The 10 Personalities in 2-Person Interactions

That's not a valid work email account. Please enter your work email (e.g. you@yourcompany.com)
Please enter your work email
(e.g. you@yourcompany.com)

 Whenever you interact with another person, whether in an interview, at a picnic, in a marriage ceremony or in any other interaction, there are almost always 10 people participating. These are the person

1. you really are

2. you think you are

3. you think the other person is

4. you want the other person to think you are

5. you want the other person to think [s]he is

6. the other person really is

7. the other person thinks [s]he is

8. the other person thinks you are

9. the other person wants you to think [s]he is

10. the other person wants you to think you are

Such subtleties are familiar to most dog owners, all of whom seem familiar with the maxim “I should think about trying to be the person my dog thinks I am.”  In addition to whatever subtlety these possibilities individually represent, there is an incredible degree of complexity in the possible combinations of interactions among these 10 personalities.

The complexity isn’t even approximately captured by the idea that each of you has 5 personalities to choose from as either displayed or perceived, so there are at least 5 x 5 possible interactions, i.e., 25 pairs of possible personality displays, appearing one pair at a time.

Presumably, you simply divide the 10 into two groups of 5, classified by the main percipient, namely, either you or the other person. Each of you is displaying or perceiving a total of 5; hence the 25, interpreted as selected one pair at a time.  

However, it’s much more complex than that, because all 10 personalities can and are likely to be “active”—displayed or perceived simultaneously, meaning there can be as many as 25 simultaneous interactions—again, as displays and/or perceptions of 2 people.

Existential Gaps

The gap between the normal and the ideal number of personalities in an interaction is huge: By the end of your typical Hollywood romcom, the happy mutually-discovered, reconciled, etc., couple have, we are supposed to believe, a pure 2-personality interaction: the real him with the real her [or some other gender-combination, allowing for parental, GLBT and other interactions].  

Alternatively, and more realistically, it’s the combination of identical, concordant shared perceptions regarding who each thinks the other and himself/herself are and/or who [s]he wants to think of himself/herself to be or be thought of as. Alas, despite the simplicity of keeping it “real” and limited to the interaction of just two real selves, the reality is likelier to be the more complex and convoluted existential circus of a Woody Allen movie.

In the typical Woody Allen movie, things and people are almost never what they seem, unless they seem to be neurotic or otherwise addicted to unhealthy covert maneuverings—with the result that each pair of interacting characters represents the full 25 interactions. When it’s a Woody Allen group, multiply by 5 for each additional character.

Hence, the dramatic Casablanca-esque “Play It Again, Sam” airport scene with Woody Allen, Diane Keaton and Tony Roberts [who appears after this clip] involves 125 personality interactions, assuming the usual maximum character layering in his movies. When the number of personalities active differs for each of 3 characters, the total will range between 3 and 125 for the set, unless one or more is a monk, with 0 self.

The same math of exponential increase applies in group interviews. Of course, employers and recruiters are prone to imagining they are hiring just one person[ality]. But which one? The one [s]he really is? Nah. This is the least likely, given that, as Freud suggested, civilization would be impossible if we displayed our real selves.

Moreover, the German philosopher Kant convincingly argued that “things-in-themselves”—the real metaphysical self—can never be perceived [because, well, then it wouldn’t be metaphysical, would it?].

What about the one [s]he thinks [s]he is? Nope. What [s]he thinks is irrelevant—especially given our natural human tendency to either vastly overrate or underrate ourselves, although self-evaluation can impact self-confidence, which can then impact what others think of the candidate and any decision to hire the person you think [s]he is. Chances are that the person hired is not the one [s]he likes to imagine [s]he is.

Which One of One Gets Hired?

Now, you’re itching to declare that the person[ality] that gets hired is the one you think [s]he is. That sounds like common sense—which, unfortunately, like flat-earth commonsense, is dead wrong, or at least an oversimplification.

That’s because you never hire anyone who doesn’t respect you, your company, the company’s mission—or at least one of these. Hence, you are hiring on the basis of the person, the company or the mission you think or want to think the candidate perceives you or those as. In other words, you are always hiring a mirror, or hoping you are and that it reflects your idealized self, mission, etc.

The complexity doesn’t end there. In fact it begins as soon as the interview starts. You want to know who this person is, who [s]he thinks you or the employer really are, and, if you are perceptive, who [s]he wants you to think [s]he and you are, while realizing that [s]he, like you, probably doesn’t have a clue as to who either of you really is.

Distilled to its simplest terms, what does all of this complexity imply?

That instead of beginning interviews with “Hi, how are you?”…

…we should start with, “Hi, who are we?”

By Michael Moffa