You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
25 reviews for:
Me, Myself, and Us: The Science of Personality and the Art of Well-Being
Brian Little
3.74 AVERAGE
25 reviews for:
Me, Myself, and Us: The Science of Personality and the Art of Well-Being
Brian Little
3.74 AVERAGE
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
I appreciate the glimpses of Little's dry, professorial humour, but overall this book is too much academic-speak and not written enough for a general audience. I also found it more an overview of the research between personality and well-being than some practical application for what that research may mean for my life.
I'm a reluctant convert to personality theory. This book won me over.
I began this book rather skeptical that personality was still relevant as a psychological construct. And for good reason. The personality construct (as we traditionally understand it) has been under assault from all directions for the past several decades or more.
Social psychology demonstrates that people's thoughts, feelings, behavior and even perceptions are largely mutable depending on the social and cultural context.
Environmental psychology demonstrates that environmental factors such as the organization and design of public spaces exert analogous effects on our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and behavior.
Neuroscience indicates that the "mind" is an emergent property of the brain, and that brain structure and function is subject to ongoing use dependent change (neuroplasticity) occurring throughout the lifespan.
These (and many other) findings, taken as a whole erode the notion of personality as fixed "thing" originating exclusively from within the individual and alternatively engender a view of the self as a context dependent, dynamic process.
I hardly ever refer to personality in my clinical work or personal life. In fact I steer as clear of characterological explanations for behavior as possible.
I prefer instead to explain behavior as an outcome of species typical evolutionarily conditioned biological factors, shaped by the individual's learning history and occurring within a particular social, cultural and environmental context.
So where does that leave the idea that people have these (ghost in the machine) immutable qualities we call personality. The very notion seems rather antiquated and naïve. Is it time to trash the whole notion of personality and start over. Or is there anything in there that we can salvage.
Me Myself and Us does a more than respectable job of plucking personality from the dumpster by hipping the reader to what's happening now in the world of contemporary personality psychology.
Additionally Me Myself and Us is chock-a-block full of groovy as hell shorthand abstractions (cognitive tools) useful for deciphering the otherwise mysterious dealings of persons of the human variety.
Contemporary personality psychology abandons the Jungian notion of fixed personality types, in favor a system of dynamic personality traits.
These traits tend to be fairly stable (on average) across the life span, but they are also quite flexible and can be adapted to the demands of the situation.
THREE SOURCES OF PERSONALITY:
The author cites three sources of personality traits: 1.biogenic, referring to the aspects of our personality best accounted for by (innate) biological factors, 2. sociogenic, referring to the aspects of our personality best accounted for by (learned) social and cultural factors, and 3. idojenic, referring to the aspects of our personality best accounted for by (idiosyncratic) individual factors such as personal values, goals, projects and commitments.
Number 3 (idojenic) is not as self explanatory as 1 and 2, so I will take a moment to explain.
An example of an idojenic (free) personality trait would be an introvert who projects an extroverted self image as an aspect of a job requirement e.g. an actor or club promoter.
For instance, I'm an introvert and a university lecturer, this means that I have to get in front of large crowds of easily board young people and talk about psychology. If I were monotone and cerebral, it would put my students to sleep. I have had to learn how to be lively and even (at times) entertaining. According to Dr. Little, I'm a pseudo extrovert when I am in front of my students.
My students are often surprised to hear that I'm an introvert. But I am. I have simply adapted my personality to meet the demands of the situation. People do it all the time. Think nerdy, cerebral Al Gore. Not exactly a natural public speaker, yet he rocks a slide show like it ain't no ones business.
The term counterdispositional behavior, refers to times when people behave "out of character" or counter to their typical disposition. My idojenic pseudo extroversion behavior is an example of counterdispositional behavior.
Of course there is more to contemporary personality theory than introversion/extraversion.
THE BIG FIVE:
The five-factor model (FFM) divides personality into the following five broad domains; 1. openness to novelty 2. conscientiousness regarding personal commitments and the feelings and welfare of others 3. extraversion referring to an individual's level of gregariousness 4. agreeableness referring to an individual's level of assholishness and 5. neuroticism referring to an individual's baseline anxiety, worry, fear ect.
SELF MONITORING:
High Self Monitoring (HSM) vs Low Self Monitoring (LSM) refers to the individual's trait sensitivity and responsiveness to social factors.
HSM and often behave in a manner that is highly responsive to social cues and their situational context. Conversely LSM tend to exhibit behavior that is congruent with their own beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions regardless of social circumstance.
Each self monitoring style has its up and down side: LSM's can be unconscious and boorish, while HSM's are more likely to be all sensitive (in the good way) to the needs and perspectives of others. However, LSM's are not afraid of healthy conflict, while HSM's are apt to avoid conflict at all costs.
LOCUS OF CONTROL:
locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe are in control of the events affecting them. A persons locus (location) of control is conceptualized as either internal (the person believes they are primarily in control of their life course) or external (meaning they believe their life course is primarily controlled by external factors which they cannot influence).
Individuals with an internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving test results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with an external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the test.
White conservative American men tend to have internal locus of control, viewing the mythical rugged individual as the lone architects of their own destiny (e.g. Tea Party). Where as white liberal American men tend to have an external locus of control blaming everyone and everything (except themselves) for their (patchouly stinkin, drum circling, pot smelling) lot in life (e.g. Occupy Wall Street).
TYPE A and B PERSONALITY:
Of course no book on personality would be complete without reviewing type A and B personality theory. The theory describes two contrasting personality types (type A and B) and their relationship to the likelihood of developing coronary heart disease.
Type A
The theory describes "Type A" individuals as ambitious, rigidly organized, highly status-conscious, sensitive, impatient, take on more than they can handle, want other people to get to the point, anxious, proactive, and concerned with time management. People with Type A personalities are often high-achieving "workaholics" who multi-task, push themselves with deadlines, and hate both delays and ambivalence.
Type B
The theory describes "Type B" individuals generally live at a lower stress level and typically work steadily, enjoying achievement but not becoming stressed when they do not achieve. They may be creative and enjoy exploring ideas and concepts. They are often reflective.
As most of us are aware, type A run the higher risk of coronary heart disease. But few people understand precisely why this is the case.
High stress is often assumed to be the important factor. But it's not.
As it turns out, Type A behavior is expressed in three major symptoms: 1. free-floating hostility, 2. time urgency and impatience and (3) a competitive drive, which causes stress and an achievement-driven mentality.
Out of the three, hostility turns out to be the killer. And the reason why is absolutely fascinating.
Apparently there are two types of high blood pressure. Type 1 is brought about by increased heart rate. This type is not necessarily damaging. Type 2 is brought about by contraction of blood vessel diameter.
It turns out that the hormone oxytocin (the cuddle hormone), associated with bonding and relational connection, dilates the vascular system, decreasing the damaging effects of stress.
This lends credence to what we all already knew. That being in the company of supportive loved ones reduces the feelings of distress experienced in high stress situations.
High hostility folks tend to have lowered ability to reach out and feel connected with others and subsequently run a bit lower in the oxytocin department and are therefore high in the tic tic tic kaboom department too.
THE PERSON IN THE ENVIRONMENT:
One of the really fun and surprising parts of the book is the section on the intersection of personality psychology and environmental psychology. The interaction between environmental and personality factors is only lightly touched on. But it is so dang fascinating I wish Dr. Little would wright another book devoted to the subject.
There's much much more. But I don't want to spoil the whole book. So I strongly encourage you to get this thing if you're feeling even remotely sparked. I doubt you'll regret it.
WHY GIRLS LIKE FLOWERS:
About ten or so years ago I was working a blue color job. My boss picked a half rotten flower arrangement out of the trash, stuffed them in a cheesy vase that he stole from the job site, and sent me in a truck to give them to a girl he was wooing. On my way out he said "ask her not to chuck the vase when she's done with it, I want it back". What a douche right? He's actually a wonderful guy but that wasn't his best stuff.
Anyway.
On my way there I was feeling positively mortified. I had met the girl before and not only was she a knockout, she was classy to boot. I was sure she would recognize that the flowers were junk and toss them right back in my face in a kind of Cleopatra kills the messenger type of scene.
When I showed up with the trash flowers she absolutely light up. She loved them. And her girlfriends at work were swooning over them too. Wow. Really? That shit worked. Unbelievable.
When I returned, I asked my bros why they thought girls liked to get flowers so much. They all got really irritated. One of them angrily barked "they just do". Another impatiently added "it's because the flowers are like them". I got confused. "They like to get things that are like them" I retorted, "why in the world do they want that". I wasn't intentionally being difficult, it's just that the explanation didn't make sense to me. Another guy chimed in with the classic, "flowers just say I care". I said I already knew what 1-800-flowers had to say about the situation. But I wanted to know why girls actually liked getting flowers.
I never did figure out why girls like flowers so much. But I did realize that I had vastly different needs than my work buddies when it came to explaining and understanding human behavior. So I quit my job and began my formal studies in psychology. It was a really good move.
This book reminds me why I wanted to study psychology. It's just so darned satisfying when you finally get good explanations for human behavior, and as I mentioned earlier, this book is chockablock full of them.
I found that all of the shorthand abstractions in the book contributed quite a bit to my understanding of people and (more importantly) why (exactly) they do the crazy shit they do, and why they are the crazy way they are.
Five stars!!!!
I began this book rather skeptical that personality was still relevant as a psychological construct. And for good reason. The personality construct (as we traditionally understand it) has been under assault from all directions for the past several decades or more.
Social psychology demonstrates that people's thoughts, feelings, behavior and even perceptions are largely mutable depending on the social and cultural context.
Environmental psychology demonstrates that environmental factors such as the organization and design of public spaces exert analogous effects on our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and behavior.
Neuroscience indicates that the "mind" is an emergent property of the brain, and that brain structure and function is subject to ongoing use dependent change (neuroplasticity) occurring throughout the lifespan.
These (and many other) findings, taken as a whole erode the notion of personality as fixed "thing" originating exclusively from within the individual and alternatively engender a view of the self as a context dependent, dynamic process.
I hardly ever refer to personality in my clinical work or personal life. In fact I steer as clear of characterological explanations for behavior as possible.
I prefer instead to explain behavior as an outcome of species typical evolutionarily conditioned biological factors, shaped by the individual's learning history and occurring within a particular social, cultural and environmental context.
So where does that leave the idea that people have these (ghost in the machine) immutable qualities we call personality. The very notion seems rather antiquated and naïve. Is it time to trash the whole notion of personality and start over. Or is there anything in there that we can salvage.
Me Myself and Us does a more than respectable job of plucking personality from the dumpster by hipping the reader to what's happening now in the world of contemporary personality psychology.
Additionally Me Myself and Us is chock-a-block full of groovy as hell shorthand abstractions (cognitive tools) useful for deciphering the otherwise mysterious dealings of persons of the human variety.
Contemporary personality psychology abandons the Jungian notion of fixed personality types, in favor a system of dynamic personality traits.
These traits tend to be fairly stable (on average) across the life span, but they are also quite flexible and can be adapted to the demands of the situation.
THREE SOURCES OF PERSONALITY:
The author cites three sources of personality traits: 1.biogenic, referring to the aspects of our personality best accounted for by (innate) biological factors, 2. sociogenic, referring to the aspects of our personality best accounted for by (learned) social and cultural factors, and 3. idojenic, referring to the aspects of our personality best accounted for by (idiosyncratic) individual factors such as personal values, goals, projects and commitments.
Number 3 (idojenic) is not as self explanatory as 1 and 2, so I will take a moment to explain.
An example of an idojenic (free) personality trait would be an introvert who projects an extroverted self image as an aspect of a job requirement e.g. an actor or club promoter.
For instance, I'm an introvert and a university lecturer, this means that I have to get in front of large crowds of easily board young people and talk about psychology. If I were monotone and cerebral, it would put my students to sleep. I have had to learn how to be lively and even (at times) entertaining. According to Dr. Little, I'm a pseudo extrovert when I am in front of my students.
My students are often surprised to hear that I'm an introvert. But I am. I have simply adapted my personality to meet the demands of the situation. People do it all the time. Think nerdy, cerebral Al Gore. Not exactly a natural public speaker, yet he rocks a slide show like it ain't no ones business.
The term counterdispositional behavior, refers to times when people behave "out of character" or counter to their typical disposition. My idojenic pseudo extroversion behavior is an example of counterdispositional behavior.
Of course there is more to contemporary personality theory than introversion/extraversion.
THE BIG FIVE:
The five-factor model (FFM) divides personality into the following five broad domains; 1. openness to novelty 2. conscientiousness regarding personal commitments and the feelings and welfare of others 3. extraversion referring to an individual's level of gregariousness 4. agreeableness referring to an individual's level of assholishness and 5. neuroticism referring to an individual's baseline anxiety, worry, fear ect.
SELF MONITORING:
High Self Monitoring (HSM) vs Low Self Monitoring (LSM) refers to the individual's trait sensitivity and responsiveness to social factors.
HSM and often behave in a manner that is highly responsive to social cues and their situational context. Conversely LSM tend to exhibit behavior that is congruent with their own beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions regardless of social circumstance.
Each self monitoring style has its up and down side: LSM's can be unconscious and boorish, while HSM's are more likely to be all sensitive (in the good way) to the needs and perspectives of others. However, LSM's are not afraid of healthy conflict, while HSM's are apt to avoid conflict at all costs.
LOCUS OF CONTROL:
locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe are in control of the events affecting them. A persons locus (location) of control is conceptualized as either internal (the person believes they are primarily in control of their life course) or external (meaning they believe their life course is primarily controlled by external factors which they cannot influence).
Individuals with an internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving test results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with an external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the test.
White conservative American men tend to have internal locus of control, viewing the mythical rugged individual as the lone architects of their own destiny (e.g. Tea Party). Where as white liberal American men tend to have an external locus of control blaming everyone and everything (except themselves) for their (patchouly stinkin, drum circling, pot smelling) lot in life (e.g. Occupy Wall Street).
TYPE A and B PERSONALITY:
Of course no book on personality would be complete without reviewing type A and B personality theory. The theory describes two contrasting personality types (type A and B) and their relationship to the likelihood of developing coronary heart disease.
Type A
The theory describes "Type A" individuals as ambitious, rigidly organized, highly status-conscious, sensitive, impatient, take on more than they can handle, want other people to get to the point, anxious, proactive, and concerned with time management. People with Type A personalities are often high-achieving "workaholics" who multi-task, push themselves with deadlines, and hate both delays and ambivalence.
Type B
The theory describes "Type B" individuals generally live at a lower stress level and typically work steadily, enjoying achievement but not becoming stressed when they do not achieve. They may be creative and enjoy exploring ideas and concepts. They are often reflective.
As most of us are aware, type A run the higher risk of coronary heart disease. But few people understand precisely why this is the case.
High stress is often assumed to be the important factor. But it's not.
As it turns out, Type A behavior is expressed in three major symptoms: 1. free-floating hostility, 2. time urgency and impatience and (3) a competitive drive, which causes stress and an achievement-driven mentality.
Out of the three, hostility turns out to be the killer. And the reason why is absolutely fascinating.
Apparently there are two types of high blood pressure. Type 1 is brought about by increased heart rate. This type is not necessarily damaging. Type 2 is brought about by contraction of blood vessel diameter.
It turns out that the hormone oxytocin (the cuddle hormone), associated with bonding and relational connection, dilates the vascular system, decreasing the damaging effects of stress.
This lends credence to what we all already knew. That being in the company of supportive loved ones reduces the feelings of distress experienced in high stress situations.
High hostility folks tend to have lowered ability to reach out and feel connected with others and subsequently run a bit lower in the oxytocin department and are therefore high in the tic tic tic kaboom department too.
THE PERSON IN THE ENVIRONMENT:
One of the really fun and surprising parts of the book is the section on the intersection of personality psychology and environmental psychology. The interaction between environmental and personality factors is only lightly touched on. But it is so dang fascinating I wish Dr. Little would wright another book devoted to the subject.
There's much much more. But I don't want to spoil the whole book. So I strongly encourage you to get this thing if you're feeling even remotely sparked. I doubt you'll regret it.
WHY GIRLS LIKE FLOWERS:
About ten or so years ago I was working a blue color job. My boss picked a half rotten flower arrangement out of the trash, stuffed them in a cheesy vase that he stole from the job site, and sent me in a truck to give them to a girl he was wooing. On my way out he said "ask her not to chuck the vase when she's done with it, I want it back". What a douche right? He's actually a wonderful guy but that wasn't his best stuff.
Anyway.
On my way there I was feeling positively mortified. I had met the girl before and not only was she a knockout, she was classy to boot. I was sure she would recognize that the flowers were junk and toss them right back in my face in a kind of Cleopatra kills the messenger type of scene.
When I showed up with the trash flowers she absolutely light up. She loved them. And her girlfriends at work were swooning over them too. Wow. Really? That shit worked. Unbelievable.
When I returned, I asked my bros why they thought girls liked to get flowers so much. They all got really irritated. One of them angrily barked "they just do". Another impatiently added "it's because the flowers are like them". I got confused. "They like to get things that are like them" I retorted, "why in the world do they want that". I wasn't intentionally being difficult, it's just that the explanation didn't make sense to me. Another guy chimed in with the classic, "flowers just say I care". I said I already knew what 1-800-flowers had to say about the situation. But I wanted to know why girls actually liked getting flowers.
I never did figure out why girls like flowers so much. But I did realize that I had vastly different needs than my work buddies when it came to explaining and understanding human behavior. So I quit my job and began my formal studies in psychology. It was a really good move.
This book reminds me why I wanted to study psychology. It's just so darned satisfying when you finally get good explanations for human behavior, and as I mentioned earlier, this book is chockablock full of them.
I found that all of the shorthand abstractions in the book contributed quite a bit to my understanding of people and (more importantly) why (exactly) they do the crazy shit they do, and why they are the crazy way they are.
Five stars!!!!
A book about the big five personality traits and plus much more from one of the leading personality psychologists. He writes the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator is feel good, like a horoscope that will explain everything when you get the results. But the point of the book is not to trash the test but to shed light on stable personality traits and what they mean. The first point is there is no dualistic nature, meaning you are one or another. It is more like a scale, where you are not stuck. Life, circumstances, and all of those matters—that said openness, agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism are one of the more stable personality traits throughout life. And often, people are not at the extreme ends, in the middle is more typical. Plus, introversion and extroversion do seem to have a genetic disposition. A-type personality also has a saying how we act and react in situations. Someone with a hostile a-type personality has volatile tendencies, displaying anger and envy, but are hardworking and driven.
Understanding all these traits might help you know yourself and others. I'm well-versed with personality psychology because of my studies and books I have read, and the first ten pages speaking about the basics, I feared this book would have nothing to offer me, but it did. Brian Little knows how to write about personality from a personal perspective and taking into account studies done. But that is not all. It also showed how much I thought I knew and how much I actually knew—something I would have found hard to admit five years ago. Partly because I wasn't ready to face who I was and how I had to grow as a human being and where my tendencies came. Getting to know myself, my personality, my shortcomings, my insecurities, and understanding them has helped me and a lot. And MBTI is like this patch you carry around, more like an excuse rather than an explanation. Reading about control, impression management, creativity, cities, and self-monitoring (principled vs. pragmatic) can be beneficial when trying to figure out why we do what we do, when trying to understand why others act the way they do, and why there might be a conflict between you and someone else (or someone else and you.)
Even how helpful I find these things, I have a problem with labels and forgetting situations matter. When the questionnaires ask questions to define your level of, for example, agreeableness or conscientiousness, the circumstances seem static as if you would always act the same way. I have yet to meet a person who is consistent in every single situation despite the minor differing details. When someone is prone to a hostile a-type personality, their actions might not always be because of it, or when someone high impression management, they might sometimes be agreeable because of the circumstances. I find it harmful to label people, yes, it makes it easier to understand them, but people might be hurt or just absent-minded or something because they got bad news. We don't live in a vacuum. Gravity impacts us. Not that Brian Little says situations don't matter, he says the opposite, in fact and he admits the scales are suggestive and some of them accurate, but not simple and all explaining.
Altogether a brilliant book. I enjoyed reading it, and a lot. It helped clarify a lot of things I suspected, didn't know, and had to suffer through because of me, others, and the power dynamic between us. To criticize the shape of it, I felt the book stumbled towards the end. Some chapters felt empty and hurried, more like an opinion than based on research—still a great resource for life as a human being and a writer.
Thank you for reading and have splendid day <3
Understanding all these traits might help you know yourself and others. I'm well-versed with personality psychology because of my studies and books I have read, and the first ten pages speaking about the basics, I feared this book would have nothing to offer me, but it did. Brian Little knows how to write about personality from a personal perspective and taking into account studies done. But that is not all. It also showed how much I thought I knew and how much I actually knew—something I would have found hard to admit five years ago. Partly because I wasn't ready to face who I was and how I had to grow as a human being and where my tendencies came. Getting to know myself, my personality, my shortcomings, my insecurities, and understanding them has helped me and a lot. And MBTI is like this patch you carry around, more like an excuse rather than an explanation. Reading about control, impression management, creativity, cities, and self-monitoring (principled vs. pragmatic) can be beneficial when trying to figure out why we do what we do, when trying to understand why others act the way they do, and why there might be a conflict between you and someone else (or someone else and you.)
Even how helpful I find these things, I have a problem with labels and forgetting situations matter. When the questionnaires ask questions to define your level of, for example, agreeableness or conscientiousness, the circumstances seem static as if you would always act the same way. I have yet to meet a person who is consistent in every single situation despite the minor differing details. When someone is prone to a hostile a-type personality, their actions might not always be because of it, or when someone high impression management, they might sometimes be agreeable because of the circumstances. I find it harmful to label people, yes, it makes it easier to understand them, but people might be hurt or just absent-minded or something because they got bad news. We don't live in a vacuum. Gravity impacts us. Not that Brian Little says situations don't matter, he says the opposite, in fact and he admits the scales are suggestive and some of them accurate, but not simple and all explaining.
Altogether a brilliant book. I enjoyed reading it, and a lot. It helped clarify a lot of things I suspected, didn't know, and had to suffer through because of me, others, and the power dynamic between us. To criticize the shape of it, I felt the book stumbled towards the end. Some chapters felt empty and hurried, more like an opinion than based on research—still a great resource for life as a human being and a writer.
Thank you for reading and have splendid day <3
DNF - As much as I love a good non-fiction/science book, this one was not for me. The way it was written was rather dry, it felt more like a textbook than anything else.