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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting perspective... I haven't read this, I'll check it out