Some might think that there’s an obvious answer to this question, but I beg to differ. I believe that defining personality is not as easy as what is generally accepted. Sure, we can use certain people’s points of view to make it more transparent, but that won’t be fun. I used to think that defining personality was relatively easy since I’ve always thought about it as recurring and consistent across time; all other species have this specific line of behaving as well. I felt that it’s not that different for humans, so back then, I left it as a set of “routines” that are somewhat inherent within us through conditioning and whatnot. Perhaps a bit more complex and nuanced, but the basic premise is the same: we all elicit a particular pattern of thoughts, behaviors, and emotions that are pretty much consistent over time. I know that the previous definition isn’t set in stone, meaning that Psychology itself never claimed that personality was ever easy to define. But in this essay, I’m just going to narrow it down to the former explanation regarding personality.
My flawed understanding of personality began when I started reading Jungian Typology and tried to type myself and those around me better through his framework. Like any other framework, the view that Jung brought helped me understand others clearer…or so I thought. In one of his books, Psychological Types, Jung (1957) commented on how it’s challenging for a person to understand themselves accurately through their lens. This means it’s arguably futile to try and look for a deeper understanding of yourself solely through yourself using this framework. He believed that it is unachievable because we have blind spots, and to make up for what we’re incapable of, we tend only to see our ideal side, what we yearn to be and what we want others to see us as.
For a person to understand themselves better, they would need to learn their blindspots through other people, which means a third-party point of view is needed. Jung wasn’t the only person who criticized the notion of “knowing thyself” through reflecting or contemplating. Jean-Paul Sartre (1943) talked about similar experiences through the notion of third-degree consciousness, albeit having a very different central idea from Jung; Sartre believed so because he thought that there’s nothing to reflect upon from the beginning. According to Sartre, our consciousness is divided into three levels or segmentations: first-degree, second-degree, and third-degree. The latter is what he deemed as a form of impure reflection. He thought of it this way because the nature of reflecting upon our Ego would then be counterintuitive; it would act in favor of what is known as bad faith.
Through reflecting upon ourselves, we would have to create a distance from what we are trying to understand; we would have to objectify ourselves. Bad faith, in other words, is a form of self-deception through limiting ourselves to a certain means or purpose, as if we were born to be or to do something. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, we’re not made with essence. There’s not one true purpose or clear depiction of who we are or what we are destined to achieve. Thus, seeing ourselves through this tainted lens would mean that the reflection we do to understand ourselves better could never be pure. Consequently, it brings us to my next point: personality tests or quantifying personality to make it more tangible.
I think there are several reasons why people love personality tests. One, it makes them feel as if there’s a certainty when it comes to knowing themselves. Two, it makes them feel reassured about their standing, be it in their own eyes or other people’s eyes. Three, we are all desperate to find the meaning of everything, and perhaps, by knowing our “type” or “number,” we might be able to connect the dots and complete the picture that is our life or who we are as a person. The point that I’m trying to bring up here is the fact that what’s factual or what is true don’t really matter; what matters is the perception that a person has regarding their certainty, social and personal standings, and an understanding of what greater meaning lies behind oneself; a sense of purpose, so to speak.
When I said certainty, it’s not the objective meaning to the word itself; it’s more like the structures which built the sense of certainty in every one of us. Humans need structures. Structures are fantastic in helping us understand something better. And it’s not easy to build one from scratch. That’s why these structures, oftentimes, comes from the outside and in the form of theories, philosophical works, and so on. The problem with using these external “tools” is that we tend to get so fixated on them in order to fit ourselves in these pre-existing molds. This, in turn, will certainly make our judgments flawed.
Tools are important for us to survive, but something else is equally as important; our social standing or how others will perceive us with all the tools we possess. It’s just as important as knowing where you stand from your perspective because we need validation from the outside world. And when this need for validation isn’t fulfilled, we’d retreat to some potentially problematic coping mechanisms. One of these coping mechanisms could be in the form of excessive internal validation. That is to say, when a person fails to acquire their personal threshold of external validation, logically, they would try to close the gap between the disparity of the two as a means to maintain a state of equilibrium. As an example, when I didn’t have many friends, I used to force this belief that it was because most people didn’t get me; I’m unique and special. Therefore many people couldn’t click with me. This is not just false but also dangerous.
Another form of this problematic coping mechanism could also come in the form of “self-love.” For example, a person who is bullied or hated for their looks in real life would retreat into this false notion of loving themselves, when in reality, they just deny themselves of the truth, the lack of external validation. I would say that this could be dangerous because by making oneself believe that there’s an inherent value within them but only to be treated oppositely, the person would get even more detached from reality. And in turn, objectifying themselves and others further. Unlike people who already have enough amount of external validation, who willfully chose to practice self-love, those who weren’t granted such privileges would shove this love for oneself through a false perception about the notion; just like how I used to view my shortcomings as something that is actually a form of strength — yet to be discovered by others. But in reality, this was perhaps not the case. These shortcomings would never become a form of strength unless I tried to do something that was approved by the outside world, stabilizing the need for external validation. (This idea needs more thought, it’s very premature).
By knowing what you are within a certain framework while being extremely adept at utilizing your tools, you can create a ripple effect in your environment, making your personal standing more significant to others. Then, by putting together the pieces that you have at hand, you would be able to understand the sort about who you are as a whole — in other words, having the perception that you understand the underlying mechanisms that make you; a distinct entity with purpose. As I’ve said earlier, this understanding doesn’t need to be factual, but it’s essential for many of us. Thus, the central idea here is merely the perception that one has regarding themselves.
All in all, I tried to make sense of personality through three main ideas: the perception of a person’s certainty, social and personal standings, and a holistic understanding of their purpose. I think the third one is similar to Sartre’s third-degree consciousness because it could only be achieved through contemplation. However, I’m not sure whether or not doing so could be considered bad faith since we probably wouldn’t survive if we stop doing it. This perception…albeit not being very accurate in itself, perhaps it’s not that meaningless after all. But who knows. I still need to learn more about its effects and how it connects to excessive internal vs. external validation.
(To be continued…most likely)
Sources:
Jung, C. G. (1957). Psychological types. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Sartre, J. (1992). Being and nothingness (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Washington: Washington
