Types and Stereotypes
Men from earliest times like to pigeonhole other men.
The Gnostics of ancient times divided men into three kinds: those ruled entirely by desires of the flesh (hylics); those ruled by the mind (psychics) who are confused but questioning; and finally those ruled by the spirit (pneumatics) who have achieved enlightenment. The carnal men were born damned with no hope of salvation; the mental men were Catholics and mainstream Christian, who have hope of being enlightened if they foreswear ancient teachings and convert to Gnosticism; and the Gnostics were enlightened and elect, and could not lose salvation, which was certain and sure.
The Calvinists, if I understand that odd heresy, were akin to Gnostics, but having only two types: the reprobate, born to inevitable damnation, and the elect, born to inevitable salvation.
Me, I have never liked categorizing men into such easy categories. Such activities always seems presumptuous. How odd to think one knows one’s brother better than he knows himself. The idea that we know where personality traits come from is an idea that any father who has raised children should regard with suspicion.
I have a friend who has studied psychology, a discipline I regard as an inferior secular mockery of the sacrament of confession. Her discipline teaches that men’s personalities can be divided into sixteen basic types, and these types form a prejudice in her mind. Once she see a man as a type, she stops seeing him as a person: any trait that confirms the stereotype, she sees, and any not fitting into the stereotype, she does not see.
I have another friend who is firmly convinced the ancient Babylonian discipline of astrology guides human fate. She divides men into twelve types, based on their birth constellation. I once asked her what would happen to a baby born on Mars, or some other planet in the solar system, whose plane of the ecliptic, hence their zodiac, must differ from earth’s. I am not sure if she knew enough real astronomy to grasp the question.
I have a third friend who thinks the genetic investigation proves Negros have a violence gene that makes them more violent that Caucasians. He also divides men into types based on this genetic mumbo-jumbo.
Myself, I think looking to psychology, or stars, or genes, to discover where a man’s personality traits arise is all fake.
Each of my friends is pretending to know something he does not know for the sake forcing men he meets into pre-established pigeonholes.
I do not see any good reason for doing this.
For the record, I also regard the question of what personality traits come from nurture and what from nature is futile and foolish. Some hold most or all of a man’s traits come from his upbringing regardless of birth, some hold most or all come from his birth, which upbringing cannot change.
The esoteric division of men into hylic, pneumatic and psychic divides men into three stereotypes rather than sixteen or twelve or two. I am a Christian. I think men’s traits ultimately come from God.
I believe in angels that watch over individuals, families, cities, nations, and that these are animated with a certain spirit, that is, a certain set of traits: one can see the difference, for example, between Latin romanticism and German stoicism pass through many generations.
One can see the traits of Scottish brigands, their short temper and firm sense of honor, transported to the Appalachians picked up by the Southern slave, who, even after emancipation, largely retain these traits, even when this brigand spirit has died down in Scotland and vanished a century ago.
But these observations are generalizations, useless for making an individual judgment on an individual man. For this reason, if you will forgive me, I do not believe any account of the types of men is useful, not the esoteric, not the psychological, not the astrological, not the genetic.
Modern men ponder the problem variously: Whence arise human traits? From nature or nurture? If from nurture, can we change men into better men by careful education? If from nature, can we change men into better men by careful manipulation of the genes and other prenatal factors?
My answer is a resounding no, followed by a snort of contempt.
Original sin is part of parcel of human nature, and does not arise from nature or nurture. One must teach children to tell the truth: no one need teach a child how to lie. He does it naturally as soon as he can form words. Lying is done by children before they are old enough to know it is wrong.
Whatever is part of human nature can only be solved supernaturally.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
