22. Experiment and experience, synthesis and analysis (learning methods).

In this chapter, I will add more concepts to the definitions of adaptive-defensive mechanisms.

These concepts are related to learning.

We usually do not pay attention to how important and valuable learning is in our lives.

Personally, I did not pay attention to that either. My life, however, turned out so, that one of the jobs I did was work as a Support Worker with people with learning difficulties. That is, with people whose learning abilities are not fully functional or are somehow disturbed. Among others, they were people with intellectual disabilities (for example, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and others).

Learning difficulties can be caused by many factors. For example, we may have learning difficulties because:
— We are not physically fit, and this can make learning harder, for example, bad eyesight, hard of hearing, loss of body parts, brain injury, etc.
— We may have some chronic diseases that will limit our learning in some areas of our lives, such as epilepsy, various allergies, and others.
— We can suffer from mental disorders that can significantly limit our learning, for example, autism, bipolar disorder, dissociative disorders, etc.
— we may have mental deficits, that can cause learning difficulties such as dyslexia, dysortography, dysgraphia, dyscalculia.
— We may have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
— We may have various neurosis (for example, phobias, obsessions) or traumas which may also make difficult learning.
— And many others.

Thanks to working with people with learning difficulties, I realized how important our learning ability is. And how many problems and hardships can bring various learning disorders.

I also realized that learning is an essential element of our adaptive-defensive mechanisms. Without our learning abilities, it is really difficult to adapt to anything.

Without learning we are actually defenseless and generally it is difficult for us to deal with various life problems and challenges, which include, for example:
— looking for ways to deal with hard situations,
— dealing with new life situations for us,
— troubleshooting,
— discovering something new,
— preparing for new tasks, challenges, works, etc.
— gaining new skills,
— making changes in our life, or acquiring new habits,
— etc.

So, if we deal with the above and similar issues, then we need to learn. And learning is an essential component of adaptive-defensive mechanism.

Since I came to the conclusion that learning is an essential component of adaptive-defensive mechanisms. I began to wonder what learning methods correspond to our four basic mechanisms? It means I began to wonder what concepts I could use to show briefly what the four main learning methods are. Four learning methods that fit into four adaptive-defensive mechanisms.

As a result of my considerations, I came to the conclusion that two pairs of concepts can work well here:

• experience and experiment, which, in my opinion, correspond to a pair of mechanisms—Introversion and Extraversion.
• and analysis and synthesis, which, in my opinion, correspond to a pair of mechanisms—Perceiving and Judging.

Specifically, the comparison of adaptive-defensive mechanisms with learning methods looks as follows:

I think, in general, we can say that we need learning methods to cope with various problems in life. And with constantly changing circumstances, reasons, facts, events, etc. So, these are all kind of variable factors that we need to deal with on a regular basis. And this coping with changing factors often means that we have to continually learn how to deal with these factors.

Changing life factors we can further associate with such concept as—variable. Variables we are using, for example:
— in some research process, that is, during the experiment,
— or during so-called replication, that is, during reconstructing of the experiment. So, it is then when we are getting experience.

Synthesis and analysis, we can also associate with experiment and experience.

Thus, I think we can say that “variables” apply to both pairs, that is:
— experiment and experience, and
— synthesis and analysis.

“Variables” can be divided into:

• dependent, and
• independent.

The concept of dependent and independent variables is used in science, for example, in statistics and mathematics.

According to statistics:
— Independent variables are these, which value we are changing.
— Dependent variables are these, which are only measured.

In mathematics:
— Independent variables are function arguments (denoted as—“x”)
— Dependent variables are function values (denoted as—“y”).

In other words:
— Dependent variables are these on which we have influence, which depends on us (or they are up to us). So, we can these variables change, regulate, measure, manipulate, etc.
— And independent variables are these on which we have no influence, which do not depend on us (or they are not up to us). Or we can assume that some variables are independent of us. That is, we do not manipulate these variables in any way in a given experiment or experience).

In life, if we use the above analogy to “variables”, we can come across them at every step.

For example, if we are coffee lovers, we can, for instance, assume that we have such variables:

• Dependent variables—for example, the amount and strength of coffee, namely:
  — what kind or type of coffee we will make for ourselves,
  — and how many teaspoons we use to brew a cup of coffee.
• Independent variables—that is, what effect a given coffee and its strength will have on us. This effect can be, for example:
  — the degree of stimulation,
  — how long will we have more energy,
  — will we work better,
  — will we be able to focus more,
  — will we be able to sleep afterwards,
  — how will we feel when the coffee stops wording,
  — etc.

For example, if we are doing some work, we can assume that we have such variables:

• Dependent variables are, for example:
  — what work we do,
  — how long,
  — what effort do we put in,
  — what tools and protective clothes we use for it,
  — etc.
• Variables independent of us are, for example:
  — fatigue after work, which we will be not able to do anything with, and we will need rest,
  — the amount of sleep we need to regenerate the body,
  — working conditions, for example, when we have to deal with adverse weather conditions, that is, when it is too cold, too warm, too wet, too windy, too dry, etc.
  — we have no influence on management at work, and we must work on equipment that does not suit us,
  — mental state during and after work, it means, we may have some unpleasant situations at work related to. For example, work with difficult people, after which we will need some time to recover.
  — and many others.

We may think that we do not think about “variables” on a daily basis. And we do not analyze what specific variables we are dealing with? However, if we look closer, it turns out that we do it very often. It means, for example, we often make a distinction:
— what we can change,
— and what we cannot change.

So, we actually assume that in life, we are dealing with:
— dependent variables (namely, that we are dealing with what we can change), and
— independent variables (namely, that we are dealing with what we cannot change).

Each of us, therefore, has our own dependent and independent variables. And each of us must constantly learn how to deal with these variables.

EXPERIENCE and EXPERIMENT

Since experience and experiment are learning methods, I think that it is worth using the considerations and research of people who deal with didactics, that is, learning or teaching methods.

Personally, I am inspired by the reflections and research of Polish Professor Stanisław Dylak. Professor Dylak is a pedagogue, didactic, and pedautologist. He is the Head of Department of Pedautology at the Faculty of Educational Studies of the University of Adam Mickiewicz in Poznań.
(Pedautology it is a branch of pedagogy, researching issues related to the teaching profession).

Professor Dylak’s lectures we can find on the YouTube channel, where he talks about his thoughts, research and projects in a very interesting way. (Unfortunately, these lectures are only in Polish).

Under Professor Dylak’s scientific editorship was published a book entitled “Strategia kształcenia wyprzedzającego” (“Strategy of educating in advance”). This work is co-financed by the European Union under the European Social Fund. Free copy of this handbook is available, for example, at this web address:
https://edustore.eu/download/Strategia_Ksztalcenia_Wyprzedzajacego.pdf

Below are two quotes from this work. These quotes refers to experiment and experience:

In summary, the above quotes show that.

The experiment consists of four stages.

1. Formulation of the problem, which needs to be solved.
2. Formulation—on the basis of collected information and knowledge—of the most likely solutions, namely, hypothesis.
   • distinguishing and defining dependent and independent variables.
3. Implementation of the experiment.
   • observing and controlling dependent and independent variables.
4. Description of the results on the experiment and their interpretation and drawing conclusions.

When it comes to the experience, we can learn from the above quotes that:
“In an experience understood colloquially, we basically do not anticipate results, and certainly, we do not gather knowledge on a given topic—we take action and wait of the result, which we later describe, enriching our knowledge”.

So, thanks to the research team led by Professor Dylak, we can see that the experiment is a very profitable method of learning or teaching. Anyway, the experiment is an important element of the learning-teaching method, promoted by Professor Dylak and his team, known as “Strategia kształcenia wyprzedzającego” (“Strategy of educating in advance”).

From the above, we can see that according to Professor Dylak, it would be beneficial if we will have more experiments in teaching compared to often used experiences.

I do not know how education looks like in school now. But in the ‘70s and ‘80s, when I attended school in Poland, then generally were used experiences, and there were not too many experiments. Since Professor Dylak promotes experimentation, I can guess that there is still a lot to do in this area.

This advantage of experience over the experiment in school intrigued me a lot. I was intrigued, among others, because I recently learned about the so-called replication crisis. We can read about this crisis, for example, on the website:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replikacja_(metoda_naukowa)

In short, this crisis concerns higher education and in general scientific work, where we have too many experiments in relation to the experiences. It means, in the scientific language there are too many researches in relation to replications (that is, reconstructing previously done researches). Replications are very important because it helps confirm researches, which were made earlier. Or we can show that some researches were carried out incorrectly, or we can find some errors to fix in them.

In scientific works, or generally speaking in science, in a sense, research is analogous to experimentation. And the experiences are analogous to replication, that is to reproduce researches to check them.

Regarding the replication crisis, there are now more and more articles about this crisis and how to deal with it. It turns out that many researches done by some scientists have not been reproduced and confirmed by other scientists.

Therefore, too much attention is paid to researches, and there are too little works to confirm these researches. Then, in total, the number of researches that are not confirmed increases. This may cause that we will have an increasing number of unconfirmed researches. That is, researches that we do not know whether they are right or to what extent they are right?

Responsible for this is among others, the more and more corporative character of universities, where nowadays is the famous unwritten motto of action for scientist, namely, “publish or perish”. With this approach, the replications of researches are less attractive to scientists. This is because to a large extent, they are judged based on the number of research publications they have carried out. On the other hand, replication publications are less appreciated.

Fortunately, more and more attention is being paid to replication researches in psychology and medicine. These scientific disciplines are now openly talking about a replication crisis, and they are looking for solutions to these problems. Let us hope that over time this attitude will follow other scientific disciplines as well.

I will not go further into the replication crisis. It is because I am not a scientist, and I can only say here as much as I can find in articles about this topic. So, in a sense, I cannot “replicate” personally what I wrote about the replication crisis.

However, for me, it is interesting that based on what I wrote above about primary and secondary education and higher education, we can say that:
— we have too many experiences compared to experiments—in primary and secondary education. (I base here on the situation in Poland, and I suppose in many other countries it is a similar situation).
— and we have too many experiments compared to experiences (that is, researches in relation to replications)—in higher education and in the scientific world in general.

I think we can draw here a very simple conclusion. It means, it is important the appropriate balance between experiments and experiences (or between researches and replications).

If there is a proper balance between the experiments and experience, then our learning (or teaching) is correct.

Well, how experimenting and experiencing look like in typical life?

In life, we can use experimenting in situations where we do not know what effects our actions can bring. It may be so that we are doing something for the first time or we are doing something with new methods. With the experiment, we do not know what the effects will be. We can only assume or hypothesize what we can receive as a result of our experimental activities.

We are often forced to experimenting in life in situations where we have to deal with various new problems, matters, tasks, difficulties, challenges, etc. We are also experimenting when we want to achieve a goal that we care about very much. It can be a tangible or intangible purpose. In other words, we “experimenting” to achieve something or simply “to have’ something. “To have” something that we need, what we desire, what we wish, what we strive for, what we aim to, etc.

In the Polish language, there is a fascinating word which we can associate with “experimenting”. This word is—załatwiać. It has a very broad meaning. It means, settle, arrange, fix, manage, negotiate, do, get, buy, steal, kill, etc. Its meaning depends on the context, especially in everyday language. But in general, it is about getting something that we want or getting things done in the way which we expect, or we need. This word was very popular during the communist era when people needed to be very resourceful and practical. There were always bigger or smaller shortages of something.

Anyway, I think that “experimenting” can also be associated with the Polish concept “załatwiać”. “Załatwiać” is a kind of “experimentation”. The kind of life “experimentation”. If we want “załatwiać” something or we want to do “experiment”, we must first:
— properly prepare;
— think about how to conduct getting things done (or experiment);
— adjust our mental state properly to have the right mood and fresh mind;
— it is worth having some predictions (hypotheses, scenarios, scripts, etc.) of what can happen and what we may possibly achieve;
— anticipate possible adversities or what may fail;
— try to remember (or record) the process of getting things done (or experimenting), to be able to reconstruct our experiment later and draw the appropriate conclusions for the future. It means, in the future, we will be able to use our experience in similar situations.

In turn, we have experience when we do some actions that should give us a certain effect. Experience often can be a reproduction of the experimentation. I wrote about it a moment ago. An important function of experience is also to improve experiments in order to learn to do something new very well. Thanks to this, we become an expert in doing something new. This ability of doing something new helps us cope better in life. Thanks to this, we can also impress others and gain someone’s appreciation and respect.

If we can gain other’s appreciation and respect thanks to experience, it turns out that experience can help us build various relationships with others. In short, thanks to this, we can become “someone” in relationships with others. And when we can be “someone”, then in this way we gain various experiences (that is we can gain “live on”, or “live through”).

“Living on” or “living through” is another meaning of the term “experience”. This is because if we “live through” something we “experience” something.

So, this kind of “experiencing” relates to the fact that when we do something, we focus on achieving some experience or mental experience. Thanks to this “experience”, we will be able to feel valuable in our own eyes and in the eyes of others. Thanks to the “experience”.
— we will have something to tell:
— we will fascinate others:
— we will be in the spotlight;
— etc.

Therefore, thanks to “experiencing”, we will simply be “someone”. In other words, we “experience” something because we want “to be”.

“Experience” is also something that we can gain, get, acquire, collect, etc. We often gain experience by observing what is going on around us.

In general, we can observe:

• This, what is happening around us, so to speak, by itself (or spontaneously).
• Or this, what is happening around us with our help, or because of us. So we can provoke happening something. Thanks to this we can something:
  — observe;
  — conclude or make a statement related to it;
  — convince ourselves about it (or to it);
  — make sure;
  — etc.

So, we are looking at some events that are happening now. We compare it with similar “experiences” that we had in the past. We analyze them. We wonder what is repeating, what is changing? What is very similar, and what is completely different? Etc. And thanks to that, we can find out what depends on what? It means, what are the dependencies that affect any repeating events, or what are the “relations” between them. What “relations” or connections exist between things, surrounding conditions, people, etc. How the things, surrounding conditions, and those who are involved, “influence” the given situation that something happened in one way, and not in the other way? Or why, something is constantly repeating, and it occurs in a particular way, or its course of action is still the same.

And all of that can help us determine how to set ourselves for specific people, events, circumstances, places, machines, things, animals, plants, etc. Generally speaking, determine how to behave in the world around us and what attitude to adopt. That is, how “to be” in the environment in which we are.

Summarizing:

• We try “to experiment” with something to achieve something else. Or we “experiment” “to have” something. So, “experimenting” helps us “to have”.
• We try “to experience” something to know what behavior is most appropriate, or how “to be” with someone, something, somewhere, etc. So, “experiencing” helps us “to be”.

Another argument justifying the use of the terms “experiment” and “experience” is that these concepts complement the definitions of Extraversion and Introversion. Let me remind you that these definitions (including “experiment” and “experience”) are as follows:

We can see that close to the concept of “experiment” are the concepts—“subject, case”. It is because “experimentation” usually concerns some “objects” or “cases”. “Experimentation” often leads to achieving something, or simply to “having” something.

“Experimentation” also involves all sorts of “risks and opportunities”.

In turn, close to “experiencing” there are concepts—“subject, relation”. It is because “experiencing” we usually can associate with situations when we are (or we become) the “subject”. “Experimenting” we can also associate with “relations”. These “relations” can be of different kinds. Of course, the most important for our considerations about types of characters will be human relationships. In interpersonal relationships, we can mean both relationships with others and with ourselves.

Besides, we can also talk about relationships that we establish with various objects, for example, dishes, tools, machines, etc.

However, regardless of whether we deal with human relationships or relationships with objects, these relationships create our “experience”. Experience:— on which we can rely;
— from which we can derive knowledge;
— which helps us make decisions;
— which makes us better at doing something;
— etc.

All in all, “experimenting” leads to “being” “someone”. Of course, we can simply “be” and consciously “experience” something without any excessive ambitions. However, in general, our “being” often, on the one hand, needs “protection” when we “experience” something unpleasant, painful, and unwelcome. And on the other hand, we need “promotion” to “be” someone appreciated, respected, valued, etc.

I think, as a summary, I can give an example of a situation I already mentioned in chapter “19. Introversion and Extraversion”.

Before I give this example, please first note that above I have included:
— “experience” to the Introversion mechanism
— and the “experiment” to the Extraversion mechanism.

The example, I want to remind is about the Introversion and Extraversion mechanisms. It means, I recalled there a story from a book written by Charles Martin and movie (2017) directed by Hany Abu-Assad entitled “The mountain between us”.

The main characters of this story survived a plane crash. The plane they flow crashed high in the mountains, in a completely remote place. To survive, they mainly had two options:

1. Settle somehow in the plane wreck and wait for help.
2. Take a dangerous and risky journey and try to find the way out or help.

I think:

1. Settling in remain plane wreck and waiting for help, we can include in the survival option, which uses “experiment”.
2. In turn, taking a dangerous and risky journey and trying to find the way out or help, we can include the survival option, which uses “experience”.

Why?

Here, I will use again what Professor Dylak’s team said about experience and experiment.

Regarding experience, Professor Dylak’s team said that:
“In an experience understood colloquially, we basically do not anticipate results, and certainly, we do not gather knowledge on a given topic—we take action and wait of the result, which we later describe, enriching our knowledge”.

I think this description fits the survival option of “settle somehow in the plane wreck and wait for help”.

In turn, regarding the “experiment”, Professor Dylak’s team distinguish four stages that experiment consists.

1. Formulation of the problem, which needs to be solved.
2. Formulation—on the basis of collected information and knowledge—of the most likely solutions, namely, hypothesis.
   • distinguishing and defining dependent and independent variables.
3. Implementation of the experiment.
   • observing and controlling dependent and independent variables.
4. Description of the results on the experiment and their interpretation and drawing conclusions.

I think this description fits the survival option “take a dangerous and risky journey and try to find the way out or help”. This option is essentially the experiment because:

1. Before we go on a journey, which will save us, we must formulate what problems we may face.
2. We need to formulate hypotheses, how we will solve these problems, and determine what we can deal with. This what we will deal with are our variables, which are from us dependent or independent. For example, weather conditions will not depend on us, but it will depend on us what clothes we take. We will change these clothes accordingly during the trip, and in this way, we will be prepared for changing weather conditions.
3. Then we carry out our experiment, that is, we go on the journey which will save us. During this experiment, we try to have the right attitude and motivation to cope with changing situations that we will face, to carry this experiment to the end.
4. When the experiment ends, that is, our journey ends, The journey, thanks to which we managed to got out of the difficult situation, and we survived. Then, we can draw a conclusion for the future. It means, for example, we can:
   • Do something to avoid a similar situation.
   • And if we find ourselves in a similar situation, then we can use our experience. And then, in principle, we will already carry out the experience. (That is, we will replicate experiment). In other words, we will take action in accordance with our experience that we acquired while doing the experiment. And by the way, we will improve what we can do better.

ANALYSIS and SYNTHESIS

To the definitions of Perceiving and Judging, as I mentioned above, I want to add the following terms:

• analysis—to the definition of Perceiving, and
• synthesis—to the definition of Judging.

Thanks to this, the definitions of Judging and Perceiving will look like this:

After adding “synthesis” and “analysis”, the diagram of our four auxiliary reference points will look like this.

Probably most briefly we can say that:

• analysis is the reverse of the synthesis or synthesis is the reverse of analysis,
• synthesis links (or sums up), and
• analysis distinguishes (or differentiates).

These terms are used in many areas of life and science. I think that the definitions I am quoting below can initially tell us something about them.

Speaking of synthesis, I think it is worth to mention about one great philosopher. That is, about Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel, among others, worked on dialectics.

Hegel’s dialectics is a method of reasoning that helps reconcile various contradictions, opposites, contraries, contrasts, etc.

In his view, dialectics is a continuous process of transition from one contradiction to another. If we alternate from one opposition to another, we will finally somehow connect them together.

Therefore, by balancing between contradictions, we can reconcile them with each other. All in all, then, somehow, there will be a synthesis of contradictions, oppositions, poles, inverses, contrasts, etc.

The Hegel dialectical process consists of:

• thesis — for example, idea, view, statement, assertion, etc.,
• antithesis — denial of thesis,
• and synthesis — combining contradictions, oppositions, poles, inverses, contrasts, etc.

The synthesis in itself may later become a thesis, which over time will be followed by the corresponding antithesis. Then it comes to balancing between this thesis and antithesis until they unite together and become another synthesis. And so on, thanks to the creation of subsequent synthesis from the emerging thesis and antithesis, in our lives, various development processes take place.

So, actually, thanks to synthesis we learn.

Since I put the concept of synthesis on the Mandala of Characters, we may consider here, what is equivalent of thesis and antithesis on the Mandala?

I think that the thesis and antithesis can be associated with two concepts I mentioned earlier in this chapter. It means I think about “experience” and “experiment”. Specifically:

• experience—would correspond to the thesis or antithesis, and
• experiment—would correspond to the thesis or antithesis.

It may look a little strange, but basically depending on the situation:

• the experience can be the thesis or antithesis for the experiment,
• the experiment can be the thesis or antithesis for the experience.

Therefore, thanks to experiments, we can undermine the experience. That is something that is already established, used, proofed, confirmed, etc.

In turn, thanks to experiences, that is, attempts to recreate (or replicate) a particular experiment, we can undermine or confirm it.

On the Mandala of Characters, we can see that the reverse of the synthesis is analysis. Thus, we can also say that the above considerations about synthesis may also correspond to the analysis.

Specifically, I think that Hegel’s dialectics we can extend to the other side of the Mandala. I mean that:
— thesis and antithesis not only lead to synthesis,
— but thesis and antithesis can also lead to analysis.

So, using terms that are on the Mandala of Characters, we can say that:
— experiences and experiments not only lead to synthesis,
— but experiences and experiments also lead to analysis.

And at this point, I will stop at this conclusion. I will only say that in philosophy there is a whole great area called analytical philosophy (or analytic philosophy). Interestingly, analytic philosophy was created as a protest against Hegelianism. We can learn something about analytic philosophy, for example on Wikipedia web-page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

In general, however, the philosophical analysis itself was not created after Hegel. It existed in all epochs in which philosophy was used. In ancient times, it was cultivated, for example, by Socrates and Aristotle.

In short, philosophical analysis can be understood, among others, as:

• break down some concepts into prime factors,
• defining thoughts precisely,
• trying to explain specific concepts in a clear, accurate, and strictly defined way.

If we need to be precise and specific, we must pay special attention to the language we use in the analysis. In analytical philosophy, therefore, the study of language (both colloquial and specialized) is very important.

I will not go further into the secrets of analytical philosophy. It is because I am not a philosopher, and I will not do it better than philosophers specializing in this field.

And now, I think that we can assume that both Hegelian and analytical philosophy is correct. It means:
— Hegel’s philosophy is a fascinating view at synthesis, and
— analytic philosophy shows a fascinating perspective on analysis.

And it is important to us now that both synthesis and analysis have their stable ground in the history of human thought. So, we a have very rich source of knowledge for further reflections.

In this work, that is, work relating to types of characters, we do not have to decide that is right, and what is wrong? Instead, we are interested in what particular types feel or think:
— what is right for them,
— what they prefer to use,
— what they like to follow,
— etc.

Each type simply has its own priorities, reasons and preferences

And this is how learning methods corresponding to adaptive-defensive mechanisms look like.

I present these methods and mechanisms yet in the table below.

Summarized learning methods, (that is, experience, experiment, synthesis, and analysis) help us to deal with our dependent and independent life variables. Thanks to this, “variables” become something more solid and permanent. So, if we use the analogy to mathematics here, “variable” becomes “constant”. (In mathematics, “constant” is the opposite of “variable”).

We can say, therefore, that thanks to learning methods, our “life variables” turn into “life constants”.

Of course, our “life constants” tend to be permanent for a longer or shorter time. It means until we want to change them ourselves, or until some external circumstances force us to do so.

As it happens in life, it is not suitable for us if we are dealing with too many “variables”, or if we are dealing with too many “constants”. An excess of “constants” can limit our development. And excess of “variables” can make our life very uncomfortable and stressful. So, we have to look for some “golden mean” between “constants” and “variables”.

I intentionally used the phrase “golden mean” here, because this concept has a very long tradition.

The “golden mean” is a theory created in ancient times. Among others, Aristotle and Horace wrote about it. The point is that the golden mean is not always in the middle. For example, the athlete and the model have different diets. The amount of food and kind of diet of the athlete would be inappropriate for the model and vice versa. So, the “golden mean” when it comes to eating will be different for the athlete and the model.

Returning to the “variables’ and “constants”, the “golden mean” between them is different for each of us. And for each of us, there is a different “golden mean” between four learning methods I mentioned above. That is, between experience, experiment, synthesis and analysis.

***

In this chapter, for now, I finish presenting adaptive-defensive mechanisms. That is Introversion, Extraversion, Perceiving, and Judging.

I think, in the future, I will analyze these definitions more than once. So, it is likely that I will make some improvements. At the moment, however, after the considerations I have made, these definitions seem good enough to me.

Thus, my definitions of the adaptive-defensive mechanism are as follows:

Below, for the summary, I have included these definitions in the diagram of auxiliary reference points of our psyche.

References: