On Character

Next time you’re bored around friends, family, or strangers who don’t have AirPods in, ask them the following questions:

1. What character trait do you value most highly in yourself?
2. What character trait within yourself are you proudest of?
3. What character trait do you value most highly in others?
4. What character trait do you believe most readily comes to mind when other people think about you?

In the conversations that arose around these questions, I’ve noticed some interesting things–and I’m curious about whether they are widespread phenomena or localized quirks within my circle.

First, there are a variety of frameworks people apply to answer questions #1 and #2, and their selection of framework is as interesting (or more so) than the actual trait they identify.

Framework 1: We value most highly the traits that bring most good into the world.

This is my personal framework, and might be called the Boy Scout approach. With this mindset, one tends to prize traits like kindness, empathy, integrity–traits that have a positive impact on the people you’re with and on the world at large. If you apply this framework, it is more likely that your answers to questions #1 and #3 will be the same. It’s essentially a utilitarian way of answering the question: determine the traits that positively impact the greatest number of people, and motivate yourself and others to exhibit that trait as often as possible.

Under this framework, it is also likely that your answers to questions #1 and #2 are the same. You exhibited a “good” character trait and the world is better for it–you deserve a pat on the back. But your answers to questions #1 and #4 might be completely different. Just because you recognize a character trait adds good to the world, it might not be one you display often or are especially public/performative about displaying.

Framework 2: We value most highly the traits that come least naturally.

Under this framework, we value the exhibition of traits that involve overcoming a challenge or making up for a deficit. I might be naturally very impatient, for example, so I value highest the trait of patience, when I am able to exhibit it. I recognize it takes conscious effort to exhibit this trait, but think it is worth it to exert that effort to achieve my desired outcome. Patience may not be the trait I believe puts the most good in the world (compared to something like, say, kindness or generosity)–but it’s hard for me and gosh dang it I did it anyway.

Applying this framework, the difference between questions #1 and #2 becomes more pronounced. It is easy to feel proud of yourself for doing something you find naturally difficult. But does that mean that the thing itself is inherently valuable? If I was taking a test over a subject I hated and was bad at (oh, just to name an example at random, freakin’ MATH), I might be proud of myself for studying hard and acing the test (in my dreams). But would I value math as a subject of inquiry any more so than I did before? Not necessarily.

It is worth noting here that several of the people I talked to had visceral negative reactions to the use of the word “proud” when applied to their own personality. And I admit it may seem a little egotistical to be proud of, essentially, who you are. But that stigma goes away when applying Framework 2. We aren’t proud of the person we were born as, or the traits we’ve always had in abundance. We’re proud of being able and willing to identify a positive trait that we’re deficient in and actively exert ourselves to exhibit more of that trait.

A caveat to that is the idea that “even if I work on it, I am still only achieving the baseline minimum.” One person I asked said that, although she is not naturally an empathetic person, she is still not “proud” of herself when she consciously exhibits empathy. Why? Because even with effort she is only achieving the type of empathetic behavior that is expected of every member of a polite society. Overcoming her natural deficit to achieve an average level of that trait is, in her mind, nothing to be proud of.

Under this framework, your answers to questions #1 and #4 likely do not match–unless you are so good at overcoming your natural deficits (or so performative when doing so) that it catches the attention of others.

Framework 3: We value most highly the traits that make us most uniquely ourselves.

Many Boy Scout traits that maximize benefit to society are exhibited in pretty much the same way by everyone. This isn’t surprising, because they tend to be based on a desired outcome rather than some aspect of the exhibitor’s interior self. The Boy Scouts, as a society, recognize that more people tend to live better lives if they treat each other kindly. Out of that desired end state they work backward to assign value to “kindness” as a character trait–a value which only holds water as long as everyone with the character trait “kindness” exhibits it in such a way that the desired state is achieved.

But another possible framework for answering questions #1 and #2 eschews Boy Scout traits in favor of ones that are expressed uniquely, depending on the individual. The clearest examples of this might be “creativity” or “sense of humor.” “Creativity” is a character trait, but depending on who is exhibiting that trait, it can differ wildly in form and function. More so than the Boy Scout traits, it may also more directly impact how the individual views the world and lives their life. If I am a “kind” person, I pretty much live my life but then exhibit kindness when the situation calls for it. But if I am a “creative” person, that creativity may color any number of interactions and experiences, both when I am alone and when I am with others, and I may understand those interactions and experiences totally differently than another creative person.

Under this framework, your answers to questions #1 and #3 might be totally different. Your value judgments aren’t based on principles that apply to society as a whole or to large swaths of people. They are specific to you and your experience moving through the world and interacting with others. The trait you value most highly in those others, then, might be simply a trait that increases the pleasurability of your interaction with them, which has nothing to do with the trait that, within yourself, most contributes to your individuality.

Your answers to questions #1 and #4 are more likely to match. When we think about other people, we tend NOT to actually think about the traits they exhibit the most of–if those traits are ones frequently exhibited by others as well. We tend to think about how to DIFFERENTIATE the person we’re thinking of from the many other people we interact with; we’re looking for the trait most unique and specific to them, the trait that ensures we don’t get them confused with the other Boy Scouts in our circle.

Framework 4: We value most highly the traits most needed in our present moment.

This framework does the best job acknowledging the different eras within our lives, and the shifting sets of traits most important within a given era or set of circumstances. A person undergoing a challenging or traumatic time, for example, may list “calmness” as the trait they most value. This doesn’t necessarily mean they think calm people add more good to the world, or that they are naturally not calm and have to constantly force themselves to be more so, or that their particular method of evincing calm is unique and distinct from others’ methods. This framework centers around the specific utility of a trait within your life at that moment, and selects the trait with the highest contextual utility to value most.

Under this framework, your answers to questions #1 and #2 are likely the same. Just as you assign the contextually useful trait the highest value, you probably are also proud of your ability to, within a set of circumstances, recognize the trait that is needed and exhibit it. But your answers to questions #1 and #3 may differ, since another person’s circumstances and contextual moment could be completely different from your own. And your answers to questions #1 and #4 likely differ as well. Since the trait you value most within yourself is context-dependent and changeable based on the current demands of your life, that trait may not be something you consistently display over a long period of time. And when thinking about another person and trying to characterize, in broad strokes, who they are, we default to the more stable, longer-lasting, and more public traits exhibited.

A few more observations of interest

The four frameworks explained above are by no means an exhaustive list. But I find it interesting that, even with a very small sample size, people’s frameworks differ so significantly. Here are a few other notable trends:

•  There are many reasons why a trait we value highly in others might NOT be a trait we desire within ourselves. After people answered question #3, I typically asked a follow-up of “If you had more of that trait yourself, would you value it highly/highest?” and the answer was usually no. We might recognize that a particular trait–for example, confidence, greatly improves someone else’s life. And while we may admire the financial or professional success confidence has brought them, we may believe that trait is highly correlated with other less desirable traits, such as egoism or self-centeredness, and therefore would not value having more of it ourselves.
• I did not have a single conversation with someone who had the same answers to questions #1 and #4. There may be several reasons for this. It could be that there is a bit of Framework 2 in everyone’s subconscious, and that no one chooses a trait for #1 that already possess in abundance (and therefore would most readily come to mind when others thought of them). Or, it might be that many people have a different set of values and priorities when it comes to their own self-perception than when it comes to others’ perceptions of them. We may cultivate certain traits around others that make us more socially desirable, but view the benefits of those traits differently within our own interior lives.
• Some level of discontent with our own character traits seems to be a universal affliction. Everyone I spoke with–even people that I would have predicted had a high self-regard–expressed some disappointment with the traits they had or the level to which they exhibited those traits. And while everyone acknowledged that most traits were, to a certain extent, controllable with time and concentration, there was a generally defeatist attitude about substantial or long-lasting personality adjustments. I believe most people view their personality similarly to how they view their singing ability or skill at balancing. With practice and effort, you can hone them and improve them to some degree–but they are primarily attributes that you are born having to a certain degree, and that initial degree of possession is the greatest limiting factor in your ability to improve. I don’t want this to be true. It seems like kind of a downer, and I’d much prefer to think that our personalities are entirely within our control. It may take time and effort to optimize them with the traits we value highest, but if we believe we can never achieve that outcome, what will motivate us to attempt any form of self-improvement?

The wide variation in people’s answers to my initial four questions, and to the value frameworks that were elucidated upon exploring those answers, makes me unable to use these discussions as a jumping-off point for any universal principles or insights. But I think they revealed a lot about the individual answering, and (perhaps) inspired them to think more specifically about who they are and who they wish they could be.