"self-monitoring" In Religious Life?

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Of course some personality types will have a more difficult time than others in community life, but that's not to say it's not God's will or that it's impossible. :)

[Cherie]

“Self-monitoring” is a personality concept with two types: high self-monitors (HSMs) and low self-monitors (LSMs). High self-monitors are commonly called “the chameleons of the social world”. They change their behavior to fit the social situation. They tend to be very concerned with “impression management”. They tend to have very large social networks that are diverse and constantly changing/growing. They typically keep separate groups of friends for separate activities/interests. Because they are so socially adaptable, HSMs tend to be relatively successful. Most politicians, upper-level managers, etc., are HSMs.

 

I must say, though, I question the accuracy of this test. I scored a high HSM, but that description doesn't fit me at all.

 

I don't mean for this to sound "Debbie downer," but I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to use these kinds of personality tests in relation to figuring out tendencies in those with religious vocations, aside from simple curiosity, or to help a person figure out and work on his/her strengths and weaknesses. God calls ALL personality types to religious life; just because a certain type may be more inclined towards religious vocations (I'm thinking INFJs in the MBPI, for example) doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a person is ACTUALLY called. Just because you're a certain type doesn't mean you have a vocation, or that if you do it will necessarily be easy for you, or that you're better than a type that isn't generally so much inclined toward religious vocations, and so on. In my former community, there were women of ALL types, even those on complete opposite ends of the spectrum, and some of those whose personality type should have made it "easier" actually found it very difficult. Some of the Sisters' personalities clashed with my own, but that's the beauty of the life...God chose me, at that point in time, to be in a religious family with many whom I wouldn't necessarily have chosen to be friends with in the world. That's how our holiness and virtue (particularly patience and charity!) is worked on and refined. 

[Gabriela]

I must say, though, I question the accuracy of this test. I scored a high HSM, but that description doesn't fit me at all.

 

I don't mean for this to sound "Debbie downer," but I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to use these kinds of personality tests in relation to figuring out tendencies in those with religious vocations, aside from simple curiosity, or to help a person figure out and work on his/her strengths and weaknesses. God calls ALL personality types to religious life; just because a certain type may be more inclined towards religious vocations (I'm thinking INFJs in the MBPI, for example) doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a person is ACTUALLY called. Just because you're a certain type doesn't mean you have a vocation, or that if you do it will necessarily be easy for you, or that you're better than a type that isn't generally so much inclined toward religious vocations, and so on. In my former community, there were women of ALL types, even those on complete opposite ends of the spectrum, and some of those whose personality type should have made it "easier" actually found it very difficult. Some of the Sisters' personalities clashed with my own, but that's the beauty of the life...God chose me, at that point in time, to be in a religious family with many whom I wouldn't necessarily have chosen to be friends with in the world. That's how our holiness and virtue (particularly patience and charity!) is worked on and refined. 

 

I absolutely agree with your second paragraph. I don't think psych testing should be used to determine whether a person is a good fit for religious life. I think "live experience" and interaction should be the "test". I was simply curious to know whether people who tend one way or the other as self-monitors also tend one way or the other in their choice of religious communities. I do think we might find patterns there, but patterns are only the majority. They're never a deterministic be-all-end-all for any given individual. (And I was fully open to the possibility that the pattern might end up "there's no pattern!" ;-)

 

As for your first paragraph: I assure you, this scale has been validated hundreds of times over, so it is a reliable scale. That being said, some people will get anomalous results from psych questionnaires because they understand the questions differently than most other people. Psychologists can only write the questions for the majority of people. There will always be exceptions!

[Fr. Antony Maria OSB]

I don't know. NazFarmer (did I capitalize that right?) is quite low, and he's in community.

 

NazFarmer: What do you think?

I think that there is an important distinction to keep in mind here: just because one has a tendency to not change their behavior to suit the social situation doesn't mean that one doesn't know either 1)how to appropriately act in certain situations, or 2)that people acting differently than oneself is perfectly okay. In order to live in day to day life, regardless of vocation, you need to know how to act in certain situations: for example, you wouldn't act the same way at a party as you would at a funeral. Just because you're not acting the same way in these situations, however, does not mean that you're not being true to yourself and your personality. Personalities, in many (if not most) cases, are multifaceted: people are complex creatures! To put someone into a box and say "Kate will always act this way in this situation," or "Joe never changes his interaction style," is very unrealistic. Plus, if this was the case, life would be really BORING! If everyone acted the same way there would be no way to escape the boredom.

 

So, while I may have scored low on this particular test, that doesn't mean that I don't change how I act depending on the situation: it just means that I hold back on the enthusiasm or not, depending on the situation and/or the people I am with. I'm still being true to myself, however, because being both mild-tempered and enthusiastic, both scholarly and silly, both holy and sinful are part of who I am. I may be a low scoring LSM, but that doesn't mean that I can't handle being in social situations or that I dislike social situations. If I'm understanding the distinction between LSM's and HSM's correctly, it just means that being true to myself in every situation is very important to me and that I won't apologize for who I am. But that doesn't mean that I won't temper certain aspects of my personality to fit the situation.

 

Midpost edit: I went back and re-read the distinctions between LSM's and HSM's, and it sounded to me like what I was arguing would fit better with an HSM than an LSM, so I retook the test. This time around I got a 6/25, so still relatively low. I think another important thing to keep in mind is WHY someone changes their behavior: is it to get the approval of others, or because it's the right thing to do?

 

And you capitalized it just fine :) The name's Br. Antony if that works any better, haha.

[Gabriela]

I think that there is an important distinction to keep in mind here: just because one has a tendency to not change their behavior to suit the social situation doesn't mean that one doesn't know either 1)how to appropriately act in certain situations, or 2)that people acting differently than oneself is perfectly okay. In order to live in day to day life, regardless of vocation, you need to know how to act in certain situations: for example, you wouldn't act the same way at a party as you would at a funeral. Just because you're not acting the same way in these situations, however, does not mean that you're not being true to yourself and your personality. Personalities, in many (if not most) cases, are multifaceted: people are complex creatures! To put someone into a box and say "Kate will always act this way in this situation," or "Joe never changes his interaction style," is very unrealistic. Plus, if this was the case, life would be really BORING! If everyone acted the same way there would be no way to escape the boredom.

 

So, while I may have scored low on this particular test, that doesn't mean that I don't change how I act depending on the situation: it just means that I hold back on the enthusiasm or not, depending on the situation and/or the people I am with. I'm still being true to myself, however, because being both mild-tempered and enthusiastic, both scholarly and silly, both holy and sinful are part of who I am. I may be a low scoring LSM, but that doesn't mean that I can't handle being in social situations or that I dislike social situations. If I'm understanding the distinction between LSM's and HSM's correctly, it just means that being true to myself in every situation is very important to me and that I won't apologize for who I am. But that doesn't mean that I won't temper certain aspects of my personality to fit the situation.

 

Midpost edit: I went back and re-read the distinctions between LSM's and HSM's, and it sounded to me like what I was arguing would fit better with an HSM than an LSM, so I retook the test. This time around I got a 6/25, so still relatively low. I think another important thing to keep in mind is WHY someone changes their behavior: is it to get the approval of others, or because it's the right thing to do?

 

And you capitalized it just fine :) The name's Br. Antony if that works any better, haha.

 

You understand self-monitoring quite rightly, and you make excellent points. Thank you, Brother Antony! :)

[Comingback]

I scored 7/25 and feel drawn to cloistered/contemplative (still trying to learn to live as a Catholic right now, though). Interesting survey.  Thank you for posting it.