How Do Highly Gifted Adults Show Developmental Potential? Part 2
Inner Growth. Self-Actualization. What are they?
Welcome to Part 2 of the three-part series we’re sharing from Dr. this month. You can find Part 1 here.
Once again we visit Gifted Adults in Their 40s and 50s during the 1990s — from Environmental, Familial, and Personal Factors That Affect the Self-Actualization of Highly Gifted Adults: Case Studies. Also published in the peer reviewed (and more edited) book, Morality, Ethics, and Gifted Minds.
Introduction to Dabrowski’s Levels II and III from the Study of Highly Gifted Adults
For the current discussion, it is necessary to review the thoughts that went into decisions related to how the adult subjects were initially ranked by their emotional and moral development. It’s important to be aware of the thoughts of others who have studied the topics, too.
Gifted Through the Lifespan is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support Dr. Ruf’s work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
In a study that looked at how gifted adolescents might demonstrate potential for personal growth, two main patterns of development were found: rational-altruistic and introspective-emotional (Piechowski, 1989). The first pattern resembles Peck and Havighurst’s (1960) rational-altruistic type and foreclosure identity as defined by Marcia (1980) — individuals who establish their identity without going through a developmental crisis. According to Peck and Havighurst, such a person is
“rational” because he assesses each new action and its effects realistically, in the light of internalized moral principles derived from social experience; and he is “altruistic,” because he is ultimately interested in the welfare of others, as well as himself … He wants everyone to work constructively in some area and produce results useful to everyone. He sees relations with others as pleasant, cooperative effort toward mutual goals … As an adult, he assumes an appropriate share of responsibility in his role as a member of a family, community, nation … He reacts with emotion appropriate to the occasion. This does not mean he is unemotional, for he is enthusiastic about promoting what is good and aroused to prevent what is bad. (Peck & Havighurst, 1960, p. 8).
This description corresponds most closely with Dabrowski’s Level II:
The second type of personal growth — introspective-emotional — is more likely to be both troubling and transforming to the individual. It describes personal growth guided by powerful ideals, asking moral questions, expressing existential concerns, and exercising methodical self-judgment in the task of inner transformation. When the process is especially intense and sustained, its result is self-actualizing growth of the kind observed in spiritual leaders and other individuals of high moral character.
Rest describes in detail the kind of people who score highest on the DIT. The description resonates with that of the self-actualizing person described by Maslow. Although it leaves out any hint of the anguish of the positive disintegrations in Dabrowski’s theory, it gives a good picture of the goal:
The people who develop in moral judgment are those who love to learn, who seek new challenges, who enjoy intellectually stimulating environments, who are reflective, who make plans and set goals, who take risks, who see themselves in the larger social contexts of history and institutions and broad cultural trends, who take responsibility for themselves and their environs. On the environmental side of the equation, those who develop in moral judgment have an advantage in receiving encouragement to continue their education and their development. They profit from stimulating and challenging environments, and from social milieus that support their work, interest them, and reward their accomplishments. As young adults, the people who develop in moral judgment are more fulfilled in their career aspirations, have set a life direction of continued intellectual stimulation and challenge, are more involved in their communities, and take more interest in the larger societal issues. This pattern is one of general social/cognitive development (Rest, 1986, p. 57). [Italics added]
Based on results of this research, it can be argued that the self-actualizing person, as described by Maslow, Dabrowski, and Rest, exhibits all of these strengths and tendencies after achieving advanced emotional growth. As will be shown in the examination of Dabrowski Level II and III subjects, not all advanced emotional and moral reasoners at Level III experienced encouragement, yet some were nonetheless able to do their inner work.
The data support the notion that there are both internal and external factors that lead to advanced levels of emotional and moral reasoning. Furthermore, as the analysis of the case study material progressed, it became evident that there is reason to consider “advanced level” of emotional and moral reasoning as not being necessarily suited for everyone. It is important to keep an open mind about what advanced level of emotional growth is and is not. The lives the different participants led vary enormously. The happiness and contentment often reported by subjects at “lower” levels ought to be respected rather than treated with condescension.
In line with the finding that Searchers are open to inner change, all of the subjects who are categorized as Searchers are placed at Dabrowski Level III or higher. There is also a consistent pattern in the DIT scores with low to high scores coinciding with the emotional development levels. The lowest DIT score received by a Searcher is 67.8.
All subjects who are categorized as Nonsearchers are placed in Levels I and II of Dabrowski’s framework, and the highest DIT score among Nonsearchers is a 55.9.
There appear to be two types of Nonsearchers. One type gives evidence of trying hard to be a good person by being hard-working, responsible, and nice. They generally sound optimistic and earned Tone scores of 1, 2, and 3. They often state directly or indirectly that they hope their behaviors and attitudes and accomplishments will change those around them to be more accepting of and loving toward them. They work hard on finding meaning and value in their lives through avenues that others find acceptable. The motivation seems to come from a desire for love and approval. It is as though they are saying, “I’ll know I’ve found it when others tell me I am good.” Often this first type of Nonsearcher discovered early in life how to formulate and meet goals, and having been successful at meeting those goals, has remained with the original plan.
Additionally, this first type of Nonsearcher usually finds career and financial success.
The second type of Nonsearcher is the person who states that life is the way it is, fine or otherwise, and there is no point in trying to change anything. These are the subjects who always have someone else or some circumstance to blame for their own shortcomings or underachievement. Rather than being highly encouraged, motivated, or guided by outside people or institutions, as described in Level II’s stereotypical roles, these Nonsearcher subjects already have all their own answers. All of the second type of Nonsearchers sound angry, cynical, or negative and earned Tone scores of 3, 4, and 5.
People who hold on hard to resentments, viewpoints, and their ways of viewing life — whether it makes them happy or not — appear to be highly resistant to positive disintegrations. Unless they examine the way they are and explore the possibility of discarding viewpoints and behaviors, real inner change is unlikely. It could be that change is frightening and disorienting, and to people who may have already experienced abusive and confusing treatment, whether they personally recognize it or not, losing control is too frightening to consider.
For the full Table of the 41 cases, see Ambrose & Cross (2009, p. 277).
Within each Dabrowski level group, the subjects are sorted by DIT ascending scores, their age at the time of taking the DIT, the Tone score, and whether or not they reported that they were abused or received therapy. It also lists whether the subjects appeared to be Searchers, Neutral (Not Clear), or Nonsearchers.
Aspects of Giftedness That Make the Journey More Difficult
Being highly gifted usually means you spend much of your life, and certainly most of your school years, being different from many of the other people around you. Reactions to this differ, of course, with some feeling superior and misunderstood and yet others feeling something is wrong with them somehow. It may be a result of feeling like an outsider — and often being treated as an outsider — that many, but not all, Level II reasoners from the study don’t have a lot of friends. Many talk about other people in a critical, un-empathetic manner. The tone of their complaints indicates both a disapproval of others and an apparent belief that others could easily change if they would only try. It is possible — even likely — that for some highly gifted people, feeling too different and too alone — like an outsider — is a significant hurdle to overcome on the path to self-actualization.
Can We Identify Developmental Potential?
In this re-examination of the Highly Gifted Cases, the goal is to identify possible precursors or predispositions to advanced development as well as possible outside influences or support that increase the chances a person will self-actualize.
Dabrowski Level Two Subjects
Part of fitting Level II means the subjects do not give evidence of self-actualizing behaviors, whereas Level III subjects give indications of experiencing positive disintegrations and are on the path to self-actualizing growth. What does this transition look like and can we identify who among Level II people are most likely to transition to Level III? Does the transition happen naturally or are there things that happen — experiences, other people, world events — that trigger a new outlook and an openness to change? Are some people simply more resilient and more open to change? Do early bad experiences cause either getting “stuck” at a conventional level or having the drive to move on?
Nineteen subjects, 7 women and 12 men, nearly half of the highly gifted group, had case material judged as belonging within Level II: Stereotypical Roles (see Tables 1 and 2).
Stereotypical Roles: Highly influenced by others, values introjected from parents, church, etc., relativistic, situational values, conflicted feelings, contradictory actions, desire for acceptance, feelings of inadequacy compared to others, lack of hierarchy of values.
Dabrowski’s Level II, similar to Kohlberg’s Conventional Level, describes people who tend to function well in society. It’s about societal norms and such norms are what give many people a guide to what is right or wrong, good or bad. Level II people understand and generally abide by the rules, stated and unstated. They understand the culture of their society and try to fit in and show pride and pleasure when they do. Positive feedback that they have succeeded to meet or exceed society’s norms is often important and encouraging to them.
Remember, there are many, including the author of the DIT, who believe that education increases moral reasoning. There certainly is a correlation between educational level and DIT scores, but once we remove the intelligence and education factors, we no longer see this correlation. By remove, I mean all the subjects here have both high educational levels and high intelligence. And yet they diverge in their inner growth and self-actualization levels.
Despite their high intellectual ability, 24 of the 41 participants in the full study appeared to reason and operate at stages that are conventional or lower, which certainly suggests that neither intellectual nor educational level guarantee more advanced emotional or moral development. So, what other factors might contribute to highly gifted adults at mid-life remaining at a conventional or stereotypical level? And, can we spot indicators that some of these people still show potential for self-actualizing behaviors and thinking — for advanced development?
Table 2 Dabrowski Level II Summary
What Characteristics Do the Level II Subjects Share?
All Level II cases are listed as Nonsearchers or Not Clear. Nonsearchers make statements that indicate their need to be in control of their environments and particularly themselves within their environment. The Not Clear (formerly Neutral) people — those who were not clearly Searchers or Nonsearchers — do not clearly indicate as strong a need for such control. They write that they were and are highly influenced by others. “Others” included not only their parents and church but societal rules, laws, and possible rewards. They were motivated by positive feedback from others about their actions and accomplishments. This stood out when compared with people at higher emotional levels.
The details of the personal backgrounds of each subject are available in the original study (1998). Selected statements reveal how a person views his or her life. As we seek to identify developmental potential in our sample of highly gifted adults, we note common characteristics of Level II cases that are not shared with Level III cases. In the final section we will discuss what incidents, experiences, opportunities, or times in life seem to lead some — but not all — to grow toward self-actualizing behaviors and attitudes.
Dependence on External Validation
We all need some external validation in order to validate that how we conduct our lives is going in the right direction, but we see a significant dependence on external validation among many Level II people. These are people who “know” what a good person is and many of them admit they care very much about positive attention and approval of others — especially people in authority — to acknowledge their goodness and their good works. Many of the subjects from this group report that they did not receive sufficient emotional support during their childhoods. Many consistently tried to be good and to please others hoping to receive positive emotional feedback. Such a need was perhaps the impetus for high career success in a number of the subjects. As highly and profoundly gifted people, they could almost always do whatever work or jobs that needed to be done better than most of the people they knew. Many were outwardly successful. They achieved self-actualization in their careers without undergoing the inner changes of inner self-actualization. Most had high Tone scores and were happy with their lives.
Here are a few typical examples from the cases that show evidence of a need for external validation, i.e. feedback and acknowledgment that they are a good person who adheres to societal norms.
#31F reported that many people in her career field strongly encouraged her. She won numerous community, state, and even national awards for her work. She said that all of these contributed to her drive to succeed, contribute, and make a difference.
#2F admitted to having a great need to please others and to be accepted by others, distinctly Level II issues.
#28M spent time doing things that gave him little satisfaction because, “I thought I had to, that’s what you are supposed to do.”
Acceptance of Status Quo
People in Level II tend not to question the status quo even when they don’t like it. That’s the way it is and you have to adjust and accept it.
#14M said that he may drink too much, and also mentioned that his family almost broke up a number of years ago, “But my wife saved me.” Evidence that he was not a Searcher came from the following responses: “I’m resigned to it,” was in reference to difficulty balancing work and child rearing; and “Accept the status quo,” was his response to what he would change if he could. He admitted to getting migraines when he is stressed and said he had a lot of migraines. He was also bored and unchallenged in school but “wouldn’t change” anything. Again, this is a person who sees problems but simply accepts that that’s the way it is.
#14M had — according to his written responses — loving, nurturing parents who believed in his ability to succeed. He graduated from among the country’s most competitive schools, was a successful leader in his chosen field, and had a long-term, successful marriage. By all appearances he was a self-actualized, successful individual certainly “living up to his potential.” But he admitted to feeling stifled and trapped.
#39F was raised under circumstances that were probably the most obviously abusive of any in this study. When she was 3 years old, her mother committed suicide at age 26. The children were sent to live in an orphanage and with various relatives for the next 6 years until the father married a woman who was a physically and emotionally abusive alcoholic.
#39F did not begin to question her past until her late thirties “when my then-husband began training as a family social worker. I have to say…that it came as a shock to me as an adult to read about child abuse and neglect and see my siblings and myself in the stories I read.”
She met her first husband, who was studying for the ministry, through a Pentecostal Christian church. They were married for about 10 years and had three children before he revealed that he was gay and asked to end the marriage. This event was probably the major turning point in her life in that it began her questioning everything about life. She began long term therapy, changed churches, and then recognized that she needed to change. Having had no good parenting role models, she discovered a need to learn how to parent her own children, as well.
A number of her observations indicated that #39F still concentrated more on changing her environment than herself, however. In fact, about to remarry, she had just reached an opportunity to experience a conventional lifestyle, perhaps for the first time. Her changes, to that point, were mostly external, and that was why she was classified at Level II. Her general resilience, and willingness to seek help through therapy, indicated she was at this point a Not Clear — rather than Nonsearcher — regarding inner growth potential.
Need for Clear Answers — Little Room for Shades of Gray
The values held by people at Level II are those imposed or chosen for them by parents, church, and society. Hence, they lack a hierarchy of values. People at higher Dabrowski levels may eventually choose traditional and standard values for themselves, but it is after they review and examine the ideas for themselves. Also, considering the developmental nature of emotional growth, the subjects at higher developmental levels usually discard old ideas before they develop new ones. The next examples show people who are still looking for solid answers, which is not the same as being Searchers.
“Religion is necessary to an orderly society. Collective rights as espoused by religious thought are important,” wrote #14M.
#28M wrote that a lack of parental feedback in childhood left him feeling rudderless and unloved. He explained that his religion gave him the answer to everything. But, significantly, at no time did either subject mention any religious or spiritual beliefs, or how they came to these, of their own.
One clue as to whether a person has started to move toward self-actualizing is when they start to question rules and values passed on from others.
#20M was never been married and is gay. “Not ‘in the closet’ because there’s nothing to be ‘in the closet’ about. Celibate. Have no ‘second life.’ Am OK with this.” He had no life partner but did have numerous satisfying relationships with adults and students. He enjoyed concerts, travel, “civilized conversation”, and a strong and satisfying Catholic faith. At the time of his last correspondence with the study, he wrote, “Have terminal cancer (liver) now. But, it’s OK. My religious convictions — of lifelong standing — make it possible to cope well enough.”
#20M never felt suicidal himself but gave this advice for a troubled young person:
The largest questions are the best, not the worst, indicators of the value of life. Religious values are the ultimate ones. There are reasons for things, however unimportant they are from time to time. Things become clearer after one believes, because then one understands.
#20M’s 58.3 DIT score of 58.3 placed him with the descriptions of other similarly scoring subjects at Kohlberg’s Stage 4 of “Maintain Social Order.” This fits well, too, with Dabrowski’s Level II: Stereotypical Roles, for a number of reasons. Although he was gay, he did not act on it. He did not describe going through emotional or developmental crises over this issue or any other. His strong faith gave him the answers.
The Developmental chart, Table 1, says of Dabrowski’s Level II: “Highly influenced by others, values introjected from parents, church, etc.” His homosexuality and his pending death from liver cancer were accepted as that’s the way it is with the conclusion that there was an answer even if he did not know it personally. He was at peace and loved life, but he loved it as a calm Level II rather than as a result of going through the turmoil and questioning of a positive disintegration of the self-actualizers described in Dabrowski Levels IV and V.
Blaming Others, Excuse Making and Unrealistic Interpretation of the Past
The subjects had a variety of attitudes toward their childhoods and their current circumstances. A significant number of Level II cases, indicated by low Tone sores, showed a bitterness and anger over their lives. Another group had higher Tone scores because of the way they frame their circumstances. For example, they may recount bad circumstances but minimize any affects on them.
Others revealed that they felt somewhat powerless but accepting, as though there isn’t anything they can do to change their unhappiness, lack of success, or whatever else is keeping them from feeling fulfilled.
In either case, there is a certain amount of blaming others. Blaming others or playing the victim are two sides of the same coin in that the person remains emotionally stuck. Examples of these attitudes and of unresolved childhood issues emerged in the majority of Level II subjects. As you read these examples, note how some of the people say it didn’t really affect them or they’re “over it.”
Level III cases didn’t have “better” childhoods but their interpretation of their pasts is more pragmatic and they have found a way to move past blaming their pasts, their parents, and themselves without denying or wallowing in it. People in Level III, IV or V have let go of bitterness and resentment. Holding on to such negative feelings by mid-life indicates a person who is not showing growth toward self-actualizing.
#27M as an adult was so negative about himself and his life that he gave evidence of being stuck in a cycle that kept him blaming everyone and everything else for his unhappiness:
“The other kids avoided me because I was a ‘brain. I thought I was intellectually peerless, from an average family and therefore shunned by the elite, untalented in art or athletics, interested in books and math that others didn’t care about, and lacking ambition. How can one have ambition to become rich, for example, without self-confidence?
#15F was clearly contradictory in her descriptions of her idyllic childhood, and yet she seemed to have difficulty seeing it herself. For example,
When I was 4 years old I went to another city by myself (unbeknownst to my parents) to visit my father who had been working for a while at a UN hospital. They just thought what I did was charming! They valued my independence and emotional strength. They never tried to limit me.
Yet, later in the inventory, when asked whether or not she was ever sexually abused during childhood, subject #15F wrote, “I was always protected, shielded and nurtured emotionally and physically.” Thinking a 4-year old’s travel alone to another city is “protected” and “shielded” is out of touch with reality but is the story she still tells herself, perhaps to avoid examining the possibility that she wasn’t as protected as she thought.
As with many emotionally abused people, particularly those who fit the Nonsearcher description, subject #31F wrote as though she had convinced herself that the negative treatment she received contributed to her growth and strength.
“I think I have continued to grow in adulthood, and a great deal of my growth may be in reaction to a husband who sees the downside of everything I accomplish.” She continued to hope that her marriage will improve.
She added,
“I don’t think I would be as strong as I am today if I hadn’t had the lack of positive family support I have had. I’ve enjoyed the hurdles, if only for their character-building. BUT, I would never do what was done to me to others!”
#29F described the way her parents disciplined as both gentle and harsh —
“emotional support was implied and seemed conditional. It’s taken me years to feel better about myself.”
Her parents bickered frequently, and this bothered the children greatly. She would change her parents:
“Remake the perfectionist mold of expected behavior. However, I wonder if I would have fought so hard to demand their respect if they’d been different.”
This subject’s pattern was to complain about something that hurt her and then rationalize it as probably for the better. This pattern of reasoning seems to accompany lower DIT scores. Her 46.6 DIT score is in the low moderate range for the overall group.
Experiences of the next two subjects are typical for many subjects at every Dabrowski Level, but the continuing internalization of the negative messages is characteristic of only the first two Dabrowski Levels.
#27M showed his awareness of the damage his home life caused him when he said,
“I would like to have had a mother who was not hostile to me, who would not tell me I was an oddball and a misfit who’d never amount to anything.”
#31F wrote,
“My mother actually told me several times she didn’t want me.”
I Can Do It Myself
It is typical of people at Level II to talk about trying hard and being self-sufficient and independent. Only two of the 19 cases in Level II ever sought therapy or counseling. There’s a resistance to asking for or receiving help. It is possible that the way these subjects respond to negative conditions is at the core a need to hold on tightly to self-control. Too much control makes it difficult to “let go” of familiar notions or behavioral tactics whether or not they appear to work. The very process of positive disintegration, a Level III experience, requires a letting go of old notions. The subjects in Level II don’t appear to have more emotional abuse in their childhoods than cases at higher numbered levels.
The language of people still at Level II shows a determination to try harder rather than try something completely different.
#25M wrote that he was re-assessing his career, his parenting, and himself, all signs that he wanted to do better in his life. But that is not the same as a willingness to grow and change. For example, he was asked not to return to his new position of high school science teacher because he continued to hold firmly to his conviction that he should teach the top students in the class and the other students should go elsewhere. When someone is stuck seeing only one way to honor their convictions, they are not showing a self-actualizing attitude.
People who are not Searchers have attitudes that maintain a perception of control in their lives while protecting them from the pain or turmoil that feelings of helplessness or rejection can bring. People who have not progressed beyond Level II tend not to be emotional risk-takers.
#31F said, “I can’t say that I’ve ever seriously contemplated suicide. I feel I do have control over my life and what happens to me and I have enough smarts to overcome any hurdles put up by others.”
#11M was satisfied with his school performance, “especially after I decided to ‘forget’ the rules and assignments and learn what I wished.” If he could, he would change, “The tight structure that forced me, or tried to, to learn what they believed was important — I was best at educating myself.” This was another example of how Nonsearchers, and the lower DIT scorers, showed pride in their self-sufficiency and control of their environment.
#15F mentioned no religious or spiritual issues, no angers, no concerns, and no changes she would make in anything. Her DIT score was an average, for the entire study group, of 55.9. In another section of the paper she is quoted for her reaction to the issue of not “fitting in”:
“It was good for me. I never felt I had to fit in. Still don’t!”
This attitude was common among people who did not experience active self-doubt but demonstrated that they believed in their own power to make their lives go correctly. The sort of severe emotional turmoil of positive disintegrations was not apparent here.
#9M showed a lack of intimate relationships, a common trait of non-actualizers. He had many acquaintances but few friends. He was happily married and said he was not lonely or unfulfilled.” He had at least one close friend at different stages of his childhood but was never one to confide much in friends. He was content, as well, to do things on his own.
“I used alcohol to excess until 2 years ago, when I stopped voluntarily and without support group help.”
Alcoholism is known to retard emotional development, and alcohol abuse was mentioned by a number of male subjects, all of whom scored in the average to below average range for the group on the DIT. Like most moderate to low DIT scorers, #9M had never felt suicidal. His advice to a troubled young person further demonstrated his conviction that it is good to manage your life yourself without the help of others.
I would talk about relative values; need to exist for self, not others; need to establish goals, expand interest, rely on self. Would provide alternatives and assistance, to get into ‘healthy’ frame of mind. (I would do all this after listening and providing empathy).
His attitude demonstrated a lack of Gemeinschaftsgefuhl, or brotherly love, and a lack of a sense of responsibility and service to self and others found in Level IV subjects. It is not bad or wrong but it is disconnected. If somehow disabled in any way, for example, a person who counts so completely on himself will not be comfortable asking for assistance.
#23M’s reading and behavior, described in his case, all indicate that he is searching for answers, but his hostility and resentments indicate that he still blamed others and believed he had all the answers. He was not a Nonsearcher because he is too restlessly trying to figure things out. He still held on quite tightly to self-control, though, and seemed unwilling to really change himself. He is categorized as Not Clear rather than Searcher for that reason.
Judging and Misjudging Others
Many Level II subjects show a disdain for others who don’t “try hard” or do their own work well, seem un-empathetic, and feel lonely and on their own. When someone is too different — by virtue of their intellectual level — than those around them, and yet grow up in a society that values hard work and modesty, it might be more difficult for such people both to “fit in” and to find real friendships. They are likely to second-guess what’s keeping them from finding these good connections, with many subjects concluding that there is something inherently wrong with them. When people find others with whom they share values, abilities, humor, they feel normal and accepted more easily than do people who are outliers. This is one reason many of them spend the majority of their time with others who are very different from them.
Although #2F found friends and acceptance in a number of ability grouped classes (it was common during the childhoods of these subjects to have ability grouping for most school subjects every day), a number of students, according to her report, who were “not as motivated to try hard,” picked on her, teased her, and seemed to resent her. Even as an adult she interpreted her classmates’ behavior as being due to their low motivation to try hard and their resentment of her for being more motivated. Subjects who scored higher on the DIT and who were categorized at higher Dabrowski levels did not give such negative interpretations to the motivations of others but tended to look at a broader picture.
#11M noted, for example,
“I regard myself as ‘normal’ — this created (and creates) a problem in that I became disillusioned with people around me who constantly fell short of what I regarded as ‘their potential’ — teachers could not, or would not, attempt to answer complex questions — people who seemed to have no passion, people who took the beauty of life for granted.”
Unfortunately, his refusal or inability to accept that he was different, and highly intelligent and capable compared to the norm, made him depressed and intolerant of others.
In adulthood #31F had one woman in whom she occasionally confided, but generally she preferred time alone.
“I realize I should have friends in my life, but I just don’t make very much time to do it … I believe most people like me, but don’t necessarily feel close to me. I think I am ‘too much’ for most people. They’re afraid I’ll judge them, although I’m not very judgmental.”
#25M wrote,
“I have generally been good at my jobs, but I have not been very successful because I am not particularly good at the ‘people’ part of any job. As one who has been continually self-supporting for 21 years, I don’t have a lot of use for people who seem to be able to get but unable to hold onto a job. I am also offended by those who hold jobs but put more effort into avoiding doing anything productive than they do into their duties.”
A good connectedness to others was missing in most Level I and II people.
#14M claimed to be satisfied with most aspects of his life, but he admitted to being lonely. He married his high school sweetheart and they had two children he loved very much. He made no friendship connections at work and wrote, “It’s too difficult and it can be dangerous … I’m lonely. I love my wife and she is my best friend — she’s also my only friend. When I was young I remember other friends — I miss that.”
The last installment of the series is called Dabrowski Level II/III and III. To read more after that, please see the free pdf link below to my entire dissertation.
A free link to my entire dissertation: Click to download
The full PDF of the Ambrose and Cross Morality, Ethics and Gifted Minds book is here. My contribution is in Chapter 20. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/30241/1/26.Don%20Ambrose.pdf
More Writings and Information About Dr. Ruf
Books:
The 5 Levels of Gifted Children Grown Up: What They Tell Us (2023)
and Keys to Successfully Parenting Gifted Children (2022, 2023)
Professional Website: www.FiveLevelsofGifted.com
Dr. Ruf is available for the following services.
Click for details or to schedule:
One-Hour Test Interpretation
Gifted Child Test Interpretation & Guidance (and for Adults, too)
20-Minute Consultation
45-Minute Consultation
One-Hour Consultation
Podcast Interview
Substack: Gifted Through the Lifespan
Medium: https://deborahruf.medium.com/
References and Extra Related Sources
Ambrose, D., Cross, T. (2009) (Eds.) Morality, ethics, and gifted minds. Springer Publishing. https://a.co/d/gCzFbPx
Boehm, L. (1962). The development of conscience: A comparison of American children of different mental and socioeconomic levels. Child Development, 33, 575–590.
Colby, A., and Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment: Vol. I, Theoretical foundations and research validation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: Norton. Falk, R. F., and Miller, N. B. (1998). The reflexive self: A sociological perspective. Roeper Review, 20(3), 150–153.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Flexner, S. B. (Ed.). (1987). The random house dictionary of the English language (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greenspon, T. (1998). The gifted self: Its role in development and emotional health. Roeper Review, 20(3), 162–167.
Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge. Hall, E. G., and Hansen, J. B. (1997).
Self-actualizing men and women: A comparison study. Roeper Review, 20(1), 22–27.
Janos, P. M., Robinson, N. M., and Lunneborg, C. E. (1989). Markedly early entrance to college: A multi-year comparative study of academic performance and psychological adjustment. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 496–518.
Josselson, R. (1991). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Lefton, L. A. (1994). Psychology (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allen & Bacon.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Ballentine Books. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
McGeorge, C. (1975). The susceptibility to faking of the defining issues test of moral development. Developmental Psychology, 44, 116–122.
Narvaez, D. (1993). High achieving students and moral judgment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(3), 268–279.
Nelson, K. C. (1989). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration. Advanced development: A Journal on Adult Giftedness, 1, 1–14.
Peck, R. F., and Havighurst, R. J. (1960). The psychology of character development. New York: Wiley.
Piechowski, M. M. (1975). A theoretical and empirical approach to the study of development. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 92, 231–297.
Piechowski, M. M. (1989). Developmental potential and the growth of self. In J. L. VanTassel Baska and P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the school, and the self (pp. 87–101). New York: Teachers College Press.
Piechowski, M. M., and Silverman, L. K. (1993, July). Dabrowski’s levels of emotional development. Paper presented at the Lake Geneva Dabrowski Conference, Geneva, WI.
Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Rest, J. R., Turiel, E., and Kohlberg, L. (1969). Level of moral judgment as determinant of preference and comprehension made by others. Journal of Personality, 37, 225–252.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Defining issues test, manual. Minneapolis: Center for Ethical Development, University of Minnesota.
Rest, J. R. and Narvaez, D. (1994) (Eds.) Moral development in the professions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ruf, D. L. (2009). Self-actualization and morality of the gifted: Environmental, familial, and personal factors. In, Ambrose, D., Cross, T. (2009) (Eds.) Morality, ethics, and gifted minds, pp. 277–283. Springer Publishing.
Ruf, D. L. (1998). Environmental, familial, and personal factors that affect the self-actualization of highly gifted adults: Case studies. Unpublished dissertation: University of Minnesota.
Scheidel, D., and Marcia, J. (1985). Ego integrity, intimacy, sex role orientation, and gender. Developmental Psychology, 21, 149–160.
Sheehy, G. (1974). Passages: Predictable crises of adult life. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Silverman, L. K. and Kearney K. (1989). Parents of the extraordinarily gifted. In advanced development: A journal on adult giftedness, 1(1), 41–56.
Silverman, L. K. (Ed.) (1993). Counseling the gifted & talented. Denver, CO: Love.
Strauss, W., and Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future. New York: William Morrow.
Turner, J.S., and Helms, D. (1986). Contemporary adulthood (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Harcourt College Publishers.
Walker, L., deVries, B., and Bichard, S. L. (1984). The hierarchical nature of stages of moral development. Developmental Psychology, 20, 960–966.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1995). Educational psychology (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.