1. Discovering My Personality Type.
According to: David Kiersey and Marilyn Bates, Please understand me: character & temperament types; 5th edition. Gnosology Books, Ltd.; distributed by Prometheus Nemesis Book Company, c1984. 210p.
Kiersey and Bates base their book on the Myers-Briggs typology of 16 personality types that originated in the thinking of Carl Gustav Jung. Here, the instrument for identifying type, “The Kiersey Temperament Sorter,” has 70 questions that each ask for choices between two alternatives. Answers when tabulated from an inventory sheet translate to personality preferences.
They describe and compare each of the preferences that go into making up personality. These are preferences between:
Extraversion (E) and Introversion (I);
Intuition (N) and Sensation (S);
Thinking (T) and Feeling (F);
Judging (J) and Perceiving (P).
Choices between pairs of preferences may vary markedly or split evenly so that Kiersey and Bates allow for 16 additional types to the Myers-Briggs 16, so called X types. Not all students of personality agree on these X split types.
Kiersey and Bates describe four possible temperaments resulting from the combination of preferences. Temperaments, though not understood here as “functional” as Jung did, carry his descriptions and become operational or predictive as to how types deal with different issues and forces. They name these temperaments as:
the Dionysian (SPs) who must be free;
the Epimethan (SJs) who long for duty;
the Promethean (NTs) who must understand and control nature, not people;
the Apollonian (NF) who seek to become themselves.
Two chapters follow that discuss how differing types play out among partners and within the family where there may also be children. These are interesting and helpful in understanding and working with relationships especially when the relationship established itself without the benefit of prior knowledge in typologies and in what manner partners would find themselves. Equally illuminating is a chapter on the behavior and relationships of each personality type in work situations.
An appendix, pages 167-207, provides summary descriptions of the 16 profiles, apt and illuminating even after all the preliminary profiling and information. Previously, Kiersey and Bates attached each of the types with an occupational character, given below. Each of the types constitutes an approximate percentage of the U.S. population. Apparently, breakdowns vary among other nations and cultures.
ENFJs (Pedagogue; 5%) place people as the highest importance and priority;
INFJs (Author; 1%) are complex and reserved, yet empathic of and concerned for others;
ENFPs (Journalist; 5%) strive for the authentic and intense emotional experiences;
INFPs (Questor; 1%) have strong internal values and care deeply, but selectively;
ENTJs (Fieldmarshal; 5%) are driven to lead and provide structure for tasks;
INTJs (Scientist; 1%) live in an introspective reality, focusing on possibilities;
ENTPs (Inventor; 5%) want to exercise their ingenuity in the world;
INTPs (Architect; 1%) seek precision in thought and language and work through contradictions;
ESTJs (Administrator; 13%) are responsible, orderly and fond of following procedures;
ISTJs (Trustee; 6%) are dependable, as good as their word, and thorough;
ESFJs (Seller; 13%) seek sociability and promote harmony;
ISFJs (Conservator; 6%) want to be of service and minister to individual needs;
ESTPs (Promoter; 13%) are action-oriented;
ESFPs (Entertainer; 13%) are generous and fun to be with because they want to be with others;
ISTPs (Artisan; 7%) are impulsive and enjoy action in itself;
ISFP (Artist; 5%) express themselves through action in finished form (art);
As for me, I am an INTJ with a score almost as 100% on the INTJ inventories as you can get. I am absolutely as happy as can be with being INTJ because it not only coincides with my own level of self-awareness, but also helps explain why the rest of the world is not like me and never has been throughout my lifetime. It is a great relief, having regarded myself as markedly different through most of my childhood and life besides also treated as different by others, finally to find a pleasing and well-worked out explanation as to why this difference exists.
Where Kiersey-Bates and I coincide is in how I see myself:
The world of thought, developed through examination and logic, is more real and certainly preferable to the outside world.
Formal logic is useful, but secondary to intuitional coherence.
The long run is of far more importance than the immediate.
My proper work is theory, and theory is the studied precursor to action. However desirable it is for the ideal to become real, this desired realization of the ideal, given history, does not readily happen and may not happen.
Unfortunately, I cannot see learning as accumulative either individually or collectively. Rather the ignorance of individuals and societies is pervasive, recurrent and often regressive.
Many problems take a long time to think through. How preferable it would be to think about them in single-minded mode, but that is often not possible, since multiple problems confront us simultaneously.
I can live with a lot of uncertainty and imprecision thanks to tentative confidence in some basic principles undergoing development. Given enough time for investigation, analysis and thought I, or some others, will arrive at an eventual and positive resolution, even though that may be temporary.
Changing ideas means changing reality. Even when I see the need to change my thinking it is hard to do and often requires mulling time.
Authority is meaningless apart from an idea that is convincing.
Correlatively, most decisions about ordinary things have marginal significance and are easily made. Social conventions are easy to follow since they are arbitrary and matter little one way or another unless they get in the way of more important things.
I like people in general and have no skepticism of individuals until shown otherwise. I have always had only a very few close friends since the depth of relationship that is wanted requires sharing of values, ideas, and aims in a fuller dialogue than can be achieved from most acquaintances.
I am most fortunate to be in love with my best friend to whom I am married and to have wonderful children and grandchildren. I believe in the mutual nurturing of family members and am pleased to be surrounded by independent and responsible people.
As an INTJ, I may have in the past verged on the following but am glad I am not:
an ENTJ, because I have no desire to lead except in functional or intellectual capacities;
an ISTJ, because though I can handle data and detail, I want to chose it and not become mired in it;
an INFJ, because ideas are more comfortable to me than people (I could have become a theologian, but not a very good pastor);
an INTP (to which I see myself closest), because I focus on coherence not contradiction and want closure - even though I recognize its tentative nature - rather than seeking more data.
My typology weaknesses are:
I am no good at conversations that are phatic, composed of small talk or exchanges of everyday events, just to be friendly and establish relationships. If we’re going to talk lets talk about tasks, issues, and ideas.
I do not like games and am no good at them either as participant or spectator because they seem distractions from the important matters of life, and they require so much time and sometimes money to get good at them, resources better spent on more significant concerns. To me games are basically boring and ultimately wasteful.
I have a tendency to judge too quickly when I think other viewpoints or data are out of bounds or won’t make any difference. I see this as my worst fault.
I regret that I cannot narrow my interests or focus sufficiently to pursue one thing to the end. I try to discipline myself to complete work on a schedule, but I fail.
Usually, I have to think about important and new matters for some time before I can act, and that causes a time crunch down the line.
I’m engaged in nearly constant revision because the expression is not ever as full, clear, elegant and convincing as it could be.
I tend to spend time on the matter uppermost in my mind or current priority to the neglect of other things until they become a priority. This leads to last minute work, which I do not like, but has the benefit of having been in my mind for a while unless I forget it.
I tend to forget things.
My INTJ is part 1 of a 5-part look at my personality based on various approaches. See also My LifeKey (2), My Learning (3), My Thinking (4), My Solo (5).
© 2009 by Roger Sween
I welcome substantive comment on the contents of this blog. Personal comments may be made to my email address, given above.
Showing posts with label Typology (Psychology). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Typology (Psychology). Show all posts
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
My LifeKey
2. Discovering My Personality Type.
According to: Jane A.G. Kise, David Stark, and Sandra Krebs Hirsh, LifeKeys: discovering who you are, why you’re here, what you do best. Bethany House Publishers, c1996. 272p.
These three authors make a wonderful transition from the “better management through psychology” approach to values-based, kingdom of God-oriented personal worth and work. They do so by using their talents and skills as a writer, pastor, and management consultant with actual experience in the techniques the book outlines. As a team, they worked with their own congregation, a Minnesota Twin Cites suburban protestant church. This stance, a pronouncedly evangelical one, presents Biblical grounding and psychological foundations so that individuals see their gifts and connect with opportunities to use them in serving God and others.
Their aim for Christians is that more lives will be fulfilled with purpose and meaning because they have helped individuals see the match between who they are and what they do or may do. Service and satisfaction are the desired intertwined outcomes. They found church members curious about lives of fulfillment or bothered by changes, either external forces or their own anxiety to find a better fit by doing something different.
Often members do not recognize the gifts they have, do not value them, and do not use them as they might. Change begins in the Christian understanding that God created and values every individual and that God has work for each person to do. Members may accept this piece of doctrine, but regard their own part in it as insignificant and in no way special. By a combination of scriptural promise, scientific information, life examples, exercises and thoughtful self-examination men and women open to their LifeKeys. The battery of techniques used in small group settings come together in this manual for self-analysis and personal decision-making left to each person.
Holland’s hexagram of six areas of preference in work becomes the first approach. The preference clusters are the Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. Identification tables for each preference lead to an examination of experience in each of work area and rating what one liked most or where individuals feel most comfortable. These preferences are called “life gifts,” what we have been given for our lives in the world.
The Biblical bases of “spiritual gifts” follow as evidence of God working in people’s lives. Each gift is peculiar to Christian life and teaching with meanings distinct from their secular references where they may occur: Administration, Apostleship, Discernment, Encouragement/Counseling, Evangelism, Faith, Giving, Healing, Helps, Hospitality, Knowledge, Leadership, Mercy, Miracles, Prophecy, Shepherding, Teaching, Tongues, Wisdom. Questions help identify one’s experience of each gift, and suggestions offer guidance in how the gift may be exercised and strengthened. Afterwards, people rate their endowments in each gift and select their top five.
A section on the Myers-Briggs typology briefly guides people to identify their preferences among the E-I, S-N, F-T, P-J pairs. Profiles of each of the 16 resulting types follow. They identify the order of Jung-identified dominance among preferences and warn against a dysfunctional “trap” for each type. Types come with an identifying scriptural quote and outlines of church relationships:
Contribution to the spiritual community.
Leadership style.
Preferred environment for service.
Common confessions [that is, weaknesses].
Possible spiritual helps [ways of addressing the weaknesses].
In an exercise of values clarification, 51 values are stated and briefly defined on attached card sheets. The 51 range from “Accuracy: Being true or correct in attention to detail” to “Variety: Desiring new and different activities, frequent change.” People may include values not listed. The cards allow for sorting and prioritizing. By this process, individuals identify the top 8 that are “very valuable to me.”
In putting all these self-assessments together, the inventory asks people to consider their “passions,” where they are most eager and how they want to expend their energies. Concluding chapters take a “go slow” approach so that people give thought and reflection to themselves before they identify their mission in Christian life and plan how they will commit to it.
Where I match with Kise-Stark-Hirsh has its basis in that I am a Christian of the Lutheran persuasion and believe that I have had a blessed and fortunate life within the church that has been one of the major factors in my life. Although dutiful as a child and teenager, and although I attended a college of the Lutheran church, I have had a number of ethical and theological issues with the church over the years, most of which I have resolved. I was very studious about the Bible and church teachings as a child and remained active in Luther League and attended Sunday School until I graduated from high school. I was best friends with the pastor’s son, and his father encouraged me towards the ministry and most likely assumed I would go there. I certainly thought about it but regarded myself as too shy and incapable of performing the all the social requirements placed on pastors, especially Lutheran ones. Chiefly, I did not see myself as overtly evangelical and shunned intruding too much into the lives of others. Had it been offered, I could have gone to seminary and become a theologian and teacher. I might have done that, but it never dawned on me. I never really thought how pastors in the Lutheran church prepare to be pastors. Besides languages were always difficult for me and I doubted I could learn Greek, let alone Hebrew.
My alignment with Holland’s hexagram is in the obvious Investigative preference where possible activities include:
Inventing; for me, inventing systems and expressions of thought.
Researching; for me, learning and examining what our progenitors thought, especially philosophers and theologians, and what is thought about them.
Conceptualizing; that is, developing ideas and theories.
Working independently; which is obvious when you do thinking and research, though I do acknowledge the benefit of dialogue with others of shared interest.
Solving complex problems; which are, what shall we do in our contemporary lives and society in the light of the Gospel? This is an age old problem expressed as, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”
My identification of my spiritual gifts readily named the top five (listed alphabetically):
Administration: the ability to organize to work efficiently for the Body of Christ.
Discernment: adept at recognizing what is and what is not of God.
Knowledge: the ability to understand, organize, and effectively use information for the advancement of God’s purposes.
Teaching: the ability to understand and communicate God’s truths to others effectively.
Wisdom: the ability to understand and apply Biblical and spiritual knowledge to complex, paradoxical, or other difficult situations.
For me, these five are interrelated aspects of one whole. The administrative ability is of information and ideas, not of organizational structures. The teaching ability may be face to face but is more likely communication through some media. Knowledge is more my forte. I recognize discernment and wisdom in myself, but discernment is a scary business bothersome to me by its potential for falsity and persecution; and wisdom shall ever be humanly incomplete though I most desire and seek it.
In practice, it is easier for me to find my niche outside of a specific congregation or denomination in the wider community. There the teachings of the church in the universal sense can be announced and explored as a basis for human behavior, human relationships, and social or political action.
Of course, I am an INTJ. “I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven.—Ecclesiastes (NRSV) I:13. Incidentally, Saint Paul by psychohistory gets typed an ENTJ.
The profiling fits me to a T, such as “Contribution to Spiritual Community:”
Envisioning systems to create a better world.
Breaking new ground, shifting paradigms, and changing the way people view things.
Designing or adjusting strategies and structures for future needs.
Thinking and acting independently from traditional or outmoded ways.
As far as values—those things I most deeply honor and must follow to achieve the life I want – I identified only 6 of the requested 8. Kise-Stark-Hirsh ask for 8 and a second 8 as they expect people to grow and shift their relative values over time. At my age and after decades of reflective introspection, I have settled on 6. My ranking as follows.
1. Learning—Lifelong commitment to growing in understanding. For me, lifelong questioning and growth of knowledge towards breadth and wisdom.
2. Independence—Wanting control of own time, behavior, tasks. For me, freedom and ability to probe and formulate.
3. Artistic expression—Expressing self through the arts: painting, literature, drama, etc. For me, high quality creative written communication that reaches others with meaning and significance.
4. Service—Helping others or contributing to society. For me, benefit the common good over time and distance.
5. Influence—Capacity to affect or shape people, processes or ideas. For me, positive impact on others learning, thinking, knowledge and understanding.
6. Friendship—Placing importance on close, personal relationships. For me, close and deep personal connections; these are necessarily few.
I thought it significant, that though the exercise asks for no more than 8 values, I could readily identify the six priority ones in the first pass. In part my selections are due to my own definitions of them. Service ranks high because it is for the common good, not otherwise listed as a value. Influence ranks because it means ideational impact.
As far as “passion” is concerned, it is hard for me to think of this characteristic other than where I focus my efforts. I am not passionate about anything in the emotional sense because I am usually and try to maintain a rational, reflective, objective, polite and sedate approach to life and its challenges. I do get quickly irate, however, over stupidity-based decisions, persistence in ignorance, the flight from problem identification, and the persistent desire for a simplicity that is less than the dimensions of reality. Unfortunately, none of these demonstrate positive passion. Nevertheless, I regard that my whole life has been in the service of human potential through discovery, learning, educated growth and informed decision-making. For these endeavors, I see myself a missionary.
Besides the weaknesses already mentioned, my preference for distance from most other people limits me. It is difficult for me to get too far engaged in my own congregation, though I have at times taught Sunday school, served on committees, been an usher (which I detested), led adult forums, and participated in many other forums, especially if they had intellectual content. Mostly, I find it exhausting to expend the effort to do things that ought to be done in due course in the church anyway. Within its bureaucratic structure, Lutheran congregations and the church-wide assembly can be more concerned about not giving offense than about doing the right thing. If I was better with people or felt I had more time, I might try harder. At my age, I feel myself in retreat to regroup, psychologically and intellectually, and choose the battles where I just might be able to do something productive.
My LifeKey is part 2 of a 5-part look at my personality based on various approaches. See also My INTJ (1), My Learning (3), My Thinking (4), My Solo (5).
© 2009 by Roger Sween
I welcome substantive comment on the contents of this blog. Personal comments may be made to my email address, given above.
According to: Jane A.G. Kise, David Stark, and Sandra Krebs Hirsh, LifeKeys: discovering who you are, why you’re here, what you do best. Bethany House Publishers, c1996. 272p.
These three authors make a wonderful transition from the “better management through psychology” approach to values-based, kingdom of God-oriented personal worth and work. They do so by using their talents and skills as a writer, pastor, and management consultant with actual experience in the techniques the book outlines. As a team, they worked with their own congregation, a Minnesota Twin Cites suburban protestant church. This stance, a pronouncedly evangelical one, presents Biblical grounding and psychological foundations so that individuals see their gifts and connect with opportunities to use them in serving God and others.
Their aim for Christians is that more lives will be fulfilled with purpose and meaning because they have helped individuals see the match between who they are and what they do or may do. Service and satisfaction are the desired intertwined outcomes. They found church members curious about lives of fulfillment or bothered by changes, either external forces or their own anxiety to find a better fit by doing something different.
Often members do not recognize the gifts they have, do not value them, and do not use them as they might. Change begins in the Christian understanding that God created and values every individual and that God has work for each person to do. Members may accept this piece of doctrine, but regard their own part in it as insignificant and in no way special. By a combination of scriptural promise, scientific information, life examples, exercises and thoughtful self-examination men and women open to their LifeKeys. The battery of techniques used in small group settings come together in this manual for self-analysis and personal decision-making left to each person.
Holland’s hexagram of six areas of preference in work becomes the first approach. The preference clusters are the Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. Identification tables for each preference lead to an examination of experience in each of work area and rating what one liked most or where individuals feel most comfortable. These preferences are called “life gifts,” what we have been given for our lives in the world.
The Biblical bases of “spiritual gifts” follow as evidence of God working in people’s lives. Each gift is peculiar to Christian life and teaching with meanings distinct from their secular references where they may occur: Administration, Apostleship, Discernment, Encouragement/Counseling, Evangelism, Faith, Giving, Healing, Helps, Hospitality, Knowledge, Leadership, Mercy, Miracles, Prophecy, Shepherding, Teaching, Tongues, Wisdom. Questions help identify one’s experience of each gift, and suggestions offer guidance in how the gift may be exercised and strengthened. Afterwards, people rate their endowments in each gift and select their top five.
A section on the Myers-Briggs typology briefly guides people to identify their preferences among the E-I, S-N, F-T, P-J pairs. Profiles of each of the 16 resulting types follow. They identify the order of Jung-identified dominance among preferences and warn against a dysfunctional “trap” for each type. Types come with an identifying scriptural quote and outlines of church relationships:
Contribution to the spiritual community.
Leadership style.
Preferred environment for service.
Common confessions [that is, weaknesses].
Possible spiritual helps [ways of addressing the weaknesses].
In an exercise of values clarification, 51 values are stated and briefly defined on attached card sheets. The 51 range from “Accuracy: Being true or correct in attention to detail” to “Variety: Desiring new and different activities, frequent change.” People may include values not listed. The cards allow for sorting and prioritizing. By this process, individuals identify the top 8 that are “very valuable to me.”
In putting all these self-assessments together, the inventory asks people to consider their “passions,” where they are most eager and how they want to expend their energies. Concluding chapters take a “go slow” approach so that people give thought and reflection to themselves before they identify their mission in Christian life and plan how they will commit to it.
Where I match with Kise-Stark-Hirsh has its basis in that I am a Christian of the Lutheran persuasion and believe that I have had a blessed and fortunate life within the church that has been one of the major factors in my life. Although dutiful as a child and teenager, and although I attended a college of the Lutheran church, I have had a number of ethical and theological issues with the church over the years, most of which I have resolved. I was very studious about the Bible and church teachings as a child and remained active in Luther League and attended Sunday School until I graduated from high school. I was best friends with the pastor’s son, and his father encouraged me towards the ministry and most likely assumed I would go there. I certainly thought about it but regarded myself as too shy and incapable of performing the all the social requirements placed on pastors, especially Lutheran ones. Chiefly, I did not see myself as overtly evangelical and shunned intruding too much into the lives of others. Had it been offered, I could have gone to seminary and become a theologian and teacher. I might have done that, but it never dawned on me. I never really thought how pastors in the Lutheran church prepare to be pastors. Besides languages were always difficult for me and I doubted I could learn Greek, let alone Hebrew.
My alignment with Holland’s hexagram is in the obvious Investigative preference where possible activities include:
Inventing; for me, inventing systems and expressions of thought.
Researching; for me, learning and examining what our progenitors thought, especially philosophers and theologians, and what is thought about them.
Conceptualizing; that is, developing ideas and theories.
Working independently; which is obvious when you do thinking and research, though I do acknowledge the benefit of dialogue with others of shared interest.
Solving complex problems; which are, what shall we do in our contemporary lives and society in the light of the Gospel? This is an age old problem expressed as, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”
My identification of my spiritual gifts readily named the top five (listed alphabetically):
Administration: the ability to organize to work efficiently for the Body of Christ.
Discernment: adept at recognizing what is and what is not of God.
Knowledge: the ability to understand, organize, and effectively use information for the advancement of God’s purposes.
Teaching: the ability to understand and communicate God’s truths to others effectively.
Wisdom: the ability to understand and apply Biblical and spiritual knowledge to complex, paradoxical, or other difficult situations.
For me, these five are interrelated aspects of one whole. The administrative ability is of information and ideas, not of organizational structures. The teaching ability may be face to face but is more likely communication through some media. Knowledge is more my forte. I recognize discernment and wisdom in myself, but discernment is a scary business bothersome to me by its potential for falsity and persecution; and wisdom shall ever be humanly incomplete though I most desire and seek it.
In practice, it is easier for me to find my niche outside of a specific congregation or denomination in the wider community. There the teachings of the church in the universal sense can be announced and explored as a basis for human behavior, human relationships, and social or political action.
Of course, I am an INTJ. “I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven.—Ecclesiastes (NRSV) I:13. Incidentally, Saint Paul by psychohistory gets typed an ENTJ.
The profiling fits me to a T, such as “Contribution to Spiritual Community:”
Envisioning systems to create a better world.
Breaking new ground, shifting paradigms, and changing the way people view things.
Designing or adjusting strategies and structures for future needs.
Thinking and acting independently from traditional or outmoded ways.
As far as values—those things I most deeply honor and must follow to achieve the life I want – I identified only 6 of the requested 8. Kise-Stark-Hirsh ask for 8 and a second 8 as they expect people to grow and shift their relative values over time. At my age and after decades of reflective introspection, I have settled on 6. My ranking as follows.
1. Learning—Lifelong commitment to growing in understanding. For me, lifelong questioning and growth of knowledge towards breadth and wisdom.
2. Independence—Wanting control of own time, behavior, tasks. For me, freedom and ability to probe and formulate.
3. Artistic expression—Expressing self through the arts: painting, literature, drama, etc. For me, high quality creative written communication that reaches others with meaning and significance.
4. Service—Helping others or contributing to society. For me, benefit the common good over time and distance.
5. Influence—Capacity to affect or shape people, processes or ideas. For me, positive impact on others learning, thinking, knowledge and understanding.
6. Friendship—Placing importance on close, personal relationships. For me, close and deep personal connections; these are necessarily few.
I thought it significant, that though the exercise asks for no more than 8 values, I could readily identify the six priority ones in the first pass. In part my selections are due to my own definitions of them. Service ranks high because it is for the common good, not otherwise listed as a value. Influence ranks because it means ideational impact.
As far as “passion” is concerned, it is hard for me to think of this characteristic other than where I focus my efforts. I am not passionate about anything in the emotional sense because I am usually and try to maintain a rational, reflective, objective, polite and sedate approach to life and its challenges. I do get quickly irate, however, over stupidity-based decisions, persistence in ignorance, the flight from problem identification, and the persistent desire for a simplicity that is less than the dimensions of reality. Unfortunately, none of these demonstrate positive passion. Nevertheless, I regard that my whole life has been in the service of human potential through discovery, learning, educated growth and informed decision-making. For these endeavors, I see myself a missionary.
Besides the weaknesses already mentioned, my preference for distance from most other people limits me. It is difficult for me to get too far engaged in my own congregation, though I have at times taught Sunday school, served on committees, been an usher (which I detested), led adult forums, and participated in many other forums, especially if they had intellectual content. Mostly, I find it exhausting to expend the effort to do things that ought to be done in due course in the church anyway. Within its bureaucratic structure, Lutheran congregations and the church-wide assembly can be more concerned about not giving offense than about doing the right thing. If I was better with people or felt I had more time, I might try harder. At my age, I feel myself in retreat to regroup, psychologically and intellectually, and choose the battles where I just might be able to do something productive.
My LifeKey is part 2 of a 5-part look at my personality based on various approaches. See also My INTJ (1), My Learning (3), My Thinking (4), My Solo (5).
© 2009 by Roger Sween
I welcome substantive comment on the contents of this blog. Personal comments may be made to my email address, given above.
My Solo
5. Discovering My Personality Type.
According to: John M. Oldham and Lois B. Morris, Personality self-portrait: why you think, work, love, and act the way you do. Bantam Books, c1990. 438p.
Oldham is one of the members of the American Psychiatric Association who worked on revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev., 1987). From the identification of those disorders, he and Morris identified thirteen normal personality-style categories from which disorders are the extreme aberration. Although this method seems backwards, students of the human psyche have historically been interested in the ranges of behavior among personality types and the styles identified “are the common, utterly human, non-pathological versions of the extreme, disordered constellations identified in the DSM manual.
Between the optimum and disordered ends of a style, range various behaviors so that the dividing point between health and dysfunction fails exact definition. Nevertheless, productive and satisfying lives exhibit flexibility over inflexibility, variety over repetition, and adaptability over the incapacity to cope. Psychiatry focuses on the disorders. This book focuses on the healthy styles so that individuals will know themselves and appreciate the ways that those of the other styles act and express themselves that are also healthy but different.
These thirteen styles are:
1. Conscientious: People of strong moral principal and absolute certainty who will not rest until the job is done right.
2. Self-Confident: People of a quality born of self-regard, self-respect, self-certainty, showing faith in oneself and a commitment to self-styled purpose.
3. Dramatic: People who are all heart, full of feeling and emotion which they can transform to a high art.
4. Vigilant: People of heightened awareness to their environment, looking for what is awry, to announce and denounce it.
5. Mercurial: People who want to experience life fully in whatever it brings.
6. Devoted: People who care about the identified team to whom they are loyal, considerate, and helpful.
7. Solitary: People who need no one but themselves, remarkably free from involvements and emotions that distract others, to discover on their own.
8. Leisurely: People who, apart from their responsibilities, seek to be themselves and do as they wish.
9. Sensitive: People who seek a world, small and familiar, where they find comfort, contentment and inspiration.
10. Idiosyncratic: People who, whether eccentrics or geniuses, live lives apart from the conventions that most others follow.
11. Adventurous: People who will take risks and long leaps where others are cautious or afraid.
12. Self-Sacrificing: People who put other’s needs first and live to serve them.
13. Aggressive: People who move instinctively by force of personality to command.
These personality styles operate within six functioning domains. Styles show their characteristics in the domains and various domains are key to each of the styles. The domains are
Self: How one sees, thinks, and feels about their own self, their place in the universe and among others.
Relationships: How one regards other people as important to themselves. This is a dominant factor in more than half of the styles.
Work: How one regards what it is they do and how they about doing things, not just work but everything to which they give time.
Emotions: Includes moods, feelings, and emotional states, the place people give to them in their lives and their intensity.
Self-Control: How one governs themselves in meeting desires, temptations, and impulses before action.
Real World: How one regards the world, its existence and nature, and what is real for them.
Chapters define these terms and sizeable chapters on each style discuss the domains pertinent to each in turn along with characteristics, tips on dealing with others of the style in one’s own life, and exercises for making the most of the style. Half the chapter treats the flip side of the normal style, the corresponding personality disorder.
A Personality Self-Portrait Questionnaire is the entry to identifying the styles operating in each life. For 104 questions, one of three answers is possible: Yes, I agree; Maybe, I agree; No, I don’t agree. The maybe responses are for questions where the individual agrees with one part but not another of the same question. Through scoring, a self-portrait graph emerges.
For me, the Questionnaire produced the following results in order of importance. Ranking for each style is the number out of the top possible number.
Highest
Solitary: 12 of 14
Sensitive: 8 of 14
Conscientious: 10 of 18
Idiosyncratic: 8 of 18
Self-Confidant 8 of 18
Lowest
Vigilant: 4 of 14
Aggresssive 2 of 16
Self-Sacrificing 2 of 16
Leisurely: 2 of 18
Adventurous: 2 of 22
Dramatic: 0 of 16
Mercurial: 0 of 16
Resulting Personality Profile Functions in the Domains:
My dominant styles (as defined above) are I. Solitary (7), II. Sensitive (9), III. Conscientious (1), IV. Idiosyncratic (16), V. Self-Confident (2). I have noted those domains key to each style. I also briefly quote characteristics of each style especially pertinent to me in each domain.
Sense of Self.
I. (Key) self contained; own best resource; psychological gain from self; prefers own company.
II. Know self when not exposed to others.
III. Self is work; sets high standards of responsibility; no desire for ease.
IV. (Key) Determines own world; willingly breaks with tradition.
V. (Key) Self-esteem; self as purposive, meaningful, source of enjoyment.
Emotional States.
I. (Key) Dispassionate; prefers to observe.
II. (Key) Security in world of own; life-long personal attachments.
III. Seeks calm and reserve.
IV. Intensity is aesthetic, intellectual joy of comprehension.
V. Optimistic.
Control Level.
I. Heightened self-control; desire to avoid pain, impulse or spontaneity.
II. Self-disciplined to shape behavior and keep to self.
III. Self-discipline through knowing and reasoning.
IV. Feelings are internalized.
V. Self-contol.
Relationships with Others.
I. Uninvolved; need distance and time alone.
II. (Key) A few people or one; knowing others well relieves anxiety.
III. Steadiness over intimacy and romance; loyal to those they value.
IV. Not defined by others; risks loneliness when cannot connect.
V. Work at.
Work/Doing.
I. Self-directed; desire for concentration; avoid conflict, politics, competition.
II. Work is the nest; work at home.
III. (Key) Where shines; extends to all hours, intense, focused, detailed; never retires.
IV. Does best in own niche; neither ambitious or competitive in traditional sense.
V. Cooperative; flexible, non-hierarchical; needs to be effective.
Real-World.
I. Privacy provides a pocket for endeavor.
II. Prefer home; look forward to return when away.
III. Choices are between right and wrong; grey areas mean unfinished thinking.
IV. (Key) Perceive differently from others; curious; speculative, original.
V. World in own image.
Necessarily, one should be wary of behaviors that each style might bring with it and how a more varied life might be possible or beneficial. I, likely as others, appreciate those aspects of my life that comfort or please me the most in a self-reinforcing way. For me the following bear watching.
As a Solitary (I) and Sensitive (II) where the danger is to cut oneself off from others, I like people in general but more so in the abstract and at a distance than face-to-face. I crave friendship, but have high standards for it, and as a result have had few truly close and lasting friendships. Close friends I have had in the past, who have died, still haunt my thoughts. I work at keeping the friends I have but am not good at making new friends. I have trouble expressing myself verbally because I have to be sure of the right words; therefore, I prefer writing to speaking. Even though I know that social communication constitutes the bulk of conversation, I am no good at small talk. Instead, I converse most easily with people I already know, especially when the connection enjoys long duration. Often after an encounter with someone, I review what I said, and analyze all the things I could have said better. The reading, thinking and writing life depends upon solitude and the desire to be productive in these endeavors further rev up the demand to be alone.
Being Conscientious (III) risks also becoming obsessive-compulsive. I am far from that, except that I berate myself that I do not stick to one thing at a time until finished. In other words, I am obsessive about not being obsessive. When I cannot sleep, it is often because I review what I have said and done and mull over yet one more time how I could have done a better job of it in the first place. I endeavor to narrow my focus, but find it difficult to give up long-standing interests or concerns over issues that were ever important to me in my lengthening past. My long-term goal is to be free of all committees by the time I am seventy, but I still volunteer for new assignments that I regard to be of short duration. I realize that I will never understand everything or anything, but keep on trying to figure things out and do my best.
I have always been Idiosyncratic (IV), I realize, having felt the difference of being different since I was a very young child. Once at a birthday party for Dicky Connors – our mothers had been friends since being next-door neighbors as children – while the rest roistered in another room, I found refuge in a corner where I looked at his comic books. I was about 5 years old. Imagination became more vivid and preferable to actuality. Then also, reading proved more expansive than experience, history demonstrated more pertinence than a transitory present, thinking arose precursory to doing. Being so different bothered me for all my early years, but could not stop me from continuing on the same track. At about age 16, I embraced my uniqueness. Total alienation likely threatened. At one point, I even thought about becoming a Trappist monk, thanks to the appeal of the reflective life. Other people always rescued me, mostly at first caring relatives, games played with my siblings and in the neighborhood, classmates and other friends at school, Bible camp, Luther League, the prospect of college, and the widening circles of moving away from home. Ultimately, I learned the prevalence of differences among people and the need to find one’s niche in association with others. I could not participate, but astutely observe; I could not compete, but became a specialist in collaboration; I could not lead, except intellectually; I could not fight, except by argument (in the rhetorical or philosophical sense, that is not argumentative, but stating a position and defending it).
Fortunately, I learned to be Self-Confident (V), confident in the virtues of my own idiosyncrasies, without being schizotypal or narcissistic. I do border on narcissism (self-absorption): I am reconciled with my identity to such an extent that I dearly prefer my roster of styles to other possibilities. Clearly, I remain more in pursuit of understanding myself than of understanding and relating to others. Even in creating fictional characters, try as I might to make the leads different, there is always too much of me in them that I cannot expunge. In short, though other people interest me, especially those that provide models, I fascinate myself to a greater extent than others can command. Perhaps what saves me from psychotic narcissism, is that I have become primarily a questioner of received ideas and beliefs, even those I have about myself. I continuously ask myself, even about myself: Is this true and how do I know that? I have learned to live with ambiguity at worst, provisional truth at best.
I wonder, also, about the styles on which I rank the lowest. Does this mean these styles portend their own disorders.
Vigilant: Though very low in this ranking, I still exhibit this style’s characteristics, chiefly autonomy, caution in relationships, perceptiveness, self-defense in my own behalf, openness to criticism, and fidelity or loyalty. I am far from being paranoid which I would consider a laughable state, were it not so pathetic.
Aggressive: Since I am far from being feisty as Vigilants can be, I also long ago gave up any desire to be in charge or top dog. (What a horrible expression!) Though I have been the president or chair a few times of certain organizations, chiefly as Coordinator for nine years of the Minnesota Book Awards, basically as a facilitator. I have more often been the secretary or administrative assistant where I saw the real power resides to get things clarified and on track. I share no characteristics here, except the desire for order that to me is a matter of negotiated goals and standards, not rules. As condescending as I can be, I do not enjoy power over others.
Yet, neither am I Self-Sacrificing. Though I am willing to do a lot for the common good or the benefit of near and dear, I learned on the verge of adulthood that it is precisely the self, as the source of human worth, creativity and efficacy, that must not be sacrificed. My sense of doing good for others as altruists do is tempered by thinking of it as doing good for all, including the self as part of the whole. I share the characteristics Self-Sacrificing – generosity only to a certain extent, service as my arena of action, and consideration of others at least in being polite. I accept others though I will always reach some level of judgment about them (the J in my INTJ typology). I am humble as to my own lacks and willing to endure if the end is worth it, though I am not typically patient with the tedious, repetitious, or foolish. Also with this style, I am naive in every individual encounter, however skeptical I may be about people collectively.
The Leisurely style is not all the word implies; they do their bit, but are not overzealous, and clearly want their own thing and their own time, as they deserve. Though I share the right to be left alone, as a solitary requires, I recognize the obligations of being part of the whole. But neither am I passive-aggressive, though I do have my explosions of resistance, mostly against what I see as stupidity. I am willing to do my share. And as I resign from all committees, I do so on the grounds that what I have left to do has benefit for others; besides by age 70, I will have done my share of group work.
Neither am I Adventurous except about ideas. Even then, I move from some hierarchy of thought to a sequential change in a specific principle, issue, or tactic. I search for holism. Although a nonconformist in some things, I am modest in most regards as to the conventions of everyday life. My wardrobe alternates between black, gray, brown and blue as long is the blue is not too bright. I have one red tie for Pentecost and other high holy days. I fear being too wild or daring, a caution that has likely saved me from drugs and much other immorality. I take risks in speaking out on unpopular issues, but believe that one of life’s objectives is to minimize risk. Thus I am not anti-social, the extreme dysfunction of the Adventurous. Rather than wallowing in the virtue of independence, I see humans as essentially inter-dependent.
The Dramatic are those that are “the life of the party.” By now, you know that is not me. I had a secretary for some years, who often accused me of being dull. ‘I am,’ I said; ‘I am very boring.’ Whenever I showed up at work in a back suit and black topcoat, she would ask, ‘Where are you preaching today?’ I find the pursuit of fun a shallow one though remaining open to joy. Yet, clearly I am as far from the Dramatic characteristics as I can be. I do not repress my feelings, but I try to command them and allow them because of some originating and controlling reason. I limit color, as I said, more for aesthetic reasons than personal ones. I gave up on romance as traditionally understood, but see myself as a romantic as long as romanticism is the dramatization of ideas. As to spontaneity, I have said that I can be spontaneous as long as I can plan ahead for it. I flee from attention, except the attention to what I write, but then not too much. The idea of becoming famous and signing autographs would frighten me except that I think it highly unlikely. Compliments are nice, but only in moderation; mostly I appreciate the awards I have received for long-time accomplishments even when those efforts have sunk into the duff of time. I try to look presentable and am vain about body image, but with restraint. I’d rather be noted for what’s inside than outside.
Neither am I Mercurial. I seek the even keel. I can be intense about concentration, but live otherwise without passion, which I distrust. ‘Are you having a good time?’ a friend once asked me at a party. ‘Yes,’ I quietly answered; ‘Why do you ask?’ ‘Because,’ he said, ‘when you are having a good time or not having a good time, you act the same.’ I try to smile more, but am usually somber as I think things over. It takes me awhile to assess exactly how I feel and then whether or not I should feel that way. My heart is not on my sleeve, but in its chest cavity where it belongs. You know already what I think of spontaneity and fun. Though I sit at my computer at least six to eight hours a day, I remain active, but always after some end, trying to keep up a brisk pace. I retain an open mind, especially about ideas, but cannot otherwise just experiment for the sake of discovery alone.
The study of personality remains a precarious endeavor. I have looked for the scientific approaches over the astrological, ennegramatic, personality tree or other speculative treatments. Still, I accept that we have a lot more to discover and learn and so it is necessary to keep searching.
My Solo is part 5 of a 5- part look at my personality based on various approaches. See also My INTJ (1), My LifeKey (2) My Learning (3), My Thinking (4).
© 2009 by Roger Sween
I welcome substantive comment on the contents of this blog. Personal comments may be made to my email address, given above.
According to: John M. Oldham and Lois B. Morris, Personality self-portrait: why you think, work, love, and act the way you do. Bantam Books, c1990. 438p.
Oldham is one of the members of the American Psychiatric Association who worked on revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev., 1987). From the identification of those disorders, he and Morris identified thirteen normal personality-style categories from which disorders are the extreme aberration. Although this method seems backwards, students of the human psyche have historically been interested in the ranges of behavior among personality types and the styles identified “are the common, utterly human, non-pathological versions of the extreme, disordered constellations identified in the DSM manual.
Between the optimum and disordered ends of a style, range various behaviors so that the dividing point between health and dysfunction fails exact definition. Nevertheless, productive and satisfying lives exhibit flexibility over inflexibility, variety over repetition, and adaptability over the incapacity to cope. Psychiatry focuses on the disorders. This book focuses on the healthy styles so that individuals will know themselves and appreciate the ways that those of the other styles act and express themselves that are also healthy but different.
These thirteen styles are:
1. Conscientious: People of strong moral principal and absolute certainty who will not rest until the job is done right.
2. Self-Confident: People of a quality born of self-regard, self-respect, self-certainty, showing faith in oneself and a commitment to self-styled purpose.
3. Dramatic: People who are all heart, full of feeling and emotion which they can transform to a high art.
4. Vigilant: People of heightened awareness to their environment, looking for what is awry, to announce and denounce it.
5. Mercurial: People who want to experience life fully in whatever it brings.
6. Devoted: People who care about the identified team to whom they are loyal, considerate, and helpful.
7. Solitary: People who need no one but themselves, remarkably free from involvements and emotions that distract others, to discover on their own.
8. Leisurely: People who, apart from their responsibilities, seek to be themselves and do as they wish.
9. Sensitive: People who seek a world, small and familiar, where they find comfort, contentment and inspiration.
10. Idiosyncratic: People who, whether eccentrics or geniuses, live lives apart from the conventions that most others follow.
11. Adventurous: People who will take risks and long leaps where others are cautious or afraid.
12. Self-Sacrificing: People who put other’s needs first and live to serve them.
13. Aggressive: People who move instinctively by force of personality to command.
These personality styles operate within six functioning domains. Styles show their characteristics in the domains and various domains are key to each of the styles. The domains are
Self: How one sees, thinks, and feels about their own self, their place in the universe and among others.
Relationships: How one regards other people as important to themselves. This is a dominant factor in more than half of the styles.
Work: How one regards what it is they do and how they about doing things, not just work but everything to which they give time.
Emotions: Includes moods, feelings, and emotional states, the place people give to them in their lives and their intensity.
Self-Control: How one governs themselves in meeting desires, temptations, and impulses before action.
Real World: How one regards the world, its existence and nature, and what is real for them.
Chapters define these terms and sizeable chapters on each style discuss the domains pertinent to each in turn along with characteristics, tips on dealing with others of the style in one’s own life, and exercises for making the most of the style. Half the chapter treats the flip side of the normal style, the corresponding personality disorder.
A Personality Self-Portrait Questionnaire is the entry to identifying the styles operating in each life. For 104 questions, one of three answers is possible: Yes, I agree; Maybe, I agree; No, I don’t agree. The maybe responses are for questions where the individual agrees with one part but not another of the same question. Through scoring, a self-portrait graph emerges.
For me, the Questionnaire produced the following results in order of importance. Ranking for each style is the number out of the top possible number.
Highest
Solitary: 12 of 14
Sensitive: 8 of 14
Conscientious: 10 of 18
Idiosyncratic: 8 of 18
Self-Confidant 8 of 18
Lowest
Vigilant: 4 of 14
Aggresssive 2 of 16
Self-Sacrificing 2 of 16
Leisurely: 2 of 18
Adventurous: 2 of 22
Dramatic: 0 of 16
Mercurial: 0 of 16
Resulting Personality Profile Functions in the Domains:
My dominant styles (as defined above) are I. Solitary (7), II. Sensitive (9), III. Conscientious (1), IV. Idiosyncratic (16), V. Self-Confident (2). I have noted those domains key to each style. I also briefly quote characteristics of each style especially pertinent to me in each domain.
Sense of Self.
I. (Key) self contained; own best resource; psychological gain from self; prefers own company.
II. Know self when not exposed to others.
III. Self is work; sets high standards of responsibility; no desire for ease.
IV. (Key) Determines own world; willingly breaks with tradition.
V. (Key) Self-esteem; self as purposive, meaningful, source of enjoyment.
Emotional States.
I. (Key) Dispassionate; prefers to observe.
II. (Key) Security in world of own; life-long personal attachments.
III. Seeks calm and reserve.
IV. Intensity is aesthetic, intellectual joy of comprehension.
V. Optimistic.
Control Level.
I. Heightened self-control; desire to avoid pain, impulse or spontaneity.
II. Self-disciplined to shape behavior and keep to self.
III. Self-discipline through knowing and reasoning.
IV. Feelings are internalized.
V. Self-contol.
Relationships with Others.
I. Uninvolved; need distance and time alone.
II. (Key) A few people or one; knowing others well relieves anxiety.
III. Steadiness over intimacy and romance; loyal to those they value.
IV. Not defined by others; risks loneliness when cannot connect.
V. Work at.
Work/Doing.
I. Self-directed; desire for concentration; avoid conflict, politics, competition.
II. Work is the nest; work at home.
III. (Key) Where shines; extends to all hours, intense, focused, detailed; never retires.
IV. Does best in own niche; neither ambitious or competitive in traditional sense.
V. Cooperative; flexible, non-hierarchical; needs to be effective.
Real-World.
I. Privacy provides a pocket for endeavor.
II. Prefer home; look forward to return when away.
III. Choices are between right and wrong; grey areas mean unfinished thinking.
IV. (Key) Perceive differently from others; curious; speculative, original.
V. World in own image.
Necessarily, one should be wary of behaviors that each style might bring with it and how a more varied life might be possible or beneficial. I, likely as others, appreciate those aspects of my life that comfort or please me the most in a self-reinforcing way. For me the following bear watching.
As a Solitary (I) and Sensitive (II) where the danger is to cut oneself off from others, I like people in general but more so in the abstract and at a distance than face-to-face. I crave friendship, but have high standards for it, and as a result have had few truly close and lasting friendships. Close friends I have had in the past, who have died, still haunt my thoughts. I work at keeping the friends I have but am not good at making new friends. I have trouble expressing myself verbally because I have to be sure of the right words; therefore, I prefer writing to speaking. Even though I know that social communication constitutes the bulk of conversation, I am no good at small talk. Instead, I converse most easily with people I already know, especially when the connection enjoys long duration. Often after an encounter with someone, I review what I said, and analyze all the things I could have said better. The reading, thinking and writing life depends upon solitude and the desire to be productive in these endeavors further rev up the demand to be alone.
Being Conscientious (III) risks also becoming obsessive-compulsive. I am far from that, except that I berate myself that I do not stick to one thing at a time until finished. In other words, I am obsessive about not being obsessive. When I cannot sleep, it is often because I review what I have said and done and mull over yet one more time how I could have done a better job of it in the first place. I endeavor to narrow my focus, but find it difficult to give up long-standing interests or concerns over issues that were ever important to me in my lengthening past. My long-term goal is to be free of all committees by the time I am seventy, but I still volunteer for new assignments that I regard to be of short duration. I realize that I will never understand everything or anything, but keep on trying to figure things out and do my best.
I have always been Idiosyncratic (IV), I realize, having felt the difference of being different since I was a very young child. Once at a birthday party for Dicky Connors – our mothers had been friends since being next-door neighbors as children – while the rest roistered in another room, I found refuge in a corner where I looked at his comic books. I was about 5 years old. Imagination became more vivid and preferable to actuality. Then also, reading proved more expansive than experience, history demonstrated more pertinence than a transitory present, thinking arose precursory to doing. Being so different bothered me for all my early years, but could not stop me from continuing on the same track. At about age 16, I embraced my uniqueness. Total alienation likely threatened. At one point, I even thought about becoming a Trappist monk, thanks to the appeal of the reflective life. Other people always rescued me, mostly at first caring relatives, games played with my siblings and in the neighborhood, classmates and other friends at school, Bible camp, Luther League, the prospect of college, and the widening circles of moving away from home. Ultimately, I learned the prevalence of differences among people and the need to find one’s niche in association with others. I could not participate, but astutely observe; I could not compete, but became a specialist in collaboration; I could not lead, except intellectually; I could not fight, except by argument (in the rhetorical or philosophical sense, that is not argumentative, but stating a position and defending it).
Fortunately, I learned to be Self-Confident (V), confident in the virtues of my own idiosyncrasies, without being schizotypal or narcissistic. I do border on narcissism (self-absorption): I am reconciled with my identity to such an extent that I dearly prefer my roster of styles to other possibilities. Clearly, I remain more in pursuit of understanding myself than of understanding and relating to others. Even in creating fictional characters, try as I might to make the leads different, there is always too much of me in them that I cannot expunge. In short, though other people interest me, especially those that provide models, I fascinate myself to a greater extent than others can command. Perhaps what saves me from psychotic narcissism, is that I have become primarily a questioner of received ideas and beliefs, even those I have about myself. I continuously ask myself, even about myself: Is this true and how do I know that? I have learned to live with ambiguity at worst, provisional truth at best.
I wonder, also, about the styles on which I rank the lowest. Does this mean these styles portend their own disorders.
Vigilant: Though very low in this ranking, I still exhibit this style’s characteristics, chiefly autonomy, caution in relationships, perceptiveness, self-defense in my own behalf, openness to criticism, and fidelity or loyalty. I am far from being paranoid which I would consider a laughable state, were it not so pathetic.
Aggressive: Since I am far from being feisty as Vigilants can be, I also long ago gave up any desire to be in charge or top dog. (What a horrible expression!) Though I have been the president or chair a few times of certain organizations, chiefly as Coordinator for nine years of the Minnesota Book Awards, basically as a facilitator. I have more often been the secretary or administrative assistant where I saw the real power resides to get things clarified and on track. I share no characteristics here, except the desire for order that to me is a matter of negotiated goals and standards, not rules. As condescending as I can be, I do not enjoy power over others.
Yet, neither am I Self-Sacrificing. Though I am willing to do a lot for the common good or the benefit of near and dear, I learned on the verge of adulthood that it is precisely the self, as the source of human worth, creativity and efficacy, that must not be sacrificed. My sense of doing good for others as altruists do is tempered by thinking of it as doing good for all, including the self as part of the whole. I share the characteristics Self-Sacrificing – generosity only to a certain extent, service as my arena of action, and consideration of others at least in being polite. I accept others though I will always reach some level of judgment about them (the J in my INTJ typology). I am humble as to my own lacks and willing to endure if the end is worth it, though I am not typically patient with the tedious, repetitious, or foolish. Also with this style, I am naive in every individual encounter, however skeptical I may be about people collectively.
The Leisurely style is not all the word implies; they do their bit, but are not overzealous, and clearly want their own thing and their own time, as they deserve. Though I share the right to be left alone, as a solitary requires, I recognize the obligations of being part of the whole. But neither am I passive-aggressive, though I do have my explosions of resistance, mostly against what I see as stupidity. I am willing to do my share. And as I resign from all committees, I do so on the grounds that what I have left to do has benefit for others; besides by age 70, I will have done my share of group work.
Neither am I Adventurous except about ideas. Even then, I move from some hierarchy of thought to a sequential change in a specific principle, issue, or tactic. I search for holism. Although a nonconformist in some things, I am modest in most regards as to the conventions of everyday life. My wardrobe alternates between black, gray, brown and blue as long is the blue is not too bright. I have one red tie for Pentecost and other high holy days. I fear being too wild or daring, a caution that has likely saved me from drugs and much other immorality. I take risks in speaking out on unpopular issues, but believe that one of life’s objectives is to minimize risk. Thus I am not anti-social, the extreme dysfunction of the Adventurous. Rather than wallowing in the virtue of independence, I see humans as essentially inter-dependent.
The Dramatic are those that are “the life of the party.” By now, you know that is not me. I had a secretary for some years, who often accused me of being dull. ‘I am,’ I said; ‘I am very boring.’ Whenever I showed up at work in a back suit and black topcoat, she would ask, ‘Where are you preaching today?’ I find the pursuit of fun a shallow one though remaining open to joy. Yet, clearly I am as far from the Dramatic characteristics as I can be. I do not repress my feelings, but I try to command them and allow them because of some originating and controlling reason. I limit color, as I said, more for aesthetic reasons than personal ones. I gave up on romance as traditionally understood, but see myself as a romantic as long as romanticism is the dramatization of ideas. As to spontaneity, I have said that I can be spontaneous as long as I can plan ahead for it. I flee from attention, except the attention to what I write, but then not too much. The idea of becoming famous and signing autographs would frighten me except that I think it highly unlikely. Compliments are nice, but only in moderation; mostly I appreciate the awards I have received for long-time accomplishments even when those efforts have sunk into the duff of time. I try to look presentable and am vain about body image, but with restraint. I’d rather be noted for what’s inside than outside.
Neither am I Mercurial. I seek the even keel. I can be intense about concentration, but live otherwise without passion, which I distrust. ‘Are you having a good time?’ a friend once asked me at a party. ‘Yes,’ I quietly answered; ‘Why do you ask?’ ‘Because,’ he said, ‘when you are having a good time or not having a good time, you act the same.’ I try to smile more, but am usually somber as I think things over. It takes me awhile to assess exactly how I feel and then whether or not I should feel that way. My heart is not on my sleeve, but in its chest cavity where it belongs. You know already what I think of spontaneity and fun. Though I sit at my computer at least six to eight hours a day, I remain active, but always after some end, trying to keep up a brisk pace. I retain an open mind, especially about ideas, but cannot otherwise just experiment for the sake of discovery alone.
The study of personality remains a precarious endeavor. I have looked for the scientific approaches over the astrological, ennegramatic, personality tree or other speculative treatments. Still, I accept that we have a lot more to discover and learn and so it is necessary to keep searching.
My Solo is part 5 of a 5- part look at my personality based on various approaches. See also My INTJ (1), My LifeKey (2) My Learning (3), My Thinking (4).
© 2009 by Roger Sween
I welcome substantive comment on the contents of this blog. Personal comments may be made to my email address, given above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)