Point and Circumference ~ Kippat Binah

Dr. Fitterman's behavior does not break accepted psychological rules. However, in the micro, positive reinforcement which normally raises performance, with him, produces the opposite effect.

If you praise Dr. Fitterman, or a Syndrome Individual for a certain activity with a view of raising performance (or even if you praise him naively) the result is simply the opposite of what works with normal people. With the Syndrome Individual there is a negative correlation between praise bestowed and the amount of praised actions that he performs.

The psychological rules that govern the behavior of organisms when feed-back is positive seem not to apply to the Syndrome Individual. With him, positive feed-back produces a negative reaction that may go as far as stopping the praised activity altogether.

Dr. Fitterman's behavior during studies at the University of Basel where he was studying medicine was erratic. On the one hand he usually arrived unprepared for courses. He invested his time in in-depth study of some other material (albeit within the province of medicine). When called upon to present a demonstration of a case he does sometimes manage with the aid of information received beforehand from a friendly secretary. However, his fellow students — his peer group — know that he is a serious student.

Frequently, a group of fellow students comes to his home where he explains and tutors specific difficult material, needless to say, free of charge. With those friends, men and women, he will remain in touch for years. With time, friendships will deepen. He knows their most intimate problems, though he himself remains aloof.

Bringing a project to completion means success — and that's why he contrives not to do it. Example: When he studied medicine in Switzerland, and only one year of study separated him from the coveted MD diploma, he left for the United States in order not to lose his claim to American citizenship. (He told me that the American Consul himself came over to persuade him to this course of action).

Dr. Fitterman postpones gratifications indefinitely; until the coveted goal is completely out of reach or if still available, would be possible to obtain only under conditions of extreme effort.

a. The object (or title) that he wanted to have is finally his, attained after much effort, but he refrains from using it.

b. The object of desire undergoes a period of "quarantine" after being obtained. Put differently, he abstains from using it immediately.

The psychologist, Dr. Eva Appelman, presents the view that tolerance for ambiguity is one of the factors that contribute to success.[1] One of the major characteristics responsible for his repeated failures is the Syndrome Individual's distinct lack of tolerance for ambiguity.

The Syndrome Individual is basically an authoritative personality. This is a trait of Franz Kafka, T.S. Eliot, and Dr. M.M. Fitterman. (T.S. Eliot is apparently a case of a Syndrome Individual, especially in his personal life. A minor example: Eliot was invited, as noted, to attend the coronation of Elizabeth II, but this plum was too good and he refused to accept it.)

It is a built-in paradox that the authoritative personality sees the cat turn into a dog or sees the circle turn into a square, much later than the non-authoritative personality.[2] If he had perceived it earlier, his need for non-ambiguous information would have been satisfied sooner.

A low threshold for frustration is not perhaps a primary characteristic of the Dr. Fitterman Syndrome Individual, and it is not at the kernel of his personality. It is an acquired characteristic, a result of repeated failures. Once acquired, though, a low threshold for frustration becomes a permanent trait. As a result, he develops a technique that is more harmful than helpful.

Speed is frequently taken to mean success, and the Syndrome Individual endorses this view. Therefore, he does not start work on a project (or an exam) before it is extremely difficult to finish in time. [Kafka, another Dr. Fitterman Syndrome Individual, also uses this technique when preparing for the Ph.D. exam.] The result is that either he does not manage to complete the task in hand according to schedule, or he does not have the opportunity, i.e., the time, to elaborate his material. In addition he is subjected to a great deal of unnecessary stress.

The Syndrome Individual develops a technique of "how to." The key word of this technique is speed.

Success is to be obtained quickly before it gets away. If results can be obtained quickly, he has won the battle. However, the academic world neither in Switzerland, the United States nor in Israel is built to accommodate that kind of demand. Every achievement requires time and patience. (Things have to move fast for the Syndrome Individual, since he has little tolerance for ambiguity and is hungry for a fast , positive reinforcement — despite all that has been said to the contrary.) When, for want of quick results, he changes his field of research, he has to start everything from scratch.

The Syndrome Individual finds himself again in the first bracket. He does, of course, posses a storehouse of most significant background knowledge that the others with whom he is to compete, and also his superiors, do not have. But this knowledge is informal and helps little. In the new environment he faces novel methods of work, new demands, new people who are not necessarily acquainted with the positive ingredients of his knowledge acquired from his previous studies and work, people who do not know him and do not appreciate him. He has to prove himself anew.

A part of his previous professional experience is simply lost in the new field or position. To sum up: In transferring, he lost more time than expected and has gotten further away from the lucrative and prestigious position that he was after. However, when between 1978 and 1981 M.M. Fitterman worked at the Chicago hospital, he was highly estimated by the professors there. By that time he had accumulated a great deal of experience as a practicing doctor (though not as yet licensed) and this experience was put to good use and appreciated by patients and Professors alike.

The fact that he was interested in a lucrative position may point in the direction of identification-with-the-aggressor mechanism.[3] Basically Dr. M.M. Fitterman was interested in fame and not in money, but with time he started to identify with prevalent values.

Why does he do that? The answer is that he is not successful. He invests a lot of work and talent which do not yield results, and do not bear fruit. He sees other people not more talented than himself succeeding in related fields of research like Physics, Organic Chemistry, Cancer Research, Skin Cancer Research. He, too, he feels, can succeed in this, especially with a new boss, making a new beginning. He does not realize, however, that the problem is not the field of research but he himself. Incidentally, making a new beginning can signify, though not necessarily, that previous work did not fulfill expectations.

As noted, while a student of medicine in Switzerland in Basel, Dr. Fitterman abandoned his studies (hoping to complete his MD in the United States) one year before graduation in order not to lose his rights to obtain the U.S. citizenship. This decision would have been a wrong judgment for any person, not just for Dr. Fitterman, just when his studies were going fairly well. What ensued was a lot of aggression aimed against the factor that prevented him, in a way, from reaching the goal — the Swiss MD. That factor was the American citizenship, i.e., the U.S. citizenship.

Dr. Fitterman did not obtain the U.S. citizenship. The conflict, the head-on clash between two worthwhile goals, resulted in Dr. Fitterman's failing to obtain both. The Syndrome Individual frequently makes plans that incorporate a conflict and the kind described, though on a smaller scale.

There is a saying in the Talmud to the effect that Prosperity [success] can take place only when hidden from the eye,

Talmud is not my field of specialization, but it appears to me that what this Talmud has in mind is probably the Evil Eye — which is to say that information should be kept from people who are not your friends. Apparently, very far-fetched projects combined with very suggestive personalities require secrecy. Another possibility would be that it is indicated to keep secret projects in progress that are in a stage where no action is required. For example, while waiting for an answer after submitting a paper to an important journal. There can be very little doubt that M.M. Fitterman was conversant with this saying and acted on it, or rather, overacted.

Secrecy is the perfect defense mechanism for a negativist. Actually, many successful people refrain from telling their plans until they have implemented them. They do it for several reasons: People may envy them and discourage the relevant enterprise. Telling others of future plans may be perceived as bragging. Further: What if the plans don't materialize? If the individual spreads the word around and fails to carry out his project, he is likely to be considered a failure and possibly even a fantasizer.

For the negativist and the person suffering from the Dr. Fitterman Syndrome, the position is much more sharply defined and much worse. If he tells somebody what he is going to do, he is prevented, ipso facto, from implementing it. He will feel obliged to do the opposite.

On the other hand, any serious project poses problems that have to be solved. Discussing your project with intelligent friends can help bring into focus the foreseeable difficulties and offer possible solutions.

The solitary wolf, the person who does it all as if under a vow of secrecy, is deprived of the help of his/her friends, people with experience or information, or sheer cleverness. Even his own ideas might be developed and get out of the rut into which immature plans sometimes get, through the input of novel ideas offered by colleagues, which can act as a trigger to further the enterprise. If a person keeps his plans secret, his friends cannot provide him with basic relevant information or micro-information which is likely to prove indispensable. Micro-information is as good as personal experience, and is most helpful. Micro-information can save a great deal of time and sometimes is likely to affect the decision-making process. If you know how it really is, you can decide whether you really want it. (Decision-making is anyway a hard nut for the Syndrome Individual.) Secrecy does not allow the use of these resources.

In a person who is not allowed to exercise his Will — suggestibility is almost a corollary. Spontaneous Will, in the Syndrome Individual, behaves more or less like a muscle that is not used. It exists but it is hard to get it to express itself directly. As a result of the many masks that he feels obliged to wear, and owing to role playing — Suggestibility can become a permanent trait of the Syndrome Individual.

As to role playing, since he is still in search of the honored position in life that he is looking for, he has to cater to the expectations of other people and wear and exchange the many masks that he puts on vis-a-vis the men or women with whom he maintains contact. In addition, for the Syndrome Individual, Suggestibility is an easy way out of decision making. (Decision making will be dealt with later on.)

Dr. M.M. Fitterman married a most beautiful and resourceful woman with a very strong personality. He met her at a D.P. [Displaced Persons] Camp situated in Bamberg, Germany. Polish Jews were allowed to leave Russia after the Second World War. Dr. Fitterman’s future wife and her family were there fleeing from the Stalinist regime. They were not Polish citizens, and they had never lived in Poland. Only foreigners, i.e. people of Polish or other non-Russian citizenship, were allowed to leave Russia. However, the family of Dr. Fitterman's future wife were smart enough to avail themselves of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

I call this Maximization. In the same D.P. camp Dr. Fitterman was active in the publication of Jewish Heritage books by the local so-called Vaad Hazala. Twenty years later, however, it turned out that he did not posses a single copy. At that time the books were in the rare books category. This may be regarded as minimization. This is only one case out of many in matters unimportant and important. The time he devoted to aiding in publishing was taken directly from the time that he was supposed to devote to his studies in order to forward his career.

Overdoing, like perfectionism, (see also the chapter on Negativism) is a defense mechanism. “I have done so much, it surely must be acceptable.” Two experiments by Scott and Cervone investigated the influence of negative effect on self-regulatory cognition. The authors also focused on “standards for evaluating [people’s own] actions and the role these processes may play in perfectionism.”[4]

It seems to me that perfectionism – at least in some areas – is part and parcel of negativism.

What is wrong with overdoing? Overdoing takes up a great deal of time and energy that could have been better invested. Overdoing in one area results more often than not in underdoing in a different area not necessarily less vital. Though on the face of it there is no such thing as overdoing where science or invention are concerned — the really successful people rarely overdo. Watson's The Double Helix[5] presents an enlightening example of how successful people really work. Overdoing creates in the overdoer expectations of being compensated for the extra effort, which do not always materialize. (The most obvious expectation is for a fast, positive and unambiguous response.) But what is more, overdoing can mean sacrificing a great deal. If the sacrifice is not accepted — it is likely to be, metaphorically, trampled underfoot by the person who did the sacrificing — with a deep sense of injustice and injury ensuing. Abandoning this particular piece of research or field of endeavour can take place. This is an act of aggression directed against the self, instead of being directed against the offender (a direction that obviously cannot be taken).

In the personality structure that the Syndrome Individual has developed as a result of the attempt at killing his Will, there looms bright the Hidden Blueprint. In the Hidden Blueprint it is written that he is not to succeed. Performing tasks or obligations while easy to perform is quite likely to result in success, but success is forbidden.

It is one of the unconscious maxims of the personality — the hidden blueprint — that success is forbidden. Therefore, when success (a product of planning and exertion) does occur, it is usually followed by a failure that neutralizes the results of the previous success. Put differently, the Negative Zig-Zag annuls the success and robs the Syndrome Individual of the fruit of the successful action performed by himself or by others on his behalf. In other words: UNDOING, or partial UNDOING, takes place. Or it can happen that the previous success is left intact, but a new failure follows.

[1] Personal communication, June 6, 2000. Quoted by permission.

[2] See Brendan A. Maher, Principles of Psychopathology, New York: McGraw Hill, 1966.

[3] See "Identification With the Aggressor" in Anna Freud, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, London: The Hogarth Press, pp. 109-122.

[4] Walter D. Scott and Daniel Cervone, "The Impact of Negative Affect on Performance Standards: Evidence for an Affect-as-Information Mechanism," Cognitive Theory and Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, February 2002, p. 19.

[5] Watson, James D. The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of the DNA (New York: W.W. Norton), 1980.