Archetypes and Paradoxes

Shaping What We See and What We Don’t See

In the previous article, we discussed The Human Intelligence Map, which represents how we navigate the interactions of two radically different thinking modes and two divergent dimensions of reality. The two thinking modes, as identified by the psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, are called System 1 and System 2. System 1 is fast thinking, which operates automatically with little or no effort and is prone to both unconscious biases and unwarranted overconfidence. System 2, on the other hand, is slow thinking, which involves deliberate rational attention and is highly aware of uncertainty and doubt.

The two divergent realities are physical reality and social reality. Physical reality operates according to objective laws that apply uniformly to all elements in the universe. These laws are immutable and cannot be altered by human action. Social reality operates according to humanly constructed subjective rules that can be altered as social values evolve and change over time.

We also discussed the four quadrants or territories that comprise the map—Prerational, Rational, Arational, and Extrarational—and how each space is defined by an archetype. The four archetypes, respectively, are: Innovator, Scientist, Believer, and Philosopher. The concept of archetypes is a cornerstone of Jungian psychology that reflects an innate pattern expressed in individual and group behavior. Archetypes are predispositions to respond to the world in certain ways and often operate unconsciously. They provide a framework for understanding life events. They are dynamic, shaping how individuals project meaning into the world and how they achieve psychological wholeness. They also focus our attention, shaping what we see and what we don’t see. What we see defines our consciousness. What we don’t see is the vast space of our unconsciousness. An important part of the work of individual development is the integration of conscious and unconscious elements of personality to broaden the conscious mind and expand the space of what we see.

Another aspect of archetypes is they provide a bridge between individuals and the larger society, shaping both personal development and cultural expressions. In other words, they are psychosocial vehicles for communal as well as individual integration. The primary focus in Jung’s work was to understand the various archetypes that shape individual psychological development. In the Human Intelligence Map, the primary focus is to understand how different archetypes shape the integration of individuals into society and how that process influences the development of healthy and unhealthy social groups. Archetypes are not inherently good or bad. Whether they spawn healthy or unhealthy environments depends upon how the majority in the society resolves paradoxes that are inherent in the four intelligence archetypes.

A paradox is a situation that combines apparently contradictory elements or qualities. In other words, the best solution is not a choice of one element to the exclusion of the other. It is usually a balancing of two opposite qualities, but not necessarily in equal parts. To understand how these preferences work, let’s borrow an analogy from another pioneer in the field of psychology.

One of the most insightful contributions to the understanding of human development is Erik Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development, which postulates that individuals, over the course of their lives, move through a progression of eight psychosocial stages to reach their full development. The essential work of each stage is the resolution of a balance between two paradoxical values. So, for example, in the first stage an individual needs to balance the two values of Basic Trust vs. Basic Mistrust. While it is obvious that trust is the preferred value in developing a healthy personality, there are times where mistrust is appropriate. That’s why a person who is always trusting is often regarded as a “Pollyanna.” On the other hand, one who is always mistrusting is considered to be paranoid. The important point is that the exclusive use of either value is generally problematic. Thus, the healthy person develops a sense of both trust and mistrust, but not in equal measure. In striking a balance between the two values, the psychologically fit have a clear preference for trust over mistrust. While they usually lead with trust, they are savvy enough to know when to mistrust. The unhealthy personality, on the other hand, leads with mistrust, making it difficult to build healthy relationships.

The dynamics of this psychological model are comparable to the kinetics of the Human Intelligence Map. Each of the intelligence archetypes needs to resolve a balance between an altruistic element, which we will call the luminous character, and an egocentric element, which will be referred to as the shadow character. Similar to Erikson’s model, the choices are not equivalent. The balance should reflect a strong preference for the luminous over the shadow character. When this is so, both individuals and groups become more intelligent by uncovering what was previously unconscious and expanding their consciousness. On the other hand, if the shadow character dominates, unconscious biases that may be out of touch with reality are unchecked and unchallenged, often diminishing intelligence and promoting senseless behavior. If individuals develop a clear preference for the luminous character, the archetype can serve as a vehicle for developing a healthy personality. If, on the other hand, individuals embrace the shadow character, the archetype becomes an impediment to the psychosocial integration and likely fosters an unhealthy personality.

Among individuals, there is usually some distribution of all the archetypes and characters although, as we will learn in a subsequent article, one archetype is far more prevalent than the other three. While people may move about the four territories of the Human Intelligence Map, they tend to be residents of one territory and tourists in the others. Their home territory tends to shape their view of the world, and more importantly, the workings of their intelligence. And when the bulk of the population resides in one territory, its archetype defines the workings of intelligence for the whole society. Whether that society is generally healthy or unhealthy depends upon the resolution of the character paradox in shaping the cultural norms and mores of the group.

With this understanding of the basic dynamics of archetypes and paradoxes, we are ready to explore how the two modes of thinking and the two divergent realities that we face in navigating day-to-day life influence the level of both individual and social intelligence. In subsequent articles, we will delve more deeply into the behavioral dynamics of each of the four archetypes, their luminous and shadow characters, and how the resolution of the various character paradoxes shapes what we see and, more importantly, what we don’t see. In approaching the challenge of building benevolent AI systems, if our goal is to make us more intelligent, we need to understand how the resolution of the character paradoxes shapes human intelligence. We need to understand where we have succeeded so we may incorporate those learnings into AI development. But more importantly, we need to understand where and why our thinking and our understanding of reality have been less than intelligent and make sure those lessons are also built into AI.

And read also:

What Is the Goal? Is It AI Or AHI?

Navigating Two Divergent Realities

The Human Intelligence Map

Follow me on X/Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here