A Litmus Test
Accepting Temperament
By DavidMKeirsey on 07-01-2008
"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?
 |
 |
 |
 |
Posted by drmst33 on Jul 2, 2008
The more involved I become in trying to carefully watch and investigate both sides of the political aisle, the more difficult I find it to be for me to not become so annoyed that I do almost exactly what you are suggesting David. As a rational I do become very annoyed with most of the drivel I hear coming from everyone's mouth these days. I whole-mindedly agree with your assertion that politics is very much like lawyering. It’s all about making your argument the winning argument. That certainly does not solve issues. It may win a court case and it may win an election, but it doesn’t actually enlighten the voter or show what real political ideals the candidates want to bring to office. Quite frustrating and when that frustrated, I do really do go to a baser self and particpate in type bashing. |
 |
 |
Posted by Keillan on Jul 6, 2008
Until I started looking at temperament theory seriously, I had a definite prejudice against Sensates from the MBTI. I believe this came mainly from the illusion that iNtuitives were "smart" and Sensates were not. Then I discovered that some of the most intelligent figures in history were Concretes, thinking of the like of Teddy Roosevelt and even Bill Clinton (a Rhodes scholar). Discovering that my wife is a Promoter Artisan certainly contributes to be working to eliminate the last vestiges of that prejudice. ----- I suppose that in politics, temperaments haven't been quite as large of a factor as other traits. While I appreciate a logical analysis from Rationals, I certainly will give ear to anyone that presents a decent argument. Indeed, I often like the challenge of debating on points, even if I agree with them!! |
 |
|
Posted by LisaFairhurst on Jul 9, 2008
When it comes to politics, I can't stand the rhetoric on my own side either anymore. ...................................... I will admit that I have a prejudice against ESTPs (my exact opposite). I don't want to, but I'm afraid of some of them even though I've know lots I've liked. |
Yes! I am quick to just "turn OFF & tune out" opinons/ideas/complaints of people of a certain temperament. Give me a minute ... I'm working on it. I'm also working on not having that "I just sucked on a lemon" face when I realize I'm struggling to continue active listening.