The CA Orientation Theory and Typology
Throughout history, philosophers and scientists have grappled with the complexities of human nature and the vast array of individual differences. Early thinkers like Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius initiated the study of personality by introspectively exploring intrinsic qualities, virtues, and moral character. However, it wasn’t until the nineteenth century that psychology and genetics sparked a systematic examination of personality’s essence. Despite centuries of contemplation and investigation, a standard definition of “personality” remains elusive, underscoring the complex nature of this phenomenon. This blog delves into the intricate realm of personality through the lens of Constructed Awareness (CA), an emerging approach to psychotherapy. At the core of CA lies the concept of “orientation” and a nuanced typology of six personality styles, presenting a fresh framework for comprehending human behavior. To understand orientation and the CA typology, it’s important to have a basic understanding of its principles.
How do the CA Principles Inform Orientation and the CA Typology?
The first principle of CA highlights the transformative role of awareness in shaping human experience. Unlike traditional psychotherapy that emphasizes self-control, CA posits that change emerges from mindful observation of one’s experiences. Through awareness, clients are empowered to navigate their experiences, regulate themselves, and forge connections with others in new ways.
CA’s second principle underscores three fundamental elements, known as the three building blocks, that underpin human consciousness: mental building block, sensation building block, and external building block. Therapists well-versed in CA strive to develop a keen awareness of how these elements intricately shape one’s reality. Through this enhanced self-awareness, particularly focused on the less developed building blocks, individuals embark on a transformative journey towards heightened awareness, improved self-regulation, and enriched interpersonal connections.
CA’s third principle illuminates how clients direct their awareness toward one of the building blocks. Essentially, individuals often rely more heavily on one of these building blocks to regulate themselves and engage with the world around them. However, it’s important to note that the dominance of this building block isn’t set in stone; it can shift depending on factors like the person’s location, company, and activity.
Sometimes, clients are more mentally orientated, using logic and reason to navigate their emotions and to gravitate toward intellectual connections.
Other times, clients are externally oriented, attuning more to what’s happening in their external environment, constantly scanning for cues on how to adapt or contribute to meet the needs of those around them.
And sometimes, clients are more sensation oriented, focusing on how they feel emotionally and expressing themselves more through their actions and physical presence.
These three orientations form the cornerstone of the CA typology, shedding light on how individuals perceive and interact with the world around them. The CA typology delineates six distinct orientations, each characterized by a unique interplay of the three building blocks. From the analytical prowess of MES “Striving,” to the empathic resonance of SME Feeling (which we will explore later in this blog and in detail in future blogs), each orientation unveils a variety of personality traits, behaviors, and regulation strategies. Though the CA typology may appear as just another personality theory that attempts to type people into predictable and immovable patterns of behaviors, CA challenges the entrenched paradigm of personality as a fixed, intrinsic identity, advocating instead for a fluid, context-dependent conception.
Is Personality Stable?
Traditionally, personality has been viewed as a stable characteristic of the individual self, with studies supporting its consistency over time. However, a growing body of research challenges this notion, suggesting that personality is far more fluid than previously thought. While the concept of a fixed personality has undoubtedly contributed to our understanding of human behavior, it fails to capture individuals’ dynamic nature and experiences. Life is full of twists and turns, and our personalities can evolve and adapt in response to various environmental influences, life events, and personal growth.
Pioneers in psychology, such as Gendlin and Allport, have long hinted at personality’s fluidity. Gendlin argued that personality takes on different forms depending on individuals’ experiences with their environment. At the same time, Allport suggested that the pull of situational factors is so strong that personality cannot be considered a fixed entity. Mischel further challenged the notion of fixed traits, highlighting evidence that people’s behavior is heavily influenced by their circumstances.
Recent studies have echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the potential for personality to undergo significant changes over time. For instance, research by Roberge and Huang revealed that personality is constantly in flux, with change occurring through social learning processes at both individual and group levels. This research sheds new light on personality, challenging the traditional view of it as a static construct and underscoring its dynamic nature. This emerging understanding of personality opens up new avenues for research and has profound implications for how we perceive and interact with ourselves and others.
Is Personality a Tangible Entity Residing Within Us?
This question lies at the heart of a longstanding debate among psychologists and researchers, who have traditionally conceptualized personality as an underlying structure or mechanism that influences our behavior and thoughts. However, some scholars argue against this perspective, suggesting that personality is not an entity but a conceptual framework that summarizes various elements of an individual’s characteristics. They maintain that personality is not directly observable as an internal entity and that attempting to do so reveals its illusory nature.
Consider the analogy of a storm: while we can observe its components, such as thunder, lightning, rain, and wind, there is no tangible entity called “storm.” Similarly, personality encompasses traits, attitudes, and other observable expressions, but no distinct inner entity is called “personality.”
This perspective challenges the traditional notion of personality and highlights its elusive nature. Despite decades of study, there is still no consensus on the definition of personality, leading to confusion within the scientific and philosophical communities. Instead of adding to the plethora of definitions, I recommend we focus on defining a new concept: “orientation.” By exploring how individuals orient themselves in various situations, we can better understand human behavior and experience.
What is Orientation?
According to CA’s second principle, reality is constructed by three fundamental building blocks: thoughts (mental building block), sensations (sensation building block), and external senses (external building block). These building blocks serve as the raw materials from which our perceptions and interactions with the world are crafted.
CA’s third principle delves into how individuals navigate their awareness among these building blocks. It suggests that people often lean more heavily toward one of these blocks in their perception and interaction with the world around them. This preference for a particular building block is what CA terms “orientation.”
What exactly is orientation in the context of CA? Orientation is defined as the fluid organization and reciprocal interplay of our mental, bodily, and external experiences. Think of it as the everchanging lens through which we view the world, influencing how we think, feel, and behave.
Taking it further, CA suggests that our orientation gives rise to our personality. In other words, the organization of our building blocks shapes our traits, behaviors, emotional patterns, and even our attachment and learning styles. Personality, then, isn’t a fixed structure within us but rather a reflection of how these building blocks are arranged in the moment. To put it simply, orientation comes first, shaping our personality expressions at any given time. And since personality is a concept that encompasses various aspects of our being, CA emphasizes that it’s not a rigid structure but a dynamic interplay of our building blocks.
The CA Typology
CA proposes that our perception of reality and our behavior are shaped by three primary building blocks: mental building block (M), sensation building block (S), and external building block (E). These blocks are combined and arranged to form six unique orientation styles, denoted as MES, MSE, EMS, ESM, SME, and SEM. CA differs from other typologies that seek to type people. Remember, we are not typing people. We are typing expressions of personality.
But what determines these expressions? It’s all about the order of the building blocks. The building block an individual relies on over the other two determines their dominant orientation in that moment. Basically, the one they depend on the most takes the spotlight as the most dominant, while the least relied upon becomes the least dominant. For example, imagine a person experiencing a difficult situation at work. They may rely most on their mental building block (M), using logic and reason to navigate the complex problem. Contrarily, they may rely least on their sensation building block (S), putting feelings aside for the moment. In this instance, we could arrange their building blocks as MES. This orientation is referred to as “Striving.” Now, imagine the same person is relaxing with friends after work. The person’s mental building block is less needed, so their external building block shifts into the dominant spot. The reorganization of building blocks changes their orientation to EMS, referred to as “Adapting.”
Let’s break down each of the six orientation styles:
MES Striving: When in tune (in a healthy, balanced state), these individuals are analytical, assertive, driven, and decisive. When dissonant (in an unhealthy, imbalanced state), they can be quick-tempered, intense, and judgmental.
MSE Thinking: When in tune, these individuals are independent, intelligent, and creative. When dissonant, they may become reclusive and detached.
SME Feeling: When in tune, these individuals are imaginative, empathetic, and caring. When dissonant, they may be easily overwhelmed and withdrawn.
SEM Trusting: When in tune, these individuals are kindhearted, empathetic, and likable. When dissonant, they might become helpless and indecisive.
EMS Adapting: When in tune, these individuals are adaptive, outgoing, and versatile. When dissonant, they may feel scattered and undisciplined.
ESM Giving: When in tune, these individuals are accepting, generous, and reliable. When dissonant, they may struggle with conflict avoidance and self-doubt.
Again, these descriptions are not set in stone but offer insights into the potential character traits, behaviors, and emotional patterns associated with each orientation. However, no one is one style. No one has one way they express themselves and perceive the world in all situations. Our orientations are always changing and flowing.
Stay tuned for future blogs as we explore in depth about how each orientation shapes our interactions and perceptions of ourselves, others, and the world around us.