Talk:Positive Disintegration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great article, thx whoever added it.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 09:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Styles in TPD 2 Additional TPD articles 3 Critical Note 4 Response to Critical Note 5 HSP?? 6 Fascinating theory, but poorly-written. 7 Falsifiability

[edit] Styles in TPD

I changed all instances of the word "level" followed by a number to be capitalized. Talking about the "second level" would continue to be lower case.

Currently scattered throughout the article, levels are named with Roman numerals sometimes and in others with Arabic ones. I believe in the books, level numbers are almost invariably Roman. Should it be otherwise on Wiki? --CarbonWire 04:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional TPD articles

This article is very long. Since OEs are often discussed out of a TPD context and are complicated in themselves, overexcitabilities eventually will need its own article. Dabrowski uses a bucket of terms with unique meaning, such as DP, multilevel/unilevel, authentism, negative adjustment, personality ideal, autopsychotherapy, autonomy, and hierarchy of values (constantly). Each of these could take up an entire article, though there must exist a balance between providing usefulness and, in essence, importing all of his books. The theory is so interrelated that it hardly makes sense to separate anything out of the main page. However, according to Wikipedia:Summary_style, given the way the article has thus far developed, maybe a separate page should be created to describe the different levels. --CarbonWire 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Note

As a critical note, I would like to say that although I like the theory to some extent, I think it has an idealistic tendency: it seems to single out a certain group of people on the basis of overexitability and giftedness, make them special and capable of achieving new levels of existence, as if they are a better, more human type of people and less driven by animalistic instincts. This might inforce pathological narcissistic believes in indivuduals who recognize themselves in this theory. I, however, feel that there should be a more down-to-earth approach and that the theory should be rethought in terms of a coping strategy. This "overexitibility" seems to be the same thing as "Neuroticism" in the Five Form Model of Personality (Big 5). There is no need to make such people believe they're special. In fact, that might be detrimental.

I'm writing this down in the discussion section, since I can't find critical resources on the Internet, and since I have no prove, my comments should not go in the article itself. But I think a slight warning towards this theory is in place. If rethought in terms of a coping strategy, it might even be a hell of a lot better!

I think that it is true that this theory "singles out" a certain group of people and that you described well the theory. If I can draw an analogy with the trait of high sensitivity (see HSP) -- we're definitely talking about something similar, if not the same-- I think it is important to "tap the potential" offered by OE and that this, in itself, is a relevant coping strategy. I would suggest to include examples of great achievers with obvious OE (of course, this might not look like cookbook psychology, it might even frighten some people) or links to resources in WP that provide such examples -- with great emphasis on the link ("Go there and get inspired!!").

My appreciation : A lengthy but very good article which could have more examples/case studies, as well as references to HSP

Hey, I just realized that Dabrowski used biographies and autobiographies. This article is very dense. How about creating subsections?

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Critical Note

This has always been a problem with Dabrowski - it is idealistic and so are many other theories from Plato on. But without ideals to shoot for where are we? Dabrowski said that he did not create an elitist theory, rather, he described what he saw and what he saw was best described using a hierarchical model. There are low levels and there are high levels that we can observe in behavior and Dabrowski tried to create a theory that could account for both these lowest and highest levels.

If the reader does not like the theory I would ask that he or she not change Dabrowski's original position, but rather, develop a neo-Dabrowskian position and identify it so. Over the years people have simply said that they don't agree with something and end up changing it, while still under Dabrowski's title -- this has created a lot of confusion as subsequent readers don't know what was original and don't know what was added. For example, a recent edit added free will in the section on third factor. Dabrowski was clear to differentiate third factor from free will. He felt that free will did not go far enough in capturing the motivating aspects that he attributed to third factor. For example, an individual can exercise free will and show little motivation to grow or change as an individual. Third factor specifically describes a motivation -- a motivation to become one's self. This motivation is often so strong that in some situations we can observe that one needs to develop oneself and that in so doing, it places one at great peril. This feeling of "I've gotta be me" especially when it is "at any cost" and especially when it is expressed as a strong motivator for self-growth is beyond the usual conceptualization ascribed to free will.

Another common example: people have often equated Maslow's concept of self-actualization with Dabrowski's level of secondary integration. There are some major differences between these two ideas, fundamentally, Maslow described self-actualization as a process where the self is accepted "as is" so, both higher and lower aspects of the self are actualized. Dabrowski introduces the notion that although the lower aspects may initially be intrinsic to the self, as human beings, we are able to become aware of their lower nature. We are able to develop self-awareness into how we feel about these low levels -- if we feel badly about behaving in these lower ways, then we are able to cognitively and volitionally decide to inhibit and eliminate these behaviors. In this way, the higher aspects of the self are actualized while the lower aspects are inhibited and, for Dabrowski, this is what is unique about humans and sets us apart from animals -- animals are not able to differentiate their lower instincts and therefore can not inhibit their animalistic impulses. So again in this example, Dabrowski has gone beyond Maslow's idea of self-actualization and it is not appropriate to equate the two authors on this point. Thanks, Bill Tillier.

[edit] HSP??

What is the section on HSP doing here in this article? I can think of several other theories that could be linked to overexitability. This is probably some individual's personal opinion, a correlation he or she perceived. I can see how it would make sense, but I see no reason why it should be mentioned here, unless some scientific research of theory, or some writing that links the two can be referenced. I propose the paragraph on HSP is removed: Wikipedia is not a platform to post one's personal opinions or insights, unless you post it on the discussion page.

Personally I think HSP is a bad explanation for a specific pathological phenomenon. E.g. Dr. Jeffrey E. Young, the man behind the highly successful Schema Therapy, links high sensitivity to the Self-Sacrifice Schema (Young 2003, page 246-251). The issue with such individuals is not their high sensitivity, but an emphasis on other-directedness in the form of self-sacrificial behavior, a learned behavior that can be dealt with in therapy (as opposed to the views of HSP-adepts). I think the implications of TPD en overexitability involves much more that high sensitivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.91.60.166 (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascinating theory, but poorly-written.

There are some VERY interesting ideas in this article. I knew that gifted people were prone to being emotionally intense, but I never thought of that as being a key part of their giftedness. With that being said, someone should stick a pin in this article and let some of the pretentious attitude and jargon drain out. The purpose of an article is to COMMUNICATE the idea to the readers, not to make the readers think you are smart and not to make yourself feel smart.

Therefore, the more clearly you can state the ideas in the article, the better. The height of cultivation is simplicity. Example: Don't say "one might want to reflect on Colin Wilson's idea of the Outsider here." Say "See: Colin Wilson's idea of 'The Outsider' for more."

69.227.66.37 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falsifiability

I should personally like to see an informed section on the falsifiability of this theory, in terms both of principle and of what relevant studies have actually shown.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)