Talk:Positive disintegration

Thank you all very much. This article saved my life. -agrippa

The Third Factor
I just edited the first line of the paragraph on 'the third factor', but it still doesn't read smoothly. I'm not sure if it's a proper noun or not. It should probably be rephrased by someone who is more familiar with the correct use of Dabrowski's terms. Thanks. 76.164.35.146 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

POV
it might just be me just i really think the POV in this needs to be looked over,

its sounds a bit Dabrowski fan-boy-ish 118.208.236.250 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, really? Please cite specific instances of "fanboy-ishness', and, better still, suggest how they might be corrected.Pernoctus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC).


 * I've just read through this. I couldn't find a word of criticism or critique, nothing to say how the theory is viewed by mainstream psychology and psychiatry. It has a far from neutral POV. 'Fan boy' might be overstated, but it does give the impression of having been written by an acolyte.Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)


 * Neuroticism is fundamentally different than the "overexcitibility" that the OP seems to be referring. Consider an INTP from a similar theory that correlates well with the Big 5, Myers-Briggs. The "overexcitibility" trait is definitely the sort of thing that might describe an INTP, and indeed an INTP tends to have higher intelligence, but an INTP is neutral from a neuroticism perspective. I would love to see a theory that checks these correlations at a deeper level, as it is perfectly likely that you might consider an INTP with an IQ of 100 that still exhibits this "overexcitibility" trait. However, the point here is that basic personality psychology does not disprove the theory of Positive Disintegration, though it is far from proving it. That said, I do agree with your ideas regarding a more down-to-earth approach and the point that you are making in general.

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.

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)

I agree the section on Aron/HSP doesn't really belong here, particularly as (see section on "Overexcitability") her work is quite incorrectly described. The article now says "Aron considers high levels of sensitivity to be an upsetting nuisance that must be avoided or managed to minimize its impact . . like an allergy that needs to be recognized and then avoided to prevent irritation." But as I recall Aron's book, she says primarily that it is a gift, though it requires some work to make it work, and there can be difficulties in dealing with a world designed by non-HSP people. The example given of a noise cancelling headphones is valid, but it's dead wrong that this sensitivity as an "upsetting nuisance" is the focus of her work.

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)

The article IS clearly written, perhaps you need to read more in depth on the subject. The fact that you interpret the article in such a way speaks more of your own failing than that of any failing on the part of the article. Intricacy and depth does not equal pretentiousness or unneeded complexity; and simplicity does not necessarily equal increased communication, cultivation, or understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.214.104 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary to accuse this guy of failing to understand the ideas presented here. I agree the article can be rewritten in a more comfortable tone.  The article is long; some of these ideas can be explained more succinctly and with simple words.
 * I agree this is a problem, but I think there are much bigger flaws with the way this article is written, which I mentioned below. --Ethan (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does it bother you that one commentator impugns the understanding of another, but not that the original comment makes accusations of pretentiousness and deliberate designs to impress? Were those observations "necessary"? Your critical focus seems highly selective, to me, and I question both its usefulness and your objectivity.Pernoctus (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs more references and is somewhat POV - I am reading "interestingly" and such terms, which do not seem encyclopedic. Antilog (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Having read a fair amount of academic texts on psychology and psychiatry (as, I expect, many of the other commentators), I would simply consider any "pretentiousness" to be the style typically adapted in such texts, and in no way specific to this article or its author(s). (Whether this style is a benefit or a severe liability to p&p in general, is another matter...) 88.77.182.85 (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Another Response To "Critical Note"
I agree with Bill Tillier that the concept of Positive Disintegration simply represents Dabrowski's observations. If you do not like them, then refute them. Merely complaining about the theory, or trying to re-classify it as a "coping strategy", is of no value. The former merely places your own egalitarian bias and insecurity on display, and the latter is simply another way of pathologizing the individuals whom the theory describes.

This last point leads me to another observation. Even if we assume arguendo that Dabrowski's theory is an idealistic and tendentious attempt to favor excitable and gifted individuals, it is a welcome corrective to the mainstream, which merely pathologizes such individuals. Dabrowski's theory is a beautifully Nietzschean instance of viewing the same data, and yet drawing an entirely different set of conclusions, ones that are positive, rather than negative.

No one seems to mind that there are a thousand-and-one psychological theories that view such individuals as Dabrowski describes in a predominantly negative light. It is, therefore, amusing to see who crawls out of the woodwork to complain when one theory arises that takes an opposing view.Pernoctus (talk)


 * To start, I agree the article is fascinating. However, there are a lot of problems here, namely that the issue of whether a reader agrees/disagrees with the ideas presented in the article has no bearing on the article itself.  The purpose of this page is to document Dabrowski's findings [succinctly], and to justify why they matter to the world.  The article should address the theory's impact in academic circles and the world at large.  As it is, this doesn't read like an encyclopedia article;  it seems more like philosophy.
 * Context is important. I think the theory's relevance should be just as high a priority as detailing the theory itself.  I don't edit Wikipedia much, but I know that Wikipedia is not a platform for sharing ideas.  This article reads like somebody's working model of the way people function in the world: something a friend might share with me over drinks and cigars.  In addition to establishing Dabrowski's credibility on this subject, the reader should be reminded of the cultural significance and importance of the idea, rather than simply given the idea.
 * I don't know how to begin to address this in the article. --Ethan (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason, Ethan, why this article in particular arouses your rigorous objections? There are innumerable other Wikipedia articles that need your critical attention far more than this one does. I would respectfully suggest that, if, as you yourself admit, you have no idea how to address the alleged problems of the article, then you refrain from uselessly commenting on it.


 * As for the context and significance of the theory, even a rudimentary Internet search shows that a third-party book has been written on the subject, that Dabrowski's work has been reviewed in the likes of Annals of Internal Medicine, etc. At least one doctoral dissertation, by Marjorie M. Kaminski Battaglia, has been written on Dabrowski's work, as well. It is your opinion of the lack of notability of Dabrowski's work (that's essentially what you are implying, after all) that is the minority position, and not those who assert its notability. Dabrowski's theory has been influential in the relatively small sub-field of educational psychologists who specialize in studying gifted individuals. This is not an area that receives much widespread or sympathetic attention in our culture--no doubt, because it is "elitist" (Boo-hoo!)--but it remains a viable and legitimate area of educational and psychological inquiry, nonetheless.


 * I, too, would like to see a more extensive discussion in the article of this sub-field of education and psychology, and of Dabrowski's contributions to it, but I do not agree that, to be valid or valuable, an encyclopedia article necessarily has to cover every aspect of a subject, and that includes detailed discussions of "context" and "relevance" (and "relevance" to whom, by the way?). Pernoctus (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What is Dąbrowski trying to say?
That he went through this positive disintegration by himself?

Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.54.32 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Critical note and responses off topic
Please remember that this page is intended to discuss the article, not the theory (except to the degree that is necessary to develop the article). If you happen to find any particular strengths or weaknesses with the theory then, well, nothing. The ideas are relevant neither for the article nor the talk page, according to principles like "no original research".

If, OTOH, you find someone who has published the same opinions in an established journal then there is a basis where at least the possibility of an inclusion can be discussed. 88.77.182.85 (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you (and I could live without your patronizing tone, as well). Please remember that "Critical Note" and the responses bear directly upon the article by debating what Dabrowski means, and by debating whether the article accurately conveys Dabrowski's ideas. The discussion is also relevant to the notability of the article, which certain critical remarks here at least tacitly call into question. I suggest that you take a broader, more sophisticated, and less literal view of such comments before you undertake to stifle discussion and act as arbiter of what should and should not be on the discussion page.


 * I would also add that, by using this page to complain of others' comments, instead of using it to discuss "the article", you are violating your own dictum. Pernoctus (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Positive disintegration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117225340/http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.490.9371&rep=rep1&type to http://www.junginstitute.org/pdf_files/JungV8N2p11-44.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Marine biologist tries to depict Level 1!
A visiting editor, Mlschlappy, has introduced a specious and badly written interpretation of TPD Level 1 as a thinly veiled attempt to self-advertise their own recently published material. There is no evidence that the author's apparent migration from their alleged first specialism to another quite unrelated one is valid and seems little more than an academic prank, by them or someone else purporting to be them. How can this advance knowledge or reflect well on Wikipedia? Nice try: I propose it is deleted.--Po Mieczu (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The edit you reverted was not vandalism, as it includes a reliable citation. You must achieve consensus here on the talk page before removing sourced additions. Also, someone's profession has no bearing on their right or ability to edit here. Thank you. Icarus of old (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Icarus, Po Mieczu indicated that the editor (with username Mlschlappy) referenced material written by Marie-Lise Schläppy. I shall not judge the user's intentions, but the question of whether Wikipedia has a policy on editors self-referencing (introducing her own published material) is relevant and the revert should be maintained until this matter is settled.69.28.223.68 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not a WP:SPS; it comes from a peer-reviewed journal and, therefore, does not violate Wikipedia policy. Please ask an administrator if you have further concerns over this policy. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Attempting to find a way forward
I'm trying to sort out what's going on this article, and have found a number of journal references about the theory which I plan to use to increase the percentage of secondary sources per Wikipedia guidelines. This is in addition to the journal article in the previous section of this talk page, which I am also examining to see if it can be used for more citations.

Overall, there seems to be too much narration as opposed to summary here. Some of that belongs on Dąbrowski's bio page.

I've addressed some of the various sections below. Ixat totep (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Gifted Individuals
This seems tenuously related to the core theory, and should probably move the bio page if it is not already present there. Ixat totep (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-Actualization
This section has no citations whatsoever. If I can find any I'll keep it, otherwise it seems better to remove it as it sounds like original (rather than encyclopedic) material. Ixat totep (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Obstacles section
I'm not sure what to do with the "Obstacles to the theory" section, as most of it seems to be irrelevant to the theory itself. I split the one clear criticism into a new Criticism section. Most of it probably belongs on the bio page, if anywhere. The part about Piechowski probably belongs in a section noting further work- I believe I have a citation for this. Information about what is out of print and/or only available in Polish probably belongs in the "Main works" section on the bio page.

The bit about Many of these students continue to study and speak on the theory, most advancing a deeply personal understanding of what the theory means to them. seems interesting but I have no idea how to substantiate it and whether this is a criticism or an indication of a diversification of thought or what. Ixat totep (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Defamation
In the beginnig of the secction over Dabrowski's theory, there is a lot of personal interpretations about his psychology that certainly comprise an enormous bias over the text. For example, uncritically stating that his psycholical thought is a fruit of his Catholic upbringing and that he was influenced by this upbringing in the composition if his psychological thought is something that lacks evidence for being stated the way it is, because it's stated as an absolute fact, not as someone's interpretation what it is. This sort of criticism and analysis of his psychological thought should not be added in the main text of his theory, it should be removed to the section of criticism, because it is secondary to his thought and made by someone else, and it's not part of his theory at all. It should not be confused with his thought itself. This criterion of separation and organization is followed in other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, you'd mix and put in the same level Dobrowski's theory and the criticism of his theory, what doesn't make sense at all, since the former peecedes the latter. You can't criticize someone's work without knowing it first. I believe this part and other parts, like the conclusion that Dobrowki's psychological work is a fruit of his pursuit of self-harm, a statement that is not sourced in any way in the text, and that he being submitted to experimentation by the Nazi has shaped his psychological thought, well, this is again criticism of Dobrowski's psychological thought and if it won't be removed, I can say that mixing someone else criticism of Dobrowski theories with Dobrowski theory itself is both disrespect to his thought and manipulation of information. This is a way of steering one's thought when reading this article. Of course that his ideas caused controversy because they are involved with subjects that are psychologically painful to many people. He couldn't help be subjected to defamation. 2804:D45:A759:F810:0:0:C3F0:B259 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Self-published sources against WP policy
The most recent revert of the lengthy material taken directly from a self-published website falls in line with WP policy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources if you have further questions about what sources are acceptable, feasible, and appropriate. Icarus of old (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)