Another Temperamental Note

A post on Siris this morning links temperaments and logical arguments, and the example Brandon uses for the last is the ontological argument for the existence of God (link); there are several such, but here discussed in the singular. Fascinating lash-up! I thought  I would make some notes of my own here; I had touched on the subject of temperaments once before on this blog (link), but in that foray I concentrated on general behavior, not intellectual leanings and tastes. That post, however, reaches a kind of conclusion rarely found in discussion of the temperaments; my view is that temperaments have much to do with personal responses to stimuli; those who experience stimuli coming from within will tend to avoid external stimulus and find themselves labeled introverted (a negative in our times); those who are not stimulated as much from inside seek it out there in the world, the crowd, or in action; they will be labeled extroverted.

Viewing the ontological argument in this context is rather a challenge. It is an intellectual structure; thinking, of course, is something internal; but in the introverted type, intuition tends to be to the fore and reflexively ranked above intellect—not by much, but still outranked. The intellectual is ranked much higher than intuition in the extroverted type, but since the argument is rather abstract, it will get somewhat negative valuation from the extravert for lacking a sensory presentation. The argument, therefore, will tend to straddle the two major types. The introvert will see it as too obvious—and often is convinced before the argument is even made; intuition can be very strong. The extravert will tend to like the argument just because it is one; arguing is interaction with others; but he or she would prefer to see it grounded in much more concrete  (read scientific) facts. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, based on Carl Jung’s two categories, adds to the other polarities (sensing/intuition and thinking/feeling) that of judging/perceiving. The first term of these is supposedly more to the fore in extraverts, the second in introverts. Judging is closely linked to the ontological argument because it is grounded in logic; thus it should appeal to the extroverted temperament. Perception, by contrast, assigned to introverts, is (for me) difficult to disentangle from sensing on the one hand and intuition on the other: is it some kind of mix of the two?

Having had a good Catholic education complete with college under Jesuits, I still vividly remember meeting the ontological argument. My temperament is certainly introverted (although some would vehemently disagree). Not surprisingly, my reaction was quite neutral—as is my reaction to just about anything severely abstract. Interesting—but so what. Like sitting down to gorgeous-looking meal at a festively bedecked table—only to discover that the food on the plate is made of plastic. Nice to look at, but nothing to eat.

Now the science of temperaments has its rigors. It begins with dichotomies but then produces types by measuring the relative force of each member of these pairings in an individual. Therefore, under Myers-Briggs, sixteen different temperaments emerge. A minority will find the ontological argument not only irrefutable (and it is) but will be thrilled by it—while the rest will be indifferent, mildly pro or con, or repelled. My guess is that in those who feel a thrill, thinking and judging must have a much higher voltage than some of the other parts that make up what we call a temperament.