Psychology Articles

What is really out there? Why do we think that we think? This article explores some of the classic works on the topic.

Ross and Nisbett argue that our perceptions of ourselves and our casual attributions for our actions are not in fact complete or correct: we are not born tabla rasa, we do not consistently build basic beliefs, and we cannot predict or control the way we will act. Phychologists and sociologists provide support for this through numerous studies that show a basically consistent, unpredicted, and unsystematic patterns of behavior. Some authors begin by breaking down the idea that our opinions or reactions are as independent and systematic as we may believe. Sherif’s “autokinetic” study and the Ash Paradigm study illustrate that we often act differently when in groups (with group norms, pressure, bias, and social factors). We conform to group pressure (Ash), or, even more extremely, shift our perceptions in order to align ourselves with a group (Sherrif). The Bennington studies, which show how our beliefs about the world are deeply and irreversibly influenced by our social surroundings, illustrate that this effect is not trivial or isolated but instead can have far-reaching and self-defining consequences.

Sherif’s later studies on group dynamics similarly show us that our world perceptions (us vs. them, me vs. you, good vs. bad) can be arbitrary. Chapter three expands on this point with a social slant: Our world is constructed in a social setting and so the opinions of others and the judgments of others play a dynamic part in this construction. I.e., our world is not necessarily “warped” by others opinions but others opinions actually play a role in determining what our world looks like. The “attribution theory of emotion” and the Nisbett and Wilson (1977) cognitive process blindness theory take this one step further claiming that we do not really see the world as we think we do at all.

Ross and Nisbett impose their own interpretation on these findings. They repeatedly argue that we interpret and construct the world in a dynamic way, based on the perceptions and influences of our social surroundings, situational factors, and personality characteristics. They then claim that we are overly unaware that we are only seeing one way to interpret the world. “This lack of awareness of our own construal processes blinds us to the possibility that someone else, differently situated, might construe the same objects in a different way… People sometimes construe the same object differently because they view it from different angles rather than because they are fundamentally different people…. The divergence [exhibited in the Asch experiments] may reflect differences not in the “judgment of the object” but in the construal of just what “the object of judgment” is.” (p82). We make the false assumption that we see it as it is rather than as we interpret it. It is not clear here whether the differences in individual interpretations of the worlds are due only to different external factors (social, environmental, etc) or also to different processing factors (i.e. the mental and physical machines with which we process this information).

Ross and Nisbett do not explicitly state what I see as a major consequence, and synthesis, of both their chapters and much of the literature. But perhaps this is because I do not have and have not read their later chapters. With this caveat, Ross and Nisbett (1) begin by attempting to prove that our world is to an extent an arbitrary construction. They continue (2) by showing that it is important to us that out world be in line with others in our group or reference set (social pressure) and they end (3) with the interesting claim that we misunderstand the world in a fundamental way (with mistakes in traits, etc). To me there is a clear logical step that stands between their points (1) and (2). That (1.5) that we are, on some deep unconscious level, insecure and unsure of the ontological nature of the world and thus need to constantly adjust our view of it depending on the situation and context (see they do not take William James’ point on p. 68 seriously enough) or align ourselves with others in order to attempt to interpret it in the best/most useful way.

It helps if we assume for a moment that there is no “correct” way to interpret the world – and Ross and Nisbett I think would agree with this. Perhaps even the idea of a “correct” way to interpret the world is a non-sensical statement. All constructions are heuristics simplifications intrinsically since the world does not have, unlike our constructions of the world, imbedded causality only systematic temporal correlations. An interpretation is meant, therefore, to be useful in our world, which a deeply social and dynamic one. Why is it therefore surprising that we adjust, conform to, and closely monitor others opinions? If our interpretations are wrong, and we know they always are, there is no good reason to stick to them if they are not working. Our perception of length is clearly not functioning correctly if it derives an answer different from everyone else (since deriving an answer that is useful is our goal, not deriving an answer that is true and it is useful to have an agreed upon idea of length).

So the surprising thing is that we ever believe that we are objectively right about things or that we believe our views are “the way things are,” not that we adjust our world-views in the face of social, environmental, or situational pressure (and various evolutionary psychology arguments have attempted to explain this argument on the grounds of efficiency). Bishop Berkeley, Occationalism, and David Hume have all trodden this ground. I do not mean to make the facile claim that we should always give in to social pressure, that we should always tailor our views to match those around us, only that to explain a deviation from this behavior one need to apply to other reasons than one being “correct” or, even, more arguably, perhaps, “truth.” That our views are deeply inadequate and inefficient, as chapter four argues, is a much harsher claim leveled by Ross and Nisbett in this context.

The literature often builds up a model of perception/ internal_world-creation and the later then added a component questioning the element of causality. For example, Straw, Bell, Clausen piece questions the emergent literature on situational attributions to job attitudes in favor of a more dispositional approach. Studies, they claim lay too much emphasis on the social, the interpretational elements of a job, over-stating the role that the work environment that will determine an individual’s happiness in it. Instead, one can correlate the individual’s happiness and job satisfaction in many respects well before he/she enters the work place. Thus, it is the characteristics, attitudes, and nature and the individual who is the prime determinant of whether or not he/she is happy in the job. This research is interestingly interrelated to the previous Ross Nisbett piece, since Ross and Nisbett’s argument that the person interprets the environment lends itself to the conclusion that no matter what environment an individual is put into, he/she will largely affect the way he/she perceives that environment and thus his/her feelings about it.

In contrast to Straw, et al., Davis-Blake and Pfeffer (1989) argue that the dispositionalist argument is deeply flawed. They claim that the individual’s characteristics are dynamic in nature and therefore they change in time and are furthermore deeply affected by their environment. Therefore, one can expect that an employee, especially in the long term, will be very deeply affected by the nature and prevailing attitudes of his/her workplace. They point to the extreme cases of military training facilities, which are able to dramatically affect the psychology of an individual. Sneider (1987) returns fire with a volley that asserts that the “culture” of a firm is simply the people in it. That these people are self-selecting and will tend to attract compatible people, and that the world is a dynamic place of individuals, not forces. The last piece of the puzzle, the piece by Arvey and Bouchard (1994) builds a strong foundation under the dispositionalist camp but also shows the complexity of the problem. It addresses the nature vs. nurture debate by reviewing the literature to show that while it seems that genetics do make some difference (this lends credit to dispositionalists who would like to claim that people have characteristics, genetic or otherwise, that persist over time) environment is also a large factor (situationalists can grab onto this evidence).

This debate, first between situationalists and dispositionalists about the source of ones attitude about the workplace, and then about the source of our personality (nature vs. nurture) have serious consequences which many of the authors discuss. If we are in fact shaped by our environments, then companies might want to invest significant resources into “culture” and creating a productive workplace. But if our attitudes and productivity are a function of our personalities, then companies might want to select those people with attractive qualities for their company. This has troubling moral consequences as some authors point out.

I would like to emphasize how these points are building up a literature that focuses on central questions about why we view the world the way we do, what effects the world has on us, and what the source of our feelings, attitudes and lives are. The battle lines of the difference sides of this debate are, from this perspective, artificially clear.

If, for example, we ask the question of FREE WILL, for example, the sides dramatically shift. The dispositionalist camp splits into two, some taking a deterministic evolutionary view and others taking view that our personalities are developed early by our environment. The situationalists might point out that we CHOOSE our workplaces and thus choose the sorts of influences that will shape our character. So while we are not in total control of what we will feel about our job, our creativity, etc, we can choose what sorts of forces will affect these metrics. Aristotle, who’s view on almost anything is worth looking up, coined the phrase Akrasia, and this phrase can be applied to this bebate with perhaps some fruitful insights. It is Greek for “weakness of will”. He claimed that we are morally responsible for the consequences of a choice in the long term, even if we are not morally free at the time of our choices. The best modern example of this is if one chooses to get drunk one is responsible for one’s actions while drunk even if one does not have the ability to control one’s actions while drunk. So one is responsible for choosing the path that led to an action even if one is not directly responsible for that action. Of course, Aristotle chose the more controversial example of choosing to live a life of moral weakness and moral compromise which weakened the will to the point that one was not a good/moral person. He claimed that one was responsible for immorality not because we choose to become weak enough to do these acts. I think that these different camps might gain some insight into their nature/nurture dispositionalist/situationalist objective/subjective debates if Aristotle’s wisdom were headed more carefully.

Readings:

Ross, L. & Nisbett, R.E. (1991). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill. Chapters 2, 3, & 4.

Asch, S.E. (1958). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In E.E. Maccoby; T.M. Newcomb & E.L. Hartley (eds.), Reading in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company (pp. 174-183).

Staw, B.; Bell, N. & Clausen, J. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 56-77.

Davis-Blake, Alison & Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 385-400.

Schneider, Benjamin. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.

Arvey, R.D. & Bouchard, T.J. (1994). Genetic twins and organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 47-82.

Phin Upham has a PhD in Applied Economics from the Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania). Phin is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He can be reached at phin@phinupham.com

You can find more info here: Phin Upham

Squaring circles emotionally is a challenge anyway but truthfully, do we know what we are really feel and what we are don’t? Are we certain that we know exactly what in our partner really turns us on and what does not? More, do we know why we react as we do with our partner – or don’t, or why they respond to us as they do – or don’t? We see the evidence of it but not the cause. So what does cause it?

Is it odd to reflect that two people can react to one another in a particular way and they can love each other for it? Yet they can be totally unaware of it as a behaviour, or, if they are aware, can believe it to be perfectly normal. Meanwhile others witnessing them cannot and do not want to emulate it, finding the behaviour unusual.

There can be any number of behaviours performed by ourselves of which we are totally unaware, their causes residing deep in our subconscious. These can thrill, warn the heart, irritate, aggravate or downright displease our partner. They can disappoint even ourselves.

Personal behaviours in our partner will be present too, some of which they may or may not be aware. Certainly they would feel these to be unreasonable. We each live our lives on the basis that the way we live our lives is acceptable. Our own sense of Reality is as we each paint it.

Imagine in a relationship we could write out a joint list even of the offending behaviours of each of us and couple them with a preferred behaviour to neutralise the displeasure or discomfort it causes the other! Wouldn’t it lead to there being so many more peaceful households. It would be so particularly if that act in itself triggered and sustained the desired behavioural changes!

Were life so simple! Regrettably the complex force of the metaphor of “Squaring Circles” kicks in with a vengeance! The realisation of the deep-rooted tenacity with which a behaviour can become seemingly habitual and unalterable could make us look for an even more challenging description than ‘Squaring Circles’.

One can find legions of simple examples.

A house full of boys can make a mother’s attempts to keep the top on the toothpaste between users and the lavatory seat left down very forlorn missions. Over the years the children may even find it so usual to have tops left off and seats left up, that it becomes habitual and after that it is never reflected upon.

Marrying someone who had instead completely forgotten that tops are always left on and lavatory seats left down, can give rise to discovering comfort zones we never realised we had. In fact we have literally hundreds of them.

It would be an insuperable challenge if before we went to bed each night, we had to write out a list of every single like and dislike we had lest we forget them next morning. Fortunately our subconscious does this work of monitoring our comfort zones for us automatically. Yet if we ever bring to mind such a comprehensive list, we should remind ourselves that we alone compiled that list by adding to it every day, week and month of our life. We did so for one reason or another, but we did it.

Evidence is unfortunately far too strong that so many of these likes and dislikes are the sum total of what we ourselves have mandated. They are most definitely not merely evidence of the way we were born.

But one thing is for sure, to go any further we should “want” to discover more not feel we “have” to. Putting ourselves under self-imposed pressure would mean that only for as long as we willed a change in behaviour would it last. As soon as we deemed we no longer “had to,” it would stop.

In order to change, first, awareness of an inhibiting pattern or behaviour is necessary. (It may have grown to annoy us or our partner.) Second, the need must be acknowledged that we may have to reflect hard and go right back into a childhood to find the origin. Several excellent processes and non-fiction books exist to help in this self discovery.

Most important is to use one which deals effectively with the interplay necessary between the Intellect and the Emotions.

Does it produce success? Properly done, definitely. How long does it take? That depends on the awareness, desire and tenacity applied.

I wish you well.
Gerry Neale

Gerry Neale recommends a book called “You Can Change Your Life” by Tim Laurence ISBN 9780340825235. It sets out the Hoffman Process. Sir Gerry is an artist, mentor and author of a recently published cognitive behavioural novel called “Squaring Circles”. Detailed reviews and background information can be obtained from http://www.squaringcircles.co.uk and from the publishers http://www.pearlpress.co.uk

Only a few months prior to this experience I heard myself respond to a comment from an organizer about how to attract more of ‘us’ to these conferences, where I had been in a minority of one, “Put us at the front where we can be visible”, I replied. Who told me to open my big mouth? I had already presented at two conferences early this year, a workshop on that very day and this time around I had been earmarked as one of the main presenters. The conference theme was ‘Intergenerational trauma’.

I began by sharing something about my background as a black mixed heritage African Caribbean and Jewish woman. I explained that my father had written a letter referring to his own and my mother’s immigrant statuses, identifying themselves with the two most hated races in the Western world. Somehow they had found solace in each other without the use of any psychotherapeutic interventions. This prelude to my talk on ‘Healing Ancestral Baggage’ was a way of calming my nerves and making a connection to the listeners? I began by introducing my own intergenerational trauma and placing myself as a model at the centre of my work, so that others could experience me as the vulnerable human being that I am. This also helped to support the split between my relationship with the theme while presenting it and the challenge to make sense to people who respond to the theme of racism as though they are up in their heads. Hence I made it clear that my own past and present traumas might impact on the way I present.

I felt it was necessary to ask the question of whose trauma are we referring to when racism occurs? I presented an image from one of Britain’s leading newspapers that had been circulated on the Internet by friends. The image of British National Party supporters cajoling a 12 year old girl dangling a gollywog over a bonfire, prescribing the burning as a punishment for being black. Surely this white child was displaying signs of inheriting trauma. I have no doubt that intergenerational traumas experienced by both victims and perpetrators of racism have silenced intrapsychic and intercultural relationships in families and also education, the mental health system and the training of therapists. I have called this ‘Healing Ancestral Baggage’. I emphasized to delegates the importance of becoming ungagged and finding a voice on these concerns.

Who does the term ‘Black’ refer to?

The first challenge that reflected the nature of this question was raised in the demand to define the term black. The term ‘black’ is a political and sociological term, identifying a group that has been most vulnerable to the oppression of white racism. As the most visible minority, this group has been least represented in the field of psychotherapy and counselling. Whilst we cannot assume that all individuals from African and Asian backgrounds who have experienced racism identify with the term’ black’, it is important to consider the over representation of Black and Minority Ethnic Groups within inpatient services in the UK. The NHS Information Centre 2009 data showed that 53.8% of the “Black” and “Black British” group who were inpatients, spent some time detained compulsorily in comparison to 31.8% overall. (Ethnicity and Use of the Mental Health act. 24th May 2010 / London)

What are black issues?

The term ‘issues’ in this context therefore refers to any concern, problem, dynamic, feeling or experience raised by or about black people, by themselves or by white people. Whilst this may appear to be a broad definition, it allows for the relationships, personal development and theoretical context of experiences to be taken into account. Conclusions drawn from my experience as a counsellor trainer suggest that unless black issues are raised in the context of racism, general experiences pertaining to culture or every day life are likely to be raised mainly by black people themselves. This may occur when training approaches do not facilitate listening skills to appropriately reflect black issues or explore the impact of racism. I see this problem as an outcome of ancestral baggage.

Malidoma Some` uses African spirituality to support the idea of ancestral baggage and help understand how the unrequited human spirit may link to the psyche of the living, in a way that suggests how we inherit a sort of cultural lag. He suggests that spirits of the dead remember their experience on the earth and how they contributed to a greater good and make the world a better place. They also regret their failures and contribution to harming others. ‘The more they see the more they ache, and the more eager they are to turn their attention to helping those still in this world, however, spirits need to enlist our co-operation and help. Some`, M. (1999, p.54)

I must emphasize that not all black people or therapists may subscribe to this concept, but I find it helps to contextualize some of the concerns presented by trainee counsellors and colleagues in their attempts to understand black issues. I have created the concept of ancestral baggage in an attempt to enlist the co-operation that Some` mentions and extend the structural framework of therapeutic approaches that support the process of grieving, saying good-bye and letting go of the past. Most therapeutic approaches encourage exploration of memories and fantasies, which link relationships to those who have gone before. The concept of ‘ancestral baggage’ is used in a transpersonal way to help identify how the lives of predecessors influenced by colonialism and racism may impact on current generations and the collective psyche in the present.

The concept of ‘ancestral baggage’ can be applied contextually to the emotional and spiritual process of both therapists and clients. However, respect for individual belief systems is important and therefore this concept should not be introduced into therapy without informing the client of its relevance.

The concept of ancestral baggage can be seen as a way of understanding how the dynamics of relationships from former generations get passed on and impact on the present, suggesting that an individual’s emotional disposition may be affected by their ancestor’s modes of response to oppression and negative experiences. A psychodynamic therapist might view this as an aspect of transference and a challenge to reflect on the historical context of the client’s process. Each individual inhabits their own personal ancestral baggage that may contribute to their responses to everyday oppressions, and provide opportunities to re-write the negative aspects of these scripts on their lives. A student proposes a question about past influences during counsellor training.

Why don’t we leave the past alone if it appears to be irrelevant to the present?

Transculturalists challenge therapists who respond to cultural questions as though they were being given an additional problem. If this question were turned on its head we might consider why we don’t leave the present alone if it appears to be relevant to the past? Fear and denial are emotions often associated with the challenge of facing the impact of racism. The don’t go there signal was named in the conference as ‘a conspiracy of silence’. I named it as gagging, because the silence appears to be specifically related to permission to explore the impact of racism. Just like the 12 year old dangling the golly black clients may be silenced if consideration is not given to this aspect of intergenerational trauma. This response is ever present in therapeutic relationships and may be linked to past experiences of oppression that render individuals speechless when processing oppressed minority issues. I have noticed that individuals invited to explore the silence usually share an experience of direct hurt or witnessing someone else being hurt by racism. It is important therefore to be aware of how the counsellor’s own denial in the present time may prevent them from acknowledging the historical and cultural context of oppression and denial. Therefore the past will only be irrelevant if we refuse to contextualize the present. The following question attaches something negative to exploring this aspect of intergenerational trauma.

Isn’t it negative to focus on the hurt of colonialism and racism?

It may be negative but necessary and the therapist’s role is to support clients through negative phases. Therapists and clients may choose to ‘leave the past alone’ if they believe it is irrelevant to the present. This state of leaving alone can be explored in a self-reflective way using a variety of questions. Am I in denial? Is the client in denial? Am I willing to go there with the client if they lead me there? Am I willing to address the past if the client makes reference to it or if I sense there may be links? Am I aware, informed enough or confident enough to discuss the cultural and historical context of ignoring the past? Am I attaching my own negativity onto the client’s experience? Do I feel confident about either considering the impact of racism on the client or exploring the hurt of racism? Therapists need to be ready to explore the impact of racism on themselves and their clients. The therapist’s denial may keep both counsellor and client in an oppressive state of ignorance and powerlessness.

Dr Isha Mckenzie-Mavinga has been teaching transcultural workshops at Uniiversity of London for twenty years. Isha is passionate about the inclusion of black issues in therapeutic understanding. She set up therapy services for the African Caribbean Mental Health Association in the early 90’s and developed therapeutic group work with women impacted by domestic violence.

For Book information Go here http://www.i-mckenziemavinga.com/writing-publications.html.

Why do some people succeed at this and some not? What is the trick which makes some people good at learning pretty well anything and everything? Particularly when we find we can try and fail so easily! Isn’t that an annoying feature of Life for the rest of us? Aren’t there some tricks or rules which can help solve this human predicament? Would you believe it if I told you that I think there are?!

Perhaps I should make a confession first. For love nor money, once I couldn’t have drawn or painted you a decent picture. Now I can. Most definitely I couldn’t do respectable portraits. Now I can.

I couldn’t possibly have written a book and got it published. Annoyingly – purely in the context of this article – I have proved myself wrong again! My first novel was published this summer in my 71st year!

I can’t read music or play any instrument, l certainly couldn’t write a song, for Goodness Sake. Yet now I have written lyrics to existing music and had vocalists record them.

Do I tell you this to annoy you? Definitely not! I do so for three reasons; partly because I have mentored people to achieve what they believed they could not accomplish as a challenge. Partly because I told myself some while ago that if I was teaching and vindicating this approach, then perhaps I should prove it would work for me also.

The third reason was the challenge to try to establish why some people succeeded and some didn’t. In other words, learn the way myself.

I have concluded there are at least ten key tips to acquiring a new skill. Given the constraints of time and space in an article like this, let me headline the tricks involved. I believe them to apply no matter what skill you want to acquire.

Tip 1: Ask yourself this simple question: Do I really, really want to have the skill I have in mind? Because one thing is for sure, if you don’t really, then accept you will never be much good at it and you might as well quit before you start.

Tip 2: Is never forget how much you want to have the skill, because that enthusiasm and commitment will drive you through the set backs – and there will be some!

Tip 3: You need to develop the love of learning new tricks, rather than just relying on the ones you have. So! Discard the “I can’t” mentality and adopt the mantra, “I Can. It’s Just Right Now I Do Not Know How, But I will!”

Tip 4: Visualise yourself vividly as having the new skill already, feeling great about that and in no way surprised you have accomplished it.

Tip 5: Remind yourself that you already do some things well. You do them seemingly naturally and don’t even have to think about them! I have in mind such basic functions as, walking, running, jumping, riding a bicycle, talking, and singing, driving. Never forget you did not get any of them right first time!

Tip 6: Is to keep in mind any skill you have previously acquired and tick off the Tricks you applied regarding them to evidence for you how it works!

Tip 7: Remember this: most new skills improve the longer you do them. Enjoy the journey as you improve and keep a record of how far you have come since you started. You will only ever be the best at it you can!

Tip 8: Be Patient with yourself. Drop the attitude if you have it of “God Give Me Patience, But Give It To Me Now!” Certainly don’t give yourself a hard time.

Tip 9: Which you may find the most disappointing! Accept that if the skill is worth having, there is no easy way or short cut. Get good instructional DVDs and books, attend a good tutorials (always taking the first 8 tricks with you in your mind) Develop a thirst for hints and tips. And most of all, be persistent and never stop practising!

Tip 10: Always – and only – listen to that part of you that wants to do it and believes you can, and never to that part which says you can’t.

I have no doubt that the very first person likely to stand in the way of accomplishment is oneself.

I wish you well in every thing you take on. I firmly believe that each and every one of us has the capacity to excel at things we really want to do.

Sir Gerry Neale is an author of a cognitive novel called ‘Squaring Circles, a mentor, a lyricist and an artist.

He can be reached on http://www.squaringcircles.co.uk and http://psychologysimplified.blogspot.com

Whose Feelings Are We Feeling When We Are Feeling What We Are Feeling?

Oh! How our feelings so easily betray us. For no sooner than we establish an idea about our ‘feelings’, then the mountain slide of doubt, confusion and resistance begins. Making it necessary to reestablish the excitement attached to the sublime feelings in the first place; Unwarranted thoughts create the need to continually feed the bull dog his bone of the continual absorbing elevated important sense of worth (desire).

We so value the state of our feelings, we will subject ourselves to countless scenarios in order to evoke certain feelings. We especially like the pleasurable ones but when not available we will feast on whatever shows itself for consumption.

We are so effortlessly influenced by our feelings. We wholeheartedly believe them to be substantial, dependable and accurate. We go so far as to assign certain ‘attrition of benevolence’ to them, so when they begin to wane (and, wane they shall), we boost them with a shot of either guilt, remorse, regret, responsibility, duty and/or the most impressively famous of all, “idolized adoration’. In other words, we like being impressed much more than impressing. It’s so addictive! We want to feel we are involved with the most attractive mates that could ever be found on the planet. (Why else would we invent such outlandish sexual tales wrapped in confrontational intrigue of jealousy, envy and competition?)

Confusing as our feelings may be, the truth is: they fattened enormously over the years due to uninvited, intrusive, mal-aligned invasions of others in our lives that inadvertently showered us with their ingrained notions, beliefs, and emotional biases. Our present emotional states have been fed inconceivable meals, (which we swallowed up without reservation or resistance), prepared from the banquets of others, whose unrealized dreams unconsciously attached themselves to subjugate our feelings, for years without our even realizing what was happening.

This unconscious act of emotional infiltration was in no way intentional or purposeful but nevertheless occurred and as a result we sometimes feel things we have no idea how or why we do. Because those people who projected the early voices were unable to process and depend upon their own capriciously disloyal feelings, too, they released the inordinate pressure experienced by shifting them unto us vicariously. No blame need be dispersed, here; simply cold, hard facts.

Human beings do not know how to deal with feelings so they are sublimated, denied, exaggerated, diminished and repressed. For certain, they are undoubtedly misunderstood and misapplied.

IF it were not so, we would not spend wasted effort, energy and inclination saying one thing and doing another. Feelings we were subjected to, very early in our lives, cause us to take sides in controversies which never before would have concerned us enough to engage our interest, IF it had not been we were conditioned to automatically respond in a certain way in certain circumstances.

The strange phenomenon associated: we believe (so identified with) our strong feelings, at times, enough to disengage ourselves from the people who differ with us, doubt, argue, contend or challenge our illogical reasoning. IF we allow the unruly obsession to take hold, irreparable damage can and does occur. Many a marriage, partnership, friendship, as well as, other social involvements have been shattered on much less.

The vast array of feelings (emotions) is indeed what contributes to our being human. In many ways, they constitute our unique personalities. We could not possibly exist without their inexplicable influence. No doubt, we would demystify life by creating difficult and/or numbed consequences as a result IF we did not have the emotional experiences we go through. Just because emotions, opinions and sentiments are illogical at their best, do not make them unnecessary or undeserved.

The determining factor whether our emotions are, anywhere close to reasonable, or completely fanatically unreasonable depends upon the situation, the encounter, the relationship. In other words, the feelings need something either to conform to or not conform to— an ideal projection or adverse thought (belief). Strange how that works:all the time comparing and contriving.

Feelings are sublime laws unto themselves, not beholding nor directory. Yes, they are that powerful and subservient to the esoteric proprietor of them. They become like a sacred alter upon which the sanctified initiate bares his soul daily. Nothing short of our fickle emotions can teach us as much. Whether they carry us to the heights of unimaginable ecstasy or the perilous catacombs of hell, we learn invaluable lessons that cannot be taught otherwise.

Emotions can never be argued satisfactorily in reason. Emotions are devoid of reason. They show no resemblance to it nor are they interested, inclined or intrigued by its commonsense appeal. They stand upon their own unapologetic refrain. Let us put this matter in the short rows of perception: against the human animal’s emotional instincts, the intellect is not only powerless but superfluous.

On that note alone, we will sing the song of how unpredictable emotions (feelings) betray and beguile. When it comes to the affairs of the heart, we will be cast into the ‘hungry den of the lions’ with Daniel if and when we try to subdue, explain, gauge, control or modify. We possess unfathomable appetites when/where/how sensual emotions come into play. Add our own internal barometer of feelings with those from the past and we have a highly volatile mix.

From the incalculable pleasure associated with soothing, placating, relaxing (at the same time revitalizing) bodily sensations of ingesting delicious food, to the thrill of experiencing an incalculable erotic orgasmic sexual experience, we are able to realize the episodes through the awareness of feelings. But, never are we afforded the presence of mind to be able rationalize our innate feelings. Nor are we in a position to explain, defend or excuse why we feel the way we do.

In no way can we logically defend when, how, what and why we are attracted to the people we invite into our lives. We have no way of interpreting our feelings without the aid of more emotional filtering and processing. But to confuse thoughts with feelings will only bring about a huge battle of irresolvable chaotic dismembering. Simply realize feelings are not loyal, committed or dedicated to any premise by way of morality or dependability. They are raw, rambunctious and revolutionary in nature. Unpredictably ruthless.

Proud Native Born, Bred, and Resident of North Carolina, married 40 spectacular years, 6 children, 11 grandchildren.

Sign up for Mode of Cosmic Therapy Free Monthly Email-O-Gram http://www.modeofcosmictherapy.com/E-Mail-O-Gram_Sign_Up_O7RH.html

MODE of Cosmic Therapy Esoteric Psycho-Analytic Observation Application Demonstration

We none know what we are doing. Though we go about our days with full intent, saturated purpose and determined objectives, the real sublime reason why we are motivated to act remains hidden from view. We awake in the morning with a concentrated objective, having calculated the outcome and minimized the barriers; we proceed as if what we will achieve has something to do with us. So much so, we either take blame for the mishaps or bask in the glory of the success. Neither response is accurate or appropriate. “IF at any time, we think we know what we are doing, cease immediately.” In other words, we never know; we only project and in those projections, we are wrong.

There’s much more to the picture left unseen, than seen.

So much is hidden from view. It’s simply amazing how we go about our days denying how much crucial information we don’t have access to. We work with what with have in an obscured partial light; though, we attack the problems as if we have all the goods available. The truth is our present knowledge and insight {no matter how much we’ve paid for the expert guidance} is limited and biased.

Yet, we continue to make all of these unnecessary plans and believe that unless they unfold exactly and precisely as we have ordered (constructed), we have in some way failed to accomplish our preset goals. Needless to say, when it appears as if our specific goals have not been met, we have in no way failed. On the same token, when it appears as if what we set out to do was fully satisfied, the end is not in sight, either.

‘Nothing’ is at it appears to be. And, we have very little to say or do about whatever occurs.

But, ’say’ we do! That falls under the category of tenacious gossip.

There is a subtle esoteric law of inference that is applied to each and every act we undertake: purity of purpose. It’s totally impersonal and some may say, irrational, but none the less effectual. Beyond our physical ability, mind’s intellect, and emotional barrage of thwarted desires (enacted to interfere), a governing hallowed force guides and directs all of our actions. We are not consulted on the matter, nor are we given the privilege to decide if the outcome is needed or not. These sacred acts are decreed from a much higher sphere of authority which bypass the normal functionability of man. Does this mean all of our actions are predestined? In a vehemently resisted word: yes. {Look at it more like we are prodded like cattle into a specific sphere of pre-chosen activity of earth experience.}

We were born with an explicit destiny, a sublimely definitive work to accomplish while on earth. We will achieve that definite purpose. Whether or not, we ever see the picture clear enough to appreciatively discern our personal effort’s output, remains irrelevant. “Purity of Purpose’ determines the result of every single action we administer. IF it falls out of line with that celestially projected intent, it’s simply not going to happen. Now, we may wonder (humans continually question everything; it’s part of our curious nature), if will we be able to discern when we have ‘Purity of Purpose’.

In a definitively resisted word: no. IF we could see ‘IT’, it wouldn’t be ‘IT’.

In addition to the ‘curiosity seeking creature’s mind’ we inherently imbue, we are just as impatient, IF not more so. And, IF we were left to our own gluttonous appetites of unrestrained pleasure, to indulge in so many variant earth experiences, we would certainly move prematurely into areas not necessarily suitable for our evolvement and soul’s preference. Oh. Did I not mention IT is our Precious Ruthless Soul which has the definitive say about what will be and what will not be?

Again, a matter of Semantics, the term ‘SOUL’ can be viewed, argued, and defined in many different philosophical, scientific, religious, ethical, cultural, environmental, psychological, biological and mental constructs.

However, for brevity of purpose: ‘much more remains unseen than seen’.

IF, in fact, we are on earth to make some sort of evolutionary progress (again, we can’t gauge it), we would only be able to do that by and through isolated (personal) incidences where we had no way or knowing, explaining, defending or excusing what took place or did not occur. In other words, it would be in those indescribable times, when and where, we were unable to logically deduce any practical means (commonsense) for what had occurred and were simultaneously driven to find either resolution or solace from within that the inexplicable becomes acceptable.

IF, in fact, we are all on some sort of spiritual journey, the tolerable foundation of our ‘inches in steps’ to our so-called pre-set established directions become vitally necessary discipline. The deal for real is plain and simple. MASTERY. We are working on ourselves, in as much, as we are learning to surrender to a much higher force of operation. {Who incidentally remains privy to much more elaborate information than we are capable of realizing.}

In no way, am I attempting to personify this ineffable energy, I simply am using the restricted barriers of language to convey a point. Through a laborious solitary journey, the seeker (human being) learns as many techniques, practices and skills (much like an adept musician) in order to finely tune, manipulate, orchestrate and demonstrate his enriched abilities. Not without countless hours of careful observation, dedication and consecration of committed study to bring about a much deeper understanding and comprehension of the higher self in operation while alive.

All action, thought and gesture is geared toward breaking through the superficial mask of personality which so easily confuses, disturbs, depresses and overwhelms us.

“Purity of Purpose”, the definitively prescribed apparatus instilled in every Master of Divine Essence (god in the making) who inhabits earth as a human being, resides as the severing mechanism to split open the core. It’s all a matter of becoming conscious of the sacredly inflamed power of sensually inspired, sublimely sexual, creatively artistic talent that lies within. But moreover, with the acknowledgment, embracing and acceptance of these miraculous talents, gifts and abilities, learning how NOT to push circumstances, relationships, situations and events into existence before it is time, simply because we believe we can. {As if we could, anyway.}

It is written in the ancient texts, “above all, get thee understanding.”

To understand that we are not to look outward for the manifestation of results as a sign of our progress but to remain firmly rooted turning away from the distracting voices of either praise or condemnation (filled with fear, regret, remorse and anticipation) to the ’still silent small voice’ of knowing everything is exactly and precisely as it should be for reasons we can’t see propels us to move, breathe and have our being.

Purity of Purpose stimulates us to experience without any trace of a lust of result. Therein lies the secret of man’s esoteric enhancement without a coveted design.

Proud Native Born, Bred, and Resident of North Carolina, married 40 spectacular years, 6 children, 11 grandchildren.

Sign up for Mode of Cosmic Therapy Free Monthly Email-O-Gram http://www.modeofcosmictherapy.com/E-Mail-O-Gram_Sign_Up_O7RH.html

Enacting the Sacred Desire to Cease Unnecessary Striving, Competing and Contending

Human beings are in constant motion, an unswerving hurried forward thrust. An oscillating spiraling movement may be more accurate by definition. Moreover, the conscious motion, we are involved in, is NOT the primary force of continual awareness propelling us ahead. We are in perpetual motion inadvertently detached from the motion in which we are aware. In a rushed habitual state of unconscious movement do we make our contrived ways through our carefully planned, socially accepted and familiarly accustomed days. Sort of like a programmed robot in methodically synchronized fashion.

We breeze through the hours, with hardly a moment’s mindful observation, of what is truly taking place. We gauge our so-called progress by what others THINK we are doing and how they respond to it. Their unsolicited opinions seem to make a difference to the substance of our plight, somehow. Rarely do we suspect, or stop to entertain the thought, what they or we believe about our plight doesn’t matter at all. In fact, the dramatic sensations enacted do not even register on our designated course.

We ascribe to a certain method of doing things and follow that way religiously. Our minds are so saturated with the ideas of ‘getting ahead’, we hardly recognize the trenched lines carved into our brows before they’ve etched themselves so deep in our faces, creating the undeniable evidence, we are numbed by the movement while carried along by the homogenized current. We believe our worlds will be shattered IF we stopped to question the incessant movement of what it meant NOT to be successful.

“Success at all costs!” We continuously drill into our brain’s receptors. That’s the reason we so easily and pitifully fall victim to unexpected circumstances, unplanned events and unapproved situations. We prepare our hooded red cloak of vulnerability, sewn with the threads of fear and trepidation, due to our inability to ride the bull of proposed mediocrity. We frantically want to be applauded and hailed for our glowing achievements and will not halt in our wretched climbs of despair until we have MADE IT.

When we were young, the “I’m so proud of you” chicken feed was hurled at us unconsciously. We grew up yearning for someone to whisper those sweet words of incurably infectious balm to our ears. So much so, we incredulously began to commit our ways to nothing short of performing at the drop of a hat, so that we earned the lauding remarks from anyone who would yield them propitiously. In the meantime, we lost our instinctive primal sword of authenticity.

The unearthed, untried and unconventional method, whose merit and value cannot be readily appreciated or valued, when wielded spontaneously, was cast to the wind and in its place; we carried out our staged acts for peanuts. In the advent of wanting and needing praise and support so earnestly, we sold out to the ‘less than what we can be without all of the unnecessary fanfare’ to the highest bidder. We boarded a carnival ride whose only movement is round and round and round the land of phonyville.

No wonder we are asleep, half dazed and three quarters dead. We are so unconsciously driven by the luring motivations of others (coupled with our own unresolved issues of neediness); we haven’t a rat’s clue about the cosmic plan unfolding right before our eyes. Though we are indelibly implanted with stupendous gifts, we can’t see the stars for the sky.

We run from tragedy at every turn. We actually believe haphazardous occurrences are not part of the divine plan; reacting in ways that support and fuel dread, trepidation, worry, unsettlement, and unprocessed anger. Running so fast, we honestly believe we can outrun what will be and that we can somehow, prevent the unalterable trialed courses of our destinies.

If we could simply see that EVERYTHING relates (is connected) to EVERYTHING else and that it’s pointless to strive to ‘get ahead’. (ahead of what, who, where, why, how?) Why do we unceasingly compete and fret over what is to be? If we would cease with the nonsensical 200/110 blood pressured striving, we would all live much happier, longer, more passionate and truly genuine meaningful lives. But, the reality of our being carried by a ship whose depth is incalculably conceived is not good enough for us. We want to see the height of the bow so that we may display it to others as our deserved trophy of worthiness and ’specialness’. Nothing is as bleakly unfulfilling and unrewarding as needing to RUSH though our lives. When we are unaware of exactly what it is that is pushing us to ’succeed’, we miss the train, altogether.

We must stop to evaluate the temperatures of our inner barometers. IF for any reason, we are not acting out of sheer unadulterated passion, then, we are like numbed crazed zombies looking for the next shooting of the film, “Night of the Living Dead.” We must not continue to be pushed, prodded and pulled by outdated enslaving ideas, whose sole purpose is to ’supposedly’ make us better people than we already are. Not so. We’re as good as we’re ever going to get. Can’t improve the human being; most especially by adding things from the outside. (An impossible task to undertake to begin with.)

Without getting too scientifically technical, we, like any object in space, compulsively remain centered in our own gelled vibratory field. Whatever movement we supposedly take on purposely establishes a definitive course which potentially closes in on itself. [Wow! Did that ever sound like super-duper galactic talk.] In other words, whatever motion we intentionally involve ourselves in, (by setting up intentional peak accelerations) will ’shut itself out’ based upon the depth of the stress applied. Bottom line: We set up, for ourselves, the barriers which restrict us!

We put so much effort into a mad dash to the finish line contriving, competing and confronting others (who we deem as competitors) only to meet our supercilious selves at the end of the exhausting road. We push ourselves to the point of oblivion with our senseless striving and contending only to ask, “What am I doing this for?” The enemy of time and space, we thought we were running against, will meet us at the finish line with results attached to another leg of the same debilitating round about journey.

We need not be in such a hurry. We’re not going anywhere. We’re not going to get anything. This is it! We already have what we’re so desperately trying to achieve. No longer do we look for our ships to arrive. We are sailing on them. The gig is up. The big show date is now, right where we stand. We are slowly learning how to remember who we are and what we genuinely want. Deep within our guts we know how to peel back the layers of superficial antagonism.

A new slowed down version of the glorious day is dawning; we are standing under Happy Rain. We realize with full consciousness, there’s no one to blame. How could there be? Nothing is wrong. We have nothing to prove. Everything thing is ALL right. We can leisurely savor the moments. We can’t possibly move faster and further than ourselves, ever. In order to move with the velocity of the inherent speed of the celestial intent of which we are traveling, we can never know where we are, exactly. So, how could we possibly gauge our level of earth success? Ridiculous, to even try…

Proud Native Born, Bred, and Resident of North Carolina, married 40 spectacular years, 6 children, 11 grandchildren.

Sign up for Mode of Cosmic Therapy Free Monthly Email-O-Gram http://www.modeofcosmictherapy.com/E-Mail-O-Gram_Sign_Up_O7RH.html

Introduction

Psychology, the scientific discipline of the study of human and animal behavior, is a young science. Prior to the late 19th century, the study of “mind” was a discipline practiced as a philosophical or spiritual endeavor. Because Psychology is a new science, we should expect a continuing evolution of psychological theory as well as tweaking and revision of existing theories.

A Brief History of Psychology

In 1879, German physiologist Wilhelm Wundt used the laboratory setting to perform psychological experiments. He is known as “father of experimental psychology”, also then referred to as Structuralism.

William James, American scientist, psychologist, and philosopher introduced the concept that the practice of psychological theory should have practicality. That is, use psychological theory to bring tangible benefits to people.

Sigmund Freud introduced the psychoanalytic techniques to uncover first causes of behavior. One of Freud’s proteges was psychiatrist Carl Young who later broke with Freud and developed his own theory of analytical psychology. Carl Jung was first to declare a person’s psychological makeup religious by nature. He defined the process of a person becoming whole as “Individuation”. Individuation is the process of balancing opposites, i.e., unconscious with the conscious, but still keeping a measure of separateness. In fact, the core concept of analytic psychology is Individuation.

Jung then posited the reality of two distinct groupings of psychological functions: The Judging “rational” functions- feeling and thinking, and the perceiving “irrational” functions- intuition and sensing.

Jung then stated that the dichotomies are projected in either an extroverted or introverted fashion.

An analogy of these dichotomies is seen in the expression of right handedness or left handedness. One either develops it early in life or is born with it

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

From Jung’s original concepts, Myers and Briggs developed their own theory of psychological type, on which the MBTI is based.

They worked on the MBTI during WWII as a tool to help women in wartime industry zero in on the quality of work they would be most satisfied with. The first test evolved into the MBTI in 1962.

Isabel Briggs Myers mother Katherine Briggs started investigating personality traits in 1917. She saw personality differences between members of the same family. She identified the connection between Jung’s theory and her own. Katherine Briggs four personality types were then matched to Is, EPs, ETJs and EFJs.

Daughter Isabel advanced her mother’s work, which she entirely took over when her mother retired.

The MBTI has been used for over 50 years as a tool to bring tangible benefits to people. It is a measure of personality preferences. That is, how the relative strength of a person’s personality preferences is used to psychologically navigate in the world.

One enduring use of the MBTI is in the field of career counseling. The MBTI Career Report helps people zero in on fields of work that others with their same personality type have reported a high degree of satisfaction with. As such, The MBTI Career Report is a statistically valid testing instrument.

It can be used as a starting point for career search and one of many tools career and guidance counselors, life coaches and corporate managers can use to help others achieve a higher degree of job satisfaction.

Criticism of the MBTI is centered on two points of contention. (1) Over the decades, the MBTI has sometimes been used in inappropriate ways such as a psycho-therapeutic tool or as a forced testing instrument within the corporate environment. (2) Conflicting studies question the validity of the MBTI as a predictor of job satisfaction.

The MBTI should not be used as an end all and be all in gaining understanding of personality preferences. The same can be said of any testing instrument in the field of psychology. Human behavior is a manifestation of complex web of biological imperatives, psychological drives, and intangible yet identifiable motivations based on values, ethics, morality, and spirituality. Use of the MBTI needs to be kept in perspective and applied within the framework of such complexity.

For many, job satisfaction can be an ideal, a goal that is never fully reached. Many factors can affect career satisfaction over and above working a job that is complementary to a person’s personality preferences, including the relative health of a person’s interpersonal relationships and the age of the person. A job that’s appealing to a 20 year old may prove less fulfilling to a 40 year old.

Conclusion

Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a career satisfaction predictor is one of a number of tools a person can use in gaining perspective on what career may prove fulfilling. Likewise, the MBTI is a useful and interesting tool to help gain insight into how one psychologically navigates through life. Using the MBTI ideally should be combined with other tools and guidance to help a person identify fulfilling careers.

Stephen R Tiebout has over 20 years experience helping people discover their personality preference type using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment. He is the administrator of Ransdell Associates.com, a testing portal for the MBTI. For more information on the MBTI and personal relationships, visit http://ransdellassociates.com/.

The Enneagram is a geometric symbol that maps nine basic personality types as well as the very complex interrelationships between those types. This personality assessment system is widely used by therapists, theologians and human resource management specialists. It is unique among the personality assessments systems available because it includes both the psychological and the spiritual aspects of the individual.

Everyone is a mix of these Ennea-types, although one type, in particular, is your “home base” or the best description of your personality as a whole. Knowing your Enneagram type is extremely valuable in bringing instant awareness of your core fears, desires, motivations, strengths and weaknesses. It’s also a path towards understanding and meeting the spiritual needs we all have.

Here’s how it works: Each Enneagram type has a core fear, core desire, a preferred separating strategy or vice, as well as a connecting virtue. Your ego, or physical self, tends to choose a quick fix resulting in a protecting or grasping strategy to get the things you want. This behavior is either inflating or deflating and always causes separation from what you most desire. Your connecting virtue is always grounded in love, and therefore, connects you to your spiritual essence, to others and to the things you really want to have in your life.

The more your ego engages in its vice to avoid fear and gain its desire, the closer to your core fear you come, separating from what you most want. Depending on your personality, your ego uses inflating strategies of making yourself feel bigger than you are, or deflating strategies of feeling smaller. When the “Authentic You” that is behind your ego determines to face your fear and engage your connecting virtue, the closer you come to your core desire and the life that you most want to have.

Here’s an example from my life: My Ennea-type is Seven, the Spirited Adventurer. My my behavior is heavily influenced by the Enneagram Intelligence Center known as the Mental Triad – the mind. When I’m at my best (expanded), I’m able to think quickly, provide insight and ingenuity, and offer creative and practical solutions to solve problems. Through this same mind, when at my worst (stressed), I can allow charm to replace substance, allow ideas to distract me from my real priorities, and let my head-in-the-clouds distractedness interfere with keeping commitments. It’s hard to admit these things about myself. Yet, I’ve learned that either I own my ego-reactive behaviors or they own me. I most humbly choose the former.

If I can find ways to see how my personality reacts under stress and accept these tendencies as my ego’s way of attempting to protect me from pain and vulnerability, I can change. This kind of accurate self-observation and self-honesty is the profound opportunity that is available through the Enneagram.

For me as an Ennea-type Seven, I’ve made the conscious choice to replace my tendency toward mental gluttony by escaping into future planning with what I call “sober joy”. This is practicing present moment awareness with an appreciation of the beauty, abundance and preciousness of the life I’ve been given and the happiness that is available to me.

The Enneagram personality assessment system is the combined work of many people spread over centuries. The symbol can be found in writings as old as 2,500 B.C. It was used a tool for understanding abstract and spiritual concepts by the monks and philosophers. The symbol was brought to the modern world in the early 20th century by George Gurdjieff, a priest, physician and world traveler. He used it to teach the “forces of life” and other spiritual concepts to his followers.

In the early 1950’s, Oscar Ichazo, a philosopher and founder of the Arica School, applied the nine personalities and the vices and virtues to the symbol. One of his students, Claudio Naranjo M.D., a psychiatrist, brought Ichazo’s Enneagram to the United States and added the personality work of researcher Karen Horney M.D., a psychoanalyst. It was further developed by other students of the Enneagram who added profiles for each of the personality types.

I use the Enneagram in my practice, SOULutions, to teach clients how to observe their egos and their patterns of behavior. We use this information to integrate the two parts that make up every human being: the ego and the essence – that is, the physical self and the spiritual self. I call this integration work, “wholeness.” We awaken to wholeness when we know both our ego and our essence and how they work together for the one true purpose each individual is meant to express in this world. Happiness is the natural result of finding wholeness.

Michael Casteel, a transpersonal therapist and life coach works with clients from his practice, SOULutions. Learn more about using the enneagram to create a happier life.

Often, when people talk about introverts and extraverts, they think in terms of whether people enjoy social interactions. In fact, the true definitions of introversion and extraversion have to do with where a person finds meaning – and for this reason, knowing which you are can help you make life decisions that leave you happier and more fulfilled.

I was surfing the web the other day and came across a site that defined introverts as people who do not enjoy social situations and who are more comfortable alone. Now, if the author had prefaced the word ‘introvert’ with the word ’social’, then you wouldn’t be reading this article because I wouldn’t have written it. The site purported to be describing psychological introversion but pitched products and services geared specifically to a social definition of introvert, so my hackles rose and I jumped upon my soap box to address what is one of my pet peeves. To state it clearly and unambiguously:

Psychological introversion and extraversion are not measures of how comfortable you are (or aren’t) in social situations.

The concept of psychological introversion and extraversion was originally described by the Swiss psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, to explain two different ways people create meaning in their lives. A Jungian introvert derives meaning from the development of a rich internal life, and it is in the exploration of that internal life that they are most comfortable. To quote the Merriam Webster dictionary: Introversion is “the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one’s own mental life.” A Jungian extravert, on the other hand, creates meaning in the interaction with things in the external world, and it is in the exploration of the external world that they are most comfortable. Merriam Webster again: Extraversion is “the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self.” While this might sound like it is no different from the idea that introverts are ‘people who do not enjoy social situations’ there is a huge difference. In the true Jungian use of the concept, the focus is on where an individual derives meaning not how, and it often has no relation whatsoever to a person’s comfort level at cocktail parties.

The confusion between social introversion/extraversion and psychological introversion/extraversion is fueled by the fact that most examples used to explain the concepts depend on observable behaviors – which are social due to the mere fact that they are observable. And to stress clarity, most examples are presented as polar opposites. So you will see things like “extraverts are gregarious and like parties and community gatherings and political demonstrations” and “Introverts like solitary activities like reading and writing, computer games, and listening to music.” See what I mean? Psychological introverts do indeed have social graces and enjoy parties and can be just as passionate about public demonstrations as the next guy. Psychological extraverts enjoy music, and reading and writing too.

Psychological introversion/extraversion is a continuum within each of us. We all prefer one over the other (deriving meaning internally versus externally), but all of us have the capacity for and often enjoy a wide variety of social introverted/extraverted behaviors. That’s why it gets so confusing when people try to apply a single label to describe someone solely based on observable behavior.

Knowing whether you are a Jungian introvert or a Jungian extravert can be very important in helping you to be more comfortable with yourself. It can help you make difficult decisions about careers, determine what kinds of skills you are likely to excel at and what kinds you are not, understand why some environments are better for you than others, and choose products and services best suited to your temperament. The same can be said about knowing whether you are primarily a social introvert or a social extravert.

If they can both provide the same type of information, why all the fuss? Why is this issue one I am willing to get up on a soap box for? Well, first of all I am a stickler for accuracy, and psychology, particularly styles theory, is a main focus of my company. But just being accurate is not what drives me on this issue. I am passionate about helping people to explore and understand who they are not just for the curiosity of knowing, but so that they can use that awareness to make life choices that fit who they are. This is impossible if the concepts that people use are applied incorrectly. While both concepts provide useful information and knowledge, conclusions drawn about one (Jungian introversion) based on the other (social introversion) are bound to be flawed.

Gary Jordan, Ph.D., has over 27 years of experience in clinical psychology, behavioral assessment, individual development, and coaching. He earned his doctorate in Clinical Psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology – Berkeley. He is co-creator of Perceptual Style Theory, a revolutionary psychological assessment system that teaches people how to unleash their deepest potentials for success. He’s a partner at Vega Behavioral Consulting, Ltd., a consulting firm that specializes in helping people discover their true skills and talents, visit http://www.ACIforCoaches.com or http://www.ACIforEntrepreneurs.com.