If television audiences are any guide, we are living in the age of the antihero. In recent years, some of our most popular (and critically acclaimed) television series have told the stories of serial adulterers, drug dealers, and crooked lawyers. And that’s just on AMC.
Some might say that modern society’s obsession with heroes who break the rules is a sign that we have abandoned the moral traditions that used to guide us. Others would argue that morality is simply more complicated than most of us would like to admit.
Are certain personality types more likely to view morality as a strict set of guidelines or as a looser collection of suggestions? We asked our readers to agree or disagree with the statement, “There is more leeway in morality than most people are willing to admit.”
Overall, a majority of respondents across all types agreed with the statement. It comes as little surprise that more conservative Observant types and more open-minded Intuitive types were most likely to disagree on this issue. But a closer look at the data reveals more nuanced insights about how different personality types see morality.
Roles
Analysts (83% agreeing)
Analyst personalities were most likely to believe that there is greater moral leeway than most of us admit. They are unafraid to challenge the status quo and take pride in making their own judgments, rather than going along with popular opinion.
Logicians (INTP) (86%) were the personality type most skeptical of common moral standards. This fits with their ability to think creatively and arrive at unexpected conclusions. Consider Neo from The Matrix, a Logician who uses innovative – and often morally reprehensible – methods to ultimately liberate mankind from machines (talk about an antihero). Logicians are given to rational assessment, characteristic of their Thinking trait, but there may be more at work in their responses than that – they also hate being lumped in with “most people,” so this question is bound to get their agreement. In fact, Logicians who agreed with our research statement should probably ask themselves whether they truly believe in a looser moral universe, or whether they simply want to stand out from the pack.
Debaters (ENTP) (84%) were almost as likely as Logicians to agree that morality offers more leeway than is commonly thought. Like Logicians, Debater personalities love to question the wisdom of the crowd. In fact, Debaters go through life finding that almost every issue has more sides than “most people are willing to admit.” Debaters are used to being regarded as devil’s advocates, and this research statement demonstrates their philosophy: they have no qualms about arguing for a looser definition of morality if it can help them prove their point or get their client off the hook.
Diplomats (78%)
Considering the tireless idealism that characterizes this Role, it may at first seem surprising that a healthy majority of Diplomats agreed with the statement. After all, this is the Role to which altruistic Advocates (INFJ) (75%) belong, a group epitomized by the likes of Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Jr. But with their strong Intuitive and Feeling traits and inherent empathy, Diplomat personality types are probably tempted to argue for moral leeway not to justify their own misdeeds, but to prevent others from being judged too harshly. Rejecting a strict moral code also allows Diplomats to nurture groups and harmonize diverse perspectives, all for the greater good.
Explorers (72%)
Explorers prioritize flexibility and opportunity, so they may be tempted to reject rigid moral rules. However, this spontaneity is balanced by their Observant side, which can’t help but notice that actions clearly have consequences and should be judged by the evidence at hand. For all Observant personality types, questioning moral rules may look suspiciously like an excuse to avoid responsibility.
Sentinels (65%)
It’s no wonder that Sentinels were most likely to reject the idea of moral leeway. Observant and Judging types, they could well be horrified by the idea of society unbound from the traditional moral codes that guide people’s behavior, fearing a world marked by insecurity and unpredictability.
Consuls (ESFJ) (64%) were among those least likely to agree that there is more moral leeway than most people will admit. Consuls find comfort in well-established traditions and laws. These personalities are content to live within those rules, and they expect others to as well.
Logisticians (ISTJ) (66%) also held a narrower view of morality. This may be because they prioritize predictability and reliability and get frustrated when people don’t follow through on agreed-upon plans. Logisticians recognize that clarity, specificity, and facts are a necessity for good decision-making. They don’t see much use in moral codes with vague rules and ambiguous boundaries. Eddard Stark, the famous fictional Logistician from Game of Thrones, wouldn’t compromise his moral code for anything, even if that meant his own downfall in a decidedly less ethical world.
Defenders (ISFJ) (62%), and particularly their Assertive variants (ISFJ-T) (59%), were the most likely of all the personality types to indicate that they believe in a strict moral code. This result may seem counterintuitive, since Defenders are usually open to new ideas and concerned about others’ welfare – traits shared by Diplomats, who took a looser view of moral rules. Perhaps the reason for their stance is that Defenders tend to follow the rules, especially Assertive types, and they believe that society is better off when others do too. Because they often work in caring, service-oriented professions, Defenders, more than other types, have probably witnessed the negative consequences that happen when people decide to ignore common moral rules. And because others may take advantage of Defenders’ unselfishness, Defenders may be particularly sensitive to people who justify their unfair actions by calling moral laws into question. They may simply equate moral rules with basic fairness.
Strategies
Social Engagement and Constant Improvement (76% and 75% agreeing)
Interestingly, whether our readers were Introverts or Extraverts (each agreeing at 74%) and whether they possessed Turbulent or Assertive Identities (75% and 72% agreeing, respectively) had little impact on their responses. Turbulent Logicians, for instance, members of the Constant Improvement Strategy, were just as likely as Logicians in general (86% each) to agree that there is more moral leeway than most people think.
It is worth considering that as Turbulent individuals, Social Engagers and Constant Improvers tend to be perfectionists who worry about what others think of them. These concerns may project themselves into their view of morality – internal conflicts over their own behavior as it relates to moral issues may lead these personality types to concede that moral standards are harder to live up to than they would like to believe.
People Mastery and Confident Individualism (72% and 71% agreeing)
Respondents belonging to the People Mastery and Confident Individualism Strategies agreed at just slightly lower rates with our research statement, a result that may be attributed to their Assertive Identities, which make them more confident than Turbulent types. People Masters are active leaders in society who make it a point to figure out what makes other people tick. As such, the insights they’ve gained into human motivations have probably convinced them that morality is a deeply complex issue. Confident Individualists, on the other hand, place enormous importance on personal responsibility and trust in themselves. Faced with personal moral dilemmas, these personalities may come to a more nuanced understanding of morality as not being black-and-white.
Conclusions
Do we truly live in the age of the antihero?
Polling suggests that Americans are adopting more liberal moral standards than they did in the past. And while there were notable differences of opinion among personality types, overall, 75% of all respondents agreed that there is more moral leeway than most people are willing to admit. Interestingly, this also suggests that even as we loosen our own personal standards of morality, we assume that most people haven’t done the same. Does this mean that one day we’ll drop the “anti” when talking about a serial killer who only murders other killers? Probably not. But we’ll still cheer them on, at least.
Do you see your personality type influencing your views on today’s moral landscape? Share your thoughts in the comments below.