If you have an interest in psychology, chances are you've come across one or more of the many "personality typing" systems out there.
There are two types of people in the world: People who think there are two types of people in the world, and people who don't."
~Unknown
The idea that people tend to have natural preferences ("personalities") that can be categorized according to certain parameters is nothing new: In the early part of the 20th century C.G. Jung wrote extensively about "temperament types," and he's perhaps the best known typology psychologist of our time.
But the whole idea is far older than Jung... we have to go all the way back to Greek physician Hippocrates (yes, he of the Hippocratic Oath that has followed medicine to this day) around 400 BCE, when he characterized "The Four Humors" as distinct ways to explain people's nature and behavior.
Now, as a 50,000 foot overview and preface, these systems don't typically come about merely because someone was bored on a rainy day and thought "let's invent some random shit!" They come about because there seem to be pervasive and observable patterns, and it's human nature to try to make sense of such things.
With that out of the way, there are a lot of widely recognized and used typology systems out there: Myers-Briggs, Big Five, Enneagram, Human Design, Temperament Theory and several others. In a bit of a stretch, you could even make a case for Astrology being a typology system.
Whereas none of these are particularly scientific — Big Five being the exception — I find that they can be very helpful, not as ways to "box ourselves in," but as talking points to quickly communicate something fairly general about the ways we approach life; and perhaps to start conversations around commonly understood concepts... "What's your sign?" is more than a cheesy pick-up line, it's also an invitation to start dialogue around a topic most people have a fundamental understanding of.
I won't go into details about any of these systems, but instead wanted to consider the interesting reality of many people claim to be "offended by labels," particularly when it comes to personality typologies.
Reasons for rejection typically range from "it's all bogus!" to an insistent "I can't be summed up by a SYSTEM!"
For me, the question isn't "what's your type?" so much as a more probing "why so easily offended?"
Poking around in that, often leads to the further inquiry as to whether the offense is at the system not being right, or because the person doesn't want it to be a reality that their personality could be materially summarized by a set of consistent metrics.
In many cases, it turns out that the real issue at hand is attachment to being — you guessed it — "a unique snowflake." No, not a snowflake in that weird creepy politically correct way, but in the sense of a strong self-image as being so "Unique and Individual" that it can't be "grouped." It's almost like there's a fear of loss of identity at the heart of the system rejection.
The irony of that is, of course, that we can be grouped, and we get grouped all the time, for "speaking English," or "having big feet" or "having blonde hair," or "being a carpenter." Few people take offense at those kinds of groupings because... they are very openly visible.
What is noteworthy here is that our minds tend to be IN-visible so many people are very secretive and protective of their psyches and thus are given to reject any attempts — whether accurate, or not — at being grouped by psychological characteristic...
But there's a good reason why law enforcement and employers use these systems: Because — on a broad level — they work. Perhaps the strongest example comes from the Gottman Institute in Seattle, which can predict with 94% accuracy whether or not a couple will divorce, just based on a questionnaire.
And herein lies one of the quirks of being human. People wonder why these systems are not more popular, and the simple answer is that we're broadly offended by the notion that science is a better predictor of (for example) lasting love than our hearts and intuition. Not very romantic, for Valentine's Day, is it?
People want the fairy tale, not the reality.
Anyway, I personally think psychological labels are useful, as long as we remember to treat them according to what they truly are: pieces of information about us... just like a map of San Francisco is NOT "San Francisco, itself" it can still be very helpful in helping us navigate from one side of the city to the other! However, the map is not the actual territory.
Thanks for reading, and have great remainder of your weekend!
How about YOU? Have you ever taken a personality typing test? Do you feel it was somewhat accurate, or just a joke? Or somewhere in between? Are you "offended" by labels? Comments, feedback and other interaction is invited and welcomed! Because — after all — SOCIAL content is about interacting, right? Leave a comment — share your experiences — be part of the conversation!
Greetings bloggers and social content creators! This article was created via PeakD, a blogging application that's part of the Hive Social Content Experience. If you're a blogger, writer, poet, artist, vlogger, musician or other creative content wizard, come join us! Hive is a little "different" because it's not run by a "company;" it operates via the consensus of its users and your content can't be banned, censored, taken down or demonetized. And that COUNTS for something, in these uncertain times! So if you're ready for the next generation of social content where YOU retain ownership and control, come by and learn about Hive and make an account!
Proud member of the Lifestyle Lounge Community on Hive!
(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly and uniquely for this platform — NOT cross posted anywhere else!)
Created at 20210213 15:58 PST
0182/1425