REFLECTIONS by Pat Cebis

WA TALKING TYPE COFFEE MEETING – EAST PERTH

Date: 15 August, 2009
Venue: Toast café Claisebrook


On 15 August our scheduled meeting of Walking Talking Type tool place at 10.00am in the fresh air at Toasts Café in Claisebrook. Although the weather forecast suggested storms we were surprised to enjoy favourable conditions.

Four of us accepted the challenge of the wintry forecast. Our two and a half hours chat seemed to fly; the experience was comfortable, respectful, supportive and generous in what was shared. The following snippets were some points of interest.

Our day’s subject was myth busting stereotypes and first step was a quick personal background check so as to be clear about the language used in discussion depending upon whether we’d been trained in Myers Briggs or Interstrength. The idea of Interstrength as being holistic approach including cognitive dynamics, temperament and interactive styles was explained. As a tool it was seen to be efficient and able to assist individuals to “come home to core self as it were after pursuing facets of self and otherness through a layered approach – to be pursued later.”

One member spoke of a playful attitude to type which she and a friend had adopted whilst holidaying; they decided to be totally “other” and pose a princesses for a day. Interestingly even in this “performance” role they found themselves being true to type in the day’s preparation. One had a precisely planned and orderly approach to dressing while the other was somewhat lacking in that regard. Were they type opposites? That remained a mystery.

The third member of the holiday group caused the other two to examine their individual capacities for empathy as she chose that holiday to break an ankle! From that point we began to discuss differing type – related styles of demonstrating empathy concluding that not one was more correct than another rather each was simply a typical approach in particular context.

It was suggested that in any situation where one was cast in the role of helper/ advisor it could be prudent to enquire exactly what the function the other party wished one to perform, be it a sympathetic, critical or listening ear or perhaps that of practical assistant advisor. To achieve such an end the desirability of a common language tool was underlined. This common thread could be type or another source familiar to both parties ie “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus” was cited.

We looked at Linda Berens Temperament model and endeavoured to determine by describing strengths of the four groups just where our own inclinations to stereotyping might be likely to occur. It was acknowledged that one could assume aspects of the four temperament groups in a particular context where it was needed, especially in a work related environment, but that when eg in a prolonged ‘S” task was performed by an “N” there would be a distinct relief at returning to ones own “home base” of type.

Again on the work scene the notion of assembling representatives of the four temperaments to brainstorm ideas and follow through with planning fir implementation was envisioned as a possibility. The behind the scenes catalysts sis not relish the thought of being put on the spot as a source of ideas. They would feel more comfortable when free of expectations. The merits of the idea were seen to be sound in general especially as workers not normally seen to be up front in a particular work environment could perhaps from a temperament perspective make a valued contribution otherwise likely to be lost to the organisation.

Inter type/ temperaments conflicts occurring in different contexts and a need for conflict resolution strategies were touched on briefly to be explored at a following session.

In conclusion there was general agreement that not one person was exempt from the pitfalls of stereotyping and that in our group meetings we would endeavour to be aware of that fact and gently inform and educate each other.