Today I started some more research into what I hope to someday turn into a website - one that compares, links to, and brings together...synthesizes might be the word...different personality theories. I'm most familiar with the Kiersy Temperament Sorter/Meyers-Briggs theory, and I was wondering what other things are out there, and wanting to take a closer look at them. Yet it seems to keep being confirmed to me just why it's the Kiersy theory that I'm...well rather obsessed with. Finally I was provoked into writing a bit while starting to read (trying for probably the 3rd time or so) Personality Types Using the Enneagram for Self-discovery by Don Riso.
The problem I have with the enneagram, as well as many other personality theories (which I don’t see so much in the Kiersy books -Please Understand Me) is that most other theorists focus so much on the negative and make it sound like all these personalities are dysfunctional. The fact is that most people have their problems, it's a given, but it’s more usefull to look at the basic neutral personality, not nessesarily all it’s problems, at least not right up front. Of course it can be interesting or helpfull to note how different personalities may handle emotional/psychological problems, but that should be just one aspect, not the focus of the profile for any given type. Much more focus should be on the underlying traits which can be expressed either good or bad. The good ways that personalities are expressed ought to be emphasized because people will be impacted much more for the good by identifying their individuality in a positive light. Smacking people in the face with their faults is not a good way to make them open to understanding themselves and others. Reading a berating of your personality in a profile might help you learn something, but probably isn't going to make you feel excited about understanding the concepts, and reading a berating of other people's types will just make you more judgemental of others, rather than helping you appreciate their differences.
I also find, though I hadn’t specifically thought about it till reading a note about it on wikipedia, that I much prefer the personality theories which focus on individual traits and how they look when grouped in different ways, rather than the sets of supposedly all encompassing types. Those "type" ones all seem to have the same problem: you can identify a lot with some aspects of one type, and identify a lot with other aspects of a different one. They paint a picture of stereotypes, but don't allow for all the different variations, nor the degrees of different traits.
Looking at individual traits makes much more sense, and allows for the variety of unique people you see in real life, rather than stereotyping, or "pidgeon-holing". While there may be some very basic underlying characteristics which can be used to group people into relatively few categories, the "type" theories tend to offer much more detail about one group than can be applied to all of it's members. Looking at traits is also usefull in that it helps explain why different types act certain ways. It’s not just that you happen to be like this random type someone came up with, but you can observe individual traits in yourself as they affect different thoughts, motives, actions, and reactions.
I find that the Kiersy method of looking at several spectrums of traits individually allows for much more individual accuracy and deeper understanding of the inner workings of unique people. In the books, while there are 16 combinations of the 4 spectrums, it also makes note of the strength of each of the preferred traits. I think this alerts people to realizing that they are free to read the profiles with a grain of salt. No one is telling them they are exactly like this profile - this is a basic profile outlining different traits which they may identiy with to varying degrees depending on the strength of their trait preferences. It helps people understand better why they may be similar to different people in different ways, by recognizing shared or opposing traits. The trait method to personality theory presents people as unique combinations of many underlying traits - essentially presenting humanity on a spectrum, whereas the type theories present people in a segregated fashion - as being part of just one group, one type. In trait theories one can learn about other types of people while reading one's own profile, whereas in type theories the information is usually presented as only applying to your type and the similarities with others is not noted. Of course I admit to not having read other theories in as great detail as I have the Meyers-Briggs, so perhaps they do a better job in the details than I have seen.
Something I have been thinking about in regards to the Kiersy books is that I think it is also usefull to look at how trait preferences play out in different contexts. People may be more one way in certain situations, and more another way in other situations. It does talk a bit about the opposite traits in Please Understand Me II, but I felt like more discussion and examples of how being on a spectrum plays out would be usefull. I also think it would be interesting to read more discussion of how the different traits affect eachother. Such as - how does Thinking look in conjunction with iNtuition vs. how it looks when coupled with Sensing. Or how might Introversion look in a Feeling person vs. a Thinking person.
well, now I have typed much longer than I intended, but I feel a bit better and might be able to attempt reading more of the enneagram book, although I may be forced to write about my disapproval again. I'm certainly not looking forward to wading through the looooong negative profiles provided in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment