A wish .....

“If anything characterizes the 21st century, it’s our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people,” said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University.

Some time ago I attended a conference where a small group of people were unable to restrain themselves and the above quote rang a loud bell.
At this conference some delegates wore their Type Profiles like badges of honour and it had me longing for a bit of old fashioned good manners and common courtesy.
Indeed, given we all had our profiles on our badges, it obviously made the journey from "badge" to "badge of honour" so much easier for those who wanted to wear it

It lead me to think: Wouldn't it be nice if certain types, indeed all types, could leave their Type badges in the corridor before they entered the lecture, or workshop venue.
Why?
Well, I have noticed during a number of Personality Type conferences that facilitators are often waylaid by attendees who demand recognition of their type and demand "Type Rights".
For example:
- an Extravert demanding to speak, whenever on whatever
- a Sensing Thinking Judging type demanding structure and time-lines
- an iNtuitive Feeling Perceiving type demanding free-form and hugs
And it happened to me.
That's when it all came home.
I was facilitating what I imagined to be a cool, laid back gathering of my peers, when I was suddenly, from the rear of the room, gang-attached by a marauding mob of STJs (sensing thinking judgers).
It was fun at first, then it turned serious.
It all reminded me of the other facilitators I had witnessed being trapped in similar circumstance and I thought: How bloody selfish and self centred can you get?
Many I know attend conferences in sponge mode, believing the best way to get the best out of any session is to absorb the material, however it is delivered, and to encourage the facilitator to give as much as he or she can.
In the case of an iNtuitive Thinker, this might mean a bloody good challenge, or not, because being an NT does not mean you are forever in NT, stuck there until you kark it.
If a person is who they are and that is all they have ever been and all they will ever be and they are stuck there with so concept of movement, of change, of exploring the other sides of their preferences, or of what Jung called Individuation, fine, but could it would be nice if they allowed the rest of us to flex, to shift, to shake, to move on.

[The above quote came from the New York Times, an article by MATT RICHTEL.

Published: November 4, 2007. Read it in full here: NYT.]

Getting to a point (or not)

This blog first appeared in The West Australian, as one of my weekly columns. Then I posted it on another blog, one where I put all my weekly columns. Then I posted it on another blog which has since changed its brief and, so, in order to keep it alive, I post it here. If you have read it previously, on another blog, sorry, go have a cuppa while someone else runs their eye over it.

It’s an inconvenient truth, but we’re all different.

When I’m not writing this column, I work with a number of psychological models, all of them based on the work of a Swiss bloke called Carl Gustav Jung.

Jung, a psychiatrist and psychotherapist, was for many years a great mate of Sigmund Freud, an Austrian neurologist and father of psychotherapy.

They had a helluva time in the beginning, lots of hi-teas and late night conversations, but then Jung went and wrote a couple of books Freud didn’t appreciate, or understand, or the pages were stuck together. I can’t remember.

Jung also made up his own mind about a couple of things Freud was very keen on and one day blurted out: “Oedipus, smedipus, give it a break, Siggy.”

Or something like that. Or nothing like that but whatever it was it was the end of their relationship.

All these models I work with are based on Jung’s book, Personality Types, first published in German in 1921.

When I’m not hard at it thumping words into keyboards, that’s what I do, not that I need to work, of course, because this column, as you can imagine, pays a lot of money, more than enough to pay the mortgage, the small loan on the other property, the big loan on the private jet, send all the kids to private schools and make sizeable contributions towards the International Monetary Fund debts of several South American nations.

One of the characteristics of a person with my particular profile is that we are easily distracted and tend to go on a bit in a way that seems to have very little to do with the point we are trying to make. Have you noticed?

Now, the beauty of a simple psychological mode is that it helps you come to grips with the fact that there is a kind of mind that will answer the simple question “How much are you paid to write that crap?” with a simple answer: “$50”.

What the model helps you realise is that most minds you interact with operate differently and people are not being the way they are in order to intimidate you, or incite you, it’s just the way they are.

Then again, some folk just can’t help being pricks, whatever their personality types.

Then there is another kind of mind, like the one I mentioned earlier, that will seem to disappear into a surreal world of crazy references, contradictions and weird juxtapositions, when all you wanted was a simple: “$50.”

You might have guessed by now, mine is a bit like that.

So is Terry Gilliam’s, the film director of Brazil, Baron Munchausen and the creator of the graphics for Monty Python. So was John Lennon’s. And Bill Cosby’s.

The strait forward mind, very much like the one my dad had, sees everything for what it is, nothing more, or less.

Hildegard has a mind like that too and often I would take a phone call from dad to be told: “Put your wife on will you. I need to talk some sense.”

The problem is, of course, those people with the seemingly crazy mind think the people with the strait-forward mind are boring and those with the strait-forward mind think those with the crazy mind have overdosed on some mind altering substance.

So, you can see why dad and I didn’t see mind to mind.

Mind you, he had a great sense of humour, and once said to a Manjimup Shire Officer who told him he couldn’t write on the pavement: “Didn’t I pay half the cost of this pavement? Right. Well the top half’s mine and the bottom half’s yours.”

Dad and Hildegard were pretty much aligned in most aspects of their personalities, but, at the same time, they were very different. Why? Good question.

Well, for a start, Hildy is a woman and dad was a man and dad was a born and raised Aussie, whereas Hildy was born and raised in Holland.

So, from time to time, if you have been reading this column and heard yourself saying “I wish he’d get to the bloody point”, it might be that you are not like me and need a point, while my point might be that I don’t.

It happens

I didn't know her.
A friend rang to say I should meet her, that she was a New York writer staying in West Australia to research a book.
He passed the phone to her. We spoke. Nothing much happened, but we agreed she would visit for an evening meal.
When she arrived I was cooking. I went to the front door, opened it, looked at her and something happened. It kept happening.
She stayed a week and in that time we talked about her Buddhist beliefs and my partner and I mentioned Carl Jung and she asked if she could take the MBTI® questionnaire.
It took no time at all for all of us to agree, she was an Extraverted iNtuitive Feeling Perceiver, ENFP, just like me.
Once we got talking life stories, you can imagine, so many parallels.
At the end of the week, as she drove away, she said: "I feel like I've found family."
So did we.
These things happen. People click. And confirmation of innate similarities can add depth and a connectedness to relationships.
It's wonderful when it happens.
Sometimes the opposite occurs: you don't click, you clack.
And then you discover the person has the same profile.
The question to ask yourself is: Am I seeing in her/him all the things I don't like about myself?

The Day After...

It happened again yesterday.
I was in the middle of a full-day MBTI® workshop when someone asked: "Do you change, because I reckon if I filled out this form ten years ago I would answer very differently?"
I replied: "Well, I know very clearly my profile but if I answered the questionnaire yesterday, true to my style of yesterday, I would look very different."
And I would.
I am a natural Etraverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiver (ENFP).
The day before I would have looked more like an Introverted, Sensing, Thinking Judger (ISTJ).
Why?
Well, the day before I was in preparation mode, very different to my presenting mode.
Presenting is easy, because that's who I am, naturally, the innate me, one who likes to be in front of a group, having fun, telling stories, revealing intimacies, inspiring insights.
In preparation I am alone, intense, working step by step, analysing structures, organising handouts, working against myself.
And the day after?
Difficult question, but it seems to me I become introverted, very practical, sensitive, controlling and inflexible.
A bit like an Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judger (ISFJ).
I seem comfortably, uncomfortable in the profile, almost locked in, and I experience some tension, especially if I feel let down in any way, if someone does not do as I wish, as if if they seem unaware of all I have done for them and are unable to complete simple tasks that are important to me.
I take matters very personal.
It seems best if I spend most of the day on my own, away from people, especially those used to my exuberance, flexibility, happy nature and desire to please.
It is as though I have given so much to so many, in such an intense setting, that I have to replenish the Self in a way that shuts me off from the outer world and closes me up in an inner world.
It doesn't always happen.
Sometimes the day after a workshop, I am quickly back to my innate ENFP self, but when the ISFJ mood takes me it does seem to have a weird, natural-unnatural, feel to it.
It never lasts long. I couldn't live like that. The sooner I'm back to me, the better off we all are.

Respect for difference

Once you have completed your MBTI® (Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator) session with a Myers BRiggs Practitioner it is useful to remember two of its main ingredients:
· Respect for difference
· The I in MBTI®. means Indicator

For example: It is not respectful to charge into another person’s life telling them you know all about them because you have ‘done Myers Briggs’.

Even if you know a person’s profile, it is useful to remind yourself that there are a number of selves. Here are three: True (innate) Self, Developed (cultural, psychological) Self and the Contextual (where you are, who you are with) Self.

Having an idea of a person’s profile does not give you access to their Developed Selves and no right to enter their lives in a Context outside of their comfort zone.

It is fine to charge up to Jon Doust (ENFP) because he tells the world who he is, but he is an exception to the rule and, after all, it is part of his life’s work to be transparent and obvious to all.

But ponder for a moment what life might be like for those with a preference for Introversion.

a) They probably don’t like to be the centre of attention
b) They probably keep themselves to themselves and a small group of very close friends
c) And before discussing anything they might consider personal and private, you will probably need permission.

(My partner has, from time to time, reminded me that she has a very firm line drawn and that sometimes, in my exuberance to inform the world of my personal life, I not only step over her line, I mangle it as I pass. I am very lucky and privileged and it is a mark of her courage, that she has given me as much freedom as she has).

Even if a person has shared a passion with you, once you are in a different Context, in a different setting, a different place, then that person may not be comfortable discussing their Indicated profile. And, since those sessions, they may have pondered further and decided their profile was a little different to the original Indication.

It’s all about relationships. If you have the kind of relationship with someone that allows you to discuss matters such as their Inner Selves then that is a wonderful thing. If you are not sure, then use the old fashioned method and ask for permission. And remember, Every Individual is an Exception to the Rule.

And don't forget this: psychological profiles are averages and the more you average people, the further you get away from individuals.

MBTI® Facts

Personality models have been around since Hippocrates was a boy (460-377BC). He had four types – phlegmatic (listless & tired), melancholic (sad), choleric (easy to anger) and sanguine (content or optimistic).

Models have survived the centuries and continue to be applied, developed and expanded. Why? Because they mean something, they serve a purpose and they work.

The most widely applied model, globally, by businesses, government departments, corporations, psychologists and counsellors is the Jungian-based Myers Briggs Type Indicator®. Myers and Briggs studied and further developed the ideas of Carl Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist, who published his work, Psychological Types, in 1921.

Facts
MBTI® is not a diagnostic tool and does not measure
- skills
- abilities
- intelligence
- pathologies

MBTI® does describe differences between normal healthy adults that often lead to misunderstanding and miscommunication.

MBTI® does indicate differences in the way we
- prefer to focus attention and get energised
- prefer to take in information
- prefer to make decisions
- orient ourselves to the external world

Myers & Briggs
The MBTI® questionnaire was first developed by Isabel Briggs Myers (1897-1979) and her mother, Katharine Cook Briggs (1875-1968). Both women had science based degrees and backgrounds at a time almost unheard of for women.

At the heart of the Jungian-MBTI® model is the understanding that much human behaviour that often seems random, or designed to upset, infuriate, or confuse, is in fact consistent with a person’s preferred, innate and natural, way of operating.

"If a theory describes something people do anyway, then it's probably a good theory." Andrew Samuels, Professor of Analytical Psychology, Scientific Associate American Academy of Psychoanalysis.
In a standard university psychology text book, Theories of Personality (University of Maine, Thomson Wadsworth, 2004), Richard M. Ryckman writes:
"Being able to understand the behaviour of others not only satisfies our curiosity but also gives us a greater sense of control over our lives and makes the world more predictable and less threatening."
Writing about Jung’s theories of personality, Ryckman adds:
"Although Jung’s theory is difficult to test, his position has recently generated some interest, and a number of studies have been conducted. Most of these investigations have focussed on his theory of psychological types, and the evidence for its validity has been consistently supportive.
Jung has written about his own work: It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organisation and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical."
Peter Geyer is a consultant, researcher and writer in the field of Jung's theory of psychological types. In an article entitled Psychological Type as a Contemporary Theory of Personality, he concludes that the model is useful to help us "understand the people and institutions we deal with, as well as ourselves.
"…C.G.Jung's theory of psychological types and aspects of his broader theory seem plausible: indeed there is much more supportive data [now] than either Jung or Isabel Myers would have experienced in their lifetime."
George Boeree, Professor of Psychology at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania, USA, concludes: "Rather than assessing how 'crazy' you are, the 'Myers-Briggs' simply opens up your personality for exploration."

The Type Basics

A lot of folk get nervy about psychological models.
It might be because they think the model will reveal personality aspects they don't like, or that the practitioner will discover a deep secret only they themselves have known and refused to admit to others. Some imagine it will reveal their dysfunction to the world. It doesn't and won't. And it doesn't measure criminality either. But, it can be a bit threatening.

Here are some basics, taken from the Center for Applications of Psychological Type web site.

1. Extraversion-Introversion (EI)
   The EI index is designed to reflect whether a person is an extravert or an introvert in the sense intended by Jung.Jungg regarded extraversion and introversion as "mutually complementary" attitudes whose differences "generate the tension that both the individual and society need for the maintenance of life." Extraverts are oriented primarily toward the outer world; thus they tend to focus their perception and judgment on people and objects. Introverts are oriented primarily toward the inner world; thus they tend to focus their perception and judgment upon concepts and ideas.
2. Sensing-Intuition (SN)
   The SN index is designed to reflect a person's preference between two opposite ways of perceiving; one may rely primarily upon the process of sensing (S), which reports observable facts or happenings through one or more of the five senses; or one may rely upon the less obvious process of intuition (N), which reports meanings, relationships and/or possibilities that have been worked out beyond the reach of the conscious mind.
3. Thinking-Feeling (TF)
   The TF index is designed to reflect a person's preference between two contrasting ways of judgment. A person may rely primarily through thinking (T) to decide impersonally on the basis of logical consequences, or a person may rely primarily on feelings (F) to decide primarily on the basis of personal or social values.
4. Judgment-Perception (JP)
   The JP index is designed to describe the process a person uses primarily in dealing with the outer world, that is, with the extraverted part of life. A person who prefers judgment (J) has reported a preference for using a judgment process (either thinking or feeling) for dealing with the outer world. A person who prefers perception (P) has reported a preference for using a perceptive process (either S or N) for dealing with the outer world.

It's simple really. Here's my spin on it all.

• You start your day by waking up. If you don't wake up you don't get up. Extraverts get their energy by embracing the outer world and probably wake up sooner than Introverts who gather energyy from within.
• Once you're awake you collect information: What's the weather like? Is this my bed?
• Then you make a decision: I'm getting up. I will drink coffee.
• Then the process starts: If you have a perceiving preference (P), you might spend more time collecting information, never quite satisfied; meanwhile, someone with a preference for judgement moves through the day with order, precision and deciding quickly.

Extraversion can get you into trouble

I'm an extravert.
Clear as a bell, loud and out there.
But sometimes, every so often, even though I know it might be better to swallow hard and pretend to cough, I let the words tumble out.
Two examples.
I'm sitting in a coffee shop, with a friend, engaged in a business meeting, when the Premier of the State of Western Australia, one Richard Court, walks by, accompanied by a person speaking with a Scottish accent.
Two days before, the local rag, known by some as a newspaper, had splashed it's front pages with news of the sale of the state bank - the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia - to a large Scottish concern, one of the world's Big Ones.
I lean out of my chair and say, so all can hear: "Excuse me, Richard, can you tell me how the hell we are going to get a loan from a Scot?"
The coffee shop laughs.
My friend hides.
The Premier blushes.
The Scot smiles.
Then again, I am sitting in a small park, with another friend, as a young man walks by with his skateboard.
The friend greets him.
So do I.
The friend knows him.
I don't.
"What's his name?"
"Raine."
"Wow and on a clear day too."
As the bloke moves out of range, the friend leans towards me and says: "No, never, ever, make fun of a person's name."
Okay, I'm, not sure about the young man's thoughts, but my friend was certainly sure you should never make fun of a person's name, whereas I am sure that you should never make fun of it if it pertains to the person, but if it is a casual, playful pun, offered in fun, with no slight intended, then I think it's fine.
But not everyone does.
And that's the burden and the joy of extraversion.
The uncontrollable urge to speak out where the energy takes you, without fear or favour, with the distinct possibility that someone might cop something you hadn't thought off because that's not what you do, think before you speak.
With every dichotomy comes two sides: one is a positive, and the other is the other.

How it all began

It wasn't easy.
A friend asked if I would help out, be a light relief in all the seriousness.
I said yes.
I regretted it.
The thing was, and rightly so, participants expected that I, a co-presenter, would know all about the 16 different personality types that make up the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator®.
It was embarrasssing.
I was funny, sure, but I lacked substance.
Integrity has always been crucial to someone with my profile: ENFP.
And because I was extraverted (E), I voiced my dilemma, and because I took my embarrassment personally (F), I only had one option: resign.
In those days it was important that practitioners have a degree in the humanities, and I did, so I became acredited.
As soon as I completed my accreditation studies, I realised the journey had only just begun.
and that it would never finish.
I am now member of the Jungian Society and I attend all pre-conference workshops of the Australian Association for Psychological Type bi-annual conference and a day does not pass without me reading, exploring, pondering, and realising how little I know.
This blog will be part of the jounrey.
I'll hope you'll drop in from time to time.