Can we really define ourselves in such a black and white manner?
As the test predicted, this defining of people frustrates me. As I pour over all these descriptions and characteristics I realize more and more that the traits that fit me are scattered about. Most everyone identifies strongly with something or another, and not being able to do that always makes me feel like there's no solution for me. Once again, as the test predicted, my soul searching phase never seems to end. People like me "can never quite shake the feeling that a part of themselves is split off"(Jung, Online).
In regards to reading and writing in specific, I believe my tendencies are skewed through training. Many questions were difficult to answer because there's a difference between what kind of writer I am naturally as opposed to the type of writer I've grown into. Competing in Speech & Debate has allowed me to develop several skills in areas that I was not naturally talented in. For instance, impromptu speaking. I've always been able to write without preparation, but speaking without preparation in a structured manner with examples is another thing. Impromptu speaking is an event where you are given a topic or quote and one minute to think, then six minutes to speak coherently and persuasively on the topic, with non-personal examples. At first, I found this difficult, but within a year I became fairly competent.
One area where the defining line is heavily blurred is between thinking/feeling. I'm a very logical writer, leaning very often on "objective analysis, cause-effect"(Meyers-Briggs, 395), and all my writing is usually very structured and detail-oriented, full of support and justification for all my beliefs. I believe DBs have actually been the only exception to that, and perhaps that it because I treat them more like journals- little bursts of expression rather than objective writing. I let my thoughts meander across a variety of topics, and in the end I learn a lot about myself. DBs express another side of me as a writer that always shows up even in my structured and logical writing- I'd "rather talk about values and their feelings. Giv[ing] human examples"(Meyers-Briggs, 395) is also another tendency. I always like to personify my writing and connect with my audience so as always to remain "aware of [my] audience"(Meyers-Briggs, 395). Judging/Perceiving is also another blurred area. "Judging types tend to write quickly... and produce more writing"(Meyers-Briggs, 404), while "perceiving types tend to select broad topics and dive into research without limiting them"(Meyers-Briggs, 404). I seem to do both at the same time- as this DB shows, I tackle a broad topic in a short time span. This trait seems to be at the heart of Plan II.
In essence, I believe this combination of traits is what creates "The Portrait of the Champion"(Jung, Online) effect- the ability to bridge the gap between those who think and write objectively and those who think and write when motivated by feeling. People like these probably often end up lawyers or are involved in politics in other ways, which they use as a platform for large-scale change. This is why they are labeled "Champions", but really they are no different or better than anyone else- they simply specialize in an area that allows for great social impact.
Thinking about all these things immediately fills me with regret. Social impact, reading, writing, test results telling me that's what I'm meant to do, people telling me that's what I've got the potential to do- pressure. And regret that I'm forcing myself to do pre-med instead. That's why I like to stay away from these tests and pretend that I'm everything these tests tell me I'm not- calculated, unswayed by emotion, objective, detail-oriented, organized, and born to achieve in
a systematic and conventional way.Social impact- being a spokesperson for a campaign would be a dream come true.
"The Portait of the Champion (ENFP)
The Champion Idealists are abstract in thought and speech, cooperative in accomplishing their aims, and informative and expressive when relating with others. For Champions, nothing occurs which does not have some deep ethical significance, and this, coupled with their uncanny sense of the motivations of others, gives them a talent for seeing life as an exciting drama, pregnant with possibilities for both good and evil. This type is found in only about 3 percent of the general population, but they have great influence because of their extraordinary impact on others. Champions are inclined to go everywhere and look into everything that has to do with the advance of good and the retreat of evil in the world. They can't bear to miss out on what is going on around them; they must experience, first hand, all the significant social events that affect our lives. And then they are eager to relate the stories they've uncovered, hoping to disclose the "truth" of people and issues, and to advocate causes. This strong drive to unveil current events can make them tireless in conversing with others, like fountains that bubble and splash, spilling over their own words to get it all out.
Champions consider intense emotional experiences as being vital to a full life, although they can never quite shake the feeling that a part of themselves is split off, uninvolved in the experience. Thus, while they strive for emotional congruency, they often see themselves in some danger of losing touch with their real feelings, which Champions possess in a wide range and variety. In the same vein, Champions strive toward a kind of spontaneous personal authenticity, and this intention always to "be themselves" is usually communicated nonverbally to others, who find it quite attractive. All too often, however, Champions fall short in their efforts to be authentic, and they tend to heap coals of fire on themselves, berating themselves for the slightest self-conscious role-playing."
Your Type isENFP
| Extraverted | Intuitive | Feeling | Perceiving |
| Strength of the preferences % | |||
| 33 | 50 | 62 | 56 |
No comments:
Post a Comment