I've steeped myself again in personality theory, since it's one of my favorite pet topics. Ran across this in a relationship debate on a forum I frequent: "I view relationships as a penis means to a vagina."
You know, how close is that to truth? I think it hits on one of the main reasons I've only ever had one "actual" relationship. I am so afraid of using people and of being used.
I took an Enneagram test. It's a different theory then Myers-Brigg or Keirsey, of the basic 16 Personality types I am so enamored with. I am a two with a bit of four. I don't know what that fully means yet. Has any one else come across this?
I am fascinated by type function and how it may help indicate the how's and why's of why we do things. As far as MBTI is concerned, I am definitely an INFP, but as far as Oldham and Socionics personality theory the J and P reverse in introverts which would make me an INFj (and INFJ's INFp's). I am still trying to figure out the nuances of this. Any thoughts would be great.
Part the reasoning behind my interest in this is trying to define, at least for myself, the subconscious. I really enjoy reading Jung's theories and will be incorporating them into my SIP. I am still not willing to go into what I am trying to define, but if you know me and want my proposal, I would be happy to share.
Posted by Deke at January 20, 2006 04:42 PM | TrackBackPersonality theories are filled with conflicts. Some examples show how twins separated at birth seem to have the exact same personalities. Yet then you find twins separated at birth with complete opposite personalities. Genetics definitely have a part to play but it can't be all of the equation. You say that you 'are' an INFP, but is that because of your genetics or your experiences. Should we try and be more like the real genetic personality we own or should we all try to find some sort of desired personality type to achieve for. Also it is interesting how people seem really needing to define themselves, and once they do they stick by that definition. I was once in a room filled with people where someone asked, "Everyone, tell me who you are" And everyone around the room said, "I'm depressed, I'm schizophrenic, I'm bipolar... etc" And at the end of it all the original person said, "You told me what you are suffering with, you didn't tell me who you are." Are these one in the same or is there value in separating ourselves from the things we define ourselves by, personality, sufferings, sexuality, gender, race.
Yet once we separate ourselves from these labels, it seems like the labels only define us more... What a conundrum.
Posted by: jkrue at January 20, 2006 08:54 PM"'You told me what you are suffering with, you didn't tell me who you are.'" I agree. Such things can only be at most part of who we are. I still believe that we have the power to determine ourselves through our choices at any moment, no matter what is hindering us.
Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 21, 2006 01:38 PMWhile I totally agree with the above observations, I do want to point out my perception of personality theory. I found that learning about what my tendencies are and reasoning behind my reactions gave me a way in to remedy things that were not Christ like and to affirm things I always felt inadequate about. For someone who is in the minority percentage of personality types (3% of total population) it was affirming to know that there were others who thought the way I did, but also good for me to learn how better to communicate with people who don't think the way I do. I think it would be incredibly stupid to say "this is who I am, so deal with it" but it is helpful to say "this is how I see! please understand that." The way one sees and the way one acts do not have to be the same and building methods for better communication between different perspectives should be to the ultimate goal. It's the same principle of the analogy of the body of Christ, we all have different talents and different jobs, but together we function as one. We have to know our specific talents in order to live to the fullest, but it should not be autonomous action we seek, but corporate "togetherness."
Posted by: Natalie at January 21, 2006 01:47 PMSo I'm blitzing covblogs people since my mother is at Target and I'm stranded at home with no vehicle. And how could I pass this post up? I couldn't. I couldn't.
I would have to say that I'm a bit more deterministic than Evan. Personal automony hasn't existed in my mind for the last 15 months or so -- not that it doesn't really exist, I just can't bring myself to acknowledge it. Because of where I am personally (being totally pragmatic about this, I know), I'm more and more having to assume that people act in certain ways BECAUSE they're wired to act that way. Yuck. I don't like this, but that's where I am.
The good news is that I haven't found a personality test that makes total sense. MBTI makes a lot of sense to me, but still isn't absolutely accurate when it comes to humans. And I don't think any test or type theory ever will attain a good level of accuracy, so we can always throw out the results we don't like.
About Jung: read him, devour, him, send me your thoughts! From time to time, I find myself in the throes of intense debate with one of my beloved teammates about Jung -- but we never really cross the bridge we want to cross because of not knowing enough. I really think Jung was on to something more than he was off, but Teammate thinks he was off more than on. Is personality type theory more than just a conscious way of analyzing the subconscious? If it is, we've got to examine the Jungian and Freudian and whatever else-ian presuppositions that govern our assumptions about the conscious/subconscious relationship. Nobody really talks about this. I think I'm going to find a copy of this book Teammate is reading and send it to you, Nat...
Sorry this is a little disconnected. Moving on to blitz another blog...
Posted by: bob at February 17, 2006 01:10 PM