1. Moore & Gillette (1991) “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine”: This is a superior self-help book (I quite like self-help books). But it suffers from a generational misreading of Jung.
4. Or, more accurately, very little discipline or assertive energy. This was, after all, published in the time of “Three Men and a Little Baby” etc. I sort of vaguely recall this idea of the “nurturing man” from the media at the time. The “new man” as they called it then.
-
-
5. Moore and Gillette depict men like Patton and Churchill as stable examples of heroic masculine energy, offset by the lover energy (artistic snsibility) as opposed to the “bullying” drill camp instructor (they think military drill too harsh). This is wrong.
Show this thread -
6. Patton and Churchill were incredibly brutal men. They wouldn’t have balked at harsh military discipline. Moore an dgillette want the “warrior energy” to be some sort of mystical nurturing chief (i.e. they want men to be women).
Show this thread -
7. This must contradict Jung, whose archetypes were deeply embedded. Basically, Moore and Gillette update Jung for the late 80s/90s. They rely quite heavily on films to understand the world (they are American) and end up interpreting the masculine as feminine in some ways.
Show this thread -
8. Another abuse of Jung is found in the Myers-Briggs personality test, which used to be popular for career management. This divides people into different personality types (INFJ, ENFJ etc). But Jung’s psychology was holistic. It was against dividing people in this way.
Show this thread -
9. Especially to turn them into “Human Resources”. He may have acknowledged the predominance of certain traits, but the goal would be to work these traits together into a whole. But Myers-Briggs is anti-holistic. It encourages people to think of themselves as a label, “I’m INTP!”
Show this thread -
10. I’m an INFJ, according to this schema. But really the goal should be to bring all these elements together.
Show this thread -
11. In fairness to Myers-Briggs, their schema does describe how a person can bring together their different psychological functions into a whole in their lifetime. But it effectively functions as a tool for companies and individuals to pigeonhole themselves, becoming static.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.