The thinking/feeling dichotomy was first connected to individual differences in psychological types (personalities) by Carl Jung. It is used in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator’s personality typology and addresses natural differences in how individuals make decisions and experience emotions.

It is also the cause of a great deal of tension and conflict for couples that naturally differ on this dichotomy.

The terms used for descriptive purposes here can be misleading. For instance, someone with a feeling response orientation is not inherently more able to feel or less able to think than someone with a thinking response orientation; and someone with a thinking orientation is not inherently more able to think or less able to feel than someone with a feeling orientation (Reinhold, 2007).

These terms are used to address fundamental differences in the perceptual and experiential processes automatically triggered when thinking- and feeling-response-oriented individuals are sorting out and expressing what they are thinking and feeling. (Please note that this interpretation differs significantly from those of Carl Jung and the authors of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.)

Although human beings are aware that people differ in how they come to conclusions and experience and express emotions, few understand that these differences in self-expression are driven by innately different perceptual and experiential frames of reference. Of particular note is a fundamental difference in the experience of emotions when conflicts arise—a difference of such magnitude that role-reversal comprehension is not possible. These differences are a constant in interactions between thinking and feeling individuals, easily confirmed by observation of one’s personal and professional relationships.[fat_widget_right]

Those with thinking response orientation:

• Process thoughts and experience emotions with an objective, fact-based frame of reference.
• Base decisions on objective criteria of cause and effect.
• Automatically seek a logical explanation for what is happening when conflicts arise.
• Have a self-grounded sense of logical consistency in thought, action, and emotion.
• Interpret anything expressed or done that does not make logical sense as automatically invalid.

Those with feeling response orientation:

• Are wired to facilitate harmony in human relationships.
• Have a natural sensitivity to issues of fairness and inclusion.
• Are tuned in to the tone of communication. If it is not said nicely, it is not nice.
• Are susceptible to feeling guilty or bad out of proportion to objective reality when conflicts arise.
• Have a susceptibility to feeling hurt and rejected when responded to in an emotionally neutral or blunt manner.

Thinking/Feeling Couples

The usual cause of difficulty for couples that differ on this dichotomy comes from a fundamental difference in how they experience and express emotions. The moment harmony is disrupted, most feeling-response-oriented individuals feel bad, as if they have done something wrong. Knowing they have not, in fact, done something wrong does not usually help. They feel bad anyway.

When these feelings are triggered, they may immediately apologize, hoping to restore harmony and neutralize the guilt they are experiencing, or they may get upset with their partner for doing something that caused them to feel that way. Neither of these responses makes much sense to a thinking-response-oriented individual.

Why would a person feel guilty and bad simply because someone disagreed with them; much less suggest that the other is at fault for causing them to feel that way? From the thinking-oriented perspective these responses do not make logical sense and are therefore invalid.

Choice is not an option here. Very much like the degree to which someone is left-handed, right-handed, or ambidextrous, the manner in which feeling- and thinking-oriented individuals experience and express thoughts and feelings is natural and normal—just different.

The Challenge in Communication

In essence, two naturally disparate perceptual frames of reference for making sense out of the same reality have been activated. The feeling partner seeks validation for how they are feeling about the situation, while the thinking partner seeks validation for why they think their partner’s feelings do not make logical sense. Neither can provide a response that meets the other’s criterion for being heard.

Without intention or awareness, the explanations that each provide for justifying their own natural and normal responses de facto invalidate the natural and normal responses of their partner. Issues of little import can trigger emotionally charged exchanges that leave both parties psychologically battered, blaming each other for the damage done, while the issues themselves remain unresolved. The conflict resolution challenge is significantly magnified when the couple also differs on the extroversion-introversion dichotomy.

Conflict Resolution Approach

I have been using a natural differences questionnaire based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with all couples and families since 2000. Information on natural differences has proven to be consistently accurate.

In fact, the accuracy of the information above is such that most thinking-response-oriented partners have been able to accept its validity. Feeling-response-oriented partners have usually been more ambivalent. Although the information provides concrete validation regarding their emotional sensitivity and reactivity, it does not provide them with much relief from the feelings that get triggered when conflicts arise.

If they accept the premise that natural and normal differences in response orientations are at play, they have to acknowledge that their partner

1. cannot experientially relate to how they are feeling when conflicts arise and, therefore,
2. is not at fault for the feelings their comments can trigger.

The inequity inherent to this difference in experiencing emotion is such that some feeling-response-oriented partners have great difficulty accepting it. Fortunately, once most thinking-oriented partners have a logical explanation for their partner’s feel-based responses, they have been able to soften their responses in general and become more considerate and accommodating when conflicts arise. This change has helped many feeling partners contain the resentment they automatically experience during conflict.

The intensity of the explosive exchanges that some thinking/feeling couples are dealing with is such that adherence to a timeout rule is an absolute necessity if they hope to replace their destructive conflict resolution process with a healthier one. It is understandable why some feeling-response-oriented partners have a hard time adhering to this time out rule. After all, extroverted/feeling-oriented individuals have a particularly difficult time letting go before their partner has acknowledged the validity of how they are feeling.

The fact remains that once an issue has become emotionally charged and abusive, the possibility of a meaningful resolution no longer exists. Partners with strong extroversion, intuition, and feeling-response orientations may have a particularly difficult time accommodating this timeout rule.

The level of psychic distress (disruption of self) that some experience is so extreme that efforts by their partner to withdraw may trigger desperate, even violent behaviors to prevent their partner’s exit before a resettling response has been provided. However, a way must be found to contain these emotions if they hope to replace their destructive process with a healthier one.

Consequently, depending on the perceived volatility of the conflicted exchange, the person calling for a timeout may:

1. Agree to a future time to reconvene and try again, before their next counseling appointment.
2. Wait until their next counseling session to address the issue.
3. Contact the counselor to see if an earlier date can be scheduled to meet.

The timeout is almost always called for by the thinking partner and resented by the feeling partner.

Tip for thinkers: Seek to understand and accommodate your partner’s areas of sensitivity rather than attempt to help them understand why they should not feel that way.

Tip for feelers: Use logic-based constructs when explaining why they are upset. Example: “Even though you do not understand why I get upset when you say that, the fact remains that every time you say that I get upset. Given the predictability of my response, why do you keep saying that?”

Once most couples realize that natural differences are at play, and that neither is intentionally responding the way they do in order to get his or her own way, they are able to accommodate and compromise in areas that had not been possible before.

Reference:
Reinhold, Ross. (21 March, 2007). E-mail correspondence.

Everything that irritates [or intrigues] us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.
-C.G. Jung

As we mature finding ways to relate to and communicate with the hidden, non-integrated personality traits that are “in the shadow” is imperative if we want to enjoy a life rich with meaning and purpose.

Trying on different “hats” and “voices” can be fun and very telling! One way to form a relationship with your shadow is to read poetry aloud and play with the words. Try moving your mouth ever so slightly and then reading the poem aloud in some usual way. Some interesting personalities may jump out to greet you! Then you and your shadow personalities can really get the playful conversation going!

There is a back story to the writing of this post–(and perhaps shadow has a hand in any edits made):

This post began as a survey of “Current Trends in Jungian Psychology”. After interviewing Anne O’ Reilly, Irish poet and sacred clown, on Creativity in Play, http://creativityinplay.com, I was led to writing further about Jung and Poetry.

Anne O’ Reilly shared a summer poem by Mary Oliver during our interview with her which I will share with you now:

The Summer Day
Who made the world?
Who made the swan, and the black bear?
Who made the grasshopper?
This grasshopper, I mean-
the one who has flung herself out of the grass,
the one who is eating sugar out of my hand,
who is moving her jaws back and forth instead of up and down-
who is gazing around with her enormous and complicated eyes.
Now she lifts her pale forearms and thoroughly washes her face.
Now she snaps her wings open, and floats away.
I don’t know exactly what a prayer is.
I do know how to pay attention, how to fall down
into the grass, how to kneel down in the grass,
how to be idle and blessed, how to stroll through the fields,
which is what I have been doing all day.
Tell me, what else should I have done?
Doesn’t everything die at last, and too soon?
Tell me, what is it you plan to do
with your one wild and precious life?

–Mary Oliver
from New and Selected Poems, 1992
Beacon Press,Boston,MA

In my first Jung & Poetry post I write:

Analytical psychology at its core emphasizes the process of individuation, a life-long process of transformation. Each of us is unique and called to grow in maturity through a process of psychic integration. How can we explore and expand our creativity in the process of individuating? What are some ways we can we develop our creative, playful selves?

Choose any art form and you will find your [dance] in the individuation process. Shadow is your partner as you step from the personal into places of uncertainty and magical embodiment of “what can be” when you are open to receiving into your heart.

Anne O’ Reilly spoke eloquently about how by following impulse and moving into invisible realms we can locate “a much bigger horizon of what is”.

What Is
Today I bow to letters and cards
soul friends touching me from far away,
bow to the familiar ritual
of the morning cup of tea.

Bowing to the rain is harder though
until I see droplets
on the glossy leaves
of the thirsty white camellia.

When I think of the day it arrived
the day of her burial
the bow sticks in my throat
like a swallowed sob.

My shoulders hunch
my back feels tight
and something cracks inside
when I try to bow.

My exhaustion seeps into the sheets
and I push away the bow
that accepts
this need for rest.

Like two great Sumo wrestlers
their solid bulky forms
bowing before they begin
their great display

parts of my world square up
and face each other
the one who fights
and the one who surrenders

the moments of beauty
and the abruptness of death
my struggling Yes
and my defiant No

and I wonder how
my life could ever become
one long deep bow
to what is.

-Anne F O’Reilly
On CD Breathsong  May 2011

I recently ordered Deepak and Gotham Chopra’s book, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Superheroes on my iPad. I haven’t been this excited to read something since I read Carl Jung’s book The Archetypes many years ago.

Both books address the archetype of  “shadow.” Both Chopra and Jung describe shadow as a force of the unconscious that can be destructive, divisive, and self-sabotaging when it remains unconscious. Shadow is that part of the human condition, that most mortals attempt to ignore or deny in favor of a self-perception inflated or deflated by ego, neither of which can be sustained without some form of self-destruction. We see this in the lives of adult politicians, entertainers, and sports heroes who have been in the media lately for crimes of passion, adultery, and exploitation. The denial and repression of shadow has allowed ego to “act out” in blatant ways. Because shadow was repressed they thought they would never get caught or that they were somehow above the laws that govern the rest of us. Denial of shadow sets humans up to be destroyed.

In Chopra’s book, “shadow” is explored through the journey of the superhero. The superhero wrestles with the forces of good and evil. In doing so, the superhero recognizes that he or she has a shadow that possesses some of the very qualities that their enemies possess. The superhero embraces their shadow by getting in touch with it, bringing it to consciousness, developing compassion for themselves and thereby others, all in the mission of transforming dark, evil energies into creative, light energies of consciousness.

Jung explored the context of “shadow” through mythology and dreams. Mythological and dream characters, like superheroes are removed from mortal boundaries and expectations. They exist in landscapes where anything is possible. Joseph Campbell identified distinct steps of the Hero’s Journey that can provide a metaphor for our own life’s struggles. Metaphor can penetrate resistance and help us to gain insight into our experiences because the hero’s journey is one we can relate to and learn from.

Like many of us, the superhero often comes from a life of adversity. Chopra wrote that shadow can be found thriving in “abject conditions such as poverty, poor leadership, an ‘us versus them’ mentality, repression, deprivation, social injustice, torture, self-righteous morality, suppression of desire, fear, and conflict.” He goes on to explain, that the “shadow energy within us is destructive, divisive, and self-sabotaging.”

Chopra identified shadow as the “diabolical part of our soul.” How can we recognize our shadow? Shadow usually lurks behind our criticism of others. It is that nasty voice that identifies and picks at other people’s flaws. The funny thing is that the flaws that we see in others are often the same flaws that we ourselves possess. It is much harder to recognize this in ourselves but often easily recognizable in the folly of others. For example, have you ever heard someone who is very annoying because they never give anyone else a chance to talk, complain and go on and on about someone they encountered who does the very same thing? That is shadow, the super-villain, making an appearance.

Chopra says that we can see our shadow when we are in the light of consciousness. But first we have to recognize our shadow behavior before we can bring it into the light of consciousness. Once it is conscious we have power to choose to “act out”–meaning to continue destructive behavior that cuts off a vital source of creative energy–or to consciously stop “acting out” and transform the energy for a healthy, well-balanced existence. If we choose to do nothing, shadow will pounce when we least expect it and throw our lives into chaos and suffering.

Without playing with fantasy, no creative work has ever yet come to birth. The debt we owe to the play of imagination if incalculable.
-C.G. Jung

Jung wrote about the need for finding and living our myth, our story, as he grew older, he wrote his most important works and found his own unique ways to play. We need new stories that weave playfulness, gratitude, and compassion for self and others. Re-writing your myth or story can help you understand more fully your core values. Your story reflects your uniqueness and the many gifts you have to offer others. If you fully expressed your values, how would others see you? Would it change your life in some way?

A life story re-told:

Playful Kingdom
A little girl sat reading alone and wistfully looking out the window of her bedroom –dreaming, flying to places far beyond the confines of her sanctuary. She spent as much of her time as possible outside playing—skipping, riding her bike, walking and exploring, traveling by bus around the local area, dancing and choreographing shows on the spot for the neighborhood, creating puppets, puppet shows, and theatre, observing animals and recording their behavior, making lists of local plants, and gently tending and feeding them.
When it was time to come inside, the little girl would walk up the stairs to her room and settle in for a long read or daydream or she would travel by foot to a community building in her neighborhood where she could read and even borrow books whenever she liked.

She flew out her window whenever her Spirit wanted to soar beyond the earthly bound. Her visits to various realms allowed her to remain playful in her own kingdom where life was not always easy; a large part of her kingdom was at war with itself. The little girl’s imagination, dreams, and playfulness provided her with the needed support and fearlessness to move forward.

She listened to her dreams, acted, and found she wanted more of life. Her dreams brought her news that led her down many paths both harrowing and heart-y. Because she never left her playfulness behind, the little girl’s dreams provided a landscape to travel in and return to as she wandered earth. Many fellow travelers dismissed dreams and their own unique natures in favor of others’ visions for them.

The little girl grew in power and authority. She began to blend her own unique vision with what she had learned from her teachers about dreams and their importance in creating a playful life filled with meaning.

She married and became Queen to her King. Her children and grandchildren thrived and played. Each morning dreams were told and listened to, reflected on, acted upon for the benefit of all.

Dreams foretold of changes big and small for the Kingdom. Masterful communication secured peace. Instead of fighting or retreating as in past conflicts the Queen, her King, and past foes stood shoulder-to-shoulder and met for the first time. Foe became friend. A playful path of risk-taking and foolishness replaced a deep ravine.

Now that you have read one woman’s personal mythology, I invite you to write your story in any way that feels right to you.

Some ways to get started:

• Re-write a favorite children’s book story or nursery rhyme and write yourself in as the lead character.
• If you keep a dream journal, open one of your journals and see what dream finds you again. Re-write the plot, scenes, characters, location, and conflict in the dreamscape and see what happens.
• Change the lyrics to a favorite song and add lyrics that tell the story of your life’s journey. See what happens as you play with the words, rhymes, and melody.

Questions for you to consider as your write your story/myth:

• What is your story or myth?
• What have been your struggles?
• Have you celebrated your transformations?
• Are you shedding your skin or thickening your woolen coat?
• Who are your supporters?
• What do you fear?
• What do you easily move toward?

“For years it lay in an iron box buried so deep inside me that I was never sure just what it was. I knew it carried slippery, combustible things more secret than sex and more dangerous than any shadow or ghost. … I saw things I knew no little girl should see. Blood and shattered glass. Piles of skeletons and blackened barbed wire with bits of flesh stuck to it…The iron box contained a special room for my mother and father, warm and moist as a greenhouse. They lived there inside me, rare and separate from other beings. … I knew my parents had crossed over a chasm … The box became a vault, collecting in darkness, always collecting; pictures, words, my parent’s glances, becoming loaded with weight. It sank deeper as I grew older, so packed with undigested things that finally it became impossible to ignore.”
-Helen Epstein, Children of the Holocaust

(more…)