Why You Shouldn't Get Your Personality Diagnosed [Waki-teki Shiko 12]
**My thoughts, which emerge and flow endlessly every day. I am delivering some of them as [Waki-teki Shiko (Emergent Thoughts)].**
The satisfaction of being categorized
Personality analysis often attempts to provide a sense of clarity by categorizing people into "Type XX" or "Type YY."
From blood type horoscopes, animal fortune-telling, or identifying which character you are—things that are little more than bar-talk with no evidence—to more serious methods like the Enneagram, Egogram, or the Big Five, which have some scientific basis, to paid personality tests (I won't name names because I don't want to get flamed), there is a wide range.
Certainly, knowing what "type" you are can feel refreshing.
And if it comes with a visual image, like animal fortune-telling, it feels even more satisfying.
There is a sense of accomplishment, like reaching a goal after answering many questions.
I want to talk about the unexpected pitfalls
of seeking personality analysis unplanned and randomly
just to get that temporary sense of clarity.
"Diagnosis" vs. "Medical Questionnaire"
Needless to say, a "diagnosis" isn't a diagnosis unless it provides an answer (a result).
For example, let's say you go to the hospital because you're feeling unwell.
The doctor asks you things like:
"How is your fever?" "Do you have a headache?" "Do you have an appetite?"
You answer:
"It's 37.5°C." "I don't have a headache." "I have an appetite."
Then, after the doctor scribbles something on your chart,
what if they said this with a grave face?
"I see. Your fever is 37.5°C and you don't seem to have much of an appetite, but you don't have a headache."
You don't want to hear that.
What you want is a line like this:
"It's just a cold. I'll give you some medicine."
That is a diagnosis.
If a personality test doesn't provide a result, it's just a street survey.
It's no different from being asked, "What shampoo do you usually use?"
No one is satisfied with just "Thank you for your cooperation."
That's why people seek out a diagnosis to get a result.
However, personality tests have a pitfall.
That is that they are created based on the premise that "personality can be diagnosed."
Can personality be diagnosed?
In the first place, like "stomach flu" or "diabetes,"
is personality something that can be diagnosed?
Do personalities like "Wolf Type" or "Martian Type" actually exist?
Are they things that can be clearly tested,
like "negative/positive" or blood types?
Of course, the answer is no.
Personality is not something that can be measured like height or annual income.
(In psychology, these "theoretical boxes created to make unmeasurable things measurable" are called constructs.)
For example, brightness or darkness of personality cannot be measured in units like lux, and
what one person thinks is bright, another might think is dark;
there are relative things like that.
(It seems that some parts, like introversion and extroversion, can be measured to some extent by brain waves and electrical signals, but even those are not clearly divided.)
Our personalities are not something that can be defined by a few "types."
They are a spectrum (something with continuity), like saying "you have this kind of tendency."
But the people taking the tests don't see it that way.
They want the clarity and refreshing feeling of an Akira Ikegami-style explanation, like "So that's what it was."
That's why they force things into 8 types or 16 types.
The fact that they choose a number that feels neat and tidy is already a sign of commercialism.
They don't divide them into awkward numbers like 11 or 17 types.
Moreover, while blood types never change, personality keeps changing.
If that's the case, putting you into a box like "Your personality is Type XX"
ignores that continuity.
By classifying and summarizing the complexity of your own personality
too neatly with a personality test,
aren't you cutting off some important, rare parts of yourself?
Aren't you underestimating the incredibly precise and original person that you are?
Behaving according to the diagnosis because you were diagnosed
Furthermore, I think the disadvantage of becoming fixated on the diagnosis results, causing your personality to solidify and your traits to be reinforced, is quite serious. In the famous "Stanford Prison Experiment," which was even made into a movie, there were cases where college students acted more like prisoners by playing the role of prisoners, and those playing guards acted more oppressively (Note: Since this is an old experiment, problems have been pointed out in subsequent research), and there is also research in Japan suggesting that for people with Type B blood, things like "self-fulfilling prophecies" actually affect things like turnover rates. In short, it means that because the diagnosis result says "You are a lonely lone-wolf type person," you start to believe it and end up acting even more like Vegeta.
Also, saying things like "I'm Type XX, so it can't be helped that I can't do this"
or "The reason I can't do this is because of my Type XX"
and using it as a scapegoat to avoid doing things you don't want to do, thinking in terms of causality, isn't very constructive, is it?
Considering the commercial aspect of personality tests
Personality tests are everywhere, from old ones to new ones,
including those with scientific evidence, pseudoscience, and the occult.
Diagnosis itself isn't a bad thing.
But the reason they keep popping up is because they are profitable.
It's not like philanthropists are doing this as charity work.
With that in mind, it's better to approach them with a bit of skepticism.
Just because you get a result doesn't mean anything changes. It doesn't do anything for you. It would be nice if it didn't just end at "This job is suitable for Type XX people,"
but also provided job information.
Even then, careers, qualifications, age, work experience, and physical constitution vary from person to person.
Even if you say, "A soba restaurant is suitable for Type XX, so I recommend that," it won't work for someone with a soba allergy.
Therefore, categorization only provides a temporary sense of relief.
If you want to pay for that sense of relief from the start, that's fine, though.
Actually, the process leading up to a diagnosis is more important than the result itself.
I think the 'questionnaire' is more significant.
In other words, the survey that asks, 'Are you this? → Yes.'
It is important to focus on symptoms like, 'My elbow starts to hurt before I go to sleep,' read into them deeply,
and then decide, 'Okay, let's do this to address it.'
In personality analysis, too, rather than easily seeking a diagnostic result, it is more effective to repeat the questioning process,
subjectively and objectively examining your own self-reports on 'what you like,' 'what you are bad at,' and 'what brings you joy and fun,'
which makes it easier to come up with concrete measures than just looking for a diagnostic result.
That is far more constructive than rigidly pigeonholing people by saying, 'This type belongs in this department,' 'This workplace is good for you,' or 'This profession suits you.'
If you want to know yourself, look at it from multiple angles.
The reason we take personality tests is because we want to know ourselves.
However, knowing yourself is not a simple task.
Even I still don't understand myself.
I've tried various things for 40 years to try and control myself, but
I've only just managed to grasp a tiny shred of a clue. I don't feel like I'll ever truly understand.
I am truly glad that when I was young, I didn't have the mobility or the travel funds to pack a backpack and go to India alone to find my 'true self'.
Why would I think I could find myself by going to India, when neither I nor my relatives have any Indian blood or roots?
It's not like it would be there, anyway.
I understand the idea that you can only know yourself by going out into the world. I agree with that.
But if you want to know yourself, rather than taking the risk of going to India,
I think a multi-faceted approach through introspection and dialogue, like the Johari Window,is more cost-effective.
Perhaps the reason the idea of 'wanting to know myself' leads to 'personality tests' is because it's the easiest way to skip the hassle of human relationships.
You can just take it and leave it at that; it's a hands-off approach.
But ultimately, I believe that dialogue and self-disclosure with people close to you is the shortest path to knowing yourself.
Instead of thinking you understand yourself based solely on a diagnosis made by a doctor or counselor who doesn't know you, based on a questionnaire you submitted at a first meeting,
you should analyze yourself, exchange insights with family, friends, and colleagues,
and through that, you will understand your true 'strengths,' 'weaknesses,' 'role,' and 'mission.'
You can just ask, 'What am I good at?' or 'What do you think I could improve on?'
It is better for society to discuss things concretely, like 'In that case, I'll do the dishes' or 'I think I'd be more productive in administration than in sales.'
By the way, there is no such disease as a 'cold'; it seems that anything that feels like a cold but can't be specifically diagnosed is just lumped in as a cold.
If it's not influenza or COVID, it's more convenient to just group it as a cold for the sake of simplicity.
To put it bluntly, perhaps it's best to treat personality tests as something just as vague as that.
https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4150504210/