I probably shouldn't toss this out here on a day that has started as wonderfully well as this one, but WTH... here's my antonym (negative traits) Nohari here, if anyone cares to respond... (wry grin).
Brian, I answered your nonjahari window. Please keep in mind that I only sometimes see what my answers were. I think these windows only provide a snipet of who we all actually are. hugs T
Hmmm.... well, *I* think that Jay could stand a little perspective. I suspect that his assessment of his own negative traits is more dire than others' assessment thereof. It might be good for him to see whether or not his own fears are in alignment with how others see him.
(I have re-positioned this comment to appear in the proper place in the thread. Do no assume that I meant to beat you over the head with it because I put it into your inbox twice. I only posted and erased because in the process, LJ put it as a new comment, not in response to this one.)
How do you figure that? Others have pointed out that there's no way to indicate the *severity* of the issue. I know for a fact that when I made my responses to both windows, I was thinking (for Johari) "On his best days, he's these" (and had a hard time choosing from many possible traits), and (for Nohari), "at his worst, he's these," and had a far less difficult time choosing, because so many more of the negatives DO NOT APPLY to you. AND you are not those thins all the time. Yes, SOMETIMES you have some of those traits, and they aren't great. But for goshsakes, Jay, why did you even DO this if it wasn't to learn something about yourself from the way you are reflected in others' eyes? I'm angry at being snookered into providing fodder for your self-flagellation.
I recommend in all seriousness that you lock this entry before you get into another downward spiral.
PS: It's also possible that someone might have *forgotten* to put their name in. Or that they lost it in the process--on at least one occasion in filling all of these out I had to start over, because the stupid window thought I'd chosen more than 6 items when I hadn't, and I couldn't get it to re-set without going back to the beginning. I could easily imagine someone doing that, and then forgetting to put their name in again.
It isn't that I expect worst intentions, dear... I think I received mostly fair answers in *both* devices. And I value the inputs, even if the negative ones are harder to read without cringing a bit.
There's no self-flagellation. I'm not obsessing, nor do I particularly want some dramafest (note that I was quite restrained in my response to Toni, not escalating after she had done so).
The part that I find disconcerting, harder than my own assessment, is the unexpected. Inflexible? Hmm... I think of myself, at least in the workplace, as making up stuff as I go along, replanning on the fly and driving some people nuts with my flexibility. But maybe not socially, where I have much less freedom to be myself. Unhappy? I think of myself as pretty happy, most of the time, even if there have been some down periods thus far in 2006. But needy... that's scary. I have lived in fear of dependence on anyone, striving to ask as little as possible of others and guarding my independence. I don't see how to be less needy, other than by asking even less of others than I presently do. Plus, neediness is... shameful. So that feedback has thrown me off-balance.
Jay, I would be happy to talk to you about any or all of these, and give my perspective. Do you want to do it here, or would you prefer via IM, perhaps tomorrow? (time for me to head to bed right now).
One note I think is important: You may be put off by the sheer number of items that folks chose, the ones that show up in the "blind spot" window. I'd like to offer an alternative view. Keep in mind that the more items are in that window, the less consensus there is about each item. Also, as it stands right now, 9% is only ONE PERSON. Keep that in mind as you look at the numbers. It's likely to have quite a lot of sampling bias with such a relatively small sample.
Les has it right, in that some strengths become weaknesses if taken too far. I know one of the words I chose in the Nohari was "inflexible," but what I really wanted was "rigid." You are very strong, and when you get your teeth into something, you won't let it go. But it means that you won't back down, sometimes, when you need to (like the flamewar a couple weeks back).
And, of course, another word I think I chose for you (on the Johari, I believe) was "complex." It's quite possible for YOU to be contradicting YOURSELF. You have many facets, and not all of them are always "positive," and sometimes they're positive in one situation, but negative in another. And sometimes they're both at the same time.
This is just my take, and it does come from the "a weakness is often a strength taken too far"
Inflexibility-- You can be very goal-oriented. Finishing the proposal. Showing me apartments. Finding motorcycle boots. You are flexible about HOW to achieve the goal, and this is a strength in many ways. I think you find it difficult to just let go of a goal, decide to let it slide, or to abandon a project that is incomplete.
Needy-- I think other people may be seeing your unmet needs, the ones that require another person to meet them. You're unwilling to ask to have them met, because it might risk your independence. I think this is kinda paradoxical, but true-- if you could ask more from people, you'd probably end up needing *less*. (and I'm also utterly okay with you needing Les).
(nods) You're right, I'm very goal-oriented, and stubborn. Persistent, even. But IMO flexible in the different ways I might achieve some goal, almost too flexible for others' orientation or comfort. This has advantages on projects, but seems to give a funny impression socially.
"Tactically flexible and adaptable, strategically pig-headed"...
*wanting* Les, perhaps, but not *needing* Les... (grin)
Of course. It does nothing but stir up more drama and self-pity for himself. If there's no drama, there's no attention.
My guess is that he will take this one a lot harder than the other one, because this one is negative, and he emphasises and leads with his weaknesses, rather than his strengths. His focus seems to be pulled towards what he perceives to be negative, rather than the postive.
Notice that he hasn't said anything about the positive things that were said about him (a lot more of them, as a matter of fact) than negative. The focus is on the negative, even though the sample size is much smaller, and he has no way of identifying where the comments are coming from.
It's sad, because there are so many positive things about him, but he'd rather focus on the negative.
I was replying to Dawn's comment, so I addressed it to her. I general address myself to the person that I'm replying to, and specifically refer to anyone else. Since I wasn't directly responding to your post or a comment you made, I didn't address it to you.
I've decided I officially don't like the nohari window. It would be far too easy for someone to take something I see as a minor negative to mean something far worse. There are no mitigating factors in nohari. Also, I rarely see more than a couple of negative characteristics in someone unless I know them really well, and I'd have to search hard to find as many as five in most of my lj friends.
I answered it once, in someone else's window, and the whole time was spent saying "This sucks, there's no way to explain what the word means to me and how I apply it to their behavior." I'm flat-out not doing it again.
Oddly enough, it never occurred to me to leave one anonymously. I find I am equally resistant to that.
Well, the best way to handle such things is generally to ask, rather than assume you know what they meant.
The thing is, it doesn't need to be taken as a group beating. I'm aware that I don't have the strength of will to be able to take it all with a grain of salt, so I'm not soliciting answers to that one, myself.
Ack. None of this johari nohari stuff is from me. That's something I won't touch with the proverbial ten foot pole. The idea of anonymous commenting on personal traits without it being done in a -very- carefully controlled and guided atmosphere with very specific goals and with a chance for one on one feedback to the commenters... the idea of anonymous commenting, absent those constraints... makes me sick to my stomach.
I got enough of that abuse in high school to tide me over for the rest of my life.
So rest safe, none of that nonsense is from me, dear.
There seems to be much more of that in the Nohari than the Johari, where the commenters all seem OK with identifying themselves. I think anonymous comments should be disallowed, personally.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 08:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 01:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 09:33 pm (UTC)Why do you want to know what other people consider your negative traits?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 09:56 pm (UTC)But that's me, not Jay. :^)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 02:49 am (UTC)How do you figure that? Others have pointed out that there's no way to indicate the *severity* of the issue. I know for a fact that when I made my responses to both windows, I was thinking (for Johari) "On his best days, he's these" (and had a hard time choosing from many possible traits), and (for Nohari), "at his worst, he's these," and had a far less difficult time choosing, because so many more of the negatives DO NOT APPLY to you. AND you are not those thins all the time. Yes, SOMETIMES you have some of those traits, and they aren't great. But for goshsakes, Jay, why did you even DO this if it wasn't to learn something about yourself from the way you are reflected in others' eyes? I'm angry at being snookered into providing fodder for your self-flagellation.
I recommend in all seriousness that you lock this entry before you get into another downward spiral.
PS: It's also possible that someone might have *forgotten* to put their name in. Or that they lost it in the process--on at least one occasion in filling all of these out I had to start over, because the stupid window thought I'd chosen more than 6 items when I hadn't, and I couldn't get it to re-set without going back to the beginning. I could easily imagine someone doing that, and then forgetting to put their name in again.
Assume the BEST intentions, Jay, not the worst.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 05:07 am (UTC)There's no self-flagellation. I'm not obsessing, nor do I particularly want some dramafest (note that I was quite restrained in my response to Toni, not escalating after she had done so).
The part that I find disconcerting, harder than my own assessment, is the unexpected. Inflexible? Hmm... I think of myself, at least in the workplace, as making up stuff as I go along, replanning on the fly and driving some people nuts with my flexibility. But maybe not socially, where I have much less freedom to be myself. Unhappy? I think of myself as pretty happy, most of the time, even if there have been some down periods thus far in 2006. But needy... that's scary. I have lived in fear of dependence on anyone, striving to ask as little as possible of others and guarding my independence. I don't see how to be less needy, other than by asking even less of others than I presently do. Plus, neediness is... shameful. So that feedback has thrown me off-balance.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 05:44 am (UTC)One note I think is important: You may be put off by the sheer number of items that folks chose, the ones that show up in the "blind spot" window. I'd like to offer an alternative view. Keep in mind that the more items are in that window, the less consensus there is about each item. Also, as it stands right now, 9% is only ONE PERSON. Keep that in mind as you look at the numbers. It's likely to have quite a lot of sampling bias with such a relatively small sample.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-16 02:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-16 02:46 am (UTC)And, of course, another word I think I chose for you (on the Johari, I believe) was "complex." It's quite possible for YOU to be contradicting YOURSELF. You have many facets, and not all of them are always "positive," and sometimes they're positive in one situation, but negative in another. And sometimes they're both at the same time.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 03:17 am (UTC)Inflexibility-- You can be very goal-oriented. Finishing the proposal. Showing me apartments. Finding motorcycle boots. You are flexible about HOW to achieve the goal, and this is a strength in many ways. I think you find it difficult to just let go of a goal, decide to let it slide, or to abandon a project that is incomplete.
Needy-- I think other people may be seeing your unmet needs, the ones that require another person to meet them. You're unwilling to ask to have them met, because it might risk your independence. I think this is kinda paradoxical, but true-- if you could ask more from people, you'd probably end up needing *less*. (and I'm also utterly okay with you needing Les).
no subject
Date: 2006-02-16 02:36 am (UTC)"Tactically flexible and adaptable, strategically pig-headed"...
*wanting* Les, perhaps, but not *needing* Les... (grin)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 11:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 02:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 04:19 am (UTC)My guess is that he will take this one a lot harder than the other one, because this one is negative, and he emphasises and leads with his weaknesses, rather than his strengths. His focus seems to be pulled towards what he perceives to be negative, rather than the postive.
Notice that he hasn't said anything about the positive things that were said about him (a lot more of them, as a matter of fact) than negative. The focus is on the negative, even though the sample size is much smaller, and he has no way of identifying where the comments are coming from.
It's sad, because there are so many positive things about him, but he'd rather focus on the negative.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 04:47 am (UTC)Wasn't meant to cause offense.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 11:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 11:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 11:47 pm (UTC)I answered it once, in someone else's window, and the whole time was spent saying "This sucks, there's no way to explain what the word means to me and how I apply it to their behavior." I'm flat-out not doing it again.
Oddly enough, it never occurred to me to leave one anonymously. I find I am equally resistant to that.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 12:06 am (UTC)I'm pretty sure that at least one of the anonymous comments (two, I think) are from partners of mine. That... speaks volumes, unfortunately.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 12:51 am (UTC)The thing is, it doesn't need to be taken as a group beating. I'm aware that I don't have the strength of will to be able to take it all with a grain of salt, so I'm not soliciting answers to that one, myself.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 04:47 am (UTC)none from this partner
Date: 2006-02-14 01:52 am (UTC)Re: none from this partner
Date: 2006-02-14 02:14 am (UTC)Re: none from this partner
Date: 2006-02-14 08:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 04:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 04:44 am (UTC)tongue firmly in cheek
Date: 2006-02-14 04:37 am (UTC)Re: tongue firmly in cheek
Date: 2006-02-14 04:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 05:20 am (UTC)http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/johari/johari_window.html
no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 07:15 am (UTC)I got enough of that abuse in high school to tide me over for the rest of my life.
So rest safe, none of that nonsense is from me, dear.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-16 02:38 am (UTC)