Your Ex-Boyfriend Will Hate This (4 page)

Chapter Five

The Type Re-Writer

Most of you by this point in your life have a certain “type” of man that you’re consistently drawn to in matters of romance. For some it may be quite specific—a certain body type, hair and eye color, height, etc. For others, it may be a matter of career, education, political affiliation, or moral attitudes. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, all of us are drawn to certain personality types and turned off by others. The relevant question for our discussion is this: Is my “type” helping or harming my pursuit of true, lasting love? For some of you, the question can be phrased more plainly: Why do I keep going for these hopeless assholes?

In his book,
The Eight Personality Types of Men Who Are Successful with Women
, David DeAngelo outlines these allegedly desirable types of men. Here is a summary of them, with tongue planted firmly in cheek:

1) The Bad Boy:
He’s the “dangerous” dude your mother wouldn’t like. He’s the tough loose cannon who refuses to yield to societal laws and mores. He’s often an abuser of alcohol and drugs; being with him causes the same addictive rush in you. Oh, one more thing about the Bad Boy; he often expresses his anger with his fists pointed in your direction. An unstable narcissist with a penchant for domestic violence? Where do I sign up?

2) The Adventurer:
He’s a junkie too, but his narcotic is the quest for greater and greater thrills. He’s a lover of extreme sports like skydiving and bungee jumping. He won’t physically abuse you like the Bad Boy, but he’s 100% more likely to watch you fall to a grisly death because you overestimated your rock-climbing skills. Yet like the Bad Boy, the Adventurer is a wild horse you’ll never break. He’s rarely monogamous and is likely to abandon you as soon as he feels the thrill of the relationship is gone.

3) The Seducer:
He’s the one who knows your buttons, how to push them, and exactly how fast or slowly to do so. Seducers understand women implicitly and appear to make your pleasure their life’s mission. But when the lights come up in the morning, you discover that their “mission” was more like a commando raid—quick, explosive, and leaving no trace of themselves behind after their target has been vanquished.

4) The Artist:
He’s that mysterious creative spirit who represents a complex challenge for you. He’s the poet who is forever wrestling with The Meaning of Life. He’s the tormented musician trying to exorcise his troubled childhood via guitar solo. No one “understands” him, his demons, and his passions like you do. He tells you that you’re the sole light in his world of darkness. Then one night he has dirty, drunken sex with a groupie in the alley behind the club after the show. Suddenly you don’t understand him anymore, so he takes your microwave, laptop, and jar of coins as payment for his pain.

5) The Successful Guy:
He’s the budding tycoon, the corporate titan, the man who “makes things happen” by his sheer force of will. He drives a car with a monthly lease more expensive than the mortgage on your house. He has a home theater larger than your entire apartment. With him you’ll never want for anything, or at least not anything tangible. He does have a few drawbacks, however, and they’re confirmed by research. Studies show that powerful men are far more likely to be selfish and ego-driven.
[xi]
They’re more likely to lie and cheat. Their power has given them an irrational sense of entitlement. They’re also far less likely to show compassion, making them the worst kind of person you need when going through personal crisis.

6) Daddy:
He’s the surrogate patriarch who dictates your every action; he thinks he “knows what’s best for you.” He may be appealing either because of his similarity to your own authoritarian father, or because he provides a substitute for the father you never had. He may be considerably older than you, but he doesn’t have to be, just as long as he provides a strong, guiding hand in every facet of your life. He loves you, but only on the condition that you never attempt to assert your independence.

7) The Regular Guy:
He’s the salt of the earth—dependable, ardently loyal, and a model of stability.  He works hard, has a strong sense of right and wrong, and makes an ideal parent. The Regular Guy is idealized as “the guy you marry,” but he’s often dismissed as “boring.”

8) Ass-Kissing Guy:
He’s the inverse of the Daddy.  He’s the pawn who does your bidding. He always puts your needs first and defines himself as your boyfriend or husband. While he satisfies your every request and attends to your every need, he’s usually held in quiet contempt for his spinelessness.

Other than the “regular guy,” what do seven of these eight types have in common? They are, by their very nature, unable to provide compatibility and lasting happiness. Whether the storm comes early or late in the relationship, the clouds are always encroaching and never far from view, if you bother to look. Nearly all of these types, which girls supposedly want (per De’Angelo and his alleged vice grip on female desire), have a sense of disdain for your ability to rationally choose a mate who’ll be good for you.

If you see your “type” among those described, don’t despair. A ton of men out there fit one of those descriptions. They may even make up the majority of the men you’ve met or dated. Seven of the eight types—Bad Boy, Adventurer, Seducer, Artist, Successful Guy, Daddy, and Ass-Kissing Guy—are ruled chiefly by selfish and juvenile desires. Not only do these desires usually have nothing to do with your feelings, they may even be their enemy. Nearly all of these personality types are embalmed in a stage of arrested development.

One type is the least glamorous and, therefore, most easily taken for granted. He’s The Regular Guy. By studying the description above, you’ll find that only his type exists in a state of equilibrium with his mate. He isn’t selfish, but he isn’t spineless, either. He knows who he is and what is important to him, and he’s willing and able to care for and protect it.

It’s important not to get caught up in the semantics of the author’s definition of types. The “regular” man he describes is actually pretty rare. Regular doesn’t mean “average,” though; the average man probably more closely fits one of the other personality types. It’s easy to be another kind of man; it’s easy to seek out and make preferential your own desires at the expense of everyone else.

There is no valor or nobility in looking out for “number one.”

It is in our DNA to pursue our own interests. Survival of the fittest, right? Even the simplest life forms do this. You, on the other hand, aren’t a simple life form; one hopes that your mate won’t be, either. Ideally, you’ll foster mutual caring, love, and respect that will make it as natural to pursue each other’s happiness as it is to pursue your own. The desire to do this is supposedly one characteristic that marks us as the most elevated and sophisticated species on Earth.

In DeAngelo’s (silly and contemptible) book, The Regular Guy is the only one who isn’t motivated by unadulterated egotism. The Regular Guy wants a partnership, whereas all of the other personality types just want an acolyte (except for the Ass-Kisser, who wants to be an acolyte).

Discussing The Regular Guy brings to mind the dating travails of a close friend in Los Angeles named Karen. Karen was a beautiful, successful girl who possessed, quite literally, a genius intellect confirmed repeatedly by childhood tests. Yet, when it came to romantic affairs, she was repeatedly drawn to hopeless egotists with whom no real future was possible. One day she shared her woes about her affair with a guitarist in a prominent alternative-rock band:

“He says he doesn’t love his girlfriend anymore, and he always complains about her. After we make love, he always claims he’s going to leave her so he can be with me. But, ultimately, he can’t bring himself to leave her. I don’t understand.”

Karen’s type was “The Artist.” The men she dated snugly fit the cliché of the unfaithful, self-absorbed guy that DeAngelo describes. With every new one, Karen would inevitably come to me with the same complaints. The Artist used her for sex and, occasionally, for money. He never cared about her like she cared for him, and he was never faithful to her, despite all his empty promises.

Here’s the thing. Complaining about The Artist being unfaithful is like taking issue with a crack addict for not maintaining a savings account. After listening without comment to Karen for many years of spinning similar woes, I suggested that, despite her labeling “regular guys” as dull and unable to satisfy her sexually, it was time to give The Regular Guy a try. Today, Karen is happily married to a smart, funny, and loving “regular guy.” They have been together for six regular years now and have two beautiful, regular kids.

If you study carefully DeAngelo’s eight personality types and think about your own complex inner-self, the descriptions seem hopelessly shallow. How can we possibly choose a mate whose primary characteristics are so simplistic and immature? Yet many of us may find that, if we really analyze our motives, we’ve become conditioned to seek out only a superficial, easily-categorized set of traits in a prospective mate.

Chalk it up to the failures of our parents or our empty, quick-fix, sex-and money-obsessed culture. We’re generally taught that the easy answers are the only answers, so why bother delving any deeper? In the next chapter we will go a little deeper and look at more thorough, research-backed ideas about personality “types.”

Chapter Six

Making Personality Personal

If the goal is to seek substantial and lasting compatibility, it is time to start looking at some useful models for assistance. The idea of psychological “types” has been around since famed psychologist Carl Jung introduced it in the early 1920s, and even in our era when every new thing has the shelf-life of a pink taffeta bridesmaid dress, an idea introduced when your nana was a child is still the foundation for how we view personality today.

But I didn’t buy this book for a refresher course in psychology
, you may be thinking.
When do we get to the bit where I find a decent guy?
The answer lies in psychology as much as in physiology and sexuality.

But back to Carl Jung. According to his theory, there are two basic personality types: extroverts and introverts. Extroversion is defined as “the act of directing one’s interest outward or to things outside the self.” Extroverts are happiest and most energetic in the company of others. They’re more comfortable in unfamiliar surroundings and situations. They don’t experience social awkwardness around new people. Moreover, they seem to thrive in these situations and make friends easily.

Introversion refers to “the state of being concerned primarily with one’s own thoughts and feelings rather than with the external environment.” Introverts shrink from social interaction in big groups. They don’t take on new friends often, or easily, and may even be somewhat mistrustful of others. They enjoy activities they can do on their own—surfing the internet, playing video games, watching movies, and listening to music, for instance. Introverts have a more developed “inner life,” because they’re generally more attuned to their own thoughts and feelings.

In addition to the extrovert/introvert classifications, Jung noted two others: intuitive/sensing and feeling/thinking. He believed that people develop essential traits that are either rational (sensing and thinking) or non-rational (intuition and feeling). From these three descriptive pairs, Jung formed eight basic personality types.
[xii]

Each of the eight types is a combination of the traits listed above. For instance, an “Extraverted/Thinking” type of person is a strategist by nature. He or she views situations analytically, devising and instituting plans based on clear reasoning. He or she is a good leader of others when focusing a group on the most expedient solution to a given problem. By contrast, an “Introverted/Feeling” person may be difficult to read and harder to reach; his or her complex, passionate desires may not be understood by most people. Artists often have this personality type, for example.

Many people who have applied for a job in Corporate America may be familiar with the Myers-Briggs personality test or, as it properly known, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Many companies insist that all potential employees complete this series of yes/no questions before they’re hired. The test was originally designed during World War II to aid women in finding a factory job best suited to their personality type. The Myers-Briggs test operates on the same principles as Jung’s three trait divisions—extraverted/introverted, sensing/intuition, feeling/thinking—but adds a fourth, “judging/perceiving.” Those who fit into the “judging” camp approach a potential scenario logically, expecting a fixed end. The “perceiving” camp prefers to explore a variety of solutions and would rather “keep decisions open.” Put simply, “judging” people consider answers to be most important, whereas “perceiving” people focus on the questions.
[xiii]

Taking the official Myers-Briggs test would cost sixty dollars and about an hour of your time, if you contemplate your answers. For a free alternative, you can go to
www.humanmetrics.com
and take a seventy-two question version that closely mirrors the Myers-Briggs test and gives results using the same terminology. Here are three examples of questions taken from Humanmetrics’ “Jung Typology Test”:

You tend to be unbiased even if this might endanger your good relations with people: Yes or No?

Often you prefer to read a book rather than go to a party: Yes or No?

A thirst for adventure is close to your heart: Yes or No?

I’ve personally taken both the official Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Humanmetrics’ version, with the same result. Both identified my personality as ENTP, which stands for “extraversion/intuition/thinking/perception.” Among the main traits of someone with my personality type are outspokenness, creativity, and a quick wit. ENTPs are also likely to overlook the day-to-day necessities of life while putting undue emphasis on more exciting projects. If you ask people who know me well, their description of me would almost exactly match my personality type description. If you ask my father, he’d especially laugh about my predilection to neglect menial but important tasks.

If all this sounds intimidating and confusingly technical, I encourage you to take the free test and find out for yourself. The questions are easily understood, and if you think about each one and answer as honestly as you can, you may be astounded at how well the results reflect your own personality. Additionally, the test suggests your ideal careers and notes the famous people who share your personality type.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has sixteen basic personality types. Very few people fit exactly into any one of them, but it’s a rough outline that has become so widely accepted that many corporations will or won’t hire someone based on the results. You can’t “flunk” it like a test in school, however. There are no right or wrong answers. As the name suggests, it merely sketches a person’s core personality.

So why is this test important to our discussion? Have all of these pages been a build-up to one master pitch for some test invented in the 1940s? No. I value you and your impeccable taste in reading material too much to waste your time. I want to examine the core of the questions on this test. According to our most respected psychologists, what are the most valid factors in determining who we are?

Having examined the two mainstream tests, I think the questions can be distilled into four of primary importance:

1) Do you prefer the company of a group, or do you prefer to be alone?

2) Do you trust your “hunches” (an inexplicable inner sense of what to do in a given situation), or do you distrust what you can’t see, hear, and feel?

3) When faced with a problem, does your mind or your heart most often make the decision?

4) Metaphorically speaking, which is more important, the journey or the destination?

You may notice that none of these questions has to do with career, leisure activities or favorite bands, movies, restaurants, and places to vacation. I’m embarrassed to admit that my primary requirement for a girlfriend, when I was much younger, was that she despise the same rock bands I did. (I was the sort of surly young man whom I’d shudder to meet now.) That I managed to date a few wonderful women during that period was a result of either divine providence or blind luck, depending on your beliefs.

The simple questions above give you a pretty good read on almost anyone you meet, and how the answers compare with yours will almost certainly be a better indicator of your compatibility with someone than your previous approach. But a few of you might say that none of those questions covers whether or not a guy can turn me on. The good news is that, barring a strange anatomical misfortune, the guys who are compatible with your long-term happiness also have penises capable of giving you pleasure.

Please do yourself a favor and wait for one of those.

So how do the answers to the Important Questions help to determine compatibility? Which personality types work with which others? First, I need to provide a disclaimer: there isn’t a universally-accepted personality test that provides pinpoint accuracy in determining a person’s nature. Even Myers-Briggs, the most commonly used, has been the subject of an ongoing debate about its effectiveness. Theory and practice don’t always make ideal bedfellows, and neither people nor life itself is constant, so no test could possibly assess people with perfect accuracy over the course of their ever-changing lives. Neither life nor the people who live it is at all perfect—ever.

Side note: If either you or your life is perfect, put this book down now. Better yet, give it to a friend who could use some good advice or just something to make her laugh one rainy afternoon. Then give me a call through my publisher and say I expressly insisted you get through to me. Seriously. I’ll never be too old or too successful to benefit from the advice of a Perfect Person.

Back to compatibility.

I can recommend a good book on this subject, which gives you all the necessary detail about the possible compatibility of your own personality with the other fifteen types identified in the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). It called
Just Your Type
by Paul D. Tieger and Barbara Barron-Tieger, and it further explores this topic via both theory and research. This field of thought began in the 1970s with research by a Lithuanian sociologist and dean of family science named Aušra Augustinavičiūtė. The good doctor (whose name I won’t attempt to spell again) developed ideas, which he dubbed “socionics,” about how Jung’s personality types interact with one another.

Although socionics has never been widely recognized in academia, it has become more popular since the rise of the internet. There are dating websites that match people solely based on it, and there are schools of socionics in Eastern Europe. I’m not endorsing socionics as the ultimate indicator of whether you and male X will make it, or whether you’ll end up furiously throwing each other’s shit out of an apartment window.  I am only highlighting this as a fresh lens through which to view compatibility.

Examining the compatibility of the many different personality combos (136 of them), I found a few interesting consistencies. First, contrary to what you might think, men with your exact same personality profile aren’t necessarily your ideal mates. In the same way that being with someone with identical MHC (the immune system imprint that we all carry) isn’t ideal, being with your personality doppelganger isn’t either. While that person may echo your beliefs and outlook, he also won’t add anything new. Boredom might develop over the long term if both partners remain the same. In fact, continued success often requires that one partner assumes an opposite but complementary trait; for example, one becomes a people person when both were homebodies before.

A second consistency is that the “opposites attract” stuff is sort of bullshit. You might be attracted to your polar opposite but, according to socionics, it’s the last person you should be with. A person with all four traits contrary to yours represents the worst chance for long-term compatibility. So if you’re an intuitive loner with your heart on your sleeve, who prefers to “discuss” rather than “debate,” avoid that charismatic, sternly rational guy who loves nothing more than winning an argument. Socionics says you two are doomed.

Here’s the third and perhaps most interesting consistency, which adds a peculiar “yes, but…” to the previous paragraph. Although you don’t want to pick your exact opposite (all four traits contrary), socionics says that your ideal mate should have three of four traits different from yours, but that you must have the same fourth trait: judging/perceiving.

If this seems nonsensical, think about your past relationships. What is more frustrating than arguing with someone who refuses to acknowledge the “rules” of the argument? If you’re highly logical, nothing is more maddening than arguing with someone you would describe as “touchy-feely.” While you’re making a perfectly good point about why you can’t afford a more expensive apartment, he’s accusing you of never honoring his desires. You aren’t having one argument, you’re having two, and you could have them for all eternity without the two intersecting. A difference in this one basic trait (judging/perceiving) almost naturally dooms any consistent, mutually-satisfying conflict resolution for the length of your relationship.

Think about one of the most popular clichés concerning the difference between men and women. Women just want someone for airing out their problems, someone to listen. Because of their manly nature, men assume there is no point to hearing a problem unless the point is securing a solution. To men (or rather “men” in this clichéd scenario), it’s the difference between plugging a leak and sitting under it while complaining about how wet you’re getting. “Men” don’t understand that “women” want to engage in the simple act of unburdening their grievances. A scenario in which this difference remains constant would prove to be endlessly frustrating to both partners and, ultimately, due cause for a split.

We will explore this topic a little more in the next chapter and help you begin to ask the questions that really matter in finding a partner for life.