Welcome to Day Three of the July Intensity Project!
31 Days Toward Living with More Intensity & Creativity
Note: This weekend I will be choosing a new theme template for this blog. Please leave any comments or suggestions here. Thank you!
You now have two lists—one with your best qualities and, to add to it, one with your “weird” qualities. Do they flow one into another? Today let’s begin to get to the heart of our Intensity Project by introducing the personality development theory of Kazimierz Dabrowski.
Intense and Overexcitable
Kazimierz Dabrowski, a Polish psychologist and psychiatrist, developed a Theory of Positive Disintegration to explain why some people who display certain overexcitable or even neurotic traits also seem to have the capacity for tremendous personal and moral development. The field of giftedness often focuses mainly on the part of his theory that deals with overexcitabilities (which are also referred to by myself and other writers as intensities):
- intensity of the intellect
- intensity of the emotions
- psychomotor intensity
- intensity of the senses
- intensity of the imagination
Sharon Lind’s article on overexcitabilities is an excellent overview of how the theory applies to understanding gifted children. We will also look more closely at each of the five overexcitabilities later this month.
For now, though, keep in mind that overexcitabilities are only one part of Dabrowski’s theory.
Redefining Normal
I love this comment on yesterday’s post, from Kristi:
“Something usually doesn’t qualify as weird unless it’s outside of the expected social norm. For instance, I don’t think it’s weird that I’d rather hole up in my room with my laptop creating alternate realities than go to parties or big social events. However, I’m sure plenty of non-writers would think that’s weird. Once you’re past the point of caring what others think, you don’t worry about the ‘weird’ qualification. I love being weird!”
Redefining weird as normal is exactly what Dabrowski wrote about. Dabrowski believed that people could work to elevate otherwise “pathological elements” in themselves in a way that allows them to continually build their personalities and to grow as a person. This happens, in part, by increasing our self-consciousness and, in the process, seeing ourselves as normal rather inherently flawed. Even more than being just “normal,” Dabrowski posited that intense, weird people have “the possibility of creative and accelerated development.”
In his book Personality-shaping Through Positive Disintegration, Dabrowski defined “personality” as something not that we are born with, but that we work to shape, develop, and attain. He used the word “individuality” to refer to the innate tendencies and traits that we often usually refer to as elements of our personality. For him, personality was something far greater and potentially more powerful: in essence, the lifelong quest for our personality—to being “an individually fully developed”—is a quest to realize our full and best human potential.
“The fundamental method for the development of personality is self-education.” ~ Kazimierz Dabrowski
Your Day Three Assignment
Understanding aspects of our individuality can help us toward both self-understanding and self-growth. For example, understanding introversion and how it affects me on a daily basis was a huge turning point in my 30′s for making better decisions for myself (and for everyone around me!).
However, Dabrowski’s terminology can keep us from thinking that our individual quirks and traits are our destiny. I may be introverted, but I need not limit or define myself by introverted traits (for example, I can choose to become more complex by experimenting with acting extroverted). When we begin to understand that our personality is shaped by us, not something we are handed when we are born and stuck with forever, we are free to begin to become the person we want to be.
Take a look at your lists from the past two days, then answer one or more of these questions:
- What is missing?
- What do you want to take away?
- Who do you want to be?
- What do you want to add to yourself?
- What if you were able to see all of your individuality traits as normal? How would that free you to move on?
Record your answers in any way that pleases you: as lists, as a character sketch of the person you will be in five or ten or fifty years, as a visual journal (thank you to the terrific art blog Writing Without Paper for the link). The only rule is that you not use these questions as an excuse for self-flagellation. Think of yourself as a work of art that will be complete only when you die. You have time every day to add new brush strokes, new colors, new shapes and textures and meaning—and to enjoy the beauty along the way.
Previous July Intensity Project Posts:
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine
I’m having difficulty with the Day 3 assignment, in that there is an inference of incompletion–I don’t feel incomplete. As the first question asks “What is missing?” — I can’t define what isn’t there if I don’t miss it. A paradox? “What do I want to take away?” Again, for me, it’s another “been there, done that, moved on.” Who do I want to be?” ME! “What do I want to add to myself”…I’m doing that. I’m creating and rediscovering words while I continue to create and search for images–within and out. I am not just a writer, but an artist. My creative self actualized first as artist. Well, first, really was writing but that was during childhood. Then I tried to conform…that didn’t go so well. After decades of struggle for the sake of acceptance, I just don’t care if I’m accepted anymore. I’d rather be me. The final question, dealing with seeing myself as normal…well…again, I can’t relate. I’m me. I don’t need definition: normal, weird, or any other such adjective.
I elaborate much more on my blog, but thought I’d keep this as simple as possible.
Didi, thank you for sharing this and for the more detailed list on your blog. I am learning so much for your insights into the questions. I think it’s wonderful that the first question didn’t have much meaning for you. As you wrote, “been there, done that, moved on.”
Great post! I loved Sharon’s article. As a child I was classified as highly overexcitable and my parents were told I likely had ADHD. After I was moved into a gifted program, I settled down and was much happier. I’m sure this is one of many reasons I became a clinical psychologist, but I’m a huge advocate for helping children realize their potential rather than ‘labeling’ them with various disorders. The labels are often wrong.
Kristi, how fortunate that you were moved into the gifted program! I love hearing stories of people who use their own (sometimes painful) experiences to choose to help others. The children you work with now are lucky to have you.
Ah, yes, labels and mislabels (sigh). A topic for a post of its own…