Dabrowski 201

1
Dąbrowski 201:
An Introduction to
Kazimierz Dąbrowski’s
Theory of Positive Disintegration.
W. Tillier
Calgary, Alberta.
All sections revised 2018
Version: 18-33
(Available at: http://www.positivedisintegration.com/Dabrowski201.pdf).

2
“You must polish your

understanding in the light of truth.
Truth is not what you want it to
be; it is what it is, and you must
bend to its power or live a lie.
Free your mind from ego and
thought. The time for thinking is
when you are learning”
(Musashi, 1645/2004, p. 40).
3 Dąbrowski 201 – Table of contents – 1.
• 1. Dąbrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration
• 1.1. Introduction and context. ……………………….………………….Slide: 006
• 1.2. Who was Kazimierz Dąbrowski? ……………………….…………Slide: 023
• 1.3. Marie Jahoda. ……………………….……………………………... Slide: 030
• 1.4. Multilevelness: Levels of reality. ……………………….………… Slide: 036
• 1.5. Developmental Potential. ……………………….………………... Slide: 055
• 1.5.1. General Prerequisites. ……………………….…………… Slide: 055
• 1.5.2. Advanced Development is Rare. ………………………… Slide: 058
• 1.5.3. Developmental Potential. ……………………….………… Slide: 065
• 1.5.4. Overexcitability. ……………………….…………………… Slide: 073
• 1.5.5. Three Factors of Development. ……………….…………. Slide: 087
• 1.5.6. The Third Factor. ……………………….………………….. Slide: 095
• 1.6. Key Constructs. ……………………….………………………….. Slide: 105
• 1.6.1. Psychoneuroses. ……………….………………………….. Slide: 106
• 1.6.2. Adjustment. ……………….………………………………… Slide: 111
• 1.6.3. Dynamisms. ……………….……………………………….. Slide: 116
• 1.6.4. Personality. ……………….………………………………… Slide: 122
• 1.6.5. Instincts. ……………….……………………………………. Slide: 133
• 1.6.6. Self-education. ……………….…………………………….. Slide: 137
• 1.6.7. Autopsychotherapy. ………………………………………... Slide: 142
• 1.6.8. Inner psychic milieu (IPM). …….………………………….. Slide: 145
• 1.7. Emotion and Values in Development. ……………………….….. Slide: 148
• 1.8. Disintegration. ……………………….…………………………….. Slide: 158
• 1.9. The Levels. ……………………….………………………………… Slide: 169
• 1.10. Applications of the Theory. ……………………….…………….. Slide: 178
• 1.10.1. General Applications of the Theory. ……………………. Slide: 178
• 1.10.2. Applications in Education. …………..…………………… Slide: 186
• 1.10.3. Applications in Gifted Education. ……………………….. Slide: 193
• 1.11. Current and Future Issues. ……………………….…………….. Slide: 212
• 1.12. Conclusion. ……………………….………….…………………… Slide: 219
• 2. Tillier’s Hierarchy of Dąbrowski. ……………………….…………………Slide: 223
• 3. Dąbrowski and John Hughlings Jackson. ……………………….………Slide: 225
• 4. Dąbrowski and Positive Psychology. ……………………….……………Slide: 231
• 4.1. Overview ……………….………………………………..…………. Slide: 231
• 4.2. Growth Following Adversity / Posttraumatic Growth ……………Slide: 235
• 5. Dąbrowski and Maslow. ……………………….………….……………… Slide: 247
• 6. Dąbrowski and Philosophy. ……………………….………….…………. Slide: 275
• 6.1 Dąbrowski and Kierkegaard. ………………….……………………Slide: 279
• 6.2 Dąbrowski and Nietzsche. ……………………….…………………Slide: 327
• 6.3 Dąbrowski and Unamuno. ……………………………………..….. Slide: 378
• 6.4 Dąbrowski and Plato. ……………………….………………………Slide: 396
• 7. Creativity in the Theory of Positive Disintegration. …………………… Slide: 441
• 8. Dąbrowski’s approach to testing: An introduction. ……………………. Slide: 466
• 9. Dąbrowski and Piechowski. ……………………….………….…………. Slide: 560
• 10. Misrepresentations of the Theory of Positive Disintegration. ………. Slide: 641
• 11. Acknowledgments. ……………………….………….…………………... Slide: 652
• [Appendix 1: Schmidt (1977).] ………………….…………………………... Slide: 653
• [Appendix 2: Authoritarian personality.] ………………………………...…. Slide: 659
• [Appendix 3: Moral Disengagement.] …………………………………..….. Slide: 673
• [Appendix 4: Nomological Networks.] ……………………………………… Slide: 678
• Reward for Those Who Persevered..………….…………………………... Slide: 684
• References. ……………………….………….…………………………...... See below
Dąbrowski 201 Master References

Available at: http://www.positivedisintegration.com/ref.pdf
66
• 1. Dąbrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration

• 1.1 Introduction and context.
7 The Strategy of this Presentation.
• Dąbrowski’s work has never been easy to overview
because there are many interrelated constructs.
• Direct quotes from Dąbrowski will illustrate his ideas.
• Used a unique “dynamic” approach: one construct has
different descriptions at different developmental levels.
• Dąbrowski’s thinking was quite original and his
conclusions often challenge the status quo.
• Dąbrowski’s thinking was shaped by diverse
influences, I review some of the most important in
detail, revealing a number of foundational planks.
• The real introduction to Dąbrowski remains reading his
original works and seeing his ideas emerge.
8 Dąbrowski’s Theory.
• Dąbrowski wrote a broad, interrelated and nuanced
theory to account for human development:
• He integrated many diverse streams of thought, from
philosophy, from psychiatry, from psychology, from
neurophysiology and from literature.
• Dąbrowski’s English works represent a sample of his
overall publications (~ 2X as many in Polish).
• As material is translated, more detail will emerge.
• There is an intuitive element in comprehending
Dąbrowski; as some have said, “it’s a theory best
understood by its application in one’s life,” some who
approach it academically, “just don’t seem to get it.”
9 Several Radical Core Ideas – 1.
• Positive disintegration: Psychological growth can only take
place if one’s status quo is challenged by crises and one
undergoes dis-integration. This disintegration is positive when it
leads to development, not simply a re-integration.
• Personality shaping: Most people take personality for granted

and express “who they are” with little reflection. Personality in
TPD is a hard won creation, beginning with a long self-
examination leading to an idealization of who one wants to be,
followed by shaping of one’s behavior toward gradual
achievement of that ideal.
• Psychoneuroses: Rejecting traditional views, psychoneuroses

are seen as a critical part of growth. Severe depression, self-
doubt & anxieties are the crises (dis-ease) that challenge one’s
comfortable adjustment and force self-examination.
10 Several Radical Core Ideas – 2.
• Levels: As with intellect (IQ), instinctive and emotional aspects
can be described and understood on different levels.
Appreciating these levels gives context and perspective to
understanding the wide range of behaviour humans express.
• Developmental potential: Dąbrowski studied exemplars of

development and concluded they show a unique set of factors
not seen in non-exemplars. He called these factors
development potential (DP). Strong positive DP is a genetically
based foundation for advanced psychological development. Not
everyone has these genetic potentials.
• Multilevelness: Growth is connected to a vertical perception of

reality creating comparisons of higher versus lower levels.
Those with a “unilevel” view see only horizontal choices and are
limited in their ability to achieve growth.
11 Frustrating Ideas And Language.
• A basic contradiction: How can psychological
disintegration be positive?
• Psychology assumes that the development process is
universal—we all develop along the same basic path.
TPD says advanced development (and personality) is
rare and follows a non-traditional path.
• Frustrating to learn TPD because it often uses

traditional words (e.g., personality) to describe ideas
that are used in a unique way. Also because the ideas
are interrelated in a complex network: It takes time to
see the “big picture.”
• Many new constructs and terms are introduced.

12 A nomological network of constructs.*
• Dąbrowski’s work contains many (~20) interrelated,
generally unique constructs, generally in hierarchical
relationships (* see Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; see Appendix 4).
One example: Personality Ideal

ñ-Autonomy / Authenticity
ñ-Hierarchy of Values
ñ-Third Factor
ñ-Inner Psychic Milieu
ñ-Multilevelness
ñ-Hierarchization
ñ-Positive Disintegration
ñ-Psychoneurosis
ñ-Developmental Potential
13 Other Developmental Theories Fall Short.
• The differentiation of developmental levels is common
in theories of biology, philosophy and psychology:
• Many theories present various hierarchies detailing levels.
• A wide variety of descriptions and explanations of
development have been proposed.
• Most approaches suggest all people have the potential to
advance, but most people fail to achieve their full potential for
various reasons (e.g. run out of energy).
• Dąbrowski said he could not find a psychological
theory that explained his observations of both the
lowest behaviors and highest achievements of people.
• His goal: to write a “general theory of development”
accounting for the wide range of behaviors seen, and
explaining the factors and processes that he believed
are associated with advanced development.
14 Personality Theories.
15 Combination of Old and New Approaches.
• Dąbrowski assembles old ideas in a unique way:
• Subsumes a traditional Piagetian (cognitive)
approach under an emotion—based umbrella.
• Places emotion in a unique guiding role.
• Dąbrowski adds several new and unique constructs:
• Multilevelness (ML)
• Developmental Potential (DP) [includes
overexcitability (OE) and third factor].
• Positive Disintegration: Initial psychological
integrations are governed by lower instincts and by
socialization. These lower integrations must break
down to allow the creation of new, higher structures.
16 A Philosophical and Psychological Approach.
• The theory combines two different philosophical
traditions: elements of the essentialism of Plato with
the emphasis on individual choice in existentialism
(he called this the “existentio-essentialist compound”).
• Essence is king, but it’s not enough for one’s essence
to unfold, it must be shaped by one’s existential
choices: attributes that are consciously evaluated and
developed—the lower aspects inhibited, the higher
embraced—this differentiates humans from animals.
• Dąbrowski was deeply concerned with the unique traits
and personality of each individual. He asks us to
develop and differentiate ourselves and to understand,
appreciate, and accept the differences of others.
17 What is Development? – 1.
• Dąbrowski presented a “mixed” view of development.
• Traditional views of development are ontological: a
predictable, sequential, timeline (milestone) pathway.
Higher levels unfold from the features of lower ones.
• Dąbrowski described both ontological pathways as
well as non-ontological aspects of development,
depending upon the features and levels involved.
• Non-ontological aspects do not arise from, nor are
they predictable from, the features of lower levels; they
are predicated on “other factors” or emerge anew as
evolution proceeds.
• Higher levels reflect a new view of reality. Lower levels
disintegrate or are transcended or transformed.
18 What is Development? – 2.
• “two main qualitatively different stages and types of
life: the heteronomous, which is biologically and
socially determined, and the autonomous, which is
determined by the multilevel dynamisms of the inner
psychic milieu” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 5).
• Each type has characteristic developmental
processes.
• Higher levels reflect higher, newer evolutionary levels,
achieved through processes of positive disintegration.
• There are metaphysical aspects to Dąbrowski. In the
self, “the inner psychic milieu” and “third factor” arise
from lower level “roots” to become emergent,
developmental forces in their own right, transcending
their biological and social origins and influences.
19 An Emotion – Value Based Approach.
• Values and moral behavior are critical—when one
comes to see what “ought to be” versus “what is.”
• Our emotions are the ultimate guide to our values,
sense of self, and behavior, not our intelligence.
• Values are individual but not relative—there are core
objective (universal) values that authentic humans will
independently discover and embrace as they build
their own unique value systems and personalities.
• Education must not indoctrinate: it should prepare the
child for life. A balanced approach is advocated;
personality, intellect and emotional factors are all
important. The role of emotions in guiding values and
to become an autonomous thinker are vital aspects.
20 The Role of Emotion in Development.
• Emotion anchors and guides the creation of
autonomous and authentic human values.
• Our feelings work with imagination to develop a sense
of what is higher and what ought to be, over “what is:”
• We move away from what feels bad / wrong / lower.
• We move toward what feels good / right / higher.
• If we become conscious of our higher emotions, we
can use them as a rudder to direct cognition to strive
for what “ought to be”—toward “higher possibilities.”
• Intelligence becomes an instrument serving our

sense of personality ideal, based upon our own
emotional sense of who we ought to strive to be.
21 Emotion – A New Appreciation.
• The highest levels in traditional theories are based on
cognition (e.g. Platonic model, Piagetian model).
• Traditional goal: to have reason control and direct
passion (Plato)—this approach has predominated
education and psychology.
• Dąbrowski looked at emotional expression based upon
the level of development thereby differentiating higher
emotions from lower ones.
• Love at Level I vs. IV is as different as love and hate.
• Dąbrowski’s observation: In “higher,” authentic people,
“higher” emotions guide individual values and define
our sense of who we are. Intelligence becomes
subservient to the direction of emotion.
22 Dąbrowski’s English Books.
• The titles of Dąbrowski’s six major English books
reflect the major themes of his approach:
• Positive disintegration (1964).
• Personality shaping through positive disintegration
(1967).
• Mental growth through positive disintegration
(1970).
• Psychoneurosis is not an illness (1972).
• Dynamics of Concepts (1973).

• Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive functions
(1996).
23
• 1.2. Who was Kazimierz Dąbrowski?

24 Kazimierz Dąbrowski (1902-1980).
• A Polish psychologist and psychiatrist.
• Deeply affected by his life experience, first as a child
eyewitness to the aftermath of horrific battles in WW I.
• Pursued a very comprehensive and diverse education.
• Saw that people display wide variations in how they
experience and feel life—some seem to feel more.
• Experienced strong “overexcitability” as a youth.
• Deeply affected again by WW II—imprisoned by the
Germans and later imprisoned under the communists
and his activities were controlled during the 1950’s.
• Much work was completed from 1965 to 1980.
• For biographies, see http://positivedisintegration.com/

25 A Precocious Student.
• While still in high school, Dąbrowski passed his first
and second year university examinations.
• Dąbrowski did a Masters in philosophy and considered
a career in music, but his best friend (a fellow student)
committed suicide, changing the direction of his life.
• Dąbrowski entered medicine taking courses from
eminent Polish psychiatrist, Jan Mazurkiewicz, a
follower of J. H. Jackson. In 1928 he took courses from
Édouard Claparède and Jean Piaget, writing a thesis
on suicide in 1929.
• He completed a doctorate degree in psychology writing
a thesis on self-mutilation.
26 A Diverse Education Continues.
• Studied psychoanalysis in Vienna under fellow Pole
Wilhelm Stekel (attended lectures by Freud).
• In Paris he practiced psychiatry under Pierre Janet.
• Dąbrowski became fluent in German, Spanish and
French. Centers studying TPD were established in
Spain and Lima, Peru. Some books were translated
into Spanish (he lectured in Lima, Peru) and some
books were also translated into French.
• In 1933 Dąbrowski spent a year at Harvard and in
Boston. Dąbrowski never referenced William James
but may have been familiar with his work: James
(1899) essentially described “overexcitability” in terms
similar to Dąbrowski’s.
27 A Promising Career.
• In the 1930s, he organized mental health services and
clinics in Poland. Began to write prolifically, the outline
of TPD can be seen in his first English work in 1937.
• During WWII, he was imprisoned several times by the
German police (released for ransom) but avoided
incarceration in the concentration camp system.
• In the late 1940s Dąbrowski began to resume his work
on mental health and again visited Harvard.
• In 1950 Dąbrowski was imprisoned by the communist
government for 18 months and, after release, his
activities were closely monitored.
• In 1964 Dąbrowski worked with Jason Aronson in New
York, leading to Positive Disintegration (Little, Brown).
28 Roots in Canada.
• Dąbrowski met Andrew Kawczak in Montréal in 1964.
• In 1965, Dąbrowski became affiliated with the
University of Alberta, moving his family to Edmonton.
• He was also affiliated with Université Laval (Laval
University), Quebec City.
• In 1966, Dąbrowski met Abraham Maslow and the two
became friends and correspondents.
• All his life, Dąbrowski worked tirelessly to write about
and promote TPD. Splitting his time between Alberta,
Québec and Poland, Dąbrowski never seemed to stop.
• Several of his Edmonton colleagues also became co-
authors; Dexter Amend, Michael Piechowski & Marlene
Rankel.
29 A Chapter Closes.
• In 1975, at the age of 73, Dąbrowski purchased an
estate in Poland with plans to develop a new center.
• In 1976, I became Dąbrowski’s last student in
Edmonton and he asked me to keep his theory alive. I
later received his unpublished papers.
• In 1979, Dąbrowski had a serious heart attack in
Edmonton and died in Warsaw, November 26, 1980.
• He was buried beside his friend, Piotr Radlo, in the
forest near his old Institute at Zagórze, Poland.
• I became a psychologist, created the TPD webpage
www.positivedisintegration.com and archived his work.
• Piechowski went on to apply Dąbrowski’s idea of OE to
gifted education, stimulating a broad new audience.
30
• 1.3. Marie Jahoda.

31 Jahoda’s Approach – 1.
• Marie Jahoda was a major influence on Dąbrowski.
• Jahoda (1958, p. 23) delineated six main features of
positive mental health:
1. Indicators of positive mental health should be
sought in the attitudes of an individual toward his own
self. Positive self-attitudes (self perception).
2. The individual’s style and degree of growth,

development, or self-actualization are expressions of
mental health. This set of criteria, in contrast to the
first, is not concerned with self-perception but with
what one does with one’s self over a period of time.
3. Integration: A central synthesizing psychological
function, incorporating some of the suggested criteria
defined in 1) and 2) above. Integration is the
relatedness of all processes and attributes in an
individual.
4. Autonomy singles out the individual’s degree of
independence from social influences as most
revealing of the state of his or her mental health;
5. The adequacy of an individual’s perception of
reality.
6. There were suggestions that environmental mastery
be regarded as another criterion for mental health.
• Following Jahoda (1958), Dąbrowski said that mental
health should not be defined simply by the presence or
absence of symptoms, rather, definitions of mental
health must be concerned with views of individuals as
they ought to be and by the potential of the individual
to achieve ideal, desirable, developmental qualities.
• Dąbrowski defined mental health as: “Development

towards higher levels of mental functions, towards the
discovery and realization of higher cognitive, moral,
social, and aesthetic values and their organization into
a hierarchy in accordance with one’s own authentic
personality ideal” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 298).
• The influence of Jahoda’s six main points can be felt in
Dąbrowski’s thinking, especially in terms of the goal of
advanced development [paraphrased]:
• an autonomous, consciously derived hierarchy of
values, marking the creation of an idealized vision of
self—the unique personality of the individual,
encapsulated by his or her personality ideal.
• Dąbrowski believed that the moral guidelines one
ought to follow must be of one’s own creation. To
paraphrase Frederick Nietzsche, each of us must
create our own values and personality and thus walk
our own path in life.
• Dąbrowski’s observations of people and his adoption
of Jahoda led him to an unusual conclusion: that
individual personality is not universally, or even
commonly, achieved. The average “well socialized”
person lacks a unique personality and therefore cannot
be considered mentally healthy—the “state of primary
integration is a state contrary to mental health”
(Dąbrowski, 1964b, p. 121)
• “Mental illness consists in the absence or deficiency of

processes which effect development:”
• “1) either a strongly integrated, primitive,
psychopathic structure [Level I], or
• 2) a negative, non-developmental disintegration
(psychosis)” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 173).
36
• 1.4. Multilevelness: Levels of reality.

37 Levels of Function – 1.
• Definition: “The qualitative and quantitative differences
which appear in mental functions as a result of
developmental changes. . . .
• Lower levels are characterized by automatism,

impulsiveness, stereotypy, egocentrism, lack of, or
low degree of consciousness. . . .
• Higher levels show distinct consciousness, inner
psychic transformation, autonomousness, creativity”
(Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 297).
• Basic to Dąbrowski’s view of authentic human beings:

• “The reality of mental functions in man is dynamic,
developmental and multilevel” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 122).
38 Levels of Function – 2.
• Dąbrowski’s view influenced by Mazurkiewicz’s four
levels of psychical organization (Kokoszka, 2007, p. 103).
• 1. Instinctive: first three months.
• 2. Reflexively Conditioned: until the 3rd year of age.
• 3. Prelogical: until age 6. (intracortical processes).
• 4. Logical: age 6 on. Frontally linked mechanisms.
• “Accepting the neo-Jacksonian approach, it is
postulated that different harmful psychological and
biological factors can cause a dissolution to a lower
level. However, the opposite possibility is admitted,
claiming that some profitable factors may cause an
evolution” (Kokoszka, 2007, p. 103).
39 The Unilevel Versus the Multilevel.
• Two fundamentally different views of reality. The lower,
basic perception is horizontal—unilevel. The higher,
developmental view is vertical—multilevel.
• Unilevel views of reality encompass only horizontal
elements. Only phenomena on the same level are
perceived and considered in decision making.
• Most behaviors can be categorized as UL or ML.
• Likewise, motivations and processes of development
can reflect either UL or ML character.
• Multilevelness is paramount because it allows us to
see and compare the higher versus lower. Over time,
the higher will increasingly be chosen.
40 Unilevelness (UL) and Multilevelness (ML).
• The “average” view of life is horizontal—unilevel:
(Ken Wilber: “flatlanders,” Bertalanffy and Yablonsky: “robopaths”)
• “Robots” blindly follow social roles and values.

• “Animal model”—stimulus-response reactions.
• Equal alternatives create false “illusion of choice.”
• Conflicts between different but equivalent choices.
• No vertical component to allow for higher growth.
• Development is linked to a “new”—vertical—ML view:
• One begins to see higher possibilities in comparison
to lower realities and alternatives.
• A vertical, ML view creates a hierarchical model of
life, of values and of behavior—allows us to see and
choose the higher over the lower.
41 Perilous Shift From UL to ML – 1.
• Initially ML creates great internal stress because
choosing the lower has become habitual. Now, “the
possibility” of a different and better choice comes into
view. This contrast is upsetting and, at first, is quite
spontaneous.
• The transition to multilevelness is the “greatest step” in

growth but also the most perilous: As one’s old, status
quo unilevel frame of reference crumbles, feelings of
chaos, anxiety and dread are common.
• “The dark night of the soul.”

42 Multilevelness – Overview.
• Levels are a philosophical foundation of the theory:
• Level based analysis has a long philosophical history.
• Premise: Reality and our perception of reality can be
differentiated into a hierarchy of levels.
• The reality that one perceives reflects one’s given level
of development—fairly wide differences are seen.
• Most psychological functions go through quantitative
changes. Some advanced features also display
qualitative changes as they emerge and develop.
• This allows us to differentiate higher, more developed
levels from lower, earlier, less developed levels.
• Differentiation of lower and higher levels is basic to
Dąbrowski’s view of mental health and development.
43 Multilevelness Creates Multiple Meanings.
• Multilevelness means that each psychological feature
must be described differently on each level: A given
dimension has different meanings, different
expressions and different impacts on each level.
• Dąbrowski: the lowest level of love differs from the

highest level more than love differs from hate.
• The combination of multiple levels and dimensions

creates a comprehensive but complicated analysis that
is difficult to operationalize or measure.
44 Multilevelness – 1.
• Definition: “Division of functions into different levels: for
instance, the spinal, subcortical, and cortical levels in
the nervous system. Individual perception of many
levels of external and internal reality appears at a
certain stage of development, here called multilevel
disintegration” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 298).
• Multilevel perception and description is based on more
than just sensory inputs; it includes all of the
psychological functions available to humans, including
thinking, feeling, imagination, instincts, empathy,
intuition, etc.
45 Multilevelness – 2.
• The dynamic process of “hierarchization” creates a
multilevel contrast between the lower and higher in life.
It expands our range of human experience, creating a
new, critical type of conflict: vertical conflicts between
higher and lower alternatives and choices.
• “It appears obvious that the ability to understand and

to successfully apply the concept of multilevelness
depends upon the development of personality of the
individual” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. x).
46 Multilevelness as a Growth Process.
• In advanced development, our growing sense of the
“higher possibilities” encourages a new personal goal:
the creation of our own unique personality ideal.
• As a ML view develops, it causes vertical conflicts—
once the higher alternative is seen, acting on the lower
creates guilt, unhappiness, feelings of inferiority:
• Vertical conflicts / dissonance become a vital, internal
driving force of personality change.
• We must inhibit our lower impulses, reflexes and
automatic reactions that reflect instinct, ego and rote
socialization. Must promote our own contemplated,
individually based responses, arising from our own
values and our vision of how things ought to be.
47 Hierarchization and Multilevelness.
• ML creates a hierarchical view of life, of values and
behavior—allows us to see and choose the higher
alternatives of “what ought” over lower “what is” ones.
• “Hierarchization” becomes a key process of ML.

Contrasts of the lower and higher expand the range of
one’s experience and create hierarchies.
• I think I want the lower, but on reflection, I know I must
choose the higher—because I feel it is right. Acting on
the lower creates vertical conflicts and inner stress.
• One begins to imagine higher possibilities in life.
• The true solution to human problems must involve
ascent; moving one not only forward but upward.
48 Developmental Complexity – 1.
• The level of development is not uniform across all
dimensions within a person. People are often on
different levels on different dimensions:
• A person may be at a high level cognitively and on a
low level emotionally (and morally); this is common
and seems to be the social status quo.
• Dąbrowski called this one-sided development.
• What dimensions should we include in our analysis?
• This question complicates the assessment of levels.
• Current educational testing focuses on only one or
two dimensions (almost always cognitively based).
• Dąbrowski: we need a richer, broader approach to
measure human development and potentials.
• One-sided development: “Type of development limited
to one talent or ability, or to a narrow range of abilities
and mental functions” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 300).
• “Grave affective retardation is usually associated with
above average intelligence subordinated to primitive
drives” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 30).
• In summary, development is usually not uniform across

dimensions within an individual. People are often at
different levels of development on different
dimensions. Describing a person’s overall level of
developmental may become unmanageable when
several dimensions are taken into consideration.
• In order to overcome one-sided development,
Dąbrowski advocated a counterintuitive approach:
Strive to achieve balance by focusing more attention
on the child’s weaker talents. For example, if a child is
a mathematical prodigy, weak in English, then focus on
the overall psychological development of the child and,
as well, on his or her weakest subject, in this case
English.
• In a recent study of child prodigies it was found that
most parents who see prodigal talent focus upon it at
the exclusion of everything else, leading to various
psychological issues later in life. (Hulbert, 2018).
51 Multilevel and Multidimensional Analysis.
• Dąbrowski uses a powerful type of analysis combining
two approaches:
• Multilevel approach (ML).
• Multidimensional approach (MD).
• Behavior involves an interaction of dimension and
level: A behavior will be expressed differently on
different levels (obvious comparing UL to ML).
• MD and ML must be used together to examine,
evaluate, and understand behavior.
• ML/MD analysis sees behavior in the context of the
developmental level and motivation that spawned it.
• Ken Wilber used a similar approach—popular in the
USA, called “the all [four] quadrant approach.”
52 Wilber’s “four quadrant” approach.
53 Multilevelness and Multidimensionality.
• People are often at different levels of development on
different dimensions, e.g., intellect vs. emotion. We
need to consider the level for each dimension we
choose to look at.
Different
Levels of
Development
Various Dimensions
• Each dimension will be expressed differently at each

different level of development.
54
Examples of Dimensions:
Attentive Cooperative
Independence
Imaginational OE Accommodating
Emotional OE
Optimistic
Trustworthiness Third Factor
Neuroticism (FFM) Openness to Experience (FFM) Determination
Perspicacity Emotionality
Pessimistic (insight) Acumen Thespian?
Extraversion (FFM)
Common sense Psychomotor OE Empathy
Artistic talent Creativity Rigor Supportive
Raw intelligence Musical talent Aesthetic Appreciation
Loyalty Athleticism Open boundaries Subject – Object
First Factor Asceticism Conscientiousness (FFM)
Sensual OE Extra-Introversion
Self-criticism
Intellectual OE Agreeableness (FFM)
Second Factor
(FFM): 5 Factor Model Strategic Dependability
55
• 1.5. Developmental Potential.

• 1.5.1. General Prerequisites.
56 Prerequisites of Development – 1.
• Aspects of development as a process:
• “By higher level of psychic development we mean a
behavior which is more complex, more conscious
and having greater freedom of choice, hence greater
opportunity for self-determination” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 70).
• “The individual with a rich developmental potential

rebels against the common determining factors in his
external environment” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 32).
57 Prerequisites of Development – 2.
• “The developmental process in which occur ‘collisions’
with the environment and with oneself begins as a
consequence of the interplay of three factors:
developmental potential, . . . an influence of the social
milieu, and autonomous (self-determining) factors”
(Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 77).
• Initially, Dąbrowski presents the third factor simply as a

component of developmental potential. Later it
becomes “a non-ontogenetic, emergent force of
development.” This creates some confusion over the
role of the third factor. The confusion perhaps mirrors
the changes in the nature and role of the third factor as
it emerges in development, becoming an independent
force as development advances.
58

• 1.5.2. Advanced Development is Rare.
59 Advanced Development is Uncommon – 1.
• In TPD, people dominated by their lower instincts
appear to have little potential to develop or to change.
• People dominated by socialization usually possess
some potential to develop but social conformity and
peer pressure are strong forces resisting change.
• “a clear majority of people never reach beyond primary
integration or after a short period of partial horizontal [unilevel]
disintegration reintegrate at the former level. There seems to be
15-20 per cent of people who, at least temporarily, display
symptoms of unilevel disintegration” (Kawczak, 1970, pp. 3-4).
• Dąbrowski’s often cited estimate was that about 70% of the
population are primarily integrated (Piechowski, 2015, p. 231).
• Some people appear to have strong autonomous potential to
develop (can’t be held back). Often go on to become exemplars
of advanced development.
• Growth “occur[s] only if the developmental forces are
sufficiently strong and not impeded by unfavorable
external circumstances. This is, however, rarely the
case. The number of people who complete the full
course of development and attain the level of
secondary integration is limited. A vast majority of
people either do not break down their primitive
integration at all, or after a relatively short period of
disintegration, usually experienced at the time of
adolescence and early youth, end in a reintegration at
the former level or in partial integration of some of the
functions at slightly higher levels, without a
transformation of the whole mental structure” (Dąbrowski,
1970, p. 4).
• “A fairly high degree of primary integration is present in
the average person; a very high degree of primary
integration is present in the psychopath. The more
cohesive the structure of primary integration, the less
the possibility of development; the greater the strength
of autonomic functioning, stereotypy, and habitual
activity, the lower the level of mental health” (Dąbrowski,
1964, p.121).
• The more rigid one’s initial integration, the harder to
disintegrate, change and to growth.
• Note: Dąbrowski’s usage of the term “psychopath” is out of date and context
with today’s common usage. It reflects an early, European connotation of the
term: an individual with strong “constitutional factors” (usually psychological
traits) that act to inhibit ideal or potential development (in contrast with the
sociopath, one having social factors that inhibit development).
• Level III: Psychoneurotics. (Mika, 2015)
• Level II: neurotics, mentally ill.
• Degrees of primary integration in Level I:
• Borderline between average person and
psychoneurotic
• Average person: social conformity, but with some,
albeit limited, developmental potential.
• Borderline between average person and
psychopath: largely maintaining social conformity
(CEO bends law, takes advantage wherever
possible)
• Psychopath and psychopath-like individual, often
exhibiting antisocial behavior.
• Ideal maturation is prolonged: [People with strong
developmental “endowment”] “must have much more
time for a deep, creative development and that is why
you will be growing for a long time. This is a very
common phenomenon among creative people. Simply,
they have such a great developmental potential, ‘they
have the stuff to develop’ and that is why it takes them
longer to give it full expression” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 272).
• Dąbrowski studied exemplars of personality
development, describing common traits he saw in
them that he called Developmental Potential (DP).
• Dąbrowski was optimistic that exemplars of the highest
levels are role models who represent the next level in
Human psychological evolution.
64 Where are we Today?
• In all psychological models, for one reason or another,
advanced development is considered rare.
• In TPD, advanced development is rarely seen.
~65% TPD Level

(I)
~20%
(II)
Number (III)
of people (IV) (V)
Development
65

• 1.5.3. Developmental Potential.
66 Developmental Potential (DP): Overview.
• Several complex and interrelated components of DP:
• The three factors of development.
• Dynamisms: e.g. subject-object in oneself, self-
awareness and identification with development.
• Psychoneuroses and positive disintegration.
• Emerging, internal features of the self [Hierarchy of
aims, Hierarchy of values, Inner Psychic Milieu,
Third Factor, Personality Ideal, etc.].
• The developmental instinct, the creative instinct,
and the instinct for self-perfection.
• Overexcitability (Five types).
• Special talents and abilities.
67 Developmental Potential is Genetic.
• Definition: “The constitutional endowment which
determines the character and the extent of mental
growth possible for a given individual” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 293).
• DP can be positive, promoting development; negative
and inhibiting development; or equivocal.
• “The relations and interactions between the different
components of the developmental potential give shape
to individual development and control the appearance
of psychoneuroses on different levels of development”
• Just as IQ varies in the population, so does DP.

• Most have too little DP to allow for advanced growth.
• A few have strong DP and achieve the highest levels.
68 Developmental Potential: Assessment.
• To assess DP, Dąbrowski described 3 main aspects:
1.Special talents and abilities (e.g. IQ, athletic ability).
2.Overexcitability (OE).
3.“Third Factor” (a strong internal drive to express
one’s unique self—factor of autonomous choice).
• “The developmental potential can be assessed on the

basis of the following components: psychic
overexcitability (q.v.), special abilities and talents, and
autonomous factors (notably the Third factor)” (Dąbrowski,
1972, p. 293).
69 Traditional Developmental Features.
• In traditional approaches, cognition is the key
component of higher levels:
• Cognition and reason overcome or control emotion.
• TPD reframes and revises traditional roles of mental
excitement, emotion and pathology in development.
• Excess excitability, strong emotion, and “pathology”
traditionally are seen negatively in mental health.
• “Excess” excitability has been medicated and is often linked to
various pathologies, learning disabilities and delinquency.
• “Excess” emotion has often been equated with hysteria.
• “Pathology” traditionally indicates a weakness or defect

needing to be treated, ameliorated, palliated, and removed.
70 Key Features of DP – 1.
• DP influences how one perceives the environment and
determines one’s unique developmental course.
• DP, especially OE, works hand-in-hand with positive
disintegration and psychoneuroses to change one’s
perception of reality, predisposing development.
• Development is defined by movement towards self-
determination and autonomy—toward the third factor,
toward self-perfection, and the personality ideal.
• Adjustment to “what is” is generally adevelopmental.
Initially, maladjustment results from conflicts with the
social environment. A shift to “what ought to be,” leads
to a new type of positive adjustment and harmony.
• Developmental potential may be:
• positive or negative / general or specific / strong or weak /
expressed or not expressed.
• The most misunderstood aspect of DP is OE:
• OE is usually not appreciated by others or by society.
• OE is often suppressed or hidden by the individual.
• OE needs to be understood in the context of DP and TPD.
• OE may be hard to manage or may be overwhelming.
• OE heightens the joys but also intensifies the lows of life.
• OE needs to be validated—not seen as an abnormality.
• Many aspects of DP have received negligible attention.
• One must “transform” 1st and 2nd factors to develop.
• One with “a rich DP rebels” against “his external
environment” and “the laws of biology” (Dąbrowski, 1970, pp. 32-33).
• “Environmental influences collide with those potentials,
strengthen or weaken them, but their outcome always
depends on an individual’s hereditary endowment:”
• “(1) If the developmental potential is distinctly
positive or negative, the influence of the environment
is less important. (2) If the developmental potential
does not exhibit any distinct quality, the influence of
the environment is important and it may go in either
direction. (3) If the developmental potential is weak
or difficult to specify, the influence of the environment
may prove decisive, positively or negatively”
• “in the vast majority of cases, the phenomena of

disintegration point to a very great developmental
potential” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 39).
73

• 1.5.4. Overexcitability.
74 Overexcitability (OE) – 1.
• A passage in William James appears to discuss a
construct similar to Dąbrowski’s overexcitabilities:
• “Wherever a process of life communicates an
eagerness to him who lives it, there the life becomes
genuinely significant. Sometimes the eagerness is
more knit up with the motor activities, sometimes
with the perceptions, sometimes with the
imagination, sometimes with reflective thought. But,
wherever it is found, there is the zest, the tingle, the
excitement of reality; and there is ‘importance’ in the
only real and positive sense in which importance
ever anywhere can be” (1899, pp. 9-10).
• Definition: “Higher than average responsiveness to
stimuli, manifested either by psychomotor, sensual,
emotional (affective), imaginational, or intellectual
excitability or the combination thereof” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 303).
• A physiological property of the nervous system: “Each
form of overexcitability points to a higher than average
sensitivity of its receptors” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 7).
• “Psychic hyperexcitability is one of the major
developmental potentials, but it also forms a symptom,
or a group of general psychoneurotic symptoms”
• Summary: OE has two key aspects: a higher than

average sensitivity of the nerves (receptors) and a
higher than average responsiveness to stimuli.
• “The prefix over attached to ‘excitability’ serves to
indicate that the reactions of excitation are over and
above average in intensity, duration and frequency”
• OE affects how a person sees reality: “One who

manifests several forms of overexcitability, sees reality
in a different, stronger and more multisided manner”
• Dąbrowski called OE “a tragic gift:” (see Jensen, 2008).

• As both the highs and lows of life are intensified.
• Because the world is not yet ready for people who
feel at such deep levels.
• “Because the sensitivity [excitability] is related to all
essential groups of receptors of stimuli of the internal
and external worlds it widens and enhances the field of
consciousness” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 66).
• “Individuals with enhanced emotional, imaginational
and intellectual excitability channel it into forms most
appropriate for them” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 66).
• The “big 3:” “Emotional (affective), imaginational and

intellectual overexcitability are the richer forms. If they
appear together they give rich possibilities of
development and creativity” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 7).
• “A person manifesting an enhanced psychic excitability
in general, and an enhanced emotional, intellectual
and imaginational excitability in particular, is endowed
with a greater power of penetration into both the
external and the inner world” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 65).
• “. . . These couplings determine a closely woven

activity of different forms of enhanced excitability,
especially emotional, imaginational and intellectual;
they also determine how to make use of the positive
aspects of sensual and psychomotor overexcitability
by subordinating them to the other three higher forms
of overexcitability” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 66).
• Dąbrowski linked overexcitability with disintegration:
• [First] “Hyperexcitability also provokes inner conflicts
as well as the means by which these conflicts can be
overcome” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 38).
• Second, hyperexcitability precipitates psychoneurotic
processes.
• Third, conflicts and psychoneurotic processes
become the dominant factors in accelerated
development.
• “It is mainly mental hyperexcitability through which the
search for something new, something different, more
complex and more authentic can be accomplished”
• Overexcitability helps to differentiate higher from lower
experiences and facilitates a multilevel view:
• “The reality of the external and of the inner world is
conceived in all its multiple aspects. High
overexcitability contributes to establishing
multilevelness” (Dąbrowski, 1996, p. 74).
• Individuals will usually display a characteristic
response type—one of the five forms will be dominant,
and one will direct one’s OE accordingly: “For instance,
a person with prevailing emotional overexcitability will
always consider the emotional tone and emotional
implications of intellectual questions” (Dąbrowski, 1996, p. 7).
• “Individuals with enhanced emotional, imaginational
and intellectual excitability channel it into forms most
appropriate for them” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 66).
• “Nervous children, who have increased psychomotor,
emotional, imaginative, and sensual or mental psychic
excitability and who show strength and perseveration
of reactions incommensurate to their stimuli, reveal
patterns of disintegration” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 98).
• “Excessive excitability is, among others, a sign that
one’s adaptability to the environment is disturbed.
These disintegration processes are based on various
forms of increased psychic excitability, namely on
psychomotor, imaginative, affectional, sensual, and
mental hyperexcitability.” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 61).
82 Neuroscience Support for Overexcitability – 1.
• It is beyond the scope of this introduction fully explore
this complex topic.
• In the individual neuron, there are both intrinsic levels
of excitability and an ongoing modulation of excitability.
These levels are controlled by both genetics—different
individuals have slightly different genetics—and, as
well, by epigenetics—one’s life experience will modify
both the architecture and functional expression of
one’s neurons and subsequently neuronal excitability.
• As neurons operate in microcircuits and as part of

larger networks, neuronal control of the balance of
excitability and inhibition is a critical factor.
• Many systems in the brain require strict homeostatic
control (e.g. blood pressure, temperature and
respiration). Other systems must be plastic and
respond to rapid change (e.g. to remember and learn).
• Genes that control voltage-gated ion channels and
calcium transport are consistently found in psychiatric
GWAS (Ament et al., 2015). These genes control cellular
electrical excitability and calcium homeostasis in
neurons (Smoller, 2013). “Alteration in the ability of a single
neuron to integrate the inputs and scale its excitability
may constitute a fundamental mechanistic contributor
to mental disease, alongside with the previously
proposed deficits in synaptic communication and
network behaviour” (Mäki-Marttunen et al. 2016, p. 1).
• The proof of concept for the neurophysiological
mechanisms and genetic (and epigenetic) control of
neuronal excitability have now been established (e.g.,
Gulledge & Bravo, 2016; Mäki-Marttunen et al., 2016; Meadows et al., 2016;
Rannals et al., 2016; Remme & Wadman, 2012).
• Excitability varies between individuals based on both
inherited genetics—different individuals have slightly
different genetics—and, as well, by epigenetics—one’s
life experiences modify the functional expression of
genes during one’s lifetime (see Armstrong, 2014).
• Experience alters the architecture and functional
expression of individual neurons and dynamically
modifies levels of brain/network variability, flexibility
and connectivity (Zhang et al., 2016). . . .
• . . . These changes impact neuronal excitability (e.g.,
Chen et al., 2016; Meadows et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016).
• Contemporary research generally supports
Dąbrowski’s approach to overexcitabilities and
presents several plausible explanations to account for
a hypothesized continuum of levels of excitability
occurring between individuals: excitability varies in the
population, with “average” excitability as the norm and
“overexcitable” individuals as the exception. The
control of excitability largely occurs within the
individual neuron—each neuron monitors its own firing
and can modify its rate of firing, so as to maintain
overall network stability. Neurons show intrinsic levels
of excitability and ongoing modulation of excitability.
86 Neuroscience References:
• Ament, S. A., Szelinger, S., Glusman, G., Ashworth, J., Hou, L., Akula, N., . . . Roach, J. C. (2015). Rare
variants in neuronal excitability genes influence risk for bipolar disorder. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(11), 3576–81. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424958112
• Armstrong, L. (2014). Epigenetics. New York, NY: Garland.
• Chen, F., Moran, J. T., Zhang, Y., Ates, K. M., Yu, D., Schrader, L. A., . . . Hall, B. J. (2016). The transcription
factor NeuroD2 coordinates synaptic innervation and cell intrinsic properties to control excitability of cortical
pyramidal neurons. The Journal of Physiology, 594(13), 3729–3744. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP271953
• Gulledge, A. T., & Bravo, J. J. (2016). Neuron morphology influences axon initial segment plasticity. eNeuro, 3,
1–24. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0085-15.2016
• Mäki-Marttunen, T., Halnes, G., Devor, A., Witoelar, A., Bettella, F., Djurovic, S., . . . Dale, A. M. (2016).
Functional effects of schizophrenia-linked genetic variants on intrinsic single-neuron excitability: A modeling
study. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 1(1), 49–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2015.09.002
• Meadows, J. P., Guzman-Karlsson, M. C., Phillips, S., Brown, J. A., Strange, S. K., Sweatt, J. D., & Hablitz, J. J.
(2016). Dynamic DNA methylation regulates neuronal intrinsic membrane excitability. Science Signaling,
9(442), ra83–ra83. https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.aaf5642
• Rannals, M. D., Hamersky, G. R., Page, S. C., Campbell, M. N., Briley, A., Gallo, R. A., . . . Maher, B. J. (2016).
Psychiatric risk gene transcription factor 4 regulates intrinsic excitability of prefrontal neurons via repression of
SCN10a and KCNQ1. Neuron, 90(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.02.021
• Remme, M. W. H., & Wadman, W. J. (2012). Homeostatic Scaling of Excitability in Recurrent Neural Networks.
PLoS Computational Biology, 8(5), e1002494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002494
• Smoller, J. W. (2013). Identification of risk loci with shared effects on five major psychiatric disorders: a
genome-wide analysis. The Lancet, 381(9875), 1371–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62129-1
• Zhang, J., Cheng, W., Liu, Z., Zhang, K., Lei, X., Yao, Y., . . . Feng, J. (2016). Neural, electrophysiological and
anatomical basis of brain-network variability and its characteristic changes in mental disorders. Brain, 139(8),
2307–2321. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww143
87

• 1.5.5. Three Factors of Development.
88 Three Factors of Development – 1.
• Three factors influence behavior and development:
• First Factor—the expression of genetic instincts:
• Most basic: primal biological survival instincts.
• Primitive, reflexive instincts and reactions.
• Today, we could generalize to our “dog-eat-dog” mentality
and social obsession on material success.
• Reflected in egocentrism: Focus on self-satisfaction,
feeling good, regardless of costs to others.
• Dąbrowski said that genetic factors are the foundation
of both the lower instincts and of the higher features of
developmental potential, including the foundation of
emergent factors that will eventually eclipse their
genetic roots.
• First Factor—“hereditary, innate constitutional
elements”
• “May be more general or more specific, more positive
or more negative” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 33).
• “General excitability, nuclei of the inner psychic milieu,

general interests and aptitudes are examples of
general and positive potentials. Specific forms of
hyperexcitability such as emotional, imaginational or
sensual hyperexcitability, as well as specific interests
or aptitudes, such as musical, choreographic or
mathematical aptitudes, constitute specific and positive
potentials” (Dąbrowski, 1970, pp. 33-34).
• Second Factor: “the influences of the external
environment, mainly family and social milieu”(Dąbrowski,
1970, p. 72).
• Through parenting and education, most people

incorporate and follow social values, rules and roles.
• Moral authority and criteria for good behavior are
derived from external (social) values.
• Most people live life under the day-to-day influence

of second factor, for example: Kohlberg’s
conventional level of moral reasoning.
• Dąbrowski rejected unreflective conformity and saw
people who function primarily under social influence
as “mentally unhealthy.”
• Most people become socialized and conform without
thinking deeply about life—without comparing how
things are versus how things could be or ought to be.
• Developmental potential and the environment:
• “If the developmental potential is distinctly positive or
negative, the influence of the environment is less
important. If the developmental potential does not
exhibit any distinct quality, the influence of the
environment is important and it may go in either
direction. If the developmental potential is weak or
difficult to specify, the influence of the environment
may prove decisive, positively or negatively” (Dąbrowski,
1970, p. 34).
• Dąbrowski discussed Plato’s allegory of the cave as an
illustration.
• We live in a cave, facing a blank wall. Shadows are
projected on the wall by unseen puppeteers
(education and politics). We sit passively, mistakenly
accepting these shadows as reality. If a person can
break free and reach the exit leading out of the cave
and up, into the sun, he or she can wake up and start
to think independently. For Plato, this person can
become a philosopher and discover real knowledge
[Truth] through thinking logically, by philosophical
reasoning, and by taming emotion.
• The third factor arises from genetic roots but later
“emerges” and becomes an autonomous dynamism:
• Third factor becomes an emergent force, eventually
expressing our sense of who we ought to be and
controlling the direction of our development—it
transcends its genetic roots.
• As third factor develops, it compels us to make
choices that express our authentic self: to choose
what is “more me” and to reject what is “less me.”
• More than just “will” or “will power”—the third factor is
the totality of our autonomous features and forces.
• Third Factor: “the autonomous factor of development.”
• “The dynamism of conscious choice (valuation) by
which one affirms or rejects certain qualities in
oneself and in one’s environment” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 306).
• “A dynamism of conscious choice by which one sets
apart both in oneself and in one’s environment those
elements which are positive, and therefore
considered higher, from those which are negative,
and therefore considered lower. By this process a
person denies and rejects inferior demands of the
internal as well as of the external milieu, and
accepts, affirms and selects positive elements in
either milieu” (Dąbrowski, 1996, pp. 38-39).
95

• 1.5.6. The Third Factor.
96 The Third Factor – 1.
• Definition: “The third factor is independent from and
selective with regard to heredity (the first factor), and
environment (the second factor). Its selective role
consists in accepting and fostering or rejecting and
restraining qualities, interests and desires, which one
finds either in one’s hereditary endowment or in one’s
social environment. Thus the third factor being a
dynamism of conscious choice is a dynamism of
valuation.
. . . Cont.
. . . Cont.
The third factor has a fundamental role in education-
of-oneself, and in autopsychotherapy. Its presence
and operation is essential in the development toward
autonomy and authenticity. It arises and grows as a
resultant of both positive hereditary endowment
(especially the ability for inner psychic transformation)
and positive environmental influences” (Dąbrowski, 1970,
pp. 178-179).
• “The principal periods during which the third agent
appears distinctly are the ages of puberty and
maturation” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 56).
• “During the period of puberty, young people become

aware of the sense of life and discover a need to
develop personal goals and to find the tools for
realizing them. The emergence of these problems and
the philosophizing on them, with the participation of an
intense emotional component, are characteristic
features of a strong instinct of development and of the
individual’s rise to a higher evolutionary level” (Dąbrowski,
1964, p. 56).
• Dąbrowski said the usual route of maturation leads to
a “premature” integration of mental structures based
on “the desire to gain a position, to become
distinguished, to possess property, and to establish a
family”—“the more the integration of the mental
structure grows, the more the influence of the third
agent weakens” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 57).
• “The third agent persists—indeed, it only develops—in

individuals who manifest an increased mental
excitability and have at least mild forms of
psychoneuroses” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 57).
• In ideal, advanced development, the maturational
period is “protracted” and “is clearly accompanied by a
strong instinct of development, great creative
capacities, a tendency to reach for perfection, and the
appearance and development of self-consciousness,
self-affirmation, and self-education” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 57).
• “Because of the third factor the individual becomes
aware of what is essential and lasting and what is
inferior, temporary, and accidental both in his own
structure and conduct and in his exterior environment.
He endeavors to cooperate with those forces on which
the third factor places a high value and to eliminate
those tendencies and concrete acts which the third
factor devalues” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 53).
• “All such autonomous factors, taken together, form the
strongest group of causal dynamisms in the
development of man. They denote the transition from
that which is primitive, instinctive, automatic to that
which is deliberate, creative and conscious, from that
which is primitively integrated to that which manifests
multilevel disintegration . . . from that which ‘is’ to that
which ‘ought to be’ . . . The autonomous factors form
the strongest dynamisms of transition from emotions of
a low level to emotions of a high level” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p.
35).
102 The Third Factor Creates a Dilemma – 1.
• Dąbrowski saw his approach creates a dilemma:
• Where do autonomous forces come from?
• “It is not easy to strictly define the origin of the third
factor, because, in the last [traditional] analysis, it
must stem either from the hereditary endowment or
from the environment” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 78).
• “We can only suppose that the autonomous factors
derive from hereditary developmental potential and
from positive environmental conditions; they are
shaped by influences from both. However, the
autonomous forces do not derive exclusively from
hereditary and environment, but are also determined
by the conscious development of the individual
himself” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 34).
• As the third factor strengthens and overall
development is achieved, the forces of development
become autonomous:
• “The appearance and growth of the third agent is to
some degree dependent on the inherited abilities and
on environmental experiences, but as it develops it
achieves an independence from these factors and
through conscious differentiation and self-definition
takes its own position in determining the course of
development of personality” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 54).
• “According to the [TPD], the third factor arises in the
course of an increasingly conscious, self-determined,
autonomous and authentic development” (Dąbrowski,
1973, p. 78).
• “The genesis of the third factor should be associated
with the very development with which it is combined in
the self-consciousness of the individual in the process
of becoming more myself” i.e., it is combined with the
vertical differentiation of mental functions (Dąbrowski, 1973,
p. 78).
• “The third factor is a dynamism active at the stage of
organized multilevel disintegration. Its activity is
autonomous in relation to the first factor (hereditary)
and the second (environment)” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 80).
• “This approach is close to some of the ideas of Henri
Bergson (1859-1941) who maintained that more can
be found in the effects than in the causes” (Dąbrowski,
1973, p. 78).
105
• 1.6. Key Constructs.

106

• 1.6.1. Psychoneuroses.
107 Psychoneurosis – 1.
• Definition: “those processes, syndromes and functions
which express inner and external conflicts, and
positive maladjustment of an individual in the process
of accelerated development” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 151).
• Dąbrowski saw a positive role for psychoneuroses in
advanced development:
• “Connected with the tension arising from strong
developmental conflicts” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 149).
• “contain(s) elements of man’s authentic
humanization” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 152).
• Dąbrowski’s approach is almost unique: at odds with
the traditional views of Freud, Maslow, and most
others.
• Psychoneuroses is a challenging construct in TPD, the
term or its derivatives appear some 1560 times.
• “The psychoneurotic may have conflicts in relation to
his external environment, but usually his conflicts are
internal ones. Unlike the psychopath, who inflicts
suffering on other people and causes external
conflicts, the psychoneurotic himself usually suffers
and struggles with conflicts in relation to himself”
(Dąbrowski, 1964, pp. 74-75).
• “Psychoneurotic children clearly demonstrate the large

field of disintegration and the great variability of its
symptoms” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 99).
• The different psychoneuroses form an inter-neurotic
hierarchy. (see Dąbrowski, 1972, pp. 109-110).
• “the numerous forms of neuroses and psychoneuroses
constitute indispensable developmental processes,
then—extending the thus far accepted meaning of the
term psychotherapy and treating it as a method of
education and self- education in difficult developmental
periods, in conditions of great tensions and conflicts in
the external environment and in the internal
environment” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 188).
• “according to our theory we don’t deal here with a

psychoneurosis as an illness, but rather with the
symptoms of the process of positive disintegration in
its multilevel phase,” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 195).
• Psychoneuroses “are the protection against serious
mental disorders—against psychoses” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p.
162).
• “Emotional and psychomotor hyperexcitability and

many psychoneuroses are positively correlated with
great mental resources, personality development, and
creativity” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 19).
• Dąbrowski said don’t try to “help” psychoneurotics,

rather, learn from them, appreciate their uniqueness,
their creativity, their values, their sensitivity:
• See Dąbrowski’s poem, “Be Greeted
Psychoneurotics” (Dąbrowski, 1972).
111

• 1.6.2. Adjustment.
112 Adjustment – 1.
• Dąbrowski outlined four types of adjustment:
• 1). Negative maladjustment—antisocial, selfish ego
dominates behavior that flaunts social mores:
• Expression of primitive first factor: criminals,
unscrupulous CEOs (see themselves above law).
• 2). Negative adjustment—“traditional” socialization:
• “Robotic” and uncritical acceptance of “what is.”
• Adjustment to prevailing social norms and values.
• Expression of second factor—we are social
conformers: antisocial and primitive impulses are
repressed to “fit in” (autonomy also repressed).
• Adjustment to a “sick” society is to also be sick.
113 Adjustment – 2.
• 3). Positive maladjustment—rejection of what is, in
favor of what ought to be:
• Creates major crises and often psychoneurosis.
• Initial expression of third factor (autonomy).
• Pits one against social norms and mores—often
confused as “ordinary” antisocial maladjustment.
• May be seen in gifted students (but mislabeled).
• 4). Positive adjustment—adjustment to inner sense
of what ought to be: to consciously chosen values:
• Full expression of third factor / personality ideal.
• Expression of highest personal values.
• Seen at Level V—secondary integration.
• Ideal society: everyone is operating at this level.
114 Adjustment and the Factors – 1.
• Negative maladjustment: Expression of First Factor.
• —Antisocial, asocial, selfish, egocentric, egotistical
• Negative adjustment: Expression of Second Factor.
• —Adjustment to what is, conformity to conventional
social mores.
• The status quo: society is currently “primitive and
confused” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 118).
• “The individual who is always adjusted is one who
does not develop himself” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 58).
115 Adjustment and the Factors – 2.
• Positive maladjustment: Initial expression of third
factor (autonomy).
• —Rejection of ‘what is,’ in favor of what ‘ought to be.’
• Positive adjustment: Full expression of the third factor.

• —Full adjustment to what ought to be:
• —Behavior according to an authentic inner sense of
what ought to be and consciously chosen values
(highest behavior possible).
116

• 1.6.3. Dynamisms.
117 Dynamisms in TPD – 1.
• “Biological or mental force controlling behavior and its
development. Instincts, drives, and intellectual
processes combined with emotions are dynamisms”
(Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 294).
• Linked to emotion—from the Latin “emovere”—move

through or out—to motivate movement.
• Psychoanalysis is a psychodynamic approach. It
refers to the underlying forces that move matter or
mind toward activity or progress.
• Dąbrowski used “dynamism” and “instinct”

interchangeably: his descriptions of instincts parallel
and supplement the dynamisms.
• 1. Disintegrative dynamisms: anxiety over oneself,
dissatisfaction with oneself, the feelings of shame and
guilt, and the feeling of inferiority in relation to oneself.
• 2. Dynamisms consciously organizing the
disintegrative process: the “subject-object in oneself”
dynamism, and the third factor dynamism.
• 3. Dynamisms of secondary integration: the personality
ideal, and the disposing and directing center at a
higher level. (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 157).
• “The dynamisms that have their source in the structure
of the personality ideal play the fundamental role in
the process of disintegration in the development of
personality” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 201).
• Dynamisms play a critical role in development
and form a major part of the theory.
• Initially act as vague motivators of growth but
later, develop and emerge into processes that
actively shape and guide development.
• Dąbrowski described a hierarchy of dynamisms,
some 20 in total, reflecting the levels of
development.
• The ultimate dynamisms are the instinct of life,

the creative instinct, developmental instinct, and
the instinct of self-perfection.
120 Dynamisms in TPD – 4 – Examples.
• Unilevel: Ambivalence, Ambitendency, 2nd Factor.
• Spontaneous multilevel dynamisms: Astonishment with

oneself and one’s environment, Disquietude with
oneself, Dissatisfaction with oneself, Feelings of
inferiority toward oneself, Feelings of shame and guilt,
Positive maladjustment, and Hierarchization.
• Organized multilevel dynamisms: The third factor, Self-

awareness and self-control, Education of oneself,
Autopsychotherapy, Inner psychic transformation,
Subject-object in oneself, Empathy and identification
with oneself and with others, Autonomy, Authentism,
Personality Ideal.
121
• Tillier’s Chart of
the Hierarchy of
Dynamisms
122

• 1.6.4. Personality.
123 Personality Ideal – 1.
• Used a positive definition of mental health (Jahoda),
characterized by development and uniqueness.
• This was not popular in personality theory. Maslow
said aspiring for ideals just creates opportunities for
failure and guilt. Gordon Allport said “a normal
personality is one whose conduct conforms to an
authoritative standard and an abnormal personality is
one whose conduct does not do so” (Allport, 1969, p. 1).
• Dąbrowski said mental health should not be defined by
the presence or absence of symptoms: definitions
must look at people as they ought to be, by their
potentials; by desirable, developmental qualities, by
their ability to become an authentic human being.
• Definition: “An individual standard against which one
evaluates one’s actual personality structure.
Personality ideal is shaped autonomously and
authentically, often in conflict and struggle with the
prevalent ideals of society” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 175).
• To adjust to “what ought to be” vs “what is” is a

multilevel, hierarchical view of life in action.
• “Unfaithfulness to the ideal of personality” may cause

“shock” and inferiority toward oneself.
• The “experiential awareness of one’s personality ideal”

is a key characteristic of personality.
• “The processes of self-education, autopsychotherapy,
and inner psychic transformation; the dynamisms of
empathy, autonomy, and authenticity; and the
disposing and directing center on a high level are
structures and functions nearest to the ideal of
personality” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 100).
• “The ideal of personality is the model of the

development of personality; an intuitive, synthetic goal
of the development of a human individual; and an aim
of his planned multilevel developmental efforts”
(Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 100).
126 Personality Ideal – 4 – Autonomy.
• Definition: “an autonomous attitude toward himself, his
environment and his ideal of personality; if he has
achieved a high level of synthetic inner psychic
transformation, consciousness, self-consciousness,
empathy, hierarchization and a strong feeling of his
essentialist existence” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 94).
• “the expression of the developmental process from
lower to higher levels, from that which ‘is’ to that which
‘ought to be’. . . . The result . . . is a consciousness of
being independent in thinking, experiencing and
behaving” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 89).
• “the gradual acquisition of independence from the
lower levels of internal and external reality” (Dąbrowski,
1973, p. 89).
127 Personality Ideal – 5 – Authenticity.
• Authenticity: “A human individual is authentic, if he has
developed an autonomous attitude toward himself, his
environment and his ideal of personality; if he has
achieved a high level of synthetic inner psychic
transformation, consciousness, self-consciousness,
empathy, hierarchization and a strong feeling of his
essentialist existence” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 94).
• “All tendencies to autonomy, authenticity, and self-
determination, to the formation of a hierarchy of values
and localization of the disposing and directing center
on a higher level, express ‘deviations’ from, or rather a
climbing, beyond the biological life cycle of man”
(Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 133).
128 Personality – 1.
• Definition: “a self-conscious, self-chosen, empirically
elaborated, autonomous, authentic, self-confirmed and
self-educating unity of basic mental, individual and
common qualities” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 111).
• “We could associate personality with the concept of a

complete human individual who, in regard to the scope
and levels of his functions, represents a coherent and
harmonious structure of a high degree of insight into
himself, into his aims and aspirations (self-
awareness)” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 108).
• “The first quality of personality—that is to say, self-
awareness—is relatively clear and does not need
much comment” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 109).
• “Those qualities which were chosen at the time of the
‘birth of personality’and later, authentically developed
as central and most important, do not undergo
qualitative changes. They will grow quantitatively and
may be supplemented by new qualities” (Dąbrowski, 1973,
p. 109).
• “Personality is the force which integrates mental

functions on a high level” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 108).
• “The quality of being self-chosen involves the process
of development, the repeated acts of choosing one’s
personality many times until the moment of the final
choice” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 109).
• “Those qualities which were chosen at the time of the
‘birth of personality'and later, authentically developed
as central and most important, do not undergo
qualitative changes. They will grow quantitatively and
may be supplemented by new qualities” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 109).
• One becomes fully aware of the qualities that make
one uniquely one’s self. Once this inner milieu of
qualities is formed, the core does not change (but may
be added to). “The ‘essence’ of an individual is formed
by the central qualities of his personality” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 109).
• Dąbrowski’s definition links personality to advanced
development and to ML: personality is achieved
through a series of value choices, coalescing only at
higher levels of development and ML.
• “The essence of this choice consists in distinguishing
what is ‘higher’ and ‘lower,’ what is ‘less myself’ and
‘more myself, what is closer to and what is more
distant from personality, what is changeable and what
is lasting . . . It is a conscious and self-determined
choice . . . At a certain level of choice the individual
becomes aware of what is his own ‘essence;’ that is to
say, what are his aims and aspirations, his attitudes,
his relations with other people” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 109).
• An unusual conclusion: individual personality is not
universally, or even commonly, achieved. The average
“well socialized” person lacks a unique, individual
personality and therefore is not mentally healthy—the
“state of primary integration is a state contrary to
mental health” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 121).
• This construct was so radical, I think it was widely
misunderstood or rejected by Dąbrowski’s peers.
• Maslow: “healthy people [self-actualizers] are so

different from average ones, not only in degree but in
kind as well, that they generate two very different kinds
of psychology” (Maslow, 1954, p. 234).
133

• 1.6.5. Instincts.
134 Instinct.
• Instinct: A fundamental dynamism (force) in animals
and men that has a great intensity, a significant degree
of compactness and cohesiveness, its own sphere of
activity, and its own direction (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 170).
• “The creative instinct and the instinct of self-perfection

are specifically human. . . . such forces as the sexual
instinct appear in animals and man, but both are
differentiated into levels.” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 11).
• In the instincts, there exist transforming dynamisms,

for which the conflictive experiences and participation
of gnostic mechanisms are fundamental factors in the
development of man (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 51).
135 Developmental Instinct.
• Developmental instinct: “The whole process of
transformation of primitive drives and impulsive
functions into more reflective and refined functions
occurs under the influence of evolutionary dynamisms
which we call the developmental instinct” (Dąbrowski, 1973,
p. 22).
• “The developmental instinct acts against the

automatic, limited, and primitive functional patterns of
the biological cycle of life” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 28).
• “Source of all mental developmental forces” (Dąbrowski,
1972, p. 293).
• “Conceives man as a being destined to undergo

developmental transformations” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 121).
136 Hierarchy of Instincts.
• Beginning with primitive instincts for survival and self-
preservation; basic to primary integration.
• (1). The developmental instinct is the driving force of

all development.
• (2). The instinct of self development begins to guide

multilevel growth leading to the more deliberate and
volitional expressions of autonomy moved by
• (3) the instinct of creativity.
• (4). At the highest level, the instinct of self-perfection
merges with the dynamism of personality ideal to
create the final synthesis of personality.
137

• 1.6.6. Self-education.
138 Self-education – 1.
• “Education-of-oneself and autopsychotherapy. The
action of the third factor leads to certain characteristic
changes. The, individual becomes less affected by
influences from lower levels, he begins to feel the need
to direct his own development: but more, he becomes
conscious of being able to direct his own progress
towards an integrated personality. Thus the third factor
generates the dynamism of education of-oneself”
• “Education-of-oneself requires a significant degree of

authenticity and a stronger than ever reference to the
personality ideal. It is a dynamism that makes one take
his fate in his own hands” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 75).
• Education of oneself; self-education; auto-education.
• “Without the feeling of inferiority toward oneself no
process of self-education is possible. For self-
education there must be a conscious personality ideal
and a desire to ascend to this ideal” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 49).
• Leads to emotional dualism in oneself, an attitude of

object-subject: the relationship between what is
educated and what educates. (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 49).
• Self-education must have the presence of inferiority

feelings in relation to both the internal and the external
environment—especially the former. (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 49).
• “Self-education is the process of working out the
personality in one’s inner self. Self-education begins
with positive disintegration and the appearance of the
third agent. Self-determination then starts to replace
heterodetermination little by little” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 49).
• The basic condition is a high level of self-awareness,

the ability to recognize the state of one’s internal
environment. This contributes to the development of
self-control and self-approval—further elements in the
process of self-education. Self-education also
assumes the presence of a clear and dynamic
personality ideal. (see Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 49).
• “Self-education is the highest possible process of a
psychological and moral character” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 41).
• “The process of self-education consists in admitting to

consciousness all that may stimulate and educate”
• “The daily routine of self-education consists in the

realization of particular educational aims, stemming
from one’s personality ideal” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 43).
• “The fundamental method for the development of

personality is self-education” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 146).
142

• 1.6.7. Autopsychotherapy.
143 Autopsychotherapy – 1.
• “Autopsychotherapy is the process of education-of-
oneself under conditions of increased stress, as in
developmental crises, in critical moments of life, in
neuroses and psychoneuroses. Autopsychotherapy is
an indispensable component of the dynamism
education-of-oneself” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 76).
• “The dynamism of autopsychotherapy controls and

transforms mental disturbances. The disturbances are
then not as debilitating as analogous symptoms at
lower stages of development since their more
pernicious effects are counteracted at this level by
higher protective and developmental dynamisms”
(Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 100).
144 Autopsychotherapy – 2.
• Definition: “Autopsychotherapy. Psychotherapy,
preventive measures, or changes in living conditions
consciously applied to oneself in order to control
possible mental disequilibrium.” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 292).
• “It is an off-shoot of education-of-oneself operating at

the borderline of Levels III and IV. As development
advances through spontaneous to organized multilevel
disintegration, the conflicts, disturbances, depressions,
and anxieties are handled consciously by the individual
himself.” (Dąbrowski, 1996, p. 40).
145

• 1.6.8. Inner psychic milieu (IPM).
146 Inner Psychic Milieu (IPM) – 1.
• Inner psychic milieu (IPM): “the totality of mental
dynamisms in a distinct or hierarchical setup” (Dąbrowski,
1973, p. 116).
• “A complex of mental dynamisms characteristic for a

given individual” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 62).
• “At a primitive stage of mental development or in
psychopathy, the [IPM] does not exist. It arises and is
noticeable only at the stage of unilevel disintegration,
when a certain sensitiveness appears” (Dąbrowski, 1973,
p. 114).
• “[the] multilevel inner psychic milieu [which] is the

basis for a hierarchization of values, for self-
consciousness and self-control” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 137).
147 Inner Psychic Milieu (IPM) – 2.
• “Inner psychic milieu is a dynamic mental structure
which appears significantly only at advanced stages of
mental development, basically at the time of multilevel
disintegration” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 24).
• Several developmental dynamisms are linked to the

IPM:
• the third factor,
• subject-object in oneself,
• self-awareness,
• self-control,
• empathy,
• autonomy,
• authenticity and
• autopsychotherapy
148
• 1.7. Emotion and Values in Development.

149 Emotion and Values in Development – 1.
• The theory distinguishes various levels of development
of “emotional and instinctive functions.” The level of
these functions reflects one’s values and one’s general
level of development. Dąbrowski called these “levels of
emotional development analogous to the levels of
intellectual development.” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 19).
• Dąbrowski (1996) could not accept that psychology
had so embraced the study of cognitive development
and so eschewed the study of emotional development.
• For Dąbrowski, “a general theory of human
development is not possible if it does not include
emotional factors” (Dąbrowski, 1996, p. 6).
• In constructing his general theory of development,
Dąbrowski included traditional cognitive development
and added a new role for emotional factors, where
“emotional factors are not considered merely as unruly
subordinates of reason but can acquire the dominant
role of shapers of development” (Dąbrowski, 1996, p. 6).
• Traditional theories of development rest on ontogeny—
the idea that development automatically unfolds
according to some pre-programmed biological
sequence of events: Each subsequent step unfolding
on the foundation of, and predicated upon, the
features of the previous stage.
• Dąbrowski’s observations of emotion lead him to
conclude that emotion does not conform to ontological
development (ontogenesis), rather, it is determined by,
and emerges from, “other” conditions and factors.
• A key implication is that emotional development may
not match cognitive development—as cognitive growth
follows ontogenesis, and may achieve advanced
levels, emotional functions may or may not follow.
• This lopsided situation was referred to by Dąbrowski
as one-sided development and created a perilous
situation. Cognition is allowed to act as an instrument
to first and second factor influences without the benefit
of emotional and moral guidance or constraints.
152 Emotion and ML in Development – 1.
• Dąbrowski said that making multilevelness a central
tenet of his approach was the key to being able to
describe and understand the development of different
aspects of human behavior and how they interact.
• A ML view of emotions is a critical tool in TPD analysis.
• To understand a given behavior, emotion or value

requires a multilevel examination: Each psychological
function and behaviour will be expressed differently
and have different meanings at each level of
development. Only when we see this can we
understand human behaviours in the context of a
developmental and vertical perspective.
• “To each level of mental development, there is a
corresponding level of value experience. Mental
development of man and the development of a
hierarchy of values are, in fact, two names for the
same process. One cannot separate the two” (Dąbrowski,
1970, p. 98).
• “The sense of values provides a standard of measure
for behavior and gives inner support or disapproval to
one’s own actions” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 44).
• “Above a certain level of development there is more

universal agreement in valuation, i.e. highly developed
(eminent) people tend to share the same values”
• As an individual develops and moves through the
levels, he or she experiences new views of reality, new
challenges, develops new values and forms new
interpretations of both internal and external reality.
• Development must involve the experience of
multilevelness, and this discovery triggers the
emergence and creation of one’s personality ideal—
the core from which all development will then flow.
• The appreciation and experience of emotions in
multilevelness provides a new yardstick to help
measure behavior and to guide a person in the
formation of values that reflect both one’s essence and
one’s emerging sense of who one ought to be.
• The validity of development through the levels can be
reliably observed using a multilevel approach.
• Emotional overexcitability is the central component of
development because predisposes contact and
awareness of higher-level (multilevel) emotions.
• Accentuated by acute emotional awareness,
multilevelness brings into focus the contrast between
higher and lower phenomena both in the internal and
external milieu, and this in turn triggers the vertical
conflicts Dąbrowski felt were so important in
development—breaking our attachment to lower levels
and creating the possibility for higher-level behavior.
156 Emotion and Values Merge – 1.
• Emotions and values eventually merge and play a
predominant role in development:
• “‘Psychoneurotic experiences’ by disturbing the lower
levels of values help gradually to enter higher levels
of values, i.e., the level of higher emotions. These
emotions becoming conscious and ever more
strongly experienced begin to direct our behaviour
and bring it to a higher level. In this way higher
emotions play a dynamic role in our development
and give meaning to our life. As new and higher
values the higher emotions slowly begin to shape our
‘new harmony’ after the collapse of the primitive
harmony of lower level” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 3).
157 Emotion and Values Merge – 2.
• As the preceding quote illustrates, we develop as
individuals as we consciously rise up to meet the new
standards we feel, based upon our emerging
awareness and experience of the higher levels of
emotion.
• As we continue to allow ourselves to be guided by our
experience of higher-level emotions, emotions and
values merge—we come to value what we feel is right
and we feel right about what we value.
• The hierarchy of values becomes a hierarchy of
emotions contributing to, and becoming part of,
advanced development.
158
• 1.8. Disintegration.
159 Disintegration.
• Definition: “Loosening, disorganization, or dissolution
of mental structures and functions” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 293).
• “The term disintegration is used to refer to a broad
range of processes, from emotional disharmony to the
complete fragmentation of the personality structure, all
of which are usually regarded as negative” (Dąbrowski,
1964, p. 5).
• Dąbrowski described various types of disintegration:

• Unilevel / Multilevel.
• Negative / Positive.
• Spontaneous / Organized (Directed).
• Partial / Global.
160 Role of Crises in Life – 1.
• “Every authentic creative process consists of
‘loosening,’ ‘splitting’ or ‘smashing’ the former reality.
Every mental conflict is associated with disruption and
pain; every step forward in the direction of authentic
existence is combined with shocks, sorrows, suffering
and distress” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 14).
• “The chances of developmental crises and their
positive or negative outcomes depend on the character
of the developmental potential, on the character of
social influence, and on the activity (if present) of the
third factor. . . . One also has to keep in mind that a
developmental solution to a crisis means not a
reintegration but an integration at a higher level of
functioning” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 245).
• “Crises are periods of increased insight into oneself,
creativity, and personality development” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 18).
• “Crises, in our view, are brought about through
thousands of different internal and external conflicts,
resulting from collisions of the developing personality
with negative elements of the inner and external
milieus” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 245).
• “Experiences of shock, stress and trauma, may
accelerate development in individuals with innate
potential for positive development” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 20).
• “Inner conflicts often lead to emotional, philosophical

and existential crises” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 196).
• “We are human inasmuch as we experience
disharmony and dissatisfaction, inherent in the process
of disintegration” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 122).
• “Prolonged states of unilevel disintegration (Level II)
end either in a reintegration at the former primitive
level or in suicidal tendencies, or in a psychosis”
(Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 135).
• Inner conflict is a cause of positive disintegration and

subsequent development—conflict acts as a motive to
redefine, refine, and discover one’s “new” values.
• Inner conflict is also the result of the process of
positive disintegration and the operation of the
dynamisms of development.
163 Internal Conflict.
• Dąbrowski believed that dis-ease is necessary as a
motivation to change the status quo. The amount of
inner conflict is linked to the degree of change—
maximum at Level II and in the borderline region
between Level II and III:
II
Amount of
Internal III
Conflict I IV
V
Developmental Level
164 Positive Disintegration – 1.
• Definition of positive: “By positive we imply here
changes that lead from a lower to a higher (i.e.
broader, more controlled and more conscious) level of
mental functioning” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 1).
• Definition of Positive Disintegration: “Positive or
developmental disintegration effects a weakening and
dissolution of lower level structures and functions,
gradual generation and growth of higher levels of
mental functions and culminates in personality
integration” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 165).
• “The term positive disintegration will be applied in
general to the process of transition from lower to
higher, broader and richer levels of mental functions.
This transition requires a restructuring of mental
functions” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 18).
• “Loosening, disorganization or dissolution of mental
structures and functions” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 164).
• “Positive when it enriches life, enlarges the horizon,

and brings forth creativity, it is negative when it either
has no developmental effects or causes involution”
• Recovery from a crisis can lead to a reintegration at
the former level and equilibrium or to a more healthy
integration and new equilibrium on a higher level.
• If a person has strong developmental potential, even
severe crises can be positive and lead to growth.
• “The close correlation between personality
development and the process of positive disintegration
is clear” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 18).
• “In education, the theory emphasizes the importance
of developmental crises and of symptoms of positive
disintegration. It provides a new view of conduct
difficulties, school phobias, dyslexia, and nervousness
in children” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 23).
167 Summary of Disintegration – 1.
• Creates the possibility/opportunity of higher growth.
• Strong OE gives everyday experience an intense and
unsettling quality: one is “jolted” into seeing “more.”
• One becomes aware of a continuum of higher versus
lower aspects of both inner and outer reality.
• Developing multilevelness creates ‘vertical’ conflicts
and a new, vertical, upward sense of direction.
• Developmental instincts and one’s emotions naturally
and intuitively draw one toward higher choices.
• Our lower instinctual and socially based values and
habits are brought into conscious review and
disintegrate to be replaced by self-chosen values.
168 Summary of Disintegration – 2.
• A “hierarchization” of life develops: guided by emotion
and one’s ability to imagine higher possibilities, a
vertical perception and categorization creates an
autonomous, consciously chosen hierarchy of values.
• These inner values reflect a person’s own unique
personality ideal: his or her own sense of who he or
she ought to be.
• One’s behavior slowly comes to reflect these higher,
internal values.
• At higher levels of development, individuals form
unique hierarchies of human values, but these core
values converge among people and are universal.
169
• 1.9. The Levels.

170 Dąbrowski’s 5 Levels.
171 Dąbrowski’s Level I – 1.
• Dąbrowski believed that the majority (about 65%) of
people live life at Level I—Primary Integration:
• A very stable, integrated, horizontally based level.
• Behavior is automatic, reflexive, rote, unthinking.
• Instinct (first factor) and social forces (second factor)
influence and determine most behavior.
• A difficult level to break free of because integration
creates a strong sense of belonging and security
(“security of the herd”).
• Inner harmony: most conflicts are external, inner
sense of “always being right,” of selfish entitlement,
“don’t worry about the other guy’s problems.”
172 Dąbrowski’s Level I – 2.
• Integration: “Consists in an organization of instinctive,
emotional and intellectual functions into a coordinated
structure” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 296).
• Primitive Integration (primary integration, Level I):
• “An integration of all mental functions into a cohesive
structure controlled by primitive drives” (Dąbrowski, 1972,
p. 302).
• “Individuals with some degree of primitive integration
comprise the majority of society” (1964, 4).
• “Among normal primitively integrated people,
different degrees of cohesion of psychic structure
can be distinguished” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 66).
• “Psychopathy represents a primitive structure of
impulses, integrated at a low level” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 73).
173 Dąbrowski’s Levels – II, III and IV.
• 3 levels describe varying degrees of disintegration:
• Level II—Unilevel Disintegration: Horizontal conflicts
create ambiguity and ambivalence. Very stressful,
chaotic period, maximum dis—ease:
• High risk of falling back or falling apart.
• Dąbrowski described this as a transitional level.
• Paradigm shift: multilevel, vertical aspects appear.
• Level III—Spontaneous: Multilevel, vertical conflicts
arise spontaneously, create disintegration.
• Level IV—Organized (Directed): We now see and
actively seek out vertical conflicts, we play a
volitional role in “directing” crises and our own
development.
174 Paradigm Shift from UL to ML.
• Transition to multilevelness is the “greatest step.”
Dąbrowski said that the shift from the unilevel to the
multilevel / vertical perception of life is the key to
development.
• Once one truly sees and appreciates the vertical,
there is no turning back to a unilevel existence.
• Dąbrowski compared this with Plato’s cave: once one
breaks free and “sees the [sun]light,” one can no
longer be happy returning to live in the darkness.
• The shift takes tremendous energy and places major
demands on the person: one may initially feel self-
alienated and be overwhelmed with depression and
despair.
175 Secondary Integration – 1.
• Secondary Integration (Level V): “the integration of all
mental functions into a harmonious structure controlled
by higher emotions such as the dynamism of
personality ideal, autonomy and authenticity” (Dąbrowski,
1972, p. 304).
• “The embryonic organization of secondary integration

manifests itself during the entire process of
disintegration and takes part in it, preparing the way for
the formation of higher structures integrated at a
higher level” (Dąbrowski, 1964, pp. 20-21).
• Secondary integration is not the endpoint of mental
development (it continues via the personality idea and
the instinct for self-perfection).
176 Secondary Integration – 2.
• Full realization of multilevelness and personality ideal.
• One’s unique hierarchy of values directs behavior.
• Third factor directs autonomous, volitional, unique
personality—“a good person”—this is what is right.
• Exemplars describe and show us this highest level.
• Inner harmony: we are satisfied that our values and
behaviour now reflect our “true” self as we feel it ought
to be—no internal conflict.
• May have more external conflicts—strong sense of
social justice motivates social action and reform.
• Rarely seen (but the future trend in evolution?).
177 Secondary Integration – 3 – The IPM.
• “These inner psychic milieu dynamisms show distinct
integrative force and strong interconnections. All of
them, including the disposing and directing center, are
gradually identified with personality and approach its
ideal, which is the supplier of mental energy on the
highest accessible level” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 115).
• In secondary integration, the dynamisms of the [IPM]
come under the influence of one’s personality ideal.
“They stop acting individually; the whole personality
acts as an entity” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 100).
• “Not until a person has inwardly understood himself
and then sees the course he is to take does his life
gain peace and meaning” (Kierkegaard, 2000, p. 10).
178
• 1.10. Applications of the Theory.

• 1.10.1. General Applications of the Theory.
179 General Applications – 1.
• Dąbrowski outlined 9 applications (1970, pp. 116-129):
• Psychology (a new approach based on the TPD).
• Psychiatry / Psychotherapy (contrast between a
developmental and a nondevelopmental psychiatric approach,
insight and autopsychotherapy).
• Education: All-around education and development of
personality which culminates in at least partial transcendence
of the biological cycle of life and in at least a partial change of
the psychological type. The first educational precept derivable
from the theory of positive disintegration is that one should
foster authenticity. (Did not mention gifted education).
• Philosophy of Man and Ethics (ML/developmental view).
• Philosophy of Science and Humanities (need to incorporate
vertical views).
180 General Applications – 2.
• Dąbrowski outlined 9 applications (1970, pp. 116-129):
• History (apply TPD to better understand history and historical
events).
• Sociology (development of cultures and societies mirrors
individual growth?).
• Politics (move from ‘is of practice’ to ‘ought of long term goals,’
The distinction of levels of mental functions seems to be the
foundation of any long-range political program of development
and social progress.).
• Pastoral Guidance (understand deep, universal religious
truths. The hierarchy of developmental levels of positive
disintegration may be considered an attempt at empirical
scaling of the road toward perfection).
181 Psychiatry, Psychotherapy – 1.
• “The generation of a genuine autonomous, moral
awareness in an individual and its gradual growth
towards higher levels of emotional maturity and
responsibility is the paramount question in psychiatry”
(Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 118).
• Symptoms are only meaningful in the context of the

individual’s overall potential for development.
• Key idea: to see if a symptom reflects a unilevel or a

multilevel disintegration and to adapt our therapeutic
techniques accordingly.
• Therapy is based on auto-psychotherapy and self-

education.
• Therapeutic Goal: For the person to conduct auto-
psychotherapy and autonomously shape his or her
personality and development.
• Uses a unique “descriptive-interpretative diagnosis.”
• “The aim of diagnosis is to grasp all the positive
factors, to introduce the patient to them and to make
him a co-author of his diagnosis” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 252).
• “The multidimensional, detailed and synthetic
diagnosis comprises essentially half of
psychotherapy . . . For most patients the discovery of
their originality, creativity, symptoms of accelerated
development and even talents, and the program of
development of such functions, very often gives
them a clear sense of life” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 253).
• “Medical treatment and psychotherapeutic efforts will
be replaced by counselling which would consist mainly
in the clarification of the developmental nature of
nervous tension and symptoms of disintegration”
(Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 119).
• Therapy should start with a “multidimensional
diagnosis of the developmental potential of a given
individual. Only in this way can one help in the
development of personality—not by “treatment,” but by
explanation and awareness of the inevitable stages of
growth” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. vii).
• “It is the task of therapy to convince the patient of the
developmental potential that is contained in his
psychoneurotic processes” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. viii).
184 Social Implications – 1.
• Social levels can be examined in a developmental and
multilevel context:
• Today, we can see how people who succeed in the
“dog-eat-dog” society are rewarded and how
sensitive people are treated: this “indicates that the
society itself is primitive and confused” (Dąbrowski, 1970,
p. 118).
• Our society is not receptive to sensitive people or

psychoneurotics and this creates a tragic aspect of
having DP and OE.
• Alienation from a sick, low level society is an
example of positive maladjustment: an indication of
healthy individual development.
185 Social Implications – 2.
• The social level may reflect individual development:
• “The growth of societies may be subject to laws of
disintegration comparable to those evident in the
process of positive disintegration in individuals. It
may be possible to describe and distinguish
primitively integrated, monolithic and stagnant
societies from those which undergo process of
differentiation and developmental conflicts” (Dąbrowski,
1970, p. 126).
• “The distinction of levels of mental functions seems

to be the foundation of any long-range political
program of development and social progress”
(Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 128).
186

• 1.10.2. Applications in Education.
187 Cognition Versus Emotion in Education.
• Education is based on cognitive models:
• Very old tradition—Socrates, Plato and Aristotle:
• Plato: emotion is disruptive and confusing, impairing
learning (cognition must control and supersede emotion).
• Cognition: reflects “mind” and higher “noble” goals.
• Emotion: reflects body and lower impulses/desires.
• View supported by utility of I.Q. tests & Piaget’s work.
• Focus on: cognition, memory and rote performance.
• Psychology and psychiatry also have a general
cognitive bias.
• Some exceptions have been seen:
• Waldorf schools based upon Rudolf Steiner’s work.
• Montessori Method (based on Maria Montessori).
188 Criticisms of Traditional Education.
• Education creates intelligent “robots:”
• History shows “Intelligence” alone is not sufficient to
ensure healthy decision making and behavior.
• Dąbrowski: Education tends to “train” not educate.
Creates a society of conformers and “social achievers”
who follow group based mores, not individuals with
minds (personalities) of their own.
• Education is wrongly used to promote political and social
values and goals, for example, to promote consumerism and
material wealth.
• Individual achievement is valued over individual character.
• “We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education
has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence
and freedom of thought” (Russell, 2000, p. 356).
189 Goals of “Dąbrowskian” Education.
• Self-awareness: Personal hierarchy of values / ideals.
• Global, empathetic and durable attitudes.
• Goal: the creation of unique individuals, capable of
autonomous thought and self analysis based on an
integration of feelings about issues and one’s thoughts
about issues (not a rote recital of “the facts” or of
prevailing social mores/scripts).
• Teach people how to critically evaluate issues and
develop autonomy—help individuals to create
autonomous values and a unique personality.
• Establishes a new hierarchy where emotion “directs”
cognition; intelligence serves higher values.
Dąbrowski, K. (nd). On Authentic Education. Unpublished manuscript.
190 Dąbrowski’s Basic Approach.
• Education must strive to nourish the whole individual,
balancing cognitive and emotional aspects.
• One’s emotional life can have a dramatic impact on
learning style, learning potential and performance.
• A student’s potential must first be seen in the context
of his or her overall personality; then within the
classroom, family and society. Performance and
behavior must also be viewed and evaluated in these
contexts.
• “An awareness of the effect of multilevel disintegration
on the inner psychic milieu is of basic importance for
educators” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 23).
191 TPD and Education.
• Dąbrowski advocated “humanistic education, that is,
true human education and not mere training as the
methods of an animal trainer might be described.”
• Emphasized that children are unique:
• Two avenues to achieve education:
• 1). General education designed to enhance common traits
that all kids share,
• 2). Specialized education focused on the unique traits of
each child.
• “Authentic education is designed to encourage the
child to transgress mediocre statistical qualities and to
develop his own hierarchy of values and aims which
he is then taught to realize.”
192 Implications for All Students.
• Students need to be individually supported and
nurtured on both emotional and cognitive dimensions.
• When a Dąbrowskian diagnosis supports a positive
interpretation, “symptoms” should be accepted:
• OE should be tolerated: Dąbrowski—“We must forgive each
other our psychological type.”
• Crises should be expected and framed in a developmental
context when appropriate.
• Awareness of suicidal potential must be paramount.
• The rich tradition of ML and other OE individuals can be
emphasized to reduce feelings of alienation.
• “A general State education is a mere contrivance for
moulding people to be exactly like one another” (Mill,
2015, p. 103).
193

• 1.10.3. Applications in Gifted Education.
194 TPD and the Gifted – 1.
• Today’s application to the gifted field is largely based
upon one study Dąbrowski conducted with children:
• Reported in Dąbrowski (1967) and again in (1972),
but not identified as an application in (1970).
• Examined 80 children: 30 “intellectually gifted” and
50 from “drama, ballet and plastic art schools”
(Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 251).
• Found “every child” showed “hyperexcitability,” various
psychoneurotic symptoms and frequent conflicts with
the environment.
• “The development of personality with gifted children
and young people usually passes through the process
of positive disintegration” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 261).
• This hypothesis has not yet been tested.
• In the manuscript, On Authentic Education, Dąbrowski
said: “The nervous and psychoneurotic individual is
present in an overwhelming percentage of highly gifted
children and youths, artists, writers, etc. [The]
tendency to reach beyond the statistical norm and
mediocre development presents the privilege and
drama of psychoneurotic people.”
• “The extremely sensitive child, in contact with conflict
in everyday life (with death and injustice), and the child
who deeply experiences feelings of inferiority can
develop, in spite of his intellectual gifts, anxiety
psychoneurosis: be afraid of darkness, loneliness and
aggressiveness in others.”
• Dąbrowski’s hypotheses: as a group, students
identified as gifted will tend to display stronger DP (and
OE), increased levels of psychoneuroses, and will be
predisposed to experience positive disintegration:
• Many students should display “symptoms” that may
reflect higher potentials:
• May display unusual sensitivity, frequent crises, anxieties,
depression, perfectionism, etc.
• May express strong positive maladjustment:
• Strong sense they are different, don’t fit in.
• Have conflicts with social (unilevel) morality.
• Feel alienated from others, from their peers.
• Significant potential for self-harm and suicide.
• Piechowski introduced OE to gifted education (1979).
• Piechowski developed his OEQ test of OE (not a test
of full DP) (Lysy & Piechowski, 1983).
• Ackerman (1997) found problems with the OEQ:
• A revised test, the OEQ-II, has now been developed
(Falk, Lind, Miller, Piechowski, & Silverman, 1999).
• OE was popular because parents could easily relate
and research aided by having the OEQ and OEQ-II.
• No one objected to the application of TPD to the gifted,
however, many have consistently objected to the way
in which Piechowski has applied it.
• Over the past 35 years, many research projects and
papers have addressed the topic, most in the context
of gifted populations (see Mendaglio & Tillier, 2006).
198 Ackerman: The Gifted Subgroups – 1.
• In an influential study, Ackerman (1997) identified
three groups as shown:
Classified as Current study:
gifted by 35.1%
school, classified as
thus nongifted by
classified school but
as gifted General
classified as
here, but Population gifted here as
little OE they showed
was seen OE.
Overlap: classified
(23.8%).
as gifted by
school and study
who showed OE.
199 Ackerman: The Gifted Subgroups – 2.
• Ackerman (1997, p. 235) concluded the 35% with
higher DP are gifted but were not identified by
conventional testing: “The results indicated that gifted
subjects were differentiated from their nongifted peers
based on their higher psychomotor, intellectual, and
emotional OE scores. While this was an unexpected
finding, it clearly illustrates that scores on the OEQ can
differentiate between gifted and nongifted students.”
• This report influenced the gifted field and today, many
now consider OE and gifted to be synonymous.
• Strangely, to my knowledge, the important implications
of this study and the three discrete groups have not
been further replicated, elaborated or researched.
200 Fundamental Measurement Problems – 1.
• Dąbrowski described each overexcitability level by
level. Each OE has a different nature and expression
on each level of development. Thus far, testing efforts
have not taken this into account and have collapsed
each OE into one dimension.
• Example, here are the items measuring emotional OE
from the OEQII: (Falk et al, 1999, pp.7-8).
• I feel other people’s feelings
• I worry a lot
• It makes me sad to see a lonely person in a group
• I can be so happy that I want to laugh and cry at the same time
• I have strong feelings of joy, anger, excitement, and despair
• I am deeply concerned about others
• My strong emotions moved me to tears
• I can feel a mixture of different emotions all at once
• I am an unemotional person
• I take everything to heart
• These items cannot logically be used to generate level
descriptions from test results.
• OE is a discontinuous construct with a non-normal
distribution. The OEs are interrelated; these important
research issues were ignored by past researchers.
• Most research on OE today is meaningless as it
ignores the above features and uses analyses that
assume a normal distribution, continuous variance and
independence between variables.
• The testing manual clearly indicates this is a research
instrument only to be used for group data and should
not be used to make judgements about individual
students (although it appears this is not being adhered
to) (Falk et al, 1999, pp.7-8).
• Finally, because the research instrument does not

correspond to the constructs of OE in the theory, the
validity of the questionnaires is a major concern.
• For an overview of overexcitability: see Dąbrowski

(1972, pp. 6-7; 1996, p. 72), and Mendaglio (2012).
203 Research Findings – 1.
• Mendaglio & Tillier (2006) reviewed the literature.
• Michael Pyryt (2008) meta-analyzed the research
results concluding:
• 1). Gifted individuals are more likely than those not
identified as gifted to show signs of intellectual OE,
but based upon the research strategies and testing
done to date, the gifted do not consistently
demonstrate “the big three,” intellectual,
imaginational and emotional OE.
• 2). Pyryt (2008): “it appears that gifted and average
ability individuals have similar amounts of emotional
overexcitability. This finding would suggest that many
gifted individuals have limited developmental potential
in the Dąbrowskian sense and are more likely to
behave egocentrically rather than altruistically” (p.
177).
• Warne (2011b, p. 688) stated, “It has never been clear
what exactly the OEQII measures . . . Further
psychometric studies on the instrument should be
conducted before the instrument gains widespread
acceptance.”
• “Those who use the OEQII or read studies containing
data produced by the instrument [should] use caution
in interpreting group or individual differences because
such score differences are likely partially psychometric
in nature and not psychological” (Warne, 2011a, p. 590).
• The OEQII is sound and should “enable the counselors
and the teachers to better understand their students’
intelligences” (in contravention of the limitations of the
test outlined in the manual as mentioned above). (Al-
Onizat, 2013, p. 61).
• The OEQII is difficult to administer and has
questionable reliability; further research is needed to
develop a more appropriate instrument to measure
overexcitabilities (Carman, 2011).
206 Research Findings – 4 – Summary.
• The meta-analysis of the last 20 years of research by
Pyryt (2008) calls for the reappraisal of the conclusion
that as a group, the gifted disproportionately display
overexcitability compared to non-gifted groups.
• Many of the problems seen today appear to be the
result of poor academic standards and applications.
• Results have been inconsistent and have not been
able to demonstrate “the big three” OEs (intellectual,
imaginational and emotional) in gifted populations.
• Piirto said “But people in our field should be careful
about assuming that the gifted students are more
sensitive than other students. This just hasn’t been
proved” (Sansom, Barnes, Carrizales, & Shaughnessy, 2018, p. 97).
207 Research Findings – 5 – Questions.
• Current research focuses on OE but not DP.
• Current testing has very questionable validity.
• The following questions remain unanswered:
• Does OE act as a valid marker for giftedness?
• Do the gifted disproportionately show other signs of
developmental potential, for example, the third
factor?
• Do the gifted disproportionately demonstrate
psychoneurosis and positive disintegration?
208 Research Findings – 6 – Questions.
• How do the gifted who display OE differ from those
gifted who do not display OE?
• For the 35% of students identified with OE but not
classified as gifted: Is their non-gifted classification
accurate? If so, what are the educational, counselling,
and other implications for them.
• Dąbrowski: we can have DP and not be “gifted”
although he suggested that above average intelligence
was a necessary but not sufficient condition for
advanced development (see Nixon, 2005).
209 Broader Research Questions – 1.
• Most authors say that gifted students do not display
higher anxiety, depression or suicide compared to
those not identified as gifted (Cross, Cassady, & Miller, 2006; Hyatt &
Cross, 2009; Neihart 1999, Neihart, Robinson, Reis, & Moon, 2002).
• “What do we know? Intellectually or academically

gifted children who are achieving and participate in
special educational program for gifted students are at
least as well adjusted and are perhaps better adjusted
than their nongifted peers. These children do not seem
to be any more at-risk for social or emotional
problems” (Neihart, 1999, p. 16).
• Contemporary research does not help clarify the
psychological differences (if any) of the gifted and no
clear consensus emerges.
• Cross and Cross (2018, p. 72) concluded:
• “[First lesson] Students with gifts and talents are in many ways
the same as their average peers, and what little research has
compared their suicide ideation has found no statistically
significant difference. This indicates that research from the
general population can inform our explorations. Exceptional
abilities, however, alter the lived experience for these students
and, quite possibly, the way they think about that experience
and the possibility of suicide, itself. Risk factors may differ
when they are experienced in the context of exceptional
abilities.
• A second lesson represents areas that seemingly are specific
to students who are gifted. For example, the descriptions of
overexcitabilities in all of the psychological autopsies are
believed by many to be unique among students with gifts and
talents. Using Dąbrowski’s theory may afford suicidologists
hints as to the more vulnerable among gifted students.”
• The examination of psychological autopsies by Cross
and Cross (2018) of gifted students who committed
suicide (just quoted) raises serious concerns.
• Given the gravity of the issues around mental health

and the gifted, especially self-harm and suicide, the
existing literature is disappointing and unhelpful: no
clear picture emerges on the issues.
212
• 1.11. Current and Future Issues.

213 Controversies Over the Theory – 1.
• This review will not examine the veracity of these
claims, simply bring them to the readers’ attention.
• “Openness to experience is the personality domain or
factor that appears equivalent to OEs when comparing
conceptual descriptions. This factor is also called
openness/intellect by several researchers to
adequately describe the subfactors that most closely
represent it (DeYoung, 2010)” (Vuyk, Kerr, & Krieshok, 2016, p.
64).
• “This study provides initial evidence for the strong
association among openness facets and OEs and
serves as ground to support the shift from OEs to
openness to experience” (Vuyk, Kerr, & Krieshok, 2016, p. 66).
• “Rost et al. (2014) . . . stated that given empirical
results, the OE construct was not useful; it did not
serve for giftedness identification, and it did not
describe behaviors that could not be explained by
other sources. Thus it is a redundant construct.
Practice should be based on sound science, but
science behind OEs is not sound” . . .
• “A conceptual change from OEs to openness to
experience would reflect the shift from a static and
essentialist conception of giftedness to a talent
development perspective” (Vuyk, Kerr, & Krieshok, 2016, p. 68).
• “Based on the results, openness to experience and
OEs seem to represent largely the same construct”
(Vuyk, Krieshok, & Kerr, 2016, p. 198).
• “Openness facets and OEs appear to represent the
same construct, and thus the giftedness field would
benefit from discussing the construct as the personality
trait of openness to experience” (Vuyk, Krieshok, & Kerr, 2016,
p. 205).
• See the section on Piechowski, below, for issues

between his views and Dąbrowski’s.
216 Future Issues – 1.
• Are five OE enough?
• Some have suggested adding more types of OE.
• William Hague suggested considering spiritual OE.
• How can we help people to achieve their full DP?
• How can we better understand those in crises?
• How do we understand: DP / OE / Bipolar Disorders /
ADHD?
• What role does the third factor play? Is it related to
focus? Motivation? Eventual measures of success?
• The theory is fluid, open to further research and theory
building. How can we best balance future theory
building and refinement with operationalization
(validation, testing, assessment, etc.)?
• How can we best disseminate the theory?
• The theory has many subtleties and ambiguities and is open
to different interpretations and understandings.
• Each interpreter seems to have a unique emphasis.
• Clearly, more sophisticated, more sensitive, valid,
reliable measurements of OE, DP, and the other
constructs of TPD need to be developed.
• The hypotheses that gifted students will show positive
disintegration and psychoneurosis still need to be
explored and tested.
• Emerging findings in neuroscience should be
monitored vis-à-vis support for Dąbrowski’s constructs.
• Applications to psychotherapy have not yet been
developed and the powerful concepts of
autopsychotherapy and self-education lay fallow.
• Issues concerning the construct of OE and Aron’s
approach to hypersensitivity and Vuyk’s claims
regarding openness to experience will need to be
explored, compared and contrasted.
• Piechowski’s concerns need to be satisfactorily
addressed while still protecting the integrity of TPD.
The ideal resolution: Piechowski publishing his own
theory, allowing scholars to properly evaluate the two.
• Ideally, future refinements to TPD will be guided by
sound observation, logic and substantial and relevant
research findings.
219
• 1.12. Conclusion.
220 Conclusion – 1 – Dąbrowski
“Human and social reality appears to be
submitted to the law of positive disintegration. If
progress is to be achieved, if new and valuable
forms of life are to be developed, lower levels
of mental functions have to be shaken and
destroyed, and a sequence of processes of
positive disintegration and secondary
integrations are necessary. Consequently,
human development has to involve suffering,
conflicts, inner struggle” (Dąbrowski, 1970, 16).
221 Conclusion – 2 – Aeschylus.
He shall be found the truly wise.
’tis Zeus alone who shows the perfect way
Of knowledge: He hath ruled,
Men shall learn wisdom, by affliction schooled.
Aeschylus (525 – 456 B.C.). Agamemnon.

{ess ka less} {agg ga num non}
Eliot, C. W. (Ed.). (1909). Nine Greek dramas.
The Harvard Classics. Volume 8. New York, NY: Collier. (p. 11).
222 Conclusion – 3 – The Little Prince.
Here, then, is a great mystery. For
you who also love the little prince,
and for me, nothing in the
universe can be the same if
somewhere, we do not know
where, a sheep that we never
saw has—yes or no?—eaten a
rose . . . Look up at the sky. Ask
yourselves: is it yes or no? Has
the sheep eaten the flower? And
you will see how everything
de Saint-Exupéry, A, changes . . . And no grown-up will
(1943). The Little Prince.
New York, NY: Harcourt ever understand that this is a
Brace. matter of so much importance!
223
• 2. Tillier’s Summary of the Hierarchy of Dąbrowski.

224 Tillier’s Summary of the Hierarchy of Dąbrowski.
• Secondary Integration: (Multilevel)
ü Personality ideal / Inner psychic milieu
ü Third Factor
ü Existentialism / Authentic, volitional choices
ü Multilevel (Vertical) conflicts/crises appear
ü Psychoneuroses / Positive disintegration
ü Unilevel disintegrations create periods of chaos
ü Strong, positive developmental potentials and
dynamisms (genetic essence)
• Primary Integration: (Unilevel)
ü Second Factor (socialization; good boy, good girl)
ü First Factor (“me first”)
[ P Key Processes / major influences]
225
• 3. Dąbrowski and John Hughlings Jackson.

226 John Hughlings-Jackson.
• John Hughlings-Jackson
(1835-1911).
• Widely seen as the Father
of English neurology.
• Specialized in epilepsy.
• Created a conceptual
framework for clinical
neurophysiology.
• He saw diseases of the
nervous system as a
process of de-evolution, or
dissolution
(see Taylor, 1958; York & Steinberg, 2006)
227 Hughlings-Jackson’s Approach – 1.
• Hughlings-Jackson described how the nervous system
is hierarchically organized in a series of 3 major levels.
• Hughlings-Jackson was instrumental in Dąbrowski’s
conceptualization of the levels of neural organization
and of the corresponding levels of neuro- and
psychological function.
• Focused on evolution and dissolution in the nervous
system. Higher levels are more complex combinations
and arrangements of lower features, thus representing
new steps in the brain’s evolution.
• Higher levels control lower levels. Dissolution occurs
when the inhibition of higher levels is somehow
removed and the more automatic, less reflective
functions of the lower levels are released to act.
• Presented 3 principles of neural evolution:
• 1). Evolution is the transfer from a very well
organized lower level to a higher but poorly
organized, more vulnerable and malleable one.
• 2). Evolution moves from the simplest, lowest centers
to the most complex, highest centers.
• 3). Evolution is a transition from more automatic to
more voluntary centers.
• Summary: the highest centers, representing the
summit of nervous evolution are the least organized,
and most delicate, but the most complex and most
voluntary. (see Dąbrowski, 1964, pp. 83-84; Jackson, 1884).
• For Hughlings-Jackson, the brain’s organization posed
a problem: the higher, newer features are less stable
and more vulnerable. Disorders of the higher levels
(like psychoneurosis) disinhibit the lower levels and
are the first step toward total dissolution of psychic
functions (“mental involution”). Thus, progression of
psychoneurosis could lead to serious mental illness.
• For Dąbrowski, the initial fluid organization of the
highest levels represents an opportunity for further,
self-directed reorganization and development.
Dąbrowski opposed Jackson’s view, saying, “if
anything, psychoneuroses prevent the development of
mental breakdown” (see Dąbrowski, 1972, 220-221).
• For Dąbrowski, development is evolution: “evolution—
a development which proceeds from lower to higher
levels of organization. Positive disintegration is the
type of process though which individual human,
evolution occurs” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 295).
231
• 4. Dąbrowski and Positive Psychology.

• 4.1. Overview
230 Dąbrowski and Positive Psychology.
• We have already seen the importance of Jahoda’s
positive mental health approach in Dąbrowski.
• Jahoda’s positively based approach generally had
minimal impact on psychology.
• Maslow (1954) was the first to coin the term positive
psychology (353-363) and in the appendix (364-378).
• The resurrection of positive psychology advanced by
Seligman and Csíkszentmihályi (2000) provides a
general framework that readily accommodates
Dąbrowski’s theory.
• Reciprocally, Dąbrowski’s theory makes strong
contributions to a positive psychology.
233 What is Positive Psychology?
• “Positive psychology is the study of the conditions and
processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal
functioning of people, groups, and institutions”(Gable &
Haidt, 2005).
• “the scientific study of positive human functioning and

flourishing on multiple levels that include the biological,
personal, relational, institutional, cultural, and global
dimensions of life” (Seligman & Csíkszentmihályi, 2000).
• Seligman and Csíkszentmihályi (2000) noted that

many human factors protect against illness and they
called for a new science of human strength—a
psychology that can understand and nurture these
factors in youth.
234 Key Resources: Positive Psychology.
• Boniwell, I. (2006). Positive psychology in a nutshell: A balanced introduction to the science of optimal functioning (2nd ed. Rev.
ed.). London, England: PWBC.
• Donaldson, S., Dollwet, M. & Rao, M. (2015) Happiness, excellence, and optimal human functioning revisited: Examining the peer-
reviewed literature linked to positive psychology, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10:3, 185-195, DOI:
10.1080/17439760.2014.943801
• Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology [Special issue]? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103–
110. doi:10.1037/1089–2680.9.2.103.
• Haidt, J. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In C. L. M. Keyes, & J. Haidt, (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive
psychology and the life well lived (pp. 275–289). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
• Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth and ancient wisdom. New York, NY: Basic.
• Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (Eds.). (2008). Trauma, recovery and growth: Positive psychological perspectives on posttraumatic
stress. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Linley, A., & Joseph, S. (Eds.). (2004). Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Linley, A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., Wood, A. M. (2006). Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 1(1), 3-16. doi:10.1080/17439760500372796
• Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.
• Pawelski, J. O. (2016) Defining the ‘positive’ in positive psychology: Part I. A descriptive analysis, The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 11:4, 339-356, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1137627
• Pawelski, J. O. (2016) Defining the ‘positive’ in positive psychology: Part II. A normative analysis, The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 11:4, 357-365, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1137628
• Peterson, C. (2006). Primer in positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford.
• Seligman, M. E. P., & Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
• Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2007). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human strengths. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
235
• 4. Dąbrowski and Positive Psychology.

• 4.2. Growth Following Adversity / Posttraumatic
Growth
236 Growth Following Adversity.
• “the experience of growth or positive change following
trauma and adversity is not a qualitatively different
experience that is distinctly different from normal
human development, but rather is a natural, albeit
infrequent, life span developmental event” (Joseph & Linley,
2008, p. 341).
• “The growth literature promises a paradigm shift in our

ways of thinking about trauma” (Joseph & Linley, 2008, p. 342).
• “We are interested in both positive and negative sides
of human experience, and how they relate to each
other” (Joseph & Linley, 2008, p. 342).
237 Growth Following Adversity.
• “growth following adversity is about psychological well-
being and changes in assumptions about the self and
the world” (Joseph & Linley, 2008, p. 350).
• “we cannot fully understand growth without taking into
account the distress that precedes it, and we cannot
fully understand recovery from posttraumatic stress
without taking into account the possibility of growth”
(Joseph & Linley, 2008, p. 342).
238 Posttraumatic growth.
• Positive cognitive, emotional, interpersonal and
spiritual consequences that one may experience
following a traumatic event (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).
• Growth can occur in five ways: improvement in
interpersonal relations, greater personal strength,
positive spiritual change, increased appreciation of life,
and discovering new possibilities (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996).
• Posttraumatic growth occurs in a wide range of people,
facing a wide variety of traumatic circumstances
(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).
• The individual has not only survived, but has
experienced changes that are viewed as important,
and that go beyond what was the previous status quo
(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).
239 Post-traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI).
• Abstract: The development of the Posttraumatic
Growth Inventory, an instrument for assessing positive
outcomes reported by persons who have experienced
traumatic events, is described. This 21-item scale
includes factors of New Possibilities, Relating to
Others, Personal Strength, Spiritual Change, and
Appreciation of Life. Women tend to report more
benefits than do men, and persons who have
experienced traumatic events report more positive
change than do persons who have not experienced
extraordinary events (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996).
240 The Source of Crises.
• Growth following adversity deals primarily with
externally generated crises; for example, natural
disasters, accidents, relationship breakups, etc..
• Positive disintegration is focused upon crises that are
primarily internally generated, usually when an
individual experiences strong internal conflicts over
disparities between higher and lower elements in their
behavior, feelings and values.
• The parallels between posttraumatic growth and
positive disintegration are striking. It is interesting to
speculate if those who experience posttraumatic
growth may display some of the same underlying
factors as described in TPD, for example,
developmental potential.
241 Suffering – 1.
• At a Dąbrowski congress, a speaker said: “we really
like growth but do we really need all this suffering?”
• Suffering is integral to what it means to live and
develop as a human being; suffering is often “a vital
spur to change” and should not be avoided by drugs,
delusions or escapist activities (Davies, 2012).
• “Suffering provides an opportunity to receive or create
something of value” (Gibson, 2015, p. 3).
• “When our external and/or internal worlds impede the
realisation of our human potentialities . . . ‘emotional
suffering’ will signal that all is not well” (Davies, 2012, p. 5).
• “Socialisation can lead us to cultivate habits and live in
ways that impede the realisation of our higher
potentialities. When our realisation is impeded I argue
that our suffering is provoked” (Davies, 2012, p. 7).
• “The ‘necessity’ for suffering, which at first glance may
seem paradoxical, is deeply embedded in the human
soul, and is more common than it appears to the
normal mind” (Dąbrowski, 1937, p. 4).
• “One of the highest ideas of humanity, the purifying
value of suffering (provided it is correctly interpreted),
is continuously alive, for example, in the deepening of
the moral culture of man by suffering, in its influence
on philosophical creation and on the origin of the
educational and moral system” (Dąbrowski, 1937, p. 100).
• “In relation to suffering one does not adopt an
exclusively negative attitude, but begins to accept it as
something that has meaning, as essential for cultural
development, and as a necessary element of one’s
psychic enrichment” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 139).
• “human development has to involve suffering, conflicts,
inner struggle. Positive maladjustment, challenge and
rebellion are as good a part of any culturally growing
society as creativity and respect for the law” (Dąbrowski,
1970, p. 16).
• “Disappointments, suffering, inner conflicts,
breakdowns, force one to depart from peaceful
adjustment to automatic activities such as daily
routine, pursuit of money, pleasures of eating, primitive
joys, or superficial, easily resolved conflicts” (Dąbrowski,
1970, p. 37).
• “Mental health, [is] linked with the sensitivity to
suffering, to painful experiences of oneself and others”
(Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 176).
• “Existentialist philosophy is an expression of the
experiences of pain, suffering, depression, elevation,
empathy, and above all, disquietude and anxiety. Here
man goes beyond the tranquility of thought, of
reasoning by means of abstract ideas. He lives and
suffers; he feels and experiences pain, disintegration,
distraction and inner conflicts” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 139).
• “If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a
meaning in suffering. Suffering is an ineradicable part
of life, even as fate and death. Without suffering and
death human life cannot be complete. The way in
which a man accepts his fate and all the suffering it
entails, the way in which he takes up his cross, gives
him ample opportunity—even under the most difficult
circumstances—to add a deeper meaning to his life”
(Frankl, 1992, p. 76).
245 Further Possibilities.
• The application of Dąbrowski’s multilevel and
multidimensional approach may be particularly
powerful in helping understand posttraumatic growth.
• It remains to be seen what overlap may exist in the
research insights in the literature on posttraumatic
growth and on the theory of positive disintegration.
• It would be interesting to look for correlations between
the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory and the OEQII.
• Deeper, more subtle views of trauma and suffering,
along with Dąbrowski’s constructs and contemporary
posttraumatic growth create opportunities for further
theory building and research. Clinical aspects can be
combined with philosophical insights (Kierkegaard,
Nietzsche and Unamuno) to yield a powerful analysis.
246 Key Resources: Posttraumatic growth.
• Blackie, L. E. R., Jayawickreme, E., Tsukayama, E., Forgeard, M. J. C., Roepke, A. M., & Fleeson, W. (2016).
Post-traumatic growth as positive personality change: Developing a measure to assess within-person variability.
Journal of Research in Personality. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.04.001
• Brooks, M., Lowe, M., Graham-Kevan, N., & Robinson, S. (2016). Posttraumatic growth in students, crime
survivors and trauma workers exposed to adversity. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 199–207.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.051
• Carver, C. S. (2010). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54(2),
245–266. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01217.x
• Davies, J. (2012). The importance of suffering: The value and meaning of emotional discontent. New York, NY:
Routledge.
• Gibson, J. (2015). A Relational Approach to Suffering: A Reappraisal of Suffering in the Helping Relationship.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 0022167815613203–. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022167815613203
• Joseph, S., & Linley, A. (2006). Growth following adversity: Theoretical perspectives and implications for clinical
practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(8), 1041-1053. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.12.006
• Joseph, S., & Linley, A. (Eds.). (2008). Trauma, recovery and growth: Positive psychological perspectives on
posttraumatic stress. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
• Linley, A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 17(1), 11-21. doi: 10.1023/B:JOTS.0000014671.27856.7e
• Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of
trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455-471. doi:10.1002/jts.2490090305
• Tedeschi, R. G. & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical
evidence, Psychological Inquiry,15(1),1-18. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01
• Ulloa, E., Guzman, M. L., Salazar, M., & Cala, C. (2016). Posttraumatic Growth and Sexual Violence: A
Literature Review. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(3), 286–304.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1079286
247
• 5. Dąbrowski and Maslow: Introduction of the

construct of Multilevel Actualization.
Presented by Bill Tillier at the

Eighth International Congress of the
Institute for Positive Disintegration
in Human Development
August 7 - 9, 2008 Canmore, Alberta, Canada
Revised 2018
Dąbrowski and Gifted Education:
Beyond Overexcitabilities.
248 Maslow’s Childhood.
• Hated his domineering, controlling and cruel mother—
he felt “no mother-love” (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014, p. 548).
• Very isolated, unhappy child, described himself as a
“freak with two heads,” a view echoed by his father:
“the ugliest kid you’ve ever seen” (Hoffman, 1988, p. 6).
• Maslow could not see how he had not become
“psychotic” in his abusive childhood (Hoffman, 1992, p. 70).
• Too shy to date, he married his first cousin Bertha
(Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014, p. 548).
• Set out to understand human relations, at first as a

Watsonian behaviorist (Schultz, & Schultz, 2012, p. 339).
• He was fascinated by, and attracted to, dominant
women all his life but approached them academically.
249 Maslow’s Controversial Views – 1.
• Quotations do not do justice in representing Maslow. The reader
is encouraged to consult his original works.
• A careful reading of Maslow is disappointing because some of
his viewpoints seem surprisingly primitive.
• “The average high-dominance woman in our insecure society
prefers straightforward, unsentimental, rather violent, animal,
pagan, passionate, even sometimes brutal lovemaking . . . In
other words she must be dominated, must be forced into
subordinate status” (Maslow, 1942, pp. 283-284).
• “the high-dominance woman unconsciously wishes to be
raped; the middle-dominance woman to be seduced” (Maslow,
1942, p. 284).
• “being raped (in whatever sense) is less psychologically
damaging to women than to men. Women are more able to
permit themselves to ‘relax and enjoy it’ than men are” (Maslow,
1971/1976, p. 351).
• “human sexuality is almost exactly like primate sexuality” Dominant males
and submissive females are equivalent in both species: an idea later
reflected in his continuum view of instincts in animals and humans (Maslow,
1942, p. 291).
• “I have been wondering how to protect the biologically gifted from the almost
inevitable malice of the biologically nongifted. . . . is for the biological
superiors (alphas or aggridants) to become a kind of priestly class”
(Hoffman, 1996, p. 71).
• “Women, especially ‘advanced’ and educated women in the United States of
America, are frequently fighting against their own very deep tendencies to
dependency, passivity, and submissiveness (because this unconsciously
means to them a giving up of selfhood or person-hood). It is then easy for
such a woman to see men as would-be dominators and rapists and to treat
them as such, frequently by dominating them” (Maslow, 1971/1976, p. 154).
• “In some women, I have also been tempted to think of ‘having a baby’ as
fullest self-actualization all by itself, at least for a time. However, I should say
that I feel less confident in speaking of self-actualization in women” (Maslow,
1971/1976, p. 154).
• “it might be desirable if we could teach our young men to think
of their penises, for instance, as phallic worshipers do, as
beautiful and holy objects, as awe inspiring, as mysterious, as
big and strong, possibly dangerous and fear inspiring, as
miracles which are not understood. If we can teach our young
men this, not to mention our young women, then every boy will
become the bearer of a holy thing, of a sceptre, of something
given to him by nature which no woman can ever have. We
supply him thereby with an ultimate and irreducible self-esteem
which is his simply by virtue of being a male, a man with a penis
and testicles, which should at times awe the woman and the
man himself as well. This B-attitude should help him to maintain
a sense of the holy or the sacred whenever he has an
ejaculation, and should help him to think of his orgasm in the
same way that the Tantrists and other religious sects do, i.e., as
a unifying experience, a holy experience, a symbol, as a
miracle, and as a religious ceremony” (Maslow, 1964/1976, p. 115).
• “Any woman who is at all sensitive to the philosophical
must occasionally be awed by the great storms of
sensuality that she can arouse in her man, and also by
her power to allay and quiet these storms. This can be
seen as goddess-like power, and therefore may be
used as one basis for her profound biological self-
esteem as a woman. Something similar can be true for
male self-esteem, to the extent that he is able to
arouse and to calm sexual storms in his wife” (Maslow,
1964/1976, pp. 115-116).
• I provide this quotation to emphasize that biology

underlies Maslow’s approach to human psychology, in
this example, the biological basis of self-esteem in
both men and women.
253 Maslow’s Primate Research Set His Approach.
• Maslow was assessed with a 195 IQ (Hoffman, 1988, p. 74).
• Under Harry Harlow, Maslow studied primate behavior,
forming critical insights into dominance (see Blum, 2002).
• Studied dominance, motivation and sexual behavior by
interviewing dominant college women (Hoffman,1988, p. 77).
• “Dominance is a more potent determiner of, or is more
closely related to, sexual behavior than is sexual drive”
(Maslow, 1942, p. 292).
• Maslow equated an individual’s “feeling of dominance”
with confidence. He first called this “dominance-
feeling” but later called it self-esteem: ideas that later
influenced his needs hierarchy (Cullen, 1997, p. 363).
• Details of orgasm led him to “peak experiences.”
• Using normal subjects became an important model.
254 Maslow’s Animal – Human Continuum – 1.
• “man has a higher nature which is just as ‘instinctoid’
as his lower nature, and that this higher nature
includes the needs for meaningful work, for
responsibility, for creativeness, for being fair and just,
for doing what is worthwhile and for preferring to do it
well” (Maslow 1971/1976, p. 228).
• Our instinctoid biology underlies a single continuum of
both our lowest and highest traits—“the so-called
spiritual or value-life, or ‘higher’ life, is on the same
continuum (is the same kind or quality of thing) with
the life of the flesh, or of the body, i.e., the animal life,
the material life, the ‘lower’ life. That is, the spiritual life
is part of our biological life. It is the ‘highest’ part of it,
but yet part of it” (Maslow 1971/1976, pp. 313-314).
• “for the mass of mankind, man’s higher nature is inconceivable
without a satisfied lower nature as a base. The best way to
develop this higher nature is to fulfill and gratify the lower nature
first. Furthermore, man’s higher nature rests also on the
existence of a good or fairly good environment, present and
previous. The implication here is that man’s higher nature, ideals,
and aspirations, and abilities rest not upon instinctual
renunciation, but rather upon instinctual gratification” (Maslow,
1968, p. 173).
• “Our godlike qualities rest upon and need our animal qualities.
Our adulthood should not be only a renunciation of childhood,
but an inclusion of its good values and a building upon it. Higher
values are hierarchically-integrated with lower values. Ultimately,
dichotomizing pathologizes, and pathology dichotomizes”
(Maslow, 1968, pp. 174-175).
• “I can report empirically that the healthiest persons in our culture
are the ones who really have honest peace, contentment,
serenity, and happiness. It is precisely these people who are
most (not least) pagan, most (not least) ‘instinctive,’ most (not
least) accepting of their animal nature” (Maslow, 1949, p. 277, italics
in original).
• “(A) Actualization is not actualization of the self but actualization

of the human organism, i.e. of an organism inscribed within an
animal-human continuum and is as such part of wider,
interdependent link with nature.
• (B) As a tendency, actualization is a dynamic process rather
than a static entity. As such, it cannot be measured or quantified,
nor can it be easily aligned with any overarching metaphysical
notion” (Bazzano, 2017, p. 314).
257 No True Autonomy.
• “It is these needs, ‘instinctoid’ in nature, that we can
also think of as built-in values—values not only in the
sense that the organism wants and seeks them but
also in the sense that they are both good and
necessary for the organism” (Maslow, 1966, p. 125).
• Maslow rejected free choice and existentialism. He
viewed existentialism as a denial of biological and
instinctual influences: “For Sartre and all those whom
he has influenced, one’s self becomes an arbitrary
choice, a willing by fiat to be something or do
something without any guidelines about which is
better, which is worse, what’s good and what’s bad”
(Maslow, 1971/1976, p. 178).
258 Maslow Applies Goldstein’s Self-Actualization.
• Kurt Goldstein: “We assume only one drive, the drive of self-
actualization, but are compelled to concede that under certain
conditions the tendency to actualize one potentiality is so strong
that the organism is governed by it” (1963, p. 145).
• “The organism has definite potentialities, and because it has
them it has the need to actualize or realize them. The fulfillment
of these needs represents the self-actualization of the
organism. Driven by such needs, we experience ourselves as
active personalities and are not passively impelled by drives
that are felt to conflict with the personality” (Goldstein, 1963, p. 146).
• The tendency toward self-actualization acts from within,
overcoming disturbances arising from the clash with the world,
not out of anxiety but out of the joy of conquest (Goldstein,
1938/1975).
• If the organisms’ needs are met, its innate biological/
psychological potentials can be actualized. If injured, this drive
will seek to reorganize and restore balance.
259 Maslow Applies Self-Actualization.
• Already looking at security/motivation, Maslow (1943b) quickly
applied Goldstein’s idea in his interviews about development.
• Whitehead said Goldstein was “misinterpreted” by Maslow:
“emphasis on discovering one’s ‘real self’ or ‘authentic self,’
ultimately ignoring the role played by environment in the
organism-environment relationship” (2017, p. 72).
• Maslow could not find enough sufficiently developed subjects,
so he used biographical studies (see the list: Krems, Kenrick, & Neel,
2017, p. 1350).
• Maslow (1943c, p. 91) listedfive sets of goals, purposes or needs
and included in the fifth: “self-actualization, self-fulfilment, self-
expression, working out of one’s own fundamental personality,
the fulfilment of its potentialities, the use of its capacities, the
tendency to be the most that one is capable of being.”
• Maslow eventually presented several different sets of criteria for
self-actualization (Maslow, 1968, p. 83, 1970, pp. 153-172, 1971/1976,
pp. 44-47, pp. 153-172).
260 Dominance: The Foundation of SA.
• “His assumption that it was women’s self-esteem that enabled
them to dominate others was based on his earlier conclusion
that his monkeys’ confidence had enabled them to dominate
others.” But the monkeys were isolated in cages except for the
brief times they spent in experiments. Maslow assumed this
made no difference to their behavior (see Cullen, 1997, p. 368).
• “A belief in the ‘naturalness’ of male dominance and female
submission thus underlies Maslow’s needs hierarchy and his
larger humanistic project” (Cullen & Gotell, 2002, p. 553).
• To see and accept one’s “natural superiority” is an important
precondition of self-actualization: this created a gender bias in
SA—men having more “natural” dominance (see Cullen, 1997).
• He also researched and wrote influential works on business:
companies should help men achieve their natural potential to be
dominant leaders; women lack the natural instincts to be
managers (see Maslow, 1965, 2000).
261 Maslow’s Unilevel Approach – 1.
• “Our healthy individuals find it possible to accept
themselves and their own nature without chagrin or
complaint or, for that matter, even without thinking
about the matter very much.
They can accept their own human nature in the stoic
style, with all its shortcomings, with all its discrepancies
from the ideal image without feeling real concern. It
would convey the wrong impression to say that they are
self-satisfied. What we must say rather is that they can
take the frailties and sins, weaknesses, and evils of
human nature in the same unquestioning spirit with
which one accepts the characteristics of nature” . . .
“the self-actualized person sees reality more clearly:
our subjects see human nature as it is and not as they
would prefer it to be” (Maslow, 1970, p 155-156).
• “The first and most obvious level of acceptance is at the so-
called animal level. Those self-actualizing people tend to be
good animals, hearty in their appetites and enjoying themselves
without regret or shame or apology. They seem to have a
uniformly good appetite for food; they seem to sleep well; they
seem to enjoy their sexual lives without unnecessary inhibition
and so on for all the relatively physiological impulses. They are
able to accept themselves not only on these low levels, but at
all levels as well; e.g., love, safety, belongingness, honor, self-
respect. All of these are accepted without question as worth
while, simply because these people are inclined to accept the
work of nature rather than to argue with her for not having
constructed things to a different pattern” (Maslow, 1970, p. 156).
• In Maslow, lower levels are to be accepted and expressed,
forming a foundation for higher levels, thus, no vertical conflicts
arise between higher and lower aspects (the critical
developmental force that forms multilevelness in Dąbrowski).
• “Most commonly, self-actualizing people see life
clearly. They are less emotional and more objective,
less likely to allow hopes, fears, or ego defenses to
distort their observations. Maslow found that all self-
actualizing people are dedicated to a vocation or a
cause. Two requirements for growth are commitment
to something greater than oneself and success at
one’s chosen tasks. Major characteristics of self-
actualizing people include creativity, spontaneity,
courage, and hard work” (Frager & Fadiman, 2005, p. 342).
• There is no sense of seeking a personality ideal in
Maslow. He described various levels of potential within
a person and said that all of these potentials should be
accepted/actualized, the lowest along with the highest.
264 Discover and Actualize the Self “As Is.”
• Maslow (1971/1976) rejected pursuing ideals: ideals
and “oughts” should reflect “actual potentiality which
can actually be fulfilled” (p. 105)—“the best way for a
person to discover what he ought to do is to find out
who and what he is” (p. 108).
• “Do you want to find out what you ought to be? Then
find out who you are! ‘Become what thou art!’” (p. 108).
• Unrealistic ideals create anxiety, neuroses, guilt and
prevent our acceptance and happiness: “We may feel
totally sinful, or depraved or unworthy. We see our is
as extremely far away from our ought” (p. 108).
• Maslow: intrinsic guilt “comes from defying one’s own
nature and from trying to be what one is not” (p. 327).
265 Maslow and Dąbrowski – 1.
• Maslow and Dąbrowski met in 1966 and “began a friendship”
and corresponded until Maslow died in 1970 (Piechowski, 1999, p.
326).
• Over Dąbrowski’s protests, Piechowski equated self-
actualization with Level IV and V, adding material into the 1977
books as they went to press.
• Maslow’s initial position was that Dąbrowski had made a
significant contribution but that it could be conceptually
subsumed under his (Maslow’s) model.
• Dąbrowski argued that his theory (with PD, ML, and
DP-OE) went beyond Maslow’s. With a number of
important qualitative differences, TPD must be kept
separate. While some traits may overlap, at the
construct level, the theories are not equivalent or
compatible.
266 Maslow and Dąbrowski – 2.
• Maslow subsequently endorsed Dąbrowski (1970), in a
quotation appearing on the back cover of Dąbrowski (1972). “I
consider this to be one of the most important contributions to
psychological and psychiatric theory in this whole decade.
There is little question in my mind that this book will be read for
another decade or two, and very widely. It digs very deep and
comes up with extremely important conclusions that will
certainly change the course of psychological theorizing and the
practice of psychotherapy for some time to come.”
• Dąbrowski was asked several times to describe the
characteristics of higher-level individuals and refused,
saying that if he gave a prescriptive list of traits linked
to development, it would impair the individual from
seeking and finding his or her own unique essence
and authenticity.
267 Dąbrowski’s Position.
• No sense of multilevelness is present in Maslow.
• Must be a qualitative break between animals/humans, and the
lower and higher levels—both are not on a single continuum.
• Overcoming our animal nature differentiates humans and
signals our human authenticity.
• One must transcend reality “as is” and work toward “ought.”
• One must reject the self as is—must use multilevelness to
consciously identify and differentiate lower aspects to be
inhibited or transcended, from those higher aspects to be
retained, expanded or created: form a personality ideal.
• Higher aspects chosen, reflecting one’s personality ideal, will be
“more like oneself.”
• Personality ideal is implemented via personality shaping.
• Approach to the role of crises, psychoneurosis is quite different.
• Dąbrowski: if SA is equated with TPD or its levels, his approach
would be misunderstood and lessened.
268 Multilevel Actualization – Tillier – 1.
• Previous efforts to simply equate self-actualizing /
actualization with Dąbrowski have been confusing and
misleading as the underlying rationale and
assumptions of the two theories are quite different.
• In order to advance from this impasse, I am
introducing the new, neo-Dąbrowskian and neo-
Maslowian construct of multilevel actualization (MA).
• Multilevel actualization bifurcates Maslow’s continuum
of animal and human traits, making it clear that lower
level features qualitatively differ from higher ones, thus
reflecting the differences Dąbrowski described
between unilevel and multilevel experience.
• Before authentic actualizing can begin, a multilevel
differentiation of instincts, traits, characteristics and
emotions must take place.
• One must carefully review one’s character and
imagine one’s aims, goals and personality ideal.
• Lower aspects must be identified and inhibited; higher
features identified to be developed and actualized.
• The differentiated self—the personality ideal—
subsequently becomes crucial in directing the process
of actualizing and moving toward deliberate
personality shaping, eventually resulting in the
actualization of the qualities and characteristics of an
authentic, unique individual.
• In Maslow, self-actualization involves a superior
perception of reality, a clearer and more undistorted
view of things as they really are.
• In multilevel actualization, one’s dreams and ideals
represent the images of a higher reality—a potential
reality, a reality of what is possible—this vision
becomes one’s quest; guiding actualization to create
one’s new reality.
• Actualizing reality as it exists versus establishing
ideals and goals to strive for is a fundamental
difference between Maslow and Dąbrowski.
• Maslow offered lists of traits associated with self-
actualization, Dąbrowski refused, saying the individual
must find his or her own unique essence to follow.
• Dąbrowski: disparities between one’s imagined reality
(ideals of how life could/should be) versus one’s actual
reality creates strong vertical (multilevel) conflicts.
• These multilevel conflicts are a fundamental part of the
developmental process acting through anxiety,
depression, psychoneuroses and positive
disintegration: a developmental process not seen in
Maslow.
• In Maslow, conflicts, anxiety, crises and neuroses are
“diseases of cognition”—blockages to development.
• “What is psychopathological? Anything that disturbs
or frustrates or twists the course of self-actualization”
(Maslow, 1970, p. 270).
• The features of self-actualization put forth by Goldstein
and Maslow can be reviewed, revitalized and re-
conceptualized using a multilevel approach.
• Contemporary research also must be taken into
account. It emphasizes a wide variety of approaches
to the construct of SA: D’Souza & Gurin, 2016; Ivtzan, Gardner,
Bernard, Sekhon, & Hart, 2013; Kenrick, 2017; Krems, Kenrick, & Neel,
2017; Morley, 1995; Oaks, 2016; Rowan, 2015; Whitehead, 2017.
• An integration of SA, multilevelness, and personality

ideal would lead to an important new approach to, and
paradigm of, development.
• Research using this more comprehensive approach to
development would provide important new insights.
• In summary, multilevel actualization involves a two-
step process:
• 1). A multilevel differentiation of one’s self, involving
a careful review of the essence of one’s character to
identify the elements to be included versus those to
be discarded in creating one’s personality ideal.
• 2). Actualization of this personality ideal involves:
• Amplification and realization of the higher elements
one considers more like oneself.
• Active inhibition, repression and transformation of
lower elements that are less like oneself.
• As a developmental construct, self-actualizing is
limited to unilevelness if we do not incorporate a
multilevel view, a self-review, vertical differentiation
and self-shaping.
• A synthesis creating a new neo-approach is called for
to provide the multilevel foundation to an actualization
that allows our authentic humanity to rise above our
animal heritage and instincts. A future challenge is to
refine and further research the nature of multilevel
actualization.
• Recalling Lincoln’s first inaugural address in 1861, a
multilevel approach to actualization will help free the
better angels of our nature from the bonds of our
animal ancestry leading another step closer toward the
realization of authentic human nature.
275
• 6. Dąbrowski and Philosophy.

276 Dąbrowski’s Philosophy – 1
• Dąbrowski was influenced by two major philosophical
traditions: essentialism and existentialism:
• One has certain innate features that are essential (Plato).
• One expresses freedom through the choices that one makes
to become an authentic individual (existentialism).
• Dąbrowski (1973) combined both approaches in what
he called the “existentio-essentialist compound.”
• Ultimately, he concluded essentialism was more
important than existentialism:
• “Essence is more important than existence for the birth of a
truly human being.”
• “There is no true human existence without genuine essence.”
(Existential thoughts and aphorisms, page 11).
277 Dąbrowski’s Philosophy – 2.
• Essence is a fundamental foundation of the TPD:
• But, Plato’s essence is more than simply genetics, it is a
complex mixture of inborn genetics and emergent character.
• Dąbrowski rejected Plato’s description of human essence as it
was limited to the development of intellect.
• Essence sets the parameters of individual growth.
• Existential choice then operates within these limits:
• One must do more than simply allow one’s character
(essence) to unfold—one must actively see (and later seek)
vertical choices in life and pick higher over lower choices.
Within one’s essence, one creates an emergent personality,
based upon a unique and autonomous hierarchy of values
and personality ideal. This is the core of human authenticity.
278 Dąbrowski’s Philosophy – 3.
• Dąbrowski described a “phenomenological
hermeneutic” approach.
• Phenomenology: each person has a unique perception
of, and experience of, life and of the world. We need to
become aware of, familiar with, and articulate about,
our life experiences.
• Hermeneutics: people must discuss and dialogue with
each other (the dialectic of Socrates) to arrive at a
shared interpretation of the subject being discussed.
• In phenomenological hermeneutics, we share our
individual experiences of life with others via dialogue.
Eventually, we achieve an overall, shared consensus
and mutual understanding of Reality.
279
• 6.1. Dąbrowski and Kierkegaard.

280
The Philosophical Foundations of

Dąbrowski’s Theory of Positive
Disintegration
Part 2:
Existentialism, Kierkegaard and Dąbrowski.
Presented by Bill Tillier at
Positive Disintegration: The Theory of the future.
100th Dąbrowski anniversary program on the man,
the theory, the application and the future.
The Fifth International Conference on the Theory of Positive
Disintegration, November 7-10, 2002, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
(revised 2018).
281 Existentialism – 1.
• Synopsis: One must realize the necessity of choice in
actively making one’s life: this creates anxiety and
conflict, features inherent in human experience that
cannot be eliminated.
• Existentialism emphasizes existence over essence:
• Sartre: “What is meant here by saying that existence
precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns
up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines
himself” (2007, p. 22).
• Existentialism is presented by many authors and in
approaches (red are major Dąbrowskian influences):
• Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Husserl,
Unamuno, Kafka, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus.
• Major division in existentialism between theists and
atheists:
• Man is alone on earth, but with God in Heaven to act as our
ultimate judge: (Kierkegaard, Jaspers, and Dąbrowski).
• Man is alone on earth—there is no God, we alone must judge
ourselves: (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus).
• Both approaches emphasize individual choice.
• There is no timeless or absolute truth or reality, and
therefore life is largely meaningless. We create what
truth or meaning (values) we have, as we participate in
the experience of life: “life is what you make it.”
• Seeking refuge in social norms or religion is generally
seen to stymie self-development and autonomy.
• We each have responsibility and freedom to choose
our actions; in turn, our actions define who we are.
• Each choice is eternal: a mistake lasts forever in
regret, but everyday we have new choices to make
and therefore, new chances to redeem ourselves.
• Our choices are individual; however, because we are
human, our choices also reflect on all mankind.
• Personality is important to many existential authors:
• Kierkegaard: (The Sickness Unto Death) Depicts man’s
personality in terms of: 1) The relation of the body to the soul.
2) The relation of the body and soul to God.
• Nietzsche’s overman construct reflects his understanding of
man’s personality and the possibilities of self-transcendence.
• The self is not predetermined—the choices we make
(or don’t make) determine and define us and our lives:
• Autonomous self is created by one’s self-chosen
actions.
• Sartre: “Man is nothing else but that which he makes
of himself” (2007, p. 22).
• Our power to choose creates a sense of freedom.
• All choices contain negative aspects:
• Life is often mysterious and often seems meaningless and
absurd.
• Many things in life defy rational explanation.
• Realizing our freedom and these negative aspects creates
strong anxiety and sometimes hopelessness.
• All choices contain positive aspects:
• The freedom to choose is a tremendous gift (if used
well).
• One’s personal beliefs (and / or) faith are important
positive aspects in decision making.
• Authenticity is making decisions and accepting

responsibility for their consequences (Sartre).
• Dąbrowski was heavily influenced by the works of

Kierkegaard. The remainder of this presentation will
therefore focus on Kierkegaard’s life and works.
286 Kierkegaard – 1.
• See Lowrie (1942/1970).
• Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855).
• Born, Copenhagen, Denmark.
• Only lived 42 years but wrote 25 books.
• Studied philosophy and theology at Copenhagen University.
• Latin and German were the languages of the day, Søren
defended his thesis in Latin.
• Wrote important critiques of Hegel and of the German
romantics. Early figure in the development of modernism.
Considered a Christian writer for his works on the modern
relevance of biblical figures. Saw himself as a romantic poet.
His works became obscure soon after his death.
• Kierkegaard was resurrected by M. Heidegger and K. Jaspers.
• Called the “father of existentialism,” his ideas came to have a
major impact on many writers.
• Kierkegaard’s writings center around relations to his mother, his
father, and his fiancée, Regina Olsen.
• Basic themes: criticized the dogma of Christianity, advanced a
new view of the self, focused on the importance of making
individual decisions.
• Kierkegaard was deeply affected by his family background:
• Søren’s father, Michael, rose from poverty to become a
prominent citizen but felt lifelong guilt because, as a youth, he
had cursed God.
• Michael was married, but his wife became ill and died. During
this illness, the family had a nurse with whom Michael had an
affair.
• They later married, having seven children. Søren was the
youngest. Michael felt his children were all cursed to die before
34 (the age of Christ at the crucifixion). This was prophetic as
only Søren and another brother lived past 34.
• Michael saw Søren’s potential so his upbringing of Søren was
very harsh, especially in terms of religion. Søren said “Humanly
speaking, it was a crazy upbringing.” These words are very
similar to what Maslow said of his childhood.
• Søren felt that his chances of having a normal life had been
sacrificed by his father’s religious preoccupations.
• After his father died, Søren was at loose ends. He was 21 when
he met 14 year old Regina Olsen. He turned their story into his
famous book, “Diary of a Seducer.”
• Søren befriended Regina’s family and alienated her
from her boyfriend. When she turned 17, he proposed.
• Without warning he broke off the engagement, later
saying that “God had vetoed the marriage.”
• Søren fled to Berlin to study Hegel. Frederic Engels
was a classmate.
• Søren was obsessed over the Biblical story of
Abraham and Isaac. Wrote “Fear and Trembling” in
response:
• Said that he had acted badly with Regina so that she would
blame him and not God for their break. Said that if he “had
faith” he would have married her. He was love-sick the rest of
his life.
• Søren befriended a newspaper publisher. Later, they
had a falling out and the publisher used the paper to
make a laughing stock of Søren.
• He felt that the Church had
become complacent and began
to harshly criticize it. Towards
the end of his life, he often
printed heretical pamphlets and
handed them out on the street.
• Søren died, alienated and
without friends, in 1855.
291 Kierkegaard’s Approach – 1.
• Kierkegaard’s central preoccupations:
• How to become a good Christian (as he saw this).
• How to become an individual—he requested his
tombstone simply read “That Individual.”
• At that time in Denmark, these tasks were “more

difficult for the well-educated, since prevailing
educational and cultural institutions tended to
produce stereotyped members of ‘the crowd’ rather
than to allow individuals to discover their own unique
identities.”
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/.
• Kierkegaard felt that society and the church played a
strong role in leading people away from individual
awareness and existence (he called this leveling).
• Social process suppress individuality: the uniqueness of a
person is made non-existent by assigning equal value to all
aspects of human life. All of the nuances and subtle
complexity of human identity are lost and nothing meaningful
in one’s existence can be affirmed.
• Kierkegaard rejected scientific logic and knowledge as
the means of human redemption (Hegel’s position).
• He emphasized the gap between the individual and
God to show us that human beings are totally
dependent on God’s grace for their salvation.
• The crowd robs the person of individual responsibility.
As Kierkegaard (1962) explained:
• A crowd—not this crowd or that, the crowd now living
or the crowd long deceased, a crowd of humble
people or of superior people, of rich or of poor, etc.—
a crowd in its very concept is the untruth, by reason
of the fact that it renders the individual completely
impenitent and irresponsible, or at least weakens his
sense of responsibility by reducing it to a fraction. (p.
112)
• Kierkegaard described two modalities that could lead
to the feeling of despair, the first, relinquishing one’s
true self through an identification with socialization. . .
• Kierkegaard saw the person who feels “the despair of
not willing to be oneself,” who is spiritless—who is
merely “a talking-machine:”
• “spiritlessness describes a special relationship that an
individual has with the world and with the self. In this
understanding of the world, the individual experiences the
world as already constituted. This also means the individual
associates with immediate possibilities and remains unaware
of the potential and the possibilities embedded in existence.
The individual identifies with existing standards to obtain self-
knowledge and primarily evaluates him- or herself through
achievement and functionality. Thus, the object of self-
knowledge is how the individual lives up to the functional
standards offered by various institutions, such as the state,
the nation, the workplace, and so on” (Nielsen, 2017, pp. 7-8).
• Kierkegaard said society blocks the development of
individuality; society provides objects the individual can
identify with (e.g. a job) that create security and
distraction, thereby protecting the individual from
having to face his or her real self, and thus avoiding
the experience of true personal despair.
• In Kierkegaard’s second modality, one feels despair
that arises from being willing to try to be oneself.
• One despairs because self-discovery is difficult—there
is no pre-existing deeper self to discover or bring forth.
• Our choices create a self: “A man possesses his own
self as determined by himself, as someone selected by
himself” (cited in Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 36).
• Kierkegaard said the only true freedom is the heavy
responsibility of being able to, and having to, choose
oneself—to construct oneself, one’s beliefs and one’s
values through the successive decisions that one
makes in day-to-day life.
• The day-to-day process of “acting and making
decisions” is “guided by [the] individual’s moods,
sudden impulses, and loose thoughts” (Nielsen, 2017, p. 10).
• Stokes (2015, p. 15) provided a synopsis: “the
Kierkegaardian self is always a created self, a self that
finds God as the ultimate ‘criterion’ for its own self-
actualization and Christ as its prototype for emulation.”
297 Kierkegaard’s Method – 1.
• Kierkegaard used Socratic irony, complicated parables
and paradoxes to tell stories:
• His dissertation, On the Concept of Irony with constant
reference to Socrates, showed how Socrates used irony to
facilitate the development of subjectivity in his students.
• Following Socrates, he said people know too much,

and this is an obstacle to their redemption. He said
tear apart this “phony” knowledge and show people
they actually know little. (Socrates: “I am wiser, as
although I know nothing, I know that I do not know.”)
• When one realizes that one does not know, this

creates freedom; however, with this freedom comes
the responsibility (and anxiety) of decision making.
• Rejected the knowledge and answers provided by
external “authorities” (like Society or the Church): the
individual must seek his or her own answers.
• Placed responsibility on the reader (did not see himself
as an authority). Calling his approach “indirect
discourse” his writing forced the reader to answer core
existential, ethical and religious questions.
• Kierkegaard’s writing has a circular quality to it: he
talks a lot about constructs but ultimately, he rejects
constructs and brings us back to Human experience:
• Example: the title The Concept of Dread.
• Paradoxically refers to dread as a theoretical construct (not
an experience)—yet, it is perhaps the ultimate experience.
• Humans define themselves and try to understand the
world by converting their experiences into constructs;
however, ultimately, constructs are useless and we
must return to our own human experience to
understand life.
300 Existence is Absurd.
• Thought about existence and what it means.
• He generally endorsed Plato’s logic and FORMS but,
he said existence is always concrete, never abstract:
Existence cannot be seen as a Platonic FORM:
• Existence cannot be conceptualized and analyzed like a
mathematical construct.
• Existence is a leftover “residue” that is simply “there:”
• Existence is a “surd” (A voiceless consonant: speechless;
words can not explain it; it is lacking in sense; irrational).
• Life is absurd: idea promoted by Kafka, Camus and Sartre.
• Basic Paradox: Existence is at our very core, but it is
just a meaningless and absurd “leftover” in life.
301 Existence – Synopsis.
• Existence cannot be thought about or studied as a
construct or as an abstraction.
• Existence fundamentally does not make logical sense:
• Thus, Plato’s ultra-logical approach won’t work here.
• Existence must be known by being experienced.
• Doing and thinking strike a paradoxical balance in
each person’s existence:
• Existing is primarily a form of doing (living) not a form
of thinking.
• However, thinking also plays a crucial role in one’s
decision making and in living.
302 Action – 1.
• There is a basic paradox between acting and thinking:
• We can not know life by merely thinking, but we
cannot live (or act) without thinking:
• Our choice of action is based on the initial and
ongoing choices we make reflecting our basic
subjective beliefs.
• We think, believe, choose, and act. Our actions then
influence our future beliefs, choices and acts.
303 Action – 2.
• In choosing, one constructs oneself and one’s future
world, but there is great uncertainty associated with
these choices:
• “Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived
forwards” (Diaries, IV, A 164).
• “Sensitive souls” will never be sure that their chosen
values are the right ones; therefore they will always be
full of “anguish and dread” over the many choices they
have had to make in life.
• Choosing is a two-edged sword: on one side is the
dread and anxiety associated with choosing; on the
other side is the exhilaration of the freedom in being
able to “choose oneself.”
304 Truth – 1.
• Objective truth rests on abstractions and external
criteria: can be thought about, tested and analyzed
(Plato’s FORMS, science, mathematics, etc.). Focus is
on what the truth is (common truths) (speed of light is
299,792.458 km/sec). Objective truths can often be
measured with certainty and accuracy, but they usually
don’t mean very much to one’s existence.
• Subjective truth concerns individual values and
existence. Not abstract, not focused on what is true;
focus on how we come to know truth and how we act
on it. These are individual truths—my existence: my
truth is mine alone; each person has their own truth.
• Ultimately, all truth (and all existence) is subjective.
305 Truth – 2.
• Subjective truth cannot be communicated to other
people directly; it is made up of deep private individual
insights and choices about one’s life.
• Subjective truth is the most important type because if
one changes one’s beliefs, one becomes a different
person who will make different choices and do different
things. The individual is his or her subjective truth, his
or her values.
• We are finite beings and our critical truths are
subjective; however, as God is infinite, we can never
really know God using subjective approaches.
306 Death Awakens Life.
• When one realizes the real nature of existence, one
comes to see life in relation to one’s mortality.
• The recognition of our eventual death helps us to order
our priorities and to discover life. It is a tragedy to
discover death too late: the man who woke up one day
and discovered he was dead. One must discover
death in time to allow one to truly live life.
• We find death via subjective truth: this activates life.
• As subjective thought raises the idea of nothingness
(the absurdity of existence) it is negative thought.
• Doubts, insecurities, anxieties and depressions
heighten this negativity.
307 Consciousness.
• Consciousness is the negative element of subjectivity.
• Consciousness “confronts the actual with what could
be” and thus, it raises uncertainty and contains /
creates a sense of terror. Once we become conscious
of a door, we begin to think about could be behind it;
this creates anxieties, doubts and fears.
• Consciousness raises doubt, a type of madness saved
only by belief (I believe it’s safe behind the door).
• Belief and active choosing are positive aspects,
reflecting one’s subjective insights and truths that act
to cancel out the negative aspects of thought.
308 Belief.
• These realizations yield insights about belief:
• Belief is the interface between consciousness and the world.
• Belief is salvation from the meaninglessness of existence.
• However, if overextended, belief can also become a type of
madness.
• Initially, belief is naïve: A child believes in Santa Claus.
• Eventually, naïve belief is challenged—we must
choose:
• 1). To flee into self-deception and continue in naiveté.
• 2). To realize that the normal states of consciousness are
complex and miraculous and similar to religious states. These
normal, everyday states are made up of both beliefs and
doubts, but not certainties: the certainty and security of Santa
Claus (the “group world view”) evaporates.
309 Accepting Responsibility.
• To recognize everyday states with their doubts, and to
choose to confront these insecurities with our internal
beliefs and faith, is to make the authentic choice.
• These authentic choices solidify our beliefs and (for
Kierkegaard) eventually lead to the discovery of God.
• Ultimately, a person demonstrates belief by repeatedly
renewing the “passionate subjective relationship to an
object which can never be known, but only believed in.
This belief is offensive to reason, since it only exists in
the face of the absurd.”
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/]
310 Dread – 1.
• Being able to choose creates individual freedom, but it
also creates dread (the fear of this freedom).
• Kierkegaard: “Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.”
• Standing on the edge of the cliff, we fear falling over,
but we also dread the realization that we could decide
to jump over. We dread what we may do. We dread the
only thing holding us back is our own volition: when the
option to jump comes into consciousness, the onus is
on us to decide not to jump.
• “Anxiety is a desire for what one fears, . . . but what
[one] fears [one] desires.” (Marino, 1998, p. 321).
311 Dread – 2.
• Dread arises when one becomes conscious of the
future: one realizes that one has to choose and that
one’s life is determined by the choices one makes.
• Sartre: “I await myself in the future, where I ‘make an appointment with
myself on the other side of that hour, of that day, or of that month.’ Anguish is
the fear of not finding myself at that appointment, of no longer even wishing
to bring myself there.” (1956/1992, p. 36).
• The realization that one may choose creates a

tremendous sense of responsibility, and to accept this
responsibility is to be authentic.
• Kierkegaard: to not make a choice is to be inauthentic.
• “We are left alone and without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that
man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create
himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is
responsible for everything he does” (Sartre, 2007, p. 29).
312 Despair and the Self.
• “The individual is subject to an enormous burden of
responsibility, for upon their existential choices hangs
their eternal salvation or damnation. Anxiety or dread
(Angst) is the presentiment of this terrible responsibility
when the individual stands at the threshold of
momentous existential choice. . . .
• It is essential that faith be constantly renewed by
means of repeated avowals of faith. . . .
• This repetition of faith is the way the self relates itself
to itself and to the power which constitutes it, that is,
the repetition of faith is the self.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
313 The Self – 1.
• True selfhood is choosing (willing) the self that one
truly is. Not being able to achieve this is despair:
• Kierkegaard called it “The Sickness unto Death.”
• “The self is a series of possibilities; every decision
made redefines the individual. . . . The knowledge that
“I” define the “self” results in “the dizziness of freedom”
and “fear and trembling.” It is a great responsibility to
create a person, yet that is exactly what each human
does—creates a self. This self is independent from all
other knowledge and “truths” defined by other
individuals.”
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/kierk.html/
314 The Self – 2.
• Kierkegaard outlined two important relationships:
• Between one’s physical self (body) and one’s soul.
• Between self and others: ultimately between self and God.
• Two types of selfhood: 1). An initial self defined by a
relationship to finite reality, to humanity or to other specific
persons. 2). A self defined by a relationship to God.
• “Most people are subjective toward themselves and
objective toward all others, sometimes horribly
objective—ah, the task is precisely to be objective in
relation to oneself and subjective in relation to all
others” (Kierkegaard, 2014, p. 28).
• Normality hides the true realization of being—after
being pushed to the edge of a cliff, one comes to see
“ordinary life” from a new and more clear perspective.
315 1 – The Aesthetical Sphere – 1.
• Kierkegaard described a hierarchy of 3 stages or
“spheres” of selfhood that one may choose, each
characterized by its own unique view of the world.
• 1). The aesthetical sphere (lowest type of selfhood):

• Aesthetic: sensuality and hedonism, prototype: Don Juan.
• The most basic type: if a person does not “choose” one of the
other 2 higher types, he or she ends up here by default.
• Kierkegaard said this is actually a form of alienation from the
self:
• The “couch potato.”
• The business man: defines the good life as profit and good
deals.
• Kierkegaard called these people “Aristocrats.”
• Aestheticism is a form of hedonism, the self is
governed by external contingencies and
sensuousness: Freud’s Pleasure Principle.
• These people are not fully human as they are
governed by the same forces that govern animals.
(Kierkegaard wonders why it takes 9 months for them
to gestate—they have so little substance).
• Society sets externally defined parameters and the
person has to play his or her role as it is set out.
• The self is fractured into a series of socially defined
roles layered one on top of each another.
• In the end, Aestheticism is simply another perverse
form of socially defined role to be played out.
• The Aesthetic has no true self and can only develop
one by consciously choosing.
• This choice entails Kierkegaard’s famous “Either/or:”
• The point where one wills to be one’s true self and
realizes that this choice will “kill” one’s old self.
• For the first time, the individual judges his or her self,
rejects his or her old, hedonistic self, and begins to
consciously build a new self.
• One must chose to utilize will to hold one’s self up to
an ethical code (or choose not to do so).
• Making this choice marks the transition into
Kierkegaard’s second sphere, the ethical sphere.
318 2 – The Ethical Sphere – 1.
• 2). Ethical Sphere—individual moral responsibilities:
• Once the ethical choice has been made, the
individual has to make good on two imperatives:
• A commitment to self-perfection based upon one’s
ideals.
• A commitment to other human beings.
• One takes a “leap” to the new ethical self, rejecting
the old aesthetic self and the now incompatible old
roles that went with it.
• Personality crystallizes around these new self-
judgments and choices.
319 2 – The Ethical Sphere – 2.
• The initial choice one makes is decisive for one’s
personality because, now, all future choices will stem
from this self-judgment and its philosophical basis:
• Future choices will now be moral—a morality within
the context of the given system of thought selected:
• e. g., Christian or Communist.
• Kierkegaard was not concerned with what moral code was
chosen, only that an individual choice was made:
• It is not up to people to judge each other’s moral choices,
this is God’s ultimate role.
• All future decisions will be based on the personality
the individual has selected and not on situational,
social roles.
320 3 – The Religious Sphere – 1.
• 3). The religious sphere: suffering, faith and self-
understanding:
• Kierkegaard was obsessed with Abraham’s story:
• Abraham was promised a son by God. Finally, when
Abraham was 99, and his wife was 90, a son, Isaac was
born. Later, God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham
eventually agreed and, as he was about to thrust the knife,
God stopped him and restored his happy life.
• Kierkegaard was horrified by Abraham’s absolute
resolve to obey God and it inspired “fear and
trembling” in him (the title of one of his books).
• He had to discover where Abraham found the
strength to raise the knife. It seemed to him this was
the key to understanding the human condition.
• Abraham’s act is a complex paradox: an act of
resignation in that he chooses to obey God and give
up Isaac and, at the same time, an act of faith in that
he believes in God’s wisdom and that the ending will
somehow turn out to be happy (and that he will
someday, somehow, get Isaac back):
• Kierkegaard felt Abraham must have been insane:
• He had already resigned to give Isaac up, and at
the same time, he somehow believed he would still
keep Isaac. No one can understand Abraham’s
state of mind or motives—to others, he must have
seemed insane.
• Observers will see Abraham as insane and will not
understand his inner dynamics or motivations.
• But, God will surely understand his state of mind:
• This is characteristic of individual faith: one cannot make
one’s faith intelligible to anyone else.
• Only God can make sense of an individual’s faith and judge if
it is Saintly or demonical (or crazy) in character.
• All of the choices one makes (and hence the personality one
constructs during one’s life) are factored into this final,
ultimate judgment by God.
• Kierkegaard said the Christian ideal (not the lax Church
doctrine) is exacting because the totality of a person’s
existence and the choices he or she has made in life are the
basis upon which they will be judged by God.
• Kierkegaard initially found Abraham beyond
comprehension but comes to respect and advocate for
Abraham’s “divine madness” (he uses Plato’s term).
• Kierkegaard concludes that by virtue of his “insanity,”
Abraham has become the Father of Faith: what
Kierkegaard called a “Knight of Faith.”
• Many “Knights of Faith” walk among us undetected:
• The outward behavior of the “Knight of Faith” is the same as
everyone else’s.
• They have lost their connection with external, finite worldly
things. However, they have been restored to live life in a new
way by their faith.
• Kierkegaard said Abraham also made a second leap:
• Abraham’s first life-changing leap was from the (lower)
aesthetic self to the (higher) ethical self.
• The second leap involves stepping away from humankind
itself; stepping away from finite reality into an unknown and
infinite abyss.
• Abraham made this leap of faith. He risked losing his son but,
in being able to overcome his dread, and by having faith in
God, he came to regain everything in a new way.
• God cannot be known intellectually; we must make a leap of
faith into an unknown abyss to know him. Making this ultimate
leap changes how we see life, changes our basic beliefs, and
ultimately changes who we are.
325 Duties and Ethics.
• There is an implied hierarchy of duties in life:
• One’s duty to choose to be an individual is higher
than to one’s social duties.
• One’s duty to obey God’s commands is higher than
to ones individual duties:
• Kierkegaard said he had to choose his duty to God over his
fiancé, Regina.
• He gave up Regina as Abraham gave up Isaac, but with the
faith that she would somehow be restored to him as Isaac
was to Abraham.
• Ethics are not relativistic: values are known to a
person through the revelation of God (this is a theistic,
metaphysical approach to existentialism and values).
326 Summary.
• We are the authors of our lives and we have the
responsibility and duty to consciously write our story
through the choices we make. With freedom to choose
comes anxiety, even dread. We must make 2 leaps:
• 1). To overcome our lower, hedonistic, socially based
self and to choose to become our ideal self. To make
this choice is to be authentic. The values we choose
determine our personality and in turn, they determine
our acts.
• 2). Leaping into an unknown and infinite abyss allows
us to live life in a new way by our faith. Ultimately,
our choices and acts are the sum of our lives to be
judged by God.
327
• 6.2. Dąbrowski and Nietzsche.
[This presentation examines the influence of Nietzsche

on Dąbrowski and follows from a presentation by Dr. J.
G. McGraw on Nietzsche and Dąbrowski from the 2002
Congress, held in Fort Lauderdale.]
328
The Philosophical Foundations of

Dąbrowski’s Theory of Positive
Disintegration
Part 3:
Friedrich Nietzsche and Dąbrowski.
Presented by Bill Tillier at the
Seventh International Congress of the
Institute for Positive Disintegration in Human Development
August 3-5, 2006, Calgary, Alberta.
Revised 2018
Positive Maladjustment:
Theoretical, Educational and Therapeutic Perspectives.
329 Friedrich Nietzsche – 1.
• Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900).
• Born 1844 in Röcken, Saxony (was then Prussia).
• An excellent student, he began studying classical
philology at the University of Bonn.
• At 24, professor of philology at the University of Basel.
• A medical orderly during the Franco-Prussian War. He
saw and experienced the traumatic effects of battle.
• Resigned his professorship in 1879 due to several
grim health issues that plagued him the rest of his life.
• Began writing prolifically but often struggled, printing
copies of his books himself and giving them to friends.
• He and his sister had many fights and reconciliations.
• Was friends with, and influenced by,
fellow German philosopher Paul Rée:
• Rée combined a pessimistic view of human
nature with a theory of morality based on
natural selection (Darwin).
• In 1882, Louise (Lou) Salomé was in a
relationship with Rée. She met
Nietzsche and suggested a ménage à
trois. They lived together until
Rée in center
Nietzsche’s unrequited love (and his
sister) forced a break-up.
• In 1887, Lou married Friedrich Carl Andreas (their
unconsummated marriage lasted 43 years).
• 1901: After her rejection, Rée jumps off a cliff.
• Lou was later a lover of, and major influence on,
German poet Rainer Maria Rilke.
• She became a psychoanalyst, joined Freud’s inner
circle, and was an important influence on Freud,
including introducing Freud to Nietzsche’s ideas.
• “Freud several times said of Nietzsche that he had a
more penetrating knowledge of himself than any other
man who ever lived or was likely to live” (Jones, 1955, p.
344).
• Nietzsche had many bouts of illness (including severe

migraines and stomach bleeding), depression, suicidal
thoughts and lived in relative isolation.
• In 1889 Nietzsche witnessed a man whipping a horse.
Nietzsche threw his arms around the horse’s neck to
protect it. He immediately had a psychotic breakdown
lasting until his death in 1900 (from neurosyphilis?).
• The uncommunicative Nietzsche was cared for by his
mother, then his sister, Elisabeth.
• Elisabeth married Bernhard Förster, an anti-Semitic. In 1886
they founded Nueva Germania in Paraguay’s jungle. After
WWII it was a hideout for escaped Nazis (including Mengele).
• Elisabeth controlled and edited Nietzsche’s works; she
apparently injected her ideas and altered some of his.
• The Nazis misinterpreted and exploited Nietzsche’s
works in support of their agenda. This later made
Nietzsche unpopular in America.
333 Nietzsche’s Critique of Dogmatic Morality.
• Socrates created a false representation of what is real,
making morality a set of external ideas (“objects of
dialectic”). With this, “real” [Man] degenerated into the
“the good [Man],” “the wise [Man],” etc.
• Plato then made these ideas mere abstract
inventions—metaphysical ideals (Plato’s FORMS) held
out for us to try to emulate.
• Nietzsche: All schemes of morality (like Christianity)
are just dogmas developed by some given group who
hold power at some given time—these “herd
moralities” of good and evil deny us the individuality of
finding our own values and our own selves.
334 Critique of the Herd Morality.
• Nietzsche laments that the world has degenerated to
the lowest common denominator of the herd:
• “The instinct of the herd considers the middle and the
mean as the highest and most valuable: the place
where the majority finds itself” (Nietzsche, 1968, p. 159).
• “Let us stick to the facts: the people have won—or
‘the slaves,’ or ‘the mob,’ or ‘the herd,’ or whatever
you like to call them—if this has happened through
the Jews, very well! in that case no people had a
more world-historic mission. ‘The masters’ have been
disposed of; the morality of the common man has
won” (Nietzsche, 1989b, pp. 35-36).
335 Critique of Truth.
• Ultimately, one finds out that the “truth” and various
other-worlds (like Heaven) are literal fabrications. They
are built by Humans to meet their psychological needs,
to promote the smooth succession of the status quo,
and to provide individuals with security.
• Knowledge and truth are subjective, and provisional;
they change over time and with the ruling class:
• Example: today’s scientific beliefs may be shown to
be false tomorrow.
• “there are many kinds of ‘truths,’ and consequently
there is no truth” (Nietzsche, 1968, p. 291).
• “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
than lies” (Nietzsche, 1996, p. 179).
336 Critique of Religion.
• Nietzsche saw no ultimate or deeper meaning or
purpose to the world or to human existence—He (and
Sartre) saw God as a human invention designed to
comfort us and to repel our loneliness:
• “There is not enough love and goodness in the world
for us to be permitted to give any of it away to
imaginary beings” (Nietzsche, 1996, p. 69).
• Social morality suspends us from the need to review
our own individual value assumptions or to develop
autonomous morality. Religion suspends us from our
need to develop our individual selves. Our comforts
and security and company are provided by this man-
made system of ideas, thus removing the stimuli
needed for real, individual development.
337 “God is Dead.”
• Nietzsche famously proclaimed “God is dead. God
remains dead. And we have killed him.” This, “the
greatest event of our time,” is an attempt to refocus
people’s attention from God as a source of absolute
moral principles and to see their inherent, individual
freedoms and responsibilities. On the here-and-now
world, away from all escapist, pain-relieving, heavenly
other-worlds (Nietzsche, 1974, 167).
• Without God, we are alone on earth and cannot resort
to a deity to guide us or to absolve our sins (or
responsibilities). We must take full responsibility for our
actions—to do this we must reject all external,
metaphysical and religious ideals. We are now free
and must create our own, new, moral ideals.
338 Apollonian and Dionysus.
• Nietzsche used “Apollonian” and “Dionysus” to refer to
two central principles in Greek culture (see 1967).
• Apollonian: clarity, calm, harmony, restraint, order,
structure and form, the basis for analytic distinctions,
and all that is part of the unique individual.
• Dionysus is irrational, frenzy, disorder, wild, ecstatic,
intoxication and madness. These forces break down
one’s character as they appeal to one’s instinctive
emotions and not to one’s rational mind. “I” is a chaotic
web of competing wills, each struggling to overcome
the other.
• The tension between these forces creates tragedy.
Nietzsche’s life also displayed both factors.
339 Three Developmental Outcomes.
• Nietzsche said that as a species, man is not
progressing. Higher exemplars appear but do not last.
• Nietzsche delineated three possible outcomes:
• The “herd” or “slave” masses, made up of content,
comfort seeking “the last man” conformers, with no
motive to develop: if we don’t aspire to be more, this
is where we all will end up.
• Many “higher men": a type of human who needs to
“be more” and who “writes his or her own story.”
• Nietzsche also described the ideal human—a few
“Superhumans”—a role model to strive for, but that
may be too unrealistic for most people to achieve.
340 The Superman.
• Nietzsche called the highest mode of being the
Übermensch:
• Common translations: “the Superman” or “overman”
or “hyperman”
• über: from the Latin for super
• ύπερ: Greek for hyper
• Mensch: German for Human being.
341 Metamorphoses of the Spirit.
• Nietzsche outlined a hierarchy of spiritual development
in what he called three “metamorphoses of the spirit”
entailing a progression from:
• The camel spirit ("the average man") who slavishly
bears the load and obeys the “thou shalt” with little
protest.
• The lion spirit (a “higher man") who says “no” and
kills the status quo ("the dragon") of “thou shalt.”
• Culminating in the child spirit (Superhuman), who
says an emphatic and “sacred Yes” to life and
creates a new reality and a new self—with no more
rules to obey, the child applies his or her will in
developing and achieving unique values and
developing autonomy. (see Nietzsche, 1969, p. 54).
342
343 The Camel.
• The obedient camel carries the “weight of the spirit,”
kneeling to accept its load, just as we carry the weight
of our duties: instructions and roles that society
requires of us in order to live a “responsible life.” We
believe in this “herd morality” and feel guilt if we don’t
maintain our social burdens.
• In doing our duties, we may come to have doubts. One
heavy blow is the discovery that wisdom and
knowledge are only apparent. We slowly discover
there is no foundation supporting “the truth” and we
realize we live in a world with no eternal standards.
• As the camel finds the solitude of the desert, the truth
seeker also must find and deal with solitude.
344 The Lion.
• The camel becomes a lion: “it wants to capture
freedom and be lord in its own desert” (Nietzsche, 1969,54).
• The camel is an obedient slave: the might of a lion—
a beast of prey, willing to say NO and to kill, is
needed to confront the dragon to achieve freedom.
• “To seize the right to new values” the lion must steal
freedom from the love of commandments by killing a
dragon—the “thou shalt”—the idea that others tell us
what we must believe / accept as truth, and what we
must do (and our corresponding love of these rules).
• Capturing freedom creates an opportunity—a “freedom
for new creation.”
• The lion has the will to create new realities.
345 The Child.
• Having destroyed the “thou shalt dragon,” the lion
realizes he or she is not able to create new values: the
lion now must become a child.
• A child’s perspective is needed to create new values.
The child is innocence, with no guilt, and with no
lingering sense of the “thou shalt” of the herd—he or
she has not yet been acculturated (e.g. The Little
Prince).
• The child ("superhuman") represents a new beginning
of individuality—“the spirit now wills its own will, the
spirit sundered from the world now wins its own world”
Nietzsche, 1969, p. 55).
346 The Will to Power.
• The will to power is an ever-dominant feature of life
and the basic drive of humanity. “The will to power is
the primitive form of affect and all other affects are only
developments of it” (Nietzsche, 1968, p. 366).
• Rejecting pleasure as a core motivator, Nietzsche said
that “every living thing does everything it can not to
preserve itself but to become more” (N. 1968, p. 367).
• Nietzsche casts the will to power as a proactive
force—the will to act in life (not to merely react to life).
• The will to power is not power over others, but the
feelings of “creative energy and control” over oneself
that are necessary to achieve self-creation, self-
direction and to express individual creativity.
347 Steps to Become a Superhuman.
• Three steps to become a Superhuman:
• Use one’s will to power to reject and rebel against old
ideals and moral codes;
• Use one’s will to power to overcome nihilism and to
re-evaluate old ideals or to create new ones;
• Through a continual process of self-overcoming.
• The average person is largely constituted by his or her
genealogy—the herd scripts this history by writing the
life story of the average person.
• Superhumans take control of their genealogies and
write their own stories.
348 Zarathustra Details Development.
• Nietzsche appropriates the name of Persian religious
leader Zarathustra as one of his main characters.
• In Nietzsche’s version, Zarathustra has spent from age
30 to 40, alone on a mountaintop quest. He decides to
descend and to describe his insights on spiritual and
individual development in a new, Godless, reality.
• On his descent, someone comments Zarathustra has
changed: he has become a child—an awakened one.
• Zarathustra goes to the first village he sees. A crowd
has gathered to see the circus act of a tight-rope
walker and they think he is part of the circus.
349 Man Must Overcome Man.
• Zarathustra speaks to the crowd:
• “I teach you the Superman. Man is something that
should be overcome. What have you done to
overcome him?”
• “All creatures hitherto have created something
beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb
of this great tide, and return to the animals rather
than overcome man?”
• “What is the ape to men? A laughing-stock or a
painful embarrassment. And just so shall man be to
the Superman: a laughing-stock or a painful
embarrassment.”
350 Man is a Process Not a Goal.
• “You have made your way from the worm to man, and
much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and
even now man is more of an ape than any ape. . .”
(Nietzsche, 1969, pp. 41-42).
• “Man is a rope, fastened between animal and

Superman—a rope over an abyss. A dangerous going
across, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-
back, a dangerous shuddering and staying still”
(Nietzsche, 1969, p. 43).
• “What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a

goal: what can be loved in man is that he is a going-
across and a down-going. I love those who do not
know how to live except their lives be a down-going,
for they are those who are going across” (N. 1969, p. 44).
351 The Crowd Are Not Ready For The Lesson.
• The crowd rejects Zarathustra’s story and he says to
the reader: “You Higher Men, learn this from me: In the
market-place no one believes in Higher Men. And if
you want to speak there, very well, do so! But the mob
blink and say: ‘We are all equal’” (Nietzsche, 1969, p. 297).
• Zarathustra laments his reception: “I want to teach

men the meaning of their existence: which is the
Superman, the lightning from the dark cloud man. But I
am still distant from them, and my meaning does not
speak to their minds. To men, I am still a cross
between a fool and a corpse” (Nietzsche, 1969, p. 49).
352 The Abyss.
• We must cross the abyss on the rope bridge to create
ourselves, our ideals, and to become Superhuman.
• There are 3 possible outcomes:
• to not try and to simply stay content in the herd,
• to try to cross the rope but fail (to fall into the abyss),
• or, to try to cross and succeed.
• Nietzsche said “Whoever fights monsters should see
to it that in the process he does not become a monster.
And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also
looks into you” (Nietzsche, 1969, p. 54).
• We often become the very thing we try to overcome.
• When you look into the abyss, you must be strong as
you may see aspects of the abyss within yourself.
353 Socialization.
• The herd blindly take their ideals of “good and evil”
from the cultural and religious conventions of the day:
• Nietzsche calls on us to resist the impulse to submit
to “slave morality” and to “undertake a critique of the
moral evaluations [our]selves” (Nietzsche, 1968, p. 215).
• Zarathustra: the Superhuman must overcome his or
her acculturated self and apply the will to power to a
huge new creativity—to build a truly autonomous self.
• Superhumans move beyond “good and evil” through a
deep reflection on their own basic instincts, emotions,
character traits, and senses: they go on to develop
their own individual values for living [Personality Ideal].
354 Hierarchy of Autonomous Values.
• “Fundamental thought: the new values must first be
created—we shall not be spared this task!” (Nietzsche,
1968, p. 512).
• New values, and the process of value creation are not

prescriptive: “This—is now my way,—where is yours?’
Thus I answered those who asked me ‘the way.’ For
the way—does not exist!” (Nietzsche, 1969, p.213).
• Summary: The Superhuman creates a unique new
“master morality” reflecting the strength and
independence of a self freed from all “old”
acculturated, herd values. Now, an individual must
review current conventions, reject values, adopt old
values that he or she deems valid, and create new
values reflecting his or her unique self and ideals.
355 Eternal Recurrence and the Superhuman.
• “Eternal recurrence” is the idea that one might be
forced to relive every moment of one’s life over and
over, with no omissions, however small, happy or
painful.
• This idea encourages us to see that our current life is
all there is—we must wake up to the “the real world,”
that we actually live in the present—there is no escape
to other (future) lives or to “higher” worlds.
• Nietzsche says only a Superhuman can face eternal
recurrence and embrace this life in its entirety and
accept the idea that this is all there is, and all there will
be, for eternity.
356 Every Second Counts.
• The Superhuman also gains a new perspective that
brings about his or her own redemption—the endlessly
recurring pains and mistakes of life do not provoke
endless suffering, they are now seen and accepted as
necessary steps in one’s development, each a step on
the path leading to the present.
• Every second of life is now seen as a valued moment,
worthy of being repeated over and over, in and of itself,
and is not merely a step toward some promise of a
better world to come in the future (for example,
Heaven), it has become a fundamental piece of who
we are today.
357 Rebirth via a New World View.
• The Superhuman uses “will to power” to develop a
new perspective, a new reality and a new self.
• The Superman becomes his or her own judge: “Can
you furnish yourself your own good and evil and hang
up your own will above yourself as a law? Can you be
judge of yourself and avenger of your law?” (Nietzsche,
1969, p. 89).
• This process represents the rebirth of the Human and

the creation of new, human, life-affirming values in this
real and temporally finite world. These new beliefs
stem from our intrinsic will to be more, the ability to
transcend and to constantly overcome our old self, and
to create new life and new works.
358 Three Prototypes.
• Personality incorporates 3 prototypes with 3 instincts:
• the beauty creator (artist) [instinct of feeling]
• the truth seeker (philosopher) [instinct of reason]
• the “goodness liver” (the Saint) [instinct of will—
goodness and love]
• The union of these 3 represents the ultimate model of
human beings—the exemplar of the Superhuman.
• The “wisest” person is one who has had a wide vertical
[Multilevel] perspective, with experience from the
deepest caves to the highest mountaintops.
• Finally, Nietzsche says that development never
reaches an endpoint, growth is never complete.
359 Life as an Endless Cycle.
• For the rest of his life, Zarathustra continues to
advocate for the Superhuman.
• Nietzsche did not present his ideas in a coherent,
systematic way; thus there are many ambiguities and
some contradictions in his writing. As well, Zarathustra
has grave doubts, and his ideas change as he has
experiences with people and as he ages.
• One major issue is that Zarathustra comes to see life
as a endless cycle that repeats itself; thus even if a
higher level of man is achieved, it will only be a phase
in the cycle. Eventually, the lower stages will be have
to reappear and be transcended again.
360 Personality Must be Constructed.
• For Nietzsche, personality must be self-created, largely
by overcoming, mastering and transforming one’s inner
“chaos” into order:
• “I tell you: one must have chaos in one, to give birth
to a dancing star. I tell you: you still have chaos in
you” (Nietzsche, 1969, p. 46).
• One must go through seven steps (“devils”) on the
way to personality development (Nietzsche, 1969, p. 90).
• Overcoming involves creating a new unity (McGraw:
“synergy”) of cognition, emotion and volition.
• The Superhuman becomes a “free spirit” and sees the
real world and his or her place in it clearly (without the
distortion of social and religious influences).
361 The Self Must be Transformed.
• The Superhuman develops a clear view of his or her
“calling” [Personality Ideal] and must now obey this
inner voice, applying it to self-mastery.
• The will to power is applied in controlling and
transforming one’s self:
• Step 1. social morality [2nd Factor] is used to gain power over
nature and the “wild animal [1st Factor].”
• Step 2: “one can employ this power in the further free
development of oneself: will to power as self-elevation and
strengthening” [3rd Factor] (Nietzsche, 1968, p. 218).
• One overcomes one’s old self to become oneself:
“What does your conscience say?—“You shall become
the person you are” (Nietzsche, 1974, p. 219).
362 Few Achieve Personality.
• In Nietzsche’s view, few achieve what he calls
personality (the Superhuman). Most people are not
personalities at all, or are just a confused,
undisciplined and non-integrated jumble of wills, roles
and duties.
• Superhumans create a small, “higher” ruling class, that
humanity should foster: “the goal of humanity cannot
lie in its end but only in its highest exemplars” (Nietzsche,
1997, p. 111).
• Nietzsche said only a few are able or willing to

discover and to follow themselves.
363 Need for a Ruling Class.
• Superhumans represent a new, stronger and ultimate
morality that easily resists external social controls.
• Nietzsche: “My philosophy aims at an ordering of rank:
not an individualistic morality” The ideas of the herd
should rule in the herd—but not reach out beyond it:
the leaders of the herd require a fundamentally
different valuation for their own actions, as do the
independent, or the ‘beasts of prey,’ etc” (Nietzsche, 1968, p.
162).
• “The new philosopher can arise only in conjunction

with a ruling caste, as its highest spiritualization”
(Nietzsche, 1968, p. 512).
364 Developmental Potential.
• Nietzsche relates an individual’s potential to develop to
the richness and intricacy of his or her emotion,
cognition and volition (the will to power).
• The more potential a person has, the more internally
complex he or she is: “The higher type represents an
incomparably greater complexity . . . so its
disintegration is also incomparably more likely”
(Nietzsche, 1968, p. 363).
• Lower forms of life and people representing the herd

type are simpler and thus, the lowest types are
“virtually indestructible,” showing few noticeable effects
of the hardships of life (and none of the suffering of the
Superhuman) (Nietzsche, 1968, p. 363).
365 Suffering Separates the Hero.
• Nietzsche described a general developmental
disintegration—suffering leads to a vertical separation
of the “hero” from the herd. This “rising up” leads to
“nobility” and, ultimately, to individual personality—to
attaining one’s ideal self.
• This separation finds one alone, away from the
security of the masses and without God for help.
• “To those human beings who are of any concern to me
I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment,
indignities—I wish that they should not remain
unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of
self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished”
(Nietzsche, 1968, p. 481).
366 Nietzsche on Suffering – 1.
• “The higher philosophical man, who has solitude not
because he wishes to be alone but because he is
something that finds no equals: what dangers and new
sufferings have been reserved for him” (Nietzsche, 1968, p.
514).
• “In man creature and creator are united: in man there
is material, fragment, excess, clay, dirt, nonsense,
chaos; but in man there is also creator, formgiver,
hammer hardness, spectator divinity, and seventh day:
do you understand this contrast? And that your pity is
for the “creature in man,” for what must be formed,
broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, and
purified—that which necessarily must and should
suffer?” (Nietzsche, 1989a, p. 154).
• “The higher philosophical man, who has solitude not
because he wishes to be alone but because he is
something that finds no equals: what dangers and new
sufferings have been reserved for him” (Nietzsche, 1968, p.
514).
• “The discipline of suffering, of great suffering—do you
not know that only this discipline has created all
enhancements of man so far?” (Nietzsche, 1989a, p. 154).
• “The tree needs storms, doubts, worms, and nastiness
to reveal the nature and the strength of the seedling;
let it break if it is not strong enough. But a seedling can
only be destroyed—not refuted” (Nietzsche, 1974, p.163).
• “Examine the lives of the best and most fruitful people
and peoples and ask yourselves whether a tree that is
supposed to grow to a proud height can dispense with
bad weather and storms; whether misfortune and
external resistance, some kinds of hatred, jealousy,
stubbornness, mistrust, hardness, avarice, and
violence do not belong among the favorable conditions
without which any great growth even of virtue is
scarcely possible. The poison of which weaker natures
perish strengthens the strong—nor do they call it
poison” (Nietzsche, 1974, pp.91-92).
• Our personal and profoundest suffering is
incomprehensible and inaccessible to almost
everyone; (Nietzsche, 1974, p. 269).
369 Must First Fall Before We Rise.
• The Superhuman is alone and few can tolerate this
ultimate sense of solitariness; most must have the
security and company of the herd (and of God).
• “I love him, who lives for knowledge and who wants
knowledge that one day the Superman may live. And
thus he wills his own downfall” (Nietzsche, 1969, p. 44).
• “You must be ready to burn yourself in your own
flame: how could you become new, if you had not
first become ashes!” (Nietzsche, 1968, p. 90).
• “I love him whose soul is deep even in its ability to be
wounded, and whom even a little thing can destroy:
thus he is glad to go over the bridge” (Nietzsche, 1968, p. 45).
370 Suffering Leads to Growth.
• Superhumans see in their suffering and destruction is
new life: the seed must die for the plant to grow.
• The capacity to experience and overcome suffering
and solitariness are key traits of the Superhuman.
• “Suffering and dissatisfaction of our basic drives are a
positive feature as these feelings create an ‘agitation of
the feeling of life,’ and act as a ‘great stimulus to life’”
(Nietzsche, 1968, p. 370).
• “The discipline of suffering, of great suffering, do you

not know that only this suffering has created all
enhancements of man so far?” (Nietzsche, 1989a, p. 154).
371 Suffering Challenges Us.
• “[T]he path to one’s own heaven always leads through
the voluptuousness of one’s own hell” (Nietzsche, 1974, p.
269).
• “That tension of the soul in unhappiness which

cultivates its strength, its shudders face to face with
great ruin, its inventiveness and courage in enduring,
persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering, and
whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret,
mask, spirit, cunning, greatness—was it not granted to
it through suffering, through the discipline of great
suffering?” (Nietzsche, 1989a, p. 154).
372 The Road of Disintegration.
• “Thereupon I advanced further down the road of
disintegration—where I found new sources of strength
for individuals. We have to be destroyers!—I perceived
that the state of disintegration, in which individual
natures can perfect themselves as never before—is an
image and isolated example of existence in general. To
the paralyzing sense of general disintegration and
incompleteness I opposed the eternal recurrence”
(Nietzsche, 1968, p. 224).
• “We, however, want to become those we are—human

beings who are new, unique, incomparable, who give
themselves laws, who create themselves” (Nietzsche, 1974,
p. 266).
373 Health: How We Overcome Illness.
• Illness played a major role in Nietzsche’s
transformation, as he said, he was “grateful even to
need and vacillating sickness because they always rid
us from some rule and its ‘prejudice,’ . . . (Nietzsche, 1998a,
p. 55).
• Given his serious health issues, Nietzsche defined

health not as the absence of illness, rather, by how one
faces and overcomes illness.
• Nietzsche said he used his “will to health” to transform
his illness into autonomy—it gave him the courage to
be himself. In a practical sense, it also forced him to
change his lifestyle and these changes facilitated a
lifestyle more suited to his personality and to the life of
an author and philosopher.
374 The Neurosis of the Artist.
• Nietzsche described a sort of neurosis afflicting the
artist: “It is exceptional states that condition the artist—
all of them profoundly related to and interlaced with
morbid phenomena—so it seems impossible to be an
artist and not to be sick” . . .
• . . . “Physiological states that are in the artist as it were
molded into a ‘personality’ and, that characterize men
in general to some degree:
• 1. Intoxication: the feeling of enhanced power; the
inner need to make of things a reflex of one’s own
fullness and perfection (Nietzsche, 1968, p. 428).
• – and also what we may read as overexcitability:
375 “Extreme Sharpness.”
. . . 2. the extreme sharpness of certain senses, so
they understand a quite different sign language—and
create one—the condition that seems to be a part of
many nervous disorders—; extreme mobility that turns
into an extreme urge to communicate; the desire to
speak on the part of everything that knows how to
make signs—; a need to get rid of oneself, as it were,
through signs and gestures; ability to speak of oneself
through a hundred speech media—an explosive
condition. . . .
376 The Inner Psychic Milieu Emerges.
. . . One must first think of this condition as a
compulsion and urge to get rid of the exuberance of
inner tension through muscular activity and movements
of all kinds; then as an involuntary coordination
between this movement and the inner processes
(images, thoughts, desires)—as a kind of automatism
of the whole muscular system impelled by strong
stimuli from within—; inability to prevent reaction; the
system of inhibitions suspended, as it were” (Nietzsche,
1968, pp. 428-429).
377 Positive Maladjustment.
• Nietzsche: “Whoever has overthrown an existing law of
custom has always first been accounted a bad man:
but when, as did happen, the law could not afterwards
be reinstated and this fact was accepted, the predicate
gradually changed;—history treats almost exclusively
of these bad men who subsequently became good
men!” (Nietzsche, 1997a, p. 19).
378
• 6.3. Dąbrowski and Unamuno.

379 The Tragic Sense of Life – 1.
• Dąbrowski was influenced by the existential Spanish
philosopher Miguel de Unamuno and his work, The
Tragic Sense of Life.
• “But just what does the phrase ‘tragic sense of life’
mean? Even to ask that question suggests to some
that the inquirer would not understand the response if
one could be offered: either you ’see’ the essential
human condition or you don’t” (Hughes, 1978, 131).
• “The central, defining characteristic of the tragic sense
of life is its insistence on the balance between the
striving for rationality on the one hand, and the
recognition of the underlying irrationality of existence
on the other” (Rubens, 1992, 348).
• Unamuno saw tragedy as a ’sense of life’—a mode of
experience, a subjective shaping, a way of organizing
life. The tragic is in the “meaning with which events are
imbued and interpreted” (Rubens, 1992, 348).
• What gives life meaning is the longing to understand
“wherefore do we now exist?” and our “thirst of
immortality”—a basic desire we all share. To have
awareness of these questions, creates a “tragic sense
of life” as “consciousness is a disease” (Unamuno, 1921).
• The will struggles with the unresolvable, creating a
tragic feeling of life: Faith vs. reason, religion vs.
science, affect vs. intellect, rationality vs. irrationality.
• The will must forge an authentic existence and an
authentic personality out of suffering and the tragic.
• “Despite its monumental commitment to the search for
rational understanding, the hallmark of the tragic sense
of life is its recognition that rationality has its limits.
Man’s understanding, while indefinitely extendible, is
never total in its extent. So while the tragic figure is
willing to risk everything in his pursuit of the truth, he
must also recognize that his quest will never be
completely fulfillable. He must accept the irrationality
that underlies existence, and not artificially attempt to
reduce that irrationality to something less than it is”
(Rubens, 1992, 348).
• “What counts as suffering—what makes someone
suffer—may well vary enormously from case to case,
from individual to individual. But suffering as such is a
part of every life, and, as tragedy, it is not just
suffering. As tragedy, I will argue, it has meaning”
(Solomon, 1999, 115).
• [Unamuno says:] “What gives life meaning is a form of

rebellion, rebellion against reason, an insistence on
believing passionately what we cannot believe
rationally. The meaning of life is to be found in
passion—romantic passion, religious passion, passion
for work and for play, passionate commitments in the
face of what reason ‘knows’ to be meaningless”
(Solomon, 1999, 116).
• “For my part I do not wish to make peace between my
heart and my head, between my faith and my reason I
wish rather that there should be war between them!”
(Unamuno, 1921, p. 119).
• “Man is said to be a reasoning animal. I do not know
why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling
animal. Perhaps that which differentiates him from
other animals is feeling rather than reason” (Unamuno,
1921, p. 3).
• “He who suffers lives, and he who lives suffering, even
though over the portal of his abode is written ‘Abandon
all hope!’ loves and hopes” (Unamuno, 1921, p. 44).
• Unamuno was a careful reader of Kierkegaard.
• “Faith and reason need each other so that neither can
bask in the certainty of its own realm, so that each can
live in vivifying doubt. For Unamuno the bedrock of this
struggle is a faith which is like a candle in the wind,
dying only to be reborn again, doubting only to believe.
The goal of the self-conscious man is to pursue his
own dream of being—to be is to want to be—and the
aim of education is to keep the dream alive” (Hughes,
1978, 138).
• “For science destroys the concept of personality by

reducing it to a complex in continual flux from moment
to moment—that is to say, it destroys the very
foundation of the spiritual and emotional life, which
rages itself unyieldingly against reason.” (Unamuno, 1921,
108).
• “Unamuno began his philosophy with the insistence
that the authentic man, the man of flesh and bone,
contained within himself the conflict between the heart
and the head. And because this struggle took place in
a conflict where one force could never hope to gain
victory over the other, existential agony became the
tragic situation of man. Tragedy was thus conceived as
the condition of human beings caught in a struggle
which could never be resolved, in a struggle between
values of the heart and reasons of the intellect” (Morgan,
1966, p 48-49).
• “Tragedy can also be the arena in which the courage
to create emerges, in which reason and feeling find
their common battleground. At the foundation of
Unamuno’s tragic sense of life is the belief that out of
the abyss of tragedy there can arise creativity and joy”
(Morgan, 1966, 49).
• “My painful duty,” Unamuno once said, “is to irritate

people. We must sow in men the seeds of doubt, of
distrust, of disquiet, and even of despair” (Barcia & Zeitlin,
1967, 241).
• “My aim is to agitate and disturb people. I'm not selling

bread; I'm selling yeast” (Unamuno quoted in Tillotson, 2010, 23).
• “The satisfied, the happy, do not love; they fall asleep
in habit, near neighbour to annihilation. To fall into a
habit is to begin to cease to be. Man is the more man,
that is, the more divine, the greater his capacity for
suffering, or, rather, for anguish” (Unamuno, 1921, 206).
• “‘Brother Wolf’ St. Francis of Assisi called the poor wolf

who feels a painful hunger for the sheep, and feels,
too, perhaps, the pain of having to devour them; and
this brotherhood reveals to us the Fatherhood of God,
reveals to us that God is a Father and that He exists.
And as a Father He shelters our common misery”
(Unamuno, 1921, pp 210-211).
• “And as regards its truth, the real truth, that which is
independent of ourselves, beyond reach of our logic
and of hearts—of this truth who knows aught?”
(Unamuno, 1921, 131).
• “What we believe to be the motives of our conduct are

usually but the pretexts for it” (Unamuno, 1921, p 261).
• “Man is the more man—that is, the more divine—the
greater his capacity for, suffering, or, rather, for
anguish” (Unamuno, 1921, p 206).
• “If it is nothingness that awaits us, let us make an
injustice of it; let us fight against destiny, even though
without hope of victory; let us fight against it
quixotically.” (Unamuno, 1921, p 268).
• “Suffering is the substance of life and the root of
personality, for it is only suffering that makes us
persons. And suffering is universal, suffering is that
which unites all us living beings together; it is the
universal or divine blood that flows through us all. That
which we call will, what is it but suffering?” (Unamuno,
1921, 205).
• “Miguel de Unamuno was deeply affected by the
realization of the existence of tragic antinomies in
human life as something essential for growth and yet
impossible to resolve. The experience of these
antinomies which evoked in him obsessive reactions,
depressions and anguish, became a motivation to turn
in the direction of transcendence in the hope of
resolving them there” (Dąbrowski, 1972, 147).
390 The Tragic Sense of Life – 12 Kubrick 1.
• Playboy: If life is purposeless, do you feel it’s worth living?
• Stanley Kubrick: Yes, for those of us who manage somehow to
cope with our mortality. The very meaninglessness of life forces
man to create his own meaning. Children, of course, begin life
with an untarnished sense of wonder, a capacity to experience
total joy at something as simple as the greenness of a leaf; but
as they grow older, the awareness of death and decay begins to
impinge on their consciousness and subtly erode their joie de
vivre, their idealism—and their assumption of immortality. As a
child matures, he sees death and pain everywhere about him,
and begins to lose faith in the ultimate goodness of man. But if
he’s reasonably strong—and lucky—he can emerge from this
twilight of the soul into a rebirth of life’s élan. Cont. . . .
391 The Tragic Sense of Life – 13 Kubrick 2.
. . . cont.
Both because of and in spite of his awareness of the
meaninglessness of life, he can forge a fresh sense of
purpose and affirmation. He may not recapture the
same pure sense of wonder he was born with, but he
can shape something far more enduring and
sustaining. The most terrifying fact about the universe
is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we
can come to terms with this Indifference and accept the
challenges of life within the boundaries of death—
however mutable man may be able to make them—our
existence as a species can have genuine meaning and
fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply
our own light (Norden, 1968, 195).
• Overexcitabilities intensify the experience of the
“normal and expected” crises and tragedies of life,
contributing to a tragic sense of existence. These
feelings call for explanations and answers that are not
forthcoming, making them very difficult to “get over”
and resolve. Realizing the “tragic sense” represents an
ongoing challenge to one’s status quo integration.
• Tragedy-fueled psychoneurosis and existential crisis
contribute to positive disintegration. The feeling and
realization of tragedy in one’s life helps establish a
larger worldview and a deep empathic bond with
others. The tragic sense of life ultimately helps to
shape one’s personality and define one’s relationship
with the world.
• “For all consciousness is consciousness of death and
of suffering. We personalize the All in order to save
ourselves from Nothingness and the only mystery is
the mystery of suffering. Suffering is the path of
consciousness, and by it living beings arrive at self-
consciousness. For to possess consciousness of
oneself, to possess personality, is to know oneself and
to feel oneself distinct from other beings, and this
feeling of distinction is only reached through an act
collision, through suffering more or less severe,
through the sense of one’s own limits” (Unamuno,
1921, 140).
• “So then, they will say to me: “What is your religion?”
And I will respond: my religion is to look for truth in life
and life in truth, even knowing that I may never find
them while I am alive” (Unamuno, 1910).
395 The Tragic Sense of Life – Summary.
• We all experience tragedy in our lives. We typically
cope using social reinforcers and rationalization ("it’s
OK, now Grandpa is watching over us from heaven").
People with developmental potential may have intense
experiences of tragedy that are not ameliorated by
intellectual or rational arguments. In these cases, one
may come to realize that tragic experiences are an
inescapable, irrational, inexplicable part of life that will
never “make sense.” One is left with a choice: a
downward spiral into despair or an upward struggle to
create meaning. In tragedy we find our beliefs tested,
leading to the realization that only in tragedy can we
seek life’s deeper meanings, meaning created by our
own unique passionate engagements with life itself.
396
• 6.4. Dąbrowski and Plato.

397
The Allegory of Plato’s Cave.

The Labyrinth: Safe Journey and Homecoming:
The Fourth Biennial Advanced Symposium
on Dąbrowski’s Theory.
July 7-9, 2000, Mount Tremblant, Quebec.
Revised 2018.
Note: when I asked Dąbrowski what I should start reading in order to get
background on his theory he told me Plato. Although this presentation was
done before Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, it is more general in nature, and
therefore I placed it later in this introduction.
398 Overview of essentialism – 1.
• Plato and Aristotle represent essentialism:
• Emphasizes essential features (not accidental).
• There are universal essences, for example, that
represent absolute truths, these are true everywhere
and in every time.
• There are individual essences “within us” that
determine who we will be as individuals.
• Each of us must uncover or discover our essences,
representing our individual, unique character.
• These essences are both our potentials and our
limitations.
399 Overview of essentialism – 2.
• Plato: the absolute and eternal FORMS represent
essences. FORMS are beyond our day-to-day world.
• Things, and people, have essences, for Plato,
represented by their metaphysical FORMS.
• [In contrast, Aristotle said essence is contained within
everyday matter. The essence of a frog resides within
a tadpole and while its FORM may change (tadpole to
frog), its “frog essence” remains. Things, and people,
have enduring essences, “what a thing is,” for Aristotle,
contained within their physical matter.]
• Dąbrowski: echoes Aristotle, one’s essence is in one’s
genetics and other metaphysical factors (3rd factor).
400 Essentialism contrasted with existentialism.
• Existentialism emphasizes existence over essence:
• Existence precedes essence.
• Existentialism emerges from: Dostoyevsky,
Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre etc..
• There is no timeless or absolute truth or reality and
therefore life is largely meaningless. Whatever truth or
meaning we experience, we create as we participate in
the experience of life.
• We must create our own truths from our experiences.
The self is not predetermined, over time, we build our
autonomous self from our actions.
• Sartre: We have the responsibility and freedom to
choose our actions; to make choices is authenticity.
401 Basic ideas of Socrates – 1.
• Socrates had a great influence on his student, Plato.
• Socrates said that everyone holds moral truth and
knowledge within; however, most are unaware of it.
• Reasoning, not perception, will reveal this deep and
timeless Knowledge.
• Knowledge is of critical importance as we must KNOW
before we can ACT.
• By asking someone questions in a dialogue, the
person answering can be drawn toward discovering
this truth for him or herself via independent, reflective,
and critical thinking.
402 Basic ideas of Socrates – 2.
• Complacent acceptance of traditional or external
views is the status quo but is unsatisfactory.
• We must be conscious of something and be able to
explain it for it to have any meaning; “the unexamined
life is not worth living.”
• People naturally seek virtue and happiness; people
are not inherently evil, only ignorant of the Good.
• What are absolute beauty and justice, apart from
beautiful objects and good deeds? What are beauty
and justice in all places and at all times?
• Theory is a critical necessity; we must aspire toward
ideals of theory.
403 Plato – 1.
• Plato: “Mankind will not get rid of its evils until either
the class of those who philosophize in truth and
rectitude reach political power or those most powerful
in cities, under some divine dispensation, really get to
philosophizing.”
• Plato was born to an aristocratic
family in Athens and lived from 428 -
354BC.
• Always interested in politics, Plato
became a student of Socrates.
• Information from this period is often
questionable.
404 Plato – 2.
• When Socrates was purged, Plato became
disillusioned with politics and came to see that
“mankind’s fate was hopeless unless there was a deep
change in men’s education, and especially in the
education of those intending to become statesmen.”
• Plato founded the Academy, a prototype of the Modern
University. Based on mathematics and with a wide
focus, the Academy lasted 900 years.
• The Academy’s first major student was Aristotle:
• Aristotle later rejected Plato’s basic view of reality.
• Plato: Concerned about social and individual justice: to
get out of life what is deserved, not less, not more.
405 Context of Plato’s Cave – 1.
• Plato’s cave is described in a dialogue presented in
chapter VII of his major work, The Republic.
• The cave is the best known of Plato’s dialogues and is
open to many different interpretations.
• It is an allegory given to simplify Plato’s complex
mathematical explanation of the levels of reality:
• Plato’s cave appears after a complex and subtle discussion of
“The Divided Line,” a geometric description of the levels of
reality and their corresponding degrees of knowledge.
• Although an accomplished mathematician, Plato’s geometric
description of the divided line does not quite “work”
mathematically: it is assumed he intentionally designed it this
way—but no one knows why.
406 Context of Plato’s Cave – 2.
• Basic division: visible / invisible, then subdivided into a
series of higher and lower levels based on how we see
things [reality], and what these things actually are.
• As an analogy describing the divided line, the cave is
blunter; it is not an exact rendering of the levels.
• The cave has a direct and clear political message: our
leaders systematically deceive us and are often not fit
to govern—they need to either “see the light” or be
replaced.
• Basic premise: Because of how we live, “true” Reality
is not obvious to most of us. However, we mistake
what we see and hear as Reality and Truth.
407 Antrum Platonicum, British Museum
408
Plato’s cave allegory.
http://www.xryshaygh.com/enimerosi/view/ti-einai-o-chrusaugiths
409 The major elements of Plato’s cave – 1.
• A large cave with a steep, difficult path to the exit.
• Represents the visual world we live in.
• A group of “prisoners” sit in rows (as in a modern
movie theater). Chained to their seats, they cannot
turn around to see the whole cave in context.
• Prisoners reflect the condition of the average person:
• [Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are
strange prisoners.
• [Socrates] Like ourselves . . .
• They watch life unfold through an orchestrated shadow
show projected on the wall in front of them.
• They accept what they see as Truth—as Reality.
410 The major elements of Plato’s cave – 2.
• A short wall, often called the roadway, is situated
behind the prisoners. Puppets act out a play on the
top of the wall, casting shadows onto to the wall in
front of the prisoners.
• At the back of the cave (behind the wall) is a fire
creating artificial light.
• The puppets and those pulling their strings are beyond
the prisoner’s view.
• There is an pathway leading up and out of the cave.
Plato describes it as “a steep and rugged ascent.”
• A ray of natural sunlight seeps down into the cave.
• The exit represents “the ascent of the soul into the
intellectual world.”
411 The action – 1.
• At some point, a prisoner is “set free” and is “forced” to
see the situation inside the cave, causing him to “suffer
sharp pains.”
• “The purpose of education is to drag the prisoner as
far out of the cave as possible; not to instil
knowledge into his soul, but to turn his whole soul
towards the sun, which is the Form of the Good”
(Burton, 2010).
• Initially, one does not want to give up the security of
familiar reality; the person has to be dragged past the
fire (by someone already enlightened) and helped up,
out of the cave. The path up to the surface is a difficult
and painful struggle and not everyone has the strength
needed to make it out.
• When one initially steps into the sunshine, one is
blinded, but as one’s eyes slowly accommodate to the
light, one’s fundamental view of the world—of reality—
is transformed. One comes to see a deeper, genuine,
authentic reality: a reality marked by reason.
• Those who escape and see the “beatific vision vision

of the Good ” want to stay in the sunlight and continue
ascending, maximizing their individual growth.
• The enlightened one must be compelled to return to

the cave to try to free other prisoners as it is “improper”
for them alone to be happy and above the rest.
• Returning to the cave, one must make a painful
readjustment back into the darkness. However, to the
other prisoners, the person now seems mad—
stumbling around and describing a strange new
Reality. They reject the enlightened one, often to the
point of killing him or her.
• In spite of the consequences, one must try to enlighten

others. We create the ideal state only when everyone
is free of their illusions—then we can all start again to
move up another level.
414 The allegory and Socrates.
• The cave is also an allegory of the life and death of
Socrates.
• Socrates had been a respected soldier and one of
Plato’s “prisoners.”
• When he discovered “the truth,” he tried to help
others to discover it as well.
• Socrates called himself “a midwife of the truth.”
• In a political “realignment,” Socrates was accused of
“provocative and corruptive” teachings and given the
choice of exile or death—he chose death (by
suicide).
415 The allegory and the human condition.
• The cave is also an allegory of the human condition:
• Each of us is a prisoner, perceiving “reality” though
our own imperfect eyes.
• Most of us accept this distorted illusion of reality
without any question or deeper reflection.
• With great effort, some people can break free of
ignorance and illusion.
• Most can’t negotiate the hard and dangerous path:
• Plato: not everyone wants to, or has it in them, to be free and
to literally “see the light.”
• One’s basic essential character (genetic / epigenetic) is
critical to being able to break free.
• It is difficult to get others to examine their secure
sense of the world and conformity.
416 Plato’s Theory of Forms – 1.
• The theory of FORMS is critical to Plato’s philosophy.
• The mathematician, Pythagoras influenced Plato:
• The Pythagorean theorem does not describe one triangle or
another, it describes all possible right angle triangles that
could hypothetically be drawn. Plato: the theorem describes
an absolute truth, a knowledge, about an unseen, ideal
triangle of no particular size, that exists “out there.”
• Triangles that people draw are mere images, impressions,
opinions, representations, etc.. They are relative to each
person: each rendering only approximates the ideal FORM.
• To discover the ideal FORM (and to find Truth and Justice),
we must approach / judge these objects with the mind—with
reason, this is where real knowledge is found; it is not found
through the senses or through the emotions.
• In the Natural world, there are hierarchies of FORMS.
• Each FORM fits within a hierarchy of other FORMS
and we need to appreciate each in its larger context.
• Understanding one FORM makes it easier to grasp
others: eventually, the whole hierarchy is perceived.
• Example hierarchy of ideal FORMS:
• The Cosmos as a whole (highest)
• Cities and societies
• Individuals
• Objects (lowest)
• For example, Michelangelo’s sculpture of David:
• A FORM exists for the ideal physique of MAN.
• The FORM exists somewhere “out there.”
• FORMS are available to anyone with a sufficiently
developed sense of reasoning. Michelangelo
discovered the FORM through a process of deep
reasoning, not through his senses and perceptions.
• He relied on his mental image ("mind’s eye") of the
FORM—he did not use a human model to pose.
• Reason grasps FORMS as the eyes see objects.
• Michelangelo tries to represent, to reflect, this ideal
FORM through David.
• David succeeds as great art to the extent that
Michelangelo is in touch with this ideal FORM
(perfection) and can represent this in the stone.
• David is a closer likeness to the ideal FORM than we
are familiar with seeing in our day-to-day lives; thus it
has great impact on us.
• If Michelangelo had used a human model (even a
“perfect” one) and relied on his perceptions, he would
have been misled, creating an imperfect work.
• Summary: because David resonates so with viewers,
Michelangelo has succeeded in closely capturing and
representing the ideal FORM of MAN using just his
mind’s eye and his reason (intelligence).
• FORMS are invisible to the normal senses/perception.
• FORMS represent a deep, absolute beauty and truth
that we are normally not aware of, or in touch with.
• If a soul is “awake” it sees both “ordinary reality” (the
shadows in the cave) and the “real” FORMS behind it.
• The closer we can come to FORMS, the closer we
come to the overall, natural FORM (order and
harmony) of the Cosmos.
• Philosophy is about the study of FORMS.
• Leaders must see FORMS: Plato’s ideal governor is
therefore a highly reasoned philosopher king.
• The enlightened have a responsibility to return to the
cave to guide and govern those still unenlightened.
• The highest FORM is The Good.
• Plato believed that Good has power (energy) just as
the sun has the power to warm our skin.
• The Good is the source of beauty, right, reason and
truth.
• The Good is the parent of light.
• Good sheds “light” on the other, lessor FORMS we
“see” and allows us to make sense of them.
• Ideals are arrived at through ideas: The Good guides
us in this quest.
• The Good is the author of being and essence; the
Good is beyond being, and the cause of all existence
(Burton, 2010).
• Through dialogue, we ought to help each other to
discover and sort out ("to order") the FORMS and
ideals (and the moral truth) of the Cosmos.
• Dialogue points people in the right direction; the rest is
up to the person. It takes strong character to break free
and not everyone can: not everyone is strong enough.
• In some special cases, a person can use Eros (love) to
break free.
• “[Plato] is giving us the truth as he sees it; but it is a
truth that each of us must rediscover for ourselves
before we can properly be said to possess it” (Annas,
1981, 3).
423 Hierarchy of Perceptions / Reality – 1.
• FORMS:
• Eternal, absolute, changeless, non-material, essence, archetypes.
• The essence or deep structure of an object or idea.
• Thinking / Knowledge:
• Scientist / mathematician—uses abstraction and symbolization.
• New, greater reliance on the intellectual process over the senses.
- - - - The “Divided Line” loose continuum between levels - - -
• Beliefs:
• More certainty than opinion but still not absolute because features are
relative to the context of the person or situation.
• Example: objects have different weights on different planets.
• Opinions:
• Imagining an object, conjecture, guessing, illusions, etc.
• Object seen with the eyes: a poor imitation of its ideal FORM.
• We wrongly accept the appearance of a thing as the thing itself.
• Usually, we only interact with people’s shadows—their opinions.
424 Hierarchy of Perceptions / Reality – 2.
Objects “out there:" | States of Mind (Soul):
– Highest FORMS: | – Intelligence or Knowledge
(GOOD, beauty, justice) | Reason, Dialectic / Dialogue
(highest reality: “best | (Discover moral truth via debate)
representations") |
– Mathematical Forms | – Thinking, understanding
Intelligible world. World of Forms. Realm of knowledge. Being.
- - - - The “Divided Line” loose continuum between levels - - - -

________________________________
Visible world. World of Appearances. Realm of opinion. Becoming.
– Particular visible things | – Perception and belief

– Images, shadows | – Imagining and conjecture
(lowest reality: | (lowest type of cognition)
most inaccurate |
copies of reality) |
425 Levels Illustrated by the Cave.
– FORM of the Good | – Intelligence/Reason
(The Sun) | (Dialectic)
|
– The world outside | – Intelligence / Understanding
Outside the cave.
Above.
—— “The sunlight” a sharp line of distinction ——

_________________________________________________
Below
Inside the cave.
– Puppets, the fire | – Perception of objects

|
– Shadows on the wall | – Images/“Opinions”
426 Levels Illustrated by the Cave.
https://outre-monde.com/2010/09/25/platonic-myths-the-sun-line-and-cave/
427 Three Souls, Three Levels – 1.
• Level 1). Rational soul (Reason):
• Perfection. This soul is located in the head.
• The only immortal soul: this soul (and its associated
knowledge) is reincarnated.
• Characteristic of the elite guardians, the governing
class.
• This soul arises from the discovery of the FORMS.
• Level 2). Spirited Soul (Courage):
• Located in the chest, individuals driven by glory and
fame, but can also feel shame and guilt.
• Example: Soldiers.
428 Three Souls, Three Levels – 2.
• Level 3). Desiring Soul (Appetites):
• Located in the stomach and below.
• “Irrational” desires for food, sex (as in animals),
power, money, fame, etc.
• Human appetites are dominated by ego and self-
interest.
• Prominent in the productive masses (therefore, they
are unfit to govern).
429 The Analogy of the Chariot – 1.
• Plato describes a winged chariot pulled by two horses.
• One horse is white: the spirited soul. It is upright and
easily follows orders as it knows of virtue and honor.
• The other, dark horse, is desires. It is lumbering and
hard to control, even with a whip; at any moment it
may rear up and disobey.
• The charioteer represents the rational soul. His or her
task is to control and direct the horses.
• This also reflects the traditional image in psychology of a
homunculus: in this context, a “little rational man” inside our
heads that controls and directs our behaviour.
Charioteer: Reason
[soul] struggles to
keep control, find
truth
White horse: Pulls

up toward world of
Forms and ideals
Black horse: Pulls

down toward sense/
physical world
http://mulpix.com/instagram/mythology_god_ancient.html
• Human souls have a natural tendency (represented by
wings on the chariot) to try to move up to the realm of
FORMS, but are dragged down by their desires.
• A few people can control their unruly horse enough

that their chariot can ascend high enough for them to
lift their heads above the rim of heaven and catch a
brief glimpse of the universals.
• However, most are not strong enough to ascend so

high, and are left to feed their minds on mere opinion.
• In time, all imperfect souls must fall back to earth, and
only those that have glimpsed the universals can take
on a human form; human beings are able to recollect
universals, so must once have seen them.
• Imperfect souls who have gazed longest upon the
universals are incarnated as philosophers, artists, and
true lovers. As they are still able to remember the
universals, they are completely absorbed in ideas
about them and forget all about earthly interests.
• Those unable to ascend (common people) think the
ascenders are mad: the truth is they are divinely
inspired and in love with goodness and beauty (Burton,
2010).
433 Summary of Levels of Function.
• Two types of people with different cognitive realities:
• Conforming, everyday people ("prisoners") essentially fooled
by their perceptions of reality. The soul is asleep.
• Ascenders to the intelligible level now see a different, higher
reality (the enlightened philosopher). The soul is awake.
• Those in the cave face practical, moral questions: Steal
the bread or not? Ascenders face higher, theoretical
and contemplative concerns: What does life mean?
• Plato: Not all have the potential to ascend and lead;
those without potential must have reason imposed.
• Ascenders (rulers and philosophers) are given high
status but also various responsibilities.
434 What Makes Us Human? – 1.
• Plato: Identification with reason makes us human:
• If reason is able to succeed, then rationality, justice, order and
harmony will prevail. The success of reason makes people
human and allows them to be happy.
• Reason may succeed by our discovery of FORMS (higher
reality), or it may be imposed on us by others; either route is
valid as long as reason ultimately prevails.
• If reason and rationality fail, the lower animal in us will

rise to rule; this must be avoided at any cost.
• Plato concluded slavery is justifiable if it is needed to
impose reason and control lower desires in those who
have insufficient potential to become enlightened.
• Justice results if one identifies with the rational soul.
• Reason and rationality (however achieved) lead to justice.
• The benefits of achieving justice ought to be obvious to the
individual; people go wrong primarily out of ignorance: people
are asleep. Or, they know better, but their appetites (desiring
soul) are too strong for them to control.
• While a lack of self-knowledge is part of the problem,

insight alone does not wake up a “prisoner.” One
needs to discover the “external” FORMS, an
impersonal “outer” knowledge.
• The intellectual study of abstract ideas (mathematics)
is the only real method of discovery—it is not a
process of self-growth.
• Individual autonomy is severely limited or irrelevant.
The ideal person is dedicated to a social ideal.
• The struggles and conflicts linked to ascendance
center around our difficulty in letting go of conformity
and security, our reliance on our perception, and in the
challenge of understanding and attaining truth; not on
inner psychic issues or internal conflicts per se.
• There is no intrinsic, personal sense of reward or
fulfillment in ascendance: it is “reality-actualization” not
self-actualization.
• Diogenes the Cynic often strolled through Athens in

broad daylight with an ignited lamp. When curious
people stopped to ask what he was doing, he would
reply, ‘I am just looking for a human being’ (Burton, 2016).
438 Summary – 1.
• The “normal” reality we commonly experience and
perceive though our senses is an illusion—merely a
poor copy of Reality.
• Our “usual” perceptions create distortions and thus
they cannot be trusted.
• “Reality” can only be appreciated through reasoning.
• Through reason, some people are able to “wake up”
to Reality and to “see” what is real and important in
life.
• Not everyone has the “character” to be able to “wake
up.”
• Objective moral truths are a part of Reality that people
must discover.
439 Summary – 2.
• People who ascend have a responsibility to share their
“new” insight—this is part of the social ideal:
• Through a careful dialectic conversational process,
we must try to lead others to discover and appreciate
life more accurately for themselves.
• Society ought to be governed by people who “get it:"
• But, by saying it is alright for enlightened governors
to impose reason on the people, Plato ironically
ended up advocating a very totalitarian state.
• Wrongdoers are not evil, rather simply ignorant; or
they are overcome by strong desires.
• Reality, the natural order of the Cosmos, is
fundamentally good.
440 Discussion points.
• FORM of the individual: similar to personality ideal?
• Parallels between Plato’s ascender and Dąbrowski’s
Level V?
• Plato typifies the traditional approaches that Dąbrowski
objects to so strongly: they are lopsided toward
cognition and ignore or disdain emotion.
• Plato disdains imagination as a meaningless copy—a
distorted illusion of objects; therefore a “low” feature.
• Dąbrowski: imagination of higher possibilities is a key
element in higher development.
• Plato and Dąbrowski differ on the role of intrapsychic
conflicts, but both see development as more than
simply actualization of the self.
441
7. Creativity in the Theory of Positive

Disintegration.

The 11th INTERNATIONAL DABROWSKI
CONGRESS
“Creativity: Transforming perceptions of
Reality.” CANMORE, ALBERTA
JULY 24 – JULY 26, 2014
Revised 2018
442 A Cartoon.
443 Traditional Approaches to Creativity.
• There is no consensus on what creativity is, how to
describe it, how to define it, what factors contribute to
it, or on the theories or constructs of creativity.
• “what creativity is, and what it is

not, hangs as the mythical
albatross around the neck of
scientific research on creativity.”
(Prentky, 2001, p. 97).
444 Emphasis on Production.
• Traditional approaches focus on the production of
some-THING.
• The standard definition has 2 parts: “Creativity requires

both originality and effectiveness.”
• The THING produced must be new—original.
• The original THING must be effective: it must fit and

be appropriate in some domain or context.
• (Runco & Jaeger, 2012, p. 92).
445 A Little More Complex.
(Amabile, 1998, p. 78).

446 No Limits to Complexity.
(from the Internet)

447 Henri-Louis Bergson.
• Henri-Louis Bergson (1859-1941).
• French philosopher and polymath (studied time, space,
evolution and biology).
• Nobel Prize in literature 1927 for Creative evolution.
• Mom English, dad Polish; from a prominent family.
• Developed a complex theory of time and
consciousness he called duration
(Describes our experience of time).
• Anticipated quantum physics.
• Critical of mechanistic views of evolution
(Spencer), his model extended Darwin
and stressed humans’ “intuitive and
1927
creative thinking.”
448 Bergson.
• “[F]or a conscious
Bergson’s philosophy
being, to exist is to
is complex but
change, to change
rewards the
is to mature, to
persistent reader. mature is to go on
creating oneself
endlessly”
(Bergson 1922, p. 8).
Bergson is still topical:

(Azambuja, Guareschi, & Baum,
2014).
449 Bergson on Creativity – 1.
• Our understanding of our deeper self and of life is not
gained by intelligence or logic (tools used to make
more tools and to grasp mechanisms): it must be
known by our intuition arising from our experience.
• Bergson rejects creativity based on making THINGS.
• Intelligence produces things that may be useful in life:

real creativity is a process of continual becoming.
• On the psychological level, Bergson equates creativity

with developing one’s unique personality. The following
quote is obscure but says it all.
450 Bergson on Creativity – 2.
• “ . . . might we not think that the ultimate reason of
human life is a creation which, in distinction from that
of the artist or man of science, can be pursued at
every moment and by all men alike; I mean the
creation of self by self, the continual enrichment of
personality, by elements which it does not draw from
outside, but causes to spring forth from itself?” (Bergson,
1911, pp. 42-3).
• “Every instant we have to choose, and we naturally
decide on what is in keeping with the rule. We are
hardly conscious of this; there is no effort. A road has
been marked out by society; it lies open before us, and
we follow it; it would take more initiative to cut across
country” (Bergson, 1935, p. 10).
451 Bergson Resonates with Dąbrowski – 1.
• “Every instant we have to choose, and we naturally
decide on what is in keeping with the rule. We are
hardly conscious of this; there is no effort. A road has
been marked out by society; it lies open before us, and
we follow it; it would take more initiative to cut across
country” (Bergson, 1935, p. 10).
• “The beliefs to which we most strongly adhere are
those of which we should find it most difficult to give an
account . . . In a certain sense we have adopted them
without any reason, for what makes them valuable in
our eyes is that they match the colour of all our other
ideas . . . [our ideas] float on the surface, like dead
leaves on the water of a pond: the mind, when it thinks
them over and over again, finds them ever the same,
as if they were external to it . . . Among these are the
ideas which we receive ready made, and which remain
in us without ever being properly assimilated” (Bergson,
1913/2001, pp. 135-136).
• Ideas that reflect our true selves and insights are only
revealed when we dig deeply below the surface into
“the deeper strata of the self”—a task that is extremely
difficult and seldom attempted (Bergson, 1913/2001, p. 136).
• Because the deeper self is seldom experienced, it may
be felt deeply when encountered but at first may seem
foreign. “An idea which is truly ours fills the whole of
our self” and within our deep self, ideas join and blend
together. Therefore these deeper ideas are hard to
understand, difficult to articulate into words and thus
hard to communicate to others. (Bergson, 1913/2001, pp. 135-
136).
454 The Nature of Creativity for Dąbrowski – 1.
• For Dąbrowski, creativity is deeply connected to the
development of one’s personality.
• “The higher the level of development the closer is the
link between creativity and developmental dynamisms”
(Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 196).
• “Creativity expresses non-adaptation within the internal

milieu and a transgression of the usual standards of
adaptation to the external environment” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p.
11).
• Creative abilities represent “a search for new higher

ways of understanding reality and of creating or
discovering these new ways” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 196).
455 The Nature of Creativity for Dąbrowski – 2.
• “It does not seem that authentic creativity of a high
level is possible without the activity of neurotic and
psychoneurotic dynamisms” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 41).
• “Generally, it may safely be taken that the lower is the
level of function represented by a given
psychoneurosis, the fewer creative elements are
involved” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 198).
• “Lack of creative tendencies goes together with lack of
inner conflicts, lack of positive adjustment” (Dąbrowski,
1972, p. 198).
• “Greater creative tendencies are exhibited in
psychoneurosis of a higher level” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 198).
456 Dąbrowski: Creativity and Mental Health.
• “Are creative people mentally healthy? . . . They
are not healthy according to the standard of the
average individual, but they are healthy
according to their unique personality norms and
insofar as they show personality development:
the acquiring and strengthening of new qualities
in the realization of movement toward their
personality ideal” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 115).
457 Creativity is a Higher Level Phenomena.
• “The creative instinct belongs to those instincts which
arise in ontogenesis and are not common to all
members of the human species” (Dąbrowski, 1973, p. 24).
• There is no “true, universal creativity” in unilevel
integration. In unilevel disintegration, “creative talent”
is limited and often psychopathological.
• “Multilevel creativity is a manifestation of the
conjunction of emotional, imaginational and intellectual
overexcitability, with emotional being clearly the
strongest” (Dąbrowski, 1996, p. 36).
458 Creativity and Disintegration Are Linked – 1.
• “Crises are periods of increased insight into oneself,
creativity, and personality development” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p.
18).
459 Creativity and Disintegration Are Linked – 2.
• “Disintegration is described as positive when it
enriches life, enlarges the horizon, and brings forth
creativity” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 10).
• “Creative dynamisms are connected with the process
of disintegration in general, and with the process of
multilevel disintegration in particular” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p.
69).
• “Psychoneurotics are very likely to be creative. They

often show loosening and disruption of the internal
milieu and conflict with the external environment”
(Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 115).
460 Creativity is a Precursor of Self-perfection.
• “Creative dynamisms together with inner psychic
transformation, empathy and identification represent
dynamisms present in all stages of development of a
multilevel inner psychic milieu” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 67).
• “On a high level of development creative instinct

becomes an instinct of self-perfection which besides
the media of artistic expression begins to stress more
and more strongly the concern for inner perfection”
461 Hierarchy of Higher-level Instincts.
The creative ➛ Self-perfection.

instinct is a key
part of
Developmental Creative instinct.
Potential.
➛ Self development.
➛ Developmental instinct.
462 Hierarchy of Dynamisms (Part).
➛ Organized Multilevel Dynamisms.
Creative
dynamisms
are a key
part of D. P. ⇧ Subject – Object.
⇧ Creative Dynamisms.
⇧ Positive Maladjustment.
➛ Spontaneous Multilevel Dynamisms.

463 Conclusion.
• Dąbrowski: Under the direction of the third factor, the
developing creative instinct is transformed into the
instinct of self-perfection.
• In summary, Dąbrowski proposed:
Creativity is the ongoing, incremental, and multilevel

process leading to the achievement of one’s unique,
ideal personality.
464 The End.
465 References.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87.
Azambuja, M. D., Guareschi, N. M. D. F., & Baum, C. (2014). Henri Bergson’s contribution to the
invention of a psychology in duration. Theory & Psychology, 24, 186–198.
doi:10.1177/0959354314525875
Bergson, H. (1911). Life and consciousness. Hibbert Journal, X(1), 24-44.
Bergson, H. (1922) Creative evolution (A. Mitchell, Trans.). London England: Macmillan. (Original
work published 1911).
Bergson, H. (1946). The creative mind (M. L. Andison, Trans.). New York, NY: Philosophical
Library.
Bergson, H. (2001). Time and free will: An essay on the immediate data of consciousness (3rd ed.,
F. L. Pogson, Trans.). Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1913)
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston: Little Brown & Co.
Dabrowski, K. (with Kawczak, A., & Piechowski, M. M.). (1970). Mental growth through positive
disintegration. London: Gryf Publications.
Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. London: Gryf Publications.
Dabrowski, K. (1996). Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive functions. Part 1: Theory and
description of levels of behavior. Lublin, Poland: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego
Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.
Prentky, R. A. (2001). Mental illness and roots of genius. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 95–104.
doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1301_11
Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 24, 92–96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
466
8. Dąbrowski’s Approach to Testing: An

Introduction.
By Bill Tillier
INTERNATIONAL DABROWSKI CONGRESS
2016
CALGARY, ALBERTA
July 14 to 16, 2016
Revised 2018
Full references:
http://www.positivedisintegration.com/testref.pdf
467
And so it is with us: we face change,

much of it hard, whether we like it or not.
But it is in the hard times especially that
we grow, that we become transformed.
—Patrick Doyle
468
Thank you
Sandra.
1974-2016.
469
Thanks to my
co-author
Sam.
Thanks to
my
caregivers:
Joey Villanueva,
Rene Castaños,
Ziadia Castaños,
Jemna Cruz,
Irene Sifrer,
Ginny Larson.
470
Just as TPD is much more than OE, the topic of testing

in Dąbrowski is much more than the OEQ(s).
• Part 1: Bare bones overview of Dąbrowski’s tests,
• Part 2: In-depth look at SITUATIONS and FACES.
[this symbol indicates the contents

of the slide come directly from the archives]
471
• Why test? Goal is to generate insight into the client.

• Aimed at “triggering emotional contents” in clients.
• “Multi-dimensional, multi-level, descriptive-
interpretative diagnosis.”
• “Patient is a co-author of the diagnosis.” (1972, 252)
• “Diagnosis [is] half of psychotherapy.” (1972, 253)
472
• Used Wechsler [WAIS] to measure IQ.
• Rorschach for personality [rejected MMPI, 16PF

etc.]
• Used physical examination, EEG, laboratory tests,

X-rays.
• Dąbrowski also created his own battery of tests.

473
Tests for assessing developmental levels in TPD:
• “Verbal stimuli for triggering of emotional contents.”

• Experiences and goals test.
• [Auto] Biography.
• Dąbrowski Verbal items test.
• Neurophysiological examination/assessment of
subject’s behavior during the test. [n=127]
• Rorschach test.
• Selection of situations.
• Selection of faces.
474
Other Dąbrowski questionnaires:

• Statement Selection Test (3 versions)
• Dąbrowski Inventory Test, 60 Items
• Self-depictions questionnaire, 15 Items
• The Dąbrowski test of multilevelness, 33 items
• “#16 PIP Section 1, 45 items”
• Dąbrowski personal inventory children’s form (60
items)
• Dąbrowski Dynamisms Test 1970 (30 items)
475
Dąbrowski’s testing experts:
• Lawrence F. Spreng and William L. Lai.
• Trained judges to score verbal stimuli responses.
• Studied inter-judge scoring reliability.

476
Verbal Stimuli
• Please describe freely in relation to each word listed
below your emotional associations and experiences.
Use as much space as you feel you need.
Great sadness Great joy Death Uncertainty
Loneliness Suicide Immortality
Inhibition Inner conflict Ideal
[n= 950]
477
Experiences and goals [test]
• 1. Describe three experiences, or events, in your life

which were most significant to you.
• 2. Describe three of your greatest desires.

478
[Auto] Biography
• Please describe on 6-8 (or more) typewritten pages

your personal history from childhood till the present.
Concentrate especially on the sad and joyous
experiences that you can remember, as well as your
thoughts, reflections, dreams and fantasies
associated with them. Include your characteristic
dreams.
[n= 81]
479
Criteria for scoring biography.
• 1. General levels of psychic development.

• 2. Dynamisms.
• 3. Kinds and levels of psychic overexcitability.
• 4. Pathological syndromes and their levels.
• 5. Levels of tension.
• 6. Transformation in developmental periods of
difficulties.
• 7. Talents: unilevel and multidimensional (universal)
talents.
[38 page paper]

480
Dąbrowski verbal items test (experimental form 3)
1. I find it best to avoid arguments both with others and

within myself.
2. In many issues, I can always see many sides.
3. I am the only one who can do anything about my
personal problems.
481
Neurophysiological examination.
(a). Trembling of eyelids, frequency of closing eyes,

and the tension accompanying the closing of eyes.
(b). Pupils.
(c). Oculocardiac reflex.
(d). Chvostek’s sign and thyroid.
(e). Palatal and pharyngeal reflexes.
(f). Trembling of the hands.
482
Used the conventional Rorschach test.
• Goal: to find in the Rorschach, perceptanalytic

equivalences of developmental dynamisms and
levels, as well as oversensitivity forms and levels, and
intra- and inter-psychoneurotic differentiation.
• Dąbrowski’s Rorschach expert: Franciszek Lesniak

483
Statement Selection Test (3 versions)
On each page of this test you will find 8 statements.

First read all 8 statements on the page and then
select 2 statements that seem to be closest to your
convictions. [Version A (6 pages)]
[Typical Q sort task]

484
Example Statement Selection items.
• If you have too many qualms, you will be destroyed.
• I do not like to torment myself with soul-searching

because it is useless.
• Constant adaptation to everything is opposed to

psychological development.
485
Dąbrowski Inventory Test, 60 Items
• Unpractical people irritate me to no end.
• My life will probably end up being a mess.
• If I witness cruelty to animals, I become very upset.
• Occasionally I daydream about beating up or even

killing somebody.
486
Self-depictions questionnaire, 15 Items
• 1). Is your approach to daily life a concrete, realistic

one?
• 2). Do you like a logical approach to everyday reality?
• 3). Do you have strong imagination and fantasy?
• 4). Have you ever had so-called “mystic experience”?

If yes, give an example.
487
The Dąbrowski test of multilevelness, 33 items

[Circle one]
488
“#16 PIP Section 1, 45 items”
1. It is best to avoid conflicts with people and also

not to create conflicts within oneself.
2. In any issue, I can always see many pros and cons.
3. Nobody except myself can do anything about my

inner disequilibrium and personal problems.
489
Dąbrowski personal inventory children’s form (60

items)
[Yes or No answers]
1. I'd rather do things that are lots of fun than work or

go to school.
2. Sometimes I help kids who are being picked on by
others, but most of the time I'm afraid of what will
happen.
3. I'd rather have one boy – or girl – like me than many.
[n= 1590]
490
Dąbrowski Dynamisms Test 1970 (30 items)
1. I lose my temper but it’s usually because someone

made me mad.
2. When I'm with a crowd of people who are shouting, I
feel like shouting too.
3. I'm really ashamed of some things I have done and
I'd like to pretend they never happened.
[n= 1590]
491
Part 2
Dąbrowski’s Selection of Situations Test.

492
Dąbrowski Situations test, form 3: Instructions
• Look at these pictures and mark whether you like the

feelings and emotions they express. We find all
people like some pictures and dislike others.
• In this test there are no right or wrong answers. Do

not be afraid to indicate honestly how you feel.
• Indicate the amount to which you like or dislike each

photo by placing an X in the appropriate blank.
[n= 565]
493
• [Typical Likert scale]

494
495
496
497
498
499
• Dąbrowski’s Selection of FACES test.

500
Physiognomy: An ancient idea.
• Definition: The assessment of a person’s character or

personality from his or her outer appearance,
especially the face.
• Aristotle: We can infer character from facial features

because the body and the soul are changed together
by emotions.
501
• Typical death
mask.
502
• Typical bust.
503
Porta Giambattista della. (1586).

504
• Lavater 1853
505
Lavater (1775/1853, p. 4)
The God of truth, and all who know me,
will bear testimony that, from my whole soul,
I despise deceit, as I do all silly claims to superior
wisdom, and infallibility, which so many writers,
by a thousand artifices, endeavour to make their
readers imagine they possess.
[This ought to be this group’s motto.]

506
Important distinctions:
• 1). We judge the characteristics of others based on our
perceptions of their faces (object),
• 2). We can infer characteristics about ourselves
(subject) based on the reactions faces produce in us.
• Our approach or avoidance to an image will reveal
our character/emotions (Level of Development) vis-à-
vis the character (L of D) portrayed in the image.
• 3). Can gain insight into clients based upon the
reactions that images of faces invoke in them.
507
Modern era of
physiognomy
begins.
508
Photography became
omnipresent in
psychiatry
and the social sciences.
Darwin, 1872.
Again: emphasis on emotion.

509
From Darwin
510
Leopold (Lipot) Szondi (1893–1986)
• Hungarian geneticist/endocrinologist.
• Schicksalsanalyse (fate analysis): A depth psychology.
• “Family unconscious” bridges Freud’s individual

unconscious and Jung’s collective unconscious.
• Developed a test based on selecting photos of faces.
• Szondi and his test were very popular in the 1930’s.

511
• 1944: Szondi was held in Bergen-Belsen concentration

camp. Ransom paid by “American academics” to Adolf
Eichmann freeing him [and other “important
academics”].
• Settled in Zurich–practiced psychiatry, developed

ideas.
• Irony: In 1961 Szondi’s test was used in Eichmann’s

trial.
• Eichmann was hung as a war criminal in 1962.

512
• Basic idea: A subject will pick out photos that reflect his
or her dimensions of personality (Zaffaroni and Oliveira, 2013,
p. 305).
• 48 photos: 6 groups of 8 photos of mental patients.

• Subject is asked to pick 2 likes and 2 dislikes.
513
Szondi
Test
(48 items)

514
Dąbrowski walked through the

aftermath of a WW1 battle near his
hometown when he was about 12.
He later related that as he walked

among the dead, he was struck by
the different expressions on their
faces. Some were calm and
peaceful; others, horrified and
frightened.
Dąbrowski later studied Szondi

before developing his own test.
515
One’s facial expression represents an

integrated emotional response.
Dąbrowski would
say the face
expresses one’s
level of
development and
one’s dynamisms.
Getty Images
451869464
516
One’s expression reflects one’s developmental level.

517
Dąbrowski’s selection of faces test.
• Several standard sets of portraits and photographs are

given to a subject who is asked to select in each set of
8 pictures the 2 he likes best.
• In each set there are 4 pairs of pictures corresponding

to each of the four levels of development. It is
assumed that people will select faces with expressions
closest to their level of emotional development
[n= 576]
5
514
1
8 Dąbrowski’s Scoring of the FACES test.
[Typical Likert scale]

519
520
521
522
523
524
525
Transformation in therapy as shown in facial expression.
Session 1
526
Session 2
527
Session 3
528
Session 1 Session 3
529
Contemporary support for physiognomy:
• “common personality traits—that are distributed

normally in the general population—can have a
profound influence on the processing of facial
expressions” (Fox & Zougkou, 2011, p. 1).
530
Perlman’s study:
• . . . specific personality traits predispose individuals
to seek out and process information that is
congruent with those [traits] . . . (Perlman, et al, 2009, p. 1).
• Study looked at neuroticism: “a non-clinical,

normally distributed, personality trait” (p. 2).
• Perlman “predicted that individuals high in

neuroticism would attend preferentially to the eyes
of fearful facial expressions” in photos (p. 2).
531
• Perlman’s results: “Individuals display different visual

scanpaths in response to faces as a function of
individual differences in personality. It follows that
individuals of various personality types may perceive
varying levels of emotional content in presented
stimuli”(p. 5).
• “although all participants might be presented with the

same image, variation in image exploration could
result in differential perception based on the
personality of each participant” (p. 5).
532
Perception of facial emotion is cognitively

mediated.
• “healthy adults activate and apply emotion concepts in

the moment during emotion perception and these
concepts shape representations of faces” (Nook, Lindquist,
& Zaki, 2015, p. 576).
• “visual, social, and cultural contexts influence the

emotions an individual perceives in a face” (Nook,
Lindquist, & Zaki, 2015, p. 576).
533
Weegee was a
famous New York
photographer.
Began his career on the

crime beat:
Photographed many New
York murders.
534
Glee Many different

Agony facial
reactions in a
crowd Illustrate
different
personalities.
Curiosity
Confusion
535
A man had been

shot in the street in
front of a school and
when the bell rang,
the students ran out
to see the scene.
Weegee turned and
took this picture of
them.
536
Typical Level I images

(by Weegee).
Jane Mansfield
537
Typical Level I images.
[Anonymous]
538
Typical Level I images.
Roman Polanski.
539
Typical Level II images.
Dąbrowski: the
creations of a
person also will
reflect his or her
developmental
level.
Don van Vliet, Musician, Artist.

540
Don van Vliet

541
Picasso
.
542
Later in life, Weegee created

typical Level II images.
543
544
Typical Level II
ambiguity:
Dead or alive?
545
Typical Level III

images.
Existential
despair/angst
are common:
spontaneous
disintegration.
Klaus Kinski in
Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo
546
Typical Level III images.
547
The Scream
Edvard Munch
548
The Expulsion
from the
Garden of
Eden
(detail).
Early Renaissance artist

Masaccio
549
Typical Level IV images: Infused with

authenticity.
Either with deep humanity or joy.
≺ Humans of New York

550
Typical Level IV images.

551

552
Tom Jones
553
Jeff Bridges
554
Antoine
de Saint-Exupéry
555
Authentic joy.
Keith
Richards
556
Authentic joy.
The so-called “Duchenne
smile” is considered an
authentic smile.
Orbicularis oculi muscle
makes eyes squint.
Zygomatic major muscle

pulls up corners of mouth.
There is a fairly large !

literature on this topic.
557
Authentic joy.
Steve McQueen Jeff Bridges

558
Authentic joy.
559 Full references:
http://www.positivedisintegration.com/testref.pdf
560
• 9. Dąbrowski and Piechowski.
Originally presented by Bill Tillier at the

19th Annual Society for the Advancement of Gifted
Education (SAGE) Conference
November 7th & 8th, 2008
Revised 2018
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta
561 Dąbrowski and Piechowski – Contents – 1.
• Mission statement.……………………….…………………..………… Slide: 563
• Piechowski Meets Dąbrowski.……………………….………………… Slide: 564
• Piechowski and Dąbrowski .……………….…………….…………….. Slide: 565
• Issue 1: Re-titling of the 1977 Volumes…………………….………… Slide: 568
• Issue 2: Levels I & II:
• Overview
• Dąbrowski’s Views. .……………………….……………………. Slide: 572
• Kawczak’s Views .……………………….………………………. Slide: 575
• Piechowski’s Views……………….…………………..…………. Slide: 579
• Confusion in the Literature. …….………………….…….…….. Slide: 582
• Level I: Piechowski’s Early Views. …………………….………….. Slide: 586
• Level I: Piechowski’s Revised Views. …………………….……….. Slide: 590
• Level II: Piechowski’s Early Views. …………………….………...... Slide: 604
• Level II: Piechowski’s Revised Views. …………………….………. Slide: 606
• Level II: Dąbrowski’s Views – Summary. …………………….……. Slide: 613
• Level II: Summary. …………………….………....….………….…… Slide: 614
• Issue 2: Conclusion. …………………….………………….………...Slide: 615
• Issue 3: Development & DP ………………….……………………….. Slide: 616
• Issue 4: A Strong Focus on Overexcitability. …………………….….. Slide: 621
• Issue 5: Piechowski Questions Multilevelness. …………………….. Slide: 624
• Dąbrowski’s View of Multilevelness …………………….…………. Slide: 625
562 Dąbrowski and Piechowski – Contents – 2.
• Issue 6: The Role of Self-actualization. …….………….…………… Slide: 626
• Self-actualization and Level IV. …………………….………...…… Slide: 627
• Piechowski’s Rationale of Dąbrowski. …………………….………... Slide: 631
• “Dąbrowski Just Didn’t Understand.” …………………….………….. Slide: 632
• They Never Understood. …………………….………...………...…… Slide: 633
• A Pathway Forward? …………………….……….………. .…………. Slide: 634
• Summary…………………….…………….…………….……………… Slide: 635
• Misattributions to Piechowski………….……………………………....Slide: 639
563 Mission statement.
• Mission statement: In this section, my intention is not

to make a case for, or against, Dr. Piechowski’s views
of development or of TPD. Dr. Piechowski’s views
have evolved over time and continue to evolve. My
purpose is to simply delineate these differences and
trace their history as they emerged.
• Piechowski says that he has “not presented a theory of

his own” and will not put forth a separate theory. He is
“simply updating” TPD.
• Dr. Piechowski has reviewed this section and I have
acknowledged his comments in appropriate revisions.
564 Michael Piechowski Meets Dąbrowski.
• Piechowski was with the Dept. of Microbiology (UofA).
He “started working with Dąbrowski in the winter of
1967,” becoming a “colleague.” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 41;
Piechowski, Ramsahoye, Evans, & Czartoryski, 1970).
• In January 1970, Piechowski left Edmonton and went

to Wisconsin to pursue a doctorate in counseling.
• He met Nick Colangelo and Kay Ogburn as fellow
graduate students. Colangelo and Ron Zaffrann edited
a book on counseling the gifted in 1979 (Colangelo &
Zaffrann, 1979). It contained a chapter by Piechowski (1979a;
see Piechowski, 2008, pp. 75-76).
• Piechowski became active in discussing Dąbrowski’s

theory and the construct of overexcitability in the gifted
field via workshops and publications (e.g. Piechowski, 1986).
565 Piechowski and Dąbrowski – 1.
• I knew both Dąbrowski and Piechowski and heard first-
hand their comments pertaining to these issues.
• Piechowski has at times emphasized different nuances
and presented different views on some issues.
• Example:
• “The significance and the originality of the theory of positive
disintegration does not lie, as it is often believed in introducing
the idea of disintegration as a positive developmental process.
Understandably, this aspect of the theory is most important for
clinical psychology, psychiatry, and education. Nevertheless,
the significance and originality of Dąbrowski’s theory lie in its
concepts of developmental structures, developmental
potential, and the characteristics by which they can be
detected and measured” (Piechowski, 1975b, p. 266).
[Dąbrowski endorsed this paper by providing a preface.]
• Other examples: “Although Dąbrowski viewed
primary integration as a rigid [genetic] personality
structure, it makes more sense to see it as the
outcome of socialization” (Piechowski, 2003, p. 289).
• That strong, positive developmental potential may
not be required for growth: “under optimal conditions,
even children with limited developmental potential
can grow up to be good citizens with a strong sense
of fairness” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 54).
• “Dąbrowski’s theory would lose none of its value
were [levels I & II] not included, since the theory is
mainly about multilevel development” (Piechowski, 2009, p.
71).
• Piechowski’s issues involve the basic tenets of TPD:
• Level I: Drop primary integration, keep Level I, with new name:
“adaptation,” and new focus—individuals exhibiting socially
caused “moral disengagement—authoritarian behavior—not a
genetically-based personality type—not an integration.”
• Level II: New name: “unilevel growth process.” Average person,
second factor. “Disintegration may occur. There is still no
development in Dąbrowski’s sense but there is movement that
may go in the direction of Level III.”
• Developmental potential is not genetic. DP, as described in
TPD, may not be needed for “multilevel emotional growth.”
• It is “possible to imagine a harmonious society without a
multilevel majority.”
• Self-actualization fits into Level IV.
• I will focus on six major theoretical issues.
568 Issue 1: Re-titling of the 1977 Volumes – 1.
• After leaving Edmonton, Piechowski continued to work
with Dąbrowski—“our close collaboration continued
until 1975” (Piechowski, 2008, pp. 45-46).
• Culminating their collaborative work on a book, while
Dąbrowski was in Poland, it fell to Piechowski to
prepare the book for publication. Piechowski submitted
different titles to the publisher and made changes in
authorship attributions. In the process of “editing and
updating” the text, substantive changes were made.
(Dąbrowski, 1977 [vol. 1]; Dąbrowski & Piechowski, 1977 [vol. 2]).
• To see all of these alterations, follow this link:

http://positivedisintegration.com/1977info.pdf
• (Dr. Piechowski has reviewed the comments in this PDF and
confirmed their accuracy).
569 Issue 1: Re-titling of the 1977 Volumes – 2.
• Dąbrowski’s original manuscript titles:
• Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive functions Part
1: Theory and description of levels of behavior.
• Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive functions Part
2: Types and Levels of Development.
• Piechowski’s revised titles as published in 1977:
• Theory of levels of emotional development Volume 1 -
Multilevelness and positive disintegration.
• Theory of levels of emotional development Volume 2 -
From primary integration to self-actualization.
• Dąbrowski rejected the books and insisted the original
manuscripts be republished (done in 1996).
• These changes led to what Piechowski describes as a
“personal split” with Dąbrowski.
570 Issue 1: Re-titling Created Confusion – 3.
• Re-titling has apparently led to ongoing confusion:
• “Dąbrowski’s theory of emotional development” which he called
‘positive disintegration’” (Silverman, 1983, p. 10).
• Piirto: “Dąbrowski Theory of Positive Disintegration (as it is
called in Canada, or of Emotional Development as it is called in
the United States)” (http://personal.ashland.edu/jpiirto/twelve.htm)
• “Since Dąbrowski’s death in 1980, his ‘Theory of Positive
Disintegration’ often has been referred to as ‘Dąbrowski’s
Theory of Emotional Development,’ as he placed greater
emphasis on the role of emotions than most other theorists”
(Silverman, 1993b, p. 639).
• “Dąbrowski’s . . . Theory of Positive Disintegration, also known
as the Theory of Emotional Development” (Sisk, 2008, p. 26).
• In a 2008 lecture, Piechowski referred to “Dąbrowski’s theory of
emotional development through positive disintegration.”
571 Issue 1: Toward Clarity? – 4.
• Dąbrowski called his work the theory of positive
disintegration to highlight the disintegrative process
he felt was necessary for personality development.
• Piechowski says historically he used a “generic name”
and primarily portrayed “Dąbrowski’s theory of
emotional development” as a theory describing and
measuring emotional development (see Piechowski, 2014a).
• Piechowski now says the “proper name” of the theory
is the theory of positive disintegration [The convention
all researchers should use when referring to the
theory] (Piechowski, 2014a, p. 12).
• Recently, he used: “Dąbrowski’s theory of positive
disintegration, a theory of emotional development”
(Piechowski, 2017, p. 87).
572 Issue 2: – Slide 1.
Levels I & II: Overview – Dąbrowski’s Views.
• “a fairly high degree of primary integration is found in
the average person; a very high degree in the
psychopath.” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 121)
• “two main qualitatively different stages and types of
life: the heteronomous, which is biologically [1st factor]
and socially determined [2nd factor], and the
autonomous, which is determined by the multilevel
dynamisms of the inner psychic milieu [3rd factor]”
• As I understood this from Dąbrowski, level I is
heteronomous, aka unilevel. Level III and above,
autonomous (multilevel). Level II is transitional, a brief
intense time of unilevel crisis—a test of character from
which one normally will either regress or advance.
• “The first stage, called primary integration, is
characterized by mental structures and functions of a
low level which are automatic and impulsive,
determined by primitive, innate drives. At this stage,
intelligence neither controls nor transforms basic
drives. It is used in a purely instrumental way, so as to
supply the means towards the ends determined by
primitive drives. There is no inner conflict” (Dąbrowski,
1970, August 26-30, p. 4).
• (This paper was presented at the Laval conference

and reflects the 1970 manuscript on Multilevelness of
instinctive and emotional functions).
• “Unilevel disintegration consists of disintegrative
processes on a single structural and emotional level.
Unilevel disintegration begins with a loosening of the
rigid structure of primary integration. Among its first
symptoms are increased sensitivity to internal stimuli,
vague feelings of disquietude, ambivalences and
ambitendencies, various forms of disharmony, and,
gradually, the nuclei of hierarchization of both the
external stimuli and one’s own mental structure. At the
beginning this hierarchization is very weak. There is a
continuous vacillation between ‘pros’ and ‘cons,’ no
clear direction ‘up’ or ‘down’” (Dąbrowski, 1970, August 26-30, p.
5).
Levels I & II: Overview – Kawczak’s Views.
• “1. The primitively integrated type has a coherent
structure of mental functions, subordinated to primitive
drives. He uses intelligence exclusively as an
instrument in the service of instinctive, impulsive
desires. He does not show the capacity to transform
stimuli, emotions and drives. There is in him no distinct
conscious self. He is entirely determined and controlled
by hereditary and environmental factors.
Depending on the genetic endowment, innate
inclinations and environmental influences, primitively
integrated individuals may represent a variety of
socially positive or negative types, from good-natured,
mild, even ‘motherly’ characters to aggressive, ruthless
and calculating psychopaths” (Kawczak, 1970, p. 1).
• “2. The horizontally disintegrated individual is
characterized by inconsistency and disorganization of
mental functions through inner conflicts between
drives of a similar developmental level. He shows
ambivalences and ambitendencies, feelings of
disquietude and discontent with oneself, however
without self-consciousness and the capacity to
understand himself. Horizontally disintegrated
individuals are confused, unable to take care of their
own problems. They are the ones who more than any
other group complain about their own helplessness
and request psychotherapeutic assistance” (Kawczak,
1970, p. 1).
• “Although the statistical data about the distribution of
psychological types distinguished in the theory of
positive disintegration are not available it seems that a
clear majority of people never reach beyond primary
integration or after a short period of partial horizontal
disintegration reintegrate at the former level. There
seems to be 15-20 per cent of people who, at least
temporarily, display symptoms of unilevel
disintegration. Individuals at the third, fourth and fifth
stage of mental development do not seem to
constitute a large group. Cases of secondary
integration are particularly rare, probably much below
1 per cent of the total population” (Kawczak, 1970, pp. 3-4).
• “To sum it up, there is a biological and environmental
determinism at the lowest level of mental
development. There is a weakening of the
deterministic chain in unilevel disintegration and the
emergence of what has traditionally been called ‘free
will’ in multilevel disintegration” (Kawczak, 1970, p. 5).
• Note: The manuscript that was the basis of the 1996
reprint placed second factor under level II. I do not
believe this reflected Dąbrowski’s viewpoint. When I
learned the theory from him, the levels were presented
as in the last few slides. Dąbrowski endorsed
Kawczak’s paper: it was given at the Laval conference
and formed part of Dąbrowski’s unpublished papers.
Levels I & II: Overview – Piechowski’s Views.
• Piechowski: “Individual development may follow the
maturational stages of the life cycle without any
profound psychological transformation (i.e., without
change in the emotional-cognitive structure). In such
case there is no development in the sense of
reorganization, and this adevelopmental structure has
been called primary, or primitive, integration. In such a
life history an individual follows the path of
environmental adaptation. He learns, works, and fits
in, but he does not suffer mental breakdown or
experience ecstasy. In contrast, when in a life history
mental breakdown or true ecstasy does take place we
have a disintegration” (1975b, pp. 247-248). [Dąbrowski endorsed
this paper by providing a preface.]
• “One can think of integration and disintegration as
opposite poles of a continuum between maximum of
structure and total lack of structure. This gets us only
as far as unilevel disintegration, which, in fact, may be
temporary and may revert back to primary integration”
(Piechowski, 1975b, p. 265). [Dąbrowski endorsed this paper by providing a
preface.]
• In Fort Lauderdale, in 2002, Piechowski said that

because Level I and II are not associated with
development per se, these levels are “totally
irrelevant” to the theory. (See Piechowski, 2009, 2014a, 2017;
Mendaglio & Tillier, 2015; Tillier, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c).
• “Little significant inner life exists at Levels I (primary
integration) and II (unilevel disintegration). . . . For
Dąbrowski, inner life begins with multilevel processes
of introspection, self-examination, and self-evaluation
[Level III]” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 43; see also Piechowski, 2014a).
• “In regard to Levels I and II what I said was that
Dąbrowski’s theory would lose none of its value were
these levels not included, since the theory is mainly
about multilevel development” (Piechowski, 2009, p. 71).
• “The paradox of Dąbrowski’s theory is that as a theory
of development it includes two levels in which there is
little or no development” (Piechowski, 2017, p. 88).
Levels I & II: Overview – Confusion in the Literature.
• Subsequent confusion on the part of other authors:
• In a study of gifted students, Bailey (2011, p. 217)
appears to utilize Dąbrowski’s traditional approach—
Level I as socialization, Level II as disintegration.
However, it is also confusing because she found 70%
of her sample fell into Level II:
• “A number of our respondents are still within the
Primary Integration (Level I) stage, which Piechowski
(2003) describes as being marked by primary mental
organizations aimed at gratifying biological needs
and conforming to social norms.”
• Bailey (2011, p. 217) continued:
• “Level II, the current level for the majority of our
sample, is a critical transition phase in Dąbrowski’s
theory as it is during this phase that the process of
positive disintegration begins. Positive
disintegration is the process during which the
previously held personality structure must come
apart to be replaced by higher level personality
structures.” . . . “That 70% of our sample population
fell within this critical transition period highlights a
critical need for appropriate educational and
counseling interventions to support these students
through this difficult process.”
• Courtney Ackerman (2017) presented the following
based on Bailey (2010) that appears to follow
Piechowski’s revised views of the levels:
• “Level One – Primary Integration. Primary
Integration is the most basic, primitive level of
development. This level is driven by the first factor,
with the satisfaction of basic needs and desires as
the individual’s only concerns. Those at this level
(generally young children) have no need for deep or
meaningful relationships with others, and disregard
empathy, sympathy, or any acknowledgement of the
needs and concerns of others (Bailey, 2010).”
• Courtney Ackerman (2017) continued:
• “Level Two – Unilevel Disintegration. Level two is
governed by the second factor and focused on
conformity and social comparison. In this level, the
individual is concerned with ‘fitting in’ and is easily
influenced by their social group. Some individuals
at this level will begin to question the values and
beliefs imposed upon them by their social group,
and will begin the process of discovering their own
personal values and beliefs.”
Level I: Piechowski’s Early Views.
• “The undeveloped or developing ‘self’ is integrated. It
follows the dictates of drives; it follows social rules as
long as it can use them for egocentric purposes. Its
‘ego’ and ‘superego’ may appear very strong. The
fragmented self is a disintegrated self whose
psychological functioning is unstable” (Piechowski, 1975a,
pp. 43-44).
• “the integrated self represents the statistically

predominant, strong and successful ideal of the world
we live in. The unstable balance or fragmentation of
Dąbrowski’s level II does tend to produce longing for
the firm security of primary integration” (Piechowski, 1975a,
p. 46).
• “At least two forms of primary integration can be
distinguished, an extreme one and a less extreme
one. . . .The successful psychopath, the model for the
extreme form of the level I person, gets ahead in life
through ruthless competition, intent on winning and
advancing himself at any cost. . . . The milder form of
primary integration applies to ‘normals’ rather than
successful psychopaths or near-psychopaths. . . Such
‘normals’ follow a stereotyped path of development
with regard to social advancement. The course of their
lives is generally predictable” (Piechowski, 1977, pp. 20-22).
See http://positivedisintegration.com/197718.pdf for the original pages.
• “It is true that the time of stress and transition may
occasion some reflection, but there is none of the
reevaluation of oneself and one’s life in a larger
context of human existence that is characteristic of
higher levels. The transition period is, then, a period of
temporary disintegration followed by return to some
form of primary integration. The hold of primary
structure is strong and transitions from level I to II are
rare and difficult, possible only if there are present
some nuclei of instability, some cognitive complexity
and some emotional responsiveness . . .
• “. . . The milder form of the level I person appears
similar to Loevinger’s Conformist (1-3) because he
goes by stereotypes and is still insensitive to individual
differences. . . . Kohlberg’s good boy-good girl and
law-and-order orientations (stages 3 and 4) also
represent milder forms of primary integration, for in
both theories these individuals follow externally
established rules” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 22).
• Piechowski continued: “The characteristics of
authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik,
Levinson, and Sanford, 1950) seem to correspond
closely to primary integration as well as to the lower
stages in Kohlberg’s and Loevinger’s approach
(Schmidt, 1977)” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 23).
Level I: Piechowski’s Revised Views.
• “Level I: Absence of emotional dynamisms, absence
of reflection, absence of self-observation and self-
evaluation; absence of inner conflict; orientation
toward external standards; self-interest as primary
motivation; lack or little feeling for others and lack of
insight into others” (Piechowski, 1979b, p. 138).
• Here is a typical example of his revised idea of level I:
• “Level I: Primary Integration Egocentrism prevails. A person
at this level lacks the capacity for empathy and self-
examination. When things go wrong, someone else is always
to blame; self-responsibility is not encountered here. With
nothing within to inhibit personal ambition, individuals at Level
I often attain power in society by ruthless means. Dog-eat-dog
mentality” (Piechowski, 1997, p. 374).
• “To my mind, one of the five levels is highly problematic. It is
Level I or primary integration. Dąbrowski viewed primary
integration as a rigid personality structure. The closest to this
idea is the concept of authoritarian personality (Adorno et al.,
1950). It began as a study of personality traits found in
prejudiced, or ethnocentric individuals. They are non-reflective,
egocentric and they identify only with their own group, they lack
empathy, insight and self-criticism. Their thinking is stereotyped,
they hold black and white conceptions of good and bad, and
have a tendency toward physical aggression. They view others
as objects and are manipulative and exploitative. They value
status, power, and wealth (Schmidt, 1977).” (Piechowski, 2002, p.
178). (on Schmidt, see Appendix 1).
• As Piechowski continues, he also rejects any genetic
basis of personality:
• “But the study found that prejudice and
ethnocentrism are not built into people but are the
result of child rearing that emphasizes obedience to
authority, respect for power, and which sanctions
aggression against all those who are perceived as a
threat. This means that such individuals are made,
not born. They are the outcome of particular
socialization which fosters antagonism toward
anything that is different, unfamiliar and contrary to
one’s tradition” (Piechowski, 2002, p. 178).
• Piechowski continued: “A world which stresses
competitiveness and justifies any means of gain,
creates a climate in which another’s gain is one’s loss.
It operates on fears of falling behind and going under.
People’s lives are constricted by a climate of
uncertainty of one’s survival. If people are operating at
Level I it is because this is the condition of the world,
not because their psyche is constituted that way. As
we know the environment has the power to support or
to limit the expression of a person’s developmental
potential. (italics in original) (Piechowski, 2002, p. 178).
• “Although Dąbrowski viewed primary integration as a
rigid [genetic] personality structure, it makes more
sense to see it as the outcome of socialization. If
people are operating at Level I it is because this is the
condition of the world, not because their psyche is
constituted that way” (italics in original) (Piechowski, 2003, p. 289).
• “Level I is not a personality structure, but instead is the
result of limited developmental potential of people
trying to survive in a ruthlessly competitive and
economically uncertain world” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 55).
• The whole construct of primary integration should be
reconsidered—“as it is neither primary nor a
personality structure but the outcome of the way
society is” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 76).
• “Another example of Dąbrowski’s untested yet often
repeated view was that about 70% of the population is
confined to Level I. . . . Dąbrowski’s Level I, and the
other ones as well, are broad categories with ample
room for further distinctions” (Piechowski, 2014a, p. 12).
• Primary integration ranges “from psychopathic to
normal (by which he meant not multilevel)” (Piechowski,
2014a, p. 15).
• [Mika (2015) presented such distinctions for Level I.]

• “By definition, primary integration has a developmental
potential so limited that inner transformation, the
essence of multilevel development, is out of reach.
Consequently, the theory makes it clear that primary
integration is not where development can start under
any conditions” (Piechowski, 2014a, p. 14).
• The behavior Dąbrowski described at Level I “is not a
personality structure but the consequence of a culture
that increasingly puts distance between people”
(Piechowski, 2014a, p. 15).
• “Primary integration (level I) is not a starting point for

development. Its breakdown may lead to unilevel
disintegration but no further” (Piechowski, 2014b, p. 37).
• “The concept of primary integration—originally called
primitive integration by Dąbrowski—was not examined
until Margaret Schmidt showed in her [masters] thesis
that it largely corresponds to the concept of
authoritarian personality (Schmidt, 1977). Authoritarian
personality results from strict parenting and social
pressures that enforce conformity and respect for
authority; that is, those who hold power. Therefore, it is
not an integration either inherited genetically or arrived
at by the individual himself” (Piechowski, 2014a, p. 13).
• Is this what Schmidt (1977) really said? Not quite.
See appendix 1 at the end of this section.
• [See Appendix 2 on authoritarian personality at the end.]
• [Schmidt’s masters thesis is not available on the Internet.]
• “Whatever later looks like primary integration, is a
secondary development distorting the emotional
development we are designed for through biological
evolution. This emotional design is built into the brain
to be activated in infancy” (Piechowski, 2002, p. 179).
• “Authoritarian personality results from strict parenting
and social pressures that enforce conformity and
respect for authority; that is, those who hold power.
Therefore, it is not an integration either inherited
genetically or arrived at by the individual himself”
• Discussing Milgram’s famous obedience experiment:
• “The high proportion of people who obeyed the authority
figure to the end demonstrates that the concept of primary
integration does not fit reality. It is the response to the
situation, and the person’s assigned role in it, that for a period
of time leads to harming others. Does this make people part-
time psychopaths, as Dąbrowski would have it?” (Piechowski,
2014a, p. 16).
• See Perry (2012/2013) and Doliński (2017).
• “review of the relevant research on the Milgram paradigm
reveals that the evidence on situational determinants of
obedience is less clear than is generally recognized;
contrary to the commonly held view, personality measures
can predict obedience” (Blass, 1991, p. 398).
• “When character is deficient, love and caring are almost always
lacking in the formative years of early childhood. What we also
know today is that physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of
children is commonplace . . . . Dąbrowski could not consider
any of this because he was developing his theory in the 1950s
before the most significant findings about abuse appeared in
the literature and before the advances in research on early
childhood . . . . We are social from the day we are born, and we
fully expect to be cared for and loved. In light of our knowledge
of early child development, Dąbrowski’s concept of primary
integration has no empirical basis” (Piechowski, 2014a, p. 13).
• “Abolishing the concept of primary integration does not mean
that the concept of Level I should be abolished” (Piechowski,
2014a, p. 14).
• [See Appendix 3 describing moral disengagement at the end.]
• Piechowski said “moral disengagement” is the role
model of Level I and presented Bandura’s eight
mechanisms (Piechowski, 2014a, pp. 14-15). (see Bandura, 2016).
• “The [above] mechanisms are the ways in which
normal, decent, law-abiding persons may find
themselves in situations that temporarily make them
do what Dąbrowski saw as psychopathic behavior.
Such behavior is deprived of consideration for others.
The behavior is not a personality structure but the
consequence of a culture that increasingly puts
distance between people” (Piechowski, 2014a, p. 15, italics
added).
• Looking at research by Ruf on highly gifted adults, Piechowski
reviewed 5 subjects found to be “self-serving, egocentric people
who have little consideration for others.” He said: “Thus, on the
one hand, Ruf’s placement of these five cases at Dąbrowski’s
Level I appears supported but, on the other hand, the cases
show little to meet the criteria of primary integration: desire for
material gains, goals of attaining power or fame, ruthlessly
competing with others, provoking conflicts with others, and
showing evidence of a rigid psychological structure. There is
only some evidence of egocentrism, lack of self-reflection, and
perhaps lack of expressions of empathy. Consequently, if these
cases represent Level I, and they do, they do not fit Dąbrowski’s
criteria of primary integration. These cases help us to see that it
makes sense to separate the concept of Level I from primary
integration, a descriptive but ill-defined term” (Piechowski, 2014a,
p. 16).
• “Dąbrowski’s characterization of primary integration as
self-serving, manipulative, and lacking in consideration
for others is more negative. The type of behavior that
involves harm to others is most often transitory and
adopted under conditions of obedience to authority
and other mechanisms that bypass one’s conscience.
This fits precisely with Dąbrowski’s concept of Level I.
Therefore, the concept of primary integration should
be abandoned and replaced with Level I” (Piechowski,
2014a, p. 17).
Level II: Piechowski’s Early Views.
• “Unilevel disintegration denotes a radical departure from the cohesive
undifferentiated structure of primary integration. Externality is still very strong
but there are deviations from it; rigidity is replaced by hesitation, doubt,
wavering attitudes, and changing likes and dislikes. Emotional relationships
with others exist but may have emotional components to excess (e.g.,
overdependence on others, jealousy). Patterns of thought are often circular,
although they may appear sophisticated. Internal conflicts appear but are
often more readily resolved by chance or superficial considerations than by
internal struggle. When internal conflicts are severe, they lack the crucial
possibility of developmental resolution. Behavior is essentially disoriented
and conforming to external standards. It follows changing fads, ideologies,
and leaders with little evaluation. When behavior is nonconforming, even
rebellious, it is still without direction here—it is not based on autonomously
developed principles. Because of the general looseness and lack of
hierarchical structure at this level of development, it can result in the most
severe mental disorders: psychosis, schizophrenia, phobias, psychosomatic
disorders, alcoholism, or drug addiction” (Piechowski, 1975b, p. 260). [again,
to be fair, Dąbrowski endorsed this paper by providing a preface.]
Level II: Piechowski’s Early Views.
• Level II: “There are two ways in which Dąbrowski (1967) applies the term
unilevel disintegration. . . . 1). a temporary departure from primary
integration, a short-term breakdown of its rigid, tight cohesion; in this sense,
unilevel disintegration is equivalent to a period of disequilibrium, often
followed by reintegration, the reestablishment of the original primary
structure. . . . 2). a formation of personality with built-in imbalances of
physiological and psychological systems, autonomic liabilities, polarizations,
a structure made up a varied, uneven parts that do not match, do not fit
together, and do not work together. Consequently the structure is somewhat
loose, comes apart under the impact of stress and emotional tension, and is
not equipped with resources for retooling and reconstruction of a more
coordinated whole. The schizothymic and the cyclic types are among
representative examples of such unevenly constituted forms. . . . It
encompasses total mental fragmentation as in psychosis and drug-induced
states, a middle range of more stereotyped forms of behavior—inferiority
toward others, dependency, need to conform, seeking approval and
admiration—and at the other extreme partially integrated forms that convey
certain degree of stability” (Piechowski, 1977, pp. 23-26).
Level II: Piechowski’s Revised Views.
• As far as I can tell, this is the first introduction of
Piechowski’s revised emphasis of Level II—de-
emphasizing disintegration and fragmentation, and
normalizing the level by focusing on social conformity:
• “Level II: Fluctuations between opposite feelings and
extremes of mood; changeable and contradictory
courses of action; dependence on social opinion
(“what will others say”) coupled with feelings of
inferiority, sometimes alternating with feelings of
superiority. Plenty of feeling but going in all directions,
often confused” (Piechowski, 1979b, p. 138 italics added).
• [It bears emphasizing again that the reader should consult the original
materials to obtain a full and fair representation of both Piechowski and
Dąbrowski]
• In de-emphasizing disintegration, Piechowski (2008, p.
75) said: “I feel that Dąbrowski extolled the virtues of
inner conflict perhaps too much, as he believed in the
ennobling value of suffering but failed to mention that
the ennobling is possible only if one accepts the
suffering as something to grow through. Acceptance is
essential. It is one of the lessons from the lives of
Peace Pilgrim, Etty Hillesum, and Ashley. Rather than
condemning, accepting one’s inner ‘what is’ as the
starting point is a vital step in emotional growth toward
realizing “what ought to be” (Piechowski, 2003).”
• Piechowski (1997, p. 374) is a good illustration of his
revised vision of level II:
• “Level II: Unilevel Disintegration Individuals are
influenced primarily by their social group and by
mainstream values, or they are moral relativists for
whom ‘anything goes’ morally speaking. They often
exhibit ambivalent feelings and indecisive flip-flop
behavior because they have no clear-cut set of self-
determined internal values. Inner conflicts are
horizontal, a contest between equal, competing
values. A reed shaken in the wind—Matthew, XI, 7”
• Piechowski is passionate in his views of level II:
• “Like Level I, unilevel growth also tends to be looked down
upon with multilevel condescension. And it is equally
unjustified and offensive. . . .Unilevel development
characterizes those in whom a sense of self is undeveloped.
Such individuals depend on external authority for a sense of
who they are, derived from their function, domestic or other”
• “Over the years I have come to the understanding that many
developmental paths are possible and that emotional growth
can take place in Level II even though it lacks multilevel
character” (Piechowski, 2009, p. 71).
• “Partial disintegrations and partial integrations [in Level II] are
surely more common than the pathologies” (Piechowski, 2009,
pp. 71-71).
• “I feel very strongly that emotional growth within the
unilevel universe of Level II should not be
underestimated but respected and explored further.
This raises the question as to whether it is possible to
facilitate a transition to multilevel emotional growth if a
person’s developmental potential is limited. And is it
possible to imagine a harmonious society without a
multilevel majority? I feel it is possible—to imagine”
• “Level II is not always characterized by disintegration,

because it carries the possibility of partial integration,
or adaptive integration, that follows the conventions
and dictates of society and one’s immediate
environment” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 69).
• In reference to Level II: “I find it misleading to call
something a disintegration when it also contains an
integration” (Piechowski, 2014a, p. 13).
• “Unilevel disintegration (level II) cannot become
multilevel unless the multilevel ‘own forces’* are
present. A flatland does not become a mountain unless
there is a force to push it upward. Only with the
emergence of an inner psychic milieu and the
transformative dynamisms of level III (such as
dissatisfaction with oneself, inferiority toward oneself,
dis-identification from what is felt to be lower in
oneself), the process may continue to the next level
(IV) when persons become more in charge . . .
• . . . of their inner growth as an organized multilevel
disintegration. Finally, full selfhood is achieved in
secondary integration (level V)” (Piechowski, 2014b, p. 37).
• “Dąbrowski named the ‘own forces’ of the psyche the
‘third factor,’ next to the social milieu (second factor),
and one’s constitution (first factor), as the shapers of
personality development” (Piechowski, 2014b, p. 32).
• Piechowski now says the average person is at Level II, a level
he now calls “unilevel growth process” (email, March 21, 2018).
• “Level II represents unilevel development in which
disintegration may occur. There is still no development in
Dąbrowski’s sense, but there is movement that may go in the
direction of Level III” (email, March 27, 2018).
Level II: Dąbrowski’s Views – Summary.
• Dąbrowski named Level II to reflect its basic feature—
unilevel disintegration, characterized by brief and often
intense crises between equivalent alternatives.
• Dąbrowski stressed the intense, transitional nature of
Level II: “Prolongation of unilevel disintegration often
leads to reintegration on a lower level, to suicidal
tendencies, or to psychosis”(Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 7).
• Unless one falls back to Level I or progresses onto
Level III, one chronically at Level II risks finding
oneself in “a trap of a rapidly growing mental
tension”—a drama “without exit” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 135).
• Level II—“perhaps they present twenty percent of all
people” (quoted in Rankel, 2008).
Level II: Summary.
• Summary: There are now two different constructs
describing Level II:
• 1). Dąbrowski: Level II is a transitional level, typified
by the intense crises of unilevel disintegration.
• 2). Piechowski: New name: “unilevel growth
process.” Average person, 2nd factor. “Disintegration
may occur. There is still no development in
Dąbrowski’s sense but there is movement that may
go in the direction of Level III.”
Issue 2: Conclusion.
• The removal of primary integration (but retaining Level
I as moral disengagement) and to view Level II as
dominated by second factor and only partly involving
disintegration, and changing the names of the levels,
represent major theoretical departures from
Dąbrowski’s theory—it is no longer appropriate to refer
to it as “Dąbrowski’s theory” with these changes.
• The lower levels are critical because Dąbrowski
explicitly described lower and higher levels in order to
account for both the lowest and highest behaviors
seen in humans. He proposed mechanisms by which
development can occur (PD and ML), to move from
the lowest levels to the higher. Finally, he proposed
prerequisites for this growth—development potential.
616 Issue 3: Development & DP – 1.
• Dąbrowski defined developmental potential as “The
constitutional endowment which determines the
character and the extent of mental growth possible for
a given individual” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 293).
• Dąbrowski included: The three factors of development;
Dynamisms; Psychoneuroses; Positive disintegration;
Developmental instinct; Creative instinct; Instinct for self-
perfection; Overexcitability; Special talents and abilities.
• Piechowski presented a biased (narrowed) view of DP:
“The main part of the paper is a description of five forms of
psychic overexcitability—the principal components of the
developmental potential” (Piechowski, 1979a, p. 27).
• Here he said: “The defining characteristics of DP are five forms
of overexcitability and special talents and abilities” (Piechowski,
1979a, p. 28).
• Here he gives a different emphasis: “The defining
characteristics of DP are forms of overexcitability and
developmental dynamisms” (Piechowski, 1975b, p. 250).
• “Under optimal conditions, even children with limited
developmental potential can grow up to be good citizens with a
strong sense of fairness” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 54).
• “Speculating about . . . developmental potential, we
came up with two terms: conserving and transforming.
Potential for conserving growth would allow it to
continue through Level II close to Level III, but not any
further. Transforming growth, however, would continue”
• Piechowski now outlines two approaches to
development and to developmental potential:
• 1). Following Dąbrowski’s approach: “Personal growth is much
like scaling a mountain rather than a sequential unfolding of
childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Imagining personal
growth as ascent of a mountain, with all of the peril, tests of
courage, and perseverance, suggests that not everyone has
the strength, endurance, and determination to go far; few
manage to reach the summit. Also, not everyone is interested
in climbing and may prefer to remain in the valley. Some may
not even be aware of the mountain. The endowment for how
far in scaling the figurative mountain an individual can go
constitutes developmental potential. An endowment for
multilevel development signifies that a person starts already a
significant distance up the slope. A person with limited potential
starts in the valley and does not reach far” (Piechowski, 2008, p.
64).
• 2). Piechowski reviewed cases of “unilevel
development” at Level II, concluding these cases
represent significant growth:
• “This raises the question as to whether it is possible
to facilitate a transition to multilevel emotional
growth if a person’s developmental potential is
limited” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 72).
• “The above examples show that not all material has
to be generated from the framework of Dąbrowski’s
theory. Research literature can be explored to flesh
out some of his concepts in living color.” (Piechowski,
2008, p. 72).
• “Recall the example of Ralph, that showed how
optimal families raise children who are responsible,
who have a strong sense of fairness and justice, and
who care for others even when their DP is short on the
critical overexcitabilities, emotional and intellectual.
Child development research has indeed established
that the optimal conditions for growing up are like
those that Ralph’s parents created (Bowlby, 1969;
Sroufe, 1995)” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 72).
• Summary: Piechowski appears to outline two growth
processes; one reflecting TPD, governed by DP
(ascent of a mountain), and another path (unilevel
development) “not generated from” Dąbrowski’s TPD,
and apparently much less dependent on DP.
621 Issue 4: A Strong Focus on Overexcitability.
• Piechowski’s emphasis was mostly on overexcitability:
this contributed to a different and narrower view of
TPD in the gifted field. For example, he did not discuss
positive disintegration, psychoneuroses or the major
constructs of TPD in his 1979 chapter (Piechowski, 1979a).
• Example: Some authors have referred to “Dąbrowski’s
Theory of Overexcitabilities” (Ngara, 2017).
• In his 1979 chapter, his definition of developmental
potential left out the third factor:
• “The defining characteristics of DP are five forms of
overexcitability and special talents and abilities”
• Piechowski’s works generally do not mention the third

factor when he discusses developmental potential.
• Piechowski later offered a rationale for not discussing
psychoneuroses or positive disintegration:
• “Therapy was seen as something for sick people, it
carried a stigma. But gifted children were living under
the dark cloud of old myths that they are odd,
abnormal, weak or sickly. To try to explain
psychoneuroses in that climate would have been
disastrous” (Piechowski, 2009, p. 71).
• Research on OE has often been conducted without
reference to TPD, or to the other components of DP
(e.g. third factor, instincts, dynamisms, etc.).
• [Please do not get the impression that I think the
abysmal state of affairs in TPD research is Dr.
Piechowski’s fault – it clearly is not].
• Ironically, research on OE in the gifted field has now
been criticized for the “atheoretical use of OEs that
seems to be rampant in the field” (Vuyk, Kerr, & Krieshok, 2016,
p. 60) “without connecting them to Dąbrowski’s larger
TPD (Vuyk, Krieshok, & Kerr, 2016, p. 193).
• A study of depersonalization disorder (DPD) used “the
overexcitability theoretical model” and the OEQ-II,
finding “participants with clinical levels of
depersonalization manifested increased emotional
overexcitability to internal and external stimuli” (Thomson
& Jaque, 2018, p. 155).
• This article did not mention, or refer to, Dąbrowski or

to the theory of positive disintegration.
624 Issue 5: Piechowski Questions Multilevelness.
• Initially: “The concept of multilevelness is thus the
starting point for the analysis of all forms of behavior
and their development. It represents a ‘new system of
thought,’ suited to represent developmental approach
on the official map of psychology”(Piechowski, 1975b, p.246).
• Subsequently: “And is it possible to imagine a
harmonious society without a multilevel majority? I feel
it is possible—to imagine” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 72).
• Questions: What is Piechowski’s overall approach to
development? To multilevelness? So, if you can imagine a
harmonious society without multilevelness, then what would a
harmonious society be based on? What is the ideal goal of
individual development, if not multilevelness?
• In my opinion, while Piechowski could imagine this,
Dąbrowski would not be able to conceive of the idea.
625 Issue 5: Dąbrowski’s View of Multilevelness.
• Ideal individual growth is achieving multilevelness, and
seeking autonomy and one’s personality ideal.
• Multilevel exemplars (see Zagzebski, 2011, 2013, 2017):
• —herald the next step in human evolution.
• —serve as role models of what is possible.
• —challenge one to take active control of one’s
development and strive for ideals and growth.
• Today, society is based upon primary integration, with
self-centered, self-serving unilevel values.
• An ideal society would be based upon a majority of
multilevel individuals and on multilevel principles,
values and ideals, reflecting other-centered motives.
626 Issue 6: The Role of Self-actualization.
• From material Piechowski added to the 1977 books:
• “We shall try to demonstrate that Maslow’s concept
of SA fits the structure of Level IV and that,
consequently, the traits of SA logically follow from
that structure” (Dąbrowski & Piechowski, 1977, pp. 158-159).
• “Self-actualization, as a psychological norm
suggested by Maslow, now finds support in the
framework of the theory of positive disintegration as
an attribute of the Level IV structure” (Dąbrowski &
Piechowski, 1977, pp. 218-219).
• “The correspondence between Saint Exupéry’s
material and SA and between the terms of SA and the
terms of positive disintegration shows that the
structure of Level IV underlies all of the characteristics
of SA” (Piechowski, 1978, p. 229).
627 Issue 6: Self-actualization and Level IV.
• “In Level IV, we have an explicit and detailed
developmental structure which accounts for the
pervasiveness and the cohesion of the traits of SA”
• “Maslow’s self-actualizing person fits Level IV; the self-
actualized person—the enlightened one—fits Level V.”
“The early stages of self-actualization” . . . “correspond
to Level III growth processes” (Piechowski, 1978, p. 20).
• “The morally gifted do not need to fully represent the
level of self-actualization demanded by Dąbrowski’s
theory, but the strength of their emotional
overexcitability and of the developmental dynamisms
that move them in the direction of self-actualization, is
the guarantee of their higher moral discernment”
(Piechowski, 1979a, p. 51, italics in original).
• “Objections to equating self-actualization with Level IV
came not only from Dąbrowski but also from people
who read Saint-Exupéry’s biography and found that
his relationship with his wife was less than ideal and
that he had a mistress. This violated Dąbrowski’s
saying that people at a high level of development have
deep and loyal relationships” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 57).
• “Perhaps the question to decide is this: Do all self-
actualizing people meet the criteria of Dąbrowski’s
Level IV? The reverse, all people who meet the criteria
of Level IV are self-actualizing, can be safely assumed
to be true” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 60).
• “Piechowski (1978) showed the close correspondence between
these two theoretical frameworks—Maslow’s and Dąbrowski’s”
(Brennan & Piechowski, 1991, p. 58).
• “This study was carried out on the assumption that Maslow’s
self-actualization and Dąbrowski’s Level 4 are different
constructs of the same underlying phenomenon” (Brennan &
Piechowski, 1991, p. 58).
• “The demonstration that Maslow’s construct of self-actualization
and Level 4 in Dąbrowski’s theory have an exact
correspondence (Piechowski, 1978) is of particular significance”
(Brennan & Piechowski, 1991, p. 61).
• “There has not been, until now, a method of identifying self-
actualizing people. Maslow left no case studies, no instruments
have been developed from individual cases of bona fide self-
actualizers nor tested out on them” (Brennan & Piechowski, 1991, p.
60) [see Shostrom, 1964].
• “Self-actualization fits into Level IV (p. 283) . . . At
Level IV, we encounter true self-actualizing people (p.
292) . . .The theory has one more level beyond self-
actualization because Dąbrowski looked at these
extraordinary people first and did not concern himself
whether they existed in statistically significant
numbers” (Piechowski, 2003, p. 314).
• “The fit between Level IV as the structural skeleton

and self-actualization as the flesh of rich description
with which to cover the bones is too good not to be
true” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 58).
631 Issue 6: Piechowski’s Rationale of Dąbrowski.
• “As Saint-Exupéry was Dąbrowski’s choice, [of an
example of a Level IV person] I submitted [a] paper
under my name and his. I sent a copy to Dąbrowski
but got no response. It took almost two years before I
got the galleys. They came without Dąbrowski’s name
on them. As it turned out, he wrote to the editor of
Genetic Psychology Monographs asking that his name
be dropped from the paper. To his credit, he did not
block the publication, but it was odd that he did not
inform me of his decision. So I asked him, and he
explained that every paper on his theory should have
his name as the first author. However, there was also
another reason. He felt strongly that Maslow’s belief
that satisfaction of lower needs would more or . . .
632 Issue 6: “Dąbrowski Just Didn’t Understand.”
. . . less automatically move people toward self-
actualization was fundamentally wrong. He didn’t know
that Maslow had changed his position and realized
that self-actualization does not necessarily follow
satisfaction of all of the needs below (Maslow, 1971). I
believe he must not have read Maslow’s description of
self-actualizing people nor gotten through my paper (it
is rather dense). His conclusion was that his theory
and Maslow’s could not be commensurate. He never
understood that by providing a theoretical structure for
Maslow’s concept of self-actualization, his theory was
showing its power. Here were two independently
developed conceptions that had a perfect
correspondence. How often does this happen?”
(Piechowski, 2008, pp. 56-57).
633 Issue 6: They Never Understood.
• “It is a pity that Dąbrowski never understood that
placing self-actualizing people within the structure of
his theory, rather than diminish it, showed its power”
• “Dąbrowski never understood, nor do Mendaglio and
Tillier, that Maslow’s work was a confirmation of his
construct of Level IV and that this gave evidence of the
power of his theory as a framework enabling us to see
other findings in relation to each other” (Piechowski, 2015, p.
232).
• Dąbrowski related several issues he had with Maslow
to me.* One related to Maslow not qualitatively
differentiating animals and humans. As well, he felt that
Maslow’s approach to self-actualization was unilevel.
*See the section on Maslow.
634 A Pathway Forward?
• Mendaglio and Tillier (2015, p. 220) suggested two
possible resolutions:
• “(a) Piechowski might differentiate his work from that
of the originator of the theory as Jung did [from
Freud] and propose his own theory under his own
name or, alternatively,
• (b) he could take the approach that Robbie Case did
in developing a neo-Piagetian theory and integrate
his views in a neo-Dąbrowskian, conceptualization,
amending TPD to reflect a Piechowskian
perspective” [put forth under his own name].
• Piechowski replied (2015).

635 Summary – 1.
• Piechowski has made a number of observations of
TPD that have influenced the literature.
• Initially, confusion arose as his ideas were sometimes
not well differentiated from Dąbrowski’s.
• Awareness of these issues is critical for those who
want to fully understand and apply Dąbrowski’s TPD.
• Piechowski (2014a) advocated “rethinking Dąbrowski’s
theory” and Mendaglio and Tillier (2015) replied. He
subsequently replied: Piechowski (2015).
• His second “rethinking” article was Piechowski (2017).
636 Summary – 2.
• Piechowski rejected Dąbrowski’s view of Level II as a
transitional level dominated by unilevel disintegration:
• “The concept of unilevel disintegration, however,
cannot be applied wholly to Level II because the
majority of lives identified within this level are more or
less stable. Even Dąbrowski’s concept of partial
integration seems to have limited application
because it implies that there is some ‘disintegration’
going on or that the person is chronically on the brink
of one. This makes little sense. Instead, we should
conclude that the lives of most people follow the
stages of lifespan development and that some may
be so unreflective that they match Level I and others
are somewhat more reflective and match Level II”
(Piechowski, 2017, p. 93, italics added).
637 Summary – 3.
• I have included this long quote in the summary
because it succinctly captures the dilemma:
Piechowski says that some of Dąbrowski’s constructs
“make little sense” and he favors different conclusions.
• The quote also illustrates another dilemma:
Piechowski’s occasional contradictions.
• Example: He concluded “the lives of most people
follow the stages of lifespan development” (Piechowski,
2017, p. 93). Yet in the opening paragraphs of this same
paper, Piechowski rejected a stage approach: “The
challenge in understanding the theory lies in the fact
that the levels are not successive stages but
represent different types of development” (Piechowski,
2017, p. 87).
638 Summary – 4.
• In summary, in my opinion, rather than “rethinking
Dąbrowski’s theory,” both Piechowski and the gifted
community would be better served if he developed his
own constructs and promoted his own theory that
could then be compared to Dąbrowski’s original.
• It is critical that future scholars have available
Dąbrowski’s original constructs as he wrote them, to
compare with Piechowski’s (and others), to design
future research to address some of these critical
questions—for example, the nature of levels I and II.
• In my opinion, theory building and research based
upon the interpretations of others will not advance our
understanding of the theory of positive disintegration.
639 Misattributions to Piechowski – 1.
• For some reason there has been a lot of confusion
when authors refer to the contributions of Dąbrowski
and Piechowski.
• I attribute this confusion to inadequate research rigor
on the part of subsequent authors.
• Examples: “Based on the work of Polish psychologist,
Dąbrowski, Piechowski (1979, 1986) theorizes that extreme
sensitivity or overexcitability indicates potential for high levels of
development, particularly for self-actualization and moral vigor. .
. . In Piechowski’s theory, there are five levels of personality
development from lowest to highest: Level (1) self-centered;
Level (2) inner fragmentation and conforming to expectations of
others; Level (3) vulnerable autonomy; Level (4) self-
actualization, and Level (5) universal compassion and self-
sacrifice” (Cohen & Ambrose, 1993, p. 344).
640 Misattributions to Piechowski – 2.
• “The past experiences provided Dąbrowski food for serious
thought and certainly enriched fodder for developing his theory
which, later, his colleague, Piechowski (2003), adapted to
create the continuum of five developmental levels in personality
structure: primary integration, unilevel disintegration, multilevel
disintegration, directed multilevel disintegration, and secondary
integration” (Chia, 2017, p. 651).
• Vuyk (2015, p. 15) said: “Later, Piechowski (1979, 2006), who
was a student of Dąbrowski, described five areas of heightened
sensitivity or OEs that represented developmental potential and
could lead to this advanced development.”
• [Dąbrowski elaborated the overexcitabilities (1972, pp. 6-7)].
641
10. Misrepresentations of the Theory of Positive

Disintegration.
642 Misrepresentations.
• Theory building involves generating hypotheses,
testing hypotheses by research, revision of theory and
more research.
• Interpretation by others is not an issue if clearly
identified as such and differentiated from the original.
• Unfortunately, we often see mistakes or major
misunderstandings in reference to Dąbrowski,
apparently based on limited or out of context readings
or based on inaccurate reading of secondary sources.
• As always, the definitive source is reading and
understanding what Dąbrowski wrote himself.
643 Examples of Misrepresentations – 1.
• Ruf (1999) studied 41 highly gifted adults.
• “The sort of severe emotional turmoil of positive disintegrations
was not apparent in Level II people” (Ruf, 1999, p. 65).
• “The very process of positive disintegration, a Level III
experience, requires a letting go of old notions” (Ruf, 1999, p. 66).
• “five subjects all appeared to be self-actualized, but the last
three gave evidence of approaching Level V” (Ruf, 1999, p. 81).
• “Dąbrowski Level IV/V Three subjects appeared to be
comfortably self-actualized, so much so that they were closing
in on their ‘personality ideal’” (Ruf, 1999, p. 66).
• “nine of the study subjects, 22%” attained self-actualization (Ruf,
1999, p. 123).
• Ruf (1999) classified her subjects into Dąbrowski’s “emotional
levels” but the words unilevel and multilevel do not appear in the
thesis—she did not differentiate levels of disintegration.
• These descriptions and findings do not resonate with
either Dąbrowski or Maslow.
• Ruf (1999, p. 24) inaccurately stated: “Piechowski has been the
principle translator of Dąbrowski’s work.”
• “Dąbrowski went one step further than either Kohlberg or
Maslow in conceptualizing his levels of emotional development;
he envisioned an attainment of a personality ideal. In effect,
once people are self-actualized, they aspire to define and meet
their own personal goals for the kind of people they really ought
to and want to be” (Ruf, 1999, p. 26).
• “Level II people tend to function well in society. They understand
and generally abide by the rules, stated and unstated. They
understand the culture of their society and try to fit in and show
pride and pleasure when they do. Positive feedback that they
have succeeded to meet or exceed society’s norms is often
important and encouraging to Level II people” (Ruf, 1999, p. 60).
• Portraying OE as a pathology: “Another vulnerability
associated with giftedness is overexcitability (Porter
2005; Pfeiffer and Stocking 2000)” (Van der Meulen, et al,
2013).
• “According to Dąbrowski’s clinical observations, people

with overexcitabilites are neurotically allergic or
nervous” (Chang & Kuo, 2013).
• Circuitous referencing: “The concept of

‘overexcitability’ (OE) was first introduced by
Dąbrowski (1938; cited in Piechowski & Colangelo,
1984) as a means to understand individual differences
in intensity and sensitivity in responses to stimuli (see
also Piechowski, 2006)” (He & Wong, 2014).
• “In Dr. Dąbrowski’s day, overexcitabilities were thought
to be the core trait of psychological development.
Succeeding researchers further broadened this idea. It
can be applied to identify gifted and talented students.
It is correlated to IQ, it predicts cognitive abilities, there
are correlations between OEs and gender, OEs and
age, it predicts creativity or creative personalities, and
it predicts psychological adjustment. Although the
results of these studies are not identical, the main
findings in these dimensions were almost consistent,
suggesting that the use of OE patterns has a
statistically meaningful correlation with predicting these
dimensions” (Chang & Kuo, 2013).
• “Dąbrowski (Dąbrowski, 1938; Miller, Silvermany [sic],
& Falk, 1995; Silverman, 1993) indicated five
dimensions of heightened psychological responses
presented by gifted and talented students:
psychomotor (POEs; pressure for action), sensual
(SOEs; sensate pleasures), imaginational (MOEs;
active imagination), intellectual (TOEs; intellectual and
moral pursuits), and emotional overexcitabilities
(EOEs; intense connectedness with others)” (Kuo, et al
2014).
• “My list of intensities varies only in that I use the term
‘creative intensity’ rather than ‘imaginational.’ This not
only better describes the intensity, but also enables a
nifty little acronym for the intensities, SPICE, since the
intensities are the spice of life” . . .
• “These intensities correspond to the symptoms of
ADHD perfectly, except that they identify the whole
intensity instead of just focusing on the negative
aspects”
• [Dąbrowski called the third element]. . . . “This third
element is exactly what I have been describing
throughout this book: intensity” (all from Burge, 2012).
• “These heightened and intense characteristics are
known as overexcitabilities and are claimed as
universal characteristics of gifted individuals (Webb et
al., 2005)” (Alias et al 2013).
• “According to Daniels and Meckstroth (2009),
Dąbrowski had stated that an individual who
possesses more than one overexcitability
characteristic is a gifted and talented individual” (Alias et
al 2013).
• “These overexcitabilities form the foundation of
Dąbrowski’s theory of positive disintegration
(Dąbrowski, 1964), a theory of self-actualisation which
develops to a high level in only certain individuals”
(White, 2014).
• “Dąbrowskian theory notes that although strong
psychotic reactions can be potentially negative,
resulting in neuroses and existential crises, they are
part of the necessary conditions that can lead to
positive disintegration, which is the developmental
process of moving from lower to higher levels of
emotional and moral development (Bouchard, 2004, p.
341)” (Strohm, 2017, p. 19).
• “Having a spirit for (or emotional intensity, restless

passion and self-exertion) also expresses a similar
phenomenon to that articulated in Dąbrowski’s Theory
of ‘Overexcitabilities’ described by Piechowski (2002)
as the ‘heart and fire’ of giftedness which ‘rings loud
and clear’” (Ngara, 2017, p. 4).
• I have included this statement here primarily because
it appears to be unsupported by any research to date.
• “TPD is best known in the field of gifted education
because the gifted exhibit above-average capacities
to achieve, and operate at, higher levels of
personality disintegration, and reintegration” (Eiserman,
Lai, & Rushton, 2017, p. 198).
652
• 11. Acknowledgments.
My thanks to James Duncan for his meticulous review of this

presentation and his many helpful comments.
653 [Appendix 1: Schmidt (1977). – A.]
• “This paper is an attempt to establish some sort of correspondences
between the theories of Dąbrowski, Kohlberg and Loevinger particularly
between the lower levels or stages postulated by the respective theorists. All
three are theories of development where development is understood as a
change in level of organization or structure. All three have an empirical basis.
In addition empirical studies of especially significant personality forms which
appear to fit structures defined by these theories will be examined. Included
here are Peck and Havighurst’s (1960) five character types, the authoritarian
personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik Levinson, and Sanford, 1950) and the
psychopath (Cleckley, 1941).
Peck and Havighurst describe five basic character types: amoral, expedient,
conforming, irrational-conscientious and rational altruistic, which are
hierarchically arranged at least in terms of ‘successful’ adaptation to the
environment and ‘mental health’ defined in a conventional way. The
character types range from egocentric to allocentric, from external or no
control to self control. Cleckley’s Mask of Sanity and Adorno's Authoritarian
Personality, though not presenting levels or stages of personality offer
descriptions of two special personality types each having a particular set of
characteristics by which they can be identified. Both these studies have of
being particularly rich in case material” (p. 4).
654 [Appendix 1: Schmidt (1977). – B.]
• “The psychopath of course is different than the authoritarian
personality not only in being another type altogether but in that
the psychopath appears to be born not made. Psychopaths
appear to come from disparate backgrounds and often these to
be optimal” (p. 67).
• “One of the most characteristic traits of the psychopath is the
lack of feeling. They seem to have been born with not only
weak emotional overexcitability but with emotional
underexcitability. The psychopath can be highly intelligent and
well aware how the world works. He can even have the
overexcitabilities – psychomotor, sensual, and to a limited
extent imaginational, but lacking the emotional component he is
incapable of growth and development. Dąbrowski maintains
that emotional overexcitability is the essential determiner of
growth. Psychopathic personality demonstrates by its absence
how important it is” (pp. 67-68).
655 [Appendix 1: Schmidt (1977). – C.]
• “The psychopath is special case of Level I development, but
many of his characteristics are shared by other Level I
individuals to a greater or lesser extent. Cleckley’s psychopath
is the unsuccessful type in terms of social norms. But take away
unmotivated antisocial behavior, failure to learn by experience
and failure to follow a life plan and add ambition and a little
talent and you have a picture of success ruthlessly achieved
and often admired” (p. 70).
• Piechowski said “Schmidt showed in her thesis that it [primary
integration] largely corresponds to the concept of authoritarian
personality” (2014, p. 13). However, Piechowski failed to
mention Schmidt included both psychopaths and authoritarian
personality in level I [this slide and the next]. She did not
address the relative prevalence of each type.
• Schmidt concluded authoritarian personalities are made;
created by their environment (parenting), but psychopaths are
born (genetic).
656 [Appendix 1: Schmidt (1977). – D.]
• “Both Cleckley and Adorno have shown that there are
constellations of character traits that go into the makeup of
particular personality types, that it is not content but the
underlying response to the self, to others and the environment
that produce the psychopath or the authoritarian personality.
These underlying response patterns contain elements that
are all characteristic of Level I functioning – deficient affect,
lack of introspection, reification of others and viewing the
elements of the environment as instruments for the satisfaction
of one’s own basic needs. There are many differences between
the psychopath and the authoritarian personality. The former
appears to ‘repress’ nothing and acts out every whim and
desire, the latter appears to have everything tightly under
wraps. The most essential difference however is that the
psychopath from all evidence is born that way while the
authoritarian personality is a product of his environment” (pp.
73-74, italics added).
657 [Appendix 1: Schmidt (1977). – E.]
• “it is very likely that given optimal, or at least favorable
environmental conditions, no one outside of psychopaths,
mental defectives, etc., would be limited to Level I. People
functioning at Level I, it seems clear from the research cited
here, are largely products of damaging home environments
which are related to the quality of the society in which they
exist. In a nation that preaches democracy, human rights,
equality, etc., but glorifies material goods, power and prestige,
and makes it difficult for fragile ‘human’ values to survive, it is
not surprising that so many individuals are limited to Level I
functioning” (pp. 74-75).
• Schmidt: with an optimal environment, authoritarian
personalities could be eliminated, leaving mostly psychopaths
at level I. Again, she does not note relative numbers.
• Piechowski introduces bias by focusing only on the
authoritarian personality and ignoring psychopaths (it is not
clear why).
658 [Appendix 1: Schmidt (1977). – F.]
• “an integrated self is not necessarily a healthy self. In fact, it
has been demonstrated here that most of those at the level of
Primary Integration are pathetic one-dimensional persons—the
Delta’s the Impulsives, the authoritarians are basically stunted
beings who function at a level that is closer to that of a machine
than to the human. Therefore, counselors should not be
necessarily striving toward adaptation or adjustment on the part
of their clients nor toward squeezing them into the ‘right’ corner
of the OK corral” (pp. 77-78).
• [Schmidt said; there are “many differences between the

psychopath and the authoritarian personality.” But Maslow
equated the two: “The conditions which the authoritarian
attributes to human nature in general are in point of fact found
only in a small proportion of our population. The only individuals
who ultimately fulfill their conditions are those we call
psychopathic personalities” (Maslow, 1943a, p. 411).]
659 [Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – A.]
• During World War II, Nevitt Sanford (1986) was studying anti-
Semitism and concluded that prejudice arose from deep
emotional, personality-based needs.
• Sanford joined a group investigating “authoritarian potential.”
They were concerned American popular culture was fertile
ground to create political totalitarianism (Jay, 1973). They felt
Americans could be vulnerable to sympathizing with
antidemocratic propaganda and they developed the F (fascist)
scale to research the “potentially fascistic individual.”
• Hypothesis: “that the political, economic, and social convictions
of an individual often form a broad and coherent pattern, as if
bound together by a ‘mentality’ or ‘spirit,’ and that this pattern is
an expression of deep-lying trends in his personality” (Adorno,
Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950, p. 1).
• Their studies were published in 1950 (Adorno et al., 1950).
660 [Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – B.]
• Nine qualities were presented describing the authoritarian
personality, aka ‘authoritarianism’ (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 228):
• 1. Conventionalism. Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values.
2. Authoritarian submission. Submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized
moral authorities of the ingroup. 3. Authoritarian aggression. Tendency to be on
the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional
values. 4. Anti-intraception. Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the
tender-minded. 5. Superstition and stereotypy. The belief in mystical
determinants of the individual’s fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories. 6.
Power and ‘toughness.’ Preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-
weak, leader-follower dimension, identification with power-figures; overemphasis on
the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and
toughness. 7. Destructiveness and cynicism. Generalized hostility, vilification of
the human. 8. Projectivity. The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous
things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional
impulses. 9. Sex. Exaggerated concern with sexual ‘goings-on.’
• “These variables were thought of as going together to form a

single syndrome, a more or less enduring structure in the
person that renders him receptive to antidemocratic
propaganda” (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 228).
661 [Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – C.]
• Later, Adorno rejected the psychological/Freudian basis of the
published study: “the ultimate source of prejudice has to be
sought in social factors which are incomparably stronger than
the ‘psyche’ of any one individual involved” . . . “anti-Semitism,
fascism, and authoritarianism were due to ‘the total structure of
our society’” (Gordon, 2017, p. 43).
• Adorno explained, “men tend to become transformed into ‘social
agencies’ and to lose the qualities of independence and
resistance which used to define the old concept of the individual”
(Gordon, 2017, p. 45).
• Adorno: “People are inevitably as irrational as the world in which
they live” (Gordon, 2017, p. 46).
• “Initially their theory of the authoritarian personality and the F scale attracted
enormous interest, however, by the early 1960s interest in this perspective
had largely collapsed because of its numerous weaknesses” (Duckitt, 2001,
p. 42).
• Recent Research: Grzyb et al., 2017; Harms et al., 2017; Hodson, MacInnis,
& Busseri, 2017; Hotchin & West, 2018; Richey, 2017
662
[Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – D.]
• Authoritarian personality: “socially conservative, nationalistic,
intolerant of deviance and outgroups, and politically right-wing,
preferring strict laws and rules, and supporting tough, punitive
social control and authority” (Duckitt, 2013, p. 1).
• Later theorists discarded psychodynamic views, but saw stable
individual differences in these ideological attitudes as a
personality dimension. Altemeyer, developed the construct of
Right Wing Authoritarianism (Duckitt, 2013).
• “Contemporary theories have [therefore] tended to see Right
Wing Authoritarianism (or social conservatism) as influenced by
both personality and situational factors” (Duckitt, 2013, p. 1).
• Vials (2017, p. 7): “Applying this conception to our time,
movements of the right—from the Goldwater campaign to the
Tea Party—are ‘rebellions’ ultimately submissive to authority
because their members know that private-sector employers, not
the government, are the real forces in control of daily life.”
663
[Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – E.]
• Piechowski: “The characteristics of authoritarian personality
(Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford, 1950) seem
to correspond closely to primary integration as well as to the
lower stages in Kohlberg’s and Loevinger’s approach (Schmidt,
1977)” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 23).
• “2. Is primary integration a personality structure? To my mind,
one of the five levels is highly problematic. It is Level I or
primary integration. Dąbrowski viewed primary integration as a
rigid personality structure. The closest to this idea is the
concept of authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950). It
began as a study of personality traits found in prejudiced, or
ethnocentric individuals. They are non-reflective, egocentric and
they identify only with their own group, they lack empathy,
insight and self-criticism. Their thinking is stereotyped, they hold
black and white conceptions of good and bad, and have a
tendency toward physical aggression. Cont. . . .
664
[Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – F.]
• Cont …“They view others as objects and are manipulative and
exploitative. They value status, power, and wealth (Schmidt,
1977). But the study found that prejudice and ethnocentrism are
not built into people but are the result of child rearing that
emphasizes obedience to authority, respect for power, and
which sanctions aggression against all those who are perceived
as a threat. This means that such individuals are made, not
born. They are the outcome of particular socialization which
fosters antagonism toward anything that is different, unfamiliar
and contrary to one’s tradition” (Piechowski, 2002, p. 178).
• Additional Research: Allport, 1954; Altemeyer, 2006; Ashton & Lee,
2018; Ashton, Lee, & de Vries, 2014; Cohen, 2017; Ekehammar, Akrami,
& Gylje, 2004; Grzyb et al., 2017; Haidt, 2013; Harms et al., 2017;
Hodson, MacInnis, & Busseri, 2017; Hotchin & West, 2018; Lee & Ashton,
2012; McFarland, 2010; Prescott & Logan, 2018; Richey, 2017; Sibley &
Duckitt, 2008
665
[Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – G.]
• “My first graduate student, Margaret Lee Schmidt, chose for her
Master’s thesis the comparison of Kohlberg’s and Dąbrowski’s
theories (Schmidt, 1977). Her analysis led her to several
conclusions, three of which are relevant here. One, that the first
four stages of Kohlberg’s sequence of moral reasoning are
encompassed within Dąbrowski’s Level I (primary integration).
Two, that the study of authoritarian personality (Adorno,
Fraenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) was the best
description of behavior characterizing Level I. And three, that
Level I is not a personality structure, but instead is the result
of limited developmental potential of people trying to survive in a
ruthlessly competitive and economically uncertain world. While
Dąbrowski, just like Adorno et al., viewed primary integration as
a rigid personality structure, now it makes more sense to see it
as the outcome of social conditions. If people are operating at
Level I, it is because this is the condition of their world, not
because they are constituted that way” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 55).
666
[Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – H.]
• “The concept of primary integration—originally called primitive
integration by Dąbrowski—was not examined until Margaret
Schmidt showed in her thesis that it largely corresponds to the
concept of authoritarian personality (Schmidt, 1977).
Authoritarian personality results from strict parenting and social
pressures that enforce conformity and respect for authority; that
is, those who hold power. Therefore, it is not an integration
either inherited genetically or arrived at by the individual
himself” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 13).
• “In regard to ‘authoritarian personality’ and ‘moral
disengagement’ it needs to be clarified that we are not talking
about auth. personality but auth. behavior. We live in a
world in which authoritarian behavior is rampant. Moral
disengagement is an expression of the authoritarian world we
live in” (Piechowski, 2018, March 27, e-mail).
667
[Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – I.]
• Piechowski’s Position – Summary (chronological):
• Piechowski has ignored Schmidt’s (1977) inclusion of
psychopaths at level I (see appendix 1).
• Primary integration corresponds to the authoritarian
personality.
• Authoritarian personality is the best description of behavior
characterizing Level I.
• Such individuals are made, not born; i.e., they are the outcome
of a particular type of socialization.
• Now, not authoritarian personality, rather authoritarian
behavior expressed via moral disengagement, caused by the
authoritarian world we live in (social causes).
668 [Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – J.]
• Research for a genetic basis for authoritarian personality:
• “The results do not suggest that, as Adorno et al. (1950)

hypothesized, authoritarian parental behavior or familial
structure induces rigid cognitive functioning as a component of
the authoritarian personality. RWA and intelligence are heritable
and family environment does not predict authoritarianism
scores for individuals who are not genetically related to their
rearing parents” (McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999,
p. 1008).
• “Authoritarianism, as measured by the RWA, is not simply a

manifestation of one’s level of intelligence. Instead it appears to
exist as a trait influenced by genetic factors largely independent
of those that contribute to intelligence” (McCourt, et al., 1999, p.
1008).
669 [Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – K.]
• “Facets of RWA’s nomological network have been revamped. In
contrast with the conclusion of Altemeyer (1981, 1988) that the
rearing environment is the primary determinant of attitudes, the
results here support the hypotheses that human beings are
active in creating and choosing their environments and that
these transactions with the environment are influenced in part
by the genotype. As Scarr (1997) has long contended, family
environment appears to be an important influence mainly
because it is confounded with genetic relationship” (McCourt, et
al., 1999, p. 1009).
670 [Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – L.]
• “individual differences in tendencies to submit to conventional
authorities thus represents driving force behind their social,
political, and religious attitudes (Bouchard, 2009), though the
particular ideas espoused by those high or low in this
orientation will vary among cultures and time periods” (Ludeke,
Johnson, & Bouchard, 2013, p. 376).
• “Our analyses supported the hypothesis that Right-Wing
Authoritarianism, Religiousness, and Conservatism are different
measures of a single underlying trait. These are not merely
highly related constructs, then, but instead are each a
manifestation of the same underlying tendency across the
social, political, and religious domains. With genetic influences
contributing 44% of the variance in this latent trait, the
heritability of the TMVT trait was comparable to that found in
studies focusing on single-trait measures in this domain”
(Ludeke, Johnson, & Bouchard, 2013, p. 378).
671 [Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – M.]
• “Altemeyer in 1981. His research suggested that only three of
the original nine facets of authoritarianism described by Adorno
et al. (1950)—conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, and
authoritarian submission—covaried strongly to form a unitary
social attitude dimension, and he developed his Right-wing
Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale to measure this dimension”
(Duckitt, 2001, p. 42).
• “The core model predictions are that the two socialization
practice dimensions, [1] punitive and [2] unaffectionate
socialization, impact on the two personality dimensions, [1]
social conformity and [2] tough-mindedness respectively, which
impact on the two social worldviews, [1] belief in a dangerous
and [2] competitive-jungle world respectively. Both personality
and worldview then impact on RWA and SDO. This core model
thus comprises a theory of the dual psychological bases of the
two ideological attitude dimensions of authoritarianism and
social dominance” (Duckitt, 2001, pp. 58-59).
672 [Appendix 2: Authoritarian Personality. – N.]
• “the RWA scale is a unidimensional and reliable psychometric
measure of authoritarianism” (Duckitt, 2001, p. 42).
(Duckitt, 2001, p. 58).
• “RWA is now also considered an ideological belief (Duckitt,

2001) that people should obey and respect authorities deemed
as legitimate, abide by social conventions, and endorse harsh
punishment of norm violators” (Choma & Hanoch, 2017, p. 287).
673
[Appendix 3: Moral Disengagement. – A.]
• Bandura has many references on social cognitive theory and moral
disengagement; his recent major work is Bandura (2016).
• Moral disengagement is a subset of social cognitive theory.
• 8 Mechanisms:
• Moral, social and economic justification. People do not
ordinarily engage in reprehensible conduct until they have
justified to themselves the rightness of their actions. In the
process of moral justification, detrimental conduct is made
personally and socially acceptable by portraying it in the service
of valued social or moral purposes. (behavior locus)
• Euphemistic labeling. Activities can take on markedly different
appearances depending on what they are called. Euphemistic
labeling provides a tool for masking reprehensible activities or
even conferring a respectable status upon them. Through
sanitized or convoluted language, destructive conduct is made
benign or acceptable [“collateral damage”]. (behavior locus)
674
[Appendix 3: Moral Disengagement. – B.]
• Advantageous (palliative) comparison. Behavior can assume
different qualities depending on what it is contrasted with. By
exploiting advantageous comparisons, injurious conduct can be
rendered benign or made to appear to be of little consequence.
The more extreme the contrasted activities, the more likely it is
that one’s own injurious conduct will appear trifling or even
benevolent [“the lesser of two evils”]. (behavior locus)
• Displacement of responsibility. Under displacement of
responsibility people view their actions as springing from the
social pressures or dictates of others rather than as something
for which they are personally responsible. Because they are not
the actual agents of their actions, they are spared self-
censuring reactions. Hence, they are willing to behave in ways
they normally repudiate if a legitimate authority accepts
responsibility for the effects of their actions [“just following
orders”]. (agency locus)
675
[Appendix 3: Moral Disengagement. – C.]
• Diffusion of responsibility. The exercise of moral control is
weakened when personal agency is obscured by diffusion of
responsibility for detrimental conduct. Any harm done by a
group can be attributed largely to the behavior of others. People
behave more cruelly under group responsibility than when they
hold themselves personally accountable for their actions [“I was
just one soldier”]. (agency locus)
• Minimizing, ignoring, or misconstruing the consequences. The
agent of harm may deny that people were seriously harmed, or
say that the punishment actually was good for the individual
because it toughened him up. In addition to selective inattention
and cognitive distortion of effects, the misrepresentation may
involve active efforts to discredit evidence of the harm that is
caused [“It was just an insurance company—no one got hurt”]
[Catholic Church ignored abuse of children]. (outcome locus)
676
[Appendix 3: Moral Disengagement. – D.]
• Dehumanization. Self-censure for injurious conduct can be
disengaged or blunted by dehumanization that divests people of
human qualities or attributes bestial qualities to them. Once
dehumanized, they are no longer viewed as persons with
feelings, hopes, and concerns but as subhuman objects [“he
was a cockroach”]. (victim locus)
• Attribution of blame. Blaming one’s adversaries or
circumstances is another expedient that can serve self-
exonerating purposes. By fixing the blame on others or on
circumstances, not only are one’s own injurious actions
excusable but also one can even feel self-righteous in the
process [“she was asking for it”]. (victim locus)
• Further references: Caroli & Sagone, 2014; Moore, 2015;
Proios, 2016; Tillman, Gonzalez, Whitman, Crawford, & Hood,
2018; Walters, 2017; Zheng, Qin, Liu, & Liao, 2017.
677
[Appendix 3: Moral Disengagement. – E.]
• Bandura: morality is rooted in self-regulation of behavior, part of
an agentic perspective—“to be an agent is to intentionally
produce certain effects by one’s actions” (Bandura, 2018, p. 130).
• Essentially a socially based alternative theory to the genetic
explanation of psychopathy.
• Behavioral locus: harmful behavior is seen as good behavior.
• Agency locus: displacement or obfuscation of blame regarding
who is responsible for harmful acts.
• Outcome locus: attempted explanations for effects of behavior.
• Victim locus: attempts to displace blame onto the victim.
• Discussions of moral disengagement (social cognitive theory)
are often applied to sports ethics (e.g. Lance Armstrong) and
the morality of corporations and business (e.g. entertainment,
guns, food, tobacco, etc.).
678
[Appendix 4: Nomological Networks. – A.]
• Nomological network: the interlocking system of laws which
constitute a theory—a form of construct validity.
• “A nomological network is a theoretical framework that specifies
relationships among variables in such a way as to help both
differentiate and define the construct of concern, and that
enables the formulation of a measurement model” (Zimmerman,
1995, pp. 582-583).
• “The laws in a nomological network may relate (a) observable
properties or quantities to each other; or (b) theoretical
constructs to observables; or (c) different theoretical constructs
to one another. These ‘laws’ may be statistical or deterministic”
(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955, p. 290).
• “‘Learning more about’ a theoretical construct is a matter of
elaborating the nomological network in which it occurs, or of
increasing the definiteness of the components” (Cronbach &
Meehl, 1955, p. 290).
679
[Appendix 4: Nomological Networks. – B.]
• “Rationalization is not construct validation” (p. 291).
• “Since the meaning of theoretical constructs is set
forth by stating the laws in which they occur, our
incomplete knowledge of the laws of nature produces
a vagueness in our constructs” (p. 294).
• “If prediction and result are in harmony, [the
researcher] can retain his belief that the test measures
the construct. The construct is at best adopted, never
demonstrated to be ‘correct’” (p. 294).
• “All the events successfully predicted through a sub-
theory are of course evidence in favor of that theory”
(p. 294).
680
[Appendix 4: Nomological Networks. – C.]
• “A construct is defined implicitly by a network of
associations or propositions in which it occurs.
Constructs employed at different stages of research
vary in definiteness” (pp. 299-300).
• “Altering the network so that it can cope with the new
observations is, in effect, redefining the construct. Any
such new interpretation of the test must be validated
by a fresh body of data before being advanced
publicly. Great care is required to avoid substituting a
posteriori rationalizations for proper validation” (p. 300).
• A definitive reference is: Slaney, (2017).
• Zuckerman, (2008) also provides a succinct overview.
681
[Appendix 4: Nomological Networks. – D.]
This network would include the theoretical framework for what you are trying
to measure, an empirical framework for how you are going to measure it,
and specification of the linkages among and between these two frameworks.
https://socialresearchmethods.net/kb/nomonet.php
682
[Appendix 4: Nomological Networks. – E.]
• In social science research, constructs can be very difficult to define as they

are often quite similar (e.g. empathy/compassion). In many cases, preliminary
analysis of pilot data must be undertaken, often using factor analysis, to help
initially define constructs. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-
research-methods/chapter/chapter-5-research-design/
683
[Appendix 4: Nomological Networks. – F.]
• Constructs cannot be considered in isolation from their
nomological network—the network gives the construct
its specific meaning and context. Constructs can not
be assumed to be equivalent prima facie if they belong
to different networks as they will be based on different
assumptions, and have different relationships with
other, different constructs in each respective network.
• Aron’s construct of the highly sensitive person and
Dąbrowski’s construct of overexcitability are examples
of two constructs that belong to different nomological
networks and therefore cannot be directly equated.
• Other examples: Piechowski’s comparison of self-
actualization and TPD.
684 Reward for Those who Persevered.
Sometimes fate is like a small sandstorm that keeps
changing direction. You change direction, but the
sandstorm chases you. You turn again, but the
storm adjusts. Over and over you play this out, like
some ominous dance with death just before dawn.
Why? Because this storm isn’t something that blew
in from far away, something that has nothing to do
with you. This storm is you. Something inside you.
So all you can do is give in to it, step right inside
the storm, closing your eyes and plugging up your
ears so the sand doesn’t get in, and walk through it,
step by step. There’s no sun there, no moon, no
direction, no sense of time. Just fine white sand
swirling up into the sky like pulverised bones.
That’s the kind of sandstorm you need to imagine.
And that’s exactly what I do. I imagine a white funnel
stretching vertically up like a thick rope. My eyes are
closed tight, hands cupped over my ears, so those fine
grains of sand can’t blow inside me. The sandstorm
draws steadily closer. I can feel the air pressing on my
skin. It really is going to swallow me up. . . . And you
really will have to make it through that violent,
metaphysical, symbolic storm. No matter how
metaphysical or symbolic it might be, make no
mistake about it: it will cut through flesh like a
thousand razor blades. People will bleed there, and
you will bleed too. Hot, red blood. You’ll catch that
blood in your hands, your own blood and the blood
of others.
And once the storm is over you won’t remember
how you made it through, how you managed to
survive. You won’t even be sure, in fact, whether the
storm is really over. But one thing is certain. When
you come out of the storm you won’t be the same
person who walked in. That’s what this storm’s all
about.
Murakami (2005). Kafka on the shore. (P. Gabriel, trans.). Vintage.

Dabrowski 201

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dabrowski 201

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dabrowski 201

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

(Available at: http://www.positivedisintegration.com/Dabrowski201.pdf).

“You must polish your

Dąbrowski 201 Master References

• 1. Dąbrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration

• Personality shaping: Most people take personality for granted

• Psychoneuroses: Rejecting traditional views, psychoneuroses

• Developmental potential: Dąbrowski studied exemplars of

• Multilevelness: Growth is connected to a vertical perception of

• Frustrating to learn TPD because it often uses

• Many new constructs and terms are introduced.

One example: Personality Ideal

• Intelligence becomes an instrument serving our

• Dynamics of Concepts (1973).

• 1.2. Who was Kazimierz Dąbrowski?

• For biographies, see http://positivedisintegration.com/

• 1.3. Marie Jahoda.

2. The individual’s style and degree of growth,

• Dąbrowski defined mental health as: “Development

• “Mental illness consists in the absence or deficiency of

• 1.4. Multilevelness: Levels of reality.

• Lower levels are characterized by automatism,

• Basic to Dąbrowski’s view of authentic human beings:

• “Robots” blindly follow social roles and values.

• The transition to multilevelness is the “greatest step” in

• “The dark night of the soul.”

• Dąbrowski: the lowest level of love differs from the

• The combination of multiple levels and dimensions

• “It appears obvious that the ability to understand and

• “Hierarchization” becomes a key process of ML.

• In summary, development is usually not uniform across

• Each dimension will be expressed differently at each

• 1.5. Developmental Potential.

• “The individual with a rich developmental potential

• Initially, Dąbrowski presents the third factor simply as a

• 1.5. Developmental Potential.

~65% TPD Level

• 1.5. Developmental Potential.

• Just as IQ varies in the population, so does DP.

• “The developmental potential can be assessed on the

• “Pathology” traditionally indicates a weakness or defect

• “in the vast majority of cases, the phenomena of

• 1.5. Developmental Potential.

• Summary: OE has two key aspects: a higher than

• OE affects how a person sees reality: “One who

• Dąbrowski called OE “a tragic gift:” (see Jensen, 2008).

• The “big 3:” “Emotional (affective), imaginational and

• “. . . These couplings determine a closely woven

• As neurons operate in microcircuits and as part of

• 1.5. Developmental Potential.

• “General excitability, nuclei of the inner psychic milieu,

• Through parenting and education, most people

• Most people live life under the day-to-day influence

• 1.5. Developmental Potential.

• “During the period of puberty, young people become

• “The third agent persists—indeed, it only develops—in

• 1.6. Key Constructs.

• 1.6. Key Constructs.

• “Psychoneurotic children clearly demonstrate the large