Natural versus reactive
|
| | Being natural is about 'being yourself' in most circumstances. Being 'reactive' is about modifying your behaviour to suit others. I was tempted to use the word 'forced' instead of reactive, since the behaviour is indeed forced. But this word has assertive undertones, which does not reflect the type of behaviour I am trying to describe.
|
| | Whilst you are likely to fit both of these behaviours at various times, you will probably associate yourself with one behaviour more than the other. I certainly fit the latter, as I seek to appease people as a priority, hating to get on their wrong side.
|
| | Before we go any further, I should say that I believe strongly that neither behaviour has a greater sense of 'rightness' than the other. Each has strengths and weaknesses, as does a hybrid of the two.
|
Being natural
|
| | There is an honest aspect of being natural. People generally know where they stand with a natural type, since they do not try to hide their thoughts from you. The downside of this is that what they say or show may upset or hurt you, whereas a reactive person would normally avoid this.
|
| | Natural people are often very charming. This probably derives from being in a more relaxed state, but is otherwise very difficult to explain. You can see how a person is naturally charming, but it is difficult to put your finger on why.
|
| | Natural people are often unpredictable - they will act in their own way, often in an inappropriate manner for the circumstances. For example, if you are supposed to be cross with each other following an argument, they will just as likely give you a big smile as a frown. They will not 'act out' the role of being cross.
|
| | John Candy in the superb film 'Planes trains and automobiles' is a fine example of a natural person, being the nemesis of the reactive Steve Martin.
|
Being reactive
|
| | I'm still not sure that 'reactive' captures the opposite of natural, but we'll stick with it for now. Reactive people are in a sense not being honest. They are more likely to say what you want to hear, rather than the truth. Or they may avoid saying anything so as to avoid upset.
|
| | So you might go to a reactive person for sympathy, and a natural person for an honest opinion on something.
|
| | Reactive people can also be charming, but in quite a different way to natural people. They will at times sweet talk you, pamper you, especially if they feel that you might need cheering up. Charming as it is, it is also contrived to be just that.
|
| | A reactive person is also likely to hide their own bad mood in order to keep the peace, whereas a natural person will likely pour out their grumpiness on you, and act quite unreasonably.
|
A conclusion
|
| | As I said earlier, there are too many pros and cons for each type of behaviour to conclude that one is more right than the other. Besides, the World needs variety, so both have their place.
|
| | But suppose that you wanted to be as good a person as you could, maybe for religious reasons. What behaviour would you adopt? Most would plump for the reactive type, where they seek to be empathic with others. But is this a wise choice?
|
