Different Strokes for Different Folks
Adapting ethical guidance for different personalities (with audio narration!)
Introducing audio narration:
Today I’d like to focus on a topic that I don’t see discussed much in ethics: the relationship of personality to ethical advice. Oftentimes in ethics we’re focused on overarching principles, or perhaps on how different responses are appropriate in different situations. I don’t see much discussion of how different people may actually need differing advice or differing programs for their ethical development.
And yet, we all know that people are different. Some people learn best by doing, others by observing or reading. Some people are gregarious, others reticent. It’s widely acknowledged that there are different learning styles and preferences, and that we all have different ways of experiencing and interacting with the world. My husband, who is the most outgoing person I know, doesn’t learn anything by reading a book; he has to jump in feet-first and learn as he goes along. I, on the other hand, never do anything without reading the manual first. I run every possible scenario through my head several times before attempting it in real life. Personally, I think we’re a good couple. We balance each other out.
So when we start looking at life guidance and ethical development, why would there be a one-size-fits-all approach? Sure, there are general features of everyone’s progression—we have to learn to talk before we can debate, and we have to reach a certain maturity level before we can be said to have moral responsibility. But there’s also tremendous variation. The type of guidance that two very different people (like my husband and me) might need could be completely different.
That’s why I really love the personalized version of ethics that a good teacher or mentor can offer to students. This is something the ancient Chinese philosopher Kongzi (known in English as Confucius) excelled at. As Confucian scholar Bryan Van Norden notes (p. 46),
Consider the immense variation in the answers Kongzi gives to the same question. When he is asked about Goodness, he gives five different answers to five different disciples. He is asked how to govern a state on six occasions, and on each he gives a different answer. Kongzi's variability apparently puzzled even some of his own disciples. On one occasion, Kongzi's disciple Zilu asked whether one should immediately put into practice a moral teaching one has learned. Kongzi responded in the negative, telling Zilu that one must first seek the advice of one's elders before acting. Later, Ran Qiu asked the very same question: should one immediately put into practice a moral teaching one has heard? Kongzi replied that one should indeed act immediately. A third disciple heard both exchanges, and asked Kongzi why he gave different answers to the same question. Kongzi replied simply, “Ran Qiu is overly cautious, so I wished to urge him on. Zilu, on the other hand, is too impetuous, and so I sought to hold him back” (11.22).
This is an extremely important principle that I think is not discussed enough in ethics. Some people are spontaneous and impulsive—which makes them very handy in situations where quick action is required—and some people are reflective and cautious—which makes them great in situations where sober reflection is called for. Society needs all these types of people to function well, and we can value the different gifts that different personality types bring to the table. We value our funny friends who are the life of the party, and we value our meticulous calculators who run our economy and build our airplanes.
At the same time, different personality types usually need different types of prompting when it comes to living a meaningful and happy life. People like me, who are conscientious and prone to rumination and over-thinking, will need an extra dose of confidence and encouragement, as Confucius’ disciple Ran Qiu did in the passage above. But people who are overconfident and impetuous will need a whip hand to rein in their impulsive reactions, as Confucius’ student Zilu did. Fortunately, Confucius was wise enough to know the difference.
We seem to have lost this feature of wisdom in modern moral philosophy, which seeks uniformity and standardization in ethical guidelines. But every good teacher, and every good speaker, knows that you have to work with the students or the audience you have. Not only do learners or listeners have different personality types, but they have different starting points. Everyone is at a different place in their own journey. Everyone has different life experiences to draw on. And when it comes to ethics, people have an extremely wide range of models, expectations, and emotional patterns that they have learned from their families, peers, and cultures. Some people need to be prodded on, while others need to be reined in.
I think this is important to keep in mind as we talk about ethical guidelines. People need to work on different things. Some people suffer from anger, others from anxiety; some people tend toward addiction, while others slide toward depression; some people want power, while others just want peace and quiet. The advice that we give to these different types of people might look very different.
So I try to keep this mind as I read Epictetus’ admonitions to his students, most of whom were entitled young men raised in rich households, most of whom knew they would one day be running the empire. Young men of any era are not known for being reflective and modest, so most of Epictetus’ advice aims to take them down a peg or two. Even the older men who came through his classroom were often pompous, self-important, and not used to being contradicted. They definitely needed to have their egos deflated a bit.
For someone like me, however, who is sensitive and overly attuned to other people, I think Epictetus may have given different advice. I know Confucius would have. He probably would have tried to build my confidence in my own opinions and advised me to think less—or at least differently—about other people’s problems. My issues are quite different from those of a conceited 20-year-old patrician. What I need to know is: how can I deal with the suffering inherent in life without becoming paralyzed with sadness? How can I balance my own sensitivities with the demands of others? How do I act appropriately in a competitive and arrogant world?
The ancient Stoics did acknowledge personality differences in their life guidance. Seneca writes differently to the various recipients of his letters, tailoring his advice to each person’s strengths, weaknesses, and life history. Epictetus also frequently refers to personal differences in his students. Although he doesn’t change his advice as blatantly at Confucius did, he urges them to consider their own abilities when making decisions about appropriate actions. And in a lecture on training, he says,
I'm inclined to pleasure; I'll throw myself beyond measure in the opposite direction, for the sake of training. I'm inclined to avoid hard work: I'll train and exercise my impressions to ensure that my aversion from everything of that kind will cease…So different people will practice hardest with regard to different things. Epictetus, Discourses, 3.12, 7-8
I’ll just note that we want to distinguish here between personality traits, which are morally neutral, and character, which is morally important. I consider personality to be features that are highly genetically influenced and over which we have limited (although greater than zero) control. Academic psychologists favor the Big Five model, but there are many other popular ways of conceiving personality (Myers-Briggs, enneagram, etc.). I’m agnostic about which of these models best captures personality, as I think they all have their strengths and weaknesses. However, I don’t think many people would dispute the idea that personality traits exist.
Character, while certainly related to personality, is not the same thing as personality. We may express our character through patterns associated with our personality, but character is much more susceptible to formation through life experiences. People of any personality type can develop a good character or a bad character. Whether you are introverted or extraverted, sensing or feeling, conscientious or otherwise, you can apply your traits in better or worse ways.
That’s why next week I’ll offer some of my thoughts on Stoicism for sensitive folks—specifically, how Marcus Aurelius’ meditations can provide guidance for those with extra sensitivities. I find that in many contexts Stoicism is associated with inflexibility and is presented as a system for those who want to be extra tough. However, this is completely at odds with my own experience as a sensitive person. So I want to share how I have tailored my philosophical approach for my personality. I imagine many readers also have some extra sensitivities, and even if you don’t, you probably know someone who does. If nothing else, it might make you think carefully about the importance of adapting your life philosophy for your actual life. I hope it will be beneficial for everyone! See you then.
Great piece! I also think Stoicism has other elements of subjectivity allowing for this type of self assessment built in. Both Epictetus's role ethics and broader decision making based on virtue call for the correctly-powered and scaled response based on where you are in life and what else you've taken on and been born into. Even the virtue of moderation seems to entail knowing yourself enough to know what enough looks like and what excess looks like. Those things will be relative to your personality.
On one hand, the theoretical sage may have the "best" response what may be irrespective of personality. But given that we're not sages and cannot know, we have to reason our way there based on experience of ourselves under pressure.
As a sensitive personality type myself, I look forward to your next essay. Confucianism doesn't posit rationalism as the central feature of the human being in the way Stoicism does, and counsels a less abstract view of approaching character development and goodness. Any advance towards wisdom requires us to learn how to "read the room", so we can act/listen/speak accordingly.