OnlineBookClub.org

I was just thinking about the factions and the different personality traits, or at least the core personality traits in each person, and I was wondering what your guys' thoughts were on this. Are there any "core" personality types or traits that aren't represented in the five factions? If so, what do you guys think they would be?

I'm racking my brain to come up with some because I'm sure there are some I just can't think of them! I'd love to know what you all think.

I do believe that the factions cover most all of the basic traits of a human.

1. Abnegation: for the selfless, those who love to serve, who think others better than themselves. These are the people who would volunteer at your local soup kitchen or the ASPCA. They may also be soldiers or firemen or police; people who are willing to risk their lives for others.
2. Dauntless: for the daredevils. The people who want adventure, love to take risks, are probably quite rowdy. I think these may be rock-climbers, the athletes of today; the ones who love to go skydiving of a cliff.
3. Amity: These are the friendly people. The ones who genuinely love other human beings and try their best to make them happy. These are the people that are always smiling, never afraid to give a friendly smile or wave to a perfect stranger.
4. Candor: these people value honesty above all else. In my mind, they might be the lawyers and judges or even detectives.
5. The factionless: these are (in my mind at least) the drunks, the criminals, those who have given up on a better life...but this is contradictory to the factionless rebels; these are, well, the modern day rebels, fighting for their own cause.

Roth did consider all of the possible traits when she wrote the book, I do believe. I think categorizing the people in any other smaller groups would not make the idea of the factions as impactful...

I also believe that they cover all basic types of personalities.

I agree. I think its the most basic personalities, but we can always add more layers to them.

Yeah they do. If you've read through the series it makes more sense.

I don't think the majority of people fit into each faction perfectly. Most people I know have tendencies for many of the factions. I will say that most people do have one that they gravitate towards with their personality. In that aspect, I think she did cover the vast majority of people.

krood10 wrote:I don't think the majority of people fit into each faction perfectly. Most people I know have tendencies for many of the factions. I will say that most people do have one that they gravitate towards with their personality. In that aspect, I think she did cover the vast majority of people.

That was the point, most of the people in this world would be divergent if they were in this book. I haven't read insurgent but I have watched the movie. For me this is what I think it means. The people outside the wall are all like the factions but less intense, this was a huge problem for them so they decided to put people that made up all five categories inside the wall. Then once the 100% divergent was found they would release them back into the world to try to change all of the people outside the walls into divergents as well. Or another theory is that they put all the people who were only in one faction inside the wall. Then waited for a 100% divergent to come out so they would fit in with the rest of the society.

I think the world is full of unique individuals.Therefore, can we really be categorized at all? Even if you argued that humanity could be put into factions, I think there should be more than just these five. What about a faction for creative people? People who love art and love to create and strive to discover new things. I don't know what we would call it though. Any ideas?

Very true, I too believe that you can not categorize the human race into five factions. If someone fits into more than one catagory (is a divergent) what do you do? Do you kill them like in the book, ignore them, put them down? What do you do? For all the factionless people out there how much do you want to bet that most of them are factionless because they belonged to something different. They were artistic (as said above) or athletic but a coward? What if they were a writer, a dreamer where would they go? I believe that it is not fair to isolate people just because you don't have a faction for people with their talents.

Crimsonsky749 that is a very interesting point! All of the factionless people are not a faction themselves, but a variety of different, new factions! I never thought of it that way.

Hm...I think she covered most personalities, but I'm having trouble with those people who lack ambition and are not responsible because let's be honest, there are plenty of those in our world. I understand there is the factionless group, but I look at that more like those who are divergent and don't necessarily have a place in their society. It doesn't mean they don't take responsibility or don't have any ambition, it just means their society couldn't find a place for them because they don't fit the other models. So, I might have to disagree...sorry :/

I think the factions cover general personality traits, but I don't think anyone is just one faction. Everyone has a little bit of each, at least, and as someone mentioned in an earlier comment, there are traits missing, like creativity.

Yes I do think the factions cover all personality traits.

I agree that a person's personality isn't so straightforward, and is a combination of determining factors. It seems like there ought to be some missing, but I can't actually come up with any others. It's actually kind of insulting for there to be only 5! Are we humans all that simple? Though, of course, then there's the divergent which answers the question. I think that at least for the purposes of the story, the factions work.

I cannot imagine myself fitting properly into a faction, because I do not have one dominating element to my personality. The factions are what makes the story though, and without this factor, Tris's life would be totally meaningless.