FILIP MAJ

 

PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS AND CREATIVE PROFILES (ON THE EXAMPLE OF CELLISTS)

 

Contents of Article: Introduction, Types of Personality: Psychomotor, Sensual, Imaginational, Intellectual and Emotional; Young Musicians and Tadeusz Kobierzycki’s “Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire”; Preliminary Analysis of the Musicians’ Results according to Tadeusz Kobierzycki’s “Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire”; The Quantitative Image of the Developmental Potentials of the Study Group – Cellists; The Profiles of the Developmental Potentials of the Cellist Group – Preliminary Analysis; Stability and Dynamics; Conclusion; Notes; Bibliography.

 

INTRODUCTION

    The article “Personality Development Potentials and Creative Profiles (On the Example of Cellists)” was written as part of a research project (1) lead by Tadeusz Kobierzycki on the basis of the “Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire” he created.

 

   The test was conducted in public secondary schools in Warsaw of the following profiles – music, fine arts, ballet and circus. The current text is the first attempt to analyse the test carried out in 2005 in a group of pupils in the Z. Brzewski Secondary Music School in Warsaw. It focuses on a group of cellists.

 

   “The Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire” elaborated by Tadeusz Kobierzycki presupposes the possibility of a structural and projective examination of those personality dimensions which show its profiled psychological development potentials. The test is based on word stimuli. It describes and outlines the respondents’ attitudes (negative, positive, repressed, exaggerated) to a set of statements triggering positive or negative reactions.

 

   The responses to various test statements of the “Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire” (MPQ) are set on a scale from 0 to 5 (zero means repression, forgetting, suppression, inhibition, etc.) and mark the level of cognitive resonance, a response to the statements read, in the range of – the emotions, intellect, imagination, movement and the body, depending on the strength of identification with them by the person tested. The test can be performed individually or collectively, anonymously or in a personalized form.

 

   The test is divided into four periods: 1) childhood period (preschool), 2) school period (primary/gymnasium), 3) adolescence period – high school, 4) adult period – university/after graduation, after 30 years of age). It examines statements characterizing the five cognitive dimensions mentioned above, which I define as “potentials” or “talents” and “interests”, as well as their expressions described here as creative profiles of the personality.

 

   Here, I am going to present a fragmented research report, conducted in different artistic schools in Warsaw. The report is differentiated by age, gender, choice of instrument, and by the dynamics of particular periods of development.

 

   The research issues with which I am preoccupied here concern the compatibility of Kazimierz Dąbrowski’s (1902-1980) insights with his hypotheses on creativity dynamics and its connection with psychological types, which Tadeusz Kobierzycki has included in his test in relation to the five different types or profiles of personality development.

 

PERSONALITY TYPES: PSYCHOMOTOR, SENSUAL, IMAGINATIONAL, INTELLECTUAL AND EMOTIONAL

    The personality can be defined as a dynamic and stable or open and closed structure of man, which despite its stable phylogenetic nature seeks an increasing of variety in ontogenesis. Talents may be described as active factors of one or a second level (phase), which dominate the whole personality and subordinate other components and actions for its aims.

 

   According to Kazimierz Dabrowski’s theory, to which T. Kobierzycki’s creative potentials test alludes (also referring  to psychoanalysis and depth psychology), the main forms of personality development giftedness are the so-called emotional, imaginational and intellectual overexcitabilities: “It stimulates the development of mental capabilities to a broad insight into the many levels and dimensions of reality, the need for prospection and retrospection, control and self-control. They are essential for the mental development of the inner environment” (Dabrowski 1984, p.96).

 

   The psychomotor and sensual overexcitabilities are not able to “loosen up” or “break down” the cohesive and integrated structure of the psychophysical personality, unless a powerful psychophysical shock takes place (such as one’s own injury, physical or mental damage). These overexcitabilities have primarily defensive and adaptive functions, and serve to control the external environment. The other three are used to differentiate the inner environment of the personality.

 

   K. Dąbrowski writes: “Psychomotor overexcitability is characterised by restless mobility, the need to be active and muscle tension. Neither of them (FM - the psychomotor and the sensual overexcitability) leads to a definite engagement in psychical development. The same concerns the sensual overexcitability, which is characterised by a strong sensual extraversion, seeking for pleasure, comfort, superficial beauty, frequent or constant being with others and no need for solitude, reflection and permanent emotional relationships”(Dabrowski, 1984, p. 95).

 

   As it is known many people who we describe as “creative personalities” have a strong tendency to mental and physical movement, and they treat sensual pleasures as a criterion for the quality of their lives. It is therefore expected that these personality components at a particular stage of development may and even should dominate over other overexcitabilities, over other life energies.

 

   We often observe that for “some reason” certain stimuli (internal and external) work more intensively than others. Therefore, they are known as typical or atypical for the general population. Some attract and others repel each other (the klisis – eklisis relationship). Others work so that those continue to exist, to strengthen or weaken. Over many years a specific group of factors forms a complex of properties profiling the personality – i.e. one’s own “complex of giftedness”.

 

   Some constellations of the mental and physical components cause the inhibition of the entire psychophysical system, or part thereof, at various stages of one’s life. They are connected to various modifications within the personality (crises, diversions, contradictions, regressions, transgressions, destructions, reparations, etc.). It seems that the various components of the personality, in different periods of personal development, work “better”, whilst others “worse”.

 

   The childhood period is a phase for developing certain abilities, due to hereditary and concrete experiences, which man has to take into account all his life, in order to maintain a level that is satisfactory for him as a human being. In the subsequent periods, changes take place that perpetuate or change the output profile (type) of the personality, bringing joy and suffering, facilitating adaptation, defence and development. They force one to treat one’s life goals creatively.

 

   It is assumed that in some people, a reactive orientation dominates, whilst in others a creative one. It is not clear what triggers these orientations. They are worth examining using the possibilities offered by projection tests, which use sentence structures based on stereotype recordings and stereotype responses of persons surveyed. They include some kind of conviction that are predominant in creativity theories, though they have not been sufficiently verified.

 

YOUNG MUSICIANS AND TADEUSZ KOBIERZYCKI’S “MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE”

    In a test carried out at the Zenon Brzewski Secondary Music School in Warsaw, 26 people participated: 9 men and 17 women aged from 15 to 18 years. The students wrote the test quickly and handed it back in the shortest time of all the groups that took part in the project.

 

   The study group according to the type of instrument which they played: violin – 11 people (1 man, 10 women), b. piano – 8 people (5 men, 3 women), c. cello – 5 people (3 men, 2 women), d. flute – 1 woman, e. organ – 1 woman.

 

   The maximum number of points that can be obtained in the test is 375. The number of points obtained in the study group ranged between 114 and 187 for the men, while ranging between 96 and 191 for the women.

 

Number of points obtained according to the type of instruments was as follows:

[Explanation: (M) – man, (W) – woman]

 

a. violin: minimum – 117 (W), 120 (W), 134 (M), 136 (W), 148 (W), 153 (W), 160 (W), 160 (W), 168 (W) , 186 (W), maximum – 191 (W);

b. piano: minimum – 121 (M), 136 (M), 137 (W), 146 (W), 175 (M), 181 (M), 181 (W), maximum – 187 (M)

c. cello: minimum – 108 (W), 114 (M), 168 (M), 168 (M), maximum – 185 (W)

d. flute: 96 (W)

e. organ: 132 (W)

 

A detailed distribution of points, taking into account the development stage: I. childhood, II. school , III. adolescence, was as follows:

[Note: M – man, W – woman, I. – childhood, II. – school, III. – adolescence, S. – the sum of three periods]

 

a. violin:

M: I. 49, II. 38, III. 47 – S. 134

 

W: I. 45, II. 31, III. 41 – S. 117

W: I. 47, II. 32, III. 41 – S. 120

W: I. 52, II. 37, III. 47 – S. 136

W: I. 53, II. 38, III. 57 – S. 148

W: I. 61, II. 35, III. 57 – S. 153

W: I. 52, II. 51, III. 57 – S. 160

W: I. 44, II. 41, III. 75 – S. 160

W: I. 56, II. 56, III. 56 – S. 168

W: I. 71, II. 55, III. 60 – S. 186

W: I. 62, II. 53, III. 76 – S. 191

 

b. piano:

M: I. 52, II. 27, III. 42 – S. 121

M: I. 51, II. 42, III. 43 – S. 136

M: I. 79, II. 45, III. 51 – S. 175

M: I. 71, II. 57, III. 53 – S. 181

M: I. 63, II. 65, III. 59 – S. 187

 

W: I. 52, II. 33, III. 52 – S. 137

W: I. 65, II. 36, III. 45 – S. 146

W: I. 60, II. 54, III. 67 – S. 181

 

c. cello:

M: I. 51, II. 28, III. 35 – S. 114

M: I. 72, II. 43, III. 53 – S. 168

M: I. 56, II. 51, III. 61 – S. 168

 

W: I. 69, II. 59, III. 57 – S. 185

W: I. 26, II. 29, III. 53 – S. 108

 

d. flute:

W: I. 49, II. 19, III. 28 – S. 96

 

e organ:

W: I. 46, II. 43, III. 43 – S. 132

 

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE MUSICIANS’ RESULTS ACCORDING TO TADEUSZ KOBIERZYCKI’S “MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE”

 

Men:

    In the group of 9 men, a16 year old pianist, who had the highest score, lacked 0, 5 points (187 points) to achieve the mid-scale of the possible points (375) in the test. The lowest score among men was achieved by an 18 year old cellist (114 points).

 

   The distribution of points obtained in the MPQ – of the surveyed men:

a. in 8 of them – the vast majority in the childhood period

b. in 1 of them – the vast majority in the school period

 

Women:

    One woman, an 18 year old violinist exceeded the mid-scale (187.5 points) by 3.5 points (obtaining 191 points). The lowest score was achieved by an 18 year old flutist (96 points), and another low score was obtained by a 16 year old cellist (108 points).

 

   The distribution of points obtained in the MPQ – of the surveyed women:

a. in 1 – evenly distributed in all three periods

b. in 10 – the vast majority in the childhood period

c. in 6 – the vast majority in the adolescence period

 

   The highest results were achieved in the instrument group that was predominant for each gender.

 

THE QUANTITATIVE IMAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL POTENTIALS OF THE STUDY GROUP – CELLISTS

    In a group of cellists, the overall distribution of the points and percentages outlining their five basic profiles (potentials) of development was as follows (2):

 

Division of Periods I., II., III.

[Note: S. – the sum of three periods, I – childhood, II. – school, III. – adolescence]

 

A. Men

Simon: S. 114 – I. 51, II. 28, III. 35 = I. 45%, II. 24%, III. 31%

Martin: S. 168 – I. 72, II. 43, III. 53 = I. 43%, II. 26%, III. 31%

Conrad: S. 168 – I. 56, II. 51, III. 61 = I. 33%, II. 31%, III. 36%

 

B. Women

Barbara: S. 108 – I. 26, II. 29, III. 53 = I. 24%, II. 27%, III. 49%

Anne: S. 185 – I. 69, II. 59, III. 57 = I. 37%, II. 32%, III. 31%

 

A. MEN

 

Simon – 18 years old

Id: No. 16

30% of the possible scale of potentials out of the three periods

I. 45%, II. 24%, III. 31%.

 

Average Profile Score Out of All Three Periods [in%]:

Psychomotor profile: 27%

Sensual profile: 18%

Imaginational profile: 11%

Intellectual profile: 26%

Emotional profile: 18%

 

Profile Image According to Period [in %]:

Childhood period

Psychomotor profile: 18%

Sensual profile: 37%

Imaginational profile: 8%

Intellectual profile: 37%

Emotional profile: 0% (no response)

 

School period

Psychomotor profile: 21%

Sensual profile: 7%

Imaginational profile: 29%

Intellectual profile: 11%

Emotional profile: 32%

 

Adolescence period

Psychomotor profile: 43%

Sensual profile: 0% (no response)

Imaginational profile: 3%

Intellectual profile: 23%

Emotional profile: 31%

 

Preliminary Analysis

    Simon revealed the most responses to verbal stimuli during the childhood period (45%), and almost half the amount during his school period (24%). During the adolescence period his verbal responses to stimuli increased 31% (about a quarter less than in the childhood period).

 

   In the average profile score, the strongest active elements of Simon’s personality are first psychomotricity (27%) and intellectuality (26%), then emotionality and sensuality (18%), and at the end the imagination (11%).

 

   In the childhood period, Simon has a strong reaction to verbal stimuli of the sensual and intellectual sphere (each 37%), next to the psychomotor sphere (18%), and much less to the imaginational sphere (8%). He shows a complete lack of response to verbal stimuli of the emotional sphere (0%). This lack is very puzzling and indicates that his emotions are strongly repressed. Thus, we have an indication for further research in this sphere – it seems blocked due to an “emotional shock” (cf. H. Rorschach).

 

   In his school period, a reversal of response occurs concerning verbal stimuli of the sphere of sensuality (7%), and intellectuality (11%). There appears a strong reaction to verbal stimuli of the emotional sphere (32%) and a strong reaction to verbal stimuli of the imaginational sphere (29%). Responses to verbal stimuli of the psychomotor sphere amount to 21%.

 

   During his adolescence period, there is a strong response to verbal stimuli of the psychomotor sphere (43%), gathering nearly half of the personality’s “dynamisms”. Response to verbal stimuli of the emotional sphere is maintained at 31%, to the intellectual sphere – 23% (third place). Response to verbal stimuli of the imaginational sphere equals 3%, and the verbal response to stimuli of the sensual sphere is repressed (0%) (no answer).

 

Simon’s remarks about his own creativity (3)

    Simon discovered his creative interests “at his school [age – FM]”. When asked whether his grandparents or parents have or did have a creative profession, he answers “No”. As for brothers or sisters or other relatives involved in creativity, he answers: “composing, poetry, writing, playwriting”. His greatest creative achievements are: “winning a number of competitions, giving others joy through my work”.

 

   His biggest creative failure is a “passive reaction of the audience”. What he lacks in order to realize his abilities better, he answers – “hard work”. What he would change to realize his abilities better – “manage time in a better way”.

 

Martin – 17 years old

ID: No. 8

45% of the possible scale of potentials out of the three periods

I. 43%, II. 26%, III. 31%.

 

Average Profile Score Out of All Three Periods [in%]:

Psychomotor profile: 18%

Sensual profile: 21%

Imaginational profile: 16%

Intellectual profile: 22%

Emotional profile: 23%

 

Profile Image According to Period [in %]:

Childhood period

Psychomotor profile: 19%

Sensual profile: 25%

Imaginational profile: 13%

Intellectual profile: 22%

Emotional profile: 21%

 

School period

Psychomotor profile: 7%

Sensual profile: 23%

Imaginational profile: 21%

Intellectual profile: 19%

Emotional profile: 30%

 

Adolescence period

Psychomotor profile: 25%

Sensual profile: 13%

Imaginational profile: 17%

Intellectual profile: 26%

Emotional profile: 19%

 

Preliminary Analysis

    Martin revealed the largest response to verbal stimuli related to the childhood period – 43%. Then his response decreased by almost half of the amount during the school period (26%), followed by an increase during adolescence (31%).

 

   In the average profile score, his greatest response to verbal stimuli is associated with the emotional sphere (23%), followed by the intellectual sphere (22%), and next with the sensual sphere (21%). Of a lower percentage is his response relating to verbal stimuli associated with the psychomotor sphere (18%) and his lowest response concerns the imaginational sphere (16%).

 

   In the childhood period, his strongest response to verbal stimuli concerns the sensual sphere (25%), followed by the intellectual sphere (22%), and then the emotional sphere (21%) – in the reverse proportion to his overall (average) profile. Response to verbal stimuli of the psychomotor sphere equals 19%, while the lowest response concerns the imaginational sphere (13%).

 

   During his school period, a shift takes place in his internal activity towards the emotional sphere (30%.) In second place is his response to verbal stimuli of the sensual sphere (23%). A response to stimuli of the imaginational sphere is activated (21%). Response to verbal stimuli of the intellectual sphere remains at 19%. The biggest decline in his response to verbal stimuli in this period concerns the expression of the psychomotor sphere (7%).

 

   In his adolescence period, what was inhibited in the school period – the reaction to verbal stimuli of the psychomotor sphere – rises to 25% and ranks second after the intellectual sphere (26%). A decrease takes place in his response to verbal stimuli of the sphere of emotionality (19%) and sensuality (13%). The level of response to verbal stimuli of the imaginational sphere also declines (17%).

 

Martin’s remarks about his own creativity

    Martin discovered his creative interest at the age of 10. He wrote: “Yes, both my parents are musicians”, and as for his brothers, sisters and other relatives “No, they do are not engaged [in any creative professions – FM]”. His greatest creative achievements: “As such an achievement, I consider the well played [entrance – FM] exam to the school I go to, and awards and prizes at solo and chamber music competitions”.

 

   His biggest creative failure: “I am not able to give one example, although I am unhappy with my dance and artistic abilities”. What he lacks: “I would like to have more patience and self-perseverance in pursuing my aim”. What he would change: “Sometimes I lack the concentration and patience to pursue my aim”.

 

Conrad – 17 years old:

ID: No. 7

45% of the possible scale of potentials out of the three periods

I. 33%, II. 31%, III. 36%.

 

Average Profile Score Out of All Three Periods [in%]:

Psychomotor profile: 18%

Sensual profile: 14%

Imaginational profile: 14%

Intellectual profile: 28%

Emotional profile: 26%

 

Profile Image According to Period [in %]:

Childhood period

Psychomotor profile: 18%

Sensual profile: 18%

Imaginational profile: 20%

Intellectual profile: 25%

Emotional profile: 20%

 

School period

Psychomotor profile: 18%

Sensual profile: 12%

Imaginational profile: 18%

Intellectual profile: 22%

Emotional profile: 31%

 

Adolescence period

Psychomotor profile: 20%

Sensual profile: 13%

Imaginational profile: 7%

Intellectual profile: 33%

Emotional profile: 28%

 

Preliminary analysis

    In his overall (average) profile, Conrad’s response to verbal stimuli is “evenly divided” and amounts to 36% during his adolescence period, 33% during his childhood period and 31% during his school period.

 

   His reactions to verbal stimuli are mostly located in the intellectual (28%) and emotional sphere (26%), and next in the psychomotor sphere (18%). His weakest response concerns the sensual and imaginational sphere (each 14%).

 

   In the childhood period, Conrad’s reaction to verbal stimuli was predominantly distributed to the intellectual sphere (25%), but also to the emotional and imaginational sphere (each 20%), and further to the sensual and psychomotor sphere (each 18%).

 

   In his school period, there is a dominance of verbal response to stimuli of the emotional sphere (31%). Response to the intellectual sphere takes second position (22%). Whereas response to psychomotor and imaginational spheres balance each other out (each 18%). His weakest reaction concerns the sensual sphere (12%).

 

   During his adolescence period, a major response reappears concerning verbal stimuli of the intellectual sphere (33%) and in second position that of the emotional sphere (28%). Response to stimuli of the psychomotor sphere reached 20%. Still low (13%) was his response to verbal stimuli of the sensual sphere, while his response to verbal stimuli of the imaginational sphere shrank the most (7%).

 

Conrad’s remarks about his own creativity:

    Conrad discovered his creative interests at the age of 11. His answer to the question whether his grandparents or parents have creative professions was: “Yes (but not purely professional): Mom: music, literature, dad: very high consciousness of music, and of fine arts and architecture, literature”. When asked whether his brothers or sisters or other relatives are involved in any creative activities, he replied: “Yes: two younger brothers: piano, cello, two older cousins: cello and composition”. When asked what his greatest creative achievement was, he answered: “I guess the ability to practise, but I don’t know exactly”.

 

   When asked what his greatest creative failure was, he wrote: “it’s difficult to treat art as a success or lack thereof”. What he lacks in his creative realisations: “peace and quiet, greater support from my family, and not obstacles (mom)”. What he would change in order to realise his abilities: “Have the peace and quiet from point 6 and extend and deepen my interests”.

 

B. WOMEN:

Barbara – 16 years old

ID: No. 5

29% of the possible scale of potentials out of the three periods

I. 24%, II. 27%, III. 49%.

 

Average Profile Score Out of All Three Periods [in%]:

Psychomotor profile: 13%

Sensual profile: 17%

Imaginational profile: 16%

Intellectual profile: 30%

Emotional profile: 24%

 

Profile Image According to Period [in %]:

Childhood period

Psychomotor profile: 4%

Sensual profile: 35%

Imaginational profile: 19%

Intellectual profile: 31%

Emotional profile: 12%

 

School period

Psychomotor profile: 14%

Sensual profile: 7%

Imaginational profile: 17%

Intellectual profile: 31%

Emotional profile: 31%

 

Adolescence period

Psychomotor profile: 17%

Sensual profile: 13%

Imaginational profile: 13%

Intellectual profile: 30%

Emotional profile: 17%

 

Preliminary analysis

    In the overall (average) profile score Barbara’s major reactions to verbal stimuli are located in the adolescence period (49%). The rest is spread over the childhood (24%) and school (27%) periods almost equally.

 

   Reactions to verbal stimuli of the intellectual sphere dominate – 30%. In second place are the reactions to verbal representations of the emotional sphere (24%). Responses to verbal stimuli related to the sensual sphere amount to 17%, and that of the imaginational sphere – 16%, while the psychomotor sphere – only 13%.

 

   In her childhood period there is as a strong complex of reactions to verbal stimuli associated with the sensual sphere (35%), while the response level to verbal stimuli of the psychomotor sphere is very low (4%). There is a second major complex of reactions to verbal stimuli related to the intellectual sphere (31%), and in third place to verbal stimuli of the imaginational sphere (19%). There is, however, a weak response to verbal stimuli of the emotional sphere (12%).

 

   During the school period there is a dramatic shift in her response to verbal representations of the sensual sphere (from 35% to 7%). There is a major increase in the response level to verbal representations of the emotional sphere (31%), while the response to that of the intellectual sphere is maintained (also 31%). Her response to verbal stimuli related to the psychomotor sphere increases to 14%, and her response to verbal stimuli connected with the imaginational sphere remains largely unchanged (17%).

 

   Her adolescence period is dominated by a strong response to verbal stimuli of the intellectual sphere (30%). Response to verbal stimuli of the emotional sphere falls (17%). Imaginational and sensual reactions to verbal stimuli of those spheres level off to 13%.

 

Barbara’s remarks about her own creativity

    Barbara, in response to specific questions concerning creative interests, stated: “I discovered my true interest – when I was in gymnasium”. She answered the question – whether her grandparents or parents are or were engaged in any creative professions: “Dad – philosophy, mother – fine arts school (teaching)”.As for brothers or sisters or other relatives occupied with creativity, she wrote: “My cousin – computer graphics, directing”.

 

    Her greatest creative achievements are: “passing the exam of the Z. Brzewski music school this year”. Her biggest creative failure is: “A badly played concert”. What she lacks to pursue her abilities is: “better organization of my work and a little bit better conditions”. What she would like to change to realise her abilities better: “more work of my own [‘in me’ deleted – FM)], better organization of time, so that I can e.g. learn to dance, money”.

 

Anne – 17 years old

ID: No. 11

49% of the possible scale of potentials out of the three periods

I. 37%, II. 32%, III. 31%.

 

Average Profile Score Out of All Three Periods [in%]:

Psychomotor profile: 22%

Sensual profile: 21%

Imaginational profile: 14%

Intellectual profile: 24%

Emotional profile: 19%

 

Profile Image According to Period [in %]:

Childhood period

Psychomotor profile: 12%

Sensual profile: 25%

Imaginational profile: 20%

Intellectual profile: 29%

Emotional profile: 14%

 

School period

Psychomotor profile: 29%

Sensual profile: 22%

Imaginational profile: 14%

Intellectual profile: 14%

Emotional profile: 22%

 

Adolescence period

Psychomotor profile: 26%

Sensual profile: 16%

Imaginational profile: 5%

Intellectual profile: 30%

Emotional profile: 23%

 

Preliminary Analysis

    In her overall (average) profile score, Anne revealed the greatest response to verbal stimuli related to all the profile spheres in her childhood period – 37%. During the school period, her response to verbal stimuli drops to 32%. In her adolescence period, another small decrease occurs – 31%.

 

   Anne’s dominating response concerns the verbal stimuli of the intellectual sphere (24%). After that is her response to verbal stimuli of the psychomotor sphere (22%), and then to the sensual sphere (21%). Response to verbal stimuli of the emotional sphere is fourth in place (19%), and to the imaginational sphere in fifth place (14%).

 

   During the childhood period, her strongest complex of reactions concerns verbal stimuli of the intellectual sphere (29%), while in second place, verbal stimuli of the sensual sphere (25%). Her lowest levels of response to verbal stimuli concern to the psychomotor (12%) and emotional sphere (14%). In between them lies her reactivity associated with the verbal stimuli of the imaginational sphere (20%).

 

   During her school period – there is a dominance of a response to verbal stimuli of the psychomotor sphere (29% – a jump of 17%), while responses to verbal stimuli of the emotional and sensual sphere take second place (22%). Her responses to verbal stimuli of the imaginational and intellectual spheres both amount to 14%. In this phase of development, a decrease occurred in reactivity in relation to the sphere of intellectuality (by 15%), emotionality (by 8%) and the imagination (by 6%). The smallest decrease concerns the sensual sphere (3%).

 

   During the adolescence period, her response to verbal stimuli of the intellectual sphere increases (30%). Responses to verbal stimuli of the psychomotor sphere persist with a small decrease (26%), followed by a small increase in her reactivity to verbal stimuli of the emotional sphere (23%). Responses to verbal stimuli of the sensual sphere declines to 16%, and the greatest decrease can be observed in her reactions to verbal stimuli of the imaginational sphere (5%).

 

Anne’s remarks about her own creativity

    Anne discovered her creative interests when she was 12 years of age. When asked – whether someone in her family is or was engaged in any creativity professionally and non-professionally – she crossed out the whole answer field with a continuous line. Her greatest artistic achievements are “first prize in a competition of contemporary music, first prize at the National Competition in Lódź, concerts with the orchestra, playing at a Competition in Germany (Dresden)”. She sums it up with a phrase “for me it was a great and exciting experience”.

 

   When asked about her biggest creative failure – she crossed out the whole answer field with a continuous line. What she lacks that could help her realise her abilities better, she states: “perseverance, self-discipline, and sometimes poor concentration”. As for the question – what she would change to realise her abilities better, she writes: “better organization of time, regularity in work”.

 

THE PROFILES OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL POTENTIALS OF THE CELLIST GROUP – A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

    In the group of cellists analysed with T. Kobierzycki’s test – Conrad, Martin and Anne obtained the highest indices of developmental potentials – 45%, 45%, 49%, in the three periods of development.

 

   Conrad and Barbara presented a higher tension level of developmental potentials in their adolescence (current) period. Whereas, that of Martin, Anne and Simon were greater in the childhood period.

 

   The most balanced distribution of revealing developmental potentials in different periods can be found in Conrad’s (I 33%, II. 31%, III. 36% – max. 5% fluctuation) and Anne’s (I. 37%, II. 32%, III. 31% – max. 4 % fluctuation) profiles.

 

   Conrad and Anne along with Martin revealed the greatest dynamics of responses to verbal stimuli in the five analysed ranges. But in Martin’s case, there is a greater difference between the expression of potentials in the three phases of development, especially in the childhood period (43%).

 

   Barbara and Conrad showed the strongest response to verbal stimuli of the intellectual sphere (30% and 28%). It is linked with a similarly strong emotional reaction induced by verbal stimuli of this sphere (28% and 26%).

 

   In Martin’s case, his “creative abilities” were more or less balanced – emotional (23%), intellectual (22%) and sensual (21%).

 

   Simon and Anne have a similar level of intellectual and psychomotor response to verbal stimuli of those spheres. Anne’s intellectual reaction (24%) slightly dominates the psychomotor reaction (22%) and sensual reaction (21%). Simon’s psychomotor reaction (27%) slightly dominates his intellectual reaction (26%).

 

   All the cellists analysed with T. Kobierzycki’s test in their overall (average) profile score showed a surprisingly low level of response to verbal stimuli of the imaginational sphere – all below 16%: Simon – 11%, Conrad and Anne – 14%, and Barbara and Martin – 16%.

 

STABILITY AND DYNAMICS

[Note: S. – the sum of three periods, I – childhood, II. – school, III. – adolescence]

 

Men:

Simon – 18 years old

S. 30% – I. 45%, II. 24%, III. 31%.

Profile: psychomotor: 27%, intellectual: 26%, sensual: 18%, emotional: 18%, imaginational: 11%.

Martin – 17 years old

S. 45% – I. 43%, II. 26%, III. 31%.

Profiles: emotional 23% intellectual: 22%, sensual 21%, psychomotor: 18%, imaginational: 16%.

Conrad – 17 years old

S. 45% – I. 33%, II. 31%, III. 36%.

Profiles: intellectual: 28%, emotional 26%, psychomotor: 18%, sensual: 14%, imaginational: 14%.

 

    All of Simon’s “personality” elements are dynamic, the most stable is psychomotricity (I. 27%, II. 18%, III. 21%). Others show a great variation: sensuality (I. 18%, II. 37%, III. 7%), imagination (I. 11%, II. 8%, III. 29%), intellectuality (I. 26%, II. 37%, III. 11%), emotionality (I. 18%, II. 0%, III. 32%).

 

   Martin’s most stable “personality” element is the intellectual sphere (I. 22%, II. 19%, III. 26%). His psychomotor sphere (I. 19%, II. 7%, III.25%) has the most fluctuating tendency (parabola). His imaginational (I. 13%, II. 21%, III. 17%) and emotional (I. 21%, II. 30%, III. 19%) spheres also have a fluctuating tendency (an inverted parabola). His sensual sphere is an average dynamic element with a declining tendency (I. 25%, II. 23%, III. 13%).

 

   Conrad has a stable psychomotor sphere (I. 18%, II. 18%, III. 20%). His intellectual (I. 25%, II. 22%, III. 33%) and emotional (I 20% II. 31%, III. 28%) spheres have an opposed dynamics to each other. His sensual sphere (I. 18%, II. 12%, III.13%) has a downward tendency (minimally decreasing or increasing). His imaginational sphere has a distinct decreasing tendency (I. 20%, II. 18%, III.7%).

 

   Typical for Conrad’s reactions is the tendency of a small decline (modification) and then a huge jump, e.g., a rising modification for the intellectual sphere, and a declining modification for the imaginational sphere. In the case of the emotional sphere, it is the opposite, a big “jump” of increasing, and later a modification (a small decrease). And in the case of the sensual sphere, a big “jump” of decreasing, and later a modification (a small increase).

 

Women:

Barbara – 16 years old

S. 29% – 24% I. II. 27% III. 49%

Profiles: intellectual: 30%, emotional 24%, sensual 17%, imaginational: 16%, psychomotor: 13%

Anne – 17 years old

S. 49% – 37% I. II. 32% III. 31%

Profiles: intellectual: 24%, psychomotor: 22%, sensual 21%, emotional 19%, imaginational: 14%

 

    Barbara’s greatest stability lies in the intellectual (I. 31%, II. 31%, III. 30) and imaginational (I. 19%, II. 17%, III. 13%) spheres. The greatest instability and dynamics can be seen in her sensual (I. 35%, II. 7%, III. 13%), emotional (I. 12%, II. 31%, III. 17%) and psychomotor (I. 4%, II. 14% III. 17%) spheres.

 

   In Anne’s case there is a dynamics in each profile. The greatest falling tendency is in her imaginational profile (I. 20%, II. 14%, III. 5), especially between periods II and III, and there is a gradual falling tendency in the sensual sphere (I. 25% II. 22%, III.16%). The emotional profile has an increasing tendency (I. 14%, II. 22%, III.23%). The psychomotor (I. 12%, II. 29%, III.26%) and intellectual spheres (I. 29%, II. 14%, III.30%) in the first period have an opposite tendency towards each other, but in the adolescence period they co-exist, possibly at the expense of imagination, which is very low then (5%).

 

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

    The analyses conducted with T. Kobierzycki’s test confirm the significance of the increased psychic excitabilities (overexcitabilities) in the formation of profiles of creative personalities, mentioned by K. Dąbrowski in his Theory of Positive Disintegration.

    In the five cases of the young cellists, the importance of the intellectual factor in the shaping of the “creative personality” can be confirmed. This allows one to expect a high performance in their musical profession.

 

   However, in K. Dabrowski’s theory of eminent persons, the emotional factor is the one that should dominate in the personality structure, and thus it should be in first place. In this study, only in Martin’s case did this occur, in a link with his intellectual overexcitability.

 

   In the other cases, the emotional dynamics appeared as a second factor linked with the intellectual dynamism (Barbara and Conrad). The three of these persons meet the demands of the K. Dąbrowksi’s theory in relation to the role of emotions and intellect in their specific forms of existence, in the case of creators (or future creators).

 

   The low level of imaginative response indicates, perhaps, the dominance of reproductive abilities over creative abilities. This however, requires further long-term and comparative studies.

 

NOTES

(1) The implementation of the research project began in 2005. Tests were conducted in the artistic circle by Filip Maj, M.A. in Philosophy and Grażyna Draus, M.A.(composer), in the medical circle by Dr Ewa Kilar and Dr Lech Krata, and in the circle of clerics and theology students by Dr. Stanislava Pritrska (Trnavska Univerzita, Faculty of Theology in Bratislava).

(2) The transformation of the scores into percentages may result in a +/- 1% difference.

(3) Statements expressed by the study group have been kept in their original form.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dąbrowski, K. (1974), “Dwie diagnozy”, Warszawa

Dąbrowski K. (1984), “Funkcje i struktura emocjonalna osobowości”, Lublin

Dąbrowski, K. (1961), “La sentiment d' inferiorite vis-a-vis de soi-meme”, “Anneles Medico-Psychologiques”,119/2, pp. 625-632.

Dąbrowski K. (1964), “O dezyntegracji pozytywnej”, Warszawa

Dąbrowski, K. (1967), “Personality-shaping through positive disintegration”, Boston

Dąbrowski, K. (1965), “Psychonerwice u młodzieży wybitnie uzdolnionej” [“Psychoneuroses among particularly gifted youth”], “Zdrowie Psychiczne” 6, 1, pp. 24-35.

Dąbrowski, K. (1965), “Problemy adaptacji i dezadaptacji”. [“Problems of adjustment and maladjustment”], Zdrowie Psychiczne, 6, Number 4, pp. 7-18.

Kemp A. E. (1996), “The Musical Temperament. Psychology and Personality of Musicians”, New York

Kobierzycki T. (1986), “Muzyka: osobowość i obraz”, “Poradnik Muzyczny” nr 1, pp. 8-9 i 12, przedruk w: “Dziecięce impresje muzyczne”, Łódź, pp. 5-9; wersja angielska: “Music Personality and Picture”: “Musical Impressions of the Child”, Lodź, pp. 5-9.

Kobierzycki T. (1986), “Muzyka: osobowość i dźwięk”, Poradnik Muzyczny nr 10, pp. 14-17.

Kobierzycki T. (1987), “Muzyka a egzystencja człowieka”, “Poradnik Muzyczny” nr 6, pp. 6-8.

Kobierzycki T. (1992), “Osobowość: muzyka i dźwięk”, “Albo-Albo”, nr 1, pp. 58-63.

Kobierzycki T. (1993), “Within the Circle of Contemporary Music” in: “W kręgu muzyki współczesnej”, (LMW 1985-1993): VI Laboratorium Muzyki Współczesnej Białystok LMW, pp. 5-27.

Kobierzycki T. (1994), “Muzyka i Psychika”, Warszawa

Maj F. (2007) “Psychoanaliza i nowa muzyka” w: “Z pogranicza muzyki – tańca – plastyki. W Kręgu muzyki i myśli humanistycznej” XI, Warszawa, pp. 47-60.

Maj F. (2008), “Zarys filozofii twórczości Henryka Bergsona”, Warszawa

Nęcka E. (2003), Psychologia twórczości”, Gdańsk