I got my Seven Things on Friday post done down through #6, and then I lost it. This has happened once or twice before, and I do not understand it. It is so frustrating, because I've been sitting here for over an hour and I thought I was almost done and now I have to freaking start over. UGH. This was worded more gracefully in the original.
1. It's fall. It's gorgeous. I like it.
2. A woman on Instagram posted that sometimes with book-to-film adaptations, when she isn't sure if she wants to read the book, she goes to see the movie first. Thus breaking the ancient law of all book snobs: Read The Book First. I had Crazy Rich Asians in my To Be Read (TBR) pile and I wasn't sure if I wanted to read it, because maybe it would reinforce Asian stereotypes.
3. So I decided to try her idea and go see the movie before I read the book. The movie is fun-- both Dean and I enjoyed it. And I see her point, because now I feel no need to read the book. And since I always have too many books to read, that is a good thing. New opinion: sometimes it is OK to see the movie first.
4. blah blah blah about how painful the issue of body weight is for women our age.
5. This week's interesting thing around the internet: an article that rounds up a bunch of research and makes a pretty clear case that our current thinking about obesity is counter-productive, although the title is a little exaggerated: Everything You Know About Obesity is Wrong. He rightly calls out the medical profession for fat shaming. Worth reading.
More about the Enneagram ahead, leave now if you're not interested, and have a great weekend!
6. (this part existed elsewhere, so I could just cut and paste it again) I saw a post by a person of color last week that dismissed the
Enneagram as something for white people with too much time on their
hands. Point taken. I can't think of anything to say in defense. I'm
Caucasian/cis/straight, so there is an entire universe of challenges I
don't have to deal with, challenges that would be both energy draining
and time consuming. Just thought I should acknowledge that for the record.
7. However.
Being white/cis/straight is not something I can change, and at the
moment I am finding the Enneagram to be extremely helpful. The "path to growth" for Type 5 is yielding insight after insight for me, and since we all have elements of all the types within us, some of the other types (esp 9 and 4) are helpful, too. So I'm going to continue to work on it for awhile. There will be at least one more post next week, apologies to those who aren't interested, although I guess you've quit reading if you're not, so never mind.
OK, I hope this made some sense. Maybe I will come back later and work on it some more when I'm not so pissed. Although maybe it makes more sense like this than it did when it was way wordier. Have a great weekend.
Showing posts with label what type are you. Show all posts
Showing posts with label what type are you. Show all posts
Friday, September 21, 2018
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Types, and my formative years
I think most of us around here are about my age, in our fifties, a few of us a bit younger, a few a bit older. So we spent our early, formative years in the pre-feminist era. Feminist ideas were hovering around, waiting for the match to spark the flames, but really, feminism, or at least the second wave of feminism*, didn't get started until the seventies when I was halfway through grade school and able to at least partially understand what the issues were.
So we're a funny hybrid. I can't imagine that anyone who reads here would argue against the basic ideas of feminism: outside some minor limitations of upper body strength, women can do whatever jobs men can do, if they are so inclined. Women should not be defined by their reproductive capabilities or lack thereof. Women are not here to be support staff for the important work that men are doing. We should be equally supportive of all human beings, regardless of race/gender/orientation/religion/whatever.
And yet we were raised back in the early 60s, in a world where the old ideas were still strong. Women could maybe have other interests on their own time, but really their primary job was either to be supportive of, or ornamental to, the "real" world of men. We weren't valuable on our own (which is why it was so supposedly awful to be unmarried), but only to the extent that we were helpful or pleasing to the men in our lives. And we raised children.
I was not raised to think that I could be of value just exactly as I was--a sometimes moody, sometimes dreamy, definitely shy, bookish, nerdy girl. How could that possibly be of value to the people around me? I believed that I needed to be cheerful, friendly, uncomplaining, and attractive (thin), to be of worth. I'd never even heard of being an introvert. It wasn't an option.
Whether or not that was what the people around me intended, that was what I picked up, and that was how I modeled myself. I developed a perky, enthusiastic social persona that sometimes worked, and often didn't, and that got me through my first twenty-two years of life. (Nowadays, I can tell when I'm feeling really stressed about a social situation, because I'll find myself pulling that persona out again. If you ever see me being perky, pull me aside and tell me to calm down.)
But putting on that cute, friendly act exhausted me. I still remember the night when it broke beyond repair. I don't remember the exact date, but in late August 1983, after I graduated from college, I was starting grad school for a master's in English, and I went to a meet-and-greet for the new grad students. There might even have been ice-breaker activities.
In other words, it was what I now think of as my worst nightmare. But I didn't know that then. I thought I was supposed to enjoy getting to know my fellow students. About an hour or so into it, I found myself uncontrollably on the verge of breaking into tears. I couldn't stand it for one more minute. I left early, drove myself back to my brand new apartment and cried for hours.
It was weeks, maybe months, before I could begin to understand why I was crying. But now I know: I had reached the end of being able to pull it off, the illusion that I was this eternally cheerful, outgoing person. That minor breakdown started a couple of years of deep confusion for me, culminating in my mid-twenties with the deepest depression I've ever experienced.
I ended up dropping out of grad school, and it wasn't until a couple of years later when I had a job and several months of therapy under my belt (yay for work benefits that include therapy) that I started to feel like I was putting myself back together. Or maybe putting myself together for the first time.
And it wasn't until a year after that that I learned about being an introvert. It was like suddenly someone handed me a Get Out of Jail Free card-- I was flooded with relief. OH! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ME! I'M JUST AN INTROVERT.
And to this day, that is what I love about personality types. For me, the primary value is validation. Here you are, and you're just fine exactly the way you are. And 30+ years later, the Enneagram did the same thing for me in a different way, and that is why I am so fascinated by it at the moment.
I listened to a guy, an Enneagram "expert," on a podcast yesterday who said that the danger in using the Enneagram for validation is that it becomes an exercise in narcissism, and I thought: you only think that because you're a man. You've never needed validation. It was a judge-y and catty (and probably unfair) thing to think, but that's the first thing that popped into my head.
(It probably has less to do with gender than whether or not you're already comfortable with who you are.)
Well, this time I didn't get anywhere close to where I wanted to go. In fact, I'm even further away than I was at the end of the last post. But this is plenty long enough. Have a great day.
* the feminism that swept the country in the seventies is called "second wave" feminism. The first wave was the suffragettes back in the early twentieth century. And the third wave is where we are now, with a plurality of different ways to be empowered human beings.
So we're a funny hybrid. I can't imagine that anyone who reads here would argue against the basic ideas of feminism: outside some minor limitations of upper body strength, women can do whatever jobs men can do, if they are so inclined. Women should not be defined by their reproductive capabilities or lack thereof. Women are not here to be support staff for the important work that men are doing. We should be equally supportive of all human beings, regardless of race/gender/orientation/religion/whatever.
And yet we were raised back in the early 60s, in a world where the old ideas were still strong. Women could maybe have other interests on their own time, but really their primary job was either to be supportive of, or ornamental to, the "real" world of men. We weren't valuable on our own (which is why it was so supposedly awful to be unmarried), but only to the extent that we were helpful or pleasing to the men in our lives. And we raised children.
I was not raised to think that I could be of value just exactly as I was--a sometimes moody, sometimes dreamy, definitely shy, bookish, nerdy girl. How could that possibly be of value to the people around me? I believed that I needed to be cheerful, friendly, uncomplaining, and attractive (thin), to be of worth. I'd never even heard of being an introvert. It wasn't an option.
Whether or not that was what the people around me intended, that was what I picked up, and that was how I modeled myself. I developed a perky, enthusiastic social persona that sometimes worked, and often didn't, and that got me through my first twenty-two years of life. (Nowadays, I can tell when I'm feeling really stressed about a social situation, because I'll find myself pulling that persona out again. If you ever see me being perky, pull me aside and tell me to calm down.)
But putting on that cute, friendly act exhausted me. I still remember the night when it broke beyond repair. I don't remember the exact date, but in late August 1983, after I graduated from college, I was starting grad school for a master's in English, and I went to a meet-and-greet for the new grad students. There might even have been ice-breaker activities.
In other words, it was what I now think of as my worst nightmare. But I didn't know that then. I thought I was supposed to enjoy getting to know my fellow students. About an hour or so into it, I found myself uncontrollably on the verge of breaking into tears. I couldn't stand it for one more minute. I left early, drove myself back to my brand new apartment and cried for hours.
It was weeks, maybe months, before I could begin to understand why I was crying. But now I know: I had reached the end of being able to pull it off, the illusion that I was this eternally cheerful, outgoing person. That minor breakdown started a couple of years of deep confusion for me, culminating in my mid-twenties with the deepest depression I've ever experienced.
I ended up dropping out of grad school, and it wasn't until a couple of years later when I had a job and several months of therapy under my belt (yay for work benefits that include therapy) that I started to feel like I was putting myself back together. Or maybe putting myself together for the first time.
And it wasn't until a year after that that I learned about being an introvert. It was like suddenly someone handed me a Get Out of Jail Free card-- I was flooded with relief. OH! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ME! I'M JUST AN INTROVERT.
And to this day, that is what I love about personality types. For me, the primary value is validation. Here you are, and you're just fine exactly the way you are. And 30+ years later, the Enneagram did the same thing for me in a different way, and that is why I am so fascinated by it at the moment.
I listened to a guy, an Enneagram "expert," on a podcast yesterday who said that the danger in using the Enneagram for validation is that it becomes an exercise in narcissism, and I thought: you only think that because you're a man. You've never needed validation. It was a judge-y and catty (and probably unfair) thing to think, but that's the first thing that popped into my head.
(It probably has less to do with gender than whether or not you're already comfortable with who you are.)
Well, this time I didn't get anywhere close to where I wanted to go. In fact, I'm even further away than I was at the end of the last post. But this is plenty long enough. Have a great day.
* the feminism that swept the country in the seventies is called "second wave" feminism. The first wave was the suffragettes back in the early twentieth century. And the third wave is where we are now, with a plurality of different ways to be empowered human beings.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Types, and therapy, and mental health (or what passes for it)
I was in therapy/counseling off and on from my mid-twenties until my late thirties. It was invaluable. There were a few therapists I saw only once or twice and decided it wasn't going to work, but for the most part, I found great people. If you're confused or anxious or depressed or need a sounding board, I highly recommend it. Find a therapist you can work with (which isn't always the first one you see), and let them help. *advice over*
There have been some definite trends in therapy over the years, and since I'm not a therapist, I only understand them as someone who has been to therapy, not from the other side. But during the eighties, when therapy was still relatively new, even as it was helping me, there were things we were all figuring out.
For example: You, as the client, were always told you were the innocent victim and (whatever had happened to you) wasn't your fault-- which just seemed sort of absurd. All the good people are in therapy, and all the bad people are not? No. Children can be innocent, but with adults, it's always complicated.
There was an undercurrent to the therapy that I received that more-or-less gave the impression that all problems could be solved. If you learned to think rationally about your situation, you could always figure out what was the right thing to do, way to be, how to act. There was a big emphasis on rational problem solving, which is a useful skill, but it only goes so far.
And then there was an assumption that mental health should look the same in everybody. Remember, this is back in the eighties. It seemed to me that there was an unspoken assumption that anyone who was mentally healthy would be ready for a lifetime monogamous commitment, raising children, and "settling down" in a single location to sink deep roots in a community.
So if you went to therapy and started to work out whatever it was that you were working on, pretty soon your life would look like The Brady Bunch. We've had some tough times in the past (weren't Mike and Carol Brady both widowed?)(did that ever get discussed?), but everything's coming up roses now!
But of course nothing is that simple, and people are different, and complicated, and wildly and blessedly diverse. We think differently, we have different strengths and weaknesses, we interact differently with the people around us, we process information differently. Mental health looks entirely different from one person to another.
Therapists are by and large pretty smart people, and they've figured it out. By the nineties, I could even joke a little with my therapist about what therapy had been like in the eighties. Remember back when we thought it was possible to have a perfect childhood? And if you didn't have one, you'd been robbed?
The reason I'm telling you this is because I've continued to read and learn and listen to podcasts about the Enneagram, and for the most part it has been an amazingly, astonishingly helpful thing. But from certain quarters of the widely diverse Enneagram community, I'm starting to pick up this same old thing. If you pursue the path of growth for your personality type, your personality type will disappear. In other words, that same old saw: mental health looks the same in everybody.
Since this seems like a major step backwards to me, it has really surprised me. Really? We're going back there again? I mean, maybe there is some ultimate, transcendent way this is true, but in my own experience, it's just not true. Happiness and contentment in my life may look entirely different than how happiness and contentment will look in yours.
The thing I've found so valuable about the Enneagram is that it has helped me figure that out. You figure out your dominant personality type, and when you understand that, you can learn to manage your needs and preferences. And you become aware of your shortcomings and the ways you can be blind, and you can manage those better, too.
I started out trying to say something specific in this post, and I don't think I got there. But I don't have time to start over, so here you go.
There have been some definite trends in therapy over the years, and since I'm not a therapist, I only understand them as someone who has been to therapy, not from the other side. But during the eighties, when therapy was still relatively new, even as it was helping me, there were things we were all figuring out.
For example: You, as the client, were always told you were the innocent victim and (whatever had happened to you) wasn't your fault-- which just seemed sort of absurd. All the good people are in therapy, and all the bad people are not? No. Children can be innocent, but with adults, it's always complicated.
There was an undercurrent to the therapy that I received that more-or-less gave the impression that all problems could be solved. If you learned to think rationally about your situation, you could always figure out what was the right thing to do, way to be, how to act. There was a big emphasis on rational problem solving, which is a useful skill, but it only goes so far.
And then there was an assumption that mental health should look the same in everybody. Remember, this is back in the eighties. It seemed to me that there was an unspoken assumption that anyone who was mentally healthy would be ready for a lifetime monogamous commitment, raising children, and "settling down" in a single location to sink deep roots in a community.
So if you went to therapy and started to work out whatever it was that you were working on, pretty soon your life would look like The Brady Bunch. We've had some tough times in the past (weren't Mike and Carol Brady both widowed?)(did that ever get discussed?), but everything's coming up roses now!
But of course nothing is that simple, and people are different, and complicated, and wildly and blessedly diverse. We think differently, we have different strengths and weaknesses, we interact differently with the people around us, we process information differently. Mental health looks entirely different from one person to another.
Therapists are by and large pretty smart people, and they've figured it out. By the nineties, I could even joke a little with my therapist about what therapy had been like in the eighties. Remember back when we thought it was possible to have a perfect childhood? And if you didn't have one, you'd been robbed?
The reason I'm telling you this is because I've continued to read and learn and listen to podcasts about the Enneagram, and for the most part it has been an amazingly, astonishingly helpful thing. But from certain quarters of the widely diverse Enneagram community, I'm starting to pick up this same old thing. If you pursue the path of growth for your personality type, your personality type will disappear. In other words, that same old saw: mental health looks the same in everybody.
Since this seems like a major step backwards to me, it has really surprised me. Really? We're going back there again? I mean, maybe there is some ultimate, transcendent way this is true, but in my own experience, it's just not true. Happiness and contentment in my life may look entirely different than how happiness and contentment will look in yours.
The thing I've found so valuable about the Enneagram is that it has helped me figure that out. You figure out your dominant personality type, and when you understand that, you can learn to manage your needs and preferences. And you become aware of your shortcomings and the ways you can be blind, and you can manage those better, too.
I started out trying to say something specific in this post, and I don't think I got there. But I don't have time to start over, so here you go.
Friday, September 7, 2018
7ToF: I'm Nobody! Who are you?
1. It's a commonplace these days to say that women in their 50s are invisible. If you haven't experienced it, lucky you. You can read about it here and here and here and lots of other places.
2. I remember the first few times I experienced middle-aged invisibility were at restaurants, where the waiters are basically paid to be friendly to their patrons. That's a cynical way to look at it, but you get a better tip if your people like you, and the restaurant gets a better reputation, and everyone is happy. When I was younger, I took a waiter's attention for granted--if I was sitting in a restaurant with friends or my kids, the waiter (male or female) would take some time to talk (flirt) with me. But suddenly, somehwere in my late 40s, waiters started ignoring me to talk to my younger friends or my kids.
3. I'm not exactly a femme fatale, so there was no reason to expect that wait staff would fall all over themselves to socialize with me, but still-- the first few times it happened, it was so unexpected that it was obvious. I'd heard that middle-aged women felt invisible, but it was still a surprise to actually experience it. Oh, that's what they mean!! Now I get it!
4. Plenty of has been written about the larger cultural reasons why this happens, mostly about factors that have nothing to do with us personally (other than we keep getting inexorably older, silly us). But what I've been thinking about recently is the part of it that is personal to me. As an introvert who has never had particularly strong social skills, it was a surprise to me to discover that a small, unconscious, but signficant portion of my attention had been taken up with the who-gets-noticed, who-is-attractive, who-is-a-potential-sexual-partner game. I've been in a monogamous relationship with Dean since I was 21, so it never really meant anything, but it was still happening. Until suddenly it stopped.
5. So, this isn't anything earthshaking or personally shattering, but it did take a bit of adjustment and I'll even say a little bit of mourning for something that had been a kind of fun and interesting aspect of interacting with people. And oddly, as I approach 60, it almost seems to be coming back. Maybe the 50s really are just a no-man's/woman's-land. The culture doesn't know what to do with us, and we don't quite know, either. I find myself almost looking forward to 60.
6. This week's interesting read: from Book Riot, a list of contemporary books with strong women protagonists over age 50. My TBR pile for this fall is already full, but maybe I'll try some of these in the new year--the only one I've read already is the one about the two women in Alaska.
7. Here is a picture from Labor Day weekend. This is our usual: I'm sitting and reading a book, and see that tiny, blurry figure on a stand-up paddleboard in the background? That's Dean, being active. Yup.
Quote of the week (which relates back to the fitness for couch potatoes post), from The Wisdom of the Enneagram: "...the basis of confidence, the feeling of being full, strong, and capable, arises from the instinctual energy of the body, not from mental structures. Thus, Fives grow by coming down out of their heads, and coming into deeper felt contact with their vitality and physicality." I live so much in my head, that idea is almost shocking to me. Really?
Cool. I can work on that. Have a great weekend.
2. I remember the first few times I experienced middle-aged invisibility were at restaurants, where the waiters are basically paid to be friendly to their patrons. That's a cynical way to look at it, but you get a better tip if your people like you, and the restaurant gets a better reputation, and everyone is happy. When I was younger, I took a waiter's attention for granted--if I was sitting in a restaurant with friends or my kids, the waiter (male or female) would take some time to talk (flirt) with me. But suddenly, somehwere in my late 40s, waiters started ignoring me to talk to my younger friends or my kids.
3. I'm not exactly a femme fatale, so there was no reason to expect that wait staff would fall all over themselves to socialize with me, but still-- the first few times it happened, it was so unexpected that it was obvious. I'd heard that middle-aged women felt invisible, but it was still a surprise to actually experience it. Oh, that's what they mean!! Now I get it!
4. Plenty of has been written about the larger cultural reasons why this happens, mostly about factors that have nothing to do with us personally (other than we keep getting inexorably older, silly us). But what I've been thinking about recently is the part of it that is personal to me. As an introvert who has never had particularly strong social skills, it was a surprise to me to discover that a small, unconscious, but signficant portion of my attention had been taken up with the who-gets-noticed, who-is-attractive, who-is-a-potential-sexual-partner game. I've been in a monogamous relationship with Dean since I was 21, so it never really meant anything, but it was still happening. Until suddenly it stopped.
5. So, this isn't anything earthshaking or personally shattering, but it did take a bit of adjustment and I'll even say a little bit of mourning for something that had been a kind of fun and interesting aspect of interacting with people. And oddly, as I approach 60, it almost seems to be coming back. Maybe the 50s really are just a no-man's/woman's-land. The culture doesn't know what to do with us, and we don't quite know, either. I find myself almost looking forward to 60.
6. This week's interesting read: from Book Riot, a list of contemporary books with strong women protagonists over age 50. My TBR pile for this fall is already full, but maybe I'll try some of these in the new year--the only one I've read already is the one about the two women in Alaska.
7. Here is a picture from Labor Day weekend. This is our usual: I'm sitting and reading a book, and see that tiny, blurry figure on a stand-up paddleboard in the background? That's Dean, being active. Yup.
 | |
| Me reading, Dean exercising. |
Quote of the week (which relates back to the fitness for couch potatoes post), from The Wisdom of the Enneagram: "...the basis of confidence, the feeling of being full, strong, and capable, arises from the instinctual energy of the body, not from mental structures. Thus, Fives grow by coming down out of their heads, and coming into deeper felt contact with their vitality and physicality." I live so much in my head, that idea is almost shocking to me. Really?
Cool. I can work on that. Have a great weekend.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Types: Life with Upholders
According to the Four Tendencies, Upholders are people who readily meet both internal and external expectations. In other words, if they decide they're going to start doing triathlons (an internal expectation), they figure out a training regimen and they start doing it. If they're given a tough assignment at work or school (an external expectation), they rise to the occasion and get it done.
I live in a household full of Upholders. It's hard to tell for sure what Tendency kids might be until they're on their own, but now that both of mine have fled the nest, I can tell you with a pretty high degree of confidence that they are both Upholders, and Dean is an upholder to the bone.
I love my Upholders. They are my favorite people in the universe. They are responsible and kind, they get stuff done (lots of stuff), they are pro-active about making our life all it can be. They love to be physically active, they take great care of themselves, they participate in the community in positive ways without making a big deal out of it-- it's just what they do.
(And also, it must be said-- they are all three different. It's not like being an Upholder rubber stamps your personality.)
I am not an Upholder. I told you my own history about trying to figure out what tendency I am last week, but whatever it is-- Obliger who tilts Rebel? Questioner? -- it's not Upholder. So I'm a bit of an armchair expert on Upholders, and I have two things I want to tell you about them.
First, Upholders sometimes get an unfair rap as having things easy. Because they are rarely conflicted about what they're doing, they usually don't have that muddled, sometimes self-defeating, sometimes confused, why-can't-I-get-this-thing-done-that-I-want-to-do aspect that the rest of us have to deal with all the time.
That's not to say that they never have any problems--of course not. But when an Upholder clicks in on something they want to accomplish or that they are expected to accomplish, they get this torrential energy flow going that looks like it's propelling them along with no effort.
But that forward motion masks how hard Upholders work. In fact, I would say that the number one thing my Upholders have in common is that they are hard workers. They work their asses off. It looks easy, because they have a level of self-confidence and drive that escapes most of us. But underneath that, they're doing as much work as two of me. They're amazing.
The flip side of that, though, is that if you're the only non-Upholder in a household full of them, you kinda look like a slob. They move serenely through life, piling one accomplishment on top of another, while I really still haven't figured out what I want to be when I grow up.
I know my family loves me, and on good days, I know that they appreciate that I loosen them up a bit, and that I pay attention to details that they'd just as soon gloss over in their drive to get things done. But I still look disorganized and chaotic compared to their competence.
Here is a conversation that Dean and I have regularly:
Me: I need to go out and deal with the chickens.
Dean, who is ready to leave or do something else: The chickens are fine. They have food and water, they'll be fine.
And technically, he's right. They're not going to die. But they'll be happier if I go down and check on them, make sure they have fresh water, give them some scratch, etc. He's not going to let the little things stand in the way of what he wants to get done, I have a hard time getting things done because of the small (but important) distractions I feel I need to take care of.
Another story: Back when the kids were in grade school, we were at a large family reunion (Dean's family). We were staying in a standard room at a motel -- two beds, not much other space, one bathroom. After an afternoon at the beach, we were supposed to be downstairs at the pool in half an hour for a group photo.
But there was just one bathroom, and PellMel was old enough to want her hair to be just so, and MadMax was young enough that he needed some help finding the shirt we were all supposed to wear for the photo, etc etc, and before you know it, all three of them were ready to go and my hair was still wet because I'd been helping the kids and the bathroom had been occupied. This isn't to say that Dean wasn't helping the kids, but he's not the one who is going to help Mel with her hair, or know where MadMax's shirt is.
It's easy in this situation, and believe me it has happened many times, for it to look like I'm just an undisciplined loser who can't keep track of the time. And to be honest, I do have a hard time keeping track of the time. Dean has learned over the 34 years we've been married that if we need to leave at a certain time, about fifteen minutes beforehand, he needs to check and make sure I realize what time it is. Because usually my mental clock is 20 minutes behind the real one.
But on the other hand, sometimes I wish I didn't look and feel quite so incompetent compared to them. I get lots of stuff done, and often it's important stuff. But there they are, all dressed and ready to go, and I'm still fifteen minutes away from being ready-- whether we're speaking literally or metaphorically, it happens all the time.
This is probably a problem that exists more in my head than theirs-- I don't think they see me as incompetent. I think I'm the one who is still, after all this time, just a little bit intimidated by how ferociously they attack their lives.
And when I'm really annoyed with them, I even get aggravated about all that hard work. Ugh. Couldn't they relax every once in awhile? If Dean is sitting in the living room reading the newspaper and I start to unload the dishwasher, he can't sit there and relax while I'm working. If your spouse isn't like that, you probably think it sounds great that he jumps up to help, but when your spouse is tightly wound and you really just want them to relax for a little while, it's annoying. Seriously.
But on the other hand, I get a lot of help with unloading the dishwasher. Can't complain about that.
So there you are. Your education in life with Upholders.
I live in a household full of Upholders. It's hard to tell for sure what Tendency kids might be until they're on their own, but now that both of mine have fled the nest, I can tell you with a pretty high degree of confidence that they are both Upholders, and Dean is an upholder to the bone.
I love my Upholders. They are my favorite people in the universe. They are responsible and kind, they get stuff done (lots of stuff), they are pro-active about making our life all it can be. They love to be physically active, they take great care of themselves, they participate in the community in positive ways without making a big deal out of it-- it's just what they do.
(And also, it must be said-- they are all three different. It's not like being an Upholder rubber stamps your personality.)
I am not an Upholder. I told you my own history about trying to figure out what tendency I am last week, but whatever it is-- Obliger who tilts Rebel? Questioner? -- it's not Upholder. So I'm a bit of an armchair expert on Upholders, and I have two things I want to tell you about them.
First, Upholders sometimes get an unfair rap as having things easy. Because they are rarely conflicted about what they're doing, they usually don't have that muddled, sometimes self-defeating, sometimes confused, why-can't-I-get-this-thing-done-that-I-want-to-do aspect that the rest of us have to deal with all the time.
That's not to say that they never have any problems--of course not. But when an Upholder clicks in on something they want to accomplish or that they are expected to accomplish, they get this torrential energy flow going that looks like it's propelling them along with no effort.
But that forward motion masks how hard Upholders work. In fact, I would say that the number one thing my Upholders have in common is that they are hard workers. They work their asses off. It looks easy, because they have a level of self-confidence and drive that escapes most of us. But underneath that, they're doing as much work as two of me. They're amazing.
The flip side of that, though, is that if you're the only non-Upholder in a household full of them, you kinda look like a slob. They move serenely through life, piling one accomplishment on top of another, while I really still haven't figured out what I want to be when I grow up.
I know my family loves me, and on good days, I know that they appreciate that I loosen them up a bit, and that I pay attention to details that they'd just as soon gloss over in their drive to get things done. But I still look disorganized and chaotic compared to their competence.
Here is a conversation that Dean and I have regularly:
Me: I need to go out and deal with the chickens.
Dean, who is ready to leave or do something else: The chickens are fine. They have food and water, they'll be fine.
And technically, he's right. They're not going to die. But they'll be happier if I go down and check on them, make sure they have fresh water, give them some scratch, etc. He's not going to let the little things stand in the way of what he wants to get done, I have a hard time getting things done because of the small (but important) distractions I feel I need to take care of.
Another story: Back when the kids were in grade school, we were at a large family reunion (Dean's family). We were staying in a standard room at a motel -- two beds, not much other space, one bathroom. After an afternoon at the beach, we were supposed to be downstairs at the pool in half an hour for a group photo.
But there was just one bathroom, and PellMel was old enough to want her hair to be just so, and MadMax was young enough that he needed some help finding the shirt we were all supposed to wear for the photo, etc etc, and before you know it, all three of them were ready to go and my hair was still wet because I'd been helping the kids and the bathroom had been occupied. This isn't to say that Dean wasn't helping the kids, but he's not the one who is going to help Mel with her hair, or know where MadMax's shirt is.
It's easy in this situation, and believe me it has happened many times, for it to look like I'm just an undisciplined loser who can't keep track of the time. And to be honest, I do have a hard time keeping track of the time. Dean has learned over the 34 years we've been married that if we need to leave at a certain time, about fifteen minutes beforehand, he needs to check and make sure I realize what time it is. Because usually my mental clock is 20 minutes behind the real one.
But on the other hand, sometimes I wish I didn't look and feel quite so incompetent compared to them. I get lots of stuff done, and often it's important stuff. But there they are, all dressed and ready to go, and I'm still fifteen minutes away from being ready-- whether we're speaking literally or metaphorically, it happens all the time.
This is probably a problem that exists more in my head than theirs-- I don't think they see me as incompetent. I think I'm the one who is still, after all this time, just a little bit intimidated by how ferociously they attack their lives.
And when I'm really annoyed with them, I even get aggravated about all that hard work. Ugh. Couldn't they relax every once in awhile? If Dean is sitting in the living room reading the newspaper and I start to unload the dishwasher, he can't sit there and relax while I'm working. If your spouse isn't like that, you probably think it sounds great that he jumps up to help, but when your spouse is tightly wound and you really just want them to relax for a little while, it's annoying. Seriously.
But on the other hand, I get a lot of help with unloading the dishwasher. Can't complain about that.
So there you are. Your education in life with Upholders.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Types: The Omni-Type, AKA those of us with convoluted brains
As it turns out, I wasn't sick, it was just the smoke. And the smoke has continued to be bad-- in fact, it was much worse last week because now we have local fires adding into the mix. So I just have to suck it up and stop complaining because it's likely to be smoky for awhile.
My topic this week is (again) personality types-- I think there will be three or four posts over the next ten days or so. I know for some of you this is little more than snake oil, so I'm putting the word "Types" in the post title and then you'll know you can skip right over it.
The personality type no one seems to be talking about: whether you think personality typing is a bunch of over-hyped nonsense, or you find it deeply, deeply helpful. I'm suspicious that the former is true, but I still find myself in the second category. Apologies in advance for those of you who aren't interested. Today's story will do nothing to convince you if you're not already convinced.
A couple of months ago I talked endlessly (as I do) about the Four Tendencies-- Gretchen Rubin's system for identifying how people respond to inner and outer expectations (my explanation of it is here, one of the places you can read her explanation is here, and you can take the quiz at her website, too). I discovered that I'm an Obliger, someone who responds well to outer expectations (like showing up for my food bank volunteer gig every week, because they're expecting me), but not so well to my own expectations (like why can't I seem to stay off my damn phone).
I also wrote a post about how I don't always fit the Obliger profile, because I often exhibit the other tendencies, too-- especially being a Rebel or a Questioner. In fact, I'm even sometimes an Upholder. So do the tendencies mean anything at all? If I can see myself as each one of them, how can it possibly hold any meaning to talk about them as personality types?
But I found the idea so enlightening that I kept reading, and also I've been listening to Gretchen's podcast Happier with her sister Elizabeth. I finally decided that I must be an Obliger who "tilts" rebel-- Gretchen uses the word "tilt" to mean people who are one tendency, but have some of the characteristics of one of the other tendencies.
Ugh. I'm over-explaining for those of you who already know about this, and under-explaining for those of you who don't.
Then I spotted a podcast by Dan Harris (author of 10% Happier, a book I loved and recommended back at the beginning of the year) when he had Gretchen as a guest. Perfect, I thought. I love listening to two intelligent people talk, and they are both ferociously intelligent. The podcast did not disappoint-- it was fascinating-- but the only thing I remember from it now is one line of Gretchen's. She was trying to help Dan figure out what his tendency is, and she said, "People who can see themselves in all of the tendencies are usually questioners."
That brought my brain to a dead halt (and believe me that doesn't happen very often). In the basic chart of the four tendencies, Obligers (good at outer expectations, bad at inner) and Questioners (good at inner, bad at outer) are the exact opposite of each other. How could I have found it so helpful to "realize" that I am an Obliger, but then find it equally as helpful to think about myself as a Questioner?
Because as soon as she said that, I could see that if I changed my understanding of certain things about me, I really might be a Questioner. Once I decide something is important to me, I do it, without any help or prompting from anyone else. I practice my music, I write my blog posts, I do my stretches, I finish reading books that I feel are important for me to read, even if I don't exactly like them.
And it also solves the problem of being an Obliger, which is that you're supposed to set up accountability systems so that you can achieve your goals, and I am terrible at accountability. But if I'm a questioner, I don't have to do accountability, because once I've questioned long and hard enough to figure out that something is worth doing, I just do it.
How weird is that? Both of these realizations-- the Obliger part several months ago, and the Questioner bit a couple of weeks ago-- have been so helpful to me. Just being aware of the concept of watching how I respond to expectations, and how the people around me respond to expectations, has been a game changer. But I don't think I buy that all of us are a specific type. Even with the tilting.
Mind blown. I've been working on this post off and on all day, and I'm afraid if you don't already know about the Four Tendencies it probably made no sense to you. In fact, it's entirely possible that it made no sense to anybody. But it's almost midnight and it's too late for me to write about something else. I will try to be more interesting next time.
My topic this week is (again) personality types-- I think there will be three or four posts over the next ten days or so. I know for some of you this is little more than snake oil, so I'm putting the word "Types" in the post title and then you'll know you can skip right over it.
The personality type no one seems to be talking about: whether you think personality typing is a bunch of over-hyped nonsense, or you find it deeply, deeply helpful. I'm suspicious that the former is true, but I still find myself in the second category. Apologies in advance for those of you who aren't interested. Today's story will do nothing to convince you if you're not already convinced.
A couple of months ago I talked endlessly (as I do) about the Four Tendencies-- Gretchen Rubin's system for identifying how people respond to inner and outer expectations (my explanation of it is here, one of the places you can read her explanation is here, and you can take the quiz at her website, too). I discovered that I'm an Obliger, someone who responds well to outer expectations (like showing up for my food bank volunteer gig every week, because they're expecting me), but not so well to my own expectations (like why can't I seem to stay off my damn phone).
I also wrote a post about how I don't always fit the Obliger profile, because I often exhibit the other tendencies, too-- especially being a Rebel or a Questioner. In fact, I'm even sometimes an Upholder. So do the tendencies mean anything at all? If I can see myself as each one of them, how can it possibly hold any meaning to talk about them as personality types?
But I found the idea so enlightening that I kept reading, and also I've been listening to Gretchen's podcast Happier with her sister Elizabeth. I finally decided that I must be an Obliger who "tilts" rebel-- Gretchen uses the word "tilt" to mean people who are one tendency, but have some of the characteristics of one of the other tendencies.
Ugh. I'm over-explaining for those of you who already know about this, and under-explaining for those of you who don't.
Then I spotted a podcast by Dan Harris (author of 10% Happier, a book I loved and recommended back at the beginning of the year) when he had Gretchen as a guest. Perfect, I thought. I love listening to two intelligent people talk, and they are both ferociously intelligent. The podcast did not disappoint-- it was fascinating-- but the only thing I remember from it now is one line of Gretchen's. She was trying to help Dan figure out what his tendency is, and she said, "People who can see themselves in all of the tendencies are usually questioners."
That brought my brain to a dead halt (and believe me that doesn't happen very often). In the basic chart of the four tendencies, Obligers (good at outer expectations, bad at inner) and Questioners (good at inner, bad at outer) are the exact opposite of each other. How could I have found it so helpful to "realize" that I am an Obliger, but then find it equally as helpful to think about myself as a Questioner?
Because as soon as she said that, I could see that if I changed my understanding of certain things about me, I really might be a Questioner. Once I decide something is important to me, I do it, without any help or prompting from anyone else. I practice my music, I write my blog posts, I do my stretches, I finish reading books that I feel are important for me to read, even if I don't exactly like them.
And it also solves the problem of being an Obliger, which is that you're supposed to set up accountability systems so that you can achieve your goals, and I am terrible at accountability. But if I'm a questioner, I don't have to do accountability, because once I've questioned long and hard enough to figure out that something is worth doing, I just do it.
How weird is that? Both of these realizations-- the Obliger part several months ago, and the Questioner bit a couple of weeks ago-- have been so helpful to me. Just being aware of the concept of watching how I respond to expectations, and how the people around me respond to expectations, has been a game changer. But I don't think I buy that all of us are a specific type. Even with the tilting.
Mind blown. I've been working on this post off and on all day, and I'm afraid if you don't already know about the Four Tendencies it probably made no sense to you. In fact, it's entirely possible that it made no sense to anybody. But it's almost midnight and it's too late for me to write about something else. I will try to be more interesting next time.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Kitchen sink, because this post has a little bit of everything
1. You know how sometimes you run across a random object and you get practically knocked flat by memories and nostalgia? This week it happened to me with a box of hot chocolate packets. Since we live in the land of eight months of winter, when the kids were younger, I could not keep enough hot chocolate in the house. Every time they came in from sledding or skiing or even just school, they wanted hot chocolate. Even in high school they would dump a packet into their coffee. So whenever it was on sale, I bought a bunch. And of course you don't learn to buy less stuff when the kids are gone until suddenly it starts to pile up. I ran across a stash of three boxes of hot chocolate mix this week and it brought those days back so sharply it took my breath away.
2. I feel like I'm figuring some things out (finally) and I have to confess that the instigator of the positive changes I'm making is understanding more about my personality type. I know I keep harping on this, but it really has been helpful. The Enneagram thing-- I am enneagram #5, the Observer type-- has been the missing piece that has helped me put some things together. (for more posts about personality types, try the second half of this post and the first half of this one and this one. that's not even all of them.)
I still don't have my enneagram book, but the gist of what it said for number fives is that an observer's main area of growth is learning to break out of observer mode and participate to create the life you want. Obvious, right? But in a way, it was news to me-- I mean, of course if you had asked me I would have known that you need to participate in life, but I hadn't put that together with my natural reluctance to move out of my comfort zone, which is observing and analyzing.
3. The specific wording was something to the effect of "Fives naturally feel that they need to protect their inner resources by maintaining their distances as observers, but they need to understand that if they move out of their observer stance, there are resources and energy that will rise to meet them." The first time I read that, I stared blankly at the page and thought, "there are??? really? how come no one told me this?" So that's what started this latest round of positive growth. I may be almost 57, damn it, but I can still learn new things.
4. Example. Years ago, I was in a women's group that would pick a book and read through it together. We met weekly, and part of the meeting was check-in time, when each of us gave a brief summary of how we were doing. One of the reasons I immediately resonated with the type of Observer is because in situations like this, I always prefer to listen to everyone else rather than take my turn. I don't feel like I have anything to add-- not in a pathetic way, I just would rather listen than talk (until something sets me off and then you can't get me to shut up). So I always ended up going last, because really I didn't want to say anything at all.
At some point after many months of this, one of the women said to me that she thought it was unfair of me to always wait until last to take my turn as if I thought I was more important than everyone else. I was speechless, since she had so completely mis-read what was going on in my head. I don't remember what I replied, but I probably totally blew it because I didn't know what to say.
5. Now that I have a better understanding of being an introvert and an observer and a thinker (as opposed to a feeler) and an obliger, I have a better way of understanding the dynamics of what is happening in group situations like that. Although I still probably wouldn't know what to say to that woman (who actually stopped speaking to me and dropped out of the group shortly thereafter)(that's how I know I blew it). So I've been working on better ways to be part of a group, but it's hard for me to break out of the role of observer. Work in progress. But at least I understand better what is going on now.
6. OK, I goofed up. On Friday I told you about my sous-vide cooking adventures, and I told you perfectly cooked chicken breasts register 140 degrees, but I was wrong-- it's 150. And the package of chicken breasts I opened tonight said quite prominently on the label "Cook thoroughly to 165 for safety." So, use your own judgment. I'm still doing 150 because they turn out just right. If I die of salmonella poisoning, you'll know why.
Apologies to those of you who are email subscribed (as far as I know, I have no way to tell who you are), but I had to go back and fix that, and it took two tries. Also I forgot to tell you that sous-vide is pronounced "soo-veed." So now you know.
7. And I did not even come close to finishing my mini reading challenge-- I did finish Calypso, so I made it through four books, but then the boys came home a day early and I didn't finish the fifth one until yesterday.
This was supposed to be short because I didn't start it until 11:15pm on Monday night but it ended up long. I'm hopelessly wordy. Have a great day.
2. I feel like I'm figuring some things out (finally) and I have to confess that the instigator of the positive changes I'm making is understanding more about my personality type. I know I keep harping on this, but it really has been helpful. The Enneagram thing-- I am enneagram #5, the Observer type-- has been the missing piece that has helped me put some things together. (for more posts about personality types, try the second half of this post and the first half of this one and this one. that's not even all of them.)
I still don't have my enneagram book, but the gist of what it said for number fives is that an observer's main area of growth is learning to break out of observer mode and participate to create the life you want. Obvious, right? But in a way, it was news to me-- I mean, of course if you had asked me I would have known that you need to participate in life, but I hadn't put that together with my natural reluctance to move out of my comfort zone, which is observing and analyzing.
3. The specific wording was something to the effect of "Fives naturally feel that they need to protect their inner resources by maintaining their distances as observers, but they need to understand that if they move out of their observer stance, there are resources and energy that will rise to meet them." The first time I read that, I stared blankly at the page and thought, "there are??? really? how come no one told me this?" So that's what started this latest round of positive growth. I may be almost 57, damn it, but I can still learn new things.
4. Example. Years ago, I was in a women's group that would pick a book and read through it together. We met weekly, and part of the meeting was check-in time, when each of us gave a brief summary of how we were doing. One of the reasons I immediately resonated with the type of Observer is because in situations like this, I always prefer to listen to everyone else rather than take my turn. I don't feel like I have anything to add-- not in a pathetic way, I just would rather listen than talk (until something sets me off and then you can't get me to shut up). So I always ended up going last, because really I didn't want to say anything at all.
At some point after many months of this, one of the women said to me that she thought it was unfair of me to always wait until last to take my turn as if I thought I was more important than everyone else. I was speechless, since she had so completely mis-read what was going on in my head. I don't remember what I replied, but I probably totally blew it because I didn't know what to say.
5. Now that I have a better understanding of being an introvert and an observer and a thinker (as opposed to a feeler) and an obliger, I have a better way of understanding the dynamics of what is happening in group situations like that. Although I still probably wouldn't know what to say to that woman (who actually stopped speaking to me and dropped out of the group shortly thereafter)(that's how I know I blew it). So I've been working on better ways to be part of a group, but it's hard for me to break out of the role of observer. Work in progress. But at least I understand better what is going on now.
6. OK, I goofed up. On Friday I told you about my sous-vide cooking adventures, and I told you perfectly cooked chicken breasts register 140 degrees, but I was wrong-- it's 150. And the package of chicken breasts I opened tonight said quite prominently on the label "Cook thoroughly to 165 for safety." So, use your own judgment. I'm still doing 150 because they turn out just right. If I die of salmonella poisoning, you'll know why.
Apologies to those of you who are email subscribed (as far as I know, I have no way to tell who you are), but I had to go back and fix that, and it took two tries. Also I forgot to tell you that sous-vide is pronounced "soo-veed." So now you know.
7. And I did not even come close to finishing my mini reading challenge-- I did finish Calypso, so I made it through four books, but then the boys came home a day early and I didn't finish the fifth one until yesterday.
This was supposed to be short because I didn't start it until 11:15pm on Monday night but it ended up long. I'm hopelessly wordy. Have a great day.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
yup, that nest is still empty
I halfway feel like I should apologize for that sad-panda post on Thursday, but you know what? It really helps. Writing stuff out and posting it works for me in a way that journaling does not. It helps me think things through, and it helps to see how people respond to it. So I guess occasionally you'll have to put up with it. Thank you. I feel better.
It occurred to me over the weekend that part of what I'm going through (still) is the long-term adjustment to being an empty nester. The short-term part of it, the month or two after each kid went off to college where I missed them intensely, was over pretty quickly. But the long-term transition away from devoting a signiticant portion of my time, energy, and attention to keeping track of their schedules and their school's events and their friends and their laundry and everything else-- I think I might still be working my way through that.
My kids were pretty independent even when they were still living at home. They managed their own homework and by the time they were seniors, they were driving themselves around. We didn't really see them all that much. But still there was always a part of me that was aware of what they were doing, when they'd be home, if they'd had dinner, when was the band concert, etc. Having all that energy back again is great (really great), but there's also a bit of a vacuum. Having a job for awhile filled the gap, but now I'm not working and I guess I'm back to figuring this out again.
Another aspect: I've been thinking about the distinction between being an introvert (someone who recharges via alone time) and being a lone wolf (someone who prefers to work alone). I am definitely an introvert, as I've told you ad nauseum, but I'm not a lone wolf. (I don't know enough about this to know if being a lone wolf is a subset of introverts, or if you can be an extrovert lone wolf??)
At work, I prefer to be part of a team. In fact, my perfect job situation would be to have my own office and yet still be part of a team that meets regularly and accomplishes work together, bouncing ideas off each other, vetting each other's work before it goes live/public/whatever, talking through things that aren't working, etc. I was lucky that for about six months that's exactly what this last job was. But then we moved into cubicles. If you have to work in a cubicle, as one of my colleagues still does, you have my utmost sympathy.
So it occurs to me that another part of the adjustment I've been going through recently has been the loss of my colleagues at work. I spent a year working every day as part of a team, so I'm not just missing the structure and the feeling of accomplishment you get from a paying job, I'm missing the feeling of being a member of a group. And since I'm an introvert, that's not something I can easily replace. I need to brainstorm some ideas on this. (Maybe starting with not grumping at my friends who want to be supportive when I'm feeling down. Just sayin.)
Remember awhile ago I told you that I am an Enneagram number 5? Fives are the observer type, and for observers, it can be hard, really hard, to push through the veil of observation to become a particpant in whatever's happening around you. Being part of a team at work makes this easier, because it just happens. You show up at work and boom! you're part of a team. But it's not so easy to make it happen on my own.
So, as always, work in progress.
It occurred to me over the weekend that part of what I'm going through (still) is the long-term adjustment to being an empty nester. The short-term part of it, the month or two after each kid went off to college where I missed them intensely, was over pretty quickly. But the long-term transition away from devoting a signiticant portion of my time, energy, and attention to keeping track of their schedules and their school's events and their friends and their laundry and everything else-- I think I might still be working my way through that.
My kids were pretty independent even when they were still living at home. They managed their own homework and by the time they were seniors, they were driving themselves around. We didn't really see them all that much. But still there was always a part of me that was aware of what they were doing, when they'd be home, if they'd had dinner, when was the band concert, etc. Having all that energy back again is great (really great), but there's also a bit of a vacuum. Having a job for awhile filled the gap, but now I'm not working and I guess I'm back to figuring this out again.
Another aspect: I've been thinking about the distinction between being an introvert (someone who recharges via alone time) and being a lone wolf (someone who prefers to work alone). I am definitely an introvert, as I've told you ad nauseum, but I'm not a lone wolf. (I don't know enough about this to know if being a lone wolf is a subset of introverts, or if you can be an extrovert lone wolf??)
At work, I prefer to be part of a team. In fact, my perfect job situation would be to have my own office and yet still be part of a team that meets regularly and accomplishes work together, bouncing ideas off each other, vetting each other's work before it goes live/public/whatever, talking through things that aren't working, etc. I was lucky that for about six months that's exactly what this last job was. But then we moved into cubicles. If you have to work in a cubicle, as one of my colleagues still does, you have my utmost sympathy.
So it occurs to me that another part of the adjustment I've been going through recently has been the loss of my colleagues at work. I spent a year working every day as part of a team, so I'm not just missing the structure and the feeling of accomplishment you get from a paying job, I'm missing the feeling of being a member of a group. And since I'm an introvert, that's not something I can easily replace. I need to brainstorm some ideas on this. (Maybe starting with not grumping at my friends who want to be supportive when I'm feeling down. Just sayin.)
Remember awhile ago I told you that I am an Enneagram number 5? Fives are the observer type, and for observers, it can be hard, really hard, to push through the veil of observation to become a particpant in whatever's happening around you. Being part of a team at work makes this easier, because it just happens. You show up at work and boom! you're part of a team. But it's not so easy to make it happen on my own.
So, as always, work in progress.
Friday, May 25, 2018
7ToF: I was just cutting the grass under the window there
1. Well, I decided not to write an entire post on the Enneagram yet (mainly because I can't find my book). So I'll just say that I started out skeptical--it sounded kind of like astrology-- but have ended up being really impressed with what I've learned from my Enneagram number. You take the quiz (because of course there's a quiz), but then unlike all the other typing systems, you read through the descriptions and decide for yourself which one fits you best.
2. Enneagram types are numbered 1 to 9. I think I am a 5, the Observer type. Among other characteristics, Observers like to watch people and listen to them--which is so true of me. I am endlessly entertained by people watching (airports, malls, coffee shops), and I can eavesdrop by the hour (more on this topic when the book turns up).
3. So, since I like listening to people talk, especially people who are smart and funny, I love podcasts. I've listened to podcasts on and off for years, but I've only recently been serious about figuring out how to subscribe to my favorites so I can listen to them regularly. I use Overcast, a podcast app that has a few more options than the standard podcast app that came with my phone. I've only had it a couple of weeks but so far I like it.
4. So what podcasts am I hooked on? First of all, What Should I Read Next, which is Anne Bogel (Modern Mrs. Darcy) interviewing people about their reading habits and then recommending books she thinks they'll enjoy. That probably sounds a bit dry, but if you love to read, it ends up being really fun to listen to fellow readers sit and talk about books. Some episodes are better than others, of course, but this is the show that hooked me into being a regular podcast listener. Also, Anne's personality is charming. That's kind of a dicey word to use, but I can't think of a more accurate one to describe her podcast persona. Verdict: if you're a reader, don't miss.
5. Popcast. Popcast is really just co-hosts Jamie and Knox gossiping about pop culture. With every single episode, I find myself thinking at some point Why do I listen to this? I'm about twenty years older than their target audience, I don't watch reality TV (no judgment there, it's just not for me), and about half the time I have no idea who they're talking about. But then --and this also happens at least once in every single episode-- one of them says something that's so nuts that I laugh till I cry. And then they'll reference something that I do get-- like tomato sandwiches in Harriet the Spy-- and I think, OK, I'm in for at least one more episode, and then after a couple of months, I found myself looking forward to listening to new episodes the day they came out. They are having a ball and that enjoyment is infectious. Verdict: Really, really fun.
6. Happier with Gretchen Rubin. You all know how I've argued with Gretchen Rubin in my head about her book The Four Tendencies. So I wasn't sure I'd like her podcast. But it turns out that it's interesting and entertaining. She co-hosts with her sister Elizabeth, who sounds like she's about as opposite as can be from Gretchen, but they clearly feel a great deal of affection for each other, and it's fun to listen to them talk. Also, you pick up some great "life hacks" for making your personal world a better, more functional place. Verdict: Gretchen's down-to-earth, practical advice for improving your life is a goldmine of helpful ideas.
Also recommended: 10% Happier: The Podcast, The Big Boo Cast, By the Book, Fresh Air, This American Life.
7. In Other News: "Internet Things Worth Reading" Department: A NYTimes piece about Why You Should Stop Being So Hard on Yourself. Turns out we're practically programmed to be hard on ourselves. Maybe all those dumb things I do are just not that big a deal.
and that's it for me. Let me know if you have other don't-miss podcast recommendations. Have a great weekend.
2. Enneagram types are numbered 1 to 9. I think I am a 5, the Observer type. Among other characteristics, Observers like to watch people and listen to them--which is so true of me. I am endlessly entertained by people watching (airports, malls, coffee shops), and I can eavesdrop by the hour (more on this topic when the book turns up).
3. So, since I like listening to people talk, especially people who are smart and funny, I love podcasts. I've listened to podcasts on and off for years, but I've only recently been serious about figuring out how to subscribe to my favorites so I can listen to them regularly. I use Overcast, a podcast app that has a few more options than the standard podcast app that came with my phone. I've only had it a couple of weeks but so far I like it.
4. So what podcasts am I hooked on? First of all, What Should I Read Next, which is Anne Bogel (Modern Mrs. Darcy) interviewing people about their reading habits and then recommending books she thinks they'll enjoy. That probably sounds a bit dry, but if you love to read, it ends up being really fun to listen to fellow readers sit and talk about books. Some episodes are better than others, of course, but this is the show that hooked me into being a regular podcast listener. Also, Anne's personality is charming. That's kind of a dicey word to use, but I can't think of a more accurate one to describe her podcast persona. Verdict: if you're a reader, don't miss.
5. Popcast. Popcast is really just co-hosts Jamie and Knox gossiping about pop culture. With every single episode, I find myself thinking at some point Why do I listen to this? I'm about twenty years older than their target audience, I don't watch reality TV (no judgment there, it's just not for me), and about half the time I have no idea who they're talking about. But then --and this also happens at least once in every single episode-- one of them says something that's so nuts that I laugh till I cry. And then they'll reference something that I do get-- like tomato sandwiches in Harriet the Spy-- and I think, OK, I'm in for at least one more episode, and then after a couple of months, I found myself looking forward to listening to new episodes the day they came out. They are having a ball and that enjoyment is infectious. Verdict: Really, really fun.
6. Happier with Gretchen Rubin. You all know how I've argued with Gretchen Rubin in my head about her book The Four Tendencies. So I wasn't sure I'd like her podcast. But it turns out that it's interesting and entertaining. She co-hosts with her sister Elizabeth, who sounds like she's about as opposite as can be from Gretchen, but they clearly feel a great deal of affection for each other, and it's fun to listen to them talk. Also, you pick up some great "life hacks" for making your personal world a better, more functional place. Verdict: Gretchen's down-to-earth, practical advice for improving your life is a goldmine of helpful ideas.
Also recommended: 10% Happier: The Podcast, The Big Boo Cast, By the Book, Fresh Air, This American Life.
7. In Other News: "Internet Things Worth Reading" Department: A NYTimes piece about Why You Should Stop Being So Hard on Yourself. Turns out we're practically programmed to be hard on ourselves. Maybe all those dumb things I do are just not that big a deal.
and that's it for me. Let me know if you have other don't-miss podcast recommendations. Have a great weekend.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
More Types: meditation and maybe the most obvious type of all (edited)
(Edited 5/26/2018. I typed this out almost without editing on Monday night, but as I've thought about it over the past few days, I realized I was too negative toward the end. The only changes are to the last third.)
It occurred to me that maybe the most obvious type of all personality types is whether or not you find the idea of personality types useful/helpful. If you think the idea of personality types is right up there with astrology and magical thinking, then I can understand why you would find the topic so utterly uninteresting. It's like the punch line to a joke (a not very funny one): There are two types of people in the world, the people who like types and the people that don't.
But for me, figuring out my own personal framework has been unendingly helpful. That four tendencies thing I talked about a couple of months ago-- that has been great. Now when I see myself going into Obliger mode, I can notice it and sometimes I can choose to act differently if I need to. I love having the extra self-awareness it gives me.
Another one has occurred to me, and that is, for lack of a better way of stating it, what type of core self you have, or maybe your tendency to calmness or chaos. I have to back up to explain this one. For a long time, I had a really hard time with meditation because the teachers (even my favorite, Pema Chodron) would talk about finding the naturally spacious, calm place inside of you. The idea seemed to be that if you dig through all of your layers of fear and false expectations and whatever else, you'd get to this place of naturally-occurring peace and calm that was your True Self. (or not-Self, if you're Buddhist, but that's an entirely different discussion.)
The problem with that was that the further I dug, the more tangled things got. I could create a space of peace and calm in my head (for a few seconds anyway), but I never got the sense that it was the "real" me. Ever. Not even once. So for awhile I decided (because, you know, I know more than every single person who has ever meditated in the history of the world), that all those teachers were Wrong, and that really, the only way to get to this space of peace and calmness was to learn how to create it-- that our "real", "natural" selves were a maelstrom of chaotic thoughts and feelings.
But recently it has occurred to me that maybe-- *drum roll* --people are just different. Maybe there are some people who can dig through all their layers and they get to a place that feels like coming home to their true selves and it's all peaceful and calm in there. And maybe there are others of us who just keeping on coming up with more layers of muck the further we dig--in other words, at the core of true selves is a chaotic mess. Or, to put it more positively, a whirlwind of chaos and color.
If that's true, for those of us who are the second type, the purpose of meditation isn't to find an inner place of peace that already exists, but to create that peace, to learn how to observe the whirlwind without getting sucked into actually feeling chaotic.
What would we call this? People who are naturally calm vs people who are naturally chaotic? I don't know. But it would explain why some people, when they try meditation, just get more and more angry as they feel more and more like failures for not being able to find this mythical, supposedly natural, feeling of peace and calm, while other people take to it like the proverbial ducks to water.
Or maybe I just haven't dug through enough layers yet.
It occurred to me that maybe the most obvious type of all personality types is whether or not you find the idea of personality types useful/helpful. If you think the idea of personality types is right up there with astrology and magical thinking, then I can understand why you would find the topic so utterly uninteresting. It's like the punch line to a joke (a not very funny one): There are two types of people in the world, the people who like types and the people that don't.
But for me, figuring out my own personal framework has been unendingly helpful. That four tendencies thing I talked about a couple of months ago-- that has been great. Now when I see myself going into Obliger mode, I can notice it and sometimes I can choose to act differently if I need to. I love having the extra self-awareness it gives me.
Another one has occurred to me, and that is, for lack of a better way of stating it, what type of core self you have, or maybe your tendency to calmness or chaos. I have to back up to explain this one. For a long time, I had a really hard time with meditation because the teachers (even my favorite, Pema Chodron) would talk about finding the naturally spacious, calm place inside of you. The idea seemed to be that if you dig through all of your layers of fear and false expectations and whatever else, you'd get to this place of naturally-occurring peace and calm that was your True Self. (or not-Self, if you're Buddhist, but that's an entirely different discussion.)
The problem with that was that the further I dug, the more tangled things got. I could create a space of peace and calm in my head (for a few seconds anyway), but I never got the sense that it was the "real" me. Ever. Not even once. So for awhile I decided (because, you know, I know more than every single person who has ever meditated in the history of the world), that all those teachers were Wrong, and that really, the only way to get to this space of peace and calmness was to learn how to create it-- that our "real", "natural" selves were a maelstrom of chaotic thoughts and feelings.
But recently it has occurred to me that maybe-- *drum roll* --people are just different. Maybe there are some people who can dig through all their layers and they get to a place that feels like coming home to their true selves and it's all peaceful and calm in there. And maybe there are others of us who just keeping on coming up with more layers of muck the further we dig--in other words, at the core of true selves is a chaotic mess. Or, to put it more positively, a whirlwind of chaos and color.
If that's true, for those of us who are the second type, the purpose of meditation isn't to find an inner place of peace that already exists, but to create that peace, to learn how to observe the whirlwind without getting sucked into actually feeling chaotic.
What would we call this? People who are naturally calm vs people who are naturally chaotic? I don't know. But it would explain why some people, when they try meditation, just get more and more angry as they feel more and more like failures for not being able to find this mythical, supposedly natural, feeling of peace and calm, while other people take to it like the proverbial ducks to water.
Or maybe I just haven't dug through enough layers yet.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Obliger life, part three: No, I'm not, and you can't tell me what to do, and I'm not going to follow that rule if it doesn't make sense to me. So there.
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Obliger life, part 2: Obliger hacks
More navel gazing. You've been warned.
As I said in the previous post, I'm an Obliger, someone who functions well with external expectations but not so well when I need to be motivated from within (according to Gretchen Rubin, author of the Four Tendencies). But you know, the great thing about being old is that you've learned some stuff. I may not have known anything about the four tendencies, but I have at least a little bit of knowledge about how I function, and without knowing what I was doing, I've come up with some ways to deal with the dilemmas of Obliger life, so I thought I'd share.
Exhibit A: this blog. I've taken several breaks, of course, even some long ones, but mostly, I've been blogging steadily (here and in my previous blogs) for a long time now. No one expects me to do it, no one gives me a grade, no one pats me on the head. I've never figured out those associate links and I don't have ads, so there is definitely no financial payoff. So if I'm such an Obliger, how am I doing this? I shouldn't be able to accomplish anything that doesn't come with external expectations or rewards.
I think that maybe having a creative outlet is something that can do an end run around an Obliger's usual need for external motivation. I have friends who paint or knit or scrapbook. Or cook. My grandmother crocheted doilies for every surface in the house. If Obligers were only capable of responding to external motivation, creative hobbies would never happen, because they're not required by any external source. But most people--and since Obligers are the largest group, surely some of them are Obligers--get a great deal of personal satisfaction out of their hobbies, even if nobody appreciates it.
I haven't talked to any other Obligers, so I can't speak for everyone, but for me, that outlet needs to be something sort of small that can fly under the radar, so to speak. I don't make a secret of my blog, but not very many people know about it. It's a really satisfying feeling to know that this is just my thing, not anybody else's, and I can say whatever I want (even if I lose 80% of my readers, as I did after some recent posts).
And a related one: I have a terrible time motivating myself to finish projects, even if I start them full of enthusiasm (which sounds like a classic obliger problem). Rubin wants Obligers to come up with some sort of exernal accountability system to deal with this dilemma, but I'm such an introvert that the thought of checking in with a group about my little things isn't very appealing.
I've learned that I can eventually get stuff done if I bite off tiny chunks at a time. Instead of cleaning out an entire closet, clean out one shelf at a time, or even half a shelf. Spend five minutes, or even three minutes, making progress on an unfinished project every day. I can do that. If I set aside three hours to plow through something, in half an hour I'm overwhelmed, but three minutes is totally do-able. Eventually things get done.
And another one: Choose your job or your church or your volunteer work carefully. Obligers feel a certain amount of compulsion to go along with the program, so make sure the program is something you can feel good about. (I just deleted a long paragraph of more detail about that, but it was boring and this is already too long.)
And another: this isn't really an ObligerLifeHack, just an observation. One of the many mind blowing realizations I had about being an Obliger was OH!! That's why other people don't think I'm a failure. I mean, this isn't something that I bring up with just anybody, but on the few occasions when I've confessed to my deep feelings of failure and disappointment in myself, the person I'm talking to looks at me like I'm nuts. How can you possibly feel like a failure? But the idea of being an Obliger makes it immediately clear: because I haven't failed at meeting their expectations, I've just failed at meeting my own.
This has gone on way too long, and I didn't really get to another thing I wanted to say, so surprise, there will be a Part 3. I've already mostly written it so maybe even tomorrow.
As I said in the previous post, I'm an Obliger, someone who functions well with external expectations but not so well when I need to be motivated from within (according to Gretchen Rubin, author of the Four Tendencies). But you know, the great thing about being old is that you've learned some stuff. I may not have known anything about the four tendencies, but I have at least a little bit of knowledge about how I function, and without knowing what I was doing, I've come up with some ways to deal with the dilemmas of Obliger life, so I thought I'd share.
Exhibit A: this blog. I've taken several breaks, of course, even some long ones, but mostly, I've been blogging steadily (here and in my previous blogs) for a long time now. No one expects me to do it, no one gives me a grade, no one pats me on the head. I've never figured out those associate links and I don't have ads, so there is definitely no financial payoff. So if I'm such an Obliger, how am I doing this? I shouldn't be able to accomplish anything that doesn't come with external expectations or rewards.
I think that maybe having a creative outlet is something that can do an end run around an Obliger's usual need for external motivation. I have friends who paint or knit or scrapbook. Or cook. My grandmother crocheted doilies for every surface in the house. If Obligers were only capable of responding to external motivation, creative hobbies would never happen, because they're not required by any external source. But most people--and since Obligers are the largest group, surely some of them are Obligers--get a great deal of personal satisfaction out of their hobbies, even if nobody appreciates it.
I haven't talked to any other Obligers, so I can't speak for everyone, but for me, that outlet needs to be something sort of small that can fly under the radar, so to speak. I don't make a secret of my blog, but not very many people know about it. It's a really satisfying feeling to know that this is just my thing, not anybody else's, and I can say whatever I want (even if I lose 80% of my readers, as I did after some recent posts).
And a related one: I have a terrible time motivating myself to finish projects, even if I start them full of enthusiasm (which sounds like a classic obliger problem). Rubin wants Obligers to come up with some sort of exernal accountability system to deal with this dilemma, but I'm such an introvert that the thought of checking in with a group about my little things isn't very appealing.
I've learned that I can eventually get stuff done if I bite off tiny chunks at a time. Instead of cleaning out an entire closet, clean out one shelf at a time, or even half a shelf. Spend five minutes, or even three minutes, making progress on an unfinished project every day. I can do that. If I set aside three hours to plow through something, in half an hour I'm overwhelmed, but three minutes is totally do-able. Eventually things get done.
And another one: Choose your job or your church or your volunteer work carefully. Obligers feel a certain amount of compulsion to go along with the program, so make sure the program is something you can feel good about. (I just deleted a long paragraph of more detail about that, but it was boring and this is already too long.)
And another: this isn't really an ObligerLifeHack, just an observation. One of the many mind blowing realizations I had about being an Obliger was OH!! That's why other people don't think I'm a failure. I mean, this isn't something that I bring up with just anybody, but on the few occasions when I've confessed to my deep feelings of failure and disappointment in myself, the person I'm talking to looks at me like I'm nuts. How can you possibly feel like a failure? But the idea of being an Obliger makes it immediately clear: because I haven't failed at meeting their expectations, I've just failed at meeting my own.
This has gone on way too long, and I didn't really get to another thing I wanted to say, so surprise, there will be a Part 3. I've already mostly written it so maybe even tomorrow.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Obliger life, part 1
The next couple of posts are pure navel-gazing. Avoid if you're not in the mood.
Reader Laurel first told me about Gretchen Rubin's Four Tendencies (and here is Gretchen Rubin's website). I was intrigued. I've told you before that I'm fascinated by personality types, frameworks like the Meyers-Briggs or DiSC that help me understand why I think and act the way I do. I went right over to read about them.
The Four Tendencies are fairly new--Rubin has been writing about them for a couple of years, but her book was just published last fall. The tendencies explain the way we respond to expectations, both our expectations of ourselves (inner expectations) and other people's expectations for us (outer expectations). Rubin has four categories: Upholder (meets both inner and outer expectations with relative ease), Questioner (meets inner expectations but questions expectations placed on them by others), Obliger (meets expectations placed on them by others, but has difficulty prioritizing their own internal expectations), and Rebel (refuses to be bound by either inner or outer expectations).
As a general framework, it's pretty damn helpful. I was surprised to find, after I took the test, that I am an Obliger. I've always thought of myself as a rebel--more on that next time--but once I got over the surprise, and the aversion to being an Obliger (because how boring is that), it helped me understand some things about myself that have never made sense to me.
Obligers shine when people are depending on them, expecting them to get things done. Obligers will knock themselves out to do what a boss/volunteer coordinator/teacher/trainer wants us to do, but left to our own devices, we wander aimlessly, unable to accomplish much of anything. So suddenly it made sense--for example--why I was so good at school and so bad at getting myself to write, back in the day when I was trying to write fiction. Because school is all about external expectations and writing a novel is all about motivating yourself to write.
And oh my lord do I wish Dean and I had known about this when our kids were younger. We could have saved ourselves years of wear and tear. I think Dean is mostly an Upholder. He is a stellar professional and member of our community, and he is stellar at taking care of himself. If he feels like he needs some exercise, he is going to get some exercise. He will not feel guilty about this and he will not be talked out of it— in fact, he will be entirely cheerful and positive in his insistence that he will be a better husband and father if he gets some exercise. (and it's true, he is.)
But when our kids were small, I did not understand this. To me, it seemed selfish in the extreme to come home from work after I'd had a long day with the kids and immediately insist that he needed more time away because he had to get some exercise. But since I am an Obliger, and Obligers are all about doing what other people expect us to do, for the most part, I went along with it and internally seethed. (which, of course, leaked out, as he would tell you if he were here.)
But the flip side is understanding his reaction to me, because it seemed to me that he was never supportive of my need for time away from the kids. I kept waiting for him to say, OK, now it's your turn. Have fun, we'll see you in a couple of hours. And he rarely did. But I kept waiting. As an Obliger, I wanted him to tell me: you need some time to yourself. Go take a break. It is surprisingly difficult for me to make my own needs a priority, but if he told me to do it, it would be easy.
But in his mind--because he didn't know any of this either-- if it was important for me to have some time away from the kids, I would just do it, because that's what he does. Since I didn't do it, it must have seemed to him that it wasn't important to me. I get this now. I'm still not sure I like it. But knowing about the tendencies gives me a way to understand him that I didn't have at the time, which would have really helped me make sense of the dynamic between us, and given me a better framework for reacting with less blaming/judging.
Reader Laurel first told me about Gretchen Rubin's Four Tendencies (and here is Gretchen Rubin's website). I was intrigued. I've told you before that I'm fascinated by personality types, frameworks like the Meyers-Briggs or DiSC that help me understand why I think and act the way I do. I went right over to read about them.
The Four Tendencies are fairly new--Rubin has been writing about them for a couple of years, but her book was just published last fall. The tendencies explain the way we respond to expectations, both our expectations of ourselves (inner expectations) and other people's expectations for us (outer expectations). Rubin has four categories: Upholder (meets both inner and outer expectations with relative ease), Questioner (meets inner expectations but questions expectations placed on them by others), Obliger (meets expectations placed on them by others, but has difficulty prioritizing their own internal expectations), and Rebel (refuses to be bound by either inner or outer expectations).
As a general framework, it's pretty damn helpful. I was surprised to find, after I took the test, that I am an Obliger. I've always thought of myself as a rebel--more on that next time--but once I got over the surprise, and the aversion to being an Obliger (because how boring is that), it helped me understand some things about myself that have never made sense to me.
Obligers shine when people are depending on them, expecting them to get things done. Obligers will knock themselves out to do what a boss/volunteer coordinator/teacher/trainer wants us to do, but left to our own devices, we wander aimlessly, unable to accomplish much of anything. So suddenly it made sense--for example--why I was so good at school and so bad at getting myself to write, back in the day when I was trying to write fiction. Because school is all about external expectations and writing a novel is all about motivating yourself to write.
And oh my lord do I wish Dean and I had known about this when our kids were younger. We could have saved ourselves years of wear and tear. I think Dean is mostly an Upholder. He is a stellar professional and member of our community, and he is stellar at taking care of himself. If he feels like he needs some exercise, he is going to get some exercise. He will not feel guilty about this and he will not be talked out of it— in fact, he will be entirely cheerful and positive in his insistence that he will be a better husband and father if he gets some exercise. (and it's true, he is.)
But when our kids were small, I did not understand this. To me, it seemed selfish in the extreme to come home from work after I'd had a long day with the kids and immediately insist that he needed more time away because he had to get some exercise. But since I am an Obliger, and Obligers are all about doing what other people expect us to do, for the most part, I went along with it and internally seethed. (which, of course, leaked out, as he would tell you if he were here.)
But the flip side is understanding his reaction to me, because it seemed to me that he was never supportive of my need for time away from the kids. I kept waiting for him to say, OK, now it's your turn. Have fun, we'll see you in a couple of hours. And he rarely did. But I kept waiting. As an Obliger, I wanted him to tell me: you need some time to yourself. Go take a break. It is surprisingly difficult for me to make my own needs a priority, but if he told me to do it, it would be easy.
But in his mind--because he didn't know any of this either-- if it was important for me to have some time away from the kids, I would just do it, because that's what he does. Since I didn't do it, it must have seemed to him that it wasn't important to me. I get this now. I'm still not sure I like it. But knowing about the tendencies gives me a way to understand him that I didn't have at the time, which would have really helped me make sense of the dynamic between us, and given me a better framework for reacting with less blaming/judging.
Another thing Rubin explains about Obligers is the idea of obliger rebellion. Because after an Obliger has met expectations and met expectations and met expectations, suddenly they are DONE. They will quit practically in mid-sentence because NO MORE. It has occurred to me that I am in Lifetime Obliger Rebellion. More about that later, too.
So all in all, I am a big fan of the tendencies, because they've been helpful in ways that feel pretty huge. I find myself thinking about myself and the people around me and the tendencies more often than I would have expected. I highly recommend reading about them, either at her website or in the book.
But part of the reason I think about them so often is because they don't always fit, and it seems to me if I could just figure out the bits that don't fit, that would be even more helpful to me. So additional thoughts about this are coming in Part Two. If you can stand another post full of navel-gazing, come back later this week.
(Sorry this didn't make it up yesterday, there was a small unavoidable delay.)