TORONTO, ONTARIO - Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke has been receiving a lot of publicity from a recent column in the form of an obituary for the concept of facts. Sadly, Huppke has a point.
Once upon a time, the late New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's quote about facts was the last word on the subject. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Huppke implicitly points out that this is no longer regarded as true; paradoxically, the existence of facts is no longer regarded as a fact, or an empirically-derivable reality. Now, reality is based on beliefs or ideology, and demonstrable truths take a back seat. NPR's piece on the Huppke editorial cites Stephen Colbert's concept of "truthiness" as a replacement for facts, but whatever we call it, it's not the same bedrock for life of my youth.
The truly amazing part of this transition is that, while people all over the political spectrum in the United States are to blame for advancing the deprecation of facts, most of the big blows have come from political conservatives. Once upon a time, I seem to recall conservatives accusing liberals of having a relative world view in which there was no absolute truth. They thought their world view was based on immutable things, while the liberal had no grounding because their beliefs shifted based on circumstances.
Granted, it wasn't "facts" but "truths" usually cited by conservatives, implying belief over provability, but in abandoning the concept of demonstrable facts, the conservatives that have made up facts have shown that they are just as relative in their reality as they had accused liberals of being. In fact, they have rather proven the liberals' point that one's perspective on the world is relative--if we can't agree on demonstrable facts, then clearly one's perspective and life experience does matter, which is what the liberals have been saying all along.
Leave it to me to put a personality spin on the whole situation--one of the reasons that facts can be declared dead in the United States is that it's a fundamentally emotional-world society. (I've argued that people in the United States don't care about the truth before.) In a balanced society, the logic of the spiritual world would fight back with a defense of facts. But, the spiritual world is so irrelevant in most contexts in the United States that it has no ability to fight back.
Ironically, the only thing that will bring facts back to their former status in the United States is for a campaign on their behalf to arise. Stephen Colbert has done his part, but until there are a critical mass of people who can sell the concept of facts, Rex Huppke's editorial may continue to ring true, and that's sad.
Showing posts with label personality theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personality theory. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Personality: Evolution of Personality
TORONTO, ONTARIO - When discussing the meridian personality classification system, called the Genetic Personality Types (GPT) by their discoverer, Bob Cooley, the subject of which of the sixteen personality types or four worlds amongst them is the most "advanced" sometimes comes up. Anyone asking this question has really missed the point. One of the most appealing aspects of the theory is that each of the sixteen types brings its own geniuses to the human race, that everyone can access them whether they naturally exhibit them or not, and that human interactions depend on the presence of all types. In a very real sense, all sixteen types are not only on an equal footing, they all represent the advancement of the human race.
Yet, few people would argue that all animals, or even other mammals, exhibit the sixteen types. Ever heard of an appendix-type cat that seems to have a natural sense of acupuncture points on its siblings? Or a kidney-type dog that amuses itself and those around it by imitating its human owner? I sure haven't. It's easy to see that domesticated animals, especially, have individual and greatly diverging personalities, but mapping those personalities to the human GPT classifications doesn't seem straight-forward.
So how did the GPT personalities evolve? We may never know the answer to that question, but psychologists may have come across a clue. Daniel Gilbert, in his best-selling book "Stumbling on Happiness," makes the case that it was the development of the frontal lobe that made us human. What goes on in the frontal lobe? The ability to conceptualize about the future. Gilbert puts it bluntly: "The human being is the only animal that thinks about the future."
In the GPT theory, orientation to the future is a characteristic of the types in the "Thinking" or "Analytical" world. The development of the "Thinking" world may be what caused the species to move from ape to human. Yet, it is not clear what existed previously. Did the "Emotional" world and its ability to draw so profoundly on the past exist in apes in the same way as it does in humans? Or did apes, like other animals, have only a rudimentary sense of the past, the same way that a squirrel could bury an acorn before the winter but not really have the ability to contemplate its future? Since the "Thinking" and "Emotional" worlds balance one another, it might make some sense that the greatest evolutionary advantage would be in their evolving simultaneously, rather than one after the other, but one could also have developed in response to the other.
The focus on the "Thinking" world as being the key evolutionary step as embodied in the frontal lobe also seems rather counter to the traditional way of differentiating humans from animals, which is in terms of spirituality. Religious doctrine only put words on a sense that seems to be quite common in this species that we are the only ones with "souls," not other creatures. This is generally linked to the "energy" sensitivity of the "Spiritual" world. And, by the same argument that there is an evolutionary advantage to balancing worlds, one might imagine that the "Spiritual" world developed to balance the present-focused "Physical" world that seems the most instinctual and animal-like.
Yet, I'm quite convinced that this rather belittling view of the "Physical" world is unfounded. The "Physical" world may be focused on the present, but is that present the same as the animal's present any more than the human's view of the past is the same as the animal's view of the past? Are there skin-type animals convincing other individuals to do what they want? Are there lung-type animals taking the kind of leadership in groups that humans do? I hardly find the alpha male gorilla to be analogous to a lung-type human leading a construction or research crew. (Of course, as a spiritual type, I would have a hard time belittling the "Physical" world.)
The bottom line may be that the human brain fundamentally views time differently, no matter what GPT world it emphasizes. If it is the sense of time in all its categories, not just the future, that is indeed defining, and that ability came from the development of the frontal lobe, then all four worlds may have been developed roughly simultaneously in evolutionary terms. That would certainly be a more satisfying conclusion for those that want to believe in the equality of the sixteen geniuses.
Yet, few people would argue that all animals, or even other mammals, exhibit the sixteen types. Ever heard of an appendix-type cat that seems to have a natural sense of acupuncture points on its siblings? Or a kidney-type dog that amuses itself and those around it by imitating its human owner? I sure haven't. It's easy to see that domesticated animals, especially, have individual and greatly diverging personalities, but mapping those personalities to the human GPT classifications doesn't seem straight-forward.
So how did the GPT personalities evolve? We may never know the answer to that question, but psychologists may have come across a clue. Daniel Gilbert, in his best-selling book "Stumbling on Happiness," makes the case that it was the development of the frontal lobe that made us human. What goes on in the frontal lobe? The ability to conceptualize about the future. Gilbert puts it bluntly: "The human being is the only animal that thinks about the future."
In the GPT theory, orientation to the future is a characteristic of the types in the "Thinking" or "Analytical" world. The development of the "Thinking" world may be what caused the species to move from ape to human. Yet, it is not clear what existed previously. Did the "Emotional" world and its ability to draw so profoundly on the past exist in apes in the same way as it does in humans? Or did apes, like other animals, have only a rudimentary sense of the past, the same way that a squirrel could bury an acorn before the winter but not really have the ability to contemplate its future? Since the "Thinking" and "Emotional" worlds balance one another, it might make some sense that the greatest evolutionary advantage would be in their evolving simultaneously, rather than one after the other, but one could also have developed in response to the other.
The focus on the "Thinking" world as being the key evolutionary step as embodied in the frontal lobe also seems rather counter to the traditional way of differentiating humans from animals, which is in terms of spirituality. Religious doctrine only put words on a sense that seems to be quite common in this species that we are the only ones with "souls," not other creatures. This is generally linked to the "energy" sensitivity of the "Spiritual" world. And, by the same argument that there is an evolutionary advantage to balancing worlds, one might imagine that the "Spiritual" world developed to balance the present-focused "Physical" world that seems the most instinctual and animal-like.
Yet, I'm quite convinced that this rather belittling view of the "Physical" world is unfounded. The "Physical" world may be focused on the present, but is that present the same as the animal's present any more than the human's view of the past is the same as the animal's view of the past? Are there skin-type animals convincing other individuals to do what they want? Are there lung-type animals taking the kind of leadership in groups that humans do? I hardly find the alpha male gorilla to be analogous to a lung-type human leading a construction or research crew. (Of course, as a spiritual type, I would have a hard time belittling the "Physical" world.)
The bottom line may be that the human brain fundamentally views time differently, no matter what GPT world it emphasizes. If it is the sense of time in all its categories, not just the future, that is indeed defining, and that ability came from the development of the frontal lobe, then all four worlds may have been developed roughly simultaneously in evolutionary terms. That would certainly be a more satisfying conclusion for those that want to believe in the equality of the sixteen geniuses.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Culture: Symbolic Family Feud
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA - I've written in the past about watching game shows with my great aunt here. One of the shows that airs on the Game Show Network (GSN) is the slightly dated version of Family Feud with Richard Karn (I have yet to see the latest version with Steve Harvey). While I remember the show since the days of Richard Dawson, this was the first time I realized just how symbolic Family Feud is of culture in United States.
The basic goal of Family Feud is to come up with the answers that match those of a game show survey of one hundred people. In other words, the idea isn't to come up with the "correct" answer (not that there really is a correct answer to "a thing you check before you go to bed"), but the answer most likely to be stated by average citizens. According to the logic of the show, it's best to think like the average person, not to think more creatively or unconventionally.
Following this way of thinking, if everyone thinks something that is factually incorrect, then matching that incorrect perception would be rewarded. Now, Family Feud would never ask "Who was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11?" but if they did, answering "Saddam Hussein" would probably earn points for one's team. More realistically, if people had answered "September" to "A month with 31 days" (an actual survey inquiry on a recent show), then that would also be rewarded, despite being incorrect. Granted, the games are often won and lost on some of the less common responses, with perhaps 6-10 of the 100 responses as the most common answers are usually easiest to figure out, but even figuring out those are basically an exercise in thinking in a mediocre fashion.
Think about the reward structure in a lot of fields--sales and finance, for example. They are basically about understanding how the average person thinks. Sales may be based on the fundamentals of what a product has to offer, but it's mostly about connecting with average person in the marketplace. Finance may be based on the fundamentals of the individual businesses, but the real money is made from predicting how people will react to those fundamentals in the securities marketplace.
Those that do well at Family Feud likely will be rewarded for applying those same skills in money-making professions in the United States.
The basic goal of Family Feud is to come up with the answers that match those of a game show survey of one hundred people. In other words, the idea isn't to come up with the "correct" answer (not that there really is a correct answer to "a thing you check before you go to bed"), but the answer most likely to be stated by average citizens. According to the logic of the show, it's best to think like the average person, not to think more creatively or unconventionally.
Following this way of thinking, if everyone thinks something that is factually incorrect, then matching that incorrect perception would be rewarded. Now, Family Feud would never ask "Who was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11?" but if they did, answering "Saddam Hussein" would probably earn points for one's team. More realistically, if people had answered "September" to "A month with 31 days" (an actual survey inquiry on a recent show), then that would also be rewarded, despite being incorrect. Granted, the games are often won and lost on some of the less common responses, with perhaps 6-10 of the 100 responses as the most common answers are usually easiest to figure out, but even figuring out those are basically an exercise in thinking in a mediocre fashion.
Think about the reward structure in a lot of fields--sales and finance, for example. They are basically about understanding how the average person thinks. Sales may be based on the fundamentals of what a product has to offer, but it's mostly about connecting with average person in the marketplace. Finance may be based on the fundamentals of the individual businesses, but the real money is made from predicting how people will react to those fundamentals in the securities marketplace.
Those that do well at Family Feud likely will be rewarded for applying those same skills in money-making professions in the United States.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Personality: Scientists and Engineers
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Back in March, this blog spent several posts looking at the opinions of Henry Petroski, the Duke University professor who has argued that the United States undervalues engineering relative to science. One of the side points that Petroski made was that scientists have larger egos than engineers. I mentioned that there might be a personality-based explanation for Petroski's observation, and it's time to provide it.
I want to repeat my disclaimer from the previous post: While Petroski may have a point on average, this observation is completely useless in generic interactions with scientists and engineers. In my lifetime, I have encountered a number of engineers with significant egos and plenty of scientists with much smaller egos than accomplishments. The variation in each pool is too large to make any assumptions about any individual scientist or engineer. I daresay that the distinction is basically a useless stereotype.
Yet, Petroski's observation may have its origins in the kinds of personalities that are most drawn to each discipline. Scientists are basically concerned with explaining the world around them and testing hypotheses about those observations. Of the four personality worlds identified by meridian theory, it is the "thinking" world that lines up most closely with that mind-set. The thinking world fundamentally deals with ideas, and it is novel ideas that usually are required to explain previously-unexplained phenomena. The analytical nature of the thinking world, jumping from one idea to another without concern for the details of the jump, serves them well in science. The "stomach" type within the "thinking" world is best-known for interdisciplinary thinking, bringing in ideas from outside disciplines to explain something perplexing in a defined field. The "brain" and "kidney" types in the "thinking" world are best-known for becoming extreme, deep experts in a field.
However, it is the "brain" type that also is well-known for arrogance, or at least appearing to be arrogant. The "brain" individual tends to exude an image of royalty, that their ideas are somehow to be deferred to, and others are less important. They don't tend to pay a lot of attention to the feelings of others, which are often imperceptible to them. It is likely the prevalence of "brain" types in science, or at least people in the "thinking" world with some "brain" traits, that lead to the observation that scientists have large egos.
Engineering primarily involves using scientific knowledge to make new things. This tends to attract people of action, which is to say the "physical" world. They tend to be good at putting things together, and then improvising to make them work. While not afraid of first principles, they will readily focus on what actually does the job in the real world, not in a book, if there is any conflict between the two. While the physical world can tend to be "macho" (both men and women), that doesn't come across as "ego" quite as strongly as the arrogance of the "brain" type.
Petroski's observation likely comes down to that--the "thinking" world (especially "brain") types in science come across as having bigger egos than the "physical" types in engineering. For those of us in the "spiritual" or "emotional" worlds that work as scientists or engineers, we just shake our heads at the stereotypes.
I want to repeat my disclaimer from the previous post: While Petroski may have a point on average, this observation is completely useless in generic interactions with scientists and engineers. In my lifetime, I have encountered a number of engineers with significant egos and plenty of scientists with much smaller egos than accomplishments. The variation in each pool is too large to make any assumptions about any individual scientist or engineer. I daresay that the distinction is basically a useless stereotype.
Yet, Petroski's observation may have its origins in the kinds of personalities that are most drawn to each discipline. Scientists are basically concerned with explaining the world around them and testing hypotheses about those observations. Of the four personality worlds identified by meridian theory, it is the "thinking" world that lines up most closely with that mind-set. The thinking world fundamentally deals with ideas, and it is novel ideas that usually are required to explain previously-unexplained phenomena. The analytical nature of the thinking world, jumping from one idea to another without concern for the details of the jump, serves them well in science. The "stomach" type within the "thinking" world is best-known for interdisciplinary thinking, bringing in ideas from outside disciplines to explain something perplexing in a defined field. The "brain" and "kidney" types in the "thinking" world are best-known for becoming extreme, deep experts in a field.
However, it is the "brain" type that also is well-known for arrogance, or at least appearing to be arrogant. The "brain" individual tends to exude an image of royalty, that their ideas are somehow to be deferred to, and others are less important. They don't tend to pay a lot of attention to the feelings of others, which are often imperceptible to them. It is likely the prevalence of "brain" types in science, or at least people in the "thinking" world with some "brain" traits, that lead to the observation that scientists have large egos.
Engineering primarily involves using scientific knowledge to make new things. This tends to attract people of action, which is to say the "physical" world. They tend to be good at putting things together, and then improvising to make them work. While not afraid of first principles, they will readily focus on what actually does the job in the real world, not in a book, if there is any conflict between the two. While the physical world can tend to be "macho" (both men and women), that doesn't come across as "ego" quite as strongly as the arrogance of the "brain" type.
Petroski's observation likely comes down to that--the "thinking" world (especially "brain") types in science come across as having bigger egos than the "physical" types in engineering. For those of us in the "spiritual" or "emotional" worlds that work as scientists or engineers, we just shake our heads at the stereotypes.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Culture: Don't Look to Canada for Action
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Sometimes I think the average person in the United States doesn't want to admit there are any problems in the world involving externalities. Climate change isn't real, the supply of oil will never actually run out, the oceans won't become too acidic, and economic failures in other counties will not have a significant impact on the US economy.
That isn't the case in Canada. While there is a growing minority of climate change skeptics, particularly in the west, the average Canadian still believes that the world is warming, that petroleum supplies are decreasing (thus making the oil sands in Alberta more important), the oceans are something to worry about, and pretending that other countries can't affect one's economy would be insane when enormous United States economy next door dwarfs one's own.
Ask Canadians to do anything about any of these things, though, and there's not likely to be much of a response. Canadians admit that they use more energy per capita than other developed nations, but nobody seems to be serious about doing anything about it. There's a recognition that the electoral system unfairly disadvantages smaller parties and favors regional parties, but there's not much clamor to actually do anything about it. Pretty much any politician will admit that the health care system needs reform, but it's been almost eight years since the Romanow commission now, and nothing of consequence has passed.
For all their denial about issues, when people in the United States finally agree that there is a problem, they generally take action. They might argue significantly about the appropriate action to take (think health care reform), but doing nothing in the long-term is almost never on the table.
This contrast actually fits with the personality of each country. Canada, coming from the thinking world, focuses on ideas. It likes debating ideas, even bad ideas, and in the end likes to choose the best ones. However, the process can be long, as first there's a debate about whether a problem exists, and then at least one debate about what (if anything) to do about it. There's no premium here for action; the most respect seems to go to those who come up with the best analytical process for making the decision.
In the United States, the emotional world reigns supreme. When people's emotions are strong, they demand action, or at least sympathy. The action doesn't even have to be effective necessarily. Look at how President Obama was pilloried for not showing emotion and taking enough action in the ongoing oil spill crisis. Arguably, he might actually have been taking the most effective course by pressuring BP, including the creation of a contingency fund, but that wasn't what people wanted--they wanted Bill Clinton feeling their pain.
While Canadians could use a little more impetus for action, deriving it from the emotional neediness as occurs in the United States is probably not the best way to get it. Instead, Canada would do well to tap the physical world, which lives to take action in present, regardless of ideas, energy, or even emotion. Of course, what I would expect to happen is that we might actually debate that, take a few years to decide we have a problem, and then spend a few more debating how to access the physical world. Such is the joy of thinking-world culture.
That isn't the case in Canada. While there is a growing minority of climate change skeptics, particularly in the west, the average Canadian still believes that the world is warming, that petroleum supplies are decreasing (thus making the oil sands in Alberta more important), the oceans are something to worry about, and pretending that other countries can't affect one's economy would be insane when enormous United States economy next door dwarfs one's own.
Ask Canadians to do anything about any of these things, though, and there's not likely to be much of a response. Canadians admit that they use more energy per capita than other developed nations, but nobody seems to be serious about doing anything about it. There's a recognition that the electoral system unfairly disadvantages smaller parties and favors regional parties, but there's not much clamor to actually do anything about it. Pretty much any politician will admit that the health care system needs reform, but it's been almost eight years since the Romanow commission now, and nothing of consequence has passed.
For all their denial about issues, when people in the United States finally agree that there is a problem, they generally take action. They might argue significantly about the appropriate action to take (think health care reform), but doing nothing in the long-term is almost never on the table.
This contrast actually fits with the personality of each country. Canada, coming from the thinking world, focuses on ideas. It likes debating ideas, even bad ideas, and in the end likes to choose the best ones. However, the process can be long, as first there's a debate about whether a problem exists, and then at least one debate about what (if anything) to do about it. There's no premium here for action; the most respect seems to go to those who come up with the best analytical process for making the decision.
In the United States, the emotional world reigns supreme. When people's emotions are strong, they demand action, or at least sympathy. The action doesn't even have to be effective necessarily. Look at how President Obama was pilloried for not showing emotion and taking enough action in the ongoing oil spill crisis. Arguably, he might actually have been taking the most effective course by pressuring BP, including the creation of a contingency fund, but that wasn't what people wanted--they wanted Bill Clinton feeling their pain.
While Canadians could use a little more impetus for action, deriving it from the emotional neediness as occurs in the United States is probably not the best way to get it. Instead, Canada would do well to tap the physical world, which lives to take action in present, regardless of ideas, energy, or even emotion. Of course, what I would expect to happen is that we might actually debate that, take a few years to decide we have a problem, and then spend a few more debating how to access the physical world. Such is the joy of thinking-world culture.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Politics: No Body, No Drama
TORONTO, ONTARIO - The current oil spill crisis in the United States has led to a substantial amount of criticism of President Barack Obama for not showing enough emotion. This lack of emotion has been a hallmark of the President throughout his life; he has long been known as "No Drama Obama." Yet, in an earlier post, I classified Obama as a "central" or "sexual" personality type, which is in the so-called "emotional" world. How can this be?
Personality expert Bob Cooley has long contended that the ability to feel emotions is directly related to body size. A skinny person has no body to hold emotions, and thus tends not only not to express emotions, but not even feel them. In contrast, people with much more mass can feel deep emotions. Think of public features known for emotion, say Oprah Winfrey or Bill Clinton, and one won't find a stick figure.
Whether there is a cause and effect relationship or merely correlation is not clear. Certainly, science has not provided a ready explanation for how body mass would lead to increased emotion. Could it be that the hormonal manifestations of emotion are reinforced by more body tissue?
In any event, I have mentioned that Obama does not look like a typical person of his type; they tend to have a larger build. His build is such an anomaly for the type that it caused me to not believe it for a time. So, if Cooley is right and skinnier people show fewer emotions, it should not be surprising that the President does not show much emotion.
This whole "show emotion" controversy reached a new level in Obama's recent appearance on the NBC Today show. When asked by Matt Lauer whether he should "kick butt," he responded: "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick." It still sounds he's giving a college seminar to me, even if he's swearing.
Maybe what he really needs to do is gain weight.
Personality expert Bob Cooley has long contended that the ability to feel emotions is directly related to body size. A skinny person has no body to hold emotions, and thus tends not only not to express emotions, but not even feel them. In contrast, people with much more mass can feel deep emotions. Think of public features known for emotion, say Oprah Winfrey or Bill Clinton, and one won't find a stick figure.
Whether there is a cause and effect relationship or merely correlation is not clear. Certainly, science has not provided a ready explanation for how body mass would lead to increased emotion. Could it be that the hormonal manifestations of emotion are reinforced by more body tissue?
In any event, I have mentioned that Obama does not look like a typical person of his type; they tend to have a larger build. His build is such an anomaly for the type that it caused me to not believe it for a time. So, if Cooley is right and skinnier people show fewer emotions, it should not be surprising that the President does not show much emotion.
This whole "show emotion" controversy reached a new level in Obama's recent appearance on the NBC Today show. When asked by Matt Lauer whether he should "kick butt," he responded: "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick." It still sounds he's giving a college seminar to me, even if he's swearing.
Maybe what he really needs to do is gain weight.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Economics: BP in the Emotional World
TORONTO, ONTARIO - When referring to Meridian Personality Theory, I have been known to refer to countries as having personalities. It's not just people and nations that can be classified in this way. Companies often exhibit personalities that can be determined, even when the company employs thousands of people. A case in point comes out of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico--BP is proving to have quite a "bladder" personality.
This thought was already forming in my head when I heard the skit on CBC Radio One's The Current this morning (at the end of the third segment) making fun of the names that BP has used for its attempt to stop the leak in the Gulf of Mexico. All of them have a masculine, even macho theme, including "Top Hat," "Top Kill," and "Junk Shot."
Yet, this is really nothing new. The company has been trying to control its image for quite a long time. In 2001, BP ceased to stand for "British Petroleum" in favor of "Beyond Petroleum," coinciding with a new, green-and-sun logo. While it did increase investment in alternate energy, there is no question that this was a pittance compared with its traditional petroleum business. By the company's own numbers cited here, investment in petroleum projects out-stripped alternative energy 25:1 since 2001.
The macho theme was also not new. Besides the "Deepwater Horizon" that has now become infamous, other names used in the Gulf of Mexico included "Horn Mountain," "Mad Dog," "Atlantis" and "Thunderhorse." So, this naming convention comes up whether the company is in crisis or not--it's a part of its culture.
What personality type does this sort of thing? While macho traits are generally associated with the "physical" world, the emphasis on image is not--that's a trait of the "emotional" world. Managing one's image in the interest of self-promotion without any regard for the underlying reality is most likely to occur in a "downside" or less than healthy "bladder" type within the emotional world.
As for whether this personality is well-suited to actually solving a problem like a leaking underwater oil well, it's actually not bad. "Bladders" are known as people that figure out ways to get things done, usually involving deals with others. So, while the "bladder" type might not be the one to actually fire the "junk shot" at the well, they might be just the type to find the right person or organization to do that. Or, at least, so we can hope.
This thought was already forming in my head when I heard the skit on CBC Radio One's The Current this morning (at the end of the third segment) making fun of the names that BP has used for its attempt to stop the leak in the Gulf of Mexico. All of them have a masculine, even macho theme, including "Top Hat," "Top Kill," and "Junk Shot."
Yet, this is really nothing new. The company has been trying to control its image for quite a long time. In 2001, BP ceased to stand for "British Petroleum" in favor of "Beyond Petroleum," coinciding with a new, green-and-sun logo. While it did increase investment in alternate energy, there is no question that this was a pittance compared with its traditional petroleum business. By the company's own numbers cited here, investment in petroleum projects out-stripped alternative energy 25:1 since 2001.
The macho theme was also not new. Besides the "Deepwater Horizon" that has now become infamous, other names used in the Gulf of Mexico included "Horn Mountain," "Mad Dog," "Atlantis" and "Thunderhorse." So, this naming convention comes up whether the company is in crisis or not--it's a part of its culture.
What personality type does this sort of thing? While macho traits are generally associated with the "physical" world, the emphasis on image is not--that's a trait of the "emotional" world. Managing one's image in the interest of self-promotion without any regard for the underlying reality is most likely to occur in a "downside" or less than healthy "bladder" type within the emotional world.
As for whether this personality is well-suited to actually solving a problem like a leaking underwater oil well, it's actually not bad. "Bladders" are known as people that figure out ways to get things done, usually involving deals with others. So, while the "bladder" type might not be the one to actually fire the "junk shot" at the well, they might be just the type to find the right person or organization to do that. Or, at least, so we can hope.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Personality: Zare the Physical Type
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I've taken some heat for entries on this blog which a few have taken as an indictment of the entire "physical world" of personality types, in particular my assessment of Senator John McCain back in the 2008 US Presidential campaign. I guess I haven't written enough that healthy examples of all types are required to keep the world functioning well, and that people demonstrating the "high traits" of any given personality have a lot to contribute to the world. So, just to keep the physical types off my case for awhile, let me present how Richard N. Zare, a scientist that I clearly admire as an professor demonstrates a physical world view.
Earlier this year, Zare gave the Priestley Medal Address to the American Chemical Society, which was published in Chemical and Engineering News and is available on-line. The speech was entitled "Fostering Creativity," and in it Zare expresses his belief that "creativity can actually be taught, or at least fostered." (This, incidentally, is consistent with Bob Cooley's Genetic Personality Types theory, as Cooley's whole point is that while certain personality types may naturally be more creative, anyone can take on that trait more readily by becoming more flexible in the meridians associated with that type.)
Zare describes a "creativity cycle" that starts with inertia, where perhaps a problem is recognized, but one feels good about overall understanding anyway. Next comes irritation, in which the problem starts to seem very real and one decides to solve it. In perhaps the best image of his speech, Zare points out that, "It really is true that pearls come only from irritated oysters." Next often comes imitation, when analogies to ideas tried before are tried.
The next stage is key, and where personality comes in to this discussion. Zare calls it intuition, and I cannot improve upon his words:
So how does one get through the intuition phase and find a solution? Good, old-fashioned physical type action. Go with one's "hunches" and test things to find out what works. The duality of "fear versus doing" inherent in the physical world comes into play, with the "doing" overcoming the "fear." Not only does Zare describe a fundamentally physical-world process, he uses vocabulary straight out of the personality theory.
Zare's speech represents balance as well. Besides the upsides of the thinking and physical worlds, he goes on in his speech to cite the upsides of the two other worlds as part of the formula for problem-solving as well, citing spiritual-world practice to build confidence and passion from the emotional world as ingredients for creativity. Yet, it's the intuition stage that is clearly key.
Maybe it's my own spiritual-world bias that is attracted to the upside of the physical world, but I think Zare has brilliantly described not only creativity, but everyone's favorite buzz word these days--innovation. The best genuine innovators I have encountered in my life--Zare is amongst them--are physical types, because they do the "intuition" phase more naturally than anyone else. Lest anyone think I disparage physical types, the future of society depends on their creativity and innovation as described and exemplified by Richard N. Zare.
Earlier this year, Zare gave the Priestley Medal Address to the American Chemical Society, which was published in Chemical and Engineering News and is available on-line. The speech was entitled "Fostering Creativity," and in it Zare expresses his belief that "creativity can actually be taught, or at least fostered." (This, incidentally, is consistent with Bob Cooley's Genetic Personality Types theory, as Cooley's whole point is that while certain personality types may naturally be more creative, anyone can take on that trait more readily by becoming more flexible in the meridians associated with that type.)
Zare describes a "creativity cycle" that starts with inertia, where perhaps a problem is recognized, but one feels good about overall understanding anyway. Next comes irritation, in which the problem starts to seem very real and one decides to solve it. In perhaps the best image of his speech, Zare points out that, "It really is true that pearls come only from irritated oysters." Next often comes imitation, when analogies to ideas tried before are tried.
The next stage is key, and where personality comes in to this discussion. Zare calls it intuition, and I cannot improve upon his words:
...it requires you to adopt an attitude of playfulness. You put forward wild hypotheses, and then you work to show how these hypotheses are ridiculous. Two extremes must be avoided. If you believe too much and do not question, you can easily delude yourself. On the other hand, if you are too critical, you do not dare to try anything. You need to become a "contented schizophrenic," believing and doubting at the same time.Zare is invoking all four worlds here. The wild hypotheses come from the thinking world, which specializes in non-linear connections between ideas. He views it as required, but it's not enough to get one to the solution. The extremes that he cautions against come from two other worlds. The process of believing too much and engaging in delusion comes from the down side of the emotional world, which can be more interested in feeling good about a situation than dealing with intellectual inconsistencies. Being over-critical and hamstrung from action come from the down side of the spiritual world, which is more interested in energetic harmony with the world than finding novel solutions.
The contented schizophrenic can accept a messy situation and even revel in its ambiguity. All that is needed is an unfettered imagination. You follow your hunches and see where they lead. You accept that most of the time you will fail--fail miserably--but you do not fear failure...
So how does one get through the intuition phase and find a solution? Good, old-fashioned physical type action. Go with one's "hunches" and test things to find out what works. The duality of "fear versus doing" inherent in the physical world comes into play, with the "doing" overcoming the "fear." Not only does Zare describe a fundamentally physical-world process, he uses vocabulary straight out of the personality theory.
Zare's speech represents balance as well. Besides the upsides of the thinking and physical worlds, he goes on in his speech to cite the upsides of the two other worlds as part of the formula for problem-solving as well, citing spiritual-world practice to build confidence and passion from the emotional world as ingredients for creativity. Yet, it's the intuition stage that is clearly key.
Maybe it's my own spiritual-world bias that is attracted to the upside of the physical world, but I think Zare has brilliantly described not only creativity, but everyone's favorite buzz word these days--innovation. The best genuine innovators I have encountered in my life--Zare is amongst them--are physical types, because they do the "intuition" phase more naturally than anyone else. Lest anyone think I disparage physical types, the future of society depends on their creativity and innovation as described and exemplified by Richard N. Zare.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Politics: Harper's Thinking World Budget
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I've avoided weighing in on the personality of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the Chinese meridian-based system that I like to use. I've actually long suspected that he was in the thinking world, but since Canada itself has a thinking-world personality, it could have just been a cultural overlay. I've been fooled about a number of people in that way. However, in light of the Conservative government's budget released today, I'm finally convinced that Harper must indeed be coming from the thinking world, though I still won't commit on a specific personality type within the world.
It's been clear since he came on the political scene in Canada that Harper's strength has been strategy, and not charisma. Some would say he completely lacks charisma. The attention placed on trying to create a more human image for Harper, notably the sweaters of the 2008 election campaign, underline this weakness. Yet, personality theory teaches us that the traits of the "balancing" type are in the "subconscious" of the a given type, and those traits can come out with effort when the individual is healthy. Harper's famous piano performance with Yo-Yo Ma of "With a Little Help from My Friends" demonstrated that he does have an emotional-world performance side that can come out, implying that he does reside in the balancing, thinking world.
The hallmark of the thinking world is that it thinks in terms of the future, often making decisions for the sake of a long-term vision that completely ignore contemporary reality or lessons from the past. While a case could be made that many political decisions Harper has made follow that pattern, seeming to have a tin ear to the opening days of a recession or to the historic importance of the arts in Quebec for example, never has the trend been more clear than in the present budget. Instead of spending money on programs (such as additional stimulus spending or Employment Insurance reform) to ensure that the country exits the recession, instead the bulk of the limited new spending in the budget is designed to grow high-technology businesses to create a stronger economy years down the road. While entrepreneurial students have plenty to be excited about in this focus, the currently-unemployed have something to be upset about. It's not hard to argue that this is the correct long-term strategy for Canada, but if the opposition parties are clever, they will be able to use this against Harper in the short term.
The thinking world is also known for being proactive, which means that sometimes they try to solve problems that don't even exist. Though there are a number of more crassly political possibilities for the move to remove gender-specific language from the national anthem, this could also reflect the proactive, thinking world view. Harper may have created a problem that actually did not exist and tried to solve it.
The good news for Stephen Harper is that the opposition leader, Michael Ignatieff, also seems to hail from the thinking world. The odds that Ignatieff will be able to focus on the present and poke holes in the budget based on the current conditions in a compelling manner seem long. That, in fact, may be part of what the future-looking Harper is counting on, just as much as he is counting on an improving economy.
It's been clear since he came on the political scene in Canada that Harper's strength has been strategy, and not charisma. Some would say he completely lacks charisma. The attention placed on trying to create a more human image for Harper, notably the sweaters of the 2008 election campaign, underline this weakness. Yet, personality theory teaches us that the traits of the "balancing" type are in the "subconscious" of the a given type, and those traits can come out with effort when the individual is healthy. Harper's famous piano performance with Yo-Yo Ma of "With a Little Help from My Friends" demonstrated that he does have an emotional-world performance side that can come out, implying that he does reside in the balancing, thinking world.
The hallmark of the thinking world is that it thinks in terms of the future, often making decisions for the sake of a long-term vision that completely ignore contemporary reality or lessons from the past. While a case could be made that many political decisions Harper has made follow that pattern, seeming to have a tin ear to the opening days of a recession or to the historic importance of the arts in Quebec for example, never has the trend been more clear than in the present budget. Instead of spending money on programs (such as additional stimulus spending or Employment Insurance reform) to ensure that the country exits the recession, instead the bulk of the limited new spending in the budget is designed to grow high-technology businesses to create a stronger economy years down the road. While entrepreneurial students have plenty to be excited about in this focus, the currently-unemployed have something to be upset about. It's not hard to argue that this is the correct long-term strategy for Canada, but if the opposition parties are clever, they will be able to use this against Harper in the short term.
The thinking world is also known for being proactive, which means that sometimes they try to solve problems that don't even exist. Though there are a number of more crassly political possibilities for the move to remove gender-specific language from the national anthem, this could also reflect the proactive, thinking world view. Harper may have created a problem that actually did not exist and tried to solve it.
The good news for Stephen Harper is that the opposition leader, Michael Ignatieff, also seems to hail from the thinking world. The odds that Ignatieff will be able to focus on the present and poke holes in the budget based on the current conditions in a compelling manner seem long. That, in fact, may be part of what the future-looking Harper is counting on, just as much as he is counting on an improving economy.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Politics: Gingrich the Answer?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I write this piece today reluctantly, but the conclusion seems rather inevitable. If we accept the premise expressed last week that a thinking-world presidential candidate is mostly likely to restore balance to the United States, currently in an unhealthy emotional mode--and maybe such a premise should be rejected--the person who seems most likely to serve that role is Republican Newt Gingrich.
I really don't like Newt Gingrich very much. I've written here before about how he basically rejects my world view, like many in the right wing of the Republican Party. His constant references to Christian ideas and references to the United States as a Christian nation strike me as counter to the constitution. Furthermore, his personal life has been especially repugnant. I actually don't care much when politicians are not faithful to their spouses--the French seem to be doing just fine ignoring affairs--but Gingrich is especially hypocritical for enabling the investigations of Bill Clinton when he was being unfaithful at the time himself, and for the manner in which he reportedly divorced his first wife when she was recovering from cancer in 1981.
But, it's hard to deny that Gingrich clearly comes from the "thinking" world. He always focuses on the future, and can construct a vision of where the country should be going, whether one agrees with it or not. He did it once as a primary architect of the "Contract with America" in the 1994 election, and he is reportedly working on a similar kind of national platform for 2010, and certainly could come up with a visionary platform for his own presidential campaign in 2012. Furthermore, he eventually showed an ability to work with a Democratic president to pass legislation and budgets that created the only Federal surpluses of my lifetime. From a strictly political effectiveness standpoint, Gingrich stands pretty tall.
His negatives might also be a positive in some sense. If the country could elect someone as personally egregious as Gingrich, then "common" adultery could no longer be considered a major issue for future candidates. Furthermore, as an arch conservative, he might be the only kind of "thinking" world, professorial type that could be elected. The last serious candidate from the "thinking" world, Al Gore, was rejected as someone who was too nerdy to have a beer with. It's hard to imagine the same accusation sticking to Gingrich.
I'm not the only person to notice Gingrich's potential. Tom Schaller wrote a piece on fivethirtyeight.com just this weekend looking at Gingrich's electability. As much as I wouldn't like the outcome of a Ginrich presidency, at least it would hold the potential to break the country out of its emotional state with forward-looking, vision-filled ideas.
I really don't like Newt Gingrich very much. I've written here before about how he basically rejects my world view, like many in the right wing of the Republican Party. His constant references to Christian ideas and references to the United States as a Christian nation strike me as counter to the constitution. Furthermore, his personal life has been especially repugnant. I actually don't care much when politicians are not faithful to their spouses--the French seem to be doing just fine ignoring affairs--but Gingrich is especially hypocritical for enabling the investigations of Bill Clinton when he was being unfaithful at the time himself, and for the manner in which he reportedly divorced his first wife when she was recovering from cancer in 1981.
But, it's hard to deny that Gingrich clearly comes from the "thinking" world. He always focuses on the future, and can construct a vision of where the country should be going, whether one agrees with it or not. He did it once as a primary architect of the "Contract with America" in the 1994 election, and he is reportedly working on a similar kind of national platform for 2010, and certainly could come up with a visionary platform for his own presidential campaign in 2012. Furthermore, he eventually showed an ability to work with a Democratic president to pass legislation and budgets that created the only Federal surpluses of my lifetime. From a strictly political effectiveness standpoint, Gingrich stands pretty tall.
His negatives might also be a positive in some sense. If the country could elect someone as personally egregious as Gingrich, then "common" adultery could no longer be considered a major issue for future candidates. Furthermore, as an arch conservative, he might be the only kind of "thinking" world, professorial type that could be elected. The last serious candidate from the "thinking" world, Al Gore, was rejected as someone who was too nerdy to have a beer with. It's hard to imagine the same accusation sticking to Gingrich.
I'm not the only person to notice Gingrich's potential. Tom Schaller wrote a piece on fivethirtyeight.com just this weekend looking at Gingrich's electability. As much as I wouldn't like the outcome of a Ginrich presidency, at least it would hold the potential to break the country out of its emotional state with forward-looking, vision-filled ideas.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Culture: Lack of Balance
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Eve Ensler was on my radar screen even before V-Day came up because of some of things she is saying on the book tour for her current book, "I Am An Emotional Creature". She claims that the United States needs to have more respect for emotions. To me, this underscored my long-standing position that the problem with the United States isn't that it is an emotional world country, but that it is unbalanced and thus unhealthy. That an emotional type like Ensler doesn't feel comfortable in a fundamentally emotional environment is an indictment of that environment.
If this were a thorough academic commentary, time would need to be spent describing how what I mean when I refer to the emotional world--derived from Traditional Chinese Medicine and the Meridian Stretching teachings of Bob Cooley--is not exactly the same as what Eve Ensler means. Most readers of this piece will probably be using the same meaning as Ensler. I don't think it matters much; the argument can be followed anyway.
I think Ensler's assessment of United States culture is accurate. The emotional world should fundamentally be founded on caring. If there's one thing emotional types can't stop doing, it's caring about people. Yet, the culture of United States is not about caring for other people--it's about blaming other people, or identifying them as "other." Rather than establishing and supporting social safety nets, the most political points in the United States are scored by eliminating or "reforming" safety nets. Is it any wonder that Ensler, a quintessential caring person, feels out of place?
One of the other fundamental traits of the emotional world is comfort with money. Indeed, the United States as a country has the "rainmaker" trait of drawing money to itself, and it had it even before it was the world's largest economy. Yet, for a generation the country has been unable to significantly curb its spending, and has created an irrational backlash from a segment that won't allow itself to be taxed, exacerbating the problem. An emotional type shouldn't fall to either of those extremes.
Why not? Because it should be balanced. The balancing type of the past-viewing emotional world is the future-looking thinking world. Visionary, future-looking leadership would put the anxiety of the emotional world in perspective and lead to better decisions. Yet, the public disdains thinking-type politicians as people with whom they would not have a beer. This is a consequence of the current anti-intellectual thread in the populace.
Meanwhile, thinking-world Canada seems to be doing pretty well in terms of caring for its fellow citizens and keeping its budgets in order, the core emotional-world traits. How can that be? Canada may be thinking-world, but it's balanced. Thinking world Stéphane Dion might be rejected politically, but in the same vote, thinking world Stephen Harper can be elected Prime Minister. Meanwhile, emotional-world artists are celebrated in the media, along with physical-world athletes. (Oddly, spiritual types seem to most often gain acclaim in Canadian media as artists, but that's a topic for another day.)
So how does the United States become a healthier, more balanced country? If it were instead a person, a meridian stretching trainer would try to stretch its body to make it more flexible, and then its "high", healthy fundamental traits would start to overpower the "downsides." How does a country become flexible? I suppose this means trying to do things from other worlds. But wasn't that what the Bush (43) administration was all about, macho, physical-world certitude and adventurism? It only works if both the physical world and the spiritual world (which are balancing) are both exercised, and I didn't notice the spiritual world getting an iota of attention in the past decade. So, instead that was just an unhealthy physical-world diversion.
Right now, the United States is an emotional-world country with an emotional-world president in Barack Obama, and it isn't healthy enough for emotional-world Eve Ensler. What it most needs is direct thinking-world balance. Be watching for visionary, thinking-world figures--perhaps not politicians--to start making an impact. I wish I knew where they might be--the United States desperately needs them.
If this were a thorough academic commentary, time would need to be spent describing how what I mean when I refer to the emotional world--derived from Traditional Chinese Medicine and the Meridian Stretching teachings of Bob Cooley--is not exactly the same as what Eve Ensler means. Most readers of this piece will probably be using the same meaning as Ensler. I don't think it matters much; the argument can be followed anyway.
I think Ensler's assessment of United States culture is accurate. The emotional world should fundamentally be founded on caring. If there's one thing emotional types can't stop doing, it's caring about people. Yet, the culture of United States is not about caring for other people--it's about blaming other people, or identifying them as "other." Rather than establishing and supporting social safety nets, the most political points in the United States are scored by eliminating or "reforming" safety nets. Is it any wonder that Ensler, a quintessential caring person, feels out of place?
One of the other fundamental traits of the emotional world is comfort with money. Indeed, the United States as a country has the "rainmaker" trait of drawing money to itself, and it had it even before it was the world's largest economy. Yet, for a generation the country has been unable to significantly curb its spending, and has created an irrational backlash from a segment that won't allow itself to be taxed, exacerbating the problem. An emotional type shouldn't fall to either of those extremes.
Why not? Because it should be balanced. The balancing type of the past-viewing emotional world is the future-looking thinking world. Visionary, future-looking leadership would put the anxiety of the emotional world in perspective and lead to better decisions. Yet, the public disdains thinking-type politicians as people with whom they would not have a beer. This is a consequence of the current anti-intellectual thread in the populace.
Meanwhile, thinking-world Canada seems to be doing pretty well in terms of caring for its fellow citizens and keeping its budgets in order, the core emotional-world traits. How can that be? Canada may be thinking-world, but it's balanced. Thinking world Stéphane Dion might be rejected politically, but in the same vote, thinking world Stephen Harper can be elected Prime Minister. Meanwhile, emotional-world artists are celebrated in the media, along with physical-world athletes. (Oddly, spiritual types seem to most often gain acclaim in Canadian media as artists, but that's a topic for another day.)
So how does the United States become a healthier, more balanced country? If it were instead a person, a meridian stretching trainer would try to stretch its body to make it more flexible, and then its "high", healthy fundamental traits would start to overpower the "downsides." How does a country become flexible? I suppose this means trying to do things from other worlds. But wasn't that what the Bush (43) administration was all about, macho, physical-world certitude and adventurism? It only works if both the physical world and the spiritual world (which are balancing) are both exercised, and I didn't notice the spiritual world getting an iota of attention in the past decade. So, instead that was just an unhealthy physical-world diversion.
Right now, the United States is an emotional-world country with an emotional-world president in Barack Obama, and it isn't healthy enough for emotional-world Eve Ensler. What it most needs is direct thinking-world balance. Be watching for visionary, thinking-world figures--perhaps not politicians--to start making an impact. I wish I knew where they might be--the United States desperately needs them.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Personality: Oprah the Heart
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Today, daytime television talk show host--and cultural phenomenon--Oprah Winfrey announced that the Oprah Winfrey Show will end at the conclusion of its current contract, taking her off terrestrial television in 2011 after a full quarter-century. Usually known by just her first name, Oprah has arguably become the most influential person in United States, creating interest in a product by merely mentioning it on her show. Her influence came from an exceptionally entertaining and engaging show, enabled by her ability to get people to speak openly. Those that understand the Meridian Stretching-based Genetic Personality Types do not find this surprising--Oprah is clearly a "heart" type, perfectly suited for this kind of show.
Wait a minute, you say. Didn't you write in a previous essay that the last Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, was a heart? How can it be that Oprah and McCain are actually the same type when they seem very different? I argue that there is diversity within types--environment and experience do matter and people of the same type are not interchangeable--but if one looks at motivations for decisions and behavior, Oprah and McCain actually share more than one would casually infer.
The "heart" is considered the "most surface" of the "physical" world, meaning that the traits of the "physical" world are most openly and obviously displayed in behavior. A big sign of the "physical" world is a ruling duality between love and anger. Where McCain's anger seemed to appear more often than not, for Oprah, the love end of the duality came out most freely. It was her passion for the topic of the day that made the show so engaging to the point of infectiousness--if Oprah liked something, you wanted to like it too.
Yet, this wasn't just caring, which is centered in the "emotional" world. People from that world often make others quite comfortable by expressing their caring, but it is the "physical" types that readily use the rapport established to persuade others to do things. In Oprah's case, the tears she would shed could convince the interviewee to answer the more probing question, getting them to say things they would not normally confess in public. That's what made her early career.
Physical types are also known for living in the present, often ignoring lessons learned in the past or future consequences of actions. Those that followed Oprah's attempts at stabilizing her weight see how this played out. The present-focus also showed in her opinions--Ben Shapiro once accused Oprah of having "unpredictable and mercurial attitudes toward the major issues of the day"--right on the expectations for a "heart" type, known for the flip-flop when in politics.
While Oprah has announced that she will be focused on her own cable network after her show winds down in 2011, that very living in the present perspective makes me believe that exactly what she will be doing on that network two years from now might be very different that what she might think today. Whatever it turns out to be, if it puts her empathy and persuasion to use, it is bound to be successful.
Wait a minute, you say. Didn't you write in a previous essay that the last Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, was a heart? How can it be that Oprah and McCain are actually the same type when they seem very different? I argue that there is diversity within types--environment and experience do matter and people of the same type are not interchangeable--but if one looks at motivations for decisions and behavior, Oprah and McCain actually share more than one would casually infer.
The "heart" is considered the "most surface" of the "physical" world, meaning that the traits of the "physical" world are most openly and obviously displayed in behavior. A big sign of the "physical" world is a ruling duality between love and anger. Where McCain's anger seemed to appear more often than not, for Oprah, the love end of the duality came out most freely. It was her passion for the topic of the day that made the show so engaging to the point of infectiousness--if Oprah liked something, you wanted to like it too.
Yet, this wasn't just caring, which is centered in the "emotional" world. People from that world often make others quite comfortable by expressing their caring, but it is the "physical" types that readily use the rapport established to persuade others to do things. In Oprah's case, the tears she would shed could convince the interviewee to answer the more probing question, getting them to say things they would not normally confess in public. That's what made her early career.
Physical types are also known for living in the present, often ignoring lessons learned in the past or future consequences of actions. Those that followed Oprah's attempts at stabilizing her weight see how this played out. The present-focus also showed in her opinions--Ben Shapiro once accused Oprah of having "unpredictable and mercurial attitudes toward the major issues of the day"--right on the expectations for a "heart" type, known for the flip-flop when in politics.
While Oprah has announced that she will be focused on her own cable network after her show winds down in 2011, that very living in the present perspective makes me believe that exactly what she will be doing on that network two years from now might be very different that what she might think today. Whatever it turns out to be, if it puts her empathy and persuasion to use, it is bound to be successful.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Personality: Obama in the Emotional World
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Back during the 2008 presidential election in the United States, readers of this blog may have found it strange that I chose to weigh in about the personality of Republican nominee John McCain, but not the personality of Democratic nominee--and now President--Barack Obama. This wasn't because of any political bias on my part, but simply because McCain's personality was clear to me, while Obama's was not. About a year later, I think I've seen enough evidence to be confident in classifying Obama as a "central" or "sexual" type within the emotional world.
This topic came up recently because of Ralph Nader's comments about Obama's personality during an appearance on the Open Source podcast. Nader described Obama as having a "harmony ideology personality. He's conflict-averse... He loves to be loved." When I heard that, I realized that Nader was basically describing a "sexual" type. While "harmony ideology" can be found in just about any world besides the physical world, the idea of "loving to be loved" is central to the "sexual" type. They are the "stars" of the world, used to being the center of attention and affection, and will take actions to further that kind of position. When one "sexual" type once had a conflict with an unhealthy person, she complained to me: "I don't understand. Everybody is supposed to like me!"
Obama's legislative technique seems to back up this assessment. Rather than take principled positions, his tendency has been to set a broadly-agreed upon goal and try to get everyone on board to achieve it. In the health care debate, the White House cut deals with stakeholder groups, then has let Congress work out the unpopular details. During the legislative phase, there has been an emphasis to try to get support from Republicans. There may have been good political reasons to do these things, but it's happened often enough now that that I take it as a pattern consistent with a "everyone should love me" (and my ideas), "sexual"-type perspective.
The expert who developed the personality theory that I use, Olympic trainer Bob Cooley, was willing to make the categorization of Obama as a "sexual" type long ago. Amongst other things, Cooley reflected on how Obama appeared as different things to different people during the campaign, which is often the sign of a "sexual" type finding ways to be attractive to a wide range of people.
So why didn't I follow along? The main problem was that Obama really doesn't look like a "sexual" type. "Sexual" types tend to be very round people--both men and women. Bill Clinton, deep in the emotional world in terms of type, would be believable as a "sexual" type based on appearance. Obama doesn't look anything like Clinton. There were other things, but most of those could be explained away. Appearance was the sticking point. The fact that Obama smokes could be a partial explanation of his physical stature, as smoking can lead to a more slender figure, and certainly the fact that he stays in shape would partially explain it as well. Yet, I've still never met another "sexual" that looked like Obama, including those that smoked.
That may be the point. I've never met a "sexual" type who is as successful as Obama (who is?), and it is a well-documented phenomenon that more successful people tend to take on more traits of their balancing type, including physical appearance. Some of us have argued that Obama looks like a "brain" type, and that is the balancing type of the "sexual" type.
So, in light of a long string of behavior that appears to be "sexual" type in nature and with counter-evidence seemingly all explained away, I give in. I agree that Barack Obama is most likely a "sexual" type, an appropriate type to be president of a country that shares his emotional world.
This topic came up recently because of Ralph Nader's comments about Obama's personality during an appearance on the Open Source podcast. Nader described Obama as having a "harmony ideology personality. He's conflict-averse... He loves to be loved." When I heard that, I realized that Nader was basically describing a "sexual" type. While "harmony ideology" can be found in just about any world besides the physical world, the idea of "loving to be loved" is central to the "sexual" type. They are the "stars" of the world, used to being the center of attention and affection, and will take actions to further that kind of position. When one "sexual" type once had a conflict with an unhealthy person, she complained to me: "I don't understand. Everybody is supposed to like me!"
Obama's legislative technique seems to back up this assessment. Rather than take principled positions, his tendency has been to set a broadly-agreed upon goal and try to get everyone on board to achieve it. In the health care debate, the White House cut deals with stakeholder groups, then has let Congress work out the unpopular details. During the legislative phase, there has been an emphasis to try to get support from Republicans. There may have been good political reasons to do these things, but it's happened often enough now that that I take it as a pattern consistent with a "everyone should love me" (and my ideas), "sexual"-type perspective.
The expert who developed the personality theory that I use, Olympic trainer Bob Cooley, was willing to make the categorization of Obama as a "sexual" type long ago. Amongst other things, Cooley reflected on how Obama appeared as different things to different people during the campaign, which is often the sign of a "sexual" type finding ways to be attractive to a wide range of people.
So why didn't I follow along? The main problem was that Obama really doesn't look like a "sexual" type. "Sexual" types tend to be very round people--both men and women. Bill Clinton, deep in the emotional world in terms of type, would be believable as a "sexual" type based on appearance. Obama doesn't look anything like Clinton. There were other things, but most of those could be explained away. Appearance was the sticking point. The fact that Obama smokes could be a partial explanation of his physical stature, as smoking can lead to a more slender figure, and certainly the fact that he stays in shape would partially explain it as well. Yet, I've still never met another "sexual" that looked like Obama, including those that smoked.
That may be the point. I've never met a "sexual" type who is as successful as Obama (who is?), and it is a well-documented phenomenon that more successful people tend to take on more traits of their balancing type, including physical appearance. Some of us have argued that Obama looks like a "brain" type, and that is the balancing type of the "sexual" type.
So, in light of a long string of behavior that appears to be "sexual" type in nature and with counter-evidence seemingly all explained away, I give in. I agree that Barack Obama is most likely a "sexual" type, an appropriate type to be president of a country that shares his emotional world.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Personality: Not the End of Consumerism
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Canadians are rather amused by the drop in consumer spending in the United States. It's not that consumer spending hasn't gone down in Canada--it has--but Canadians have simply never spent as much money as their American counterparts in the first place. Some say it's Scottish heritage; I argue that regardless of origin it comes down to the national personality being from the "thinking world" and valuing ideas more than image--the desire to impress one's neighbors simply isn't as high here. The contrast is so strong that even the first issue of the new Christian Science Monitor weekly featured an article on the relative thriftiness of Canadians.
In that same issue, the Monitor presents "Ten Ways the Economy Will Be Different" in the United States, starting with "Value as the new Virtue". The argument is that the economic crisis will cause United States citizens to permanently end "the era of bling," the end of conspicuous consumption. Instead, it is argued, people will look for value in their spending.
Certainly, this is what is happening in the short term. People don't have as much money because of job losses, reduced work hours, or losses in financial markets and thus are not spending as much money. The same changes have taken place in Canada, and the impact is the same, reduced spending and increased emphasis on value for the money.
I don't buy it in the long term. Fundamentally, the United States personality is from the emotional world, emphasizing image and feelings, and it always has been. Right back to the self-promotion of Paul Revere and Benjamin Franklin, the United States has been most susceptible to marketing, and somehow that survived the Great Depression and gave us another era of marketing-driven consumption after World War II that some call The Age of Persuasion.
I have talked to Americans of personality types from all four worlds, and most people, from all worlds, claim that they are comfortable not spending as much money right now because other people are not spending money now. If "everyone" started spending money again, they would feel pressured to start spending also.
It's only a matter of time before people start having enough money to spend again, and marketers adjust to the new reality and find compelling sales pitches for the times (which, indeed, may emphasize value). The era of "bling" exactly as we knew it might be over, but the fundamentals of consumer spending to keep up with one's neighbors will be back. It's in the personality of the United States. When that happens, Canadians will still look south in wonderment and continue to be thrifty.
In that same issue, the Monitor presents "Ten Ways the Economy Will Be Different" in the United States, starting with "Value as the new Virtue". The argument is that the economic crisis will cause United States citizens to permanently end "the era of bling," the end of conspicuous consumption. Instead, it is argued, people will look for value in their spending.
Certainly, this is what is happening in the short term. People don't have as much money because of job losses, reduced work hours, or losses in financial markets and thus are not spending as much money. The same changes have taken place in Canada, and the impact is the same, reduced spending and increased emphasis on value for the money.
I don't buy it in the long term. Fundamentally, the United States personality is from the emotional world, emphasizing image and feelings, and it always has been. Right back to the self-promotion of Paul Revere and Benjamin Franklin, the United States has been most susceptible to marketing, and somehow that survived the Great Depression and gave us another era of marketing-driven consumption after World War II that some call The Age of Persuasion.
I have talked to Americans of personality types from all four worlds, and most people, from all worlds, claim that they are comfortable not spending as much money right now because other people are not spending money now. If "everyone" started spending money again, they would feel pressured to start spending also.
It's only a matter of time before people start having enough money to spend again, and marketers adjust to the new reality and find compelling sales pitches for the times (which, indeed, may emphasize value). The era of "bling" exactly as we knew it might be over, but the fundamentals of consumer spending to keep up with one's neighbors will be back. It's in the personality of the United States. When that happens, Canadians will still look south in wonderment and continue to be thrifty.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Music: BNL as a Spiritual Band
BNL performed at the CBC's Sounds of the Season fundraiser in Toronto, Ontario on 5-December-2008
TORONTO, ONTARIO - On Wednesday, BNL founders Ed Robertson and Steven Page announced that lead singer Page would be leaving the band to pursue a solo career and perhaps acting, and the band would continue without him. In light of the rough year that the band has had, the news could not be called a complete surprise, but the announcement still was widely reported throughout Canada. The band, known for its playful lyrics and performances, remains clearly beloved in its native land.
Like many North Americans, I was first introduced to BNL in 1997 as their hit "The Old Apartment" rose in the charts. Their songs have made a significant contribution to my life, with two songs ("Pinch Me" and "It's All Been Done") in my my lifetime top 25, a feat matched only by Billy Joel.
What drew me so strongly to the band was not their playfulness, though, but the fact that many of their lyrics seem to be straight out of the "spiritual world", which is rare in popular music. As discussed here before, the "spiritual world" is one of four identified worlds in the Meridian Flexibility System, focused on energy, harmony with the world, prone to suffering, and with a "timeless" perspective (as opposed to future, past, or present-focused). The vast majority of popular music comes from the "emotional" world, though I have highlighted at least one artist from the "physical" world.
Perhaps the most obvious example comes from the song "It's All Been Done". The very title implies that life is just repeating itself. The group sings:
I knew you before the west was wonand
And I heard you say the past
was much more fun
You go your way, I go mine
But I'll see you next time
Alone and bored on a thirtieth-century nightCould lyrics possibly be more "timeless"?
Will I see you on The Price Is Right?
Yet, just about every BNL song has at least one "spiritual" element. "If I Had A 1,000,000 Dollars" has this line:
If I had a 1,000,000Most types would give up macaroni and cheese (that's Kraft dinner if you're not Canadian) given a chance; only those with a suffering element of the "spiritual" would continue to delight in it.
We wouldn't have to eat Kraft dinner
(But we would!)
Even the hit "One Week" which on the surface seems like a present-focused "physical" number has a spiritual line:
Five days since I laughed at you and saidIs that not be straight out of the "pericardium" (a "spiritual" type) playbook of wisdom and laughing at self-destructive behavior?
"You just did just what I thought you were gonna do"
There also seems to be a real theme of having a "physical"-type partner to deal with, the expected partner of a "spiritual" type, running not only through "One Week" but many BNL songs. Take this passage from "Call and Answer":
But I'm warning you, don't ever do"Crazy, messed up" is a common description of "physicals" by "spirituals"--and judging them is a common "spiritual" practice.
Those crazy, messed up things that you do
If you ever do
I promise you I'll be the first to crucify you
The apparently-bad news at BNL could a boon for those enjoying "spiritual" lyrics. Both BNL and Page could separately now create such songs with such themes; this seemed to happen with Page's previous side venture, The Vanity Project in 2005. I look forward to more lyrics like this low-energy gem from "Pinch Me":
I could leave but I'll just stay
All my stuff's here anyway.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Personality: Confused by Bloom's Taxonomy
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In middle school, I was introduced to the concept of Bloom's Taxonomy as a way of evaluating the complexity of intellectual activity. When participating in the Future Problem Solvers activity, we were always evaluating our work in terms of the levels in the taxonomy.
The six levels of Bloom's Taxonomy were rank-ordered from the most basic to the most sophisticated. As I learned it, the levels were:
(1) Knowledge - Basically, the regurgitation of information
(2) Comprehension - Demonstrating the ability to understand the information, such as placing it into a new context or expressing it in different language
(3) Application - Using the information to solve problems or to gain insight into a different situation
(4) Analysis - Looking for patterns in the information or otherwise breaking it down into sub-concepts or finding hidden meanings
(5) Synthesis - Using the information to come up with new, creative ideas
(6) Evaluation - Judging and comparing ideas, recognizing their relative value
Most of the time, we were operating at the application or analysis level during Future Problem Solvers, and most of the discussion was about whether our presented ideas rose to the level of analysis, or simply represented the application of information that had been given to us.
Above that, though, I never understood why evaluation was at the top of the taxonomy, and synthesis was considered less sophisticated. I rarely had any problem evaluating ideas and opining on their relative worth, knowing whether this judgment was objective and could be backed up with evidence and informed logic, or was simply subjective. On the other hand, I found synthesis to be very difficult. It was very rare that I would come up with a truly original idea that wasn't just an application of existing information. If I could ever come up with any synthesis, I had no problem with the evaluation of it, but often I could never get past the synthesis and would only get credit for analysis.
When I learned the personality theory related to Traditional Chinese Medicine and Meridian Stretching, the reason for this paradox became apparent. Benjamin Bloom must have come from the "thinking world," which looks toward the future and thinks analytically and proactively. Thinking types are known for bringing disparate ideas together and seeing how they can work together to do something exciting, especially if it is in the future. In other words, they know how to synthesize. On the other hand, to other types, they seem to have no filter. They have lots of ideas, some of them quite useful, but others that are almost useless, and they don't seem to have any way to tell the difference. In other words, they are not great evaluators. From a "thinking" world perspective, the taxonomy makes sense--synthesis is comparatively easy, but evaluation is comparatively hard.
On the other hand, the "spiritual world" takes a timeless perspective and tends to be reactive instead of proactive. It thinks logically rather than analytically, and thus needs ideas to follow closely from one another, rather than jumping between disparate ideas. For those coming from the "spiritual" world, synthesis is hence quite difficult--they have to be practically force-led the logic behind new ideas, rather than a grand vision. On the other hand, because of their embrace of logic, they have a much easier time evaluating ideas. They can dissect ideas to the point that they can tell which are superior, and only focus on the ones that are useful. Evaluation for them is second nature, but synthesis is hard. Needless to say, I come from the perspective of the "spiritual" world.
An obvious conclusion is that efficient problem solving would involve both "thinking" types and "spiritual" types. The "thinking" types would come up with a long string of ideas, and the "spiritual" types would evaluate them and decide which ones are worthwhile. The partnership could conceivably be quite powerful.
For the other two worlds in this personality system, the "physical" world which is present-focused and active, and the "emotional" world which is past-focused and retroactive, I suspect there is some influence of the balancing worlds (most "physicals" are balanced by "spirituals" and hence would have a subconscious that could evaluate better than synthesize, and most "emotional" types are balanced by "thinking" types are hence have a subconscious better suited to synthesis) but that they substantially find both synthesis and evaluation difficult.
I understand that there is now a revised version of Bloom's Taxonomy floating around that reverses the positions of synthesis and evaluation such that synthesis is the highest function. I suspect the revision must have been done by a bunch of "spiritual" types!
The six levels of Bloom's Taxonomy were rank-ordered from the most basic to the most sophisticated. As I learned it, the levels were:
(1) Knowledge - Basically, the regurgitation of information
(2) Comprehension - Demonstrating the ability to understand the information, such as placing it into a new context or expressing it in different language
(3) Application - Using the information to solve problems or to gain insight into a different situation
(4) Analysis - Looking for patterns in the information or otherwise breaking it down into sub-concepts or finding hidden meanings
(5) Synthesis - Using the information to come up with new, creative ideas
(6) Evaluation - Judging and comparing ideas, recognizing their relative value
Most of the time, we were operating at the application or analysis level during Future Problem Solvers, and most of the discussion was about whether our presented ideas rose to the level of analysis, or simply represented the application of information that had been given to us.
Above that, though, I never understood why evaluation was at the top of the taxonomy, and synthesis was considered less sophisticated. I rarely had any problem evaluating ideas and opining on their relative worth, knowing whether this judgment was objective and could be backed up with evidence and informed logic, or was simply subjective. On the other hand, I found synthesis to be very difficult. It was very rare that I would come up with a truly original idea that wasn't just an application of existing information. If I could ever come up with any synthesis, I had no problem with the evaluation of it, but often I could never get past the synthesis and would only get credit for analysis.
When I learned the personality theory related to Traditional Chinese Medicine and Meridian Stretching, the reason for this paradox became apparent. Benjamin Bloom must have come from the "thinking world," which looks toward the future and thinks analytically and proactively. Thinking types are known for bringing disparate ideas together and seeing how they can work together to do something exciting, especially if it is in the future. In other words, they know how to synthesize. On the other hand, to other types, they seem to have no filter. They have lots of ideas, some of them quite useful, but others that are almost useless, and they don't seem to have any way to tell the difference. In other words, they are not great evaluators. From a "thinking" world perspective, the taxonomy makes sense--synthesis is comparatively easy, but evaluation is comparatively hard.
On the other hand, the "spiritual world" takes a timeless perspective and tends to be reactive instead of proactive. It thinks logically rather than analytically, and thus needs ideas to follow closely from one another, rather than jumping between disparate ideas. For those coming from the "spiritual" world, synthesis is hence quite difficult--they have to be practically force-led the logic behind new ideas, rather than a grand vision. On the other hand, because of their embrace of logic, they have a much easier time evaluating ideas. They can dissect ideas to the point that they can tell which are superior, and only focus on the ones that are useful. Evaluation for them is second nature, but synthesis is hard. Needless to say, I come from the perspective of the "spiritual" world.
An obvious conclusion is that efficient problem solving would involve both "thinking" types and "spiritual" types. The "thinking" types would come up with a long string of ideas, and the "spiritual" types would evaluate them and decide which ones are worthwhile. The partnership could conceivably be quite powerful.
For the other two worlds in this personality system, the "physical" world which is present-focused and active, and the "emotional" world which is past-focused and retroactive, I suspect there is some influence of the balancing worlds (most "physicals" are balanced by "spirituals" and hence would have a subconscious that could evaluate better than synthesize, and most "emotional" types are balanced by "thinking" types are hence have a subconscious better suited to synthesis) but that they substantially find both synthesis and evaluation difficult.
I understand that there is now a revised version of Bloom's Taxonomy floating around that reverses the positions of synthesis and evaluation such that synthesis is the highest function. I suspect the revision must have been done by a bunch of "spiritual" types!
Monday, January 12, 2009
Politics: Appeal of Japanese Culture
TORONTO, ONTARIO - The international press has given increasing attention to the popularity of Japanese culture worldwide. Everything from glasses worn by Sarah Palin to children's cartoons on television (animé) to comic books (manga) have originated in Japan, prompting some to consider Japan to be the first real rival to the "soft power" of United States culture that spreads through movies, television, the Internet, and many other subtle means. What is the appeal of Japanese culture? University of Tokyo professor Roland Kelts thinks he knows. In a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, Kelts noted "The Japanese model is of self-denial and the sublimation of selfish desires for the sake of group harmony. This is becoming a multipolar world. The desire to be a part of something harmonious rather than the leader of a pack is growing."
For all my attempts to categorize United States culture as being out of the "emotional world" as described by traditional Chinese medicine, that isn't the face that is presented to the world through Hollywood and, for that matter, the George W. Bush administration. Instead, that image (and the very fact that it is just an image argues that the reality is still in the "emotional world") is that of the "physical world." A macho leader, whether it be John Wayne or the 43rd president, does what he feels is best when he feels it is best, and the opinions of others don't matter much. This is the present-focus and force-using perspective of the "physical world." Someone doesn't like John Wayne's style? He'll probably end up shot. The United Nations doesn't support what the US wants to do? The US government will just do it anyway--it can always veto any action against it in the Security Council, which never proves necessary anyway. Even when the leader is a woman, she comes across macho--say Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft in "Tomb Raider" or former secretary of state Madeleine Albright telling leaders in Haiti that they can leave "voluntarily and soon, or involuntarily and soon." The view presented is of a clear choice of good and evil, with good always prevailing.
This is the image of the United States that has been perpetuated outside of the country, no matter how divorced from the reality within the country that this image may be. The United States is seen as a "physical world" actor on the world stage, doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and unafraid to use force to achieve its objectives, always convinced it is on the side of good.
The world that generally balances the "physical world" is the "spiritual world". The "spiritual world" operates in a rather timeless state, in which the past and the future share the stage with the present. Rather than taking action based on an individual's desires in the present, the "spiritual world" tries to achieve harmony with the others around them to avoid conflict. Furthermore, actions are taken with a view to the future--if it would cause trouble in the future, it won't happen, and the past provides clues about this. The "spiritual world" presents a completely different, holistic contrast to the viewpoint of the "physical world".
Japanese culture, as described by Kelts, meets the definition of the "spiritual world". It tries to achieve harmony and has shades of gray instead of black and white. This is not surprising, since the "national culture" of Japan is generally regarded to be in the "spiritual world," specifically that part of the world associated with the "large intestine" organ in traditional Chinese medicine. As a balancing perspective to that of the macho "physical world" presented by the United States, it is not surprising that Japanese culture would be turned to as an alternative.
Of course, the "physical" and "spiritual" worlds are supposed to be in balance according to theory. It should be expected that both US and Japanese culture will both influence the world, ideally at the same time, in order for the world to achieve a healthy state. The difference--as seems to be reflected in the US media--is that the "physical" world doesn't seem to understand that need for balance, and tries to maintain its hegemony. Meanwhile, the "spiritual" builds up toward the balance. If theory holds, it's likely a better time to be invested in Japanese culture worldwide than it is to be invested in Hollywood and other purveyors of "physical" culture.
For all my attempts to categorize United States culture as being out of the "emotional world" as described by traditional Chinese medicine, that isn't the face that is presented to the world through Hollywood and, for that matter, the George W. Bush administration. Instead, that image (and the very fact that it is just an image argues that the reality is still in the "emotional world") is that of the "physical world." A macho leader, whether it be John Wayne or the 43rd president, does what he feels is best when he feels it is best, and the opinions of others don't matter much. This is the present-focus and force-using perspective of the "physical world." Someone doesn't like John Wayne's style? He'll probably end up shot. The United Nations doesn't support what the US wants to do? The US government will just do it anyway--it can always veto any action against it in the Security Council, which never proves necessary anyway. Even when the leader is a woman, she comes across macho--say Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft in "Tomb Raider" or former secretary of state Madeleine Albright telling leaders in Haiti that they can leave "voluntarily and soon, or involuntarily and soon." The view presented is of a clear choice of good and evil, with good always prevailing.
This is the image of the United States that has been perpetuated outside of the country, no matter how divorced from the reality within the country that this image may be. The United States is seen as a "physical world" actor on the world stage, doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and unafraid to use force to achieve its objectives, always convinced it is on the side of good.
The world that generally balances the "physical world" is the "spiritual world". The "spiritual world" operates in a rather timeless state, in which the past and the future share the stage with the present. Rather than taking action based on an individual's desires in the present, the "spiritual world" tries to achieve harmony with the others around them to avoid conflict. Furthermore, actions are taken with a view to the future--if it would cause trouble in the future, it won't happen, and the past provides clues about this. The "spiritual world" presents a completely different, holistic contrast to the viewpoint of the "physical world".
Japanese culture, as described by Kelts, meets the definition of the "spiritual world". It tries to achieve harmony and has shades of gray instead of black and white. This is not surprising, since the "national culture" of Japan is generally regarded to be in the "spiritual world," specifically that part of the world associated with the "large intestine" organ in traditional Chinese medicine. As a balancing perspective to that of the macho "physical world" presented by the United States, it is not surprising that Japanese culture would be turned to as an alternative.
Of course, the "physical" and "spiritual" worlds are supposed to be in balance according to theory. It should be expected that both US and Japanese culture will both influence the world, ideally at the same time, in order for the world to achieve a healthy state. The difference--as seems to be reflected in the US media--is that the "physical" world doesn't seem to understand that need for balance, and tries to maintain its hegemony. Meanwhile, the "spiritual" builds up toward the balance. If theory holds, it's likely a better time to be invested in Japanese culture worldwide than it is to be invested in Hollywood and other purveyors of "physical" culture.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Music: Bedingfield Third Again
TORONTO, ONTARIO - While traveling through the Pacific Northwest in September 2005, I was introduced to a British singer that I had never heard before. Natasha Bedingfield at the time had a single out called These Words. The song was noticeable because the lyrics clearly came from the "physical world."
Most music, by its very nature, features "emotional world" lyrics, focusing on feelings, what other people think, lamenting about the past, and occasionally even focusing on money, all things centered in the "emotional world" in traditional Chinese medicine. While examples of lyrics from the other three worlds certainly exist, even in pop music, there is little question that the "emotional world" dominates the charts.
Yet, Bedingfield's song was clearly "physical world" in perspective. Her time sense was on the present, not the past. While she did sing about expressing her feelings, the premise of the song was that she was having trouble doing so--and physical types are often known for having difficulty with vocabulary and preferring to express themselves with their bodies, not verbal language. This section is typical:
Bedingfield had started to get attention from that hit, but she shot to the top of the charts in the United States in early 2006 with her next single, "Unwritten". This song bordered on a "physical world" anthem, clearly focused on the physical experience of life with refrain lyrics like:
By 2007, I was inclined to seek out new music by Bedingfield, and when her joint effort with Sean Kingston, "Love Like This" was released in October ahead of her next album, I soon discovered it. Yet, by virtue of entering the playlist toward the end of the year, it again finished--you guessed it--in the third position, with 13 plays. Ahead of it were breakout hits "LDN" by Lily Allen at 14 plays, and "Young Folks" by Peter Bjorn and John at 15.
In 2008, Bedingfield's new album "Pocketful of Sunshine" came out, and the title track made my iTunes playlist. In a lackluster year for music in my opinion, it amazingly ended up third on my year-end playlist at 11 plays, behind new artist Yael Naïm with "New Soul" at 12 plays and my choice for artist of the year, Leona Lewis and "Bleeding Love" at 17 plays.
So, the big question for 2009 is: Can Natasha Bedingfield make it five years in a row, and place a song at THIRD place on my annual iTunes play count? It seems unlikely, but I wouldn't have guessed that it would have happened three years in a row, much less four.
Most music, by its very nature, features "emotional world" lyrics, focusing on feelings, what other people think, lamenting about the past, and occasionally even focusing on money, all things centered in the "emotional world" in traditional Chinese medicine. While examples of lyrics from the other three worlds certainly exist, even in pop music, there is little question that the "emotional world" dominates the charts.
Yet, Bedingfield's song was clearly "physical world" in perspective. Her time sense was on the present, not the past. While she did sing about expressing her feelings, the premise of the song was that she was having trouble doing so--and physical types are often known for having difficulty with vocabulary and preferring to express themselves with their bodies, not verbal language. This section is typical:
I tried to focus my attentionAs a "spiritual" type, I am usually drawn to things from the "physical world," and this song was no exception. Despite being handicapped by having only four months to work its way up my iTunes play count, it rapidly shot toward the top. By year's end, "These Words" was third in my play count for 2005 with 22 plays, trailing only Australian singer Natalie Imbruglia's "Shiver" (which I had first heard in May) at 25 plays and D.H.T.'s cover of "Listen to Your Heart" at 23 (the Roxette original stands as one of the most significant songs in my life).
But I feel so A.D.D.
I need some help some inspiration
Whoa...But its not coming easily
Bedingfield had started to get attention from that hit, but she shot to the top of the charts in the United States in early 2006 with her next single, "Unwritten". This song bordered on a "physical world" anthem, clearly focused on the physical experience of life with refrain lyrics like:
Feel the rain on your skinThis song spent all of 2006 near the top of my iTunes play count. At the end of the year, though, it again finished third, with 19 plays. Ahead were Aqualung's "Brighter Than Sunshine", also advantaged by getting its first play in January, at 20 plays, and Missy Higgin's "Scar" the clear leader at 28 plays.
No one else can feel it for you
Only you can let it in
No one else no one else can
Speak the words on your lips
Drench yourself in words unspoken
Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins
The rest, is still unwritten
By 2007, I was inclined to seek out new music by Bedingfield, and when her joint effort with Sean Kingston, "Love Like This" was released in October ahead of her next album, I soon discovered it. Yet, by virtue of entering the playlist toward the end of the year, it again finished--you guessed it--in the third position, with 13 plays. Ahead of it were breakout hits "LDN" by Lily Allen at 14 plays, and "Young Folks" by Peter Bjorn and John at 15.
In 2008, Bedingfield's new album "Pocketful of Sunshine" came out, and the title track made my iTunes playlist. In a lackluster year for music in my opinion, it amazingly ended up third on my year-end playlist at 11 plays, behind new artist Yael Naïm with "New Soul" at 12 plays and my choice for artist of the year, Leona Lewis and "Bleeding Love" at 17 plays.
So, the big question for 2009 is: Can Natasha Bedingfield make it five years in a row, and place a song at THIRD place on my annual iTunes play count? It seems unlikely, but I wouldn't have guessed that it would have happened three years in a row, much less four.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Politics: National Personalities Inverted?
TORONTO, ONTARIO - In previous posts, I have made the case that the United States demonstrates a view of the world based in the "emotional" world of personalities, Canada demonstrates a view of the world based in the "thinking" world of personalities, and that each perspective has an impact on the political environment of each country. There's apparent disconnect in time perspective inherent in that thesis, though, that deserves some attention. Because of the attraction of each world for its "balancing" world, the apparent time perspectives of the two political environments appear inverted.
The time perspectives associated with the "emotional" and "thinking" worlds are well-known. The "thinking" world looks to the future, often to the detriment of the present and ignoring lessons from the past. I've seen "thinking"-type people in professional situations work so hard at setting up a company for a future business situation that the company ends up near collapse because business wasn't strong enough in the short-term to survive to see the situation for which the thinking type was planning. In contrast, the "emotional" world looks to the past, often so informed by what happened in the past that it can't see how an environment might change in the future, therefore missing opportunities that can arise. It isn't hard to see how these two perspectives can balance one another--the "emotional" world reminds the "thinking" world that they may be looking too far forward, and the "thinking" world drags the "emotional" world out of the past and helps them see how things can be different in the future.
As someone who is a newcomer to Canada, I am not as familiar with past Canadian political history as the average Canadian. I've read about the National Energy Program, the Meech Lake Accord, and the Clarity Act, but I didn't personally experience any of them, and thus they don't mean much to me. Effectively, I'm incapable of providing an "emotional" world perspective on Canadian politics, because I haven't "felt" the history.
Yet, Canada is supposed to have a "thinking world" perspective looking toward the future, so at some level I thought it wouldn't matter that much. So, imagine my surprise during the recent controversy over the Financial Statement in late 2008, when all of the sudden the Bloc Québécois was actively trying to ruin the country of Canada, the Liberals were trying to force the National Energy Program on the west, and the Conservatives were again the Reform Party of western separatists, if we were to believe all the rhetoric coming from the various sides. The disconnect with the reality I had been observing for the past three years couldn't be greater. The Bloc might care more about Quebec than the rest of Canada, but I hadn't heard a word about separation or destroying the country out of them. The Liberals might have favored a "Green Shift," but comparing that with the National Energy Policy was a bit of a stretch, and the last thing in the world I would have ever expected from Prime Minister Harper or any Conservative Member of Parliament was a call for the west to leave Canada. Shouldn't the future-thinking people of Canada be expecting a better vision of the future and leaving all that baggage behind? Instead, they were entertaining completely "emotional," past-based perspectives.
Meanwhile, the politicians in the United States seemed to be about nothing except the future. Barack Obama tried to become a post-racial, post-partisan candidate basing his whole campaign on "hope" and "change." This wasn't exactly a new strategy. George W. Bush had campaigned to be a "uniter not a divider" and for a vision of bringing democracy to the world; it was his inability to deliver that caused his decline in popularity. Bill Clinton had been all about a "third way", a new vision of politics. George H.W. Bush had the "new world order." Ronald Reagan was about "morning in America." Where were the battles and controversies of the past resurfacing? The United States seemed more capable of looking to a future vision than Canada, and not hindered or informed by its past.
So how could this be? The answer seems to be in the attraction of one world for another. Because they are balancing worlds, the "emotional" world and the "thinking" world are attracted to one another. Someone coming from the "emotional" world, like the average voter in the United States, is attracted to "thinking" world arguments about the future, as provided by presidents from Reagan to Obama. Someone coming from the "thinking" world, like the average voter in Canada, is attracted to "emotional" world arguments, as politicians in the latest political crisis all tried to provide.
When push comes to shove, though, politicians cannot simply try to balance the populace. Advertising campaigns based on image and feelings still work better in the United States than Canada, whereas abstract analytical argumentation still has a greater impact in Canada than the United States. It takes a very healthy individual to be able to take on the perspectives of each world as circumstances require and lead effectively. For each country's sake, we should hope that both Barack Obama and Stephen Harper prove to have such skills.
The time perspectives associated with the "emotional" and "thinking" worlds are well-known. The "thinking" world looks to the future, often to the detriment of the present and ignoring lessons from the past. I've seen "thinking"-type people in professional situations work so hard at setting up a company for a future business situation that the company ends up near collapse because business wasn't strong enough in the short-term to survive to see the situation for which the thinking type was planning. In contrast, the "emotional" world looks to the past, often so informed by what happened in the past that it can't see how an environment might change in the future, therefore missing opportunities that can arise. It isn't hard to see how these two perspectives can balance one another--the "emotional" world reminds the "thinking" world that they may be looking too far forward, and the "thinking" world drags the "emotional" world out of the past and helps them see how things can be different in the future.
As someone who is a newcomer to Canada, I am not as familiar with past Canadian political history as the average Canadian. I've read about the National Energy Program, the Meech Lake Accord, and the Clarity Act, but I didn't personally experience any of them, and thus they don't mean much to me. Effectively, I'm incapable of providing an "emotional" world perspective on Canadian politics, because I haven't "felt" the history.
Yet, Canada is supposed to have a "thinking world" perspective looking toward the future, so at some level I thought it wouldn't matter that much. So, imagine my surprise during the recent controversy over the Financial Statement in late 2008, when all of the sudden the Bloc Québécois was actively trying to ruin the country of Canada, the Liberals were trying to force the National Energy Program on the west, and the Conservatives were again the Reform Party of western separatists, if we were to believe all the rhetoric coming from the various sides. The disconnect with the reality I had been observing for the past three years couldn't be greater. The Bloc might care more about Quebec than the rest of Canada, but I hadn't heard a word about separation or destroying the country out of them. The Liberals might have favored a "Green Shift," but comparing that with the National Energy Policy was a bit of a stretch, and the last thing in the world I would have ever expected from Prime Minister Harper or any Conservative Member of Parliament was a call for the west to leave Canada. Shouldn't the future-thinking people of Canada be expecting a better vision of the future and leaving all that baggage behind? Instead, they were entertaining completely "emotional," past-based perspectives.
Meanwhile, the politicians in the United States seemed to be about nothing except the future. Barack Obama tried to become a post-racial, post-partisan candidate basing his whole campaign on "hope" and "change." This wasn't exactly a new strategy. George W. Bush had campaigned to be a "uniter not a divider" and for a vision of bringing democracy to the world; it was his inability to deliver that caused his decline in popularity. Bill Clinton had been all about a "third way", a new vision of politics. George H.W. Bush had the "new world order." Ronald Reagan was about "morning in America." Where were the battles and controversies of the past resurfacing? The United States seemed more capable of looking to a future vision than Canada, and not hindered or informed by its past.
So how could this be? The answer seems to be in the attraction of one world for another. Because they are balancing worlds, the "emotional" world and the "thinking" world are attracted to one another. Someone coming from the "emotional" world, like the average voter in the United States, is attracted to "thinking" world arguments about the future, as provided by presidents from Reagan to Obama. Someone coming from the "thinking" world, like the average voter in Canada, is attracted to "emotional" world arguments, as politicians in the latest political crisis all tried to provide.
When push comes to shove, though, politicians cannot simply try to balance the populace. Advertising campaigns based on image and feelings still work better in the United States than Canada, whereas abstract analytical argumentation still has a greater impact in Canada than the United States. It takes a very healthy individual to be able to take on the perspectives of each world as circumstances require and lead effectively. For each country's sake, we should hope that both Barack Obama and Stephen Harper prove to have such skills.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Politics: John McCain and Type
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA - Over the course of the campaign, his opponents have attempted to paint John McCain as an unstable individual. From a personality theory perspective, most of the ammunition has come from the apparent reality that John McCain comes from a different "world" than that of generic US culture, which is in the "emotional" world. John McCain appears to be a "physical" type, more specifically a "heart" type, and that seems to explain much of his behavior.
"Physical"-world types in general are known for having a duality between love and anger--more often than not, they will be exhibiting one or the other emotion. Obviously, in a contest, love for one's opponent would not be preferred, so too often anger rises to the surface. Many observers felt that McCain seemed angry throughout the campaign, especially during the first two debates. This would not be surprising for someone from the physical world.
The grace of the specific "heart" type of John McCain is that they flip between love and anger quite easily, at a rate that can seem disconcerting to other types. This would explain why McCain could go between condemning Obama to cautioning his audience that Obama is a respectable man during the same speech, and why he can bounce back from intense exchanges with a smile on his face.
Many consider the selection of a vice-presidential running mate to be the first real insight gained into how a candidate will make decisions. By making a last-minute decision in favor of Sarah Palin, McCain demonstrated a classic trait of the "physical" world, that of living in the present as opposed to the past or the future. As often happens when "physcials" make such decisions, this decision proves to have been great for the moment when he needed to energize the base, but not so great for the long-term future, in which Palin has come to be regarded as a drag on the ticket.
The next big decision for which McCain has been questioned was the suspension of his campaign during the financial crisis. Again, this can be explained by the perspective of the "physical" world. The physical world is fundamentally about power and control, so while the most extreme control freaks are at the other end of the world amongst the "lung" types, even the "hearts" like to demonstrate that they can exert control over the situation. Unfortunately for McCain, the "emotional"-type electorate was more interested in how they felt about the situation than whether McCain seemed in control, so the tactic instead fed the stereotype of instability.
Interestingly, though, McCain has not succumbed to the classic flaw of a "heart" type--the flip-flop. Because they can change their emotions so rapidly, they can change their political positions quite rapidly as well. In contrast, McCain has stuck to his positions more than his opponent, who is not a "heart" type.
The "heart" personality is generally regarded as the "classic politician" personality for that same reason. Healthy hearts are willing to adjust their positions to match the position of majority of the population more easily than other types and in that sense best represent the public. However, if John McCain is defeated next Tuesday, he would become the second straight "heart" to lose a presidential election--John Kerry was a heart as well.
"Physical"-world types in general are known for having a duality between love and anger--more often than not, they will be exhibiting one or the other emotion. Obviously, in a contest, love for one's opponent would not be preferred, so too often anger rises to the surface. Many observers felt that McCain seemed angry throughout the campaign, especially during the first two debates. This would not be surprising for someone from the physical world.
The grace of the specific "heart" type of John McCain is that they flip between love and anger quite easily, at a rate that can seem disconcerting to other types. This would explain why McCain could go between condemning Obama to cautioning his audience that Obama is a respectable man during the same speech, and why he can bounce back from intense exchanges with a smile on his face.
Many consider the selection of a vice-presidential running mate to be the first real insight gained into how a candidate will make decisions. By making a last-minute decision in favor of Sarah Palin, McCain demonstrated a classic trait of the "physical" world, that of living in the present as opposed to the past or the future. As often happens when "physcials" make such decisions, this decision proves to have been great for the moment when he needed to energize the base, but not so great for the long-term future, in which Palin has come to be regarded as a drag on the ticket.
The next big decision for which McCain has been questioned was the suspension of his campaign during the financial crisis. Again, this can be explained by the perspective of the "physical" world. The physical world is fundamentally about power and control, so while the most extreme control freaks are at the other end of the world amongst the "lung" types, even the "hearts" like to demonstrate that they can exert control over the situation. Unfortunately for McCain, the "emotional"-type electorate was more interested in how they felt about the situation than whether McCain seemed in control, so the tactic instead fed the stereotype of instability.
Interestingly, though, McCain has not succumbed to the classic flaw of a "heart" type--the flip-flop. Because they can change their emotions so rapidly, they can change their political positions quite rapidly as well. In contrast, McCain has stuck to his positions more than his opponent, who is not a "heart" type.
The "heart" personality is generally regarded as the "classic politician" personality for that same reason. Healthy hearts are willing to adjust their positions to match the position of majority of the population more easily than other types and in that sense best represent the public. However, if John McCain is defeated next Tuesday, he would become the second straight "heart" to lose a presidential election--John Kerry was a heart as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)