“Live and let live” is a concept that most people agree with in theory, but we as a society often have trouble with the execution. Humans tend to identify themselves as belonging to different groups, so comparison and competition naturally follow. We desire equality and freedom, but it isn’t always easy to cooperate with others, especially if they have radically different ideas or beliefs.
One example could be a person who refuses to seek medical care – even in a crisis – because of their religious beliefs. Some people might find this practice alarming or dangerous. Conversely, someone with strong religious convictions might be alarmed and saddened by secular people condemning themselves to terrible consequences (in the afterlife) due to their lifestyle.
Laws exist to deter people from inflicting harm on themselves or others, but this does not control all potentially objectionable behavior. There’s a reason for this: it stems in part from the idea of personal freedom – that people should be able to live however they want as long as it does not adversely affect others. We asked people if they agree with that statement, and here’s what we learned:
A tremendous majority agreed – 88% overall. This is heartening for those who agree with the idea of “live and let live,” but also statistically uninteresting. The Roles layer was the only one with some clearer differences – let’s take a closer look at it to see who feels what.
Roles
Diplomats (91% agreeing)
Diplomats’ agreement with the statement was the highest of any Role (91%). Diplomats appreciate social harmony, and if everyone having wide personal freedom helps them be happy, Diplomats may favor this. They might be concerned about peaceful cooperation among so many differing views, but they would want people to have the ability to find individual fulfillment.
Analysts (90%)
Analysts tend to follow a logical “if, then” progression: if people aren’t hurting anyone, then let them be as they wish. These personality types recognize that they are part of a broader system, and know that things that apply to others apply to them, too – if they give up another’s freedom, then by extension, they give up their own. Analysts respect intellectual exploration more than just about anything, so they put aside their emotional judgments on the actions of others – even if they personally would not make the same choices – to preserve that intellectual independence.
Explorers (88%)
Explorers agreed with fair uniformity, but the Observant trait was associated with lower agreement. Unlike the Intuitive Roles, Explorers are less likely to sit around contemplating the long-term implications of the philosophical notions of freedom and order. Instead, they live it day-to-day. These personality types follow the rules because no one really wants to get in trouble, but they might not be too enthusiastic about a society in which uniformity and rules are carried too far. Explorers naturally want the freedom to pursue their own goals, projects, and perspectives, and other people’s business is their business.
Sentinels (84%)
Sentinels agreed the least of any Role, at 84%. Since all these personality types share the Judging trait, we would expect a lower number than other Roles, and we also see more uniformity within the Role. A lower rate of agreement among Sentinels makes sense. Sentinels favor order, cohesion, and tradition, so the chaotic results of everyone doing whatever they want might be a bit distressing to them.
Conclusions
The personality type that agreed most with the statement was the Turbulent Mediator (INFP-T), at 93%. Being generally contemplative and benevolent, they would certainly want people to be able to pursue their dreams, no matter how unusual those dreams may be.
The personality type that least agreed that people should be able to live however they want as long as it does not adversely affect others was the Assertive Logistician (ISTJ-A), at 80%. This was still a very strong tendency to agree, but might indicate a little more concern on the part of this sharp-thinking type. An Assertive Logistician is very likely to feel that there are definite conclusions to be found in life, and thus a possible best way to do certain things. This kind of ingrained certainty could make it tough for them to accept a differing view when they have worked so hard to find deep meaning and truth.
What about you? Where do you draw the line on just what affects others? Deepen the discussion in the comments below!