Getting back to the subject of your “Unable to Cope” post, Troy, another thought it engendered was the problem of expecting others to think like we do. Remember when we got tangled up with that freethinker forum, where we first met? Expecting it to be a place where ideas were freely discussed, we were somewhat taken aback to find it dominated by ACLU type atheist activists, who were as rigidly dogmatic as the Christian fundamentalists about which they obsessed.
To your credit, you were the first to flee those stultifying groupthink environs in horror. Several more of us soon followed, and we created a new forum, which we called 'Reasonable Rationals' (as opposed to 'Atheist Activists'), where we thoroughly enjoyed daily kicking around interesting ideas for over a year.
As an exercise in comity, early on we explored David Keirsey's work on innate temperament differences, derived from Jungian personality types, identified by Meyers-Briggs type personality tests. He describes the four basic temperaments, out of the 16 possible Jungian combinations, which are not evenly distributed in the population. He briefly explains them here, and then elaborates a bit on each:
'SJ' Guardians 40 – 45%
'SP' Artisans 30 – 35%
'NF' Idealists 15 – 20%
'NT' Rationals 5 – 10%
Importantly, we are each born predisposed to develop and exhibit these characteristics, and no amount of getting after someone, can materially change them. If Keirsey is right, all Pygmalion projects are doomed to failure at the outset.
You may recall that when our merry little group of libertarian thinkers and skeptics took the online test, all but one of us came out as Rational NT's. Larry was a Guardian SJ; but had he answered a single question the other way, he too would have registered as a Rational.
When one notices that only 5 – 10% of the population have minds predisposed to value the way ours functions, this was a stunning revelation. It also goes a long way toward explaining why they cannot appreciate what we are trying to tell them. The piles of data we find so compelling, not only does not comport with their worldview, they regard it as unimportant to their life's agenda.
Obama famously lamented that conservatives thwart 'progress,' by clinging to their God and their guns; but look at all the demonstrably bankrupt ideas he and his ilk cling to. Marxism has failed everywhere it has been tried; but that deters them not a whit. Their good intentions toward 'social justice' wealth redistribution schemes define reality for them, and failure is always the fault of someone else with nefarious selfish motives.
I always had a cynical view of the way the Left so often trots out the charge of racism, against their ideological opponents. I assumed it was merely a deplorable political tactic to stifle unwanted debate. However, Ted, a recent commenter to my Sovereign Rights essay, has finally convinced me that they are so imbued with white guilt themselves, they actually believe their rhetoric. I took some pains to try to explain otherwise; but obviously to little avail.
Ted is utterly convinced that he know better than us, what actually motivates our dissent from the Politically Correct agenda of the blessed Obamessiah. How Leftists manage to miss our equal, if not greater, disdain for White Progressives like Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, et al, is beyond me. Go figure…
Logic, reason, and to a large extent even empirical evidence, seem hopelessly outgunned by clinging dogma of one sort or another, in 9 out of 10 of our countrymen. To expect otherwise, is to wish for what has never been, and can never be. They really have little choice, but to march to the beat of their own drummer, and likely are oblivious to ours. ◄Dave►