The answer lies too in the force of need behind your issues.
’m afraid my answer is very INFJ though lol.
I suspect it is likely center to the self and the identity, hence the inherent variety of the preferences involved and therefore their competing co-existences.
Allow me to take this a notch higher or deeper, I don't know.
In the case of a housemate/roommate dynamic, the competition is within the territorial sharing inside the house. Presumably, that is harmless enough. Now let me digress a bit farther though somewhat parallel to the analogy of the existence of, say, bees vs humans. Both bees and humans share the earth as a territory. Both species (as well as many other competing species) have their own interests in their survivability. Bees are not subjected to human laws so that sets legality on the back burner of this discussion. Although humans could make laws to protect bees, let's just say it is non-existent at this point. When a Bee stings a human, it dies. Therefore, in the name of its defense, it has much more at stake than the human. Both species may assert their needs (no longer just rights). If a human is allergic to the bee, it -human- can kill the bee. Here, we have the competing interests of humans and bees. A kindly personality would likely say, the world is big enough for both of them, may they co-exist peacefully-----which is easy, really, right? Like duh, no brainer, let's just peacefully co-exist. But some bees are aggressive and some humans are just downright crazy, and presumably, conflict is bound to arise. How does fate/nature/god/universality decide the fittest survival of any of the competitors? Who gets to win/live and why? Why do they get to be the drivers of society and thus the writers of history?
I think of this in the context of human interests as well, i.e. competing states, competing ideologies, or competing husbands and wives. It becomes obvious to me that the orders of civilization seem to have been arranged by the dynamics of this competition. It seems random, but it could also be highly relative to contexts and givens. The colonizers of old likely became colonizers because of a steadily intensifying habit of survival while the rest of the colonized, having little need for competition, became a bit more passive. For example, many Native American societies in the past conceive the graces of the Earth (food) as food to share. Although there were competing tribes, the land was tilled for the community to share and there was lesser need for conquest. The Mongols surely would not agree, though we could possibly deduce that their aggression was acquired due to the harshness of their existence.
Essentially, up to when and where do we take the habits of competing? The assertion of preference seems a very simple exercise to the individual but what occurs at the core, seems to be the same values that fuel the issues that affect the larger world. We're all fighting to survive. So it intrigues me whether or not humanity, in general, can reach a point of compromise. Does all of humanity have the capacity to acquire the hippie disposition of "let's co-exist"? Hence, my asking here. I want to know what you guys think. I did of course suspect that it would boil down to individual values. It's just an interesting thing to reflect upon: in this world of competing interests, whose interests should rightfully exist? I suspect, what is allowed by nature is what is a relative winner... so then civilizations that have collapsed are simply just non-survivors? Losers? So I ask, to what end do we fight for our own preference?