Meyers-Briggs, Vices, and Virtues

Usually I stumble over random car parts in my garage but every so often I stumble on something a bit more valuable. The team I work with recently took the Meyers-Briggs test and we reviewed what all that meant. One of the things our material discussed was that certain personality types have different communication needs and for effective communication those needs have to be addressed. Since communication is two-way, those needs have to be met in the middle somewhere. That's cool...but what was really fascinating to me was how the test explained strengths and weaknesses. According to most interpretations of this psychological profile, strengths and weaknesses are closely related. Most weakness are a perversion of one of that profile's strengths. I'm an ENTJ so using my own profile as an example, this link show exactly what I mean. If you know me well, you'll probably laugh. If you know me really well, you might NOT laugh...

http://www.personalitypage.com/html/ENTJ_rel.html

Then it occured to me, if a strength is the result of a cultivated weakness, and a weakness is the perversion of a strength, then a person could really grow by identifying their strengths and using them to augment their attempts to develop their weak areas. Take an ENTJ for example, they may not always be able to empathize with others. But one thing that an ENTJ is very good at is strategizing and planning and following through on execution. So one possible approach would be to acknowledge the weakness, identify good sources of information on developing an appreciation for the feelings of others and put that plan into action. Obviously part that process would include setting aside the analytical mind that ENTJ's are notorious for and developing a more receptive

As I gave this idea more thought, I hit on something even greater. What might the implications be for the applying this theory outside Meyers-Briggs profiles? What if our greatest temptations, our greatest moral weaknesses, were a perversion of our greatest gifts? What if greed was really a perversion of generosity? Lust really a perversion of true passion and love? Hate really a perversion of compassion and understanding?

Now THAT is a concept worth thinking about...Perhaps those people who are "cursed" with seemingly impossible personal struggles have the potential to turn those weakness into something truly awesome. I started looking at my own life and saw exactly that. The areas that I struggle with the most at times were at other times where I excelled. Sometimes I think we get too caught up with a weakness and we forget what we are good at and naturally as a result we don't consider how that strength could help us overcome that weakness. I'm pretty sure most people I know could name a handful of deadly sins but I'm not so sure they could name an equal number of virtues, much less explain them. I would have to say that I can't exclude myself from that group either. But it's hard to overcome a weakness that possesses your consciousness. It can also be nearly impossible to ignore once you are aware of it. I think it's possible to develop a more authoritative and intimate knowledge of the equivalent virtue, ultimately giving the ability to fight back when weakness threatens to take over.

That's really the core of this I suppose. You have to empower yourself with knowledge of good before you can really expect to grow out of weakness. And you must know your weakness before you can turn it into strength.

Ahhhh...What's in a name?

In the beginning, Adam named the creatures. When we are born, our parents name us. When we are in trouble, our parents remind us of our names. Heck, sometimes you can tell how much trouble you're in by how many names they use. You know you're in trouble when they start ADDING names that aren't really yours...

Anyway, names are kind of a big deal. I mean really, without one how would people address you?

They wouldn't. And in fact, I think often we don't. We just don't name things how we used to. Adding a person's name to a statement adds a certain emphasis that indicates you actually thought about it and wanted to draw their attention to it. Think of how you might close a phone conversation with your mother:

Mom: "I love you"
You: "luvyoutoo"

There's nothing really WRONG with this, but there's not much RIGHT with it either. Consider the alternative:

Mom: "I love you"
You: "I love you too Mom."

Your mother's given name isn't even "mom" but somehow it subtly implies that you actually mean it. You are essentially saying "I love you" and specifically saying who "you" is. This sort of naming is at the very core of why we name things to begin with. Names are significant because they are how we call up memories and perceptions of people. Do you know a Steven? How about a Steve? When you think of those two names, I would venture that you probably think of a specific person. And when you think of Steven, you probably don't think of Steve.

Yeah but why bother with names? We have technology to handle that for us. Most if not all instant messengers have names to tell us who we're talking to and with caller ID, we don't need to be reminded of who we're talking to. Try answering your phone WITHOUT looking at the screen first and see how many people actually tell you who they are when you answer. Or even better, when YOU call.

To make this more personal, I know the most meaningful things that have been said to me have been said explicitly to me. Whether I was told that I was loved, that I did a good job, or that there some area of my life that needed improvement. Names are important and not to be disregarded lightly.

What's in a name? Me. It's like a snapshot of all that I was, all that I am, and a foreshadowing of who I will continue to grow into. My name is Jack. Nice to meet you.

Logistical challenges in relationships

Today I stumbled on an idea that I thought worth developing. The idea was that it's easy to get hung up on the logistics of a relationship and approach love and friendship as a "balance of payments". "Balance of payments" is a pretty intuitive term but I think I should probably explain what I mean by logistics as it pertains to relationships. These are things like sharing physical space, accepting the accidentals of a personality, and realizing that the things you like about a person are worth tolerating the things that drive you nuts. I think too often relationships are put at the mercy of things that don't have a lasting impact or don't really matter beyond a particular instance. I read an article several years ago in Catholic Digest about "Bowl Wars" where a married couple butted heads over which way the bowls go in the dishwasher. It's laughable for a moment, until I realized that I've started, "finished", lost, and won MANY "Bowl Wars" with people I care about over the years. Looking back and comparing the results of "victory" to "defeat", I don't recall a single instance where victory felt much better than defeat. And really, when two people who are supposed to be working together engage in competitive argument, they have both already lost the battle. The challenge isn't to be right, it's to stay intact. 

Relationships that disintegrate because of logistics were probably doomed long before those challenges materialized. Dealing with logistical challenges requires both parties to be willing to make some sort of sacrifice to reach a compromise. But this is not a negotiation! In an ideal situation, the "competition" wouldn't be who could KEEP the most of what is laid on the bargaining table, it would be who could GIVE the most. This sort of selflessness is at the very core of Love. But even then, "competition" cannot exist. I have found that even in selflessness there can be a very dangerous form of pride that develops a certain "arrogant humility" that can erode relationships as fast as blatant arrogance. A real and sincere gift of self requires that the giver think nothing of it. This runs inherently contrary to the idea that relationships revolve around a constant "balance of payments" where each favor has to be returned with another favor. This also undermines the modern mandate that relationships must be 50/50. Sure there are relationships where this is true, but the more important the relationship, the more investment it requires of both parties. Thus, the ideal ratio would be 100%/100%. Of course, in this ideal many more factors come into play. Can you trust the other person to give 100%? Can you sustain 100% with that person? Is the other person capable of sustaining that sort of selflessness? Since nobody is perfect, the answer to each of these question will probably be something ranging between "Yes, usually" and "No, not very often at all". But the intent and motivation to strive towards an unconditional "Yes! Always. Because I love you" must be there or the relationship will be at the mercy of logistics.

But even this sort of compassion is not enough by itself. There must also exist an understanding of what to offer and how to offer it. A man may truly love his wife, but if he does not understand that she prefers intimate dinners at home, spending enormous amounts of money on her at a 5-star restaurant has less impact than even a poorly cooked meal prepared in their own kitchen*. Compassion may empower a person to give of themselves, but Understanding enables a person to insure that their gift is meaningful.

*Which is why I'm glad to have developed a knack for cooking. You never know when it will come in handy!