Hey there.  Welcome.  Feel free to sit back, relax and enjoy a few thoughts on how, as Dad used to say, “Everything’s different yet it’s all the same.” 
     Today’s “same-difference” is personalities.  We have them.  We want them.  We deny them.  Yet regardless, we are each unique with unfathomable varieties, although, there would appear to be a oneness of typology, at least as I would offer for consideration herein.  After all, while advocating individualuality, who among us could deny occationally  thinking of others as “so typical”?  Nevertheless, some of our non-typing friends would rightly to point out that a decent typology must not forget that everyone is always unique.  I acknowledge that.  It would not only be arrogant to put others into boxes, but it would also deny how there are hundreds of personality traits in any number of combinations, given genetic, developmental, cognitive, and behavioral factors. That having been said, let’s think about types in a way that is NOT typical.
    The subject includes the mystery of how some very best friends seem to always have known you long before you ever met.  And when I’m “tired of mattering” I like the idea of melting away, together forever, effortlessly transcendant within a beautiful tapestry of always living, with glorious moments of rest for the rest.  So you’re fully you yet we’re also we as well.


    If you agree with allowing for types, next let’s ask ourselves how many types could there possibly be?  What would you say?  Any ideas?  Can you guess?  (No fair copying, Jung.) 

    Well, just to keep the conversation flowing here, I’ll go ahead and throw a number out there for starters.  How about three?  Is three okay for now, even though it’s radically unconventional?  That little number can help get us started while keeping things simple for purposes of initial discussion, so it let’s not get carried away with it being all exact at this point.

    That having been said, I suggested three for a reason.  For example, I know some people who are good at doing things.  They get things done.  They’re the first of the three people I know.  For now let’s call them the “Get Things Done Type.” 

    At the other end of the vast, limitless uniqueness spectrum, I’ve observed people who are good at saying things, or, better yet, at talking.  The right words appear for them at the right moment just like that.  The rest of us are left to nod in awestruck agreement.  Therefore, the second type I’ve met are the speed-verbalizers or “Quick-Worded Type.”  You know some, too, I’m sure.  They earn reputations as Great Communicators, or simply (to those of us who are less gifted), “good talkers.”

    Accepting the basic kinesthetic and verbal traitologies suggested above, being a potential tenable basis, still, what’s amazing to me, amazingly, is that the aforementioned Get-Done Doers and Quick-Witted Talkers are often two different people.  What I mean is, some talkers don’t really do much and some doers don’t really talk much. That can be frustrating, on both accounts.  

    Still, even though some Transcendent Talkers don’t appear to get a lot done, perhaps that’s because they’re misunderstood.  Maybe they’re simply over-committed.  Their occasional well-communicated exaggerations can cause them to bite off more than they can chew, which is not always their fault.  We, nevertheless, should blame them anyway.  You sse, they keep sounding good after they are over-committed and people trust people who sound good because they convince them. 

    Yet maybe it’s all actually the fault of the person who is better at doing the work but who is  not communicating that.  That is, the dependable doers aren’t assigned as much work because people assume few words means ignorance, which is not always the case.  Still, some quiet types wouldn’t speak up even if they wanted to, which I don’t think they do, at least not to me, so maybe it’s true.

    So how do we get past this anomoly of appearances?  Let’s save that topic for later, and first get to know the types who need to work together.  Hang in there.  You’re doing great.

    Thus, my assertion, based on my own limited data points, is that the non-follow-through talkers are distinct from persons who like to get things done but don’t have much to say. In other words, the best talkers are not always the best doers and visa versa.

    Thus, as the allegorical-ish evidence above may suggest, as it is meant to be intuitively obvious to the casual observer, “good-doer” and “good-talker” may be trait-ish.  (The non-technical terms reflect how I’m just an ordinary guy like you.)  Also, maybe you’ve noticed people congregating in those groups, too.  Over there are the pragmatic, hands-on, business-like folks.  On the other side of the room (or city or nation or aisle or world) are the more artistic, feeling-your-pain, creative and passionate types led by loud motivational speakers.  Everyone knows them.  If you don’t, look for the leaders of the latter by the fact that they are labelling people as demons, satan or otherwise non-human.  

    In the hypothetical world into which we just stepped, through the looking-glass of a  metaphorically pervious mirror, we now have two of the three types heretofore mentioned. 


    The problem is, we need at least one more type.  The reason is, I said there were three.  The other reason is that I don’t think I personally fit into either one of the first two categories – and not just because I’m special or devoid of value, either, you goof-ball.  Even Aristotle tried to fit me into similar types, but a round peg just doesn’t fit into two holes. 

    That is, a couple thousand years ago or so Aristotle captured The Four Humours, you know, and guess what: I think I’m two of them.  Why?  Maybe because he was one of the Good Talkers (Sanguine) who disected Good Doers (Phlegmatic/Choleric), but hardly noticed the variety of us folks in the middle (Melancholy, etc.), because we’re quiet and not always moving a lot.  That may also be why he had differences with Plato who wrote the book, because I’d like to think I could write someday, too. 

    This suggests that we need a third grouping for writers like Plato are not speakers like his old buddy Aristotle. It all fits together, if you don’t think too hard about it.

     Anyway, so after the first two simplistic type-groups above, Doers and Talkers, I’d suggest we consider the radical formation of a third one (which is not spelled thrid, as I have).  For now you could consider the thrid group as a catch-all category, although it’s not really. 

    So finally, but perhaps not last, there’s a group that includes us plain, old thinker-types. Get it?  Thinker.  Talker.  Doer.  Got it? Good. Later we’ll consider further designations, like ideologues who fall, unbeknownst, into the Thinker Category. This, then, is allowing us to build a home where there’s a place for everyone to live happily together, including anyone who would write something like this – or other things like what I’m saying here. 

     That gives us, again: 1) Thinker, 2) Talker, and, 3) Doer.  Or, for you more uppity persons, Inquisitive, Expressive, and Practical.  The names are derived from them being driven, respectively, 1) To Know, 2) To Express, and, 3) To Accomplish.  We all want to do all three, don’t we?  Still, I’d suggest we are quick-starters in mostly one, except for the exceptions that will come up later.  These quintessential categories might be called triessential categories, being three.

    Whew.  You survived, and so did I!  But not so fast…

    If you accept the three categories above, gullible or not (probably not), then there’s one more typical-type.  It’s the actual last of the differently similar ways, at least of those I’ve personally noticed so far while I’m writing… (and I tell you what – how about if we call “Thinker-Talker-Doer” something profound-sounding like “Trait-Loci” for now? Okay? Because I haven’t thought of something better yet. We just need a name for it.)

    The forth thing is called… are you ready?  It’s called: Control People.  The latter can be found everywhere among the others, which is how three can be four, in an interesting way, without a whole re-write, which is unneeded anyway. Let’s see if this means anything.

    Which are you, would you say?  Let’s follow a long and winding road to where we know each other better, without meeting.  That is, we’re strolling into a place where everyone knows your name, even if you don’t have one.  To start down that path within the context of all of this stuff (and here we have a really a keen theory, if I do say so myself), a first set of getting-to-know-you kind of questions, then, to help figure out your trait-loci thing, after another long run-on sentence, goes something like this:  


    Of the following three, which one is more you-sounding? 

1) First, do you talk good, like to talk small, or enjoy boring meetings because you can talk? 

2) Or, instead, do you prefer to run around and say very little, always being on the move, getting things done and being “the strong, silent type”? 

3) Or, instead too, do you observe and contemplate a lot, preferring not to say or do anything much, like a writer or something. 

    Expressive.  Practical.  Inquisitive. 

    Is it getting too profound in here yet?  That’ll dissipate soon because now we need to talk about you being a Control Person.  You see, when and if you’re in the Power and Control category, that’s when the rest of us mostly want to stay away from you.  It’s nothing personal.  Neither is it always the case.  Sometimes we desperately need an anal person to draw a straight line on a wall or something.  (Just a little joke, there!) 

     Actually, you guys are great. We’d never get any of the tough jobs finished without you. It’s really just that, that… well, that Machiavelli guy kind-of scares us.  Yeah, it’s just him.  So you see, we’re all control freaks sometimes, but this category is different. Here we’re talking about a set of personalities who are driven to conquer and liberate. Sometimes we need that. We need you.  Besides, without you, who would Jack Nicholson have studied to portray Colonel Jessep in “A Few Good Men,” since no one else can handle the truth?  So in a sense you’re a secret hero to all of us. 

    If I’ve lost you like I’ve lost me, we now have the Thinker, the Talker, the Doer, and then, fourth, the Conquorer/Liberator type.

    To make this even more interesting, if that were possible, how about that President George W. Bush 43?  Let’s apply what we’ve learned so far with something everyone can understand, except me.  Is Mr. Bush a Good Talker?  You decide.  A Big Thinker?  Well, remember now (even though it only partly came up yet), Good Big Thinkers are not just philosophical types – they could also be idealistic ideologues. They could want all Evil to be destroyed, or to have their father’s Vision Thing everywhere. 

    Now, please, President Bush is not such a bad guy, you know, but maybe you could consider that you’re not perfect either and also that he could just be in the Good-at-Doing category, always going around, conquering people and helping them.  Still, Doers don’t have time to have policies, so I’m back to the Thinker/Ideologue area.  Besides, Talkers like Clinton are the ones who form a lot of coalitions.  Doers like #41 make pragmatic deals on taxes or other nonnegotiables.  And not all Thinkers are exactly intellectuals, as inferred precedently presidentally.  Still, I suppose you could say it’s anybody’s guess, really.

    Forgetting all that, just keep in mind how, in your own, nice, little, unique way, you might be more of either:  1) A good thinker who’s inquisitive and driven to understand, even when there’s nothing worth knowing, or,  2) A good talker who’s highly interactive and driven to express, noisily forming relationships whether or not it matters, or,  3) A good doer who’s practical and driven to accomplish, quietly working away hands-on without much time to listen after other people say, “Just fine, thank you.”  Pick one.

     And pick only one unless you want the rest of us to think that you’re a combination of the three, which is what causes you to be a relatively calm and peaceful Power Person who wants to dominate the whole world as far you can see the end as we know it.

     Now that you know thyself so much better, you are a happier person because you can understand why other people roll their eyes at you whenever they can. It’s not you. As revealed hereabove, in fact those people are the ones who are different. You’re the same. For example, you like to think, but they don’t.  Unthinking people always think you’re crazy like me, so you have to remind them that “To be great is to be misunderstood,” like Emerson.  Now, try applying that during your next break from productive living so your persona can inhabitate a more secure and happy life, okay?

     That’s just about all there is to think about for now as food for thought, in case you didn’t have any.  Like Socrates said, “First Know Thyself.”  Second, read more.  After that maybe you’ll be able to better understand Real Pointless Jabbering – but only if you want to, of course. 

More on People at: and Touch or Leadership.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s