"self-monitoring" In Religious Life?

[Mary+Immaculate<3]

16/25, a HSM. I scored 71.48% higher than others. I think I'm called to contemplative life.

[TheresaThoma]

 

BTW: Where are all the ladies called to active life??? Is it just us contemplatives still hanging around here? Or are the actives all out being... active?  :hehe2:  We need them to see if there really is a difference!

 

Ok I should revise mine to more accurately say that I am interested in an active community that still has a strong basis in prayer/contemplation. I have learned that I need to be around people (becoming a hermit is definitely not for me!), however in large groups I will start to withdraw a bit unless I can focus in on one or two people.

[OnlySunshine]

Your score (4/25) indicates that you value staying true to yourself and are unwilling to modify your behavior just to get the approval of thers. You probably do not like to be the center of attention very often.

 

You scored higher than 2.02% of them.

 

 

 

Interestingly, I originally wanted to enter cloistered life but, because of my chronic medical condition, I was advised to look at active/contemplative orders instead.  I like to think that I have a Poor Clare spirituality.  :)

[Catherine Therese]

I think the halfway point is 13, looking at the curve. My result of 14 mentioned a percentage of 56% approx... (it was a 55.xx but I can't remember!) and if you look at the distribution of the curve, 50% would have to lie on the 13 bar of the graph.

[Cherie]

20/25

 

I am a married laywoman, but was a member of an active/contemplative community. I had been drawn to cloistered life for many years of my discernment and even wanted to switch to a more contemplative community when I was a religious! Haha. Obviously I don't have a religious vocation, though, so my answer doesn't matter in that question. 

[ToJesusMyHeart]

I’ll go first:

I scored a 2, which means I’m an extreme low self-monitor. Only 0.49% of the population scores lower than me.

I am drawn to contemplative life, specifically eremitic life.

 

I also got a 2. 

 

"Your score (2/25) indicates that you value staying true to yourself and are unwilling to modify your behavior just to get the approval of others. You probably do not like to be the center of attention very often."

 

And that's accurate. I do tend to find people who are HSM's to be annoying, fake, and two-faced. Some of my roommates are HSMs and we're having rough times right now for just that reason. 

[AccountDeleted]

That is really interesting... I would bed most people interested in religious life would be in the middle of the bell curve.  I scored a 15 out of 25.  I think in religious life one needs to have some characteristics of both because there is certainly an element of conformity when one joins a community.  There is also the requirement that one be true to ones self in community as well especially when it comes to issues of integrity.  

 

Thanks for sharing this.

 

 

I agree - unless one is well balanced between LSM and HSM, they are probably going to have difficulty living in community, even a cloistered or contemplative community. Extremes at either end are probably going to be a little unbalanced and have difficulties with others for one reason or another. :)

[Gabriela]

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

 

NazFarmer: What do you think?

[ToJesusMyHeart]

God can work with any personality type, and any level of self-monitoring.

[Gabriela]

God can work with any personality type, and any level of self-monitoring.

 

That's what I should think. Maybe I should clarify that being an LSM doesn't mean one is rude and inconsiderate of others, and being an HSM doesn't necessarily mean that one has no principles or integrity—even on the extreme ends. Being extreme on a measure such as this just indicates more of an inability to be like the other. An extreme LSM confronted by people s/he doesn't like would most likely respond with avoidance or total silence (depending upon what was possible in the circumstances), whereas an extreme HSM would conform his/her behavior to those people's in order to be liked by them (yes, even if s/he doesn't like them!). Neither would be able to do the opposite. Someone in the middle, however, could conceivably shift back and forth, depending on the level of discomfort, the circumstances, desire, etc.

 

Of course, there are also a whole lot more personality traits than just this one, so one's particular mix will make a difference even here. There are always exceptions! :)

[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! :)