Personality Types & Trauma - How Experiences Interfere With Your Type Expression

Idea:  I would love to run a talk on Personality Type systems & Trauma - how experiences interfere with your Type expression & what to do about it.

One of the things that really mess people up when it comes to MBTI and Love Languages and other sorts of "puts people in boxes" systems is that the pop-psych versions are not good at explaining how all of our learned experiences affect our behaviour and our mindsets (which is not the same things as our inherent personality), so by the time we take one of the tests (which are really fucking crappy - all of them, not necessarily the *systems*, but the *tests* or "assessments"), we don't know how to answer them properly to account for all of our learned experiences.

This is even more important when it comes to trauma and serious negative experiences.  People going through serious negative experiences like depression or breakups or loss or massive life-changing upheaval often find themselves answering these really shitty test questions in ways that result in different Type codes than they got before the traumatic event or ongoing situation.

These tests, which I can't stress heavily enough are really fucking terrible, don't know how to tell you how to disentangle all of these layers that affect how you answer their questions.  So people take this shitty tests and think that their personality type has changed or that they don't speak a particular Love Language when they actually do.

People then take these mixed up results and go about their life operating under false conclusions.  Which, in a best case scenario, causes a few bumps in relationships because they say one thing but behave or react another so their partners don't really understand them or have trouble predicting them or their model for the partner in their heads is not very accurate.

But in a worst case scenario, this can lead to some serious long-term psychological difficulties because people are not getting the love or attention or security they need because they're looking and asking for the wrong things.  Being denied a sense of security or feeling loved over a long time period can really mess with one's head.

Introversion / extroversion is a good example of this.  It's probably the most common one I see, but I have no real data to back me up on how common it really is, compared to other type categories.  But basically, if an extrovert has some kind of traumatic event, and their brain tries to compensate by making them "feel" introverted now, they might latch onto the phrase "ambivert" and start behaving or treating what seems to be their "introvert side".

But if this is actually a side effect of trauma and they are really an extrovert, then their *real* extrovert needs aren't being taken care of adequately and they can compound the damage from the trauma by not using the best tools for healing *for them* because they're neglecting their extroversion needs and treating their new "introversion" like it's a real part of them instead of a coping mechanism that should be used more like a tool or an indicator light rather than just accepted as the new "normal".

So I'd like to do at least one talk, maybe a 101 and a 201 talk, on how trauma can affect one's perception of oneself and also one's external behaviour with respect to Type systems, how to recognize when this is the reason for confusing test results, and how to treat one's authentic self while being considerate of the trauma and its consequences on behaviour and internalized feelings.

Maybe some of our Type systems students and experts can collaborate on a project like this?

I originally wrote this post in 2017.  I'd still like to do this.  My observations over the years since this post seem to continue to support my ideas on the subject.

My hypothesis is that we don't really "change type", we have some kind of trauma that requires a drastic coping mechanism that may or may not appear to be the "opposite" of some innate trait, and then when we think we have "changed type", we start feeding that coping mechanism as though it's a "trait" and not a tool, and neglecting the original innate trait, leading to a spiral of secondary trauma.

The extroversion / introversion example is still the clearest example, but I also see it in love languages.  If we "need" a certain thing for our well-being, such as an extrovert needing social interaction, then we experience some kind of trauma that leads to a self-isolation coping strategy, and we then think that we have "changed type" to an introvert (or the non-existent "ambivert") so we start doing introverted "self-care" because we think we're an introvert now, we then neglect the extroversion that is *still there under the coping mechanism*, which ends up harming us because our needs aren't being met.  But we don't know why because we're responding according to our new Type! What could be wrong?!

You need to heal the trauma and also still take care of your original self in ways that work with and around the trauma and coping mechanisms.  But nobody knows how to do that because, as far as I know, I'm the only one talking about how trauma affects type systems.

Are Pop Lyrics Getting More Repetitive?

https://pudding.cool/2017/05/song-repetition/index.html

Basically, music has always had a mix of repetitive and non-repetitive music, and the most popular music *of any era* tends towards the more-repetitive end of the spectrum. Which I find annoying, but I do like a *little* repetition in my music because totally free-flowing, non-rhyming music doesn't work for me either.

Basically, people in general like "catchy" music, and that involves some amount of repetition. That's just how it goes.

This debate has always reminded me of the Dragonharpers of Pern book where a girl born to a fishing village has a unique skill for, what comes down to, "pop music". Her fishing family dismisses and actively discourages her talent for music in a classic blue-collar, working class anti-elitism way that many working class people feel about artists in general.

When she finally gets to their version of Juliard (where music and education are one and the same thing and a very elite profession), her catchy little ditties are dismissed as "twaddles", kind of like the vicious rivalry between opera and musical theater or opera and rock music. There is only One True Way to play music!!!

But much to the dismay of both her high-brow professors and her working class family, the bulk of the population loves her music because it's catchy and fun and easy to remember. Since music is used to teach in this society, "easy to remember" is a very important element. It brings their most cherished lessons out of the tightly grasped fists of only the elitist of the elite singers / academics and into the open arms of the general public.

If Mozart were also a history lesson, we would have even more trouble remembering history than we do today with our focus on dates. But if Britney Spears could also sing an accurate song about history and *that* was taught in classes instead, we'd have a lot more well-educated people in our population these days.

Anyway, point is that the reason why music is so "repetitive" has nothing to do with "kids today" and everything to do with how our brains work as humans. In spite of the hipsters out there who adamantly deny that they like repetition or that music keeps getting "watered down", human brains in general like repetition *to some degree*, and always have.

¿Que Es Una Chingona? Some Discovered Identity Terms

Found a couple of new identity words that I like, but I don't think they feel right on me. (All words written in the feminized form because the post is referencing a feminist movement regarding the labels).

I posted back on Cinco de Mayo the differences between certain labels for people of Mexican descent, and how I preferred "chicana" over "Latina", as a reclaimed, formerly derogatory word that emphasizes the dual nature of being of mixed ethnicity and living in the US as well as the association with activism.

A few years ago I learned about "chingona" and "maldita". As far as I can tell, "chingona" derives from the verb "chingar", which is "to fuck" and is considered vulgar - a swear word. But more than just "a fucker", a "chingona" is colloquial for basically "a fucking badass" and is also a derogatory slur that some are attempting to reclaim, particularly the feminine version that I'm referencing in this post.

A "maldita" is a step beyond "fucking badass", somehow. The literal translation is "damned" or "cursed" or "accursed", but the colloquial use as an identity label is like a chingona on steroids? They are kinda like Spanish words for "thug", with similar classist and racist undertones and a similar embracing of the term by some.

These are words that I would have vehemently rejected when I was a teen, back when I also rejected "chicana" because of the class implications of "gangbanger", "thug", "good for nothing", "low class", etc. I wasn't one of *those* Mexican-Americans. I spoke proper English and I had a proper education and I lived in the suburbs and I eschewed gang violence and tattoos (and used words like "eschewed").

I live very far from the gang violence I grew up on the peripheries of back in the '80s today. Now I live in poverty, often in a house that would have fit right in with the ghettos I turned my nose up at. I still eschew gang violence and I still speak with a "blank" American accent (slipping into a Southern drawl every now and then).

But many people have been blurring the lines between "thug" and "activist", and many of them have been reclaiming words that are normally used to condemn and dismiss them. Like "chicana". I feel that my temporal distance from the California gangs of the '80s and my observations of how civil unrest is sometimes deliberately masked by oppressors to resemble general "thuggery" has given me a new perspective and newfound respect for the title "chicana".

With my memories of the gangs and my distance from my Spanish-speaking culture, I don't feel that I can claim "maldita" and "chingona" for myself, nor that I fully understand all the subtle cultural nuances of the terms. But I like that I learned about them and I like that they exist. I think they'll be rolling around in the back of my mind for a while.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170417034346/https://soyxingona.com/about-me/what-is-a-xingona// - "A Xingona is a woman who is on her game. Basically she has skills that no one else has strived for only by first hand experience. Xingonas aren’t brought down by bias, machismo, prides, and over-rated ego. She gets shit done because she can and she will."

https://alvaradofrazier.com/2012/07/14/frida-kahlo-chingona-artist - "The term 'Chingona' is a Spanglish term, slang, for a bad ass, wise woman, powerful, individualist, self-activated, a woman who lives a life for their own approval, self-empowered, a strong woman..."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-i-define-my-chingona-fire_b_5887de69e4b0a53ed60c6a35 - "Chingona: noun. 1. a Spanish slang term meaning 'bad ass woman'. Although the word 'chingona' is a Spanish term, it is not limited to Latinas. A chingona is any woman who chooses to live life on her own terms. PERIOD. She is the scholar AND the hoe. At the same damn time. OR she is neither. The point is: she gets to choose. And whatever choice she makes, is the right one."

Because You Fucking Know Opening Doors Is Not "No Big Deal"

"Geez, what's the big deal?  So what if he wants to open your door or pay for dinner?  It's such a minor thing to be making a fuss over, just let him do it!"

You're right, this one instance *is* a minor thing.  So YOU shouldn't be making it into a big thing if she insists on not doing it.  If it's just a "little thing", then don't get all pissy when she doesn't want you to do it for her.  It's just a "minor" thing, right?  So it shouldn't bother you at all if she doesn't want it.

Oh, right, because it's not a fucking "minor" thing, it's a big fucking deal to both of you.  That's why there's an argument in the first place.  It's a symptom of much, MUCH bigger things, only we're the only ones willing to admit that these things mean more than they seem on the surface.

You're in denial. If it's not a "big deal", then shut up and let her get her own damn door or pay for her own damn meal.  It should be no skin off your nose to let her have her way if she cares more about this "minor thing" than you do.   Or can't your fragile ego handle her "minor" difference of opinion?

---

"Ladies first!"

That's right, taking point is the most dangerous position that requires the keenest senses for detecting threats and protecting everyone behind them.  I shall scan the room to determine it's safety and security so that you can feel safe before you enter an unknown area.  Thank you for acknowledging that you need a woman to lead and protect you.

#OrMaybeItCanJustBeWhomeverIsMostConvenientToEnterFirstBasedOnDoorMechanics #LetsNotPretendThisIsReallyChivalryBecauseYouClearlyHaveNotThoughtThisOut #ThisIsPureBlindAdherenceToSocialProgrammingOnYourPart

Asking About My Armband Is A Privilege Display

Every time some man asks why I'm wearing my iPod (or now my phone) on my arm, I cock my head to the side and say in a blatant "this should be obvious, why are you even asking?" tone:

"No pockets," or "pockets are too small."

It's my way of constantly reminding people of casual and everyday sexism.

Women never ask me why I'm wearing it on my arm.  They sometimes ask me if it's a health monitor (as do some men), but they always say what a good idea it is if they bother to say anything at all (except my mother, who sometimes wishes I wouldn't wear it when I'm dressed up, which is exactly the time I need it most because - no pockets!)

To be fair, about half of the men also think it's a good idea, but every comment about my armband has to be prefaced with a question about why I'm wearing it in the first place.  These men simply can't come up with the answer on their own.  Women know why I wear it on my arm.  That men don't is a symptom of how habitual it is for men to not consider what it's like to exist as someone other than them.

Who asks me about my armband is literally privilege in action.  That's what privilege is like - small, everyday, relatively unimportant stuff that some people never have to think about and others of us have to spend time, energy, or money to compensate for.  In order to ask about my armband, specifically why I'm wearing it, one has to be able to look at me, recognize my attire enough to identify the armband, and never have had the necessity to try and find a place to carry one's phone because a convenient phone-carrying place was built in to literally every possible outfit that one has ever purchased (which itself is often purchased without much thought other than price and approximate fit).

Imagine going through life never once needing to consider how you might need to carry the 3 most important things to carry around on a daily basis - keys, wallet, phone.  And never realizing that only some people never have that consideration.

It should be obvious why I wear my device on my arm - because I fucking want to and it's more convenient or comfortable or useful than alternatives, otherwise I would wear it somewhere else.  This shouldn't ever have to be asked.