I like the cybernetics concept as a model here, but the use of the term psychological entropy is confusing. Is this equivalent to an error signal we would typically talk about with cybernetics?
I agree, it's used by the authors of CTP in their original paper, and they have that classic academic tendency to over-jargonise everything. Even the term 'cybernetic' gives the wrong impression, despite it being technically correct.
But yea - entropy typically refers to the level of randomness/uncertainty in a system, and in this context it literally represents how uncertain a person is that they can achieve their goals.
This is not bad, sounds like the optimal treatment for you would be to recognise that the CA (archetype or self in psychoanalytic terms?) has deficiencies for the current situation, and thus you change the situation to make the CA flourish. Aka the Jock shouldn't stop being a Jock, he should meld his university life in a way that he can stay a Jock but one who does fine in the new environment (by joining a football team and skipping less classes). What about changing the Characteristic Adaption entirely? He could also totally renounce his CA and take on a new one (aka become a nerd or so), or even meld two different CAs. There are people who are very athletic and yet very scholarly, I always lovingly call these types Ogre Mages. Becoming an Ogre Mage would fix Chad's problems here entirely.
I think it depends on how sustainable the CA (or archetype, I do think this is the same thing) is in the current context. In this case, it's probably still possible to be a jock with some adjustments to the strategies, or to modify the goal in some way to allow for new behaviours. Chad could become an ogre mage - great term for it! Although currently it doesn't have much of a social context. Maybe within a DnD game.
Totally renouncing a CA is, I imagine, relatively rare - but it does happen. This would happen only when the CA is totally at odds with society and one's own needs. I think growing up involves letting go of some more childish CAs.
Do you actually talk to your patients about their CA and how they need to adapt it? If I wanted to sell the Ogre Mage to a failed Chad I would call it the scholar-athlete.
He who is a scholar only is too soft, to effeminate. The ideal citizen is the scholar-athlete, the man of thought and the man of action." - Plato.
That would probably accidentally push him down the path of listening to podcasts of right-wing adjacent bodybuilders who use greek statues with laser eyes as profile pictures, but I am fairly politically agnostic and I would take a healthy patient over one who is politically convenient.
I wonder to which degree some people in society can freely meld and form their own CA, I don't feel like I have much of a determined archetype per se, due to my knowledge of Jungian thought I just plunder every narrative archetype I encounter for valuable strategies and integrate them into my own archetype. In a sense I never stop learning and optimising my CA, but very few people seem to do that above a subconscious level. There seems to be a natural degree of subconscious adaption, which is why most people do not need therapy whenever their CA breaks against reality.
Your thought about childhood is interesting, children are voracious in their hunger for finding effective CAs. They consume media en masse, and whenever they see a character they like they immediatly start immitating him for a week as their temporary CA, until they usually realise that Thunder God Thor is not a workable CA in school. I wonder if childhood is a process where the mental systems that choose and define your later CA get pruned.
Not in these terms, but to some extent, yes. It's always going to depend on what the client is bringing to therapy, but often there's some strategy that needs to be changed to meet their current goals, or their current goals are unrealistic, or something like that. So this model can be useful, and I've used it with clients before.
I think the scholar-athlete can sit anywhere, politically speaking, but in the current zeitgeist that may be true. But my goal in therapy is never a political one. It's only if a client is strongly ideological and this is causing problems in their life (e.g., they're a left-winger and have too much of an external locus of control, or a zealous right-winger working in a left-dominated industry) that I would make that a focus. And in that case it's not about changing a person's politics, but developing cognitive flexibility or managing unhelpful behaviours.
"I wonder to which degree some people in society can freely meld and form their own CA" - this is a big question! And an unresolved one from the perspective from personality psychology. Ultimately you're asking whether personality can change/be intentionally changed. This is something I plan to write about at some point (I tend to believe it can, to some extent), but researchers have been debating this for decades.
There's definitely more flexibility in childhood, which is probably linked to increased neural plasticity.
That sounds like a healthy stance to take regarding politics.
I am somewhat of a Jungian, as such I see a whole lot of other stuff in personality, the shadow, the anima, the self, the persona all coexist with the archetype for me to make up the person. I am however thrilled about your eventual article about voluntary changing of the CA/archetype.
I like the cybernetics concept as a model here, but the use of the term psychological entropy is confusing. Is this equivalent to an error signal we would typically talk about with cybernetics?
I agree, it's used by the authors of CTP in their original paper, and they have that classic academic tendency to over-jargonise everything. Even the term 'cybernetic' gives the wrong impression, despite it being technically correct.
But yea - entropy typically refers to the level of randomness/uncertainty in a system, and in this context it literally represents how uncertain a person is that they can achieve their goals.
This is not bad, sounds like the optimal treatment for you would be to recognise that the CA (archetype or self in psychoanalytic terms?) has deficiencies for the current situation, and thus you change the situation to make the CA flourish. Aka the Jock shouldn't stop being a Jock, he should meld his university life in a way that he can stay a Jock but one who does fine in the new environment (by joining a football team and skipping less classes). What about changing the Characteristic Adaption entirely? He could also totally renounce his CA and take on a new one (aka become a nerd or so), or even meld two different CAs. There are people who are very athletic and yet very scholarly, I always lovingly call these types Ogre Mages. Becoming an Ogre Mage would fix Chad's problems here entirely.
I think it depends on how sustainable the CA (or archetype, I do think this is the same thing) is in the current context. In this case, it's probably still possible to be a jock with some adjustments to the strategies, or to modify the goal in some way to allow for new behaviours. Chad could become an ogre mage - great term for it! Although currently it doesn't have much of a social context. Maybe within a DnD game.
Totally renouncing a CA is, I imagine, relatively rare - but it does happen. This would happen only when the CA is totally at odds with society and one's own needs. I think growing up involves letting go of some more childish CAs.
Do you actually talk to your patients about their CA and how they need to adapt it? If I wanted to sell the Ogre Mage to a failed Chad I would call it the scholar-athlete.
He who is a scholar only is too soft, to effeminate. The ideal citizen is the scholar-athlete, the man of thought and the man of action." - Plato.
That would probably accidentally push him down the path of listening to podcasts of right-wing adjacent bodybuilders who use greek statues with laser eyes as profile pictures, but I am fairly politically agnostic and I would take a healthy patient over one who is politically convenient.
I wonder to which degree some people in society can freely meld and form their own CA, I don't feel like I have much of a determined archetype per se, due to my knowledge of Jungian thought I just plunder every narrative archetype I encounter for valuable strategies and integrate them into my own archetype. In a sense I never stop learning and optimising my CA, but very few people seem to do that above a subconscious level. There seems to be a natural degree of subconscious adaption, which is why most people do not need therapy whenever their CA breaks against reality.
Your thought about childhood is interesting, children are voracious in their hunger for finding effective CAs. They consume media en masse, and whenever they see a character they like they immediatly start immitating him for a week as their temporary CA, until they usually realise that Thunder God Thor is not a workable CA in school. I wonder if childhood is a process where the mental systems that choose and define your later CA get pruned.
Not in these terms, but to some extent, yes. It's always going to depend on what the client is bringing to therapy, but often there's some strategy that needs to be changed to meet their current goals, or their current goals are unrealistic, or something like that. So this model can be useful, and I've used it with clients before.
I think the scholar-athlete can sit anywhere, politically speaking, but in the current zeitgeist that may be true. But my goal in therapy is never a political one. It's only if a client is strongly ideological and this is causing problems in their life (e.g., they're a left-winger and have too much of an external locus of control, or a zealous right-winger working in a left-dominated industry) that I would make that a focus. And in that case it's not about changing a person's politics, but developing cognitive flexibility or managing unhelpful behaviours.
"I wonder to which degree some people in society can freely meld and form their own CA" - this is a big question! And an unresolved one from the perspective from personality psychology. Ultimately you're asking whether personality can change/be intentionally changed. This is something I plan to write about at some point (I tend to believe it can, to some extent), but researchers have been debating this for decades.
There's definitely more flexibility in childhood, which is probably linked to increased neural plasticity.
That sounds like a healthy stance to take regarding politics.
I am somewhat of a Jungian, as such I see a whole lot of other stuff in personality, the shadow, the anima, the self, the persona all coexist with the archetype for me to make up the person. I am however thrilled about your eventual article about voluntary changing of the CA/archetype.
Interesting perspective... I haven't read this, I'll check it out