Most people agree that some level of social safety net is good for society, whether from friends, family, or government programs. How much help to give and how it should be administered, however, is a topic of considerable debate. People on soapboxes, at pulpits, and in armchairs all feel strongly on this subject, especially when it comes to using tax money to fund such projects.
One area of discussion is the idea that too much assistance can cause people to become dependent, and not as motivated to provide for themselves. While facts relating to this may be found in research data, belief in this behavior is largely a matter of opinion[1], and ties into one’s personality type. To investigate exactly how personality type affects these perspectives, we asked if people agreed with the statement, “Giving too much help to the disadvantaged only causes them to become dependent.”
The average of all respondents was almost evenly divided (52%), with agreement higher among Thinking (63%) types, and lower among Feeling types (40%). Let’s look in more detail:
Roles
Analysts (65% agreeing)
Analysts led in agreement with the statement. Analysts often see the logic of factual truth, even if it might seem cold in human terms. They may think that humans act primarily in self-interest, and too much help will cause needy people to gravitate toward that help instead of developing their own means of support. To an Analyst, this is not a disparagement of the disadvantaged, but an affirmation of their rational judgment: people tend to seek the maximum personal benefit in any situation.
Most Analysts may be for helping the disadvantaged, but not to a degree that eclipses the benefits of self-support. Assertive Architects (INTJ-A), for example, agreed the most of any type (74%). They stand as the archetype for logical engineering and self-sufficiency. These personality types may feel that long-term solutions like education (or more appropriately, reconnecting with the joy of acquiring and using knowledge) are more effective than merely giving to the disadvantaged.
Sentinels and Explorers (both 45%)
These two Roles agreed at almost the same rate, and were divided among themselves between the Thinking and Feeling traits. However, taken as an average, the four Thinking-trait Sentinels and Explorers (61%) still agreed less than the Analyst Role. The Energy aspect may be the source of the mismatch: Among all personality types, those with the Intuitive trait tended to agree more (50%) than Observant types (45%).
This gap might reflect Analysts’ (and Diplomats’) tendency to range widely in search of new ideas. They might think there is a better way to address the needs of the disadvantaged. Observant personality types might focus more on the good works already being done, addressing the immediate need for food and shelter, and prefer to refine methods rather than replace them.
The least agreement of any type came from Assertive Entertainers (ESFP-A) (35%). They tend toward generosity, optimism, and highly social behavior, so they may take a brighter view of disadvantaged people receiving large amounts of help. When someone says “there’s no such thing as a free lunch,” an Entertainer may well respond, “Why not? Lunch is on me!” Assertive Entertainers may see even too much help as a basic moral good – when someone is hungry, your heart goes out and you feed them, end of story.
Diplomats (43%)
Diplomats agreed the least – their ability to empathize with other people’s troubles is a defining characteristic. Diplomats might be less concerned about giving too much help to the disadvantaged because they strongly feel an imperative to help. They might feel that people in need take priority over rational efficiency, and are willing to give of themselves to help reach that goal.
Though agreeing the least overall, the lowest-agreeing personality type is not among the Diplomats. This might be a reflection of the Intuitive trait. Even the most kind-hearted Diplomats might think that something more innovative than excessive direct giving could be better.
The phrasing “too much” is key here; Diplomats may tend toward generous sympathy, but they are concerned with the long-term benefit. The methods brought to mind by “giving too much help to the disadvantaged” might not satisfy the Diplomats. Ironically, this may mean these personality types support giving even more: the generosity to see the disadvantaged through the day-to-day, and the long-term resources to make it so that, maybe someday, people won’t need that sort of help at all.
Strategies
The results among the Strategies were fairly even, indicating that the Mind and Identity traits were overall not a major factor.
However, there was one relative outlier that bears discussion:
Confident Individualism (53%)
Personality types sharing the Confident Individualism Strategy agreed only a little more (6%) than the others, but the possible reasons are interesting. Confident Individualists are known for self-reliance, and may feel that others should practice such values more often. To them, giving too much help to the disadvantaged might not only make them more likely to become dependent, it may also rob them of the opportunity to excel. These possible leanings are only relative, however, as the overall response of their Strategy was barely above neutral.
Constant Improvement, Social Engagement, and People Mastery (47%)
These Strategies do not show a significant bent either way, but did agree a little less than the Confident Individualists. This trend happens because all of them are more concerned with others: for reasons of sympathy, approval, or general social cohesion.
Conclusions
We must remember that the research statement is not about whether helping the disadvantaged is a good thing or not, but about respondents’ opinions on the effect of giving too much. It appears that while the overall response was nearly neutral, the individual and Role responses show some thoughts and feelings on the matter.
Those people who tend to feel more emotional sympathy are less concerned about possibly giving too much help to the needy. They may feel that the overall good done by generous support outweighs concerns about dependency. Alternately, they may not believe that dependency is a likely result to begin with, and that even if they receive too much help, people will still take the initiative to provide for themselves. They may not even see dependency itself as an issue.
Those who view things more through a lens of rationalism differ – they clearly agree far more that giving too much can lead to dependency. They may well approve of giving help, but are more concerned about ensuring that people maintain incentive to become self-reliant.
Do you have an experience to share that can shed more light on the subject? Let us hear about it, in the comments below!