Recently, I wrote about Jung Typology and Finance, looking at the first of four dimensions used by psychologists and career coaches for categorizing personality preferences. Introverts and Extraverts draw their energy from individual or group activity, and that difference can have an interesting effect on opinions and behavior with regard to money.
The second dimension in the Myers-Briggs version of this personality typology pertains to information gathering. People who take the test are categorized along a dimension whose extremes are “Sensing” (S) or “Intuition” (N). Wikipedia provides a good layman’s definition of this aspect:
Individuals with a preference for sensing prefer to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches that seem to come out of nowhere. They prefer to look for detail and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those with a preference for intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.
The first thing that pops into my mind is stock analysis. While everyone who analyzes stocks looks for facts, I think those on opposite sides of this spectrum will have a different approach. The Sensing individuals might look at a company’s underlying strengths and weaknesses, identifiable in annual reports, for example. On the other hand, those who gather information via Intuition might be more prone to looking for patterns inherent in performance. Both approaches are highly technical.
Perhaps you’ve heard of the Elliott wave principle. This is a method of predicting market trends based on patterns on historical up-and-down movement. The tricks with this principle is that it’s hard to know where you are in any particular “wave.” Someone with an Intuitive personality might be drawn to this type of analysis.
If you’ve read personal finance books, you’ve probably noticed how authors try to reach both types of personality. Often, a particular lesson begins with a story, illustrating a positive or negative approach. The story is usually light on details, but Intuitive people might be able to relate to the story and understand the point the author is attempting to make. If the author is smart, he or she will continue by supporting the story with details and facts that support the conclusion.
When either approach is missing, either half the audience will be bored or the other half will be mistrusting. It’s possible that Robert Kiyosaki’s “Rich Dad” series falls into this category. The books are strong on story and emotion, perhaps drawing in the Intuitive audience. Yet, the books are short on actionable details, frustrating those, perhaps Sensing individuals, who look for facts and hard data.
Who would be better at managing their own finances, the Sensing or Intuitive individual? I think the Sensing individual should be trusted with managing the family’s finances above the Intuitive individual. The type of analysis required, including net worth, expense reports, and budgets, involve the hard data favorable to Sensing individuals.
One of the most popular personality measurement systems is the “Jung Typology” test, also known as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MTBI) test. These are popular in Psychology 101 college courses and corporate management seminars. The object of this test is to quantify an individual’s personality along four separate dimensions. Each dimension has two options on either end of the spectrum, and most tests provide a measurement of strength in either direction. This results in 16 separate personality types, with additional nuances due to the strength in the pull of either direction.
If you’re interested in determining your personality type, there is a free test at HumanMetrics.com. The test involves a series of questions designed to determine the root of your motivation. The results are best when the questions are answered quickly at face value, without thinking about choosing the “correct” response.
The first of the four personality aspects measures introversion vs. extraversion. Don’t think of this as whether you’re a loner or a social butterfly; the category has more to do with how you draw your energy. This is from the Wikipedia entry:
People with a preference for Extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their level of energy and motivation tends to decline. Conversely, those whose preference is Introversion become less energized as they act: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. People with Introversion preferences need time out to reflect in order to rebuild energy. The Introvert’s flow is directed inward toward concepts and ideas and the Extravert’s is directed outward towards people and objects. There are several contrasting characteristics between Extraverts and Introverts: Extraverts desire breadth and are action-oriented, while introverts seek depth and are self-oriented.
Taking a financial viewpoint, which side of this spectrum is better for personal finance? Here are some thoughts.
Introverts may be more inclined to create budgets and analyze progress over time. The “reflect-act-reflect” method can be interpreted as “budget-spend-evaluate.” Introversion can manifest itself in the way an individual sets goals. Do the goals use internal metrics, like a competition with oneself, or do they focus more on parity with the surrounding culture or community? The latter may be the approach taken by an Extravert.
Extraverts thrive on the energy they derive from being around other people, and as a result, may have a more finely honed ability to use “small talk” and network with other people in larger settings. That could lead to better job opportunities and more money in the workplace. However, 40% of CEOs are Introverts or “closet Introverts.” They’ve learned how to act like Extraverts when necessary while retaining their own personality features.
In The Psychology of Money, the author, Adrian Furnham, cites a 1984 study.
[The study] found that extraverts tended to be more extravagant and less stingy than introverts. People with strong feelings of control over their money reported less general anxiety and tended to be more extroverted.
Managing personal money is a skill that is best tended by the introspective nature of an Introvert. While Extraverts can certainly handle the responsibilities just as well, if defined by their personality type, Extraverts will find introspection draining. Does this mean that Introverts tend to be better money managers?
Not all successful CEOs are extroverts [USA Today]
Anyone who knows me, or anyone who feels they know me after following Consumerism Commentary since 2003 or my personal blog since some time in the previous century, will know that I always turn a critical eye towards the so-called benefits of the “productivity” movement.
Techniques like those popularized by Getting Things Done and thousands of other programs on which corporations spend millions of training dollars are good for the corporation, not for the individual. I agree that there is some benefit to a strong level of organization, but most people I know who follow these tenets take the concepts too seriously.
Super-efficient task-crunching among employees is a way for large companies to fulfill their real goal of super-efficient payroll spending.
The typical working American spends more waking time at the office than with family and friends. Leisure activity — that is, what people actually enjoy — takes a backseat to work in this country’s culture. I am confounded by the idea that one’s working environment should be completely free of distractions to allow intense, uninterrupted concentration on the computer monitor.
It’s bad enough that most people find themselves working at a job they don’t particularly enjoy just so they can pay the bills. Productivity gurus want to take those endless, tedious hours and turn them into a much less human experience. The truth is that the beneficiaries of the productivity movement are the employers. Why else would corporations spend so much money on training sessions? It’s not to make workers better people, it’s to make people better workers.
This post on Zen Habits offering 5 steps to a distraction free workspace is exactly why there needs to be a revolution in workplace philosophy. Skellie, the author of the post on Zen Habits and a blogger at Skelliewag, offers these suggestions for a productive and focused workspace:
* Keep the light, lose the view. Create natural light but nothing to look at.
* Move books into another room. There should be no superfluous reading material.
* Keep your desk focused. Remove family photographs and toys.
* Minimize digital distractions. Disable the internet and games while working. (People don’t really play games at work, do they?)
* Simplify decorations. The author is really suggesting the removal of decorations; blank walls force you to look at more interesting things like your monitor.
These are all great tips for increasing a certain type of productivity that involves freedom from some distractions. If you work in an office, you don’t have much control over the real distractions, like inconsiderate coworkers. Following Skelliewag’s tips would help you become the worker bee you’ve always envisioned, but devoid of personality.
While more people are “hoteling” and not the sole occupant of a workspace, the majority of us spend so much time in the same exact place at the office. If I were to make my particular space as uninteresting as possible, I simply wouldn’t enjoy my time there as much as I do now (which isn’t much). If I were to remove my personal items leaving more of the grey desktop visible and become more productive because of the adjustment, I wouldn’t suddenly get to spend more time away from the office with my family or working on my own more enjoyable projects. I’d simply have more work to do in the same amount of time.
Your desk and workspace is your reflection and a canvas for emphasizing anything that makes you unique. Surrounding yourself with objects that make you feel like you far outweighs your ability to stare at your computer monitor and type at your keyboard all day. If you are happy, as you might have a higher chance of being in a comfortable environment, you will be productive. You don’t need to live most of your waking life trapped in a desolate 200 cu. ft. space. What kind of life is that? Make it interesting, make it you.
You are giving the bulk of your time to a company and in return they send you to seminars to teach you how to spend that valuable time like a robot. Don’t allow yourself to be enslaved or brainwashed by your corporation and its owners into a way of working — of living since so much of our time living is working — that strips out everything that makes you who you are.
That is an unfulfilled life.
Email this article
Print this article
