Today's letter is G, and we're looking at a match between a Guardian (Bruce Springsteen) and a Bon Vivant (Susan Sarandon).
The Guardian personality (exemplified by Bruce Springsteen), is as often male as female. Guardians appreciate cultural traditions, and feel a need to protect social order. They are often community builders, police officers, fire fighters, historians, and involved in church or military. Boy Scouts. Duty, honor, tradition and loyalty are their bywords.
In books or movies depicting this type, the need is often to break away from cultural or religious traditions to learn what they truly believe, rather than simply going along with prevailing cultural or religious dogma. They will band together to oppose an enemy despite great personal risk. Think Norma Rae, or Erin Brockovich. Read about the Guardian personality.
The Bon Vivant (Susan Sarandon) has a different outlook on life. He or she isn’t concerned about honor, duty, loyalty and tradition, but rather living the good life as they define it. They are often chefs or interior decorators. They could lean toward the elegant or the common. Their families are often nontraditional. They like to celebrate life and sensual pleasures. Some are adventurous and enjoy travel; others make their locality and home an adventure. In movies or books, the Bon Vivant is often traveling, and is a charismatic drifter or eternal youth. Peter Pan was this personality type, which is more often male than female. Read about the Bon Vivant personality.
How might Bruce Springsteen (Guardian) and Susan Sarandon (Bon Vivant) hit it off? Or persons of these personality types?
This is a very uncommon, unstable pairing. Pairings of these personality types usually break up before commitment ever happens.
If they were to hit it off, he would find her entertaining and uplifting for a while. Both witty, they would enjoy humorous, even absurd, verbal sparring. She’d be a constant source of new possibilities, and he could figure out how to actually do them. Both are head, or fear types, but they deal with their anxieties in different ways. Him being more cautious than she is, she could help him put possible threats into perspective. He’ll help her see the importance of committing to her possibilities in order to bring them into reality. She’ll be unfailingly optimistic, adventurous and fearless, even in the face of failure. She’ll help him be less fearful of the future.
So in these ways, they’re a good team. But if troubles were to arise, it would be because of these very strengths and weaknesses. Again, inherently fearful about outcomes, he needs backup plans to shore up his fear. He also needs stability and predictability in his life. Those things don’t trouble her—she doesn’t want to be reminded about troubles, but to escape them by seeking out new things, fun and adventure. Hearing about issues gets her down, but that’s what he tends to focus on. In reality, subconsciously, she’ll depend on him to act out her own underlying paranoia. Both will embellish objective events with an imagined outcome, but arrive at different conclusions. Both are projections, but she’ll envision the best outcome, whereas he’ll envision the worst.
When she tells him to lighten up, that only makes him more afraid. Her visions of endless possibilities, while he feels bound by duty and hard work, will cause reality testing to be central in their relationship. Often, meeting in the middle is the best solution. Her pleasure-seeking can be a cure to his doubt. His loyalty during times of trouble can heal her, as she is terrified of pain.
She lives in the future; he lives in the past. He’d want a long term commitment, and she’d get the jitters even thinking about it. It would help if she can reassure him of her faithfulness, and if he would be willing to relinquish some control. He’ll find her too extravagant, selfish and unreliable. She’ll think he worries too much. She also thinks the rules he lives by are unimportant.
If he realizes that few of her possibilities actually materialize, and focuses instead only on what she actually does, that will help him, for he sees her plans as too self-indulgent, even hedonistic. If he complains to her about it, she’ll want out.
If he wants to seriously discuss their issues, timing is important, and it’s better for him to take a sidewise approach. Instead of sit-down panic sessions to air his doubts, he’d be better off to do it in short doses, or she will flee. If she doesn’t feel threatened, she can hear his complaints.
She’ll be able to get him out of the house, and having a good time will make his paranoia disappear. Doing things together can do more to reassuring him about her commitment than hundreds of hours of talk.
In short, people of these personality types are often too opposite in outlook to hit it off in the first place.
What are Instinctual Subtypes?
Sources from which I collected and synthesized information about the matches