# The Process of Positive Disintegration



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The process of individuation is typically described as a process of accepting one's shadow or personality traits that are normally repressed by the ego, making you more of a whole person. Individuation is considered a natural process that most individuals go through in their lives as a result of dealing with existential angst, although the level of development varies. I would like to in particular focus not on Jung's definition of individuation by accepting one's shadow self (the inferior), but on what is referred to as positive disintegration:

Dąbrowski's theory Kazimierz Dąbrowski (1902–1980), a Polish psychiatrist and psychologist, developed the Theory of Positive Disintegration over his lifetime of clinical and academic work. The Theory of Positive Disintegration is a novel approach to personality development.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP]
Dąbrowski's theory of personality development emphasized several major features including:


personality is not a given universal trait, it must be created—shaped—by the individual to reflect his or her own unique character (personality shaping)
 

personality develops as a result of the action of developmental potential (DP) (overexcitability and the autonomous factor), not everyone displays sufficient DP to create a unique personality.
 

developmental potential is represented in the population by a normal (bell) curve. Dąbrowski used a multilevel approach to describe the continuum of developmental levels seen in the population.
 

developmental potential creates crises characterized by strong anxieties and depressions—psychoneurosis—that precipitate disintegration
 

for personality to develop, initial integrations based on instinct and socialization must disintegrate—a process Dąbrowski called positive disintegration
 

the development of a hierarchy of individual values — emotional reactions — is a critical component in developing one's personality and one's autonomy, thus, in contrast to most psychological theories, emotions play a major role in this approach
 

emotional reactions guide the individual in creating his or her individual personality ideal, an autonomous standard that acts as the goal of individual development
 

the individual must examine his or her essence and subsequently make existential choices that emphasize those aspects of essence that are higher and "more myself" and inhibit those aspects that are lower or "less myself" based upon his or her own personality ideal
 

critical components of individual development include autoeducation and autopsychotherapy

Now, if we apply this to Jungian psychology again, we suddenly find that if the theory of positive disintegration is correct, then it means that the functions as described by Jung are simply mental constructs that can be shaped and bent at will as a result of achieving different levels of positive disintegration. Despite being differentiated, the functions are not static but very much fluid. The static nature of the functions thus wholly depends on how difficult it is for the ego to accept a new perspective, and I would argue that levels of unhealth makes this more likely than otherwise.

This is a conclusion I have arrived at after speaking to several people and reading stories others have chosen to share where they stress how after going through extreme levels of psychological stress and trauma, they emerged this period of noticing a difference in how they now seem to think and perceive the world, but this does not always result in a perspective that actually seems to accept the inferior, quite the contrary. If anything, the function perspectives actually seem to actually be what are usually referred to as shadow functions, rather than the inferior. 

This seems to question the validity of Jung's theory of individuation and the theory some people profess to claiming that the psyche can only prefer the function perspectives unique to their type, e.g. ESTJ would be Te, Si, Ne and Fi, as any other function perspectives would be referred to as "useless" and "filling no purpose." I have for a long time thought that this is a flawed proposition to make as it seems to take away the individual development of people as no person is the same or views the world exactly the same way, even if they share dominant function. 

The theory I am thus proposing is therefore of the opposite nature and it's based on the process of positive disintegration. I have in fact come to the conclusion that this must be the correct way to approach the psychology of the ego with regards to Jungian cognitive functions. Once in a while there's a story that crops up in here about a person who, after under-going severe trauma and mental stress, finds himself adopting a new perspective of how to view the world previously repressed by the ego. What is notable however is that these individuals do not say that this new perspective is necessarily a challenge to their old perspective in that they must abandon their old perspective in favor of the new one, but that the new perspective rather becomes *complementary* to who they are and how to approach the world, and that the perspective in question does not have to be a more strongly expressed inferior function but can essentially be _anything_. 

Let's consider the story of the person who identified himself as an INTP and told me that after taking an overdose of cannabis, he experienced a psychological breakdown and now had to piece his ego together again. Afterwards he found himself relying on an entirely new perspective - Ni. He was still capable of utilizing an Ne perspective and identified himself as an INTP, but as was clear based on my interactions with him, he in fact preferred an Ni perspective coupled with Te as a *complement* to Ne and Ti. He did thus not stop Ne and Ti as an INTP, ergo he kept his MBTI type and did not change. However, he also clearly expressed ENTJ tendencies although he did not necessarily express the form of inferior Fi. He still identified with inferior Fe as well. 

And this story seems to hardly be unique. I am experiencing something similar with what is most definitely Fi, and I find myself apparently having a very well-developed and strong Fi perspective that I'll utilize when necessary. Similarly, I've seen others tell stories just like that but with other function perspectives that would otherwise be seen as opposed of the ego in classical Jungian theory.

It should also be stressed that according to the theory of positive disintegration, not every individual will in fact achieve this state of mind where their thinking process is perceived to change, ergo, they are disintegrating. I would also like to stress that there is a vast difference of being in the grips of the inferior function and adopting a new perspective of how to view the world is like in lieu of the process of positive disintegration because positive disintegration should ultimately lead to improved mental health, not the other way around. Indeed, even in analytical psychology, it is mentioned that over-reliance on one perspective is not healthy. Positive disintegration would thus perhaps most naturally be seen as a way for the psyche to force the ego to develop in a healthy manner, resulting in new perspectives and a deeper understanding of how to view the world if the disintegration is successful and the individual does not lapse back to a previous development stage.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)




----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i do like the part about it taking a crisis of sorts to break down the "faker" constructs of one's personality. if one is thrust into the world and they're thought to be healthy, their mind creates defenses that are complementary to the environment. if they're unhealthy, their defenses usually just cause them more stress and angst than their settings did in the first place, but each still has to do away with what amounts to a social mask in order to grow.

it just seems as if one might be closer to that point of growth to begin with as there would be no positive reinforcement for something that is only hindering; and that society itself is largely this ritualistic "parlor game" of its own, where everyone creates a way to survive based on agreed upon notions that may be just as ridiculous as their counterparts. 

this guy's theory still sounds similar to Jung's though. the "lows" could be when the dominant perspective isn't working, or when you've over identified with your more inferior aspect. bringing yourself back to a middle ground is done through taking on a different perspective--either incorporating something from your inferior into consciousness, or realizing when you begin to slip into your "other self" and recognizing the perspective/lie that led you there.

edit: about rectifying something that just won't work in your personality.


----------



## Nastorm (Jun 3, 2012)

This Theory of Positive Disintegration is very interesting. I can recognize parts of my own development in it. Actually I'm sure I've gone through it. I've been through crises and then a major change in my life and I literally forgot everything I knew and started over, along with almost all of the points mentioned, I find them all relatable. Autoeducation and autopsychotherapy, finally, those concepts exist.
My type though hasn't changed, I was always an INTP, somewhat different in the past but still an INTP. And it is kind of funny because I feel I've changed very much.

(First of all let me say that I've always felt I was born empty, with no ground to stand on. This continued until a few years ago. I literally built myself from scratch -I had no personality- I was like a little alien, not understanding the human nature, just observing and copying behaviors. I had no default feelings, I had no base, didn't know what is right or wrong, didn't know how to react to things, I had to think my way through everything. 
I used to be neutral to everything. If I needed to make a desicion I would try to figure out what's the objectively right thing to do. This was making my life hard for many years especially after my teens, until sometime I realised that there is nothing that's objectively right. I understood a lot of things in general and became immensely wiser through thought. I started searching for my real self that was hidden in the depths of hell or somewhere similar, and started constructing a base for a personality to grow upon. The change I feel is major. I feel very comfortable with myself now, mostly because I made myself.)

My Fi is growing too, but it's growing in a different way than it would grow in a feeler. I could never reverse my Ti to Fi. What I mean is that whatever my Fi is, it's not the same with the Fi of a feeler, it doesn't work in the same way. I don't know if this makes sense.

To end this, I think the personality development goes beyond functions. Functions don't adequately cover everything.




My skill with words sucks, I wish I could describe my thoughts better. Meh.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

celticstained said:


> i do like the part about it taking a crisis of sorts to break down the "faker" constructs of one's personality. if one is thrust into the world and they're thought to be healthy, their mind creates defenses that are complementary to the environment. if they're unhealthy, their defenses usually just cause them more stress and angst than their settings did in the first place, but each still has to do away with what amounts to a social mask in order to grow.
> 
> it just seems as if one might be closer to that point of growth to begin with as there would be no positive reinforcement for something that is only hindering; and that society itself is largely this ritualistic "parlor game" of its own, where everyone creates a way to survive based on agreed upon notions that may be just as ridiculous as their counterparts.
> 
> ...


It's similar insofar that they describe the same phenemonon, but I think Dabrowski outlined it in greater detail and in a way that makes it less static regarding functions (of course, Dabrowski has no such theory, ergo why). The thing about positive disintegration as opposed to Jungian individuation that whereas in Jungian theory there is essentially only one way to develop - accept your inferior - PD proposes that we can actively control the outcome of our ego once we attain a high enough level of PD. I feel this is what I'm experiencing somehow, that I'm making active choices (not necessarily consciously, but nevertheless) about how I am going to perceive the world. If we apply this to Jung, it would mean to attain perspectives way beyond our dominant, inferior and to a degree, auxiliary. Again, the reason why I'm saying this is that most of the people I've been in contact with who described as having experienced PD do not seem to make claims about accepting their inferior. It seems to revolve around other functions entirely for most of the part. If Jungian theory is true, then this is strange and doesn't make a lot of sense unless you believe in "fake functions" where two or more function combinations can appear as another. I don't think this is true either though, because again, that would result with apparently carbon copies of each other given sufficient development over time. 

Another point I want to raise here is that Nardi claims that it's possible to change type if you fire the right amount of electric energy at the brain at the right place. Considering the plasticity of the human brain, it could perhaps be that during times of heavy stress, the brain might start drawing new neurological connections which could lead to this altered state of consciousness. This is also interesting since it suggests that the old connections remain, and if one has habituated a certain thinking pattern, naturally one will not stop utilizing it just because new connections were created. Rather, they will indeed work in complementary ways.

Consider for instance when you learn to play an instrument or any other complex task that requires more than one activity center. The brain grows, it develops. There's no limit to how many connections the brain can draw between areas.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

*nom nom in her bum*

Positive Disintegration means you're sensitive enough to break free of the bonds of slave perception and mentality most assume must be, yet strong enough not to entirely break down into bouts of unproductive madness/psychosis. That's not to say your perspective is rational, rather it's beyond the rational, and only knowable from an intuitive grasp. 

In a nutshell, positive integration is about opening up to all you are, in order to see the world as it truly is. It's accepting one's own evil, and keeping it in check, in order to rise above political/social/cultural constructs which promote evil, ie ponerology. If I were to give a cognitive function to PD, it would be a mixture of Fi & Ni. It's what we know to be true deep down without any one giving confirmation. Something that transcends all dichotomies while including them all the same. 

I believe that our soul has lessons to teach us in this lifetime. If we have sufficient "prana" we will eventually bridge circuits to create novel neural networks to deal with these lessons and keep leveling up to higher planes of consciousness. 

I think many people are experiencing aspects of "Positive Disintegration" more now than perhaps the last seven decades. There are many collective "breaking points" our species is reaching where decisions must be made, in order to keep civilization on a sustainable path for the coming decades. From environmental pollution to an ever increasing number of vaccines, antibacterial spray causing super bugs, topsoil depletion, electromagnetic radiation, untold nutrient deficiencies, information overload, a culture that emphasizes the material over the spiritual, climate change, ocean acidification, mass species extinction, and coming ecosystem collapses.... people are begging to "snap" and wonder what is now of value to them as they no longer see the world as they once believed it to be. 

It seems a chunk of these people are in-limbo, and not really leveling up, rather walking in a circles up and down a step or two, just increasing in frustration because they don't see a way out. That's my take on it all. Most people are sliding down a notch in standards, and some people are in sync with the higher vibrations. 

So yea, positive disintegration is real as far as I'm concerned, but it seems to only be a potential to the best of us, maybe 2-5% of the population. I would consider these people "gifted". The rest just keep on keepin' on, else only make it halfway through, don't accept their shadow, and descend into madness.


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

This is vastly oversimplifying what you've said, @LeaT, but it seems like the process you've described is all about adapting to survive -- a personal evolution. Our brains are remarkable things. I see no reason why we couldn't adapt in whatever way was necessary to survive. I've always found it odd that no one I've seen ever reports the results of a cog function test as being exactly what is expected for a given type. Everyone has mixed up results that may show a preference for particular functions. The standard reply is that those tests aren't accurate but ... why can't we use both Ni and Ne? They have different uses.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

ChanceyRose said:


> why can't we use both Ni and Ne? They have different uses.


I haven't read LeaT's post but I think I can answer this.
I've been reading Naomi Quenk's book and at a point of it she clearly states that MBTI doesn't say that you are confined to your functions (thus they are called preferences I assume). So as an INTJ you could use Ne, Ti, Fe, Si, for a while (even tho it would be draining).

I don't actually think that Jung would have supported the theory of people being confined to a set of 4 functions either.

This was taken from page 40 of her book


> By the same token, when people use a function in their own less preferred attitude, they may experience a sense of “wrongness” or discomfort with themselves.You will recall that the Jung-Myers approach specifies that we are free to use each of the four functions—S, N,T, and F—in both the attitudes of Extraversion and Introversion at least some of the time. Such flows of energy are necessary for good adaptation in an active, dynamic psychological system.Thus, an INFP may have a preference for introverting Feeling and extraverting Intuition, but is free to extravert Feeling on occasion and to introvert Intuition when that is desirable. For example, an INFP may speak to a group of people about his or her strong values and may spend time thinking about new ideas, theories, and possibilities without communicating them to others in any way. He or she is also free to introvert inferior Thinking (typically extraverted in an INFP) and to use tertiary Sensing in either the Extraverted or Introverted attitude.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ChanceyRose said:


> This is vastly oversimplifying what you've said, @_LeaT_, but it seems like the process you've described is all about adapting to survive -- a personal evolution. Our brains are remarkable things. I see no reason why we couldn't adapt in whatever way was necessary to survive. I've always found it odd that no one I've seen ever reports the results of a cog function test as being exactly what is expected for a given type. Everyone has mixed up results that may show a preference for particular functions. The standard reply is that those tests aren't accurate but ... why can't we use both Ni and Ne? They have different uses.


I agree and I don't see why a shift of perspectives must be so impossible if the task at hand requires it. When I am performing symbol analysis, I don't think I Ne. I don't try to ascribe external reasons necessarily of what the symbol represents but I am trying to unveil the true meaning of it, e.g. a simple example, a skull represents death. Does this kind of thinking come naturally to me in my daily life? No. But when I am doing a task where it is useful to engage this kind of thinking I do think there is a mental shift that occurs unconsciously where my perspective is adopted to solve the task at hand. 

It was actually the fact that cognitive tests do yield different reslts for everyone that started to direct my thinking towards this conlusion and the truth remains, if we say, look at myself and another INTP, we will find that we don't think or reason exactly the same despite being both INTPs and we thus prefer a Ti + Ne perspective to understand the world. Saying that we only possess exactly the same perspectives does not describe this. Saying function development is different does not describe this. Development doesn't change the basic prespective of how we see things. It just makes us realize it in a more naunced way, and this is apparent when you're around a person who has achieved greater development than yourself because you feel that your thinking is immature in contrast. I think a perfect example is a student trying to explain the same problem a professor would. Even if they explain it the same way, the student will do so in a much more shoddy manner. 

I think the ego is more loose as a structure than is usually described. We just don't to not notice these things usually in our daily lives because we're so comfortable with our base ego function. It doesn't mean the use of a different perspective is always dangerous though, as again, it's contextual. If we learn to accept to be and thus think a certain way in one situation, this becomes habituated by our mind as well. 

For example, imagine telling a football player to start think about the pain he's causing his teamplayers and opponents whenever he tackles, throws or hits someone else either mistakenly or as a part of the game. He wouldn't be able to perform. Yet outside the football field he could be the most sympathetic person in the world.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Let me see if I can simply this...

prebreakdown: 

I am not that. I am this. I didn't do that. That's not how I am.

postbuildup:

There are potential aspects of myself which I choose to be aware of, so that I may focus my energies beyond them, and cause the least amount of suffering, while promoting the most _good_ as I best see fit. If best, I will channel these "negative" aspects creatively, transforming them into a "positive".


----------



## fruitarian (May 31, 2012)

Dąbrowski definitely had a lot of Te. This isn't really cohesive enough for me to understand without reading over several times... and even then I don't understand the implications of any of this.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Maybe not exactly aligned with this, but certainly bearing some similarities was my quest to lessen the anxiety I have felt since I was a teenager. 

I have gone through absolute hell and bliss trying to realign my anxiety, and so far, the only thing that has proven successful is decreasing my confidence in my ability to think. By not assigning major significance to any one conclusion, I have given anxiety less of an impact on my emotional state. This has led to the development of something like Ni in place of a more superficial, but very clearly defined structure of logic I have held in the past that I am reluctant to assign to either Ti or Te.

I can revert to that clearly defined structure if needed, but more often than not, it seems to now be lacking in questions of individual significance but good for defining my moment-to-moment problem-solving in the world.

Now whether this is a switch from Te-Ni to Ni-Te or a switch from a Ti-Se perspective to Ti-Ne or a switch from Ti-dom to Ni-dom, I do not know, but it does support your theory in that I have not completely favored either side for all purposes, but use them each to act in accordance to the situations they work best in.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fruitarian said:


> Dąbrowski definitely had a lot of Te. This isn't really cohesive enough for me to understand without reading over several times... and even then I don't understand the implications of any of this.


I don't understand what that has to do with anything? Google the theory then if you think the quotes in this from Wikipedia are confusing. For obvious reasons I wasn't going to quote the entire article, that would take up a lot of space. Instead I wanted to just present the very fundamental aspects of his theory here. If people are more interested they better read up on it themselves. 

The implication as is lined out on the wikipedia article is that Dabrowski argues that personal growth occurs in several stages referred to as positive integration, and that one can integrate to several levels. Going through PD will not automatically mean that you always end up at a new level. It can also result in going back to a previous level if it was unsuccessful. Anyway, the gist of his theory is that the ego construction is something we create, and whenever we are in a situation where we must PD, it results in reshaping our ego somewhat. My point is here that if we go by classical MBTI theory, the ego can only develop according to a very specific pattern. 

I disagree with this because I think that given that we can somewhat control the outcome of the direction where we integrate or what elements we choose to accept during PD, there is no pattern to discern more than perhaps the dominant and to a degree, auxiliary. Instead what we see are individuals who are highly unique with their own cognitive makeup.


----------

