Should personalities of individuals be considered when analyzing critical issues? Should charisma, popularity, formal education or motive of the individual matter when examining an issue as important as Independence? Use examples to support your answer and challenge others!
27 comments:
Personality shpuld only be taken into account on major issues when the person seems unreliable or likely to lie. John Adams wasn't well liked due to his personality, but he still was reliable enough to be listened to on a matter that meant everything to him, independence. But an unreliable person, such as the representative of RI who was drinking A LOT, should be questioned when it comes to bringing up major issues, for his judgement is deffinitely impaired in some way or another.
Personality should be taken considered when analyzing critical issues. If the person has not had good judgement in the past or doesn't have a good enough motive (like when they though Adams only wanted to be independent because his taxes were too high) it should be taken into account. Independence from Britian was a big decision but I think the other states should have at least considered to discuss the matter. I agree with black lizzy that the RI representive was not a reliable person to ask their judgement.
Nothing matters when examining crucial issues except for every individual's opinion. If you are a completely unbiased person then you will never be able to give a biased argument towards one side or another. If John Adams can convince you to go to war because his taxes are to high with simple charisma then your argument must not have been strong at all. Steven Hopkins can give his opinion, but no one who opposed it in the first place should be convinced by a drunk guy's opinion.
I think that the personalities of individuals should be considered when analyzing every issue. Like everybody else said, John Adams was a very reliable representative in Congress, but his reputation for being a jerk. The same should be thought of when thinking of Benjamin Franklin. He was a very respectable man, and his opinion was often used because people knew he was a smart man.
I don't think personalities should be considered when making a major decision. You cannot say, "oh, well THIS certain type of personality always wants to do THIS certain thing, and we don't like that personality, so therefore we can disregard its ideas." NO. It's not like that. All different kinds of personalities may have the same opinion on a certain subject. That should not be a factor when analyzing a critical issue.
Personality should be taken into account when analyzing an important issue, but only to a certain extent. The other members of congress were right to question whether John Adams only wanted Independence because he didn't want to pay his taxes. However, they were wrong to still challenge him when obvious reasons in favor of independence were right under their noses. If Adams really was a selfish jerk, and there were no other obvious reasons for declaring independence than the congress would be doing their job by challenging his proposal. In the situation the colonies were in with Britain, the congress should not have taken Adams' personality into account as much.
I don't think personalities should be taken into consideration. People can go a certain way on one thing and a total differnt way on another. You shouldn't stereotype people just by some of there decisions. Yes, the RI rep. def. was unreliable and a drunk but he was there for a reason. He must represent the people of RI and have good ideas! Everyone's there for a reason and you shouldn't say, "oh well this person messed up last time so we won't listen to him"!
Personalities need to be taken into account. No one liked John Adams because of his personality but he was the one who was the sanest as well as listened to everyone's opinion. Though he did question them he did listen.
Things like charisma and popularity should not be taken into account when analyzing issues, however things like trustworthyness and education should. You want a leader who thinks for his people, not for himself, and you need to trust that their decision is right. Their degree of education should also be taken into consideration, because those who are not as experienced in the field they are trying to make a change in might not be able to make as good of a decision as those who know more about what they are dealing with.
Sweet Mary Morris, are you saying that a drunk is a good representation of RI? A drunken man's judgement can hardly be considered a representation at all. I don't know if you are farmiliar with what happens to an intoxicated individual's mind, but I would not want a man in such a mentally confused state to represent my state. Judgement gets fogged by alcohol. I would also like to add that a very impressional person's opinion is not one to be taken quite as seriously as a passionate person's. The impressional Representative can easily be persuaded by other representatives, even ones that are opposed to the beliefs of the people he represents, while the stong passionate mind can withold almost any form of persuasion.
i have to disagree with black lizzy because there is no doubt in my mind that their personalitys should be analyzed. people, at the very least, should look at what a person has said in the past to what he is now saying, look for patterns in their past dealings with others, and use this to sepirate the bs from the truth in what someone is saying. because in politics it is very dufficult to seperate personal beliefs from what the people they are supposed to represent. and as i said before i applauded the senator from georgia for stepping foreward and representing his people and not just himself.
I definitely think that the personalities of individuals should be considered when analyzing critical issues. Without considering this you can come out with very biased analyses that are not entirely true. This especially can be disastrous when analyzing the issue of Independence. In the movie, the congress had many different personalities to deal with along with the people they were representing. One of the biggest personality differences occurred between the northern and southern states. They both had very different ideas on the matter, but they should not let their personalities get the best of them when deciding on this issue.
Personality should be taken into consideration when important issues are brought up. John Adams was very much disliked because of his personality, but after giving good reasoning for discussing the issue of independence, besides paying his taxes, they should have at least given him a chance to say what he wanted to and opened it up for debate. Then there were others such as Steven Hopkins. Even though he was somewhat liked for his personality, as black lizzy said, "his judgement is definitely imparied in some way or another", therefore, him bringing up a topic as big as independence should be questioned.
Yes personallities should be examined and anaylized on people in a very important issue because sometimes the personality may be a bad one and a bad influence on the issue. John Adams was all positve towards independance and his input on the debate was very provacative. I also agree with Black Lizzy and the others that the rep. from Rhode Island can not be reliable because he was under the influence most of the time and his oppinions and decisions could not be made correctly most of the time.
I believe that a person's personality is important to some extent. One must be able to understand and communicate with the people of the nation but must also be educated. There are many people that have charisma in the world but do not have the proper education to make decisions for the world. Also motives of the individual must also be examined. In the film Samual Adams wanted independence so that Massachusetts would be left alone by Britan. He may not have had the best intrests of all the 13 colonies in mind.
I have to agree with slappy o'hoolahan, and disagree with Black Lizzy. Past deeds will always have an effect on future events, because they show what a person is most likely to do. If this topic is thought about in a modern light, the run for Presidency immediately comes to mind. I have heard it argued many times that Obama should be president, because of his educational background, which is the opposite of McCains highschool-to-training experience. Again, Obama's charisma seems to come out above McCain's, as does his popularity. So, it kind of makes me wonder whether or not the people who care about such things will outvote the people who do not. We'll see.
Personality always plays a part. I think people need to look past personality, even if they go "Yeah, I really don't like this person". John Adams, as Lizzy noted, annoyed some people with his personality, despite being reliable and intelligent - of course everyone KNEW that, but his stubbornness made him seem selfish to some. On the other hand, a well-liked, friendly person's secretly selfish idea could be accepted no problem if one were to focus too much on their personality. I think Peg Leg Elena's comment makes a great point: people tend to generalize! Black Lizzy, I humbly disagree with your 2nd post, in a way. Sometimes being too passionately stubborn can cause a person to block out ideas with good intentions, but that may just be my opinion. Anyway, nice argument in that comment. :) In many issues, esp. this independence one, I think formal education is NOT 100% important (in an idealistic way), but it does earn respect.
Having a good idea can be useful as long as people agree with you. If they don't agree with you perhaps maybe they don't like you then your idea doesn't matter. However if your idea is GREAT then there is no way of denying it. Even if people don't like you your idea is so good it cannot be unnoticed. This happens with Adams his ideas are overlooked because the others find him to out there. However eventually his ideas are passed on to a new voice Lee. With Lee's help Adams idea on independence is finally heard. So like I said a good idea can become forgotten about but a GREAT idea always finds a way to come back.
I believe the only things about personality that should be taken into account when examining ANY issue is the education of the subject that the person has, because they cant make good decisions if they know nothing about what they are talking about. Past actions, and motives should be condsidered to some degree, but not too much.
"Mickey McCracken" states it pretty well.
Peg Leg Elena showed that people aren't always going to do what you think that they would. For instance, New York always abstained (courteously)in the debates. That doesn't mean he didn't have an opinion.
I believe that in a situation such as independance, one's character should be taken in appretiation. If for instance, If an arms dealer or weapon manufacturer hired some one to infiltrate the government and start a war or revolution in order to make a profit that would affect the public approval of the revolution or war, thankfully this hasn't happpened recentley... oh wait...
Ok, in an ideal world, no, characteristics such as charisma and popularity should not matter at all. Do they? of course they do. Everyone wants to be like the young, sweet-talking, good-looking delegate and go along with him; no one wants to follow loud and obnoxious men. However qualities such as formal education and motive should be taken into account. Good-looks aside, if they know what they're talking about supported by facts, and have solid evidence as a motive they should be given full attention - 100%. Agreeing with black garlin dove, once John Adams proved that he was not moving for Independence out of selfishness, all guards should be dropped and minds should be open for anything and everything he had to say - of course that would only be in an ideal situation. In reality, we pick and choose who to support depending on unimportant things like charisma (just as Charlotte de Berry pointed out with Obama and McCain).
Considering personality when debating a topic could certainly be a necessary thing. Peg leg elena sort of exaggerated the whole personality thing. Yes, considering personality could be taken to the extreme generalization and say "oh, this person has this personality, so, they must think this." Obviously, that is not a very fair thing to do. But there is a line in between. It is important to look at each and every person's personality even if it may be similar to someone else's because EVERY PERSON DOES have a different personality.
I don't think the personality of the person presenting the idea should be judged or taken into account. It's not the person speaking that matters, it's what they have to say that should make an impact or not. The people giving feedback need to check their responses in case they are basing their response to the proposal on personal feelings, which doesn't move anything forward, as shown in the movie, when no one would listen to Adams because they had already decided feelings toward him.
Personality is everything to be sure. As black Lizzy said John Adams was not well liked for his personality, yet his conviction was the biggest influence in the act of independence. He refused to give up on the issue and eventualy convinced the entire congress to side with him. He would not settle for anything other than free and that is what he achieved.
Personality has to do with almost every decision a person makes. their outlook on subjects alone is enough to alter their actions. people's different attributes are what make them individual and why they have independent ideas from one another. personalities are what make people unique and that is what is needed in a democratic goverment.
Hm....interesting question. I agree with the majority here and say personalities should be put into consideration when deciding critical issues. Personalities should NOT however, be a deciding factor when someone forms their opinion. For example, the movie showed us John Adams was very loud and annoying. Negative traits like those should not be taken into consideration when forming an opinion. Ben Franklin was extremely well educated, along with many other men. Since he was so educated, it would be a fair assumption that he knows what he is talking about. I agree with black lizzy about the RI rep. People say and do stupid things when they drink, and they cannot be trusted to make important decisions. So if it was only him speaking up for independence, i would choose to ignore him, because i would doubt his judgement.
Post a Comment