Print or print to save as PDF.
Resolving conceptual confusion.
Over the years, publications have comingled the ideas of Dr. Piechowski and Dr. Dąbrowski. It is critical to distinguish Dr. Piechowski’s views and articulate the differences between his ideas versus Dr. Dąbrowski’s original theory.
I do not believe that Dr. Piechowski’s work advances the theory; instead, it represents a different approach. Over the past 40 years, my critiques have focused on three main issues. Firstly, most research projects have relied on Dr. Piechowski’s approach, rather than focussing on Dr. Dąbrowski’s. Secondly, that researchers have not achieved measurements that ensure construct validity. Finally, research has not progressed beyond overexcitability. It would be valuable to explore critical aspects such as the third factor, the nature and operation of the dynamisms, psychoneuroses, and positive disintegration.
⚂ 9.3.1 Synopsis.
⚃ Dr. Piechowski has promoted overexcitabilities in the gifted
field for many years.
≻ His perspectives on some aspects of the theory of positive
disintegration differ significantly from Dąbrowski’s original
works and he has expressed views contrary to the original theory.
≻ Dr. Piechowski feels Dąbrowski was mistranslated: “when
he gave me some of his writings to read, those that were translated into
English, the people who translated them didn’t understand what he
was talking about, and he didn’t always express himself
clearly.”
≻ Unfortunately, the way Dr. Piechowski has presented his material
often makes it difficult to differentiate his ideas from those of
Dąbrowski.
≻ Those wishing to gain a full perspective of Dąbrowski’s
theory should consult his original works.
⚃ It is important to have a broad view of positive
disintegration and not be focused primarily on overexcitabilities.
≻ This is particularly pertinent for those wanting to apply the
theory, for example, in therapy or in gifted education.
≻ Although understanding overexcitabilities is important, viewing
overexcitability in conjunction with the dynamisms, the third factor, and
psychoneuroses is more insightful and provides critical context. These are
all synergistic factors, and, if applied together, promote better
understanding of gifted and disintegrative experiences as a whole,
allowing appropriate support and intervention strategies.
⚃ The theory of positive disintegration is a work in progress.
≻ Dąbrowski told us he was purposefully vague in many places as
he did not have a complete picture in his mind. Thus, some aspects of the
theory are open to interpretation and require further discussion and
refinement as new research accumulates.
≻ This is expected when theory building; the only caveat is that to
avoid confusion, those moving the theory forward or giving new
interpretations must clarify that these are neo-Dąbrowskian
formulations.
⚃ I appreciate Dr. Piechowski’s contributions to Dr.
Dąbrowski’s work.
≻ As indicated above, for those studying TPD, it is important to
distinguish between the views of Dąbrowski and those of Dr.
Piechowski.
⚃ A single PDF file containing the majority of Dr. Piechowski’s papers (due to copyright no books are included). DOWNLOAD PDF.
⚃ For anyone interested in the details of the differences between the two authors here is a link to follow: Link