Johari Window results

To see the completed window, click here.

First of all, I want to thank everyone who participated in my window! 

Second, I’d like to explain why I ran this experiment again.  In the summer of 2007, I first created a Johari window to see what would come up.  The results from that window are here.  A week ago or so, I created the new window to see both what I would choose as traits that define me now and how my “presentation of self” has changed with the new friends I’ve made in the past few years.  (For the record, I did not consult the older window when I chose adjectives for the newer window.)  I’ve also recognized massive internal changes in myself, and I wondered if these changes that seem so tangible present themselves in my everyday life.

Sociology folks and anyone that has taken a “theory of knowledge” course may be familiar with the dramaturgical approach from Ervine Goffman’s “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.”
It’s most simple explanation runs something like this:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts…
- Shakespeare

We all put on an act in our everyday life, but that doesn’t mean we are all lying. Playing a truthful role in everyday life, which you yourself believe, is called a “sincere” role. The opposite is called a “cynical” role. I have tried hard to keep my “roles” sincere because the idea of manipulation and simply using people strikes me as repugnant.

We all set stages, using a front stage and back stage. If you have ever cleaned your house, had someone over, and claimed that “it’s a mess,” you have presented an image to someone by playing a role. If you have ever cleaned your living room for guests and thrown stuff all around back bedrooms, then panicked when your guest wanted a tour, you’ve experienced a crisis in your presentation of self.

I use the dramaturgical approach to look at my own individual interactions and to see how I present myself to others. There were not many surprises (though a few), and it quickly became clear that the roles and traits others present to me figured prominently in their choices of how to define “me.” Trends appeared within groups of individuals.

The psychological side is what I think focuses strictly on “me.” I assume that if more people claim to see a certain trait, then they are the traits I have most internalized and they cut across any discrepant roles I play. They are then my true “self” and my most reliable traits.

So, here is what I noticed. 

In both windows, “intelligent” is rated as my most dominant trait.  The reason for the difference/ discrepancy between the two ratings is that I consciously decided not to choose ‘intelligent’ in 2011.  I remembered choosing that one in 2007, but for a variety of reasons I did not want to own it this time around; I went with “knowledgeable” instead.  Some of those reasons include an attempt at humility and a sense that I have intellectually plateaued.  This does not necessarily deny intelligence, but I felt more comfortable with knowledgeable.—probably due to the meaning with which I load ‘intelligent’ instead of adhering to an objective definition.  Perhaps this means I need to own both ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘intelligent.’ 

Reflective is the second highest trait in the 2011 window—with over half choosing that trait.  I chose it for myself in 2007, but only one person noted it then.  I think this indicates that I am becoming openly reflective and sharing in a way I was not earlier in my life.  Still, it is interesting that I did not choose that trait in 2011…

So, the two most dominant traits in 2011 ended up in my blind spot, and I had chosen both for myself in 2007.  One was a conscious choice not to claim the trait; the other was a true blind spot.

Oh, and ‘religious’ showed up in 2011 with about half choosing that trait, as opposed to one person in 2007.  I was expecting this shift.  I found it interesting that ‘spiritual’ is not an option, and I wonder if that would have an effect on my own window.  In any case, ‘religion’ is a word that is loaded in a way that it was not in the 1950s.  Any test that wants to identify transcendent/ immanent spiritual experience or adherence to a faith cannot rely on solely on ‘religious’ to name it.

That’s all I’ve got to say for the moment...

…But, because I can take criticism and because the Johari window is only the warm and fuzzy stuff, I present you the link to my Nohari window.  It’s the same principle as the positive Johari window, only with the Johari window’s antonyms.  Feel free to criticize me either in name or anonymously!