I ran into someone who wanted to argue about a religious topic, and I was tempted to think, “People sure like to argue about religion.” (Of course I’ve done my share of that.)
Then I thought of other topics people like to argue about, like politics.
But then I thought, “people argue about everything. Sports, fashion, TV shows ….” Which got me thinking, “maybe that says something about a person — what sorts of things they like to argue about.”
The guy who likes to argue about sports is a different sort of person than the guy who likes to argue about religion.
Doesn’t that seem like something that should be included when we try to classify / organize personalities?
Question…are you asking if there should be an assessment to determine distinctions in the “types” of arguments people like to have? Or, are you asking if “the notion to argue” itself should be a part of a personality assessment?
The former.
It seems to me that what someone argues about says a lot about them.
That’s an interesting hypothesis. I don’t know any assessment that measures “argument temperament”, per se. Yet, what one argues about can correlate to what one has “interest” in. There are some assessments that attempt to measure interests. Still, I think those have a loose connection to your reference.
I often feel like people who confront me on a regular basis with their views on religion and politics are trying to invade my soul.
Many years ago I used to argue about religious matters mainly because they as close to metaphysics as people usually get. Of course those discussions usually went awry and I now realize that people are stubborn about their beliefs. Be that as it may, however, I think that at least one important division should be made with regard to people who like to argue about any given subject-matter, namely between those who simply find the topic interesting and those are are trying to convince others that their beliefs pertaining to the topic in question are true.
*they are as close to metaphysics