Intellect as a Defense Values

[Philip Coates]

A "defense value", to use what I think was Allan Blumenthal's term, is something which actually may be a rational value but to take it out of context, to use it as a source of fake self-esteem or to bluster about it, make it a source of pride out of proportion or out of context.

There is a certain phony disease among highly intelligent and competitive people. They don't like to be shown up, to admit someone is quicker, to admit error, to be thought of as less than the local genius.

In a highly competitive college full of high achievers, there was a certain very sharp-edged rivalry for who was "brighter". Freshman year: Were your college boards or ACT's as good as mine? Later on: How did you do on the national Putnam exams? Earlier, in my high school, this kind of rivalry was keenly felt among the Ivy League bound. And intellectual one-upsmanship. Who is more the master of the witty putdown? The average man on the street will smile and say "good job" when you accomplish something difficult or which shows intelligence or (wider term because it includes knowledge) intellect. But there is a certain clique of aspiring intellects who often will find that if you were quicker or smarter in some area, they feel threatened by it, want to pull it down somehow.

It's as if their egos are tied to how smart (or knowledgeable, or expert) they are and if anyone seems smarter or more knowledgeable or expert - or even comparably so - they get edgy or hostile or want to take them down or make excuses. "Yeah, I could have gotten a hundred on that test, but I didn't have a good night's sleep, the dog ate my homework, and I had a basketball game...Yeah, he probably cheated anyway..."

A value of how-smart-you-are is a "defense" when it assumes such unhealthy proportion that your ego depends on it. One form: maybe you can't take well any cases in which someone seems to outdistance you in some concrete intellectual or debating or knowing or thinking area or if feel too crushed on an ego level when you are not top dog or when you feel yourself (even with no "rivals") to have done something stupid: getting over mad at yourself for missing something. Saw those things (or strongly sensed them) all the time in college and a bit in grad school.

I thought I'd seen the last of that when I got out of the hothouse atmosphere of formal schooling. But it still pops up. Even in the hothouse atmosphere of Oist circles and their similar edgy sense of 'pecking order'. (I told the story here about the simultaneous resentment of BInswanger and Schwartz in the Peikoff living room workshop and how surprising it was to me. All of a sudden it was high school math class all over again.)

[George H. Smith]

Oh boy, yet another self-serving thread by "Look-at-Me" Phil. Please confine the bs to the ongoing "High Points" thread in the Garbage Pile, where it belongs.

No need to extend our little flamewar to a new thread. Or would you like me to start threads with titles like "Why Phil is an Intellectual phony." Or: "Is Phil sociopathic or merely neurotic?" Or: "Phil: Threat or Menace?"

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A "defense value", to use what I think was Allan Blumenthal's term, is something which actually may be a rational value but to take it out of context, to use it as a source of fake self-esteem or to bluster about it, make it a source of pride out of proportion or out of context. There is a certain phony disease among highly intelligent and competitive people. They don't like to be shown up, to admit someone is quicker, to admit error, to be thought of as less than the local genius.

Don't worry, Phil. I'm sure there must a cure for your phony disease. Perhaps someone on OL can recommend a good therapist. There is always hope, so don't give up.

Is your phony disease painful? I am not talking about other people here; we already know that your phony disease causes them a lot of pain.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Weird. Mostly all Phil does is talk about people then complain when people talk about him. But it's logical to assume he's getting what he wants from all this or he'd stop.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

George, not every thread I create is all about you. Did you think my last three threads - "smallness of mind", "largeness of mind", and "current reading" -- were?

This is a thread about a widespread problem among those who have their ego too tied up in how smart they are. I thought my post was quite clear and even rather well-written.

[Dennis Hardin]

A "defense value", to use what I think was Allan Blumenthal's term, is something which actually may be a rational value but to take it out of context, to use it as a source of fake self-esteem or to bluster about it, make it a source of pride out of proportion or out of context.

Sigh.

No, it was not Allan Blumenthal. It was his cousin.

This is from Nathan’s Basic Principles course, delivered at NBI in the early 1960's:

I have coined a name to characterize the values which a person adopts as devices to protect himself from anxiety. I call them "defense-values," and I mean by a "defense-value": one motivated by fear and aimed at supporting a pseudo-self-esteem. It is experienced, in effect, as a means of survival, as a substitute for rationality. It is an anti-anxiety device.

Nathaniel Branden, The Vision of Ayn Rand, (‘Self-Esteem’), p. 197

After Branden’s break with Rand, Blumenthal published an article in The Objectivist (June/July, 1969) titled 'The Base of Objectivist Psychotherapy.' (It is amusing to note that, in the article, Blumenthal credited Ayn Rand with the development of this ‘method of treatment.’)

Here is a quote from Blumenthal's article:

What are the patient’s characteristic defense mechanisms – those neurotic devices (such as repression, projection, hostility) by means of which an individual attempts to protect himself from self-doubt, guilt or anxiety?

Blumenthal used the term defense mechanisms, not defense values. In a Seminar recording shortly after Blumenthal's essay appeared, Branden commented that all of the ideas in the essay were originated by him, and objected to the fact that his cousin had called this “Objectivist Psychotherapy,” since he was no longer formally associated with Rand. He also indicated that, although he originated them, he was no longer using most of these methods. He considered what Blumenthal had written to be outdated based on the additional work Branden had done since his days at NBI. He characterized what Blumenthal was doing as “operating out of my garbage can."

[Selene]

Nathaniel had no use for Blumenthal:

REASON:

How do you evaluate the contribution of Dr. Allen Blumenthal?

BRANDEN:

There's nothing to evaluate.

REASON:

He practices Objectivist psychotherapy, does he not?

BRANDEN:

What is Objectivist psycho-therapy? There is no such thing. There are the psychological theories originated by me, on

which Blumenthal claims to base his work as a therapist or, anyway, he used to claim it. Now he's probably claiming that

he got it all from Ayn Rand. Blumenthal was never trained as a psychiatrist, either by me or by anyone else. His sole training

is as a physician. I advised him on an occasional case, when he came to me for help, and we had occasional discussion, but

that was all.

REASON:

Do you know anything about the kind of therapy he practices?

BRANDEN:

Quite a bit. I've heard tapes of his sessions with patients. And I've spoken to a few therapists who have been

through the training program he offers.

REASON:

What do you think of it?

BRANDEN:

It has nothing of any importance in common with the kind of therapy I practice. And I do not respect it.

I do not approve of his whole approach it is pedantic, moralistic, guilt-inducing. I used to resent the faintly

patronizing manner with which he would discuss his patients. He did not convey respect. And he seems to

imagine that he is going to lecture people into mental health.

At one time I shared many of the errors he is still making. A good deal of his therapy is, in effect, his own

adaptation of the kind of therapy I did in my twenties which I subsequently discarded,because it wasn't good

enough. As of the time when I left New York, he had contributed nothing original of any importance in the

field of psychotherapy. From reports that I receive, I gather that he is still working with my concepts but

affecting to be oblivious as to where they came from. It's amusing to think of him trying to work with some

of my more recent concepts, as presented for instance in THE DISOWNED SELF. It would blow his mind.

[Dennis Hardin]

Thanks for this, Adam.

And thanks also for providing this very helpful link to Dr. Branden's REASON interview in October, 1971. I was a member of one of his therapy groups at the time this was published. I didn't know it was available on-line.

Nathaniel Branden, REASON magazine, Oct., 1971

[Reidy]

MEOW!!

Readers of Judgement Day will learn in addition that he's a fag married to a fag hag and all their friends are fags (to paraphrase Branden's deniable phrasings) and little Nathan hated it when his mom used to say why can't you be more like your cousin Allan.

[Philip Coates]

> What are the patient’s characteristic defense mechanisms – those neurotic devices (such as repression, projection, hostility) by means of which an individual attempts to protect himself from self-doubt, guilt or anxiety? [Alan Blumenthal]

> Blumenthal used the term defense mechanisms, not defense values. In a Seminar recording shortly after Blumenthal's essay appeared, Branden commented that all of the ideas in the essay were originated by him [Dennis, post 6]

Wikipedia: "In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defence mechanisms (or defense mechanisms) are unconscious^[1] psychological strategies brought into play by various entities to cope with reality and to maintain self-image."

The difference seems to be that Freud thought this was often healthy or 'adaptive'. Continuing with the wikipedia article: "An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour."

(Further: "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association (1994) includes a tentative diagnostic axis for defence mechanisms.^[13] This classification is largely based on Vaillant's hierarchical view of defences, but has some modifications. Examples include: denial, fantasy, rationalization, regression, isolation, projection, and displacement.")

(Seems to me that a "defense value" is just a subcategory of a defense mechanism. But I'm not too hung up on whether you want to discuss intellect as a defense value or a defense mechanism. )

[Philip Coates]

Here's another "defense value" that is commonly observed: Beauty. Getting your self-esteem 'fix' from beauty. Over concern with or psuedo-self-esteem from how good you look or being more physically attractive than your competition. Usually more prevalent among women, but men can have it too.

But in academic circles, Oist circles, other highly intellectual subcultures, they take more pride in intellect.

Of course, defense values can be based on what are legitimate sources of pride. You can and should take legitimate pride in the power or accomplishments of your mind, but having it as a defense value - the way I described in post 1 - is not the same.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sigh.

No, it was not Allan Blumenthal. It was his cousin.

This is from Nathan’s Basic Principles course, delivered at NBI in the early 1960's...

Dennis,

I don't think you are, but should you be waiting for someone to say, "Thank you for the correction since I now have solid verifiable information," I fear you will have to wait for hell to freeze over first.

But in the absence of that, let me say it.

Thank you very much for that solid verifiable information in response to wrong speculation. I greatly value your attention to properly sourcing your information.

Michael

[caroljane]

MEOW!!

Readers of Judgement Day will learn in addition that he's a fag married to a fag hag and all their friends are fags (to paraphrase Branden's deniable phrasings) and little Nathan hated it when his mom used to say why can't you be more like your cousin Allan.

Good grief, what a family food fight the O movement seems to have been What next, did little Barbara always have to babysit her cousin Leonard without pay?

[Dennis Hardin]

MEOW!!

Readers of Judgement Day will learn in addition that he's a fag married to a fag hag and all their friends are fags (to paraphrase Branden's deniable phrasings) and little Nathan hated it when his mom used to say why can't you be more like your cousin Allan.

Once again I will correct the record.

NB clearly demonstrated some animosity toward his cousin Allan in Judgment Day. He used the terms “effeminate,” “prissy” and “eunuch” to describe him. The first two adjectives were excised from My Years with Ayn Rand. Branden also stated (in the first book) that his cousin seemed to feel that his wife Joan “validated him as a man.” Early in both books, Branden comments that, when they were teenagers, NB’s mother wished he were more like his cousin, but Allan’s mother wished he were more like Nathan (because of NB’s “aggressiveness”). Blumenthal’s lack of self-assertiveness is mentioned several times in both books.

The animosity becomes very understandable in light of the fact that, when he first learned of the brewing conflict with Ayn Rand, Blumenthal told Nathan he would support him, and that Ayn was being totally “irrational and unfair” to him. Because he expressed his support so firmly, Nathan saw his cousin as an ally. The instant Blumenthal spoke with Rand, however, he did a complete about-face. Later, Blumenthal was one of four signatories to “For the Record” (published in The Objectivist along with Rand’s “To Whom It May Concern”) in which Branden’s former associates repudiated him and terminated all future relationship with both NB and Barbara.

This was how Nathan was treated by a man who was not only a close associate but a lifelong friend.

[Dennis Hardin]

Sigh.

No, it was not Allan Blumenthal. It was his cousin.

This is from Nathan’s Basic Principles course, delivered at NBI in the early 1960's...

Dennis,

I don't think you are, but should you be waiting for someone to say, "Thank you for the correction since I now have solid verifiable information," I fear you will have to wait for hell to freeze over first.

But in the absence of that, let me say it.

Thank you very much for that solid verifiable information in response to wrong speculation. I greatly value your attention to properly sourcing your information.

Michael

You’re welcome, Michael. I’m very glad that you take this concern with truth and accuracy as seriously as I do.

[Dennis Hardin]

(Seems to me that a "defense value" is just a subcategory of a defense mechanism. But I'm not too hung up on whether you want to discuss intellect as a defense value or a defense mechanism. )

There is a fundamental difference between defense values and defense mechanisms, although both are aimed at insulating the individual from some aspect of internal reality. In psychoanalysis, defense mechanisms are psychological methods for insulating oneself from self-awareness, and they are regarded as “healthy” to the extent that they are successful in maintaining repression. They become pathological when they are ineffective, such as when forbidden sexual cravings emerge into awareness and result in improper sexual urges or behavior.

Examples include: denial, fantasy, rationalization, regression, projection, displacement, sublimation. In Branden’s approach, defense mechanisms are almost always pathological precisely because they obstruct awareness. Suppression can be regarded as a defense mechanism, but suppression is usually temporary, and can be a healthy way of dealing with an emotion in a context where one knows it is inappropriate (e.g., sexual desires experienced while a person needs to focus on work).

A defense value, in Branden’s theory, is something (e.g., an activity) which an individual pursues (i.e., a value) in order to avoid confronting his internal reality—in other words, something an individual pursues to maintain a false sense of efficacy or self-worth; a pursuit motivated mainly by fear and aimed at propping up a false sense of self-esteem.

Examples include: popularity-seeking behavior, promiscuity, prestige or ‘status,’ power (over others), sacrifical humanitarianism, workaholism, parental martyrdom, drugs, alcohol.

The freudian defense mechanism of sublimation is somewhat similar to a defense value in that it typically involves the pursuit of one (socially acceptable) behavior as a substitute for another (unacceptable) behavior. I suppose it's possible that other defense mechanisms might also take the form of an apparently positive value. However, with respect to defense values, the behavior is specifically directed at maintaining a false sense of self-esteem.

[Philip Coates]

Those two [non-exhaustive] lists Dennis gives of defense mechanisms and defense values are very helpful in concretizing all the forms they can take:

--"denial, fantasy, rationalization, regression, projection, displacement, sublimation"

--"popularity-seeking behavior, promiscuity, prestige or ‘status,’ power (over others), sacrifical humanitarianism, workaholism, parental martyrdom, drugs, alcohol".

(I notice he left out my post 1 idea of intellect/intelligence/intellectual superiority as being a defense value.)

> "In Branden’s approach, defense mechanisms are almost always pathological precisely because they obstruct awareness." [Dennis]

Was Branden's approach above new in the history of psychology? Did everyone (not just the Freudians) think defenses were good or did all the previous psychological theorists fail to put major emphasis if not on reason, but at least on 'awareness' as crucial to psychological health?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I have never thought much on the theme of defense values, but they sound an awful lot like what people normally call an escape and (in some cases) call a mask.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Was Branden's approach above new in the history of psychology? Did everyone (not just the Freudians) think defenses were good or did all the previous psychological theorists fail to put major emphasis if not on reason, but at least on 'awareness' as crucial to psychological health?

In terms of his originality, Branden may not be the first theorist to characterize mental health in biological terms, but, to my knowledge, he is the first to develop a comprehensive system of biological psychology and to define the goal of therapy as that of freeing the organism for unobstructed awareness.

Many of the well-known followers of Freud and psychoanalysis began moving away from his analysis of personality very early. Object Relations theory, largely based on the ideas of Melanie Klein, took psychoanalysis in a totally new direction early last century. It has more or less replaced orthodox Freudianism as the dominant school of psychoanalysis. Object Relations takes an approach to therapy which focuses on the analysis of internal experience from early childhood.

Cognitive Psychology and Gestalt psychology also originated in the early 20^th century. They mainly deal with the scientific analysis of conscious experience. Gestalt therapy (not the same as Gestalt psychology), developed by Fritz Perls, focuses on perceptual and emotional self-awareness and the integration of personality. Perls, however, took an approach that was expressly anti-intellectual. He considered rational analysis “bullshit” (one of his favorite expressions).

Therapeutic schools like Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Reality Therapy generally ignore defense mechanisms as a focus of therapy. But neither Aaron Beck nor Albert Ellis, the pioneers in this approach, offer much in the way of a fully developed theory of mental health or personality. They focus on disciplining your thinking in a pragmatic way to resolve behavioral dysfunction. William Glasser’s Reality Therapy is a somewhat more theoretical form of cognitive-behavioral therapy because of its explicit focus on reality and self-responsibility.

Branden’s heavily biological approach—integrating both theory and therapeutic practice--sets him apart from other schools which strictly emphasize the functional role of consciousness.

One possible exception might be Abraham Maslow, a well-known pioneer in Humanistic Psychology. He took an approach somewhat similar to Branden. He saw health in terms of self-actualization, which involved a superior perception of reality and a full acceptance of self. He might be seen as a precursor to Branden in some ways. Alexander Lowen’s Bioenergetic Therapy is also somewhat biological, although he never completely broke free of his Freudian theoretical roots.

Wilhelm Reich’s “Character Analysis” was also biological. He was a Freudian who took a radically anti-Freudian approach, focusing on freeing the patient from restrictive defensive mechanisms, which he called “character armor.” He viewed most defensive mechanisms as having a physiological basis.

All of these approaches predated Branden, but none of them offer a fully integrated, systemized, biological perspective on psychological health as Branden does.

Needless to say, all of this is strictly my own opinion of how Dr. Branden’s views might fit in with other historical approaches.

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis, I have never thought much on the theme of defense values, but they sound an awful lot like what people normally call an escape and (in some cases) call a mask. Michael

Michael.

Generally speaking, both defense values and defense mechanisms are pathological, so I certainly wouldn’t characterize all escapism either way. There’s certainly nothing unhealthy about wanting to “escape” from the reality of one’s daily life by reading or going to movies or engaging in similar distractions, as long as one doesn’t overdo it.

Have you ever seen someone walking down the street with their nose in a book, barely watching where they are going? That would be a classic textbook example of pathological escapism—a person who is so fearful of the real world that they cannot stand to deal with it beyond what is minimally required for momentary, existential survival. Since the person is actively pursuing a value—i.e., escaping into an alternate, fictional universe—it could be described as a pathological value. However, it would not fit the definition of a ‘defense value’ because it is not typically being pursued for the purpose of sustaining a false sense of self-esteem. The purpose is rather simply that of evading awareness in general. So I guess I would classify it as a defense mechanism rather than a defense value (the way Branden defines this).

A mask, like an “official self,” could be either or both. If the mask is strictly a false persona which one presents to the world as a way of concealing (consciously or unconsciously) one’s true self or feelings—like a clown or chronic wise-cracker--it would be a defense mechanism, because the person is almost always using it to fool himself as well. However, if the mask is also used as a way of propping up a false sense of self-esteem (like an authority figure, for instance), then it would probably qualify as a defense value.

Hope that makes sense.

[Philip Coates]

Post 19 is a lot to chew on.

In trying to absorb it, it sounds like most of those schools are flawed by leaving some crucial component of what's real out, only dealing with a portion of reality or a portion of a whole human psychology:

1) "Object Relations..focuses on the analysis of internal experience from early childhood." --- leaves out external reality & periods after early childhood.

2) "Cognitive Psychology and Gestalt psychology...mainly deal with the scientific analysis of conscious experience." -- sounds like they may leave out what is other than conscious, like the subconscious & when I hear psychologists talk abut "scientific analysis", they often mean to deny the introspective or hard to quantify.

3) "Gestalt therapy..developed by Fritz Perls, focuses on perceptual and emotional self-awareness and the integration of personality...He considered rational analysis “bullshit” " --- sounds like they might be including some of the areas that #2 omits, but omitting the component of reason. Mind/body dichotomy in psychology?

4) "Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Reality Therapy generally ignore defense mechanisms as a focus of therapy. But..the pioneers [don't offer much] of a fully developed theory of mental health or personality. They focus on disciplining your thinking in a pragmatic way to resolve behavioral dysfunction." --- leaving out dm's, leaving out grand-scale or long-term integration?

I'm not quite sure I fully get the sense in which there are biological and non-biological schools of psychology. The way the term is being used.

[Dennis Hardin]

Post 19 is a lot to chew on.

In trying to absorb it, it sounds like most of those schools are flawed by leaving some crucial component of what's real out, only dealing with a portion of reality or a portion of a whole human psychology:

I would say you are quite right with that overall assessment. Most all of these approaches seem to zoom in on one aspect of what is going on and miss the big picture.

1) "Object Relations..focuses on the analysis of internal experience from early childhood." --- leaves out external reality & periods after early childhood.

Although treatment is not exclusively focused on early childhood, most of what happens in Object Relations therapy is focused on internal, subjective experience. It may have some value but I have never used it.

2) "Cognitive Psychology and Gestalt psychology...mainly deal with the scientific analysis of conscious experience." -- sounds like they may leave out what is other than conscious, like the subconscious & when I hear psychologists talk abut "scientific analysis", they often mean to deny the introspective or hard to quantify.

You nailed that one, I think, although I'm not that knowledgeable about these particular schools. I found them uninteresting for that exact reason.

3) "Gestalt therapy..developed by Fritz Perls, focuses on perceptual and emotional self-awareness and the integration of personality...He considered rational analysis “bullshit” " --- sounds like they might be including some of the areas that #2 omits, but omitting the component of reason. Mind/body dichotomy in psychology?

That's an excellent way of putting it IMO. Perls would say you were full of shit, but he said that to everybody anyway.

4) "Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Reality Therapy generally ignore defense mechanisms as a focus of therapy. But..the pioneers [don't offer much] of a fully developed theory of mental health or personality. They focus on disciplining your thinking in a pragmatic way to resolve behavioral dysfunction." --- leaving out dm's, leaving out grand-scale or long-term integration?

Right again. All the focus is on the troublesome behavior. It's a form of behaviorism, so the mind-body split can also be observed here to some extent.

I'm not quite sure I fully get the sense in which there are biological and non-biological schools of psychology. The way the term is being used.

Not all of the approaches I described are biological. By biological, I mean an approach which views the client as a living organism with specific biological needs. Cognitive-behaviorial therapists, for example, wouldn't know what you were talking about if you used that term.