I’m not an expert on Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, but from what I gather, Nietzsche was a good example of a Type A personality, Schopenhauer of a Type B personality. Type A/B is the simplest way of categorizing and conceptualizing personality. Just two categories, though some add a third (AB) for those who don’t quite fit in either. Type As are competative, domineering, loud, obnoxious, aggressive, ambitious, assertive, obsessive, passionate, egotistical, hedonistic, and Type Bs are the antonyms of those synonyms. On this forum, I noticed an interesting contrast between Fixed Cross’ virtue ethics (Nietzschean) and Stoic Garden’s virtue ethics (obviously Stoic, or Schopenhauerian), two recent and intriguing additions to this forum. Cross is more interested in personal achievement (Type A), by contrast, Stoic is more interested in self sacrifice (Type B). It’s like Nietzsche was abstracting and deifying Type As, and Schopenhauer Type Bs, but both types have their pluses and their minuses, and I think we’d do well to try and balance them, but hey, maybe that’s just the Type B in me, maybe balance is just a Type B sentiment. I think Type A is good/appropriate when a person, society or animal thinks it can expand it’s sphere of influence, get more out of life, fullfill more of it’s desires, Type B is good/appropriate when we think we’ve had enough, or too much, and it’s time to share, give something back. I think they’re two mutually complementary survival strategies, neither one is inherently, universally preferable, but hey, maybe that’s just the rational in me.
Truth be told, everyone is a combination of A/B, though most people probably fit more in one or the other. Also of note, we can be Type A or B in different areas of our lives. For example, in most aspects of my existence, I’d classify myself as Type B, I just kind of go with the flow, let nature take it’s course, don’t get involved, couldn’t care less. Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not servile, I don’t want anything from people, nor do I give of myself. However, in the intellectual arena, I’m quite the opposite. I’m always challenging the status quo, my mind is like a battlefield, where ideas are perpetually competing for dominance, where as others are closed minded, contented, satisfied with what they think they know, with what they think they understand, they don’t question tradition, intellectual authorities and hierarchies. I am the exact opposite here, and I consider myself witty, highly intelligent, smarter than most, but otherwise, you wouldn’t notice I exist , financially, it’s like I’m not here, I contribute very little to society, I take almost nothing from it, and I’m happy this way.
I suppose society as a whole could be classified as Type A, B, or AB. Even though they had different ideologies, America and Russia were perfect examples of Type A personalities. America’s government was more passive (capitalism/conservativism), but it was aggressive in promoting it’s passivity. Capitalism/conservatism is a politically passive, Type B ideology, but America was aggressive in other areas i.e. economically, technologically.
Big government = Aggression, but socialism and communism are about as passive as an aggressive ideology could be, where as fascism is aggressive on both accounts, big government + competative as opposed to small government + cooperative. So, I think the Type A/B is an interesting way of making abstract comparisons/contrasts between people and societies, but it’s certainly not the only way. Masculine/feminine is a fine way, left/right brain is another, Plato’s tripartite division of the soul is yet another. I wonder if science will find neurological support for Type A/B.