Well-it's taken me a few days, but I'm determined to respond to this post. When I read it the other night, I thought of Jung and his psychological types. He thought that people interpret their world through different biases, the same ones that the test we played with attempted to measure. THe introvert interprets through the inner world (the psyche) and the extravert through the external world. And either of those can be dominated by one of the functions: thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition. Sound familiar?
Anyway, couldn't this be a way of saying, as you did, that we're wired differently? Jung got this idea because he thought it was interesting that he, Freud and Adler could all look at the same psychological material and see something so different, and he hypothesized that it was because of this habitual bias. For example, he viewed Western man as alienated from his emotional roots because of his emphasis on the intellect, the thinking part. Wouldn't this equate with someone wired for "real world possibilities"? They just don't see things in that feeling, intuitive way, by your "egoistic philosophy" or "ability to believe" wiring.
Ideally, our personalities should be whole, balanced between the two, but that's pretty unusual, I think, particularly at our age in our culture where really the required wiring for "success" is probably more the extraverted, thinking one. But as we approach later middle age, we frequently begin to explore the less dominant side, resulting in the middle aged crisis-the search for meaning in our life. Jung had a lot to say about this. (his "process of individuation") that I really don't remember too clearly from my History and Systems classes. I think it would mean a lot more now.
Anyway-I think it's pretty impressive that you wound up at the same point Jung did by a different route. If you did, which of course was just my intuitive, feeling interpretation of what you said. |
