Everybody's Wrong But Me

I have received numerous requests to translate this article, originally published in French in L’Express du Pacifique in December 2009.  So, here it is…

Respect of personality types: the next challenge of human rights?

There are as many personality types as there are people in this world. This richness is a remarkable asset for humanity. However, as we all have strengths and weaknesses, could it be possible that some social practices specifically prejudice certain types of individuals?

Human Rights have seen amazing progresses in the last few centuries. From the abolition of slavery, to women’s right to vote and the legalization of same-sex marriage, Human Rights tend to protect more and more people. These developments have allowed many individuals to contribute significantly to the society in which they live. However, beyond this statement, the gradual disappearance of discriminations has another advantage. The diversity generated from these rights, brings huge advantages to organizations, communities and nations that practice the respectful integration of differences.

However, as many forms of discrimination are no longer tolerated, there is one area where they are not only common, but probably on the rise: discriminations based on personality types.

Anyone who lives in a big family surely noted that, despite sharing many similarities with their siblings, there are key differences that appear early in childhood. For example, there is the shy brother who does not speak much, the sister who always cries before bath time, etc. In other words, we all have different personalities, with our strengths and our flaws. One could almost argue that life is about developing our talents and accepting our weaknesses. But that is another topic altogether.

Personality tests often help understanding ourselves and are generally good guides when choosing a profession for example. However, their usage can sometimes be inappropriate. For instance, many companies use them to select the right candidates for specific jobs. This practice is legitimized by the need to have a cohesive working environment. However, one danger arising from such practice is the emergence of “groupthink”. This occurs when different members of an organization have the same concerns, values and priorities. Often, the same methods are used, resulting with the same conclusions, and implementing the same solutions to a problem. The danger when “groupthink” occurs is that often the same mistakes are repeated.

A study, The Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, published a few months after the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003, severely criticized NASA for maintaining and even fostering a “groupthink” environment. In this case, too few engineers were in executive positions, generally filled up by managers coming from business schools. This contributed to a lack of technical discussions at management level that resulted in accumulation of errors, which killed seven astronauts and delayed significantly the U.S. space program.

The survival of the human species?

In her book, The Highly Sensitive Person (Broadway Book, 1996), Elaine Aron explains that any human society is composed of two types of individuals. The “Warrior-Kings” are risk-takers, tend to be aggressive and enable society to expand. The “Royal-Advisors” are cautious, reserved, and make sure society survives. Beyond their differences, the survival of any group depends on the cooperation between these two types of individuals. Any business, government, or neighbourhood association, etc. needs both types to survive. If not, major dysfunction occurs.

According to the author, the “Royal-Advisors” have lost influence over the “Warrior-Kings” in the last fifty years. This is because the society in which we live promotes high production in stressful environments, and gives little emphasis on reflection. In an article by Josée Blanchette in Le Devoir on October 16, 2009 on the same subject, the latter wrote: “We want compassionate doctors but, above all, they must be able to complete a consultation in five minutes. This leads to a shortage of more sensitive doctors, nurses and teachers.”

Many people are therefore victims of a subtle discrimination that even seems justified. Some practices or work environments often prevent more perceptive and insightful people to develop their capacities. The contrary is also probably true, which could explains why there are as few compassionate doctors as there are organized artists! The first step to resolve these injustices is of course to realize that such discriminations exist in the first place. If some factors affect negatively certain people, then the losers are not only those individuals, but everyone who could benefit from their contribution to society.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

This entry was posted on Friday, May 14th, 2010 at 21:56 and is filed under Society.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.