When I was in my mid-twenties, a colleague of mine went to a seminar about workplace dynamics. The seminar speaker's point was that everyone is always selling something. My friend came back a complete convert--he enthusiastically explained to us how every single interaction, large and small, business and personal, is really about selling something.
I've heard about many similar systems since then, but at the time, it was a new concept to me, and we spent several interesting lunches discussing whether or not this was actually true. For every example we could think of that seemed to deny his new-found theory, he had a response. What about close friends? What about soldiers providing protection for civilians? What about a mother and child? There was always an answer.
The thing about those kinds of theories (Everyone, in every situation, is selling you something. Every interaction is an exchange of power. Everyone is a sinner in need of grace), is that there is lots of truth in them, and by adopting the idea, even temporarily, you can learn plenty.
And if you really buy in 100%, you can make everything fit your theory. But.... I don't know. Maybe some of you have found theories that 100% explain everything in your life. My own experience is that systems of thought are useful tools, but 100% buy-in leads to forcing people/experiences/situations into categories where they don't necessarily fit. It seems to me that life is too complex to be contained in a neat categorization system, and attempts to rationalize life eventually fail.
So regarding our current topic, Gretchen Rubin's Four Tendencies: The idea of them is fascinating, but it breaks down when she pushes it too far--there are so many mitigating factors that affect where one fits in her categories and so many people I know--including myself-- who don't fit neatly in any one place. And how do the tendencies interact with other personality types like being an introvert vs extrovert? or being a team player vs. being a lone wolf? or a perfectionist vs. someone with a high tolerance for chaos?
The previous two posts were about the mind-blowing insights I've experienced in thinking about her ideas. But this one is about the ways it doesn't work. Gretchen self-reports that she is practically 100% Upholder, so that may be part of the problem--she doesn't really get what it's like to not fit neatly. Also, I don't think Upholders experience the internal conflicts and confusion that the rest of us do-- I don't think I have any Upholder readers at the moment, so I can't ask. But it makes sense.
Because while it's clear to me that my over-arching tendency is Obliger, I experience expectations in my own head as a Rebel and a Questioner-- and even sometimes, as an Upholder (for example, at work I have no problem setting personal expectations and meeting them, even if they are things that no one will know about). I ignore rules that don't make sense to me. I bristle when someone tries to tell me what to do or how to think. I never follow the recipe.
While I was taking the Four Tendencies quiz, I already knew enough about them to have at least some idea of where the questions were going, and I thought to myself, really, I am a rebel with a healthy dose of common sense (no offense intended to the rebels among us). In my head, I have questioning and rebellious thoughts all the time. That's how I think. I look at people and situations and analyze them and try to figure out motivations and inefficiencies and strategies.
But on the outside, you might not be able to tell, because I don't usually question or rebel outwardly unless I feel like it's going to make a difference. And like a good Obliger, that most often happens on someone else's behalf. There was a situation at work last fall that didn't make much difference to me, but my co-workers were upset about it, so I went in and asked questions and pushed for change. Probably not typical Obliger behavior.
Am I an Obliger because I feel compelled to meet other people's expectations? Probably. But usually I go along with the program because I know from experience that always questioning, always refusing, doesn't get the results I want. Maybe the difference between me and someone who is truly a rebel is that refusing to comply isn't a compulsion for me. I can think about it and decide what I want to do, whereas maybe someone who is truly a rebel doesn't have that option. (Julie, what do you think?) Or maybe it's just that I'm older and more experienced. It's entirely possible if I'd taken this quiz when I was 19 that I would have had a different result.
An example. If I take a job knowing that there is a dress code, I'm fine with that, because it's part of the job and I've decided to take the job. But if you add a dress code to a job that I took thinking there wasn't one, I would turn into a really, really stubborn questioner. I quit a job once because they changed the rules on me. I agreed to the old rules, not these rules.
Rubin has mixed categories-- Obliger-Rebel, Upholder-Questioner, etc. But none of those fit very well either. So I guess all I'm trying to say is that Gretchen's system, like all systems, works as far as it works, and then it doesn't. I'm sure if she were here she'd explain exactly how I really do fit into one of her categories. But I'm resistant.
Still, I highly, highly recommend the book. Because the times her system works far outweigh the times it doesn't.
1 comment:
I'm with you, as usual. I see the ways in which these labels DON'T fit, for precisely the reasons you're pointing out.
(And yes, I also recognized where the quiz was going right away.)
It's like, you and I are constantly the exception to someone's rule, and yet we are that exception in different directions!
Or, as you said, no categorizations will truly ever be able to encompass us all.
Post a Comment