<![CDATA[
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<center>
<p><b><font size="5">The Mechanics of Strength and Weakness</font> <br />
</b><b>by <b>Jimmy Powdrell Campbell</b></b></p>
<p><b>The conflict of active and passive libido in the normal personality and
the relationship of that conflict to root/branch intellectual type and past/future
motivational orientation.</b> </p>
</center>
<div align="left">
<p>Let me start with what may seem to be a wild assertion. A psychopath is not
an individual suffering from some kind of mental derangement. The psychopath
is purely a statistical phenomenon - the extreme of a normal distribution
of strength and weakness of character in any sizeable population. The psychopath
is presently understood only in terms of a combination of his various typical
characteristics - lack of empathy, lack of remorse, manipulative behaviour
etc. [<a href="http://www.faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/401/401lect16.htm" target="_blank" onMouseOver="MM_openBrWindow('http://www.faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/401/401lect16.htm','','location=yes,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,width=550,height=450')">more</a>].
In other words, he is effectively known to us and understood only by and in
terms of his behaviour. The following hypothesis, however, suggests that the
<i>libido</i> of the psychopath markedly differs from that of the normal personality,
that the fundamental and defining feature of the psychopathic personality
is the <i>absence of libido conflict</i>. Further, it suggests that this absence
of conflict is characteristic of the libido of the normal infant. The existence
of libido conflict was<i> </i> first asserted by Freud who expressed his understanding
of it in terms of the life and death instincts. The concept of a bi-directional
libido was also introduced by Jung in his theory of extraversion and introversion.
In spite of a period of collaboration, neither succeeded in coming to an understanding
of the <i>mechanism</i> of the libido. The conflict of active and passive
libido is, I hope to demonstrate, not only characteristic of the normal personality,
it is the most vital and sovereign dynamic mechanism of the psyche - <i>the
mechanics of strength and weakness</i>.</p>
</div>
<hr>
<p>Before discussing the concept of libido conflict I should try, briefly, to
clarify my terminology. The term libido is generally understood to be interchangeable
with the term psychic energy. But what is psychic energy? Can it be defined
in scientific terms or is it simply a creation of the imagination? Jung's extraversion
(an upward and outward flow of libido) and introversion (a downward and inward
flow); and Freud's altogether different bi-directional libido (life instinct
and death instinct) both relate to an imagined <i>flow</i> of psychic energy.
Even in that short sentence, however, it can be seen that the Freudian and Jungian
theories of libido are utterly incompatible.</p>
<ul>
<li>The Jungian theory of libido leads us to the idea of two personality types,
extravert and introvert - neither one any "better" than the other
- just different - one tending to be more outgoing, the other more reserved.</li>
<li>Freudian libido theory confronts us with a much more serious proposition
in which Eros and Thanatos symbolize a positive and a negative flow of energy
- one desirous of giving life and the other of taking it away; one building
and the other destroying; one making love and the other making mayhem.</li>
</ul>
<p>If the attributes of Jung's extraversion/introversion libido are valid, clearly
those of Freud's life/death instinct are wrong and vice versa. They might both
be wrong but they cannot possibly both be right. Paradoxically, however, both
can be shown to be, in practice and in fact, valid theories of the libido, <i>provided</i>
they are considered independently. The existence of introversion and extraversion
is a matter of plain fact. Likewise, Freudian life/death instincts libido theory
is put to regular use in everyday practice. They are both, in practice, absolutely
valid and yet their validity is mutually exclusive. The key to the riddle is
<i>time</i>. </p>
<p>Of all the senses, the sense of the passage of time is perhaps the most subtle
and difficult to conceptualize but for as long as you are prepared to give me
the benefit of the doubt, I invite you to substitute the notion of the flow
of psychic energy with that of the flow of <i>time</i>, and to put aside the
idea that the libido is <i>energy</i> at all. This fanciful seeming redefinition
of the "stuff" of the libido may appear superfluous but I hope to
demonstrate that <i>time</i> is, in fact, as central to psychodynamics as it
is to physical dynamics. Further, I hope to show that the way in which the mind
processes time differs from person to person and, in the case of the psychopath,
differs markedly. All that being said, if you're not comfortable with the idea,
it doesn't really matter at this point. The notion of the <i>flow</i> is enough
for the moment.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, I came to this by taking note of a phenomenon and following
an enquiry very similar to that which had led Jung into the same territory.
I had realized, instinctively, in the midst of an argument, that the other fellow
was (erroneously) forming the same opinion about my intellectual shortcomings
as I was (possibly erroneously) about his. It was almost as if we were not speaking
the same language - two diametrically opposed ways of understanding the same
thing. The actual subject of discussion is irrelevant but the communication
problem is something which we have all experienced, if unknowingly. What it
came down to was this: every event, every action and, more importantly, every<i>
motivation</i> is, for me, explicable in terms of its origin, its cause.
Why do I behave as I do? Because, to a great extent, my upbringing, my
past dictates my behaviour. This cause-orientated view, that the past
explains all, is always true for me but makes absolutely no sense to someone
for whom the <i>aim or goal</i> of every event and every action is plain to
see.</p>
<p><a name="Jung"></a>It was many years later that I discovered that Jung, as
a third party, had been witness to exactly the same communication problem: Freud
who saw only the <i>cause</i> and Adler who saw only the <i>goal</i>. In the
introduction to only one of the numerous editions of "<a href="PsyTypesIntro.htm" onMouseOver="MM_openBrWindow('PsyTypesIntro.htm','JungPsyTypesIntro','scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,width=500,height=400')">Psychological
Types</a>" does Jung come clean and explain that the origin of his theory of
extroversion and introversion was his observation of that communication problem
between Adler and Freud and his recognition, in the first instance, of the possible
existence of an <i>intellectual</i> typology in terms simply of past or future
intellectual orientation. This was Jung's starting point and it is also mine.
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=10 cols=1 width="100%" >
<tr>
<td>
<center>
<b>Intellectual Orientation</b> <br />
(Root Intellect and Branch Intellect)
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
The premised past-orientated intellect is typified by the tendency and aptitude
to get to the <i>root</i> of the issue. Especially where motivation is under discussion,
it will always focus upon<i> cause</i>. Where there is a need to understand,
it is in terms of the radical. It has been suggested that this is a difficult
concept to establish experimentally but, in truth, it is as simple as that.
The intellectual orientation can be established by testing for this alone: does
the mind tend to the radical; does it focus upon the root of the issue; is the
aptitude root and cause related? If it is, then it is a past-orientated
intellect - a <i>root intellect</i>. It follows also that, for the root
intellect, a high score for root/cause aptitude should be accompanied by a negative
score for branch/goal aptitude.
<p>I am relying upon memory here but I believe, as an example, I can best cite
the actual discussion which caught Jung's attention. Freud and Adler were
discussing a particular case: a married woman who's hysteria could be attributed,
according to Freud, only to an event or events in her past. Find the repressed
memory and her hysteria could be cured. There was, Freud insisted, no
other way of looking at the case. Adler conceded that her childhood may
hold some secrets but he was equally adamant that, regardless of her past, she
was in control of herself to a much greater degree than Freud seemed prepared
to accept and that her behaviour was her only way of gaining power over her
husband. Her behaviour was not explained by something in her past but
simply by understanding her aim, her goal - what she wished to achieve <i>in
the future. </i>Both Freud and Adler were imposing their own <i>intellectual
type</i> upon the woman. Freudian and Adlerian psychologists are
doing the same thing to this day. I make this observation not as a criticism
but as a matter of plain fact to be kept in mind. I say "intellectual type"
as opposed to "psychological type" with, I believe, good reason. This is the
very foundation of Jung's theory of extroversion and introversion and, in spite
of the empirical evidence of its validity, I believe his hypothesis to be misconceived.
As I have said, Jung's observations led him to postulate the existence, in the
first instance, of an <i>intellectual</i> typology. But there is, and was, no
need and no justification for taking the next step of assuming that this intellectual
typology has a foundation in the libido when the reverse (i.e. the direction
of the libido being in some way dependent upon the intellectual type) was at
least equally likely.
<p>The future-orientated intellect is typified by the tendency and <i>aptitude</i>
to extrapolate and to deal with the <i>goals</i>, <i>aims,</i> <i>consequences,</i>
and ramifications of the issue. These, therefore, are the two "types"
upon which this model is founded. Extraversion and introversion does finally
come into the whole picture but it is <b>intellectual type</b> (as opposed
to Jung's <i>libido</i> typology) which is the central concept and I believe,
incidentally, that the <b>root/branch</b> analogy is entirely appropriate.
<p><a name="TestingForType"></a>I think it can be seen that the Freudian psychologists
provide the most obvious ready-made pool of past-orientated intellect and, likewise,
the future-orientation of the Adlerians pervades all their work. The past
or future fixated view of motivation, in both cases, being derived - if you
will permit the assumption - from their imposing of their own intellectual type,
responses elicited from within these two groups should facilitate refinement
of testing for intellectual type in a more diverse population. (I believe, also,
that there are some parallels to be found in Guilford and Hoepfner's work on
Convergent and Divergent intelligence -"The Analysis of Intelligence").<br />
<br />
<b><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Intellectual Type</font></b><br />
<center>
<table BORDER cellspacing=0 cellpadding=8 width="100%" vspace="15" >
<tr bgcolor="#000099">
<td align=CENTER valign=CENTER><b><font size=-1> </font><font color="#66FFFF"><font size=+1>Orientation</font></font></b></td>
<td align=LEFT valign=CENTER><b><font color="#66FFFF"><font size=+1>Type</font></font></b></td>
<td align=LEFT valign=CENTER><b><font color="#66FFFF"><font size=+1>Focus</font></font></b></td>
<td align=LEFT valign=CENTER><b><font color="#66FFFF"><font size=+1>Aptitude</font></font></b></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<td align=CENTER valign=CENTER><font size=+1><b>Past</b> </font></td>
<td><font size=+1>Root</font> <br />
<font size=+1>Intellect</font></td>
<td><font size=+1>Source; Cause:</font> <br />
<font size=+1>Origin</font></td>
<td><font size=+1>To reduce to the fundamentals </font></td>
</tr>
<tr align=LEFT valign=TOP bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<td align=CENTER valign=CENTER><b><font size=+1>Future</font></b></td>
<td align=LEFT valign=CENTER><font size=+1>Branch</font> <br />
<font size=+1>Intellect</font></td>
<td><font size=+1>Goals; Aims;</font> <br />
<font size=+1>Consequences</font></td>
<td><font size=+1>To extrapolate; to see ramifications</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=10 cols=1 width="100%" >
<tr>
<td>
<center>
<b>Motivation</b>
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
The intellectual orientation or type is, I believe, immutable. Whatever the origins
of this differentiation might be, I would suspect that it has a biological basis
so if you are born with a branch-intellect mind, you will enjoy the aptitudes
of a branch-intellect mind for the rest of your life. Consider, however, the concept
of motivation. The idea that we are not necessarily conscious of our reasons
for doing what we do does not appeal to some but there can be no serious dispute
as to its validity; and motivation can be seen to have anything but a fixed orientation.
It might be said that the only constant is its potential to change from day to
day if not hour to hour.
<p>On the subject of motivation, I had, for some time, in the back of my mind,
some nebulous but useful thoughts about the association of dualities and opposites
and, in particular, the idea of positive & negative psychic energy (I was
about twenty years old and I had been reading about Zen); I became focused upon
the concept of positive & negative motivation. (By negative motivation
I meant generally destructive motivation). The unconscious associations I had
in mind were such as day & night; awake & asleep; creation &
destruction; giving & taking; life & death etc. Accepting
that <i>association</i> is a fundamental mechanism of the intellect, all of
these seemed to me to have a bearing upon and to be in perpetual relationship
to motivation.
<p>In this model, the concept of positive and negative motivation is, therefore,
dependent upon the validity of at least some of these associations and upon
the validity of certain moral value judgements. If, for example, an individual
were to avail himself of the opportunity to profit by the sale of heroine to
some school children, I would consider him to have been negatively motivated.
Psychology has created a generation of victims; the heroine dealer is, according
to some, a victim of his upbringing, his deprived social background or whatever,
but, to the "man in the street," this drug dealer is nothing more
or less than a selfish, evil bastard. If my model of the libido is valid, the
man in the street has been right, all along. His value judgements may not always
be justified but, in this case, he is correct in recognizing that this drug
dealer is "different" in some fundamental way; that his selfishness
has gone beyond the bounds not only of acceptable behaviour in the neighbourhood
but beyond the bounds of some sort of universal morality.
<p>The whole area of morality is, of course, a minefield. There are so many layers
of conflicting morality within every society, it might seem impossible that
there can be any absolutes. <i>Survival</i>, however, is the key to understanding
all morality. Survival of any community depends upon certain codes of behaviour,
unique to that community and completely alien to some others. It is survival
of the nation which dictates the unique moral code which applies during wartime.
(The morality of war itself, in the 21st century, is another issue entirely
but, even there, it can be seen that the questions surrounding the uncertainty
of nations surviving a nuclear conflict have changed concepts of international
morality which might have seemed so clear in Victorian times).
<p>There is, of course, honour and dishonour in the animal kingdom and the relative
simplicity of some relationships sometimes facilitates an understanding of moral
issues which may have some parallels in our own jungle. The leopard, for example,
often uses the signal of raising its tail to convey to its potential prey that
they are, for the moment, in no danger. The herd will carry on grazing as the
leopard passes within striking distance because they instinctively recognize
the signal and can be confident that, having raised its tail, the leopard intends,
for the moment, to pass by. The need for the predator to go about her business
- to tend to her young without chasing off tomorrow's dinner - has evolved a
relationship based upon trust and honour. Survival depends upon adherence to
the code.
<p>Morality is always clearest when the link to survival is most obvious. The
drug dealer, unchecked, threatens the survival of a few schoolchildren. We,
however, prize the survival of all children - at least those within the compass
of our individual realities - and the immorality of the heroine dealer is, therefore,
put beyond question. The laws of morality are far from being universal but,
given a defined community, it is possible to identify certain codes of behaviour
upon which the survival of that community will depend and to anticipate, therefore,
that which will be generally acceptable as being right or wrong.
<p>It is simply a matter of degree. There is extreme negative motivation - which
is very easy to identify - and there is slight negative motivation - which is
something which we, all of us, give free reign to every day but who cares? One
of my most frequent errors, arising out of post-adolescent lack of self-esteem,
was to attempt, in conversation, to improve the other party's opinion of me
- not so much to brag as to impress subtly. In this case, to become conscious
of what had been unconscious was a fairly simple matter of being honest with
myself in answer to the question, "why am I telling this person this story"
etc. The story would have had a purpose - a goal - (N.B. future-orientated,
in my case) arising out of my desire to be thought on as being, in some way,
worthy of respect. This, however trivial it may seem, is an example of
what might be termed negative motivation. (At the time, I only came to realize
it was pathetic behaviour - I think I still do it sometimes)! My main
concern, at that moment, was how the world is treating me - what the world thinks
of me. Everything we do has its motivation and no-one is permanently positively
motivated. (And that is why, as you probably know, when the great day of judgement
comes, we're all stuffed).
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=10 cols=1 width="100%" >
<tr>
<td>
<center>
<b>Active and Passive Motivation</b>
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
The concept of positive and negative motivation has a pivotal relationship to
that of root/branch intellectual orientation but there is still a missing piece
to the jigsaw: the twofold nature of action. There is, firstly, the
subject acting upon the object and then there is the object which is being acted
upon by the subject. It probably sounds like gibberish but it is a most
important and fundamental concept. The question being: am I the subject
in my own actions or or am I the object? Is my motivation, at this moment,
<i>active</i>... or could it possibly be <i>passive</i>? i.e. do I, at this moment,
really just want nice things to happen<b> </b><i>to me</i>? To understand the
meaning of the mechanism which we darkly perceive as "introversion and extroversion"
without reference to this concept is simply impossible. It is to describe the
basics of the four stroke engine in ignorance of the induction stroke.
<p><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font size=+1>The Normal Personality</font></font></b>
<p>For some, it has become almost a sort of ideal - the normal personality. The
term suggests a well-adjusted and social individual with a fairly healthy capacity
for work and recreation - not one of the Waltons but no serious vices and no
obvious psychological problems. Leaving the semantics aside, there is a problem
with "normal" which is common to both the scientific and the popular usage.
As a measure, it has no frame of reference. It means different things in different
places. It's a relative term and, in fact, the normal personality in any civilized
nation is generally something surprisingly undesirable.
<p>It is quite normal, for example, for a young man, having attained a certain
semblance of maturity, to effectively halt his emotional development. He strives
to become a man only as long as he believes that it is in that way that his
desires will be satisfied. He also believes that the process of growing up is
somehow automatic and inevitable but, in reality, he will settle for a degree
of immaturity far beneath his potential. He has no benchmark for maturity because
all around him are much the same.
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=10 cols=1 width="100%" >
<tr>
<td>
<center>
<b>JFK said it before me</b>
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."
Each of us gives expression to our immaturity in different ways but there is one
single underlying factor. As a child, our relationship to the world is almost
exclusively <i>passive</i>. The child is concerned not with what it is doing in
the world but with what the world is doing<i> to or for it</i>. When it cries,
it gets the attention it needs but even where it is (foolishly) allowed to manipulate
the adults around it, its relationship with those adults is still passive. It
is completely and exclusively preoccupied with its own desires and that <i>selfishness</i>
is the essence of its immaturity. It is perfectly healthy and natural for the
child to exist at the centre of its world because its survival is dependent upon
those around it but, thirty years later, that same degree of selfishness would
be judged very unhealthy (possibly using the Hare checklist for psychopathic tendencies).
<b>The most fundamental element of growing up is, I submit, not the acquisition
of power or knowledge but the transition from that <i>passive</i> relationship
with the world, the community and the family, to the <i>active</i> relationship
which is natural to the adult.</b>
<p>There coexists, in the normal personality, a bit of both the active and the
passive. But they are not just attributes or qualities which merely contribute
to the overall personality. They are the two most basic "energies"
which, acting together or, rather, in opposition, form the most fundamental
dynamic mechanism of the psyche. The opposition (or cancelling-out) of active
and passive libido, commonly results, at any given time, in the marginal prevalence
of one over the other. Only when the inequality is pronounced does the mature
(or immature) personality emerge as a force to be reckoned with. Being normal
falls far short of what any of us should hope to achieve.
<p><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font size=+1>The Mechanics</font></font></b></p>
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="10" bgcolor="#DFDFDF">
<tr>
<td height="80">
<p>Employing the concept of negative and positive extroversion (and introversion),
the following hypothesis proposes the coexistence, in the normal personality,
of active and passive libido - and postulates that coexistence as a mechanism
- a conflict of extroversion and introversion - which, regulating the
effective "energy" level and effective direction of the libido,
determines, dynamically, the strength or weakness of character of the
individual. The proposition is made that strength of character can be
quantifiable and that the outcome of potential ethical conflicts such
as cowardice versus fortitude can be predictable, that the saint and the
psychopath are merely the extremes of the normal distribution.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>While this arises, in fact, from an attempt to address the question of principal
motivational conflict in the normal personality, it can be followed, also, from
a re-examination of the original observations which led Jung to develop his
typology.</p>
<p>As I have said, Jung recounts that he became aware of an apparent fundamental
intellectual difference between Freud and Adler: Freud's analysis, interpretation
and understanding being persistently in terms of <i>cause</i> and <i>origin</i>
and <a href="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/">Adler's</a>,
equally persistently, being in terms of <i>aims</i> and <i>results</i> (Psychological
Types, Vol. VI in the collected works - edition unknown).
<p>He hypothesized "object fixation" as an explanation for Freud's apparent preoccupation
with causes and origins. Assuming a direct relationship between the motivational
orientation and the intellectual orientation, he dismissed the possibility of
Freud's evident intellectual past-orientation being,<i> in itself</i>, fundamental.
By proceeding to question what lay behind the phenomenon, and then identifying
the individual's "placing of emphasis" upon either subject or object, he moved,
I believe, from the principle to the derivative.
<p>What I am suggesting, firstly, is that experiment should proceed from Jung's
observations, not his conclusions: Freud's intellect (and intellectual aptitude)
was, I premise, fundamentally past-orientated (which I have termed <b>root-intellect</b>)
while Adler was, equally unmistakably, future-orientated (<b>branch-intellect</b>).
<p>Before proceeding, I think it's worth noting that Jung's "subject/object" concept
of introvert and extrovert differentiation related to perception and value rather
than action, i.e. the subject is aware of the object and attributes a certain
relative value or importance to it. But the concept of extroversion is, of course,
meaningless without reference to the libido and the concept of the libido assumes
that the relationship between subject and object is not <i>inert</i>. If the
libido is object directed, it is surely not a matter of mere awareness. The
relationship must have reference to the potential, either active or passive,
of <i>action</i>, in the widest sense. Perception, in this context, is, I believe,
relevant to the psyche only in as much as it is prerequisite to action. The
possibility, potential, or intention of action of the subject upon the object<i>
or of object upon subject </i>(which might be termed passive potential) is,
it seems to me, what is of paramount concern to both types, the "root-intellect"
type requiring, at the most fundamental level, to define or conceptualize action
in terms of cause, the "branch-intellect," in terms of its result. The
apparent importance which the two types attach to either subject or object is,
if that is the case, a <i>consequence</i> of the two interpretations of that
which is the principal concern of the psyche: the potential actions and events
which <i>either actively or passively</i> relate subject and object. That
is to say, the observed fundamental <b>intellectual orientation</b> is, in fact,
the reason for the extrovert/introvert differentiation which was hypothesized
to explain it.
<p>If the premise is accepted, the personality type is properly determined not
by establishing the subject's social tendencies but by first examining the subject's
intellectual aptitudes: the introvert-type <i>(branch intellect</i>) mind should
tend, always, to the consequences and the ramifications (the branches of possibility),
whereas the mind which tends to delve to the roots, enquiring after cause, or
attempting to resolve each issue to a radical understanding must be, <i>regardless
of any indications of apparent introversion (which I will come to later)</i>,
that of the root-intellect extrovert-type.
<ul>
Communication (as Jung observed) between root-intellect and branch-intellect
types is frequently a frustrating business, neither being aware of the need
to express themselves in terms which, from the other's perspective, appear central
or pertinent to the issue.
</ul>
In developing this hypothesis of the libido of the normal personality, it is necessary,
firstly, to consider that of certain individuals whose "extroversion tendencies"
would place them at the far reaches of the normal distribution. (Forgive, for
the moment, the apparently dogmatic assertions).
<p>Because his intellect is past-orientated (origins, causes), the extrovert (<i>root
intellect</i>) type, in its healthiest (or most extreme) form, instinctively
derives motivation from the past, shaping his actions according to a cause or
principle and almost totally without reference to consequence. Nothing is more
empowering to the root-intellect personality than the vow, the oath of service
or allegiance. Honour exists as a principle motivation in the root-intellect
extrovert-type's (dynamic) motivational hierarchy and the completely positive
(which I will come to later) extrovert will obey its dictates even with the
understanding that the outcome may yield several possibilities for disaster.
The apparent disregard for consequence which seems to accompany extroversion
is not, I submit, a derivative but the very essence of healthy extroversion.
The healthy extrovert's self-perception is that of the originator of action
and the libido is, therefore, outwardly directed toward the object. His well-defined
self-image includes his own system of values, convictions and principles and
he brings his sense of identity to every situation. He is, I submit, an extrovert
because he is intellectually past-orientated <i>and</i> past (positively) motivated.
<p>Where the (<i>root-intellect</i>) healthy extrovert has a sense of identity,
the (<i>branch-intellect</i>) healthy introvert has a sense of purpose. The
introvert's personality is thus less obvious, less defined. His identity is
inferred from his aims and purposes. His reputation of appearing to be more
secretive or reserved is, to an extent, deserved but principally because his
sense of purpose rather than identity is central to his existence. With the
motivational hierarchy pertaining often to justice, the mind of the introvert
type, in its healthiest (or most extreme) form, has a clear aim in view. It
looks to the future and explains its actions in terms of the intended result.
There is frequently a marked tendency to be observant, to absorb, without effort,
a proliferation of detail but there is, invariably, a distinct ability and tendency
to extrapolate, to consider the purpose or consequences of an event - the ramifications.
In this way, above all else, the (<i>branch-intellect</i>) healthy introvert-type
can and, for reasons which I hope will become clear, should be identified.
<p>This <i>intellectual</i> basis for the typology which, (I apologize for repeating
myself), was the original basis for Jung's enquiry, exposes a presumption which,
I believe, has undermined a proper understanding of the energies of the psyche:
the presumption being that the individual who scores high on extroversion is
necessarily an extrovert-type or, to put it another way, that the libido of
every (<b>root-intellect</b>) extrovert-type is necessarily extroverted. Jung
recognized that "every individual possesses both mechanisms - extraversion
as well as introversion," but the presumption that the highly extroverted
libido is always indicative of the extravert-type destroyed almost entirely
the immeasurable potential of his typology as both an investigative tool and
as a possible global measure for strength of character and maturity.
<p>Jung's understanding was that "only the relative predominance of extraversion
or introversion determines the type." Introversion/extroversion, however,
is not a trait. It is, of course, a psychic mechanism. However unavoidable it
may seem, it is not, I submit, appropriate to talk simply in terms of degrees
of extroversion. The abnormal (super-healthy)! extroversion scores of the above
examples do not represent the two extremes of a single scale. It is commitment,
on the one hand, to a cause (past-orientation), or, on the other, to a goal
(future-orientation) which results in these abnormally extraverted or introverted
libidos, the tendency being, in each case, to a single, unchallenged principle
motivation.
<p>More normal individuals (and this is central to the concept) are, I submit,
accustomed to, or rather unconscious of, a state of conflicting libido (which
brings us back to Freud's <i>life/death instincts</i> perception of the libido),
each branch-intellect introvert-type sustaining, continually, a proportion of
the total libido as negative libido (semi-extroversion) and the reverse being
the case for each root-intellect extrovert-type. That is to say, I dispute the
validity of the extrovert/introvert continuum and propose the creation of a
separate scale for measurement of apparent "extroversion tendencies"<b> </b>for
<i>each</i> intellect type, in much the same manner as e.g. that of sexuality
for each sex, my prediction (the reasons for which, I am about to set out) being
a correlation of negative libido with weakness and immaturity.
<p>Given that the past/future intellectual orientation of the subject is properly
established, the negative component of the libido can be defined as that which
pertains to a principal motivation which is negatively orientated with respect
to the (immutable) intellectual orientation. Future related motivation can only
be in conflict with the root-intellect extrovert-type's natural identity-based
motivation. Motivation which relates to e.g. an aim, hope, goal or consequence
is, for the past-orientated (root-intellect) extrovert-type, negative. In spite
of all appearances to the individual, it is, in Freudian terms, a death wish.
<p>This is immediately obvious from my own (root-intellect) motivation-fixated
point of view but, to put it another way: the energic relationship between subject
and object is reversed. It is passive in potential, rather than active. He is
no longer the originator of action, but a potential recipient of what the future
will bring. (The flow of <i>time</i> is unconsciously perceived by him to be
downward and inward). The intention or rather the wish of the motivationally
future-orientated root-intellect personality is that the object act upon the
subject. The self, instead of being the giver, the <i>originator</i>, is passive,
in anticipation of future pleasures or, on the other hand, imagined miseries
but, in both cases, the subject's desire is that the object (the world) be at
least kind to him.
<ul>
This, some might think, is not an unnatural desire and, if the subject were
a child, I might agree. There is, I submit, necessarily a direct correlation
between emotional maturity and the proportion of positive libido. In real terms,
the relationship between the healthy child and its world is necessarily passive.
After adolescence, that same level of preoccupation with its desires would be
interpreted, quite rightly, as extreme selfishness.
<p><b>Non self-interested motivation (an area almost completely neglected by
modern psychology) is, I submit, a commonplace dynamic determinant of adult
behaviour, marginally influenced by but effectively independent of basic needs
and gratification drives.</b>
</ul>
The predominantly passive relationship with the object, the condition of the substantially
negative extrovert, is something with which we are all familiar - "a man
who is wrapped up in himself makes a very small package". He tends to think
the world revolves around him. He may tend to self-consciousness, seeking approval
and popularity. Preoccupied with his own desires and fears, his primary concern
is how the world treats him. He may score high on neuroticism but, more importantly,
this (root-intellect) extrovert-type will consistently score high on <i>introversion</i>.
<p>Thus, two personalities which are effectively opposite in the most important
respects have customarily been classed together as belonging to one type: both
the healthy (<i>branch-intellect</i>) introvert and the unhealthy (<i>root-intellect</i>)
extrovert being identified as introverts. The distinction is obviously crucial.
The introverted libido of the unhealthy root-intellect personality is <i>passive</i>
in potential; the introverted libido of the healthy branch-intellect personality
is <i>active</i> in potential.
<p><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Active and Passive Libido for each Intellectual
Type </font></b>
<table BORDER cellspacing=0 cellpadding=8 width="100%" vspace="15" >
<tr bgcolor="#000099" align="center" valign="top">
<td height="35" width="33%"><b> <font color="#66FFFF">Intellectual Type</font><font color="#66FFFF"></font></b></td>
<td height="35" width="33%">
<div align="center"><font color="#66FFFF"><b>Active (Positive/Adult) Libido</b></font></div>
</td>
<td height="35" width="33%">
<div align="center"><b><font color="#66FFFF"><b>Passive (Negative/Child)
Libido</b></font></b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#FFFFFF" align="center" valign="top">
<td height="31" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" width="33%">
<div align="center">Root Intellect<br />
(past intellectual orientation)</div>
</td>
<td width="33%" height="31">
<div align="center">Extraversion<br />
(past-related motivation)</div>
</td>
<td width="33%" height="31">
<div align="center">Introversion<br />
(future-related motivation) </div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr align=center valign=top bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<td bgcolor="#CCCCCC" width="33%">Branch Intellect<br />
(future intellectual orientation)<br />
</td>
<td width="33%">
<div align="center">Introversion<br />
(future-related motivation) </div>
</td>
<td width="33%">
<div align="center">Extraversion<br />
(past-related motivation)</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>I am, therefore, proposing a model of the libido in which the conflict of energy
is expressed in terms of an assumed principle motivational conflict. In line
with that, I believe the effect of the conflict can be taken to be that of cancellation
(more akin in its effect to the principle, in physics, of reversed polarity
wave cancellation). The non-violent, almost mathematical nature of the conflict
is, I think, not an unreasonable inference, given the lack of testimony as to
its very existence. Broadly speaking, for any individual, in any given situation,
it is possible that the sum of the conflicting energies can be considered analogous
to an energy level<b>: </b>the higher the level, the stronger the character
(and drive) of the individual <i>(i.e. the ability, in the case of the extrovert,
to act in accordance with his principles etc. rather than in response to his
passive motivation... related to e.g. fear, desire etc.)</i>, the greater the
awareness, the clearer the judgement. Beyond the lowest levels (i.e. beyond
the area of maximum conflict), and in to the negative area where passive outweighs
active libido, the subject may be prey to his own fears and desires, reality
may be distorted and censored and, regardless of the level of intelligence,
the judgement may be clouded and flawed.
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=10 cols=1 width="100%" >
<tr>
<td>
<center>
<b>the libido of an infant in the body of an adult</b>
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
The measurement of the degree of effective extraversion for each intellectual
type must range from minus one (complete introversion) to plus one (complete extraverson).
Should the passive component virtually eliminate the active, the resultant level
of negative libido can easily be mistaken for strength (certain immature but powerful
and charismatic individuals in history and in the worlds of business and politics
readily spring to mind - sometimes referred to as the industrial psychopath),
the relative absence of libido conflict in both the abnormally strong and the
abnormally weak, creating, a like apparent aura of strength and presence. <b>The
psychopath can be defined as an individual who has reached adulthood but retains
the predominantly passive libido of an infant.</b>
<p>Given, first, identification of an individual's <i>intellectual type</i> the
extraversion score can serve as a measure for strength of character and emotional
maturity which might not otherwise be readily obtained. In both the weak and
the strong, the relative absence of libido conflict indicates the existence
of a single, more or less unchallenged principle motivation: either commitment,
on the one hand, to a cause<i> </i>(or goal) or, on the other hand, a complete
surrender of the individual to his own desires to the exclusion or detriment
of all other interests and considerations.
<p>It follows, therefore, that this model provides, also, an altered perspective
on morality as being not only a learned code of behaviour but as being an integral
parameter of the most fundamental dynamic mechanism of the psyche. It might
be argued that our definition of man as being a wholly independent organism
is inadequate. Viewed from a more remote position with respect to time, a case
can be made for widening our definition of man to encompass the family. It might
be contended that, in that context, a man is no more independent from his family
than is a leaf from a tree. Generations come and go but the family endures.
As I have said, the key to understanding morality is survival. Survival of the
family and of the community places certain obligations upon its members. The
healthy adult is aware that the needs of the family must take precedence over
the desires of the individual. Weakness, however, breeds weakness. The unhealthy
parent tends to impede libido development in their offspring by placing insufficient
emphasis upon correction of selfish behaviour either by instruction or by example.
The selfishness of the individual in one situation emerges as an equivalent
weakness or inadequacy in another. <img src="gifs/libidoDistr.gif" width="345" height="163" align="right" vspace="10" hspace="10">Understood
in terms of libido conflict, "weakness" and "evil" are effectively quantifiable,
occupying merely different positions on the same finite scale (of passive libido)
ranging from zero to negative unity. The moral implications are, I think, far
reaching. Above all, however, this is intended to provide a clearer insight
into the dynamics of the normal personality. There is an implicit assertion
that the normal adult is much diminished by his immaturity and that that immaturity
may be quantifiable. And, from that, it follows that for any population, "normal"
is no longer the benchmark. The more unhealthy (i.e. self-oriented) the culture,
the further to the left will be the normal distribution.
<p>Although I started out out by saying that the psychopath is merely a statistical
phenomenon, there is a statistical inference which is particularly interesting.
Assuming the psychopathic personality can be defined in terms of the ratio of
passive to active libido (i.e. the relative absence of libido conflict), rather
than in terms of an area of the normal distribution, <i>the occurrence of the
phenomenon of the psychopath can be expected to increase proportionately</i>
as the curve moves to the left. In other words, the more predominately self-oriented
the culture, the more psychopaths it can be expected to generate.
<p>Quite aside from the scientific value, I feel that the establishment of a direct
link between selfishness and immaturity of the libido might have some social
and cultural benefits should an understanding of the mechanism percolate into
the public domain. Equating selfishness with weakness on a scientific basis
could make some currently accepted behaviour much less fashionable. It may also
help some people to better understand themselves. Even those who are strong
enough to be aware of their weaknesses tend to think in terms which associate
that weakness with their identity - as if their particular character weakness
was as much a feature of their genetic composition as the colour of their eyes.
But weakness of the psyche is no different from weakness of the muscle. There's
no need for it. With a bit of insight, a very small amount of consistent extra
effort can turn it around. There's nothing new in this. In early medieval times,
morality was directly equated with strength. This hypothesis merely offers the
chance to put an eternal verity on a scientific footing.
<ul>
<li>I believe that experiment will demonstrate, firstly, the existence of the
root/branch intellect typology. <font color="#000000">(I have, as yet, been
unable to find any research which has been undertaken in this area although,
as I mentioned earlier, there are some parallels in Guilford and Hoepfner's
work on Convergent and Divergent intelligence -"The Analysis of Intelligence"
[1971] New York: McGraw-Hill). As I have <a href="#TestingForType">said</a>,
initial testing for intellect type should ideally be commenced upon consenting
Freudian and Adlerian psychologists.</font></li>
<li>I would predict, secondly, for each intellect type, a substantial correlation
between the degree of non-pathological identifiable character weakness (ranging
from the psychopath to the neurotic) and the extraversion score i.e. the degree
of passive libido. Initial testing of sociopaths for intellect type might
again help refine testing methods. All branch-intellect (introvert-type) sociopaths
should score highly on extraversion (i.e. a high level of passive libido)
and vice versa. </li>
</ul>
<p>I would be grateful to hear from anyone in the practical or academic mental
health worlds who might care to comment on this hypothesis, and particularly
in the context of the possibility of any opportunity for research.
<p> Copyright © Jimmy Powdrell Campbell 1996, 2002.<br />
<br />
<table border=3 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 cols=1 width="201" bgcolor="#E3E3E3" bordercolorlight="#F3E7DA" bordercolordark="#C68B51" >
<tr bgcolor="#E9DBBC">
<td height="28">
<center>
<a href="http://www.amostcuriousmurder.com/cgi-bin/cb/cb.cgi"><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">guestbook/comments/email
</font></b></a>
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>N.B. unfortunately, due to a recent increase in the volume of spam mail, the
above link, which references the amostcuriousmurder.com guestbook, temporarily
replaces the original "mailto:" link. To send email, please use the
guestbook's "private email" facility.<br />
<center>
<font face="ARIAL"><font color="#666666"><font size=+1>
<div align="center">S I T E D I R E C T O R Y</div>
</font></font></font>
</center>
<div align="center"><font face="ARIAL"></font> </div>
<form name="Stipe56">
<div align="center"><font face="ARIAL">
<select name="M">
<option value="intuition.htm" selected>The Genetic Origins of Intuition</option>
<option value="index.htm">Main Menu (if not visible on left)</option>
<option value="Story.htm">The Madeleine Smith Story</option>
<option value="Datefile.htm">Datefile (sequence of events)</option>
<option value="who.htm">Who's Who</option>
<option value="WitnessList.htm">The Trial (images)</option>
<option value="WitnessList.htm">Witnesses (linked to testimony)</option>
<option value="Works.htm">Works of David Hamilton</option>
<option value="RoyalExchangeHistory.htm">Royal Exchange - History</option>
<option value="Jones.htm">1787 Glasgow Directory</option>
<option value="letters_L.htm">L'Angelier's letters</option>
<option value="Analysis.htm">Analysis of the case</option>
<option value="Census.htm">Census details etc.</option>
<option value="Family.htm">Smith family photograph</option>
<option value="Stables.htm">The Stables at Birkenshaw</option>
<option value="Birkenshaw.htm">Birkenshaw House</option>
<option value="Rowaleyn.htm">Rowaleyn</option>
<option value="Airth.htm">Airth Castle</option>
<option value="Lennox.htm">Lennox Castle</option>
<option value="Palace.htm">Hamilton Palace</option>
<option value="Collegiate.htm">The Collegiate School</option>
<option value="mclellan.htm">The McLellan Galleries</option>
<option value="Wall.htm">David Hamilton's grave</option>
<option value="Children.htm">David Hamilton's children</option>
<option value="Obituary.htm">Obituary of David Hamilton</option>
<option value="Gildard.htm">Thomas Gildard's speech</option>
<option value="Parliamt.htm">Houses of Parliament Competition</option>
<option value="rExCeiling.htm">Ceiling of the Royal Exchange</option>
<option value="Prosecution.htm">Evidence for prosecution</option>
<option value="Defence.htm">Evidence for the defence</option>
<option value="Napier.htm">Robert Napier, engineer, shipbuilder</option>
</select>
<input type="button" value="Go!" onClick="location.href = document.Stipe56.M.options[document.Stipe56.M.selectedIndex].value" name="button">
</font></div>
<font face="ARIAL"> </font>
</form>
<font face="ARIAL"><noscript>
<ul>
<li><a href="intuition.htm" target="main">The Genetic Origins of Intuition</a>
<li><a href="index.htm">Main Menu (if not visible on left)</a><br />
<li><a href="Story.htm">The Madeleine Smith Story</a><br />
<li><a href="datefile.htm">Datefile (seq. of events)</a><br />
<li><a href="who.htm">Who's Who</a><br />
<li><a href="WitnessList.htm">Witnesses (linked to testimony)</a><br />
<li><a href="Defence.htm">Evidence for the defence</a><br />
<li><a href="Prosecution.htm">Evidence for prosecution</a><br />
<li><a href="Works.htm">Works of David Hamilton</a><br />
<li><a href="Census.htm">Census details etc.</a><br />
<li><a href="Gildard.htm">Thomas Gildard's speech</a><br />
<li><a href="Obituary.htm">Obituary of David Hamilton</a><br />
<li><a href="RoyalExchangeHistory.htm">History of the Royal Exchange</a><br />
<li><a href="Jones.htm">1787 Glasgow Directory</a><br />
<li><a href="Analysis.htm">Analysis of the case</a><br />
<li><a href="RoyalExchangeHistory.htm">The Royal Exchange</a><br />
<li><a href="rExCeiling.htm">Ceiling of the Royal Exchange</a><br />
<li><a href="Family.htm">Smith family photograph</a><br />
<li><a href="Birkenshaw.htm">Birkenshaw House</a><br />
<li><a href="Stables.htm">The Stables at Birkenshaw</a><br />
<li><a href="Lennox.htm">Lennox Castle</a><br />
<li><a href="Wall.htm">David Hamilton's grave</a><br />
<li><a href="Airth.htm">Airth Castle</a><br />
<li><a href="Rowaleyn.htm">Rowaleyn</a><br />
<li><a href="Palace.htm">Hamilton Palace</a><br />
<li><a href="WitnessList.htm">The Trial (image)</a><br />
<li><a href="Collegiate.htm">The Collegiate School</a><br />
<li><a href="mclellan.htm">The McLellan Galleries</a><br />
<li><a href="Parliamt.htm">Houses of Parliament Competition</a><br />
<li><a href="Children.htm">David Hamilton's children</a><br />
</ul>
</noscript></font>
<p>
<p>
<p>
<p>
<p>
<p><!--WEBBOT bot="HTMLMarkup" startspan ALT="Site Meter" -->
<script language="JavaScript">
document.write("<a href=\"http://www.sitemeter.com/");
document.write("stats.asp?site=backupcounter\" target=_top>");
document.write("<img src=\"http://www.sitemeter.com/");
document.write("meter.asp?site=backupcounter");
document.write("&refer="+escape(document.referrer));
document.write("&hours="+(new Date()).getHours());
document.write("&minutes="+(new Date()).getMinutes());
document.write("\" border=0 alt=\"Site Meter\"></a>");
</script>
<!--WEBBOT bot="HTMLMarkup" Endspan --> <font face="ARIAL"><font size=-2>[since
Sept '97]</font> <a href="Analysis.htm#psychopaths"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">[Back
to the Madeleine Smith case analysis]</font></a><br />
</font>
]]>