MBTI: The Houses

[Image from Reveal]


There are several different ways to organize the types - look up socionics to see them - but there are two that, in my opinion, are the most important for personal growth. Let’s look at the first one, a type of grouping that I’ve come to call “houses;" socionics calls them “quadras." I’m including some socionics in these posts even though I don’t agree with a lot of it because there are some useful things to be learned, mainly thanks to their extensive observations of the types.

A house is made up of the types that share the same four conscious functions. There are four houses, with four types in each, and they are as follows:

The first house (socionics' "Alpha Quadra") is made up of the four types with the Fe/Ti and Si/Ne functions. These types are ENTP, INTP, ESFJ, and ISFJ. I’ve named this house Ash.

The second ("Beta Quadra”) is made up of the types with Fe/Ti and Se/Ni functions; the ENFJ, INFJ, ESTP, and ISTP types. This house is Yew.

The third (“Gamma Quadra”) is made up of the types with Fi/Te and Se/Ni functions; the ENTJ, INTJ, ESFP, and ISFP types. This house is Oak.

The fourth (“Delta Quadra”) is made up of the types with Fi/Te and Si/Ne functions; the ENFP, INFP, ESTJ, and ISTJ types. This house is Rowan.

I decided to name the groups after trees because I was looking for something fairly neutral; I didn’t want to run into the same problem that we have with the MBTI types where everyone uses their own terms (e.g. ISFP is called the Architect, Adventurer, Composer, Artist, or Peacemaker depending on who you ask). I also didn’t want to go with socionics’ naming convention which, although it’s descriptively neutral, is hierarchical (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta). Using different terms also avoids any association with incel nonsense as well, an added bonus. Also, I really like the idea of naming one grouping, this one, after trees and the other one after animals (which will be a later post.) Trees and animals are both fairly neutral and much more memorable than numbers or letters. Maybe someone else can come up with a better naming convention but for now this is what I’m going with. It’s been a lot of fun to research, too!

We can think of a house as our home, our tribe so to speak. People of the same house understand each other; even when they appear to be very different they all “speak the same language.” Take the fourth house, for example, House Rowan. The types in Rowan are: ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP, and INFP, four very different types. ESTJ may be similar to ISTJ, as they share the same two top and bottom functions – same with the ENFPs and INFPs – but what could they all possibly have in common? The answer is, they share the same functions (Si, Ne, Fi, and Te). This means they think, feel, sense, and intuit in the same ways. So, even though each one has a different strength and weakness they all share a similar worldview and value system, and this makes them similar on a deep level. The same obviously goes for all the houses.

This underlying commonality especially holds true for types which are opposite each other; even though they may seem to have nothing in common they’re actually united on a deep level. In Rowan the two paired types are ESTJ/INFP and ISTJ/ENFP. One way this union shows itself is how we more and more value and more and more express characteristics of our opposite as we mature (if we mature that is). For example, “dreamy” INFPs are, in my experience, some of the most practical, down-to-earth people I’ve ever met. Their ESTJ shadow makes them concerned with safety and security, and to value and seek to bring about meaningful, practical change in the world. An INFP friend of mine – a woman who’s been an activist for her entire life – always says that if you’re not doing something concrete with your ideals, what use are they? Each type, if they’re able to successfully integrate their opposite, brings the best qualities of their opposite into their conscious personality, enlarging it and making it more complete.

One way to figure out the type opposite ours is simply by reversing each letter in the type: E↔I, S↔N, F↔T, and J↔P. Let’s take ISTP as an example:

The opposite of I (introversion) is E (extroversion)
The opposite of S (sensation) is N (intuition)
The opposite of T (thinking) is F (feeling)
The opposite of P (perception) is J (judging)

Therefore, the opposite of ISTP (Introverted Sensation Thinking Perceiver) is ENFJ (Extroverted iNtuitive Feeling Judger). Go here if you're interested in learning about these four dichotomies. If you're more visual I've made an easy graphic below; find your type and look to the opposite side of the wheel for its opposite. For example, you can see that ISTP's opposite is ENFJ.

People often reject the MBTI because they feel that it’s too shallow and restrictive which, if you’re limiting yourself to mainstream MBTI theory, is true. Our psyches are much more complex than just one type. An understanding of these opposites shows one facet of the many that exist in all of us.

The following are short description of the each of the four houses. I’ll be posting more in-depth explorations of them quite soon. Below is an alphabetical list of types and their houses for easy reference:

Ash

Connection, Wisdom, Surrender

[Image by Marguerite Dabaie]

The members of Ash are the types with the Fe/Ti and Si/Ne functions (ENTP, INTP, ESFJ, and ISFJ). My name for the people of this house is the Philosophers, and their home is the Academy. House Ash’s patron is the great magician and trickster hero Gwydion. In socionics this the Alpha quadra. The philosophers are characterized by a drive to discover the truth for the good of humanity, along with a cheerful curiosity. They know that truth is truth, it can be understood, and ought to be used to make the world a better place for all. The gift of Ash is Wisdom

All things have spirit. We are not separate, but perhaps are part of something bigger and more unfathomable than we could ever imagine.

- Shanon Sinn, Nuin (Ash) (Living Library)



Yew

Transference, Passage, Illusion

[Image by Marguerite Dabaie]

The members of Yew are the types with the Fe/Ti and Se/Ni functions (INFJ, ENFJ, ISTP, and, ESTP). I call the people of this house the Cenobites, which means members of a religious order, female or male. The home of the Cenobites is the Monastery. The patron of House Yew is Badb Catha, goddess of life, enlightenment, wisdom, and inspiration. In socionics this is the Beta quadra. They have a conscientious, harmonizing attitude along with a drive to understand the world at its deepest level. The cenobites, similar to the philosophers, are also concerned with wisdom but specifically with the great questions of life and its meaning. The gift of this house is Conviction.

The yew bark holds ages of the trees history and character, all concealed behind an aloof and impassive posture. It exudes serenity and inspires deep and insightful thinking in all that encounter it and channel its energy.

- Leah M. Bostwick, Yew Tree Symbolism (Sun Signs)



Oak

Strength, Stability, Nobility

[Image by Marguerite Dabaie]

The members of Oak are those types with the Fi/Te and Se/Ni functions (INTJ, ENTJ, ISFP, and ESFP). I call these people the Aristocrats, and their home is the Castle. House Oak’s patron is Taranis, the kingly god of Thunder (basically Celtic Zeus). House Oak is characterized by the search for a personal, subjective standard along with a deep commitment to goals. The aristocrats have the power and conviction to reshape the world into one which aligns with their noble vision. The gift of House Oak is Honor.

Duir promises us the strength to speak the truth, to hold our ground, and to live a life braided with courage and honour. Oak is the tree of kings and queens.

- Shanon Sinn, Duir (Oak) (Living Library)



Rowan

Protection, Expression, Connection

[Image by Marguerite Dabaie]

House Rowan is made up of the types with the Fi/Te and Si/Ne functions (ENFP, INFP, ESTJ, and ISTJ). I call these types the Explorers, and their home is the wide, wild World. Their patron is the goddess Brigantia; the fire of creativity, the joy of summer, the flower of the land. Explorers have the same sense of individuality as Aristocrats but with the Philosophers’ questing spirit. They seek to experience and show others the beauty of this blessed world we live in. The gift of this house is Joy.

Rowan is able to flourish higher up on the mountains than most other trees. Closer to the sun and divine inspiration in this extreme environment, it yet retains its grace of form and its potential for healing. Exposed to the elements on solitary crags, it still produces blossom and berries to delight the eye and heal the body, bringing vibrant color and birdsong to the hills.

- Rowan (The Goddess Tree)


So these are the four houses of the MBTI along with some short descriptions - I’ll be doing deep dives into each of the houses in later posts. Each of the houses is a home, the four members of the house forming a kind of family that may look different on the surface but share values and ways of looking at the world. And each has a special, sacred task that they’re asked by the universe to fulfill.



Posts

House Ash
House Yew
House Oak
House Rowan
Meyers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
Jungian MBTI


MBTI

The Cognitive Functions
The Function Roles
The Core Complexes
The Sodalities
How to type
Working with the MBTI
My MBTI story


For further reading

The Goddess Tree
Living Library
Michael Pierce
The Present Tree
Sociotype.com

In particular, I recommend checking out Michael Pierce's excellent videos on YouTube, whose work forms the basis of my understanding of the houses. Michael is one of my favorite MBTI people, along with CS Joseph, as the two of them have some of the most insightful understandings of the types I’ve come across. I don’t agree with everything they say but the truths in their videos by far outweighs my minor disagreements. Even with those disagreements they are, in my opinion, far and away the two best, most accurate, and comprehensive resources for this subject that I have yet to find. These men have done tremendous work.

Power corrupts

Jesus washing the disciples feet, 16th century

(Image from Wikipedia)

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.

~ Lord Acton

The effect of power and publicity on all men is the aggravation of self, a sort of tumor that ends by killing the victim's sympathies.

~ Henry Adams


So, lately I’ve been obsessed with podcasts about con artists, cult leaders, and serial killers. They all seem to share the same basic qualities – basically, psychopathy – and I keep seeing similarities in corporations and those who run them. I think I’m compelled to explore this side of humanity because I’m trying to work some shit out re: the negative animus and the dark side of the Self, or Evil.

One key that recently fell into my lap was the fact that power itself changes the brain, killing empathy. This explains a LOT. One thing I’ve noticed in many of the podcasts I’ve been listening to is that, even when the cult leader or whatever isn’t a psychopath or a narcissist in the beginning, and even though may have had the best of intentions, as soon as they get power everything changes.

Last year, I worked with a senior executive — let’s call him Steve — who had received feedback from his boss that he was wearing the power of his new title in an off-putting way. Steve’s boss told him that he had developed a subtle way of being right in meetings that sucked all the oxygen out of the room.  No one wanted to offer ideas once Steve had declared the right answer.  Since his promotion, Steve had become less of a team player and more of a superior who knew better than others.  In short, he had lost his empathy.”

“Why does this sort of shift in behavior happen to so many people when they’re promoted to the ranks of management?  Research shows that personal power actually interferes with our ability to empathize…. [P]eople who have power suffer deficits in empathy, the ability to read emotions, and the ability to adapt behaviors to other people. In fact, power can actually change how the brain functions…

- Lou Solomon, "Becoming Powerful Makes You Less Empathetic"

Power literally rewires the brain:

Subjects under the influence of power, he found in studies spanning two decades, acted as if they had suffered a traumatic brain injury—becoming more impulsive, less risk-aware, and, crucially, less adept at seeing things from other people’s point of view… [W]hen he put the heads of the powerful and the not-so-powerful under a transcranial-magnetic-stimulation machine, he found that power, in fact, impairs a specific neural process, “mirroring,” that may be a cornerstone of empathy. Which gives a neurological basis to what Keltner has termed the “power paradox”: Once we have power, we lose some of the capacities we needed to gain it in the first place.

- Jerry Useem, "Power Causes Brain Damage"


I suspect what’s going on is possession of the ego by the archetype of the Self. The ego (the center of the conscious personality) is already a miniature version of the Self (the center the entire psyche, conscious and unconscious). The Self is the archetype of wholeness, completion, and the carrier of the sacred. Because of this the ego always tries to push itself and it’s agenda forward, at the expense of the rest of the personality, the way that a person with an inflated ego tries to push themselves and their agenda forward at the expense of everyone around them. The cure for inflation, for the possession of our ego by the Self, is service and humility, or humiliation, the deflation of the ego.

I've seen abuse of power happen, and experienced the lure of power myself despite my strong efforts to resist. Other people treated me as special and I began to believe it… One thing I notice in hindsight is that I stopped wanting to hear any criticism from people I perceived as not supporting me. Now I see that my very resistance to the criticism was an indication that there was a problem that deserved close examination. My emotions - anger, fear, pride - got in the way of my willingness to engage in self-examination, even through a 360! Today I remember what Spiderman says: "With great power comes great responsibility." I focus more now on how I can serve others, rather than what I can achieve [emphasis mine].

- Julie Erickson, commenter in "Becoming Powerful Makes You Less Empathetic"


The above bolded sentence is the cure for the mental disorder caused by power. I think it’s interesting that the shadow ego of the ENTJ, the type with the greatest tendency towards traits we think of as pychopathic (lack of empathy, drive to succeed regardless of their effect on others) is the service oriented ESFJ. I don’t think this coincidence. Here is a short description of ESFJs:

ESFJs who have had the benefit of being raised and surrounded by a strong value system that is ethical and centered around genuine goodness will most likely be the kindest, most generous souls who will gladly give you the shirt off of their back without a second thought. For these individuals, the selfless quality of their personality type is genuine and pure.

- Personality Page, ESFJ


ESFJs are powerful and love structure, just like ENTJs, but they are service oriented. This focus on how I can serve others, rather than what I can achieve is a key to not losing our damn minds when we get a little power. The other and related key is humility. By putting ourselves lower rather than above others – by stressing the service element of leadership – we not only rescue ourselves from possession, our power actually serves to make the world a better place.

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end… He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded… Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

- John 13:1



References

Corporation as Psychopath, Martin Brueckner
The Corporation (the full movie on YouTube)
21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths. Only 21 percent?, Gene Marks
Becoming Powerful Makes You Less Empathetic, Lou Solomon
Power Causes Brain Damage, Jerry Useem
Foot washing, Wikipedia

Reference: Becoming Powerful Makes You Less Empathetic

Last year, I worked with a senior executive — let’s call him Steve — who had received feedback from his boss that he was wearing the power of his new title in an off-putting way. Steve’s boss told him that he had developed a subtle way of being right in meetings that sucked all the oxygen out of the room.  No one wanted to offer ideas once Steve had declared the right answer.  Since his promotion, Steve had become less of a team player and more of a superior who knew better than others.  In short, he had lost his empathy.

Why does this sort of shift in behavior happen to so many people when they’re promoted to the ranks of management?  Research shows that personal power actually interferes with our ability to empathize. Dacher Keltner, an author and social psychologist at University of California, Berkeley, has conducted empirical studies showing that people who have power suffer deficits in empathy, the ability to read emotions, and the ability to adapt behaviors to other people. In fact, power can actually change how the brain functions, according to research from Sukhvinder Obhi, a neuroscientist at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada.

The most common leadership failures don’t involve fraud, the embezzlement of funds, or even sex scandals.  It’s more common to see leaders fail in the area of every day self-management — and the use power in a way that is motivated by ego and self-interest.

How does it happen?  Slowly, and then suddenly.  It happens with bad mini-choices, made perhaps on an unconscious level.  It might show up as the subtle act of throwing one’s weight around.  Demands for special treatment; isolated decision-making; and getting one’s way. Leaders who are pulled over by the police for speeding or driving drunk become indignant and rail, “Do you know who I am?!” Suddenly the story hits social media and we change our minds about the once-revered personality.

The recent story about NBC’s disgraced Brian Williams points to a bigger story about power and fame.  How do people start out in pursuit of a dream and wind up aggrandizing themselves instead?  They reach a choke point, where they cross over from being generous with their power to using their power for their own benefit.

Take the case of former Charlotte, North Carolina, mayor Patrick Cannon. Cannon came from nothing.  He overcame poverty and the violent loss of his father at the age of 5.  He earned a degree from North Carolina A&T State University and entered public service at the age of 26 — becoming the youngest council member in Charlotte history. He was known for being completely committed to serving the public, and generous with the time he spent as a role model for young people.

But last year, Cannon, 47, pleaded guilty to accepting $50,000 in bribes while in office.  As he entered the city’s federal courthouse last June, he tripped and fell. The media was there to capture the fall, which was symbolic of the much bigger fall of an elected leader and small business owner who once embodied the very essence of personal achievement against staggering odds.  Cannon now has the distinction of being the first mayor in the city’s history to be sent to prison. Insiders say he was a good man, but all too human, and seemed vulnerable as he became isolated in his decision-making.  And while a local minister argued that Cannon’s one lapse in judgment should not define the man and his career of exceptional public service, he is now judged only by his weakness — his dramatic move from humility and generosity to corruption. And that image of Cannon tripping on his way into court is now the image that people associate with him.

What can leaders do if they fear that they might be toeing the line where power turns to abuse of power? First, you must invite other people in. You must be willing to risk vulnerability and ask for feedback. A good executive coach can help you return to a state of empathy and value-driven decisions. However, be sure to ask for feedback from a wide variety of people. Dispense with the softball questions (How am I doing?) and ask the tough ones (How does my style and focus affect my employees?).

Preventive maintenance begins with self-awareness and a daring self-inventory:

• Do you have a support network of friends, family, colleagues who care about you without the title and can help you stay down to earth?
• Do you have an executive coach, mentor, or confidant?
• What feedback have you gotten about not walking the talk?
• Do you demand privileges?
• Are you keeping the small, inconvenient promises that fall outside of the spotlight?
• Do you invite others into the spotlight?
• Do you isolate yourself in the decision-making process? Do the decisions you’re making reflect what you truly value?
• Do you admit your mistakes?
• Are you the same person at work, at home and in the spotlight?
• Do you tell yourself there are exceptions or different rules for people like you?

If a leader earns our trust, we hold them to non-negotiable standards. Nothing will blow up so much as a failure in walking the talk, or the selfish abuse of power. We all want our leaders to be highly competent, visionary, take-charge people. However, empathy, authenticity and generosity are what distinguish competence and greatness. The most self-aware leaders recognize the signals of abuse of power and correct course before it’s too late.

COMMENTS:

Julie Erickson 4 years ago
I've seen abuse of power happen, and experienced the lure of power myself despite my strong efforts to resist. Other people treated me as special and I began to believe it. The process is subtle, and even my executive coach didn't spot it. As I read the questions here, I realized they would have been quite helpful for me to see what was happening to me. One thing I notice in hindsight is that I stopped wanting to hear any criticism from people I perceived as not supporting me. Now I see that my very resistance to the criticism was an indication that there was a problem that deserved close examination. My emotions - anger, fear, pride - got in the way of my willingness to engage in self-examination, even through a 360! Today I remember what Spiderman says: "With great power comes great responsibility." I focus more now on how I can serve others, rather than what I can achieve.

Sai Bhupalam 5 years ago
Lack of empathy and compassion along with an increase in hubris are commonplace for people in power. In my experience, group-think and inner circle politics are what enable autocratic attitudes which in turn deplete empathy and compassion. It is similar to corruption. The people who offer bribes to get their work done through a shortcut are the ones who are actually corrupting the officers in charge and so it is in management/leadership. Those who want to fawn the leaders to protect their own vested interests also contribute to this malaise. Great article - I am curious about the related neuroscience on this - thank you for the link and the article.

Václav Dekanovský 5 years ago
Hello. It reminds me what British author David Gemmell wrote in his books. Evil doesn't walk the world having horns and spitting fire around. It creeps in one small step at a time.
Great advise to keep some friends and advisers around. It's worth even without being in power.

Lou Solomon, "Becoming Powerful Makes You Less Empathetic" (Harvard Business Review, April 21, 2015)

Reference: Power Causes Brain Damage

If power were a prescription drug, it would come with a long list of known side effects. It can intoxicate. It can corrupt. It can even make Henry Kissinger believe that he’s sexually magnetic. But can it cause brain damage?

When various lawmakers lit into John Stumpf at a congressional hearing last fall, each seemed to find a fresh way to flay the now-former CEO of Wells Fargo for failing to stop some 5,000 employees from setting up phony accounts for customers. But it was Stumpf’s performance that stood out. Here was a man who had risen to the top of the world’s most valuable bank, yet he seemed utterly unable to read a room. Although he apologized, he didn’t appear chastened or remorseful. Nor did he seem defiant or smug or even insincere. He looked disoriented, like a jet-lagged space traveler just arrived from Planet Stumpf, where deference to him is a natural law and 5,000 a commendably small number. Even the most direct barbs—“You have got to be kidding me” (Sean Duffy of Wisconsin); “I can’t believe some of what I’m hearing here” (Gregory Meeks of New York)—failed to shake him awake.

What was going through Stumpf’s head? New research suggests that the better question may be: What wasn’t going through it?

The historian Henry Adams was being metaphorical, not medical, when he described power as “a sort of tumor that ends by killing the victim’s sympathies.” But that’s not far from where Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor at UC Berkeley, ended up after years of lab and field experiments. Subjects under the influence of power, he found in studies spanning two decades, acted as if they had suffered a traumatic brain injury—becoming more impulsive, less risk-aware, and, crucially, less adept at seeing things from other people’s point of view.

Sukhvinder Obhi, a neuroscientist at McMaster University, in Ontario, recently described something similar. Unlike Keltner, who studies behaviors, Obhi studies brains. And when he put the heads of the powerful and the not-so-powerful under a transcranial-magnetic-stimulation machine, he found that power, in fact, impairs a specific neural process, “mirroring,” that may be a cornerstone of empathy. Which gives a neurological basis to what Keltner has termed the “power paradox”: Once we have power, we lose some of the capacities we needed to gain it in the first place.

That loss in capacity has been demonstrated in various creative ways. A 2006 study asked participants to draw the letter E on their forehead for others to view—a task that requires seeing yourself from an observer’s vantage point. Those feeling powerful were three times more likely to draw the E the right way to themselves—and backwards to everyone else (which calls to mind George W. Bush, who memorably held up the American flag backwards at the 2008 Olympics). Other experiments have shown that powerful people do worse at identifying what someone in a picture is feeling, or guessing how a colleague might interpret a remark.

The fact that people tend to mimic the expressions and body language of their superiors can aggravate this problem: Subordinates provide few reliable cues to the powerful. But more important, Keltner says, is the fact that the powerful stop mimicking others. Laughing when others laugh or tensing when others tense does more than ingratiate. It helps trigger the same feelings those others are experiencing and provides a window into where they are coming from. Powerful people “stop simulating the experience of others,” Keltner says, which leads to what he calls an “empathy deficit.”

Mirroring is a subtler kind of mimicry that goes on entirely within our heads, and without our awareness. When we watch someone perform an action, the part of the brain we would use to do that same thing lights up in sympathetic response. It might be best understood as vicarious experience. It’s what Obhi and his team were trying to activate when they had their subjects watch a video of someone’s hand squeezing a rubber ball.

For nonpowerful participants, mirroring worked fine: The neural pathways they would use to squeeze the ball themselves fired strongly. But the powerful group’s? Less so.

Was the mirroring response broken? More like anesthetized. None of the participants possessed permanent power. They were college students who had been “primed” to feel potent by recounting an experience in which they had been in charge. The anesthetic would presumably wear off when the feeling did—their brains weren’t structurally damaged after an afternoon in the lab. But if the effect had been long-lasting—say, by dint of having Wall Street analysts whispering their greatness quarter after quarter, board members offering them extra helpings of pay, and Forbes praising them for “doing well while doing good”—they may have what in medicine is known as “functional” changes to the brain.

I wondered whether the powerful might simply stop trying to put themselves in others’ shoes, without losing the ability to do so. As it happened, Obhi ran a subsequent study that may help answer that question. This time, subjects were told what mirroring was and asked to make a conscious effort to increase or decrease their response. “Our results,” he and his co-author, Katherine Naish, wrote, “showed no difference.” Effort didn’t help.

This is a depressing finding. Knowledge is supposed to be power. But what good is knowing that power deprives you of knowledge?

The sunniest possible spin, it seems, is that these changes are only sometimes harmful. Power, the research says, primes our brain to screen out peripheral information. In most situations, this provides a helpful efficiency boost. In social ones, it has the unfortunate side effect of making us more obtuse. Even that is not necessarily bad for the prospects of the powerful, or the groups they lead. As Susan Fiske, a Princeton psychology professor, has persuasively argued, power lessens the need for a nuanced read of people, since it gives us command of resources we once had to cajole from others. But of course, in a modern organization, the maintenance of that command relies on some level of organizational support. And the sheer number of examples of executive hubris that bristle from the headlines suggests that many leaders cross the line into counterproductive folly.

Less able to make out people’s individuating traits, they rely more heavily on stereotype. And the less they’re able to see, other research suggests, the more they rely on a personal “vision” for navigation. John Stumpf saw a Wells Fargo where every customer had eight separate accounts. (As he’d often noted to employees, eight rhymes with great.) “Cross-selling,” he told Congress, “is shorthand for deepening relationships.”

Is there nothing to be done?

No and yes. It’s difficult to stop power’s tendency to affect your brain. What’s easier—from time to time, at least—is to stop feeling powerful.

Insofar as it affects the way we think, power, Keltner reminded me, is not a post or a position but a mental state. Recount a time you did not feel powerful, his experiments suggest, and your brain can commune with reality.

Recalling an early experience of powerlessness seems to work for some people—and experiences that were searing enough may provide a sort of permanent protection. An incredible study published in The Journal of Finance last February found that CEOs who as children had lived through a natural disaster that produced significant fatalities were much less risk-seeking than CEOs who hadn’t. (The one problem, says Raghavendra Rau, a co-author of the study and a Cambridge University professor, is that CEOs who had lived through disasters without significant fatalities were more risk-seeking.)

But tornadoes, volcanoes, and tsunamis aren’t the only hubris-restraining forces out there. PepsiCo CEO and Chairman Indra Nooyi sometimes tells the story of the day she got the news of her appointment to the company’s board, in 2001. She arrived home percolating in her own sense of importance and vitality, when her mother asked whether, before she delivered her “great news,” she would go out and get some milk. Fuming, Nooyi went out and got it. “Leave that damn crown in the garage” was her mother’s advice when she returned.

The point of the story, really, is that Nooyi tells it. It serves as a useful reminder about ordinary obligation and the need to stay grounded. Nooyi’s mother, in the story, serves as a “toe holder,” a term once used by the political adviser Louis Howe to describe his relationship with the four-term President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom Howe never stopped calling Franklin.

For Winston Churchill, the person who filled that role was his wife, Clementine, who had the courage to write, “My Darling Winston. I must confess that I have noticed a deterioration in your manner; & you are not as kind as you used to be.” Written on the day Hitler entered Paris, torn up, then sent anyway, the letter was not a complaint but an alert: Someone had confided to her, she wrote, that Churchill had been acting “so contemptuous” toward subordinates in meetings that “no ideas, good or bad, will be forthcoming”—with the attendant danger that “you won’t get the best results.”

Lord David Owen—a British neurologist turned parliamentarian who served as the foreign secretary before becoming a baron—recounts both Howe’s story and Clementine Churchill’s in his 2008 book, In Sickness and in Power, an inquiry into the various maladies that had affected the performance of British prime ministers and American presidents since 1900. While some suffered from strokes (Woodrow Wilson), substance abuse (Anthony Eden), or possibly bipolar disorder (Lyndon B. Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt), at least four others acquired a disorder that the medical literature doesn’t recognize but, Owen argues, should.

“Hubris syndrome,” as he and a co-author, Jonathan Davidson, defined it in a 2009 article published in Brain, “is a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader.” Its 14 clinical features include: manifest contempt for others, loss of contact with reality, restless or reckless actions, and displays of incompetence. In May, the Royal Society of Medicine co-hosted a conference of the Daedalus Trust—an organization that Owen founded for the study and prevention of hubris.

I asked Owen, who admits to a healthy predisposition to hubris himself, whether anything helps keep him tethered to reality, something that other truly powerful figures might emulate. He shared a few strategies: thinking back on hubris-dispelling episodes from his past; watching documentaries about ordinary people; making a habit of reading constituents’ letters.

But I surmised that the greatest check on Owen’s hubris today might stem from his recent research endeavors. Businesses, he complained to me, had shown next to no appetite for research on hubris. Business schools were not much better. The undercurrent of frustration in his voice attested to a certain powerlessness. Whatever the salutary effect on Owen, it suggests that a malady seen too commonly in boardrooms and executive suites is unlikely to soon find a cure.

Jerry Useem, Power Causes Brain Damage (The Atlantic, August 2017)

Our "underdeveloped countries"

Our conscious realm is like a room with four doors, and it will be the fourth door by which the shadow, the animus, and the anima and the personification of the Self will come in. They will not enter as often through the other doors, which in a way is self-evident, because the inferior function is so close to the unconscious and remains so barbaric and inferior and undeveloped that it is naturally the weak spot in consciousness through which the figures of the unconscious can break in. In consciousness it is experienced as a weak spot, as that disagreeable thing which will never leave you in peace but always causes trouble, for every time you feel you have acquired a certain balance or inner standpoint, something happens from within or without to throw you off again, and it is always through that fourth door, which you cannot shut. You can keep the three doors of your inner room closed, but on the fourth door the lock does not work, and there, when you do not expect it, the unexpected will come in again. Thank God, you can say, for otherwise the whole life process would petrify and stagnate in a wrong kind of consciousness. It is the ever-bleeding wound of the conscious personality, but through it the unconscious can always come in and so enlarge consciousness and bring forth new experience.

As long as you have not developed your other functions, your auxiliary functions, they too will be open doors, so in a person who has only developed one superior function, the two auxiliary functions will operate in the same way and will appear in personifications of the shadow, animus, and anima. It is only when you have succeeded in developed three functions, in locking three of your inner doors, that the problem of the fourth door still remains, for that is the one which is apparently not meant to be locked. There one has to succumb, one has to suffer defeat, in order to develop further. So if you attend to your own dreams, you will see that these inner figures, if they appear personified as real persons, tend to choose such personifications. Another kind of personification, which naturally has to do with the shadow, is that the fourth function is contaminated with personifications from the lower levels of the social strata of the population or by the underdeveloped countries. That is a beautiful expression – the “underdeveloped” countries. It is just marvelous how we Westerners in our superior arrogance look down on the underdeveloped countries and project our inferior functions upon them! The underdeveloped countries are within ourselves, and therefore, naturally, because this is such an obvious symbolism, the inferior function for a white person often appears as a wild Negro or a wild Indian. Frequently also the inferior function is expressed by exotic people of some kind: Chinese, Russian, or whoever may give that quality. The unconscious tries in this way to convey the quality of something unknown to the conscious realm, as if it would say: it is as unknown to you as the Chinese are unknown in your culture. The shadow, animus, and anima appear very often projected onto Asian or African or “primitive” people.

- Marie Louise von Franz, “Psychotherapy”

This is why it's so important to come to terms with the people (and creatures) that live within our unconscious; the "primitive" is within us... the criminal, the underdeveloped, all of it is us. Until more of us start to realize that our prejudices are actually the fear and hatred we have of our own shadow, we will continue marching down the road of violence.

The missing half

I’ve been ruminating for months and months about what psychology really is. It’s treated like a science - most psychologists (including Jung!) want it to be a science. The reason Freud is still discussed in psychology classes, even though he was clearly full of shit, is because Freud shared this desire. Even Jung had some tendencies in this direction but, as a thoroughgoing empiricist, he knew when to give up this lifesaver and actually swim in the water. In fact, I think this was his whole point: his theory is based on reality... however, that reality includes spirituality! By refusing a priori to even look at the possibility that psychology has a spiritual aspect, these people are denying what is actually true, which is why they can never find out how to create deep, fundamental change in people.

What I’ve been struggling with is: how much of psychology is spiritual? This morning, as I was waking up, I realized that of course psychology is spiritual, because everything is spiritual! Psychology, even Jungian psychology, isn’t spirituality, but when you go deep enough it is. But this isn’t something unique to psychology alone. For example, go far enough into physics and again, you come to spirituality.

The thing is... everything is spiritual at its deepest place. Art, ecology, politics, farming, wood-working, cooking, everything. This is, in fact, our disease, the fact that we’ve forgotten this. Jung wrote about the “infrared” and “ultraviolet” ends of the archetypes; that is, our instincts and the spiritual archetypes that both live within us. The thing is, the entire world, all of reality and every part of it, has an infrared and an ultraviolet end. It’s just more obvious in psychology.

Until recently religion served to regulate the psyche. When religion lost its place of importance, we needed psychology to fill that gap. And the reason that modern psychology fails us over and over is that spirituality is a uniquely large and fundamental part, at every level, of the process of psychological healing, which is really actually spiritual healing. Instead, it’s techniques fail to create fundamental change in us but rather merely clean up the most shallow parts of our wounds (stick bandaids on them one might say). But what's not unique about psychology is the fact that it has a fundamental spiritual component. And how can that not be the case, since reality itself is spiritual, or ultraviolet, as well as infrared.

The illnesses of our time are caused by the lack of awareness of this spiritual side of reality. In fact, the illness of our time is at root this lack; everything else - the wars, the social and racial unrest, the looming nuclear destruction and actual ecological devastation - are just symptoms of this fundamental disease. The fact that we have forgotten this whole half of reality is the cause of everything wrong, not only in our individual lives but in the world at large. Just as our lives would fall apart if we failed to grasp the physical side, so it is falling apart because we have forgotten the spiritual side. Our world is reflecting this illness back on us. And as nothing in our individual lives will truly improve until we grasp this, so too will nothing fundamentally improve in the world until we come to understand both its halves.

What women want

I'm continuing to post amazing quotes while I work on other stuff. The below is from a highly recommended podcast of interviews with Jungian analysts by Laura London. This particular interview is with Russ Lockhart, one of my new Jungian heroes. Enjoy!

Russ Lockhart: (Said to Esther Harding at a party) "Freud asked the question 'What do women want?' and I want to know your answer."

And she was quiet for a bit, then she looked at me and then she put her hand on my shoulder and she said "Women want men... But there are so very few."

So that was like a one of those lightning bolts that go through one, you know? That pierces you and you know that that is a truth. And you’ve really got to take that into account, you know? Where are the men? What’s happened to the men?

Laura London: Well what do you have to say about that?... What did that comment mean to you?

RL: Well, it’s meant a lot to me in a lot of different things over the years. Certainly when I did the Jung lectures that became Psyche Speaks there’s a lot of material in that book that was prompted in a way by her comment. Later, as I thought more and more and more about it, it relates to this problem of power and how so consumed most men are with power. And the near absence of any real consideration we’re taking into account Eros. By Eros I don’t just mean females, I mean the genuine principle of relatedness is not very big on most men’s radar. Power is.

LL: What are they looking for in pursuing power?

RL: The solution or the cure for inadequacy.

LL: The solution or the cure for inadequacy.

RL: Yes.

LL: And they’re not finding it there. Or are they?

RL: No. No. They find all kinds of things, of course. There’s so much that reinforces that collectively and in the way other people respond to power that people enact, whether by rejection of that power (by the way rejecting power is not the same as Eros). Not having power is not the same as Eros. So Eros in that sense is not quite the opposite of power. The opposite of power is powerlessness. Eros is a completely different realm.

You might think of power as vertical, and if you think of power as vertical then there’s obviously all the symbolism of verticality is male oriented. Eros is horizontal. Much of the symbolism of the horizontal is feminine. So vertical power tends to be the enclave of the male. I’m not even going to say masculine, because I don’t feel like you can have a truly masculine quality or presence unless you have a relationship with Eros. And that’s what Esther Harding was saying.

Speaking of Jung podcast #16: Russ Lockhart, (1:11:40)

Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.

- Jung, "On the Psychology of the Unconciousness"

The perversion of love

This is kind of off topic but unfortunately very much on topic in light of current events. Trump's (still) in the White House and Republicans are doing their damndest to pass a health care bill that will basically lead to the deaths of many poorer people in this country, a kind of social Darwinism not seen since the era of the robber barons... Or maybe it does have something to do with the topic of the four functions. Why don't you decide?



White people (or men, or people of any other dominant group) simply don't get group dynamics unless it's brought up by a person of a dominated group.  It may be perfectly clear to everyone else, including people who don't belong to either group. When you're in a dominating group there's some sort defense mechanism that tries to prevent you from seeing reality. The same doesn't happen to a dominated group; they have no reason to distort reality, they haven't done anything wrong, i.e. anything in violation of the laws of basic human dignity. So, members of the dominating group refuse to even see it... unless it's an attempt to balance the inequities that inevitably result from such relations. In that case, they take the “best defense is an offense” tactic and try to use sleight of hand to turn the accusation on their victims. This is because people's identity is actually very deeply tied with their group identity (this is the similarity between American and Japanese cultures that leads both to attack the loners).

There is a difference between white and black peoples because in this culture white people are on top... and they want to stay there. The masculine way is to look at the law itself, completely without any reference to the relationship. The reality is that to truly understand the situation, we must admit to the truth of the unequal relationship which is baked into the system, upon which the system is dependent to maintain itself. This is because the true motivator is the drive for power; because love is not there, because there is no consciousness in the feeling side, it comes up in its unconscious form, the desire for power.

The desire for power is love perverted. It's an attempt to get the good feelings of love without sacrificing anything of yourself. We want love but the only way to get it is to allow a part of yourself to die. This is why I've had to live a life of failure. Any part of life can be can be a time we got it right, but especially when your Self is pushing you away from the things of this world. This is why spiritual people down the ages have spoken about giving up this world in order to gain the other one, the eternal one, the real one. But the truth is, both worlds are real; the real is something beyond them, that unites them but also transcends them. Each must be accorded its respect and treated with all the dignity due them. Only then does one achieve the goal.


- "Object Anyway?", More Perfect

Listen to this podcast; it's awesome. Actually, you should listen to the entire series. It was created by the gifted and passionate folks over at RadioLab (and if you haven't listened to them, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR????)