Our thoughts turn this time of year to the 18-year-olds leaving home—for college, for military service, for career beginnings. September is the time for adolescents to part from home. Is there any evidence that these ventures merit special attention from family and loved ones? Yes.

Just this morning I studied the results of our SchoolPlace Big Five Profile™. This personality assessment presents trait scores for young people from ages 12 to 22. One of the scales—Need for Stability (“N”; sometimes called Neuroticism)—describes a young person’s level of worry (or anxiety), temper (or anger), outlook (or pessimism/optimism), and coping level (or resilience), or their ability to bounce back after a crisis. This morning’s review comprised 2,722 young people from all over the United States. I was particularly interested in looking at the trend of their scores as they approach departure from home around age 18 and what happens afterwards. Here is a graph of the result:

What does it mean? In other “Big Five” research, I had noted that the overall supertrait called Need for Stability increased slightly around age 18, then returned to normal. Keep in mind that a score of 50 is the average score for the norm group (these are “standard scores” with a standard deviation of 10, where 2/3 of the population score between 45 and 55). I was interested in looking at the subtraits (or facets) of this supertrait to see if the components of Need for Stability could explain the overall trend. In fact, it clarifies things very nicely. Of the four components of “N,” only one appears to be affected by leaving home—Anxiety. The graph above shows that teens’ anger, pessimism, and resilience all gradually decrease from ages 12 to 22. Teens’ tempers soften, they become gradually more optimistic, and they require increasingly less time to overcome crises. However, anxiety is the exception to this trend. There is something about leaving home that elevates anxiety levels: fear of being able to satisfy the demands of professors, fear of being able to outlast the rigors of military training, and fear of doing well in one’s chosen first major job out of high school. Clearly not all young people exhibit such fear, but enough do to make it worthy of notice.

So what practical difference does this make? Now is the time for you to provide special comforts, special reassurances, to your 18- and 19-year-olds:

• Handwritten notes and letters
• Send photos of kid brother/sister
• Send a gift certificate for pizza, subs
• Send college/military/job “survival kits” with gum, Life Savers, and so forth
• Provide for appropriate visits, either at their site or at home
• Tickets to a favorite concert group or sports event
• Whether through phone calls, visits, letters, or emails, keeping the information flowing—they have been used to knowing how parents and siblings are faring on daily basis, and this sudden lack of daily information is a huge drop in social support.
• Above all, plenty of “attaboys/girls” and “proud of you” messages, whether electronic or paper

I remember my Davidson College freshman dormitory with fondness as we boys got chocolate chip cookies from home and were proud to share with the rest of our friends. Not only were we getting a serotonin hit, but we were getting a status boost in the eyes of our peers! Plus, we all enjoyed the competition of whose cookies were best, or different. “All right! Mrs. Peery has sent another batch of those chewy chocolate chip cookies. You go, Charlie!”

Do keep in mind that not all 18-year-olds experience an increase in anxiety upon leaving home. Those who have been calm, at ease, slow to anger, and relatively stress-free during their teen years are likely to stay that way upon leaving home. Those with a tendency to worry while at home are those most likely to experience an increase in worry when on their own.

For more about the adolescent personality and how to enjoy it to the maximum, I suggest you take a look at the book that my wife, Jane, and I recently published: The Owner’s Manual for Personality from 12 to 22 (CentACS Press, 2011). It is available in paperback from Amazon or from the authors (request our signature, if you like!), and in ePub version from iTunes.

Each role that you or I take on—parent, learner, boss, cheerleader, entertainer, caregiver, cook, or bottlewasher—gets a break after each episode. Parent for a while, read the paper, prepare a meal—each role yields to its (often) logical successor. Some of our roles are supported by natural sources of energy, while others tend to be more draining for lack of natural energy. I have natural energy for learning, but not for selling. Having natural energy is not sufficient for being good at a role, just as not having natural energy does not entail poor performance in a role. Ideally, one role yields to another that requires a different kind of energy, so that our tank may refill: a role that entails interaction yields to one that means solitude, loud yields to quiet, humdrum yields to creative, challenging yields to conforming, or methodicalness yields to spontaneity.

Señor Urzua’s extended performance in the role of leader suggests that he had the natural energy for that role: prevailing calmness and presence of mind, an outgoing nature that enjoys interacting with people, an inventive bent that yields insight for solving problems, sufficient toughness to stand up for what is important, and the discipline to avoid yielding to distractions and indulgences that, in the miners’ case, could have been deadly. These five qualities—calmness, sociability, creativity, toughness, and discipline—we all have to different degrees. My wife is calmer than I, and also tougher, and to that degree has more energy for leadership than do I. That does not mean that I can’t lead—just that leading tires me more than it does her, and I want to get back to my studies (or some other individual endeavor). If we both were stuck 2,000 feet down under along with others, I have no doubt that she would take on more leadership than I, but I’d help.

Leadership, like cooking and reading, can’t go on nonstop, like the Energizer Bunny (who, to appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, will eventually need a break, a battery change, a refill). It needs a break. Leadership needs to take a seat so that other roles may have their day. I define leadership as “taking responsibility for effecting necessary change.” By that definition, clearly change is not incessant, not constant like whitewater. You just can’t do constant change—the result is turmoil—stress for self and others. Leading needs to sit down and let managing or individual activity or just plain R&R have their time on center stage. It helps refill your tank, or charge your battery. And, if your tank is smaller than optimal, the greater the need for exiting stage left or right.

And if you are ever in need of a leader who won’t be able to take break for a long time, hope that you have someone available with a tank the size of Luis’s. Or several with tanks half his size who can take turns.

Within each of us, our leadership “hat” needs to be on call. It needs to be available when needed. For those of us with smaller tanks, that is no excuse for not serving when needed. For those of us with larger tanks for leadership, remember you need to exit the stage from time to time, change hats, refill your tanks, and stay on call for service as needed.

 • High school GPA for boys is 2.86 compared to girls’ 3.09

• Girls now score equal to boys in math (but boys more often score extremely high or extremely low)

• Girls outscore boys in verbal

• Girls appear to make more effort

• 64% of National Honor Society members are girls

• In many colleges, boys now given “special consideration” so ratios won’t become out of balance (i.e., affirmative action for boys)

• Girls are outreading boys at all age/grade levels in all states, with the number of girls achieving proficiency level at 79%, boys at 72%.

• Boys are two times more likely to repeat a grade as are girls, two times more likely to be suspended, and three times more likely to be expelled

• 25% more boys are dropouts in comparison to girls

• 57% of master’s degrees awarded to whites go to females, and 62% of doctorates go to females

• 66% of master’s degrees awarded to blacks go to females, and 72% of doctorates go to females

• In the national writing exam, 32% of girls are proficient, but only 16% of boys `

Why? Physician and psychologist Leonard Sax proposes in his 2007 book Boys Adrift (Basic Books) five underlying and interactive causes:

1. The current way schools do business does not typically permit boys to be boys.

2. When they do try to be boys, they tend to get (falsely) diagnosed with ADHD and (over) medicated, leading to an unmotivated, alienated anomie.

3. Meanwhile, years of consuming foods and beverages poisoned by estrogen-mimicking phthalates from plastic containers has led to endocrine imbalances and anomalies.

4. This triple-whammy has nudged many boys into the “safe” virtual reality of video games and pornography, where they can have thrills without responsibilities.

5. The family and society have allowed negative cultural role models (epitomized by Homer Simpson) to reinforce an image of boys and men as lazy, unambitious, and lacking in courage, with too few positive role models demanding that young boys exhibit courage and service in approaching manhood (epitomized by the scouting movement)—what is known as “rites of passage.”

So, that’s the situation. The solution is straightforward, if not easy:

1. Schools and parents need to delay boys’ reading instruction and permit more play and exploration; Sax encourages single sex schools and classrooms (see http://www.singlesexschools.org); he also recommends adjustable height tables so boys can stand or kneel, even lie down, while doing schoolwork; follow the German model of Waldkindergarten (http://www.waldkindergarteninc.com/).

2. Resist diagnosing active boys with ADHD; insist that all five DSM-IV criteria are met; if meds are required, start with weaker ones.

3. Eliminate plastic beverage and food containers, especially when they are heated (in a microwave, sitting in the sun, etc.); look for new PLA containers made by Cargill from corn.

4. Severely limit videogaming and provide “thrilling” alternatives, such as RaceLegal (http://www.sandiego.gov/qualcomm/event/tenants/racelegal.shtml) and Wii competitions with parents and kids.

5. Subject young boys to positive, demanding role models, whether through scouting, sports, or other community programs and organizations.

That’s it. Want more? For a little more, keep reading, and I’ll share some of my notes from reading Dr. Sax’s book. If you want more than this, visit his website http://www.boysadrift.com and read his book.

Here is some more detail about each of the five areas. These notes should give you a good feeling for Sax’s reasoning.

1. Schools

Sax writes about the difference in two modes of learning: rote (Wissenschaft) or experience (Kenntnis), or knowledge and understanding, like the difference between being able to recite the steps involved in building a radio, and actually being able to build a radio from raw materials. The current emphasis in schools, where the emphasis is on raising test scores, is on “book learning” (Wissenshaft), and not on experiential learning (Kenntnis), learning by doing. It is like the difference between memory and mastery—the memory of the steps involved in winning friends and influencing people, versus the mastery of actually winning friends and influencing people.

A consequence of the emphasis on testing is that kids at earlier and earlier ages are expected to be able to read and math. Boys are just not ready for this as early as girls, requiring one or more years to acquire the developmental maturity to focus on letters and numbers. The solution is to hold boys back from entering kindergarten, and/or selecting a kindergarten/early grade that permits more play and hands-on activity until signs emerge that a boy is ready and interested in mastering reading. Don’t worry about not starting school until later: Finland, where children do not begin school until seven years of age, comes in first on international tests of school performance. (p. 20) Why? Fewer kids alienated by school will result in a higher average. Turned-off kids sink your average performance scores. Readiness is everything.

Many schools have deemphasized competitive activities, with the result of fewer outlets at school for competitive kids to become engaged. Cooperation has been promoted too often at the expensive of healthy competition.

Boys used to outscore girls on tests of science understanding, but now the gap has vanished. Sax attributes this to less time being spent in play, experimentation, trial-and-error, and more spent on listening and reciting. Girls do not necessarily like such rote learning, but the typical girl appears to be more willing to put up with it than the typical boy. But this doesn’t exist in isolation. The other four factors interact with and exaggerate the boy-unfriendly classroom.

Sax mentions illegal car racing in city streets as an example of boys not engaged by school and seeking thrills. San Diego began “RaceLegal,” in which teens pay to race cars against, e.g., police officers in their cruisers. The program has spread to Atlanta and other cities, with the result that street racing has virtually disappeared. Who says legal thrills can’t still be thrilling?! (pp. 190-191)

2. ADHD

The excessive use of ADHD medications leads to decreased testosterone (pp.88 ff.). However, stimulants improve the school performance both of ADHD students and non-ADHD students. As a consequence, many students who do not have ADHD, but who are diagnosed with it, are mistakenly diagnosed post hoc as having ADHD, since the med led to improved performance. The problem is that “…even relatively short-term use of these drugs [Ritalin, Concerta, Metadate, Dexedrine, Adderall], for just a year or perhaps less, can lead to changes in personality. The boy who used to be agreeable, outgoing, and adventurous becomes lazy and irritable.”

Why? These drugs damage the nucleus accumbens, the area of the brain that “translates motivation into action. If a boy’s nucleus accumbens is damaged, he may still feel hungry, or sexually aroused. He just won’t feel motivated to do anything about it.” (p. 90) Studies show an inverse relationship between the size of the nucleus accumbens and the degree of apathy in an individual. Rat studies show this relationship conclusively—studies are afoot to determine the degree to which humans show the same relationship between size nucleus accumbens and strength of drive. This apathy resulting from nucleus accumbens damage is not the same thing as depression (p. 91).

Always question ADHD diagnoses keeping this in mind: “Very often, when a boy isn’t paying attention, the problem is not with the boy but with the way he is being taught.” See my brain book for diagnosis of ADHD, but Sax says (pp. 195-6, adapted from DSM-IV) must meet 5 criteria:

1. Hyperactivity/impulsivity/inattention

2. Begins before age seven

3. Not just one setting, e.g., school, home, church, friend’s home

4. Impaired school and social skills

5. No other disorder or cause apparent

If ADD diagnosis is unavoidable, start with the mildest meds (e.g., Wellbutrin, Strattera), keeping the stronger ones as a last resort (Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta, Metadate, Focalin, Daytrana, all amphetamines and methylphenidates), and accompany with talk therapy/training/behavior mod.

3. Plastics

Plastic containers bleed toxins into contents, with the effect of disrupting the endocrine system. Transparent plastics (polyvinyl chloride/PVC, polycarbonates) used for bottles, food storage, etc., contain polyethylene terephthalate (PET), bisphenol A (BPA), and other building blocks for the purpose of keeping the plastic from being rigid, as well as having other properties. The problem is that the toxins leach into its contents, especially in the presence of heat. That’s why a plastic bottle of water, juice, or soda tastes plasticky after sitting in the car on a warm day. The problem is that these so-called phthalates (and others) disrupt the endocrine system, effectively feminizing humans or animals that consume them. Thus, girls and female animals achieve puberty early if they consume phthalates regularly, and boys and male animals are emasculated. In essence, phthalates act as estrogen. Other chemicals are thought to have a similar effect. For examples, endosulfan is used to keep insects off of crops, but it disrupts the endocrine system in humans/animals who eat the crops they’ve permeated.(p. 105)

Also, this family of endocrine disruptors appears to foul up a neural process based on PACAP (pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide), with the result that the PACAP system’s normal dampening effect is prevented, with the consequence of nonstop activity, or ADD. Sax mentions (p. 107) that 1) India and China have little ADHD, and 2) India and China also have the lowest use of plastic beverage containers, except for tourists. Apparently, these two immense populations are using more and more plastic beverage containers, and it will be of interest to see if ADHD rates increase accordingly—a natural, if unintended, experiment.

Estrogen disruption is also related to the overweight epidemic, as estrogen governs the size of fat cells (p. 109). Increases in estrogen levels enlarge fat cells. And phthalates et al increase estrogen. As children don’t make estrogen, their unnatural acquisition of estrogen through phthalates et al appear to be a prepotent explanation of the weight epidemic among children. The evidence is that phthalates et al cause three disorders (p. 110), all because of endocrine disruption: ADHD, overweight, and delayed (for boys) or early (for girls) puberty. And, Sax thinks that the incidence of bone fractures among boys having doubled since 1960 is largely attributable to these endocrine disruptors—increases in estrogen make girls bones dense, but not so with boys. (p. 111)

“There’s growing evidence that the end result of our increasingly toxic environment is girls who are both masculine and feminine, and boys who are neither masculine nor feminine.” (p. 112) In another study, women across the country who drank water from plastic bottles during pregnancy had boys who were ten times more likely to have genital defects. (p. 113) Meanwhile, their girl babies were ok. And, in a similar vein, rural men (e.g., farmers and others exposed to more pesticides than city dwellers) have been found to carry lower quantity and quality sperm than city-dwelling men.

Sax recommends (p. 114-115):

1. Prefer glass/paper to plastic food and beverage containers.

2. Insure that food and beverages being heated do not come into contact with plastic of any kind.

3. When you must have plastics, look for PVC-free labels

4. Insure that your dentist does not place phthalate-containing compounds in your family’s mouths.

5. If you must take food or beverage in plastic containers with you, keep them out of the heat as much as possible.

6. Be on the lookout for a new container made of corn: PLA (polylactic acid), by Cargill’s NatureWorks LLC. Looks just like other plastic bottles (PET, made from petroleum), but is compostable, is not a plastic, and does not contain toxins.

4. Videogaming

Sax writes (p. 58) that the “average teenage boy today spends more than thirteen hours a week playing video games, compared with five hours per week for the average teenage girl.” The bad video games (Grand Theft Auto, SpyHunter, Halo, Doom, Madden NFL) emphasize power, violence, and thrills achieved in a safe environment in which the worst thing that can happen to you is to have to restart. You don’t have to deal with the 24-7 of ongoing relationships. You can do whatever you want to without real world consequences, and you can watch as virtual people kill etc. without consequences. Games like SimCity and The Sims do not entail violence, but can permit an individual to opt for a virtual existence rather than a flesh-and-blood one. There are “good ones” that permit person-to-person interaction, as in parent and child playing with Wii systems, MTX Motocross, NASCAR: Dirt to Daytona.

The amount of time spent playing video games is inversely related to school performance, regardless of grade level (p. 63). Sax calls it a “clear and unambiguous” relationship. Studies show that time spent on video games “engorges” (91) the nucleus accumbens with blood, in the same fashion that cocaine does. This shuts down blood to the area of the brain—the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex–associated with providing a balanced view of the world. The kid on video games is like the rat with an electrode in the nucleus accumbens, who is so ecstatic from the electrode that it neglects to eat. Both the rat and the kid lose perspective because the engorgement of the nucleus accumbens robs the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of blood flow necessary to provide some perspective. I.e., addiction is setting in—video gaming morphs into something akin to crack cocaining.

Sax recommends:

1. No games allowed in which you can kill good people.

2. No more than an hour on weekends AFTER other responsibilities completed, not more than 40 minutes Monday through Thursday.

3. Establish priorities: family is first, school second, friends third, then and only then come things like video games.

4. Initiate alternative ways to get thrills: polar bear club, legal race tracks, sports, music, service clubs, etc. My teammate takes her sons mountain biking.

5. Cultural Role Models

Current cultural norms (e.g. Bart Simpson, Seinfeld) provide unambitious, weak, uncaring role models, rather than the more traditionally rigorous rites of passage that emphasize achievement, courage, and altruism. The percentage of men who are either not working nor not looking for work has quadrupled since the middle of the twentieth century.(p. 128) Sax attributes this to two principle factors: first, the collective influence of the previous four factors, and, second, the decreasing profile of the traditional male ideal. The latter is typified in the popularity of Homer Simpson on television and Matthew McConaughey’s character Tripp in the film Failure to Launch. The malaise results in 1 of 3 college age males with erectile dysfunction, which Sax sees as the result of a preference for virtual reality (video games, pornography) and its guarantee of hassle-free, easy-success relationships and ventures, such that real world encounters simply aren’t arousing. (p. 132) When youth have Homers and Tripps as their model, taking refuge in virtual reality ensues. The antidote is exposure—and exposure from which you can’t retreat—to male role models that exude courage and kindness, a kind of global, cross-cultural male ideal that pours mental, emotional, physical, and financial energy into the service of the planet. Whether it is parents, coaches, bosses, teachers, scout leaders, community organizers, church workers, etc., it must be a grown man, not a peer, who engages the youth mentors them into prosocial goals and behaviors. As Sax, writes: “A boy does not naturally become a gentleman—by which I mean a man who is courteous and kind and unselfish. That behavior is not hardwired. It has to be taught.” (p. 163). He gives the example of several single sex schools that emphasize positive male role models. Whether it is killing an animal to feed the family or completing an Eagle scout service project, youth must pass through a series of tests under the leadership of men. “There is no enduring culture in which cowardly men are esteemed, or in which brave men are held in contempt. There is no enduring culture in which lazy men are celebrated while hardworking men are despised.” (p. 168) “The explicit motivation behind the founding of the Boy Scouts was to ‘make men of little boys’ and foster ‘an independent manhood.’ There was no assumption that an independent manhood would just happen naturally. As in other cultures, there was an urgent awareness that boys must be led to manhood.” (p. 172)

We agree whole-heartedly.  No one should be defined by a label. The French poet Paul Valery said at one point (in French, sorry!) that “To see is to forget the name of the thing one sees.” Names are labels: Sarah Palin, Jimmy Carter, blonde, jock, politician, and automobile are names of things. Each of these names stirs up specific meanings for different people. It is the meanings of these words, and not the things/people themselves, that are the breeding ground of stereotypes and labels. To use the name and its associated meanings without attempting to get to know the thing or person is stereotyping, or labeling.

Many personality tests attempt to reduce one’s complex personality to a “manageable” set of labels, or types, or styles. The problem is that such reductions inevitably lead to oversimplifying. Allow me an example:

The MBTI assigns one of sixteen four-letter types to every individual. These four-letter types derive from the extreme scores on four scales. The MBTI pegs you as belonging at one end or the other of scales that measure sociability (Introvert or Extravert), perception (Sensing or Intuiting), judging (Thinking or Feeling), and deciding (Perceiving or Judging). There are sixteen possible combinations of the bolded initial letters of those eight terms, taking one from each pair for a total of four per “type”: ESTJ, ISTJ, and so forth.

But here is the problem, traits on these four scales are normally distributed, which means that about 1/3 of the people will score lower, 1/3 higher, and 1/3 in the midrange. The MBTI, in essence, omits the midrange.

How many individuals are likely to exhibit any one of the sixteen four-letter types? Let us take the type “ESTJ” as an example:

• 1 person out of 3 will score higher on the I/E scale, and could be considered an “E.”
• 1 out of 3 will score lower on the S/N scale, hence an “S.”
• 1 out of 3 will score lower on the T/F scale, hence a “T.”
• 1 of 3 will score higher on the P/J scale, hence a “J.”

Hence, the number of people scoring E, S, T, AND J all together will be 1/3 times 1/3 times 1/3 times 1/3, or 1/81. One person in 81 is equivalent to 1.2% of the population. So, 1.2% of the population would be predicted to fall in any one of the 16 types.  By talking of only 16 types, we are describing only 19.2% (i.e., 16 x 1.2%) of the population, or 1 in 5. In essence then, MBTI type theory is relevant to roughly 20% of the population. This is precisely why so many people are uncomfortable being “labeled” as being one of the 16 types. The probability that a person has been inaccurately described is approximately 80%.

We recommend that such labels not be used in reporting trait scores. Rather, we like to say:

• Fran is very extraverted
• Henry is somewhat extraverted
• Celina is equally extraverted and introverted (ambiverted is the term we suggest to indicate this combination)
• Chou is somewhat introverted
• Marianne is very introverted
• Henry is more extraverted than Celina
• Chou is more extraverted than Marianne
• …and so forth

In fact, if the MBTI were to use five levels for each of the scales, they would have a total of 625 four-letter types. As you likely sense, that number of “types” is unmanageable. Good. Let’s just stop using types, and, instead, we can use a descriptive sentence to be accurate in describing ourselves. Thus, I would describe myself as: “Pierce is slightly more introverted than he is extraverted, highly intuitive, equally prone to thinking and feeling, and less obsessive about structure than most.”

Of course, this assumes that you want to use the MBTI language. We recommend that you move not only from typing people to describing them more fully, but from the MBTI and other outdated models to the Big Five, or the Five-Factor Model.

Research over the decades has failed to show consistent relationships between color preferences and personality traits. Indeed, color preference is largely a matter of emotional attachments to colors from one’s past or current experience—whether to the forest greens of mountain homes or to the sky blue of my favorite basketball team. We form strong feelings—both pro and con—when bathing in the colors of our childhood and continuing through current passions. My eastern North Carolina home had burgundy rugs everywhere, including a runner up a steep staircase to our second floor. Years of playing “Chinese school” on the burgundy runner, of sliding down the banister that bordered it, and of horseplay with dozens of cousins, nieces, and nephews on burgundy carpet all contribute to warm feelings for burgundy.

It is just as likely that those rugs could have been a hue of blue, a sheen of green, or a mellow yellow. But they were blood burgundy, and that is why I have strong feelings for that color. So, in my case, burgundy the color is associated with love of family, with playfulness, with sociability. But that color could just as easily have been another. Guilty by association!

The test reported in USA Today claimed to be quick (under 60 seconds to take it at http://www.careerpath.com/career-tests/colorcareercounselor.aspx). I took it. Indeed, it was very quick. But as in many ventures in life, you get out of something what you put into it. I took the test seriously, carefully considering which member in the series of color pairings I most or least preferred. I struggled with my responses, as many pairings were of colors for which I had equal feelings—either equally positive or equally neutral. I didn’t have negative feelings. I’m a Will Rogers with color—never met a color I didn’t like. Life is color. Sometimes too much, sometimes the wrong color, but, like people, every color has its own beauty, somewhere, sometime.

My report tagged me primarily as an “Organizer” and secondly as a “Doer.” I was puzzled. Had my scores been misplaced with one of my partner’s? One is the organizer and the doer. I am the opposite of the two: I’m an explorer and a contemplator who relies on having organizers and doers around me to ever get anything finished!

From the point of view of sound test construction, I also fault the test for being “ipsative.” It asked only my preferences. It didn’t ask for the strength of my preference—it didn’t allow for “shades of gray.” Everything was either/or. Moreover, it didn’t allow for color blindness. It also did not provide for the role of context: clothing (my clothing, partner’s clothing; clothing at work, at home, at play), wall color (for my office, bedroom, hobby room, living room), car color (exterior, interior), and so on.

Such tests, by chance, will nail a person’s temperament from time to time. But their claims that the test is less “fake-able” than verbal tests does not withstand scrutiny. Yes, it is quick. But instant grits are also quick—and watery and tasteless and unnourishing. Take the time to cook coarse grits (available from Mabry Mills on the Blue Ridge Parkway!), and you’ll be rewarded with chewy, tasty nourishment.Take the time to do a proper assessment, and you’ll be rewarded with a more accurate personality portrayal.

Moral: Say no to quick fixes.

Emotional Intelligence, or EQ as it is often called, is not distinct from mental intelligence—it is an aspect of mental intelligence, just as language ability is an aspect of mental intelligence. Some ardent proponents of EQ assert that it is to be contrasted with mental intelligence as something separate. That is not true. It is separate only in the sense that certain brain processes and areas concentrate more on the emotions (e.g., the amygdala), and certain brain processes and areas concentrate more on language (e.g., Broca’s area). These processes/areas are highly interconnected, such that effective activity in one area of the brain can enhance, or retard, activity in another area. For example, one might be effective at keeping one’s temper under control due to the nature of their amygdala and its surrounding processes, while an idiosyncrasy in their Broca’s area might impede their ability to phrase their speech in a tactful manner that shows awareness of their speech on others’ feelings. As a result, a strength in the amygdala/emotional center is essentially voided by a deficiency in Broca’s/the language area. Hence, emotional “intelligence,” just like the other kinds of intelligence, or self-management, is a complex  interaction of feelings, language, and other mental resources.

In the world of work, we call such an array of mental resources a “competency”—an arena in which individuals compete (from the Latin “competere”) with one another. If you are familiar with the so-called 360° feedback survey, then you will understand that they measure one’s degree of proficiency in various competencies. Most such surveys include a handful of competencies that deal explicitly, or implicitly, with aspects of emotional self-management, such as “Self-Control,” “Stress Management,” “Optimism,” and “Diplomacy.” These four competencies, for example, can be found as topics in the various commercially available EQ surveys. For my money, that is a waste. Why? Inasmuch as EQ is comprised of a variety of competencies, there is no need for an additional survey in order to assess one’s EQ—one only needs to include the “EQ” competencies of interest in their organization’s 360° survey, along with other competencies dealing with finances, planning, and the like. “Stress Management” does not require a separate assessment any more than does “Presentation Skills.” Both may be satisfactorily included in the multirater 360° survey.

I am interested in efficient use of organizational resources, and so I encourage people to eliminate unnecessary, redundant, and costly assessments. More testing is not better. Know what you want, and limit yourself to that. Make sure your 360° surveys include all relevant performance competencies, and don’t worry about using separate performance assessments for difference aspects of one’s performance. You don’t need a financial assessment, an emotional assessment, a leadership assessment, and so on. Design your 360° survey to cover all relevant aspects of a person’s performance.

This is an easy one to remember: The ideal trait profile for a recruiter is mid-range on everything. Here’s why: persons with extreme scores have a tendency to prefer being around others with similar scores, and are likely to feel uncomfortable, disdainful, etc. around opposites. Like the extraverted spouse who complains to their introverted partner, “What do you have against being around other people?” Folks with midrange scores are typically more comfortable around others with scores in either extreme, so long as they’re not always around others at any one extreme.

With respect to recruiting, if an introvert is required for a target job, an ambivert is more likely to feel comfortable actually recommending an introvert than an extrovert would be. Extraverts just like other extraverts more, just as introverts like other introverts more. Explorers like other explorers, neatniks like other neatniks, etc. To the extent that a recruiter is midrange, they are more likely to feel comfortable with whatever trait level is required for a target job.

However, recruiters with extreme scores can also be successful, so long as they understand this dynamic. But, they will need to continually, and consciously, ask themselves if they don’t like a candidate because they’re wrong for the job, or because they’re different from the recruiter!

               “Growing up is the process of becoming more like who we are.”

I cannot think, at the moment, of a better basis for formulating a commitment for the new year (aka new year’s resolution). To harness one’s natural energy and talent in the service of self, family, job, and society, and to eschew activities that are draining–that is the challenge. In our youth, we experiment with a cornucopia of interests. As we age, we let go of the activities that feel less natural, allowing us maximum time to pursue our passions.

To embrace Brody’s insight is to follow the wisdom of the ages. The Greeks put it like this: “Know thyself.” And Shakespeare added, “…and to thine own self be true.” In order to become more like who we are, and to eschew unnatural behavior, we must know our core traits, abilities, values, and physical capabilities.

Try jotting down a handful of your core strengths. Then ask yourself which of them are taking a back seat in your life at present. Resolve to discuss with yourself, your partner(s), your friends, your kids, your heroes, how you might move a neglected strength to center stage going forward.

Here’s an example. One of my core strengths, and a true passion, is my ability in and enjoyment of classical a cappella music: the motets of Bach, the madrigals of Morley, the masses of Byrd, and the contemporary choral gems of Lauridsen and Biebl. It is just not enough to listen to them occasionally sung by others. That, to me, is like trying to find joy in watching someone else eat a gourmet meal—there’s just nothing quite like being the actor, not the audience. For much of my life, being in the audience is ok, but for music I need to be an actor. So, I have started my own a cappella group, building one by one with like-minded friends to form a repertoire that soothes the yearning in a way that fits in with all the other many demands on my, and our, time.

By singing more motets and watching less football, I’m becoming more like who I am. Can’t do it all. So, here’s to maximizing true joy in what we choose to do with our time.

               This holiday period has many kinds of anticipation:

…of children anticipating gifts

…of families anticipating reunion

…of the religious reenacting the anticipation of a significant birth

…of helpers anticipating the needs of the impoverished

…of Congress anticipating the needs of the uninsured

…of Copenhagen delegates anticipating the needs of the planet

…of all of us anticipating the effect of excessive calories

               In short, anticipation is not limited to a season. Anticipation is what it means to be human. Anticipation is the capability of imagining the good, the bad, the interesting, the pleasurable, the beautiful, the true, before they materialize. Anticipation is what must happen before one is capable of setting a goal. Anticipation sets the stage for goal formation, and our lives are nothing more than a journey towards goals. By “taking” the goal “before” we attain it, by savoring the attainment now, ahead of time, we are spurred on to work towards that goal:

• We dream of our children’s, and grandchildren’s, futures and do what we can in the present to enable their goal attainment.
• We dream of a new job, of building a piece of furniture, of planting a garden, of writing a book, of creating an organization, of learning a new skill, of mastering a new challenge, of making a new friend.

               By anticipating these dreams as though they were come true, we do what we can, today, to speed them on their way. By holding our dreams clearly in our mind’s eye, we are able to plan our daily activities so as to move closer to the dream. As the Quaker philosopher Bernard Phillips once wrote, “the search will make you free.” It is the process of working to make a dream come true that enlivens us. Whether we attain the dream is almost secondary—we humans must dream, must have goals, must anticipate the attainment of those goals and dreams, and in anticipating be lively in pursuit. Come, Thou long expected dream. And, I’ll do all in my power to help you come true.

Kautilya (lower left) with his King

      Last night at a holiday party for local consultants, I enjoyed a dialog with a Jew, a Hindu, and a Christian. The subject: there’s little new under the sun. Specifically, the Jew was remarking that his study of the Kaballah, an ancient tradition of esoteric teachings, was yielding remarkably current insights. To wit, the Kaballah’s teachings about the nature of humans sounded very much like what we know today as the Big Five. My retort suggested that human nature has never changed, but rather how we talk about it has. Basic temperament is primarily genetic, and our individual levels of capacity for handling stress (which we call Need for Stability, or “N”), Extraversion (E), Originality (O), Accommodation (A), and Consolidation (C) have defined individual differences since humans diverged from our common ancestor with the chimpanzee (and likely even earlier, as chimps also exhibit these five behavioral dimensions).  

      A good example of the Big Five being imbedded in ancient wisdom pops up in the writings of Kautilya (4^th  c. BCE). Also known as Chanakya, this master strategist and North Indian Brahmin effectively supplanted the Nanda dynasty and placed Chandragupta Maurya as King of Magadha (321 BCE). His written record, The Arthashastra (Iiterally, “On Prosperity”), today comprises 800+ pages in translation (Penguin, 1987, ed. L.N. Rangarajan). It is the most comprehensive treatise on statecraft from classical times.  

      I read parts of this document last year while traveling and teaching in India with our partners in Pune, Jayant and Chatura Damle. I was struck by the passage in which Kautilya discussed what to look for in selecting department heads, or, “Investigating Ministers before their Appointment.” Here is the excerpt that caught my attention:  

     “The king shall thoroughly investigate all the qualities of anyone whom he is considering for appointment as a minister. Of these qualities, nationality, family background and amenability to discipline shall be verified from reliable people. The candidate’s knowledge of the various arts shall be tested by experts in their respective fields. Intelligence, perseverance and dexterity shall be evaluated by examining his past performance, while eloquence, boldness and presence of mind shall be ascertained by interviewing him personally. Watching how he deals with others will show his energy, endurance, ability to suffer adversities, integrity, loyalty and friendliness. From his intimate friends, the King shall find out about his strength, health, and character (whether lazy or energetic, fickle or steady). The candidate’s amiability and love of mankind (absence of a tendency to hate) shall be ascertained by personal observation.” (1.9.3)  

      I reread this passage several times, then proceeded to identify the terms used in specifying the qualities for a “minister.” I used the traditional five letters N, E, O, A, and C, indicating high levels of the behavior with a plus (+), low levels with a hyphen, or minus (-). I was particularly interested in determining whether Kautilya employed the same profile for the ideal leader that we use today: N-E+O+A-C+ (calm, outgoing, visionary, aggressive, and focused). Here’s what I found—the same passage, now with some trait labels:  

     “The king shall thoroughly investigate all the qualities of anyone whom he is considering for appointment as a minister. Of these qualities, nationality, family background and amenability to discipline (C+) shall be verified from reliable people. The candidate’s knowledge of the various arts (O+) shall be tested by experts in their respective fields. Intelligence, perseverance (N-C+) and dexterity shall be evaluated by examining his past performance, while eloquence, boldness (N-E+) and presence of mind (N-) shall be ascertained by interviewing him personally. Watching how he deals with others will show his energy (E+C+), endurance (N-E+), ability to suffer adversities (N-), integrity (N-A+C+), loyalty (A+C+) and friendliness (E+A+). From his intimate friends, the King shall find out about his strength, health, and character [whether lazy (E-C-) or energetic (E+C+), fickle (N+C-) or steady (N-E+O-A+)]. The candidate’s amiability (E+A+) and love of mankind (absence of a tendency to hate, E+O+A+) shall be ascertained by personal observation.” (1.9.3)  

      This morning I was describing last night’s conversation, and Kautilya’s passage, to participants in a Skype-based conference call with the Damles in Pune, India, and our associate in upper-state New York, Patti Kinz, a research psychologist with Performance Partners in Williamsville, NY. I commented to them that Kautilya’s ancient wisdom was consistent with our contemporary ideal leader profile with one exception, and it reflected Kautilya’s deference to the monarch’s preference for lackeys. Where was the exception, I asked? Patti piped up, “Service!” Yes, the “A” (for Accommodation, or Agreeableness) dimension. While Kautilya himself, as well as his boss, were clearly both low in A, Kautilya knew how his bread was buttered (or, how his nan was gheed). Showing good sense in identifying ideal ministers as calm (N-), outgoing (E+), visionary (O+), and focused (C+),  Kautilya departed from accepted, traditional wisdom and tagged A+ characteristics that would support the practice of deferring, or submitting, to the wishes of the monarch. Kautilya was not a tenured professor who could speak the truth without fear of dismissal. Instead, he gave the boss what he wanted!  

      In conclusion, I suspect that Kautilya knew that his boss, Chandragupta Maurya, expected high A behavior (i.e., deference) in his presence, yet expected low A behavior (i.e., toughness) when his reports dealt with their underlings and the public. Have we ever had anyone like that in the White House?