When asked to describe the personality of your best friends, you might describe
them as generous, caring, intelligent and so on. We tend to think in terms of absolutes
because it is easy to define somebody in terms of fundamental character traits.
The importance of context and situation is often underestimated or even ignored.
You might say "He's very considerate," but it would be unusual to say "He's very
considerate at work, but not so in the gym and when he's driving." The qualifying
statements are left out or deleted and we think of character as being a unified
and all encompassing whole. This deletion is one of the fundamental processes we
use when dealing with information. It allows us to deal with the world in small
enough chunks so that our brains do not become overloaded. If we had to constantly
qualify every statement, how could we make sense of things? How much more difficult
would it be to make decisions and have meaningful conversations? However, mistakes
arise when we begin to believe that this is "the way it is."
For example, if somebody tells you that a particular woman is friendly, passive
and feminine, and somebody else tells you that she is independent, aggressive and
competitive, who would you believe? You might think that one of them had got it
wrong, or that one of them had seen her in a single situation that was not really
representative of who she was. Or perhaps the aggressive independence is an outer
façade, or vice versa. And, of course, nature being what it is, she can be any one
or all of these at any moment, depending on who she is with, where she is, what's
happening in her environment and many other factors. For example, if her child was
in danger, she may display particularly aggressive and competitive behaviors, whereas
with her friends she may be very relaxed and friendly.
Similar scenarios can arise when various ‘psychological’ models are employed,
for example, Myers-Briggs, NLP meta-programmes, and so on. When people find out
which category they are in, it seems to make sense of the patterns they have been
running. This information is often used to justify particular behaviours. It is
used to explain why they are the way they are, and may be used to absolve them of
any responsibility for changing or doing anything about it. And once people have
categorized themselves, it can be difficult for them to operate outside of this
category. Especially if they have also combined logical levels as well, e.g., ‘I
am lazy’, or ‘I am stupid’.
As humans we like patterns. We even create them where they don’t exist, because
somehow we have developed a liking for a sense of order. And once we know what pattern
or category a person fits into, we feel more at ease because now we know how to
move forward in dealing with them.
Perhaps a better use of this information is to offer people the option to start
operating in the categories they are not familiar with. When you consider that when
people are ‘stuck’, limited or having a problem, it is often because something is
missing. Add in what is missing and the situation changes.
When someone who depends on others for feedback and reassurance learns how to
provide motivation from within themselves, it results in differences not only at
work but also in other areas of their lives. When an ‘Introvert’ has the ability
to choose the behaviours of an ‘Extrovert’, and knows how and when to choose, it
becomes a different life. When a person who notices what’s wrong in every situation
learns how to put their attention on what is actually working for them, and uses
this as the basis for living life, more opportunities present themselves.
> Part 2
