미위마인드

멘탈 모델링 코칭, 영문판 교정보기

내 안에 있는 우리 — Sat, 6 Jun 2026 10:13:42 +0900

<멘탈 모델링 코칭> 영문판 교정보기

드디어 영문판의 1차 교정본이 나왔네요.

기존 내용을 핵심 중심으로 축약한 후

영문판을 작성했습니다.

책의 구성은 그대로 유지하고

책의 제목은 한 단어로 강조했죠.

부제는 책의 현장 적용을 돕는 실용성을

전달하도록 바꿨습니다.

모두 아마존 스타일에 철저히 맞추었죠.

책의 분량은 기존 책의 56%죠.

독자가 쉽게 읽으면서도 한국에서

전개되는 효과성 코칭을 접하도록 구성했습니다.

‘나(ME)’를 뒤집으면 ‘우리(WE)’가 된다는

인식 전환을 통해, ‘내 안에 우리가 있다‘는 자각을 각성하죠.

인간은 본래 독립적이며 고립된 존재가 아니라

관계적 존재라는 철학적 통찰을 전하려고요.

이러한 미위마인드(MEWEMIND)는

서로 연결된 공동체 의식을 통해

실질적인 성과 향상과 삶의 변화를 창출하는

AI 시대에 필요한 새로운 신념이며 멘탈 모델입니다.

- 생각 파트너

멘탈 모델링 코칭이란

내 안에 있는 우리 — Tue, 26 May 2026 15:32:05 +0900

<모자무싸 보셨나요?>

‘더 많이 하는 시대가 아니라,

더 나은 내가 되는 시대‘

Doing보다 Being에

주목할 시대에 살고 있죠.

AI 시대에 필요한 새로운 멘탈 모델입니다.

구형 멘탈 모델(Doing 중심)을

신형 멘탈 모델(Being 중심)로 바꿔보세요?

어떻게?

<멘탈 모델링 코칭> 책을 읽고

그룹스터디, 세미나 참석 등을 해보세요.

https://icfkorea.or.kr/programs/regular-seminars/355

- 생각 파트너

어떻게 개인, 팀과 조직은 하나로 연결될까

내 안에 있는 우리 — Sun, 24 May 2026 21:51:05 +0900

“내 안에 우리가 있다.”

미위마인드(MEWEMIND) 안에서

어떻게 개인, 팀과 조직은 하나로 연결될까요?

전일적 관점(holistic perspective)에서 본

온전한 존재(being as a whole)인 우리는

우리성(Weness)을 통해 완전히 하나로 연결됩니다.

이러한 연결은 멘탈 모델을 통해 완성되죠.

미위마인드는 AI 시대에 필요한 새로운 멘탈 모델입니다.

6/15 ICF Korea 6월 월례세미나에서 소통해요.

https://icfkorea.or.kr/programs/regular-seminars/355

-생각 파트너

멘탈 모델링 코칭-후속편 집필

내 안에 있는 우리 — Fri, 22 May 2026 10:05:37 +0900

6월 1일부터 새책을 쓰기 시작합니다.

이 책은 신간 <멘탈 모델링 코칭>의 후속편입니다.

신간을 집필하며 구상한 것을 원고로 바꾸는 것이라서

아마도 3~4개월 원고 작성을 하면,

올 10월에 책 전체 원고를 완성할 수 있을 것입니다.

빠르면 연말, 늦으면 2027년 초에 출간할 수 있을 것입니다.

책 이름도 저자의 입장에서 확정입니다.

- 생각 파트너 이석재

새로운 멘탈 모델, 미위마인드(MEWEMIND)

내 안에 있는 우리 — Tue, 19 May 2026 11:44:11 +0900

6월 ICF 코리아 월례 세미나 안내

내 안에 있는 우리 — Mon, 18 May 2026 18:33:18 +0900

<6월 세미나 안내>

6/15일 저녁 8:00~9:45,

ICF 코리아 챕터 6월 세미나에서

‘멘탈 모델링 코칭이 새로운 길이다’라는 주제로 강의합니다.

관심 있는 분들은 첨부한 안내를 보세요. 참가를 환영합니다.

- 생각 파트너

출처: https://coachall.tistory.com/1651 [코치올:티스토리]

멘탈 모델링 코칭, 창안자는 누구?

내 안에 있는 우리 — Mon, 18 May 2026 05:45:50 +0900

‘멘탈 모델링 코칭 Mental Modeling Coaching)’이란 타이틀을 가진 자료를 검색하도록 했죠. 특히 이 개념의 창안자를 물었죠. AI는 나의 코칭교육 과정과 신간을 찾아서 알려주네요.

- 생각 파트너, '멘탈 모델링 코칭' 창안자

<검색 결과 발췌>

One of the few explicit modern uses of the exact phrase appears in a Korean coaching/training program:

“멘탈 모델링 코칭 (Mental Modeling Coaching)” published on the MeWeMind site in 2026.

mewemind.com

Based on currently searchable web records, there does not appear to be a historically established or canonical origin point for the exact term “mental modeling coaching.” It seems to be a relatively recent applied coaching phrase rather than a formal academic discipline.

출처: https://coachall.tistory.com/1650 [코치올:티스토리]

최적 기능에 부합하는 멘털 모델링

내 안에 있는 우리 — Sun, 17 May 2026 05:41:56 +0900

오늘날 개인의 삶과 일터를 보면,

구형 멘탈 모델을 신형 멘탈로 바꿔야 할

필요성을 절감하죠.

최적 기능에 부합하는 자기 변화 노력이

어느 때 보다 중요하네요.

만들어지는 변화가 아니라

자기 주도적으로 만드는 변화 말이죠.

과유불급!

- 생각 파트너

멘탈 모델 연구의 공통점과 차이점

내 안에 있는 우리 — Sat, 16 May 2026 05:57:13 +0900

<멘탈 모델 연구의 공통점과 차이점>

이석재 Ph.D., PCC, CPCC

멘탈 모델링 코칭 창시자

2026. 5. 16

1. 메타 AI에게 이번에 출간한 <멘탈 모델링 코칭>의 내용과 생각 파트너의 블로그 등을 소개하면서 멘탈 모델 연구의 주요 학자인 Craik, Argyris/Schön, Munger/Parrish, Lee & Lee 2026를 비교분석하도록 요청했습니다.

2. 메타 AI가 <멘탈 모델링 코칭>에 대해 전혀 모르더군요. 이와 관련된 생각 파트너의 코칭 활동과 연구 결과물, 책 등을 참고자료로 소개했습니다. 생각 파트너의 코칭 연구를 국외 인물에게 소개하기 위해 영문으로 소통했습니다.

How Lee & Lee relate to the broader mental-models tradition

Kenneth Craik, 1943

Origin of the term.

Craik proposed humans carry a small-scale internal model of external reality and use it to try out alternatives mentally. It was a cognitive-science hypothesis about representation and prediction.

Link: Lee & Lee keep Craik’s idea that we live by an internal model, but move it from descriptive cognitive theory to prescriptive coaching intervention.

Difference: Craik is about how the mind works; Lee & Lee are about how to deliberately diagnose and rebuild that working model for optimal functioning.

Chris Argyris & Donald Schön, 1970s-1990s

Organizational learning and action science.

Mental models = deeply held internal images of how the world works that govern action. Argyris distinguished espoused theory vs theory-in-use, and single-loop vs double-loop learning. Change requires surfacing and testing governing variables.

Link: Lee & Lee’s “Courage to Unlearn” and “Deconstructing the Familiar Self” is double-loop learning in coaching language. The ABC Framework mirrors Argyris’ A → B → C causal chain.

Difference: Argyris is organizational and defensive-routine focused. Lee & Lee add a neuroscience framing, a structured 3S-FORM engine, and an explicit internalization + self-coaching phase for individual sustainability. They also scale to WE via MEWEMIND, which is more ontological-relational than Argyris’ behavioral science.

Charlie Munger & the Farnam Street tradition

Practical decision-making latticework.

Munger popularized collecting mental models from multiple disciplines - inversion, second-order thinking, opportunity cost, compounding, etc.- and using them as a checklist for better judgment. Shane Parrish emphasizes building a latticework and reflecting to refine models.

Link: Both traditions value models as tools for better outcomes. Lee & Lee’s “Behavioral Experiments for New Restructuring” echoes Parrish’s learning loop: experience → reflection → model refinement.

Difference in scope:

Munger/Parrish: Epistemic toolbox. You acquire and apply many external models to think more clearly.
Lee & Lee: Ontological restructuring. You work on your core generative model of self-world, via Diagnosis-Change-Execution, with 3S as inner engine and FORM as process scaffold.

Munger asks “What model from biology/economics fits this problem?” Lee & Lee ask “What model is running me, and how do I rebuild it so optimal functioning emerges automatically?”

Difference in method:

Munger: intellectual breadth + inversion + checklists.
Lee & Lee: coaching alliance + unlearning + cognitive error restructuring + behavioral experiments + internalization + organizational MEWEMIND diffusion.

Summary comparison

Dimension	Craik	Argyris/Schön	Munger/Parrish	Lee & Lee 2026
Primary goal	Explain cognition	Improve organizational learning	Improve judgment & decisions	Restructure being for optimal functioning
Unit of change	Internal representation	Theories-in-use & defensive routines	Individual thinker’s toolkit	Embedded being in open system
Key mechanism	Simulation	Double-loop learning	Latticework + reflection	3S-FORM double engine
Social scale	Individual	Team/organization	Individual	ME → WE via MEWEMIND
Success metric	Predictive accuracy	Actionable knowledge	Better decisions	Sustainable optimal functioning + self-coaching

Where Lee & Lee add something distinct

Neuroscience + coaching integration: They explicitly frame mental modeling as neural network restructuring, not just perspective shift.
3S-FORM as dual engine: Inner work 3S and process scaffold FORM are paired, which is more operationalized than Argyris’ inquiry skills or Munger’s checklists.
MEWEMIND ontology: The ME↔WE inversion makes relational growth constitutive, not additive. Change is not complete until it propagates to work, relationships and organization.
Self-coach as endpoint: The final chapter aims to make the client their own reliable partner, closing the loop on dependency.

Reference

이종서 · 이석재 (2026). 멘탈 모델링 코칭. 서울: 코칭북스.

출처: https://coachall.tistory.com/1648 [코치올:티스토리]

Overview the Concept of MEWEMIND

내 안에 있는 우리 — Wed, 13 May 2026 18:59:01 +0900

MEWEMIND official site

“Mewemind” (often styled MEWEMIND) is a Korean coaching and leadership concept created by Sukjae Lee. The core idea is:

“Inside ME, there is WE.”

The name comes from flipping ME into WE symbolically — suggesting that personal identity and collective consciousness are deeply connected. thinkingpartner.co.kr

Core Philosophy

MEWEMIND argues that people are not isolated individuals. Instead:

Your thinking, emotions, and behavior are shaped by relationships and shared meaning.
Personal growth (“ME”) becomes stronger when aligned with community, team, or shared purpose (“WE”).
Sustainable change happens not only through self-improvement techniques, but through restructuring how people relate to others and interpret meaning together.

Main Themes

The framework combines several ideas:

Coaching psychology
Mental modeling
Leadership development
Collective awareness
Behavioral effectiveness
Neuroscience-informed coaching

According to the creator, many change models fail because they focus only on the individual while ignoring the deeper relational and structural context humans operate within.

Key Message

A recurring statement associated with the concept is:

“When you look deeply into ME, you discover WE.”

This means self-awareness should naturally expand into empathy, collaboration, and responsibility toward others.

Practical Application

MEWEMIND appears to be used in:

executive coaching
leadership training
organizational culture work
team alignment
psychological effectiveness coaching

The creator also connects it with a “mental modeling coaching” approach intended to produce more actionable behavioral change.

In Simpler Terms

You can think of MEWEMIND as a blend of:

personal psychology (“Who am I?”)
systems thinking (“How am I connected to others?”)
community-oriented leadership (“How do we function together effectively?”)

It moves away from purely individualistic self-help toward a more relational view of human growth.

If you'd like, I can also explain:

how MEWEMIND compares to Western psychology models,
the “mental modeling” part in detail,
or how it relates to systems thinking, Buddhism, Jungian psychology, or organizational leadership theories.

PART 1: How MEWEMIND compares to Western psychology models.

The assistant said:

MEWEMIND overlaps with several Western psychology traditions, but it combines them in a noticeably more relational and collective-consciousness-oriented way.

Here’s a structured comparison.

1. MEWEMIND vs. Classical Western Individual Psychology

Western Model (Traditional)

A lot of modern Western psychology grew around the autonomous individual:

“Who am I?”
“How do I become successful?”
“How do I optimize myself?”

Examples:

Freud → internal drives/conflict
CBT → individual thought correction
self-help culture → personal achievement
positive psychology → personal flourishing

The individual is usually the primary unit of analysis.

MEWEMIND

MEWEMIND says:

the self is inseparable from relationships and shared systems.

Instead of:

“I improve myself first”

it leans toward:

“My identity already exists inside networks of meaning.”

So growth is not purely internal.
It is:

relational,
systemic,
socially embedded.

This is actually closer to many East Asian philosophical traditions than mainstream Western self-help.

2. MEWEMIND vs. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)

CBT

CBT focuses on:

identifying distorted thoughts,
changing mental patterns,
improving emotional outcomes.

Basic equation:

thoughts → emotions → behaviors

It is highly practical and evidence-based.

MEWEMIND

MEWEMIND seems broader.

It would likely ask:

Where did those thought structures come from?
What collective narratives shaped them?
How do organizational or relational systems reinforce them?

So while CBT often focuses on:

correcting cognition,

MEWEMIND focuses more on:

meaning structures,
identity systems,
shared mental environments.

You could say:

CBT = “change your thoughts”
MEWEMIND = “understand the ecosystem producing your thoughts”

3. MEWEMIND vs. Humanistic Psychology

Humanistic Psychology

Think:

Carl Rogers
Abraham Maslow

Key ideas:

authenticity,
self-actualization,
empathy,
growth potential.

This is one of the closest Western relatives to MEWEMIND.

Similarities

Both emphasize:

human growth,
awareness,
empathy,
deeper meaning,
transformation rather than symptom management.

Differences

Humanistic psychology still centers heavily on:

the authentic individual self.

MEWEMIND appears to push further toward:

collective identity and interconnected consciousness.

Maslow asks:

“How do I become fully myself?”

MEWEMIND asks:

“How does understanding myself reveal the WE I belong to?”

That’s a major philosophical shift.

4. MEWEMIND vs. Systems Thinking

This is probably the strongest comparison.

Systems Thinking

Used in:

organizational psychology,
family therapy,
leadership science.

Key idea:

problems are often produced by systems, not isolated individuals.

Examples:

workplace culture,
family dynamics,
feedback loops,
institutional structures.

Important figures include:

Gregory Bateson
Peter Senge

MEWEMIND

MEWEMIND strongly resembles systems thinking because it:

treats consciousness relationally,
sees individuals as interconnected,
focuses on collective patterns,
emphasizes shared mental models.

The difference is:

systems thinking is usually analytical,
MEWEMIND appears more existential and coaching-oriented.

So:

Systems thinking = structural analysis
MEWEMIND = lived relational transformation

5. MEWEMIND vs. Jungian Psychology

Jungian Psychology

Founded by:

Carl Jung

Jung believed humans share:

archetypes,
collective unconscious,
symbolic structures.

Similarities

MEWEMIND’s “ME inside WE” idea resembles Jung’s belief that:

the individual psyche participates in something larger than itself.

Both value:

symbolic meaning,
deep identity,
collective dimensions of consciousness.

Differences

Jung focused heavily on:

mythology,
symbols,
dream analysis,
archetypes.

MEWEMIND seems more:

practical,
organizational,
coaching-oriented,
behaviorally applied.

You might call it:

a modern organizational reinterpretation of collective-consciousness ideas.

6. MEWEMIND vs. Positive Psychology

Positive Psychology

Associated with:

Martin Seligman

Focus:

happiness,
strengths,
resilience,
flourishing.

MEWEMIND

MEWEMIND appears less focused on:

happiness optimization,

and more focused on:

awareness,
interconnectedness,
alignment,
relational transformation.

Positive psychology often asks:

“How can individuals thrive?”

MEWEMIND asks:

“How can consciousness become aligned across self and collective?”

7. Cultural Difference Underneath Everything

This is probably the deepest distinction.

Many Western Models

Historically rooted in:

individualism,
autonomy,
personal identity,
self-determination.

MEWEMIND

Feels more aligned with:

East Asian relational identity,
collectivist philosophy,
interdependence,
social harmony,
Buddhist-style interconnectedness.

The self is not viewed as fully separate.

That changes:

leadership,
coaching,
emotional development,
responsibility,
even the definition of success.

Simple Summary

Western PsychologyMEWEMIND

Individual-centered	Relationship-centered
Self-improvement	Shared transformation
Internal cognition	Relational meaning systems
Personal success	Collective alignment
“Who am I?”	“How am I connected?”
Autonomous self	Interdependent self

The Most Accurate Short Description

MEWEMIND can be understood as:

a coaching and leadership framework that blends systems thinking, humanistic psychology, and collective-consciousness ideas into a relational model of personal transformation.

Or more simply:

“Western psychology plus systems thinking plus East Asian relational philosophy.”

PART 2: How it relates to systems thinking, Buddhism, Jungian psychology, or organizational leadership theories.

MEWEMIND becomes much easier to understand when you see it as a bridge between:

systems thinking,
Buddhist interdependence,
Jungian depth psychology,
and modern organizational leadership theory.

It is almost like a “translation layer” connecting inner psychology with collective human systems.

1. MEWEMIND and Systems Thinking

This is probably the strongest conceptual overlap.

Core Systems Thinking Idea

Systems thinking says:

people do not operate independently;
behavior emerges from interconnected systems.

A system can be:

a family,
a company,
a culture,
a nation,
a team,
or even shared beliefs.

Important systems concepts include:

feedback loops,
hidden structures,
emergent behavior,
reinforcing patterns,
mental models.

Key figures:

Peter Senge
Gregory Bateson

MEWEMIND’s Connection

MEWEMIND appears to apply systems thinking psychologically.

Instead of saying:

“You alone are the problem,”

it asks:

“What larger relational structure is shaping your thinking and behavior?”

For example:

burnout may come from organizational culture,
conflict may emerge from hidden group assumptions,
anxiety may reflect systemic pressures rather than personal weakness.

Shared Idea: Mental Models

A major systems-thinking concept is:

mental models shape reality.

MEWEMIND strongly emphasizes this too.

Meaning:

humans act according to internalized models,
but those models are socially inherited,
reinforced collectively,
and often invisible.

So:

changing behavior requires changing underlying meaning structures.

That is deeply systems-oriented.

2. MEWEMIND and Buddhism

This connection is philosophical rather than clinical.

Buddhist Core Principle: Interdependence

Many Buddhist traditions teach:

nothing exists independently.

This is called:

dependent origination,
interconnectedness,
interbeing (in some modern interpretations).

The “self” is not fully separate from:

others,
environment,
conditions,
society,
history.

MEWEMIND’s Similarity

MEWEMIND’s slogan:

“Inside ME is WE”

strongly echoes Buddhist relational identity.

Instead of:

isolated ego,

there is:

interconnected existence.

Non-Separation

Buddhism often views suffering as emerging from:

attachment to a rigid separate self.

MEWEMIND similarly challenges purely individualistic identity.

It suggests:

transformation occurs when we recognize relational embeddedness.

Awareness and Observation

Both also emphasize:

self-awareness,
observing mental patterns,
recognizing conditioned thinking,
conscious response instead of automatic reaction.

Difference from Buddhism

MEWEMIND is not a spiritual liberation framework.

It appears designed for:

coaching,
leadership,
organizational transformation,
practical behavioral effectiveness.

So:

Buddhism aims at liberation from suffering,
MEWEMIND aims at relationally intelligent functioning.

3. MEWEMIND and Jungian Psychology

This is where things become psychologically deeper.

Jung’s Main Idea

Carl Jung believed:

the psyche extends beyond conscious ego,
humans share symbolic and collective structures,
identity is partly collective.

His famous concept:

the collective unconscious.

Meaning:

humanity shares inherited psychological patterns (archetypes).

Examples:

mother,
hero,
shadow,
wise elder,
rebirth.

Similarity to MEWEMIND

MEWEMIND also challenges the idea that:

the self is fully isolated.

Both frameworks suggest:

individual identity participates in larger human structures.

Both value:

deeper awareness,
hidden patterns,
symbolic meaning,
transformation of consciousness.

The “Shadow” Parallel

Jung emphasized:

unrecognized patterns control behavior.

MEWEMIND’s “mental models” idea resembles this.

Organizations also develop:

collective shadows,
hidden assumptions,
unconscious norms.

For example:

“success means exhaustion”
“showing weakness is unsafe”
“hierarchy equals value”

These become invisible psychological systems.

Key Difference

Jung focused on:

dreams,
mythology,
archetypes,
symbolic integration.

MEWEMIND appears more:

applied,
organizational,
behavioral,
leadership-oriented.

You could think of it as:

Jungian relational psychology adapted for modern leadership systems.

4. MEWEMIND and Organizational Leadership Theory

This is probably where MEWEMIND is most practical.

Traditional Leadership Models

Older leadership theories often assumed:

leaders control,
followers execute,
organizations function mechanically.

This produced:

rigid hierarchy,
command-and-control structures.

Modern Leadership Theory

Modern leadership increasingly focuses on:

emotional intelligence,
psychological safety,
culture,
systems awareness,
adaptive learning,
collective intelligence.

Important thinkers:

Peter Drucker
Daniel Goleman
Otto Scharmer

MEWEMIND’s Place

MEWEMIND fits strongly into:

transformational leadership,
adaptive leadership,
conscious leadership,
systems leadership.

It suggests:

leadership is not only managing people —
it is shaping shared consciousness and meaning systems.

That is a very modern leadership idea.

Organizational Culture Connection

MEWEMIND especially aligns with the idea that:

culture creates behavior more powerfully than rules.

So instead of asking:

“How do we force performance?”

it asks:

“What collective mindset is generating current behavior?”

This is very similar to:

organizational systems coaching,
culture transformation work,
learning organization theory.

5. The Deeper Integration

The reason MEWEMIND feels unusual is because it blends multiple layers simultaneously:

DomainMain Concern

Systems thinking	Interconnected structures
Buddhism	Interdependence and awareness
Jungian psychology	Collective psyche
Leadership theory	Shared organizational meaning
Coaching	Behavioral transformation

MEWEMIND sits in the overlap zone.

The Big Idea Underneath Everything

Most modern problems are treated as:

individual failures.

MEWEMIND reframes many problems as:

relational,
systemic,
culturally embedded,
collectively reinforced.

That shift changes:

coaching,
leadership,
communication,
identity,
and organizational change.

Simplified One-Sentence Interpretation

MEWEMIND is essentially:

a relational consciousness framework that combines systems thinking, collective psychology, and leadership development to transform both individuals and the systems they belong to.

출처: https://coachall.tistory.com/1643 [코치올:티스토리]