We all make mistakes, and usually expect to give and receive a little forgiveness. However, some deeds are much harder to recover from – or to excuse[1]. Some may feel that anyone can earn the opportunity to make amends, while others may feel that some offenders are truly irredeemable.
To see how different personality types feel about this, we asked if members of our community agreed with the statement, “You believe that everyone deserves a second chance.” While we saw general agreement (80%), the minor differences are interesting, so let’s take a look at how each personality type responded:
There are some sharp divides here, which we explore in a comparison of the Roles:
Roles
Diplomats (89%)
Diplomats agreed the most, with the greatest agreement of any personality type coming from Assertive Protagonists (ENFJ-A), at over 93%. This Role possesses the Feeling trait, which is commonly associated with a tendency to empathize and forgive. Diplomats have a habit of putting themselves in others’ shoes, and may have more empathy for their troubles, seeing a core of goodness within them that deserves a second chance. Diplomats’ ability to relate on an emotional level might make them more likely to evaluate people in an abstract manner, receptive to their sincerity and contrition and appreciative of the burden of circumstance.
Diplomats, and other Feeling types, value providing encouragement and affection to people who need it. They may feel that anyone can recover from a mistake or misfortune, given the right amount of support in their efforts to improve.
Explorers (82%)
The role to agree second most was Explorers, but their response was divided between those with the Feeling trait (88%) and the Thinking trait (69%). Adventurers (ISFP) and Entertainers (ESFP) may have a similar perspective to the Diplomats: empathy and a willingness to allow others to repair any damage they have caused. Virtuosos (ISTP) and Entrepreneurs (ESTP) are a little more fatalistic in their approach to forgiveness. If someone makes a mistake, they made a mistake; no time to sit around pondering it. But Explorers go with the flow, and if the offending behavior changes, their responses show that they’re happy enough to move along.
Sentinels (81%)
Sentinels show a pattern similar to Explorers, with high overall agreement concealing two differing trends between personality types with the Thinking trait (70%) and the Feeling trait (87%). In fact, the least agreement of any type came from Assertive Logisticians (ISTJ-A) (59%). They personify frank, practical judgment. Reliability and common sense are the core of Logisticians’ worldview, and they hold a deep respect for anyone who upholds these standards. If someone violates these tenets, they may simply be crossed off the list of people worthy of trust – at least until they’ve earned it back.
Analysts (73%)
Analysts agreed the least of any role, but they still agreed by a sizable majority. Types sharing the Thinking trait, exemplified by Analysts (and Logisticians, in this case), take a more dispassionate and calculated view. These personality types are well known for their critical thought process. They might feel that probability comes into play and that based on facts and apparent behavior, certain people are likely to misstep again. They’re more reluctant to endorse universal second chances, likely preferring merit and evidence as deciding factors. But Analysts are also famously creative, and connecting a mitigating factor to any behavior may simply be a matter of whether they’re willing to expend the mental energy.
Strategies
There was not a significant difference in the response of Strategies, but there was a trend.
We can see that while all the numbers are somewhat close, Extraversion and Introversion group into pairs. This indicates that the Mind aspect is a factor in whether people believe everyone deserves a second chance.
Social Engagement (86%) and People Mastery (84%)
Extraverted personality types place more value on social connectedness, and may want to grant people second chances so that they can be part of a positive community. They may feel that mutual support and cooperation are goals to work for, including dealing with people’s failures. But it’s not always necessarily altruism that guides this forgiveness: with such complex social networks, an offense committed by one person can easily ripple through these types’ circles, dividing friends and doing social damage. A pattern of forgiveness may reduce this risk.
Constant Improvement (81%) and Confident Individualism (79%)
Introverted personality types may agree less due to less emphasis on social structure, and more on personal accomplishments. This can give them an individualistic outlook, and might make it harder for them to grant others second chances. They may feel that personal responsibility is a goal, and those who have failed or offended should be held accountable.
Interestingly, the Thinking trait exaggerated the difference between Introverted and Extraverted counterparts, and the Feeling trait brought them closer to center. Take for example Mediators (INFP) (88%) vs. Campaigners (ENFP) (90%): a minor difference. On the other hand, Architects (INTJ) (67%) and Commanders (ENTJ) (78%) showed a wider divide.
Of the roles, Analysts showed the biggest gap in Mind traits, with Introverted Architects (INTJ) and Logicians (INTP) agreeing less (68%), and Extraverted Commanders (ENTJ) and Debaters (ENTP) agreeing more (78%).
It may be that individuals already relating on an emotional level (Feeling trait) are less subject to opposing psycho-social factors such as Introversion and Extraversion. Those relating on a more logical or rational level (Thinking trait) encounter more divisions because they find social factors more challenging in general.
Conclusions
Those who agreed less, such as Architects (INTJ) and Logisticians (ISTJ), may be very forgiving, compassionate, and empathetic in most cases, just not all. They may see a line that, once crossed, qualifies certain rare people for condemnation. This does not make them heartless: it makes them judicious. They may prefer to be stern with a few transgressors to save everyone else from future misdeeds.
Those who agreed more, such as Protagonists (ENFJ) and Campaigners (ENFP), seem more universally accepting of people’s mistakes. They are broadly willing to allow people to regain their feet and reestablish their good standing among others. They may feel that helping people recover, repair, and rehabilitate is worth some elevated risk to themselves and others in the future.
How about you? Do you believe everyone deserves a second chance? Why?