And traces leave - as if the tank passed. Why do some people live easily and others are hard? For whom is chaos the source of the drive? How to get rid of the complex of undeserved joy, because heavy and light types of people always exist.
And in my environment, and in your environment, there are people who are light and heavy. At the first, it seems, there are no difficulties, they do not burden anyone with their problems, they happily relate to life, and most importantly - they all get it. And there are individuals who do not always complain, but somehow everything that happens to them is perceived as a burden. They are not pessimists and optimists, but, as I understand it, people who feel life differently: some as a gift of God, as a source of pleasure, others as a test, and even a duty. I call these people "Mozart and Salieri" or "butterflies and elephants". How is my classification consistent with the scientific? And how, from the point of view of psychology, is it more correct to live - like a butterfly or an elephant?
Fortunately, as far as the human psyche is concerned, science does not recognize rigid standards for heavy and easy types of people. The ease or difficulty of a person depends on three factors: the properties of his character, the type of temperament and philosophy of life. It is impossible to say what type of character and image of the world view is correct. Each way of interaction with the world is true, because it corresponds to the nature of a particular person, to his psychophysiological characteristics. So do not expect from psychologists an unambiguous answer to the question. But the philosophers divided into two camps. Some believe that life is easy, others are difficult. For example, the ancient Greek philosophers said:
"Gods are easily living." It means that easy people succeed, and they reach Olympus. Friedrich Nietzsche, on the contrary, said: "Only those who carry chaos, can give birth to a dancing star" - in his opinion, only a difficult person can create something worthwhile. Here are two completely different philosophical views of life.
And by the criterion of life results - which philosophy is more productive?
Mozart - the lightest man was! And his music is the same - light, elegant. And remember the works of Schnittke - between us speaking, not everyone will stand such a cumbersome, complex music. But both are geniuses. Or the great poets Yesenin and Pasternak. We know that Boris Leonidovich, copying his texts fifty times over, was tormented by every word. Like Leo Tolstoy, by the way. Yesenin wrote easily, quickly, almost without drafts. The founding fathers of Soviet psychology, Alexander Luria and Alexei Leontiev, are also an eloquent example. I still found them, had the opportunity to attend their lectures at Moscow State University and was amazed at how different they are and at the same time gifted. Luria was a sparkling, cheerful person, gushing ideas. Leontief, everyone who knew him, was characterized briefly: a heavy man. Both are great scientists. However, according to the perception of the world and in relation to life - absolutely polar. For each of these individuals it was natural to live just like this, and not otherwise. After all, there is creativity to overcome, and there is creativity of the flowing. Those who need to overcome something all the time to inspire, most likely, people are heavy. Those who are fountaining ideas without apparent external tension can be called human lungs. Roughly speaking, some row like bulldozers, others fly like dragonflies, it's all about the heavy and easy types of people.
The person sighs , starts to flip through his weekly, tells that he is inhumanly busy, that life is hard and there is no justice in the world - and communication with him turns into shackles. You start and load yourself: My God, what a complicated project I have with him, what a responsible plan, how many obstacles on our way ...
You know that in medicine there is such a direction - homeopathy. So, the American author Philip Bailey in his book, which is called "Homoeopathic psychology", writes that in modern civilization, there is an increasing number of people like Nuksvomika: heavy, stuck on problems people who prefer to count everything in advance and terribly nervous, if something goes wrong. They are more likely than others to suffer from cardiovascular and gastrointestinal chronic diseases. And as Philip Bailey observes, it's impossible to remake a man's type, such is his nature. So you, correctly noticed: heavy people in communication are not easy, they oppress and sometimes irritate. But there is an indisputable plus: they can perform routine and long-term work, while light people hate it.
There are different types of motivation. For example, the motivation of the process and the motivation of the result. Or motivation for fear and motivation for joy. Here is a simple, albeit conditional, example. If an easy man works as a trucker, he enjoys the road, enjoys every little thing: there's a funny dog at the gas station, and here's a delicious coffee in a roadside cafe. If the driver is a heavy man, he does not notice all this, for him the main thing is to arrive on time. His motivation is not pleasure, but rather, satisfaction with the fact that everything is going according to plan. As for motivation with joy, it is certainly inherent in easy people: they are ready to do what they like, because of the pleasure of the process itself. But the motivation for fear is necessary for people viscous, heavy: they are spurred by the desire to avoid trouble, disorder. If we turn to the Mozart archetype, then we remember that Mozart had no torment on the subject: "How can I write a symphony, how can I finish it?" He enjoyed the exciting joy of creativity when the melody was pouring, like itself.
Here! Keywords - "as if by itself." Often I notice: the value of the result is determined (or, at least, positively correlated) with "bloody calluses" for heavy and light types of people. And if a person does everything in hunting, it is easy and joyful? What, his results are less significant than the results of those who floundered to sweat?
Do you understand what is the psychological order here? Firstly, a person to whom everything is given easily, into high, inevitably causes envy from the heavy-handed colleagues. Do not you think that, figuratively speaking, the "elephant" will be able to watch calmly how the "butterfly" is playing the game, which is much harder for him, the "elephant"? Secondly, heavy people often need obstacles - then to say: "It was very difficult, but we did it!" - thereby increasing its importance.
Difficulties, breaking schedules, chaos - a kind of motivation, a breeding ground for heavy people. And if they lack chaos, they create it themselves. When I explained to Vasily that his subordinates needed "bloody", as they themselves express themselves, the surrender of projects, he clutched his head: he himself is an easy person, he does not need additional difficulties.
All of us had to be treated in polyclinics and hospitals, all of us were given injections. Remember how different are the manipulative nurses. One will smile, joke - and easily give an injection, do not even feel how quickly she did it. Another frowns, shakes his head: "Uh, what bad veins ... It's hard to get!" And you are already straining, worrying - in fact, how with such delicate veins for something good to hope for? I have great respect for both nurses and doctors, and at the same time I understand that heavy people in medicine are an additional stress for patients. They can, I emphasize this, accidentally cause an irreparable moral trauma to a person. Hence, by the way, the expression is "light" and "heavy" hand. Of course, these definitions are not scientific. But we all catch the moments when we have to deal with such "heavy" people - whether it be a doctor or a hairdresser. And we deliberately try to avoid such contacts.
As far as I remember , according to Freud, pleasure comes after tension. That is, pleasure is a reward that must be earned. And in another way it is impossible? Is not this the "soviet" complex of undeserved joy that a person feels unworthy of something good?
The reasons can be purely psychological (low self-esteem, inadequate self-acceptance), and constitutional (body type and type of nervous system), hormonal, and sociocultural. Mark Burno, a well-known Russian psychiatrist, wrote: the northern peoples are psychologically heavy, the southern ones are light. Would not it be worthwhile for us to look at Cubans, Italians, Greeks to understand: the meaning of life is not in suffering, the meaning of life is in life itself? As a psychologist I can comment on the conclusion made by Freud: for a certain type of people, pleasure is measured in the amount of effort spent on achieving a result. But this is not the rule for everyone. This is the ideology of the breed.
Reversibility is the ability of a person to transfer the motivation of an activity from a process to a result and vice versa. A reversible person can rebuild his plans, review his schedules and never stop there. Exhausting one theme in life, he finds a different content, a different meaning. The rigid one, that is, rigid, inflexible, beats in one direction, as the inventor of the eternal engine. Or, having reached the set goal, feels senselessness and emptiness in life, since in his opinion there is nothing more to do.
And here's an interesting question. If there is only one "elephant" in the pair or in the family, and the second "butterfly"? What then?
Practice shows: if a man is heavy and his wife is light, the wife will be able to adapt. As a lady of such a spouse once told me in response to my remark that a woman can pretend to be married up to five years: "Yes, I've pretended to be three times five!" So, in such cases, the task of a woman is to calm, "structure" a beloved man, to relieve tension. But if a man is an easy person, and a woman is heavy, the pair falls into a risk group. The fact is that in the family ideology the woman plays a leading role. And the male "butterfly" is often simply unable to withstand the tension created by a heavy, rigid woman. She, in turn, seems to be frivolous, frivolous, irresponsible ...
I also paid attention to this. Light people are discussing the solution to the problem, and the hard ones are the problem itself. I have friends who are very fond of explaining why they did not succeed, why something can not be done - instead of discussing how it can be implemented.
I understand what you're talking about. Some discuss the difficulties and impossibility of solving, while others are looking for ways and opportunities, right? Remember, at the very beginning of the conversation we mentioned the philosophy of life?
We admit honestly: in nature, both are needed. Otherwise, some kind of species has long been extinct. But, speaking about the pros and cons, you can use a technique called "hyperbolization." In other words, if hypertrophy of the signs of both types, then at one pole - easy - we get an unstable infantile psycho, who does not care about everything. Remember, as Bogrov said, shot Stolypin: "What's the difference, I'll eat a couple of dozen cutlets or my life will end now." And if you are hypertrophied with a severe type, you will get an extreme - a sadist or a masochist, whose meaning will be to fight, suffer, create difficulties, overcome them, tear the aorta and break the bones - to others or to yourself. As a psychologist, it seems to me that going into extremes is dangerous. As for the easy, and for the heavy man, the main thing is to find the "golden section", harmony, which will allow us to use our strong and weak sides, like a bird - wings.
Protozoa look like this. For butterflies:
1) draw up a clear plan for at least a week, firmly knowing that life is changing, but we will do all the same for the points of the plan, albeit with delay;
2) do not hesitate to inform other people about the time of meetings, which is convenient for us, not for them;
3) periodically change the environment of stay and environment in order to escape from the usual landscape and entourage;
4) we start a cat, we try to understand it.
For the "elephants":
1) develop a time management for the year with detailed dates and places of stay;
2) we allow other people to have a certain amount of inaccuracy, because they are weak, and we are strong;
3) from time to time we read a selection of anecdotes, which are considered ridiculous for some reason and try to understand what is funny about them;
4) we start a dog and train it. In the end, in April - it's time to think about the ease of being!