Personality Types

Day and Night
by Neal R. Karski

As I am a big fanatic of the psychological realm, I decided to write a short piece in which I would compare the two sides of the personality spectrum. Most of my knowledge about this particular field comes from self education, books and personal experiences; the latter which really inspired me to talk about the Type A and Type B classifications. Personally, I find it quite intriguing and at times miraculous how divergent from each other these specific types can become. I happen to fall into the A category: hyperactive, dynamic, “go-go” (seriously), yet my brother, whose personality resembles the passive and introspective model, quite often may be just the exact polar opposite of me (seriously, again).

Thus, I will attempt to portray both personality types in a manner I find suitable for both myself and the readers.

TYPE A

Have you ever found yourself rushing, pacing and sometimes losing focus? But then, that sometimes would transform into a daily occurrence and embark itself as part of your lifestyle – of who you are. Restless, busy, occupied, dynamic, curious. These are just a few adjectives describing the type to which you could relate to. Have you woken up one morning and felt like there was so much in life to explore, to learn, to talk about? But then, there were never enough hours in a day for that, and there were not enough accessible means of transportation to all the places you wanted to see, and you were not satisfying your curiosity cravings up to your par. Type As are hungry for life. They are hunters for thought, idea, entertainment or results. They reject the status quo and wish to progress at a fast, sometimes inconceivable pace. The everlasting driving force keeps them out of their homes, desiring to socialize with others, and interact in many countless activities that can be difficult to manage.

TYPE B

If Type A is the day, then what is Type B? Night! Yes, you’ve guessed correctly. Although the scale on which I’m making this contrast may not present such a drastic differential, frequently it’s a close call. Type Bs tend to be like night… calmer, more peaceful, situated, quieter, still (you get the point), but their introspection allows them to explore individual issues on a deeper level. Relatively, it also directs their attention to a particular task or idea, rather than splitting their stream of consciousness into a multi-dimensional wave of thoughts. Have you ever found yourself acceptant of your current financial, social, occupational, or academic situation? And change wasn’t necessary. Have you ever found yourself comfortable with a small circle of friends rather than being concerned about a popularity trend? And those friends were simply enough. Type Bs like to conduct their lives at a slower pace, and in their own ways. They are lurkers of the quiet sphere; explorers of their own emotions, tied to artistic interests or specific hobbies, unwilling to take a huge leap or make a substantial difference… and usually quite amicable.

Relationships and Dating in the US

The Game
by Neal R. Karski

The subject of relationships in the United States is one that I find very interesting and worth exploring in depth. Having lived in Europe, in the Southeastern and Midwestern parts of the US, I happened to acquire a lot of knowledge about the way in which social associations develop and fall apart. This knowledge was derived from a variety of unique experiences of my own and others in my surroundings, as well as the keen observations I’ve managed to store and ponder in my mind.

Let’s begin.

Relationships, whether it be a commitment between a girlfriend and a boyfriend or a friendship between two people, are what I like to call The Game. The Game implies that the process of dating [which used to be referred to as “courting”] has now become much more complex and at times perplexing for either or both parties involved. The simplicity-and-value ridden system of rules that guides the couples in their endeavors exerts a very unstable groundwork. *Think of the quote by Vince Vaughn in Wedding Crashers about dating. Social media certainly doesn’t make it any less difficult to maintain good relations with a friend or a significant other. Every day, we’re exposed to stories, movies and TV shows that display unfruitful relationships and compulsive issues that can impact our perception and even diminish hope.

Originally, I planned to compare the situation of the matter which I’m addressing in terms of the United States and Europe, but I will postpone this analysis in a form of a future post.

The Game is my own personal theory and does not constitute for the views of anyone but mine. Therefore, imagine yourself on a date with a beautiful or handsome person that you are pursuing. Great locations and meal choices, interesting and ongoing conversation, plus there is a positive tension. Now, be careful – Red Tape [or more closely known as Bureaucracy] kicks in when you haven’t realized it. Multiple complications arise at different corners, you or the other person is not capable of accepting something they do not approve of, this is going too fast, feelings, physical attraction, should I impress him [or her], where will this connection go, am I ready? Houston, we have a problem – the field of gravity is a bit “shaky.” Now, instead of pinpointing the significant values of the potential or existing relationship, we’re focused on what can be possibly wrong? Disvalues, not values, play the major role in this movie.

And we see that not every casual dating couple ends up together. Not every relationship [by all means] is a fairy tale we see in the movies – the good ‘ole “Hey-Climax-Rough Times-Love” kind of event flow. Pause for a second and think… Maybe we, ourselves, make dating and the relationships we have to complex and over think the meaning behind why we are here with this person and not another. Who knows… for some this way may be preferable.

Today’s Reality: Game Over.

The Realm of Romance
by George A. Miu

Everyone is looking for that special someone. Even after finding a good enough partner for the long haul, we continually assess and reassess one another in terms of compatibility, emotional security, physical attraction factors and a plethora of other categories.

In the USA, as far as I can tell, there are two major stages in this process: that of dating (i.e. being on the lookout for a romantic partner) and that of marriage/life partnerships (i.e. making the commitment to be with someone for the rest of one’s life, barring certain circumstances). Various individuals progress through these at various points at different speeds, or maybe even not at all. The important thing is that we have carefully defined social patterns that indicate, both to ourselves and to our significant others, certain levels of development in a relationship. For example, it is considered taboo to talk about, say, children’s names, on a first date.

What distinguishes modern times from ages past, however, is that the average childbearing age has risen by almost six years over the past three decades. This trend affects our romantic endeavors, as progressively fewer people are prepared to start families at young ages, thus lengthening the dating stage in the above process. In theory, this should mean that there are fewer divorces, since the maturity levels increase at the time of marriage. Yet, this is clearly not so, seeing as the divorce rate revolves around the 50 percent mark in the USA.

We can conclude that something is broken in the realm of romance. The way I see it, the major culprit is the modern job competitiveness. Most people have to go to college to make a good living, and that is no easy feat. It puts off having a family until at least 22-23 years of age. I mean, they call it a Bachelor’s Degree for a reason, people. Furthermore, the instability that follows graduation creates an unsuitable environment for a young family.

Women, too, are a resurgent and critical force in these times. Increasing numbers are postponing motherhood in order to pursue careers – and who can blame them? So, by the time we are ripe for matrimony, the social and economic stress levels are so high that disagreements are liable to take place between spouses, leading to our elevated divorce rates.

Don’t get me wrong: I’d be chuffed to the bollocks if everything could revert back to the old-fashioned ideal American family. But doing so would be causing a great disservice to our economy, to women and, ultimately, to our free will to pursue whatever we so choose. There is no quick fix to whatever is broken in the romantic world. It’s simply a necessary consequence of the times.

Linguistics in America

Today, we feature just one article, written by George A. Miu, who possesses a wide range of knowledge specifically related to the topic. Enjoy.

The Fluency Problem in Our Schools, and a Proposed Solution
by George A. Miu

I have been very fortunate in life; I have been thrown into long-term situations that necessitated speedy assimilation of a given language: first, it was English, then Arabic, and then French. My native Romanian tongue, also, has had to be employed at various times. I will not go so far as to say that I am fluent in all four, but I have a passable understanding of the spoken language first and foremost.

Upon arriving in the US, I enrolled in French classes at my high school, and found that I was more advanced than the rest of my class. This was not because of some amazing talent I had for the language, but rather because of the way in which it was taught to me. I was, intellectually speaking, no more advanced than any of my classmates; yet, I found the course we were all enrolled in to be rather trivial.

I often reflect upon these times, and my thought has yielded fruit! America suffers from what I like to call a “fluency problem”. All of my colleagues in the aforementioned high school class had approximately the same reading and writing skills. However, they lacked the necessary comfort in actually speaking French. This is because, from the onset of their education, they were taught to conjugate verbs and memorize sometimes-absurd lists of words. Our classes were always split into four sections: reading, writing, listening and speaking, with an emphasis on the first two.

This is unique to the United States. In my British school, all language courses were focused on acquiring fluency in speaking first, and then in writing and reading. Of course, if one looks at ordinary human development, we learn to speak in sentences long before we can write them or read them. I believe that it is advantageous to employ the same sort of pedagogical philosophy in approaching second and third languages, too. In my experience, a five-minute oral exam does more for my vocabulary and understanding of the language than a fifty minute written exam.

I propose that the approach to foreign languages in our schools be changed to incorporate a greater focus on speaking and listening, rather than reading and writing. In this way, for example, a two-year student of a given language can commence writing the sentences they already speak in and subsequently learn the nuances at an accelerated pace.

We live in a multi-lingual environment, both here and abroad. If we can write our requests better than we can speak them, solving problems becomes a theoretical task done on paper. Since this is not the way of the world, I suggest that we develop a system whereby human tendencies are given higher regard.

Only when this is done will Americans be regarded as more than uni-lingual creatures, forever stranded when abroad.