In David Wolfe’s book Amazing Grace, he says, “The situation on planet Earth and at all levels of perception has always been and will continue to be ’standing room only.” I tend to agree with that. Consciousness is the mental fortitude to question presuppositions and break the pattern of automatic pilot. And we when we use logic in lieu of tradition, we can break through some of the social hypnosis and change our reality.

Again, I really am not looking for anyone to agree with me. I am not attached to my view point.

Regarding our personalty traits: Florence Littauer wrote an excellent book on the subject a few years back entitled, Personality Plus. Its not only a great way to learn to read other people’s personality traits but, more importantly, its a way to read and get to know ourselves better. By learning about ourselves first; and which personality traits are the strongest and which are the weakest (whether we are a sanguine, a melancholy, a phlegmatic or a choleric personality — usually we have traits of all four at one time or another), we are better able to deal with other people. Once we know ourselves better we can then take the knowledge into the world. If we are able to read a person’s persona; or their personality traits, it makes it easier for us to know how is the best way to win them over — without intimidation — and make them into a friend. Literally stepping out on the right foot right from the start.

Regarding David’s point of view: I thought it was excellent. It is damaging to a person to be labeled; no matter what the label is. Most times the labels people give to one another are considered as being derogatory rather than uplifting. Many times the labels these people have been given stem from the time of their childhood and they haunt them to this day as an agreement. There is a part in all of us that rejects the label but the child in us (our pain body and our agreements), see it only as the truth — unless, or until, they can break the bonds of the agreements which hold them captive. Many times, people who are viewed as having a victim mentality are, in reality, trying to break the bonds of the agreements and the labels which other people have given them.

Thank you.

I’m interested in what he meant by sacrificing happy relationships and being a team player. I think I might read the book now just to get a better idea of what he really means by that.

Thus far, his book is excellent and the author appears to be a very benevolent soul. Opinionated and outspoken? Sure. And, entertaining, as well, maybe even saying a couple of tiny things he doesn’t quite believe himself but thrown in for comedic effect. While that last element is unfortunate (as that will most likely get pick up and ‘highlighted’ by many future reviewers), the book so far is outstanding and I look forward to completing it.

Everything I’ve read to this point tells me that I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who desires to become financially successful through adding value to the the lives of others (which, of course, in a free-enterprise based society, is the only way one can legally make money).

I am not familiar with the four temperaments. But I’m learning as I go. On Wikipedia it says:

“Many great charismatic military and political figures were cholerics. On the negative side, they are easily angered or bad-tempered.”

I might be wrong, but to me that sounds like a parameter. Obviously, we have a choice not to be either. But how can we have the choice if we’re not aware of the choice? And I think it’s more than an intellectual choice. It has to be a feeling–just as there’s a feeling associated with expectation. We may just disagree on a fundamental level, and that’s fine. I’m not attached to my point of view.

In any case, I totally agree, if you expect and look for the best in people you’ll usually get that. Whatever you focus on you get more of. People act according to the expectations you set up for them, which is why I believe that systems of labeling can be, and usually are destructive.

Thank you John for making me think a little more.

Knowing details about someone’s background, upbringing, experiences, likes and dislikes, talents and skills, personal history, aspirations and disappointments . . . these can all help me gain a deeper understanding of that person, as can the choleric. phlegmatic, etc., typologies. But there’s no judging there.

On the other hand, the kind of experience you’re talking about is powerful indeed (and is discussed quite brilliantly, for example, in the new book Sway, by our friend Ori Brafman). Study after study has shown that people tend to live up to (or in some cases, DOWN to) others’ expectations. If teachers are told a certain student is especially slow, or exceptionally brilliant, even if that student is in fact quite average, the student will tend to alter his performance to match the teacher’s view.

This is a very different thing than the choleric/melancholic issue. This is an issue of learning to see the very best in people — and knowing that in many cases, that “optimistic” perspective will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, a choleric type of person can grow to become pushy and stubborn, or a brilliant and empathetic leader — depending in part on what expectations the people around him have of him.

My philosophy is, always expect the best in people — more times than not, you’ll turn out to be right!

I believe that the labeling and categorization of people is destructive. I.Q. tests, personality types/tests/analyses, character analyses, horoscopes — these things do not serve us. They only tell us what and how to think; more agents of control. When you say, “But be careful not to pigeonhole or oversimplify anyone,” isn’t that almost exactly what you’re doing? Isn’t that like saying, “Taste, but don’t swallow”? I was taught in my Management of Organizational Behavior class that stereotyping is used for efficiency. I realize that. And I realize that saying stereotyping is bad is an oversimplification in itself. But mind/soul labels and mind/soul types hinder awareness and keep us “under control.”

We act according to our own expectations, and if we don’t know any better, we will act according to someone else’s expectations based on some test. Because of a test, I believed I was mentally retarded from 3rd grade through 8th grade. But somehow I was born with an unremitting curiosity, and by 9th grade I knew there something wrong with the world. I didn’t know what it was, but like Morpheus said, “It was there like a splinter in my mind driving me mad.”

In the case of Felix Dennis, it’s tempting to analyze his character and/or personality. But obviously none of us know him personally or even read his book. What we can do is look at the ideas that he presented in the quotes he gave and try to use them to improve our own understanding of the Truth. Ideas can serve us; judging and/or analyzing people really does not.

And this relates to the judging of people. It is a vice that I continually struggle with, but am improving each day with forgiveness, gratitude, and love.

The four types — ruby (choleric), sapphire (sanguine), pearl (phlegmatic) and emerald (melancholic) — is a fascinating and useful way of looking at people. But be careful not to use it to oversimplify or pigeonhole people.

For example, I would respectfully disagree that reds are stubborn, insistent on their own way, and are absolutely uncoachable. My experience of “Ruby” types is that they are dynamic, driven, often charismatic, easily come across as forceful — but those traits are just as likely to manifest as positive qualities than as the negative ones you mentioned. It depends on the person, and his or her level of self-development, maturity, self-awareness and acceptance.

Also, there is of course no such thing as “a red,” in the absolute — we all exhibit aspects of all four types, just in different degrees and mixes. So even the most flamingly aggressive “red” has other aspects and attributes as well, including the thoughtfulness of the pearl, the steadfastness of the emerald and the joyfulness and sociability of the sapphire somewhere inside.