The last article touched on the need to prevent certain predatory psychological types from having disproportionate influence on policy making. Now it is time to discuss how one would go about integrating the talents and opinions of diverse neural breeds of humans to obtain optimal consensus when advising on the rules of the game for any given society.
Lets say we want to have a psychologically diverse advisory council to help out the traditional branches of government. They are diverse to better represent our neurologically pluralistic society (where majority of personality types are dramatically underrepresented in key decision making bodies presently).
Lets say each type is represented by 5 acute and highly qualified (via some meritocratic test and previous experience) individuals of each MBTI type (minus the clinical psychopaths). This means dozens of individuals whose personality types are relatively specialized and single sided in their functioning (50+ on each letter).
Their hypothetical job is to formulate a policy in regards to some new social/technological phenomenon. How should their collaboration be structured?
Some would say that it's sufficient to put them
all into one large room and utilize normal negotiation as well as the delphi method and rounds of direct secret voting to reach agreement. However such arrangement would be the equivalent of various departments within a company merging together to help produce a final product. Lack of compartmentalization may sound lofty on paper but produces the ridiculous sheer chaos of diverse specializations (engineers, marketers, accountants, quality control specialists, etc) negotiating and debating each other simultaneously. Similarly, one cannot just lump all the key MBTI groups into a single space and have them encroach on each others talents without properly conceptualized mechanisms.
The task now is to compartmentalize our large group and create a sort of an advisory factory. The following is one such initial attempt but it comes from just one personality type (myself). Ultimately a diverse MBTI group can formulate on how it should function in a more systemic manner.
We begin by putting the groups into 4 clusters:
1) One to formulate the goals, principles, and broad outline of policy with corresponding moral justification. The group's brains are right hemispheric and intuitive.
[conceptual / theoretic / moral]
2) One to formulate innovative and broad practical implementation of the outlined goals utilizing the latest in research. The group's brains are left hemispheric and intuitive.
[organizational / practical / pragmatic]
3) One to to test the plan for loopholes, patch up sections to better fit with day to day reality, and to provide broad guidelines on effective enforcement. The group's brains are detail oriented and left hemispheric.
[quality controlling / non-abstract / technical]
4) One to market and communicate the plan effectively to greatest amount of people (both policy makers and general public) through various mediums. The groups brains are right hemispheric and detail oriented.
[communicative / artistic / affective]
This may seem like reinvention of the wheel to those familiar with the Hindu varna system of psychological castes. It differs greatly however through hemispheric compartmentalization within the brain. Therefore unlike the Hindu insistence on some sort of rare idealized warrior/philosopher/manager on the top, it's much easier to achieve the same effect from compartmentalized group work.
In essence it would go like this (refer to the previous article on psychopathy for the reason to balance decision making during each step of the way with emotional empathic individuals):
1) Goal making cluster
5 INFPs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 INTPs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 ENFPs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 ENTPs reach consensus amongst themselves
Then > Secondary consensus is reached amongst NFPs and amongst NTPs >
Then > Final consensus is reached between all NPs.
2) Organizational Implementation Cluster
5 INFJs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 INTJs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 ENFJs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 ENTJs reach consensus amongst themselves
Then > Secondary consensus is reached amongst NFJs and amongst NTJs >
Then > Final consensus is reached between all NJs.
3) Quality Control Cluster
5 ISFJs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 ESFJs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 ISTJs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 ESTJs reach consensus amongst themselves
Then > Secondary consensus is reached amongst SFJs and amongst STJs >
Then > Final consensus is reached between all SJs.
4) Marketing Communicative Cluster
5 ISFPs reach consensus amongst themselves
5 ESFPs reach consensus amongst themselves
Then > Final consensus is reached between all SPs.
What about STPs!?
Not to worry. I'm not excluding STPs or not considering them very useful. They are very capable in regards to mechanical problem solving, detail intensive visual collaborative work, and hands on improvisation. It is very possible that they can be integrated into both the third and fourth cluster and have a vital function there. Also, they probably can have key roles in advising councils which focus more on things like civil engineering, ergonomics, and various technologies.
Of course the 4 clusters do not exist in a vacuum and some two way communication between them is essential for integrity of the finished product. This is just the first attempt at utilizing most of the breeds within the human herd in crafting policy that affects the whole herd. It is only fair.