Uncategorized

I am always amazed by people who have their Myers-Briggs type in their profiles. I can't believe they even remember it.

Of course, if you think it is important, then it is probably easier to remember it. It feels like the one I see most is INTJ, which is apparently rare, so if they got that one, maybe there is more motivation to advertise it. Personally, I kind of hate personality tests.

This may seem hypocritical. People-pleaser resonated with me strongly for the 9 Personality Types, as did Physical Touch for the 5 Love Languages. Clearly I can find meaning in systems of categorization and analysis, and in understanding motivations.

Part of my annoyance is that when you are taking the tests, none of the answers are exactly right. You have to make a choice, and if over forty questions you keep leaning one way then I guess meaning can be derived, but it doesn't feel truly reflective. And I say this as someone who after getting on Facebook created quizzes for both which A-Team member and which Ramone you were. (Facebook used to be more fun.)

That feeling that it isn't really the full picture is bothersome, but what gets me more is people being stupid about it.

One of the things I am working on now is transcribing my mission journal, so many memories are coming back. There was one missionary I knew in Fresno who was really fun-loving and cute in her personality - deliberately so. Her birthday was coming up, so I worked with some other sisters to arrange a surprise birthday breakfast for her, and it was at the breakfast that I noticed that she had a really hard time acknowledging me. That seemed odd.

It later became clear that she put a lot of stock into the Hartman Personality Profile, or Color Code. She was a Yellow, motivated by fun. She had decided I was a Red, motivated by power. Someone who explained the test thought that I was a red with some yellow (she herself was a blue/white), but the birthday girl was sure I was all red, and yellows don't like reds. I guess we are too bossy. In a case like that, organizing a birthday party was just a sign of my need to control things.

My first reaction was to feel really hurt and rejected. This was made much worse when the mission had a sisters conference shortly after that, and there was a presentation on the Color Code. I did not get much out of that conference.

Looking at it now, the Color Code does not seem particularly scientific, and the red personality doesn't seem like a fit for me. I didn't even know the deal was motivated by power then. It felt like it just meant that I was loud but not fun.

Mainly, though, I felt it was pretty rotten to pigeon-hole someone and reject them so quickly just because you had read a book.

I do kind of get it. As a People Pleaser, Attention Seekers are my kryptonite. You try to gratify them by paying them attention, and it can never enough, no matter how sucked dry you get. I do sometimes find myself shutting down around particularly needy people.

At the same time, I have seen many people called attention-seekers as a way of writing them off, being told that their issue is not legitimate, and their need is not legitimate. It's easy to throw labels around as a way of negating someone. It is also wrong.

I recently listened to a webinar on yet another way of categorizing people (Changing Minds). Here the whole point was to know what other people are so you know how to approach them: for this type it's important to socialize first for a few minutes, whereas with this other type you need to get right down to business. Of course, since people do not come with labels, you need to either figure it out or know from someone else.

It all seems so unnecessary. If we are going to pay attention to people anyway, do we need to categorize it? If you are going to analyze what is important to you and how you work best, does it need an acronym?

I guess I still think it's silly. Trying to study and understand yourself and others isn't silly, but, yeah, I think the framework that gets put around it is.