|
2.
Summary of data:
(A)
The deny/sacrifice self now to get later was like the deny/sacrifice
self to get now
in seeing healthy personality
as adjustive to external source and as denial or sacrifice of self.
(B)
The deny/sacrifice self now to get later was like the deny/sacrifice
self now to get now
group in terms of changing
to an expression of self type when change took place centrally.
(C)
The deny/sacrifice self now to get later group was not
like the deny/sacrifice self now to get now in terms of
effective
change forces. The former responded to higher authority, the latter
responded to peer authority.
(D)
The deny/sacrifice self now to get later was not like the deny/sacrifice
self now to
get now in terms of judged
freedom to
behave.
(E)
The deny/sacrifice self now to get later was not
like the deny/sacrifice self now toget
now in terms of the source
of authority as to healthy behavior.
(F)
The express self rationally for what self desires
without shame or 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 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 of self form when central
change took place.
(H)
The express self rationally for what self desires
without shame or guilt was not like
the express self but not
at the expense of others in terms of effective change force. The express
self rationally for what self desires
without shame or guilt subjects responded only to self procured information or to self thought.
The express
self but not at the expense of others responded to information or thought regardless of
the source.
(I)
The express self rationally for what self desires
without shame or guilt group was not
like the express self
but not at the expense of others type in terms of judged
freedom to behave.
(J)
The express self rationally for what self desires
without same or guilt type was not
like the express self
but not at the expense of others in terms of taking advantage of others.
This conflictual data, however, started to make some sense when
the change data was combined with the freedom to behave in a novel
situation data. Now, if one hypothesized that adult man moved from fewer
degrees of behavioral freedom to more degrees of behavioral freedom, he
then had dictated to him the hierarchy, {4} sacrifice now to get later,
{5} to express self rationally for what self desires without shame or
guilt, {6} to sacrifice now to get now, {7) to express self but not at
the expense of others, {8} to possibly adjust self to existential
realities. But, this was still the germinal stage of an idea. It was
necessary to explore further.
When these data took the peculiar character noted above, several
other studies were carried out in an attempt to see if further
information might possibly clarify the conflict in the data and support
the idea of systems.
XII.
The Basic results of Peer and Authority Criticism:
1.
Some changed as shown below:
Deny/Sacrifice
Self for reward later (a) changed to –
Express Self for self gain but calculatedly (a) which changed to
–
Deny/Sacrifice
Self now to get acceptance now (b) which changed to –
Express Self but not at the expense of others (b) which
surprisingly
changed to a conception not found in the original
data –
(c) Deny/Sacrifice Self to existential realities.
2.
Another class of conceptions, not found initially in the
above categories, but
discovered later (with examples
found in earlier data collection):
Express self impulsively at any cost.
3.
When this conception changed – it changed into:
Deny/Sacrifice
Self for reward later (a)
|