Being myself
Dec. 5th, 2004 03:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerOccasionally I post the results of tests on my LJ. Barring the recent one for Disney Princesses (which just amused me far too much _not_ to post), I tend not to answer most of the quizzes that make the rounds.
The one's I'm most fascinated with are the ones for the Myers-Briggs Typology (on which I am an INTP) and ones to do with Aspergers/Systemising. The reason for this is that I feel these express something I feel strongly about myself. I'm not 'normal', I don't fit in, I never have, and I don't feel any particular need to. Cataloguing the ways in which I feel different and displaying them acts as both a warning to others ("This is what you can expect of Andrew") and as a statement of how I feel ("This is what I find important.").
Of course, interacting with the world means _compromise_. I have to work, and I like having friends. Many of them aren't like me - in fact there are damn few people I actually enjoy discussing things with in depth, because most people seem to be lacking an interest in discussing them, or even thinking about them. One of the great things about LJ has been that purely by writing about what interests me I've attracted people that find the same things at least intermittently interesting. Getting back to the point - compromise - dealing with most people means finding points in common and then ways of interacting with them that don't cause friction.
A question that I mull over from time to time is how much compromise is reasonable - how much I should 'be myself' (which is where I am, of course, most comfortable) and how much I should be entertaining, understanding and generally 'there' for other people. If I want them to be there for me, to offer friendship and all the things that go with it, then I need to compromise somewhat, otherwise what reason could they have for wanting to hang out with me? On the other hand, I spend enough time in this way at work that by the time I get home I don't really feel like I have the energy to spend doing so in the evening as well.
Obviously, the easiest thing to do is to surround myelf with people that feel like me, or at least as much as possible, the problem there being that this prevents any kind of growth as I wouldn't be exposed to new ideas. Oh, and as I said above, I don't know nearly enough of those. So compromise is the order of the day.
The question being how much? Should I deliberately take an interest in things that don't interest me, so I can discuss them with other people (instant reaction: Hell No! I don't have enough time to indulge my actual interests). Should I set aside time for other people, to help them with things (instant reaction: provided this is mutual, then yes - we should help each other, so long as we're not being taken advantage of).
It's tricky. Which, I suspect, is why the topic rises to the surface of my brain on a fairly regular basis.
Oh - and go see I Heart Huckabees at once!
The one's I'm most fascinated with are the ones for the Myers-Briggs Typology (on which I am an INTP) and ones to do with Aspergers/Systemising. The reason for this is that I feel these express something I feel strongly about myself. I'm not 'normal', I don't fit in, I never have, and I don't feel any particular need to. Cataloguing the ways in which I feel different and displaying them acts as both a warning to others ("This is what you can expect of Andrew") and as a statement of how I feel ("This is what I find important.").
Of course, interacting with the world means _compromise_. I have to work, and I like having friends. Many of them aren't like me - in fact there are damn few people I actually enjoy discussing things with in depth, because most people seem to be lacking an interest in discussing them, or even thinking about them. One of the great things about LJ has been that purely by writing about what interests me I've attracted people that find the same things at least intermittently interesting. Getting back to the point - compromise - dealing with most people means finding points in common and then ways of interacting with them that don't cause friction.
A question that I mull over from time to time is how much compromise is reasonable - how much I should 'be myself' (which is where I am, of course, most comfortable) and how much I should be entertaining, understanding and generally 'there' for other people. If I want them to be there for me, to offer friendship and all the things that go with it, then I need to compromise somewhat, otherwise what reason could they have for wanting to hang out with me? On the other hand, I spend enough time in this way at work that by the time I get home I don't really feel like I have the energy to spend doing so in the evening as well.
Obviously, the easiest thing to do is to surround myelf with people that feel like me, or at least as much as possible, the problem there being that this prevents any kind of growth as I wouldn't be exposed to new ideas. Oh, and as I said above, I don't know nearly enough of those. So compromise is the order of the day.
The question being how much? Should I deliberately take an interest in things that don't interest me, so I can discuss them with other people (instant reaction: Hell No! I don't have enough time to indulge my actual interests). Should I set aside time for other people, to help them with things (instant reaction: provided this is mutual, then yes - we should help each other, so long as we're not being taken advantage of).
It's tricky. Which, I suspect, is why the topic rises to the surface of my brain on a fairly regular basis.
Oh - and go see I Heart Huckabees at once!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 08:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 09:15 am (UTC)Even if all it does is allow people to codify the way that they think/feel so that others can then appreciate (some of) the differences then it's worthwhile.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 09:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 09:23 am (UTC)All definitions are metaphors - ways of slicing off the extra bits to make something fit in a box.
"I'm a Christian."
"I'm a man."
"I'm black."
"I'm an alcoholic."
None of these are the sum totality of anyone.
Still useful though.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 09:46 am (UTC)All of these are but aspects of a person, I agree - and none of them covers the whole person ever.
But well-validated and replicable measures helps ensure that the analyst doesn't just project their own prejudices and preconceptions on the analysand. Of course, personality measures are still extremely subjective most of the time, but some are less prone to subjective "distortion" than others.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 11:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 11:49 am (UTC)It's varying back and forth and finding the balance that's the interesting, tricky and annoying bit.