A Methodology for Understanding People That Is Not MBTI: Daring to Reclaim Common-Sense Thinking
When you study MBTI or Jungian psychology,
a certain kind of 'visual acuity' increases.
Introversion/Extroversion
Functional hierarchy
Archetypal configuration
Unconscious structure
As tools for understanding humans, they are precise, fascinating, and structural.
However, at the same time,
there is also the danger of wanting to see everything through that lens.
The purpose of this article is
not to deny MBTI.
Quite the opposite.
In order to treat MBTI as a subject of study,
we must return once to 'common-sense human understanding'.
That is the theme.
1. People are primarily made of 'experience'
This is the most common-sense and most powerful framework.
People are an accumulation of experiences.
Family environment
Success experiences
Setbacks
Trauma
Repeated evaluations
Before saying 'Fe is strong' in MBTI,
What kind of family did that person grow up in?
In what situations were they evaluated?
What failures were painful for them?
Asking these questions
is often overwhelmingly more practical for interpersonal understanding.
Experience dictates behavior more directly than structure.
2. People are driven by 'values'
The axis of understanding most used in the everyday world is
What does this person value?
Stability or challenge?
Results or harmony?
Freedom or belonging?
While MBTI looks at the 'processing style' of functions,
the values framework looks at 'decision-making criteria'.
Most conflicts occur
not because of differences in type,
but because of differences in priorities.
If you are going to use MBTI,
it is important to first be able to isolate values as an independent variable.
3. People can often be explained by their 'desires'
Wanting to be recognized,
wanting to feel secure,
wanting to control,
wanting to contribute.
Most behavior can be explained by desires rather than functions.
For example,
is a person who logically picks things apart 'Ti-dominant',
or are they simply 'someone who wants to control their anxiety'?
If you cannot distinguish between these,
theory will lose to reality.
4. People change depending on their 'role'
This is the most underestimated aspect of understanding people.
People change based on their position.
When acting as a boss,
when acting as a parent,
when acting as an expert.
It is very often the case that this is not personality,
but simply adapting to the situation.
MBTI deals with internal tendencies,
but society runs on roles.
If you cannot make this distinction,
type theory falls into the trap of essentialism.
5. People change within relationships
What is actually happening in the everyday world is
it is not that the person is the problem
but that the 'combination' is the problem
is the case.
You become defensive when with one person, and talkative when with another.
This is often not a matter of function, but
a matter of interaction.
An understanding of MBTI that lacks a relational framework carries the risk of being closed off into a single-unit model.
6. People differ according to their 'developmental stage'
Even with the same type,
immature,
adaptive,
integrated
are completely different.
Typology that leaves out this perspective becomes a still image.
Fundamentally, human beings are a process.
7. A sense of distance from MBTI
By lining up these 'common-sense frameworks' so far, there are things that become clear.
MBTI
does not directly handle experience
does not directly handle desires
does not directly handle values
It does not sufficiently address developmental stages
It does not address roles or social structures
In other words,
MBTI is a theory that deals with a very limited layer known as 'internal cognitive tendencies'.
If you understand this,
you will not over-rely on it
you will not misuse it
you will not confuse it with the whole picture of a human being
and a sense of distance will be naturally maintained.
8. In the context of individuation
In Jungian terms,
individuation is not just about 'knowing your own structure'.
knowing your own story
knowing your own desires
knowing your own values
knowing your own relationship patterns
knowing your own developmental stage
Only then,
does the abstract structure of psychological functions
have meaning.
Conclusion
Before using MBTI,
can you confirm the following?
Have you listened to that person's experiences?
Have you understood that person's values?
Have you observed that person's desires?
Have you considered that person's role?
Have you observed the relationship?
Have you distinguished their developmental stage?
If you skip these and jump to a type,
that is theory-dependency.
If you look at a type based on these,
that is research.