Personality conflicts and type tests

[8 Bit WWBG]

I sat through another one of those "what kind of worker are you" deals, this time using cars as an analogy.  Am I a sports car?  A minivan?  Ugh...  Action based, relationship based, technical based, structure based...  They say people do have all of these traits in them, but one typically dominates most of the time.

I am the type that lives his life under the delusion that logic and reason can prevail.  That if we can just have a rational debate, we can come to a good compromise for everyone.

However, I seem to frequently try this view on the types of people that don't care about anything except what they want.  They aren't really open to discussing anything, particularly since doing so shines light on how what they want might not be in everyone's best interest.  And since they are usually partially, if not totally wrong, it just makes them dig in or dance around the truth even more adamantly.

I'm trying to stop getting drawn into discussion when I recognize these types of people.  Discussion is just a waste of time.  They aren't going to admit my point of view has any validity, because doing so would conflict with what they are trying to do.  It frustrates me, and I end up worse off.

Do you find yourself engaged in a rock/paper/scissors game with co-workers where you are always throwing rock at someone who throws paper.  Do you start throwing scissors?

[Tiny]

Jun 19, 2016 8:05:56 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

I sat through another one of those "what kind of worker are you" deals, this time using cars as an analogy.  Am I a sports car?  A minivan?  Ugh...  Action based, relationship based, technical based, structure based...  They say people do have all of these traits in them, but one typically dominates most of the time.

I am the type that lives his life under the delusion that logic and reason can prevail.  That if we can just have a rational debate, we can come to a good compromise for everyone.

However, I seem to frequently try this view on the types of people that don't care about anything except what they want.  They aren't really open to discussing anything, particularly since doing so shines light on how what they want might not be in everyone's best interest.  And since they are usually partially, if not totally wrong, it just makes them dig in or dance around the truth even more adamantly.

I'm trying to stop getting drawn into discussion when I recognize these types of people.  Discussion is just a waste of time.  They aren't going to admit my point of view has any validity, because doing so would conflict with what they are trying to do.  It frustrates me, and I end up worse off.

Do you find yourself engaged in a rock/paper/scissors game with co-workers where you are always throwing rock at someone who throws paper.  Do you start throwing scissors?

I'm a logic/reason kind of person AND I generally feel that it is fair if I have to compromise on what I want if the over all goal(s) gets accomplished.    The goal(s) could be mine, yours and/or ours.      I generally don't take "discussions" as an "argument that must be won" or as a "personal attack" or assume that you hate me because you don't agree with me.   Unfortunately, not everyone else shares my definition of discussion  which is "lets look at all the pros/cons, lets throw some 'absurd' ideas into the mix, and then lets see if we can come to the best solution for the problem/situation.  Just because your solution isn't the one we chose doesn't mean you're a loser or we hate. The joy should be in arriving at a good solution/accomplishing the goal."  I will usually happily comply with doing work that maybe I didn't think was such a good idea  or wasn't my idea - as long as the overall goal gets accomplished.   It's the end product or accomplishing the goal that counts.  
  

I know some people who refuse to compromise - it's their way or the highway.   Actually, that's not true they will compromise but they take applications of logic/reason to the discussion  to be 'personal attacks'.    When they feel 'personally attacked' they tend to dig in their heels and refuse to move.    Right and wrong don't really matter at that point.  I've witnessed someone 'dig in their heels' on something that was obviously hurtful to them BECAUSE they felt they weren't being 'respected' by the people trying to convince them to do something slightly different that wouldn't hurt them.   And this was in a business setting - so no one was drunk or obviously high or otherwise mentally impaired.  

Some people take 'discussion' as a contest - they HAVE to win.  They must ALWAYS be right or have the last word.   This is the kind of person you need to manipulate into thinking that the best plan of action IS their idea.  

Some people are just very sensitive - and "discussion" means you are made at them, or don't like them (or their idea) because they feel like they are being 'dismissed' - their opinion/idea doesn't count.    I'm not good at dealing with these kinds of people.  I have a co-worker who is though so I sometimes ask them for advice on what to say/do to make the very sensitive person more comfortable/not dig in their heels and continue to contribute to the discussion/problem solving.   


You need to take a different path with some people.    Sometimes it's a more touchy feely path (I understand how you feel about this, but how would doing X instead effect you?  Wouldn't you be better off with <insert some good things for them here>? )     Sometimes you just have to help them down the path to realizing that your idea was actually their idea.     Lead them down the path with questions and some nudges and hints until they are repeating your solution as if it was THEIR SOLUTION.      The only caveat here is that YOU need to overcome any inner need to "always be right"  you need to accept that sometimes you have to let other people 'be right' -- even if it was your plan/idea in the first place.  
 
You can't change other people (or their behavior) but you CAN change yourself or your behavior.    This isn't about them - it's about you. 

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

I am also a logical, analytical, supportive reasoning type of person. I don't engage in these types of conversations with co-workers. It's just too infuriating. The most recent example is the person who teaches across the hall from me became incredibly upset with me because of a parenting decision I made that affected his teaching practice. I was willing to discuss with him the differences between my parenting philosophy and my professional philosophy and how my parenting is always going to win, but he just wanted to be absolutely pissed at me without even considering how my child was feeling, behaving, and reacting and how I needed to deal with her. 


In other aspects of my life, I don't play Cards Against Humanity well because I always play the "right" answer. 

[Tiny]

If it's not a work related 'discussion' - I've found that many many people take any sort of disagreement with the general thoughts about the topic at hand as "you HATE me!" I find this kind of baffling. No, I don't hate/dislike you because I like my coffee black instead of a "caramel, mocha, half caf soy latte with extra whipped cream on top". I don't mind hearing about your fancy coffee drinks and I'm happy that YOU like them. When you start to complain about your increasing waistline or lack of money AND you are using this conversation about coffee drinks seeking approval to go for your second "caramel, mocha, half caf, soy latte with extra whipped cream" of the day - I might say "those have a lot of calories/cost a lot" - it's not a personal attack and I don't hate you. I might think you are doing some mental gymnastics thinking that high calorie coffee drinks are not high calorie OR that they are "good for you" (soy milk and 1/2 caf are better than whole milk and regular coffee) but I don't hate/dislike you. And no, I'm not joining you in a high calorie coffee drink - I'd rather EAT my calories than drink them. I'll go down to the coffee shop with you and we can chat about something other than coffee (because I do like you/enjoy your company)- I'm just not having a 'coffee drink'.   Which of course means "I'm mocking them" ::sigh::   I hate trying to navigate social situations while trying to maintain or loose weight.   and 500 calorie plus coffee drinks aren't on my daily list of things to eat.   

You can pretty much apply this kind of reaction to many situations.     Human nature sucks sometimes.

[Tiny]

The class/test/seminar you went thru should have had some suggestions/role playing for how to deal with people who are in the other personality types. It's not bad or wrong. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow.

I reply back to a lot of requests from co-workers during the day that I've completed whatever they've requested. 90% of them have a 'template' email they use for their request - they just change up the pertinent info. I usually reply back with a stock "this has been completed" when it's been done. The other 10% always make a new personalized email message with their request. They get upset when I would just reply back with the "this has been completed" message. So, for them, I add in some "personalized" stuff - Hello Joe, Hope you are having a good day. I have completed your request. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Tiny" or something to that effect. I always assumed that people wouldn't want to read a book to discover if a request was complete or not. I always assumed they were seeing the email from me - with the subject line of their request and atleast the first few words in their "mini email review window" and they could then move on (delete the email or save it or whatever) right from the mini email review window. No need to open the email and read it for content. But, apparently that's not the way other people do it. I don't really like writing 'books' for something simple as a reply to a routine request - but I do for certain people.

[Deleted]

I am analytical, but I don't let logic get in the way. That sounds like a joke, but it isn't. I am largely intuitive. I like to think that intuition is based on quickly picking up on factors that other people don't notice. It is a large part of literary analysis, etc. I'm smart (sorry for the lack of modesty) so I process things really, really quickly.

None of that means I claim to be infallible, etc.  I'm definitely not.  But a person like you 8 Bit WWBG frequently gets very frustrated because you lay out your nice, neat logical argument, and then I may promptly reject it.  If I feel like it, I will argue with you.  If I don't, I will likely said, "No, that's not how it works."

I don't think either mode is superior.  I actually think both modes are necessary.  It is probably why both men I married are highly analytical, logical people.  We balance each other.

[NoNamePerson]

Shucks, I'm just stoopid!!

[tloonya]

Jun 19, 2016 8:05:56 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

I sat through another one of those "what kind of worker are you" deals, this time using cars as an analogy.  Am I a sports car?  A minivan?  Ugh...  Action based, relationship based, technical based, structure based...  They say people do have all of these traits in them, but one typically dominates most of the time.

I am the type that lives his life under the delusion that logic and reason can prevail.  That if we can just have a rational debate, we can come to a good compromise for everyone.

However, I seem to frequently try this view on the types of people that don't care about anything except what they want.  They aren't really open to discussing anything, particularly since doing so shines light on how what they want might not be in everyone's best interest.  And since they are usually partially, if not totally wrong, it just makes them dig in or dance around the truth even more adamantly.

I'm trying to stop getting drawn into discussion when I recognize these types of people.  Discussion is just a waste of time.  They aren't going to admit my point of view has any validity, because doing so would conflict with what they are trying to do.  It frustrates me, and I end up worse off.

Do you find yourself engaged in a rock/paper/scissors game with co-workers where you are always throwing rock at someone who throws paper.  Do you start throwing scissors?

When I was 12...

[CCL]

I'm just glad I don't have to work anymore.

[NoNamePerson]

Jun 19, 2016 21:37:57 GMT -5 CCL said:

I'm just glad I don't have to work anymore.

Meeeeeeee tooooooooo!!

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Do you find yourself engaged in a rock/paper/scissors game with co-workers where you are always throwing rock at someone who throws paper. Do you start throwing scissors?

I used to but found that I spent way too much energy engaging and it was only hurting me in the long run.

I've found that if the issue is big enough that if I wait long enough they will come to the same conclusion I already did.   Then it is THEIR idea to do something about it.

The frustrating part is I tend to get the blame for "not saying something sooner".    I DID, you were just too busy talking my ear off to listen.

When that happens I try to step back and play the "I am a technician I am not paid to think" card.    It usually works.

I'd like to not care at all and become totally detached but that's not in my nature.  Instead I am working on not acting on my emotions rather than trying to prevent them all together.
 

[thyme4change]

The downfall with all of those 'tests' is that there aren't 4 types of people, and no one is 100%, all day, every day, every situation exactly one type. There is no singular easy answer.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"I know some people who refuse to compromise - it's their way or the highway. Actually, that's not true they will compromise but they take applications of logic/reason to the discussion to be 'personal attacks'. When they feel 'personally attacked' they tend to dig in their heels and refuse to move. Right and wrong don't really matter at that point.":::...

Yeah, this.  The second their preferred outcome is threatened, it is battle time.  It doesn't matter if they could still get 90% of what they want, while others also get 90%.  They'll fight for the outcome that gives them 100% and are fine with everyone else getting 20% or maybe even -10%.  Stupid me hopes logic can help them realize that we could both have 90%.  Doesn't matter because if they can get 100%, why settle for 90%?

...:::"I'd like to not care at all and become totally detached but that's not in my nature. Instead I am working on not acting on my emotions rather than trying to prevent them all together.":::...

I try to do this too, and sometimes it works but requires me "compromising" (ie: giving in and considering "avoiding the fight" to be my win).  That gets old quick though.  I'm not looking to make everything a battle.  I don't have the energy or desire for that.  But nobody will look out for me more than I will.

This particular seminar wasn't top notch, so they didn't really cover the "how you work with someone of the other type".  To me, I think that is the problem in the first place.  If these people were willing to compromise, then there wouldn't be an issue.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I try to do this too, and sometimes it works but requires me "compromising" (ie: giving in and considering "avoiding the fight" to be my win). That gets old quick though.

You're preaching to the choir.  I am so burnt out on academic policies I could puke.    However I have become a master at the game as time goes on.    I could switch fields but I am still going to have to deal with political BS so it becomes a question of whether I want to deal with something new or stick with the enemy I know.