I reflect that there are four root-categories of people. The sheep, goat, camel, and cow. Furthermore, there is a rhythm of time/phenomena, in this (repeated/modulo) order. A 4x4 framework (or, 4x4x...) to reflect/research why and how they differ, even when they may look like each other, and reflect how we would differentiate/infer.
To think of them in a (quasi?) hemispheral-terminology, the sheeply-filter/repulsion instinct is a right-hemisphere thing, goatly is left-hemisphere, camel is both, cow is neither. That is, if otherwise equally intelligent, they may favor or reject, dare or run away, to/from, after their hemispheral instinct. The repulsion is caused by the noticed unacceptable context/thing, which lead to the tension/bad-energy. Camel is all-for reduction of that bad-energy.
That is reminiscent of the introversion concept of Eysenck: A reduction of mental-strain/energy.
Heat is a fine metaphor. A camel-team cool each other. A cows-encounter is a fight, the heat-up.
Are the camel and sheep "stupid?" No. That stereotype is inferrably after the diffuse-thinking (the right-hemisphere case). Even when he/she does fully repulse, he/she may fail to explain why. (The camel is half so.) In contrast, a goat is able to (sharply) explain his/her reason all the time, when he/she has noticed any wrong.
The cow is rarely seen as stupid -- alone -- (unless fooled by charlatans who targeted him/her). Instead, other people may notice that, all of that cow-hierarchy (e.g: bureaucracy) is stupid -- when/if their system does not really work.
Is the camel "not-original?" Why? As a result of his/her caution, camel thinking, would not diverge [a lot]. That is the internal-imagination case, though. The world is big, and there are other people. The camel does not live in his/her dreamland (as cow would love/tend to). The camel is tending toward external-imagination. That is, to reflect [wisely] on what is already in the world -- from his/her sophisticated view-angle. To relate in the fullest.
Each of the four have the difference of the masterly/manly/bossy vs. mild/feminine/motherly attitude. The masterly may recommend/impose, if not repulse. The mild may accept [& internalize], if not filter-out, run-away.
The masterly sheep would raise his/her voice in favor of their population-values, rule/custom/fashion/etc. The cow would rather impose himself/herself as the leader -- after that, may tell what he/she wanted them to do.
The mild sheep may even start to resemble the new thing, in time, while that is around. The mild-cow is the dreamer, while following what is ordered. Thus, what he/she does is no indicator of his/her internal world.
I reflect on the good people. That is implicit, as no sheep/goat/camel/cow is wicked. People may be wicked, though. They [try to] tweak the world, to hurt this, to grab that, etc. I am not ignorant about those. To publish about those, is trickier though, as they being wicked/playfool, they would take the list as only a list to cover their tracks. Instead of committing sentences to paint the pictures of the wicked, I tend to firmly re-inforce the good.
As a guide, though, I may point out that, in a way, the wicked people, no matter what type, bend toward the cow. Lieing is chaotic. Any (tyrannical, unrightful) bossiness and/or other abusiveness may provoke anarchy, too.
Even a "little-time liar" may lead to chaos, disrupted-communication, lack-of-touch with reality. e.g: A camel, if he/she lied, that means he/she ignored the real. If the lie may lead to messy consequences, he/she may find that extra difficult to erase, unless the full story is told/confessed, and the real-case is understood. The inertia of such lies/consequences may hurt each type, as if the case of a cow who tried to implement his/her wild imagination.
Islam does forbid lies. Yet, at the finer-level, Islam is the masterful there, too. For example, when otherwise good people fight (and most of them escalate that to stupid levels), to tell lies to them, is not a sin. Good point. Tone down their harsh, pejorative words toward each other. The chaos there, would exist in the escalation, which in fact, is the satanical urging [mostly, if not all the time]. Why take such satanically-urged boasts-and-sleights as "the real words?" Filter out the satan.
Sheep are sheep. Or, is that? Is that the single or plural "sheep?" A herd of sheep, in a way, is also a goat, as there may exist strong inter-herd resistance, among any non-compatible (or, remote) sheep-herd varieties.
To mount a pattern, upon another, for a human, is a piecewise modification? I do not mean a camel (who is already as if a sheep plus/minus goat). A camel plus cow, is an example, as they are the cold-v.-hot extrema.
(Ordinary sheep, w/ hidden attachment.) For example, if a sheep is immersed in a "remote" love (e.g: for Allah, the God, who is seeing him/her all the time), that is imposing upon him/her as the nearest (most important) herd/rule/role/love. That is, therefore, again a "goat-type" insistence, no matter what other/people may demand.
Although further reflection/research is needed, even these that I have exemplified here (and yet other, a herd of them, that I think of), point out that, the four, are not "only" four. There are patterned intricacies how they build up.
After their favored policies/philosophies, we may infer
Authoritarianism is not a monopoly of the cow. Although the cow-type people may have the ultimate urge to organize (& sheepify) other people, next, after/if there is that state instrument, the goat, nor the camel, would not remain at rest. That is, in return, they would repulse the imposed -- unless they like the implemented policies of that state/government. Thus, to rally their causes, they also race for presidency/etc. If the fight has bonified, they may have reluctance to let the rule to those who would impose what they would not like. That is, although a pecking-order is not their primary urge, the real-world case that, the state would pass to other people, may urge them to authoritarianism, too. (R-world is a remedy, there, as the people do not fight to grab the "center.")
I was inspired by a range in Quran, Enam(6):143-144, to reflect/research the four-mount typology. Indeed, the reason is that I think of, four to marry (polygyny). This noble quest, expanded into a huge dimension, and I have developed a view, unknown to the World, although I find this view valuable enough to refer to, in what I publish.
This framework may shatter (if not relate/unite) most old/other categorization constructs. For example,
For me, I think of having the four-mount, as the root-pattern of the AFRMZ menues on the pages I publish, too.
I have to differentiate what is from Quran, and what is a reflection of me (real-world data, if not a fable). I reflect/research to establish the root and each framework for mounting those, to arrive "new personality types."
To look out to the world, from a window/newspaper/etc, and to reflect/invent this four-mounting view, is not easy, if possible, at all -- although, easy to verify whether the construction is really helpful for informing/inferring.
We may verify that, only after we know this four-root typology, and how from the four-root, mounting (in a framework, or another) is leading to all the varieties of "personality-categories" that people have thought to exist. That is reminiscent of fractal build-up -- from the four-root, and through various mounting cases.
At the least, I may exemplify a lot. If this systematization may lead to success, other people, e.g: testing, and marketing people will get interested too. At the least, even if at the end, the inspiration I have reflected, may not reach the all-explanative status for all of the phenomena/people in the world, I have a root for fable & menues.