Blurred Lines [of Personality]

There is a reason why black and white television has been eliminated. Not because of the programming ("I Love Lucy" and "The Honeymooners" are American classics no doubt), but because depicting a program as black and white is not realistic. In the real world, there is color. The world offers different vibrant shades of red and lesser dull shades of yellow all completing the reality a television hopes to bring you. According to Mary Loftus at Psychology Today, the analysis of personality traits should be colorful, not black and white. There is no such thing as "lumping" a person into either the introverted or extroverted pile. There are degrees to which these traits can be carried out and, as Loftus sheds light to, it can be possible to have too much of a good trait. Being categorized as "driven to succeed" is normally good, however too much of this can lead being categorized as "perfectionistic." "There really is a fine line between striving for excellence and striving excessively for perfection," says Toronto York University professor Gordon Flett. This fine line also exists for people who are classified as "agreeable." Those who are generally accommodating are softhearted, trusting, and helpful. However, says Loftus, conflict in life is inevitable, and in these conflicting instances, assertiveness is a necessary trait. Being willing to appease all the time has its obvious down sides, then again so does challenging every thought and asserting yourself at every juncture. Is there no middle? Loftus concludes by saying every individual must find balance. Every situation holds an appropriate action in the eyes of the individual, and it is up to him to act. And how others interpret his actions is how personality is formed, leaving a large degree of variability.

My Reflection:
To say "Tom is kind" is completely subjective. This claim is based on a number of different factors that lie with the person making the judgement. First, what is his definition of kind? Kind is a broad word normally with a wide range of other words used to define it; no two people are going to have the identical definition of kind. Second, on what body of evidence does he have to conclude that Tom is kind? How many examples of Tom's kindness does he have in mind? Maybe he caught Tom on a good day, maybe Tom is rarely kind, but to him, this kind act defines Tom. To my point: kindness and other personality traits are not objective. What Loftus is saying that every trait  has another side to it, and what I take away from that is since there are always two sides, there can never be one conclusion.

-Ryan Scanlon

Reference: Psychology Today magazine: October 2013; psychologytoday.com; "When Vice Becomes Virtue"