"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business." – Mohandas Gandhi
Type bashing. It happens. I posit that one does not truly understand temperament fully until you are willing to accept an individual who you don’t like -- as being a “type” that you do like. Typically, it’s your own type that you like most.
Sorry, but I have been greatly entertained by the politics of recent times. Given my understanding of temperament and my recent concentration on how we justify -- build a story on our decisions, I have noticed a particular pattern in politics that I couldn’t fully appreciate until recently, because I was “part of the system.”
My political religion made me bias, and I couldn’t hear clearly, and because of this I couldn’t observe how individual candidates used language in campaigns. In other words, one can not analyze or generalize on one’s own experience if you “have a dog in that fight.” If every time you hear a candidate you disagree with, you get emotional (Rationals get annoyed) and can’t stick around for heard their views on all subjects. One does not listen. It’s yah.yah…yah……. Change the channel quick.
There is very little information that can be gleaned in politics because of the shallowness, repetitiveness, and simplification of the issues: very similar to the news. And of course, from my point of view, they are clueless about the physics and mathematics of politics and economics….
Partly, because I haven’t had a dog in the fight for about twenty four years, I gradually was able to hear those I disagree with, because I disagree with essentially all those I listen to. In fact, I am politically incorrect from everybody’s view.
What I notice is politics is like lawyering. One generates ALL arguments FOR your position, and you negate ALL arguments AGAINST. This situation seems like that self-justification, which I have been discussing: and in more general, cognitive dissonance. In this case, the order of argument depends on the strongest point for, but not the most important argument. Trivial points are included with basic points. All that matters is winning in politics.
Ask yourself: Is Temperament being used to justify that that person is “bad” because of their temperament? Artisans are Sneaky Punks. Guardians are Serious Jerks. Idealist are Nebulous Flakes. Rationals are Nitpicking Twits.
What is your political religion? Do you use Temperament to blame?