Human beings are meaning-seeking creatures. Having developed an unprecedented capacity to approach the world in an abstract way, humans introduced a new set of challenges into mammalian life. Until the advent of what we know as modern human consciousness, creatures never questioned whether or not life was worth living. They did not get depressed, nor did they commit suicide because of conjectures about the “meaninglessness” of life. If meaning fuels “the will to live” (which appears to be true in modern humans), then it seems that a sense of meaning, even if more primitive in nature, was an indelible feature of life prior to modern humans. On this view, suicide related to a perceived absence of meaning would appear an aberration with respect to the usual trajectory of life. But the fact that a perceived lack of meaning can trump even the most fundamental human needs and desires (e.g., the desire to eat, the will to live) speaks to its centrality in modern human life.
In earlier human societies (e.g., tribes), abstract interpretations of the “meaning of life” were not left to the individual, but were culturally transmitted and generally accepted as a given by group members. In modern society, characterized by a smorgasbord of diverse opinions and interpretations, this is no longer the case. Whether we like it or not, the onus for discerning truth and meaning has shifted largely onto the shoulders of the individual. Whereas collective solidarity of meaning was an assumed feature of tribal life, our contemporary situation is one in which individuals must work to achieve solidarity of meaning within themselves.
This is not to say that the drive for or existence of group solidarity has disappeared, but only that the pendulum has swung in the direction of individuality. This happened first in the West, but is infiltrating and may eventually characterize Eastern cultures as well. The increasing emphasis on individual rights and individual liberties is inseparable from this shift toward individual arbitration of truth, meaning, and morality.
With that said, most people, wittingly or not, are terrified by the prospect of discerning their own meaning. Others may not even consider it an option. I can certainly understand the reasons for this. Besides the fact that independently discerning truth and meaning can be a daunting and arduous affair, living according to collective myths and interpretations is essentially how human beings have functioned for the vast majority of our evolutionary history.
For those who have accepted the tall task of independently discerning truth and meaning, the process can be divided into two parts: working to understand the world and working to understand oneself. We might think of the former as an attempt to understand the overall plot or purpose of the world, while the latter involves trying to discern our own individual purpose within that larger story of life.
If we step back from this for a moment, we can see the importance of time in the human quest for meaning. Without a sense of past and future, there would be no story, no plot; there would only be the present moment, or what some have described as an “eternal now.” Hence, modern human thought is characteristically historical and autobiographical in nature. What we seek is a coherent and meaningful story that seamlessly incorporates the nature and purpose of the world at large with our own personal history and future aspirations. Even those who believe the world is ultimately devoid of any moral or meaningful purpose develop stories that shape the meaning of their lives as individuals. Humans are not only avid meaning-seekers, but imaginative storytellers.
By working to understand the world, we feel we can better understand ourselves. We recognize ourselves as part of the world and in constant relationship to it. We know that our personal sense of meaning and purpose cannot be divorced from it. Since we are also avid pattern-seekers, we believe that many of the patterns we see “out there” are also likely to be reflected in us. We recognize that we are comprised of and participate in historical and universal patterns and processes. Similarly, in working to understand ourselves, we feel we can more clearly see and understand the patterns and transpirings of the world. Human life is a continuous dance of understanding the self, the world, and “self-in-the-world.”
For some personality types, especially Myers-Briggs Intuitive (N) types, this process of seeking truth and meaning is enjoyable for its own sake. Intuitives tend to be more comfortable with navigating complex and abstract ideas than Sensing types are. But remaining open to new ideas, meanings, and interpretations is not without its challenges. Intuitives, especially Intuitive Introverts, are more apt to struggle with meaning-related problems such as feelings of meaninglessness and depression.
The Challenge of Ideational Openness & Plasticity
While Intuitives aren’t necessarily more open to new experiences than Sensing types, they are generally more open to and interested in new ideas and interpretations. For Intuitives, it’s as though the story of the meaning of life, as well as the meaning of their own lives, is always open to revision or enhancement. In many cases, this can be attributed to their drive to better apprehend truth, be it moral, logical, relational, or aesthetic. Intuitives are willing to sacrifice ideational stability in hopes of achieving greater accuracy.
One problem for Intuitives is that the modern world is a fairly structured place and in large part requires committed action. But for individuals whose ideas and identities are more fluid or mutable, committed action can be difficult. To return to our theatre metaphor, if one doesn’t know her role in the plot of life, how can she possibly act it out?
It is not the Intuitives don’t want to know their role in life. I believe achieving a consolidated identity is a universal desire for modern humans. Rather, Intuitives struggle because they want to ensure that the role they assume is the ideal and most authentic one, the one that best reflects their understanding of themselves and the world. Complicating matters is that while wanting to be as accurate as possible in their evaluations, Intuitives also recognize that time is limited. Female Intuitives may be concerned with their “biological clocks,” while both males and females may worry that the window for them to make important career or relational decisions will not remain forever open. They also realize that they may never achieve absolute certainty and at some point they will need to make a committed decision (even those opting for a life of perpetual openness still make a decision to do so). Hence, even the most rational truth-seekers must muster some degree of faith in order to make decisions in absence of complete certainty.
Since the meaningful life for Intuitives often involves perpetually wrestling with meanings, they are also more apt than Sensing types to doubt and question their decisions (this is especially true of NP types); many will change their mind halfway through life, experiencing the proverbial “midlife crisis.” Such crises of truth and meaning introduce a new dilemma, the choice to authentically act according to new beliefs versus remaining faithful to prior commitments.
In Search of Objective Truth & Meaning
In hopes of minimizing the burden on the individual with regard to discerning truth, we, as a society, aspire toward a consensus of understanding. This, after all, would seem a goal of most truth-seekers, to discover and discern objective truth. Many people see public education as a key step in this direction, a means of educating everyone about the current state of human knowledge.
The problem, of course, is that not everyone agrees about what constitutes objective truth. This is partly due to the fact that old ideas or “memes,” once engrained in society, are stubborn and hard to uproot. We also know that certain individuals and personality types are inclined to function cautiously with respect to new ideas, limiting the scope and interest of their ideation relatively early in life. Even some Intuitives may function this way if their inferior function is calling the shots. It is difficult to blame people for doing so, however, since there do seem to be some practical advantages to crystallizing one’s worldview early in life. Strong allegiance to a particular worldview can also imbue life with a strong sense of meaning—something to live for (or even die for). All of this reinforces my point that the human need to secure meaning can trump nearly anything else, including the need to ensure that our beliefs reflect the most probable rendering of reality.
Another potential impediment to our ability to agree on objective truth is that most people fail to see the substantive role of their own subjectivity in their beliefs. They feel that they know the truth and that, for some reason (one they often fail to properly consider), other people don’t. To address this reluctance to consider subjective influences (not to mention intersubjective influences, such as culture, but that is another discussion), typology, as well as psychology in general, can prove beneficial.
An informed understanding of human personality dynamics suggests that we are all disposed to handling information in a certain way because of our personality type. We’ve already seen how this is true of Intuitives and Sensors and it is equally true of Thinkers and Feelers. By understanding our own type, as well as that of others, we can better see its influence in the way that information is absorbed, evaluated, and applied. If we can somehow learn to differentiate what is truth (e.g., “objective) from what is type (e.g., “subjective”), we can make headway in our quest for a more objective understanding.
Not only might typology help us distinguish objective truth from subjective bias, but it can also aid and expedite our quest for self-knowledge and personal direction. We might think of typology as a sort of roadmap for understanding ourselves and the roles we might play in society. It provides a rationale for why it is unnecessary and even unhealthy for us to assume roles that are ill-suited for our personality type. In short, typology can serve as a useful tool for those seeking a clearer understanding of the world, of themselves, and of their potential role in the world.
Additional Resources
The Introvert’s Dilemma: Personality, Vocation & Identity
The INTP Struggle for Truth, Meaning, & Motivation
The INTP: Personality, Careers, Relationships… (#1 INTP Book on Amazon)
The INTP Quest: INTPs’ Search for their Core Self, Purpose, & Philosophy (book)
Notes
1. Some may argue that typology could be used as a means of social control and should therefore be avoided. But such arguments can be applied to nearly any type of knowledge, since understanding a given phenomenon invariably opens the door to controlling or manipulating it. I would argue that a stronger case can be made for the value of heightened self-awareness and self-control as a result of typological insight.
