What's Your Personality Type?

     This week I've decided to write my blog on the "Five-Factor Model"; which, basically, is five distinct types of personalities that someone may have when they are in mid-adulthood. These "Big Five" traits were due to the efforts of Paul Costa Jr. and Robert McCrae and include the following:

• Neuroticism: A person high in this dimension tends to be anxious, hostile, self-conscious, impulsive, vulnerable, and depressed. This type of person would likely have difficulties getting along with others and show violent tendencies. People low in this aspect would be calm, self-content, unemotional, etc...
• Extraversion: A person who is high in this dimension tends to be talkative, outgoing, easily expresses feelings and emotions, active, have lots of energy, and love to be challenged. This type of person would likely choose a job with humanitarian goals (social worker, nurse, doctor, etc...). People low in this aspect tend to be quite, passive, serious, and emotionally nonreactive.
• Openness to Experience: A person high in this dimension tends to have a vivid imagination, appreciative of art, and always want to try something at least once. These people are naturally curious and make decisions based on different factors instead of rules that are set in stone. People low in this field tend to be down-to-earth, uncreative, and conventional.
• Agreeableness: A person high in this type of dimension tends to be accepting, likes to work with others, and caring. A person who is low in this field tend to be ruthless, stingy, and irritable.
• Conscientiousness: A person who is high in this type of dimension is said to be hard-working, ambitious, energetic, and preserving. These people have a strong desire to make something of themselves. A person low on this spectrum is said to be negligent, disorganized, aimless, and non persistent.

      Something I really liked reading in this section was about the stability of these traits throughout adulthood. I found it weird that some found these traits to be set in stone, that they stop changing and progressing after the age of 30. And, in contrast to that, new evidence is being shown that these personality traits do, in fact, change over a 30 to 40 year period. They are doing more and more studies on this theory, and are beginning to see that neuroticism tends to increase throughout life, and extraversion tends to steadily decline as we grow older (Oh, the joys of adulthood). I found that this kind of made sense a little though. I mean, as we grow older more and more stress is added to our daily lives. We start out bubbly, full of energy, and just happy-go-lucky everyday, and as life hits us head on everyday (especially if we choose a harder, more demanding type of lifestyle) we become almost bitter to a lot of things we use to enjoy as younger adults.

     I feel like, when I was reading these, I couldn't place exactly which category I would fit under. I wanted to grab a little from every category and make my own personality dimension... Something along the lines of an "Extra-agreeable-open-scientiousness" (Ya, that sounds scientific). I guess it is just difficult for me to see exactly where my strong suits are, and what doesn't quite describe me. I am really curious, outgoing, sometimes impulsive, pretty imaginative, caring, love to be challenged, and I tend to work really hard and be ambitious. So, that being said, I am making my own personality category (feel free to join) :)

Thanks for reading!

Keisha

Why Can't We Be Friends? :)

     This week I've decided to do my blog on friendships in adulthood. I chose this topic mainly because everyone has their own definition and idea of what a friend should be and who they picture to be a "perfect" friend; and even why they choose their friends the way they do.

     Friendships are said to develop in specific stages called the "ABCDE model". This ABCDE model stands for Acquaintanceship, Buildup, Continuation, Deterioration, and Ending. This sequence is not only the way that friendships are built, but also how they change.

     There are basically three expansive themes that govern friendships as adults:

• Affect/Emotional Basis: This aspect is refers to self-disclosure and expressions of things like appreciation, affection, and support and is all based on trust, loyalty, and commitment.
• Shared/Communal Nature: This aspect has to do with the specific way that friends participate, or support, each other in activities which they both enjoy.
• Sociability/Compatibility: This aspect is basically the way in which friends have fun, and enjoy each others company. This can include them being sources of amusement, fun, and recreational partners 

     I found this whole section to be really interesting to read. The part that really got me was the section about how men and women base their friendships. Women tend to base their friendships on emotional and intimate sharing (being able to confide in each other) whereas men tend to base their friendships on sharing activities of interest. When men tend to spend time together they are mainly basing their time on some activity which competition is involved and friendship is based off of that.

     I laughed a little at this (OK, a lot) mainly because it seems so true. Men are constantly (in my opinion) in some sort of "challenge" with one another when girls are off talking and sharing with each other. Not to be stereotypical, but you have to admit, you've seen this a few times before :) Although, in contrast to that, I know a few girls who can constantly suck you into some sort of competition with them and are totally not the "sharing" type, or run their friendships off of emotional aspects. I guess it all just depends on the person. Like it said in the book, men have to live up to the social pressure of being "brave and strong" while women are mainly pushed to gossip and share their feelings with each other.

     I think I can relate to this section because I have a few friends who don't really match up to "my style of friends", or what the book says is the reason, or steps, that we became friends. Some of them I met right off the bat and we were automatically close, others it took about 2 years to really become close to them and open up. I think it all just depends on what you, as a person, are looking for at that particular time in your life. Everyone has different aspects they look for in close friends they choose and the people they pick to be around. I feel like saying friendships have to happen in a specific sequence is like saying everyone falls in love at the same time, or they are move in together at exactly 6 months... Just seems like a really hard thing to categorize as the only way things can happen.

     Anyways, this whole section was fun to read and I definitely learned a lot about how relationships build up and what the potential outcome of most relationships is.

Thanks for reading!

-Keisha
  

Who am I?

     I decided this week to do my Reflection Blog on how adolescents search for their identity. I found this section of reading to be really interesting and full of fun tid-bits of information. It was fun for me to read this and look back at how I developed into he person I am today, and also look into my sons future as an adolescent and kind of guess at how he would be growing up.

     There are 4 phases that teens are said to go through in order to search for their identities; these do not necessarily happen in a sequential order:

• Diffusion: He/She is overwhelmed by having to find an identity and doesn't accomplish the "burden".
• Foreclosure: He/She has an identity that is determined by adults and not by them exploring it personally.
• Moratorium: He/She is analyzing different identities but has not found one that they find to be sufficient.
• Achievement: He/She has investigated alternative identities and has chosen one he/she finds acceptable.

(Most young teens are in either a state of Diffusion or Foreclosure)

    
     I found this section to be interesting because I like that young adults go through a "trial and error" kind of mentality to find what best works for them. In the book it states that most of the identity testing is done through exploration into career paths. It makes sense if you think about it, mainly because most children are envisioning what they will be like when they get older; Rock star, doctor, professional football player, or even a stay-at-home mom. I also found the "Foreclosure" phase to be an interesting one to think about. Pressure by adults on what they want their teens to be like as they grow older is something that I don't honestly believe in. It's really all about letting you child grow and learn on their own; exploring new concepts is a pretty major part in becoming an adult and to strip them of that and impel them to what you want is something I don't see working out so well in the long run.

     I can relate to this section of reading because I want my child to be able to grow up to be the man he wants to be. Of course, I want to help him with his "personality exploration" but only when he feels he needs to ask for advice on the subject. I think I will encounter a few times when I will want to persuade him to be what I would like, but I kind of just have to keep that in check and allow him to be what he wants... as long as it isn't some sort of criminal :) Anyways, when I was growing up my parents were pretty big "pushers" with my siblings and I. They definitely wanted us to take the college route and grow to be lawyers, doctors, or police officers. The good thing about them though, is that they only pushed so far, which I find to be beneficial; a little pushing, but nothing extreme.

     Anyways, I really liked this chapter to be able to relate my growing-up experiences and to look forward to watching my son hit these milestones :)

Thanks for reading!

-Keisha


    

Parenting or Friending

     This week I've decided to do my Reflection Blog on the different "Parenting Styles". Since I am a mother of a 5 year old myself, this is something that I definitely wanted to dive a little further into. Also, the whole TV part in the book was really interesting for me too, and I might bring a little of that up later :)

     There are said to be 4 different styles of parenting:

• Authoritarian Parenting: This style of parenting is a unhealthy mix of high control and little warmth. These kind of parents lay down a lot of rules and expect them to be followed with no back-talk or attitude.
• Authoritative Parenting: This style of parenting is a healthy mix of moderate control and warmth. These parents are responsive and they encourage children to talk about their feelings, and, in return, are open to why they say no to certain things.
• Permissive Parenting: This style of parenting is more of the friend style. They are often warm and caring but show little control over what their children do. They often do not punish their children and just accept what they do.
• Uninvolved Parenting: This, in my opinion, is really not even a "parenting" style. These kinds of parents are rarely warm nor controlling in what their children do. They often see that what their child does is unimportant compared to what they are doing and are emotionally uninvolved.

     One of the things I found most interesting in this chapter was that parents, in the United States, with a lower socioeconomic status, tend to be more controlling over their children and lean more towards the authoritarian style of parenting than those with a higher socioeconomic standing. I guess it would make sense since most parents who are lower in socioeconomic standings are considered to be less educated, thus making it harder for them to realize what they should be doing or seeing how children grow in a child-friendly approach.

     I can relate to this section because I have a small child who I intend to raise with good morals and teach him the difference between right and wrong. I feel that I am more of a "Authoritative" parent. I  really think of most things as a learning experience for my son, and try and be as accommodating of that as possible. Now, do I let him run ramped all over the house on a course of destruction and just peg it as a "learning experience"? Uh, no :) But I am a lot more at ease when I am speaking to him and trying to get him to understand why I don't want him doing what he is doing. In my opinion, telling a child to "knock it off" or "stop doing that" is only going to get you so far since he/she won't understand why they are not suppose to be doing what they are doing in the first place... which will kind of just make it a neverending circle.

     Oh, right, the TV part :) Am I the only one who had parents who said to get outside if it wasn't raining? I just don't understand why parents nowadays are sticking their children in front of TV's all day when they should be out teaching them things, or letting them explore the REAL world on their own. Actually, I take that back. I do know why parents decide to designate the TV as the babysitter, because it's easy. But really, so is coloring, or reading, or letting them go in the yard with a magnifying glass or basketball.... I just really don't see what justice parents think they are doing by allowing their children to sit in front of the TV all day.... And that's my rant :)

     All and all, I found this chapter to be enlightening. The parenting styles was interesting to read about, and the TV part was kind of a common sense reality check.

     Thanks for reading!

-Keisha