According to Alfred Adler, the relationship between personality and inferiority stemmed from a desire to overcome the feelings of inferiority in childhood. Adler theorized that every person feels inferior to another person throughout their life (Lecci & Magnavita, 2013). He believed that children feel inferior to the capable adults in their lives and that feeling of inferiority drives them to be recognized and seen as successful, powerful, etc. as they grow into adulthood. Adler also believed that once people perceive themselves as adults, they begin to compare themselves to their peers as a check of their potential inferiority.
As for the relationship between personality and love, Fromm discusses love as an expression of personality. Love is how people connect with their world and those in it (Fromm, 1957). Different people with different types of personalities desire and exhibit different forms of love. For those who are less secure with their connection to the world and those around them, they may seek greater amounts of love and praise to compensate for their lack of esteem. Whereas someone more connected and confident is felt to give and receive love in a healthier fashion.
One thing that really ties these theories of love and inferiority is the personal connection to other individuals—how one person perceives their connection to the people around them. It is natural for people to compare themselves to those around them. Inferiority and love influence the relationships we build, healthy or unhealthy, to those around us and in turn, affect how we engage in our surroundings. Those who feel inferior well into adulthood and never come to terms with their status may find themselves beaten down by circumstances they could not overcome, and in turn believe they are undeserving and/or incapable of love—platonic, romantic, or otherwise. Or in the reverse, someone who struggles in building or maintaining loving relationships may believe they are undeserving or less because they are not meeting the status quo they see in their peers.
Fromm, E. (1957). The Authoritarian Personality. Deutsche Universitätszeitung, Band 12 (pp. 3-4) retrieved from.http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1957/authoritarian.htmLinks to an external site.
Lecci, L.B. & Magnavita, J.J. (2013). Personality Theories: A Scientific Approach. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Reply Reply to Comment
PSY 6501: Psychology of Personality
Week 4 – Discussion 2 – Personification
August 30, 2018
The differences between the two classes of personifications are (as cited by Sullivan), states personifications are mental images that allow us to better understand ourselves and the world we live in.”(Lecci & Magnvita, 2013, sec. 3.3) Sullivan personifications are identified as the bad-me, the good me and the not me. The bad me are the negative and hidden aspect of an individual. The good me are the positive aspect that is seen openly, and the, not me are the things we distant ourselves from, that will bring a negative connection.
The similarities between Sullivan’s personifying process and Freud’s concept of transference are the interpersonal relations forms, and the construct of transference appears to be involved in all our relationships. “Sullivan believed that we adopted new ego identities to meet the demands of different social situations” (Lecci & Magnavita, 2013, sec. 3.3). It is so true, whenever I’m with my church family I speak with them differently than when I’m around my friends. According to Lecci & Magnavita, (2013), ” the behavioral perspective uses the term generalization to indicate when learning in one context is generalized to another similar context”(sec. 3.3) In other words, transferring the emotional connection from one object to another. Additionally, it is believed that the role of interpersonal factors of ego development is to interpret and adapt to social demands, expectations, and roles. (Lecci & Magnavita, 2013, sec. 3.3)
Personification changes our image of people because we illustrate an object in a person’s mind and when the association is made to the ,t might not represent what you had in mind. Therefore the expected represention is not what the person would be present. The primacy of the social self in ego development is defined regarding the presence of others. Therefore, an individual establishes a new identity for that set of relationship as it arises. There isn’t a single or fixed personality. (Lecci & Magnavita, 2013, sec. 3.3)
Lecci, L.B. & Magnavita, J.J. (2013). Personality Theories: A Scientific Approach. San Diego: