Temperament being part of contextual interpretation

Have been noticing how today's "outside my window" daily nature photo http://www.levalleyphoto.com/gallery/viewphoto.php?id=2327 demonstrates how much the brain alters what is exactly perceived by the eyes, by factoring in the surrounding context - in this picture we can "see" a flying white seagull instead of perceiving a black smudge on yellow smear - and this helps me understand some political instant interpretations of what people experience.

Of course, some political factions apparently collect people of similar Temperament, another strong contextual factor too.

I was impressed by the recent news descriptions of the recent fracas in Tucson - the Democrat news described it as a "shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and some of her constituents," whereas the Republican news referred to it as a "grocery store shooting." And that seems to indicate specific different frames of minds. Like, did someone shoot a grocery store; instead of shooting a Congresswoman and federal judge etc; or was the place of happening the only thing of interest, nevermind that some people got hurt - apparently by a loner-nobody freaking out - they were not part of "us" and therefore were against "us," and so the only important thing was the grocery store.

I think there might be some resentment about the technique that the Congresswoman Giffords used, typical of a "Catalyst" Temperament of "cooperative interaction" in person directly with constituents to learn of their concerns and opinions, whereas the "Stabilizer" Temperament folks would instead believe that a Congresswoman ought to only be cognizant of what had come up to her as filtered through the hierarchical rank's opinions' colorings. And my analysis of this in this paragraph is more typical of the "Theorist" Temperament functioning on this parameter per "scientific inquiry." To complete the four-Temperament picture, those folks of a more "Improvisor" Temperament would probably relate to it only as part of "performance with skill," aware mostly of the people's doings as the fracas was prepared and carried out by all involved there at the time, end of subject to them.

All four Temperament viewpoints seem necessary to cover the various contextual aspects of something, I think. And this principle probably covers much of human life, I'd think. Maybe if news articles would first announce a specific Temperament viewpoint that is to be utilized in the article, people could be alerted that the article might not be of their own individual Temperament's viewpoint.

Better yet, if news articles would be prepared separately on the page in all four Temperament viewpoints available simultaneously to all readers, it would bring much more balance to human awareness and interactions as a result. A reader could first go to the description from their own Temperament' viewpoint qualities, so as to be more comprehensible to them; then, if still interested, go for the other aspects of the event being described, aware they are valid, too.

But my experience indicates that some folks only tolerate their own Temperament's viewpoint, even getting furious at any suggestion that there might be other valid kinds of viewpoints; perhaps because they are coming from a "win-lose" thing, where the only important thing is "who wins," and that is a survival level issue for them.