Why Furries Need Conservatives

## Well hello. A couple months ago, a certain video came across my twitter feed, and it piqued my interest. In this video, the question was asked: why do furries need conservatives? So I spent a fair bit of time on my podcast exploring the questions, accusations, and mischaracterizations made therein. And I, being one for beating dead horses, see fit now to elaborate on the subject. Both of us seemed to struggle to define what conservatism even is, though I at least was able to name several key characteristics, while the dissenting opinions in the comments seemed to be... far less descriptive... [nazi comments]

## I think the real question that's being asked here, in earnest, encompasses far more than furries. American furries are a microcosm. Their culture is embedded within that of the sociopolitical, geological context within America, so this question, if asked in good faith, requires a step back, a broadening of the horizons, and God willing, some humility from all who seek the answer. The real question being asked here, is Why do Liberals need Conservatives?

## And obviously we must define our terms here, so we're all on the same page. Most people use these terms colloquially, and quite flippantly at that. Many who use them couldn't define them if you asked them to. Some will reveal an operative definition so disappointingly narrow, you'll be forced to question why they're talking about it at all... [conservatives like to conserve things] Others will give such a verbose description that it takes hours of discussion to even broach the topic, and even then, they may not have given you a concrete definition as much as they have named every single belief held by those who brand themselves under the label. Guilty as charged. Perhaps I've taken a break from the podcast for good reason.

## It's clear there is an operational framework required for defining these features, and I think I have just the one. The Meyers-Briggs- just kidding. If we're going to be pseudoscientific, we may as well be as scientific as possible. The five-factor model of personality, otherwise known as the Big Five personality traits. Each trait can have a low score or a high score. For the sake of simplicity, you can view each of these as sliders in a character creation sequence in a bethesda game. Low scores result in the opposite trait becoming dominant. Neutrality can exist between the polar opposite ends of each trait. In my experience, if you have autism, you tend to bounce between the extremes on many, if not all, of these traits, though you may still tend towards a certain comfort zone. Keep in mind that this framework isn't perfect, much like my understanding of it. Thinking scientifically is difficult, and even scientists don't do it well most the time. I use it because it provides a simple explanation of reality by allowing us to categorize the behaviors we observe in ourselves as indicative of certain traits, traits that can be measured by empirical evidence. Each trait is broken down into several facets, and each facet is scoreable based off of an observation of a behavior, particularly as a reaction to a broad range of stimuli. Such measurements have determined that these traits are highly biologically informed, if not outright determined. This is a crucial caviat for understanding the implications of this framework.

## First: Openness, or openness to experience, is synonymous with creativity. [tony stark and peter parker] It is characterized by inventiveness and curiosity. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are free and limitless to their exploration and experimentation. Those who score low in this trait are more consistent and cautious. Broadly, this trait reflects to the ability and interest in processing complex stimuli. There is no correlative link between sex and this trait, though women tend to score higher on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings, while men score higher on the Ideas facet.

## Conscientiousness is synonymous with orderliness. Conscientous people are efficient and organized. They feel comfortable in a place where the boundaries are clearly, tightly drawn, and where everything remains in its proper place. [lego movie lord business irl] Those who score low in this trait are more extravagant and careless. Women score higher in some facets of conscientiousness, such as order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. These findings have not been replicated across cultures, so no correlation has been proven between conscientiousness and sex. Fascinatingly enough, those who score high in this trait are far more likely to react sharply to a stimulus such as a bad smell, a dirty word, or some sort of categorical insult. This facet is called Novelty Aversion, a psychological tendency to avoid or dislike new or unfamiliar stimuli, situations, or experiences.

## Extraversion is synonymous with sociability. [turk from tarzan?] Extraverts are outgoing and energetic. They feel comfortable where the people are, and they prefer to get to know them. Those who score low in this trait are more solitary and reserved. Males score higher in some facets of this trait, women on others. This one tends to be relatively balanced.

## Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. Highly agreeable people are quite friendly by disposition, want others to be happy, and want others to like them as well. They tend towards cooperation, social harmony, and the consideration of other's concerns. Those who score high in agreeableness find it difficult to put themselves first, even when they need to. Those who score low in this trait are more critical and judgemental. Female humans consistently score higher for agreeableness, while males are far more likely to be disagreeable, though there are exceptions to every rule, and they are rare. [stoic and valka, astrid and hiccup]

## [piglet] Neuroticism is synonymous with negative emotion. Neurotic people are senstive and nervous by disposition. They feel comfortable nowhere, because everywhere the senses are activated, there are things to worry the conscience about. Those who score low in this trait are more resilient, confident, and damn lucky. Women disproportionately score higher in trait neuroticism, likely in correlation to their far lower risk tolerance in comparison to their male counterparts. Women are disproporationately more anxious and have low self-esteem, though men tend to defeat women in anger, or Anger Hostility.

## If you're interested in learning more about the data explored here, I've linked a couple articles in the description. If any of the descriptions I've provided remind you of yourself, perhaps you'll be interested in taking a test. You can purchase one at understandmyself.com or if you're poor and stingy, like me, there are plenty of free tests online. Just don't waste your time with Meyers-Briggs, because it's worthless pseudoscience. <!-- this is an intellectually cowardly line but i wrote it here anyway... hmm...-->

## These traits are constraining, but not entirely immovable. It is possible to mitigate the downsides of each trait. For example, some highly Agreeable individuals will find it difficult, indeed, they may consider it kryptonite to put their needs before the needs of others. This may hamper their ability to advance in their career path, for example. Such people can take Assertiveness training, which employs a strategy a bit like this: every time your needs are trampled, or you're overlooked, or made to feel lesser than, you will feel resentment welling up inside. The natural inclination of the Agreeable is to quash that resentment and to suffer silently, even for the sake of their aggressors. Assertiveness training encourages the Agreeable one to channel that resentment into a form that can put their needs first. Sometimes life itself puts you through Assertiveness training; I, for one, started out incredibly Agreeable, then became progressively more disagreeable as that was taken advantage of, and dismissed. Such is life. Those who cannot learn to stop sacrificing themselves, will be devoured by their own empathy. <!-- too bleak?-->

## So now that I've thoroghly simplified, or perhaps complicated, the sociopolitical landscape, now we can square that with our understanding of the occupants of said landascape.

## This landscape is embedded within the most broad landscape that we all exist in: the narrative landscape. First, everything in the universe can be fundamentally categorized into two groups: that which we know, and that which we do not know. The territory of the Unknown, or Chaos, is vast and expansive, far more than any one of us can ever know. The territory of the Known, or Order, is small, finite, and precious. We, as rationally self-interested beings, intelligent and self-conscious, are designed to make chaos into order. Regardless of our big five trait scores, we all have a part to play within this Order, whether it's in preserving it, or whether it's in disrupting it for its benefit.

## Let's start with conservatives, after all, that's why we're in this mess. The conservative temperament is primarily conscientious, and secondarily disagreeable. <!--I'm not sure where I picked this up but this isn't remotely true; there is no correllation between conscientiousness and disagreeability.--> I believe the latter is an outgrowth of the former, though it could be vice versa and likely varies per person. Conscientious people prefer rules, order, and categorizations. They are quite novelty-averse, meaning that which is new, or Chaos, causes them to react highly cautiously and distrustfully and on the extreme end, violently. This is why those with a conservative temperament may suffer from out-group homogeneity bias in a more abject way than their liberal counterparts. This bias, for those who don't know, is a human universal. It is the tendency to erronously percieve that one's in-group is more diverse than out-groups. You see, when we're with our in-group, we percieve that group as diverse, because we know each member by name. We each share an abstracted ideal, values, a common conceptual schema, so we may behave similarly to one another, and we have our own culture, customs, inside jokes, and other common behaviors, but we're all individuals and thus we do not think as one. When you neither know nor understand the out-group, it's far easier to dismiss them as monotypic, when that group is just as diverse as the in-group. This is a human universal because again, Chaos is so expansive that we must simplify it into digestible categories in order to efficiently deal with it. Once we bring more light [lion king] upon the Chaos, and bring more of it to Order, the additional information is sufficient to bring even more of it to proper order. But until we can understand each other more deeply, we must categorize each other in order to continue living our lives without getting a headache.

## Those with a conservative temperament are not comfortable where the bondaries are not well-defined. They are not comfortable with Chaos. They see extravagance and carelessness as tantamount to suicide. They aren't completely risk-averse, and can be blinded by disagreeableness, but they're risk-averse enough to maintain Order well enough to make the Order habitable and prosperous. Often, their dedication to Order can reach near-autistic levels. [10 cloverfield lane] Living under such an Order can be oppresive. It will feel especailly oppressive to those high in Openness, who see Order as limitation and confinement. It's not difficult to imagine how this conflict arises. To be efficient and organized, is to be judgemental; when an ideal or aim is set, a judgement is required in assessing whether the mark has been hit or missed. [robin hood? brave?] Pure conscientiousness sees a missed mark, otherwise defined as a Sin, as an objective failure, and will seek to rectify it without delay or shame. Those who score low in conscientiousness don't care when they miss the mark, and hardly even see it worthwhile to aim in the first place. Conscientious individuals can't help but to see missed marks wherever they look, and will often point out their existence to whomever will listen. This makes them critical and judgemental, which is categorically disagreeable. Thus, the Conservative Ethos tends to come off as cold and heartless, and at its most disagreeable, downright disdainful and rude. This, clearly, is when their liberal counterparts are least happy with them.

## The highly conscientious will avoid Chaos at any cost, and prefer to work their entire lives at their maximum capacity. Conscientiousness is likely to be responsible for the vast majority of the global GDP at any given time in history, though this is near impossible to quantify. There are some people where, if you were to air-drop them onto an island with nothing but a hatchet, they would do nothing but chop down trees, build shelters, and work themselves to the bone for the rest of their lives. These are the hyper-conscientious. They often need help with balance in their life, but they have to be told it in the language of Conscientiousness; the work-obsessed CEO can be convinced with the data that productivity significantly increases when breaks are allowed or mandated, and when vacations are taken. So they can stop putting in 16 hour days, if it means that they can get the same amount of work done in 8 hours, because they more mentally organized, prepared, and efficient. A car traveling at low speeds has better mileage. But a car traveling at high speeds will get further faster. So fuel up completely, and spend more time at home, because your wife and children desperately need you there.

## The Liberal Temperament is primarily Open, and secondarily Agreeable. In this case, I believe there is no correlation between the two; in today's America, there is a growing chasm between the two. Those who are high in Openness prefer adventure, limitless and expansive. They prefer to experiment with their surroundings, innovating and creating, learning and expanding their horizons. [stark and parker] They often feel comfortable in a chaos of their own creation, given the beauty thereof, and that is where they work to be. On the extreme end, they are so destructive of boundaries that the chaos is inevitable for them. [joe hawley] They may find themselves resisting all forms of labels because their identity relies on boundless infinity. [hobie brown] They tend to embrace Chaos and to oppose whatever Order is in place. They find it difficult to understand concepts of dutifulness and self-discipline. Often, they struggle with accusations that they believe they are above the rules, even if they do understand them. They may struggle in school, not because they aren't bright, quite the opposite; because they are too bright to allow themselves to be subject to the hierarchal, orderly nature of organized schooling. Openness is synonymous to intellect, though overall IQ is not necessarily correlated. Several facets of Openness include Esthetic and Feelings, which women score higher on, and Ideas, which men score higher on, on average. They tend to be less novelty-averse; they seek to understand that which is new, rather than assuming it is dangerous. They tend to be resistant to out-group homogeneity bias, more so than their conservative counterparts. Often their disdain for boundaries and rules make them resistant to all types of groupthink, and the groups they gravitate towards are individuals first. Open liberals are the promoters of radical individualism. Groupthink is tiring or even sickening to them, no matter which group is participating in it. This is strictly due to their aversion to categorization. They seek not to be defined by anything, let alone that which they cannot control. They seek not to define others that way, either, because they don't want to limit their options of people they can participate in discussions with, if that means they can learn something new from them. Their love of Chaos, of novelty, can be their downfall in many cases.

## They tend to go all or nothing on their creations. They have no concept of 80-hour work weeks; on the contrary, they tend to spend their entire time exploring the vast expanse of chaos. This does not mean they are useless in a market economy, far from it. They are the generators of all the innovations. They are the movers of the market, and at large, society, from the technology, customs, and conventions of yesterday, to that of tomorrow. The metaphysical frontier exists within the view of their psyche, and they seek to conquer it all, sometimes to such a crushing degree that they're overwhelmed by the existential burden of the knowledge they've gathered. They're entrepreneurial; once they invent something of use to somebody, they create unimaginably successful businesses, or even singlehandedly create brand new markets unimaginable from those of yesterday. [ford, meet the robinsons?] Success is not guaranteed for them, however; their careers tend to be extremely high-risk high-reward. They make extremely risky investments of their time and resources, because they don't really understand how not to. This is why Artists struggle to make money or to get successful businesses off the ground. This is why industries that profit off of creativity are constantly having battles between the Artists, the idea-generators, and the executives who fund their projects. [brad bird vs. the executives @ disney] The Visionaries need to create, and can make a living off of doing it, but in order for that to happen and for their ideas to be publicized, the executives need to fund them, and they need to discipline them so that their work meets deadlines and is not wasteful of budget. The Creatives find this oppressive, but if they're in the industry, they know they need the funding in order to properly realize their ideas, share them with the world, and feed themselves at the same time. So they're willing to compromise their vision slightly rather than to sacrifice the whole like a monkey trap. Often, the limitations set by executives simply become additional creative challenges for them, and the work becomes better as a result. "They're not going to stop our creation" is a cry that pierces the heart of all creatives. [wolf of wall street, Iron Giant behind the scenes] However, this balance is tentative. If the creatives are given too much power, they run out of budget and miss deadlines, and the piece is not completed. If the executives are given too much power and oversight, and micromanage the creators, the creative vision is crushed and becomes barely profitable, meaningless corporate sludge. This is just one example of the balance [daoism] that is required in every facet of life, at every level of analysis.

## Secondarily, Agreeableness. [the wild robot!!] Those who are highly Agreeable tend to desire social cohesion, and seek to consider other's concerns, to care for the needs of others. Agreeableness is synonymous with compassion. On the extreme end, they put others first to the degree that they will sacrifice their own needs to the needs of others, even unto the point of death. They find it difficult to be assertive and to stand up for themselves. The only case they will fight for their own needs, is when their own needs are tied up in the needs of others. They tend to prefer a place that is safe, where the needs of each are able to be cared for without compromise between said needs. Competing needs frustrate them; they desire a state of being where all needs can be met, perhaps except for their own. Balance is incredibly difficult in this state. Their compassion for others is so great, that what hatred they have is directed towards themselves, others who are functionally indistinguishable to themselves, or others who are so different from themselves, that they must be put in the category of predator. Women are disproportionately Agreeable, and thank God for that. If women weren't self-sacrificing and compassionate to such an incredible degree, none of us would be here. Newborns are incredibly taxing to take care of. It takes a lot of compassion-based restraint not to chuck 'em out the window, and if you don't believe that, you haven't gone through the exhaustion of being a parent to a newborn. The evolutionary biologist literature suggests that's why women are so Agreeable; every caretaker that abandoned their child was eradicated from the gene pool. So biology necessitates that parents sacrifice their own wants for that of their children, perhaps to an insane degree. [parents running to console coughing child in middle of night]

## The Compassionate are wont to speak for the disposessed, for those who have no voice. They see the struggles of others as a call to action on their behalf, or perhaps on the behalf of the society that has left them behind. Some of the more conscientious among the compassionate, understand that others may not assist in their efforts to give a leg-up to the disposessed, and they will do it themselves. Some of the less conscientious, will dedicate their efforts to making the issues of the disposessed everybody else's problem, too. Dostoyevsky said, "There is only one way to salvation, and that is to make yourself responsible for all men's sins. As soon as you make yourself responsible in all sincerity for everything and for everyone, you will see at once that this is really so, and that you are in fact to blame for everyone and for all things." The overwhelmingly Agreeable take this principle to heart, though they may only enforce it against society at large, because their personal responsibilities are more pressing than that which is out of their control. Principles are, universally, easier preached than followed. Likewise compassion is easier expressed than enacted. The compassionate, when confronted with a heartbreaking situation, will advocate assistance towards the disposessed, some may donate to their cause. But if they attempted to right every wrong they witnessed, they'd forget to feed themselves. Many on the extreme end, do. [Chris from megapleggs... perhaps Ghandi? may be a bad example] So it must needs be that there is moderation in all things. Those who cannot stand up for themselves; children, those plagued by illness or addiction, the homeless, the mentally ill, the mentally and physically disabled, the disposessed at large, their struggles, challenges, and needs, require eyes, ears, action, and perhaps a mouthpiece on their behalf. For if the compassionate care not for those who cannot care for themselves, who will? Certainly not the disagreeable. The agreeable and the disagreeable, much like the Open and the Conscientious, must be confrontational in negotiating with each other. For when we cease to negotiate, we devolve into War and Chaos, on the individual and the societal level. The Compassionate are destined to knock on the doors of others, shaking down the disagreeable for the funds to care for those who suffer. [scrooge visited by beaker and dr funi] But the more they do so via the long arm of the state and the Government gun, the less willing the disagreeable will become. [are there no poorhouses...?]

## So Agreeableness is incredibly important, and constructive. It can also be incredibly destructive. Pathological Agreeableness is akin to a mother bear. It's great to be within the sphere of her agreeableness. If you're adjacent to her sphere of Agreeableness, watch out; she *will* maul you. Protection of the needs of the in-group above all, necessitates aggression against the out-group. Mama bear does not have time to assess threats. She must assume all out-groupers are threats. When Agreeableness becomes Pathological, nothing but destruction is left in its wake. Archetypically, this is represented by the Devouring Mother, or the Evil Queen. She seeks to imprison the Noble Knight, stripping him of his strength and power, releasing him only when he is too weak and feeble to make any meaningful difference in the world. Neither him nor his strength, courage, nor sacrifice can benefit the Princess if the Evil Queen gets her way.

## Openness and Agreeableness are allied, if not correlated. Those who are Creative and curious, create the means by which the Compassionate can meet the needs of those they have taken under their wing. Openness understands Agreeableness, as Openness seeks to understand all. Openness even understands Conscientiousness, though they may disagree on much, they respect each other. Conscientiousness also assists in creating the means for Compassion to meet needs. But Agreeableness often sees Conscientiousness as the enemy, identifying, and sometimes rightly so, that the Conscientious, and especially their overlap with the Disagreeable, creates the class of the disposessed. So Openness and Agreeableness have a pact to embrace Chaos, until the Chaos is so prevalent that Agreeableness has no more means to care for the disposessed. When resources are low, safety is a privilege, and needs cannot be met, Agreeableness flees to the Order maintained by Conscientiousness, and directs their Mama Bear towards those who disrupted the Order, even within their own ranks. The pathologically compassionate, likewise push the Visionaries away, due to their insistance on the tight boundaries of in-groups and out-groups, and also because too much Chaos is too disruptive to them.

## If you find yourself agreeing with one temperament over the other, and cannot see the value in sharing a society with the other, you're missing the entire point. Liberals start all the successful businesses. Conservatives run them. Look at Tesla, for example. Elon Musk is psychologically Liberal; he's so devoted to exploring the Chaos, that he won't even purchase a home. His ideas break the mold constantly, innovating so intensely that he's practically singlehandedly created the entire electric vehicle market, something we would have thought impossible a decade ago. He's generated many now-ubiquitous ideas and businesses such as PayPal as well. His ideas are incredible and quite profitable, but he fucking sucks at compromising his boundary-breaking limitless ideas with the wisdom of the current Order. In less philosophical terms, his cars are efficient, sleek, and more than adequately serve the basic functions of their design. But they sacrifice safety, function, and convenience for the sake of novelty. For example, the wisdom of conventional controls for windshield wipers are as follows: the operation of the wipers is controlled by a physical lever. All of the parameters are set by additional controls on the lever that differ by make and model. Why is this the case? Because it allows the operation to be executed without taking up additional bandwidth in the prefrontal cortex. In other words, it's subconscious. The windshield wipers can be activated, and the speed adjusted, by muscle memory alone. It hardly has to be activated by the conscience. This allows the conscious to give its undivided attention to the road, which keeps the driver, their passengers, and all other individuals on the road, safe. The visionaries with lesser conscientiousness do not appreciate the utility of this and many other features of both our cars and our societies at large, often because they have never thought about it and have taken such wisdom for granted. The tesla model [IDK] has its wipers activated by touch screen. This requires the driver to take their eyes off the road, and tap the correct option. There is no tactical difference where anything but the eyes can recognize where the option is, and which one has been pressed. Tactical feedback is essential for confirmation of an operation being completed; this is why most people overwhemingly prefer a computer keyboard with a certain amount of feedback. Almost nobody prefers a keyboard with zero feedback. [citation needed] Try texting on your touchscreen smartphone with your eyes closed and without using your peripheral vision. Your thumbs remember the general areas to tap, but without the confirmation of viewing the inputs, you will absolutely make mistakes. Mistakes while texting are trivial. Mistakes while driving can be fatal. Similarly, many other features are locked behind the novelty of voice-activation. I forsee many of these so-called "innovations" will become things of the past, even with the assistance of AI. Communication, though it differs across languages, takes up much more mental bandwidth than subconscious actions, as it should. Speaking commands out loud disengages other bodily processes from the activity. Humans are not designed to be treated as consciousnesses in brains, and brains in bodies. We are consciousnesses intertwined with bodies, and the brain is just the central locus of it all. The brain is inseperable from the nervous system, so it's hardly accurate to say that the brain inhabits the head. The brain *is* the body. Point being, tactical feedback is far from pointless, and we'll be safer if we don't have to look down to command the most basic functions of the death machines we operate on a daily basis.

## Additionally, whatever you think of the visual design of the Cybertruck, the entire thing hardly qualifies as a truck. The Cybertruck is probably Musk's greatest failure to compromise with the conventional wisdom of vehicle design. It competes pitifully with any of the basic functions of all other trucks. The windows boast very little comparative durability due to their lack of structural integrity, a concern they promised would be ironed out. The frame is weak and presents challenges of the lithium ion battery spontaneously combusting after a certain amount of wear and tear. In the event the vehicle does catch on fire, or other emergencies, those who are unfamiliar with the unintuitive design of the exits may not be able to escape, especially if disoriented from an impact. The doors cannot be operated unpowered for multiple reasons, one of which being the need for the windows to slightly open upon exit. When powered, the emergency exit will lower the windows. The emergency latch is unintuitive, but easily accessible on the front doors. Unpowered, the window will not roll down and will become damaged. In the rear doors, you must dig in the bottom of the door to lift a secret compartment, revealing a yellow pullstring that releases the door latch. Powered doors are a neat feature in line with Elon's vision for the future of personal vehicles. This feature will not catch on if the design thereof is not adjusted to address the safety of the operator and passengers. Elon's visions are magnificent and valuable. His achievements with SpaceX are awe-inspiring. It's not to say that going to mars won't present Elon, and humanity at large, significant challenges, but the only way to meet said challenges is with the input of both the Visionary and the Disciplined. It's tough enough to balance this within yourself, tougher still for everyone to be individually balanced enough to cooperate in balancing an entire society.

## If you're high in openness, you love breaking things. If you're highly conscientious, you can't stand the mess. [jbp] There is a moderate amount of the population who scores high on both, though it is somewhat rare. It is immensely difficult to have both, because you find yourself breaking things, then beating yourself up when you suffer the consequences. You understand that self-discipline is a pathway to success, but you find self-discipline taxing. The best balance for this, as far as I'm aware, is to find a job where self-discipline can keep you financially stable, while exploring the Chaos in your free time. Because if you're high in openness, you don't get a choice to not explore the Chaos. If you're high in Conscientiousness, you don't get the choice to not maintain the order. Keeping this in balance, pardon my German, sucks dick. Say you want to compose or even simply play music. You can recognize how the composition fits together, how the instruments are played, and you want nothing else than to triumphantly deliver your performance! But you can hear every wrong note, every incorrect rhythm. You can hear precisely just how off each timbre or tone is. So the openness and conscientiousness clash, and stop dead in their tracks, completely impeded by each other. Momentum in a forward direction is nearly impossible; getting anything done in this state is incredibly difficult. Children and adults alike find it difficult to complete assignments, deadlines, and even basic tasks due to this unending limitation on their conscience. I suspect this is common with those who are neurodivergent, though I have no empirical evidence to present to corroborate it. It's just a hunch.

## Conversely, the primarily Agreeable and the Disagreeable need each other as well. The overwhemingly agreeable don't know how to balance their own needs with the needs of those they have compassion for. The disagreeable, too, cannot find this balance, but they prioritize themselves instead. The Agreeable will go out on a limb wih their compassion. For example, the agreeable will offer compassion to the homeless by direct donations [hulk taco], charitable donations, and advocacy for policies and programs to help them (otherwise known as donation of other people's money). But when there is a poor stranger on their doorstep, they are forced to square their compassion for the generally disposessed with their compassion for the in-group. The in-group always wins. This is demonstrable with further examples. The Agreeable consensus agrees that there must be homeless shelters, and they're willing to sacrifice their own resources, or will seize the resources of others, in order to erect and maintain them. However, the consensus will divide on whose needs take precedence within said shelters. A Compassionate Feminist group will become discompassionate to male-to-female transgender individuals who decide to take up lodging within a women's shelter. Other Agreeables who prioritize Trans people will become combative with the Feminist Agreeables. This results in a Mama Bear War. [drawing of two combative (anthro?) bears, one holding up a feminist flag, the other a trans flag] The Agreeable Feminists will argue that subjective identity does not negate the threat of a biologically male individual entering a woman's space. The Agreeable Trans-Advocates will argue that the manifestation and presentation of said subjective identity opens the male-to-female transgender individual to violence within the male shelter, and there exists no third category of shelter for the transgender individual to go. There is hardly a feasible compromise between these diametrically opposed perspectives, thus a war is practically inevitable. Pathological Agreeableness eats its own when they cannot agree on the hierarchy of compassion. Does the compassion extend to individuals based on their individual needs, or does the compassion extend to groups based on their group needs? And if the latter is true, which group needs take precedence? The group that matters the most to anyone with the slightest degree of agreeableness, is the group that is most similar to you, or the one you personally feel more compassionate for. Universally, this is the group you spend the most time with; your inner circle of friends and family.

## The Agreeable need to become assertive, or more disagreeable, in order to champion the cause of their priority group. So their spokesperson, or protector, must be the most disagreeable among them in order to win in either war or negotiation. This is nested within the other dichotomy, given that negotiation requires both creativity, openness to understanding the opponent's position, and conscientiousness in communicating one's own position. Too much openness, and the communication sounds like lunacy and pie-in-the-sky ideological regurgitation. Too much conscientiousness, and the communication sounds inhuman and unfeeling. Depening on your perspective, one or both of these perspectives will sound idiotic. So every single individual requires balance within themselves, and the groups to which they claim membership also require just as much, if not more balance, in order to function without falling to either side. And believe you me, it doesn't matter which side you fall on when you lose balance. Both sides require a descent, and the fall is harsh.

## Within today's sociopolitical landscape, Openness and Agreeableness have a tight allyship and hegemony, though this allyship is beginning to fray. Liberals tend to be primarily Open, while leftists tend to be primarily Agreeable. The Conscientious disagreeables advocate for the hierarchy, and the Agreeables advocate for the disruption or even destruction of the hierarchy. Openness bounces between whomever allows the most freedom, tending to side against the order that has become an old, outdated, and corrupt tyranny. Neuroticism is also mostly in the middle. This dichotomy, between hierarchy on one side, and the criticism of hierarchy on the other, is classically referred to as the Right and Left, respectively. These definitions are overly simplistic and thus must not be applied so broadly, for the consequence is sociopolitical division and exacerbated polarity. Again, when negotiation ceases without the emergence of a new social contract, the only interaction we have left between us is war. [Klaus] If the left and right cease negotiation, war breaks out, new boundaries are drawn, and a winner is eventually declared. You end up with east and west berlin, where the balance is completely lopsided. [footage from meet the mormons?] You end up with Utopians on either side. Utopians are responsible for every major disastrous movement to have ever been realized; the belief in a perfect world that we can build ourselves up to [tower of babel] brings about not Utopia, but Dystopia, every time it is attempted. Archetypically speaking, we cannot build ourselves up to Heaven, we can only try our best to live the best lives we possibly can, in a way that doesn't make sacrifices of the balance required for the sustaining of life. We cannot build ourselves up to Heaven, but we're certainly capable of digging ourselves into some fresh Hell. Perhaps the most far-reaching truth that has been revealed to me in my twenty-three years of life on this earth is this: If you don't believe in Heaven, you're not looking hard enough; if you don't believe in Hell, you're not looking at all. Heaven is all around us, but it's subtle, quiet, and rarely recognized and appreciated. Hell is also all around us. Hell is in the loss of a loved one. Hell is in the eyes of the drug-addicted man who stares at passers-by from the gutter. Hell is in those who struggle to make ends meet. Hell is in those who don't know how they can make it another day. Hell stares you in the face when you turn on the news. Hell is in watching the results of an election, terrified that your life will be dictated to on high by somebody else's favorite tyrant. Hell is in pain, from everything as simple as the smart of a stubbed toe, to the searing pain of a mortal wound. Hell is in those who shake their fist at God. Hell is in those who take out their frustration with cosmic injustice on all the innocent around them who don't deserve it. [lenin, stalin, marx, school shooters...] Hell is real. If you've ever been conscious you know Hell is the realest thing we can ever have the misery of witnessing. Conversely, and more subtly, Heaven is also all around us. Heaven is in the safety and comfort of one's own home. Heaven is in the embrace of a mother [iron giant]. Heaven is in the kindness of a friend. Heaven is in the presence of those whose existence proves you're not alone. Heaven is in the courage of those burdened with the responsibility that comes with power, who refuse to use it for anything that isn't good [iron giant, spider-man]. It's easy to believe in Hell, it's hardly even a choice. It's the damn hardest thing any of us can do to even believe in Heaven, let alone to bring it about. When we're in Heaven, we should thank our lucky stars it's graced us with its presence. And we won't dare attempt to force others to bring about our pathetic imitation of Heaven.

## Utopians believe too much in a heaven that exists only within their minds. They believe it can be made real, which is delusional. They don't believe in shooting for the moon and at least landing among the stars. They believe in absolution to their aim, and the destruction of all who stand in their way.


If one, the other, or both temperaments refuse to at least leave each other alone, they will then enter into war with each other. And that's not a threat, that's a prophecy. 