major edit: sorry for the confusion, i assumed the english term character meant the same thing it means when your thinking of a character in a story or a play or a roleplaying game - a.k.a. content of the person (as the equivalent would in my own language), and did not know until now that it can actually be used to refer to moral integrity specifically. as a result, this thread has become a huge English fail on my part.
the actual topic i was trying to [melodramatically] address was typological prejudice in the workplace and in society at large.
@Coriolis - thank you for clarifying.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
so, does the alternative of typological prejudice means mister King got what he was asking for?
on the other hand:
can you really say that your typology (MBTI, enneagram, cognitive skill evaluations, or any other), supposedly meant to identify the ways you think, your internal motivational structures, etc', and other deep ingrained traits that define your internal processes, says nothing about your character?
the old-time fallacy of racism is that it was self-maintaining blindness to nature vs. nurture, it segregated people into different cultural and socioeconomic environments based on ethnicity, and thus was not able to distinguish between the consequences of living in said environment and the true nature, potential and behavioral tendencies and motivations of the human beings within them. but can the same be said about typology?
screw whether it's morally wrong by our enlightened standards to think like that or even consider the possibility that it is, the reason racism was morally wrong in the first place is because it creates artificial limits on one's capacity to explore their potential and contribute to society by assuming the person can't extent beyond that anyway - the morality of it was wrong because the assumption was wrong. can you really say something is inherently bad by appearing like something that is, when what stands behind it is entirely different?
can you say that traits that are applicable to your personality are then somehow not applicable to at least part of who you are as a person?
and btw, this is not some dystopian future scenario - typology is used as a means for employment and human resource related decisions right now by a multitude of privately owned organizations and companies throughout the western world.