My "Big Five"

After reading Chedner's post, I decided to go back to the MyType app on Facebook and take the "Big Five" Personality test, which categorizes you into one of five main personality profiles.

You are: The Friend

Kind, sympathetic, cooperative and forgiving. Friend types are very concerned about the welfare of those around them and are generally kind and friendly to everyone. They are very sympathetic and tend to be emotional. They are generally cooperative and accommodating, but don't usually like to take the lead in social groups.

I don't internalize people's struggles (you know the type: the girl in the singles ward who knows everybody's business because it gives her life meaning), but I care about them. Emotional? I've never claimed to be unemotional, but I've been told by many that I am kind of objective and detached. Maybe that's why people are so caught off-guard when I do get all broken and messy...go fig. Cooperative? I guess so. I mean, that's probably not how I earned the name "Beast" as a child, and I usually preferred to work on my own rather than with a group, but my family worked very hard on getting me to be more of a team player, probably so I'd be less of a social reject. ...well, at least I'm more of a team player.

Your Personality Traits

Extraversion
You scored in the 34th percentile on Extraversion, which is average. You enjoy social situations, but you also see the fun in a quiet night at home. You can be assertive when the situation requires. You don't need to be the center of attention or to lead and organize events, but don't mind taking over if it's needed. You like to balance your periods of activity and downtime to avoid getting burned out.

Pretty much right on, yeah. I still need a lot of alone time, but I'm probably the most "extroverted" now that I've ever been. Yep, I used to be the kid hiding behind mommy's leg and feeling super withdrawn in most social situations.

Agreeableness
You scored in the 93rd percentile on Agreeableness, which is high. You are always concerned with the feelings of others and tend to put their needs above your own. You are trusting and cooperative, you try to avoid confrontations if possible. You are quick to feel sympathy for others and try to help where you can.

Yeah, pretty true...except I'm not that trusting, probably. ...well, maybe I've had gullible tendencies in certain ways because I expected everyone to be as straightforward as I tried to be, but...I'm slow to warm up. I do feel sympathy, but I don't think I'm a bleeding heart. Pshaw.

Conscientiousness
You scored in the 25th percentile on Conscientiousness, which is low. You don't like to worry or take things too seriously. You tend to be impulsive and dislike planning things in advance. You're not too concerned with punctuality and organization. You tend to be laid back and like to just go with the flow.

Impulsive? I've been called that, but generally only by people who schedule nose-picking. Other than that, it's mostly true, though there are certain aspects of life in which I'm organized, like keeping my photo files on my computer more neatly arrayed than a Relief Society centerpiece.

Emotional Stability
You scored in the 92nd percentile on Emotional Stability, which is high. You are above it all and are rarely affected by stressful situations. When everything goes haywire you're the one calmly assessing the situation. You are generally relaxed and calm and can handle anything that comes your way. You tend not to worry about what others think of you, and it takes a lot to get you upset or sad.

High emotional stability? Tell that to my former flings, baby. Depending on who's trying to get me upset or sad, yeah, it's usually true. I don't know if "above it all" is accurate, but I do tend to focus in crazy situations and have been told I "work well under pressure". *thinking "under the sheets" but not typing it*

Openness to Experience
You scored in the 74th percentile on Openness to Experience, which is high. You place a high value on creativity and inventiveness. You appreciate beauty and tend to get really involved in artistic experiences. You are adventurous and are always looking to try new things. You value intelligence in others and enjoy having intellectual debates and having your views challenged. You are always ready to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values.

Yeah, I'm pretty much crazy-go-nuts. OK, so I'm no skydiving or "extreme" sports junkie, and I certainly don't anticipate getting into whips and swings and stuff, but I'm...intellectually adventurous, and I love to travel to new places and try new foods, etc. OK, that just sounds lame in comparison. Involved in artistic experiences? Maybe I do, but not, like, all weird and froofy about it. As if. But yeah, if you can't carry on an intelligent conversation (not deeply philosophical but at least meaningful and thoughtful), I'm probably gonna get bored with you. Nothing personal, I'll just think you're a vapid waste of a brain. ...oh, see, being "The Friend", I just can't end on that note. Let's see...um...even if I'm bored with you, I can still like you a lot and value your strengths...but making out is not a suitable substitute for conversation...but that doesn't mean I won't give it a fair chance... I'm totally kidding. ...making out is a perfectly good substitute. OK, kidding again. I have lots of unintelligent friends. Shoot, this just isn't going well. Hey look! A hot Abercrombie model!


*rapidly diminishing pitter patter of feet*

Fun With Polls

Some of you have noticed a new poll to the right about how well I know my blog visitors. I have a decent idea of who visits: a few friends, quite a few people I don't know well or at all. But I got curious, so I'd enjoy seeing responses.

As for my previous poll regarding where people are at with the church, the results of the 53 votes (with my estimates of Facebook friends in parentheses) are as follows:

Non-LDS: 1% (2%)
Ex-LDS: 15% (7%)
Inactive: 24% (22%)
Active in their own way: 26% (17%)
Active but dating: 7% (8%)
Strictly active: 24% (33%)

I was surprised how similar the blog poll results were to my Facebook numbers, though there were more "active in their own way" folks and strictly actives visiting my blog than I expected.

There was only one eyebrow-raiser: during the space of 4-5 days towards the end there, the only category receiving votes was the "strictly active" category, at about 1 vote per day. It made me wonder if we had an internet vigilante who believed the righteous needed a louder voice. But I found no really clear evidence of it in my visitor stats, so it may have been legit.

...have I mentioned I actually enjoyed Statistics in college?

Not Reaching Out, Part Deux

After publishing my previous post, I pretty much expected the sort of comments I got. But as usual, being challenged has helped me think through things a bit more (stop rolling your eyes and saying, "Oh great, more thinking." It's what I do. Get used to it). :-)



This sounds like you analyze every relationship at every level as if it were a chess game.

Well it kinda does, doesn't it? But these scenarios I'm talking about amount to about half a dozen times in my adult life. Not a pervasive pattern, but a nuisance. Most of my friendships develop pretty naturally and organically. No, there's no "battle plan" or "model" I try to follow in relationships. People and interpersonal dynamics are too complex, too individual, and too dynamic to possibly hope to fully understand or write a definitive play book. But I try to identify my own patterns, which does help me with future relationships and communication...though it's admittedly sometimes more about trying to solve the puzzle for puzzle-solving's sake (now I'm thinking about the 3 episodes of House I watched last night...I think I may finally be hooked) but telling myself there's a practical application. Dang it.



If you want to reach out, but don't, please don't be mad at them for it.

True. So instead I'll just be mad at them for being jerks in the first place. ;-) OK OK, it's really about the dynamics of the relationship, not anybody's particular personality flaws, theirs or mine. I care about these cusses. I just don't want to give them the remote control to my emotions again.

Detached, carefree person + invested, sensitive person = messiness in many cases.

Unless I'm confident my vulnerability has waned, I worry about ending up in the same mess. I'm trying to learn to let go of that fear and manage the lingering caution. Just going along for the ride again, though, is not an option. What's that saying about insanity being expecting different outcomes from the same, repeated actions? Yeah...



Perhaps they are doing the same and both of you are denied some positive innocent friendly companionship as a result?

It's possible they're doing the same, but most of the people this has happened with are quite different, quite non-analytical. As for companionship, it's about weighing the emotional risks vs. the benefits. Friendship hardly seems productive when one person (*raises hand*) is dysfunctionally hurt-prone in that particular friendship, due to sensitivity and past heartache. I think sometimes it's best to move on rather than be that annoying, needy person in someone's life who just can't seem to let go after the friendship has outlived its usefulness. It's also not fair to contact them out of some thirst for affirmation when I don't really want friendship again. My motives matter, too. But yes, no matter what the trade-offs or benefits, we might be missing out on what could be positive friendship, which is what sometimes brings me back to test the waters.



I bet half the people you are wanting to connect with really don't think of things the way you've described them here.

If you mean they don't analyze things like I do, you're probably right. If you mean they don't see what they've done as manipulative, you're probably right. If you mean they might say, "I don't know what happened: everything was fine on my end," you're probably right.

I've been in that position, where I cared about friends and wanted their friendship but didn't return their feelings or desire for more time together or more emotional intimacy, or whatever. I was unintentionally insensitive to a couple of female friends who I think had feelings for me and didn't know what to do. I might have said, "I value our friendship, just potentially not as much as you do right now." But...ouch. I thought maybe they needed distance for their own sake, to detach a bit, but I wasn't about to ask for that because it might send a signal that I wasn't interested in friendship, when I was. I watched them go through inexplicable reactions to things I said or did and wondered why they were so emotional. It seemed, at times, like they were torturing themselves by continuing to spend time and keep contact with me, manifested by emotional reactions, including anger. Being friends almost became a chore, but I did want to prove I wanted their friendship, so I continued to deal with it and enjoyed the good times and endured the stressful times and repeated mini-DTRs. "Women," I'd grunt.

Then I later found myself on their side, and I understood a bit better where they were coming from. I had one guy friend (with whom I had a sort of romantic entanglement but who withdrew from the friendship more than I did once the romantic stuff was wearing off) later tell me he thought I was crazy-emotional over what happened between us, but he had since been in a relationship that put him on the other side, and he sympathized with me.

If you mean they're not doing anything manipulative, I disagree for the couple of cases I'm thinking of, though I'd be happy to be wrong. I'm not going to discuss the "evidence" here, but I'll just say I'm not just inventing to explain some puzzling behavior. I've observed their manipulative or selfish behavior with other people in addition to patterns with me, and I don't presume to be a special exception. But the kicker: I know I've behaved in ways that were emotionally manipulative without having intended them that way, usually due to some insecurity, and I'm glad my friends who struggled with their feelings for me stuck with it and kept coming back because some of those have become my most lasting friendships, even after their feelings subside and our mutual interest equalizes.

Though I don't think they mean to be malicious, the problem comes when I'm no longer emotionally equipped or interested enough to withstand or entertain their lashes. Maybe I'm weaker than those friends of mine who endured. Or maybe I'm just afraid and insecure and haven't learned to deal with that.



...reach out with the simple motivation of genuine concern and interest in them, no focus on yourself

I think I have done this, with the possible exception of letting down defenses I put up for a reason and believe must stay in place. However, something that's harder but I think is necessary is letting go of the fear of being hurt again. I suspect that fear only makes it that much more likely that it will happen again, a sort of self-fulfilling thing.



You think way too much. Just call. Or text. Or facebook message. Or don't. lol.

I think I get that. I mean, I almost did that the other day when I was thinking of someone I haven't talked to in a long time. But there are actually circumstances in some cases, in addition to the vulnerability thing, which I chose not to go into in the post which are relevant but...just not right to publish, I guess. And with that, I shall let this go, maintaining my throne as King Overanalysis. On the other hand, last night I did just say, "Screw it, I want to contact him, so I'm going to," and I sent a brief e-mail to check in.

I think I've learned a thing or two from all this and responding to your comments, so thanks! But it'll do no good if I sit here blogging all day and thinking about what I've thought about, now, will it? ;-)

Not Reaching Out

Every once in a while, I feel like reaching out to someone I've been hurt by or who has expressed a desire to backpedal our level of interaction when I didn't share that desire. It's happened with a girl or two, but it's admittedly been more so with a small number of fellow mohos, usually when there's been an attraction on my part, whether or not I actually "fell" for them. I tell myself, "It's not worth putting yourself at risk by reaching out in some way and just giving them the upper hand again because they've never proven they can have the upper hand yet show real sensitivity and open, honest communication while having it (maybe for fear they might lose the advantage or lose your friendship?), and you'll just end up getting hurt again." Then I remind myself, "They can only hurt you as much as you allow them to. You don't have to expect anything from them or hope your interaction will be what it was before things went south. You could just check in like you do with other people you've not been so vulnerable with." Then I think that the fact that I'm even debating this really does mean I'm not as "over it" as I'd like to be because if I were, there'd be no question, no risk.

Or I think it at least means that even though I'm pretty sure I couldn't be "hurt" the way I once was, or I've detached enough to not be vulnerable in that way, I wonder if we can reconnect in any way more than incidentally without it going in that direction again, and if it's only going to be incidental, I'd almost just as soon leave it alone entirely. I'm not sure I've never navigated that successfully.

I figure I've hurt a small number of my friends because they kept coming back after we realized their interest was greater or more invested than mine, and I felt bad that they couldn't just relax and be friends, and I didn't want to push them away myself but could see it would probably be best for them if they would withdraw. I genuinely cared about them, but having to constantly rehash things or walk on eggshells to avoid hurting them was so tiring that I wondered if it wouldn't be better to just go our separate ways. Sometimes, they have withdrawn, and while I felt bad, and it stung a little that they felt they had to protect themselves by removing me, I also knew it was probably best for them and cared about them enough to just let them do it. And I was happy when they'd come back, but there's always this undercurrent of me having hurt them, even unintentionally, so I try to be really careful without walking on eggshells or underestimating their resilience.

I never understood their behavior and sensitivity until I found myself on their side of a friendship. I hate the idea of being in their position indefinitely (especially with someone less sensitive than I am, because I'm pretty sensitive but still did some pretty clueless/thoughtless things) or putting another friend in the position I was in, confused and feeling ultra-cautious all the time, so I figure it's less messy and better for everyone to just stay apart and not initiate contact even if I'd welcome contact from them.

So I'm left with this mix of thoughts and emotions: I want to know how they're doing and what's going on in their lives. I want to know what they ate for lunch today, how the new job has been going, how life across the country is treating them. But to reach out and ask would be to initiate contact they haven't requested and when they haven't done anything to reach out, which puts me right back in the position I was in when we parted: more invested and more pushy than they. So I refrain. And I figure they probably don't even notice, or so I tell myself to make it easier to not reach out. While their lives are marching on just fine without me, they at least probably occasionally wonder what's up with me. But if they really cared to know, they'd ask me. They'd text me or e-mail or call. They'd reach out. But what if they're thinking the same about me and refusing to reach out out of defensiveness? Let's be honest, though, they weren't the ones getting hurt. If anyone should be defensive, it's me, but I'd be willing to reach out...except...fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... The burned child fears the flame. What excuse does the unburned child have?

It dawned on me recently: I need (or want) them to reach out, genuinely, sincerely, selflessly, vulnerably. I just don't care to put myself back in the position I was in which led to the need for "space" in the first place, and contacting them is, by definition, putting myself back into that place. Especially when the other person has contacted me unexpectedly only when they had something about themselves to tell me about before suddenly running out of time, or they texted me until I texted back, then never replied, as if they just had to prove they still had the upper hand and could make me reply without needing to reply back to me. And I don't play those kinds of games. I walk away from them very shortly: I have no patience for them.

Sometimes I wonder, "But what if they just need to know that you're open to hearing from them, that you're over it (or getting over it) and do care about them, so they don't go away thinking you simply don't care?" And then I remember, "That's not what they were doing before, and it's probably not what they're doing now. If they really care, if they really want contact with you, they'll initiate it. Even if they think you're upset, if they're too immature to make themselves vulnerable by reaching out when they fear you might not return it, then they are proving exactly the traits which led to your 'break-up' in the first place, and nothing has changed." So I shrug in resignation and give myself a quick, reassuring nod to affirm my confidence, and move on to something else, wondering if I'll ever figure it out.

An Amicable Break-Up

OK, so it's another misleading blog entry title. I was just reading the blog entry of a man who refers to himself as "disaffected" from the Church, and I thought, "I don't think of myself that way. I just...don't know that I believe any of the doctrines anymore. I still espouse most of what I regard as the underlying principles, and even most of the standards of behavior, but the doctrines and institution don't mean much to me. I don't see it as 'disaffected', with the somewhat dejected connotation it carries."

My parting with the church hasn't been a messy divorce, a disillusioned drama-fest, or a nasty fight from which we just never recovered. It's been more like a marriage that fizzled over a long span of time, and we woke up one day and said, "You know, it's probably time we just separate and spend some time apart to find out what we really want," and though there's been no official divorce, and there's no particular malice or anger, there's also no real desire to get back together. The relationship just...doesn't seem to be what we used to think it was. It was OK when it started, and it was actually really good for a few years, and we made it through some rough times together, but staying together at this point doesn't seem to be helping anyone. It's probably only delaying what may be inevitable, and we're just going to be holding each other back (don't give me the line about "no unhallowed hand"--I'm referring to my interactions with individuals at the personal and ward levels, not holding back the entire mission of God's kingdom on earth), so it's best to part ways now before it gets even messier to start anew.

I think there's more to it than that (in other words, more besides the "emotional" aspect), but I'm not interested in defending my decision, not here and now. My point is that I don't really care to refer to myself as "disaffected" or "ex-Mormon" or "apostate" or "son of perdition" (thank goodness for missing out on that whole "calling and election made sure" thing) or "rescued from the clutches of Mormondom". I just say I'm from an LDS background. Rather than an ugly divorce where I see her through a bitter lens, or saving myself from an abusive relationship, or childishly refusing to speak after a nasty fight, I see it more as a natural, civil parting of ways with a quick hug and an "I'll see you around." That's not to say it's been an easy decision, or a painless one, or hasn't had its complexities and difficulties to deal with, but I've just not experienced it as a bitter break-up. It remains to be seen whether we will come back together with greater perspective to give it another go, or have permanently grown apart and may interact here and there but on a more distant, casual level than before, or whether the passage of time will set in forgetfulness of the good times and leave only tainted memories. But for now, we're old friends who just don't relate as much as we used to but maintain a civil acquaintance with some memories of strained times but mostly fond memories from when we were more on the same page. No, not disaffected: just no longer "together".

Why Does It Feel So Good?

There's so much about this question I have wanted to explore, but I'll stick to the short version for now. This time, this issue/question was jogged by reading a post on Dichotomy and commenting on it, though my question is from a non-married, slightly different perspective, stemming from that discussion but not meant to be directly applicable to his scenario.

I've asked myself, many times, why it is that an embrace from someone I feel chemistry with or just "clicked" with, who is a potential romantic interest (assuming we were both available or looking) by virtue of their being a gay male I find attractive, but have known for two months can feel so much more comforting and fulfilling than an embrace from someone who is not a potential romantic/sexual interest but has known me my whole life and has proven their love and commitment as a friend. What's with that? Isn't that backwards? Isn't it somehow juvenile? Is it my own emotional immaturity or search for fulfillment in all the wrong places? Is it totally normal? Should it be normal? It's certainly not rational. Stupid romance, attraction, and sexuality...maybe they'll make more sense to me someday.

On a very related note, why can the former hurt me so much more easily than the latter? Why do I open myself more to vulnerability with them? What does that say about my emotional health in relationships, or is that a normal human condition, to become vulnerable inordinately quickly where there's attraction, whether it be sexual and/or romantic and/or emotional? Shouldn't my long-term friends be more able to hurt me? Do I not give as much or invest enough in those friendships to feel emotionally at risk or vulnerable to be sliced asunder? Or are they truly able but choose not to, and that's why our friendship has lasted? Or have I been hurt, but our history attested to the fact that we were committed to our friendship through the rough times?

And how are some people seemingly immune to that? Have they just never opened up with someone enough to vulnerable? Have they never loved enough or cared enough or let down their guard or emotional walls enough? I think I used to be so guarded that I never "let anyone in" enough to lose the emotional upper hand in a friendship. But even when, in moments of pain, I wish I were as impervious as I once thought I was, I still would not go back to how I was in order to gain that protective shielding.

But I still imagine I have plenty to learn about real intimacy, earned vulnerability, deliberate commitment...and with that, ladies and gentlemen, I've decided it is way too late for me to be blogging. It might end up a rambling mess so long nobody will ever read it.

...shut up, Max, no my posts are not all like that. Gosh.