ABC's of DISC

Main: D
Secondary: I

It is hard to say whether the test was accurate for me. However, due to my late arrival to class on the day of this exercise, i only managed to answer the last half of the 28 questions. With those results, I got a main D and secondary I. However, I was curious as to my actual results, so later on, i took the test again by myself, after finding the file on blackboard. After taking the whole test, i actually got the exact same results. Main D, and secondary I. I found this kind of interesting.

My difficulties in answering the question to this blog come from the one question that i was constantly asking myself whilst taking the personality test (both times) and seeing the kind of questions i needed to answer.

If this test evaluates our personality types, to what extent can our personalities change? i guess that opens up a whole new subject, of genetics VS environment. (kind of off topic, i know, sorry)

As i was answering the questions, i tried to answer them as honestly as possible, with how i was feeling at the time. But i knew that had i been answering these very same questions a few years ago, my results might have been very different.

Anyways, moving on.

So in an attempt to gain a little bit more insight on this personality assessment, i decided to Wikipedia it. Being the egocentric D that i am, i initially only wanted to find out more about D and I types.
Here is what I found:
High D (such as myself):demanding, forceful, egocentric, strong willed, driving, determined, ambitious, aggressive, and pioneering.
Low D (supposedly my complete opposite): conservative, low keyed, cooperative, calculating, undemanding, cautious, mild, agreeable, modest and peaceful.

Now is it just me, or does a "low D" person sound like an overall much more likable person that "high D" ?!?!?
So these descriptions of a high D? can i defend them? "egocentric" seems to be one of the worst ones, which i hate to admit may actually be kind of accurate. However, many of the others i feel simply describe someone who knows what they want, and is determined to get it. (hey, when i put it like that, its not all that bad is it?)

so i delve a little deeper to my secondary type:

High I: convincing, magnetic, political, enthusiastic, persuasive, warm, demonstrative, trusting, and optimistic.
Low I:reflective, factual, calculating, skeptical, logical, suspicious, matter of fact, pessimistic, and critical.

Ok, so at least with this type, i feel like "high I" comes off a little better =)
I'd almost wish that "I" was my primary type. This kind of person seems awesome, no?

So in attempt to reform my egocentric "D" ways, i'll read on about S and C types:

High "S" styles want a steady pace, security, and do not like sudden change. They are calm, relaxed, patient, possessive, predictable, deliberate, stable, consistent, and tend to be unemotional and poker faced.
Low "S" styles are those who like change and variety. People with Low "S" scores are described as restless, demonstrative, impatient, eager, or even impulsive.

I do feel like i fit into the "low S" description, except for my discomfort with change, which falls into "high S". I found this quite interesting, as i've often considered my discomfort with change to be a direct result of extensive moving (from country to country)as a child. So is this perhaps one way in which environment and experiences can actually alter our personalities?

And as for C's
"High C" styles adhere to rules, regulations, and structure. They like to do quality work and do it right the first time. They are careful, cautious, exacting, neat, systematic, diplomatic, accurate, and tactful.
"Low C" styles challenge the rules and want independence and are described as self-willed, stubborn, opinionated, unsystematic, arbitrary, and careless with details.

I think that i fit very well into the description of a "low C", perhaps with the exception of careless with details, which i feel is not always the case.


So do i wish i were another type?
Well, i think perhaps high I instead of D would have been better. I think that maybe having at least a little of each type is good, and the more we can have, the better.
As far as being a D, i think that it is perhaps a difficult type to be. I think that in terms of business and management, it could be a very useful type, but i am not sure if this is an easy type for women to be accepted as. I definitely do think that knowing or understanding someone's type can be useful. I think in a professional sense, it is extremely important for both employees and their employers to know what type they are, because it should probably make it easier to assign them to the right jobs/roles.

Personal Interactions?
I'd like to say that such a test could also help in other personal interactions, but i am not quite sure if this is true. I feel that as far as friendships and relationships, it could work in either direction. From experience, i have at times admired people who were most like me, because i admired our shared good qualities, but at other times i have hated seeing my own flaws in another person. Also, as a D, i have dated other D-like people, and found that we sometimes struggle for power or attention, and if we are both strong willed and egocentric, a regular fight can turn into WW3. So i see the ways in which a high D or I may compliment a high S or C, because it seems that high S or C's may WANT a more dominant person.

And now if i were "STRANDED"?
Normally, i think that in group situations i might clash with a high D leader. If i am not persuaded by their confidence, I might not trust their decisions. Maybe a high I would have some better qualities for managing a group that is comprised of various personality types. In a situation like "stranded", where all of our lives would depend on good decisions being made, i would worry that a high D would be too busy "being a leader" and not busy enough thinking carefully enough about what needs to be done. So, perhaps a high I would be best, since he/she could lead effectively, while using his/her people skills to keep everyone at ease, while evaluating their contributions to solving our problem, rather than dismissing them (which i could imagine a high D might do.)

So if you have finally made it to the bottom of this entry, i would like to apologize for how ridiculously long it is, and thank you for taking the time to read it.