If you’re an INTP personality type or if you know one, you may benefit largely from this article. I’m not a psychologist, but I have great interest in the subject, and I have had a number of psychology classes. The content of this article is a mixture of personal experience and psychological speculation based on a book by David Keirsey.

Persuasion

Source: WordWeb.

“I accept that you have beliefs different from my own”

I’m flexible. With this I don’t mean to say that I easily change opinions, rather that I accept people regardless what they think. I might disagree with them, but if I’m not asked directly I’m likely to keep it to myself. A psychologist wrote this about my personality type:

“For this type of Rational, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood and explained … they care little whether others understand or accept their ideas.”*

This is my basic attitude. You can tell me whatever you think, and I will listen to you. I might even nod, but I’m nodding not because I agree, but because I understand what you are saying, and I understand that you firmly believe this. I nod, because I firmly believe that it is your right to believe whatever you want. Of course, if it’s nonsensical, I will feel inclined to correct you. But if the argument is logical, I will nod even though I might not agree or accept the idea as my own.

To you, I might seem like an agreeable fellow human being. Mistakenly, you might conclude that you had me convinced of something, simply because I didn’t care to explain how my views were different from yours. But here’s the thing, my views didn’t require you to agree with them. You may interpret my apathy as an acceptance of your ideas, but that’s really not my problem. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.

The example of the Russian guy

I experienced this when I talked to a Russian guy about certain theological matters. He believed that the Holy Spirit will not protect Christians from being cursed by pagans. He believed that the Adventist Church is guilty of sin against the Holy Spirit because it does not recognize the gift of speaking in tongues. He believed that you do not sin everyday – this, he called heretical teachings – because “some days you just do mistakes, but that’s different.”

I listened to this guy, a very friendly young man from Russia, who seemed very happy to share his beliefs. I did not contribute much to the conversation. When asked, of course, I told him that I disagreed a lot, and I carefully explained some of the major differences and gave him some reasons. When interrupted, I peacefully let him continue. Most of his marginal convictions I found entertaining, and it seemed to me that he reasoned quite logically. Nevertheless, his beliefs were false in my opinion.

Open to persuasion in unfamiliar matters

Does this mean that I cannot be persuaded? Of course not. I’m open to persuasion like anyone else to a certain degree. What made me resistant in this particular context was the fact that theology is my passion, and I already have a theological wordview of my own. If he had been talking astronomy or cooking or Russian grammar or anything which I’m not familiar with, I would’ve been more inclined to accept his views as my own granted that his reasoning seemed logical and congruent to me.

Why should I not believe you, if you seem reasonable and if I have nothing to lose? Lots of people believe that one should not adopt any view unless unambiguous empirical evidence has been provided in its favour. I disagree. I’m more than willing to believe anything you tell me if I consider you a reasonable, well-informed person, and if it does not conflict with any views I already have.

For instance, lots of my first theological convictions I based solely on the words of my Dad. He seemed like he knew what he was talking about. There is nothing wrong with that. If we don’t make assumptions, we cannot believe anything, and believing nothing is just a succesful way of believing something false, because something must be true. So unless I have to sacrifice another view which is more dear to me, I will listen and consider and possibly buy into yours.

The view is accepted, the passion is not

This, of course, leaves a door open for manipulative persuadors. People who want to force their own opinions and convictions onto me are largely welcomed. Once they have entered, however, they are often disappointed. One thing is to make me accept their convictions, but to make me accept their passion and enthusiasm is something else.

Often, people persuade you because they need you to join them in the fight for the cause. Why else would they bother persuading you? This agenda, however, does not work well with my laid-back personality type. I’m too lazy, and I don’t see the point. Conflicts are stressful, but more than that, sometimes they are completely unnecessary. You may conclude I’m a “wimp” for not wanting to fight your battle, but the truth is: I simply didn’t buy into your eagerness.

Abuse of an agreeable nature

I’m not enthusiastic about a lot of things, certainly not ideas that were not originally my own. My agreeable nature hinders people from making me too passionate about new ideas, because if I become too passionate I am no longer agreeable towards those of opposing convictions. I choose to believe something, yes, but only to the point where someone makes a better case for the opposite view.

Still, someone may choose to convince me of something because it might serve their agenda when I’m not present. They might refer to me as one who shares their conviction, but they fail to mention that I do not share their eagerness. I’ve been told of situations in which I was counted as a vote in favor of something which I cared very little about. In reality, I might have shared the view, but I would not have wanted to be the final voice in the matter. This, of course, makes me aware that I should be careful to make people understand when I do not want to be quoted. I prefer to be considered apathetic in matters that cause unnecessary disagreement.

Conclusion

It’s time for a summary. I consider myself an independent character, and I rely largely on my sense of logic. This does not exclude people’s influence from the equation at all, but I would like to think that I have certain standards regarding my sources of knowledge. Once these requirements are met, I’m willing to accept almost anything that does not conflict with the views I already have. However, I will rarely, if ever, buy into the enthusiasm attached to these views. This defines me as an agreeable and curious character rather than a competitive and idealistic one. Even so, my ability to conform may be abused by people who might quote me in favor of a cause I feel quite indifferent towards.

In conclusion, I’d like to bring a final quote from the reasonable psychologist, I’ve been drawing some of my insights from.

“Architects [people of my personality type] are, however, even-tempered, compliant, and easy to live with–that is, until one of their principles is violated, in which case their adaptability ceases altogether.”*

I looked up the word compliant, and I found the synonym “manipulable”, but also “conformable”. I guess this makes me “easy to live with”. However, as the quote states, if one of my principles — my firm convictions — is violated, I will not hesitate to put my foot down. Pushed to the edge, I might actually find myself saying, “You can step on me a great deal, but don’t f*** with me!”

* David Keirsey, Please understand me II. Quotes taken from pages 204-207.