Yet, while everybody today is into “diversity”, not many people are willing to look at the only diversity that is truly capable of making a difference when understood: our psychological diversity, which transcends all others.
I have not written on this blog for a long time. The world’s problems took me in other directions and to my other blog, and I was researching and writing my books as well. AusAPT has invited presentations proposals for their upcoming conference, for which I thank them. However, my topic does not really lend itself for online conferences. I do not have slides to present a model. Mine is a philosophy, trying to brainstorm ideas for a more type-friendly world, in which all types can flourish best and the society, as a consequence, as well. Therefore, face to face is better. Besides, I am not comfortable with the technology of doing it online. Thus, I declined, in the hope that the next years bring some normality back to the world.
The situation in the world today has put some urgency to my topic, however, and pulled it from what most people, even in the type community, considered too far-fetched, into something that needs attention. I will avoid politics in this post, but simply summarize how I see the situation (from my INFP perspective) in light of how we came to the conflict that is driving not only members of communities apart, but family members as well.
One of the major reasons the world is not capable of dealing with today’s emergency, is that those in government are not there because they have leadership skills; they were elected because they followed the beliefs of the group, not initiated them. Our society is organized in a way that has many people in jobs where their type does not thrive, and, consequently, the quality of those jobs also deteriorates.
My ideal, as I have said in my earlier presentations, is a typocracy. In other words, a government that is fully informed and aware of our type differences and represented by members of all types. I have outlined how I envision that in my book and will not do that here.
Currently, materialism and reductionism still rule academia (and, therefore, government advice) and although in some fields (like physical healthcare) holistic approaches are gaining some ground, academic psychology has been turned into a hard science that sees humans as no more than inanimate objects and which, consequently, only accepts one standard of normality, and which uses medications to ‘normalize’ those who are different. This is actually a deterioration from the time of Jung, when psychology was about the whole person and not just their neurology.
Despite all Jung’s efforts and a hundred years of evidence since, most people today still believe that we are no more than a collection of detachable organs and the mind a by-product of the grey matter.
Looking at the typename letters, the main expression of any conflict plays out in that aspect of our type that directly interacts with the environment, because that is where people try to persuade, judge, direct and inform each other and where they communicate: J-P and T-F.
J-P is the moral battleground, because it determines our sense of community, our relationship with authority, our openness (or not) to ideas from the group and so on – hence Judicious and Persuasive. Each has a different sense of “freedom” and “rights” and this divides any population (nation, culture, family) between those with a natural need for conformity, trust in authority and the notion that individuals have to sacrifice for the group, and those who need autonomy and insist that the group is there to cater for all individuals, who do not trust authority and seldom conform. For the former, it is natural that the government forces people to take an injection, because we are fighting a common enemy, while the latter insist that they will deal with it themselves and the virus has more of a right than the government to threaten their life, because it is part of nature.
T-F adds to our words – and how we interpret abstract meaning – the underlying intonations that are often intended to hit the emotions, and how much we believe our facts to be objective. T reasons deductively towards a truth, so that Ts rely on numbers and statistics as facts, F reasons inductively and in terms of human motivations, so that Fs see the human influence on those statistics and listen to the stories people tell.
But T-F also influences how much trouble people have in expressing stress and fear and how they do that.
In general, when working in healthcare, Fs tend to prefer interaction with the patients (GPs, general ward nursing, community care etc.), while Ts are more drawn to the object (surgery and possibly emergency care), where interpersonal skills are less important.
S-N divides are much less likely to lead to strive. In general, Ss will concentrate on daily practical life and physical care, so that most GPs and many nurses and health care workers are Ss, since Ns gravitate towards mental health care and alternative approaches.
But Ns have more of a tendency to compare to events in the past and possibilities for the future, and see similarities with historical events, which they express. However, if Ss hear this, they might get depressed for lack of ability to paint different outcomes.
In addition, Ss get uncomfortable when there are too many options, while Ns get uncomfortable when there are no or limited options.
Extraverts are more open to influences from outside, so that many are worried about the virus attacking them without them having a defense, which is also, why they may feel more comfortable taking the jab, because that is something from outside that gives them protection. Introverts have a stronger sense of individuality and will insist on making their own rules about their own Self and are more inclined to believe they can defend themselves against outside invaders.
In short, where the functions deal with how we explain the situation and how we justify our responses (the contents and the reasoning), our attitudes (what we see of our behaviour in the world) create a big divide between Js and Ps in the first place, mostly because of whether we feel that the freedom and life of the individual should or should never be sacrificed for the well-being of the group. Extraversion and Introversion play a role in that, mostly with regard how vulnerable we feel to influences from outside and whether this isolation energizes or drains us.
But the letters do not stand alone, of course, and how they interact is important for how we assess the problems of today. The more letters of the objective accord group (E, S, T and J), the more people insist on their own perspective as a measure for everybody.
The vast majority of politicians and nearly all civil servants are Ss, because it is about detail work and focusing on the immediate concerns of today, and vast numbers of them are Js, because it is about regulation. Most Ns who start in politics run aground on the bureaucracy and the lack of progress, and Ps don’t do well with the routines and protocols. But we know that SJswill not stray from the trodden path.
But there is no trodden path in this case, because this is a new disease and a new global situation, with as a result that politicians have no idea what to do, start copying each other, making decisions without seeing the far-reaching consequences, then trying to patch up their mistakes with lies, or simply ignoring that other options exist. In healthcare, this shows with GPs clinging to protocols written by authority (the WHO) and to existing rules and regulations that are no longer effective.
However, SP GPs might trial and error and adapt their treatments until they find something that works, and many have. The problem is that they are bound by the protocols and get fired if they do. And because of that, we are now facing a situation where there are plenty safe and successful early intervention treatments, but where the bureaucracy takes so much time that the disease is left to fester in people until they have to be hospitalized. Those numbers are then used to say how dangerous the disease is, which in turn is used to curtail people’s freedom.
Together orientation (J-P) and reasoning (T-F) determine our sense of justice and if our sense of justice is violated, we feel personally attacked and that, in turn, activates our anger. And because justice is not something objective – yet everybody experiences it as if objective – that is where people fight or try to impose their own views, often to their loved ones and often out of a need to protect or care. “The road to hell…” after all.
This is especially true in our expression. Js direct their words towards the other, while Ps inform (the other) and refer to their Self. Ts stick with exact rules and can be direct and less tactful, while Fs use limits and can be indirect. So that we get four different ways of expressing the same wishes (command, demand, request and hint), yet each of those is taken as an insult by those of a different type.
Here is a neutral topic example. TJ: “Go clean up your room, now please!”, TP: “I want that room cleaned up now!”, FJ: “Could you clean up your room, now?” FP: “Gee, what a mess!”. Remember that this is about intonation only, so that FP and FJ get just as annoyed if there is no response.
But there is also the fifth dichotomy, which was Jung’s strong point, and which is the difference between perceivers and deciders; those with dominant perception versus those with dominant reasoning or justification. And it is mostly the latter who are involved in this escalating global fight, because they want a voice in the world; they want their ideas acknowledged, while the former simply want to live and share.
Let me explain where that comes from:
Depending on the order and focus of the functions, each type experiences a different relationship with the object (the reality) and with the norms, truths and values of the group. This translates into four distinct attitude groups, depending on whether someone experiences normative justifications and/or objective perceptions as binding.
Objective perceptions refer to the way we experience the perceived reality as the same for everybody, often backed up with empirical evidence. This is the objectivity extraverts experience. The opposite view is relative perceptions, in which a person is always aware of their own relation to what is observed and, therefore, that it is one experience of reality out of many possible perspectives.
Normative justifications refer to the truths and values of the group one lives in as being binding, and, therefore, the expectation that all members of a group accept and conform to these norms. This is the way the judicious perspective experiences the group as a vibrant entity. The opposite is relative justifications, in which truth and value depend on the circumstances, the people and the relations, and the group is just a name for a collective of autonomous members.
That may seem a contradiction, because Js are often said to get their truths and values from the group and their dominant T-F is extraverted, so it would make sense, but it is not the case that extraverts all have extraverted perception in their dominant pair. But we need to remember that it is not the contents of those truths and values that are considered binding in this case, but the idea of truths and values that apply to everybody; thus, the existence of the group as one. Introverted Js will often try and find better truths and values that can objectively be acceptable for everybody. But Ps do not expect objective values for everybody; they want autonomous values respected, regardless of whether they are the same for everybody. So, it is not about the contents but about the existence of the justifications as binding, which is why it is about attitude groups. The functions deal with the contents.
As a consequence, EJs experience both reality and group as objective, and, therefore, expect all other people to see it as they do, or they consider them wrong, obnoxious, crazy or ill. IPs experience both as relative, which means they object to any expectation of acceptance or behaviour. But the other two (EPs and IJs) experience one as objective and the other as relative, which can cause them to get caught up in dilemmas between what they perceive and what they believe.
Consequently, perceivers (EPs and IJs) tend to suffer from anxiety, fear and other perceptual stress that is often turned inward and expresses in physical illness, while deciders (EJs and IPs) are turning to anger, yelling, and accusations, directed toward each other, because EJs want to protect the establishment and traditions, while IPs want change. And the more IPs push and accuse, the more protective and rigid EJs become and vice versa.
And since there are seldom many people of the same group in each family, this can cause a lot of stress and hurt, especially in times like these, when our existential beliefs are on the brink and our lives perceived to be in danger.
Now my philosophy concerns not just the mind and psychotype, but also the nature of information and where these differences come from, and that leads to energy. Energy spans all forms of EM radiation as well as immaterial psychic energy and all are convertible. Immaterial information creates a certain state of energy in our mind, which in turn translates into brain states and thus physical states, which is why immaterial worries can make your body sick. Our best defense against any invader, whether it is in the air we breathe or in a needle, is a good energy state: both physical and mental health. That is why it is so often people who have faith beliefs that are spared illness, which they then assign their religion, but what saved them was their peace of mind.
In addition, our psychotypes are inborn (not genetic or physical, but with us from birth nonetheless), so we do not have a choice in how we experience; it is just the way we do and, therefore, it makes absolutely no difference how much we argue, present facts or empirical data and how long we reason, because, as William James said, new ideas need to be “live options” or actual possibilities for people, before they will change their mind; they need to be open to the possibility.
In the end, most people will be okay if they trust the path they have chosen and feel protected and confident, no matter which it is. In that respect, it is actually healthier to only listen to the messages of your own stance, as long as those are not fear-induction but ‘evidence’ for your belief. and it makes absolutely no difference whether that evidence can be verified.
That means that those who fight and want to be right (and I am aware that I am part of that group) are causing more suffering than needed. But it is not easy telling people not to get angry, since their sense of justice lives inside them; it is part of their inner Self and it is directly related to their reason for living.
In the end, the biggest service we can do each other is refrain from advising, openly worrying, trying to convince, hope, judge, bring in ‘facts’, argue and so on. Tolerance is truly respecting the other to make their own decisions.
But that, of course, is the hardest job for any person.
Interestingly, although once stance with regard this issue (like any other issue) is without any doubt type influenced, and should be seen as type diversity, it appears some type groups have decided that type diversity. because this post had me chucked out of their group, which was, on top of that, intended for discussions, which is what I would have welcomed. But it appears that discussions is limited to pre-agreed opinions. Jung was never afraid to speak out, because he understood how our psychology influences our beliefs. Sometime I wonder how much of his insights is actually left.
Thank you for reading.
The Philosophy of Type Harmonics 