Theories of Psychological and Personality Development

[TimeAsylums]

Jung, Dabrowski, Maslow

____________________​

~ Theories of Psychological and Personality Development ~​

____________________​

• Please feel free to add any people and concepts to my list
  • At my discretion, and hopefully your input, I will wade out those that appear too narrow, but all input will be weighed
• I am looking for correlations of the major theories of psycho/personality development
• Note worthy: I don't follow any concrete stages, as is popular with Psychology, some one comes up with "concrete" stages of development, and ~+/-50 years, they get proven wrong. Obviously nothing wrong with using concrete operational definitions to attempt to advance the theory or put it into use.

____________________​

~ Thus far ~​

____________________​

• Primary
  • Jung [INDIVIDUATION] (intpf Jung thread)
    • MBTI
      • Personality Junkie
      • Socionics
  • Dabrowski [POSITIVE DISINTEGRATION] (online only; OE questionnaire)
    • Correlation of MBTI:OE
• Secondary
  • 
    Maslow [SELF ACTUALIZATION] (online only)
• Auxiliaries
  • Popular empirical psychological measures
    • Big 5
      
      
      • Five [BROAD] personality characteristics [DIMENSIONS]
        • MBTI/Big5 correlation
      • MMPI
      • • 
          Focuses on negative development/characteristics [PSYCHOPATHOLOGY]

____________________​

~ notes ~​

____________________​

• Discuss free will
• Discuss the major theorists that have assumed altruism is the highest level, e.g., begin with selfishness -> selflessness
• I suppose I should put my 2¢ in on Freud
  • I entirely respect his sexual theory, and it is inarguable that sex[uality] is central and integral to human psychological functioning, but as far as I'm concerned, it is not everything

____________________

My qualifications

____________________​

I'm just a guy who likes to read i.e., argue with me

• [x] Carl Gustav Jung
• [ ] Kazimierz Dąbrowski
• [ ] Sigismund Schlomo Freud
• [ ] Abraham Maslow
  
  We've all got our starting points, mine was Jung.

Last updated 7 mar 14

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Re: Jung, Dabrowski, Maslow

The concept of differentiation by Murray Bowen. From wikipedia:
His final large contribution was that of the idea of differentiation from other people (as opposed to fusion with others). The degree of differentiation determines the capacity of a person to manage his or her emotions, thinking, individuality and connections to others. Bowen thought of differentiation as an emotional capacity which could be conceived on a scale of 0 - 100, 100 being an imaginary ideal. Differentiation has also been defined as the measure of one's emotional maturity. Increasing one's differentiation is thought to be a lifetime project in which one grows in a capacity to better manage one's own connection as well as independence from one's family of origin and other close relationships. A higher level of differentiation would make one less apt to get drawn into other's emotional issues (being "triangled") and be less emotionally reactive to close relationships.

As an extension, Dr. David Schnarch in his application of differentiation theory to marital and sex therapy in his works of 'Constructing the Sexual Crucible' and more readable 'Passionate Marriage' and 'Intimacy & Desire' books.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Re: Jung, Dabrowski, Maslow

Please feel free to add people/ideas to my list.

Working on finding correlations to all of them

Spoiler

Spoiler

For correlations to all, see Sacred Geometry of Jung thread.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Jung, Dabrowski, Maslow

Still reading and ended up webbing around.

In case people are interested, here's a PDF copy of the OEQ II.
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/Articles%20Archive/dabrowski/c235.pdf

 

[TimeAsylums]

Re: Jung, Dabrowski, Maslow

The concept of differentiation by Murray Bowen

Read his wiki, and looked up a few other stuff.

His theory is too narrow

Differentiation of self is one's ability to separate one's own intellectual and emotional functioning from that of the family.

(I am not giving an overt judgement of usefulness or correctness, just that it is too focused, nor wide enough for what I am looking).

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Re: Jung, Dabrowski, Maslow

This might be a helpful place to start:
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/29841_Chapter5.pdf

If I can find the link to some excerpts to 'Passionate Marriage', I'll add it. I think it does the best job understanding differentiation in the context of real life couples and brings theory into reality.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Re: Jung, Dabrowski, Maslow

This might be a helpful place to start

I have no problems with him focusing on the family, but that's all it is. The individual within the family. It's not a part of what I'm entirely seeking.

See previous response (post #5) [too narrow, sole focus on intellect/emotion/anxiety/family]

 

[TBerg]

This thread promises titillating things, but man, I hate numbers.

 

[TimeAsylums]

For anyone who wants to keep up, I'll try to post some stuff.

As I've been unable to obtain Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration book. I've been reading some ph.d phil chick's dissertation on Dabrowski it's good so far,

This method of understanding the theory [positive disintegration] through research of the life of the man has previously been done by Ernest Jones in his study of Freud (Jones, 1957). Barbara Hannah did a similar study of Carl Jung (Hannah, 1976). No such study had been attempted of Dabrowski.

 

[TimeAsylums]

don't necessarily agree with everything, but this was...funny/interesting

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2011/07/psychology-litany-of-failures.html

guess I'll look at Lloyd deMause and Julian Jaynes



continuing...


seeing as there is very little published/to read on Daborwski, unless I somehow travel to Poland/Canda (no interest), I'm marking him off my list

[x] Jung
[x] Dabrowski

I have fully addressed my thoughts on Freud and sex somewhat here and elsewhere...who else? (besides the two above)?

I think I'm done with psychology



time to move on

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Yo!(da)

http://megasociety.org/noesis/138/aptitude.html

 

[TimeAsylums]

CONCLUSION

For those curious,

I see the correlations between

Richard Kulisz's Synthesis, Analysis;
MBTI(Jung);
Big 5;
to a less degree Dabrowski (PD) -

The only real problem is identifying IQ within all of them

e.g., 180 IQ INTP =/= 150 IQ INTP ||| 3rd lvl Synthesis >> 2nd lvl Synthesis (relative intensities in functions - my Ne >> ur Ne?); etc


notes:

-I don't give a fuck whether the "higher order of personality" is truly altruistic (selflessness > selfishness), but RK has done an excellent job in providing a formal definition of "intelligence" et al.

-EXTREMELY LOOSE OVERGENERALIZATION: RK's Analysis is clearly T (I can't identify between Te/Ti, but RK suggests different "levels" of analysis/synthesis, there being about "three," in which case might account for both IQ and the I/E dimension. RK "half the population seems to lack analysis" ...statistically fits for T/F dichotomy MBTI wise

-RK's Synthesis, he uses the very word "intuition," of which he states is unconscious, I have advocated intuition is massively unconscious forever, and found applicable points in Jung's work and PJ articles. He says there are 3 levels of this as well.

-RK's ( seemingly brash, which I don't care about) language on engineers states how they all have analysis (T), but lack synthesis (N), "they are logical as fuck, but lack creativity, those morons" -RK. Architect and others have verified how many ST types work in engineering etc

-RK made a comment on one of his posts about he agrees with the correlation of MBTI "ST - ENGINEERS," "NF - PHILOSOPHERS", this is easy to see, going along with a bunch of information from RK, I believe his "magical thinkers" to be in the spectrum of just about fucking everyone lacking a dom or aux T. (note: don't get all pissed off because this puts some of you into the category, I'm just speaking of fucking correlations)

-You can easily look up Big 5 correlations with IQ correlations (neuroticism, openness etc), and easier speculate/look at other posts of MBTI and those Big 5

-RK has interesting thoughts on what would be "multiple intelligences" (best I've seen so far) >> Dabrowski's OEs

Dabrowski's OE's loosely related to cognitive functions, except he makes the "assumption" just like Maslow does in saying "the highest level of an individual is selflessness -> selfishness." Honestly, there isn't much to add about those two theories.

-Dabrowski's intellctual OE = MBTI N = Big 5 Open to experience = RK's Synthesis

-Only point is that RK believes 90% of the population lacks Synthesis (N/S, where MBTI stats say 25%-75%), and that's slightly marginal..., but still a correlation, The (T/F fits well, 50/50)

-Jung and Dabrowski had similar thoughts on Psychopathology ; they didn't really "exist." they were problems in breaking with society and led to a better development if the person could come out of them. NOTE: This is far different from psycho/sociopaths/level 1 PD who totally lack any empathy/sympathy.

-RK's only complaint on MBTI is that it lacks the ability to measure the strength of the analysis/synthesis (as I stated in the beginning, the levels AND IQ...) I can see this problem.

anyway, that's about it. I have nothing more to read on the field of psychology (regarding development).

regarding Freud :

Organisms seek physical pleasure. The only aberrant sexual desire is none (must defer to neuro).


regarding socionics :

Spoiler

it's a massively huge mindfuck in there, it was harder to decipher socionics than reading Jung. I'm serious. Personality Junkie is just now getting into the cog functions 5 - 8, and I don't blame him, he's an INTP that Drenth, meaning he'll be slow, but deliberate. But anyway, Socionics is massively useful if you can get into it, I'm not saying they're right on everything, they aren't (or at least I don't agree with everything), but if you are that kind of person, delve into it

-lols; I'm wondering whether any of these (aside from IQ) fall under normal distribution/bell curve


-One of my professors once argued that Platonism was taking over and it was going to shake up our fucking Aristotelian roots. RK seems the same in the "magical thinkers overwhelming in the population vs logical thinkers."

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

FIN

links:

Jung - see first post
Dabrowski - see thread posts
RK:
http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2010/12/psych-model-of-inter-personality.html
http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2010/12/creativity-is-not-right-brained.html
http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2008/12/fundamental-cognitive-traits.html

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2011/07/horizontal-vs-vertical-thinkers.html
(RK: Analysis (T) = Vertical thinking (conscious logical Thinking); Synthesis (N, unconscious automatic spontaneous) = horizontal thinking - Socionics Ne = lateral combinatory thinking.)

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2011/07/thinking-non-linguistically.html
(RK on thinking in "words v pictures," his words "non-linguistically" (pictorial v non pictorial) [see my "Do you think in words or pictures" thread]

read comments as well

 

[QuickTwist]

Just here to say great thread and although I feel I want to contribute my own personal views on the matter I think that would require too much attention to think about. I would primarily be drawing form experience and using my reasoning abilities to give a thought about the subject matter but I feel many much more qualified individuals would be better suited to give an analysis of the information presented. If I have time and feel the impulse to share my thoughts I may still share a few things but not before I have had a chance to look over some of the information to compare and contrast to my own perspective. I wish more people felt more open to discussing these important matters involving our humanity and what this means to us as individuals.

Best of luck to your pursuits of drawing to clarify on this complex matter. It really is a noble thing to devote time and energy to.

 

[Spocksleftball]

So let me understand....out of hand you are discarding one of the best actual models used in the field of psychology as a basis for possitive cognitive development?

Erikson's stages of psychosocial development

 

[TimeAsylums]

So let me understand....out of hand you are discarding one of the best actual models used in the field of psychology as a basis for possitive cognitive development?

Erikson's stages of psychosocial development

Note: I don't follow concrete stages

Individuation + Positive Disintegration more than covers Erikson.
Erikson is boring, I shouldn't have even included Maslow in the first place. Freud is simple.

More importantly, I'm not interested in the "average" age stages of development that would totally flux with social cultural changes etc.

tl;dr boring, simple,

simple

Now regarding "used" <- lol don't make me laugh. There's a reason I've focused on the non-mainstream used. The used is so far reduced/attempted to be empirical, that's all that's left.

Ah yes let's measure the average/majority of qualities through ages to assume development.

no. uninterested.


note: I've moved on from this thread (these psych theories), hence the FIN.

 

[Spocksleftball]

okay then.

 

[TimeAsylums]

okay then.

no meta = no Ne = no go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Erikson

Erikson lacked even a bachelor's degree

wot a fawking lsr

no, but really, any one who serves at a daycare facility, or a teacher in primary education could probably give you as much as erikson did

According to Erikson, the environment in which a child lived was crucial to providing growth, adjustment ...

WOW Deep thinker you got thar.

same mental ability that would give you "Erik Erik-son"

Erikson began a lengthy period of roaming about Germany and Italy as a wandering artist

His crowning achievements are:

#1- not becoming Hitler
#2- Living to be 91

 

[Spocksleftball]

I'm not wasting my time with anyone that considers FIN definitive for everyone.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I'm not wasting my time with anyone that considers FIN definitive for everyone.

Yet you continue to engage.

Hmm, let's see. I started the OP...and then posted Fin...and said I was done with it.

Please, do stick with Erik Erikson; you seem to be at about that level

 

[Spocksleftball]

Nothing says intellect like personal effrontery as a way out . I don't "stick" with Erikson, or any models of development, per say. I do postulate that those for whom psychology is a driving passion are often looking for internal repair manuals. Seems this theory holds.

I asked if you were discounting it. you said yes. I said Okay. this answer wasn't sufficient for you and you reengaged, I said no. now you flame. I find your need for control alarming.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I'm not wasting my time

Yet you continue to engage

I find your need for control alarming

Yet you continue to engage. I find your necessity to have the last world alarming

You flame...I do postulate that those for whom psychology is a driving passion are often looking for internal repair manuals

Personal effrontery as a way out // You flame

Personal effrontery and flaming via indirect ad hominem(passive aggressive)...gj genius.

we could continue this little, pusillanimous eye sore(to everyone) on my thread, and continue to spam, or you could stop replying, as you "say" you got your point across submitting EE, yet you continue to post, unrelated anything to the OP.

>You read OP, you submit EE
>I make fun of you(and him) for submitting an idiot // >this "should" be the end, unfortunately it continues.

 

[Spocksleftball]

okay then

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I do postulate that those for whom psychology is a driving passion are often looking for internal repair manuals.

@TA: ^The irony here being that he's right...

I'd postulate that Erikson's stages are simply shifts in attitude as one goes through meta-development. Unfortunately he described these as a population mean as opposed to a mean for each subpopulation/type.

Da Blob once claimed in a PM that all theories of development were wrong, when I first got into Dabrowski. But I'm liking the overlap.

The whole thing culminates in a toroid. That's all I know for sure.

Spoiler

 

[TimeAsylums]

If I was in this conversation for the fucking zingers I would have gone "OH YEAH? DoEs u KNW THAT FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCe? LOLZ." <-better irony

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I really do think it's the font...

Internal repair manual = this whole thread, since for you internal repair is about a lot more than actual internal repair. Control/orientation/interaction.

 

[Black Rose]

By comprising synthesis and analysis of intuition and thinking I must be part partial NT but I don't show either as is external manifestation recently. There has been no avenue to express such as I am almost retarded in intelligence/memorization that I just give up trying even thought my ideas could work I can't get the skills necessary for them. Or I am low on intuition because I don't draw anymore and cant visualize. Making a mishmash serves no practicle purpose but again I do not have the skills to do what I wish regardless.

I would be INFJ but perhaps both are introverted (Ni-Ti)
Mostly now I look for novelty ideas to absorb. (at least from being low grade)

IQ tests measure knowledge linearly but knowledge is acquired logarithmically so intelligence must be exponential.

X = X^n

x is the current amount but n growth is variable

 

[OrLevitate]

Hey! Come back and integrate possible following posts into the op for eazyniss. This is pretty much the most important thread on the forum, just found it and I can add a bunch to it, but I don't want to have people offer counter arguments and discuss my additions yet, I'd rather see what other people have correlated first.

tldr bump