Print or print to save as PDF.
⚃ 9.4.2.4 Nature of the theory.
⚃ 9.4.2.5 Developmental potential.
⚃ 9.4.2.7 Dynamisms emerge from overexcitabilities.
⚂ 9.4.1 Introduction.
⚃ I created this webpage because of the series of ongoing “myths” we see concerning Dąbrowski and his theory. This page will highlight the major examples. Unfortunately, these are not trivial issues—and are important to address. There is a parallel here with the work of Maslow ( see note 1 at bottom ).
⚃ Note: I pronounce the names of these individuals based on
the way they introduced themselves to me.
Dąbrowski: “dab BROW ski” (we often hear “DOM bros
key”)
Piechowski: “pie CHOW ski” (we often hear “pee A HOS
key”)
⚂ 9.4.2 Myths.
⚃ 9.4.2.1 Self-actualization.
⚄ 9.4.2.1.1 MYTH: The higher levels in Dąbrowski
correspond to self-actualization.
REALITY: Dąbrowski rejected Maslow’s approach to
self-actualization as being unilevel. Self-actualization was introduced
into TPD by Piechowski.
Dabrowski presented a very clear view of
advanced development.
Personality, in the context of the
theory of positive disintegration, is a name given to an individual fully
developed, both with respect to the scope and level of the most essential
positive human qualities; an individual in whom all the aspects form a
coherent and harmonized whole, and who possesses, in a high degree, the
capability for insight into his own self, his own structure, his
aspirations and aims (self-awareness). It is one who has the conviction of
having found his ideal, and that his aims are of essential and lasting
value (self-affirmation), and who is conscious that his development is not
complete and therefore he is working internally on his own improvement
(education-of-oneself and self-perfection). … Personality can be
described as a self-aware, self-chosen, self-affirmed, and selfdetermined
unity of essential psychic qualities, of fundamental individual and
universal “essences.” With the achievement of personality these essences
continue to undergo quantitative changes but not qualitative changes.
These basic qualities or universal essences are: autonomy, empathy,
authentism, responsibility. The individual essences (qualities) are: (a)
exclusive, unique, unrepeatable relationships of love and friendship; (b)
consciously realized, chosen and realized primary interests and talents;
(c) self-awareness of the history of one’s own development and
identification with this awareness. … Personality is thus the aim
and the result of development through positive disintegration. The main
agents of this development are the developmental potential, the conflicts
with one’s social milieu, and the autonomous factors (especially the
third factor)” (Dąbrowski, 1972, pp. 180-181).
⚃ 9.4.2.2 Gifted.
⚄ 9.4.2.2.1 MYTH: TPD is a theory of the gifted. Today, we
see many representations that suggest Dąbrowski developed the theory
by the study of gifted children, that all gifted children fall under the
umbrella of the theory, and that overexcitability is a trait of the
gifted.
REALITY: Dąbrowski
primarily
worked with and studied mental patients. He also studied exemplars of
development. Although many of the cases looked at by Dąbrowski
involved gifted youth, he only reported one study of the gifted (see
Dąbrowski, 1967, pp. 249-262).
Dąbrowski’s conclusions:
“All gifted children and young people display symptoms of increased
psychoneurotic excitability, or lighter or more serious psychoneurotic
symptoms. … 2. In general the presence of all-around interests in
children and young people coincides with complicated forms of
psychoneurosis, with psychoneuroses of higher hierarchical system of
functions (psychasthenia, anxiety neurosis, obsessive neurosis) or with a
higher level of the same kind of neurosis” (Dąbrowski, 1967,
pp. 260-261).
In summary, the TPD has applicability to the
gifted field but is not
primarily
a theory of the gifted, nor is it based on the study of the gifted.
⚄ 9.4.2.2.2 MYTH: We can have confidence in the results of
the research on overexcitability.
REALITY: Over the last 40 years, several different instruments have
been used to measure overexcitability. It appears that these instruments
lack construct validity—does the test measure the construct as the
theory described it. Dąbrowsk described each of the five
overexcitabilities on each of the different levels (he generally did not
give examples of level V), and it is clear that a multilevel approach to
measuring overexcitability is required. Dąbrowski emphasized that
differences between higher and lower levels of a given overexcitability
are great. Unfortunately, thus far, testing approaches have not been able
to capture this degree of complexity in measuring the levels of
overexcitability.
Let’s look at emotional
overexcitabilities as an example (Falk et al. 1999). Here is what the
current questionnaire (the OEQ II) addresses:
►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 (pp. 7-8).
Let’s compare that to
Dąbrowski’s (1996, pp. 76-77) description:
EMOTIONAL OVEREXCITABILITY
Level I
Aggressiveness, irritability, lack of inhibition, lack of control, envy,
unreflective, periods of isolation, or an incessant need for tenderness
and attention, which can be observed, for instance, in mentally retarded
children.
Level II
Fluctuations, sometimes extreme, between inhibition and excitation,
approach and avoidance, high tension and relaxation or depression, syntony
and asyntony, feelings of inferiority and superiority. These are different
forms of ambivalence and ambitendency.
Level III
Interiorization of conflicts, differentiation of a hierarchy of feelings,
growth of exclusivity of feelings and indissoluble relationships of
friendship and love. Emotional overexcitability appears in a broader union
with intellectual and imaginational overexcitability in the process of
working out and organizing one’s own emotional development. The
dynamisms of spontaneous multilevel disintegration are primarily the
product of emotional overexcitability.
Level IV
Emotional overexcitability in association with other forms becomes the
dominant dimension of development. It gives rise to states of elevated
consciousness and profound empathy, depth and exclusivity of relationships
of love and friendship. There is a sense of transcending and resolving of
one’s personal experiences in a more universal context.
⚄ 9.4.2.2.3 MYTH: Intellectual overexcitability can be
equated with high intelligence.
REALITY: Intellectual overexcitability is not the same thing as
measured intelligence. It represents a strong desire to learn, a need to
learn, and, or a strong curiosity, not intelligence per se.
INTELLECTUAL OVEREXCITABILITY
Level I
Intellectual activity consists mainly of skillful manipulation of data and
information (“a brain like a computer”). Intelligence rather than
intellectual overexcitability serves as an instrument subservient to the
dictates of primitive drives.
Level II
The functions of intelligence become uncertain and at times suspended by
greater emotional needs. Internal opposition, ambivalences and
ambitendencies create a fair chance of disconnection of the linkage
between intelligence and primitive drives. This creates the possibility of
incipient opposition against the ruling power of primitive instincts. Such
an opposition, in the course of progressing development, creates the
possibility of multilevel internal conflicts.
We observe erudition which can be extensive and brilliant but without
systematization and evaluation of knowledge, there is no felt necessity to
penetrate into the meaning of knowledge, to analyze in order to uncover
the “hidden order of things,” or to arrive at a deeper synthesis.
Exceptional abilities in many fields can be, nevertheless, one-sided.
Level III
Intellectual overexcitability intensifies the tendency toward inner
conflicts and intensifies the activity of all dynamisms of spontaneous
multilevel disintegration. It enhances the development of awareness and of
self-awareness. It develops the need for finding the meaning of knowledge
and of human experience. Conflict and cooperation with emotional
overexcitability. Development of intuitive intelligence.
Level IV
Intellectual overexcitability in close linkage with emotional and
imaginational operates in a united harmony of drives, emotions, and
volition. The DDC is more closely unified with personality (the level of
secondary integration). Intellectual interests are extensive, universal,
and multilevel. Great deal of interest and effort in objectivization of
the hierarchy of values. Inclinations toward synthesis.
Intellectual-emotional and intellectual-emotional-imaginational linkages
are the basis of highly creative intelligence.
⚄ 9.4.2.2.4 MYTH: High (
very
high) intelligence is required for development.
REALITY: Nixon (2005, p. 5) stated: “Dąbrowski reports
that for all the children he examined who had both general and special
abilities, the lowest I.Q. score was 19.4. This would suggest that an I.Q.
at or above 110 meets the level required for personality development in
TPD.”
⚄ 9.4.2.2.5 MYTH: Research has demonstrated that gifted
children have strong overexcitabilities.
REALITY: For a balanced overview, see: MacEachron, D. (2018, June
13). Giftedness and overexcitabilities: Part 8 of Myth Busters:
Alternative therapies for 2e Learners.
https://drdevon.com/giftedness-and-overexcitabilities-part-8-of-myth-busters-alternative-therapies-for-2e-learners/
PDF version.
Pyryt (2008) concluded: “Gifted individuals are more likely than
average-ability individuals to show signs of intellectual
overexcitability. [According to TPD] This will be predictive of
higher-level potential when combined with emotional overexcitability and
higher-level dynamisms. There is limited evidence to suggest that gifted
individuals possess these components to a greater degree than
average-ability individuals.”
⚄ 9.4.2.2.6 MYTH: Overexcitabilities can be used to
identify giftedness.
REALITY: As
Ackerman (1997, p. 233)
stated: “Classificatory analysis performed at the end of the
discriminant analysis indicated that a total of 70.9% of all subjects were
correctly classified using psychomotor, intellectual, and emotional OE
scores; that is, into the groups the schools had placed them. However, 23
subjects were classified incorrectly: 13 of the 37 (35.1%) nongifted
subjects were classified as gifted and 10 of the 42 (23.8%) gifted
subjects were classified as nongifted.” As to this last group,
Ackerman concluded that the school had misclassified them; they actually
ought to have been classified as gifted. It would seem, based on
subsequent research that has accumulated over the years, that there is not
a strong relationship between the five overexcitabilities and being
gifted, and therefore measures of overexcitability should not be used to
make inferences about being gifted or not gifted.
⚄ 9.4.2.2.7 MYTH: Dąbrowski has made a major impact
in the gifted field.
REALITY: Major handbooks in the gifted field do not refer to
Dąbrowski (and never have). A quote by McEachern (2018) illustrates
the issue: “[This makes me wonder why] the gifted community has been
so dogmatic about its belief in overexcitabilities, despite the lack of
empirical evidence. It may be that people decided they liked the idea when
it was just a hypothesis and haven't kept up with the research findings.
It was striking how fast thought-leaders in the gifted community jumped on
the wagon when the hypothesis was first popularized in the 1980’s,
despite a near total lack of any evidence at the time. I think it could
also be due to the ‘halo effect.’ Professionals in the gifted
community want to see the people they work with through a positive lens.
For parents, the idea that their child is oversensitive as part of their
giftedness and that’s a good thing may be more appealing than an
additional diagnosis of AHDH or Asperger’s or anxiety. Finally, we
all want to think that pain and suffering will prove, in the long run, to
be for the best. We want to believe it, and so we do.”
⚃ 9.4.2.3 Levels.
⚄ 9.4.2.3.1 MYTH: Level I consists of only a handful of
psychopaths.
REALITY: Dąbrowski described a continuum at level I. At the
lower sub-level, psychopaths who are incapable of development exist
(“moral dwarfs”). At the mid-level is the average person. At
the higher sub-level are people who display some psychoneurotic elements.
Level I is also characterized by a continuum of integration: the extreme
rigid integration of the psychopath and the strong integration of the
average person. Those with psychoneurotic elements show weaker integration
and may slip back and forth into level II (depending on their level of
developmental potential). The alternative view is promoted by Piechowski.
⚄ 9.4.2.3.2 MYTH: Level II contains the average person,
and disintegration is not a major factor.
REALITY: Dąbrowski described level II as being a transitional
level characterized by its name—unilevel disintegration. This is a
level of extreme stress and confusion. The individual does not have a
clear view of what they want and therefore displays ambivalence: one
choice is as good as the other (and they are both
horizontal
choices). The individual is also characterized by
ambitendencies—they are drawn to one alternative and then another
and tend to go back and forth. The alternative view is promoted by
Piechowski.
⚄ 9.4.2.3.3 MYTH: We can have a good healthy (and moral)
society of unilevel individuals.
REALITY: Reflecting Plato’s approach, Dąbrowski was clear
that the goal of both individual and societal development ought to be the
rich, deep, and nuanced experience described by multilevelness. Through
his writings we can see he fundamentally believed that both individual and
societal development must reflect autonomy and authenticity: qualities
that can only be derived by multilevel development. This development
emphasizes an internal locus of control that supersedes the impact of the
environment and either supersedes or transforms lower impulses. The
individual’s morality must come from within and be based upon a
uniquely developed hierarchy of values reflecting the individual’s
essence. The alternative view is promoted by Piechowski.
⚃ 9.4.2.4 Nature of the theory.
⚄ 9.4.2.4.1 MYTH: Dąbrowski’s theory is about
emotional development.
REALITY: Dabrowski said that he could not find a psychological
theory that could adequately explain both the lowest and highest levels of
behavior that he had observed in his lifetime. He was also intrigued by
exemplary personalities and how their development occurred and differed
from that of the average person. In discussions, Dąbrowski presented
the theory as one of personality development.
The theory is not about emotional
development
per se
. Here, emotional development parallels and occurs in tandem with
psychological and personality development. Emotions in the theory change
and are transformed with development. For example, at the lowest levels,
emotions reflect primitive ego states; I am mad because I didn't get the
promotion. I am jealous because my wife looked at another man. I am
envious because my neighbor got a new car. At the average level of
development, emotions largely reflect social expectations and syntony. I
cry at funerals because that’s what I’ve learned people do. I
laugh at jokes around the water cooler because the people beside me laugh
(“primitive syntony”). I'm sad when my parents are mad at me
because I want them to love me and give me things and their attention.
These are unilevel emotions.
If overexcitability and other developmental
potentials are present, then these will impact emotional development and
expression. As the personality develops, emotions take on a different role
and expression as they become multilevel. Emotions shift to an internal
locus of control and become less dependent on the environment. I may be at
my birthday party, and everyone is happy, but I feel sad because of what I
saw on the news last night.
The development of the inner psychic milieu
allows more volitional control in organizing emotions and developing a
hierarchy of higher and lower emotions. Multilevel emotions reflect
self-awareness and a growing degree of objectivity of the self as
subject-object develops. At the highest levels, emotions become exclusive;
for example, unique feelings of love develop for a partner. Emotional
overexcitability influences the expression of intellectual and
imaginational and takes a dominant role in organizing one’s
emotional expression.
Dąbrowski said that at the highest
levels, emotions and values become synonymous. One’s hierarchy of
values becomes a unique expression of one’s character, expressed
through one’s emotions. A synthesis occurs by bringing together
personality ideal, the third factor, one’s values, one’s
intuitive intelligence, and one’s imagination and emotions. At this
high-level, self-education and autopsychotherapy are important components
in managing and maintaining self-development.
Finally, Dąbrowski integrated emotions
into his definition of dynamism: DYNAMISM. Biological or mental force
controlling behavior and its development. Instincts, drives, and
intellectual processes combined with emotions are dynamisms.
In summary, emotions play a critical role in
most aspects of the theory. Still, the focus of development in the theory
is on the overall personality development of the individual.
⚄ 9.4.2.4.2 MYTH: Dąbrowski’s theory is about
moral development.
REALITY: As with emotion above, the theory is not about moral
development
per se
. Morality and values reflect the level of one’s development. At the
lowest level, there really is no sense of morality or values, and
Dąbrowski refers to these individuals as “moral dwarfs.”
At the average level of development, the individual reflects and rotely
recites the values and morals of their social environment; the second
factor. Values are interiorized with little examination or evaluation. As
multilevelness develops, a shift inwards occurs. The development of the
inner psychic milieu provides a framework for creating a self-created and
autonomous hierarchy of values. A unique and autonomous morality
reflecting an individual’s deep essence and character emerges.
⚄ 9.4.2.4.3 MYTH: Dąbrowski’s theory is all
about overexcitabilities
REALITY: The theory of positive disintegration is a broad and
complex network of constructs. Overexcitability is a component of
developmental potential, an important part, but certainly not “the
whole picture,” either in terms of developmental potential or of the
overall theory. Overexcitability acts in the theory in conjunction with
other developmental potentials, for example, the third factor and, as
well, the dynamisms. Overexcitability acts in conjunction with
psychoneuroses to create disintegration. The expression of
overexcitabilities depends on the level of development—thus, the
multilevel aspects of the individual case need to be evaluated and taken
into account. Each overexcitability has different expressions on each of
the five levels creating 25 descriptions. It should be kept in mind that
overexcitabilities are a necessary but not sufficient condition for
advanced development to occur.
⚄ 9.4.2.4.4 MYTH: We don't need to suffer or disintegrate
to grow.
REALITY: Dąbrowski assigned several important roles to the idea
of suffering and disintegration. First, in his theory, unilevel
integration inhibits individual autonomy and growth. This initial
integration must break down to allow the locus of control to shift from
the environment and lower instincts to the volitional control of the
individual. This marks the beginning of true autonomous development.
Individual development does not occur spontaneously—the self must be
constructed. The personality ideal must be developed. The hierarchy of
values must be created by the individual. These constructions do not
happen under the conditions of unilevel integration. Next. Dąbrowski
felt that through the process of subject-object we could come to see the
inevitable suffering that life brings us in a different context. Rather
than feeling anger or resentment that we have suffered, subject-object
allows us to see others and appreciate their suffering, giving us a
perspective that our situation is often not as dire as we think. It gives
us humility and seeing that others have it worse, giving us strength to
carry on. It gives us empathy and compassion for others. Piechowski has
suggested that the role of suffering in growth is greatly exaggerated by
Dąbrowski in TPD due to his own personal and harsh life experiences.
⚄ 9.4.2.4.5 MYTH: TPD and Dąbrowski are (were)
anti-psychiatry.
REALITY: Dąbrowski recognized traditional psychiatric diagnoses
and advocated their treatment with conventional psychiatric medication.
For example, schizophrenia. He felt that the average person should utilize
traditional psychotherapy when necessary. For people with multilevelness
he advocated what he called autopsychotherapy. Unfortunately, the book
manuscript describing autopsychotherapy has only been seen by a handful of
people in North America.
⚄ 9.4.2.4.6 MYTH: “Mendaglio and Tillier see the
theory as
cast in stone and invariable: Dąbrowski’s ‘choice of
terms and their definitions cannot be a focus of criticism: after all,
TPD is his theory.’ Consequently, Mendaglio and Tillier blindly
stand by even the most absurd, inadvertently erroneous statements that
are contradicted by the whole theory.”
(Dąbrowski Centre website February 2023)
REALITY: Mendaglio and I recognize that the extensive nomological
network of constructs developed by Dąbrowski constitutes a broad
theory of how personality develops. Many of these constructs are tentative
hypotheses that await verification. Obviously, as more data is gathered,
hypotheses will be changed, added, or perhaps deleted altogether. This is
a routine and regular part of theory building and development that we both
look forward to. Traditionally, as theories are superseded, the name
associated with the original theory stands, and the name of the subsequent
contributor(s) characterizes the new theory. For example, Ptolemy’s
astronomical model was superseded by Nicolaus Copernicus' heliocentric
model (the Copernican system), which was superseded by the model described
by Tycho Brahe (the Tychonic system). Thus, Dąbrowski’s name
will always be associated with the theory he proposed. No one has yet
offered a substantial replacement for the theory. When someone does,
let’s say, Elmer Fudd, it will rightfully be called “The
Fuddian Theory
of positive disintegration.”
.
⚃ 9.4.2.5 Developmental potential.
⚄ 9.4.2.5.1 MYTH: Developmental potential is not genetic.
REALITY: Dąbrowski conceptualized developmental potential as
genetic. He compared it to intelligence. Although the environment may
enhance or stunt intelligence, the fundamental basis of intelligence is
genetic. The alternative view is promoted by Piechowski.
The first of these factors involves
the hereditary, innate constitutional elements which are expressed in the
developmental potential, in a more or less specific way, and are already
recognizable in a one year old child” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 33)
Primary loosening or breakdown of
psychic functions and psychic structure is largely determined and
catalyzed by hereditary nuclei (as increased excitability, nuclei of the
inner milieu, nuclei of creative interests and abilities), which slowly
introduce the dynamisms of higher level, such as transformative abilities,
hierarchy in adjustment and maladjustment (positive maladjustment)”
(Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 82)
⚄ 9.4.2.5.2 MYTH: All that really counts is having
overexcitabilities.
REALITY: Dąbrowski described developmental potential as
involving far more than simply overexcitability. Other factors include;
instincts, dynamisms, abilities and talents, and the third factor, to list
the main ones. The process of development also requires psychoneuroses
acting in concert with specific developmental potentials.
⚄ 9.4.2.5.3 MYTH: All that really counts is having strong
developmental potential.
REALITY: Dąbrowski was very clear that even with very strong
developmental potential growth is not a given. Growth does not occur
automatically or without conscious and volitional input. Developmental
potential is necessary but not sufficient for growth. One must develop
one’s inner psychic milieu and be able to bring the dynamisms of
development under conscious management. These include the third factor.
Dąbrowski’s number one concern was always suicide precipitated
by the stresses of development, and he emphasized that navigating
“the dark night of the soul” is an existential challenge that
not everyone can surmount.
⚄ 9.4.2.5.4 MYTH: Overexcitabilities are just intense
excitabilities.
REALITY: Overexcitabilities are not just
being excited
or
hyper. First, to be developmental they require management to inhibit, control,
and direct their energy in positive ways. Without any management, they
tend to be simply disruptive or disorganizing and sometimes may border on
hypomania. Dąbrowski (undated and unpublished manuscript) emphasized:
“What is increased psychic excitability or so-called nervousness? We
could describe it in general terms as the increased sensitivity toward the
multilevelness of reality. It is our excessive, stronger than normal,
reactivity to external and internal stimuli, in which the reactions are
long-lasting and create strong engrams as well as easily undergo
ecphory.” Here we see two critical psychological impacts of
overexcitability. First, they give us a deeper and more nuanced view of
reality. This contributes to the development of vertical conflicts: an
important component of disintegration. Second, they contribute to a more
comprehensive memory and to a more sensitive memory. Increased ecphory
means that memories can be more easily retrieved based on various cues.
When overexcitability (usually confined to
psychomotor and sensual) distinctly dominates nervous activity, such that
there is little or no inhibition or no conscious control, the indication
is Level I. When overexcitability (usually including emotional) is
accompanied by inhibition, but without conscious control, the indication
is Level II. When inhibition distinctly dominates nervous activity giving
rise to great and pervasive tension, but with little or no conscious
control, the indication is the borderline between Levels II and III. When
overexcitability and strong inhibition appear concurrently or
simultaneously, with some conscious control, the indication is Level III.
The distinct predominance of conscious control, in the presence of
overexcitability and inhibition, indicates the borderline between Levels
III and IV, or higher.
The five forms of overexcitability are
ordered in terms of increasing importance for development: psychomotor,
sensual, intellectual, imaginational, emotional. In particular cases, it
is necessary to know the forms and extent of overexcitability. For
example, even when overexcitability pervasively dominates over inhibition,
if emotional overexcitability is present, the level diagnosis is higher.
The kind and form of inhibition is also important in particular cases, for
example, uniform and indiscriminate inhibition of all forms of
overexcitability including higher forms, is less positive than selective
inhibition of lower forms, which shows some conscious control”
(Dąbrowski & Piechowski, 1996, p. 186).
⚄ 9.4.2.5.5 MYTH: Overexcitability can be used as an
independent construct without reference to the theory.
REALITY: The overexcitabilities, as described by Dąbrowski, are
interrelated and work in concert with several other vital constructs. For
example, they work together with developmental dynamisms and the third
factor to help transform conflict into growth. To view them as a
standalone construct removes them from the context of the overall theory
and this would impact their theoretical understanding, and in tern, this
will impact how the construct is used in research.
⚄ 9.4.2.5.6 MYTH: The five overexcitabilities are
independent variables and can be used in research as such.
REALITY: The five overexcitabilities arise from underlying
developmental potential. If you have enough development potential to
produce an overexcitability, you will likely have more than one. They do
not exist or act in isolation from each other and, therefore, cannot be
considered independent variables according to the theory.
⚃ 9.4.2.6 Michael Piechowski.
⚄ 9.4.2.6.1 MYTH: Michael Piechowski “wrote TPD
with
Dąbrowski – they developed the theory together.”
REALITY: Several authors have written that Dąbrowski &
Piechowski somehow co-wrote or developed the theory together. This is not
the case. Piechowski acted as translator and assisted in editing but did
not contribute any constructs to the theory.
⚄ 9.4.2.6.2 MYTH: Michael Piechowski has not received
proper credit for the work he contributed to Dąbrowski’s
publications.
REALITY: Dąbrowski was careful in his attributions, and I have
carefully checked how Piechowski has been credited. I do not see an
instance where his contribution was not acknowledged. If there is a
concern, please bring it to my attention. Piechowski has told me he feels
that “based on the number of hours he contributed, he should have
been given co-authorship of volume 1 of the 1977 books” and
Dąbrowski disagreed. Further, the figures and tables in the 1972 book
are attributed in the acknowledgments section. I understand Michael left
Edmonton as he sought greater input into the works and Dąbrowski
would not allow it.
⚄ 9.4.2.6.3 MYTH: “Tillier’s issues simply
reflect a personal issue he has with Piechowski.”
REALITY: Anyone who knows me knows that I have a strong loyalty
to Dąbrowski and his theory for what they have given me in my life. I
am also acutely aware of the tremendous needs many people have today and
the potential of the approach of positive disintegration to help at least
a segment of these people. I am very sad and concerned that, over the past
40 years, the theory has not had the benefit of clear, original, and
complete presentations in the literature and appears to have suffered
“a wrong turn on the road.” For me, this is a matter of
academic integrity and the future of the theory—the stakes are the
life or death of the theory. I am not alone in my concern; many people
feel the same way.
In 1976 I met and began attending lectures
by Dąbrowski. Christmas, 1977, I met Michael Piechowski. Over the
years, I had many cordial discussions with Michael, including him spending
the weekend with me at my home. Again over years, Michael and I became
less communicative as he became frustrated that I would not alter my
position—I supported the original views of Dąbrowski and
confronted Michael about the way he presented Dąbrowski’s
ideas. Michael presented the theory in such a way that the reader
unfamiliar with Dąbrowski had a challenge knowing what material
reflected Dąbrowski’s original position and what material
reflected Michael’s interpretations. I urged him many times to
clearly differentiate his views from Dąbrowski’s, and he
refused, saying, “I'm not offering my own theory theory; I am simply
correcting mistakes Dąbrowski made.”
From 1980 to 1994, Norbert Duda was the
public face advocating for the fidelity of Dąbrowski’s theory.
He attended many workshops and spoke up. In 1994, Sharon Lind organized
the Keystone Colorado workshop, and, after attending that, I took on a
public role along with Norbert. I created the website in 1995, and I
organized the next conference in Canada in 1996.
Over the past 40 years, people have
primarily seen TPD linked only to overexcitability and to the gifted.
Michael’s ideas had a major impact on shaping how the theory was
perceived and understood. Initially, the original materials of
Dąbrowski were difficult to obtain and readers relied upon
Piechowski’s publications to learn the theory. Readers were left to
judge the theory of positive disintegration solely upon the basis of
overexcitability as measured in the gifted population. Again, over the
years, accumulating research results have not supported a strong
association between the five overexcitabilities and the gifted population.
Thus, today, many in the gifted field now reject Dąbrowski’s
work
in toto.
Unfortunately, today, some people seem to
gloss over the differences between the two authors and even consider them
insignificant. Others appear to endorse Piechowski’s views,
preferring them to Dąbrowski’s original, as they are more
accessible and easier to understand.
I fully endorse orderly research and
development of the TPD. However, the only way for the theory to develop
and grow is for challenges and alternatives to be presented so that the
reader can compare and contrast different versions, along with future
research evidence. This would eventually lead to neo-Dąbrowskian
formulations.
For example, the work of Aron on HSP
individuals has had a great impact — it has become a
popular theory in the public realm and has also had an impact on academic
psychology. The two theories seem to share some major similarities, but as
well, some major differences. Aron’s approach to sensitivity and
strategy for dealing with heightened sensitivity is quite different from
Dąbrowski’s and she does not link heightened sensitivity to any
sense of growth or positivity. It would be worthwhile for both theories to
be carefully compared and contrasted and consider the implications of
their similarities and differences.
⚃ 9.4.2.7 MYTH: Dynamisms emerge from overexcitabilities. “The dynamisms are actually the products of certain types and combinations of overexcitabilities” (Piechowski & Wells, 2021, p. 78).
REALITY: The idea that the dynamisms are produced by overexcitabilities was first presented by Piechowski in 1975 as a hypothesis.
Quote: If we accept the hypothesis that dynamisms differentiate from forms of overexcitability, then these forms take on the role of primary factors of development. Thus the theory of positive disintegration offers the means by which one can account for developmental transformations in the level of cognitive and emotional behavior. (p. 294)
Additional context: In 1970, Dąbrowski wrote a manuscript that was subsequently revised in 1972 and 1974. Those manuscripts evolved, and Michael Piechowski was involved in their revisions. In 1977, Michael used those manuscripts as a basis for the 1977 books that were published by Dabor Science Publishing. Those published books had major changes, and Dąbrowski did not acknowledge them, instead saying that he wanted to revise the manuscripts and have them republished. Dąbrowski never had a chance to revise them, and they were republished in 1996. Unfortunately, this was one of the theoretical issues that reflected Michael’s position and not Dąbrowski’s.
Quote: If we accept the hypothesis that dynamisms differentiate from forms of overexcitability, then these forms take on the role of primary factors of development. Thus the theory of positive disintegration offers the means by which one can account for developmental transformations in the level of cognitive and emotional behavior. (Piechowski, 1975, p. 294)
Later, this idea is presented as a descriptive fact:
Quote: Multilevel development emerges from strong overexcitabilities, as well as other aspects of what Dabrowski called developmental potential, including special talents and abilities and dynamisms. The dynamisms are actually the products of certain types and combinations of overexcitabilities. (Piechowski, & Wells 2021, p. 78).
In Dąbrowski’s description developmental instincts and dynamisms come before overexcitabilities. This also makes conceptual sense because Dąbrowski defines dynamisms as emotions and instincts (see Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 167), and it is difficult to see how emotions and instincts could be products of overexcitabilities. I think it’s important that this be known, as these misunderstandings continue to appear in the literature, for example, in Mendaglio’s 2024 book.
Supporting quotes: In describing dynamisms, Dąbrowski was clear that instincts and emotions are critical aspects:
“The various dynamisms presented here in their structure, action, and transformations we also call instincts. Our reason for including these forces among instincts is that, in our view, they are a common phenomenon at a certain level of man’s development, they are basic derivatives of primitive instinctive dynamism, and their strength often exceeds the strength of the primitive maternal instinct” (Dąbrowski, 1967, p. 54).
“DYNAMISM, biological or mental forces of a variety of kinds, scopes, levels of development and intensity, decisive with regard to the behavior, activity, development or involution of man. Instincts, drives and intellectual processes conjoined with emotions constitute specific kinds of dynamisms” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 167).
Dąbrowski is clear that instincts – dynamisms and overexcitabilities are both genetic attributes that we were born with; one does not emerge from the other.
⚂ Note 1: The two major “myths” of Maslow’s theory are:
MYTH: Self-actualization is the apex of development.
REALITY: Maslow was clear that self-transcendence was the apex of
development.
For example: Maslow, A. H. (1969). Various meanings of transcendence.
Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1
(1), 56-66.
Maslow, A. H. (1976).
The farther reaches of human nature.
Penguin. (Original work published 1971)
MYTH: Maslow used a pyramid to depict his levels.
REALITY: Maslow never used the illustration of a pyramid in his work.
Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & Ballard, J. (2019). Who built Maslow’s pyramid? A history of the creation of management studies' most famous symbol and its Maslow implications for management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18 (1), 81-98. Bridgman2019.pdf.
