Is Idealism Ideal?
By LisaFairhurst on 04-20-2008
Leaders would campaign for individualized instruction for children to bring out their potential. There would be a huge emphasis on working cooperatively. Competition would be discouraged. Sports would become exhibitions instead of competitions. Some students would thrive under teachers who encouraged rather than demanded certain standards. Others would take advantage of the system. The students who benefit the most from competition (Artisans) would be left without clear feedback on their progress.
Although everyone would talk about the importance of unity and harmony, different factions would begin to form under spell-binding Idealists. Differing values would lead to vicious attacks of those in the ‘wrong’ groups. (When Idealists have a very strong vision or feel betrayed, they can be exceptionally cruel towards the betrayer/those who get in their way and won’t move.) One area for warring factions will be in the area of balancing the needs of people versus the needs of the environment. One group will talk about the need to have harmony within the Earth itself. The other will talk about the needs of poor and otherwise disadvantaged people.
Having wealth and not being charitable will be vilified. Being rich and philanthropic will be tolerated. Idealists are natural communists and would like to see “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” There might be sanctions on luxury products and services. Taxes would likely be raised on the rich and even semi-rich.
Overall, I would imagine that our country would become more popular in the world as we began supporting environmental agreements and became softer and less dogmatic about democracy. However, I think Muslim terrorists would view us as becoming more decadent and immoral. That might promote more attacks, especially since the military would be smaller.
Some of the effects of Idealists running the country would be very positive. Some would be neutral, and some would be dangerous. As you can see, I don’t think a country run by Idealists would be ideal. I think leadership needs to be balanced between all four temperaments. When any temperament is left out of leadership and decision making, the results are going to miss a useful segment of the population. What do you think?
 |
 |
 |
 |
Posted by Faucethead on Apr 20, 2008
I think each temperament has qualities that would make it best suited for particular issues facing the country. I think it is no surprise that many of the Founding Fathers were Rationals, whose innate sense of vision gave birth to western constitutional government. Artisans (F.D.R., Kennedy, Reagan) have always been called upon to lead the nation through times of crisis and war. Guardians have occupied the white house more than any other type, and have maintained U.S. traditions. __________________________________________________Idealists have not had their term in the oval office, yet. I would have liked to have given the Idealists a chance to take over after the Rational Founders. I think the Idealist's, more than any other type, could have helped the country attain the ideals envisioned in the U.S. Constitution. |
 |
 |
Posted by doctorgiggles99 on Apr 21, 2008
thank goodness the government is not run by idealists... |
 |
|
Posted by Pat on Apr 22, 2008
Read the other blog about Chairman Mao's temperament. Consider the aftermath of the French Revolution, when Idealists were creating their perfect Republic of Terror and Virtue. And various theocracies - not when they were institutionalized and the Guardians were running things, but when the leaders were the likes of Calvin. Then run for your lives and start praying for a hard-headed Rational to take charge of things. |
 |
|
Posted by Keillan on Apr 22, 2008
I agree that some level of balance and inclusion is necessary. If one temperament were always in charge, there would be some level of disenfranchisement within society, and that is a recipe for strife at best and revolution at worse. I tend to think a leadership that is entirely Idealist would be awful as it would almost certainly be ineffective without other temperaments being able to direct that form of leadership. At least this is not a negative only for Idealists. For example, a Rational-only government would be entirely arrogant and likely dictatorial. |
| |
|
Posted by doctorgiggles99 on Apr 22, 2008
keillan, there is nothing wrong with having a dictator. Especially if I AM the dictator! |
| |
|
Posted by LisaFairhurst on Apr 22, 2008
Pat, are you referring to John Calvin? There is a Rational if ever there was one. Systematic theology, deep thinking, Rational all the way. As Keillan says, his government was arrogant and dictatorial. ................................................. Dr. Giggles, you have a point. If the dictator is totally trustworthy, a dictator is a far more efficient method of governing. But since power corrupts...I think I'd rather stick with our incompetent and inefficient form of government. |
 |
 |
Posted by thelostrenegade1967 on Apr 22, 2008
if idealist ran the country it would be even worse than it is now. the problem is not that guardians are running the country the problem is that tyrannants are running the country. the dirtbags on the supreme court are not guardians. they do not believe in justice. guardians do. yes i am a guardian. we guard civil liberties, we guard the week. we value human life. power only corrupts when the people let it corrupt. "Does not every man know, that nothing is more liable to be abused than power. Power, without a check, in any hands, is tyranny; and such powers, in the hands of even good men, so infatuating is the nature of it, will probly be wantonly, if not tyrannically exercised" "Z" Replies to Franklin's Speech (December 6, 1787) The Constitution built in such checks. The PEOPLE have the power to get rid of tyrannants. |
 |
|
Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Apr 22, 2008
Lisa, I don't think John Calvin was a Rational. It's been a while since I looked at him, but he appeared to be a Supervisor Guardian. The interesting part is that his church organization was that it was the beginning of democracy that spread throughout the world, via the reformation. |
| |
|
Posted by Lesley on Apr 22, 2008
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Like Henry VIII. |
 |
|
Posted by mkb32 on Apr 23, 2008
Dr. Giggles you would make an excellent dictator as long as you surrounded yourself with Guardian, Artisan and Idealist advisers and everyone sat facing each other in a circle holding hands, and each meeting was ended with "Kumbiya" being sung in rounds. -->Come On, Let's All Practice Together Now ... |
| |
|
Posted by LisaFairhurst on Apr 24, 2008
Dave, I'm going to actually disagree with you on John Calvin. In the circles I run in, he's a pretty popular fellow (just not with me). My husband (Mastermind) has read a good part of his Institutes. The thing that marks his writing is extreme systematization. He argues against human authority, saying that only God is the authority. He argues against tradition saying that all traditions should be trashed unless the Bible requires them. This is the opposite of what a Guardian would say which is that traditions should be kept unless they violate scripture. |
| |
|
Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Apr 24, 2008
Lisa, I would be interested in a reference in regard to Calvin's attitude toward rules of his church and traditions. He certainly was bucking the Catholic Church, and opposing it vigorously. I had read that he was rather inflexible and very strict in his church, but I didn't make a complete study of the man, so I am looking for an depth analysis of him and his time. |
 |
|
Posted by lhall on Apr 25, 2008
I don't know about the world being run by Idealists, but we could certainly use a few more involved in the decision making process. Personally, I'd like to see Oprah - or others like her - having the ability to counter act the cowboy tendencies of our current Artisan president. |
| |
|
Posted by LisaFairhurst on Apr 26, 2008
lhall, that's just the point, isn't it? We really need all four temperaments. |
 |
|
Posted by personalitychamp552 on Apr 28, 2008
While I agree that having an Idealist-run U.S.A. government would likely make us targets, my immediate “idealist thought” after that was, “Hmmmm, but what if the entire WORLD would follow the Idealist-type of government?” Now that’s what I’d call harmonious! Furthermore, you REALLY did a darn good job of describing my classroom! I made it like a community, based on The Constitution, complete with representatives, town council, court, & even a monetary system where money had to be earned in a variety of ways. Group work was often utilized, yet I would allow choices for those to exempt themselves from being in a group if they felt more comfortable working alone. {The thing I always enjoyed was observing how often those who made that choice wound up choosing group work the next time, especially when they began to see that their views were also taken into consideration.} Yes also to the idea that Idealists can be easily attacked. Oh my, how well I know that! The thing that was so extremely difficult for me when it happened was that it HURT so deeply, because I was completely blindsided! {Mostly this was done by colleagues whom I strongly believe feared that if my style of teaching was seen as worthwhile, then they might have to follow suit.} I also took a class on learning styles, & it was interesting that in the teaching field ENFP’s were quite rare. Those that did get into it, usually lasted no more than 5 years! Frankly, I am shocked I lived through it, although now retired, I am going through a period of agoraphobia regarding being among people & mistrust of people! That had NEVER been my natural way! How many presidents of the U.S. have been analyzed as being Idealists? I recall reading one report that claimed there never has been one! Eeeek! I mean ~ that’s a little sad, doncha think? |
| |
|
Posted by Lesley on Apr 29, 2008
Martin Luther King, Jr. had influence on the U.S. |
 |
|
Posted by bsaunders on Apr 30, 2008
The inevitable problem is that the people "running" anything will always be the people who are most driven to "run things" per se. Whatever their temperaments, and whether they want to run a government, a company, or a family, when push comes to shove, those who want to run things will sacrifice the best interests of their charge(s) for the trappings of power! The corollary is this: People who have ANY value greater than running things will tend not to want to run things. Therefore, they will leave that job to the group I described above! |
 |
 |
Posted by IntroSpectre on Jun 30, 2008
I agree with bsaunders. Socrates said something along the lines of, no one worthy of leadership would want to lead. Does anyone know what Ayn Rand's type was? |
| |
|
Posted by IntroSpectre on Jun 30, 2008
I agree with bsaunders. Socrates said something along the lines of, no one worthy of leadership would want to lead. Does anyone know what Ayn Rand's type was? |
The federal government spends 54% of its funds on the military, and 30% of funds go to human resources. That's the 2nd largest section funded by the government. Human resources includes the department of education. I think more money should go to the department of education, and the federal budget for the military should be cut. We have so many internal problems. Why are we neglecting these internal problems & trying to solve other people's problems? I'm not sure how cutting the military budget would affect the military. Maybe if they never got into the war in the first place, the military budget would be smaller.