6 responses

1. I have something I want to clarify and a question I want to ask:

   1). First I want to clarify external vs internal standard for the Christian. I know there are those who truly have only internal standards: who really believe their own feelings, thoughts, or inclinations are authoritative, but I don’t think that is a position a Christian can consistently hold. As you mention in an earlier episode, God is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. He is the definition of Truth, Goodness, and Righteousness, the perfect external standard. Which might tempt one to think that those with an internal standard are less Christian, somehow, but I think your discussion on universal standards is intended to address that. We are all incapable of perfectly knowing or understanding God’s standards, since His thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and so the way two Christians might be distinguished is not by whether they bow to God’s standard, but in how they seek know that standard. Those with internal standards might try to learn the standard of God by a) the prompting of the Holy Spirit b) by their study of the Word of God c) by reading 18 books on a subject and picking bits and pieces from several to make a whole d) by prayer and meditation. And those with external standards might try to learn the standards of God by a) the teaching of a pastor or pope b) by reading a favorite author or listening to a favorite podcast c) by how their parents taught them d) by tradition

   Does this align with your understanding?

   2). I have a question about internal and external standards and how they relate to introversion and extroversion. There are multiple definitions of an introvert and an extrovert, but at least some of them overlap with the way you described approaches to standards in a way I’d like to explore. Do you think introversion and extroversion align with how people have standards? If so, do you think it is a complete overlap or just a correlation? You mentioned how one with external standards doesn’t like being out of alignment with the community, but I think it is possible to really want to fit in, and really value relationships and tribe, but also to prioritize one’s individual conscience/standard over the community standards. Such a person, whose conscience makes them persist in being contrary to their tribe, but who is unsettled by that, rather than enjoying being the rebel would be, based on my understanding of these categories, both an internal standards person and an extrovert. Would you agree?

   Reply

   • Lisa!
     First, this is really good. Thank you so much for taking so much time to think through these things.

     I had a similar misgiving about the possibility of misunderstanding the internal/external standard. I thought there might be people who basically assumed that having an internal standard would be wrong, especially if we’re supposed to submit ourselves to rightful authority and to God. And on the other hand, there could also be people who believe defaulting to an external standard is wrong, since we are to obey God rather than human beings. How you have described my understanding on this is right on. I agree with your clarification and wish I had explained it more like you just did. Haha! For a Christian, the internal or external standard distinction is about a proclivity or default inclination in the person to formulate their standard (source) and also to assess their alignment with that standard (feedback). Ultimately, everyone must be convinced in their own mind. But some default to internal means for their standard source and feedback on alignment. Others default to an external means. Depending on what the community standard might be (which could be better or worse, depending on the community) and the internal resources a person has (which again, could be better or worse depending on the individual), defaulting to one or the other has its advantages and pitfalls. I really appreciate your clarification on this.

     I also considered how the internal/external standard could relate to introversion/extroversion. I considered talking about it in the episode, but as you’re about to see, I’m not entirely clear on how they relate. I’m glad you thought about it too, and am happy to bumble my way through some thoughts on it. As you said, there are a lot of definitions of introvert/extrovert. The one I think makes most sense and actually produces meaningful distinctions is that the introvert has a lower threshold for risk when it comes to interactions with the unknown (either personal or circumstantial). An extrovert has a higher threshold. Meaning that the extrovert does not pay the same opportunity cost emotionally or psychologically that an introvert feels in the company of untested or unknown people or circumstances. I say this because most introverts have little difficulty being sociable and comfortable in circumstances or with people they know and trust (though that trust might be more easily broken, since there is a vigilance—sometimes a hyper-vigilance—in most introverts that continually monitors these things). I hope that makes sense. I like this description of the distinction better than the common “introvert=likes being alone; extrovert=likes being with people” because in my experience, most introverts are also human beings—they too are social beings. They just want greater control over the risks they are taking concerning the unknown.

     How this relates to internal/external standards is not all that clear. It’s not even clear whether either of these polarities is immutable. Can a person learn how to be one or the other over time? Probably. An internal standard person is more likely to be out of accord with his community standards. So, in order to be able to cope with this, he will either have to be a powerful extrovert (meaning he does not fear the unknown in social interactions and is easily able to throw off the burden of social pressures and deal with social conflict) or, as an introvert, he will have to retreat most carefully to the solace of a carefully selected tribe. In other words, an internal standard person could either be a Socrates or an Emily Dickinson. Socrates could clearly cope with, and had no aversion to, being at odds with the larger community and spending huge amounts of time talking to basic strangers, even at risk of death and rejection. Dickinson, by contrast, spent most of her adult life in seclusion at her father’s house. She either didn’t want or need social interaction or greatly feared it. Either way, she didn’t seek or want it. On the other hand, a person with an external standard wants community approval, and will because of this probably have a generally larger trusted social network. But they will still want to trust and know that network. In other words, they will still want to find a tribe, and that tribe might be small or large depending on their starting conditions. If you grew up in a cult, for instance, you might be external standard, but you would learn to fear the incursion of the larger community standard and might not have the emotional capital to bear the risks of the unknown. Further, some extroverts pursue community in order to find confirmation in that community (external standard). Others seek a larger community to exercise influence or utilize opportunities in that community (sometimes even at the expense of that community). In other words, introverts and extroverts probably develop depending on other factors than internal or external standards. Again, much of this question depends on how they relate to their particular community, and whether their particular powers put them at risk in the community or make them generally an asset. This could change, depending on the community they are in.

     Most of this boils down to a feeling of vulnerability. That feeling or lack of that feeling could be from ignorance of the larger community or even yourself. You may not know you are very sensitive and vulnerable, if no one ever hurts you. But, as soon as you are hurt or wounded, you will know more about yourself and the outside world. Other times, this ignorance of stranger danger comes from the fact that no one can or will wound you, because you happen to be the most powerful in some asset or spiritual power that everyone around you actually fears or desires. Again, if you are privileged in this way, you will not have the same social pressures or opportunity cost, even if you are out of accord with community standards. Haha! So you can see, I hope, that the issue is a bit complex and ambiguous. Which is why I chose not to dig into it in the episode. I want to keep them around 40 minutes, after all!

     Thanks for commenting, Lisa! I really appreciate it. Great thoughts.

     Reply

     • The definition of introvert and extrovert is new to me and I want to think about it for a while. Thanks for answering

       Reply

       • You’re welcome. I’m not sure my answer was all that helpful. Let me know if you have further thoughts on it. I’d love to hear them. Thanks!

         Reply

2. Michael, I am really enjoying your podcast. Thank you for producing it.

   I have two questions:

   1) It is hard for me to grasp what externalized intellectual-led personality would look like as opposed to internalized. Can you explain?

   2) it is hard for me to imagine the slight difference between Will on the throne partnered with Affection vs the inverse. Maybe that is because mine are naturally so closely allied. Can you explain the slight difference in one being enthroned vs the other might look like?

   Thank you.

   Reply

   • Hi, Joel! Thanks! I’m enjoying making it, and I’m glad it’s been a joy for you too. I’ll do my best to answer your questions as far as I see it.

     1) The intellect desires to know the truth of what is. An external standard intellect will judge its progress in the truth according to a received standard: what a chosen community has delivered as true. I talked in episode two about how some people who think they are rational first are actually volitional (will-oriented), and this would be made obvious when they judged wrong thinking as immoral—not just incorrect, but actually “not allowed.” External standard intellects would stop at “incorrect.” They would certainly have accepted paradigms and authorities, provided by their community (which could be chosen or unchosen), but they wouldn’t believe out-of-accord-with-this-standard thinking was necessarily immoral. Just incorrect. Likely they would not believe they had the internal resources to alter premises or foundations of the community intellectual deposit. They would likely reject contrary opinions and ways of thinking as being untested or unproven. Internal standard intellects want to decide for themselves. They would be much more likely to countenance any number of alternative premises and ways of thinking, and they wouldn’t necessarily trust the opinions or corrections of their community group. They would also have no problem continuing the search for the truth, even when others in their community had already decided. There are risks and advantages in both standards. The external standard intellect is likely to submit to proven and tested information naturally, and thereby does not “re-invent the wheel” quite as much as the internal standard intellect. But the external standard intellect would be more likely to develop and propound information on faulty premises, long after those premises had started to evidence their inadequacy. In other words, they would be more likely to prop up an intellectual “paradigm” (to use a structuralist term) that actually needed to be replaced. I hope that helps with that.

     2) This one is trickier, since as you noticed, there seems to be more parity and commonality between the affections and will, not just in you, but in most people. We’re talking about nuances that are sometimes hard to discern outside of a specific circumstance that makes a fine conflict apparent. We also have not yet talked about disorders of the powers which add further wrinkles into this discussion. After that, we’ll talk about the powers as such, and we’ll discuss how each power has a sort of three power reality within itself. I’ll explain that a little bit here, because it helps. Each power has a main goal, a main standard, and a main function. So the will’s main goal is righteousness, its main standard is Law, and its main function is choosing or doing. The affections have the goal of life or good, its main standard is Taste, and its main function is loving. The goal of the intellect is truth, its standard is Knowledge, and its function is believing or knowing. So we know that the lead faculty chooses the goal, and likely the standard, and more than likely prefers to use its own function. So a will-affections person (will first) will firstly have the goal of righteousness according to his accepted law (internally developed or externally received), and likely “doing/performing” would be chosen in this person over enjoying/loving or knowing if a choice had to be made. But you can see that this person, because of the partnership, will want to enjoy what he does (for work), though the work and what that work “says about him” and not the enjoyment of it will be what drives him first. Also he will be more likely to refine his taste, since taste is the law/will of the affections. Especially as his taste contributes to his community status or self-image, both issues of importance to the will (where the self-image mostly resides). One way or the other, this person desires to be justified/righteous, and the affections will be used to bolster that: with better taste, right feeling, and satisfaction in a job well done.

     If the affections are first, the goal of the affections, life and good, become paramount, the standard of personal taste comes first, and the function of loving and enjoying becomes most preferred. In this partnership, the will’s doing function becomes a means of getting more good (the desire of the affections). But in this case, the affectional person may not be interested in status, performance, or “rightness,” but only in enjoyment. Oddly, and this probably adds to the confusion that sparked your question, the affectional person might actually have less refined taste than the will-oriented person in this case. He may not have the same inclination to “law” in his enjoyment. He also might have less power to acquire what he desires. Since enjoyment would be prioritized over doing/performing, it would be very important for these kinds of people to like what they do, and they would be less able to persevere cheerfully in a job that wasn’t enjoyable to them. They would also be more bothered by short-term harms to themselves and to others, even if those harms were necessary or “right.” This type of person would make a good caregiver, or if they have great gifts in will as well, they might make great businessmen, entrepreneurs, or like I said in the episode, philanthropists.

     I hope that helps. Still a lot to discern on an individual basis, but perhaps that gives you some more tools to use. Thank you for listening and engaging. I really appreciate it!

     Reply