel can be damaging to the labeled person's credit. Let's look a little more closely at
what constitutes courage for an INTJ.
Courage
Keirsey (1998) has noted that for Rationals, courage is a conscious decision. Unlike (say) the
Artisans, who are too engrossed in immediate tactics to fully process the danger they are in,
Rationals perceive the danger all too well and stiffen their resolve to meet it. Theirs is not reckless
courage, but deliberate, willpower-fueled courage.
I suspect the reason male INTJs were viewed as not being “courageous” due to their naturally
cautious nature. They do not take as many physical risks as, say, their ENTP opposites, who were
characterized as both "reckless" and "adventurous." 28 Generally speaking, the types that float
around the ITJ end of the spectrum steer clear of unnecessary danger, while the types that float
around the ETP end of the spectrum like skydiving.
Later in this book we'll look at Nathaniel Bowditch, an INTJ who astonished his companions by
remaining perfectly calm and controlled under perilous circumstances. Though he is merely one
example, I think his case provides an excellent argument for the idea that INTJs have a willpowerbased
form of courage.
Nonconformity
After WWII, psychologists grew interested in the psychology of conformity and obedience. A
number of revealing studies were undertaken that showed humans are surprisingly willingly to
submit to others' authority.
In one such experiment (the Asch conformity experiment), psychologists wanted to see how much
people’s decisions were molded by those around them. The experimenters took a group of 5 -7
people and gave them a card with a line on it. They were instructed to compare the card to another
card with three lines of differing length on it. The objective was to compare the two cards and
decide which lines matched.
The trick behind the experiment was that all but one of the “test subjects” in the group had actually
been hired by the experimenters. For each test, the fake test subjects would all choose one of the
wrong lines and agree that it was correct. Then the reaction of the real test subject was observed to
see if they would agree with the wrong conclusion.
The experiment demonstrated that the opinions of a group have a strong effect on the decisions of
an individual. If left uninfluenced by others, the test subjects would almost always choose the
correct line. But when the majority formed a unanimously wrong consensus, the test subjects
would often subjugate their own opinions to those of the group. Test subjects agreed with the
wrong answer 32% of the time, and 75% of the test subjects chose a wrong answer at least once.
(However, it is significant to note that the remaining 25% did not agree with the wrong majority
even one time. So about 1 out of 4 people seem to be immune to the consensus effect. Other
subjects, however, agreed with the majority every time.)
Another result that emerged was that if one other member dissented—even if they gave the wrong
28 Thorne & Gough, 1991