From the Historical Collection of the work of Dr

From the Historical Collection of the work of Dr. Clare W. Graves
William R. Lee - presentations, papers, recorded transcripts, notes - February 2002
Seminar on Levels of Human Existence, Washington School of Psychiatry, October, 1971

XI. Results of Phase I (continued):

2. Summary of the data:

As I studied this data I knew I was in trouble and I knew that I was dealing with what I wanted to deal with – but I didn’t think it was as bad as it turned out to be. Just look at what turned out.

(a) The deny or sacrifice self now to get later was like the deny or sacrifice self now to get now in seeing healthy personality as adjustive to external sources and as denial of self.

(b) The deny or sacrifice self now to get later was like the deny or sacrifice self now to get now in terms of changing to an expression of self type when change took place centrally.

(c) The deny or sacrifice self now to get later was not like the deny or sacrifice self now to get now group in terms of effective change forces. The former responded to higher authority, the latter responded to peer authority.

When a deny or sacrifice self now for reward later wrote the second paper, that is, the paper under the influence of the peer criticism, almost invariably what happened was a defense of the original point of view. When we got to the deny or sacrifice self now for the reward later under the influence of the authority we found not only that they changed but that something else very interesting occurred. Those very students who would not change under peer influence now often changed under authority influence.

An outstanding example was an orthodox Jew. The only thing he responded to, that he accepted, was a Jewish authority. I could bring him a Protestant authority that was saying the exact same thing and it would not touch him. I could bring in a Catholic authority and get the same response. Even with a lay authority I couldn’t get to first base. He changed when authority hit him, not with peers, but only when it was a specific kind of authority. You got a rigid defense of it was some other kind of authority.

Now I started to get this crazy mixed up kind of data.

(d) The deny or sacrifice self now to get later was not like the deny or sacrifice self now to get now in terms of judged freedom to behave. The data for this came from another experiment we ran and just another difference we found.

(e) The deny or sacrifice now to get later was not like the deny or sacrifice selfnow to get now in terms of the source of authority as to healthy behavior.

(f) The express self calculatingly/rationally for what self desires without shameor guilt was like the express self but not at the expense of others in seeing healthy personality as expressive of self.

(g) The express self calculatingly/rationally for what self desires without shame or guilt was like the express self but not at the expense of others in terms of changing to a non-expressive form or denial of self form when central change took place.

previous < | 30 | >next