There's a flaw in the argument.
The 'Golden Rule' is based on the principle of reciprocity, which
is a broad and general basis upon which to build interpersonal
interactions and relationships.
While it is true that everyone has different personalities, the
fact is that the vast majority of human interactions are
superficial enough not to require knowledge of the other person's
personality. In such scenarios, the 'Golden Rule' is still
valid.
If we take the psychologist's argument to its logical conclusion,
whereby everyone is entitlted to be treated differently on account
of their personal traits, then it would have to be argued that
there must be different laws for different people, which is an
absurdity as far as the governance of society is concerned.
Hence, the psychologist, by saying that the Golden Rule is not the
best, has committed the error of comparing apples with oranges. The
type of interactions that he probably had envisaged is of a
different category from that whereby the Golden Rule has its most
effective operation.
regards,
obiterdicta
