A to Z Blog Challenge - A is for Archetype

The A to Z Blog Challenge Apparently every April there is a widely known A to Z blogging challenge. I became aware of it just last year. This year I've decided to join the fun.

 A is for Archetype

 There is an often described general progression of thought within the community of individuals who enjoy exploring typology theories. Some of these theories include Jungian cognitive functions, Socionics, the enneagram, and simplifications such as “MBTI.” It begins with introduction to the theor(ies). 

This initial dip-of-the-toe into the world of self-discovery and help in understanding the acceptableness of “otherness” is often marked with either eager anticipation or skepticism. But both the over-trusting and the skeptic seem to derive equal pleasure from digging into the nitty gritty details, scrubbing it for all its worth. 

Once people get caught up in the details, the frenzy begins. Much time and energy is expended to take it all in, to make comparisons to personal experience, to find connection between the abstract information of the written world and the mental-social world we inhabit. As with anything, there is a learning curve.

 Some people pour themselves into the descriptions, relating intensely to the newly found jargon that helps give language to their identity. Depending on which book or source of information each individual begins with, elitist mentalities often develop. Many begin using the information to belittle others, making themselves feel superior. Arguments ensue.

 The argument phase leads to further clarification. Those who stick with the search eventually come to realize that it is impossible for the general descriptions of types that circulate to encapsulate the depth and complexity that they attempt to. Some people become disgruntled and highly judgmental of the information as a whole. Though most never lose their interest in the topic.

 I think the word archetype itself, used extensively in the works of Jung, can allay much of the tension in this process. An archetype is a stereotype. That is what it is! Look it up! On Wikipedia under Jungian Archetypes, I find this descriptions helpful: “The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif – representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern.”

 When going into typology theory, remember that it is impossible for it to be something that it is not. So, save yourself the irritation. Don't expect it to be. You can find patterns that will help you to perhaps understand yourself and others a little better. But you have to be flexible in your understanding of the information. It is not a set-in-stone template of all human nature. The more an author attempts to simplify the information, the less accurate it becomes. If you really want to understand, you need to read a wide array of authors to get the big picture. And a 2-dimensional snapshot “big picture” is all you'll ever get.