According to PP, "there's been little relative popular attempts to scientifically explain why the bulk of the population is always a warzone between the extreme fringes. It's just assumed that it will always be this way just like there will always be criminals and extremely altruistic self-sacrificing givers."

Diving deeper, PP suggests those extreme fringes are really just a 10 - 20% minority of the population with different brain types that are "prone to modes of thought that are tangibly different from the majority and prone to action and lifestyle based on these thoughts."

Depending on whether or not the apathetic majority agrees with them, this minority, whether on the left or the right, is generally perceived as "wingnuts", criminals and radicals, or genuinely informed and committed activists. Where things get a little creepy is PP's logical extension of this biological dynamic:

Just like there exist (and can further be bred) aggressive dogs and peaceful friendly dogs, there exist aggressive people, natural Buddhist-esque peaceful people, etc. A person who is an aggressive pit bull equivalent (and who wants to impose his views of the world onto others the most) would differ in his relatively extreme ideology depending on what part of the world he was socialized in.

What I read into this analysis is that certain individuals are biologically pre-disposed towards activism and they become activists for the political left or right largely due to socializing factors. In other words "born activists" with a dominating abusive parent become fundamentalist conservatives per Max Blumenthal's Republican Gomorrah and "born activists" with dirty hippy parents become progressives.

To go further, PP asks us to look at the Myers-Briggs studies. Myers-Briggs has been around since 1943 and millions of people have taken the "test", although test is actually a misnomer since there are no right or wrong answers.

As a basic primer the Myers-Briggs profile divides one's personality into some combination of four inherent tendencies which, like all preferences, can range from weak to strong. The choices are between 1) Extrovert/Introvert, 2) Sensing/iNtuitive, 3) Thinking/Feeling and 4) Judging/Perceiving. All combinations are possible and none is inherently "better" than any other, but the majority of people fall into some basic categories, as referenced by PP in his article.

Protectors (SJ) ESTJ - Overseer, supervisor = 11.8%

ESFJ - Supporter, provider = 11.7%

ISTJ - Examiner, inspector = 9.8%

ISFJ - Defender, protector = 9.9%

All SJs = 43.2%



Creators (SP) ESTP - Persuader, promoter = 8.4%

ESFP - Entertainer, performer = 10.3%

ISTP - Craftsman, mechanic = 6.4%

ISFP - Artist, composer = 7.9%

All SPs = 33% Intellectuals (NT) ENTJ - Chief, fieldmarshal = 3.2%

ENTP - Originator, inventor = 3.7%

INTJ - Strategist, mastermind = 1.5%

INTP - Engineer, architect = 2.2%

All NTs = 10.6% Visionaries (NF) ENFJ - Mentor, teacher = 3.4%

ENFP - Advocate, idealist = 4.2%

INFJ - Confidant, empath = 1.2%

INFP - Dreamer, healer = 2.4%

All NFs = 11.2%

Between them, the SJ and SP groups make up 80% of the population. According to Meyers-Briggs, SJ personalities tend to be conservative, authoritarian in outlook, conventional, focused on concrete "what is", and protective of the general society. They don't rock the boat too much and defer to tradition. SP personalities tend to be fun loving, crafty, entertaining, and have uncanny ability to focus on "what is" in order to fix and modify it.

AS PP points out, it's easy to see how SJs lean Republican and SPs lean Democratic overall.

What I found interesting however was the observation that both groups are largely concerned with maintaining the status quo and that, further to the aggressive or passive dog analogy, individuals are more united by their personality type than their political affiliation.

...the two large groups are united by their concern with all things as they are in the now. That makes the two groups friendly and status quo leaning by default. An ESTJ born in Brooklyn may identify as a traditionalist democrat whereas an ESTJ born in West Virginia may identify as a traditionalist republican, but both are more likely to seek similar professions and get along if they hang out together. Brain type identification provides a lot more material to predict a person's behavior and views on the world than simple political identification. Since 80% of the population is of a brain type that is physiologically predisposed toward the status quo, progress of any sort becomes a lot harder in a democratic society.

My own Myers-Briggs profile is ENFP which puts me in the 20% minority category of NT's and NF's. According to PP, this minority group of brain types contributes "new theoretical constructs on how society should be organized and which steps it should take next (INTPs, ENTPs,). When balanced by the emotional consideration and input of INFPs and ENFPs new paths for society can be developed that would be acceptable to SJs and SPs combined."

That sound great and makes me feel really good about myself, however, PP rains on my parade by pointing out that I and those like me "will always be outvoted and marginalized by politicians who mobilize the other more numerous groups." And mobilize is really the wrong word since the majority is usually being "mobilized" to "do nothing".

PP is from the Ukraine and he concludes his article by promoting the proportional representation model of Europe:

This dynamic reinforces the need for proportional representation in our system of governance. Proportional representation is practiced in most European Union countries to great effect. This way each brain type cluster can get a political party of their own. The marginalized 20% of the population can get representation and even serve as coalition kingmakers. New voices can be heard in the discourse. Today the 20% of population has to either join the big parties they don't like and "radicalize" them (seen by the tail wagging the dog phenomenon of militants dominating today's Republican party and driving moderates out of it) or abstain from the process thus depriving society of valuable input. In proportional representation, each batch of brain types seen as "radicals" can find a party to call home and really support. They would also have more political representation to vent out their frustration and to institutionalize their presence and views. Citizens can then pick and choose which vision of progress to support and which to leave behind.

I am not sure this is a realistic solution for the United States but the article offers some interesting and intelligent insight into our current political gridlock.