Jungian typology and politics

This is a topic that has been on my mind a lot, and some of the things being said piss me off. I'll start with the thesis of this post: No Jungian function or type is a predictor of political views. Not S​i, not T​e, not S​e, not Quadras, none of them. It's complete bullshit and I'm going to explain why, from the point of view of a leftist who thinks that the left has a place for everyone.

Any type can be on any side of the political spectrum, the thing that differs is how they go about it. People who say that everything is political are right, and that's why all of the types and Quadras are participating in politics all the time, just from different places. Being 'apolitical' is a cope. As long as you live in a society™, you cannot escape politics. Every action you take has consequences that may potentially affect others, and you are also being affected by society at all times since even before you are born. I'm saying this because in some Socionics circles there is a myth that Peripheral Quadras are inherently apolitical because they lack S​e. While S​e is an important part of politics—especially in turbulent times—it's far from the only one, and it heavily depends on society's collective use of other functions. You can't carry politics entirely on S​e, because before you can decide what to do with resources, you have to understand what the hell is a society and what are humans and other living beings, what is good and moral and what is true, and a myriad of other things, as all that stuff affects our collective decisions.

Something I feel I should mention is that 'progressive' isn't a good term for the left, because you can do 'progress' from either side (moving towards unprecedented dystopia with innovation is also progress), and even more than that, you don't necessarily have to care about any kind of progress to be a leftist. This term focuses more on the Intuitive part of politics, which is something that may seem unappealing to Sensing types who will see us as unrealistic dreamers looking for unicorns, when that's not what being a leftist is about, not necessarily. You can be a leftist by doing little things, by being yourself and focusing on the present, which doesn't require imagination.

So let's talk about Sensing types. They are usually the scapegoat in political discussions of Jungian typology, for reasons good and bad. I'll start with S​e because, despite what I said above, its importance in politics should not be underestimated, as everything in our world hinges on resources. A S​e worldview is one that holds that the world is inherently cruel and there isn't much that you can do about this fact; Central Sensing types aren't going to sugarcoat it or imagine a magical way out of this reality. Some close-minded assholes would like you to believe that this view is incompatible with leftism to discredit it as something unrealistic. This is wrong. Central Sensing types can be leftists as much as anyone else, and in fact they are our greatest assets in actually realizing the things that we are fighting for, it's just that they aren't going to hold your hand while they do this, and that's perfectly fine.

What about Si? For some unknown to me reason, S​i in MBTI is associated with memory and past orientation. Perhaps the community simply forgot about this function in a twist of irony because apparently no one uses it anyway (because everyone is an Intuitive). So I have a question. What happens when someone loses their memory? Do they lose their S​i as well and become progressive (or centrist idk)? If the requirements for becoming a leftist are so low, shouldn't everyone be left-leaning? Think about it (or don't, because it's fucking stupid). MBTI definitions are ridiculous. But even conservatism isn't about "restoring the glory of the past" or some bullshit the old-timers tell you about, none of it is true, conservatism as a phenomenon isn't about the past, it's about conservation of power in the hands of the ruling class.

Another thing commonly associated with S​i is religion. I'm gonna give it to you straight, it's just more bullshit. There are many aspects of religion: spirituality is the domain of Intuition (particularly Ni), control and government are the domain of Se, people are the domain of Ethics, and unless you're into studying the physical properties of religious artifacts or whatever, religion does not involve S​i in any way. While religion doesn't necessarily have as much to do with politics since separation of church and state, I'm only mentioning this because religious associations with S​i tie to the 'past orientation' misconception of Si, to further disprove the 'conservative Si' myth. Also, since when is religion about 'the past'? The primary purpose of religion in people's daily lives is to give them direction, meaning and connection, and that has nothing to do with Jungian typology or any other typology.

One thing to understand about Peripheral Quadras is that they aren't usually active participants in politics because organized political action requires Se, and even just informing oneself about S​e topics is something that Peripherals may and will find uninteresting. Peripheral Intuitives don't care about tensions, resources, wars and whatnot (unless they are Zelenskyy), all of it mostly goes over their radar because it's irrelevant information for their psychological disposition. An Intuitive from Alpha Quadra will offer a unique holistic perspective, a Delta Intuitive will offer kindness, both will create art, but they're not going to overthrow the government and start the revolution—that's the job of Central Quadras. I'm not completely sure how Peripheral Sensing types contribute (as I'm not aware of any real examples), but I suppose they may take more localized action in communities where there is less competition.

In the beginning of this post I mentioned T​e, which is another function sometimes blamed for conservative thinking. This time it's a problem with definitions in Psychological Types. I don't remember the exact wording and I don't care to look it up, but basically Jung stated something along the lines of T​e being Thinking that is inherited or imposed by the outside. It's simply an outdated definition that some people continue to cling onto (how ironic); not really worth discussing in this post.

I will talk about Central Intuitives briefly because they are already the face of the left—especially Gamma Intuitives—and are doing most of the heavy lifting. Leftist discourse, leftist culture, leftist infighting, it's all primarily done and organized by them. Something to be said about Central Intuitives is that they are just as much of active perpetrators of evil as Central Sensing types, even though only Sensing types are blamed. Throughout history both are working together to make the world worse (or better!). And yet, no one is inherently more or less evil for having one psychological trait or the other, because that's not what matters. What matters most is education.

I didn't define 'the left' in this post because it's irrelevant for our purposes (and also because I don't really know how). The key takeaway is that, if you're looking for a political scapegoat, you won't find it in psychological typology. Socionics type is (probably) genetic, political views aren't, and it's silly to think that people are just 'predisposed' to favoring one political party or the other from birth.