The Temperament Gap: Guardians, Idealists, Artisans, Rationals, and Politics

Much has been made in the press recently about the “Gender Gap” when it comes to politics.  A recent poll by Pew Research shows that President Obama outpolls Mitt Romney by 20 percentage points among women, while among men the gap is only 3 points – a statistical tie.

At Keirsey.com, our research has long shown a noticeable difference between the 4 Temperaments when it comes to politics.  Prior research has shown that Guardians tend to be the most politically conservative, while Idealists tend to be the most liberal.  During our polling prior to the 2008 presidential vote, we found that Artisans made up the largest block of undecided voters late in the election cycle.  Rationals are the most skeptical voters.  Not surprisingly, these poll findings fall right in line with Keirsey Temperament Theory.

Between April 3-5, Keirsey Research surveyed 1,568 registered U.S. voters to measure the “Temperament Gap” for the current election cycle.  With the recent Supreme Court arguments over the 2010 Health Care Act fresh in the news, and the 2012 primary campaign in full swing, we posed the following questions to our respondents:

  • Do you approve of President Obama’s job performance at this time?
  • Do you personally like President Obama?
  • If the election was a head-to-head contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, for whom would you vote?
  • The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week regarding the 2010 Federal Health Care Reform Law.  How do you feel about the law itself?
  • What do you think is the best system of health care insurance?

Jump to the rest of this article to find out where the Temperament gap is the widest.

While much has been made of the “Gender Gap”, our research shows that this “gap” is actually much more specific, and related as strongly to Temperament as gender.  The

Do You Approve of President Obama's Job Performance at This Time?

first question we asked, “Do you approve of President Obama’s job performance at this time?” demonstrates this quite clearly.  Dividing our population into 8 groups, by both gender and Temperament, shows that in 6 of the 8 groups more people approve of the President’s performance than disapprove, and one is equally divided.  Guardian males are the only group that disapproves of President Obama’s performance more than approves.  In light of the “Gender Gap” research, it may be surprising to discover that the group that most approves of the Presidents performance is also male – Idealist Men.  In fact, while Guardian men disapprove by a ratio of 45% to 36%, Idealist men approve his performance by an even wider margin of 54% to 29%.  Without accounting for temperament, it is easy to see why other research would see a generic “Gender Gap” – Guardian men make up about 25% of the U.S. population, while Idealist men comprise perhaps 10%.  Overall, Idealists are the most positive in their approval of the President, and Guardians the least.  In this area, and as you will see as we look at the results of the other questions, our research shows that the Temperament Gap is wider than, and better explains, the differences in political beliefs.

The President enjoys strong personal popularity with all 8 temperament / gender segments.  More than half of Artisans, Idealists, and Rationals personally like President Obama.  Even

Do You Personally Like President Obama?

among Guardians, the Like to Dislike differential is more than 20% points.  But here again, the highest “Like vs Dislike” differentials are among men – more than 50% points for Idealist men and 40% points for Rational men.  The most ambivalent group is Rational women, with more than a third of this group neither liking or disliking the President.

If the election were to be held tomorrow, Mitt Romney would be in major trouble.  The smallest gap between Barack Obama and Romney is 12%, in Obama’s favor, among

Obama vs. Romney

Guardian men at 45% to 33% with 22% who would either not vote or vote for another candidate.  The gaps among the other groups are even larger.  This does not bode well at all for Romney – our polling before the 2008 election showed much stronger support for John McCain among Guardian males, and that election did not end up being close.  Guardian males make up the core conservative voting block in the U.S., and as such is a bellweather – if the Republican candidate loses in this group, the election will be a landslide for the Democrat.

The 2010 Healthcare Act remains controversial.  We gave our respondents 5 choices to answer the question “The US Supreme Court is hearing aguments this week regarding the 2010 Federal Health Care Reform Law.“: 

Do You Support the 2010 Health Care Act?
  • I support it.
  • I support it, but hope it will be improved in the future.
  • I don’t support it, the law went to too far.
  • I don’t support it, the law didn’t go far enough.
  • No opinion.

Guardians are the least supportive of the act.  The other 3 Temperaments are more in favor, with most supporting it will hoping it will be improved in the future.  More importantly, the US Supreme Court has a strong Guardian bias.  This poll points towards at least part of the Act being struck down.

 

In our last question, we asked “What do you think is the best system of health care insurance?” and gave 3 answer choices:

What do you think is the best system of health care insurance?
  • The present US system of private health insurance is best.
  • A single-payer system, such as Canada’s, is best.
  • Some other system than the current US or Canadian systems would be best.

The telling point in the data is this: even if the 2010 Act is struck down, change is coming.  Among Guardian men, less than one third believe the current U.S. health system is best, slightly more believe Canada’s single-payer system is better.  Billions of dollars of lobbying have succeeded in confusing people, and making change difficult, but when less than a third of Guardian men are for the status quo, things will not remain the same.

0 thoughts on “The Temperament Gap: Guardians, Idealists, Artisans, Rationals, and Politics”

  1. //While much has been made of the “Gender Gap”, our research shows that this “gap” is actually much more specific, and related as strongly to Temperament as gender.// —-Yes. Temperament matters. But I would also add many people, (both genders) would be repelled and disgusted by the conservatives attitude and attempts to actively disempower females. Many Australians, (both gender), and all temperaments have been looking on in horror at pre selections for taking female rights back into a medieval time warp. And that is saying something because we are not some saintly misogynist free zone. Interesting breakdown. I hope the country ends up with some kind of half decent healthcare system, rather sooner than later. When poverty is on the table it usually consists solidly of females and children. “Change is coming”.

    1. “Many Australians, (both gender), and all temperaments have been looking on in horror at pre selections for taking female rights back into a medieval time warp.”

      What is this referring to, specifically?

    2. Thank you Pam. You said very succinctly what I was attempting to say in long form. Stupid and harmful decision making bothers everyone regardless of temperament.

  2. I’m (ENFP) another Male Idealist for President Obama. I liked John McCain better than Mitt Romney. What’s the dominant theory as to the President’s temperament/type? Some think Rationalist; others say Idealist.

    1. Well, let’s break it down.
      Most everyone close to the President, including Michelle Obama, have said that he’s withdrawn more and more becoming increasingly concerned about precisely what message is getting out. This behavior seems to that more of an introvert than an extrovert.
      He also has been very focused on deadlines and maintaining a very tight house. From his entire structure of behavior, it’s quite clear he’s definitely a J over a P.
      The Harvard educated complex speaking lawyer who preaches compromise as a way of change seems to have a more intuitive streak. He has repeated several times that he has come to appreciate that the problems which come across his desk are highly complex because no one else has yet solved them. He certain does not seem to be a “shoot from the hip” type leader. So he’s most likely an intuitive over a sensing.
      Which brings us to the point of controversy. As an intuitive person, he does seem highly relatable and compassionate, however this is not being emotionally expressive but rather politically tactical, especially towards a Democratic audience. Many have said he comes off as “professorial” and somewhat “distant.” He has also been extremely strategic using social media in 2008 and key Executive Decisions (gay marriage, non-enforcement of deportation) in 2012 to raise funds and woo voters quite successfully.
      I would submit that he’s an INTJ. What do you think?

      1. Obama is an ENFP Idealist Champion. As an INTJ myself, I find it highly perplexing that anyone with knowledge of Kiersey’s temperaments can perceive Obama as an INTJ. Respectfully disagree on that appraisal. 🙂

      2. You’re not an INTJ. Many who post on this board claim to be some form of NT. Yet I see responses like this which are ir-rational.
        The history books will not decry my analysis based upon your claim of temperament. SJ types use status to bolster their arguments. NTs use salient argument.
        Do you have any salient argument as to what about Obama makes him an ENFP?
        If I seem antagonistic, it’s not because I disagree with your argument. I happily entertain interesting discussion. It’s your profound lack of reason and thoughtfulness which disturbs me COUPLED with the claim that you’re some type of NT.
        To mirror your own words, if you possessed any knowledge of temperament, you’d be able to fake Master Mind attributes much better than that.

      3. Sounds like a very good possibility. We all have a tendency to overrate the E in public figures since they have to talk. The Keirsey Temperament folks said President Obama was NT a while back too. J makes sense too.

  3. I’m a 52-year old female ENTJ, brought up liberal, but since undergrad a conservative-leaning libertarian. Since my “conversion” I have earned two graduate degrees, forged a 25-year career in a male-dominated profession, voted in every election I’ve been eligible to vote in since age 18, and even before age 18 was extremely active in electoral politics.

    I’d love to see an LDS (“Mormon”) in the white house — my whole extended family is LDS, although I am not — but Romney’s historically “moderate” positions are not all that different from Obama’s. However, I WILL vote for Romney (holding my nose all the while), if he becomes the Republican nominee. ANYONE BUT OBAMA!!!!

    How does THAT fit into your neat little model?

    You should know: I AM NOT ALONE.

  4. The article (and comments above) reinforce my growing belief that there is no “right and wrong” in political bias, just temperament of the voter. Whether one is liberal or conservative is not due to the innate value of either approach, it indicates the hard-wired, irrational, personality bias of the individual.

    If this is true, then why do we vilify those on the opposite side of the politican divide? Just like racism or sexism, it becomes a case of personality-ism. Will we ever get past this and learn to manage our affairs rationally? Yes, I am a rational.

    1. I don’t think it’s “personality-ism” whatsoever.
      People look at the issues, see how it affects what is important to them and make decisions from that. What they find important has more to do with how they were raised and the life experiences they’ve had.
      In my real life experience, I see that NURTURE more than NATURE makes political leanings.
      The deep south will always seem “guardian” in that they dislike Civil Rights. This has everything to do with religion. Even economically speaking, it’s fiscally less cost to the government to simply allow Civil Rights. You’d think that would be a conservative platform.
      However, I would never disrespect Guardians by assuming they’re zealots who feel hatred is justified. Many of our Guardian military have seen much of the world and understand the interconnectedness of humanity. Many a Rational has only sat behind a computer screen doggedly espousing from a limited worldview.
      Temperament is a clue, an indicator. It’s not an absolute.
      I also tend to think that people are NOT hardwired. The more I study human health and environmental impact, the more I realize that we are more creatures of our internal and external environment than ANY amount of hardwiring.
      As a Rational myself, I have decided to accept this truth and work diligently to alter my environments, knowing that the consequence will be a better me.
      Politically I think that as sexism, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance and general exclusionary thinking become passe, we’ll start to see a more technocratic government emerge.

      1. Your argument appears to assume that personality is somehow free of NURTURE. To a large extent it is a matter of NURTURE no less than is, say, the majority of Southerners dislike of Civil Rights or of the majority of Hispanic Catholics opposition to abortion (as opposed to French Catholics who have reinvented Catholicism to suit themselves). As a function of nurture, personality is at least in part a matter of rational choice, collective and individual. A historically closed community that has economic and social reasons for supporting traditional economic and social inequality based on race, religion and gender is likely to throw up more guardians than idealists or rationals, whereas a more open society which regards economic and social accomplishments as a function of relevant abilities and skills regardless of these social categorizations is likely to produce fewer guardians.
        About the military. My experience confirms your assumption that there is a preponderance of guardians in military professions, however, I would qualify this by the observation that the more operationally effective military personnel at all ranks tend to be artisans and rationals and even idealists. There is a certain danger of excessive stereotyping when one assumes that a profession or even a social context represents a homogeneous personality type. A rational or artisan may make a poor drill sergeant, but I’d prefer an artisan as a weapon-smith or driver and a rational or idealist as a nco or officer of a combat unit.
        While you are certainly correct that human’s are not hardwired, it seems to me that basic personality types are acquired early in life and are usually enhanced by subsequent life choices as one grows older. On the other hand, it quite likely that most person’s personality formations are not entirely homogeneous and while a particular personality may be dominant, it does not describe the totality of their personality structure.

      2. Well Victor, I like the content of what you said. I do not think it refutes my point. Let’s review.
        Don said “If hardwired personality is what shapes our political beliefs, why vilify those politically different from us? They can’t help it.”
        I said “People defend themselves against perceived attacks regardless of personality. Personality is only partially hardwired: part nature, part nurture. Politics has more to do with upbringing and experience than personality.”
        You said “My argument says that personality is free of nurture. And you’re type-casting jobs to personalities.”
        I thought this was the OPPOSITE of what I was saying. I’m a bit mystified as to how you drew the opposite conclusion from what I said. I’ll try to clarify what I think was the misleading language.
        In regards to my statement “Nurture more than Nature make up someone’s political leanings,” I did NOT mean to imply that temperament (which Keirsey describes in PUM2 as PREdisposition) was purely nature. In my penultimate sentence, I tried to clarify this by saying “I also tend to think that people are NOT hardwired.” Without getting into a more lengthy dissertation, I see Temperament Concepts as an operating construct, not a scientific theory. It’s merit is to limit reality so that we can understand it, not to expand our understanding to explore the nuances of the human psyche. Since I do not see Temperament as “real,” only useful, I have a hard time describing it as “Nature.”
        Secondly, when I compared “Guardian Military” to “Rational Computer Geek,” I was not suggesting that ALL military personnel were Guardian or even that all computer geeks were rational. I was comparing someone with broader life experience to someone with lesser life experience to demonstrate that personality type would be less of a factor.
        Throwing ALL that out, my MAIN point was more about self-interest. People will vote for their own benefit regardless of temperament. If you attack women’s issues, women will get upset. If you attack Latino issues, Latinos will become upset, etc. This 2010 group of Republicans on the Federal and State level have passed and attempted to pass more legislation against abortion, contraception, women’s fair pay and women’s health care in general than at any time in our history. Suffice it to say, women are pissed.
        The outlier is Idealist men, who for whatever reason at this point in their lives they “hardwired” to relate to inequity as a concept. PPACA has higher support only among Rational Women. However, ONLY Guardians seem to be trailing in what appears to be self-interested thought for the sake of tradition. We can’t pin this problem on “S-types.” Many statistics I’ve seen suggest that PPACA should have include more “universal healthcare” type leanings such as single payer, public option and national health care insurance (vs. state-by-state). Furthermore, a majority of people see insurance/insurance companies itself as the problem and would prefer Government Healthcare in the form of a public/private hybrid. These structures would eliminate many of the health care debates we’re having today by leaving care choices between the doctor and the patient where me and a growing majority of Americans believe it belongs. The greatest self-interest is that these structures would dramatically reduce costs, something the healthcare lobby fears.
        Do you think politics is government more by personality type of plain self-interest?

    2. Values are in general emphasised based on temperament. You can clearly see idealist lean far more towards mercy while guardians lean towards justice. You can see that in politics as well. An idealist is far more likely to say, “we need safety nets for the poor because it’s the humane thing to do.” Guardians are more likely to say, “if they are poor it’s what they deserve until they work harder.” There may be virtue in both but it is obvious who values what more.

      People are not set values. You cannot simply plug them into an algorithm, calculate the answer and say that you fixed the problem. Come on Rational. You can make a more logically sound argument then that! JK haha. Only kidding. I think I am falling into the rationalist trap of self indulgence. Selfishly seeking rational discussion for my own amusement so i can see what is derived through logical debate, rather than seeking true understanding through finding an appreciation for others vantage point in the world. I think that is a common problem for rationalist.

      1. What Rational doesn’t like debate for debates sake? C’mon man!
        What is clear is that no matter what temperament’s political leanings, the political philosophies are divided among ALL temperaments.
        So we must talk about the “typical Guardian” or the “typical Idealist.” Then you have to argue with the Idealist about the definition of “typical” as they are trying to constantly see themselves as authentic & unique … like everyone else. 😉
        Jesting aside, I see “Guardian” or more fairly “Republican/conservative” mentalities as cruel and thoughtless. I see Idealist or “Democratic” philosophies as naive and short-sighted. I personally favor naive over cruel.
        Using your poverty example, if a large swath of people are suffering from poverty, it’s NOT due to laziness. The factors are CLEARLY a lack of education, resources and opportunity. If the high paying jobs and high earning businesses are in the tech field and you have a group of people who have no schooling for engineering, no iPads to play with as children and ergo no colleges looking for them, then the only chance they have is athletics, entertainment, the lottery or the drug/prostitution trade.
        Throwing money in the form of welfare and food stamps might help them survive temporarily but it’s not Teaching a Man How to Fish.
        Conversely, looking at swaths of wasted human potential and saying “They’re just BAD PEOPLE” is beyond the pale of stupidity, cruelty and thoughtlessness.
        Rationals may argue that our resources are better spent on other issues than dumping a couple trillion into poor neighborhoods and child/educational psychology to create the schools and schooling these millions of potential child geniuses require to become upwardly mobile adults.
        Perhaps we do need a better plane to blow up the Pakistanis better than we can now. Perhaps our banking institutions do need bailout money on reserve. Perhaps people like Warren Buffett should hang onto 15% more of their post-profit income.
        Personally, I hardly see a better investment than in developing an educational system which empowers our youth politically, discovers & cultivates their ambition and trains them in proper financial dealings for life long success.
        If in the political field, a more conservative person says that we need to reduce welfare and food stamps as a trade off so we can ensure our youth become social assets who contribute, instead of social liabilities taxing the rest of us to pay for courts and prisons … well, that’s a trade off I’d make.
        I think most moderates and liberals would agree. Unfortunately, such rational thinking is dismissed among the hyperbolic vitriol espoused by the leaders of the parties.

  5. The irony is that the Individual Mandate was a Republican idea to which Obama conceded. A Republican controlled Supreme Court will likely eliminate the primary Republican idea because the most conservative element, the Tea Party, has forced the issue.
    Obama has to talk tough and say he doesn’t like what the Supreme Court is doing but he must be laughing whole heartedly on the inside.

    1. To say the Republican/Conservative mentalities as cruel and thoughtless, suggests to me that you have taken no time or effort to understand them rather you rely on liberal imagery to establish your belief of what they are.

      1. Or it suggests that I’ve analyzed their policies, understand the definitions of the words “cruel” and “thoughtless” and have applied those definitions to the nature of their policies.
        If they changed the nature of their policies, I would ergo change the definition I attribute to them. However, for them to change their policies, they’d have to change their underlying mentality. The mentality is a nature. That mentality is in fact cruel and thoughtless.
        To argue against this, argue NOT that my reasoning is biased, but instead argue against the harmful nature of the policies, the corrupt and selfish nature of the political process and by extension the mentality that drives the process and the policies.
        If you have a strong argument, I will gladly concede my point. If you have a weak argument then I will not.
        However, in the event you offer a strong argument and I still refuse to change my viewpoint, THEN you can argue that I am irrationally biased. Not before.

        1. I have no clue what you think is “cruel” and “thoughtless” until you define you unsubstantiated allegation have nothing to argue against.

          1. Cruel: knowingly harmful, sadistic.
            Thoughtless: without regard to the needs of others.
            Conservative agendas such as anti-contraception legislation are thoughtless as they are only considering their religious worldview and cannot conceive of the rights of women.
            Agendas such as Voter ID laws restrict minority and youth votes specifically. This structurally disenfranchises them making their political needs nullified. This is cruel.
            Paul Ryan’s budget is both cruel and thoughtless. It replaces medicare with a vouchers, which doesn’t consider the financial condition of seniors on Social Security and a fixed income. This is thoughtless.
            It also removes taxes from the richest Americans who can afford to pay taxes while increasing taxes on the poorest Americans who cannot afford their current conditions, much less greater taxation. This is cruel.
            Now that we’ve defined basic elementary school terminology along with specific examples, hopefully you can see my “allegations” as “substantiated.” Would you care to answer my question and explain how these Conservative policies and the process which drives them are something other than cruel and thoughtless? Or would you prefer to continue your ad hominem of calling me a “biased liberal” and introducing non sequiturs and red herrings such as “the definition of words”?

          2. 1. Anti-Contraception legislation-I assume what you are talking about is the insurance contraception mandate that forces religious organizations to pay for the contraception expenses of other people even through it is in violation to the religious organizations beliefs.
            a. This does not limit women’s access to contraception because they can pay for it themselves or use the thousands of non-profits organizations that will provide it to them at no or reduced costs.
            b. Besides women have no right to have their contraception paid by someone else. This is absurd.
            c. The United States Constitution, the United Nations, and God do recognize the right of freedom to practice one’s religion. Such a mandate violates this recognized right and is therefore completely thoughtless and in violation of recognized civil rights. If it is not thoughtless on the part of the democratic administration it is a outright attack on religion.
            2. Requiring a voter to provide and ID is protective of the voting process insuring free elections. This is neither thoughtless nor cruel.
            a. People are required to provide an ID constantly in daily life – to drive, to write a check, to sign a legal document, to buy Sudafed, to register for school (both K-12 and college).
            b. If by chance a minority or youth does not have an ID the law provides that they can get one free at the county courthouse. If an adult does not take the time to get a free ID they have no one to blame but themselves for not being allowed to vote.
            c. It is thoughtless on the side of the Democratic Party to oppose protection of free elections or it is a thoughtful policy to fraudulently manipulate elections.
            3. Replacing current Medicare system with vouchers does consider the financial condition of senior on Social Security and a fixed income. To say this will impact them negatively is an un substantiated allegation with no factual basis. It is neither thoughtless nor cruel.
            4. However not providing a budget with addresses the massive deficits is very thoughtless as the vast majority of economists agree continual addition the massive debt is unsustainable and will eventually lead to a financial crash leaving millions out of work, homeless, in poverty, etc. Not addressing this issue is cruel and thoughtless to future generations and perhaps us.
            5. When you say “removes taxes from the richest Americans” I assume you are talking about not increasing taxes on the wealthiest. The tax system is already progressive according to IRS data reported by the Tax Policy Center: The lowest quintile paid 4.0% of their income in Federal income taxes, second quintile- 10.6%, middle quintile- 14.3, Fourth quintile- 17.4% Highest quintile- 25.1% top 10%- 26.7%, top 5%- 27.9 and top 1%- 29.5%. The Tax Policy Center estimates that about one-third of the richest would pay higher taxes under the Buffett Rule in 2015 than they do today under the Buffett Rule. Most of those are taking advantage of tax deductions that stimulate investment and job growth, so I am not sure why you would want to do that other than envy. It would raise a negligible amount in taxes, about $4 Billion on a $3.6 Trillion budget ( about .1% of the budget). The issue of the Buffet rule really amounts to a red herring which results in class warfare designed to manipulate the masses into voting democratic even against their best interests, which I view as cruel and unethical.
            It seems pretty clear in light of the facts and logical reason that the Conservative’s policies are NOT cruel or thought less but that the democrat’s policies are.

      2. 1. The Catholic Church agreed to Obama’s idea of allowing them to NOT pay for contraception and then requiring insurance companies to contact women individually and offering contraception for free.
        THEN the Republicans decided to turn this into a “Anyone should be able to deny existing coverage for moral reasons!” argument.
        Again this was AFTER the real religious institution came to an agreement.
        This fact alone mitigates the rest of your argument.
        2. You clearly have no idea what’s happening with Voter ID laws this year. I do believe in Voter ID. Absolutely! This particular group of laws only discourages voting. It’s on a state-by-state basis and it’s changing daily, so citing would be both incomplete and cumbersome. Point being, I think you need to look into this a little more because your argument is flawed. Democrats are NOT disallowing free elections. This is just absurd rhetoric.
        3. Do you know what a voucher system even is? OF COURSE it will affect seniors negatively. If you don’t get that I have no rational basis for discussion.
        4. Democrats cut defense and raise taxes on those can afford them. They typically balance the budget. Republicans typically increase the deficit/debt. These are historical facts. Ideology and results are very different things. Also, I favor a balanced budget amendment or policy.
        5. I AM in the top 1% and I support the Buffett rule. It does NOT affect pre-profit money. It affects post-profit money. Further, the word for “profit” when dealing with day to day life is called the Cost of Living. Anything above that is “profit” as far as individuals are concerned. Most people are living below the true cost of living, creating an endless cycle of debt and poverty. Those with PERSONAL INCOMES over $1 million per annum are living heartily above the cost of living. The Buffett rule taxes income ABOVE $1,000,000 and and only the dollars earned above $1 million.
        This isn’t about envy or any other emotion, it’s about … what you said … Balancing our budget responsibly given a mathematically challenged, corrupt and stubborn Republican Congress who want to blame Obama for their intentional incompetence.

        Here’s what I’ve noticed thus far:
        The point of the article was pointing out that temperament more than gender affects politics.
        I pointed out that personal interest probably drives people more than temperament and personal interest (like being female or latino) are separate from temperament.
        You took that as an opportunity to say I’m a biased liberal. Rationals are not known for their bias and I am not a liberal. I examine politics and draw my own conclusions based on evidence, thank you very much.
        Since your commentary seems to be informed only by Fox News talking points, I can only conclude that you are suffering from projection and you yourself are a biased Republican.
        I draw that conclusion from a recent study which found that the fight over gay rights is not waged between gay people and straight people but rather between gay people who are out and gay people who are in the closet. Straight people don’t much care as they realize it doesn’t affect them.
        Again this goes to my original point about one’s personal interests. People raised in an environment antagonistic to who they are (in this case sexually) will either fight against those who they perceive as a threat to their survival (those gays who are out) … or they will flee and find a community of people who accept them.
        Conservative folks are stricken with self-suppression and subsequent projection. You called me a biased liberal because you’re a biased conservative. I’m also in the 1% so I can only imagine your envy.
        I also do NOT associate your history which brought you to this conversation with ANY temperament. These kinds of things happen to people of all temperaments and I would HATE to associate conservatism with Guardians. The idea of it seems not only ill conceived but it bothers me like a form of prejudice.

        Conclusively, you’ve been consistently detracting the topic from Temperament as it relates (or doesn’t relate) to politics to pul me into your personal discussion about partisan beliefs.
        If you want to discuss THAT topic, feel free. I’ll be happy to join you.
        As far as proving who’s politics are the most evil, I’ve stated my views and leave them as they are. I am not using this board to continue that discussion.
        In simple terms, I’m no longer feeding the troll.

  6. Your arguments are too long and boring..get to the point quicker. I’ve lost interest in all of these long back and forth writings and see them as a tennis match where the ball never goes out of play. Geesh wake me up when it’s over!!
    Signed, a Rational Architect.

    1. Our school system has truly failed us the day that Rationals find intricate debate “too long” nor can look at the time stamps of entries to determine when a debate has ended.
      May this be a wake up call to all of us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *