So some people have been talking about how part of Myers basis for the system was adapting Jungs archetypes to the idea of decision making (apparently she added feeling onto someone elses theory?).
Groups that can take into account Facts (S), logical consequences (T), abstract ideas (N) and peoples feelings (F) will arive at 'better' decisions than if the group only considered one of these facets. In a single person, just making sure you honor your dom and aux might be a boon to decision making (ie balancing out judgment and perception: do I have enough facts/discovery? do I need to just stfu and decide?)
So I wanted to apply this idea to an actual project that I've been working on. Lets just say its a sort of "action plan" (but I think it relates to anything from business to government etc).
So without further adieu, here is the criteria I came up with that would hopefully allow this project to gather everyone's strengths and reach better decisions/project accomplishments:
If the ___ (Se, Si, Ni etc) people complain, you can point them to the part of the discussion/proposal/plan etc that:
Se: Describes immediately actionable tasks that obviously work and merely require someone being made aware to "just do it".
"There's stuff that needs to be more planned/debated etc, but here's what is obvious and simply needs doing".
"We've taught/debated this all on theory/logic and finally worked it out. Now lets just put it in terms of what actually needs to be done, and not needlessly complicate our life/the life of the person who will actually be taking action on this."
Si: Latches onto a paradigm of background assumptions and a paradigm of procedure that has worked before.
"We need a platform to launch from, and a block to sculpt, so lets start with this sort of setup to start with, because we know it worked fine for us last year, worked fine at XYZ organization, or worked fine for doing related ABC research".
Lets assume that the DHARH perspective/theory/calculations are good enough to build from. At the very least it gives us a starting point.
--> work/projects tend to be action/task heavy because stuff needs to get done. Therefore its easy (and necessary) to accommodate these.
Ne: Explores lots of variations, troubleshooting, and leaves room for creativity.
"Lets make sure that we engage in enough discovery before reaching a decision too quickly. Lets properly consider all the other less obvious ways of doing this."
"We will need/The people who will actually be doing this, will need a lot of flexibility. There's no way we could explicitly list or dictate how they should do this. Instead, they should be aware of the goal, aware of the resource limits, and let them operate within that range wherever they please."
Ni: Analyzes first assumptions and any potential "elephants in the room".
"All these debates about whether the legislation should support XYZ economic policies, WBZ entitlement policies and YTF rights all ignore the elephant in the room: are we working under Keynesian, classical, naturalist, judeo-christian etc? We're arguing at the wrong level of the thought tree, and we first need to address the elephants in the room..."
"Maybe we're looking at it the wrong the way. Will our customers really be like the XYZ customers that we're basing this thought process on? If not, then everything XYZ might dictate we do, is of no concern to us."
--> These are often on a "need to know" basis. therefore, extra possibilities and further analysis of paradigms is better for appendix sections, troubleshooting and basic introductory spiels. these are also the things that the people in charge, teaching or making big decisions always need to be aware of, but others in the group probably only need to know on a "need to know basis".
Te: Organizes sequential steps, go-to procedures and cause/effect relationships.
"That will need to be done in a very particular way, by people who won't have the training to instinctively do it the particular way. Let's explicitly list it out so that they don't get lost."
"We simply cannot afford the time/money/energy to do UYSD. If we try to do that, we will only be bankrupting our time/money/energy. Perhaps there is a more cost effective way of meeting that need?"
Ti: Deduces that everything naturally follows from first principles in an internally coherent fashion.
"We don't have any data on how this will work in practice, so it needs to be airtight on paper."
"Rather than list out every possible fix for every possible problem, if people are made aware of how all the pieces holistically work together, they will be able to deduce the solutions themselves".
--> Tasks that require more time, thought and process than the immediate actionables, benefit from being clearly spelled out. whether something is spelled out by describing the deductive logic involved, or the lists of cause/effect tasks, depends on the level of flexibility required.
Fe: Considers the roles, morale and niches that people already occupy or will need to occupy.
"Bob is technically in charge and can do most things better than Tim, but Tim is going to lead that area for the foreseeable future after Bob retires next year. Bob needs to be encouraged to mentor rather than merely delegate to Tim."
"John doesn't want XYZ job because he knows it will be more work. However, we need him, and we need to boost his morale about taking it".
"The TJFs and the IKDs don't agree on anything except ETQ, lets start by focusing on ETQ as much as possible, and build from there".
"This might be the best plan from our point of view, but how does the entirety of the team feel about it (the implementers, the financial backers, the customers, the field experts, the theorists, the experienced etc)?"
Fi: Double checks for anything that is simply unconscionable, regardless of cause/effect, results or bottom line "success".
"Is anyone's future success, integrity, health or self-esteem is being jeopardized by these methods?"
"Is it conscionable to be managing the staff like they are all idiot peons?" ( )
--> These F parts must often be implicit and unwritten. by trying to write these down or make them explicit, you end up ignoring and changing the very roles you have attempted to spell out. by drawing attention to the unconscionable, you often just make them a target for people to trot out results based opposition.
In retrospect, keeping all of these in mind, did help me with my project. Everyone's strengths are more represented. People have a better idea of where they fit in and how they can help. Finally, it helped me focus on things besides rambling on in only one thought perspective...
What do you guys think?