A Call for Complexity ~ S2E1 Psyche Design

Transcription:

Hello, my name is Meghan LeVota, and you are listening to the Psyche Design podcast. This is the first episode of season two. And, I'm not fully sure everything that I'm going to talk about in this episode. But for myself, I'm treating it as almost like a personal manifesto of "How I Intend to Talk About Personality Type Moving Forward," and just some general ideas to set the stage.

So, I'm calling this episode a Call For Complexity. Because that is partially what I'm calling for, is a way in which to talk about Carl Jung's theory of Psychological Types — as well as the 16-type model that was popularized by the MBTI (Myers and Briggs), and all of the other systems that have followed.

And I guess what I want to bring up right off the bat, is that Carl Jung himself was pretty long-winded and convoluted, one could say. And in the book, Psychological Types, he talks a lot about the problem of opposites, and how opposites interact with one another, and what to do about it, and what problems that gives society dealing with those opposites. And then at the end of the book, he goes into the eight cognitive functions, which I'm not going to go into what those are just yet. So if you're new to personality type theory, and you want to know what these functions are, you might want to check out another episode.

But for those of us who have been in this personality bubble for a while, basically, the way I see it is, Carl Jung talked about the psyche, in quite a complex way, too. And, you know, interestingly enough, he wanted his theory of Psychological Types to be something that the layperson can pick up and use. However, in the way in which he explained things, it was not very easy for a lay person to pick up and use, what did people do, they jumped right to the section about the categories. And they just read about the categories and skipped over the beginning part, I've been guilty. I'm guilty of this literally when it comes to reading that reading his book. And I think that, you know, based on how the ego works, according to Jung and psychology, this shouldn't be that surprising that our ego is automatically going to go toward the information in which we, our ego feels like we can use something from it. Whether this is our self-concept, we're going to understand ourselves better. Or other people, maybe we want to get along with other people better. And so even though Carl Jung had hopes that his book Psychological Types would be able to be used for the layperson to be able to figure out how they are dealing with their problem of opposites, in instead went over a lot of people's heads. And I'd like to argue that it's going over our heads right now. I'm not even trying to claim that it hasn't gone over mine, I just want to bring out right off the bat, that the guy is pretty dense when he writes and not all of us have read all of it through.

And I'm not even a Jungian purist here. However, I am someone that philosophically aligns more with Jung than Freud. And I tend to agree with his philosophy on the psyche in the shadow a little bit more so than, like mainstream modern psychology. And so, whenever the Myers Briggs came to be, it was inspired by Psychological Types. And it went with the categories that Carl Jung proposed with the eight cognitive functions and it uses his theory about how we have a dominant and we also have an auxiliary function and then we have an inferior function that is opposite to our Dominant function. The MBTI was able to put those categories and use his theory and turn it into 16 types Next. And there are there are some debates and whether or not Carl Jung agreed with the MBTI. And there's some debate and whether or not the two systems even can work well together. But for most of us in 2022, for learning about personality, we're probably first learning about it through the lens of the 16 types. And then if you get more interested in the background, then you go back and look at some of the depths and the complexity behind it. 

And I guess what I want to bring up is that. So the MBTI definitely succeeded at reaching the layperson, way more than Carl Jung did. I think we can agree on that. However, right now, in 2022, if you're familiar with the site, 16 Personalities — that is a very popular online quiz that a lot of people will go and take to figure out what their personality type is. While the 16 Personalities is not actually Jungian-based typology theory — it's actually trait-based, it has nothing to do with the MBTI. And so it's a fundamentally different theory, than the, you know, the 16 Jungian types, the type patterns. And so you also could argue that 16 Personalities did a better job at reaching the layperson. But at what cost?

Well, I'm not even saying that there's anything wrong with it, necessarily. The cost, some could argue that the cost that there might be, you know, that it's not factually as true or holistic, maybe they see some ethical problems with a pressure to stereotype things or put people in boxes. Um, but it's not the way that Carl Jung described it, it's a completely different theory. But it's ... almost using his credit, credibility, or authority in order to, you know, make this site. And I'm not arguing that the MBTI did this with Jung, in theory. But I am saying that just because something is easier for a layperson to, in general, understand... and just because you're able to describe it in a more simple and engaging way, doesn't necessarily mean that it's more correct.

And, in my opinion, the 16 Personalities quiz, it tries to mix... Well, this part isn't an opinion it's true. It's true that it uses the Big 5, which is a pretty popular trait-based model in psychology. It kind of uses that, but then uses some of the same verbiage that the MBTI uses such as thinking and feeling. Ya know, I'm pretty sure that the MBTI has said before that they regret not trademarking, their names like ENFJ, INFJ, and whatnot, because they're upset for the end, because basically, the 16 Personalities is using their credibility of those keywords.

And the type code, however, like, I, personally am happy that the Myers Briggs did not trademark those names, because, you know, even Carl Jung himself, he was talking about things like thinking versus feeling, sensing versus intuition which these have existed as these concepts had. These concepts have existed as dichotomies, even before Carl Jung, he just identified them. And so I think it would be kind of silly for someone to trademark the idea that there's a dichotomy because anyone can perceive them. It would be like trademarking the idea of light versus dark. I mean, that's just one way of looking at it. And so I feel like everybody should have the right to talk about things such as feeling versus thinking, introversion versus extraversion, and any other dichotomy that might exist in the world. And as reflected in our psyches.

Um, but I think that there has been almost like a feeling that in order to get this across, we have to be as simple as possible, or else people won't understand. So now I want to critique the idea of talking to a layperson in general. Because who even is a layperson? What does that mean?

I guess you could say it means somebody that's not super into psychology. But think about where we're at right now. In 2022. With a computer at our fingertips, no matter where we go, most of the time, for most of us, we can Google anything we'd like. A lot of us become experts in things that we don't officially have a degree in.

And we're exposed to so much information to where I'm a lay person in the 1920s is quite different than a layperson in the 2020s.

Because what, when you also think of layperson, maybe you're thinking what would be like a commoners job, or like the most normal occupation? Well, at least in America, a lot of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. So the layperson in America is working in an information economy, in a knowledge economy. We're even things like customer service that involve working with people. And so a layperson when in Jung's time, would have more probably been someone that had a job in which they were told what to do. And they didn't have to think much more beyond that.

However, I don't think that a lot of us in 2022 have the privilege to be able to do that. So bringing me back to all this, I've been sitting with the question of, maybe there's a reason why Carl Jung introduced the eight cognitive functions in the way in which he did and in the order in which he did, it seems like a lot of us and the MBTI included, they read, you know, Psychological Types and thought, you know, this is really interesting. However, you're losing me a bit Jung, like you're talking so much about all the stuff that I don't care about, get me to the categories. And so that's basically what a lot of these type models have done, is want to quickly get to why someone would want to hear about what they're saying, and explain it in a way where it's quick and snappy, and you're able to add value quickly.

And we see the sentiment, this whole sentiment of trying to cut through the fat, and get right to like this point, that might be convincing for someone. We see this all the time in sales, and in marketing. And I think that with so much information in 2022 that we are all sifting through… I know a lot of us work from home, I work from home, I feel like I'm sitting behind a computer a lot. I read recently the other day, that apparently the average person sees, could see up to 10,000 advertisements per day, in 2022. So, and in contrast, in the 70s, that number was more like 500 to 1000. So there's a lot that we're trying to sort through, there's a lot of information that we're juggling all at once. We aren't like living on a farm and working in a factory doing the same thing over and over and over. And so imagine what that's done to our psyches. We aren't a lot of us are not just sitting and doing the same thing over and over and over.

So I ask what do you think that a layperson is able to understand? And how much do you think that we have to dumb it down? Because I think that a lot of people are trying to make it seem simple and easy. So that people get it and understand and it's almost like you want to hook them so that they can see the value and then, later on, explain the depths of it. However, I think that when we do this, people have a lot of unlearning to do. I had a lot of unlearning to do. Because in order for the system of the eight cognitive functions to actually work, the implication is that there are these Jungian principles of how the psyche works, that are the foundation for how these eight cognitive functions even work.

So, I want to shine a light on the fact that there are these underlying principles of Jung in psychology, what even is a psyche? How does the shadow even work? How does the consciousness or how do the conscious and unconscious parts of our brain interact? And how does projection work? What is the individuation process? What is the transcendent function, all of these things, in my opinion, are integral to understanding how the eight cognitive functions even work. And I know that it's common understanding it among type practitioners, too, it seems like a lot of the priority is to help people get to their best fit type now, and then you can explain all of the parts behind that.

So for example, you might want to help someone get to the fact that they are an ENFJ personality type, because then they can use that model now, to understand themselves better and understand others better. However, the system of the 16 types, has a different purpose than Carl Jung's theory of Psychological Types, in which he introduces the eight cognitive functions, which are essentially like the building blocks of the psyche, if you were to envision your psyche and split it into groups and split it into eight. It's all based on the four elements that everything in the universe is based on. It's the four elements in and out, it's the formula for elements in your inner world, and four elements in the outer world.

And so I've said this in other videos, but I really, really want to underscore the fact that I'm, well, I'd argue that the psyche of one individual is a microcosm of the entire universe. And so you have to realize how infinite of a potential that is. And if you were to look at the microcosm of all that is, and divide it by eight, do you understand the depths of which each one of these psyches or each one of these functions is capable of.

I think that if we are putting it into little keywords, we're trying to narrow it down and water it down and make it easy, so that other people understand —  not only are we assuming that others aren't intelligent enough to grasp something that in my opinion, all of this is experiential knowledge. We're all human. If you lived it, if you can feel it, it's gonna make sense.

Like, you know, don't assume that we don't have or the delay person, whatever doesn't have the capacity to understand something that their brain is literally doing. So I, so this is just my opinion, I am kind of sensitive to the fact I noticed this, like in politics and whatnot, where people are almost talking to the masses, as though they're a separate group or separate from them. And it's like, we're all mass, we're all the masses. You know, like, Who do you think you are? Um, so I guess I want to challenge that idea, because, but I understand it's scary.

And I'll tell you why it's scary. It's because we are afraid of the transformation that occurs, in which groups of people that operate differently than one another mix together. That would be mixing, feeling and thinking, mixing sensing and intuiting, mixing intuition — I already said that, I'm mixing introversion and extraversion.

You know, when we mix these polarities together, you're going to expect some chaos. And so of course, the masses are chaotic, but it's not because they're stupid and you're not. It's because the totality of all of us together is extremely chaotic. And you know what, guess what, your psyche is extremely chaotic as well.

And so, when I say Call for Complexity, I am making a call for each of us as individuals to acknowledge and own the complexity of our inner conflict and our inner paradox and our dichotomies that exist within us. Because I'm not just a feeler, I'm not just intuitive. These are labels that we can use in order to better understand our social role, better understand where we've been and where we want to go. But it's extremely helpful, in my opinion, to recognize that while our ego has a personality type pattern that plays out throughout your ego’s development, we're that that whole journey of, you know, going from your Dominant function and learning to lead on your auxiliary and whatnot. That's a journey your ego is going through and will continue to go through, however, who you are really yourself, which in Carl Jung's psychology, he talks about the individuation process in which we are going on a journey to unravel the self with each decision with each step.

And through that, we are allowing the shadow to come to light, which means that we're eliminating the resistance between there in that partition between the consciousness and the unconscious.

If we want to find who we really are, if we want to identify with ourselves, and not just our ego, and not just our persona, we have to identify with that journey, we have to identify with that. The you that is going through this whole tunnel, this whole process to which you feel the wobble within one side and the other.

So anyway, so I have been going back to why did Carl Jung talk for that long about the problem of opposites before he went into I did identifying the eight cognitive functions. And I think it's because this whole idea of the Western mind being one-sided, and the impact that causes in society. Carl Jung talks about that a lot. For example, he talks about Romeo and Juliet being an example of the two families and how they have different conscious preferences. And they're projecting on the other through their shadow. And they represent these opposites. And then Romeo and Juliet themselves, their decision to come together through love. It causes chaos between these opposites. And a transformation occurs.

Why did he talk about that? Instead of explaining the difference between an INFJ and an INTJ? Well, you could argue that the MBTI developed and added on to things that Carl Jung didn't know. And that's definitely the case, I think that there has been a lot of development within understanding the 16th type map type patterns in 100 years, not just with the MBTI, but with people such as John Beebe, who was a union analyst who developed an eight function model. And he identified the different complexes that might be attached to each of our functions. So for example, not just thinking about it as this Dominant function, he also talks about how we might have a hero complex attached to that function in the way in which we use it, whereas the auxiliary function will have a supportive parent complex. And, you know, he goes down the line in which you see how the shadow and the light within your personality work together. And so how do they work together? That's what I'm calling our inner paradox.

So, okay, back back, though, to what I was saying is that yes, there's been development, and we've learned things now that Carl Jung did no because the times have changed. There's been development in psychology. So there's again, there's a lot he doesn't know. However, I asked myself if was there a reason why he went into that for so long? And also, is there a reason in which he explained it as through the eight functions, rather than coming up with almost like a persona, in order to go with it?

And I keep coming back to the idea that he is really framing the value here, by explaining how the fragmented and divided western mind is clinging to one-sidedness. And also the unconscious effects of that. And type, recognizing which cognitive function is being clung to, in a one-sided way, is very useful if you are trying to solve the problem of an extremely divided society.

And so, to me, especially after everything we've gone through in the past couple of years with the pandemic, to me, how divided our society is is of number one importance to me, because the MBTI, developed a system to your type is essentially like a social role that you can put on in order to get by, and it's not bad. It's just not all that there is to you. And I think we all know that I think that people who really love the 16 types system, which I do as well, I'm not saying I'm not going to talk about ENFJ, or any of that. I think we all realize that. There's more to it than this. And you know, and when we're talking about what type is one of the biggest barriers we get from people is, “I don't know, I feel like I'm both or, you know, I was this but then I changed.” And maybe instead of launching into, “Oh, no, you need to take a good test. Maybe you're this, maybe you're that”... Maybe, instead we need to recognize that. “Yeah, you did change. And you are both.” And I think that the way in which Carl Jung introduced it by initially pointing out the problem in which, “oOh, everybody is really one-sided,” it gets us to start thinking, “Oh, how am I one-sided? How am I suppressing a certain side of myself?” It starts to get you thinking in that way.

And then when you explain the eight cognitive functions, is explaining the map of the psyche in which we all travel. So, yes, that might be confusing. It's more confusing than taking an assessment, and figuring out which type of personality pattern you might have. Or maybe it is, I don't know. But I think in the long run, I think that it might actually be easier… it might actually be easier for people to grasp if we just leaned into the fact that it's kind of complex. Because it's not even that it's that complex, it's just that so much of thinking about how consciousness and unconsciousness works …there are a lot of paradoxes here. It's like, I'm an introvert, and I'm an extrovert. I'm a thinker, and I'm a feeler.

One thing that this makes me think of is that I have been taking improv classes recently and one of the principles of improv is the idea of “Yes, and,” and in order to create a scene with somebody new, you have to be open to whatever they are giving you. And you have to say “yes, and” tack onto it.

And that whole principle of “yes, and”  reminds me a lot of the transcendent function in which Carl Jung talks about how when we hold tension between the two opposites, a third thing can emerge. When we are able to recognize the opposites within us, rather than cling to our one-sidedness, that's where creative energy comes from. That's where we find ourselves. And that all comes through owning our inner paradox. 

And so my thing is, is that everybody, I don't care if you know what your type is, I don't care if you even like talking about type. Everybody can get some value from thinking about, “How am I holding the tension between introversion and extraversion, feeling and thinking, sensing and intuiting?” Everybody can get value from that. And knowing what type you are just tells you which side you might be leaning on to a little bit more. 

So yeah, I've just been thinking a lot about why, why did he explain it in the order in which he did? Because I think that he had a reason, even if he didn't explain it very well. Because he explained it in that order. And then he became very frustrated when people didn't understand it. And he also became frustrated with the simplifications because he felt that they were missing something. And I'm I think that not everybody is going to want to get into the theory of all this. And there can be some value in like a workplace setting or like a team setting, just to use an assessment, and figure out, you know, what our preferences are, like, oh, I have a preference for feeling versus thinking, that can be very useful in team environments. And it can be practical. And so I totally understand why the MBTI and other models have framed it in this way, in which they are explaining, typically, the logic is they're going to explain to you, this is what the tool does, it helps you understand yourself and others, it helps you understand your decisions, as well as how you process things. And that can be very helpful. But if we are wanting to talk about it in a dynamic way in which we are feeling into the sort of spiral movements that we go through, and um I don't know lately, I'm just really interested in tapping into the whole idea of like, your core creative instinct. And also like the chaos of that, because holding tension or holding opposites.

Intention is very chaotic. It's very creative. But it also makes you feel alive. And so how do you feel alive? Well, no matter what type you are, you probably need to go easy on your lower functions a little bit, it doesn't mean you need to, you know, all of a sudden abandon what your preferences are, and jump to something else, you got to ease into it a little bit, you got to make it feel like a dance. And if it's not feeling like a dance, oftentimes, it'll feel like ginormous tidal waves, or it'll feel like you're on this pendulum, where you're clinging to one side, you're afraid to go swinging somewhere else.

And it's like, the more pressure you put on one side on the conscious realm, then the more your shadow is going to bounce back to bite and come back to bite you. And so if we don't want to be going through these things, these insane, like reactive and out of control, seesaw-like feeling internally, we got to hold some sort of space for both.

And so I think that if we talk about type, from this sort of like chaotic core creative instincts, the Self that's on its journey back to ourselves. I think that it might actually make more sense, even if it sounds more complex. Because like I said, I mean, I think that it's the kind thing to do to speak to an audience that you believe is at your level of intelligence, rather than speaking down. I believe it's the kind thing to do to not treat the masses as though they're somehow separate from you. I also think that humanity has gone through a lot of change in the last 100 years, to where we are all having to deal with so much complexity all the time, to the point where it's making our brains feel very fried. And so I think that embracing the complexity of the theory and also applying it to social issues, or cultural things, it might feel kind of nebulous, but like I said, I think it's an experiential form of knowledge. To where if you play around with it, and you tune into how your inner paradoxes are working, I think that anyone can catch on.

Because it's describing the ways in which our psyche works and we all have a psyche, right? 

So, I would like to start talking about individuation more broadly and the psyche more broadly. And then talking about type in relation to that. How does type work as a tool for individuation? There are other tools for this as well. You can identify archetypes. Jean Shinoda Bolen has a system of archetypes related to the Greek gods and goddesses that I have been into. The archetypes are, are more instinctual, whereas the functions are more mental. And then there's also astrology. Now, I know this might be unpopular for a lot of people who are maybe MBTI type practitioners and psychologists because astrology is not very scientific. However, Jung did use astrology. Jung used astrology in order to explain what synchronicity even was. And I would argue that astrology is a tool for individuation, just as typology is a tool for individuation, and there are different tools. And I would argue that typology is a bit more down-to-earth, which is why it's easier to test and measure. And it is, psychology is a science, it can be depending on how you do it. And I would argue that synchronicity, synchronicities, when you run into them, those are the signposts that show you that you're on this path of individuation that things are getting easier that you are releasing the resistance between your two polarities.

And the last thing I'll say on this, when I say call for complexity, I spoke in February at the type conference for the Association for Psychological Type International (APTi), and I titled that talk The Call for Complexity: Typology Online. And for that talk, I was talking all about the state of personality typology online, how people were using YouTube, how people were using online groups, and things like Discord, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter. And most of my audience for that was some of the older generations, and I kind of was just sort of trying to come in and bridge the gap, and speak on behalf of I guess, a millennial that has been in typology communities online for about 10 years now. And I also wanted to point out, like, I, you know, Gen Z's here, Gen Z has come as come in, and there are different social norms for the Internet, then there were whenever I got started, and I argued, and I can go into this in another episode that being on the internet, it's really the wild wild west. And it, I think, can trigger our shadows more than perhaps real life to some extent, um, in the sense that I think that it's easier to find yourself up against an opposite. Whereas if you say something online, you're probably going to find someone who absolutely hates what you said, and is representing the exact opposite view. Whereas in real life, you're probably more likely to stick to people you know, or stick to like-minded cultures, religions, whatnot, but the internet, you can talk to anyone.

And so I think that the web has influenced those of us who are digital natives, to where our minds work a little bit differently. I'm not sure if it's better, or if it's worse, we don't even really know yet. But I think that it's fair to argue that the internet is affecting our minds and thus our psyches. And you know, there are so many possibilities on the internet. And I think that our the younger generations know that there are more possibilities than maybe the older generations did. And we're conceptualizing things differently. And I personally believe that it's a lot harder to go through life thinking just from your own preferred function standpoint, without bumping into, at least once, somebody who thinks that you're absolutely insane for naturally thinking what you think in the way that you think.

You're going to bump into those people that challenge you, and then when you're challenged, you're going to have to deal with that tidal wave.

And so what I told APTi at that talk to the older generations, is that I think that we need to recognize that the younger generations are thinking about type in a pretty complex way. And a lot of us have figured it out on our own, by seeking out information on our own and piecing it together on our own. And so I think that there has been this bias from older generations thinking that if you want to reach millennials, or Gen Z, you have to be very simple and quick, because you know, we're the generation that is used to Amazon, Amazon Prime, and just like getting everything within a moment's notice. I think that you don't have to be fast, in order to get our attention, I think that you have to be, say something novel. And also don't disrespect our intelligence. So that's my theory is that I think that the younger generation are looking for something meaningful, and they want to have a meaningful conversation, and that we shouldn't be afraid to talk about complexity. Because I think that if you give all the information out there, rather than trying to segment it, it's going to make it a lot easier for people to come to holistic understandings on their own.

Because also, that's another thing, I'm not here to teach. I'm here to share some of my experiential knowledge and have a conversation together.

So I think that that's good for today. Um, I am going to, at the very least do an episode once a month, and potentially more than that, sometimes I'll be on camera, sometimes I won't. I do want to go deeper into explaining like, what the functions are, in my words, and whatnot. But really, at the end of the day, knowing about the eight cognitive functions, has absolutely transformed my life in ways that I don't even know how to explain.. and so I think that’s what I want to explore on this podcast is how, how even knowing about the dichotomies and holding space for them, and that whole way of thinking, how has that led to transformations in my life? And I believe it's because it's activated the transcendent function, which yeah … and I think that I feel completely done with trying to come up with definitions and categories. And systems. I'm not saying that in like a one-sided way in which I'm afraid of using my thinking functions. Because I will try and be specific, and I will try and use models if I absolutely need to, to explain. But I'm going to try and let myself have an ENFJ preference, and I'm going to try and just let myself use extroverted feeling here and do what I do best. I'm going to try and give myself permission to yeah, um, it's like, I want to talk about the transformative power of this tool more so than I want to be splitting hairs about what's what, and defining things, I want to get to the part in which we're actually applying this to things that are really, really meaningful, that can really change an individual's life.

And I believe when I say call for complexity, I want to end this by saying that I think the problems that humanity faces right now, socially, are bigger than ones we've ever faced before. This is a very pivotal time. And, you know, there's been a lot of times in which we've said that, and, yeah, that's okay. Because this is a new time. You know, we're, we've never dealt with this before. We've, we've dealt with monumental, unprecedented times before. But we're at another one, we're at another one of those points.

And I believe that each of us as individuals need to be the sort of individuals that can manage our own inner complexities without lashing out without getting reactive, without projecting if we want to solve these problems that we face.

Because think about how things are politically right now. People aren't even hearing each other. Like we aren't even having conversations because people are doubling down on their side, that isn't being heard by the other side. And we need to hear all of the sides. We need to become a person that can hear all of the sides and isn't afraid of our own complexity, if we want to face this sense of overwhelm and this information in the chaotic world that we live in right now. And so the way that I talked about time is going to reflect that. Thank you so much for listening. And until next time, have a wonderful day.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit psychedesign.substack.com