Im a ESFJ
http://www.draftymanor.com/bart/nt_per7.htm
Guardians and Idealists Contrasted
The differences between "Have" and "Feel" show up in almost every aspect of human life, but certain fields demonstrate these differences with a vengeance. Where Guardians enjoy the business world, Idealists are inclined to perceive commerce as impersonal and "dirty," and to view corporate executives as exploiters of the working class. Furthermore, Idealists, determined to change themselves and the world for the better, personalize the Guardian resistance to change as a deliberate assault on themselves and their goals.
Guardians, in turn, are equally suspicious of Idealist motives. They see the NF perfective impulse as an implicit statement that there is something wrong with them and their SJ impulse toward preserving things as they are. The result is a rejection by Guardians of Idealists as crusading busybodies who stir up trouble just to make themselves feel useful.
What we should see here on both sides is the lack of comprehension of the other's temperament. Both Guardians and Idealists can see virtue and utility in the Rational ability to plan and the Artisan ability to act. But SJs and NFs often see nothing of value at all in each other's styles--their world-views are just too different.
Again, these sound very much like modern political distinctions. I'm fairly certain that most Idealists are today's liberals and most Guardians are today's conservatives. The language that individuals in each of these groups use to criticize members of the other group fits extremely well with what can be predicted by temperament theory.
Liberals, for example, call conservatives "reactionaries." Seen in the context of temperament, that word carries an implied recognition of the conservative impulse to "conserve," to protect the structure of the world as it exists. That liberals clearly use the word as meaning something bad also demonstrates the Idealist insistence that "changing self" is more important than "structured world," that individual freedom must always trump social restraint.
Conservatives, for their part, use the term "bleeding-heart" to describe what they perceive as the liberal desire for personal good feelings no matter what might be the real-world expense to others. For conservative Guardians, to exalt personal license at the expense of necessary social order is selfish, childish, destructive, and wrong.
In short, liberals are concerned with rights, while conservatives are concerned with duties. Don't these sound exactly like the motivations of Idealists and Guardians?
For a concrete example of this diametrical opposition, consider the 1996 presidential campaign. After conservative candidate Bob Dole spoke of returning to a simpler America of the past, candidate Bill Clinton countered with a "bridge to the 21st century." Conservatives, with their Guardian preference for a structured world, saw the proper use of political power as preserving what worked; liberals, with their Idealist preference for a changing self, saw the proper political goal as changing what wasn't working. Both sides failed to understand the temperament-determined impulse of the other side as worthwhile... and the result of this mutual incomprehension was a presidential campaign that capped forty years of personal demonization and a whipsawing of public policy.
That's a rather amusing description considering I'm an engineer in real life. I just whip those computers in to shape like nobody's business. 
