Carl Jung's Approach to Personality Theory - Essay Example

Personality Theory Research The concept of personality seems like a very complicated one that would notbe easily measured. One definition of personality illustrates this difficulty: “a stable set of characteristics and tendencies that determine those commonalities and differences in the psychological behavior (thoughts, feelings and actions) of people that have continuity in time and that may not be easily understood as the sole result of the social and biological pressures of the moment” (Maddi, 1980). This definition seems very complicated and difficult and helps to explain why so many respected psychologists have dedicated their lives to trying to figure out human personality. The question has been studied by people such as Carl Rogers, Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. These men put together theoretical models that were intended to demonstrate how our personalities might develop within the often conflicting and always interacting elements of our internal and external structure. Among these models, though, Carl Jung developed a relatively uncomplicated approach on which many of the personality theories today have been based. Originally building his research off of the ideas of Sigmund Freud, who was his mentor for a while, Jung proposed that the personality was comprised of the interaction among four essential factors that related to the way in which a person gathers information and then how that person processes the information gathered. “Carl Jungs psychological theory fundamentally underpins most of the popular and highly regarded personality systems today” (Chapman, 2010), but it has not gone untouched. Following in his footsteps as well as they could, Katherine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers developed his ideas further to create a strong personality test that types people into one of 16 possible personalities (Carroll, 2009). The test found at 41 Questions did not provide the kind of four letter results I expected after doing research on personality theory and personality testing, but I was surprised at the accuracy of the results. What Jung discovered in his research was that people basically have two functions in their lives. First, they have to take in information from around them through their five senses – hearing, sight, taste, touch and smell. Next, they have to make decisions about these things and what they mean. After he identified these functions, Jung then determined that there are two ways in which we might approach each of these functions. While taking in information, we rely to varying degrees on either our physical senses or on our intuition or gut feeling (Luttrell, 2009). As we decide how to interpret that information, we tend to focus more on our objective logic, looking more at the facts as they exist, or on our subjective feelings, how we feel about those facts. “Jung believed that we all use these four functions in our lives, but that each individual uses the different functions with a varying amount of success and frequency” (BSM Consulting, 2006). Over-riding these factors is our basic attitude of being an introvert or an extrovert. “An attitude, according to Jung, is a person’s predisposition to behave in a particular way … The introvert is most aware of his or her inner world … The extrovert, by contrast, is characterized by the outward movement of psychic energy. This attitude places more importance on objectivity and gains more influence from the surrounding environment than by inner cognitive processes” (Luttrell, 2009). Thus, the four main personality factors that Jung identified were the scales of introversion/extroversion to determine overall attitude, sensing/intuitive to determine how we take in information, thinking/feeling to decide how we interpret that information and perceiving/judging to help us decide how to act on that understanding. Building off of these ideas, Briggs and her daughter developed Jung’s theory to identify 16 different personality types and linked these to suitable professions to help people understand more about themselves and to choose the profession that will bring them greatest happiness and success in their life. Their test is widely used throughout the world as a tool that “helps you improve work and personal relationships, increase productivity, and identify leadership and interpersonal communication preferences for your clients” (Carroll, 2009). Although all of this development occurred in the creation of personality tests, I still feel that the 41 Questions test is based more upon Jung’s theories that Briggs. This is because the results coming back don’t look like the four letter response usually returned on the Briggs-Myers tests. Instead, the results return a descriptive phrase followed by a chart of where you ranked on the four personality factor scales. With this kind of return, it is impossible to determine how many personality types might be recognized by the program to see if it is based on the eight identified by Jung or the 16 discovered by Briggs and Briggs-Myers. The questions seemed abnormally simple and seemed too easy to just breeze through without any true thought or personal reflection. I did attempt to answer the questions sincerely and honestly, but the process felt a great deal like a quiz I might take on Facebook and everyone knows how meaningless those tests can be. Even when they are able to return a reasonable result, you, as test taker, generally tend to assume that was either the result of a lucky accident or the ability of the program to pull information from your profile to ensure it is in keeping with the personality shown there. The instructions for this test were very straight-forward and simple, but no qualifications are given for it nor does it take the time to state that these personality types are types, not walls. Jung never intended them to become definitive of a person’s personality but instead as a guide to the general way in which they think. I believe this is a weakness of the test that should be corrected. After taking the 41 Questions test, I learned that I am a laid-back doer type. According to the test, people who are laid-back doers are usually very people-oriented and fun-loving. Because they enjoy their lives so much, they typically bring fun to others as well. Laid-back doers spend their lives living for the moment and relish any new experience. Always interested in serving others, the laid-back doer has a difficult time with theory and impersonal analysis. This exuberant, people-centered personality is thus typically found at the center of attention in a crowd. People naturally turn to them for answers because they have a well-developed sense of common sense and high practical ability to get things done (41 Questions, 2010). This description could be said of me. I am not a person who likes a lot of discussion and analysis of issues, especially if I can be out testing them on a more physical level. I’m good with being quiet and reflective, though, at the right moment. Considering these results, I realize that I often get myself into a bind because I put off what I needed to do in order to help out a buddy with something he needed. This tends to support my classification as a people-oriented person with a strong interest in serving others. I don’t usually consider myself to be the center of the crowd, but it does seem to me that I always have friends around who are happy to just hang out. Looking at some of them, I realize that they have many more moments when they spend time alone than I do. This was a deep revelation for me as I had not often tried to look at the world through another person’s pair of eyes like this before and realized that the world can seem very different to other people. In addition to the personality classification, the test also delivered a bare listing of the various careers that would be suitable for this personality type and the chart of the four personality factor scales with your score marked on them. The jobs that this test said I was suited for were: actor, painter, comedian, adult entertainer, sales representative, teacher, counselor, social worker, child care, fashion designer, interior decorator, consultant, photographer, musician, human resources manager, clerical supervisor, coach, factory supervisor, food service worker, receptionist, recreation worker, religious educator, respiratory therapist (41 Questions, 2010). These were interesting results because I noticed several careers I have either considered or worked in during my life so far and I have rarely had a job I didn’t like, at least mostly. I noticed that many of the choices are careers my parents have often been worried about – actor, comedian, adult entertainer – as being unsustainable or embarrassing or both, but there are several other fields that they might not be so worried about. A couple that appealed to me in particular were teacher, counselor, social worker, coach and recreation worker. I love to be doing things, so I know I don’t want a job where I have to stay still all day and I love being outside, so I don’t really want a job that keeps me indoors through most of the daylight hours. I have always thought I would go into something like coaching or parks service, but lately I’ve been thinking about other options as well. This gives me something to think about moving forward. The final free element of the test results was the scale graph of the four personality factors with your score marked. The scale has 19 points evenly spaced along a horizontal line, so there are nine levels of each trait marked on either side of the center point. My graph looks like stair steps coming down from the left or going up from the right, whichever direction you want to think of it. The factors are listed in Jung’s order beginning with extroversion/introversion. On this scale, I scored three points from the middle on the side of extroversion. The first factor measured is the extrovert/introvert factor. This factor is described on the test as being a question of how well you like being around people. Looking closely at the scale, I determined there are 19 points on it, including the two end points. This establishes that the 10th point from either side is at the center of the scale. On the extrovert/introvert scale, I am three points to the extrovert side from this center. According to Straker (2010), there are several specific characteristics of an extrovert that I recognize in myself. For example, extroverts are very interested in what’s happening around them instead of in their own thoughts and feelings. As I have mentioned before, I have my reflective moments, but generally I prefer to pay attention to the outside world. Extroverts are also described as talkative, focused on action, makes friends easily, open about what they think and are interested in new people (Straker, 2010). Considering my typical day, I would agree that I only fit this description a little more often than half the time. After determining the attitude, Jung would move to determining the way that we take in information, so the next scale on the chart is the sensing/intuitive scale. According to the 41 Questions test, this scale as a measurement of how you process information. This difference between my understanding of Jung’s theory and the site’s description of the measurement confused me for a while, so I felt it necessary to look it up further. According to Dan Johnston (2008), the difference between sensing and intuition is the difference between knowing something with your five senses and knowing something with your instincts. “Sensing gathers information through the five senses and is concerned with details and facts. People operating from the sensory function are acutely aware of the specifics and particularity of the environment. They live in the present” (Johnston, 2008). By contrast, intuition “is concerned with connections and possibilities that go beyond the data … This perceptive function is stimulated by the sensory information but quickly goes past the data through unconscious associations to new possibilities and hunches” (Johnston, 2008). In other words, my understanding and the site description were just two different ways of saying the same thing. Perhaps the reason I was so easily confused is because, according to my test, I am only one point away from center on this issue, leaning very slightly toward sensing, so to me, these two ways of perceiving have nearly equal weight. Perhaps I don’t truly understand the difference. I also scored very close to center on the thinking/feeling factor, which is the next scale on the chart. This factor refers to how you process information. “Thinkers decide based primarily on logic, and when they do so, they consider a decision to be made. They tend to see the world in black and white and dislike fuzziness … Feelers decide based primarily through social considerations, listening to their heart and considering the feelings of others” (Straker, 2010). My chart placed me just one point to the side of the feeler. This seems appropriate for my personality because I don’t really feel that I put more weight on science and logic than I do on the social implications and the person’s feelings. I am not as confused on this factor, though, as I was on the previous one. While I couldn’t decide if I took in information using more of my physical senses or more of my intuition, I am very aware that I will choose human feeling over facts every time there is a question. It is always important to me that everyone gets along. From these first three personality factors, Jung said we develop our method of action with the world, measured by the judging/perceiving factor. This is where we make our decisions about what to do with the understanding we have reached. On this scale, I scored three points from center in the direction of perceiving. According to Straker (2010), “Perceivers … prefer to keep their choices open so they can cope with many problems that they know life will put in their way … Judgers approach life in a structured way, creating plans and organizing their world to achieve their goals and desired results in a predictable way.” For me, its necessary to avoid doing too much planning and organizing or I wouldn’t have the flexibility I need to be able to help out my friends when they need it. It wouldn’t be very helpful of me if I were always telling them I have to pencil them in for Friday or something. Usually, when they need help, they need it now or they need it soon. Given this, I’m a bit surprised that the test didn’t rate me further over into the perceiving category. This process of taking and then analyzing my personality type has led me to some very interesting revelations about myself and who I am. I have learned a new skill in trying to see things through someone else’s eyes and I am more aware of my own characteristics. Just taking the test tells you only so much, especially if you don’t want to purchase the full package, but going through the various factors that are tested, understanding what they mean and applying these ideas to yourself is enlightening. With this better understanding of myself, I have much to think about going into the summer months and may even manage to gain some direction about what I really want to do with my future. Another thing I hadn’t really realized was how much I leave myself open to helping out my friends. I consider this a good trait, but it does make it difficult to get things done for me. Maybe if I tried to be a little more structured, I would have better luck. References “41 Questions.” (2010). Retrieved 27 April 2010 from Boeree, C.G. (2006). “Personality Theories.” Shippensburg University. Retrieved 27 April 2010 from BSM Consulting. (2006). “Information About Personality Types.” Personality Page. Retrieved 27 April 2010 < http://www.personalitypage.com/info.html> Carroll, Robert T. (2009). “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” The Skeptics Dictionary. Retrieved 27 April 2010 < http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html> Chapman, Alan. (2010). “Personalities, Types and Tests.” Business Balls. Retrieved 27 April 2010 from Johnston, Dan. (2008). “Choices of Personality: Perceptive Functions: Gathering Information.” Lessons for Living. Retrieved 27 April 2010 from Maddi, S.R. (1980). “Personality as a resource in stress-resistance.” American Psychological Association [paper presentation]. Montreal. Retrieved 27 April 2010 from Luttrell, Andy. (16 November 2009). “The Personality Theory of Carl Jung.” Suite 101. Retrieved 27 April 2010 from < http://clinical-psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_personality_theory_of_carl_jung> Straker, David. (2010). “Jungian Type Inventory.” Changing Minds. Retrieved 27 April 2010 from < http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/mbti.htm> Read More