News & Updates
Archive for the ‘Type Dynamics’ Category
Mindfulness Part 2: The CORE™ Method and the Brain
Thursday, I learned of some research that, to my mind, clearly supports how the CORE Method can evoke integrative processes in the brain and thereby strengthen neural integration and stimulate the growth of the middle pre-frontal structures in the brain. Neural integration is what is necessary for us to be more adaptable, balance our emotions, attune to others, have a greater sense of morality and empathy, regulate the body, eliminate fear, gain insights into oneself and more. So how did I make this link?
Mind, Relationships, and the Brain
I wasn’t able to attend the Wisdom2.0 conference this week, but I did catch some of the live streaming and am very grateful for being able to experience Dan Siegel’s talk on Mindfulness and the Brain. Dr. Siegel is a psychiatrist who studied “family interactions with an emphasis on how attachment experiences influence emotions, behavior, autobiographical memory and narrative.” His current field of research is interpersonal neurobiology, a term he coined in The Developing Mind, 1999. It is an “interdisciplinary field, which seeks to understand the mind and mental health.” He also coined the term, Mindsight, which is what led me to see a connection between HOW we introduce type lenses and increasing our health and well-being.
Dr. Siegel said that when we see another person’s mind, honor differences, and promote linkages we have an integrative relationship. When relationships are integrative, it stimulates growth of integrative processes in the middle pre-frontal cortex. (a nearly exact quote). He contends that relationships and the brain interact to create ‘mind.’ The mind is not the same thing as the activity of the brain. Mind is not defined clearly in psychology or psychiatry. His definition is,“Mind is an embodied and relational process that regulates the flow of energy and information.” It emerges as a self-organizing emergent property of a complex system (a system capable of open and chaotic behavior). Mind is the internal subjective self, our feelings, thoughts, memories, dreams, hopes and more.
CORE Lenses and Method
It seems to me that the typologies of the CORE Method give us a map of the territory of the mind. Type doesn’t exist just in the brain or in our behaviors. It is also in the subjective sense of self—our minds. Understanding type lenses helps us surface the meanings we tend to make of things and therefore our thoughts and feelings around those things. While we have evidence that the cognitive processes outlined by Jung show up in the brain in certain patterns and that temperament and Interaction Styles related behaviors show up in the body movements as well as the brain, until we can name the patterns and identify the organizing principles behind them we cannot be as mindful as we need to be to develop the integrative awareness required to operate in this complex world of today. And it will be harder to develop the compassion and empathy needed to keep us from going down the very destructive path we seem to be on at this time.
Dan Siegel describes mindfulness as attention to the present moment, suspending any prejudgment. Our type preferences and temperamental predispositions give us prejudgments. It is easier to let these go when we are aware of what they are and they are ‘just’ our type biases. So why is the ‘Method’ so important? It is not just about getting a type label so we can better master ourselves or communicate with others. It is about . . .
- Holding the models lightly so we can step outside them when they are not useful.
- Presenting the patterns as maps, not the territory so we can shift our perspectives into territories different than our own to truly ‘see’ another person.
- Seeing the processes as dynamic, not as ‘fixed’ types so we can flex our behavior and better manage the polarities of human interaction.
- Understanding that we grow and develop within our type so that we transcend the narrow view of our innate preferences and develop capacities in the non-preferences.
This is a mindful and integral approach to type. The goal is not the type models or even type identification. We don’t want an obsession with the models even though that often happens at first. We want the understanding of self and others to lead to more mindfulness in our relationships. The CORE Method is an integrative approach that helps develop integrative relationships by helping us truly see the minds of others, honor those differences by making space for them and shifting to take their perspectives—my definition of truly integrative relationships.
While I’ve shared here some of my insights and connections here, I recommend you watch the video. The raw video is posted now on the livestream.com website. It is the first 30 minutes of the video that was live streamed. (Hint: when it comes on, slide the audio slider over a tiny bit so you get right into the presentation. There is a long pause before it starts.)
Stay tuned for more about what I learned from Wisdome2.0 live streamed sessions. In the meantime, I’d love your thoughts and reactions.
MBTI® and Other Instruments and Second Order Change
If you are a coach or organization change professional you may be wondering if you can use the MBTI® instrument or other typology instruments to get second order change? My answer is yes, IF you know type theory beyond the instrument results and beyond simple dichotomies. You cannot get transformative change by depending solely on the results of the instruments or reports based on simple dichotomies.
The very way type is introduced can lead to limited first order change or to more transformational second order change. (Note: this blog uses a lot of short-cut terms that are explained in my article, The Five Lenses of Coaching.)
What are First- and Second-Order Change? I found the following simple explanation.
- First-order change is doing more – or less – of something we are already doing. First-order change is always reversible.
- Second-order change is deciding – or being forced – to do something significantly or fundamentally different from what we have done before. The process is irreversible: once you begin, it is impossible to return to the way you were doing before.
I also found the following useful, brief explanation by Michael Perez
First order change: Remedial change. This is a more functionally optimal change in a specific behaviour in context. The change occurs at the same logical level as the 'problematic' behaviour.
Second order change: Generative change. This is a more functionally optimal change in an entire category of behaviours in context. The change occurs a logical level above the 'problematic' behaviour.
Third order change: Evolutionary change. This is a more functionally optimal change across multiple categories of behaviour, usually in a number of contexts. The change occurs two logical levels above the 'problematic' behaviour.
My simple explanation of ‘logical level’ would be that first order is ‘inside the box’ thinking. Second order and third order are ‘outside the box.’ Third order change usually refers to changes in larger systems, like families, organizations, government, and so on.
First order change is doing more or less of the same kinds of things. It is a change that stays within the operating system of the individual and is change in behavior. For example, a first order change with the type framework is to get someone with preferences for INFP to engage in extraverted Thinking (Te) activities—to segment and systematize, making decisions based on logical order and consequences in the external world rather than their natural introverted Feeling (Fi) tendency to judge against a holistic sense of internal values. The client can be in need this kind of change. He or she may need to do less of introverted Feeling and more of Extraverted Thinking behaviors in order to fulfill a role or achieve a goal. When the coach suggests these kinds of activities, the client can try them out and get skilled at them. But will it stick? Not easily unless other things are considered.
Even within the framework of type dynamics this change looks like it is within the natural type pattern, but it may not lead to solving the problem the client is concerned with. We have to keep in mind that first order change works when people only need to learn some new behaviors. However, when those behaviors go counter to some other closely held belief or years of practice, the ‘problem’ won’t be fixed.
First order change can even make a problem worse. For example, this fictional INFP client might have had an interpretation that emphasized the preferences, so this person decides he can’t do Thinking kinds of things and avoids them or resists them, and the problem becomes worse.
Second order change transforms the internal operating system so the client can not only maintain the behavior, but also be generative and selective in its use. Such change is usually accomplished through emotional impact, action, or a major change in how clients view themselves or the world.
Incorporating a simple explanation of type dynamics in a session with the client can facilitate second order change. In most type literature, a preference for Thinking is explained as opposite to Feeling and for an INFP and that is where it ends. If type dynamics is even mentioned, Thinking is described as the ‘inferior’ and we all know what inferior means! Based on my studies of the work of John Beebe and my experience, I’ve found the mental process opposite to the dominant to be more integral to the whole type pattern and more powerful than was previously believed. I use a stick figure to show how the dominant and the ‘inferior’ form the spine of the personality. (Scroll down in the article to see the stick figure.)
For example, once this INFP client realizes that Te is part of his natural pattern, he can reclaim it. He has a framework for shifting his behavior at will and is likely to consciously seek out Te experiences. If type dynamics is not included in the session and the client is given only his preferences and the dichotomies explained, the desired second order change is not likely to happen.
To make the behavior change stick, the coach will need to start by working within the internal belief systems of the client. Using multiple personality type frameworks can give the coach a way to understand some of these. If you use temperament, you can understand the core needs and tap into deep motivations. In the example above, you can explain type dynamics in relationship to type development. In this way you do not violate the Catalyst (_NF_) temperament’s need to be authentic. Depending on the individual INFP and where they are developmentally, asking them to do the Te kinds of activities may feel inauthentic and even if it makes sense in their heads, it won’t feel right.
A different rationale would be more effective with someone with ISFP preferences, another type with Fi as dominant. The motivations are different. For an ISFP client, the coach can appeal to the need for impact and results. Those with an Improviser (_S_P) temperament want to get tangible results, have an impact, and move on. Extraverted Thinking can help them better organize their work and be more efficient. You can still explain type dynamics and type development to give a clear guide for why this will work, since Te is within their type pattern as something they aspire to.
I think the concepts of first order change and second order change can be very useful in targeting our work with clients. Sometimes first order change is just fine and at other times, it becomes part of the problem. As coaches and change agents, I think we all want to not do things that become part of the problem.
This turned into a long blog with so many threads of thought. What are your questions and thoughts?
Transformative and Transactional Leadership
Recent Comments