False Humility: Why Feeling Inferior is All About You

When teaching my students about psychological defenses, most of them often have a pretty good understanding of the superiority complex.  They easily describe the school bully, who enacts a type of superiority in order to mask his sense of inferiority, or the short guy whose inferiority takes the form of a Napoleon complex, or the other “short guy” who has the biggest truck in the parking lot.  They understand that behaving in these superior ways often belies a deeper sense of (real or imagined) inferiority or inadequacy.  To be sure, this is a rather sophisticated understanding of this psychological phenomenon.  An understanding that is in line with Alfred Adler’s original description of the superiority complex: “If we inquire into a superiority complex and study it continuity, we can always find a more or less hidden inferiority complex” (Adler, The Science of Living, Chapter 2, page 2).

However, what is often less well understood is the complexity of the opposing complex: The Inferiority Complex.  When asked about it, my students shrug or guess that it’s another name for the superiority complex.  Indeed, popular descriptions of the two have been conflated.  This is understandable as the above quote on the superiority complex is immediately preceded by Adler’s contention that “We should not be astonished if in the cases where we see an inferiority complex, we find a superiority complex more or less hidden.”  So, these two complexes are reflections of each other and might even be described as two sides of the same coin.  They are similar in that both are egocentric complexes, where one form is generally found to be masking the other and both; however, their manifestations appear quite different.

Popularly the inferiority complex is often described as a type of self-loathing resulting from being compared or comparing oneself to others.  The implication is that this causes the individual to have a devalued (inferior) sense of themselves and/or their abilities in whole or in part.  Yet, this is only a half-understanding of the complex and altogether misses the root of the problem.  Like the superiority complex, where the expression of superiority is understood to be a façade masking a deeper felt (sometimes unconscious) sense of inferiority; the inferiority complex is also a façade that masks a deeper felt (sometimes unconscious) sense of superiority.

How else could a sense of inferiority emerge except from a deep-down sense that one really is (or should be) superior?

While not necessarily evidence of a full inferiority complex, examples of this dynamic are observable when we do things like reject praise we duly deserve, fish for compliments via self-deprecation (e.g., humble-bragging), or portray helplessness in situations in which we have power.

In a society that on the one hand espouses the virtues of humility, while also promoting self-importance, the inferiority complex emerges as one way that we try to reconcile these two disparate ideals.  The problem is that this complex, which at first glance may appear to be aligned with humility, is primarily self-serving and has more to do with narcissism than with true humility.  The ways in which we decry our inferiority only serve to call attention back to ourselves, where we hope others will recognize our true brilliance or lift us up to such a place.  In other cases, our expressions of inferiority serve as a means to abdicate responsibility in our lives – to throw our hands up in situations where acknowledging our power means being held accountable for how, when, and if we use it.  The truth is that having power (in any its many forms, e.g. influence, intelligence, beauty, money, privilege, etc.) while denying it or insisting that it is inconsequential is a veiled attempt at obtaining more of it.

When asked about the difference between an inferiority complex and humility, the monk Radhanath Swami responded, “An inferiority complex is when the (false) ego is frustrated; whereas, humility is when the (false) ego is rejected.”  He goes on to explain that inferiority is often about appearances.  In a society that glamourizes humility, the enactment of humility becomes more important than a true embodiment of it.  True humility doesn’t seek happiness in the recognition of others, and in that way, has no one to feel inferior to.

Decoding Your Myers-Briggs Personality (Part 2): Sensation & iNtuition

When you ask a person: “How do you know that?” you are asking them to draw on their perceptive trait – the second letter of the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator.  This trait drives how we become interested in one thing over the other, and most importantly it determines how we understand and how we explain. 

Sensation is the process of conscious awareness, and iNtuition is the process of unconscious awareness. 

Everyone has some degree of both perceptive traits.  iNtuitive individuals have a Sensing function that is subordinate to their iNtuition, and vice versa.  However, the dominant perceptive trait reflects the primary way a person perceives his/her world.

The perceptive processes are not simply passive in their nature.  They are generative -- helping the individual to formulate understanding and expectation.  Jung said that these traits are not “mere reactive process[es] of no further importance for the object."  He called them, "almost actions, which seize and shape the object...active and creative processes that [must] build into the object just as much as they take out.” 

The Sensation and iNtuition represent fundamental differences in how individuals interpret their environment and how they interpret themselves.  Sensers see the world as it is, and iNtuitives see the world as it might be. It may be because of this fundamental difference that people tend to relate best with others that share their same perceptive trait.  Indeed, the opposite is also true; i.e. iNtuitves may find Sensers too literal and unimaginative, while Sensers may find iNtuitives too abstract and unrealistic.  

SENSATION

Sensers focus on the present, concrete details, and are primarily oriented toward what is available to them through their five senses.

The Sense trait is directly to-do with how an individual perceives present reality to actually exist.  They are concerned with seeing the world as it is, accurately and without affectation.  

"His ideal is the actual, [and] he has no ideals related to ideas.”

Because of this, Sensers are more likely to seek out concrete and (seemingly) definitive ways of understanding things.  They will favor explanations that are grounded in what is provable rather than what "could be." 

For example, a Senser would be more likely to attribute the cause of a headache to skipping breakfast (which is provable) than to stress (which is less provable). 

Regarding individuals with this trait, Jung writes: “Nothing can be more than concrete and actual; conjectures that transcend, or go beyond the concrete, are only permitted on condition that they enhance sensation [or what is real]."

As well, Sensers are more likely to be drawn to things that "appeal to the senses."  That is, things that are objectively and presently appealing, rather than things that are potentially or relatedly appealing. For example, someone with a Sense dominant trait would more likely be interested in buying a well-maintained, furnished house over a promising fixer-upper.

In some cases, when someone with a strong S trait experiences a sensation that is out of line with reality – whether due to their unacknowledged intuition or some type of unconscious desire – Sensers may insist that their subjective perception is the objective truth.  This is a type of projection -- a defense mechanism.  Consider a painter, who after a frightening encounter with an unfriendly dog, produces a painting of the dog as snarling and foaming at the mouth with oversized teeth and beady eyes.  The Sensing painter may well insist the depiction is a true to form: an objective and unexaggerated account.  When in truth, the dog likely appeared far less menacing. The Senser’s intuition about the dog has unconsciously influenced what he believes to be an objective understanding.  

INTUITION

If the role of Sensation is to "discover the realities" of the objective situation, then the role of iNtuition is to "discover the possibilities" of that same situation.  iNtuition helps us see beyond the literal data of our objective sensations.  It is responsible for our ability to make connections, predict, and understand things outside of what is immediately evident. 

Jung notes that while the iNtuitive does have sensations, she “is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for [her] distant vision.” 

Unlike the Senser, the iNtuitive is oriented by this expanded vision, rather than by what arouses the strongest physiological sensation.  Instead, the iNtuitive is directed towards sensations that are expanded by her unconscious knowledge and attitudes. 

For example, a woman with a strong iNtuitive trait might be drawn to a particular dress that appeals to her because it (unconsciously) reminds her of her mother, or perhaps some other fond association.  That is to say, the dress has not stood out in an objective sense – e.g. the dress is the brightest, best cut, most popular, least expensive, etc. 

In many cases the iNtuitive will be unaware of the many of the contingencies driving their interest, since much of the related content may be unconscious to them or at least "subconscious."  In these cases, when the iNtuitive woman is asked why she like a particular dress, she may believe that her interest is based on (objective) sensations (i.e., “I like it because it’s the most beautiful") or she may be unclear as to specific source of her interest, and simply acknowledge: “I don’t know; I just liked it.”

In this way, you might call iNtuitives less connected to the present situation, focusing not on what is immediately in front of them, but instead bringing-to-bare an unconscious culmination of their past experiences, which is overlaid into their initial perception of reality in order to predict its course or envision the whole.  

“The intuitive is represented by a certain attitude of expectation: a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was ‘perceived-into’.”

This, of course, has its draw-backs, as attending to "what could be" often defers attending to "what is."  This type of looking to the future can also bring with it a persistent dissatisfaction with things as they are.  As Jung notes, “because his eye is constantly ranging for new possibilities, stable conditions have an air of impending suffocation.”

-----

Both traits have their strengths and their weaknesses.  Sensation helps us to see things objectively, as they are in the present.  While, iNtuition helps us to see beyond what is obvious and envision what might be.  They are not unlike the rods and cones in our eyes, whose similar and yet specialized functions enhance and complement one another.

In Jung's view, the complementary relationship in these traits is transpersonal in nature – helping the whole of humanity achieve balance between “what is” and “what might be.” 

---

Do the descriptions above match your experience being a Senser or an iNtuitive?  If so/not, let me know by comment or tweet. 

In Part 3, I'll talk about the third letter of the Myers-Briggs, the Judging traits: Thinking and Feeling.

Overcoming Masturbation Procrastination (or Procrasturbation)

(Excerpt) 

“Five orgasms a day,” I said, barely glancing up from my knitting. “Minimum.”

Her eyes grew large.  ”How do you manage that?” she asked.

“Two orgasms upon waking, two before sleep, and at least another one sometime during the day. It keeps me happy. I’m in a much better mood when I cum regularly.”

She sounded confused. “But you don’t live with anyone; how do you have sex before and after sleep to get your orgasm quota?”

I looked up, surprised at the question. “The five orgasm minimum is self-generated. When I have time with a lover, often that number goes up. I reach my orgasm quota by myself, no problem.”

... See the full article here (link). 

You're Addicted to What? Challenging the Myth of Sex Addition

You're Addicted to What? | The Humanist:

The addiction model starts with “we admitted we were powerless.” The therapy model starts with “you’re responsible for your choices; I wonder why you keep doing what gives you what you say you don’t want?”

What this means for humanists [psychotherapists]

• The sex addiction movement exploits people’s fear of their own sexuality. As humanists we oppose anything that exploits fear.
• Recalling that sex addiction is a fairly new concept, we can observe the historical and cultural context from which the movement emerged—not a sexological context as much as a narrative about fear, danger, powerlessness, and victimization.
• The sex addiction model inevitably tells us that eroticism needs to be controlled, and that erotica and commercial sex are dangerous and problematic. This means that the sex addiction movement, with the help of the religious right, supports public policy focused on controlling sexuality. Unfortunately it has been very successful in that regard.
• The sex addiction model tells us that imagination has no healthy role to play in sexuality. This fundamental misunderstanding of human nature is very much our business.

The issue of what to call sexual behavior that is described as out of control is important not just for society in general, but for humanists in particular. To the extent that the sex addiction movement trivializes science as just one of many different perspectives, it affects us. To the extent that it tries to squeeze people into a small normative box of sexual behavior, it’s relevant to our cause. And to the extent that it pathologizes behavior that doesn’t hurt other people, it’s a prime example of what a humanist public policy would replace.

Dr. Marty Klein is a licensed marriage and family therapist and certified sex therapist in Palo Alto, California. He is on the editorial advisory board of the Humanist, and he recently spoke at the AHA annual conference.